I knew some of this history but not all of it.
Very relevant and fascinating, particularly if you're someone like me who's been wondering if he's been dropped into some alternate universe or possibly living within a Simpsons cartoon.
You have to wonder the thinking behind Bill O'Reilly's decision to fact-check Michelle Obama's assertion in her Democratic National Convention speech that she has been living in a home built by slaves.
Michelle Obama said:
"I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves. I watch my daughters — two beautiful, intelligent, black young women — playing with their dogs on the White House lawn."
O'Reilly acknowledged that Obama was correct, but in doing so, said the following:
"Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well. Got it all? There will be a quiz."
As you might expect, his assertion that slaves were "well-fed and had decent lodgings" didn't go over very well with a lot of people, including me.
Slavery - regardless of your slave master's meal plan and accommodations - is still slavery, and it should never be made to sound like anything but the stripping away of a person's freedom, dignity, and basic human rights.
Also, how the hell does Bill O'Reilly know what was happening to those slaves at the time?
Honestly, what was O'Reilly thinking?
Did this Fox News talking head find Michelle Obama's assertion so rhetorically effective that he just had to find a way to undermine it?
Is it simply instinct for him to attempt to mitigate anything that comes out of the mouth of a Democrat?
Was he so frustrated that Michelle Obama's speech (and almost every other speech delivered at the DNC) was almost infinitely better than the 75 minutes of vitriol spittled from the gaping maw of Donald Trump?
Even if all this were true, you don't defend slavery, even in a tiny way under the guise of fact checking. Find something else to attack. Find another way to undermine your opponent.
Here's a party game you can play sometime:
Try to make a list of things you could say that are as stupid and awful as saying that slavery wasn't as bad as you might think.
It's hard to do. It's a very short list.
Here's some good news:
In response to Paul Ryan's blindingly white photo of Capitol Hill interns, Democratic Representative E.B. Johnson asked her intern to take a selfie with her fellow Democratic interns on the Hill.
A slightly different image when you compare the two, and hope that our future leaders might not all be one color.
Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for President.
Kind of hard to believe. Right?
I am not a Republican, nor I am pleased by this harrowing turn of events, but back in February, I predicted this outcome. I explained to friends that there were too many Republican candidates and no clear frontrunner, so the one with the most notoriety was likely to win.
I saw Trump as being that guy.
I also saw Trump getting free air time on all the major cable news networks. Even MSNBC was covering his every move.
That sealed the deal for me.
Most people disagreed with this opinion. A few folks scoffed. But two of my friends told me that I was stupid. An idiot. A moron. They disparaged my intellect and my common sense. For those who chose to express their disagreement with aggressive, verbal abuse, I added them to my "I told you so" calendar and set the date for Friday, July 22, 2016.
Turns out I miscalculated by three days.
So today I will send out two emails, reminding my friends of their so-easily-produced insults back in February and letting them know that their words had not been forgotten and they were wrong.
In each email, I will write, "I told you so."
Petty? I don't think so. We allow people to dismiss, disregard, and marginalize our ideas, opinions, and predictions all the time because they enjoy the safety and security of time. They get to call you an idiot or a buffoon because they have a six month buffer from being proven wrong, so they assume almost no risk. Say something rotten today because it will probably be forgotten tomorrow.
It's name-calling and intellectual bravado without any stakes.
Except, that is, when you're dealing with someone like me with an "I told you so" calendar.
If you disagreed with my on the Trump nomination civilly, no problem.
If you thought my prediction was ludicrous and expressed as much without berating or insulting me, no worries.
Disagreements are normal in this world.
But when you call someone names and insult their intelligence because you think that you're right and know there are months of buffering before the outcome, during which time the target of your barbs is likely to forget your unkind words, this is not okay with me.
I will be waiting. Biding my time. Counting the days.
Two pleasure-filled emails will be sent off today.
I'm worried about our country and frankly saddened for many of my Republican friends, who I know are feeling lost right now with the direction their party has turned, but at least I can take solace in these four beautiful words today:
I told you so.
I'm sure that Paul Ryan isn't responsible for hiring Capitol Hill interns, but this selfie, posted to his Instagram account, should have been an enormous red flag for him.
Is there a single person of color in this photo?
Reportedly, there is one, but I have yet to find him or her.
As Speaker of the House, Ryan might actually have some say over how the process that Capitol Hill interns are selected, but even if he doesn't want to involve himself in that process, he should at least have enough savvy to know that this photo - chock full of smiling, privileged white folk - does not belong on his Instagram feed unless he wants to appear like he's living in a tone-deaf bubble of whiteness.
The United Kingdom has a lot of problems right now. I don't mean to pile on.
But can't we all agree that the need to meet and curtsey before some nonsense Queen who only earned her position through a series of ancestral sexual encounters in order to officially be declared Prime Minister is a ludicrous way to transfer power?
I'm not anti-British in any way, but I'm anti-royalty in every way.
Not only is genetics a stupid way to confer power, but the British monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million per year, even though they own more property than anyone else in the United Kingdom.
This whole situation is ridiculous.
I have this dream that when Prince William assumes the throne someday, his first and only act would be to declare the British monarchy null and void.
"I am the King of England because of a sexual encounter between my mother and my father, and because I was lucky enough to be born first. This is just stupid. This idiocy of the monarchy ends now."
He'd turn Buckingham Palace into a museum, stick a photo booth over the throne for future visitors, hand over almost all of the royal estates to worthy charities, and retire to one of the no less than eight other royal residences (including at least three castles) that his family owns.
That might be one of the most selfless and impressive things a person could ever do.
Paul Ryan has called the Democrat recent sit-in "a publicity stunt."
This was stupid thing to say.
I am a Democrat, but I also can't stand bad communication and poor messaging. Despite our political differences, Paul Ryan needs me.
There were highly effective ways of responding to the Democrats' sit-in strategy, but calling it a publicity stunt was not one of them. Ryan is in an interesting position at the moment. Thanks to Donald Trump, he is perceived by many as a fairly rational Republican who would be much more palatable than Trump. Regardless of what happens with the Presidency, he has an opportunity to take a serious leadership role in this country in the minds of Republicans and many independents. More importantly. he has a chance to reach across the aisle and become a dealmaker.
Instead, he calls the Democrats strategy "a publicity stunt."
If I was a Democrat, here is what I would've said in response to Ryan:
“Paul Ryan has called our sit-in a publicity stunt.
Was Rosa Parks refusal to sit at the back of the bus a publicity stunt?
Were the lunch counter protests by the Friendship Nine a publicity stunt?
Was Martin Luther King’s march on Washington a publicity stunt?
Was Gandhi’s hunger strike a publicity stunt?
Were Betty Williams and Cezar Chavez and Nelson Mandela engaged in publicity stunts?
Come down to the well of Congress, Mr. Ryan, and tell the great John Lewis to his face that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. And while you are at it, turn the C-SPAN cameras back on. Turning them off was the act of a coward who is afraid of what the American people might think if they could witness our protest. Only villains fear the clear light of sunshine.”
The Democrats are just as foolish for not making this argument (unless they did and I missed it), and I'm more than willing to help them as well if they want to hire me.
I promise you, Congressional and Senate Democrats, that I could craft a powerful, effective, cohesive, and inclusive message for your party as well. And I'm always quick with a stinging comeback.
But here is what Paul Ryan should have said:
“I admire my Democratic colleagues for their passion and perseverance. I disagree with them on their positions regarding gun control and cannot stand by as they attempt to erode the Constitutional rights of Americans, but I can certainly acknowledge the strength of their conviction, as misguided as it may be. Unfortunately this is not the way to pass legislation, and it hasn’t been the way to pass legislation for more than 200 years. We have rules and procedures that allow for lawmakers to vote on bills, and these rules and procedure have helped this Republic to stand strong when so many have faltered. I understand their frustration. I understand their desire to push forward their agenda. But there are agreed-upon ways of doing this, and this sit-in is not one of them. Congress cannot and will not operate under mob rule. ”
This was the statement that you should've made, Paul Ryan. It would've been measured, thoughtful, convincing, and effective.
It also doesn't run the risk of implying that people like Rosa Park and Martin Luther King were engaging in publicity stunts. Ryan is lucky that I am not running the messaging apparatus of the Democrats or I would've blasted his "publicity stunt" statement to smithereens.
And I'm ready to help. Even though I am a Democrat, I would be more than willing to assist Paul Ryan. We need Republicans willing to make deals and legislate, and if working for Paul Ryan helps to make that happen, I'm ready to assist.
In fact, I tried to reach out to Paul Ryan a couple weeks ago to offer my services but can only send him an email if I live within his district. I was unable to contact him.
His loss. Sincerely. I would kick ass at messaging and communications for these politicians.
If you're smart, hire me. I will cost you a fortune, but I will help to craft an effective, compelling message that works.
Clara tells me that she doesn't like Donald Trump. She says that she heard him say mean things to "a lady named Megyn Kelly" on CBS Sunday Morning.
"Megyn asked a question, and Donald Trump started making mean compliments about her."
Then she told me that she doesn't like Ted Cruz because he's not nice to mommy-mommy and daddy-daddy families.
Not to get too political, but if Clara can figure this stuff out...
Marlow Stern of The Daily Beast - in writing about Bill Maher's recent criticism of the charge of battery against's Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, says:
“Maher’s defense of Lewandowski seemed doubly odd considering his anti-Trump stance during the earlier portions of the program. In his monologue, Maher proudly branded the GOP frontrunner “a bipolar five-year-old” for branding Ted Cruz a liar and cheat after losing Wisconsin to him. “He has two settings: you cheated, and you started it!”
There is nothing doubly odd about this at all.
While Bill Maher clearly despises Donald Trump - who once sued him for $5 million over a joke - he is not so biased and slanted that he can't defend a candidate's position in one regard while opposing his candidacy overall.
In fact, it's the farthest thing from odd. It's admirable of Maher to defend someone who he despises. Whether or not you agree with Maher in this matter, I want my political commentators to look at each candidate's decision impartially rather than painting a broad brush based solely upon political leanings or personal vendettas.
I want independent thinkers who can tell me that a candidate is right on this issue but wrong on this one. I want commentators who are willing to criticize the candidates who they support and defend the candidates they oppose depending on the issue.
I don't always agree with Bill Maher, but I have always admired his willingness to criticize Democrats despite his support for them.
It's the ideological purity that political parties require now that are grinding our government to a halt. Compromise is dead. Politics have become black and white. There is no room for any gray.
Maher’s defense of Lewandowski seemed doubly odd considering his anti-Trump stance?
I don't think so. I think it seemed objective. Unbiased. Open-minded.
The things we expect from writers like Marlow Stern.
If found guilty of parricide (killing your father) in ancient Rome, you'd be sewn into a leather sack with a viper, a dog, a monkey, and a rooster then flung into a body of water to drown.
This form of punishment was known as poena cullei (from the Latin 'punishment of the sack').
Poena cullei was used for more than 400 years until the 3rd century, when it fell out of use.
I can't imagine why.
Constantine revived poena cullei during his reign, with only serpents to be added in the sack. Well over 200 years later, Emperor Justinian reinstitute the punishment with all four animals, and poena cullei remained the statutory penalty for parricides for the next 400 years, when it was finally replaced for good with death by fire.
So many thoughts about this:
The 1970′s may have been bathed in second hand smoke and disco, and the dominant political figure of the decade may have been Richard Nixon, but people didn't speak about hummus like it was a religion, and travel soccer did not exist.
So maybe not so bad after all.
I didn't care about Japanese history all that much. I especially didn't care about the history of Japan pre-1900.
But someone who I trust recommended this video to me, and now I recommend it to you. It's unusual and unique and captured my attention in ways I never imagined it could. It brought history to life, but in a way I have never seen before.
Give it a minute. If you're not hooked, shake your fist at me. Wish me ill. Leave an insulting comment on my blog. Move on.
I don't think that's going to happen.
A man in Hawaii is facing criminal charges for blocking the construction of a telescope on a mountaintop. His trial is being delayed because even though he speaks perfect English, he is insisting on being tried in Hawaiian, which happens to be the official language of Hawaii.
The only problem:
No judge speaks Hawaiian, and only about 8,000 people in the world speak the language, so finding jurors who speak the language would be almost impossible. So the man is insisting that the trial be conducted through an interpreter.
The man's guilt or innocence is not my concern. My bone of contention lies in the NPR report on this case. Specifically, this exchange between NPR host Rachel Martin and the defendant Kahookahi Kanuha:
MARTIN: It's my understanding that more than a generation ago, the Hawaiian language was almost gone. It had almost been wiped out.
KANUHA: Yes.
MARTIN: What brought it back? What's to account for the resurgence?
KANUHA: Yeah, so in the early 1980s, actually, it was estimated that there were less than 50 speakers under the age of 18. It was almost guaranteed - approximately guaranteed - that within - within 20 to 30 years, perhaps, the language would be dead. And so what they did was they implemented a preschool system, and it's known as Aha Punana Leo. And as the kids graduated from preschool, those families wanted them to continue their education in Hawaiian language. And that's what created that push and the pressure for the implementation of Hawaiian immersion programs and ultimately, within the last 30 years, we have taken those numbers from less than 50 to about 8,000 or so.
I will never understand the desire to preserve languages and fight against their extinction.
Languages are not birds or animals or plants. They are not integral parts of an ecosystem. They do not carry the potential for life-saving medicines. They do not preserve biodiversity.
Languages are human constructs. They are a means of communication that developed differently across the globe only because of geographic limitations on humankind thousands of years ago. They are not in need of preservation. In fact, I think they are in need of eradication. The sooner human begins drill down to one worldwide language, the better off we will be. The ability to communicate freely and openly to anyone in any corner of the globe would be a remarkable feat of human progress.
The process of achieving a single, worldwide language begins by allowing languages to die rather than spending time and money preserving them.
“Of the estimated 7,000 languages spoken in the world today, linguists say, nearly half are in danger of extinction and are likely to disappear in this century. In fact, they are now falling out of use at a rate of about one every two weeks.
Some endangered languages vanish in an instant, at the death of the sole surviving speaker. Others are lost gradually in bilingual cultures, as indigenous tongues are overwhelmed by the dominant language at school, in the marketplace and on television.
”
The good news in this report is that languages are dying at a rapid clip. But the New York Times - and many other publications - use words like endangered and extinction to describe the precarious state of languages, as if their elimination hurts the planet or humankind.
It doesn't. It only serves as one small step in bringing us closer.
It's important to note that I am not promoting the active eradication of languages. I'm not looking for people to intentionally eliminate languages. I just don't think them worthy of preservation.
This also doesn't mean that I am overlooking one of the primary agents in the elimination of languages. The genocide of the Native Americans of North America, for example, wiped out hundred of languages in the process. I am aware that all too often, the eradication of a language was accomplished through forced subjugation and genocide. Obviously, this is not the kind of action for which I am advocating.
Languages should die of natural causes. And they are.
A report in Science magazine from 2014 indicates that the primary agent responsible for the eradication of languages today is economic growth. As previously isolated and otherwise struggling communities of people begin to interact with the world economically in order to raise their standard of living, they begin to adopt the primary language of commerce, and over time, their original language falls away and dies.
This makes sense. People want to be able to communicate as fluidly and inexpensively as possible. They want to understand and be understood. When you realize that participation in world markets will improve your lives of your future generations, you will engage in that market as fully as possible.
This includes language.
My hope - and my expectation - is that somewhere in the distant future, humankind will continue to winnow down from the approximately 7,000 languages today to a handful of languages and perhaps even one. And I don't care what language we eventually settle on. I'm not looking to preserve English as the language of the world. Whichever language rises to the top is fine by me.
The language is irrelevant. It's singularity is paramount.
The sooner human beings across the globe share a common tongue and can speak without barrier or misunderstanding, the better off we will be.
Don't seek the eradication of language. Just don't invest in its preservation. Spend your time and money on more important matters. Implementing a preschool program on the island of Hawaii in order to teach children a language that was nearly extinct and is useless outside of Hawaii strikes me as a terrible waste of resources.
Oh, and in case you were curious, Kahookahi Kanuha was granted an interpreter at his trial, and last month he was found not guilty of obstruction.
I'm happy Kanuha isn't going to jail. If you read the reports from the trial, it's clear that he was acting with noble intent.
I just hope he doesn't use his newfound freedom to promote a language that clearly wants to die.
In 1995, I stood in front of a speech class at Manchester Community College and argued that women should be eligible for the military draft. I posited that women's failure to demand this responsibility undermined their fight for equality.
My professor awarded me an A for the speech (I still have his notes and the grade sheet), but my classmates did not react favorably to my ideas. The idea that women might be drafted into the military and sent to war did not sit well with many of them.
Last year, in episode 5 of my podcast Boy vs. Girl, I made the same claim. I argued that women are just as capable of serving in the military as men, and that they should be fighting for equal responsibilities as well as equal rights. I argued that when one group of people are required to risk their lives for their country and another group is not, inequality is inevitable.
My podcast cohost, Rachel Leventhal-Weiner, was uncertain about my proposal, neither opposing it nor agreeing to it.
Last week - 21 years after I first made this argument in a college classroom - two senior United States military leaders said that women should be required to register for the draft now that the Pentagon had opened all combat roles to them.
“Although the move would be largely symbolic — the draft has not been used since the Vietnam War — it would represent another step in the military’s shift toward viewing men and women as equals.
At a Senate hearing on women in combat, Gen. Robert B. Neller, the commandant of the Marine Corps, said he believed that “every American who’s physically qualified should register for the draft.” Gen. Mark A. Milley, the Army chief of staff, said he agreed.”
I have just three things to say about this:
Yes, there is a town in New York called Whitesboro.
And yes, the seal of the town features a crude cartoon drawing of a white man throttling a Native American.
And yes, the town - at least for a time - resisted changing their seal.
You can't make this up.
I would like to take a moment and remind the world that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. An argument without merit. A fear-mongering tactic. A strategy used by unscrupulous cretins and bumbling, illogical fools.
It seems as if we have either forgotten this fact or never learned it.
If a President proposes a law that closes a loophole allowing lunatics to purchase guns, it does not mean that this is the first step in taking away everyone's gun, nor can this be logically or legitimately argument. Disagree with the President if you will. Support this gun show loophole if you think it's critical to the survival of the republic. But please don't base your disagreement upon a logical fallacy. It's annoying and stupid.
Ashley Feinberg at Gawker received received an unusual email from the Bush campaign last week.
In exchange for $25, Bush promised to stop sending email to supporters on his mailing list for two weeks. In the email, Bush refers to this extortion attempt as a "deal," an "early Christmas present," and a way to "opt-out."
It's kind of unbelievable. Unthinkable.
This is a ridiculous and horrible way to add funds to the campaign coffers (and another signal that we are in desperate need of campaign finance reform), but then again, if it works for a Bush, then why not for me?
So if you'd like me to ignore you for a month - no newsletters, books, blog posts, tweets, Instagram photos, or podcasts - send me some cash. I'll cut you right out. Ensure that nothing that I produce ends up in your inbox or social media feed.
And unlike Jeb Bush, I won't even identify a required dollar amount. Give whatever you think is right. Whatever you can afford. I'm not discriminating.
Give more than $25 if you'd like. Please.
And if you know me personally, hand me some cash and I won't speak to you for a month. I won't even look in your direction. I promise!
And unlike Jeb Bush, who will use this money to compete for the top spot in a political party that currently favors the likes of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, I'll put the money to some good use. I'll pay bills. Take my wife to dinner. Invest in my children's education.
So let me know. We can use Venmo. Simple and fast.
I thought I understood the events in Syria, but it turns out that they were more nuanced and complicated than I had originally expected.
This video explains things succinctly and clearly.
In their new book, Simple Sabotage: A Modern Field Manual for Detecting and Rooting Out Everyday Behaviors That Undermine Your Workplace, Robert M. Galford and Cary Greene, examine the "Simple Sabotage Field Manual,” a guide published by the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA) in 1944 to assist European spies undermine the Axis powers from within.
Galford and Greene examine eight techniques outlined in the field manual that are eerily similar to what often goes on in workplaces today.
Here are the eight tactics the OSS recommended for tripping up an Axis agency from the inside:
In my nearly three decades of work in a variety of fields, I have seen these strategies deployed with frightening regularity.
My own additions to the list would include:
Have any items that you would like to recommend be added to the list? Please let me know.
We need to stop saying that hindsight is 20/20.
If this were true:
Human beings are highly adept at repeating their mistakes. Through bad habits, unrecognized flaws, denial, and self deception, many people are incapable of looking back on their lives with anything approximating 20/20 vision.
Even historians disagree when examining the historical record. They debate the wisdom of political decisions, campaign strategies, and military maneuvers.
At best, hindsight is occasionally 20/20.
That's not as catchy as the conventional "Hindsight is 20/20," but at least it's true.