No Wrong Way to Resist

There is one wrong thing you can do, and that is to criticize and dismiss an effort to do something positive simply because, in your opinion, it "is not enough." This is a chronic problem currently, and it fails to acknowledge anything other than statistically measurable effects, publicity, visibility, and savvy organization. Critics ignore the impacts on individual participants, the importance of collective purpose and strengthened solidarity, and habituation to action.

A small group of us protesting on Presidents' Day outside the courthouse of our small town.

The recent spending boycott on February 28, organized by the People's Union USA, was roundly attacked for requiring so little from participants, but considering that we have, as a broad citizenry, become complacent and perhaps lazy over the previous four years of relative calm, not demanding an intensive, personally risky act was probably the right call.

One important aspect of a boycott on purchases is anonymity. When there is the perception of risk to personal safety, the promise of invisibility is a helpful recruitment tactic. The same goes for the gathering of data by corporations and bad actors elsewhere. When you don't spend, you don't leave a digital or paper trail. Perceived vulnerability, real or not, is an enormous disincentive for engaging in protests that demand public spectacle with its potential for confrontation with counter-demonstrators and/or police violence.

The most profound impact of a buying boycott is personal. It causes you to pause your spending, and creates a window of opportunity to reflect on what you need and prioritize, and where you go to fulfull those needs and wants. It gets you to explore local alternatives to the global corporate marketplace, for example. Maybe, like sobriety, you take that one day boycott up a notch and make a habit of it, one day at a time. Extricating ourselves from the matrix of capitalism, at the scale it has become, is going to be a marathon, not a sprint, but it is something we can choose to do. What can I live without, you might ask yourself. What might I indulge in with less frequency?

One social media comment I saw claimed that not all locally-owned businesses are any better in their politics, hiring practices, responsiveness to customers, and impacts in other areas. That is definitely true, but a small business can survive only so long if word spreads that it exercises biases, tolerates or encourages bigotry, or fails to support the local community. It always pays to do your homework, ask your neighbors, and use other resources to inform your decisions on what enterprises to patronize.

Boycotts do affect the financial bottom line of the corporations targeted, but that usually takes time. There is definitely a sense of urgency now, and the critics of the one-day boycott are impatient. What we don't hear from those people are alternatives or complements to consumer boycotts. Well, one vocal critic, on a social media post, claimed that only a widespread labor strike will have any measurable effect. That exposes an awful lot of people to retaliation from their employers, at a time when unemployment benefits are no longer guaranteed. Too many are living paycheck to paycheck. Yes, a prolonged work stoppage would be very effective, but would require near total participation.

What gives me great satisfaction, even if I hear about it after the fact, are spontaneous efforts at disruption, such as overwhelming I.C.E. tip lines with bogus referrals for undocumented immigrants to target for deportation, or emailing human resources at the Office of Personnel Management to frustrate the DOGE request to supply it with five bullet points describing your job accomplishments the prior week. Such little acts also generate a great deal of much needed humor when people post their responses on social media. We need more of this kind of creative monkeywrenching.

Ideally, we need to reach the enablers of the oppressors and anti-democratic players. That means engaging or shaming CEOs and majority shareholders of the companies running the show. Call them out. Demand that shareholders dump their stock. Give these powerful people no peace. After all, they are not giving you any. Call your congresspeople, sure. Go to their town halls, if they bother holding such events. We need to up the pressure, though, maybe as a continued presence at all of their offices, all their public appearances.

I saw a photo, or perhaps a generative AI image, on social media recently that depicted a woman holding a cardboard sign. It read "I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept." This is a quote by Angela Davis, an esteemed leader in the Black Panther Party of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This resonates on many levels. I wonder if we need a twelve-step program with that mantra. I would go to the meetings, learning what actions others are taking, and trying them myself.

The Empty Hourglass and the Boomerang Curve

The extremist ends of our two dominant American political parties might best be illustrated by a couple of familiar, if not ancient, objects. How we decide to address the problems and predicaments presented therein will determine the future of our country and our world.

"Time is up" describes not only the assertiveness of women and the renewed feminist movement, but also the growing urgency in addressing climate change, labor rights, consumer protections, universal healthcare, civil rights for all ethnic populations and all categories of gender and sexual orientation. These are timeless issues that have advanced only incrementally even when the Democratic party has been in power. The sand in the hourglass has been wasted by previous centrist democratic leadership seeking to appease Republicans who lean slightly left. The exhaustive effort to convert centrist Republicans has sucked all the energy out of the rest of the party. Change has been at a snail's pace; and that same impatience in the far-right has resulted in great leaps backwards as current administrations dismantle existing protections for all but the wealthiest of individuals and corporations.

The trajectory of the Republican party is best described by the path of a boomerang, originating from the point of absolute White Privilege, and seeking to return to that point, albeit in a form that does not resemble original slavery. "Reactionary" is the word that was once used to describe this desire for a return to the "good old days," but now we just call these people what they really are: racists, bigots, homophobes, and misogynists, to name but a few. They are not interested in the prosperity, or even the survival, of anyone but themselves, and they define prosperity only in monetary terms.

The two parties have always been similar, starting to diverge only when the democrats began realizing that there were constituents to be mined from the feminist and civil rights movements. Later, they embraced gay and lesbian issues, but mostly to again swell their voting rolls. Democrats have, to put it bluntly and cynically, recognized minority populations as a means to advance a tamer form of White Privilege. Yes, dear Blacks, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, and transgendered, and disabled and discriminated, we are reaching out, we are giving you a seat at the table, just not any power to enact significant changes that require sacrifice from White men.

Ideally, we want the trajectory of our political party to steadily increase, with no setbacks, instituting changes that are perceptible but tolerable to all, assuming that our motivations are clear and in the best interest of our constituents. The curve of that pursuit over time represents a graph we can comprehend easily, a smooth climb of idealism.

The Republican curve has become a boomerang arc, a "fool you" curve that turns back on itself in trying to reassert White male privilege, with increasingly hostile legislation and policy, more distractions for the gullible, and no apologies to the disenfranchised. The Democratic curve, on the other hand, is more schizophrenic in its ascent, and the leading edge has become a splintered rainbow of constituencies, each with its own overriding agenda, and the upper layer (Democratic National Committee) still being White male interests. Guess what? A rainbow has no white light. That is the whole point, in fact. You address the white light by embracing whole-heartedly the colors behind it. Raise the profile of each color and you lift up the whole radiant beam.

How do we prevail as a just and equitable society, then? We need faith. White democrats need faith in leadership that does not look like us, that came from a different culture and different circumstances. We have to lose the fear that by electing and supporting leaders from disparate enclaves we are turning power over to people who will try and oppress us as we have oppressed them, historically.

Do we deserve to be punished for our own version of apartheid, our prior collective hate crimes? Sure. Personally, I don't see vindictiveness in our diverse and newly-elected federal representatives. I see an energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to making our country better for all, including White people. We should be grateful for the strength and forgiveness of those we have suppressed and neglected and waged war on. Let us begin the road back by letting them lead on the road ahead.

Pulling the Lever, Filling the Oval

© HelloGiggles.com

Watching the news coverage of the election returns Tuesday night, and the aftermath on social media, one thing struck me above all talk of a "blue wave" and the advancement of women and minorities in politics. What was graphically exposed once again were the shortcomings of the election process, from redistricting to faulty voting machines, to long lines, severe or substantially inclement weather, and inaccessibility of polling locations. All of this is inexcusable for a country that purports to be a democracy.

Interestingly, if not ironically, many states took steps to improve the election system, through measures that were on their ballots. Florida granted former felons the right to vote, unless they committed a sex crime or murdered someone. Here in Colorado, we overwhelmingly approved Amendments Y and Z to the state constitution, creating unbiased citizen committees to draw the districting maps in a fashion that does not favor one political party over another. We did that via mail-in or drop-off ballot voting. Wow, what a concept, to dispense with the archaic polling locations, at a time of year when we could have a Rocky Mountain blizzard on election day.

Back in the day (whenever "the day" was, it is all relative I suppose), there may have been good reasons for each state, or even county, to set up its own election day procedures, draw district maps the way they did, register voters, and otherwise service a largely sedentary, if not rural, population of the electorate. There are some aspects of our culture that do well to recognize and follow history, however ancient, but voting should not be one of them. Today, with our mobile society, we desperately need standardization of election rules. You should be able to arrive in your new state and county of residence and know exactly how to register yourself to vote, including exactly what pieces of identification are required, on the first try, minimal hoops to jump through.

Once you are registered, you should not have to worry about where to report to exercise your right to vote. Mail-in ballots should be the norm. Why? You have plenty of time to go over your ballot, and do your due diligence in researching the candidates and issues. You need not concern yourself with the weather on election day. You do not need to fear that you will show up at the wrong polling place, or that it will be closed, or there will be long lines....I understand the appeal of exercising your civic duty socially, in public, but this method is now being exploited by nefarious parties to advance agendas not endorsed by the electorate. Time to rectify that.

No voting system is going to be foolproof, nor impervious to hackers nor immune to other glitches of technology and human error, but evidence and repeated experience suggests that voting machines cannot be trusted, especially when their manufacturers are in bed with one political party.

Then there is enduring hostile poll workers who take it upon themselves to harass voters, if not outright evict them from polling locations. Frankly, there should be minimal requirements for identification, and of course mail-in ballots again dispense with this kind of confrontation. Voting should not be stressful, let alone embarrassing or demeaning. All of that can take place on Facebook or Twitter. I'm kidding, there is no place for that kind of....attitude.

It should not be obvious that your particular voting district(s) lean toward one party or another, and your suspicions should be aroused if the district has a long history of domination by either Republicans or Democrats. I'm not even sure why we need so many districts, or why they are independent of, say, school districts. The geography of politics these days amounts to urban versus rural, and that divide needs to heal as quickly as possible, too. Our collective dialogue, when it comes to candidates and governing policy, needs to refrain from legislating morality and concentrate instead on addressing needs common to all citizens regardless of whether they live in a suburb or on a farm.

Gerry needs to stop mandering, and realize that democratic elections cannot take place when you rig the system. "But we've always done it this way" is now a euphemism for racism, bigotry, voter suppression, and a last gasp at preserving a status quo that is circumventing the will of the People. Yes, it is that plain and simple, like how voting should be.

Things to be Thankful For....While They Last

Note: This post was ready to publish last week, but I wanted to give a friend an opportunity to convince me that the net neutrality situation was a non-issue. That was a mistake. I remain unconvinced that what the FCC intends to do would not wreck things beyond repair.

-----------------------------------------------------

It is not difficult to find things to be grateful for during this American Thanksgiving holiday. The question is whether you will still have that sentiment at this time next year. Much of what we take for granted is now in serious jeopardy thanks to this edition of the Presidency and Congress. Life as we know it may not survive through the next three years. One could argue that optimism about the future has been the first casualty.

Amur TigerWildlife

Elephants, and lions, and tigers, and Polar Bears, oh my. They may be trophy-hunted or poached into extinction, or killed off by the policies exercised by climate change deniers. Science has no place in federal government right now, unless it can be used to accelerate the extraction of fossil fuels in the interest of "secure" energy of U.S. origin. The only bright spot has been the President's apparent reversal of his bid to overturn the ban on the importation of African Elephant parts by trophy hunters who kill their victims in Zimbabwe and Zambia. He has faced more public pressure on this one issue than any other so far, and he is apparently bowing to it. Good to know.

Great Sand Dunes National ParkPublic Lands

The onslaught against nature continues with a proposal to raise one-day admission fees to popular national parks a whopping $50.00 to $70.00. Yes, our parks are starved for funds for maintenance and other services, but that is thanks to a bloated Department of Defense budget that amounts to corporate welfare for private contractors, and wasteful spending in other areas as well. The conspiracy theorist in me believes the astronomical entry fee proposals are designed to drive down park visitations. Even people who can afford those prices may boycott the parks on principal. The less the attendance at parks, the more our President and Congress can argue that those public lands should be opened up to something truly beneficial: leases for oil, gas, and mineral extraction. The government will not see the profit, but the multinational corporations doing the work certainly will, which is the whole point. Meanwhile, leases are already being drawn up for properties managed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and other agencies.

© ACLU.orgA Neutral Internet

Do you think the World Wide Web is just fine as it is? Me, too, which is why I am aghast that the Federal Communications Commission, again led by a Presidential appointee, plans on allowing ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to pretty much write their own rules for access to the internet, both for users like you and me, and for those who provide services and content online. The oversimplified scenario is that if you want access to some of the websites and apps you are enjoying currently, you will have to pay more. Likewise, if you want your business to continue enjoying a (high) profile online, you will have to put up more money to get the same amount of customer traffic. Gee, I wonder who gets rich in all this (rhetorical question, sorry).

Meanwhile, alternative media, the non-fake news we turn to for the real scoop, will get overwhelmed by traditional media that can afford to get its message out there. Organizing protests, boycotts, petitions, and other means of dissent will become infinitely more difficult if people have to choose between different social media outlets, or are now unable to afford access at all. It might be the final nail in the coffin for dissent.

What Next?

That question could be taken two ways: What other atrocities of policy are we in for? Or, what do we do to stop this runaway train? I cannot recall a time when I have written more about public issues, signed more online petitions, or (ever) written to my Congressperson than I am doing now; and it has nothing to do with political affiliation. I honestly feel I am being personally assaulted because of my passion for liberty, wildlife, creative enterprises, small business, the sharing economy, local agriculture, and rights to freedom of (non-hate) speech, healthcare, and safety. This administration is not good for anybody, except the ultra-rich who are also greedy.

What we have to do is avoid despair, and keep up the pressure. Keep informing each other. Raise awareness of issues as you yourself become aware of them. Raise funds for organizations battling against this administration on the streets, in the courts, and elsewhere. Mostly, don't lose friends over disagreements.

Our Right to Competent Leadership

© RallyPoint.com and MemeGenerator.net

A few blog posts ago I wrote that I would no longer apologize for my opinions of our current U.S. President, Cabinet, Congress, and, more to the point, their policies. The pace of my exasperation seems to be accelerating, if anything. Now, I find myself questioning whether many of these people are even competent human beings, let alone government leaders. I hope you will read this post to the end, as there is something here for everyone, regardless of political party affiliation.

We deserve better, not just "different" leadership, and one must call into question whether what we are getting is any kind of leadership. Certainly not by example, unless you think off-the-cuff reactionary Twitter tweets qualify. Have you seen any acceptable standards of statesmanship, humility, gratitude, or even understanding of the Office of President from this person? Me, either. His idea of disaster relief is personally dispensing paper towels to hurricane victims?

Virtually everyone I know would be better qualified to be President of the United States. This includes people I regularly argue with on social media; and even includes people who reside in other countries, who have a better grasp of world history, justice, economics, and have a better command of the English language. I mean, you can all pronounce "diversity," right?

Pretty much every legitimate news outlet is appalled at the emptiness of this administration's rhetoric; and also decries its commitment to the dismemberment of vital agencies and policies that protect labor, the consumer, the environment, and the less fortunate members of our citizenry who are in, or on the verge of, poverty. Children are going to suffer the most if we endorse the course laid out by our "leaders." They will suffer now as public education shrinks or is abolished outright. They will suffer down the road as they become adults who must face an unforgiving landscape of unemployment, diminishing wages and benefits, unregulated products and services, poor air and water quality, and little recourse to change their circumstances.

Virtually everyone I know would be better qualified to be President of the United States....I mean, you can all pronounce "diversity," right?

Those who voted for our current Commander-in-Chief can be forgiven for their desperate desire for change. There is no question the political establishment no longer functions the way it should. The best candidates for public good are systematically erased from consideration in both the Democratic and Republican party tickets. However, it should be obvious by now that our current President is acting purely in self-interest, and on behalf of a minuscule fraction of the population that is ultra-wealthy with no sense of responsibility or obligation to anyone else, including employees, consumers, and the future generations of this great nation, let alone citizens of any other country, or the biosphere and all of creation. Maybe they are looking out for shareholders on Wall Street. Maybe. This is an administration of the short term, the now, the "to hell with tomorrow."

We should have a literal Constitutional right to competent leadership, if it does not exist already. We also need to draft some kind of mechanism for the electorate to remove incompetent individuals and their Cabinet appointees from office when it reaches a point at which their actions endanger the nation. We are quickly approaching that point, and some would argue we are already past it.

Even given the preceding paragraphs, I know this country has a habit of overcoming the worst of itself. We succeed in spite of government policies as much as we do because of them. These next three years are going to test our metal, more so than at any other point in history. I have hope in the average person, truly, but it sure would be helpful if government would just get out of the way and let us do what is best for ourselves and each other. Wait, am I sounding like a conservative now? Happy "diversary," everyone.

Raise Your Standards When Voting on Candidates

© Questioning.org

We just had a national election last November, but already we are having a local one here in Colorado Springs, on April 4, to decide City Council races and a trio of ballot issues. This got me thinking about elections in general, and how low we have set the bar for qualifications. It is high time we raised it, so here are some topics and qualities to consider when choosing among a field of candidates.

We are at such a shallow threshold for qualified candidates anymore that if the incumbent can simply avoid scandal, he or she is almost guaranteed to retain office. As long as they are not a complete embarrassment, then we seem to be ok with allowing them to carry on. Should we not be at least a little more demanding in what we expect of our government representatives? What have they done for us lately? What are their goals in the short run and the long term?

We might start by screening all candidates with these three assessments, which should render them intolerable if these qualities and tendencies are the least bit apparent:

• They demonstrate no empathy for those less economically fortunate than themselves; or those who are different from them in age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and related diversity parameters.
• They assume the worst in strangers, without evidence.
• They use or seek financial, political, and social power for self-gain. They make it public that they aspire to higher office down the road.

It is incumbent upon us as voters to dig a little deeper, consult multiple media resources, and get behind the more affluent front-runners to see if there are better candidates who simply do not have the resources to campaign as widely or effectively. We also need to spread the word to friends and family once we find a candidate worthy of our vote. This can be difficult when no one wants to "talk politics." Remind them it is not politics, but governance that is at stake, and we need people in office who are responsive to all of their constituents, not just wealthy campaign donors.

We need people in office who are more like ourselves: working class, middle class (if not even bordering on the poverty line), and of diverse occupational, ethnic, age, gender, and related demographics. Yet, we insist on consistently voting for the most affluent career politicians who have nothing in common with the majority of the people in their districts, and who are most responsive to the industrial and business interests that provide massive amounts of campaign money. This is how we get tainted water in Flint, Michigan. This is how we get dangerous deregulation of natural resource extraction industries. This is how we fail to get clean energy options, affordable healthcare, safe infrastructure, and revitalized local economies.

You should also ponder running for office yourself. It is not for everyone, but everyone should give it thoughtful consideration. We require young men (and women, now?) to register with the Selective Service upon their eighteenth birthday. We should require them to register to vote as well. How ironic that we respect those who have served our country in the military, but have no respect for those who send them off to war. We elected them, and we should not be surprised at the results. Maybe we need to start randomly drafting candidates for offices. It might be an improvement.

In the meantime, we should take voting more seriously, do at least minimal homework instead of reacting viscerally to each contender. Change for the sake of change is rarely as good an idea as it sounds, and sometimes continuity is the better option. Only you can decide that. Once the election is over, then your real work begins. We have been awful at holding our representatives accountable, informing them of our viewpoints, economic needs, and sharing our stories. They only know what is important when we tell them. Am I practicing what I am preaching? Not nearly enough; but we can be each other's elbow in our ribs to remind ourselves this is a participatory democracy; or at least it should be.

Doing the Wrong Thing

The Electoral College failed to do the right thing on December 19 when it completed the confirmation process of ratifying the legitimacy of President-elect Donald Trump. This was expected. Most government bodies such as this are loathe to upset the apple cart, to set any kind of historic precedent that would have huge ramifications presently, and in the future. Still, one could argue the electors abdicated their true responsibility to the welfare of our nation at large.

Before you dismiss the rest of this commentary as just another Trump-bashing editorial, please understand that ordinarily I would praise the Electoral College for not rocking the boat, regardless of what political party stood to prosper. This is an exception given at least two very disturbing conditions that presently exist. We have it on good authority that there was foreign interference in the election cycle itself. Also, our President-elect has shown complete disregard for conflicts of interest as applied to both himself and his Cabinet appointees. One more thing: Trump has not attended intelligence briefings regularly, if at all.

It turns out that there is good reason that the Electoral College convenes more than a month after the public vote. The window between the two events permits a glimpse into the behaviors and tendencies of the next potential Commander-in-Chief. This is where we gauge the prospective effectiveness of the President based on his actions, appointments, press conferences, willingness to learn from advisors of previous administrations, and other decisions made in this pre-inauguration time period. At this point, any evaluation, even an unbiased one, should raise several red flags. At the very least, the Electoral College might have considered delaying their vote until at least some of these troubling circumstances were better illuminated. That alone might have gotten the President-elect's attention, made him realize his power is not going to be rubber-stamped, and that we, the people, take his new job seriously.

The fact that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Administration (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) all concur that there were cyber-intrusions into the election process makes the validity of the election highly questionable. This has a lot less to do with who emerged victorious than it does the value of the public electorate and the sanctity of what is supposed to be a democracy. The fact that our newly-elected leader could apparently care less speaks volumes about how much he values democracy, and the citizenry, save those, maybe, who are attending his post-election victory rallies. Rallies. Nothing of substance, no press conference. Rallies.

It seems clear to me that the President has no intention to "make America great again," but only make America appear great.

The Trump presidency is going to be all about keeping up appearances. This is a man of Wall Street and the marketplace, where perception equals reality. Advertising equals truth. There can be no conflict of interest if you equate governance with business management. The only "intelligence" you need to collect amounts to focus groups, surveys, and polls. It seems clear to me that the President has no intention to "make America great again," but only make America appear great again. We have a remarkably good salesman as our leader now. In what business model does the salesman call the shots, wield all the power?

By now I am stunned that Trump has not named Howard Stern as his Press Secretary. This is how low my expectations have sunken. Trump apparently wants to retain command of publicity himself, but there is no one home anywhere but Twitterville. The whole impression of how the administration is shaping up is somewhere between The Wizard of Oz and....what, Young Frankenstein? It defies logic, lacks credibility by even the most basic standards, and ignores all legitimate questions, regardless of how impartial the interrogating party may be. Where is my faith, you ask? Elsewhere.

State of the Union Divide

My new masquerade in the interest of personal safety: As White and Patriotic as possible

Never have I felt such a sense of being misplaced as I do right now in the wake of this U.S. election cycle. I was less anxious after September 11, 2001. The title of this post is misleading, too. We are not a country divided, we are a nation that is shattered. Placing the entire federal government leadership in the hands of a single party sets up the potential for unimaginable tragedy.

The working class, the poor, minorities, immigrants ("illegal" or documented), the LGBTQ community, women, children, and many other conveniently-lumped groups of human beings have legitimate, profound complaints with current leadership. About the only group without an axe to grind are those with White Male Privilege, yet we elected about the most privileged White (well, orange, close enough) male possible to the highest office in the land. Yes, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rammed Hillary Clinton down our throats when it was glaringly apparent that Bernie Sanders was a cut above, able to address fully the wealth inequality that is at the core of the angst of the electorate; and without any attendant scandal. Still.

Part of the problem is that our electorate is so fragmented that their votes are based on a single issue. Blacks want a leader who will keep them alive, then, hopefully, give them more opportunity for advancement in society. Republicans are not going to reduce mass incarcerations, let alone pledge a moratorium on fatal shootings by police.

Meanwhile, immigrants from everywhere, not just south of the border, want equal opportunity. We need to work on overcoming language barriers, but they are not "taking our jobs" as many would have us believe. Frankly, nobody should be doing dangerous work like that of migrant workers for a sub-minimum wage, without proper healthcare, nutritious food, and secure lodging. "Cheap labor" is an insult that encourages poor performance, a litigious society (lawsuits are viewed as getting what the plaintiff feels is owed to them already), and a screw-you attitude toward our nation as a whole. After all, look who literally prospers from the fruits of their labor.

Women did not vote in overwhelming numbers for Clinton. I suspect many wanted the symbolism of a female leader, but were uncomfortable associating themselves (or their votes) with someone of dubious repute. Did she earn her way to the top by sticking to her values and principles, or did she compromise time and time again to survive and advance? Why they saw Trump as a viable alternative is beyond me.

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the campaign leading up to the election was, well, the campaign. The media failed completely in holding discussion to issues of core importance. Trump was, is, and always will be, an entertainer first, a businessman second, and everything else a distant third. He was allowed to take his act, unrestrained, to every debate, town hall, and public appearance. Don Rickles could not have done it better. The insults. The distractions. The vulgar humor.

The act of running the country, however, is not a celebrity roast, or even a reality television show. It takes diplomacy, of which Trump has demonstrated zero aptitude. It takes tolerance, to which Trump has turned a deaf ear. It takes humility, for which Trump scores in negative numbers.

Trump appealed because he gave us the promise that all we had to do was elect him and all our problems would magically disappear, like he is the Great Houdini or something. Again, the showman emerges, with no substance behind it. Are we so lazy that we will freely admit we want someone else to do the work, even if that "work" in the short term undermines long range opportunities for prosperity for ourselves, our children, and others?

Despite the results, I would still like to believe the majority of U.S. citizens want our nation to be an example of charity and good will, both at home and abroad. We believe in rewarding good work, holding ourselves and each other accountable for our actions or lack thereof, and actively punishing wrongdoing.

What I fear is that a sizeable minority will take this political moment as a sign that they have permission to exercise their White Male Privilege even more destructively than is currently the case. Trump rallies have been a horror show in this regard, and I am not looking forward to inauguration day. There may be civil unrest for months, but the good news is there will no longer be complacency from any party dedicated to civil rights. We have clearly been living under a false sense of security.

Left to political devices and political "will" and whims alone, we are never going to rise to our true potential as a nation. We don't have all the answers, either, and until we embrace the successes and innovations of other countries as well as those here at home, we will flounder; and enjoy a global reputation as a population of gluttonous egomaniacs. Sound familiar? I'm Eric Eaton, and I approved this message.

I am not a "Bernie bro," yet

The holier-than-thou Hillary Clinton supporters who continue to rail against those Bernie Sanders supporters who have professed that they will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, including the general election in November, are only strengthening the resolve of Sanders supporters and may, ironically, end up recruiting more "Bernie or Bust" diehards. This has a lot less to do with what Clinton-backers have to say about Sanders, and a lot more to do with what they are insinuating about those who are "feeling the Bern."

People do not take kindly to being insulted, and that is exactly what many of Clinton's supporters and the Democratic National Committee are doing to those who are supporting Bernie Sanders, even if unintentionally. Those advocating for Clinton may think they are harmlessly reminding the Sanders camp that the real focus needs to be on defeating the Republican party nominee in November, and the sooner everyone is on board with the same candidate and platform, the better. What I suspect Bernie's supporters are hearing is that "you silly, young, naive folks need to fall in line and get with the program."

This is the same kind of crap that I remember hearing in my late twenties, even thirties, after I had dropped out of college. When people would offer the advice that I should "go back and finish your degree," what I heard was: "You have no right to succeed unless you do it the traditional way that I and everyone else has had to!" So, when you ask us Sanders supporters to "please, recognize we must triumph over Republicans at all cost," what we hear is: "You are delusional to believe anything Sanders is feeding you, that there is any alternative whatsoever to Elephant versus Ass, no way we are ever going to achieve those 'pie in the sky' dreams of universal healthcare, livable wage, and everything else Sanders stands for." Well, baloney. "But that's not what we are saying," you claim. Doesn't matter. That is what we are hearing, and perception equals reality, especially in politics.

My impressions of this brand of Clinton supporter are probably equally flawed and overly-generalized. Here is my take, obviously exaggerated to make a point: Well, you must be perfectly happy with the status quo, then. You must be happy being a low- to mid-level employee in a multi-national corporation where you get a respectable wage, health insurance, a 401K, etc. Maybe you think that your membership in the Audubon Society is enough to guarantee that legislation adverse to the environment can be kept to a minimum. Maybe supporting the local homeless shelter is a sufficient means of mitigating the profound, institutionalized oppression of the poor. Get it, yet?

There is no perfect candidate, certainly. No argument there, but unless the Clinton backers start understanding the emotions and real-life struggles that Sanders supporters have at the heart of their very being, you really risk permanently alienating even more potential Clinton supporters should she win the party nomination. I am frankly astonished that Sanders is not winning every demographic. I am middle-aged, and I support Sanders because, in the immortal words of Peter Finch's character in Network, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Sanders has catalyzed this sentiment better than any previous candidate in my politically-aware lifetime.

I have this image of Bernie leaving his house for work every morning, and above the inside door frame is a sign that reads: "In case of emergency, run for President." Seriously, if he is running for the highest office, it says to me that things are even worse than we citizens imagine, and this may be our very last chance to change things. But, hey, if you still prefer "the Devil you know," you have the right to vote for other candidates. Keep up the condescending rhetoric, though, and you won't just lose potential political allies, you'll start losing personal friends.

Scale

Few people agree with me (or want to admit) that capitalism in its present form is the source of most of our economic, environmental, and institutional ills. We want desperately to cling to our belief that the "American Way" is the *right* way, the *best* way, the only way; but we might be wrong. At the very least, we have an escalating problem with the sheer scale of capitalism. It no longer benefits everyone, and that puts at risk something far more sacred than capitalism: democracy.

Let us look at what corporate capitalism has done for us (or to us) lately:

• Reduced consumer choices

The bigger the corporation, the fewer the choices for the consumer. What results from mergers and acquisitions is the illusion of choice. Take television for example. Mergers of various networks insure that we will see the same content distributed over several channels instead of new content on those other channels. Sports are increasingly televised on stations for which the consumer must pay extra as part of a cable or satellite package. This amounts to consumer coercion, whereby formerly free broadcasts are now held in virtual ransom. More disturbingly, news media are being concentrated into fewer and fewer outlets controlled by corporations that filter the news to further their own corporate, political, and economic agendas; or distract us with fear-mongering and celebrity status reports.

• Suppressed technologies

When you have an existing industry firmly entrenched in the status quo of the marketplace, it will exercise all its power to maintain its dominance. Hemp is an example of a raw material that would compete very favorably with cotton, paper, even plastics and some metals. Those existing industries act to suppress the hemp industry through lobbying our government representatives and agencies, and spreading false information to consumers. Hemp is a relative of the marijuana plant, but contains only a fraction of the chemical compound that gives marijuana its pharmaceutical and recreational properties.

Only recently have alternative, sustainable, and clean energy technologies been allowed to blossom. Even these have come under attack because of the scale of those enterprises. Giant windmills kill birds and bats, but all resources for wind energy are directed to those large-scale models. Bird-friendly, small-scale alternatives are ignored.

• Fewer consumer, labor, and environmental protections

Most major corporations on the Wall Street scale honor only their monetary bottom line and increased revenue for shareholders. The consumer, employee, and environment all take a distant back seat to those goals. To that end, lobbyists argue for erosion or outright repeal of existing laws aimed at affording labor, consumer, and ecological protections. "Studies" are rigged or altered or biased to reflect business interests. Conflicting research is suppressed. Recalls of dangerously defective products are postponed. The Clean Air Act is constantly under fire, as well as the Endangered Species Act and other landmark legislation that is arguably among the best ever enacted by *any* government on a national scale.

• Corporate Welfare

The welfare distributed to individuals and households in poverty is nothing compared to the dollars delivered to corporations and industries annually. We pay lip service to, and worship, the "free market" as the God of the economy which, left unfettered by regulation, will allow businesses to flourish; yet we prop up failing industries with subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts that seem to always be lavished on CEOs and shareholders without even a trickle down to workers and consumers. We protect ailing industries with import restrictions and tariffs. Left to the "free market," those American industries would wither and die. They do anyway, of course, as manufacturing is transferred overseas to cheaper (read "substandard") labor forces.

• Perpetual definition of the "American Dream" as the attainment of material wealth

It can be argued that the accumulation of wealth is in itself a goal not worth pursuing, and at worst a lifestyle that threatens the well-being of others, and even the planet itself. Consumption and economic growth as we are accustomed to in this century are definitely not sustainable, and take resources away from more vulnerable human populations. One would be hard-pressed to refute the idea that the Earth could benefit from fewer numbers of Homo sapiens, and certainly from less "development" of natural resources.

• Increased stress and decreased physical health

Our physical and mental health are at risk from social, cultural, and economic pressure that are inflicted upon us or that are self-generated. We are valued in the marketplace only for what we can consume, not what we can produce, unless it is more consumers in the form of children. Our labor is consistently undervalued to the point of corporations balking at a raise in the minimum wage; and suppression of collective bargaining to insure workplace safety and fairness. The end goal of industry is production without labor, but the unemployed cannot afford to purchase products.

How we value ourselves is just as important as cultural expectation. I, myself, constantly struggle with the idea that my wife is the major breadwinner in our household. This flies in the face of the "standard" I was brought up with. It takes a major effort to remind myself that my ego is not the point of our marriage; and money is not what strong relationships are built on in the first place.

There is reason for hope. All is not lost. In fact, there are surprising trends that indicate a potentially bright future ahead. Community gardens and farmer's markets are springing up almost daily, taking our food production back from corporate agri-business and returning it to local roots (literally). The "tiny house" movement is spreading, and demonstrating that a lifestyle with fewer material possessions means stronger personal relationships and an enhanced sense of community (while going off the grid in many cases). There is increasing demand for better public transit, more walkable neighborhoods where one can work, live, and play without dreadfully long commutes in a vehicle powered with fossil fuels. We still have power, folks, beyond the voting booth, and the internet age allows us to quickly find friends and support for what we believe is important. Thanks to crowdfunding, we can even find money for making those inventions and community projects happen, without dependence on institutions firmly entrenched in the status quo. Go for it!

Just Shoot Me

I try to avoid rants on this blog. I prefer a thoughtful, well-reasoned approach to even the most controversial topics. I am not sure I can hold it together much longer, though, when it comes to the current subject of guns, gun control, and gun ownership. I am dismayed by how many of my “friends” on Facebook are posting so aggressively to defend their Second Amendment “right” to bear arms. This debate, if you can call the mudslinging and vitriol a debate, spawns of course from another massacre at an elementary school, carried out by yet another disturbed male individual armed with automatic weapons.

The fear in the wake of this event astounds me. Not the fear that there could be more of these incidents if we continue down our present cultural, social, and legal paths, but the fear gun owners have of losing their weapons, or losing the right to buy still more guns, and more powerful ones at that.

First of all, absolutely nothing has been done yet by our President or congress. No restrictive laws have been enacted. Elected officials are consulting with all parties, including the National Rifle Association, which is more than I would do if I was in a position of authority. I generally don’t find lobbyists of any stripe to be beneficial to legislation. So, why is there so much outrage already?

Secondly, what quantity of arms is enough? The Second Amendment was written at a time in history when the Revolutionary War was still fresh in the minds of the newly-free American citizenry. The goal was to avoid having to go through that again. So, the law was meant to insure that “well-organized militias” had access to arms to defend the greater good of freedom and liberty. Today, this “right” has been twisted in its meaning. We conveniently interpret it to mean defense of our personal lives, the lives of our family members, and, most importantly, our property and material belongings. I am not saying that one should not be able to defend themselves or loved ones from bodily harm, of course, but it is important to note the spirit of the law here.

Another problem today is that our well-organized militias are all too often street gangs, drug cartels, survivalists, racists, religious cults, and other hate groups using arms not for defense but for intimidation and aggression. Our collective priority as citizens should be to do whatever it takes to keep guns out of the hands of these organizations and individuals, even if it entails an inconvenience (background check, psychological exam) to our own rights as law-abiding citizens.

It has rightly been pointed out by more reasoned people in this debate that our mental health system is suffering from severe neglect. We clearly need to address the mental health aspect of this trend toward mass shootings. Personally, I would prefer having a potentially violent person, clinically diagnosed as such, incarcerated instead of someone convicted of possession of marijuana, for instance. The point is we need to have all options on the table as to how to prevent more tragedies on any scale, be it a single murder or a massacre.

We also have to change our collective mentality about our individual rights, and our tolerance for violence in all aspects of our society. Why do we find violence entertaining in movies, music lyrics, and video games? Why are we so obsessed with material wealth, fame, and power to the extent that we are willing to use violence to achieve these “goals,” or protect them once we have them? Yes, I am more afraid of armed corporations and the groups I mentioned earlier than I am paranoid over the government seizing what few assets I have. Unfortunately, government and corporate America seem to be getting increasingly cozy, but that is a topic for another blog.

My bottom line, for now, is this: Until you have concrete evidence that your rights as a gun-owner are under attack, your hue and cry is useless and immature at best. Second, take a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself what you are really afraid of, and why. The answer won’t likely be “the government.” Don’t agree with me? Then just shoot me. Go ahead, I dare you.