Tag: Politics

By on 1 Comment

Unless someone can provide evidence to support some criminal conspiracy was afoot, the only person who deserves blame for the murder of Charlie Kirk is Tyler Robinson who is accused of shooting him. It is important to emphasize accused because, at this point, we, and by we I mean the public, the press and the pundits, know very little to ascertain anything.

This, of course, doesn’t stop anyone from speculating. There is all this finger pointing. The shooter was Trans. The shooter was left wing. The shooter was a Mormon. The shooter came from a MAGA family. The shooter was a white man. All of these may be true but none of these groups bear any responsibility in the shooting.

Charlie Kirk fans want revenge. Against who exactly? Saying you don’t like someone or his politics and wishing them dead is not a crime. It is akin to someone in a fit of anger saying I could kill him. The important thing is they didn’t. It was a feeling that wasn’t put into action. There is nothing wrong with that and I don’t see the point of pursuing a vendetta against anyone who did. Poor taste isn’t a crime and, by all means, feel free to point out the bad taste but that is about all anyone should do about that.

Jimmy Kimmel eluded to some vague connection of the accused being a white man with a wink wink and nudge nudge, like this is supposed to mean something. I am a white man, Jimmy Kimmel is a white man, is he saying that white men are prone to murder? It is as ridiculous of a statement as the Texas congressman who wants to take Trans people off the street because a few of them have been involved in some highly visible crimes. We no more can take Trans people off the street than we can take White men off the street. These are meaningless bits of information that tell us absolutely nothing about what happened.

Here is a time when speculation is particularly dangerous. Charlie Kirk was a controversial figure. Some people are angry that he was murdered and others blame him for his contributions to a poisonous political environment. Pulling these meaningless facts out as if they mean something is pouring more fuel on an already burning fire. Now is a very good time to keep your mouth shut until you know more and then, and only then, punish the man who actually pulled the trigger instead of a group who might share some identification with the shooter.

By on

A few months back I read an advice columnist on Slate that shook me. I wanted to say something about but what exactly I wanted to say was still coalescing. The shooting of Charlie Kirk reminded of this column and what I wanted to say.

A bride had asked a friend to wear a piece of clothing that would piss off the bride’s MAGA loving in-laws. At the time, I thought why would anyone want to deliberately piss off their new in-laws and his family. On her wedding day no less. The bride said that the new in-laws were constantly disrespecting her and her fiance never supported her.

First, and most importantly, this marriage sounds doomed and not because of politics either. This woman expects support from her man and isn’t getting it. So pissing off his family is going to change this how? If he doesn’t support you now, while he is still in the wooing stage of the relationship, what makes her think he is going to get better at it after a brawl at her wedding. He has shown his character and she is on her own with his relatives.

Then, there is a big difference between people bringing up their politics independently of your prompting and you waving a red cape at them and expecting them to sit quietly while you taunt them. Maybe you would get along better with your MAGA loving in-laws if you didn’t try to piss them off. I know it is a stretch but maybe give it a try.

I have a strategy that works every time I am with people whose politics I disagree with. I avoid politics altogether. We can chat endlessly about the weather, sports, movies, children, and so forth as long as we tip toe around politics. Which is a surprisingly easy strategy and almost always successful. If politics does come up, I have found saying something like “I don’t think we agree on politics so maybe lets not talk about it” works well to defuse the situation. I have found people, on the whole, prefer civil conversations as opposed to knock out drag out quarrels over Donald Trump.

Which brings me to Charlie Kirk. So many people want to both acknowledge the wrongness of his assassination and still make a point about how horrible a person he was. You really don’t have to say he was horrible person. It is irrelevant to the present situation. All you need to say is nobody should be shot for what they say and I am sorry his family has to suffer through this. Then do the easiest thing of all keep your God Damn mouth shut.

There is a time for political quarrels. This isn’t the time. You may have a lot to say about Charlie Kirk’s politics. It will keep and you can raise it again when the time arises.

By on

No matter how much I want to blame Donald Trump for being the problem, he isn’t. He is a symptom of a problem. The problem with our system is that the system is the problem.

All this whining about gerrymandering is missing the point. Trump isn’t bad because he has decided to gerrymander. The system is bad because either party can gerrymander. And that is what is happening. Trump asked for 5 Congressional districts in Texas. So, California retaliates. Missouri is now retaliating because California retaliated against Texas. And round and round she goes. The problem is that either party can gerrymander. The whole strategy of both parties is to reduce the number of competitive congressional districts through gerrymandering.

This hardly seems like the forefather’s dreams of elections. Given the startling number of partisan dominated congressional districts, elections are pretty much a waste of time and money. Might as well have the party leaders of each district pick the candidate who will then go to Washington.

Gerrymander isn’t the only systematic problem with our democracy. There is the filibuster which requires a super majority in the Senate in order to make laws. The filibuster is not part of the constitution and is a Senate procedure that can be eliminated at any time by the Majority Party. We have had both Democratic and Republican Majorities in the past ten years, but neither party seems terribly interested in ending the filibuster as a simple majority would give the party in power to actually do things.

The Senate, which requires a super majority in order to pass laws, also is grossly undemocratic. Small rural states carry disproportionate power there. Every state gets two Senators. California with 37 million people gets the same number as Wyoming with little more than a half million people. This is difficult to change because a constitutional amendment would be required in order to make this happen. The idea that small rural states would give up power willingly is absurd. If I lived in a small state, I would certainly want to retain that power. So no change there is even possible.

So, because the legislative bodies are incapable of accomplishing anything and are incapable of instituting changes that would make their bodies functional, nothing gets done. It doesn’t matter who is in power.

The result then is Donald Trump. He lacks even a basic view of how government operates but he damn will has some ideas on getting things done. He does what he pleases and finds out later if it is OK and, even if it isn’t OK, he defends his right to do it. Maybe he will get away with it, maybe he won’t. The problem here is that the only way left to get things done in the USA is through near dictatorial power from the President. Trump’s lack of institutional knowledge or concern about precedent makes him the perfect executive to wield power.

Trump will be gone in 3 1/2 long years but the problem remains. It is illuminating that of the hundreds of democracies that have come into power since 1776, none of chosen to duplicate the American system and almost all emulate the British Parliamentary system where the political party who wins the election actually holds power until the next election.

Trump may be an asshole but the system is the problem and will remain the problem when he departs the White House.

By on

The Trump Administration is trying to prevent transgender people from buying guns. While this is clearly illegal, it could be good news. It is an admission that some people shouldn’t have guns. This seems to be a significant change in this NRA backed administration. The NRA is supporting the Trannies’ 2nd Amendment Rights while Trump and his gang are pushing for laws that will prevent them from buying guns.

There are presently laws that stop mentally ill people from getting guns but enforcement varies from state to state and the national registry is only as good as the states willing participation. If Trump is truly interested in keeping guns out of the hands of transgender people, what is he willing to do to about it. And, if transexuals are on this list, and it is so important to do so, what other mentally ill diagnosis should be on this list.

Of course, Transgender people shouldn’t be classified as mentally ill but if Trump believes that some mental illnesses make gun ownership dangerous, then the battle should be on defining those terms — who shouldn’t own a gun. Some Republicans are hoping the Democrats fight for Transexuals Rights to be locked and loaded. They are amused that they will be put in the position of defending gun rights. Don’t take the bait.

I much prefer a battle over what is defined as a mental illness that prevents people from purchasing guns. Instead of fighting for Transexual’s Second Amendment rights, let’s focus on what mental health issues should prevent a person from owning a gun and how to ensure that anyone that meets this criteria is on a list that prevents them from purchasing a gun.

Also we should never pass up an opportunity for a NRA/Trump rumble. Get the popcorn ready.

By on

I don’t like Trump — either the man or his chaotic policies — however I have to admit he is the master of confrontational politics. How this dimwitted asshole comes out on top is beyond me. The problem is he does.

Look at what he has mastered in the last few months. He maneuvered the Democrats into defending illegal immigrants, transexuals and criminals. All people worthy of defense but also marginalized people with tricky legal situations. More importantly, very few actual voters among them.

Think about Trump bringing troops into Washington. What the Democrats are saying is that there is no problem in Washington and that the crime rate is actually the lowest it has been in 30 years. True enough but it sounds rather lame in comparison to Trump’s sending in troops so you are safe to walk the streets of Washington. Instead of making a forceful anti-crime statement, the Democrats are saying you think crime is bad now, it was much worse 10 years ago. It reeks of passivity and inaction.

Immigrants are coming into the country illegally. Trump is taking an aggressive stand to prevent their entry and kicking out the ones he sees as criminal. What are the Democrats saying — we need immigrants and we can’t break up immigrant families if the children were born in USA. So the Democrats end up making a big falderal about the deportation of Kilmar Garcia — a legal immigrant whose wife has accused him of abuse. The Democrats reaction to Trump is this is a bureaucratic error, Trump’s response is that Garcia is a wife beating thug. How are the visuals on this?

Garcia deserves due process but the Democrats are missing the point — what are the Democrats going to do about illegal immigration. Yes, we need immigrants and yes we should not separate parents from their children — that isn’t, however, an answer to what are you going to do about illegal immigration. It sounds very much like you intend to do nothing and that becomes the problem. Worse still, it is hardly a rousing call to battle with the Republicans.

Then there are the drag queens. A target so big that it is impossible for the Republicans not to hit. The visuals on this are horrible. What the Democrats want the public to know is they are defending 13 year olds bullied in their schools and who need help with their gender identification. This is a complex problem and the country is beginning to suss it out. Unfortunately Trump has painted a much different picture. Instead of seeing the abused adolescent, they are seeing 6 foot 4 hunk with a blonde bouffant wig, costume jewelry, and an evening gown reading to kindergartners about how to get a sex change operation.

It’s not that I think the Democrats are wrong in any of this, its more that they are being suckered into defending unpopular positions over the bigger concerns of the average Americans. Trump pulls Democrats into debates that are nuanced and difficult to explain. Whenever they do try to explain it sounds like they are pro-criminal or pro-illegal immigration or pro-transexuals in the classroom. It doesn’t matter that this is untrue – perception is reality. At least, it is until someone changes the perception. This isn’t going to be done by Donald Trump. It has to be the Democrats.

Trump uses the media to dance to his tune. Talking only about the issues he wants to talk about while ignoring his weaknesses. Democrats should park themselves outside medical offices and ask people about their health insurance problems. A lot of people have good stories about shabby treatment from insurance companies — get it on the news. Every single day. Or go to grocery stores and ask customers about the higher prices they are paying. Connect to people with issues that everybody has. Widen the net of potential voters.

Or you can continue to talk about unpopular issues that the average voter cares very little about and, when you lose the election, you can stare confusedly into the abyss and wonder why this keeps happening.

By on

I have to give it Donald Trump and his administration. They definitely know how to make a mountain out of mole hill and gain advantage from that little mole hill.

Demetre Daskalakis, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, resigned in a wave of resignations that struck the CDC last week. He also wrote a memo using the term “pregnant people” as opposed to the Trump preferred “pregnant women.” People and women are not the important words here, pregnant is. This is a message to advise someone who is pregnant about a health issue. It doesn’t really matter if you call them people or women.

But, of course, I am wrong. It matters greatly and people are hopping mad about it. One side believes pregnant people is more inclusive of trans people and the other side is claiming that only women can get pregnant and it’s ridiculous to use the more inclusive term.

Trans-obsessed lefties want everyone to use the more inclusive people and make no bones about telling people they should. This irritates trans-obsessed righties who think this is a biological question and that only women can get pregnant, so when talking about pregnant people, people should say pregnant women. This is so much cage rattling and of little significance to the majority of Americans.

First, the necessity to use pregnant people over pregnant woman is incredibly stupid. 99.99% of the people who are pregnant are women and like to be called women. Plus there is little chance that a pregnant trans man ( I am assuming about .01% of the population or less) would be confused by what the sentence means and how it might relate to him. But because somebody somewhere might be offended, people should be used instead of woman. This is the mountain they want to die on.

Language is social lubrication. It is there to make our lives easier. If you want me to use specific personal pronouns for you. I have no trouble using them. On the other hand, if I see a person with a beard, I am going to think this is a guy and I will trust my eyeballs and use male pronouns. 99% of the time I will be correct and offend nobody. This makes my life easier and less awkward because a lot more people would be either stumped by your personal pronoun question or unnecessarily angered by it. Why bother making trouble for yourself?

Which means I will continue to use visual cues, like a beard, to guess at someone’s gender identification until I start having trouble with people about it. Right now, I think I will die before having to ask someone their preferred pronouns.

What to do if people say “pregnant people.” I say deal with it. I admit it is a little clunky but perfectly understandable. Someone who says this is talking about pregnancy and want to be inclusive. Let them. Do what is comfortable for you. But no, “pregnant people” has become fighting words, so a fight must ensue.

The worst part is Trump has managed to turn the chaos at the CDC into a problem with politically correct bureaucrats. They have gone after Daskalaskis for being both gay and a satanist. So what should be about how to effectively get health information out to the public has become a witch hunt about being politically correct. And Trump has the advantage here.

I’m not sure this helps pregnant people or pregnant women but public health should be about using the right terms instead of delivering important information about people’s health.

By on

Every time there is a mass shooting I have this momentary reflexive fear that the killer might be someone who I agree with politically because partisans will say that the problem is the politics of the person and not say something more directly responsible like guns. It matters why the person doing the shooting, did it. But, it doesn’t matter. All mass shootings are bad and the killer’s reasons are irrelevant. You can’t ban white men or trans people for the matter.

No one reason can explain every mass shooter’s motives. The shooter’s politics changes from instance to instance. The killings, however, continue. Of course, the recent shooting at the Minnesota Catholic school have charged partisans up and the problem is either white men or trans men depending on the political agenda of the writer.

Unfortunately, these identifications are unhelpful in helping prevent future mass shootings because the vast majority of white men and trans people aren’t going to shoot Catholic school children praying in church. In fact, 99.9999% of these people will never shoot children at any point whatsoever. So what makes this small number of people break, take up a gun and shoot strangers for no good reason?

The availability of guns is part of the problem. There is very little that can be done here as there is constitutional protection to carry arms, it is difficult to change the Constitution and there isn’t enough public support to even bother. So Gun Laws will not change. Any solution that calls for this is doomed to failure — at least right now. By all means, continue to bang your head against this wall but you are only going to get a bloody head.

These leaves us with addressing the mental health element which is another part of the problem. People who want to kill small children, for whatever reason, are mentally ill. There is no question in my mind and I think most people would agree with that. The question then becomes how do we stop crazy people from using their guns?

The most difficult hurdle to clear would be an acceptance that people need to submit to mental health assessments — particularly young people who are more susceptible to this type of behavior. This also involves a more restrictive take on mental health. Right now most people would say that going for a mental health check up is an option and not a requirement. You are free to be a crazy person — no matter that you are living on public sidewalks, no matter that you are a schizophrenic carry an AK47. Until you are actually hurt someone, you are free to be as crazy as you wish.

Personal rights and public safety are difficult issues to balance. I would argue because we have constitutional protection for gun rights than the government has a responsibility to assess a person’s psychological ability to responsibly carry them. It becomes a health issue instead of a gun rights issue. Every year of high school, every student needs to take a psychological evaluation. Not only could this help with mass shootings but also may help address homelessness, drug addiction and array of other social problem before they become serious problems.

If mental illness is the cause of school shootings then what is the mental health solution? So far the political class seems mired in pointless struggles about gun control and finger pointing at the the other side’s toxic politics neither of which is likely to change. What if we determine that good mental health is a personal responsibility and if we, as a country, can get early intervention with this very small number of people willing to shoot down small children we can address this without affecting anyone’s right to bear arms?

But you don’t have a right to be a crazy person — whether that manifests as shooting up a school or sleeping on public sidewalks.

By on

The raid on John Bolton’s house is more than a little worrisome. To start with, Bolton is a Republican who, at least on paper, agrees with Trump on most of the issues. He actually served in Trump’s first term as president. But Bolton disagrees with Trump and he personally seems to hate Trump. These type of disagreements, at least in the past, were a part of the big tent parties. You occasionally disagreed with each other. But Trump must have 100% allegiance to him.

So, if you won’t keep your mouth shut willingly, Trump is going to scare you into submission. Trump is using intimidation to stop his opponents from speaking. There is a big difference between calling a person stupid and opening a Department of Justice Investigation into a person’s activities.

If Bolton has nothing to hide what is he worried about? If only it was that easy. Investigations require lawyers to gather evidence to support your case. This, of course, means you have to have money in the bank to take on a Trump investigation. You have to take time out of your life to appear in court. So, even if you are found innocent, you lose time and money to Trump’s petty harassment. There might be people who would risk irritating Trump, but there also are people who will decide to keep their mouths shut instead.

It certainly seems to have shut down any criticism from anyone in the Republican party. Any Republican who disagrees with Trump is silenced — either by keeping their mouth shuts or through making their lives so miserable they quit or are pushed out in primaries. There is only Trump and what Trump says goes.

The deafening silence of party elders is baffling. I am talking about you Mitch McConnell (83 years of age) and you Chuck Grassley (91years of age). Here are two old men without a political future. Their political futures, and let’s face it their personal futures, have a very limited time line. They have nothing to lose. Why not raise a little Hell on your way out? What are they saving their gravitas for? Future power.

Trump’s behavior is so blatantly corrupt now that it is beyond shocking. He is selling presidential pardons. He owns stock in companies the government is doing business with. He openly shakes down business leaders for their spare change. He threatens anyone who crosses him with investigation. What line does Trump have to cross before these men speak up? There is very little power in nodding your head in agreement to everything Trump says. Yet they still continue to quietly nod.

Democracies occasionally put bad people in power. It is inevitable. They aren’t, however, the real problem, it is the people who keep their mouths’ shut hoping to hold onto what little power they have when any real power they had is long gone. They are powerless intimidated people who would rather give Trump what he wants than take him to task.

By on

The problem with the present party system is that both parties nominate people that some party members don’t like. Republicans are locked into only Trump supported candidates while ignoring any candidates who might hold differing opinions. The Democrats are a quibbling bowl of mush. The candidate is either a party stalwart who the partly elders foist on the members as the only electable candidate (See Joe Biden) or a left wing ideologue (See Bernie Sanders) who would have trouble winning a state that wasn’t located on either coast.

In almost 50 year of voting I have rarely ever voted for the person in the general election who I voted for in the primary. It’s almost always my second or third or even fourth choice. I am a party man so whoever gets the Democratic nomination almost always gets my sometimes less than enthusiastic vote. But I think they should know that it was less than enthusiastic.

I am not sure if it would change things but it might be helpful to know how genuinely popular the candidate is. Polls might point to this but actual voting would be confirmation of the weakness of the person and is the only accurate way to get this information.

So when you voted instead of seeing:

  1. Jenny Jones Republican
  2. John Smith Democrat

You would get an additional drop down box for each candidate:

  1. I am voting for candidate who I think will be a great President.
  2. I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

The candidate would get the vote for either option but if a candidate got a lot of I am voting for the lesser of two evils votes it might (might is the key word here) remind the candidate that yes they did win a lot of votes but that a lot of his voters are doing so as a last resort. I imagine a candidate who won and got 70% lesser of two evils might behave differently than a candidate who wins and gets a 10% lesser of two evils.

By on

One of the historical debates I remember in school was why did so many German Jews stay when they could see what Hitler was doing. Wasn’t the coming Holocaust obvious to them? Of course, anyone living after post-World War II know this but how could someone living at the time know it. No one until World War II could imagine such a horror as happening. Now, however, the world remembers the Holocaust as an example of how things can go terribly wrong with Facism and Nationalism. So much so that it taints every reference to Facism/Nationalism. People could end in concentration camps if this goes on much longer. Unlikely but still has to be seriously considered given our knowledge of history.

I am thinking about this now because friends recently discussed leaving the country because of Donald Trump. I am not talking about Ellen Degeneres or Rosie O’Donnell either. People I know. And my first thoughts were why on Earth would they leave the country. Things just aren’t that bad. But, because Donald Trump is Donald Trump, I have to question myself — what if I am wrong?

The key to getting out is to leave before it gets too bad. It is best to leave while you can still get your money out and other countries are accepting political refugees, before the madness turns from you are a terrible person to you are so terrible that deserves to die. So, because I am Gay and stand very near to people Trump hates, I need to assess the situation. There must be some sweet spot between leaving too soon and leaving too late. Right now I still have a great deal of hope and I am not particularly worried.

I just can’t imagine my neighbors sitting idly by while I get sent to a concentration camp. Even the ones that voted for Trump would raise the alarm and, so far, I think I am right. Every Trump outrage has been met with some resistance and, while under tremendous strain, Democratic institutions are functioning as they should. It doesn’t mean that this won’t change.

Trump is arresting immigrants and shipping them off to foreign country jails without due process. There are people who argue that potential immigrants don’t deserve due process because they aren’t citizens and therefore are denied the Constitutional
Rights Americans have to prevent autocratic rule breaking. The vast majority of Republicans seems to be willing to go along with this in order to stay in power. So we have a bully with a strong authoritarian streak we need to keep our eyes on.

Right now this all seems manageable but I continue to have this nagging feeling of what if I am wrong. The problem with Trump isn’t the man but his voters. I honestly can see what people see in him. All I see is a buffoon, a clown unworthy of his office. I didn’t think he would be elected president and yet he was which means I am missing something really important about his voters.

I clearly don’t understand them, their grievances or their anger. This is what scares me then. Maybe I am so out of touch that I am misunderstanding all the signals which are telling me to leave. Again, I don’t think so but it is a gamble on my part which makes me think I might end up like the German Jews who staid because they thought things would get better. Am I blinding myself to the obvious and keeping my sunny disposition about the future here in America because I can’t see what everyone else is seeing? Does this mean I will end up on a train car to Auschwitz?