specifics aside

So I’m eating lunch, right? Well, breakfast — I mean, it’s my first meal of the day so I guess it’s officially breakfast even though it’s almost noon. Whatever you call it, I’m eating and reading the news and opinion pieces — and there’s a piece by Mark Halperin on last night’s Republican debate.

I should point out that Mark Halperin isn’t a total fucking idiot — but he comes close enough so often that the difference between him and a total fucking idiot can be measured in angstroms. He was assigning letter grades to the…an angstrom? Sure, an angstrom is a unit of length that’s equal to 10−10 meters. That’s one ten-billionth of a meter. We’re talking tiny. Even tinier than that. A hydrogen atom is about half an angstrom.

Mark Halperin, not a total fucking idiot.

Mark Halperin, not a total fucking idiot.

So Mark Halperin is assigning letter grades to the Republican candidates for the quality of their debates last night, and he gives Trump an A. Seriously, he gave Trump an A. And he says this:

“Critics will howl, but, specifics aside, he sounded sufficiently reasonable and generally informed to win the nomination.”

See? Not a total fucking idiot. A total fucking idiot wouldn’t know that critics would howl. Everything else in that sense is pure distilled total fucking idiocy. Specifics aside, Halperin says. Specifics aside, Trump sounded reasonable and informed. .

Specifics aside, a mouse and an elephant are both mammals. Specifics aside, roadkill and quiche are edible. Specifics aside, turning water into wine is a good idea. Specifics aside, the only difference between the rats that brought the Black Death to Europe and lab rats is the quality of their fleas. Specifics aside, mass transit submarines would be a cool way to commute between Baltimore and Malaga, Spain.

What the actual fuck, Mark Halperin? Specifics aside, my ass. The fact that Trump was able to keep from yowling like a goddamn monkey — that he was able to refrain from talking about his dick and insulting the other people on the stage — that does NOT make him sound reasonable and informed. It just means he was unreasonable and ill-informed in a more muted voice. And for that, he gets an A.

A tuna noodle casserole.

A tuna noodle casserole.

Jeebus Airbus, these fucking people, I declare.. Specifics aside, the difference between Mark Halperin and a tuna noodle casserole is that I respect a tuna noodle casserole.

applause for the chain reaction

I watched the early part of last night’s debate between the Republican candidates vying for the presidential nomination. I watched and applauded.

Why did I applaud? I’ll tell you.

In 1913 a German chemist named Max Bodenstein had an epiphany. He was doing some research on the mechanisms of the chemical reaction between hydrogen and chlorine, and he…okay, wait.

You probably read the mechanisms of the chemical reaction between hydrogen and chlorine and immediately began thinking “Dude, I thought this was about the debate; maybe I should see if there are any new videos of koala bears playing bocce ball on Buzzfeed.” A little patience, please. There’s an actual point to this. I’m not just tossing German chemists around willy nilly. Honest.

Max Bodenstein

Max Bodenstein

Right, so Max Bodenstein was noodling around with some hydrogen and chlorine molecules and he noticed something interesting. That shit exploded. Now, you don’t have to be a German chemist to know that explosions are cool, but Max wanted to understand why that shit exploded. What he discovered was that — and okay, this is going to get a wee bit sciencey here — the reaction of the parent hydrogen and chlorine molecules created some new unstable molecules. Those unstable molecules interacted with the parent molecules in ways that were a LOT more energetic than the original reaction — and that created MORE unstable molecules, which reacted again with the parent molecules and dot dot dot hey, bingo, that shit explodes.

Max Bodenstein was the first guy to describe a chain reaction. Any time you hear the phrase chain reaction, you have Max to thank for it.

Why am I talking about obscure German chemists? Because what we’re seeing in the current campaign for the Republican party’s presidential nomination is the explosion that comes at the end of a slow series of chain reactions that began in the 1980s. And that chain reaction began in 1978 when an obscure Georgia politician named Newt Gingrich read James Clavell’s potboiler Shōgun.

shogun

Okay, now you’re saying to yourself “Dude…the fuck? First German chemists and now this? What?” I know this sounds like I’m going off on another tangent. Again, patience.

The novel is grounded in the rise to power of a crafty, patient, manipulative leader of a Japanese samurai faction. Newt Gingrich modeled himself after the character, and it changed his approach to politics. To that point, modern US politics was primarily about policy differences. Gingrich made the usual claims that his opponent’s policies were ineffective and possibly harmful, but he also began to accuse his opponents of actively and intentionally trying to destroy everything that is and was good about the nation. His opponents weren’t merely wrong in their policy positions, they were traitorous. He began to depict Democrats as an actual threat that needed to be stopped in order to save the nation. There was no more ‘loyal opposition.’ There were only enemies to be defeated.

And hey, it worked. Republicans began to get elected in greater numbers. It’s worked for about 35 years now. They stopped proposing serious policies and relied on talking points and accusations. They stopped practicing governance, and focused instead on expanding and maintaining their power. They turned Republican politics into mummery.

Mummers

Mummers

The problem, though, was that the Republicans were confident they could control the toxic chain reaction of their politics. And at first, it seemed like they could But each successive election created more unstable molecules, which interacted with the existing unstable molecules, creating still more unstable molecules and dot dot dot hey, bingo, that shit explodes.

We’re talking about a sudden, violent increase in pressure generating large amounts of heat and destructive shock waves that travel outward from the point of explosion and produce a loud bang. Like this:

A chemical explosion -- thanks, Max Bodenstein.

Trump!

The Republican party is exploding in fairly slow motion right in front of us. It’s kind of sad, really. Inevitable and necessary, but still sad because they mixed the hydrogen and chlorine together without any thought that it would explode in their faces.

Sad, but also sort of funny and completely appropriate. Why? Because etymology! The term explode comes from the Latin explodere — the prefix ex– meaning ‘out’ and plaudere meaning ‘to clap one’s hands’ (the same Latin root gives us the term applaud). That’s right, folks — originally explode meant to make a loud noise to drive demons away or actors off the stage.

This is why I applauded last night’s Republican debate. The sooner these fuckwits get off the stage, the better.

a principled stand for bernie

I’m a Bernie supporter. Have been for a while. I’ve always thought Bernie was a long shot at winning the Democratic nomination, but I’m okay with that. I like long shots. I stood up for Bernie at the Iowa caucus, even though I figured he’d lose. I stood up for him as a matter of principle. I admit, I was surprised when he won.

Bernie took a powerful thumping in South Carolina recently. He’s probably going to take another thumping tonight. But I’m not giving up. If he can win two or three states tonight and do well on March 15th, then I still think there’s a fairly good chance Bernie can take the nomination.

I’m a Bernie supporter, but I have to confess that I’m starting to be sort of embarrassed by it. Not because of anything Bernie has done. I’m embarrassed by some of the other Bernie supporters — the ones who’ve gone from giddy enthusiasm over his early success to anxiety that he might not succeed in his campaign, and then continued down the road to conspiracy theories. I’m embarrassed by the ones who’ve effectively given up on Bernie and are trying to find ‘the real reasons’ for what they assume will be his defeat. The ones who’ve become bitter and hateful. The ones who claim there is no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Trump/Cruz/Rubio. The ones who’ve decided they won’t vote if Bernie isn’t the nominee — or will write in Bernie’s name.

bernie again

Here’s a true thing: if you refuse to cast a ballot in the general election this November, you’ve still effectively voted. If you write in a name other than the nominee as a protest, you’ve effectively voted for the candidate of the other party. Here’s another true thing: if you don’t vote, you suck.

You can say your decision NOT to vote — or to write in Bernie’s name — is a matter of principle, and I’ll totally understand that. I’m completely in favor of standing up for your principles — when the only person to suffer for your principles is you. I’m less sanguine when other people have to suffer. I have refused to accept paying gigs when I felt it would require me to violate my principles — even when it meant literally living on rice and beans for a period of time. The only person that hurt was me. But I’m not sure I’d have done that if I’d had a family to support. Nobody else should have to suffer for my principles.

I supported Bernie in Iowa based on my principles and what I believe are Bernie’s principles. If he doesn’t win the nomination (and I’m not even close to accepting that), then I’ll do what I expect Bernie will want me to do — I’ll work hard to defeat the Republican candidate. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, then I’ll work for her. Any supporter of Bernie Sanders who’d refuse to do that — well, I’d wonder about their principles.

pull the car in the garage

— Did you hear, then? Trump won in Nevada.
— Fuck me with a chainsaw.
— Yeah, I hear that’s his new interrogation plan. Waterboarding? That’s for sissies.
— That’s really it, isn’t it.
— What’s really it?
— That’s why people are voting for him. They’re frustrated and angry, so they’re voting for a bully. They want somebody who thinks waterboarding doesn’t go far enough.
— I don’t know. I don’t know if people really that angry.
— Have you seen a Trump rally? On television.
— Well…
— Guy heckled Trump at a rally, Trump said “I’d like to punch him in the face.”
— Yeah, well, I’m not saying…
— The crowd cheered. This fucking guy, he’s running for president, says he wants to punch a protester. In the face. And the crowd cheered.
— Yeah. But what I’m saying is…
— The crowd cheered, dude. Trump wants to punch a guy in the face and the…
— You keep interrupting me, I’ma punch you in the face.
— See? That’s it, right there. That’s why they’re voting for Trump. So what were you gonna say?
— Okay, first, we’re talking about Republicans here. Not everybody.
— True.
— Second, yeah, they’re frustrated to the point of rage. It’s frustrage.
— Frustrage.
— But it’s not about anything in specific. It’s free-floating frustrage. For twenty-five years or so the Republican party has been selling their people the idea that government can’t be trusted. That science can’t be trusted. That educators can’t be trusted. That politicians can’t be trusted. That the only things they can trust are Jeebus, guns, and business leaders.
— That whole ‘United States ought to be run like a business’ bullshit.
— Exactly. So Republicans kept electing people who didn’t believe in government or science or education. And guess what?
— I don’t want to guess.
— Go head, guess.
— I’m not guessing.
— Things got worse.
— That’s what I would have guessed.
— Things got worse and ordinary Republicans became resigned to things being worse, until they eventually said ‘fuck it.’
— Fuck it?
— That’s what they said. There’s a Willie Nelson story…I don’t know if it’s true or not.
— All Willie Nelson stories are true.

Republicans think America is a garage fire.

Republicans think America is a garage fire.


— Yeah, well, Willie…you know how he spent years being either rich or flat broke, right?
— Yeah.
— So he was rich. Had him a nice house, new car, all that. And he’s at this party, right?
— Willie Nelson is always at a party, even when he’s by himself.
— So he’s at this party and he gets a phone call from his nephew. He says…maybe it was a cousin. Or was it his agent?
— Does it matter? Willie’s at a party and he gets a phone call.
— He gets a phone call and his nephew or whoever says “Uncle Willie, your house is on fire.” Willie says, “Is everybody okay?” The cousin says everybody’s fine. Willie says, “What about my new car?” The cousin or his agent says, “Your car’s fine.” And Willie says…Willie, he knows he’s going to be broke again…Willie, he says, “Well, fuck it. Pull the car in the garage.”
— I don’t get it.
— He says, “Pull the car in the garage.”
— Yeah, I don’t get it.
— He knows he’s going to be broke again, so he says ‘fuck it’. He might as well be well and truly broke.
— So you think the people voting for Trump are saying ‘fuck it, pull the car into the garage’?
— Yeah. Kinda. You know. Burn it all down, start over.
— You really think that?
— I don’t know. Sorta kinda.
— Pull the car in the garage
— Yeah. I don’t know. What do you think?
— It’s not the stupidest thing you’ve ever said.
— That’s a low bar to meet.
— You think he’ll get the nomination, Trump?
— Don’t know. Maybe. Probably.
— You think he can get elected?
— No fucking way.
— But what if he does?
— Never happen.
— But what if it does?
— Then I guess it’s our turn to pull the car into the garage.

Editorial Note: How do you get to Trump? Like this.

doing democracy

Well, we did it. Last night Iowa did democracy. Okay, yes, the Iowa caucus is an antiquated, massively inconvenient, perversely idiosyncratic political system. In action, it feels almost tribal — like we’re only a few steps away from folks in animal skins, squatting around a fire, raising their hands and grunting to signify approval or disapproval.

We’re talking basic, precinct-level democracy here, folks. Even the concept of a precinct is old-fashioned. The term comes from the Medieval Latin precinctum, which referred to an enclosure or boundary line. Precinctum itself is the joining of the prefix prae– (meaning ‘before’) and cinqulum — a girdle or swordbelt. How cool is that?

In modern electoral terms, a precinct is a predetermined boundary creating the smallest geographical unit used for tallying election results. In Iowa, we have 1681 voting precincts. Rural precincts can be pretty big, but in the cities they’re often composed of just one or two neighborhoods. They’re personal. You attend a caucus with your neighbors — the people you most often see out shoveling their sidewalks or buying beer at the market. The caucuses are personal and they’re public; there is no secret ballot in a Democratic party caucus. Everybody there sees who you support.

Getting in line.

Getting in line.

Here’s another thing: each of those 1681 precincts hold two caucuses; one for Democrats and one for Republicans. That’s 3,362 separate caucuses. And they’re run by volunteers. Each party in each precinct has an unpaid precinct captain and a handful of volunteer precinct workers.

I live in a fairly middle class, fairly white, fairly dull suburb of Des Moines. There’s about 2,500 people in my precinct. Last night around twelve percent of them showed up at the Democratic caucus. That may not sounds like much, but a caucus has a lot going against it. It’s a time-consuming gig, it’s held on a Monday night, they don’t serve alcohol, and this year it was held during a blizzard warning (happily, the blizzard slowed down and didn’t hit until this morning). So 12% is a good turnout for a caucus.

The Democratic caucus was held in the cafeteria of a local elementary school; the Republican caucus was held at a Baptist church — read what you want into that. People were already lined up when I arrived (got there around 6:30, half an hour before the caucus was scheduled to begin). Even before I got inside the school doors, the line snaked out down the sidewalk and around the corner.

The line grows longer.

The line grows longer.

It was a nice, orderly line — until you get through the cafeteria doors. That’s where the madness begins. It’s pretty simple if you’re already registered to vote as a Democrat. You just sign in and go find the cookies and brownies. But those poor bastards who 1) have recently moved and aren’t registered in that precinct, 2) or haven’t registered to vote at all, 3) or were registered as a Republican but want to switch to Democrat, they all have to fill out paperwork while the rest of us went to work on the snacks.

Once that fuss was dealt with, we had to elect a permanent caucus chair. That thing I mentioned earlier? You know, about this thing being run by volunteers? This is a perfect example. The precinct captain who has gotten everybody in the cafeteria and made sure they’re all registered, he (in my precinct it was a guy), his first order of business is to ask if anybody else wants his job. He’s just the temporary chair, and the caucus needs to elect a permanent precinct chair to oversee the caucus.

The room slowly begins to fill, and folks fill out registration forms.

The room slowly begins to fill, and folks fill out registration forms.

Seriously. At that point anybody who’s in the room can stand up and try to convince the people there to cede all control to him. In my precinct (and in probably ever other precinct) everybody pretty much agreed they didn’t want to deal with that, so the temporary chair was approved to become the permanent chair.

Then we had to count ourselves. I know. You’d think maybe they’d just count the names of the folks who’d signed in on the voter rolls, but no — we had to do an old school hand count. Literally. It began in one corner of the room; everybody had to raise their hand, one at a time, and count off. “One.” “Two.” “Three.” And so on. It sounds stupid and inefficient, but it actually went smoothly.

There were three hundred and twelve of us. Old folks, a few young couples with infants in carriages, some middle-aged professionals, a smattering of working folks, a few college students, one old guy with a cane who was a proud Korean War veteran, some young adults for whom this was clearly their first presidential election. Probably 80% were white. I’m guessing the average age was probably somewhere in the mid-to-late 30s. It seemed pretty representative of the neighborhood.

The cookies and pastries are discovered -- and at this point I forgot to keep taking photographs.

The cookies and pastries are discovered — and at this point I forgot to keep taking photographs.

Then we got down to the actual physical caucusing. And I mean physical. Everybody had to actually stand up (which was sort of a relief after sitting so long at cafeteria tables designed for elementary school children) and move to a designated spot. Hillary folks to that corner, Bernie folks to another, O’Malley folks to a third corner. This was the first test of the evening. A candidate has to have the support of at least 15% of the caucus goers in order to be considered a viable candidate. O’Malley had maybe eight supporters. Not nearly enough.

The chair designated thirty minutes for folks to persuade the O’Malley people to stand with another candidate. It took about five. Most of his supporters went to the Hillary corner. I’m not saying the fact that the Hillary folks had provided the best snacks influenced that decision, but the muffins disappeared pretty quickly at that point. We were supposed to use the rest of the half hour to try to persuade folks who supported a different candidate to shift their alliance, but it was really clear that nobody was interested in switching.

At that point we counted ourselves again, this time according to candidate preference. It was the same process. You count off and raise your hand. The Hillary folks counted off first. Two hundred and thirty-four. Bernie could only muster seventy-eight. It didn’t matter that much though, since the Democratic is all about determining the number of delegates to the statewide convention. In the end, my precinct will send five delegates for Hillary and three for Bernie.

Overall, as you probably know, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders ended the caucus in a statistical tie. The New York Times has published a map showing the results from each individual precinct. It shows broad support for both candidates in urban, suburban, and rural precincts. It’s really a pretty remarkable result — more encouraging for Bernie than for Hillary, I think, but demonstrating that Democrats have a pair of strong candidates. I also hope that map suggests that whichever candidate wins the nomination will have the support of the entire Democratic party.

For me personally, this was the coolest thing about last night’s caucus. After the final count, everybody applauded. Everybody. Hillary folks, Bernie folks, disenfranchised O’Malley folks — we all stood up and spontaneously applauded. Nobody was angry, nobody felt excluded, nobody pouted. And best of all, during the actual caucusing nobody had attacked or insulted or denigrated the other candidate. As we walked out of the little cafeteria, everybody seemed cheerful and hopeful.

We’d done democracy, and it felt good.

a few random lunchtime thoughts on political crap

It’s OMG IOWA CAUCUS time. Local, national, and international news teams have taken every damned seat in every damned coffee shop, saloon, burger joint, and opium den in Des Moines. They’re swarming the city with all the desperate, unthinking energy of spawning salmon. They’re trolling for news, and it ain’t pretty. It makes it difficult to maintain a steady stream of thought. So I’m not even going to try.

Here’s the random crap that’s banging around in my head like a dried pea in a tin cup while I try to eat lunch.

Random Crap One: I am reliably informed that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is “is within striking distance” of the lead in the Republican race. He’s polling at six percent support. Six percent. And the news media is so frantic for ‘news’ they’ve decided that’s striking distance. Hell, the Zika virus is polling at seven percent. More people would rather be infected with Zika than have Christie as President of These United States.

Zika-carrying Aedes aegypti mosquito polls higher than Christie.

Zika-carrying Aedes aegypti mosquito polls higher than Christie.

Random Crap Two: I saw maybe three minutes of the most recent Republican Debate. Three minutes, one question. Nemesis Megyn Kelly asked Marco Rubio how he’d handle the problem of undocumented immigrants entering the U.S. This was (and I’m not making this up) Rubio’s response:

“I’m going to tell you exactly how we’re going to deal with it when I am president. Number one, we’re going to keep ISIS out of America.”

That’s exactly how he’s going to deal with undocumented workers — by keeping ISIS out of America. There are plenty of under-employed white American terrorists looking for bird sanctuaries to occupy. We don’t need foreigners taking jobs that should rightfully go to decent, hard-working, well-armed Americans.

Marco Rubio's understanding of undocumented workers.

Marco Rubio’s understanding of undocumented workers.

Random Crap Three: Louis Gohmert, the human equivalent of the Zika virus (in that when he speaks, he’s capable of causing brain damage) informs us that evangelicals like Donald J. Trump because (and again, I’m not making this up) they’re…

“sick of the nation being fundamentally transformed away from being a Christian nation.”

Gohmert (who is engaged in a heroic quest to discover and exploit brave new worlds of stupid) has apparently read all the bad parts of Ivanhoe (or had somebody read it to him).

“Holy Mother,” said the monk, as he addressed the assembled knights, “I am at last safe and in Christian keeping!”

“Safe thou art,” replied De Bracy; “and for Christianity, here is the stout Baron Reginald Front-de-Boeuf, whose utter abomination is a Jew; and the good Knight Templar, Brian de Bois-Guilbert, whose trade is to slay Saracens—If these are not good marks of Christianity, I know no other which they bear about them.”

Good marks of Christianity, right there in the bloviating figure of Trump. An endorsement by Gohmert carries all the weight of an endorsement by Karl Turley (Karl works at the local Stop&Rob up the street — nice guy, flunked out of his first semester studying HVAC at the community college).

Random Crap Four: There’s a Super PAC called Black Americans for a Better Future. It’s described as “the first and only [Super PAC] dedicated to attracting African-Americans to the Republican Party.” Its goal is “to counter those liberal organizations that receive an inordinate amount of media attention and to present a counter narrative” to liberal groups. According to the group’s first speaker,

“Having well trained, credible, experienced African-Americans constantly challenging the liberal orthodoxy in the media will create a tectonic shift in the perception of the Republican Party within the Black community.”

Guess who  BAFBA is supporting. Go on, guess. No, not Donald Trump, are you crazy? No, they’re supporting Ted Fucking Cruz. Seriously, I’m not making that up. Does that sound crazy? Maybe this will help. This is the guy who created BAFBA:

Robert Mercer, founder of Black Americans for a Better Future. Honest.

Robert Mercer, founder of Black Americans for a Better Future. Honest.

You may have noticed that Robert Mercer is…well, white. In fact, every donor to BAFBA is equally white. Every single one. The donor pool for BAFBA is whiter than the Oscar acting nominees. Ted Fucking Cruz, I declare, wouldn’t it be great if a liar’s pants really did catch on fire?

Random Crap Five: Conservatives are upset that there are new Barbie dolls with new body shapes. Why are they upset? Because apparently it’s political correctness run amok. I’ve noticed that political correctness, when it’s not being jammed down throats, is always running amok. I don’t think it knows any other way to run.

American values under attack by ISIS Barbie

American values under attack by ISIS Barbie

It’s only a matter of time before Trump, Rubio, and Cruz compete to see who’ll work harder to keep the new Barbie dolls from crossing the border.

if you meet Bernie along the road…

I watched the Democratic debate last night. In almost every way, it was the same as the last Democratic debate, which was pretty similar to the Democratic debate that came before that. I find that sort of comforting. It means the candidates are mostly consistent.

The only real difference last night? Bernie’s poll numbers. He’s clearly gaining momentum. Which is mostly a good thing. Why mostly? I’m glad you asked.

Buddhists have a saying — they have a lot of sayings. So do the Irish, for that matter, they’re a grand folk for the sayings, and the Irish Buddhists, those people, you just can’t get them to shut the fuck up at all, at all. But this is the saying I’m talking about:

If you meet the Buddha along the road, kill him.

Obviously, that’s not meant to be taken literally. You don’t want to be killing the Buddha. You don’t want to be killing anybody, for that matter, along the road or off it. No, that saying is a metaphor, is what it is. Basically, what it means is this: the Buddha isn’t going to enlighten you. You have to do that on your own. It means the Buddha — any Buddha — is really just another bozo on the bus. Killing the Buddha means killing the idea that somebody — anybody — has all the answers. It means it’s okay to have heroes, but it’s necessary to remember that heroes are just as capable of fucking up as you are.

bernie_sanders_smile

Why am I nattering on about this stuff? Because I’m feeling the need to say this:

If you meet Bernie Sanders along the road, kill him.

See, you can get by with saying ‘Kill the Buddha’ because folks understand it’s a metaphor. You say ‘Kill Bernie’ and folks get pissed off. I’m saying this, though, because two weeks before the Iowa caucus I’m seeing a lot of this: ‘Only Bernie Sanders is telling the truth.’ And ‘Only Bernie Sanders can make meaningful change in America.’ And ‘Only Bernie Sanders can beat the Republicans.’ And ‘Only Bernie Sanders understands what Americans really need.’ And ‘Only Bernie Sanders is running a clean campaign.’

Now I need to say something else. I’m almost certainly going to support Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic caucus (I say ‘almost certainly’ because the caucus is still a couple of weeks away and it’s theoretically possible that Bernie might say or do something in those two weeks that will change my mind). I’m going to support him because I’ve been a liberal my entire life and his views more closely resemble my own.

But Bernie is not the Buddha. I’m a pragmatic liberal. As a liberal I love Bernie’s views and ideas, but as a pragmatist I’m aware that some of his ideas just aren’t feasible. They just aren’t going to happen. For example, his healthcare plan.

In concept, it’s brilliant. Health care as a right, and bugger the insurance companies.Who could be against that? I mean, aside from insurance companies, and I’m of the opinion they can go fuck themselves in the neck. But how’s he going to actually do that? How’s he going to fund it?

Bernie’s plan requires the individual states to end their current ACA exchanges AND all private health insurance. It then requires the federal government to contribute the funding it would have paid to that state under the ACA into what he calls an American Health Security Trust Fund. That fund would then be combined with a new payroll tax on every taxpayer, AND a healthcare tax on folks making a lot of money, AND a surcharge tax on folks making even more money, AND a transaction fee on Wall Street trading.

I’m also troubled by the fact Bernie suggests his plan will end all the wrangling about care and treatment. That just ain’t so. Instead of private insurance companies making decisions about which treatments and procedures are acceptable, you’d have the government making those decisions. There’s still going to be somebody there “Dude, no way we’re going to pay for your acupuncture.” The difference — and yes, it’s a big, meaningful difference — is the decisions won’t be made on the basis of profit. Instead they’ll be made on keeping costs down. But it’ll still means some folks will be denied treatment they want or need.

Again, I love the fundamental idea. A single payer system would improve life for a LOT of U.S. citizens. But I want to know how Bernie’s going to get Congress to go along with all those taxes and fees and surcharges? Obama’s plan was modest in comparison, and we’ve seen how much resistance it’s still getting. I just don’t see any way Bernie can implement his plan unless there’s a radical shift in Congress — which is highly improbable.

Hillary’s health care plan, on the other hand, is basically just a series of incremental improvements and expansions on the existing ACA. That’s a good thing, to be sure, but it’s not the sweeping change that Bernie promises. I’d much rather see Bernie’s plan put into place, but I think her plan has a better chance of actually being implemented.

I think there’s a decent chance Bernie can win the nomination, and if he does I think there’s a very good chance he’d be elected. But as a pragmatic liberal it’s important for me to acknowledge that President Sanders won’t be able to do all the things he wants to do. He won’t be able to create a single payer health care system. He won’t be able to break up the big banks (and, in fact, his ‘plan’ to do so isn’t really a plan at all — it’s the concept of a plan).

So if I think Hillary’s plan is more feasible, and if I don’t think there’s any way Bernie can actually do the things he wants to do, why am I supporting Bernie instead of Hillary?

buddha smiling

Because he’s arguing in favor of values rather than policies. I support him because he wants to do those things. I’m supporting Bernie despite the fact that I’m a pragmatic liberal. Electing somebody who wants to make those changes might be a step in the direction of creating an electorate more willing to elect a Congress that would make those chances possible.

As a pragmatic liberal, I believe Hillary has a better chance to implement her plans and incrementally improve life for most Americans. As a pragmatic liberal, I think she’s likely to do better in the general election.

But I support Bernie because it’s really hard to kill the Buddha.

 

Editorial Note: If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, I’ll happily support Hillary. I like her. Her incrementalist approach to policy won’t create any sweeping change, but even small improvements are worthwhile. And she consistently addresses local issues that get ignored in a national campaign. Perhaps the very best part of the debate last night was when Hillary, in her closing statement, brought up the appalling situation of Flint, Michigan.

natural born fuckwit

Sweet Jeebus in the swampland, have seen this? Have you seen THIS? No? Then see it right now. Go on…watch it. Go on…I’ll wait.

Ted Fuckin’ Cruz, I declare. Okay, first, we don’t actually see him kill a duck. Oh sure, he’s out there in the woods, wearing camo face paint (on account of you don’t want to take any chances when going toe-to-toe with a duck), and toting a shotgun. And yeah, he’s out there with that lunatic Old Testament-looking motherfucker who could probably paralyze a mallard just by looking at it. But do we Ted Fuckin’ Cruz actually put a duck to death?

No, we do not. I think we can all agree that TFC would kill any number of ducks — with his bare hands and teeth, if need be — for the chance to park his portly ass in the Oval Office. But this commercial does not, with any conviction or credibility, demonstrate the man’s duck-killing prowess.

Does this disqualify him from becoming President of These United States? No, it does not. The U.S. Constitution does not require the president to be a master of venery. It does, though, require the president to be ‘a natural born citizen.’ That’s right, we’re talking Article II, Section 1, baby.

NaturalBornCitizenClause

Donald J. Trump, who may be the only person campaigning for the presidency who is more odious that Ted Fuckin’ Cruz, is making hay (not actual hay; metaphorical hay, although actual hay IS actually made — I mean, you’d think it was just grown, right? But no, there’s a multi-step process involved in the making of…never mind. Tangent.) over whether the fact that Cruz was born in Canada disqualifies him as a legitimate candidate.

Being a gigantic fuckwit disqualifies Ted Fuckin’ Cruz from being president, but that Canadian business? Not so much. The specific question may not have been officially adjudicated, but it’s almost universally accepted that a child born anywhere to a citizen of a recognized nation is automatically considered a citizen of that nation (and often, as was the case with TFC, a citizen of the nation in which the wee bugger was born).

The only reason this is an issue — the only reason — is because there are no Republicans saying “Oh c’mon, are you kidding me?” when the question of TFC’s citizenship is raised. Not one. On account of Ted Fuckin’ Cruz is pretty much hated by his colleagues (see that earlier reference to being a gigantic fuckwit).

Having spent his entire short Senatorial career buggering up the Senate has left TFC friendless. Ain’t nobody sticking up for him, even against the most absurd accusations delivered by the most absurd accuser.

Ted Fuckin' Cruz defends himself against The Giant Head of Trump.

Ted Fuckin’ Cruz defends himself against The Giant Head of Trump.

The ducks have come home to roost. I’d feel a bit sorry for the guy, except that he’s Ted Fuckin’ Cruz. He’s earned it.