Join fans of the beloved writer Betty MacDonald (1907-58). Nancy and Plum Fan Club. A Fan Club and literary Society. Betty MacDonald, the author of The egg and I and Nancy and Plum is beloved all over the world. Don't miss Betty MacDonald biography and the very funny and witty interviews on CD and DVD!
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Nancy and Plum, Betty MacDonald, trolls and other dangerous people
Should I remain in bed, leave my country or fight against the dragon?
( see also the story by Wolfgang Hampel, ' Betty MacDonald: Nothing more to say ' )
Betty MacDonald's sister Alison Bard Burnett
Betty MacDonald's mother Sydney with grandchild Alison Beck
To make a long story short, if you know the name of Betty MacDonald's troll send us a mail please.
You might be next Betty MacDonald fan club contest winner.
Deadline: November 30, 2016
Good luck!
Speaking about trolls you can read a very interesing article about ' Trolls in Sweden '.
As you know you can find Trolls not only in Sweden.
And very dangerous politicians too.
Betty MacDonald fan club founder Wolfgang Hampel did a very good job.
Thank you so much for writing this great Betty MacDonald satire:
Betty MacDonald: Nothing more to say.
But I agree, Betty MacDonald,Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle and all other great Americans should remain in the U.S. of America to fight against populism and far right opinions.
These personalities are very important now!!
But
because Trump Talk in many mouths has embodied, urged, and catalyzed
hate and violence, many students across the country are afraid. You
could say a hostile environment has developed nationally — one that
might last long past the election. Now more than ever, teachers
and students have to actively reject hate talk and bullying in order to
create learning environments that let us all debate complex political
positions without denigrating entire populations.
You asked what Betty MacDonald would have said after the election result?
Betty MacDonald was sitting on her egg-shaped cloud and listened to a rather strange guy.
He said to his friends: So sorry to keep you waiting. Very complicated business! Very complicated!
Betty said: Obviously much too complicated for you old toupee!
Besides him ( by the way the First Lady's place ) his 10 year old son was bored to death and listened to this 'exciting' victory speech.
The old man could be his great-grandfather.
The
boy was very tired and thought: I don't know what this old guy is
talking about. Come on and finish it, please. I'd like to go to bed. Dear 'great-grandfather' continued and praised the Democratic candidate.
He always called her the most corrupt person ever and repeated it over and over again in the fashion of a Tibetan prayer wheel.
She is so corrupt. She is so currupt. Do you know how currupt she is?
Betty MacDonald couldn't believe it when he said: She
has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we
owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.
Afterwards old toupee praised his family, sisters and friends and asked the same question like a parrot all the time: Where are you? Where are you? I know you are here! Where are you? Betty MacDonald answered: No Pussy they are not! They left the country.
They immigrated to Canada
because they are very much afraid of the future in the U.S.A. with you
as their leader like the majority of all so-called more or less normal
citizens.
And I'm going to fly with my egg-shaped cloud to Canada within a minute too.
This
is incredible! I'll You get what you pay/vote for and Trump is the
epitome of this ideology. America I won't feel bad for you because you
don't need my sympathy for what's coming but I am genuinely scared for
you. 'Forgive them lord for they know not who they do' or maybe they do
but just don't care about their future generations who will suffer for
this long after the culprits have passed away.
Wise guy, North Pole, Svalbard And Jan Mayen, 9 minutes ago
Is the USA like North Korea where you can't trust other politicians?
That's it.
Put Ivanka in! Put Ivanka in! Put my whole family and friends in! ' What about Putin?
Or the leaders from China and North Korea?
Wouldn't it be a great idea to put them in too?
What about very intelligent and qualified Sarah Palin?
In 2006, Palin obtained a passport[88] and in 2007 traveled for the first time outside of North America on a trip to Kuwait. There she visited the Khabari Alawazem Crossing at the Kuwait–Iraq border and met with members of the Alaska National Guard at several bases.[89] On her return journey she visited injured soldiers in Germany.[90] That's the reason why very intelligent and brilliant Sarah Palin knows the World very well. Sarah and ' Pussygate ' will rule America and the World - what a couple.
Our next Betty MacDonald fan club project is a collection of these unique dedications.
If you
share your dedication from your Betty MacDonald - and Mary Bard Jensen
collection you might be the winner of our new Betty MacDonald fan club
items.
Thank you so much in advance for your support.
Thank you so much for sending us your favourite Betty MacDonald quote.
More info are coming soon.
Wolfgang
Hampel's Betty MacDonald and Ma and Pa Kettle biography and Betty
MacDonald interviews have fans in 40 countries. I'm one of their many devoted fans.
Many Betty MacDonald - and Wolfgang Hampel fans are very interested in a Wolfgang Hampel CD and DVD with his
very funny poems and stories.
You made her day! We are going to publish new Betty MacDonald essays on Betty MacDonald's gardens and nature in Washington State. Tell us the names of this mysterious couple please and you can win a very new Betty MacDonald documentary.
The series premiered on September 3,
1951, the same day as "Search for Tomorrow," and ended on August 1,
1952.
Although it did well in the ratings, it had difficulty
attracting a steady sponsor. This episode features Betty Lynn (later
known for her work on "The Andy Griffith Show") as Betty MacDonald, John
Craven as Bob MacDonald, Doris Rich as Ma Kettle, and Frank Twedell as
Pa Kettle.
Betty MacDonald fan club exhibition will be fascinating with the international book editions and letters by Betty MacDonald. I can't wait to see the new Betty MacDonald documentary.
The troll is a well-known mythological creature, not only in Sweden yet also in surrounding Scandinavian countries.
Trolls are reputed to be anti-Christianity, since the religions became a
stronghold in Sweden in the 1300s. To this present day the smell of
Christians and the sound of church bells greatly disgust trolls. The
residence of a troll may be a castle, forest, under bridges, in lakes,
sea shore or mountain. A troll that is rumoured to live on a mountain is
considered a wealthy troll, with piles of stored gold and silver. The
trolls that live alone and isolated in huts within a forest, are deemed
to be the most dangerous. A trollkoner is a female
troll;generally only rarely do trolls have a trollkoner wife. Most
trolls are thought to kidnap a beautiful young women or princess. The
captured female is left to spend her days spinning and her nights
scratching the troll’s head.
It is among some Mountains, that the king of all trolls lives.
Basic physical traits of trolls are to be truly huge, hairy, gross and
ugly in appearance yet still have a resemblance to humans. It is worth
recognising that an actual troll may come in varying shapes and sizes,
some may even have 9 heads. The appearance of a troll is liable to
change as trolls can alter their physical body to present an enticing
appearance. This draws the human to the depths of the troll’s home and
soon the human will be held captive for many years. Sometimes a troll
may even appear as a human. Although a troll is considered cruel,
all trolls are deemed to be stupid and have a dull mental capacity.
Other associated features of a troll, is to be quite old yet strong and
have a reputation for eating human flesh. The favoured pet of a troll is
the bear, and trolls have a similar nature to bears;being peaceful when
left alone yet prone to savageness when teased. The main weapon
against a troll is sunlight, as it is when a troll is exposed to
sunlight that it will turn to stone. In stone form it is harmless. Yet
there is a type of troll that is not vulnerable to sunlight, namely the
Olog-Hai. There are still mythologies linked to some landmark large
stones, which are believed to have once been trolls, due to sun exposure
the troll transformed into a significant stone piece. Some popular fairy tales that incorporate the troll include: •The Three Bill Goats Gruff – a tale of three goats crossing a bridge. Yet beneath the bridge lives a troll. •The Lord of the Rings – a tale involving a variety of trolls. •Harry Potter series – various troll characters are part of the story at some stages.
Since 1959, troll dolls have been made for ornamental display and for
children. They are made in a way to look generally cute with a tuff of
fluff upright hair. These dolls came in various sizes, with each doll
having its own hair colour, such as blue, purple, orange, green or red. For more information, please view: http://en.wikipedia.org
On
Friday, I almost assaulted a fan of my work. I was in the Philadelphia
International Airport, and a man who recognized me from one of my
appearances on a television news show approached. He thanked me for the
investigative reporting I had done about Donald Trump before the
election, expressed his outrage that the Republican nominee had won and
then told me quite gruffly, “Get back to work.” Something about his
arrogance struck me, so I asked, “Who did you vote for?” He
replied, “Well, Stein, but—” I interrupted him and said, “You’re lucky
it’s illegal for me to punch you in the face.” Then, after telling him
to have sex with himself—but with a much cruder term—I turned and walked
away. A certain kind of liberal makes me sick. These people
traffic in false equivalencies, always pretending that both nominees are
the same, justifying their apathy and not voting or preening about
their narcissistic purity as they cast their ballot for a person they
know cannot win. I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump,
because they wanted a Trump presidency. I have an enormous problem with
anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at
all—and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election. If
you don’t like the consequences of your own actions, shut the hell up.
Latino protesters wave signs during a march and rally against the
election of Republican Donald Trump as president of the United States in
Los Angeles on November 12. Ted Soqui/Reuters Let
me explain this as clearly as I can: In reporting on Trump and his
campaign, my job has never been to promote or oppose his election. I
believed the media was letting him slide toward Election Day without
conducting the normal examination performed on all presidential
candidates, while instead wasting time on idiotic spectacles like
Trump’s appearance on The Dr. Oz Show. So I dug in, working
full-time from July up to election eve, without weekends off, missing
family events. In exchange, my family and I received multiple death
threats and endured many online attacks. Yet we stayed committed to my
work so that the public could have as much information as possible
before they cast their ballot on who should the leader of the free
world. That was the only job for everyone else: vote. They
wouldn’t have to miss parents’ day at their kids’ schools; they wouldn’t
have to skip weekend events; they wouldn’t have to neglect their
spouses. All they had to do was recognize that governance is not a game,
and that their choices matter. Again, if they supported Trump or truly
didn’t care who won after acquiring a real understanding of both
candidates’ positions—rather than spouting some self-indulgent,
bumper-sticker logic—I have no complaints. If they opposed Trump while
refusing to do what they could to keep him out of office—that is, vote for the only other candidate who could win—then they need to go perform sex with themselves. And I mean that in much cruder terms. The
problem this election season has been that liberal Democrats—just like
too many Republicans—have been consumed by provably false conspiracy
theories. They have trafficked in them on Facebook and Twitter, they
have read only websites that confirm what they want to believe, and they
have, in the past few months, unknowingly gulped down Russian
propaganda with delight. In other words, just like the conservatives
they belittle, they have been inside a media bubble that blocked them
from reality. So before proceeding, let’s address a few fantasies about
this campaign:
1. The Myth of the All-Powerful Democratic National Committee
Easily
the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort
of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against
the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the
Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for
Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary
had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump
started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in
was stupid, as were the people who believed it. Start with this:
The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent
organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and
vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200
members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the
Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It
handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its
expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate
spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This
was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he
heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices
at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would
want out of such a toothless organization. The first big criticism
this year was that the DNC had sponsored “only” six debates between
Clinton and Bernie Sanders in some sort of conspiracy to impede the
Vermont senator. This rage was built on ignorance: The DNC at first
announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008
and 2004. (In 2012, Barack Obama was running for re-election. Plus,
while the DNC announced it would sponsor six debates in 2008, only five
took place.) Debates cost money, and the more spent on debates, the less
available for the nominee in the general election. Plus, there is a
reasonable belief among political experts that allowing the nominees to
tear each other down over and over undermines their chances in the
general election, which is exactly what happened with the Republicans in
2012. Still, in the face of rage by Sanders supporters, the
number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine—more than have been held
in almost 30 years. Plans for a 10th one, scheduled for May 24, were
abandoned after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win
the nomination.
Sanders speaks to Clinton during the Democratic presidential debate
sponsored by MSNBC at the University of New Hampshire in Durham on
February 4. The conspiracy theory embraced by Bernie-or-Busters that the
DNC-sponsored debates were all held on nights when no one would watch
is completely false, Kurt Eichenwald argues. Mike Segar/Reuters Notice that these were only DNC-sponsored
debates. There were also 13 forums, sponsored by other organizations.
So that’s 22 debates and forums, of which 14 were only for two
candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Compare that with 2008: there were 17
debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with
two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal
why? The next conspiracy theory embraced by Bernie-or-Busters was
that the DNC-sponsored debates were all held on nights no one would
watch. Two took place on a Saturday, two on Sunday, three on a Thursday,
one on a Tuesday and one on a Wednesday. In 2008, the DNC scheduled two
on a Monday (one was canceled), and one each on a Sunday, Wednesday,
Tuesday and Thursday. Not including any of the 2016 forums, there were
72 million viewers for the DNC-sponsored debates, almost the same
amount—75 million viewers—as there were for every debate in
2008, including those sponsored by other organizations. And those
Saturday debates, which Sanders fans howled no one would watch, were the
third- and fifth-most watched debates (one of them was 3 percent away
from being the fourth-most watched). In other words, the argument
that the DNC rigged the debates is, by any rational analysis, garbage.
For those who still believe it, hats made of tin foil are available on
Amazon. Next, the infamous hack of DNC emails that “proved” the
organization had its thumb on the scale for Clinton. Perhaps nothing has
been more frustrating for people in the politics business to address,
because the conspiracy is based on ignorance. Almost every email
that set off the “rigged” accusations was from May 2016. (One was in
late April; I’ll address that below.) Even in the most ridiculous of
dream worlds, Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after
May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there
were only 933 available in the remaining contests. And political pros
could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April 19,
since a victory would require him to win almost every single delegate
after that, something no rational person could believe. Sanders
voters proclaimed that superdelegates, elected officials and party
regulars who controlled thousands of votes, could flip their support and
instead vote for the candidate with the fewest votes. In other words,
they wanted the party to overthrow the will of the majority of voters.
That Sanders fans were wishing for an establishment overthrow of the
electorate more common in banana republics or dictatorships is obscene.
(One side note: Sanders supporters also made a big deal out of the fact
that many of the superdelegates had expressed support for Clinton early
in the campaign. They did the same thing in 2008, then switched to Obama
when he won the most pledged delegates. Same thing would have happened
with Sanders if he had persuaded more people to vote for him.) This
is important because it shows Sanders supporters were tricked into
believing a false narrative. Once only one candidate can win the
nomination, of course the DNC gets to work on that person’s behalf. Of course
emails from that time would reflect support for the person who would
clearly be the nominee. And given that their jobs are to elect
Democrats, of course DNC officials were annoyed that Sanders
would not tell his followers he could not possibly be the nominee.
Battling for the sake of battling gave his supporters a false belief
that they could still win—something that added to their
increasingly embittered feelings. According to a Western European
intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens,
transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them
released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing
chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats
gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media
was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian
propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites,
started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from
Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent
internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that
this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian
disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites
catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists
and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the
dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May
16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for
Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by
the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative.
(Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious
beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the
outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements
of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a
contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do
so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive
nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know
what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he
had not ever been a Democrat before his run. Bottom line: The
“scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin,
then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools
who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in
the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally
mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the
nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation. In the real
world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the
primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never
changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for
them to be changed as his losses piled up.
Hillary Clinton, accompanied by her husband former U.S. President Bill
Clintonand running mate Senator Tim Kaine, addresses her staff and
supporters about the results of the U.S. election at a hotel in New
York, November 9. Carlos Barria/Reuters
2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump
It
is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional
scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer
showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They
ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him.
Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of
voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another
candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly
enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters.
Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example,
about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for
her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to
breach. When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part
of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for
almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to
attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically
telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go
beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater
opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list. So what
would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did
not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have
seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it
was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders
supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have
defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who
play defense all the time: losers. Here are a few tastes of what
was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He
thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious
essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men.
Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like
the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense.
And we all know how well that worked out. Then there’s the fact
that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole
electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he
co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic
community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the
words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t,
I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a
proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue. Also on the
list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for
supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against
the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have
been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of
Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the
Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the
leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people
chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President
Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on
camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.” The
Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know
what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet
thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro
alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that
Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken
before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
Could
Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But
Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare
Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be
ignored. Which leads back to the main point: Awash in false
conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the
White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5
million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million
Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else.
More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the
“Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party.
The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million
votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein
voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would
have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected
Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump. Of course, there
will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if
somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the
election. That, however, is not what an election is about. Voters are
charged with choosing the best person to lead the country, not the one
who appeals the most to their egos. If you voted for Trump because
you supported him, congratulations on your candidate’s victory. But if
you didn’t vote for the only person who could defeat him and are now
protesting a Trump presidency, may I suggest you shut up and go home.
Adults now need to start fixing the damage you have done.
The frightening effect of ‘Trump Talk’ on America’s schools
Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally on
November 5, 2016 in Tampa, Florida.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty
Images)
A report
issued in April titled, “The Trump Effect: The Impact of the
Presidential Campaign on Our Nation’s Schools,” said that the primary
campaign was so divisive that it was having a “profoundly negative
effect on children and classrooms.” The report, by the Southern Poverty
Law Center’s Teacher Tolerance project said:
It’s
producing an alarming level of fear and anxiety among children of color
and inflaming racial and ethnic tensions in the classroom. Many
students worry about being deported. Other students have been
emboldened by the divisive, often juvenile rhetoric in the campaign.
Teachers have noted an increase in bullying, harassment and intimidation
of students whose races, religions or nationalities have been the
verbal targets of candidates on the campaign trail.
Since
the report was issued, concerns about many things that Republican
presidential candidate Donald Trump has said about women, Muslims,
Mexicans and other people have only heightened, and teachers
increasingly find themselves handling the fallout. In this post,
Mica Pollock, a professor of education at the University of California
at San Diego, looks at the effect that she calls “Trump Talk” has on
students, teachers and school climate, and discusses how educators
should respond.
Answer Sheet newsletter
Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.
Pollock
is the author of several books on race talk in schools, including the
forthcoming “Schooltalk: Rethinking What We Say About — and To —
Students Every Day.” An anthropologist and design researcher, she is
professor of education studies and director of the Center for Research
on Educational Equity, Assessment and Teaching Excellence (CREATE)
at the University of California at San Diego. As director of the
center, Pollock works with colleagues to network the university’s
people, resources and opportunities to the diverse K-12 educators,
students, and families of the San Diego region, with the particular goal
of supporting low-income, underrepresented students toward college and
rewarding careers.
By Mica Pollock Children
and youth hear the words adults hear. They hear them on the Internet,
over a shoulder and repeated by other kids on the playground or in the
classroom. And words matter. They shape what young people think about
themselves, each other, adults and their country. From
Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president, young people have
heard distorting claims about Mexicans as rapists to deport and
distrust, of Muslims as violent anti-Americans who should be banned from
entry to the United States, of African Americans as people living in
hellish inner cities, of women as people to grope without permission,
and of violence toward critics as admirable passion, to name just a few
examples.
Real estate mogul Donald Trump said during
his presidential announcement that Mexican migrants to the U.S. are drug
traffickers and rapists, as well as "some ... good people."
(AP)
Such comments echo through school hallways, too. Anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim “chalking” occurred last spring
on college campuses nationwide. On my own campus in California,
several self-proclaimed “Tritons for Trump” chalked anti-Mexican
graffiti on the ground right before an event designed to attract
admitted students. Vandals up the coast scrawled pro-Trump messages and “Black Lives Suck” on high school bathrooms and benches. And the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance project issued a report several
months ago about the “Trump Effect” — the impact of Trump’s campaign
talk on K-12 students nationally. Teachers reported that children and
youth across the country were hearing Trump’s language on the news and
restated in the mouths of peers. The report documents Latino, African
American, and Muslim children, and children of immigrants, terrified and
fighting with peers; reporting slurs and threats from peers that Trump
would hurt or kill their families; and asking teachers whether their
entire families (even as American citizens) would be deported, walled
off or worse by Trump. The National Education Association has been sharing teachers’ stories of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and bullying talk on the rise as students cite and extend Trump’s rhetoric. Fall incidents include homemade “white pride” Trump T-shirts at high school homecoming; increasing incidents of Muslim students bullied on buses and in classrooms; and even explicit “Nazi” talk among students. And students are now hearing Trump supporters threaten armed rebellion if he doesn’t win. “Trump
Talk” has unleashed a wave of explicit hate and intimidation for
educators to address. And to have a presidential candidate unleash such
talk — especially without reproach from many powerful politicians — sets
an extremely confusing example. That’s because schools are places where hate speech, harassment and encouragement of violence are supposed to be challenged. In
schools, students are taught not to bully other people. And there are
actual laws saying schools can’t just let hateful and violent speech go.
As a professor colleague put it, “Trump speech on public campuses
creates a very real tension between the civil liberty of speech and the
civil right not to be intimidated.” Civil-rights lawyer friends
have clarified for me that any campus receiving federal funds has to
debate a key issue in the era of Trump. When does speech — even speech protected under the First Amendment — produce a hostile environment, prohibited by federal and state civil-rights laws? Such laws forbid
educators in federally funded public schools from tolerating or
allowing an education environment in which harassment based on race,
color or national origin (or sex, or disability) is “sufficiently
severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a
student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services,
activities, or opportunities offered by a school.” Because a school “has a duty
to provide a nondiscriminatory environment that is conducive to
learning,” when hostile environments are impeding the right to learn, educators must take action to “end the harassment, eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and prevent the harassment from recurring.” To prevent racially hostile environments, experts suggest, proactive educators respond
to all incidents of racially hostile speech or reports of racially
harassing conduct; they continually ask speakers to respect and value
others so all can learn. Most powerfully, educators know that hostile
speech that doesn’t “rise to the level” of harassment or a hostile
environment in legal terms can prompt discussion about when words
distort or harm other people, or condone violence. Indeed, educators’
primary antidote to racial hostility is ongoing speech: routinely
fostering thoughtful discussion about the facts about complex social
issues, the value and real experiences of other people, and the
consequences of our claims. As educators, we cannot and should not censor talk about
Trump, nor censor debate about any issue he raises, such as immigration
policy. Schools must foster dialogue on controversial issues, not
squelch it. And we can’t simply outlaw
“offensive” speech from our schools, because freedom of speech protects
us all. But as educators, we are also fundamentally responsible for
denouncing speech that denigrates or threatens people — and for
protecting all students’ rights to participate in and benefit from
school. The complexity of Trump’s own hostile speech is that he explicitly denigrates
groups of people only some of the time, and then he just implies or
denies the hate previously stated. Others then harass critics
anonymously on his behalf or even just scrawl his name to intimidate children. But
because Trump Talk in many mouths has embodied, urged, and catalyzed
hate and violence, many students across the country are afraid. You
could say a hostile environment has developed nationally — one that
might last long past the election. Now more than ever, teachers
and students have to actively reject hate talk and bullying in order to
create learning environments that let us all debate complex political
positions without denigrating entire populations. Together,
educators and students can proactively learn to “attack” the thing said,
not the speaker, by asking people for the evidence behind their claims
and offering evidence behind our own. Together, we can consider when our
words misrepresent or disrespect others. Together, we can seek accurate
information about social issues and learn about other people’s actual
experiences and perspectives. We can refuse intimidation talk and insist
instead on engaging ideas. And together, we can consider when we’re
fully informed or have more to learn. As the Teaching Tolerance
report noted, what many teachers said they most needed to handle
Trump-era dialogue in their classrooms was “facts.” This
is the line we walk as educators and students. This is not political
correctness. This is training young people to participate civilly and
nonviolently in democracy. This is about debating complicated issues
using evidence. This is about basic respect. Hate
and intimidation are not welcomed in the hallways, classrooms, and
playgrounds of our nation’s schools. Teachers and kids don’t have to
accept them from the Republican nominee.
Following is a transcript of Donald J. Trump’s victory speech, as compiled by Federal News Services.
TRUMP: Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone.
(APPLAUSE)
Sorry to keep you waiting; complicated business; complicated.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: I’ve just received a call from Secretary Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
She
congratulated us — it’s about us — on our victory, and I congratulated
her and her family on a very, very hard-fought campaign. I mean, she —
she fought very hard.
(APPLAUSE)
Hillary
has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we
owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.
(APPLAUSE)
I mean that very sincerely.
(APPLAUSE)
Now
it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get
together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this
nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.
(APPLAUSE)
It’s time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important to me.
(APPLAUSE)
For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people. . .
(LAUGHTER)
. . . I’m reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so that we can work together and unify our great country.
(APPLAUSE)
As
I’ve said from the beginning, ours was not a campaign, but rather an
incredible and great movement made up of millions of hard-working men
and women who love their country and want a better, brighter future for
themselves and for their families.
(APPLAUSE)
It’s
a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions,
backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our government to serve the
people, and serve the people it will.
(APPLAUSE)
Working
together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation and
renewing the American dream. I’ve spent my entire life and business
looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the
world. That is now what I want to do for our country.
(APPLAUSE)
Tremendous
potential. I’ve gotten to know our country so well — tremendous
potential. It’s going to be a beautiful thing. Every single American
will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential. The
forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.
(APPLAUSE)
We
are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges,
tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We’re going to rebuild our
infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we
will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.
We will also finally take care of our great veterans.
(APPLAUSE)
They’ve
been so loyal, and I’ve gotten to know so many over this 18-month
journey. The time I’ve spent with them during this campaign has been
among my greatest honors. Our veterans are incredible people. We will
embark upon a project of national growth and renewal. I will harness the
creative talents of our people and we will call upon the best and
brightest to leverage their tremendous talent for the benefit of all.
It’s going to happen.
(APPLAUSE)
We
have a great economic plan. We will double our growth and have the
strongest economy anywhere in the world. At the same time, we will get
along with all other nations willing to get along with us. We will be.
(APPLAUSE)
We’ll have great relationships. We expect to have great, great relationships. No dream is too big, no challenge is too great.
TRUMP: Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach.
America will no longer settle for anything less than the best.
(APPLAUSE)
We
must reclaim our country’s destiny and dream big and bold and daring.
We have to do that. We’re going to dream of things for our country and
beautiful things and successful things once again.
I
want to tell the world community that while we will always put
America’s interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone, with
everyone — all people and all other nations. We will seek common ground,
not hostility; partnership, not conflict.
And
now I’d like to take this moment to thank some of the people who really
helped me with this, what they are calling tonight, very, very historic
victory.
First, I want to thank my parents, who I know are looking down on me right now.
(APPLAUSE)
Great people. I’ve learned so much from them. They were wonderful in every regard. I had truly great parents.
I
also want to thank my sisters, Maryanne and Elizabeth, who are here
with us tonight. And, where are they? They’re here someplace. They’re
very shy, actually. And my brother Robert — my great friend. Where is
Robert? Where is Robert?
(APPLAUSE)
My
brother Robert. And they should all be on this stage, but that’s OK.
They’re great. And also my late brother, Fred. Great guy. Fantastic guy.
(APPLAUSE)
Fantastic family. I was very lucky. Great brothers, sisters; great, unbelievable parents.
To Melania and Don. . .
(APPLAUSE) . . . and Ivanka. . .
(APPLAUSE)
.
. . and Eric and Tiffany and Baron, I love you and I thank you, and
especially for putting up with all of those hours. This was tough.
(APPLAUSE)
This
was tough. This political stuff is nasty and it’s tough. So I want to
thank my family very much. Really fantastic. Thank you all. Thank you
all.
And Lara, unbelievable job, unbelievable.
Vanessa, thank you. Thank you very much.
What
a great group. You’ve all given me such incredible support, and I will
tell you that we have a large group of people. You know, they kept
saying we have a small staff. Not so small. Look at all the people that
we have. Look at all of these people.
And
Kellyanne and Chris and Rudy and Steve and David. We have got — we have
got tremendously talented people up here. And I want to tell you, it’s
been — it’s been very, very special. I want to give a very special
thanks to our former mayor, Rudy Giuliani.
(APPLAUSE)
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable. He traveled with us and he went through meetings. That
Rudy never changes. Where’s Rudy? Where is he? Rudy.
Governor Chris Christie, folks, was unbelievable.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Chris.
The
first man, first senator, first major, major politician, and let me
tell you, he is highly respected in Washington because he’s as smart as
you get: Senator Jeff Sessions. Where is Jeff?
(APPLAUSE)
Great man.
Another great man, very tough competitor. He was not easy. He was not easy. Who is that? Is that the mayor that showed up?
(LAUGHTER)
Is that Rudy? Oh, Rudy got up here.
Another
great man who has been really a friend to me. But I’ll tell you, I got
to know him as a competitor because he was one of the folks that was
negotiating to go against those Democrats: Dr. Ben Carson. Where is Ben?
(APPLAUSE)
Where is Ben?
TRUMP: And by the way, Mike Huckabee is here someplace, and he is fantastic. Mike and his family, Sarah — thank you very much.
General Mike Flynn. Where is Mike?
(APPLAUSE)
And
General Kellogg. We have over 200 generals and admirals that have
endorsed our campaign. And they’re special people and it’s really an
honor. We have 22 congressional Medal of Honor recipients. We have just
tremendous people.
A
very special person who believed me and, you know, I’d read reports
that I wasn’t getting along with him. I never had a bad second with him.
He’s an unbelievable star. He is. . .
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP:
That’s right. How did you possibly guess? So let me tell you about
Reince, and I’ve said this. I said, Reince — and I know it, I know. Look
at all those people over there. I know it. Reince is a superstar. But I
said, “They can’t call you a superstar, Reince, unless we win,” because
you can’t be called a superstar — like Secretariat — if Secretariat
came in second, Secretariat would not have that big, beautiful bronze
bust at the track at Belmont.
But
I’ll tell you, Reince is really a star. And he is the hardest-working
guy. And in a certain way, I did this — Reince, come up here. Where is
Reince? Get over here, Reince.
(APPLAUSE)
Boy oh boy oh boy. It’s about time you did this, Reince. My God.
(APPLAUSE)
Say a few words. No, come on, say something.
RNC CHAIRMAN REINCE PRIEBUS: Ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the United States, Donald Trump.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. It’s been an honor. God bless. Thank God.
TRUMP: Amazing guy.
Our partnership with the RNC was so important to the success and what we’ve done.
So I also have to say I’ve gotten to know some incredible people — the Secret Service people.
(APPLAUSE)
They’re
tough and they’re smart and they’re sharp, and I don’t want to mess
around with them, I can tell you. And when I want to go and wave to a
big group of people and they rip me down and put me back down on the
seat. But they are fantastic people, so I want to thank the Secret
Service.
(APPLAUSE)
And law enforcement in New York City. They’re here tonight.
(APPLAUSE)
These are spectacular people, sometimes underappreciated unfortunately, but we appreciate them. We know what they go through.
So,
it’s been what they call a historic event, but to be really historic,
we have to do a great job. And I promise you that I will not let you
down. We will do a great job. We will do a great job.
(APPLAUSE)
I
look very much forward to being your president, and hopefully at the
end of two years or three years or four years, or maybe even eight
years. . .
(APPLAUSE)
.
. . you will say, so many of you worked so hard for us, but you will
say that — you will say that that was something that you really were
very proud to do and I can. . .
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Thank you very much.
And I can only say that while the campaign is over, our work on this movement is now really just beginning.
(APPLAUSE)
We’re
going to get to work immediately for the American people. And we’re
going to be doing a job that hopefully you will be so proud of your
president. You’ll be so proud. Again, it’s my honor. It was an amazing
evening. It’s been an amazing two-year period. And I love this country.
Donald
Trump is going to be president, and he's about to make his first hires.
Who will join the Trump Cabinet™? Over the course of the campaign, the
former celebrity mogul dropped a number of hints, and he flirted with
the idea of unveiling his Cabinet, reality TV-style, at the Republican
National Convention in Cleveland. (It didn't happen.) Since Trump won
the election on Tuesday, his aides have started to fill in the gaps.
Trump hasn't talked much about what he's looking for in a Cabinet
secretary, but he has promised that his picks will have "great ability" and will not be "politically correct." Here's a look at who might make Trump's A-list: Treasury: "We don't have our best and our brightest
negotiating for us—we have a bunch of losers, we have a bunch of
political hacks, we have diplomats," Trump said in an interview on Morning Joe
last summer, when asked who he would name as treasury secretary. "I
know the smartest guys on Wall Street. I know our best negotiators. I
know the overrated guys, the underrated guys, the guys that nobody ever
heard of that are killers, that are great. We gotta use those
people…Guys like [former General Electric CEO] Jack Welch. I like guys
like [private equity giant] Henry Kravis. I'd love to bring my friend
Carl Icahn. I mean, we have people that are great." Welch has said he's not interested. Kravis said, "I love my job and can't imagine leaving it."
Icahn announced on Twitter last August that he would accept the job if
asked to serve, after initially saying no deal. Then he reversed himself
again. So he's presumably out of the running. Currently, Trump is reportedly leaning toward ex-Goldman Sachs banker and Avatar financier Steve Mnuchin. He was chair of housing lender OneWest, which, according to the New York Times, "was
involved in a string of lawsuits over questionable foreclosures, and
settled several cases for millions of dollars." Last year, Variety
reported that Mnuchin and other partners lost $80 million in Relativity
Media, a movie studio that went bust. The magazine added that
"disgruntled Relativity investors privately are questioning how a bank
Mnuchin once headed—OneWest Bank
of Pasadena—was allowed by Relativity to drain $50 million from the
studio just weeks prior to the July 30 insolvency filing." Mnuchin was
finance chair of Trump's presidential campaign. Attorney
General: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is leading Trump's White
House transition team, was the most discussed name prior to the verdict in the Bridgegate case. "I think he'd make a great attorney general, he's a very talented guy," Trump told Boston talk radio host Howie Carr in March. Trump's oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., said
in February, "I think there would certainly be something within the
Justice Department" for Christie if he weren't chosen as vice president.
When Trump passed over Christie for VP, he reportedly sought to smooth
things over by floating the top spot at the Justice Department. "If he asks me, and I can do it, I will do it," Christie said
in July. But the lingering stain of Bridgegate may put him out of the
running for this gig. Lately, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has
emerged as a favorite for AG, according to MSNBC. Giuliani has his own bit of baggage, which will likely come up in any
confirmation hearing. As mayor of New York, he brought his
taxpayer-funded security detail with him on trysts with the woman he was
having an affair with. (They are now married.) His police commissioner,
Bernie Kerik, who was named George W. Bush's homeland security director
on Giuliani's recommendation, later served prison time for tax fraud. Homeland Security: The New York Times and the New York Daily News
reported during the campaign that Giuliani, one of Trump's most fervent
surrogates, is a contender for the post. When Fox's Bill O'Reilly
raised Giuliani as a possible homeland security pick during an interview
in May, Trump replied, "I think it would be good." (Trump has also
floated Giuliani for another role, tellingFox & Friends
he was "thinking about setting up a commission, perhaps headed by Rudy
Giuliani, to take a very serious look at" terrorism.) But if Giuliani
goes to the Justice Department, that might create an opening for Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, a big-time Trump backer who once compared Black Lives Matter to ISIS. In May, Ebonycalled
Clarke "a black cop with a dangerous mentality," noting that his
"conservative political views, particularly on law enforcement, have
made him a darling of the right-wing media, but his critics have called
him a 'shill.'" Christie was also reportedly under consideration. Health and Human Services: In the May O'Reilly
interview, Trump praised the host's suggestion that Ben Carson run the
federal department that oversees the implementation of the Affordable
Care Act. Carson, for his part, has said he was promised
a job "in an advisory capacity" in the Trump administration, but he has
not specified which. Carson's ability to lead a large organization was
called into question during his presidential bid, when his campaign was
routinely racked by internal chaos. In September, he said Trump should apologize
for leading the birther movement in order to remove "hate and rancor"
from the political process—and there's no telling if that ticked off
Trump. Education:
Maybe Carson could run two departments? At a debate in March, after the
pediatric neurosurgeon had dropped out, Trump remarked, "I am going to have Ben very much involved in education, something which really is an expertise of his." However, Trump has said the Department of Education would be "largely eliminated" in his administration. This might be a part-time gig. State: Conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt has
lobbied hard for superhawk John Bolton, who served as ambassador to the
United Nations under the George W. Bush administration. Trump left the
door open during the campaign. "I watched him yesterday, actually, and
he was very good in defending me in some of my views, and very, very
strong, and I've always liked John Bolton," Trump told Hewitt in a radio
interview. And when Trump was asked in August 2015 to name his "go-to"
foreign policy advisers, he gave two names: Bolton and retired Colonel Jack Jacobs. (Jacobs subsequently said he had never advised Trump.) Citing Bolton was odd, since Trump has boasted (inaccurately)
that he was a critic of the Iraq War, and Bolton was a cheerleader for
the war. As a senior State Department official prior to the 2003 Iraq
invasion, Bolton pushed the false claim that Saddam Hussein was actively
developing a nuclear weapons program. (He also supported a conspiracy theorist named Laurie Mylroie who contended that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.) And he insists that the Iraq invasion was the right move. In May, he said, "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct." Politico and MSNBC have floated another name for the top foreign
policy post: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. A finalist to be
Trump's vice president, Gingrich has talked publicly about crafting his
own role in a Trump administration. After Mike Pence was picked for the
veep spot, Gingrich commented, "I said I want to be the senior planner
for the entire federal government, and I want a letter from you that
says Newt Gingrich is authorized to go to any program in any department,
examine it, and report directly to the president." In other words, he
wants to be—in Game of Thrones parlance—the Hand of the King.
Maybe that's because Gingrich, with his decades of outlandish remarks,
controversies, and scandals, might not want to go through what could be a
bruising confirmation process. Energy: Reuters reported in July that Trump was considering nominating fracking billionaire Harold Hamm
to run the Energy Department. Trump made no effort to deny that report,
and he bragged about his friendship with Hamm at a press conference a
few days later. "These other companies, they go out and spend millions
of dollars looking for oil," Trump said.
"That guy takes a straw, puts it in the ground, and oil pours out of
it. That's the kind of a guy we want telling us about energy." This
week, Hamm called
on Trump to slash regulations on oil and gas drilling, claiming the
government is impeding energy production (even though the United States
is producing oil and gas at record levels). At the Republican
convention, Hamm declared, "Climate change isn't our biggest problem. It's Islamic terrorism." Last year, according
to Bloomberg, Hamm told the University of Oklahoma dean he wanted the
school to fire scientists who were exploring connections between oil and
gas activity and the state's tremendous increase in earthquakes. Defense: Trump tweeted in July about the possibility
of naming Lt. General (Ret.) Michael Flynn, a top campaign surrogate
who is the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to run
the Pentagon. But because Flynn is less than seven years removed from active duty,
he would need a waiver from Congress in order to take the job. He is
also in the running to be Trump's national security adviser, a
non-Cabinet position that does not require Senate confirmation. Flynn
was forced out of his job as the director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency in 2014 after a tumultuous stint at the Pentagon, and he later
wrote a book describing Islam as a "cancer." As the top national
security guy in the White House, Flynn would be in a position to exact
revenge on the military bureaucracy that pushed him out. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), one of Trump's closest advisers during
the campaign, and Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. of California, who endorsed
Trump early, have also been mentioned for the top Pentagon job. Agriculture: Biofuels baron Bruce Rastetter, a
member of Trump's agriculture advisory council and a big-time Republican
donor, has been rumored to be on the shortlist, in part because of his
close relationship with Christie. That'd be a Christmas gift for the
ethanol lobby. Politicoreported
this week that the list of candidates for the job also includes Texas
Agriculture Secretary Sid Miller, who famously called Hillary Clinton a
"cunt" on Twitter during the presidential race. Miller, who was
embroiled in an ethics scandal back in Texas for using taxpayer dollars
to compete in a rodeo, has aggressively pushed junk food in public
schools and went so far as to grant "amnesty" to a cupcake. Veterans Affairs: At a speech in Virginia in July, Trump floated
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) as a possible head of the scandal-plagued
agency. "He certainly is someone a lot of people respect," Trump said of
Miller, who chairs the House Veterans Affairs Committee. According to a
list of possible cabinet appointees obtained by BuzzFeed, he remains under consideration. Interior: Politicoreported
in September that Lucas Oil founder Forrest Lucas is the front-runner
to head the federal agency that oversees national parks and Indian
affairs.* Lucas, a major Republican donor, has in recent years thrown
his money behind efforts to block state legislation designed to crack
down on abusive puppy mills. Picking an oil-industry executive to manage
public lands—and one of the department that's most aggressively
fighting climate change—would send a clear signal about Trump's
priorities. The dark horse, though, is Donald Trump Jr., who toldPetersen's Hunting
that he would make a good interior secretary because he likes to hunt.
"I can make a difference," he said, "and I could do something to
preserve the great traditions of the outdoors that are so vital to this
country, and would be so vital to our youth, that have been shunned by
the media and stigmatized in so many ways." In 2015, Trump suggested that Sarah Palin would make an effective Cabinet secretary. Palin has said she would like to run the Department of Energy, but according to Politico, Interior might be her best bet. If so, get ready to hear the phrase "Drill, Baby, Drill"
again. Interior is the department where Trump is most likely to hire a
woman. Former Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, former Arizona Gov. Jan
Brewer, and Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin are also under consideration, according to BuzzFeed. Commerce: Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), the first
member of Congress to endorse Trump, has said Trump hinted at a job
offer before winning the election. "He has said to me many times,
'Chris, I know you were the first, I will always remember what you've
done for me,'" Collins said in July, adding that his Republican colleagues had begun calling him "Mr. Secretary." Collins told the Buffalo News that he would only accept "a Cabinet-level position," and more specifically, that he would like to be secretary of commerce. Trump has also tossed out names of other people he'd liked to give a job in his administration: Ivanka Trump: Other than Palin, Trump's oldest
daughter, Ivanka, is the only woman he's suggested as a possible Cabinet
pick. "I can tell you everybody would say, 'Put Ivanka in, put Ivanka
in,' you know that, right?" he told radio host Michael Savage. Yet Trump
also said he would put his children in charge of his company if he
became president. And not even Ivanka can do both. Maine Gov. Paul LePage. "I don't know that he would
want that but he is a very talented guy, he is also a great person, a
tremendous person and if he were available I would certainly find
something for Paul because he's done a great job up here…He's not only
popular, he's done an unbelievable job, so I would certainly say that he
would be a candidate," Trump said of the openly racist Maine Republican. Sen. Tom Cotton: Trump has also floated an
unspecified cabinet job for the first-term Republican senator from
Arkansas. "I've gotten very good, you know, very good statements from
Sen. Cotton, whose parents I know and met," Trump said in the summer. "I
think that he is a very talented guy. He's also a very popular, he's a
very popular person. So…[he is] high on the list for something at least.
That I can tell you." David Pecker: The New York Postspeculated that the National Enquirer boss, whose paper endorsed Trump, was expecting to earn an ambassadorship for his efforts. In November, the Wall Street Journalreported that the Enquirer
had paid a woman who claimed to have had an affair with Trump $150,000
for the rights to her story but never published her account. Pecker, a
longtime Trump friend, has called those rumors "ridiculous." Correction: This post originally misidentified the EPA as part of the Interior Department.
Art by: Library of Congress; Palin: Charles Dharapak/AP Photo;
Carson: Dennis Van Tine/AP Photo; Don Jr: J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo;
Rudy: Evan Vucci/AP Photo; Newt:Curtis Compton/Atlanta
Journal-Constitution/AP Photo; Christie: David Goldman//AP Photo;
Bolton: Alonzo Adams/AP Photo; Trump: Evan Vucci/AP Photo.
Betty
MacDonald fan Club honor member, artist and writer Letizia Mancino
shares her delightful story THE SECOND PARADISE. Betty MacDonald fan club honor member Mary Holmes did such a great job in translating THE SECOND PARADISE. Thanks a million dearest Mary. We are really very grateful.
I'm one of Letizia
Maninco's many devoted fans.
Letizia Mancino sent this connecting piece to " The Second Paradise".
DEFIANT AS A COCK
Copyright 2011/2016 by Letizia Mancino
translated by Mary Holmes
All rights reserved
That
was how my friend Hilde Domin was, dear Betty! You would have liked her
so much. She had also been in America. At that time you were a famous
author but she was still unknown.
-Did she love cats like you do?
-Yes Betty, she sure did!! Otherwise how do you think she could have been a friend of mine?
-Oh Letizia, don’t boast! Hilde was famous!
-It’s all the same to me, Betty, whether a person is famous or not but that person must love animals
-Why was she as defiant as a cock?
-Well Betty, she was simply so!
-Like a pregnant woman in my “Egg and I”?
-No not so! Betty, Hilde was a whole farm!
- A farm, how was that?
- No Betty, Hilde was more! Almost a zoo! Even more. She was all the animals in the world!
-You loved her very much.
-As I love all animals.
You Betty, if I had known you, I would have loved you exactly so because you loved animals.
-But as defiant as a cock from my Bob-farm!
-Yes
and no! (Hilde really loved this double form of answer). Listen Betty ,
I’ll tell you a story about how Hilde was. You would certainly have
loved her. I’ll call my story “The Second Paradise”.
THE SECOND PARADISE
Copyright 2011/2016 by Letizia Mancino
translated by Mary Holmes
All rights reserved
The Lord God, one day, met Adam in Paradise and saw him lying under a palm.
And God spoke to him: Adam, my son, are you happy, are you content with Paradise ?
Adam answered: Oh Lord, it is wonderful!
And God said: But I will create a second Paradise and give you a wife.
Adam answered: Oh Lord, that is wonderful!
And God said: I will create the wife according to your wishes.
And Adam stood under the palm and thought hard.
And God said: Adam, are you ready?
Adam
answered: My wife should be as lively as a bird but she should not fly.
She should swim like a goldfish but not be a fish….. She should be as
playful as a cat but not catch mice….. She should be as busy as an ant
but not so small.
And God said: So shall she be: Like a bird, a goldfish, a cat, an ant…
Adam answered: Oh Lord, that is wonderful, but she should be as faithful as a dog.
And God asked: Adam, have you finished?
Oh Lord, cried Adam. She should also be as delightful and gentle as a lamb and as defiant as a cock!
….She should be as curious as a monkey and as pampered as a lapdog.
And God said: So shall she be.
And Adam said: My wife should be as courageous as a lion and as headstrong as a goat…
And
God said: So, like a bird, a goldfish, a cat, an ant, a dog, a lamb, a
cock, a monkey, a lapdog, a lion, a goat… and slowly and surely he
wished to begin creating…
But Adam stretched himself under the palm and called:
Lord, Lord, she should be as adaptable as a chameleon but not creep on four feet.
She should have sparkling eyes like, like… real diamonds. She should be as fiery as a volcano
But … she should have crystal-clear thoughts like a mountain spring.
God, the Almighty, was speechless…
And Adam spoke: Also she should be as quick as lightening…
And God said: Man, have you finished????
No, said Adam! She should be as strong as a horse, as long living as an elephant but as light as a butterfly!
God
found Adam’s thoughts were good and said: So, bird, goldfish, cat, ant,
dog, lamb, cock, monkey, lapdog, lion, goat, chameleon, genuine
diamonds, volcano, mountain spring, lightening, horse, elephant….
butterfly…
God wished at last to begin creating her…
Lord, called Adam… she should be as stable as steel, but as sweet as three graceful women in one…
And God asked: Should she also be a poet?
Yes, called Adam from under the palm…
And God said: Adam have you finished?
Lord, I wish that, in the second Paradise I shall be one and doubled:
So God according to Adams last words created:
HILDE PALM DOMIN
Very best wishes
Letizia Mancino
Letizia Mancino is an outstanding writer and artist.
I know you will enjoy this very charming and witty story the same way I did!
Thanks a Million, dear Letiza Mancino! You made my day!
As you know I'm very interested in pets and excellent literature.
Betty MacDonald Fan Club, founded by Wolfgang Hampel, has members in 40 countries.
Wolfgang Hampel, author of Betty MacDonald biography interviewed Betty MacDonald's family and friends. His Interviews have been published on CD and DVD by Betty MacDonald Fan Club. If you are interested in the Betty MacDonald Biography or the Betty MacDonald Interviews send us a mail, please.
Several original Interviews with Betty MacDonald are available.
We are also organizing international Betty MacDonald Fan Club Events for example, Betty MacDonald Fan Club Eurovision Song Contest Meetings in Oslo and Düsseldorf, Royal Wedding Betty MacDonald Fan Club Event in Stockholm and Betty MacDonald Fan Club Fifa Worldcup Conferences in South Africa and Germany.
Betty MacDonald Fan Club Honour Members are Monica Sone, author of Nisei Daughter and described as Kimi in Betty MacDonald's The Plague and I, Betty MacDonald's nephew, artist and writer Darsie Beck, Betty MacDonald fans and beloved authors and artists Gwen Grant, Letizia Mancino, Perry Woodfin, Traci Tyne Hilton, Tatjana Geßler, music producer Bernd Kunze, musician Thomas Bödigheimer, translater Mary Holmes and Mr. Tigerli.
