Showing all posts in Afterthought

I was pondering the reports about the school shooting last week when it occurred to me… Does America know the difference between pouring venom on a wound and speaking painful truth in dark times?

For eight years, we put up with the Obamas, yet many claim Trump is the one pouring gas on the flames?

What about the “bitter” people who “cling to guns and religion”?

What about a first lady who was only then finally proud of her country?

What about a Obama’s pastor and the “US of KKK A?”

Are such statements the kind Anti-Trumpists would have Trump make with a Right-Wing spin?

Can you name one “inflammatory” remark from Trump for which he didn’t have a solution already on the table that was being rejected?

I won’t beat the dead horse beyond this: Let’s not declare verbal “open season” on inflammatory speech. Those pointing the finger have eight years of fingers pointing back at them.  · · · →

Presidents have many different types of portraits. Sometimes they have plain or semi-abstract backgrounds, such as Reagan in his pinstripe suit against a red glow or the golden-white Obama portrait by Edwin van den Dikkenberg. Other times, portraits have a little Washington DC in them, such as the Oval Office or the Capitol—in Reagan’s case the side of his desk, in Obama’s case the regal chair he is sitting in. Many other presidents had largely unfinished borders around the bust, often spilling into the image of the president himself. In Obama’s freshly unveiled official portrait by Kehinde Wiley, he is sitting much the same way as W in the Robert Anderson, 2008 portrait.

I didn’t like Obama; ISIS rose and he left his work easily unraveled. Still, I submit that this is not a bad portrait of Obama. It is good by any standard of past presidents and it belongs. I wish I could take the credit; the leaves bring a “plain” background to life.  · · · →

Congressman Devin Nunes was surprised that people lie. When he appeared on Rush yesterday, he recalled being interviewed by members of the media, then lied about, then he declined their future requests for interview.

Didn’t he know?

Trump also demonstrated a similar learning curve—that people in the media lie. Bush, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama didn’t demonstrate any “learning curve” per se. The Bushes talked about it, but didn’t seem taken by it. Actually, they didn’t seem to care. They didn’t shift strategies like Nunes and Trump do. Neither were Clinton and Obama the least bit surprised when they complained about opposition in the media. Reagan was ready for it from the beginning, which makes him unique, I suppose.

Shortly after Nunes, Rush told a caller that reactions from the public bothered him earlier in his career, but that he eventually got used to it. Specifically, it was about being quoted, but not cited.  · · · →

Tuesday’s State of the Union address is best understood in light of China and North Korea. On Monday, Rush correctly identified the general purpose of nearly every State of the Union address: to make it look like the president is not wearing horns. According to a CBS/YouGov poll, Trump succeeded in winning the American people. He attempted the same on his visit to China with the Chinese people. That brings us to China and North Korea.

The purpose of government restrictions on the press is not to make the people love the government; it is to allow just enough of a truth vacuum for propaganda to make the people hate another country more than their own government. We see this with the anti-Americanism saturating North Korean culture. But, it is not unique to any one country. Preventing communication from the outside is necessary for the inside to hate the outside.

China’s increased restrictions on media—whether the professional press or social media—smells with the word “timing”.  · · · →