Open Letter to the Democratic Party

Dear Democratic Party,

What happened with Wasserman Schultz and the DNC is a bit concerning. Clinton nominating Kaine as her VP is concerning. Clinton hiring Wasserman Schultz as an honorary chair is especially concerning.

I am a Sanders supporter and was a Sanders delegate to the Linn County Convention. Over these past few months, when it was clear Sanders was not going to be the nominee, there had been calls for Sanders to drop out and endorse Clinton for the sake of party unity. I am willing to support Clinton, but I know of others that are not. Certainly you are aware of the "Bernie or bust" crowd. And I'll agree with Sarah Silverman that they are "being ridiculous" (warning: autoplay video).

My concern is when can we expect Clinton and her supporters to make consolidations for party unity? The issue I have is that it feels* like a one-way street. It feels like it is always progressives or those who are more grassroots making the sacrifices and never those who might be described as neoliberal (or even neoconservative) or part of the establishment.

I have encountered Clinton supporters who have shown a total disregard for progressives. When progressives threaten not to vote for Clinton, the attitude is "Good riddance." I can somewhat understand the attitude from a mathematical perspective. It's not like those people are going to go vote for whoever the Republican nominee was going to be (that we now know to be Trump). Losing progressives only costs one votes. It makes more sense, then, to go for those in the middle. If you lose their vote, they may go vote for Trump. That costs two votes - the one Clinton loses plus the one Trump gains. It would seem to make sense, then, to go for those middle voters.

But it is then disingenuous to ask for party unity and then forget about the progressives when it comes to the general election. And, unfortunately, I saw some condescending attitudes from Democrats at the convention, one of which was from Elijah Cummings. (Though, to be fair, I heard his speech was disrupted, so he could have been a bit bitter over that, and understandably so.) The attitude is that progressives should be happy as the party platform is, so I have heard (yeah, I should probably read the platform sometime), quite progressive and they (we) got Wasserman Shultz's head served on a platter. Metaphorically, of course.

On that last point, Wasserman Shultz needed to go a long time ago. This email leak wasn't the first time it has been suggested Wasserman Shultz and the DNC were playing favorites. It was believed months ago the debate schedule was set up to give Clinton an edge by reducing Sanders' exposure to the public. No, this email link was just more evidence of the DNC giving progressives the middle finger.

Again, I can agree that some people have gone a bit over-the-top on this, going as far as to suggest that the DNC engaged in illegal activity. The reality is it was probably largely people being driven by their internal biases that led to this problem, but I don't think the frustration that we are observing are over the emails. I cannot even say that the emails are some sort of "smoking gun" as the emails, from what I have read, seem rather tame. No, the problem is with business as usual and the problem doesn't magically disappear just because we get tossed a few bones. For people like Elijah Cummings to suggest that we should be happy with these bones is insulting.

The tone-deafness may be what is most disappointing. Here, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange states the problem more elegantly than I ever could:

It is important for there to be examples of accountability. The resignation was an example of that. Now, of course, Hillary Clinton has tried to immediately produce a counter-example by putting out a statement, within hours, saying that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a great friend, and she’s incorporating her into her campaign, she’s going to be pushing for her re-election to the Congress. So that’s a very interesting signaling by Hillary Clinton that if you act in a corrupt way that benefits Hillary Clinton, you will be taken care of. Why does she need to put that out? Certainly, it’s not a signal that helps with the public at all. It’s not a signal that helps with unity at the DNC, at the convention. It’s a signal to Hillary Clinton partisans to keep on going on, you’ll be taken care of. But it’s a very destructive signal for a future presidency, because it’s—effectively, it’s expanding the Overton window of corruption. It doesn’t really matter what you do, how you behave; as long as that is going to benefit Hillary Clinton, you’ll be protected.

This, of course, won't bother loyal Clinton supporters a bit. But I think the Democratic party needs to do better. Blind loyalty is part of why the threat of a Trump presidency is still a concern, both on the side of Republicans who will vote for the Republican candidate no matter what and on the side of the Democrats, who scare off less partisan voters with their lack of criticism of Clinton.** I will agree that these couple of email "scandals" are not actually scandals. At the same time, there needs to be the recognition that there was incompetence at play here. Admit the mistakes and learn from them. But one can't learn from mistakes they won't admit they made. Also, please stop claiming that Clinton is the most qualified candidate ever. I will agree she is perhaps one of the most experienced candidate, but experience does not equate with being qualified. Let's not forget that FBI director James Comey described the email behavior as "extremely careless." I realize that emails is a small part of a President's duties,*** but if Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates ever, this tells me we seriously need to find better qualified candidates!

With all this said, I really just want Democrats to represent the values they claim to represent. When an organization like the DNC claims to be impartial and its not, that causes mistrust. When a political party demands that its progressive members sacrifice for party unity, but the neoliberals seldom have to sacrifice (And when their "great" sacrifice is a more progressive party platform? Shouldn't that be a good thing?), that creates mistrust.

Finally, going back to the search for voters in the "middle," I would like the party to make a decision. With the Republican party self-destructing, it may be that some day, the Democrats could become the dominant party. I know...I know. Republicans control much of our government; that seems a bit odd based on how disorganized they are. Still, there seems an opportunity for the Democrats to pick up people who are dissatisfied with the party. This means the Democratic party could move further to the right, distancing itself further from the progressives in the party. The decision I would like the party to make is on which way it wants to move. Is it going to move further right? I get the sense the party is hesitant to move left, so should we progressives just leave the party now?

---

* Yes, I realize that feelings were brought up at the RNC a lot and that what we feel isn't necessarily true. But, when we are talking about bringing a party together, feelings matter.

** Yes, I also realize there is a lot of sexism directed at Clinton and a lot of people who won't vote for Clinton largely because she is a woman. But I am concerned some brush off some of these issues as being non-issues because they think it is just the sexist crowd that wants them to be issues.

*** I sometimes think I myself should get involved with politics, but I know one of my major weaknesses is my communication skills. The point is I do recognize it is hard to have all the necessary qualifications, but can we please recognize Clinton has both strengths and weaknesses?

Won't somebody think of the children?!? -- Inconsistency in the anti-abortion movement

This post is going to take a couple different directions. I first want to just briefly mention how British prime minister David Cameron is trying to stop pornography on the internet. And his reason? Think of the children!!! It's rather quite sad when people use children to push a political agenda, but, having said that, there are legitimate cases where it really is about the children.

This gets us to what I originally wanted to write about. My wife has a friend who apparently has been dealing with people who sound like far-right Tea Party folk; people who don't like the government telling them they have to have their children in a car seat. No, I'm sorry, this is not the government telling you what to do. This is one of those legitimate cases of the government thinking of the children. You do not own your children. While they are yours in a caregiver and often biological sense, they are individuals that have rights, and one of those rights is protection against the idiocy of their parents!

And these people should understand this, because I suspect there is a good chance that these people would also be anti-abortion. One of the main arguments such people often use against abortion is that the fetus is a human being that has rights. That should mean that it will still have those rights as a child. Or do we live in a really bizarro world where fetuses are human beings but children are not? Of course — well...to anyone rational person who pays close attention to abortion debates — the truth is that these anti-abortion people don't truly believe the arguments that they put forth. Their reasons for being against abortion could be from a variety of reasons including the totally thoughtless reason of their pastor telling them to be or the true agenda behind anti-abortion movements of controlling people's sex lives. At any rate, when someone who is against abortions tells you it's about human rights but then gripes about child seat laws is full of themselves on at least one of those topics.

A few thoughts on Akin

   Everyone and their dog is discussing Akin...so I'm not sure what I can add of value to the conversation, but there are a few thoughts I want to share:

This isn't new.

   First, many conservatives have been frequently saying similar things within the last year. Second, they have a history of making similar remarks. In fact, I recall a moment from high school (so over 10 years ago) of a classmate saying that a woman can't get pregnant unless they enjoy it, so any woman who claimed to be raped that ended up pregnant was proof they enjoyed being raped. While I don't recall if he said it directly, there was certainly the implication that such a rape wasn't a "real" rape. (I wonder what these people think about date rape drugs.) Being that this was high school, I figure he would not have come to this conclusion on his own. It would be more likely that he was parroting something he heard from somebody else without giving it much critical thought.

He didn't "misspeak."

   It is crap to say that Akin "misspoke." He meant what he said and said what he meant! The only reason he "misspoke" is because what he said has become politically damaging. So he wants to take it back like it never happened.
UPDATE: A source from 1999 has been revealed by far-right loon Bryan Fischer as to where this idea may originate. /UPDATE

This isn't even that radical per our culture.

   I'm going to be blunt: we live in a culture that is not hostile to rape. In fact, there is often a lot of victim blaming. If a woman claims she was raped, people go about asking if she was drinking, what she was wearing, and where she was when or immediately before the rape occurred. Because, see, if she was drunk, wearing revealing clothing, and/or hanging out in a frat house or bar, she totally got what was coming to her. It's like she was begging for it to happen! Filthy SLUT! Or so our culture tends to claim. So if women are responsible for their own rapes, then it only seems to be a small step to add on the additional claim that many women enjoy being raped.

So why the outrage?

   This puzzles me a bit. Our culture isn't that hostile to rape, yet, such a comment gets a lot of bad reaction. I suspect there may be some sort of doublethink going on here, where most people are opposed to rape in theory, but this opposition fails to translate in practice. Since Todd Akin was discussing rape in theory, his comments are then on the fringes of society. I also suspect that his use of the word "legitimate" had some effect on people's reactions.

How is this different than "forced rape"?

   Conservatives, in an effort to limit rape exceptions to bans on federal funding for abortion, tried to use the term "forced rape." How does "forced rape" differ from just plain old "rape"? I'm not sure, but people have been wondering if plain old rape isn't "legitimate."

An unpopular issue. So Akin has got to go.

   While what Akin said isn't much different than what conservatives have been pushing for years, more attention has been paid to their language...I would say particularly since March when contraception became an issue. Republicans have since not been very popular with women, an issue they have been trying to since correct. Not by changing their stances on the issues, of course! But by staying on the down-low, hoping people will forget by November. But Akin had to open his mouth and stir up a hornet's nest. So Republicans are condemning what Akin has said and asking him to drop out of his Senate race. All the while likely* still agreeing with what Akin said.

* OK, I can't read minds, so I can't be certain that Republicans are lying when they condemn Akin. But given the point above about how they have a reputation of making quite similar comments, this change of heart seem quite odd...and quite convenient.

Libertarians and Charity: A Follow-Up to the Follow-Up

   In my last post on this topic, I discussed what seemed to be liberal hypocrisy in regards to charity, but there was something that just wasn't setting quite right. It turns out to basically be two thing—local phenomenon and decline in giving with decline in need. If there is less of a need for charity, then it is not surprising that people might give less. If you then combine this idea with an idea that people will react more to their local communities as opposed to national needs, you may get a partial explanation of why liberals donate less.

   Take Mississippi, for example. It is generally a conservative state and is quite religious. Therefore we should expect the people of Mississippi to be quite charitable. But Mississippi also seems to have a lot of societal ills. I think they have a high poverty rate and I am quite sure they have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. So they have a great need for charity. Contrast this with Vermont, which is generally quite liberal. I think Vermont tends to rank fairly well as far as societal health goes. There is then less of a need for charity. So I'm not too worried if people are giving less in Vermont than in Mississippi. Actually, I would expect that!

   But, to be fair, this doesn't completely excuse the issue. There are things like cancer research (like I am helping donate to on the sidebar) that are pretty much a constant across the country. If people in Vermont have less of a local need, then they should probably be compensating that with larger donations to other needs like this. Or, as that article I had linked to last time addressed, liberals give less blood. There really isn't a good reason for this to be the case. So, there still seems to be some bit of hypocrisy, but it may be less than it appears when looking at it from a high level.

Libertarians and Charity: A Follow-Up

   In my last post, I mentioned Susan Jacoby speaking of some statistics on charity based on political alignment. Now, since it was said on a TV panel discussion, no source was given. So I went about doing a Google search to see what I might be able to find. And I found this article from four years ago written by George Will. There are a few interesting things to note in this article, some of which are surprising and others that are not.

• "The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism...is religion."
  
     This is not surprising. If people often go to a place that is asking for 10% of a person's income, potentially including threats of torture in an afterlife (or maybe just claims that they need the money to spread the "Good News" to prevent others from being tortured), then it's not surprising that some of those people will be quite giving. (And if a church doesn't use fear, they always have guilt.) If you don't deal with such an environment, then where is one to get constant reinforcement? Therefore it makes sense that liberal giving would be less. Like the article states, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." Liberals such as myself have to be our own motivators, and it would appear we are failing at that.
  
     By the way, I should point out that Jacoby claimed that the religious give more to secular charities than do the secularists. So they are not just giving to church (which I don't count as particularly being "charitable"). This article does not address this point. Yet, I wonder how much of that money goes to religious charities that are disguised as secular. For example, if Focus on the Family is considered a charity (I don't know if it is), it would probably be considered "secular," yet many secularists know better. So I'd like to see some deeper investigation on that front. Though secularists still need to do better regardless!


• "The least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives."
  
     This seems to line up with what Susan Jacoby said in that interview. (Interesting, too, is that George Will himself is part of this group.) It is something that does not personally surprise me, but when you consider this point and the next point together, there seems to be a disconnect.


• "People who reject the idea that 'government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality' give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition."
  
     This in itself isn't surprising. If you think private charity is the better way to go, then you'd better demonstrate your commitment to that idea, which is why I posed a challenge to Libertarians at the end of that last post. However, as I said before, there seems to be a disconnect with the previous point. It has been my impression of secular conservatives that they tend to be part of this group that rejects the idea of government having responsibility. So why are they so horrible at charity? Perhaps my impressions of secular conservatives are wrong; perhaps they are not as against this idea as I think.
  
     What would be nice to see is a breakdown of this group that rejects the idea of government responsibility between religious and secular conservatives. Heck, it may even be a good idea to know how many liberals are in this group. And it would also be very nice to know how many people consider themselves to be libertarians, instead of having a binary breakdown between conservative and liberal (that goes for the entire study). I hope I need not state that politics are more complex than this! (I myself score highly on the social questions on this quiz called the "World's Smallest Political Quiz.")

   The disappointing point about that last point is I would like to see that not be true. Much of the article is to point out liberal hypocrisy. It appears to unfortunately be true. As the article highlights, liberals should be donating to private charity until there are more government programs in place, as promoting such programs alone does nothing for those in need. There's not much else to say other than I am disappointed. Yet, I know one of the first places I need to start is with myself. Otherwise, when I complain about libertarians possibly being more talk than action, it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

I like the message, not the messenger.

   There is an ad sponsored by American Future Fund that I have been noticing on both TV and the internet. For the most part, I like the ad. Obama is very hypocritical when it comes to Wall Street. He's not the reformer he claims to be...and, trust me, being a registered Democrat, I know that both he and Democrats spout how the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill is supposedly some great "change." This video is very good about pointing out how Obama gets a lot of campaign donations from Wall Street and how his administration is made up of a lot of insiders. It is something Democrats don't seem to want to acknowledge. The reason why is what this video targets: it's the idea that if Obama was really out to change Wall Street, Wall Street wouldn't be donating to him, nor would he include those insiders on his staff.



   There is about only one part of the video that I don't support, and that is the idea that Obama was wrong for supporting the bail out. And this gets into who the messenger is. America Future Fund's slogan is "Advocating Conservative, Free Market Ideals." These people are no enemies of Wall Street, either. Sure, maybe they wouldn't have bailed out Wall Street if they had their choice for President, but I have my doubts that they are really concerned about the people like Jack Lew (Obama's latest Chief of Staff) taking big bonuses. No, these are likely the type of people who would have let the economy tank into a depression all the while still allowing the rich bank executives to keep and walk away with their money from the banks they put under. As disappointed as I am in Obama for not restricting these executive bonuses or for not aggressively prosecuting anyone for the economic collapse, these guys have worse philosophies.

Cases in Projection - Sometimes those ringing the alarm bells are the cause for alarm.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.

   I have encountered people online as well as one coworker who call themselves "Constitutionalists." One of my major issues with them is that they often seem to cherry-pick through the Constitution and/or interpret it in whatever way they see fit. (I.e, "The First Amendment only applies to Christians, but not Muslims.") However, the thing that bothers me the most is that (and this one is inspired by my coworker) they will say things along the lines "You have to know your rights before they are taken away!" The other thing worth noting is that these people have a tendency to support conservative (Republican) policies. Therefore, they are probably worried about liberals coming for their guns!!!

   This story, however, shows who we should really be worried about. (Emphasis mine.)

The teacher who heads up New Smyrna Beach High School's student government association could face thousands of dollars in fines. Her transgression? Helping students register to vote.

Prepping 17-year-olds for the privileges and responsibilities of voting in a democracy is nothing new for civics teachers, but when Jill Cicciarelli organized a drive at the start of the school year to get students pre-registered, she ran afoul of Florida's new and controversial election law.

Among other things, the new rules require that third parties who sign up new voters register with the state and that they submit applications within 48 hours. The law also reduces the time for early voting from 14 days to eight and requires voters who want to give a new address at the polls to use a provisional ballot.

Republican lawmakers who backed the rules said they were necessary to reduce voter fraud. Critics -- including U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, who testified before a congressional committee -- said the law would suppress voter participation.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to block implementation of the law. The most controversial elements are under review in federal court before they can be implemented in five counties.

Fear of violating the new rules prompted the League of Women Voters to suspend voter registration efforts in Florida. Local political activists in both parties have been similarly stymied, Volusia County Supervisor of Elections Ann McFall said.

"It's bizarre," McFall said of the law. "I haven't found one person who likes this law."

   It's not the liberals coming for your guns that you have to worry about; it's the people sounding the alarm bells that you have to worry about.

   This certainly isn't the first case of this in the history of the world. Take 1930's Germany. During that time, there was a group of people who called themselves Nazis that were sounding alarm bells, alerting people of the threat the Jews posed on the country. Who turned out to be the real threat to Germany? Yeah, it was the Nazis themselves.

   Within about the last decade, the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks were blamed on people who were trying to take away our freedoms (because they were jealous of them) by the Presidential administration. Later, this administration administered warentless wiretapping against the country's own citizens. Turns out it was really the administration that was after our freedoms.

   Likewise, the latest Presidential administration has now launced a predator drone strike against and killing a U.S. citizen living abroud who was allegedly guilty, but never tried in a court of law, of being connected to terrorist activities since 9/11. Think about that - if you are a U.S. citizen living abroud, and the U.S. government even suspects that you are a terrorist, they've granted themselves permission to kill you without a trial. And while this happened under a supposedly Democratic President, I have only heard liberals complain about this killing being unjust.

   It's almost like pickpocketers and their signs. I've heard that sometimes pickpocketers are the ones who put up these signs. Why? Because when someone sees the sign, often the first thing they do is check to see if they still have their wallet, revealing its location to the pickpocketer who is watching the area. Pickpocketers also like to use distraction techniques. They need their victim focused on something so that the victim doesn't notice the pickpocketer going for the wallet.

   Something similar seems to be in play with politics. The "the liberals are coming for your guns!" or "the terrorists want to take away your freedom!"or "voter fraud has run amuck!" warnings really just seems to be a distraction the politician uses to create fear and paranoia while he or she slowly takes away people's rights.

   Now, where it gets to be projection is that the rights of those helping to sound the alarms are not necessarilty impacted (or at least to a less obvious extent). In the case of more strict voter regisration, the people who are impacted most tend to be more liberal voters - minority groups, poor people, and college students - though the one exception to this is with the elderly. As to why such groups get harmed so much, I don't know the exact answer to that. I suspect poverty is a factor, as well as, in the case of college students, unfamiliarity with the process.

 &nsbsp; In short, the next time someone is sounding the alarm bells, don't investigate the people he/she tells you is the problem. Investigate him/her!

"What Happened to Obama?"

This is on the opinion piece in the New York Times by Drew Westen. I actually read this one week ago today, but am only now getting it into a blog post.

I don't have a lot to say on it, other than I found it to be a very good piece, and I recommend everyone read it. Cenk Uygur covers much of the important parts, so instead of taking a bunch of time writing myself, I'll direct you to his video instead, which you can see at the bottom of the post.

The one thing I will actually write on are the two parts that I have personally found most disappointing with the president.

1. "Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements”...with “entitlement cuts”... But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling."


2. "The president is fond of referring to “the arc of history,” paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous statement that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time — he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation."

In short, it has become hard to know what Obama stands for because he doesn't seem to stand for anything! Just like on this debt ceiling issue--he said he wanted revenue increases, but then accepted a "deal" (in which Republican John Boehner "got 98% of what [he] wanted") without those increases. So does he really want revenue increases or not? Now he's been out around Iowa on this recess telling union workers that they need to sacrifice one minute (as if they haven't already sacrificed), and then saying (after Warren Buffet asked for his taxes to be increased) that the rich need to share in the sacrifice. Yet, we have failed to see the rich sacrifice. It's been the middle class and poor (groups that contain union workers) that have seen all the sacrifice. Mr. Obama, if you're going to say that the rich need to sacrifice, prove it by fighting to increase their taxes!

Megyn Kelly is now a socialist?!?

Megyn Kelly, who is a conservative pundit on Fox News, has recently returned from maternity leave. While she was gone, some radio show host criticized her for being away on maternity leave. She tore him a new one on her show. I first heard about this on TYT (video at bottom), but a commenter pointed out that Jon Stewart had also addressed the issue. John Stewart did a good job pointing out the hypocrisy of her support for a socialist program like FMLA, for those who may have been unaware.

The Daily Show - Lactate Intolerance
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I agree with Stewart. It will pass. But those are some bizarre statements from Kelly!

1. The United States is the only advanced country that doesn't require paid [maternity] leave.
2. If anything, the United States is in the Dark Ages when it comes to maternity leave.

Holy shit!!! This is stuff you hear out of people who wish this country was more socialist. I know because I'm one of those people!!! But to hear it from a Fox News personality?!? This is going to sound sexist, but maybe it's hormonal?

Anyway, here is the TYT video in which Cenk Uygur primarily makes fun of the radio show host for bowing down to the mighty Megyn Kelly.