A Young Woman is afraid. What can I say?

     My cousin's daughter expressed feeling unsafe since Trump's election.  I can understand. Many of us are afraid. We shouldn't be afraid in our own homes, but we are. This young woman felt that she had to look like someone she wasn't in the hopes that her true identity as a lovely, intelligent, educated, open-minded, liberal, and independent young woman would not attract those who have found justification for their bullying, intimidation, and assault.

     A friend and supervisor of ours, who is a trained and experienced Ranger, made a statement about being alone at a remove campground when law enforcement (LE Rangers) was not readily available.  We had been talking about our idea of opening this campground earlier in the season for the hikers and bikers that enjoy the Going-to-the-Sun Road when it is closed to auto traffic. Since LE Rangers are the ones you call when you're dealing with a bear or other dangerous animal in your campground and the campground of which we were speaking is known for lots of bear encounters, I assumed that our friend was speaking of the need for LE for this reason. When I said as much she just laughed. She said that she had no problem with wild animals. They were quite predictable and had good reason for their behavior. It was the humans that concerned her. She had a point. We are all trained to deal with indigenous animals, and the only ones we ever find scary is the invasive species known as homo sapiens.

     Now, with Donald Trump's election, sexism, racism, and all sorts of heretofore unacceptable behavior has been legitimized.  Pamela and I have been yards from grizzly bears and toe-to-toe with numerous black bears. We have been stalked by mountain lions and I've encountered wolverine and coyote while on trail patrol.  However, I never found myself as uncomfortable or feel in as much danger as I have encountered around fanatic Christians and Trump supporters since the election. We are so fortunate that we have the ability to disappear into the wilderness where Kiaayo and Omahkapi'si will be good neighbors and not care about our race, religion, gender, political position or sexual preference.

     I am at a total loss what to say to my cousin's daughter.  I wish that I could tell her that she's just over-reacting to a few isolated incidents. We all know that wouldn't be true.  The hatred, demeaning rhetoric, and violent behavior that we witnessed at Trump rallies is now spilling into the streets with a vitalized sense of legitimacy.  If Mr Trump can make fun of a handicapped person on national television, shouldn't anyone be able to mock him/her at school, work or in a store.  If Mr Trump permitted and on at least one occasion encouraged followers to physically abuse and beat up on someone who disagreed with him in a rally, why shouldn't everyone be able to do so at any other time?  If Mr Trump tells us that immigrants, Muslims, LGBTs and anyone who is different from us is bad,  why shouldn't one be permitted to tell them to go away, or leave the store, or get out of the way? They're just bad people. Mr Trump said so. Why shouldn't one be permitted dto kick a Muslim who is kneeling to pray? They don't worship the right god. Besides, we all know that they're all terrorist.  Mr Trump said so.  Why shouldn't one demean the immigrant working at a McDonald's or cleaning rooms? She's probably undocumented and is taking an American's job.  I could go on and on and on, but I won't. You know what I mean. You've seen it.  Don't try and deny it.

     You see, when the similarities to other atrocities in history is pointed out many people are quick to say "that couldn't happen here."  Right.  When I lived in Dublin I knew a great number of German immigrants. Most of them left Germany in 1929.  Hitler didn't actually become Chancellor until 1933.  They left because they saw Germany blindly carrying on thinking Hitler was a joke that would go away.  In fact, in one of Hitler's interviews shortly after he took power, he chided those who doubted that he would rule Germany.  "At the risk of appearing to talk nonsense I tell you that the National Socialist movement will go on for 1,000 years! ... Don't forget how people laughed at me 15 years ago when I declared that one day I would govern Germany. They laugh now, just as foolishly, when I declare that I shall remain in power!" (Adolf Hitler to a British correspondent in Berlin, June 1934)  

     To my cousin's daughter I can only say 'you are not alone.'  I must, however, admit that she has good reason to feel afraid but to remember, we can survive this nightmare and we can prevail. It will require that we all stick together and call tyranny by its real name.

US President - Blind Trust - Conflict of interest

There is no requirement for the President to use a blind trust to avoid conflict of interest. Almost all other federal employees are required to divest themselves of potential conflicts. The President of the United State has traditionally resigned from any position - e.g. being a part of a legal firm, positions on corporate boards - that might cause a conflict and put business assets into a blind trust.

"A blind trust, as discussed in this report, is a device employed by a federal official to hold, administer and manage the private financial assets, investments and ownership of the official, and his or her spouse and dependent children, as a method of conflict of interest avoidance. In establishing a qualified blind trust upon the approval of the appropriate supervisory ethics entity, the official transfers, without restriction, control and management of private assets to an independent trustee who may not communicate information about the identity of the holdings in the trust to the official. The trust is considered “blind” because eventually, through the sale of transferred assets and the purchase of new ones, the public officer will be shielded from knowledge of the identity of the specific assets in the trust. Without such knowledge, conflict of interest issues would be avoided because no particular asset in the trust could act as an influence upon the official duties that the officer performs for the Government."

In the past, the President-elect established his blind trust during the transition period. Guess who has had no such trust. You guessed it, President-elect Donald Trump. He says that his children are going to run his businesses. Does that sound like divesting yourself of potential conflicts of interest? It doesn't, especially when you have your children present at a meeting with a foreign dignitary.

The Washington Post reported on a CNN interview of Rudolph Giuliani by Jake Tapper. Here is an excerpt from that report.

"Good-government types were already crying foul over Donald Trump's intention to put his children in charge of his business during his presidency. And now that those same children are on Trump's transition team, these groups are even more concerned about conflicts of interest. Trump loyalist Rudolph W. Giuliani seemed to acknowledge in a CNN interview Sunday that it wasn't an ideal set-up. But then he offered a remarkable defense. "He would basically put his children out of work if — and they'd have to go start a whole new business, and that would set up the whole — set up new problems,"Giuliani said on "State of the Union." Giuliani added: "It's kind of unrealistic to say you're going to take the business away from the three people who are running it and give it to some independent person. And remember, they can't work in the government because of the government rule against nepotism. So you would be putting them out of work."

I could be totally heartless and say 'oh, let's have a pity party for Trump's adult children who can probably go a good four years on the change in their pockets', but I won't be quite that bad. I will admit that I don't care what Trump's children do during his presidency. They are adults. They can find jobs like the rest of us commoners. They weren't elected and providing for their employment is not the responsibility of the US government or the American people.

I am more concerned about the consistent resistance Donald Trump has to anything which avoids a conflict of interest. I'm not surprised. He has consistently demonstrated that he believes himself above the law. Hail, King Trump! Bheadh ri Trump, beidh mé ag iarraidh i gcoinne tú.

Bheadh ri Trump, beidh mé ag iarraidh i gcoinne tú.

Pax Americanus - is it time again?

I'm sure that people who follow me aren't surprised to know that I journal.  It took me several years before I really got into the habit. I will go for many days, maybe weeks, without writing anything of interest or merit, but last night I blogged about feelings and reactions on the first day after the election.

Many of my friends spoke of "being in mourning". It was interesting that they chose the word "mourning" to describe their feelings quite independently of one another.  I was also struck by the fact that this is the second time in recent history where a Democrat has won the popular vote but a Republican had the electoral votes to win the election. What is ironic is that this phenomena just allowed Donald Trump to become President when he complained about the Electoral College and wanted it disbanded in 2012.  Enough about that.

What really started me writing was what I found myself writing in my journal. What follows is a direct quote from my personal journal Wednesday, November 9th.

"Posted video of Peter, Paul and Mary singing 'If I had a Hammer.'  Later realized that there are very few of us who were a part of that revolt.  I asked 'is it time again?' but who knows what that means? The generation that pulled that off are all in our 70s.  Even Pamela's age group - the young ones during the protest - are in their 60s.  Don't think we have it in us to do it again.

"So many my age have lost the fire and become the 'establishment' against which they protested.  At Mary Travis' memorial Bill Moyer, a journalist, said to the crowd 'this looks like a class reunion of the Nixon enemy list.' (A list contrived by Nixon of his enemies.)  All old like me.  I'm sure Donald Trump already has a well established 'enemy list' - i.e. people he hates because they oppose him. Hope my name is close to the top of page one.

Like our first struggle for human and civil rights in the 60s,  I refuse to be sucked in by hatred. I will put a flower in Trump's lapel - maybe even give him a kiss - but I will not join his hatred nor will I legitimize his bigotry, sexism, racism, etc.  Trump has clearly illustrated that he wants to take this country back into the 1950s, which were good years for a select few. I will not quietly give up what minimal gains we've made in the areas of civil/human rights, sexism, environment, etc. Neither will I give Trump any excuse or justification for the violence he has shown at his rallies capable of perpetrating against innocent people."

Guess I should sign this
With love,
A 70 year old hippie.

P.S.  Upon hearing what I was writing Pamela commented about the divisive hate which we are seeing festering. To summarize what she said - 'to hate the haters is hatred.'  That was one of the hardest things of the 60s; viz. not to hate or be overcome by hatred.  I didn't like Regan or the Bush boys because of their love of war, but I didn't hate them and wasn't afraid of them.  I am afraid of Donald Trump. Watch his rallies and listen to his rhetoric. He is very efficient at creating and using hate. Those of us who oppose this man musts work doubly hard not to get sucked in by his hatred. For the younger generations, it's like Luke Skywalker resisting being sucked into hatred of the Emperor. If he allowed himself to hate, he was doomed to be just like the emperor.