Tag Archives: Talitha McEachin
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
This is my first musing in the aftermath of one of the most contentious presidential elections we’ve had in quite some time. Interestingly enough, I accurately predicted this somewhat, unprecedeted Trump win as early as March of this year. Donald John Trump, Sr is our victorious President-Elect, whether we love it or not. Obviously most voters do, to the tune of 290 electoral votes over 228 for Hillary Clinton. It was a landslide. Excuse the obvious pun, but populism trumps party allegiance every time:
I’m going to say this very carefully, but I already know it will be over the heads of the knee-jerkers, political party (or lack thereof) not withstanding. I don’t know with certainty, that President-Elect Trump is a racist. I do know that he has said some very insensitive, outlandish, alpha male, ego-strokin’ stuff, which I’ve found repugnant. Some of it has been racial in nature, most of it has not. Let me interject a reminder that I’ve never supported Trump, because the knee-jerkers heads are about to explode right about now. I’ve favored Libertarian Gary Johnson throughout this entire election cycle. Truth be told, I could care less about Trump’s, or any other politician’s racism, as long as it doesn’t influence their decisions while on the job. You just can’t police thoughts & feelings. Racism is rooted in fear – its emotional. People have the right to be who they are, even if that means being a racist. As long as they stay in their lane, I don’t give two clicks of witch’s heel about their delusions of racial grandeur.
There’s nothing in the constitution barring racists, xenophobes, mysogynists, homophobes, or arachnophobes, from running for president. So all of this whining about who Trump is, or perceived as, is a waste of too many salty tears. Call me when this stuff translates into legislation, and I’ll stand with you against him. Until then, all of this noise, because that’s what it is, is much ado about absolutely nothing, though I support your freedom to make it. Just do me a favor & turn it in the opposite direction of me. It’s so very telling, that this election came down to a choice between two, lily white opponents, yet some are still making this all about race. I’ve concluded that, that’s what matters to far too many, so we have a long way to go in America as far as racial tension is concerned. Some are just stuck on stupid island. But hey, as long as they don’t try to knock the freedom of speech hat from my head, I won’t bother the dunce one on theirs. Carry on…
Some folks are making themselves feel better by calling Melania Trump a stripper, whore, skank, trashy slut – too many demeaning labels to share, but I’m sure you get the point.Melania Trump used to be a stripper & model – both legal occupations, and I’m not judging her. She nor her husband have ever hidden this from anyone. She danced, she modeled, but I, nor anyone of those speaking negatively about her know anything about her sex life. The so-called “whore” hasn’t been a stripper or a model in a long time, she snagged a billionaire, has a 10 year old son, and now she’s the FLOTUS. Somehow, I think she’s going to be just fine, and is doing much better than most. These same folks are pointing out the hypocrisy in the way some on the right have denigrated Michelle Obama over the years. They’d be right, but this isn’t new. Some have been denigrating our First Lady for the last eight years, since she set foot into the White House. Trump’s elevation to our First Lady did not prompt the backlash Obama has faced at any time. Some care more about what she does with her va-jay-jay than they do our national debt. How in the heck are some more upset about derogatory comments about Michelle Obama than she is? She couldn’t care less.
“Talitha, why are you defending Melania Trump?” some have asked. Its because I have class, something such persons are asserting she lacks. While some are focused on Melania Trump’s past, people have lost their lives in the aftermath of an earthquake in New Zealand, Iraqi forces have re-captured ancient lands, and the moon’s cycloptic eye is gazing much closer upon us, probably frowning. Stooping to the level of those who spoke negatively about Michelle Obama, by doing the same to Melania Trump, is equally childish. Grow up. Priorities. Priorities. People.
Comey vs Clinton
I’ve not been at all timid, regarding my disapproval of FBI Director James Comey’s recent, controversial decision to send a letter to Congress detailing questionable communications of Hillary Clinton. I don’t care for Hillary Clinton – politically. That’s not a secret, but I still think Comey should be fired. The end of Election 2016 doesn’t change this view of mine. He made this decision on his own, which is unprecedented given FBI & DOJ protocol. How can he announce that he was not going to prosecute her earlier this year, then send the letter to Congress, making it public, eight days before the election? If you think this had no impact on any voters, you’re incredibly naive. It’s not fair folks. He should have waited until after the election. Am I to believe, that he didn’t think about sending the letter at all after March, until days before the election? If I am to believe that, then I may as well throw in a belief in unicorns & tiny men in green suits, with their pots of gold at the end of rainbows. Santa Claus really delivers gifts on Christmas Eve, and dragons really are our ancient, misunderstood, fiery friends. I’d say the same thing if he had done this to Donald Trump. People who think the electoral playing field was level after that, are more concerned about winning than fairness, which speaks volumes. I could never look myself in the mirror, if I ignored this very obvious, biased, political legerdemain, from someone whose function in our government, is not supposed to be partisan.
Hillary Clinton & her campaign crew are blaming her loss on this very thing. I can only agree that it was poorly timed & inappropriate, but the harsh reality is that Trump ran a better campaign. Approximately five million Democrats chose to stay home. Too many Democrats assessed erroneously, that Trump was the easiest pick of the right-wing litter for Clinton to beat. This led them to vote in the GOP primary for Trump. It backfired, and though Clinton humbly conceded the race to Trump expeditiously, she & her crew should stop shifting the entire blame on Comey, and focus on the real culprit in the mirror.
Electoral College Blues
Over the years I’ve been consistent with my disdain for the electoral college, although even I have had to admit that the alternative – the popular vote is inherently unfair. If we decided national elections by the popular vote, the winners would be decided by a handful of states like California, New York and Florida, who have the largest populations. The irony is that most people who have an issue with the electoral college, only find it problematic when their candidate loses. As someone said today on one of my social media threads, “Leave the foundation of our democratic process alone and just select better candidates,” Folks, that’s the bottom line. Quite frankly, I think Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump, and Hillary Clinton could have beaten any of the other Republican candidates. It’s just the year of the Republican outsider & not the Democrat establishment.
Then there’s the notion that the electoral college has it’s roots in racism, allegedly because it was enacted to benefit slave-holding states. That means its racist, to those so inclined to view most things through the prism of race. It’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard in a long time. Even if it were true, slavery was abolished in 1865, and chattel slaves were property, not people. It’s incredibly bizarre that anyone would attempt to link a time in our history, where only white, male landowners could vote, to today’s elections. That’s like saying prohibition is responsible for today’s drunk drivers. Assuming that all Americans want their vote to actually count, the electoral college is the best means for guaranteeing this.
Until next musing,
Talitha “TK” McEachin