"We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone."

"We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone." --Ronald Reagan

Ah for the days that we had a positively left-leaning President Reagan!


"To be a good citizen, it's important to be able to put yourself in other people's shoes and see the big picture. If everything you see is rooted in your own identity, that becomes difficult or impossible." Eli Pariser


This is a huge post that I started at the end of January. I let it sit for a long time, partially because it is such a big bite to chew, and also because I decided to undertake a major remodel of my home, and I spent much of the beginning of the year sorting, packing, and moving.  Then, of course, life and other blog posts happened. But I've come back to this post again and again. And now I finally hit "publish."

I ask a lot of questions in this post, and I don't answer all of them. Perhaps they are fodder for future posts. I do get at the crux of one question, but you'll have to bear with me while I lay out some background, a little about my political experience when young, questions and pondering, and many other thoughts-on-paper (thoughts-in-pixels). I invite you to journey through thought with me.

The Big Picture

One of my missions in starting this blog was (and I quote from my first post),  "this serves is to clarify my own political and resistance thoughts. I think better when I write, so I shall write and think and formulate plans. This process will perhaps shape my journey."  

As I continued on this journey, I came to realize that I undertook this also to understand more.  So today is a rambling of thoughts. Bear with me, please.  Some of it is stream-of-consciousness. Some are questions with no answers. Some is my usual research, there's not much directly related to 45.  I want to understand the big picture more. I know it is a huge topic, American Politics, with tentacles that weave. But let me take this opportunity to sort through my thoughts. Here we go.

Tim Eagan at cagle.com.

Republicans vs. Democrats. The Right vs. The Left. I've had this topic on my mind for a while.  

I should state that I'm a bleeding heart liberal -- bet you didn't know that! -- and I have been as long as I can remember. 

I've been interested in politics just about all of my life. I was thinking back to the when/why/where I got interested in politics. I really don't know. But I do know that since my early days, I have been decidedly leaning left.

I wrote about Baby Sister Resister early on in this blog, where I outlined my first election memories, as evidenced by my journal and by letters to my mother. I was obviously trending left then, and it just "was." I didn't think much about the why. It was just right. Haha, it was just left. And it fit me. Even though I have had left leanings, I have never joined the Democratic Party. I was always distrustful of the Two-Party system, and I didn't want to be labeled Democrat. Since I first registered to vote in 1981, I have been designated "Decline to State" on my voter registration. Indeed, I've voted for Republicans along the way, and I voted for Ross Perot!

I came from a conservative town, an affluent white town, 99% of whose residents worked for the government and the War Machine. Though it was a mostly white, conservative town, there were plenty of brown-skinned people in our lives there. I never had the feeling that brown-skinned people were different, or less-than. Women and men always seemed to have equal standing. I and my sisters and my brother were all equally encouraged -- no, expected -- to go to college, get careers, and be successful. My dad was a Republican. I don't remember him specifically talking politics at home. I don't recall my mom, who to this day at nearly 98 years old, leans left, talking politics either. Dad listened to Paul Harvey every day when he came home for lunch, though. I remember that vividly. My 6th grade teacher also had us listen to Paul Harvey in the classroom daily.  There were decidedly many conservative influences on a young Little Sister Resister in the 60s and 70s.

And yet, here I am, a bleeding heart liberal.

My earliest political memory was when Shirley Chisholm ran for President in 1972. I had just turned 8 years old. I read about her in the classroom's My Weekly Reader. She made a big impression on me.

My first well-formed memories of politics was probably the Watergate Scandal. I remember watching it unfold on the news. I remember when Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973 (I was nearly 10 years old). It was big news. I have memories of watching TV monitors, somehow, at my elementary school and seeing reports about Nixon and Watergate. I remember Nixon resigning in August, 1974. I recall that everyone hated Nixon, how he lied and was such a despicable person.

In 4th grade (around 1973), my teacher preferred to be called "Ms."  It was my first exposure to that, I I didn't understand what being a "feminist" meant. I recall thinking that Ms. V disliked men and that she was a lesbian! It confused me when she talked about her boyfriend. Looking back, I think I had it in my head that feminism shouldn't have to be a "thing"  -- women's rights were a given. Duh. I had plenty of strong women role models, including my mom. Women's Rights should be a non-issue. Move along, people, move along.

I remember reports about the Vietnam war and the evacuation of Saigon (1975) and the news stories with all of the helicopters.  I don't recall much about the politics surrounding the war at the time. I didn't begin to be tuned in to the politics of the war until much later.

I remember the Iranian Revolution in the late 70s and the Iran kidnappings in 1979. I thought it was so sad that President Carter had gotten such a raw deal, having the hostages released moments after he was no longer President. I was in high school when the hostages were released. I felt bad for Mr. Carter. He aged so much over the course of his Presidency, struggled so much for the 444 days that the hostages were held, and left the Presidency discouraged, sad, and with an approval rating of 34%.

So. Who taught me to pay attention? Who influenced my thinking? <shrug> I have no idea! I was always an "old soul." I'd like to think I've always thought deep and wide about things. But maybe I didn't think about it? It was just a part of who I am?

Now I'm thinking about it.

So, back to today. We live in a divided country. It's always been divided, but truly not as painfully divided as it has been since the 2016 Election. What should we do about our divisions?

I'm a Snowflake of the Libtard Variety. So of course I have a bias toward my beliefs, but I'm a also a reader and a thinker, and I strive to understand "the other side."  What are the differences between the right and the left? We need both viewpoints and differing sets of values for a healthy Republic. Is there a way to find the similarities and come together? Do we need to? Should we? Or Is it better to respectfully embrace our differences? Is there a way to engage in meaningful dialogue? Should we work toward compromise? Or should we continue to dig in to our convictions and fight for them?

It got me to thinking more deeply about the differences between the Right and the Left, and about the differences between Conservativism and Liberalism, or Progressivism.

I know we need both, and the conservatives have many legitimate values. But how has the Right gone so radically wrong? Now that the party has gone so far to the right that it is dangerous, will it be coming back to center? Or has it really gone off the rails, or am I just so entrenched that I can't see or understand their side? Or, has it always had the Radically Wrong bent, that wasn't fully expressed before? And what about the Democratic Party? It has become so centered -- and thus losing the 2016 election -- that perhaps it is now time to go far left.

My definitions:
Conservative means, to stay the same. To avoid change. Maintaining tradition.
Politically, to me it means to support business, to support the War Machine, to reduce government interference, to reduce taxes and reduce spending.

Progressive means, to embrace change, to get better.
Politically, to me it means, to help others, to promote change for the better, to strive for equality, to help.

From Merriam-Webster:

conservatism
2b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)

liberalism
2c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)

From Dictionary.com

conservative
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

progressive
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, asopposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially inpolitical matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.

Not all of the Right's ideologies are inherently bad. We need checks and balances. Here is a nice comparison from Diffen between the philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans.  Good read.

We all know the fundamental ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats. But I'm also a scientist. Are there biological -- neurological or psychological -- differences between Republicans and Democrats? And can we reconcile those differences? Can people change?

One thing that I've come to really understand, is that today's Right -- and perhaps the members of the Right from days past -- live in a place of fear, and fear is what drives their beliefs and policies.  They seem to be exclusionary and protective. The Left seems to be inclusionary and sharing. This has long been my thought. I wondered if the data bear that out, so I began to search. (AHHH! Finally, the meat of this post!)

One of the most succinct quotes I came across to distill this difference comes from former Oklahoma representative J.C. Watts (R):  "The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good."  Wow.  Yeah.

So, what is the base of these differences?  Can we explore deeper than the ideological differences and look at who they are, at the base of their psyches?

There is resesarch. As my professor would say, "Let's look at the data."

Here is an interesting article from 2013 Mother Jones, quoting neuro-psychological research into the brain differences between Democrats and Republicans. It seems to agree with my thought, that conservatism is based in fear, and that the beliefs are held at the neurological level. The author's conclusion is, "Scientists working in this new field tend towards the conclusion that the new research should make us more tolerant, not less, of political difference—not to mention a whole lot more humble about our own deeply held beliefs."  Funny, but I come away with the opposite thought. If these beliefs are deep-seated in our neurology, then there is probably no understanding the other side, and probably little tolerance. Perhaps the best be can hope for is acknowledgment that "they" are there, doing their thing, but all we can do for ourselves is follow our beliefs passionately, because that is all we can do. We're hard-wired.

There was another study in 2013. This one showed that conservatives and liberals used different parts of their brains when making a certain risk-taking decision. The difference was strong. So strong, that the researchers could predict which party a person belonged to with nearly 83% accuracy.  The article quotes the researchers who, again, have a positive take-away. They conclude that brains are molded by ideology and "'We can change our allies into enemies and enemies into allies,' says Schreiber — offering some scientific hope at least that humans can overcome their political differences." But we scientists know that correlation does not imply causality. And what if it was the other way around? What if the brain differences shape the ideology? Can we really change our minds? Can we overcome political differences if they are there at the neurological level?

This study from 2011 looked at the mirror neuron system of individuals via MRI and found:

The results found more neural activity in areas believed to be linked with broad social connectedness in Democrats (friends, the world at-large) and more activity in areas linked with tight social connectedness in the Republicans (family, country). In some ways the study confirms a stereotype about members of the two parties—Democrats tend to be more global and Republicans more America-centric—but it actually runs counter to other recent research indicating Democrats enjoyed a virtual lock on caring for others.

"The results were a little surprising," Newman-Norlund said. "This shows the picture is more complicated. One possible explanation for our results is that Democrats and Republicans process social connectedness in a fudamentally different manner."

The researchers take a dimmer view of the potential for change and understanding: "The research also suggests that maintaining an open mind about political issues may be easier said than done. In fact, bridging partisan divides and acting contrary to ideological preferences likely requires going against deeply ingrained biological tendencies. And while there is evidence that mirror neuron connections can change over time, it's not something that happens overnight, Newman-Norlund said."

A 2005 study from University of Califnoria, Berkeley found correlations between a toddler's fear level and his political leanings 20 years later!

And this research! This one looked into the fear/conservatism angle again. This one did show that conservatives could be turned into liberals, if only temporarily, by using intense imagination exercises. When a conservative person imagined himself being completely safe, his responses were intistiguishable from a liberal's. Additionally, when a conservative simply had recieved the flu shot (and thus fear of becoming sick was reduced), his attitudes became more liberal. Read the article. It has some interesting insights. The researchers entreat folks to be aware and resistant to manipulation, and the researchers conclude that, "Instead of allowing our strings to be pulled so easily by others, we can become more conscious of what drives us and work harder to base our opinions on factual knowledge about the issues, including information from outside our media echo chambers. Yes, our views can harden given the right environment, but our work shows that they are actually easier to change than we might think."

This article from Scientific American summarizes several studies, including one that looked at people's attitudes after 9/11. The article summarizes, "Research conducted by Nail and his colleague in the weeks after September 11, 2001, showed that people of all political persuasions became more conservative in the wake of the terrorist attacks."

I know that it was true for me. After the attacks, I longed to hear from our President (George W Bush). I wanted to be reassured by him. I went out and got a credit card adorned with the American flag. I wore American flag pins. I was more fearful, and I was definitely more America-centric.

The studies I found --and I know there are more-- looked mostly at the Fear Factor as a driving force toward conservatism. And this is dangerous. As we know from a wise little guy, “Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering.” (Yoda)

I'd like more studies that look at empathy and altruism differences.

My conclusion is that, perhaps due to fear, conservatives lack empathy and altruism and compassion.  But, to me, those are superior traits! I feel sorry for conservatives who live in fear and who hold back compassion for their fellow human. I recently asked my Facebook friends what makes a good citizen. Granted, we befriend those who are like us, so my sample is naturally biased. But these were some of the responses.

Question: What makes a good citizen?
Responses:

• participating/voting (top answer - several people mentioned this)
• working for the betterment of all/volunteering/caring for or helping others - several mentions
• having empathy/compassion - also top answer
• being considerate
• being informed
• speaking out about injustice
• being kind
• having respect
• recognizing those who disagree may not be wrong
• making daily decisions to help the environment
• doing no harm
• putting the good of the community/country above your own personal preferences
• making the community/world a better place
• lending a hand instead of pointing a finger.
• leading by example
• standing up for what is right

And here's one list from lifehack.com that lists the Traits of a Truly Good Person.  Most of them are about empathy and compassion.

So after all the talk about the differences between liberals and conservative attitudes, just who is the better citizen? (YES! I'm judging here!!)

We have our President* who warns us (granted, the below is from The Onion, but satire is so close to the truth these days, it's sometimes indistinguishable):

Trump Insists That Now, More Than Ever, Americans Must Stand Strong In Face Of Empathy

WASHINGTON-Stressing that the very future of the republic was at stake, President Donald Trump called upon all Americans Monday to stand strong and resolute in the face of empathy. "Now, more than ever, we as a nation must remain steadfast in resisting the urge to understand the feelings and perspectives of others," said Trump, adding that a rising tide of dangerous empathy could, if unchecked, quickly engulf the country in compassion.

The Orange Maggot, Mr. Poster Boy of the Right, is himself an excellent example of the Right's lack of empathy and compassion. He has not only a lack of compassion; what he demonstrates is cruelty and meanness. He demonstrates it over and over, but here he tells a story about his absolutely disgusting behavior when facing an injured man.

Jimmy Kimmel invited TЯUMPers to meet with some DACA recipients. Their behavior was deplorable.

Yes, I'm proud to be a Libtard!

And it looks like many agree with me. It appears that no one really likes Conservatives!  Read this one by Santa Barbara's own David Atkins in the Washington Monthly. It's a well-written point of view.  It sort of distills what I've just taken seven months to distill in my own head, and what you've just taken seven hours to read. ;-)

Compassion, empathy, sharing, and fairness are ingrained in our species, I'm sure of it. There are plenty of studies that show that members of our primate family show these traits.  Here are just a few studies. There are tons more. I assert that it is deep within us to be this way.

Bonobos express empathy and a willingness to help strangers

Chimps express altruism

Caphuchin monkeys recognize fairness:

Watch the whole TED talk here. It goes into other animal research. Fascinating stuff.

I've always embraced the idea that Love and Kindness Always Win. History has borne it out, and progress will always have its roots in love and kindness.

So back to today. The ideologies are wider apart than ever. What do we do?

M. Wuerker, Politico

What is the conclusion? Do we strive to understand each other? Do we try to come together? What do we on the Left do, to save our Republic and further our cause?  Obviously playing nice has not worked. In less than 20 years, two Republican Presidents* stole the seat when the Democrat opponent was elected by the popular vote. Playing nice got us into this mess. We've got to find a way to play hardball, even though it goes against our basic instincts as left-leaning people. Do we come to the table and compromise? I say NO! Though it's the in the very nature of Democrats to want to cooperate, to compromise, to understand and empathize, it is NOT the way to get things done. As we've seen from the Tea Party and the TЯUMPers, fighting hard and fighting dirty is an effective way -- and maybe the only way -- to further the agenda. Luckily, I feel that the far left is rising up and clearing the way to make a change. The Left is becoming more Left. Hopefully with the uprising of sister and brother resisters, we can get back on a strong path to Progess. I have hope. I always have hope.

Others agree with me. This article in The Week suggests that the Left should gallop leftward harder, and that the public agrees. Issues that were sticky subjects for Liberals a few years ago, such as single-payor healthcare, gun control, higher minimum wage, and legalization of cannabis, not to mention LGBQ rights, are now embraced by the public and the Left can run with those issues.

We must dig in hard, because with the fear and hostility emanating from the Right, there is rampant racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia in general. These traits go against HUMAN rights.  We MUST fight for what is right and we must fight hard!

There was so much more I wanted to touch on in this mega-post. I wanted to look at conservative vs. liberal attitudes in many areas. Taxes, and our differing attitudes. How we get money and what we spend it on. Destruction vs. creation. Differences in interpersonal styles. Differences in communication styles. Wanting corporations to be people or not. Being ok or not ok with corporate sponsorship of lawmakers. Religious extremism. The Right's war against intellectuals. Perhaps these are future topics for more bite-sized posts. Or, if anyone would like to be a guest contributor, on one of these or any topic, please get in touch!

In the meantime, go back, read some of those links. Get angry. Dig into your compassion for your fellow American, and FIGHT for what is RIGHT LEFT!

#RESIST

1924 Liberal Party poster (Great Britain)

"Guns are bad, I tell you." -Eminem

Another school shooting. Another eight of our beautiful children gone forever, along with two of their devoted teachers, in Santa Fe, Texas.

I'm not sure I can add any more to the dialogue. So much has been said already about the epidemic in our country.  But Little Sister has not been known to keep her fingers idle on this subject.

I have been an advocate for gun control for many years. One of my early arguments was that guns do nothing to help create. They only help to destroy. Destruction is not a value I hold. HUNTING! They cry. We do not need animal protein to live healthy lives, I reply.  PROTECTION AGAINST TYRANNICAL FORCES, they cry. Seriously? Just no, I say. We have a rule of law. SELF PROTECTION they cry. It's hard to determine the statistics, since gun violence is a U.S. officially banned research subject, but I suspect the incidents of actual self- or home-defense is actually quite low. (The LA Times has some statistics in a 2015 article). We are more likely to have one or two degrees of separation from someone who is a victim of gun violence, or who was threatened by gun violence, than someone who has protected him/herself with a firearm.

Me? I have zero degrees of separation - and if you know me, therefore, you have one. And right off the top of my head, I can think of three people who I knew personally who were shot, one of whom survived the gunshot wound. I know no one who has ever used a gun to protect themselves.

That's just outrageous. And sickening.

This topic for a blog post has been on my mind for a long time. It was more urgently on my mind after Parkland, when the kids began to rise up. A lot of people were chiming in then, and I wanted to also say my piece. But life interfered, time passed, and I got too busy to write a timely essay. And you know what I disgustingly thought? I thought to myself, "I'll just wait until the next school shooting and it will be more relevant."

I'll just wait until the next school shooting.

I'm ashamed to have that thought, and I'm ashamed of our society that allows that kind of thought to be the reality.

And here we are. Barely two months after Parkland, and we have another school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. Ten more lives snuffed out.

Of course there are multiple issues surrounding school shootings. And of course school shootings are not the only form of gun violence that desecrates our Land. But I'm not going to go into depth about the culture of violence, the tragic state of entitled young men in our country, the misogyny that thrives in the 21st century, mental illness, the culture of fear, nor video games. I'm not going to look at toddler-related gun deaths, suicide by gun, accidental firearm discharges, domestic violence, nor hate violence.  All those issues are important factors in the gun violence epidemic in our society.  I could write for months on all of those issues, and maybe some day I'll pick apart some of those. But tonight I want to just look at the heart of the gun violence problem:  Guns and Money.

These 27 words are at the crux of the issue:

Article II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's ignore that this amendment seems to be composed by someone without a firm command of English language composition. Even for 18th century writing style, this is a nightmare. But let's put that aside. This amendment has been parsed and discussed from here to Tuesday. Still, let me give my two cents. The gun proponents focus on the third clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  But our forefathers did not write the amendment, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are 13 more words. They included language about a militia. They included language about security.  They included language about freedom.

I started doing some reading. What did they mean when they referred to a Militia? Is the militia mentioned anywhere else in the Constitution? What was a militia then, and what were our forefathers getting at, mentioning it in the Bill of Rights?

The Constitution itself refers to the Militia five times.

In Section Eight, which details the responsibilities of the Congress:

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

In Article Two, outlining the duties of the Executive Branch:

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

In Amendment Two:

Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And in Amendment Five:

Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Just reading these sections of the U.S. Constitution, it is obvious that Militia, true to its word root, is a military body. It's not a private citizen.

Younger Little Sister Resister wrote the following letter to the editor in year 2000. I'll let her words stand here.

Dear Editor: 

In discussions about the government's role and the Constitution's role in gun control, the following has never been addressed. In the main body of the U.S. Constitution, in Article One, Section Eight, it very clearly defines the "militia," to which it later refers in the Second Amendment. The U.S. Constitution reads in Article One, Section 8 that "The Congress shall have power:

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." 

To my understanding, this gives a very strict definition of "militia." 

The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 

If the government has the duty, clearly stated in Article One of the Constitution, to "organize, arm and discipline ... and train" this militia, this clearly does not give the implicit right for every Tom, Dick and Michael to own and use firearms. In fact, it says the very opposite. Furthermore, the Second Amendment refers to a "well-regulated" militia, which again implies strong governmental regulations. 

Clearly, if the NRA and others want to rely on the Constitution for their arguments and want to broaden the definition of "militia" to mean the common man, they should realize that the wording of the U.S. Constitution promotes more government control and regulations, not less. 

The first step in the government's responsibilities to "organize, arm, discipline and train" is to register every weapon and license every user. For such a deadly and powerful item as a firearm, this is only prudent. In licensing, individuals should be required to be trained thoroughly. Trigger locks should be required on every single firearm. New technology needs to be developed and technology that already exists needs to be used to promote one gun -- one user. 

The sales of firearms should be carefully monitored, with thorough background checks wherever guns are sold. In addition, we need to strengthen enforcement of laws that are already on the books to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of the wrong individuals. 

Perhaps Bill Clinton's new proposals can help this meet this goal. But surely, the government should have a very strong role in gun control, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. 

Little Sister Resister, Santa Barbara

And a political cartoon by Tom Toles, my favorite cartoonist, from back in year 2000 Little Sister Resister's pocket. (Note the date of the cartoon is 1998, the year before Columbine)

This week, I went searching a bit for information about what our forefathers meant by "well-regulated" and "militia."

Well-regulated in 18th century meaning means that the thing is in good working order. It does not mean having rules and regulations applied to it. Fair enough.

A militia, however, was, in the 18th century, an organized military group, made up of citizens, but not a standing army, which as a separate body.

I found this balanced article in the Washington Post. The Founding Fathers wanted every white citizen to be a member of the militia, and they wanted each of those citizens to be armed. Interestingly, the ideas of the 18th century about arming citizens had very much to do with disarming non-whites, as much as it was about ensuring that every white person was armed.

Quotes from the article:

At its best, the Second Amendment was a commitment to citizen participation in public life and a way to keep military power under civil control. At its worst, it was a way for whites to maintain their social domination.

The United States still seems willing to tolerate a significant degree of instability and violence on the part of white American men, the demographic group responsible for the majority of mass shootings.

And yes, from the 18th century, fast forward to the 20th and 21st Century. White people in control of guns is still very much the reality. White people in control of the money is very much the reality of U.S. politics as well. And that's the second part of the problem, to my mind.

The National Rifle Association is a powerful group. It's hard to know the demographics of the members, as the NRA does not ask about gender, race, age, or religion. We do know, however, that it is made up of mostly Republicans, with 77% of members being Republican, according to Pew. And as such, I think it's safe to say that it is primarily a white, male group. It's also a very rich organization, and they use their riches to further gun rights and fight gun control legislation. Pew also has found that, by far, not all gun owners are members of the NRA, and many of those disagree with the NRA's stances and actions.

In any case, we know that there is a lot of money flowing through the NRA, and much of it goes directly into the pockets of our lawmakers. They lobby hard, and they lobby well. Much of their money is Dark Money.

And this month, as part of a congressional probe, it has come out that Russian money may have been funneled through the NRA and directly into TЯUMP's coffers to further Russia's political agenda in the USA. We aren't sure yet, as the NRA is no longer cooperating with the investigation, but we do know that the NRA contributed $30 Million into the SCROTUS campaign, while, according to the New York Times, writing in the year 2000, "In the last year, it has donated more than $540,000 in so-called soft money to Republican Party committees, while giving nothing in soft money, or unregulated donations, to the Democrats. In 1996 the NRA gave less than $100,000 in soft money to the Republican Party."

But not only does the NRA spend money to line lawmakers' pockets, they spend money to defeat candidates who even whisper about laws to control guns. Where the money comes from, and the ways in which the money flows, is complex. This is a long read from Quartz Media, but it's a good one. It explains a bit about how NRA money controls Republicans. This article from Yahoo Finance describes that the NRA is so powerful because there is no opposing organization.

(As an aside, Politifact has a great run-down of fact-checking gun and NRA claims)

Money in politics perverts our Republic, put simply. All corporate money should be out of politics, not just NRA money. The Citizens United ruling, which helps to foster the interests of Corporations over the interests of the People, should also be overturned.  We are a nation of citizens, each of whom have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is without question that gun entitlements take away these basic citizen rights.

Money in politics is a huge issue and the root of what is wrong with our system. Before Citizens United, but more so after, money from the hands of the few that influence laws that affect the many, is a problem. If we can fix that, if we can stop money from influencing the decisions of our lawmakers, we will be better off. It's a difficult task, as you have to take the teat from their mouths. They won't let go willingly.

Back to my thought about waiting for "the next school shooting." Why is it so easy to toss around ideas like that? Perhaps we are being desensitized, or at the very least, becoming more detached. With all the pain and sorrow that these events create, the psyche has to protect itself, and so it detaches. We would be walking puddles of goo (and some of us are) if we didn't separate ourselves from the awful atrocities. The horror becomes "over there."  And there is the thought that this desensitization is actually one of the root causes of the gun violence epidemic. This excellent essay by David French of the National Review refers to an earlier essay in the New Yorker about the Threshold of Violence. It is asserted that one of the chief reasons for the mass shooting epidemic is because of a form of desensitization. More and more are reaching their violence threshold. It is becoming the norm. "Everyone is doing it!" Read both essays. It's quite a sobering outlook.

There is no one easy answer, no one path to navigate. It is complex, and the issues and the money are so very deeply entrenched, that it seems there is no way to dig out. But we must try. And that starts at the ballot box. There is where our power lies. Resist, think, and VOTE!

Thanks for reading.

Drew Sheneman

Truth is stranger than fiction

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.” -- Mark Twain

Marshall Ramsey

SRSLY! WTF?

What is going on? Every day, I say things cannot get more bizarre. But they do. Every day. We continue our descent into some warped would-be Fiction.

This week's stuff includes a rambling interview with the Orange Sh*tstain's own personal television "news" mouthpiece; the withdrawal of his strange nomination for Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the call for the resignation of the lawmaker who raised concerns; a leak of Mueller questions, with a twist on the leak; the admission by his personal physician that his medical report was dictated by the patient himself, and a raid on that doctor's office for medical records; and more questions about a possible neurological explanation for his bizarre behavior.

SCROTUS nominated his Whitewash House physician, Ronny Jackson, a man who was house doctor for two Presidents and the Orange Scabies Man but who had never headed an agency before, to head the Department of Veterans Affairs. SCROTUS really liked the way he had reported on his "full physical," which I blogged about. Not only were there concerns about Ronny's ability to handle the administration of a large agency, concerns soon surfaced about his conduct on the job. There were accusations about his being drunk while on duty and handing out medications "like candy" to staff members. His nomination was soon withdrawn, but only after a keen observation (read: projection) by his boss, who remarked, "If I were him, I wouldn't do it."

After the fiasco, SCROTUS, in true "Damn the Democratic Principles" fashion, called for the resignation of Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) over the kerfuffle. Puh-leeze!

In other medical news, it came out this week that SCROTUS's former personal physician, Dr. Jacob Bernstein in New York, had his office raided by All the President's* Goons to seize medical records back in 2017.  Dr. Bernstein had let it be known that his patient takes fenasteride, aka Propecia, to treat his hair loss. Hair Hitler didn't like that very much.

You may recall that I wrote about Bernstein's bizarre 2015 medial report and that The Atlantic did an excellent analysis of the report. The report, stating that SCROTUS would be "The healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency," was most likely ghost-written. Today Bernstein admitted, yes, indeed, SCROTUS dictated the report (below).

All this medical talk brings us back to fenasteride. It's been floated that perhaps this medication can possibly account for SCROTUS's neurological symptoms.  Follow some of the links. It's a possibility!

Speaking of neurological symptoms... SCROTUS had another rambling interview, this time on the phone with his buddies at Faux and Fiends. He talked rapidly and rambling-ly for over 30 minutes. If you can stomach it, the full interview is below. I prefer the synopsis versions by Stephen Colbert and by Seth Myers. Astonishingly bizarre.











And speaking of ghost-writing... Yesterday, the list of questions that Mueller wants to ask SCROTUS was leaked to the New York Times. SCROTUS called it "disgraceful" blah blah blah, but today Mueller's former assistant speculates that because of the way the list of questions was written and the fact that there are grammatical errors, the leak must have come from TЯUMP himself.

All this within the last few days.

SRSLY, you can't make this stuff up.

Come on, folks.  Resist!

The Resisters

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." - Thomas Jefferson

phdcomics.com

Once in a while I like to look for the positives in our circumstances. It's important to step back and see what is going well or acknowledge those who are doing right. HOPE for our Republic and our Democratic institutions is what carries me through.

Today, I present some of my fellow Brother and Sister Resisters. They are leading the charge to protect the liberties that the current administration threatens.

Teen Vogue was an unlikely leader in the Resistance. But lead they have, publishing articles and essays about the current political atmosphere, among the hair care tips and celebrity sightings. I cited one of their early Op/Eds, about 45's gas-lighting tendencies, in my February 7, 2017 blog post, War is Peace. Sophie Gilbert from The Atlantic tells us why it's not surprising that Teen Vogue has been carrying the gauntlet. I'm glad that they are reaching our next leaders in a visceral way.

Another early, and enduring, group of Resisters is the anonymous members of Alt National Parks. They are our federal employees, working subversively to bring to light the issues that threaten our beloved national lands. They first formed when the administration, within days of the inauguration, began to remove climate change and other science data from government websites and removed official National Park social media accounts. Folks at Badlands National Park went rogue and sent out science tweets in defiance. Park Rangers from across the Land joined them, and Alt National Parks was born. They have a strong Facebook and Twitter presence.

Dan Rather, esteemed CBS newsman, has emerged as a poignant voice in the resistance. He often posts profound thoughts on Facebook. He warns us of the dangers of SCROTUS's degradation of the press. He warns us of the dangers of losing science. He warns us of the dangers of fascism. And at the same time, he looks for the positives. He recently published a book, What Unites Us. At 86 years old, he is speaking out strongly about and for the good of our Country. Read his stuff, and be inspired.

Unexpected Members of the Resitance come from the corporate world. CEOs from across many industries have been navigating their way on the road we share. I was struck by heiress Abigail Disney's video around the time they were voting on the tax bill. She was one of a coalition of CEOs against the tax bill; she joined nearly 200 other "Women of Wealth" in signing a letter to our lawmakers speaking against it.




Hundreds of other wealthy individuals, members of a group called Responsible Wealth, signed another letter opposing the tax bill, including George Soros and Steven Rockefeller.

Another group, Patriotic Millionaires, also want to ensure that the very rich pay their fare share. Here is Eric Schoenberg to explain:



The Harvard Business Review published a good essay on CEO activism. I urge you to read it, pay attention to the statements and actions from corporate CEOs, and support the businesses that share your values.

See? There are good people in the 1% who are doing the Right Thing! Hope abounds!

And even politicians are sometimes doing the right thing. There are moderate Republicans who are standing up and voting against the policies driven by the Bratman. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and John McCain (R-AZ) have all been vocal opponents. There's also the Tuesday Group, a center-right group of Representatives. The group seems to want to work toward thinking critically and building consensus. They were an important group in the defeat of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. And here is a list of Republicans who opposed SCROTUS's campaign, if not currently actively oppose all of his baby actions.

And this level-headed politician. This strong woman. This admirable US citizen. This outspoken immigrant. This estimable public servant. Madam Secretary Madeline Albright. Watch her interview with Stephen Colbert below, listen to her NPR interview, read her book, Fascism: A Warning. And resist.







And of course, the children. I've been so inspired by our strong young leaders, speaking up and acting for what they believe in. Just a couple snippets of Acts of Resistance by our up-and-coming leaders at the March for our Lives last month.

Emma Gonzalez in Washington DC:




And young people in Santa Fe, where I marched:





HAVE HOPE. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS VALUABLE. KEEP THE RESISTANCE ALIVE!

He is Not Smart!

"He is not smart!" -- Hair Twitler about James Comey. (I know you are, but what am I??)


I've been away again for a long time. There are a lot of topics that have developed at a pace that is hard to keep up with in real time, let alone in Busy Little Sister Resister Time!

During the last few weeks, the Presidential Train Wreck has started careening toward the curves. Our country's situation gets more bizarre by the day. It has been interesting Reality TV, for sure.

So I write here, a summary post. Then perhaps I'll dissect some issues later. I still have a Big-Picture post simmering too, but I'll leave that on the back burner some more. So, we examine the first quarter-plus of 2018, as the US teeters off the tracks of the Republic Railroad.


SCROTUS gave his first State of the Union address at the end of January. It was predictable and unremarkable, except for his self-applause that echoed in his mic. Later he called members of the US Congress "treasonous" because they often did not stand up and clap. Dictator much?

The first quarter of 2018 was rife with resignations and firings. It's status quo to have no status quo in this Lies-is-Truth-and-Ignorance-is-Strength Administration. Small and big players left their positions, including:

(List compiled from Timeline of the Trump Presidency, Wikipedia)

1/1 Vice President Mike Pence's chief lawyer, Mark Paoletta resigned

1/1 Domestic policy director, Daris Meeks resigned

1/5 National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers announced resignation for Spring, 2018

1/12 John Feeley announced his resignation as U.S. Ambassador to Panama due to disagreements with the administration

1/15 Nine of the twelve members of the National Park System Advisory Board resigned 

1/31 Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald resigned as Director of the Center for Disease Control over conflicts of interest.

2/1 Tom Shannon, the United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, resigned

2/7 White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter resigned from his position following two public allegations of spousal abuse.

2/7 Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand resigned 

2/27 Josh Raffel, a senior communications aide, resigned
2/27 Joseph Yun, the top diplomat in charge of America's Korean policy, resigned

White House Communications Director and SCROTUS right-hand woman, Hope Hicks submitted her resignation.

3/1 Roberta Jacobson, the Ambassador to Mexico, resigned

3/6 Chief economic adviser Gary Cohn announced plan to resign after President Trump announced he would impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
3/7 U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tooke resigned

March 13 was a big day! 

• SCROTUS fired Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State
• Steve Goldstein, the United States Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and fourth ranking diplomatic official, is fired.
• John McEntee, a long-time personal assistant to President Trump, is fired and escorted from the White House. McEntee then joined Trump's re-election campaign as a senior adviser. (....huh??)

3/16 Andrew McCabe, acting director of the FBI, is dismissed from his position late in the evening by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a day or two before his birthday and his full vesting of his retirement pension. He had already announced his resignation of his position back in January.

3/22 H.R. McMaster resigned as National Security Adviser
3/29 President Trump fireed Secretary of Veteran Affairs David Shulkin and nominated White House doctor Ronny L. Jackson to replace him (remember Ronny?)
4/10 Homeland Security Advisor Thomas Bossert and National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton both announced their resignations.
4/11 Nadia Schadlow, deputy national security adviser for strategy, resigned

Sigh...... Firings and resignations. ....just another day in the Whitewash House. It seems that more have been fired than were hired in the first place. Positions are still open throughout the administration, 15 months in. In January it was reported that there were at least 245 open positions.

And there have been more and more squawks from the Squawker-in-Chief about firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstien and Special Prosecutor Robert Meuller. Does he think that the investigation will suddenly disappear if he fires Mr. Meuller?  Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have worked to protect the special prosecutor. Bob Meuller is a national hero in my book. Though all bets are off as to his fate, I'm hopeful that he will complete his job and find the truth.

I think Nikki Haley is next to exit. She was undermined and humiliated this week after she announced that sanctions against Russia were coming, and soon after IQ45 back-pedaled and said, no, no; there would be no new sanctions. That might upset his snookums!  It's not the first time Haley has stood up to SCROTUS. This analysis from Politico predicts that her reputation with him has actually improved by her standing up for herself. Still, I believe if she has a shred of self-worth, she will leave for better grounds. She's a strong woman, and I respect her, though I don't respect her respect for her boss.


And more......

Democrat Conor Lamb won a special election to represent Pennsylvania's 18th district in Congress, a district that SCROTUS won by 20 points. It was a huge victory for the Democrats, and may be a harbinger of November.

Hair Furher continued his love affair with dictators. In March he gave a speech to donors, in which he praised Chinese President Xi, saying, "He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."  This kind of talk should concern each and every one of us. Deeply. 

TЯUMP called his bestie Putie to congratulate him on his "victory" in a sham election, despite being instructed by his keepers in no uncertain terms to NOT congratulate him. He was given an index card with "DO NOT CONGRATULATE" written in big bold letters. But apparently the Bromance warranted a little cuddle from one dictator to another.

Russia poisoned a former spy and his daughter living in the UK. TЯUMP was slow to condemn the acts and when pressured to expel diplomats as punishment, he agreed, but only after kicking and screaming that he would only match the number that other countries did. He really got pissed that the US was tougher than he had wanted. We expelled a number that was more than grand total of the other countries' explosions -- not the same as each country. Poor SCROTUS!  Poor Putie!

On the world stage: In Mid-March, the Talking Yam announced new tariffs for foreign goods, especially steel and aluminum. The situation escalated, with China announcing plans to retaliate with new tariffs. Wall Street did not like it and took a dip but has since recovered. There hasn't been any more news about the tariffs or the feared Trade War.

In early April, Syria used chemical weapons against its citizens and a week or so later, the US, France, and Great Britain answered with missile strikes, days after Boss Tweet telegraphed his intentions on Twitter...another hypocrisy on the 448th Opposite Day in the US. An act of war should've been big news. And it was, for a day or two. It's hard to keep up with every **breaking development** coming out of Washington. 

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey released a book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership. He skewers the Cowardly Lyin' in the book. Among other things, he likened Don Scrotolone to a mob boss, recalling, “flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob. The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth.” If you recall, I also compared SCROTUS to a mob boss. See my blog post from June 25, 2017:  Who Said It? Don Corolone or Don SCROTOLONE?

In conjunction with his book release, Comey gave an EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

Part One:

Part Two:

Trumplethinskin tweeted back in his usual schoolyard way. My favorite was this one:

Slippery James Comey, a man who always ends up badly and out of whack (he is not smart!), will go down as the WORST FBI Director in history, by far!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 15, 2018

After comparing the sizes of their buttons earlier this year, 45 announced plans to meet directly with North Korea's Kim John Un. The CIA Director-turned-Secretary of State-nominee Mike Pompeo made a secret trip to lay the groundwork. Interesting developments, and if it were anybody else, any one with an ounce more finesse that the klutz who stumbled in to the Presidency, I would be optimistic. But it's frightening. He could do more damage and is likely to, given how much damage he's done to the Republic and to the world view of the US already. USA Today warns of the risks.

Cheeto Face pardoned Scooter Libby this month. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice surrounding the investigation of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Is he telegraphing his willingness to pardon those who lie to the FBI in the current investigation?  This man puts the Rule of Law in danger. Even the thought of him pardoning people in the investigation of his own wrongdoing makes my head hurt.


And, First Quarter of 2018 may mark the beginning of the end....

In Mid-February, the story that is commanding most of today's airtime started to have the rocks turned over to expose the worms. On February 13, Michael Cohen admitted the truth to a Wall Street Journal story a month earlier that he paid adult film actor Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, $130K to silence her from talking about the affair that she had with the Orange Pimple in 2006. Cohen's admission opened up all kinds of things, from the fact that SCROTUS never signed the non-disclosure agreement so it may be null and void, to the fact that Cohen used a home equity line of his own to pay her off, to noise that 45 did not know any thing about the payoff, to a denial from the Mango Maggot that the affair even happened at all, to details emerging that he forced an "arbitration agreement" that Clifford was not notified about, to Clifford's accusations that she was threatened in a parking lot to "make the story go away."  She recently released a composite sketch of the man she says threatened her. The President* of the United States  -- who has denied having the affair in the first place -- put his thumbs into action and lent credence to her claim even as he tried desperately to deny ...something. He tweeted, "A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!"

It still seems that we are living in the Upside Down, doesn't it?

In any case, Michael Cohen's office was raided by the FBI last week. It is still unknown if the raid had to do with the Clifford case directly. Did Cohen commit bank and wire fraud by lying to the bank about the reason for his loan? Was it an illegal in-kind campaign donation?  Will the investigation lead to illegal activities by his primary client? How does Sean Hannity play into it? Cohen has three clients, two of whom, SCROTUS and former RNC bigwig Elliott Broidy,  Cohen helped by sushing mistresses. Does Mr. Hannity have similar skeletons in his closet? FAUX News is shrugging off his huge ethical lapse in not disclosing his relationship as he "reported" on the Cohen story.

I'm eager to learn what the prosecutors are looking at with regard to Cohen and what threads will lead to SCROTUS.

Stay tuned. And RESIST!

Adam Zyglis

"Those who want to harm others do not contribute to a well regulated militia."

"Those who want to harm others do not contribute to a well regulated militia." - a High School Student from Northern New Mexico

Yesterday, I joined my daughter, my Big Sister Resister, my Sister-Resister-in-Law, and thousands of others in Santa Fe, New Mexico for the March for Our Lives. 

It was inspiring to see young adults, old hippies, children, and many others march and chant with signs to the plaza, where several speakers spoke eloquently.

The first speakers were "grown-ups;" the organizer of the event and the mayor of Santa Fe were the first two speakers. By the time NM Senator Tom Udall (D) took the podium, people were chanting, "We want the kids!" and he mercifully took the hint, pretty much said, "What he said," and handed the mic to students from all over Northern New Mexico. They were passionate, they were moving, they were insightful, they were inspirational. 

This is a powerful movement. Here is CNN's reporting about the Washington DC event. It was incredibly moving to see Emma Gonzalez, the face of the moment, standing silent for over four minutes, the time it took for the Parkland incident to take place. She's a strong leader, and I look forward to watching her path.

The dispicable NRA pushes back. They are bullies! This was just a sickening headline this week from the Washington Post: "NRA host taunts Parkland teens: ‘No one would know your names’ if classmates were still alive"  To you, sir, I say: No one would know your name if you weren't such a f*ckin @ss!

Our work is just beginning. We need to keep acting, keep resisting, and VOTE! 

Here are my photos from the Santa Fe March.

Me and Big Sister Resister!

My favorite sign of the march.

Big Sister Resister did some reasearch before making her sign

Students from Pojuaque High School carried a banner signed by marchers.

Many species are passionate about this issue

And a video