Archive for June, 2017

h1

Motivations, Morality & Manners

June 30, 2017

June 30, 2017

Screen Shot 2017-06-30 at 1.41.27 PM

I have refrained from blogging for quite a while because I have felt that I did not have much to add to the discourse on events regarding all things Trump.  It would seem that the many facts that are available are being reported and the analysis and dissection of these daily events is generally adequate.

But the last few days have occupied the media with reports on Donald Trump’s tweets regarding Morning Joe’s co-hosts and particularly, Mika. A lot of criticism is being leveled at Trump by all sides of the political spectrum as well as the media, but while accurate, they all overlook one key point, most simple.

Last night Anderson 360 hosted 4 pundits, all of which came from both parties equally. The fourth, that most pathetic of predictable, political pundits, a shitbag, Trumpite mouthpiece, who I am quite sure was selected because he’s the only person shameless enough to lie in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, thus providing CNN the illusion of being “fair & balanced,” plausible deniability, as if the truth were not sufficient to ward off all the negative tweets that will be hurled at the network, was Jeffrey Lord.

Arguments made against Trump’s tweet were:

  1. That it was his sexist, misogynistic behavior and language, part of his continued disrespect for women. All true.
  2. Categorized as un-presidential. Again true.
  3. Are a detrimental diversion from the necessary work of passing legislation and running the country. True once more.
  4. It’s a national embarrassment. How true, how true!
  5. It’s a bad example for our children. Duh!

Arguments made by Lord to support Trump’s tweet are as follows:

  1. He’s being attacked and he’s a counterpuncher so it’s permitted.
  2. The attacks are motivated by his opponents in the media.
  3. The attacks are motivated by the Democrats.
  4. He was voted into the office & voters knew what they were getting.
  5. He’s inexperienced at being president and he’s still learning.
  6. Other presidents have done bad things as well and they got a “free pass.”

Anna Navarro was one of the three other pundits speaking against Lord.  I applaud what could be categorized as her “hot-blooded, Latino rant” but I fear that fuels stereotyping and diminishes her genuine passion, moral certainty and courage to speak out most loudly in protest against Trump’s perpetual display of disgraceful behavior.  I used to feel the same contempt for Anna when she was in Lord’s position of supporting the unsupportable actions of the politicians she spun for.  But now, she is becoming a celebrated example of a woman who has found her voice and speaks her mind in a direct and honest appeal for a righteous cause and as so, has earned my respect. The Anderson 360 rant followed a similar diatribe on “The Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer.

For those interested in seeing the rants I have provided the following YouTube links, one for the interview with Wolf Blitzer and the other for the Anderson 360 rant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBHOtcMlod4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07wSNah4O_I

No arguments can be made against the logic of the criticism of Trump’s tweets or his behavior at large, but all arguments miss the key point and that is that this type of behavior is just plain wrong.  It’s wrong being used against men or women and it’s wrong for anybody, be they a small child, a mature adult or a president. It is wrong under any and all circumstances.  We would not tolerate it from our children and we should not tolerate it from Donald Trump.

Regarding the arguments for support, let’s consider them one by one.

The counterpuncher argument.

Did your mother ever say something to you like this: “Just because Eddie put his hand in the fire, does not mean that you should too.”  The bad behavior or example of one person does not excuse another to behave the same way or worse.  It’s a variant of “fight fire with fire” or an “eye for an eye,” the ultimate conclusion to these scenarios is a world barren of trees populated with one-eyed persons.

Motivation arguments.

Motivation is irrelevant.  Take for example a murder trial.  The prosecutor is motivated by a desire for advancement, the defense attorney by financial gain. Neither is motivated by the truth upon which guilt or innocence may be determined. A murderer is a murderer regardless of the motivations of others to convict or exonerate him. All that matters are the facts.

The “He was elected president and we knew who we were getting” argument.

Let’s say we had knowingly elected a convicted felon, would that excuse all similar future crimes during his tenure in office?

The “He’s still learning” argument.

If he were pissing his pants, would we say he was still being potty-trained? Good manners are not something to be learned at age 71.

The “other Presidents” argument.

Back to Mom again, “just because Jimmy did something wrong, does not give you the right to do the same thing.”  A bad example is a bad example and should not be used as an excuse to continue with bad behavior. You don’t get the right to continue doing wrong things just because you perceive that Jimmy went unpunished for his wrong doing.

Think about out before you go the polls to vote again in 2018.  Are we to govern or are we to wallow in lame excuses covering for incompetence?