Opinion: Tweet A Mile In His Shoes

There was a time you could argue whether or not the world was indeed at war. Today I see that we are engaged in all kinds of wars in all kinds of places, but I never expected my workplace or my home as possible targets. In fact, I would have argued as a child of the 1980s, before mobile phones became smaller than a box of tissues, that there was very little chance that you couldn't find somewhere to be all by yourself, cushioned, safe somewhere. Today I realized that for a very long time, and without my full comprehension, some people can find no safe-zone, not in their worlds, and maybe not even in their minds. They walk among us, they are journalists and politicians, public figures and movie stars. They have families, they have children, they have loved ones, and they have one more thing, they have an opinion and a consumer base for that opinion.

Whether publicly chosen or accidentally acquired, a byproduct of the profession or an mere chance of birth, it has never been easier to get up right in the mind of someone you love to love, or love to hate. All you need is a name and a few social media accounts, and you too can become the target of adulation, nonchalance, or the kind of hatred that used to be reserved for someone who has grievously wronged your person either in a familial sense, financially, bodily, or all of the above. But the only crime I can see, is that they have an opinion unlike yours. That is allowed.

No matter how many times I have tried to imagine the kinds of slurs and open vile rhetoric aimed at political pundits, journalists, media presenters, or politically active celebrities this american presidential election season. I knew it would be awful stuff. I could imagine some of the more obvious hatred and bigotry regarding gender, religion, color, creed, and party affiliation or perceived allegiance. I could not believe how very much I underestimated how personal the attacked would be, how openly blatantly racist, the terminology, the images tacked along with a few choice words. I was wrong, I was biased, I will never take the issue for granted.

I may not agree with everyone's politics, their perceptions, their assertions, but I would be happy to 'agree to disagree' with someone's stance or message and just walk away and live my life (likely never to think of the author or journalist). What has changed, what has broken so terribly that we no longer can leave well enough alone, we often feel compelled to comment. Comments are part of being on social media. I am very guilty of my own replies to tweets and comments lately, those to political candidates that openly challenge them on their morals or lack thereof. But I rarely dissolve into swearing, let alone say anything so lacking of intellect that I would not say it in front of parents or family members.

This goes on from time to time, I never claimed to be a saint, I am a walking contradiction most days. But I am not a public figure, I write for a few blogs, I am a healthcare professional, I was not trained a journalist, I did not seek a public life. If after a glass of wine I decide to tell a presidential candidate or two that I think they are obtuse fact vacuums, I let that flag fly -- politely.

In the last few days I have heard a number of political pundits and 'news' presenters talk about the sheer volume, absolute vitriol, and threat content of their feedback lately. Some have needed to have a greater security presence as they leave or arrive at work. Some have said that they have been targeted based on the 'ethnicity' or perceived ethnicity of at least one of their names. Tonight I read a quick tweet from a journalist regarding a joke about waiting for the 'Trump' camp to respond to yet another endorsement from a former KKK grand wizard. The fact that the Mike Pence suddenly decided that his camp are above 'labeling' and therefore would not call said person a 'deplorable', has brought the issue back to the fore. I made a typical smart-ass comment and then decided to see what others were saying about the question as to whether Pence will cave and do the right thing or again do the 'Trump' thing. What I saw was horrifying.

The writer's last name stuck me as likely having a jewish origin, whether chosen or inherited, but it never occurred to me that it mattered. Most people guess my last name is either german or jewish in origin, it is a relatively rare jewish name, bu it's not something I feel necessary to conceal from anyone in my life. So I was maybe not entirely shocked to see not a few replies that painted the author as a typical 'liberal jew', that was almost too easy. But comments about Israel, about assumed collusion with the jewish state, about the holocaust, about nazis and Zyklon-B (the poisonous gas used in the gas chambers of Hitler's 'Final Solution') were everywhere. I mean seriously some of the most offensive things I have ever seen written, all written from the first few seconds the tweet went live.

This was not a link to an article, the was just a sharing of a public tweet to people who opt to follow this particular writer. The tweet, again, that of a current republican candidate who is also deeply anti-semitic. This means at some point, these replies and comments are being made by at least one person who closely follows this writer, and perhaps many that responded to his/her public call to attack. I just could not imagine what it would be like to have almost exclusively vile retorts to my boring little sarcastic tweets. I am lucky if one of my 50-plus followers even clicks like, never mind retweets me.

What has changed in people that makes so many of them feel it is a perfectly acceptable hobby to direct reams of hatred at people they are not forced to have any interaction with? Don't like a celebrity, say it once if you have to, try hard not to respond, better yet 'unfollow' and move on to bigger and better possibilities. I realize that this could not possibly refer to all Twitter users, many are just connecting with people, current events, news, or pop-culture. But if there are this many people participating in this new 'sport' where they can hide in chosen anonymity or be publicly openly utterly ignorant, what is going on outside of public view? What came first, the drive to behave badly with impudence or the ability to behave badly and face absolutely no personal risk for doing so? Perhaps they were a match made by our own inability to anticipate how complicated our relationship with technology could be.

To every journalist working their tail off trying to get important and relevant stories to their consumers, I am sorry that your world must seem dark and thankless most days. I am sorry that no matter what you write or say, you will face ignorance, insecurity, and hatred of untold volume. Please know that those of us who are interested in comparing, contrasting, and consuming a variety of different opinions and views are thankful for your work on the battlefields of social media. I may not agree with you, but I want to live in a work where all criticism is constructive, where we can pick the sources that we deem reliable or at least well know, and we can leave a sarcastic comment without seeing it alongside some of the most hateful speech on the internet.

Keeping Kids Media Savvy

Are we teaching our kids how to objectively consume media in the information age? It's a pretty straightforward concept, one that helps keep kids safe and educated. Kids need to learn how to critically analyze and vette sources. They need to examine an event, all the data available. Children should be encouraged to form their own opinions on people, issues, or news. The ability to spot lies or bias in the media, evaluating promises and past history is a life skill. Kids need to be able to see that even when you pick a candidate, the elected POTUS will need work with others in a bipartisan manner.

At what age do we start teaching kids to consume media thoughtfully? It is an increasingly important ability in this 'social media age' that applies to all children. Our kids are growing up with rapidly advancing technology that lets everyone have a voice whilst simultaneously leading to increasing isolation. We need to start when children are small, teaching that even parents can be wrong, like everyone else, that we can say sorry and still disagree, that their choices have consequences and the internet has a long memory, and that working well with others is fundamental. Eventually they will need to learn how to evaluate sources, understand statistics and identify bias.

That's the kind of education that I think is essential not just on a personal level, but for the good of the democracy. More educated consumers of media, eventually voters, that have early critical thinking skills. A citizenry that understand the technology of internet and social media, both it's good and bad attributes; I don't see a downside. If you want a functioning democracy, you need to have educated voters, no matter their party affiliation. People have a right to vote for the candidate that they feel best represents their belief system and values, That is not always going to be someone they like, but still agree with on policy. Or it may be a very capable and experienced candidate that refuses to admit that she lied to the FBI about her private server. It might even be an entertaining orange carwreck that no one takes seriously, but is somehow running neck and neck.

We need to give future generations the ability to make educated choices in life. In order for that to happen we need to start in those early stages where children begin to interact with media sources and need to gradually understand that what they see is not always real or true. We need to re-engage and monitor what our kids are doing, and we need to ask the questions that will help them understand that they can question anything, and that there is no shame in admitting you were wrong. This witty television spot from Concerned Children's Advertisers in Canada used to run on local stations, it always makes me smile and wonder how kids feel about it.

Opinion: Why I Can't Handle Hillary's 'Baskets' Comment

Maybe it's because my brain works differently than Hillary Clinton's. Maybe someone said it as a joke in Hillary's presence and she picked it up and just blurted it out under pressure, the laugh of a crowd pushing her to exaggerate. Maybe this is a common political term that I had been simply unaware of in my 44 years on this planet. Whatever it is, I have to admit I am a little disgusted and frankly disappointed by Clinton's suggestion that "half of all Trump's supporters are,... a basket of deplorables".

Hillary, it's not the 'worst mistake of the political season' as Donald calls it, his candidacy is the worst mistake, but it's one of your worst. 

I am a nurse, I work with people, I love my work. I have never had two patients alike in all my years of experience. No two people I have ever met had identical experiential, cultural, religious, traditional, or intellectual presentations. Some were openly saying politically incorrect or bigoted things, but I always understood the difference between a nurtured  or commonly held racist views, and I always felt compassion for a persons unfortunate beliefs. I just don't understand, I suppose, anyone's ability to label a group of people in such an ignorant, blanketing way.

I am the granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor, my Grandfather the only young man to survive amongst almost a dozen siblings, his parents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, entire jewish community of the town; his entire world was buried in a mass grave in what was Poland, in a city renamed. I learned early in life that prejudice and bigotry can lead to the decimation of millions of innocent people. I learned through reading on the Holocaust that even in the ghettos or concentration camps, people were still people, they did what they had to do to survive or they didn't survive, there were kind people, but not all people were kind, nor can I ever judge a single one. Some christians lost their lives for hiding or helping jews, others stood alongside Hitler himself, there is no one-size fits all standard for Christianity.

I just don't understand, I suppose, anyone's ability to label a group of people in such an ignorant, blanketing way.

So when Hillary Clinton, the only woman who is currently capable of keeping an impulsive bigoted misogynistic xenophobic narcissist from taking the office of the President of The United States, says something that is so dismissive of 'half' of the people currently supporting her opponent, I was shocked.  Clinton herself has said "words matter", they do matter, and there was no need to wholesale offend and unify Donald Trump supporters in one fell swoop.

I am aware that Donald J Trump, the current Republican nominee for President, has said and done the following (and a novel's worth more);

• Demanded the first African-American POTUS prove he was 'born in America', while insinuating he was a secret-muslim
• Mexicans are criminals, rapists, and that they are a danger to citizens both bodily and economically
• Called for a ban on 'all Muslims' from entering the United States
• Retweeted offensive materials and compliments from known white supremacists and racists
• Has a history of using derogatory terms to refer to women, has publicly body-shamed a pageant contestant, rating women on their looks
• Insulted a Muslim-American Gold Star family by insinuating the mother didn't speak because perhaps her religion represses her, as opposed to her obvious grief
• Etc.;

I am also aware that at many Trump public rallies there is crystal clear evidence that there are white supremacists, KKK members, anti-hispanic, anti-muslim, bigoted, and racist individuals in attendance. People say atrocious things about Hillary Clinton that specifically take aim at her gender, and nothing else. Chants of 'lock her up' are the norm. There are definitely deplorable individuals within his most ardent supporters.

A President must act in the interests of all Americans, even the deplorable ones, maybe especially the deplorable ones.

So yes Hillary, there may be a number of Trump 'people' who are indeed deplorable human beings, but guess what, there may be a percentage of that group that is sick, by which I mean mentally unstable. There are also some who grew up in an environment where this is a 'learned hatred', as all hatred based on the color of one's skin is learned, they were raised with these beliefs. Others have chosen the radicalize because they feel they are missing something and belonging to this 'group' will fill that 'hole'. Some have been radicalized by tactics I can only imagine, almost a cult-like indoctrination into a hate-group. Some have been raised to believe that politics is a game of sport, you 'root for your guy' and you play to win. Some may honestly have such low IQ, or lack the mental capacity, to question or critically analyze fact from fiction.

So there is rampant ignorance, but I can't help that for the most part, I feel sorry for those who put so much energy into hate. It seems such a waste of human potential, so much time wasted on the wrong priorities. So many children being raised in the same ignorant way. So much work left to be done to root out hatred in all it's forms and expose people to a kinder and gentler way of being in the world. So much work to be done it is often daunting.

But Hillary, you are not helping your party or your campaign when you suggests that all those who act out at Trump rallies or respond to his dog whistle politics are equally deplorable. There is nuance, this is not a binary subject. Yes some of the individuals supporting trump are acting in a deplorable way, that does not make their value as citizens lesser. Statistically, you are equally capable of attracting 'deplorable' people into your party and even right on to your campaign staff. A president must act in the interests of all Americans, even the deplorable ones, maybe especially the deplorable ones. Maybe, just maybe we need to be hopeful that these people see the truth from the lies and vote in their best interests.

Honestly Secretary Clinton, I just expected better from you, but maybe that was my bias showing, I thought you were a better human being. Your 'morning after' attempt to explain that you "grossly exaggerated and didn't mean half" doesn't help me, since you are merely reinforcing the stereotype but ascribing it to fewer people. Maybe what the 'Trump people' are reacting to is something that they find more objectionable than his openly unapologetic ways, maybe in their way of reasoning, there are worse things that a fraudulent BS artist. Maybe the 'worse things' they see have to do with transparency, corruption, and 'short circuited' mis-spoken explanations from a regular human being who is supposed to be intelligent and honest by profession. I frankly don't understand any serious appeal for Trump, he is an ignorant narcissist, but then I have had practice of engaging with a really diverse cross section of the population, and through a habit of curiosity, the world in full. Not everyone is so privileged to have had the safety, security, healthcare, education, economic advantage, and mentors that I have, the opportunities, and the inspired passion for learning.

Maybe I am being too hard on you, Hillary Clinton, many will argue that I am.

Maybe I am being too hard on you, Hillary Clinton, many will argue that I am. Many voices on my Twitter feed are already arguing that you were right on the money, the media reactions biased based on all of Trump's uncalled BS. Some suggest that the criticism is purely sexist, one way or the other. I have written many blog posts where I carefully dissect candidate Trump, a person that brings out my anger in a way that I am uncomfortable with. I rarely criticize you so harshly Hillary, for I see you as the more capable, competent, and sane 'choice' left [if a two-party election represents choice]. You are meant to try to inspire the 'Basket of Deplorables' to want to be better people, to want to learn, to want to trust government, to be politically engaged. If I was running for office that is what I would want to inspire in everyone I possibly could. I just couldn't write off that many Americans with a poorly chosen analogy, they are human beings with potential. Hillary, it's not the 'worst mistake of the political season' as Donald calls it, his candidacy is the worst mistake, but it's one of your worst.

Relax Secretary Clinton, you didn't actually lose a vote here. I don't get to vote, I am Canadian after all.

Friday Funny: Trump's "Unrelated Assertions"

Donald J. Trump speaks with Matt Lauer at the Commander-In-Chief Town Hall on NBC.

This brilliant 'Security Questions Asked' vs. 'Unrelated Assertions' tally and score is my favorite new video. This video deserves to go viral in the most important way. Donald J. Trump hangs himself with his own words by dancing around, never actually answering a question directly. He has the most obvious 'ADHD Thinker' presentation I have ever listened to. The more you listen, the more disturbing his inability to stay on topics becomes.

The video is part of The Young Turks Network of channels, this one is specifically from TYT Politics. In it's bleak simplicity, it shows how Donald can never stay on subject, never focus his answers, and just simply links subjects in a bizarrely tangential way. He actually never really firmly says anything, lies endlessly about how world conflicts of the past evolved, and seems to double-down on his exposed lies and assertions. According to Trump, all past and present military conflicts are the result of what he calls the 'Obama-Clinton' regime, completely ignoring VP Joe Biden or current Secretary of State John Kerry;

The official TYT Politics description of this video;

Donald Trump supporter and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who had been on the short list as Trump's running mate, thought he was doing his candidate a favor by letting him go on stream of consciousness rants rather than answer his questions about how he would deal with ISIS, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Iraq. But he might have given Trump a little too much rope for his own good.

Trump responded to 7 softball questions about U.S. foreign policy, terrorism, and the Middle East with 5 wafer-thin answers and 87 wildly unrelated assertions, according to a count by TYT Politics.

The audience cheered for answers like, "We have to solve it bigly and strongly," which was in response to the question, "What is your Iraq strategy as Commander in Chief?" As silly as that sounds, we scored it as an answer, rather than a non-answer because it does reveal what is going on in Trump's head when it comes to military affairs.

The Q and A spectacle was moderated by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who had been on the short list as Trump's running mate and spoke at the GOP convention. Incredibly, Flynn, who has had some experience in military affairs and foreign intelligence, responded to each rambling non-answer as if he had just heard something vaguely coherent. Although he did hover around the Middle East region with his questions, at one point asking the same question twice, hoping for at least one utterance that showed a basic grasp of U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.

We did not score the accuracy of Trump's statements, but we'd love it if our viewers could do that part!

The event took place on Sept. 6, 2016 at the Sandler Center in Virginia Beach, VA, ostensibly as a tuneup for the Commander In Chief Forum on Sept. 7, 2016, the first time that Republican presidential nominee would appear on the same stage (albeit at different times) with his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I am not certain who on the TYT Politics team, including Jordan Chariton, put this together, but it is the best example of the absurdity of a Donald J. Trump presidency. Well done TYT Network, always bringing a different perspective and a healthy dose of laughs. Remember, if you are able to become a member of The Young Turks, please consider it.

To start your membership, all you have to do is visit the The Young Turks online and join. You can become a part of the TYT Nation for just $10 US per month via PayPal, or less with a one-year plan. The Young Turks is a true fifth estate establishment; bloggers, journalists, hacktivists, and media outlets that operate outside of the mainstream media. TYT is your source for daily news, political coverage, human interest stories with witty analysis and diverse opinions. We need to support independent media both locally and abroad if we want real alternatives to the mainstream media propaganda machine.