Stop The Blame Game

What caused Hillary to lose was a combination of a variety of things. Lack of enthusiasm, yes. Voter suppression, yes, in both the general and the primaries. But I think the biggest factor is the mood of the electorate, i.e., We the People, to turn against business as usual, to reject the status quo.

The Democratic party, by whatever means, shady or legitimate, rejected the only primary candidate who is not part of the establishment forces supporting the status quo. Hillary talked a good fight, but only after being pressured by Bernie Sanders’ rapidly rising polling and vote numbers. 

This left the field wide open for Trump to come in as an anti-establishment candidate, even though many of his statements during the campaign were and are repugnant, and win the general election.

Who is to blame for all this? I would say all of us who call ourselves either Democrat or progressive. Those who supported Sanders but switched to Hillary, those who didn’t switch, those who supported Hillary no matter what and denigrated anyone and everyone who disagreed with them are at fault.

 
But now the time for blame is over. We must reach out to our opponents on both the left and the right, and form working coalitions to get more progressive candidates into office on all levels of government, to pass progressive initiatives in every state, and to groom a true progressive to challenge Trump in 2020.

To accomplish that, we must find common ground on which to to build this progressive movement, Our Revolution, into a force to be reckoned with. If we don’t do the work, we will have nobody else to blame.

Namaste',
Don

 ©2016 by Don Rice Jr.

Moving Forward

Over the past several days since Election day, there has been a great deal of vitriol being hurled on social media.  Everyone wants to blame everyone else for Hillary Clinton's loss, too many are refusing to look at the reasons for that loss, especially from people who did not vote for her.

We've all seen the video clips and news reports of people being taunted, insulted, beat down, told to leave the country, et cetera.  And the anger is clearly on both sides.  Real winners don't rub people's faces in their loss a some of the Trump supporters have been doing.  And real progressives don't attack other progressives out of anger at a differing perspective.  Yet those are the things that are happening.

Many of the people expressing anger because others didn't vote the way the Clinton supporters thought they should have lost sight of the basic truth that we are all human and we all err at times. 

The troubling part is that many people on both sides of the situation claim to be Christian, yet their actions show that they are Christian in name only.

Perhaps even more to the point of what's happening lately in reference to the Bible, especially for those who call themselves Christian, is the neglect for living by trhe teachings of the man  called Jesus the Christ. 

I do not call myself Christian.  Yet I have studied the Bible for many years, seeking the larger truths within the teachings of the Bible.  I herewith offer what I consider to be perhaps the most profound of those teachings:

"For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them." (Luke 6:32)

"For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?  47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?" (Mat. 5:46, 47)

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..." (Mat 7:12)

"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" (1 John 4:20)

Since Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, let's take a look at that too.

The Jewish Rabbinical teaching in the B'reshith Rabba (Genesis Rabba) teaching reads: "If thou despisest any man, thou despisest God who made man in His image."

I had a discussion with someone on Facebook who insisted that my vote for Jill Stein was actually a vote for Trump.  No matter how I explained that this wasn't so, she refused to budge.  I don't despise her or hate her because she stubbornly refuses to see someone else's perspective.  It's the action and attitude that saddens me, and I sincerely hope that people will wake up and realize the harm they're doing by being hateful and vindictive.

What it comes down to is that we should treat others the way we want to be treated, not the way they treat us, or to despise them because we disagree with them.  If we did that, then there would be no chance of harmony, simply because nobody agrees totally with anyone else all the time.

Instead, we must seek to understand each other better and not stick with our prejudices and one-sided perspectives.  And we must seek the common ground between us, for only there will we be able to find a way out of this quagmire.  Then, and only then, will we be able to move forward as a nation.

Namaste,
Don

©2016

Democrat Paul Penzone unseats Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio | Cronkite News

Democrat Paul Penzone unseats Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio | Cronkite News: After holding the position of Maricopa County Sheriff for more than two decades, Joe Arpaio has lost his seat to Democrat Paul Penzone.

Election 2016: The Bigger Picture

So Donald John Trump will be the next President of the United States.  What does this mean for the country?

The truth is that we won't really know until after he takes office.  But the more important question is this:

How did we get here? 

There is a traceable line of cause and effect that goes back at the very least 50 years or so.  It really goes back long before that, but for the purpose of this writing, 50 years is sufficient as a starting point.

What happened then that led to this?  And how did it lead to our current condition?

The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education was perhaps the starting point, but it wasn't the cause of today's difficulty.  No, the cause was the reaction to that decision. 

A program of massive resistance was begun in Virginia by political movers and shakers.  This led directly to the creation of "segregation academies".  And the concept spread throughout the country.  Not only in the realm of education, but also in businesses.

This program was designed specifically to circumvent the Brown decision, and to continue the segregation of every institution in the nation, both public and private, including commercial enterprises.  And the program expanded on Jim Crow laws as well as northern de facto segregation most if not all of the other states that make up what we call America.

Segregation academies are still around, and educational segregation is growing via charter schools, though it must be noted that not all charter schools are segregation academies.  Segregation in education, especially in charter and religion-based schools, is not only racial.  It is also based on disability, gender identity/sexual orientation, and economic status.  There are, of course, variations between and within these types of schools, based largely on the ruling principles each school and type of school is founded upon.

Academic achievement has gradually decreased in many, if not most, parts of the country, based largely on the same factors endemic to segregation, although certain segments of the population have shown marked improvement.  Black women, for example, are the fastest growing group of college graduates.  And the lowest scholastic achievers are mostly in the southern states.

Added to all of this is something the establishments of both the Democratic and Republican Parties failed to take note of.  That factor is the rapidly growing dissatisfaction of the people in all parts of the country with the status quo.  People are sick and tired of empty promises and eager for real progress rather than going backwards.  And that includes the ever-increasing gap between rich and poor as well as the perception that our so-called leaders are bought and paid for by the corporate elite.

As a result, more, many more, people in America are ready for a change in leadership.  The two major parties put forth the most disliked candidates for President in our nation's history.  And only one of them was not part of the political establishment that people are tired of.  Too many people saw this election as a choice of the lesser evil, which candidate would do the least damage.
  
But the problem is even deeper.  The Democratic National Convention, through the state conventions, chose a candidate who was not only viewed as deeply flawed, but also shown in every major poll to be incapable of beating most of the Republican candidates, and might... MIGHT... beat Donald Trump.  That turned out, obviously, to not be the case.  The candidate whom polls showed could easily beat Trump was turned away. 

Setting aside the belief by many, including me, that Bernie Sanders was cheated out of the nomination, the fact is that he could have and probably would have beaten Trump, while Hillary Clinton stood a very slim chance of doing so.  As can be easily seen in hindsight, the polls didn't lie.

The Democratic establishment has only itself to blame for this mess.

© 2016 by Don Rice Jr.

The Lesser Evil

Many people have said that we MUST vote for Hillary, or... Trump!  On the other side, people have said we should vote for Trump because... Hillary!

For myself, it's a matter of every election in recent history being billed as a choice between the lesser of two evils. I've reached the point where that is no longer acceptable as a reason to vote for a particular candidate.

The old saying goes, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." While that is true, it doesn't even begin to cover the extent of the issue when it comes to voting for President or any other office.

At issue is the continued validity, or lack thereof, of the two-party system. Both major parties have proven to be corrupt and eminently corruptible. Yet we are told that we must vote for one or the other, or the Armageddon will come.  Either the end of the world predicted by evangelicals of all persuasions, or the end of America as we know it, or some other end of something or other.

I flatly reject that viewpoint. With both major parties being undesirable and the electoral system needing to change, the only rational option is to vote for a third party candidate. At the same time, we need to educate people on how to change the system into a multi-party one that does not act merely as a spoiler.

Otherwise, we will continue our long slide into oligarchy or theocracy. That would truly be the end of this grand experiment we call the United States of America.

© 2016 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Are you ready for it?

Occupy Wall Street, protesting corruption, the buying off of our political system, and the massive redistribution of wealth from the workers who made wealth possible to the super-wealthy, the big banks, stockbrokers and CEO's.

Arab Spring, the protest expressing deep-seated resentment toward Arab dictatorships, anger at the brutality of the security apparatus, unemployment, rising prices, and corruption that followed the privatization of state assets in some countries.

Black Lives Matter, a response to the racism that is endemic in many aspects of our society, but most especially to the fact that police brutality affects black people more than any other ethnic group in America.

Tiananmen Square, the 1989 protests in China against inflation, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation.

What do these have in common? At their heart, they are all a coming together of mostly young people who have decided that it's time for  change toward real progress in human societal evolution.  And the struggle continues. 

The United Kingdom just voted to leave the European Union.

And here in the United States, a huge majority of Republican primary voters has chosen Donald Trump as their presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States.  And on the Democratic side, 45% of primary votes counted so far have been for Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist whose stands on issues are reminiscent of the liberal policies of the Democratic Party of decades past while the present Party is run by corporatists masquerading as liberals, what have been called Neoliberals and New Democrats.

But that's not all.  Many, many voters were disenfranchised as the Democratic Party adopted and adjusted Republican/Conservative/Tea Party tactics to prevent Sanders supporters from voting.  There are official inquiries and even lawsuits about election fraud springing up, as the Media, allegedly in cahoots with the Democratic National Committee, downplayed at almost every turn the progress being made by the Sanders campaign, which began at a serious disadvantage and pulled within a few points of the Establishment favorite, Hillary Clinton, before the primaries were over, taking 22 states and, when all of the mail-in and provisional ballots are finally counted, perhaps more.  

What does it all mean?  Consider that a majority of Republicans chose an anti-candidate, one who is neither respected nor wanted by the Party elites.  And nearly half of the Democratic voters chose a candidate who has eschewed Party membership while harkening back to a truly liberal and progressive stance that the Party's top echelons have apparently forgotten.  Then consider that this accounts for roughly half of the membership of of both Parties who voted in their respective primaries.  Add to that that about 40% of registered voters in the United States are either independent or support a third party. 

This speaks to that same dissatisfaction that led to the four groups mentioned at the beginning of this  More and more people are openly coming out against business as usual and want to see real progress in human affairs. 

As Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks Network just said tonight, "Buckle up.  Here comes the revolution."

© 2016 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Hillary Clinton's Rape Case

Everyone who knows me and/or follows me, in real life or on social media, knows that I do not like or trust what I see and hear of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the "presumptive" nominee for the Democratic run for the Presidency of the United States.  However, in an effort to be as impartial as possible, allow me to present my analysis of one particular aspect of why I don't trust her.

There is a meme running around the Internet about a rape case she handled as a young attorney on Arkansas:

While the meme grossly misrepresents the facts of the case, what stands out in my awareness is that Hillary laughed about lie detector test:

"I had him take a polygraph, which he passed,
which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."

She also laughed about saying to prosecutor,
"Well, this guy's (a well-known and highly respected forensics expert) ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice."

Here is the report from CNN that includes those excerpts:

What happened in Hillary Clinton's 1975 rape case?

These facts, all by themselves, show clearly what she thought about the case.  She clearly thought the man was guilty.  Did she know he was guilty?  We may never know the answer to that question; it's not one she is ever likely to answer.  But it's clear that she believed he was.  He passed the polygraph, and that destroyed her faith in the test.

In Clinton's defense, she was appointed as the man's lawyer.  That made her responsible for defending him to the best of her ability.  She did that, admirably, within the system as it was at the time.  She didn't get the guy of completely, but plea bargained the case down so that, instead of being sent to prison for life, he spent a year in the county jail for "fondling".

It must also be acknowledged that the prosecution massively bungled their side of the case.  They lost the actual evidence, the piece of the underwear with the blood and semen stains, and offered Clinton the remainder of the garment as what they had for evidence. 

Apparently they also failed to bring forth the witness statement that the man got on top of the girl and a short time later pulled up his pants. 

So what it comes down to is that Hillary's supporters are going to
 ignore her own clearly demonstrated attitude toward this case.  But her detractors err in the opposite direction, failing or refusing to acknowldge that she had a job she was required by law to do, defend the accused to the best of her ability, and she did that job quite thoroughly.  She can't be faulted for that, because if it ever came out that she didn't offer up her best defense, she could have been disbarred, meaning she would not be permitted to practice law again in Arkansas and perhaps in other places as well.

The CNN report on this issue closes by noting that, according to Clinton, the case inspired her to start the first rape hotline in Arkansas.  Was this a political calculation, as some might say?  I doubt it.  She was a new lawyer just getting started at 27 years old.  I don't believe political calculation applied at all at that time in her life.  But again, I don't think we'll ever really know for sure.

It should be noted, however, that she declined to address the question of her smearing of the rape victim when specifically asked about it.  One can only speculate about that while understanding that this was accepted practice across the country in those days.  It's much less common now due to "shield laws", but it still happens, in court and out.  It's called "blaming the victim", it's a despicable practice that needs to end, and Hillary Clinton engaged in it as a defense attorney.

Here is the clip, again from CNN.  Note how the anchors mention that aspect but don't pursue it at all, concluding that Clinton gave a well-thought-out answer:

Clinton stands by defense of child rapist in the 1970s

In conclusion, while she may have done the legally correct thing in this case, it was not the *right* thing.  Yes, she got her client a reduced charge and a greatly reduced sentence resulting from that reduced charge.  Her methods, while perfectly legal, were counter to the concept of seeking the truth in the matter.  When questioned, she deflects blame and responsibility from herself.  This is not someone I would want to trust in the highest office in the land.

© 2016 Donald C. Rice Jr.