Patterson has it right, although he doesn’t go far enough. It’s not just that Clinton has received unduly negative coverage, it’s that the media has largely given Trump a pass on all kinds of egregious behavior.
The most frustrating thing about this campaign is that Trump is widely perceived as being the trustworthy, honest candidate, when in reality, there is no reason to believe a word that comes out of his mouth.
I believe that Clinton, by contrast, rarely lies and mostly tells the truth, the opposite of what voters perceive.
We’ve heard about Clinton’s emails ad nauseam, but Trump’s many, more serious scandals barely get a passing notice.
It’s not too late. The media has gotten us into this mess, and it’s up to the media to get us out.
Although opponents of land return conceded the injustice of taking the Black Hills, they made other arguments about history that potentially weakened the Lakotas' claims to the land. One of these was to characterize the Lakotas as relative newcomers to the Black Hills, who had violently displaced other tribes to secure the land for themselves. This account had two implications. First, it threatened the moral underpinning of Lakota claims to regain the Black Hills. If Lakotas were just one in a long line of conquerors, why should the Black Hills not be returned to the Crows, the Kiowas, or the Arikaras? As Elizabeth Cook-Lynn observed, the narrative of Lakota conquest "can be used to render moot any discussion of indigenous rights." Second, it called into question Lakota claims that the Black Hills were sacred land. If Lakotas "discovered" the Black Hills as late as 1776-77, how could the Black Hills have become sacred to the Lakotas in just a few decades? Several non-Lakota historians argued that the idea of the Black Hills as sacred land had been invented in the 1970s to buttress Lakotas' efforts to regain the land.
I had a great time on my bike today, despite getting drenched on three separate occasions. This is a view of the storm from across the lake. I rode into it minutes later. Click to enlarge. Today's 34.3 miles gives me 4,673.5 for the year.
Re “Video Shown After Officer Kills a Black Man in Tulsa” (news article, Sept. 20):
I see footage of a man with his hands in the air, apparently not following police orders. Why is the only response to this a bullet, especially one aimed to kill?
Have we made any progress on the development of a nonlethal response to a perceived potential threat? We have brilliant minds in this country. Surely some of them could be put to work on an alternative way to stop and restrain a person, especially one who is not posing an immediate danger.
This personal and societal grief must come to an end.
Note from KBJ: I agree. Shoot the suspect in the leg if you must disable him or her. Don't shoot to kill unless your own life is imminently threatened.
My adoptive [sic] team, the Texas Rangers, won its second American League West Division title in a row (and fourth in seven years) yesterday evening in Oakland. Katherine and I watched the game on television and I stayed up until after midnight watching the locker-room celebration. How do you like them apples, Ray Stahl? (Just kidding; your Seattle Mariners will make the playoffs some day, probably after King Felix retires and the team uses the money wasted on him to pay two or three good starters who can pitch into the seventh, eighth, or ninth innings.) Click to enlarge.
If a person accepts the standard view of moral theories that morality always provides a unique correct answer to every moral question about how one morally ought to act, then all moral disagreements must be explained away. Those who disagree must be not equally informed, not impartial, or not rational. If two people who hold the standard view are discussing a controversial moral issue and disagree with each other, they must regard the other as ignorant, partial, or irrational. These are not the attitudes that make for a respectful and fruitful discussion of a controversial moral issue. However, if both hold the view that morality does not always provide unique correct answers to moral questions, then they may conclude, usually correctly, that this is one of these issues. Then they need not regard the other person's view as morally unacceptable and can cooperate in trying to find out the source of their disagreement.
(Bernard Gert, Common Morality: Deciding What to Do [New York: Oxford University Press, 2004], 145-6)
I should not be surprised with the fury that the liberal media and Democrats are going after Donald Trump to retain power of the White House. I still remember how reporter Sam Donaldson of ABC News would belittle then President Ronald Reagan.
The Democrats have been in power for eight years now. Only dictators want to remain in power for long periods of time. We are not in a dictatorship but it sure looks like the Democrats are not willing to give up their power, even after so many years.
It is time for a change. I am a Republican and voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but feel this country is not going in the right direction. If we gave President Obama eight years to lead this country, it is time to give our Republican nominee, Donald Trump, four years to take this country in a new direction.