Showing posts with label gerrymandering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gerrymandering. Show all posts

November 3, 2025

The Election Eve Post, 2025 Edition

Another Election Eve, already?

Yep. And this is my thirteenth ‘Monday-before-the-first-Tuesday-in-November’ post, trying to encourage everyone to vote.

Voting is arguably the most important right we have. After all, it’s the only chance we have to determine who will lobby on our behalf in the halls and backrooms of government. And it’s really the only time many of the folks we elect pay any direct attention to us. Absent elections, would incumbents or their challengers bother with the mailings, phone calls, town halls, surveys, and personal visits? Would we hear from unions and so-called ‘interest groups’ if they weren’t trying to get us to vote for their favorite? Pretty sure we all know the answer to that.

But voting is also among the least respected of our rights, and that’s incredibly frustrating to me. Between efforts to limit who can vote, how we can vote, where we can vote, what we can and can’t do while standing in line to vote, and gerrymandering and redistricting, where the politicians try to choose us, instead of us choosing them. 

Add in the many ways in which our voices and our ability to influence candidates have been overwhelmed by all money flowing from in from PACS, political parties, corporations, lobbyists, business organizations, unions, billionaire donors and all the rest, especially all the money from outside the district where we are supposed to pick representatives, and I get why people might throw up their hands and say, “Why should we even bother?”  

We should bother because every vote matters in every election. We should bother because the more people stay away, the more the powers-that-be will think they can do whatever they want. We should bother because the more we participate, the better our chances of holding the people we elect accountable. We should bother if we care at all about the direction our schools, villages, towns, cities, counties, states, and the federal government are heading. 

And finally, we should bother because if we don’t, we’ll more often than not end up having to choose between the lesser of two or more bad candidates, instead of between the best of two or more good ones.

And wouldn’t that be a wonderful problem to have? 

I offer below my annual motivational message, in case you're still on the fence about exercising your right to vote.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians."(1)  Actually, “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote(4), and that “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) 

And complain we do, after every election when 'the wrong guy' wins. If the only people who complained were the ones who voted, it’d likely be a lot less noisy, don't you think? 

Some folks may not vote because they don't know how to decide who to vote for, or they're afraid they'll vote 'wrong.' There are a couple of different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that.

Politics is the art of the possible” (9), while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.”(13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17

And remember, if all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. Honestly, "there is no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."(19) Besides, "not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." (20)  

My final pitch?  "Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls." (21)

If you need information on where to vote, help with your ballot, or any other assistance, contact your local Board of Elections. Lots of people are out there, ready and willing to help. 

 If you're an early voter and have already done your civic duty, thank you! If you're not going to be around on Election Day and voted by absentee ballot, thank you! And if you vote the old-fashioned way, by showing up at your polling place on Election Day like I do, thank you!  

And thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles De Gaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch); 19 - Barack Obama; 20 - Keith Ellison; 21 - Nanette L. Avery

August 23, 2025

Breaking Fake News Update (v6)

Fake News Broke (Again) on August 11, 2025! 


This fake news broke as FOTUS's efforts to gain more control over the House of His Personal Representatives struggled in Texas as pesky Democrats left the Lone-Star-reviewed state and headed north to blue states to avoid having to participate in the mid-cycle redistricting shenanigans. This one pretty much wrote itself.

The Dems eventually returned to Austin, where they had to get permission (and a police escort) to leave the legislative chamber, for God's sake, and voted against the power grab. Needless to say, the MAGA Republicans had their way, the maps were approved, and Gov. Gregg Abbott signed the bill. 

We will continue to share fake news as it breaks.

August 24, 2022

Wondering on Wednesday 8/24/22


Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where do we start tonight's wondering? 

Right here in my neck of the woods - in the Empire State - where I find myself wondering why so many national political reporters are talking today about the Dems losing a prominent House member in New York, when there was literally no possible way that two Dems could survive a primary for the same district? The only question in this one was who would survive:  Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight Committee, or Rep. Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler won easily.

I read an article in a major national newspaper today about the Nadler/Maloney battle, and was not shocked to see many comments complaining about the redistricting process in NY. No one was complaining about efforts by the Dems to gerrymander five seats blue; rather, the complaints were that a judge didn't accept their efforts the way judges seem to accept the bad Republican maps. And I wonder, if you think gerrymandering is wrong, why are you mad when the courts agree with you? 

Another race in NY that's gotten a ridiculous amount of nation attention was the election to see who would fill the remaining months of former Rep. Antonio Delgado's term (he resigned to become our Lt. Governor). Pat Ryan won the "bellwether" race, as multiple media outlets referred to it, campaigning on a woman's right to choose being a national issue, not a state issue, while Marc Molinaro, the Republican, ran on crime and inflation. How much does this matter in the overall scheme of things, I wonder? I'm not convinced it's indicative of anything, really; NY's a pro-choice state; the 19th district's been blue since 2018; and Ryan will be on the ballot again in November, trying to win the seat in the new 18th district. If he wins that, it might mean something. Until then, I don't think so.

I can't help wondering how Rep. Elise Stefanik, the number three RINO in the House is feeling today. (A RINO, in these pages, is a MAGA Republican). Stefanik strongly supported the deplorable Carl Paladino in the primary for NY's new 23rd district; Paladino lost to NYS GOP chair Nick Langworthy. Stefanik also strongly supported Steve Wells in the primary for NY's new 22nd district. Wells lost to Brandon Williams

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy might not have had a great morning, after the Paladino loss. It's been reported that McCarthy and Rep. Steve Scalise, his Number Two, weren't happy with Stefanik 'going rogue' with her endorsement. I wonder how today's leadership chat went?

And then we've got President Biden's student loan forgiveness program, announced today. There's lots to dive into on that, and I've got a few bookmarked articles to digest tomorrow. I did wonder, though, at how hard the media worked to find Dem-leaning economists to chime in and say how bad an idea it was - and it wasn't even Larry Summers, the favorite DLE of all.

What's on your wondering minds?

May 25, 2022

Wondering on Wednesday 5/25/22

Right off the bat, I remind everyone that thoughtful discussion is always welcomed here at veritable pastiche, and I warmly encourage your constructive and respectful comments, if you're so inclined. 


Ready... Set... Wonder!

Another day, another school, another group of slaughtered children, another round of thoughts and prayers. And, another round of wondering.
  • I wonder how it is that we can so quickly and easily pass retribution language against companies who use their corporations are people too' freedom to actually speak out on issues that matter to their customers, employers and investors, but we there's nothing we can do about mass murder...
I wonder how, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, there's nothing we can do about mass murder... 

I wonder how, in a world where "All Lives Matter," there's nothing we can do about mass murder. 

I wonder why the very best that the very best of us can do is offer thoughts and prayers.

I wonder why we are so complacent. 

I wonder how we are sleeping at night, knowing that children are not coming home from school, and people are not coming home from the grocery store, not coming home from religious services, not coming home from the movies. People are not coming home. Again.

They. Are. Not. Coming. Home.

What are you wondering about?

May 24, 2022

Sunday School 5/22/22: Extra Credit

In a changeup from this week's Sunday School  which was about foreign policy and the economy, the focus of your Extra Credit is the November elections.

We'll start with Margaret Brennan and her chat with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Darn Right I Want to Raise Taxes on the Poor!) in the Face the Nation classroom. Scott leads the effort to get more Republicans elected. As he's done in other interviews, he jumped right in with an opinion without waiting for a question. His target? Numbers from a new CBS poll Brennan mentioned in her lead-in.

I think those numbers are consistent with what we've seen, that inflation is still the number one issue in the country... I think the election this fall is going to be about inflation... And I think it bodes well for Republicans.

Brennan noted only 51% polled say they trust the GOP more than the Dems on inflation, while 49% trust the Dems; she wondered how Scott and the Rs will change that. 

So, I think we have to talk about the things that we're going to do to make it better for people. But, if you go and look at the races around the country, Biden's numbers are really, really bad. And he's -- he is the face of the Democrat Party right now.

Brennan's next question was a good one: basically, if inflation is the big issue, why do Rs keep "relitigating 2020." Scott said people care that this election will be '"fair and their votes are not going to be diluted," and hope the Rs will make that happen. He also said that people "want to know what happened, why it happened" in 2020.

Well, they want to know -- they want to know that -- exactly what happened, if -- were there problems, exactly what happened. They'd like to know that. But, also, they're -- you know, they also want to make sure we win in '22. So, they -- they want to make sure that we're going to make sure their vote's not diluted. So, I think you have to -- you have to talk about making sure people understand what happened in 2020, but also make sure you know -- they know that you're going to focus on making sure that 2022 is a -- is a fair election.

Got it? It's all about making sure things are surely made sure by making sure of being sure. That's what they want. Without saying a darn thing. As long as you're talking about 2020, I guess. But not about all the fraud committed by Rs. Don't mention that. They surely don't want to know anything about that, for sure.

After some discussion on Scott's plan that is not the GOP plan, Brennan asked about white supremacy. The polling data show only 23% of Rs say condemning that kind of hatred is very important, while 75% of Ds think it is. She asked him why there's such a gap there.

Well, clearly, we ought to all condemn any hatred. We ought to condemn any white supremacy. We -- I mean, we've got to figure out how to come together. I believe we got to stop all this racial politics.... So, we've got to figure out how to bring people together.

Brennan then asked, "So, you would tell all Senate Republicans running for election that they need to, each and every one of them, condemn white nationalism?" Surely, no. No way.

Well, I tell people what I believe. And every -- every Senate candidate on both sides is going to decide what is important to them and what is important to the citizens of their state...  if they asked me, I would say, 'be clear. Be clear.' I mean, we do not believe, none of us -- I don't think any American should believe in white supremacy or hatred of any kind. I mean, it's wrong.

But, as he said, "they want to make sure we win in '22," so, just go with the flow in your neck of the woods - even if that means promoting white supremacy. The tent is big enough, I guess.

Her next guest was Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who's chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Brennan noted poll findings that "young people, Hispanics and half of Black Americans say the president has been too slow to react." And, his 'effectiveness' and 'competency' ratings are low. Add in a majority of Dems saying the economy is 'bad,' and Brennan wondered how the Dems will hold their majority.

Jeffries said he's "very confident" they'll hold on, saying President Biden "has done a very good job under incredibly difficult circumstances." He pointed to several things that are out there causing an "unsettled" electorate, as people are

experiencing COVID fatigue, inflationary pressures, high gas prices, a war in Ukraine, a radical, extreme Republican Party that doesn't appear to believe in democracy any longer. And so this is a tough moment for our country.

He said Biden has been a "decisive" leader, starting with the American Rescue Plan, noting 

We rescued the economy, put shots in arms and money in pockets, kids back in school, laid the foundation for a robust economic recovery that has led to more than eight million good-paying jobs being created and unemployment at 3.6% That's a tremendous start. Of course, there's more that needs to be done.

Brennan focused on the 'slow to react' metric, using police reform as an example. Two years after the death of George Floyd, she said Biden's been "looking at an executive order on police reform for months now, continues to say it's coming." She asked Jeffries if Biden needed to act on something like that before November.

Well, it's my hope and expectation that we will see some further decisive action from the administration. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position because Senator Tim Scott decided to walk away from negotiations that were bipartisan in nature...

Brennan said it was the Dems who walked away, not the Rs, and asked if the urgency on police reform was "fading." Jeffries said they're going to "lean into public safety," and recited a list of issues that are important, but he didn't really address the 'urgency' question. 

Today, I can: this afternoon, news is breaking that Biden will sign his long-awaited executive order Wednesday, on the anniversary of George Floyd's death.

Another hit from the poll? She said more than a third of Dems "call their own party weak" - and 41% of young people think that, which "could hurt your turnout." She asked if it was time for a change in Congressional leadership. Jeffries was firm that, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, "we've been acting decisively." And, he continued, 

But I think we do have to crystallize the differences between what we're about and what Republicans are all about. It's clear that Washington Republicans want to raise taxes on everyday Americans, on police officers, on firefighters, on nurses, on factory workers, on grocery store clerks. And we are trying to provide them with relief. The Republicans, including your prior guest, actually want to end Social Security and Medicare as we know it in five years, forcing it to sunset. Those are serious differences between the two parties. And I think, once the voters understand that dynamic, the choice will be as clear as a sunny day in San Diego. 

Finally, Brennan wondered if "Democrats put their own communities at risk" in New York by their asinine gerrymandering (my word, not Brennan's). Jeffries did his best to blame the Republican judge, and the special master, and the Court of Appeals - but not the Dems, at the feet of whom all the blame lies.

Well, the process, unfortunately, was hijacked by the Court of Appeals. A bad process has now led to a bad result. You're talking about five different congressional districts where the Black and Latino population was degraded. The only -- most significant Jewish district in the country has been detonated, for no good reason...

That said, Jeffries stated, 

...here's what's most important. We're going to remain united, because we believe in a very simple vision for America. Work hard, play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family... educate your children, purchase a home, and retire with grace and dignity.

"Play by the rules."  Four words we don't hear, or see in action all that much from either party. 

See you around campus.  

May 15, 2022

In Case You Missed It (v89)

Back from a quick getaway to Cape Cod, which limited my posting last week. Here's what did make it out, in case you missed anything.

For Sunday School, I sat in on abortion-related discussions with a Republican governor and member of Congress and a Democratic senator and a state AG. Here's a bit of the conversation with the governor, Mississippi's Tate Reeves, who was in the CNN State of the Union classroom with Jake Tapper in the driver's seat.

Part of their conversation focused on the state's dismal statistics on poverty, infant mortality, paid maternity leave, Medicaid expansion and a federal lawsuit over Child Protective Services failures to protect children. Reeves said

It's due in large part to poverty. And so, we are focusing every day on fixing the challenges that are before us... when you talk about these young ladies, the best thing we can do for them is to provide and improve educational opportunities for them... We have got to continue to work to provide workforce opportunities, jobs for these individuals. But to do that, they have got to improve the quality of their skills. And we as a state are investing heavily in that.

I did a little noodling around and found some additional statistics that Tapper didn't mention, and tossed a question into the air. 

In 2012, Mississippi was 47th in spending on education; in 2022, the state is ranked 46th; it plans on investing $49M in American Rescue Plan funding in education over the next couple of years. And, the state has only the $7.25 federal minimum wage. Notably,

The 2019 Mississippi Minimum Wage Act, or Senate Bill 2150, aimed to gradually increase the Mississippi minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2022, but this proposal died in committee. In 2021, Mississippi lawmakers continue to debate if and how the state should go about increasing the minimum wage. With Mississippi being the last state to not have a law requiring equal pay for women and men, there is still much discussion to be had.

Seems there's a tough row to hoe there... Maybe taking care of those other things first would make sense? 

For your Extra Credit, I tried to find something else that's relevant these days, and stumbled on Margaret Brennan and former AG Eric Holder talking in the Face the Nation classroom about redistricting. Holder's running an organization called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, and he's written a book, too.  

They talked about redistricting around the country, and about maps drawn by both the Rs and the Ds. He draws distinctions between what's happened in various states.

I think you can't compare, however, what happened in New York and Maryland to what is going on in Texas, Georgia, potentially Florida, Wisconsin, where Republicans have really gone to town in terms of gerrymanders. Fundamentally different from what Democrats have done.

He gave some examples, including Texas, where the Hispanic population increased, giving the states additional Congressional seats, but 

they've "created more majority white districts" and haven't "increased the power of Hispanics in Texas at all."  

That's not the same as what happened in NY, where the map 

reflects really a population shift, a hollowing out of the rural areas in New York, as well as an increase in the urban areas in New York. So, there's a census bureau basis of what's happening in New York that does not exist in Republican states.

And he's not buying the Florida Man's maps, either, which he says are "certainly race conscious." 

They're going after Democrats. And the fact that that -- the Democrats that they're going after happen to be black I don't think is necessarily a coincidence. The suit that we won in Alabama was -- where we said that you should have additional representation for the black inhabitants of Alabama, those districts were certainly drawn with the thought that they would disenfranchise African-Americans in Alabama.

And Alabama's even stranger, with the court saying it's too close to the election to change the maps - which is pretty much the opposite of what's happening in other states.  

It was an interesting discussion, and not just on redistricting.

I did have a little Wondering on Wednesday fun, part of it stemming from things we saw - or didn't see - on the trip to the Cape. 

There was wonderment about making sure trucks can go slowly down steep grades, but not making sure they can go fast up the same hills, and about the seemingly always-closed truck weigh stations, no matter what state we're in, and no matter what state the trucks or their drivers are in. On the latter, I've made a blanket deal with my husband - if we ever see one of these inspection ramps open, I'll give him $20. 

And then it got a little more serious, with wondering on the Senate's failed like it was guaranteed to vote to codify abortion protections, and whether there were any possibilities to work on a passable vote. Not that the Dems were interested in doing that, anyway.

I wondered about Elon Musk (that's become de rigueur, right?) and Twitter, and I wondered about abortion-related protests.

And finally, thinking about the protests that are happening outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, I have to wonder how it feels for them to experience something like what women experience on the way from their cars to their medical appointments?  It's hard not to wonder why chanting and shouting and singing and waving signs outside a Justice's house is possibly a criminal act, while doing the same, and more, while being in much closer proximity, to boot - to women at a medical facility, and their escorts, is merely an exercise of the 1st Amendment's free speech rights.

I wonder, I do, about this stuff and more, and about what I'll find this week, when I'm back in the swing of paying attention to things.

I'll see you next for Sunday School.

May 11, 2022

Sunday School 5/8/22: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School had four perspectives on the Alito draft, the upcoming SCOTUS decision likely to overturn Roe, and what it means going forward. For your Extra Credit, I'm completely switching gears.

One of the non-abortion related discussions happened in the Face the Nation classroom, where Margaret Brennan chatted with former Obama AG Eric Holder. Holder's got a new book out - Our Unfinished March - and he's perhaps the only former pol-turned-author making the rounds who's not a former Trump administration anything.

Brennan asked him about his work on redistricting, through his National Democrat Redistricting Committee, and how some critics call his strategy "sue to blue," or say that it's completely partisan - in favor of the Dems, of course. He said that's not the case. Rather, 

... ours is a fight for fairness. And, yes, we've brought a lot of lawsuits -- successfully brought a lot of lawsuits in order to make sure that the process is done in a fair way and so that the American people actually pick their representatives as opposed to politicians choosing their voters. And so 'sue to blue', that's what they say when you're winning in court, which is what we have done at a whole bunch of levels.

He didn't necessarily agree with Brennan that the Dems have the edge going into the midterms, but he thinks they 

certainly stopped the Republicans when they said they wanted to secure a decade of power in this next decade based on the redistricting that they were going to do. We have blunted that effort and we certainly have more fair maps than we did coming out of the last redistricting cycle. The thing that really worries me, however, is that we have 40 percent fewer competitive seats than I think we should have as a result of what both parties have done.

Brennan asked why his organization hasn't challenged any of the Dems' gerrymanders, including the maps in Maryland and New York, both of which were thrown out by the courts. He said he's indicated his opposition to what happened in Maryland, and he agreed with the judge's decision there. And, he said, the maps the legislature drew in New York were not the maps he would have drawn. He things the final maps in NY will be "different, but no fundamentally different."

And, he said, 

I think you can't compare, however, what happened in New York and Maryland to what is going on in Texas, Georgia, potentially Florida, Wisconsin, where Republicans have really gone to town in terms of gerrymanders. Fundamentally different from what Democrats have done.

He said in Texas, they're picking up two seats "strictly as a result of the increase in the Hispanic population," but they've "created more majority white districts" and haven't "increased the power of Hispanics in Texas at all."  

The map that you see in New York reflects really a population shift, a hollowing out of the rural areas in New York, as well as an increase in the urban areas in New York. So there's a census bureau basis of what's happening in New York that does not exist in Republican states.

And what about Florida, and Gov. DeSantis saying he's being 'race-neutral' with his maps? Brennan said she knows Holder "strongly" disagrees, and asked if he's saying Florida's gerrymandering is rooted in racism.  "It's certainly race conscious," he said, and by getting rid of a traditionally black district, "race is a factor there." And, intentional disenfranchisement is part of it.

They're going after Democrats. And the fact that that -- the Democrats that they're going after happen to be black I don't think is necessarily a coincidence. The suit that we won in Alabama was -- where we said that you should have additional representation for the black inhabitants of Alabama, those districts were certainly drawn with the thought that they would disenfranchise African-Americans in Alabama.

Alabama's weird. They have maps, but the Supremes might hear a case on the maps if someone were to complain the new districts are racially biased or designed to, as Holder said, disenfranchise African-Americans. Brennan wondered about this year's election, and the chance that the maps might be invalidated, and what that does to the election outcome.  Here's Holder's take on it.

Well, they're going to have an election in November based on maps that judges, including two Trump judges, said were inappropriately, unconstitutionally drawn. The Supreme Court said too close to the election and so we're going to allow the election to go ahead on those maps that were found to be defective. Now, that the Supreme Court will ultimately do with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was the basis for the lawsuit in Alabama, will remain to be seen. But that's one of the things I talk about in my book, this notion of us getting to some structural changes, that we need to look -- we need to ban partisan gerrymandering. We need the structures of our democracy if we're going to try to -- if we're going to try to save it.

There was an interesting exchange when Brennan sort of twisted something Holder said in his book. Here's how it went.

MB: And the problem that you sketch out here, you say that the entire democratic system, essentially, is broken, as I understand it. Unrepresentative Senate, unnecessary anti-democrat Electoral College, gerrymandered House of Representatives, panoply of state legislatures, and a stolen Supreme Court. A stolen Supreme Court. You say every person having an equal say in our democracy, one person, one vote, is far from a reality.

EH: Yes, I think that's true.

MB: You're saying the entire system is broken. What -- so if Republicans win control of Congress in November, is that election -- does it not have integrity? Do you not accept the outcome of it?

EH: No, I think your premise goes a little far. I wouldn't say that everything is broken, but there is --

MB: I was reading from your book there.

Yes, she was reading from the book in the part where she read from the book, but to jump from there to asking whether the election has integrity is quite a leap, and very much putting words into Holder's mouth, IMO.  Here's his response.

No, what I'm saying -- I would say is, there is a substantial amount of our structure that needs to be repaired, that needs to be examined. And I think we should -- what I've tried to put out -- point out in the book is that we have faced these issues before and that we've had heroes and heroines in our history that have faced similar kinds of issues and through sacrifice, commitment, they have made a difference. And we have the capacity, I think, to make these kinds of changes.

And, specifically on the Supremes, where Brennan placed a lot of emphasis,  

If you look at the Supreme Court, we have two seats, one stolen from the Democrats that Merrick Garland should have now. That -- that seat was not filled because it was to close to an election. And then Amy Coney Barrett was placed into a seat while people were actually voting. I mean those are the kinds of things that I think need to be addressed. And what I talk about in the book is to say, look, we should term limit the justices, 18 years, and that every president should have an opportunity to nominate two justices per term and to try to take some of the pressure out of this -- the partisanship and the confirmation process.

He's absolutely right on the Supremes: Garland should have had his confirmation hearing, when he was nominated, and Coney Barrett should not have had her hearing when she was nominated. Many people - perhaps even most people - understand how egregious the Grim Reaper's actions were on the Garland pick, and how hypocritical they were on the other one as well. And, I think, even Republicans would be having a cow or three if the shoe were on the other foot in either one of these cases. 

Holder's got a lot of ideas; admittedly he's trying to get Dems elected, but in the end, if the people get to choose their elected officials, instead of them picking us, we'll all be better off. I might actually read this one.

See you around campus.  

April 27, 2022

Wondering on Wednesday 4/27/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's on my wondering mind tonight?

Elon Musk does not yet own Twitter. Sure, he and the board have agreed that he will buy the company, but it's gonna take a while, as these deals always do. So, what's the wondering here? 

  • How much silliness is Musk going to interject into the discussion between now and his closing date, and will his silliness jeopardize the deal
  • Will he stop blocking people on the platform, given he's a free-speech absolutist? That's one of the main reasons he gave for wanting to buy the darn thing in the first place.
  • Will he stop posting boner and peepee tweets about people with whom he has disagreements, or will he continue to act like a bratty kid?
And, of course, what's going to happen to all the people, including many celebrities, who are shouting from the rooftops about leaving Twitter? I wonder, will they stick around until the bitter end when the deal finally closes? Will they bail now? Or will they never bail, just like all the people who were going to move out of the country when Obama, Trump and Biden got elected? 

And what about blue checkmark people? The checkmark, the symbol of 'authenticity' on Twitter, will lose its oomph when Musk takes over, if not sooner - more people could get it, under his current thinking. Will that make the authenticated folks mad, I wonder? 

I mean, they'll be losing some of their specialhood or something - and if I'm willing to subscribe to a paid Twitter, they'd be no different from me. Well, they'd still have lots more followers, but at least 99% of mine are real...

And what about True Justice, Truth Joke, Trust Special, or whatever The Former Guy calls his platform? He said he's going to stay there, but if everyone's allowed on Musk's platform, why would anyone bother with the other one? 

What has me wondering tonight? Redistricting maps. No, not the Florida maps, the ones here in New York, which were tossed this afternoon by our highest court. The Democrats in the legislature had hoped that seven judges appointed by Dems would look kindlier on this tomfoolery, but that was not the case. So, petitions are no good anymore, candidates don't know what the districts will look like, or may want to run in a different one than they thought they wanted to run in, and it's more likely than not that part of the primary will have to be pushed out a month or two.  

So, what I'm wondering is, can we get back the money we paid the commissioners - $25K annually - and the $145K paid annually paid to the two executive staff members? I mean, they didn't do what we wanted them to do, so why should they get paid? And, how do we make sure that none of the costs associated with this debacle are shifted to taxpayers? Finally, I wonder how the heck we avoid going through this exact same thing again in ten years?

Oh - one more thing: I wonder if the Dems will stop wailing about the awful gerrymandering the Rs do, now that their own maps have been set out with the trash?  

I'm also wondering how it's even possible that flight attendants are not paid for everything they do during the boarding process. I had no idea that some of the hardest stuff they do - getting nice people, and jerky people, and emotional support animals, and screaming babies, and clunky carry-on bags on the plane, in their correct places, in a timely manner - they did for free. Especially during the pandemic - good lord, they did all that for free?? 

Starting in June, Delta will pay their flight attendants during boarding; even though it's only at half their rate, it's better than nothing. And hopefully this will trickle across the skies to any other flight attendants who aren't being paid for this critical, and often miserable, work.

That's all there's time for tonight; what's got you wondering? 

April 7, 2022

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. 

February 23, 2018

TGIF 2/23/18

Yay! Another week in the books...

The week that saw Pennsylvania get handed redistricting maps, drawn by an expert from Stanford University, based on the 2016 presidential election vote.  Why were new maps needed?  Well, the old maps were determined to be a 'partisan gerrymander' and in violation of the law, and the governor (a Dem) and the state legislative leaders (Reps, natch) couldn't get it figured out on their own, so down came the new version.
The court's new map largely undid the Republican gerrymander, creating 10 Republican-leaning and eight Democratic-leaning House seats, as estimated using 2016 presidential election returns. Outside experts who were not involved with the case praised the new map, calling it "fairer" and "much more competitive" than the old one. 
The new map is a better reflection both of the composition of the state's electorate which tends to be divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and of the traditional redistricting criteria used to draw maps in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
So, naturally, the justices on the state Supreme Court that made the ruling need to be impeached, because, oh for Pete's sake, because the Republicans stand to lose as many as three seats because of the redistricting.

The week that saw the Florida House declare pornography a public health crisis, and require that "In God We Trust" be placed conspicuously in every school in the state. According to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Kimberly Daniels (a Democrat),
It is not a secret that we have some gun issues that need to be addressed. But the real thing that needs to be addressed are issues of the heart.
The week that saw the president chime in officially, and give full control of his son-in-law's security clearance to General Kelly, his personal general, who will do the right thing, we're sure.
That will be up to General Kelly. General Kelly respects Jared a lot, and General Kelly will make that call -- I won't make that call. I will let the general, who's right here, make that call... I will let General Kelly make that decision and he's going to do what's right for the country. And  have no doubt that he will make the right decision. 
Or, he'll be fired, of course.

And finally, the week that say every teacher in West Virginia go on strike. Even after the state's governor signed wage increases of 2% this year and 1% for next year two fiscal years.

Wages and benefits are the issues; the salary increases are not enough to cover the increases in their health insurance, according to the teachers. And, a promised freeze of health insurance premiums for sixteen months wasn't enough to keep the teachers on the job, where the average starting salary is less than $32,500 and the average salary is $44,700. 

Which isn't a lot of money, in the overall scheme of things - especially if we end up asking teachers to be law enforcement officers too.

TGIF.

October 18, 2016

The System is Rigged (Part Two)

Is the system rigged?

Are dead people planning on voting at your polling place?

Is someone trying to influence the election?

No, no -- and of course they are!

The candidates are trying to rig the system in their favor, by focusing the conversation on what they're interested in, and not talking about things that can be vigorously debunked or fact-checked or talked over by the other guy or gal. They make stuff up; they tell obvious lies; they fire up their base and some actually buy votes although they'd never admit it.

They quote polls that show they're doing great (or at least not doing horribly), and talk about their path to victory and all that, and there are actually some people out there who believe every word they say. 

The DCCC and the House Majority PAC and the NRCC and a whole mess of other PACs and Super PACS are trying to rig the system in their favor, by putting up ads in districts where they don't belong, trying to con voters into voting against their own best interests, spending millions and millions of dollars taking words out of context and slamming them on television over and over and over and over and...well, you get the point.

Heck, even the New York GOP is trying to rig the system - and they're not alone. GOP money from states where Trump is expected to do well, or to lose big, is headed off to scare the crap out of people in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and other states in to voting correctly.

Governors and state legislatures are trying to rig the system, by gerrymandering and creating bizarrely shaped districts that centralize all of the opponent's base into fewer districts that they will win handily, leaving other districts to the gerrymanderers.

States are passing voter limitation laws right, and right and right and, well, you get the drift.

Republican-controlled legislators in states with Republican governors are bending over backward to make it harder for poor people, people of color, old people, and other traditional Democratic voters to actually cast a ballot.

Not because they fear dead people voting or anything like that - because they fear live people voting, And that's a pretty big difference, if you ask me.

Is the system rigged?  Sure, if you look at it with your eyes open. It's been this way for a long time, it's not new because it's Hillary Clinton running against Donald Trump. It's politics as usual.

It may appear rigged because Trump hasn't paid attention in the past, but for someone coming from the cut-throat world of Manhattan real estate development -- you know, bid-rigging, and shady backroom deals, lawsuits, people advancing their own agendas and narratives -- is what he's seeing now really all that shocking?

Is anyone really shocked?