Ben Carson says Trump offered job in exchange for political endorsement

the goshawk header

donald trump and ben carson
Erstwhile presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson, right, says Donald Trump offered him a position in his administration in exchange for a political endorsement.

Carson’s claim, tantamount to pleading guilty to federal conspiracy, is unproven – but consistent with Trump’s style

Political dimwit and failed presidential wannabe Dr. Ben Carson says he really didn’t want to endorse Donald Trump for president, but candidly admits he did so because the candidate offered him a role in a Trump administration.

The retired surgeon should have seized his own tongue with both of those “gifted hands” he brags of before he blabbed about the Trump bribe – beecause such offers are expressly forbidden by federal law.

The U.S. Code is simple and unequivocal:

“Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

It is hard to imagine how an explicit offer, from the candidate, of employment in exchange for support could be anything but “willful.”

Carson laments a paucity of offers

As reported by, Carson said backing Trump was the best available deal.

“I didn’t see a path for [John] Kasich, who I like, or for [Marco] Rubio, who I like,” Carson explained. “As far as [Ted] Cruz is concerned, I don’t think he’s gonna be able to draw independents and Democrats unless has some kind of miraculous change … Is there another scenario that I would have preferred? Yes. But that scenario isn’t available.”

Asked to clarify what he meant, Carson, who once offered to run as Trump’s vice president, hamfistedly explained that he would have preferred to back one of the other candidates, had there been incentive to do so.

Did Trump really offer Carson a post-election job? It is plausible, but difficult to prove.

Carson the erstwhile candidate, who chronically drifted off to sleep during nationally televised debates, had a penchant, during his waking moments, for telling fantastic stories about his personal exploits as an attempted murderer and a betrayer of unarmed clerks at a franchise chicken outfit. So the quality of his credibility rating lacks a couple of stars.

It probably doesn’t matter. Nobody believes for a moment that Trump will be brought before the bar of justice for making the sort of wheeler-dealer promises he’s famous for not keeping.

Co-opting his bested rivals

That doesn’t mean the King of Braggadocio has not been actively undermining the competition by co-opting political rivals and others who could steal headlines if they were to endorse a presidential opponent.

Has Chris Christie been promised the job as Trump’s attorney general? It is a job he has publicly admitted he covets.

We don’t know if there has been such an offer; there’s been no on-the-record talk of it that we are aware of. But it would go far to explain why the corpulent closer of bridges would, during an embarrassingly faux interview, adoringly lob fawning questions, like so many softball fungoes, to Trump, and then subject himself to withering mocking and public humiliation by the Golden Meanie.

The same goes for publicity junkie Sarah Palin, the loopy and shamelessly opportunistic half-term Alaska governor, whom Trump quickly brought into his stable of endorsers before someone else reeled her in, for the media-attention value.

Now Palin’s appearance schedule is under Trump’s control. Her screwball showboating will lend comic relief and distract from the frightening dark fascist underside of the Trump campaign.

Be careful what you wish for

Palin, ever clueless, had already let it be known that she had a Cabinet position in mind.

“I think a lot about the Department of Energy, because energy is my baby: oil and gas and minerals, those things that God has dumped on this part of the Earth for mankind’s use instead of us relying on unfriendly foreign nations,” she said.

If she gets the DOE job, she’s in for a big surprise. The Department of Energy handles such things as nuclear weapons and disposing of waste from nuclear reactors. Oil, gas and minerals are the province of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Michael W. Dominowski is the editor of Not For Hire Media.

Facebook blew it. Bullies will love the site’s new emoji

the goshawk headerfacebook thumbs down png image

New “Reactions” emoticons may be good marketing tools, but they are a betrayal of Facebook’s users

When Facebook recently came out with its new “Reactions” emoticons, I met their arrival with a theatrical roll of my eyes. There, alongside the venerable “Like” button, an up-pointing thumb, were five additional, decidedly sappy, additional choices.

facebook emoji jpg image
The new Facebook “Reactions” emoji lineup.

Now I need not simply “Like” a Facebook post, I could “Love” it. I could also express amusement (“HaHa”), amazement (“Wow”), dismay (“Sad”) or irritation (“Angry”).

While I was doing a face palm over what seemed like a tacky change, one of my perceptive former colleagues was less generous. He said he hated the new emoji, particularly the “Love” button, and vowed to never, ever use it.

And what, he wondered, does Facebook have against its users – particularly the many young women who, for better or worse, gauge their self-esteem by the responses their posts draw?

A method to the Facebook madness

Facebook had let it be known some time ago that emoji changes were in the works. Like many others, I was hoping for nothing more than a thumbs-down “Dislike” button.

It turns out, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg turned his thumb down on the Dislike button, saying, probably wisely, he didn’t want to give site users an easy way to disrespect one another. Likewise, he argued, the “Sad” button will give users a more appropriate option to express emotion when, for example, some friend has suffered a personal loss.

Fair enough. But what’s really going on here? You don’t have to be Sigmund Freud to detect the Zuckerbergian calculation behind the new buttons.

The emoji lineup isn’t really for users. It is intended to help Facebook and its advertisers determine what advertising and content to push your way. You “like” it, you get more of it. You “love” it and you get way more of it.

The faceless feed-fiddlers behind the Facebook walls in Menlo Park, CA have long tinkered in social engineering. In 2012, Facebook secretly experimented with the moods of hundreds of thousands of its unwitting users (perhaps you were one of them), by manipulating their news feeds.

The company proved what propagandists and politicians had long known: It is relatively simple to play with people’s emotions. The Facebook experiment demonstrated that if positive posts are withheld from your news feed, you will likely produce fewer positive posts as well. The reverse is also true.

When word of the clandestine exercise got out, Facebook sought to quell the ensuing uproar by promising to be more forthright when its research involved the site’s users. But the proverbial cat was out of the bag. The results were already in, and the lessons taken to the corporate heart.

The new emoji strategy is Facebook’s latest effort to benefit from exploiting its users emotions.

Unintended consequences?

My aforementioned colleague continued his fulmination about the Facebook emoticon strategy.

“You know who I feel bad for, with this?” he asked rhetorically. “Teens.

“They have a tough enough time with their own self-esteem (Did enough people ‘Like’ my photo? Maybe I should take it down.), without throwing an extra layer of self-doubt onto the fire.”

The implication is that “Like” may no longer be enough. “Friends ‘Like’ my post but they ‘Love’ the things others post. What’s the matter with me?”

This may seem trivial, even silly to the socially secure and the thick-headed among us, but it is nonetheless a real problem with real consequences.

Facebook, inadvertently or not, has handed its users a way to bully one another and prey upon emotions.

I agree with my colleague’s conclusion: “Just say no. F the ‘Love’ button.”

Michael W. Dominowski is the editor of Not For Hire Media.