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.
Dark Wind Rising
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Monday, August 21, 2017
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.
Saturday, June 3, 2017
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?
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?
Sunday, May 28, 2017
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.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
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:
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.
- 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...
Saturday, November 12, 2016
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...
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...
Sunday, November 6, 2016
2016 MA Ballot Questions, for those who haven't voted yet
I know I'm cutting it close, but here's my recommendations for how to vote on the ballot questions for Massachusetts and the extra one for Somerville. My recommendations are Q1-No, Q2-No, Q3-Yes, Q4-Yes, Q5(Somerville specific)-Yes
Let's go in order, shall we?
Q1 - Additional slot license - This question would authorize the formation of a second slot parlor where we currently limit gambling establishments to 3 casinos, 1 slot parlor, and pretty much every convenience store and grocery store. But seriously, this is a highly specific request for a specific location to be allowed to form a slot parlor. Let's put aside whether gambling is a positive/negative element for society. The lone slot parlor that we already have is not running at capacity. There's simply not sufficient demand for the current supply. When that's the case, economics states that increasing supply is not a good idea. To me, this one's easy: No
Q2 - Increase the cap on charter schools - So, this one's a bit more tricky ... until you look at it. Even proponents of charter schools are saying this is a step too far. This question opens up the floodgates on charter schools. "But Peter, if you had kids in a failing district, you would demand a better option." O.k., let's get a few things straightened up right now.
Q3 - Banning sales from farms that use animal cruelty - Simply put, we should treat animals with more respect than we do. Yes, it'll cost more. Yes, this will have an impact on many families. The "yes on 3" campaign has been down-playing this but it's important to me that we acknowledge it. It is a legitimate concern. But I still endorse yes on Q3 on the basis that we should care for the methods by which the things we purchase are created. We try to tell companies not to make clothes using sweat labor. We should clearly tell farms to use humane means to raise their animals.
Q4 - Legalize recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old - O.k., so, I understand the no-on-4 position. We don't have enough research on marijuana; we already have the allowance for use for medical purposes; we don't have the equivalent of a breathalyzer; Colorado has seen a rise in car accidents (though we can't prove that this is related to marijuana use because we don't have a way of detecting it like we do with alcohol). I get all that. The problem is, we're treating multiple drugs differently from each other. There's no evidence that marijuana is any worse for adults than alcohol. There's some evidence that it can have lasting effects on kids under 16 (frontal lobe issues), but the question at hand is for individuals 21 or older and only in private areas. A yes vote creates regulatory bodies at state and local levels with the authorization to restrict, or even ban, marijuana-selling establishments. A yes vote also creates revenue by bringing the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes into the light of day rather than being restricted to the black market. I understand and respect the "no on Q4" perspective, I just don't agree that their arguments mean that we should continue our prohibition on alcohol... I mean... on marijuana. No, seriously, if you feel that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because of the accidents, I understand that, but then we should never have legalized alcohol. We gain similar benefits to the legalization of marijuana that we did to the legalization of alcohol: ability to regulate the product, tax the sale, and for there to be a stigma associated but not legal concerns when people seek assistance with their problems. This was a hard one for me to decide on, but my suggestion remains: vote yes.
Q5 - Somerville only - Deviation from laws dealing debt and taxes to build high school - O.k., this one's another easy one. First, let me point out that I am a home owner, so the increase in taxation directly impacts me. Second, let me point out that I do not intend to have children of my own and my nieces will probably be out of high school, or close to it, before the new high school is ready, so the benefits don't impact me as closely as it would others in the city. That said, we have to do something because the high school will be discredited otherwise. The options are to rebuild-in-place or to build-new. The option to rebuild-in-place would likely cost the same, if not more, than building-new. Thus, the answer is simple: build-new will allow a better building in a more efficient manner (from a organizational view point) for the same cost or cheaper than the alternative. Somerville: vote yes on 5.
Let's go in order, shall we?
Q1 - Additional slot license - This question would authorize the formation of a second slot parlor where we currently limit gambling establishments to 3 casinos, 1 slot parlor, and pretty much every convenience store and grocery store. But seriously, this is a highly specific request for a specific location to be allowed to form a slot parlor. Let's put aside whether gambling is a positive/negative element for society. The lone slot parlor that we already have is not running at capacity. There's simply not sufficient demand for the current supply. When that's the case, economics states that increasing supply is not a good idea. To me, this one's easy: No
Q2 - Increase the cap on charter schools - So, this one's a bit more tricky ... until you look at it. Even proponents of charter schools are saying this is a step too far. This question opens up the floodgates on charter schools. "But Peter, if you had kids in a failing district, you would demand a better option." O.k., let's get a few things straightened up right now.
- First, I would not want my children to get a better education at the cost of my neighbors' kids. I know, my first duty is to my own, but I am my brother's keeper, and therefore what impacts my neighbor very much impacts me. And the method by which we pay for charter schools in Massachusetts has a negative impact on district budgets. Yes, the state fully reimburses the district for the first year of a student who transfers, but the second year is only reimbursed for 5% and nothing thereafter, so if a student spends more than one year at a charter school, it very much impacts the district's funding. Furthermore, the funding that the district provides is per student but the costs for a district are not per student. Buildings still need to be maintained. Teachers and administration staff cover many many students and their salaries do not decrease proportionally as students leave the district. There's a reason that the charter school initiative is considered considered an unfunded mandate.
- Second, again, what effects my neighbor very much impacts me. There are lots of studies that show that when you remove students who are highly motivated from the district's society, the remaining students lower their efforts because they don't have the highly motivated students there to impact the culture. By removing the best students, you don't just decrease scores because the average shifts by moving the better scores out, but the remaining scores falter because of the culture shift.
- Third, worse yet, while charter schools aren't supposed to cherry pick their students, they most certainly are succeeding at doing so. They'll tell you that it's because the students that aren't cherry picked are leaving of their own volition because they just don't fit in, but it's obvious and it's intentional. Charter schools are supposed to take any students interested, but they have major drop off rates, which are expected and embraced by those running the schools. It's one of the ways in which they get higher testing scores.
- http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CPS-report-online-draft-6-10-13_reduced_2.pdf
- http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/10/are-charter-schools-cherry-picking-students/charters-can-do-whats-best-for-students-who-care
- Fourth, while charter schools appear to reduce the achievement gap while the students attend them, they don't necessarily reduce the achievement gaps thereafter.
- http://kevanharris.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/wdobbie/files/texas_charters.pdf
Q3 - Banning sales from farms that use animal cruelty - Simply put, we should treat animals with more respect than we do. Yes, it'll cost more. Yes, this will have an impact on many families. The "yes on 3" campaign has been down-playing this but it's important to me that we acknowledge it. It is a legitimate concern. But I still endorse yes on Q3 on the basis that we should care for the methods by which the things we purchase are created. We try to tell companies not to make clothes using sweat labor. We should clearly tell farms to use humane means to raise their animals.
Q4 - Legalize recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old - O.k., so, I understand the no-on-4 position. We don't have enough research on marijuana; we already have the allowance for use for medical purposes; we don't have the equivalent of a breathalyzer; Colorado has seen a rise in car accidents (though we can't prove that this is related to marijuana use because we don't have a way of detecting it like we do with alcohol). I get all that. The problem is, we're treating multiple drugs differently from each other. There's no evidence that marijuana is any worse for adults than alcohol. There's some evidence that it can have lasting effects on kids under 16 (frontal lobe issues), but the question at hand is for individuals 21 or older and only in private areas. A yes vote creates regulatory bodies at state and local levels with the authorization to restrict, or even ban, marijuana-selling establishments. A yes vote also creates revenue by bringing the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes into the light of day rather than being restricted to the black market. I understand and respect the "no on Q4" perspective, I just don't agree that their arguments mean that we should continue our prohibition on alcohol... I mean... on marijuana. No, seriously, if you feel that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because of the accidents, I understand that, but then we should never have legalized alcohol. We gain similar benefits to the legalization of marijuana that we did to the legalization of alcohol: ability to regulate the product, tax the sale, and for there to be a stigma associated but not legal concerns when people seek assistance with their problems. This was a hard one for me to decide on, but my suggestion remains: vote yes.
Q5 - Somerville only - Deviation from laws dealing debt and taxes to build high school - O.k., this one's another easy one. First, let me point out that I am a home owner, so the increase in taxation directly impacts me. Second, let me point out that I do not intend to have children of my own and my nieces will probably be out of high school, or close to it, before the new high school is ready, so the benefits don't impact me as closely as it would others in the city. That said, we have to do something because the high school will be discredited otherwise. The options are to rebuild-in-place or to build-new. The option to rebuild-in-place would likely cost the same, if not more, than building-new. Thus, the answer is simple: build-new will allow a better building in a more efficient manner (from a organizational view point) for the same cost or cheaper than the alternative. Somerville: vote yes on 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)