Tag: decision-2016

Leading By Example

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=political-buttonsBefore I write my long omnibus news chum (because things have been accumulating), a political thought of the day.

I’ve just had a long political discussion over on Facebook after a Conservative friend posted the meme that is going around about how Obama attacked Bush for flying over the flooding in Louisiana, and now he is staying on vacation instead of being on-site. I’m sure you’ve seen it. I, rightfully,  pointed out that the Governor of Louisiana had specifically requested that the President stay away until things had calmed down, and that the President had been directing broad scale aid while on vacation. They responded that at least Donald Trump had gone on-site with a full trailor-tractor of supplies and personally handed them out (‡ – See ETA below); to which I responded that this was specifically against the Governor’s request that Trump not come on site and disrupt relief efforts. I equated Trump’s effort to Eva Peron in “Evita”, with a relief fund that just helped a few, instead of broad based relief. This drove me to investigate Hillary Clinton’s response, which was to not visit the area, but to request her supporters to make donations to relief efforts. To complete the picture, both Stein and Johnson just used the situation to criticize Obama. [ETA: Here’s a good summary of why there is no comparison.]

Two important qualities in a President are leadership and compassion, and I give all of our major candidates a C rating, and our third-party candidates a D rating. I give Obama an A-/B+ rating.

Leadership, in this situation, is getting broad effective relief to the people who need it, in a timely fashion. It is also recognizing that this is just one of many disasters in our nation; in particular, the West is being hit with a bunch of significant wildfires that are also affecting people’s lives. Leadership is setting an example, and that example is not running headfirst into a disaster area to do what you think is right against the wishes of those in charge of relief efforts. How did our candidates do:

  • Trump rushed headlong into the disaster area against the wishes of officials, did not serve as a leadership example through a sizable personal donation or coordinate significant relief, did not (to my knowledge) encourage donations, and only focused on one disaster. He did handout some relief supplies. Rating: C. [‡: ETA: Then again, reports are now coming out that Trump didn’t actually donate anything.]
  • Clinton did not go to the disaster area, following the recommendations of officials. She encouraged donations, but didn’t serve as a leadership example by making a donation or coordinating significant relief. She only focused on one disaster. Rating: C
  • Stein and Johnson only criticized the President. Rating: D.
  • Obama coordinated significant relief efforts, and did not plan to visit the area until the Governor said it was prudent. As President, he doesn’t have access to personal funds to make a personal donation. He did sign a declaration that provides significant long-term help. He hasn’t discussed the wildfires or relief there. Rating: A-/B+

Compassion, in this situation, is demonstrating you care. It is showing, in a public way, that you are concerned about their problems.

  • Trump showed compassion by visiting people, although there was an offsetting lack of compassion by interfering with relief efforts and putting his potential photo-op ahead of relief.
  • Clinton showed compassion by calling for donations and staying away, but she didn’t visibly do more.
  • Stein and Johnson did nothing.
  • Obama showed compassion through statements, but created a discompassionate image by remaining on vacation. At minimum, he could have returned to the White House to coordinate relief efforts for the day. Of course, the reality is that he could coordinate those relief efforts equally well from vacation, but in this case the image is more powerful than the reality, and the President must be aware of the image that is being conveyed.

So, we’ve seen that no one is perfect in terms of leadership. Except, perhaps, you. How are you going to be a leadership example?

Share

I’m Tired of Repeating Myself / Changing the Focus to the Issues

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy2 Comments

userpic=obama-hillary-california,politicsLast night, while answering the same questions on Hillary Clinton’s character, I realized that I’m tired of this shit. So, for one last time, here are the answers:

  • Does Hillary Clinton lie? Yes. She’s a human being and a diplomat and a politician. By definition, there are times that she lies. I don’t think you can find a human being that doesn’t lie. But that’s not the question you should ask. We can’t just vote for anyone for President — so finding perfection is out — we have to vote for a candidate on the ballot. And, of the major party candidates, Hillary lies the least. Politifact, an independent organization, did a survey and said so. In fact, they compared all the major party candidates running for office in the last few years, and the only one who lied less than Hillary was Obama. The truth is that Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest. No, she’s not perfect, but she’s honest within normal human parameters. As for Donald Trump, it appears he has no problem lying when he is the one doing it.
  • But what about Bengazhi and the Email Server? What about them? Let’s start with Bengazhi. Politicians take actions all the time that indirectly result in deaths. Be they sending our soldiers into war, be they withholding medical funds, be they determining where a budget goes and doesn’t go. That doesn’t make the politician legally liable for the death. There has to be a direct connection between the politicians actions and the death, such as German officials during WWII that directly ordered deaths. Further, in the case of funding of embassies, funding is determined by Congress, not the Department of State, who put the funds in various budget categories. If they cut the overall budget for embassy funding, there is little that the Secretary of State can do. There is no court in law that would find the Secretary of State legally liable for those deaths. As for the email server and classified information, there are some fundamental facts that people who handle classified information understand. First, having an email that is classified after the fact is not an infraction. You delete it when the determination is made and move on. Sending a classified email involves two parties: the sender and the recipient. The sender would get an infraction for sending after the recipient reports it. No one reported Clinton for sending classified emails, and Clinton never reported anyone for sending her a classified email. That’s pretty indicative of whether there was a problem. There wasn’t. The FBI, in fact, has said the emails weren’t classified after all. These were low level scheduling emails, improperly marked. Further, her use of a personal email server wasn’t illegal under the rules in effect at the time. Now, contrast the level of this violation with the other candidates. Mr. Trump has called for a foreign country to interfere in US elections, and has called for people to assassinate government officers — but then shrugged it off as a joke. He has vowed to take retaliatory actions against those who oppose him. He has vowed to violate treaties which the US has signed. Which level of violation is within normal parameters, and which isn’t? Hillary has shown some poor judgement, but is extremely unlikely to repeat that poor judgement if elected. Can you say that about Trump?  Perhaps that is why prominent cybersecurity experts have endorsed Clinton.
  • She’s a criminal, right? Let’s start with the key aspect: to be a criminal, you must commit a crime and be found guilty by a court of law — not the court of public opinion. Our system of jurisprudence presumes that an accused is considered to be innocent until they are proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have violated the letter of the law. Not what we think the law says. Not heresay or innuendo. Facts beyond a reasonable doubt against the letter of the law. For all of the investigations that have been done, there has not been a prosecutor that has found sufficient evidence to convene a jury, conduct a trial, and get a guilty verdict. This is why Comey said what he said at the hearings: there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and win. Therefore, under the law, she is innocent.
  • So I’ll vote for a third-party candidate to bring change. Voting for third party candidates is fine at anything below the Presidential election, where majority voting rules. Senator, Congresscritter, state office, local office — I’ll say go for it. That’s where the real change begins. But for President, the system defined in the Constitution and by the states makes voting for a third-party problematic, unless you have a chance of getting a majority in a state. Most states are winner take all, and thus voting for a third-party risks taking votes away from the bum you could tolerate, and giving your state’s electoral votes to the bum you don’t like. Can you afford to risk that? If you are not in a swing state where the election is close, probably. In a swing state like FL, OH, PA, or others? Think very carefully. Oh, and by the way, both Johnson (L) and Stein (G) are equally batshit crazy. Yes, that’s a technical term.

Face the facts: There are a large number of people that like Hillary Clinton, and don’t believe all the stories against her.  They realize that the stories were manufactured because of two things about Hillary: She’s a woman, and she’s married to Bill Clinton. For many of the people that do not, no recitation of the facts will change their minds. Still others have realized that all the candidates are flawed, but Hillary is the only candidate that is flawed within normal parameters. They know that the best option for the country is to elect Hillary, and to elect a congress to make sure she does the right thing. Even folks who disagree with Hillary on social issues — such as abortion — are realizing she is the best suited temperamentally to be President.

Now, that I’ve said all that, I want you to look back over all the political news you have been reading. Look at your Facebook feeds. Look at your RSS feeds and your blog posts. Look at your newspapers and opinion pieces. Do you notice that something is missing? Everything you read is about the candidate’s character and their flaws. Maybe because we have a candidate that is “Full Monty”-ing his lack of character, and exposing his real shortcomings, not the imagined ones related to his hands. What’s missing, however, is any discussion of the candidate’s positions.

I challenge you. Go beyond the fact the other candidates don’t have the temperament or decorum to be President, and look at their positions (link is to a great summary chart, with only one error — Hillary’s position regarding student debt). I think when you actually look into the positions, you’ll see that Clinton’s are quite good — and paid for without deficit spending. Trump’s, on the other hand, would diminish the US economy. Clinton has realistic proposals with details; Trump’s are vague and unfunded. I have looked at Clinton’s positions on the issues, and I like what I see.

So, here’s my challenge. Let’s make the discussion about issues. Let’s demonstrate why Hillary’s proposals are stronger, and the other candidates’ proposals are economically disastrous for the country, and will create more insecurity. This political battle is about more than just character (although that is a big part) — Hillary is not only the better candidate, but has the better positions — positions that derive from her experience, her listening, and yes, the input from all the folks that “Felt the Bern”. Let’s talk about them.

Share

Should Jews Fear The Conservative Victory?

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=obama-superman

This evening we were cleaning a cabinet, and found a copy of Reform Judaism (magazine) (ReformJudaism.org) from Spring 1995, with the cover article: “Should Jews Fear the Conservative Victory” (ETA: Link added) by Marshall Breger (“no”) and Arthur Hertzberg (‘yes”). Hertzberg’s article talked about how a leading neo-conservative said “Jews once again displayed their inclination to be as well off as the Episcopalians and to vote like the Puerto Ricans”. Hertzberg noted that:

“Neo-Conservatives have been telling Jews for years that their self-interest dictates that they vote with their pocketbooks, just as other Americans of their economic class do. The vast majority of Jews has rejected this argument, understanding that the basic interest of Jews is bound up with peace in society. Jews have known for many centuries that they are the most vulnerable of the haves, and that Jew-hatred is most marked among the have-nots who fear the future.”

Spring 1995. How prescient for this year’s campaign as well.

Here’s a particularly telling pull quote:

“If the social safety net is removed, a violent reaction will follow. It will no longer be enough to blame the liberals; Jews will become the prime scapegoat.”. Here’s another quote: “We are now living a moment in American history when high-tech jobs are more available, but less secure, a time when opportunity for blue-collar workers is shrinking irreversibly. Not so very subtly, right-wing ideologues are already deflecting these angers at scapegoats — the black and the poor — suggesting that the chronic unemployed, recent immigrants, and welfare mothers are destroying the moral fabric of society and, because of their supposed innate intellectual inferiority, are undermining our nation’s economic future.”

Here is another quote, again, very prescient:

“The conservatives have thrown an attack on multiculturalism into the mix to position themselves as defenders of traditional European civilization against the liberal commitment to multiculturalism. This makes most Jews uncomfortable, and even nervous. The conservative vision of American culture says to us that our Jewish heritage is outside a canon dominated by the writings of ancient Greeks and medieval and modern Christians. The rich will get richer through lowered taxes in revival of “trickle down” economics, and the sinking middle class will be told that punishing unwed mothers will satisfy their hungers. The move from crying out that liberalism and not injustice, is the enemy to shouting that the Jew, the outsider, is responsible for that injustice is a possibility that now seems nearer to the horizon.”

Alas, the issue is not online. I’ll have to scan it next week, and I’ll link it here. [ETA: Here’s a link to the issue, with Breger’s “No” first, followed by Hertzberg’s “Yes” and the RAC response.] But when others stress that Jews must vote with Trump because of his position on Israel, we must remember that as Jewish Americans — as American Jews — our vote is based more on one issue. We have seen the slips into antisemitism from the Trump campaign. We have also seen the campaign make its attacks on social justice. Progressive Judaism’s position is based on the social justice values that form one of the cores of our faith — the remembrance that, as Hertzberg put it, “Jews remember when they were poor and have sympathy for Americans who still are.” It is one of the many reasons why #ImWithHer and supporting Hillary.

*: This was originally a Facebook update, which was expanded. It was edited again on Mon 8/8 to add a link to the PDF of the article.

Share

Two Big Problems in a Political Summer

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=political-flakesThis political summer, there are two big problems that I’ve seen. No, I’m not talking about the candidates themselves. I happen to be a strong Clinton supporter, but for those who aren’t, well, please heed the words of PJ O’Roarke.

No, the problems that I see are (a) the Trump supporters; and (b) a failure at the DNC.

The problem with the Trump supporters is that they have been so convinced by the Republican media-machine of the guilt of Hillary Clinton that they can no longer think critically and reason for themselves. They can’t see the flaws in their candidate. They are so angry at the political establishment that they would rather blow it up. They are, essentially, political terrorists, playing into the hands of terrorist leaders and demagogues. It is not good for our country, but they have been wound up so tightly with hate that they don’t care. This is the same thing that ISIS does with hatred for the west, and it may very well produce the same level of carnage in this country if it succeeds. More significantly, their minds are so closed they can’t see the bill of goods they have been sold. Not only is their candidate much much worse than he has been portrayed, but the Democratic candidate does not have the level of corruption and deceit that the Trump-supporting media has been stating. Independent assessors have actually pointed out that she is the most honest candidate, and all of the “corruption” investigations — including the email message — are more smoke than substance.

On the other side, the DNC failed to address the above. Oh, they addressed the problems with Trump. What they needed, however, was to have Clinton come out and straightforwardly address all the lies that have been circulated about her, demonstrating that there is nothing there. Bengazi — nothing. Email scandal — nothing. Clinton Foundation — nothing. Cronyism — nothing. But by not directly addressing the issues, they permit the rumors to live. No, they won’t be able to convince the Trump stalwarts. But they might be able to convince the Sanders supporters and the third-party supporters that Clinton isn’t the corrupt politician she’s been made out to be. They might be able to reach the folks that would vote for her, “if she wasn’t so corrupt.”

This election is one where much of our problems can be placed squarely on the media and its obsession for eyeballs. Trump may be a horrible candidate, one of the worst presidential candidates ever — but he is entertaining and draws the eyeballs to the media. This improves ratings, and helps the media companies. Clinton? She’s never been an exciting candidate or a moving speaker, and is very cautious — and so doesn’t make the mistakes and gaffes that get into the news. Why cover her strengths?

We need to figure out a way for people to think critically. To look at what Trump is doing and his history critically. What is in his tax returns? Why have all his businesses failed? What does his notion of having Ben Carson and Sarah Palin as his foreign policy advisors say about his judgement?

On the other side, for those so upset at Clinton’s emails, ask yourself this: If she was sending classified information against State Dept policy, then why didn’t the recipient’s report receiving the mails? That’s a requirement as well. The answer is that it wasn’t a problem — it was normal practice at the State Department, which does things differently than the DOD. If there was something clearly at the level of prosecution, it would have been prosecuted by now. The evidence of anything other than occasional poor judgement is just not there.

Share

Something Different to Chew On

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=levysI know my last few posts have been political — it is just that my concerns over the Republican nominee have incited a passion in me that makes me want to ensure his defeat. So a last political note, and then we’ll move on to something different to chew: some news chum about food, medicine, and science.

But first

… to those of you who cannot bring yourself to vote for Hillary because of her character and the character flaws you think you see, please read this article. You’ll learn how you’ve been fed a diet of genetically modified truth, something empty of nutrition and value, and that has spoiled your appetite for something that is actually healthy. Then read this article, and learn why the Clinton that you see in the news is very different than the Clinton those that work with her see, and why those who do work with her are fiercely loyal to her.

… to those who are Republican who still can’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton after seeing the truth — those who deny the truth about Clinton just as you deny climate science and the value of vaccines — then read this post. Learn how, as the DNC and Trump’s behavior has shown, he spits in the face of traditional Republican values, and has in fact ceded the Republican values of patriotism, love of country, belief in the people of this country, belief in the quality of the American military and support for Veterans to the Democratic party. The man is clearly not a Democrat, and does not reflect Republican values, and is not deserving of your support. If you can’t vote for Clinton, then vote for Gary Johnson or abstain for voting for President. Don’t vote for a man that clearly does not deserve to be the leader of your Republican party. (I note I say this as a Democrat, but a Democrat who believes we need a sane and valid Republican party, because it is the diversity of sane political views that leads to the compromises that makes this country strong).

And now, on to something different to chew upon:

Hmmm, I guess I do have politics on my mind after all.

Share

To My Republican Friends, and my Bernie-or-Busters: A Lunchtime Request

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy5 Comments

userpic=nixonTo My Republican Friends: Yesterday, in a post regarding the upcoming presidential election, I wrote:

This is no longer about personality. It is about positions.

I also implied that if your beliefs and positions were congruent with the Republican Platform and the statements of your nominee, you should vote for your nominee.

I humbly admit that I was wrong. The statements above do not apply when your candidate is batshit crazy.

Perhaps I should clarify this a bit with what I mean by “batshit crazy”. After all, it is a technical term.

Your candidate is batshit crazy if:

  • They invite a foreign power to interfere in our Presidential election. This is true for any foreign power. Just as other countries are rightly upset if America tries to interfere in their elections, other than monitoring that they are fair, it is wrong for a foreign power to interfere in an election in a way that may change the outcome. However, that is just what the Republican Nominee, Donald Trump, has done when he said: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, staring directly into the cameras. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
  • They establish a fund to influence an election against a candidate simply because they refused to endorse them. Donald Trump confirmed his plans during an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” broadcast on Sunday, saying “I’ll probably do a super-PAC, you know, when they run – against Kasich for $10 million, to $20 million against Ted Cruz.”
  • They encourage violating the constitutional separation between church and state by indicating they want to permit selected churches to influence government policy. At the RNC, Trump said, “At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical community because, I will tell you what, the support they have given me — and I’m not sure I totally deserve it — has been so amazing. And has been such a big reason I’m here tonight. They have much to contribute to our policies.” (emphasis added)

As I said, I was wrong. There are some candidate actions that cross the line, and the above actions have. I am not going to ask you to vote for the Democratic Candidate, Hillary Clinton. I know that, independent of whether you trust her, you just cannot support the Democratic Platform. I get that.

Here’s what I would like you to do: Abstain from voting for the office of President.  Vote for down office candidates (i.e., Senate, Congress, State and Local) who agree with your positions, but DO NOT vote for the Trump/Pence ticket. Let the world see, by the vote total differential, that you do not approve of this choice of your party, and that you feel the party has lost its reason. Feel free to investigate the third party candidates such as Gary Johnson, and vote for them if there is sufficient congruence (note that Stein, however, is also batshit crazy).  But, Republican friends, please — if you believe that America should be the country that determines its destiny — do not vote for a man that encourages foreign countries to interfere in our elections.

P.S.: Think about this: There is already evidence that the DNC emails that were released had their contents altered. How can you trust the integrity of any email discovered by the Russians, when it is in their interest to skew the election in the direction of a candidate that will have a soft foreign policy towards them.

P2.S.: Of course, I would love it if you voted for Clinton, but I understand.

ETA P3.S.: From the pot calling the kettle department: PC World notes: IT security consultant Kevin Mitnick tweeted: “Donald Trump invites Russia to hack Clinton’s emails. Isn’t that aiding and abetting” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? [I’ll note that I actually went to camp with Kevin’s brother, Steve, who set loads of swimming records]

***

To my friends that are Bernie or Busters: I know you really wanted your candidate to be the Democratic Nominee. I know you believe the system was rigged, and the DNC emails prove it. I know you think that Clinton demonstrated that by giving Wasserman Schultz a cushy campaign job. You need to be aware of these facts:

Here’s what I would like you to do: If you can, follow the advice of your candidate, Bernie Sanders, and support Hillary Clinton. She is your best chance of getting progressives on the Supreme Court, which will ensure your agenda will be met. Vote and organize for progressive down ticket candidates, because they are where you can have the most influence. Legislation starts in Congress, not with the President. Congress will push your agenda.

If you absolutely cannot vote for Hillary, I understand. Do not vote for Trump as an alternative — he’s batshit crazy. Abstain for voting for the office of President, and to vote for down-ballot candidates that reflect your views.  However, you need to be aware that in our system of winner-take-all in most states for electoral votes, your abstention (or voting for Jill Stein, who is unlikely to get a majority and is also batshit crazy) — while sending a message — may throw the election to the bat-shit crazy Trump, and doom the possibility of a progressive leaning Supreme Court for decades. If you want that on your conscience, feel free to abstain. After all, it is better to be idologically pure and not vote for an imperfect candidate than to make progress towards a progressive future.

Share

Standing on a Platform, Waiting for the Train

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy1 Comment

userpic=political-signsLast night, I watched the first night of the Democratic National Convention. I was very impressed with the prime time speakers: Cory Booker, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. About the only weak point was Paul Simon; his voice has deteriorated greatly. After the speech, I did a post on Facebook, where I was asked the question: If Hillary Clinton was convicted of a crime, would I still vote for her. After my first response, where I indicated that, were that to happen, I was sure she would resign as a candidate and the party would pick someone else, I thought about it some more. Here’s the realization I came to:

This is no longer about personality. It is about positions.

Personality was significant when we were in the primaries, and we had multiple personalities with mostly congruent positions in each party. By the end of this week, each party will have a formal nominee, whether we think that person is perfect or not.

Here’s the second realization I came to:

I am congruent with the positions of the Democratic Party. I will support whatever candidate supports those positions. I disagree with the stated positions of the Republican party. I will not vote for a candidate that holds those positions. I have no agreement with the third party candidates, nor do I believe that under the current electoral system that they have candidacies that have a chance of winning a majority of electoral votes.

Irrespective of who the Republican candidate is, I cannot support the positions of the party as embodied in their platform planks. I disagree with their outlook regarding where this country is now. I disagree with their statements regarding social issues. I disagree with their plans regarding the economy and social and economic justice. I particularly disagree with the policy positions that their nominee has espoused. I do not feel they are the right direction for the country, and I could not vote for them whether it is Donald Trump saying them, or John McCain, or Marco Rubio, or even the Governor of Ohio whose name I can never spell.

I agree with the positions of the Democratic Party as embodied in their platform planks, and as supported by their nominee.  I would support any Democratic nominee that supported those positions, be they Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or even Eric Garcetti or Antonio Villaraigosa. The identified “problems” regarding the nominee will not dissuade me in this position, for the Democratic nominee is the only candidate for President that will advance the Democratic platform. This is the same way that Republicans are overlooking their nominee’s equivalently problematic issues, because they feel strongly for their platform.

Third party candidates? I’ve supported them in the past: in my first Presidential primary, I supported John Anderson. But now? I disagree with both the Libertarian and Green positions, and cannot support their candidates. In either case, however, neither have a snowball’s chance in Northridge in the summer — to win, they need a majority vote in a large number of states to win the electoral college, and their support just isn’t that strong. Want to get a viable third-party? Read the second link below on how to do it right.

If you want some more specific arguments, I suggest you read Ferrett’s posts on the subject: Oh, For Fuck’s Sake: A Gentle Talk With My Republican, Democrat, And Undecided Friends and Oh, For Fuck’s Sake: Why Your Presidential Protest Vote Is A Wretched Idea.

A parting thought. Cory Booker’s speech last night quoted Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address:  “With malice toward none, with charity for all…”. What would Lincoln say today? His statement reflects Democratic ideals now: With malice toward none, with charity for all. The Republicans? They are the opposite: With malice toward all, with charity for none. Who is the true party of Lincoln today? Where do you stand: on the side of “With malice toward none, with charity for all”, or on the side of “With malice toward all, with charity toward none.”

My ethics and values align me with the former, with Abraham Lincoln’s statement, and with the values, planks, and positions of the Democratic party. I am standing with their candidates at all levels of elected office.

Note: This post is a lunchtime distillation of some Facebook status updates.

Share