Tag Archives: Donald Trump

the sacking of Billy Bush

 

Who is Billy Bush?

The nephew of former President George H. W. Bush.

The cousin of former President George W. Bush.

A former anchor of Access Hollywood, a weekly television program, and the former host of a nationally syndicated talk and music radio show.

Most recently, until just a few days ago, he was a co-host of the third hour of NBC’s Today show.

I had never heard –- before a couple of weeks ago, that is – of Billy Bush. I had no idea who he was and had never seen him on television.

 

******************************************************

On October 17, 2016, NBC News fired Bush.

Why?

As is well known, he was caught on tape in a vulgar conversation about women with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump before an Access Hollywood appearance. The story was broken on October 8, 2016 in the Washington Post, which gained access to the tape.

It seems that practically everyone has seen the tape, which is three minutes and six seconds long and is on YouTube.

On the tape, Bush is heard laughing as Trump talks about his fame enabling him to grope and try to have sex with women not his wife.

Bush said later that he was “embarrassed and ashamed” by what was caught on tape.

 

******************************************************

A few thoughts of my own, for what they’re worth.

I would be embarrassed myself if I were caught taking part in such a conversation and it were made public.

I did not find the conversation interesting or edifying. Bush appears foolish and callow on the videotape.

He is heard laughing — appreciatively, at least on the surface — at Donald Trump’s lewd remarks.

He has little to say himself except for:

commenting with two or three words on a sexy woman’s appearance saying that she looks “hot as shit”;

when Trump says ‘when you’re a star … you can do anything,” Bush answers, “whatever you want”;

he makes an admiring comment about a woman’s legs.

For this, he has been fired?

This is a serious offense?

 

******************************************************

How would I react if someone made Trump like disclosures to me?

I might react with disapproval, although I doubt I would vent it. If this were the case, I would probably clam up and be stone faced.

I might laugh a bit nervously and try to show I am “one of the boys.”

I don’t know.

Who cares?

The point I would like to make is that our society has gone bonkers when it comes to public morality. For the offense of laughing at lewd remarks about hitting upon women, one gets fired from one’s job?

I don’t care personally about Billy Bush. I am not interested in his career.

But I do feel that his “punishment” is ridiculous.

 

******************************************************

It has been and still is the case in repressive, totalitarian societies that freedom of expression is not permitted. So, that if, say, you insulted Stalin in the USSR, you might have been denounced and executed.

Similarly, I would not recommend, if one lives in North Korea or happens to visit there, making fun of a poster of Kim Jong-un, the supreme leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Laughing or showing disrespect in such totalitarian states can be sufficient to get you a long sentence in prison at hard labor, at the minimum.

Laughing at the lewd remarks of Donald Trump in today’s repressive cultural milieu can cause you to lose your job.

 

— Roger W. Smith

   October 2016

unfit to become president?

 

Here goes.

I want to make a point or two now, while the topic is totally dominating the news and, it seems, is the main topic of practically every conversation.

I have no doubt that few readers of this post will agree with me and that will most will say, “he’s totally wrong.”

But I hate it when people profess moral outrage over things they probably do themselves in the ordinary course of events — or, one should say, in a lifetime. I hate it when people act morally superior or hypocritical.

Few will be inclined to feel the way I do. But I have found, from my own experience, that when everyone thinks one way, it’s usually not right or true — in fact, it’s often the opposite. This seems to happen particularly when everyone is up in arms about a scandal, one that has led to across the board outrage and condemnation.

 

********************************************************

I tend to be apolitical, but I consider myself to be a liberal. I disapprove strongly of many, if not most, of Donald Trump’s policy positions.

Everyone knows by now that Trump was recorded on an audio tape several years ago making crude sexual comments about a particular woman, and women in general, characterizing them as sexual objects whom he thought would be easy conquests; and that now the audio tape has been made public.

Supposedly, this is the supreme gotcha moment, which everyone — the legions of Trump haters, that is — has been waiting for. The smoking gun that proves for once and for all what has already become a forgone conclusion: that Donald Trump is a misogynist and philanderer who demeans women.

What everyone already knew has been proven. He can’t deny it. It’s like trapping a bear.

 

********************************************************

Bill Clinton was caught in extremely embarrassing situations with women, some of whom he appears to have treated as sex objects without forming any other sort of relationship with them. I suspect if more of Clinton’s private talk happened to be taped (which it shouldn’t be), it would not all be ennobling or admirable.

Taping is not right. Exposing others’ private lives and secrets is not right. That’s what’s wrong here, not what Donald Trump said to his friend.

People have a right to privacy.

Most of us would be in the same boat if subjected to the same scrutiny as Trump, including myself. There would be things we have said and done which, if made public, would embarrass us beyond belief. Does this prove that you or I is a despicable, immoral person? Not really. Practically everyone has been guilty of private behavior that they would not be proud of.

Scads of men of my own acquaintance have made demeaning and “sexist” remarks; used foul, abusive language; insulted others verbally; boasted about sexual exploits. It goes on all the time. And people now are pretending to be shocked?

I have seen it in my own family and personal circle from people who were highly educated, cultured, and well brought up. I have done it myself.

 

********************************************************

“I was sickened by what I heard today [Friday, October 7],” House Speaker Paul Ryan said when the story broke.

Really? Sickened? I would say that Ryan is hyper sensitive. And, I am surprised that he has never been exposed to such talk before, which is to say at least heard it, somewhere, either in personal conversations or in the media. He must lead a very sheltered life.

Maybe he needs some Pepto-Bismol to soothe his stomach. But I don’t know. Sickened? He seems to be having a hard time dealing with the Trump revelations. Perhaps he should see a doctor.

“This is horrific,” said Christina Reynolds, a spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton. “We cannot allow this man to become president.”

Ms. Reynolds is paid to make such statements. Who does she think should become president? Hillary Clinton, of course. The wife of Bill Clinton, who — it’s as plain as day — is a serial womanizer who often made crude advances to woman he was attracted to. Did Hillary think that this should have prevented Bill from becoming president? I would aver that Bill Clinton’s behavior with women was actually worse than Trump’s.

 

********************************************************

The bad thing about all of this – the worst – is it’s just plain unfair to judge anyone’s fitness for practically anything based on what they have said in their private moments when they were at their worst. Because we all have had such moments, have said or done things that we would be mortified to see made public.

It’s actually a distraction from the campaign.

I don’t care who it is: Donald Trump, Prince Charles, or the guy next door. It’s cruel, wrong, and unfair to record people’s private conversations and spy on their private lives. It will often not be to their credit, but this does not prove that they are bad or unfit for public service, because — if we are going to apply such standards — no one will qualify. If such standards – which are really impossible to meet – are to be applied, grim faced and sternly, to Trump, then, in fairness, we will have to reevaluate the characters and fitness for public or private jobs of practically everyone based on this type of scrutiny. Few would pass. And, many people we admire, including those closest to us, would not come off well either.

 

********************************************************

My father was a well educated, well spoken, and cultured man. He served in the Army during World War II. I am sure he heard his share of curses and ribald stories. He may have told them himself. As a professional musician, he worked in clubs with other musicians who would swap dirty jokes. Does this make me respect my father less or blanch at his character? Absolutely not. If anything, it makes him seem human.

 

— Roger W. Smith

  October 9, 2016

 

********************************************************

Addendum:

My older son, Henry W. Smith, emailed me about this post. His comments included the following:

I agree that some people are judging Trump hypocritically; however, if he didn’t make a lot of misogynist comments, it wouldn’t give people verbal ammunition against him.

What’s unfortunate, to me, is the nature of how it was captured.

Also, not everybody talks that way.

I thought his remarks were very perceptive and that they identified possibly weak points in my argument.

My son’s comment that “not everybody talks that way” caused me to do some more thinking about this.

I said above that “[s]cads of men of my own acquaintance have made demeaning and ‘sexist’ remarks; used foul, abusive language; insulted others verbally; boasted about sexual exploits. It goes on all the time.”

Actually, I have not heard sexual banter or “locker room talk” often. Most men seem to be more restrained and discreet. I have often encountered crude language, vulgarity, talk about women who are considered “hot,” and, occasionally, more frank sexual talk. But, “boasting about sexual exploits” or conquests? Very infrequently.

What I have seen is people saying things — with sexual content or of another nature — that they would they would not want recorded or quoted.

I do think, as my son agreed, that the main issue with regard to the Trump revelations was invasion of privacy, which I believe is wrong. And, I am not shocked by what Donald Trump said.

See also:

“Men Say Trump’s Remarks on Sex and Women Are Beyond the Pale,” The New York Times, October 8, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/us/politics/men-say-trumps-remarks-on-sex-and-women-are-beyond-the-pale.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

The content of the article is consistent with the assessment that men do not ordinarily engage in such talk.

— Roger W. Smith

 

*****************************************************

Addendum:

Note that I said above:

Taping is not right. Exposing others’ private lives and secrets is not right. That’s what’s wrong here, not what Donald Trump said to his friend.

People have a right to privacy.

A relative wrote back to me, via email, that this was different, because it was an interview (of Trump).

It was not an interview.

What my relative is doing is something that Trump haters and PC types like to do when making accusations. Use facts selectively and twist them to support their allegations.

What Trump said does not invalidate my point.

“extreme vetting” of immigrants?

 

Liz Tighe post on Facebook

August 15, 2016

“Extreme vetting” of immigrants? Does that mean water-boarding? I think we should extreme vet any orange-faced lard-ass and those related to him who travel outside the country to Russia and Ukraine, and Scotland for golfing; water-boarding before let back in to see if they can recite the preamble to the constitution, the Articles of Confederation and explain the difference between The Constitution and the Bill of Rights and explain all of the amendments to the Constitution and why each came to be … yeah, yeah, turn ’em upside down, pour water down their gullet till they drown. Don’t let ’em back in until they can demonstrate understanding of our founding principles. While we’re at it, maybe we oughta extreme vet every human on the planet, to be sure they are actually human beings, and not aliens, or “other-worldly”, Satan spawn type entities that are infiltrating our republic and taking over the country from within. What dreams have become.

 

a respondent: Vet them, why not?

 

Liz Tighe: Vet, yes. but he didn’t say “vet”, he said “EXTREME vetting, I mean EX-TREME!” he added with great emphasis … define. Actually, if water-boarding was only considered an ‘enhanced’ method of obtaining information, what is meant by “extreme” vetting? What is the vetting now, how does it vary by country of origin and what would it mean for vetting to be “extreme”? Does anyone actually know? It’s the responsibility of citizens to know what it is they’re voting for. policy positions not appeals to fear and ignorance.

respondent: I would never wish this but, maybe the only way you would see it different is if your family member had died in marathon bombing or was raped sodomized and head cut off in Benghazi . It seems you disconnect from those evils! Salaries it different cause he lives in a world

Where his people die!

 

Roger W. Smith: Just because terrible things happen in the world, one doesn’t go about picking on large classes of people who were not involved to exact revenge and impose what might be called “collective punishment,” striking out blindly and trampling on our rights as citizens, which were not won or granted easily.

 

*****************************************

N.B. – Liz Tighe is the daughter of Robert W. Tighe, my former English teacher.

 

— Roger W. Smith

   August 17, 2016

 

****************************************************

letter to the editor, The New York Times, August 17, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/opinion/donald-trumps-anti-terrorism-plans.html?ref=opinion

 

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Invokes Cold War in Plan to Fight Terror” (front page, Aug. 16):

My jaw dropped when I read that Donald Trump stated that the Orlando and San Bernardino mass attacks were carried out by “immigrants, or the children of immigrants.” I am the child of an immigrant. My father came here after being in a slave labor camp in Siberia, having fled the Nazis in World War II.

My family and I live in a very diverse town of immigrants. Amazingly, there isn’t a terrorist in the whole bunch of us.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Trump did not mention homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, or Dylan Roof, the Charleston church shooter. Instead of worrying about immigrants, I would like to know how Mr. Trump plans to deal with the problem of white men, or the children of white men.

Elaine Edelman

East Brunswick, N.J.

 

*****************************************

See also a related post of mine on immigration:

https://rogersgleanings.com/2016/06/26/roger-w-smith-walt-whitman-immigration-policy-and-donald-trumps-wall/

 

— Roger W. Smith

   August 17, 2016

 

Re Guantánamo

 

Donald Trump has vowed to keep the prison open, and to “load it up with some bad dudes.” According to a leaked memo obtained by CNN, those prisoners will include American ISIS supporters—which, critics say, will likely mean American Muslims, deprived of their constitutional rights. “I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” Trump has said, adding, in other appearances, “Don’t tell me it doesn’t work—torture works,” and “If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing to us.”

— Connie Bruck, “Why Obama Has Failed to Close Guantánamo,” The New Yorker, August 1, 2016

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo

 

************************************************

This is revolting, nauseating, sickening.

 

— Roger W. Smith

   July 2016

Roger Smith, two journalism school papers

 

Roger W. Smith, two journalism school papers

See downloadable PDF file above.

 

The following are two of my papers written when I was enrolled as a graduate student in the master’s degree program in journalism at New York University.

 

“Where Can I Buy a Rubber Nose?”

review of “The Art of The  Deal” by Donald J. Trump

 

— Roger W. Smith