Observations Along The Road... at Dreamwidth

The news cycle his weekend has been dominated with the Donald’s misogyny, his crude language and attitude towards woman. In response, I’ve seen a number of Trump supporters responding that it isn’t so bad, not when compared to ______ from Hillary Clinton. However, what they cite is not equivalent or worse at all. As you know my opinion on Clinton, let’s debunk these:

• Bill Clinton. Oh, what Trump did pales against Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades. First and foremost here: Bill Clinton is not running for President; he’s already had the job. This cannot be emphasized enough: Bill Clinton is not running, and wives are not responsible for their husband’s behavior. Wives do not make their husband’s cheat on them, they do not make their husband’s express horrible attitudes towards women, they do not make their husband’s commit acts of sexual violence. Saying Hillary Clinton is responsible in any way for Bill Clinton’s behavior is like blaming Melania  Trump for Donald’s vulgar behavior, or blaming Marla or Ivana for Donald cheating on them. Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades are Bill Clinton’s responsibility, just as Donald Trump is responsible for what he said and the attitudes he continues to hold. See, that’s what people miss about Bill Clinton. Look at the long list of woman that have accused Bill Clinton. Notice something. They are all related to alleged incidents that happened during the first term of his presidency or before. After the Monica Lewinsky mess (literally and figurative), there are no more accusations. Lesson learned. Behavior change. Whereas Donald Trump has continued to express women-hating attitudes, as has been seen by statements made by Trump during this campaign. Trump has a continuing pattern of misogyny to this very day. So the two are not equivalent at all.
• Hillary Clinton. Oh, but Hillary as also slut-shamed and defended rapists. Let’s work back on this. The “defense of a rapist” was a case when Hillary Clinton was a private lawyer in 1975, and the court appointed her to defend a rapist. Remember, in the USA, everyone is presumed innocent (check your law books), and guaranteed a trial, and the court appoints a lawyer if they can’t afford one. The lawyer has no choice in the matter: law and ethics require they do the best defense possible. That’s what happened her: she did her job. As for the “slut shaming”, all the incidents were in the heat of Bill’s messes noted above. Since then… nothing.  Further, fact checking by Politifact has put even the shut-slaming claims in doubt. There is no evidence of a continual pattern of the behavior. Whereas, and you know where this is going, Donald Trump has continued to express women-hating attitudes, as has been seen by statements made by Trump during this campaign. Trump has a continuing pattern of misogyny to this very day. So the two are not equivalent at all.
• Email Server. Oh, but Hillary leaded all this classified information through her email server. Not equivalent at all. The FBI has withdrawn the statement that there was anything significantly that was classified at the time on her server, and the few cases cited were labelled “confidential” (the lowest security rating), were not properly marked, and were sent by another person to her (which makes the other person responsible for the violation). There has been nothing that has risen to a sufficient level for prosecution. Much as people don’t realize it, minor classification spillages occur regularly because humans are stupid and sloppy. When they are called out, usually the first incident or two result in infractions or warnings, not jail. Prosecution only occurs (and lets say this together) when there is a pattern of disclosure, and that disclosure is accompanied with intent to disclose. That’s not the case with Clinton: there are a few minor incidents, all accidental, not reported by either side of the conversation, and that, most importantly, would not be repeated as President because the President cannot do their own IT (Information Technology). Whereas Trump’s behavior, and you know where this is going, Donald Trump has continued to express women-hating attitudes, as has been seen by statements made by Trump during this campaign. Trump has a continuing pattern of misogyny to this very day. So the two are not equivalent at all.

Isolated incidents cannot compare to continual misbehavior. All situations you see with Secretary Clinton are in the past and have not been repeated to the present day, or (such as the behavor of her husband) are not relevant. Whereas Donald Trump has continued to spew hatred — of blacks, of hispanics, of gays, of veterans, or the disabled, and of women — to the present day. He has disclosed information from National Security Briefings not on an email server, but over news microphones to the entire world.

There’s no comparison.

Of course, I must repeat again what I said in my post Thursday. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate, of the candidates on the ballot, out there, hands down. She is not only the most experienced candidate running, not only the candidate with the best restraint in what she says and how she behaves, and not only the candidate who is absolutely, positively guaranteed to keep it in her pants, she is the candidate (when you compare policy by policy) with the best policies to move this country forward. My vote for Hillary is not just a vote against Trump, it is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Thursday evening, I published my initial take on the down-ticket offices in the upcoming general election. After I did so, I received some comments on two of the judges races that have led to me reconsidering my recommendations. The questions that the exploration raised, however, was so interesting I wanted to make them a post of their own. Let me discuss the broad issues I see, and then we can go into the specific races.

Issue #1: Diversity.  An issue of growing concern in any workplace is diversity. I’ve noted before my two favorite podcasts that touch on the issue: an episode of Startup where Gimlet explored their own diversity, or lack thereof. The second was an episode of Reply All (also from Gimlet) that explored diversity problems at Twitter. Both explored why diversity was so important. This exchange from the Reply All should clarify it a bit:

Read the rest of this entry »

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

The upcoming November ballot, at least in my precinct in Los Angeles, California, is large. As the Donald might say, it is “Yuuuuuge”. So I’m splitting my regular sample ballot analysis into five posts: one covering the Presidential ticket (although you know where I’m going there), one for the down-ticket races, two covering the state-wide propositions on the ballot (50-59, 60-67), and a final post covering the county, city, and special district measures. I’ll also include one additional post summarizing all my positions. This post covers the remaining 8 statewide propositions, Proposition 60 through Proposition 67. As always, if you have different views, I urge you to comment and try to convince me to change my mind.

Note: Propositions Haiku by Damion Carroll.

Read the rest of this entry »

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

The upcoming November ballot, at least in my precinct in Los Angeles, California, is large. As the Donald might say, it is “Yuuuuuge”. So I’m splitting my regular sample ballot analysis into five posts: one covering the Presidential ticket (although you know where I’m going there), one for the down-ticket races, two covering the state-wide propositions on the ballot (50-59, 60-67), and a final post covering the county, city, and special district measures. I’ll also include one additional post summarizing all my positions. This post covers the down-ticket races: all the offices filled by humans or reasonable facsimiles thereof that are not the President. As always, if you have different views, I urge you to comment and try to convince me to change my mind.

Read the rest of this entry »

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

As you probably know by now, I collect news chum on various topics, one of which is “Decision 2016”. Setting aside my articles on the California Propositions (I’m waiting for my sample ballot and such before I do that election post), here’s some of the other chum I’ve collected. Some of this has already been posted on Facebook, but is repeated here for completeness.

• Here’s a really nice infographic on why one should vote FOR Hillary (on top of just voting against Trump). There are four photos, so you may need to go back and forward.
• In my post on History on Trial, I talk about convergence of the evidence, convergence of the facts, leading you to one conclusion. In this election, we’ve got convergence of the endorsements. Not only are the traditional Democratic papers endorsing Hillary, but traditional Republican papers like the Arizona Republic, the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, and the Cincinnati Enquirer. Further, papers that have never done an endorsement, such as USA Today, have come out steadfastly against Donald Trump (although they could not reach concensus to be pro-Clinton). [In fact, the USA Today endorsement is one of the best arguments against Trump I’ve seen]. Some other Republican papers have endorsed Johnson, such as the Detroit News and the New Hampshire Union Leader, because they simply find Trump an unacceptable candidate.  This is a convergence: Donald Trump is not qualified and does not have the right temperament to be President. Given Johnson’s latests gaffes, really only one candidate in this election is qualified and has the right temperament: Clinton. [PS: If you are considering voting for Johnson or Stein, please ensure you are in a state where your protest vote will not tip your state to Trump. Non-swing state? Go for it (although I think they are both batshit crazy)!]
• There is one group that is steadfastly, unconvincingly, for Trump. The Orthodox Jewish community. Why? It clearly isn’t because he welcomes Jews — just today he asked if non-Christians should be allowed at his ralleys. They don’t care that he is drawing white supremacists into his fold. Why then? His unflinchingly pro-Israel views, that brook no room for the Palestinians, and his opposition to the Iran Nuclear deal.
• Hopefully, women are realizing that Trump is not the man for them. After Trump revealed himself at the debate, falling into Hillary’s trap, he blundered into it again the next day, still harping on Machado by fat-shaming her again. He has continued to do so, digging the hole even deeper, not knowing when to stop. Then comes the news that Trump would fire women at his golf course if they weren’t pretty enough. Now, just imagine how Trump would work with female leaders of foreign countries. Of course, Trump thinks we’ll forget all of this if we focus instead on Bill Clinton’s sex scandals of the past (forgetting that Bill  isn’t the candidate, Hillary is).
• We’ve all heard how Trump wants to lower taxes on the wealthy, believing that the wealthy will then create jobs for the middle class. Well, in doing so, he will raise the taxes on the middle class. Isn’t that just what the country needs?
• How about fiscal responsibility? Trump will drastically increase the national debt. He’s probably expecting (as a businessman) that he’ll just be able to declare bankruptcy to get rid of it. Probably is, nations going bankrupt are bad things (look at Greece or Ireland), especially for the people holding that debt. Do you have any savings bonds? Treasury notes? That’s you he’ll be stiffin’.
• Oh, and for those who were going to vote against Clinton because her daughter supposedly said pot kills, (a) that’s not what she actually said (she said that it could be lethal in combinations with other drugs), and (b) she’s walked back those remarks. Further, remember that if we wouldn’t vote for a candidate if they had a stupid child, Bush 43 would never have been elected.

That should clear out the links some. I’m sure I’ll collect more….

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

In this collection of news chum, I’m clearing out some accumulated articles regarding the upcoming election. I’ll note upfront that some of these items relate to elections other than the Presidential one — yes, there will be other things on the ballot:

• Changing Voting Systems. I’ve always liked LA County’s voting system: You mark a paper ballot with an ink-stamp, which is then optically read for counting (and checked, when you deposit it, for over/under voting). But LA County wants to change the system. An article from back in June notes how LA County envisions the future: instead of being directed to designated polling stations on a single Tuesday, voters will be able to choose from hundreds of voting centers around the county during a 10-day window leading up to election day. Further, instead of marking their selections with pen and paper, they will enter their selections on touch-screen ballot-marking devices, print out a paper ballot to review their selections, and feed the ballot back into the machine to be stored and counted. They have developed prototypes of the new machines. Further, LA officials believe that with voters no longer confined to a single polling place, many of the issues with voter rosters that led to provisional ballots will not occur.  Voters wanting to cast a cross-over ballot could have selected the correct ballot through the system’s user interface. This approach dovetails quite nicely with a measure reported on in August. The measure, SB450, which has been sent to the Governor for signature, would give local officials the power to close thousands of neighborhood polling places. In their place, counties would open temporary elections offices known as “vote centers” sprinkled throughout communities, locations offering a wide variety of elections services including early voting and same-day voter registration as well as a limited number of in-person voting booths. SB 450 would offer each of California’s 58 counties the chance to embrace an alternative to traditional elections. In most of those counties, every registered voter would receive a ballot in the mail and polling places would be scrapped. Voters would be able to turn in ballots either at secure drop boxes placed around the county or at the new “vote center” locations. Some of those vote centers would be open at least 10 days before election day, and would allow last-minute registration, a check of existing registration status and the ability to cast a vote in person even if the voter lives in a different city inside county lines.  Unlike traditional polling places, the vote centers are envisioned as staffed by paid workers with more than the few hours of training normally given to temporary poll workers. My thoughts on the matter: I can see what they are trying to do and the advantages, but there is also something to be said for local voting and knowing the people in the neighborhood.
• A Gigantic Ballot. The hot air in California in election season will not come from the Presidential candidates (who just visit California for our money), but our propositions.  California’s November ballot is going to be very long. In additional to the Presidential campaign, a Senate race (between two Democrats), House, State Senate, and Assembly races, 17 measures have earned a spot on the Nov. 8 statewide ballot, a bumper crop of voter choices ranging from marijuana legalization to repeal of the death penalty and even new workplace rules for actors in adult movies. Four of the propositions earned a spot on the fall ballot with only hours to spare on Thursday, including two tax proposals and a sweeping prison proposal championed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Six of the 17 propositions seek to amend the state constitution. They include Brown’s effort to revamp the rules on parole from state prison, and a requirement that neither house of the Legislature pass any bill that hasn’t been available for public review for at least three days. Nine measures will ask voters to enact new state laws, with proposals on everything from new background checks for buying ammunition to a $9-billion bond for school construction and modernization projects. Voters will consider, too, the merits of an effort to impose a cap on prescription drug prices paid by state healthcare officials that will be fought with an expensive opposition campaign by the pharmaceutical industry. The ballot also includes a referendum —  voters will choose to accept or reject a law that bans single-use plastic bags statewide. They have just started printing the ballot guide for all those propositions. It is going to be 224 pages, and cost $15 million to print. It describes some of the most complex laws ever proposed, initiatives with details so granular that they could easily confound all but the most expert legal minds. Leading the pack is Proposition 64, the much-talked-about effort to fully legalize marijuana use for California adults. The broad question may be straightforward, but the initiative is not. Even the guide’s overview analysis of Prop 64 is 10 pages long. The actual proposed state law to make pot legal takes another 33 pages of the document, more than 17,000 words in all. My thoughts on the matter: I’m going to have to wade through all of this to come up with my ballot recommendation. How many other people are going to bother?
• An Expert Negotiator. Donald Trump has emphasized his business skill at negotiating. It appears that skill may create a war — yes, expect a real war — with Mexico when they attempt to take back California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. You see, when the Donald was in Mexico recently, he intimated that he might suspend NAFTA, the free-trade treaty. Mexico’s response? A Mexican senator has filed a bill in their legislature that makes “full use of the foreign policy mandate given to the Mexican Senate by the Constitution,” and if Trump did break NAFTA and start a trade war, it would by law cause our neighbors to reconsider every treaty signed between our two nations. Every treaty. Think about that. Now research the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War and gave the U.S. ownership of California and land that would eventually become New Mexico, most of Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. If that treaty is reconsidered, Mexico could claim ownership of those lands. This is the impact of diplomacy by someone who isn’t a diplomat, or educated on the nuances of the impact of what they say or do.
• Candidates and Teflon, Bullies and Good Kids. Have you ever wondered why anything outrageous is reported about Clinton and becomes a major scandal, whereas all of the outrageous things about Trump get seemingly swept under the rug. It turns out, there is a reason. The media has been trained to not trust Clinton, and to call to investigate her at the drop of a hat. Why? The reporter’s job is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” — a credo that, humorously, was originally written as a smear of the self-righteous nature of journalists. And so the justification for going after a public figure increases in proportion to his or her stature. The bigger the figure, the looser the restraints. After a quarter of a century on the national stage, there’s no more comfortable political figure to afflict than Hillary Clinton. The Clinton rules are driven by reporters’ and editors’ desire to score the ultimate prize in contemporary journalism: the scoop that brings down Hillary Clinton and her family’s political empire. At least in that way, Republicans and the media have a common interest. Of course, never mind that all these scandals are not true, and have been proven to be not true. As for Trump, no one cares about his well-known acts of naked corruption. Why? It comes down to this: The difference between Trump and Clinton is that Clinton bleeds when they hit her. Writing about Trump’s corruption long ago hit the law of diminishing returns, because everyone knows he’s corrupt and his supporters like it. It is news to no-one. Clinton, however, is clean—but her supporters waver at the thought of dirt. In other words: The media beats up on Clinton for the same reason bullies beat up on kids: because they get joy when the kid reacts to their torture. Clinton reacts to the charges (I know, just like a girl 🙂 ). Trump bullies back and ignores the charages. The net result: Yet again, we give our attention to the bully, and not the good kid. Of course, in the end, it is meaningless, because facts don’t matter to Trump supporters. Again, this is like the real world, where the parents always stand by their child who is bullying (sometimes even after they drive someone — or a country — to suicide).
• The Ultimate Question: Who Is Qualified?. Vox had some interesting analysis of why Trump will never be elected. It isn’t the stupid things he says or does; it isn’t his embrace of Putin; it isn’t his disclosing what happens at intelligence briefings. It will ultimately be because voters don’t believe him to be qualified. Here are the telling paragraphs:
  

  The problem Trump faces is more fundamental than mere candidate preference. He currently fails to clear the most basic bar of the presidency. A majority of voters simply don’t think he’s qualified to serve as president. And it’s not just qualifications — they don’t think he has the personality or temperament to serve as president (67 to 31 percent), they don’t think he has a solid understanding of world affairs (64 to 33 percent), and they don’t think he’s honest and trustworthy (62 to 34 percent).

  This is how Trump’s candidacy differs from Clinton’s. Observers often note that Clinton, like Trump, is viewed unfavorably by most Americans, and that’s true (though the 50 percent unfavorable rating Clinton posts in this poll is quite a bit better than Trump’s 63 percent unfavorable rating). But while many Americans don’t like Clinton, they do believe in her ability to do the job. Majorities think her qualified to serve as president (60 to 38 percent), that she has the personality and temperament to serve as president (61 to 38 percent), and say she has a solid knowledge of world affairs (72 to 25 percent).

  So this, then, is the election as it stands today: Most Americans don’t like Donald Trump and they don’t think he’s qualified, temperamentally fit, or sufficiently knowledgeable about world affairs to serve as president. Most Americans don’t like Hillary Clinton, but they do believe she’s qualified, temperamentally fit, and sufficiently knowledgeable about world affairs to serve as president.

  As PJ O’Rourke put it, when he endorsed Clinton: “I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It’s the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she’s way behind in second place. She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”

  Or, as the Dallas Morning News put it in their endorsement of Clinton: “There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. […] We’ve been critical of Clinton’s handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy. [… Clinton’s shortcomings …] Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups. We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent’s. […] After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

November is going to be interesting folks, and it is rapidly approaching. Stay educated, stay informed, and learn the truth about your candidates. Don’t just live in the bubble chamber, but explore all sides, and recognize their bias. Remember that it is vital that you vote, and that you vote for the right person, not the bum. Now, I shall finish my lunch…..

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Last night, while answering the same questions on Hillary Clinton’s character, I realized that I’m tired of this shit. So, for one last time, here are the answers:

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

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

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

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

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

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

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

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

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

Here’s a particularly telling pull quote:

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

Here is another quote, again, very prescient:

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

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

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

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

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

But first

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

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

And now, on to something different to chew upon:

• Bell Peppers. Just as I can’t stomach Donald Trump, I cannot stomach bell peppers. Here’s an interesting analysis of the chemical difference between green, yellow, and red bell peppers.
• Dealing with Tinnitus. The din of the election, and the constant irritant of the statements of Donald Trump, can be silenced by turning off the news and Facebook. Not so with the constant din of Tinnitus (which I deal with). Here’s an interesting article on some therapy to deal with Tinnitus.
• Belly Fat. Trump is a fat head, something loaded with empty calories and empty promises. You know what you can do to get rid of that fat. However, one of the problems I’m dealing with — and one which neither candidate addresses — is belly fat. Here’s a good article on the best way to get rid of belly fat.
• Wheat Sensitivity. Listening to the news and watching the behavior of Trump can make you sick to your stomach. So can eating wheat. It now appears that science has confirmed there are wheat sensitivities independent of Celiac disease.
• Risky Behavior. I’ve been pointing out for the last few days how risky it is to vote for Trump. It is also risky to answer quizzes on Facebook. They collect far too much data. For example, just today I saw a meme going around asking people to share where they were born. How many of you have seen a security question asking where the hospital you were born  in was located? Be careful what you answer.
• Cybersecurity Risks. We all know how Trump has invited a foreign government to interfere in our elections by hacking into his opponent’s parties servers. What else could they hack into? Voting machines? 3-D printers? The latter is a real risk, for there are tons of risks that we can’t see in 3-D printing.
• Planned Obsolescense. Donald Trump has recently taken to discounting the opinions of respected generals and Gold Star parents. He would probably encourage the business sense of another famous general, General Electric, who specifically designed light bulbs to burn out. This turns out to be a big deal for LED bulbs, who have lifetimes measured in, well, human lifetimes. But don’t worry. LED manufacturers are now designing LEDs to intentionally fail early.

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

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

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

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

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

Here’s the second realization I came to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)