It Doesn't Take That Long To Catch Up With Key People's Backgrounds - Mitch McConnell and Gretchen Whitmer

If anyone asks you about specific reasons Senator McConnell shouldn't be reelected, this article in the New Yorker by Jane Mayer will give a long, long list.

"The costs of the Senate’s dysfunction stretch in all directions, and include America’s vulnerability in the face of the covid-19 outbreak. For seven years after Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, passed, in 2010, Republicans in Congress tried at least sixty times to repeal it. In 2017, McConnell, who called it “the worst bill in modern history,” led the charge again and, among other things, personally introduced a little-noticed amendment to eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which provided grants to states for detecting and responding to infectious-disease outbreaks, among other things. The fund received approximately a billion dollars a year and constituted more than twelve per cent of the C.D.C.’s annual budget. Almost two-thirds of the money went to state and local health departments, including a program called Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases, in Kentucky.
Hundreds of health organizations, including the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, sent a letter to McConnell and other congressional leaders, warning them of “dire consequences” if the Prevention Fund was eliminated. Public-health programs dealing with infectious-disease outbreaks had never been restored to the levels they were at before the 2008 crash and were “critically underfunded.” The letter concluded, “Eliminating the Prevention Fund would be disastrous.”
In a column in Forbes, Judy Stone, an infectious-disease specialist, asked, “Worried about bird flu coming from Asia? Ebola? Zika? You damn well should be. Monitoring and control will be slashed by the Senate proposal and outbreaks of illness (infectious and other) will undoubtedly worsen.” The cuts, she wrote, were 'unconscionable—particularly given that the savings will go to tax cuts for the wealthiest rather than meeting the basic health needs of the public.'”

And if you hear the name Gretchen Whitmer and you're wondering why a first term governor is being considered by Biden for his number two spot, Politico had a long piece on Gretchen Whitmer.  Here's just a snippet:

"Whitmer’s journey to this office begins with her father, Richard, a Lansing legend who worked for Governors George Romney and William Milliken. Long before he became one of the state’s private sector heavyweights—president and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan—Dick Whitmer was a trained lawyer who rose up the governmental ranks to eventually lead the Department of Commerce.
His wife, Sherry Whitmer, was a powerhouse in her own right, an assistant attorney general under Frank Kelley, Michigan’s longest-serving attorney general and a godfather figure to young Gretchen and her two siblings. Although Dick and Sherry Whitmer divorced when Gretchen was 10, they instilled in their children a shared love of public service and a shared set of values.
“Neither one of them were ideologues. My mom probably would have been described like a Reagan Democrat, and my dad was a Milliken Republican,” Whitmer says, leaning forward on a blue-cushioned chair. “In Michigan, that’s theoretically a Democrat and a Republican, but it’s pretty close on the scale.”
The eldest Whitmer child grew up harboring no political convictions, much less political aspirations. She dreamed of being a sportscaster for ESPN. This owed to no particular athletic prowess; her adolescent nickname was “Gretchen Gravity,” a nod to her frequent falls, and overall lack of coordination. (These days she goes strictly by “Gretchen”—or sometimes, in an exaggerated Midwestern twang, “Gee Dubya.”)"

Save The Post Office - Send Letters To Family, Friends, Teachers, Strangers, Legislators

The US Post Office is losing lots of money because of the COVID-19 closings.    It's reported that Trump threatened to veto the relief package if aid for the Post Office was included.  Trump has been at war with the Post Office at least since 2018 when he wanted them to charge Amazon more for their  postal deliveries.  I'd note that Amazon owner Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post, one of Trump's many perceived media enemies.  And now people are saying Trump's opposition to the funding is related to suppressing voting-by-mail.

Our first post master was Benjamin Franklin who pushed hard for a postal service.  He was also a printer and newspaper publisher and having a post office made distributing the news a lot easier.  But at this point I'm backing Ben Franklin over Donald Trump.  

So I'm pushing for everyone to start sending letters.  Letters mean more than a phone call or an email or text.  They say you cared to spend a little more time to think about what you wanted to say and to get an envelope and mail it.  And they can be easily read long in the future.  My only connections to my grandparents, for instance, are letters they wrote long before I was born.  

So, who should you write too?

• Grandkids - they love getting mail
• Grandparents
• Parents
• Kids
• Aunts and Uncles

Let them know you're thinking about them.  Who else?

• Let favorite teachers know how much they meant to you
• The same for other people who had important influences on you that they may not realize
• Write your members of Congress to tell them to make sure the Post Office survives
• Find names and addresses at random on line and write a stranger
• Pay your bills by mail

But in these lockdown days, you don't want to expose yourself to a post office crowd to buy stamps.  No problem.  You can register with the post office online  and order stamps for home delivery. Here are some of the stamps available right now.  

Feel daunted by writing a letter?  Here's a link with how to do it.  And since must people are home, there's lots more time to write.  And show your kids how to send a letter.  

The Post Office is an important way for people to be connected.  Even with email and texting, a letter is something personal.  You touched the letter, your handwriting is on it.  You can slip in something - a drawing, a photo, stickers, a four leaf clover, a cartoon you cut out of the newspaper.  

In rural areas, where it's not economical for UPS to go, the Post Office keeps people connected.  And the post office connects people all around the world.  Imagine, three or four short lines on an envelope, and the post office will get it to the right person anywhere in the world in a week or two.  

And voting by mail means that attempts to suppress the vote by limiting polling stations, making people wait in long lines, any time, but especially during a pandemic like what happened in Wisconsin last week, doesn't have to happen.  Greg Palast is someone who tracks voting problems.  Here's a link to one of Greg's recent posts.

There are potential problems with mail-in voting like with any other type of voting.  But there are recountable paper ballots when you vote by mail.  

So, support the Post Office;  surprise a friend or family member, let your Members of Congress know what you think, pay your bills, using an envelope and stamps to support the post office.  

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.

This Is Where I Am On Sanders

Most folks thought Trump had no chance for victory in 2016. It was common knowledge.  After he won, people started looking at what he had tapped into.  Basically people have said variations of this: He tapped into white, particularly male, fear that they were losing their power in the US and that they wanted the lost respect they deserved as people.

And now that Bernie is winning, pundits and party leaders are echoing the mainstream Republicans and Democrats of 2016 as well as pundits then:  Bernie has no chance of winning.

But I would suggest that he's appealing to the same sort of despair that Trump tapped into.  He too is talking about the problems of government (similar to Trump's swamp).  He too is talking about making America great again - but by reestablishing the values of democracy and human dignity for all humans, not just one subgroup.  He's talking about the excesses of capitalism and how the  price of things in dollars has been applied to every part of our life to the detriment of all other values.  He wants to realign the structure that allows Wall Street bankers and brokers to earn significantly more money per hour than most other people.  And all the other structures that mean minimum wage people are blocked from what used to be thought of as the American Way of Life.  (However, exclusive that ideal was in terms of race.)

Sanders is tapping into the same vein of despair that Trump found.  But he's doing it with a message of love rather than one of hate.

Can the Sanders campaign overcome the forces that are working to disinform people, to purge voters and to make voting more difficult for those who can't be purged, and to find ways to hijack voting technology (from computer based registration lists, to voter registrar computers, and to voting machines?   I don't know.

But I'm with Anand on this.



Part of the campaign to discredit Sanders involves smearing him with the label socialist.  Socialism is also a key basis for people's belief that he can't win.  Americans will never accept a socialist president they argue.  As if socialism wasn't already well embedded in our nation and in our most cherished government programs.
There's a meme on socialism that quotes President Harry S Truman.  Tomorrow I will look at the authenticity of the meme.

The Knees Of Candidates

Really?  Women are still expected to bare their knees and walk on stilts while men are allowed to walk on more solid shoes and cover their whole legs?  They should have to compete equally.  Since we call these political 'races' why don't we require all male racers to compete in the same racing uniform as the women?

I put this up because we are so accustomed to seeing women and men dressed like this that we don't even see the disparity any more.  I'm hoping readers will really see this sort of thing in the future.  Women are expected to dress 'like women.'   They are allowed to dress dress like men to the extent they may wear pants.  Male candidates would never show up a debate dressed like the female candidate in this picture.  That alone tells us about male/female equality and power.

I think candidates in a debate like this should be asked about what they are wearing and how it reflects the power of men and women in our society.

And I suspect everyone responds, viscerally, a little differently.  Do the bare legs enhance the woman's appeal to voters?  Distract from what she says?  How would the man wearing shorts affect voters?  There's a lot more to unpack from this picture.

[The picture is from the LA Times and is of Jackie Lacey and George Gascón  both running for Los Angeles County District Attorney.  Photo by Irfan Khan]

Fictional Accuracy Of Elections And The Iowa Caucus

As the Nevada caucuses begin, I'm still pondering how pundits, the media in general, and people in general reacted to the Iowa caucuses.  My sense is that caucuses are a kind of community gathering where people share with others to get a sense of how the collective feels about the candidates.  But we are in a world that demands precision, demand instant results.  People get impatient if it takes a website to open in more than 2 seconds, so election results need to be available 20 minutes after the polls close.  But what do the numbers mean anyway?

Caucus Thoughts

I’ve been to two caucuses in Anchorage - 2008 and 2016.  People come together.  Lots of people.  There’s camaraderie,  laughter, crowds, confusion, donuts, and a chance to see lots of folks you haven’t seen for a while.  

Once into your precinct rooms, talk gets more serious, but there’s still a friendly banter about candidates.  It’s time to hear from proponents of different candidates, to ask questions, and be asked questions.  Some people have done their homework, others are seeking answers.  

People eventually get asked to stand in different parts of the room depending on which candidate they support.  Then those candidates with too few supporters are eliminated and their supporters get to join their second choice.  

If the group is small, it’s easy to get an accurate count.  If there are 100 or more, it starts getting trickier.  People have to stand still.  Did you count him already? What about her?

But if the tally is 111 or 113 it doesn’t really matter that much.  You’ve got a good sense that a lot more people want candidate A over candidate B.  Besides, the people in the room represent only those people who had the time, transportation, or interest to go.  There are plenty more people who couldn’t or just didn’t come.  

There’s lots good about a caucus.  The chance to see and talk and debate with lots of people - some good friends, some acquaintances you haven’t seen a while, and some strangers you want to see again or not.  It’s a way to get more information about candidates, to learn why others support or don’t support different candidates.  And it’s a way to get a sense of how many people prefer this candidate over that one.  It's a lot different from making the decision alone in the voting booth.

Nowadays, science and efficiency and legal (but not scientific) precision are demanded.  The people of the media have made elections into a sport with stats that tell us precisely what the electorate wants down to two or three decimal points.  

All this comes to mind as I watch the coverage of the Iowa caucuses.  Here we have an old fashioned process that allows neighbors and friends to work out who they want to support, even with the benefits of being able to pick a second choice when it’s clear their first choice isn’t going to make it.  In the past, I’m sure, these things never had to be lunar landing precise, just good enough.  And they served a lot of social functions that individually marking a ballot in a curtained off booth doesn’t serve.  People get a better sense of what those voting for other candidates are thinking.  And they even learn that people are voting for their own preference for different reasons.

This process has been coming into conflict with the increasing demands from the politicians and the media for precision.  Iowa’s attempts to ‘bring the caucus into the 21st Century’ by using an app, just didn’t work out.  And the candidates and the media, who need the certainty of precise numbers, were left to run off to New Hampshire without the resolution they needed as quickly as they needed it.  

It makes sense for elections to be precise, and if people choose not to vote, well, that’s their choice.  (Unless it’s manufactured by removing people from the voting rolls, limiting access to the polls by having fewer polling places, or not enough workers or ballots, and other such schemes.)  But this form of caucus has served a lot of other purposes beyond getting a final precise voting count.  

And the numerical precision that the media demand, really isn’t as precise or reflective of what people want any way.  And even when nearly 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump, the technicalities of the electoral college voided all those votes.   

And the purging of voters in states like Florida and Michigan, not to mention irregularities with the unbacked up voting machines, probably were enough to fix the electoral college vote.  (Greg Palast tells us that while Trump won by 13,107 in Michigan, 449,922 voters (mostly black) had been purged from the voting list.)

I’d note that Alaska has a petition gathering signatures now that would allow for ranked-choice voting.  That is, like in a caucus, they would be able to indicate their second and third choices, so two candidates they like wouldn’t split the vote and allow one they don’t like to win.  Which is part of what’s in the caucus process.  

I think we're being way too controlled by technological demands for an artificial accuracy and for instant turnaround in the elections.  The harder to measure social and civic benefits of voting itself are ignored and sacrificed in exchange.  And the bigger issues of voter suppression and hacking voting machines are not getting the attention they should get.  Trump will win this election only with the help of foreign propaganda, voter purging, and tampering with the count of votes, both electronic and otherwise.  

Truth Is Defined By Those In Power

The truth is what the majority in power says it is.  This can be temporarily the case in the natural sciences - like when the Catholic Church rejected Galileo's assertion that the earth went around the sun, or more recently when cigarette companies and the members of Congress they paid, said there wasn't any proof that smoking was unhealthy.  Temporary until the laws of nature resulted in case after case of lung cancer in smokers.

In the social and moral realm, truth is more tightly bound by the beliefs of those in power.

Thus, if the House had had a Republican majority, there would not have been an impeachment.

And because the Senate actually has a Republican majority, there isn't likely to be a conviction.

Much of my day was spent enduring the impeachment hearings.  They're very different from the Nixon impeachment.  Structurally it was very different and Republican Senators were less bound by ideology and whatever else Trump holds over their heads than they are today.  And the Democrats had a majority in both houses.

So, Trump has refused to cooperate on anything that he doesn't see in his interest.  Suppose that in November 2020 the Democratic candidate wins, despite all the Republican efforts to suppress voters, spread misinformation, hack into voting machines, and whatever else they might do to win.  Imagine, at that point, that Trump claims the elections were stolen by the Democrats.  And he refuses to recognize the results, refuses to step down, refuses to give up the reins of office.

What happens then?  Does he call up his supporters to take up arms and surround the White House?  Who escorts him out of the White House?  Does he declare a state of emergency?

And what do the still sitting Republican Senators do then?

I don't think that's going to happen, but I want US citizens to be prepared for that possibility.  Because when Trump is acquitted, his  belief that he can get away with anything will become the Truth within the current power structure.

I've kept my balance today by spending a fair amount of time with my granddaughter.  But being with her reminds me how important it is to stand up and fight this president and where he's taking this country.

At Some Point, Honesty Will Come Back Into Fashion. Maybe November 2020

The website Amino, the source of this image, says the original Japanese intent of the phrase "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" was to keep a person pure, but

"Now it means turning a blind eye to evil and wrongdoing. It is meant to represent the fear of witnessing or speaking about evil and choosing to ignore its existence altogether."

That seems to be a pretty good description of what most Republican Senators are doing.  Avoiding any and all evidence of what they know is true.  First McConnell just wanted to acquit Trump with no real trial at all.  No witnesses.  No evidence.  And they're doing their best to hide what little will happen from the public.  The  Senate has added new, greatly restricted rules for press access to cover the impeachment.

Tim Miller, at The Bulwark, writes about Sen Martha McSally's response to reporter Manu Raju's question whether the Senate should take new evidence in the impeachment hearing:

“Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to you. You’re a liberal hack.”

Miller goes on to say this is the Republican 'heel turn' in response to questions about impeachment.

"They all know Trump is guilty. The only question is whether or not they can avoid admitting this, out loud, before they vote to acquit him. Every action Republicans take in the coming days should be viewed through the lens of them casting about for a strategy that lets them avoid telling voters what they actually believe."

Miller also tells us they are squeezed between doing what's right and being attacked by Trump.

My junior Senator - Dan Sullivan - was a marine.  Marines are supposed to be known for their courage and for risking their lives to protect the US.  That's the PR anyway.

In the Senate he doesn't seem ready to even risk his Senate seat to do the right thing.  I'm sure he's saying that not criticizing Trump means he can get things from this administration for Alaska.  Short term gains, long term disasters.  My senior Senator - Lisa Murkowski - is giving signs of trying to get out from under the charade, but we'll have to wait and see.

We also learn today that two of Trump's defense attorneys (Dershowitz and Starr) defended Jeffrey Epstein.  (Who committed suicide in prison where he was supposed to be watched carefully, and the video mysteriously disappeared.  This was a guy who hosted many big name men with underage girls.)  Dershowitz has been implicated in going to Epstein's parties.

From a Tweet by Kenneth Boykin:

"Ken Starr, the guy who thought Bill Clinton should be removed from office for a blowjob, is going to argue that Donald Trump should remain in office even after he illegally asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections."

Meanwhile Emptywheel raises questions about how presiding over the impeachment will affect Chief Justice John Roberts, who's not ever running for reelection:

Q: Does Roberts' presiding over Trump's trial present recusal issues for the pending Trump lawsuits? Might presiding over it change how he'd rule?

Everyone gets pulled into the mud.

My sense is that in a fair election, Trump gets beat bad by any of the Democrats, even if there is an automatic loss of votes if the candidate is a women or person of color..  Though that could be partially made up by people coming out to vote who wouldn't otherwise.  

But I know the Trump team will do everything they can to suppress voters, sway votes through outright lies, and meddle, if they can, with voting machines and electronic registration lists.  So, I'm not counting on a fair election.  

Paywalls And Sharing Good Articles - Immigration Activists, Tribal Contracting, War Is Hell, Flawed Humans,Why Trump Won't Win

Some thoughts raised by things I've recently read.  But first a note on paywalls.

I understand that newspapers want online readers to spend some money for the privilege of reading.  Newspapers are struggling to stay alive.  Many have not survived.

Early on - maybe ten years or more ago - there was a proposal for newspapers to have a collective fee, so that people didn't have to pay every time they visited an online newspaper.  You could buy a pass for a group of them and they could figure out how to divide the money based on hits from subscribers.  That doesn't seem to have happened.  I have an online subscription to the LA Times and the Anchorage Daily News.  I rarely read anything any more in the NY Times or the Washington Post.

This is problematic particularly for journalists and researchers who need to look at lots of things.  This was noted on Recall Elections Blog as a problem in tracking the various recalls around the country.

I say all this because a number of links here go to the LA Times and many of you may not be able to get direct access to the articles.  I'd note you can probably get there via your public library or find a reprint somewhere online.  Try different browsers, try private browsing, remove media cookies from your computer.


Immigration - LATimes article on Washington State activists making it harder for ICE - King County banned flights taking immigrants out of the state, so they have to go to Yakima, where protestors show up for flights.

What is happening on this front in Alaska?  Could Anchorage ban the use of our airport for these activities?


Tribal Membership And Minority Contracts - Giving federal contracts to businesses that claim Native American tribal status that is recognized by the state (Alabama in the article) but not by the feds.  Only 5% of federal contracts are set aside for minority/women owned businesses, but it's a lot of money.

Article says nearly $1billion has gone to Alabama companies with dubious claims to Native heritage.

Alaska Native corporations have done well with these contracts.  However, I would like to see more investigation on the structure of some of these.  Are they simply ways for larger white owned companies to buy Native participation so they can get the contracts?


When War is Hell In Movies

Lots of war movies are patriotic calls to support the current war.  But an LA Times article on the new film 1917 notes:

"WWII films tend to be stories of victory, BUT WWI movies SHOW the horrors OF A SEEMINGLY SENSELESS FIGHT."

Their list of notable realistic WWI movies turns out to include nearly all non-Hollywood films.  Would the misery of actual warfare on screen discourage potential enlistees?  Probably not those 17 and 18 year olds who are desperate to get out of the house and out of school and be heroes.

Or maybe all 17 year old boys should get school assignments to visit vets with various long term war related illnesses to find out what war does and what the Department of Veterans Affairs doesn't do to help.


Flawed Humans

Queen and Slim writer Lena Waithe, again in the LA Times, writes about how she got the idea and then wrote the film.  This sentence struck me:

"And, ultimately, my deep love and admiration for these two very flawed and extremely human characters never failed to pull me through. And I think it’s because for me Queen and Slim aren’t just characters in a movie, they’re two fictitious people that represent all of us."

One of the tropes that dominate how we see the world is the notion of right and wrong.  The American justice system is based on finding out whether someone is guilty or not guilty.  The Republican response to the impeachment of Trump has been to point out other people as guilty - most notably Hunter Biden, but many others as well.
But this quote adds nuance to the idea.  These two people have killed a cop in self defense.  But being black, the fear they won't be believed.  So now they actually break the law by fleeing.  And presumably, as the movie progressive, we learn more about their flaws.  We all have flaws.  We're all guilty of something.  Christianity has based a whole religion on that notion.  

This quote reminds us that even though they are flawed, they need to be judged by their actions, not their flaws.  It also reminds me that privilege (whether it's white privilege or any other privilege) means that you're more likely to be forgiven for your flaws.  We know, for instance, that young people of color are more likely to be sent to a detention center than white kids.  It's the difference between 'kids will be kids' so call their parents to pick them up, and assuming they're just no good.


Why Trump Won't Win Reelection

Here's a prediction based on voting patterns.

"Of course 2016 showed that we need to look beyond the national polls and focus on the swing states. But there too the news is encouraging. In Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, since Trump took office, his net approval ratings, which started out on the plus side, have fallen — disastrously.
In Pennsylvania they decreased by 17 points, in Wisconsin by 20 points, in Michigan by 22 points. In the midterm voting, those three swing states all elected Democrats in 2018. Wisconsin elected a Democratic governor to replace a Republican and reelected a Democratic senator; Pennsylvania reelected a Democratic governor, and Democrats there took three House seats away from Republican incumbents.
In Michigan, which the Democrats lost to Trump by 11,000 votes, the Democrats had a huge victory in 2018, sweeping the elections for governor and senator and flipping two House seats. Voters also banned gerrymandering and created automatic voter registration, which together will bear fruit in 2020. All this explains why I’m quite certain we’ll be free at last from Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2021."

But the author acknowledges he also wrote about why Trump couldn't win in 2016.  I'm convinced in a free and fair vote, Trump will lose.  But with voter suppression, voter disinformation campaigns, and potential cyber attacks on voting machines  I'm less confident.

Bernie Sanders Rally at Venice Beach Today - Lots of Pics

When we preparing for this trip to LA I was thinking I should see if any of the presidential candidates were having rallies while we are there.  We just don't get this sort of thing in Anchorage.  Jane Sanders did come up to Anchorage in March 2016, and  the Alaskan Democrats went for Sanders in the caucuses.

 It seemed this was a chance.  And when I saw the poster the other day, for a rally with AOC and Bernie Sanders just two miles away, well, I had to go.  Glad I did.  Seeing candidates in real life with a big crowd makes a difference.  But, of course, that sort of chemistry also excites Trump supporters.


I got there about 9:45am.  It said doors open at 10:30, but I wanted to be sure I got in.  I needn't have worried. It was an outdoor rally just south of the skate board park.  It was extremely well organized and there were volunteers everywhere:  guiding where to go, with petitions to sign, selling T-shirts, hats, etc.  Passing out posters and pins.   Once I got through security, I found a spot on a small grassy hill.  There was already loud piped in music.  I was only two hours early.

A lot of people just settled in.















Then it switched to live music with a band called Local Natives. 












  Jessey and Joy played.  






And Young The Giant.











Bernie Sanders may be the oldest candidate, but the music was young and so was the crowd.

Councilman Mike Bonin spoke.












Councilman Gil Cedillo spoke

Treeman was there too.

Cornel West introduced AOC.

And finally Bernie came on to speak at 2:30pm.

 Here are two men who were close by during the whole event.  William (I think, but it could have been Michael - if you see this correct me) and James (he gave me his card - he's a stuntman.)  And no, they didn't know each other before today.  They're just posing for the picture.

And this is the back of Mark's shirt.  He was on the other side of me.













And I couldn't resist talking to the guy who made this giant Bernie flag in Thai and English.  J was hungry - it was 4pm and the only thing she'd eaten all day were the granola bars I had in my backpack.  So I only got part of the flag in the picture.

I understand that there are people who react to Bernie the way I react to Trump.  (Some have already made snide comments on my Tweets today (easier to do at the rally.)  But the problems I have with Trump were reflected in the Tweets - nothing substantive, just negative.  As I see the world AOC and Bernie Sanders understand the world and that humanity not cruelty and nastiness is what the US should be about.  They understand that Climate Change is like the waterfall we are headed towards and if we don't make serious adjustments now, everything else that people are fighting about simply won't matter.  

I've got some video and I'll try to get that up soon.  

Should President Be Removed By Impeachment Or Election? UPDATED

[UPDATE Dec 3, 2019 1pm (Seattle):  The Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence's "TRUMP-UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REPORT"  was released shortly after I posted this.]

Suppose you hired your CEO on a four year contract and the contract is up in 13 months.  But there's evidence of all sorts of abuses and crimes, both before and after you hired him.  And his personal style is nasty and arrogant, his policies even if they have some positive intent ignore the horrendous side effects they're causing, and your brand is deteriorating rapidly.  And he attacks anyone who raises any questions about his actions.

He does have some rabid supporters who ignore all the evidence and repeat your CEO's spurious allegations.

You're on the Board of Directors.  What do you do?  

There are few corporate boards that would wait until the contract ended to fire the CEO.  There's way too much damage he could still do before the contract expires.  The only way a Board of Directors would keep him on is if the board members were somehow dependent on the CEO for their future livelihoods and/or reputation.

That's the position Congress is now in.  There is a big difference though:  The board hired the CEO.  In Trump's case, he was elected by the shareholders, so to speak.

And using the 2020 election as cover, the Trump supporters are arguing that the timing is so close the Congress shouldn't "undo the 2016 election."  (Recognize that this implies that there is valid reason to impeach, but that it's just better to let the voters decide.)

There is a certain logic to that argument.

Elections are the will of the people and it's better that the people change the president than the congress.

But there are flaws here too:

1. Questions about the legitimacy of the 2016 election.
1.  Trump actually lost the popular vote in 2016 by nearly 3 million people.  While Trump argues that he 'won a landslide in the electoral college' that's not the measure that most Americans use to determine the voice of the people.  It's seen as a technical device, not the actual will of the people. And there is no doubt in any honest person's mind, that if the positions had been reversed (Trump won the popular vote and Clinton the electoral college) Trump's supporters would have been screaming about the election being stolen.  
2. We know now that the election was influenced by Russian interference.  We know clearly that Russians used Facebook to spread outrageous falsehoods in favor of Trump and against Clinton.  Without that campaign Trump likely wouldn't have won the electoral college.
3. We know that there was voter suppression by Republicans in 2016 and it's being used for 2020.  Various states purged valid voters from the voter registration lists.  Polls in black neighborhoods were in short supply in a number of states making it harder for people to vote.  Photo id cards were required to vote in some states.  
4. These problems combined helped Trump win the election.  And there's no guarantee that they won't be used again in 2020.  In fact there is strong evidence they are already happening.  Plus there is also the concern about tampering with voting machines.  We know of attacks on voting machines, but we don't know whether there was actually any successful operations to change the voting outcomes.  Without paper ballots as backup, such hacks will be hard to overcome without resorting to complete new elections. 
2. The Constitution gives Congress the power to remove the president when he's abusing the office and there is no question that that's happening.  
1. It's Congress' job to remove a bad president.  McConnell's made up rule about waiting for the election to put in a new Supreme Court justice in the last year of Obama's presidency was simply politics.  We know that if there is a vacancy before the next president is elected, that McConnell will scrap that rule, even if there are only two weeks left before the president leaves.  

So the argument about the elections is not nearly as strong as Republicans claim.  Plus there's a giant counterargument.

The damage Trump can do between now and January 20, 2020 (when he leaves office) is enormous.  Some examples:

1. There's clear evidence that many of Trump's actions benefit Putin and Russia to the detriment of the United States and the free world. (All his attempts to break up Western alliances from NATO to the EU to the Climate Agreement, to trying to lift sanctions on Russia.  
2. There's clear evidence that Trump is using the presidency to enrich his own companies and those of his children. 
3. There's evidence that Trump's business ties to countries like Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others are influencing foreign policy with those nations
4. Trump is dismantling regulations that protect the environment and public lands and public health
5. Trump has interfered with the integrity of the Justice Department
6. Trump has encourage public hate groups in the US 
7. Trump has unnecessarily treated would-be asylum seekers cruelly and in violation of international law
8. Given massive tax breaks to the very wealthy increasing the levels of inequity in the US and increasing the long term debt of the US 

If Trump were impeached by January 2020, it would cut a year off the time Trump had to inflict further damage on the US and the world.

In my mind, impeachment is the only proper action to take here to reestablish the standards of government the US has attempted to follow over the last 200 years as well has to minimize further damage to the US and the world.  Doing the right thing is usually a better long term choice than playing with lots of possible scenarios that give one future advantages.

That said, if Trump is impeached, Pence would become president.  There is no guarantee that Pence wouldn't carry out many of Trump's terrible polices.  And he's likely to give Trump and his family members absolute pardons for any crimes they have committed or will commit.  And Trump's supporters would punish in the primaries any Republicans Senators who didn't support Trump.  Leading possibly to much weaker Republican candidates in the general election.

So, taking a very long term perspective, Democrats might be best served by forwarding the impeachment to the Senate and letting the Senate acquit Trump.  (Well, they don't have much power over what the Senate does.  Unless public opinion is fired up by future revelations. it's unlikely the Senate will vote to convict.

The amount of abuse that has already come out and that is likely to still come out, will convince the US voters to not only throw out Trump, but to give the Democrats a majority in the US Senate, as a response to the Republican Senate NOT doing its duty to convict Trump.

But this all assumes they can overcome Republican voter suppression, Russian interference in the elections, and the Constitutional skewing of power in the Senate that gives small (often rural) states very disproportionate power in the Senate.  Because of this Democrats in the Senate represent far more people than Republicans, but the Republicans have the majority  From the Guardian:

"Among the most eye-catching was a statistic showing Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races, and yet still suffered losses on the night and failed to win a majority of seats in the chamber. 

Constitutional experts said the discrepancy between votes cast and seats won was the result of misplaced ire that ignored the Senate electoral process. 

Because each state gets two senators, irrespective of population, states such as Wyoming have as many seats as California, despite the latter having more than 60 times the population. The smaller states also tend to be the more rural, and rural areas traditionally favor Republicans."

And GovTrack further notes that because of rules changes that used to require supermajorities for  approving appointments (as a way to protect the minority in the Senate) the percent of votes needed to approve has gotten lower and lower and

"we might see nominations confirmed by a coalition of states representing less than half of the country’s population."

But I think a fired up electorate can overcome some of these problems.  There are still many disillusioned people who do not vote.  Trump's administration has been the best example of why not voting is a terrible  idea.

Dem Debate Tweets With A Few Of My Thoughts

This first one captures my impression of the debate.

The most important thing is that everyone on that stage tonight is leaps and bounds better than Donald Trump. Tactically, mentally, morally. We have an incredible bench. 🥰 #DemocraticDebate

— Seattle for Pete Buttigieg (@Seattle4Pete) September 13, 2019

Andrew Yang really leans into the “model minority” stereotype and the immigrant exceptionalism tropes, and it makes me uncomfortable. #DemocraticDebate

— Aya M. Waller-Bey, MPhil (@Aya__Marie) September 13, 2019

I thought that Yang made a number of good points.  He's an outsider in a number of ways - as a Chinese/American, as a business man, his  lack of political/governmental experience.  And he's smart.  That lets him raise issues we wouldn't normally get.  But he also seems a little isolated from things as well as this Tweet  from a Filipina/American who calls out his use of the smart-Asian stereotype and his implied lack of acknowledgment of non-East Asian Asians, who make up most of the Asian/American population. But it's good to see his face and ideas up there in the Democratic debates.

Bernie is asked in #DemocraticDebate how his socialism is different than Venezuela, Nicaragua & Cuba. It’s a ridiculous comparison & Bernie says the Democratic socialism he supports is more like Scandinavia. Guaranteed healthcare, worker rights, & no accumulated wealth for the 1% pic.twitter.com/Dly5fZ7WGt

— James J. Zogby (@jjz1600) September 13, 2019

Bernie seemed to have a cold, but he's been around a long time, has been fighting the status quo forever, and his ideas are now mainstream.  He's one I'd have full confidence in going one-on-one with Trump.  He knows the facts and he's got the passion.

Bernie went right to policy substance and Kamala goes right to the gloriousness of MEEEEEEEEE. Says so much. #DemDebate #DemocraticDebate

— Secular Talk (@KyleKulinski) September 13, 2019

I've been really impressed with Harris in her Senate role questioning witnesses.  But as someone pointed out tonight, she's a lot better at asking questions than answering them.  While I think this Tweeter exaggerates, she does seem to be caught off-guard with people questioning her credentials and record.

I remember a time when you would never hear a phrase like "the 1 percent", "the prison industrial complex", or "systemic racism" on the presidential debate stage.

I'm hearing it tonight bc of years of work by organizers and activists.#DemocraticDebate

— Rebecca Nagle (@rebeccanagle) September 13, 2019

Yes, I was struck by the kind of issues that were raised and how united most of the candidates were on the basic issues.  And the fact that Beto broke the tip toeing around gun issues wide open with his impassioned stance.

Beto O'Rourke:

"Hell yes, we're gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47s, we're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans any more!"

Beto DGAF, and I am HERE FOR IT.

Best line of the night. #DemocraticDebate#DemDebate

— BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) September 13, 2019     

I've come to the conclusion that O'Rourke would make a much better Senator than a President.  He's got a way of saying things clearly and with passion.  I'm less confident of his overall common sense and ability to administer.  A role in the Senate is perfect for his talents.

And Butteig also made history for a presidential debate.

Pete Buttigieg's closing statement was a powerful, important message, regardless of where his candidacy goes, says reporter @ec_schneider. “Talking about coming out on a national, presidential stage is a remarkable thing.”

Catch up with the #DemDebate: https://t.co/6oalb9qphE pic.twitter.com/AOBKnRIrg9

— POLITICO (@politico) September 13, 2019

Let’s note that when asked about his comments about not giving a damn about what happened to African-Americans 300 years ago, Biden talked about playing record players to kids. Not a good answer. #DemocraticDebate

— Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) September 13, 2019

I'm afraid Biden is the great white hope in this group.  He's the link to the Democrats of old.  He's the 'safe' candidate.  Like Hilary.  (Who did actually win the popular vote and would probably have won the electoral college without Russian interference in the election - which includes what we know about things like FB ads and what we don't know about about the wins in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.)  But Trump would run circles around him in a one-on-one debate.  Trump's lies and insinuations would leave him tongue-tied.  The only possible way he could win would be because people felt sorry for him.  And that's not a good look for a president.

And talking about playing the record player to help kids learn is exactly the kind of thing that raises questions about his time having passed.  But there were folks who defended his reference to record players.

Everything old is new again including Biden 😂

— Dolly Madison ✌🏻 (@dollymad1812) September 13, 2019

I think tonight’s big winner in the #DemDebate was @CoryBooker. He put forward a clear vision for our country—one that’s optimistic and about uniting all Americans to rise together.

He's definitely on my shortlist. 📝#DemocraticDebate #DemDebate3

— Kyla Paterson is unabashedly feminist (@KylaGraceP) September 13, 2019

I think Booker is another candidate who could go head-to-head with Trump.  He too knows his facts and talks well.  And he's been a mayor and a US Senator.

Another is Elizabeth Warren:

“The mass shootings are terrible, but they get all the headlines. Children die every day on streets in neighborhood, on playgrounds. People die from violence from suicide and domestic abuse. We have a gun violence problem in this country." ~ @ewarren #DemDebate #DemocraticDebate pic.twitter.com/VwrAq8anh7

— Moms Demand Action (@MomsDemand) September 13, 2019

I'd like to see her when she wasn't turned up to full indignation mode.  She has a right to be indignant, but I'd like to hear her sometime talking in a normal voice.


I noticed a lot of obvious GOP Tweeters out to trash every candidate - except Tulsi Gabbard, who wasn't in the debate.

And here's an article about a despicable attack ad on ABC during the debate by paid for by donors to the GOP New Faces PAC,

 "opened with a photograph of the young Latinx congresswoman’s face being set on fire to reveal images of the 1970s genocide in Cambodia underneath." 

Republicans are running TV ads setting pictures of me on fire to convince people they aren’t racist.

Life is weird!

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 13, 2019

This is the kind of open hate the grew worse and worse in 1930s Germany.  No, this is not a frivolous comparison.  I've read Victor Klemperer's I Will Bear Eyewitness  in which he, among other things, documents the language used by the Nazis from the 30's through the end of WWII.  This sort of ad targeting AOC is not only blatantly untrue propaganda, but it's also a call to crazies to physically attack people like AOC.

And this reaction to O'Rourke's call to buyback assault weapons:

From the Texas Tribune:

Republican state Rep. Briscoe Cain drew fierce ire Thursday night for a gun-related tweet that many considered to be a death threat against Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke.
Twitter took the comment down within hours because it violated a rule forbidding threats of violence and O'Rourke's campaign planned to report the tweet to the FBI, according to CNN. It's against federal law to threaten "major candidates" for president.

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.