Tag Archives: LA Times

No one saw this ‘trainwreck’? Not … exactly

Donald J. Trump’s administration has demonstrated with amazing clarity what many of us believed all along: The president does not know how to govern.

The Los Angeles Times has just published the first of a series of editorials in which the newspaper proclaims that no one saw the trainwreck that would occur.

I beg to differ.

Dishonesty reigns in the White House

Here is part of what the Times wrote: “What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. His obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation ā€” these traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected. But in a real presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short of disastrous.”

The myriad problems that are plaguing the president — and the presidency — appear to be so much a result of self-inflicted ignorance and hubris.

At some levels, Trump is governing the way he said he would. He boasted that “I alone” can repair what he said was broken.

That is not how the founders structured this government of ours. Then again, the president doesn’t know about that, because he appears to demonstrate no interest in learning about what those great men envisioned for the government they created.

How will the president view the criticism that the LA Times has leveled at him? Oh, he’ll no doubt tweet something about how the paper is “failing,” or how it relies on “fake news,” apparently with no self-awareness that he became the king of fake news when he continued to promote the lie that Barack Obama was born overseas and wasn’t qualified constitutionally to serve as president.

The LA Times — if you’ll allow me to borrow a phrase — is “telling it like it is.”

Donald Trump: master of impeccable timing

I’ll admit that the irony of this got past me initially.

Then I readĀ a pieceĀ from the Los Angeles Times: Donald Trump’s idiotic tweet about U.S. Rep./civil rights legend John Lewis is rife with irony because of its timing.

We’re entering the weekend in which we’re going to celebrate the birth of the great Martin Luther King Jr. — with whom Rep. Lewis marched during the height of the civil rights movement. Trump took the opportunity on this, of all weekends, to ridicule John Lewis as an “all talk, no action” kind of guy.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-in-a-weekened-celebrating-the-civil-1484407475-htmlstory.html?utm_content=buffer11bc9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Lewis, in remarks to be broadcast Sunday, said he doesn’t consider Trump to be a “legitimate president.” He is deeply concerned about alleged Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election. I share his concern, but I do not consider Trump’s presidency to be illegitimate.

Still, Trump’s moronic response illustrates the utter tone deafness of the president-elect — who built his political career by perpetuating the myth that sought to delegitimize Barack Obama’s presidency by alleging he was born in a foreign land and, thus, was unable to serve as the nation’s first African-American president.

As the LA Times’ Cathleen Decker writes: ā€œJohn Lewis is an icon of the civil rights movement who is fearless in the pursuit of justice and equality,ā€Ā said Sen. Kamala Harris, the California Democrat. ā€œHe deserves better than this.ā€

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/03/rep-lewis-still-stands-tall/

What would Ben do?

deadstate-Ben-Carson

Ben Carson ought to be a little more circumspect about some of the responses he gives to hypothetical situations.

Dr. Carson, a Republican running for president of the United States, had the bad form the other day to say that the Umpqua Community College students in Roseburg, Ore., should have ganged up on the gunman who killed nine people before killing himself.

Easy for you to say, Doc. But … but what did you do when someone actually pointed a gun at you?

He said that happened once at a Popeye’s restaurant and he told the gunman that hisĀ target was someone else. According to the Los Angeles Times: “Guy comes in, put the gun in my ribs. And I just said, ‘I believe that you want the guy behind the counter,'” Carson said.

Dr. Carson’s accountĀ of what happened differed quite dramatically from what he said others should do when faced with mortal peril.

So, Dr. Carson’s hypothetical bravery actually became something else when he faced a threat of his own.

This, I submit, is the danger that politicians — and, yes, Carson’s status as an active presidential candidate makes him a politician — face when they respond to real-life situations with tragic outcomes. They need to take care when saying such things about what they might do or how others should respond.

Perhaps the next time something happens that compares to what occurred in Roseburg, public figures everywhere should say: “I only can imagine the horror that raced through their hearts. I have no idea how they shouldĀ have reacted, nor do I know what I would have done.”

Hey, just leave it at that.

 

Wyatt Earp: Now there was a gun control freak

Texas is inching closer toward a law that would allow residents to carry guns openly, where everyone can see them.

The state Senate has approved a bill allowing it, prompting the debate yet again about what the Second Amendment says and what its authors intended. Are all citizens given the right to “keep and bear arms,” or is it referring to the “well-regulated militia” having that right?

Let’s save that one for another day.

But a friend of mine, Benny Hill, reminded me today that Wyatt Earp perhaps was one of the earliest advocates of gun control.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

Good ol’ Marshal Earp used to keep the peace in Tombstone, Ariz. How did he do it? One way was to require everyone entering his town to check their firearms as the proverbial front gate. No guns allowed, said Earp. He just kept ’em locked up until the folks left town.

Would anyone dare consider Earp to be a soft progressive, a flaming left-wing liberal intent on taking everyone’s gun away from them? I doubt it sincerely.

Yes, he had good reason to confiscate temporarily people’s guns. Crime was running rampant in the Old West town. It was worse in Tombstone, apparently, than in most places.

As the Los Angeles Times reported in January 2011: “You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff’s office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn’t pick it up again until you were leaving town,” said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. “It was an effort to control the violence.”

Imagine someone trying that tactic today. Imagine as well the reaction from, say, any gun-owner-rights advocacy group — no need name names here — to the notion of surrendering your sidearm while you entered any city in America.

Gun laws were a lot tougher than they are now. And to think so many Americans keep wishing for the good old days.