It’s Collusion

Donald Trump didn’t collude with Russia to steal the 2016 election, he says. Okay. Even if Robert Mueller didn’t completely exonerate the president, he couldn’t find the evidence that he did—there was no cooperative witness, no smoking gun document.

This time it’s different. Did The Donald bully (#BeBest) Ukraine to help him steal the 2020 election? We not only have a credible whistleblower, citing more than a half dozen potential witnesses, but we have a document released by the White House that backs up every accusation.

And keep in mind—the “transcript” provided by the White House only contains the sanitized version Trump and his cronies thought would be less damaging to share. The word for word transcript, which White House officials allegedly ordered to be buried on a “code word level” server intended only for the nations most sensitive secrets, is presumably far worse!

(One wonders how Mueller’s investigation would have proceeded if he had this evidence of a crime and coverup. It’s a question likely to be asked of Mueller by some enterprising journalist, and who knows, given Trump’s continued insults, Mueller just might drop his “no comments” to answer it.)

What’s more, it wasn’t only Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani, in his established role as most ghoulish spokesperson for the administration, has been on a world tour of sorts urging multiple countries to investigate Trump’s political rivals based on conspiracy theories launched on internet chumbucket sites like 4chan. If the standard for impeachment was working in concert with another country to influence the outcome of an election, then Trump’s transcript of his call proves we’ve reached that standard, and Giuliani’s actions make it all the more brazen. Trump defenders who move the goalposts further to say collusion requires a criminal act (like hacking) can’t make these actions sound any less treasonous or corrupt, as much as they may try.

The dizzying array of scandals, crimes and corruption emanating from the White House has been at times difficult to keep up with—one reason among many why I abandoned writing on this blog for a while.

This one though, is substantive. This one follows through on a narrative that has been ongoing since the very beginning of the Trump presidency:

Unable or unwilling to do anything that improves the lives of ordinary Americans, Trump colludes with powerful allies—Fox News, Russian propaganda outfits—to spread lies and misinformation that divide our country and secure his power.

This time, maybe, he won’t get away with it.

Should Barack Obama Pardon Charlie Kushner?

Today Barack Obama pardoned millionaire developer Ian Schrager for his tax fraud in 1980. While he's at it, he should also probably pardon Charlie Kushner.

Charlie Kushner, of course, is Jared Kushner's father, Jared Kushner is Ivanka Trump's husband, and his loyalty to his father-in-law during the Presidential campaign helped elevate him to the powerful position of Senior Advisor to the President-elect (shudder) Donald J. Trump.

Back in 2005, Charlie Kushner was fined more than half a million dollars by the FEC for illegal campaign contributions (to Democrats) and spent 16 months in prison for those contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. That witness tampering? Oh, he hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law so he could blackmail him.

Why should Obama pardon Charlie Kushner's misdeeds when his son is in bed with Trump(s)?

1. It's highly likely Trump will do it.

Speculation has swirled that Jared Kushner is out for revenge on those who turned their backs on his family and led to his father's downfall. Reports indicate that he was responsible for pushing New Jersey governor Chris Christie out of Trump's cabinet and transition team (Christie was the prosecutor who went after his father and forced him to take the plea deal). It's almost impossible to fathom Jared getting this far without an interest in securing a pardon for his father, who by all accounts he was close with. By pardoning Kushner before Trump can, Obama takes away any leverage Trump may have over Jared, making sure the newly-elected President can't dangle a pardon in exchange for his son-in-law's acquiescence. Not to mention  he steals Trump's thunder and makes sure that Donald isn't the one who gets to claim he did a great and merciful act for his son-in-law. You know that'll burn Trump, who always wants the credit for everything.

2. Kushner is a longtime loyal Democrat

Until his son married a Trump, and Democratic friends turned their backs on him, Kushner was a steady Democratic donor and ardent supporter of Democratic Party causes. Rewarding him for that loyalty might smooth over the bad blood and help win him and his family back from the dark side (Charlie hosted a fundraiser for Trump last year at the Kushner's seaside estate.)

3. It might help with the Jews.

Despite his unparalleled support for Israel during his Presidency, Barack Obama's reputation has suffered among Jews in this country and abroad due to right-wing propaganda. Why not overturn the narrative by pardoning one of Israel's biggest supporters? Before his conviction, Charlie Kushner, the son of a Holocaust survivor, was one of the world's leading philanthropists for Jewish causes. According to Mark Charendoff, president of the Jewish Funders Network,"If you look at the population of Jewish philanthropists who are committed to the Orthodox world, the Jewish world in general and the broader American community, and then layer on that a deep commitment to the welfare of Israeli society, there’s an awfully short list of people who meet that criteria and have the resources of Charles Kushner.”

Obama has shown that he's not above pardoning millionaires and billionaires who cheated the system. Ian Schrager's philanthropic contributions pale in comparison to Charlie Kushner's.

It's one thing Donald Trump can't publicly bash Obama for doing--and one thing that would certainly piss him off.

We The People Still Have The Power

Not a great start for President-elect Trump, attacking freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press in less than 140 characters.

Fascist tweets aside, I'm willing to keep an open mind about a Trump Presidency (call this the "acceptance" stage of grief). Right now, all we have is the fear-- we have yet to see how he and the disturbing people he's surrounded himself with will put their chilling rhetoric into action. It's hard to imagine--given everything Trump has said (or Tweeted) and done--how he will suddenly become an enlightened leader. Even half of his supporters aren't expecting great things here (the non-deplorables). But it is possible that with an organized opposition, any damage he can do to this country will be limited.

In the past few days, millions of Americans have mobilized in cities around the U.S. as a show of force. There are 59.9 million people who voted against Trump--a slim majority of American voters-- and what these protests show is that we're not going to be silent and we're not going to be steamrolled.

This is not a repudiation of those who voted for Trump. Sure, some in the crowd may demand the election be overturned, but that's not realistic, nor is it the point of these mass demonstrations. These protests are meant to serve as a warning. In our lifetimes, we've seen rapid social progress for the rights of minorities, women and LGBT citizens, advances in world peace, environmental health, and economic prosperity-- if Trump rolls back any of the rights or protections we've fought so hard for, these protests make it clear that he and the whole country will hear about it.

Even Wall Street sent a strong signal to Trump in the late hours of Election Day. Dow futures plummeted, before the market returned in the morning to make gains. It's hard not to see that blip as a threat from Wall Street-- screw up this economy, and these are the charts America will be looking at come next election.

We cannot forget that we have a government that answers to its people at all times. Not just on election days. Civil disobedience and protest have a long history in this country-- from the Boston Tea Party to Rosa Parks to Woodstock. Americans stood up for what they believed in against the powers that stood against them, and by show of solidarity and by virtue of their righteousness, won. This is the story of America. It's not anti-democratic to protest... it's in our blood.

Now is not the time to curl up in a ball and cry (though, that's an understandable emotion). Now is the time to get involved. For too many years, too many of us have been Facebook activists. We've forgotten what it means to hit the streets, to shout, to stand and be seen. To get involved.

This is a call to action.

Trump may be our next President, but he will not be our Dictator. When he threatens our liberties, we cannot, and will not, take it lying down.

Pay attention to what Trump does next. If he appoints a white nationalist anti-Semite as his chief of staff. If he allows Mike Pence and his ilk to pass discrimination laws against gay Americans or restrictions on women's health. Watch and see if he takes health care away from millions, while replacing it with nothing. Take notice if he endangers our security by pulling out of alliances and international treaties, or if he rattles the nuclear saber and risks war. All of us need to hold him accountable for his actions-- and not just those who didn't vote for him, but those who did. If he hurts us, don't stay silent.

Let us always remember the words of the infamous Access Hollywood tape. Not the "grab them by the pussy" part. The part that reveals what kind of man Trump is and how he may govern:

"And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

It's up to we, the people, over the next 4 years, to make sure he can't.

Hillary Was Who They Said She Was

Like 50,000,000+ other Americans, I am shocked and dismayed, and greatly fear the future. That's never happened after an election in my lifetime. When Bush defeated Kerry in 2004, I thought plenty of people were nuts. But I didn't fear for my country that way I do now. Maybe Trump will prove us all wrong. Maybe he won't run the country the way he ran his businesses, bankrupting them while enriching himself, maybe all the racist and sexist talk and behavior was only hot air aimed at making a billionaire more relatable to the common man, maybe...

But we all know who Trump is. We've been saying it all along. The surprise is finding out who Hillary really was.

Last night, Hillary supporters gathered in the Javits center were crying and stunned by the bad, unthinkable news that kept rolling in. They'd come expecting victory, instead, they faced their worst nightmare. Whether you believe the dire apocalyptic scenarios put forward by many political writers or not, there's no denying that at a certain point in the evening, for Hillary supporters, it felt like the end of the world.

And at that moment, she sent John Podesta to speak to the crowd, and tell them to go home.

Which would have been fine... I guess... If she and her campaign really were going to wait until every last vote was counted. Kerry, in 2004, waited until the next day too. Of course, we know what happened in 2000 as well.

But a heartbeat later, before the Javits center could even fully clear out, Hillary conceded to Trump in a private phone call. She didn't speak to her supporters. She didn't speak to a worried, fractured nation or a frightened world. She went to bed.

Bernie supporters tried to warn us from the beginning. They claimed she'd lost touch with the people, that she didn't feel our pain. The Bernie Bros that I dismissed as deluded about their candidate's electoral chances were right. This election came down to who was more passionate about the country, who cared about fixing its problems. Hillary, to be charitable, played it safe, choosing a message that to stay the course, with slight corrections, was the more prudent way forward. I still believe she was right... But that doesn't matter. The message was all wrong--it failed to connect with the people she needed to win. As it turned out, her temperament, calm, above-the-fray, unmoved... was the problem.

It had nothing to do with the emails.

And at our darkest hour, Hillary proved her critics right. She took thousands from the likes of Goldman Sachs to give inspirational speeches, but the speech she needed to give, one she'd been paid millions for by the American people, she refused.

John Podesta... John friggin Podesta... told us to go to bed instead.

Hillary abandoned us, abandoned the party, abandoned the country at a time when we needed her to say everything would be okay, that progressive ideals aren't dead, that the fight will go on, renewed and reinvigorated. She needed to tell us this is day one of building New Democratic engines in our communities, so that a million young, engaged, and idealistic Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warrens, and Hillary Clintons emerge to save this country from its worst impulses.

Maybe we should have paid her more.

Losing last night was a tragedy--the extent of it is yet to be seen. It could have been redeemed somewhat by a triumphant call to return to the principles that made our country the shining city on a hill, the beacon of light and freedom to the world.

Hillary was silent. I hope and pray we don't follow her example.

Why I'm Against Trump's Social Policies

I believe government should follow the same principle as doctors do: "Do No Harm." Law is a blunt instrument: while a certain bill may be proposed with the good of the people in mind or passed into law with the best intentions, often there are unforeseen or ignored consequences that do more harm than good.

As such, I believe the government should be very careful to not pass laws that disproportionately affect small slivers of the American populace or violate the standard that "all men are created equal." I believe it is the government's job to protect the vulnerable from the will of the strong, to protect the minority from the ignorance of the majority. To make sure that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and basic human rights are always respected, for all.

Protect the vulnerable? At first blush, anti-abortion, pro-life laws may appear to do that. If I were a woman and found myself pregnant, I would not get an abortion. I think this has to do largely with my view that life is a miracle, and my experience growing up with my sister, Shari, who has severe autism. When I think about how genetic testing could mean that parents would choose to prevent people like my sister from ever being born, it causes me deep distress. I know the sacrifices my parents made and the incredible strength it took to raise my sister, and I know not every parent has those same resources or abilities. I'm not sure even I would be able to meet that challenge. But it troubles me how close some abortion decisions can come to sounding like arguments for eugenics.

However, I am not willing to cut off my thinking there. First, I am a man, not a woman. I will never be in that position to make such a decision about my body. So I need to consider what it means to force someone to carry a child for nine months, at risk to their own health and welfare. If abortion was as simple and clear cut as murder, you certainly wouldn't see such a split in public opinion (the devil isn't fooling 50% of Americans). You wouldn't have concessions from Republicans allowing for exemptions in case of rape and incest-- after all, if the baby is innocent, then why should the crime be a reason for the baby's termination? If abortion is murder, would every miscarriage become a murder investigation? If late-stage health problems were to put a pregnant woman at risk, would doctors hesitate to save the mother's life over that of her child's? I can't pretend this isn't a thorny issue. Expecting a law to address it adequately and humanely is hopelessly naive.

Trump's VP Mike Pence agrees that abortions based on genetic tests smacks of eugenics, which is why he passed a law banning such a practice. But he will never have to live with the consequences of that law-- and he's done exactly nothing in his state to address what happens when that down syndrome baby is born. Will he force the parents to care for the child? With what money and what resources? What has he put in place to make sure that child won't suffer? Isn't it an incredible cruelty to inflict on expecting parents--to make a mother carry to term a child who she may not want, who may not even survive? Pence even banned the one good that could come from an abortion-- requiring fetal tissue to be buried or cremated, rather than using those cells to help save the lives of others.

Trump portrayed women getting an abortion at a late stage in her pregnancy as monsters, "ripping the baby from the womb." But the facts show that uniformly, women getting late term abortions wanted to have their baby-- the baby, sadly, wasn't viable. Having those "abortions" was literally the worst and most painful moment of their lives. Why is Trump bringing additional hardship to grieving mothers? Is it really to save vulnerable lives? Or score political points?

Abortion is a tragedy no matter what choice gets made. What makes Donald Trump and Mike Pence more qualified to answer such a personal crisis than women, their doctors and their families?

Creating new life is the greatest miracle-- perhaps the only miracle-- mankind is capable of. If you have to force people to perform that miracle, you've got bigger problems that no single law can solve. Instead of punishing women and their doctors, our efforts should focus on creating a more supportive environment for women, children, and families. Trump's businesses don't even offer paid maternity leave. Pence voted against paid maternity and paternity leave time and time again. I believe that if you want to protect life, you can't just force birth--you've got to actually support policies that give young families and single mothers the time, money and resources necessary to raise a healthy child.

I also believe people should be able to live, love and worship without government interfering with their lifestyle. The party of Trump believes one of the nation’s biggest problems is transgender people using the bathroom, and that the Supreme Court needs more people like Scalia, who wrote a scathing dissent against the court’s approval of gay marriage. Mike Pence's idea of "religious freedom" is the freedom for businesses to discriminate against a group of people for having different beliefs.

Hey, I believe in free speech. If you want to spout bigoted views, have fun. But a line is crossed when you allow those people to cause real harm to others. If you don't believe in gay marriage--don't marry someone of the same sex. Hand out religious tracts. Blog about it. But don't ban gay volunteers from serving this country in the military. Don't vote against a law that expands existing hate-crime protections to outlaw attacks based on sexual orientation or gender. Speech is one thing, stopping someone from a career, exposing someone to physical abuse... those are something else.

I believe that separation of church and state is something our forefathers baked into the constitution, having fled from religious persecution themselves. We know the dangers of theocracy-- we can see it in other countries around the globe. The Johnson Amendment doesn't prevent a preacher or a rabbi from supporting Trump or even advocating for a candidate from the pulpit--it prevents them from using their subsidies and tax breaks from Uncle Sam for political purposes. If tax-exempt churches and synagogues were allowed to collect and use money to fund political ads and campaign events, they could potentially become nothing more than giant Super-Super-PACs, washing campaign donations in holy water to skirt campaign finance laws. Trump wants to allow this. Probably because his idea of a non-profit charity, the Trump Foundation, only exists to support Trump campaigns.

Trump has gained a lot of followers from the "anti-PC" crowd, upset that they catch heat for saying inappropriate and derogatory things that they used to be able to get away with. They use the phrases "social justice warriors" and “feminist” as slurs. I don’t think that’s right. Just because someone advocates for equalizing a system they view as unequal doesn’t mean they're inventing any narrative that “white people are evil.” There are otherwise reasonable people who claim there’s no racism in America, that women are already being treated like men, or that the impoverished are poor because they’re lazy. All PC-culture aims to do is get us to question those assertions and examine why it is that we discount the feelings of others.

If someone tells me I've done something or said something racist/sexist, my first instinct is to apologize and figure out how I can avoid causing such offense in the future. How does a racist/sexist person respond? By insisting that it's the other person's problem, not theirs. I don't think our government should act like a racist/sexist person. If a minority group expresses concern about their treatment at the hands of the majority, it is our government's job to examine that and protect those people from further harm. Not blame that minority for causing its own problems.

We live in a more open, accepting, and free society than human beings have ever lived in. When Trump says "Let's Make America Great Again," he references a past that was not so open, not so accepting, and not so free. As someone who believes in social justice, in equality, in acceptance, I look at Trump's partnership with Pence and the statements both candidates have made and I can't envision them doing anything but sticking with the Republican party line-- one that approves conversion therapy for homosexual youths, believes creationism belongs in the classroom, and that thinks women's rights extend only so far.

I can't support going backwards. To do so would be to cause harm to those who are finally getting a fair shot in a country that long denied it.

If we can't protect those citizens, then what kind of government do we have?

Why I'm Against Trump's Foreign Policy

“Radical Islam” is not a magic phrase, an “abracadabra” that will suddenly make ISIS pack up and leave. “Well, she said ‘Radical Islam’ was the enemy, so I guess we’re done here,” said no terrorist ever.

Still, many Republicans get upset that President Obama and Hillary Clinton don't use those words to describe ISIS.  Some believe the reason the President and other administration officials do this is because either they're secretly supporting terror, or simply don't understand the threat. In fact, there are very good reasons to be "PC" in this case, and limit our description of terrorists to exclude a specific and simplistic religious label.

The first reason should be obvious--calling these terrorists "Islamic" feeds into ISIS propaganda. The Islamic State’s message is simple: "the West has declared war on Islam, so we’re waging war on them." ISIS surely appeals to violent, mentally-disturbed people, but its sales pitch isn't "wanna rape and murder? come on down!" ISIS depends on creating a narrative where America is the evil empire, out to destroy the Islamic way of life. Our counter-messaging depends on making it clear our war is not against Islam, but those who use it as justification for murder, rape, and other atrocities. Do we really want to say, “Yeah ISIS, you’re right! We do hate Muslims!" I’m sure that will play very well and not at all add fuel to ISIS recruiting efforts.

ISIS has used the words of Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, in its propaganda videos, to “prove” that the West seeks to destroy Islam. It’s hard to imagine any action America can take to invite more acts of terror than to elect a guy who openly pledged to keep Muslims out of America.

The second reason, of course, is that there is no "understanding" to be gained by treating these terrorists as "Islamic terrorists." In what ways would our strategy change if we focused on the religious aspect as the driver of terror? Well... you start to go down a dark road. Why is it that many Republicans think that Islam is one monolithic hive mind where everyone believes the same interpretations and beliefs? Or that it's any more prone to extremism than any other religion or nationality: historically, vastly more slaughters of innocents were committed by Christians.

If every Muslim is a suspect, it stands to "reason" that to be safe, you'd have to treat every Muslim differently. Plank one of Trump's plan is to ban all Muslim immigrants. But does it stop there? Are the 3.3 million Muslims living in America our enemies? What about the millions of Muslims who have never committed an act of terror, nor supported one? Or our Muslim allies? What “final solution” can you come up with when you believe all the followers of a different religion are monsters, or that the acts of a few represent the threat of the many? The road this leads you down is a road humanity has traveled down before, to disastrous results. 

How does Trump’s ban plan work? Do you give everyone a religious test they need to pass? Judge them on appearance? How about that little Syrian boy? He’s Muslim… is he a terrorist?

Even if you believe profiling suspects wouldn't mire us in false-positives, add wasted man-hours interrogating Cat Stevens, feed a culture of paranoid xenophobia and inspire more extremism... you'd still be stuck with reason number three: the intelligence value of being friends with your "enemy." 

Just because the middle east hasn’t turned into happy unicorn land in the 15 years since 9/11 (while we actively fought wars there for most of it, and left power vacuums in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to the short-sighted policies of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush) doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t continue to work with Islamic nations. How else can we gather intelligence? Send a white guy with a Texas accent into Syria to say, “Hey there partner, I’m totally a Muslim who is into ISIS and not a spy! So when's that next terrorist attack?” Maybe we keep our troops stationed in flying blimps, instead of our bases based in Muslim countries? 

Bush tried capturing suspected terrorists and torturing them. Even then, to know who those terrorists were required coordination with intelligence services in Muslim countries. They don’t want these guys threatening the stability of their nations either. How does completely giving up diplomacy help anyone? We saw what happens. War. Stupid, pointless war. Do you want more troops on the ground? Are you going to fight?

Hillary and the current administration would rather those Islamic nations, Islamic rebels, and Kurdish militias do the fighting for us, with our support. A plan that so far, is working. Declaring Islam as our enemy doesn't aid those alliances. 

Trump's counter-argument has not been to offer up a real plan to fight ISIS (it's a secret, he says) but to accuse Hillary of having conflicts of interest that would prevent her from making decisions in the interest of the American people. Should we list the countries Trump and his close allies have done business with? Or perhaps just point out the differences between the charitable Clinton Foundation and the not-so-charitable Trump Foundation? 

Are we to believe that Trump, with zero diplomatic experience, multiple business conflicts of interest, a dependence on fake Russian news sites for intel and a declared willingness to abandon our NATO allies at the drop of a hat, would be better? Based on what?

I shouldn’t have to say it, but a senator, a Secretary of State, or even a President, is not Superman (or Wonder Woman). He or she can’t stop every worldwide catastrophe, every death personally. Trump seems to think he can fix everything himself—he’s actually said that. He accuses Hillary of doing nothing because certain things in the world still occur. 

Hillary, her entire career, has fought for human rights here and abroad. Her accomplishments have been a mixed bag, but they're not nothing. 

Just because we don’t live in a magical puppy utopia doesn’t mean Trump, who has dedicated his whole life only to Trump, will do any better. Considering he never addressed any of these issues until a few months ago—and Republicans certainly didn’t during 8 years of George W. Bush, I don’t see how we can have any faith he will.

Why I'm Against Trump's Economic Policies

Genius and talent don’t only exist among the privileged, and far too often, bright young people who could potentially be the next Einstein or Steve Jobs never get the chance, because of their situation—too little money, too little opportunity. Liberals believe that the best way to help even the playing field is to make sure resources are available for the disadvantaged, to make sure they have access to food, shelter, and education. These things cost money. 

It used to be, in the era when labor unions were strong and more businesses were local and home grown, instead of huge corporations, that people got a living wage for their labor. Now they don’t. And so liberals believe that those who have enjoyed the incredible advantages offered by being upper class in America, those who profit massively from the businesses that pay workers shit, should do their part to help those at the bottom. If your CEO makes 20 million a year, and your company makes millions in profits, and your workers can’t feed their families, the government either has to step in and stop that abuse, or step in and fill the gap.

Conservatives like to call this communism and conflate it with progressivism. But it’s a far, far cry from seizing entire businesses and profits, assigning people to jobs and distributing the money “equally” like communist Russia. Liberals believe that a progressive tax structure, in the end, works for everybody. The money ends up back at the top, because of a few factors. One, a healthier, well educated, well-compensated workforce is more productive. Two, poor people spend money. Not on private jets, but consumer goods. This money flows into the economy and ends up feeding business profits. Three, we don’t need to waste as much money on the things that poverty tends to create—crime, homelessness, astronomical health care costs. 

On the flip side, conservatives believe the more money concentrated at the top, the better. They think the poor are scum that will suck the teat of Uncle Sam for the rest of their lives. They think the poor can’t be trusted with money. Trickle-down economics has been Republican policy since Reagan, and every Republican presidency has proven it wrong. The 80s saw a devastating recession under George Bush. The 90s boomed under Clinton. The 00s led us to the greatest economic disaster since the great depression thanks to George W. Bush. 08-‘16, the economy has come back under Barack Obama. Do you see a pattern? Liberals do. 

And its not like rich Americans have suffered liberal policies. Why does Trump believe doing the same thing Republicans have tried and failed at for years will produce different results? Why do the rich, who haven’t been hurt at all by economic downswings, reap the benefit of tax cuts while poor Americans get their health benefits cut, their salaries kept at starvation levels, and face the loss of life-saving social services? Why does Trump believe that the middle class will benefit if the rich people get richer—even though that has never been the case?

Someone Explain Why Anyone Should Care About Hillary's Emails

We're 11 days away from an election that could determine the course of the United States, and the world, for decades to come. In one corner, we have the chosen candidate of white supremacists everywhere, a man who has admitted to sexual assault, a man who has conned hundreds of people out of their hard-earned money, a man who has never done one act of public service in his entire life. In the other corner, you have a career politician who OMG EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!!!!!

EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!!! WOWSERS!  OH NO!!! #$%@^!!!!

Honestly, why is this even an issue? You have one reason to not vote for Hillary: you are a Republican when it comes to social issues, and you want abortion banned, the gays back in the closet, and the minorities to shut up. This is not debatable, because it is literally all Trump brings to the table. If you want a Supreme Court packed with Scalias, Trump is your man. In fact, if you're not particularly bigoted or racist, you have a pretty compelling argument to vote for Hillary.

So why would EMAILS EMAILS EMAILs cause you to say, "Fuck Hillary, I'm a Trump guy?"

More of Hillary's emails have been read, studied, picked apart and agonized over than the works of Shakespeare. There is no person on Earth who can claim to have released more emails to the public than her. George W. Bush, who suspended civil liberties, rewrote the constitution, slept through 9/11 and embroiled us in two costly wars-- well, he "lost" 22,000,000 emails. We will never see them. They were on the private server of the Republican National Committee.

Despite this unprecedented scrutiny, this magnifying glass over every quip from a low-level Democratic party campaign worker... literally NOTHING illegal has been found. NO emails of her plotting to kill Americans in Benghazi. NO emails of her sharing Monica Lewinsky nude pics. NO emails of her promising Iran she'll give them nukes as soon as she's elected. NOTHING. NADA. ZILTCH.

The FBI, the RNC, Wikileaks, the press, Russia, even the right wing conspiracy media... not one of these entities has found any email that surprises and shocks us. Oh, politicians are calculating? They try and speak out of both sides of their mouth? Their staff can get petty and catty? OH MY GOD!!!!! TELL ME something I don't know.

It's within your rights to be sick of politicians. But lets not pretend these things are great crimes. Let's not pretend they're worse... or even equivalent... to the very real crimes Donald Trump has been getting away with for years-- things that have been proven in a court of law and recorded on videotape. Let's not pretend that being a politician is worse than inviting a white supremacist to help run your campaign.

Did Hillary erase emails in which she discussed taking bribes from the Saudis? The Republicans would say, "YOU BET!" But there's no evidence of this. It's all speculation. Hillary could have erased an email revealing she's really Emperor Zod of the Planet Kylophon, here to enslave the earth and steal the world's reserves of Beanie Babies. That email MIGHT EXIST!!! But it doesn't, and that line of thinking should also have you wondering what things might exist in Trump's email, right? After all, we don't have any of his messages. Not one. We don't even have his tax returns.

Was Hillary careless with classified information? Well, it depends whether you think the state department email system, WHICH WAS HACKED, is safer than Hillary's own email system, which is apparently so secure that no one can find her Emperor Zod emails. It also depends whether you give a damn if she accidentally revealed that a general's favorite soup is split pea, which is the kind of ticky-tacky shit the government slaps "CLASSIFIED" on ever since the Bush administration.

All of this hand-wringing, all of this "HILLARY BELONGS IN JAIL!" bullshit... WHY? Every single telescope, microscope and endoscope has been focused on her for close to 30 years... and nobody has found absolutely anything to imprison her for! What's the charge? What's the evidence? And... WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Imagine someone pitched a movie with Hillary as the villian: "You see, the bad guy, she's this woman who, well, she used her own email server. And MI-6 has to send James Bond to take her down." This is not compelling stuff.

By all means, if you have ideological differences with the Democratic Party, vote Republican. I'll point out that Trump is not a Republican, and you should worry about him destroying your party, but at least I'll understand why you're voting the way you are.

But if you're a so-called fence-sitting independent? Can you really not tell the difference here?

Trump Proud That He Didn't Mention Bill's Infidelity

While most Americans believe Hillary Clinton won last night's debate by speaking in complete sentences and not just mixing together random words with coke/amphetamine/terminal-illness sniffles, Trump and his good friend Sean Hannity have pointed out otherwise. While Hillary was a big bad meanie--insisting that The Donald's shady, sometimes racist business practices, multiple bankruptcies, demeaning comments about women and dangerous comments about our allies abroad were somehow relevant to his qualifications for the presidency--Trump himself showed "enormous restraint," a quality Americans are looking for in a President:

"I was going to say something extremely rough to Hillary, to her family, and I said to myself I can't do it. I just can't do it. It's inappropriate, it's not nice."

After restraining himself for several minutes, Trump let it all out with reporters immediately after leaving the stage:

Trump: "I'm very happy that I was able to hold back" on Bill Clinton's "indiscretions" https://t.co/iXIwDaIPem https://t.co/LKaHt4NI6b

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 27, 2016

How Bill Clinton's affairs relate to Hillary's abilities to be President, the twice-divorced Republican nominee who admitted to cheating on his first wife didn't say.

Trump's Word Games

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. And by the way, if she gets to pick her judges: Nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."

Trump said these words. They're on video, as you can see here below:

Trump: If Clinton picks judges, "nothing you can do, folks -- although the 2nd Amendment people, maybe there is." https://t.co/7oFn4JE2D8

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) August 9, 2016

What did Trump mean? Well, to us regular folk, it seems pretty clear that Trump was saying that if Hillary is elected, she will ban guns, and in that case, there will be nothing anyone can do... except for gun owners. What can those gun owners do after Hillary is elected that no one else can? Trump doesn't quite spell it out. But gun owners possess something that non-gun owners don't. What is that?

Well, according to a Trump statement:

That's right... gun owners have "the power of unification." In the event of a Hillary Clinton election, this "power of unification" will prevent her from naming judges that will take guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminally inclined. 

He totes mcgoats wasn't suggesting that anyone shoot her. Gosh, dishonest media, where would anyone get that idea?

The uncomfortable laughter heard in the video above makes it clear that if this is what Trump meant, those in attendance sure didn't know it.

Trump's Winning Debate Strategy Vs. Hillary Clinton

It seems to be the general consensus--at least among Democrats--that when it comes time for the Presidential debates, Hillary Clinton will wipe the floor with Donald Trump. There's evidence that Trump himself is worried about this, already hemming and hawing about the debate schedule. If you'll recall, he actually sat out of one of the Republican debates because he didn't like the results of the previous one.

There is little doubt that when it comes to knowledge of government, public policy, and the issues at stake in this election, Hillary Clinton has a better grasp. But the Democratic nominee would be wise to study Trump's past debate behavior and rhetoric--the angry orange man may not know how to "win" a debate, but he certainly knows how to derail one. And for Trump, that could be as good as winning.

Here's how Trump "beats" Clinton in a debate:


1. Attack the questions and the moderators.

Not even Trump's biggest defenders believe he has a great handle on the issues (the most common defense is, "he'll have the best advisors.") One of his best strategies to buy time to formulate answers and distract from his lack of knowledge will be to go after a group that most of his supporters uniformly hate. No, not Muslims... the Media. He will most likely be called to task for previous things he's said on Twitter, in interviews, and rallies, and his winning strategy will be to accuse the moderators of bias (remember Megyn Kelly), the questions for being unfair, and the debate process itself as being rigged. By de-legitimizing the debate, he seeks to mitigate its impact. Instead of losing the debate, his supporters will be able to say he successfully withstood a character assassination attempt. Expect that any pointed question about his temperament, behavior, or prior statements will be parried with a defense that the media is out to get him and deliberately skewing the coverage.

2. Interrupt, mug for the camera, and talk over Hillary.

Donald Trump loves attention. He thrives on it. As we heard in their respective convention speeches, there's quite a contrast between Hillary and Donald's speaking styles. You'd think a calm, well reasoned argument typically wins out over an unhinged ramble. Usually, you'd be right. But to use the Republican debates as an example, Trump uses his demented charisma not to make a powerful argument, but to steal the stage. He's consistently robbed other candidates of speaking time. Look at what he did to "poor" Jeb Bush, an experienced politician who certainly speaks more coherently on the issues--Trump silenced him, again and again, in front of a national audience, and made him appear weak. Trump set the rhythm of the debate by never allowing his opponent to make a point uninterrupted. Trump will attempt to deny Hillary the time to make a reasoned argument and bully her off the stage, For him, it's better if viewers are distracted by him muttering, "Crooked Hillary," or if the network cuts away to catch him mugging for the camera, than if the audience is able to focus on Hillary's words. The more focus he can pull toward him--even if its negative--the more he makes Hillary disappear.

3. Mock Hillary with nicknames and attack lines.

Trump doesn't want a debate. He wants a circus. Debates favor the best arguments and the strongest speakers. A circus is pure entertainment. John Kasich made some inroads--too late--among Republicans because he mostly stayed out of the ugly fray and stayed on topic during the Republican debates. Meanwhile, Little Marco and Lyin' Ted fell by the wayside because they stopped looking Presidential and started looking like damaged little boys on the playground. Trump got them to play in the mud, and they soiled themselves. Trump's goal is to get Hillary agitated and get her to break decorum. As Michelle Obama said in her convention speech, "When they go low, we go high." If Hillary forgets this, and goes low, Trump will be able to feed a narrative of name-calling and childish bickering to the news media. That will dominate the headlines the next day, instead of his debate failures and lack of substance.

4. Protest, then Parrot

Otherwise known as the Mitt Romney debate strategy. Also a strategy well-known to Melania Trump's speechwriter. And it's the best way for Trump to seem Presidential and "take the high road." The "Protest, then Parrot" strategy boils down to this. First, accuse your opponent of being out of touch, of just not getting it: America needs a change from politics as usual. Then--nearly word for word--lay out the same exact strategy your opponent supports. For added effect, one up it. For example, Hillary lays out a $275 billion dollar plan to put people to work rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure? Accuse her of selling out the working class, redistributing wealth, and raising our taxes... and then propose spending "at least double" to put people to work rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure. Time and again, if Hillary lays out a plan, Trump will say it will raise our taxes and sell out America, and then will recite the same plan, except he'll do it by cutting taxes and saving America. Trump won't need to bring any of his own ideas--other than The Wall--he can just steal from Hillary. Most political commentators and the audience watching at home thought Mitt Romney won the first debate in 2012, even though everything he said on stage was wildly out of character and ran counter to the policies he'd advocated for his entire campaign. It's winning by blurring the lines--sound just like your opponent, and some people won't be able to tell the difference. Even better, your opponent is caught off guard and has nothing to say.

5. Go left.

The Bernie or Bust strategy. Realistically--and the polls show this--a Bernie Sanders supporter isn't going to vote for Trump. The Donald knows this... or at least the people in his campaign do. But Trump's appeals to the Bernie set aren't designed to win votes... they're designed to lower turnout for Hillary. A left-leaning Bernie supporter who doesn't vote for Hillary is a win in Trump's book, especially in swing states, where the polls are close. If he can consistently attack Hillary's ties to Wall Street, her support for the war in Iraq, the DNC's questionable ethics, he can keep the discussion about Hillary's commitment to progressive values alive. Heck, he might even go out of his way to praise Jill Stein! If he can keep a few thousand left-leaning voters from pulling the lever for the only left-leaning candidate with a realistic shot at the Presidency, he tightens the race. And as we saw in Florida in the 2000 election, that could make a big difference.

Can Hillary withstand these strategies? Can she counter them? She's certainly heard it all and faced much worse throughout her long time in politics. If she can demonstrate her mastery of the issues and keep her emotions in check--unlike Rubio and Cruz--and command attention and respect the way Jeb Bush couldn't, she should succeed just like all the prognosticators expect. But if Trump gets under her skin and steals the microphone, the debates could be a wash, doing nothing to move the needle for her. That's a win in Trump's book, and it's something the Clinton camp should take very seriously.

What Matters

No one is asking for perfection.

As long as police departments continue to be staffed by human beings, and not sophisticated crime-fighting robots, tragic errors in judgement, sometimes brought on by racial biases, will continue to happen. No amount of training or culture shift can ever remove incompetency entirely. I get that.

Being a police officer can be a scary job, and when a quick reaction can be the difference between life or death, the calls get tough to make. I get that too.

And sometimes, sure, even when we see the videos, we can't quite tell what happened. The instant replay doesn't quite give us indisputable evidence either way. I get that too.

What I don't get... and what I'd imagine most decent people don't get... is how police departments and our elected so-called leaders can continue to erode the public trust by acting like all these shootings are just accidents, incompetence, or tough calls. As if it was some office worker who accidentally lost a big client, or the keynote speech just bombed, or Larry in accounting fudged the numbers.

If you kill someone, you haven't just failed at your job. You've killed someone. That's should be more than a fireable offense. Officers who pull their weapon and kill someone should face appropriate punishment. They've committed a crime. Many would charitably call it involuntary manslaughter.

Instead, there's this circle the wagons thing that happens every time. The police protect their own. The people have no faith justice will be served... because it never is. From Rodney King to Philando Castile, police officers who use excessive force go free or get a slap on the wrist. Fireable offense? Many aren't even fired!

There's an old saying the police like to repeat over and over--"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Sure, we all would. The problem is, these officers are never judged by 12. That outcome is unfathomably rare. So an officer is left with a different calculus--the only thing holding them back is bad press. Shoot first--maybe be asked some questions later.

The public isn't demanding perfection. We know that's impossible. But we demand accountability. Killing someone isn't just some workplace fuck-up. Someone is dead! Why should an officer of the law get a pass? Because their job is tough? Because they got scared? Shouldn't we examine any evidence that suggests they didn't have to be? That someone didn't have to die? Those responsible for the murders of police officers in Dallas yesterday will be rightly captured, tried, convicted, and punished. What about the police officers responsible for murdering--however inadvertently--people they were sworn to protect and serve?

By all means, even up the racial makeup of the nation's police departments, so there is less disparity between the demographics of a police force and the community it serves. Put a camera on every cop, so there's a unbiased record of truth in every interaction. Train officers in peaceful deescalation of conflict and the proper procedures for securing a suspect. Work to break ingrained stereotypes and eliminate racial profiling. All that will help.

But the biggest thing that matters? When someone is killed needlessly, justice must be served. Right now, no one trusts the police, the justice system, or our politicians to do that. Of course there is anger toward law enforcement. Because they keep on treating these cases as if each victim was just a set of tragic circumstances, an unfortunate error, instead of a living, breathing person who didn't deserve to die.

I wonder why that is?

Why You Should Worry About Trump's Tweets

Is Trump a capital-R racist? Is he the second coming of Hitler? Perhaps I'm giving him far too much benefit of the doubt, but I'd say no. Hitler wouldn't associate himself with Omarosa, for example, and he wouldn't be too happy about his daughter converting to Judaism to marry a Jew. But that doesn't mean that Trump isn't a godsend to the racists and anti-Semites out there.

Even if he doesn't intend to be, Donald Trump has become a very public mouthpiece for bigots, xenophobes, and white supremacists. This is not in debate. It's fact:

The tweet above? Originated in a vile white supremacist message board.

It's not the first time he's passed along a message crafted by neonazis.

Or the second.

He does this a lot. Passes on memes, photoshops, and tweets from some of the most hateful people from the darkest corners of the Internet. He does it uncritically, no filter. During a presidential campaign, when he knows every piece of communication from his camp will be heavily scrutinized, he copies things he sees and sends them to millions of people, without even checking the source or worrying about whose message he's passing on.

If he's not doing it deliberately, then he's being hoodwinked, again and again, by KKK-loving anti-government hatemongers. We should worry about someone who is continually deceived into spreading messages lovingly crafted in the backrooms and basements of people determined to wipe out everyone except for white American Christians.

How stupid can one be, really? [UPDATE: Pretty damn stupid. Trump put out an official statement saying the image was taken from another Twitter user. This is another image put out by the same Twitter user.] Trump's latest defense, that the star in the tweet above is a "sherriff's star" is absurd on its face. The image was produced by an anti-Semite for a white supremacist message board. Hillary's email problems have nothing to do with the $100 bills and Jewish star... That's common messaging from Hitler worshippers who believe Hillary is bought and owned by the so-called Jewish elite.

It's not "the media" (the Jewish-owned media, the image's creator would point out) that is twisting this image into something it's not. It takes a lot of squinting and a ton of mental gymnastics to interpret this graphic as a criticism of Hillary's email shenanigans and a reference to the FBI's ongoing investigation. For instance, why $100 bills and not emails or email inboxes as the background (those cute little AOL inboxed would be a particularly germane graphic to use)?  And why not use the FBI logo or the FBI shield (which is not a Star of David) if you intend to refer to the investigation taking place? Nothing about this image says emails or FBI. It's made entirely of anti-Jewish imagery.

Which is exactly the kind of imagery you'd expect once you know this was created for a white supremacist message board.

The fact that Trump has continually given a voice to this type of hate imagery and hate speech should worry anybody who isn't a card carrying racist. Trump's own staff attempted to take his Twitter privileges away because he repeatedly shares content from the internet's scariest trolls. So claiming the image above depicts a sherriff's badge and isn't in any way connected to anti-Semitic bullshit doesn't hold water--if that were the case, then why is Trump's communications team trying to reign him in?

If Trump retweets something, does he believe it? It doesn't matter. What matters is he is exposing these hateful viewpoints to millions of his followers. Every time he retweets a supremacist, he sends that supremacist thousands of new followers. Whether he means to or not, Trump has emboldened the once dormant hate group movements in this country.

If he's giving them such a voice now, can you imagine how loud they'll get if he ever comes to power?

It doesn't matter if Trump is Hitler. He hasn't done anything to counter these voices. He hasn't preached tolerance or expressed scorn for the people who would gas his Jewish grandchild if given a chance. For someone who talks so much, he's said remarkably little about the white supremacists who have gravitated to his campaign.

Plenty of politicians rose to power in 1930s and 40s Germany on the back of Hitler and the nazis. They didn't have to make speeches about the stab-in-the-
back myth or come out against the Jews. All they had to do was give the growing tenor of hate their tacit approval. All they had to do was go along for the ride.

Trump may not be Hitler. But he sure is enjoying the benefits of that kind of hate. He's riding on the backs of racists, bigots and xenophobes. He's echoing their voices and spreading their messages far and wide.

If we don't hold him accountable for that, then he'll only be accountable to them.

The United States of Guns & Ammo

I was watching Rachel Maddow the other night, and she made at least one great point about gun control regulation.

The NRA doesn't want a watch list used to prevent somebody from getting a gun. They say the government could just put anyone it damn well pleased on that watch list--terrorist or not--and deny that person a weapon.

So Maddow suggested--and I'm paraphrasing--"Ok, so how about the FBI receives an alert any time someone on the watch list buys a gun?" This wingnut who murdered 50 human beings bought his gun 12 days before the massacre. What if the FBI could have gotten a text (or a notification!) and checked-in sometime throughout those 12 days? Given this guy a second look?

Would a limited bill like that at least win over the Reasonable Republican(s)?

It seems we might find out soon. After one of the longest filibusters in U.S. history, it seems Republicans in Congress are at least willing to put such a measure to a vote.

Maybe that still comes too close to spooky scary Minority Report-esque precognition for an organization as paranoid as the NRA to consider.

You either "violate" the "2nd amendment," or the 4th amendment, against unwarranted searches. In any case, it's a sad new low we've sunk to as a people if the best we can do after even more unnecessary bloodshed is say, "We'd still give him the gun, but we'd watch him!"

My "Middle Ground For Gun Control?" article reads like a comedy sketch right now. My satirical short play feels like it could happen somewhere in America tomorrow. Strange how time changes things. My occasional co-blogger, Robbie Republican, seems to be busy advising Donald Trump.

Welcome to the United States of Guns & Ammo, bought and paid for by the NRA.

Is there reason to hope that one day, we'll be able to keep guns out of the hands of murderers? Evan Wolfson seems to believe. Since 1983, he was at the forefront of the movement urging the government to recognize same sex marriages. Through a systematic offensive that engaged in debate on all levels of American political discourse, the goals of the gay community were finally realized in last June's Supreme Court decision.

The same strategy can work for sensible gun control, says Wolfson. "You never say you can’t do it. You never say it can’t happen. You never the give the opposition the satisfaction of walking way from the fight. You always have to be creating space for the decision-makers to rise to fairness, and to not have an excuse for inaction."

One key difference between the fight for gay rights and the fight for wackos not to get guns... Americans weren't getting slaughtered in the meantime.

"We will continue the pressure, and we will mobilize," Wolfson says. "Meanwhile, there is a cumulative effect. And if it didn’t crest after Newtown, it will keep accumulating."

How many lives will it take?

Hillary Beat Bernie I Guess. So Let's Get Along.

Welp, this will have a few Bernie supporters claiming the media's in the bag for Hillary.

BREAKING: @AP finds Clinton reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination for president pic.twitter.com/e473F0G4vX

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 7, 2016

I know it's math and Hillary will get the pledged delegates she needs to win tomorrow regardless of who wins the state, but the AP announcing Hillary's win the day before the California primaries has gotta seem like an insult... sorry, conspiracy... to Bernie supporters.

To Hillary's credit, her first statement was one of humility and reserve:

We’re flattered, @AP, but we've got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow! https://t.co/8t3GpZqc1U

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 7, 2016

To Hillary's detriment, a fundraising email sent out by her staff contains images labeled with the words, "Secret Win."

The images in this Clinton email are labeled "secret win." pic.twitter.com/YR4uCdQTZv

— Christina Bellantoni (@cbellantoni) June 7, 2016

That'll get some conspiracy theories smokin'.

Of course, the AP article isn't exactly something that helps Hillary. In fact, it very well could play into Bernie's hands-- Hillary supporters, thinking she's a sure thing, might do their hair or learn to play glockenspiel instead of voting in tomorrow's as-it-turns-out-not-really-crucial Primary elections. Bernie could, as a result, gain ground on Hillary or perhaps eke out a slightly larger margin of victory.

None of that will change the fact that Hillary will receive the pledged delegates she needs tomorrow (added to the superdelegates the AP says have committed to her) to reach the magic Primary-clinching number of 2,383 delegates. Bernie's campaign rightly points out that superdelegates can change their minds before the convention, and that 400 made up their mind before the Primary campaign even began. But that ignores the fact that those 400 who went all-in for Hillary at the very beginning are most likely among her biggest supporters, who will never change their minds. And unless you flip the vast majority of superdelegates (not just some), Bernie's still going to be behind.

So Bernie supporters, I feel you. I know this seems unfair as shit and rigged as hell. But if that's your reaction to today's headlines, it's good preparation for when the official nomination is declared, possibly Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, or on convention day. And that means it's a good time right now for all of us to consider what we do next. 

Hilldawgs gotta open their hearts and minds to the powerful needs and desires of a young, frustrated, progressive movement that deserves to be taken seriously. And Berniebroskies gotta reckon that Hillary is far more likely to represent their interests than a megalomaniac manchild who, at best, will nominate a wildly conservative supreme court justice who strips away our civil liberties, or at worst, will seriously endanger this country's safety.

Otherwise, no one is gonna be liking any of the headlines that come next...

Divided, we lose.

Bloomberg Writer Says Bernie Will Turn Us Into Venezuela

Bernie's "socialism," it should be noted, is not the same as Venezuela's.

If you're a fan of socialism and Bernie Sanders, you're not going to like what Noah Smith has to say about the crisis in Venezuela and how it can happen here:

"When center-left thinkers like Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong tried to restrain the excesses of economists who were over-hyping Bernie Sanders’ economic policy program, many leftists accused them of "hippie-punching,” and claimed that their sensible approach would play into the hands of plutocrats.

But these criticisms are misplaced, and Venezuela shows why. The center-left is the essential bulwark against the kind of aggressive policy mistakes that have doomed dozens of socialist revolutions to dysfunction and collapse. The historically successful approach to economic reform is to “cross the river by feeling the stones” -- a phrase coined by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who undid much of the economic damage done by his predecessors. Gradual reform, not revolution, is a proven winner when it comes to improving the lives of society’s least fortunate."

Methinks even with a Sanders electoral victory, the chances of a socialist revolution happening in the U.S. are about zero, so we should be safe from becoming Venezuela, for now at least.

But I guess, here we're getting a peek into what Trump's line of attack against Bernie could be. Someone trademark the "Bernie Chavez" nickname now.

Did My Novel Forsee An Election Threesome?

My junior year in college ('03) I started writing a novel. The story took part in the near future, when a high profile terrorist attack becomes a harbinger of political revolution and a second civil war. The attack occurs in an election year, and a right wing nationalist candidate rises in the Republican Party. Running against him is an ineffectual, uninspiring Democrat, and a surprisingly charismatic third Party Independent candidate whose support is growing by the day.

In the novel, the election season proceeds deep into the summer, and the Democratic candidate and third party candidate run neck and neck, while near 40% of the electorate remains solidly behind a Republican candidate whose incendiary speeches against Muslims are attracting his own fanatical followers. The Democrats try to get the Independent candidate to back down and unite--but it's no longer clear that scenario will bring out a majority. In late October, the Independent candidate appears to have a distinct lead over the Democrat. 

Another attack just a week before Election Day swings the electorate. Now the nationalist candidate is polling at 51% nationwide. The Democratic candidate and Independent candidate need to join forces but it may already be too late.

I don't want to tell you what happens next in the novel--you'll have to buy it circa 2017-- but needless to say, what happens next is a disaster.

It's strange how this election season has shaped up to (somewhat) match my vision. In my novel, the Republican candidate is a far more lucid and intelligent man than Trump is. In fact, what makes him most dangerous is how he deftly weaves a kind of logic into his speeches--in the grand tradition of eugenics--he's a slick but deeply principled salesman of hate. Imagine Trump wasn't some blubbering haircut in a suit but instead a convincing and calculating presence.

In my novel, the Independent candidate is young, in his early 40s, a first term governor for the state of New Jersey (hey, I got the Northeast part right). He's a centrist, an ex-Republican. He doesn't preach about the evils of Wall Street but he does preach a message of equality. In a stirring speech at the convention, he paints a portrait of human beings as responsible for advancing life throughout the universe, and making sure all souls have a valued role to play among the stars. "We live on a tiny rock hurtling through the vacuum of space, spinning 'round a burning ball of angry fire, while asteroids and meteors and cosmic rays, earthquakes, tornadoes and all manner of natural disasters conspire to kill us, and yet--the thing we fear most is each other?" His campaign motto--I swear, this was really it--is, "America Can Be America Again."

In my novel, the Democratic candidate is just a dull old white guy.

There are enough similarities between my (yet to be completed) manuscript and this election season for me to wonder. Maybe Bernie... gasp... doesn't drop out. The way the Independent candidate in my novel didn't drop out. Maybe this goes three ways down to the wire. Maybe at a certain point, between now and election day, it's Hillary who clearly has less poll support. What does she do?

Hillary supporters deride Bernie supporters as delusional, guns in their own mouths, sore losers who will split the party and help elect a egotistical madman. But what if, in late October, the numbers are reversed? As statistician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight points out (in an article about Donald Trump's "unstoppable momentum") the fact is that many voters, "wait long enough to be reasonably sure they are picking a winner," and Hillary has not yet reached the point (a sort of golden ratio) where her election is inevitable. What if Bernie's appeal could be sharpened between now and November--not just as some TARP sour grapes and Occupy Wall Street word salad--but as a unifying human rights message with real power to change the world?

Well, then, wouldn't us "establishment" Democrats--the reasonable ones, as we've told ourselves--need to switch our support to Bernie? If he managed to somehow swing more than just his Bros and Bernettes, and most importantly, grabbed support from dissatisfied Republicans (a scenario that might only be possible for the centrist candidate in my novel)-- then wouldn't we have to bite the bullet too?

Somebody does, before it's too late.