Biden's Speech Did A Number Of Things Right

He outlined the lies about the election and the evidence they were lies.

He made it clear this was not tourists in the capital, but an insurrection.  

He talked about saving democracy.  

But I wanted more.  

As long as Democrats think of half of the population as deplorables, they will act that way. I wanted him to reach  out to those who didn't vote for him, and acknowledge their anger.  He talked about the Big Lie that convinced them.  

I wanted him to tie that Big Lie to the Republican/Conservative propaganda machine and remind people that we have the First Amendment so there can have free and open debate about how government is doing. But that in a democracy debate is with words, not swords or guns.  

And that free debate won't work if people only listen to news that tells them just one side of the story.  Or worse, only tells them lies.  That they have to listen to various points of view so they can better judge what is truly happening.  

And how those lies and the resulting conflict make it hard for people to even know what is true about other important issues.  

I understand that this was a speech focused on January 6, but again, I wanted him to show how it was connected, through the many big lies,  to climate change, to race relations, to COVID prevention, to immigration.  The same propaganda machine that brought these people to the Capitol spreads lies to divide the nation, to divide people with common needs and goals, so they won't look at the injustice of our economic system and how the profits of capitalism go disproportionally to the wealthy

He talked about the danger still there for the US democracy, but he didn't give people concrete steps they could take to help keep that democracy.  He didn't ask people to start with listening to the feelings and the beliefs of family members with whom they disagree politically.  He didn't tell his supporters they have to get politically involved and get as many people out to vote as possible.

So, yes, what he said was important.  But what he didn't say was also important.

And one little pet peeve I have as our nation has evolved from one single election day to a much longer period in which people can vote early in person or by mail.  

Biden said in his speech: 

"Over 150 million Americans went to the polls and voted that day."

150 million people didn't vote on that day.  The Pew Research Center writes:

"A slim majority of voters (54%) say they voted in person this November, compared with 46% who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot. About one-quarter (27%) report having voted in person on Election Day, and an identical share say they voted in person before Election Day."

News people and politicians have to wean themselves from the term "election day."  "Election period" is the first term to come to mind as a substitute."

"While America has the watch, the Taliban have the time" Thoughts On Afghanistan

[US consumers of news get lots of click-bate photos and headlines, but very little depth on any topic. This post offers a peek at the complexities involved in predicting the future of Afghanistan. ] 

I was going to sort out my thoughts on the US pulling all troops out of Afghanistan.  What exactly did I know, not know?  What do I think the likely consequences might be for the people of Afghanistan, the US, and the power dynamics of Central Asia.

My basic sense was that Afghanistan is likely to be taken over by the Taliban - that an extreme male oriented version of Islamic law would be imposed and those associated with the US would be assassinated, 

This would lead to lots of headlines blaming Biden for 'losing Afghanistan,' losing face for the US internationally, and give the Republicans one of their most effective weapons for the 2022 and 2024 elections.  

So I outlined those ideas, including the context that I didn't think would be included - that already England and the USSR have tried to take control of Afghanistan and eventually withdrew.  That others - particularly Afghanistan's neighbors - would work to keep Afghanistan stable and safe for them, as well as developing more extensive beneficial relationships between their countries.  I also saw come comparisons with our war in Vietnam and the kinds of rhetoric used when it was clear we had lost and were going to withdraw.  

Then I started googling to find out more about the interests and relationships Afghanistan has with its neighbors.  

After reading a number of articles on Afghanistan's relationships with its neighbors, my outlook is more hopeful.  The people of Afghanistan have suffered a great deal over the last 40 years - including the Taliban.  The US' departure may give the Taliban the symbolic victory they need to work more cooperatively with the Afghan government, and more importantly, with neighboring governments.  

Iran and Pakistan have vested interests in a friendly Afghanistan.  Iran's Shi'a government has serious issues with the Sunni Taliban.  But all the countries in the region have interests in regional infrastructure - roads, power, communications, trade.

Most significantly, China's been aggressively building a road to Pakistan as well as infrastructure projects in Africa, and trade agreements with Europe.  China's border with Afghanistan is the smallest, but China's power and expansionist interests the largest.  

While some of the terror people expect when the US pulls out completely may happen, I suspect the long term outlook for Afghanistan is not so grim.  China will spread its largesse among the Taliban and the Afghan government in exchange for a more secure country and an extension of their  Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and their China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).  

No matter what actually happens, we can count on the GOP to focus on the worst aspects.  But if they don't have any real issues with Biden, they would fabricate some fantastic tales.  

So here is my original outline and below are some links you might find interesting.

These are thoughts about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.  

1. The GOP will try to use Afghanistan to defeat Biden in 2024.  Even though the GOP is not too interested in women's rights in the US, they used women's rights as one of the reasons to go into Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. We will see images and stories after the US pulls out completely of assassinations, of girls being barred from schools, of imposition of Taliban rules like before US troops entered the country.  
2. The stories we won't hear 
1. A serious evaluation of why, after 20 years, the Afghan government couldn't defeat the Taliban.  
2. What would likely happen in Afghanistan and the cost to the US if we stayed and continued our 'nation building'
3. Calls for US troops to intervene to help the millions of people around the world whose lives are as difficult, as at risk, or worse, in other countries (remember how Trump helped the Syrian people?)
3. Stories we may hear:
1. How the British and Russians both withdrew from Afghanistan, unable to defeat local resistance.
2. How our initial goal was to get Al Qaeda and bin Laden, not to do democracy building
3. How getting into war is easier than getting out of it
4. How this is a humiliating defeat for the US
5. How Vietnam was also a humiliating defeat for the US, but eventually has become a thriving country, doing much better without us, even though we portrayed the Communist North as evil demons
6. How Afghanistan is not Vietnam 
4. The biggest irony, I think, is that the corruption we hear about in the Afghan government is, if not the result of, certainly greatly magnified, by the billions of dollars of US money and weapons and contracts that have flooded the country.  For those in a position to scoop up some of that largesse, it was an irresistible opportunity to make one's fortune, with hopes to leave when the spigot got turned off.  
5. Likely outcomes of leaving
1. The initial outcomes will favor the Taliban, 
2. The opposition to the Taliban, without the cushion of US money, will either be killed, flee the country, or take on the Taliban more seriously and without the fighting over US money
3. Neighboring countries (there are six - can you name them? Three were part of the Soviet Union which no longer has a border with Afghanistan.  See map below) will begin to adjust their Afghan policies when the US is gone and exert influence to protect their own interests such as
1. those who supported the Taliban because they were fighting the US will likely have a strong influence on the Taliban and/or withdraw their support
2. concern for radical religious beliefs destabilizing their own populations (Taliban are Sunni Muslims. Iran are Shi'a)
3. protect their borders 
1. stem tide of Afghan refugees coming over their borders
2. prevent military threats
4. exploit minerals and develop infrastructure projects and other economic opportunities  in Afghanistan
5. make deals to export their products to their nearest neighbor

US voters have short term memories.  Pulling out in 2021 gives Biden three years for this action to be lost in the flood of events that will occur between now and the election.  There may even be glimmers of good news to emerge from Afghanistan - but I think that will take longer.  

Source:  Geo Politics of South Asia and MENA

Don't miss the tiny, but significant border with China.  

Some interesting background:

Iran's Influence on Afghanistan (June 23, 2020) Middle East Institute - SourceWatch lists MEI's biggest funders as the world's major oil companies.

Iran-Taliban Growing Ties - What's Different This Time? (Feb 16, 2021)  The Atlantic Council - Media Bias/Fact Check says it's factual with a center-right bias.

Iran's Influence in Afghanistan (2014) Rand Corporation - AllSides rates Rand as "Leans Left" (Note, this was before Trump was seen even as a viable candidate)

No-Win War:  The Paradox of U.S.-Pakistan Relations in Afganistan's Shadow - Event Recap - (May 11, 2021) Wilson Center - MediaBias/Fact check rates Wilson Center between "least biased" and "left of center"

The headline quote of this post comes from this article and is attributed to Zahid Hussain quoting a Taliban leader

How Qatar came to host the Taliban (2013) BBC - Interesting background on how the Taliban leaders came to have their headquarters in Qatar.

Turkmenistan:  The Afghan connection (Jan 12, 2021) Eurasianet   Media Bias/Fact Check gives Eurasianet a high rating in factual reporting and a slightly left of center bia.Gives a sense of the kinds of issues  and projects that connect the two countries - particularly infrastructure projects. 

China Has a BIG Plan for Post-U.S. Afghanistan—and It’s Worth Billions: Beijing just can’t wait for the U.S. to get out of the way.(July 4, 2021) Daily Beast

Who are the Taliban? ( July 1, 2021) BBC

Will Turkey take over at Afghanistan's main airport?   (July 9, 2021)  Al Jazeera - Al Jazeera, like the Taliban, are headquartered in Doha, Qatar.

If China does move into the vacuum there are many possibilities.

• The GOP will trumpet how Biden 'lost' Afghanistan to China, as they did about losing Vietnam to the Communists and earlier, how Truman 'lost' China.  Of course, the US never 'had' any of those places to lose in the first place.
• The Afghan resistance to foreign rulers has been impressive.  They may quickly find China to be one more foreign nation trying to exploit them.  And they know how China is treating their fellow Muslims the Uighurs in the Chinese province of Xinjiang, which has China's tiny border with Afghanistan.  
• Tired of 40 years of war, the Taliban (they fought under other names before they became Taliban) may be ready to use the US withdrawal to declare victory and enjoy peace.  Though fighting is the one activity they are really good at and so may be more comfortable in that, and they may see this as their turn again to rule Afghanistan.  

Spring Time In Anchorage And Other Thoughts

Springtime In Anchorage

Spring in Alaska is different.  We still have a significant amount of snow on the ground.  

And streets look like streams and small lakes.

But the sun is galloping toward the solstice at nearly 6 more minutes a day between sunrise and sunset.  People still say things like "more daylight" but the daylight starts well before the official time of sunrise and lasts longer than the official sunset.  

Georgia's Voting Wrongs Act

The news, of course, distracts me if I let it.  Reports of Georgia's new Jim Crow laws to suppress voting mention making it a crime to bring food or water to people waiting in line to vote.  Yes, that's outrageous.  But the food and water focus overlooks the fact that these new laws will continue making long lines for undesirable voters into something normal.  Lines long enough that they'll need to get water and food.  Apparently they didn't outlaw bringing bottles that another story says that Amazon drivers carry because they don't have time to pee under their demanding delivery schedules.  

Let's be clear, if people have to wait in line for an hour to vote, it means there aren't enough voting places or staff.  Requiring such long lines are clearly an attempt to prevent people from voting.  Republicans argue voter restrictions are to overcome voter fraud, a phenomenon Trump's lawyers failed to prove in over 60 court cases.  

And that's what the Republican party has been reduced to:  preventing people from voting, ads that lie and unfairly characterize Democrats,  gerrymandering, and voter suppression.  

In the Supreme Court an attorney siding with Arizona's Republican National Committee defended such practices as the only way Republicans can win:

“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referencing legal standing.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” said Michael Carvin, the lawyer defending the state's restrictions. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 hurts us, it’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

Just as McConnell pledged to make President Obama a one term president, the Republicans in the Senate and House vote on legislation based on how it will help Democrats or hurt Republicans, not on what's good for the US.   

Democrats and those disillusioned with what the Republican Party has become, have to continue to do everything they can to get all those folks who don't normally vote to the polls.  They have to find ways to revise the filibuster rules so that the minority can't veto every piece of legislation.  

Word Matter - Especially In Headlines

I think it's important for every consumer of news to pay close attention to the words used in headlines.  Getting clicks means making headlines edgier and more confrontational than is warranted.  Republicans are working hard to frame what's happening with immigration as "Biden's Border Crisis."

Let's remember Biden has been in office just over two months.  And that the Trump administration delayed transition briefings that have always been routine parts of the transition of power from one president to the next.  Until Trump.  

By focusing on the border, the Republicans and the media that follow them, reduce the problem to the lump and not to the underlying disease that causes the lump - the dangerous conditions people endure in key Central American countries that force people to flee for their lives.  If you dig deep enough into these conditions you'll find the fingerprints of American Imperialism, from protecting US corporate interests, say in bananas, to the Iran-Contra arrangements that led to the US supporting repressive wars in the area.  

I also saw a link to the first Biden press conference that was headlined something like "hard hitting questions."  The video showed Kaitlin Collins pressing the president on whether he would run for reelection in 2024.  Really?  He's being evasive if he doesn't say yes two months into office?  That's hard-hitting?  No, that's not anything that takes any sort of research.  It's the kind of question that perhaps she's hoping she can get a momentary bump on her Twitter feed for being the first to get Biden to say he's running for reelection.  But it's a political question, not an informed question about policy that would be important for people to hear.  And Biden handled it appropriately, saying it wasn't something he's focused on.  That there are more important issues he's facing.  

Why Hasn't Biden Pushed Immigration and Gun Reform Already?

Biden's also getting criticism from some in his party for not pushing harder on immigration or gun control.  Politicians have to weigh what is important against what is achievable.  Immigration and gun control are still quite controversial.  Look at how the Republicans voted on COVID relief.  They were almost 100% no votes among Republicans.  Voting Rights should also be an easy vote.  Like COVID relief, it has strong the backing of US people, if not of all of their representatives in Washington DC.  Infrastructure is another highly popular and needed endeavor and one with lots of carrots for Republican lawmakers who want better roads and bridges in their states.  

My interpretation is that Biden wants to go after the' easiest' of the important tasks first.  He doesn't want to get bogged down in the most controversial issues.  Once he gets Voting Rights and Infrastructure in place, he can focus on Immigration and Gun Control.  If he starts with the gun control and immigration, everything else could get bogged down and he'd have nothing but COVID relief (a big deal on its own) to show for the 2022 election.  But reporters on deadlines with pressures for clicks and no time for in-depth research, grab what's easy rather than what's important. 

But media that allow their journalists time to dig deep are able to come up with stories that give us background that helps us understand people and situations that are normally just names passing our eyeballs briefly.  

Today's LA Times had a lengthy story about the Ball family's making Chino Hills into a basketball center.  Before this, the only awareness I had of the Ball family was the incident where one of them was suspended from the UCLA team after shoplifting during a team visit to China.  There's a lot more to know - though the article barely mentions the China incident.  It's not the same as many of the stories in the NYTimes or Washington Post on critical issues of the day, but it is a piece that has some depth to it.  

[UPDATED 5:30pm -  Just got back to finishing today's LA Times and there's another article that goes into more depth about something - this time about racism in LA's surfing culture.  It focuses on two black friends who surf every morning and then one day got involved in an incident at Manhattan Beach.

"As emotions climaxed, a different surfer — white and older — inserted himself into the fray. He began calling Brick the N-word repeatedly. Then he called him a “donkey” and violently splashed water in his face. He also called Gage, a 25-year-old dancer and choreographer with painted nails and arms full of scribbly tattoos, a gay slur and told him to “go back to the streets.”

“Go down there … that’s where the Blacks used to surf,” the man added, referencing Bruce’s Beach, a once-thriving Black-owned resort at the center of a fierce land battle in Manhattan Beach today. (The property was taken through eminent domain more than 100 years ago. Local activists are calling for Los Angeles County to return the land to the living descendants of the Bruce family and for the city of Manhattan Beach to publicly apologize and provide restitution for its role in institutionalized racism.)

As the altercation ensued, a crowd of mostly white surfers surrounded Brick and Gage and refused to intervene. A Black passerby named Rashidi Kafele took notice and started filming. He wasn’t used to seeing Black surfers in the water and, upon hearing the N-word, knew he had to document it.

This was the first time Brick and Gage had been involved in a racially charged altercation in the water, but locals had seen instances like this before. Kavon Ward, founder of the organization Justice for Bruce’s Beach, says the situation “shows that nothing has changed in Manhattan Beach.”]

LA Times has an obituary of Larry McMurtry today..  Obituaries of famous people are a little different because newspapers tend to have drafts of them ready, especially as they get older.  

It talks about his growing up in Archer City, Texas listening to cattle herding stories from his grandfather to his opening a bookstore and writing books like Lonesome Dove and screenplays for movies like The Last Picture Show and Terms of Endearment.  Later, recovering from a heart attack and by-pass surgery, he joined friend Diana Ossana who worked to overcome McMurtry's depression.

"Ossana eventually got him back to the typewriter with the story of the 1930s outlaw Pretty Boy Floyd. “It was the way to jump-start him into life,” she said. “He was shriveling up and would have died.”

The pair collaborated on a number of novels and teleplays, but their cultural and aesthetic sensibilities most famously aligned in 1997, when Ossana recommended an 11-page short story about two gay cowboys that was published in the New Yorker.

“I don’t read short fiction,” McMurtry told her.

Twenty minutes later, they were writing a one-page letter to Annie Proulx asking to option “Brokeback Mountain.” They had a first draft in three months and, in 2006, accepted the Oscar for best adapted screenplay.

Standing with the golden statue in hand, McMurtry, who had paired an Armani tuxedo jacket and shirt with bluejeans, gave a special nod to “all the booksellers of the world,” whom he thanked, 'from the humblest paperback exchange to the masters of the great bookshops of the world ... contributors to the survival of the culture of the book, a wonderful culture which we mustn’t lose.'”

I also spent time responding to a long comment about White Privilege.  I won't repeat it here, but if you have any interest, you can see the discussion here.

Enjoy the weekend.   Passover begins tonight.  

 

Getting Vaccinated

This is an account of getting vaccinated Monday January 11, 2021.

In the Bingo like hit and miss of online appointments, I'd first gotten my wife on a waiting list at one clinic.  I got on as well, but she got a confirmation email and I didn't.  Most locations that showed up online had no available appointments. 

I started just rebooting the page several times a day, figuring that maybe if I get on just when someone puts up their announcement I can get an appointment before the run out.  About 6:15pm, I think on Friday, the Anchorage School District (ASD) had 259 appointments available Tuesday, January 12.  I snagged one for 3:30pm.  Then I started again, immediately, for my wife, but there was nothing left.

The next morning I suggested my wife check again - it was 7:15am.  The ASD had a lot again.  She tried to register, but it wouldn't allow her email. She was on an iPad, so I tried on my laptop.  There were still appointments and I was able to get her one at 1:45pm Monday January 11.  

I was seeing stuff online that things were a little loosey goosey about walk ins.  So I went with J to the ASD.  There was a short line outside - maybe 6 people.  I went in with Joan.  They checked her driver's license and pointed her in one direction.  I explained that I came with her, but had an appointment for the next day, could I possibly get my shot then and not have to come back.  She took some information, gave me a sticky note, and pointed me to another line.  It curved around back to the sign in desks.  There were white markers on the floor showing where 6 feet apart was.  Everyone, of course, had on masks.  A few people had plastic shields as well.  

This picture shows the line just after the sign in.  You can see the white 6" markers.  And there were a lot of chairs around for people like the man in front of me who had a cane.  Up ahead are the banks of tables for people to register people.  

The people who had appointments had been sent to another line, directly to the nurses giving the shots.  It was to the left of that cone on the far left.  

You can see a man sitting down signing in.  On the other side was someone just filling in the info that we had to fill in on the computer.  But these guys had to power to give us appointments right then and there.

This is pretty much the same picture, EXCEPT the guy you see where the main had been sitting in the previous picture was sanitizing the chair and table.  As soon as the guy got up, he swooped in and sprayed.  The person in front of me was moving up to the next white dot.  

Way up ahead are all the people with the needles.  It looks far, but with everyone 6 feet apart, it didn't take long.  

This is the nurse who vaccinated me.  The story in the newspaper was that school nurses were being used for this.  I looked at all the vaccine she sucked out of vial into the syringe and I knew it was going to hurt.  

But I was wrong.  She was great.  I barely felt the needle go in and the vaccine going into my arm was not seriously painful at all.  A mild irritation.  

She then pointed me to the next stations and explained what would happen.  

J wasn't as happy about the nurse who vaccinated her.

Someone took me to a table with a laptop to make my appointment for me second vaccination February 5.  Again, it was like the form I had filled out online, except there was no guessing if there would be an appointment. And this time I had to check yes for have you been vaccinated for COVID and mark 2nd rather than 1st.   Though we've since learned that the original plan to reserve a second vaccine for people when they got their first one has been abandoned as they try to get as many people vaccinated as possible.  They did that on the belief that there was plenty of reserve vaccine nationally.  But that turns out not to be true.  So at this point we're going on faith that there will be a second dose of Moderna on February 5.  

J was finished but saw me and came over to help me get the next appointment.  

Everyone was polite and ready to help.  The six foot distancing was violated a lot - obviously when I got the shot - but also by patients trying to figure out where to go.  

Somewhere along the line we got vaccination cards with the date and Moderna marked.  Someone suggested I take a picture of it, which I did.  That was a good idea since I already don't know where my card is.

The next station we signed out.  He checked that it was 15 minutes since we'd gotten the injections.  And off we went.  

Neither of us had any side effects but a sore arm, mine was barely noticeable.  The next day all my usual aches and pains were absent.  That only lasted a day.  

And I have to say I felt significantly lighter.  While I think I'm doing pretty well in isolation - certainly not bored - the idea that by mid-February I'm going to be significantly less likely to contract COVID, and if I do it should have much less severe effects on me, was liberating.  

So now I have five weeks to clean all the boxes that we have downstairs.  I can make a dental appointment while I still have teeth.  And I can get out and collect signatures for the Recall Dunleavy effort.  

Do I feel guilty that I got vaccinated while others have not?  I think guilty is a little strong.  I do think people who work in grocery stores and other essential jobs should be getting their shots now, but they are in this tier.  I'm also in this tier because I'm over 65.  But basically, I don't think that my waiting is going to make a difference.  (Yes, if all the healthy seniors waited a bit it might, but that isn't going to happen.)  And with the sizable number of people who are reluctant to get vaccinated - even health care workers - I think the push to just get vaccine into people's arms is the right approach.  We don't want any wasted doses because they were taken out of deep freeze but not enough people showed up in the next five days.  

Let's hope President Biden will be able to get the public administration of all this better organized and more efficient and effective and equitable.   We do know that the scientists and the president will be sending the same message out.  Let's hope that Trump's twitter ban means he won't be continuing to pollute the truth at nearly as high a level as he has been.  

Here's Why I'm Calling This For Biden

 Despite all the handwringing, and recognizing that people don’t want to repeat their dashed expectations of 2016, I think all the signs point to Biden winning comfortably.  I know the media explore all the possible hidden traps - and some are there - but the media make money from tension and uncertainty.  

Basically, 2020 is VERY different from 2016. 

1. Trump was a con-artist who billed himself as an exceptionally talented business man in 2016 and people who were tired of ‘gridlock’ thought they should give him a try.  Drain the swamp and all that.  But the American people know a lot more about Trump now.  They only people still with him are those who 
1. Are like, or think they are like, Trump
1. The greedy - tax cuts and good stock market have increased their wealth
2. The needy - those who need a father figure to tell them what to think and do, to nurse their prejudices and encourage their hate, to protect them from their worst fears (includes members of evangelical and fundamentalist churches who support Trump and gun fetishists)
3. The racists and the misogynists and the abusive
4. Those who don’t believe in democracy
2. Are strongly anti-communist or anti-socialist - including those who came to the US from communist and/or socialist countries, and people who have no idea what those words mean, but are strongly against them.
3. Die-hard Republicans for whom voting for a Democrat would be an act of betrayal
2. Now we know about misinformation campaigns, infiltration of social media, Russian interference and other machinations to turn voters for Trump and against Hillary Clinton
3. The anti-Trump side has gained new recruits
1. People who didn’t realize how bad Trump would be  and didn’t vote or voted for 3rd party candidates are now ready to go vote like it matters
2. The constant barrage of videos of blacks being killed by cops, being Karened, plus Trump’s own support of white supremacy and other racist acts and the resulting Black Lives Matter protests have mobilized many non-voters of color and made many white folks more understanding of the level of racism in the US and the danger of another four years of Trump.
3. The many books unmasking the Trump myth, from scholars, from Trump family members and long time employees, from Trump appointees changed what people know about Trump.  And while most people don’t read books, key passages have been repeated over and over again in the media and social media.  All these have peeled off people who voted for Trump and converted them to non-voters or Biden voters
4. The Parkland Students movement has mobilized youth to register to vote.  They helped speed up the unraveling of the NRA and shown high school students they have power.
5. Floridians gave felons the right to vote and while Republicans are blocking their participation as best as they can, still tens of thousands can now vote.  
6. Climate change activists and Native Activists and others are all bringing new voters out.
7. There's a collection of 'traditional' Republicans who are working hard to defeat Trump, using the same PR techniques they've used in the past to defeat Democrats (and I'm worried about who their targets might be in the future)
4. COVID-19 has exposed all Trump’s flaws and incompetence as a president and reports say that this is mobilizing some of the older white vote away from Trump, as well as all those affected directly by the virus - essential workers, those who have gotten sick, and the families of those of have been sick or who have died
5. Biden is a very different candidate from Clinton
1. He’s not a woman.  As bad as it reflects on Americans, women candidates are judged differently from men and it costs them votes.  
2. He’s not Hillary.  She’s a very competent wonk, but didn’t come across as likable to many.  She also carried the baggage of the Clintons’ post presidency wealth acquisition.  (But also remember she got 3 million more votes than Trump did.)
3. Clinton had to fight constant attacks about Benghazi and emails.  The Hunter Biden attacks haven’t stuck.  Partly because we understand a lot more about Trump’s fake news industry.  
4. Biden is the opposite of Trump.  He’s decent, he’s compassionate, he’s got loving family and friends.  He makes as good of a uniter candidate as we could want in contrast to Trump’s divisiveness.
6. The Democrats have paid much more attention to the electoral college this time round
7. The Democrats have a huge team of lawyers ready to fight Trump challenges to the election.  There will be no Gore concession unless they are sure he lost the election fairly.
8. There’s been record numbers of early voters and mail-in voters - and as I’ve tried to outline above, the pool of anti-Trump new voters is much bigger than pro-Trump voters.
9. Democrats have raised unheard of money from online campaigns with relatively small average contributions which demonstrates a level of fear and activism we haven’t seen for a long time.  
10. The polls are in Biden’s favor, even in the swing states.  Some traditionally Republican strongholds are polling close.  

That doesn’t mean that Biden can’t lose (so, yes, if you haven’t voted yet, you still need to go vote.)   It doesn’t mean that Russians or Republicans haven’t schemed to hack voting machines so they turn every sixth Biden vote into a Trump vote.  That’s relatively easy to program and hard to detect if it’s done in just a few precincts.  But there are ways to spot such efforts.  

And it doesn’t mean that Biden will be a great president.  He’s got a pandemic to deal with.  He’s got the destruction of many government agencies to repair.  He’s got a volatile Trump out there who’s addicted to attention and adulation and would like nothing better to make Biden fail.  And if Democrats don’t flip the Senate, he’s got to fight for every inch.  

But it looks to me that all the little signs have lined up in Biden’s favor.  For him to lose a lot of things have to go haywire, and if that happens it will suggest that there were dirty tricks we hadn’t anticipated.  Everything that Trump says about his campaign - that if he doesn’t win it’s because the election was stolen - is actually the truth about the Biden campaign.  

We Need A Reminder Of What Presidential Used To Look Like

When Bush was made president over Gore back in 2000, I mused that with the internet, we could have two alternative realities that allowed each to be president so we could see how each of the two worlds progressed over the next four years.

Well now I'd love to see Biden and Sanders and Warren role play being president by televising  how they would handle the crisis as if they were actually president now.  And I'd like to see the media, in all its forms, cover these announcements.

I think many US citizens have forgotten what a real president looks and sounds like.  And those who have come to voting age in the last four years may never have really seen what a real president of all the people sounds like.

We'd hear about the gravity of the situation.

We'd hear statistics and explanations based on science.

We'd hear detailed plans for limiting the spread of the virus, and acknowledgment that this is a societal problem that requires collective action beyond hand washing.

Uncertainty would be acknowledged.   But we'd also learn that the actions taken and the money spent, even if this pandemic is  less dangerous that some think, will give us valuable research that will better prepare us for future pandemics.  And at the very least, we'll be able to save thousands, maybe tens of thousands of lives of the most vulnerable.  Maybe even your grandmother.

And there'd be encouragement about how we find strength and renewed pride in the United States as we tackle the virus at home and help those abroad whose health care systems aren't as strong as ours.

And after each candidate's role play, the station will replay what the current occupant of the White House told us the other day.  (Scroll down past all his comments about Afghanistan to his non-specific exclamations about how great the  White House efforts have been.)

Now that Bloomberg is out of the race, maybe he can direct some of his money to this sort of project.

Meanwhile we can assume the anti-socialism and the Hunter Biden smear ads are being prepared.

The moral of “Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood” seems to be “who doesn’t miss the good old days when cars had fins and white men were the heroes of everything?”

The title quote comes from Mary McNamara's beautifully ruthless* critique of "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood."  Her review helped crystalize part of my reaction to the Democratic debates this week.

Kenneth Turan's review of "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" in the LA Times last week was positive.  He acknowledged that he wasn't a Quentin Tarantino fan, but said this was a different Tarantino.  Turan saw Reservoir Dogs at Sundance.

"When a visibly pained audience member asked Tarantino in the Q&A how he justified the film’s tidal waves of violence, the director almost didn’t understand the question. “Justify it?” he echoed before just about roaring, “I don’t have to justify it. I love it!”
Over the next quarter-century, little has changed. To enjoy Tarantino was to embrace his preening style, to share his reductive view of cinema and the world and violence’s preeminent place in both.
I was a chronic dissenter — I still get occasional grief about my “Pulp Fiction” review — so how is it that I reacted with distinct pleasure to the writer-director’s 'Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood'?"

I didn't see either of those films.  I'd heard about the level of violence (much directed at women) and decided I didn't need to buy a ticket for films that glorify violence.

[*How can I enjoy a 'beautifully ruthless" critique on the one hand, and shun a violent and bloody film?  Well, one is just well strung words, the other strings bloody images across the screen.  Do we really think that Hollywood and the video game industry have not been primers for mass shooters?]

But given Turan's approval this time, I was thinking about going.

But a few days later,  Mary McNamara, also reviewed the movie in the LA Times.  She came after the movie, mercilessly from a different angle.  Here's more than I'd normally quote, but it's all relevant to my follow up about white males' difficulty understanding why others have problems with their past behavior.

"Nostalgia is fun, and fine when used recreationally; but it’s time to face the dangers of our national addiction to reveling in visions of the past that are, at best, emotionally curated by a select few and, at worst, complete nonsense."

"Watching two middle-aged white guys grapple with a world that does not value them as much as they believe it should, it was tough not to wonder if that something was the same narrow, reductive and mythologized view of history that has made red MAGA hats the couture of conservative fashion."

"Whatever the reason, as I shifted in my seat waiting for the film’s climax, Tarantino’s elegy for a time when men were men and women were madonnas, whores or nags and the only people who spoke Spanish were waiters — “Don’t cry in front of the Mexicans” is an actual line played for laughs — began to feel ominously familiar.
If nothing else, 'Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood' laid to rest the notion of Hollywood liberalism — any industry still so invested in sentimentalizing a time of studio fiefdoms, agents played by Al Pacino in a wig-hat and white-guy buddy movies can hardly be considered progressive.
When times, it is implied if not directly stated, were simpler.
Even though they weren’t. Ever.
Unless you were a member of the white, male, Christian, heterosexual, able-bodied, culturally conforming, non-addicted, mentally well, moneyed elite, there was literally no time in history that was simpler, better, easier, or greater. For most people, history is the story of original oppression gradually lessened through a series of struggles and setbacks.
'Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood' is a masterpiece of nostalgia porn. . . Whether it’s the resurrection of leg warmers or fedoras, the British class system, Winona Ryder or, heaven help us, Charles Manson, nostalgia is the new sex and the exquisite museum-like quality of the detail found in period films and television series is its porn.

And he has chosen as his driving force an actor upset because he is no longer seen as hero material and his loyal stuntman companion, who may or may not have murdered his wife. That this death is treated as a joke, and the wife visible only once, in flashback, as a braying nag in a bikini, could be viewed as an indictment of the Playboy-cartoon misogyny of the time. Could be, if Cliff were not portrayed with such charming tough-guy chivalry. If this guy murdered his wife, she probably deserved it .
So for Cliff’s wife anyway, not such a golden era.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't tell you that she nailed it.  But Tarantino would probably tell you his film doesn't have to follow her rules, and so, at worst, she doesn't have to  follow his either.

But all this discussion about nostalgia for an age when healthy, etc. white males had it best, intersected with thoughts I had about the criticisms of Biden in the debates - particularly about his being friendly with extreme Southern racist Senators and his support of the Omnibus Crime bill.

OK, public policy is complicated and few bills are 100% what the sponsors and supporters want.  There are some who would argue that the mass incarceration of black men had already happened and that the bill didn't contribute that much more, plus it included the Violence Against Women Act. (Which Bernie Sanders says is why he voted for it.)  But others, who understood better what was happening, like Marian Wright Edelman, wanted less emphasis on punishment and more emphasis on prevention.  Indeed, the bill greatly damaged Edelman's relationship with the Clintons.

My thoughts had been along the lines of:

• Policy is complicated and to pass bills, sponsors have to compromise.  
• But ultimately, this was a response to crime fear and was a get tough bill that included the 3 strikes you're out provision that has been so problematic.  
• Can you fault Biden, the bill's sponsor?  

 One can say that he was trying to fight the increase in crime, but that he was using traditional means - more police, stricter punishment, more prisons - and not listening to the minority communities who wanted more prevention money.  If he wasn't such a good friend with racist Southern Senators, might he have had a more progressive understanding of the issues?  Maybe.

When we judge politicians on their past actions, it's reasonable to give some attention to what were the common beliefs at the time.  But I really want our elected officials to be insightful to the extent that the see way ahead of the contemporary wisdom of the day.  I want officials who understand the underlying causes of a problem and look ahead to the best - not the most popular - ways to attack the problem.

Because, if Biden becomes president, his past behavior is likely to be the best predictor of his present and future behavior.  And he wasn't the deep thinker who saw through the flaws of his bill, how it would affect the prison population, or how preventative provisions needed to be included.
 
I want a president who sees, and acts on, a greater vision than current public opinion.  But I also have to weigh in whether he could have gotten such a law passed.  Just as Democrats can't get a lot done while McConnell is majority leader in the Senate.

But I think McNamara's review also points out how easy it is for the privileged in society to NOT see what is happening to the rest of society.    Perhaps if he had spent more time with Southern blacks he might have had a better understanding of the perniciousness of the criminal justice systems in the southern states were.  But I also watched the Watergate hearings live.  It was when I first learned that there were very intelligent Southerners.  Without people like Sen. Sam Ervin, Nixon would never have resigned.  So, yes, in a legislature, it's useful to maintain cordial relations with people whose ideas you abhor.

But Biden was also the chair of the committee that vetted Clarence Thomas.  He regrets how he handled that now - that's good - but dad he had a more insightful understanding about sexual harassment, had he not been surrounded by privileged white men, perhaps Anita Hill would have been treated with more respect.  You can say that 'our national consciousness has evolved" since then, but lots of people were outraged back then as they were more recently.

Even LA Times movie critic Kenneth Turan, who went against the grain in his earlier reviews of Tarantino's work, missed this other interpretation of "Once Upon A Time."  This interpretation that the less privileged, the victims of sexism, racism, homophobia, and on and on,  have of things.

Of course, we all see films differently because we all have different experiences in life which enable us to react  positively or negatively with some things in a film but not others.  So we all see different things in the same films.  I don't know how I would have reacted to  'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood' if I saw it.  I grew up in LA in the 50s and 60s so there is surely a lot of 'nostalgia porn' for me to get off on in the film.  (Though I was off teaching in Thailand when the Sharon Tate murder happened.)  But as soon as I read McNamara's review, I understood immediately what she saying.  I'm not certain that Biden would think here concerns would outweigh the 'cool stuff.'

But he'd be a lot better than our current president and he'd have around him people who do get it, now, not 30 years from now.  I think flaws like this can be pointed out without doing much damage to a presidential candidate Biden were he to nominated, because the Republicans don't even understand these complaints.  But they'll try to exploit any divisions among Democrats.

I have a lot of other thoughts about the debates, but I'll save them for a different post - if I get to it.