home

Trump Picks More Washington Insiders For Cabinet Posts

UnPresident-Elect Donald Trump has named the wife of Republican Majority Leader and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, Elaine Chao, to head up the Department of Transportation. She was Labor Secretary under GW Bush.

For Health and Human Services, he picked a a six-term Republican congressman from Georgia, Tom Price.

Just more shuffling the deck chairs -- nothing change-y about it.

In another predictable trend, Trump reaffirmed his disregard for Supreme Court precedent in a tweet suggesting anyone who burns the flag, which is an act protected by the First Amendment, be subject to loss of citizenship or jail. Since he is powerless to enact any law, or change any court precedent, I assume this is an Apprentice-style grab for attention and deflection from the vote recounts. [More...]

Flag burning was ruled to be constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment in a 1990 Supreme Court case, United States v. Eichman, that struck down a law seeking to prevent its desecration. Moreover, a 1958 Supreme Court decision rejected the practice of stripping U.S. citizenship as a form of criminal punishment.

In related news, a newspaper in Connecticut slammed Jared Kushner today. Other papers have reported similar allegations of his deplorable conduct as a landlord. Some tenants have taken him to court over his failure to provide heat and gas. More here. Kushner has also sued tenants to get them leave their rent-controlled apartments (allegedly so he can renovate and bump the rent.) Kushner denied the suits were motivated by his wanting to get around rent-controlled leases.

< Monday Open Thread | Mitt Takes a Seat at the Devil's Table >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Kushner is Trump Redux? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by RickyJim on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    Trying to force tenants out of rent controlled apartments by withholding services was a tactic Trump used in the 1980s.  An article about it by Tony Schwartz got Trump to hire Schwartz as ghostwriter for "Art of the Deal".   Here is a recent account by Schwartz.

    Makes me want to go burn some flags (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 12:01:39 PM EST
    in DC on January 20.

    A tweet vs co-sponsoring a bill? (3.67 / 3) (#4)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton was one of four co-sponsors of the proposed Senate bill - Flag Protection Act of 2005.  congress.gov - co-sponsors  which included jail sentencing for those that burn the U.S. flag.

    A tweet seems very tame in comparison.

    Not the "Flag Protection Act" at issue (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 07:10:40 PM EST
    before the Supreme Court in the cases under discussion. This bill was introduced more than 15 years later, and was crafted to conform to Supreme Court First Amendment decisions, and was at the misdemeanor level. From your link:
    "(b) Actions Promoting Violence.--Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

    "(c) Flag Burning.--Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

    I wouldn't have supported that bill either, but it's a far cry from a simple "burn the Flag, lose your citizenship or go to jail" law.

    Parent
    Peter G, I agree with you (none / 0) (#13)
    by BTAL on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 08:09:28 PM EST
    My point was all the pearl clutching over a tweet yet similar (mis-guided or not) actions, are not solely in the realm of Trump.

    Parent
    What is your position on flag burning (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 08:17:19 PM EST
    Rather than say Hillary did it too, can you state whether you agree with Trump or not?

    Parent
    I don't appreciate nor like that (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by BTAL on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 08:53:50 AM EST
    method of expression however, it is still free speech protected under the 1st.  I believe that it is detrimental and divisive.   The other side of that coin is that the 1st protects those who disagree and their right to voice that disagreement.    

    Parent
    So, you oppose Trump's position (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 10:45:03 AM EST
    and thus Hillary's position many years ago was irrelevant and a diversion.

    Parent
    Change of heart (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    Donald Trump also tweeted this - in February 2011.

    Burning a flag is a peaceful and respectful way for citizens of this great country to voice their displeasure.  Very powerful.

    28 Feb 2011

    Parent

    If I bought the flag (none / 0) (#34)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    with my hard earned money, I can do whatever the hell I want to with it. Burn it, defecate on it, fly it, throw it away, wash my car with it, give it to my dog, make shorts from it. Whatever.


    Parent
    A "tweet"? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 10:05:05 PM EST
    That's all it is?  When the President-elect speaks - no matter the medium - his words have consequences.  Trump better figure that out - quick.

    BTW - You realize the Flag-Protection Act required much more than simply burning a flag to be a violation of the law, right?  You realize Trump also suggested loss of citizenship as a penalty for his much broader offense of simply burning a flag, right?

    Parent

    That's all it is? (none / 0) (#18)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 05:46:36 AM EST
    Yup. You do realize that The Donald has consistently tweeted and blurted out stupid stuff for over a year, and was elected President.

    It would be nice for his staff to confiscate his phone, maybe they can for "national security " reasons.

    But I don't see it happening. You might have to get used to being outraged by a Trump tweet on a weekly basis. (and maybe that is his plan)

    Parent

    Who cares what you "see"? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 08:55:37 AM EST
    But you are right about one thing.   He's tweeted  (and proposed) stupid things for a long time,  while Republicans/conservatives have defended those tweets or tried to minimize their significance as "just tweets".  He - and they - should be embarrassed.

    Parent
    You should (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 06:27:07 AM EST
    be ashamed of yourself for enabling such an unqualified person and a Putin stooge to be entering the oval office. You should take responsibility for your part in this mess.

    Parent
    Me? Ha! (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 06:37:17 AM EST
    Et tu Brutus!!

    You enabled The Donald by supporting a candidate tied to Wall Street, under criminal investigation by the FBI.
    What the hell were you thinking!!!

    I supported the Cuban fella

    Parent

    Only (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 06:43:28 AM EST
    if you believe the conspiracy theories. However have you seen the new hire from Goldman Sachs? You are a tool if you think Hillary was tied to Wall Street by making speeches. There was no criminal investigation. You should be ashamed of yourself for falling for such lies. It was a security review.

    Trevor you have spent time here spreading Putin propaganda attempting to smear like you are right now the only viable person to take out Trump. The 'Cuban fellow" has his head rammed up Trump's behind. Supporting Rubio is the same as supporting Trump. Supporting any Republican is now the same as supporting Trump.

    Shame on you Trevor. I see through your attempts at gas lighting Hillary. Gas lighting is also the MO of Trumpsers. Shame on you.

    Parent

    Nope. The only ones ... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 08:59:36 AM EST
    ... that are responsible for this are those that supported Trump directly or indirectly by pushing bu//$hit smears like the email "investigation".

    Parent
    And this (none / 0) (#22)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 08:21:05 AM EST
    You might have to get used to being outraged by a Trump tweet on a weekly basis. (and maybe that is his plan)
    does not bother you in the least?

    You and millions of other seem just fine with an instigator in chief in the WH. Being outrageous never used to be asset for our leaders, to Trump supporters it appears to be his main appeal.

    America, I cry for you.

    Parent

    I am not happy (none / 0) (#37)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 07:32:30 PM EST
    with it at all.

    I didn't want Trump to be the Republican nominee.

    I didn't want him to be President, neither did I want Madame Sec to be President

    No , I am not fine with it, I would prefer that he act in a adult fashion, but that will not be happening.

    I  do think that the United States will survive the Trump presidency.

    All in all , they are conducting the transition and filling the cabinet in a largely professional and orderly fashion. Pence and Reince Priebus will serve The Donald well, and keep the government on track.
    And I fully expect The Donald to thumb his nose at the press, and tweak his opponents with irreverent tweets far beneath the dignity of the office.

    You might have to get used to being outraged by a Trump tweet on a weekly basis. (and maybe that is his plan)

    And that was the basis for that comment, I recognize what will be, didn't mean I was not bothered by it.

    Parent

    Some truth to that (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 10:46:57 AM EST
    The sooner we all recognize and treat him as the ignorant arse that he is, the better.

    Parent
    this (1.50 / 2) (#11)
    by linea on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 07:18:28 PM EST
    was on my news today.  that trump tweeted but that hillary previously co-sponsored a bill to criminalize burning the american flag. it just made me think of hillary as conservative.

    Parent
    No she didn't (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 10:28:21 PM EST
    Read my comment #8 with the direct quotations from the proposed 2005 bill. You can't rely on tendentious oversimplifications found on "my news."

    Parent
    Aw the (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 06:01:35 PM EST
    smell of Trump apologia already starting.

    Parent
    Tom Price, (none / 0) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    the establishment, right wing Republican, has promoted repeal of Obamacare, of course, but also, repeal of Medicare, under the guise of reform.  Price is also extremely anti-gay, opposing same sex marriage by constitutional amendment. Perfect for a Trump Secretary of Health and Human Services.

    Tom Price (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:49 PM EST
    was my rep at one time. He is a full on nut and the perfect person to fit in with the rest of the nuts in the Trump administration.

    Parent
    Should I also assume that Price is (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    a "right-to-lifer" and anti-Planned Parenthood?

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 08:12:31 PM EST
    he's pretty out there. Not as much as our illustrious Paul Braun though.

    Parent
    Pence's (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    dream team.  

    Parent
    And then there's Mnuchin... (none / 0) (#7)
    by desertswine on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 06:04:02 PM EST
    The Foreclosure King.  This keeps getting worse.  How's that recount coming along.

    Of course, "drain the swamp" by (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the Treasury again. Perfect.

    Parent
    Unfortunately ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Erehwon on Tue Nov 29, 2016 at 07:45:10 PM EST
    the sTrumpets won't care, as it's their guy doing it. What Hillary did was bad because she got paid for speeches, but Trump is doing great because only a business person can clean the swamp.

    Parent
    Honestly, I wouldn't expect anything less. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    But then, Peter, Trump lost people like you and me a long time ago. What might prove interesting will be the reaction of Trump's fan base, "Trump's Chumps," if and when they ever wise up enough to realize that they've been had -- again.

    Parent
    But....but... (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 02:26:41 PM EST
    Hillary gave speeches there on things like "Women's empowerment".


    Parent
    That recount is going to cost $1.31 / vote. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 02:08:05 PM EST
    Or, so say Wisconsin election officials. Speaking as someone who's long worked in the business and who actually participated in a statewide recount -- Hawaii governor, 1998 -- as one of my party's designated and official observers, that cost estimate is so wildly overinflated as to constitute a likely public fraud being perpetrated on Green Party candidate Jill Stein by those WI officials.

    To further add insult to injury, a Dane County judge has ruled that the recount can be done by machine, rather than by hand. (Which, of course, renders that aforementioned $1.31 / vote estimate farcical.)

    Wisconsin has been turned into a banana republic.

    Parent

    Milwaukee Journal Sentinal (none / 0) (#39)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 07:40:54 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/zej4jhc

    Thinks otherwise

    Jill Stein may actually believe that demanding a recount of presidential tallies in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will ensure that "democracy" is served.

    More likely, she believes the Green Party will be served by her audacious PR stunt.

    Either way, the Stein recounts are a colossal waste of money and energy when there is not a shred of credible evidence of fraud or error and when the final vote in these three states likely will not change very much.



    Parent
    What's it to you, aside from fodder for more of your increasingly tiresome right-wing trolling?

    Parent
    I do believe (none / 0) (#41)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 08:16:23 PM EST
    The editorial says it all.
    A waste of time and money, with no proof whatsoever of hacking to initiate the recount.

    And they also state Madame Sec should have stayed far away from this apparent fundraising effort by Ms Stein, plus now she gets e mail addresses for additional fundraising requests.

    Parent

    You don't know (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 08:48:57 PM EST
    if there is hacking until it's examined by the experts. What they use in Wisconsin was examined by an expert and was banned in California because it was easy to inject malware into. It's not like Scott Walker is going to admit anything is it?

    Just more gas lighting and lack of facts. But Walker was screaming that Hillary was in collusion with Stein. Perhaps you need to decide who you want to gas light.  

    Parent

    Blah, blah, blah. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 10:26:47 PM EST
    The right to recount is an integral part of the democratic process, Trevor, even if that right is not invoked and exercised on a regular basis. An opinion piece in a newspaper is exactly that -- an opinion piece. In this case, it's a lot of white noise signifying nothing.

    There were a lot of opinions -- most of them partisan in origin, like yours tonight -- that just as vigorously weighed in against recounting the vote in the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota between incumbent Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken. Had Franken and election officials heeded those opinions, Coleman would likely still be senator.

    In the 1960 presidential election, a hand recount of the vote in Hawaii resulted in an historic reversal of state election officials' initial call for Richard Nixon, which helped John F. Kennedy garner the electoral votes necessary to become the 35th president.

    (In fact, it took a federal court order in response to a hasty filing from the Kennedy campaign to force those officials to acquiesce to that recount; Gov. Jack Quinn, a Republican, had already and just as hastily signed off on the certification of GOP electors for Nixon. And it took another court order to compel Quinn to certify Democratic electors for JFK, after the recount showed that he had squeaked by on the narrowest of margins.)

    Personally, I don't expect the results in Wisconsin and elsewhere to be changed by these recounts. More often than not, a close election is exactly that. Nevertheless, it's incumbent upon all of us to let the process play out. A recount can instill confidence in that process for people, even if some of us don't actually care for the final result.

    And that's all I'm going to say on this matter.

    Parent

    It is a waste (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 01, 2016 at 05:38:50 AM EST
    Of time and money.
    It is a editorial of the local newspaper in WISCONSIN.

    The white noise is the few lost souls clamoring for a recount.

    As the editorial correctly points out, it only further sullies Madame Secretary, as she clearly stated with no room for doubt, that she would accept the results of the election.

    It is clearly a Stein fund raising mechanism preying on distraught Clinton supporters. Bad form all around.

    Parent

    (Sigh!) You just won't quit, will you? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 01, 2016 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    First of all, Trevor, it's certainly not your time and money that's being spent here, and neither is it the taxpayers' money, so please spare us your lamentations in that regard. The funds to pay for the recounts were raised from private donations from thousands of individuals who've given an average of $45 each.

    Secondly, since you've quite obviously never before cared whether or not anything "only further sullies Madame Secretary," having instead often gone out of your way in these threads in repeated attempts to do that yourself, that particular point of yours -- courtesy of the Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal -- is entirely a red herring.

    So, why do you care so much that you'd see the recount shut down, if you had your way? It's more than likely because you're afraid of what we might find and learn as this recount goes forward, while I'm not.

    Jill Stein has the right under the law to request the recount, and she has fully complied with that law's provisions. Your specious arguments are moot at this point, as are those of that Milwaukee newspaper editorial. The recount is happening. Deal with it.

    Further, adjustments in the vote count of several Wisconsin counties since initial numbers were compiled have resulted in the margin between Trump and Clinton being reduced by several thousand votes. And in Pennsylvania today, similar adjustments in counties comprising the Philadelphia metropolitan area have resulted in that margin being reduced in raw numbers from 64,374 to 46,435.

    And that in turn now reduces the current aggregate gap between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin (22,177), Michigan (10,704), and Pennsylvania (46,435) to 79,316 votes out of 13,853,299 ballots cast in those three states, which amounts to a 0.57% differential.

    In other words, and I'm obviously generalizing here, were a mere 39,658 votes to flip the other way -- 11,089 in Wisconsin, 5,352 in Michigan, and 23,218 in Pennsylvania -- then we would have a new winner in the Electoral College.

    So, given the actual stakes involved here for the entire country. it's really best that a full recount of these entire three states take place, to ensure that the calls as initially announced in those states were in fact accurate.

    Do I expect these states to flip? No, that's unlikely to happen, even given these recent adjustments in the totals. But for everyone's sake, we ought to re-confirm the final results,  if only to reaffirm public confidence in those results and the system which produced them. And the only way to achieve that is by recounts.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Lol. (none / 0) (#50)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 01, 2016 at 07:22:21 PM EST
    Say it to Madame Secretary,

    Because this is what she said

    She went on to say, "That's not the way our democracy works. We've been around 240 years. We've had free and fair elections and we've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. President Obama said the other day that when you're whining before the game is even finished it just shows you're not even up to doing the job. "

    She added, "And let's be clear about what he's saying and what he means. He's denigrating--he's talking down our democracy. I for one am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our major two parties would take that kind of position."

    Like I said, a waste of time and money.

    Talking down our democracy, now just accept the results of the election, jumping on board a recount by someone who cannot win is just sad, tarnishes Madame Secretary especially after her pronouncements after the debate.


    Parent

    In 2008 (none / 0) (#38)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 07:35:24 PM EST
    He donated money and supported Madame Secretary, and then supported Obama when she lost.

    Parent
    Okay, so that makes him a mercenary. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 10:39:54 PM EST
    What's your point?

    Parent
    Republicans (none / 0) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 01, 2016 at 05:32:57 AM EST
    Should be screaming, correct?

    Or, The Donald is not a ideologue, he will choose people that do not fit a well defined box.

    Which is good.

    As long as they perform

    Parent

    Republicans (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2016 at 06:13:36 AM EST
    are screaming. They have a meltdown every day. Trump has a meltdown everyday. So a donor is the same as being Treasury Secretary? Another gas lighting false equivalence Trump apologia. Practice up on the Trump apologia because you're going to be needing a lot of it in the future. And quit blaming Hillary for all your own problems.

    Parent
    How long will it take (none / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    for the media and others to catch-on to Trump's tweets?   A two-line, early morning tweet generates a two-day and night media discussion.  Trump has long ago moved on, and has succeeded in getting everyone to look at the shiny object over there. Trump is using his tweets to supplant news conferences, which are not his forte since they may require knowledge and facts.

    The tweets should be stored up for the opportunity (which is likely never to come) to ask Trump to explain or elaborate on them.  Of course, his information probably will not exceed that contained in the original two-liner. Also, Trump uses his tweets as if a late Friday news dump, so we need to look elsewhere...what else is going on that he wants to change the subject.

    "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

    Consider that Shaw's Theory of Political Relativity, as it were. Essentially, as a nation and as individual citizens, we did this to ourselves. However we choose to deal with this mess will be entirely up to us.

    Worth a read.

    Aloha.

    Not sure "we" did this (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 05:01:40 PM EST
    to ourselves---had a little help from Comey, the Russians, and liars who lie. And, still about 2.5 million more votes than the winner. Also,  no one in the country deserves these miscreants and assorted thieves, lead by Boss Tweet. Not even those who voted for Trump and the likes of Tom Price, as tempting as it is to say otherwise, for they too will be the worse for it.

    Parent
    No, we did this to ourselves. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 30, 2016 at 09:46:12 PM EST
    And here's the proof. (Note: That linked page is regularly updated as further returns are reported, so the numbers quoted in this comment will likewise be outdated by tomorrow morning.)

    As of 10:00 p.m. EST tonight (5:00 p.m. HST), 62,623,869 U.S. voters have now been verified as having had their heads up their a$$es and admiring the view on Election Day.

    The truly painful irony here is that Hillary Clinton looks to presently be on track to receive the second highest number of votes cast for president -- 65,145,375 of them thus far -- in U.S. history, surpassed only by Barack Obama's total of 69,498,516 votes received in 2008. Unfortunately for us, we don't elect our presidents by the popular vote, but rather indirectly via the Electoral College.

    So, yes, we do deserve it. Not you and I as individuals, obviously, because we've supported Mrs. Clinton from the outset. But collectively, the people of the United States may well be about to learn a very bitter lesson about being careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.

    And yes, we did ask for it -- even if many of the aforementioned 62,623,869 Americans who voted for Trump, aka "Trump's Chumps," likely didn't realize that they were actually voting for a de facto restoration of the 1890s-era Gilded Age, and were thus being played for the fools that they so obviously are.

    That's because it was their responsibility and job as citizens of this country to summon forth at least a minimal effort to first learn about the respective candidates for president, regardless of all the white media noise out there, and then make an informed decision. Those 62,623,869 citizens did neither. Instead, they treated this year's election like a TV reality show and at their chinchilla-haired host's urging, they voted the best and most qualified candidate in decades off the island.

    So, yeah, we'll likely pay a fairly steep price for this month's collective folly, because we failed to heed the true essence of George Bernard Shaw's observation about democracy.

    Because here's the unspoken dirty little secret about that observation: In a democracy, citizens also enjoy the right to indulge their fears, revel in their own ignorance, choose frivolously and unwisely, and be terribly wrong. And as a nation, we will have to take and share collective responsibility for this appalling breakdown in American civic education and duty amongst our citizenry.

    What we experienced on November 8 was the logical result of a very determined and apparently successful effort by our country's wealthy self-interests, carried out over the course of four-plus decades, to dumb down and polarize the U.S. electorate, so that we'll be too busy squabbling amongst ourselves over often-nonsensical social issues to notice that our nation's pockets are being picked.

    And to be perfectly blunt, we all got so caught up in our own lives and consumerist tendencies that we allowed them to do this to us, without even noticing or realizing it. The question now before us is this: What are we prepared to do to correct our current course and alter our present trajectory?

    Speaking for myself only, I believe it's up to each and every one of us to learn from this bitter experience, and start taking positive, proactive and forceful measures and steps in our own respective communities to reverse this dubious civic trend.

    And yes, that will require each of us to now get involved personally, and not leave it to others to act on our behalf, as far too many many of us have been content to do of late. Rather than further disengage from the process, we need to actively re-engage and further do so collectively, with both vigor and purpose.

    Finally, we need to instill and reinforce within our own children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews that collective and pervasive sense of civic obligation and pride, which presently seems to be wanting in so many of our own peers. Otherwise, I fear that when they reach our age, our future generations may well find themselves flailing helplessly under the heels of an entrenched, uncaring and oppressive oligarchy.

    I, for one, am not ready or willing to let that happen. But honestly, my friends and I can't do it alone. We'd love to have some company on this journey back. And with sufficient numbers to reach critical mass, what might otherwise be a hard and difficult slog can instead become a rewarding adventure and sense of renewal.

    Aloha.

    Parent