And then there were 4...

Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Steyer all dropped out in the last 2 days (well, Klobuchar's plan to drop out is announced but not yet actually completed).  With that in mind, it's time to update the summary of Democratic "contestants" as Bloomberg called the stage:

Before we begin, yes, there are actually 5 Democrats still running, but one of them is polling between 0 and 2% so I'm going to ignore her for the sake of this discussion, sorry Gabbard fans.

Biden: If you're one of those people who thinks that the moderates will overcome Trump and that people who are disgusted with Trump won't come out to vote for a progressive, Biden's the one for you.  He's been running for President for almost as long as I've been alive.  He's made a big deal of having worked with Republicans and hasn't ruled out having a Republican as a VP running mate.  By the way, if you want to consider how well it'll go "working with Republicans", look at who we have leading the Senate, look at the bills the House has passed and where they are (stuck on McConnell's desk going nowhere) and get back to me when they start getting passed.... or when a Democratic President's Supreme Court nominee gets brought up for debate in the Senate (because that still won't happen even if the nominee is announced the year after the President is sworn in, if McConnell has his way).

Bloomberg: If you're reading this and you're thinking of voting for Bloomberg in the primary... I don't know what to say.  I guess I'll point out that he's a Republican who implemented a racist policing policy and only when he decided to run for the Democratic nomination did he begin to walk back that policy, that having walked it back a little he then lied during the debates and suggested that he had learned about the issues the policy was having and had decided on his own to change things (when in fact it was a court order due to a lawsuit), that he has spent tons of money getting Republicans into office, that he has been a part of the keep-women-quiet-through-NDAs culture and only when beaten over the head with it did he start to change the tune.... Putting it simply, his tagline should be "Bloomberg: The Other White Billionaire Racist with Sexual Skeletons in his Closet"

Sanders: His ending of the the last debate was spot on.  He's not as left as you may think.  He doesn't want to nationalize everything, just healthcare and prisons.  He wants to make college affordable, sure, but he's not trying to take over the college system.  He wants to reduce our footprint overseas.  He's also exciting to the younger crowd and the more liberal end of the Democratic base than Biden.  We need to excite the base and get out the vote this year!  There's no chance of winning over Trump supporters but there is a chance of people being excited enough about a candidate to come out to vote when they wouldn't otherwise.

Warren: Similar to Sanders, she's not as far left as you may think.  She and Sanders are pretty close in terms of the end-goal but she has plans to transition us to get there.  She's also against needless wars but hasn't really come out as strongly against overseas interventions as Sanders has.  Another similarity with Sanders?  She appears to have relatively broad support among the Democratic coalition that we need to excite and get to the polls.

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway... I would urge you to vote for Warren or Sanders (in that order).  Massachusetts' Secretary of State expects a higher-than-usual turnout tomorrow and I'm hoping that's true for all the Super Tuesday states... and that we paint the town Progressive as the polls suggest we might in most of them.

Quick take on the 19-Feb-2020 Dem Presidential Debate

Quick rundown of the candidates' debate performance last night: 

 

• Warren: Comes out of the box with a piledriver on Bloomberg. Later, "you get a punch, and you get a punch, and you get a punch..." to all her stage-mates... but never really takes her eye completely off her stage-neighbor, Bloomberg, and continues to pound away at him furiously. If you thought she had stopped being a fighter, you thought wrong.

• Sanders: Same message as ever.  Was called a millionaire socialist with 3 houses as an insult and spent time explaining it, which was unfortunate but minor in the grand scheme of things. Sanders didn't go into the debate needing a big win though since he is in the lead and has momentum... all signs point to nothing having changed.

• Biden: Had a surprisingly strong night given his performances for the last few months.  Not sure it was enough to salvage his campaign though.

• Buttigieg: While everyone else starts by beating on Bloomberg, Buttigieg begins an attack on Bloomberg but before he actually lands the punch pivots and attacks Sanders. 

• Klobuchar: Came out swinging against Bloomberg but then spent the rest of the debate driving back and forth between Mediocreville and Disappointing City... speaking of which...

• Klobuchar & Buttigieg: Proved they're totally fine bickering and slamming each other repeatedly to the mat.  It's almost like they don't like each other much.

• Bloomberg: Horrible, just horrible.  Showed that he's Trump with a "(D)" next to his name.

• Steyer: Tried to say he was the good kind of billionaire... wait, no, he didn't make it into the debate.

• Gabbard: Sir Also-Not-Appearing-On-This-Stage.

New Hampshire, here are your choices on Tuesday, 11-Feb-2020

All of your options boiled down to their most basic premise for why you should vote for them:

• Michael Bennett - Not really sure why he's still here. He hasn't been on the debate stage lately and is a rather bland white straight male. Doesn't bring much to the table that other, more popular candidates don't.
• Joe Biden - I'm the only one that's electable, though I can't excite enough people in Iowa to come in closer than 4th and the polls indicate that EVERY Democrat would beat Trump (note: polls also indicated Clinton would win... additional note: Clinton at least had people excited because she'd be the first woman President, what exactly excites people about Biden? Right, moving on). (oh, and I was VP for / and am friends with Obama, you remember him right?) (oh, and please forget all the things I've done as Senator or anything that you disagree with regarding Obama's presidency)
• Cory Booker - No longer running, so... yeah
• Mosemarie Boyd - Never actually heard of this person so if you want to throw out your vote, I guess this is as good an option as any... but you're New Hampshire and care about your role as a taste-tester, right?
• Steve Bullock - No longer running so... yeah
• Pete Buttigieg - I'm not conservative like Biden and I'm not liberal like Warren/Sanders... oh, and I don't get my campaign money by being the former Mayor of a relatively small city (I get my campaign money from my friends from my earlier job at a private equity company)
• Julian Castor - No longer running... but has endorsed Warren, so if you wanted to vote for him, consider voting for her.
• Roque De La Fuente III- Again, never actually heard of this person so if you want to throw out your vote blah blah. but you're New Hampshire and care about ... moving right along
• John Delaney - No longer running so... yeah
• Jason E Dunlap - Again, never heard of, well, you know the drill
• Michael Ellinger - Never heard, oh come on, how many of these people are there?
• Tulsi Gabbard - I swear I'm not the villain of this story...
• Ben Gleiberman - Getting tired of saying that I've never heard of this person, but yeah, he's another one that's not running nationally...
• Mark Stewart Greenstein - Maybe that's all I should say going forward... "not running nationally, are you a taste tester or not?"
• Kamala Harris - Sadly, she is no longer running... if she were, though, she's a prosecutor and will ... would have prosecuted the case against Trump.
• Henry Hewes - Not running nationally, are you a taste tester or not?
• Amy Klobuchar - Like Buttigieg, I'm not conservative or liberal... unlike Buttigieg, I have experience and am a woman and have won in an election that's larger than one city.
• Tom Koos - Not running nationally, are you a taste tester or not?
• Lorenz Kraus - Not running nationally, are you a taste tester or not?
• Rita Krichevsky - Not running nationally, are you a taste tester or not?
• Raymond Moroz - Not running nationally, are you a... oh come on, really, for taste testers for the nation you're tasting a lot of things not being considered anywhere else.
• Deval Patrick - I'm from a semi-liberal state and am friends with Obama... you remember Obama right?
• Bernie Sanders - I'm so damn liberal that I wrote the damn bill. Seriously though, Sanders is pretty damn liberal... he's also an isolationist (up to you whether that's good or bad)
• Joe Sestak - No longer running...
• Sam Sloan - Not running nationand I give up
• Tom Steyer - I'm a real billionaire, unlike Trump... so I can bring it to him in a way that no one else can... except maybe Bloomberg, but he's not on the ballet so voting for me is kind of like voting for him... except it's not because I'm much more liberal and not as tainted by time being NYC Mayor...
• David John Thistle - A thistle in the side of anybody thinking that you should be helping widdle down the field for the rest of the nation...
• Thomas Torgesan - Also not running nationally
• Elizabeth Warren - Finally got to the woman with a plan... a liberal plan...
• Robert Carr Wells Jr - Also not running nationally
• Marianne Williamson - No longer running
• Andrew Yang - We need a universal basic income so that people have enough money that they can spend some of their money on non-essential things ... you know, because then people can spend money on political campaigns.

2020 Democratic Candidate Review (December edition)

As of now, there are 18 Democrats running (or thinking of running) for the Presidency.  Care to an (at least attempted) non-partisan review?

Before we get started, there are also 3 Republicans currently running: President Trump, Conservative Talk Show Host Joe Walsh, and former MA Governor Bill Weld.  It certainly doesn't matter that there's a race at the moment, but in the extremely unlikely scenario that Trump is removed from office, that race could become something, as I don't believe Pence enjoys the base support that Trump does... though he certainly fits the profile better than either Walsh or Weld.  That said, I expect Trump to be the candidate on the Republican side.

Alright, Democrats, let's see who we've got... but let's reduce the field to those that either made it to the debate stage in December, shall we? (Let me know if you'd like to see information on the two new candidates who weren't interested in getting in the race soon enough to matter in Iowa and New Hanpshire: Bloomberg and Patrick; or if you are interested in one of the many candidates who didn't make it to December's debate)

By last name, the list flows like this:

• Former Vice President Biden
• South Bend, IL Mayor Buttigieg
• Senator Klobuchar (of Minnesota)
• Senator Sanders (of Vermont)
• Businessman Steyer
• Senator Warren (of Massachusetts)
• Tech Executive Yang

Another before we get started moment, if you don't mind... there are certain things that all, or most, of the candidates agree on.

They all support same-sex marriage and at least claim to be in favor of some form of universal healthcare, whether it be through expanding Medicare to be an option for anyone or by removing the current private insurance based system and replacing it with a Medicare-For-All option (they differ greatly in the span of those two options).  They also all agree that any one of them would be a significant improvement over Trump.  Alright, so, let's go through them and discuss some of the main points of their campaigns.

Former Vice President Biden
What more needs to be said about him that you don't already know?  He's a well known entity, from his moderate-ness to his tendency to commit gafs to his explanation that he's running because we have to defeat Trump.  He's essentially this year's 2016 Clinton except that he's not a woman and isn't as polished.  He's not as much a hawk as Clinton is (not saying much) but he's also not as liberal as Clinton is (which is saying something given that Clinton is a centrist).  He's liberal enough to support increased public transportation (both short distance and longer distance), support of renewable fuels, strong unions, and gun control.  That said, liberal credentials have not always been up to par with regards to women, wars, gay rights, internet privacy, and law enforcement.  While he has come around to believe in gay rights and says that the culture has changed in regards to how men treat women, these changes in his stated beliefs have come quite a while after the tide turned publicly. He wrote the Violence Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which increased prison sentences, built more prisons, and significantly helps to create the current situation of for-profit prisons.

South Bend, IL Mayor Buttigieg
Mayor Pete has been Mayor of South Bend for 7 years.  He fires back at opponents who question his level of experience saying that experience in DC should not be the only experience that counts.  I would fire back with, "that's fair to say but let's look at the experience you have then."  So... he's got 8 years as mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana... 306th largest in the US overall, though it's the 103rd most densely populated city as of 2016.  He also has 8 years of experience in the armed forces, which overlap with his time as Mayor.  Are you kidding me with this crap?  There's a reason why nominees tend to be a little older than Buttigieg is (at the old old age of 37).  I agree that experience outside of DC matters... but I also think EXPERIENCE MATTERS... and Mayor Pete doesn't have it yet.
Ok, so, experience aside... let's look at what he's got in terms of values and persona:
What he has going for him: he's from the mid-West, which he claims gives him more electability than others that are from more liberal areas of the country... though he wasn't able to win a state-wide race for Treasurer in 2010.  He's gay, which gives him credentials as a repressed minority group.  And he's young (though his support mostly comes from older white people, younger people tend to support other candidates).
Yep, that's pretty much it.

Senator Klobuchar (of Minnesota)
Funny that I mention someone who didn't win a mid-Western state... let's turn to our next candidate on the list: Senator Amy Klobuchar who has won a state-wide election in a mid-Western state and has pointed this out on the debate stage when countering Buttigieg's claim to being the appropriate choice.  Klobuchar is solidly a moderate... and I really honestly didn't see much that was interesting enough to note as I went through notes on her.

Senator Sanders (of Vermont)
Ok, seriously, do you not know who he is and what he stands for?  Sanders has been around forever and has had the same stance on everything for the same amount of time.  He is solidly liberal.  He believes in healthcare for all by handing it over to the federal government and removing the for-profit insurance industry.  He believes we should raise taxes on the wealthy and help the lower and middle classes.  He understands that, as a white man, he needs to listen to those with different experiences than his.  His international policies are very isolationist and believes we have had history of making errors overseas.  Do I really need to go further into this?

Businessman Steyer
~sigh~ If you live in Massachusetts (probably because of New Hampshire), you've no doubt gotten tired of seeing Steyer on TV.  He's a businessman who got rich as a hedge fund capitalist.  He then, in 2012, moved on to advocate for alternative energy.  Steyer has made his main pledge as a Presidential candidate to make fighting climate change his number one issue.  He supports a "wealth tax" on the super rich and has suggested that he's in favor of increasing the count of judges on the Supreme Court.

Senator Warren (of Massachusetts)
Ok, but back to serious candidates.  Senator Warren holds many of the same stances as Sanders.  She's super interested in making the wealthiest americans pay more in taxes somehow.  She suggests that taxing wealth, rather than taxing income, is the more appropriate way to balance the playing field a bit.  She famously has a plan for everything.  She has made it a point to try to raise funds for her campaign from as many people as possible and without asking for money from millionaires and billionaires.  Buttigieg pointed out that Warren, herself, is fairly rich and so her campaign funding idea is, in his eyes, a faulty litmus test.  She is in favor of the Federal government funding more housing to try to deal with the affordable housing issues our cities across the nation are facing.  She's in favor of free public college (similar to how we have free public high schools).

Tech Executive Yang
Yang's big thing is that we need to transition to an economy where fewer people are working.  His thinking is that automation in the form of robots and software will reduce the need for workers throughout the economy and we shouldn't expect to be able to make up that difference with new employment opportunities.  Additionally, he feels that providing a bit of additional income above the income you earn from your job(s) will allow flexibility enough to allow for you to be more productive in your personal life and donate to causes you care about.  And finally, the stability that comes from having a basic income would allow people security and reduce stress.  I'm not confident this would all work.  It's a nice idea, but I have a variety of concerns... but let's assume that he's right that we should look at providing a Freedom Dividend for a moment.  His method for paying for it can tell you something about who he is and what he supports.  There are 4 ways he plans to pay for it, a regressive way, another regressive way, a hopeful way, a progressive way, and another progressive way.  He says there are 4, but there are really 5 because the last one is really 2 different methods.

1. Some of it is paid for by the recipients already receiving a benefit that this would either replace or they would keep in place of the Freedom Dividend.  This is somewhat regressive in so far as it says that we're going to give money to everybody who doesn't currently require assistance from the government and everybody that currently relies on assistance will either receive nothing or, at best, less increased assistance.  So, people on food stamps get to choose between the Dividend and food stamps while people in the upper-middle class and upper class just get the Dividend?  *sigh* Great plan.
2. Some of it is paid for by a Value Added Tax (VAT).  If you're unfamiliar with a VAT, think of a sales tax.  It's meant to be a tax at every step of creating a product, but it comes down to this: you're taxing things that people are purchasing.  Anytime you tax things people purchase roughly equivalently (instead of, say, taxing things like yachts or luxury cars differently from pre-packaged sandwiches) it's a regressive tax, costing lower income families more than it does higher income families as a percentage of their income.
3. He believes that his Freedom Dividend would drive up demand because people would have more disposable income and therefore people would spend that disposable income.  This is likely to work to a degree but whether it works as well as he's hoping is another question.  This is a common plan whenever we provide money to the rich or middle class... it's the entirety of the idea behind trickle down economics.  In this case, though, you're giving money to the lower-middle class as well, so it may actually work to a degree... then again, those families may just stick it in their savings because they don't have enough going into their savings in the first place.  For the upper-middle class and upper class, it likely won't influence their spending habits too much as it pertains the general economy and therefore won't spur on as much growth as Yang is hoping for.
4. He wants to tax the wealthy through "removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest"
5. He also wants to create a carbon tax.  I'm not sure if this is socio-economically progressive but it certainly is environmentally progressive.

A couple other things stand out about Yang:  He's very aware that nobody knows him (he appeared in a comedy clip where people were stopped in the street with him right there and asked if they would vote for an Asian American for President and all of them said yes but indicated they didn't know any were running).  He also very much plays into stereotypes (he loves to say he's an Asian who likes Math).  But really, what you need to know is he doesn't have much support in general (in November and December, he mostly has polled 3 or 5% among the Democratic field, never getting more than 6%) and his main topic of the Freedom Dividend.

My summary position:

• Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are my top picks as they are the strongest and most liberal among the crowd.
• Biden annoys me with his constant making of lists of 3 things.  Second, he's really not liberal.  Third, he's got some serious issues in his past.
• Buttigieg is too young and should go get some experience instead of complaining that we don't count his enough.
• Steyer sounds good on paper some of the time but he doesn't stand a chance.  He also seems to think that pointing out that Trump is not a successful businessman will actually turn people away from Trump, which is just simply not true.
• Yang also talks a good talk but also doesn't stand a chance... and, while I appreciate the idea of giving people a financial buffer, I don't like the VAT approach to financing it and worry about not including a portion that is means tested.  Other politicians have complained about the idea of paying for college for any that choose to go to public college...  this is a far bigger deal than that.
• Klobuchar is.  Really, she just is.  She's far too bland to win against Trump and she's far too moderate to be of any interest to me.

If you're interested in more information on any of the candidates...

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primary_candidates
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

Democrats, Republicans, What's the Difference? Part 2

O.k., so Democrats and Republicans are different, but surely they can compromise and make progress.  Ok., how about we review some of the things people think compromise should be found on:

Social Security:
Democrats want Social Security to be strengthened.
Republicans want it gone.
How exactly do you compromise in this instance?  If you're Republicans, you claim that you're trying to strengthen the program by reducing the benefits (to maintain the program in the long run even though it hurts the underlying point of the program) or by privatizing the program (essentially, hand all that money over to investment bankers to play with).  If you're Democrats, you see through both options for what they really are since you've been hearing Republicans rail against the program for decades.  So... how do you compromise on something so black and white?

Environment:
Democrats want to make the air quality better by moving to electric cars or other alternatives
Republicans like oil...
So we compromise and instead of slowly improving regulations on cars so that they are more efficient and less polluting while maintaining gas cars rather than rapidly building up our electric-car infrastructure and enhancing our public transportation, we keep everything exactly the same (or let them deteriorate).... except California... cause they're concerned with such things as air quality.

Guns:
Democrats don't like guns in the hands of the public because they are concerned about public safety.
Republicans want guns in the hands of the public because it's all about freedom to them.  Freedom to have a gun is as important to them as freedom of speech and significantly more important than freedom of religion.
Ok, so in this case, let's start with the starting volleys for compromise:
Democrats compromise by saying that we only ban new sales on guns, not take any away by force
Democrats compromise further by saying, let's not even ban new sales on all guns, let's just ban sales on semi-automatic rifles... we've already banned automatics so this isn't something that's totally outrageous to consider.
Democrats propose that we ban the sale of high-capacity magazines... we did this in the 1990's, the world didn't fall apart.
Republicans counter these compromise options by saying we don't do anything about guns or any gun parts.
Remind me who's unwilling to compromise?

Democrats, Republicans, What's the Difference? Part 1

"We need more compromising", "I just wish that Democrats and Republicans could meet somewhere in the middle", "Democrats and Republicans are the same".... OY!

Alright, so, let's start with the concept that Democrats and Republicans are the same.... THEY'RE NOT...

Democrats want government to take care of people (which costs money)
Republicans want the lowest taxes there can be and the least amount of government oversight

Democrats want a smaller military presence throughout the world
Republicans want a military that is 3 times larger than the rest of the world's countries' militaries combined (or larger)

Democrats want to send aid to countries (for the most part)
Republicans want to send troops to countries (ok, Hillary too... and some other Democrats; but mostly Republicans and not Democrats)

Democrats want unions to have power because workers have better lives when there is someone advocating for them
Republicans want unions to no longer exist because unions tend to favor Democrats and mean smaller profits for corporations

White Democrats are racists that want to help minorities by trying to look at institutional issues and resolving them and/or providing social safety nets.
White Republicans are racists that want to keep minorities from voting (see the variety of voter suppression tactics that Republicans have been working at implementing, sometimes succeeding but mostly failing due to their unconstitutional nature)

Minority Democrats are similar to White Democrats except that they tend to have a better view of the institutional issues.
Minority Republicans don't exist.  Don't believe me?  Think I'm being flippant?  Take a look: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/apr/28/mark-pocan/congress-democrats-have-women-and-minorities-repub/
Of their members in Congress in 2017 (combining the two chambers):
                                                     Democrats     Republicans
Total count:                                  239                289
African American:                        48 (20%)        3 (1%)
Hispanic/Latino:                           30 (12%)      13 (4%)
Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander:      16 (6%)          0 (0%)

Say it with me, minority Republicans in Congress do not exist.  Oh, and women...
Women:                                         78 (32%)      26 (9%)

Democrats want everybody to have health care, regardless of financial background
Republicans don't... yeah, not much else to say there

Democrats want to listen to scientists
Republicans want to listen to corporations

Democrats want us to convert to renewable energy sources because they're better in terms of the environment in general but also better for the populace (fossil fuels cause health issues in surrounding communities)
Republicans want us to use coal, natural gas, and oil... because ... corporations

Democrats want to do SOMETHING about climate change
Republicans, until recently, have refused to state that climate change is real, and now, don't want to do anything about it.

Democrats don't really care all that much about illegal immigration as long as the illegal immigrants aren't causing harm to the US (generally speaking, they pay taxes, don't commit as many violent crimes as US Citizens, and use up fewer government resources than US Citizens)
Republicans want to get rid of all illegal immigrants regardless of whether they are committing further crimes beyond being here.

Democrats want to fund social programs
Republicans don't want taxes to pay for social programs so... 

Democrats want to get rid of all civilian-held guns but are willing to compromise and only ban new sales of semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.  They'd also like the CDC to study gun deaths the way that it studied automobile deaths
Republicans want to arm everybody and are willing to compromise by ... arming everybody?  They also feel that allowing the CDC to study gun deaths would lead to gun regulations and therefore are fervently against any such research.  Yes, if they think that the CDC researching gun deaths will lead to proposals about regulations because, you know, gun deaths can bee prevented, and that this would be bad and therefore they have prevented any research from taking place. No, seriously, look this up.  This is insane.

In my next post, we'll discuss compromising... 

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.