War on Christmas, et al.

After my initial rants, I’ve held off, in the hopes that our so called president-elect would begin to act more like an adult and more like a president. That hope has clearly been in vain. Trump is surrounding himself with sycophants, ideologues, bigots, and wealthy people. Knowledge, expertise, and qualifications are not merely unnecessary, they are downright disqualifying for the incoming administration. In the meantime, Trump is continuing to take his position as “Liar in Chief” of America.  He was always by far the least honest of the candidates, even during the primaries. His sole focus has been on what gets him attention and on what gets his supporters excited. Truth is irrelevant.

The latest is Trump railing about a “War on Christmas”, based on some far right wing bullshit that started a decade ago. There is no war on Christmas. You can’t go into a store of any size without seeing decorations and signs about Christmas. You can’t turn on the television without seeing Christmas programs or Christmas oriented ads. The fact is you will continue to see these things because the Christmas season is the biggest retail shopping season of the year. It is also one of the peak travel seasons as people visit relatives for the holidays.

Where did the nonsense about a war on Christmas begin? As the country has become more diverse and as we have taken more seriously the separation of church and state, governments have moved away from religious displays on public property. Beyond that, some folks have taken to saying “Happy Holidays”, in recognition that this nation includes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, and atheists among others.

I am Jewish and liberal, so my default greeting is happy holidays. If I am greeted with merry Christmas, I will respond with the same. If I know I am dealing with a Christian, I may also say merry Christmas. The fact that some people say happy holidays and some choose to celebrate holidays other than Christmas in no way diminishes the ability of Christians to celebrate their holiday as they choose.

Every year of his presidency, Obama has had a Christmas tree and Christmas decorations in the White House. He has wished people a merry Christmas. Obama and his family are Christians, regardless of the lies the right wing hate machine vomits out upon the body politic. The vast majority of our politicians, left, center, and right are Christian and will celebrate Christmas, albeit with their own family traditions.

We need to cut the nonsense. We need a president who will not set one group of people against another. Right now, Trump is setting his supporters against everyone who does not echo their beliefs. That is a recipe for disaster, fascism, tyranny, and chaos. G-d help us.

Unbridled Optimism

I see a lot of memes and quotes about how ‘everything happens for a reason’ or that ‘everything will work out for your benefit in the long run’.

I understand that it is necessary to try to keep people’s hopes up in the face of tragedy. I get a little ill when I read these things though. I see genocides, I see torture and brutality, I see rapes, I see murders, I see natural disasters. In time, many of the survivors will recover, at least somewhat.

Where is the long run benefit of a holocaust? How will a rape work out for your benefit in the long run? I read about senseless acts of violence and brutality which if they don’t kill the victims, will often scar them for life. How can those things ever be anything other than a tragedy?

I see things saying that the good people will be protected by G-d, or some other force, and that those doing evil will be punished. Yet I see those among the most innocent, including children and even babies, murdered and brutalized. I see people guilty of those things go without ever being punished. There seems to be no divine justice or divine protection on this earth. Are the brutalizers punished in the ‘next life’? I can’t say for sure that there even is a ‘next life’.

Yes, there are many things perceived as bad which may serve to teach people a lesson, or show people a better way forward in their lives. In some cases even tragedy may move people to do good or help others. The blanket “Little Mary Sunshine” stuff is utter crap in my opinion.

On a par with that is the old ‘what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger’ line. No, what doesn’t kill you may well cripple you. Lesser harms may well strengthen, and there will always be those individuals who rise above the most tragic circumstances. The ones who do, have my respect and admiration, but those people are and always will be the exceptions.

Creationism et al.

I had a friend who is very much into Biblical literalism and is convinced schools in not teaching the Biblical literalist account of creation is undermining our society. To my point of view, not teaching science would undermine our society.

The description in Genesis (Bereshit) is from the Jewish scriptures, and yet for a thousand years, Jewish religious leaders have said it is not meant to be taken literally. Jewish belief (among the majority of Jews) is that the account in the Tanakh (the Old Testament) is more akin to a parable to show that G-d is responsible for the existence of the universe, and is not literal truth.

The estimates in certain Christian communities as to the age of the world arose because in the Middle Ages, a monk, who believed it was literal truth, added up the ages of the Biblical patriarchs and used that to estimate the age of the world.

Certainly, you are free to believe as you wish, and teach your children accordingly. Schools are bound to teach science and what has been demonstrated by scientific analysis and the scientific method. That is no evil conspiracy hatched by Satan or by any "New World Order", it is just teaching what has been rigorously proven through research and testing.

Samsung Galaxy J7 phone

My wife and I recently broke down and got smart phones, after so many years of using dumb phones. We each got Samsung Galaxy J7 and bought protective cases for each phone. Just over two weeks after buying them, my wife's phone screen went black.

Although the phone is supposed to have a one year warranty, Verizon Wireless, our carrier refused to replace the phone under warranty. They said Verizon only warranted it for two weeks, and we'd had it 17 days.

After considerable wrangling with Verizon, one customer service rep arranged to have my wife return the phone to Samsung. Samsung returned the phone, neither repaired nor replaced, saying that due to the manufacture date, it was no longer under warranty.

We got copies of the purchase documentation and my wife called Samsung and got a return authorization. She sent the phone back again. Shortly after the phone was again returned neither repaired nor replaced. They said the problem was a stress fracture, or some such thing. Now mind you, there is no visible damage to the phone and it is in a protective case.

She is still fighting with them, but so far to no avail. I am very unhappy and will be damned if I'll pay for another Samsung phone when they won't stand by their products.

Autopsy on a Failed Campaign

The Democratic establishment backed Hillary. Lots of members of the Republican establishment backed Hillary, or at least refused to back Trump. Nearly all newspapers left, center, and right backed Hillary. All any of it did was to brand her as the status quo candidate in an election when too many people wanted a change. She was an insider and a member of the establishment, when too many wanted an outsider to shake things up.

Hillary played to not lose, and as in many sports, that is often a losing strategy. She sat back and waited for Trump’s campaign to implode, which it did more than once, but recovered each time. She never played offense – never gave the voting public a reason to vote for her. She needed to set out a vision for America, and sell that vision to the voters. She just played to be a continuation, when the voters wanted change.

There are too many people in the country who feel it is heading in the wrong direction – polls showed that consistently through the election. Telling people you will continue in that direction, would never fly. Between automation eliminating manufacturing jobs and off-shoring eliminating both manufacturing and service jobs, people are scared for the future. Hillary needed to give them hope, and a new direction that would let them feel secure. She never did that.

Would Bernie Sanders have done better? There is no way to know. What we do know is that Bernie had a far higher approval rating than either Trump or Hillary. Bernie had his own set of baggage, but a very different set from that of Hillary. The GOP would have tried to brand Bernie as a communist, but that might not have hurt him as much with the center, and neither Bernie nor Hillary ever had a chance to garner right wing votes.

I suspect in spite of what the GOP would have tried to tar him with Sanders might well have done better. He had a vision, and communicated that vision in the primaries – just not well enough to win enough primaries to get the nomination. Large part of the problem was that he didn’t connect with black voters, where Hillary did. Unfortunately those black voters didn’t come out in large enough numbers in the general election to take Hillary over the top. Better black turnout in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan would have brought a different election result.

I love Elizabeth Warren, but wonder if she’d have the same issues connecting with black voters that Bernie did. As much as I like Warren, I wonder if Kamala Harris, running with a Latino VP would connect better with both those demographics. They would still need some way to connect with disaffected white voters, particularly white male voters. Still 2020 is a long way off, and we have to survive four years of Donald Trump. G-d help us all.

Hypocrisy in Politics

I got in a pissing contest with someone who I thought at one time was a friend. I no longer consider them as such, and am sure they likewise do not consider me as one.

What bothers me most about many on the right is not their principles, though I often may disagree with those. I am bothered by their hypocrisy. There is a verse in the Christian Bible about straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel. They strain at the gnats of those on the left, but swallow the camels of those on the right. They easily accept lying, cheating, sexual misconduct, and drug use by their right wing icons. At the same time they rail against peccadilloes of left wing leaders. They have two standards – a much harsher one for people on the left, but a very forgiving one for those on the right.

To me there should be one set of standards, not two. Yet we have people excoriating Bill Clinton for his affairs, yet quite unconcerned about the affairs of Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, Dennis Hastert, and so many more. I will very freely say that Clinton was wrong to have affairs and to use his office to seduce young women. He is far from alone in that. As I recall, the historian Theodore White, who followed many presidential campaigns, said there were only two nominees for president who did not have affairs during their campaigns – one was Jimmy Carter, and for obvious reasons he refused to name the other. We know Roosevelt, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Johnson had affairs, and one knowledgeable biographer says Nixon did as well. No less than Henry Kissinger, who was hardly an attractive man, said there was no aphrodisiac like power.

The right wing has been obsessed with Benghazi, which indeed was a tragedy. Yet there was never any outcry when the US embassy in Lebanon was attacked and 63 people killed under Reagan, or the follow up attack the next year killing another 24 people, or the Marine barracks bombing that killed 241 American and 58 French soldiers. That amounts to nearly 400 people killed in one country under Reagan, with no blame attached to the president. But Benghazi with 4 deaths has become a major scandal?

Now I take issue with Obama on some of his actions – his expansion of drone warfare with extra-judicial killings, for one thing – his expansion and increase of deportations of undocumented immigrants, for another.

I think Hillary was phenomenally stupid to use a private email server and effectively try to cover that up. On the other hand they only found a very small number of classified documents among those emails, none of which were properly marked as classified, and many of which were only classified at a later date. We’ve since found that Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney all used non-governmental email servers. Furthermore Bush and Cheney “lost” some 22 million emails, contrasted to the 33 thousand missing from Clinton’s server. There was some stir about that, but nothing like the accusations against Clinton.

I could go on and on, but I find that the right is very forgiving of the sins of its leaders, while very unforgiving of the sins of its opponents. The left often does not seem especially concerned with the sins of either side, but appears to me to be more balanced in its denunciations.

Peace and Love?

I’ve been told by a variety of people that I should embrace peace and love, and that I should give the president-elect a chance to prove himself.

I’ve just sat through eight years of the vilification of the first black president of the United States. He was never given a fair chance by most of the right wing. He and his family were subject to racist comments and lies for all eight years.

I’ve also sat through about a year of the campaign of the president-elect. His campaign was typified by racism, sexism, xenophobia, misogyny, and homophobia. His supporters have committed hate crimes, which he has effectively condoned. They have been both emboldened and empowered by his hateful rhetoric and by his victory. The haters are already acting out based on his win.

I do not hold hatred, nor act out of hatred, nor do I condone or abet violence of any sort. Still it takes more than simply embracing peace and love. Martin Luther King, Jr. was non-violent, yet he still led marches, protests, and boycotts. He spoke clearly and forcefully against segregation and racism. He acted out of a vision of something better, but did not simply turn the other cheek.

Mahatma Gandhi was non-violent, yet he forcefully opposed British rule over India with marches, protests, non-cooperation, and clearly speaking out against British rule and its abuses.

Embracing non-violence does not require one to cooperate with one’s oppression. It does not mandate one’s silence in the face of that oppression. It does not mean one should not peacefully protest the ills of society.

I am free to express my dismay of the president-elect and what he has clearly stood for. I am free to protest, march, or blog to demonstrate my concerns and objections to his programs. And I have no intention of giving up the fight.

Election 2016 Aftermath

Today, I am in mourning for America. I am sad and depressed when I think about the future of this country. Too many people have bought into an authoritarian fantasy, spread by a sociopathic narcissist. I am reminded today of the words of Dick Tuck, after losing a bid for Congress:

“The people have spoken – the bastards.”

I do not understand my country. I do not understand the motivations of a large number of American citizens. To be fair, I never loved Hillary. I thought Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would have been far better. But Donald Trump is a gasoline fueled dumpster fire. He is a liar, who cheats his contractors and employees, games the system, and abuses women. The closest thing I can find to a redeeming feature is that he changes his positions so often, no one really knows what he believes or wants.

The GOP campaign was a deluge of lies. Trump would utter falsehoods at the slightest excuse – and his followers believed or excused them. He would deny he said things for which there was clear proof that he had said those things. Non-partisan fact checks found that his statements were more often false than true – but too many people never seemed to care, or accused the fact checkers of bias.

I heard Clinton called ‘Lying Hillary’, though fact checkers found her to be the most honest candidate in the election, followed closely by Sanders. They called her ‘Crooked Hillary’, though some 25 years of investigations have found nothing to even warrant charging her, much less convict her. There is no doubt she was the candidate of the establishment, and this was very much an anti-establishment election.

People want to “Make America great again.” But what really made America great? To my mind, it was a willingness to embrace the new – a willingness to look forward – a willingness to work for the common good – a willingness to work together in spite of party.

Today, all that has been thrown aside. Worse yet, it has been thrown aside by an archaic electoral system. Hillary won the popular vote by 165,000 as of the last I checked. I guess I should be slightly reassured by the narrow popular vote victory, but the election was still lost.

Where do we go from here? The biggest problem is that the election and Trump’s rhetoric has emboldened and empowered bigotry, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. These are the people who have ‘taken their country back’. But what about the rest of us? What about those of us who believe all of us were created equal? What about those of us who believe we are all entitled to equal rights, equal opportunity, fairness, and a justice system that does not discriminate against anyone?

As of January, the Republican party will control the presidency, the Senate, the Congress, the Supreme Court (as soon as they can approve his pick), a clear majority of state legislatures, and a clear majority of governorships.

What happens next? We know that Trump and the GOP want to repeal Obamacare, but have no clear program to replace it. We know that Trump and the GOP want to slash taxes on the wealthy, which will either mean soaring deficits or higher taxes on middle and working classes. We know that Trump and the GOP want to repeal marriage equality, though that would take at least two Supreme Court justices to do. We know that Trump and the GOP want to overturn Roe vs Wade, which may only take one justice to do.

They have already shown their hand in many ways. Under the guise of voter fraud, which in truth is virtually nonexistent, they have curtailed voting rights for minorities – and even bragged about their success in keeping blacks away from the polls. They’ve passed laws requiring welfare recipients to take drug tests, even though that has been both costly and ineffective. They’ve passed so-called religious freedom laws, to allow people to freely discriminate against gays and minorities.

They are firmly opposed to an increase in the minimum wage. They want to break unions and reverse laws and regulations protecting workers. They want to gut environmental protection, though Republicans were among the notable people establishing those laws. They want to gut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Education will only be those who can afford it.

Today I can only weep for my country and despair over where it was headed.

Voting for Hillary is Cowardly?

I had someone call me a coward, because I will not support Jill Stein, and instead am supporting Hillary. Seriously? First, Jill Stein has zero chance of winning the election. Beyond which, while Hillary is no perfect progressive, neither is Stein.

My first choice for president would have been Elizabeth Warren, but she chose not to run. In her absence, my choice was Bernie Sanders, who I supported with both my money and my vote. Unfortunately, Sanders did not get the nomination. Yes, the DNC strongly favored Clinton, but what would you expect? Clinton has been a Democrat for over 30 years. Sanders was elected and serves as an independent, and only ran as a Democrat for this presidential nomination run.

The simple fact is that Sanders did not get enough support from black voters, latinx voters, and working class voters to win the nomination. While the DNC clearly favored Clinton, the primaries were NOT rigged. As it stands, Sanders and Warren are both supporting Clinton’s presidential bid and are both campaigning on her behalf. Absent any contraindications, that alone is enough to make me support Hillary.

Some folks claim that Stein supports a far more progressive platform. I see no evidence of that. I am on the left wing of the Democratic party, and based on political surveys rank as more liberal than the majority of liberal Democrats. I’ve gone down lists of positions on major issues in this campaign comparing candidates. I do not side noticeably more often with Stein than with Hillary.

Most right wingers and some hard core leftists claim that Hillary is dishonest. When Politifact checked all major party presidential candidates, Hillary and Sanders were two of the top three in honesty. Hillary had slightly more true, mostly true, and half true than Bernie, but Bernie had fewer pants on fire. Frankly, the far right has been accusing Clinton of all manner of things for many years, but has never proven anything of significance.

There is no fact checking scorecard on Jill Stein, but some things seem to be disturbing. She seemed very pro-Brexit, until that turned out to be of some disadvantage, then kind of shucked and jived. She has seemed to support anti-vaxxers, until that caused some stir, and has equivocated on vaccines since. She also appeared to claim that there were health hazards associated with wifi. Neither her vaccine nor wifi positions have any scientific support.

Some people point to Hillary’s changes in positions on issues as a reason to distrust her. To be sure, she shifted on marriage equality, as did Obama and as did many other Americans. She had been a supporter of TPP, then went silent, and eventually came out against it. Obama is still pushing TPP, and until the deal was finalized many people either supported or kept an open mind on it. While she supported a higher minimum wage, she changed her views on how much higher. She also came out more strongly for financial breaks for college students after pressure from Bernie. Only the most doctrinaire and close-minded people never change views on issues. My positions have evolved on issues, including some of the above.

What we find with Hillary, is someone who will shift her positions on issues when there is sufficient pressure to do so. With Sanders and Warren as prominent progressive senators, speaking out, raising awareness, and mobilizing support for progressive issues, there will indeed be pressure on Hillary to stay closer to a progressive line.

My duty is to make sure the agenda of the next president is as closely aligned to a progressive agenda as possible. If I vote for someone other than Hillary, I take a big chance that Trump will win and impose a very anti-progressive agenda. Based on that, I have no hesitations in voting for Hillary.

Depression and Exercise

Saw a post from someone railing against another person who suggested physical activity as an alternative to drugs as a cure for depression. They railed against that and compared it to telling asthma sufferers not to use a rescue inhaler and telling diabetics not to take insulin.

First, for some types of diabetes, watching one's diet and losing weight can lessen or even eliminate the need for insulin or other medical interventions. That is not true for all, by any means, but it is true for some. I am asthmatic and have found that regular aerobic exercise can improve my lung function and reduce my need for medication.

There is no doubt that severe and prolonged depression may require medical intervention. When it does, there is no shame in taking the medication needed to relieve one’s problem. There is also no doubt that physical activity is a mood elevator and can ease mild to moderate depression. The Mayo Clinic says, “Any physical activity that gets you off the couch and moving can help improve your mood.”

Some folks would reply that it is easy to talk about something when you don't suffer from it. I have suffered from depression though, and still have some mild depression. In my late 20s, I went through a very stressful period. I don’t want to get into the gory details, but will say I left a secure job for another job, which fell apart on me, taking all my savings and leaving me in debt. I found a new job, but less secure and not enough to easily cover my bills. I fell in love with someone who ultimately decided she cared for me, but didn’t love me, at least not that way.

I questioned myself very hard, and found I hated myself. I tried alcohol, mostly beer, but it didn’t really help, and I’m not inclined towards alcoholism. I tried pot, and it seemed to help for a while. The high would take the edge off the depression. I never smoked a lot – maybe the equivalent of a joint a day, when I came home from work.

After a while, I found that when I came off the high, the depression came back worse than before. I never before and never since felt the profound sense of self hatred, and self loathing that I did as I came off some of my highs. I remember lying on my bed, literally writhing in emotional agony, feeling a self hatred that I can’t even describe.

Any aspect of my being, I hated. I’ve always been fairly bright, if nerdy, and not at all athletic. I even questioned my own intelligence. Most people, when dealing with someone not too bright, will treat them kindly. I wondered if I was an intellectual imbecile who was merely being humored by the people around him. There was nothing about myself that I found of value. I even thought about how I might commit suicide – taking a car at very high speed and running flat into a concrete light pole or overpass support, with no one else around to be hurt.

I stopped smoking pot. I decided that the aftermath was so very much worse than the high was good, that it wasn’t worth it. I decided that I really was moderately bright – standardized test scores are not merely trying to be kind, and are quite impersonal. I decided that I needed to look at my life and see what I could change that would improve my self-image.

I was slightly over-weight – not grossly, but some, and very out of shape. I hated my body and my body image. I started doing sit-ups and push-ups every day in the evening before I ate dinner. I would not allow myself to eat dinner until I had done them. I started with very few, and for the first few weeks, even those were often uncomfortable. For the record, I still do sit-ups every night before I eat dinner, and it is many years later. I have only missed a very few nights from illness or injury in that time.

Eventually I got into racquetball and later running to improve my physical condition further. I reached the point, before injuring my foot, of being able to run over 9 miles without stopping. I had to quit for several years to let my foot heal and am now back to running 3 miles.

Exercise was a big part of helping me out of my depression. That is not to say it would work as well for everyone, and some folks might need medication to help them out of their depression. But everyone can get some benefit from such exercise, and to rudely dismiss exercise makes no more sense than to dismiss medication for those who cannot be fully helped without it.

Grab their pussy

Trump's comments revealed on Friday, take me back some years to an event in my own life.

Tom was a VP at the company where I worked and I was doing some work in an isolated area. He stopped and began talking to me, and I thought nothing of it. He said something about his wife being out of town, and I still thought nothing of it. Tom grabbed my crotch, which shocked me. I didn't like at all, but I didn't know what to do.

When Christy came by shortly after and began talking to Tom I got the hell out of there - quickly and did not return that day. I never properly thanked Christy, whom I have not seen in many years. I fully understand how women feel about unwanted touching.

I understand how unwanted attention can be frightening and enervating. I absolutely despise Donald Trump's comments and find them totally inexcusable.

Art versus Pornography

How do we draw the line and where do we draw the line between art and pornography? I consider myself to be a feminist, and oppose the exploitation of women. But is all nudity exploitive? Artists and sculptors have been portraying the nude body, both female and male for over two thousand years. Is the Venus De Milo exploitive? What about the Three Graces? Rodin’s Fallen Caryatid? Manet’s painting of Olympia? All include female nudity and all have been considered great art. What is the difference between Manet’s Olympia and a Playboy photograph of a woman in the same pose?

I think we can agree that a woman who was compelled or coerced into posing nude is being exploited. What if it is quite voluntary? What if the woman is decently compensated for posing voluntarily? To go a step further, is it exploitation to have a voluntary nude model for an art class?

I was on one feminist site which included feminists who were sex workers. I said that at its basis, sex work was exploitive, even when voluntary. I was banned from that site for that comment. At the same time, I’ve been on other feminist sites which excoriated pornography and those who consume pornography. How then do we distinguish artistic nudity and sexuality from exploitation?

And what about films? Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis have a simulated lesbian scene in Black Swan. Brokeback Mountain includes simulated straight sex and gay male sex. The biopic about Frida Kahlo includes female nudity and simulated sex. There are innumerable instances of nudity and simulated sex in mainstream films. Are these art or exploitation? What about Pretty Baby or Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet? Given that the young women were under age at the time, those movies could not even be made in the US today. One art photographer has been roundly denounced for shooting nude photos of her underage children. Have we overreacted?

Have we so conflated nudity with sex that any nudity is tantamount to sexuality? Perhaps we could say that real photographed or filmed sexual contact is pornographic. But even that may be open to discussion by some however. Is simulated sex also pornographic? Where is the line? How do you protect people from exploitation without unduly limiting their freedom? If an adult willingly consents to nudity or sex on camera, is that truly exploitation? How do you protect those who do not wish to be protected, and who see your protection as infringing on their liberty?

Taxes and where they go

I hear people complaining about paying taxes and what their taxes support. It all becomes a matter of priorities. We pay taxes. The question becomes one of what will our taxes pay for.

Will they pay for education to make our young people smarter and better workers? Will they pay to make certain children have enough to eat? Will they pay for medicine and medical care so people don't die unnecessarily?

Or will they pay for subsidies to wealthy corporations? Or will they pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans? Or will they pay for more and deadlier weapons for the largest and deadliest military that has ever existed in the history of the world?

Some folks feel that disadvantaged people who get tax benefits are scamming the system - taking advantage of it, and being lazy, living off the efforts of others. The fact is, most disadvantaged people work, if they can find work, and want to work. Often they make so little money they can't afford food, shelter, clothing, and transportation.

The anti-tax folks say these people are responsible for their own problems, that they should get education to get better jobs. Yet once you are caught in those circumstances, it is exceedingly difficult to get the time and money to pursue that education. No doubt, a few people manage it, in spite of the odds, but we should be building stairs not barricades. We should make it easier, not harder for people to support themselves and advance.

2016 American Election

I haven’t even wanted to discuss the election very much, in spite of how contentious it is.

I’ll start by saying that I have been a registered Democrat since I first registered to vote a few days after my 21st birthday. For years, I moved my vote around, depending on the race and candidate. I have voted for Republicans for president, though most of the time I lean Democratic.

Before the race got underway, I was enthusiastic about Elizabeth Warren, but she chose not to run. After it got underway, it appeared the choices in the Democratic primary would be Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I became an enthusiastic Sanders supporter, and still have one of his bumper stickers on my car. As that race drew to a close, it became obvious that Clinton would be the nominee, running against Donald Trump.

I have pretty die hard liberal political positions. I support abortion rights; I support women’s rights in general; I support LGBT rights, including marriage equality; I support minority rights, including voting rights and civil rights; I support programs to reduce income inequality, including higher minimum wages; I support universal health care.

When I look at the comments made by Donald Trump, attacking immigrants, blacks, Muslims, and other racial and religious minorities, there is no way I would even want to see him as president. He rails against “political correctness” which in nearly all instances means someone wants to denigrate others and not be criticized for it. He shows every sign of being thin-skinned, highly egocentric, authoritarian, and basically dishonest. He appeals strongly to people who are racist, misogynistic, homophobic; and xenophobic. Not all Trump supporters are like that, I know some people who seem quite decent, who support him.

He alienates some of our oldest and closest foreign allies, while cozying up to people like Russia’s Vladimir Putin. It seems that Russians who question or oppose Putin end up dead or in jail, all too often. That is not how this country should operate, but Trump sounds pretty similar, when he bans reporters from his campaign and rallies if they’re critical of him. Trump does not to me represent anything good or great about my country. He represents the basest parts of our history, and I don’t want to see the country turn that way.

Trump has made it clear, though he since equivocated a bit, that he wants to criminalize abortion. He wants to deport all or most undocumented immigrants. He wants to lower taxes on the very wealthy, though he tries to make it sound like he wants to help the middle class. He is misogynistic and homophobic and with a GOP Congress, would roll back decades of progress in equal rights for women, blacks, LGBT, and so many others. Given his hair trigger temper, I can’t be sure he wouldn’t get us into a war. I think Trump as president would be a major disaster for this country.

Some folks have gravitated towards Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party. They speak in terms of freedom, which most Americans would agree is a good thing. The Libertarians are more liberal on social issues than most of the right wing and are non-interventionists in most international affairs. Both of those strike a chord with many folks and I agree with them on those issues.

My problem with the Libertarian platform relates to business and the economy. They are in favor of full-bore laissez faire capitalism, which they say rather explicitly. Under laissez faire capitalism, there would be no governmental interference in business whatsoever. Everything would be based on profits and the choices of the business owners.

Minimum wage laws were instituted because in our economy business owners had far more power than employees with regards to wages. When your economy is made up primarily of many small businesses, it is harder for business owners to squeeze employees and keep their wages down. We are now however in an era of large multinational companies which in many communities exert a great deal of control over wage levels. Workers may have little or no recourse but to accept whatever wages the employer is willing to offer. Libertarians oppose minimum wage laws as restricting their freedom.

Under laissez faire, ideally worker compensation was based on supply and demand. When the demand for workers exceeded the number of workers available for that job, wages would be bid up, and when the supply of workers exceeded the demand, the wages would be pushed down. Individual business owners would set their own wage scales, and since economies are seldom at full employment, there is little incentive for employers to raise wages. Some business owners have believed it in their interests to have higher wages, but often those have been the exceptions, and there is no obligation to do so.

Businesses will often pay workers as little as they can get away with and will fire workers who try to unionize the workforce. Pay is not based on one’s contribution, but rather is based on economic power, and those with the power will reap most of the rewards. Advancement is not necessarily based on merit, but on whatever measure the existing managers choose to use. Managers and business owners would be free to discriminate in employment and promotion based on gender, race, religion, national origin, sexual identity, etc under ideal Libertarianism.

Businesses may not find it in their interests to install worker protections, resulting in things like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, where over one hundred workers died, or coal mines where many hundreds of miners have been killed, along with others who suffered black lung and similar ailments. Businesses may not find it in their interests to eliminate or reduce pollution of the air, water, or land. Economists refer to these sorts of things as ‘externalities’, where the costs and benefits are not wholly to the same entity.

If I pollute the water that is shared by the community, I get the benefit of not having to pay the costs of cleaning up my waste before I discharge it. The whole community (and any others downstream) pays the cost by having fouled water. This may require cleaning costs to purify drinking water, otherwise it may result in disease from the fouled water. The same can be true for air and land pollution, and such pollution controls are opposed by Libertarians, under the guise of ‘freedom from government interference’.

Markets are not self-regulating, regardless of what capitalist idealists say, but rather are quite capable of distortions based on market power. Supply and demand are not sufficient to control the excesses of laissez faire capitalism. We established that around the end of the 19th century when the robber barons controlled trains, banking, petroleum, steel, and many other industries. A Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, led campaigns to break up the trusts and monopolies that had taken control of American industry.

Government stepped in to require an end to child labor and establish worker protections. Later, given the number of elderly people living in utter poverty, government stepped in to establish Social Security, and later Medicare. Government established workers compensation laws and funds so people who were injured on the job would not be impoverished. There were also unemployment compensation funds to cover those who were between jobs. These are all worker protections, which average workers insisted on, but which businesses opposed, and which Libertarians oppose still today.

Though I may agree with them on social issues, I am and will be firmly opposed to the Libertarian economic agenda.

For some folks, Jill Stein seems to be a reasonable alternative. Many of her stated positions seem progressive and appear to align with liberal values. I took a little position alignment quiz and it said I aligned with Jill Stein 97% of the time and with Hillary Clinton 96% of the time. That says that strictly in terms of policy positions, there is little or difference between them, at least from my standpoint. Some folks do not trust Hillary, so they feel Stein is a better choice.

I understand them but also look at some other things. Stein has seemed at times to align herself with anti-vaxxers, which is disturbing. The science related to vaccines is very well established. After there seemed to be some links between vaccines and autism, several quality studies were done that made it quite clear that indeed there was no link. She implied there were links between wifi and damage to children’s brains, which again has no scientific evidence.

Stein seems also to have switched positions quickly on Brexit. She seems inclined at times to sign onto conspiracy theories, and had little trouble cozying up to Putin when she visited Russia, condemning American foreign policy in her visit. Her running mate seems enamored of Bashar al-Assad, who has not only killed thousands of his own people but also used chemical weapons on them.

Her campaign seems to be an ego-driven spoiler campaign. She has no chance of winning, the only thing she could do is siphon enough votes from Clinton to let Trump win. If she were truly pushing a progressive agenda, she would be building a ground movement throughout the nation for state and congressional races. To his credit Sanders is working to do that sort of thing. Stein is not.

I confess to be less than enthusiastic about Hillary. She is evasive and makes excuses for her actions, just like Bill did. It is not that either of them are doing illegal things, it is more that they can never bring themselves to say, “I screwed up, I’m sorry, I won’t do that again.” She has ties to big corporations and Wall Street, but every major party presidential candidate for the last 50 years has. It takes tons of money to run for president, and more each time out. The only way you get that money is by sucking up to the folks with big money.

Sanders didn’t do that, but then Sanders fell short of getting the nomination. He never convinced African-Americans that he was on their side. Bill was always very popular among blacks, as was Obama, and Hillary has strong ties to both. For them, it was the devil they knew rather than the one they didn’t. Blacks know they are going to get the short end of the stick, the question is whether they will be hit with that stick, and the GOP seems to want to do the latter.

For me the question comes down to one of which person that I have misgivings about that I vote for. I have misgivings about both Hillary and Stein. But I know Stein has no chance of winning. If enough voters go for Stein, she will put Trump in the White House. I see that as a major disaster.

In the final analysis, I know Hillary is a politician. She supports many of the things I do, in spite of my misgivings. I also know that when there is a grassroots swelling of opinion in a more progressive direction, she is politically savvy enough to follow it. She was not on board with marriage equality, until a majority of Americans were, then she firmly backed it. She did not want to raise the minimum wage as much, until there was pressure on that. She is part way there, and progressive activists by generating popular support can move her further along.

Libertarian Agenda

I see that the Libertarian party seems to be gaining some measure of popularity. They speak in terms of freedom, which most Americans would agree is a good thing. The Libertarians are more liberal on social issues than most of the right wing and are non-interventionists in most international affairs. Both of those strike a chord with many folks and I agree with them on many of those issues.

My problem with the Libertarian platform relates to business and the economy. They are in favor of full-bore laissez faire capitalism, which they say rather explicitly. Under laissez faire capitalism, there would be no governmental interference in business whatsoever. Everything would be based on profits and the choices of the business owners.

Minimum wage laws were instituted because in our economy business owners had far more power than employees with regards to wages. When your economy is made up primarily of many small businesses, it is harder for business owners to squeeze employees and keep their wages down. We are now however in an era of large multinational companies which in many communities exert a great deal of control over wage levels. Workers may have little or no recourse but to accept whatever wages the employer is willing to offer. Libertarians oppose minimum wage laws as restricting their freedom.

Under laissez faire, ideally worker compensation was based on supply and demand. When the demand for workers exceeded the number of workers available for that job, wages would be bid up, and when the supply of workers exceeded the demand, the wages would be pushed down. Individual business owners would set their own wage scales, and since economies are seldom at full employment, there is little incentive for employers to raise wages. Some business owners have believed it in their interests to have higher wages, but often those have been the exceptions, and there is no obligation to do so.

Businesses will often pay workers as little as they can get away with and will fire workers who try to unionize the workforce. Pay is not based on one’s contribution, but rather is based on economic power, and those with the power will reap most of the rewards. Advancement is not necessarily based on merit, but on whatever measure the existing managers choose to use. Managers and business owners would be free to discriminate in employment and promotion based on gender, race, religion, national origin, sexual identity, etc under ideal Libertarianism.

Businesses may not find it in their interests to install worker protections, resulting in things like the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, where over one hundred workers died, or coal mines where many hundreds of miners have been killed, along with others who suffered black lung and similar ailments. Businesses may not find it in their interests to eliminate or reduce pollution of the air, water, or land. Economists refer to these sorts of things as ‘externalities’, where the costs and benefits are not wholly to the same entity.

If I pollute the water that is shared by the community, I get the benefit of not having to pay the costs of cleaning up my waste before I discharge it. The whole community (and any others downstream) pays the cost by having fouled water. This may require cleaning costs to purify drinking water, otherwise it may result in disease from the fouled water. The same can be true for air and land pollution, and such pollution controls are opposed by Libertarians, under the guise of ‘freedom from government interference’.

Markets are not self-regulating, regardless of what capitalist idealists say, but rather are quite capable of distortions based on market power. Supply and demand are not sufficient to control the excesses of laissez faire capitalism. We established that around the end of the 19th century when the robber barons controlled trains, banking, petroleum, steel, and many other industries. A Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, led campaigns to break up the trusts and monopolies that had taken control of American industry.

Government stepped in to require an end to child labor and establish worker protections. Later, given the number of elderly people living in utter poverty, government stepped in to establish Social Security, and later Medicare. Government established workers compensation laws and funds so people who were injured on the job would not be impoverished. There were also unemployment compensation funds to cover those who were between jobs. These are all worker protections, which average workers insisted on, but which businesses opposed, and which Libertarians oppose still today.

Though I may agree with them on social issues, I am and will be firmly opposed to the Libertarian economic agenda.

2016 American Presidential Election

I have heard and read far too many comments from friends and acquaintances supporting Trump and/or totally dismissing Hillary. For the record, I am a Bernie supporter. I voted for him in my state’s primary and have contributed money to his campaign. My strong preference would be for Bernie to get the Democratic nomination. I know that looks unlikely, though not yet impossible.

I like Bernie because he is not business as usual. He is not beholden to corporate or banking interests, and not dependent on them for campaign financing. Beyond that, his platform is not anti- any sort of people. He understands the problems of average Americans and wants to address them. In his view, those needs are best met by giving them the chance to earn a decent living, first by backing an increase to the minimum wage. He wants to make sure no family is driven into bankruptcy by medical bills by providing universal health care. He wants to ensure the long term health of Social Security and Medicare by raising the cap on wages subject to FICA taxes. He wants to make sure people are not put into lifetime debt in getting a college education. He wants to halt the offshoring of jobs, which is facilitated by a tax code that shelters the overseas earnings of corporations. He wants to restore Glass –Steagall which kept commercial banks from entering other riskier types of businesses. His programs would mean higher taxes on the top earners. He opposes racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia.

Hillary is business as usual. She is a creature of the corporate and banking world, and will not put any real effort into curbing the excesses of that world. She has made nods towards higher minimum wages, and would support an expansion of ACA (Obamacare) but does not seem to support true universal health care. She is not in favor of Bernie’s college tuition proposals, and in foreign policy seems to be a hawk. Hillary opposes sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and the more overt forms of racism. It is possible through public pressure to move Hillary more toward progressive positions, but she is essentially a centrist.

Trump is a problem. He spouts racism, sexism, and xenophobia. He incites his followers to attack those who oppose him, and excuses or condones their actions when they do. The absolute best one could hope for with Trump is that he does not mean what he says. He seems to bring forth the worst in his supporters. Now admittedly, he is not business as usual, but that isn’t necessarily in a good way. Given his wealth and his ties to corporate America, he is unlikely to make more than token efforts to curb their excesses. He flatly opposes an increase to the minimum wage. He has said he favors punishment for women who get abortions, even though abortion has been legal in this country since Roe vs Wade. He has a problem with the truth. Non-partisan fact checkers have said that a majority of his statements are mostly false, false, or ‘pants-on-fire’ false. Trump flatly scares me. We are supposed to live in a society that respects all people yet he demonizes immigrants and Muslims. He casually throws out slurs against women and blacks.

As I said, my preference is for Bernie, but if Bernie does not get the Democratic nomination, I will support Hillary. While I don’t think Hillary will take the country forward, I am sure Trump will take the country sharply backward.

Gun Laws Again

One of the weakest and most frequent arguments against better gun laws is that criminals don't obey the law. So what? People speed, drive while intoxicated, run stop signs, and run red lights, but that does not mean we should skip trying to have laws against these things. Yes, people break laws, however reasonable the laws are. We have these laws so we can arrest and punish those people who do break the laws, and to deter those who might be tempted if there were no laws.

As I've said before, I don't want to ban guns. I don't want to ban handguns. I want background checks on all gun sales. I want restrictions to ban high capacity magazines. I want bans on so called assault weapons. Under Ronald Reagan there was a ban on assault weapons. The world didn't come to an end. America was not taken over by fascists who confiscated all weapons.

The fact is that when assault weapons are used in mass shootings, the death toll is considerably higher.

Religion as brainwashing

I saw an atheist post recently that all religion was brainwashing. I argued the point, though the person was willing to concede nothing. I have since found that studies by Pew have found that depending on how you define it, over 40% of Americans change religion. Now some of that may be between mainline protestant, evangelical, and Catholicism. Still a steadily increasing number of people are unaffiliated and do not adhere to any specific religion, though they don't consider themselves atheists or agnostic either. That does not even account for changes between various denominations of Christianity within the three major grouping listed above. If religion is brainwashing, then it seems to be failing a lot of the time. For myself, I was raised as a mainline protestant Christian, but left that to follow Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism, before converting to Judaism. As a teen, I was rejecting Christian dogma, which led to my deciding that I could not in good faith consider myself Christian. None of any of this will convince the militant atheist of anything other than what they believe.

Bathroom Laws

Authorities have said that in jurisdictions where people are allowed to use restroom facilities corresponding to their gender identities, there has been NO increase in sexual assaults in restrooms - None.

But those are the facts and for some folks this is a fact free discussion.

As a man, do you want to share a restroom with someone in a dress and makeup? As a woman, do you want to share a restroom with someone who has facial hair, looks and dresses like a man? That is what you are trying to get with these 'restroom laws'.

The fact is that transgender individuals who use restrooms corresponding to their birth certificate, not their identity or attire are frequently harassed and bullied. Yes, I know you don't care about those people. You have the greatest disdain and disgust for them.

Still, they are human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity and deserve the chance to pee without being harassed for it.

Poor People are Lazy?

 The fact is that we don't all genuinely have equal opportunities. Those born rich are most likely to be successful and stay rich. Those born poor are most likely to stay poor.

It's hard to get ahead when you don't have the financial resources or opportunities to do so. It is easy to point at those who started with nothing and became a success, then tell others that they should be able to do so too.

Those by-their-bootstraps folks are notable BECAUSE they are the exception. Not every poor person can do so, and it isn't because they are lazy.

Doors are opened for some folks that are slammed in the faces of most poor people - most, not all.

Until we recognize that, until we accept that, until we act to change that, that will continue. That isn't because of ability, that isn't because of talent, that isn't because of effort. That is the structure of the system we live in.

Anti-theism

I'm Jewish, and really don't care whether other people believe as I do. I take a relaxed approach to it all, as most non-Orthodox Jews seem to. I don't think the Torah is literal truth. It was written in a time and place when society, such as it was, was far more cruel and primitive. Its purpose was to try to start to civilize people. No it doesn't reflect modern science and mores. Much of modern science was not known then, and most of the mores would not have been accepted then. It was a starting point - not an end point. That's just my opinion - take it as you will.

Still, I see atheists bashing all religion because the Bible reflects the society of its time, and not our time. Believe what you will and for whatever reasons you choose. Have the decency to not go around bashing all religion and all religious followers because you think Biblical stories are absurd (frankly all mythology is pretty absurd, along with some real life), or because some folks try to cloak their bigotry in religious belief. These atheists (not all, but some atheists) decry the cruelty in the Bible, while fomenting hatred of religion.

So long as my words or actions to not harm you or deny your rights, lighten up. Feel free to call out those specific words or actions by people which do harm others or deny them rights. I do that all the time - supporting progressive politics, LGBT, feminism, BLM, immigrants, and other religions or even lack thereof. That doesn't mean you should bash other people who are otherwise your allies because someone tries to use religion as a cover for discrimination.

Agenda

I guess I'm a knee-jerk leftist. I own guns and don't want them banned, but want more background checks along with limitations on high capacity clips and semi-automatic weapons.

I don't want abortion to be illegal, but am willing to accept some limitations on late term abortions, so long as there are exceptions for the health of the woman and the fetus.

I want more help for low income people - in the form of guaranteed jobs at a living wage.

I want the US to think twice or even three times before sending troops into another country.

When weapons systems don't work or when the Pentagon says they are not needed, I am in favor of cutting them.

I want the government to stop making money off college students who had to borrow to finance their education.

I want everyone to have access to decent health care - including a Medicare for all option. I want the government to be able to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

I'm in favor of free college education at state universities for students willing to work a reasonable number of years at a public service job - a civilian version of military college benefits.

I'd raise the cap on income taxable for social security. I'd push the top marginal tax rates up - well below the top rates during the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s (never below 70%) but perhaps to 45% or thereabouts.

We have an agricultural system based on the labor of immigrant workers. I'd expand the slot for legal migrant farm workers, and open citizenship to immigrants who have worked and lived in the US for years without engaging in criminal activity. (BTW - Immigration violations are civil offenses, not criminal offenses).

Abortion Rant

It is a sick society that says government should stay out of the lives of its citizens - unless those citizens are pregnant women.

It is a sick society that says women must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even if that pregnancy might kill her.

It is a sick society that insists that women be forced to give birth to deformed children or a child that will die shortly after birth.

It is a sick society that insists on children being born, but refuses to make certain those children have food, shelter, or health care after it is born.

And it is a sick society that refuses to prosecute a man for rape, then refuses to allow the woman impregnated in that rape to abort the fetus, then further insists on parental rights for the rapist after the child is born.

Abortion is NOT murder - regardless how much religious fundamentalists insist it is.

Personal Responsibility

Folks on the right say that what we need is not government programs, but more people taking responsibility for their own actions.

To me it isn't a matter of being responsible for our own actions. To me it is a matter of priorities, and where we direct government spending.

Do we spend a trillion dollars on a jet plane that doesn't work, or do we put that money to providing education for more Americans?

Do we spend a trillion dollars upgrading our nuclear missiles, or spend that making sure Americans have health care and don't die of preventable diseases?

Do we put billions into tax credits for already very profitable companies, or do we use that money to make sure children in America don't go without food or a place to live?

Do we cut taxes primarily for the wealthiest people in the country, giving them billions of dollars, or do we use that money to ensure than retirees will have social security and medicare for the foreseeable future?

Black Lives Matter Protesters in Chicago

I've seen some right wing folks whining about Black Lives Matter protesters causing a Trump campaign rally in Chicago to be cancelled. Interesting since a while back BLM protesters disrupted a Bernie Sanders campaign event. The difference was that in the Sanders case, no one was arrested, and no one was beaten up.

Meanwhile at Trump rallies, peaceful protesters are beaten and arrested. Hell, reporters are beaten and arrested at Trump rallies. Beyond that, Mr. Trump has both tacitly and explicitly excused the violence on the part of his followers. His followers have even beaten up people who they though might be Latinx or Muslim - even when the people being beaten were peacefully minding their own business. Trump says his followers are enthusiastic and 'want to make America great again'. Sorry, but it looks to me like they want to make America bigoted again, and Trump is cheering them on.

It is also funny, since the right wingers seem to attribute the BLM protesters to the Sanders campaign. Funny, since the majority of blacks seem to support Hillary. Even in Michigan they were two to one for Hillary, and in the South they have been four to one for HIllary.

But even when they have been peaceful, the protesters are called violent and thugs, and Trump says they probably deserved being beaten. Can the right wing see or tell the truth about anything?

Free Health Care & Free College

Had a friend who posted something that went like ‘when the Democrats talk about free college and free health care, they mean you will be paying for someone else’s college and health care’.

The fact is we are already in most cases ‘paying for someone else’s health care’. What do you think health insurance is? Insurance companies charge everyone, then pay for health services for those who use them. The thing is, the insurance companies are also paying large salaries and bonuses to executives. They are paying for advertising for their insurance plans. They are paying commissions to the sales people selling the plans. Then they are paying dividends to the stockholders of that company.

The salaries, bonuses, commissions, advertising, dividends, etc. are part of the “overhead” costs of the insurance plan. For American health insurance companies, overhead costs amount to roughly 20% of your insurance premium. So essentially 80% of what you pay for health insurance actually goes to the health care of the policy holders. With Medicare, the overhead is roughly 3% of the total costs, so 97% goes to health care.

Critics of the single payer plans have said they would cost trillions of dollars. True, but we are already paying those trillions of dollars. The difference is that one sixth of those trillions would not be going to unnecessary overhead. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if you knock out one sixth of the cost, you could cover millions more people for the same amount of money.

As to college and such, we already are paying taxes that support public education through high school, and you pay them whether you have a child in school or not. We are already paying taxes that support public universities, whether you are attending them or not. Similarly, you pay taxes that build roads whether you drive on those roads or not, and pay for fire departments, whether you have a fire or not.

Some services benefit the community as a whole, and as a society, most industrial countries spread those costs among all taxpayers, without regard to actual usage. We do the same with national defense, police departments, and many other services. How much of that is used by any one individual will vary, just as which specific services are used will vary by individual. It is more economical to provide those by shared costs than by specific charges.

Seriously, do you want to pay tolls for every mile of road you drive down? Do you want to pay cash on demand before you have your house fire put out? Do you want to pay cash before the police help you? We are always paying for a basket of services that the whole community uses. As a society we have felt it was more fair and efficient to do that.

College education is something which in truth will pay society back over the long run. More educated people make higher salaries and end up paying higher taxes over their working lives. We are making an investment in our children, just as we do with elementary and high school education. We will have some upfront costs, but frankly we have some wasteful things that could be eliminated to pay for this. We have weapons programs that do not work. We have weapons programs that even the Pentagon says we don’t need. We have subsidies to oil companies which are already enormously profitable. We have subsidies to agricultural conglomerates that are also enormously profitable.

If we have the political will, we can pay for “free” college education, by cutting the waste and cutting subsidies to companies that truly don’t need them. We also have asset give aways, like selling mineral rights on public lands for a small fraction of what would be paid for those rights on private land. We have the means to pay for those things. The question is what our priorities are.

Ideological Purity

I find myself thinking of the words of Cardinal Richelieu, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

I was a member of one group, from which I now seem to have been ejected, because something I wrote a year and a half ago was not wholly in sympathy with the feelings of some group members. That's not the first time that has happened.

I question things, and will explore ideas that may not always be welcomed by some folks. The idea of civil disagreement seems to have disappeared. I was not being rude, nor was I adamant in my views, but asked if anyone had peer evaluated studies which contradicted what I questioned.

I do not cleave to anyone's orthodoxy - not even necessarily my own. I am not the font of all knowledge or wisdom, and understand that there will be conflicts even between different groups of oppressed people. I will hear things out and explore ideas, in a civil manner.

I'm not interested in name-calling or personal accusations, nor am I interested in excoriating someone for their views. I will try as best I can to educate those whose views I believe are based on misinformation or ignorance or bias. In so far as possible, I try to eliminate misinformation and bias from the process by which I form opinions - again understanding that I do not and cannot have full and complete information.

If there is a G-d, why is there unhappiness?

This world is not utopia, it is not perfect, and the people in it are not perfect, and it was never meant to be that way. The only way it could be that way is if all people were mindless robots. Since we aren't, and since we have at least some freedom of choice, we have choices as to how to live our lives.

Some of those choices will work out, and some won't - again, life isn't perfect. People also have the choice whether to be kind or cruel to others. Those choices will affect both themselves and the others. Even many of the wealthiest people are unhappy, because money cannot prevent unhappiness.

In a Buddhist sense, we are attached to life, and as such are filled with desire. That desire is the source of our pain. Why should anyone expect that the existence of a deity, if indeed there is one, would result in the end to unhappiness? I don't pretend to have ultimate knowledge. I suspect there may be some sort of higher power or higher state of existence, but there is no way to prove that, and it is ultimately irrelevant.

I live the best life I can, showing the greatest amount of humaneness that I can both towards myself and towards others. I do so, not out of fear of a deity, nor out of desire for a heaven, but because that is to me the greatest way to live.

I have no problems with what anyone else chooses to believe or disbelieve, so long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on me. I will not denigrate the beliefs of others, so long as those are not hurtful towards other people.

If others choose to denigrate my beliefs, as so many anti-theists seem to do, then my opinion of them and their beliefs is lowered. I also feel no need to justify or defend my beliefs from others.

Why I Support Bernie

I have frequently said that I am a supporter of Bernie Sanders, but that if he does not get the nomination, that I will vote for Hillary in the general election with no hesitation. I think Bernie is the superior candidate, but also know that Hillary is far better than any of the Republican alternatives.
I prefer Bernie because he is pushing for a higher minimum wage than Hillary is willing to push for. Bernie also wants to take on the major Wall Street banks, which Hillary seems loath to do. Bernie wants decriminalization of marijuana, which Hillary does not seem to support. Hillary has a more hawkish foreign policy approach than Sanders.

Hillary supporters push her support for feminist issues, which she has indeed been at the forefront of, though Bernie has supported all or most of the same issues. Hillary supporters claim that voters will refuse to elect a "socialist", though polls seem to indicate that for many voters that does not have the negative connotations it once did. Hillary supporters say there is no way Sanders could get his policies through Congress.

Interestingly, I note that prominent Republicans still excoriate Hillary for her e-mails, and for Benghazi, both unfairly, in my view. I also remember the demonization of the Clintons during Bill's administrations in the 1990s. I find myself wondering how Hillary's supporters think that the same people who conducted multiple Benghazi investigations and such will so readily work with her to pass her agenda. I think they are fooling themselves.

I look at polls that say Hillary is one of the least trusted candidates in the current race, on either side, while Sanders is one of the most trusted, and wonder how they think she will have an easier road to the White House. The Republican candidate, whoever he may be, will certainly run a very nasty campaign this fall, and I don't see Hillary better suited to that than Bernie.

I am concerned that given Hillary's ties to big corporations and big banks, that she will be reluctant to rein them in. Certainly the Republicans will fight any Democratic proposals to change things, but Hillary, much like Obama, is more likely to give way and try to make deals. Bernie is far more likely to use the "bully pulpit" to put pressure on Congress to make changes. He certainly will end up having to make deals, but if there is enough public pressure, he might get better deals.

In the final analysis moving backward will not only gain us nothing but actually hurt us, and that is what the Republicans seem to want. The status quo is also ultimately unacceptable, and I'm afraid Hillary is a candidate of the status quo. Only a real change can make the kind of difference we need, and that is why I support Sanders.