🗯️ They Just Don’t Get It

userpic=trumpThey just don’t get it – The First: Quid Pro Quo. The issue isn’t “quid pro quo” (QPQ) per se. QPQ’s happen all the time in statesmanship. We’ll give you foreign aid if you … The real issue is using your office for personal political gain — doing a quid pro quo that explicitly involves investigating your political opponent (personal gain), and using for leverage money explicitly authorized by Congress (abuse of authority). It’s the personal gain that makes this an abuse of power.

They just don’t get it – The Second: Rules of Evidence and Testimony. For all the blathering of Trump about evidence and trials, he’s forgetting one thing: THIS ISN’T A TRIAL. If the House chooses to move forward articles of impeachment, there will be a trial. That will be in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice, under the rules defined by the Senate. It won’t be a criminal trial … which means that the 6th amendment doesn’t come into play, and the right to confront your accuser. Remember: With impeachment, the most severe penalty is not jail, it is removal from office.

But we’re not at an impeachment trial yet. Right now, what the House is doing is analogous to the police and prosecutors doing the investigation to determine if there is a case to be prosecuted. Grand juries. Investigative legwork. There might be tips from informants, but the informant may never be needed again if the investigation of the tip finds enough evidence. This is all gathering evidence.

If the house investigative team finds sufficient evidence, then it will present their case to the full House. If the full House agrees there is a case, they will vote and pass articles of impeachment. An indictment, so to speak. This doesn’t mean guilt. It means the House feels there is enough evidence for a trial.

At that point — and only that point — the Senate conducts a trial to prove or disprove those articles. If proven, the person is removed from office. The Constitution defines no rules for this trial, other than the Chief Justice presides. So it is for Congress to determine the rules … not traditional jury rules, because this isn’t a criminal trial.

Lastly, remember that the Constitution does not require there to be a crime, in a criminal sense. It is also up to Congress to determine what it believes are sufficient “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Often, it has been abuse of power, in the form of obstruction of justice. Basically, the Congress doesn’t like it when the President tries to go around Congress, not let Congress do its investigatory job, or ignore the will of Congress, who supposedly represent the people.

There’s a great discussion of this latter issue in the TrumpConLaw podcast: https://trumpconlaw.com/35-confrontation-clause

Share

🎭👗 Cross-Dressing and the Theatre / Perhaps I’m Too Woke

Today, I started playing in the new musical Tootsie from my unplayed list on the iPod. This got me thinking about men dressing up as women in the theatre, and how it is increasingly problematic for woke audiences. Yes, it was traditional in Shakespeare’s day for men to dress as women, because women weren’t allowed on the stage. But I think about the two shows I recently have seen, Irma Vep and Baskerville, and how they had men dressing up as women. I think about shows like Sugar or Hairspray. I think about new musicals like Mrs. Doubtfire, and I have to ask myself: why are still still using this trope.

Think about it: Why do we dress up men as women. There seem to be many messages being sent.

First, that it is funny for a man to dress as a woman, likely because it is viewed as demeaning to do so. Today, that’s just wrong. People can wear whatever they want to wear. We shouldn’t find humor in that. I can see absolutely no reason, other than “traditional”, why Edna Turnblad couldn’t be played by a large woman. The humor in that character is in her size, not her genitals. This, I think, is also the reason for the cross dressing in shows like Vep or Baskerville.

Next, it is because with the man dressed as a woman, they are able to get jobs they were not able to get on their merits as men, and so they take a job away from a woman. TootsieDoubtfire, and Sugar are examples of that. Is it right for men to steal jobs from women by pretending to be women?

There’s also the trope that, as a woman, they are able to say things they weren’t able to say as men. In other words, they dress as women to avoid mansplaining.

Lastly, there’s the bit about dressing as a woman so as to deceive someone to have a relationship with them.

All of these are wrong. Now let’s look at the fewer times that a woman dresses as a man. I can think of three: Victor VictoriaTwo Gentlemen of Verona, and anything based on Twelfth Night. In all these cases, the women is dressing as the man to get some rights or privilege they couldn’t get a woman.

Think about what this says about our society.

I know of only one musical where the show gets cross-dressing right: Kinky Boots. But that’s because it is intentional drag. Priscilla: Queen of the Desert might also get it right for the same reason.

Share

🗯️ Blowing Things Up 💣

Oh, how I long for the days when the only thing we exploded on the 4th of July were fireworks in a celebration everyone could enjoy.

However, whenever I read the news today, I see this administration blowing up and destroying more than fireworks: they are destroying the norms, values, and protections that have made our country a leader in the world, and that “shining beacon on the hill”. They have allowed and encouraged foreign governments to interfere — directly or indirectly — in our elections. They have allowed administration officials to conduct partisan politics while on the Federal clock, violating the Hatch Act and not caring. They have eviscerated the power of science and facts in government policies. They have manipulated tax laws for their personal gain, and the gain of their cronies. They have ballooned the Federal deficit, again often for personal gain. They have placed industry lobbyists and executives in charge of the industries they are supposed to regulate. They have used bipartisan events for partisan purposes (such as rewarding GOP donors at the supposedly non-partisan 4th celebration). They have befriended dictators and despots, and taken their word over the word of the honest hardworking members of our intelligence communities. They have made consumer protection toothless, and are decimating organizations that protect Americans such as the USDA. They have ignored Congress and Congress’ constitutional role of oversight. They have made explicit efforts to pack the courts with partisan judges. They have attacked social security, medicare, and veterans benefits. They have repeatedly attempted to legislate religious policy as national policy. I could go on and on and on.

I ask myself often: why are they doing this? Yes, it plays to their base that hates government with such a seething anger that it blinds them to the good that government does for them. An angry base does keep people in power — often through violence, threats, and bullying — and these folks like their power.  It also benefits them financially in the short run. But I think, more importantly, it serves the interests of the puppet masters — those foreign powers that influence the election to elect these people. This is because the net, long term, result will be a diminished America. An America that is no longer the primary power on the world stage. An America that no longer has moral authority. An America that no longer has financial strength. An America that is in decline.

Yes, making America great was a smokescreen for something much more sinister.

Even more troubling are the people that are falling for this.  I’ve known many Conservatives over the years; and although we disagreed, I knew that at their hearts they were good people. But today, often their blind support for the administration, and the over-amped hatred of “The Liberal” from the administration and its anger-feeding minions have closed their mind and turned them away from what they once believed. These were people that believed in the rule of law, and that government must follow the laws and be ethical. These were people that believed that government must live within its means and not waste money. These were the people that believed in investigating government wrongdoing, and misbehavior by government officials down to the smallest indiscretion. These were the people that believed that foreign governments must not interfere in the operation of the American government.  These were the people in a party that held for liberty and justice FOR ALL.  But where are those beliefs now? Dead on the field, replaced by hatred and the desire to blow things up.

I find it hard to celebrate Independence Day this year, because I fear that thanks to these folks, the battle could be for nought. I fear that the damage that has been brought on in under three years will take us generations to reverse. I fear that these folks are moving the country in a very dangerous direction, a direction that keep feeding ultra-nationalism and hatred over actual care. I fear that folks who profess to be Christian have forgotten the key fundamentals of the Bible: Love and treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated, take care of the stranger in your land because you were once strangers yourself. Our compassion has been replaced by the quest for wealth and fear of the stranger, and that’s wrong.

I’ve taken a few minutes to write this up over lunch because it has been increasingly bothering me. It is why I have made contributions to those candidates I feel can best bring us out of this mess. It is why I’m encouraging everyone to learn what the candidates have to say, think about the America you truly want — an America that is that example for the world … and who can best bring us there. I’m encouraging everyone to get active and involved, even if you’ve sat out elections before, even if you’ve never voted. We have to combat the might and power of the foreign governments, the oligarchs (both foreign and domestic), and the top 1% who want to preserve their privilege. You need to be out there: whether it is speaking on social media, combating misinformation, getting out the vote, and donating even small amounts to the candidates you like. It all adds up, and we must bring back the days when the only fireworks we have to deal with are on the 4th.

And you better do it before they all take off for the Fourth of July weekend….

Share

🎭 A Place to Play and Grow

This morning, I read in the LA Times about actress Constance Wu’s tweet about the renewal of Fresh off the Boat, and the resulting kerfuffle, which was not actually about FOTB, but losing an artistic challenge as a result of the renewal. I have two words for Ms. Wu:

Intimate Theatre

In particular, Los Angeles’ vibrant 99-and-under seat theatre scene. I’m not an actor, but a long-time LA audience member. Something Actors Equity never learned about Los Angeles is that LA’s small theatres is where TV and film actors go to exercise their craft and find challenge. It is where they go to escape the doldrums of a character they know well, and explore roles — in short runs — that are vastly different than their TV roles. And I’m sure the small companies in LA would love to have Ms. Wu join them. The audiences in LA certainly would, because we need the diversity she would bring to the stage.

Don’t believe me? Ask folks like Laurie Metcalf, French Stewart, Dan Lauria, Dann Florek, and the many other “recognizable” TV actors I’ve seen on the 99-and-under stages here in Los Angeles.

Want that artistic challenge? You don’t need to leave your TV home. Just go to Santa Monica Blvd, Western, Electric Avenue, or the many other streets housing our great local theatres. Do you want to get a taste? The Hollywood Fringe Festival starts the 2nd week of June.

Share

🗯️ Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

userpic=trumpIn the era of Nixon and Watergate, I was a kid. We watched the news as 12, 13, and 14 year olds, but didn’t think all that much about it. We did, of course, read Doonesbury, and hence, the title of this post (and the flashbacks). Today, as an adult, I’m beginning to understand how adults felt in that era, with a President that had clearly committed crimes, stonewalling the investigation, with partisan supporters clearly asserting his innocence, while Congress endeavored to do their oversight job. The only difference between now and then is the magnitude of the crimes (simply burglary and theft for political campaigns seems so naive now) and the fact that we had a President then who understood the politics of the job, cared somewhat about the nation, and had the good sense to resign for the good of the nation. Today, on the other hand…

Stonewalling didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. The truth will eventually come out, the supporters will be proven wrong, and the criminals at minimum will slink away into obscurity, with reputations damaged and destroyed. The only question is: How long will it take for the Nation to recover?

So, some simple questions:

  • If the President is innocent and the report completely exonerates him, why is he hiding under claims of Executive Privilege and telling his aides not to testify? Before you answer: Remember that the Republicans asked the same questions regarding the Clintons, and they did testify.
  • Congress has an oversight role, as the Republicans so doggedly emphasized whenever there was a Democrat in power. The role does not go away or get diminished because the Republicans are in power. As the Republicans said with Hillary: investigate, and if there is innocence, let the truth come out in the investigation.
  • Regarding the tax return information uncovered by the New York Times: the American people have a right to know if the returns were legitimate, or if there was tax fraud taking place. Remember: Al Capone was brought down by tax evasion. Were those losses legitimate, or faked to evade taxes? If legitimate, what does that say about Trump and his business and economic acumen over the long term — and whom does he owe for bailing him out? If faked, what does that say about his respect of the rule of law?
  • In general, if Trump is innocent as he claims, let the facts prove it — the tax returns, sworn testimony, law enforcement investigations. If, as the Right claims, the facts are false, they should be able to prove that as well and present counter-evidence. But that won’t be known until the facts come out in the first place.

As I wrote before, I’m rapidly swinging to the impeachment camp. Yes, I understand it will solidify his base — but they are solid and unthinking and wouldn’t change their minds anyway. Yes, I understand the Senate will not remove him. But having the investigations in the House once charges are brought will provide a strong means of compelling testimony, and having a trial in the Senate will assuredly bring out the facts and compel testimony. Starting the process may be the only way to get to the bottom of the story.

Without that, and with all this stonewalling, President Trump looks quite a lot like President Nixon: as Mark Slackmeyer said, “Guilty, Guilty, Guilty.”

Share

🗯️ What I Want

userpic=trumpThere are those who say I should support Trump because of his economic results, or because of his attention to the border. I say “no” to that. Dictators and despots often get great economic results, at the expense of the “little guy” Dictators and despots often enforce the border at the expense of those truly in need, or at the expense of families. I want more than that in my President. I want a President that respects the rule of law, and that respects the roles inherent in our triparte government as defined in the Constitution (including Congress’ oversight role, which isn’t just oversight of Democrats). I want a President that respects the Constitution, and the rights defined therein — both for citizens and residents of this nation. I want a President that doesn’t try to push one religion’s moral values on those of other faiths in the nation. I want a President that doesn’t encourage the flames of hatred, that works to make this nation safe for ALL its residents — not just those that are white, straight, Christian, and male. I want a President that respects our agreements, actually understand economics, and actually thinks before he or she does anything. I want a President that cares. I want a President whose desire for economic improvement goes beyond the millionaires and corporations, but extends to the white and blue collar workers, the people toiling in offices, stores, and fields. I want a President whose concern goes beyond the economic to the general welfare: including the health of all the people in the nation. I want a President that defends all our borders: not just the Southern border against the ethnicity he hates, but our electronic borders — ensuring that our elections are OUR elections, that our infrastructure is safe from electronic attack, and that our Intelligence agencies are respected and can do their jobs to identify foreign and domestic threats. That includes also defending our people against the scourge of internal terror attacks.

I don’t see any of that in our current President. Any short term economic improvements are not enough to offset what I simply don’t see.

Share

🗯️ The I-Word

userpic=trumpI’ve been thinking a lot about the I-word: “impeachment”. Although early on I was hopeful for it, I began to agree with Speaker Pelosi that to initiate the process might actually increase Trump’s popularity, especially if there was no chance of his removal by the Senate. I did think that investigation was vitally important, especially if it was timed right to bring out information during the 2020 campaign.

But as I’ve begun to see this administration’s reaction to the House’s attempt at oversight, I’m re-thinking my position. I’m also thinking that we may need to have multiple impeachment proceedings, with different charges. What started my latest thinking was articles like: “Trump’s high-stakes subpoena battle with House Democrats, explained” or Trump’s plan to go to the Supreme Court over Impeachment, or Trump directing his administration not to respond to subpoenas. It seems like a party that was 100% supportive of Congress doing its oversight role when Clinton or Obama was in office thinks it should abdicate that role when it is one of their own in office. Here’s a relevant quote from the linked Vox article:

President Donald Trump, while portraying himself as the victim in a political war, is foiling an aggressive House Democratic majority’s investigations with historic fervor by refusing to comply with many subpoenas and other oversight requests.

On one level, this is nothing new. Prior Congresses and White Houses have certainly found themselves at odds over how much information to disclose. But the blanket defiance of the Trump administration has reached a new level of obstruction in recent days.

“That’s about as blatant an obstruction of the lawful processes of a coequal branch of government as I’ve ever seen,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard constitutional scholar, told the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin on Wednesday.

According to Politico, citing House Democratic sources, the Trump administration has denied or delayed the release of information sought by Democratic committees on more than 30 occasions, and half a dozen administration officials have refused to appear before House panels.

As such, I do think Congress should start impeachment proceedings, but initially not for charges based in the Mueller report (or at least, those wouldn’t be the primary charge). Rather, the primary charge should be abdication and failure to uphold the oath of office. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, this President has ignored the constitution through Executive Orders (later to be found unconstitutional), and directives to his staff (that are either unconstitutional or that thwart the constitution). The President has the responsibility to follow and uphold the Constitution, and he hasn’t done that. Making that clear in an impeachment charge would put the focus on something American, and would force his supporters to either recognize his behavior is unconstitutional, or publicly go on record as supporting unconstitutional behavior. In particular, it would make clear Congress’ oversight role and his thwarting thereof, and might — just might — push him into complying with the oversight. At that point, impeachment could be tabled and investigations could begin. Depending on their findings and the timing, the subject of impeachment could come back to the House. But the important thing is compelling Trump to comply with the subpoenas and to do a proper investigation. Congress has few tools to compel the President and his staff to comply — and the court process to do so would take forever — but impeachment proceeding could provide the necessary leverage.

As noted before, Congress has an oversight role to ensure the President does not abuse authority and acts in accordance with his oath of office. It has undertaken this role historically, from Teapot Dome to Watergate, from Iran-Contra to the “Blue Dress”, from the investigations into the Bush Administration to those of Hillary. This President should not be able to escape the scrutiny built into our Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold.

Share

🗯️ Four Questions for Society Today

userpic=divided-nationAfter reading the news of late, a few questions have come to me. These are not of the “Why is this night different?” variety, but they do seem to tell something about what the real attitude is of the current leaders of this country:

  • If the country is full, why the concern about abortions? If there is no room for more people, wouldn’t you want to stop unwanted births? Rather, the agenda appears to be pushing your religious views on when life begins and murder can occur on those with differing religious views.
  • If we must close the borders, why only the southern one? If the country is full and we have to close the border, why is it full only for low-income brown people? This demonstrates that the issue is not the country being full, but a bias against brown and low-income immigrants.
  • Why is there so much money for Notre Dame, and little for the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Historically Black Churches in Louisiana? Could it be we are only in favor of supporting European White culture, and don’t care about black or Islamic culture.
  • If we are concerned about the sanctity of life, why do we not care about people after they are born? There is so much energy waged on the battle against abortion, ostensibly due to a concern for the life of the unborn. But once the child is born, where is the care? Where are the programs to lift people to better lives, to move them out of the cycle of poverty and despair? Where is the concern for the refugee, for whom to return to their country of origin would be certain death? Why are you seemingly only appreciated if you are white and wealthy and Christian?

How we behave, what we do and what we say reflects who are are as a society. On Friday night, we remind ourselves about the battle to escape those who would oppress us for being a minority. We remind ourselves that we once were strangers, and so we should welcome the stranger into our homes. That is central to who we are and what we believe, and we remind ourselves of these values every year. This country’s leadership is behaving in a way that goes against those values: they reject those who are not white… they reject those who are not rich… they reject those who do not hold with their beliefs. Their values go against what America stands for, and deserve repudiation.

Share