The New Amerikan Way

Pick which lies you believe to support your views. Blame others for whatever you feel is wrong with your life. Pick a team and your adversary. Hyper generalize to fit your argument. Believe you are always right and they are always wrong; that yours is the righteous cause and theirs is ignorant at best, demonic at worst. Dismiss evidence that doesn't validate your opinion, but cite anything that does. Tolerate aberrant behavior or speech as long as it comes from your team. Back the opinions or actions of those who advance your narrative of the day, even if they are out to destroy you in the long run. Put people into one of only two categories, and use your demeaning labels at every opportunity. Gloat when they lose; claim victory when you haven't won. If you can't win the argument then argue a different point, or assault or threaten the individual, or just make up stories. Say things to others in social media in ways you would never say in person. Insult people you do not know because, well, just screw them. Make sure you share images that tell everyone how formidable you are, that you're no one to mess around with. And, by all means, don't try to understand the other viewpoints, and never compromise no matter how much compromise makes sense. Never question whether you are helping the situation, or are part of the problem. Learn to work the saxophone. I play just what I feel. Drink Scotch whiskey all night long. And die behind the wheel. They got a name for the winners in the world. I want a name when I lose. They call Alabama the Crimson Tide. Call me Deacon Blues.*

*From Steely Dan's Deacon Blues

Obama Cannot Fly

by Tom Hagy

The hyper and unrelenting criticism of President Obama tends to crawl under my skin and burn. I try to figure out why this is. I don't know the guy. He's not my brother or best friend. So why do I feel defensive? I think I've reached one conclusion: The hyper criticism of President Obama is a huge part of what is holding our country back.

I say this because it means that there are those with considerable power who will do anything to deny him a success, or a so-called legacy, when their legacy, like that of Mitch McConnell, will be that they stopped the country from making progress in a unified way and encouraged us all to hate each other.

I say this because President Obama was expected not only to replace millions of jobs, but add millions of jobs, something I continue to maintain is the job of corporations. That is, unless he wanted to go all FDR and create jobs programs to build bridges, tunnels, subways, roads, dams, etc. How long does anyone think a proposal like that would have survived?  Mitch McConnell would have planted his noggin across a railroad track to stop that train from leaving the station.

I say this because as I now see the GOP talking about how to provide healthcare to all Americans and fix Medicare, it makes me sad that our leaders could not have worked together for these eight years. Instead of Tip O'Neill who worked well with President Reagan, we got Mitch McConnell who vowed to halt President Obama at every turn. People suffer, but the politicians feel nothing.

I say this because President Obama was expected to perform like a super hero or, as Morning Joe Scarborough so crassly put it, like a "Black Jesus." He was expected to govern peaceful Muslims and work with Muslim nations, yet call them all terrorists and followers of an evil cult. His refusal to refer to "radical Islam" made me proud, but people used it, ridiculously, to paint him as a terrorist sympathizer, or, as Trump called him, the founder of ISIS. To me it's like calling rape a "date rape," or slavery "white slavery." These modifiers, well, modify the noun as something more or something less.

Tweet First, Ask Questions Later

I say this because Trump will say the most outrageous things, yet it's Obama's carefully measured words that draw criticism for not tickling us the way Trump can. For example: After Fidel Castro rolled up like a Cohiba and even a butane torch couldn't re-ignite him, Obama preferred to say Castro will be judged by history, but Trump enthusiasts loved his the-evil-dictator-is-dead tweet.

Anything I know about Castro is bad shit. He was a dictator who oppressed his people, aligned with the Soviet Union, and survived for decades despite hundreds of U.S.-backed or coordinated assassination attempts. My knowledge is shallow but 100% negative. I am uninformed on this guy's life and any contributions, other than sending doctors to poorer nations, maybe, he may have made for the good of the world.

Here is my problem with praise for the dictator-is-dead approach and comments about Obama's so-called milk-toast message: People expect POTUS to piss on the grave of one brother, while trying to establish peaceful relations with the other. Try it sometime. Your idiot friends may laugh, but it will not end well.

It's pretty much how he has had to operate for eight years. He was criticized for being divisive, when what his existence did was shine a light on the bigotry that already put a crack in our country. We just threw a rug over it. Obama's biggest crimes where being black and educated. When many in the country should have seen him as a hero raised by a hard-working single mother and grew up to be not just someone without a criminal record, but someone who reached the highest office in the land.

Yeah, Trump's bumper sticker communications style is attractive and funny and sassy, but it's also thoughtless and incendiary and divisive. I like good comedy maybe even more than the next guy. But remember, Trump is the same guy who said President Obama was a Kenyan, that President Obama founded ISIS, that a sitting president should be able to sue the media for libel, that muslims should register, that maybe the Second Amendment people will take care of Hillary, that women should be punished for having an abortion, that if chosen as the GOP candidate he would show his taxes, that the electoral college is anti-democratic, that the voter process is rigged, that Putin should find Hillary's emails -- and then what happened?

Of course, my opinion doesn't matter. In Trump's mind, if the President does it (not the current one, but the next one), it must be legal and if you disagree with him or report on him in a critical way you will be asked to leave the rally in need of extra security (Katy Tur) because of this thuggish followers, and, depending on your faith, the country.

But if you take scissors to Trump's tweets and rearranged all the words I am sure we could write a positive message to all Americans from our PEOTUS. Maybe he just delivered them all out of order.

Trump is a thug. Finding fault in a peaceful, thoughtful message from President Obama while praising Trump's tweet, of all things, is illustrative of the kind of benefit of the doubt Trump gets. President Obama just got doubt. From day one. And it isn't him I feel sorry for. It's us.

Double Your Election Pleasure: Gag Future Demagogues

What is the harm in double-checking the vote count in states where the outcome was so close, and where there is evidence that we should?

If the vote count is accurate, then all we did was perform due diligence, just as any good businessman (ah-hem) would perform.

If the vote count is accurate, then all we did was follow up on the argument from the most powerful man in the world and his adamant followers who claimed voter fraud was rampant.

If the vote count is accurate, maybe the next time some demagogue runs for office in part based on the argument that the system is rigged against him, despite all evidence to the contrary, we will have confidence to tell him and his followers that he is simply wrong.

The Age of Irony in America

The irony is everywhere.

Compare Trump's conduct to the teachings of Christ.

Compare the respect for strong independent people with the constant need to blame someone other than yourself.

Compare the scream-bloody-murder patriotism of Trump followers with their silent approval of Russia's role in the election.

Compare the "love your neighbor" embroidered pillows with the hatred of anyone not like them -- usually people they've never met.

And by "them" I only mean those who decide to close their eyes. Brilliant open minded kind people live in flyover states. Bet they grind their teeth at night.

Despite my best efforts I truly have a difficult time respecting people who voted for Trump, as if he's just another conservative Republican I don't like, not because of my personal concerns, but because of my concerns for others.

Which means if so-called educated liberal elites have a tough time understanding flyover states, they have zero idea what motivates me.

A huge part of what I care about IS them. Like workers in the coal industry. Do you really think anyone is going to bring that back? They have been duped and it pisses me off.

Probably the most coherent explanation of why people are voting for Trump

By Tom Hagy 

It's not so much him, but it's their way of expressing their frustration. I get that now. And I agree with many of the reasons behind the frustration. I think their response -- supporting Trump -- is misplaced, horribly misplaced, and the wrong answer, the horribly dangerously wrong answer, but it's a powerful message.

Maybe liberals like me should focus less on what a wing nut Donald Trump is, because deep in my heart I believe that's what he is, and more on why people are exasperated. Maybe all of us -- especially legislators -- need to focus less on blaming and blocking, and more on what can be done.

My response is pick the candidate for President whose head isn't a bag of cats, then focus on your congressman, senator, governor, state and local reps. Speak out as passionately about issues as you do the presidential candidates. Do something, no matter how small, with your time, your money, your livelihood, your voice, that makes things better.

Still, for anyone who opposes Trump and whose left eyebrow is permanently cocked in the upright position, like mine, here is how Chris Matthews put it this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

"A lot of this support for Trump, despite all his flaws, which he displays regularly, is about the country. Patriotic feelings people have. They feel the country has been let down. That our elite leaders, on issues like immigration. They don't regulate any immigration it seems. They don't regulate trade to our advantage, the working man's and the working woman's advantage. They take us into stupid wars. 'Their kids don't fight but our kids do.' It's patriotic. They believe in our country."

And by elite leaders, that includes Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals. My conclusion: Trump is a great message, but a terrible candidate. So let's put our energy on the future and not on canonizing one person and demonizing the other and calling each other idiots. [Stage Direction: Wipe a tear, queue the patriotic music, unfurl the flag . . . wait, is that guy taking a knee!? Oh. No, he dropped his iPhone.]

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe

How Voter ID Laws Can Have the Effect of Racism, Whether You’re a Bigot or Not

By Tom Hagy

ON July 29, 2016, a federal appeals court struck down a North Carolina Voter ID Law designed to make African Americans jump through hoops to cast a vote. The case is called NAACP v. McCrory, and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I was thrilled. “Hey," I thought "good news!” While others shared in my glee, some did not.  “Hey,” one of my friends commented, “I have to show my ID to vote in Ohio. So what’s your point, Tom?” It's a valid question, so I thought I’d share what the opinion said and the underlying facts, perhaps with color commentary, to explain not my point, but that of a panel of federal judges.

Here are some things you need to know, if you don’t already:

• The Voting Rights Act of 1965 required certain southern states to pre-clear any changes to voting rules. Why? Because of historical efforts by whites to keep blacks from voting. “North Carolina has a long history of race discrimination generally and race-based vote suppression in particular,” the Fourth Circuit wrote.

• Since 2000, and most definitely in presidential election years like 2008 (when our nation’s first African American was voted into office), African American registration and voting surged, so much so that North Carolina actually became a swing state. During 2000 and 2012 – during which identification was not required to vote – African American voter registration swelled by more than 50%, and voter turnout jumped from 42% in 2000 to 72% in 2008.

• In North Carolina, to be African American pretty much means you’re also a Democrat. Not always, but really, really often. Really, really often.

• On June 25, 2013, in a case called Shelby County, the U.S. Supreme Court said these pre-clearance requirements were outdated and struck them. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. Again, that was on June 25, 2013. (RGB commented that getting rid of the law was like saying you can put your umbrella away when it is raining because you’re not getting wet.)

• On June 26, 2013, otherwise known as “the following day,” the North Carolina General Assembly (predominantly white and Republican) passed SL-2013-381 which eliminated the means by which certain North Carolinians (especially black citizens) registered and voted. In justifying these changes the state cited rampant voter fraud and the need for efficiency and consistency.

Now, let’s do a shallow dive into how African Americans in North Carolina vote – according to data the GOP-led Legislature requested – and what the Voter ID Law did.

African Americans disproportionately:

• Lack current drivers’ licenses (not everyone can get them, especially poor people). The Voter ID Law made them mandatory, but rejected other forms of government-issued ID that African Americans disproportionately do possess, such as expired drivers’ licenses, or other state-issued IDs, expired or not. The Legislature attempted to exclude IDs issued for public assistance, an ID disproportionately held by African Americans. 

• Use provisional out-of-precinct ballots, so the General Assembly blocked their use.

• Utilized early Sunday voting, so the General Assembly wanted to eliminate it, citing the need for consistency, yet left its use up to each county’s discretion to do whatever it wanted.

• Take advantage of same-day registration. Citing the administrative difficulty of administering this, the General Assembly banned it.

What the Court Held

The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which sits in Richmond, Va., is the appeals court above the U.S. District Courts in the states in the Fourth Circuit, which includes North Carolina, and directly below the U.S. Supreme Court. When the Court of Appeals rules it does so with three-judge panels. The next step is to ask a whole bank of judges from the court to reconsider what the three-judge panel held, but failing that you have to go see The Supremes, if they will have you, baby love.  

In the case on appeal, the District Court held that the Legislature did not enact the new voter laws with “discriminatory intent,” and so ruled in favor of the new rules. But, the Court of Appeal determined, the district judge “missed the forest for the trees.” The forest being, the panel explained, the “inextricable link between race and politics” in North Carolina. Simply put, to be black in North Carolina pretty much means you’re a Democrat; to be Republican generally means you’re white.

Therefore, the court held, in North Carolina, restricting the voting mechanisms and procedures that most heavily affect African Americans will benefit one political party and disadvantage the other.

The timing of the Voter ID Law was most telling. The U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the Voting Rights Act requirement that certain southern states, you know, kind of check in before making any changes to voting rules, on June 25, 2013. The following day, on June 26, 2013 (did I mention that was the following day?) the Legislature acted with the swiftness of Olympic multi-gold-medalist Usain Bolt, something rarely seen in state houses, and certainly not seen in the U.S. Congress (unless they are giving themselves a raise). The white-Republican-dominated Legislature leaped into action with break-neck speed to pass laws designed to restrict the African-American vote. Normally changes like this require public scrutiny and debate and, well, time, but the efficiency-minded GOP leadership made sure there would be none of that.

“Instead, this sequence of events -- the General Assembly’s eagerness to, at the historic moment of Shelby County’s issuance, rush through the legislative process the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow -- bespeaks a certain purpose,” the Court of Appeals wrote.

Could this have just been a coincidence? Could this have just been an unintended consequence of good intentions? I mean, the GOP said it was fighting voter fraud, which is bad. And making voting more efficient, which is good. Right?

The answer would be “golly no.” The court noted that the Republican Legislature itself requested data on the methods by which different races voted. And, as the GOP’s luck would have it, white people and black people in North Carolina, generally speaking, have different voting methods. With that knowledge in hand the Legislature went on to target African-American voters with “almost surgical precision” and attempted to justify them as “cures for problems that did not exist,” e.g. rampant voting fraud, voter confusion and inefficiency, the appellate panel found.

Just ‘Preferences and Conveniences’

The District Court had said that the provisions eliminated happened to be those that were merely “preferred” or were simply “more convenient” for African American voters. The Fourth Circuit dispatched that characterization with a single sentence:  “Since African Americans in the state are more likely to move, be poor, less educated, have less access to transportation, and experience poor health – these were not mere preferences, but necessities.”

Addressing the state’s voter fraud justification, the Fourth Circuit said the state failed to present a single instance of in-person voter fraud. Yet, the court said, the Legislature only required photo ID for in-person voting, and not absentee voting. There was evidence of alleged mail-in absentee voter fraud, which is used disproportionately by white voters, yet no photo ID was required to vote by mail. Further underscoring the state’s weak rationale, the Voter ID Law said that if you didn’t have a drivers’ license you could apply for a free voter card using two of the very same forms of ID excluded by the law. Freaky. The ID requirement, which made African Americans jump over multiple hurdles to get to a ballot box, was enacted to address “irrational restrictions” unrelated to combating fraud, the Fourth Circuit found.

In two instances, the Legislature even ignored the recommendations of the state Election Board. 

Arguing in favor of knocking out early voting days, the state said it wanted consistency among counties. It left the early voting decision to each county. That meant, the Fourth Circuit explained, that the counties would remain inconsistent. It also meant that suppressing black votes could be accomplished county-by-county, you know, where it's needed most. In some cases, African American churches run programs where they drive the elderly, the disabled, and the poor to the voting precincts. Can you imagine? Even the state Election Board wanted early voting days for efficiency purposes. But the Legislature struck them, an act the Fourth Circuit determined disproportionately hampered black voters. 

Same-day registration was difficult to administer, the state said. Probably so, but the state ignored alternatives that would have alleviated these headaches. The Election Board hailed same-day voting as a success and said that while there were some conflicts between same-day registration and mail verification, same-day “does not result in voters who are any less qualified to vote than traditional registrants.” It said that more than 97% of same-day registrations passed the mail verification process. The number could have been closer to 100% were it not for some counties delaying the process.

Arguing to eliminate out-of-precinct voting, the state said it wanted to move the law back to the way it once was. Realizing that "because we wanted to" wasn't a meaty argument, the state later concocted the argument that eliminating this method helped process elections more efficiently. Out-of-precinct voting is necessary for poorer people who have to move more often and cannot always physically get to their precinct to cast their vote. The court called the state’s argument both weak and an “after the fact rationalization," adding, “The state’s real motive was obvious."

As for the state’s decision to end pre-registration for young voters-to-be, the court called this “another troubling mismatch with [the state’s] proffered justifications.” The General Assembly “contrived a problem in order to impose a solution.” Too confusing for young voters? The only confusion cited was that of one Republican Senator’s teenage son. The District Court said this argument didn’t hold water and, in fact, made registration more complex and confusing. The Court of Appeal agreed.

What's the Deal?

So, is the GOP-controlled North Carolina General Assembly full of bigots? Nah. It was just using its power to keep itself in power. African-American voting rights were merely collateral damage.

To that point, the Fourth Circuit said it doesn’t think the General Assembly “harbored racial hatred or animosity,” but given its history, the surge in black voting, knowing that blacks are Democrats, and the speed with which the Generally Assembly built its barriers at the first opportunity to do so – the General Assembly used Bill SL-2013-381 to entrench itself by targeting black voters who would not vote Republican. “Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted discrimination.”

“Using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election. But intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose. This is so even absent any evidence of race-based hatred and despite the obvious political dynamics. A state legislature acting on such a motivation engages in intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.”

So where does that leave us? Well, the state isn’t giving up. It has asked the Supreme Court to freeze parts of the Fourth Circuit’s decision that trounced on what the state called a “common sense” model law that is being used without challenge by other states. And, according to CNN, the state has enlisted the help of a big gun in the world of Supreme Court argument: former Solicitor General Paul Clement.

CNN quoted election law expert Rick Hasen who explained in his Election Law Blog that because the state did not appeal the same-day voter registration and out-of-precinct voting, that those would remain in place for the upcoming election. He called that a win for the voters who challenged the law.   

Bottom Line

So the question was: “What’s your point, Tom?” 

Here are three:

#1. The Republican-controlled North Carolina Legislature saw what methods black voters used to vote and, because they are predominantly Democrats, put a law in place that eliminated those methods. That's a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. 

#2. You don’t get to block a race of people from voting so you can stay in power. I would say this extends beyond race. I don’t think the party in power should be permitted to enact laws that keep them in power. That's a decision for the electorate. 

#3. You don’t have to be racist to perform racist acts. In fact, you might argue that it’s better for someone to be quietly racist and do nothing to harm anyone, than someone who is not racist but merely acts like one by crawling over the backs of a racial group for their own gain.

Breaking Bad Jr.

Radnor, Pa.-- I was robbed by a five-year-old with a suction cup bow-and-arrow -- right in front of my house! His Pikachu t-shirt hanging down to his knees, he pointed one of his rubber-tipped missiles at my head and demanded I give him what remained of my Snickers bar. It was humiliating. I asked if he had peanut allergies and he responded with some language I'm sure I didn't know at that age. I surrendered my half-eaten treat and tried to go back into my house, but the cops detained me. "Me?" I protested, "What about little Hunger Games Dillinger over there? If you hustle you can catch him driving away in his electric mini-Jeep. It only goes three miles an hour. Think you can handle that, Deputy Donuts?!!" I learned, once again, that is no way to talk to law enforcement. . . . . Shortly I will crack under pressure and tell them I made the whole thing up. My life. You do NOT want my problems.

Who Counts Trump's Money?

By Tom Hagy

“I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza,” Trump said, according to [former Trump Plaza President Jack] O’Donnell. “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else.” [As reported by BuzzFeed.]


In his book, Trumped!: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump-His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall, O’Donnell alleged that Trump then said, “Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control… Don’t you agree?”

O'Donnell is someone I've met and respect.

Apparently, though, with his campaign under new management, Trump recently learned that African-Americans vote. His new hat says, "Black voters -- What in the hell do you have to lose?"

Frankentrump Reflection

By Tom Hagy

Those who have funded the GOP for their own gain, like the Kochs, built the lab where Frankentrump was constructed. Now they can't get him to read a teleprompter. Maybe they should display his speeches on mirrors.

Orange Trump Quote

Maybe We Need a Law Enforcement Brainstorm

I know. How about we stop killing people while arresting them. (Do I need to say 'especially black people'?!!!) 

Haven't our methods advanced since, I don't know, the earth cooled? Are there no non-lethal devices to disable and restrain and transport a suspect? 

Isn't there something between patta-cake and execution? Something that's safer for cops, too, other than pavement wrestling, Grand Theft Auto, and the OK Corral? 

Is the gun and the club all we've managed to come up with? Do we need more robots? More rope? More nets? More lassos and boleodoras? Is the Taser no longer a thing? Is there a pharmaceutical we might consider? Blow darts? Crippling sound and light waves? 

No. Seriously. I'm asking. 

What could possibly be halting our research into non-firearm solutions?