It seems about time for some snarky snippets, don’t you think?
Rules were made to be … rescinded?
If you don’t like a rule, you can just ignore it. If that doesn’t work, you can just re-write the rule. At least, if you are Donald Trump, that seems to be the way it works. I’m reasonably certain that it would not work that way for most of us.
Case in point …
Back in 2016, President Obama signed an executive order, part of which mandated an annual accounting of how many civilians have died in military and CIA strikes. The goal was to increase transparency in an effort to limit the number of civilian deaths as a result of drone strikes in countries like Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. The deadline for that annual accounting by U.S. intelligence officials passed last week with no report issued. And so, Trump merely rescinded that part of the executive order with an executive order of his own. As I said at the beginning, if you don’t like the rule, or miss the deadline, just get rid of the rule!
The number of drone strikes abroad has dramatically increased since Trump took office. For example, during President Obama’s entire eight years in office, 154 strikes were carried out in the war-torn country of Yemen. Comparatively, during Trump’s two years, 176 have been conducted. Extrapolating the data, more than 4.5 times as many per year under Trump. And yet, he has decided it is not important for that data to be made public. I beg to differ.
I have frequently compared the Trump administration to George Orwell’s book, 1984, and with good reason. One of those reasons is what Orwell dubbed ‘newspeak’, and what the Trump administration has termed, ‘alternative facts’. Either term works. It is the means Trump & Co. use to justify the unjustifiable. I have also said that somebody needs to write an “Alternative Facts Dictionary”, for it becomes confusing to those of us who grew up with Merriam-Webster as our guide. Here’s a new one for you: Freedom = deprivation of rights. That’s funny, for I thought it was the opposite.
Specifically, ‘religious freedom’ has become a buzzword for “anything the Christians don’t like is bad and will not be tolerated”. But would somebody please explain to me what problem Christians have with LGBT people? Mind you, before somebody takes umbrage, I am not referring to all Christians, but the group of them that agree with Mr. Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple and ended up costing much money and causing much angst as a result of his homophobia. Though not Christian myself, I have many friends who are Christians, but who are not homophobes. In fact, I have a number of friends who are both gay and Christian. But then there are those others …
Nebraska State Senator Patty Pansing Brooks introduced LB 627 in January this year, a bill that would have updated all relevant state statutes to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. No-brainer, right? But did you know there are more than two dozen states that have no LGBT nondiscrimination protections at the state level? Long story short, the bill failed to garner the votes needed to pass. Opponents of the bill claimed that it would be used to target religious business owners in the state and punish them for their beliefs. Bullsh*t! People in this nation are not punished for their beliefs, but for their discriminatory actions!
Senator Robert Clements suggested that LGBT people didn’t deserve protections because he wasn’t aware of any science suggesting they were “born at birth that way.” By a grammar book, Mr. Clements! And perhaps re-read that bible you claim to be spouting from.
This, as well as anything, epitomizes why I eschew religion … far too often it is used as justification to promote bigotry and hate. Michael Pence, Donald Trump, the televangelists, and all those who would enforce the “Christian point of view” on the rest of us are bigots, plain and simple. Believe as you wish, but don’t punish those of us who do not think as you do.
Take THAT, Fox ‘News’!
Three cheers for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who today announced that they will bar Fox ‘News’ from sponsoring the 2020 Democratic Primary Debate. The reason they cite is an article in The New Yorker titled “The Making of the Fox News White House”. According to DNC Chairman Tom Perez …
“Recent reporting in the New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, Fox News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates.”
Among other things, the article reported allegations that late Fox News founder Roger Ailes passed along questions to Trump prior to a 2016 Republican primary debate and noted that former Fox executive Bill Shine is now the White House communications director. Several other former Fox News employees and contributors work in the Trump administration.
I have referred to Fox as state t.v. more than once, and while that may be somewhat of a stretch, it most certainly is not an arms-length relationship as it ought to be.
Trump is none too happy about the DNC decision, it would appear.
“Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!”
Such is not, contrary to what he may believe, within his power. But wait! There are executive orders! Oh, but it’s going to be a fun twenty months. Define ‘fun’ as ulcer-inducing in this case. Shoot me now.
I end this morning’s snarkiness with a cartoon …