POLITICS AS UNUSUAL

(Image credit below*)


There is one thing upon which we can all agree: this has been the most divisive political period of any of our lifetimes.

I've been uncharacteristically restrained this election season, for several reasons. One is that there's been so much noise already, adding to it seemed futile. Another is that as much as it's been tempting to jump in and engage, I know what'll happen - the responses start coming in and soon it becomes a rabbit-hole (and as anyone who's followed my timelines knows, I have precious little free time). I also never imagined a certain candidate would get to this point in the election (as I'm sure is the case for many others).

I almost called this post "The Elephant in the Room" or "The 800-pound Gorilla in the Room" either of which would be fitting for different reasons (one is a Republican party reference, the other is...well, use your imagination).

While I've given "likes," "favorites" and few short comments and replies here and there that make my positions pretty clear, I'm finally going to share my views in detail because:

A. Some have been asking and are genuinely curious to hear my point of view.

B. This is my own blog and I'm allowed to do that (despite what the "stick to music" crowd may say).

I'm not forcing anything upon anyone. You don't have to read this. You can stop just like you can change the channel on your TV. If you disagree with my points (as some no doubt will), then I welcome you to respond respectfully, civilly and backed by genuine evidence. If your dissent fits this description, then feel free to share your views.

On the other hand, if you post a reaction typical of those found in comment sections - angry, defensive, vitriolic and insult ridden bursts of sarcasm, simply because my views don't match yours, then you'll be ignored and/or blocked. Again civility and evidence-based facts are key (sorry, but agenda-driven, innuendo-based websites like infowars.com or angrypatriotmovement.com doesn't count).

To those who say "Enough political posts, you're not changing anyone's mind." I say: Not true. Minds are changing regularly, more often for the better (hopefully that continues).

To those who say "We're screwed either way" I say: Wrong. There's a very false equivalence between the choices this November. We're definitely screwed in one scenario while in the other, there is a glimmer of hope.

What follows is a gathering of my current political thoughts. WARNING: It's long: 4000+ words. And that's the trimmed down version; it was nearly double (I guess I have a lot of thoughts). If this is too much for you to handle, you are advised to stop now and turn around at once. If not, please proceed ahead....

Hillary Clinton



My choice for President. There, I said it.

It was actually decided many months ago, during the primaries but I've kept quiet for reasons above. But it's not that I haven't been paying attention.

When I hear some describing Hillary Clinton, I honestly don't recognize what I'm hearing. It's as though we're talking about some character from a movie in which viewers have come away with radically different takeaways, much of it disparaging (usually on the right but also on the left) and usually taken radically out of context.

I understand she's imperfect as a human (as we all are) and flawed as a candidate (as most are). She has, at various times, adopted positions for political expediency, later to change them (i.e. gay marriage, law & order tactics, trade deals). I don't think this makes her evil; I think it makes her a capable politician, one who is much more needed now far more than a so called "outsider."

Sure, it feels good to some to bring in an an outsider. But sometimes doing what "feels good" in the short-term isn't in our best interest for the long term. Invading Iraq under false pretenses felt good to a great many Americans, in the sense of "taking action," and "kicking ass" (despite it being the wrong "ass"). It also led to the deaths of untold thousands of us (and far more civilians abroad), a disrupted economy, ISIS and more. The late period of the aftermath may not have been handled ideally, but you can’t blame those who tried to fix the mess many years later (i.e. President Obama) and gloss over those who caused it in the first place. And the blamers had no alternate solutions then, nor now. Regardless, it was Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who fabricated the reasons for war and lied to the World. They deserve blame far more than those who were fed false intelligence and initially supported it (including HRC).

Not only did invading Iraq feel good to a great many Americans, so did disparaging those against the war. Americans who objected to the war had their patriotism questioned with accusatory fingers. The French were ridiculed (remember Freedom Fries?).

Yet the American conscientious objectors, along with the French, were right all along. And I've never heard any of these patriotism-pushing, French-bashing tough talkers come forward, show genuine remorse and admit wrongdoing. It’s not unlike a certain male candidate who perpetuated the Birther controversy ("My people are looking into it. They can't believe what they're finding!”), who now wants to act like it never happened (along with so many other things).

Admittedly, Hillary’s been willing to compromise some principles to advance long term goals. She is ambitious (some might say “power-hungry”, I prefer “influence-seeking”). But these qualities are a requirement of the job and to believe otherwise is naive. They are descriptive of every President we’ve had, popular and unpopular. And after seeing what HRC has faced, from unprecedented scrutiny from congressional committees, a bruising primary battle, a rudely unhinged general election opponent and a marriage filled with publicly embarrassing personal troubles, I believe she's tough and has what it takes to not only be president, but to rise above her previous political limitations.

I cannot help but feel she's held to an immeasurably higher standard than pre-internet era politicians. Just take a look at the secrets of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Nixon beyond Watergate. Can you imagine any of them getting away with that today? Take a look at these factually documented Reagan scandals. Now imagine all that in the age of WikiLeaks (who'd likely have brought down Reagan). As far as the recent WikiLeaks emails, and her comment on having public vs private positions, I have no problem with it and it is very similar to a Catholic who is privately pro-life but doesn't feel that entitles him to enforce his personal beliefs on women's reproductive rights, such as Maria Cuomo.

I'd been a recent resident of New York State when HR Clinton became the US Senator. I shared the skepticism of her as a non-resident with no business here. I also watched as she dove in to the tasks at hand, toured repeatedly throughout the state (including Republican-heavy rural regions), worked beyond anyone’s expectations and won folks over. As an early advocate for the Highline Park in Manhattan, she stood against the Giuliani administration which had wanted to demolish the train tracks. I saw her handling of 9-11, a tragic event I witnessed firsthand And who can blame the Senator from New York at the time (HRC) for voting for a military response? She was misled, as we all were. I don’t blame George W as much as his cronies. Bush was a puppet; Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz were the masters of puppets (Metallica reference intended).

Let's look at some of the usual talking points against Hillary Clinton from the right (which overlap to the left as well). They include:

Benghazi - an incident in which no stone was left unturned (and no tax dollar left unspent) in investigations. While undeniably tragic, embassy attacks such as this are an unfortunate occurrence that never received the same outrage despite happening during prior administrations.

The Clinton Foundation - This organization has received an A rating from the non-partisan, independent monitor Charity Watch and claims that it is a corrupt, haven of conflict of interest have been debunked.

The emails - Like Benghazi, no stone has been left unturned or tax dollar unspent. While calls for discipline and tidying up are justified, the conclusion of "no criminal wrongdoing" seem factually grounded. And if you're using this as a source of outrage and insinuating there's a connection to the tragic loss of four Americans, then you must be equally outraged about the killing, maiming and wounding of thousands of Americans during the previous administration and the 22 Million emails that are missing, demanding answers and recognizing far greater breaches to national security. If not, you have no case and no right to use “Her emails” as a talking point.

Bill Clinton's sexual history - disappointing to say the least. However, it is unfair to place blame on Hillary Clinton for her husband's transgressions and her own reactions to them based on hurt and anger.

Now let's look at objections to Hillary on the left.

Some are still refusing to support her and threaten to "protest vote." I ask them to consider the following: When HRC leaned "centrist" in the '90s, there was a very different political mood, one that was much more conservative, fiscally and socially. Even within the Democratic ticket, the then Vice-Presidential spouse, Tipper Gore, had been on the PMRC - the commission to crack down on popular music , mainly for “obsene” lyrical content (how ironic that the mainstream news reports surrounding this election are filthier than the very lyrics the PMRC fought so hard to shield from America’s youth).

Today, things are different. Hillary will not have to compromise with right-leaning influences on the same level as before. Conservatism is in a strange quagmire socially (with some evangelicals actually rallying behind a potential "Pussy Grabber In Chief”), as well as fiscally. On this latter point, most voters on the left and right agree that there's too much concentrated wealth despite a willingness by right-leaning, economically challenged individuals to accept reinstating policies that led to to these situation. The overwhelming majority of citizens seem to want policies that reflect greater equality. Which brings to our next topic…

Bernie Sanders



Of course, he's no longer in the running, but his presence still looms large in the race.

I have great respect for Senator Sanders, the poster child (well, more like poster senior citizen) of economic equality. However, I had mixed feelings about his campaign. Some complain Hillary is too much of a "policy wonk,” (why this is seen as a bad thing, I’m still not sure). Conversely, I could have used many more details from the Sanders camp. I was even considering voting for him. However, his campaign consisted of too many simple ideological soundbites that are hard to disagree with, like the one in the photo. I still get notifications from his page and they're all filled with these likable, simple statements but no links to policy, plan or blueprints for long term implementation.

When Bernie finally got behind Hillary, some of his supporters wanted their donation money back. I think they should've asked for it much earlier, to be honest. This has much less to do with Bernie himself than with decisions by members of his staff - that’s a subject for a whole other blog - believe me, let's not even get started (OK, I’ll mention one such decision: sending Bernie on a dollar-gobbling, pollution-causing, donation-wasting private jet to say hello to the Pope in Rome without an official invitation and for no apparent reason other than a potential photo op that didn't happen).

Many complained Hillary received preferential treatment from the Democratic National Committee over Bernie Sanders. This I can understand. It's apparently true and resulted in a subsequent shakeup at the DNC. However, I don’t believe it's fair to completely throw HRC under the bus for this, especially when one takes into consideration the fact that the DNC was an organization Sanders avoided for years (he had been an Independent until just before his Presidential run), while, HRC had been a loyal, contributing member for decades. That’s just how things work in Politics sometimes.

Are you still with me? Politics is complex. It might be nice to believe in boasts like “We’re gonna be winning again! Everything’s gonna be great again! We’re gonna take our country back!” but I’m sorry, that’s short term, feel good bullshit, much like the hysteria surrounding the Iraq war. Don’t buy into it.

Anyhow… whatever happened in the past, Sen. Sanders is now on board with Hillary, as is Senator Elizabeth Warren and both have had a huge impact already. Look: Democrats Advance Most Progressive Platform in Party History.

In other words, Warren, Sanders and their colleagues will be chaperoning the prom of the new Clinton Administration. Bernie-fans, Green Party members and others: This is a good thing and you should be happy!

And if all that isn't enough for you, consider this whether you realize it or not, our Supreme Court has an impact far beyond the Presidency. And unless you understand how our Supreme Court works, who our Justices are, how they're appointed, who appointed them, what their ideological positions are, and how much weight they carry, you don't realize how this affects all of us. That's right, every system you may feel is "rigged," whether tax loopholes on mega-corporations, high student loan debt, unlimited political donations...whatever....That is all affected by the Supreme Court. It is also changeable through, yes, the Supreme Court. But if this election goes the other way, and your vote contributed to it, then you'll have no right to complain these or other issues you care about because they will grow immeasurably worse.

In other words, you don't have to be an enthusiastic Hillary supporter, to place a vote simply because of the implications of our Supreme Court.

Gary Johnson



Gary Johnson seems like a nice guy, however (and this is a HUGE however), if you were a Sanders supporter and are considering voting for him, you need to listen up.

Any left-leaning voter considering voting needs to consider that while GJ seems cool and believes in legal weed, which is supportable whether you're a stoner or not (disclaimer: I'm not), that comes along with his frightening Libertarian agenda including eliminating taxes for corporations (WTF?!), allowing you to be ripped off by opposition to Net Neutrality (complicated topic brilliantly explained by Jon Oliver) and halting all government action to address climate change. As well as many other reasons listed in the two links down below.

In addition, most of us know that GJ has knowledge deficits and was recently caught like a deer in the headlights unable to name a single world leader (a potential US President needs to be able to do that!). I can name some leaders (Merkel, Hollande, Modi, Abe, Abbas, Netanyahu, Erdogan). Does this mean I should run for President? (Kidding and not interested). :)

In all seriousness, I implore you to READ THIS and WATCH THIS. Please.



Jill Stein



As far as her policies and ideas, the following article sums it up far better than I could:
JILL STEIN'S IDEAS ARE TERRIBLE. SHE IS NOT THE SAVIOR THE LEFT IS LOOKING FOR.

Her chances of winning are literally impossible. She represents a waste of a vote - unthinkable given the potential consequences, ruining things for HRC the way fellow Green Party member Ralph Nader did for Gore in 2000. See how that worked out (I guarantee Gore wouldn't have had us invade Iraq and things would look, much, much different). So please, don't waste your vote.

The author of the article above, Jordon Weissman, has the guts to admit he was wrong on one point and take it back which, in my opinion, shows character and lends weight to his other arguments:
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE BACK ONE MEAN THING I SAID ABOUT JILL STEIN. (IT INVOLVES BEES.)


To recap: the image of Hillary as the embodiment of all things wrong with the system just doesn't add up. While she's made hard to forgive mistakes (as most politicians have) the notion of her as a heartless, conniving power-grabber who'll stop at nothing feels like a false caricature (and if you know anything about me, you’ll know I don’t rush to judgement or go with the mob-mentality).

Moving on: in a rare occurrence, the above description is quite accurate in terms of her general election opponent, a man (and I use the term loosely, as does this woman Republican Strategist Ana Navarro (whom I hope gets her own show one day). This "man's" demeanor, rhetoric and personal behavior is so despicable (and to use a topical word, deplorable), that it pains me to name him here and I will only do so by his initials, DJT.

DJT


(Image Courtesy of DONALD TRUMP SHUT UP)

Let's start with these wise words from the man I grew up watching deliver the news, Dan Rather, directed at Republicans who are only now denouncing and breaking with DJT: (click here for complete post)

He attacked Mexicans as rapists and murderers - but that was not enough.

He called for barring Muslims from entering the country - but that was not enough.

He incited violence in his rallies - but that was not enough.

He publicly mocked the disabled - but that was not enough.

He retweeted anti-Semitic memes - but that was not enough.

He demeaned a Gold Star Family - but that was not enough.

He insulted the press and railed against their Constitutional freedoms - but that was not enough.

He said that those who suffer from PTSD were weak - but that was not enough.

He had a long history of misogynist and sexist comments - but that was not enough.

He repeatedly lied on issues big and small - but that was not enough.

He refused to release his tax records or health records - but that was not enough.

He joked about violence against his political rival - but that was not enough.



The Hillary haters lose me when they say "Hillary lies!"

Ok. So you'll bring on DJT - someone who lies on the level of the Jim Carey character in Liar Liar?

"Bill's a pervert!"

Ok, so morality is important to you? Yet you support someone proving to have less morality than anyone we've seen at the Presidential level? (And don't bring up Bill Clintons behavior. Consensual activity doesn't count and neither do unproven allegations, of which DJT has a few of his own to answer for. And by the way, he's not running, she is).

Now...to briefly address those leaked comments that came to light late last week:

In all my years on tour buses and in backstage areas, I have never heard anything remotely as disturbing as this. Being around metal musicians and road crew, of course you're going to hear plenty of crass commentary and crude "guy talk" that - while I don't engage in it - I've never felt moralistic about, since it's generally no different than things you might hear in say, a raw HBO Comedy special. But this is another matter entirely; This is callous abuse of positions of power through unsolicited physicality. It is sickening. Billy Bush's encouragement and horny frat boy attitude towards the actress who greets them - she is working and has no choice but to smile and respond playfully - isn't much better. And it's not as though metal bands and crews are a bunch of choir boys, but from what I've seen, this sort of manipulative, predatory behavior isn't part of the equation and consent is a prerequisite for any naughtiness between guys and girls. If anyone backstage said what's on that tape, they would be shunned permanently.

As if any more proof was needed that this "guy," a term used loosely (what an insult to guys everywhere), with his normalizing of bigotry, brazen lies and now visibly documented behavior that is - to use a word he freely throws at women - disgusting - is unqualified to be invited to your house or my house, let alone The White House, this is it. Again, it's not about whether he used the P-word a long time ago (why do we even have to explain that?).

Use of the P-word alone would have been merely embarrassing; these comments, with their rape-culture validating demeanor, cross an unacceptable line (and again, don't bring up Bill Clinton. Someone else's wrongs don't make a right, it doesn't change a thing about DJT's behavior and his attempt to use BC's accusers from the past as pawns for a political stunt only makes things worse).

"I don't like either candidate!" and "Well, they're both bad!" is a futile, pointless position and false equivalence. Seriously. HRC has had her issues but they're at least in a zone comparable to other politicians we've had (Go back to the paragraphs above - near her picture - and click the links of prior Presidential scandals). DJT is worse on a level far beyond Hillary Clinton or any past US President. No comparison.

Everyday he makes news for something outrageous and unprecedented in US Politics, whether proclaiming wrongly imprisoned citizens should be executed, threatening to jail his opponent, citing documents proven to be falsified by Russia, no less! How did he get them? (Hey AngryPatriotMovement.com! Where are all the "Angry Patriots" on this? This is serious shit!) Who can even keep up?

Just today, it came out that he had barged in on Miss Teen USA contestants - some as young as fifteen - changing in their dressing room.

"He's not a typical politician" is not an excuse nor a reason to support him. And as if his disavowing of science isn't dangerous enough to disqualiy, his denial of the very things he said is.

If you were an Apprentice viewer and liked DJT (and I do admit having watched him at times for pure entertainment value, as one would enjoy an offensive comedian or cartoon character), that's one thing. But things are different now.

Those of us who choose to live healthy shouldn't have to be negatively impacted by your decision to live dangerously.
If you choose to let someone into your life who is a serial "user," one who bullies, cheats, lies, abuses authority and promotes himself as something he's not, that's your business. But the rest of us shouldn't have to be negatively impacted by YOUR bad decision.

Now before we go any further, a message to all my Republican and conservative leaning friends:

I can respect your differing views, even though they may not gel with mine. I know this is easier for us who lean "left" to support a candidate that is more in line with our positions. Growing up in an overwhelmingly liberal enclave (Berkeley, Ca), at one time I'd have loved to rebel and come on board with you guys/girls. However, my view of the world, gleamed through personal experience and my own research, just doesn't line up with conservative ideology. Still, we can agree to disagree and in some cases even agree.

Besides, look at it this way: this election season I am joining up with many, many Republicans! That’s right: high profile Republicans like former Ambassador Robert Blackwill, adviser to Bush 41 and 43 on national security; Ambassador Pete Teeley, who served under George H.W. Bush; Daniel Twining, former staffer to President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain and many, many more.

There are even such high profile Republican folks as George HW Bush and his own granddaughter as well as the daughter of former tough-guy NYC Mayor turned Trump surrogate screamer Rudy Giuliani. We’re all "With Her." And this doesn't even include all those who are doing so by default, by abstaining from voting or otherwise, more than 160 GOP leaders and counting .

Even a pundit I never thought I'd agree with, who while not openly admitting voting for her (he'll lose his what's left of his base if so), has all but walked through that door: Glenn Beck To say all this is unprecedented is beyond an understatement.

This is all reminiscent of that scene in the original Independence Day film, when opposing peoples and warring countries all unite against a common enemy hell-bent on our imminent destruction for their own benefit (much like DJT's affect on Atlantic City)

This actually gives me hope...

You may choose to see us as a nation divided, but I'm seeing Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, uniting like never before. Even if we won't always agree on policy, the fact that those of us now in the same camp can engage in civil discourse, void of name calling and personal attacks and even enjoy each others company (watch clips of conservative radio host Charlie Sykes appearing with MSNBC's Laurence O'Donnel, for example) is encouraging.

Maybe our elected officials could learn from this? I've met conservatives that, while we may never agree on certain issues, strike me as extremely decent people and I can respect their convictions. I honestly believe if this was more reflective in the government and there was less trash talking obstructionism, more things would get done, faster.

All politicians lie, sorry. While HRC may have bended the truth at times, its not in a way that’s beyond most previous US Presidents (there are too many examples to list). And I believe DJT believes that what he says is true at the moment he says it. Yet that "truth" changes from moment to moment.

This is a sign of mental disturbance. I don't say this lightly and have never said this in context of a US political figure no matter how much I've disagreed with them. DJT is a serial liar whose statements are pure contradiction on a level of the old Monty Python sketch The Argument Clinic starting at 1:17.

This is dangerous.

When lies become truth, you start to believe it.

I also believe OJ Simpson really believes it when he proclaims he's innocent (which, he’s not. And no, I’m not comparing DJT to an alleged murderer, but his relationship with the truth is chillingly similar).


Again, some may no doubt respond to all this by saying that musicians should stick with music and not discuss politics. But this is a democracy - we all have the right to discuss politics (and we should, civilly).

And while we're on the subject of musicians and politics: I'd rather be on the side of nuanced, socially conscious individuals like Springsteen and Paul McCartney than musicians whose classic music I appreciate but who have grown into people with attitudes like those expressed in the Charlie Daniels NRA Video and let's not even get started on Ted "I'd like to kill the President" Nugent (By the way, speaking of the NRA, the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the right of everyone to own 1770s-era flint muscats, not today's mass-killing paramilitary assault weapons).

To conclude:

I don't need to tell anyone that this is the strangest election imaginable. One that has found me cheering for artists whose music I've never been a fan of, such as Third Eye Blind and Limp Biscuit as well as others whose music I am a fan of and know personally, but have never discussed politics and was pleasantly surprised to find us so in agreement, like my friend Kerry King .

Believing in a lone savior - whether it’s DJT, Sanders, Johnson, Stein or for that matter, HRC - to solve all our challenges may feel good, but is not reality and not in our best interests. HRC has the experience and has the right people behind her. There are certainly challenges ahead with her (or anyone) at the helm. There will be failures but measurable to those of Presidents throughout US History. But to vote for DJT, or abstain from voting or to cast a protest vote should be unthinkable at this moment in time.

Remember this: There is a big difference between what you want to believe and what is. A "big strong man" is not going to come and fix everything. And the evidence shows, this "big strong man" is a "big CON man."

It's time to embrace reality. An overwhelming number of experts - Democrats, Republicans and Independents - all feel the same way, that there is no alternative. Hillary Clinton is the only choice this November. And I'm not someone who says things like that. Now is not the time to say "I'm going to vote my conscience." Your conscience should be telling you to prevent the worst.

Don't like the system? Fine, let's work to fix it. But letting a mentally unbalanced, dictator-like practitioner of authoritarianism take over is NOT the answer. We need to vote for Hillary. And we'll figure things out from there.

Thanks for listening.

(*Image courtesy of The Leaf Chronicle)