Alabama Special Election 2017

I'm thankful that Alabama elected Jones. That said, the exit polls point out several interesting things and I'm looking forward to looking at them more later. A few quick notes from a cursory review:

1) Had the write-ins been Moore votes, we would have seen a Moore victory, which suggests that this came down to Republicans / Right-leaning Independents not stomaching voting for Moore

2) In case you haven't seen it, take a look at the racial breakdown, it's amazing. 96% of blacks polled voted for Jones, 68% of whites polled voted for Moore, and 2% of whites polled voted write-in.

3) Younger voters continue to be more progressive than their elders. Voters under the age of 44 made up a minority of the vote (35%) but voted for Jones (60%) while a majority of voters over 45 voted for Moore, though not at the rate of 60%.

The exit polling information I've briefly looked through can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.c687cadd54ed

Roy Moore, Al Franken, and Moral Values

So, I should start by pointing out that, being a man, I recognize that I'm on the shitlist as far as this topic is concerned but I feel, as a Democrat watching Republicans ranting and tossing what-aboutisms around, I can contribute to the conversation just a tad, even if I am part of the problem.  With that said, I'll move on with the post.

Is it possible that we're at a true tipping point?  Will sexual assault finally be seen as the problem it truly is?  Will we see a cultural change where people who claim sexual assuault are taken seriously?  Here's hoping... though I won't hold my breath just yet.

Recently, we've seen several people in media lose their jobs or have to step down over allegations.  People in high positions who just a month ago I wouldn't have imagined would be impacted.  They're re-shooting parts of a movie to remove one of the prime names that were highlighted in the previews.  The same weekend as accusations have been made against a prominent anchor, that anchor has been suspended and then, within 48 hours, fired.  It's crazy to witness but the shift is long overdue.

And so we come to Roy Moore and Al Franken.  Most of the people who have lost their jobs have lost them over things as severe as rape.  Roy Moore is accused of assaulting underage women, as young as 14 year olds, when he was an adult.  Al Franken is accused of assaulting 2 women; the first he acknowledged and apologized for, the second he says he doesn't remember and feels badly for any disrespect the woman felt.  You may see where I'm going with this but let me start by saying I think Al Franken should seriously consider stepping down, for the good of his party and the good of the hope that what we're seeing is a true cultural shift.

That said, Republicans who are saying that Democrats are only playing politics and are being hypocritcal when calling for Roy Moore to step down as a candidate while not calling for Al Franken to step down from his seat in the Senate, these Republicans are forgetting a couple things:

1) The first is the obvious one which I've heard others mention: the two are not morally equivalent.  They are, indeed, both very serious and, as mentioned, I would think well of Senator Franken if he were to step down.  But to say they are the same thing is similar to saying that causing someone grave injuries is equivalent to killing multiple people in a terrorist act.  Yes, both are horrific.  But not all horrific things are equally horrific.  Moral equivalency, however, is what what-aboutism is all about.  Someone points out that White Supremists, carrying torches, chanting things that suggest they want all non-whites should be removed/reduced (read: kicked out or killed), and one uses his car to kill and injure and the Republicans then say what about the extreme left who were there to punch nazis?  Many responded with "but they're nazis... when given the choice of whether to punch a nazi or not to punch a nazi, ALWAYS punch a nazi"... however pacifists among us point out 2 things:  1) one group is suggesting we should kill another group and a different group is saying they will stand in the way of that with physical force... there is a morally superior group here similar to how our military being sent in to stop a genocide has a morally superior standing to the group performing the genocide; and 2) PUNCHING PEOPLE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO MOWING PEOPLE DOWN WITH A CAR.  So, yes, Al Franken didn't just behave badly, he did something beyond that, but what Roy Moore stands accused of by more than a few women is not equivalent... don't suggest that it is.  Slippery slopes are still slopes and there is still a difference between 2 things that are different (word repetition is on purpose to indicate how obvious this is).

2) I acknowledge that I'm assuming something with this one, but make that assumption with me for a moment.  Assume that the multiple women coming out and accusing Roy Moore of assaulting them are not lying.  Assume, for a moment, that these women who claim Moore assaulted them are telling the truth.  If that is the case, Roy Moore is accusing these women of lying and is falsely trying to push these women into disrepute.  He is trying to avoid taking ownership of his actions and accepting consequences by doing what many who have committed sexual assault or sexual misconduct have in the past: defaming their accusers.  President Clinton started off doing the same thing during when people were investigating him.  The practice is a very problematic part of the culture that has permitted nearly every woman in the US to be sexually assaulted.  It is part of the method of hiding the true extent of the problem we have.  I know, I know, I have in the past suggested that President Clinton's lies were not as problematic as the Republicans suggested, and I apologize for having taken that stance.  In point of fact, however, Clinton's lies were not problematic for the reason the Republicans said they were.  It's not because he was lying to the people of the US... Republicans have shown they have a much higher threshold for that than we were led to believe in the 1990's.  No, the issue is the practice of slandering women who come forward when they are telling the truth... and sheer percentages suggest it happens far more often than women actually lying about what has happened when they do come forward.  Much as I take the accusers at their word, I take Al Franken at his word when he says that, with regards to the second woman to come forward with accusations against him, that he had no recollection of the event and did not mean to act in a demeaniing way.  With the first accusation, Al Franken acknowledged the actions and, even if just for show, requested an investigation into his wrong-doing.  Though obviously this doesn't absolve him of his behavior, it does provide a clear distinction between the two situations.

3) O.k., here's the thing that truly bothers me the most of all the issues with the comparison of Roy Moore to Al Franken: Republicans, the ones who are crying foul against Democrats, also claim to be THE ONES with moral values, as in they have moral values and Democrats don't.  How can you tout your moral superiority and then say "you aren't holding yourselves to the same moral standard you say I should be holding myself to"?  It's like if Republicans were to tell Democrats that they weren't standing up for the environment enough and then Democrats cried foul when a Republican supported coal.  We expect Republicans to support coal, protecting the environment is not their thing.  It's not why they say they should be in office.  What do Republicans run on?  Small government, morals, and money staying with the wealthy (yeah, yeah, I'll get to writing about that soon).  What do Democrats run on?  Big government and caring for the low/middle class and caring for the environment.  Don't tell me I'm being hypocritical by pointing out your own hypocracy and then not holding myself to the same standards you claim to use to distinguish yourself from me.  I have never understood how Republicans can claim to be the moral values party, but if they're going to do it, they need to accept that they also will be held to a higher moral standard than their rivals.  I've been trying to come up with an equivalent scenario to reverse things and the best I've been able to come up with is if a Democrat were running a company that was secretly a major poluter and it came out during a race and Democrats didn't jump up and down on that person, Republicans did jump up and down and then a Republican acknowledged they were running a company that had poluted and fellow Republicans didn't call for him/her to resign... in that circumstance I would yawn and say "yep, sounds about right".  It's not a great analogy but it's good enough.

Tax Reform

They're back at it.  Republicans have decided this year that the way to pass big legislation is to jam it through without much debate and without any attempt to reach out to the other side.  This time it's taxes.  Before we get started, in case you forgot what the Democrats did when they overhauled health care, they adopted a Republican idea and tried to work with Republicans for a year before moving forward (with that Republican originated plan).

Alright, so, taxes.  Let's start with the build up: Republicans, in particular the President, have been saying that they would overhaul the tax code and give the average worker a huge tax cut.  There are a couple things wrong here:

1) It's temporary.  Republicans love this tactic.  Make the tax cut for people temporary so that it doesn't seem as bad for the government's budgeting as if it were perminant and then, when the tax cut is about to expire, announce that anybody not wanting to extend it is looking to increase taxes.  It's sickening to me to see this tactic used over and over again.  We know you want to make it perminant, so just do it.  Don't be so underhanded about it.

2) Corporate tax cuts AREN'T temporary.  As if it weren't enough of a slap in the face to have people's tax cut be temporary, the corporate tax cut isn't.  You know why they aren't temporary?  I'm sure Republicans will say it's because the markets hate instability and so changing the tax rate repeatedly would be bad for business.... the real answer, however, is that raising the corporate tax rate is not as big a deal to the average voter as raising individuals' tax rates... so... it's my first point of being upset made even more clear.

3) It's not a huge tax cut for individuals.  The main benefits continue to go to the top.  I'm not really sure if I need to say anything more here.  It's always going to be this way when Republicans are in charge for one reason: They don't see a progressive tax structure as a good thing.  They think it's unfair for the richest among us to pay a higher rate than the average and that everyone should pay the same rate.  I'm not going to go to far into why I consider a graduated income tax, a progressive tax, to be better here, but I'll make sure to write about that soon.  Suffice it to say, I consider progressive taxes to be far superior.

4) They're not paying for it.  Remember the mantra of the Republicans for the last 8 years that everything must be paid for?  Yeah, that's apparently went out the window as soon as they're fully in power.  In other words, they don't actually care about what they claim to stand for: fiscal responsibility.

5) Actually, they are planning to pay for it, they're just not telling you.  And here's where we get to the part that really kills me.  It's not that the $1.5 trillion over 10 years isn't part of their plan... it is.  They want to decrease the federal government's incoming resources by as much as possible.  Why?  Because then they can explain that we don't have the money to pay for all that the government is doing.  We can't spend as much as we do because we just don't have the money to pay for it.  They won't say it immediately either.  They may even wait until a Democrat is in the White House.  There will be many that won't, however.  You know that the far right, the Tea Party and the like, will likely start complaining about how we're spending more than we're taking in almost immediately.  And $1.5 trillion over 10 years is not chump change, by the way.  It's roughly 1/30 of the overall budget and more than 1/10 the discretionary spending budget from 2016.  It's roughly 1/4 our military spending or about twice as much as we spend on Veteran's Affairs or about 10 times as much as we spend on food & agriculture or about 5 times as much as we spend on transportation.  I could go on and on with comparisons but I think you get the idea.  (oh, and it's about 1/4 the current deficit that Republicans had been railing about being too high for around 8 years prior to this year)  So where do we cut to make up for this deficit?  I'd be willing to bet that it won't be from the military... which brings us to my 6th point.

6) Because the tax cuts, which are making our tax plan less progressive and therefore are already providing more benefits to the wealthiest, are going to lead to spending cuts that will reduce the benefits the average and poorest among us get from government spending, the result is actually more regressive than you think they will be.  You're going to pay for reducing the share that the wealthiest among us contribute by reducing the help the government offers those that need it. 

And all this while saying that it's going to be great for the average worker.

Struggling to Relate... or Even to Attempt to Relate

I've been struggling a bit lately... "Lately" may be relative.

On election night, I got depressed and couldn't understand why people would vote for Trump, but knew it was what was going on.  That week, I fluctuated between being numb and being depressed.  I questioned how the country could elect such a man to be President.  Sure, I had been surprised like this before but it seemed just so wrong and so impossible that he would have enough support.

I slowly came to terms with it and started to try to understand his supporters.  Surely, I said to myself, they weren't all racists and misogamists.  I tried to keep an open mind and think about what people might have determined to be the rationale for voting for the man.

Months went by and I collected several reasons.

And then Charlottesville happened.  If you don't know what I mean by that and it's still 2017, I'm impressed that you've crawled out from under whatever rock you've been hiding behind.  If you want a brief recap of the events and some of the aftermath, try Quick Summary of Charlottesville Rally.

It sometimes reminds me of the scene in The West Wing's pilot where Leo is talking to Reverand Caldwell 

Caldwell: "Why does the White House suddenly talk like everyone in the Christian Right is the same?"

Leo: "Forgive me, Al. But when you stand that close to Mary Marsh and John Van Dyke, it's sometimes hard not to paint you all with the same brush."

Why is it that Democrats often label Republicans as racists?  Because Republicans tend to use dog whistles to call racists to their side.  

Why is it that I'm having a hard time not thinking of all Trump supporters as racist, misogamist, ignorant, Islamaphopic, homophobes?  Because pretty much the only supporters I keep hearing  all fit into at least one of these buckets.  It's hard for me not to paint everyone with that brush when the ones voicing their support are doing so in a way that leads me to see them as members of one ore more of the above groups.

I know a few Trump supporters.  I don't know them necessarily very well, but I know them and that they voted for the man.  I know the reasons they give for voting for Trump, I know that they still supported him before recent events, and I suspect they still support him know.  I suspect they support him still because they don't see him as giving aid to white supremacists or at least not much.

None of this is the hardest thing I'm struggling with though.

I generally feel that it's important to understand people and that people aren't evil.  I feel it's important to learn what our adversaries believe and try to find common ground, especially if they won the last competition.  But I've been finding it difficult to follow this.  I've been finding it difficult to keep an open mind about people who support our President.  I've been finding it hard to find the interest in trying to understand, in trying to find common ground, never mind actually accomplishing the task.  I'm not just struggling to relate, I'm struggling to have any desire to relate.

Quick Summary of Charlottesville Rally on 11-Aug-2017 and the events that followed

• Charlottesville, VA decides they're going to take down a statue of Robert E. Lee, a Confederate monument (I'm genuinely curious if there are many other countries where the losing side of a conflict have so many memorials to "protect heritage")
• A white supremacist organizes a "Unite the Right" rally.  Let's pause for a moment.  This is someone claiming to speak for the right wing of the country and saying that his position is one that the rest of the right wing should rally around... that position being white supremacy.  I haven't seen many right wing people concerned about this.  Alright, let's go on.
• The city of Charlottesville votes to revoke the rally permit.  
• The permit is reinstated by a federal court the week before the planned date for the rally.
• The rally begins and there are images and tapes of white supremacists, carrying torches ... tiki torches, but torches all the same, performing the nazi solute, and chanting things such as "Jews will not replace us."  During the rally, David Duke (former head of the KKK) says "This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We're going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in. That's why we voted for Donald Trump - because he said he's going to take our country back."  O.k., that gives you some idea as to what the rally was really about... not just "protecting heritage" but rather about stating that the racists are back and willing to be way out in the open. 
• There is a counter-rally with people shouting offensive things at the white supremacists.... though to my mind, you don't really consider a match to be a flame when someone is holding a blow-torch nearby.... none-the-less, there is a reason I mention it.
• After the rally, the groups collide and violence ensues.
• James Alex Fields Jr drives his car into the counter-rally goers, killing 1 and injuring 19 others.  He later explained his actions as being his response to people abusing his car.... This is a scenario similar to stand your ground, I imagine, where if you feel endangered, you can commit murder without expecting repercussions.
• President Trump responds 
• At first by saying that there was a lot of hatred "on all sides"... here's where we come back to the counter-rally folk holding up their matches when others are holding up literal torches.
• He comes back on Monday, after many calls for him to be more vocal about denouncing racists and does exactly that... he denounces racist groups... "Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,"  Read that carefully because he doesn't actually walk back what he said previously.  He leaves the door open for many of his supporters to consider the counter-protesters to be members of hate groups.  Many believe Black Lives Matter, for instance, to be a hate group, even though the group is about trying to raise awareness of the violence toward blacks and the inequity and racism that still exists in our country.  This is like suggesting that someone calling attention to a house that's on fire is doing so in an attempt to light other houses on fire.
• On Tuesday, President Trump returns to the reporters to talk about infrastructure and, as you might expect, gets more questions about Charlottesville and his responses.  He states again that there is blame to be found on both sides and starts equating General Lee to President Washington, asking that since Washington had slaves, should we be taking down his monuments.  This is commonly referred to what-aboutism, where people respond to a question with "what about this other thing?"  The other thing tends to either not be nearly as problematic as the original element in question or tends to be on a completely different topic.  Furthermore...
• Lee's monuments were put up nearly half  a century after the end of the Civil War and were there to justify Jim Crow laws.
• Lee's monuments are in remembrance of Lee's actions in the Civil War, standing up against the big bad United States of America (and the rights of states to allow slavery), in contrast to monuments to Washington which are in remembrance of his support and leadership of the United States of America (with no direction within this rememberance, one way or another, regarding slavery)... subtle difference there, right?
• Free Speech rallies are planned in 23 states.  One of the first to be held is in Boston, MA.  The Boston event showcases rally goers in the 10's and counter-rally goers in the 10,000's (estimates put the counter-rally protest at between 30,000 and 40,000 people).  Police arrest 30 of the counter-protesters for violence... remember, that's out of 30,000 people who attended.  The rest of the rallies are replaced with online gatherings rather than in person rallies.

Republicans, Racism, and President Trump

If you've missed it, Republicans in the House and Senate have been outraged by President Trump's lack of racism denouncing.  Their interest in distancing themselves from leaders of racist groups is nothing new.  David Duke, former head of the KKK, has been disavowed by various Republican candidates over the years.  Conventional wisdom says that you can't get general support if you're supported by hate groups.

The Republican establishment certainly believes this.  After the defeat in 2012, they had an analysis of the election performed.  The lesson learned was that they should seek the votes of minorities because the white majority was dwindling and the party could not continue to expect to win if it maintained its thorough reliance on white men.  This, of course, comes after the highly racial backlash against Obama's victory in 2008.  The backlash saw racist dog whistle remarks from many of the leaders in Congress as well as blatant racist remarks from the citizens attending rallies against Obama.  There was a strong push to delegitimize Obama's win by suggesting he wasn't a US born citizen... one that Trump would join and come to the forefront of in the years after 2008.

2016 rolled along and the Republicans actually managed to run some candidates for President that were not white men... There were quite a few candidates (17), but among the top 10 were 1 white woman, 1 black man, 1 indian-american man, and 1 man of Cuban descent.  That's right, almost 1/4 of the Republican Presidential ticket were non-white-men.  That's impressive given the breakdown in Congress which shows that while Democrats having a little over 80% as many seats in the two chambers of the Federal legislative branch, they have 3 times the number of women (78:26) and nearly 6 times the number of minorities (94:16).  In fact, the Democrats have just about the same ratio of minorities to whites in office at the Federal level as the country has in its population.  That indicates that the Republicans have a long way to go to bring their office-holders looking like the citizens they are there to represent.

So, the Republicans ran 13 angry white men, 1 angry white woman, and 3 angry minority men in 2016.  That's a lot of anger in one room... too much, in fact, so they had debates of <= 10 candidates instead.  As you might expect, the woman in the group was the first to be taken down by the candidate that would, throughout the campaign, disparage and demean women.  Good news for Trump: white nationalists tend to also be misogamists, so the base of his support is well in hand.  Trump continued to name-call and demean his opponents and serving up red meat for his fearful followers in the form of suggesting that land-based immigration from Mexico, Chinese trade, NAFTA, Obama-care, and Islamic Extremist terrorism were the biggest threats to the US and only he knew how to resolve them.  Care to count the racist elements of that train of dangers?  Go on, take a moment to do the math and find the percentage of issues that are race-based.  Trump was calling things as he saw them, or at least how people thought he saw them, and that was a strong selling point.  Based on responses at rallies, being openly racist, misogamistic, self-aggrandizing, and anti-media were the biggest winners for Trump.

Supporters ate it all up.  Finally, a candidate willing to be openly part of that group that the popular culture has been so opposed to.  Popular culture, for decades, has been anti-racism and anti-misogamy.  Trump's supporters loved the concept that political correctness was why their leaders tempered their words and used dog whistles instead of being, what popular culture would consider, openly racist and sexist.  It's stifling our discussions, they would say, to not be able to talk in terms popularly considered to be racist and sexist without being called racists and sexists.  After all, how can you have an honest discussion about Mexicans being rapists, Muslims being terrorists, women being emotional wrecks, and Blacks being lost sheep, duped into voting for a party that doesn't represent them, all these topics, while being labeled as someone who believes negative things about particular races and women?  How can you possibly stand up for racist beliefs when you'll be called a racist?  It's hard, I'm sure.

Anyway, the point being that for decades, the Republican party leaders had welcomed the quiet racism and almost-under-the-radar sexism, using dog whistles, code words that many of us understood the true meaning of but could be denied.  Now, Trump was openly saying the racist and sexist things the dog whistles had indicated in a seemingly-defensible way.  Much in the same way that the anti-government undercurrent that has supported the Tea Party was fostered by the Republican establishment and right wing news and talk shows, the undercurrent of racism and sexism, while based in a culture from the past, has been nurtured and given aid and comfort by the same parties.  The Tea Party has become a problem for the Republican establishment because of a lack of interest in negotiating or doing anything that could be identified as promoting government... an issue that the Republicans trying to accomplish anything in Congress, even with control of both chambers, are running into now and undoubtedly questioning their push to get to this point.  Likewise, Republican leaders are looking at the support being given to the racists now and railing against it.  They were the ones that helped get us here though.  It's hard to take Fox News saying that the President is not treating the situation appropriately when they've been pushing us in this direction for quite some time.

So, here's the question I have: Are the Republican leaders in Congress right to think that they can't be openly supportive of white supremacists?  And are labels so damaging and so upsetting to people that they would prefer to empower the worst of the racists than to recognize that maybe, just maybe, they are indeed a bit racist and maybe, just maybe, they should accept being labeled as such when they say racist things.

Is Trump’s Support About to Crater?

Basket of deplorables.  That’s what the nazis and other white supremacists are to us.  And that’s what we think everybody else thinks too.  That’s why, when Charlottesville had a protest, that looked an awful lot like it was entirely nazis on one side, shouting “Heil Trump” and other slogans that are all too reminiscent of 1939 Germany, when those protesters showed up on our televisions and in our social media feeds, that’s why we all assumed the nation would agree that these were clearly the villains in the story that was unfolding.  Trump came out and denounced the hatred “on all sides”… surely *this* would do the trick, surely the nation would see Trump the way the left-of-center had seen him this entire time, as a repugnant racist, or at least someone who would be willing to play to repugnant racists and embolden them beyond what should be considered reasonable in 1950, never mind 2017.  

But here’s what the media and many of my friends are forgetting…. this already happened… not only had it happened, but it had happened in a number of different ways throughout the campaign.

Trump announced his candidacy by suggesting, essentially, that immigrants were the problem we were facing and that those crossing our southern border were nearly all (if not all) criminals of a particularly unsavory type.  “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”  It doesn’t take much to unpack this and it matches his style entirely.  He isn’t saying everybody that crosses the souther border is a criminal, that’s just what he’s heard about, right?  He’s not saying something bad about a rival GOP candidate for President, he’s heard other people saying it, but he’s not saying it, he would never, but you’ve heard about it, right?  But I digress… many understood that he was calling Mexican’s criminals and lowlife scum.  Many thought he was a joke after that speech… but he wasn’t…  and his supporters backed him.

Trump later called for a ban on Muslims entering the country.  We had thought you couldn’t get more blatant with your racism but there it was.  Subtly hidden within the fear that Muslims coming to our shores might be terrorists… that they are a great threat that must be dealt with.  Nevermind that a vast majority of terrorist attacks on US soil since 2002 have been perpetrated by US born citizens, and that you’re hard pressed to find any non-US born perpetrators who came here after they were 10 years old.  Nevermind that the terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001 are dwarfed in their number of victims by mass killings determined not to be terrorism.  No, these Muslim immigrants are the problem.  Many on the Left were shocked and enraged and thought, surely, surely this would indicate to the rest of the country that he couldn’t possibly be fit for the Presidency and the candidacy would falter… but it didn’t… and his supporters backed him.

Weeks before the general election, a tape came out that many on the left believed would be his downfall.  In it, Trump can be heard discussing his behavior toward women, which the left critiqued as sexual assault and his supporters considered “locker room talk” and the thought of the actions described as, while not necessarily appropriate, also not terribly wrong either.  Yep, the media and the left thought this was the end… but it wasn’t… and his supporters backed him.

Bill O’Reilly (I’m sorry, let’s take a moment to consider this came from O’Reilly… how far do you have to be from the beaten path of conservatism to have O’Reilly try to take you down) took his stab at Trump in early February 2017, pointing out that Putin is a killer and questioning the President’s respect for Russia’s leader.  Trump’s response was “There are a lot of killers.  You think our country’s so innocent?”  At this, media and the left thought, surely, surely now people will understand the concerns we raised about his ties to Russia… But they didn’t… no, his supporters backed him.

That’s why, upon brief consideration, I was neither surprised nor particularly disheartened when I heard the comments made by our President in response to what popular culture considers the ubiquitous villain… nor was I surprised when the media attacked him and called for the denouncement of white supremacists as an obvious move that should have been taken… nor will I be surprised if his supporters continue to back him.

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate called for a stronger response, but they have called for him to behave differently in the past, they have backed away somewhat on their support for him and then come back to his side.  The attack on President Trump surprised me, but within minutes of hearing about it, it made sense and it fit the narrative we’ve had for the last year.  

The emboldening of racists, of nazis, the villain we love to see our heroes go up against, this has been coming for a long time.  Our President has helped it along substantially and given this enemy aid and comfort.  But none of this is particularly new to the equation and so I don’t believe this will have a true impact on Trump’s presidency.  It will, however, have a real impact on the citizens who have to live in the midst of this crop of racists…. but that’s a post for another time.

Paris Climate Accord

President Trump has determined the US should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.  His rationale?  America first, its unfair to the US tax payers, it's job killing, and we would end up being laughed at by the world.

Shall we take those reasons one at a time?

America first.  ~sigh~  What does it mean to be America first in this scenario?  Does it mean we should be more concerned about coal / gas power plants than we are about our citizen's health?  If so, he's right, doing away with regulations, as he already was doing, will do the job.  We'll continue to have a stable amount of health problems due to the pollution from these power plants and from car exhaust.  And those health concerns will be covered by healthca... oh, right... well... hm...

It's unfair to US tax payers... this is really the same as America first except it more obviously identifies that we should be going forward with the regulations.  The financial benefits in decreased health costs far outweigh the negatives of increased power costs and the cost of tax incentives.

Job killing.  Seriously?  Job killing?  Without the regulations, natural gas was already putting coal out of business.  What we need, if we're concerned about jobs in power production, is to get coal country to switch to solar/wind power generation.  It wouldn't be easy but with the proper efforts it could be done.  And what jobs would there be?  Well, what do we need?  We need parts construction... are you telling me we can't get companies to build construction plants in these areas?  We need to build parts for solar panels, parts for power plants... how about we take the tax incentives for oil companies and switch them over to companies that build solar/wind equipment in coal country?  And couldn't we create a power plant or two in those states?  Renewable jobs already outpace coal jobs like nobody's business.... well... I guess like renewable business.  What we need to do is get some of those renewable jobs moved to coal country and help the transition a bit more.  What we don't need is to pretend that we'll bring back coal and continue to ignore the coal workers' actual needs by giving them false promises.

He doesn't want the US to be the laughing stock of the world.  What exactly would it take for us to be more of a laughing stock of the world?  Seriously.  The world is laughing at (and crying) about us right now.  They're also recognizing that the states, companies, and people of the US are going to keep to our word and do significantly more than Trump is suggesting we should do.  He thinks that because the US was going to try to do what he considers to be more than other big countries, that the other countries were going to laugh at us.  Here's the thing: you don't laugh at people who are being better people than others.  You don't laugh at someone who has a mansion and decides that they should feed a few of the homeless nearby.  You don't laugh at someone who helps his neighbors get jobs.  You're impressed by them.  We're already the laughing stock because of President Trump's tweets, his administration's inability to tell a single truth and the particular lies it decides are super important (such as that the crowds at his inauguration were the biggest ever, remember that lie that they kept shoving at us?).

So what does the withdrawal really mean?  It means that we are further putting ourselves at odds with the world.  Other than that, it means nothing.  Really.  The Paris agreement was essentially each country saying what it thought it could do.  O.k., actually, what it wanted to do.  So to say "we don't want to do what we said we'd do"... well, you could say that without withdrawing.  You could say "actually, we changed our priorities" and nobody would have been surprised.  Withdrawing is just withdrawing from the community.  It's like if you and I went out for dinner, before hand I said I was going to be super healthy, and then we got there and I ordered a cheeseburger.  You wouldn't be surprised, I am who I am after all... but no, instead, we are withdrawing... so we were going to dinner, I said I'd eat something healthy and then I said, you know what, actually, I'm going to have a cheeseburger but because I said I'd be eating something healthy and now I want a cheeseburger, I'm going to get my cheeseburger and head home and eat it alone rather than engaging in conversation with you and enjoying a night out together.  Who's the laughing stock now, bozo... you're off eating dinner with 193 (or 146, depending if you're counting signers or just ratifiers) friends and I'm eating alone... so long suckers!  ... God I wish I had someone to talk to.... well, at least they're not laughing at me (and my stubborn resolve to be an idiot), right?

Mini Rant - I don't like that law so I won't follow it

I love people who explain that a law is unjust because they're not complying to it and that they're not complying to it because it's unjust. Was just listening to a call-in show where someone said that he had 10 cars that were in violation with the emissions standards based on his not having gotten them checked recently and that he hadn't done so because he didn't have time and the emissions standards law is not reasonable. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be the ones that believe in authority? I guess that links us back to the Bundys huh? So, let me get this straight, it's not o.k. to not follow the instructions of the police or not to follow the laws of your city, state, or country... unless you don't agree with them... well, o.k., it's still not o.k. to not follow the instructions of the police or not follow the laws of your city, state, or country... unless... um... I guess unless you're Conservative? I would say "unless you're white" but I don't want to assume this guy was white (though the racist in me is assuming that, "you betcha") and I'm pretty sure that Conservatives would still have a problem with a white Liberal not obeying the law when they feel it's unjust.

Politics in the Age of Trump Part 1

It's fascinating to me to see people's reactions in the last year from a variety of groups.  I'll start by summarizing what I've seen.

Liberals:  I've seen liberals fall into a couple different camps:

• Pragmatic + There but for the grace of God go I: "I don't understand those that voted for Trump and feel we should try to understand them so that we can work better at winning leadership of the country in the future."  This group is disgusted by Trump and extremely concerned with where this country is going.  Fixated on trying to resolve this by bringing at least some of those that voted for Trump into some semblance of what they find to be sane, they see the path forward is to reconnect the country, at least some.

• There not even by the grace of God go I: "I can't tolerate those that voted for Trump and am uninterested in engaging."  This group is so disgusted with what they perceive Trump to represent that they feel it is unreasonable to engage in the conversation.  Indeed, they see Trump as multiple forms of evil, some of which may be negotiated with, but some completely intolerable.  The path forward is to engage with the part of the country that they find to be sane.  Maybe in 2 and 4 years, this will be fresh in the minds of the majority of the country and Democrats will retake the House, Senate, and eventually the White House.

Conservatives: Conservatives tend to fall into a few different camps as well:

• Anti-Trump camp: O.k., let's break this down even further, shall we?
• Civilians (non-politicians/political leaders): "Holy @#$% what did my party just do?!?"  They tend to be horrified by what they've seen.  This group either sees most of the support for President Trump coming from the same "basket of deplorables" that Clinton referred to (racist, sexist, homophobic, religious intolerant groups) OR they feel that there is a way that a President should conduct him/her self and that President Trump's behavior simply isn't that.  For the latter, you can see this to be his utter lack of coordination within his administration, his disinterest in communication, and his off-the-cuff decision making.
• Politicians / party leaders: "Well, I have some concerns [but we're going to keep following his lead for the foreseeable future]."  Think people like Senator McCain.  They appear to be deeply concerned with what they've seen for either of the reasons that civilians are but are being significantly more careful about their actions so as not to anger the President.  They see that politics in this country has been turned somewhat on its head... o.k., it's not entirely turned on its head, it's just that what would have caused some panic for a normal President's supporters is not causing it for the last year for President Trump's supporters.  So, much the same as has happened in past administrations, on both sides, the politicians tend to keep with their party leadership and, while they may say they are concerned, don't ever say that they're particularly deeply concerned and certainly never act on that concern, including when questioning experts while in  hearings.
• Pro-Trump camp 1: "He's not your normal President, he's a normal-person.  You can't expect him to conform to your expectations of how a President should behave and to do so is showing partisan politics."  This group sees the Comey letter and says "he's just asking someone to drop something the way I would ask a colleague or friend... it's not obstruction, it's just one person to another person."  "There's no reason to be concerned when he invites deadly dictators to the White House because he's just trying to do what he does."  This group sees President Trump's not releasing his tax returns as something not to be concerned about because they trust him to not be swayed by his own financial and family ties.  They either don't see the comparison between President Trump's privacy regarding his taxes as being remotely hypocritical when compared to President Trump's obsession with President Obama's birth certificate or feel that everyone in Washington is hypocritical, so why judge.  They also don't necessarily believe everything President Trump says, but don't see it as a problem that the President is lying, there are bigger issues at stake after all.
• Pro-Trump camp 2: "Drain the Swamp!" O.k., liberals and the media have tended to take "drain the swamp" in the way they think of it: remove the Wall Street corruption.  From listening to people calling into various shows, I think this camp doesn't see Wall Street as the problem, but rather D.C. politicians.  Drain the swamp means that we should stop working with those that are in political leadership, from either party, and should bring in outsiders.  This is why the media was confused when they saw the cabinet being formed and why this group of supporters celebrated.  This is also why they feel that Speaker Leader Ryan was the one that made the folly with the American Health Care Act, not the President, because Ryan is not to be trusted as he is part of the establishment in D.C., part of the taint that must be drained.  They don't necessarily believe everything Trump says, but they also don't really mind that he's lying, just so long as he's breaking up the establishment and the normal way of doing things in D.C.
• Pro-Trump camp 3: "The world is lying and only President Trump is speaking it like it is"... I'm not sure if I can really go into more depth than that... This group is, simply put, blind.

More discussion of each camp to come...