Why Would Anyone Want To Be A Democrat?

Let's get one thing straight:  I'm an independent.  Technically, I'm a Marxist:  I would never join a club that would have me as a member.  So I'm not registered or affiliated with any political party, nor will I ever be.

I don't particularly like the Republican Party, either, if for no other reason than its arrogance.  I'll get to them in another blogpost.  Today, however, is for examining the Democratic Party.

I'll readily admit that the kind of person attracted to the Democrats is not the kind of person I'd invite to dinner.  Overly unrealistic, altruistic to the point where it intrudes on reality and intolerant of opposing views, I can't find any common ground with such a person.  Add to that a tendency to revise history to fit one's agenda, and that person and I obviously won't get along.

The angry, aggravating rhetoric that is launched as truth is enervating.  The carelessness with the truth simply to fire up the base is reprehensible.  That there's earnestness behind the rhetoric doesn't detract from the fact that it's still lying. 

The Democratic Party has somehow convinced blacks that it supports them, when in fact it's done precious little for them and it was Republicans who made the major advances for blacks in history.  The Democrats use blacks for votes, pander to their demands and then give them virtually nothing in exchange for their support. 

Latinos, likewise, are used by the Democrats.  Their quality of life is no better under Democratic administrations than it would be under Republican administrations.  The platforms are one thing; the reality is quite another.

At the convention, speaker after speaker urged the base to rally against a rigged system, which would be hilarious were it not so sad.  The juicy irony was lost on them, or ignored by them, while reports of a rigged primary were airing simultaneously with the speeches.

It's the Obama administration, however, that has shown the true Democratic principles.  Never before has a party governed and acted with such mal- and misfeasance as it has during President Obama's tenure.  It's not, of course, all his fault, but he does set the tone and the Party follows his lead.  He seems to have given it carte blanche to attack anything not labeled Democratic.

Yet, even if one is willing to accept this underwhelming history of performance, after this week, how can anyone still want to be a member of the Democratic Party?

Bernie Sanders ran his presidential campaign under the Party's umbrella.  Despite this, recently released emails and voice mails show that the Party was opposed to his campaign to the point that it sabotaged it at every turn.  The released emails also suggest that not only did the Party fail to support Mr. Sanders, it worked against him while supporting Cankles at every turn.  Add to that the racist tone of some of the emails and its a wonder anyone supports the Party at all.

Look, the Republicans are hardly choirboys.  But so far, no similar information has been released showing them to be as cretinous as the Democrats.

On top of this, it was reported today that IRS officials knew as far back as 2011 that conservative groups were targeted by the IRS for special scrutiny.  That means that the government, led by a Democrat, was using as an instrument the IRS to punish groups opposed to it.  This is incomprehensible.  When tricky Dick Nixon broke into the Democratic offices at the Watergate Hotel, he was forced to resign.  So far, there are no calls -- at least in the MSM -- for President Obama to do the same. What's more, he avers that there was nothing going on at the IRS.  Now documents prove that to be a lie.  More problematic is that the administration's Justice Department appears to be unwilling to levy any charges on people responsible for this chicanery.  Who controls the Justice Department? 

How is it that a party that shares democracy as its root can be so undemocratic?  Which then leads to the original question:

Why would anyone want to be a Democrat?

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Police Shootings

The Black Lives Matter movement is a well-intentioned idea that's been largely highjacked by extremists who use it as a Trojan horse to cause mischief not anticipated by its founders.  Or perhaps they considered it but rejected it.  I find it hard to believe that a group having the words lives matter in its title wopld espouse such violent means to accomplish its goals.

That being said, there are elements of truth -- some would say more than a few -- in the underlying motivation for the creation of the group.  There has been a rash of police shootings of black men that are hard to justify, hard to explain.  Although I'm not in the club that says the Michael Brown shooting was murder -- I think it was a righteous shoot -- there are far too many extreme examples of shootings (and in the case of Eric Garner, suffocation by strangulation) by police of black men to justify them on any grounds.  The South Carolina shooting, the Chicago shooting, the St. Paul shooting, and now, in Florida, the shooting of a man lying on the ground with his hands raised.  Fortunately, the last example did not result in death.  What in heavens name possessed the cops to shoot these people.

Some will notice I didn't include every example of recent memory.  For one, the Baton Rouge shooting that preceded the St. Paul shooting by a couple of days may in fact turn out to be legally justified.  The death of the Baltimore man in the back of the police van is proving to be an unfortunate accident or a result of pre-existing injuries.  I'll be blogging on Baltimore in the days to come.

Still, those exclusions in no way justify the shootings I did cite.  The man in South Carolina was running away from the police; he was shot eight times in the back.  The kid in Chicago was shot sixteen times as he backed -- skipped -- away from the police cruisers.  The St. Paul shooting was equally unjustified, and the shooting today in Florida is mind-boggling.

I do not think most police are racists.  I'm sure that within the ranks there are some racists, and I think that having to deal with the public had coarsened some police so badly that they see justification where there is none.  In some instances, the training was insufficient or non-existent, or the cop just didn't pass muster.  Whatever the reason, the ranks of the police, as with any other profession, include people who are just bad or incompetent.

A larger problem is the closing of ranks.  That may sound callous and indifferent, but when good police allow bad police to operate under cover of the shield and refuse to turn them in or voice their concerns to superiors, the public trust is violated.  Sure, people lose their lives as well.  But we as citizens can no longer rely on the notion of serve and protect.  This is no surprise to blacks in this country, who suffer indignities ranging from being pulled over for driving while black to being shot in the back.  But for all citizens irrespective of race or gender, this is a burgeoning problem.

I spoke with someone who theorized that it's because the police have veterans who, having returned from the wars, suffer from PTSD.  Perhaps.  And although there are therapists available for all police, I question how many police avail themselves of the benefit; it's probably not seen as virile. 

But we as citizens have a right to feel protected by the people whom we're paying to protect us.  We also have a right to expect that they will do the right thing and report those fellow officers whom they suspect of harboring racist or murderous tendencies.  The police are to serve and protect us -- not just from criminals not wearing a badge, but from those who do, as well.  It's a sad truth but it's something that needs to be said:  Within the ranks of the police there are criminals or criminals waiting for their opportunity.

Blacks should have the same expectation of justice that whites or any other races do.  They shouldn't have to worry about being gunned down for no good reason.  The police need to weed out the bad cops and not worry about being labeled as turncoats.  Most police are excellent and do a great job, handling stresses we can't comprehend.  They shouldn't allow the closing of ranks to tarnish this reputation.  That doesn't mean it should be open season on cops.  But the cops need to do a better job of policing not only in the communities in which they serve, but also the precinct stations in which they work.  Closing ranks does no one any good.

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Ponderables

One particular question sparked this, so one can try to figure out which one it is.  In the meantime, other questions have cropped up, basically writing this blogpost for me:

--  Carmelo Anthony, the basketball player, is encouraging other athletes to stand up and become more civically involved.  Forgive my cynicism, but his idea of activism, no matter how hard he tries to gussy it up as something praiseworthy and noble, rings just a little bit hollow.  Why?  Am I the only one who remembers that Anthony was in a video called Stop Snitching?  Wasn't the person who produced that video sentenced to twenty years in jail?  Is Anthony going to publicly repudiate his involvement -- allegedly he already has, but if so, I missed it -- and tell black youth that they have a duty to cooperate with police?  Has hell frozen over yet?

--  If Karen and I host a dinner party and invite vegan or vegetarian guests, it's expected that we'll serve something to accommodate their tastes.  If vegan or vegetarian hosts invite omnivores to their houses, will they do the same and have meat on the menu?

--  If the state is going to have construction efforts going on at night, and drivers are required to drive no more than 45 MPH in construction zones, why does it have the work going on right by the lane dividers while there's a six inch drop off on the right side of the lane?

--  Why does anyone suggest that blondes have more fun when redheads are more fun?

--  Who greenlights commercials for products on television?  I mean, some of these ads are moronic in the extreme.  Does the advertiser have final say or is there a term in these contracts that gives them refunds for horribly devised and executed advertisements?

--  The chatter today is whether Melania Trump's speech last night plagiarized Michelle Obama's from eight years ago.  Interesting.  Did anyone in the MSM raise the fact that Jesse Jackson's patchwork quilt speech was lifted from an earlier speech?

--  Why is it that churches are always the First Presbyterian this, the First Methodist that?  Why is there never a Seventeeth Unitarian Church, or a One Hundred and Second Congregational House of Worship?  Everyone can't possibly be first, can they?

--  Blue ink or black ink?

--  If we expect moderate Muslims to turn on the so-called radicalized Islamists who are doing their best to make a mockery of their religion, why don't we expect police to turn on bad cops who are indiscriminately gunning down (largely) innocent black men and then trying to claim that they had no other option?

--  With a record such as the one Cankles brandishes, who in his right mind would vote for that person, history or not?

--  That being said, who really wants to vote for Mr. Celebrity Apprentice?  Isn't that like taking a spoonful of castor oil because no matter how bad it tastes, it's supposedly good?

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Microaggressions

As an Irishman, I know how to hold a grudge.  Just ask the Limeys.  There are also a couple of attorneys I'm gunning for who won't know what hit them when I get done with them, and their misdeeds were committed years ago.  In short, if anyone knows how to hold a grudge, it's me.

That being said, I don't believe I'm unreasonable.  My grudges are for acts that were beyond the pale, not perceived slights that to an ordinary person would be laughable.  Just because someone looks at me sideways, or acts gruffly, or doesn't acknowledge me, is not a reason to go to war or even stage a protest.  Apparently, however, there are people who are aggrieved for slights that very few people would recognize.

Recently, students at a school not in California -- it's a surprise that the school's not in California -- but in Ohio, Oberlin College, have complained that the unsuccessful attempt to make authentic Asian food was a microaggression in that it was a cultural appropriation.  That is, for trying to provide an authentic Asian dish but failing, the students suffered a microaggression and have a grievance.  Rather than looking at it as an attempt to acknowledge, honor and include elements of a foreign culture into the American melting pot, the failure to authentically complete the dish is an insult worthy of protest. 

The term microaggression arose in the 1970's when a professor at Harvard University named Chester M. Pierce developed the theory.  Whether it's been hijacked I can't say; I think most of psychology is just common sense with labels.  But it's spawned a cottage industry that allows it to be extended to women, other minority groups and people in categories that didn't even exist when Professor Pierce coined his new word. 

What this really is is victimhood.  People with an axe to grind -- real or imagined -- can elevate their nonsense by using this pseudo-science and making it sound that much more important.  It's gotten to the point that virtually an act taken by one person can cause a claim of microaggression by another person.  Or, to flip an old saying, one man's free speech is another person's microaggression.

Not surprisingly, Lena Dunham, the highly liberal darling of the Left, is a leader in claiming microaggressions or in standing with the unwashed masses, graduated from Oberlin.  It would appear that Oberlin is in the business of producing people highly trained at perceiving microaggressions and calling them out.  A professor, Joy Karega, claimed this past spring that ISIS was, in actuality, a joint CIA-Mossad creation and that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks.  It's positively amazing how Oberlin people can see things other people can't even imagine.

This blog, then, must be a constant source of aggression for Oberlin graduates.  I'd like to think, however, that instead of being a mere microaggression, it's a macroaggression, because I don't give a rip about these people's feelings.  If they're offended by something I post, I applaud their perception, because I'm not about to apologize for expressing my beliefs and if they're insulted or offended, they probably deserve to be.

Molon labe.

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Local Radio

In our travels, Karen and I like to listen to the radio in the car.  We used to have Sirius XM, but that became a joke with the cost and the renewals, so we let that go.  Instead, when we travel we tune into whatever radio station catches our fancy.

Last year we took a trip to D.C. and were traveling back through Kentucky on our way home.  Karen found a station that played bluegrass and Christian music.  What got our attention, however, was the folksy manner of the host, who kept referring to musicians with whom he'd played that had recorded the songs he was about to play.  Added to that were the announcements for garage sales that were going on in the county.  We were transfixed.  Think of it as a kind of southern Lake Woebegon. 

We were genuinely tickled.  The moderator, an older gentleman, spoke with that easy, Southern drawl from southern Kentucky.  He was so matter-of-fact that it made us feel as if we'd known the man for ages.  He waxed nostalgic as he reviewed the musicians and the work on which they'd collaborated.  The announcements for the garage sales were so earnest that one would have thought he had a stake in their outcome.  The garage sales themselves were broken down with the items for sale announced over the radio, followed by an encouragement to stop by and check out the sale.  Larger items -- car engines, truck wheels, lawn mowers -- were described in detail and hawked as if the moderator had personally tried each item before it was listed.  But make no mistake:  This was no hard-sell.  It was about as gentle a sales pitch as there could be.

When we finally traveled out of the range of the station we were genuinely disappointed.

Our hometown radio station is unintentionally funny.  To begin with, and to our utter amazement, the woman who does the weather -- let's call her Heidi Mayer -- cannot pronounce her title:  Meteorologist.  Ms. Mayer instead calls herself a meteorolovist.  No, she doesn't have a speech impediment.  There is no discernible reason why she can't pronounce her title, but no one mentions this openly weird fact on the air.  As far as I'm aware, no one has ever called in and asked about it on the air, either. 

But it's the reports on events in our neighborhoods that get me going.  One report involving a local high school's purchase of a new scoreboard for the football field took five minutes.  Five stinking minutes.  They went through how the money was appropriated, why the new scoreboard was necessary, why the old scoreboard was no longer useful, an interview with the athletic director about the new scoreboard, how the scoreboard would enhance the experience at the game and when it would be installed.  If one thought the report ended with the date of its installation, one would be wrong.  The facts about the installation were then examined.  As with the Kentucky moderator, the reporter gave us all this information with an earnestness so true that one almost believed that the story about the new scoreboard merited even more airtime.

Not to be outdone by a new scoreboard, the station had a story about the same high school purchasing new band uniforms.  Without exaggerating, this story included news on how long it had been since new uniforms had been purchased, how much they would cost, the history of the band's accomplishments, an interview with the band director, news of the invitation the band had received to participate in the Tournament of Roses (or some such event) parade, how many members were in the band and sundry details that no one really needed to know.  A story that should have lasted less than a minute went five minutes easily.

At least this station plays the kind of music I like.

For Memorial Day, Karen and I visited Michigan's Upper Peninsula.  The land of the Yoopers promised to have unintentionally entertaining radio, and we weren't disappointed.  Somewhere in the Keweenah peninsula a radio station was offering for sale discount coupons for amenities at restaurants and other shops.  For example, one could purchase for $8 a coupon for a walleye dinner for two that regularly sold for $20.  Or a $4 coupon for the purchase of beers at a bar that regularly cost $12.  The deals were fantastic.  I called from the road as we were headed south toward the Wisconsin border and was told that we only had two more hours to purchase coupons; we were at least three hours away from the station in Eagle River.  As with the Kentucky moderator, this sales pitch was laid back, albeit with the Yooper accent, and like the Kentucky offers, presented excellent deals. 

These kinds of experiences aren't going to be found on radio stations in major cities or on XM stations.  Sure, XM has some interesting shows.  It even has some shocking shows.  But these stations are a throwback to an earlier, more innocent time.  There are still people who appreciate the less urbane, the less hip.

Count me and Karen among the latter group.  We can't wait until we take another trip so we can find more hidden gems like these.

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

The Appearance of Impropriety

Attorneys admitted to the bar in any state of the union know that one of the bedrock ethical principles to which we must adhere is to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  It's not a defined term, but the thrust of the admonition is clear:  Don't do something that would call into question the profession, your place in the profession or your handling of a case.

This past week the Attorney General of the United States had a meeting in Phoenix with Slick Willy, husband of the Democratic candidate for president, Cankles, and also the focus of an ongoing investigation.  Slick Willy himself is designated as a person of interest. 

Any attorney worth his salt will tell you that this smacks of impropriety, not just its appearance.  For the Attorney General, of all people, to do so, is confounding. 

What did she and Slick Willy discuss?  Did Slick Willy promise Ms. Lynch anything for going easy on Cankles?  Did he offer her a job at CGI after President Obama leaves the White House in exchange for not pressing charges?  Did he ask her to limit her public comments about Cankles, or slow down the investigation?

All of these -- and many more, believe me -- are plausible inquiries of that private meeting.  In fact, if Cankles and Slick Willy aren't indicted, the outcry will not just be loud, it will be justified.

Do these people not understand that this undermines the public's confidence in the justice system?  If power and privilege are allowed to break through and influence decisions, how is Lady Justice supposed to be blind?  Do we expect some poor kid in the ghetto to have similar treatment with a  prosecuting attorney?  With the recent Stanford rape case decision, people were outraged at the light sentence meted out.  Likewise, the affluenza case called into question the guidelines for sentencing.  Is this behavior by the top attorney in the country any better?

To be fair, it's almost necessary that an indictment be filed, election be damned.  If nothing else, an indictment will allow an impartial jury to decide whether Cankles broke any laws.  But having an unelected official appointed by a president from the same party as the Democratic nominee meeting that person's spouse in private a mere five months before the election smacks of impropriety on a massive scale.  Having a trial is the safest way to make sure that no funny business was conducted between Slick Willy and Ms. Lynch that will have any influence whatsoever over the filing of an indictment.

It's amazing that neither the administration, Ms. Lynch or Slick Willy and Cankles has any trouble with this.  My cynicism tells me Slick Willy and Cankles both knew that by his meeting with Ms. Lynch, they were poisoning the well.  I'm sure they were confident that Ms. Lynch would do their bidding.  I'm not sure they thought there would be such a hue and cry and that Ms. Lynch would pull back, publicly.  What President Obama does remains to be seen; publicly, through his mouthpiece and sycophant Josh Earnest, he mouths the law and order line.

The approach to legal matters under this administration has been deplorable.  I'd say it bordered on the lawless, but there are laws in place that it's interpreting like the Delphic Oracle.  How much damage has been done can't yet be calculated.  My only hope is that whatever administration follows this one returns to a more proper approach to the law.

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles