Sex Equality: I’m With Her

A Wild Duck guest editorial

Lydia Begag is a high school junior at Advanced Math and Science Academy in Massachusetts. She got our attention when she published an editorial critical of the school’s uniform policy. With eloquence and articulation, she laid out a brilliant and persuasive argument that the policy was anything but uniform. It was ambiguous, arbitrary and discriminatory.


I’m with Her
Ideas Regarding Sex Equality—Forget the Rest

Political and social turmoil are everywhere we turn, especially in the early months of 2017. Lunch conversations, small talk at work, and, of course, the media we consume have all become related to a singular topic: the United States government and its workings. Emotionally, I want to curl up in a ball and block out the political nonsense being spewed left and right until the day I die (pun very much intended)—but I feel intellectually obliged to confront the controversy.

All who live and breath America understand why politics have always been a hot topic for debate. Every ideology, action, and word are potentially contentious. Such is especially the case with modern feminism. Everyone seems to have a different opinion of it and portrays it in different ways, from the group of men wolf whistling at a woman on her way to her car after work to powerful cultural figures who associate themselves with the movement. Before we can even begin to familiarize ourselves with conflicting beliefs towards women and feminism in general and their reflection of a worrisome mentality, it is crucial to first understand feminism’s roots in the United States, and how interpretations of the word and the movement have varied throughout the years.

Feminism begins its legacy in 19th-century America, where its first-wave arises at the Seneca Falls Convention of July 1948. Prominent feminists of the era (including Elizabeth Cady Stanton—more on her later!) issued a Declaration of Sentiments for women that emulated the Declaration of Independence their husbands had crafted 170 years earlier. The document asserted that women had fundamental rights that were denied without cause, including suffrage. However, the first-wave feminist movement raised a series of questions regarding whether it was acceptable to promote black civil rights over and into women’s rights. Should the rights of black men be prioritized over establishing and recognizing rights for women? Should black women be considered in the fight for gender equality as well, or would that undermine the cause white women had been fighting for for so long? The moral conflict eventually resulted in a success for the women’s suffrage movement in 1920. White women, led by famous feminists such as Stanton, Alice Paul, and Lucy Burns, gained the right to vote in federal and state elections via the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Women of color, however, were left in the dust and did not start to gain suffrage until 1965. This type of exclusive feminism did not end when women of color gained suffrage; it has proven itself to be significant even today.

The list of American feminist milestones goes on and on. Women experienced sexual liberation in the Roaring 20s, when life was grander and more exquisite than ever. They essentially took over maintenance of the U.S. economy when men went  to fight in the world wars, and Rosie the Riveter was born. Women were also becoming increasingly influential in politics. Such milestones included the first woman to run for president on a major-party ticket in 1972 to landmark Supreme Court cases asserting that a right to privacy does include guaranteed legal accessibility to abortion and contraceptives. Title 9, the amendment to the Education Amendments Act of 1972, enabled girls in schools across the country to receive the same benefits as their male peers. All of these milestones reshaped a woman’s role in society throughout the 20th century onwards, but they did not come without drawbacks. The ’20s was an intense era of sexist and classist attitudes. Female sexual liberation resulted in extreme objectification. After WWI was over and soldiers came home, women were whisked back into the households to resume their roles as obedient housewives. Male dominance made running for public office harder for a woman, despite having the opportunity. And let us not forget the controversy surrounding a woman’s right to privacy. A significant factor involves religious morals and/or other ethical reasoning that are not related to gender equality, but it is impossible to ignore the misogynistic rationale that many pro-lifers exhibit. All of the achievements we’ve had have seemingly been countered by just as much dissent as support, a persistent reality since Abigail Adams urged her husband to support gender equality.

We are currently in the era of what fundamentalist feminists call “Take A Shot Every time You Offend Someone With One of Your Comments.” That term, of course, is colloquialism at its finest. You’re probably more familiar with something called third-wave feminism. This type of feminism has become increasingly less focused on the kind of feminism Stanton was prominent for (Yay! Exclusivity!) and more on queer and non-white women. The concept of intersectionality was introduced in the late ’80s just before this third wave began. It has received great support by women of color and those who had always been ignored by exclusive feminists, but as we already know, dissent is just around the corner.

The most popular criticism focuses on a lack of cohesion. First wave feminism fought for and gained female suffrage. The second wave fought for the right for women to have access to equal opportunity in the workforce and an end to legal sex discrimination. What is third wave feminism’s goal? Is there even a goal, or are its advocates serving as the world’s determinators of what is PC and what is not? The stigma around the feminist movement has existed ever since its origins in this country, but the increasing disassociation of women from the term ‘feminism’ has become alarming in recent years. For every outspoken celebrity and political feminist there is out there (think Emma Watson, Shonda Rhimes, Nancy Pelosi) there is an equally prominent female figure that opposes the movement, such as Lana del Rey, Tomi Lahren, and Shailene Woodley. Here’s the kicker: these role models usually aren’t misogynistic or demeaning. They simply seek to avoid affiliation with the word itself and its modern day supporters. This is understandable; we’re a country founded on grounds of freedom. If a person doesn’t want to associate themselves with a movement, there’s no obligation to. However, the fact that women don’t even want to be labeled feminists because of what it has come to signify is something I find very problematic. I don’t see this as an inadequate reflection of what 21st century women believe in, but rather a poor reflection on the feminist crusade. The way I look at it is this: apples don’t fall off a tree because they are too heavy. Rather, they fall off because the stem is too weak to support them.

This creation of a conflict within a conflict has led to major confusion on what “right” feminism is. As defined by Merriam Webster, “feminism” is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. This most basic meaning of the word is something most women, if not all, should consider when they debate  whether or not to label themselves a feminist. Sex equality is really the only thing the third-wave feminist movement should be focused on. Issues such as racial inequality, and rights for LGBT and disabled persons, are a matter for a cause much broader than feminism (think egalitarianism). The more narrow a movement and its fight becomes, the more likely it is to accomplish its goals. The first two waves of feminism all had a set goal in mind, which was something that followed core feminism to the nines. In the midst of all of the social unrest that has risen since the ’80s, the feminist movement has been trying to take over the egalitarianist one. However, if women ever wish to gain social equality between the sexes, it is necessary to narrow the cause to its fundamental roots.

Another issue with the modern feminist movement is that, in the effort towards sex equality, many feminists have interpreted being equal to men as trying to act just like them. Men and women are different, biologically and perhaps psychologically, but of equal value. To quote Mary Ramirez’s “Dear Daughter: Here’s Why I Didn’t March For You”: “…we are biologically and physically and emotionally different from men, but that doesn’t mean we’re less. It means we’re special.”

Nonetheless, achieving social equality between the sexes is something I consider crucial, particularly for the girls just starting to grow up in this country. It is disheartening for women to live in a world where, from the moment we start to grow up and find ourselves in a male-centric society, life becomes a tale of denigration and overt sexualization. However, the problem with using modern feminism to change this sexist attitude is that it has turned into a male resentment club, and no longer seems to revolve around sex equality in society. Off the top of my head, I can think of multiple times where the “feminists” surrounding me on a daily basis have remarked on female superiority or denounced women who do not wholeheartedly accept their idea of feminism. Feminism should preach equality and acceptance. Instead, it has turned into a catty game of doing to the men what the men have done to us. We live in a world where raising people up has turned into knocking others down. Vulgarity and impertinence has turned into the ideal image of a “strong” woman, and has become more and more acceptable. The idea of a feminist who respects others’ opinions has seemingly been swapped with one that thrives off of the idea of being regarded as “bitchy,” angry, or disrespectful. We’ve come a long way since our feminist founding mothers marched down Pennsylvania Avenue fighting for suffrage, and unfortunately, it’s not for the best.

Envisioning myself in the world of politics five or ten years down the road…I won’t pretend it doesn’t worry me at times.Influential female politicians over the years have found not their beliefs or their policy agendas as the primary subject of media conversation, but rather whether or not they’re menstruating or have considered cosmetic surgery. Seeing myself and others in my current situation has worried me as well. Despite growing up in a privileged setting where I receive nothing but acceptance from my family, the school and work environment has offered me and similar girls slut-shaming, catcalling, and the craftiest of off-hand remarks (“Who are you trying to impress today with that outfit?”). A multitude of women who come from different backgrounds have experienced similar toxicity in their surroundings. Ultimately, any setting for a woman can be a problematic one, and a promotion of classic feminism could turn things around. To me, an advocacy for respect on both sexes’ parts—rather than claimed superiority—would be transformative in making these conditions for bearable for young American women and men. Right now, what we have is extreme exclusivity and not enough acceptance.

Want to call yourself a feminist? Great! Reluctant to associate yourself with the movement but still support sex equality? Sounds good! Don’t support sex equality and a reversal of traditional gender roles? That is still okay! Obviously if an opinion undermines the cause you are fighting for, you’re not inclined to encourage it. But what the American public needs to realize is that, when advocates contradict the cause of unity and respect with their actions and words change will not come. Crudity does not empower you; it only cheapens you.

As mentioned before, narrowing down the movement’s goals is also crucial in moving forward. In comparison to many nations around the world, the United States has seen great success when it comes to fighting for sex equality. The third-wave feminist movement does have some valid issues to advocate for—domestic violence, raising awareness for rape victims, pay discrimination, etc.—but also chooses to focus on trivial causes like Free the Nipple and eliminating “manspreading.” Perhaps it is because we have obtained legal equality (thanks, first two waves!). But now that social equity has become the main focus, a blur of ideas and beliefs have resulted in a chaotic, incohesive movement. If you consider feminism at its core, the social issue to fight for is clear. There are many causes worth fighting for: racial inequality, ableism, and marriage justness, to name a few. But for the love of God, leave the aspects that do not relate to sex equality for the egalitarians. They’re there for a reason.

Author’s Note:  Add a comment or question below. I will respond promptly.

— Lydia Begag

United Air: Public relations nightmare

Check out the last minute of this Jimmy Kimmel video. It is a spoofed TV commercial for United Airlines. Based on recent events, it seems pretty authentic. Kimmel’s monologue is pretty funny too!

I have heard from a few people who defend United—offering an explanation of overbooking policy—or the rude defiance of the Asian doctor that was dragged out of the plane bloodied and on his back (and apparently, with a broken jaw). But, no matter how you spin this, United was incredibly foolish to issue a patently offensive statement about how clients were unfortunately “reaccommodated”.
Yeah! I’ll agree that it was certainly unfortunate. But, I am not too sure about this being an example of airline accommodation. Check out the Twitter reaction.
Typically, these things blow over and the public searches for the next low fare—even if it is lower by only one dollar. But this time, I think that United may feel the pain. Their methods and the ensuing arrogance of CEO, Oscar Munoz, are tantamount to flipping a middle finger at paying passengers.
Good luck with that, United Airlines!

Bitcoin ETF Buzz Offers Short Term Opportunity

If you follow Bitcoin at all, then you know that its value is spiking. It has already surpassed a massive spike on Thanksgiving night 2013, and this weekend, a single Bitcoin surpassed the cost of an ounce of gold.                             [continue below image]

Like any commodity, the exchange value of Bitcoin is driven by supply and demand. But, unlike most commodities, including the US Dollar, the Euro or even gold, the eventual supply is capped. It is a mathematical certainty. Yet, demand is affected by many factors: Adoption as a payment instrument, early signs that it is being considered as a reserve currency, fascination by Geeks and early adopters and its use as a preferred tool by some criminals.

But chief among reasons for acquiring Bitcoin is speculation. Whether it is buy-and-hold or day trading, speculators still outnumber those who use Bitcoin to settle debts or to buy and sell other products and services. (Earlier this week, I argued that speculation is responsible for 85% of demand and of transactions—but that’s another story).

It’s a bit ironic that speculation—in the early days of a new market—retards organic adoption. It contributes to uncertainty and volatility, and it reduces the fraction available to the markets that make it both useful and liquid. Yet, in free markets, speculation is a necessary and critical antecedent to adoption.

This week, short term speculators have an unusually keen opportunity to profit, especially if they know how to buy a ‘put’ or sell a ‘call’ (i.e. to leverage a bet for or against the direction of Bitcoin, without actually acquiring any). For example, you can bet that an exchange-traded stock will fall, because it has an options market. But it’s not as easy to bet against commodities that lack a futures or options market.

I am not going to give advice in this article. I am not a licensed investment professional and although I am bullish on long term, organic adoption of Bitcoin, I really don’t have an opinion on the current news or the short term prospects for a pull back. But, if you have an opinion on a current news event, then there is an immediate opportunity for you to make (or lose) a significantly leveraged sum in the next few days…

SEC and ETFs  (Alphabet soup of investment banks)

Next weekend, on Saturday March 11, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will approve or deny an application for the first regulated, recognized and significantly backed Bitcoin Exchange Traded Fund (ETF). Why is this significant? Because most investments are not hand picked by individual investors. Most investors choose the level of risk or diversification that seems reasonable for their life stage and then they leave the decisions to a formula, a market sector basket, or a fund manager. That is, they invest or park their money in a fund rather than betting on Space-X, PayPal or the local electric company.                             [continue below image]

If approved, an ETF potentially adds massive new demand for a commodity, by offering a financial instrument than can be subscribed by the vast fraction of funds, investors, pensioners and speculators who prefer to leave asset management to an organization, outside broker or formula.

The first ETF application is created and backed by the Winkelvoss twins. They were Olympic rowers, but found fame & fortune by contracting Marc Zuckerberg to create an early platform for Facebook. If their application is approved, a dozen more investment banks, brokers and hedge funds are standing by to jump in with both feet.

This morning, Cointelegraph put the odds that the ETF will be approved at 50%. Some analysts place the chances even higher. But consider that Bitcoin has already spiked dramatically in the past few weeks. The excitement is already reflected in the price. So, where is the opportunity?

The opportunity, as with any speculative decision, is in the dissonance between your research and hunch compared with the overall market expectation reflected in the current price. So, for example, if Bitcoin is accepted as the basis for an ETF (and if it continues to grow in more fundamental adoption), the current price is actually remarkably low. Under these assumptions, it hasn’t even begun its period of rapid ascent. Perhaps more obviously (and even more short-term), if you believe that an ETF will be blocked by regulators, then the recent rise is likely to be reversed quickly, at least in the minutes after the March 11 decision is announced.

So how can you profit from your belief that a commodity will drop in value? I leave that to your personal investment knowledge and research or your financial advisor. My purpose is not to advise, nor even to teach about puts and calls. It is to point out that a few people will win or lose a lot of real money this coming weekend—at least on paper. And it all hinges on whether they can correctly predict the outcome of a regulatory decision process.

Again, Bitcoin is a very limited commodity, There are only 15.2 million coins today, and there will never be more than 21 million coins. This does not present an obstacle to adoption, because the coins can be sliced smaller and smaller as needed. In a noteworthy demonstration of ‘good deflation’, there will always be enough units for everyone—even if the entire world adopts it for every transaction under the sun.


Ellery Davies co-chairs Crypsa & The Bitcoin Event. He is a columnist & board member at Lifeboat Foundation,
editor at WildDuck and is delivering the keynote address at the 2017 Digital Currency Summit in Johannesburg.

VILE: USA treatment of tourists under Trump

 

I wrote this during Trump’s first address to a joint session of Congress (Day 40 as president). Pundits
praised his conciliation and delivery. Trump stayed on-point and appeared more “presidential” than in past.
This post is about action; not talk or appearance. It is testimony of his leadership earlier on the same day.

This weekend, Mem Fox—a well-known Australian children’s author—was pulled aside at the airport upon arrival. She describes a horrifying and undignified experience. One that made her abhor our country. Others in the room were treated even worse. Those who were not white, English-speaking and upper-middle-class were yelled at and mercilessly humiliated. No toilet or water was offered to arriving passengers—even a young woman with a baby.

You might wonder what was the reason for suspicion? She certainly doesn’t fit the profile of  a terrorist. Many American children grew up with her books. This was her 117th visit. She is white, wealthy, educated and articulate. (None of these traits are required to visit the United States). She was pulled aside and interrogated because her airline ticket appeared to be paid by her American publisher. The immigration official claimed that she was attempting to sneak in—and work in America, illegally.

Ms. Fox isn’t the only tourist to come forward today. The French Holocaust historian, Henry Rousso, was held for 10 hours at immigration. Was his entry suspicious? He has taught at Columbia University in New York and Sorbonne in Paris. He was visiting America to give a Keynote Address at Texas A&M. But just as with Mem Fox, the immigration agent learned that he was receiving a fee for his speech. He was told that he would handcuffed and deported on the next plain to Paris. If not for a sharp lawyer at the University, he would have would have been shipped away in humiliation and disgrace. Rousso sums up the experience with this observation: “The US is no longer quite the US.

Their experiences make a mockery of the Emma Lazarus’ words at the base of Miss Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Apparently, under a Trump regime, even the upper class, the academics, and the distinguished don’t make the cut.

Is this the friendly and welcoming face that we wish to show our foreign visitors and academics? Do you think that they will travel to the United States or do business with us, if clueless border control agents behave in this manner?

What Chutzpah, Xenophobia, and misguided attempts at protectionism! Unfortunately interacting with minor officials under Trump seems a lot like the interaction between German citizens and Jack boots of the Nazi SS or Gestapo.

For many individuals like Fox and Rousso, it’s not just about fake news, narcissism, a string of lies, fearing the press, lashing out at critics, lining pockets at taxpayer expense, surrounding oneself with racists or buffoonery. Instead, it’s personal; it’s ugly; it reflects on all Americans; and it is reprehensible.

It doesn’t require a bipartisan gaggle of psychiatrists to recognize that our president is seriously deranged. That diagnosis is just plain common sense. Additionally, it doesn’t require a political analyst to observe Republican congressional leaders squirming in their chairs or struggling to show unity on the evening news. At least not if you avoid the ‘fake news’.

Now, we must summon the strength and the resolve to do something. Trump must not complete his first year in office. Even if his paranoia, vindictive ethos and contempt for the truth abates, think of the missed opportunities, the mass exodus of talent, the likelihood of a military orgy. Think of the lost business deals, the serious environmental damage and the fostering of hate between cultures. Think of a woman’s right to choose and the hard won LGBT right to marry and to be who they are.

Think about Mem Fox and Henry Rousso. I wish that I could get over the slimy behavior from his campaign trail, but here one last jab… Think about a leader who brags about his p*nis size and about grabbing woman by the p*ssy. Think like an individual who cares about the future of our nation, our alliances and our planet. Raise your voice. Join your neighbors. Seize the day. Do something!

In years of writing, I never thought that I would end an op-ed piece like this:

  • Resist
  • Defend
  • Restore our lost ethics and compassion
  • Embrace diversity—It is a core strength
  • Speak out for the environment
  • Deal honestly and fairly with other countries; lest they flee a relationship
  • The truth matters

Trump’s Behavior: A Rational Explanation

It is no secret that I am opinionated. Although flexible when presented with a contrary opinion, I am unapologetic in articulating blunt positions and pushing emotional buttons. After all, this is the luxury of having a bully pulpit. It’s also a blessing of the First Amendment and the Internet.

But there are boundaries—even for an opinionated and sarcastic Blogger. When I became editor of Wild Duck more than 5 years ago, I made a New Career Resolution. I committed to never discuss three topics. They were over-hyped, argued and litgated in other venues. I didn’t want the noise and I didn’t care to defend my opinion nor deal with the return fire. Not on these three issues..

I don’t expect you to click through all the links below—but as you can see, my New Career Resolutions were kicked to the curb. I broke two of three promises in the very first year!

Despite pontificating on all of these banned topics, on election day 2016, I made a new resolution to at least remain quiet about Donald Trump. I wrote six articles about him before the election. But the fact is that he has won. And for the past 3 weeks, I resisted the temptation to rant, whine, complain—or hold my breath until the family jewels turn purple. He won. He is our Chief Honcho Elect. ’Nuff said!

Well, at least this latest resolution was good for 3 weeks. Today, I break that commitment by linking to this article: Jane Goodall, the famed anthropologist and expert on primate behavior, offers a simple and scientific explanation for Donald Trump’s behavior and outrageous claims.

Donald Trump hoots & stomps at Jane Goodall

Donald Trump hoots & stomps at Jane Goodall

She demonstrates with rigorous academic precision, that Trump’s statements and attacks map directly onto chest-thumping, tree dragging, hooting and stomping of lowland gorillas. And not every act is a metaphor! For example, male Gorillas don’t just attack others they perceive as competitors, they berate, degrade, lie, bully and demonstrate p*nis size to ensure that they get their way. Even more interesting, they increase their humiliation and attacks on any other male who fails to support their earlier attacks.

Seriously, this is no joke! It’s academically valid and very illuminating. Don’t just take it from me…check it out here. And just for the record, this post is not about Trump. It’s a wildlife documentary and a tribute to a highly respected scientist.

21st Century Gender Sterotyping? Not so Fast!

Jennifer Wright (@JenAshleyWright) kicked up a firestorm last week, when she tweeted a photo of two side-by-side magazines on a newsstand. The contrast between cover features of Boys’ Life -vs- Girls’ Life is startling. With characteristic sarcastic wit, she tweeted:

“Why are you feminists always complaining?
We treat boys and girls exactly the same.”

For those who are reading this without the image below, the current issue of these magazines calls out to readers like this:

  • Boys: Would you like to build and fly the next generation of jet fighters?
  • Girls: What on Earth can you do with your hair and nails this weekend?

Boy'sLife-vs-Girl'sLife

The difference between these covers suggests that the respective magazine editors are pushing 19th century aspirations onto the next generation of women. It’s a reminder of the differences in the way we perceive the sexes. But does this contrast present a fair and balanced comparison?

Certainly, there is work to do—but, the stark difference between these magazine covers may not point to a societal ill in the way that seems to jump off the screen.

  1. Despite similar titles, these magazines have very different audiences and goals. I doubt that Girls’ Life is aimed at the broader demographics of Boys’ Life. The subscriber base evolved to target the girls of Toddlers and Tiaras. I am exaggerating by pointing to a narrow demographic, of course! but it sells to girls who already aspire to be future homemakers, or who simply have the fashion obsession that is still the hallmark of many preteen girls.
  2. Unlike boys, girls really do have more options for viewing their future and their careers. Feminism and technological/political empowerment is not yet universal or even universally embraced. Some families, particularly among the south, among religious conservatives, and among hard-hat towns dependent upon muscles and mining, still promote the notion of TFRs onto the next generation (traditionally female roles). Right or wrong, it brings us to point #3…
  3. It’s clear that there is a stark difference between covers: “How can I build a jet fighter?” -vs- “What will I do with my hair tonight?” But, it is all too easy to assume that we understand cause-and-effect. That is, the difference is likely to be a reaction to market forces, rather than the publisher’s attempt to shape desires. One cannot find fault with delivering content based on consumer demand.

If you tell me that there are plenty of girls that hope to build or fly a jet fighter, I will nod in agreement. But if you tell me that there is an equal fraction of boys who obsess over their nails, hair and the color of a blouse, I will wonder if we live on the same planet.

My teenage daughter is clearly in the former group: She imagines, asks tough questions, builds, tears down, and then builds a better gizmo from scratch. She codes Android apps and creates massive murals for the local shopping mall. But, some girls care about classic ‘girly’ things, at least during their early years. And here’s a surprise…

Many of these gilrly girls exhibit just as much technical proficiency and self-confidence as their empowered peers. They are assertive, independent, financially savvy, and aware of their equal political and career footings. Helen-Gurley-Brown-vintageYet, many of us feminists bristle at the thought of a female child who obsesses about their hair and nails (at least to the point of subscribing to a magazine in that venue). In fact, the two are not mutually exclusive.

So, can I still call myself a feminist in the mold of Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem? Perhaps not. I am more likely to identify with a less militant Helen Gurley Brown. She was all about empowerment and sexual equality. Yet, somehow, she avoided pushing the sexes to be completely indistinguishable and androgynous.

Do you disagree? Do you think that I exhibit a Luddite attitude that is at the core of a chauvinistic society? Don’t just let it grate on you—Be a Wild Duck! Leave a comment.

~Ellery

Thought leaders who back Trump

I have two very smart friends who share a rare trait. Since I have not asked them for permission to ‘out’ them in my Blog, I will call them ‘Dan’ and ‘Peter’. For this one Op-Ed, I will avoid photos, because some readers would recognize them.

I met Peter through business connections and his headline speech at a technical conference. Dan has been a close personal friend since immigrating to America 25 years ago. I’ll get to the rare quirk that they share—but2-person silhouette-s first, they have some other things in common…

  • They are each remarkably intelligent. Their respective patents stand among the most inspired business ideas in high-tech history
  • They have both launched high-tech start-ups—solving meaningful problems, employing others and creating impressive brands
  • They have sparkling, magnetic personalities— exuding trust, kindness and generosity.
  • They are each superlative communicators—equally adept with a pen, a TV camera, social media or in front of a live audience.
  • They communicate with confidence, con-viction and an uncanny gift of persuasion.
    They are unquestionably influential. Their eloquence and stature convey gravitas

Years from now, I doubt that either of these friends will point to this page as testament to their esteem among peers. You see, of my many smart and influential friends, these are the only two who support Donald Trump as a candidate for US president. I estimate that this makes them members of the “one percent” (No. Not that one percent).

How can this be? Can smart individuals honestly see Trump as a man that they trust to lead a nation, hold the nuclear codes, build respect among other nations, and honor our cultural diversity? Try as I might to deny it, I am forced to admit that at least two smart individuals support Donald Trump. How many other Peters and Dans are out there?

Here, then, is my personal plea to Dan and Peter. Are you listening, guys? In the open letter below, I have given up trying to change your minds. At this late stage of the election cycle, I appeal, instead, to your patriotism, your conscience and your heart…


Hi Dan {Hi Peter},

I don’t know if you watched Obama at the Singapore press conference today. It is painfully clear that every policy and bilateral agreement that he tries to enact is thwarted by partisan politics back home in our own country. These politics are motivated by the desire to make him look bad—and for these bad optics to rub off onto Hillary.

I can’t get into your mind on Trump, but I certainly appreciate and respect that we have different political philosophies. We both want a fiscally conservative administration, and a smaller, hands-off government; less debt, less tax redistribution, etc—But we have differences on guns, trade, abortion rights, global warming, the Supreme Court appointment process, and other social issues.

Regardless of our differences, I am very concerned at the neck-and-neck polls between two such different options: A sane, articulate, rational and experienced executive who may have lied about certain events—and a completely unworkable buffoon with an empire built on scams and bravado. I urge you with passion and urgency to please reflect and reconsider your endorsement of Donald Trump. Recant and recast your influence. This is not a Republican–vs–Democrat issue. Even a liar cast in the mold of Richard Nixon would be a far better choice than Donald Trump to lead our country. Trump will destroy our nation’s influence, reputation, economy, and alliances everywhere on earth. He is already well on his way to doing this.

I have always been impressed with your rapid rise as a thought leader. You are intelligent and very persuasive. Please switch horses, Dan. President Obama feels strongly that Trump is unfit to be the US President. I am more specifically concerned that he is unfit to be the object of your persuasive influence.

I see myself in Donald Trump—and I don’t like it!

Look at it this way, Dan: Trump and I share some “qualities”…

  • I have been known to exaggerate—when I believe that I will not get caught
  • I have used an alias to make phone calls (to make my organization look larger or my position seem more credible)
  • I sometimes speak with emphatic conviction before carefully checking facts
  • I have occasionally allowed myself to give into the lure of divisiveness and discrimination

But here’s the point, Dan: I know that these emotional and erratic tendencies make me unfit to govern the United States—especially if I lack a clear record of surrounding myself with critical advisers who are empowered to challenge me, delay my stupid statements and bravado, and with power to cut off my twitter feed before any random, venomous thought spits out from my ADHD brain.

More importantly, Trump doesn’t do these things occasionally. He does them every day, and with the passionate zeal of a bombastic, pathological liar.

If comparing Donald Trump to my low-brow idiosyncrasies fails to move you, then allow me to try reasoning with facts…
Is Donald Trump a legitimate candidate for US President?

You assert that liberals take Trump’s statements without context. I believe that I have observed the context. For example, how can you not be disturbed by a comment that Trump made today in reference to Obama’s firm stance against shooting cops. Trump said. There is something going on with Obama. I watched him and there is something going on there that we just don’t know about yet.” He made a similar statement after the Orlando nightclub bombing.

What the h*ll is that?! To me, it is obvious: He is using innuendo to push a conspiracy theory and hoping to cast FUD into anyone associated with Obama. For Trump, this is a frequent tactic. In fact, it is his modus operandi…

  1. Birther Issue: Claims that Obama was not born in the USA
  2. Religion: Claims that Obama is a Muslim or that Clinton is controlled by Jews
  3. Black Lives Matter: Claims that Obama fans the flames of anti-cop hate
— How can you not be disturbed when Trump criticizes a judge born in Indiana for being Mexican? (“We assume that he is Mexican–but that’s OK”). What kind of idiot statement is that?!

— How can you not be disturbed when Trump gets sucked into Tit for Tat with a Gold Star mother and claims that her Muslim upbringing prohibits her from addressing the DNC? (Even if this were true, what type of man would use this to gain points?!)

— How can you not be disturbed when Trump makes fun of a handicap or says that a distinguished prisoner of war is not heroic, because he was caught?

— How can you not be disturbed that a candidate for president makes reference to the size of his penis on a televised debate?

— How can you not be disturbed about a candidate that talks about the redeeming virtues of Saddam Hussein or Putin?

— How can you not be disturbed by Trump’s claim “I love the Bible more than anyone”? (I certainly don’t want a leader who uses the Bible as a blueprint for morality, but seriously: He made this claim—and then attempted to quote “Two Corinthians”.

— How can you not be disturbed by Trump’s crazy defense of his multiple corporate bankruptcies. He even claims that the US may need to renegotiate the national debt or simply print its way out of debt. Is this rational talk?

— How can you not be disturbed by Trump’s desire to deal with the cost of our Nato commitment by encouraging Japan and South Korea to obtain nuclear weapons? Is that the talk of a sane man?

— How can you not be disturbed by a candidate who sends a vile personal tweet about another candidates wife, and then deflects blame by saying “I didn’t start it”? Yes, he did! And, in the words of Anderson Cooper, “That’s the argument of a five year old!

— How can you not be disturbed by a candidate that tells his supporters to punch a demonstrator? —and that he will pay the legal bills [i.e. in the event that they are arrested for a crime orchestrated by the candidate].

— How can you not be disturbed by a candidate who sends a tweet that was lifted from a white supremacist web site, and then claims that the Star-of-David next to Hillary and a downpouring of $100 dollar bills is just a Sheriff’s Star?

— How can you not be disturbed by the only presidential candidate in 30 years who refuses to reveal his taxable income, and then uses the lame excuse that he is undergoing a government audit?

I hate to resort to name calling, but please tell me how you can endorse redneck, racist, white trash, like that?

You claim that I am just repeating lame propaganda by CNN, but I have eyes, ears, a good memory and an analytical mind. Trump is divisive, childish, vindictive and deceitful. It is not clear that he is a good businessman. But if he is, he has built his fortune on hollow promises, trickery, and walking away from his obligations. In the words of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I know a con when I see one!

Please pause and reflect on this, Dan. You have more influence than you realize. Show your social media readers that you can reverse course. Your voice makes a difference. Donald Trump’s candidacy is far from viable. His words and actions are worse than lies. They are a disgrace. Please counter the insanity with your influence and your enviable soapbox.

God help us, if Americans align with Trump as they step into the voting booth—And God help me, if he wins. With such a thin skin and a history of bullying perceived enemies, Trump is certain to single me out for punitive vengeance.

Your friend (still, and always)
~Ellery