Blog Catalog

Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts

Friday, March 31, 2017

The Trump Presidency and Its Very Rough Last 24 Hours



We're still, still in the first 100 days of this Donald Trump presidency and already it's in awful messes. This has been a rough, very, very rough 24 hours for him, personally and politically and for his White House and administration. Some examples. This broke yesterday and was bad, is bad for the administration, even just outwardly.


It got a lot worse from there.

Trump levels extraordinary threat 

against GOP conservatives


Trump Goes After Conservatives 

of Freedom Caucus


And the responses by people in the Republican Party as well as in the Tea Party and on the extreme Right is predictable---but wonderful.


Tea Party leader 'disgusted' by Trump's attack 

on Freedom Caucus





It's making for a lot of big messes for this President, the White House, his administration and the government, overall.



Then this hit yesterday afternoon. Huge news:

Mike Flynn Tells FBI He Will Testify 

In Exchange For Immunity


It seems President Trump's former National Security advisor knows something, likely knows things, could be in trouble himself 

This is especially telling, given his opinion and statement from just one year ago.



At it's core, this issue is huge, for the President, again, for his administration and for the nation, truth be told.

Evidence suggests Trump associates may have colluded with Russiansofficials say



And it has the Republican Party in trouble, as well.

Trump's failing presidency has the GOP 

in a free fall


The end result is just patently not good for this President, his Presidency or, honestly, the nation.


Meanwhile, this just happened.


This clearly very insecure, temperamental, hot-headed man who knew very little of government or the Presidency is likely very angry, at least, just now, with all this going on.

Links:







Thursday, October 20, 2016

Further Proof The Donald Will Lose


Image result for crazy donald trump

After last night's final presidential debate between Hillary "I Got This" Clinton and Donald "I'm Losing It" Trump, it's clear Mr. Trump's declaration that he may or may not accept the results of the election hurt him and badly.  Check out just some of the headlines this morning.

First, on what Mr. Trump actually said:

Trump on Whether He’ll Accept Election Results: 'I'll Keep You in Suspense'


Herewith, some takeaways, responses to Mr. Trump.

CNN's Cuomo Drills Conway On Trump Rejecting Election Results: He's Disavowing the Process!



This, from the very Right Wing pollster Hugh Hewitt. Even he admits Mr. Trump took a hit.


Another Right Wing voice:


Two takes from Jake Tapper.


Four takes from mainstream media:




The Associated Press had this rather more maybe official and rather dour evaluation of Mr. Trump's comment.


For what it's worth, two opinions and descriptions of last night's comments from Mr. Trump from Rachel Maddow.



Mr. Van Jones take on it all will likely surprise no one.


Of course, one can always take the course of denial.

Kellyanne Conway Says Trump Will Accept Results of Election — Because Trump Will Win the Election

The New York Times conclusion, turning Mr. Trump's own words on him:


Finally, then, today, one last result from last night's debacle for Mr. Trump.

Ladies and gentlemen, what you are witnessing, what we are all witnessing is the freefall of one Mr. Donald J. Trump, electorally and popularly, and what was formerly known as the Republican Party in America, let there be no doubt.

My only concern is the power vacuum it will create. We have to hope for who and what will replace it.

I will say this, this has been the most fascinating, bizarre, unpredictable and even dangerous election, all, and solely due to Mr. Trump, his candidacy and his pronouncements and reactions in it. The only explanation that seems to make sense about it all is that he put himself up to do this, to run and run in the campaign as far and long as possible, in order to destroy the Republican ticket, if not the entire political party. I'd heard that rumor. It's out there. But by doing this, he's hurt himself, his corporate brand and, yes, the political party.

It's the only thing that makes sense. What little sense it does make.



Wednesday, October 12, 2016

A Deeply Conservative Republican On The Donald and This Race


Image result for hillary donald

"It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity.

If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice. If she is elected, the world does not end..."

--Glenn Beck


Monday, October 3, 2016

Quote of the Day -- On Polarization

Image result for democrats vs republicans

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.".

--- John Adams


Tuesday, December 16, 2014

One of America's Biggest Political Problems


I've subconsciously thought and felt this about us, about America and Americans for some time. I got to thinking about it this past Sunday afternoon and put it in words. We read about the polarization of the nation, politically and economically and it seems our minds are already made up. We have our opinions, facts be damned, and we're extremely sincere and even emotional about these opinions. The "other side"--or really, anyone who doesn't agree with us---are only to be dismissed or even demonized.

We used to talk to one another. We used to discuss. We used to try to both recognize and evaluate problems and then go further and come to shared conclusions and solutions.

We don't do that any more.

And this is no way to run a country.

We need to get back to being Americans.

All of us.


The hippies were right.


Saturday, October 25, 2014

The truly frightening state of Americans, media and our sources for news


I saw the scariest study of Americans and how we get our news now. Check this little beauty out:




The headline alone was enough to frighten a person. Unfortunately, if not surprisingly, it went on to get only worse:

(CNN) -- More Americans get their news from the Internet than from newspapers or radio, and three-fourths say they hear of news via e-mail or updates on social media sites, according to a new report.

Sixty-one percent of Americans said they get at least some of their news online, according to a survey by the
Pew Internet and American Life Project.

That's compared with 54 percent who said they listen to a radio news program and 50 percent who said they read a national or local print newspaper.


There was one little glimmer of hope in all this:

Almost all respondents, 92 percent, said they get their news from more than one platform.

Thank goodness for that last little tidbit, anyway. At least people arent' completely "single-sourcing" their news. At least as far as they admit, anyway.

Thinking of the situation, that online, we all merely tune in to those sources that tilt or lean to our preconceived, already decided upon views, that's disheartening.

In the past, the news was the newspaper in the morning (and evening, if you're that old). It was a better, more overall look at our society and the news. Yes, newspapers still might lean "Left" or "Right", more or less Conservative or Liberal but they were a broader, more encompassing view of what was occurring in the nation and world. We didn't have control. We couldn't turn it off. 

Sure, you could ignore different editorials and columnists but by and large, one was given a better view of what was going on in the world.

Turn to today, with the internet and media, especially since the Republicans had us throw out the more balancing "Fairness Doctrine" in our laws which forced media sources to give two sides to each issue, and now we're far more tuning in to what we merely already agree with and what we want to hear.

It's truly scary.

Naturally, it's extremely polarizing. It makes us far more Republicans vs. Democrats or Liberals vs. Conservatives or--probably worst of all---"Left Wing" vs. "Right Wing."

With that same study, recently, though, yet more information came out:


This is one more big, rather new though not fully surprising development.

News? People getting their "news"? From Facebook?

I can't think of any more shallow or slanted source to get your "news" from than Facebook since most people, especially there, just "like" what they agree with and only follow such. Heaven knows I'm guilty of that. I don't even keep old friends from high school as Facebook friends after I've found they've turned into Right Wing and/or Republican shills.

We're bad and getting worse, clearly.

And the thing is, for all the great things coming from the Millenials and "X" and "Y" generations---like watching less and less television, needing, wanting and buying less automobiles, their turning away from the hates and prejudices of their parents and society and wanting to pollute our world less, etc.--this whole trend will no doubt get worse and worse with the oncoming of yet more and more technology on their part and that of our society.

It doesn't give me hope. At least it doesn't on this one topic.

With all that sour news, due to that study, comes this news, today, to prove the point:

Thursday Cable Ratings: Fox News #1 During NYC Ebola Breaking News


Here we have a serious situation in the country, responding to a possibly, even likely deadly disease and what "media" outlet is the number one source for people for news on it?

Fox?  Fox "News"? Faux News?

Go ahead. Shoot me now.


Monday, August 4, 2014

Who really makes up the Republican Party---factually


First, the information comes from one Steve Marmel's Facebook page but second, I love that the original quote it's based on was actually said on---GASP---Fox "News" Sunday.   Heads must have been spinning.
Steve Marmel
Politifact rates the idea that the people who want the President impeached are all "Old, white and far right wing" as "mostly true."
Sometimes pointing out the obvious is unintentionally hilarious.
Juan Williams, on Fox, said that the people who want to impeach Obama are all white and all older and all are in the right wing of the Republican Party. "All" is going too far.
But the publicly available polling shows that the people who support impeachment are more likely to be white, conservative and older. In one poll, about a third of the public supported impeachment, while about two-thirds of tea partiers said they did. In another, 40 percent of whites supported impeachment compared to 10 percent of African-Americans.
The polling data bears out the general thrust of Williams' claim. We rate the statement "Mostly True."

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Monday, April 14, 2014

Three measures that would go a long way to save America


I think it's safe to say a good deal of Americans think first, we're on the wrong political and/or societal path, be they Right Wing, Left, Republican, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, Libertarian, "Tea Party", Independen or whatever. And second, I think a great deal of us also feel we're terribly, terribly destructive on this path. Many have predicted or are predicting the end of our existence as a nation, at least as we have been for the past previous 300 years.

Herewith, then, I propose 3 rather simple things we could and should do as a nation, to set us back on a constructive, positive path for the nation and all Americans:

1)  We should, without question, end campaign contributions. I think virtually all Americans, of whatever political stripe, agree that we need to get, as I've said many times, the big, ugly, corrupting influence of the wealthy and corporations out of our election system and so, our government.  If we don't do that, if we don't stop these people from buying our legislators, in effect, and so, their/our legislation and our laws and finally, our government, nothing will take place for the betterment of the ENTIRE nation and not just for those same wealthy and corporations.

2) To that end, so that we, as a nation, don't NEED campaign contributions in our elections and so we don't have non-stop campaigns and campaigning, we need to do what England and a lot of other nations did eons ago and that is limit campaigns to, at most, one or two months length.

Think about it. Campaigns don't need to and shouldn't last that long None of us want to hear these people, anyway. All we want them to do is do their job. All we want and need them to do is work for the betterment of, yes, their constituents, but for the nation overall, as well. Additionally, the legislators don't even want to have to shill and prostitute themselves for this money. Let's put two and two together, come up with four and end all this nonsense and corruption and distortion of the system and nation. Let's end perpetual campaigns. This isn't rocket science.

3) Finally, let's get back to where we don't have television stations and channels taking only one side of issues, either the Republican/Conservative or Democrat/Liberal sides--or any inbetween.  Let's reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. Lest you don't know your American history, a refresher:
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

Again, it's my contention this only makes sense and is nothing but simple, logical, intelligent and strongly positive for the nation. We have FAR too many one-sided pundits, railing against either policies or politicians and their rants and tirades go either totally un-debated or weakly so. In a lot of cases, if they are debated at all, it is extremely half-hearted.

The dismissal of this Fairness Doctrine, in 1987, by the Republicans, mostly, has led to, in the worst incarnation, Fox "News."  It is owned by a wealthy, extremely Right Wing executive and spews nothing but one-sided viewpoints with usually no rebuttal at all or very little at all. There have been countless times when their staff has voiced outright untruths (read: lies). It hasn't mattered. They carry on unabated and unanswered.

Their counterpoint has given birth to MSNBC and while I admittedly support them and their broadcasts (truth in advertising), it is also my view that having both of these channels and stations has been extremely negative on the nation overall. As a country, we have become far more polarized, we only listen to our own preconceived, pre-accepted viewpoints and we don't even listen to one another, too frequently.

With all this history and fact in mind, it's my strongly held contention that we should, without question, bring back this same Fairness Doctrine. I feel also strongly that it would help take some of the vitriol and ugliness out of our elections, our political system, our government and even the nation, overall.

People will scream their First Amendment rights are being taken away but that's nonsense. No one is proposing anyone's viewpoint can't be heard. This only says that, on and in the public airwaves, a countering point of view must also be aired.  It is long, long overdue. The original Fairness Doctrine legislation should never have been done away with.

All that said, do I think ANY of this will take place?

Not on your life.  Not on mine.

It's sad, it's frustrating, even demoralizing and defeating but not one of these possible legislative moves will be made at all, unless or until we come to some cataclysmic event or events in the nation, heavens forbid.

This is just my way of tilting at a windmill, out here, so to speak.

A Don Quixote of 2014 and for America, if you will.

We have to do what we can.



Wednesday, August 14, 2013

What most white people in America don't understand---and, likely, may never get


There was a terrific article in The New York Times this past Sunday, by one Jesmyn Ward about the subtle and anything-but-subtle racism in America, through the last century.

It wasn't a history lesson, per se.  It just spoke of her and her family's life in this country, over that time:


A bit from the article:

DeLisle, Miss.

There are moments from childhood that attract heat in our memories, some for their sublime brilliance, some for their malignancy. The first time that I was treated differently because of my race is one such memory.

As a child of the ’80s, my realization of what it meant to be black in Mississippi was nothing like my grandmother’s in the ’30s. For her it was deadly; it meant that her grandfather was shot to death in the woods near his house, by a gang of white patrollers looking for illegal liquor stills. None of the men who killed her grandfather were ever held accountable for the crime. Being black in Mississippi meant that, when she and her siblings drove through a Klan area, they had to hide in the back of the car, blankets thrown over them to cover their dark skin, their dark hair, while their father, who looked white, drove.

Of course, my introduction to racism wasn’t nearly as difficult as my mother’s, either. She found that being black in Mississippi in the late ’50s meant that she was one of a few who integrated her local elementary school, where the teachers, administrators and bus drivers, she said, either ignored the new black students or spoke to them like dogs. 

Face it, until you've been treated like this--like any of these situations, above--you likely can't imagine how it would make you feel, how you would live your life and the effects it would have on you.

The reason this is important, I think, is because this is why so many white people today think blacks and African-Americans in this country should just be "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" and that we live in a fair and equal society and that, finally, there's nothing keeping them from being middle-class or higher if only they'd just apply themselves, work hard, study in school, then they'd be successful.

What these white people don't consider, never consider is the ownership and abuse and torture and beatings and killings and overt and covert racism in our nation, the last 500 years.

Suddenly, it's all just supposed to be equal and okay and good and fair and true.

It isn't, folks. It isn't.

Our country isn't all those good things and neither are we.

The truth Ms. Ward speaks came out strongly at the end of the article. It's why we need to call  out racism today, whether in our lives or on Fox News or wherever:

"There is power in naming racism for what it is, in shining a bright light on it, brighter than any torch or flashlight. A thing as simple as naming it allows us to root it out of the darkness and hushed conversation where it likes to breed like roaches. It makes us acknowledge it. Confront it. And in confronting it, we rob it of some of its dark pull. Its senseless, cold drag. When we speak, we assert our human dignity. That is the worth of a word."



Tuesday, September 25, 2012

If the Democrats were to take the House, Senate and White House this Fall


It could happen.

I'm not in any way predicting it as there are just far too many variables. The voting public is fickle--very fickle. In spite of the differences between the two candidates for the presidency, people could well vote who knows how. And polls? They're only in effect the day they're taken.

In short, anything, anything could happen this November, with the election.

That said, it is entirely possible--in spite of the Republicans' widespread efforts to restrict the vote here in the good old US of A--that the Democrats could come out on top in all three of these venues--the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and the White House.

And if they do--if we do--I think it's clear they should "swing for the fences", so to speak and bring the nation back from its insanity of the last 3 decades.

Herewith are just some of the things I think the Democrats should do if we do, in fact, get both houses of Congress and the White House:

First things first, we must kill the Citizens United ruling of the Supreme Court by law. We need to make sure the American voter is preeminent in power and the voting booth, not the wealthy and corporations, as this ruling now has us.

Second, we need to kill campaign contributions, once and for all. We must, must get the big, ugly, corrupting money of, again, the wealthy and corporations out of our election system and so, out of our government. If we don't do this, nothing will ever change in the nation. The wealthy and corporations could continue to, in effect, buy our representatives, their legislation and so, our laws and government. It would continue to be government of, by and for the rich, first and last, as it is now, unfortunately. Various governmental representatives from both sides of the aisle have described the nightmare that their lives are because they have to chase these "contributions."

Third, at least here and now, we have to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" the Republicans and right wing killed so long ago. It needs to be required that any media or news outlet give at least one other side of an issue, if they expound on one at all. We need more input in the nation, not just one-sided, emotional, even untrue rantings from our media as we now get with things like Fox "News" and even MSNBC.

Fourth, we need to make the Environmental Protection Agency stronger so we ensure good, clean air, water and soil for the nation for the foreseeable future. It's hard to believe we even have to say this.

Finally, we need to make the internet as free and open as possible and to all Americans, rich, poor and everyone in between. Since, as we know, knowledge is power, corporations shouldn't be able to charge more for faster access. The airwaves are ours--all of ours--and we need to make sure the lesser of us has equal access to knowledge and information, not just the wealthy.

The fact is, if the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House, the window of opportunity for change would be a very short one. These moves would have to be taken quickly and decisively.

Let me be clear, too, these changes would benefit both--all--political parties, as well as the nation. They're not completely one-sided, at all. They would not benefit the corporations or wealthy and that's nothing but an improvement.

I don't think it will happen but there's always hope.

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_united

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Open letter to Princess Kate


Dear Princess Kate,

Excuse me.

You're a freaking Princess of the British Royal family.

Hello?

That and you're young and beautiful and wealthy and, don't forget, have a beautiful body, let's not forget or ignore.

Do you not know that virtually ANY man wants to see your breasts, sadly, but that because you're young and beautiful and rich and yes, finally, that you're BRITISH ROYALTY, everyone wants to see you naked, if possible?

Sure, it's stupid but come on, the human being is far too puerile and there are a great deal of voyeurs out there in the world, down through history.

So if you go topless on a yacht and it's remotely close to a public space, do you not think some idiot of some kind is going to take a zoom lens and try to get a picture--or some pictures--of you? They'll try to do that, period, just for the heck of it but here's the topper--it also pays a great deal, too, to those low-class, scummy rag tabloids.

What part of any of this do you not get?

And while we're at it, please ask the rest of the Royal Family the same thing, would you, please?

Oh, and if you and the Royals want a rather "moral leg to stand on", so to speak, maybe you and the family should stop taking national, public money from the nation since you're, oh, I don't know, ONE OF THE WEALTHIEST FAMILIES ON THE PLANET? If you don't want people taking pictures of you in your private time, stop taking this public money. I know then, if you and they did, then I know I'd back your claim of a right to privacy. Until that time, however, I think the citizens of England rather own you, since they already buy and pay for you. This money could go to help the lower- and middle-classes of your country, instead.

So now the Royal family files suit against the tabloids. Wow. Apparently they have no better use of their time and money but to file suit against tabloids across Europe that are doing exactly what they've always done, as though it's a surprise somehow.

Y'all can do better than this. Go help some people instead.

Most sincerely,

Kevin Evans
Kansas City, Missouri

Links: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/14/royal-family-considers-legal-action-after-magazine-publishes-topless-pictures/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/15/us-britain-royals-kate-italy-idUSBRE88E0AU20120915