Alternative Facts, Fake News, Protests and Fascism

Over the past week or so, there has been no shortage of interesting developments across our nation and, more locally, in Missouri.  Now that I've had some time to digest these things in further detail, I thought I'd share some of my views on these issues.

• First, we had the bizarre spectacle in the days after the inauguration, in which the newly sworn-in President and his sycophants spent press conferences and interviews disputing the number of people who attended the inauguration.  This was quickly followed by the President yelling at media in a press conference and calling them "fake news" and his Chief of Staff telling the media to shut up.  The last time I checked, the First Amendment protected the freedom of the press and it's a startling development when the President and his Chief of Staff seem to basically be disregarding it.  Then, we had Kellyanne Conway justifying Trump's press secretary's claims as being "alternative facts," which may be one of the most ridiculous - not to mention dangerous - things I've ever heard.  Alternative facts?  No, there are facts and there are fiction.  Something is either true or it isn't.  This isn't "Back to the Future Part II," where there was a real 1985 and an alternate 1985.  It's an undisputed FACT that more people attended Obama's inauguration in 2009 and attended Trump's inauguration. 
• Next, who cares?  What difference does it make if there were 50,000 people or 250,000 people or a million people.  Does it really matter?  Hitler and the Nazis drew huge crowds to some of their rallies in Germany in the 1930s - that doesn't mean a huge crowd necessarily equates to anything good. 
• When you think about it, it makes perfect sense that Obama's crowds would have been larger.  First, his 2009 inauguration was an undoubtedly historic event - the first minority president in U.S. history, which is naturally going to ramp up attendance and excitement.  Also, consider the source of support for the respective presidents.  Much of Obama's support came from large cities and much of the Northeast, which is much more accessible to Washington, DC.  Trump's support came largely from the South and the middle of the country, as well as from more rural areas, folks for whom a trip to Washington, DC is more difficult.  Rather than offering up some of these things as reasons for a smaller turnout or, even better, just disregarding the issue altogether, Trump's crew instead argued about "fake news", "alternative facts" and media bias.
• The whole "fake news" accusation seems ironic as well.  Do I think the so-called "mainstream media" may have a more liberal bias?  Sure.  However, I always find it interesting when people who blast the mainstream media for hiding or not telling the truth are themselves under the spell of "fake" news media that unequivocally peddle untrue bullshit on a regular basis.  Some of these people are so blinded by their mistrust of the media that they will believe any crackpot website that spews inaccuracies that dovetail with their world view without ever doing any research to see where the truth may lie.  The fact that so many people - from both ends of the political spectrum - spend their lives in an echo chamber that only serves to reinforce their views and beliefs is a frightening thing.
• The day after the inauguration, we witnessed something unlike anything most of us have ever seen - simultaneous protests in cities from coast to coast and around the world.  And they were peaceful protests to boot!  I personally didn't participate, though I witnessed first hand how many people marched in St. Louis, as we were downtown for something else that morning. 
• I support the marchers for exercising their First Amendment rights, even if I'm still a little fuzzy on what the purpose of the protests were supposed to accomplish.  Protests themselves will accomplish little.  But if those protests subsequently spur people to get involved with running for office or reaching out to their government representatives to influence the direction of the country, then they will have achieved some long lasting impact. 
• Those marches cannot be the end all, be all of their efforts.  If people truly want to affect change, it has to be more than a few marches or protests.  The protests in Ferguson in 2014 accomplished very little.  But some of those protesters have subsequently been elected to public office where they can attempt to affect some of the changes they desire to see.  Time will tell the ultimate impact of the marches.
• Over the course of Trump's first week in office, he has shown that Trump the President will not be any different than Trump the Candidate.  Anyone hoping that the incredible responsibility of being the so called "Leader of the Free World" might temper his behavior has to, so far, be extremely disappointed.  He's continued saying and doing what he wants with little regard for the downstream impact of his actions.  Obviously, we're only a little more than a week into a four year term, so a lot of things can happen, but so far anyone hoping that Trump would govern differently than he campaigned has to be disappointed.
• Those who know me know that I'm not one to throw out labels or call people names.  However, there was a trending internet topic recently about whether or not Trump is a fascist.  While it may seem like hyperbole for someone to ask that question, there is actually some merit to it.  If you research the "14 signs of fascism", Trump and his Chief of Staff Bannon actually check several of the boxes:
• Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
• Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
• Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
• Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives.  (Think of Bannon basically telling the media that they need to shut up and Trump threatening to block some media outlets. Also, basically telling EPA and National Park Service employees that they can't speak.)
• Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
• There are a few others that might not exactly fit but certainly don't see outside the realm of possibility.  I'm not necessarily calling Trump a fascist, but there he and his cronies do seem to have some tendencies that lean in that direction.  It's just something for his unabashed followers to consider.
• I want America to be as successful as it can be and, from that perspective, I want Trump's presidency to be a success.  I didn't vote for him, but he's my president just as much as Obama, Bush or Clinton were before him.  I just disagree that the way to get there is to indiscriminately ban Muslims (albeit not from Saudia Arabia, the country that produced the majority of the 9/11 terrorists) or build walls or drum up tariffs in an effort to punish other countries or to nominate an Education Secretary who is unquestionably hostile to public education.  I don't think you "Make America Great Again" by tamping down dissent, picking fights with other world leaders or muzzling government employees.  But that's just my proverbial two cents.

Thanks for reading!

Corporate Welfare and Unbridled Greed

For the second time in just over a year, an NFL team is ditching its hometown for the glitz and, more importantly, dollars of Los Angeles.  Last year, it was St. Louis; this year, it's San Diego.  Some of the circumstances are a little different.  St. Louis and Missouri did everything it could to try to get the Rams a new stadium, but their owner had no interest in staying in the Gateway City.  The Chargers, on the other hand, wanted to stay in San Diego but that city had no interest in ponying up the money to pay for a new stadium.  (To which, I say "Kudos" to San Diego for standing up to the billionaire bully and not caving.  We need more cities and states to follow their lead!)  Regardless of the different circumstances, the end result is the same.  A billionaire owner turns it back on its fans in an effort to get even richer than he already is.

This continues a disturbing trend in professional sports: a billionaire goes up to the Average Joe on the street with his hand out asking for money to build a new stadium whose only benefit is to enrich the already wealthy owner.  It's a nice gig: get the working stiff making $15 an hour to pay for and assume all of the risk for a building that will produce minimal (if any) benefit for him while giving you untold wealth.  As an example, Dean Spanos (owner of the Chargers) claimed that he needed San Diego tax payers to pick up the tab for a new stadium because he couldn't afford to do so.  However, the other NFL owners had already agreed to give him $300 million dollars toward a new stadium.  Also, in order to move the team, Spanos will have to pay a $550 million relocation fee and another $12 million to buy out the remaining lease at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego.  Now, I'm lousy at math, but according to my calculations, $300 million + $550 million + $12 million = $862 million.  You can't build a football stadium for $862 million?  You need the tax payers to help you?  It's absurd.

And it's not just the teams relocating.  For years now, team owners have being crying poor and bilking states and municipalities into paying for new stadiums.  Often, the stadium the owners want to replace isn't even old enough to drink if it were a person.  Atlanta is the perfect example.  The Georgia Dome (home of the Falcons) opened in September 1992, so it's not even 25 years old.  Turner Field (home of the Braves) was built for the 1996 Olympics, so it's not even 21 years old yet.  However, Atlanta tax payers are paying millions of dollars to build new stadiums for both teams.  When the Rams left St. Louis, the Dome at America's Center was only 20 years old. 

Whatever happened to teams that played in the same building for decades and decades?  Think about all of the historic old arenas: Boston Garden, Chicago Stadium, St. Louis Arena, Montreal Forum, Maple Leaf Gardens.  Part of the appeal and fame of those buildings was that the hometown teams had played in those buildings for generations, something that none of these new buildings will ever achieve.  Now, buildings are supposedly antiquated and outdated after 15 or 20 years.  But it's not because they are really outdated.  It's because these wealthy owners are always looking for a shiny new thing that will help make them even more ridiculously wealthy than they already are.  It's not enough for them to have more money than they and their kids could ever spend.  Their insatiable greed causes them to ask for even more.  Also, it's not enough to have a new stadium.  It has to be bigger and fancier than the other guy's stadium.  It has to have more luxury suites, a bigger scoreboard, more box seats.  At the end of the day, none of those things are really for the fans; they only exist as an excuse to make that obscenely wealthy owner even wealthier.

Missouri's new governor recently referred to public financing of sports stadiums as "corporate welfare" and, whatever your political leanings, that is a very apt description.  Traditional welfare is public money that goes to people who cannot or choose not to work.  It's public dollars given out to someone for, in essence, doing nothing.  Is that really any different than public dollars given out to the owner of a sports team for not doing much of anything either?

However, it's not only wealthy sports owners who are recipients of this corporate welfare.  It happens all the time in the regular business world, too.  Far too often, we see businesses angling for state or local tax breaks to build a new building or a new factory in one state or city rather than another.  Companies play cities and states against one another looking for the best deal.  In these instances, "best deal" generally means whatever is going to cost the company the least.  While that may, on its face, that may seem like good business, what happens to that tax money that those companies don't pay?  It means less money for schools, roads, police and other infrastructure.  It also creates unfair competition, where one company is being subsidized by the government while the other is not.  I bear business owners and the wealthy no ill will (don't most of us dream of being a wealthy, successful business owner at some point?), but businesses and business owners should be successful on their own merits, not because government has its thumb on the scales on their behalf. 

Once upon a time, successful business owners were successful because of risk-taking and ingenuity.  The general public admired them and was not particularly bothered by their wealth because they understood that they had substantial skin in the game and they had stuck their necks out to be successful.  Oftentimes now, "successful" business owners are "successful" because they have managed to get the taxpayers to assume the risk on their behalf.  They reap the rewards without having to assume hardly any of the risk.  Again, it is corporate welfare but they can get away with it because there is always some other schmuck (in the form of a state, city or county) who will be willing to bend over for the rich guy and give him what you may not be willing to give him.

The irony of the whole situation is that many of these millionaires and billionaires rail about traditional welfare (They're lazy! They're druggies! They need to get a job!) but they have no issues holding their hand out and asking for free money from the public to help them reap untold riches while having to assume none of the risk.

The only way to end this corporate welfare cycle is for states, counties and municipalities from coast to coast to all say "enough is enough" and force the wealthy sports owners and business owners to assume the risk and sink or swim on their own merits.  As long as one state or city is willing to cave to the demands of billionaire sports owners (or, to a lesser extent, businesses), this cycle of corporate welfare will continue on in perpetuity.

Things That Baffle Me

We all have things in life that baffle us, things that make no sense at all to us no matter how much we think about them.  They may be pet peeves or just things we can't quite fathom.  Here are some of those things for me.

(DISCLAIMER: It's entirely possible that some of these may apply to you.  If so, I hope you will not take offense, because no offense is intended.  Maybe you can enlighten me.)

• People who don't wear seatbelts.  I realize that many of us may have never worn seat belts growing up, but in this day in age, it makes NO sense to EVER be in a car without wearing a seatbelt.  How many times have you seen a story on the news where someone was killed in an accident because they were ejected from the car?  Often, there will be someone else who was in the vehicle and WAS wearing a seatbelt and they survive the crash with only minor injuries.  It's something so simple and so easy that can save your life, so I just can't fathom why people would ever skip buckling up.
• The obsession with all things Apple.  Shopping malls may be on life support, but you can bet that the one store that is undoubtedly always busy is the Apple store.  I just don't get it.  I have two phones - a work phone that is an iPhone and a personal phone that is an Android phone, so I have had experience using both.  I just don't see why Apple people are so obsessed with iPhones or iPads.  The battery life on the iPhone is better, but that's about it.  The fact that you can't even download an app without logging into the Apple Store is annoying!  And these people who camp out to be the first person to get the new version of the iPhone?  Really?  What's the difference between those folks and the guy who gets the phone, say, 3 months later.  They both have the same phone, but the second guy got his for $100 less.  If you're an Apple devotee, that's your prerogative and I bear you no ill will.  I just don't get it.
• Pimped out cars.  This is especially true of the people who buy a fairly inexpensive car (think a Chevy Cruze or a Honda Civic) and then spend thousands of dollars to pimp it out with spoilers and shiny hubcabs, a huge stereo (that only makes the car vibrate and rattle when the bass kicks in), mufflers that make the car louder and ground effects.  The latter is the most baffling......why would you care to highlight the ground under your car?  Who are these people trying to impress? 
• The obsession with Disney World. Like most American kids, my parents took me to Disney twice when I was a kid.  I, however, haven't taken my kids there and I'm guessing (hoping?) that they are too old to want to go now.  We haven't gone for a couple of reasons.  First, the kids never really asked to go, so it never really came up.  Second, it's friggin' expensive!  We have family season passes to Six Flags and I have two partial Blues season tickets all for less than it would cost my family of four to go to Disney FOR THREE DAYS!  And that's just the theme park tickets!  That doesn't include lodging, meals, transportation, etc.  I just don't see it.  Spending that much money to wait in line all day - without even any good roller coasters - it just doesn't make sense to me.  And some folks go there year after year.  I could see going once, just to say you did it, but I can't see spending that much money to do the same thing year after year.  I know that many of you swear by Disney and think it's the most magical place on earth.  Good for you and I'll take your word for it.  I'll also choose to instead go to various Six Flags parks (with good roller coasters) numerous times and go to 12 Blues games a year while also saving several hundred dollars.  To each their own, I suppose.
• Earrings on guys.  Why?
• The Kardashians.  Why does anyone care ANYTHING about these people?  They have no talent or, really, any redeemable characteristics.  Yet people watch their shows and buy their products, which just feeds the animal and keeps it going.  I don't get it.
• Soccer.  Hear me out.  I don't have a problem with soccer players, aside from the diving and fake injuries.  Seriously, if you touch some of these guys at all, they go down like they were hit by sniper fire!  But it's not the players who baffle me.  It's some of the rules. Like the clock, for instance.  Why does it count up instead of down?  And why the heck don't they stop it during injuries or after goals rather than adding injury time to the end of each half?  Is it really that hard to stop the clock?  It just makes the end of the game somewhat anticlimactic because no one really knows when the game is going to end.  Also, the scoring.  In 11-on-11 play, nobody ever scores.  In a shootout, everybody scores.  Can't there be some sort of happy medium?  I mean, Seattle won the MLS Cup without even having a single shot on goal through 90 minutes of regulation PLUS injury time PLUS an extra 30 minutes.  That should NEVER happen.  They basically played not to lose and then figured they'd take their chances in the penalty kicks...and it wound up working.  At least move the penalty kicks back a bit to make it tougher on the shooters.  I hope St. Louis gets an MLS team and, if we do, I will support them and go to games, but some of these odd nuances of the sport just don't make sense to me.
• People who rip on baseball as being too boring but who absolutely love football.  Don't get me wrong, I like both sports and enjoy watching and breaking down the strategy of each.  But saying baseball has less action that football?  No way.  Football is 5 seconds of action followed by 40 seconds of everyone standing around, frequently interrupted by commercial breaks.  It's especially bad when you're at a game that is televised.  3 1/2 to 4 hours to play a game - yikes.
• Suburban white kids who listen exclusively to rap and hip hop.  Whatever happened to jamming out to some good old rock-n-roll?  I'm all for diversity in musical tastes (I can go from listening to Metallica to Turnpike Troubadours to Sarah McLachlan in consecutive songs), but I miss the days of the burnout with the mullet and jean jacket driving a Trans Am and rocking out to AC/DC.  (OK, maybe not the part about the mullet....or the jean jacket.....or the Trans Am.)
• Reality shows.  They're not real, okay people?  They're scripted just like other programs.
• People who make knee jerk assumptions about people or stereotype them without ever making an effort to get to know them.  This has gotten much, much worse in recent years, thanks to social media.  Not all young black males are criminals.  Not all wealthy white folks are racists.  Not all Muslims are terrorists.  Not all Southerners are ignorant backwards yokels and not all Northerners are elitist snobs.  Instead of just assuming you know someone because of the color of their skin or where they grew up or where they go to church or who they voted for, take the time to actually get to know that person.  I guarantee you they are more unique than you could ever imagine.

I'm also baffled that you have taken the time to read this list of things that baffle me!  As always, thanks for reading!