Donald Trump: A Clear and Present Danger

 

GOP Strategist Steve Schmidt

As a former Republican, and current independent, it saddens/angers/frustrates me that anyone with an IQ over 80 and an Internet connection could still vote, or consider voting, for Donald Trump. This is not about parties, politics or policy, this is about what type of person should serve as President of the United States, preserving the American experiment and staying true to our Founding Fathers who put their faith in representative democracy. I cannot stress this enough, Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to the United States and the world.

I guess if Donald Trump's:

• Admission to sexual assault (corroborated by 15+ women and pending lawsuit pertaining to raping two under-aged girls);
• Blatant and confirmed racism (his DOJ settlements in the 1970s, Central Park 5, questioning the professionalism of a sitting judge due to his race, calling for a ban of an entire religion from entering the United States, father was arrested at a KKK rally, consistent retweets white nationalists);
• Mentor, Roy Cohn, was the right-hand of Senator Joseph McCarthy who presided over the ugliest 20th century moment of American politics;  
• Open threats of revenge against his political rivals;
• Lack of any public service experience (the only major nominee ever to have none);
• Well documented lack of intellectual curiosity;
• Consistently proven lack of general knowledge about nearly everything about government, the military and presidency;
• Lack of respect for military families and those who serve(d) while dodging military service multiple times;
• Unregulated fascist and authoritarian rhetoric and open admiration for despots and dictators;
• Admission to not paying income taxes and other tax evasion schemes;
• Unprecedented unwillingness to release his tax returns; 
• Multiple bankruptcies;
• Proven charitable fraud;
• Seeming business fraud for which he will be in court this month facing racketeering charges;
• Proven history of not paying contractors or his bills;
• affinity to KKK and Nazi members openly endorsing him;
• Questioning of the United States electoral process and inciting illegal electioneering practices;
• Complete disrespect, even disdain,for freedom of the press;
• Openly and brazenly personally profiteering off his political campaign;
• Dubious international business ties;
• Blatant trade and international manufacturing hypocrisy;
• Lack of understanding or knowledge around foreign policy;
• Lack of respect for American allies and international institutions which have held the peace for 70 years;
• Advisors and campaign staff’s uncomfortably close ties to Russia; 
• Willingness to use and allow proliferation of nuclear weapons;

then his potentially being co-opted by the Russians will not change your vote.

Let me be very clear, I think a vote for Donald Trump spits in the face of our Founding Fathers as his "rigged election" proclamations have incited a potential armed revolt by his supporters if he loses. Any person who is not ignorant of, or intellectually incapable of understanding, Trump’s faults needs to take both a U.S. history and world history class as any educated person can see who and what Trump is and represents. I am not alone; thousands of leading Republican, intelligence, military, legal, economic, academic, international, etc. leaders have voiced their strong concern and unmitigated opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. All but 8 newspapers (out of HUNDREDS) have either endorsed Hillary Clinton (225) or wrote strong condemnations of Donald Trump (60). That includes numerous ultra-conservative and non-partisan newspapers, which either have never/rarely endorsed a candidate or never endorsed a Democrat. It is not because there is a conspiracy against Trump or a collective effort to keep politics as usual, it is because he is by far the worst candidate to ever run for president of the United States. He is completely, utterly, wholly unqualified for the job.

This effort may be futile, but I have to implore any person considering voting for Donald Trump to please reconsider. I understand your frustration with the political system. I understand your concerns about Hillary Clinton. I understand things need to change but Donald Trump is not our savior, he is a conman dressed up as a demagogue who provides no real solutions, nor tangible paths to success. 

I'll end with this, if you are considering voting for the Libertarian ticket, Donald Trump or have serious concerns about Hillary Clinton, Governor Bill Weld, the Libertarian vice presidential candidate, has something to say to you:

 Libertarian VP Candidate Gov. Bill Weld

'Win-win' NFL Stadium, Potential Lose-lose for Nevada Residents, Legislators

 

I seriously feel sorry for the legislators making their way to Carson City next Monday to rubber-stamp an insanely suspect NFL stadium deal. Nevada's most powerful, special interest elite have lined up to push through what amounts to be the biggest corporate welfare program ever introduced in Nevada history (aside from mining, but that is another issue). Make no mistake, this deal is done, cooked fully, is being placed on a golden plate, and, by the end of next week, will be served to Sands Corp., the Raiders, the NFL and Majestic Realty.

I love that the group behind the stadium calls itself the "Win Win Nevada Coalition" but there is no doubt this is a lose-lose for Nevada Legislators (and possibly for Nevada residents). If they fight it, they will lose their seats due to a lack of institutional (gaming, etc.) support. If they support it, the voters are going to smack them down at the polls. Nearly every person I ask the question (business leaders, individuals, etc.) think the structure of the deal (as it stands and will probably be approved) is not good, if not criminal, for Nevada. It is as if you are a destitute family of four which needs to find a way to pay for essentials, like food, for the next 20 years but Dad decides to do an impulse purchase and take out a massive loan to buy PSLs, season tickets and luxury box access to a professional football team knowing full well that money would be far better spent on other, non-luxury items, to keep his family afloat. Maybe Dad can rent out the seats to prop up the family but the risk completely outweighs the benefits, especially when the team may go belly-up and the family, including the kids, has to find a way to pay back the loan on the seats without games to watch.

I REALLY hope this works for Las Vegas and Nevada as a whole but I have serious concerns the process has been rushed and the ramifications of the deal not well vetted. I have yet to hear a cogent, rational argument with realistic numbers to sway my opinion on the need for Nevada to front the money for the most expensive NFL stadium ever built. But that's the point, my opinion means nothing on this issue and the powers that be made sure you, me and every other Nevada resident has little-to-no say in this process. The amount of risk Nevada is taking on is unprecedented (both for the state and in the history of sports stadiums) and when we rank near the bottom of every, single social statistic in the country, I think we need to really think twice about buying what can amount to be an albatross before we address REAL needs we have in this state. Hey, Las Vegas, are we so desperate to be considered a "real city" that we are willing to sell our souls, and our children's souls? If you are not familiar with the specifics of the proposal, I recommend you become familiar as it isn't as simple and risk-averse as many would like you to think. 

 

Oh by the way, Governor Sandoval has also asked state agencies to find $300 million to cut due to a budget deficit . . . you seriously can't make this stuff up.

On the eve of Thanksgiving and Paris . . .

On the eve of Thanksgiving,  I am very thankful. How couldn't I be? I hit the human lottery. I have three smart, engaging children with absolutely no health or mental issues (that I know of). I have a gorgeous, loving wife that is insanely supportive of my thoughts, actions and direction. I have healthy parents who remain committed to each other and healthy, thoughtful siblings who are supportive of me. I have lived in a time, in a country and in an economy that can only be considered the best in human history. I was born of a race and gender, in said country, time and economy, which has been given (or taken) every advantage. I have lived in a time where energy is extremely cheap and the climate has been very stable. I have lived in a time and place where nearly each passing day technology has made it easier for me to live. I have never had to be concerned with food, water, shelter or money, in any real way. That, as you can agree, is hitting the human lottery.

But for all that I am thankful for, I possess a pang of terrible guilt. As I know, for all my luck, it is me, and those who have lived in my country for the previous two generation, who has been living, and continues to live, at the expense of future generations. I buy whatever I want, when ever I want. I eat whatever I want, whenever I want. I drink whatever I want, whenever I want. I travel to wherever I want, whenever I want, all without a care in the world. But this is not sustainable, in fact, if you think about it, it is downright criminal. The currency used to purchase the ease in my life today is compounding interest for future generations to pay off - we are all stealing from the future. This can be said financially, but more importantly environmentally. I didn't create the world I live in, but it is very much my responsibility to change it, as doing anything less makes me complicit in this unprecedented theft.

Three years ago I decided to make a significant life change. I was released from my bondage (physically, mentally, intellectually and financially) from the powers that be and I made a conscious decision to set my life on a more compelling, productive path. My intention was to only do "good" work for "good" people and for "good" causes. For the most part, I have accomplished this but not to the extent I hoped or even had the opportunity to achieve.

That same hope that enveloped me three years ago fills me now as world leaders begin to converge on Paris for COP21 to negotiate saving the world from itself.

As an American, shame envelops my being. I know it is my country that is most at fault for our current climate crisis and I know that my country has been one of the least willing to make the necessary sacrifices to ensure climate security. I know that I haven't done enough in my own life to make the changes I wish upon others but understand that it will take more than my voice and action to make these changes. And that again makes me thankful, there are many more people like me working to undo the unintended wrongs of our past.

But most of all, I know we can do it. Humanity is capable of so much, both terrible and wonderful. I hope we chose to be wonderful in Paris and begin repaying the debt of which we have burdened future generations.

It's Okay to be Smart!

I admit that I am not a huge YouTube user beyond watching the latest Imagine Dragons video but I came across a GREAT channel provided by PBS Digital Studios. It is called "It's Okay to be Smart" and it has short, science-specific informative documentaries on various topics from why some people are left handed to why do people still deny climate science.  If you have a few minutes, it is well worth the time to watch. Videos last between 5 and 12 minutes.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!

But what about the children . . .

Yeah, what about the children? Well my 7 and 4 year old saw it and the older one asked me, "Why are those two guys kissing?"

My response?

"Because they are happy he got drafted. It's a huge accomplishment for him."

His response?

"Oh. Can we play zombies now?"

America, if you don't make a big deal out of it, it won't be a big deal. The last thing I want to impress upon my sons is that it was weird or strange. Why? Because if by some chance any of my children are gay, they aren't programmed to feel weird about it. I think it is far more damaging to plant the seed of hate or doubt in early childhood than exposing them to a real, raw, emotional moment (not to mention historic) . . . but maybe that's just me.

Thinking vs Believing: Climate Change

Carl Sagan once wrote, "I don't want to believe. I want to know." The first time I read this quote I smiled. It so eloquently described my outlook on life:  Use knowledge, rather than belief, to interpret the world around me.

I've never really grappled with spirituality or religion. I've always been very reasonable, not in the diplomatic sense but in the pondering sense. I use logic, critical thinking and rational thought to come to most of my conclusions. Certainly, I am wrong about a great number of things, not because I blindly "believe" in them, but because either I am uneducated of the facts or unable to rationally process the information before me. There is a huge difference between "I believe" and "I think" when it comes to processing information and knowledge.

This has always been my issue with religion (not spirituality). Even at a very young age, it didn't make sense to me. I felt as if I was stupid, as if I hadn't figured something out that everyone else had. I thought there was evidence everyone else found and processed which continued to elude me. The concept of blind faith made absolutely no sense to me. I have always thought it obvious that all religion is a social construct rather than a divine institution. A means to control thought and communities. That may be a cynical interpretation, but I think it is pretty accurate seeing that most religions do not allow for freedom of thought and demands strict adherence to dogmatic "of-this-earth" hierarchy. This does not mean that religion is evil. In fact, it can be a great normalizer of a community and means to assimilate large populations. It can be used to help people. It can bring people closer together. Unfortunately, throughout history, religion has also been the primary reason for war, genocide and human rights tragedies. When two people "believe" in two different things, it can result in a very bad day for everyone, especially if there is a social construct helping to promote one belief over another.

Some religious people try to point to science (as well as environmentalism) and say it is a religion within itself. I would have to agree that throughout scientific history, those within the discipline have been nearly as dogmatic about their "beliefs" as a religious person. But the difference between a person of science and a person of religion is the concept of fact and how fact can be interpreted as truth. Once a person of science is provided facts and proven wrong, they have a moral and intellectual obligation to evolve their thinking. A religious person does not have this ability, nor luxury. They signed up for a specific explanation of everything, facts and truth be damned.

Many religious people think all scientists are atheists. Any scientist that is an atheist is a pretty bad scientist. Atheism is as much a religion and has proportionally as many zealots as evangelical Christianity. In science, any possibility (however small) must be considered until it is proven either correct or incorrect. How, in good conscious, can any scientist categorically dismiss the existence of something that has not been proven not to exist? Take it one step further, if theoretical physics is to be considered, infinite universes with infinite possibilities would almost demand that any religious thought ever considered is correct somewhere in the multiverse. Does that mean that Jesus was an actual person and the son of god? Maybe and maybe not but you cannot discount it until it is proven one way or the other, which it hasn't. To be fair, most scientists and atheists subscribe to a particular principle of logic . . . all things being equal, the simplest explanation usually proves to be the correct one; through Occam's Razor, the burden of proof is on religion.

This is where climate change is an issue. Many deniers/skeptics (I use both because some are deniers while others are misinformed skeptics) point to climate change scientists and say they are dogmatic about their "belief." Scientists do not believe in human-caused climate change, they think it is happening. They take evidence, study the evidence and provide critically thought-out, rational conclusions. They have studied the issue and the scientific community is nearly certain (97 percent of all peer-reviewed papers support human-caused climate change) it is happening and humans are the primary cause. Is it 100 percent? No, but very damn close. The world has observed ice masses retreating in nearly every corner, from the Americas, Asia, Europe to the poles with 90 percent of all ice masses in retreat. I concede, as do climatologists, climate modeling is an inexact science. Projections versus reality may vary. Sometimes there is educated guessing in science and the climate is an object of nearly infinite complexity which necessitates educated guessing. Do scientists all agree how fast it will happen or what the specific effects may be? No, but they agree that it is happening and, at the very least, human activity (CO2 emissions) is a part of the cause.

Deniers/skeptics will say a number of things: The science isn't settled, there is a climate change cabal running the world of science, this is an UN conspiracy to take over the world, there is no evidence of warming the past 15 years (proven to be untrue and completely taken out of context), in the 1970s the majority of scientists predicted global cooling (again, untrue), it's a natural cycle of the sun . . . and on and on. Most concerning are the vast majority of these one-liners can be debunked with a quick Google search. But that is the problem, human-caused climate change denial has more to do with belief than thought. It also has a lot more to do with fear than hope.

Do I "believe" in human-caused climate change? No, but I sure as hell think it is happening and humans are a big contributor. I find it hard to argue with well educated experts presenting a very well studied and though-out argument. If a climate scientist proves human-caused climate change to be incorrect, I'll be the first one to say the facts change the dynamic of the reality but the probability of that is quite small. Continuing with that thought, I think any credible science that does not support prevailing scientific thought should be reviewed and tested by peers until it is either confirmed or proven incorrect. But the consequences of denying human-caused climate change severely outweigh the consequences of trying to curb carbon output and address humanity's increasing affect on the environment. There is just too much risk in believing the science is wrong when a rational argument has been accepted by most experts in the field. Working toward a carbon neutral world is not a bad thing and I don't understand why anyone (aside from people working for the oil, gas and coal industries) would disagree. I don't think you need to destroy the economy to pursue a more sustainable world but we will need to make very tough choices in the near future. Deniers don't want to face reality, they don't want to take responsibility, they don't want to accept we can't keep doing what we have been doing the past century. It is time to grow up and make the tough decisions. My hope is that we will and listen to the facts and science and pursue appropriate, logical measures to curb the problem. My fear is that we will continue to kick the can to the next generation when it will be too late (if it isn't already).