Bernie or Bust?

Posted on May 25, 2016 by hbreck

Bernie_Sanders_before_a_crowd_in_Conway,_NH,_on_August_24,_2015_(20876809366)I’m going to start off with a brief preface, specifically in the interest of full disclosure. I am a Bernie Sanders supporter. I voted for him in my state primary, I have attended local campaign meetings and rallies, I have volunteered for the local (Kansas City) campaign activities, and I have even donated a small amount of money to his campaign. I like Bernie. I’ve followed his career for years. I admire his independence. I love his commitment to real liberal reform. I have defended him against conservatives, libertarians, and liberals alike. I would like to see Bernie Sanders elected President.

That being said, I think the current political situation is more complicated than many of his supporters understand. I think that ideological purity won’t get far in our system. I think “tearing down the system” is a terrible idea, and makes no sense without an idea of what to replace it with, or without an idea of how to get a majority of Americans to agree with the principles of such a change.  I think that automatically equating politics and compromise with corruption misses the entire point of politics and compromise.

But this is not a hit piece. Like I said, I’m a Sanders supporter. I want him to succeed, and barring that, I’d like his ideas to be at least partially adopted by Hillary Clinton.

I’m also a pragmatist. I think some change is better than none, and I’m willing to tolerate some negatives to prevent true disaster. And that’s what this is about. If Bernie manages to miraculously secure the Democratic nomination, I’ll be ecstatic. But if he doesn’t… I believe that victory for liberal causes can still be had.

That aside, here we go…

Many supporters of Bernie Sanders have stated they would refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton, should she win the Democratic nomination. The reasons tend to vary, but the gist usually is that they see no discernible difference between her and Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Many others assert her perceived lack of honesty, or the scandals that have plagued her political career for decades. Her ties to Wall Street, her moderate ideological leanings, and her willingness to evolve some policy positions have all been cited as well. Certainly Hillary Clinton presents some significant political differences from Bernie Sanders. But does all that add up to the biggest claim – that she is too similar to Donald Trump to be palatable to Sanders supporters?

Indeed, as mentioned above, Hillary Clinton is far friendlier to corporate interests than Bernie Sanders. She has financed much of her political career from the donations of big business and the rich. The more ideologically pure Sanders has been quite the opposite throughout his time in public service. And to many, this difference alone is the most significant reason for not supporting her. The influence of corporate money on the American political system is not new. It’s also been a very mixed bag, though primarily a negative one. A great deal of legislation has been virtually (sometimes literally) written by lobbyists. Corporate America is legendary for helping to shape laws that make it easier for them to profit and prosper, often at the expense of poor Americans, the environment, and even democratic principles. So before I get into how Hillary Clinton differs from Donald Trump, I need to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is not going to be a transformative figure on the corporate influence front. Or at least, her history has cast doubt on her willingness to be that person.

The thing is, there are other issues to discuss. Many of which will make an enormous difference to the lives of not just millions of Americans, but billions of people around the world. It is no exaggeration to say that the American President is the most powerful figure by far in the world, and policies enacted by the President can affect just about everyone on Earth.

The 2016 American presidential election will be hugely impactful for years to come. The question is, if the finalists are eventually confirmed to be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, how will their massive amount of perceived negative traits play out to the general electorate? Do Sanders supporters have a point when they say voting for either makes little difference?

Well, let’s start with the basics.

First, the new president will very likely appoint between one and possibly as many as four Supreme Court justices over the next 4 to 8 years. One Justice is in her 80s and two more are very close (and one seat is presently vacant). President Obama’s nominee for that vacant seat is being blocked for consideration through an unconstitutional obstruction tactic by the Republican members of the Senate Judicial Committee.

The current ideological tilt of the Court can be described as pretty much even between liberal and conservative members, though Justice Kennedy has occasionally stepped outside that box. But the most hard-line conservative on the Court is now dead, and the first seat filled will ensure a definite lean one way or the other. This will put several major past decisions back into play, as they were largely decided in the past along ideological lines. Citizens United, Heller v Washington DC, Obergefell v Hodges, and yes, even Roe v Wade, could all be changed, based on who is picked for the Supreme Court. These are huge cases with enormous impact on the American political system. The rights and freedoms of millions are dependent on what the Supreme Court decides with these cases (and others). Voting rights, civil rights for gay and transgender Americans, the limit (and potential) of firearms laws, and the personal bodily autonomy of women – that’s what’s at stake with the Supreme Court over the next few years.

So, why all the SCOTUS talk right off the bat? Well, Donald Trump has already pledged strict conservative litmus tests for any potential nominees. He isn’t known for his ideological consistency, but at this point, he’s pledging to nominate potential justices that would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Obergefell decision, and would reaffirm Citizens United and Heller. Hillary Clinton would almost certainly do the opposite. So right then and there, I say to supporters of Bernie Sanders; consider this as the first reason not to dismiss the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, should she secure the Democratic nomination. It is also the first major difference between Mrs. Clinton and Donald Trump.

After Supreme Court nominations, what else separates Trump and Clinton? Both have been known to change positions on certain issues, though Hillary appears to have more or less evolved with her party over time, while Trump seems to jump between positions and ideas almost at random.

  • Hillary Clinton is in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy, beyond the current top marginal rate. Donald Trump has changed his position, but as of now, his current tax plan would involve a major decrease in taxes on the wealthiest Americans. His plan would also result in an enormous expansion of the budget deficit, while Clinton’s wouldn’t be all that much different from President Obama’s policies.
  • Trump has railed against the arms deal currently in place with Iran. He has claimed he would walk away from it should he be elected. Hillary Clinton is a supporter of the deal.
  • Trump has changed his abortion opinion, but is currently claiming to be staunchly anti-abortion. As mentioned above, he has stated he would appoint Supreme Court Justices who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade.
  • Trump has repeatedly stated he would repeal the Affordable Care Act – which he may not be able to do, especially if the Senate moves back to the Democratic Party, but he seems to be interested in trying. Hillary Clinton will work to strengthen it.
  • Donald Trump has changed positions over the years on firearms laws, but as a candidate, has been pretty much in line with the positions of the NRA, who have endorsed him. Hillary Clinton is in favor of stricter gun control laws than are currently on the books – which have seen a huge rollback over the last few years.
  • Donald Trump is a global-warming denier, and has previously proposed to actually eliminate the EPA from the federal government. Hillary Clinton hasn’t been nearly as aggressive in her proposed environmental policies as Bernie Sanders, but she does represent a continuation of the Obama environmental doctrine, and acknowledges the need to seriously address global climate change.
  • Trump has jumped around quite a bit on foreign policy – from expressing a clear admiration for Vladimir Putin to an obsession with the economic and trade policies of China. But where he has been possibly the most insane has been his approach to terrorism, specifically of the Islamic variety. Trump stated he would endorse killing the family members of suspected terrorists – which would be a war crime – and has endorsed banning all Muslims from entering the United States as immigrants. He also has stated he would not rule out using nuclear weapons on another country. Yep, Donald Trump would be willing to use nukes. Seriously. Hillary Clinton, while more hawkish than President Obama, and much more hawkish than Bernie Sanders, nonetheless has a much more measured approach to diplomacy, trade, and combating terrorism.
  • Immigration – hoo boy. Here’s a big difference. Donald Trump wants to build a giant wall, at the cost of… well, a lot of money. Far more than he has estimated. Tens of billions of dollars on something that will certainly disrupt local economies, play havoc with the ecosystem, and very likely not prevent immigration, illegal or otherwise. Tens of billions when the current physical infrastructure of the United States needs a trillion dollar investment just to bring it to safe and functional state. Bridges, roads, dams, and so on. And that’s just the wall. Trump also claims to want to physically deport around 11 or 12 million people from the country, a task that is as inhumane as it is wildly impractical. The cost of such a mass deportation may very well exceed the cost of building thousands of miles of walls. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton – just like Bernie Sanders – would do no such thing. She supports the DREAM act, as well as an easier path to citizenship for a majority of the undocumented immigrants in this country.
  • Conspiracy theories and hoaxes – Donald refers to them more than any candidate in recent memory. Obama was born in Kenya? Yep, he was all over that one for years. Vaccines cause autism? Donald still throws that one around all the time. He claimed there were Muslims cheering in the streets in New Jersey on September 11th. He claimed Antonin Scalia was murdered. He accused Ted Cruz’s father of hanging around with Lee Harvey Oswald. He’s thrown around old chestnuts about Vince Foster and Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assaults. Serious adults don’t spout this nonsense, much less people who are running for President. It’s irresponsible and foolish.
  • Oh yes, and The Donald just tried to cheat American combat veterans of a million dollars.

Public statements

  • In March, Politifact ranked all remaining primary candidates (Clinton and Sanders for the Democrats, and Trump, Cruz, and Kasich for the GOP) by the truthfulness of their major public statements, through speeches, debates, and position papers. Hillary Clinton in general had the best record of accuracy for every candidate. Fact Check, Snopes, the New York Times, and Washington Post have also all reached similar conclusions. Donald Trump fought for the bottom spot alongside Ted Cruz. I have since combed through the updated pages for Clinton and Trump for statements up to the month of May. As of this writing, Politifact has rated 195 statements made by Clinton, and 141 by Trump. 97 of her statements were rated as “True” or “Mostly True,” which is about 50%. If one threw in “Half True” statements, her overall truthfulness would be over 70%. Around 29% of her statements were rated as “Mostly False,” “False,” or the dreaded “Pants on Fire.” Admittedly, that’s not an amazing percentage. We should expect better from our elected officials. However, that ranks her at number 1 among the six total Democratic candidates this election season, and well over all 18 Republicans. She has made noticeable effort to maintain accuracy in her public statements. This is something most of the GOP candidates clearly have no interest in doing. To be fair, Bernie Sanders is close behind, and by some measures has been just as (or nearly as) accurate in his public pronouncements.
  • On the other hand, we have that paragon of honesty Donald Trump. Of his 141 rated statements by Politifact, only 12 – just 9%! – have been “True” or “Mostly True.” Another 15% has been “Half True.” This leaves a whopping 77% of his public statements throughout this campaign rated “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire.” Among major party presidential candidates, only the famously histrionic Ted Cruz has come close to the epic dishonesty spewed from Donald Trump.
  • The various fact-checking websites are by no means infalliable, nor are they 100% comprehensive. But one can glean patterns and trends from their work, and there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is vastly more concerned with getting public policy right, as opposed to Donald Trump, who seems to operate more on a stream-of-consciousness than any sort of semblance of governmental interest.

Experience

  • Hillary Clinton served as an important policy advisor and diplomat while First Lady, and was practically a member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet. She served a term and some change as a United States Senator, and was generally considered an effective one, as well as having the 11th-most liberal voting record during her time in office. She served as Secretary of State under President Obama, and has received high marks from most foreign policy experts for her work running the State Department. Almost everyone who has worked with her from both parties has noted her energy, intelligence, attention to detail, and ability to learn.
  • At the same time, Donald Trump never held elected office, and never seriously ran for one, despite a half-hearted bid for the Reform Party Presidential nomination in 2000. He owned several businesses related to his real-estate empire, largely started thanks to his father, and has had extremely mixed success with his endeavors. Most of his wealth in recent years comes from his media exposure, particularly starring in a long-running reality show. Donald Trump has not been a hugely successful businessman, especially considering the huge helping hand he received to get started. He has failed as much as he has succeeded, and America’s obsession with celebrity may have been his sole saving grace as far as financial success goes. As it is, his claimed 10 billion dollar net worth is almost certainly less than that – probably between 25-45% of what he claims, and possibly as low as 10%. Yes, he’s still fabulously wealthy by any measure, but much of that wealth is built on timing, luck, and outside intervention as much as his supposed business acumen.

Whew! There’s a lot of difference here. So, did Hillary Clinton attend Trump’s wedding? Sure. He was an occasional donor to her and Bill, as well as a celebrity. Things like that happen. Famous people attending each other’s events more than a decade before becoming political rivals doesn’t have much bearing on their individual policy prescriptions.

After having contrasted Hillary with Trump, let’s get into something equally important to this talk – what Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have in common. What do they both believe? What would they both push for as Presidents of the United States? Is there enough common ground to justify being willing to vote for either?

  • They both agree on most aspects of immigration policy.
  • They both support a higher minimum wage – though Hillary has suggested $12 to Bernie’s $15 per hour.
  • They both have announced they are against the TPP. Yes, Hillary seems to have changed her position on the topic, but the fact remains that she has criticized it, and has pledged not to support it.
  • They both are in favor of progressive taxation. Bernie has advocated steeper rates on the highest income brackets, but they are both still on basically the same page.
  • Both are pretty much on the same page regarding the culture war issues that are hurting Republicans – gay marriage and gay rights in general, abortion, and so on.
  • Hillary and Bernie are actually closer on multiple financial issues than people realize, including regulation of big banks. Even her donors, which do include major financial institutions, don’t completely tell the whole tale of her voting record. There has been little evidence to date that campaign contributions influenced her votes while she served in the Senate.
  • Both support an equal pay amendment, paid medical leave, and sexual assault prevention programs.
  • Both want to abolish private prisons.

Their similarities certainly outweigh their differences. But it’s the differences that many people claim makes all the difference.

I find myself swamped on message boards and in comments sections. When I mention that I am a Bernie supporter who would not be opposed to voting for Hillary in the general election, the responses tend to be:

“So you want endless war?”

“You support the oligarchy.”

“You have to be a DNC plant.”

“Feel the Bern!”

“You love that evil #$%@#% Shillery/Killery/Hitlery/etc…”

“Why do you support voter suppression?”

“You just want more of the same.”

“We need revolution!”

“Bernie or Bust!”

“Hillary is as bad as Trump!”

…and so on.

I’m not the only one who has noticed this. Even lukewarm acknowledgement that there are reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton often leads to what has been somewhat surprising vitriol. I’ve seen this sort of anger and knee-jerk emotion from supporters of Trump, Cruz, and especially Rand Paul, but it’s taken me aback to see such anger from the left. Obviously, it’s not fair to lump all Bernie supporters in with the extremists on the message boards (and at rallies and meetings), but they certainly are loud. Everything is a conspiracy, every loss is due to cheating, and every endorsement of Clinton is a sign of corruption.

No matter that numerous fact-checking sites have already debunked the notions of widespread electoral fraud. No matter that Bernie himself has benefited from some of the more bizarre rules and quirks of the admittedly flawed primary process. The fact that he is not likely to win the nomination has sent some of his most excitable supporters into a tremendous lather. This doesn’t help their cause, and certainly won’t help change the system.

Fortunately, Bernie’s strong showing may be helping to force change at the Democratic Convention. For the first time in years, the official party platform will actually mean something to general election voters. Bernie may be able to force significant concessions by the Hillary side, and may cause her to pick someone noticeably to her left to act as VP (Bernie is definitely an option there). There has been some talk from Hillary and her camp of exactly that. This is undoubtedly a positive development.

One can go on about “the oligarchy” and how Hillary Clinton doesn’t help change that part. And in some ways, this is true. But if one steps back and looks at the current electoral situation without succumbing to the emotions of the moment (and happens to be on the left side of the American political spectrum), then one might be willing to admit there are other issues that matter, too.

Hillary Clinton is flawed as a candidate, and apparently as a person. She has insisted on personal secrecy in excess of most major political figures. She has had a tumultuous relationship with the press. She is definitely more hawkish in terms of foreign affairs than most liberal Democrats. She has worked as a corporate attorney, and has definitely been friendlier to corporate interests than Bernie (or even President Obama). These are definitely problems, especially for those on the political left. I’m going to repeat a point from earlier in this diatribe: Hillary Clinton will not be a transformative figure when it comes to regulating the financial sector or in terms of scaling back the military industrial complex. But, if she wins the Democratic nomination, the more important question is – does she do more overall good on those issues than Donald Trump? And even more importantly, do those issues override the differences between her and Trump? I believe I have answered these questions in the preceding paragraphs. For those whose eyes may have glazed over 1000 words ago – yes, she is noticeably more intelligent and reasonable (and yes, progressive) on financial regulation and military intervention than Mr. Trump.

It’s not satisfying to compromise. It feels like defeat. However, in a nation with 320 million unique points of view, it’s often the only way to get anything done. Can a single person with some good ideas change enough minds to garner a majority of popular votes? Sure. But that usually takes years – often long after that single person has already moved on from public service. It’s something to strive for. But it’s not something to bet the entire nation on.

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee for president, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for what will essentially amount to President Obama’s third term. I’m not going to vote for Jill Stein, nor will I write in Bernie Sanders. Neither is going to win a plurality of votes in our current system. Is that system in need of change? Of course it is! Should someone like Sanders or Stein be able to be competitive in a presidential race? Of course again! In the meantime, though, that system isn’t going to change this year. And Americans have a lot to lose from electing Donald Trump as president – far more than they have to lose electing Hillary Clinton.

And as always, here are a smattering of better-written works explaining my ravings…

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/democratic-vote-hillary-clinton-election-2016-bernie-sanders?CMP=share_btn_fb

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/06/clinton-sanders-agreement-democratic-debate

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/clinton-trump/480162/

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/4/11593434/bernie-sanders-poll-trump-clinton

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/17/snopes-com-has-been-debunking-clinton-rumors-since-the-clinton-years/

http://www.refinery29.com/2015/05/86510/hillary-clinton-scandals-guide

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/12/11-clinton-doomed-to-more-scandals-and-scandal-mondering-troy

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-bernie-didnt-get-my-vote/

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie-sanders

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/respond-critics-bernie-revolution

http://mindy-fischer-writer.com/2016/05/6-big-reasons-to-vote-for-hillary/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/8/1478776/-Why-Do-People-Hate-Hillary-Clinton-So-Much

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11319720/bernie-or-bust-sanders

http://www.bustle.com/articles/150925-the-bernieorbust-movement-throws-marginalized-people-under-the-bus?utm_source=FBOnsite&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=1

http://2016election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-on-the-issues-2015-9

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/40-70/Hillary-Clinton-vs-Donald-Trump

http://www.thenation.com/article/if-youre-going-to-accuse-a-democratic-campaign-of-election-theft-you-should-offer-some-evidence/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/10/hillary-clinton-versus-bernie-sanders-debunking-some-election-fraud-allegations/

http://m.motherjones.com/media/2016/05/samanta-bee-full-frontal-nevada-sanders-supporters

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/23/john-oliver-blasts-primaries-and-caucuses-our-system-is-broken.html

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/27/no_hillary_clinton_didnt_commit_voter_fraud_in_arizona/

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-voter-suppression-ny/
http://www.snopes.com/votes-switched-sanders-clinton/

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

Posted in Economics, Governance, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The True Meaning of Easter, or Jesus vs the Easter Bunny

Posted on March 27, 2016 by hbreck

On this day 1983 years ago, Jesus died in a climactic battle with the Easter Bunny. Jesus fought hard and well, and prevented many homes in the greater Jerusalem area from being egged.

Not many know the true nature of Jesus’ heroic sacrifice. The true victor of the confrontation, the Easter Bunny was able to successfully alter the historical record, and hide the truth. But I know what really happened.

The bunny was initially a propaganda tool, an agent of the Roman Emperor. Jesus and his teachings were considered dangerous, so an equally absurd countermeasure was needed to quell any potential uprising.

One day, in the spring of 33 AD, the Easter Bunny confronted Jesus just outside of Jerusalem. He was led there on a tip from a priest named Judas. The Bunny was initially put off by the ravings of Judas. He was screaming for vengeance, yelling, “you’ve got another thing comin!”

The Bunny informed Judas that Jesus was breaking the law, and that before the dawn, he would become a victim of changes. This seemed to pacify Judas.

Neither participant wasted any time taking the fight to their opponent.

The Bunny disarmed Jesus early, knocking aside his rod and staff. Jesus wept, but only briefly.

Eyewitnesses later reported the two mythical creatures then collided in the city square, brawling their way into buildings, through walls, and even into throngs of onlookers. So mighty were some of the blows, that Jesus’s face could be seen impacted into several walls for generations to come.

Jesus attempted to pacify the ferocious anthropomorphic rabbit with a quick sermon, but was countered with a barrage of Cadbury cream, covering the celestial scion with sweet, sappy goo. The loathsome lagomorph advanced on the sticky savior in an attempt to finish him off. A carefully constructed crucifix of carrots stood nearby, ready to receive the Bunny’s victim.

As the substance of the cream was still mostly water, Jesus managed to quickly turn it into a nice sweet moscato, and it sluiced off his robes, harmlessly to the ground. The bunny realized his no-longer-quarried foe might escape, and quickened his pace, attempting a powerful hop directly onto the retreating form of the dynamic deity.

Jesus had to think quickly. A scrap of bread lay on the ground nearby. Using his multiplication powers, the scrap quickly became a bakery’s worth of loaves. He hurtled the baked delights at the Bunny as he plummeted toward Mr. Of Nazareth. The bread barrage knocked Bunny off course, where he tumbled gracelessly into a parked chariot.

Jesus beat a hasty retreat as the bunny collected himself. He needed to regroup and plan his counter-offensive. He saw the sea just a few cubits away. Jesus sprinted toward the shore. Rabbits don’t swim, right? At least, not when burdened with eggs and chocolate.

As he neared the water, Jesus could hear the inexorable sound of breathless bunny bounding barely behind him. Jesus ran down the dock, and gracefully dove into the water… where he unceremoniously smacked into the hard surface. He rolled across the top of the water in a jumbled heap of arms and legs.

“Dad-dammit,” he cursed to himself. “I forgot about that.”

He lay on the surface of the water, trying to get his wind back. He could hear the fuzzy spirit of Easter roaring with laughter from the nearby dock.

Before he could start moving, Jesus felt a heavy carrot penetrate his hand. And then another penetrated his other hand. And then one on through each foot. The carrots were fixed to long strands of plastic grass. He could feel the bunny using the strands to pull him back toward shore.

Jesus struggled some as he was brought back onto land, but at that point, the fight was essentially over. Jesus was then to be made a spectacle, not merely discarded like so many worthless Peeps. The rest is, as they say, history.

Now you know what actually happened on that day.

The Bunny was heard by onlookers boasting that he had kicked both cheeks. The rowdy, ruthless rabbit raged raucously. But as a mercenary, his interest was more in payment and less in mocking a vanquished foe. Eventually his energies turned toward his perpetual conflict with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. He’d settle the score with those frauds, one day….

A retroactive disclaimer: This is meant to be a lighthearted and humorous missive, not to be taken as an attack. To anybody out there who takes this holiday seriously, there is no offense intended.

…and if you’re still offended, that’s your problem.

Posted in Humor, Quick post, Satire | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

An Open Letter to (Not All) Men

Posted on March 23, 2016 by hbreck

56973471 I have an idea to pose to all the men out there who are skeptical or dismissive of feminism. This thought is directed to those who have ever used the phrase, “not all men.” It’s to those who look around everyday and see no obvious signs of oppression or pain or suffering by women.

They see women walking down the street, happy as you please. Women are their bosses at work, tellers at the bank, servers at the restaurant. Men see women in most aspects of society, and it all seems to look okay from our perspective. What are all these feminists complaining about? Why do they hate men? Don’t they know not all men catcall or harass or abuse? Don’t they know we aren’t all like that?

Yeah…

Before getting into the flaws in that line of questioning, I’m going to propose a thought experiment. Men, I want you to picture a typical day. But there’s a twist. This will take a few minutes, but please, follow along, if you will…

You wake up in the morning, brush your teeth, take a shower. You take a look at the TV news as you’re getting dressed. Every commercial seems to involve imagery of men dressed in form-fitting or revealing clothes, with the camera lingering on their asses. Or house husbands smiling and discussing how much they love the cleaning products that make the house nice for their wives.

But that’s basically okay, you guess. You see that everyday, and it just kind of fades into the background. Maybe it bothers you some if you dwell on it , but it’s not the worst offense you can imagine.

Meanwhile, you’re walking to the bus stop to get to work. Crap. There’s that construction site. Those ladies in the hardhats won’t shut up. Maybe you’ll cross the street, they won’t see you. Damn. Nevermind. No, you won’t “shake your ass.” Please stop. Argh. You’re a little worried one day they’ll step off the site and try it up close. Ugh.

Whew! On the bus. But wait…

That lady keeps staring at you. Kind of uncomfortable. Eyes are up here, lady. Oh wonderful, now she’s sitting next to you. You don’t want to talk to her. Why is she asking you to smile? Gah. If she were another dude, you’d just tell her to shut up, but she looks a lot stronger than you. She could do damage. Hope you still have that mace in your pocket.

Off the bus, finally. She kept talking, but thankfully she didn’t follow. Just a block away from the office. Dammit, there’s that panhandler again. She always asks women for money and nothing else. But she seems to want something extra with you, and other men.

“Hey baby, why don’t you smile? You’d look so much more handsome if you smile.”

You try to ignore her, quickening your pace. She takes a threatening step forward as you pass. She towers over you, as most women do. You feel very uncomfortable and nervous. You fumble around in your pocket for that mace. Fortunately, she doesn’t take any more steps as you pass. Instead, she gets mad.

“Fuck you, you stuck up little bitch! I didn’t want to touch your nasty little ass anyway!”

God. Everyday. Every damn day.

You feel stressed, and anxious. And your day hasn’t even really started yet. You finally get to your building, and walk inside. You get to your office, sit down at your desk. As you get started with your day, a couple women are standing near your desk, chatting.

“Did you see the bulge on that guy?”
“That one at the bar Saturday?”
“Yeah, that tall one. I woulda fucked him in a heartbeat.”

Their conversation goes on like that for a while. They spend quite a bit of time discussing the physical attributes of that weekend’s attempted conquests. It’s crude, and makes you uncomfortable. You want to say something. But you remember the last guy who complained. He started getting little comments, and notes left on his desk, and then a bad performance review. You didn’t hear all the details, but rumor was he was cornered in the bathroom and threatened. In any event, he was gone just a couple weeks after he complained.

Later that day, at lunch, you’re talking to a buddy. He happened to see a piece of paper forgotten at a printer. He told you he saw the salaries of everybody in the department. You find out Denise at the desk next to you makes $3 more an hour. What the hell? You started there a year before she did. And you know you’re better at the job. She’s always late, and she’s always making excuses for taking days off.

Later, in a meeting, you’re asked a direct question, but when you try to answer, your coworker keeps cutting you off. She’s not even your supervisor, but she keeps talking down to you. Eventually, Denise makes the same suggestion you were trying to make. Your boss compliments her profusely.

Finally, this day is over. You’re clocking out, and wrapping up paperwork at your desk. Denise walks up to your desk, and leans over. “Hey, darlin.’ Bunch of us are going out for drinks later. Wanna come?”

You tell her you’re tired, and you appreciate the offer, but maybe another day.

“Aw, c’mon. Don’t be like that. You know you want to.”

Again, you reiterate you’re tired, and just want to go home.

“What’s the matter? You got a girlfriend or something?”

Nope. You just don’t want to go out.

Denise keeps asking, as you get your jacket on, and start walking toward the door. For a moment, it looks like she’s trying to block the door. She’s got at least 6 inches and 50 pounds on you. You’re getting nervous again. Denise looks down at you and leers.

“You know we’d have some fun together. I’m just saying.”

You try to be polite, but you’re getting upset. You finally work your way around her and out the door.

Then there is that panhandler yet again. And a creep on the bus. And the obnoxious neighbor who keeps inviting you over “for drinks.”

And then, tomorrow, you have to wake up and do it all over again. Let’s not even mention if you want to go out on the town on the weekend. Let’s not talk about going into a bank, and applying for a loan. Let’s not talk about buying a car, or taking one to a mechanic. Let’s pretend those aren’t also ordeals more often than not. We can just focus on the day-to-day minutiae of your life. Media, employers, people on the street. Every day, there are constant reminders that you are smaller, less physically imposing, less aggressive, possess less wealth, make less money, possess far less political power. Everyday is a reminder that your sexuality is both despised, and sought after. You are a commodity to the other gender, at least according to commercial interest.

Men, put yourself in this position. Imagine a world where you are always aware that half the population can and just might hurt, abuse, torment, and rape you. Imagine a world where you have almost the same legal rights as the other sex, but you’re always a little (sometimes a lot) underrepresented, underpaid, and seemingly underappreciated.

When you bring these inequities up, people will tell you its not like this is Riyadh. You can drive, vote, live on your own, and you have little official oppression from law and government. People will argue, negate, and dismiss many complaints you might have. Because life in America is better than life in some other places, you are told that you don’t have any cause to be upset. You are told to quit complaining, and go take what is yours. Then you set out to do just that, and you are called a bitch. You’re suddenly demanding or entitled.

Meanwhile, you are still more likely to be injured or even killed by a significant other. You are more likely to be sexually assaulted. There is plenty of disagreement as to the exact number, but most scholarly research indicates you are making at least 15, and possibly up to 25% less than the other sex, doing the same jobs. Sexual imagery in media and advertising is far and away more likely to be catering to the other sex.

Men, think about that. Think about how you would feel living that life. And if that’s too abstract for you, think about people you know. It’s always bothered me when feminist arguments are made to men describing women primarily in relation to men. Doing so treats women merely as extensions of men, which is of course, unfair. However…

Sometimes, I think that’s the best way to get the message through to certain men. So, with that thought in mind, if it truly is too difficult to place yourself in a woman’s shoes – think of everything I described. And think of the women in your lives. Do you enjoy the idea of your mother or sister or friend dealing with that on a daily basis? How would you feel if your mom was catcalled everyday on the street? Well, guess what? It probably has happened to her at some point. It might be happening now.

So, why the long-winded, ham-handed scenario described above? Why reverse roles and create an alternate universe for the purpose of explaining empathy?

Because the men I’m addressing are missing the whole point. Sometimes Captain Obvious needs to pay a visit.

When a man says, “not all men,” they are actually saying, “not me.” And if that’s true, great. I’m glad to know you possess a basic level of common decency. Kudos to you for not completely sucking.

However, that reaction is a defensive one. And it’s completely wrong for this situation. Unless a woman is confronting you directly, discussions of gender inequality aren’t personal. It’s not about you. Don’t do what so many men do to women, and shift the conversation to yourself. And if you’re feeling defensive about men in general, I have to ask – why?

If you read this far, hopefully you have at least considered the point of view of a woman. And if you have, then you might be starting to get an idea how our modern society treats the average woman. And you probably are thinking that you wouldn’t like to deal with that yourself.

Still with me so far?

Yeah?

Good. Don’t worry, this isn’t hard.

We’ve now established that men generally have things easier than women. Especially in the day-to-day minutiae of our lives. The scenario I described above almost never happens to men.

But, that scenario, or some variation thereof, does happen to most women.

Every sloppily scripted paragraph above describes events I personally heard described, and witnessed myself. None of those events mentioned are necessarily the worst possible crimes. But, dealing with them over and over, day in, day out… being constantly reminded that men still run the world… it’s got to be draining. And infuriating.

So I ask the men I’m addressing, can you give me any sort of argument against bringing about real equal opportunity, access, and safety for women? Is the concept of helping women realize equal status with men such a fearful one?

There are some men who truly fear equality. People in a position of privilege, especially straight white cis males, often seem to view equality with submission. To those with privilege and power, giving it up, or relinquishing it to a level of parity, is frightening.

I completely understand that. But this is 2016. The vast majority of people in this part of the world intellectually understand there is no fundamental reason why differences of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or anything else should hold anyone back.

Back to the men – all I really ask, is before you rail against feminism, before you react defensively at discussions of inequality – exercise a little empathy. Put yourself in her shoes. Don’t argue, don’t lecture, don’t deny. And please, don’t take it personally. Just listen. Listen, and then think about how you would feel in their situation.

That’s the first step.

After that, it’s up to you. Write articles, talk to people, confront misogyny when you see it. And don’t make assumptions. That will get you in trouble every time.

Humanity has a lot of potential. Sometimes we act like we might be learning a little bit. Progress has been made, in some pockets of the world, toward improving happiness and quality of life. Another solid step up the ladder of progress would be for men to acknowledge the humanity of women. Yes, all men. And all women.

Posted in Media, Rant, Social Justice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Impeach the Senate Judiciary Committee

Posted on March 17, 2016 by hbreck

Senate_in_session

Okay, please bear with me here, as this one will probably sound pretty angry. And forgive the title, as I’m aware that what I’m going to say is likely not sufficient to actually call for impeachment. But this is an important discussion, and one that means a lot to me. So here we go…

Yesterday, President Obama officially nominated a replacement for Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Merrick Garland, chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, was not one of the higher profile choices being considered by pundits in the media. Garland, 63, has had a long and distinguished career, working as an assistant US attorney, having overseen the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as other prominent cases. Garland is older than many would have preferred, and is considered fairly moderate as “liberal” judges go. He has enjoyed broad bipartisan support throughout his career, and just this week, conservative Republican Senator Orrin Hatch spoke out in support of him.
His selection is a sign of a very conciliatory and “bipartisan” effort by President Obama to offer as palatable a suggestion as possible to Senate Republicans, while still maintaining the basic principles of a Democratic administration. There should be no reason why his nomination would be considered controversial to Republicans.

Here’s the thing, though…

Within hours of Justice Scalia’s death, almost every Republican with national name recognition immediately made public statements arguing that any replacement should wait then-11 months until a new President is sworn in January 2017. The official justification was that “the American people should have a say in the process,” and “this is a highly polarizing political time.” A few people also made the strange assertion that it’s “traditional” to not make appointments in the final year of a presidential term.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated, “The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Yeah. Hoo boy, where do I begin?

Well, let’s start with the arguments themselves.

The Republicans, lead by McConnell, claim that the American people deserve a say in the process. We should wait for a new President to be elected, so that whoever is elected would have a popular mandate for whatever nominee they choose.

Guess what, Mitch? Americans do have a say. They happened to vote President Obama in for a second consecutive four year term in November 2012, to serve from January 2013 to January 2017. Scalia died in February. That gives the president 11 months – almost a full year – to nominate a candidate for Justice of the Supreme Court. Americans didn’t vote President Obama in to serve for 3 years and a month, then take the rest of the term off. By that logic, McConnell and company should also take the rest of the year off. Then again, judging by their performance for the past seven years, who would notice if they did stop working?

Attempting to justify the first point further, several prominent Republicans have claimed that the rather unorthodox presidential primary season this year has created a “highly polarized climate,” which is reason enough to wait.

This is just grasping at straws. The intensity of presidential elections varies, and this has indeed been a strange one so far, but that has nothing to do with actual governance. Again, the President is still the President for the rest of the year. The country still needs to function. The Supreme Court now has 8 members, making a tie decision not only possible, but likely, given the 50-50 conservative versus liberal makeup of the remaining Court. This would create some issues, possibly forcing a decision back to a lower court. That’s no way to run the Judicial branch. Vacancies longer than a couple months have been rare, and are generally problematic. Of course, the Republicans, especially in the last couple decades, have had no problem avoiding their jobs of governing. Indeed, the modern Republican philosophy has been that government is always flawed, corrupt, and inefficent. Then they intentionally govern as poorly as possible in attempt to force their theory into fact.

Finally, McConnell and his cronies have made it abundantly clear that the so called “Thurmond Rule” dictates they avoid nominations and appointments in the final year of a presidential administration.

What is the Thurmond Rule? In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson nominated Abe Fortas to fill the vacant Chief Justice position on the Supreme Court. Fortas was already a Justice on the Court, a committed liberal, a friend of LBJ, and Jewish. The acknowledged racist and obstructionist Senator Strom Thurmond led the charge to vigorously oppose this appointment, citing an alleged (and overblown) scandal over speaking fees to prevent Fortas from becoming Chief Justice during that contentious election year. The tactic worked, and Fortas was not named Chief. Thurmond also claimed the election year precedent, ignoring the election year SCOTUS confirmations from 1912, 1916, 1932, and 1940.

Meanwhile, in 2016, Senate Republicans have invoked the efforts of a well-known bigot and national embarrassment to keep the President from fullfilling his Constitutional duty.

Now let’s get to the real reason for this obstruction.

It’s fear. Fear that a new Supreme Court judge will tip the balance of the Supreme Court – long run by a Republican majority – to the Democratic side. An Obama appointee will push the court over to a 5-4 liberal vs conservative edge. Considering these are lifetime appointments, the right nominee could allow a liberal SCOTUS for decades. Roe v Wade would be safe. Citizens United and Heller could both be overturned, correcting some of the worst mistakes made by the Court in years. The Republicans are scared out of their limited wits by this thought. Better to hope that the next President is a Republican than to let a Democratic President make the call. This obstruction is political cowardice and corruption at its most blatant. The Republicans have lost two Presidential elections in a row, and President Obama has already made two Supreme Court appointments. So far, the two (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) have replaced other more liberal justices, maintaining the longstanding 5-4 conservative lean. This now stands to change, and the GOP will do anything they can to prevent this.

President Obama understands these tactics. He intentionally selected a moderate in Merrick Garland, to appease the Republican naysayers. Mr. Garland is well-respected, highly qualified, and known for collegiality and thoughtfulness. Denying a hearing only makes the GOP appear unreasonable.

For the moment, the Republican members of the Sente Judiciary Committee have held firm, with one notable exception. Jeff Flake of Arizona has indicated a willingness to at least meet with Garland.

The remaining Republican members of the committee have steadfastly refused to even consider holding the Constitutionally-mandated hearing over Mr. Garland’s qualifications. This is a list to remember. These Senators are shirking their duties and refusing to follow Constitutional processes in order to prevent future political losses. They are:

Chuck Grassley, Iowa
Orrin Hatch, Utah
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John Cornyn, Texas
Mike Lee, Utah
Ted Cruz, Texas
David Perdue, Georgia
Thom Tillis, North Carolina
David Vitter, Louisiana

These 10 men have openly and proudly proclaimed their refusal to do their jobs, and hold a hearing to consider an immensely qualified and respected nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. They are not obligated to vote for him, merely to ensure that he is properly vetted and that a vote is held. Nothing controversial can be found in Mr. Garland’s record. In fact, several Senators have admitted that his qualifications are not in question. They simply provide the same ridiculous excuses.

Political fear. Cowardice. Obstruction. Dereliction of duty.

This likely does not fit the official definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” required to result in impeachment. But perhaps it should. Refusal to perform one’s job without sufficient reason will result in termination in almost every other position in both the private and public sectors. Just not for wealthy and powerful elected officials. An elected official still can be expelled by their peers in certain circumstances, even without impeachment, though this is unlikely, considering Republicans currently control both houses of Congress.

Nonetheless, justice has not been served for our Justices. The very top limb of the Judicial Branch is currently incomplete, with several high-profile cases on the docket over the next few months. The President was elected by the American people to do his duties for full four year terms. And Mitch McConnell, along with the Republican Senate Judiciary Committee have ducked their jobs, hiding behind political spinelessness to score political points with the most extreme aspects of their base, and to stick it to the President at least one more time. The Republican party has once again shown itself not as a responsible part of the American public trust, but as a gaggle of incredibly corrupt and complacent opportunists, preying on the fears of Americans, and stoking anti-government sentiment as a method of improving their own wealth and power.

Senators, you do not deserve your position, title, power, or prestige. You are not worthy of being considered public servants. You all should be ashamed, and unemployed. With any luck, the latter will one day be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/17/republicans-block-supreme-court-nominations-history-backfires
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/13/can-republicans-really-block-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-for-a-year-probably/

Posted in Governance, Politics, Rant | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Help, Help, I’m Being Repressed!!!

Posted on March 15, 2016 by hbreck

Donald Trump is letting the world know that his right to free speech is being violated! He’s being trampled by the jackboots of the protesters that have been greeting him at each rally he’s held! Donald Trump is being oppressed, repressed, and suppressed! And by God and America, he’s not gonna take it anymore!

On March 11, protests in Chicago caused the businessman and presidential candidate to cancel his rally that day. Donald Trump, as well as multiple pundits on the right, have all declared anti-Trump protests and rallies as violations of the 1st Amendment due to threat of violence and coercion.

If violence were indeed being perpetrated by protesters, or if the Trump rallies themselves were being unfairly disrupted, he might have a point. And protesters have indeed made their way into Trump rallies. Some have been disruptive, and were subsequently removed. And then, some stood or sat silently, letting their presence or attire do the speaking – and they were usually removed as well.

Wait…

Yep, just like when Rose Hamid suffered abusive screaming and eventual removal from a Trump rally in South Carolina. What did she do? She stood in silence, with a t-shirt proclaiming, “Salam, I come in peace.”

Trump’s campaign manager assaulted a Breitbart reporter after a very polite and diplomatic question.

In Georgia, 30 people were removed from a rally – all black, all peaceful.

Outside of the rallies, protests have been largely peaceful, though clashes broke out in St. Louis on the 11th, and police in Kansas City pepper sprayed a (mostly) peaceful crowd outside of a Trump rally on the 12th.

Thus far, almost all of the violence has been committed by Trump supporters within the rallies themselves. To hear Trump speak of it though, you’d think the opposition to him was creating an atmosphere of intimidation and danger.

”I think this not a good group — really spiteful of First Amendment rights. If we ever did that to them it would be a national disgrace, a national story the likes of which you have never seen.”

Donald, I do not think “First Amendment Rights” means what you think it means.

So far, a few of his rallies have been delayed, and one cancelled, due to loud protesters within the arena itself. Many protesters were quiet and respectful. Many of both stripes have been met with aggression, verbal abuse, and sometimes violence.

Trump wants it both ways.

He claims to take the high road. He states he doesn’t condone violence. He claims he’s being bullied by those who oppose his candidacy.

However…

Donald offered to cover the legal fees of a supporter who sucker-punched a protester, and who had also professed a willingness to kill for his cause. This is a perfect example of inciting violence. Threatening or encouraging violence to those who disagree is most certainly a method of suppressing free speech and assembly. Trump stated of the man, “He obviously loves his country.”

Sucker-punching as patriotism. Does cowardly violence and a lack of self control indicate a love of one’s land?

“See, in the good old days this doesn’t happen, because they used to treat them very, very rough. And when they protested once, you know, they would not do it again so easily…. They get away with murder because we’ve become weak.”

“I love the old days — you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”

“You see, in the good old days, law enforcement acted a lot quicker than this, a lot quicker. In the good old days, they’d rip him out of that seat so fast. But today, everybody’s politically correct. Our country’s going to hell with being politically correct.”

Donald claims to be the one who is the victim of suppression and intimidation. Yet his own words belie those fears. After a November rally in Alabama in which a protester was physically beaten, Trump spoke out in support of the mob. “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”

So, are people exercising their right to free speech and free assembly suppressing Donald Trump? Or, could it be that his exhortations to his supporters to commit violence are the real coercion?

So far, Trump has managed to successfully hold all but one rally on his campaign tour. He has spoken in front of crowds that rival Bernie Sanders’. He has dominated televised news coverage, and had more speaking time during debates than any other Republican candidate. Trump’s celebrity has allowed a massive head start in name recognition over all of his opponents, possibly save for Hillary Clinton.

Now, it’s fair to say that disruption of an actual rally from inside – through violence or intimidation – is indeed a problem, and not fair to someone attempting to make a speech. At this point though, Trump has enjoyed a remarkable advantage in terms of media coverage over every other major candidate, including the Democrats. More airtime and column inches have been devoted to the loudmouth reality star than to career politicians, narcoleptic surgeons and failed CEOs.

His truculent and defensive language has been contradictory. He encourages his supporters to commit acts of violence in his name, and to pledge loyalty to him with bizarre and scary salutes during rallies. Then he claims people disagreeing with him are preventing him from speaking his mind and exercising his constitutional rights. Of course, he makes these statements during rallies, unimpeded.

His followers are listening, too. Slate.com had compiled a running list of violence against protesters throughout this primary season.

He also has accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of organizing the anti-Trump protesters, and actually threatened to send counter-protesters of his own to Sanders rallies. Bernie had a biting response.

Electoral politics can be rough. No question. But it’s been a long time since an actual major-party Presidential candidate has openly threatened citizens and opponents. Claims that he is being oppressed come across as almost funny, were it not for the stakes.

When one claims to be oppressed, then vows to combat that through returned oppression, you don’t have real discourse or even simply a rough campaign. You have war and chaos. It’s fascinating to political experts, and will probably be a treat for future historians, but for now, we have to live in this mess.

There’s a disconnect I see from many people who express political opinions, then face disagreement, especially online. They see free speech as their right to say anything they want, with no consequences. Problem is, that’s not free speech. Freedom of speech simply guarantees that the government can’t prevent or prosecute speech (that doesn’t lead to harm for others). That’s it. That freedom means that any response that doesn’t suppress the rights of others is allowed, too. Trump can say hurtful and dangerous things, but people can assemble peacefully and tell him he’s wrong. And if he threatens those who would exercise their rights, then he’s the one guilty of oppression.

Trump has spent his entire campaign making bold proclamations without substantive detail or support, inventing facts and statistics, and demonstrating a lack of interest in truth, accuracy, or even sanity.

And it’s working great so far. Maybe he’ll hit a roadbump when he finally faces off against a Democrat this fall. And maybe his counterintuitive campaign will finally collapse. Until then, he’s not going to stop claiming one thing while doing exactly the opposite. And at least in the primaries, the voters won’t care.

As always, the reading list:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/12/3759418/no-one-is-violating-trump-free-speech/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-trump-chicago-rally-20160312-column.html

http://fair.org/home/standing-up-for-free-speech-is-not-a-threat-to-free-speech/

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/who-public-blame-violence-trump-rallies

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/13/470294270/trump-on-rally-violence-dont-accept-responsibility-might-pay-legal-bills

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-27-percent-militant

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/bernie-sanders-rips-into-donald-trump-everybody-knows-this-man-cannot-stop-lying/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/13/1500611/-Bernie-Sanders-responds-to-Donald-Trump-s-threat

http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#1tCB1YEaMiqR

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/a_list_of_violent_incidents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html

 

Posted in Civil Rights, Governance, Media, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Fumbling the Football

Posted on March 7, 2016 by hbreck

TrinityColorLargeRestoredOn July 16, 1945, Kenneth Bainbridge, a physicist on the Manhattan project and director of the Trinity nuclear test, witnessed the first atomic weapon ever built turn several square miles of New Mexico into glass. As the explosion gradually faded, he commented to Robert Oppenheimer, “Now we are all sons of bitches.”

And he was right. The specter of nuclear war haunted the world for the next 50 years, hair triggers and diplomacy the only barriers between humanity and annihilation.

Dozens of accidents, mistakes, and near-misses marred the complex command and control organizations of both 20th century superpowers. Looking back on the disasters that occurred, and the catastrophes barely ducked, it’s a wonder human society survived the Cold War.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, much of the world breathed a sigh of relief. No longer were 70,000 nuclear weapons armed and pointed at some populated point on the globe.

Well actually, they still are, though the total numbers of these horrific devices have thankfully dropped by some 85 percent since the global peak in 1986. There are still enough armed nuclear weapons distributed among a handful of countries to pretty much wipe out the human population of the earth. The official American policy of being constantly prepared to vaporize the Soviet Union may be defunct, but we still have quite a few multi-megaton devices ready to go at a moment’s notice.

Now it’s 2016. Three men remain with a serious shot at securing the Republican nomination for President. Should any of them successfully reach the White House, they would be in charge of around 4500 nuclear warheads (though figures as high as 7600 have been quoted), which is nearly half of the total global arsenal.

Think about that for a moment. The President of the United States has the power and authority to obliterate every global urban area of half a million people or more 4 times over. There is no other person on the planet with the capacity for ending so many lives all at once.

So, one would think that among the qualifications of Leader of the Free World, a candidate should possess a steady temperament, extensive knowledge of nuclear weapons tactics and foreign policy, and a knack for diplomacy. Those traits would seem to be very obvious prerequisites for commanding the most powerful military on earth, as well as controlling the triggers of the most powerful weapons in human history.

Having gotten that preamble out of the way, the three serious candidates remaining on the Republican side have all demonstrated that they lack one or more of those prerequisites for running half the world’s nukes.

Current frontrunner Donald Trump was asked during a debate what he would do to maintain America’s nuclear arsenal, specifically referring to the “nuclear triad” of air, sea, and land based nuclear weapons operated for the sake of redundant deterrence. Trump responded with a stuttering stump speech about the need for a trustworthy leader, an exaggerated claim of his initial opposition to the Iraq War, and then a general statement about the power of nuclear weapons. So, questioner Hugh Hewitt reiterated his initial query on the triad. And Trump fumbled again. “I think – I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.”

Yep, that’s right. The leading candidate for the job of American President had no idea what the nuclear triad is, nor did he have any apparent knowledge of the command and control of the US nuclear arsenal. This is completely unacceptable, and downright frightening.

Meanwhile, in the same debate, Marco Rubio demonstrated that he does know what the nuclear triad is, and his basic command of nuclear weapons policy is at least a level above Trump.

However, he has given in to fearmongering rhetoric that should give any of his supporters pause. He has repeatedly uttered misleading claims that the United States is the only nuclear power not in the process of “modernizing” its weapons. He has falsely stated that military spending as a whole is being “eviscerated,” and he forgets that the United States currently spends more on the military than the next 7 highest spenders combined.

But most disturbing was his lack of care and nuance in answering a question about mutually assured destruction. Instead of acknowledging the dangers of a MAD policy, and carefully considering statements by frothing leftists like Colin Powell and Ronald Reagan (that nuclear weapons can never be used by any power), he simply stated that MAD is an appropriate deterrence in preventing nuclear war.

Finally, we come to Ted Cruz. In many ways, Senator Cruz has been fairly reasonable in discussing the folly of nation building, and the dangers of inserting the US military into “trouble spots” around the globe. However, he has also repeatedly stated his willingness to “carpet bomb” ISIS targets, and has made the same rather scary joke about “sand glowing in the dark.” This has been seen as an oblique reference to using nuclear weapons on Middle Eastern targets, a point that he has not categorically denied. Indeed, even if we don’t bring nukes into the conversation, Cruz advocates a policy that would almost certainly result in tens of thousands, and likely hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Three candidates, all with glaring weaknesses in their proposed nuclear weapons policy.

Just for a moment, forget that Trump has a long history of changing his positions, lying about the trade deficits, of tax rates, the economy, and healthcare. Forget his pandering to racists and nativists. Forget his misogynistic statements. Ignore his pledge to use torture on terror suspects, and his pledge to murder the families of terror suspects.

Forget that Cruz has pledged to commit war crimes, to withdraw from carefully negotiated treaties, and that his tax plan would all but guarantee a long economic recession and a huge spike in the national debt. Forget his denial of global warming, and his passionate rejection of the separation of church and state.

Also please disregard Marco Rubio’s shakiness under pressure, his surface-level command of the issues, his insistence on climate change inaction, and his absolutism on topics like abortion and firearm ownership.

All of these blatant disqualifying points – just throw ‘em out, for the sake of this discussion. All three men are still wholly unelectable due to their positions on and ignorance of, nuclear weapons.

If the American people elect one of these three people to the office of the President, we would all be sons of bitches.

Posted in Governance, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Sizing up the competition

Posted on March 4, 2016 by hbreck

510x287-AP_846250441282

Yep. This is what we’ve come to.

The frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination made dick jokes during a nationally televised debate. When Senator Rubio sunk to “The Donald’s” childish level by making jokes about his hands, Trump couldn’t help but respond in the least adult manner possible.

And he’s the leader in this race. Seriously, think about that for a moment.

I have a longer post in the works discussing the myriad reasons why Donald Trump is unelectable. But for now, let me just say this goes way beyond penis insecurity.

But wait, there’s more! How about honesty?

Politifact rated 82 out of 105 of Trump’s public statements (a whopping 78 percent), to be false, or mostly false, with another 14% as “half true.” A perusal of factcheck.org comes up with similar results. This is a man who is truly honest in his public speeches just 8% of the time.

8 percent! Even taking into account the selective nature of fact checking, that’s still a woeful percentage for a statistically significant number of public statements.

And yet…

There’s an increasingly likely chance he could become President, or at least be a finalist. More than 3 million Americans in 15 states so far have cast ballots for him, and he’s projected to win a great majority of the next contests, totalling several million more.

Is this a reflection of the quality of the candidates, or of the American people themselves? Remember, 17 candidates started out running for the Republican nomination. And the guy who lies more than 3/4 of the time and brags about the size of his dick during a debate is the best of those 17?

There’s been so much analysis of a longing for outsiders, and a distaste for “the establishment.” Career politicians are passe. That’s definitely worth considering and understanding. And there’s plenty to write about and discuss there. But even with this new thirst for outsiders, Donald Trump is who Republican primary voters want? Racism, misogyny, nativism, dishonesty, and now… dick jokes?

If he’s still leading in the polls over the next few days, I’ll have to conclude that a plurality of Republican primary voters simply don’t care what kind of person their Commander in Chief is, as long as that person reflects and articulates their frustration and anger.

Posted in Politics, Quick post, Rant | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Day I Became A Feminist

Posted on February 4, 2016 by hbreck

A good friend of mine posted on Facebook today, describing a time from years before, when she realized that she was a feminist. And she asked her Facebook friends to recount their stories.

I started on mine, but as I typed, I realized that I’m too long-winded for my own good, and that I would hog the the thread with my multiple paragraphs. And even though I was telling a personal story, I didn’t want to find myself mansplaining, which would be pretty much the most counterproductive and insulting way to talk about feminism.

So I decided to post my story here instead.

So, to my friend Linda, this is the moment when I decided that I was a feminist.

For me, it wasn’t related to a direct observation of sexist behavior, or a moment of abuse or anything like that. In some ways, it was quite mundane.

My first realization that the word “feminist” described me came as sort of an epiphany.

It was a bumpersticker of all things.

I was 20 at the time, and walking through a parking garage. I was working as a security guard in a large, multi-block shopping district. Walking through parking garages was sadly a major part of my days.

I passed one of those cars that seems to be mostly held together by stickers. On this car, the stickers were mostly left-wing, pro-choice, and anti-religion. Pretty common in midtown KC. One in particular caught my eye for some reason. It said (paraphrasing, as it’s been 13 plus years) “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people, too.”

I stared at it for a moment. Huh. That’s obvious. So obvious, and yet, I never thought of it that way. I always knew basically what feminism was, and I was generically in favor of it, but I never really thought about what feminism meant. If you asked me, “should women and men have equal opportunity,” I’d say, “Yes, of course. Duh.”

But that would be it. I knew all the textbook stuff, fights for suffrage, some of the mainstream names, rough definitions of the “waves” of feminist movements. But it was all pretty abstract. I came from a position of privilege. I didn’t have to deal with the kind of inequities and aggressions that women see and confront daily. It just didn’t occur to me.

I probably stared at that sticker for 5 minutes. Lost in reverie, just thinking about it. “Women are people, too.” Yes, that made more sense than even the obvious aspect.

Historically, women had not always been treated as people by men. They were today, though. Right? Maybe? Hmmm… Well, maybe not, the more I thought about it.

Feminism, I suddenly realized, was about equality. But not just equal opportunity in the workplace or politics. What’s also important is the equal ability to exist in the same world as men without feeling oppressed. Sure, women can vote or run for office. But can they walk down a street alone without feeling danger? Can they answer the door without wondering if the delivery guy might be an invader? Can they interview for a job without receiving extra scrutiny, or being concerned about potential underpayment?

How often did I get whistled at, or heckled by leering strangers? How often was I personally concerned that the guy crossing the street was coming to harass me? Pretty much never.

Equality is more than just a set of laws. It’s more complicated than that. It’s social interactions, and societal constructs. It’s cultural. When I watch a tv show or a movie, odds are good that it’s primarily written and produced by men. It’s usually told from a male perspective. Even when women are featured, it’s still usually presented through male eyes. Same with advertising. Why is every big-name female musician physically attractive, when that should be irrelevant to their music? But you can’t say the same for the men. No offense, Steven Tyler.

And so on. All the little things, the differences in how the world treats women and men came to mind. Even with theoretical equality, actual, living breathing, real-world equality wasn’t even close. Not even in 21st century America. And it came to my mind how unfair that was.

All that flashed through my mind as I stared at a beat-up car covered in bumperstickers. Eventually the owner of the car came up, and asked me if she could help me. I started a bit, stammered, apologized, and tried to explain that I was reading her bumper. She gave me the side-eye as she got in the car and drove off.

Even that suddenly struck me as part of the problem. She very well may have felt threatened by my presence, a large, strange man hanging around her car.

Of course, she may have just thought I was lost. Heh.

Since then, my thoughts have evolved some. I’ve read a lot more on feminism, on cultural issues, on psychology. I think now, even more than before, that feminism is important. In fact, it’s essential to a decent world.

There’s quite a bit more to write about regarding feminism, and I have a few posts in the works. But this little origin story seems like a good start.

Posted in Civil Rights, Quick post, Social Justice | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Few Political Thoughts, or how I learned to stop worrying and love Iowa’s outsized influence on American politics.

Posted on February 1, 2016 by hbreck

Dr._Strangelove_-_Riding_the_Bomb

Listening to NPR on my drive to work this morning, there was substantial discussion of today’s Iowa presidential caucuses. Short interviews were given to a few candidates, and I had a few thoughts and observations to make:

* I like Martin O’Malley. In almost any other election year, he’d be a serious contender. On paper, he’s an ideal Democratic candidate. He’s relatively young, but not too young. He’s generally liberal, a bit moreso than Hillary Clinton, but less than Bernie Sanders. He definitely has pragmatic inclinations. He has a long resume, and a proven track record of successfully implementing liberal reforms during eight years as the mayor of Baltimore, and eight more as governor of Maryland.

However, he’s dry, and not terribly charismatic. He’s got a good command of policy, but tends to expound at length – which is not great for attracting voters, sadly. And his record in Baltimore is a bit shaky. This was brought to light in a big way with the unrest after the Freddie Gray murder last year. Like a lot of Democrats in the 90’s, O’Malley embraced the “git tuff” criminal justice policies pushed hard by Republicans in the 70’s and 80’s, as it was an electoral winner, and a way to prevent the “soft on crime” attacks that tanked Michael Dukakis. Of course, the consequences of these policies is now becoming apparent (and in many communities, has been apparent for decades). And O’Malley has rightfully taken some criticism for this. But, from a political standpoint, if Freddie Gray hadn’t been murdered by police last year, the upheaval in Baltimore would have been delayed, and O’Malley would likely be doing a bit better.

Not much better, though. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders seem to be completely dominating all media attention for the Democratic primary. To be fair, some of this is also due to the glut of Republican candidates, many of whom have outsized personalities and speak in simpler and often more apocalyptic langauge. They tend to be better media hogs than a relatively subdued policy wonk who’s in last place in his own race.

Martin O’Malley is a great example of a victim of bad timing.

* Rand Paul was interviewed during my commute. In his brief talk, he demonstrated again how frustrating he can be. He was asked about his similarities to Bernie Sanders. He responded thoughfully, with nuanced comments about their mutual interest in reducing corporate influence on American politics, a “more measured” foreign policy, and the increasing power of the surveillance state. Then he went on a rant about Bernie Sanders supporting a command economy, and he drew parallels to human-rights abuses in the former Soviet Union.

Really, Rand? Have you listened to a single minute of a single speech by Sanders?

Part of the current GOP strategy is to paint any and all center-left reform suggestions, such as slightly higher taxes on the top marginal rates, increased environmental, consumer protection, and banking oversight – as not just a slippery slope, but literally the exact same thing as Josef Stalin. This kind of misinformation is simply an attempt to scare voters already susceptible to the type of simplistic mud-flinging championed by Fox News. And it works! Reading blogs and social media comments, I can see countless voters who listen to Bernie Sanders specifically discussing the importance of markets and private enterprise, and protecting small businesses from being overrun by the manipulations of large corporations – and the first thought is “communism!”

It’s tough to reason with that kind of belief.

* Ben Carson was also interviewed. He contrasted himself with the other candidates as being calmer and more thoughtful. He decried the crass bombast that permeates the electoral process. And then, on a foreign policy question, he outlined his proposal for implementing continuous war games in states neighboring Russia, sales of arms to Ukraine, and a military build up in Eastern Europe.

Ben is definitely calm and thoughtful. He wants to thoughtfully restart the Cold War.

* Ted Cruz.

Really, that’s all I can write without feeling slightly ill, but he does have a shot at winning Iowa, so I suppose I should mention him without my usual “punchable face” commentary.

Ahem.

Ted Cruz found some controversy (shocker!) in the last week for mailers sent out that essentially attempt to defraud voters. The official-looking letters inform the reader that they are guilty of a “voting violation” for failing to caucus in past elections. Tactics like this aren’t particularly uncommon, but he’s the first big name this election to get attention for it. Telling voters they’re in some sort of trouble is an old tactic, and rarely is treated as the crime it is.

Ted Cruz has been guilty of a litany of lies, errors, misstatements, mean-spirited remarks, stupidity, dubious policy proposals, dangerous policy proposals, and declarations that he wants to commit war crimes. So why not throw in a little voter fraud?

Oh yeah, and he really needs to stop doing impressions. Neither the Simpsons nor the Princess Bride work for him to quote, anyway. Perhaps something by Michael Bay, or the Left Behind movie would be more up Ted’s alley.

* Bernie v. Hillary

This is shaping up to be a very close contest. Bernie is still significantly behind Hillary nationally, despite recurring surges, and a loss in Iowa will not help his chances. Winning the first two states (he will most likely take New Hampshire) aren’t a guarantee for his eventual victory, but it will make his path to the nomination much more likely than before. Perceived momentum is everything in presidential primaries, especially in the first half dozen or so states. That’s why surprise second and third place finishes sometimes leads to big gains in the polls. “Senator so-and-so was expected to finish 7th, but came in third! They beat expectations!” In this case, Sanders can only really gain momentum by winning, especially in a three person race.

* Everyone else

Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich are all jockeying to be perceived as the GOP’s best “mainstream” candidate. All that really means is that they have held elected office, and sometimes they indicate a willingness to compromise – although that is pretty uncommon for even mainstream Republicans.

Kasich is probably the least corrupt, and definitely the most reasonable of the four, so naturally he’s polling significantly behind them.

Carly Fiorina had a nice little surge a couple months ago, highlighted by debate performances in which she sounded competent – although highly dishonest. Since then, her numbers have tanked, which might be a sign of oversaturation. Even with this year’s anti-establishment theme, there seems to be room for only so many “outsiders.”

Huckabee and Santorum are campaigning on nostalgia. They each won the Iowa caucus in 2008 and 2012 respectively, and both are likely hoping they can recapture at least a little of the magic that gave them their early surges way back then.

They can’t. Sorry, gentlemen. Looks like the theocracy candidate will have to be Cruz.

* Miscellany

This election has been interesting so far. In the first six or so months from when most campaigns really got going (and sometimes crashed and burned) to this first chance for actual voting, there has been drama, humor, and pathos.

But mostly just humor.

In a Monty Python, “Upper Class Twit of the Year” sense.

Upwards of 17 Republicans and 5 (kinda 6) Democrats have told the nation that they want to be President. With a few exceptions, what we’ve seen has been 22 wealthy (by most American’s standards) people arguing with as little depth as possible. The soundbite era of politics is actually pretty old. Candidates have sounded ill-informed and childish since the beginning of this country. But the advent of television, and now the internet, has made it easier to get information, but harder to get it from the candidates themselves.

Every Republican gets a few minutes to tell America why Barack Obama has been the lovechild of Inspector Clouseau and Pol Pot – alternatively a bumbling idiot, or a scheming tyrant – or both!

Most Democrats have been a little more willing to get into details regarding issues – but are still running uneasily in the shadow of the president – who remains highly polarizing, though reasonably popular. The official outsider candidate for the Democrats – Bernie Sanders – has energized crowds, garnered huge support online (especially among voters under 30), and has surprised many with solid debate performances and a reasonably competitive campaign. He also has been the least forthcoming with policy specifics, though generally more than those on the GOP side.

I’m terrible with predictions. I can easily see several different scenarios occurring here – and I’m pretty sure that any guess will be a wrong one.

So here are my predictions anyway!

Donald Trump narrowly edges Ted Cruz, maybe by just a single percentage point, though Marco Rubio finishes a surprisingly close third, allowing him to declare a kind of victory. Carson, Paul, and Bush all finish somewhere in the 4-5 percent range, and each claim “momentum.”

Meanwhile, in Democratic land, Hillary Clinton edges Bernie Sanders by a margin similar to Trump’s (predicted) triumph over Cruz. And O’Malley shocks the world by getting 5 or 6 percent of the vote, instead of only 3 or 4. Such a comeback!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Jesus H Cosmos

Posted on January 15, 2016 by hbreck

Giant_prominence_on_the_sun_erupted

Our world will be consumed by the sun in a few billion years. As the nuclear fusion reactions within it run out of fuel, it will expand – possibly past Earth’s current orbit – and SPF 3 billion will become the sunblock of choice for whatever life may still exist on this rock.

Meanwhile, billions of humans believe that other billions of their fellow rock-dwellers will not enjoy the same unprovable after-death experiences as themselves. Sometimes this involves eternal torment. Sometimes it may just involve something slightly less awful, like maybe having talk radio piped into one’s eardrums at low volume for a few millennia. No big deal. Either way, they’re rearranging crates on the Edmund Fitzgerald. It’s so important for people to be right about something they can’t prove, confirm, or even really imagine. It’s so important, that many are willing to die, or even kill over these beliefs.

And the Earth keeps spinning (albeit a little slower every day), and the sun keeps doing its furnace thing… and sometimes asteroids and comets zip past our heads, and sometimes they even disrupt Russian traffic. The universe has plenty of ways it can kill us. And it might. In fact, given enough time, it WILL. This is pretty much certain.

And we humans may be reaching breakthroughs soon on longevity, but for now, a century is generally the most we get, and usually a bit less. It may behoove us to make these centuries as pleasant as possible.

Or, I suppose we can fight and argue and strain and sacrifice and suffer in the name of what could happen – after we aren’t around to enjoy it. Somehow, musty texts written by committees over the course of centuries – often centuries after events they depict – are enough evidence to completely base one’s life on getting access to some celestial club. Nevermind that there are thousands of groups that claim to know the ONLY secret handshake to the ONLY secret club, and everyone else will fall through a trapdoor into a punji trap filled with agitated tigers and Ted Cruz, when they try to sneak past the bouncer.

Pockets of the world seem just a little more willing to see each other as people. Some places, often (but not always) in cold regions where people are named Sven, focus their efforts on clean energy, equal opportunities for historically oppressed groups, and truly awful seafood dishes. These people get it. Sure, some still think that a magic sky daddy is going to harshly judge darker skinned people, but the lands of Ericsson and Volvo mostly seem to understand that making the world more livable now tends to maximize human happiness. Go figure.

It’s not just the people of the fjords that have their heads screwed on straight. But they’re a good example.

A few times zones away, the nation-state with by FAR the longest reach in human history (Voyager 1, trillions of dollars of GDP, and thousands of nuclear missiles fits a few disparate definitions of this), is currently running a reality show to determine who’s going to be hated by half the planet, and have the power to bomb those assholes into oblivion, then bomb the rubble into smaller oblivion. Whew! Now that’s a run-on sentence.

It’s also scary, knowing that pretty much all of the contestants of this show believe, or claim to believe, that their death means somehow that the known laws of time and space will bend just for them, and they will be transported to a dimension of, um, well… whatever makes them happy, I guess. Jeb Bush will be surrounded by his family, and money, and will probably have more energy. Chris Christie will have all his political enemies tied up for him to personally torment. Ben Carson will know about more things than just medicine. And presumably Ted Cruz will be surrounded by thousands of Tickle Me Elmos for him to caress. I mean, I just assume. Look at that creep. Gah.

Anyway, the fact remains that the people who most want to control half the planet’s nuclear arsenal believe that magic awaits them and they will never really die, and people they don’t agree with will be tortured forever. Yeah, this is a good idea. Let’s vote for these unreasonable lunatics.

I don’t know. Maybe dogmatic religious fundamentalism isn’t what’s holding humanity back. And maybe one day I’ll stop discussing why Ted Cruz is so damn punchable.  But until we reach that distant temporal point, I would argue that perhaps we as people should worry more about the here and now, and how we can lift each other up. You know, rather than telling each other why eternal damnation is on the docket.

Posted in Humor, Quick post, Rant, Science | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment