On my first thought, I decided that this was a rather straightforward idea: if you have nothing to fear why go through all the trouble to make yourself look guilty?
Anybody around at the time of Watergate, or who remembers what that was, will remember the night that President Richard Nixon fired a bunch of the Watergate prosecutors, and how that made him look even guiltier than that the missing 18 minutes in the White House Tapes, the ones where he recorded everything that was said in his office. We don’t know, for sure, what was on those 18 minutes, and the White House said the erasure was an accident. The problem with that came out when it was shown that for the secretary to have erased those tape she would have had to have been a contortionists who could hold that pose for the entire 18 minutes. Not likely.
Maybe the overall problem was, as Nixon would say later, that he allowed an “atmosphere” into the White House that allowed his staff to believe he would support them, or maybe he was just a crook.
The upshot of all this was that taken together, the tapes, the missing part of the tape, the firing itself, and the number of staff members who went to jail it was plain to the world that he just headed off the impeachment with his resignation.
There might have been nothing more to it than over-enthusiastic staff playing at being spies, or it could be that Nixon himself was behind it, we can but conjecture as the White House spent so much time stonewalling the whole thing.
My point is, even if there were no collusion with the Russians, President Trump seems to be working hard in an effort to make us think there is something to the idea.
So what if a number of his aids are under investigation or have pleaded guilty to charges, or even his threats to derail the entire investigation, right now you can’t say yes, or no, to the idea.
What I suggest is simple. I would like President Trump to come out in supporting the overall search for the truth. It might be hard to prove there was no collusion as it is often hard to prove something did not happen.
I can see where he might be concerned with the possibility of an impeachment proceeding taking place, as they do not use the same rules of law as found in a real court and an impeachment might just be politically motivated, in which case maybe he can get it done while the Republicans still hold Congress? At least those who decide they want to go on record as supporting the Donald.
I am not sure if the double jeopardy applies to Congress, they might even try again, if a first attempt fails, after the mid-terms.
We might even be able to sneak a few people into the White House staff who have at least some idea what they are doing?
That Joe Guy.
P.S. In the interest of full disclosure I would like to state that in 2016 I voted for the Libertarian Candidate.
I keep seeing laws passed as a way to grade schools on the effectiveness of it teachings. There have been a number of arguments about this range from : the teachers will only teach for the test, and the students won’t learn anything, to how students who enroll during the year, transfers from other schools, will effect the score.. So it is really plain to see, at least in my view, that there are legit questions about the usefulness of this idea..
We like to score things. Students by their scores, teachers by the students scores, schools by the teacher’s scores, large corporation by their Profit/Expense score, and stock prices..
For each of these groups there is a penalty for failure.. Students might not graduate, teachers might not get renewed, schools might lose funding, and CEO might be given a “Golden Parachute”.
One area we might extend this idea to is the people who write our laws, set the budgets, and generally seem to see their job not as representing the people but, thwarting the other party.
How could we do this, and to what end..
Not long ago the Florida State senate decided the play the closure game with the state budget..
A couple of years ago the U.S. Congress was wrestling with the idea of increasing the debt ceiling. To this end they got together a group, made up of Republicans and Democrats, that was to work in unison with the President of the U.S. The did work something out. It passed the house, and the then Senate leader, Harry Reid, would not even put it before the Senate… He said his not putting the bill before the full Senate was the Republicans fault.. He He..
Now, since doing these things is part of the job they got elected for would not the failure to pass budgets be considered a failure? Like a student who does not pass his test, shouldn’t there be some kind of penalty associated with not doing their job?
Just look at how the politicians have spent so much time yammering about people’s “party loyalty”. What was this thing about a Republican Loyalty Oath? It was an oath of loyalty to the “party” not the people they represent which would be all of the people in their district.. NOT JUST THE PEOPLE IN THEIR PARTY.
Just to give you an idea of what kind of thing I am ranting about, consider this.. When President Obama was running for his current job he had a seat in the Senate.. though he was out campaigning most of the time, rather then representing the people in his state.. Was it Marco Rubio who got on one of the Intelligence committees and then missed half the briefings?
When was the last time thy passed a budget, the full one and not just a budget to keep the wheels turning because they could not get a full budget worked out?
I understand they are supposed to log in for votes, though I also understand that some of their aides vote for them.. So I have an idea.
Lets help them understand what the average worker, those little people who pay their salary, has to do. Lets give them time cards, maybe digital, that they can use to clock in on the floor.. If they miss a portion of the business day, the times the House, or Senate, is in session then, they get docked for the proportionate amount of time they missed.. and if the things such as the budget don’t pass then they can give that money back.. as they did not do their jobs..
Oh, and it should be a felony for any of their aides to cast their vote for them, if they can’t do it themselves they should get a real job.
Of course, if they ever did anything like this, they would just put an extra clause that exempted them from the law..
Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or even a Libertarian, if those people, in whatever district, are more interested in Party Politics then they are not representing YOU.
At some point the contestant will be given a chance of guess at the meaning of either a picture, or symbols that make up a message..
In this case the final solution is:
Maybe Donald Trump is trying to send a different message when he says we should put people in camps. We put criminals in prisons. We put people who illegally cross our borders, if the administration obeys the law, in detention until we can deport them. This is all assuming that President Obama is not making up laws as he goes along.
After Pearl Harbor, when people realized how many Japanese there were in this country, we rounded up what would seem to be most of those on the Pacific coast and put them in camps for the duration. Now just think how they thought about it. Many of them had served in the U. S. military in WWI. A number of them had American families, owned property, which a lot of them lost through confiscation, but for most of them their only crime was having been born to Japanese parents.
Going back in history from there, and over to Europe, we find the Germans setting up camps for those people they did not want to muddy up the Uber Race. At first it might have just been the Jews but, the Jews weren’t the only ones. There were, besides the Jews, communist, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, social democrats, habitual offenders, and other people who were considered lesser beings.
I am not saying that Donald Trump wants to exterminate anyone but, I will point out that while Hitler had an antisemitic point of view this view did not materialize into the “Final Solution” until about 1941, at about the time they attacked their former allies the Russians.
I will say this : the old adage about those who forget history being doomed to repeat it has some bearing.
The Untied States has never been a perfect nation. It has done some things that were terrible.. Just ask Native Americans about the “Trail of Tears” along which the United States government forced several tribes of Native Americans, including the Cherokees, Seminoles, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Creeks, to migrate to reservations west of the Mississippi River in the 1820s, 1830s, and 1840s. (Part of the above is a direct quote from Dictionary.com)
Think of Col. Custer from Little Big Horn who was killed, along with the 7th Cavalry when they began and attack on what they believe was small Indian village.. How the battle of Little Big Horn was won. This is the story told from the perspective of the Native Americans who fought it.
Yes, this country, as it grew, did terrible things to the Native American but, we have grown since then. While it is history we have learned the lessons and should not repeat them.
As a nation we like to believe that we stand with the oppressed. We have defended Europe for years against the expansion of the soviets. We have moved against terror, and we are in a war with terrorist..
We have principles that should not be considered as matters of convenience.
Our laws must be held firm, and not ignored. The way we deal with people who violate us, or our laws, shows what kind of people we are. When President Bush decided that the War on Terror meant they could implement torture his rational was that United States law did not apply out of the country. I submit that the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a law passed by congress and signed by a president, which is a code of conduct for all Armed Forces, applies to our troops worldwide.
We might be at war with terrorist but, that does not mean we have to be terrorist ourselves, so Mr. Donald Trump.. The road to the gate pictured above has been traveled before, and we DO NOT want to go there. Let us treat others by the way they act, and not because of who they are.
Radicals of any stripe can say stupid things. That includes people like the Westboro Baptist Church, the Ku Klux Klan, and any other lunatic fringe group that preaches hate… and YOU, Donald Trump. This is not the kind of conduct we want the leader of our nation to espouse.
In closing I would have to say “Here Mr. Trump is you sign”.
Once again we are nearing a time of National Elections..
What this will mean is more than a year of either out right lies or distorted truths.. It would be nice if there were some kind of law, like “Truth in Politics”, that required the parties who place the mudslinging ads to have a holder of proof for the ads.. Kind of like the porn movies that are required to have a person who keeps track of the proof of age for the actor/actress who appear in the movies.. They should be required to place a web address for the person who holds these ads. A person who verifies that the information in the ad is accurate..
Say candidate A says that candidate B lied about some policy that his office pushed, or some act he did. We could see the ad and go to the website and see just what it was that candidate A was talking about..
The only problem that I can see with this idea is that it might be considered a violation of candidate A’s right of “free speech” if he is no longer allowed to lie in his ads.. I can also see where some of the PACs might view it the same way…
The old truth about “the best lie is the truth” is right.. Then best lies are made up of just enough truth to make the whole thing seem like it must be true, even though the main thrust is a distortion of the parts.
For example.. a politician, Republican, is accused of supporting the policies of a Democrat, Charlie Crist.. Yes, it was true… The real truth was that when the Republican did support Charlie it was while Charlie was still a Republican.. So he was accused of being a Republican who supported a fellow Republican.. Oh how naughty..
Anyone who reads my post will have seen the question that I have asked in the past “who do they represent?”
To give you an example.. This Blog, as the title says, is “My View of the World by Joe” and as such it is my view of things based on how I perceive them… I will admit that I am not a journalist. I do not go racing out to the news so that I can ask people questions, such as “how did you feel when you saw the man murder your daughter/son/husband/wife/brother/sister/whatever”… What I will do is read up on it and then give my view, based on my perception, of what is reported, and then try to make sense of it, and maybe ask a few questions…
Maybe I will get you to change your perception of things, and maybe I won’t but, either way I hope to get you thinking about it..
Most of my material, as you may have noticed, comes from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune at HT.com and my favorite source for thought is from Tom Lyons… both are rather liberal, though he seems to have more common sense that the average liberal..
So, today I want to talk about the two party system that we have, and how they are perceived…
Since this article is about perception I will not try to convince you that these accusation are anything more than SOMEONES PERCEPTION.
First the Democrats….
Democrats are often seen as trying to make themselves more appealing to the criminal element and illegal immigrants by continually trying to give illegal immigrants rights and privileges reserved for legal immigrants and citizens… making it easier for people who are not supposed to be here in the first place to get social services, vote and go to our schools.. In some states people with out documents can even get special driver’s licenses. The Democrats continue to tell us that it is wrong to make someone prove they are themselves, by use of a picture I.D. , when they go to vote in an election… Think about the number of places you have to show an I.D. to do, or get, such as the Pharmacy, travel through an Air Port, getting money from the bank, or to cash a check at the store.
Some people would go so far as to tell you that since we have Law Enforcement agencies to protect us there is really no need for us to own firearms, and that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
means that the right to bear arms is reserved for the government.. The myth of “to serve and protect” started by the Los Angles Police Department has been busted by a number of Police Chiefs who have said tha the purpose of their departments is NOT to protect us from crime but to response to criminal acts… They advocate the creation of more Police type organization, armed of course, that will have heavier and heavier firepower than the citizens.. If you don’t believe me just look up how many organizations have police powers.. I was surprised to find out that is some larger cities the Post Office has uniformed police patrols… The POST OFFICE? I was watching the Animal Planet on Comcast one day… There were armed officers getting in cars clearly marked ASPCA… They have Police powers?
Check out the number of Police Departments in New York City where they seem to have a cop for everything.. Sanitation Police anyone.. Do they shoot the people who litter or don’t recycle?
All of this is really a matter of perception but it does some times seem that the left is trying to give more rights to the people who are not supposed to be here by taking them away from those of us who are here legally…
Now for the Republicans…
They talk about people taking responsibility for their actions and how it is up to the individual to make his way in the world… not the governments job… This is often seen as an attack on the poor. The Republicans are more inclined toward free enterprise with the idea that the government is responsible for helping people create their own wealth and by not giving it to them.. When President Obama talked about the man who had his own business, and how he had done it himself, he put his foot in his mouth, maybe he just did not say it the way he ment to, by saying that man had not done it by himself as the government had made the roads and all those things that helped him build up that business… If you watched the video of his speech President Obama seemed to be saying that the Federal Government did all the things that allowed him to build his company.. Like what? The Roads? Even the Interstates are not build by the Feds.. Sure the Federal agencies put the roads on a map but they give this map to the states who obtains the needed land, purchase the road beds, and then hire private contractors to build the roads that the people pay for with the federal gas tax, which the Feds had out like it was THEIR MONEY. It would not be the job of the Federal Government to make his company for him but, they should at least be able to help keep a business landscape that enable him to build up that company.. himself.
When it come to business interest the Republicans are seen as caving in to the interest of BIG BUSINESS, sometime to the detriment of people’s interest. Down here there is a constant fight between people who want to have controlled growth, so that we do not out build the roads, water, or services, and the people who want to just allow builder to put anything anywhere..
If you listen to some Republicans you will hear about how to current government regulations hinder the various corporations in the conduct of their business.. Take the Deep Horizon disaster, or the recent financial collapse.. Both of these were covered by government regulations but both happened, and that includes the great PONZI scheme of Bernie Madoff, while government was supposed to be watching but wasn’t. So before was talk about cutting back on the regulations, some of which are there to ensure a safe environment, lets make sure the regulators are doing their jobs with the tools they have…
So, yes, this is about perceptions.. There are, as the saying goes, three sides to any story.. Mine, yours, and the truth. It is up to us to discover what that truth really is and the make sure we elect people who are more interested in our interest than they are at getting re-elected.
It is afterall a Government “by, of, and for THE PEOPLE“, not “by, of, and for THE CORPORATIONS”.