With Us or Without Us – Special Election Edition

It was a bad news/good news thing.  The bad news is that Mick Mulvaney is now in charge of the federal purse-strings.  The good news is that there is an opening in Congress.  And we – the people of South Carolina – are fired up and ready to go.

Except that there appears to be a huge information vacuum.  Typically informed people (like myself) are scrounging around Facebook and the internet trying to get information about who and when.  There appears to be an awful lot of information about the republican side of the equation:  a clown car full of enthusiastic right-wingers eager to fill the stingy shoes of Tea Partier and loyal Trumper Mick Mulvaney.  It seems obvious that they are looking at it as an easy win for their side, and well worth the fight.  On the Democratic side, there are three, all new to politics, and there are even a couple of independents.

Isn’t this when the Democratic Party should be stepping in?  We’ve got two good people who have stepped up to run, and a primary coming up on May 2.  And District 5 has gone Democratic enough times in the recent past that one could imagine voters angry enough about losing their health care and tax cuts for the rich that this district could flip.

In typical Democratic fashion, I have my fears and my hopes for my party.

My fear is that we won’t hear much from the party, state or national, other than the ubiquitous fund-raising email.  In the few weeks before the primary, we are going to hide somewhere and let the republicans fight it out.  And then after the primary, there will be some half-hearted support, with the general philosophy being that the Democratic Party should save their strength (and financial support) for 2018.  Over the last election season, with a number of great candidates, there was little party support, and even South Carolina hero Jim Clyburn commented in one of our major newspapers that there was little chance of a win.  I am not expecting that I will hear much more from Jim than those auto-generated emails asking for money or explaining that while he enjoys hearing from me he is much too busy to answer.

My hope?  I am thinking that, much as the Democratic Party has woken up to support Jon Ossoff in Georgia's 6th, our SCDP and the DNC will take off.  I am hoping that they won't wait for a kvetch from Rachel Maddow, whose where-is-the-Democratic-Party rant appeared to light the fire under the party in the Ossoff race.  And I am hoping that they won't wait till the primary is over to act.  This is why:

There are a couple of factors that will ensure a republican victory.  One is that no one has ever heard of the Democratic candidate.  I have seen this happen time and again in races in South Carolina.  Everybody knows Tim Scott, because the republican party and wealthy right-wing donors have put his face and name front and center in the media for as long as they have been grooming him to carry their water.  He does photo-ops at elementary schools and gets fake awards from right-wing organizations that commend his fight for seniors and the environment.  And the last time he ran, even though he had a strong and passionate opponent, a man who represented the ideals of the Democratic Party, who fought in the community and for the people of South Carolina, to most voters he was running unopposed.  ETV refused to sponsor a debate.  There was no push to get him in front of the cameras or in the newspaper.  And that was true of the other good candidates, who threw themselves into their races in spite of the lukewarm enthusiasm of the party.

And it isn't just name recognition.  The other factor that moves the republicans to victory is that they have been making their arguments in the public forum for months before the final election.  By the time someone has won in the primary, they have been debating the issues and they know their stuff.  And the public has heard them speak.

The Democratic primary candidates need to have that same opportunity.  They need to rehearse their positions and become more confident about them.  They need to get out in front of the people, and the cameras, and do a bunch of interviews.  The Democratic Party needs to use their influence, their fund of knowledge, and their media clout to generate the publicity.

And debates.  We -- my party -- made a big mistake during the presidential election by trying to avoid letting Bernie and Hillary debate.  Not only did it look like favoritism, which it was, it gave the appearance that the party did not think the voter had the right or the capacity to listen to the candidates and make the best decision.  In other words, to be exposed to the democratic process.

The more debates, the more publicity, the more exposure Democrats can generate in the primaries, the more experience they can gain, the more likely they will be entering the general race equal to the fight.

So, I am hoping that the SCDP will get busy letting us all know a) that we have candidates in this race and b) that we have a primary.  I am hoping that they will see the primary race as an opportunity rather than an obstacle.

I can't emphasize enough how much enthusiasm there is for this race.  We people on the ground -- you know, the voters -- could really use the resources of the Democratic Party to help us move the election.  We need information about the candidates, maybe fact sheets, position papers, but done in a way that we will all be sharing the information on social media.  We need youtube videos to share.  We need exposure to the candidates themselves; they need to become familiar to not just us Dems but to everyone.

And because this is a social media world, I hope the party will be aware that it won't just be District 5 that will be watching this race.  We will all be working to inform our friends about the candidates.  We can truly work together, even without the deep pockets of the republican side.

Indivisible has given us the tools, and the travesty of the Trump administration and the 115th congress has given us lots of voice and motivation.  Most important, it will be the issues that will lead us to this win, and not the party identity.  And yet, without the party, the candidates will have to fight with less organization and media presence.

This race could be the one that proves that the Democratic Party and the people can be the formidable force that will begin to take down Trump's destructive reign.

Overwhelmed... and Back Again

It is just over a month since the Women’s March.  It was an inspiring, uplifting time after weeks of dread.  I had written a few times about how we would have to stand together if we were going to fight the mean-spirited who punched down in order to gain power and wealth.

And then, after January 20, a friend formed a group, one of the many activist groups forming to save our country from the despot.  We called it SWAT:  Strong Women Against Tyranny, and during our formative meeting, she pulled out what she called a guide compiled by a group called Indivisible.  This guide and the group had been coming up more and more frequently, but I tend to resist reading ideological treatises, and, to be honest, it looked like a lot of pages.  But I understood what she was saying.  This was a group who had compiled what had been the modus operandi of the Tea Party.  This was a how-to that made sense.  This was about getting together for democracy.

After the Women’s March, there were a couple of women making the rounds of the news shows that huffed and puffed in outrage that they had not been allowed to join in sponsoring the march.  They claimed they represented many of the values that we marched for.  But they were anti-abortion.  They were told they could march with us, but they could not function as organizers.  Because the essential idea of the Women’s March was that we all support each other.  This was a group that was speaking to individual rights, to freedom, and in order to represent this March, you had to accept that we are all entitled to our beliefs and our right to exercise those beliefs.  To me, this was the Women’s March in its essence.  And that is the essence of Indivisible.

I was heartened by the spirit of the movements, Indivisible and others, that were fighting against the tyranny that had taken over our country.  Rachel Maddow interviewed Tara Burnette from South Carolina, who has joined with Indivisible in the activism.  She voted republican, but she disagreed with the Trump administration on education, and she stood with others who had their own causes and concerns.  She told Rachel, "The state of South Carolina cannot be silent anymore."  I was so proud.  And when Trump came to town to do a victory lap at Boeing, another good friend moved me to go with her to protest.

It was a wonderful protest.  The speakers were inspiring, the signs told the story of our fight.  Two hundred of us showed up carrying signs and wearing our passion for democracy with pride.

But we were relegated to an area called the “free speech zone.”  It was miles from where Trump was celebrating and of course implied that free speech was not welcome outside those gates.  Over 200 of us showed up to protest, but the object of the protest would never have to see us.  And at a point near the end of our rally, someone yelled out, “There he is.”  Sure enough, it was Air Force One, a huge phallus piercing the skies over North Charleston.  On this day, it was a blatant fuck you reminding us who had the power.

The local TV news coverage was pretty awful.  Channel 5 news, which news team always does tend to drool over the Sanfords and Grahams, was so salivating over the president’s visit that they had assigned every one of their first-line reporters to Boeing.  They threw a couple of their second-line reporters out to interview and report on the protest.  It was announced that there were 100 protesters, and "dozens" of counter-protesters (there were six).  Someone interviewed one of us at the protest, and someone else gave the same amount of time to the counter-protesters.

It was discouraging, but I just decided to boycott Channel 5 news.   I am 5'1" and I am always the short person standing behind the tall person, but this day I was front and center.  I was tickled that Channel 4 news actually held the camera on me and my sign -- “I felt safe until January 20” -- for a few seconds.

But, since then, I haven’t written a blog.  I’ve tried to keep up with the news, and I have truly been excited by the amazing people who have shown up at town halls to hold elected officials accountable.  I write, but I don’t often show up at events, and when I do I rarely speak.  So I continue to be impressed with the smart and determined people who are asking the tough questions and refusing to let politicians hide behind rhetoric.  But fact was, I wasn't feeling a lot of energy for the fight.

Yesterday, Friday, I entertained the thought of taking the day off, not checking my emails, maybe even not turning on the news.  But I turned the TV on at 1, and he was there, at the perennially ugly CPAC convention, and he was in his element.  He was talking about the press, and making his outrageous accusations, and telling his devotees that the press should be made to give up their sources.  And then I got online, and saw that the New York Times and other major media outlets had not been allowed in to the afternoon’s meeting with press secretary Sean Spicer.

My heart fell.  I don’t know a lot of history, but I know more than Trump.  The words I was hearing were the words that come when a dictator is wresting control of a democracy.  The actions were the actions of a third world tyrant.  

But then I read a message on Facebook.  A wonderful activist had sent me a message saying she was proud of me, and I wondered whatever for?  I checked around and realized the letter to the editor I had sent to The State had made it into the day’s paper.  And then she posted my letter, urged others to write comments in support.  Anticipating possible hateful remarks she told me not to look at the comments.  She said, “We got this.”  A day later her caring and nurturance still makes me smile.

That is what this incredible time is about.  It is the safety pins that mean if you are being attacked and intimidated, we will be there for you.  It means if this dictatorship is able to enforce a Muslim registry, we will be there registering our names alongside yours.  It means that even if we are in the lucky majority who aren’t at risk of violence and hate crimes we will defend those who are.  It is the Muslim people who last week took up the cause to raise money to repair the vandalized Jewish cemetery.  And it is people who may not understand but will defend the right to choose one's sexual identity.  It is people who would not have an abortion but believe that every woman has the right to make her own choice.  It is the fight for the freedom of the press.  The right to walk down the street without fear of being frisked or arrested, or shot by an unstable person carrying a gun.  And it is the fight against the sick minds that want to rip families apart in the name of nationalism.

And I remembered that when Donald Trump is under attack, he doubles down.  He doesn’t always win, but he knows how to bluff.  And that is what he is doing now, because he is under attack.  The cards are stacked against him.  I really believe that.  Every day I hear the voices of the lawyers, scholars, and all the rest of us, speaking up for democracy.

And then I get back up and get back in the fight.  

Trying to Be CNN

If you'd like to know, the only important thing that has gone on this week is the tragic derailment of the Amtrak train between New York and Pennsylvania.

I know because I get my news from MSNBC, and the best and brightest on their evening lineup have been filling their entire broadcast with that event.  Either it is the only news worth covering, or MSNBC has changed their format from covering several important and newsworthy events per one hour news show to wall-to-wall coverage of one single event.

I don't intend to seem callous.  The derailment is important news, and not just for the tragic deaths.  The day after the accident Congress, not to be "derailed" by reality, cut funding for Amtrak.  You can't make this stuff up.  And, to be fair, MSNBC covered the budget cut.  But you can only get away with calling their coverage of one event over the course of one hour, much less several hours running, "breaking news" for so long.  Jon Stewart has had many hours of fun (not consecutively however) mocking CNN for doing exactly that.

I'm not sure when this nonsense began, but after the shooting in Ferguson, Chris Hayes was out there night after night interviewing people on the street.  He did the same thing after the shooting in North Charleston and ditto in Baltimore.  He tends to get excited over these admittedly horrendous events, and it seemed at times that he was actually enflaming the crowd.  A newsworthy event, but it stopped being news after the first fifteen minutes of each broadcast.

Anyway, I had assumed this was because of the importance of the gun issue, and the point was in fact that police violence toward African Americans was a constant presence in America, one we had been ignoring throughout our history.

But two nights after the Amtrak crash, there was Chris Hayes, interviewing, well, anyone that was there.

I've gotten to the point where I can tell in minutes whether MSNBC has got their teeth into a news story that is going to go 24/7, and of course, after a short time, it is no longer news.  And then I wonder, what about all the other important things that are going on in the country?  Do people really want to hear from every single person on the street, and how many times can you re-air somebody-or-other's official statement, and how many different ways can you analyze it?  Larry Wilmore interviewed gang members in a Baltimore diner and was able to be more relevant and newsworthy in eight minutes than MSNBC had been throughout their whole coverage.

During those entire weeks of wasted airtime, I hunger for other news.  For that matter, I also get impatient when Rachel Maddow takes twenty minutes repeating the same comment over and over to make one important point.  If she only said the same thing once or twice, her program would be fifteen minutes long.  But boy would it be powerful.  Or, she could cover that many more stories.

I hate that MSNBC has dulled their news reporting, made it as trite as that of CNN.  Their repetitions and redundancies, their hundreds of on-the-street interviews, have watered down the important headlines and analyses that I had come to expect from them.  While we heard over and over and over again that the engineer on the Amtrak train was in the hospital and had amnesia for the crash, Congress was voting on important budget matters, attempting once again to prohibit the right of women to seek abortions, fighting over Obama's fast-track trade deal, and who only knows what else, because it wasn't being covered on MSNBC.

This is what I would like.  I would like, in the first segment on each show, an update on any major event.  And then I would like to hear what else is going on in the country and in the world.  If you asked, you might find that I am not the only one that after the first few minutes of the same reprocessed news about the important event turns off the TV or walks out of the room.

So please, MSNBC, take a look at what you're doing.  Would YOU watch your show night after night to see the same piece of information presented over and over again?  Really, you are far, far better than that.

Thank you, and good night.

The NRA's Hissy Fit

I was catching up on my news watching over the weekend, and an article on Rachel Maddow's 3/20 show caused me to do a double-take:

  

And even having watched it several times, it still brings tears to my eyes.

This is the reality of gun ownership slamming into America's fantasy.  It is an amazing experiment.  It is more effective than anything the creeps at the NRA have come up with.

And so the NRA and other gun organizations have (no pun intended) gone ballistic.  They are in full whine.  And the irony of it all is quite a thing to see.

They are talking about deceptive advertising and breaking New York City gun laws.  They bring up violations of city codes about displaying guns.  They question whether the city used public funds.

It turns out, the group that conducted this research in gun marketing, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, dotted their i's and crossed all their t's when they planned this experiment.  All legal.  Which won't stop the NRA from trying to find a way to destroy the group.  But as I am writing this blog, there have been 3,180,543 youtube views, and there are likely to be millions more.

On a day when I was feeling pretty discouraged by all the attacks coming from the right-wing in so many areas of individual rights, this was a great victory.

Here in South Carolina this week, on Tuesday, the House is going to be taking up S 3, the Senate's version of the Criminal Domestic Violence bill.  In light of our shameful statistics on domestic violence and shooting deaths -- more than 61 percent of women killed by domestic violence were killed by guns -- Senators Katrina Shealy and Larry Martin included a prohibition on convicted abusers owning or having in their possession a gun.  Although the bill was inevitably watered down to give judges discretion in ordering this prohibition on a case-by-case basis, the bill is still far stronger than the House version, H 3433, which has no language prohibiting guns.

So here we are, with S 3 already passed by the Senate and introduced into the House.  But the House appears to be ignoring S 3 so that they can be credited with passing the inferior H 3433, which will go before the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday.  I surely don't understand the fighting over territory that sees so many bills duplicated, but I do believe it enables our legislators to muddy the water enough that they can do damage and take credit at the same time.  Which appears to be the plan here.

That's why it is important to contact House representatives immediately and tell them that we expect them to pass a Criminal Domestic Violence bill that includes strong gun prohibitions.  This is not a Second Amendment issue.  This is about not allowing violent individuals to have easy access to weapons.  This is about protecting families, women and children, and yes, men, from violent individuals the very best way possible.

The video produced by States United to Prevent Gun Violence should be enough to convince us that we can win this fight.  But our legislators need to hear from us.  Today, and as long as it takes.

On Throwing Stones

Well, here we are, Puritan America.  It's not as though we are actually pure, though.  We are always happy to dwell on a bit of dirt, pursing our lips as though it is ever-so-distasteful the whole time we are hearing about it.


Many of us watch dirty movies, listen to dirty song lyrics, tell dirty jokes.


Those of us who do not engage in the above are perfectly willing to obsess about those of us who do.  And while they are spending all that time thinking about us, they feel free to judge us as they assume God meant us to be judged.


I once spoke with a library patron who was looking for murder mysteries that didn't have dirty words in them.  You are reading for pleasure about murder, but you are offended by bad words???


In my younger days I hung around with people of foul-mouth, laughed at dirty jokes, was, you might say, indiscreet, myself.  As I grew older my life became more conservative (in the Webster dictionary sense of the word).  Sometimes, I might add, to the point where it is surreal in its pretense of purity.


I now live in a world in which people believe only bad people have affairs, curse and drink to excess.  I have of late had to learn to keep my salty words to myself.  An old acquaintance was appalled that I actually used the word "cuss" rather than "curse", and I am ashamed to say that that is the world in which I live.


The Daily Show thankfully wakes me back to reality, although the reality I am watching has censors that will not allow me to hear bad words, even after 11 p.m.  Sponsors of the NBC Nightly News at 6:30 p.m. might sell medication to allow you men to have erections, but it would be dirty to call it fucking.  And if Brian Williams said the word, pressure from the sponsors would require that it be censored.  Ironically, if we could call it fucking, we might not need the meds.


In this land of bullshit, in which Rachel Maddow has to call it "bullpuckey" or some such horseshit, I believe many of her viewers would be shocked if they were to learn that she curses.  (Don't faint, I'm not saying she does, just that someone might learn that she does.)


The thing is, we have allowed ourselves to become so led by our own conflicting prurience and prudery, that we are spending weeks learning the "sordid" details of Anthony Weiner's dirty pics, and ignoring the fact that Clarence Thomas, whose wife lobbies for the health insurance industry, is about to hear cases involving ObamaCare.


A few short summers ago we were so in thrall with stories of our own South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's  adventures down his mistress's Appalachian Trail that the fact that no one in the state knew how to reach him in an emergency for a week was pretty much an afterthought.


And then there are the blowhards who are forcing their religious dogma down our Constitution, only to end up with their own personal scandal.  They are the ones who are using our tax dollars to ban abortion, even birth control, because of their reverence for life, and then in the same pious breath vote down funding for health care for all.


I don't think Anthony Weiner's dirty pictures are as immoral as a media that spends its time focused on his private life rather than on his legislation.  The impeachment of Bill Clinton was far more shameful than his sexual antics.


And when we talk about all those tight-assed religious fanatics on C Street, including our own former Governor Sanford, we should be looking at the threats that they pose to our individual freedoms by virtue of their own presumed virtue, and not who they are boinking.


Finally, finally, I am sick of hearing about whether or not dirty emails were sent on government computers.  To paraphrase:


Let him who has not sent a personal email from work cast the first stone.

Wow, They Did It Again

I have nothing but admiration for Anthony Weiner, one of the Congressional representatives (which I can count using the fingers of one hand) that will always speak honestly, regardless of hounding by the media, and regardless of popular opinion.


Hah, you thought I was talking about the Twitter thing that is the media's obsession of the week.


What I am referring to, however, is Weiner's letter requesting that Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the Obama Health Care Act.  It appears that Ginny Thomas has her hands in all kinds of lobbying against ObamaCare, and that, although Thomas is typically steamed about having to admit to this source of income, he indeed benefits financially from his wife's political activities.


I quite accidentally learned of this as I caught up on my week's worth of The Rachel Maddow Show, working backwards, nearly missing the Friday interview with Anthony Weiner before the Twitter business hit.  On that show, Weiner appeared and explained his House petition asking Thomas to recuse himself.


The thing is, not having time during the week to catch much news, what I heard ad nauseum was about Weiner's hacked Twitter account.  I saw the lewd photo, heard all the bad jokes, and the back and forth about why Weiner wasn't giving the drooling media the meat (no pun intended, really) it was craving.  The last straw was Luke Russert insisting on finding out whether the picture was really of Anthony Weiner.


This is absurd and tragic for us Americans.  We are so easily led by a shallow and lazy media, which we have allowed to exercise this dirty journalism.  It is upsetting to think that we are being denied, in this time of failing schools and health, lost jobs and homes, and neverending war, accurate representation of the real issues.


So let me just thank Rachel Maddow for committing real journalism.


Oh, I would also like to thank Jon Stewart for his astute journalistic observations on whether the photo could really have been Anthony Weiner.  Good to have a laugh at all this nonsense.

The More They Golf

Last week I happened to look up the House of Representatives Legislative Calendar for 2011.  I have to admit, at first I thought I was not reading it correctly.  It seemed to me that there were not an awful lot of work days on it.  No, I must have been reading it wrong.  It used to be, back in the days of the Democratic House, that you could turn on CSPAN most of the time and see members of one party or the other speaking.  Granted, they were mostly talking to an empty house, but we knew at least one of them was working.

Monday, Rachel Maddow gave voice to my puzzlement:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Apparently, the big plan for the House GOP (and a couple of misfit Democrats) is to avoid doing anything that might make any of their constituents angry, which leaves abortion.  So we will no doubt be seeing many more bills seeking to redefine rape and incest, and the boundary where a woman's body ends and a republican's nose begins.

Meanwhile, what to do to fill up the time?  As I noted, and Rachel remarked, the bulk of the House calendar is to be filled with -- time off.  BMOC Eric Cantor is pleased to inform us that there will be 123 days in session this year.

In House parlance, every third week or so has been termed a constituent work week.  You know what those are:  those are when you go home and visit with your constituents... on the golf course, mostly.  Followed by a meeting at the country club over a drink or three, or more.  And who do they meet with?  Not me, and not likely you.  They will meet with like-minded concerned citizens, those who have strong ideas about tax cuts and defunding entitlement programs (not corporate entitlement programs of course), and no doubt plans for implementing those ideas when they get back to work.

So I am inclined not to be angry about all this time off.  I recall back in the 80's, observing Reagan's inclination to dose at a cabinet meeting, Arlo Guthrie said, "The more he sleeps, the safer we are."

But if they aren't going to sleep, golf is the next best thing.

Only that Simple

During a moment of frustration at work today, actually, as the frustration built up, as I learned more and more dicta and policy changes that were coming down from on high, I imagined a day when I wasn't dependent on my job.  I imagined walking up to the director and saying, simply, "You know, you're really kind of creepy."

I got just enough pleasure from that thought to make it through the day.

And as I was catching up on news a little while ago, as Rachel Maddow was talking about the DADT perpetual state of idiocy, I imagined having the opportunity to walk up to John McCain, and just as he was about to shake my hand (thinking I was a voter of course), looking him in the eye and saying, "You know, you really are a jerk."

Then I thought about John Boehner, who has apparently in solidarity to those of us who are not millionaires given up the tanning beds, and what I would say to him:  "You know, you really are a whiny spoiled brat."

Jim Demint:  "You know, you really are dumber than dirt."

I know, that last one wasn't as constructive a criticism as the others, but why toss your pearls before swine, if you know what I mean.

Well, I feel a lot better now, even though we still have all those self-absorbed idiots in high places.