A chance for a little public service

An envelope arrived the other day inviting the lady of the house to the San Joaquin County (CA) courthouse for possible jury duty. OK, such letters are not invitations. They're commands, as in "we can send the sheriff out, you know."

Nobody likes jury duty. Nobody sits by the mailbox in eager anticipation of a summons. But people need to show up. A jury of your peers requires peers.
I've served on two juries over the years: a criminal jury and two year-long terms on the civil grand jury. Great experiences both.

The criminal case was a pretty straight forward DUI case, but it was remarkable in my mind for the work the jurors put in. I cynically expected jurors to march into the jury room, take a quick vote and hit the door for lunch. Two days later we still were going over evidence and arguing. It may have been only a DUI case but to a person jurors understood a conviction would unpleasantly alter the defendant's life. Jurors also understood the seriousness of someone climbing behind the wheel while intoxicated.

Likewise, serving on the civil grand jury wasn't easy. The pay was crummy, the hours often long and disagreements among jurors sometimes sharp. But the work was important, what I learned was intoxicating and the experience was immensely satisfying.

Just to be clear, this county's civil grand jury does not investigate crime. It does not indict people. The civil grand jury is not a gotcha outfit. Jurors try to find ways to make government agencies more efficient, productive and responsive. Jurors do work closely with the county prosecutor's office — the assistant district attorney is the jury's liaison to that office — but if the jury does stumble across possible criminal activity, the matter is referred to prosecutors. Likewise, jurors also work with the county counsel and with the advice of the superior court judge who oversees the jury. And this county's jury also enjoys the considerable expertise and experience of a judicial clerk who literally sits beside the jury foreperson.

There are only two basic requirements the civil grand jury must fulfill: each prison and jail in the county must be inspected and a report must be issued on at least one public agency within the county. That's it.

Of course, that's not it at all. Every civil grand jury does much more. During the terms I served reports were issued on Manteca Unified, Stockton's utilities department, homelessness, south Stockton, private donation bins, Stockton Unified bus purchases, public defender fees, the registrar of voters and rural fire district consolidation.

The jury also followed up on the work of previous grand juries to see if agencies that were the subject of earlier reports responded as required to the findings and recommendations.

We toured prisons and jails, sewer and water plants, and the port. Some members rode along with police officers and firefighters. Members attended countless meetings of boards and commissions. Dozens and dozens of witnesses were called to help jurors understand how things work and what was going on when they didn't.

All of the report work was done in secret. You can't go out and blab about what witness X said about subject Y (witnesses are under the same requirement, but, well, people are people). Secrecy protects witnesses, but it also obligates the jury to verify information with multiple sources.

The learning curve was steep, but also exhilarating. It's fun to know stuff, to learn things. I can't think of a day I attended to jury business that I didn't learn something interesting.

There is a saying in newspapers that sunshine is a great disinfectant. That's an acknowledgment that a newspaper can't force anyone to do anything. It can only shine a light on a problem and hope someone takes action. It's the same with a civil grand jury. Jurors can't force an agency to do anything. They can only point things out — through findings — and suggest possible remedies — through recommendations. The real power of the grand jury (and the media) is focusing attention and sometimes in framing the public conversation.

None of this can happen without citizens willing to do the work, to serve. Consider this column a plea for county residents to get involved. Applications for the 2017-2018 civil grand jury are due by March 31. To apply, complete the application questionnaire on line at http://www.sjcourts.org/general-info/civil-grand-jury or call (209) 992-5290.

The process is pretty simple. Applicants usually are interviewed by the superior court judge who oversees the jury. The names of successful applicants chosen are randomly drawn from the pool during an open court session. Those picked are sworn in. The jury consists of 19 members and perhaps four to six alternates who serve if a regular member drops out during the July-to-June term.

Jurors receive an ID badge — no more removing your belt to clear courthouse security — a parking pass — no more paying for downtown parking — and the code that unlocks the door to the jury room where the magic occurs. Oh, and, of course, there's the $15 a day each juror gets for his or her efforts.

Early on there are two days of training, a tsunami of information and early organizational jury meetings to form committees and name officers (the foreperson is named by the judge and generally is a holdover juror). There also is an optional but helpful day-long report writing session given each fall in Sacramento by the state grand jury association and optional training offered by the local grand jury association made up of former jurors. All this is a way of saying you're not in this alone.

The grand jury — like a trial jury or a criminal grand jury — should reflect the population it serves, in our case a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-generational county. Such diversity brings a rich chest of ideas to the effort. But it takes peers willing to do the work. So apply. You won't regret it.

Contact Eric Grunder, former opinion page editor of The Record, at elgrunder@msn.com. Follow him at oncruisecontrolafter65.blogspot.com and on Twitter @elgrunder.

Trump all over map with denials and stilted bravado

It is hard, given the months-long history of political gibberish Americans have endured, to figure out what to believe. Many of us probably have simply given up trying, dismissing the utterances out of the nation's capital as cherry-picked facts at best and out and out lies at worst. We no longer can believe what someone says. Or shouldn't.

Oddly, that very point was driven home last week by Kellyanne Conway, the president-elect's chief mouthpiece, when she went on television to defend one of her boss's latest rewrites of his own history.

Donald Trump had just denied that he ever mocked a disabled New York Times reporter even though the blatant ridicule was taped and televised repeatedly. Trump, flailing his arm in the air, told his 2015 South Carolina audience, "You ought to see this guy."

This guy is Serge Kovaleski. He has arthrogryposis, a condition that leaves his right arm and hand bent and rigid. Trump had issues with Kovaleski's reporting and this is how the then-candidate got even. It was red meat to Trump's audience. He enjoys ginning up supporters with anti-media barbs, and this rally was no exception.

About 10 days ago, the nation's Tweeter-in-chief took to the internet to boast that Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Apprentice" ratings weren't what "the ratings machine, DJT" had put up. Some supporters said Trump was simply teasing the former California governor. Given Trump's rather pronounced need to always be seen as the best, his utter lack of a sense of humor about DJT, and how he has used his Twitter account to bash those who've crossed him, teasing Schwarzenegger didn't seem to be Trump's point. Think Vanity Fair. Think Alec Baldwin/SNL. And, of course, think Meryl Streep.

Three days after Trump chided Schwarzenegger, Streep, the most acclaimed actress of our time, had the unmitigated gall to allude to Trump's attack on Kovaleski — without mentioning either man by name — the president-elect struck back with a middle-of-the-night Twitter attack. Streep is an overrated, Hillary flunky, he said.

So, what are we to make of all this? Apparently, we're supposed to ignore what the president-elect says, at least according to Conway.

"Why is everything taken at face value?" Conway said in defense of her boss' obvious mockery of Kovaleski. "You can't give him the benefit of the doubt on this and he's telling you what was in his heart? You always want to go by what's come out of his mouth rather than look at what's in his heart."

Wow! Kellyanne, how is that possible? How are we to plumb his heart without listening to what he says?

Are we also to ignore what he does? Such as: Not releasing his tax returns as promised? Praising Putin? Publicly castigating the entire American intelligence apparatus? Specifying how he'll regulate the the150 Wall Street firms and other financial institutions that, according to the Wall Street Journal, he owes $1.85 billion? Pushing un-vetted candidates into cabinet positions (a public school hater at Education, a climate change denier at EPA, an Exxon exec with deep ties to Russia and questionable ties to Iran at State, a Goldman Sachs exec at Treasury, an anti-gay at Justice, a fast food exec at Labor, a World Wrestling Entertainment exec at the SBA)? Insisting on an immediate repeal of Obamacare without one single replacement idea on the table? (And he didn't outline one during his circus-like (news conference Wednesday.)

Actions, as practically everybody's mommy told us growing up, speak louder than words. So far his words, Conway's urgings notwithstanding, tell us Trump's heart is easily bruised and he has an uncontrollable need to strike back at any slight. This is not reassuring, knowing as we do that the officer with the nuclear football soon will sit in the corridor outside Trump's bedroom door.

Contact Eric Grunder, former opinion page editor of The Record, at elgrunder@msn.com. Follow him at oncruisecontrolafter65.blogspot.com and on Twitter @elgrunder.

#media #trump #Conway #whitehouse

 

 

    

 

      

 

 

 

Media are your enemies? Far from it

The first thing I did on my first day at the Sonora Union Democrat was make the fire calls. It was the summer of 1969 and I was interning between my junior and senior years in college. Great summer, the best summer of my youth, although those first-day fire calls were an inauspicious start. I didn't have a clue.

There were only a half dozen or so fire departments in Tuolumne County and that day there were only a couple grass fires and one or two traffic accidents. Not a daunting task for a real reporter. It took me all morning to make the calls and serve up a few paragraphs of poorly written, information-deficient prose. I knew Harvey C. McGee, editor and publisher, was knitting his brow in his corner office.

But McGee was patient, and the next day I had my Curtis MacDougall reporting text opened to the page listing the basic elements of the fire story. You know, things like where it happened, when it happened, what happened, if there were injuries, the damage, the cause, the fire units dispatched, how long where firefighters on the scene and so on.

It still took me all morning, but the end product was better — and each day my work got better still. Practice doesn't always make perfect, but usually it at least makes for a better result. One afternoon covering a small forest fire just outside Sonora I got knocked over by fire retardant dropped by a CDF aircraft when I failed to notice the firefighters, who knew the drop was coming, had scampered off the hill. A reporter's learning curve can be steep.

By summer's end, I'd covered a variety of stories: Boise Cascade literally painting a town to pretty it up for buyers at its nearby development; university archeologists scrambling to recover artifacts in an area that would be inundated a few years later by the New Melones Lake; the final work on the new Columbia College campus. Also in my notebooks: cops; traffic accidents; countless planning commission, school board, county supervisors and city council meetings.

McGee made sure I earned my $100 a week, and I knew better than to even think about asking for overtime. The money didn't matter. I would have done it for free. It didn't bother me at all to live in a $60 a month dump with walls so thin that when the neighbor brought a lady friend home, ah ....well, you understand. That summer I lived off Cheerios, PB&J, fried cube steaks and Coke. I was in heaven.

Just as my J-school professors had promised, I learned more about reporting that summer than from all the textbooks and journalism classes I ever took. If you want to know how to report and write, you've got to report and write. And then do it over and over and over again.

I did it over and over again for more than four decades, some days better than others. I doubt there was a day I didn't learn something about writing, editing and gathering information — but especially about the subjects I covered. You just don't walk into a county supervisors meeting and know how to cover county government. It takes time, practice and lots of questions. It also takes making mistakes. In reporting, like with most things in life, it's your mistakes, not your successes, that teach.

When reporters make mistakes, they are in public and usually with a byline atop the offending copy. That kind of potential public embarrassment tends to focus the mind. It's no fun to take reader calls when you screw up. I've taken more than my share, but not once was it because of a purposeful mistake. I never met a reporter who went to work with the idea of screwing up a story.

And that brings me to my point: most of the public hasn't a clue how the media operate. Oh, there's a vague recognition of the First Amendment, press, speech and religious freedom and such. But too often the acceptance of those freedoms is only generously applied when they line up with one's biases.

It's bothered me for years that the general education component of a college degree only rarely requires any media studies. When you consider how much of what we know about the world comes to us through the media, it is frightening how little people generally know about the various channels of communications.

People, the saying goes, are born with only two talents, to practice medicine and to edit the newspaper. Call me an elitist, but I don't want some schmuck off the streets doing my knee replacement surgery. And 40-plus years of hanging around newspapers tells me not everybody is equipped by knowledge, skills or temperament to gather and report the news.

That's the reality. It's not fake news about news. And here's another reality: just as no doctor worthy of being called doc shows up at the clinic hoping to get a patient's diagnosis wrong, no reporter worth a damn slides in front of a computer and tries to write a story full of errors or bias.

Do doctors sometimes misdiagnose and reporters sometimes get it wrong? Yep. Everybody has bad days. Human physiology and human events are complex beasts. This is not to excuse errors but to explain them.
From time to time when I'd give a talk to a service club, as an experiment I'd ask members of the audience to write a one- or two-sentence description of me. Not once did I have any two descriptions come out the same. I used it as a way of illustrating how we all see the world differently.

Mine was a pretty low-stakes game with my audiences. When you start talking about coverage of the City Council or the White House, the stakes are considerably higher. This is the argument for not — not ever — relying on just one information source, no matter how it might feed your viewpoint.

Good reporters don't rely on one source, or shouldn't, and anonymous sources should be last resorts, known to both reporter and editor. When you're reporting, you need to quickly figure out the biases of your sources so you can convey that information to readers.

I would humbly argue that reporters are trained as much as humanly possible to set aside their biases and report their subjects as fairly and accurately as they can. And strong, sometimes even multi-layered editing, adds another layer of protection.

Go into any newsroom and you'll hear arguments over the emphasis of one fact over another in a story. There are arguments about the relative importance of one story versus another. There are arguments about story play, as in front page above the fold or buried on Page 8.

But about one thing there is no argument: the press is not the enemy of the people. Ask the people of Flint, Michigan. Or Oroville. Or, for that matter, Stockton. To suggest otherwise is poppycock.

Contact Eric Grunder, former opinion page editor of The Record, at elgrunder@msn.com. Follow him at oncruisecontrolafter65.blogspot.com and on Twitter @elgrunder.

#media #trump #press #republicans #whitehouse

News consumers need thinking (not tin-foil) hats

Many years ago, in a place not that far away, a story appeared on the front page of a weekly newspaper announcing that the nearby and long-abandoned missile silos would become a regional garbage dump. The story, accompanied by a large photo of a silo replete with a missile at the ready, jumped to the inside of the paper. The last line of the story: "April fool."
Readers were not amused. The not-in-my-backyard crowd was irritated at the thought of a garbage dump nearby, but so were readers aghast at the weekly's stunt. Phones began to ring at the small daily paper in the adjacent city where I worked. Readers demanded we retract, run a correction and set the record straight.

 

My editor demurred. We didn't run the story. It wasn't our job to correct another paper's poor judgment. I agreed at the time. Today I'm not so sure.
There's always been fake news; there always will be. Some of it, like the silo story, is a lame attempt at humor. Some of it of the I-was-abducted-by-aliens variety is aimed at the tin-foil hat crowd. Some of it is a nefarious attempt to hoodwink the gullible, the uninformed or appeal to existing biases. Of its various forms, the latter is the most wicked, evidenced by the recent election cycle. Half-truths and out and out lies circulated widely and were given undeserved false equivalency by much of the media in the name of fairness. The great casualty was public trust.
William Randolph Hearst did public trust no favor when he in 1897 he ordered his bored newspaper illustrator to remain in Cuba, infamously wiring him: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." Less than three weeks later the USS Maine blew up in Havana harbor and Hearst had his war.

Before he was finished building his media empire, Hearst controlled about 25 percent of the American newspaper circulation at a time when radio news was in its infancy and television (let alone the internet) was nonexistent. No wonder Hearst liked to be called Chief.

Eventually, we would have Edward R. Morrow doing "This is London" radio broadcasts and later challenging Joseph McCarthy on television; Walter Cronkite questioning the Vietnam War, the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers, and Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward at The Washington Post challenging President Richard Nixon. All of this was in the finest tradition of muckraking journalism under the mantra that it is the duty of the press to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Stockton's deposed mayor no doubt has a decidedly different view, but then so too does our soon-to-be president.

When Ted Turner came along in the early 1980s and started CNN, the nation's first around-the-clock television news organization, I was editor of a small Mississippi daily newspaper. I found Turner's audacity thrilling. I've come to loath it.

Sure, we now have instant broadcast news, truncated as it is, 24/7. What we also have is ever increasing breathlessness as news organizations use limited resources to cover fewer stories. And what's too often lost is contemplation, time to analyze and put information in perspective. That's only gotten worse with the advent of the internet.

There has long been a behind-the-scenes media industry argument: do you give readers what they want or what they need? No newspaper publisher is going to argue against giving readers what they want. If you're going to stay in business you're got to attract and keep readers/viewers, but - and this certainly is the view of the majority of reporters and editors I've known - there is an over-arching obligation to give them what they need. That's the goodness and light, First Amendment argument. Publishers argue you gotta keep the lights on or the First Amendment gets pretty hollow, pretty fast. Finding the balance is the trick.

Years ago when I was The Record's business editor, I had an illustrative discussion with a former editor - as fine a newsman as I know - who argued that people spend more time planning their vacations than they do their retirement finances. The statement was as scary as it was correct. Similarly, readers may want stories about the Kardashians or their favorite sports teams, but they also need to know the Stockton mayor got himself arrested and that the County is addressing homelessness. And they need to have reasons to trust the information is as up-to-date, fair and accurate as is humanly possible at the time it's produced.

The flip side of this is an obligation by the audience to recognize the importance of having a shared body of knowledge. They need to put in the time, energy and curiosity to understand what's going on, and need enough skin in the game to have their personal balderdash meter in the "on" position. That's a lot to ask of someone bombarded with information from all sides and under the constant strain of career and family obligations. It's also absolutely essential if anything resembling self-government is to work.

Much of the population thinks government doesn't work; a message made clear by the election of a new president who supporters like to believe is a "blue-collar billionaire." That's a dubious proposition but also a discussion for another day. What is clear is that for many voters the election turned on the basis of outlandishly bogus information, fake news if you will. (And ignoring for the moment the idea that the Kremlin was working the election information fringes or the scary, out-of-hand dismissal of such meddling by the president-elect and his apologists.)
Just last week an item circulated on Facebook with this headline: "JUST IN: President Barack Obama threatens to remain in office!" Immediately Trump supporters breathlessly picked it up and ran with it. No time to check, to question or to even ask "really?"

  

    

The "story" was utterly bogus. Simply clicking on the "about me" link for the author would have revealed nothing except that the fellow has been a blogger since December 2016 and has had 29 profile views (assuming any of that's true).

And it's not just the way too many voters who fell for fake news. We're raising a whole generation of the ill-informed, if a more than year-long study by Stanford University researchers is any indication. Some 7,800 young people from middle school through college were asked to evaluate information presented in tweets, comments and articles. The researchers were "shocked" - the researchers' word - by what they found. The students showed a "stunning and dismaying consistency" in their answers, getting duped time and again.

"Many assume that because young people are fluent in social media they are equally savvy about what they find there," the researchers wrote. "Our work shows the opposite."
And there is your argument for teaching critical thinking.

What to do?

For one thing, information consumers always should have those balderdash meters set to critical. They need to question. Take a few deep breaths and think. Is this the only source for this information? What other channels of information, if any, are reporting this? Are the sources identified? How are the sources connected to the information? What are the qualifications of the sources? Who benefits and who is hurt by this information, and how?
Sound bites don't qualify as analysis and neither does an eight-inch newspaper story even if it's embarrassingly labeled "analysis."

There's an old saying, often but perhaps mistakenly attributed to H.L. Mencken: People are only born with two talents, to practice medicine and to edit the newspaper. It's absurd on its face (although my late mother-in-law was convinced she was among the best doctors she ever met).
I know this: I was a much better reporter in the last years of my career than in my first. Experience and practice counts. So does training. So does making mistakes and having them pointed out by some agitated editor and then by the public.

Politicians love to point out the shortcomings of the media. They don't want news stories. They want strokes, propaganda. In our polarized political climate too often information consumers want that too, as long as it conforms to their biases.

That's not good enough if the ship of state isn't to list dangerously. What is needed is an educated, informed citizenry that questions constantly, seeks out opposing viewpoints and understands there's a difference between a demonstrable fact and an out-and-out lie.

And one last thing: don't depend on the media to slap down every fake story that comes along - including ones about missile silos becoming garbage dumps. Only the big fake stories will be addressed by a press that each day scrambles to sort through the tsunami of information that washes over them. News organizations need the help of engaged, thinking readers and viewers.

Contact Eric Grunder, former opinion page editor of The Record, at elgrunder@msn.com. Follow him at oncruisecontrolafter65.blogspot.com and on Twitter @elgrunder.
#media #election #fakenews #United States #consumers #Internet #newspapers #television

 

     

     

     

     

      

 

                
                                                     

On understanding ... and economics

Way back, when Bubba Clinton was "not having sex with that woman,” the lady across from me at the breakfast table was outraged. She wanted him out. She thought his behavior demonstrated character flaws that utterly disqualified him for the presidency, ignoring that any number of presidents as far back as Jefferson had sexual escapades that were questionable at best.

Me? Not so concerned. Certainly not outraged. Sure, Bill Clinton’s hanky-panky with an intern was disgusting, but …

I had a good job. They paid me enough that I didn’t miss any meals. And my portfolio, oh how it grew during the Clinton administration. My pocketbook was safe and that was my focus as I roared toward my fifties. Selfish and short-sighted to be sure, but also perfectly in line with the political adage that in the privacy of the voting booth people vote their pocketbook.

James Carville, Clinton’s 1992 campaign strategist, coined the phrase "The economy, stupid" to focus the campaign to defeat George H.W. Bush.

It’s still the stupid economy and that’s really what a lot of us who are left of center missed about the just-completed election cycle. Coming to grips with my own willingness to overlook Bill Clinton’s alley cat behavior helps me, in a small way, understand how so many Trump supporters were willing to overlook his shameful moral proclivities and his hate mongering. I was worried about my retirement back then. They’re worried about their jobs and the blindingly-fast changes in the world today.

Mind you, Trump’s wedge campaign — the misogyny, xenophobia and outright bigotry — did not advance human progress. He ginned fear and aided and abetted scapegoating. When he made fun of the disabled New York Times reporter I was outraged. Our younger daughter is disabled. What kind of a person, especially a candidate for the highest office in the land, makes fun of the disabled?

By the same token, Hillary Clinton didn’t exactly conquer the moral high ground when she said half of Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables.” Such a broad brush dismissal hardly is a recipe for support.

Remember Kim Davis? Last year she refused to immediately issue a marriage license to a gay couple in her Kentucky county. If the separation of church and state, not to mention a Supreme Court ruling, means anything it meant Davis violated the law and her duty as a public employee. She was wrong.

But her religious beliefs, on which she based her refusal, didn’t make her deplorable even if I couldn’t fathom the depth of such devotion. Many of us dismissed her, reduced her to a caricature, according to Emmett Rensin of Vox in April in a 7,000 word essay, “The smug style in American liberalism.” What he failed to note was the smugness about Davis was the same kind of dehumanization Trump used on Muslims and aliens and women and minorities and the disabled.

Our politics long have been a game of polls and demographics and bumper sticker solutions. If political opponents talk at all it’s to talk past each other. There are the fly-over states and the coastal elites, the educated and the rubes, the religious right and the secular humanists. Compromise has become dismissal. Political discourse has become preaching to the choir.

Hillary Clinton never set foot in Wisconsin because polls told her she didn’t have to. Save the one time he showed up in Fresno, President Obama never set foot in the Central Valley, even though Stockton was ground zero for the housing crisis and the pain here was palpable. George W. Bush came to Stockton twice, but each time he was shielded from even the sight of those in opposition. When you’re out of sight, you’re out of mind.

Trump tapped into the anger of those who Washington hasn’t thought about in years. Of course, a forceful argument can be made that the GOP’s years-long intransigence against the Obama administration on things like the minimum wage, jobs infrastructure funding, affordable child care, equal pay and student debt hurt most those who felt left behind.

It wasn’t long after Trump’s win that an internet campaign began by Californians wanting to secede. The state can go it alone, supporters argue. It’s the sixth or seventh economy in the world. We don’t need the great unwashed of Middle America. Politicians, left and right, haven’t needed them for years, so why should we?

Of course, that idea by liberals is no less silly than the State of Jefferson movement by north state conservatives who feel ignored by Sacramento. Rightly or wrongly, both groups feel disenfranchised.

Feeling like an alien in your own land is nothing new. A whole section of the country felt that way when Lincoln was elected in 1860. In 1968, the most horrific political year of my life saw the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, a ghastly riot at the Democratic National Convention and the election of Richard Nixon, all of it played out against the backdrop of the carnage in Vietnam.

In Arc of Justice, historian Kevin Boyle quotes Clarence Darrow’s closing arguments in the 1925 murder trial of African-American physician Ossian Sweet and eight others. Shots were fired from Sweet’s Detroit home in an all-white neighborhood when it was surrounded by an angry, rock-throwing mob.

“I do not believe in the law of hate,” Darrow told the all-white jury. “I may not be true to my ideals always, but I believe in the law of love, and I believe you can do nothing with hatred. I would like to see a time when man loves his fellow man, and forgets his color or his creed. We will never be civilized until that time comes. … I would advise tolerance; I would advise understanding; I would advise all those things which are necessary for men who live together ….”

We’re still waiting. We’re still hoping.

It’s impossible to know where Trump really stands politically, what he will really do. As Bill Maher said just after the election, the president-elect has been known to change positions within a sentence. We do know that his campaign gave license to intolerance. Trump’s appointment of Stephen K. Bannon as chief White House strategist, an appointment praised by both the KKK and the American Nazi Party, does little to allay fears. At Breitbart News, Bannon was provocateur-in-chief, running headlines such as: “Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” “Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement's Human Shield,” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”

The nation has survived many political and cultural spasms. We’ll survive this. It will take time and more understanding than has been demonstrated by either side for years.

Contact Eric Grunder, former opinion page editor of The Record, at elgrunder@msn.com. Follow him at oncruisecontrolafter65.blogspot.com and on Twitter @elgrunder.

#Trump #Clinton #presidentialelection #angrywhitemen #economics #United States #election #BillClinton #intolerance

 

Trump only knows how to build walls

Donald Trump didn't cause the events in Orlando, but neither did he help heal the wounds caused by that tragedy. Isn't that one of the things we ask of our leaders?
http://www.recordnet.com/opinion/20160619/grunder-amid-tragedy-trump-builds-walls

Thoughts of a decades old tragedy still linger

A few thoughts about a stunningly horrible accident 40 years ago.

http://www.recordnet.com/news/20160521/grunder-lingering-tragedy-of-young-lives-lost

#YubaCity #busaccident #YubaCityHighSchool