Why NBA Players Shouldn’t Boycott

Dear NBA Teams,

Please Don’t Boycott Games. Public Awareness is not the issue right now. One would have to be living in a monastery somewhere away from all civilization to be ignorant of the current disparities in criminal justice between different races in the United States.

Also, it’s unlikely anyone will see that the Celtics and Raptors aren’t playing and suddenly change their mind about such a deep-seated issue as racial injustice.

So what does a boycott accomplish?

  • There will be no money generated for truly good people (the players particularly, but also the coaches, managers, staff, owners, and other employees who seem to be 100% all on the same page about this).
  • The world will receive none of the messaging that NBA players have so successfully brought to each game via text, video, and spoken word.
  • A gaping hole will emerge in media content that will be filled with more of the wrong voices, particularly the current RNC convention.

What does playing accomplish?

  • Playing will generate more money to help fight the system via political power, programs, education, protecting polling locations, etc.
  • More of the right messaging from the right people will be front and center on prime time television.
  • Playing games with a heavy emphasis on racial justice will prove that an industry can not only exist, but thrive taking a very firm political stand (whereas conventional wisdom is to never alienate one’s audience in pursuit of the almighty dollar).

Although boycotting might seem like an effective gesture, it will be rendered meaningless almost immediately after the moment has passed.

Political power and cultural consensus is the goal right now for anyone fighting on behalf of Black Lives Matters.

Finally, as Trump proved in the 2016 election, the loudest and most media-dominant voice will take all the oxygen. These NBA Playoff games are keeping the focus on some of the most talented, wealthy, and brilliant minds one could ask for in service of the greater good. Let’s keep it there as long as possible.

Similar Read: Is a Bubble the Answer?

Fascism 101

President Trump recently tweeted this in regard to the four freshmen Congresswomen who oppose his policies: 

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

And added this today:

“If you’re not happy, you can leave.”

These statements are fascistic in nature and seek to do two things: 

1. Create division in this country so that Trump can align himself with the more powerful side. 

If everyone got along, we would have no need to hire a strong man to enact our wishes on those who disagree with us. Trump wants sides and he will claim the more violent, outspoken, loyal, consistently voting, and ruthless one.

“You’re with the police or against us.”

“But there is clear video evidence of racist motivations driving police officers to murder minorities recently and while obviously, the majority of cops are not racist, we should probably examine this and try to improve…”

“NOPE! You’re against us!”

“You support the troops or you are against us.”

“But I want to raise awareness about an issue so I consulted with U.S. Veterans about how to properly honor the flag and our country while still protesting the deficiencies we might still need to address…”

“NOPE! You’re against us!”

“You’re a capitalist or a communist.”

“But we already have a dozen socialist programs in this country like (ironically) the police, the military, fire, infrastructure, public schools, parks, etc., and while the free market is an incredible mechanism that should drive MOST industries, maybe we should consider taking healthcare out of the private sector because Insurance Companies prioritize wealth over health.”

“NOPE! You’re a communist.”

“You’re a Christian or the Devil.”

“But I’m Jewish/Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Buddhist/etc.”

“NOPE! You’re the Devil.”

“You’re either American, or you don’t support me.”

“But I don’t support you.”

“NOPE! Then you’re not American, go back to where you came from!”

When you tell someone, “go back to where you came from,” what does that even mean!? My ancestors came to the United States mostly from England and Belgium and I don’t know how I would even begin to “go back” to those countries. This is an impossible statement and obviously racist since Trump has never said it to any White American.

2.  Destroy Any Criticism or Descent. 

The other horrific quote about leaving if you are not happy is the idea that you essentially cannot criticize the United States or the President. “If you don’t like it, you can leave (or die). We’re never changing, no matter how corrupt, cancerous, or callous we have become.”

This is indicative of narcissists who tend to do major damage to those around them and get furious when their behavior is criticized. I’ve come up with my own personal definition that I think states the condition clearly:

“A narcissist is someone who punches you in the face repeatedly and when you ask them to stop, they say, ‘don’t tell me what to do!’”

Trump is obviously a narcissist, but most of his supporters are narcissists as well. They have no regard for others, only their collective identity which they believe is the “real” America. The President thinks he and his minority bloc of supporters own the country.

What Trump does not realize is that when he says, “If you don’t like it here, you can leave,” what he is really saying is, “If you don’t like it here, vote for my opponent in the 2020 election.”

Because that’s how a Democracy like America works best: We fight each other on the ballot, not the battlefield.

This article was originally published on 15 July 2019.

Similar Read: Diplomacy and War: Know the Difference 

It’s Time to Bow

Covid-19 will change many aspects of daily life for years to come. 

Last week, Dr. Fauci, American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, said we should stop shaking hands indefinitely, even after Coronavirus is under control.

Perhaps now is the time to adopt the social custom of bowing, in lieu of physical contact.

And why not? Bowing is fun! It’s safe and it’s very respectful. 

My wife and I performed music for the U.S. Troops in the Asian Pacific and traveled to many countries where bowing was the norm. I thought it was so lovely and affectionate, even from a distance.

Bowing is not as simple as it would seem. There are many levels of intimacy and different emotions that can be expressed without touching. Cordial business bows are more rigid and dry (the equivalent of a firm handshake). Friendly bows are more loose and smiley (like a hug). 

Bows of the deepest affection or respect are very low and long. In Japan, our tour manager took us to a record shop where a great friend of his recognized him from across the room. She ran full speed up to him and paused drastically at the appropriate distance (about 6 ft) and bowed the lowest, most loving bow seemingly possible. It was as powerful as the strongest hug I’d ever seen.

Perhaps long ago (or not so long ago) a pandemic of COVID-19’s magnitude swept through Asia and the culture collectively abandoned physically engaging forms of affection, instead embracing (pun intended) this social distancing form of love.

In any case, let’s try it out, America! Everyone knows what it means to bow. What might have been viewed formerly as “foreign” or “unAmerican” (we hug here) might just be a large ingredient necessary for getting this country out of our current predicament and back to some semblance of the beautiful way of life we once knew.

Ricky Gervais: Hollywood Court Jester

A King is omnipotent. He cannot be questioned or challenged.

According to Sun Tzu, exuding supreme confidence is essential for victory; an enemy must never even perceive a chance to win. This is why many Kings project confidence at all times and never apologize.

However, once a King achieves power and influence beyond question or challenge, what happens if he acts or decides in a manner that is self-harming or detrimental to himself or his Kingdom? The Court Jester was a mechanism to perhaps mitigate such a situation.

An expert Court Jester could point out flaws of the King or the King’s Court in a humorous, seemingly innocuous manner, never earning the ire or Axe of the king. In this way, problems could be at least addressed, possibly considered, and at best resolved. It was a form of therapy for such a precarious system of governing, particularly for the laborers and peasants who were unable to express any malcontent with their monarch.

Although Kings have mostly disappeared from the world and been replaced by more Democratic systems of rule (at least in appearance), there still remains the archetype of “Kingship” mostly in the realm of the rich and famous.

Specifically in the art world, when these modern Kings rise to the level of unquestioned and unchallenged behavior, they can often do the most damage, particularly to themselves. Consider Elvis (The King), Michael Jackson (The King of Pop), and Prince (uhhhh… Prince) who all died of drug overdoses at some point after they rose to levels of wealth and power at which nobody could tell them, “No.”

So if Hollywood is the King of Pop Culture right now, Ricky Gervais is Hollywood’s Court Jester.

His monologue at the Golden Globes was everything that most of America would like to say to these “royal” people who are admired, powerful, talented, and beyond question or challenge, but cannot.

I personally loved every bit of his monologue and found none of it offensive (although none of it was directed at me, I admit). Nonetheless, I think we need Ricky Gervais more than ever right now, particularly when most of the country feels powerless and held hostage to the extremes of the Right and Left.

No movement, however virtuous, is infallible. If an idea or group is unable to be criticized or questioned, then that group is essentially invincible (like the King) and could ultimately use this power malignantly. The very idea of “untouchable” or “beyond reproach” is what someone like Ricky Gervais fights against. This explains why he has upset members of the LGBTQ community in his career as he has lambasted them along with every other group in existence.

To empathize with Mr. Gervais, I would agree that you have not truly earned equal rights until you can be ridiculed freely as the rest of us are. That’s why the term is “equal” rights and not “more than” rights.

So, for anyone who may have been offended by the Golden Globes monologue last weekend, let me go over his jokes a little for your consideration. Maybe this will help illuminate the necessity of such a Jester in our current socio-political climate.

I will also give Mr. Gervais a bit of criticism as well which, if you read his Twitter Account, he welcomes enthusiastically even going so far as to retweet bad reviews of himself or his shows; lest he ever becomes anything like the “King” he is currently so adept at criticizing.

Ricky’s jokes followed by my commentary:

Kevin Hart was fired from the Oscars for some offensive tweets — hello?

Pointing at himself, Gervais seems to question the double standard of preventing a black man from hosting an award show on account of anti-LGBTQ content, when a white man can post incredibly incendiary content and still host.

Maybe NBC is just braver than ABC – or more hungry for those controversy ratings?

Or maybe there is a stronger degree of wrongdoing by Hart who seemed to express genuinely anti-gay sentiments while Gervais simply ridicules LGBTQ out of the principle that everyone deserves to be ridiculed and nobody is above a joke, particularly when it comes from a place of inclusion and not malice?

Lucky for me, the Hollywood Foreign Press can barely speak English and they’ve no idea what Twitter is, so I got offered this gig by fax. 

Obviously, he’s coming up with an outlandish explanation for why he was chosen to host in spite of his provocative Twitter comments and pretending that the HFP, who all live in Southern California, are literally Foreign and can’t speak English.

Let’s go out with a bang, let’s have a laugh at your expense. 

Yes, surely the most privileged people in the world can be the butt of a joke.

Remember, they’re just jokes. We’re all gonna die soon and there’s no sequel, so remember that.

Characteristic Gervais throwing a bit of his atheism into it.

But you all look lovely all dolled up. You came here in your limos. I came here in a limo tonight and the license plate was made by Felicity Huffman. 

The ultimate symbol of White Privilege finally facing justice. How could this crowd defend her?

No, shush. It’s her daughter I feel sorry for. OK? That must be the most embarrassing thing that’s ever happened to her. And her dad was in Wild Hogs.

While it is low-hanging fruit-making fun of an actor in a bad movie, it’s still funny to wonder who the daughter considers a worse parent: the one in jail or the one in a horrible film?

Lots of big celebrities here tonight. Legends. Icons. This table alone — Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro … Baby Yoda. Oh, that’s Joe Pesci, sorry. I love you man. Don’t have me whacked. 

Appearance-mockery and pop culture reference in one joke… not very funny to me, but worked well enough for his crowd.

But tonight isn’t just about the people in front of the camera. In this room are some of the most important TV and film executives in the world. People from every background. They all have one thing in common: They’re all terrified of Ronan Farrow. He’s coming for ya. 

Nervous laughter. Yeah, Farrow doesn’t mess around. He is out to shine light on the cockroaches of society and Hollywood is having its turn.

Talking of all you perverts, it was a big year for pedophile movies. Surviving R. KellyLeaving NeverlandTwo Popes. Shut up. Shut up. I don’t care. I don’t care.

Even Catholics can’t escape the shadow of thousands – THOUSANDS – of covered up child molestation cases in just the last century alone. This is speaking truth to power and it’s not actually funny except that it’s David attacking Goliath so brazenly right in front of the Philistines.

This was the innocent child yelling: “The Emperor has no clothes!!!”

Many talented people of color were snubbed in major categories. Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do about that. Hollywood Foreign Press are all very racist. 

They are all international journalists.

We were going to do an In Memoriam this year, but when I saw the list of people who died, it wasn’t diverse enough. No, it was mostly white people and I thought, nah, not on my watch. Maybe next year. Let’s see what happens.

Increasing diversity in film has been one of the greatest achievements of this last decade. Black Panther alone will do more for young black kids who want to fantasize about themselves as the hero and aspire to be greater than any token character of the last century.

However, as Bill Burr labels it, “Overcorrection” can happen.

This joke simply warns about trying to apply the morality of “ensuring diversity” to every aspect of every part of the industry (like the In Memoriam).

I imagine a film about the Harlem Globetrotters will probably not require a quota of x amount of Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and White actors to play the roles of historically Black athletes from one of the most famously Black areas of the country.

No one cares about movies anymore. No one goes to cinema, no one really watches network TV. Everyone is watching Netflix. This show should just be me coming out, going, “Well done Netflix. You win everything. Good night.” But no, we got to drag it out for three hours.

Poignant. True.

You could binge-watch the entire first season of Afterlife instead of watching this show. That’s a show about a man who wants to kill himself ’cause his wife dies of cancer and it’s still more fun than this. 

Shameless plug.

Spoiler alert, season two is on the way so in the end he obviously didn’t kill himself. Just like Jeffrey Epstein. Shut up. I know he’s your friend but I don’t care.

Hilarious. True. I wonder how many in this room have been to his island or on his plane.

Seriously, most films are awful. Lazy. Remakes, sequels. I’ve heard a rumor there might be a sequel to Sophie’s Choice. I mean, that would just be Meryl just going, “Well, it’s gotta be this one then.” 

Low hanging fruit. It worked. Good for levity – which was surprisingly needed in such a brutally damning monologue.

All the best actors have jumped to Netflix, HBO. And the actors who just do Hollywood movies now do fantasy-adventure nonsense. They wear masks and capes and really tight costumes. Their job isn’t acting anymore. It’s going to the gym twice a day and taking steroids, really. Have we got an award for most ripped junky? No point, we’d know who’d win that.

I still don’t know who he means by this. Also, I whole-heartedly disagree with him and Scorsese about this. These superhero movies are for kids. Netflix is killing the budgets and demands for original, well-made quality movies in big theaters, not superhero movies.

Martin Scorsese made the news for his controversial comments about the Marvel franchise. He said they’re not real cinema and they remind him about theme parks. 

Ha. I know my children will all watch Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Gangs of New York, and Shutter Island on repeat until they are 16 and old enough for Marvel Movies.

I agree. Although I don’t know what he’s doing hanging around theme parks. He’s not big enough to go on the rides. He’s tiny. 

A size joke is seemingly juvenile… but so is picking on kid’s movies when you are the greatest living director! So, well done.

The Irishman was amazing. It was amazing. It was great. Long, but amazing. It wasn’t the only epic movie. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, nearly three hours long. Leonardo DiCaprio attended the premiere and by the end, his date was too old for him. Even Prince Andrew was like, “Come on, Leo, mate. You’re nearly 50-something.”

Low hanging fruit, again.

The world got to see James Corden as a fat pussy. He was also in the movie Cats. 

Gervais really seems to hate Corden, at least in his comedy. After Life (which is pure brilliance) lambasts Corden also. I often find this problem with extremely intellectual people: they tend to cynically and inaccurately portray the heavily visceral artists and performers. It’s the “Lennon is great and McCartney sucks!” people.

There are a lot of colors in the rainbow, Ricky. What you may consider banal is often just a conduit for energy. Sometimes, “How’s the weather?” conversations are one person really just saying, “I care about you and just want to make sounds in your direction.” Go to a Coldplay concert. It’s beautiful in a different way from Tom Waits or Frank Zappa. Hierarchies are for fascists.

No one saw that movie (Cats). And the reviews, shocking. I saw one that said, “This is the worst thing to happen to cats since dogs.” But Dame Judi Dench defended the film saying it was the film she was born to play because she loves nothing better than plunking herself down on the carpet, lifting her leg and licking her minge. (Coughs.) Hairball. She’s old-school.

Now, it would have been even more outrageous and absurd if Mr. Gervais had this level of obscene mockery directed at Meryl Streep who was in the room, but Dame Judy Dench was a fine target for the harshest roast of the night.

Apple roared into the TV game with The Morning Show, a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweatshops in China. Well, you say you’re woke but the companies you work for in China — unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service you’d call your agent, wouldn’t you?

Dead on. Truth to power. Thank you, Ricky Gervais.

So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.

So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and fuck off, OK?

This kind of sums up the mentality of most Americans and touches on why Trump won the election. They don’t trust Democrats or the Hollywood elite who are so clearly hypocrites.

Most Americans love Hollywood and what it has done for the world, but if it wants to remain King, it must listen to its Court Jester: Mr. Ricky Gervais.

Watch the entire 2020 Golden Globes by Ricky Gervais:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCNdTLHZAeo

DEMOCRATIC DEBATE: PLAY BY PLAY AND OPINION

I watched the debates with as little prejudice and bias as possible. These are my gut reactions as a straight, White, married, 36 years old, religiously unaffiliated, politically independent, male.

20 Candidates. 10 each night. 60 seconds to answer. 30 seconds to follow up.

NIGHT ONE…

ECONOMY:

Elizabeth Warren is up first. She is asked if her economic policies (which are heavily progressive) are appropriate at a time when 70% of country says the economy is up. She makes the point that the economy is top heavy and is working great for the 1%. Trickle-down is not happening. She is very eloquent and on-point.

Amy Klobuchar: She is asked if her policies are too idealistic. She talks about how Trump and his supporters gloat about the economy, but it betrays the bigger picture of student debts and low wages. She talks about making Community College free and getting help for everyone that isn’t in the top 1%. Says ifBillionaires can pay off their yachts (which I assume is speaking about the big bank bailouts), we can pay off Student Debts.

—Already, I can tell that the tone of this debate is going to be “boring” (as Eric Trump tweeted apparently) and policy heavy. This seems like it will be the Democratic position to contrast Trump: less rhetoric and circus theatrics, more substance.

Beto O’Rourke: “This economy has to work for everyone.” Betospeaks Spanish during his time which feels a bit forced (he clearly planned this with his campaign and it feels political in nature). O’Rourke speaks to the big bank bailout of trillions to the 1% (which happened under Bush AND Obama, we must remember – so this talking point which is now 3/3 of the first candidates is an interesting strategy seeing as how it could be at least politically attached to Obama, if not factually).

Cory Booker: Talks about monopolies and corporate consolidation. Says dignity is being stripped from labor. Small businesses can’t compete. Wants aggressive policies in the Ag(riculture) sector to spur the economy. He lives in “black and brown” communities that are not being helped by any current policies of this administration. Says “Haliburton and Amazon pay nothing in taxes” and we need to change that. In regards toanti-Trust laws, he will appoint the judges that will rule appropriately. Says corporate power is growing and that Citizens United has been very bad in regards to furthering government corruption.

Warren response about “Picking winners and losers” by Booker: The laws are in place already, it’s the courage to take on the giants that is needed. “I want to return the government to the people.” Warren is very believable in her appeal to voters that want the government to fight back against the big corporations and work for the everyman.

Julian Castro: “I know what it’s like to struggle.” Speaks to his difficult upbringing. Talks about MOMS. It starts in the home. He would pass the equal rights amendment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work. “If we want to be the most prosperous nation in the 21st century, we need to make sure women are paid what they deserve.” Short and sweet.

Tulsi Gabbard: Enlisted in National Guard after 9/11. She still serves as a Major. She is making these points rather than answering the question (which was about Equal Pay). “Our leaders have failed us, leading us from one regime change to the next.” Wants to take money from fighting endless wars into healthcare, green energy, and protecting environment. Her answer is so short and to the point that there is an awkward pause after she finishes and the moderators scramble to get to the next question (she is very impressive in her content, but robotic/uninspiring in her delivery).

Bill De Blasio: Talks about NYC policy that has made a difference in income inequality: raising benefits, raising income, pre-K for all, more sick days, etc. The battle for the Heart and Soul of the party – yes, we are supposed to be for the people: free college, 70% tax rate on wealthy, supposed to break up big corporations when they aren’t serving our Democracy. We have to be strong, aggressive, progressive… in NYC, we have proven we can do that. There is plenty of money in this world, it’s just in the wrong hands.

John Delaney: We must do real things to help American people and workers. A real wage. Double the tax credit. Raise minimum wage. Paid family leave. Says he’s very different, an entrepreneur who has spent his whole career helping 5,000 small businesses.

Jay Inslee: I’m a Governor. We need Unions. That’s how we increase wages. CEO of McDonald’s makes 2,100x the people who work there. I will put people to work in the jobs of the present and the future. Wind Turbines don’t cause cancer, they cause jobs. America needs to lead the world.

Tim Ryan: Can you promise Manufacturing jobs will come back? Trump told Ohians not to sell their houses and Ryan speaks to all of the Ohio jobs being shipped out to Mexico and China. Trump’s promises were hollow and manufacturing has NOT come back. Top 1% controls 90% of wealth while wages for everyone have not gone up since the 70s.

—After hearing from every candidate, Warren and Gabbard stick out the most as the best candidates. They “appear presidential” (whatever that means… it’s not so much hair/attire/looks so much as confidence, projection, and rhetoric).

Warren: We have let giant corporations do whatever they want for decades now. And their entire focus is profit. If they can save a dollar shipping jobs to Mexico or China, they will. They have no loyalty to USA. We need to go tenfold on R&D for Green Energy. Then corporations can use that tech, but they have to use it in America (similar to NASA developing space tech and businesses using it). Very confident on American ability to bring back jobs and tech.

GENERAL QUESTION: Who would abolish employer health insurance in favor of a government-run plan? Only Warren and De Blasio raise hands.

HEALTHCARE:

Klobuchar: Obama wanted public option, that’s bold. But it would kick Americans off health insurance. We need to tackle pharmaceuticals first. Trump said he’d bring down prices and prices have gone up 2x. He gave 100 billion to pharmaceuticals. “That’s what we call all foam and no beer where I come from.” (chuckles from crowd, I personally cringe at these comedic deliveries from non-comedians). “Pharma thinks they own Washington. Well they don’t own me.”

Warren: “I’m with Bernie on Medicare-For-All.” Medical Bills are biggest reason people go broke. And that’s for people WITH insurance. Medical Companies want to get every dollar they can. They continually fight with patients to squeeze money out of them with no regard to for health or family situations. Medicare-For-All solves this. Health Care is a basic human right and I will fight for it.

Beto: “My goal is to ensure that every American is well enough to live up to their full potential.” Tells a story about a Texas man who will be dead before age of 40 because he doesn’t have healthcare. He wants to get to get to a Public Option for all as soon as possible. County Jail is the biggest healthcare provider. Adds that Women’s Healthcare is essential.

De Blasio: First to chime in out of turn calling out Beto for not acknowledging that Private Insurance isn’t working.

John Delaney: We can’t support bills that will have every hospital close. We can’t just take away Private Insurance altogether. Let’s add an option, not take away options (Medicare Option, I believe he’s talking about).

—All the Democrats acknowledge Healthcare is broken, but only two want Medicare for All to replace private insurance immediately, while everyone else wants to add the option of italong with the private option.

Gabbard: “We are talking about this in the wrong way.” What we should talk about is our objective: Medicare For All. If you look at other countries that have Medicare for All, private sector still plays into it (maybe it’s enhanced care).

Booker: If you don’t have healthcare, you won’t succeed in school, occupation, and at home.

Warren: Insurance Companies last year sucked $23 Billion dollars in profit out of the system and that doesn’t count lobbying and bonuses. There is a lobby that is paying to keep insurance the way it is.

Jay Inslee: It should not be an option to deny women coverage for their right of choice. “I’m the only candidate who has passed laws to ensure this and I’ve passed laws for the public health option as well.”

Klobuchar: There are three women who have fought pretty hard for a woman’s right to choose. The idea is that you use Medicare and Medicaid without insurance and 23 million people will get covered.

Castro: My plan would cover abortion. “I believe in reproductive justice.” First to bring up Trans Women. Talks about Missouri and Georgia assaulting Pro-Choice. Would appoint the judges that protect these rights (although probably every candidate would).

Warren: (Getting a lot of time) Would ensure women have access to EVERYTHING: abortion, birth control, health care. Roe v. Wade is not enough. State after state has undermined the courts. Most of America supports the Court Decision, it needs to be Federal Law.

Booker: (on Drugs). Pharma Companies should be held criminally liable. Will not take contributions from any Pharma Execs or Lobbies because they are a big part of the opioid crisis.

Beto: Pharma Companies have destroyed the country and have no accountability. His administration will hold criminals accountable and get people the help they need.

—Break. So far, I am still most impressed with Warren (who is taking over) and Gabbard. Everyone else has underwhelmed.

IMMIGRATION:

Castro: First candidate to put forward a comprehensive immigration plan. Watching images of immigrants in these conditions (including the two who passed away trying to swim across the border) is sad, but it should also piss us off. He wants a pathway to citizenship. We need a Marshall Plan so people can find safety at home instead of coming to US to seek it.

Booker: Also speaks Spanish to answer. Does not seemed contrived this time since it’s addressing the immediate issue at hand (Beto’s response earlier was to a general question). Wants to pass DACA.

Castro: (Again) “My plan also gets rid of criminalizing desperation. It should be a civil violation.” Section 1325 is justified to separate from their families. Every candidate should support its repeal.

Booker: (Again) Separation from children and family isn’t just at the border. ICE is going into homes creating fear.

De Blasio: As a father, every American should say: “That photo of that child is not America.” We aren’t being honest about the division that is being fomented in this country. Immigrants have NOT created the problems we have. It’s the CORPORATIONS, not the IMMIGRANTS.

This was the first big moment of the night in terms of an emotional plea that is also on message with Democratic Party. De Blasio is trying to make the claim that he knows the party platform.

Beto: We would spare no expense to bring families back together. We would not detain any families fleeing violence. We would implement a family care policy. Free dreamers by making them US Citizens. Invest in Central America so there’s no reason to make the journey.

Castro: Section 1325 is the reason all of these problems are happening. Calls out O’Rourke and says he needs to end this policy (he won’t).

Beto: I introduced legislation to help…

Castro: I’m only talking about this Section.

Beto: We need to rewrite immigration laws.

Castro: It’s just this one law that is the problem. We need to end it and families won’t be separated.

—Castro and Beto are fighting pretty heavily.

Klobuchar: “Immigrants do not diminish America, they are America.” Agrees with Beto, that we have to have some provisions in place for people who violate the law (Section 1325 is meant to help fight “bad actors,” but it’s being abused by Trump administration). This President has gone backwards at a time when we need immigrants.

Ryan: Crime or Civil Offense to cross the border? Agrees with Castro: it’s already established in law to bring illegal items across the border. No need to repeat. “If you go to Guantanamo Bay, there are terrorists who are getting better care than the children at the border.” Why are we not letting Doctors and Nurses go to the border?

—The Trump/Miler policy has been proven to be intentionally cruel to discourage immigration.

Booker: Civil vs. Criminal when it comes to illegal immigration. “Our country has made so many mistakes by criminalizing things: Addiction, Mental Illness, Immigration…” We have a surge at the border with Trump’s policies. We should examine why people come here in the first place.

WHAT WILL YOU DO ON DAY ONE? NO ONE HAS ANSWERED QUESTION:

Inslee: Prevent laws that prevent local Police from turning into ICE Agents. Trump threatened me by saying he’d send refugees. That’s an American tradition (immigrants), not a threat.

IRAN:

Booker: Trump messed up taking us out of Iran deal, now they are threatening. We need to get back into the deal. “When I am President, I will do the best I can to make a better deal with Iran.”

Klobuchar: Obama deal was imperfect, but a good deal. Trump told us we’d get a better deal if we pulled out. Now we are a month away from Iranians blowing the cap on uranium enrichment. I’d negotiate our way back into the agreement and not give unlimited leverage to China and Russia.

—Klobuchar is definitely making her case. Maybe it’s the zeitgeist, but the women are owning this debate.

Gabbard: “Let’s deal with the situation where we are. This chicken-hawk administration has lead us to the brink of war with Iran.” War with Iran would be far more devastating than anything we’ve seen with Iraq. This would turn into a regional war. We have to stand up and say, “No war with Iran.”  Her red line would be military action against our troops. It can’t be just a light spark that provokes the US into war.

—Gabbard is on point with military issues. Her military experience is clutch.

Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd are now moderating.

PARKLAND FLORIDA / GUN CONTROL:

Warren: When asked about the hundreds of millions of guns out there, Elizabeth Warren talks about 100 town halls and the single hardest question she got was: “When you’re president, how are you going to keep us safe? 7 Children will die today. Not just for mass shootings. They’ll die on sidewalks, playgrounds, people’s backyards… gun violence is a national health emergency in this country.” She suggests universal background checks, more research (and it should be noted that the NRA suppresses gun research that is unfavorable).

Booker: When asked about the buyback program, he first talks about gunshots in his neighborhood. In his neighborhood, seven people were shot last week. Someone he knows was killed with an assault rifle last year. It’s not a policy issue for most Americans, it’s an emergency.

“I’m tired. I’m tired of thoughts and prayers.”

Castro: On active shooter drills and the problem getting worse, Castro talks about being Dad of a 10-year-old girl and the worst thing is thinking your child is safe this not being the case. Castro believes that the White House, Senate, and House will be Democratic in 2021 and the legislation will pass.

Ryan: We need trauma-based care as well as policy.

Beto: When asked about Texans who are single-issue on gun control, Beto talks about all the obvious legislation that are NOT “Democrats coming for your guns.” Young people are changing the laws by organizing.

Klobuchar: Everyone has failed until the kids started talking about it.

Booker: If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own a firearm. Connecticut did it and saw a 40% drop in gun violence and a 15% drop in suicides. In terms of getting anything done, the candidate needs to win 50 votes in the Senate to balance the Supreme Court and start passing an aggressive agenda.

De Blasio: We need a different approach to police in America. Talks about his black son, Dante. Talks about having discussions about race and police. If the Democratic would stop acting like the party of the elites, then they could pressure the working class in red states to support them.

BIPARTISANSHIP:

Warren: On having a plan for Mitch McConnell… “I do.” Democracy means the will of the people matters. Congress has made the country work better for lobbyists and big corporations. The fight starts in the White House and everyone energized in 2020 stays on the front lines in 2021. We must make Congress reflect the will of the people.

Delaney: On doing everything in a bipartisan manner, when asked how, he says we must do everything in a bipartisan manner.

Booker: How to work with McConnell? Talks about building coalitions on criminal justice reform when nobody said they could.

CLIMATE CHANGE:

Inslay: Staked campaign on Climate Change. To start, take away filibuster from Mitch McConnell. Who is gonna make Climate Change the first priority?

Beto: Bring everyone into the solutions and the challenges.

Castro: Puerto Rico was one of his first visits. Everyone should be taken care of.

Delaney: We have a perception problem with the Democratic party. We are not connecting to the people in the middle of the country.

—It’s great that Delaney has identified something that’s fairly obvious, but what is he going to do to make this a “Working Class Party?”

DIVERSITY: 

Gabbard: Apologized to the LGBTQ community when she started her campaign. Why should they trust her now? She says nobody on any level of government should be allowed to tell people who they can and can’t love. When she was young, she held views she no longer holds. She served with LGBTQ service members.

Booker: Talks about LGBTQ Americans and suicides, health issues.

Klobuchar: On what she has done for Black and Latino voters, Klobuchar says her entire career has been devoted to better lives for those people. Better schools, better jobs for minorities. Will make sure everyone can vote. Will work on criminal justice reform.

Castro: Talks about a white terrorist who was apprehended without harm (Dylan Roof), but Eric Garner and others were murdered by police without even committing a crime.

FOREIGN POLICY: 

Beto: We need a united front to achieve our foreign policy aims.

De Blasio: We need the War Powers Act to be respected. President cannot act unilaterally. Even in a humanitarian crisis, we need congressional approval. We learned the lesson in Vietnam that we seem to have forgotten.

Ryan: 12 of 17 years in Congress, has sat on Armed Services Committee. Lesson learned is that we “have to stay engaged.” The question was why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Ryan is railing on Trump’s inability to fill posts.

Gabbard: Makes fun of Ryan. “Are you gonna tell the soldiers, ‘we just have to be engaged?’” She says we need to bring our troops home.

Gabbard and Ryan are arguing about terrorism, Al Quida, and Taliban. Ryan seems hysterical.

Greatest GeoPolitical Threat:

Delaney: China, Nuclear Weapons

Inslay: Donald Trump

Gabbard: Nuclear War

Klobuchar: Iran

Beto: Climate Change

Warren: Climate Change

Booker: Nuclear Proliferation and Climate Change

Castro: China and Climate Change

Ryan: China (stutters on response)

De Blasio: Russia for messing with our Democracy.

MUELLER: 

Beto: Would pursue action against Trump after he leaves office to prove that nobody is above the law. We must begin impeachment now. His DOJ would investigate if impeachment is not pursued.

Delaney: Trump is not above the law. Supports Pelosi’s decisions to not impeach yet. “This President who is lawless should not be above the law.” But does not think the American people care about this issue.

Klobuchar: We must deal with Russia.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Delaney: On a mission to find the America that has been lost.

De Blasio: It matters that we nominate a candidate who raised the minimum wage to $15, passed universal healthcare, and given early childcare for free.

Inslee: Makes emotional appeal about the Climate Crisis. Claims to be the only candidate to make this the top priority.

Ryan: Ready to play offense. The forgotten Americans need to be heard.

Gabbard: This Government is of, by, and for the rich and powerful. Our Government will usher in the new century with justice, prosperity, and peace for all.

Castro: Speaking Spanish on this stage shows the progress of our country. Will work hard for good health care, good job opportunities, and a good education.

Klobuchar: Listens to people and gets things done. Can win and beat Donald Trump. Has won in reddest of districts. Not the establishment party candidate.

Booker: Has taken on bullies and won, not by showing the worst of who we are, but by being our best.

Beto: Can’t return to the same old approach. This is our moment.

Warren: Born and raised in Oklahoma. Dreamed of being a public school teacher, but her family didn’t have money. But $50 a semester commuter college is what gave her the chance that opened her life. She believes we can make this country, government, economy work for everyone.

 

NIGHT TWO…

HEALTH CARE:

Bernie Sanders up first:

Sanders: On if taxes will go up for the middle class with his health care plans, Sanders goes into his usual rhetoric which he has pioneered. Healthcare for All, Single Payer System. He says the vast majority of the country will pay vastly less than they are now in an SPS. He also loops in eliminating student debt and paying for it by taxing Wall Street. When pressed on if he’ll raise taxes on Middle Class, he says essentially “Yes, but far less in Health Care costs.”

Biden: “Donald Trump thinks Wall Street built America. Working Class Americans built America.” Says we need to return dignity to the Middle Class. Wants to close tax loopholes and eliminate Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy.

—Sanders and Biden look very old in high definition.

Harris: Comes on strong when asked about “How are we gonna pay for it?” by talking about how nobody asked this question when Trump and GOP passed tax cuts for the rich. Single Payer. Anyone under $100,000 should get $500 tax credit a month and she wants to repeal the Trump Tax cuts.

John Hickenlooper: “If we don’t define very clearly that we are NOT socialists, Republicans will label us socialists.” He believes Healthcare if a right, not a privilege, but you can’t eliminate Health Insurance for millions and millions right away. Touts his state’s progressive achievements. “I’ve done what everyone else up here is talking about doing.”

Sanders: On a “Socialist” not being able to defeat Trump… dodges question and talks about being 10 points up on Trump because he is a liar, a racist, and has not even fulfilled his campaign promises. “We beat Trump by exposing him for the fraud that he is.”

Kirsten Gillibrand: There’s a difference between capitalism and greed. When ending Gun Violence, it’s the greed of NRA that makes progress impossible. It’s the greed of the drug companies when we want to change prices or get Healthcare for All. We just don’t want corrupted capitalism.

Michael Bennet: Agrees with Bernie on challenges. 40 years with no economic growth. Disagrees with Medicare For All. We need to get to Universal Healthcare, but we should do it by starting with the Public Option first and let people decide.

Gillibrand cuts in and is shut down.

Pete Buttigieg: Does not believe in free college entirely. It does not make sense for working-class families to subsidize rich kids to go to college. It should be affordable to go to college, it should also be affordable to not go to college, we should raise the minimum wage.

Andrew Yang: Asked on how to pay a universal basic income, says a Value Added Tax would add $800 Billion, along with taxing companies like Amazon properly who don’t pay anything. Technology is automating away millions and millions of jobs and AI/Automation/Robots are going to eventually take away millions more job.

Eric Swalwell: “We must value our schools, invest in America’s communities.” Takes a heavy shot at Joe Biden who he quotes as saying “We must pass the torch to a younger generation,” years ago.

Biden fires back: “I’m holding onto that torch.”

The stage erupts – everyone wants to respond to this. It’s chaos. This is the problem with 10 candidates on stage.

Sanders is loudest and gets in: “Who has the guts to take on Wall Street, to take on Pharma, etc.”

Then more loud shouting.

Harris comes in strong: “America doesn’t want to witness a food fight, they want to know how to put food on their table.”

Harris: How are you measuring this economy? The stock market? Most Americans don’t own stocks. Job numbers? People are working 2-3 jobs and suffering for it! They are not happy.

Asks the same question about abolishing private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan.

3 Candidates raise their hands.

Gillibrand: “I ran on Medicare for All and I won.” Single Payer is a right, not a privilege. The fastest way there is by competing with private insurers. If the Government can provide a better option, people will leave the private option.

Buttigieg: How do you explain how you’re getting from here to there. “Medicare for all who want it.” If we are right, then it will be more efficient and less expensive. But let’s remember, in countries that have outright socialized medicine, there is still a private sector. “This is personal to my father was terminally ill.”

Biden: Also says, “This is personal to me.” Talks about his personal healthcare issues and his family’s. Thinks we should build on Obamacare.

—Buttigieg is strong, Harris is strong. Sanders is the same as the last 30 years which is an enormous achievement. He absolutely speaks about the moral and substantive deficiency of corporatized medicine.

Sanders: I find it hard to believe that every major country in the world has figured it out, but we can’t. All insurance and healthcare companies today are trying to make billions. We are paying the highest costs in the world for prescription drugs while pharma makes billions.

Marianne Williamson: We can’t beat Donald Trump by having plans. We have to go deeper. Says we only talk about sickness after people are sick, not before. It has to do with chemical policies, environmental, food, drug, etc.

Bennet: Families should have the choice of Public Option. Talks about having prostate cancer. Sanders will ban all other health insurance under his “Medicare For All” except cosmetic surgery.

Sanders: Doesn’t directly respond to Bennet’s criticism.

Harris: Tells the story of parents who go to emergency rooms and know their child will possibly die, but they can’t walk through the doors or they will be bankrupt.

More yelling.

Another Healthcare Question:

Raise your hand if your government would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.

Everyone raises their hand.

Why?

Buttiegieg: Our country is healthy when everyone is healthy. We shouldn’t have 11,000,000 undocumented citizens. American people want them to have a path to citizenship so they can pay into the system and receive its benefits. Washington can’t seem to deliver on what the American people want.

Biden: You cannot let people who are sick go uncovered, it has to be taken care of. It’s the humane thing to do.

First break.

It’s a tough call so far. Swalwell, Gillibrand, Yang, Bennett, and Williamson are getting buried.

IMMIGRATION:

Harris: Asked what specific thing she would do about the people coming to the USA for asylum, she would start with reinstating DACA status and protection. She would extend protections for the parents. Undocumented people who are veterans will be taken care of. “I will release children from cages. I will shut down detention centers.” She will use the President’s microphone, “Her microphone,” for good. Trump does not reflect our values.

—Harris was super strong on this issue.

Hickenlooper: Day 1, what does he do? Starts by not answering the question, but talks about how tragic it is that the Federal Government is kidnapping people essentially. Then talks about putting facilities in place to make sure women and children are taken care of at the border.

Williamson: It is kidnapping. This is child abuse. Both are a crime. If your government does it, that doesn’t make it less of a crime. What President Trump has done is not only attacked these children and demonized these immigrants, he has attacked America’s identity at its core.

Gillibrand: Talks about all the horrible things Trump has done. To solve, says similar things: DACA back in, appoint immigration-friendly judges. Stop spending money on for-profit prisons.

Should it be civil offense instead of a federal crime?

Buttigieg: Republican party likes to cloak itself in the language of Religion. Talks about the hypocrisy of Republicans. “God would smile at putting kids in cages?” Mayor Pete gets an enormous response on talking about GOP Religious BS.

Biden: Would put billions in help toward the region (Central America). During term, Obama/Biden focused on issue and it worked. $740 Million towards helping this problem. No more children separation. Ever.

Obama/Biden administration deported more than 3 Million Americans.

Biden: We shouldn’t be locking people up. We should be examining why they are leaving in the first place.

Sanders: “I agree with a lot of what Kamala said.” Honduras has massive corruption. We’ve got to invite the leaders of Central American countries and work with them.

Swalwell: If someone’s only offense is not having proper documents, they should not be deported. They can still be a part of this great country.

Harris: Absolutely do not deport these people. Harris disagreed with Obama Administration on very few things, this was one. As Attorney General of California, she said that Sheriffs did not have to comply with detainers and only act in the interest of public safety.

TRADE: 

Starts with China. Talks about them manipulating currency.

Bennet: Biggest national security issue is Russia, not China. But on China, President is right to push back on China, but he’s done it the wrong way. Also addresses border issue and talks about his Mom being separated in Poland during Holocaust.

Bennet comes on strong here, but it’s strange because the topic has passed (another problem with the many candidates).

Yang: Agrees that Russia is greatest geopolitical threat because they have been hacking our elections and “Laughing their asses off” about it. China is a huge problem because of stealing intellectual property and pirating. “We need to crack down on Chinese malfeasance in the relationship.”

Buttigieg: The Chinese challenge is a serious one. They are using technology for the perfection of dictatorship. Tariffs aren’t going to solve this. China is about to run circles around us on Artificial Intelligence. The biggest thing we need to do is invest in our own industrial and technological competitiveness.

Buttigieg gets a huge round of applause.

RACE: 

Buttigieg: Asked about police shootings and lack of black police officers. Takes full responsibility for the problems in South Bend right now. Talks about the bigger racial divides and trying to ensure that in the future, white and black people react the same to seeing a police officer.

Hickenlooper: Talks about actual reforms in Colorado that worked for police accountability.

Swalwell tells Buttigieg he should have fired the Chief because he’s the Mayor.

Williamson: The average American is not a racist, but the average American is woefully ignorant of racist issues.

Harris: Owns the issue on race. “A neighbor told her kids they couldn’t play with us because we were black.” Tells Biden she does not believe he is a racist and commends him for trying to find common ground. But it was hurtful to hear him talk positively about two Senators who built their reputations on being racists. This subject is not an intellectual subject. Police Officers should have body cameras on and keep them on.

—Coming into the debate, I was not impressed with Harris in terms of excitement and rhetoric. She has won me over as a completely viable candidate here.

Biden responds very weakly, trying to tout his accomplishments.

Harris is on fire attacking Biden. Biden is on his heels.

DIVERSITY: 

Sanders: Democrats lead on diversity, but we should not focus on this issue as much as fighting special interests

Gillibrand and Bennet do not seem in control although they are sound in their policy and rhetorical mastery.

Bennet: On if gridlock will disappear. Says it will never disappear as long as Mitch McConnell is there.

Biden: Touts his record again. Talks about getting the bailout passed. Talks about bailing out the auto industry.

I used to really like Buttigieg and Harris, but now I like Harris/Buttigieg.

ABORTION: 

Sanders: Woman’s right to choose is a constitutional right. “I will never appoint anyone to Supreme Court that doesn’t defend Roe v. Wade.” Thinks we should rotate judges.

Gillibrand makes an emotional appeal to Women in this country and the Men who love them. She is tired of playing defense and thinks we should play offense. Touts her record on abortion. A little all over the place.

CLIMATE: 

Harris: “I don’t call it Climate Change, it’s a Climate Crisis.” Supports Green New Deal, Paris Agreement reentry. Trump is the greatest threat to national security.

Buttigieg: We must prevent Climate Change for getting worse. Carbon tax. Buttigieg had to use emergency procedures for flooding in Indiana. With the right kind of soil management, rural America can really be a part of the solution.

Hickenlooper: As a scientist, does not think Socialism is the solution. In Colorado, they’ve worked with the oil and gas industries and have improved the State’s climate situation. We can’t demonize businesses.

Biden: On cutting carbon emissions without Congress, does not answer the question, but talks about going to a fully electric vehicle future. Would invest $400 million in science research.

Sanders: This is a global issue. Scientists say we have 12 years before there is irreparable damage. We need to transform the country’s energy system to renewable, green energy.

Swalwell: “Pass the torch.”

Williamson: John Kennedy said, “We are gonna put a man on the moon.” Stay inclusive. Don’t try to win an election, try to

What’s the one issue that you get passed through?

Swalwell: Ending gun violence

Bennet: Climate Change

Gillibrand: Family Bill of Rights

Harris: Middle-Class Tax Cut

Sanders: Doesn’t take the bait, but says take on Special Interests.

Biden: Doesn’t agree with the premise, but defeat Donald Trump

Buttigieg: Take on Money in Politics

Yang: Universal Basic Income

Hickenlooper: Climate Change

Williamson: Make America a place where a girl can grow up.

GUNS: 

Swalwell: We have NRA on the ropes, but I’m the only candidate who wants buy backs for 15 Million Guns. He is impassioned here, but it’s still very political.

Sanders: Is quoted directly and said he was mischaracterized (audience laughs at this). Sanders touts his D- voting record from NRA. Wants comprehensive gun legislation. End gun show loopholes. Assault weapons are from the military, don’t belong on the streets.

Harris: Agrees with Swalwell and says there are many great ideas, but wants congress to put together a bill in the first 100 days or she will ban by executive order the sale of assault weapons. She talks about seeing more damage done by gun violence than anyone as a prosecutor.

Buttigieg: With military experience, asked about military families having a different take on this. “We trained on these kinds of weapons.” If guns made us safe, we’d have the safest country in the world, but it’s not the case. There are weapons that have no place in American cities in peace time.

Biden: “I got Brady Bill passed. I’m the only guy who’s beaten the NRA.” Biden is really on fire here. Talks about Smart Guns that require biometrics to fire.

FOREIGN POLICY: 

Bennet: We must restore Democracy at home. Our current President is corrupt. We must restore our relationships with allies.

On resetting relationships abroad:

Williamson: Would call European leaders.

Hickenlooper: China.

Yang: China. North Korea.

Buttigieg: Who knows who is most insulted by then.

Biden: NATO.

Sanders: United Nations.

Harris: NATO.

Gillibrand: Iran.

Bennet: European Alliance and every Latin American country.

Swalwell: Break up with Russia and make up with NATO.

Biden: asked about Iraq vote. Biden regrets the vote to go in, butwas responsible for getting troops out.

Biden stumbles a lot.

Sanders: Touts his opposition to Iraq war. Wants to solve issue with Saudis and Yemen. Prevent Iran War.

Chuck Todd is super condescending, by the way.

FINAL THOUGHTS: 

Swalwell: Can’t look to the past.

Williamson: Talks about Trump. Will only be beaten by someone who understands that Trump has harnessed fear for political purposes. Love will beat fear.

Bennet: Generational improvement is at risk, that’s why he’s running.

Hickenlooper: Touts Colorado achievements. Don’t need a big government to do big things. Socialism will reelect Trump.

Gillibrand: Appeals to Women who are currently under attack.

Yang: Beat Donald Trump by solving the problem that got him elected.

Harris: Talks about prosecuting the case against Trump. Wants to lead with dignity, honesty, and give the American family all that they need to prosper.

Buttigieg: Talks about his personal experience in war, marriage, and office. He wants his generation to solve climate change, racial equality, and endless war.

Sanders: Why has nothing changed? These are all good people on stage. Nothing WILL change unless we take on Wall Street, Pharma, Military Industrial Complex, and Fossil Fuel companies. 

Biden: Wants to restore the soul of our country.

 

SUMMARIES:

NIGHT ONE…

Elizabeth Warren: TOP 3. She’s got the confidence, the policies, the brains, and “looks Presidential.”

Amy Klobuchar: A less exciting Warren.

Beto O’Rourke: Lots of heart, but was clumsy and did not connect.

Cory Booker: Many good things to offer, but doesn’t have the “it” factor.

Castro: Incredibly authentic and likeable, but not tough enough(especially for Trump).

Gabbard: A contender. Needs more time to shine.

De Blasio: Great politician and very bright, but not a serious consideration.

Delaney: Forgettable.

Inslee: Forgettable.

Ryan: Forgettable.

NIGHT TWO… 

Swalwell: Seems to exist only to take out Biden.

Bennet: Forgettable.

Gillibrand: Not electable.

Harris: TOP 3. Very powerful performance. I came into these debates with her as my top pick for VP and now I see her as Presidential.

Sanders: Same Sanders as always. He’s truly someone you’d want to be President, but he seems to come from somewhere else that doesn’t line up with where we are, but where we want to be and this could be risky when this upcoming election needs a sure thing.

Biden: Seems out of it. Fitness is a real issue here.

Buttigieg: TOP 3. Very authentic and in command. He has his own tone in this race and it’s definitely unique, if not completely viable.

Yang: He is hilarious because he just doesn’t seem to care about the politics of it all. He’s stoically confident in his positions to the point of seeming like he doesn’t care if you agree with him or not because it won’t change the truth (which he knows). I like him a lot, but there’s no chance for this guy to win politically despite his vast intellect.

Hickenlooper: Forgettable.

Williamson: She is not representative of most Americans. She reeks of coastal elite. (She’s also incredibly brilliant, original, and entertaining…)

I Read The Mueller Report… Here is My Summary

I Read The Mueller Report, and Here is My Summary. 

You can read it too if you have the time:

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

These are my summations and conclusions:

VOLUME 1 – Russian Meddling in the U.S. Election and Collusion with the Trump Campaign

p. 9 Mueller gave the report straight to the Attorney-General because he was ordered to do so by the original mandate. Even if, as evidenced in this memo: https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/12/20/read-bill-barrs-19-page-memo-ripping-mueller-probe/?slreturn=20190318182817, William Barr is politically compromised in favor of President Trump (a la Roy Cohn), Mueller did his job and followed the letter of the law rather than go rogue and release the unredacted report to Congress or the public. Because of decisions like this, and because Mueller did not make any brash decisions to prosecute Trump even with overwhelming evidence of obstruction (as I will summarize later), Mueller’s credibility is without blemish. This report is to be believed whether you love or hate Trump and his associates.

p. 9 The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump get elected. This is not a conspiracy, this is a fact.

p. 9 The Special Counsel’s appointment was predicated on Intelligence gathered BEFORE the Steele Dossier. So there can no longer be discussion about this investigation being illicit on the grounds of wrongly obtained FISA warrants or anything else related to the Steele Dossier.

p. 9 The Special Counsel found that Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadapoulos had met in May of 2016 with a Russian Government Agent to obtain disparaging information on Hillary Clinton and consequently started its investigation into Russian Involvement in the election in July of 2016.

p. 9 The Russian Government perceived that it could benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome.

p. 10 Collusion is not a crime and the Special Counsel focused on “coordination” or “conspiracy” which would require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. It was established that the Russian Government helped Trump and that Trump enjoyed this help, but no evidence could be found to conclude that this was planned prior to the election.

p. 12 The Russians targeted Clinton, her campaign staff, and all her major supporters spreading false information about them as well as accurate information that was damning. These operations were carried out by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) which was funded by Russian Oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin (who is heavily tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin).

p. 12 The IRA started in 2014 with the goal of simply disrupting the American Electoral process and sow discord amongst the United States (the U.S. being Russia’s greatest obstacle to economic and political power). As Trump became a viable candidate in 2016, the IRA switched its objectives to helping him win after identifying him as incredibly favorable to Russian national interests.

p. 13 There were numerous communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government (which were lied about, consequently resulting in criminal indictments for many in the Trump Campaign), but the Special Counsel could not establish that there was a prior conspiracy to coordinate the many damaging releases of information by Wikileaks (via the IRA) to hurt Clinton and help Trump.

Again, The Russian Government identified Trump as the best candidate for their future success and worked to help him get elected. It could simply not be proven that Trump conspired with them towards their goal.

p. 13 Trump was trying to build Trump Tower Moscow in 2015 and lied about this during the campaign saying, “We have no business with Russia.” The deal would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump.

p. 14 On August 2nd, 2016, Paul Manafort met with a Russian Agent to establish a plan for Russia to control Eastern Ukraine after Trump’s election (while the U.S. would essentially look the other way).

p. 14 Wikileaks (via IRA) released the Podesta emails hours after Trump’s damning “grab ‘em by the pussy” video to help the Trump Campaign change the national discourse from his behavior on that bus to the DNC’s unethical behavior during the primary (which ultimately hurt Bernie Sanders’ chances of winning). This was action taken by a foreign government to interfere in the U.S. election to help Trump win.

p. 15 After Trump was elected, dozens of Russian businessmen started reaching out to the Trump campaign to set up phone calls and meetings.

p. 15 Obama sanctioned Russia for interfering in the U.S. election and Michael Flynn personally requested to his Russian contacts not to escalate the situation because Trump would likely not continue these penalties against Russia.

p. 17 The Special Counsel found a great deal of evidence for contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russia, but not enough evidence to file criminal charges. So, there is evidence of collusion, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 17 Many members of the Trump campaign lied about their Russian contacts and this is why there are so many indictments and Trump campaign members currently serving jail time.

p. 18 The Republican Party changed its stance on Russia (from hostile to friendly) in the summer of 2016, but the Special Counsel could not conclude that this was related to a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

p. 18 MANY INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED PLEADED THE 5th, LIED IN THEIR TESTIMONY, OR WERE FOUND TO HAVE DELETED INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION. In other words, the Special Counsel is making decisions based on evidence it could find, but states in this report that a TON of information has been illegally discarded, including via the methods that many Republicans accuse the Clinton campaign of utilizing (acid washing email servers, destroying computers, etc.).

The Special Counsel therefore states that there could be more evidence that DOES prove conspiracy between Trump and the Russian Government.

p. 19-33 information on how the Special Counsel was formed, its jurisdiction, and information about the Russian hacking agency IRA. Most of this is redacted.

p. 33 The IRA spent $100,000 to purchase over 3,500 advertisements on Facebook that promoted groups supporting Trump and spreading false information about Clinton.

p. 34 IRA fake accounts reached tens of millions of people and attracted hundreds of thousands of followers.

p. 34 Before their deactivation in 2017, fake Russian accounts spreading propaganda in favor of Trump and false information about Hillary Clinton had reached an estimated 126 million people.

p. 35 U.S. Media regularly quoted the false information from these fake accounts as factual news, notably Sean Hannity, Michael McFaul, Roger Stone, and Michale Flynn Jr. who retweeted or cited these fake sources on network Television.

p. 37 The IRA organized hundreds of rallies via Facebook across the U.S. by having a Page administrator host the rally and then claim they could not personally attend, leaving the ground organization to the enthusiastic members of the group. The earliest evidence of this technique was a “confederate rally” in November 2015.

SIDE NOTE: Russia’s goal is to destabilize America (because America’s military presence prevents Russia from controlling major resources, trade routes, and strategic lands like the port of Crimea and Georgia which Russia annexed over the course of the Obama administration). But to accomplish this, Russia has studied the issues that sow the most division in America and have sought to fan the flames which already exist here – like racism, Confederate sympathizers, Nazi Sympathizers, the Ku Klux Klan, gun rights, Police protection vs. minority targeting, the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice battle, anti-Immigrant sentiment, religious division, etc.

Trump’s voting base is almost entirely made up of single “wedge” issue voters who only need to hear one sentence: “I support your position” to gain their votes. This is an obviously successful political strategy that plays perfectly into the goals of the Russian Government: sowing divisiveness. It may be the case that Trump is not a witting agent of Russia (although the Mueller report does not rule that out), but he is at least an unwitting agent of their agenda to get America to fight amongst itself while Russia promotes its interests globally.

p. 39 The IRA recruited individuals it believed could help further its agenda of helping Trump and hurting Clinton. It focused on individuals who could “amplify” its content.

p. 41 The Special Counsel found two definite links between the IRA and the Trump Campaign, but none between IRA and Clinton.

p. 42-65 All the hacking techniques used by IRA including how they got the data and disseminated it via Guccifer 2.0, Wikileaks, and DC Leaks.

Also outlines what actions many Trump campaign officials undertook to defraud the United States and essentially commit treason by assisting Russia/IRA.

MANY REDACTIONS here.

p. 68 Trump Jr. was communicating directly with Wikileaks about damaging information.

p. 69 The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign actually did the hacking or released the damning information, but that they simply welcomed its effect on the election. The famous Don Jr. “I love it,” email when he heard about dirt on Hillary is not evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

p. 70-73 Because Clinton did use a private email server (which was reckless, but not criminal according to the FBI), her communications that she destroyed were vulnerable and in fact had been obtained by many foreign agencies. The Trump campaign was trying to find these emails (to use against her), but this is still part of “politics as usual,” and they did not specifically coordinate with a foreign government in this regard.

p. 74-120 Outlines all the links between Russia and the Trump campaign (there are many).

p. 74 Trump Tower Moscow details (it was a very real project for years).
TRUMP WAS WORKING ON GETTING THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT DONE WELL INTO HIS CAMPAIGN WHEN HE LIED ABOUT “NO BUSINESS WITH RUSSIA.”

Was this because he was conspiring with Russian Oligarchs to win the election and then help Russian National interests? Or just because he knew it would look extremely bad if the President of the United States was doing business with a hostile nation?

Either way, the President lied repeatedly to the American people for reasons that are extremely impeachable (attempting to use the Office of the President for personal enrichment which violates the Emoluments Clause), or treasonous (conspiring with a hostile foreign power to defraud the United States).

p. 118 At the Trump Tower Meeting, Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner met with Russian Agents to discuss “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. later lied about this meeting after Trump instructed him to (this is public knowledge now after Trump’s lawyer released a letter stating that Trump helped to craft the letter pretending that the meeting was to discuss adoption).

p. 131 Russians at the Republican National Convention (notably Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak) got the Republican platformed changed from “lethal assistance to Ukraine in response to Russian aggression” to “appropriate assistance.”

p. 133 A Trump representative stopped the Republican National Convention Committee from drafting a platform amendment that was tougher on Russian aggression towards Ukraine. Support for NATO was also discouraged with Trump’s representative J.D. Gordon stating that “We don’t want to start World War III over that region.”

In other words, Trump’s position on Europe and Russia is to be hands off and let them figure it out. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it goes against the US (and Republican Party) policy since probably World War II.

p. 137-152 Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, his assistant Rick Gates, and their criminal connections to Ukraine and Russia.

p. 153-181 After the election, multiple Russian Oligarchs, Businessmen, and Politicians began reaching out to the Trump Campaign through channels that had been pre-established (including the Russian embassy).

p. 182 The decisions to prosecute (or not prosecute).

p. 183 Trump Campaign did have contact with IRA, but did not do so with criminal intent.

p. 183 Many Russian hackers were charged with Computer-Intrusion Conspiracy.

p. 184-188 Almost all redacted.

p. 188 The Trump Tower meeting was not a conspiracy or a violation of campaign finance law because no evidence of any criminal intent was established. However, this meeting was lied about multiple times and has consequently yielded several obstruction of justice charges already against U.S. citizens.

p. 189 The report defines “conspiracy” (“collusion”) and says that Trump and his associates did many suspicious things, but they could not find evidence of a criminal coordination to defraud the United States. This does not mean there was NO evidence, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 190 Manafort and Gates illegally engaged in acts on behalf of a foreign principal (hence their prosecution and jail time).

p. 191 Michael Flynn also violated the same act. These men were essentially trying to sell out their country in the interest of helping other countries (for lots of money).

p. 192 There was no campaign finance law violations because the Trump Campaign never paid money for the “dirt” on Clinton and thus never unlawfully spent campaign finance money to help win the election.

p. 192-195 Essentially the June 9th 2016 Trump Tower Meeting was incredibly close to violating a Federal Law banning foreign assistance during campaigns, but the Special Counsel could not prosecute on the grounds that “recounting damning information that is historically accurate” does not constitute a “thing of value” (they then go on to define “thing of value” to prove their point).

SIDE NOTE: So there WAS a type of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian Agents, but just not technically according to legal definitions. 

p. 196-199 Redacted (this is suspicious).

p. 199-206 All the indictments because of lying to the FBI

VOLUME 2 – Obstruction of Justice Investigation of the President

p. 213 MUELLER STATES THAT HE CANNOT PROSECUTE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THAT ACTION IS UP TO CONGRESS. So he is only providing evidence here and it clearly points to the fact that Donald Trump obstructed justice.

p.213 MUELLERS STATES THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED (ONLY IMPEACHED), WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE. This leaves the door open for prosecution once Trump leaves office.

There is a good reason for this precedent. A President could be implicated in a dozen crimes of which he is innocent and standing trial for those crimes would take all of his or her time away from the all important office and duties he or she is meant to uphold. A President’s crimes must be so egregious and obvious that Impeachment becomes necessary and this requires an enormous majority of Congress to accomplish (which also makes it a Political trial more than an evidence-based trial).

p. 214 IF TRUMP WAS INNOCENT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT WOULD HAVE STATED IT. HE IS NOT.

The report on Obstruction all but states that Trump committed Obstruction on the first page, but leaves the conclusion (and trial) up to the Congress.

p. 215 Mueller outlines the main evidence for Obstruction of Justice in the first chunk of this Volume. Here are the main points:

  1. During the 2016 campaign, Trump lied publicly that he did not believe Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC when privately he was seeking even more information from Wikileaks which he knew was connected to Russia.
  2. Trump also lied about having business connections in Russia during his campaign while he was, in fact, negotiating with Russian Oligarchs to build Trump Tower Moscow.
  3. After being elected, Trump expressed private concerns that the Russia Investigation might delegitimize his Presidency.
  4. On January 27th, 2017, the day after the President was informed that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to dinner at the White House and demanded loyalty.
  5. On February 14th, 2017, the day after the President asked for Flynn’s resignation, the President told an advisor, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” The advisor disagreed and said the investigation would continue. Hearing this, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey (to the dismay of all of Trump’s advisors), and asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.
  6. Trump sought to have Deputy National Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak (this is actually more proof of Russian Collusion). McFarland declined because she did not know if that was true and this letter would look like a quid-pro-quo for the ambassadorship she had just been offered.
  7. In February of 2017, Trump told Don McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself on the Russia Investigation. When Sessions recused himself, Trump expressed outrage and told advisors he should have an Attorney General that would protect him. Trump took Sessions aside that weekend and told him to “un-recuse.”
  8. Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed to Congress that the FBI was investigating “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election,” including any links to the Trump campaign. Trump reached out to DNI and CIA to get them to publicly dispel any suggestion the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also called Comey twice directly, against his own lawyer’s (Don McGahn’s) advice. He wanted Comey to publicly state that Trump was innocent.
  9. May 3rd, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey.
  10. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, falsely state that Comey had informed the President he was not under investigation.
  11. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation, but the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice so this was a lie.
  12. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by Comey’s firing.
  13. The next day, the President acknowledged in a TV interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the DOJ’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it,” he was thinking that “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.
  14. On May 17th, when Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to investigate the Russian Election Interference and possible ties to Trump, the President reacted to this news saying: “this is the end of my presidency” and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions resigned, but Trump did not accept it.
  15. The President tried to tell aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and could not continue. His advisors told him those alleged conflicts had no merit and were already considered by the Department of Justice.
  16. On June 14th, 2017, when Trump found out he was certainly under investigation, Trump fired off a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation.
  17. On June 17th, 2017 the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had “conflicts of interest” and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out this decision deciding he would rather resign than carry out what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre (a reference to Watergate).
  18. Two days after directing McGahn to fire Mueller, the President made another attempt to affect the investigation. On June 19th, 2017, the President met one-on-one with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. He told Sessions to say that the investigation was “very unfair” to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let him move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.” Lewandowski never delivered this message, feeling uncomfortable with the request. He asked White House Official Rick Dearborn to do it, but he did not follow through either.
  19. Trump then began blasting Sessions on Twitter mocking him and letting him know his job was in jeopardy (clearly) because he was not fighting Mueller publicly in regards to this investigation.
  20. Trump edited a press statement about the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump tower deleting a sentence that stated the Russians had “information helpful to the campaign” and stating the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. The President’s personal lawyer said the President had no role in drafting this statement, but this was later proven to be a lie. Trump helped to draft this lie to the Public about a very important component of the Russia Investigation (by itself this is obstruction).
  21. In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal.
  22. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to “take a look at investigating Clinton.”
  23. In December of 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty, Trump told Sessions that if he “un-recused himself and took back supervision of the Russia Investigation, he would be a hero.”
  24. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel in 2017 and that McGahn threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. Trump ordered McGahn to refute this claim publicly and make a record that this was never the case. McGahn told Trump officials (who were asking him to do this) that the reports were accurate and he would not lie. Trump later asked McGahn why he had told the truth to Mueller about Trump trying to get McGahn to fire him, and why McGahn took notes during their meetings.
  25. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, Trump’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn’s attorneys reminding them of Trump’s “warm feelings for him” which “still remain” and for a “heads up” if Flynn knew “information that implicates the President.”
  26. When Flynn’s counsel informed Trump that Flynn could no longer share information, the President’s counsel said he would make sure Flynn knew his actions reflected “hostility” towards the President.
  27. The President praised Manafort in public, calling him a “brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” almost ought to be outlawed.
  28. Trump’s conduct towards Michael Cohen changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President’s involvement in Trump Tower Moscow, to the castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness.
  29. When Cohen started cooperating with Special Counsel, Trump publicly called him a “rat,” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.
  30. Trump threatened witnesses in public and dangled pardons and this is still an obstruction of justice even though it was done in plain view.
  31. Trump acted in two phases: prior to being told he was under investigation and afterwards. The second phase also occurred after firing James Comey. His actions, both publicly and privately, after finding out he was being investigated demonstrate a clear motive to obstruct.

p. 220 The President’s counsel tried to stop the investigation into obstruction, but their defenses failed to provide a basis for declining to investigate the facts.

p. 220 The President is not immune from being prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice, but it is the Congress’ job to investigate and prosecute (impeachment).

The next 200 pages substantiate the above conclusions in great details.

In conclusion:

The President of the United States certainly obstructed justice and is also an unwitting (or possibly witting if more evidence presents itself) aid to Russia which is why they helped him win the 2016 election.

The Struggle Is Black, The Word Is Black

Language is a social contract. We agree on the meaning of words and consequently we can communicate.

We agree that some words are offensive so that we can use them to offend. If “f*ck you!” was not offensive, then it would have no meaning when we said it to someone we were angry with. 

Offensive words are generally determined in the aggregate, via all of the mechanisms of culture: Media, Communities, Families, Government, Entertainers, and so on.

So who is allowed to say the N-Word?

Generally, it is impolite to comment on someone who is overweight as being “fat.” A person who has weight issues may self-ridicule, but to address that person’s issues for them is commonly considered offensive or cruel.

Likewise, it is rude to call someone ugly or hideous if they are disfigured or unfortunately featured (whatever that may mean, after all beauty is in the eye of the beholder). 

Weight and appearance struggles belong to the individuals that bare them.

So, I would say that the N-Word represents centuries of torture, murder, rape, ridicule, and exclusion endured by African-Americans, and therefore the word belongs to them.

The word was (and sadly still is) used as a weapon specifically against African-Americans. To defang the word, the Black Community over the last century has taken the N-Word from racists and claimed it as their own. This seems just.

The struggle is Black, the word is Black.

In short: America’s social contract regarding the N-Word is that African-Americans can use it however they see fit and it is simply off limits for other Americans.

Most all Americans agree to this contract, at least the ones who understand privilege and history. Even racists tend to fear the word because of how strong the national understanding has become, and how damaging the punishment for misuse.

Are there exceptions? There are always exceptions, but I’d say that even the exceptions are determined by the Black Community – which is also a nebulous concept, comprised of Families, Media, respected Celebrities, etc.

“But why do Black people get to say something and not me? That’s racist!,” says the ignorant person who is unable to understand historical nuance and the complexity of linguistics.

Using the N-Word assumes ownership of the word, and the majority of our modern society has decided that non-Black people simply don’t own it.

Even non-Black people who are extremely allied to the Black Community and given permission in their own Black social circles to use the word generally understand not to say it outside of those limited, friendly circumstances. One person may have a social contract with his or her friends, but this does not typically extend into the rest of society (until the issue has resolved once and for all everywhere in the country).

Will there come a day when anyone can use the word without offense? Will the N-Word ultimately share a status with other historically racist words that no longer offend anyone because the group of people the word insults is no longer disenfranchised? Perhaps.

But until that day, if I am asked: “Can non-Black people say the N-Word?” 

I would say, “No. At least not until the Black Community says yes.” 

Where Are the Stun Guns?

Not tasers. Not rubber bullets. Not tranquilizer darts. Not mace. Not anything we have seen before.

Where is the weapon that can effectively incapacitate its target without lethality? What brilliant mind is developing this revolutionary defense mechanism that could save millions of lives (and earn millions of dollars)?

Let me be specific: this is a weapon that can paralyze, immobilize, or knock unconscious its target without killing them. To my knowledge, it doesn’t exist yet.

If such a weapon existed, here are some of the enormous societal problems it could alleviate:

  1. Home Security. Many families are reluctant to have a gun in their home because of the danger it poses to children or even negligent adults. A stun gun would be a safe home defense tool that would at most knock out an intruder. The worst misuse would be an accidental, unintentional shooting of the self or another; but since no deaths would occur, the damage would be only temporary and not permanently traumatizing to a family or community.
  2. School Safety. Every teacher could have a stun gun without fear of causing unintended mortal damage to someone at the school. The weapon could be like a fire extinguisher: “Break glass in case of emergency.” The penalty for abuse of the stun gun would be severe, possibly a federal crime. But once again, the worst case scenario is that someone is rendered immovable for a time; not killed or permanently injured. Unfortunately, even an armed security guard might be too incapacitated (or cowardly) to stop an attack, so stun guns would offer a last line of defense for teachers or even for students in the worst case scenarios.
  3. Police Shootings. For every nefariously motivated murder by a bad apple in the police force, there are dozens of good officers who shoot innocent victims out of fear or immediate safety concerns. A stun gun would allow police to shoot first and ask questions later if they felt their safety was at high risk. If this weapon truly was non-lethal, then the worst that could happen is that a police officer immobilizes an innocent person until all fear of imminent danger is gone. Much like improper arrests warrant lawsuits against officers who abuse their power, likewise a citizen could sue for damages if unjustifiably stunned. However messy the legal and financial entanglements, no human lives would be forever lost in such a case.
  4. Robbery and Assault. Stores and Businesses that are subject to being looted could carry this much safer defense option (vs. a shotgun) that could deter or at least give pause to potential criminals. Also, individuals who are walking alone in dangerous places could feel a stronger sense of security knowing that they have the means to protect themselves against assault or robbery.
  5. Most people have an innate, fundamental aversion to killing another human being. This has been proven in studies about war and the large number of soldiers who purposely fire up or down instead of straight ahead to avoid causing the death of even a hated enemy. A stun gun allows a person to take action against another human being in extreme circumstances without hesitancy on account of this aversion to killing, knowing that a K.O. is the worst possible outcome.

If developed, this stun gun would obviously not solve all of the problems mentioned above. But I would be curious to see how anyone from either side of the current debates about gun control and the 2nd Amendment would take issue with such an invention.

My intention with this article is not to take sides or discuss the merits of opposing ideologies. I am simply pushing this idea out into the ether in hopes that a more qualified mind than mine can bring it to fruition.

Sometimes, the solutions to our gravest and largest dilemmas in civil society today are not exclusively A or  B; but they are the yet-to-be-invented C.

I don’t know what this weapon will ultimately look like or entail, but I leave the matter up to the ingenuity of our world’s best and brightest. We have microchips, nuclear power, and space exploration… bring on the stun guns. 

Want to stay up to date with Stoic Troubadour and other LCR perspectives? Subscribe for free by clicking here: LCR

America, Why So Stubborn?

Extreme polarization between both major political parties has played a significant role in the current chaotic state of our union. Middle ground has become toxic. Compromise is a dirty word. Mutual exclusivity and zero-sum outcomes are endemic. Why can’t Americans change their minds? Why are they so stubborn?

Perhaps they don’t realize that the solutions to yesterday’s problems may not solve today’s.

Perhaps they have forgotten that there is often more than one good solution to a problem.

Perhaps they are so convinced that their opponents’ solutions are wrong that they vilify each other with terms like “dangerous” or “evil.”

Perhaps their experience has never taught them that the best solution is sometimes a combination of the best parts of different solutions.

America is meant to be the combination of all the best ideas, people, and things that have ever existed: a “melting pot” of cultures and compromises. All the best sciences, arts, philosophies, foods, fashions, customs, military tactics, political and economic systems… America only became the greatest nation in the world by becoming the best parts of ALL the nations in the world.

But America must find the emotional temperament to constantly improve, adapt, and change with the times or it will cease to be the greatest. Self-esteem must be balanced to defeat stubbornness and embrace a greater truth in lieu of a lesser, personal opinion.

Arrogance believes it is better than it truly is.

Insecurity believes it is worse than it truly is.

Confidence knows exactly how good it is.

Humility knows exactly how bad it is.

The Arrogant will never explore their opposition’s point of view out of pride; will never concede a point during an argument out of spite; will attack their opponent instead of their problem; will tend towards dogmatism or authoritarianism; and will dismiss sound logic if it doesn’t serve their particular worldview.

The Insecure will yield their position to the apparently strongest voice; will be prone to herd behavior even while stampeding off a cliff; will shut down when provoked or challenged; and will timidly and unquestioningly blend in with the values (healthy or harmful) of their community, family, faith, or social group.

The Confident will defend truth over opinion; will entertain nuances within complex issues; can parry personal attacks with empathy and patience rather than retaliation; can concede a valid counterpoint comfortably without fear of conceding the entire argument; will give their opponents as much latitude as possible, even going so far as to help strengthen a counterargument in the case that it might actually be the better position; and ultimately will change positions entirely when stronger evidence or a superior argument demands it.

The Humble will not make excuses, but rather assume full responsibility for their mistakes; will not use every effort to deny culpability or excuse past transgressions or mistakes; will acknowledge their weaknesses and seek to remedy them; can receive constructive criticism as a gift rather than an attack; and will quickly realize when their positions are problematic or harmful, consequently abandoning them for healthier, happier, and more sustainable positions.

How can we fix our problems without admitting them?

How can we remain prosperous if we don’t defend what truly made us successful in the first place? 

Arrogance and Insecurity cause the stubbornness that makes this great nation struggle. To continue thriving, America must be Confident enough to stay true to what made it so great and Humble enough to change what has made it so terrible.