https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Quotations on Elections and Character

Time for my quadrennial quoting of folk who have something to say about the US elections

I maintain a website of quotations, so once every four years or so I dip into the grab bag there for other people’s profound words about elections and voting and the like.

This year I had two classes of quotes I picked: ones about character (and, just to be clear, Donald Trump’s lack of anything that can be considered the sort of character you want to have in a US President, or even your McDonalds’ fry wrangler), and ones about voting and participation (and why it’s important).

Here’s what I had to say, cleverly covered up by other people saying it.

Character, and What We Do/Don’t Want in a President’s

If a public man tries to get your vote by saying that he will do something wrong in your interest, you can be absolutely certain that if ever it becomes worth his while he will do something wrong against your interest.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) American politician, statesman, conservationist, writer, US President (1901-1909)
Speech (1910-04-23), “Citizenship in a Republic [The Man in the Arena],” Sorbonne, Paris

The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office. If a man’s associates find him guilty of phoniness, if they find that he lacks forthright integrity, he will fail. His teachings and actions must square with each other. The first great need, therefore, is integrity and high purpose.

Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969) American general, US President (1953-61)
(Attributed)

Eisenhower quote

The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. They use isolationism as a slogan to conceal their own selfish imperialism. They cultivate hate and distrust of both Britain and Russia. They claim to be superpatriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

Henry Wallace (1888-1965) American politician, journalist, farmer, businessman
“The Danger of American Fascism,” New York Times (1944-04-09)

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change — in a perpetual peaceful revolution — a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions — without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) American lawyer, politician, statesman, US President (1933-1945)
Speech (1941-01-06), “State of the Union [Four Freedoms Speech],” Washington, D. C.

Justice requires us to remember that when any citizen denies his fellow, saying, “His color is not mine,” or “His beliefs are strange and different,” in that moment he betrays America, though his forebears created this Nation.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963-69)
Speech (1965-01-20), Inaugural Address, Washington, D. C.

Dependability, integrity, the characteristic of never knowingly doing anything wrong, that you would never cheat anyone, that you would give everybody a fair deal. Character is a sort of an all-inclusive thing. If a man has character, everyone has confidence in him. Soldiers must have confidence in their leader.

Omar Bradley (1893-1981) American general
Interview with Edgar Puryear (1963-02-15)

A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.

John Paul Stevens (1920-2019) American lawyer, US Supreme Court Justice (1975-2010)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) [dissenting]

Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.

John Adams (1735-1826) American lawyer, Founding Father, statesman, US President (1797-1801)
(Attributed)

If you don’t understand that you work for your mislabeled “subordinates,” then you know nothing of leadership. You know only tyranny.

Dee W. Hock (b. 1929) American businessman
“Unit of One Anniversary Handbook,” Fast Company (1997-02-28)

The best foreign policy is to live our daily lives in honesty, decency, and integrity; at home, making our own land a more fitting habitation for free men; and abroad, joining with those of like mind and heart, to make of the world a place where all men can dwell in peace.

Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969) American general, US President (1953-61)
Inaugural Gabriel Silver lecture, Columbia University (1950-03-23)

For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us — recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state — our success or failure, in whatever office we hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:

First, were we truly men of courage — with the courage to stand up to one’s enemies — and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one’s associates — the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed?

Secondly, were we truly men of judgment — with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past — of our mistakes as well as the mistakes of others — with enough wisdom to know what we did not know and enough candor to admit it.

Third, were we truly men of integrity — men who never ran out on either the principles in which we believed or the men who believed in us — men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?

Finally, were we truly men of dedication — with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and comprised of no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest?

Courage — judgment — integrity — dedication — these are the historic qualities […] which, with God’s help […] will characterize our Government’s conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.

John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) US President (1961-63)
Speech (1961-01-09), Massachusetts legislature, Boston

You can tell the size of a man by the size of the thing that makes him mad.

Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) American diplomat, statesman
Speech (1952-08-28), “Faith in Liberalism,” State Committee of the Liberal Party, New York City

You see the thing you have to remember. When you get to be President, there are all those things, the honors, the twenty-one-gun salutes, all those things. You have to remember it isn’t for you. It’s for the Presidency, and you’ve got to keep yourself separate from that in your mind. If you can’t keep the two separate, yourself and the Presidency, you’re in all kinds of trouble.

Harry S Truman (1884-1972) US President (1945-1953)
In Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman, ch. 15 (1973)

Dishonor in public life has a double poison. When people are dishonorable in private business, they injure only those with whom they deal or their own chances in the next world. But when there is a lack of honor in Government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned.

Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) American engineer, bureaucrat, President of the US (1928-32)
Speech (1951-08-30), “Concerning Honor in Public Life,” Iowa Centennial Celebration (national radio broadcast), Des Moines

The only way of really finding out a man’s true character is to play golf with him. In no other walk of life does the cloven hoof so quickly display itself.

P. G. Wodehouse (1881-1975) Anglo-American humorist, playwright and lyricist [Pelham Grenville Wodehouse]
“Ordeal by Golf,” Collier’s Magazine (1919-12-06)

Precisely in trifles, wherein a man is off his guard, does he show his character, and then we are often able at our leisure to observe in small actions or mere mannerisms the boundless egoism which has not the slightest regard for others and in matters of importance does not afterwards deny itself, although it is disguised. We should never miss such an opportunity. If in the petty affairs and circumstances of everyday life, in the things to which the de minimis lex non curat applies, a man acts inconsiderately, seeking merely his own advantage or convenience to the disadvantage of others; if he appropriates that which exists for everybody; then we may be sure that there is no justice in his heart, but that he would be a scoundrel even on a large scale if his hands were not tied by law and authority; we should not trust him across our threshold. Indeed, whoever boldly breaks the laws of his own circle will also break those of the State whenever he can do so without risk.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) German philosopher
Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. 1, “Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life [Aphorismen zur Lebensweisheit],” ch. 4 “Counsels and Maxims [Paränesen und Maximen],” § 3.29 (1851) [tr. Payne (1974)]

Something of a person’s character may be discovered by observing when and how he smiles. Some people never smile; they grin.

Christian Nestell Bovee (1820-1904) American epigrammatist, writer, publisher
Intuitions and Summaries of Thought, vol. 2 (1862)

We can have no better clue to a man’s character than the company he keeps.

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) Italian politician, philosopher, political scientist
The Discourses on Livy, Book 3, ch. 34 (1517) [tr. Thomson (1883)]

Machiavelli quote

Voting and Democracy and Participation and Elections

Build movements. Vote with your values, but vote strategically. Voting isn’t a Valentine. It’s a chess move.

Rebecca Solnit (b. 1961) American writer, historian, activist
Facebook (2016-10-17)

Solnit quotation

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too. And when a nation has to fight for its freedom, it can only hope to win if it possesses certain qualities: honesty, courage, loyalty, vision and self-sacrifice. If it does not possess them, it has only itself to blame if it loses its freedom.

W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) English novelist and playwright [William Somerset Maugham]
Strictly Personal, § 30 (1941)

Of course I vote! If you’re a woman, or a person of color, or a person who doesn’t own property, or even a white male who doesn’t belong to the nobility, centuries of struggle and many deaths have bought you the right to vote. I vote to keep faith with peasant rebels and suffragist hunger strikers and civil rights workers braving the lynch mobs of the South, if for no other reason. But there is another reason — because who we vote for has an enormous impact on real peoples’ lives.

Starhawk (b. 1951) American writer, activist, feminist theologian [b. Miriam Simos]
Blog post (2016-11-07), “Pre-Election Day Thoughts”

Monarchy is like a sleek craft, it sails along well until some bumbling captain runs it into the rocks. Democracy, on the other hand, is like a raft. It never goes down but, dammit, your feet are always wet.

Fisher Ames (1758-1808) American politician, orator
(Attributed)

Ames quotation

The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
Speech (1859-09-16), Columbus, Ohio

Another point of disagreement [with Lesser Evil Voting] is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle […] sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting — i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences. […] The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) American linguist and activist
“An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)” (2016-06-15) [with John Halle]

Bad officials are elected by good people who do not vote.

George Jean Nathan (1892-1958) American editor and critic
(Attributed)

The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government is to live under the government of worse men.

Plato (c.428-347 BC) Greek philosopher
Republic, Book 1, 347c

Plato quote

I am a democrat because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. And whenever their weakness is exposed, the people who prefer tyranny make capital out of the exposure. I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people — all the people who believe advertisements, and think in catchwords and spread rumours. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) English writer, literary scholar, lay theologian [Clive Staples Lewis]
Essay (1943-08-27), “Equality,” The Spectator

CALVIN: When I grow up, I’m not going to read the newspaper and I’m not going to follow complex issues and I’m not going to vote. That way I can complain when the government doesn’t represent me. Then, when everything goes down the tubes, I can say the system doesn’t work and justify my further lack of participation.

HOBBES: An ingeniously self-fulfilling plan.

CALVIN: It’s a lot more fun to blame things than to fix them.

Bill Watterson (b. 1958) American cartoonist
Calvin and Hobbes (1992-05-18)

Calvin and Hobbes comic

Nikki Haley tries to dance around Slavery and the Civil War

Because the only acceptable answer in the GOP is that the Civil War was about Big Government!

It makes little difference what Nikki Haley actually believes. She simply cannot be trusted. She has shown herself adept at saying things that sound relatively sane one sentence, and then making appeals to the MAGA Right with the next.

She is either a fanatic herself, or (my belief) disingenuously willing to glibly court the fanatics.

And she is still arguably the least-worst of the folk at-all-possibly-getting-the-GOP-nomination-for-President .

politico.com/news/2023/12/27/h

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

UPDATE:

Aaaand … Nikki Haley backtracks, admits that, yeah, slavery was the cause of the Civil War … which will doubtless draw more criticism from both sides.

She then deflects and says the person who asked the original question was a “Democratic plant” … which is altogether possible, but doesn’t address her inability to give the answer she knows is true in the first place.

So Haley is willing to tell the truth about the Civil War when forced to, but not when she isn’t. Got it.

forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

Florida’s school book bans go beyond sex, gender, and race

Florida’s race to get rid of Evil Sex Books has swept up a number of Jewish authors

But, hey, let’s talk about how “liberals” are anti-Semitic.

“Florida district pulls many Jewish and Holocaust books from classroom libraries”

A global bestseller by a Jewish Holocaust victim; a novel by a beloved and politically conservative Jewish American writer; a memoir of growing up mixed-race and Jewish; and a contemporary novel about a high-achieving Jewish family are among the nearly 700 books a Florida school district removed from classroom libraries this year in fear of violating state laws on sexual content in schools.

The purge of books from Orange County Public Schools, in Orlando, over the course of the past semester is the latest consequence of a conservative movement across the country — and strongest in Florida — to rid public and school libraries of materials deemed offensive. While the vast majority of such challenged and removed books involve race, gender and sexuality, several Jewish books have previously been caught in the dragnet.

The Orange County case is unusual for the sheer volume of books removed — 699 including some duplicates, according to documents the district provided — and for the unusually large number of books about the Holocaust and Jewish identity included among them.

timesofisrael.com/florida-dist

Some late thoughts on MLK Day

Quotations from the man himself.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), was eminently quotable (though his tendency to re-use key phrases in multiple sermons, speeches, and writings, sometimes drives a quotation collector to distraction). Here are a few thoughts from him from my quotation collection that I find germane even today, over fifty years after King’s killing.

We must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.

“A Christmas Sermon on Peace,” radio broadcast, CBC (Canada) (24 Dec 1967)

King’s focus on peaceful protest and civil disobedience remains a challenge to this day.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

“Beyond Vietnam,” speech, Clergy and Laity Concerned, Riverside Church, New York City (4 Apr 1967)

King was writing during the Vietnam War, but the issue is just as real today.

Now Jesus himself saw the power that competition holds over men. He did not ignore it. Yet he does something with the conception of competition that hadn’t been done before. He takes the conception which has been used for lower purposes and rescues it from many of its dangers, by suggesting a higher method of its use. This is how he applied the term to his disciples. He saw them in danger of using it for low purposes. They wanted to compete for reputation and position — “which of them should be accounted greatest?” Jesus says so, if you must use the power of competition, if you must compete with on another, make it as noble as you can by using it on noble things. Use it for a fine, unselfish thing. “He that is greatest among you shall serve.” Use it for human good. Who shall be the most useful. Compete with one another in humility. See which can be the truest servant. It seems that Christ says, “Use it, but use it for higher and holier purposes. Use it not to surpass one another in esteem, but use it to increase the amount of usefulness and brother-help.” Such conceptions of competition lead to the surprising and ennobling position that there can be competition without hate and jealousy. Behold! You can struggle to beat and yet rejoice to be beaten.

“Cooperative Competition / Noble Competition,” sermon outline

King had a repertoire of turning around familiar talking points — in this case, rejecting the idea of competition being necessarily bad, but noting that it depends on what one is competing for.

We must not seek to use our emerging freedom and our growing power to do the same thing to the white minority that has been done to us for so many centuries. Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man. We must not become victimized with a philosophy of black supremacy. God is not interested merely in freeing black men and brown men and yellow men, but God is interested in freeing the whole human race.

“Give Us the Ballot,” Speech, Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom, Washington, DC (1957)

King always made it clear that the struggle for equal rights for blacks was to the benefit of all Americans, not just blacks.

In the final analysis, love is not this sentimental something that we talk about. It’s not merely an emotional something. Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system.

“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)

King saw the power of love going beyond sentiment to actual action.

We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws, because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail, and we shall still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.

“Loving Your Enemies,” sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)

The summary of King’s teachings on peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. That’s why Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” Because if you hate your enemies, you have no way to redeem and to transform your enemies. But if you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption. You just keep loving people and keep loving them, even though they’re mistreating you. Here’s the person who is a neighbor, and this person is doing something wrong to you and all of that. Just keep being friendly to that person. Keep loving them. Don’t do anything to embarrass them. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with bitterness because they’re mad because you love them like that. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies.

“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)

Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship. Forgiveness is a catalyst creating the atmosphere necessary for a fresh start and a new beginning. It is the lifting of a burden or the canceling of a debt. The words “I will forgive you, but I’ll never forget what you have done” never explain the real nature of forgiveness. Certainly one can never forget, if that means erasing it totally for his mind. But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a new relationship. Likewise, we can never say, “I will forgive you, but I won’t have anything further to do with you.” Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again. Without this, no man can love his enemies. The degree to which we are able to forgive determines the degree to which we are able to love our enemies.

“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (25 Dec 1957)

Forgiveness is hard.

This simply means that there is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. When we look beneath the surface, beneath the impulsive evil deed, we see within our enemy-neighbor a measure of goodness and know that the viciousness and evilness of his acts are not quite representative of all that he is. We see him in a new light. We recognize that his hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding, but in spite of this, we know God’s image is ineffably etched in being. Then we love our enemies by realizing that they are not totally bad and that they are not beyond the reach of God’s redemptive love.

“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (25 Dec 1957)

In a time of division like today, words for thought.

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.

“On Being a Good Neighbor,” sec. 2, sermon, A Gift of Love (1963)

We sometime hear that the problems of poverty should be left to private charity. But even if that were adequate to meet the need (and it never has), it merely treats the symptoms.

The most dangerous type of atheism is not theoretical atheism, but practical atheism — that’s the most dangerous type. And the world, even the church, is filled up with people who pay lip service to God and not life service. And there is always a danger that we will make it appear externally that we believe in God when internally we don’t. We say with our mouths that we believe in him, but we live with our lives like he never existed. That is the ever-present danger confronting religion. That’s a dangerous type of atheism.

“Rediscovering Lost Values,” sermon, Second Baptist Church, Detroit (28 Feb 1954)

I have more respect for considered atheists than those who claim to follow a religion but, by their actions, do not.

As long as there is poverty in the world I can never be rich, even if I possess a billion dollars. As long as millions of people are inflicted with debilitating diseases and cannot expect to live more than thirty-five years, I can never be totally healthy even if I receive a perfect bill of health from Mayo Clinic. Strangely enough, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be.

“Remaining Awake through a Great Revolution,” Commencement Speech, Morehouse College, Atlanta (2 Jun 1959)

Empathy and compassion.

It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, “Wait on time.”

“Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,” sermon, National Cathedral, Washington, DC (31 Mar 1968)

Sometimes waiting is appropriate. But sometimes it’s an easy excuse for not acting.

We need leaders not in love with money but in love with justice. Not in love with publicity but in love with humanity.

“The Birth of a New Age,” speech, Alpha Phi Alpha banquet, Buffalo (11 Aug 1956)

It may well be that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition is not the glaring noisiness of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. It may be that our generation will have repent not only for the diabolical actions and vitriolic words of the children of darkness, but also for the crippling fears and tragic apathy of the children of light.

“The Christian Way of Life in Human Relations,” speech, General Assembly fo the National Council of Churches, St Louis (4 Dec 1957)

A frequent theme of King’s, nudging audiences who thought of themselves too easily as the “good guys.”

Any church that violates the “whosoever will, let him come” doctrine is a dead, cold church, and nothing but a little social club with a thin veneer of religiosity.

“The Drum Major Instinct,” sermon, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta (4 Feb 1968)

It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important also.

“The Other America,” speech, Stanford University (14 Apr 1967)

A riot is the language of the unheard.

“The Other America,” speech, Stanford University (14 Apr 1967)

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

“The Trumpet of Conscience,” Steeler Lecture (Nov 1967)

I must confess, my friends, the road ahead will not always be smooth. There will be still rocky places of frustration and meandering points of bewilderment. There will be inevitable setbacks here and there. There will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair. Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted. We may again with tear-drenched eyes have to stand before the bier of some courageous civil rights worker whose life will be snuffed out by the dastardly acts of bloodthirsty mobs. Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future.

“Where Do We Go From Here?” Southern Christian Leadership Conference Presidential Address (16 Aug 1967)

My personal disillusionment with the church began when I was thrust into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery. I was confident that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would prove strong allies in our just cause. But some became open adversaries, some cautiously shrank from the issue, and others hid behind silence. My optimism about help from the white church was shattered; and on too many occasions since, my hopes for the white church have been dashed. There are many signs that the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. Unless the early sacrificial spirit is recaptured, I am very much afraid that today’s Christian church will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and we will see the Christian church dismissed as a social club with no meaning or effectiveness for our time, as a form without substance, as salt without savor. The real tragedy, though, is not Martin Luther King’s disillusionment with the church — for I am sustained by its spiritual blessings as a minister of the gospel with a lifelong commitment: The tragedy is that in my travels, I meet young people of all races whose disenchantment with the church has soured into outright disgust.

Playboy interview (Jan 1965)

King’s disappointment with white Christian church response to his message came through repeatedly — and with justification. 

Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion. Such a religion is the kind the Marxists like to see — an opiate of the people.

Stride Toward Freedom (1958)

King focused on civil rights, legal equality before the law. But he also was a proponent of economic rights and justice as well.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

“I’ve Been To The Mountaintop,” speech, Memphis (3 Apr 1968)

King’s last public speech. He was assassinated the following day. 

 

 

 

Pondering D&D, race, and violence

Thoughtlessly killing conveniently-labeled evil races is … dodgy.

So I came across an interesting Twitter thread from Arcanist Press that caused me to think a bit. What it brings up over the length of a dozen tweets is not new, but takes on a bit more immediacy for me at present.

(The referenced WIRED article is here.)

As someone who’s recently taken back up D&D (and is looking to DM a game soon), this thread is a good reminder of some of the problematic issues in the game’s history that continue to haunt it to the present: racism and its interaction with systematic violence.

Working from the fantasy literature of folk like Tolkien and Howard, who baked racial tropes into their fantasy worlds (yes, they did, though the former did it with likely less intent and a more distant gentility than the latter), it’s way too easy to just throw “Other” races against our heroes (or burden them with “Other” stereotypes themselves) and then commit wanton bloodshed over it.

Well, it’s convenient to have an enemy literally labeled as intrinsically “evil,” and having a “bloodlust” for slaughter. It’s turned out so well in human history.

(Throwing in Half-orcs as a Player Character race doesn’t necessarily improve this: “Half-orcs’ … pigmentation, sloping foreheads, jutting jaws, prominent teeth, and towering builds make their … heritage plain for all to see” is, um, the sort of thing I expect to read white nationalism blog.)

And the Good vs. Evil trope (and its self-righteous assurance of any actions being justified in the fight for Our Side) creates synergies with that racism that lead to even worse ramifications.

“Some kobolds appear in the road and attack you.”

“Yay, we can kill them because they are evil! Which we know because they are clearly labeled as such in the Monster Manual, and also they look like monsters.”

That’s bad story-telling, as well as problematic ethics.

(It’s one thing to say, “Hey, we are being attacked by these people, so we need to defend ourselves.” It’s another thing to add, “But it’s okay, because they are evil and deserve to be killed, so no quarter offered, no prisoners taken.” It’s also one thing to say, “There’s been war with the orcs for generations here” and another to promote, “The only good orc is a dead orc” as a morally defensible position.)

The thread also touches on (under the disturbing Gygax link) the tangle with morality and killing that I just ran up against recently in-game (Lawful Good Paladins and the killing of prisoners). I get it that an intrinsic part of D&D is Killing The Bad Guys, but I personally need a bit more to keep from feeling like a Spree Killer with the Insane Priest whispering in my ear that  It’s Okay, They’re All Bad–Trust Me, I Speak for the Gods.

(We won’t even talk about the “Murder Hobo” tropes of “Hey, let’s raid this dungeon, kill everything, and take their wealth for our personal enrichment” types of scenarios.)

Wait, I thought it was the evil Orcs who “satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them.”

I also get it that D&D missions with a purpose (“You are sent by the king to deal with …” / “You hear rumors of villagers disappearing in the area of …” etc.) can create a violence-is-justified / take-no-prisoners situation. A commando team behind enemy lines (probably the closest analog to the typical Dungeon Crawlers With A Mission Other Than Lining Their Pockets) faces some moral decisions (which they should probably internally settle before the mission starts) that normal front-line soldiers don’t.

That said, trying to dress a necessary evil as a good is … not good.

I’m not saying that every D&D character should be suffering from PTSD and wake up every night in their bedrolls, screaming over what they had to do to that Drow village — but “Okay, we questioned him, now cut his throat” should not be an undisturbing proposition, either. I also understand that when I’m playing D&D as such, I’m looking at a dopamine shot of victory, not seeking a deep, philosophical debate before each encounter. But just as I would cavil at a game that rewarded me for raping all the opposition, or commit systematic genocide against the racially different folk living in the next valley over, I think there’s at least some room for nuance in considering the in-game justification for killing all the opposition, or treating other races as sub-human, intrinsically evil monsters that deserve to be wiped out. I think human history demonstrates how those attitudes, unchallenged and unconsidered, don’t lead to heroic results.

All that said, I don’t have any grand solutions, other than discussing the matter, and efforts from game fans to offer up alternatives (as Arcana Press says they do) to supplement some minor changes from D&D’s publisher itself. But as I go through the module I plan to DM, I do intend to consider what sort of tropes — social and ethical — I’m being handed, and consider whether there’s something I can do in this instance to make them a bit less problematic, at least for my own conscience.

The 2020 Colorado ballot proposition results

I’m mostly happy about the results.

Since I talked about my Colorado ballot proposition choices before the election, it’s only fair I report on how the People voted. Colors will indicate whether I won or lost.

Amendment B: Doing away with the Gallagher Amendment on Property Taxes

I voted YES. Result was YES (57-43). Colorado’s tax laws remain a mess, but this has yanked a few wires out of the tangle.

Amendment C: Easier / more profitable to run bingo-raffle games.

I voted NO. Result was YES (52/48), but fails by not reaching the required 55%. Changes in the ballot proposition system a few elections back means that some proposals require a 55% win. This one didn’t meet it, which I’m just as happy about, as the whole thing sounded like a scam.

Amendment 76: Edit a voting requirement to “must be a United States citizen”

I voted NO. Result was YES (63-37). A solution searching  for a problem, and a sop for nativists.

Amendment 77: Allow limited gaming towns to go hog-wild with games and stakes.

I voted NO. Result was YES (60-40). Some towns and community colleges will get a little richer. Some gambling companies will get a lot richer. A bunch of Coloradans will get a lot poorer.

Proposition EE: Nicotine tax on vaping products and smoking tobacco products.

I voted YES. Result was YES (68-32). Everyone loves a sin tax.

Proposition 113: Join the National Popular Vote compact?

I voted YES. Result was YES (52-48). The Electoral College sucks. Enough Coloradans feel that way, too.

Proposition 114: Reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado?

I voted YES. Result was YES (50.3-49.7). This one barely eked its way to victory. Oh, btw, the Trump Administration just announced gray wolves were off the Endangered Species List.

Proposition 115: Ban abortion at 22 weeks?

I voted NO. Result was NO (41-59). I wish the margin had been higher. But, then, I wish folk would stop putting this on the ballot every election.

Proposition 116: Cut state income tax from 4.63% to 4.55%

I voted NO. Result was YES (57-43). Most people won’t notice the difference, but state programs will. 

Proposition 117: Require voter approval of state enterprises that charge un-TABORed fees?

I voted NO. Result was YES (52-48). This state remains compulsively anti-tax.

Proposition 118: Create a paid family and medical leave program?

I voted YES. Result was YES (57-43). But we’re also kind of progressive on what we want government to do. Yes, that’s quite a contradiction. But I’ll take it on this one (though it will be up for referendum in two years based on the win of Prop 117).

Overall, I’m pretty pleased, going 74 on how I wanted the vote to go — and not losing on the ones I felt most strongly about. So … I’ll take my victories where I can.

Small town evangelicals talk about why they support Trump

He offers them power against the scary cultural tide

Fascinating, disappointing, interesting, and concerning article, talking with people in Sioux Center, Iowa, where Donald Trump gave his famous “Fifth Avenue” shooting comment during his 2016 campaign, but where he also promised his evangelical Christian audience that, under his presidency, “Christianity will have power.

“I will tell you, Christianity is under tremendous siege, whether we want to talk about it or we don’t want to talk about it,” Mr. Trump said.

Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the country, he said. And then he slowed slightly to stress each next word: “And yet we don’t exert the power that we should have.”

If he were elected president, he promised, that would change. He raised a finger.

“Christianity will have power,” he said. “If I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power, you don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”

What struck me in reading this was the irony that a religion whose founder was killed by those in power, and who taught the virtue demonstrated and grace given when refusal to compromise principle for power leads to persecution, has so many followers who just want to be the ones “in charge.” To have Caesar promise them power in exchange for their support at the ballots.

Not necessarily malicious power (though clearly there are some), but just comfortable power. Their scripture in all public places. The assumption that they are “normal”. Laws that adhere to their religious code. And those who aren’t of their belief, left on the margins, at best.

And if their perceived rights conflict with those of others? Women who want equal treatment, or those of other races, or sexual orientation or gender expression or religious faith? Well, the advantage of firmly believing God is on your side is that you don’t worry about others who don’t believe as you do. You can argue that you need the power to have the nation do what you want, but frame it as making sure someone isn’t oppressing you.

Explained Jason Mulder, who runs a small design company in Sioux Center: “I feel like on the coasts, in some of the cities and stuff, they look down on us in rural America. You know, we are a bunch of hicks, and don’t know anything. They don’t understand us the same way we don’t understand them. So we don’t want them telling us how to live our lives.”

One has to consider some are projecting concerns that they will find themselves being treated as poorly on the margins as Jews, or Muslims, or atheists, etc.

The irony is that the nation’s history shows that when Christianity “has power,” it turns on itself as much as on those outside. Along racial lines. Wealth lines. Most importantly doctrinal lines. Catholic vs Protestant. Evangelicals of different flavors. James Madison grew up seeing Baptists tarred and feathered, which led to his pressing for protections against the church being entangled with the state.

When Christians “have power,” it’s not all Christians, ever.

“Obama wanted to take my assault rifle, he wanted to take out all the high-capacity magazines,” Mr. Schouten said. “It just —”

“— felt like your freedoms kept getting taken from you,” said Heather’s husband, Paul, finishing the sentence for him.

Is Christianity “under siege”? Well, it’s losing numbers. And it’s losing (to coin a phrase) the “special rights” of being the assumed norm, of having the presumed power when push comes to shove, of having its values be the values everyone has to adhere to (in theory).

And, weird thing, as that norm has faded, some people in some groups who have been pushed around by Christians following what they think is Christian doctrine, when they get a chance, they speak out. They verbally attack Christianity. Sometimes they push back, too.

She worried that the school might be forced to let in students who were not Christian, or hire teachers who were gay.

“Silly things. Just let the boys go in the boys’ bathroom and the girls go in the girls’,” he said. “It’s just something you’d think is never going to happen, and nowadays it could. And it probably will.”

“Just hope nobody turns it upside down,” he said.

“But we feel like we are in a little area where we are protected yet,” she said. “We are afraid of losing that, I guess.”

And it all feels so much like a zero-sum game. That the only way for someone to get freedoms, liberty, rights, is to take them from someone who already has them. The idea of rights being a universal pool to which only some people have been invited, and that those people were now insisting on their fair share … doesn’t matter to them, maybe because they don’t know or acknowledge some of the groups insisting on their freedom, liberty, rights.

The years of the Obama presidency were confusing to her. She said she heard talk of giving freedoms to gay people and members of minority groups. But to her it felt like her freedoms were being taken away. And that she was turning into the minority.

“I do not love Trump. I think Trump is good for America as a country. I think Trump is going to restore our freedoms, where we spent eight years, if not more, with our freedoms slowly being taken away under the guise of giving freedoms to all,” she said. “Caucasian-Americans are becoming a minority. Rapidly.”

But if Christianity is diminishing in the US, it’s not because of those attacks. It’s not because of Hollywood, or liberals, or Satan whispering in the wings. It’s ultimately because Christians, in all their different flavors, are not being persuasive that theirs is the better way, the right way. That the salvation they trust is coming, and the peace and joy they claim to feel in their lives, and the righteousness of their cause, is worth it as a belief system and lifestyle.

Taking a shortcut by having power in secular terms doesn’t seem to fit into any of the New Testament teachings I can find. And the more they grasp at that, the more they drive people away,

They want America to be a Christian nation for their children. “We started out as a Christian nation,” she said.

“You can’t make people do these things,” he said. “But you can try to protect what you’ve got, you might say.”

One might think, if this were simply a matter of faith, the folk talked with here would be focused on their beliefs and their relationship with God. They would bear the insults and slights as signs that they’re doing something right. (They might also consider any justice of the accusations against them, but one step at a time).

Instead, what we hear about is all about Us and Them, and fear, and discomfort, and change, and Donald being the guy who will Restore Our Power, take away the insecurity, the questioning, the (gasp) marginalization, the laws and culture that say they’re “wrong” or “silly” or “hurtful.” He’ll keep them safe, their religious schools pure, their bathrooms binary, their neighborhoods white … just like they’ve always been.

“Trump’s an outsider, like the rest of us,” he said. “We might not respect Trump, but we still love the guy for who he is.”

“Is he a man of integrity? Absolutely not,” he went on. “Does he stand up for some of our moral Christian values? Yes.”

The guys agreed. “I’m not going to say he’s a Christian, but he just doesn’t attack us,” his friend Jason Mulder said.

It’s a transactional scam on Donald’s part — he’s no more pro-Christian than my cat is — but they don’t see it, or they don’t care. They’re terrified, they feel that power, power from the modern Caesar, is the only cultural salvation for them in the short run, and they don’t care what it is costing them in the long run.

Holding the police to a higher, older standard

Dragnet and Adam-12 were an LAPD-blessed ideals of what cops should be (even if the real cops weren’t).

Jack Webb was politically conservative. His police shows — Dragnet (1967-70), Adam-12 (1968-75) — were profoundly pro-police. They got production assistance from (and gave thanks/credits to) the Los Angeles Police Department, which, in the 60s-70s was billy-club conservative, too.

But, for all that, the shows were an expression of the ideal of “Protect and Serve.” They were, yes, propaganda for the LAPD as to what they wanted to be seen as, but, as such, they were aspirational. And I imprinted on them as what cops should be — not what they were, but what they thought they ought to be.

Dealing with the public for these 60s-70s cops was never easy. Sometimes it was just goofy civilians causing our heroes grief. Sometimes it was folk — good or bad — who were suspicious or disdainful of cops. Sometimes it was dangerous.

Through it all, our protagonists always maintained that public service, “To Protect and Serve” attitude. Even in the face of danger, known or possible, they were by the book, because that’s what made them policemen, not vigilantes.

The shows often touched on how the police regulated themselves, and it was fascinating. They dealt with rules. With procedures. Sometimes scary. Sometimes complex. Sometimes even unfair from a cop’s eye. But that was how it was — that’s what was needed to make cops, like Caesar’s wife, “beyond reproach.”

And the shows did deal with things like police brutality,  or even police shootings, as when Friday himself was accused of an unjustified killing in Dragnet. “I thought maybe he had a gun” wasn’t treated as sufficient to get Friday off. “I was in fear of my life” wasn’t an excuse for using a firearm.  Proving the other guy shot first was necessary for Friday to keep his job.

Spoilers, sweetie.

Or when Kent McCord, who went on to play Reed on Adam-12, played a cop accused of armed robbery. Friday gives a famous speech about how rough the life of a cop is, but how that’s what he signed up for and is glad he has.

The shows were unapologetically pro-police — but not because police were a special tribe, or uber-warriors, or beyond reproach, but because they were portrayed as dedicated, upright people of duty and honor, and because they policed their own.

There were no police union reps keeping accused cops from being questioned for days. No training films about kill-or-be-killed. No politicians nudge-and-winking abusive behavior against the out groups. No thin blue line of tribal silence when a cop did something illegal.

Civilians weren’t seen as potential threats until proven innocent. Racial prejudice was deemed profoundly unworthy of a protector of all the people. Choke holds and kneeling on someone’s neck would be unthinkable. Kitting up in paramilitary uniforms would have drawn a sneer and a snarky reference to military dictatorships.

When things got *really* serious, they pulled out the shotgun, not the multi-million dollar army surplus tank.

Police were made out to be heroes in these shows because their actions, their ideals, their adherence to duty even dealing with disrespect, stress, frustration, judicial coddling of crooks, was beyond reproach. They were heroes, not in a Hollywood action sort of mold, gunning down the bad guys,  but because they had a moral and ethical code and they stuck to it, no matter how difficult. And if anyone stumbled, or questioned that code, the wise elders (Friday, Malloy) stomped on them. Hard. Because being a cop was a trust — and betraying that trust, in any way, hurt everyone.

And for all that Webb was politically conservative, he and his police officers held no truck with racism or authoritarianism. It was way too close to WW2 for that lesson to have been forgotten.

Sure, it wasn’t a realistic portrayal of how the LAPD actually was, let alone is. But it did portray the ideal of what cops should be, with the aid and abetting of an actual police department.

Which brings us to today.  Friday and Malloy (and Gannon and Reed) would all have been sorely tempted to take Derek Chauvin and his three buddies into an alley and thrash them within an inch of their lives, all the while lecturing them in Webbian tones as to how they had profoundly betrayed everything that made police better than thugs.

But  they wouldn’t have. They would instead have stepped up and slapped the cuffs on. If they had witnessed George Floyd’s killing, and been unable to intervene, they would have been the first to testify as to what they’d seen. Because they would know, in every bone of their bodies, that bad cops are worse than the worst criminals. Because they corrupt the body politic, they destroy trust in our institutions, they make us all less free, less secure, less protected. Because they are traitors to their badges, and profoundly wrong.

It is, I confess, arguably silly to use TV characters as exemplars of how the police should behave. Ditto for, when I see cops acting a certain way or doing certain things, judging them against Reed and Malloy, or Friday and Gannon. What would Joe do? 

It would probably involve some speechifying

But these were characters crafted by a man who believed in what the police should be, with the input and guidance of a police department who were willing to put that vision forward as what they strove to at least appear as (even if they fell far below that level). So it’s no less silly than simply shrugging and saying “The cops are always right.”

The Jack Webb shows are myths, if highly detailed ones — and myths always carry truths worth looking at. So I’d rather have a Joe Friday running the Minneapolis PD than its current administration (let alone its loathsome police union leader, Bob Kroll). There would doubtless be policy directions he took I wouldn’t agree with. But he’d also approach the job as a public service, where his goal is to protect and serve the people of the city, not the cops that work there. Where the ideal of being the weary but noble protectors of the people, not their “dominators,” would flower.

Why didn’t Warren win the Democratic nomination?

Everyone’s looking for a single, simple answer. There isn’t one.

I would normally do this as a set of Twitter entries these days. But it’s a bit long, so …

As Elizabeth Warren — my primary choice — drops out of the field after a poor performance on Super Tuesday, the question that naturally arises is, why didn’t she win?

Everything seemed like it could have been there for her to do so. She had a remarkably high favorability score amongst Dem voters. She was usually at the top of the list as a second choice candidate. She was articulate, intelligent, passionate, showed her homework, and on and on.

Is there a magic, singular reason it didn’t happen? Nope. Instead, there are several reasons that coalesced to erode away her front-tier status — some of them her fault, some of them nobody’s fault, others …

It was a very crowded field. This was one of those years when everyone and their sibling decided to run in the Democratic field against Trump, heartened both by Trump’s own “anything’s possible” win in 2016 and his deep unpopularity. Remember those first few debates, where the contestants got mixed randomly across two nights?

Image result for first democratic debate

The result was that a lot of folks liked Warren and even would have been okay with her, but were able to find someone closer to their preferences as their first choice.  And among Warren’s own supporters, polls showed that they tended to be more excited about other candidates than other candidate’s supporters were, meaning other factors meant it was easier to peel off that support.

That said, to the extent that she, along with Sanders, were off to the further left side of the spectrum, she also suffered from direct ideological competition with Sanders, who came into the race with a large group of dedicated followers and the experience of 2016. If Sanders had not been in the race, a lot of that support would have presumably gone to her.

Image result for warren sanders gif

A lot has been made about sexism, given how we’ve gone from a large candidate tally that had multiple female candidates of varying credibility — Williamson, Gabbard, Harris, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Warren — and have ended up with Two Old White Guys. (Gabbard remains in the race, but very much under the radar, and for reasons and goals that do not seem to be an actual run for the presidency.)

The sexism here is definitely a factor. Nobody credible said, “Oh, a woman can’t be President,” but plenty of people worried, “Hmmm, can a woman be elected President?” It wasn’t their own feelings that restrained them from supporting Warren, but their evaluation of other peoples’ feelings — the dreaded “electability” consideration. “Will Trump supporters who might be wavering consider voting for a woman?” “Will being a woman make her a particular target for Trump, like Clinton was?”

Image result for democrawtic women candidates high five

Even some folk who might overcome those questions in the abstract, when faced with the overwhelming urgency to defeat Trump, might have decided to play it safe and go for a guy.

That similarly came into play in the question of Warren’s progressive politics — my sense is that she sold that policy more effectively for a lot of people than Sanders has, having  more appeal to people closer to the center, but that whole “socialism” thing played into her electability factor as well. “I’d vote for her, but I’m not sure other people will” being the the self-fulfilling prophecy in the era of fearing Trump’s re-election.

Indeed, to the extent that the “socialism” thing has generated worry within the more centrist/moderate ranks of the Democratic party — where, even if they like individual proposals, it feels risky right now in a time of plague and with a Trump re-election at stake. Had Biden continued to falter, would Warren have been seen as a possible middle ground between Bloomberg and Sanders? The Biden resurgence at Super Tuesday, following his success in South Carolina, not only knocked out his immediate moderate competition, but ultimately Warren as well.

Image result for super tuesday results

While Warren seemed to be less seen as an enemy of the Democratic establishment than Sanders, it’s also been clear that establishment — whether from fear of a Trump re-election or fear of their own wealth — were less enthused with the progressive left than the moderate / centrist wing of candidates. I don’t think they particularly put their thumb on the scales in her case, but I think they are just as glad to see her go.

Warren got generally good marks for her debate performance, and everyone seems to agree that she gets the lion’s share of the credit for knocking Mike Bloomberg out of the race. But I found her outings at the debate a mixed bag, too reliant canned answers and repetitious anecdotes (she fared much better in 1:1 interviews and other less game show-style verbal outings). While her Vegas debate got her a small bump, I don’t think the debates helped her enough.

I’ve mentioned the problems of being, policy-wise, competing for the same ground against another major candidate whose turned out to be in the final contention. Subjectively, in the Twitter threads I followed, I found that there was a particularly vocal cadre of Sanders supporters who were aggressively resentful of her running as a progressive, “stealing” votes from Bernie, not being as ideologically pure as Bernie, and (worst of all) her occasionally criticizing or disagreeing with Bernie.

Image result for elizabeth warren snake twitter

I don’t actually think a host of snake emoji and hashtags and vitriol scared her off, but it made any positive discussion of Warren and her campaign more difficult.

One of Warren’s tag lines was her “I have a plan for that.” I think that, net-net, that was a positive for her: she’d thought about these things, came up with concrete ways to address them that didn’t rely on magical thinking, and pursued them with confidence.

The problem with so many plans was two-fold. For some folk it came across as too intellectual and wonkish. Like the Emperor’s “too many notes” critique in Amadeus, for some people her intellectual rigor and professorial background was a turn-off  (which, coupled with societal sexism, probably didn’t help, either).

The other problem is that, when she felt she needed to revise something — from a misunderstanding, or because she saw a way to improve it, or even for political practicalities — it left her open to attack. This came up in particular over her shifting on Medicare For All; her shift (however you characterize it) on implementation timing didn’t improve her appeal to moderates who think M4A is either an awful idea or an election killer, and it was throwing chum into the tank for the Sander supporters who wanted to characterize her as No True Progressive And, In Fact, Probably Just Plain Evil Hssssssss (that Sanders politely disagreed with her and has spoken positively about her M4A support didn’t do anything about that kind of attack).

Image result for elizabeth warren plans

The question of age has come up in this election. While Warren always showed remarkable vigor, physically and mentally, she was sometimes lumped in with the other older candidates by some folk, and, to get back to the sexism thread, age is always more of a handicap for women in the public limelight than for men.

While some media outlets and individuals seemed warm to Warren, the nature of contemporary news coverage of elections netted out against her.  She got face time when she was rising, but once that had stalled and she was further back in the pack — 3rd to 5th — she became yesterday’s news, to the extent that she was sometimes left out of polls or reporting on them, even in favor candidates that were doing worse but were the media flavor of the week (as Klobuchar and Buttigieg took turns with late in the campaign).

The media loves a horse race, competitive drama. When Warren wasn’t providing that, the media coverage dried up, whether or not it shouldn’t have. Super Tuesday was a poor showing for her, but the coverage of that night made it out to be a two-person race regardless of what primaries were still to come or the nature of the convention. That didn’t help.

The last element in the room, so to speak, was the whole Native American heritage kerfuffle.[1] Warren’s initial error in letting family stories about that heritage convince her to identify for a time as Native American (though not with any actual harm done or advantage gained, from all that it has been investigated), and then her attempt to confirm that family story through DNA testing would always have been a blot of misjudgment on her record. But its gleefully racist misuse by Trump made it be seen as a liability in the election, and there were enough folk who felt, despite Warren’s repeated explanations and apologies, that it a serious problem that it gave more ammo to her critics within the party (again, generally from the Sanders camp) as if she had been gleefully stealing money from Native American babies while wearing a Washington Redskins jersey, hisssssssss.

What should have been — in the face of a thousand racist (etc.) transgressions by Trump, or of Biden lying about his background in the civil rights movement, or even some of the baggage Sanders is carrying around — a road bump became, not the iceberg that sunk Warren, but a wound that never was allowed to heal.

No list of “Why did this happen in the election” is complete without mention of possible foreign interference (thanks, Trump, for letting that particular concern about our democracy metastasize). Nobody’s suggested that Warren was a target for opposition (or support) by, say, Russia. But I can’t see her as a potential president that Russia would consider in their interests, like Trump, nor is she as divisive as her ideological niche competitor, Sanders.  If nobody actively targeted Warren, the general partisan and intra-partisan conflict that Russia has fomented certainly worked against her.

None of these were conclusive. None of these factors explain everything. Individually Warren could have survived any of them. Cumulatively, though, they drove her campaign to the point of non-viability to win outright, or even to have a substantial delegate role in the convention.[2] Her decision to suspend her campaign is, sadly, probably the best one.

But I’ll always regret she didn’t get the nomination and become the next President of the United States.[3] Thanks, Senator Warren!

 


[1] I am not Native American, so I acknowledge my perspective here has limitations. It did seem that I saw a lot more criticism of Warren on this from non-NAs than from NAs and tribal representatives, esp. after she apologized early days in the campaign.

[2] Note that there is a timeline out there where we end up with a contested election and Warren gets drafted as the compromise candidate between Biden and Sanders– this kind of possibility is one reason why candidates always suspend their campaigns, not end them (though campaign finance is a much bigger reason). I deem this scenario highly unlikely, but it is not outside the bounds of historic possibility. Just saying.

[3] It has been suggested that either Biden or Sanders might offer her the VP role. I don’t think she would take it; more importantly, she is of more value in the Senate, both for her ongoing contributions and because, if she was elected as VP, the GOP governor of Massachusetts would name her, presumably GOP, successor, and Senate balance is nearly as critical as the White House.

That said … Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren has a nice ring to it.

The Banning of Segregation

As a nation we once stood against discrimination, even when dressed up as “religious freedom”

RT @BeschlossDC: Brown v. Board of Education—Supreme Court found segregated schools unconstitutional 65 years ago this week: https://t.co/b…

This week we commemorate the banning of “separate but [though it never was] equal” as a dodge to allow segregation.

Gosh, remember back when claims of “religious freedom” (as some folk used to defend “the Biblical separation of the races”) as an excuse for discrimination (racial discrimination in particular) were laughed out of court?

Yeah, I get nostalgic for those days, too.

Sinification

China is in a campaign to literally tear down the cultural heritage of the Uighurs

China’s in the US news largely over tariffs and trade wars that Trump is bombasting us into. But China’s guilty of more profound crimes than currency manipulation or refusing to cater to the US President’s publicity needs. https://t.co/v4XlP1P4hD

Not that US hands (or other nations, for that matter) have been clean in the past when it’s come to indigenous populations who “need” to be managed, pushed out of the way, or made more like “us”. But China’s doing it right now, in front of everyone’s eyes, and most of the concern is focused instead on trade and tariffs.

On “Captain Marvel” and the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

What Carol’s success might mean for the X-Men and FF, oh, and what about her romantic life?

[Possible spoilers for Captain Marvel, but, really, you should have seen it by now.]

As the movie approaches the $1 billion box office level, Marvel’s Captain Marvel is, along with Black Panther, demonstrating that the MCU’s films (and, perhaps, movies in general) don’t need to primarily focus on white guys as heroes.

Which, honestly, I have no problem with, and in fact, applaud. There are a lot of characters in the Marvel Universe who are not-white and/or not-male, and this only frees up the opportunity to see more of them center screen, too. I would prefer not to see white guys disappear totally from the MCU — but that hardly seems likely. Heck, even the Snap didn’t do that.

I’m not actually worried about running out of white guys in the MCU.

(And, yes, there’s even the possibility that some characters might be cast with people who don’t align with their complexion or even gender in the original comics. Nick Fury’s a kinda-good example of that being workable, as are changes with Mar-Vell. If done well, in a way that doesn’t significantly change something essential about the character, I don’t have a problem there.)

Beyond that, it’s noted that the success of these two heroes that are slated for prominence in the post-Avengers “Phase 4” movies, along with the movies already slated, indicates that Marvel need be in no big hurry to incorporate the massive properties they just inherited with the Fox deal: the X-Men and the Fantastic Four.

FF and X-Men — They’ve both been around for a while.

I mean, I’m as anxious as anyone else to see a decent film rendition of the FF, but I’m totally cool with both properties, esp. the X-Men, getting a few years of rest and reset, and then potentially centerpiece another phase down the line. Aside from the risk of super-hero flicks going out of style (which has been predicted multiple times over the last decade) before they circle around to those sagas, a break makes a lot of sense. Though in the meantime we can get some “hints” (news stories about mutations on the rise due to cosmic radiation or Infinity Stone leftovers; a NASA representative name-dropping Reed Richards; weird shenanigans on the news going on in the Sokovian neighbor nation of Latveria, etc.) to help tee up some excitement.

Another interesting thread of discussion that’s come up lately, viz Captain Marvel, is the question of Carol Danvers sexual orientation. It’s a little weird that it’s being brought up in large part because the character doesn’t have the traditional “boyfriend” in her origin movie, which is supposed to be a good thing because not every woman’s story has to be focused on her relationship with a man — but that’s, in turn, made people wonder if Carol’s relationship with Maria Rambeau or (and this would be an interesting twist) Mar-Vell might be more than just friendship.

I’m, honestly, non-committal. There’s nothing wrong with it, but there’s nothing particularly compelling about it, either. To be sure, I don’t have a personal stake in that particular representation, and I agree that getting some LGBTQ folk into the MCU picture (a million unofficial memes about Steve/Bucky notwithstanding) would be a positive thing in principle. I may just be a bit concerned at a meta level about the amount of heavy-eyerolling-See-it-was-all-a-feminist-plot that would ensue if it turned out that Captain Marvel was a lesbian, or even bi, but that seems inevitable no matter what happens with the character.

Honestly, the question of any sort of relationship for Carol is a more interesting one to me: a highly duty-driven person, whose memories have been messed up, who’s been betrayed by her closest friends, who’s just spent a few decades in deep space (has it actually been that long for her, or 3sd-are we talking some light-speed time contract compressing the interval for her?) … trust issues and understanding how to relate to people at all might be a serious uphill road for her, regardless of which way(s) she swings.

In short, on this as with other things, I’m more interested in good story than in particular agendas. If they want to have Capt. Marvel and Valkyrie as the hottest gay lovers in space-time, great. If she ends up in domestic bliss with Doctor Strange, well, that might be interesting. Heck, if she decides that Rocket Raccoon is her type, I’m cool with that, too. Just give me a good story about it.

Do you want to know more?

All American citizens are equal, but some are more equal than others

Trump thinks the amount of food-stamp money going to Puerto Rico is “ridiculous”

Remember, these are American citizens.

The Casa Ismael clinic is short on funds in part because of cuts in food stamps that hit about 1.3 million residents of Puerto Rico this month — a new crisis for an island still struggling from the effects of Hurricane Maria in September 2017. “We just don’t have the money right now,” Izquierdo, 56, said in an interview in the clinic’s sparse first-floor office, where a chunk of ceiling tiles remains missing since the hurricane. Izquierdo pulled out a chart with each patient’s name, annotated with the cost of his adult diapers for the month. “It’s very hard. It is so unfair. That cut is going to kill us.”

The result is that “HIV-positive men with severe health complications” in the clinic get to sit in dirty diapers for hours because the clinic can’t afford to change them when soiled.

The federal government provided additional food-stamp aid to Puerto Rico after the hurricane, but Congress missed the deadline for reauthorization in March as it focused on other issues before leaving for a week-long recess. Federal lawmakers have also been stalled by the Trump administration, which has derided the extra aid as unnecessary. Now, about 43 percent of Puerto Rico’s residents are grappling with a sudden cut to a benefit they rely on for groceries and other essentials.

[…] The island would not need Congress to step in to fund its food-stamp and Medicaid programs if it were a state. For states, the federal government has committed to funding those programs’ needs, whatever the cost and without needing to take a vote. But Puerto Rico instead funds its programs through a block grant from the federal government, which needs to be regularly renewed, and also gives food-stamp benefits about 40 percent smaller than those of states.

Puerto Rico faces food-stamp crisis as Trump privately vents about federal aid to Hurricane Maria-battered island – The Washington Post

While Puerto Rico is dealing with people deciding whether they can afford rice and beans for the week, their president is pitching fits over giving them even the money they are getting.

The impasse comes amid a hardening opposition by the president against extending additional aid to Puerto Rico. Trump sees the island as fundamentally broken and has told advisers that no amount of money will ever fix its systemic problems.

He describes in meetings that large swaths of the island never had power to begin with and that it is “ridiculous” how much money is going to Puerto Rico in food-stamp aid, according to the senior official. He has occasionally groused about how ungrateful political officials in Puerto Rico were for the administration’s help, the official said.

[…] Since then, aides have described a president who regularly brings up the island to make sure it is not getting too much money.

Yeah, Donald — I’m pretty sure they’re not getting too much money. Not while their clinic patients have to sit in dirty diapers and citizens are cutting back on buying milk because of cuts to their food stamps.

Is Puerto Rico broken?  Well, it’s a US commonwealth. It’s people are US citizens. We took that island after the Spanish-American War. It’s our now. And, by the universal Law of Commercial Responsibility: You break it, you buy it.

I know that’s difficult for a guy who has a long record of stiffing subcontractors and walking away from deals while leaving others holding the bag … but we have a responsibility to Puerto Rico and its populace — American citizens all — if not just from a matter of humanity, then as a matter of the US Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which most definitely includes our fellow People in Puerto Rico.

Politics has become the new tribalism

An interesting look at how politics has become an increasingly powerful source of identity, not just an outcome of it.

People sometimes decry identity politics — “I’m an X, so I vote for That Party” or “I’m a Z, so I only vote for other Zs or Z supporters,” with religion, race, gender, class, etc., taking the part of the variables.

But there’s evidence that political party or political identity along one or another spectrum is beginning to trump the others. Looking at long-term surveys (where the subject was given the same questions across multiple years), researchers are seeing those other identities changing based on political identification. E.g.,

Liberal Democrats were much more likely than conservative Republicans to start identifying as Latino or saying that their ancestry was African, Asian or Hispanic.

Conservative Republicans were more likely than liberal Democrats to stop describing themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual; liberal-leaning Democrats were more likely to start identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Again, it’s not that these people were “actually” changing — their genetics weren’t switching around — but that how they perceived or identified themselves was realigning based on their (unchanged in labels) politics, or how those other labels were seen as part and parcel of those political ideologies, rather than separate factors.

That change in the last decade or so may also go along with other observations as to the rise of Big Ideas and the decline of compromise within politics; when political ideology becomes not just an outcome of your identity, but your identity itself, emotionality and an unforgiveness for backing down become more natural reactions.




Americans Are Shifting The Rest Of Their Identity To Match Their Politics
Welcome to Secret Identity, our regular column on identity and its role in politics and policy. We generally think of a person’s race or religion as being fixed…

Original Post

The Ugly Americans

There are a lot of people who will tell you that the US has always been a pro-US corporation bully; if so, Trump is stripping away any pretense to being anything else.

I mean, threatening third world countries with economic sanctions, treating to cut World Health Organization funding, if WHO passed a resolution supporting breast feeding rather than formula feeding?

The US will be a century trying to live down what this President (who was almost certainly a bottle baby) has done in less than two years.




Trump Administration Shocks Global Health Officials by Opposing Pro-Breastfeeding Resolution
The United States threatened poorer countries with economic retaliation if they sponsored the measure.

Original Post

Abusing hate crime statutes

I've never been fond of hate crime laws, just because the seem to be so subjective, esp. along the fringes. Here's another reason against them: abuse of such laws by the police.

On Sept. 23, 2016, Robbie Sanderson, a 52-year-old Black man from North Carolina, was arrested for retail theft by in Crafton, a small town near Pittsburgh. During the arrest, Sanderson called police “Nazis,” “skinheads” and “Gestapo,” according to an affidavit of probable cause filed by the Crafton Borough police. For that, he was charged with a hate crime.

That stemmed from this part:

After Sanderson called the police derogatory names, the affidavit states, he also told them “that’s why motherfuckers are killing y’all out here” and “all you cops just shoot people for no reason.” And police said that Sanderson told one officer, Brian Tully, that he was going to find his wife and have sex with her.

That part qualified for 1st degree misdemeanor "terroristic threats" — but Pennsylvania's ethnic intimidation / hate crime law boosts the severity by a tick. Since the police claimed that the ethnic intimidation showed a racial bias behind the terroristic threats, the crime was filed as a 3rd degree felony.

All of which sounds very different from what most people would call terroristic threats, or how they might view the normal way that ethnic intimidation works.

Of course, as the article notes, the ethnic intimidation part is sort of there more as a bargaining chip than anything else. The vast majority of such cases reviewed showed the charge was dropped, usually (as in this case) as part of a plea deal. That's how a lot of these charges are used by police and prosecutors — "Well, you're looking at 25 years when we put you away, but if you cop to this graciously reduced reduced set of charges, it means you'll only do 5" — and thus why they are tossed around so easily and quickly and imaginatively.




A Black Man Called The Cops Nazis–And Was Charged With A Hate Crime
A Pennsylvania hate crime statute is being used by law enforcement to punish angry arrestees.

Original Post

Trump’s Immigration Debacle is … still a debacle

"Oh, he's backed off everything, hooray, on to other news!"

Not quite. Because not only was his backing-off full of weasel-words, and reliant largely on the good graces of ICE and CBP, but there remain the over 2000 kids already separated from their families, and that's continuing to be a horrible, destructive mess.

"Oh, but a judge has told them to fix the problem, hooray, on to other news!"

Yeah, except you know it's not going to be that simple, because the agencies involved will appeal that order (and, hell, given how SCOTUS is headed, in the three-odd years it takes to go through the appeals cycles, they'll probably strike it down, deferring to the executive branch to handle "national security" issues as they see fit).

And in the meantime … we get stories like the one below[1], where "unaccompanied" (because they were torn from their parents) toddlers are being brought into court for immigration hearings. Yes, they're being represented, but they can't articulate why they're here, why an asylum request is warranted, or even where the heck their parents are or what their names are. And how can they possibly be turned over to "someone" or deported "somewhere" without connecting with proper, associated adults, which is tough …

… when you don't have paperwork demonstrating who these kids are.

And the parents, on the other hand, even if released from custody — deported, or let go within this country — and even if they somehow manage to track down these kids, are suddenly finding that they can't even prove the kids are theirs [2]. Because even if they had birth certificates and the like with them when they crossed the border, those documents were all confiscated upon arrest, and are not returned when the parents are released. In fact, it appears that they are destroyed, "not retained".

It's difficult to imagine an arrangement designed so poorly that wasn't done so by intent, even if by intentional neglect.

——
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/27/immigrant-toddlers-ordered-appear-court-alone/
[2] https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/28/undocumented-immigrant-parents-border-children-el-paso-shelter-separated/




Immigrant toddlers ordered to appear in court alone | The Texas Tribune
As the White House faces court orders to reunite families separated at the border, immigrant children as young as 3 years old are being ordered into court for their own deportation proceedings, according to attorneys in Texas, California and Washington, D.C.

Original Post

Some Researched Conclusions about Trump’s Border Policy Shenanigans

A really good article here going through the Myths (Lies) being asserted as Facts by the Trump Administration. Some good, citeable fodder for other discussions on all of this.

Originally shared by +Kee Hinckley:

Facebook post from Michelle Martin:

There is so much misinformation out there about the Trump administration's new "zero tolerance" policy that requires criminal prosecution, which then warrants the separating of parents and children at the southern border. Before responding to a post defending this policy, please do your research…As a professor at a local Cal State, I research and write about these issues, so here, I wrote the following to make it easier for you:

Myth: This is not a new policy and was practiced under Obama and Clinton – FALSE. The policy to separate parents and children is new and was instituted on 4/6/2018. It was the “brainchild” of John Kelly and Stephen Miller to serve as a deterrent for undocumented immigration, and some allege to be used as a bargaining chip. The policy was approved by Trump, and adopted by Sessions. Prior administrations detained migrant families, but didn’t have a practice of forcibly separating parents from their children unless the adults were deemed unfit. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1049751/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Myth: This is the only way to deter undocumented immigration – FALSE. Annual trends show that arrests for undocumented entry are at a 46 year low, and undocumented crossings dropped in 2007, with a net loss (more people leaving than arriving). Deportations have increased steadily though (spiking in 1996 and more recently), because several laws that were passed since 1996 have made it more difficult to gain legal status for people already here, and thus increased their deportations (I address this later under the myth that it's the Democrats' fault). What we mostly have now are people crossing the border illegally because they've already been hired by a US company, or because they are seeking political asylum. Economic migrants come to this country because our country has kept the demand going. But again, many of these people impacted by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy appear to be political asylum-seekers. https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568546381/arrests-for-illegal-border-crossings-hit-46-year-low

Myth: Most of the people coming across the border are just trying to take advantage of our country by taking our jobs – FALSE. Most of the parents who have been impacted by Trump's "zero tolerance" policy have presented themselves as political asylum-seekers at a U.S. port-of-entry, from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Rather than processing their claims, according to witness accounts, it appears as though they have been taken into custody on the spot and had their children ripped from their arms. The ACLU alleges that this practice violates the US Asylum Act, and the UN asserts that it violates the UN Treaty on the State of Refugees, one of the few treaties the US has ratified. The ACLU asserts that this policy is an illegal act on the part of the United States government, not to mention morally and ethically reprehensible. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/us/meatpackers-profits-hinge-on-pool-of-immigrant-labor.html

Myth: We're a country that respects the Rule of Law, and if people break the law, this is what they get – FALSE. We are a country that has an above-ground system of immigration and an underground system. Our government (under both parties) has always been aware that US companies recruit workers in the poorest parts of Mexico for cheap labor, and ICE (and its predecessor INS) has looked the other way because this underground economy benefits our country to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Thus, even though many of the people crossing the border now are asylum-seekers, those who are economic migrants (migrant workers) likely have been recruited here to do jobs Americans will not do. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/2016/10/26/Donald-Trumps-wall-ignores-the-economic-logic-of-undocumented-immigrant-labor/2621477498203/

Myth: The children have to be separated from their parents because the parents must be arrested and it would be cruel to put children in jail with their parents – FALSE. First, in the case of economic migrants crossing the border illegally, criminal prosecution has not been the legal norm, and families have historically been kept together at all cost. Also, crossing the border without documentation is typically a misdemeanor not requiring arrest, but rather has been handled in a civil proceeding. Additionally, parents who have been detained have historically been detained with their children in ICE "family residential centers," again, for civil processing. The Trump administration's shift in policy is for political purposes only, not legal ones. See p. 18: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-plaintiffs-opposition-defendants-motion-dismiss-doc-56

Myth: We have rampant fraud in our asylum process, the proof of which is the significant increase we have in the number of people applying for asylum. FALSE. The increase in asylum seekers is a direct result of the increase in civil conflict and violence across the globe. While some people may believe that we shouldn't allow any refugees into our country because "it's not our problem," neither our current asylum law, nor our ideological foundation as a country support such an isolationist approach. There is very little evidence to support Sessions' claim that abuse of our asylum-seeking policies is rampant. Also, what Sessions failed to mention is that the majority of asylum seekers are from China, not South of the border. Here is a very fair and balanced assessment of his statements: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/19/jeff-sessions/jeff-sessions-claim-about-asylum-system-fraudulent/

Myth: The Democrats caused this, "it's their law." FALSE. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats caused this, the Trump administration did (although the Republicans could fix this today, and have refused). I believe what this myth refers to is the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which were both passed under Clinton in 1996. These laws essentially made unauthorized entry into the US a crime (typically a misdemeanor for first-time offenders), but under both Republicans and Democrats, these cases were handled through civil deportation proceedings, not a criminal proceeding, which did not require separation. And again, even in cases where detainment was required, families were always kept together in family residential centers, unless the parents were deemed unfit (as mentioned above). Thus, Trump's assertion that he hates this policy but has no choice but to separate the parents from their children, because the Democrats "gave us this law" is false and nothing more than propaganda designed to compel negotiation on bad policy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-democrats-us-border-migrant-families-children-parents-mexico-separate-a8401521.html

Myth: The parents and children will be reunited shortly, once the parents' court cases are finalized. FALSE. Criminal court is a vastly different beast than civil court proceedings. Also, the children are being processed as unaccompanied minors ("unaccompanied alien children"), which typically means they are in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS). Under normal circumstances when a child enters the country without his or her parent, ORR attempts to locate a family member within a few weeks, and the child is then released to a family member, or if a family member cannot be located, the child is placed in a residential center (anywhere in the country), or in some cases, foster care. Prior to Trump's new policy, ORR was operating at 95% capacity, and they simply cannot effectively manage the influx of 2000+ children, some as young as 4 months old. Also, keep in mind, these are not unaccompanied minor children, they have parents. There is great legal ambiguity on how and even whether the parents will get their children back because we are in uncharted territory right now. According to the ACLU lawsuit (see below), there is currently no easy vehicle for reuniting parents with their children. Additionally, according to a May 2018 report, numerous cases of verbal, physical and sexual abuse were found to have occurred in these residential centers. The report covers earlier years, but I'm including it here to highlight that there are problems with keeping children in large residential centers, even if they are run efficiently and supervised by licensed social workers and counselors. There is an abundance of empirical evidence that shows that residential care, even highly efficient ones, are no place for children, particularly very young ones: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody

Myth: This policy is legal. LIKELY FALSE. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on 5/6/18, and a recent court ruling denied the government's motion to dismiss the suit. The judge deciding the case stated that the Trump Administration’s policy is "brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency." The case is moving forward because it was deemed to have legal merit. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/aclu-suit-over-child-separations-at-border-may-proceed-judge




Michelle Martin
[Updated with additional information]

There is so much misinformation out there about the Trump administration’s new “zero tolerance” policy that requires criminal prosecution, which then warrants…

Original Post

Stars

@pencilsdown4 @KikiAdine @FLOTUS Sheriff’s stars are generally seven-pointed. Six-pointed stars are largely associated with Judaism (and certainly were by the Nazis).

“Where Are My Clients’ Kids?”

So I've been taking project management classes. And I've run a lot of projects. And here's how you run a good project.

1. Understand the needs.
2. Figure out what you are going to do about it.
3. Build that solution, prepare for it, deploy the resources for it, test it, plan the deployment process.
4. Deploy it.
5. Monitor what's going on to make sure that the change took place well.
6. Declare victory and have a party.

The Trump Administration's execution of their "Zero Tolerance" immigration policy was do 2, do 4, do 6.

No really understanding of what's going on, certainly no planning or consideration of what it might mean, or what harm it might do, or even what the political fall-out would be.

Or, let me put it another way: If you are going to pursue a draconian policy that will clearly mean that kids will be torn away from their parents, then you must plan both for what is going to do with those kids and how you will reunite those kids and parents at the other end of that process.

(This assumes you have already done the moral calculus regarding this policy and decided that the existential threat to the nation outweighs the horror of ripping kids from their parents — and are ready to stand up and defend that moral calculus.)

Instead, the Trump Administration just set up the policy, and then started scrambling to find enough chain link fencing and empty warehouse stores and tent city sites to build on military bases, and then realized that they had to duck answers, then lie, then make up stuff, then start planning, then still lie about how parents would be reunited with their children.

(This is making the huge assumption that the principles involved actually give a flying fuck about moral calculus or pain-and-suffering or trauma. That this is simply being a bunch of bumbling ideologues who had no idea of what they were doing, and so did it really badly, as opposed to these being evil people who actually revel in suffering, or psychopaths who simply cannot empathize with it. Which, given the number of high ranking government officials on record before the fact talking about how this would be a fabulous deterrent against illegal immigrants, is probably a poor assumption.)

This story is from a Assistant Federal Public Defender in El Paso, Texas, who is having to explain to parents why he can't tell them where their children are, and to Federal Prosecutors why that's a question that they should be able to answer. It's worth reading.




washingtonpost

Original Post