Foundation Interviews: George Carlin- On Why It's Important To Not Care At All

Source:Foundation Interviews- George Carlin,  being interviewed in 2007 

"George Carlin on why "It's important not to give a shit" - EMMYTVLEGENDS.ORG" 

Source:Foundation Interviews 

Would like to hear more from George Carlin on why he believes it's not important to give a shit ( as he put it ) because that can be interpreted in multiple ways which is exactly what I'm going to do here and lay out what he might be talking about here.

"Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil, meaning 'nothing') is the philosophical viewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2]

Nihilism has also been described as conspicuous in or constitutive of certain historical periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch;[3] and some religious theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity[4] and many aspects of modernity[5] represent a rejection of theism, and that such rejection of theistic doctrine entails nihilism."

From Wikipedia 

Is this what George Carlin meant when he said that it's important to bot give a shit? That he's someone who believed: "That a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.

dogmatic atheists and nihilists could never defend the value of human life"

synonyms: skeptic, negativist, cynic, pessimist; More

historical

a supporter of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 which found nothing to approve of in the established social order."

If that's the case, then George Carlin and Donald Trump have plenty in common. They believe there's no such thing as a truth or at least one truth that nothing is real and everything is subjective to what the person at the time says or believes it is. If this is the case as far as what Carlin believes when he said it's important to not give a shit, then I can't respect him for that. Because are such things as rights and wrongs.

I get skepticism and I'm a skeptic myself and alway take the word of reason or the word of faith and trust only what I know and understand including people. Trust people and things that have earned my trust based on their records and my interactions with them. Not looking into their eyes and claiming to read their souls and saying that I trust this person or that person because I've claimed to viewed their soul and see that they are a good person.

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

CBS News: 'John McCain Had Wicked Wit That He Often Aimed at Himself'

Source:CBS News- Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator John McCain on Capitol Hill. 

"Here's how John McCain made it clear he was happy to see you in the Senate hallways.

"Haven't seen you in a while. How was the Betty Ford clinic?"

Or he'd growl, "Whaddya want?"

From CBS News 

"See President Obama and  Sen. John McCain trade barbs at the Al Smith dinner, just before the 2008 election." 

Source:CNN - Senator John McCain, speaking at the 2008 Al Smith Dinner 

From CNN

There are a lot of great things about Senator John McCain that we can respect and love about him, that I respect and love about him. His service in the Vietnam War where after he gets captured after his plane gets shot down he refuses to go home early, so his fellow Navy officers don't have to stay there as POW's and go through additional punishment and torture.

John McCain's straight forth honesty and candor, which for a politician especially a long time member of Congress where John McCain first gets elected to the House in 1982 and then the Senate in 1986 where he would remain a Senator until his death last Saturday: honest politicians especially honest members of Congress is about as common in Washington as blizzards and hurricanes in Arizona in August.

Members of Congress the most honest of them, tend to tell people and the media what they're thinking with spin. They won't tell you directly what they're about to do and thinking by just saying it, but instead will use spin to say exactly what they're thinking and about to do. Senator McCain, wasn't like that. 

If McCain didn't like you or respect you, he would just flat say that as Donald Trump has found out over and over. John McCain, had this ability and political skill to do what he wanted and take any position he wanted regardless of the political consequences and get away with it, because he had this AAA credit rating with his voters who told them that they might not agree with him on everything, but they respect him and the positions that he takes and why takes them, because he would make the case to them.

But the one thing that I'll remember most about John McCain, will always be his sense of humor, especially as someone who also writes political satire and humor on occasion. When you live the life of a John McCain and not only fight in the Vietnam War, but get shot down in it and if that's not bad enough you get captured by the other team and held in captivity and tortured for the next five years and manage to survive all of that and make a great life for yourself after that, you almost have to have a great sense of humor and be able to laugh about life especially yourself just to keep a positive face and perspective about yourself and life in general.

There are several lines about Senator McCain that I'll always remember and they're all about politics and his time in Congress and one of them having to do with the Congressional spending bills that the House and Senate have to deal with every year to fund the government. And if you're familiar with Senator McCain, you know he was a rock solid Conservative especially as it related to fiscal policy and wasn't just a fiscal Conservative, but somewhat maverick if not fanatic about it.

Congress is famous for a lot of bad things especially, but one of those things are known as porkbarrel projects. Money that a Representative or Senator manages to get attached to some spending bill that is directly related to their district or state that everyone else has to pay for that only benefits this district or a part of this state or that state. Senator McCain, would always say about these porkbarrel spending bills that Congress doesn't spend money like drunken sailors, but that Congress gives drunken sailors a bad name when it comes to spending. He was always making fun and attacking the waste in the Federal budget and all of the additional waste that Congress would try to attach.

Senator McCain, represents not the golden age of American politics or even Congress, but a time when Democrats were Democrats and Republicans were Republicans, but that they were competitors and not too countries looking to destroy each other. A time when Congress wasn't like the Vietnam War, but more like a playoff football game where both teams wanted to win, but also recognized the other team's right to exist and respected eacb other. A time when governing and campaigning weren't separate from each other because politics and government have and will always go together, but a time when politics didn't replace governing.

McCain represents an era where the two parties could work together to do the things that needed to be done and should've been done. The speech that he gave when he came back to Capitol Hill last summer right before the Senate was going to vote on an ObamaCare repeal bill and him talking about the need for Democrats and Republicans to work together, is a perfect example of that. 

John McCain is someone that won't just be missed, but someone who won't be replaced either. There is is no one else in Washington especially in Congress that is worth risking their political careers to do the right thing anymore, now that Senator John McCain has passed and is what will be missed about him the most in Washington. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

LeAnn Rimes: Life Goes On

Source: LeAnn Rimes Official- LeAnn Rimes's Life Goes On.

"You sucked me in and played my mind

Just like a toy

You would crank and wind

Baby, I would give you to what you want

You left me lying in a pool of doubt

If you're still thinking your the daddy mack

Ya shouldn't known better

But ya didn't

And I can't go back

Oh life goes on

And it's only gonna make me strong

It's a fact

Once you get on board

Say good-bye

'Cause you can't go back

Oh it's a fight

And I really want to get it right

Where I'm at

It's my life before me

Got this feeling

That I can't go back

Wish I knew then what I know now

You held all the cards

And sold me out

Baby, shame on you if you fool me once

Shame on me if you fool me twice

You've been a pretty hard case to crack

Should've of known better

But I didn't

And I can't go back."

Source:LeAnn Rimes

Source: Fun For Funny- LeAnn Rimes's Life Goes On 

I believe this is one my favorite songs now and certainly one of my favorite LeAnn Rimes song. Her music from the Coyote Ugly days and album is really what I love about her music. Can't Fight The Moonlight, How do I live. Not a country music fan even though I like country girls, which is really a different subject, but I like this song which isn't a country song. LeAnn, is from the pop country school of country music that came out in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Where country is mixed in with pop. Shania Twain, graduated from that school and in the mid 2000s Gretchen Wilson and Miranda Lambert took that a step further and address classic rock and even blues to their country music. With their music really being about country or rural life, but with a harder rock edge to it. One of the reasons why I like Life Goes On is because it's not a country song.

About the song itself, what LeAnn is saying here is that what won't kill her will just make her stronger. Which is sort of cliche now but it's right on point. This song is about a relationship that went south and she's saying that it's time to move on and that life goes on for her without this man in her life that I guess did her wrong. Reminds me a lot of Tina Turner's I Don't Wanna Fight from 1993. And the point of the song is so spot on and so honest about what life is really about which is that we all start off life with a steep learning curve and the only way to really live life is buy learning about it. Which includes making mistakes, not intentionally at least for most us but learning by doing learning from experience including making mistakes and even bad mistakes. And using those mistakes to improve ourselves and make us into better people.

And that is what this song is about that she went through a rough relationship with a guy and suffered from it because she trusted someone who hurt her over and over and guess finally woke up and decided it's time to move on and that life really goes on for her and that has to be without him. The whole line about which sounds corny but is very true that, "shame on you if you fool me once, shame on me if you fool me twice" is a perfect example of that and she finally got it that this guy is playing her and can't be trusted and it's time for her to dump him. That she should've known better but didn't and she can't go back because life goes on. Great song with a great message to it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- Interviewing Jeffrey Tucker: 'Alt-Right and Right-Wing Collectivism'

Source:The Rubin Report- Author Jeffrey Tucker, talking to Dave Rubin. 

“Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Jeffrey Tucker (American Institute for Economic Research) about issues with the right, the alt right, right wing collectivism, and more.”

Source:The Rubin Report

As Dave Rubin said, we know about left-wing collectivism or people who understand and follow political philosophy do. Which is the two branches of socialism meaning democratic socialism and communism. Not progressivism which is a different philosophy all together and a lot less collectivist where you have both a Left progressivism like the Franklin Roosevelt's of the world. And a Right progressivism the Nelson Rockefeller's of the world, Richard Nixon would be another one and Harry Truman would also be a Left-Progressive. But there's also a right-wing form of collectivism in America and they have several branches and none of them are very conservative.

The three branches of right-wing collectivism at least as I see it are the Christian-Right, the Alt-Right and Nationalists. There not Conservatives at least in a political and constitutional sense as people who believe in conserving the Constitution and all of our individual rights.

Christian-Right

As Christian -Right Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore said himself last year, the book he goes by that defines his politics is the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution. That's a paraphrase, but that's pretty close to exactly what he's saying there. Christian-Conservatives ( or Christian-Nationalists, as I call them ) use their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible to define their politics. That their religious beliefs should be what governs the country. And that everyone should be forced to live by their Christian moral values.

Nationalists

Similar to Christian-Nationalists are people who believe their national values and how they see their country trumps everyone else's and that their country should really have nothing to do with what goes on with the rest of the world short of having trade deals that benefit their country. Nationalists, tend to view themselves as the real Patriots in the country and everyone who disagrees with them as un-patriototic or in an American sense as the Un-Americans. That they the real Patriots as Nationalists, are deserving of our constitutional rights and protections and people who oppose them politically as Un-American and traitors who are not deserving of those same individual rights.

Alt-Right

Not all Nationalists are racists, sexists, homophobes, and people who hate other Europeans like Jews, Italians, Slavs, Latinos, or people of Spanish background, and others. But when I think of the Alt-Right at least I think of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan and other European-American predominately Anglo-Saxon racist political and even political terrorist groups. Similar to Nationalists they see themselves as the true American Patriots and the real Americans, but not just people who disagree with them as being Un-American, but people who don't look like them as Un-American. And not just Non-European-Americans like African and Asian-Americans, but other European-Americans like Italians, Jews, Spaniards, Slavs, and other Europeans who have dark hair and olive complexion. And that these people should not just be disallowed to live freely, but in many cases shouldn't be allowed to live at all.

Collectivism, whether it's right-wing or left-wing is this belief that individualism and personal freedom and in the Far-Left's case economic freedom as well are dangerous things. That the world is a complicated place and therefor you need a big centralized government to set people straight so they live moral productive lives and are taken care of. Both right-wing collectivism and left-wing collectivism, are illiberal ( meaning anti-liberal ) because they oppose individualism and individual rights and that individual freedom needs to be severely constricted if not eliminated so we can have a moral productive society. That's what collectivism is whether it comes from the Far-Left or Far-Right.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Keith Hughes: 'Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments 'Explained: Article V Convention of States'

Source: Keith Hughes- Mark Levin's so-called Liberty Amendments.

"A look at the Constitutional process of starting a Constitutional Convention by the states. And an straight forward focus on Mark Levin's proposed "Liberty Amendments" and the Convention of States pushing for a Constitutional Convention." 

From Keith Hughes

I'm going to make a case for why Mark Levin's so-called Liberty Amendments are anti-conservative and you'll see what I mean by that.

When I think of a Conservative, I think of someone who believes in conserving  and conserving what they believe and a lot of other people believe is worth conserving. Things like free speech, right to privacy, separation of powers, equal protection, checks and balances, our three levels of government so governmental power is not overly centralized and that you even have checks and balances especially with the Federal Government so the executive doesn't become too powerful.

If you're a Conservative at least in the conservative-libertarian sense you shouldn't be a fan of this because it ends up limiting the power of the people at least as far as Americans being able to elect their own members of Congress at least in the Senate with the repeal of the 17th Amendment and instead of conserving the Constitution and amendments, it throws at least one of them out as far as the 17th Amendment.

The one amendment that Mark Levin proposes that I like relates to the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguably 9 of the most powerful people in the country and yet they're not accountable to anyone. I'm one that believes that politics and the Supreme Court is mixed together too much, that Justices take an anti- conservative approach to their rulings and rule on cases and laws based on their own personal politics, instead of whether they believe the law is constitution or not.

So I don't believe Supreme Court should have to run for election and be accountable to the people that way. But I do believe our Justices should be held accountable by the people through the President and U.S. Senate with term limits. That each Justice should serve terms and then have to be reappointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve another term. Actual terms limits for the Chief Justice and only allow for them to serve 8 years let's say.

The only other so-called Liberty Amendment that Mark Levin proposes that I believe is interesting is his 9th Amendment that would make it easier to amend the Constitution and allow for states to do that themselves. Another anti-democratic amendment both small d and big d, because one of the reasons why Republicans have 34-50 governorships in the country when you're talking about states is because they're now basically a rural, blue-collar, Anglo-Saxon party where a lot of their members of their party have been in the country for hundreds of years. With the Democratic Party being an ethnic and racially diverse big city party that lives in big states with big cities

The reason why Levin's 9th Amendment is anti-Democratic with a big D is because if you allow for states to amend the Constitution by themselves without approval from Congress, Republican rural states and there are a lot of them could amend the Constitution simply based on their own politics. One of the great things about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is that Americans regardless of where they live all have the same constitutional rights as everyone else in the country under the U.S. Constitution. With states being allowed to make their own state laws as long as they're within the Constitution. Levin's 9th Amendment would change that. The reason why this amendment is anti-conservative, because again Conservatives are supposed to believe in conserving the Constitution and our constitutional rights. The 9th Amendment would make it easier to weaken the Constitution.

Again, if you're a Conservative you believe in conserving the Constitution and our constitutional rights. Not trying to blow it up because you're worried that the Democratic Party will have more power in the future simply because of current demographic trends and therefor need to step in now to limit the Democratic Party's potential for new political power in the future. You could make a case that Mark Levin's proposal for a balanced budget amendment and holding the Supreme Court accountable through term limits is very conservative. But most his other proposals are simply anti-democratic both as they relate to the Democratic Party and simply used to hurt one party in favor of the other through the Constitution and limiting American voters rights to decide who gets to serve them in Congress.  

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

George Carlin: 'Balance The Budget'

Source:HBO- Part of George Carlin'e 1996 HBO performance.

"George Carlin's brilliant idea on how to balance the budget by eliminating prisons... 

From George Carlin

George Carlin's comedic approach ( that's right, I don't actually think he's serious here ) to balancing the budget reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode where Jack Warden, plays a convicted murderer who is sentenced to life without parole to another planet. A life of isolation where he's sent to another livable planet where he'll have all the food, water, housing, everything that he would need to survive for the rest of his natural life. The catch being that he'll live there in complete isolation without anyone to talk to, but with the freedom to do whatever he wants to on that planet all by himself. For example, he could have sex on this far away distant planet, just by himself.

George Carlin's solution to criminal violence

Put all the violent criminals together in one state after you forcefully removed all the decent people there and let the violent criminals beat the hell out of each other and even kill each other, just as long as they're not hurting or killing anyone else. Which is sort of like my liberal approach to personal freedom which is allowing for people to do whatever they want to, just as long as they're doing it to them self or to another consenting adult.

I'll give Carlin an A for interesting ( or should that be a I for interesting, me and my spelling ) the problem is that we have a Fourth, Fifth, and 8th amendments to our Constitution. As much as Carlin and I'm sure some of his supporters at least also disagree with this, people in Kansas or whatever rural state you want to use are not just people, but also Americans and therefor have the same constitutional rights as people from San Francisco, Boston or New York. Even if they're farmers and their parents gave them two first names, because they couldn't decide on a single first name to give them.

George Carlin's solution to sex crimes

I gotta go along with George Carlin's solution when it comes to sex crimes. If these assholes need to have sex so much in a nonconsensual way, put them all together in some institution and let them do that. They can screw each other until their dicks fall off and even rape each other. Just as long as they're not screwing or raping our women and girls. I could go along with that.

George Carlin's solution to drug addiction

How about we deport all of them to Holland or Portugal and they can get as high as New York skyscrapers all they want to and drive while they're high and drunk, just as long as they're not able to hit anyone who isn't high or drunk and by enlarge lives a responsible life. I could see why Holland or Portugal would have a problem with us sending them our drug addicts, but it might be worth looking into.

George Carlin's solution to crazy people

How about we send all of our mental patients to that planet that Jack Warden was sent to on that Twilight Zone episode, which might just be Arizona or New Mexico and they can live out of this world as much as they want, just as long as they can't hurt anyone who is not also crazy. The problem with that is we have a lot of crazy people who aren't in mental institutions or even in prisons because our mental institutions are already overcrowded and a lot of these people already vote.

Balancing the Federal budget in Washington is like swimming to London from New York, because you're too cheap to buy a plane ticket or take a boat, I'll believe it when I see it. And when that happens peace will have broken out between Israel and Palestine and people will be flying pigs because they don't want to buy plane tickets. 

Washington right now doesn't have much ability to even do the simple things that they're currently required to do by statue and by the Constitution like passing a budget and appropriations bills, so why they would they be able to balance a budget when borrowing money from China is so much easier politically.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Keith Hughes: 'McCarthyism Explained- US History Review'

Source:Keith Hughes- Senator Joe McCarthyism explained. 

"A short, broad based lecture on McCarthyism and the Red Scare that developed in Post World War Two American political and social life.  Topics include Joseph McCarthy, the Rosenburgs, Loyalty Oaths and HUAC."

Source:Keith Hughes 

Source: Professor Girard- The Joe McCarthy Era 

To talk about McCarthyism I think you have to talk about Senator Joe McCarthy who in the early and mid 1950s was the ranking Republican on the Senate Investigations Committee first as Ranking Member and then as Chairman. And when Republicans won back Congress in 1952, Senator McCarthy becomes Chairman of the Senate Investigations Committee thanks to the Dwight Eisenhower sweep where the Republican win back the White House, House, and Senate all in the same election.

Because of the landslide Republican victory in 1952 Senator McCarthy is now one of the most powerful members not just of the Senate, but the entire Congress as well. And with that now has the power to launch his investigation into supposed Communists in the U.S. Government. That is how we get what became McCarthyism and this hyper partisan, tribalist, guilt by association, nationalistic Far-Right movement in America, that came right after the House Un-American Activities Committee that was supposed to investigate Communists in Hollywood.

To talk about Senator McCarthy, you also have to talk about what McCarthy and his movement represented in America back then and still represents today. This us against them tribalistic-nationalist mentality that they're supposed to be the real Americans and anyone who disagrees with them must hate America and therefore should be under investigation because they're working for the other side and not deserving of the same constitutional rights as the so-called real Americans the McCarthyite's who want to stamp out communism and Communists in America at all costs even if that means violating Americans constitutional rights like the First Amendment and Fourth Amendments.

And to talk about Joe McCarthy, you also have to talk about not just how he became so powerful in the Senate with the position that he obtained, but how that movement was allowed to get started in the first place. The Cold War and the start of America's long battle with communism with Soviet Russia and other communist and authoritarian states around the world and this hysteria that the Communists are coming and are going to take our country away from us and take away everything that we believe in and Senator McCarthy being a smart enough politician to see how he could play that and use it to his political advantage and his political skills the speeches, as well as radio and TV appearances that he gave back in the early and mid 1950s is how his movement was able to come about at all.

The Atlantic: Daniela Sherer- It's Good To Be Rebel

Source: The Atlantic Magazine- Daniela Sherer, on being a rebel 

Source: The Atlantic: Daniela Sherer- It's Good To Be a Rebel

I start off this piece arguing that it's good to be a rebel, but I would add as long as you're doing it for the right reasons.

Source: Missy Matthews- Damn straight!

For example, I wouldn't recommend going to a country club and playing golf with your hair down to your back wearing black leather vest with no shirt, leather jeans, and black leather boots like some rebel biker simply because you want to look different from all the other golfers. That might be a point where you would want to try to fit in and wear a golf outfit and you might even be able to find a golf outfit that doesn't put you back in the 1950s. Or ordering a cheeseburger and a beer at a French restaurant and when the waiter tells you, "sir, we don't serve cheeseburgers here", you complain about bad service simply to sound cool. And perhaps show up at the same French restaurant in your biker outfit. Good luck even getting in to the French restaurant if you do.

Source: Brainy Quote- Actor Clint Eastwood on being a rebel 

There's a time and place for everything and always a time to do the right thing whether it's popular or not. But the problem with American culture today unlike with the Baby Boomers from the 1960s and early 70s is that today being an outsider unless you're in politics is almost considered a sin. People today are almost squarely judged superficially. By what cellphone they have. What coffee they drink. What coffee house they go to and do they go to a coffee house at all, because if you go to and hangout at coffee houses on a regular basis and seen walking on the street with coffee cup staring at your smartphone, you're considered cool. But if you don't and your life isn't driven by what's going on with your smartphone and what people are saying on your favorite social media networks or apps, you're considered an outsider.

Where back in the mid and late 1960s especially, perhaps the early and mid 1970s, the cool people were the outsiders who ran against the social establishment and status quo. Back then Americans weren't judged by how many celebrities they know and who they're favorite celebrities are or do they even have any. Or what their favorite so-called reality TV shows and cable shows were, or did they even watch those shows at all. And of course a lot these changes have to do with new technology. Cable TV wasn't regularly available until the late 1970s or 1980s, wasn't around at all until 1974-75. The personal computer didn't come out until 1975 with laptops coming out 10-15 years after that. The internet and cell phones comes out in the early 1990s.

My point being that new technology has a lot to do with the character and behavior of Americans now simply because we have access to so much more information today than we did 50 years ago at the height of the Cultural Revolution. And we simply know so much more about each other than we did 50 years ago. And because of this people feel the need to be like their favorite Hollywood stars or athletes, look, talk, and act like them. And people who decide to just be themselves as the person they were born as, the person who isn't one of the first 100 people to buy the latest smartphone or whatever the device is and doesn't know which rehab facility Charlie Sheen is currently staying at or what's the reason for Paris Hilton's latest arrest and what jail she's at, they look like outsiders and "like so no awesome and uncool."

As someone who has always been an outsider and has never fit in very well with the so-called in-crowd, who doesn't get drunk just to have a good time and let people know how much I drink and doesn't even need to get drunk to have a good time and doesn't even drink alcohol at all, I'm speaking from experience when I tell you that it's hard to be a rebel an outsider in modern American culture.

I'm a man who puts cheddar cheese on his spaghetti for crying out loud which is probably considered a sin in the Italian culture, mayonnaise on my cheeseburgers, and I could go on. My point being the only person I know how to be is the person I was born as and see the in mirror which is myself. I'm an individualist who believes in individualism simply because I don't know any other way to live. I'm just not a good enough actor to play the roles of a the latest reality TV star or new tech junkie. And if you're going to also be a rebel, try being yourself first and don't just standout in order to standout. Be true and real to yourself, which is as rebellious as anyone needs to be in America today.

Consensus 44: Oliver Wilson- Social Media: ‘Addictive, Frustrating But Here To Stay’

Source: Library Technology Launchpad- The big three on social media?

Source:The New Democrat

“Social media: addictive, frustrating but here to stay.” I could leave it at what Oliver Wilson said in his blog post, but as a blogger myself I feel a duty to explain to my readers at least why I agree with that, but Oliver Wilson nails his piece with just the title of it.

As a blogger myself who has been blogging since 2009 or so I almost have to not just be online ( the only way to operate a blog ) but on social media. I mean if the blogger them self is not willing to share online what they wrote, why would anyone else. Doesn’t mean you have to officially like your own blog posts and hit the like button, but I do believe you have a duty to not only allow for people to subscribe to your blog, but then share it as well and allow for others to share your blog. Share options are critical for any blogger.

I have to be on social media as a blogger. A blogger without social media when you’re talking about a blog that you not only write for but personally own and manage, would be like a race car driver without access to a car. And I’m not just talking about race cars, but any cars in general not even a 1978 Ford Pinto. ( Sorry Millennials, for that history reference. I’m aware you’re not fans of history. ) Which means to be a blogger there a lot of benefits to that like people knowing what you’re thinking, at least your thoughts that you make public. As well as letting people know what you know, again your knowledge that you make public. But like with anything in life there’s pluses and minuses to anything you get involved with and social media might be poster child for plusses and minuses in life like the nonsense ( to keep it clean ) that comes to being a social media member.

Narcissism, is not new in America and has been around probably as long as we’ve been a country and I’ve been guilty of it myself. I could be watching a movie at home and I get a Twitter or Google+ notification on my I-phone that I’m really interested in looking at. Because someone just re-sahred, commented, or liked one of my posts. Or perhaps I just got a new follower on Twitter or Google+. With Facebook, which is my least favorite of the big three ( as I call them ) when I get a notification on the Facebook app unlike with Twitter and Google+ ( to paraphrase Oliver Wilson ) it’s generally someone posting in some group that I have very little interest in. And that’s when my Facebook app is working at all, the Twitter and Google+ apps are more reliable at least on my phone.

When I was brand new to Facebook about ten years ago a friend and I were talking on the phone and he was talking about his brother and saying that his brother has like only 5 friends or something like that on Facebook and making a big deal of that. Well, if you’re familiar with my friend’s brother you know the guy is rarely if ever on Facebook. Almost never posts. Facebook might be to him right now what sunny day to the rest of us. Something we see almost everyday ( unless you live in the Northwest ) and not that big of a deal.

As I told my friend several years ago social media to everyone is what everyone makes it to be for themselves. If it’s something you really like regardless of the network and you post a lot of interesting things like status updates, photos, links, etc and you do that daily, you’re going to be popular on that network even if you don’t personally know a lot of people and don’t have a lot of personal friends.

By the way, personal friends and Facebook friends aren’t the same thing. Personal friends are people that you actually know and have not just met in person, but hangout with in person and talk to on the phone. Facebook friends, are people you meet, well on Facebook. But to sound nasty here, if you have a life outside of social media and have plenty of things that keep you busy like work, family, your personal friends even, or are just someone who is fairly private and only want to share your news with people you personally know and trust, you’re probably not going to be very popular on your social media networks, unless you have a lot of personal friends on those networks.

The other thing that  agree with Oliver Wilson here has to do with smartphones. My point earlier being that narcissism isn’t anything knew in America. Donald Trump, is not the inventor of narcissism, but perhaps just the king of it. What social network have done for narcissism has exploded it to the point that it’s everywhere now. If you go to a coffee house today and you’re not staring at your I-phone, you’re the outsider and the stranger at that coffee house, bus stop, train station, grocery store, whatever place you want to use as an example, bar would be another one. Social media and smartphones, both came out at about the same time which is the early and middle 2000s, unless you count blackberry’s as smartphone because people have internet access on their blackberry.

And because of this smartphones and social media have  made high school teenagers out of people in their 40s now and have given a lot of middle age Americans the need to be popular. Except high school, is over for most of those people ( you would think anyway ) and now they’re teenagers in their 40s with social media and a smartphone. Gaining 10 new friends on Facebook ( or whatever the big number is ) is like their OMG moment of the day that they just have to share that or won’t be able to get through the rest of the day. Even if they’ve never even met a single one of their new FB friends and don’t even live in the same country with any of them, let alone  short flight away from them. But being de-freiended by one person on FB during that day, is something that sends that person to their shrink or pouring a bottle of pills down their throat because they simply can’t deal with it. Or they go into a swearing rant on FB, to try to look cool again.

As I told my friend, social media regardless of what network or networks you prefer is what you personally make of it. For me Facebook, is just a place to posts my blog posts and to follow my favorite entertainers, as well as the real news, sports, etc. Especially since Facebook no longer allows their members to connect their Twitter with their Facebook page. Just another one of my annoyances with Facebook. If you really want to know what I’m up to online follow my blog, or my Twitter or Google+ pages. Where I also post my blog posts.

I just prefer Twitter and Google+, because they don’t have as many rules and you don’t have to friend request someone you personally don’t know just to follow them. With Twitter and Google+, you can follow anyone you want until they block you. Unless you’re an asshole or follow assholes, you’re probably not going to get blocked on Twitter or Google+. Plus ( no pun intended ) the communities on Google+ are great and are very active and is a great way to post your blog and get real reaction about what you’re writing with the GP communities. But for too many other people social media perhaps especially Facebook, has become a way of life. They can’t go to bed without knowing about everything that their so-called friends are doing and what they said on one of their own posts and it’s very sad to see people become so addictive to things that are just supposed to be hobbies and places where people can meet and talk.

Source: Austin Evans: Twitter vs Facebook vs Google+- Social media junkies?

Americans United: 'We Are Americans United'- For Separation of Church and State

Source: Americans United- For Separation of Church and State. 

Source:Americans United

From Wikipedia

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."

Source: Americans United- Defenders of the First Amendment 

I believe in my blogging over the years I've made it very clear what my politics are and I've tried to do so as well. I'm a Thomas Jefferson-Milton Friedman-John F. Kennedy Liberal, who believes in free will, free exercise of thought, free expression, and free choice. All things that Socialists and Nationalists tend to hate, because they believe they know what's best for everyone else instead. Separation of Church and State, is not a socialist or communist phrase, it's a Tom Jefferson ( one of our Founding Liberals ) who coined that term that all First Amendment defenders believe in as well. That government shouldn't and doesn't have the constitutional authority to prohibit religion and religious belief in America, but it doesn't have a right to promote religion and force Americans to live by some religious code and a certain set of moral and religious values.

Unlike communist states like the Communist Republic of Korea or theocracies like the Islamic Republic of Iran and even the Saudi Kingdom with is an Islamic theocratic monarchy, the United States of America has a the perfect balance for religion because of our liberal First Amendment and our liberal constitutional free speech rights. Which says Americans have a constitutional right to either believe in or not believe in religion, or practice or not practice religion. That's called freedom of choice which is protected by both our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment. And that government has no role in religion whatsoever other than to protect the constitutional right of all Americans ability to practice or not practice the religion of their choice, or no religion at all. Which is one thing that makes America not only great, but exceptional as well.
Americans United: 'We Are Americans United'

Glenn Beck: 'Comedy Has Been Taken Over by Insanely Self-Important People Like Stephen Colbert'

Source:The Blaze- The real Glenn Beck. 

"America's comedians seem to have lost their sense of humor." 

Source:The Blaze

My counterpoint to Glenn Beck here is going to sound like an impression of Captain Obvious and perhaps put me in contention for the World Championship of obvious statements and yet Glenn Beck seems to miss this here..

Comedians like anyone else in our great, vast, liberal democracy, we call America, with our guaranteed constitutional liberal right to free speech, don't live in vacuums. Everything that any of us say in this country is opened to interpretation and reaction. 

The best comedians in America and everyone else go where the material is and joke about not only what they believe is funny, but more importantly to their bottomline what their viewers and audience believes is funny. The reason why comedians are more political now and Glenn Beck is right that we've seen more comedy in politics in the last twenty years or so, but the reason for this is that the country is more political now.

If comedians tell jokes and do material that only they believe is funny or the people they work with believe is funny, their performances and writings will be as humorous as a preacher giving a sermon on Sunday and they'll either sound like they have no comedic timing or that they're dead serious. 

Thanks to the internet and now social media, new technology Americans are more engage now with politics and their government, as well as entertainment and what comedians are saying about our politics and government. And they see so much (to be frank) bullshit and corruption in our politics, as well as partisanship that they want to laugh and perhaps need to laugh about it to avoid having to check into some rest home and having to go under medication to treat their depression.

If a lot of our politicians weren't so stupid, dishonest, corrupt, and partisan and everyday life in politics was like a day in Pleasantville and Pleasantville was the capital of the United States instead of Washington, comedians wouldn't be joking so much about politics in this country because everyday life in politics wouldn't be so funny and they would find other things to do with their time and material. 

We live in a liberal democracy with a private market economy. If people here want to hear jokes about politics and their government, that's exactly what they're going to get. Because successful comedians go where the material and jokes are. 

And my point about what Glenn Beck and what he said about the so-called Left in comedy and them making fun of people on the Right: as Glenn Beck said, the Right is in power in America right now. The Left is out-of-power, so of course you are going to see a lot of comedians making fun of the people who are in power in America today. If Democrats were in-charge in Washington, especially left-wing Democrats, the Glenn Beck's of the world would have no issues with comedians taking on Democrats. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Tim Gracyk: President Richard Nixon's- 'Emotional, Historic, Powerful Farewell Speech: August, 9th 1974'

Source: Tim Gracyk- President Richard Nixon's 1974 farewell speech. 

Source:Tim Gracyk

Just on a personal note first and then I'll get into President Nixon's farewell speech here. I was I guess bored last night and trying to take a break from the news even as a news and political junky and it suddenly occurred to me that I have YouTube on my TV ( thank you, FIOS ) I went to that on my TV and first saw Dick Cavett's PBS documentary about Watergate which came I out originally I believe in 1979 and they did a 35th anniversary special about that documentary in 2014. So I watched that first which was very good which then lead me to the network news coverage of President Nixon's farewell speech from 1974 and saw about two hours of CBS News's coverage with Walter Cronkite. That is and probably the only reason why I'm writing this post about Richard Nixon today, because I've had this keen interest on Watergate the last few days and have YouTube on my TV.

Source: Fams Sound- Richard Nixon's mountaintop 

Richard Nixon, gave several great speeches in his long and I would at least argue great political career even with all his criminal baggage from Watergate and his little criminal intelligence operation in the The White House. His 1968 RNC acceptance speech, was a great speech. His 1969 presidential inaugural was a great speech. His so-called silent majority speech from 1969, as well as his Vietnam War speech from that same year were also great speech. His 1972 inaugural speech was a great speech. His 1974 resignation speech was a very good speech. We're talking about a man who as brilliant at he was and I believe the smartest and most knowledgeable President we've ever had ( not the best, which is different ) and yet somehow he was underrated as a speech giver. Maybe it was his voice, presence, who knows, but the man was very good at communicating what he believed and making a great case for it and yet was able to do it in a way that most Americans should understand.

Source: IZ Quotes- Great quote from President Richard Nixon 

If I had to rank President Nixon's speeches or just Richard Nixon the man, I would have to go with his 1968 RNC nomination speech where he gets renominated by the Republican Party to be President in Miami. His 69 silent majority speech as President. And his farewell speech as President in 1974 and I'm not sure which of these speeches are his best. I'm not a fan of President Nixon in the sense that I believe he's one of our best President's and got a raw deal as President and should've never been forced to resign by his own party, which is exactly what would've happened at he not had resigned with the House and Senate Republican Leadership's telling him that he needs to resign or will be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate, which means Congress would remove him from office. He was as Carl Bernstein has said a criminal President who ran a criminal organization inside The White House and had to be removed either voluntarily or through force.

I'm not a fan of Richard Nixon and I believed he did a lot of bad things, but I'm a fan of a Redskins ( even though Dan Snyder tests that everyday ) and I'm not a fan of the Dallas Cowboys or New York Giants, but I respect talent when I see it and I respect Richard Nixon's abilities, talents as a politician and leader, his knowledge, intelligence, and foresight. The man was a big fan of President Theodore Roosevelt and regularly referred to him as TR and quoted Teddy Roosevelt on a regular basis. And you see that all through his farewell speech here. It was a very ironic speech and with that old saying that irony can come back and bite you in the ass fits perfectly here.

President Nixon saying and I believe this is his best line here in a speech that he personally wrote himself that, "only if you have been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." Translation: that you can only know what it's like to achieve the highest level of success when you've first started at the bottom and struggled, work hard to, started in the valley and worked your way to the top. If Nixon didn't start life in poverty in rural Southern California, you could certainly see poverty from where he grew up. He had a very modest upbringing and joined the Navy to get way from that and to get himself a college education, he was a World War II veteran in the Pacific and rose to Lieutenant Commander. We're not talking about a unaccomplished bum, but someone who achieved real success in life after starting out with almost nothing.

And then President Nixon's other great quote being, "Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself." Translation: meaning that when you let people who don't like you and even hate you, but I would add are not even worth your time and effort even thinking about them let alone your respect that is when they win because that is what they want. Which is a negative reaction from you and to know that you don't like them either and they know that you know they don't like or hate you. I would add to that, that people should spend more focus on what they already have and achieved instead of focusing on what they don't have and probably will never have or what they've lost. Which I realize is a lot harder than it sounds especially when you're talking about losing loved ones, but life will be much better for you if you do that.

The irony of President Nixon's speech is that he spoke from personal experience in both parts here. He was a man that came from practically nothing and achieved great things in life. That is the Richard Nixon speaking from positive personal experience. His negative experience that he personally spoke from was about pettiness and hate. You won't find a politician who was more hateful of the people who opposed him than Richard Nixon even though Donald Trump I believe is probably at this point a damn close second. And it's President Nixon's pettiness and hate, lust for power that destroyed his presidency and administration and why he gave a resignation speech and a farewell speech two and a half years before his second term was up.

The Atlantic: Hannibal Buress- 'Advice For Comedians'

Source:The Atlantic Magazine- A look at Hannibal Buress's comedy routine. 

"In comedy, “there are no barriers to entry,” Hannibal Buress said in a recent interview with The Atlantic, animated in the video above. “You can just do it. Write. It's a pen and paper, or typing on a computer, or typing on your phone!”

From The Atlantic

Source: The Economist- Truer words have never been said. 

I didn't get much from Hannibal Buress here as far as advice for comedians, other than that inspiring comedians should just do it. Write down what they think and try to get a job performing or becoming a comic writer. Which would be like telling and inspiring basketball player that if they want to make it to the NBA, they should just play and try to become the best basketball player that they can become. Which is sort of like telling people to cross the street with their eyes open and look to see whether any vehicles are coming first. And also adding that if vehicles are coming, don't cross yet, but if no one is coming or the next vehicle is like 20 feet from you, then it's OK to across. No offense, but I could get better advice from my nephew or nieces.

So as someone who writes political satire on my blog and writes about politics a lot of the lighter side of it which today where it seems like something stupid and funny about our government and politicians happens everyday, there's no shortage of material. Similar to Niagara Falls where there's never any shortage of water, I'm going to give you my own advice for comedians especially political satirists and people who want to do comedy and satire about politics and government for a living.

The first thing I would say is don't worry about offending people short of saying something that is truly bigoted. Not what oversensitive over caffeinated Millennials thinks is bigoted because what the hell they know about anything that's not celebrity culture and new technology anyway that they don't see on their I-phone. But as long as you're not comparing people of any race or ethnicity with animals (to use as an example) or using racial or ethnic slurs and your humor is just critical whether it's about religion, culture, lifestyle, or anything else, don't worry about being offensive.

Comedy almost by definition is offensive and meant to offend unless it's self-deprecating because you're pointing out the flaws about people, places, things, situations. So if you're writing a humorous, but critical and even truthful piece about someone or something, people, or doing a comedy routine and you do it well, of course you're going to offend someone or some people. But so what, because you're just doing your job which is to make fun of the lighter side of life and the flaws of people and places in society.

I mean what's the worst thing that will happen to you if you're doing a good job as a comedian or humorous and pick up a following and making a good living at it, but some people find you offensive and even bigoted, you won't be able to perform in front of over caffeinated, oversensitive college students and people just out of college? If they're your target audience to begin with, you're not going to have much of a following and will spend most of your time just offending over caffeinated, oversensitive young adults.

My other piece of advice would be especially if you want to do comedy about politics and government is to be nonpartisan and just go where the material takes you instead of just concentrating on the flaws of one party or another. Or a political faction in one party or the other. This idea that one party has all the Saints and enlightenment and the other party has a monopoly on stupidity and corruption, makes as much sense as crossing a busy street blindfolded.

We all have our own politics and positions on policy issues but when it comes to comedy we shouldn't pretend that those things don't exist, but be honest enough to be able to see the humor and lighter side, the pure stupidity in both parties including our own or whatever political party that we happen to be a member of. Take the George Carlin approach to political satire and go where the material and comedy takes you wherever it takes you.

Comedy should be offensive! What's funny about the Philadelphia Eagles winning the Super Bowl or someone getting a great job or landing a big raise or promotion? Comedy rarely if ever is about the positives in life and almost always is about negativity in life. Like a politician who doesn't do his homework and just wings it before going to meetings, or claims to no more about national security and foreign policy than all the generals, even though he has no military or foreign policy experience, or even governmental experience before getting elected to his first political office. 

Comedy should be about what's wrong with life and people and using to help people help themselves instead of trying to be mean. Or that's comedy at its best at least.

The Daily Beast: Simon & Schuster- Rick Wilson- 'Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies Today'

Source:The Daily Beast- GOP strategist Rick Wilson's new book about President Donald Trump. 

"Respected conservative strategist and notorious provocateur Rick Wilson today released his from-the-right attack on our 45th President: Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever.

Wilson, a Daily Beast contributor, has spent his career as a GOP party insider and he isn’t afraid to call out top players like Mike Pence and Ted Cruz by name. But his new book isn’t a mere clap back. After skewering the hypocrisy of the evangelical right’s embrace of the current administration, he describes a way for the GOP to escape the trap of Trumpism and return to limited government conservatism.

With his characteristic scathing wit, he offers a party that has lost its way a light at the end of the tunnel. No matter what side of the aisle you live on, any politics junkie should pick up a copy of this pivotal take on Trump’s presidency.

Scouted is here to surface products that you might like. Follow us on Flipboard. Please note that if you buy something featured in one of our posts, The Daily Beast may collect a share of sales."

From The Daily Beast 

"GOP STRATEGIST: 'EVERYTHING TRUMP TOUCHES DIES" 

Source:James Wilson- CNN Tonight With Don Lemon, talking to GOP strategist Rick Wilson, about his book about Donald J. Trump.

From James Wilson

I'm going to take you down my memory lane and talk about the Republican Party that I grew up with as a kid in the 1980s and early 90s and see if anyone remembers that GOP ( when they were the GOP ) and if that party makes sense to anyone and then I'll go from there.

The Republican Party that I grew up with, was a party that was about limited government especially at the Federal level.

A party that believed in fiscal responsibility and that deficits and debt were bad except for Ronald Reagan, of course and the other father's of supply side economics who are a big part of the Donald Trump Republican Party today.

A party that opposed both right-wing and left-wing authoritarians and authoritarianism. Whether it was Communist Russia and their supporters in Europe, Communist Cuba just to the south of us. Or right-wing authoritarians like the theocratic regime in Iran and the monarchies in Arabia.

The GOP use to be a party that believed in immigration and even cultural and racial diversity. Ronald Reagan, the man who coined the phrase that America is the city on a shining hill and that we welcome immigrants from everywhere. Not just from Britain and Scandinavia. Because they believed that immigration was a plus to our economy because immigrants from third-world countries would do the work that Americans wouldn't do and would also bring skills to the high-wage jobs that Americans don't have the skills for like in new technology.

The GOP that I grew up with wasn't just a party that believed in a strong but limited national defense, but who also trusted our defense and intelligence communities. Unlike I don't know, let's say the current President who takes the word over President Vladimir Putin ( the dictator or Russia ) over his own intelligence community and national security officials.

The Republican Party today is a party that believes deficits don't matter. How do I know that? The Trump Administration inherited an economy that was growing at 3% with a 4.5% unemployment rate that created 12 million jobs during the previous 8 years and a budget deficit that was cut in half during that same period, so what do they decide to do with that?

The GOP tried to pass a plan to fund a southern border wall that no one who didn't vote for Donald Trump wants and even some Donald Trump voters don't want and after Mexico of course said they wouldn't pay for it announced they would borrow 50 billion dollars from other countries to try to pay for the wall that almost no one wants. 

And then the GOP of today passed a trillion-dollar tax cut again on the backs of American taxpayers who are going to have to pay for that tax cut even if they received any of it from interest payments to the national debt, because the tax cut wasn't paid for. It's George W. Bush borrow and spend economics all over again, but this time coming from the self-proclaimed king of debt Donald Trump.

A party that once called America the city on a shining hill and is open to immigrants from around the world, that America is a country of immigrants, now calls Latinos animals, insects, yes, shit-holes coming from the President of the United States. And complains about America not looking the way it use to and not being the America that they grew up with because it's now less Anglo and even European. 

And the GOP of today of course they blame that even on legal immigration because we're no longer seeing high rates of immigration from Britain and even Europe in general, because those countries are developed countries and don't have people trying to escape those countries because they can't find work, get an education, or fear for their safety, unlike Central America and parts of Mexico.

The GOP that was once a party that was hawkish towards authoritarian regimes even Russia post-Soviet Russia, now call Kim-Jung Un ( the dictator of North Korea ) an honorable man. That takes the word of right-wing Nationalist dictator President Vladimir Putin of Russia, word over the American intelligence community when he said his government didn't interfere in the 2016 American elections and didn't want Donald Trump to become President of the United States. With President Trump saying that President Putin is fine and is someone we can work with. And now views our European allies like Britain, Germany, and even Canada, as the opposition, while they view Russia and China as allies.

The title of this piece is: "Everything that Donald Trump Touches Dies" which of course is Rick Wilson's title from his book and I'm going to get to that, but everything that I've written here Rick Wilson agrees with just from his own commentating on CNN. And I'm going to get to that by saying just looked at the people who use to work for President Donald Trump and where they are now.

Sean Spicer, just two years ago was a well-respected GOP Washington insider who ran the communications department for the Republican National Committee. Now he's trying to sell the book he wrote about being President Trump's Press Secretary, because he can't get a job with a major news devision or network or another job working for another Republican politician  or official, because he shot to death his own credibility working for President Trump.

Tom Price, who before he became President Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services was a well-respected U.S. Representative from Georgia, as well as doctor who chaired the House Budget Committee before he became Secretary of HHS. Was asked to resign as HHS Secretary because of his bad traveling habits and taking overly expensive travel flights at taxpayers expense.

There's a whole book that will be written about Scott Pruitt who again just two years ago was a well-respected as Attorney General for Oklahoma and is now accurately viewed as a crook who used his job and power to make his own personal life more comfortable, as well for his family.

And then you could talk about people who had credibility and characters flaws before Donald Trump becomes President and yet found themselves working for President Trump, because they fit in perfectly with Trump's lack of character and credibility. 

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Manigault-Newman and unfortunately many others. These people will probably never work in government again at least at the Federal level, unless they're elected by very forgiving or factually ignorant people, or people who simply don't care about character and credibility, if they like that person's politics.

Every government job that anyone could take comes with a lot of sacrifice and even risks. You're underpaid at least for what you're expected to do and the hours you put in. Your personal and family life suffers, because you put in so many hours just at the office and you're traveling a lot. 

But when you work for someone like Donald Trump, you put the rest of your life at risk ( not physically ) and you're ability to financially support yourself, because you're constantly put into positions where you either have to deny the obvious or act like you're simply out of the loop and don't know what's going on even in areas where you work in and have jurisdiction over. 

Take Secretary Kirstjen Nielson, who struggles to answer basic questions about immigration. And anyone with any self-respect and dignity, honesty at all, has to know those things even when they're considering working for someone like Donald Trump.