No. The 2016 Democratic Primary Wasn’t Rigged.

8 11 2017

Wow. It’s been a while since I posted anything here. I just wrote this up in the comments on a friend’s Facebook post & realized I didn’t necessarily want the words to go *poof* if he decides to take his post down.

It’s not actually possible to “rig” a primary. The DNC doesn’t control the process in any of the states – the states, themselves, do. I’m not sure why people are surprised that the Democratic Party supported the Democrat over the Independent who briefly masqueraded as a Democrat because he knew running as a “Socialist” wouldn’t get him the exposure he wanted. If O’Malley had gotten as many votes as Hillary did, they would have supported him. Hell – if Bernie had gotten as many votes as HRC did, they would have backed him in the general election.
 
Hillary beat Bernie fair and square by four million votes (and I voted for him in the primary) to take the party’s nomination. She then went on to get three million votes more than the Tangerine Menace, who had to cheat to “win.” She wasn’t a weak candidate. She wasn’t a flawed candidate – ESPECIALLY when compared to 45*. People have had an irrational hatred for her for DECADES – and have been creating fictional horrible stories about her for pretty much all of that time. It wasn’t JUST the Russians supplying the fake news — but they did a really good job of weaponizing it in the lead-up to the election.
 
For YEARS, those with Hillary Derangement Syndrome have been following the same game plan:
 
1. Hear a bit of bad news or see a situation they didn’t like.
2. Construct some bizarre narrative to tie Hillary to / blame Hillary for whatever happened.
3. Whisper (or yell) that story in fringe media until some nutjob politician hears the story & falls for it, hook, line & sinker.
4. Wait for said nutjob politician to report on the story to mainstream media as “fact,” or at least as something “we need to look into.”
5. Schedule publicly-funded investigations of & hearings about the story.
6. Find no ACTUAL evidence to back the story up (because, DUH – the story was always false).
7. Claim that the lack of evidence is “proof” of a coverup, never acknowledging that the lack of evidence is due to the fact that it’s impossible to find tangible proof for a fictional story.
8. Write books & articles on the “scandal” and how awful it is that Hillary “got away with yet another thing.”
9. Repeat, ad nauseum.
10. Wait for the people who were infants or small children during the Clinton Administration, and who have heard THEIR ENTIRE LIVES about how crooked HRC is & how she never gets held accountable for her many “crimes,” to grow up & become voters who swear they could never support her because of how horrible she is.
She TOTALLY should have won the election a year ago today. She beat the jackass who “won” by over three million votes & he only got the job because he (and the GOP) cheated — both via collusion with Russia and via voter suppression.
Advertisements




Pro-Life … I don’t think it means what you think it means

28 08 2012

You can’t simultaneously be “pro-life” and “anti-child.” The politicians who call themselves “pro-life” are lying. The only lives they care about are groups of cells in a woman’s uterus (what others would call “potential life” or could call “parasite”) and the lives of corporations (who they say are “people” even though the rest of us know better). They don’t give a rat’s backside about children once they’ve been born – and they certainly don’t care about anyone who isn’t male, conservative Christian (they don’t seem to like liberal Christian churches or other liberal religious groups), straight and wealthy.

If they were REALLY pro-life, they would bend over backwards to make sure every child is adequately fed, clothed, sheltered & educated. If they were REALLY pro-life, they’d fight for living wage legislation and for universal health care. If they were REALLY pro-life, they wouldn’t try to go back to the days when insurance companies could set life-time benefit caps or deny medical coverage to people (including children) with pre-existing medical conditions. If they were REALLY pro-life, they’d make contraceptives free (or at least low-cost) and easily accessible to ALL who need them. If they were REALLY pro-life, they’d put an end to bullying. If they were REALLY pro-life, they’d let make women (and their doctors) make the medical decisions that are best for them and for their families. If they were REALLY pro-life, they wouldn’t value the “life” of a bunch of cells over the life of a pre-existing woman.

They are pro-forced childbirth. They are pro-forced motherhood. They are anti-child, anti-woman and anti-family. They are the Christian Taliban — and I want them NOWHERE near my government.





Why I Won’t Patronize Chick-fil-A (and why you shouldn’t, either)

2 08 2012

Hey, Folks — just so you know… pro-equality people aren’t staying away from Chick-fil-A because the CEO is pro-discrimination. He’s entitled to his beliefs, as we all are. We’re staying away because CFA donates millions of dollars to an SPLC-designated hate group — the straight supremacist organization, Family Research Council.

Would you have a problem giving business to a corporation who passed a portion of YOUR money to the KKK or one of its chapters? How about to the Aryan Nation? Nation of Islam? Westboro Baptist Church? Supreme White Alliance? New Black Panthers? The thing all these groups have in common is that they’re all SPLC-designated hate groups. It’s not easy to become a hate group. The designation is reserved for groups who “… have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” The SPLC states that hate group activities may include speeches, marches, rallies, meetings, publishing, leafleting, and criminal acts such as violence, although not all groups listed by the SPLC engage in criminal activity.

Just because the agenda of any organization matches your own doesn’t mean it’s not a hate group — but if your agenda matches any of the organizations on the list, you’re probably a bigot. If you spend money at Chick-fil-A, you’re actively supporting a hate group, thus actively supporting bigotry. Remember – bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry. Discrimination wrapped in religion is still discrimination — and it’s just plain wrong.




Katrina and the Kitten

5 01 2011

My daughter, Katrina (age 6) wrote a short story for a creative writing contest at school a few months ago.  We found out the other day that she has been named the district-wide first grade winner.  There are nine schools in the district, but I have no idea how many people entered the contest.  Regardless, I’m super-proud!

Here is the story as she printed it out:

KATRINA AND THE KITTEN

Once upon a time, there was a girl named Katrina.  One day, she went outside into the forest to practice her karate chopping on a tree.  She could chop an entire tree in one chop!

Suddenly, she heard a little tiny sound.  “Meow.”

She turned around and looked, but did not see anything.  Then she heard it again and this time it was “Help!”  She walked around until she saw a little tiny baby kitten with a splinter in its paw.

“What’s your name?” asked Katrina.

“My name is Olivia,” said the kitten.

“You can talk?” asked Katrina, very surprised.

“Yes,” answered Olivia, “but let’s keep it a secret.”

“Why?” asked Katrina.

“Because if people found out I can talk they would take me away to study me.”

Katrina said “O.K., it’ll be our secret.”

Katrina picked Olivia up and pulled out the splinter.  Then she walked home, carrying the kitten.

She went inside and asked her Mom and Dad if she could keep the kitten.  They said yes.

Katrina said “Yippee!”

Olivia was excited but just said “Meow!”





Proposition 8 – The Day After

5 11 2008

Yesterday’s historic election was bittersweet for me.  Admittedly, it was far more sweet than bitter — but I feel a little sick in the pit of my stomach that a small majority of Californians chose to officially include discrimination in our state’s constitution.  California wasn’t alone — Florida and Arizona also chose to take that step as well.  Voters in Arksansas voted to deny gay/lesbian couples the right to adopt children or house foster children (of course they thinly veiled the discriminatory nature of their law by officially banning “unmarried” couples from adoption/foster care).  It makes me sad that there are so many people out there who see absolutely nothing wrong with legislating discrimination.

 

Luckily for homosexuals living in California, the defeat is not as bad as it could have been.  From what I understand (or at least have been told repeatedly), California already gives all the rights of marriage to same-sex unions through the Domestic Partnership law.  Everything except the title “marriage,” of course.  I’m offended by the whole “separate but equal” concept — but I suppose “separate but equal” is better than “separate and inequal.”

 

*sigh*

 

Even with Domestic Partnerships in place, the big hitch is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act which was passed & signed into law by Clinton in 1996.  It basically says:

 

1.  No state need treat a relationship between two persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

 

2.  The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

 

Under the DoMA, “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

 

It was passed as a way of “quarantining” same sex marriage so other states wouldn’t have to accept it. — brought up after a Hawaiian court case in which it looked like Hawaii was going to be the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.

 

 So — now that the ban is a part of our state’s Constitution (and now Florida’s and Arizona’s as well but by larger margins), there are a few ways to go forward.

 

1.  Putting the issue up as a state Constitutional Amendment yet again — perhaps this time with specific verbiage in the proposition about not teaching gay marriage in schools (since the “yes” people basically won on the basis of the deceptive ads about teaching gay marriage in schools — the horror!!!!).

 

2.  Obama and the Democratic-controlled House/Senate repealing the DoMA.  This would probably be fairly tough.  Even though the Dems will have the majority in each chamber, “Democrat” does not equal “pro-gay marriage” and I’m not sure a majority in either chamber would pass it if passing it would mean they’d lose their seats in the next election.

 

3.  Obama gets a couple of reasonable Supreme Court Justices appointed, a court case about same-sex unions moves up the legal food chain, and the Supreme Court rules that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, just as they did about interracial marriage bans in 1967.

 

The first option will, I’m pretty sure, come up in 2010 (don’t know about the phrasing yet of course — but it would seem dumb to try to pass it without negating the opposition’s most successful “argument” against same sex marriage).  Unfortunately, even if it passes here in California, it doesn’t help gays/lesbians in other states.

 

The second option may not be all that likely.  Obama probably doesn’t want to come out of the gates looking like a rabid liberal who cares nothing about the wishes of the red state electorates.  Plus, coming down on the side of gay marriage is unfortunately political suicide in many areas of the country (and even in this state).  Add to that that even if Obama is able to get the DoMA reversed, that would be a strong boost to socially-conservative Republicans & would fire up the evangelical Christian base… and it would just get re-reversed the next time a Republican lands in office.

 

The third option will take time and patience — but it would be the most legally-binding and broad-reaching — and would automatically scrap the DoMA if discrimination against gays/lesbians is found to be unconstitutional.

 

Although Prop 8 opponents like me are saddened today and will likely be saddened for a while to come, we need to move on and keep fighting for equality.  Never give up.  Never give in.

 

Discrimination is wrong.  Whether supported by a majority or a minority, it’s wrong.  Whether based in religion, ignorance, tradition, or any combination thereof, it’s wrong.  It’s.  Just.  Wrong.  It frustrates me to no end how many people just don’t understand that.