- Employment insurance benefits have run out
- You’re indebted to Trump
- Conducting sociology of patronage lab experiment
- Sado-masochistic tendencies
- Parole condition
- Transferee from broke Atlantic City casino gaming pit
- Flunked communications studies
- Possess twitter account with voluminous redneck followers
- Diagnosed with attention deficit disorder
- Wear suits with the Trump label
I suspect that an astute POTUS would have went away from the teleprompter having sensed that the wrong speech was loaded up for the Boy Scout brigade and made light of the error while creatively addressing curious boys with merits of their organization, benefits of community service, nation building through team cooperation etc. Instead, I guess Trump will castigate and maybe fire some guy handling speeches. Does anybody have a snapshot of the look on the face of some Scoutmaster bemused by Trump’s ramblings over political hardship amongst innocent boys eager for a return to scheduled jamboree fun?
Here we go again. Now that Khadr has been awarded $10 million dollars in lieu protections inherent to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, next up is some malcontents working over at Canada’s spy agency. Apparently a group of four is looking for $35 million from you the taxpayer because they were called names in the work place. They were likely bullied. It’s probably true. Unlike other Canadians who have been in such situations who would have tendered their resignation and moved along, these folks have learned some things that I bet you never picked up in grade school regarding “The Charter”. Forget free speech or supervisor’s incompetence in dealing with complaints. Now it’s “The Charter” which could potentially impact you the taxpayer for years and years to come because of the evil nature of some of your fellow Canadians.
This will be a very interesting case because it could be precedent setting for any employer and not just the civil service. Employers dismissive of deploying proactive positive work place climates or who become lax in executing such measures could be faced with law suits from the “victimized”. This could be just one more overlay of business risk which would likely disenfranchise many employers from hiring. Obviously I do not condone or tolerate racism, bigotry, harassment or discrimination in the work place but I am one Canadian who believes in the free enterprise system and the activities inherent to keeping such a system vibrant. I believe that any Canadian who does not feel that they are treated properly should seek out a climate or create one that does. I also believe that any organization which tolerates behavior of the aforementioned is doomed for failure because of the inherent morale and productivity issues that consequently arise. Whistle blower legislation providing employment security for complainants in the civil service is a reasonable measure.
This taxpayer is getting sick and tired of paying off the malcontents. If you don’t like a situation, leave it but don’t come looking for my wallet because you were too lame to put the free enterprise system to work for you.
So why does Donald Trump Jr. feel compelled to hire a criminal defence attorney if there was nothing unscrupulous, unethical, or illegal about his meeting with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin during his father’s election campaign? Why should he need a lawyer when at every turn regarding the Russian investigation, Donald Trump, the President is espousing “fake news?” What is one to think when the President’s son in law makes oversights on disclosure forms regarding contacts with Russian officials? Why would an attorney general of the U.S. also withhold information relevant to contacts with Russia? Why would a U.S. attorney general be receiving payments from Russia? Why would the President of the U.S. even consider a son in law for such position of “adviser” when a volume of other candidates would be much better equipped for the role? What is one to think when the President’s son is forced to reconcile his motive behind a meeting once information comes to light via Trump’s ex-campaign manager, Manafort that the intention was to acquire Democratic campaign party dirt? If there had been Clinton damaging campaign material provided to Donald Trump Jr. via this meeting with the Russian lawyer, what would he have done with it in the event that the material was elicited through surreptitious means? Why is Russia afforded any diplomatic grace at all in the context of operating under U.S. sanctions for the incursion of Crimea? Why can’t we get the straight goods from the President of the U.S. regarding his absolute position of Russian election meddling given that the FBI has proven that Russia in fact attempted to interfere? Does the president not subscribe to findings made by the FBI? Is the President privy to evidence unavailable to the FBI? Has President Trump been briefed on the evidence behind the FBI’s conclusion that Russia attempted to interfere in the election? If not, why not? Could it be that the FBI is mistrustful of the president given what they’ve already discovered? Is the relationship between the White House and the FBI now fractious in the context of Comey’s firing? Is President Trump reticent to besmirch Putin in lieu of President Trump’s business activities in Russia? Why would President Trump in private ask fired FBI Chief Comey to stop the Russian investigation in spite of material evidence if the President didn’t have something to hide? Did the President have something to hide inside his tax return regarding Russian income sources? Why all the buffoonery over a tax return and not just disclose it? Why the kind words toward the leader (Putin) of a corrupt occupying nation of a sovereign state during an election campaign?
A friend of mine has expressed that President Trump’s motives were purely altruistic as he sought the presidency and that he has “looked beyond” the immature behavioural idiosyncracies of the man in lieu of the independence and platform that he brings to the White House. Much of our discussion referenced border protection and the prospect of western values and security being undermined. In spite of my assertion that his character as exhibited through behaviour could negatively impact military decision making, I was at many moments of our healthy debate transfixed by my friend’s passion and degree of confidence that the “deep state” had a lock on influence peddling through the Clintons and Obama.
Consequently, I’m compelled to further examine the purported benevolence of Donald Trump when Trump’s propensity to wield personal insults expresses otherwise.
- Although closed door, it’s been reported that he has directly challenged Putin (G20) on proven evidence of Russian attempts of interfering in the November general election despite my perception from reading that he’s not entirely convinced himself.
- Sincere testimonials of his good deeds and treatment of minorities were exhibited in his election campaign rallies.
- Conviction on policy platform as advertised. (Immigration, border security, trade)
- There’s no denying his fight and there’s no bigger battle to win than a better future for all.
- Donation of first quarter’s salary toward restoration of war historical structures. Gesture should not be minimized in context of his means.
- Just motive can be ascribed in a yearning to apply skill set of private sector deal making toward public policy and international agreements.
- Despite business ties to Russia as cited by Heather Timmons of qz.com, it could be perceived that any such commercial ties to Russia by Trump do not entail any conflict in representing U.S. interests and that “trusts” administered would provide arms length comfort to U.S. citizens.
- I’ve not read of any account (not that there’s been none) of any domestic interest group seeking favour from Trump in exchange for political funding.
- No executive order within the first 100 days of office has any appearance of contributing to any Trump business gain.
- Men of integrity in the twilight of their careers with much to lose have aligned with Trump.
There appears to be some sorrow among the laid off Sears employees who “feel” betrayed by a company in trouble. I have news for all employees. You have a “job” and you serve at the pleasure of your employer. By pure definition, if you decide to take a “job” you are giving up some of your autonomy. If you should so choose to have a portion of your pay handled by a private pension plan, what gives you the right to think that there is no “risk” in having a third party manage those funds or to think that the company will be financially fit to make ongoing company contributions on your behalf? In socialized Canada we are fed this line that you are marginalized if “self employed”. I have news for those who believe that your company will be there for you. You are one bad relationship or two bad performance reviews from the exit sign and if you think you have “job security” think again in the context of a financial system teetering on the brink. If you worked at Sears and have witnessed a steady decline in retail traffic over a period of years, you should have taken a look at the competition or at the least upgraded in the evening with some career changing course work. Now is not the time to be looking to a bankruptcy trustee for answers or the CBC for sympathy. There is nothing more defeatist and sad than the state of a workplace in decline with hangers on sinking with the ship believing that the company will throw a life vest last minute in the form of a “severance”.
I’ve been blogging for a good number of years now and never in my wildest imagination did I see my blog playing any kind of a role other than the one where I simply sound off about what’s on my mind, make a movie recommendation, or espouse the benefits of exercise. I certainly don’t consider myself a journalist and I’m not equipped with either the time or resources in order to undertake any serious investigative journalistic endeavor, however; lately there’s been an increasing propensity to provide opinion when particular current events unfold that have the potential to illicit the kind of societal change which your grand children would find discomforting.
Obviously, the elephant in the room right now is Donald Trump. It’s become apparent now that it’s not only Democrats who find the man ill equipped mentally and emotionally to execute the power of his office but Republicans are now actually taking legislative measures in order to limit the extent of his power in international affairs. In lieu of the FBI’s investigation of Russia’s effort to influence November’s general election, Trump’s praise of Putin during the election campaign, Michael Flynn’s (former Trump National Security Advisor) deceit with U.S. officials in response to a Russian relationship, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Senate voted 98-2 in favor of blocking any Trump authority in rolling back Russian sanctions.
Law professor Paul Schiff Berman has commented on the recent resignations of journalists Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Haris from CNN for a recent mistake in insufficiently sourcing a story. Surprisingly, none of these men were green journalists. In fact, Mr. Lichtblau was a pulitzer prize winner. Schiff Berman points out that during the Watergate era, the team of Woodward and Bernstein had made “a few errors” prior to their ultimate revelation. Hence; the question becomes, why now are careers put in jeopardy in the context of a chief White House spokesman via twitter that references “fake news” more often than any policy initiative when during the natural course of discovering news and meeting tight deadlines that historically a journalistic mistake has been made without career reprisals? Perhaps, the industry is actually feeling some heat. Perhaps, this question is best left to Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough.