Connect with us
Trump Clinton

Image: WIkimedia

The election is less than a week away, and judging by the fact that both candidates are historically unpopular, you might be having some trouble deciding which one you’re going to settle for. So, before you decide, let’s just weigh the pros and cons of each one final time. And I’ll go ahead and tell you it’s as con-heavy as you might expect.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has a long career in politics, going back decades. Supporters argue that this gives her a vital element that Trump lacks. However, many credible reports of corruption and scandal have marred Clinton’s potential to become the first female President of the United States.



Hillary Clinton has had a long career in politics, serving as First Lady, a senator, and Secretary of State. She has a lot of experience in policy making and meeting with foreign leaders. In addition, she is somewhat unique among politicians in terms of the amount of thought she puts into policy proposals.

She’s been described as a policy wonk on many occasions. Meaning that like Obama, she would probably bring a thoughtful, cerebral approach to her presidency.

As far as the major candidates go, she’s also the only one with any political experience at all.

First Female President

Clinton would obviously be the first female president, which would be a step forward for gender equality. So if you’re down the cause of Feminism, that’s an obvious pro.

Environmental Policies

There’s no question that Hillary Clinton would be a much better president when it comes to protecting the environment than Donald Trump. While Trump continues to deny that Climate Change even exists, Hillary has described it as “an urgent threat,” and has a number of policies to help protect at-risk species and has promised to uphold the Paris accords to help fight climate change.

She’s Not Donald Trump

For whatever else people might think of her, a fair number of people will probably be voting for her on the basis of the fact that she isn’t Trump.


The Emails

As much as you’re probably sick of hearing about the “damn emails” as Bernie Sanders described them, Hillary’s decision as Secretary of State to conduct government business on a private server is probably going to breed controversy for a while to come.

The FBI identified twenty-two top secret emails that were sent from her personal server, which might have compromised national security. That led to an investigation that didn’t really go anywhere, although that might be because her office deleted thirty thousand emails that might have been more incriminating. And recently, computers seized from the home of Anthony Weiner, disgraced politician and husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, revealed some more emails that the FBI is currently going through for any more evidence of wrongdoing.

Is using a private email account as Secretary of State a big deal? Kind of. It was illegal. And though Clinton would argue it was a basic oversight of the law, that’s a tough line to buy into when made by someone with a huge staff of government lawyers. If we’re being honest, she probably did it because she didn’t want anyone in the general public to know exactly what she was doing.

Also, deleting huge numbers of those emails before anyone could see them is some Nixon-level connivery.


After an attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi led to the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, the senate launched a lengthy and expensive investigation to determine if Clinton was negligent in protecting the embassy and if she had tried to cover that up.

The investigation concluded that no, she probably didn’t. But it did criticize the lack of security in the Embassy and the delayed response to the attack.

Even Chris Stevens’s family said Clinton wasn’t to blame for his death. But Clinton’s angry response after enduring eleven hours of questioning where she asked, “what difference does it make?” whether the deaths were the result of a protest was pretty soundbite-ready and made her look like she wasn’t appropriately upset by the whole thing.  So expect that to continue being trotted out for years to come.

The Clinton Foundation

The Clinton Foundation is, depending on who you ask, either a charitable organization or a money-making making and political influence buying machine for the Clinton family.

Criticism has been leveled against the foundation stating that foreign donors made sizable contributions in exchange for access to Hillary Clinton in her capacity as Secretary of State.

A WikiLeaks revelation revealed that a lawyer hired by the foundation to review these allegations stated that at least some donors believed there was a “quid-pro-quo” relationship where they expected favors in return for gifts.

Ties to Wall Street

Clinton, like many politicians,  has long-standing ties to big corporations. Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan are three of Clinton’s top donors.

In addition, Clinton has received huge sums of money for giving regular speeches to those companies, tying her personal wealth directly to Wall Street.

Many worry that those ties will lead to a President Clinton who goes out her way to cater to business interests.

Her Health (if you buy into that)

Hillary Clinton’s health has been an issue in this campaign. And though most concerns are probably overblown, she does have a problem with fainting spells. Her husband has chalked that up to severe dehydration, but if you’re  that dehydrated that often there’s probably at least some cause for concern.

As far as Clinton’s campaign has publicly stated, she’s as healthy as any sixty-nine-year-old woman who’s on a lot of medication.

She Probably Won’t Be Able To Get Much Done

The fact that the Republicans are probably going to hold on to overall control of the House doesn’t bode well for a President Clinton’s prospects of working with Congress. Most Republican leaders and certainly their constituents have basically declared Clinton public enemy #1 and seeing as being too chummy or even not obstinate enough to any of her policy agendas would be poison to most Republican re-election campaigns.

Of course, that’s not really her fault, but if Clinton is elected we can expect the insane gridlock in Washington to last at least four more years. And Senate Republicans have pledged to tie her up in endless investigations whenever possible.

Pages: 1 2


Sweden’s Move To A 6 Hour Workday Should Make You Very Angry



Sunset in Stockholm, Sweden

What would you do with 6 extra hours of free time every week? That’s the question every full-time worker in Sweden is going to have to answer. After years of individual companies making the switch, the entire country is about to embark on an ambitious plan to maintain productivity while also eliminating 17% of the current workweek. Yes, the entire country.

Not only have Swedish workers just been given 312 hours of their lives back each year, but they have effectively been given a rather nice raise as well. In 2014, the average Swede took home about of €30,612 (the equivalent of $34,285) each year, or €2551 ($2857)  a month, which is about €589 ($660) a week. If we break that down over a 36 hour work week (less than the 47 hours the average American works full-time ), that equals €16.35 an hour. With the switch from a 36 hour workweek to a 30 hour workweek, the average take-home hourly wage just jumped to €19.63/hour, or a 20% increase.*

That would make me pretty happy, and I hope our CEO reads this and feels compelled to give all of us at Men’s Trait a 20% raise. We’re not holding our breath, however. Wages in the U.S. have been slightly better than stagnant for decades, and now we have to sit back and watch as an entire nation was just collectively given a raise that we could only dream of in the States.

In the United States, the average earner made $45,230 before taxes in 2014. More than the average Swede, right? Not necessarily. You might have noticed that the amount people in Sweden take home, on average, was €30,612 ($34,285), not what they earned. That’s the net, after tax amount. In the U.S., depending on a worker’s tax bracket, that amount would be at best $33,923, excluding any deductions and credits on their taxes. Depending on the exchange rate at any given moment, people in Sweden might take home more money than Americans. Or Americans might take home more. It’s very, very close.

But each country is different, and the cost of living in Sweden is higher than in the United States. Or, rather no, it isn’t. When we look at just after tax income, not accounting for fixed expenses, the average Swede has more buying power than the average American. Rent and utilities are significantly cheaper for people living in Sweden, making it slightly more affordable than the U.S. overall. Removing just utilities from the equation gives the advantage to Americans for having more buying power. Luxury activities, like eating at restaurants or going to the movies, are more expensive in Sweden than they are in the United States; that’s one financial advantage we have. But Swedes don’t do those things on the same scale that Americans do, so the premium prices affect them less than they would someone living in the States.

Okay, so I’ve rambled for over 500 words about how the Swedes just made a change to how much people work, and then delved into a bevy of numbers comparing the incomes and buying power of Americans and Swedes, only to come to the conclusion that there really isn’t that much difference between the two countries. Both are wealthy countries, with each celebrating a 7.2 OECD Better Life Index score that measures the quality of life for people around the globe, well above the average score of 6.0. So what’s the point?

Just remember, you could be living the American dream in Sweden, only by working at least 312 fewer hours each year. Oh, and the Swedes are guaranteed 25 paid vacation days and 16 paid holidays yearly, plus some paid maternity (56 weeks, or 13 months) and paternity leave (34 weeks), neither of which are guaranteed in the United States.** Now, with this new 6 hour workday, your typical Swedish worker will work 458 fewer hours every year than the average American (this even includes part-time workers)—that’s 19 full days.

Yes, you should be angry. People in Sweden are living the American dream better than we are.

Preston Hemmerich is the Content Manager for 301 Digital Media, overseeing,, and more. He enjoys covering food, politics, travel and writing sad attempts at humor.

*This figure does not account for hourly employees, only salaried employees. Some businesses have applied a wage increase to hourly employees to make up for lost hours, but that is not a country wide practice. In reality, this de facto raise disproportionately benefits higher income individuals working salaried jobs.
**Collectively, citizens of the U.S. get nowhere near 41 paid days off a year that Swedish citizens do.

Continue Reading


Pro-Clinton Columnist In Bed With Clinton Staffer — Literally



Jonathan Capehart and Nick Schmit

Over the past 24 hours, a flurry of scandal has unfolded involving MSNBC contributor, Washington Post opinion columnist and prolific Clinton supporter Jonathan Capehart.

Writing an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Capehart sought to sling mud at Bernie Sanders — Swiftboat-style — in questioning Bernie Sanders’ past achievements in fighting for civil rights on behalf of African-American communities in the 1960s. (This, itself, isn’t even an original idea, as Capehart was simply jumping on the Establishment’s anti-Sander claims, which continue time after time to be disproved or found to be outright lies. (Here, here, here and here — in case you’d like some background reading.)

But that is not the central thesis of this story. Instead, let’s look a little more closely at Jonathan Capehart himself, and the flurry of lies and misdirections for which he is quickly becoming known.

Capehart, who currently offers his opinions to readers of the Washington Post and viewers on MSNBC, has spent the past five years in a long-term relationship with Nicholas Schmit IV, a long-term Clinton aide. Schmit has served in various capacities for the Clinton family and the US State Department under Clinton since 2004. You can see his full resume on LinkedIn, but we’ve summarized the key timeline of his career here.

2004 – 2007
Schmit graduated from The University of North Dakota in August 2004, and joined the Clinton Foundation, serving in various roles ending with Director of Finance, before leaving to work on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

2007 – 2008
Schmit worked as the Travel Compliance Director for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign, before her primary defeat by now-President, then-Senator Barack Obama.

2008 – 2013?
Schmit returned to the Clinton Foundation as a consultant, before being tapped to join the Clinton-led State Department in various capacities. His last update on LinkedIn shows him moving into the role of Assistant Chief of Protocol for Diplomatic Partnerships at the State Department in February 2013, the same month that Clinton left the State Department.

Whether the last (or any) of the promotions were based on merit or simply Clinton politics as usual is unclear, but regardless, a clear pattern has emerged.

Flash forward to now. In the middle of a heated and contentious primary season that pits the Clinton-establishment against the sweeping change and progress that Sanders promises, and which Obama promised and failed to deliver in full.

If it feels like history is repeating itself, that may be because history is repeating itself, and Clinton is running the same campaign with which lost in 2008.

Instead of taking a neutral position on the matter to help further Clinton’s policy agenda and talk about how Clinton will move the country forward, Capehart has gone out of his way, time and again, to ensure that the Clintons are presented as the only reasonable choice for the Democratic party. The idea of “politics as usual” as a bad thing is clearly lost on him.

It’s clear that Clinton is the favorite of the Democratic party establishment — despite her arguments that being a woman somehow makes her a non-establishment outsider — when 38.0% of the popular vote translates into 50% of the delegates, thanks to the magic of “party rules”. (More about that here.) So it’s not surprising that Capehart may have a preference for Clinton, and it’s not his political positions that are at issue. He is welcome to support Clinton, Sanders, Trump, Bush, or Jill Stein*, should he choose.

The real issue, it would seem, is that despite the fact that Capehart and Schmit have a history of mixing their personal and professional lives, including Capehart attending official State Department events with Schmit, and that they share a home and life together, Capehart, never saw fit to disclose this conflict of interest, despite his years of work as a journalist blogger.

Instead of admitting his mistake and moving on, Capehart has doubled-down and attacked anyone who questions his “journalistic integrity” as an opinion writer, refusing to acknowledge that his story was factually inaccurate and has already been widely disproven:

Whether there’s really any direct connection to the Clinton campaign today remains to be seen and is up for question, but it should not be forgotten that Capehart’s long-term partner has the Clinton’s to thank for his career and that, by extension, the Clinton’s have helped pay for his Washington, DC duplexAnd knowing that, doesn’t it make the whole situation just seem a little slimy and tawdry?

* Disclosure: We love Jill Stein, but understand that she lacks the name recognition to win. (See, Jonathan, that’s how disclosure works.)

Continue Reading


Can Mindfulness Meditation Reduce Police Brutality?



police brutality black lives matter hands up don't shoot sign protests

Let’s face it–America has an unfortunate history of police violence used to settle disputes. As of late, there’s been a strain amongst civilians and “The Boys in Blue” largely because of incidents of extreme brutality such as the in-transit death of Freddie Gray, Atlanta Hawks forward Thabo Sefolosha’s broken leg that derailed a stellar season and potential championship run, and the death of Eric Garner which further catalyzed the Black Lives Matter initiative. These incidents are not necessarily indicative behaviors of all officers of the law, but they do highlight a startling trend of over reaction and opting for physical intervention over patient analyzation and verbal reaction in non-life threatening scenarios.

With the recent trend, some people – like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, who is under fire for his department’s shooting of LaQuan McDonald –have called for more oversight of our nation’s police forces, while others have called for officers to don 24/7 video cameras to hold them more accountable of their actions. Both are more direct reactions to the problem of police brutality, and I’m certain other effective channels are being explored, but one slightly more “out of box,” conceptual approach could come in the form of optional mindfulness meditation training amongst police forces.

Mindfulness meditation and its concurrent learning practices are well regarded amongst most modern psychologists, though hard evidence of meditation’s benefits have only recently begun to be recorded. That being said, the benefits of mindfulness meditation are surprisingly applicable to overwrought, stressed police officers that could benefit from some sort of emotional release in lieu of unleashing physical abuse. Some empirical benefits of mindfulness mediation include

  • Decreased levels of the stress hormone cortisol, along with fatigue, and anxiety.
  • Sharpens focus of attention and suppresses acceptance of distracting information.
  • Less emotional reactivity, which is likely the key contributor to the instances of police brutality. If emotional reactivity can be curbed, the possibility of non-violent resolutions would hopefully be more likely.
  • More cognitive flexibility, another support parallel that would hopefully enable officers to be able to react intelligibly and logically, before resorting to physical force.

There are countless other qualitative benefits to mindfulness mediation that could prove highly beneficial to police officers across the country while making strides toward a more compassionate and deliberate police force. Mindfulness meditation has already made its way into certain portions of the American police force, as Hillsboro (OR) Police Department began its own mindfulness-training program in 2014, and has already seen substantial growth in the mental resiliency of the department’s officers. Started by Lt. Richard Goerling, the program is focused on Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), which he hopes will help stifle the prevalence of cynicism amongst officers of the law.

Goerling believes that the trend of over-aggression by police is “largely driven by the suffering behind the badge,” things such as PTSD, depression, and personal ware that can negatively affect an officer’s performance on the job. Granted, mindfulness meditation training may not become the most popular method of bridling the trend of police brutality in America, but it is comforting to know that there are police forces that are receptive to the idea of a low cost, low effort method of accounting for one’s actions in order to continue to protect the greater good.

Continue Reading