Essay

Another day another hearing. Monday’s circus, in which the lawyers from the previous hearings were interviewed for their… opinions? quickly turned into a shit show where Republicans continuously objected, maligned the process, and generally just walked over Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler. Tuesday, Democrats officially brought two Articles of impeachment against the President: abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress. This seems like weak sauce, given all that we’ve been through for these past three years. It seems shocking that some Democrats fought bitterly to keep these articles down to two, when Donald Trump has been breaking the law since before he got into office. Now I find myself surprisingly agreeing with constitutional scholar and witness for the Republicans, the factually challenged Professor Jonathan Turley. What’s the rush, Democrats? Turley was certainly wrong in stating that this is the fastest impeachment process in history. In fact he was completely wrong, it has become the longest impeachment proceeding we’ve ever had, and it’s still not finished. But a scholar as witness-who-gets-his-facts-completely-wrong is just par for the course for the Republicans. In terms of the calendar, Democrats are taking their time, but sometimes appearance matters. Professor Turley is not the only one asking why Democrats seem to be in such a rush. Tuesday morning, Adam Schiff responded directly to this question admirably. It is true the Trump and the Republicans’ modus operandi is to bring their objections to court and upon losing, appeal, go to another court, rinse, wash, repeat, until hopefully their case gets to the Supreme Court which they’ve stacked in their favor. If Democrats waited for every issue to plod its way through the courts, yes, the clock would run out and Trump could very well be reelected because no decisions ever came to completion. But that assumes playing by the rules, strictly, and almost to a fault. It’s clear the other side hasn’t even looked at the rulebook, and it’s time that Democrats considered goals as opposed to the step-by-step process.

The approach of the midterm elections can now be measured in hours, and television, if you still watch standard TV, is filled with attack ads telling you just how terrible the other side is. It seems like an exercise in futility as our current acrimonious political divide leaves most voters quite sure of which side they’re already on. This means these commercials, and rallies, and any other form of campaigning, is designed for Independents, Undecided Voters, and whatever registered voters there are that are going through a crisis of faith with their stated Party. How many people does this make? Hard to say, but politicians seem to think that there’s still enough votes to grab that aren’t yet set in stone to make an important difference. So what do you run with to convince people? For Democrats, it seems to be a referendum against Trump and the quickly approaching death of human decency. This sounds biased I know, but how else do you describe an administration that has: Tripled down on banning people from distinctly Muslim countries, separated children from parents who are just trying to find asylum at our southern borders, forced in a Supreme Court Justice who is clearly biased and has provably lied under oath, and now has vilified a group of families trudging through South America to apply for asylum from dangerous gang violence as invaders that need to be defended against by a three to one ratio of our militia? For Republicans, the motivator as always is fear. Fear of Muslims, Latinos, Transgender people… whoever they can find to touch the hot buttons of racist America. Oh, and taxes. It seems like every election, Republicans raise their skirts at the horrible taxes those nasty Democrats are going to impose on you. Of course, Democrats are really only interested in taxing people who can afford it, and providing relief for people who can’t, the exact opposite of the Republican approach to taxes. However, there’s one thing Republicans at one point thought would work in their favor: The Booming Economy. Ten weeks and at least a dozen unbelievable stories ago, Republicans wanted this to be the main message for midterms. Look at the numbers. Unemployment’s way down, GDP numbers are up, the stock market’s breaking records! All of this may be true, but with a caveat for any positive thing they can mention. Unless you’re a CEO or have an already great financial portfolio, chances are things aren’t booming for you.  (more…)

It’s football season and that means, regardless of whether ratings are up or down, that there are literally millions of people spending their Sunday afternoons glued to the TV or streaming device of their choice. Chances are you know at least one person, maybe it’s you, who gets so involved in the games that they wind up yelling at the screen, questioning whether the referee is blind, or screaming for their team “Get him!” in reference to whoever has the ball. Sometimes those screams become “kill him!” or “rip his head off!” There might not be as many of those cries as there used to be since it’s become more public that these hard hits lead to concussions that can have long-term effects on players’ health. But don’t feel guilty if you’re an intense fan, we all have those moments where we’re swept away by the thrill of something we’re passionate about. The truth is, we have some strong reasons why we identify with our favorite sports teams. For most, it’s a direct identification with their immediate surrounding area. Supporting your team is, in essence, defending the territory in which you live and the choice you made to come or stay there. For some, the favorite team comes from where they used to live. The move may have been necessary, but rooting for their former home team is one of the few ways to stay connected to a previous life. Then there are people who simply became fans of whoever was winning championships when they first started watching. Loyalty often has moments of disappointment, but rooting for your team come hell or high water can keep a person connected to their childhood. It’s no wonder with these intense underpinnings we have traditionally viewed the players not so much as human than as the flickering lights of a digital avatar in a video game. Now, however, in an age where we have almost too much information, it’s impossible to ignore players’ backstories: whether they beat their wife and/or kids, arrange vicious dog fights for money, or are possible co-conspirators to murder. You don’t want the League to suspend or completely end a top star’s season, especially if he’s on your Fantasy team and yet, there’s this whole morality thing. And let’s not forget the latest issue: whether players stand for the national anthem or kneel in protest of racial injustice. (more…)

Well, the battle for the Supreme Court Seat is over and Democrats came up snake eyes… again. It looks bad for the Democratic brand getting constantly get walloped by the Republicans who seem to operate by the motto: “rules are for sissies”. Then again… A “glass is three quarters full” type person might see the Kavanaugh debacle as actually resulting in the best possible outcome. Here’s the reality: It should be no surprise that Kavanaugh got onto the Supreme Court. If votes went strictly across partisan lines, he would have been confirmed. If one Republican voted no, they still had Mike Pence to cast the tiebreaker. And let’s not forget that there were at least two deep red state Democratic Senators that might have voted in favor, and one of them did. Had there been no sexual misconduct accusations, chances are Brett would have slid right in and made the Democrats look completely powerless during the process. That’s not what happened though. Without Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony, there’d be no Kavanaugh testimony. The sight of the red-faced former frat boy, sniffling at all the wrong times and snidely challenging Democratic Senators did not make a great accounting of himself. By the time it was all over, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican, stated Kavanaugh was not suited for the Supreme Court. The American Bar Association has reassessed their recommendation. Former friends and classmates of his have spoken out, noting that he lied to Congress about his drinking at the very least. Brett Kavanaugh has become a controversial candidate for the Supreme Court, one that Republicans looked worse for pushing through anyway. Mitch McConnell may snidely say that the Democrats’ actions have whipped up their base for the midterms in a way that the GOP never could, but we’ll see how long that outrage lasts.  It is the history of the midterm elections that the Party that suffered the most recent loss becomes fueled by outrage and fear of what the opposing Party can do with their newfound power. The Party with the most recent win becomes more complacent. There simply isn’t the same desperation fueling Republicana to run out and try to make a major change. Thanks to Trump and the GOP, the Republican brand has become toxic, more people will spend money to get Democrats in or just to get Trump clones out than to fight to keep things as they are.

None of this addresses the largest criticism the Democrats are getting, especially lately: They’re too soft. Bill Maher, certainly outspoken against Trump and the GOP, might admit to at least being a Liberal, and recently donated a million dollars to the Democratic cause, but prides himself on being hard on both major parties. His main jab at Dems is that they’re weak; he was making fun of political correctness before Republicans were. Michael Avenatti, lawyer to Stormy Daniels, and now Julie Swetnick, has been teasing a presidential run in 2020. He feels the Democrats desperately need someone who will actually fight back, and there’s perhaps an implication here that he’d also be willing to fight dirty. Recently, Eric Holder, former Attorney General and now also a potential Democratic candidate for President, has made waves by changing his good friend Michelle Obama’s famous quote from “When they go low, we go high” to “When they go low, we kick them.” It’s caused some controversy, but the meaning is clear: Democrats don’t want to be seen as pushovers anymore.  (more…)

If you’re worried about our inexperienced President actually causing World War III, I wish I could tell you not to worry, but the truth is I’m not an expert in world politics, or military strategy. It would be irresponsible of me to tell you not to worry, although I can express an opinion that this may be one of those frightening situations where cooler heads must, in the end, prevail. Why? True it’s mostly wishful thinking, but it’s worth a look at Trump’s history of opinions on U.S. military actions to see a pattern, or lack thereof that ought to make even the Republicans who continually protect him take a closer look in the mirror and decide if it’s really worth it. Is it really worth looking the other way and pretending there’s nothing wrong here when the consequences are so great that even their families are threatened? And the real question: Is Donald Trump in any way justified to make this major decision for the rest of the World? (more…)

According to political satirists and late night talk show hosts, it’s been an eternity since Donald Trump officially took office as our nation’s (this can’t be right) President. It’s not so much that the last 2 and ½ months have been boring, it seems like almost every day there’s a White House related gaffe that certainly makes things… “interesting”. If anything it’s a depressing look into the future to see just how much time is still left of Trump’s 1^st term that makes time seem interminable, without even allowing ourselves to imagine the horror of Republicans somehow sneaking and cheating their way into a second term. With that in mind it must be ages ago that we all were arguing on social media about who was more pure evil, Trump or Clinton.

I remember those days. As someone who takes the term “friend” fairly seriously, even on social media, I was a good example of the Bubble attached to debating politics in that forum. My “Friends” were actual friends, which meant they were people I like, therefore when I made my political leanings rather obvious, I was preaching to the choir, mostly. In fact, I only had one friend that I de-friended, both on Facebook and in life, a scene that played out across the nation at that time and to some extent, the world. Friendships were destroyed, and even family members stopped talking to one another. It sucks to end a relationship of just about any kind. I had a long history with this guy. We had made movies together, written scripts together, and fought with the intensity of brothers about some of the concepts of those scripts among other things. But was this really “brotherly debating”? Or was it missed signs that we were two different people who were only “friends” through shared particular experiences and otherwise had little in common? Being so far apart on what has to be some of the most important political news of our lifetime was a wake-up call as to just how incompatible we were as friends. While the specific details may have been unique to our situation, the general pattern was something that was playing out on computer screens across the Nation and beyond. My friend had admitted to another of our circle that he hadn’t actually had much interest in politics until this cycle. In fact, he had never registered to vote before. But if he knew one thing it was that Hillary Clinton was evil. The Clintons were a pair of corrupt politicians trying to create a modern-day Dynasty. My friend was a big fan of conspiracy theories. This fit right in to Trump’s approach, branding the “dishonest” media and treating them with blatant animosity during his rallies. As such, it became increasingly impossible to discuss any developing news with him as his answer to anything was that the “mainstream” media was all compromised. According to him, most of the major media groups were in some way part of the Time-Warnerconglomerate. Time-Warner had contributed to Hillary’s campaign, therefore, any subdivision of Time-Warner would only report pro-Hillary news and all articles defaming Trump were false or at least biased. Even comedians were in Time-Warner’s pocket. I tried logical arguments, such as “follow the money”, which usually appeals to the conspiracy folk. I noted that publications like The New York Times and Newsweek and The Washington Post still derived a lot of money from subscriptions. That in those cases, reputation was a huge factor. Imagine if The New York Times was caught peddling falsehoods to put their preferred candidate in the White House? That’s a huge risk to take. If the truth got out, NYT would be done, finished. Likewise with just about any other news source with a long-standing reputation. It’s not to say that none of these organizations could possibly get a story wrong, but when they do, they print retractions. Breitbart.com has a completely different business model. These Internet “news” sites just need to get clicks for their advertisers. Being accurate is a deep second to drawing traffic to your site. And what better way to draw traffic than to print exactly what your fan base wants to hear, even if it isn’t true? (more…)