Monday evening an unknown individual inside the United States Supreme Court leaked a draft decision written by Justice Samuel Alito which would explicitly overturn the landmark decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This would mean the end to a guaranteed federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and at least 22 states, including Missouri, would almost immediately ban abortion entirely. This has been the animating force behind the conservative legal movement for the last two generations and this is their grand triumph which will only embolden the court to go even further. The language of Alito leaves the door open for reconsiderations of Obergefell v. Hodges which legalized same-sex marriage and Lawrence v. Texas which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual intercourse, and if you compare his dissent in Obergefell to his draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization it’s not hard to imagine the Court deciding to also “Send the issue back to the states”. The Constitution of the United States of America is in the hands of 6 members of the federalist society, we are entering a new era of American politics.

President Biden has made clear that his administration has no plans to protect abortion access. In a statement the morning after the leak, the President said, “If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.  At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.” It’s important to be clear about two points. The first, is the most important and it is that the president’s party almost always has a bad midterm. Data from fivethirtyeight.com shows a familiar pattern (that I also wrote about in 2021 here) “Overall, in the post-World War II era, the president’s party has performed an average of 7.4 points worse in the House popular vote in midterm elections than it did two years prior. Therefore, since Democrats won the House popular vote by 3.0 points in 2020, Republicans can roughly expect to win it by 4.4 points in 2022 if history is any guide…Indeed, in the 19 midterm elections between 1946 and 2018, the president’s party has improved upon its share of the House popular vote just once. And since 1994, when (we would argue) the modern political alignment took hold, the president’s party has lost the national House popular vote in six out of seven midterm elections — usually by similar margins (6 to 9 percentage points) to boot.”

It took 9/11 for George W. Bush and Impeachment for Bill Clinton, as well as voter coalitions that no longer exist, for them to break history. It is extremely unlikely that President Biden, given his approval ratings, economic conditions, and redistricting will outrun history. The second point is, when Democrats had 60 Senators there were not enough votes to codify Roe into law. In 2022 there are not realistic opportunities to win 60 Senate seats, meaning the only avenue to codifying Roe or expanding the Court or any potential remedy would be through abolishing the filibuster which cannot find 50 votes in the US Senate. Currently in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is campaigning for the lone anti-choice Democrat in the House while he has a viable progressive challenger in Jessica Cisneros. This is the state of our opposition party, these individuals are the last line of defense.

There are some who have used this dark moment which represents the greatest contraction of civil rights since the end of Reconstruction to deliver an “I told you so”. These people would like to do historical revisionism about the 2016 election and have taken to blaming the left-wing in this country for the state of the Supreme Court. Generally, it’s not worth engaging in this discourse, but I’ve decided to do so today if not for the sole reason that these narratives are actively hindering the success of any centrist let alone any liberal project in this country. Candidly, we are rapidly approaching different entirely preventable disasters and we shouldn’t waste any more time promulgating useless ideas. So, I’m willing to address the skyscraper sized elephant lurking around this discourse, What if Hillary Clinton had won. It’s probably the most frequent hypothetical among liberals, and my read of the alternative is blessed by hindsight but is not informed by omniscience. This is what I believe would’ve happened, it is not exhaustive of everything that could’ve happened.

It’s important to note that Clinton didn’t lose because of insufficient support from the left. In 2008, Clinton did 13 public campaign events for then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders did 41 public campaign events for Clinton during the general election. In 2008, 25% of Clinton primary voters supported Sen. John McCain. In 2016, only 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump, meanwhile 13% of Obama’s 2012 voters supported Trump. Clinton lost because she was the most unpopular Democrat to run for President in the history of modern polling and would’ve been the most unpopular candidate period if not for Donald Trump. In terms of ideology, it’s hard to remember now but a critical number of voters wrongly perceived Trump to be more moderate than Clinton. To imagine a world in which Clinton wins the election is not difficult because in spite of her weak electoral performance and rock bottom approval ratings, she very nearly did win. Let’s imagine that James Comey does not release his October letter which hurt Clinton among late deciders and Clinton narrowly wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida bringing her to 307 electoral votes. Let’s assume, for Clinton’s sake, that her improved margin extends down ballot which would mean victories in the Pennsylvania and Missouri Senate races and probably an additional 2-3 house seats. This would give her the exact same evenly divided Senate the Biden has but a GOP controlled House. So, what would have happened to Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat?

President Hillary Clinton would submit her nominee to the Senate Judiciary Committee, likely Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit or Jane Kelly of the 8^th Circuit. The nomination would advance deadlocked from the committee, NeverTrump Republicans like former Sen. Jeff Flake would not adopt their current faux moderate posture without Trump as a foil but would return to the vapid anti-Clinton rhetoric that dominated the 90s. It is likely that Republicans would filibuster this Supreme Court nomination, led perhaps by Sen. Ted Cruz who would now likely be heir-apparent for the 2020 nomination or Sen. Jeff Sessions who instead of being disgraced former Attorney General would be an ideological leader in the GOP Conference. Even without the filibuster, the nomination is in jeopardy as Sen. Manchin is non-committal about supporting the nominee and no GOP Senator wants to cast the deciding vote in favor. Senate Majority Leader Schumer undertakes an effort to abolish the Senate filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, it fails 47-53 with Senators Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Manchin voting with all Republicans. President Clinton is forced to withdraw her nomination and through a compromise with Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley nominates then Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, a “moderate” Republican. He is confirmed with all 50 Democrats and 16 Republicans voting in favor. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointed by Reagan, opts not to retire while Democrats control the Senate and Presidency. Justice Ginsburg again postpones retirement, fearing that she too will be replaced by a conservative compromise candidate.

In 2018, Democrats suffer sweeping loses in the midterm elections. Republicans elect Josh Hawley in Missouri, Rick Scott in Florida, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, and Kevin Cramer in North Dakota just like in our reality. However, Republicans also pick up West Virginia and Montana while holding Nevada as Democrats narrowly squeak by in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. There is no special election in Minnesota, Democrats don’t force Al Franken to resign and launch at attempt to discredit the MeToo movement as liberal figures like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey find themselves accused of sexual misconduct. This is done partially to protect the tenuous Democratic majority, but also to discredit renewed criticism of former President Bill Clinton as his connections to child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein become public knowledge during a special counsel investigation lead by Robert Mueller was launched by the House early in the administration. On January 3^rd, Mitch McConnell becomes Senate Majority leader once again with 55 seats. Democrats make gains in the House, although still in the minority they make gains in the suburbs bringing their numbers just above 200.

In 2019, Several Republicans announce their candidacies for President including Sen. Ted Cruz fresh off his double-digit re-election, Governor Nikki Haley, and Sen. Tom Cotton while Speaker Paul Ryan forms an exploratory committee before ultimately deciding against a run. Donald Trump is speculated to be a potential candidate, but instead successfully pivots his failed run for President into a New York Times best-selling novel with accompanying docuseries chronicling his rise to the GOP nomination self-describing as a “populist revolutionary”. Clinton herself faces a spirited primary challenge from Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley (the lone member of the Senate to endorse Sanders in 2016), and he wins the New Hampshire primary as well as a few caucuses, but he is never seriously close to overtaking Clinton and she wraps up the nomination before mid-March. The pandemic still rages across the globe in 2020, in the United States the pandemic is made worse by a severe economic recession. President Clinton and the GOP Congress deadlock on several fronts and settle on a relief package that mirrors the 2009 recovery, however it is not passed until May leaving millions scrambling to compete for resources from overwhelmed nonprofits. Infections are lower than our current reality because Clinton never disempowers the CDC and is prepared for a pandemic level event, but anti-lockdown activity begins earlier and is more violent as people are animated not just by anti-science conspiracy but also anti-Clinton sentiment. In September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, and Republicans hold open her seat for the duration of the 2020 Election. President Clinton is likely defeated, not since the election of 1820 have there been 2 successive 2 term presidents of the same political party. If Clinton did win re-election, it’s hard to imagine Democrats having better midterm prospects in 2022 than what they face today. When she does lose, Republicans appoint Attorney General Pam Bondi of Florida or perhaps law professor Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Anthony Kennedy retires shortly thereafter, and Judge Brett Kavanaugh is elevated to his seat. Roe and Casey are functionally though not explicitly overruled in a 5-4 decision, with Sandoval joining the liberal minority in dissent.

Seeing as a Clinton victory might not have been enough to avoid our current reality, what would’ve needed to happen to avoid this nightmare? You don’t have to get into butterfly effect level science fiction or have had psychic super power to be able to imagine how things could’ve gone differently. If:

1. At any point between 2009 and 2015, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had opted to retire, abortion rights, voting rights, labor rights, and many civil liberties would not be facing near certain annihilation. In 2013, Ginsburg had battled cancer twice by the age of 80 and the political environment in Washington was increasingly polarized. It was clear to contemporary writers that should Republicans capture the Senate, something they were heavily favored to do given the history of midterm elections, because of rising partisanship it would be unlikely that a liberal successor could be confirmed. At the time, the balance of the court was 3 hard right conservatives, 2 center-right conservatives, and 4 liberals. The few liberal victories of the 21^st century were generally 5-4 decisions, and the disappearance of any justice would have a dramatic impact on constitutional law. Furthermore, the disappearance of a liberal justice would of course mean a hard right turn in the court at least until a conservative vacancy appeared. Ginsburg, understanding the stakes of her decision opted not to retire. When she died, as an attempt to shield her legacy perhaps realizing the disastrous effect of her decision to not retire, sheepishly relayed a message that she knew would not be honored. Ginsburg had no reason to believe her replacement would not be a woman, as President Obama had nominated both Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Ginsburg had no reason to believe that her replacement would be less liberal, as Sotomayor actually disagreed more with Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts than Ginsburg did in the 2019 term. There was no reason for Ginsburg to do what she did, and that decision more than anything else is responsible for this moment.
2. In 2014 and 2010, Democrats lost several close Senate races and spent tens of millions of dollars on blowout losing races. If the party had decided to abandon clear losers and directed that spending elsewhere, Democrats might’ve had a Senate majority in 2016 when Scalia died. Which would’ve meant a liberal Supreme Court, not just a not as far right one, but a genuine liberal majority which hasn’t existed in generations. Let’s look at the 2010 races, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR-D) spent $12 million for 37% of the vote, Gov. Charlie Crist (FL-I) and Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL-D) spent a collective $23 million to receive 29.7% and 20.2% of the vote respectively, and Robin Carnahan (MO-D) spent $10 million to receive 40.6% of the vote. Meanwhile Democratic Senate candidates in Illinois and Pennsylvania failed by less than 2% of the vote. What might an extra $45 million split between the two of them have meant? So, what about 2014? Mark Pryor (AR-D) spent $14 million to receive 39% of the vote and Alison Lundergan Grimes spent $18 million to receive 41% of the vote. Meanwhile, Democrats lost Alaska, Colorado, and North Carolina by less the 2.3%. If those races had broken Democrats way, they would’ve certainly had enough votes to Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, this pattern has only intensified as Democrats burned a whopping $250 million dollars to be beaten by double digits in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama while losing several close House races.
3. In 2009, Democrats could’ve attempted to codify Roe. For 3 months, Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and then just shy of it the rest of that congressional term. There were likely enough Pro-Choice Republicans to overcome the objections of Anti-Choice Democrats, and even if compromise legislation had to be crafted it is a near certainty that it would’ve been better than our current system which has allowed states like Texas and Mississippi to ban abortion without outright doing so. It certainly would’ve been better than allowing a conservative court to decide the fate of abortion. But the fault on this one doesn’t lay solely with Harry Reid, but with President Barack Obama. In 2007, he said at a speech to Planned Parenthood that the first thing he’d do as President was sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would’ve codified Roe. Before he’d been President 100 days, it had been completely dropped from his agenda and he said of the bill that it was “not my highest legislative priority” and apparently not a priority at all.

That leaves just one burning question, what can we do now? Some of you will be tempted to say “vote!” or some variation of “elect more Democrats”. I’d like you to just consider this, for a moment. In 2018, more than half of Americans could not name a single Supreme Court Justice. Although most Americans (71%) blame Vladimir Putin and Oil companies (68%) for the rising cost of oil, however a majority also blame President Biden (51%) and Democratic Party policies (52%). Most voters don’t perceive politics through the lens of obsessive partisan observers, and often are more likely to see correlations and be unaware of longer-term trends. This is all to say that there is a critical mass of voters who will say “Why should I be convinced that my support has mattered or will matter? I’ve always voted for Democrats, and they just beat Trump so why is this happening.” If Abortion rights disappear while Democrats control congress and the Presidency, the fine details will be lost and I don’t think it’s logical to assume that the response among voters will be a Democratic surge. Although, you should support candidates who support abortion rights when given the opportunity. It’s important to keep protesting, donate to abortion funds to support people who are going to have trouble finding access, and testify against state efforts to criminalize abortion.  But beyond that, what else is there? Not much that isn’t 10 years too late. What’s really important is for the left to develop a sense of our place of history and work towards a long-term vision for society. The right knows who they are and where they are going and have been working for it since the New Deal. We must have that same determination and will or there will come a day when we wake up in a country that we do not recognize as our own. We may already be there.

The post Would President Hillary Clinton have saved Roe? Probably Not appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In 2021, as summer ebbs into fall, Democrats are concerned with a number of issues, but perhaps most importantly, abortion. It has become a wildcard issue because the Supreme Court has rendered a decision regarding it that neither is supreme nor courtly.

Bullies and cowards often travel together, and that is precisely how Republicans have acted regarding the latest legislation from the hallowed halls of the capitol of Texas. The Lone Star state has enacted the strictest abortion law in the land. Essentially it outlaws any abortion that would be performed approximately six weeks following conception. That’s the bullying part – exercising arbitrary and capricious power to encroach on a basic human right. And, of course, the Republicans chose to place far more restraints on the women of Texas rather than the men. In case you have forgotten, men don’t need abortions.

The cowardice angle is that the state is relieved of any enforcement responsibilities. Rather than have state authorities monitor abortion clinics for alleged crimes, the state “farms out” responsibility for enforcement to the citizens of Texas, or for that matter, the citizens of any other state who might happen to be in Texas. They are empowered to sue any woman in Texas who chooses to have a prohibited abortion.

The “infraction” is not settled in criminal court; rather in civil court where the “apprehender” or bounty hunter can seek to recover as much as $10,000 from a fine levied on the woman seeking the abortion. In further acts of cowardice, the law states that not only can a woman receiving an abortion be sued, but any other person who is “complicit” with her can as well. This could be the receptionist at the abortion clinic, the Uber driver who gives her a lift to the clinic, and any healthcare professional who works or volunteers at the clinic.

Indeed, Americans live in a strange country when the supreme court of the land, operating under the jurisdiction of the world’s oldest and presumed fairest constitution, cannot find one, much less dozens of reasons, to rule this sham of a law unconstitutional.

Almost all conservatives vehemently oppose abortion. Is there anything that draws a similar opposition from progressives?

How about gun control? Just as conservatives see abortion as an issue if life, progressives see unfettered gun rights as a matter of life, and death. Ever since 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States in the Roe v. Wade ruling, conservatives have been successful at chipping away at abortion rights to the point where now in Texas, over 85% of what were legal abortions are now against the law. Dozens of other states are fashioning similarly draconian laws.

During that same forty-eight-year period of time since Roe v. Wade, progressives have been trying to chip away at gun rights in the interest of gun safety. In 1973, Richard Nixon was still hanging on to his presidency with its law and order mantra. The rate of violent crime in the United States was growing rapidly. Conservatives favored stricter laws against gun crimes. Some progressives favored stronger penalties as well, but most wanted to deal with the root of the problem, the presence of guns, legal and illegal, on the streets and in the homes of Americans.

How much progress have progressives made in reducing the number and the of guns in America and the power of the types that are legally permitted? The answer is virtually none. In 1994, with Bill Clinton as president, the Democratic Congress passed a ten-year ban with the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. It did outlaw some powerful weapons, but there was the sunset provision, limiting the restrictions to ten years before the law had to be renewed.

Conservatives were outraged that the bill passed. Less than two months after the bill became law, the first nail was hammered into its coffin as Newt Gingrich and the conservative Republicans took over Congress. By the time that the ten-year life of the bill was over in 2004, Republican George W. Bush was president, and he was in a position to veto any extension of the law. Since that period, gun laws have not been strengthened; they have been weakened.

So, suppose that progressives wanted to counter the strength of guns in America in a fashion similar to what Republicans have done with abortion. If there was to be symmetry in their strategy to what Republicans did, they would choose to not have any have any government agencies or officials involved in enforcing the laws.

Instead, they would set up a bounty system similar to what Texas Republicans have done to curtail abortions. Progressives would pass a law that would enable citizens to monitor the presence of weapons, particularly assault weapons, in the streets, workplaces, schools and homes of America.

That way, progressives could try to be like conservatives and bully their foes. They could establish un-armed posses to travel throughout America, to wherever guns are present. They could courteously go to gun stores, gun shows, bars, gang hideouts and wherever else there might be high concentrations of guns and please ask the owners (legal or illegal) to surrender their weapons in return for a summons to appear in court. This method by progressives to deal with guns would have a parallel construction to how conservatives in Texas are currently dealing with abortions.

Conservatives would be pleased with these parallel laws. All that they would have to do would be to take a picture of a woman about to have an abortion, along with anyone assisting her, and issue a warrant for their arrest. They show up in court and their work is done and they are richer.

Progressives would simply take pictures of people with guns and find a way to serve a warrant on the gun owners and be sure to say ‘please’ when they do so.

This is what conservatives call fair. They can act like bullies and prevent a woman from having control of her body while the other side must forcefully try to confiscate powerful firearms.

Yes, the absurdity is very clear to progressives; not at all to conservatives. This is why conservatives are winning so many of the battles these days. They get to use firearms as their weapon of choice; progressives use a basic right on human reproduction. If you can’t see a power imbalance in this conundrum, look again.

The post Limiting guns vs. limiting abortions: The right wing wins again appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Conventional wisdom says that “in polite company,” we don’t talk about sex, politics, or religion. Of the three, sex is clearly the least comfortable topic to broach.

You see, sex is a ‘hot’ topic; it’s erotic. Some may regard sex as joy; others regard it with shame; and still others with no apparent emotion. While nearly everyone has an opinion about it that does not mean that all are willing to engage in open conversation about sex.

This problem is particularly difficult with the topic of abortion. When abortion is brought up, what is missing is the honesty in the conversation – the honesty about how and why a woman becomes pregnant; what her thinking was before, during and after the act, and how the impregnator (the man) can frequently walk away from an act in which he was either an aggressor or a collaborator or some combination of the two.

Under the best of circumstances, the sex act is a consensual on the part of both individuals. At the time, the two may or may not have desired to pro-create. Under the best of circumstances, this is how the human race commits acts of love and carries on its existence from generation to generation.

But it doesn’t always evolve that way. There are numerous ways for complications or unfortunate circumstances to develop. Following the intercourse, the couple may decide that they are not in love and no longer want to be joint parents to a child.

If both believe in a traditional nuclear family, then the change in their relationship may cause one or both to decide that now is not a good time to give birth to a child. This can be particularly so with the woman who bears major responsibility for the pregnancy and the subsequent child-rearing.

Another dynamic may also be that there are other life changes for one or both progenitors. One is diagnosed with an illness or sustains an injury. It clearly is not a good time to bring a child into the world.

It may also be that as the adults’ lives evolve during the months following the pregnancy, that one or both parties decide that they are not ready to be parents; that they feel a greater compulsion now to pursue a career or avocation. This may seem crass to a strict pro-life advocate, but it is among the myriad of reasons why one or both parties to a pregnancy may want an abortion at a difficult time.

Perhaps the most likely cause of one or both parents not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term is that the process started off informally and then morphed into a “we just want to have a good time” occasion and little or no thought was given to a possible pregnancy during the act of intercourse.

The arguments in favor of abortion for women who have been victims of rape or incest are so compelling that it is hard to fathom why anyone would oppose them. It is often said that many conservatives are mean-spirited; their opposition to abortion following a rape or incest adds clear evidence to that assertion.

All of these reasons are tried and true parts of the ongoing human experience. As you read this, similar scenarios to the ones described above are happening all around the globe, and there is no stopping them.

Because sex is viewed by most as either ‘hot’ or ‘cold,’ most people have reasons to not discuss it in so-called polite company. But it’s too tempting to simply ignore. So rather than pretend that it does not exist, most of us, and especially the news media, either ignore it, or talk about it in code. This is something in which conservatives are exceptionally skilled. They frame issues in a way that do not use literal definitions. Instead, that they are cloaked in verbiage that assuages those conservatives who think that the only way to reference it is to disguise it. They talk about it as life, and what could be more pure. But their big fallacy is that they totally ignore the life of the mother, and the father. The force of the conservatives is so strong that it essentially inundates the mainstream media as well.

Conservatives will continue to dominate the abortion issue and wreak tremendous damage on the civil liberties and economic well-being of non-conservatives. The alternative is for progressives to discuss abortion and sex at the same time, and describe how abortion policy without a realization that “sex happens” will never reflect reality, empathy, and respect for basic civil liberties. Come on, progressives. News organizations now let us use the ‘F’ word as an expletive; why can’t we talk about it for what it really means. It will greatly help the whole country better come to terms with the abortion issue and make more logical and empathetic decisions.

The post Progressives need to move beyond their fear of talking about abortion appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Ellen DeGeneres was pictured palling around with former President George W. Bush at a Dallas Cowboys game and a lot of people were outraged. Ellen was unmoved and in fact she was indignant about their outrage. Ellen quoted a tweet that said her friendship with the former President gave the tweeter “faith in America again” and argued that we should be friends with people who disagree with us. On its surface, it’s a valid point so let’s take a look at when it’s fine to be friends with those people whose politics we find “disagreeable”.

It’s fine if they voted for George W. Bush.

It’s definitely not fine if they are now or have ever been George W. Bush.

It’s fine if they supported the war in Iraq, although if they supported it even after the surge you probably don’t want to let them pick the restaurant you eat at because clearly, they lack sound judgment.

It’s not fine if they started the war in Iraq and are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the continued destabilization of the Middle East.

It’s fine if they have conservative opinions on LGBTQ+ rights. Well not fine per se but those decisions are up to every individual who they choose to associate with.

It’s not fine if they went on prime-time television to demand that America amend our constitution to make sure that gay people couldn’t get married or enjoy the same rights as other citizens. It’s also not fine if they were in a position of power to protect LGBTQ+ persons from hate crimes, perhaps through a law named in honor of Matthew Shepard, and then killed the legislation.

It’s fine if they like Brett Kavanaugh or don’t believe the credible accusations from Dr. Blasey-Ford.

It’s not fine if they hired Brett Kavanaugh (giving him credibility among conservative jurists) and successfully lobbied congress for his appointment to the Supreme Court.

It’s fine if they have a different view of enhanced interrogation and whether Guantanamo Bay should remain open.

It’s not fine if they made the United States into a torture nation while routinely abusing international human rights and our constitution. It’s not fine if they sanctioned the rollback of our civil liberties and empowered an unaccountable super intelligence state.

This isn’t about policing George Bush for thought crime or a difference of political opinion. It’s about his acting out his politics as the leader of the free world and most powerful person on earth and very much materially harming millions of people. Ellen and other liberals defending Bush are revealing more about themselves than they think they are about their detractors. They are indifferent to human suffering and they view their lives as existing outside of politics, for them this is an issue of class solidarity. How quickly we forget the villains of yesterday because of our current temporary discomfort with the incumbent. Liberals have forgiven Kissinger in spite of Cambodia, they’ve attempted to claim Reagan as their own because of his anti-Russia bent despite his 8 years of global carnage, and they’ve even invited the late John McCain into their hearts because he was polite while loudly promoting every potential war no matter the civilian cost. We shouldn’t be surprised if in 10 years we witness the rehabilitation of Trump because liberals are disgusted by President Josh Hawley. They’ll say “oh what a man Trump was. He served with distinction and openness though we disagreed. Where have all the Trumps gone?” The collective amnesia of the liberal establishment and the American public is disheartening. We need to learn to love one another again, but let’s not start with Bush.

The post Politically Divergent Friendships, When They’re Fine vs. When They’re Not appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How did it happen? Susan Collins, a seemingly sensitive person who is pro-choice on abortion rights, disses Christine Blasey-Ford’s a contention that she was sexually abused by Brett Kavanaugh. Is Collins (a) insensitive to the history of women not being believed when men say something contrary, (b) simply a poor judge of character (who could not see Kavanaugh as a bully), or (c) just a Republican who has a very different way of looking at life from the way others do?

Not too many years ago, there was a great deal written about the Republican Brain. In fact, Chris Mooney, now a Washington Post reporter, wrote a book in 2012 called The Republican Brain. Six years earlier, he wrote a book called The Republican War on Science.

It’s not as if in recent times the importance of party affiliation has been ignored. More and more commentators are saying that political party reflects the greatest fissures in our society – more so than gender, race, educational levels, economic levels, or anything else. It’s my team vs. your team. All that matters is winning. In the case of Republicans, that may be at all costs; Democrats may have a few reservations about a cut-throat victory.

There are calls for bi-partisanship, but they are generally at the level of kumbaya. Dems and Repubs can share a softball diamond (actually the baseball field at Nationals Park) and play ball without dirty plays at 2^nd base or home plate. They can work together to grovel for pork in their home districts or states. But can they actually share a meal? Perhaps more significantly, can they even share a joke?

This last question may provide a window into the differences between Democrats and Republicans. It strikes me that humor for progressives is often self-deprecating. For Republicans, it seems to be harsh and mean. I don’t have the empirical evidence for this, but that’s my point. There is so much that needs to be studied.

I have tried to communicate with the Washington Post’s Chris Mooney, but to no avail. He is a dogged environmental reporter and certainly in the era of Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt and others, his plate is full. But he brought a very scholarly and conversational approach to what makes Republicans different and unique. If he does not want to carry on that torch, then someone else needs to.

Here are a few questions that I think need to be addressed:

1. Why is it that so many Republican women were more likely to believe Brett Kavanaugh than Christine Blasey-Ford?
2. Why did the likes of seemingly mild-mannered people like Jeff Flake and Susan Collins say that if they were in Kavanaugh’s position, they too would be angry? Or, in other words, why did they base these statements on a “given” that “being in his position” means being falsely accused? Does it even register to them that Dr. Blasey-Ford may be telling the truth and Kavanaugh is more than a bully; he is an abuser.
3. Why was Lindsey Graham’s anger considered so becoming?
4. Why is Donald Trump’s outrage considered charming?
5. Why do so many Republicans so fervently support family values when they promote policies that break up families?
6. Why is it that Republicans oppose regulations on campaign finance when it adds to their personal misery of having to spend endless hours raising money?
7. Why is it that Republicans favor lowering taxes for the wealthy in order to provide less revenue to fund programs for the non-wealthy?
8. What is it about science that Republicans don’t like?
9. Why are Republicans so anti-regulation and at the same time so anti-choice?
10. Why do most political scandals involve Republicans (e.g. Watergate, Trumpgate, etc.)?

If I was more of an academic person, I would try to provide answers to these questions supported with  substantiation. Right now, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands of academics who are working on studies that will be of little interest to anyone and that will not do much to improve the quality of life for anyone.

I’m happy to keep providing questions. So are many more. But we need answers, even approximations, now so that those who are not Republicans can gain greater insight into why Republicans are the way they are.

I don’t even know if Republicans have this kind of curiosity about Democrats; put that on the list of questions.

Please let us know if you want to help us find some answers to these often vexing questions about Republicans.

The post We Need Help – Understanding the Republican Brain appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Constitution is important. Full stop. It does many things, chief among them being defining and protecting the rights of people in the United States. So, what happens when America elects an executive that doesn’t fairly apply the constitution because he either doesn’t understand it or doesn’t respect it (the jury’s still out on which is worse)? The American Civil Liberties Union starts getting busy.

The inauguration of Donald Trump in 2016 was a watershed moment for civil liberties in the United States. Since the Warren Court, our constitution has been interpreted in a way that has made speech more free and rights more universal. Tinker v. Des Moines paved the way for student speech, Brandenburg v. Ohio protected inflammatory speech that doesn’t incite violence, Roe v. Wade extended a woman’s right to privacy to reproductive healthcare. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have encountered rulings they’ve disagreed with, but for the most part with some notable exceptions (Bush activities after the Patriot Act) they’ve accepted the norms that make our democracy work. Whenever a President did try to skirt the constitution and curb our civil liberties they at least made noises about “national security”. But there has perhaps never been a President so willing to abandon dog-whistle rhetoric and explicitly state his intentions to undermine our constitution.

“I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding”

“Nobody wants to say this, and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice.”

“We’re going to open up those libel laws, so when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace … we can sue them and win money”

“I’m calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.”

“When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no judges or court cases, bring them back from where they came.”

“We’re rounding them up in a very human way, a very nice way.”

“Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey.”

President Trump’s public statements rival those of Richard Nixon who famously declared “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” But the institutions of 2018 seem to lack the intestinal fortitude of the institutions of 1974. Even with the intervention of a few state attorneys general and the 9th circuit court of appeals, we appear to be witnessing a rapid erosion of constitutional norms that has been exacerbated by recently emboldened state governments. That’s why there’s a necessity for non-profits that exist independent from government, enter the ACLU.

We asked the Executive Directive of the ACLU of Missouri, Jeffrey Mittman, how he views the role of his organization and he said, “Our job is to be a check on the government, we are the only organization whose absolute responsibility is to protect every American, every Missourian against government overreach, against violation of constitutional civil rights.” When Mittman says every American, he really does mean every American and it has not been without controversy.

Last year, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the city of Cape Girardeau on behalf of the Ku Klux Klan because the city considered it a crime for that group to leave handbills on windshields. For many people, it’s head scratching that the same group that has been integral in the expansion of minority rights should also defend a hate group that is diametrically opposed to those rights. Mittman told us “We will defend any right as strongly as any other, so we have to defend free speech rights, but we also have to defend the right to racial equality to ends of restrictions on racial … restrictions on voting, to school the prison work, the unfair treatment of African American students…When hate crimes laws came up that said…if you say something bad, or think something bad, or write something bad, we will punish that. The ACLU said, “Wait, nope.” We can’t punish speech, we can’t punish thought. Our friends in the LGBT community, and the African American, and minority racial communities were not happy, but understood. What we said is if you commit a crime, and in the commission of that crime you say you are doing it because of that person’s race, or religion, or sexual orientation, we can as a community say, because of that history of discrimination there will be an extra penalty because of that. But to simply punish thought, or speech, or writings is not permissible.”

The ACLU is perhaps the most consistent advocacy organization in America, and it’s operated under its mission statement “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” essentially without fail for nearly 100 years. It’s put them at odds with a number of Presidential administrations, but maybe none more than the Trump administration whose policy directives continue to challenge the limits of the constitution. Mittman detailed to us the work that’s been done on behalf of DACA students, Muslims that have been targeted due to the travel ban, and transgender soldiers whose ability to serve is in jeopardy to name a few. But listening to Mittman, who has been in Missouri since 2014, it’s clear that maybe the nature of his work hasn’t changed but rather the public has become more aware of problems that have existed longer than we’d like to admit.

Mittman went on at some length about racial disparities in this state, especially as they relate to education and law enforcement. There’s a “school to prison pipeline” which is essentially the disproportionate way minority students eventually become incarcerated adults that is likely related to school disciplinary policies. Mittman talked about a specific case that’s emblematic of similar experiences around the country. “In 2015 that Missouri had the highest differential between rates of discipline of white students and black students in elementary school. We represented a young, seven-year-old boy who was handcuffed. Less than four feet tall, weighed less than 50 pounds, was crying his classroom, was handcuffed, was taken to the principal’s office and left in handcuffs in the principal’s office. So, we’re working on the issue of police and schools.”

The ACLU is in the middle of a multi-year program to address this, and Mittman says the struggle is “How do we say that under third grade you should never have an out of school suspension?” he continued, “It’s just not necessary, these are young people, these are students, these are children. These are not criminals. These are not people who need to be dealt with by police officers.” Currently the ACLU is starting with five school districts in a partnership to help them look at their policies and “help them educate themselves, help them look at implicit bias training for schools, for teachers. Whatever it takes to lower those differentials.”

Now back to the President, who not only dominates media conversation but a significant portion of the National ACLU’s casework. We asked Mittman, who knows quite a bit about constitutional law, if the President can pardon himself. It seems more relevant now as the Mueller probe has progressed and many of his associates have been indicted including his former campaign manager and national security advisor. Mittman had an interesting answer “My own fundamental belief, and I think it’s fairly what ACLU would say, is going back to our earlier question, we are a system of laws not men. So, the fundamental principal will be the Constitution applies to all of us. The president is not above the law. So, if we agree on that starting point, I would hope and trust that any opinion, whether a trial court, whether the Supreme Court, would strongly ascribe to that idea that the president is not above the law.”

The ACLU is doing something that every citizen should be doing, and that’s ensuring the continued existence of liberal democracy. Whatever freedoms we have and rights we acknowledge only exist because they were fought for. The ACLU has done much of the heavy lifting in shaping how we view free speech, and it’s been a net positive for our country. Mittman said of his organization, “What people don’t know is before the 1920s, nobody would’ve said first amendment. There was a first amendment to the constitution, but it hadn’t been enforced. ACLU started around the time of World War I. Wilson was having people jailed for opposing the war. ACLU said wait a second, we have free speech right. We went to court, and now we’ve built a body of law. We’re that follow-through on what the federalists said. We’re the follow-through on the constitution…the challenges in Missouri are going to be different than the challenges of New Hampshire … [but] we know what goes on here, we are part of what goes on here, and we have the expertise in national to make it happen. They listen to us, we listen to them.”

The constitution is not a partisan issue, it’s literally above politics. It’s patriotic to support the constitution, it’s sycophantic to make excuses for its degradation. As Americans, now is the time to come together and make it known that we believe that government has to work for the people and do that work within the bounds of the people’s document.

The post While Rome burns, the ACLU rebuilds appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I feel fortunate in my work life because for the most part I have worked with more women than men. At the risk of generalizing, it seems to me that the women with whom I have worked have more of a balanced view of life and can find the fulcrum that establishes a healthy balance between reason, empathy and irony.

I have supported the notion of more women in public office, not just because it is fair and just, but also because it seems that more women have insight into the issues that confront us and are skilled at developing solutions. Last, it’s about as proven as proof can be that women are less corrupt than men.

The 2017 revelations of men behaving badly is surprising, except it’s not. Sex and power are driving forces in human nature and they both lead is into the land of “where do I draw the line?” The #Metoo movement has been healthy as more and more women reveal their knowledge of men behaving badly.

But there is collateral damage with this. Not only are they shining the light on men behaving badly; the illumination extends to men who …. are just behaving. There does not seem to be any difference in the intensity of the light on those who commit egregious acts such as rape, and those who unknowingly cross a poorly-defined line into the land of “that offends me,” or even, “that makes me feel uncomfortable.” We could all learn more from Claire Berlinski’s article, The Warlock Hunt in The American Interest.

Let’s face it, we are all works in progress; actors on a stage often looking for our lines. We want to make ourselves feel good, and we want to gain the respect, friendship, and sometimes affection of others. Saying that we should all know how to behave in every situation is like saying that tragedy occurs because it is “God’s will.”

When we’re on our games, we have insight and sensitivity. We can think through the short-term and long-term ramifications of our actions. I’m not sure that I can say that about Kirsten Gillibrand and the other Democrats in the U.S. Senate (mostly women) who in a matter of a few short hours, made it virtually impossible for the self-mocking “Giant of the Senate” (Al Franken) to even report to the police that a crime was in progress. If it wasn’t a lynch mob, it must have felt that way to Franken.

What had he done? We’re still not sure. Did it warrant further investigation? Yes, because as a public figure, the public has a right to know a little more about his life than it does of others.

Where should this be adjudicated? Probably not by his peers, at least not by them when having so few facts. I will disagree with the Senator when he suggests that the Senate Ethics Committee would be the proper place for adjudication. Normally Franken can pick up on oxymorons like Senate Ethics Committee. Maybe what would be needed would be a special independent wing of the press that receives public money to investigate the alleged transgressions of certain public figures.

Franken was not given a chance. But, perhaps more long-lasting, may be the chances that Gillibrand et al took away from themselves. This was truly women behaving badly, and not in a fashion that would give one confidence in their governing ability. They essentially ignored rules of evidence and due process, two consequential elements of making sound decisions.

There is good reason to believe that the Democratic Party needs a woman presidential candidate, one who carries a minimum of baggage and has a chance to win. All the women of the Senate who “signed-on” just purchased a heavy load of carry-on baggage. As time goes on and we have further perspective on what happened in the final quarter of 2017, it’s possible that their actions will be seen as rash, ill-advised, and almost cannibalistic.

They are right that there is much for men to learn. Franken, who is perhaps as much on the Irony Channel as anyone who has ever walked the floor of the Senate, could have been the “poster boy” that the women were seeking. Once his initial transgressions came to light (through the empirical evidence of photograph), he acknowledged that he had crossed a line and he apologized for that. He let us know that he had much to learn.

Franken has been an adapter through his life; i.e. capable of learning. He was willing to learn, to try to show men how to curb their enthusiasm and curb their behavior. He could have done it; he still might do it despite insult upon injury. Could you imagine Donald Trump doing that? Roy Moore doing that? Harvey Weinstein doing that?

Franken could have still been “one of their own,” and a well-behaved and reformed one of their own. They discounted the flimsy evidence against him as well as his capability of self-reflection and to learn new behavior.

I hope that Gillibrand et al don’t have to pay too severe a price, nothing as severe as what they have done to Franken. But when they learn, Gillibrand can add an apology to her #Metoo and the rest can jump on the wagon and add their “me-too” to it as well.

The post The conundrum of the Senate Women’s Decisions appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Among a sufficient number of American voters, Donald Trump’s description of the infamous Access Hollywood tape as being just locker room talk worked. The reaction of most people who were abhorred what Trump said was to dismiss his explanation (not excuse) as a disregard of the seriousness of his words and actions.

But maybe we should not be so casual in dismissing what he said about locker room talk. The locker room may not be where it all starts, but it certainly is where it is fermented. The locker room can be a euphemism for wherever boys and men tend to gather, exclusive of the company of women.

There are places where men tend to brag and mock others, often women. It may or may not have anything to do with the penises that always accompany them into the room. What’s important is that for many men, perhaps not all, gathering leads to bravado, conceit, and often disregard for others, again, most particularly, women.

Bragging and mocking are not exclusive to the domain of men.  Women can be exceptionally cruel when it comes to the likes of gossip, particularly in the new-found realms of social media. If we are going to find a solution to men behaving badly, we probably are going to have to include women in the solution for two reasons:

1. Women are not immune from bad behavior; they too can learn.
2. Women can educate men in that wide arc of vision that forms their blind spots.

Without the benefit of empirical evidence, I’m going to hazard a guess that pushing the limits was part and parcel of the persona of Al Franken and Charlie Rose when they were young. Franken as much as admitted it in his book Giant of the Senate.

I tend to vomit when I hear adults say to students, “the future of the world depends on you.” That’s because the baby-boomer generation and every other one before us heard the same platitude and look where it has gotten us. We have to do more than utter throw-away lines to children and young adults.

But it is not all dismal. There are schools which emphasize no teasing or mocking or embarrassing anyone else. I have seen them and been part of them. If you have a critical balance of teaches who truly believe this and can model the behavior, it can and will trickle down to most of the students.

Many of those students are at those very schools because their parents want environments for their children which in no way resemble a locker room, or a locker room-to-be.

Conservatives talk a lot about values, but since there is so much hypocrisy in the way many conservatives practice their values, we may have to look to progressives for real values education. Make no mistake, hypocrisy is alive and well on the left. But there are those among the more educated who have some sense of how improve human behavior. You probably see that in places where people brag a lot less than in the typical locker room.

So, thank you Donald Trump for pointing us in a direction where we can focus on creating fewer little Trumps running around amongst us. That will help make America better, in a more modest and more well-behaved way.

The post Maybe Trump was on to something with the locker room talk appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Unlike Donald Trump or Roy Moore, Al Franken seems to have a reasonable level of self-awareness. Hopefully that can put him in a position to provide us with a few lessons to learn from the mistakes that he has made. First, a few basic points about the situation.

1. The obvious – what Al Franken did to Leann Tweeden, Lindsay Menz and potentially other women is thoroughly inappropriate and reflects the lack of boundaries that many men have towards women. At best, Franken seems to have mistaken sexual harassment and assault as mere chumminess.
2. Franken should not be expelled from the U.S. Senate. Nor should Roy Moore if elected, just as Adam Clayton Powell should not have been expelled from the House in the 1960s. In a democracy, our representatives are elected by constituents and they should not be replaced until the voters decide otherwise. This does not mean the Franken should not resign if he thinks that his character has been compromised to the extent that he can no longer function properly and effectively.
3. As a comedian, Franken has lived in a world in which limits are pushed, especially regarding issues of sex. It goes with the territory. As Franken states in his book, Giant of the Senate, he knew at an early age that he wanted to be a comedian. That meant that he was going into dangerous territory regarding most any definition of propriety. It’s a lot easier to be an informal comic than one who makes a living by creating popular humor.
4. There are some social settings that are almost made for “bad behavior.” Going on a tour of U.S. military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq as Franken and Leann Tweeden did, created a recipe for bawdy behavior. The soldiers are horny, and sex is a big part of what they want to hear about. At the very least, the want a lot of innuendos about sex.This culture clearly carries over to what the performers are doing when not on stage. It is not altogether unexpected that Franken would take liberties with Ms. Tweeden, just as he did with his audiences.At the risk of sounding like a prude, these sorts of trips are unfortunate opportunities for boys to act like boys. It is further collateral damage from the tragedy of war, and why war should be avoided whenever possible.
5. In Franken’s book, he repeatedly talks about his love for and loyalty to his wife Franni Bryson. It might have been best for him to tone that down in light of his previous indiscretions.
6. There is an obvious absurdity about Franken’s actions being investigated by and judged upon by his peers on the Senate Ethics Committee. Is there anything ethical about the means by which they get into office?

We boys have a lot to learn. Women can teach us a great deal and we have to take ourselves to school. In this case, popular culture is not our friend. We have to think beyond so much of what we read, see on TV or in the movies, or to quote an infamous president, how we behave and speak in locker rooms.

Bill Maher and others have reminded us that taking political correctness to the extreme leads to a very boring world. It is essentially devoid of humor. Maybe Al Franken can take his Harvard-educated mind and help us learn ways to properly respect women and not unwittingly abuse, while at the same time not having us walk on pins and needles in every mixed gender situation. Men don’t want to be like Mike Pence and fear being alone in a room any woman other than their wives. We have much to learn, and maybe Al Franken can help us along the way.

The post A few thoughts about Al Franken’s Current Situation appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A common form of sexual harassment, in my case, is through technology. Someone I briefly dated many years ago sent me unsolicited and unwanted explicit pictures and videos shortly after socially reconnecting online. He was married, I was not interested. I immediately broke our connection and blocked him. For months afterward, I beat myself up about it. Did I lead him on by accepting his friend request? Should I have ignored him? What would his wife think about me if she knew?

I am an adult woman in my 30’s who knows better than to blame myself for that. Imagine a young girl experiencing that. It happens.

This scenario has played out so many times, I can’t even recount each individual experience. The DM’s and private messages on social media, wherein a stranger or casual acquaintance casually drops sexual suggestions or nude photos, or both. Sometimes the comments are even public. Ah, the anonymity of the Internet. You might be surprised how often that type of behavior goes unchecked or is accepted as commonplace.

When I was a teenager, it was worse. Men twice, three times, four times, five times my age gawked at me, tried to touch me–and sometimes succeeded–without invitation or permission. They sat too close, exposed themselves to me, made sexual suggestions, stalked me, invaded my privacy, and much, much worse. Most of the time it was a complete stranger. Sometimes it was a neighbor or parent of a friend or other trusted adult figure. Other times, it was boys my own age, coworkers and students.

A man in a sports car once pulled alongside me as I was walking home from a car accident. He asked me for directions. I knew better than to get too close to his car but I didn’t need to in order to see that he was completely nude and touching himself. I ran the rest of the way home and tearfully told my mom, who immediately called the police and filed a report. I was 15 years old.

At a crowded live music event in my home town, I was repeatedly grabbed, pinched, and touched while navigating through the crowd. My t-shirt was ripped, I had bruises. I never even knew who was doing it. I was 16 years old.

Two different ex-in-laws grabbed and molested me–one of them had to be pulled off of me with force (it took two adult men) because he was drunk and wouldn’t let go even while I was pushing at and kicking him. I was almost 21 years old and 7 months pregnant with my first baby.

I won’t horrify you with the details of the more serious incidents. The recounting is a form of reliving these experiences and I have no interest in that. But I want everyone to know, if there’s any doubt in your mind, that this happens on a daily basis. Sexual assault and harassment take many forms, happen in many settings, and come from many people of different ages and backgrounds and levels of familiarity. Victims can be any age, any demographic. It is always unwanted, unsolicited, uncalled for, and wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It should be a crime with consequences. Every. Single. Time.

It is beyond wrong that we allow this to happen and that victims are afraid to tell anyone. Our fearful silence is another form of abuse being perpetrated on us by a system that punishes, doubts, and blames victims and lets the criminals go. I know the world can be a horrible place and we have many big, important issues to tackle. But this is one we have complete control over. Let’s stop it already.

The post Me, too: a lifetime of sexual harassment and abuse appeared first on Occasional Planet.