The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 4)

When a president, congressman, senator, governor, state legislator, or anyone else tells you that the only way they can ‘protect you from the other side’ or ‘continue serving you to the best of their abilities’ is to treat you as if you haven’t got an independent thought in your head, run screaming from the room.

*****     *****     *****     *****     

Off-cycle Congressional redistricting by Republicans, like that done (so far) in Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, and soon Indiana, which will tackle it starting Monday, has nothing to do with what voters want and everything to do with what the politicians want: to protect their longevity by caving to a president who clearly knows he is as unpopular as we the people believe he is.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for similar redistricting efforts by the Democrats, such as those under consideration in Maryland, Illinois, and New York (so far). Some consider these noble efforts, from a 'we can't let them rig the election' or whatever the logic is, but I disagree. It's a shameless attempt to grab power, to protect their longevity, and to cheat the system, which is exactly what the Ds claim the Rs are doing.  

California's goal is the same, but the process is different, so I dislike it slightly less than I do the blatant stuff being done elsewhere. The Golden State has an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, so the legislature needs voter approval to bypass that group and institute its own maps - and I hope voters reject the Prop 50 ballot initiative. 

Why?  Because we should be demanding the right to choose our politicians, rather than letting them choose us. We should never give a politician our vote simply because we share a party affiliation. We should be making them work for every vote they want and earn every vote they get. 

And we should never stand for them giving in to the narcissistic, panicked demands and threats of the person at the top of their party, no matter how high the throne upon which that person sits.

For too long, we have acted as if the term ‘voting rights’ only applies to ensuring access to voting.  For years, we have sat by, watching the people who have been trusted to represent us:

• make it harder for us to vote by taking away options like early voting, mail-in ballots, and other changes, and by implementing ridiculous rules that directly and negatively impact women, the elderly, and economically disadvantaged voters, because 'those people' are more likely to vote against a certain party;

• constantly bang the drum about all kinds of voter fraud, ignoring years of evidence that there is negligible impact from the extremely limited fraud that occurs, and complaining that elections they don't are rigged, and threatening states, which have constitutional control over their voting rules, with all kinds of retribution if they don't change their ways to diminish or exclude certain voters;

• allow our voices to be overshadowed and overwhelmed by the tens of millions of dollars politicians of both parties receive from corporations, political parties, unions, lobbyists, PACs, and super-rich donors, in return for who knows what legislative promises; and

• blatantly look away from - heck, they run away from - our legitimate concerns about the direction of our country, their policies, and their ineffectiveness.

And here we are today, 

• letting them disrespect us even more by rearranging us into districts they assume will give them an advantage; 

• letting them assume we’re nothing but sheep that will vote for a party rather than for our issues and interests; and 

• letting them assume they no longer have to work for our votes.  

You know what they say about people who assume, right? That old line about 'making an ass...'?

Don’t let them get away with it.

• If your state asks you to vote for off-cycle redistricting, vote no.

• If your state just goes ahead and redistricts off-cycle, let the folks who represent you know that you’re unhappy about it, and that you’ll vote against them at the earliest opportunity. And then, do exactly that.

• And if they’re not talking about it, or have decided not to play the game, thank them – and remind them that they still have to work for – and earn – your vote, every single election.

It's time we fully use our voting rights - and there's no better time to start than this Tuesday, Election Day. 

In Case You Missed It (v96)

It was another slow week for writing here at veritable pastiche. Here's a recap of the three posts that made it out the door.

Nothing really caught my eye in the classroom, so I didn't make you work for Sunday School or Extra Credit. I did, however, tempt you with another chapter in the Journal of Unpopular Opinions about the SCOTUS decision to give the decision on the legality of abortion to the states. And where many people have been posting RBG memes, I posted an article quoting her saying that Roe was the right decision for the wrong reason. It's not a privacy issue, it's an equality issue. 

There's also a lot about it that's discriminatory; I gave some examples, including these:

• Forcing motherhood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because fatherhood is not being forced on the man. 

• Forcing parenthood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because parenthood is not forced on any other women (or men). These laws unfairly favor 'pre-born' children over living children who are parentless in homes, shelters, and state-run institutions.

• Declaring that life begins at fertilization imposes a faith-based decision on all citizens, favors one set of beliefs over all others, and denies pregnant women the right to practice their religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. 

The unpopular ones? You can read those in the post. 

I didn't publish again until it was time for Wondering on Wednesday, which was after both Cassidy Hutchinson's in-person testimony before the January 6th Committee, and my home state's gubernatorial primary. 

Here's a bit of wondering on the former, in response to the seeming millions of Trumpworld denizens who've added expertise in all matters judicial to their already-impressive resumes, which include expertise in infectious diseases, immigration, foreign policy, economics, hamberders, golf, taxes, health insurance and more.

Hearsay - or 'Hear-Say' or 'Hear Say' or 'stuff she made up that people didn't say' - you pick - was a big topic in the Interwebs, and it got me wondering.

Hutchinson seemed very clear, to anyone who actually watched the hearings (other than the aforementioned Twitter user, who said no one was watching) about what things she was personally involved in, and what things were told to her by others. 

So, for example, when she said she texted Kevin McCarthy, one could surmise that those text messages were made available to the January 6th Committee. And I wonder why so many people who obviously didn't watch are so dead-certain about the veracity of her testimony...

On the latter, the candidates leading in the polls won, pretty easily, in both the D and R primaries. Which means that Andrew Giuliani, did not win. He did win most of the NYC vote, which is fine - he can go back there and not interrupt me here in that vast expanse called Upstate New York. He did prompt some wondering, though.

Although, now that I think about it, I do sort of wonder how Andrew, son of Rudy (My Back Hurts, but Otherwise I'm Able to Walk and Stuff Like That) Giuliani would be able to withstand the rigors of being a politician. After all, male pols are frequently given a sturdy handshake and countless bicep grips and backslaps. If he's got a glass back like his daddy, he'd be in big trouble, so it's probably good he didn't win.

And, before you know it, I turned 64, it turned July, and it was time to make the TGIF lists. In addition to SCOTUS shenanigans, and insurrection insights, there was some Biden bluster that needed to be added to a list.

President Biden has thrown his support behind a filibuster 'carveout' to codify Roe v Wade. It will take a bigly miracle for this to happen, and the chances of that are probably slim to none at best. First of all, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-Coal in Everyone's Stocking!) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Why Am I Doing This?) are opposed to doing that; second, there's bipartisan disagreement  on how far they should go with abortion legislation, and third, Sen. Pat Leahy (D- The Only Real Democratic Senator from Vermont) is going to miss at least some time as he rehabs from hip surgery, so there clearly aren't the votes.

• Good week: no one.
• Bad week: Biden and Leahy, for vastly different reasons, and Chuck Schumer, who can't wrangle his caucus to save his life.

See you later - I've got a couple of drafts I hope to get out of purgatory, and I'll give Sunday School a shot as well. 

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 3)

Shockwaves continue to move across the landscape after the not-unexpected Supreme Court decision that there is no constitutional right to abortion, so the states must decide individually what they'll allow. 

But all is not lost in this battle, and pro-choice politicians - primarily Democrats - have a variety of opportunities to make a difference, and, of course, to make a horrible mess of things.

I look to the Notorious RBG for motivation here, and what she teaches us about Roe: that it was the right decision, wrongly justified. She believed, and stated more than once, that Roe should have been decided as an equality issue, not a privacy issue, as Amy Frieder noted in a Salon article this past May.

She elaborated on this in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart:  "[L]egal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." (Emphasis added.)

Because of that, Frieder continued, "Advocates must argue that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting already-existing human lives subjected to oppression that stems from state action based on impermissible sex stereotyping in an unequal society. To put that in plain language, abortion is necessary so long as sex inequality in society persists." 

And, she included in the article,

"When abortion-restrictive regulation is analyzed as state action compelling motherhood, it presents equal protection concerns that Roe's physiological reasoning obscures," according to constitutional law scholar Reva Siegel. Equal protection should preclude state coercion of motherhood. 

The Dems and their pro-choice allies should use the discriminatory and unequal arguments as their primary tactic to challenge state laws, or at least legislate corrections to them.

• Forcing motherhood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because fatherhood is not being forced on the man. 

• Forcing parenthood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because parenthood is not forced on any other women (or men). These laws unfairly favor 'pre-born' children over living children who are parentless in homes, shelters, and state-run institutions.

• Declaring that life begins at fertilization imposes a faith-based decision on all citizens, favors one set of beliefs over all others, and denies pregnant women the right to practice their religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. 

• Allowing rape or incest exceptions for the pregnancy being 'outside the woman's control' is discriminatory, as abortions aren't similarly available to women who get pregnant due to a contraceptive failure, equally outside her control. 

• Allowing rape or incest exceptions for any other reasons is purely arbitrary, creates a separate class of pregnancy, and is therefore discriminatory. There can be no exceptions based on how the pregnancy occurred.

• Allowing destruction of embryos created outside the womb, but not allowing destruction of embryos created inside the womb, creates a separate class of 'pre-born children' and is discriminatory. 

• Allowing dependent tax deductions and other financial advantages for living children but not for 'pre-born' children is discriminatory. 

• Companies providing a benefit for women to travel to receive medical care, but not providing that same benefit to all employees, is discriminatory. 

• Period- and location-tracking apps, and similar technologies, are private and cannot be used against any woman seeking a legal abortion. Laws must be put in place, before the abortion law goes into effect, making use of these technologies for this or any similar purpose a crime.

• Any state banning abortion must provide health insurance coverage for all pre-natal, maternity, and post-partum care. Regulations providing the benefits, and confirmation that they're available, must be in place the abortion law goes into effect. 

• Any state banning abortion must provide paid time off from work for all necessary care and treatment, including maternal/child bonding if the woman is keeping the child. If the woman is enrolled in any level of school, special provisions, including tutoring if needed, must be made available. 

• Any state banning abortion must provide housing, nutritional, transportation and/or other assistance to any pregnant woman requesting it; the state must prove the capability to provide this assistance for the anticipated population before the abortion ban can go into effect.

• Using Medicaid or other generally accepted 'access-to-care' metrics, any state that bans abortion must prove there is sufficient access for the projected population to receive appropriate care throughout the pregnancy, and after. If the access is not available, the state must develop, fund, and implement programs to provide it before the abortion ban can go into effect.

Believe me, I realize some of those might be distasteful, particularly the ones challenging widely-supported abortion exceptions and IVF; hence the tag of 'unpopular' opinions. But not fighting discrimination that we agree with is wrong. 

In Case You Missed It (v84)

Last week was another busy one. Among other things, we confirmed a Black woman to the Supreme Court; implemented more attacks on women and their bodies, and on LGBTQ people and their bodies; the war rages on in Ukraine...  

I covered some of that, and more; here's a recap of the week in posts, in case you missed anything. 

There was lots of talk about crime in the Sunday School classrooms; that's not surprising, given the Republicans and their relentless beating of the drum about crime, often without nuance or full context, and the failure of the Democrats and their inability to accept that people have real concerns which must be addressed, by acknowledging the issue, talking honestly about it, and making appropriate changes to policing practices or legislation. 

They also have to be prepared to answer this stupid question: why is crime up when (insert city or state name) has such tough gun laws? I gave them the answer; we'll see if anyone uses it. 

Show me a single law that is 100% effective. Laws against voter fraud, DWI, white collar crimes, child abuse, drug possession, motor vehicle laws, rape and murder, insurrection, other violent crimes... no law is 100% effective - but they still work, either as a deterrent to prevent crimes, or to get criminals off the streets. Critics should imagine a world without any of these "ineffective" laws, and tell us how much they'd like living in it.

I'll let more thoughts out of my head on crime in a post this week

My Wondering on Wednesday referenced a new law in Oklahoma that would make it a felony to perform an abortion, absent a medical emergency threatening the pregnant woman. The penalty? A fine of up to $100,000, 10 years in prison, or both. 

I tried to give this approach some context, going back in the archives to when then-candidate Donald Trump said there would "have to be some sort of punishment" for the woman seeking the abortion. 

If the Right wants to be tough on crime, and tough on legal abortion, then they should be standing up in support of Trump's comment, instead of running from it. They should be shouting it from the rooftops, rather than shouting at Trump for saying what he did. They should be castigating him for walking it back, as he did, instead of castigating him for saying it in the first place.

If not, their convictions are without courage, and conversely.

I was right then, and I'm right now, no matter how hard the anti-abortion folks would push back on that unpopular opinion. And while I didn't have an 'official' name for that back then, I do now, and I offered a new chapter in it - The Journal of Unpopular Opinions last week. 

The gist of that post? That it seems we're allowed neither angst nor joy unless it's attached to Ukraine. After sharing examples of other crises, around the world and here at home, here's how that chapter wrapped up.

Should we care about Ukraine? Of course. Should we care only about Ukraine? Of course not. 

We should learn (or remember) how to walk and chew gum at the same time; we can hear about, and care about, more than one thing at a time. Even if the people don't look like us, or don't have great social media skills. 

We should never let our guard down here at home, no matter how compelling the news from elsewhere in the world might be.

And we should allow ourselves a little joy, without feeling guilty and without feeling obligated to anyone else. 

Based on messages I've received, that opinion - or saying it out loud - might not be as unpopular as I thought, which is a good thing.

Given the focus on crime and punishment throughout the week, it seemed reasonable that there'd be a good week/bad week mention on that topic in my TGIF entry. And it was a good one.

The jury in the trial of four men accused of plotting to kidnap and murder Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had an interesting week, which caused a bad week for the government and a good week for the four defendants. Two were acquitted; the jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against the others. It sounds like the jury believed the defense theory that the FBI went off the rails on this one; or, maybe the defendants truly had a jury of their peers?

What do you think: was it a case of a bad prosecution, bad acts by the FBI, or was there never a snowball's chance in hell that there would have been a conviction in this one? Drop a comment if you like.

Also noteworthy last week? The former president is being given a traditional media platform to spew whatever the hell he wants, even as his own social media platform suffers under the weight of a bad rollout, continued tech problems, and a lack of attention from its founder, who prefers holding rallies and insurrections, I guess. 

The Washington Post published an interview with him; from that, I created another OrangeVerse entry. You remember those, right? I turn word salad into poetry using just his words. Here's what he thinks about the stolen election.

I'm the Diamond; Put Me Back

But I believe when you

 see massive election fraud, 

I can’t imagine that somebody 

who won the election based on fraud,

 that something doesn’t happen? 

How has it not happened? 

If you are a bank robber, 

or you’re a jewelry store robber,

 and you go into Tiffany’s and

 you steal their diamonds

 and get caught, 

you have to

give the 

diamonds 

back.

I'd like to give him back, for sure: back to New York City, before that fateful escalator ride. 

See you later for Sunday School.

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 2)

I was reading what I anticipated would be a funny take on 'gender reveal' parties, those often way-over-the-top shindigs with explosions and death and destruction and whatnot. 

The article was moving along, I was chuckling, and then? Then the 'U' word appeared. You know what I'm talking about, right? Here's how it showed up in the article.

 We are fortunate enough to have the resources for almost the ultimate in frivolity: gender reveal parties. Ukraine is the ultimate in seriousness, in a life-and-death battle with all the suffering and horrors of war. Gender reveal parties should be an opportunity for us to be thankful for what we have and to support and fund our fellow humans in Ukraine.

Seriously? Gender reveal parties should be an opportunity for us to send money to Ukraine? As you can tell from the opening of this post, I think gender reveal parties are kind of crazy, but I also think the constant focus on Ukraine, to the exclusion of everything else (other than the price of gas,) is equally crazy.

Like people everywhere, I'm horrified by what I've seen and heard about in Ukraine. I've watched President Zelenskyy's messages to our Congress, to elected officials in other countries, and the UN. I support sanctions on Russia, and I support us giving some military and humanitarian support to Ukraine. 

That said, I think it's ridiculous - and, frankly, grossly unfair - to expect us to turn everything we do, and everything that brings us joy, into an opportunity to help Ukraine. 

Frankly, there are other crises happening in the world, too.? Here are just a handful of them.

• China has committed crimes against humanity by their treatment of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic groups; over a million are dead, hundreds of thousands imprisoned, and others sent into forced labor over the past several years. 
• In South Sudan, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced or killed; nearly 5,000,000 children are not in school, and some 8,00,000 people are facing hunger or famine. This, too, has been going on for years,
• So has the war in Yemen;  4,000,000 people have been displaced, more than 110,000 have been killed, and over 20 million need humanitarian aid.
• And don't forget Somalia, with a million deaths, and more than a million people displaced in that country's ongoing civil war.
• And, have we already forgotten about Afghanistan and the Taliban?

Why do these get less attention? Other than China, we rarely hear about these conflicts, and when we do, it's well after the Ukrainian news of the day. And would we have heard much about China, absent the Olympics? 

Why is that? Is it because these aren't social-media-savvy countries? Is it because civil wars don't matter? Is it because these people don't look like us? It's hard to ignore that last question.

And, in case you're thinking everything's hunky-dory here at home, think again.

• Politicians from both parties continue to choose their voters, instead of the voters choosing their politicians; it's been going on for decades, and is getting worse instead of better as gerrymandering flourishes.
• Politicians are doing their best to make voting more complicated instead of easier, and while they say they are making voting more secure, we know that what many of them are trying to do is make it easier for them to erase the vote of the people.
• We are pulling books from schools and libraries, because people who have never read them have been told by their churches or their politicians that this is the right thing to do.
• We are (knowingly) underfunding public education (here in New York, for example) and allowing individuals to take taxpayer money out of public schools and give it to private schools - including corporate, profit-driven entities - and religious schools.
• States are codifying vigilante justice to avoid having laws struck down by the courts. So far -- so far -- it's just laws against abortion; who knows where they'll go next with this plan of attack. Texas started this; others are following.
• States are trying to pass laws to prevent citizens from seeking medical are in other states (Missouri and Oklahoma for starters), or threatening to jail parents - potentially with life sentences - for seeking medical treatment for their children (Idaho), and charge providers with felonies for providing treatment (Oklahoma, again).
• And let's not forget the "Don't Say Gay" bills - yes, that's plural now, with Alabama following Florida's lead.
• States are attacking marriage equality, proposing marriage contracts that would only be allowed for opposite-sex couples (Tennessee).
• States have passed laws allowing doctors to pick their patients, instead of having to treat everyone - even people they don't like (Ohio, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas...).

In America, folks - this is all happening, right here in America, to Americans.

Should we care about Ukraine? Of course. Should we care only about Ukraine? Of course not. 

We should learn (or remember) how to walk and chew gum at the same time; we can hear about, and care about, more than one thing at a time. Even if the people don't look like us, or don't have great social media skills.  

We should never let our guard down here at home, no matter how compelling the news from elsewhere in the world might be.

And we should allow ourselves a little joy, without feeling guilty and without feeling obligated to anyone else. 

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 1)

No one in the leadership of the Democratic Party has what it takes to fight the battles the party is facing, much less win those battles. 

No one else in the Democratic Party is standing up to fight those battles.

No one in the Democratic Party will stand up to fight those battles. They're afraid of something, or of someone, or of the several someones in the part leadership. 

Face it: while Nancy Pelosi is considered by many to be a strong Speaker in terms of how she manages her caucus (although, that seems to be open to question these days), she is a horrible advocate for the Democratic Party and its priorities. 

I've shared my, shall we say, 'lack of enthusiasm' for Pelosi in the past, such as here, when she was re-elected Minority Leader in 2016. She lost 63 votes to Ohio's Rep. Tim Ryan, who expressed then the same frustrations as I have today. I suspect Ryan still has them, too.

...my level of frustration came from the idea that we're going to have, for two more years, the same conversation as we've been having since 2010 (when the Dems lost 63 seats and the House majority in the mid-term election).

And I think the level of frustration in our caucus is as great as I've ever seen it. And it's time to do something about it, not just talk about it. Because now we're not even the national party. We're a coastal party. And we've got to move forward. If we're not going to get voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, go back down south. When I first got in Congress, we had members from Tennessee. We've got to go back there and campaign and get those folks back in the fold.

Ryan also talked about how the Dems don't unify the demographics, but "talk about them and treat them as individual groups" and emphasized that they've

... got to get the message right. We've got to have the right messenger. And we've got to have someone who can not just go on MSNBC, but go on Fox and Fox Business and CNBC, and go into union halls and fish frys and churches all over the country and start a brush fire about what a new Democratic Party looks like.

Ryan is now running for the US Senate; he faces a progressive challenger in the primary. Of course, he does - because one thing Dems are good at is fighting each other.

And don't get me started on Chuck Schumer. I've long not been a fan. Here's just one illustration of why: having the Judiciary Committee Dems pull a stupid stunt instead of voting against advancing the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett out of committee. Schumer thought that not showing up was the best way to "not lend a single ounce of legitimacy" to the process. My take? 

Rather than skipping out on the meeting, the adult thing to do would have been to show up, explain one more time for the record why it was the wrong thing for the Judiciary Committee to do, respond to whatever statements the Rs made (instead of just reading their remarkably similar prepared remarks), and then vote against moving the nomination forward. 

Instead, they put pictures of people who benefited from the Affordable Care Act in their chairs, hoping their colleagues on the other side of the aisle would look at those, feel bad, and delay the vote.

This is the leader of the Dems in the Senate? Good grief.

The issues facing the country today - and facing the majority Democrats - have not changed over the past many years. The solutions to those problems are still out there, and they're still not being talked about in a way that will bring us to the solutions we desperately need. 

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Before we start taxing the super-rich, why don't we make sure that the tax code doesn't contain 50,000 ways to avoid paying taxes? If they don't have to pay the taxes on the books now, what good is adding more going to do?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "With literally hundreds of bills that may limit voting rights under consideration around the country, some already passed into law, why on earth are seven of ten articles in our voting rights bill not related to voting?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Do we really want to require banks to report $600 transactions to the IRS? Is that really the best way to find tax avoidance by the wealthy?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Why aren't we doing everything we possibly can to ensure that existing programs for student loan relief and repayment are accessible and working as intended, instead of pushing to eliminate all student debt?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "What the hell are we doing, holding up nearly $2 trillion in infrastructure spending? Why aren't we pushing the bipartisan Senate bill through, getting it signed, and putting that to good use right now?"

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "I don't care how we get it done, but we will have a plan - well before December - on the debt ceiling. Period."

Who is the Democrat who will stand up and say, "Where are the problem solvers? They don't have to be Problem Solvers, but we need to solve some problems, and fast."

I desperately want *That* Democrat to exist. The one who knows that getting something is better than getting nothing, the one who knows that trying to get Santa to give you everything you've ever wanted since you were three years old, all at once, is insane. I don't know if he or she even exists, but if *That* Democrat is out there, now is the time to stand up and be heard. Now is the time to read your caucus the riot act. Now is the time to get something done.

What they're doing now is not sustainable, and if they think the shellacking they took in 2010 was bad, wait until they see what happens next year.