Category: PR Train Wrecks


“Richard Nixon came back from his loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960 and won the presidency in 1968. He will be the model for winning again.” – Mark Penn and Andrew Stein, Wall Street Journal op-ed

“You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.” – Richard Nixon’s “last news conference” after losing the California governorship in 1962

Ready For Hillary 4.0 knows the history of The New Nixon 3.0.

For Nixon, 1968 was the charm.

If the American electorate missed its opportunity in 1960 (Nixon 1.0).

And California voters didn’t get it in 1962 (Nixon 2.0).

Perhaps America would appreciate the new and improved “Nixon’s The One” six years later?

After two crushing defeats, Richard Milhous Nixon (3.0) became POTUS #37.

Conversely, Hillary was “inevitable” in 2008 … until #44 Obama won.

And Hillary was “inevitable” in 2016 … until she lost to # 45 Trump.

And now she is gearing up for her third “inevitable” #46 campaign/election next year.

As some things change in the Democratic Party, others remain the same.

Don’t bet against Nancy as “Madam Speaker,” and “Madam Secretary” Hillary as the nominee.

Will we be treated to the inevitable Clinton Restoration four years later than originally planned?

Hillary Now More Than Ever

“True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.” – Penn and Stein, November 11

 “Dear God, please, yes.” – Trump campaign advisor Kellyanne Conway

The massive public relations/marketing challenge facing Hillary’s 2020 campaign team will be how to repackage an inferior 2008 and 2016 product and offer her as new and fresh for the upcoming 2019-2020 presidential cycle?

Reminds one of the 2009 eye-brow raising Domino’s Pizza advertising campaign in which the company confessed to its crust “tasting like cardboard,” and its sauce “tasting like ketchup” and worst of all, Domino’s was selling an “imitation pizza.”

The company pivoted off this act of contrition and promised to do better … and more than survived.

Penn and Stein implied the Hillary First Lady years constituted Hillary 1.0. Her tenure as an ostensibly positioned moderate senator served as Hillary 2.0. Her progressive campaign in 2016 represented Hillary 3.0

And Hillary the 2020 “firebrand,” taking Trump by storm, will be Hillary 4.0.

The real question is not whether Hillary will run, but will Sturm und Drang Hillary be able to flip any red states, regardless of whether or not she reassembles the Obama coalition?

Following In Nixon’s Footsteps

Two years are a political lifetime.

The economy is strong, now. The country is at relative peace. Divided government usually translates into little chance of turbo partisan legislation ever getting through both houses, let alone to the president’s desk.

Impeachment? Hillary understands impeachment, and there is little, if no chance, that Trump will be convicted in the GOP expanded Senate.

Why bother?

What happens if the economy starts going south and the markets are no longer volatile, but instead are heading straight down? What about unforeseen exogenous events overseas, possibly requiring a U.S. military response? What about Donald Trump’s act wearing thin after all these years?

In 1968, there were zero torch-light parades demanding the return from exile for Richard Nixon.

Having said that, the Vietnam War and the popular revolt against this quagmire prompted #36 Lyndon Johnson to resign. The Democrats were a hot Chicago mess. There was an opening for the Old Nixon to become the New President Nixon.

Hillary is not a new, exciting commodity (e.g., second-place Beto), having lost not once, but twice. And yet, no one knows the exact political landscape one year from now, let alone on November 3, 2020.

Will Hillary successfully recalibrate her brand, persona and reputation to prompt Democrats and independents to once again back Hillary with new ingredients? If Nixon could be successfully repackaged even with his legendary paranoia, doesn’t that mean that Hillary could be The One for 2020?

Or maybe: “Hillary Now More Than Ever”?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-will-run-again-1541963599

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/12/clinton-aide-2020-run-983684

https://twitter.com/hashtag/hillary2020?lang=en

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/24/hillary-2020-trump-better-hope-not/?utm_term=.a374f8034d09

https://www.inc.com/cynthia-than/dominos-admitted-their-pizza-tastes-like-cardboard-and-won-back-our-trust.html

Whatever Donald Trump does on any given day, on whatever issue, for whatever reason … he loses.

Win the presidency … Trump loses.

Expand the GOP’s Senate Majority … Trump loses

Respond in kind to the dangerous taunts from Kim Jong Un … Trump loses.

Make nice to Kim Jong Un in Singapore … Trump loses.

Cut a trade deal with China’s Xi Jinping … Trump loses.

Champion a blow-out economy … Trump loses.

Extol the virtues of tax reform … Trump loses.

Raise his approval rating … Trump loses, loses and loses.

Never in recorded history have so many so-called journalists dumped so much detritus on any one president with so much speed and relish.

And with this unprecedented and unlimited exercise of Lose-Lose Journalism, any pretext of real or supposed objectivity (i.e., CNN, NBC, NYT, WaPo) has been relegated to First Amendment history books.

Almost DailyBrett didn’t mention the commentariat at MSNBC because one expects drip-drip way-left-of-center rhetoric from those who pass all the required liberal litmus tests to become a talking polemic on the network.

This humble analysis is not suggesting in the least that other presidents –, particularly Republican chief executives, have been denied a given smidgeon of the benefit of the doubt (i.e., Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41 and 43). The level and intensity of today’s scorn – sometimes jumping the line to outright hatred of the president – is unprecedented in its sadness about what was once an admired profession.

Your author has written before about Affirmational Journalism (e.g., Dan Rather), Impact Journalism (Rolling Stone UVA rape story) and Oppositional Journalism (e.g., CNN), but Lose-Lose Journalism is a new phenomenon.

Whatever Trump does or doesn’t do … he is instinctively, instantly and vitriolically regardless of the outcome, judged to be … the loser.

Reminds one of the story of Richard Nixon gathering reporters to San Clemente, and then walking on water.

The New York Times headline the following morning: “Nixon Can’t Swim.”

Becoming Part of the Story

Is there a barely concealed desire by oodles of correspondents and reporters to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, bringing a Republican administration to its knees?

Is the Pope, Jesuit?

Many media psychologists have diagnosed Donald Joseph Trump as a narcissist. Does he bask in the glow of standing behind the podium with the presidential seal? It’s obvious.

What also seems to be undeniable are journalists-turned television personalities, who hog the limelight – one in particular refusing to yield to other reporters — to interrupt and challenge the president … violating the long-held journalistic standard about not becoming part of the story.

Do any media shrinks want to analyze the self-aggrandizing behavior of CNN’s Jim Acosta? Does he crave his own CNN program? Does he even more want to be responsible for bringing down the president? Does he hate the president as has been suggested elsewhere?

More important, does narcissistic Acosta cover the news or is he a vital and integral part of the news? If you want to know how important Jim Acosta is to the survival of our Democracy, maybe you should ask him.

He is now a cause-celebre as his White House media credentials have been pulled. His colleagues – whether they despise him or not – will circle the wagons on his behalf. Listen: You can hear Journalism lectures, equating out-of-control Acosta with the First Amendment.

Sure.

Moving away from the briefing room to the editorial pages, one must ask after scanning all the WaPo pundit headlines since 2015, who is actually reading these screeds?

The answer is the same elitist crowd that always consumes these epistles. Maybe even they are becoming bored with the same, predictable rhetoric?

How many times can Trump be labeled as a racist, misogynist, privileged, homophobic, transphobic … before each and every one of these once-explosive words becomes cliché?

We even heard angry rhetoric this week, suggesting that America is composed of non-racist and racist states. Guess which ones voted Democratic and which basket-of-deplorable states voted Republican?

When the racist, misogynist, homophobic cards are indiscriminately overplayed and overhyped in the media, does each of  every one of these loaded words lose at least a portion of their impact? Maybe we need new and improved pejorative words for our public vocabulary … or maybe not?

Almost DailyBrett is wondering whether lose-lose Journalism is the new norm for the Fourth Estate. Barack Obama feasted in a cavalcade of Win-Win Journalism. Trump is counterpunching daily via Twitter and other devices against Lose-Lose Journalism.

Will President #46 bask in Win-Win Journalism or endure another round of Lose-Lose Journalism.

Guess it depends on who is elected president.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/07/donald-trump-jim-acosta-white-house-news-conference/1920107002/

https://nypost.com/2018/11/07/jim-acosta-violated-one-of-the-oldest-rules-of-journalism/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/impact-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/dan-rather-father-of-affirmational-journalism/

 

A simple little phrase is ultimately bringing down one of the longest standing and most influential global leaders in the first two decades of the 21st Century.

The final demise of German Chancellor Angela Merkel after 13 years in office, most likely next year, comes three years after she grabbed and clutched the new highest voltage Third Rail of Politics: Asylum Immigration.

In 2015, Merkel unilaterally decided to allow approximately 1.2 million asylum seekers (about the size of metropolitan Portland, Oregon) from the Middle East into a country of 82 million.

From a public relations standpoint, there was very little explanation and preparation by Merkel and her government to garner public support for such a drastic upsurge of immigrants into the 4th largest economy in the world.

„Wir schaffen das,” proclaimed Angela Merkel. Simply translated: “We can do it.”

Die Kanzerlin, who is affectionately known as “Mutti’ or Mother, was widely seen for so many years as being a steady source of deliberate and reasoned decisions. Merkel deserves praise for her vital role in the completion of Germany’s public relations miracle (Öffentlichkeitsarbeitswunder), rising from the globe’s #1 pariah at Zero Hour 1945 to the most admired country in the world.

She has been acknowledged as the most powerful woman on earth, and yet the Ph.D in quantum chemistry was a steady hand for Germany’s now enduring and successful democracy.

At one time, Merkel was universally viewed as one of modern Germany’s greatest chancellors, comparable to her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) predecessors Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl.

Is the bloom off the rose?

Almost DailyBrett acknowledges that once she makes a major decision that Merkel is an influential leader.

When the ground shook Japan’s (e.g., 8.9 earthquake) Fukushima nuclear reactor in 2011, Merkel immediately announced that Germany would prudently exit nuclear power by 2022.

When the southern nations of the European Union were attempting to break the 2 percent budget deficit limitation rule (e.g., particularly Greece), Merkel imposed fiscal austerity, and by extension Germany’s will.

When a particular bully arrived on the scene and tried to push her around and intimidate with a large canine (e.g., Russia’s Vladimir Putin), she demonstrated her resolve.

No leader in the European leader has done more to get into the face of the former KGB chief, and yet her leadership always represented Germany as a reluctant hegemon.

Most of all because of Germany’s solid incorporation into the European Union and the passage of time, Germans now joyously wave their flag and are proud of their normal nation.

“Half-Dead Wreck”?

“I don’t want to be a half-dead wreck when I leave politics.” – Angela Merkel

In nations without term limits (e.g., Germany), leaders can overstay their welcome. More than a few in history failed to recognize the flashing lights about when it’s time to step down … usually at the 12-year-mark … from the bully pulpit (i.e., FDR, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl).

After inviting 1.2 million asylum seekers into Germany without any preamble, and worse women celebrating New Year’s Eve in Cologne being sexually assaulted and raped by asylum seekers, the tide was turning against Angela Merkel.

The optics — worse yet the reality — of the New Year’s Eve attacks became a metaphor for a decision that was too much, too fast with little societal preparation. Merkel’s chancellorship was coming to an end.

Even though her party was returned to power in 2017, the Christian Democrats (CDU) and her coalition partner, Social Democrats (SPD), repeatedly lost strength to the Greens on the left and the anti-immigrant/anti-EU Alternative for Germany on the right. This electoral trend intensified with breathtaking losses (i.e., Bavaria and Hesse) for the CDU and SPD during the course of this year.

Almost DailyBrett knows her legacy is somewhat tarnished. The question remains: Will history be good to her?

The Caravan Is Coming

Even though comparisons between two nations with two distinct cultures, located nine time zones apart, are difficult at best … one contentious issue ties both of them together: immigration.

In both countries, there are those who espouse completely open borders … come one, come all.

These souls advocate for the right of non-citizens to hold driver’s licenses, serve on public boards and commissions … and even vote.

Wasn’t the privilege of voting reserved for actual citizens?

And just as asylum seekers from Syria and other bad places became the catalyst for the political downfall of Angela Merkel, could an approaching caravan(s) of asylum seekers from Central America become the source of political peril here in America?

Before one touches the new third rail of politics … political asylum … America’s political class would be well advised to weigh what happened to Angela Merkel’s tenure as Germany’s chancellor, and most likely her legacy as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/in-merkel-europe-loses-a-leader.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/world/europe/angela-merkel-germany.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46020745

https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-drops-the-we-can-do-it-slogan-catchphrase-migration-refugees/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/putins-pooch-und-merkels-dog-o-phobia/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/the-right-leader-for-the-fatherlandeurope-just-happens-to-be-a-woman/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/morning-in-germany/

 

“If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.” – President-elect Barack Obama

America did it.

Ten years ago — the anniversary is a week from tomorrow, Sunday, November 4 — Americans performed the once unthinkable political/societal miracle: They overwhelmingly elected an African-American as the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Americans were once again globally seen as an exceptional and extraordinary country. We seemingly put aside our deep-seeded divisions to elect a visionary with a unifying message of hope and change.

Sorry for those who refer to America as “This Nation:” — your favorites, Denmark, Norway and Sweden — all monarchies — are not exceptional nations and never will be. Once again the USA proved to the world it’s the Land of Opportunity, and yes an extraordinary country.

Two months later, a record crowd turned up in Washington D.C. to watch Obama put his hand on the Bible. Sorry Donald, the size of your inaugural crowd was not even close.

Looking back one decade later, Almost DailyBrett must rhetorically ask:

What happened to the Hope? What happened to the Change? What happened …?

To many it seems that racism and hatred has steadily increased and mutated since 2008, when 69.4 million Americans cast their votes for Barack Obama (e.g., 365 electoral votes).

Ditto four years later, when 65.9 million Americans re-elected Obama (e.g., 332 electoral votes) to the White House.

Maybe Obama’s comfortable election/re-election against War Hero U.S. Senator John McCain and successful former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney respectively were not championed in all quarters … some on the right … some on the left.

Those with ongoing political agendas, based upon leveling charges of racism to intimidate dissent, were seemingly perplexed when an African American was elected to the highest office of the land.

Were the North vs. South battles over, and the war… won?

Some may have rhetorically asked: “How can we continue to charge, accuse and allege racism when 60 million-plus Americans – the majority of these voters were not black – went to the polling place or by mail and twice elected Obama by wide margins?”

Consider what happened to NASA when First Man Neil Armstrong was successfully placed on the Moon and safely returned?

Ponder what happened to the Anti-War Movement when American pulled out of Vietnam?

Weigh what happened to the Civil Rights Movement when Obama was elected president?

What’s next?

Wars Intensified To The Glee Of Some

“Race relations have arguably become more polarized and tenser since 20 January 2009. Though smaller in scale and scope, the demonstrations sparked by police shootings of unarmed black men were reminiscent of the turbulence of the 1960s.” – Nick Bryant, BBC New York correspondent

Polarization pervades our politics.

Obamacare passed with precisely zero Republican votes.

Tax reform passed with precisely zero Democratic votes.

Tribalization spread to our streets and ball fields. Mobs are roaming. They are angry and way too many times, violent.

The unfamiliar became familiar: the names/places including Treyvon Martin, Ferguson, Flint, Baltimore, Dallas, Antifa, Colin Kaepernick … became topics for the dinner table and even fighting in the streets.

More than ever, those who dared offer a different opinion, are/were labeled as “racists,” “misogynistic,” “homophobic,” “privileged,” “transphobic” …

Many on our hyper campuses became venues in which Unmensch with other points of view were charged with “micro-aggressions,” requiring “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces.”

The November 4, 2008 Spirit of Hope and Change is long gone after just one short decade, compelling one to ask: “Did it ever really exist?”

Many of these subsequent events (e.g., Treyvon Martin shooting) listed by Almost DailyBrett came before Donald Trump.

Did the lost promise of Hope and Change/corresponding rise of über Political Correctness prompt many of the 62 million to go to the polls and cast ballots on behalf of change agent, Donald Trump?

Hatred: The New Norm?

“I really worry that someone is going to be killed and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation … they have to realize that they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence.” — Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)

Senator Paul was on the same local baseball diamond when bullets flew and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) was shot, and almost killed. And just this past week, pipe bombs were sent to former and present Democratic office holders. Shots rang out today in a Pittsburgh Synagogue. Don’t even want to think, what’s next?

In the meantime, Almost DailyBrett has seen and experienced negative media before … but never to this extent. We are in unchartered waters, bringing into question what legacy/digital journalism means anymore?

Any positive news from the White House – no matter the subject or how it’s presented — is immediately turned in a dark direction by Oppositional Journalism.

The two tribes are polarized as never before. The other side of the aisle can’t cross the street to have a bite to eat without drawing ferocious protesters.

Civility? What civility?

How can we get back to the best hopes and eternal optimism, which characterized the legacies of Kennedy and Reagan?

We went to the moon. The wall came down. Kennedyesque and Reaganesque hope and change worked regardless of party.

Were we better citizens back then? Maybe so.

More to the point: Can we ever get back to the glimmering hopeful moments on November 8, 2008, when even politically charged allegations of “racism,” were given a rest …  at least for one evening?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/obama.transcript/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-left-cant-let-go-of-racism-1503868512

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/us/politics/05campaign.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/13/postelection-perspectives/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38536668

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410610-rand-paul-on-political-climate-i-really-worry-that-someone-is-going-to-be

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/oppositional-journalism/

 

 

 

 

“Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born” – Senator Elizabeth Warren

What is the definition of a story with “legs” (No pun intended)?

From a public relations standpoint, it’s a negative story that can’t or will not be stopped.

BP couldn’t contain the gushing oil into the gulf.

British Petroleum or BP is eternally synonymous with “The Spill.”

Hillary was unable to stymie the drip-drip of the 2015/2016 home server/emails scandal?

Madam Secretary is now a distinguished private citizen with yet another book to sell (Look for it on your Walmart discount rack in about six-months).

And then there is the Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Massachusetts) self-inflicted wound about whether she has Cherokee blood somewhere, somehow, anywhere on the maternal side of her family.

President Trump lovingly labels her, “Pocahontas,” clearly getting under the skin of the honorable senator from Massachusetts, once taunting her to take a DNA test to clarify her ancestry.

And yes, she took the Stanford University test and the results indicated she was at best 1/64th Native American and no worse than 1/1024th Native American. There may be (or not) a smidgen of Cherokee Nation in her blood line, which originated somewhere between 150 and 250 years ago.

The Cherokee Nation was not impressed.

From assessing the reaction from the Washington D.C. Punditocracy (95.2 million Google results in 0.33 second), Almost DailyBrett must ask: Why Senator Warren is egging on a story that should simply die a quiet death?

Is there some crisis communication wisdom that lies beneath the surface?

Crisis Communications Time and Place Rule

Trump challenged Warren to prove she was a “person of color” by taking a DNA test.

The senator responded by submitting to the much criticized blood exam. The real question is whether the almost certain Democratic candidate for president made a terminal move against her interest in becoming POTUS #46?

Maybe? Maybe not?

What are the four tenets for Crisis Communication: Tell the Truth. Tell It Quickly. Tell It All. Move On.

We can argue whether Warren is telling the truth, let alone telling it all.

We can agree that she is telling it (relatively) quickly and trying to move on (if she can).

Consider the calendar. A few days after the most likely inconclusive No Blue Wave (e.g., Dems may take the house, Republicans remain in control of the Senate) November 6 midterms, the pundits will quickly shift focus to the 2020 presidential cycle.

When a candidate has bad news to bury, when is the best time to exorcise this demon?  Your author counsels at a time and place of your choosing.

As Almost DailyBrett wrote three years ago, the failure of candidate George W. Bush to address his 1976 DUI arrest at a time and place of his choosing well before the 2000 presidential election cycle almost cost him the presidency.

The DUI was shockingly revealed just five days before election day. It was “breaking” news.

Senator Warren well knows that her Massachusetts colleague, John Kerry, was “Swift Boated” by Bush in the latter weeks of the tight 2004 presidential campaign. Kerry never recovered.

Perhaps Warren is dealing with the Cherokee Nation issue now, making “old news” of an anticipated attack line in the upcoming Democratic Party presidential primary season. You can envision her crossing her eyes when this ancient issue is brought up.

Undoubtedly Trump will charmingly continue to label her, “Pocahontas.” She in turn will have a few choice rejoinders for him.

For Warren she is hoping the “Native American” issue becomes “old news” in 2020, dispensed with glaring headlines/cartoons/jokes about a controversial DNA test … way back in 2018.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/18/just-about-everything-youve-read-warren-dna-test-is-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c1ca6028cbc4

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-dna-test.html

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tammy-bruce-elizabeth-warren-and-her-little-dna-story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2PAVv5so2s

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/how-one-dui-in-1976-led-to-hanging-chads-in-2000/

 

 

 

 

Does “academic freedom” come with accountability?

Does “academic freedom” come with personal responsibility, no matter how contentious the subject?

Does “academic freedom” come with an expectation of kindness, civility and integrity?

Or does “academic freedom” mean an anointed tenured professor has the license to say whatever he or she downright pleases just as long as the speech is judged to be not racist, homophobic or misogynist?

Translated: Outside these boundaries, can a tenured professor utter/write/tweet whatever he or she downright wants to say – no matter how ugly or vile – and then hide behind the First Amendment cloak of “Academic Freedom.”

Time-and-time again, the embarrassed university will fall back on the Mother of All Lame Arguments: (e.g., “the tenured professor is speaking for himself/herself, not the university”).

Sure.

And yet the media headlines will start with “University of Colorado Professor …” or “Fresno State University Professor …” or “Georgetown University Professor …,” not distinguishing the professor’s private screed with the his or her official duties.

And why should they?

This distinction reached the highest level of the absurd this past week when Twitter suspended offending Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair’s social media account, while the oldest Catholic University in the country warmed up for the next-in-a-long-line of university wrist slaps.

Wouldn’t want to get the bowels of tenured faculty unions into an uproar, now would we?

Suggesting that certain white males should die while feminists laugh at their last gasps of air, and how they should subsequently be castrated and fed to swine for some reason doesn’t work for Twitter, but it’s been essentially dismissed by Georgetown.

Almost DailyBrett to Professor Christine: Please don’t contend your vileness has been taken out of context … calling for castration of dead males and feeding their private body parts to pigs … is crystal clear in any plain reading.

“Amazing Racist”?

“Fuck out of here with your nice words.” – Fresno State Professor Randa Jarrar

Last April, immediately upon the passing of former First Lady Barbara Bush, Professor Randa Jarrar took to Twitter to proclaim the newly departed as “As a generous and smart and amazing racist.”

She then added her wish for quick deaths for the entire Bush family, which produced two presidents and two governors.

Jarrar taunted those who dared to take issue with her rhetoric, saying she would not be fired by Fresno State.

Guess what? She was not terminated by Fresno State.

“Little Eichmanns”?

“As for those in the World Trade Center… True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. …  If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.” – Former Colorado University Professor Ward L. Churchill essay the day after the September 11 terror attacks

Quiz question: Which attack on U.S. soil produced a greater loss of innocent American lives? Pearl Harbor? September 11?

The answer is September 11, 2001, when 3,000 Americans succumbed, who were just going to work or flying on planes that would never reach their intended destinations.

And yet former University of Colorado Professor Churchill branded these innocent Americans as “little Eichmanns” after Adolf Eichmann, the notorious SS Holocaust organizer, who was executed in Israel.

Churchill was fired by Colorado University in 2007. After a series of court hearings, Churchill’s termination was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2012. The SCOTUS refused to consider the case, making the professor’s departure final.

Keep in mind, Churchill was not fired for his “little Eichmanns” comment, but instead for plagiarism, falsification and other misconduct. The university determined that a professor’s rant, comparing September 11 victims to a Holocaust plotter, was consistent with Churchill’s First Amendment Rights.

Castrated parts being fed to swine? The witch is dead? Little Eichmanns?

Is more of the same on the way from celebrated academics with tenure status? Count on it.

Is there any reasonable, enforceable way to put the brakes on vile statements from coddled professors?

How about a code of conduct clause in their contracts? First Amendment protection? Yes. Requirements for civility and integrity? Yes.

The academic unions will instinctively object to code of conduct clauses, demanding more legal tender instead.

How about university presidents insisting upon common decency in collective bargaining?

Time to go the mat? Don’t count on it.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/georgetown-professor-who-wished-death-to-gop-senators-supporting-kavanaugh-on-leave

https://www.foxnews.com/us/controversial-professor-suspended-by-twitter-after-call-for-deaths-of-gop-senators-kavanaugh

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19940243/ns/us_news-education/t/professor-fired-after–nazi-comparison/#.W7vJ_Ruou70

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/us/court-upholds-colorado-professor-ward-churchills-firing.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FChurchill%2C%20Ward%20L.&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/04/20/have-you-no-decency-professor/

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/eichmann-biography.htm

https://resources.workable.com/employee-code-of-conduct-company-policy

There is time-tested simplicity and beauty that comes from boy meets girl.

Take Harry Burns played by Billy Crystal and Sally Albright portrayed by Meg Ryan. The 1989 romantic comedy was “When Harry Met Sally,” and the 12th time (or more) watching this film is just as good as the first time.

It took 12 years in screen play time to fully debate whether “men and women can ever be just friends,” the real question of this landmark film.

We all wondered, when would Harry and Sally finally realize they were more than friends, but actually they had morphed into soul mates who truly loved each other?

Why is Almost DailyBrett writing now about a movie filmed almost three decades ago? Keep in mind, “When Harry Met Sally” did not produce an Academy Award, and produced a decent gain at the box office (e.g., $92.8 million) compared to the production cost ($16 million).

Consider that Nora Ephron was nominated for “Best Original Screenplay,” and the movie was directed and produced by the legendary Rob Reiner.

Interposed with the travails and fragilities of Harry and Sally were commentaries by couples recalling how they met and how they fell in love.

For Almost DailyBrett the movie depicts the 1980s as a much better time. Perfect? No. There has always been issues between men and women since the Garden of Eden.

Having said that, the film celebrates boy meets girl, indirectly extols marriage, and does not make any aspersions against anyone else.

In 1989, we saw the Berlin Wall come down, freedom on the march in Eastern Europe foretelling the collapse of Communism, a new world order, and maybe even a “Peace Dividend.”

Some even dared to suggest it was “Morning in America.”

Compared to our present day culture of hatred, taken offense and grievance is Almost DailyBrett taking a risk by reflecting on the beauty of boy meets girl, a notion no one would even think about challenging three decades ago?

They say that we can’t go back. We can’t roll back the clock. All true.

However, we can reflect upon a time when we seemed to enjoy each other’s company, and even to fall in love and proudly exit the wedding with our happy brand new spouse.

“Castrate Their Corpses And Feed Them to Swine? Yes.”

Where does all the hatred come from?

Georgetown Professor Christine Fair, why are you so unfair about millions and millions who were born white and male?

It seems by your loving tweet, you have no regard for or regrets about: “entitled white men,” “deserving miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps … “

And there is more: “castrate their corpses,”  and “feed them to the swine.”

As a Georgetown associate professor in security studies for America’s oldest Catholic university, are you practicing Christian kindness to literally millions, who were born through no fault of their own into their respective ethnicity and gender?

What happened to random acts of kindness and diversity?

And to Georgetown, which acknowledges your right to a private Twitter account, but states categorically that you were not speaking for the university, is a professor wishing for the horrific murder of innocent people consistent with “academic freedom?”

BTW, Twitter suspended Dr. Fair’s social media account. Does that mean that Georgetown has a lower standard for decency than Twitter?

Can Associate Professor Fair expect a slap on the wrist from Georgetown in her near future? Bet on it.

Are their absolutely no bounds and strictures for privileged professors when it comes to vitriol and hatred against one group of fellow human beings?

“When Harry Met Sally”

There is absolutely no doubt there were issues between men and women back in the 1980s. Almost DailyBrett acknowledges it would be naïve to think all was well. The contentious Justice Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process revolves around what happened or did not occur during the … 1980s.

Having recognized this point, there are assertions of a better and more peaceful time in the 1980s. There is also the undeniable conviction that American was happier back then.

Your author has always celebrated men and women of goodwill growing old together and yearning for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Harry and Sally recognized their good fortune, fell in love, married three months later and conceivably lived happily ever after.

Wish all couples, ethnicities and genders could do the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Harry_Met_Sally

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/how-i-when-harry-met-sally-i-explains-inequality/283517/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/georgetown-professor-says-white-gop-senators-deserve-miserable-deaths-after-kavanaugh-hearing

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/what-about-whataboutism/

https://www.thepatriotbrief.com/twitter-removes-georgetown-prof-who-called-for-castration-of-white-men/

 

 

“No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.” – Henry Kissinger

To Almost DailyBrett, it seems that “too much fraternizing” has resulted in way-too-much trouble for way-too-many men and has spawned (no pun intended) a global movement: #MeToo.

Should your author apologize when he dares to admit that he is indeed stricken with the Y-Chromosome?

More to the point: Are men born guilty?

Do the adjectives “creepy” and “pervy” always modify the nouns, “man,” “men” and “male(s)”?

The Genesis for this blog goes far beyond the litany of once successful men, who are now-and-forever relegated to the sidelines of life. Did their actual/alleged “fraternizing” maybe or actually go too far to be dubbed sexual assault/harassment?

Reportedly, the foibles of men originate from the Garden of Eden to 20th Century high school/college activities right up to the present day.

John Wayne’s “A man is going to do what a man is going to do” or “Boys will be boys” has been ushered into oblivion. Responsibility and accountability should reign for everyone.

Far too many women have experienced/suffered boorish (and at times criminal) behavior by way too many men. The #MeToo movement is predicated on a basis of hurt and pain for literally millions of women.

Even though Almost DailyBrett can state with impunity the vast majority of men are not saintly and pure – even Jimmy Carter “lusted in his heart” on the hallowed pages of Playboy – they are not automatically guilty because they came into the world as baby boys.

Not every male is the “Midnight Rambler.” It just may seem that way listening to the 24-7-365 talking heads on the partisan networks.

And yet if it always seems to come down to “he said/she said.” Your author will always take the “over” for the female of the species. Men can have their careers ruined based upon a charge whether the allegations are true or not.

Remember Rolling Stone Magazine’s December 2014 report on the rape culture, targeting University of Virginia’s Phil Kappa Psi fraternity. The only problem with the story, it was determined to be 100 percent untrue. “A Rape On Campus” was fake news before “Fake News” became in vogue.

For the university and the fraternity, the damage has been done. Forget about due process.

Does it suck to be a male?

“I Don’t Hate White Men … “

“I don’t hate white men. Actually, I’m so personally and emotionally invested in changing the culture of toxic masculinity that we made a little white man of our own.” – Former Grad School Classmate

Almost DailyBrett’s graduate school classmate actually does not hate white men … Ahhh, that’s refreshing.

Congrats on attempting to raise a “little white man of your own.” Hopefully, you can relate to scores of other mothers, who tried to tame these testosterone infested/infected creatures.

Maybe, you will understand the agrarian-turned-industrial-turned-service economy is working against men. Can you assist in educating these tadpoles to be successful gentlemen of the 21st Century?

Even though men have a plethora of issues, contributing to a culture of toxic masculinity, one must admit that men play an un poquito role in promulgating the human race through the provision of essential nutrients.

Pointing to the obvious: Many men are faithful, bring home the bacon, help raise children and assist in building our society. Yes, these hombres do indeed exist.

And yet, if they are charged … If an accusation is leveled … If they become collateral damage in a political fight, their worlds will change for the worse in mere digital nanoseconds.

When popular media discuss a “gender gap,” the term is automatically assessed as to only include the gulf between women and men. What about the other way around? Irrelevant?

Not so fast. According to national 2016 general election exit surveys, Hillary Clinton won the women’s vote, 54-41 percent, a 13 percent margin. Game, set match?

Oops, men favored Donald Trump over Hillary, 52-41 percent, an 11 percent margin. Misogyny?

Wait: White women voted for Trump over Hillary, 52-41 percent.

Maybe, the issue as noted by University of Virginia Political Science Professor Larry Sabato was the presence on the ballot of a “particular woman” with a ton of baggage.

The 2016 result does not preclude a women someday serving as America’s chief of state (see Teresa May in Britain and Angela Merkel im Deutschland).

Almost DailyBrett must reinforce here and now that an undefined number of bad Herren have inflicted pain and suffering on more women than those who actually courageously reported these transgressions.

Each and every case is inexcusable.

And yet to mothers raising male babies, toddlers, kids, teenagers, young men, these males are not guilty by birth. Agree?

The automatic presumption of guilt is never fair. America is governed by the Rule of Law. That basic precept applies to everyone, including those with testosterone coarsening through their bodies.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/henry_kissinger_105144

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/201802/the-real-problem-toxic-masculinity

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/12/19/not-all-men-are-creeps/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/millions-of-active-women-supporting-millions-of-idle-men/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/04/15/deadbeat-boyfriends/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/impact-journalism/

The national Twitter Bull-in-a-China-shop champion may not be the one you suspect.

Would you allow Elon Musk to baby-sit your retirement nest egg?

REUTERS/Rashid Umar Abbasi

Consider the following:

In the last three months, Tesla common shares (NASDAQ: TSLA) are down $69.59 or 19.74 percent.

Tesla confirmed today the Department of Justice (DOJ) is launching a criminal probe into les affaires at Tesla.

Earlier, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) announced its own civil investigation following Tesla founder Elon Musk’s August 7 tweet, proclaiming “funding secured” for taking Tesla private. Is Musk guilty of selective disclosure of material information (e.g., “Funding secured) in violation of SEC Reg FD (Fair Disclosure)?

There was also the inexplicable video of Musk smoking dope on television.

Why Elon, why?

Musk charged not once but twice that one of the heroes, saving the Thailand boys’ soccer team from a flooded cave, is a “Pedo guy.”

Nomura Securities downgraded TSLA from “buy” to “neutral,” reducing the company’s price target from $400 to $300, concluding that Tesla shares are “no longer investable.”

“Notwithstanding improving fundamentals, we believe that Tesla is in need of better leadership, an about face, and are moving to the sidelines until we see what happens with management. “ – Nomura Securities analyst Romit Shah

Does Elon Need His Own Mad Dog Mattis?

The best-and-brightest public relations counselors in the world can do absolutely nothing with Elon, if and until he is willing to ponder sage advice for even a nanosecond.

Tesla co-founder and CEO Elon Musk takes a drag from a cigarette laced with
marijuana in this screenshot from the Joe Rogan Experience podcast on
Thursday, Sept. 6, 2018.

Some have suggested shaking up the Tesla Board of Directors to include strong-willed  independent hombres and mujeres willing to practice tough love with Elon (e.g., no public smoking marijuana for whatever reason).

Elon ‘Musk’s brother and board member, Kimbal, is not a candidate for his job. Did you see his CNBC interview this week from the floor of the venerable NYSE wearing a cowboy hat?

Why Kimbal, why?

Besides trying to run both publicly traded Tesla (EVs/solar) and privately held SpaceX (rockets) at the same time and thus needing more sleep, maybe the biggest issue is way too many sycophants kissing Elon’s derriere for way too long.

Remember the gushing CBS 60 Minutes Scott Pelley interview of Elon back in 2014? Musk was hailed at the time as the second coming of … Steve Jobs including  Almost DailyBrett. Your author repeatedly bought and sold Tesla shares for a nice profit, except the last time, selling for a modest loss.

The CNBC pundits were asking out loud circa 2014 whether Tesla was 1.) An electric vehicle company, 2.) an energy company or 3.) Elon Musk’s company?

The issue now is what would happen if a stronger, independent Board of Directors took the helm at Tesla? Would they have the cojones to fire Elon Musk? Would that stunning action be the 21st Century equivalent of John Sculley firing Steve Jobs at Apple? How did that move play out?

Most of all, what would happen to Tesla’s stock? The shorts have already gone crazy; they presumably would have a field day.

Maybe what Elon needs is his own version of a chief operating officer Mad Dog Mattis or some other chain-of-command George S. Patton type to knock off the nonsense?

Until there is some sense of consistent operating discipline (see Tim Cook’s management of Apple following the 2011 passing of Steve Jobs), the shorts will continue to bet against Tesla and its common shares.

Anybody want to “short” Apple? Didn’t think so.

Most of all, Elon Musk should be precluded from even going near Twitter. These 280 characters can lead to a heap of trouble, including twin probes by the DOJ and the SEC.

Audi today unveiled its $75,000 luxury EV SUV. There is considerable competition because electric cars are not going away.

Static photo,
Colour: electric green

Tesla still maintains considerable advantages: Market leadership, pure-play, first mover, visionary company.

Even with its present cash burn and convertible notes coming due next March, Tesla can more than survive and continue to drive technology leadership.

All Tesla needs is for a Mad Dog to put a discipline leash on one, Elon Musk.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimcollins/2018/09/05/elon-musks-increasingly-erratic-behavior-comes-at-a-price-for-tesla-shareholders/#1058c7323944

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/11/elon-musks-erratic-behavior-continues-to-rattle-wall-street/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/tesla-stock-drops-after-company-reportedly-to-face-us-criminal-probe-over-musk-statements.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/business/dealbook/tesla-elon-musk-saudi-arabia.html

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/only-in-america/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/donate-to-united-way-or-invest-in-tesla/

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/09/17/kimbal-musk-says-his-brother-elon-is-doing-great.html

 

“Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” – Nike multi-million dollar NFL marketing campaign starring Colin Kaepernick.

Wonder if Nike marketers ever pondered those who literally sacrificed everything for the red, white and blue?

They made the ultimate sacrifice.

Where is their multi-million-dollar marketing campaign?

Guess they are not cool.

Nike knew it was going to stir the pot (not cannabis). Guess all publicity is good publicity, even coverage that brings into question the quaint notion of proudly standing for the national anthem and saluting Old Glory.

Seems Nike investors are making a stand this morning driving shares down 3 percent or $3.75 billion in lost market capitalization, while the company is taking a knee on America.

Based upon the early returns with shareholders of NYSE: NKE, there is no doubt the stock is under pressure.

The reason is Nike’s decision to base its NFL marketing campaign, its reputation, and its brand on a guy who disrespected the Star Spangled Banner and Old Glory.

By pouring millions into NFL non-player Colin Kaepernick, who by the way is suing the league for collusion, Nike is taking sides.

Nike claims it stands with the athlete, except Kaepernick is not a player. He’s a litigant.

Almost DailyBrett upon hearing the news of Nike’s controversial marketing campaign seriously considered selling all 451 shares of Nike stock

Investment discipline dictates that one does not sell dividend-paying shares producing a 77 percent gain in a down market. Remember: Buy Low, Sell High.

My hope is that Nike does not use my investor dollars to bestow millions upon a man, who defied our country, our national anthem and our flag.

Can Almost DailyBrett make this humble request to Just Do It management? Please.

Boston Massacre

Keep in mind, the Colin Kaepernick campaign is not the first time that Nike screwed up.

Remember the company’s “Boston Massacre” campaign?

Nike hopes you forgot the misguided Yankee colored t-shirts with bullet holes and blood.

The t-shirts were unveiled on 2013 Patriots Day … yep the same day as the Boston Marathon terrorist bombing.

Back to the point, who thought that a t-shirt with bullet holes, blood and the Nike Swoosh was a good idea? The answer is the same marketing department that is giving us the middle-finger Colin Kaepernick campaign.

There are some besides POTUS, who disagree with Kaepernick and his imitators taking a knee during the playing of Francis Scott Key’s poem, America’s national anthem.

How about campaign featuring NFL Hall of Famer and Civil Rights Champion, Jim Brown? He dares disagree with taking a knee before the red, white and blue.

Kaepernick is claiming the collusion against the NFL, Nike’s marketing partner. The only problem is another NFL Hall of Famer and Nike model, John Elway, stated ex-cathedra the Denver Broncos offered a contract to Kaepernick.

Details, details sometimes interrupt a pre-determined narrative. Right CNN?

Championing The Athlete, Not The Flag

As long as Nike is condoning the behavior of Kaepernick, maybe the company may want to add its iconic swoosh to the statue of black gloved John Carlos and Tommie Smith, displaying their defiance during the playing of the Star-Spangled banner during the 1968 Olympics.

What’s the difference tween Kaepernick and Messrs. Carlos and Smith?

Almost DailyBrett writes this blog post with a high degree of sadness.

Your author champions Uncle Phil Knight, his entrepreneurship (read his best-selling “Shoe Dog”) and his philanthropy. He deserves every dollar of his estimated $35.4 billion net worth.

He is happily retired. Too bad, he is not on the scene today on behalf of the millions of silent Americans, including thousands of military families, who don’t think Colin Kaepernick is cool.

And never will.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/09/04/serena-williams-lebron-james-back-nikes-just-do-it-campaign-with-colin-kaepernick/?noredirect=on

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/taxing-uncle-phil-to-death/

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: