OH, WHAT A NASTY FLOOD

Admittedly, I haven’t posted much about current political events recently, but it’s not for lack of topical material. If anything, Donald Trump has so polluted the race that it’s nearly impossible to keep up with the latest twists in the disgusting torrent he’s become. If anything, it’s hard to maintain a big picture and there’s a danger of becoming numbed by his long list of offenses. Remember, Hillary Clinton is not the cause of anything he’s said or done. He needs to own up to his own decisions, come clean, fly straight, stop hedging with nasty, even violent innuendo.

Quite simply, Trump has yet to accept responsibility for anything he’s said or done. It’s always someone else’s fault. Or makes you “smart,” the way shafting the public with your tax “losses” does in your eyes. He wants us to believe “they all do it,” which gives him permission to do whatever he pleases.

No, Donald, your despicable acts and words against women have nothing to do with Bill Clinton. And, by the way, if you had any grounds for a real lawsuit against the New York Times for airing women’s allegations against you, the former president would be doing the same to you for your television episode with those from his past. You’re the one running for public office (your first and only campaign, by the way), and as the Times notes, it’s your record that needs scrutiny.

By the way, I can’t fault Hillary for what many married women have done in a situation of a wandering spouse – faulting the rival. She defended her turf, apparently unlike your wives. Think about that.

As a bigger issue, your charges of Hillary’s “lies” fails to acknowledge that the majority of what comes out of your mouth is out-and-out false. Or, as the meme says, you can lie faster than anyone can fact-check. Not so, Hillary, who actually has solid facts and detailed policies rather than vapid generalizations.

We can start with your big lie of claiming to be a successful businessman and counter that with your miserable string of bankruptcies, failed enterprises, unpaid contractors, and lawsuits. Have any of your projects not involved loopholes, public subsidies, or political favors? Would you have been in business at all without the family funding? You’ve never had to face the grilling of seasoned board members on a publically traded company, have you? Much less the competition of ambitious challengers climbing the corporate ladder around you. We know you’re too thin-skinned for that – or for building lasting alliances. You would have been torn apart and tossed out, no doubt about it.

Remember, too, we’ve learned that your lawyers always meet with you two at a time, one as a witness for the other when you forget what you’ve told them or claim to have said something counter to what you did, in fact, say. When your own lawyers can’t trust you, what about the rest of the world? Are you nothing but hot air and smoke?

So far, your basic strategy has been to portray Hillary Clinton as, well, a successful woman. And that’s led to a lot of grasping at straws, from Benghazi, which can be blamed far more on Republican cutbacks to State Department security or the George W. Bush role in the creation of ISIS or which fail in comparison to attacks on embassies during W’s or Ronald Reagan’s administrations, to the emails, which are dwarfed by those of W’s administration or the unexplained death of a young secretary who had access to the missing 18 minutes of tapes during Richard Nixon’s Watergate travails. Missing emails? We haven’t even delved into your missing income-taxes, which apparently cover most of your adult years.

And then there are all of the unsubstantiated allegations of the deaths of people close to Hillary and Bill’s work. Look, if there were anything to this, a legion of young Republican prosecutors would have staked their careers on such a challenge. Nobody, but nobody, has turned up anything to go on. In the news business, I learned long ago not to run on anything like this until charges were filed. We couldn’t use the word “murder,” for starters, unless a jury had agreed the case was homicide. Until then, neither should any Republican. If you said these things against a “private person,” your claims would be libelous and cost you, the accuser, plenty. As it is, the “hit list” is simply out-and-out untrue. That is, a lie.

Or, more accurately, a stream of endless lies.

By the way, regarding those Clinton colleagues, we might also look at the depressing nature of much of what we’ve been facing, especially from the right-wing, and the impact of long demands on what might otherwise be personal time – that is, relationships and friendships – in the face of a high-pressure career. For anyone of an idealistic bent, suicide begins to look like a preferable option to all of the lunatic bombast.

As for the Clinton Foundation? It’s squeaky clean next to the Trump setup. Nobody I’ve heard has found donor money going to the Clintons, while quite the opposite is true of you, Donald. Just what has your “foundation” done for other people, anyway?

By the way, donations to Trump’s campaign seem to be paying him a salary! And that’s even before getting to the inflated prices being paid by donors to his various enterprises, including real estate. Has any previous presidential nominee run to so enrich himself, win or lose?

SOMETHING SNOUT RIGHT IN THE PHOTOS

Is it an affliction?

Karl Rove looks like a pig.

Chris Christie looks like a pig.

Rush Limbaugh looks and sounds like a pig.

What about Roger Ailes or Haley Barbour or Newt Gingrich or …

Dashing out from the pack, grunting something, and then trotting back?

As for Donald Trump, more and more?

Anyone else getting whiffs of pork-stuffed budgets or bringing home the bacon?

Sorry for any offense to real pigs, who can be smart, tasteful, and charming in the right conditions. Now I’m thinking of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Oh, what an Animal Farm!

DRIVING INTO THE SUNSET OF PUBLIC SERVICE

When I first entered the newspaper business, profit margins of 20 percent to 30 percent were not uncommon. Some papers were even reported to take 40 percent of their earnings down to the bottom line.

Not that much of that income went to the reporters or editors, who as a group ranked at the bottom of professional categories. Below school teachers and ministers, in fact. In addition, we worked nights and weekends and holidays – no wonder the divorce rate was high. The field could be depressing, as other surveys acknowledged. Or maybe it just attracted depressed individuals.

When right-wingers rub their “liberal media” smear across us, they mock the sacrifices we’ve made in trying to serve the public. For accuracy, the mass media  are ultimately capitalist machines – or, as they used to say of newspapers when I began, they were machines for printing money. That’s anything but leftist. Can’t be more conservative than that money-grubbing side, can you?

Some of the more astute critics at the time argued that the industry wasn’t reinvesting enough in growth and development, that it was in fact “eating its seed corn” when it came to salaries and wages, especially. How could we attract talented minorities at this pay, for one thing, when there were far more lucrative alternatives such as law? How could we build new audiences and new products without them – much less support these as they grew?

In the past decade or so, the business model has essentially collapsed in the advent of the Internet. Why should anyone pay for something they can get for free? The need for detailed coverage of public affairs remains, more than ever, but there are fewer and fewer professionals on the job, and most of those who remain are approaching minimum wage. You can’t live on that, especially not if you have a family.

I keep thinking of a skilled colleague, one of the best, an editor who quit to become a bus driver. The shift had better hours and better pay, even for a college graduate.

THIS UNREST IN ITS WIDER FRAMEWORK

Oh, these polemic rants! Maybe they become endless? There’s always injustice and inequality and those who would cheat us.

Sin, in other words, inflicted on the public. Bring on the repentance and cleansing.

So that’s the underlying struggle, it’s over spiritual values and action in motion or their lack, whether the candidate and the party are pressing for the greater good of all or the private enrichment of a few alone.

In the face of overwhelming odds, that’s the equation. But remember little David facing Goliath.

And then the way preaching, even to the choir, does renew the soul and prepare the faithful for spiritual battle.

As well as prophets, who often sound like Woodpecker, off in the wilderness somewhere.

One thing I’ve found in releasing Woodpecker’s drumming is a breakout from a feeling of helplessness. A cry as a kind of prayer. Now, back to the fray, together …

SELF-DEFENSE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA

There’s one way to stop those nasty campaign attack ads. Vote FOR the candidate they’re attacking. You can bet it’s the better choice.

~*~

At least that’s what I wrote before Trump entered the picture. How do you categorize any ad against a nasty candidate?

Still, I want to hear positive, detailed programs from candidates across the board, not half-truth smears on the opponent.

IT WOULDN’T BE WHAT THEY EXPECTED

In politics, especially, it’s wise to keep an eye open for unintended consequences when changing a policy or regulation. A law can be a two-edged sword that turns back on the side that created it. Or the shot they fire can ricochet or boomerang.

For instance, those who think a balanced-budget amendment would cap federal government spending need to see where the bulk of it’s been going before they swirl the blade or press the trigger.

In effect, the cap would mean America could no longer wage war. And it would require taxing the super-rich far more than they’ve been paying. The rest of us can’t keep carrying the burden with less than half of the resources.

Yes, they’re hoping it will be the excuse to eliminate the remaining social services – the part of public spending that serves real people like us. Just look at the ones who claim to be tax-cutters when it comes to voting for budgets – they’re always increasing military spending.

Think about it. How do you think we got the national debt?

We were doing fine, under Clinton, until the Second Bush Iraq War. Just look.

And if you make an exception? That would fail the purpose altogether. Utterly.

Pay to play, then.

Some of us have had enough casino-style politics.

Some of us even want our money back, with interest.

JOHN BROWN’S BODY IN PERSPECTIVE

Yes, most American kids know the song, or did, but few know the fuller history.

What most shocked the nation at the time of the 1859 raid John Brown led on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, wasn’t so much that it happened as the fact it happened from the antislavery side of the struggle.

Slavery, after all, is a violence-prone institution. Most of the nation’s military officers, in fact, came from slaveholding states, for good reason.

The admission to Kansas as a state of the union threatened to tip the balance of power in the nation to the slave owners, who already had more congressmen per voter than did those in the free states. The conflict grew fierce in what became Bloody Kansas. This was, let’s not forget, class warfare pitting cheap slave labor against working-class white families. Sound familiar? The entire frontier was at stake.

When a proslavery posse led by the sheriff sacked the free-soil settlement of Lawrence in 1856, the injustice was too much for abolitionist Brown, who parted ways with the majority of the antislavery side, the ones who expected to prevail through peaceful democratic persuasion. In response, he led an attack that killed five slavery supporters.

His opponents throughout the South were startled by violence in response to violence. Makes me wonder about the current gun-control debate in our own time, for one thing. Throughout the nation, this was a wakeup call, one that led to great panic as well.

After the assault at Harpers Ferry failed, Brown was convicted and executed on charges of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia (note the imposition of sovereignty by the state rather than the nation) and for inciting a slave insurrection. Plantation owners had every reason to fear as a racial minority in some districts.

There are those who call Brown our first domestic terrorist, though that conveniently overlooks those who sacked Lawrence. What he did do most effectively was raise the emotions that erupted in secession and civil war.

As we’re seeing, emotions and politics can be a volatile mixture, especially when a nation and its wealth are so divided.