Does Trump’s Nomination help with the Divided Government?

  

Most conscientious and relatively competent individuals, regardless of political ideologies, can agree that Donald Trump is an idiot. Although it’s incredibly shocking to see him with such heavy support throughout the Country – really makes you wonder whether the voters in these red states even listen to the words he spews out – it may be exactly what this ideologically divided Government needs, a mutual agreement on hating the GOP nominee. In a time where Congress has grown more polarized, notable Republican politicians have come to an agreement with the Democrats, favoring Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

Many retired and incumbent Republican Party members have recently surfaced as to their decisions to vote for the Presidential primaries Democratic nominee. Most notably, George H. W. Bush has been acknowledged for extraordinary rebuke against the Republican Party and his recent decision to vote for Hillary Clinton.[1] Although the justification for why is not explicitly stated, I’m sure we can read between the lines – Trump is a narcissistic sociopath without a conscious, and someone who is aware of this is able to recognize, regardless of party ideology. Other Republicans like Rosario Marín, former U.S. Treasurer under President George W. Bush, has refused to support Trump due to the candidate’s controversial comments about immigrants. New York Rep. Richard Hanna was one of the first Republican in Congress to openly support Clinton. The Congressman rebuked Trump for both his personality and talking points that alienate minority groups, “I found him profoundly offensive and narcissistic but as much as anything, a world-class panderer, anything but a leader.”[2] Moreover, Trump’s Republican endorsers may be confused on why these once Republican politicians are voting for a Democrat, but it shouldn’t be that difficult to understand. These politicians seem to be paying attention to the content of the words coming from the nominees while ignoring the emphasis of political party categories in which their ideology exists. Sounds like what we should have been doing in the first place.

There has never been a more “hated” pair of nominee’s as far as anyone can remember. And although many may not be in complete favor of Hillary Clinton, you can not deny the fact that she is ridiculously more qualified that Donald Trump to be President – and it seems that these prominent figures are now resurfacing as endorsements for Clinton. (Here’s a whole list of them: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/all-of-the-top-republicans-voting-for-hillary-clinton-instead-of-donald-trump.html).

I try to remain optimistic in that this first Presidential debate, in which Trump opened his giant arsenal of vocabulary words to describe a judge as a very against police judge, will finally add to the accumulated notions of idiocy, bigotry, racism and corruption detected throughout his campaign. One can only hope at this point, that these notable figures go on the offensive and continue to boycott against Trump’s crusade.

This divided government has been a result of the partisanship of both parties. Figures like Paul Ryan have come out recently to speak about the negative effects of a split government – also being the reason why he got the job when John Boehner resigned. However, the ability to see past the party preference may be in the near future. With so many figures not buying into Trump’s campaign (although a whopping amount of voters are), it may help build back ties between Democrats and Republicans. In order for Congress to function efficiently, properly and democratically, both parties need to align, while in all, avoiding the tyranny that would exist if Trump became President. Focus on the policy and the nominee’s agenda, NOT whichever party they belong to.

---

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/george-hw-bush-hillary-clinton/

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/

Staggering Fraud from Wells Fargo: Who To Blame?

Staggering Fraud from Wells Fargo: Who To Blame?

It was only a few months ago, where Wells Fargo CEO John G. Stumpf was responsible for yet another sparkling quarterly result. However, Stumpf and the other elites of Wells Fargo - considered once to be the squeaky-clean Wall Street bank – found themselves in Court for the accusations of cross selling, opening over 2 million unauthorized accounts. These phantom accounts lead to a 5% revenue increase for Wells Fargo, as well as an increase of around $30 in share price stock. The only measures the bank has taken to address the issue of cross selling accounts has been the firing of over 5,000 low-level employees – who were merely following the enforced quota brought down by Wells Fargo. These executives who have been the culprits for these accounts have used the 12-dollar an hour employees as scapegoats, while dodging investigations and protecting their own assets.

CEO John Stumpf has claimed that he is accountable for these fake accounts; however, neither he nor any other executive on the board has done anything to hold accountability – including giving back the millions of dollars he was paid during this. No senior executives – or any other leaders of the community bank division or compliance division who are to oversee these scams when occurring – had been fired from this. It seems that Stumpf’s idea of holding accountability has been to push the blame into the lower levels of the bank that were following the orders of higher execs; to cross sell accounts – selling more accounts to existing customers as much as possible. Most other major banks push their employees to sell each customer 3 accounts, while Wells Fargo pushed their employees to sell 8 accounts. Stumpf’s rationale behind this?: Because 8 rhymes with great.

During the Senate Bank Committee hearing, Senator Elizabeth Warren grilled Stumpf for his justification of cross selling – among other things – for claiming that it’s a means of deepening ties and relations with existing customers. However, Warren surfaced the true reason of cross selling with evidence of quarterly calls made by Stumpf. Making pitches to investors for Wells Fargo, Stumpf was only interested in “pumping up the Wells Fargo stock”, claiming it’s a great investment due to the banks success in cross selling retail accounts[1]. Executive who oversaw lender’s retail operations Carrie Tolstedt, who is set to retire in the next few months, is going to claim her $124 million dollars in shares options because of this. “Now, the question is how allegedly illegal sales practices could have escaped her notice as the executive responsible for the bank’s 6,000 branches across the U.S.”[2]

Stumpf’s 6.75 million shares alone, since these scams took place, have increased in value, showing a profit capital gain of over $200 million (that does not include is 20 million dollar salary or his 15 million dollar bonus). The firing of the lower-level employees – including tellers, regional bankers and branch managers – are not the employees who are supposed to be held accountable for the fraudulent accounts. The senior executives of Wells Fargo need to be criminally investigated for the pressure brought down on employees to achieve unrealistic cross-selling quotas, as well as returning the fraudulent money made during the last 5-6 years when these scams were taking place.

Here is the video of Senator Elizabeth Warren absolutely destroying John G Stumpf in the Senate Banking Committee:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/20/494738797/you-should-resign-watch-sen-elizabeth-warren-grill-wells-fargo-ceo-john-stumpf

---

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/16/technology/wells-fargo-lawsuit/

[2] http://www.wsj.com/articles/carrie-tolstedt-in-the-eye-of-the-wells-fargo-storm-1474326652

Conservatives of the Supreme Court: Originalism or Personal Interest?

The controversy surrounding the Supreme Court decisions over the last two decades has been a widely documented phenomenon. Gaining great notoriety from failed decisions – Marbury v. Madison, District of Columbia v. Heller, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Plessy v. Ferguson, Bush v. Gore, etc. – the spot light has shifted onto the officers who occupy the highest court of the land.  The existence of “originalism” in the conservative Justices – the late Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas – has resulted in restrictive and eccentric judicial decisions.

            Originalism has been considered by its supporters to be the true interpretation of the United States Constitution, and the correct understanding of the original framework intended. However, originalism has continued to portray its true intention’s of personal interest: a cloak for conservative, pro-corporate, rights limited policy agenda. The Citizens United Supreme Court decision is one example, where Justice Scalia’s dissent embarks on a detailed exploration of the Framers’ views about the role of corporations in society. Justice Scalia, in part of his decent states, “Though faced with a Constitutional text that makes no distinction between types of speakers of the corporations, the dissent feels no necessity to provide even an isolated statement from the founding era to the effect that corporations are not covered, but places the burden on petitioners to bring forward statements showing that they are”.[1] The constitution, nor the majority justices, found any statements that would allow corporations first amendment privileges besides their own interpretation of Freedom of Speech and their understanding of the true context of the Constitution through “originalism.”

            Justice Thomas, who is considered a great deal more conservative than his colleagues, is also been debated to be the most conservative Justice we’ve had in almost a century. Highly idiosyncratic, Justice Thomas seems to be another Supreme Court officer that he endorses the idea of originalism. However, many times over, Justice Thomas has rejected previously set precedent, as well as finding reasons to disagree with most liberal opinions due to his own self-interest. Although a clearly conservative aspect, the case of Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt surrounded the topic of abortion. By a 5-3 vote, the court struck down Texas’ restrictions on abortion clinics, which he dissent, as well as writing the opinion of the dissenters – which the other Justices did not join. Although Thomas’ dissent was inevitable, he noted that he “remains fundamentally opposed to the Court’s abortion jurisprudence”[2] while taking the opportunity to reject the Courts precedent that remained for over a century. Justice Thomas is so confident in his interpretation of the Constitution, that he rejects the whole idea of Constitutional law and follows his own - lacking the respect for the Courts precedent.

            For the officers of the judicial branch to follow their own interpretation of what the Constitution says is simply stupid. The Constitution may not be able to change, but the world in which it applies to does. Change is inevitable, and it comes over time. With the constant morphing of people and society, the Constitution must be interpreted in a way to adapt to the majority. There is a strange inconsistency with rulings of the past to the present due to changes in society – like segregation, slavery, abortions, women’s rights, etc. If originalism is consistently following the exact words of the Constitution, then how can Court Justices show different interpretations and outcomes to the same decisions? The Constitution may be the backbone and foundation of the rules and regulations; however, it should not be the boundary society is confined too. Besides, how can anyone interpret an originalist view of the Constitution if it has been amended over time?

---

[1] "CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N." Https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZC1.html. Scalia, Concurring, 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

[2] http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/clarence-thomas-slams-supreme-court-bending-the-rules-to-create-putative-right-to-abortion/

The Public Intellectual: Bill Maher

Public Intellectual:

Bill Maher

            Bill Maher has opined on the numerous political, religious, and social issues that have arisen in the greater part of the last three decades. Bill Maher has voiced his thoughts and influenced public discourse, most notably, with respect to the presence of religion in government, and more generally, with respect to the government in general. He has used his TV show “Real Time with Bill Maher”, as well his books, documentaries, guest appearances and own status as a public figure as a forum to share his more liberal ideology – challenging and questioning conservative, and conservative theocratic ideologies, which resonates powerfully with the younger demographic. Bill Maher is one of the most prominent political intellectuals and commentators of the current generation because of his high stature and visibility – which allows him the ability to heavily scrutinize politicians, lobbyists, religious figures, government organizations, and anything or anyone in between for their religious, moral, social, political, and ethical beliefs.

            In 2008, Bill Maher’s documentary, “Religulous” examined and challenged the religion and religious beliefs in various regions of the world. Traveling to destinations including Jerusalem, the Vatican, Salt Lake City, London and so on, he interviewed believers of the Jewish, Christian, Mormon, Scientology and Muslim faiths, attempting to understand why these people believe what they believe, however irrational, while challenging the legitimacy of the various faiths. By combining “religion” and “ridiculous”, Maher highlighted the anomalies of these religions and urged people to seriously consider all aspects of religion, including these anomalies. However, his comedic approach struck a sensitive chord among groups from all sides of the spectrum, including the left wing, right wing, people of faith, and non-believers. Although the documentary received generally positive reviews from both audience members and public officials, many critics labeled Maher a religious bigot for his “one sided” attempt to exploit the inner workings of the various religions. Maher’s seemed to be misrepresenting the views of the people he interviewed – for someone who claimed to be searching for credible reason to consider religion, he seemed to be interviewing the wrong people.[1]

            Due to Bill Maher’s show serving as his greatest forum of political discourse – which brings about + 4 million viewers a week – an argument can be made about the liberal/democratic ideologies he asserts. His ideologies should not be mistaken as merely conforming to his large audience base, but similarly to “America’s own liberal history” discussed in Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual. In the discussion of Peter Beinart’s justification for why the anti-evangelical bigotry was not really bigotry in public debate – stating that it’s best in public arguments to ground your religious beliefs in replacement of reason and evidence in order for true debate through common political language – the “dialogic neutrality” he calls upon may be equally unreasonable. Ideally, the notion of neutrality when discussing politics and policy sound very reasonable, the history of America’s own democratic track record should not be mistaken for pure neutrality. Just as there is a similar bias amongst the mainstream public – exaggerated in the younger demographic – for liberal ideals that factor into public and political discourse. For one to expect people of faith to sanitize their “political rhetoric of all religious assumptions ‘amounts to a demand that religious believers be other than themselves and act publicly as if their faith is of no real consequence.’ It’s not only absurd but unfair, some argue, to ask religious intellectuals to disarm their political speech of its fundamental moral rationale”.[2] “Religulous” not only attempts to understand the legitimacy or expose the illegitimacy of religion, but similar to Beinart’s point, strives to surface the religious bias that may be factored into the political sector of our own country. However logical the idea to engage in public discourse with common language may be, it may also be considered unfair with the long lasting presence of America’s liberal foundation.

            A public intellectual, according to “The Decline of the Public Intellectual”, is not defined by the excessive amount of ones wisdom, nor is it their gifted position that equips them with social and political power. A true public intellectual learns the processes of criticism with regularity, as well as highlighting the most important issues being raised. [3] Ultimately, creating greater public discourse begins with another important issue, Healthcare. Maher has expressed his hatred for the pharmaceutical and health care industries as a result of the unnecessarily, immense, profit margins created. Maher maintains that the mass consumption in unhealthy foods that these entities urge upon the public is the culprit behind American’s obesity and even drug problem – creating a dependency for pharmaceutical drugs that are not the solution to health issues. On Real Time with Bill Maher, he presented statistical evidence that showed the incredibly larger positive affects of diet and exercise on all physical and cognitive aspects, as opposed to the dependency of healthcare – in turn, avoiding prescription drugs for minor things ranging from depression to heart disease.[4]  Many of Maher’s critics who attack his stance on pharmaceutical drugs come from the National Institutes of Health, characterizing him as “anti-science”, uninformed and potentially endangering the health of fans that take his "non-medical" advice.[5] Maher had responded to the critics by stating of the vaccinations he was against, "what they think I'm saying is not what I've said. I'm not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No." Although his stature and prominence as the figure he is does allow him to create debate and respond to criticism, his ability to consistently raise important questions and create the topics of discussion has resulted in his notoriety as a public intellectual.

            Bill Maher’s large fan base throughout the years – formulated from his comedy stand up, his collaborations with David Letterman and Larry King, as well as his first show “Politically Incorrect” – has allowed for him to advocate for policies and leaders most politically sound, while spreading awareness of the issues at hand. With the November primaries only a few months away, Maher has begun to intensify his support for Hillary Clinton and intensify the scrutinizing of Donald Trump. Urging his viewers, guest speakers and all other audience members to vote for the Hillary Clinton, he is insisting that this election will be a referendum on decency and that electing Donald Trump would resemble Nazi Germany’s electing of Hitler.[6] Maher tries to surface the double standard that appears to be in this election in favor of Trump, using George Allen as an example of a Presidential candidate who was immediately shunned for using the racial term “macaca”, while Trump’s road to presidency is not affected negatively by any racial comments he continues to make. Another one of his many racial comments made throughout his campaign was calling Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” and a “total failure” due to her self proclaimed Native American heritage, while Hillary Clinton has continued to be demonized for being a woman, and the controversy surrounding her emails.[7] Similarly to when Bill Maher had supported President Obama in 2008 with his $1 million dollar donation to his Super PAC, he recently made donations to Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC for the upcoming election; he has publicized these donations to justify to viewers unaware of the Citizens United case and the merit it possess, as well as defining what the purpose of a Super PAC is for unaware viewers.[8]  Maher’s support for candidates in the past, by donations and discussions involving their policies, has had a positive track record of elected candidates and highlighted awareness of the important issues at stake.

            Bill Maher’s most recent contribution to political discourse has been the rallying of the Bernie Sanders supporters to get behind Hillary Clinton. Maher, along with many other public figures who were upset that Bernie was out of the race, were quick to suggest that the primaries were not over and that Hillary Clinton was more than qualified and just as viable of a candidate. A month after Bernie had left the race for candidacy, he was a guest on Real Time, where he personally encouraged the voters to get behind Hillary Clinton and called Donald Trump “the most dangerous Presidential candidate that we had ever seen” – suggesting that the backing of Hillary Clinton is aimed at the larger picture.[9] As inconceivable and unrealistic this continues to sound to most American’s, Donald Trump has only 1 person remaining in the way from becoming the leader of the free world. America is just that much closer to electing a narcissistic racial bigot as it’s next President, and public intellectuals like Bill Maher are doing their best in order to prevent this catastrophe from occurring.

            Bill Maher is very much a public intellectual who has employed many different strategies for political, public and religious discourse. Maher’s ability to engage audience members in all sorts of dialogue has resulted in a heightened awareness of religion, politics, policy and other major issues that are happening all around the country. Aside from his notoriety, his prominent guest speakers and panel members of his show help assist in further captivating the interest of the viewers while diversifying the topics being discussed. Real Time with Bill Maher serves as a forum that establishes the common language between all viewers and listeners in comedic manners, helping easily translate the important issues that arise in our country. Although this comedic approach may often times get him into trouble with the people of faith and other conservative members, it still manage to bring recognition on the manner at issue. Aside from negative backlash, “Religulous” is still the top 50 documentaries grossing in the world today, consistently influencing and engaging the public toward the conversation of religion – whether agreed or disagreed. The documentary was extremely affective in creating discussions involving his attempt to find legitimacy in these different religions around the world. What makes Bill Maher a public intellectual is not his publicized and advantageous position as a commentator/comedian, but because of his consistency over the last 3 decades in highlighting the important issues facing our country, using the advantageous position he has to further raise the matters in question.

---

[1] Dybing, Gabe. "Questions of Audience and Purpose Surrounding Bill Maher’s “Religulous”." Gabe Dybing. N.p., 22 Apr. 2015. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.

[2] Mack, Stephen. "The Cleric As Public Intellectual." Www.stephenmack.com/blog/. N.p., Jan. 2007. Web. 7 Sept. 2016.

[3] Mack, Stephen. "The New Democratic Review: The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals? (repost)." The New Democratic Review: The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals? (repost). N.p., 13 Jan. 2011. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.

[4] Real Time with Bill Maher; September 28, 2007; HBO

[5] Swiss, Jamy Ian. "Overlapping Magisteria". JREF. Retrieved 2013-03-20.

[6] Whitlock, Scott. "Bill Maher: Republicans Are Retarded Nazis; Election Is a 'Referendum on Decency'" NewsBusters. N.p., 22 July 2016. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.

[7] Matthews, Chris. "Bill Maher on the Double Standard in This Election." Msnbc.com. NBC News Digital, 13 July 2016. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.

[8] Concha, Joe. "Did Bill Maher Lie to Assange, Viewers about $1 Million Clinton Donation?" TheHill. N.p., 2016. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.

[9] GAUTHIER, BRENDAN. "Bill Maher Smacks down Sore Losers: Sanders Voters Can’t Say It’s “fair When You Win and Rigged When You Lose”." Saloncom RSS. N.p., 10 June 2016. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.