iheart Radio just fired a large number of talented and loyal employees in the process of modernizing its business. From my perspective, local radio survives on talented personalities, not on cost cutting and infomercials. Time will tell if I’m wrong. I regularly listened to KFBK for many years. With two exceptions, the current lineup is pathetic. I tune away to find more intelligent radio.

Clearly iHeart is focusing on a younger demographic and abandoning loyal listeners. The result is increasingly ignorant aural fare and may end up backfiring. The powers that be in radio have a history of stupid decisions.

Malicious prosecution is a tort suable in court. To prevail in such a suit, four criteria must be met and proven. While this is often difficult to do, in blatant cases it can be done. Let’s take Trump’s impeachment as a theoretical example.

Number 1) Trump must prove he has been acquitted of the charges brought forth in the impeachment and that the case is at a close. Assuming he is acquitted, that would be a given.

Number 2) Those charged with malicious prosecution (perhaps Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, et al.) actively participated in the impeachment. Easily proven. They did so publically.

Number 3) Trump would need to prove there was no probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case. This is where the ground gets shaky. While its possible the two articles of impeachment ( Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress) could be debated, both charges have shown themselves subjective as to whether they were actual offenses according to party lines. Trump could argue the process of attempting to remove him from office preceded the formal impeachment and is, thus, part and parcel of it. In other words, an “illegal conspiracy” existed which voids the validity of the charges being brought in the first place.

Finally, Number 4) Trump would have to prove those who initiated the impeachment and continued to prosecute it did so with an improper purpose. Considering the uproar from the Democrats surrounding winning the 2016 election and the constant attempts to depose him, it could be argued the impeachment had far less to do with the two Articles of Impeachment, than with the partisan democrats’ agenda; thus diminishing the impeachment’s entire validity.

Malicious prosecution is a civil tort and, as such, it’s difficult to understand what type of punishment would or could be applied if Trump prevailed in such a suit. In a perfect world, the defendants would be censured for the remainder of Trump’s presidency. Perhaps personal monetary reimbursement could be required to offset public funds used for private political gain. I doubt that would be possible under the circumstances. However, a simple win for Trump would blacken the political eyes an injure the legacies of those whose partisan shenanigans focused away from their elected jobs at hand.

In any event, I would enjoy watching. It would make fun TV.

In the wake of the U.S.’s missile strike which killed Iranian General Soleimani, Democrats and some Republicans are angry Trump did not consult with Congress prior to the strike.

Let’s look at this logically and with a bit of history in mind. Both sides of the political aisle agree Soleimani was a bad and dangerous dude. He had orchestrated the killing of many Americans and apparently had plans to continue doing the same. Both sides agree the world is a safer place with Soleimani disappearing into history. So, what’s the problem…and why didn’t Trump brief Congress prior to the missiles being launched?

Secrecy. First, Congress leaks like a sieve. Second, Democrats hate Trump enough to throw a wrench into anything of value he might plan. Somehow, some folks have gotten the idea that top secret plans regarding national security must be debated in public. The idea is, of course, insane.

I am not a fan of Trump. I didn’t vote for him. I think my choice would have done a better job in the Oval Office. Many, if not most people consider Trump’s mouth to be public enemy #1. There’s good reason for that. Aside from having the tact of a hand grenade and the grasp of the English language as one would a greased pig; his ego is intolerable. But, the benefits of his decisions and actions are undeniable.

Okay, so, on top of everything else he’s done, Trump took out Soleimani. Now he has to face the wrath of partisan fools. Historically, that’s not a bad place in which to find oneself.

It will be interesting to see how his opponents attempt to save face and try to claim his ideas as their own as the years pass because their own egos won’t allow them to admit they were wrong.

L.B.J. fed thousands of U.S. soldiers through the meat grinder in the undeclared Viet Nam conflict with no clear strategy for winning; and when that proved stupid, he quit. Jimmy Carter tried the sweet and friendly approach to peace; which emboldened Iran to take 144 hostages. Those hostages were released when Reagan, with a “peace through power” policy came into office. Clinton refrained from Killing Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance because he was afraid of collateral casualties. 911 was the result. Bush #2 made his own mistake relying on faulty intelligence regarding W.M.D.s. in Iraq as reason for continued involvement in Iraq. The reason we got involved in the first was forgotten by democrats. It was Saddam Hussein’s unprovoked attack on Kuwait and the burning of the oil fields, and his genocidal actions in the northern part of Iraq.

Trump’s precision strike killed a top terrorist general and his buddies, with a history known by the democrats to have killed numerous Americans and with plans to do more of the same. The strike didn’t produce collateral civilian deaths or injuries, but it did cause Nancy Pelosi and her group of nincompoops to decide to introduce legislation limiting presidential war powers.

Raise your hands if you think that if Hillary had been elected president and had taken the same action as Trump, Nancy would be calling for a limit on war powers for the president. Or, would she be introducing legislation to have the United States renamed in Hillary’s honor?

Kindness has its place. It would be unkind to label Pelosi a traitor or a stupid woman. In fact, she’s a very intelligent woman who has no desire to be treasonous. She’s simply out of her mind with hatred for Trump. Those of sound mind who are enabling her may be traitors.

The letter “I” encompasses much of what goes on in Washington D.C..

On the right side of the aisle we see : “I”ndifference and “I”ndecision.

On the left side of the aisle we see: “I”gnorance and “I”nsanity.

From the perspective of the elected official, any policy or decision must have “I” (personal pronoun) as the direct beneficiary or it will not suffice.

“Aye” is one other word forming the “I” sound. It indicates an affirmation. It is used by those in Congress when voting on proposals they’ve either not read or don’t/can’t understand. The other word making the same sound as “I” is spelled “eye” and refers to the two things in the voter’s head which are closed to much of what is obvious. I mention these two examples for the voters who don’t know how to spell “I”.

The definition of the word “we”, when it comes to our combined group’s relevance and importance is always interpreted as the definition of the word “wee”. It should be noted that this is the same value voters place upon vetting candidates and making informed choices prior to entering the voting booth.

Taking into account the maturity level of the politicians in Washington D.C., I think the inauguration of the next president should see some minor changes from previous swearings-in.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should administer the oath of office by saying, “Raise your right hand and put your left hand on your hip. Now, repeat after me, ‘I’m a little teapot short and stout…'”

Apparently Kylie Jenner gave her one year old kid a diamond ring for Christmas. This has some people upset saying she could have used the money in a more responsible way. After all, what would a one year old want with a diamond.

What is it that causes people to think they should have a say in the way other people spend their money or make other personal choices? If you have enough time on your hands to try to live other people’s lives for them, maybe it’s time to get a life of your own.

The big question is why anyone cares what Jenner does in the first place.

If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were a member of a symphony orchestra playing  “The Star Spangled Banner”, she’d be running across the stage playing the Mickey Mouse Club theme song on the kazoo.

I was recently caused to think about how women might be insulted or irritated with regard to how their roles in society are perceived by men. The stirring point came with a female being questioned by a male about whether she would be the one to reposition a utility trailer as opposed to a male handling the task.

First, I think one must decide whether the female was being questioned as to her abilities. In such a case, assuming the female was capable of the task (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), there would be good reason for her to feel offended. Or, was this a case of the male reacting to what he perceived to be more common.

The ratio between male and female airline pilots, as far as I’m able to determine at this moment, is 19:1. If I was told by a female that she worked for an airline; and I asked her what her job was; would I be out-of-line being more surprised learning she was a pilot rather than a flight attendant? If so, I would be wrong in being surprised that a man is a kindergarten or preschool teacher, when over 97% are female? Surprise occurs with the uncommon.

Since the  1960s-1970’s feminist movement, women have taken on more and more jobs which had been historically held by males. This is not to say that females didn’t do so before, but it was less common. There was an upsurge in the late 60s when folks like Gloria Steinem discounted the value of women’s lives who chose the June Cleaver life (from the TV show “Leave it to Beaver”) of stay-at-home moms. This led to two income families and the marketplace took notice by raising prices to compensate. The traditional family and its values began an accelerated erosion at the same time. There are up-sides and down-sides to almost everything.

Certainly during world wars women assumed the jobs males traditionally performed as the men went off to war. But times change. Now, women fly fighter jets and go into combat as ground troops.  The homogenization of male and female roles can take some getting used to. It makes no sense to take offense at innocent comments made by those who simply aren’t keeping up with the times. One can take heart in the fact they are generally older men whose attitudes will die with them.

The New York Times’ article written by Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, listed on the MSN homepage as: “Analysis: How Trump took over the GOP” and entitled “Fear and Loyalty: How Donald Trump Took Over the Republican Party”, dated 12/21/2019, questions how Donald Trump became leader of the Republican party. That question is clearly posed and a long list of personal and sinister forms of bullying on Trump’s part, as well as damage to Republican politicians who opposed Trump’s tactics and/or decisions are examined. Sadly, the article doesn’t answer its own question. The factual answer follows.

Trump was duly elected to the office of President. Presidents are the leaders of their parties. How sinister is that? I know. It isn’t.

What you see in Martin’s and Haberman’s article is the simple, but devious, sowing of bovine fertilizer to fertilize bovine fertilizer. Somewhat redundant, it seems an odd endeavor for anyone attempting to write something useful. Who knows? Maybe writing something useful wasn’t their goal. What could their goal have been?