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.

As a black person and as the president of College Democrats of Truman State University, I feel that I have a dual responsibility to talk about the personal and political realities of dealing with hate.

I am not afraid of white supremacy or these so-called white supremacists. My identity is my own, I’m proud of it, and I have no intent to shade it or apologize for it to make these racists comfortable.

My grandparents did not struggle for years in the Jim Crow south for me to be afraid today. Myself and others have dealt with worse than an anonymous poster left by insecure cowards. I’ve heard people say the N-word while I was in the room. I’ve had my presence at this university discounted as “affirmative action.” I’ve had people try to affix stereotypes to me and use me as a token to support their own savior complex. I’ve had my entire identity and culture boiled down into the punchline of a joke.

These experiences and others are more common and more damaging than a few posters. We as a people have been dealing with bold white supremacy for years and will continue to. We need to address, in our individual lives, the subtle white supremacy.

It’s easy to tear down those posters. It’s less easy to ask if you’re complicit in a larger problem. Talk to your friends of color, take their experiences seriously, and grow together.

Editor’s note: The poster pictured above was found this morning, March 25, 2019 in the Square in Kirksville, MO. The full text of the poster reads:

“Did you know that Truman trains non-whites to replace you white man? A “Nation of Immigrants” means your time is up.”

The text at the bottom of the poster says that the poster is “brought to you by your local Stormer book club.” 

The College Democrats of Truman State University issued the following statement regarding the poster:

The College Democrats of Truman State University unequivocally condemns the presence of white supremacy in our community.

Kirksville has a thriving immigrant population which has enriched the experience of everyone who calls this place home. We are welcoming to people of all nations, all faiths, and all cultures because we know our diversity is our strength. We have stood together in the face of all manner of obstacles that have threatened this community, including recession, blizzards, droughts, fires, and floods. It is time to come together once again to combat this abhorrent extremist ideology which is rooted in cowardice and hate. We are bigger, we are bolder, and we are stronger than white supremacy or anything else that would seek to break this community.

We will not allow immigrants, people of color, women, the LGBTQ+ community, or anyone who speaks out against white supremacy to be intimidated. We stand with you, because we are you, and we’re all in this together.

The post My response to the poster found today at Truman State U. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a truly just world, Brett Kavanaugh would not be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court for so many reasons. While the “he said – she said” conflict between Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is stealing center stage, there are countless reasons why the process is flawed. Not the least is that Dr. Ford is already receiving the Anita Hill Treatment from many Republican Senators, both on the Judiciary Committee and in the rank and file.

Let’s deal quickly with this issue. It is possible that what Brett Kavanaugh “remembers” (which seems to be nothing) more accurately describes what happened between him and Christine Blasey thirty-six years ago than what she recalls (being attacked; experiencing trauma; and carrying it with her for the intervening years). It’s possible but far from a certainty.

Suppose that there are no credible witnesses. Is the winner Kavanaugh because (a) he’s a male, (b) he’s a Republican and that party holds the moral high ground, (c) his supporters like Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley are more righteous? Or is the “winner” Dr. Ford because (a) she does not have the extensive history of shading the truth as Kavanaugh has revealed in the hearings for his nomination, (b) women are more believable than men, (c) in the history of these kinds of disputes, the man has been believed far more than the woman, and (d) it’s payback time for what happened to Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Hard to tell. Maybe an FBI investigation will turn up incontrovertible evidence. Maybe the questioning of Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford before the Committee will trip up one or the other. If we have to go by a “feeling in the gut,” I would say that the safe thing to do would be to side with Dr. Ford because the consequences of having two sitting members on the Supreme Court who have acted very inappropriately regarding sex is more than the country should have to bear. As said so eloquently by Anita Hill in an op-ed in today’s New York Times:

But, as Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.

Surely there is another conservative nominee who has not been charged with such and who may not have the same paper trail as Kavanaugh.

But let’s look at the broader picture of why this process is so flawed. What are we doing here? We’re selecting someone to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States? And what does he/she do? “Interpret” the laws made by extremely flawed individuals; our legislators in the federal, state and local legislatures. While there are some outstanding legislators, the nature of the job is that it attracts many who have excessive egos and who are comfortable asking for money with little to offer in return. That’s not the way in which healthy human beings interact with one another.

As a group, they are not the most qualified people we have in our society to fashion our laws. Yet we treat what they create as being sacrosanct and engraved in stone. The work of these legislators must be precisely interpreted. But what if what they made was crap, as often is the case. What do the judges do then?

If our judges are wise and capable, then their job should be to clean up the mess. That means more than interpreting what has been written. It means working to have our laws conform to the parts of our Constitution that promote democracy and fairness.

How do we know if a nominee is capable of helping us clean up legislative messes? It certainly is not from them providing bullshit like, “That is a hypothetical question and I don’t want to answer it because it’s a case that may come before the court.” Since nominees dodge most questions, we can only use conjecture to try to figure out what they support.

We need a system in which the nominees are fully vetted – and that information is available not only to the executive branch but also to Congress and ultimately to the American people. The nominees must be required to answer all questions, so we learn what their professed beliefs are.

Their skills in interpreting the laws are less important than their abilities to exercise common sense. That means being good at reasoning, having empathy and understanding irony and hypocrisy.

This system won’t change now. If we’re fortunate, Kavanaugh will not be confirmed and we’ll go through the same song and dance with the next nominee. But ultimately, we need to face reality and have Supreme Court Justices be individuals who have boots on the ground of the United States and who are more arbiters of fairness than presumed scholars of the law.

The post It’s not just Kavanaugh; it’s the whole process 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.

1. You cannot be forced to have someone stay in your house of you don’t want them to be your guest.
2. If you are arrested for an alleged crime, the bail that is set for you cannot be excessive.
3. If you are charged with a crime and the case goes to court, you have the right to a trial by jury.
4. You have the right to say whatever you want so long as it does not put another person in harm’s way.
5. If you wish to believe in and practice a religion, you have the right to choose your religion. You also have the right to choose no religion at all.
6. The government cannot conduct unreasonable searches and/or seizures of your personal property.
7. You have the right to own a gun.
8. If you are accused of a crime, you have the right to a speedy trial.
9. The rights that are enumerated in this list are not exclusive; there are other rights retained by you and everyone else.
10. If you are charged with a crime, you do not have to testify against yourself.
11. The press and other media forms have the right to print what they wish, so long as it is not intentionally injurious to someone else.
12. If you wish, you and others can peacefully gather and petition the government (or other entities) for what you consider to be grievances.

Well, if this looks like the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, that’s because it is, slightly reorganized and simplified. Here are the changes:

1. The actual First Amendment delineates four rights that are protected (freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, to assemble and to petition the government). Four of these five get a separate listing in items above.
2. The 10^th Amendment is not included because it does not relate to any rights; it is essentially an ambiguous procedural guidepost relating to the powers of the federal government and the states.

So, if you look at those rights, remembering that their order has been scrambled, is there any one that seems to have less to do with promoting as civilized society than any of the others? If you think so, please indicate by answering the one-question quiz below.

Scroll down to answer. Your answers are completely private. We’re not selling anything.

The post Quick Quiz: Which one of the twelve items below has nothing to do with a civilized society? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When you’re running for a school board position in suburban St. Louis and tweet out memes about banning Islam in America, what could possibly go wrong?

Well, you could be invited to speak at a candidates’ forum at the local mosque. And that’s how it came to be that the first words Parkway School Board candidate Jeanie Ames spoke to the assembled crowd at the mosque were, “I am not a xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Islam, anti-Semitic racist.”

In fact, Ames spent the better part of her two-minute opening statement trying to defend herself against charges of bigotry and racism that had arisen, in part, from her retweet of a graphic calling for the banning of Islam in America.

She has since claimed that the offending tweet — and  others — were misconstrued or taken out of context. Unfortunately for Ames, her personal Twitter feed makes the context of her remarks crystal clear: Her motto, MAKE PARKWAY GREAT AGAIN, may offer a clue as to who has influenced her thinking.

In her Twitter profile, she describes herself as a “Proud wife mommy – Free market Capitalist – Constitutionalist – Catholic – Confederate – Lily-wearing – Metal lovin – Grass Roots – American Badass.”

Yeah, she called herself a “confederate.”

On January 24, the St. Louis Post Dispatch ran this article with the headline, A self-described ‘Confederate’ is running for Parkway School Board. Residents are alarmed. The article called her out not only for wanting to ban Islam, but also for referring to Michelle Obama as a “giant rat.”

Ames’ attitudes had begun to alarm a lot of people. Some who spoke to the newspaper noted:

“Jeanie Ames’ record of racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, and other bigotry prove beyond any doubt that she has no place on the Parkway School District’s Board of Education … All people of conscience who believe in the value and place of all children at Parkway schools should oppose Ames’ candidacy in the strongest terms.”
— Anna Baltzer of Jewish Voice for Peace

“It is quite disturbing to say the least that a person with views such as ‘banning Islam from America’ is running for the Parkway School Board.”
— Mufti Asif Umar, imam of Daar-Al-Islam Masjid a mosque situated in the school district.

What else motivates Ms. Ames? Have a look at the banner on her Twitter page.

What does Jeanie Ames really want to do for the Parkway School Board? Is she misunderstood? Have her many offensive tweets somehow been taken out of context? The people in the photo below protested outside the March 25 candidate forum because they don’t believe she’s been misunderstood. They think Jeanie Ames has made herself perfectly clear.

This is an important moment in the community. Will Ames win or lose? And what will that tell us about ourselves?

Postscript:

Many of Ames’ neighbors have yard signs for the more progressive candidates in the race. None have Ames signs. Some are coming more to the point by posting yard signs stating “Hate has no home here.”

In the end, Ames lost, getting just 12.2% of the vote.

The post “Xenophobic, anti-Islam, anti-Semitic racist.” Who, me? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

So many adults think that it is so cute, even enlightening, when a student such as Emma Gonzalez at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School calls out adult for speaking “B.S.”

“Isn’t she wise for her years? She speaks truth to power. We need more people like her.”

There is an underlying premise that as we get older, we get wiser.  Here’s the problem. That just may not be true. It’s essentially impossible to measure, because who knows what “wise” is. Also, is it possible to have more than one version of wisdom? Maybe that which bright high school students regard as insight is more accurate than what the wizened professor thinks. Or, maybe they both have views that are equally valid, but substantially different.

Adults have the upper hand by virtue of their power. There are no high school students who own television stations or cable outlets. Few have more than an individual presence in social media. For these reasons and many more, it is easy for adults to stand in judgment of high school students.

Adults hold the power over students as to what options they have for their future. Grades, letters of recommendation, determining who makes the sports team, who gets the lead role in the play, who qualifies to be hired for a job; it’s the adults who have control over the students.

There is good reason for this when kids are young. But as children get older and move more into their adolescent years, the imbalance of power becomes more questionable. The fact that adults still hold the purse strings over adolescents does not mean that the adults’ judgment is better.

This takes us back to Emma’s words about B.S. One might posit that those who have the most wisdom are those who are the best B.S. detectors. Listen to the students from Stoneman Douglas. Few dance around the gun issue. They know that putting more guns in schools, even if in the hands of security guards, only puts everyone in the building further at risk. They know that the balance of power between “good guys” and “bad guys” is less important than the number of weapons that they collectively have at their disposal.  They know that if anyone is going to have a gun, there needs to be a thorough background check in advance. They know that in a civil and civilian society, there is no need for any high-powered gun. Some even know that there are countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia where it is virtually impossible to get any kind of gun, and the rates of gun violence are virtually nil.

So, adults, let’s not patronize these students and praise them for what they understand. Instead, let’s think about where we as adults have gone wrong; where we became a society in which guns are okay, B.S. has become the currency of much of the land, and dysfunctional is the best way to describe our political system.

It’s probably too late for those of us who are adults. It seems that the older we get the more difficult it is for us to change (except for the inexorable movement towards conservatism that seems to occur with each generation).

What is needed is to find ways for today’s adolescents to not commit adultery – to not become like the adults of our generation and most past generations. Let them keep their B.S. detectors and their insight into absurd adult behavior.

This is not impossible. A few suggestions might be diminishing the role of college, placing less emphasis on credentials, and having people hold one another accountable for losing the B.S. detection skills they once had. This is all difficult, but if we are a society that almost gave Donald Trump a majority of the popular vote and which allows guns to run rampant, we need considerable fundamental change. Time for adults to stop patronizing students when “they get it right,” and let students give modest kudos to adults when they choose a language other than B.S.

The post Time for students to patronize adults; not the other way around appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Remember when Michelle Obama said in 2007, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” She took some flak for it, like Cindy McCain saying, “I have and always will be proud of my country.” But Cindy McCain may not be that familiar with the African-American experience. Michelle Obama was expressing a feeling that comes at one of the points where the “long arc of history may be bending towards justice.” Give her a break. After all, that didn’t last too long.

I heard something at Doug Jones’ victory party in Alabama last night that gave me pride. It may be the first and possibly the last time. The crowd started chanting, “U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A.” I normally find that chant to be boorish, snobbish and inappropriate. It is like the bully prancing around the playground telling everyone that he or she is the greatest. There is no modesty involved. I must wonder what athletes from other countries think about the chant when they hear it at the Olympics, or elsewhere. It’s so, “In your face.” Even if the venue is not the Olympics and it’s a rally in the U.S., it almost reflects the pleading of a child who can’t find other sources of self-esteem.

But hearing it from an Alabama crowd was different. In recent decades, we’ve come to learn that the Civil War is not over, or if it is over, it seems that the Confederacy won. So, instead of singing the Alabama fight song and waving Confederate flags, we heard Jones supporters saying something that might reflect a profound change in loyalties. They were proud to be citizens of the United States, not just Alabama. That’s one of the beauties about races for federal office; they give the winners opportunities to do something that can truly advance the quality of life in our country as a whole. It’s not parochial about their state. That perspective often leads to a “race to the bottom.”

Doug Jones wants to restore fund for CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program). That’s a true dollar and cents issue, and one that impacts all needy children in America. His words are steps towards improving quality of life, and clearly demonstrating that Democrats are more interested in the economic needs of people in lower-income brackets. The Republicans have tried to snooker people into thinking that is their concern, but look at their tax plans and you see who they clearly favor.

Another great point from last night was when Charles Barkley was first dropped the cliché, “the great people of Alabama,” and then corrected himself. He said that he wanted others to know that there are some great people in Alabama, but there are also rednecks and knuckleheads. Kudos to Barkley. Instead of the lame connotations of any state being great, he acknowledged that it is a fabric of mixed characteristics. It is a work in progress and blindly praising the state can offer excuses to not deal with real problems. Barkley has previously hinted at running for office in Alabama; he seems to have at least one foot in the sea of reality.

Finally, there is Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill. Here is a man who voted for Roy Moore, because he felt that it would be better for the U.S. Supreme Court and other issues. But when the votes were counted, he sounded as respectable as any Secretary of State could. He made it clear that Jones’ 1.5% margin was three times larger than the 0.5% difference to trigger an automatic vote recount. He said that the people of Alabama had spoken. He clearly outlined how certification of the election would proceed.

He seemed to take his office seriously. Even when Chris Cuomo needled him this morning about his vote for Moore, he maintained his integrity. It’s all something to think about. Life may not be as simple as we often characterize it.

So, congratulations to Doug Moore and those in Alabama who want the state to be a full participant in helping the United States address its economic and social issues. But with the shift of eleven thousand votes, it would be Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Roy Moore who would be crowing. It’s a ‘W’ for the Democrats, but tenuous at that. If Alabama is in play, it’s like the rest of the country. Democrats clearly have the high ground when it comes to policies, but they still have a lot of ‘splaining to do. Victory can be fleeting.

The post Beyond the hype, some nuggets from the Alabama Senate Race appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In unison, the talking heads at Fox News and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee assaulted both current FBI Director Christopher Wray and former Director Robert Mueller. Mueller also happens to be Special Counsel investigating foreign election intervention by Russia. Their complaint was that the F.B.I. is politicized and out to get Donald Trump. In the minds of those on the right, the same is true of Special Counsel Mueller.

Fox anchor and commentator Gregg Jarrett said,

“I think that we now know that the Mueller Investigation is illegitimate and corrupt. And Mueller has been using the F.B.I. as a political weapon, and the F.B.I. has become America’s secret police, secret surveillance, wire-tapping, intimidation, harassment and threats. It’s like the old KGB that comes for you in the dark of the night, banging through your door. The F.B.I. is a shadow government now; it has become highly politicized.”

Peter Strzok is the perfect example of it. He led both the Hillary Clinton investigation and, until recently, the Mueller investigation. This is a guy who has corrupt political motives. We now know it. Congress has the emails. But he’s the tip of the iceberg.

Rarely has a public figure received as much universal praise as Robert Mueller, at least up until a few weeks ago. But as his investigation has evolved to the point where we now have perp walks, the heat is getting to be too much for many on the right. In their minds, Mueller and those working for him no longer have objectivity; their clear and present motive is to get Donald Trump and those close to him.

If you believe that we are now living in two un-parallel universes, the right is right. Mueller is out to get Trump and those close to him. At least this is how most people in Trump’s 34% universe of the American electorate see it.

Here’s the problem that the right has. Mueller is coming from a perspective founded in the Age of Reason. He is employing logic and deductive reasoning. He is hiring people who come from the same school. When the Trump-o-philes complain that Mueller has hired lawyers who have represented Democrats or contributed to the campaign of Democrats, they are right. What do they expect, lawyers from Breitbart? Mueller is hiring lawyers who can follow both the facts and the law.

Mueller is an evidence-based person. This comes with the territory when you are a post-J-Edgar director of the F.B.I. Or as Sergeant Joe Friday of Dragnet fame said, “Just the facts, ma’am.” He is following what is empirical, and often times this means following the money. For Trump, this means getting into his “privates.” His allies think that’s off-limits, but in reality, his finances should be in the public domain.

These two universes go beyond disagreeing on policies or even on proper legal procedure. They reflect a huge cultural divide in our country. It has gotten so wide that each side goes beyond calling the other side “bad” or misguided; now each side challenges the mental health of those on the other side.

Conventional analysis would indicate that Trump or Roy Moore are people whose mental stability should be questioned, but to those on the right it is the likes of Mueller or Barack Obama who are unstable.

There is a connection between rational thinking and those who are politically more to the left. Mueller’s investigation is reflective of that; the best investigators tend to be closer to non-conspiratorial journalists and others looking to document occurrences. This has to be frightening to Trump, Fox News and others of similar mind-sets. From where they sit, it is indeed true that Mueller is stacking the deck against Trump. It will be that way so long as two plus two equals four.

The post The right is right: Mueller is stacking deck against Trump 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.