Monday Reads

Good Afternoon!

I’m still a little tired and overwrought from the wedding stuff this weekend so you’ll have to excuse me if this is a little terse. I have to say that I’m getting really excited about casting my ballot and watching a lot of my friends take their pussies and bad hombres to the polls!  We all expect her to win.  The polls really are showing that Hillary Clinton has pulled way ahead  and many states are in play that really shouldn’t be.  Texas is now a toss-up! It’s also early voting starting today!! 

Actually, you can watch Hillary and Elizabeth Warren live this afternoon from New Hampshire!  That’s pretty exciting! Clinton’s concentrating on bringing the House and Senate along with her. They’re helping US Senate Candidate Maggie Hassan who is the current Governor.  What a stage full of impressive women!!!

S0 just like the eight years of the black man who really wasn’t “legitimate” in the eyes of many Republicans, will the white woman be seen as being an illegitimate president?  They can’t question her birthright and won’t since the issue is not her race.  But, what both Sanders and Trump have said is that she is essentially dishonest and has found some kind of miracle way to rig and steal elections.

My fellow Louisianan Charles M Blow really digs right into this and hits all the right points. Blow begins by talking about how Sanders basically framed his loss as a result of a crooked system that Hillary played. Trump has a much more massive conspiracy theory of rigged national elections. Both men would rather believe in imaginary voters, captured superdelegates, and computer bugs than admit they lost to a girl fair and square.

An NBC/SurveyMonkey poll released Friday found that 45 percent of Republicans definitely wouldn’t or were unlikely to accept the result of the election if their candidate lost, compared to 30 percent of Independents and 16 percent of Democrats who felt the same.

At this point, it’s not even clear if Trump would graciously concede if he lost. Indeed, grace may be beyond his grasp.

And while there are signs that Clinton is narrowing the enthusiasm gap with Trump, my sense is that Clinton’s current success is as much a repudiation of Trump’s abhorrence as it is an embrace of Clinton. It feels to me more like exhaustion than exhilaration.

We could be on the verge of something historic. So, why does it feel so much like acquiescence? Why aren’t more people rushing to the polls to vote for this immensely qualified woman rather than rushing to vote against this woefully unqualified man? One of the reasons is that her male opponents have successfully cast the race she may win as rigged.

I think it’s fair to say our electoral processes aren’t perfect. But they’ve never been. Nor has any candidate been perfect. So why must those imperfections be nullifying at the very moment that a woman is on the verge of victory? Clinton is a woman beating men at their own game. Deal with it.

Just this morning, Trump repeated his claims that the polls are phony.

Donald Trump is saying “the truth is that we’re winning” – and claims that “phony polls” are trying to suppress the vote.

Trump spoke Monday at a farmers’ roundtable in Florida. He insisted that his campaign is ahead, even though most polls show him trailing Hillary Clinton.

He told the crowd gathered next to a pumpkin patch in Boynton beach: “I believe we’re winning.”

He then, without evidence, blamed that several “mainstream” media polls for weighing their respondents with Democrats.

He also told reporters that he felt “very good” about his chances in Florida, a state that is essential for his White House hopes.

This followed a CBS4 Florida interview where he railed about rigged elections and how the press has too much freedom of speech.  Trump actually suggested that the First Amendment allowed “too much freedom of speech”.  Welcome to the latest bits of authoritarianism displayed by this ugly, stupid, little man.

If Donald Trump is president, he’d like to make some changes to the First Amendment.

In an interview with WFOR, CBS’ Miami affiliate, Trump was asked if he believes the First Amendment provides “too much protection.”

Trump answered in the affirmative, saying he’d like to change the laws to make it easier to sue media companies. Trump lamented that, under current law, “our press is allowed to say whatever they want.”

He recommended moving to a system like in England where someone who sues a media company has “a good chance of winning.”

If Donald Trump is president, he’d like to make some changes to the First Amendment.

Trump has recently threatened to sue the New York Times and the numerous women who say he has sexually assaulted them.

Trump is right that he would have a better chance of prevailing under English law where an allegedly defamatory statement is presumed to be false. There, it is up to the defendant in a libel suit to prove that their statements are true.

But even if U.S. law were more like England’s, Trump might still have difficulty in prevailing against his accusers or the New York Times.

Many of Trump’s accusers have witnesses who can corroborate their stories. The reporter for People Magazine who says she was assaulted by Trump, for example, has six different people supporting her version of events.

English defamation law was also amended in 2013 to add a “public interest” exemption. This change would potentially allow the New York Times to escape liability in England even if they were unable to definitely prove the truth of their reporting.

He continues to confuse the USA with his personal little dictatorship driven personal corporations which frequently fail.  While we can’t get his taxes released that show the extent of his failures and reliance on his father and the government, we have Wikileaks out there pilfering whatever they can from wherever they can to try to hurt Hillary and promote the Russian Agenda.  The New Yorker has gone over the transcripts of Clinton’s speeches and found one big nothingburger.

So far, the documents have contained a few embarrassing revelations for Clinton—but they’ve been mild ones. Certain e-mails have confirmed that her campaign has been carefully scripted, to the point where numerous aides weigh in on something as mundane as the text of a tweet. The speech extracts, collected in an internal campaign document, showed Clinton courting senior figures from Wall Street, sympathizing with them for the blame they shouldered after the global financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, and telling them she valued their counsel on policy issues. In one speech, she acknowledged that, given her life style, she was “far removed” from the concerns of middle-class Americans. In another speech, she made a case for the political necessity of adopting different positions in public and private.

But did any of this surprise anybody? The stage-managed nature of Clinton’s campaign has been obvious all along: this is a candidate who went almost nine months without holding a proper press conference. The perception that Clinton had cozied up to bankers in return for large speaking fees was one reason so many Democrats voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries. The wealth that Clinton and her husband have amassed since he left office in 2000 was hardly a secret. And, from welfare reform to same-sex marriage to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Clinton’s willingness to tack with the wind on policy issues has been a recurring feature of her career.

The real value of the WikiLeaks documents is one the hackers may not have intended. The documents, particularly the speech extracts, portray Clinton as she is: a hard-headed centrist who believes that electoral politics inevitably involve making compromises, dealing with powerful interest groups, and, where necessary, amending unpopular policy positions. Addressing a General Electric Global Leadership Meeting in January, 2014, she said, “I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be.” Answering a question in March, 2014, at an event organized by Xerox, she said that the country needs two “sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.” These sentiments won’t win over many Sanders supporters. But they might actually reassure moderate Democrats, independents, and even some Trump-loathing Republicans who are thinking about crossing party lines.

For some reason, we’re all supposed to be shocked about this and wax poetic about Bernie or buy the Trumpertantrums.  I’m doing neither.  I’m taking this pussy to the poll.  I’m voting for Hillary Clinton and I’m telling any one who believes conspiracy theories about massive election riggings they should get a life.  Also, they should stop the comparisons to Bush v. Gore because that was heart-stoppingly close. Both the Obama elections and the upcoming Clinton election were and are anything but close.  Get over it boys!  They black man and the girl beat you fair and square!  You’re days starting every activity in life on third base are coming to a close.  Try to get to first base with the rest of us.

As Charles M. Blow says, “DEAL WITH IT”!

What’s on you reading and blogging list today?

Monday Reads: “Excuse me, I’m Talking!”

Monday again!

So, we’re past Super Tuesday and heading towards the Ides of March.  I didn’t think I’d learn much new from the Democratic Debate in Michigan last night.   There may have not been any new information but there certainly was a lot of reinforcements of impressions and old information.

Y’all know me.  I’m a nerdy girl. I always have been.  I play piano. I paint. I love animation. I read The Hobbit in 4th grade for the first of many times and discovered Dr. Who in Grad school. I had a comic book collection as a kid.  I was in every AP class in High School. I have a doctorate in financial economics which means I use the same damn math that Rocket Scientists and theoretical physicists use. I love anything nonfiction and documentary.  I’ve worked at the FED, lots of banks, and I’ve taught university. I’ve been nearly the only damn woman in the work environment or class many, many times. I had to go through a lot to get there and stay there.  I’ve been the brains behind a stupid CEO in quite a few states and cities.

So, believe me when I tell you that there’s always one old quack in the room that talks over women, gives nonverbal cues that what we say is unappreciated, and feels that his opinion is the only one that’s important. Every single one of those experiences came flooding back to me last night in living color accompanied by the ol’ heebie jeebies. Oh, and I’m white and any one whose been to my house prior to the flood of young white hipsters would likely call my neighborhood a “ghetto”.   WTF?

Losers

* Bernie Sanders: The senator from Vermont had effectively walked a fine line in the previous six debates when it came to attacking Clinton without coming across as bullying or condescending. He tripped and fell while trying to execute that delicate dance on Sunday night. Sanders’s “excuse me, I’m talking” rebuttal to Clinton hinted at the fact that he was losing his temper with her. His “Can I finish, please?” retort ensured that his tone and his approach to someone trying to become the first female presidential nominee in either party would be THE story of the night.

You don’t have to be a woman making her way in a primarily male environment for work to be continually hushed by men. We all know the rules of communication are different for us.  We have to interrupt frequently to just get a freaking word in edgewise.

It seems the only thing of importance that happened at last night’s Democratic debate is that Hillary Clinton interrupted Bernie Sanders and he shushed her. This has erupted into a big debate on the Twitters and Facespace thing, but I actually think it’s an important topic we need to discuss.

The rules of communication are different for women and men.

Here’s the deal, guys: women don’t like to be shushed. At all. If my husband ever tells me to be quiet or shush — yes, it’s happened — it elicits an intense, visceral, negative response. It makes me furious. And when it happens in a professional setting? It pushes every feminist button I own.

Why? Because you’re telling me I’m not important. You’re discounting me. You’re saying my ideas don’t matter, and that I don’t have the right to express them.

Men interrupt each other all the time and I daresay they don’t have that same response. It’s just how they communicate. But men and women come at communication from very different places.

The way we communicate is one of the many subtle ways women are expected to take a subservient role in society. I know it looks like we’ve come a long way, baby — hey we can vote and wear pants, huzzah — but when you look at basic social interactions, we’re constantly sent the contradictory message that we are second place. We get talked over, our ideas don’t matter, our issues aren’t important to the country at large they’re “women’s issues,” so who really gives a shit. Our work is worth less. Our effort is less valuable. This is the world from a professional woman’s point of view.

“But Beale,” you say, “Hillary interrupted him.” Yes, she did. Of course she did. And this is another thing about the difference between male and female communication: professional women always have to assert themselves to express their opinion. Because women are talked over all the damn time, it’s something we’ve lived with for generations, and many of us have learned how to interrupt if we want to say something.

But, that wasn’t the only moment where we had our doubts about Bernie’s ability to absorb and be interested in the rights of Americans and the
intersectionality of racism, misogyny,  xenophobia and sexual preference. Those of us that experienced the “White People Don’t Know What It’s Like To Live In The ‘Ghetto’ ” moment last night nearly had a collective heart attack if we knew anything about code words used to race-bait since the adoption of Nixon’s Southern Strategy.  (Follow that link to a great article by historian Heather Cox Richardson on how the Republicans got to their FrankenTrump Monster.)

Movement Conservatives fought to take control of the party from moderate Republicans. Movement Conservatives stood firmly against taxes and government activism, but they built their power by adding racism to their anti-government crusade. They argued that tax dollars redistributed wealth from hardworking white people to undeserving people of color and women. This argument proved a winner when Movement Conservative Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater’s only five states in 1964–aside from his home state—were in the Deep South. In 1968, Nixon captured Goldwater voters by adopting the Southern Strategy to assure white southerners that the days of federal enforcement of civil rights were ending. In 1980, Reagan began his general election campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been murdered during Freedom Summer, and told the crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.” The message was unmistakable. He also used the image of the “Welfare Queen,” a black woman who stole tax dollars by making fraudulent welfare claims, in winning the presidency.

 With a Movement Conservative in the White House, the faction’s leaders tied the Republican Party to tax cuts, the deregulation of business, and the end of social welfare policies. Then, when even racism did not produce enough popular support for their economic policies, leaders welcomed evangelical voters into their movement, promising them conservative social legislation in exchange for their votes.

Trump has just been refreshingly openly racist to the point that he’s publicly attracting white supremacists. It seems to be how he won Louisiana since his big supporter turn out was in David Duke’s old district.   New Orleans’ segregationist suburbs gave him his win. No wonder he was so obtuse about Congressman Steve Scalise’s old Stormfront buddies.  He’s dropped the old code words and gone straight for the hate.

Now, imagine our surprise when those code words show up on the lips of a candidate for the Democratic nomination in today’s Democratic Party which is solidly supported by the country’s African American voters.

Social media lit up after U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders told debate watchers “when you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto” during the Flint Democratic presidential primary debate.

The answer came after CNN anchor Don Lemon asked the candidates about possible “racial blind spots” they may have.

“(W)hen you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto,” Sanders responded. “You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car.”

He then went on to call for an end to systemic racism.

But, the statement drew mixed reviews from those on social media.

I spent a good deal of last night and this morning trying to gently explain the entire concept to a really white young guy going to SFU.

So, here’s my nice young BernieBro’s whitesplain. I’ve withheld the name to protect the ignorant.

This is just an opinion, but I don’t think it was that offensive, especially in the context with which he used it by Sen. Sanders in that debate.

There are ways with which you should and should not use “ghetto” in describing something. Using it to describe the terribly unfortunate and specific living circumstances of some families is proper use of that terminology in my eyes.

Again, just my opinion.

I couldn’t let that go especially given this was posted to the page of a black democratic activist’s page and comment stream.

He answered the question on institutional racism by using code words and paradigms of white male privilege. Bringing single women into middle class livelihoods will not mean they will not be making 70¢ on the male dollar any more. Bringing black people into or beyond the middle class will not make access to jobs, education,loans or neighborhoods necessarily available. Poverty occurs across gender and racial lines but the experience of poverty or even middle or upper class livelihoods intersect with racism and misogyny which still exist despite income levels. We have plenty of poor whites in this country but when privileged white men use words like “ghetto” or “thug” we know they are code words specifically applied to the black community. It’s a way to apply the “n” word without speaking it. When white folks are unable to see these things it is because of blind spots they develop while living in a society that advantages whites. While I can never truly experience racism, I can watch and listen to others experience of it and learn about my blind spots and experience of privilege. It’s evident that Sanders has not done this in his many years of living and public service. A person with a tin ear cannot truly experience enough empathy to find ways of leading policy to places where problems are solved for all communities.

And of course, the usual “I have to have the last word cause I’m the guy in this conversation” keeps bringing back responses.  I keep getting whitesplaining and mansplaining in one fell swoop.  For some reason, these folks are convinced that Bernie was the white MLK. I have no idea why.

You bring up great points, but I disagree that Sanders hasn’t tried to look into his blindness and see past his privilege in order to and understand what poverty and living circumstances look like for poor black families vs other poor families, or even more specifically black folks in general (no matter their walk of life or income levels).

His work during his younger years in university more than establish that, which certainly carries in to a lot of his policies and thoughts as Senator.

To that end, I still don’t think that just because he’s privileged and white that he should be barred from using such terminology as “ghetto” when describing someone’s living situation. Like I said above, the way he said it seemed incorrect, but I seriously doubt that he would stick to that exact wording were he able to elaborate further on what it means to be poverty stricken, no matter your race or ethnicity.

I believe this for my before-mentioned point at the beginning.

You know me, I can’t let this go.

Ok. So my final point on this is to ask you to listen to what black people are saying rather than to rationalize in your mind that both you and Sanders couldn’t possibly be whitesplaining or under the influence of a blind spot.

At this point, my friend wakes up and takes up the lesson.

He continues to be as obtuse as Bernie.  Albeit, he’s young so he still has a chance, I suppose.  There were many things that upset me last night.  None of these things have made me into a Bernie Fan.  Just the opposite.

One of the more interesting things I found out was that the NRA was happily tweeting support for Bernie last night.  This continues to concern me mightily.

During the debate, CNN moderator Anderson Cooper argued that a suit brought by families of the victims from the Sandy Hook shooting against Remington may not go anywhere. He asked Sanders what he would say to those families.

Sanders replied that if a gun was legally purchased, he disagreed with holding the gun manufacturer liable.

“If that is the point, I have to tell you I disagree. I disagree because you hold people — in terms of this liability thing, where you hold manufacturers’ liable is if they understand that they’re selling guns into an area that — it’s getting into the hands of criminals, of course, they should be held liable.

“But if they are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that.”

Hillary Clinton‘s campaign has sought to use Sanders’s position on guns against him. It has particularly lambasted his vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005.

Critics say the law provides gun manufacturers with an unprecedented form of immunity that no other industry enjoys, but supporters maintain that it protects the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits.

The NRA’s tweet for Sanders was quickly highlighted by Correct the Record, a super-PAC that backs Clinton.

 Here are the remaining March Election Dates for your information.

Hawaii — Republican Party Caucus March 8, 2016
Idaho — Scheduled Elections: US President for Republican Party and US President for Constitution Party March 8, 2016
Michigan — Presidential Primary Election Day March 8, 2016
Mississippi — State Primary and Presidential Primary Election Day March 8, 2016
Washington DC — Republican Party Convention : Number of Delegates: 19 Total Delegates March 12, 2016
Florida — Presidential Preference Primary Election March 15, 2016
Illinois — Presidential Primary Election and State Primary Election Day March 15, 2016
Missouri — Presidential Preference Primary March 15, 2016
Northern Marianas — Republican Party Caucus : Number of Delegates: 9 Total Delegates March 15, 2016
North Carolina — Presidential Primary and State Primary Election Day March 15, 2016
Ohio — Presidential Primary and State Primary Election Day March 15, 2016
Virgin Islands — Republican Party Caucus : Number of Delegates: 9 Total Delegates March 19, 2016
Idaho — Democratic Party Caucus March 22, 2016
Utah — Presidential Preference Primary Election March 22, 2016
Alaska — Democratic Party Caucus March 26, 2016
Hawaii — Democratic Party Caucus March 26, 2016
Washington — Democratic Party Caucus March 26, 2016

A new poll shows Clinton way ahead in Michigan 

Clinton Opens Up Huge Lead in Michigan (Clinton 66% – Sanders 29%)

There continue to be other lies mentioned by Sanders that keep getting repeated.  First, he keeps at the how he tried to single handedly stop Wall Street from getting Big Banks when he voted for the Deregulation of Derivatives which was probably the one piece of deregulation law that had the most to do with creating the concentration in banking.  Clinton first slammed him with it the CNN debate back on January 18. He’s not stopped the charade.

“You’re the only one on this stage that voted to deregulate the financial market in 2000,” Clinton said, making reference to his support for former President Bill Clinton’s Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

The law effectively gave bankers, or “sophisticated traders,” free rein from pre-existing oversight mechanisms when they wanted to make deals on the sidelines of the major stock exchanges, in “over-the-counter” trading.

Clinton himself would later cop to having made a serious mistake in signing the bill, saying he didn’t understand the extent to which these deals, if they went bad, could ripple across the global economy.

“Even if less than 1% of the total investment community in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could effect 100% of the investments,” he told ABC’s “This Week” in 2010.