Fait Accompli

Donald Trump is President. Shame on you, America.
Heaven help us all.

Trump? Seriously? No, Seriously Bad News

Trump for President? I had to finally get this off my chest (Warning: there will not be much white space).

I stew everyday about the disinformation spewing from Donald Trump--not misinformation in which he merely misstates something accidentally, but the purposeful, hurtful, slandering disinformation that seems more akin to that path followed by current North Korea, or maybe Nazi Germany in the 1930's.  He does it to incite the masses, and, very sadly, their are many masses out there welcoming his message.

That which made me finally write is Trump chastising Obama for "screaming" at a Trump supporter at an Obama speech, calling it "a disgrace, really," when, in fact--and VIDEO SHOWS THIS--Obama was telling the Democrats around the protester to leave the guy alone because our country believes in free speech. Although there are numerous times I could have/should have written, this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

And which account is the "disgrace, really?"

But, as you can probably guess, I'm pretty well loaded for bear here in the case against Donald Trump (I won't be linking the facts because those who believe facts don't need the links--a simple search will do or you could comment and ask me--and those who don't believe facts will continue to believe the media is rigged).

Here are the main arguments as I've understood them--based on extensive media coverage--including conservative news outlets (which I'm unclear, may be considered "rigged," as well?) and conversations with numerous Trump supporters in my very Trump-friendly hometown:

1. HILLARY IS A LIAR!

Well, we'll see (depending on what, if anything, the Anthony Weiner-connection brings). So far, being in the public eye for more than three decades,  I'm guessing Clinton has probably been the most vetted presidential candidate ever put forth by either party. She has been investigated by special prosecutors (i.e., Whitewater), Republican-led investigative committees (i.e., Benghazi), and the FBI (emails). I'm not saying that's a sterling resume to have been investigated so often, BUT ALL OF THEM HAVE SAID THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL WRONGDOING  (which would include lying under oath).

Do I believe she is less than transparent and uses loopholes to cover her tracks? Yeah, I do, but according to the US Government, she's not a liar.

Trump, on the other hand, purposely repeats lies and innuendo to disparage his opponents and promote his own image (think: birther, Cruz's dad had something to do with the Kennedy assassination, numerous statements completely mischaracterizing his opponents' positions). Trump, on the other hand, hasn't been in the political public eye as has Clinton, so his dealings and his truth-telling in his businesses remain a mystery, so to speak.

But his political views are a different matter.  The Pulitzer-prize-winning Polifact (yes, I know, part of the rigged media) mentions that, with one week to go, MORE THAN 70 PERCENT of Trump's checked statements register as Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire, which are a whopping 17.2%--better than one-in-six--of all his checked statements. Clinton, I agree she is far from perfect, came in at 2.6% as Pant on Fire (about one-in-forty) and just over 25% in the three categories mentioned here.

Doesn't that say "liar,"  to you?

2. HILLARY CAN'T BE TRUSTED!

I don't trust her completely, either. The WikiLeaks and email missteps certainly leave much to be desired on the trust front. But, again, she has been vetted and investigated, and my opinion really is that many of her WikiLeaks thoughts would not be unlike numerous earlier, even respected, US politicians.  Politics is often a behind-the-doors dealings game, and I would think Clinton--or Trump--would do likewise. I don't endorse it, but I think that's often what it is in politics (and probably in business, too). And I wholeheartedly believe that if someone leaked thousands of Donald Trump's emails, he wouldn't exactly come out smelling like a rose, either...

So what about Benghazi, right? Well, many of the assertions are simply untrue--that Clinton was sleeping while Americans were dying during the attack, that Clinton directly denied the pleas of the embassy to provide more security (of which there WEREN'T 600)--as has been proven through real-time documents as well as the Republican-led investigative committee.

Well, then what about her accepting money from foreign governments? There's no rule against a charitable foundation doing so. And, although I agree it looks sleazy, just like Trump's tax dodges, Clinton has used acceptable loopholes in the system. Sleazy? Yes. Criminal? No.

As far as trust and transparency go, just on the surface, Trump has stiffed numerous contractors in his business dealings, repeatedly denied statements and positions that he had supported wars in Iraq and Libya, calling out a former Miss Universe, used thousands of dollars from HIS charitable foundation to purchase a self-portrait, and he has dodged releasing his tax returns, which I don't think any candidate in my lifetime had done.

So who's more trustworthy? My choice doesn't go to the candidate that's been out of the public eye.

3. TRUMP WILL MAKE AMERICA STRONG AND SAFE AGAIN

NATIONAL/GLOBAL SECURITY
Here's his track record: in the current campaign, Trump has alienated our NATO allies, disparaged our Mexican neighbors, insulted our military by saying he knows more than do the generals, dishonored himself by degrading the efforts of former prisoners-of-war (he likes his heroes to not be captured), demeaned a military Gold Star family, suggested nuclear proliferation (let other countries have nuclear weapons), promoted nuclear options (why have nuclear weapons if we don't use them?), disparaged Muslims so much so that ISIS uses Trump's threats and words of hatred to recruit others. Oh, and he's repeatedly praised Putin as a strong leader and actually encouraged the Russians to hack into the Clinton's emails.

And, it comes to my mind, WHY would the Russian government (as named by our country) be trying so hard to discredit Clinton through email hacks and leaks? If I was a Trump supporter (or an independent, for that matter), I would be concerned that it appears that Russia really would prefer having Trump in the White House.

ECONOMIC PLANS
Trump's plan really does mostly benefit the wealthy. Numerous reports, as well, point to a loss of jobs under Trump's policies (as opposed to job gains in Clinton's), and a more dramatic increase in the federal deficit than there would be under Clinton's policies.

Trump touts massive US job losses, which have been contradicted by recent US statistics that show 73 consecutive months (and counting) of job gains (numbers Trump essentially says are rigged, too).

Trump demonizes NAFTA and Bill Clinton, while NAFTA was first signed by George H.W. Bush before being approved by both Houses of Congress, and THEN signed by Bill Clinton.  According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, "NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest.”

URBAN AREAS
This became a big push for Trump when, I'd imagine, he found out he had close to zero percent of the African-American vote. Trump has called urban areas "disasters." They're not. There is much work to be done, including increasing educational and employment opportunities, to be sure, but urban areas have many amazing strengths and citizens. Most amazingly, in attempting to appeal to the African-American voters, Trump gave speeches about the plight of urban centers IN PREDOMINANTLY WHITE, NON-URBAN areas (I attended one myself following the unrest on Milwaukee, not in Milwaukee, but in a county that is about 98% white, I believe). The statistics he cites about manically rising violent crime are NOT accurate ; the success of his friend and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani's stop and check plan is very overblown (oh, yeah, and unconstitutional, too).
There is no way he has his finger on the pulse of the needs of the African-American community, certainly not more than Clinton, who has espoused such support and conviction for years.

ABILITY TO GET THINGS DONE
Part of being an effective leader is being able to collaborate and even make compromises. Trump has wittingly and astonishingly set out to alienate not only Democrats, but those in the Republican party, too, including its leaders. His actions have even jeopardized the down-ballot positions to put his party at risk of losing the Senate. He has alienated other world leaders, too (well, except for Putin). He has shown no capacity to work with others, or to take responsibility for anything he has said or done (the it was just locker room talk "apology" notwithstanding). There is NO WAY he'd ever be able to get anything done in my opinion.

4. CHARACTER ISSUES
Seriously? Here's just a brief rundown of his MANY disgusting traits and quotes (I apologize in advance to all of those who may be offended that I left out his slam against you, but there were just too many for me to remember...)

MISOGYNY
"No one has more respect for women than I do. Nobody."
As you know, he has repeatedly insulted women, based on their looks (Carly Fiorina's face, Miss Universe Machado's weight, Rosie O'Donnell as a pig); minimized their effectiveness as journalists (implying Megyn Kelly was a tough questioner because she must have been menstruating, calling out other female reporters as lightweights), and, of course, bragging he could assault women because he is a star).  He has agreed that his daughter is "a piece of ass," called his opponent a "nasty woman,"  has cheated on his marriage vows (in at least one of his three marriages), and has even called his accomplished campaign manager, "honey."
I can name about a gazillion people with more respect for women than he has.

RACISM
Calling Mexican immigrants rapists, drug-dealers, and criminals, vowing to single out Muslims for their religion, calling out an Indiana-born judge as possibly unreliable because his parents were of Mexican heritage (which he also said could apply to Muslim judges), perpetuating the "birther" lie which served to diminish the significance of the election of our first black president, calling African-American communities "disasters," dismissing the feelings of a grieving Gold Star mother who remained silent during her husband's speech of the loss of their son, implying that because of her Muslim beliefs "maybe she wasn't allowed to say anything."
In my book, that's racist, gang.

TEMPERAMENT/BULLYING/CIVILITY/DIVISIVENESS
As far as temperament, think about a petulant five year old. Such behavior is seriously, astoundingly, mirrored in Trump.
First off, everything is rigged if he doesn't win: the primaries (which he did win, by the way), the media, his GOP, the US jobs numbers, accusers saying he did kiss them without consent, even the Emmys, for goodness sakes.
He has mocked people based on their physical attributes or abilities if they didn't agree with him (think Carly Fiorina's looks, or the disabled reporter).
He lashes out for perceived snubs or negative comments (witness the 3 AM Twitter attacks about Miss Universe and her supposed "sex tape," or the vitriol following a non-endorsement from fellow Republicans).

And he uses classic bullying techniques: he assigns derogatory names to bring others down (Little Marco, Lyin' Ted, Crooked Hillary); he threatens those who go against him (he'll sue all his lying accusers, he threatened to "expose the truth" about Ted Cruz's wife), he perpetuates lies and innuendo to disparage others (Obama wasn't born in the US, Ted Cruz's father may have been involved in the Kennedy assassination).

He has refused to say he'd accept the results (if he doesn't win). He has not downplayed the talk of revolt. He questions our American judiciary and our democracy. He builds on people's fears: the "rapists" from Mexico, the "massive" loss of jobs--things that aren't even true. He has "joked" about committing violence (he could shoot someone in Times Square, or maybe second amendment backers would have to do something if Clinton was elected). He dismisses our American system of justice by proclaiming Clinton, "Guilty." He encourages chants of "Lock her up!" His supporters often wear shirts with profanity and misogynistic comments towards Clinton (not just college-aged supporters, but 60 year olds), a Wisconsin high school team with some players of Hispanic descent endured chants of "Build that wall!" during one of their road football games.

I CANNOT BELIEVE everyone can't see what a negative (and, yes, DEPLORABLE) human being Trump is.

That's all I have. I'm sorry it was so long, but I needed to get it out (I can't discuss it rationally with those in my community, and my wife has heard it enough).

As Ted Cruz (who obviously doesn't care about slurs against himself, his family, his colleagues, his country, or his countrymen because he has now voted for Trump) said at the Republican Convention, "Vote your conscience."

Hopefully, that conscience means you'll vote for decency.

More of Both Sides of Walker's Mouth

In the speech after surviving his recall, Scott Walker said "Tomorrow is the day after the election.  And tomorrow we are no longer opponents. Tomorrow we are one as Wisconsinites and together we can move Wisconsin forward." 

Unless, that is, you are a student from UW-Platteville who exercised his free speech a  couple years back by signing a recall petition, thus prompting Walker to rescind recently the student's appointment (by Walker) to the UW System's Board of Regents.  UPDATE: And, it turns out, the young man didn't even vote in the recall election.

It's not unexpected that you would be vindictive, of course, Governor, but it still is shameful.

Doe done, but does Walker really walk?

"I have every confidence that when this is completed, people will see that our integrity remains intact,"  Scott Walker, in 2012.

Oh, really?

Six people associated with Walker's staff--integral, trusted people in Walker's office and campaign--were convicted in crimes brought to light in the recently concluded Milwaukee County John Doe probe into illegal activities in Walker's County Executive office.

Walker (alas) was not charged with anything.

But that doesn't mean he gets a free pass.

Actually, if you believe Walker's previous stance on "corrupt" political allies, Walker should be out of a job.  In 2006, when a Doyle staffer was merely charged (and subsequently cleared) of improper political actions, Walker spouted in a press release (thanks Daniel Bice) that:

 "...corruption can infiltrate all areas of government. Unfortunately we have a Governor and administration that condones unethical and illegal behavior. The people of Wisconsin deserve better. Today’s indictment provides further confirmation that the Doyle administration is damaged and must be removed from the Capitol."

 

But I guess Walker doesn't think that applies to Eagle Scouts like him.

In announcing the closure of the current John Doe probe into actions by Walker's staff, Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm, who's been overseeing the investigation, gave this ringing endorsement of the virtue of those not charged (my emphasis added): "...all charges that are supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt have now been brought and concluded."  Not saying he's a murderer or anything, but--beyond a reasonable doubt--isn't that how O.J. Simpson got off?

And Walker's not Eagle-Scout-squeaky-clean here.  Far from it.  After all, he hired these guys.  And some of them came with already quite tarnished resumes--including pretty much the same things they were eventually convicted of while working with Walker in his County Exec role.  Who'd have thunk it?

Kelly Rindfleisch, of course, was a state Republican legislative staffer from 1995-2001 who admitted she (and others) "ran campaigns and raised funds for candidates from their state offices. Rindfleisch also admitted removing campaign documents from the Senate Republican Caucus that had been requested by the State Journal under the open records law." WSJ  Um, now she's been convicted of pretty much doing the same thing on Walker's watch.

That's who you hire to be your Deputy Chief of Staff?  Gosh, if there'd only been an inkling she was capable of doing something like this when Walker had hired her.

And Tim Russell was also hired to be a Deputy Chief of Staff, among other numerous, trusted posts.  To be fair, Russell hadn't ever previously been granted immunity nor had he been charged with anything criminal, but Russell, one of Walker's closest political allies, had questions raised about his past employment history, including his "reported termination from a previous position at the Wisconsin Housing & Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) for illegal use of a department credit card for his personal use." 

Wow.  If there had only been a sign to possibly foretell Russell's current conviction for skimming veterans' funds for his personal use.

Of course, you can't fault anyone in Walker's house for campaign fund contributor William Gardner, the guy convicted of illegally funneling money to Walker's campaign through his employees, right?

Oh, um, wait a minute.  It turns out the very same William Gardner was convicted of making illegal contributions to Walker's County Exec campaign years before, essentially by funneling it through his own daughter!

And the Walker-backing Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel even questioned the wisdom in having a Republican Party official, Darlene Wink, on Walker's County Executive staff.

Not exactly stellar hires, are they?

To top it all off, since these convictions have occured, Walker hasn't even said, "I trusted the wrong people."  He has taken no ownership, whatsoever, for these questionable (and now convicted) hires.  Instead Walker is "reminding" the media that his office started (although likely subsequently stonewalled) the investigation.  He has wrapped it all up by saying “The biggest thing is I’m pleased that the process is complete so we can move forward.”

And, so, Governor, we move forward. 

But it's certain that we do so without your integrity intact.


Articles for more info: JS Online, Wisconsin State Journal, WisDems, Cognitive Dissidence

Wis GOP hits new low (is that even possible...?)

Apparently lying to senior citizens isn't enough for supporters of Tommy Thompson in his campaign for Wisconsin's US Senate seat.  Now, someone on his behalf is sending recorded calls to senior citizens in Washington County and using their individual doctor's name, saying that Obama's Affordable Health Care Act may prevent them from ever being treated by their doctor again.  And then callers are reminded to vote for Tommy Thompson.

Seriously?  Is that all you got, Tommy?  Trying to scare seniors into voting for you?  Why not just say that "death squads" will take care of seniors under Obamacare? (oh, wait, that's right, the GOP said that already...).

The clinic and doctor in question vehemently denied any association with the calls and uncategorically stated that neither the doctor nor clinic endorses or has endorsed any candidate.  Oh, by the way, a clinic employee said they had also received a call from someone who got the same call using Romney's name.

Very, very classy, GOP.

Real-life effects of WIS GOP on education

Now that the rhetoric has died down regarding Walker's union-busting here in Wisconsin, here's how it has affected me--a teacher--my students, and my school. 

The moment Walker's Act 10 took effect, my school board froze salaries, changed the upcoming school calendar (which had been agreed upon with the union a couple months earlier), canceled already scheduled, out-of-school-day continuing education for its staff, created a grievance procedure that is, in effect, settled by the district superintendent or a district-selected third party, instituted health care changes without real input from the insured, and, as of yet, six weeks into the school year, has not provided a handbook with conditions of employment to its teachers.

Despite Walker's declarations that districts will save money (despite state funding cuts), our district has eliminated some aide positions, sacrificed some curriculum updating, and reduced staff development opportunities.

As a result of district changes, my teaching time has increased, my prep time has decreased, and there are new policies to provide more and daily information on student progress and lessons (the added "transparency" will take me an estimated 30+ minutes per day, with no apparent link to improving student learning).  There are less services for students requiring additional reading help, and no specific plans or staff for students demonstrating severe behavioral problems.

My salary, including new health care deductibles as well as pension and health care payments, is down about 10%, while new state mandates require more actual work in the classroom including more identification, specific work with, and documentation for students who are below level.

Some parents, now that our state government has led the way in calling teachers (or their representatives) greedy, slobs, and thugs, voice similar opinions.  I documented in an earlier post parents cursing and hurling insults at teachers as we walked down the street in our town in a show of non-confrontational solidarity. When the local parent-teacher group's budget revealed a thank you gift for teachers at Christmastime, one parent rolled her eyes and said, "You've got to be kidding me."

And upcoming changes (should we ever be provided a handbook), will very possibly include a "pool of money" for teacher salaries, from which the subjectively determined "better" teachers will score more than their subjectively-judged "lesser" peers.  For all the district initiatives and admonitions to promote collaboration, pitting colleague against colleague for their wages certainly doesn't seem like a very collaborative or efficient or wise thing to do.

Lastly, I have been advised by a third party consultant that continuing a blog reporting my district's policies or providing criticism of state government policies so ardently backed by the locals--and identifying myself with my real name, background, or photo--could actually come back to haunt me in terms of disciplinary action (now that I may no longer have a union).

And all these individual concerns don't even include the low-income families here that are affected by cuts to programs they may utilize, or those that may not be able/willing to vote because of new voter ID laws, or a government that changes laws to suit personal agendas or kowtow to businesses at the expense of those in need, or changes in environmental policies that affect everyone's quality of life, or the deep and abiding breach of trust between a people and its elected government.

I'm unsure whether I will continue this blog.  If so, it will be under an assumed name (as advised by the previously mentioned consultant).  There are many wonderful blogs out there fighting this good fight, and I have yet to determine, with the added responsibilities and scrutiny of my job, if I have the ability to do this justice.  Until then, my state senator Grothman is still (as I have termed him before) a major d-bag, and my governor is still a liar.

Thanks for visiting over the last year.

And recall Walker.

Bad time for Bad/No Internet

Personal note: I'm having trouble finding reliable Internet service where I'm at to adequately research and post new info on this blog.  Until my next post, please continue to visit lefty blogs-Wisconsin and the scores of pro-Wisconsin sites as we count down to Senate recalls later this summer.  Thanks.  --Curt (Teacher in Cheeseland)