Tag Archives: politics
This is my two cents on the Google Drama, in the aftermath of them firing James Damore. It’s necessary to know the story before you begin reading my response, so here it is:
It’s amazing how many people have misunderstood & utterly failed to comprehend the long memo written by now former Google employee James Damore. He made a point in his response to being fired, published in the WSJ, which is lost on far too many, and that is the culture that is Google. I’m sorry, but Google can hardly claim to be a mere “employer”. They have a campus with residential dwellings for employees. Meals are free in the cafeteria & rival those of some restaurants I hear. You can bring your beloved pets and/or children to work – they have daycare & petcare for employees. Employees can take a nap if needed – there’s a place for that. They pay well & have stellar benefits which cater to any family type. There are people who’d perform certain favors to work there if they could. Google is a way of life. You can’t fart without someone there to make sure the smell doesn’t disrupt the ambiance of their workspa. Those are just a few benefits.
When you, as an “employer” & business entity, are so deeply entrenched into the lives of your employees (a misnomer too really, but I digress), you don’t get to hide behind the subterfuge of the normal rules of so called discrimination & political etiquette, that “normal” employers adhere to. And Damore didn’t discriminate against anyone. He wrote the 20 page memo in a work environment that allows such free time for innovation & creativity. Google isn’t just a place to work – it’s literally home too, for some. If Google hasn’t cleared the blurred lines between work & home in its policies, there’s a very good case to be made in his defense.
Folks, this is silly and outrageous. You don’t get to have so much room as an employer to involve yourself fully into the lives of your employees then abandon them when outsiders peep in & don’t understand. Google isn’t an employer, they’re not even in loco parentis, heck they ARE the parents. Shame on them for cutting the umbilical cord instead of being as nurturing as they’ve been in every other aspect of their employees lives, work-relatedness notwithstanding.
Until next musing,
Talitha K. McEachin
I wanted to share my thoughts today on what being a constitutionalist means to me, and why that means more to me than party affiliation, or any other political boxes I can check:
Folks, I am a constitutionalist before I am anything else. This allows me, to have political allies from all walks of life, as long as we can agree that the law of the land must be adhered to, as well as the legal blueprint for amending it. This doesn't mean the law is without imperfections, nor are those who created it. The same is true for those whose job it is to defend it. We're all inherently, flawed human beings. We make mistakes, and we must correct them legally as a society at times. History is replete with major and minor instances of this. This is why I consider Americans, who readily accept political legerdemain, used to circumvent legal procedures when it suits their interests, the most unpatriotic citizens there are.
As for me, I've accepted the inevitable reality, that putting my own personal agendas and biases aside, and honoring the constitution, means there will be things I am opposed to, but must allow to legally stand. That is, if my arguments to the contrary are not legally strong enough, to influence a different outcome. I really wish more Americans would follow suit. It's such a relaxing political place to be…
Until next musing,
So recently, I retracted a prior criticism of former POTUS Barack Obama – the whole “food stamp president” nonsense. While this post isn’t a retraction, I want to share my thoughts on another erroneous label affixed to him – the infamous “Obamaphone”. The ironic thing about this, is that it’s origins are rooted back to 1984 when some Americans were still in “Will we ever see a black president?” mode. A “Barack Obama” if you will, was still a dream. 1984? Yep. When Ronald Reagan was president. Some even argue that it goes back as far as Roosevelt, but I digress. That year, the FCC created the Lifeline Assistance program. That’s the actual name of the “Obamaphone” program, technically.
Obviously, cellular phones weren’t ubiquitous as they are now, in 1984, which is why the program provided free landline phone service, mainly to senior citizens. Interestingly enough, after eight years of the Obamaphone misnomer, so many remain ignorant of its history. Am I the only one who’s never heard of an “Reaganphone”? What about a “Bushphone”? “Clintonphone” perhaps? What about a “Trumpphone”? (that sounds like the world’s worst megaphone ever). You haven’t because they were never labeled as such, even though the program existed in every presidency since Reagan. In fact, Safelink Wireless offered the first such cellular (keyword alert!) phone service in Tennessee in 2008, near the end of Bush’s second term. Barack Obama wasn’t elected until November of 2008. The program started three months earlier.
There are some very, obvious motives and suspicious undertones, if I’m polite, associated with slapping this erroneous, derogatory misnomer onto the first black president, and literally none of his predecessors, but for now I’m not gonna go there (Hmm, no pun intended, but, did I just do that?). Now to be fair, the number of participants in the program, did increase significantly under the Obama administration, but that’s to be expected, with the expansion of any government program to assist the destitute in a recession. It’s a domino effect. If you had no problem with the program under Reagan, both Bush’s or Clinton, it’s simply hypocritical to have whined about it for the last eight years under Obama. I’ll be discussing three more things, I, and/or my political “macro tribe” got wrong, or, that were generally misunderstood or wrong when it comes to Obama. Then I’ll balance it by discussing the same number of things I stand by firmly, as far as my criticism of his presidency goes. Stay with me folks, this is about to get really interesting…
I’m back with my latest musing, on why I was wrong about a prior criticism of former president Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package. As a Republican and Conservative libertarian, I have to work harder at objectivity when assessing his successes and failures. My missive here is to share one of his successes, which I erroneously deemed a failure:
After researching certain aspects of Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package, I now see the labeling of him as the “food stamp president” quite differently. I haven’t written about it in a while, but I think a prior criticism I hurled his way was wrong. I didn’t agree with people calling him the “FSP” – I stand by that, but I understood why many called him that. Some attributed it to racism, and I’m sure that’s true for some percentage of his opponents, but certainly not all. I refuse to entertain the notion that all, or most Republicans are racists. It’s a stereotype, and I don’t play those games. In his economic stimulus, he expunged the work requirements, making the SNAP/FS program more accessible to Americans in need. We were in a recession, people were out of work and losing their homes. Many who had never received any government aid, found themselves swallowing their pride to feed their children. Most had at least one job, but simply didn’t make enough to make ends meet. It’s still true today that most SNAP recipients are working.
Barack Obama helped millions defray their cost of living by putting food on their tables. In other words, the criticism was that under his presidency, the highest number of people were food stamp recipients, due to the economic crisis. While there’s some truth to that, it’s a bit misleading for me and others (like Newt Gingrich), to assert, that he was responsible for the economic crisis, therefore forcing people on the SNAP program. That’s a faulty cause and effect. No, he recognized the crisis we were in, cause notwithstanding, and deliberately (key word) expanded the program, so millions could eat. The trade off was that the number of recipients under his watch soared. He deliberately took that hit on his economic report card. You don’t have to be a member of MENSA to understand, that loosening rigid requirements means more qualified applicants. You may not agree with his solution, and that’s your prerogative, but it was his solution, in his best judgment. The ends justified the means to him. That’s the job America hired him to do. If you want me to believe, that a Harvard educated attorney and former Senator couldn’t foresee, that the number of recipients would increase after removing work requirements, you may as well be asking me to believe in five-legged unicorns. Believing that is also an attack on his intelligence, and mine. You’d also have to ignore the trillions in debt, created by Bush before him.
Some will argue that his motive was to increase government dependency – one rung on the ladder of socialism. The problem lies in the fact that it never happened. We aren’t a socialist nation. If I’m wrong and that was his goal, he failed utterly, so it doesn’t matter anyway. There will be criticisms of him that I’ll stand by, but this isn’t one of them. I’m humble enough to retract this view. Of course, there’s a valid counter argument to this reassessment that isn’t lost on me. Once the economy improved and the recession ended (2012), the number of SNAP recipients should have done down. That didn’t happen. The question is why, but that’s a lateral issue, one that’s unrelated to the “food stamp president” label. That’s also another musing. I’m reassessing my view of his presidency, before writing a critical essay on his legacy. In order to fairly assess his presidency, you have to look beyond the numbers. There’s a lot of gray area. You have to dig deeper. Fair is fair, and this is one view that I’m totally comfortable with amending.
Until next musing,
Talitha K. McEachin
Each week I’ll be listing one success and one failure of former president Barack Obama. It’s part of a series of blogs in which I’ll examine his legacy, so here goes:
Success: He repealed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which was signed into law by former president Bill Clinton (D) with nearly unanimous, bipartisan support. It defined marriage as being between one man and one woman – the basis for the nuclear family. He was absolutely justified in doing so, because DOMA was inherently unconstitutional. It’s the one time he put on his constitutionalist hat, no matter his motive. This one’s not debatable folks, so I’ll stop there.
Failure: He made history, when in 2012, the SCOTUS upheld the ACA as a tax instead of the mandate it really is. However, it was a slick way of evading the defined role of the federal government in the constitution, which doesn’t include the authority to meddle in healthcare. It doesn’t matter how you align politically, or how you feel about the ACA, we have a civil duty to raise Hell over this. We have a responsibility to engage in constitutional apologetics. We can amend it legally, the framers spelled out this process for us, but we can’t trample over it. He took ten steps forward in dismantling DOMA, then ironically, took 20 steps back by throwing the very same constitution under the bus with Obamacare. Epic failure.
Until next musing,
Talitha “TK” McEachin
The Trump hate continues. I don’t even like the guy, but some folks are so irrational in the aftermath of the election, that they’ve forgotten all of the hate speech & such after Barack Obama was elected – its called selective amnesia. And outrage. Sure, Trump says incendiary, insensitive things but he’s still not responsible for any violence done in his name. Folks, people were commiting hate crimes long before Obama and Trump. Don’t allow professional, propaganda puppets (aka corporate media outlets), convince you that this is something uniquely negative. They’re lying, which is ironic considering they’re the ones pouring gas onto this fire of an alleged surge in racially motivated crimes. “It’s all Trump’s fault,” some insist. Don’t confuse the media’s focus on reporting these racial incidents, in their attempts to smear Trump, with their alleged, frequent occurence. In order to hold him responsible alone, one must first put him on a pedestal. He ain’t that important. Exaggerations are the trademark of what passes for today’s journalism. Racial violence is big business, especially when minorities are the victims. The media will do anything, including outright lying & exaggerating for the sake of ratings. Your uprisings and outrage benefit them. Some of you are like outrage prostitutes, turning tricks with each keystroke – the media is your pimp.
Donald John Trump, Sr, showed us how much of a loudmouth, controversial, unscrupulous jerk he was before the election. He still won. This should indicate how weary Americans are of the establishment types. If Trump is the racist many assess him to be, America would rather have him than a member of the establishment. Do I actually need to spell this out for anyone? The stars are aligned. The universe has spoken. Its just the year of the outsider. Some of you are inconsistent, not him. Moreover, since when did he not have first amendment rights like the rest of us? It’s incredible, how quickly some are willing to ditch the first amendment now that their feelings are hurt, because their side lost. Some have even retorted with sources which claim hundreds of racial complaints in the last week. Not to get too caught up in semantics, but last I checked, complaints aren’t convictions. Neither are arrests. You can’t quantify an increase nor decrease in racially motivated crimes without a long enough time period to measure. That’s just basic statistics & arithmetic. “Police officer, I think my neighbor threw a rock over my fence to hit my Trump sign,” – There. I just made a complaint too. That doesn’t mean however, that my neighbor is guilty. Take a deep breath folks, enough with the doomsday talk already. Its gonna be OK.
Until next musing,
Talitha “TK” McEachin
Next time, I’ll be analyzing the Cabinet picks of President-Elect Donald Trump, starting with the RNC Chair Reince Preibus himself, the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff. Stay tuned! Keep the faith.