How Should Hillary Act During First Debate?

Advisors are counseling Hillary Clinton to be firm but ladylike during the first presidential debate next Monday with Donald Trump. The public, they say, does not embrace a woman in attack mode.

I, on the other hand, would prefer if she looks to Margaret Thatcher as her debate model, not in policy but in demeanor and comportment. The Iron Lady of British politics confronted head-on those who would challenge her. It is time for Hillary to stand up to the vicious, insulting lies, innuendos, misstatements and falsehoods promulgated by Trump and his cohorts. Do so not in a belligerent way but in a detailed, controlled fashion of righteous indignation not just for herself but for the American people who have been hoodwinked by a carnival barker masquerading as a serious candidate for the presidency.

Hillary needs to show emotion to demonstrate how passionate she is to serve the American public and to defend them against the regressive, repressive policies Trump wants to impose. It is time to take the gloves off, time to expose Trump for the clueless, shiftless character he truly is.

Trump does not react well when confronted. He doesn’t react well to strength and criticism. It makes him fabricate the truth and lash out with insults, the type of behavior that makes him an unstable candidate to be president. 

So here’s a sample of what Clinton should say during the first debate: 

If there’s a question about the Clinton Foundation, she should say … “Mr. Trump has questioned the role of the Clinton Foundation. Here’s the truth. The Clinton Foundation has raised and allocated tens of millions of dollars to fund social welfare programs overseas. My husband and I have donated (put amount here) to the foundation. Meanwhile, since 2008 Donald Trump and his family have given zero dollars to the Trump Foundation. He has made a point of saying he is giving away lots of money but it is other people’s money. Moreover, the Trump Foundation has paid out more than a quarter of a million dollars to settle lawsuits against Trump companies and to buy two portraits of Donald Trump for Donald Trump properties, both actions that are illegal. Perhaps Crooked Donald would be an appropriate nickname.”

If there’s a question on taxes … “Donald Trump wants to overhaul the tax code. During the last eight years my husband and I have paid (put in actual amount here) in federal taxes. X percent of our annual income. During that same time we have no idea how much Donald Trump earned or paid in taxes because he has cowardly refused to release his taxes. Even though he is being audited the IRS has said he is not prevented from releasing his tax forms. We can only assume he has something to hide, such as his low tax rate, or his entanglements with Russian and Chinese investments that would make it impossible for him to objectively deal with these countries. Donald Trump wants to eliminate the estate tax. The estate tax affects only the wealthiest in our country. It’s another example of how Donald Trump wants to change the tax code so that he and his family and his billionaire and multi-millionaire friends and cronies can benefit while working people bear the burden of their greed."

If there’s a question on Iraq … “Donald Trump claims he was against the second Iraq war from the get-go. Not so. Donald Trump  was interviewed on The Howard Stern Show on September 11, 2002. When directly asked by Howard Stern if he was for the invasion of Iraq—before it occurred—Donald Trump said, “Yeah, I guess so.” Yet, the man who has said he would never lie to the American people continues to this day to lie about his support for the war. I regret my vote for the war, but Donald Trump is too cowardly to stand up for his actions.”

If there’s a question about how to defeat ISIS … “Donald Trump has advocated illegal activity by our military. He has specifically said our military should kill the families of terrorists. He has said we should torture suspected terrorists. He has said we should have taken Iraq’s oil. These are all violations of international law and our own code of military conduct.”

If there’s a question on child care … “Mr. Trump last week said he supports child care benefits for employees. Yet he does not provide that benefit to his own employees and had the chutzpah to claim he did so at his hotels when the truth is he provided child care benefits to his wealthy hotel guests but not to his own workers. He would have some credibility if he would be providing child care benefits to those already under his control but he doesn’t. His proposal is nothing more than a campaign come-on. He has no more interest in seeing it put into law than he has shown in his own companies. What’s more, a Republican controlled Congress would never pass such a benefit.”

If there’s a question on the environment … “Donald Trump went to Flint, Michigan, recently to provide comfort to the families affected by the polluted water. That was commendable, but let him explain how residents of Flint and the rest of the country would be safeguarded from similar incidents if he follows through on his plan to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency.”

If there’s a question on immigration … “Donald Trump’s signature theme has been he will build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. And that he is a great negotiator. Yet, when he met with the president of Mexico he was too weak to say during his press conference that the Mexican president told him Mexico would not pay for the wall.”

If there’s a question on improving the economy … “Mr. Trump claims to be a great businessman. Yet his companies have filed for bankruptcy protection six times. He has claimed he never settles suits. Yet he has done so numerous times. His Trump University is under investigation in several states for fraud. In Florida his charitable foundation made a large contribution to the re-election campaign of the state attorney general within days of her decision not to join other state attorneys general in the investigation. Good business decision by Mr. Trump? I think it looks highly suspicious.”

If there’s a question on terrorism … “Mr. Trump is against our Constitution. He questions the very foundation of our legal system that you are innocent until proven guilty and that you are entitled to legal defense. He would deny Ahmad Khan Rahami, the alleged pressure cooker bomber, his legal right to an attorney. And he questions our civility in providing medical treatment to his wounds. Is that the type of society America wants to become? I think not.  I hope not. Mr. Trump wants to have a national stop-and-frisk policy even though a federal court ruled it unconstitutional.”

If there’s a question on gun control … “Donald Trump falsely claims I want to repeal the second amendment. No, I want to limit the proliferation of assault rifles. I want background checks on all gun purchasers. But tell us, Donald. What would be your words of comfort to the next families whose loved ones are gunned down with an AR-15 or similar type weapon? What would you have told the parents of Sandy Hook? Do you really want us to go back to the days of the Wild West when everyone carried around a revolver? Is that your idea of a civilized society? While citizens of the rest of the free world walk around without weapons you would have us turn into an armed camp.

If there’s a question on the federal budget … Mr. Trump claims to be fiscally conservative. Yet he wants to raise the Pentagon budget beyond what our military leaders want. He wants to build a wall. He wants to lower taxes, all actions that independent tax experts say would increase our national debt. But does Mr. Trump care? Apparently not as he says if he were president he would renegotiate our debt. He would single-handedly destroy the financial credibility of the United States. And that would be a legacy all of us, our children and our grandchildren would pay for for generations to come.”

Enough examples. 

The debate is billed as Trump vs. Clinton. But really it is between the values upon which America was built and a re-imagined America that would repress minorities and specific religions, would shun our immigrant heritage, would look to curtail the freedom of the press, the separation of church and state, and the right to vote without harassment,  and would question our national commitment to the good and welfare of all our citizens while rewarding the elite. 

Anniversary's Over, Now Back to the News

Almost a week since my last post, not that there weren’t things to write about but I chose to take some quality time to enjoy a long family weekend celebration of Gilda’s and my 40th wedding anniversary which officially was Monday. This last year of our four decades together has been quite eventful—Ellie married Donny, and Donny started a new job; Dan and Allison produced their second child, Dagny, they moved into a new home and Allison started working outside the home again, as a kindergarten teacher in a town near their new residence; Gilda’s spine surgery medical practice shifted to a new hospital, Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan; and I earned my real estate salesperson license. Lots of good things to be thankful for. 

The festivities over, time for some thoughts on current events ...

As the national debate on immigration reform is propelled forward by pronouncements from President Obama and a plan from a bi-partisan group of senators, I’m reminded of a Forseter family story of illegal entry into the United States by one of our cousins (for the record, my mother beat the quota in 1921 when she came from Poland, while my father arrived in 1939 from Poland, half a year before the start of World War II).

My father’s cousin Jack Fürsetzer snuck into New York in the early 1920’s, I believe. Hearing that a roundup of suspected illegal immigrants was about to happen, he asked around for a good place to hide. He was told Minnesota, so off he went to the hinterlands, settling in the Twin Cities area. He changed his name to Brushman. In the 1930s there was an amnesty for illegals, which explains why some of his six children have his assumed last name and some have his real last name. 

About 20 years ago I met with my cousins during one of my trips to Minneapolis, but sadly I did not keep up contact. ...

Immigration is but one of the hot topics being debated these days. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, gun control has been topic one. Sadly, during a forum last night in Hartford, pro-gun advocates heckled the father of one of the young victims as he called for stricter gun control measures. 

Even if tighter laws on guns, especially on assault rifles, are passed, the chances of a meaningful reduction in deadly firearms availability is unlikely. As Dave Ross explained in a recent commentary I heard on CBS Radio, gun runners are already passing along ideas on how to get around any potential ban. Read his short commentary: http://mynorthwest.com/813/2184540/Just-calmly-getting-ready ...

Less than a week to go before the Super Bowl, a time to ponder why we are so enthralled with watching athletes, from high school age through their late 30s, abuse their bodies in pursuit of glory and, at least on the professional level, financial gain, however fleeting that might be. Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy watching my New York Giants as much as any fan relishes rooting on his or her preferred team. I will watch some pro games in which I have no rooting interest, mostly out of curiosity or lack of anything better to do. After all, I do want to be able to be up to date on trending sports news and conversation, even if I don’t have a water cooler to hang around at work. But given repeated revelations about the medical complications football bequeaths its behemoths, don’t you wonder why so many parents permit, nay even encourage, their children to take up a sport that will torment them for life, or possibly even lead to their suicide?

The other day, president Barack Obama indicated if he had a son he might not let him play football. It’s a sentiment expressed increasingly by many parents, including sportscaster Michael Kay on ESPN Radio. Kay and his wife recently celebrated the birth of their first child, a daughter. I remember when Dan was a tween and interested in catching a football in our yard, Gilda let him know in no uncertain terms he would not be permitted to play organized football. He pouted for a while, but soon got over it. 

He played soccer, instead. Goalie. During one game he blocked a hard, close-in shot with his head. Down he went. The game stopped as the referee and coaches tended to him. On the sidelines, Gilda had to be restrained from rushing out onto the field. In her frustration she asked, “What type of game is this where a mother can’t go out to her injured son?” Dan quickly recovered and finished the game, but Gilda rarely went to see him play soccer again. She did, however, enjoy watching him play Ultimate Frisbee. ...  

Want to be truly scared? I’m not talking some creepy Nightmare on Elm Street/Freddy Kruger horror flick. I’m talking real world, red and blue state election results. 

While Democrats savor Barack Obama’s second term, and his progressive inaugural address, there’s mayhem underfoot, as Republicans wax up their plans to put the skids on any future possibility of a Democratic president. In states where Republicans control the legislature and the governorship they are exploring changes in the way Electoral College votes are allocated. Here are two links worth taking the time to explore. Unless you’re a bedrock conservative, they'll have you quaking in your boots:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/republican-vote-rigging-electoral-college_n_2546010.htmlutm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=012513&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423163/january-23-2013/alpha-dog-of-the-week---virginia-state-senate-republicans?xrs=share_copy

Am I Safer Knowing About Guns in the 'hood?

Do I feel any safer knowing one of my neighbors has a permit to own a handgun? Not really.

Even if I knew for sure he, or she, actually possessed a revolver or pistol, I wouldn’t feel any more secure. 

Nor do I feel any less secure. Here’s an interesting fact—over the near 30 years in our current neighborhood, the only two homes burglarized were ostensibly protected by alarm systems. And by dogs. So much for high tech and man’s-best-friend protection systems. I’m always amazed people don’t employ the simplest and most effective security system—lights that automatically turn on and off. Don’t people realize a completely dark house any time from sunset to at least 11 pm is an open-for-business invitation to house burglars?  

Since the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., there’s been lots of talk for and against tightening gun control laws, everything from doing nothing to restricting the sale of semi-automatic military-style weapons to placing limits on the size of ammunition magazines. Some schools have added armed security guards (about one-third of all public schools already had armed security). 

Our local paper, the Westchester Journal News, published a map pinpointing all holders of handgun permits in the county. The map does not reveal addresses where long guns (rifles or shotguns) may be present. Curiosity finally got the better of me, so I checked out our subdivision. I counted three homes certified to pack heat, with another two on a nearby street. 

In a recent Op-Ed piece in The NY Times, David Cole, a professor of constitutional law and criminal justice at the Georgetown University Law Center, wrote, “The right to bear arms typically invokes the romantic image of a cowboy toting a rifle on the plains.” True enough. But I seem to remember in Westerns featuring Wyatt Earp, Marshal Dillon or some other sheriff the rule of the lawman in charge was everyone had to surrender their firearms if they wanted to walk around town. When did we adopt a laissez-faire attitude toward gun possession in public, so much so that states seem to be falling over each other in their rush to permit open and even concealed weapons in public spaces including bars, schools and houses of government? 

It’s really rather depressing that so many care more about the right to bear arms than providing our fellow citizens with quality medical care, education and enough food so they and their children don’t go to bed hungry.

Pillow Talk: Speaking of going to bed, after reading my post on sleep habits, a representative from Anna’s Linens filled in more details about the company’s survey. 

Seems I’m not the only person who sleeps with three pillows—35% said they sleep with three or more, though they did not elaborate if they configured them to their body as I do. Another 45% sleep with two pillows; 20% rest their heads on just one.

The survey also found 18% sleep in their underwear to go along with the 8% who sleep in the buff and the 74% who wear pajamas.

Debt Service: Maureen Dowd in The Times wrote about Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colo) the other day. Bennet was one of eight senators to vote against the bill to prevent the country from slipping over the fiscal cliff. Like many who want to curb spending and lower the national debt, Bennet argued against saddling the next generation. He told Dowd, “I think if we can get people focused to do what we need to do to keep our kids from being stuck with this debt that they didn’t accrue, you might be surprised at how far we can move this conversation. Washington politics no longer follows the example of our parents and our grandparents who saw as their first job creating more opportunity, not less, for the people who came after.”

I wonder, what do Bennet and those like-minded mean when they say “kids (are being ) stuck with debt that they didn’t accrue”? Of course children didn’t vote when they were young. Their parents did. They voted for presidents and congressmen who passed on to us such benefits as Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid. The interstate highway system. NASA. Food and drug safety programs. OSHA. FEMA. A national park service second to none in the world. 

Creating opportunity for the next generation doesn’t just means the chance to make lots of money. It means being able to enjoy life, to be safe in your place of employment, to not worry about the surety of your food and water supply. Are there too many regulations? Probably, in some areas. Should we remove all regulations. Absolutely not. Let’s stop with the rhetoric and start and real discussion about what we expect from government and how to pay for it. Tax rates are at an all-time low. Let’s be grown up and realize if we want protections and services we need to pay for them. 

Duo of Tyranny

Seven weeks ago we voted in a new Congress and re-elected a president, but two of the most powerful and influential men in the land rule despite a majority of Americans disagreeing with their stands. Grover Norquist and Wayne LaPierre hold such sway over elected officials that they stymie any attempts to impose rational thought on issues affecting national priorities.

President Obama ran a successful campaign based on higher taxes for the wealthy. Democrats narrowed their minority position in the House of Representatives. They increased their majority in the Senate. Opinion polls repeatedly show some 60% of Republican voters believe higher taxes on the rich should be part of any negotiated settlement of our budget crisis.

Yet Republicans are so cowed by Norquist’s anti-tax pledge that they fear voting for any bill that includes any marginal tax rate increase, even if it affects just millionaires (could it be that since many GOP congressmen and senators are millionaires they are in no mood to pass anything that would up their own taxes?). 

Norquist also is a board member of the National Rifle Association, of which Lapierre is the vocal executive vice president who, one week after the Sandy Hook massacre, refused to soften the NRA’s position on any form of gun control. Again, polls show most Americans favor background checks and assault rifle bans. Instead of acknowledging the prevalence of guns contributes to mass killings, LaPierre blames our culture for breeding a climate of violence. His and the NRA’s solution is more guns in the hands of good guys will stop guns in the hands of bad guys. 

I’ve never owned a gun. Heck, I’ve never even pulled the trigger of a real gun. But am I now a candidate for NRA membership because, like LaPierre, I believe schools should be protected by armed security?

Gilda vehemently disagrees with me. She sees no benefit from introducing guns into school settings. After all, she points out, an armed guard didn’t stop the killings at Columbine. Gilda favors doing away with assault rifles and semi-automatic hand guns, And large capacity ammunition clips. So do I. Unlike LaPierre, I don’t believe solving our epidemic of violence can be achieved by arming as many people as possible. I prefer a country where semi-automatic guns are not protected by Second Amendment rights. But I’m also a realist. Until we resolve our self-inflicted crisis of too many guns and too many bullets available to too many unstable people, we need to establish at least minimal safeguards. 

Yes, it will cost lots of money to staff, train and deploy security personnel, not just at schools but also at other public facilities, such as hospitals and houses of worship. Some might think I am extending the killing zone. But evil will look for weakness, as it did at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. 

Our culture somehow has devolved into a dark video game. I’ve never played video games, never comprehended the fascination with mock killing and dismembering. I cannot fathom the depths of any mind that would exult in the deaths of innocents, especially the young. But as the troubled mind seeks greater and greater proportionality of fame and havoc, I cannot help but envision scenarios that undermine the very humanity of our culture. We claim to be better than other countries, but no other nation not at war with itself (as in Congo, Syria or Afghanistan) inflicts so much brutality on its fellow citizens.

Our national dialogue must include recognition that mass violence will not be contained overnight. So we must protect in the near term what we cherish. From where will we get the manpower to staff security at schools, hospitals, churches, synagogues and mosques? We have, regrettably, on top of his tax relief for the wealthy, another Bush-era legacy—a sizeable supply of personnel trained in the art of war. Thousands of qualified, stable military veterans need jobs. They could be hired to protect the vulnerable.

It’s not a solution without challenges. I’m embarrassed to have to put it forward. But deterrence may work in the short term until we regain our senses and devise a sensible gun control plan as well as a workable mental health plan and a rational tax plan and stop letting two myopic men set national policy.

Can Evil Be Contained?

Can you stop a lone gunman? Can you stop a sole terrorist? After evil has been released, can you put it back into Pandora’s box?

Some people ask, how could anyone kill innocent children? The truth is, such depraved behavior should not surprise us. Brutality, senseless and premeditated, is universal. It’s been with us since Biblical times (read the story of Dinah and the slaughter her brothers wrought on the helpless, infirm males of Sechem—Genesis 34). Or Pharaoh’s dictate to slay the first born of the Hebrews. Think we’re more humane in our “enlightened” age? Not if you’re familiar with our treatment of Native Americans. Or Africans brought here into slavery. Or if you’ve followed the individual and collective torments afflicted by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and their legions, by Lon Pol, Slobodan Milošević, Yasser Arafat, by drug cartels, Muslim extremists, African warlords who, terrifyingly, arm children only slightly older than those killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, to kill others. 

It’s not an exhaustive list, just an exhausting one as we contemplate how in the name of religion or nationalism or some –ism that is meaningless to most everyone else, carnage is condoned and, given technological advances, made more efficient with weaponry available to almost anyone, a “modern convenience” unimaginable just decades ago. 

Adam Lanza, by increasing accounts, was a troubled young man who should not have had access to guns, let alone the firepower his mother stored in their home. Adam was not able to conquer our most basic instinct to harm, to inflict superiority over another. Restrictive gun laws won’t prevent another tragedy, though the frequency of incidents might be diminished. They will happen. Too many guns already are out there. Too many unstable males (have you noticed these shootings are never perpetrated by females?) are not supervised and can easily get their hands on guns. It’s ironic that 17 years ago the State of Connecticut shut down a mental health facility, Fairfield Hills State Hospital, that might have housed Adam Lanza in the very community he has shaken to its core, Newtown. 

Israel has shown that while all terrorist action cannot be eradicated a pro-active approach to security can shield citizens from most danger in public places. Perhaps an answer for our school systems, at least for grades K-12, is to have single-entry facilities monitored by an armed guard. Yes, it would be costly (my guess is $50,000 per school building). But would it be more onerous than having to live through another massacre? Are we saying we are prepared to live by an actuary’s calculations that it’s more cost efficient to endure another mass murder than staff a security guard who most likely will never have to engage his protective skills?

The solution is not foolproof. Several times a week I walk into our local high school on my way to instruct students in the English as Second Language study hall. There’s a security desk outside the administrative offices. Once, maybe twice, I have been stopped by the guards. We’re just too trusting a society; 99.99% of the time, it makes no difference. But all it takes for disaster to strike is for the .01% to sneak through carrying a semi-automatic gun stocked with an oversized ammunition clip. 

The gun lobby believes armed deterrence is an answer. It believes all adults should carry weapons, even concealed guns, even on school grounds. I prefer letting trained professionals handle security. It should be a service we are all prepared to fund. 

Newtown Memories

Have you ever been to Newtown? Gilda and I have, she more than I. As pained as everyone is about the unspeakable tragedy that overwhelmed the nation there Friday, a deeper anguish, I believe, may be felt by those who can personally relate to that beautiful, picturesque Connecticut community.

We lived in Connecticut from 1973 through mid-1977. While Gilda was earning her nursing degree from the University of Bridgeport from 1973 to 1975, she spent a five-month semester in a training rotation at Fairfield Hills State Hospital in Newtown. It was a psychiatric center with some 4,000 patients at its peak use. The state closed the hospital in 1995. The 100-acre site was turned over to the Town of Newtown in 2004. 

From our apartment in Seymour, Gilda would drive up to Fairfield Hills on Route 34 alongside the Housatonic River, past the village of Sandy Hook which is part of the Town of Newtown. Weekends, we would sometimes retrace that route as we explored western Connecticut around Danbury and further north, up to Litchfield. Western Connecticut back then was dreamy in its small town, Americana appearance. White colonial homes surrounded well-groomed village greens, at the side of which usually stood a stately Congregational Church, its spire reaching majestically to a blue sky. Rarely did you pass a traffic light. Of course, Newtown and the whole region have changed in the near 40 years since we traveled those bucolic roadways. The last time we visited Newtown was in 1993. Dan’s traveling all-star soccer team participated in the one-day Memorial Day Kickoff Tournament. Among the trophies still housed in his room, I found the jersey patch he received that day.

Like most parents I wanted to reach out and hug my children when they came home Friday. Alas, they are grown and have homes of their own. I talked with them, but it was not the same. 

Swept into the sadness of the tragedy was the feeling of futility experienced by many first responders, including nurses and doctors on the scene and in area hospitals who eagerly waited to tend to the wounded. But only two frail, soon to be lifeless, bodies emerged from the killing field. The medical professionals were told to go home. Eleven years ago on September 11, Gilda waited with other nurses and doctors for the injured to arrive at Manhattan’s Beth Israel Medical Center. They waited the whole day in vain.

This country is in denial. Margaret Brennan of CBS News, who grew up in nearby Danbury, said on CBS-2 Saturday, “There isn’t a gun culture here. It’s one of those small, New England towns you go to to avoid the city, and things like this don’t happen.” But how do you explain that Nancy Lanza had five guns at home, including two high-powered revolvers and an assault rifle her son used to kill 26 innocents in cold blood at short range? 

Guns permeate our society. They are so readily accessible. Remember, the Columbine shooters used guns from one of the parents. We are a culture that denigrates teachers but upholds and lauds the right to carry arms, openly in public and increasingly on school grounds.

Why do so many begrudge teachers better pay? Why don’t we realize teachers are professionals we entrust to mold the future of America? Why don't we realize that when unimaginable horror confronts our children, it is a teacher who protects them, sometimes with his or her life?

Perhaps the most heart-wrenching visual of the entire massacre was not the line of children running to safety, or individual pictures of the deceased, but rather the wooden sign hanging in front of the Sandy Hook Elementary School that simply and invitingly stated, “Visitors Welcome.” No more can such an earnest sentiment be expressed, not in Newtown or anywhere else in America.