...huh. Would ya look at that.
Turns out those that sling mud from the shadows do eventually get dragged into the light after all.
And to think, I wanted to quit this thing for good.
Watch this space... I ain't dead yet.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Yesterday's Presidential Presser And Blurring The Line Between Real And "Fake" News
The circus has come to town, and the sideshow was about everything one expected, and then some.
Going into Donald Trump's first press conference, it certainly had the potential to be explosive, given the president-elect's contentious-at-best relationship with the media. Then, CNN supplied a lit match and BuzzFeed provided a whole damn tanker of gasoline, in the form of a report on a dossier with some potentially damning allegations about Trump, and the alleged dossier itself, respectively. It's been all over the news the last 36 hours or so, and depending on your point of view, it either confirms everything you believed about the media, or everything you believed about Trump. A few takeaways from the whole thing:
-Good to see BuzzFeed taking time out from endless "You might be a 90's kid if you remember..." lists to do some shoddy journalism instead. "We can't verify this at all, but screw it, we're gonna run it anyway!" Isn't that, like, the exact same thing we slam the fake news sites of the world for? They clearly want this to be true so damn badly they didn't do their homework before posting. Not to mention, it's probably not a good idea to throw out unverified info against the most litigious guy to hold the office. Hell, other "news" websites have been sued out of existence for less!
-As for CNN being singled out for reporting that Obama and Trump were briefed on this thing, a story that has been picked up by major news organizations of every political leaning, and that appears to be true despite the president-elect's denials and raving about "fake news"... well, so far, they've been proven right. Trump and Obama were indeed briefed; Joe Biden confirmed as much to the AP. The FBI has known about it for months. (Though, go figure: James Comey had no problem going to the press and talking about Clinton's emails during that investigation, but this didn't come out until well after the election.) The Director of National Intelligence also confirmed the report. And the operative that created the dossier has since been outed. Note that even Fox News, of all outlets, is defending the CNN report.
-And just to be clear: The CNN report didn't go into specific allegations listed in the Buzzfeed report, despite the Trump team's best efforts to confuse and conflate the two. And make no mistake, that's exactly what they're trying to do. It's standard operating procedure for the Trump team, really; blur the line between real and "fake" news. And thus far, it's clearly worked; it's hard to see any other candidate having these kinds of legitimate allegations tied to them and still winning an election.
-Naturally, that didn't stop plenty of right-wing folk from getting overwhelmed with glee at Trump dressing down that CNN reporter and threatening to kick him out. Good to know that this is how the leader of the free world is going to deal with any reporter that runs a story he doesn't like. And no doubt his supporters will eat it up. This still does not bode well for anybody interested in the president being held accountable for what he does going forward, and makes it that much harder for the free press to do their job.
-As far as whether there's anything to the actual contents of said dossier... that's hard to say. I'm skeptical, particularly of the more salacious bits, but at this point I'm not sure I'd be surprised either way. Clearly the intelligence community isn't dismissing it entirely, nor taking it completely at face value. Note that Trump's not even denying at this point that his campaign ever had contacts with the Russian government. And Trump isn't doing himself any favors by blasting his own intelligence agencies over both this leak and the information they've attempted to present him, and that could present some problems for him down the road, whether it's defection from said agencies because they're tired of being made his scapegoats, or the possibility of more damaging leaks from within, or even the possibility that Trump hurts his own credibility down the line when he wants to act on the intelligence provided to him after repeatedly attempting to discredit the people that supplied him with said intelligence.
-What's getting a bit buried in all this, though: the entirely laughable way in which the issue of his many business conflicts of interest are being addressed by... not really being addressed. Sure, his kids are going to keep running the company, he will still hold stock in it, and there are plenty of ways in which he can benefit himself financially through his policies, both foreign and domestic. But you can totally trust him, because reasons. Of course, that doesn't drive the ratings or get the clicks like those other stories do, so it gets lost in the shuffle.
And that might be the most worrisome part of all this. There's obviously already plenty of people that won't believe anything that doesn't come from a source that confirms their bias, and a good chunk of people that will take Trump at his word no matter what. I've written at length here about this election being the one where the American people finally decided that facts no longer matter, and this whole incident is reinforcing that like no other. And despite them being not so much a "news" outlet as much as a purveyor of nostalgia-based listicles, BuzzFeed having run with a story of such questionable veracity is only going to serve to make people more skeptical of the media's credibility should another potential scandal arise.
Which is truly the greatest gift they could have given the president-elect.
Going into Donald Trump's first press conference, it certainly had the potential to be explosive, given the president-elect's contentious-at-best relationship with the media. Then, CNN supplied a lit match and BuzzFeed provided a whole damn tanker of gasoline, in the form of a report on a dossier with some potentially damning allegations about Trump, and the alleged dossier itself, respectively. It's been all over the news the last 36 hours or so, and depending on your point of view, it either confirms everything you believed about the media, or everything you believed about Trump. A few takeaways from the whole thing:
-Good to see BuzzFeed taking time out from endless "You might be a 90's kid if you remember..." lists to do some shoddy journalism instead. "We can't verify this at all, but screw it, we're gonna run it anyway!" Isn't that, like, the exact same thing we slam the fake news sites of the world for? They clearly want this to be true so damn badly they didn't do their homework before posting. Not to mention, it's probably not a good idea to throw out unverified info against the most litigious guy to hold the office. Hell, other "news" websites have been sued out of existence for less!
-As for CNN being singled out for reporting that Obama and Trump were briefed on this thing, a story that has been picked up by major news organizations of every political leaning, and that appears to be true despite the president-elect's denials and raving about "fake news"... well, so far, they've been proven right. Trump and Obama were indeed briefed; Joe Biden confirmed as much to the AP. The FBI has known about it for months. (Though, go figure: James Comey had no problem going to the press and talking about Clinton's emails during that investigation, but this didn't come out until well after the election.) The Director of National Intelligence also confirmed the report. And the operative that created the dossier has since been outed. Note that even Fox News, of all outlets, is defending the CNN report.
-And just to be clear: The CNN report didn't go into specific allegations listed in the Buzzfeed report, despite the Trump team's best efforts to confuse and conflate the two. And make no mistake, that's exactly what they're trying to do. It's standard operating procedure for the Trump team, really; blur the line between real and "fake" news. And thus far, it's clearly worked; it's hard to see any other candidate having these kinds of legitimate allegations tied to them and still winning an election.
-Naturally, that didn't stop plenty of right-wing folk from getting overwhelmed with glee at Trump dressing down that CNN reporter and threatening to kick him out. Good to know that this is how the leader of the free world is going to deal with any reporter that runs a story he doesn't like. And no doubt his supporters will eat it up. This still does not bode well for anybody interested in the president being held accountable for what he does going forward, and makes it that much harder for the free press to do their job.
-As far as whether there's anything to the actual contents of said dossier... that's hard to say. I'm skeptical, particularly of the more salacious bits, but at this point I'm not sure I'd be surprised either way. Clearly the intelligence community isn't dismissing it entirely, nor taking it completely at face value. Note that Trump's not even denying at this point that his campaign ever had contacts with the Russian government. And Trump isn't doing himself any favors by blasting his own intelligence agencies over both this leak and the information they've attempted to present him, and that could present some problems for him down the road, whether it's defection from said agencies because they're tired of being made his scapegoats, or the possibility of more damaging leaks from within, or even the possibility that Trump hurts his own credibility down the line when he wants to act on the intelligence provided to him after repeatedly attempting to discredit the people that supplied him with said intelligence.
-What's getting a bit buried in all this, though: the entirely laughable way in which the issue of his many business conflicts of interest are being addressed by... not really being addressed. Sure, his kids are going to keep running the company, he will still hold stock in it, and there are plenty of ways in which he can benefit himself financially through his policies, both foreign and domestic. But you can totally trust him, because reasons. Of course, that doesn't drive the ratings or get the clicks like those other stories do, so it gets lost in the shuffle.
And that might be the most worrisome part of all this. There's obviously already plenty of people that won't believe anything that doesn't come from a source that confirms their bias, and a good chunk of people that will take Trump at his word no matter what. I've written at length here about this election being the one where the American people finally decided that facts no longer matter, and this whole incident is reinforcing that like no other. And despite them being not so much a "news" outlet as much as a purveyor of nostalgia-based listicles, BuzzFeed having run with a story of such questionable veracity is only going to serve to make people more skeptical of the media's credibility should another potential scandal arise.
Which is truly the greatest gift they could have given the president-elect.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Lions Back Into Playoffs, But Don't Expect Them To Win Saturday
It's hard to argue that this is a football team deserving of a postseason bid.
Certainly the last three weeks wouldn't indicate as much.
With their fate firmly in their hands, assured of the NFC North title with just one more win, they crumbled.
And yet, the Detroit Lions are playoff bound, if only because a Dan Snyder-owned football team once again underachieved, one of few things you can always count on in the NFL. Sunday's win for the Giants made it official before kickoff at Ford Field that night, and the Lions came out and played like they had something to prove... for the first two quarters.
After the half, however, it was almost as though a completely different football team had replaced them.
Whether it was the coaching staff failing to make adjustments or simply playing not to lose, the third quarter saw the Lions with a total of eight offensive plays and no points, as the linebackers and secondary (save for Darius Slay, who managed to keep Jordy Nelson off the scoreboard) had no answers for Aaron Rodgers and the Packers' offense and the worst pass defense in the league played like it. Zach Zenner shined in the first half, then disappeared in the second, much like the week prior, which is more an issue with the coaches then Zenner. Matthew Stafford played well, save for a few miscues, missing a wide-open Golden Tate early on and nearly throwing a pick-six to Clay Matthews. But when you're facing a QB like Rodgers that stymies defenses like Detroit's and simply doesn't make those kinds of mistakes, the margin for error is a thin one.
But, despite their best efforts, the Lions are headed to Seattle this Saturday for what figures to be another one-and-done playoff appearance, the second of Jim Caldwell's tenure in Detroit. The diehards among this fanbase, however, will tell you that a win at CenturyLink Field is entirely possible, citing a couple prior Super Bowl champions, the 2009 New Orleans Saints and the 2012 Baltimore Ravens, that also tanked to finish off their seasons.
This, of course, is a ridiculous argument on a couple different levels.
For one, it's not just the last three weeks that should inspire doubt in this team; the Lions haven't beaten anybody of consequence this year. Not a single win over a playoff team or a team with more than eight wins this season, and they only have only two of them, both against the Packers, in the time Caldwell has been coaching here. Taking on the Seahawks in Seattle, where they've only lost one game this year, doesn't look to go well at all for them. In four of the last five seasons, including this one, the Seahawks have lost one or fewer games at home. Even going up against a mediocre offense like Seattle's, Detroit's defense simply isn't good at all. If you're a fan of advanced metrics, the Lions rank 27th in Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. Their offensive line is essentially being held together by duct tape and chewing gum. Even with the emergence of Zenner, this team still desperately misses Theo Riddick, who could be counted on to bail Stafford out under pressure. Even for a Seattle defense missing Earl Thomas, there's plenty of holes to exploit here.
And any comparisons to the '12 Ravens and the '09 Saints are ludicrous. The Ravens beat two other playoff teams, and a few others with records of .500 or better, during the regular season, and they won their second-to-last game of the year. Hardly a comparison to this team. As for the '09 Saints, they started the year 13-0, beat three other playoff teams and two others with winning records in the regular season. And while one of those late-season losses was to bottom-feeding Tampa Bay, they destroyed that same Bucs team earlier in the year. They didn't back into the playoffs; they clinched the top seed in the NFC well before. This isn't even close to what the Lions did this year.
Of course, the excuses are already being made for this team; the officials were just announced, and they've apparently already blown this game for the Lions. Seems to be a reflex (or perhaps a coping mechanism) from being a long-term fan of this team; before the game is even played, start looking for a reason for the inevitable loss to not be the fault of the team or coaching staff.
Is the season a success if this team advances no further? Maybe if you're going by lowered pre-season expectations, but otherwise, it's hard to make a case for it. Going out losing four in a row would suggest this team never belonged in the playoffs at all, and that the late-game comebacks earlier in the season were due more to a combination of good luck and inferior competition.
The Lions won't be seeing any more of the latter this year.
And all indications are that they've run out of the former.
Certainly the last three weeks wouldn't indicate as much.
With their fate firmly in their hands, assured of the NFC North title with just one more win, they crumbled.
And yet, the Detroit Lions are playoff bound, if only because a Dan Snyder-owned football team once again underachieved, one of few things you can always count on in the NFL. Sunday's win for the Giants made it official before kickoff at Ford Field that night, and the Lions came out and played like they had something to prove... for the first two quarters.
After the half, however, it was almost as though a completely different football team had replaced them.
Whether it was the coaching staff failing to make adjustments or simply playing not to lose, the third quarter saw the Lions with a total of eight offensive plays and no points, as the linebackers and secondary (save for Darius Slay, who managed to keep Jordy Nelson off the scoreboard) had no answers for Aaron Rodgers and the Packers' offense and the worst pass defense in the league played like it. Zach Zenner shined in the first half, then disappeared in the second, much like the week prior, which is more an issue with the coaches then Zenner. Matthew Stafford played well, save for a few miscues, missing a wide-open Golden Tate early on and nearly throwing a pick-six to Clay Matthews. But when you're facing a QB like Rodgers that stymies defenses like Detroit's and simply doesn't make those kinds of mistakes, the margin for error is a thin one.
But, despite their best efforts, the Lions are headed to Seattle this Saturday for what figures to be another one-and-done playoff appearance, the second of Jim Caldwell's tenure in Detroit. The diehards among this fanbase, however, will tell you that a win at CenturyLink Field is entirely possible, citing a couple prior Super Bowl champions, the 2009 New Orleans Saints and the 2012 Baltimore Ravens, that also tanked to finish off their seasons.
This, of course, is a ridiculous argument on a couple different levels.
For one, it's not just the last three weeks that should inspire doubt in this team; the Lions haven't beaten anybody of consequence this year. Not a single win over a playoff team or a team with more than eight wins this season, and they only have only two of them, both against the Packers, in the time Caldwell has been coaching here. Taking on the Seahawks in Seattle, where they've only lost one game this year, doesn't look to go well at all for them. In four of the last five seasons, including this one, the Seahawks have lost one or fewer games at home. Even going up against a mediocre offense like Seattle's, Detroit's defense simply isn't good at all. If you're a fan of advanced metrics, the Lions rank 27th in Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. Their offensive line is essentially being held together by duct tape and chewing gum. Even with the emergence of Zenner, this team still desperately misses Theo Riddick, who could be counted on to bail Stafford out under pressure. Even for a Seattle defense missing Earl Thomas, there's plenty of holes to exploit here.
And any comparisons to the '12 Ravens and the '09 Saints are ludicrous. The Ravens beat two other playoff teams, and a few others with records of .500 or better, during the regular season, and they won their second-to-last game of the year. Hardly a comparison to this team. As for the '09 Saints, they started the year 13-0, beat three other playoff teams and two others with winning records in the regular season. And while one of those late-season losses was to bottom-feeding Tampa Bay, they destroyed that same Bucs team earlier in the year. They didn't back into the playoffs; they clinched the top seed in the NFC well before. This isn't even close to what the Lions did this year.
Of course, the excuses are already being made for this team; the officials were just announced, and they've apparently already blown this game for the Lions. Seems to be a reflex (or perhaps a coping mechanism) from being a long-term fan of this team; before the game is even played, start looking for a reason for the inevitable loss to not be the fault of the team or coaching staff.
Is the season a success if this team advances no further? Maybe if you're going by lowered pre-season expectations, but otherwise, it's hard to make a case for it. Going out losing four in a row would suggest this team never belonged in the playoffs at all, and that the late-game comebacks earlier in the season were due more to a combination of good luck and inferior competition.
The Lions won't be seeing any more of the latter this year.
And all indications are that they've run out of the former.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Aftermath 2016: Everything You Know Is Wrong.
Hell really has frozen over.
In a year that has already proven that impossible doesn't mean a thing, the American people took that to another extreme last night, voting Donald Trump to be our next president. And as I try to make sense of it all, a few bullet points:
In a year that has already proven that impossible doesn't mean a thing, the American people took that to another extreme last night, voting Donald Trump to be our next president. And as I try to make sense of it all, a few bullet points:
- And that is why you don't call the election weeks out from the actual election. (Associated Press, take note.) I'm amazed at how so many otherwise reputable pollsters and news organizations got this so very wrong; somebody at the Freep has gotta be out of a job after calling Michigan for Hillary maybe 30 minutes after the polls closed.
- On "political correctness" and the last shreds of decorum in politics: Y'know, I'm about as much of a defender of the First Amendment as anybody you'll find. I mean, I work in talk radio; how could I not be? And the second unpopular speech becomes criminalized, it's a step towards an authoritarian government that runs contrary to everything this country stands for. That very principle is a big part of why I could never support Trump's candidacy. But if there's one thing I'm most disappointed about in this election process other than the result, it's the fact that a decent number of his supporters have taken their leader's "war on political correctness" to mean that they should be allowed to be a dick without repercussions. Worse yet is the fact that Trump's election appears to have emboldened morons like these to go out and terrorize people.
That said, it should go without saying that not all Trump supporters are racist, sexist, or homophobic; hell, the majority of them aren't. But there is clearly a loud, vocal subset of his supporters that would have every Muslim in this country shipped out or in an internment camp, that really are scared of the idea of white people no longer being the majority and see other races as inferior, or that believe the LGBT community isn't entitled to the same rights straight folk are. Thankfully, that's not the case among my friends, online or elsewhere, though if I'm wrong and you are one of these, kindly show yourself the door. Because if you think this is acceptable behavior in a civilized nation, you're clearly no friend of mine.
But as it turns out, throwing every nasty name in the book at Trump supporters didn't convince them not to vote for the guy. Keep in mind: the people you're hurling such invective at are still, in fact, people, and you still have to coexist with them for the next four years. Furthermore, you're going to have to win some of them over to have a chance to effect the change you want to see in this country. It's not just die-hard conservatives that voted for this guy, after all; I know at least a few independents and Bernie supporters that voted Trump in the general. While I don't agree with the decision, can you really blame them for not wanting to support a candidate and party that had the fix in for their guy from the start? And adding to the discord and division in this country isn't going to accomplish that, even if your cause is righteous.
- I am, however, skeptical of this narrative that "the people stood up against corruption": only one Senate seat and 6 House seats changed hands. How does this make any sense? The American people supposedly wanted change, and yet they voted to retain 98.5% of the Congress with some of the lowest approval ratings in history. Ya really do get the government you deserve, I suppose. And of course, there's still a vacancy in the Supreme Court to fill, and that will give the GOP control of every branch of the federal government for at least the next two years. I'm just hoping like hell Ginsburg hangs on til 2020.
- Does this mean we're finally done with Hillary Clinton running for President? I mean, by all logical rights, this shouldn't have been this close of a race. It's hard to imagine that any other potential Democratic candidate could have fared worse here. But the Democrats had to go and pick the person with the most possible baggage to run for the office because it was "her turn." And I don't wanna hear about how "third parties" did this to you; you knew how flawed your candidate was, and you didn't make a better choice in the primary. And yet, the people who pointed this out at the time were either ignored or even labeled sexist for not going all-in on Hillary, a rather odd turn considering that many of those cast protest votes for Jill Stein.
You can argue all you want about whether a Sanders candidacy would have gotten it done against Trump, but would he really have done worse? It's hard to see the "socialism" card being played as effectively against him as the "corruption" card was against Hillary, who had the misfortune of representing the status quo in a year where the people wanted change, while also having a fair share of scandal following her around, some of which had more substance than her backers would ever admit. Don't get your hopes up about another Sanders run, either; he'd be 79 on Inauguration Day 2020, making him by far the oldest man to ever take the office. Hopefully Liz Warren takes a run at it in the next cycle.
- I find it amusing that so many of the same people who have spent the last eight years telling anyone who will listen that Obama was "not my president," the people that were threatening to move to Texas and secede from the union if Hillary got elected, the people who yelled to anyone who would listen that the election would be "rigged" if Hillary won it, the people who have insisted that Obama isn't even a legitimate citizen, much less a legitimate president, are now telling everybody else to suck it up and get behind their guy. After, of course, the requisite gloating, which won't be forgotten come 2020. Somehow, the party that has thrown fits every step of the way since 2008 expects the other half of the country to get over it and fall in line behind their guy from day one. And as such, I'm inclined to cut President Trump as much slack as Obama has been given by the other side for the last eight years. Which is to say, none.
I'll say this much: if he does manage to make favorable trade deals, if his childcare proposals come to pass, if he addresses the rising cost of student loans, if he actually takes meaningful steps towards campaign finance reform, I'll be more than happy to give credit where due. At the same time, I will absolutely criticize and call him out when his policies hurt the American people. I worry for the friends of mine that finally got access to health care under the ACA, flawed program though it may be, and will most likely lose it under the new administration. I worry for the gay, lesbian, and transgender friends of mine who potentially stand to face legalized discrimination for being who they are. I worry that the environment is pretty much screwed unless Trump can be convinced that the prospect of climate change would be bad for his own business interests.
- But for all the talk during the campaign, I doubt that Trump will get most of the things he wants. Personally, I just want to be in the room when Trump tries to sell Congress on the idea of term limits and bans on lobbying and gets laughed out of the Capitol building. Of course, this also assumes he doesn't leave that idea by the wayside when he takes office. Do I hate the idea of him nominating at least one Supreme Court justice, if not more? Absolutely. Do I think conservatives are going to get their wish of having Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges overturned? Honestly (and thankfully), I don't. Do I think Trump himself even wants those things? It's hard to say. He did come out and criticize North Carolina's HB 2 at times this year, though he has also somewhat defended it, and has stated in the past he would like to make sexual orientation a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (As for Mike Pence, supporter of gay conversion therapy and some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, that's another story.) Do I think "the wall" will get built? Absolutely not. Do I think the promised mass deportations will happen? Doubtful. Are those manufacturing jobs coming back? Not likely. Hell, even the most loathsome of his proposed assaults on the First Amendment won't happen; Congress wouldn't stand for it, and even the most conservative judges he could appoint would never uphold it. Of course, it's hard to know what he truly wants anyway, as his positions have shifted continuously over the years, and even quite a bit during this campaign.
Ultimately, as much as I'd like to jump on the doomsday bandwagon like some of my liberal friends, and as much as I find many of Trump's policy proposals to be positively reprehensible, this isn't going to be the last presidency in U.S. history. This country has survived a civil war, two World Wars, countless other military conflicts, stock market crashes, terrorist attacks, and some truly awful presidencies. (The 43rd comes to mind.) And yet, we're still here.
And if there's one other thing that gives me some semblance of comfort, it's this: there's still half of the country that feels the way I do, they're not going anywhere either, and their fight doesn't end because of one loss at the ballot box. Look, people, you're not moving to Canada, and rioting in the streets over the results of a fair election won't change the outcome. So take that energy and put it towards something productive, because there's a lot of work to be done to make sure the progress made in this country doesn't take a step backward. Get involved. Get informed. Make your voice heard. Hell, run for office. And, y'know, maybe put aside the "you're all a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes" rhetoric away for a while; if we're going to win hearts and minds, maybe blatantly insulting people isn't the best way to accomplish that.
- One final thought in all of this... In the span of a week, the Chicago Cubs won a World Series and Donald Trump got elected president. I'm almost forced to ask:
Might this be the Lions' year?
Monday, November 7, 2016
Election 2016: Who Cares We're Screwed Anyway.
At least it's almost over... right?
This has been, quite possibly, the most contentious election season in recent memory. Few candidates have been quite as reviled as the two major-party choices staring down voters in this presidential race, and no doubt that's contributed to the discord and political fatigue quite a bit. (And believe me, not many things will cause you as much political fatigue as working in talk radio.)
But beyond even that, I can't recall a presidential race that has engendered this level of venom in so many people, nor one that has torn as many friendships apart as this. Which is a concept I just cannot wrap my head around, as I've never been one to consider that an option. One of my best friends in this world is about as Republican as they come. Another, a straight-up libertarian. And we argue and debate about everything politically, and disagree on a good portion of it. Usually at the bar, usually over a beer or two. And yet, we're able to leave it at that and still have fun hanging out. It doesn't carry on past that conversation, it doesn't leave anybody with anger, resentment, animosity, whatever. (It also doesn't leave anybody's mind changed either, usually, but that's not the point.) Because contrary to what you read on Facebook, it is still possible to be friends with people with whom you disagree on things.
But that doesn't seem to be the case for many folks anymore. Between the Trump crowd arguing that anyone that doesn't wanna see real-life Biff Tannen as leader of the free world supports corruption, and the HuffPost thinkpieces about how it's totally okay to end friendships over politics because you're a better person than they are, it's all getting a bit ridiculous. Maybe it's the fact that in the past, these conversations didn't happen because it wasn't considered particularly polite to discuss politics and religion with everybody you met. Or maybe it's that there wasn't a Facebook, or any social media, with which to shout all your political affiliations and beliefs to the world with a single click.
Or maybe it's something to do with the choice faced this year between the two most polarizing presidential candidates in modern political history.
The seemingly obvious place to start is with Republican nominee Donald Trump, a man who prides himself on saying the worst possible thing at pretty much any time. But beyond the ridiculously offensive, insulting, and factually inaccurate statements he makes on a minute-by-minute basis, there's his charitable foundations's illegalities, housing discrimination, his fraudulent university, his bankruptcies, getting bailed out of his casino's debt through illegal means, his employing of undocumented immigrants while blaming them for everything that's wrong with this country, his money made off the backs of unpaid contractors, his illegal use of his charitable funds to pay his own legal bills, and oh, that time when he bribed a sitting attorney general not to prosecute his fraud university. And that's all before you get to his actual policy positions, whatever they happen to be that day. This week, they appear to be privatizing roads and the idea that climate change is BS... unless it threatens one of his business interests. Lest you think he's finally committing to staying on point, though, he did still find time in his most coherent major policy speech to date to threaten to sue the women that have accused him of sexual harassment and the media that report on the things he does.
In any other year, it would be hard to see Trump even having a chance at the presidency. Unfortunately, the Democrats found the one politician as hated by the right as Trump is by the left: Hillary Clinton, who's been the subject of a cottage industry since the 90's devoted to exposing every impropriety, real or imagined, that she's had even a tangential connection to. The number of scandals to her credit is staggering, but how many of them have any substance? Not as many as her opponents might think, but more than her supporters would like to admit. The fact that she made it out of the primary is truly a testament to her campaign team, or as you might know them, the DNC. There's the Clinton Foundation and it's seeming pay-for-play arrangements and other improprieties, which we can't prove with absolute certainty any "play" was involved, though there was certainly plenty of "pay" in a couple ways. There's the emails, the only thing of substance to come from four years of Benghazi hearings and the most damning of accusations against her. Though it looks as if the FBI has ended its investigation into this for good, there's still the fact that information that was classified on some level was found on this server, and that's still kind of a problem. And while her social and economic views are more agreeable to mine, the fact that several neoconservatives involved with the Bush administration have endorsed her is cause for some concern as far as foreign policy goes.
With candidates like these, it's not hard to see why voters are looking to other options. The problem is, those options aren't a whole lot better. In the early stages of the general election, when iit first appeared a Trump-Clinton matchup was inevitable, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson enjoyed something of a surge in popularity, portraying himself as the only reasonable guy running. Then, his "Aleppo moment" happened. Then a couple more. And since then, many of his public appearances have bordered on bizarre, to the point where his own vice president has all but endorsed Clinton. But if you put all that aside and look at his policies... those, like their proponent, are kind of a mixed bag. He's for all the civil liberties one could possibly have, but economically he's in favor of replacing the IRS with a national sales tax, which would be felt more by the lower and middle class. And he's a man of many contradictions: he wants to eliminate a number of federal agencies, but would have others pick up many of the same duties. He wants more transparency in government, yet supports the Citizens United ruling. He's a non-interventionalist that opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he would not commit to opposing drone attacks in the Middle East. He believes human carbon emissions do have an effect on the climate, but not enough to do anything about it... but who cares, because eventually the sun is going to expand and engulf the Earth anyway.
Then there's Jill Stein, who has somehow been arrested more during her campaigns for office than either of the two major candidates, which is disappointing in a few different ways. True to her party, the environment is definitely a top priority; she's called climate change "a greater threat than World War II." And she's put her freedom where her mouth is there; the arrest I mentioned earlier came as she was protesting at the planned site of the Dakota Access Pipeline. She's also been the only candidate to support the implementation of instant-runoff voting, which in itself makes me want to vote for her out of principle. And as you'd expect, she's rather socially liberal as well. But, her economic policy isn't exactly lighting the world on fire. She's proposed forgiving all student loan debt through quantitative easing, which she says is a "magic trick that basically people don't need to understand any more about than that it is a magic trick." You can't make this stuff up. Needless to say, it's a bit more complicated than that. Between the magic tricks, the borderline 9/11 trutherism, the borderline anti-vaxxer stance, the belief that WiFi causes health issues and a stance on GMO's that certainly seems to run contrary to the opinions of much of the scientific community, you almost have to ask: "Are we sure she seriously has a medical degree from Harvard?"
Then there's the even more fringe candidates, from Evan McMullen, the independent Republican candidate whose sole purpose seems to be to win Utah; Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party, the party that wonders what would happen if we got rid of that whole "separation-of-church-and-state" thing; Tom Hoefling of America's Party, which is even further to the right; about 20 different socialist candidates, and dozens of write-ins. If you're considering a write-in, take note that these are the only candidates that will be counted, so even if you're feeling the Bern or considering a protest vote for Cruz or Carson, just know that your vote literally will not count.
As if having to pick the lesser oftwo four six way too many lessers wasn't bad enough, the other unfortunate side effect of this election has been the apparent dismissal of facts as being meaningful in any way. There was a time in which the credibility of a page like Snopes (or Politifact, or FactCheck) was unassailable, and that once debunked urban legends could be put to rest outside of the most conspiracy-minded folk. But something has changed with this election cycle: facts don't matter anymore, and if you believe something hard enough, then eventually it becomes accepted as truth. And when you have presidential candidates openly courting the fringes and empowering blindly partisan ideologues that demand that their opinions count as much as everybody else's facts, you get what has happened over the last 16 months.
For one example, look no further than the case of Bill Clinton's supposed illegitimate child. A paternity test was done in 1999, and Clinton wasn't found to be the father, a fact that was even run by right-wing blogger and 30's film noir detective Matt Drudge. But now that story has resurfaced, and when one tries to remind those spreading that story that it was already disproven, the response is either to ignore the proof, or claim that the source of the debunking is biased against them, which creates an odd moment of irony when the Drudge Report is being accused of liberal bias. Then of course, there are the "body counts," which have been disproven a few times over. Of course, you also have the occasional stories about Trump's Russian ties which thus far have been more smoke than fire. But this has got to be the first election in modern U.S. history in which this many people believe a major presidential candidate is literally murdering political enemies, without a shred of evidence to support it.
And rehashing the conspiracy theories of the 90's is one thing, Inventing new ones is another altogether. Take this story, from a website calling itself "The Denver Guardian," claiming that an FBI agent in Walkerville, Maryland suspected of leaking Clinton emails had his home burned to the ground with he and his wife inside it. Sure, they say it was a murder-suicide, but Hillary is clearly behind this! Problem is, everything about this story starts to unravel when you look into it even a slight bit. For example, any record anywhere of any of these events happening. The link to local TV outlet WHAG linked in the story defaults to the front page of the station's website, which shows absolutely nothing about the story in question. A cursory glance of major news sources turns up nothing. The people in the story don't exist, and Walkerville isn't even a real city. Even the claim of the paper's very existence crumbles under the slightest bit of scrutiny: "Denver Guardian is Denver's oldest news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States." Except that no, that would be the Denver Post, which is at least a real thing that exists. Its social media links go nowhere, and its address is a tree in a parking lot next to a vacant building in Denver. Man, the Keebler elves must really be hurting for work these days. And most of the site is a placeholder with no content, the standard hallmark of the fake news site.
Now I clearly should not have to devote this much space to proving one of these absurd pieces false. But people who should know better are still falling for them on a daily basis. I never cease to be amazed by how people can question the objectivity of any and every major news organization, yet fake websites like these pass the snuff test, And I'm not about to argue against checking your sources and doing research; Jayson Blair-type incidents do happen (or Mitch Albom, if you prefer), and it's not hard to find examples where the press aren't doing their job thoroughly enough, or are running with outright falsehoods (the Slate article about Trump's server and the Russian bank; the Fox News claim that Clinton was about to be indicted before the investigation was ultimately closed again). But we're now more than ever in a place where you can show up with documented evidence of a claim, and be dismissed because your facts don't line up with the preconceived narrative the other person has already formulated in their head.
This is where this election cycle has left us.
And it forces one to ask: Can we get a do-over on this whole thing?
This has been, quite possibly, the most contentious election season in recent memory. Few candidates have been quite as reviled as the two major-party choices staring down voters in this presidential race, and no doubt that's contributed to the discord and political fatigue quite a bit. (And believe me, not many things will cause you as much political fatigue as working in talk radio.)
But beyond even that, I can't recall a presidential race that has engendered this level of venom in so many people, nor one that has torn as many friendships apart as this. Which is a concept I just cannot wrap my head around, as I've never been one to consider that an option. One of my best friends in this world is about as Republican as they come. Another, a straight-up libertarian. And we argue and debate about everything politically, and disagree on a good portion of it. Usually at the bar, usually over a beer or two. And yet, we're able to leave it at that and still have fun hanging out. It doesn't carry on past that conversation, it doesn't leave anybody with anger, resentment, animosity, whatever. (It also doesn't leave anybody's mind changed either, usually, but that's not the point.) Because contrary to what you read on Facebook, it is still possible to be friends with people with whom you disagree on things.
But that doesn't seem to be the case for many folks anymore. Between the Trump crowd arguing that anyone that doesn't wanna see real-life Biff Tannen as leader of the free world supports corruption, and the HuffPost thinkpieces about how it's totally okay to end friendships over politics because you're a better person than they are, it's all getting a bit ridiculous. Maybe it's the fact that in the past, these conversations didn't happen because it wasn't considered particularly polite to discuss politics and religion with everybody you met. Or maybe it's that there wasn't a Facebook, or any social media, with which to shout all your political affiliations and beliefs to the world with a single click.
Or maybe it's something to do with the choice faced this year between the two most polarizing presidential candidates in modern political history.
The seemingly obvious place to start is with Republican nominee Donald Trump, a man who prides himself on saying the worst possible thing at pretty much any time. But beyond the ridiculously offensive, insulting, and factually inaccurate statements he makes on a minute-by-minute basis, there's his charitable foundations's illegalities, housing discrimination, his fraudulent university, his bankruptcies, getting bailed out of his casino's debt through illegal means, his employing of undocumented immigrants while blaming them for everything that's wrong with this country, his money made off the backs of unpaid contractors, his illegal use of his charitable funds to pay his own legal bills, and oh, that time when he bribed a sitting attorney general not to prosecute his fraud university. And that's all before you get to his actual policy positions, whatever they happen to be that day. This week, they appear to be privatizing roads and the idea that climate change is BS... unless it threatens one of his business interests. Lest you think he's finally committing to staying on point, though, he did still find time in his most coherent major policy speech to date to threaten to sue the women that have accused him of sexual harassment and the media that report on the things he does.
In any other year, it would be hard to see Trump even having a chance at the presidency. Unfortunately, the Democrats found the one politician as hated by the right as Trump is by the left: Hillary Clinton, who's been the subject of a cottage industry since the 90's devoted to exposing every impropriety, real or imagined, that she's had even a tangential connection to. The number of scandals to her credit is staggering, but how many of them have any substance? Not as many as her opponents might think, but more than her supporters would like to admit. The fact that she made it out of the primary is truly a testament to her campaign team, or as you might know them, the DNC. There's the Clinton Foundation and it's seeming pay-for-play arrangements and other improprieties, which we can't prove with absolute certainty any "play" was involved, though there was certainly plenty of "pay" in a couple ways. There's the emails, the only thing of substance to come from four years of Benghazi hearings and the most damning of accusations against her. Though it looks as if the FBI has ended its investigation into this for good, there's still the fact that information that was classified on some level was found on this server, and that's still kind of a problem. And while her social and economic views are more agreeable to mine, the fact that several neoconservatives involved with the Bush administration have endorsed her is cause for some concern as far as foreign policy goes.
With candidates like these, it's not hard to see why voters are looking to other options. The problem is, those options aren't a whole lot better. In the early stages of the general election, when iit first appeared a Trump-Clinton matchup was inevitable, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson enjoyed something of a surge in popularity, portraying himself as the only reasonable guy running. Then, his "Aleppo moment" happened. Then a couple more. And since then, many of his public appearances have bordered on bizarre, to the point where his own vice president has all but endorsed Clinton. But if you put all that aside and look at his policies... those, like their proponent, are kind of a mixed bag. He's for all the civil liberties one could possibly have, but economically he's in favor of replacing the IRS with a national sales tax, which would be felt more by the lower and middle class. And he's a man of many contradictions: he wants to eliminate a number of federal agencies, but would have others pick up many of the same duties. He wants more transparency in government, yet supports the Citizens United ruling. He's a non-interventionalist that opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he would not commit to opposing drone attacks in the Middle East. He believes human carbon emissions do have an effect on the climate, but not enough to do anything about it... but who cares, because eventually the sun is going to expand and engulf the Earth anyway.
Then there's Jill Stein, who has somehow been arrested more during her campaigns for office than either of the two major candidates, which is disappointing in a few different ways. True to her party, the environment is definitely a top priority; she's called climate change "a greater threat than World War II." And she's put her freedom where her mouth is there; the arrest I mentioned earlier came as she was protesting at the planned site of the Dakota Access Pipeline. She's also been the only candidate to support the implementation of instant-runoff voting, which in itself makes me want to vote for her out of principle. And as you'd expect, she's rather socially liberal as well. But, her economic policy isn't exactly lighting the world on fire. She's proposed forgiving all student loan debt through quantitative easing, which she says is a "magic trick that basically people don't need to understand any more about than that it is a magic trick." You can't make this stuff up. Needless to say, it's a bit more complicated than that. Between the magic tricks, the borderline 9/11 trutherism, the borderline anti-vaxxer stance, the belief that WiFi causes health issues and a stance on GMO's that certainly seems to run contrary to the opinions of much of the scientific community, you almost have to ask: "Are we sure she seriously has a medical degree from Harvard?"
Then there's the even more fringe candidates, from Evan McMullen, the independent Republican candidate whose sole purpose seems to be to win Utah; Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party, the party that wonders what would happen if we got rid of that whole "separation-of-church-and-state" thing; Tom Hoefling of America's Party, which is even further to the right; about 20 different socialist candidates, and dozens of write-ins. If you're considering a write-in, take note that these are the only candidates that will be counted, so even if you're feeling the Bern or considering a protest vote for Cruz or Carson, just know that your vote literally will not count.
As if having to pick the lesser of
For one example, look no further than the case of Bill Clinton's supposed illegitimate child. A paternity test was done in 1999, and Clinton wasn't found to be the father, a fact that was even run by right-wing blogger and 30's film noir detective Matt Drudge. But now that story has resurfaced, and when one tries to remind those spreading that story that it was already disproven, the response is either to ignore the proof, or claim that the source of the debunking is biased against them, which creates an odd moment of irony when the Drudge Report is being accused of liberal bias. Then of course, there are the "body counts," which have been disproven a few times over. Of course, you also have the occasional stories about Trump's Russian ties which thus far have been more smoke than fire. But this has got to be the first election in modern U.S. history in which this many people believe a major presidential candidate is literally murdering political enemies, without a shred of evidence to support it.
And rehashing the conspiracy theories of the 90's is one thing, Inventing new ones is another altogether. Take this story, from a website calling itself "The Denver Guardian," claiming that an FBI agent in Walkerville, Maryland suspected of leaking Clinton emails had his home burned to the ground with he and his wife inside it. Sure, they say it was a murder-suicide, but Hillary is clearly behind this! Problem is, everything about this story starts to unravel when you look into it even a slight bit. For example, any record anywhere of any of these events happening. The link to local TV outlet WHAG linked in the story defaults to the front page of the station's website, which shows absolutely nothing about the story in question. A cursory glance of major news sources turns up nothing. The people in the story don't exist, and Walkerville isn't even a real city. Even the claim of the paper's very existence crumbles under the slightest bit of scrutiny: "Denver Guardian is Denver's oldest news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States." Except that no, that would be the Denver Post, which is at least a real thing that exists. Its social media links go nowhere, and its address is a tree in a parking lot next to a vacant building in Denver. Man, the Keebler elves must really be hurting for work these days. And most of the site is a placeholder with no content, the standard hallmark of the fake news site.
Now I clearly should not have to devote this much space to proving one of these absurd pieces false. But people who should know better are still falling for them on a daily basis. I never cease to be amazed by how people can question the objectivity of any and every major news organization, yet fake websites like these pass the snuff test, And I'm not about to argue against checking your sources and doing research; Jayson Blair-type incidents do happen (or Mitch Albom, if you prefer), and it's not hard to find examples where the press aren't doing their job thoroughly enough, or are running with outright falsehoods (the Slate article about Trump's server and the Russian bank; the Fox News claim that Clinton was about to be indicted before the investigation was ultimately closed again). But we're now more than ever in a place where you can show up with documented evidence of a claim, and be dismissed because your facts don't line up with the preconceived narrative the other person has already formulated in their head.
This is where this election cycle has left us.
And it forces one to ask: Can we get a do-over on this whole thing?
The Authoritative Guide To Doomsday.... er, Election Day 2016
It's that time again, for the third and thankfully final time this year.
In a year that has seen more political drama than any in recent memory, we're finally closing in on the home stretch, and within a week, we'll have a new president, congressman, prosecutor, and (hopefully) some peace and quiet. And as is customary around these parts, I run down the ballot and look at all the important races facing you tomorrow.
In a year that has seen more political drama than any in recent memory, we're finally closing in on the home stretch, and within a week, we'll have a new president, congressman, prosecutor, and (hopefully) some peace and quiet. And as is customary around these parts, I run down the ballot and look at all the important races facing you tomorrow.
- As far as presidential choices, you're already screwed before you cast a vote. As far as options that have enough ballot access to theoretically win, you have Donald Trump, a narcissist pandering to the most xenophobic wing of his party while offering little in terms of tangible policy; Hillary Clinton, whom you've no doubt been flooded with so many substance free "scandals" that it's almost too easy to overlook some of her actual concerning lapses in judgement; Gary Johnson, whose economic policy consists of "let's just get rid of all the rules and hope for the best," because as we all know, corporations never act in an unethical manner; and finally Jill Stein, who, when she's not busy speaking about economic policy as "magic tricks," spends her time giving vague credence to the tinfoil-hat wing of her party that believes vaccines cause autism and that 9/11 was an inside job. Endorsement? Hardly; they're all freakin' nuts!
- U.S. House- First off, if you're looking for anybody actually local, forget about it. Only one candidate claims a Lapeer County residence, and I use that term loosely. If you're looking for somebody to keep Lapeer County's best interest at heart... well, three of the four candidates showed up to the one general election forum held in Lapeer, and the front-runner wasn't one of 'em, so take that as you will. The candidates:
Paul Mitchell (R)- For starters, not the hair-care guy, but rather the proprietor of one of those for-profit colleges (Ross) who currently claims Dryden as home, but ran in Midland last election, and is also the money behind the campaign to take down the road debacle otherwise known as Proposal 1, which is about where his positive attributes end. Needless to say, my experiences with him on the campaign trail don't leave me sold on the idea that he'll take the concerns of his constituents into consideration. (This would be the candidate that did not attend the forum.)
Frank Accavitti (D)- A former mayor of Eastpointe and state rep in Macomb County. He has made a point of talking about bringing broadband to the Thumb, and that his jobs plan calls for incentivizing companies to run broadband across state right-of-ways. Opposes single-payer healthcare because "what about employees in the insurance industry/stockholders of insurance companies?"
Lisa Lane Gioia (L)- As one would expect from a Libertarian, sticks to the company line of nonintervention, ending the IRS and the Department of Education, and in general getting the federal government out of... well, everything.
Ben Nofs (G)- A Berniecrat disillusioned by the Democratic Party, with everything that implies, including support for single-payer healthcare and renewable energy. As the lone veteran running, he's made improving veterans' affairs a priority, and he's firmly against arms sales to foreign nations and propping up regimes that violate the basic human rights of their people.
- Prosecutor- One of those races that nobody typically notices until the incumbent really screws up, and in this case, the incumbent really screwed up. The current holder of the office, Tim Turkelson, will be out of a job no matter the outcome of this election, having made a few enemies too many in his time in office. Running to replace him:
Mike Sharkey (R)- Byron Konschuh's defense attorney, so it's pretty clear why he ran to unseat Turkelson. Certainly seems a conflict of interest that the county prosecutor could potentially try cases before a guy he defended at trial, though I'm sure certain corruption-based pages will ignore that.
Phillip Fulks (D)- The only candidate running for this office to not have had any ties to any of the myriad scandals involving Konschuh or Turkelson, and as such, the only one that won't be coming in with any baggage or conflicts of interest. If we're really all about a fresh start in the courthouse, this seems like a good place to start.
- Circuit Court Judge- Of course, my usual policy is to vote against whoever the Corruption Page endorses, but beyond that, the reasons to vote for Dave Richardson haven't been all that compelling. Not to say that he'd be a bad judge; I've not really heard anything bad about the man, other than that he was a Todd Courser supporter, which is admittedly about the worst thing you can say of somebody in Lapeer County. But when you're running as a write-in against an incumbent, the burden is on you to prove that your opponent is unfit to stay in office, and I can't honestly say that Richardson has done that. Honestly? I don't care where Nick Holowka throws his trash. Is he doing his job properly? That's definitely up for debate. Certainly, the lack of technological advancement and specialized courts, particularly the oft-mentioned drug court, which Lapeer has had in the past but has gone away in recent years amid cutbacks from the state. But it's also hard to determine how much of this Richardson would be able to implement. Seems rather interesting, though, that the same people who decry a "good ol' boys" network at the courthouse have no issue with it as long as they're in charge of it; note which sitting judge has thrown his endorsement behind Richardson, and note who's throwing their money behind him.
- State Representative- It's Gary Howell and Margaret Guererro DeLuca again, in a repeat of... this year's matchup. I like them both, though I've admittedly been a Deluca supporter since her first run for the office. But no matter who wins here, we'll have good representation in Lansing. Gary Howell may not have been my first, second, or third choice, but credit where credit is due: he has made good on several campaign promises since being elected, and has been light years ahead of his predecessor in regards to maintaining communication with his constituents. Truthfully, anybody willing to subject themselves to my line of questioning gets a point or two in my book! No shock here: the County Press endorses Howell; not at all a surprise, as its owner has been a major donor. As you might expect though, my support is still ultimately behind DeLuca.
- Lapeer Board of Education- There's two spots to fill, and one incumbent, a political newcomer, and two hyper-partisan candidates running to fill them.
Brad Haggadone- The lone incumbent running, despite being all of two years removed from high school. Seems to have the support of the rest of the current board, though he's also hitched his wagon to Jan Peabody's candidacy, as the other Republican running.
Lisa Novak- Serves as Associate Professor of Accounting at Mott Community College, and worked for years in accounting for K-12 public education, so there's no doubt she has a background that would make her an excellent fit for the job.
Jan Peabody- Lapeer County GOP chair, whose last few runs at public office were largely bought and paid for by the DeVos family and the Great Lakes Education Project, which support union busting and privatization of schools. Hardly supporters of public education. Is amazingly still Facebook friends with me despite that I haven't supported a single attempt she has ever made to run for office.
Dave Campbell- The husband of a Lapeer schoolteacher, and a staunch pro-union Democrat currently employed in the prosecutor's office. Refused to attend the recent Tea Party-sponsored school board forum for predictable reasons: early tea party groups were supported by the Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity, whose Michigan director now chairs Donald Trump's campaign in this state, and both are inextricably tied to the Tea Party even now.
I'll address this at length here. When running for public office, it seems a bit counterproductive to refuse to address the public in any forum, even one as partisan as the Tea Party. Even more so when no other organization is willing or able to put together similar events. And to be clear, the Lapeer County Tea Party's political views are about the polar opposite of my own, as are those of the candidates they have endorsed. And yet I make it a point, when my schedule permits, to venture into the lion's den and attend the forums, despite the occasional blatant editorializing from the moderators. And you may recall that during the last state representative race, all three candidates in the general election showed up to face questioning, and boy, did Democrat Margaret DeLuca hear it from a couple of Tea Party diehards in attendance. But the point is, she still went, and you've got to respect anybody that's going into a room knowing the hosts are not particularly receptive to their cause, and making their case anyway. Despite completely sympathizing with his position, I really wish Campbell would have done the same.
Also worth noting: The Lapeer Education Association, which is currently embroiled in a contract dispute with Lapeer Schools over teachers taking pay cuts so their superintendent can get his 8% raise, endorses Campbell and Novak, so do with that as you will.
- Road Commissioner- Honestly? I don't know a thing about either one.
- College Boards of Regents- Don't know, don't particularly care, as I didn't go to U-M, MSU, or Wayne State.
- State Supreme Court- David Viviano and Joan Larsen are the incumbents, and if there's a compelling reason to vote against either, I'm not aware of it.
- Millages- The Lapeer County Veterans Affairs Office is up for a renewal of its current .10 mills, which should be a no-brainer, and the Lapeer County EMS seeks a 1-mill increase in taxes, with which it would expand its service and open additional bases in Metamora and Goodland Township. LCEMS' primary competition is Medstar, which just happens to be co-owned by a McLaren hospital in Macomb County and holds the lucrative contract with McLaren in Lapeer for medical transfer services. That cuts into the money that funds LCEMS, which has made it clear that a 'no' vote means a potential shutdown. Really it boils down to this: If you're not comfortable with having Lapeer County in the hands of a for-profit ambulance service that can't get to patients in outlying parts of the county in a timely manner because it's not worth it to them financially to staff those areas at the level LCEMS currently does, then vote yes.
Unfortunately, the County Press opposed the LCEMS millage in an editorial Sunday, though with Rick Burroughs' ties to McLaren and the fact that McLaren is a major advertiser in the Press and sister publication the LA View, it's not hard to see why. Now, I've got something of a tortured relationship with the local paper: I defend their reporters against anonymous slander and unmask the people doing the slandering, I get my name butchered in a picture taken at a gig. (Not the same reporter, by the way.) I call their editorial out for things like a bizarre double-endorsement that reads like it was mandated from on high, they write a spread about my radio gig. But things like this that read as obvious conflicts of interest are rather disappointing, and even more so considering that one man owns both countywide news publications and essentially controls what news is published in the county. (Yeah, I know, Tri-City Times, but try finding one of those west of Van Dyke and north of 21.)
- Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, do your research, people. Last Sunday's County Press had a pretty solid voters guide (if not some questionable endorsements), the county Tea Party hosted a forum or two; hell, I went so far as to stage a congressional debate in Lapeer. As is our usual custom, links to campaign pages are linked in this post so you can ask questions of these people yourself, and if you really wanna kill some time and stumble into the rabbit hole, look up who's funding them.
Even if you vote for Pedro in the presidential race, at least get out there and vote on the races and millages down the ballot. There's a lot more at stake than which mistake is going to hold the highest office in the land; if anything, several of these other races are likely to have far more effect on your daily life than the one up top.
And the same thing I asked of you in the last state rep race in March holds true for the next presidential race.
Whatever you do, for the love of all that is holy, don't let this happen again next time.
Monday, August 1, 2016
The Authoritative Guide To The August 2nd Primary
So here we are, once again.
Two days before the primary, and the races are looking as nasty as ever.
And your not-so-humble correspondent is still attempting to make sense of it all, which is a proposition easier said than done. There's much to hit on here, so we're gonna go with bullet-points for this one.
Two days before the primary, and the races are looking as nasty as ever.
And your not-so-humble correspondent is still attempting to make sense of it all, which is a proposition easier said than done. There's much to hit on here, so we're gonna go with bullet-points for this one.
- Todd Courser Speaks! Everybody's favorite political disgrace has crawled back out from the rock he'd been hiding under since announcing his run for prosecutor. In a far-too-long video posted this week, Courser rambled at length about several topics, from how he's the real victim here, to the prosecutor's race (Turkelson is corrupt, Sharkey's a social liberal, I'm the real victim here), to the "wombats" working for him in Lansing, back to how he's the real victim here. And the irony of Courser accusing Turkelson of wasting taxpayer money after racking up
a significant tab for the county in his own right is not lost on us. - The Endorsements Are In! I can't say I've been overly impressed with the editorial judgement of the County Press during this election season; while there are some damn fine reporters doing their best to be fair throughout the process, the judgement of the higher-ups has been a bit lacking. For starters: there's a race for Congress ongoing, one where there's a good possibility that it will be decided in the primary, and they've all but completely ignored it, focusing all their attention on the sheriff and prosecutor's races. Thankfully, the Times-Herald in Port Huron is doing the job for them, hosting one final debate tonight, to be live-streamed on their website.
Then, there's their not-at-all-surprising endorsement of Tim Turkelson, coming a week after they basically let McLaren run a full-page Turkelson ad in the back of the LA View. They also endorsed Scott McKenna, whose sticker is prominently featured on the front of today's paper. (EDIT: In the interest of fairness, Dave Eady's sticker ran on Thursday's LA View. And with McKenna, it's entirely possible that the ceaseless smears on him played a factor, along with Ron Kalanquin's refusal to repudiate them.) But in the case of the prosecutor and other recent races, the bizarre double-endorsement in the last state rep primary being a notable example, it seems rather obvious at this point just who the paper is in bed with, and it's hard not to feel bad for the hard-working reporters over there that have to be associated with it. - The corruption of the Corruption Page. Leave it to everyone's favorite online smear merchants to get away from the issues and into candidates' bedrooms, as several posts in recent days have flat-out accused the current prosecutor of having affairs with multiple women. Of course, the geniuses running that page also think Phil Foley personally writes the editorials for the paper, despite not being an editor, so take them with a grain of salt. But this is really what it's come to? "We're not saying Turkelson is sleeping with his secretary, but we're not not saying it either"? Is that all the burden of proof I need to post things now, too? So I could totally say something like, "I'm not saying the Lapeer County Corruption Page is run in part by a former courthouse employee, with very close ties to a former challenger to Kalanquin, and also has a personal vendetta against Scott McKenna rooted in a kids' sports team he coached, but I'm not not saying it either." Did I do that right?
- On to the actual voter's guide... we'll start with the prosecutor's race, which as pointed out prior, has essentially become a referendum on the Byron Konschuh trial. Because, if we're to be entirely honest here, what else is there to really campaign on? The winner will face Democrat Phillip Fulks in November.
Tim Turkelson- The incumbent. Made a few enemies in the courthouse by bringing Konschuh's misuse of funds to the attention of the state attorney general. Made even more by directly violating a judge's orders in another case, and more still by seemingly letting Matt Wandrie off the hook for his drunken hit-and-run incident. VOTE IF: You're one of those crazy people that believe that nobody should be above the law... except the top lawyer in town.
Mike Sharkey- Judge Konschuh's defense attorney, so it should be self-evident why he's running. To their credit, Team Sharkey did finally denounce the "Corruption" page when I spoke with them the other day, making it clear that there is no bad blood between Sharkey and primary target Scott McKenna. VOTE IF: You're one of those crazy people that believe nobody should be above the law... except the top judge in town.
Todd Courser- LOL. VOTE IF: You're one of those crazy people that believe nobody should be above the law... except former state representatives. - On to the Sheriff race, which will be decided in the primary.
Ron Kalanquin- The incumbent and very public face of the department, perhaps a bit too public at times, depending on who you ask. Much as in the last election, waited until the absolute last minute to declare his candidacy, despite voicing support to other candidates. His campaign and supporters have engaged in one of the worst smear campaigns in recent memory, throwing a litany of accusations against McKenna, most of them baseless at best and defamatory at worst. VOTE IF: You like your sheriff to have plenty of politician in him.
Scott McKenna- Formerly the chief of police in Mt. Morris, and currently on the receiving end of some of the worst smear attacks seen in this county since Todd Courser's first race for state rep. Has the support of a surprising number of employees of the sheriff's department, which should say something about the man in office currently. Admittedly, though, there are a few black marks on his time in Mt. Morris, with millages being passed but not being enough to prevent officer layoffs. VOTE IF: Relentless negativity towards (and occasionally from) a candidate won't dissuade you from voting for them.
Dave Eady- Former sheriff's deputy, and current county commissioner. Has the endorsement of the Lapeer County Firefighters Association and fellow commissioner (and friend of the blog) Ian Kempf, and has thus far avoided the mudslinging and borderline slander that this race has otherwise devolved into. Finally got to have a substantive discussion with him as well recently, and would not say so much as an unkind word about either of his opponents, despite the prompting of your humble correspondent, opting to focus primarily on a few things he felt that could be done to improve relations between police and the public. VOTE IF: You really just want all the attacks and bickering to be over already. - Moving on, there's a race for the 10th District Congressional seat vacated by Candice Miller. The winner will face Democrat Frank Accavitti Jr. and Libertarian Lisa Lane Gioia in November.
Tony Forlini- Current state representative in a district that is fairly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. As a certified financial planner and member of the House Appropriations Committee, has made much of his ability to balance a budget, and is easily the candidate most likely to appeal to non-Republicans in the general. But in a district that is heavily Republican outside of southern Macomb County, that may not much matter in the primary. VOTE IF: The ability to manage a budget is an important quality in the people you elect to manage a budget.
Paul Mitchell- The self-proclaimed "solutions" candidate, but his solutions don't seem much more workable than those of his competition. Spent a great deal in the effort to vote down the roads bill boondoggle known as Proposal 1. Moved to the district to spend a great deal to run for Congress again after losing a previous congressional bid in the 4th District. Will no doubt try to spend a great deal again elsewhere if he fails this time around. At least he makes some quality hair care products. VOTE IF: You believe you really can put a price on representation in Washington, and it just happens to fall in the $5-6 million range.
Phil Pavlov- Current State Senator for a district that includes St. Clair County, and formerly included Lapeer County as well. Given his unresponsiveness to his constituents and dismissive attitude towards pretty much everybody that doesn't toe his party line, the redistricting that changed that was no great loss for Lapeer. VOTE IF: You don't much like hearing from your congressman.
Alan Sanborn- Former State Senator, Sanborn doesn't deviate much from the party line. An unapologetic conservative fiscally and socially, he's the only candidate whose issues page on his website still devotes time to railing against same-sex marriage. I really hoped we'd moved beyond this. VOTE IF: You like your Republican politicians with a healthy dose of red-meat rhetoric.
David VanAssche- Another political newcomer, this one in his first-ever run for office, but without the pocketbook of Paul Mitchell. Spent most of his career in military service, and as he likes to point out, despite being a political newbie, he has more experience in Washington than any candidate in the field. If there's any one candidate qualified to speak on matters of national security, it's him. VOTE IF: You like your public servants to actually understand what the whole "public servant" thing means.
- As for our own endorsements... In all good conscience, I can't endorse anybody for prosecutor. Turkelson and Courser are clearly unfit to hold the job, and Sharkey doesn't engender much confidence either. Turkelson is still in the midst of his own contempt of court case for having refused a judge's order to return property that lawfully belonged to a former defendant that he attempted to prosecute; Sharkey and his team still don't understand the difference between not guilty and a plea deal; and Todd Courser may yet lose his own law license, pending the charges against him. None of these men should be allowed near this position, and knowing nothing of the Democratic challenger, I would still submit that he could not possibly be any worse in office.
In the sheriff's race, only one candidate has managed to avoid the ridiculous amount of mudslinging going on, and has remained focused on what he would do were he to win the election. That candidate is county commissioner Dave Eady, and he's absolutely got our endorsement. There's still too many legitimate red flags with Scott McKenna's candidacy, and Ron Kalanquin has shown far too much willingness to get in the gutter with him this time around.
Finally, the race to replace Candice Miller... I've gone through hours of video of debates with the five Republicans chasing after this seat, talked to three of them, and been ignored by one and blocked by another. And while most of them have given the standard boilerplate answers one would expect from their party, a couple of them stand above the fray. Forlini has offered up some of the most sensible solutions for current economic woes. Kudos as well, for being the only candidate on either side willing to commit to supporting a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United case. (EDIT: Sanborn and VanAssche voiced their support for the same this evening, during the Times-Herald forum, which can be viewed here.)
One of the political newcomers stood out as well, but not the one you'd expect. VanAssche, a 27-year Air Force vet and former Chief Mission Director for Air Force One, for which he served under the current president. More than any of his opponents, VanAssche offered an honest assessment of the state's culpability in the Flint water crisis, and the federal government's responsibility in helping to fix it. His quote to the Detroit Free Press sums it up well: "Unfortunately, leaders in government continue to fail to understand the concept of service before self." - A few other races of note.... There's a countywide millage up for renewal for the Suncrest Medical Care Facility which should certainly be approved. There are a few races in Mayfield Township up for grabs as well; among them, friend of the blog Jake Davison is running for township treasurer, whom we endorse as well. As for countywide races, there's two road commission seats being contested, as well as the drain commissioner's seat.
- One more suggestion while we're at it... Can we make these sheriff and prosecutor's races non-partisan already? Contrary to popular belief, there is sometimes an actual contested Democratic (or third party) primary in this county, at which point your options are give up your right to vote your conscience in a legislative race, or give up your right to vote at all in a race like the one for sheriff, where there is literally no opposition party running. The idea that one should have to be a member of a particular party in order to have any say whatsoever in a general election is absurd.
A tall order indeed, in this election cycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)