That's it, I'm done, I just can't anymore.... o.k., maybe I can

I'm so tired of it all.

I'm tired of people on the Right feeling like they're the only ones that care about morals.  The Left has morals just as much as the Right does.  Our value systems and beliefs may be different, but both sides believe and rely just as heavily on their morals.

I'm tired of people on the Left saying that it all falls down to <x> whether that be racism, sexism, stupidity, backwardness, or whatever.  I'm tired of hearing that the reason that people didn't come out to vote for Clinton was because of sexism, or that both sides are the same... something that has been said in past elections by many many people without there being a woman on the ballot.  I'm tired of feeling like those who I should be allies with consider me to be part of the problem because I try to understand the other side rather than just assuming what we've come up with is the answer to why they voted the way they did, or the reason they didn't come out to vote.

I'm REALLY tired of hearing that the only reason to dislike Hilary is sexism and that the honest-to-God reasons that I dislike her (I voted for her but she was the lesser of two evils) are invalid and cannot possibly be real, never mind the reasons that the Right might have voted against her given their positions on things such as: taxes, being pro-choice, wars, trade, and while not a position, her being the face of the Big Bad Establishment.

I'm tired of feeling on the wrong side of everything.  Regardless of what side I'm talking to it seems, I'm on the wrong side of it.

I'm tired of realizing that so many people in this country are so angry and are, I hope, blinded by that anger and blinded by some of the rhetoric, that they vote, in my opinion, against they're better interests and against the interests of those they love.

I'm tired of it all.

I'm so tired that I want to just give up.  I can't do it anymore.  I'm not going to post anymore about anything political on Facebook.  I'm not going to comments on others' posts.  Given that a lot of the people I'm dealing with on Facebook are OPENAIR Circus folk and I can't handle how they must think of me based on what they've said and what I've said, I'm going to disengage from that community....

I can't leave the OPENAIR Circus though... o.k., so I'll teach and organize but I won't engage with people on a personal level.  I can do that.  I can teach and organize the other teachers without really talking to any of the adults ... or the other teachers beyond discussing the program and their classes.  I can generate the schedule, update the website, generate the registration forms, organize the performances, hold stilting workshops, I can do all of it and retreat from the friendships I've formed over the years....

All those friendships... the ones I've valued so much and have helped keep me going throughout it all... I can dismiss them... right?  I can turn away from those I like, those I love, those I respect... I can do that....

O.k., maybe not...

2016 MA Ballot Questions, for those who haven't voted yet

I know I'm cutting it close, but here's my recommendations for how to vote on the ballot questions for Massachusetts and the extra one for Somerville.  My recommendations are Q1-No, Q2-No, Q3-Yes, Q4-Yes, Q5(Somerville specific)-Yes

Let's go in order, shall we?

Q1 - Additional slot license - This question would authorize the formation of a second slot parlor where we currently limit gambling establishments to 3 casinos, 1 slot parlor, and pretty much every convenience store and grocery store.  But seriously, this is a highly specific request for a specific location to be allowed to form a slot parlor.  Let's put aside whether gambling is a positive/negative element for society.  The lone slot parlor that we already have is not running at capacity.  There's simply not sufficient demand for the current supply.  When that's the case, economics states that increasing supply is not a good idea.  To me, this one's easy: No

Q2 - Increase the cap on charter schools - So, this one's a bit more tricky ... until you look at it.  Even proponents of charter schools are saying this is a step too far.  This question opens up the floodgates on charter schools.  "But Peter, if you had kids in a failing district, you would demand a better option."  O.k., let's get a few things straightened up right now.

• First, I would not want my children to get a better education at the cost of my neighbors' kids.  I know, my first duty is to my own, but I am my brother's keeper, and therefore what impacts my neighbor very much impacts me.  And the method by which we pay for charter schools in Massachusetts has a negative impact on district budgets.  Yes, the state fully reimburses the district for the first year of a student who transfers, but the second year is only reimbursed for 5% and nothing thereafter, so if a student spends more than one year at a charter school, it very much impacts the district's funding.  Furthermore, the funding that the district provides is per student but the costs for a district are not per student.  Buildings still need to be maintained.  Teachers and administration staff cover many many students and their salaries do not decrease proportionally as students leave the district.  There's a reason that the charter school initiative is considered considered an unfunded mandate.
• Second, again, what effects my neighbor very much impacts me.  There are lots of studies that show that when you remove students who are highly motivated from the district's society, the remaining students lower their efforts because they don't have the highly motivated students there to impact the culture.  By removing the best students, you don't just decrease scores because the average shifts by moving the better scores out, but the remaining scores falter because of the culture shift.
• Third, worse yet, while charter schools aren't supposed to cherry pick their students, they most certainly are succeeding at doing so.  They'll tell you that it's because the students that aren't cherry picked are leaving of their own volition because they just don't fit in, but it's obvious and it's intentional.  Charter schools are supposed to take any students interested, but they have major drop off rates, which are expected and embraced by those running the schools.  It's one of the ways in which they get higher testing scores. 
• http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CPS-report-online-draft-6-10-13_reduced_2.pdf 
• http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/10/are-charter-schools-cherry-picking-students/charters-can-do-whats-best-for-students-who-care
• Fourth, while charter schools appear to reduce the achievement gap while the students attend them, they don't necessarily reduce the achievement gaps thereafter.  
• http://kevanharris.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/wdobbie/files/texas_charters.pdf

Q3 - Banning sales from farms that use animal cruelty - Simply put, we should treat animals with more respect than we do.  Yes, it'll cost more.  Yes, this will have an impact on many families.  The "yes on 3" campaign has been down-playing this but it's important to me that we acknowledge it.  It is a legitimate concern.  But I still endorse yes on Q3 on the basis that we should care for the methods by which the things we purchase are created.  We try to tell companies not to make clothes using sweat labor.  We should clearly tell farms to use humane means to raise their animals.

Q4 - Legalize recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old - O.k., so, I understand the no-on-4 position.  We don't have enough research on marijuana; we already have the allowance for use for medical purposes; we don't have the equivalent of a breathalyzer; Colorado has seen a rise in car accidents (though we can't prove that this is related to marijuana use because we don't have a way of detecting it like we do with alcohol).  I get all that.  The problem is, we're treating multiple drugs differently from each other.  There's no evidence that marijuana is any worse for adults than alcohol.  There's some evidence that it can have lasting effects on kids under 16 (frontal lobe issues), but the question at hand is for individuals 21 or older and only in private areas.  A yes vote creates regulatory bodies at state and local levels with the authorization to restrict, or even ban, marijuana-selling establishments.  A yes vote also creates revenue by bringing the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes into the light of day rather than being restricted to the black market.  I understand and respect the "no on Q4" perspective, I just don't agree that their arguments mean that we should continue our prohibition on alcohol... I mean... on marijuana.  No, seriously, if you feel that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because of the accidents, I understand that, but then we should never have legalized alcohol.  We gain similar benefits to the legalization of marijuana that we did to the legalization of alcohol: ability to regulate the product, tax the sale, and for there to be a stigma associated but not legal concerns when people seek assistance with their problems.  This was a hard one for me to decide on, but my suggestion remains: vote yes.

Q5 - Somerville only - Deviation from laws dealing debt and taxes to build high school - O.k., this one's another easy one.  First, let me point out that I am a home owner, so the increase in taxation directly impacts me.  Second, let me point out that I do not intend to have children of my own and my nieces will probably be out of high school, or close to it, before the new high school is ready, so the benefits don't impact me as closely as it would others in the city.  That said, we have to do something because the high school will be discredited otherwise.  The options are to rebuild-in-place or to build-new.  The option to rebuild-in-place would likely cost the same, if not more, than building-new.  Thus, the answer is simple: build-new will allow a better building in a more efficient manner (from a organizational view point) for the same cost or cheaper than the alternative.  Somerville: vote yes on 5.

Trump Won the Primaries

I've heard a lot of talk about how the only reason Trump is winning is because the media and his supporters are misogynists.  There is no doubt in my mind that there is a lot of sexim in this country and it informs a lot of how people react to Hillary Clinton (and other women in politics).  That said, there are two facts that come to mind that very cleanly explains the fact that this is not the only thing at play: 1) Trump one the Republican primary; 2) The Republican primary candidates were mostly men.

Let me explain a bit.  If the only reason Trump had support was misogyny, how did he go up against 10 other men (and 1 woman) and come out on top?  Was it that the other men weren't sexist?  I don't think so.  I mean, not that I have any presumptions about Republican Presidential candidates (as I exhaust my sarcasm allocation for the rest of September), but I suspect that several of them have sexist policy ideas.  Also, the one woman, Carly Fiorina, dropped out after 2 primaries and very early on in the process.  Furthermore, the argument that Trump is being competitive only because of the country's misogynistic ways is that Trump is benefiting because he's a man going up against a woman, in which case, the other 10 men would have been on equal footing with him.  But he beat those other candidates.  He beat them pretty easily too.  He got nearly 45% of the popular vote and nearly 70% of the delegates.  So... he's popular enough to become a Presidential nominee of a major party without the benefit of being up against a woman.

I'm not trying to say there isn't an impact of the misogynistic tendencies of the nation, but I would suggest there's much more to the Trump V Clinton situation than that.  To suggest that there isn't, that most of the reason that Trump is doing well has to do with the news stations treating him different from Clinton because of their genders and the populace treating them different for the same reason, to suggest this is to ignore vital issues before us.  Trump's supporters have baffled the news and the Left's pundits.  There is no single simple explanation.

Clinton's detractors are not only against her for sexist reasons either.  The more we suggest that everything is that simple and that all those who have ill-will toward Clinton only feel that way because they are sexist, the more we risk alienating even more of the populace.  If you think Marvel movies should have villains that are more compelling and stay longer than one movie, and someone tells you that the only reason anyone could dislike Marvel movies is because the movies are sexist, you might not listen to the argument.  If, on the other hand, someone tells you that Marvel movies are sexist and explains why, there's the chance of getting into a fruitful discussion, because they haven't told you that your points of view are wrong, especially considering your point of view has merit.

Voting for the Good Rather than the Lesser of Two Evils

Ok, so, your read of the post header "voting for the food rather than the lesser of two evils"... what did you think it meant?  I could have intended one of two meanings:

1) One of the two main parties' candidates is seen as good
2) Voting for a third party candidate

Answer... BOTH.  This post is two posts in one!

Alright, so, starting with the obvious.  I'm really quite happy that there are those out there, and I know quite a few, who are exceedingly pleased with Clinton for President.  I'm not.  This does not mean I'm sexist, stupid, unreasonable, die-hard-for-Bernie, single-minded, or in any other way wrong-headed.  I have real and rational reasons for not being in favor of Clinton just as those friends of mine that are in favor of her surely have reasons they were not in favor of Sanders.  There are political views and stands that are not based in sexism.  I will be voting for Clinton, who I find to be a less than desirable candidate because she is not as liberal as I'd like in just about every aspect you can imagine, but especially so in terms of foreign affairs.  So, for me, I am going to voting for the lesser of two evils.  Please don't suggest that I'm doing otherwise because, by simple deduction, you are suggesting that either my values are invalid or worse, that I am being lumped in, in your mind, with the deplorables that Clinton speaks of when she talks of a certain subset of those in favor of Trump... and I'm pretty sure, for all the hate you may have for me, you don't actually lump me in there.

Second option, voting for a third party candidate for President.  Are you kidding me with this?  Ok, those of you who are voting in a state that is excessively in one major party's favor or the other, you're fine to vote for a third-party candidate... but don't think for a moment that they'll get elected.  For those of you who are voting in a state that may, just maybe, pick either side... GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR... <clears throat> <takes breath> you're insane if you have a preference between Clinton and Trump and are voting third party.  That's all there is to it.  If your state could go either way and you're voting third party, that doesn't mean you want a third party candidate to be elected, that means you don't want the candidate that you favor between Trump and Clinton to be President... which is how I get to the "you're insane" bit.  Let me rephrase that a bit.  If you're voting for a third party candidate and you live in a state that is up for grabs (whether it's typically a swing state or not), you're actively opposing the candidate you prefer.  Here's why.  Third party candidates are great if you have representative elections like Europe does, or if the third party has a chance as it does in local, or even sometimes in state elections, but there is no chance, none, that a third party candidate will be elected President this year.  It is, simply put, not going to happen.  So, by voting for a third party candidate, you're not voting for the choice of two evils I mentioned above, and in so doing, not tipping the scales in that lesser evil's favor.

In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of being strongly in favor of Clinton and therefore can vote for a third party candidate to show support for a third party (not for the individuals running, because again, they're not going to win).  And there is some logic to doing so.  By voting for a third party candidate, you're influencing which parties are seen as viable for the local and state elections as well as who gets invited to the national stage (read Presidential debates), and that's important.  So, yes, in a solid state, vote for a third party candidate to help the third party that you're in favor of get some further traction, by all means... but that's limited to the solid states.

When Does A Man's Perspective Matter (by way of Clinton's Health Scandle)

This post is brought to you by the "Clinton Health Scandle of Really?!?!?"

I've been slowly coming to understand over the last year that I, as a man, can not have my own opinions on whether something has a particular aspect toward women, either degrading or otherwise. 

O.k., let's back up and set the stage a bit.

For the last few months, Trump has been suggesting that Clinton's health isn't where you would want a president's health to be, in particular suggesting her stamina is lacking.  This has been suggested by many to be a sexist comment, which I accept as being the case since I, as a man, can't pass judgement on what is/isn't being sexist toward a woman.  Last Friday, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and told to take some medication and get some rest.  The latter not being an option because she's campaigning to be president, she proceeded to go to a 9/11 remembrance event.  She got dehydrated, as one does when sick and working, and had to leave early.  She was seen being assisted to her car.  I would describe her movement as near-collapsing, again, to be expected if you're sick and being active.  There's no shame there.  The problem comes when you piece the bits together.  Two more bits that should be included in the mix: Clinton's campaign didn't say to anyone that she was sick (normal) and one of the big concerns people have about Clinton is how private (read secretive) she is.

Alright, so, let's pull this apart a little before going into the reactions.  Clinton didn't want to announce that she was sick because this would potentially be seen as weakness and play into what Trump has been saying for months.  On the other side, Clinton then was seen as hiding a pneumonia diagnosis, at best, or hiding that she's really not well at all, at worst, the latter being the theory being floated by Trump supporters (and some fanatically anti-Clinton likely-to-believe-conspiracy folk).  It's a tough call.  It's a sticky catch 22 and one that's not easily avoided.

On the other side, people have started saying "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" without explaining anything about the second statement.  I, being a childless man, didn't understand that what they meant was that women with children work while sick all the time in order to keep their sick time available for when their children (or husband) are sick and they need to be home taking care of them.  I, being a man that has often gone to work while sick if it was anything short of debilitating, found this to be a bit insulting as it suggests that women are the only ones that commonly work while sick.  I've seen colleagues come in to work while they have pneumonia plenty of times in the earlier part of my career.  It's only very recent in my 13 years at my current company that the majority of my colleagues feel o.k. with taking time off when they're sick (mind you, having a cold doesn't count as being sick).  Furthermore, I considered whether the statement was about positions that have been historically linked to women, but this didn't seem to align either, since there are various careers, such as restaurant kitchen staff, where taking time off when sick isn't something that's allowed.

Mind you, I understand now what was being commented on: not that women without children work while sick more than men without children, but instead that women who have a family tend to be expected to take care of family members when family members are sick and therefore save their sick time for those occurrences rather than taking the time to take care of themselves.  Further, women with families are expected to take care of those families even when sick instead of the father taking care of the family needs when the mother is sick.  This, of course, assumes a household with a woman and man, but I digress.

I also understand how this expectation not being something I understood to be the meaning of the posts makes me sexist because I didn't come up with it immediately so I'm not aware of the problems women face.  So, before we move on, keep in mind that I already know that I'm a sexist man and am accepting that.

So... here's my question... I, as a man, can't determine when women should be offended by something.  I get that.  Can I, as a man, determine when I'm offended by something I see as offensive to men?  If the line was "Clinton is hard working, exactly as all women are," would it be acceptable for me to find that offensive toward me as it suggests that I'm not hard working because I'm a man?  The reason I ask is that it's not necessarily obvious that I am permitted this judgement.  The judgement is based on the question of who determines whether women are harder working than men are in general.  Is it me, based on my experience and knowledge, or is it the person making the claim, based on whatever criteria they wish to use?  The statement "Clinton got sick and kept working, exactly what women do all the time" does not provide the understanding about why the latter statement is true and, if, like me, you didn't understand that it's really talking about "mothers" rather than "women", you're going to make the obvious interpretation of "this person thinks that women work while sick more than men do, generically."  Thus, you might consider this comment to be offensive to men if that has not been your experience.  So, who determines the basis for understanding the statement?

Let's take another example, "boys and girls" when referring to adults.  Again, I understand I shouldn't provide feedback on whether calling a woman a "girl" is diminutive, but can I voice my opinion that calling a man a "boy" is diminutive?  Where along the spectrum does my opinion cease to matter, my voice cease to be helpful, and my attempting to add to the dialogue start being considered not only not valid but outright harmful to the dialogue?

I'm not asking this in contempt, I'm asking it in contemplation and the hope that others will give thought to it as well as thought to how they react to the opinions of others and the writing statements that others may not understand without at least some level of explanation. 

And at the risk of overstepping my bounds as a white, heterosexual, male from the middle-class, I would point out that blanket statements are easy and fun but they often detract from the hoped-for outcome.  I say this with full knowledge and awareness that I have made them plenty of times in the past.  I have been informed politely in several of those cases that my statements painted with too broad a brush and I have since often found myself trying to articulate my points better, such as by saying "Republican leadership" or "Congressional Republicans" rather than "Republicans".  I feel, even as I write this, that I am overstepping my bounds because I should not suggest to other groups how they should argue their point or how they should advocate for their position... but I'm typing it anyway, regardless of how evil and privileged it indicates that I am to do so.  I have, in previous posts indicated that I am indeed evil by way of the values, behavior requirements, and even more generally my born-to attributes, others have indicated they believe to be evil, so why not play into it a bit.

"Elections Have Consequences" and "If You're Against Clinton, You're A Privileged Sexist".... AKA Thanks for pushing me away when we should be coming together

I've heard a lot about how Clinton won the primary so Sanders supporters should fall in line.  I've heard a lot over the last 9 months about anybody being against Clinton being a sexist and an enemy of women.  I've heard, more than a few times, that we (Democrats/liberals) should be in favor of Clinton because she's the most qualified and/or because she's a woman.

Let's start with the last and go backwards.

I don't believe in voting for someone because of their sex.  I'm blessed to have my mother for my mom and, at different periods of my life, my school committee member, my state representative, and my state senator.  I am extremely happy to have Senator Warren representing me in D.C.  And by the way, I'm explaining these two because I feel that if I don't, I'll be attacked for being anti-women in office... and even after saying these, I feel I still will.  I would have loved for Barbara Boxer to have run for President, or Elizabeth Warren for that matter.  But they didn't.  Clinton is by far the most experienced candidate this year.  She has her years in the White House as First Lady (which counts for something when you're an activist as she was), her years as US Senator in New York, and her years as Secretary of State.  She's held a variety of positions, giving her a wide variety of experiences, all helping her become extremely qualified from a background position.  But you don't hire someone just based on their previous jobs, you look further at them to determine whether they're a good fit for the position you're offering.  You ask whether they are as liberal as you'd like.  You ask if they're as much in favor of peace and as disinterested in war as you'd like.  And Clinton isn't either of these for me.  I said in 2008 when I said that she and Obama were far to centrist for me and I've said it again for the last year.  She's a centrist and she's a war-hawk.  That isn't to say she's not better than the centrist-but-racist-lunatic that the Republicans have nominated.  I dare say she's much better, but I pray that she doesn't embroil us in further wars, either fighting Russia in Eastern Europe or fighting terrorists in the Middle East... or some other force.  There's more to my decision than my sexism, which you've determined I have just because I wanted Sanders.  There's more to my decision than my male-privilege that allows me to say that I'm just as not interested in a female centrist war-hawk as I was the male centrist war-hawk that ran as the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008.  When you tell me I'm sexist and privileged, it doesn't make me more interested in our candidate.  In fact it makes me less enthused.  And when you ignore the reasons I'm not in favor of her and tell me that I have other reasons, that doesn't make me listen to you and think about your statements any further, it makes me angry with you and makes me feel that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You know what else makes me less enthused?  When people tell me to get over it or that "Elections have consequences."  Of course "elections have consequences," but let's just take a moment to remember that we don't always know the consequences of elections immediately.  Take this Presidential election, for instance.  Yes, I believe Clinton will be the Democratic Nominee.  Yes, I will be voting for her in November.  But we don't know a few things: 

1) Who will be elected President.  

2) How the utter dismissal of Sanders supporters' feelings and arguments will affect the young left-leaning members of our society and their future voting patterns.  

Let me address the first unknown first, because it's a little quicker to get to the point.  A recent poll has Trump ahead of Clinton.  Say what you want, but that is a very scary thing to me... even more scary than Trump's speech last Thursday.  What's even more scary to me is that Clinton supporters have been ignoring that Trump has been gaining on her for the last 6 months.

And then there's the second point.  Yes, elections have consequences and Clinton won the Democratic nomination (o.k., I'm assuming a bit but it's not a hard assumption to make), but that doesn't mean you should dismiss the hearts and minds of those you need in your camp, just because you don't see another option for them to choose. We should be coming together now, not hurting each other. Choose your words carefully, especially in public, especially to reporters, for your words will be heard and not just by those that agree with you. My words, I feel extremely confident, will be heard by those that do not agree with me.... and to those who disagree with me on this, I ask you to consider whether you really want to come at me and draw me toward that dark side that anger leads to or if you would rather follow the words of Clinton and work with love and compassion and work together to defeat Trump. Yes, I am angry at the DNC, yes, I understand you don't care, and yes, you should let me have my feelings and understand that they are not your own and that I will do the right thing in the end.

Starting now, with this first day of the Democratic Convention, we're supposed to come together as a party.  But instead of the "let's get this done together" that should be filling my Facebook feed and that I should be hearing from my Clinton supporting friends, all I'm hearing are things like "suck it up", "your candidate lost so you should be excited for Clinton now," and "you're a sexist, privileged, white man."  The Republicans just displayed their discord... I guess it's our turn now.  Thanks for making it easy to feel good about getting behind our candidate.

X-Men: Apocalypse (spoilers... duh)

First off... spoilers... duh

So, let's start with the really quite desperately low hanging fruit.  There was a lot of concern about Olivia Munn's acting chops when it was announced that she would be playing Psylocke.  Sadly, or fortunately, depending on whether she's a good actress.  She had all of about 3 lines.  Those lines were rather blandly delivered, but they were pretty blandly written too, so is it her fault or the writer's?  We may never know.  What I do know is that Olivia (and the PR machine for the movie) made a huge deal about her enjoying fighting with swords.  I know that Psylocke is a badass fighter and has psychokinetic powers.  I also know that Psylocke in this movie spends all of like 2 minutes fighting, and most of that is just posed stuff and not actually combat.  Drawing your sword and putting it to someone's throat or cutting a car in half and then posing with lots of CGI do not count as combat.  So, yeah, as you may have figured out, I'm severely disappointed in the movie because of that.

Slightly less low, but still low hanging fruit.  Why... why... WHY are we still having Mystique appearing "naked"?  Admittedly, they finally put some clothes on her that was somewhat almost reminiscent of her comic costume, but it took the entirety of 2, count them TWO trilogies to get us there.  They had the opportunity with the semi-reboot to fix it, but no.

Next topic.  Can we, for the love of comic book movies, not force every movie to act as 10 different entities?  This one was not just completing the set of 3 movies and therefore rounding out the story arcs of several characters, most notably Magneto, Mystique, and Professor X.  But my biggest annoyance with the multiple-functions would have to be the attempt to promote the next Wolverine standalone, otherwise why divert to Stryker's facility at all.  Seriously, the action at Stryker's facility did not promote anything other than to remind us that Wolverine was there which then supports the post-credit sequence... which was also lame.  This movie is 2 hours 27 minutes, and how much could that have been reduced by using another, less time consuming plot device to get the 6 heroes away from the rest of the youth at the school?  Because this movie was trying to be too much, the story telling suffered.  This is just sad since this movie deserved better.

Back to sexism.  There's this great opportunity with the X-Men with such powerful women characters.  They, in fact, tend to be the most powerful of the X-Men.  Yes, Cyclops has his beam, Wolverine is near invincible, and Xavier, well, let's just put him aside for a bit.  Then you have the likes of Storm, Jean Grey and Rogue.  Talk about power houses.  Rogue was introduced in the original trilogy but never came to the fruition that would see her character truly showcase herself.  Storm was there too, and while she showcased her abilities, they were never quite awe-inspiringly, jaw-droppingly demonstrated as they really should be.  In this movie, we have the promise that we'll see more, since she's a horseman of Apocalypse... but no, we still barely see anything... just a bit of lightning in the final fight, not much more than that.  Jean Grey seems to be the only one we really get to see show off in a semi-constant manner.  O.k., and Mystique... she's also shown with her powers and her badass fighting (as poorly choreographed as it is in the original movie.  But I maintain that the women of the X-Men remain under-represented in terms of just how magnificently powerful they are, both in terms of their abilities and in terms of their characters.

There's one last thing that I'm going to complain about, at least in this post.  The villains.  And this topic has a few sub-topics.

First of all.. Magneto.  I get it, we need to have Magneto in every movie because he's a draw... but, no, seriously, please don't.  Have him show up briefly or something but don't have him be a lackey of the big-bad.  He's a big-bad on his own.  He doesn't need Apocalypse to empower him.  I must accept that this was a trilogy and therefore they're rounding out his arc, but perhaps in the next X-Men movie he can either play a much smaller role or not be there?  Perhaps he shows up to recruit for the Brotherhood but doesn't actually do anything else?  Or maybe it's just mentioned that he's off recruiting or hasn't been heard from?

I like that Psylocke walks away having witnessed Apocalypse being betrayed by both Magneto and Storm.  I love that both Magneto and Storm betray Apocalypse with good reason... but Apocalypse dies (or so it seems).  I'm tired of the arch-enemy dying at the end of the movie.  If Apocalypse hadn't just woken up during the movie, I would have been more accepting as he could have created other villains over the years that would come up later.  The original X-Men trilogy had a common enemy, even if Phoenix stole the show in the final part of the final episode.  I want a bit more of that.  And the enemy doesn't have to be on the forefront... you could have had Apocalypse show up, create 4 horsemen for the X-Men to fight, or create another super-villain, and stay in the background and come back in the second and third episodes of the trilogy.  Magneto, it can be said, is that common villain I'm looking for... and I agree that he could have been, but I would say he hasn't been in this trilogy.  In fact, he's played roughly the same role in each of the first two movies: reluctant hero -> villain.  And then he transitions in this movie to the pattern of villain -> hero.  But he's never the big-bad.  He's always reacting to others.  This is fine, but I want something a bit more.  I want the leader of the Brotherhood of Mutants.  I want a series of movies based on the sentinels.  I want Apocalypse empowering mutants and sending them to battle the X-Men on his behalf.  In short, I want a big-bad with staying power that doesn't just do a quick one-off thing in each movie (such as sending the missiles back at the ships that fired them or parking a stadium around the White House and taking over a few sentinels for around 30 minutes).

And lastly, Apocalypse deserved better story telling.  He's a big-bad and you saw that he needed an introduction.  Do that introduction well and don't rush the rest of the story.  You could easily have made this movie a two-parter.  Introduce Apocalypse, let him start recruiting, have the X-Men tangle with a couple recruits... maybe even kidnap Xavier in the first movie and blow up the estate and leave that as the cliff hanger.  That way you spend an entire movie just on the recruiting and don't rush through it.  The first movie becomes more a story about the formation of the 4 Horsemen and the second movie becomes a much better movie about the X-Men coming together and finding their ability to work together.

Alright, that's it for the moment.  Hope you enjoyed this rant.  Have other aspects of the movie you didn't like?  Do you feel I've judged the movie too harshly?  Let me know.

Clothes and sexism

As discussed previously, I'm evil and sexist.  Accepting that, I'm going to point out a few things about fashion.  Don't worry, this will be short.

First, the easy stuff that's not surprising to anyone.  Women's clothing is horrific and sexist.  No functional pockets and sizes being wildly different by company are just two ways in which this is the case.

That said, and here's the stuff I'll get flack for and proves further how I'm evil and sexist, expectations from men and women are different and have undertones of sexism too.  Professional clothing.  For a long time, women's professional fashion tended toward the showing of skin.  This is obvious sexism as it treated women as sex objects.  As time has gone by, offices have become more accepting of women wearing a much larger variety of clothes, including many that disregard the earlier sex-object fashion sense.  Men's professional fashion, on the other hand, while also changing, has not changed nearly as much.  Men are expected to wear pants.  Not shorts, pants.  In business casual environments we're allowed to wear t-shirts, but to be truly professional, we have to wear long-sleeve shirts, preferably button-down dress shirts.

I've heard more than a little discussion about how offices keep temperatures lower than women would like and that some of the reason for this is that men wear suits and therefore the office temperature is set to make them comfortable.  Here's some quick, highly unscientific observation on my part: women prefer much higher temperatures than men.  There is a constant complaint in my office of the building being too cold and as constant that complaint is, the men don't feel cold at all, ever, in any room, period... and we're not wearing suits.  We're wearing long sleeve shirts and pants, yes, but no jacket.  The top button of our dress shirts (or indeed sometimes the top 2, depending on the guy) are open.  And now we're back to that point I was making in the third paragraph.  Would the men wear shorts if we were permitted?  Probably.  I'd certainly be more comfortable in shorts and a t-shirt, but that's not considered professional.  I'm limited to long pants, whether it be "smart" jeans or long dress pants.  If I could, I'd wear "smart" jean shorts or dress shorts.  I'd still be perfectly fine with the temperature by the way, I'd just be slightly less likely to be sweating on any given day.

"So, what's the problem?" you might ask.  Well, it's 2-fold.  First, there's a hidden double-standard that nobody talks about.  Women have professional clothing that is a lot lighter and airy and doesn't have to cover as much of the body... but the range permits heavier clothing that covers just as much as men are required to wear.  The second part of the problem isn't a sexist problem at all, it's an environmental one.  By forcing men to wear heavier clothes, by forcing us to be warmer, offices need to be cooler, which requires much more energy in the summer.  In the winter, everybody wears heavier clothing because, well, it's colder outside.  But in the summer, when we should all be wearing lighter clothing so we're not as hot outside, men aren't permitted to.  Yes, we would still need air conditioning even if everyone were allowed to wear lighter clothing, but we would need less of it.

So, there's my rant on clothing.  Yes, I know, I'm a man and can't possibly understand the hardships of women and the demands on them from fashion.  Yes, I know, clearly these hardships of men are nothing in comparison to those of women (even though professional clothing for women now is far more diverse than men's clothing and includes clothing that is virtually the same, if not identical, to men's).  But you know what?  You already pointed out that I'm a sexist by simply being a man, so, why shouldn't I prove it a bit by speaking my sexist mind.

I am Become Trump (aka the problem with shame tactics)

O.k., so clearly I've been shamed into hating myself by people who's purpose in shaming me was to get me to fight harder for their cause.  People use shame in this way a lot and it seems they do so more and more.  This tactic is alarming and sometimes gets people to think about the issues and to change their ways... the problem is, what happens if that tactic turns someone off and in fact changes the person's ways so they are fighting less for the cause, and sometimes even fighting against it?  

Prime example: I feel shame for being a man.  I recently felt that I couldn't say something (I even edited a paragraph out of my recent post... yes, that post was edited, hard as that might be to believe). This reminds me of Trump's statement that men are afraid to say things about women.  Now, to be clear, I do not support Trump... but this one statement of his rings a bit true.  And let the further shaming begin.  Just as women's rights groups were quick to respond saying that while Trump is afraid of women saying things, women are afraid of real things, like rape, sexual abuse, regular physical abuse... I expect you're saying this right now.  I am shamed, but Trump's statement is also ringing truer to me.  

We have to be careful how we use this tactic, for it can easily have side-effects we weren't expecting. And maybe that's fine with you.  Maybe you've already made the calculation that your side will gain more out of the shaming than it will lose.  If so, my hat is off to you, as is my support.

Sincerely,

Privileged Ill Intent

p.s. - do Trump and The Kingpin now remind you of each other?

I am the Ill Intent

I understand that, as a white man, I can't conceive of how it feels to be black in this country.  I understand and respect that.  I've learned, over the last couple years, that I shouldn't comment on the opinions of blacks nor the tactics of those fighting injustice.  I've also learned that I am the adversary of those fighting injustice, simply by not fighting that injustice every day myself... in truth, I do not fight that injustice every month or nearly at all.  I used to like to think that I was a supporter of equal rights and privileges between races, but I have been told on several occasions that those who do not fight for those things are the adversary... so I am trying to accept that I am that adversary.

I also understand that, as a white man, I can't conceive of how it feels to be a woman in this country.  I am slowly coming to terms with this.  I have been informed recently that, here too, if I am not fighting the injustices placed upon women every day, I am the adversary of women's rights.  I am slowly realizing that I cannot make judgements about how important things are, such as the first woman to be the Presidential nominee of a major political party in the US.  I apologize to any who I have offended by belittling this accomplishment of Clinton's by comparing the US to other nations around the world or by suggesting that it is equally, if not more important to agree with the politics of the candidate you're in favor of.  I am a man, and have been told that I am therefore complicit in the rape-culture we have here in the US, which is disturbing to me, but I am working on accepting this too.

I'm going to digress here a bit and do something unusual for my posts.  I would like to ask for the opinion of women who are reading this post.  Would you be equally as excited the momentous occasion of the Republicans nominating Carly Fiorina, if they had, as you are about the Democrats nominating Clinton?  My feeling is that you would be, but I'd genuinely like to know what you think.  I'm not saying you'd be as in favor of Fiorina becoming President, just excited by a major political party in the US nominating a woman.

Ok, digression ended.  I imagine that I will learn in the coming years that I am equally complicit in other social injustices... whether it be toward Hispanics, Asians, transgender, homosexuals, bisexuals, ... the list goes on.

I would extend this philosophy to include that I am the enemy of the green movement.  After all, I drive my Prius to work rather than bicycle or take public transportation.  I use more electricity than my house will hopefully soon produce using roof-mounted solar panels.  I eat meat, which is not as environmentally friendly an option as being a vegan.  The list goes on.  I am coming to terms with this as well.

O.k., so I'm essentially evil and an advocate for all that I feel is wrong... It's an interesting dichotomy that I am working my way through understanding.  I have been working on it for years now and it may well take the rest of my life to fully understand it, but I do know one thing: this further explains my self-loathing and my feelings of obligation.  I would like to take a moment to apologize to all who I have harmed in the past and all who I will inevitably harm in the future, whether physically or emotionally, whether through action or by expressing my opinion or by expressing facts which are not as pleasing to hear or as helpful to the narrative that they would like made at a particular time.

A speech from the Netflix DareDevil series comes to mind and I will leave you with it:

"I'm not a religious man, but I've read bits and pieces over the years. Curiosity more than faith. But this one story... There was a man, he was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho when he was set upon by men of ill intent. They stripped the traveler of his clothes, they beat him, and they left him bleeding in the dirt. And a priest happened by, saw the traveler, but he moved to the other side of the road and continued on. And a Levite, a religious functionary, he came to the place, saw the dying traveler, but he, too, moved to the other side of the road, passed him by. But then came a man from Samaria, a Samaritan, a good man. He saw the traveler bleeding in the road and he stopped to aid him without thinking of the circumstance or the difficulty it might bring him. The Samaritan tended to the traveler's wounds, applying oil and wine, and he carried him to an inn, gave him all the money he had for the owner to take care of the traveler, as the Samaritan, he continued on his journey. He did this simply because the traveler was his neighbor. He loved his city and all the people in it. I always thought I was the Samaritan in that story. It's funny, isn't it? How even the best of men can be deceived by their true nature. ... It means that I am not the Samaritan. That I'm not the priest, or the Levite. That I am the ill intent who set upon the traveler on a road that he should not have been on."

Trump, Clinton, Political Parties, and Labels... Evil Confining Labels

As unpopular among my friends as it is, I'll start by acknowledging that, similar to the title of this post, Sanders isn't going to make it to the Democratic nomination.  Is Clinton cold in saying that she's got this locked up?  Not really.  Barring something extreme, like her being indicted in the next 2 weeks or something coming out in the next couple months that drives the super delegates to go against what the Democrats have already voted in favor of, Clinton is the nominee.  Sanders would need 70% of the remaining regular delegates just to tie the Clinton in regular delegates.  Now... 70% isn't impossible, but New Jersey and New Mexico have closed primaries and Sanders isn't winning closed primaries... and then there are the super delegates.  Even if Sanders can manage to get 70% of the remaining votes, he still needs to convince super delegates to switch sides, and switch sides heavily.  If Clinton gets 13% of the vote and the super delegates remain where they are, she wins the nomination... that's right, she needs 13% of remaining votes and for super delegates (read Democratic establishment... i.e. the camp that wants Clinton) to maintain their announced positions.

Alright, enough upsetting blog post, let's move on to something similarly depressing.  Trump is the Republican nominee.  Why is this depressing to me?  Is it just what it says about the right wing of our country?  Clearly that's all it could be because if you listen to the news, Trump is awful and has no chance of winning.  That would seem great except for that the news has no feel for how Trump got this far in the first place.  They've been talking about how Trump is horrible and therefore people are going to turn on him any moment now.  So, the good news, Trump has severe unfavorable ratings.  The bad news is that so does Clinton.  The good news is that just about every demographic hates Trump.  The bad news is that the Right hates Clinton just as equally as many hate Trump.  But there is hope.  The demographics... thank goodness for demographics... if they stay true to their past support patterns, the Democrats will have an easy time winning, IF they get out the vote.  And there's the wild card.  Who will get out the vote.  Both sides can play up anger and hatred of the other side.  My fear is that we'll turn toward actual political positions and Trump will reveal that he's a moderate, just like Clinton... and potentially in some ways to the left of Clinton.  This one's really confusing to me to be honest and I don't know where people will turn.  I know that I don't want Trump if only because of the statements he's made in the race and how he's come this far.  Clinton's a centrist, slightly right of center actually, but she's pretending to be to the left because of Sanders.... but now comes the pivot for both candidates.  ~sigh~

Ok., one last thing before I go... people are making a lot of hay over political parties and the nomination process.  I keep hearing pundits say that people shouldn't be so upset at the parties because they're private organizations.  One thing that has been pointed out is that people who are independents because they don't want to be labeled are upset because they haven't been able to vote.  I can see both sides of this, but here are two things to consider:

1. The news is saying that people are upset at the political parties because of the closed primaries.    That's not all we're upset about.  There's also the structuring of the debates so that most Democrats wouldn't watch them and therefore wouldn't be able to see the contrast between Clinton and Sanders as readily.  The political parties have more to do with who gets nominated than just the primaries themselves.  The Democratic Party leadership has been supporting Clinton from the start.  This is what angers Sanders supporters, not the primaries, but the way that the party leadership has been openly against Sanders.
2. The primaries on the Democratic side have fallen into the following pattern: Sanders wins states that allow independents to have a voice and have caucuses.  Clinton wins states that don't allow independents to vote and have elections.  Let's take out the last part of each sentence and focus in on the first.  Independents are leaning toward Sanders and are upset about not being able to vote in closed election states.  What's equally interesting, if not more so, is that independents tend to vote the same way from election to election.  Some vote Republican every time, others vote Democratic every time.  So, why are they independent?  They say it's because they don't like labels, they don't like being tied down to anything.  I've said this before and I'm saying it again, get over it.  You want to have a say in the politics but your state is overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats or Republicans and therefore your vote in the general isn't as powerful?  Your state has closed primaries?  Fine, pick your side and vote in the primary.  Labeling yourself as a Democrat doesn't mean you agree with the establishment, it just means that in the Primary you get to vote in the Democratic Primary.  Done.  Fin.  That's it.  You're not confining yourself.  It's not like you're saying you're a straight, male, Catholic... you're saying what party you're affiliated with, i.e. which side you're going to try to have an impact on.  Oh, and if you're going to tell me that by refusing to pick aside, the establishments will pay attention and change their ways... if that were the case, would they not have heard and changed by now based on people not voting?  Abstinence from the political process won't change those that have power over it, it never has, it never will.

Was Trump Actually Right?

Last week, Trump told Chris Matthews that, if abortion were illegal, women getting abortions should be punished.  There were two paths of thinking this led me down:

1. When should the person purchasing the illegal act/item be punished versus when should it be the provider?  In most cases, I would say it's the provider: drugs, guns, murder.  There are a few where it should be the purchaser instead, the primary one that comes to mind for a potential is prostitution.  There's also the potential for the purchaser and the provider should both be punished.  In the case of abortion, there's an interesting predicament, which leads me to thought-path #2.
2. Why do pro-life people think that abortion should be outlawed.  My understanding is that they feel it's murder.  They feel that personhood begins significantly earlier than I do.  IF you feel that abortion is murder (I do not), why would you not feel that the woman seeking the abortion should be punished?  The pro-life movement seemed to instantly distance itself from Trumps statement and even lash out at him for it, Cruz included.  So, I ask Cruz, if person A brings someone to be murdered by person B, is person A not going to be charged with accessory, at minimum?  So, how is the person within the woman different from the person outside the woman?  I feel it necessary to remind everyone reading this that I do not believe the thing that is growing within a woman is a person, I believe abortion is not murder, and therefore the doctor is not murdering someone and the woman getting the abortion is not an accessory.... but I'm curious what the distinction Cruz makes is.

False reasoning and punditry

I hate false reasoning and false logic.  Sanders won 2 of 3 primaries yesterday... does that mean he won yesterday's contest?  No.  He gained fewer delegates than Clinton did, and that's what matters.  I'm hoping he starts picking up more delegates than Clinton and starts to catch up, but this hasn't happened yet and claiming victory when there isn't one is like Bush's mission accomplished speech on the aircraft carrier.

I heard yesterday on NPR about how pundits aren't discouraged or upset about being wrong all the time because they're not looking at how things are but instead looking at how they want them to be.  I understand why they do it.  They want people to believe in the goals they have.  For example, if people think that Sanders is winning, he's more likely to win in the future, so you tell people he's winning.  This why I could never be a pundit, I want to analyze how things are and look at the potential.

There's reason to hope, but winning 2 out of 3 states while losing the delegate count fight isn't it.

I've also seen people saying that the states that Clinton has been winning, for the most part, are states that vote Republican in the general and this fact by itself means that they matter less.  This just simply isn't true because the primary is decided by delegates and the states that have voted thus far have just as many delegates as they would if they voted Democrat in the general.

There's reason to hope, but it's not because the states that have voted thus far don't matter.

There's reason to hope, though.  I have the hope that states that are more liberal, those that vote Democrat in the general elections, will have a heavier turnout for the more liberal candidate.  Sanders is more liberal than Clinton on her most liberal day, and significantly more liberal than than her record shows her to be in general.  Therefore, one can reason that, potentially, just maybe, perhaps, there will be higher turn out in places where people may be more enthusiastic about Sanders.  I'm not being sarcastic in my hedging though.  We have yet to see the true groundswell that Sanders needs in order to win the nomination.

Pundits and news reporters are touting Clinton's overwhelming number of delegates and saying it will be difficult for Sanders to catch up.  But this, too, is overstating things and blinding us from the truth. Clinton currently has 663 delegates based on primaries and 458 super delegates.  Sanders has 459 delegates and 22 super delegates.  Super delegates can change their votes before the convention begins, so really, right now, the difference between the two is 204 delegates.... and there are over 3,000 left for them to split up.  All that said, Sanders needs to pick up a lot of delegates before the super delegates will start to change sides.

I wrote this the afternoon of Sunday, March 6... the day of Maine's Democratic Party primary.  Maine is now reporting at 80% that Sanders has won 64% to 35%, making the delegate count difference about 8 delegates less.  If Sanders can pull this kind of win over Clinton is some of the other, larger, Democratic footholds, he stands a chance.

Super Tuesday 2016!

Super Tuesday is upon us and registered voters in 11 states have a couple decisions to make:  1) Am I voting and 2) if so, who am I voting for.

I'm hoping that the answers for many will be "yes, and I'm voting for Bernie Sanders"... which shouldn't be surprising to anybody, but you might not agree with me... so let's go through your options.

If you want someone who is anti-government and anti-religious freedom, you probably want to vote for the Texan from Canada: Ted Cruz.  He is hated by everybody in Congress... no kidding... and is all about bringing down the government in any way he can.  By the way, politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths 21% of the time and tells mostly false or even more false 67% of the time... so if you like a liar, he's a decent choice.

If you want someone who is anti-government and not white, you probably want to vote for the youngling of the crowd: Marco Rubio... and he even has more of a chance at being nominated than 2 others that are running.  Politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths a whopping 35% and tells mostly false or even more false only 42% of the time... so if you want someone that one third of the time tells the truth and boldly lies only half the time... he's your man.

If you want someone who is a Democrat but is a war-hawk, economically-moderate, and who Republicans hate more than the Socialist in the race, vote for Clinton (no, seriously, I know Republicans who will vote for Sanders before Trump but will vote for Trump before Clinton).  If you want the Democrat who is most electable in the general, that's not Clinton based on all the polls.  By the way, Clinton tells the truth significantly more than she lies, so that's a positive... 51% for mostly truths/truths and 28% bold lies... including 1% pants-on-fire lies.

If you want someone who truly believes in liberal ideals and thinks we should avoid going to war, or if you want someone who can beat any Republican that ends up getting nominated, or if you want someone who doesn't change their stance on a variety of issues every 4 years, vote for Sanders.  To be fair, Sanders only tells the unvarnished truth 47% of the time and lies 32% of the time... but he never lies at a pants-on-fire level.

If you want someone who lies, disparages wide swaths of the public, doesn't think that issues are what we should vote based on, has gone bankrupt (unlike any other candidate listed thus far), and the rest of the world hates even more than Republicans hate Clinton, just stay home.  Seriously though, Trump lies... he lies a lot.  He has a harder time telling the truth than Cruz does with 7% of the time telling the mostly truths and 78% telling mostly falsehoods with a full 20% of those being full-on pants-on-fire lies.  He's insulted Mexicans, Women, residents of Iowa, immigrants... and that's just the wide generalizations.  And when asked if he would disavow white supremacist supporters, his response was that he didn't know David Duke... whom he had tweeted about previously... no, his response was not to say "white supremacists are racist thugs and I don't need support from the likes of them", which I hope most Americans would have thought reasonable.

So... let's see if this follows... If you want Trump to win, congrats, your job is done, stay home, nobody cares.  If you want Trump not to win the general, your best approach is probably to vote for Sanders, since polls show that he's the best bet at beating Trump.  If you don't like Sanders because he's too far left, fair enough, vote for Clinton, but don't be surprised when we've got troops on the ground in Syria for a decade.

Super Tuesday matters, go out and vote, but vote informed and thoughtfully.

Sanders vs Clinton... a bit more

If you haven't read my other posts about Clinton and Sanders, go read them... I'm clearly in favor of Sanders... but I'd like to share a bit more of my thoughts on the matter as we come away from the Iowa caucuses and wait with anticipation for the New Hampshire primary.

First, I was provided with a set of links about some issues with Sanders: his supporters have been nasty to Clinton supporters; his campaign has suggested or stated that he had endorsements he didn't have; a Super PAC has raised nearly $1m to spend supporting him; he voted in favor of spending bills related to Iraq and Afghanistan.  The person providing me the links was, of course, a Clinton supporter, and was suggesting that this made her doubt him and what he supports.  Now, admittedly, I have not done my thorough research on each of these items, but here's some things to consider:

• His supporters have been nasty to Clinton supporters - This is unfortunate, but as I mentioned in my last post, I'm much more concerned with the politician than his/her supporters.  The article said that this wouldn't normally be of great concern because the rationale Sanders uses for his being able to push things forward if he's elected is that his supporters will be a tidal wave, a political revolution, and therefore what they're like is vitally important.  O.k., but if all his supporters were being this nasty, there would be significantly more news about it.  A quick couple searches does not pull in the number of reports that I would expect if this was a wide-scale issue.
• His campaign has been shifty by suggesting/stating that he has received endorsements he hasn't.  O.k., this is a fair problem to raise.  That said.... really?  A Clinton supporter is going to complain about someone being dishonest and shifty?  I mean, not for nothing, but ... a Clinton supporter?  I mean, o.k., but, wow.
• A Super PAC has raised $2.3m to support Sanders.  O.k., let's start with some numbers, shall we?  Clinton's outside support, as of the end of January, have raised $48m (roughly 20 times as much as those supporting Sanders), and spent $12m (roughly 10 times as much as those supporting Sanders).  Let's move on from that to discuss not just that the amounts are dwarfed, but that the money coming into these support groups is from vastly different sources.  The Super PAC supporting Sanders mostly gets small donations from middle class workers (it's National Nurses United... yep, it's a nurses union).  The Super PACs supporting Clinton get most of their money from very large donations (98% of the money raised in the second half of 2015 for Priorities USA Action was in the form of $100,000+ donations... I don't think most nurses have that kind of spare cash).  To be perfectly honest, I don't really have a problem with a politician having a Super PAC while saying they're in favor of removing Super PACs from politics... provided they have a history of being in support of political finance reform... but I also feel like the Super PACs in this race are in line with the fundraising the campaigns are doing themselves.  Sanders' campaign is getting predominantly small donations while Clinton's is getting larger donations.  So... long story short, Sanders has the support of a Super PAC which in turn is supported by working people... Clinton has the support of much larger Super PACs which are in turn supported by much richer people.  Thus, the argument point is awared to Sanders.
• Sanders voted in favor of spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I haven't looked into this very closely, but I know he voted against going to war in the first place.  My feeling is that once you're at war, voting in support of the spending bills is acceptable.  Furthermore, are we really talking about how it's a problem that Sanders supported war?  Really?  This from someone supporting Clinton?  Clinton, the war hawk?  REALLY?  O.k., well, if I'm in favor of trying to do everything we can to maintain peace, and I am, why would I vote for a war hawk over someone who supported some war spending bills but has been a vocal opponent to wars in general?!?

So, we've got 4 points provided against Sanders, 3 of which would be bigger points against Clinton and one of which is unfortunate but I believe blown a bit out of proportion.

I'd also like to point out Clinton's own 2 points against Sanders:

• Clinton says Sanders won't be able to get what he wants accomplished but she knows how to get things done.  First off, as First Lady, she couldn't get health care reform done.  Secondly, she's viciously hated by Republicans and this leads me to believe that she would have a harder time getting more conservative things done than Sanders would getting somewhat liberal things done.
• In response to Sanders saying she was the establishment candidate, Clinton said that Sanders is the only person that could label her as an establishment candidate because she's a woman running to be the first female President of the US.  Well, let's compare the two candidates on the Democratic side then, shall we?  One has a ton of support from establishment players in the party, the other doesn't.  One has been in the lead and the DNC has been scheduling debates at times that people wouldn't get to see the two face off.  One is moderate, the other is somewhat extreme left wing.  Without knowing that the "one" in each of these statements is female, it's very clear that the "one" is the establishment candidate.  I'm sorry, I don't care that she's a woman.  That is NOT sufficient reason to vote for her nor is it reason enough to believe that she's not the establishment candidate between the two of them.  Hell, the first comment, that one about most of the political players supporting her, that one element is enough to indicate she's the establishment candidate.  Give me a break.

So... New Hampshire, get to the polls on Tuesday and back Sanders as our nominee for President of the United States!

Sanders for President... because he's honest? ... no, because he's f'ing Liberal!

So, I heard the other day some of Sanders' supporters talking about why they're supporting him and it made me uneasy.  Why?  Because it sounded exactly like the Tea Party and the supporters of Trump.  Stuff like "he's being honest", "he's telling it how it is", "he means what he says"... and worse... "we must take back America" and "make America great again"... those last two being actual quotes I specifically remember... ugh... just ugh.

Seriously, who are we taking America back from this time?  Are we taking it back from blacks?  Wait, no, that's who the Tea Party are taking it back from.  We're taking America back from corporate America... thus proving that corporate America is black and Liberal, right?  Can we come up with our own catch phrases at least?  I mean, if for no other reason than to prevent us from using the catch phrases of the conservatives who are promoting nearly opposite ideals?  How about "we want to overthrow corporate tyranny?"

And "he's being honest" isn't a reason to vote for someone.  I get it, you're disillusioned and sick of the insincerity, but at least vote someone who claims to be on your side.  "Being honest" has nothing to do with what side you're on.  Trump might be being honest, but he's totally not on the side of the average American.  Hell, he's not on the side of 99% of Americans.  If someone came out and said, "I want to be President because it'll make me feel really amazing about myself," would you vote for them?  I mean, they're being honest, right?  ~sigh~  If you're voting for someone because they're honest, go home and go back to sleep because clearly you don't care about anything that's happening in the world.

I'm still in favor of Sanders though.  I'm just ashamed of some of his supporters.  But Sanders is speaking to my values and is in favor of many of the things I'm in favor of.  One of the most important elements of his plans is strengthening the graduation of our graduated income tax.  He wants to bring the top marginal tax bracket back up above 50%... which means that people making over $10M will get taxed more than 50% on the money they make above and beyond the first $10M... the first $10M will still get taxed lower than 50% just like the rest of us, so don't worry, they're not getting taxed back into the Stone Age or anything of that sort.

But let's talk about Clinton's concerns over whether he will be able to get any of what he wants through Congress.  She's right.  Oh, did you not expect me to agree with her?  Did you expect me to say that he'll get something passed?  Did you expect me to say Clinton's trying to mislead us with regards to the prospects of the political scene changing dramatically just because we elect an old white guy who believes more in Government than the other white guys running for that office (or indeed, more than the white women running for that office)?  No, he has no chance.  Let's be honest, his values are far too left leaning than the Republicans will ever go along with, but at least there might potentially be a debate about the role of Government and there might potentially be a discussion of why he wants things that are different from what the Conservatives want.

Clinton says that she knows how to get things done and that she'll push for smaller improvements but improvements that will actually happen.  First, let's call that for what it is: she's going to ask for middle-of-the-road and conservative bills, not the liberal ideals that Democrats are in favor of... she's just trying to suggest that she's going to go for the most Liberal options that the Conservatives will agree to... seriously?

Ok, and let's get even more honest about this: She won't be able to get anything accomplished either.  Do you remember what Republican leadership said when Obama was elected?  They said they needed to oppose everything he pushed for and ensure that he was a 1-term President. They were aggressive and were able to oppose much of what Obama pushed for and waged a pretty decent war against him that led to both the House and the Senate being in Republican control.  And all that just because Obama is black.  No, I'm not joking about this.  Obama was not spouting Liberalism all over the place, he was middle-of-the-road, just like Clinton, during the Democratic primary season.  Seriously, I remember feeling very disappointed about the outcome and thinking to myself "well, at least he won't be opposed just because he's Hillary Clinton."  And why was I thinking that?  Because Republicans have a vitriolic response to Hillary Clinton.  They hate her.  They hate everything about her.  And it's not really based on her principles either.  So they'll respond to her much the same way they responded to Obama, blocking everything they can even if they would agree with it coming from a Republican President.  And that means that she'll not only being fighting for middle-of-the-road and conservative proposals, but those proposals will be blocked because she backs them, not because of their substance.  At least with Sanders, the reason to fight against him is based in ideology and philosophy.  I can handle an argument over Government, I yearn for an argument over Government... but to bypass that argument and just have 4-8 years of "it's backed by Clinton, kill it" just as we've had 8 years of "it's backed by Obama, kill it"... ~sigh~ enough already.

So, I'm ashamed of many of his supporters, but let's still elect him, because he's the right choice.  Not because he's an old, white man (please don't be swayed by Clinton's "it's time to send a woman to the White House"... see my previous post about what's wrong with that one), but because of the ideals he represents and the fact that he will push for those ideals with all his force, and it's about time those ideals (big Government which is there to help people) are fought for with full weight and conviction by a President.  Let's send Sanders to the White House!

White guys with guns on public land versus blacks without guns on public streets

The free-Bundy protest going on in Oregon is very strange to me when I try to look at it from all sides and analyze the statements being made by various groups.

First of all, every time I hear the leader of this armed self-proclaimed "militia" say "we just want this to end peacefully" I think to myself 2 questions:

1. Then why did you bring guns?
2. Then just leave?

It just seems so inaccurate and insincere.  But I have to realize that this group of people actually thinks the big bad government is going to come and shoot them in the dark of night when nobody is looking.  As ridiculous as that sounds to me, as hard to believe, they believe it and therefore they feel they need to arm themselves, even though the simple act of arming one's self for protection raises the stakes, raises tensions, and increases the chance of an armed stand off.  

There's a reason that peaceful protests, historically, tend to be sans-weapons.  It helps bring people to your cause if you're not being aggressive and instead being passively and politely steadfast.  Bringing a weapon intrinsically adds to your aggressive-level, regardless of how many times you insist the weapons are not meant to be aggressive but instead be defensive.

And then there's the left-wing response: an attempt to compare this protest to other peaceful protests that have happened recently.  Most of the protests have been peaceful, some arrests but no major injuries.  But when it's mostly blacks protesting in their own neighborhoods, they have often been called riots by the media and major politicians.  Sure, there have also been riots, but those have been significantly fewer and smaller than the peaceful marches and gatherings in these communities.  The left then pointed out that in Texas, when several biker gangs had a shootout amongst themselves and with law enforcement, the media called it a brawl... not a riot, a brawl.  People on the left raised the point of the disparity in descriptions and pointed to it as part of the implicit bias/racism we have in the media.  And now, while there has been no violence, people on the left have raised their voices with the belief that the media would have called the "militia groups" something else if they weren't white, maybe mobs, anarchists, armed militants.  Maybe the "occupation" would be called a riot by the media.  Maybe the result of a week-long protest would have been armed confrontation by local, state, and federal law enforcement rather than state and federal law enforcement being nowhere to be seen or heard and the local government officials requesting that the groups leave.  

There has been the explanation that law enforcement considers this protest to be more a kin to scenarios like Wako where armed engagement led to outcomes that reflected negatively on law enforcement in the past, with casualties and such.  This, to me, is an explanation that rings very true.  Of course law enforcement wants to be careful due to these memories of armed conflicts.  Of course they feel the stigma.  That is a reasonable explanation for why they are giving these armed white militants a wide berth.  But that doesn't mean this response isn't intrinsically racist, just because it's rational.  Here's the problem with saying it's reasonable to react differently to the scenario given the past:

1. It indicates that the public's reaction when law enforcement locks down a city, or sections of a city, with riot-gear-armed officers and shooting rock/brick-armed civilians, that the public's reaction to this is not sufficient to be nearly the same as the public's reaction to law enforcement having a confrontation with gun-armed civilians.  Yes, the latter tends to involve deaths, but this is the natural reaction of increased weaponry being brought to the table on the civilians' side since it intensifies the conflict.  Not, I mention the increased weaponry brought by civilians, that's because the weaponry being brought by law enforcement in both scenarios is of a similar level at this point.
2. It indicates that being armed and white is appropriate when protesting while it's been proven by law enforcement's responses (and the public's as well) that being armed and black is completely inappropriate, to the point of allowing a defense of immediate and summary execution of the armed civilians.

The dichotomy is disturbing to me, to say the least.  

I feel for the ranchers who are worried that the big bad government is going to restrict their land usage even further, thus they feel their livelihoods are endangered, but the protest is about people being imprisoned for arson... I'd love to hear someone explain why setting a fire that one did not sufficiently contain to avoid a fire on public lands is reasonable and why people who commit a crime under the law should not be held accountable based on the law and existing mandatory minimums.  I haven't heard them call for an end to mandatory minimums, which are the reason that two ranchers have been sent back to prison (the original sentences were less than the mandatory minimum requirements for the crime committed).

So, when my gut tells me that these people are ridiculous and that law enforcement continues to show racial bias, I think I've provided rational explanation of how my gut, at least in this instance is correct... which is a relief to me, as I do not want to shoot from the hip on these matters (always like to throw in a gun metaphor when appropriate).