When You Lie Like A Rug: A Trump Story
Donald Trump spends a lot of time, and a lot of money, on making it look as if he has a full head of hair. Thanks to the careful research of The Daily Mail, we now know how the illusion is created.
I don’t know about you, but I find this a little unsettling in a man making a run for president of the United States. And it becomes even more so when you hear this fellow, who has never held office in his life, align himself with the lunatic fringe, er, sorry, the “Birther Movement.”
You see, most of us like to believe that the folks we elect to the presidency have at least a propensity for truth telling. And for most of us, one irrefutable lie is enough to sink a person’s credibility entirely. That is why American courts have given the Falsus in Uno charge to jurors for generations. Once a witness tells a lie, we are entitled to believe that everything else he says is a lie, too.
So, back to Donald Trump. At least Sy Sperling, former owner of Hairclub For Men, would tell us at the end of his commercial, “I’m not just the president of Hair Club for Men. I’m a client, too.” And we’d see the “before” photo. And that built trust. Whether you wanted to actually buy a rug or not, you sensed that Mr. Sperling was not going to fleece you in the process.
Let’s take a hard look at Mr. Trump. To say he is all about image is to understate the point. The “hair” is only part of it. The succession of trophy wives is a factor. The name boldly emblazoned on any piece of property he has ever sneezed on adds to the picture. Consider, too, the selective story-telling about his career, which tends to leave out the spectacular failures. Think about the complete lack of anything close to political experience. And then think about how Fox news is already trying to portray Trump as an outsider, a regular guy who speaks his mind, just like regular people (hat tip to Political Carnival for pointing out this clip). Yes, he’s even got Reagan-like qualities, they say.
Trump hasn’t yet bothered saying anything of substance about what he stands for, and frankly, I don’t think anyone really expects that from him. The only thing we can be sure of is that if he succeeds in his quest for the Presidency, the White House will be re-named The Trump Federal Palace. And if he continues allowing himself to be the Pinocchio to Fox News’ Geppetto, he may just get there.
April Fool Me Once, Shame On Me. But Twice? Come ON!
This post has nothing to do with medical malpractice. Instead, today’s focus is on a broader issue. Communication.
It’s far from a perfect newspaper. But the New York Times has earned its well-deserved spot as a serious source of news, to be consulted regularly by those who care about such things.
And yet, last April Fool’s Day, the Grey Lady got punked, badly, falling head over heels for some fabricated news. If you can’t remember, or did not see it, get onto Google and school yourself.
There were all kinds of recriminations afterwards, and some well-intended corporate self-examination. So you would have thought that the NY Times would have fool-proofed itself against any future mishaps. But you would be wrong. It’s one thing, and quite minor, for it to have bought into the story of bacon-flavored air, as WINS AM radio reported this morning. Any of us bacon lovers could have believed that, just because we want so much for it to be true.
But to have fallen for the same type of gag for the second year in a row? That’s pretty unbelievable. Bccause it’s still a little early for me, I’m going to let Michael Cernovich over at the Crime and Federalism Blog give you the dotty details.
Be careful out there!
NYS Commission on Public Integrity Wants to Muzzle Me
Why would it want to do that? All I did was suggest that the Commission may have had ulterior motives when it dismissed, without so much as an investigation, an ethics complaint made by the Center for Justice and Democracy about the lack of balance on the Medicaid Redesign Team.
And yet, today I received this in my email box:
Dear Mr. Barovick,
In your blog posting on March 26 (“In New York State, Lots of Irony In Integrity”) you wrote:
Well, here’s something that consumers in New York State might be interested in. The good folks on the NYS Commission On Public Integrity serve at the pleasure of the Governor. And so, speaking of the subject of integrity, its members have a personal stake in pleasing the same entity. Could it be that the NYS Commission On Public Integrity was unduly influenced by that interest when it outright rejected the conflict of interest claim? And wouldn’t that be the ultimate irony?
I am writing to inform you that the Commissioners do not serve at the pleasure of the Governor. In order to insulate the Commission from such influence, they serve five-year terms and cannot be removed except for “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, inability to discharge the powers or duties of office or violation of this section, after written notice and opportunity for a reply.” [Executive Law § 94(7)]
I believe that a correction is in order.
Walter C. Ayres
Director of Communications
Commission on Public Integrity
540 Broadway
Albany, New York 12207
And here is my response to Mr. Ayres:
Dear Mr. Ayres:
I disagree with you. It is the Governor who can remove commission members, and therefore, they serve at his pleasure. The statutory reasons that allow for such discharge are, as I am sure you will agree, vague enough to justify removal whenever the Governor feels like getting rid of someone who is being particularly pesky to him or his agenda.
I also think that your organization made a decision based not on reason or ethics, but pure politics. So to me, you do not have sufficient credibility or standing to complain about my post, which I will not change.
Thanks for writing.
Andy Barovick
So what’s really going on here? The Commission doth protest too much, methinks. Or, to put it another way, the Commission is reacting a bit dramatically because it doesn’t like being called out on its shortcomings of integrity. Yet the spirit of deception continues in Mr. Ayres’ own missive. He emphasizes that the commissioners cannot be removed except under several circumstances, but leaves out who it is that does the removing, i.e., the Governor. However, when you read the applicable statute, found in my initial post (click on link above), you cannot miss that fact.
Nobody in this debate will argue with a straight face that the Medicaid Redesign Team wasn’t stacked with hospitals and related organizations. Nobody will contest that there was no representation of patient-safety groups or consumers’ rights organizations. Nobody could deny that it is the patients harmed by malpractice who would be most affected by any tort “reforms” proposed by the MRT. So when the Center for Justice and Democracy filed its complaint, which was grounded in the stark imbalance and unfairness of the makeup of the MRT, that organization deserved, at the very least, to be heard. Instead, the Commission on Public Integrity muzzled them, and quickly. To give them a fair hearing would have involved conducting an investigation, and actually examining the serious, fact-based claims that the Center put forward. But the pillars of Integrity at the eponymous Commission must have had other things on their minds, such as political expediency. Because nothing else will explain the failure to accord the Center’s complaint even a momentary look.