As recently as the 1970s there were scattered reports of journalists taking bribes. Paola some called it at the time, or as it was also known, envelope journalism, because, you know, that’s how the money typically arrived, stuffed in envelopes. The practice was common in big cities, especially among newspaper reporters, a beleaguered tribe that was easily tempted to pad their wallets with bribe money, because they were typically paid very little to ply their trade. Some things never change. The people paying the bribes, who include the rich and powerful politicians. Public Relations folks, were often looking to kill negative stories or plant positive ones. Sometimes they were paying for access. Maybe they wanted to secure an editorial board meeting or get a reporter to cover a press conference or run a news release. The bosses probably knew what was going on, but they likely looked the other way, because the thinking was that if reporters got bribes, well, they wouldn’t complain so much about being paid so little. A lot of people might assume that the practice of journalists accepting bribes is a relic of the past. If so, a lot of people would be wrong. The only thing that has changed over time is the currency. The coin of the realm is different. That’s all back then. What greased the wheels of journalism was cold hard cash. Today, it’s access which leads to high readership or big ratings or a book deal which leads to, you guessed it, cold hard cash. For many reporters, anchors and opinion writers, access is everything they don’t just want access to documents, files, reports and other kinds of information they feel they need to be able to interview elected officials directly, preferably on camera, and if that access is cut off, while those seeking it could be in real trouble. So in order to ensure access, some people may feel like they have to bend the knee, kiss the ring, or betray their principles, and the ones with the most to lose might be eager to do all three of those things, all of which leads us to the unfortunate and embarrassing tale of what happened when two of the most passionate and unrelenting Trump hating journalists on television, MSNBC, Mika Brzezinski and her husband and Morning Joe co host Joe Scarborough did something they would have likely never done in the highly unlikely event that Kamala Harris had won the election, they made a secret pilgrimage to mar a Lago on November 18 to meet with President Elect Donald Trump. The obvious purpose of the visit, even as acknowledged by the couple, was to re establish contact with Trump and smoke the peace pipe. Trump has frequently threatened retaliation against his critics, detractors and enemies. Joe and Mika fit into all three camps. You can see why they were so eager to hop on a flight to Florida to hang their heads and beg forgiveness from Donald el duce, the person voted most likely to become America’s first dictator, Donald Trump. We won’t know for a while whether the Don is the forgiving type, or whether he invites Joe and Mika back to mar a Lago for a nice take dinner, if they agree to bring the ketchup, whether these three narcissists can ever again play together in the same sandbox. Who knows? What we do know for now is that a lot of the liberals who normally tune in to MSNBC to watch Morning Joe are absolutely furious with what they consider an unforgivable act of take your pick, cowardice, hypocrisy, opportunism, even betrayal. In fact, they’re angry enough to change the channel. Yep, they’re voting with their remotes following the visit, the show’s audience tanked. It plummeted from an average of 1.1 million viewers to 618,000 viewers, a drop of 43% it’s ugly, but hey, this is what it looks like when a peacock eats Crow and.

Well, he did it. Joe Biden has decided to pardon his son Hunter Biden, after saying last summer that it is not something that he is going to do, there are people on all sides of the political spectrum, in some cases supporting and in some cases opposing what Joe Biden has chosen to do, and I want to lay it out here for you today. Now as a general principle, I want presidents who keep their word, and I’m not big on familial, cronyistic, nepotistic pardons. It’s not even totally clear to me that, on balance, presidential pardon powers are a good thing. I can find instances where they were used in ways that I agree with, and many in which they were used in ways that I disagree with. When Joe Biden said, I will not pardon Hunter, I thought that was the right thing to say, and it was the right thing to do, and I still believe that, at the same time, something critical has changed since Joe Biden made that statement, which is that Donald Trump ran a campaign on revenge, retribution and and punishment of his political adversaries. He has specifically targeted and been adversarial and hostile to Joe Biden and his family, including Hunter Biden and he has nominated Trump has people to positions of power who have made it clear they will go after Biden and his family once you see if you are Joe Biden cash Patel nominated as FBI director, we don’t know if he’ll be confirmed, but he has the potential to be confirmed, Someone who has made it clear that it is retribution and revenge, including against Biden’s family, that should be the policy of the forthcoming administration. Any father would do what Biden did. This doesn’t mean that pardon powers are designed to pardon your family and friends. This doesn’t mean that I want to see more of this, but I do understand it, and the critical part is that we on the left at least have a basis to honestly discuss this, but these right wingers who support Trump, who are now upset with Biden’s pardon, Trump has done the same thing many times over, and not with people that their your political adversary said they would target. For example, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law, nobody from any democratic administration forthcoming was going to be going after Charles Kushner. There was no real reason to do it, other than Trump did a favor to his son in law, and his son in law’s father and then more recently, Donald Trump has selected Charles Kushner to be the ambassador to France for the United States. So if you believe that what Biden did is wrong, you have to believe that what Trump did is even more wrong, which is issue a pardon, absent any reason for Charles Kushner to be concerned that he was going to be targeted and then give him a cushy role in your administration after the fact, we also have to consider that the List of Presidents who have pardoned family members is is not very long, but Trump is on that list, along with Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and yes, even Abraham Lincoln. And so if your belief is pardons a family are a really big deal, well then Donald Trump is one of only four presidents that participated in that really big deal, and you should be incensed that he did. If your belief is that this is really no big deal, then why are you so worried about what Biden’s doing? So, as is often the case, the hypocrisy of the reaction from Maga becomes a big part of the story. Now one other thing it is reasonable to worry that with Biden Now having done this, Trump is going to see it as carte blanche to pardon whoever the hell he wants to pardon. The thing you’ve got to realize is Trump was going to do that either way. Trump seems determined to pardon some of the rioters from January 2021, he was determined to do it beforehand. The difference is now, when he does it and people criticize it, they will rightly be able to say, look at what Biden did he pardon Hunter, Biden, they are not equivalent. They are not equivalent. From a judge, jurisprudence standpoint, a criminal standpoint, they’re not equivalent. But Trump was going to do it anyway. Now they do have this retort, which is, get it, get the hell out of here. Who cares what Trump did? Biden pardoned his son. So do I wish that this wasn’t part of American politics? Yeah, I do. Is it obvious that just about any father would do this? Same thing if they saw the incoming administration pickings, pick making nominations of people that are clearly going to target your family, would you then do it? I think most fathers almost certainly would let me know what you think

Yeah, okay, let’s talk about something called framing the argument, or framing the debate. There are arguments politically that we engage in when the truth is we really disagree with the system rather than the action. Let me give an example. There are people torn about Joe Biden, current President of the United States, making the decision to pardon his son Hunter Biden in his federal case. Now let’s provide context for this. Number one, Biden, the President of the United States, does have the authority to do so. Number two, it does scream, well, inappropriate, of course. But number three, Donald Trump, the most inappropriate and corrupt individual to ever occupy the White House, is coming back into the White House with his band of married men, and Joe Biden’s son would be under the authority of that regime. I understand why Biden would pardon his son. Now, Trump comes out and says that’s an abuse of power. That’s what Trump says. But wait a minute. Donald Trump has echoed that he may pardon those who committed acts of terrorism on that day, you know, January 6, when individuals decided to storm the Capitol at the request of then President Donald Trump, hell, he made a mix tape with individuals who were incarcerated for such a crime. Has called them political hostages, even though their criminal activities are ever before us in video and picture, and let’s be frank, presidents have pardoned very questionable people, individuals who have given them money or connected to families that advocated for them and gave them a campaign check. My point is, there are worse pardons that have been issued than this one, and let’s not forget, while Donald Trump is saying this is an abuse of power, everyone knows good and damn well Trump would have made the same call. But see, Trump would have controlled the variables of the investigation from day one, rather than allowing an investigation to even be done now? Does this really impact anything? No Hunter Biden became the focal point of a political conversation because of his proximity to who Biden okay to President. Biden, don’t forget that it was Donald Trump who called a foreign leader, hoping that foreign leader would investigate Hunter Biden. While Trump was president of the United States, he withheld money from a foreign leader to investigate Hunter Biden. That is quite extreme, but see the real issue that people have with this is the fact that a president has this kind of authority, that is the crux of it. We’re arguing decision when we should be contemplating the righteousness or evil of the activity and allowance thereof. What say you you?

The separation of church and state isn’t something I’ve especially concerned myself with over the years; I think I just assumed…they were separate? Because that’s sort of why America came to…exist? 

Well, that part of the American experiment appears to be approaching its expiration date. At least six states have introduced legislation requiring the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in classrooms. Texas and South Carolina have introduced a “Bible-infused” curriculums scheduled to go into effect next year, 

Just a couple of days ago, Oklahoma launched the “Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism” by releasing a promotional video featuring school superintendent Ryan Walters praying for President Trump. 

Walters also authorized the purchase of hundreds of Bibles for use in classrooms – apparently the first step towards the intended goal of providing Bibles for every student in the state. Just any bibles, you ask? Oh no, no, of course not, not when there’s an opportunity to cash in. 

No, the bibles that are being purchased for the children must be a very specific type of Bible – the King James Version – that also includes the Declaration of Independence and the Constution. 

In no uncertain terms, these legislative efforts – which are being challenged in the courts, sure – presents not just religion, but Christianity, specifically as a cornerstone of American society, equally important to the documents crafted by our founding fathers. 

It is an effort, in other words, to, quote MSNBC’s Ali Velshi, “part of a well-funded effort to fuse Christian nationalism into the fabric of American society.”

To be clear, it’s not that I oppose religion. I don’t oppose the teaching of religion, or the study religious texts. I studied the Bible when I was in school, but I studied it as a piece of literature. I also studied other religions, by the way. But as much as the MAGA/Project 2025 people want to try to make this about religious freedom…it’s about the imposition not just of religion, but of one very specific religion, into our children’s classrooms. To say this sets a dangerous precedent would be an understatement. 

In recent years, one name has become synonymous with the reshaping of America’s legal system, Leonard Leo. For those not already familiar, Leo is the mastermind and architect behind much of the conservative movement success in remaking the judiciary as the key figure in the Federalist Society. Leo’s helped guide the careers of right wing legal minds who now sit in the highest courts of the land, holding down its conservative majority up there on SCOTUS. But now Leo has his sights set on a new mission, reshaping American culture itself. The 59 year old billionaire says that he intends to crush liberal dominance in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and the media, the very industries that many conservatives seem to think are dominated by left leaning ideologies. Leo’s announced the creation of something called the T Neo network, a conservative talent pipeline designed to recruit and deploy rising stars who can influence content creation, entertainment and business. Think of it as sort of a Federalist Society, but for the cultural and tech sectors. Now, on the surface, Leo’s ambitions might sound like a modern day attempt to enhance the national conversation, but we should all dig a little bit deeper. Leo’s vision isn’t just political, it’s cultural. It’s about the broader push to change the very fabric of American society, to change what it means to be American, and that should concern us all, regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum. Leo has made it clear that he wants to build a network that can shape what we see, hear and think in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and beyond. He’s not interested in a free, diverse marketplace of ideas. No. His aim is ideological control, ensuring that conservative voices are not just heard, but dominant. What’s particularly dangerous here is Leo’s use of dark money. He employs a well worn playbook that proved fruitful when it came to stacking the courts, that is, fund a network of like minded individuals, recruit the right people, get them into powerful positions, and over time, change the landscape to reflect one narrow view of the world. Of course, it’s an insidious takeover, though, that’s through networks that quietly steer people toward positions of influence, ensuring that the right message, and that’s the rights message, gets out. This isn’t just infusing ideology. It’s about creating an ecosystem where dissenting opinions are squeezed out. If Leo succeeds, we could see a future where Hollywood only produces Family Centered content that aligns with conservative values, where Silicon Valley caters to tech giants that toe the ideological line, and also where media outlets are controlled by powerful interests pushing messages keyed to a single viewpoint. Imagine an America where most of what we consume, culturally, politically and economically, is shaped by one ideology that kind of sounds eerily familiar to how authoritarian regimes have historically maintained control. Hmm. Mussolini knows, as I’ve said, this isn’t just about Hollywood or Silicon Valley. It’s about the broader push to change the very fabric of American society, to change what it means to be American. If Leo succeeds, the landscape of American culture could look very different, more ideological, less diverse, and far less open to debate. It’s a vision where one set of ideas dominates the public sphere and the voices of those who disagree, well, they’re nowhere to be found because they’re drowned out. So the question is, are we the people ready for this? Will we stand by while the cultural and tech giants that shape our daily lives are hijacked for a political agenda? Ultimately, Leo’s latest move is a reminder that the quiet power is there shaping our world. You know, there are people pulling strains behind the scenes, operatives who craft the future of our society, and right now, Leo’s vision looks like a future where control over the conversation is firmly in the hands of the few

Well, the issue of immigration is more complicated than it looks take the concept of mass deportations. It seems everyone has an opinion on that subject. Too bad, most of them are wildly uninformed. President Elect Donald Trump insists that he’s going to keep his promises, including his outrageous and unworkable pledge to quote launch the largest deportation program in US history. Speaking of ignorance, there’s a whole truckload of it in just that one quote I get that Trump is mainly pandering to the crowd that wants to make America white again when he threatens to get rid of all the brown folks. But trying to reverse demographics through deportations is a tricky business, and what Trump has in mind is easier said than done. I ought to know. I’ve been writing about immigration for 35 years, guided by nuance, honesty and common sense. I still haven’t figured it all out, given the twists and turns that are baked into this issue,

I still see shades of gray. Blame it all on my roots. Both my parents were born in the United States. Three of my grandparents were born in the United States, in Texas, and the fourth came from Mexico to the United States as a boy with his family around 1915 during the Mexican Revolution,

their whole family came legally. I know this for a fact, because except for the Chinese who were barred from entry by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 no one could come illegally until after the immigration act of 1924

Meanwhile, my father is a retired law enforcement officer who spent 37 years on the job, whether on the US Mexico border or on The steps of the US Capitol. I don’t take lawlessness lightly. I don’t make excuses for it. I’m about accountability, just like the Republicans used to be before the January 6 riots turned them inside out. I want to lock up scofflaws and throw away the key. That includes foreign nationals who commit crimes on US soil and who should serve out their prison time here on US soil. I’m not interested in deporting them back to their home country where they can roam free and wreck habit and maybe even come back across the border.

I bet most Americans who reflexively call for mass deportations never think about that. Here are three more things they probably never think about. One, the price immigration and customs enforcement says each removal costs $10,000

per deportation, and the nativist insists that there are 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Do the math the price tag to deport them all, $200 billion we don’t have it.

Two, the violation of civil rights. It is guaranteed that in any sweep, the civil rights of us Latinos will be violated, especially if Trump uses local cops as his henchmen, thereby destroying public trust in local law enforcement for 50 years, which will, of course, increase crime rates. And

number three, the futility. It’s adorable that so many Americans think that migrants was removed won’t come back to reunite with their family and their friends, paying smugglers even higher prices to bring them across, thereby making the bad guys even stronger. Good plan. I get it really. I do. A lot of Americans are sick and tired of what they consider an invasion by a bunch of uninvited house guests. Now I’d argue that these folks were, in fact, invited, that there is no invasion, and that the invitation took the form of a giant help wanted sign along the US Mexico border. You see us employers keep hiring these people anyway. Suffice to say, there are lots of ways to get rid of house guests. You could, for instance, burn your house to the ground. Problem solved. That’ll teach them. My fellow Americans, please calm down, come to your senses and step away from the matches and.

All right, I want to talk about the mass exodus that is happening from corporate news media since the election. There’s about three different parts to it that I think are important to mention. Number one, what’s happening on independent media? Well, I told you, in the few days following the election that shows like mine, started seeing a decline in subscribers. It ended up being temporary, lasted somewhere between two and three days, and has since recovered and kind of gone to new record highs. On corporate media, there is C N N at least as far as cable news is concerned, we’ve got C N N, M, S n, b, c and Fox. Comparatively speaking, Fox is doing the best. MSNBC and CNN have seen significant ratings declines, and this is raising questions about, is this the end of cable news? Is this a temporary post election law? Is this about the losers going home to lick their wounds versus the winners rallying around Fox News. I think there’s a lot of interesting stories here to talk about. It is not rare for there to be a post election kind of drop off. The losers do kinda go and lick their wounds for a little bit. The winners will take their victory lap, and they’ve been taking their victory lap. I’m seeing it on social media as well. And then you’ll see a little bit of a tune out where people say, I don’t know that I need to be consuming this stuff as frequently as I was at some point, but I believe that there’s more to it this time around. This is more than just let me take my normal quick break from politics and then everything goes back to the way it was. There does seem to be an exodus happening from corporate news media where people are tired and disillusioned, but more importantly, they’re realizing, I don’t know, that corporate media is where the truth lives in general anymore, and this is making me feel like actually, we’re doing well, and people seem to be realizing it is independent media where the future is now. I’m not saying anything particularly groundbreaking here, because we’ve seen for a while that the networks seem unsure as to what is the right way forward for us. They want to access power rather than challenge it. We saw it with Joe and Mika’s Morning Joe pilgrimage down to mar a Lago. But more people seem to be catching on that the shiny graphics and that there’s a logo that spins and says live and breaking news, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what you really want R corporate media pundits recycling the same talking points 24/7 that seems to be losing its grip with the good news. Here is a lot of those viewers, I believe, are going to come to us in independent media, rather than going back to cable, they’re going to come to creators who are beholden to corporate sponsors or dictated by party lines, where they can say, or I can say, hey, here’s where I agree with one side or the other, or they’re both lying to you, or whatever the case may be. That is different than just I’m taking a break from CNN and january 20, I’m going right back to it. It’s more than a temporary ratings dip, and it’s part of this longer term trend where the gatekeepers of old school media aren’t as relevant anymore. And I think that overall, this is a very good thing. What’s the caveat? The caveat, as I’ve told my fellow liberal friends, the caveat is that I’m all for more independent media. That’s what I do. I’m all for growing the pie, the share of people who get their news from us rather than c, n, n, for example, R comment, their commentary from us, I should better say the problem for the left is that the right is way better at it. The right is far better funded when it comes to independent media, with organizations like the daily wire Turning Point USA, with both media and in person events, we don’t really have anything like that on the left. And so there are, there is a goal of building it and the risk right now, you know the the first challenge, so to speak, was, how do we get people to consider turning something like The David Pakman Show on rather than just flipping to CNN or MSNBC or Fox or whatever you normally watch? That was the first hurdle. That hurdle, to a great degree, has been cleared. Now the hurdle becomes people are accepting independent media as the place to get this sort of content. We don’t want the right to just absolutely crush and destroy so whether it’s a consortium, what, there’s so many different ways it could be done, but the point is, we can’t let them now run away with what we were actually trying to do all along, which is get more people to tune into our stuff. Finally, there are sort of questions as to whether any independent media shows would be big enough to get on the radar of Trump such that he. Might try to shut us down. I think the answer, as far as Trump is concerned, is no, but there is no doubt that there are people that Trump has nominated whose staffers certainly are aware of the adversarial left wing shows to Trump. And so there is some concern there will they now start targeting independent media because it’s gotten so big that remains to be seen. I.

Matt, Okay, Matt Gaetz, you know, the guy that Donald Trump picked to be the Attorney General of the United States. But that guy, Matt Gaetz, decided to withdraw his you know, candidacy. Matt gates, made a video saying that Donald Trump has been declared not guilty because Jack Smith, special prosecutor,

decided to withdraw the motion for prosecution against Donald Trump. First of all, Matt Gaetz, you likely should be in prison your damn self. Secondly, you are simply happy that nobody is talking about the investigation against you and under age trafficking of a minor. All right,

the reality is this, Jack Smith, special prosecutor, prosecuting Trump, did file two motions to drop the cases against Trump. This effectively ends the Department of Justice and their prosecution against Donald Trump, citing a guideline from the DOJ that says you cannot prosecute a sitting president,

Mueller utilized a very similar approach as a special investigator. De facto, both of these gentlemen are incorrect about the Constitution, about the statutory reality, the Constitution does not make any claim whatsoever that a sitting president of the United States is somehow immune from criminal prosecution. As a matter of fact, the guideline that was given was given decades ago to protect who Nixon, that’s why the guideline was given in the first place. But see, a guideline is not a constitutional mandate. There is no constitutional dynamic here whatsoever. He’s citing Department of Justice guidelines. And I will also say this, the DOJ decided to drop the case while Trump is not President of the United States, but only president elect. Meaning, even if your argument Jack Smith was credible,

you would see the irony in the fact that the case is dropped before he’s president of the United States. And let’s also highlight the reality that statutorily, there is no law that says the president of the United States is, in fact, immune from any kind of prosecution. Let’s go back to the guideline, because I don’t want people to miss this if the reason why a president cannot be prosecuted is due to the Department of Justice guideline. Who’s in charge of the DOJ now? Ah, the Biden administration. Why is it that they cannot rescind such a ridiculous guideline that’s not rooted in law and not rooted in constitution. That is the question.

President Elect Donald Trump has been busy crafting his cabinet and building his cacastocracy. The appointment of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General has caught a lot of people off guard, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s low hanging fruit. There is a more insidious appointment at foot that’s Linda McMahon, the co founder of World Wrestling Entertainment she previously led the Small Business Administration under Trump’s first term, and it looks like the 76 year old who has no experience in education has been tapped to lead the Department of Education this time around. We should be afraid, very afraid, while McMahon’s business acumen may have served well in her other roles, her project 2025 infused vision for the Department of Education is myopic and dangerous. McMahon’s priorities appear focused on reshaping the education system to better align with the needs of employers, emphasizing career and tech education over traditional academic pathways. She’s criticized higher education and suggested that short term credentialing and workforce training programs could better prepare students for immediate job placement. Now, while her emphasis on aligning education with workforce demands may seem pragmatic on the surface, it ignores the complex and multi faucet role that education plays in our society. This is a bigger issue that must receive attention. As the Secretary of Education McMahon will likely erode equity, stifle intellectual development and deepen divisions between economic and social classes. Historically, the American education system has served as both an engine of economic opportunity and a pillar of democracy. For instance, there was the Moral Act of 1862 which had established land grant colleges. That act was aimed at not just preparing students for jobs in agriculture and mechanics, but also to create a more informed and capable citizenry. Education was never solely about workforce readiness. It was about empowering individuals to participate in meaningful civic life. McMahon’s singular focus on career and technical education, while valuable in certain contexts, threatens to reduce education to a transactional relationship between students and their future employers, her game plan is to create obtuse workers, not informed citizens. Let’s be clear, aligning education with workforce needs is not not I say, inherently bad. Programs like apprenticeships and certifications can open doors for students who might otherwise be left behind in a traditional academic setting. But when this approach becomes the dominant model, it risks creating a two tiered education system. History offers a cautionary tale as to this type of dual system during the early 20th century, tracking systems in schools sorted students along racial and socio economic lines, largely into vocational or academic tracks. This not only perpetuated inequality, but also locked students out of opportunities to reach their full potential, albeit couched in modern rhetoric, while McMahon’s vision echoes this troubling history by prioritizing workforce training over broader intellectual growth. Perhaps most troubling is McMahon’s lack of attention to the role that public education plays as an equalizer. 19th Century Education reformer Horace Mann, he called public schools the great equalizer of the conditions of men. Now this is inspirational or aspirational, I should say, or maybe both, but it’s a goal we’re striving for. Public education has historically been one of the few institutions capable of leveling the playing field for children born into poverty or disadvantage. Redirecting public funds toward private and charter schools, as McMahon intends, threatens to further destabilize already underfunded public school systems. When Public Schools falter, it is the most vulnerable students, those without the means to opt out, who suffer the most. The potential consequences of McMahon’s efforts will extend beyond individual students to the fabric of society itself. A narrow workforce oriented education system may produce skilled workers, but it risks neglecting the cultivation of an informed citizenry. Said another way, we, the people, won’t be in an intellectual position to know we’re being hoodwinked by the wealthy, and that’s what McMahon has set up. Think of how we handled things during the Cold War, 1957, when the Soviets launched Sputnik Well, the US responded by investing in education, sciences, humanities, our government recognized that fostering innovation required more than job training. It demanded critical thinking, creativity, a broader understanding of the world around us.

Those investments pay dividends, not just in technological advancements, but also in intellectual enrichment. Compare that with McMahon’s vision, which prioritizes immediate economic outputs over long term societal gains. Education is not just a means to a paycheck, it’s the foundation of a functioning democracy and a thriving society. There are significant challenges facing education today, rising inequality, outdated infrastructure, underpaid teachers and so on. These challenges require leaders who value education as a public good, not as a subsidiary of the labor market. McMahon’s vision is not the bold reform education needs. It’s a regression to an era where opportunity was doled out sparingly to the detriment of the masses and the nation as a whole. We cannot afford to go back the.

The President Elect, Donald Trump, it turns out, is quite a trickster. What is jokester? He’s always making mischief. Now he’s using his cabinet nominations to mess with the media and also, whether he realizes it or not, by extension, mess with the American people, with a Rapid Fire series of laughably unqualified nominees for various positions, each one more absurd than the previous one. Trump is creating distractions and making a mockery of something that Republicans were supposed to consider sacred merit. You remember merit? Sure you do. Republicans invoke that word all the time when they’re trying to deny opportunities to women and people of color and defend the rights of America’s one true victim class, those poor, beleaguered white men, Republicans absolutely worship at the altar of May the best man win, with an emphasis on man, whatever people like Trump whine about the unfairness of affirmative action programs to take race into account in college admissions, or the unseemliness of President Biden promising To choose a black woman as a running mate, or the awkwardness of that same black woman later running for president herself and threatening to break the glass ceiling, or dei programs that encourage clutch the pearls diversity, equity and inclusion. Whenever any of those issues come up, the first word out of the right wing is always the same merit. See in the eyes of many conservatives, particularly white male conservatives, if the job, the slot, the gig, the nomination or the appointment does not go to a white male Well, obviously the game is rigged. Move over God for Republicans seeking to maintain the status quo, their motto has always been in merit we trust. Well, not anymore. That’s over with. There’s no more need for merit in Washington. Trump killed it, and he did it through his Cabinet picks, which looked like they came straight out of the pages of Mad Magazine. You would be hard pressed to find a less meritorious, less qualified bunch anywhere what me worry? Yes, I damn well better worry. And you should worry too if the Republican controlled Senate caves in and gives up on its role of advice and consent, preferring instead to go with acquiesce and confirm see Trump wants former representative Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from Hawaii, a known Russian sympathizer, to serve as director of national intelligence. He thinks South Dakota Governor Christie, no one whose state is 1400 miles away from the US Mexico border would make a swell Secretary of Homeland Security. Trump loves television and celebrity, so he can’t think of a better choice for secretary of defense than Cable News host and veteran Pete hegseth, and who has a better handle on our criminal justice system than Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, an accused pedophile and sex trafficker who Trump believes would be a perfect fit for us, Attorney General. Finally, the Department of Health and Human Services protects public health, so who better to lead it than someone who made doctors consider a serious threat to public health? Robert F Kennedy Jr, the names kept coming all week long, and they were just getting worse. So I got to say, by the time we got to caddy at the end of the week, Noam was starting to look pretty good. She looked like Mother Teresa Margaret Thatcher and Sandra Day O’Connor all wrapped up into one person. What happened to the sanctity of merit? Where did that go? It looks like sometime during this carnival side show, Merritt caught the four o’clock train to get the heck out of here. It’s pretty obvious by now, the only qualification that Trump really cares about is blind loyalty to Trump and the President Elect’s motley crew of misfit toys is plenty loyal. They’re going to stand next to this guy come hell or high water. They can’t afford to let him get away. After all, given that they all lack merit, where else are they going to go? Who else is going to book this bizarre Act? As far as I know, the circus isn’t in town, or is it i.