Dear Joe,
You know how tickled we all were when you were elected to serve in Congress. We Dems fought hard for you, even those like me who do not live in your district (I was gerrymandered out). You ran a great campaign, and your stand on the issues was stellar. You did not back off on any of those issues Dems in the past have tiptoed around, like women's reproductive rights and gun control.
The only time you blinked was when you caved to the republican's "Operation Nancy Pelosi." I'm thinking that in the heat of the campaign, you may not have realized that people like Donald Trump are playing with you. They want you to think opposing Pelosi is your idea, when it is truly what they want you to do more than anything in the world.
You're young and you may not know the history behind the demonizing of Nancy Pelosi, so let me give you a little background. Back in 2010, Michael Steele, then chairman of the Republican Party (before they threw him under the bus), was the genius behind the "Fire Pelosi" campaign. It happened after she got Obamacare passed by one vote; given the narcissism and back-biting that was going on it was amazing that she could herd that bunch of cats. It scared the bejeezus out of republicans.
So Steele decided to create a campaign that turned Nancy Pelosi into the spawn of Satan, i.e., a liberal. They were the RNC, the Republican National Committee, and they did a bus tour and everything. Most important, all the republicans got on board, if not the bus, the strategy. It was the same unified voice that you hear when they talk about Pelosi today. Because they didn't get rid of her, but they got lots of press, and they taught their base to equate Pelosi with a dirty word. Of course, it had no basis in fact; they didn't need any. It worked brilliantly.
It worked so well that Mark Sanford decided it would be more advantageous to run against Pelosi in a 2013 special election than against his real-life opponent, Elizabeth Colbert Busch. He still reeked from the Appalachian Trail bullshit that he wore when he left the governor's office. Colbert Busch was smart and sound on the issues. He could not have beat her. But Sanford always has a gimmick up his sleeve, and those good ole boys enjoyed the gag. So he beat Pelosi, or, the republicans' caricature of her.
Joe, I was taken aback when I saw the campaign ad in which you had a white male stereotype say that he was a republican but because you were against Pelosi he was voting for you. I imagine you -- and a number of Dems that I know -- believe you could not have won if you hadn't thrown Nancy under the bus. But I believe you were the butt of Michael Steele's scam, the one that has been working on Dems all these years.
A few weeks ago, around the time you and a bunch of young Dems, mostly men, signed that ridiculous letter urging Pelosi not to run for leadership, Michael Steele was interviewed on AM Joy. When Reid asked him why his Pelosi strategy worked so well on Democrats he laughed and said, "I don't know; I'm trying to figure that out myself." Please take two minutes and listen to the video. It is indeed an eye-opener.
This strategy has worked before. Mitch McConnell would not be spreading his evil today if Alison Lundergan Grimes had not decided to run from Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act. Lord knows, Trump could never have beaten Hillary if she hadn't had thirty years of republicans building her into the kind of evil genius that could do anything; anything, that is except win the presidency.
And they can't -- THEY CAN'T -- do it without the help of Democrats.
Right now, Nancy Pelosi is the nightmare that keeps the republican party -- and Donald Trump -- up at night. She is smart and masterful. She believes in the same causes and issues that you believe in. She will fight, and win, when she is Speaker. It's not a fantasy. It is Pelosi's resume.
Stephen Lynch was one of the Dems who signed that silly letter. He met with Pelosi, and changed his mind. If that doesn't give you pause, you are not the reasonable man I think you are.
Trump will go down with his wall because he believes that is what gave him his victory. He doesn't have the capacity to look around and see that he isn't the president of a rally. He can't put together all the factors that got him to the White House.
Opposing Nancy Pelosi did not win your election, Joe. Being on the right side of the issues against a woman who was both mean and dumb was what did it. Oh, and as much as I hate to say it, if she were a mean, dumb white man instead of a woman he would have won.
But the time is right for progressive ideas, and you transported enough people to put you in Congress. Fight for those progressive ideas, and be sure to make headlines letting us know what you are doing for us. Keep an eye on Pelosi, because she will teach you how to win, again and again, against all odds.
And Joe, you will need those skills. Mark Sanford isn't going anywhere. All he knows how to do is be on the public dole. We couldn't believe it when he went from disgrace in the governor's office to win back a House seat. But that is what he does. He has not stopped running. He will be there in 2020. If you don't proudly own being a progressive Democrat, you will just be seen as a watered down republican. If you throw Nancy Pelosi under the bus, if you fight her on key issues instead of standing by her and helping her win, I can guarantee you will have a short life in Congress. And that would be a shame.
We had the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. We lost Congress because we wouldn't stand together. Republicans have the bluster, but we have the causes. The economy, our standing in the world, our treatment of children, democracy itself for gods' sake, there is no issue we should not stand for proudly. I can't say enough how important it is -- to the electorate -- to see you all stand together, in strength. Going up against the most powerful Democratic leader ever is not a good way to start. So I urge you to do the right thing. Admit that now that you have seen Pelosi in action, up close, you will be supporting her.
You may have won because just enough republicans voted for you, but if you lose the enthusiasm we Dems felt for you in 2018, you don't have a chance.
Best of luck in your new job.
Sincerely,
The Ironic Cherry
Monday, December 31, 2018
Thursday, November 29, 2018
The TSA and Me
How We Got Here
I hate flying. It wasn't always this way. Before the PLO began hijacking planes in the 70's, there were not even x-ray scans at airports. In 1973, a White House directive charged airports with scanning all passengers and baggage with electronic weapons detectors. There were occasional pat-downs when metal detectors sounded the alarm and the reason wasn't obvious. Many were angered by the inconvenience and assault on privacy; some were totally fine with the new measures, and felt safer because of them.
Hijackings decreased. Air travel was affordable. Those were the halcyon days when you could walk to the gate to meet your family and friends, or shed a few tears saying good-bye. You could watch the plane come into or leave the gate. Your valuables, including your body, were safe from assault.
But just as violence happens outside of an airport, it was inevitable that there would be another airline attack, and it was massive. 9/11 changed America's sense of invulnerability. The cluelessness of the George W. Bush administration ignored all the signs that would have prevented 9/11, while the paranoia of the Dick Cheney contingent ushered in the Patriot Act of 2001 and all its abominations. It took the weenies in Congress less than two months to pass the law, and no amount of protestation over the loss of constitutional freedoms could stop them.
Imagine the chaos. And the horror stories.
And yet, with the security business booming and Americans as insecure as ever, in 2009 the TSA got away with adding full body scanners to the myriad tortures of proceeding onto an aircraft. Initially, they were to be used only when the walk through x-ray machine set off an alarm. But when you've got a really fancy-ass hammer, everything looks like a nail, so in no time everyone was required to submit to having their body perused. I said "got away with," but it wasn't easy. People were appalled that the scanners showed their naked image. And then there were those who were just appalled at the unnecessary invasion of privacy. So -- being the Obama administration -- the problem was investigated and full-body scanners were walked back. But, being the Obama administration, the problem was pursued until a new, improved full body scanner, that did not show us standing there, arms up, naked, became the new toy at the airport. I hate to say it, but Obama did continue the march toward cutting back on freedoms in the name of security; he just did it in a more studied, scientifically researched manner. The body scanner was once again a thing, although not used consistently, and the busier airports were far more pragmatic about enforcing their use than others: like, for example, the Charleston International Airport, which just can't believe we aren't next on the terrorist to-do list.
So back to me.
I am 67 years old, and a New Englander. As such, I've never been much for uninvited touching. The TSA attacks appalled me for civil rights violation reasons, and also for personal privacy reasons. I pretty much stopped flying after 9/11 when we all had to stand in line in order to have our suitcases opened up and watch our items fondled by gloved screeners before they were checked. So even before the obscene full-body scanners.
I would prefer to drive two days each way to Chicago than fly. I will in an instant choose the 23-hour Amtrak travel to Rhode Island than fly. I miss the days of walking freely through an airport as though it was just a public building, but don't at all miss air travel as it exists today.
So there I was, this summer, with a pregnant daughter all the way over in Denver. I honestly looked into cars and trains. The only not-insane way to get there is flying.
And then, a month before my grandbaby made her appearance, my sister in Rhode Island died suddenly. I booked a flight for the next day.
And had myself patted down for the first time ever at Charleston International. The culprit appeared to be the metal in my bra. I was upset about my sister's death, and rather than being silently stoic (which is what we are supposed to do), I said, "My sister died yesterday; I really don't need this." The TSA agent did not respond verbally, but made sure to give me a thorough check before allowing me to put my shoes back on and get on my way. On the way back, in Rhode Island, there was no such idiocy, and I was able to walk through the x-ray screener without incident.
A month later, my grandbaby was born, and I was once again booking a last minute flight. I had only a short time to obsess about the upcoming screening and happier things to think about. I was not surprised when we were all slowly and systematically herded through the body-scanners. But, having been sure to wear a bra that while less personally secure would not be likely to set off alarms, I was still patted down. This time not only my breasts but both my ankles.
And after a lovely week with my beautiful new grandbaby, frisked once again by what I had thought of as the more reasonable Denver TSA.
It appears to me that since Trump began his ham-fisted reign, the slippery slope of the TSA during the Obama years has become free to stomp on our privacy with abandon. The full-body scanners are either more sensitive or set to be more sensitive, TSA agents instructed to "search" far more freely than in the recent past. Not just an overweight woman in a bra with metal snaps, but the bulge of socks fallen around the ankle will also do it. I don't know how many of us are chosen for this, but I finally decided to stop obsessing and just watch the last time I was in line. Way too many pat-downs, way, way too many false positives. And way too many rights being violated.
Like the frog that is put in the pot while the water is still cold, we are now quietly allowing our bodies to be handled in a way that would have caused outrage and rebellion a few years ago.
And why should that surprise me? There are babies being torn from their parents and put in cells and African Americans being shot for traffic violations. We live in a country being led by a cretin that aspires to being a dictator, and is right this very minute working to close our borders, keep the press out of the White House, and cut off ties with our allies.
What is happening at our airports seems small next to having a baby torn out of your arms or being shot by a poorly-trained and/or racist cop.
But we let the "small" liberties go in the name of security. We kept sliding down that slippery slope, at first protesting and then just shrugging and going along with the intense scrutiny required just to travel. We have been allowing our purses to be ravaged just to go to a sporting event for years.
This in a country that won't even allow a background check before buying a gun, or restrict the sale of bump stocks and silencers.
I know this has been a long blog, but I have been thinking about this TSA thing and how it has gotten away from us for a long time. So it is going to get longer. Go grab a cup of coffee or a beer and bear with me.
The TSA and Breast Milk
I now have a grandbaby and a daughter who has begun to travel with her. On her first flight, over Thanksgiving, Denver TSA agents were befuddled over how to deal with her pumped breast milk. Obviously, she had a baby with her, what nefarious plot would require such a cover? And yet, they sniffed, opened and had meetings over how to proceed. It was upsetting to the point that she did not carry breast milk on the trip home, in order to avoid what should be a totally avoidable fiasco. Which made even more burdensome the feeding a three-month-old infant in a world where nursing moms get hassled by dirty-minded wingnuts.
A quick google search located another instance of the TSA assault on breast milk, amazingly also at Denver International, you know, where you can probably smuggle out legally purchased marijuana with ease. The blogger suggests ways to more easily get through screening, like bringing in printed TSA information to show the agent so they can learn the rules about breast milk on-the-job. The saddest thing about this particular post, however, is that she ends by suggesting paying for the use of a transportation service to carry your milk, if you are a traveling mom with a baby at home.
IF YOU ARE 75 OR OLDER, YOU CAN GET THROUGH TSA SCREENING WITHOUT TAKING YOUR SHOES OFF. This means that in the defective yet watchful eyes of our government, a 75-year-old is less likely to be a terrorist than a woman with an infant.
In 2013, the TSA even changed the rule about knives in order to allow small folding knives to be carried onto a plane. Until that decision proved so wacky that the outcry caused them to rethink it.
So women are once again singled out for the kind of personal scrutiny that is an embarrassment and a violation. Not to mention the incredible disruption of an already burdensome process of traveling with a small child. Why have we put up with it? Because women have always put up with special rules and restrictions. Just as we have put up with sexual discrimination at work, and inappropriate sexual approaches and assaults. If this isn't an issue to be taken up by #MeToo I don't know what is.
I Decide to Sell Out
I hope to visit my grandbaby every couple of months. In the interest of not having to deal with the abomination of a pat-down at the beginning of every trip, I decided to look into TSA Precheck.
Turns out for the low, low price of $85 for five years, you can apply for a precheck that will allow you to avoid the most humiliating and infuriating aspects of TSA screening. I wondered just how intensive this screening would be, if it really screened out those who might be dangerous on a flight. It seems that they run your name and fingerprints through their national database, looking for criminals and terrorists! The good news is, if you haven't yet been up to any criminal activity, not only are you good for prescreening, I'll bet there are terrorist organizations that would love to recruit you.
The difference that getting "awarded" TSA Precheck (for the low, low price of $85 for five years) is that next time you are at the security line at the airport you don't have to take off your shoes or light jacket. Then you get to go through a regular x-ray machine instead of a body-scanner, like we used to do in the old days. And you send your carry-ons on the belt through the x-ray scanner. In other words, you are allowed to do the perfectly adequate screening that you were allowed to do before 9/11 (except no box cutters or knives).
Here are some other effects of the Precheck: 1. There is a lot of money to be made by security companies, and our government loves to give money away to big corporations, as with private prisons. 2. As an added bonus, the government gets to add lots of non-criminals and their fingerprints to its database, and even better, voluntarily.
Precheck doesn't mean your privacy won't get invaded when you're not looking. We have known since the post 9/11 days when we stood and watched that our suitcases would be opened and inspected. I knew that checked luggage continued to be "checked" because the tie I used to minimally safeguard my suitcase from opening was frequently retied in a different way. But after my first precheck trip, I found this brazen confirmation, kind of a TSA "Fuck You and Your Rights":
It says: For your own safety we have the right to rummage around in your stuff. If you tried to lock us out, we busted our way in. And there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Think about it. I can carry on stuff that merely gets x-rayed. But my checked bags need to get opened. They honestly don't have and can't create the technology for seeing what is in our bag without opening it? Or they just want us to know they can....
When I got to Denver and was bitching about the TSA, my daughter told me about a TV series that most of you probably already know about called Adam Ruins Everything. In this episode, he ruins the myth that the TSA screening keeps us all safer and he does it with facts and experts. It's a great episode, and I knew it all along.
I hate flying. It wasn't always this way. Before the PLO began hijacking planes in the 70's, there were not even x-ray scans at airports. In 1973, a White House directive charged airports with scanning all passengers and baggage with electronic weapons detectors. There were occasional pat-downs when metal detectors sounded the alarm and the reason wasn't obvious. Many were angered by the inconvenience and assault on privacy; some were totally fine with the new measures, and felt safer because of them.
Hijackings decreased. Air travel was affordable. Those were the halcyon days when you could walk to the gate to meet your family and friends, or shed a few tears saying good-bye. You could watch the plane come into or leave the gate. Your valuables, including your body, were safe from assault.
But just as violence happens outside of an airport, it was inevitable that there would be another airline attack, and it was massive. 9/11 changed America's sense of invulnerability. The cluelessness of the George W. Bush administration ignored all the signs that would have prevented 9/11, while the paranoia of the Dick Cheney contingent ushered in the Patriot Act of 2001 and all its abominations. It took the weenies in Congress less than two months to pass the law, and no amount of protestation over the loss of constitutional freedoms could stop them.
Imagine the chaos. And the horror stories.
And yet, with the security business booming and Americans as insecure as ever, in 2009 the TSA got away with adding full body scanners to the myriad tortures of proceeding onto an aircraft. Initially, they were to be used only when the walk through x-ray machine set off an alarm. But when you've got a really fancy-ass hammer, everything looks like a nail, so in no time everyone was required to submit to having their body perused. I said "got away with," but it wasn't easy. People were appalled that the scanners showed their naked image. And then there were those who were just appalled at the unnecessary invasion of privacy. So -- being the Obama administration -- the problem was investigated and full-body scanners were walked back. But, being the Obama administration, the problem was pursued until a new, improved full body scanner, that did not show us standing there, arms up, naked, became the new toy at the airport. I hate to say it, but Obama did continue the march toward cutting back on freedoms in the name of security; he just did it in a more studied, scientifically researched manner. The body scanner was once again a thing, although not used consistently, and the busier airports were far more pragmatic about enforcing their use than others: like, for example, the Charleston International Airport, which just can't believe we aren't next on the terrorist to-do list.
So back to me.
I am 67 years old, and a New Englander. As such, I've never been much for uninvited touching. The TSA attacks appalled me for civil rights violation reasons, and also for personal privacy reasons. I pretty much stopped flying after 9/11 when we all had to stand in line in order to have our suitcases opened up and watch our items fondled by gloved screeners before they were checked. So even before the obscene full-body scanners.
I would prefer to drive two days each way to Chicago than fly. I will in an instant choose the 23-hour Amtrak travel to Rhode Island than fly. I miss the days of walking freely through an airport as though it was just a public building, but don't at all miss air travel as it exists today.
So there I was, this summer, with a pregnant daughter all the way over in Denver. I honestly looked into cars and trains. The only not-insane way to get there is flying.
And then, a month before my grandbaby made her appearance, my sister in Rhode Island died suddenly. I booked a flight for the next day.
And had myself patted down for the first time ever at Charleston International. The culprit appeared to be the metal in my bra. I was upset about my sister's death, and rather than being silently stoic (which is what we are supposed to do), I said, "My sister died yesterday; I really don't need this." The TSA agent did not respond verbally, but made sure to give me a thorough check before allowing me to put my shoes back on and get on my way. On the way back, in Rhode Island, there was no such idiocy, and I was able to walk through the x-ray screener without incident.
A month later, my grandbaby was born, and I was once again booking a last minute flight. I had only a short time to obsess about the upcoming screening and happier things to think about. I was not surprised when we were all slowly and systematically herded through the body-scanners. But, having been sure to wear a bra that while less personally secure would not be likely to set off alarms, I was still patted down. This time not only my breasts but both my ankles.
And after a lovely week with my beautiful new grandbaby, frisked once again by what I had thought of as the more reasonable Denver TSA.
It appears to me that since Trump began his ham-fisted reign, the slippery slope of the TSA during the Obama years has become free to stomp on our privacy with abandon. The full-body scanners are either more sensitive or set to be more sensitive, TSA agents instructed to "search" far more freely than in the recent past. Not just an overweight woman in a bra with metal snaps, but the bulge of socks fallen around the ankle will also do it. I don't know how many of us are chosen for this, but I finally decided to stop obsessing and just watch the last time I was in line. Way too many pat-downs, way, way too many false positives. And way too many rights being violated.
Like the frog that is put in the pot while the water is still cold, we are now quietly allowing our bodies to be handled in a way that would have caused outrage and rebellion a few years ago.
And why should that surprise me? There are babies being torn from their parents and put in cells and African Americans being shot for traffic violations. We live in a country being led by a cretin that aspires to being a dictator, and is right this very minute working to close our borders, keep the press out of the White House, and cut off ties with our allies.
What is happening at our airports seems small next to having a baby torn out of your arms or being shot by a poorly-trained and/or racist cop.
But we let the "small" liberties go in the name of security. We kept sliding down that slippery slope, at first protesting and then just shrugging and going along with the intense scrutiny required just to travel. We have been allowing our purses to be ravaged just to go to a sporting event for years.
This in a country that won't even allow a background check before buying a gun, or restrict the sale of bump stocks and silencers.
I know this has been a long blog, but I have been thinking about this TSA thing and how it has gotten away from us for a long time. So it is going to get longer. Go grab a cup of coffee or a beer and bear with me.
The TSA and Breast Milk
I now have a grandbaby and a daughter who has begun to travel with her. On her first flight, over Thanksgiving, Denver TSA agents were befuddled over how to deal with her pumped breast milk. Obviously, she had a baby with her, what nefarious plot would require such a cover? And yet, they sniffed, opened and had meetings over how to proceed. It was upsetting to the point that she did not carry breast milk on the trip home, in order to avoid what should be a totally avoidable fiasco. Which made even more burdensome the feeding a three-month-old infant in a world where nursing moms get hassled by dirty-minded wingnuts.
A quick google search located another instance of the TSA assault on breast milk, amazingly also at Denver International, you know, where you can probably smuggle out legally purchased marijuana with ease. The blogger suggests ways to more easily get through screening, like bringing in printed TSA information to show the agent so they can learn the rules about breast milk on-the-job. The saddest thing about this particular post, however, is that she ends by suggesting paying for the use of a transportation service to carry your milk, if you are a traveling mom with a baby at home.
IF YOU ARE 75 OR OLDER, YOU CAN GET THROUGH TSA SCREENING WITHOUT TAKING YOUR SHOES OFF. This means that in the defective yet watchful eyes of our government, a 75-year-old is less likely to be a terrorist than a woman with an infant.
In 2013, the TSA even changed the rule about knives in order to allow small folding knives to be carried onto a plane. Until that decision proved so wacky that the outcry caused them to rethink it.
So women are once again singled out for the kind of personal scrutiny that is an embarrassment and a violation. Not to mention the incredible disruption of an already burdensome process of traveling with a small child. Why have we put up with it? Because women have always put up with special rules and restrictions. Just as we have put up with sexual discrimination at work, and inappropriate sexual approaches and assaults. If this isn't an issue to be taken up by #MeToo I don't know what is.
I Decide to Sell Out
I hope to visit my grandbaby every couple of months. In the interest of not having to deal with the abomination of a pat-down at the beginning of every trip, I decided to look into TSA Precheck.
Turns out for the low, low price of $85 for five years, you can apply for a precheck that will allow you to avoid the most humiliating and infuriating aspects of TSA screening. I wondered just how intensive this screening would be, if it really screened out those who might be dangerous on a flight. It seems that they run your name and fingerprints through their national database, looking for criminals and terrorists! The good news is, if you haven't yet been up to any criminal activity, not only are you good for prescreening, I'll bet there are terrorist organizations that would love to recruit you.
The difference that getting "awarded" TSA Precheck (for the low, low price of $85 for five years) is that next time you are at the security line at the airport you don't have to take off your shoes or light jacket. Then you get to go through a regular x-ray machine instead of a body-scanner, like we used to do in the old days. And you send your carry-ons on the belt through the x-ray scanner. In other words, you are allowed to do the perfectly adequate screening that you were allowed to do before 9/11 (except no box cutters or knives).
Here are some other effects of the Precheck: 1. There is a lot of money to be made by security companies, and our government loves to give money away to big corporations, as with private prisons. 2. As an added bonus, the government gets to add lots of non-criminals and their fingerprints to its database, and even better, voluntarily.
Precheck doesn't mean your privacy won't get invaded when you're not looking. We have known since the post 9/11 days when we stood and watched that our suitcases would be opened and inspected. I knew that checked luggage continued to be "checked" because the tie I used to minimally safeguard my suitcase from opening was frequently retied in a different way. But after my first precheck trip, I found this brazen confirmation, kind of a TSA "Fuck You and Your Rights":
It says: For your own safety we have the right to rummage around in your stuff. If you tried to lock us out, we busted our way in. And there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Think about it. I can carry on stuff that merely gets x-rayed. But my checked bags need to get opened. They honestly don't have and can't create the technology for seeing what is in our bag without opening it? Or they just want us to know they can....
When I got to Denver and was bitching about the TSA, my daughter told me about a TV series that most of you probably already know about called Adam Ruins Everything. In this episode, he ruins the myth that the TSA screening keeps us all safer and he does it with facts and experts. It's a great episode, and I knew it all along.
It's a sad day when intelligent Americans have willingly abandoned such critical freedoms as being able to travel without assaults on our privacy, and on our very bodies. Young adults are submitting to these atrocities because they have grown up in a 9/11 America in which privacy has been and is being subverted going on two decades in the name of security. Young women carrying babies are having to submit their breast milk to inspection and us older women to getting parts of our bodies touched that we wouldn't allow to happen in any other circumstance. And I have not even addressed the horrors that minorities, especially Muslim men, have had to endure since 9/11.
These days we are feeling overwhelmed by ever more horrendous attacks on civil liberties; mostly, they don't directly involve us, unless we are a minority, in which they have become a way of life. It is way past time we resensitize ourselves to the violations by our government to our rights. The Trump era is nothing but a really, really red flag of what we stand to lose, and each day we are losing just a bit more of it.
When you are at the airport, and standing stoically in line waiting to see if you will be frisked, look around. Be aware of how unlike a free democratic society this process has become. We don't make jokes or laugh. We don't debate, question or complain. We stand there trying not to be noticed and singled out. How un-American we have become.
In the words of John Oliver: "This is NOT normal."
When you are at the airport, and standing stoically in line waiting to see if you will be frisked, look around. Be aware of how unlike a free democratic society this process has become. We don't make jokes or laugh. We don't debate, question or complain. We stand there trying not to be noticed and singled out. How un-American we have become.
In the words of John Oliver: "This is NOT normal."
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
That School Board Election -- The Final Episode
When I wrote The School Board Election Quandary -- Part 2 I included my own recommendations. They are:
East Cooper -- Sarah Shad Johnson
West Ashley -- Paul H. Padron
I had not yet decided on the North Charleston race yet, so I am adding that here:
North Charleston -- Vivian Pettigrew
Also, as I said earlier, you are allowed to choose up to two candidates for the two vacant East Cooper seats. I prefer to choose one, as I believe in a close race choosing more than one candidate can take away from a first choice. Others disagree and want to use all allowable votes. If there were a gun to my head and I had to choose a second candidate for East Cooper (and, hey, this is South Carolina so it could happen...) I would choose Jake Rambo. But I really, really want to see Sarah Johnson on the school board, so I will only be voting for her in East Cooper. Up to you.
If you haven't voted yet -- and the big day is next Tuesday -- I hope this has helped.
If you have already voted, kudos. But don't stop now. Pass this information onto friends, family, coworkers, and help them get to the polls.
If there ever was a year we could see our candidates win, this is it. But every vote will matter.
East Cooper -- Sarah Shad Johnson
West Ashley -- Paul H. Padron
I had not yet decided on the North Charleston race yet, so I am adding that here:
North Charleston -- Vivian Pettigrew
Also, as I said earlier, you are allowed to choose up to two candidates for the two vacant East Cooper seats. I prefer to choose one, as I believe in a close race choosing more than one candidate can take away from a first choice. Others disagree and want to use all allowable votes. If there were a gun to my head and I had to choose a second candidate for East Cooper (and, hey, this is South Carolina so it could happen...) I would choose Jake Rambo. But I really, really want to see Sarah Johnson on the school board, so I will only be voting for her in East Cooper. Up to you.
If you haven't voted yet -- and the big day is next Tuesday -- I hope this has helped.
If you have already voted, kudos. But don't stop now. Pass this information onto friends, family, coworkers, and help them get to the polls.
If there ever was a year we could see our candidates win, this is it. But every vote will matter.
Sunday, October 21, 2018
The School Board Election Quandary -- Part 2
They all pretty much say the same thing. They are all there for the kids. Of course, they all want to improve our schools. They all want safe schools, quality education for all our children.
The way they want to get there is the thing.
I wrote in Part 1 of The School Board Election Quandary about the increase in magnet/charter schools and the drain this causes on already limited public school resources. The nice way to say it is "choice" (which we all seem to like when it doesn't refer to women's reproductive rights) but what it really amounts to is privatization, because once you have a charter school, you need somebody to run it. Enter the charter school business, which is booming. You will hear from candidates about spending tax dollars responsibly, but when they promote what is euphemistically called "Achievement School Districts" they are taking responsibility away from local government and handing it over to those who are not bound by state and local rules. And when you are promoting "pro-business" and "public-private partnerships" you are handing over schools to those who are more mindful of the bottom line than the needs of our children.
There are groups here in the Lowcountry that are pro-charter (read, pro-business), and there are groups that promote true public education. I think one of the best guidelines for which school board candidates to support is by who these groups endorse.
The Charleston Chamber of Commerce PAC endorsements have all the right buzzwords, as does their statement of educational goals. It is only when you get to the very last paragraph that they tell you the PAC's real agenda:
The PAC’s mission is to evaluate and support candidates for local and state office who acknowledge, support and actively vote for pro-business policies and legislation.
Which should tell you all you need to know about their endorsements.
Charleston Coalition for Kids is a big player in this year's school board election. Members include some familiar faces, like Joe Riley, as well as Ben Navarro and Anita Zucker, the latter two who the Post & Courier describe as "among the wealthiest people in the state." Their slick promotional video shows mostly white men described as business leaders interspersed with African-Americans described as parents.
Let me just say that we all want our kids to have the best possible education. I can't blame parents for being attracted to the slick promises of corporate education in the guise of charter schools, schools that can be free of burdensome state regulation. But the sad fact is that too many charter schools shake free of those regulations in order to advance profit. And I can't say this often enough: they will be draining the public coffers while they do it.
It is important to note that both the Chamber of Commerce PAC and Charleston Coalition for Kids endorse the same four candidates: Darby, Green, Coats and Mack. What I also find interesting is that both groups are talking about the need for change, yet three of the four endorsements are incumbents. So, the group that is complaining about the path of Charleston County Schools is endorsing the same people that got us here.
On the other hand, there are organizations that are truly dedicated to improving education for all children. They support public schools, and they are aware that we have failing public schools because they have inadequate resources. They know that funneling tax dollars into specialized schools (magnets) and schools that do not have to adhere to state educational guidelines (charters) have drained public school resources even further than our politicians' craze for cutting taxes has done. They provide information and evaluations of candidates online.
The Quality Education Project (QEP) has been active in getting communities involved in advocating for better schools, and in community based research to help determine what is needed. They will be providing within a couple of days evaluations of the school board candidates, which will be invaluable.
The League of Women Voters (LWV) provides at Vote411.org a Voter's Guide which gives you a personalized ballot. You can click on a race, say, "Charleston County School Board East Cooper" and it will give you the candidates and lots of information for each one, including contact information.
And then there are the candidate Facebook pages and websites. It is often as easy as googling the name and scrolling to what is obviously the FB or website. Or you can go to Ballotpedia.org to get a sample ballot, from which you can get website info on a candidate.
That brings us to the voting process. A candidate must live in the district in which they run, but all of us in Charleston County can -- and should -- vote in each district. This year, we will be able to vote as follows:
East Cooper: Choose up to two candidates of the four who are running.
North Charleston: Choose one candidate of the three who are running.
West Ashley: Choose one candidate of the three who are running.
Now, this is important. My friends and I have given this a bit of thought. While you should vote for at least one candidate for each area, if you are allowed more than one vote but you really like one candidate, I believe that using additional votes dilutes your vote. In other words, if you vote for two, you will be essentially splitting the vote and taking a vote away from your favored candidate. Again, this is my take, and I will only be voting for one candidate in each area.
So, who to choose? You will need to make your own informed decisions, but as you know, I am not shy about endorsing a candidate that I believe in. So I will end with my endorsements, and encourage you to check out their websites and make your own decision.
East Cooper -- Sarah Shad Johnson
North Charleston -- I will be waiting to see the QEP evaluations to choose between Linda Mosley Lucas and Vivian Pettigrew. The best info I could find on both was at vote411.org, where you can compare candidates' responses to their questionnaire.
West Ashley -- Paul H. Padron
In conclusion...
I am most specifically making my choices based on each candidate's past involvement and experience in, and commitment to, public schools. While in 2018 our schools are compelled to work with business to some extent, it is really important that business is not running the schools. I want candidates who are not afraid to spend money where it is needed: teachers' salaries, student supplies (including technology and sports), and infrastructure. It is so important that we have strong board members who are willing to fight for a curriculum that is current in the sciences -- who knew we would have to be fighting for the sciences in 2018? We need a board that will support teachers who raise difficult questions in order to develop awareness and critical thinking skills. We need board members who understand how important arts and literature are in growing children into creative and empathic adults.
And we need a board that sets as its priorities not developing special schools, but is determined to make all schools excellent in Charleston County.
One last thing:
School board are the most confusing and muddied races of all. Some vote haphazardly, some not at all. It stands to reason that a united effort for a good candidate can make a difference.
If you found these two blog posts helpful, please pass them along. Spread the word and increase the chances of putting good, pro-public education people on Charleston's school board.
The way they want to get there is the thing.
I wrote in Part 1 of The School Board Election Quandary about the increase in magnet/charter schools and the drain this causes on already limited public school resources. The nice way to say it is "choice" (which we all seem to like when it doesn't refer to women's reproductive rights) but what it really amounts to is privatization, because once you have a charter school, you need somebody to run it. Enter the charter school business, which is booming. You will hear from candidates about spending tax dollars responsibly, but when they promote what is euphemistically called "Achievement School Districts" they are taking responsibility away from local government and handing it over to those who are not bound by state and local rules. And when you are promoting "pro-business" and "public-private partnerships" you are handing over schools to those who are more mindful of the bottom line than the needs of our children.
There are groups here in the Lowcountry that are pro-charter (read, pro-business), and there are groups that promote true public education. I think one of the best guidelines for which school board candidates to support is by who these groups endorse.
The Charleston Chamber of Commerce PAC endorsements have all the right buzzwords, as does their statement of educational goals. It is only when you get to the very last paragraph that they tell you the PAC's real agenda:
The PAC’s mission is to evaluate and support candidates for local and state office who acknowledge, support and actively vote for pro-business policies and legislation.
Which should tell you all you need to know about their endorsements.
Charleston Coalition for Kids is a big player in this year's school board election. Members include some familiar faces, like Joe Riley, as well as Ben Navarro and Anita Zucker, the latter two who the Post & Courier describe as "among the wealthiest people in the state." Their slick promotional video shows mostly white men described as business leaders interspersed with African-Americans described as parents.
Let me just say that we all want our kids to have the best possible education. I can't blame parents for being attracted to the slick promises of corporate education in the guise of charter schools, schools that can be free of burdensome state regulation. But the sad fact is that too many charter schools shake free of those regulations in order to advance profit. And I can't say this often enough: they will be draining the public coffers while they do it.
It is important to note that both the Chamber of Commerce PAC and Charleston Coalition for Kids endorse the same four candidates: Darby, Green, Coats and Mack. What I also find interesting is that both groups are talking about the need for change, yet three of the four endorsements are incumbents. So, the group that is complaining about the path of Charleston County Schools is endorsing the same people that got us here.
On the other hand, there are organizations that are truly dedicated to improving education for all children. They support public schools, and they are aware that we have failing public schools because they have inadequate resources. They know that funneling tax dollars into specialized schools (magnets) and schools that do not have to adhere to state educational guidelines (charters) have drained public school resources even further than our politicians' craze for cutting taxes has done. They provide information and evaluations of candidates online.
The Quality Education Project (QEP) has been active in getting communities involved in advocating for better schools, and in community based research to help determine what is needed. They will be providing within a couple of days evaluations of the school board candidates, which will be invaluable.
The League of Women Voters (LWV) provides at Vote411.org a Voter's Guide which gives you a personalized ballot. You can click on a race, say, "Charleston County School Board East Cooper" and it will give you the candidates and lots of information for each one, including contact information.
And then there are the candidate Facebook pages and websites. It is often as easy as googling the name and scrolling to what is obviously the FB or website. Or you can go to Ballotpedia.org to get a sample ballot, from which you can get website info on a candidate.
That brings us to the voting process. A candidate must live in the district in which they run, but all of us in Charleston County can -- and should -- vote in each district. This year, we will be able to vote as follows:
East Cooper: Choose up to two candidates of the four who are running.
North Charleston: Choose one candidate of the three who are running.
West Ashley: Choose one candidate of the three who are running.
Now, this is important. My friends and I have given this a bit of thought. While you should vote for at least one candidate for each area, if you are allowed more than one vote but you really like one candidate, I believe that using additional votes dilutes your vote. In other words, if you vote for two, you will be essentially splitting the vote and taking a vote away from your favored candidate. Again, this is my take, and I will only be voting for one candidate in each area.
So, who to choose? You will need to make your own informed decisions, but as you know, I am not shy about endorsing a candidate that I believe in. So I will end with my endorsements, and encourage you to check out their websites and make your own decision.
East Cooper -- Sarah Shad Johnson
North Charleston -- I will be waiting to see the QEP evaluations to choose between Linda Mosley Lucas and Vivian Pettigrew. The best info I could find on both was at vote411.org, where you can compare candidates' responses to their questionnaire.
West Ashley -- Paul H. Padron
In conclusion...
I am most specifically making my choices based on each candidate's past involvement and experience in, and commitment to, public schools. While in 2018 our schools are compelled to work with business to some extent, it is really important that business is not running the schools. I want candidates who are not afraid to spend money where it is needed: teachers' salaries, student supplies (including technology and sports), and infrastructure. It is so important that we have strong board members who are willing to fight for a curriculum that is current in the sciences -- who knew we would have to be fighting for the sciences in 2018? We need a board that will support teachers who raise difficult questions in order to develop awareness and critical thinking skills. We need board members who understand how important arts and literature are in growing children into creative and empathic adults.
And we need a board that sets as its priorities not developing special schools, but is determined to make all schools excellent in Charleston County.
One last thing:
School board are the most confusing and muddied races of all. Some vote haphazardly, some not at all. It stands to reason that a united effort for a good candidate can make a difference.
If you found these two blog posts helpful, please pass them along. Spread the word and increase the chances of putting good, pro-public education people on Charleston's school board.
Friday, October 19, 2018
The School Board Election Quandary - Part 1
If you don't have time to investigate those pesky school board elections, you aren't alone. I think too many of us (myself included) have gone into the voting booth embarrassed that we don't have a clue who the candidates are or what they stand for. We choose our candidates as though we are playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey.
And we pretty much end up voting for candidates whose names are most familiar, for some reason we can't quite grasp. The reason ends up being the person with the most signs, or the biggest signs, or the nicest slogan, or the nicest name. We maybe vote for the incumbent, just because their name is most familiar.
Really, there just aren't enough hours in the day. And yet, these races are the ones that turn out to be most critical in our day-to-day lives. They affect not just what is taught in our schools, but the qualifications of who does the teaching, the size of the classes, and the condition of the buildings our kids are taught in.
To make matters worse on election day, we have a system that flummoxed me for years, wherein we all vote for candidates from each district regardless of where we live, and sometimes we vote for one candidate in a district, and other times we vote for more than one. I would not be surprised if some of us just skip over districts we don't reside in because we don't think we really are supposed to be voting for those candidates. It is just befuddling.
So for the past few years, I spend most of my time following other races, and then ask knowledgeable friends what they think of the school board candidates. And then, before I write here about it, I look up the candidates for myself. But the issues behind the candidates turn out to be critical, and yet not all that complicated. The face of the candidate, however, can be entirely different than what that candidate really stands for. And so, that is where we need to begin.
The big battles, no surprise, have to do with magnets/charter schools and eventually, the elephant in the room, segregation. There are zillions of studies of varying quality, and even more zillions of opinions, on the efficacy of magnets and charter schools. And the magic word is "choice."
Here is my two cents.
The best schools have a mix: they teach college and career track students equally well. They provide quality services for special needs students of all types, from academically accelerated (I hate the word "gifted") to those who need extra time and help. They have teachers who have a range of skills and class sizes that will allow those teachers to be most effective. They challenge kids at all levels, and in all kinds of pursuits.
Because this is a huge task, magnet schools seemed to fill some needs some of the time very well. From there, it became easier -- in the short run -- to create a magnet school for a special population rather than incorporate different populations into the community's schools. That means traveling to the school, often many miles away. It means having separate buildings where those special kids are segregated. It means far too many kids aren't getting a broad enough education to be able to evolve as they grow up or as society changes. And it means that kids are coming into contact only with others that share whatever particular learning trait we've decided to feature in that particular school.
Charter schools have different enticements. They happen when a community is unhappy with their schools, and decide they want to take matters into their own hands. They apply and get approval from state and/or county, and then elect their own board, which then makes its own rules and does its own hiring. So, whatever they tell you, a charter school is only as good as the people that are running it. The public relations promotion of charter schools has been intense, from advertising to movies. They, of course, focus on the brilliant successes of the charter schools they highlight. More objective studies report that the success of charter schools is no greater than that of public schools. They both depend on the expertise and, yes, dollars put into them.
The problem with both magnets and charter schools is that they take tax dollars that should be spread equitably across the county, further exhausting public school resources. To be honest, public school funding is a bang-for-your-buck situation. If everyone pays taxes based on what they can afford, and then it is spent equitably across the area, we are more likely to see better schools across the entire area. The way we are doing it now, we are putting more money into some specially designated schools, taking it away from public schools, draining them of resources and making them worse. Which those who support charters and magnets THEN use to further promote the need for charters and magnets, further draining public school resources.... And so it goes.
There is a lot of money going into campaigns that are pushing for school "choice," the advantages of magnets and charters being the major talking point. What it amounts to is that a lot of money will be going from our public schools into private schools, or schools that operate independently of public schools and the school board. Follow the money.
And the candidates who promote "choice" are trained well in using the most enticing words and phrases. But the bottom line is that some -- too many -- of our kids will be left out in the cold after the tax dollars are doled out to the special schools. This is the downward spiral we in Charleston and South Carolina have been experiencing for far too many years, and too many generations of our children. It is time to get back to the goal of real public education with good, well-paid teachers and school programs and campuses that we can be proud of.
I will be talking more about the specific candidates, the groups that are backing them, and that bizarre voting process next.
And we pretty much end up voting for candidates whose names are most familiar, for some reason we can't quite grasp. The reason ends up being the person with the most signs, or the biggest signs, or the nicest slogan, or the nicest name. We maybe vote for the incumbent, just because their name is most familiar.
Really, there just aren't enough hours in the day. And yet, these races are the ones that turn out to be most critical in our day-to-day lives. They affect not just what is taught in our schools, but the qualifications of who does the teaching, the size of the classes, and the condition of the buildings our kids are taught in.
To make matters worse on election day, we have a system that flummoxed me for years, wherein we all vote for candidates from each district regardless of where we live, and sometimes we vote for one candidate in a district, and other times we vote for more than one. I would not be surprised if some of us just skip over districts we don't reside in because we don't think we really are supposed to be voting for those candidates. It is just befuddling.
So for the past few years, I spend most of my time following other races, and then ask knowledgeable friends what they think of the school board candidates. And then, before I write here about it, I look up the candidates for myself. But the issues behind the candidates turn out to be critical, and yet not all that complicated. The face of the candidate, however, can be entirely different than what that candidate really stands for. And so, that is where we need to begin.
The big battles, no surprise, have to do with magnets/charter schools and eventually, the elephant in the room, segregation. There are zillions of studies of varying quality, and even more zillions of opinions, on the efficacy of magnets and charter schools. And the magic word is "choice."
Here is my two cents.
The best schools have a mix: they teach college and career track students equally well. They provide quality services for special needs students of all types, from academically accelerated (I hate the word "gifted") to those who need extra time and help. They have teachers who have a range of skills and class sizes that will allow those teachers to be most effective. They challenge kids at all levels, and in all kinds of pursuits.
Because this is a huge task, magnet schools seemed to fill some needs some of the time very well. From there, it became easier -- in the short run -- to create a magnet school for a special population rather than incorporate different populations into the community's schools. That means traveling to the school, often many miles away. It means having separate buildings where those special kids are segregated. It means far too many kids aren't getting a broad enough education to be able to evolve as they grow up or as society changes. And it means that kids are coming into contact only with others that share whatever particular learning trait we've decided to feature in that particular school.
Charter schools have different enticements. They happen when a community is unhappy with their schools, and decide they want to take matters into their own hands. They apply and get approval from state and/or county, and then elect their own board, which then makes its own rules and does its own hiring. So, whatever they tell you, a charter school is only as good as the people that are running it. The public relations promotion of charter schools has been intense, from advertising to movies. They, of course, focus on the brilliant successes of the charter schools they highlight. More objective studies report that the success of charter schools is no greater than that of public schools. They both depend on the expertise and, yes, dollars put into them.
The problem with both magnets and charter schools is that they take tax dollars that should be spread equitably across the county, further exhausting public school resources. To be honest, public school funding is a bang-for-your-buck situation. If everyone pays taxes based on what they can afford, and then it is spent equitably across the area, we are more likely to see better schools across the entire area. The way we are doing it now, we are putting more money into some specially designated schools, taking it away from public schools, draining them of resources and making them worse. Which those who support charters and magnets THEN use to further promote the need for charters and magnets, further draining public school resources.... And so it goes.
There is a lot of money going into campaigns that are pushing for school "choice," the advantages of magnets and charters being the major talking point. What it amounts to is that a lot of money will be going from our public schools into private schools, or schools that operate independently of public schools and the school board. Follow the money.
And the candidates who promote "choice" are trained well in using the most enticing words and phrases. But the bottom line is that some -- too many -- of our kids will be left out in the cold after the tax dollars are doled out to the special schools. This is the downward spiral we in Charleston and South Carolina have been experiencing for far too many years, and too many generations of our children. It is time to get back to the goal of real public education with good, well-paid teachers and school programs and campuses that we can be proud of.
I will be talking more about the specific candidates, the groups that are backing them, and that bizarre voting process next.
Monday, October 8, 2018
Lindsey v. Women
The thing about the tantrums we saw last week, both from Brett Kavanaugh and Lindsey Graham, was that they both sounded like men who had been spending way too much time with the "president." It makes sense, doesn't it, that if he can get away with it, they can too. And they did.
Women like Susan Collins, who pretend to be pro-women, are really throwbacks, as are any republican women who will tolerate and make excuses for raging men, and minimize the assaults on women. I guess because she is a women, successful in the republican party, she knew to keep her head down, study the notes she was given, and act like she was taking the high road.
The double-talk we heard last week may have taken us by surprise, but shouldn't have. It was the same double-talk we heard during the Clarence Thomas hearing. The woman was confused; the woman allowed herself to be put in that position; the woman waited until she had something to gain (?!) by coming forward when she did; while we sympathize with the woman, we don't believe her. The man is having his reputation destroyed; his family and career are being harmed; his sincerity cannot be doubted. Lies excused, attacks rationalized.
Why wouldn't Kavanaugh stick it out? He had powerful and loud men on his side. Donald Trump has insulted every-damn-body in the world, and knows that they will stand by him as long as he has power to wield. And, like Clarence Thomas in 1991, Kavanaugh ends up not having his family and career destroyed: he ends up with a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
And then there is Lindsey. He has been taken for a ride -- and not just on the golf course -- more than once by Trump. But he has what Trump preys on: ambition. So he has been strung along since November of 2016, at first tentatively throwing his support, and then with more fervor, no, fever. What we witnessed from Graham last week was nothing short of hysteria. He was indeed crazed.
Like Kavanaugh, he had been spending a lot of time listening to presidential rants and invective, to the point where reason was a distant memory, calm was no longer even in the repertoire.
So it was no surprise that after Graham's rant, women -- and good men -- across the country rose up with outrage. We need to do something NOW, and the passion and determination is NOW.
I was not surprised to receive an email during that time from the South Carolina Democratic Party. What did surprise me was that they were promoting past chair and bombast Jaime Harrison as their choice to oppose Lindsey Graham in 2020.
First of all, I have heard Harrison speak just a few times, including a couple of appearances on Rachel Maddow before the 2016 SC primaries. I may be wrong, but it seems that whatever question he is asked, Harrison will respond with a long-winded replay of who he is and how he got here. Harrison's success as chair can only be summed up by the Democrats' losses in local, state and national government during his reign.
That said, the most important thing about where the party stands today is that they are not RIGHT NOW promoting a woman to run against Lindsey Graham in 2020. With the successes of women running for office across the country, with the rage and determination that resulted from the mockery of a Senate Supreme Court nomination hearing, it never occurred to our state party that Graham's assault was an invitation.
Had the situation been reversed -- and I am happy to say that wouldn't have ever happened -- but if it had -- by the end of the tirade, there would have been meetings and "bindersful of women" to parade in front of the electorate; fund raising emails promising the revenge of victimized women would have gone out in minutes.
While republicans disdain women, they know how to use us. That is why we had a Nikki Haley as governor, but we can't seem to promote and elect a Democratic woman governor. It pains me to say it, but they will use Nikki all the way to the presidency, and she will be happy to be used.
We do have fantastic women on the political stage in South Carolina. While the party might jump on board when they smell success, they don't put their money or their mouth into finding and promoting women that are right here for the running.
We don't just have smart and motivated women, we have organizations right here in South Carolina that will help.
Right off the top, we have South Carolina Democratic Women's Council, and local chapters, including Charleston County Democratic Women. I wish I could say women were well represented on the Democratic Party websites, but you have to look hard to find them. If you want to hook up with the Women's Council or CCDW, your best bet is to look on Facebook.
Then there are the women's action networks that have grown HUGE since 2016. WREN -- Women's Rights and Empowerment Network -- is fighting for women's issues across the state, from wage equality to healthcare to empowering women to seek leadership roles in business and, yes, politics. Emerge America opened its doors in South Carolina in 2017. I can't speak highly enough about the work they are doing to encourage and train women to run for political office. Thinking you can do a better job than the jackasses now in office? Get in touch with Emerge SC. Want to help women who have decided to run? Contact Emerge SC.
And of course we have great groups here in South Carolina like Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the American Association of University Women, both of which can be counted on to promote women in government as well as women's issues in healthcare and education.
Then there are all the women right here, right now, that we should be persuading to take on Lindsey Graham. Just a few names come to mind; I'm sure we can put our heads together and think of lots more:
So, here we are. Do we jump up and down and wave our hands so that our Democratic Party will listen to us? Do we -- both women and men -- insist on being represented equally in government and especially in the Democratic Party?
And most important TODAY, after Lindsey Graham invited us to step up and challenge him, do we find a woman who will fight for us, so that a misogynist like Lindsey will not be holding down that seat and voting against our interests in Congress after 2020?
Write, call, email your state and local Democratic Party. They won't take this step unless it is absolutely clear we will accept no less. Spread the word on Facebook, at home, at work, community meetings.
Finding and supporting a woman to step up and take on Lindsey Graham for Senate in 2020 needs to start now. And it should really be a no-brainer.
It is time for Lindsey to go. And he seems to agree.
Women like Susan Collins, who pretend to be pro-women, are really throwbacks, as are any republican women who will tolerate and make excuses for raging men, and minimize the assaults on women. I guess because she is a women, successful in the republican party, she knew to keep her head down, study the notes she was given, and act like she was taking the high road.
The double-talk we heard last week may have taken us by surprise, but shouldn't have. It was the same double-talk we heard during the Clarence Thomas hearing. The woman was confused; the woman allowed herself to be put in that position; the woman waited until she had something to gain (?!) by coming forward when she did; while we sympathize with the woman, we don't believe her. The man is having his reputation destroyed; his family and career are being harmed; his sincerity cannot be doubted. Lies excused, attacks rationalized.
Why wouldn't Kavanaugh stick it out? He had powerful and loud men on his side. Donald Trump has insulted every-damn-body in the world, and knows that they will stand by him as long as he has power to wield. And, like Clarence Thomas in 1991, Kavanaugh ends up not having his family and career destroyed: he ends up with a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
And then there is Lindsey. He has been taken for a ride -- and not just on the golf course -- more than once by Trump. But he has what Trump preys on: ambition. So he has been strung along since November of 2016, at first tentatively throwing his support, and then with more fervor, no, fever. What we witnessed from Graham last week was nothing short of hysteria. He was indeed crazed.
Like Kavanaugh, he had been spending a lot of time listening to presidential rants and invective, to the point where reason was a distant memory, calm was no longer even in the repertoire.
So it was no surprise that after Graham's rant, women -- and good men -- across the country rose up with outrage. We need to do something NOW, and the passion and determination is NOW.
I was not surprised to receive an email during that time from the South Carolina Democratic Party. What did surprise me was that they were promoting past chair and bombast Jaime Harrison as their choice to oppose Lindsey Graham in 2020.
First of all, I have heard Harrison speak just a few times, including a couple of appearances on Rachel Maddow before the 2016 SC primaries. I may be wrong, but it seems that whatever question he is asked, Harrison will respond with a long-winded replay of who he is and how he got here. Harrison's success as chair can only be summed up by the Democrats' losses in local, state and national government during his reign.
That said, the most important thing about where the party stands today is that they are not RIGHT NOW promoting a woman to run against Lindsey Graham in 2020. With the successes of women running for office across the country, with the rage and determination that resulted from the mockery of a Senate Supreme Court nomination hearing, it never occurred to our state party that Graham's assault was an invitation.
Had the situation been reversed -- and I am happy to say that wouldn't have ever happened -- but if it had -- by the end of the tirade, there would have been meetings and "bindersful of women" to parade in front of the electorate; fund raising emails promising the revenge of victimized women would have gone out in minutes.
While republicans disdain women, they know how to use us. That is why we had a Nikki Haley as governor, but we can't seem to promote and elect a Democratic woman governor. It pains me to say it, but they will use Nikki all the way to the presidency, and she will be happy to be used.
We do have fantastic women on the political stage in South Carolina. While the party might jump on board when they smell success, they don't put their money or their mouth into finding and promoting women that are right here for the running.
We don't just have smart and motivated women, we have organizations right here in South Carolina that will help.
Right off the top, we have South Carolina Democratic Women's Council, and local chapters, including Charleston County Democratic Women. I wish I could say women were well represented on the Democratic Party websites, but you have to look hard to find them. If you want to hook up with the Women's Council or CCDW, your best bet is to look on Facebook.
Then there are the women's action networks that have grown HUGE since 2016. WREN -- Women's Rights and Empowerment Network -- is fighting for women's issues across the state, from wage equality to healthcare to empowering women to seek leadership roles in business and, yes, politics. Emerge America opened its doors in South Carolina in 2017. I can't speak highly enough about the work they are doing to encourage and train women to run for political office. Thinking you can do a better job than the jackasses now in office? Get in touch with Emerge SC. Want to help women who have decided to run? Contact Emerge SC.
And of course we have great groups here in South Carolina like Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the American Association of University Women, both of which can be counted on to promote women in government as well as women's issues in healthcare and education.
Then there are all the women right here, right now, that we should be persuading to take on Lindsey Graham. Just a few names come to mind; I'm sure we can put our heads together and think of lots more:
SC Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter from Orangeburg
Linda Ketner, who in 2008 nearly defeated 4-term incumbent Henry Brown for US Congress District 1
Margie Bright Matthews, SC state Senator for District 45
State Senator Mia McLeod from Richmond County,
So, here we are. Do we jump up and down and wave our hands so that our Democratic Party will listen to us? Do we -- both women and men -- insist on being represented equally in government and especially in the Democratic Party?
And most important TODAY, after Lindsey Graham invited us to step up and challenge him, do we find a woman who will fight for us, so that a misogynist like Lindsey will not be holding down that seat and voting against our interests in Congress after 2020?
Write, call, email your state and local Democratic Party. They won't take this step unless it is absolutely clear we will accept no less. Spread the word on Facebook, at home, at work, community meetings.
Finding and supporting a woman to step up and take on Lindsey Graham for Senate in 2020 needs to start now. And it should really be a no-brainer.
It is time for Lindsey to go. And he seems to agree.
 |
| "I hope the American people can see through this sham." |
Sunday, September 30, 2018
The Times, Are They a-Changing?
I've heard quite a number of women now remark on Brett Kavanaugh's emotional tantrum during Thursday's Senate hearing. They actually recognized his tears for what they were: rage at having been called to question for his past. Up until now, Kavanaugh has had the bejeweled life of a white boy who went to the best prep school and college, who was groomed for success. He was so confident -- cocky --about his bright and shining future, that he had made jokes about his rambunctious past behavior in front of a group of a group of law students at Catholic University for gods' sake:
"...fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day,... which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep....' That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."
Until today, that is. Today the thought of this man having the power of a Supreme Court Justice was just too much for a few women to bear. Until now, men like Brett Kavanaugh and his drinking buddy Mark Judge, and like his admirer Donald Trump, were able to treat women with condescension and insult, and assume that all the bad behavior of their past would be of no consequence to their fortunes.
Kavanaugh's statement was pretty unbelievable. He states proudly that he showed it to no one except one of his clerks. Maybe that was his first mistake. His tone was defensive from the beginning, his face contorted into rage. His attacks were many, and bizarre, naming the Democrats in general and the ever-popular Clinton conspiracy machine in particular. I imagine that holing up for days in the White House while you plan your attack (i.e. defense) will do that to a person.
Let me admit here that I was planning on listening again to Kavanaugh's opening statement, but just could not do it. Over the past weeks I have heard enough lies from this smart and conceited brat. I have been, since 2015, tainted by the ugly comments of our now sitting "president," and don't have much stomach for that kind of bullshit. I did hear him avoid asking for an FBI investigation, and noted his clever legal tap-dance around the issue. I'll bet he didn't even need to rehearse his responses, he is so good at the maneuvers that have gotten him to this point in his life.
He took his attitude from Clarence Thomas, who did the outrage thing at his hearing in 1991. But Kavanaugh did not count on women who, in 2018, are fed up with the hatred and rage spewed by men of power when they are held to account. We hear it in his voice, and his words.
It may be that Brett Kavanaugh's behavior at one time so scared him that he turned to God and went on the straight and narrow. But it may also be that he has merely sculpted himself to look like the type of man who has always done the right thing. Studies, sports and church indeed. And it may be that the powerful white boy's club we have in this country accepted his whitewash and welcomed him into their arms, and he has never been challenged before. Indeed, he said in so many words that he has never been challenged the way he is being challenged now.
We had a helluva nerve.
He certainly had good cause to assume his confirmation would be a slam dunk. That is the way the Senate works these days, provided you are on the right side of this right wing. You will be protected. You don't have to answer a question if you don't want to, and those in power will help you dance around it if the questioner is too persistent. Chuck Grassley has done a fine job of that, cutting Democrats off in mid-sentence when the air gets too thick. Even so, the questions continued to come. And the women, brave hearts that they are, continued to come forward.
Appalling: Brett Kavanaugh was appalled at being called to account for a past that he has never even had to hide. I tried to imagine the fate of a person in Judge Kavanaugh's courtroom being asked a question he did not want to answer and responding, as he did with Senator Amy Klobuchar's question about whether he had ever blacked out, "I don't know, have you?" Imagine Kavanaugh tolerating the belligerence he himself demonstrated.
I have heard many comparisons now of Kavanaugh's testimony to that of Dr. Ford, who was restrained and polite, and obviously attempting to answer as completely and honestly as possible. What this hearing put me in mind of, though, was all those hours Hillary Clinton spent being harassed by this partisan Congress.
Hillary, too, was hoping to be chosen for an important position in the government. What happened to her in Congress impacted her and the entire country. Through all the accusations, through all the tortured and twisted investigations of everything she had ever said or done, Hillary held herself with dignity. She was knowledgeable and professional. She was tireless. She never tried to avoid a question, or an investigation. She never had a tantrum.
Because if she had, the men (and, sadly, too many women) would have pointed to her and said that this was proof that she was lying. Meanwhile, hours and hours of testimony made their way into the media and took over the narrative of her campaign. Still, she never attempted to refuse or avoid an investigation. Not just because she was innocent, which she was, but because that is the temperament of a leader.
Brett Kavanaugh did not feel the need to reign in his behavior or his attitude. He reeked of haughtiness and privilege, and self-importance. He demonstrated exactly why he should not be on the court -- any court. He stated melodramatically that his name has been "permanently destroyed by vicious and false... accusations."
One has to wonder why he would think, if he were innocent, why his life would be "permanently destroyed." Remember, this is a judge. Who presumably believes in the law, and the courts. And who would have no compunction at all in demanding that any of us in his courtroom answer his questions. And presumably assumes that the innocent would walk away happy to have had their day in court.
Apparently, Brett Kavanaugh does not believe that the truth will set him free. Wonder why?
And I also have to wonder why someone of Kavanaugh's intelligence, who can argue the existence of angels on the head of a pin -- or the right to prevent a young woman from having a legal abortion -- would resort to such a slew of transparent and insulting lies. Attributing "ralphing" to a weak stomach. Lying brazenly about yearbook entries: calling cruel references to being a "Renate alumnus" as honoring their friendship and calling the "Devil's Triangle" a drinking game. I could just about picture him as a 17-year-old giving these answers, straight-faced, and then walking out of the room and bursting into laughter at having lied so convincingly.
We have also heard the comparisons between this hearing and that of Anita Hill. We have had too many years of the smug and silent Clarence Thomas flaunting his right wing privilege over the poor and powerless of the country. Granted, if justice had been served all those years ago, we may yet have had a conservative justice in his place who spoke out against women and minority rights, but we would not be haunted by the overtly misogynistic acts of the man and those who ignored compelling testimony to vote him to the Supreme Court.
So, where are we?
I won't even say I feel cautiously optimistic about the decision to have the FBI investigate Kavanaugh and the accusations. The FBI may be bringing us the Russia investigation, but they also brought us Hillary's emails, and the door slamming on her campaign days before the election. I wonder who Trump is reaching out to on the FBI, and how he is attempting to pull the strings of this investigation. You know Trump. You know he is.
I admit, I will be surprised if what happens is a thorough "limited investigation," and I will be further surprised if the Senate (no longer Chuck Grassley but the even more vile Mitch McConnell in charge) proceeds in an open and professional manner.
What should have happened weeks ago is that Kavanaugh should have withdrawn his nomination. But he wants that post and that power so much that he can taste it, and it tastes better than any brew he has ever chugged. He knows that in 1991 a similar hearing was rigged to halt further testimony, and that justice sits on the bench today. His belief that a sitting president is immune to prosecution assures him that the deck is stacked in his favor by the most powerful man in the country, the one he would protect.
So we wait and see. I cannot imagine a world in which we don't vote to take over the House and the Senate in November. I don't want to believe that Americans can be that jaded and, frankly, stupid. But I was here in 2016, and I know the impossible can happen. And in the weeks to come we will find out whether women's voices matter any more than they did in 1991, or whether the rage of powerful men will drown them out.
"...fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day,... which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep....' That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."
Until today, that is. Today the thought of this man having the power of a Supreme Court Justice was just too much for a few women to bear. Until now, men like Brett Kavanaugh and his drinking buddy Mark Judge, and like his admirer Donald Trump, were able to treat women with condescension and insult, and assume that all the bad behavior of their past would be of no consequence to their fortunes.
Kavanaugh's statement was pretty unbelievable. He states proudly that he showed it to no one except one of his clerks. Maybe that was his first mistake. His tone was defensive from the beginning, his face contorted into rage. His attacks were many, and bizarre, naming the Democrats in general and the ever-popular Clinton conspiracy machine in particular. I imagine that holing up for days in the White House while you plan your attack (i.e. defense) will do that to a person.
Let me admit here that I was planning on listening again to Kavanaugh's opening statement, but just could not do it. Over the past weeks I have heard enough lies from this smart and conceited brat. I have been, since 2015, tainted by the ugly comments of our now sitting "president," and don't have much stomach for that kind of bullshit. I did hear him avoid asking for an FBI investigation, and noted his clever legal tap-dance around the issue. I'll bet he didn't even need to rehearse his responses, he is so good at the maneuvers that have gotten him to this point in his life.
He took his attitude from Clarence Thomas, who did the outrage thing at his hearing in 1991. But Kavanaugh did not count on women who, in 2018, are fed up with the hatred and rage spewed by men of power when they are held to account. We hear it in his voice, and his words.
It may be that Brett Kavanaugh's behavior at one time so scared him that he turned to God and went on the straight and narrow. But it may also be that he has merely sculpted himself to look like the type of man who has always done the right thing. Studies, sports and church indeed. And it may be that the powerful white boy's club we have in this country accepted his whitewash and welcomed him into their arms, and he has never been challenged before. Indeed, he said in so many words that he has never been challenged the way he is being challenged now.
We had a helluva nerve.
He certainly had good cause to assume his confirmation would be a slam dunk. That is the way the Senate works these days, provided you are on the right side of this right wing. You will be protected. You don't have to answer a question if you don't want to, and those in power will help you dance around it if the questioner is too persistent. Chuck Grassley has done a fine job of that, cutting Democrats off in mid-sentence when the air gets too thick. Even so, the questions continued to come. And the women, brave hearts that they are, continued to come forward.
Appalling: Brett Kavanaugh was appalled at being called to account for a past that he has never even had to hide. I tried to imagine the fate of a person in Judge Kavanaugh's courtroom being asked a question he did not want to answer and responding, as he did with Senator Amy Klobuchar's question about whether he had ever blacked out, "I don't know, have you?" Imagine Kavanaugh tolerating the belligerence he himself demonstrated.
Hillary, too, was hoping to be chosen for an important position in the government. What happened to her in Congress impacted her and the entire country. Through all the accusations, through all the tortured and twisted investigations of everything she had ever said or done, Hillary held herself with dignity. She was knowledgeable and professional. She was tireless. She never tried to avoid a question, or an investigation. She never had a tantrum.
Because if she had, the men (and, sadly, too many women) would have pointed to her and said that this was proof that she was lying. Meanwhile, hours and hours of testimony made their way into the media and took over the narrative of her campaign. Still, she never attempted to refuse or avoid an investigation. Not just because she was innocent, which she was, but because that is the temperament of a leader.
Brett Kavanaugh did not feel the need to reign in his behavior or his attitude. He reeked of haughtiness and privilege, and self-importance. He demonstrated exactly why he should not be on the court -- any court. He stated melodramatically that his name has been "permanently destroyed by vicious and false... accusations."
One has to wonder why he would think, if he were innocent, why his life would be "permanently destroyed." Remember, this is a judge. Who presumably believes in the law, and the courts. And who would have no compunction at all in demanding that any of us in his courtroom answer his questions. And presumably assumes that the innocent would walk away happy to have had their day in court.
Apparently, Brett Kavanaugh does not believe that the truth will set him free. Wonder why?
And I also have to wonder why someone of Kavanaugh's intelligence, who can argue the existence of angels on the head of a pin -- or the right to prevent a young woman from having a legal abortion -- would resort to such a slew of transparent and insulting lies. Attributing "ralphing" to a weak stomach. Lying brazenly about yearbook entries: calling cruel references to being a "Renate alumnus" as honoring their friendship and calling the "Devil's Triangle" a drinking game. I could just about picture him as a 17-year-old giving these answers, straight-faced, and then walking out of the room and bursting into laughter at having lied so convincingly.
We have also heard the comparisons between this hearing and that of Anita Hill. We have had too many years of the smug and silent Clarence Thomas flaunting his right wing privilege over the poor and powerless of the country. Granted, if justice had been served all those years ago, we may yet have had a conservative justice in his place who spoke out against women and minority rights, but we would not be haunted by the overtly misogynistic acts of the man and those who ignored compelling testimony to vote him to the Supreme Court.
So, where are we?
I won't even say I feel cautiously optimistic about the decision to have the FBI investigate Kavanaugh and the accusations. The FBI may be bringing us the Russia investigation, but they also brought us Hillary's emails, and the door slamming on her campaign days before the election. I wonder who Trump is reaching out to on the FBI, and how he is attempting to pull the strings of this investigation. You know Trump. You know he is.
I admit, I will be surprised if what happens is a thorough "limited investigation," and I will be further surprised if the Senate (no longer Chuck Grassley but the even more vile Mitch McConnell in charge) proceeds in an open and professional manner.
What should have happened weeks ago is that Kavanaugh should have withdrawn his nomination. But he wants that post and that power so much that he can taste it, and it tastes better than any brew he has ever chugged. He knows that in 1991 a similar hearing was rigged to halt further testimony, and that justice sits on the bench today. His belief that a sitting president is immune to prosecution assures him that the deck is stacked in his favor by the most powerful man in the country, the one he would protect.
So we wait and see. I cannot imagine a world in which we don't vote to take over the House and the Senate in November. I don't want to believe that Americans can be that jaded and, frankly, stupid. But I was here in 2016, and I know the impossible can happen. And in the weeks to come we will find out whether women's voices matter any more than they did in 1991, or whether the rage of powerful men will drown them out.
Friday, August 3, 2018
Leading Without a Clue
Donald Trump thinks we have to show ID's in order to buy groceries. Yes, that is hilarious; it is also just another example of the verbal diarrhea that is Donald Trump. But it also points to something essential to what is wrong with our government, something we have overlooked for far too long.
The people who run our government don't have a clue who we are.
Trump is a perfect example, because he has so completely isolated himself from the real world. When do you think was the last time he bought something on his own? With cash? In public? When was the last time he even walked on a sidewalk in any city, much less down a road in a suburb. For that matter, when was the last time he was driven through one of those towns in which any of us live other than to get to a rally where he pretends to be like us?
And no, I'm not even talking about since he became "president." He was as closely guarded and isolated before he hunkered down in what was once the people's house. Other than his lowly employees, Donald Trump has no friends or associates that come even close to living the life of most Americans. And we should know by now that he only gets close enough to his employees to pick their pockets.
But what of the rest of those elected officials? In 2012, Mitt Romney provided some comic relief when he went grocery shopping, and before that, the elder George Bush was astonished to find that supermarkets had scanners at checkout. Nikki Haley may have known that you don't have to show ID to buy groceries, but she sure as hell doesn't have a clue what it is like to work forty hours or more at minimum wage, or even at median wage, and then go home and cook for a family. And I wonder when was the last time Nikki walked down the street to actually get somewhere, or went out to "run errands." Or rubbed elbows with any of us when it wasn't politically motivated.
Because that is when we see our elected officials. They show up now and then, less so these days, in order to remind us that they are one of us, when they aren't. They show up so we will believe they like us, and respect us, and want to help us, when all they really want is to get re-elected. And then they want us to leave them alone, and they do the same for us in return.
The media is no different. I heard someone (a presumed liberal) on MSNBC this week talk about tariffs and the cost of big cars, and how the added expense wouldn't matter as long as the price of gas remained at "record lows." Obviously spoken by someone who hasn't paid for gas in awhile. The rest of us may not realize that the price of gas began to increase the week after Donald Trump was elected, but we sure as hell know that it has gone up over $1 a gallon since he has taken charge of wrecking our economy.
It is no surprise that republicans don't have a clue what we all go through. They are wined and dined from the moment they are deemed to be political assets. If you have started off as a small business owner, it doesn't take long to get accustomed to the flattery, to living that better life and having others do your bidding. In fact, it feels so good that fear of losing the privilege may begin to outweigh things like doing a good job. And along the way, you begin to think all those people who are bugging you for government freebies are just whiners who don't deserve the handouts the way your real donors do.
That is how we end up with republicans who fight to kill healthcare, food stamps and social security, and with Democrats who will sell us out in the name of "working with the other side." If you think wondering how to make ends meet makes you feel insecure, imagine what it feels like to work in a cushy place like Congress and know you could lose it in two years. Poor things, living a good life that could disappear, know they need to kiss as much big corporate ass as they can for the day when they are no longer able to live off the government.
Of course, that is not how they see things. They don't. What they ignore won't hurt them. Our elected officials learn quickly to listen to those with the deep pockets, who provide them with the bullet points they use to make us feel like they are working for us when they aren't. It even helps them believe they are really, really working for us. When they aren't.
The delusion that fattening the rich will make us all better off has never worked, and yet we keep electing people who keep selling us that fairy tale. Apparently, we want to believe it as much as the politicians, who need to believe it so they can continue to work guilt-free to keep fattening the rich, who keep them just fat enough to stay loyal.
This is just a piece of the problem we have with elected officials who don't represent us. Here in SC, we have two single men (I am tempted to say "white men" because Tim Scott does a great impression) as senators. With their own great government benefits, they weigh in against health care; with no clue as to what it takes to raise children, they tell us what families need to be whole. They don't just opine, they vote: on wages, on contraception, on education, religion, and of course, taxation. Because they are really there to make sure that the rich don't pay taxes and the poor get nothing for free.
Trump is a buffoon, and his comment about needing ID to buy groceries was a moment of fun, but it was actually also a glimpse into where our politicians stand in relation to us: far, far away. From a distance, it makes it so much easier to lie, and cheat, and steal, and justify it with nonsense about what the simple folk do.
The people who run our government don't have a clue who we are.
Trump is a perfect example, because he has so completely isolated himself from the real world. When do you think was the last time he bought something on his own? With cash? In public? When was the last time he even walked on a sidewalk in any city, much less down a road in a suburb. For that matter, when was the last time he was driven through one of those towns in which any of us live other than to get to a rally where he pretends to be like us?
And no, I'm not even talking about since he became "president." He was as closely guarded and isolated before he hunkered down in what was once the people's house. Other than his lowly employees, Donald Trump has no friends or associates that come even close to living the life of most Americans. And we should know by now that he only gets close enough to his employees to pick their pockets.
But what of the rest of those elected officials? In 2012, Mitt Romney provided some comic relief when he went grocery shopping, and before that, the elder George Bush was astonished to find that supermarkets had scanners at checkout. Nikki Haley may have known that you don't have to show ID to buy groceries, but she sure as hell doesn't have a clue what it is like to work forty hours or more at minimum wage, or even at median wage, and then go home and cook for a family. And I wonder when was the last time Nikki walked down the street to actually get somewhere, or went out to "run errands." Or rubbed elbows with any of us when it wasn't politically motivated.
Because that is when we see our elected officials. They show up now and then, less so these days, in order to remind us that they are one of us, when they aren't. They show up so we will believe they like us, and respect us, and want to help us, when all they really want is to get re-elected. And then they want us to leave them alone, and they do the same for us in return.
The media is no different. I heard someone (a presumed liberal) on MSNBC this week talk about tariffs and the cost of big cars, and how the added expense wouldn't matter as long as the price of gas remained at "record lows." Obviously spoken by someone who hasn't paid for gas in awhile. The rest of us may not realize that the price of gas began to increase the week after Donald Trump was elected, but we sure as hell know that it has gone up over $1 a gallon since he has taken charge of wrecking our economy.
It is no surprise that republicans don't have a clue what we all go through. They are wined and dined from the moment they are deemed to be political assets. If you have started off as a small business owner, it doesn't take long to get accustomed to the flattery, to living that better life and having others do your bidding. In fact, it feels so good that fear of losing the privilege may begin to outweigh things like doing a good job. And along the way, you begin to think all those people who are bugging you for government freebies are just whiners who don't deserve the handouts the way your real donors do.
That is how we end up with republicans who fight to kill healthcare, food stamps and social security, and with Democrats who will sell us out in the name of "working with the other side." If you think wondering how to make ends meet makes you feel insecure, imagine what it feels like to work in a cushy place like Congress and know you could lose it in two years. Poor things, living a good life that could disappear, know they need to kiss as much big corporate ass as they can for the day when they are no longer able to live off the government.
Of course, that is not how they see things. They don't. What they ignore won't hurt them. Our elected officials learn quickly to listen to those with the deep pockets, who provide them with the bullet points they use to make us feel like they are working for us when they aren't. It even helps them believe they are really, really working for us. When they aren't.
The delusion that fattening the rich will make us all better off has never worked, and yet we keep electing people who keep selling us that fairy tale. Apparently, we want to believe it as much as the politicians, who need to believe it so they can continue to work guilt-free to keep fattening the rich, who keep them just fat enough to stay loyal.
This is just a piece of the problem we have with elected officials who don't represent us. Here in SC, we have two single men (I am tempted to say "white men" because Tim Scott does a great impression) as senators. With their own great government benefits, they weigh in against health care; with no clue as to what it takes to raise children, they tell us what families need to be whole. They don't just opine, they vote: on wages, on contraception, on education, religion, and of course, taxation. Because they are really there to make sure that the rich don't pay taxes and the poor get nothing for free.
Trump is a buffoon, and his comment about needing ID to buy groceries was a moment of fun, but it was actually also a glimpse into where our politicians stand in relation to us: far, far away. From a distance, it makes it so much easier to lie, and cheat, and steal, and justify it with nonsense about what the simple folk do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)