About a month ago, I read through a number of pieces which discussed the idea of a 2nd special prosecutor (a second Mueller-type individual). I've sat and reviewed the discussions and formed this observation:
1. I think President Trump will by-pass 'old-man' Sessions in the spring of 2019, and appoint the second special prosecutor. Why then? Basically, that guy appointed will be 'fishing' during the campaign build-up to the 2020 election, and he'll be able to bring in twenty various characters.
2. Pay-back? By early 2019, I think as virtually all of the 'FBI-cards', the 'dossier-cards', and the 'FISA-abuse-cards' are laid out, you won't help but notice a conspiracy, and as much as the news media might yell about pay-back, it won't work.
3. Brennan in trouble? Based on the lie-to-Congress problem....he probably needs to go spend some money on real attornies and prepare for troubles.
4. McCain? If he's still around and kicking....he will likely face this special prosecutor and have to explain what he paid, and how he got into the dossier business. I think he'll be highly embarrassed and probably try to claim some Senate immunity from this special prosecutor.
5. Pain for the DNC? Public sentiment won't be very positive and it'll make the whole campaign for the Democratic primary period in 2020.....suffer.
6. Sessions? He'll have no authority over the 2nd special prosecutor and will turn into a more or less worthless attorney general (even more so than he is today). January of 2021 will arrive and he'll be the first to be let go. By 2025, no one will remember the guy, and it'll be mostly laughed over for this period that he served as AG.
7. Damage for Hillary Clinton? At some point, the prosecutor will turn and face the donations to the Clinton Foundation. I don't think the Foundation leadership will be able to survive this without one or two of them going off to some prison episode.
All of this will lead to a Senate confrontation in 2020 and 2021. With the public not buying into the news media message, I think the GOP control of the senate will continue on through 2020 and 2022's election period. You might actually see 60 to 65 GOP senators there in the 2nd Trump administration.
Damage-wise? Hundreds of books will be written over this period and the lack of appropriate behavior from dozens of Obama-period characters.
Sunday, 19 August 2018
Saturday, 18 August 2018
Newspapers, the Anti-Trump Editorials, and the "Vanished' Readers
This past week, it was hyped by the news media that 350-odd newspapers went to a defensive stance on editorials, and 'blasted' President Trump as much as possible for the 'enemies of the people' commentary.
About six years ago, the PEW research folks went out and did a survey....finding that only 29-percent of American adults occasionally read the newspaper (meaning either daily or the weekend edition). That's it. It means that only one out of three is reading the newspapers, and that number may have grown worse over the past six years.
So as these folks mounted their massive 'you gotta love us' stance....it was mostly read by a very small group of people.
First, out of the hundred who have subscriptions....you can figure that roughly half of them read it only for the local news, high school sports, obituaries, state politics, and ad's. From the remaining fifty-percent.....those who are pro-Trump aren't likely to read it (trust me) probably number near half. So you basically had around 25-percent of the readers who might have gone to the editorial page to read through it. The odds that they agree with the summary? Well....that's another problem, because some of those folks will just say it's biased writing.
So what really happened to the "vanished" readers of newspapers?
First, newspapers got into slanted politics and agenda grouping. That was already becoming a problem in the 1970s.
Second, newspapers often got into censorship of embarrassing political stories because it reflected upon their 'favorite children'.
Third, newspapers started cover less and less of city/regional corruption.
Fourth, the editorial page is presently marginalized (I'm suggesting that fewer than 5-percent of subscribers will read it on a daily basis).
Fifth, people don't have 30 minutes to go and read through their local paper. My dad, throughout his entire life, read the paper daily.....but you sum up his review as being strictly the front page, the local news page, crime stuff, and obituaries......a basic 12-minute read. I think most people are that way today.
So I'd go and suggest that the newspapers go back to review how papers were written in the 1890s, and be prepared for shockers. The news was written in an entertaining fashion. Everyone wrote in the style that you'd expect from Hemingway or Steinbeck. Guys would sit on the front porch and quote things, as if it were an opera. Today's news? It's just not much on entertainment value, and the slant/bias just makes you laugh over the behavior demonstrated.
About six years ago, the PEW research folks went out and did a survey....finding that only 29-percent of American adults occasionally read the newspaper (meaning either daily or the weekend edition). That's it. It means that only one out of three is reading the newspapers, and that number may have grown worse over the past six years.
So as these folks mounted their massive 'you gotta love us' stance....it was mostly read by a very small group of people.
First, out of the hundred who have subscriptions....you can figure that roughly half of them read it only for the local news, high school sports, obituaries, state politics, and ad's. From the remaining fifty-percent.....those who are pro-Trump aren't likely to read it (trust me) probably number near half. So you basically had around 25-percent of the readers who might have gone to the editorial page to read through it. The odds that they agree with the summary? Well....that's another problem, because some of those folks will just say it's biased writing.
So what really happened to the "vanished" readers of newspapers?
First, newspapers got into slanted politics and agenda grouping. That was already becoming a problem in the 1970s.
Second, newspapers often got into censorship of embarrassing political stories because it reflected upon their 'favorite children'.
Third, newspapers started cover less and less of city/regional corruption.
Fourth, the editorial page is presently marginalized (I'm suggesting that fewer than 5-percent of subscribers will read it on a daily basis).
Fifth, people don't have 30 minutes to go and read through their local paper. My dad, throughout his entire life, read the paper daily.....but you sum up his review as being strictly the front page, the local news page, crime stuff, and obituaries......a basic 12-minute read. I think most people are that way today.
So I'd go and suggest that the newspapers go back to review how papers were written in the 1890s, and be prepared for shockers. The news was written in an entertaining fashion. Everyone wrote in the style that you'd expect from Hemingway or Steinbeck. Guys would sit on the front porch and quote things, as if it were an opera. Today's news? It's just not much on entertainment value, and the slant/bias just makes you laugh over the behavior demonstrated.
Article 88 the Guy
For 99-percent of us vets who finish up service.....we are done and you can't hold us to some UCMJ (military terms for court activity by a military fixture) situation. For generals and admirals? They oddly are held to UCMJ standards after they retire, and can be brought in for court business.
Over the last day or two, I've sat and read (while on a short trip) various words by Admiral Raven.....backing up his former associate Brennan, and attempting to cast a long shadow toward the President.
Oddly, there exists Article 88 of the UCMJ, which basically says any “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State”....can be used to drag you into a military court and likely end your retirement situation with a reduction in grade (pension threat).....maybe one step.....maybe two steps.
Some advice for the retired general 'geeks'.....it's best to just retire and go play golf, and not get into heated political chatting. Your pension is absolutely dependent upon that.
Over the last day or two, I've sat and read (while on a short trip) various words by Admiral Raven.....backing up his former associate Brennan, and attempting to cast a long shadow toward the President.
Oddly, there exists Article 88 of the UCMJ, which basically says any “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State”....can be used to drag you into a military court and likely end your retirement situation with a reduction in grade (pension threat).....maybe one step.....maybe two steps.
Some advice for the retired general 'geeks'.....it's best to just retire and go play golf, and not get into heated political chatting. Your pension is absolutely dependent upon that.
Wednesday, 15 August 2018
Omarosa
I worked for a company once that hired some *wonder* for a web position. About four hours into their employment, you knew this was a screwed up individual, a slacker, absolute zero in team skills and seemed to be nuts. Around the fourth day, they brought the person in with HR and dumped them. I see Omarosa in the same light.
I went to look up the VP Gore period when Omarosa was first hired, almost 20 years ago. They had all these recommendations. She went four jobs in six months and was then ^dumped^.
Yesterday, I watched a 15 minute clip from The Apprentice Show with her. She seemed to be some drama queen, with no management skills or patience.
So, my prediction.
1. A search warrant episode by next week, on the tape business. She will go nuts at the door and have to be restrained.
2. Quickly to be brought into a grand jury, with fed charges. More drama there when she refuses to cooperate.
3. First lawyer is fired, and she has trouble in finding someone to represent her.
4. She will refuse to declare all tapes, to the point where the judge puts into mention, maybe up to two weeks.
5. She will be ordered for a mental eval.
6. The WH team then files a case against her for disclosure issues. Figure this to be a 150,000 dollar episode minimum.
7. On the tapes, she will be convicted and get four months in prison.
8. Jobs after this? None. Some idiot will use her three months as a radio host, and find that fewer than 50,000 listen to her.
9. She will eventually be noted as bi-polar.
Trump? Ten years into the future, he will be crazy enough her again.
I went to look up the VP Gore period when Omarosa was first hired, almost 20 years ago. They had all these recommendations. She went four jobs in six months and was then ^dumped^.
Yesterday, I watched a 15 minute clip from The Apprentice Show with her. She seemed to be some drama queen, with no management skills or patience.
So, my prediction.
1. A search warrant episode by next week, on the tape business. She will go nuts at the door and have to be restrained.
2. Quickly to be brought into a grand jury, with fed charges. More drama there when she refuses to cooperate.
3. First lawyer is fired, and she has trouble in finding someone to represent her.
4. She will refuse to declare all tapes, to the point where the judge puts into mention, maybe up to two weeks.
5. She will be ordered for a mental eval.
6. The WH team then files a case against her for disclosure issues. Figure this to be a 150,000 dollar episode minimum.
7. On the tapes, she will be convicted and get four months in prison.
8. Jobs after this? None. Some idiot will use her three months as a radio host, and find that fewer than 50,000 listen to her.
9. She will eventually be noted as bi-polar.
Trump? Ten years into the future, he will be crazy enough her again.
Sunday, 12 August 2018
'Office' Reboot?
Rumors drift around and you notice them on various sites about these folks continually talking up a reboot of the TV show....the 'Office'.
On my list of the top ten shows ever.....I put the Office into that group. Course, I will admit....there were problems with the show. First and foremost.....too many characters. You sat there for what amounts to a 22-minute show, and potentially had fifteen people drift in and out....with two or three of them getting only two lines each for an entire show. The other issue was that they opened the door to dozens of story-ideas, and just left them there lingering (like Toby being a killer).
So, my idea for a reboot?
I would start fresh and flip this totally over. Make it a muffin company rather than a paper company.
Set the stage for Iowa or Wisconsin instead.
Limit the primary characters to eight, and have twenty others who rotate in for four to six episodes per season.
The odds of this reboot occurring? Here's the essential problem....there just isn't much creativity in TV today, unless you go over to Netflix. So, it's a pretty sure bet that by 2022....some TV executive will lock onto this idea and proceed forward.
On my list of the top ten shows ever.....I put the Office into that group. Course, I will admit....there were problems with the show. First and foremost.....too many characters. You sat there for what amounts to a 22-minute show, and potentially had fifteen people drift in and out....with two or three of them getting only two lines each for an entire show. The other issue was that they opened the door to dozens of story-ideas, and just left them there lingering (like Toby being a killer).
So, my idea for a reboot?
I would start fresh and flip this totally over. Make it a muffin company rather than a paper company.
Set the stage for Iowa or Wisconsin instead.
Limit the primary characters to eight, and have twenty others who rotate in for four to six episodes per season.
The odds of this reboot occurring? Here's the essential problem....there just isn't much creativity in TV today, unless you go over to Netflix. So, it's a pretty sure bet that by 2022....some TV executive will lock onto this idea and proceed forward.
Saturday, 11 August 2018
How to Earn the Status of 'Enemy of the People'
Status, from what I've observed in life.....is generally 'earned', and not 'given'. In this case of the news media, being identified as 'enemy of the people'....I think they've spent several decades 'earning' this respect.
First, I think that the idea lodged in the heads of the big-time journalists (the one who made it to the Washington Post, CNN, NY Times, MSNBC, etc) is that they were smarter and more intellectual than their viewers/readers. Maybe through the 1960s, that was true. By the 1990s, I think thirty-percent of the nation was just as smart or capable as the journalists themselves. Today, we might be near fifty-percent being as capable as the journalists.
Second, the minute you say unnamed sources (anonymous).....I shut down or hit 'mute'. Sorry, but that gimmick doesn't work anymore.
Third, news around the clock? In the 1990s, it was hyped up and people into the 'trap'. In the past twenty years.....there's some public frustration with the amount of news which is deemed significant, but after eight minutes, you've lost interest and flipped to an episode of Gilligan's Island.
Fourth, expert #9 says. Basically, the trust level on experts that are drawn out for TV commentary has reached a level where you might as well drag out a Chattanooga barber or some homeless guy from Tampa. The minute you bring on such-and-such expert from this foundation, I go and review who funds the foundation. If they won't tell you the backer of the foundation....I discount anything that the expert says.
Fifth, statistics really don't matter. It's pretty easy to go and construct a poll with 3,000 people.....to say X, or Y. So the value of polls? Well....it's actually a number less than zero.
Sixth, the same 'quote' game. It's an odd thing....at least once a month I'll go to a dozen news media points and find that they've written up articles or chatting on something.....then they all use the same general quote that seems to be out of thin air. Course, you could only go and have that single quote....if you were conspiring in some way with some source to lead the news in one certain dirction and angle. If you only watch or read one source.....you'd never notice this. In my case, I read or view at least fifty sites a day. Episodes like this can't be accidental.
Seventh and final....the minute you construct a story that is supposed to anchor you to some idea or process, and LEAD the person to some agenda/conclusion.....you've failed as journalists. This is done almost daily now.
Maybe there are some journalists still around and can perform the work required. The rest? I think the word provocateur might fit better. The last time I looked up the description of provocateur.....it fitted well with 'enemy'.
First, I think that the idea lodged in the heads of the big-time journalists (the one who made it to the Washington Post, CNN, NY Times, MSNBC, etc) is that they were smarter and more intellectual than their viewers/readers. Maybe through the 1960s, that was true. By the 1990s, I think thirty-percent of the nation was just as smart or capable as the journalists themselves. Today, we might be near fifty-percent being as capable as the journalists.
Second, the minute you say unnamed sources (anonymous).....I shut down or hit 'mute'. Sorry, but that gimmick doesn't work anymore.
Third, news around the clock? In the 1990s, it was hyped up and people into the 'trap'. In the past twenty years.....there's some public frustration with the amount of news which is deemed significant, but after eight minutes, you've lost interest and flipped to an episode of Gilligan's Island.
Fourth, expert #9 says. Basically, the trust level on experts that are drawn out for TV commentary has reached a level where you might as well drag out a Chattanooga barber or some homeless guy from Tampa. The minute you bring on such-and-such expert from this foundation, I go and review who funds the foundation. If they won't tell you the backer of the foundation....I discount anything that the expert says.
Fifth, statistics really don't matter. It's pretty easy to go and construct a poll with 3,000 people.....to say X, or Y. So the value of polls? Well....it's actually a number less than zero.
Sixth, the same 'quote' game. It's an odd thing....at least once a month I'll go to a dozen news media points and find that they've written up articles or chatting on something.....then they all use the same general quote that seems to be out of thin air. Course, you could only go and have that single quote....if you were conspiring in some way with some source to lead the news in one certain dirction and angle. If you only watch or read one source.....you'd never notice this. In my case, I read or view at least fifty sites a day. Episodes like this can't be accidental.
Seventh and final....the minute you construct a story that is supposed to anchor you to some idea or process, and LEAD the person to some agenda/conclusion.....you've failed as journalists. This is done almost daily now.
Maybe there are some journalists still around and can perform the work required. The rest? I think the word provocateur might fit better. The last time I looked up the description of provocateur.....it fitted well with 'enemy'.
USA Today Piece
There's this editorial off USA Today, which basically says.....'dump the Presidency because Trump has proven that the office is a threat to the nation'.
It goes on for about sixty lines and just suggests that as you abolish the President's office.....you just go with the legislative arm to manage the government. In terms of a convincing argument, it's a watered-down piece of a editorial that you'd expect out of a 2nd-year college student, who probably should have gone to some community college and gotten into carpentry.
So you go and examine the 'need'. I suspect if you went back to the early 1800s....the majority of Americans marginally could name the President, but few (if any) could name the VP. Until you reach 1860, there's a limited impact of the President upon Americans and their 'lifestyle'.
Since the late 1920s? Once the Wall Street crash occurred, and you go through the depression....the President's office is deemed essential to the lives of every single American. FDR forged this 'brand' upon the nation. Since that point, the belief is that you need some 'Jesus Christ-like' character to anchor the office and present some image, with miracles and legacy 'gifts'.
If you went and abolished the office? You would basically go the German-brand of government where the legislature is elected and the party in charge would vote for a Chancellor or Prime Minister, and they would do virtually everything required to manage the government. Oh, there is a President within the German system....but he's there mostly to do ceremonies and speeches. The importance of the Party? Yes, the Party becomes the essential 'thrill' of the government and everything is dependent in these elections to get the Party up to the top circle.
Would this resolve this guy's 'problem'? Within ten years, he'd come back and suggest that the Prime Minister is screwed up and we need to fire that gal or guy.
My suggestion here is for people to get a life....a hobby....limit yourself for a month to just local news....read a book....do some landscaping....paint your fence posts....go fishing. This conclusion that you can only be happy with the 'right' kind of President? It's a fraud.
It goes on for about sixty lines and just suggests that as you abolish the President's office.....you just go with the legislative arm to manage the government. In terms of a convincing argument, it's a watered-down piece of a editorial that you'd expect out of a 2nd-year college student, who probably should have gone to some community college and gotten into carpentry.
So you go and examine the 'need'. I suspect if you went back to the early 1800s....the majority of Americans marginally could name the President, but few (if any) could name the VP. Until you reach 1860, there's a limited impact of the President upon Americans and their 'lifestyle'.
Since the late 1920s? Once the Wall Street crash occurred, and you go through the depression....the President's office is deemed essential to the lives of every single American. FDR forged this 'brand' upon the nation. Since that point, the belief is that you need some 'Jesus Christ-like' character to anchor the office and present some image, with miracles and legacy 'gifts'.
If you went and abolished the office? You would basically go the German-brand of government where the legislature is elected and the party in charge would vote for a Chancellor or Prime Minister, and they would do virtually everything required to manage the government. Oh, there is a President within the German system....but he's there mostly to do ceremonies and speeches. The importance of the Party? Yes, the Party becomes the essential 'thrill' of the government and everything is dependent in these elections to get the Party up to the top circle.
Would this resolve this guy's 'problem'? Within ten years, he'd come back and suggest that the Prime Minister is screwed up and we need to fire that gal or guy.
My suggestion here is for people to get a life....a hobby....limit yourself for a month to just local news....read a book....do some landscaping....paint your fence posts....go fishing. This conclusion that you can only be happy with the 'right' kind of President? It's a fraud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)