BIG MEDIA IS MORE LAPDOG THAN WATCHDOG TO DONALD TRUMP

By Ronald T. Fox

Throughout the presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly railed against the mainstream media (MSM), which he claimed was biased against him. He called them "dishonest,' "disgusting," and "scum,” among other things, and threatened lawsuits against media outlets he said libeled him. He wasn’t alone in his media indictment; more than four in 10 Americans agree, according to a recent Huffington Post survey, that he faced unduly negative coverage. The survey also found that a majority of Trump voters believe his version of the truth over what is reported by a national media outlet.

 

Trump’s campaign team responded to the perceived media negativity by denying access to a number of news outlets, including Univision, Politico, The Daily Beast, and the Huffington Post, Washington Post, and Des Moines Register. As president-elect, Trump has continued his assault on the media, berating two dozen TV news anchors and executives in a private tete-a-tete for their "outrageous" and "dishonest" coverage.  In the meeting, he allegedly called CNN a "network of liars."

Shortly after the election, Trump’s buddy Sean Hannity declared on Fox News that the MSM was fundamentally incapable of treating Donald Trump fairly. Hannity claims CNN attacks on president-elect Trump are getting worse every day (he liked to refer to CNN as short for the Clinton News Network). Accordingly, he is pushing to have CNN banned from having access to the White House. Trump’s contempt for the freedom of press, speech and expression, when he dislikes what is being said or written, was further underscored when he recently called for severe punishment for anyone who burns an American flag, despite the fact that such an act of free speech is constitutionally protected.  

Has the MSM in fact been unfair to Donald Trump?  And if so, will he predictably retaliate in ways that jeopardize our time-honored democratic principle of freedom of the press? Should we be bracing for the worst—a closed executive branch that provides media access only to friendly outlets which remain friendly?  I've devoted much thought to these questions. There's much on the line.

NOVEMBER 2016 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

 

1. Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill. Merrill, Alabama’s top election official, thinks that making it easier to vote would “cheapen” the legacy of civil rights leaders who fought for voting rights:
 
"These people fought—some of them were beaten, some of them were killed—because of their desire to ensure that everybody that wanted to had the right to register to vote and participate in the process. I’m not going to cheapen the work that they did. I’m not going to embarrass them by allowing somebody that’s too sorry to get up off of their rear end to go register to vote," he said.
 
Merrill’s statement translates as: “if you’re too sorry or lazy to get up off of your rear and travel to where you can get voter ID, which may be in the next county or in your county but only open one day a month, then you don’t deserve the voting privilege.”
 
This from the top elections official of a state that enacted a strict voter ID law and then announced it was closing dozens of locations where people could get those voter IDs, with heavily black areas hardest hit. Seriously, the logic that black people are no longer risking death to vote, so making it any easier would be disrespectful to the people who fought to get to this point and really the most respectful thing is to make black people work extra hard to vote is the logic of racism, which, by the way, happens to benefit the Republican Party.
 

SHAMEFUL BEHAVIOR AT THE RYDER CUP

 By Ronald T. Fox

Disruptive Spectators

As a former college golfer who played in numerous team competitions, I can attest to the excitement and raw passion that accompanies such events. Perhaps no event more puts these features on display more than the biennial Ryder Cup matches. I intensely anticipated this year’s matches to see how the various story lines played out: Could the U.S. team return to the winner’s circle after losing eight of the last 10 matches? Would the Mickelson-inspired reform of team captaining prove itself? Who would emerge as heroes and villains? Would there be any “incidents?”

 

Story lines aside, viewers witnessed extraordinary golf, probably the best I have ever seen in a Ryder Cup. Can you recall seeing better shot-making and clutch putts made? Par took a serious beating, although it must be acknowledged that US captain Davis Love set up the course for scoring: the rough was kept short and pin placements favorable. It was designed to be birdie friendly, which it proved to be, as evidence by the 19 birdies made by Phil Michelson and Sergio Garcia in their riveting singles match.

 

McIlroy Tries to Quiet Crowd

Amidst the excitement and superb golf, however, were some ugly displays of fan behavior. Golf crowds who understand the game tend to be generally aware of proper golf etiquette, which above all means being quiet while a player addresses a shot. Cheering for one’s team is part of the Ryder Cup ritual, but booing an opponent or loudly celebrating a bad shot or missed putt is decorum at its worst. Harassing an opposing player or making noise while they play a shot is strictly a no-no in professional golf. Sadly, demonstrations of such bad sportsmanship were vividly on display at the Hazeltine golf course. I was surprised not to witness any physical confrontations between unruly fans and European players, though one almost took place when a member of the gallery yelled something particularly vile at Rory McIlroy, to which McIlroy shouted back, "If you want to back that up, I'm right here.".

 

OCTOBER 2016 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

I tried to disregard Donald Trump absurdities this month, but it’s impossible. So, I included some at the end.

1. Former Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Bachmann dismissed Donald Trump’s comments bragging about sexually assaulting women by bizarrely claiming Hillary Clinton’s election would “lead to even more sexual assaults.” Speaking with American Pastors Network President Sam Rohrer in a radio interview, Bachmann claimed that the Clinton campaign is trying to drive a wedge among evangelicals by focusing on Trump’s “grab their pussy” tape.
 
“There’s no similarity between what Donald Trump said 11 years ago and what Bill Clinton did,” Bachmann said. “Is sexual assault against women a big issue? You bet it is. And the best thing that Christian men can do is make sure that Hillary Clinton does not become president and the best thing that Christian women can do is make sure that Hillary Clinton does not become president.” And more:
 
“Donald Trump has already released a list of only pro-life judges that he will support. Hillary Clinton will set a standard in this country that will lead to even more sexual assaults against women because she will be setting an anti-biblical agenda.”
 
Bachmann went on to claim that billionaire George Soros is looking for “ways to get into the Christian community to divide us.”
“We need to wake up and resist these lies.”
 
Leave it to the evangelicals; God endorses Trump. With that endorsement, how can he lose?
 

WHY DID THE U.S. DROP ATOMIC BOMBS ON JAPAN? (Re-Posted)

By Ronald T. Fox

This is a re-posting, with some modifications, of my original August 20, 2015 essay.


(NOTE: This is Part II of my three-part essay scrutinizing the Hiroshima Myth and Legacy)

Hiroshima Destroyed

When Harry Truman became president on April 12, 1945, upon the death of President Roosevelt, he had little knowledge of international affairs and knew virtually nothing about the Manhattan Project that was developing an atomic bomb. On the first day of his presidency, Truman said in his memoirs, he was told by Roosevelt confidant James Byrnes that the U.S. was building an explosive “great enough to destroy the whole world.” He would be fully briefed on the bomb project on April 25 by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and General Leslie Groves, who had been put in charge of the Manhattan Project. Truman had only a rudimentary understanding of what an atomic bomb was, but what he did grasp was its potential for unlimited power. The idea of its omnipotence was engrained into his consciousness early in his presidency.

As president, Truman, who had been selected by Roosevelt as his vice-president running mate after the nominating convention was deadlocked between Henry Wallace and Byrnes, inherited issues of momentous significance-- foremost of which were to lead the victory over Japan and decide what to do with the atomic bomb, which was nearing completion.

AMERICA’S CULTIVATED WAR AMNESIA

Many times in Phronesis posts I’ve expressed both astonishment and deep regret at the failure of our political leaders, and much of the American public, to learn lessons from our history of foreign policy blunders, of which there have been many. Why do we repeatedly plunge into ill-conceived wars of choice that prove to be utter disasters?  Why is our penchant for using military force so unshakable?  Why do the American people, who invariably pay the highest price for our military disasters, not hold our leaders feet to the fire and say: no more!  I’ve pointed to the usual suspects--imperialist motives, hubris, the national security state, neo-conservative and Wilsonian-interventionist ideologies and their associated think tanks, and the complicit role of the established media in peddling the unshakable militaristic Washington line—but have always felt that despite the relevancy of such factors something was missing. 

A recent essay by Michael Brenner, which I’m including below as a guest commentary, identifies what might be missing from my analyses: the complicity of American culture; specifically, the persistent capacity of the American people to cultivate amnesia over the consequences of our military follies.  Why don’t we learn from the lessons of history?  Brenner offers an answer.  

RESPONSE TO JIM DUBBS ON SOLDIER’S LIVES DON’T MATTER

I received the following comment from loyal Phronesis reader Jim Dubbs on my recent post on the continuing Air Force campaign to retire the A-10 Warthog, which I argued represented a lack of concern for the lives of our troops. Jim always brings a valuable historical perspective to my posts, for which I am grateful.

You just have to wonder where any political leadership is on these issues. Ike may have issued the warning about a military-industrial complex, but successive Secretaries of Defense have decided that their survival depends on providing our various military leaders with the newest toys. I recall that McNamara -- who I believe was a car industry executive (Ford), like his predecessor Wilson (GM) -- was touted as this great efficiency expert who was going to make sure of strong civilian management of the armed forces. Indeed, he became lauded as a rather "strong" Defense Secretary. Not hard to understand. Of course, he was: Kennedy's military budget tripled that of Ike's as I recall. However, I think the bigger problem than the toys controversy (A-10 v. F-35) is that, in general, the military always seems to be preparing for the wars of the past, not the likely ones of the future. I would agree that A-10 is best for support of ground troops, but how much of the conflicts facing us now and in the future are likely to involve a significant commitment of troops on the ground? That may be one of the only things Rumsfeld was kind of right on, and he got castigated for tying to fight war on the cheap, right? 

My Response: