dailykos--2020-02-15--Beaten Down, Worked Up - A Review

Beaten Down, Worked Up - A Review

Steven Greenhouse , Beaten Down , Worked Up : The Past , Present , and Future of American Labor , ( NY : Alfred A Knopf , 2019 ) 340 pages Journalist Steven Greenhouse has returned with a second book on American labor and the condition of life for the working class .
This new book is partly an update of his 2008 book , the Big Squeeze , but there are also five chapters of narrative from American labor history , along with new current and emerging topics .
In the introduction Greenhouse tells readers the decline of labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wage stagnation , declining mobility , low wage jobs and the skewing of politics to favor the wealthy .
In this new book he pledges to focus far more on why so many Americans have been squeezed .
The first three chapters are part I – State of the Union - that give a warm up for the discussions to come .
In Chapter one , entitled Losing Our Voice , we hear from eight people and their job experiences to show “ something is fundamentally broken in the way many employers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review readers get some quotations from corporate America and their self serving justification for what they do and believe , and then finally some news of new labor organizing .
Chapter Two continues with this but has longer discussions with people and their work at Burger King , Caterpillar Inc. and General Motors .
Chapter Three shifts to one of organized labor ’ s recent success stories , organizing the Culinary Workers Union and local 226 in Las Vegas .
Part II shifts to five significant episodes from labor history .
First , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ garment industry organizing , mostly in New York and mostly by women .
We hear about Clare Lemlich and organizing for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union ( ILGWU ) and the courage of women to face assault , arrest and jail for picketing and striking .
Next , in Chapter 5 , we get an account of the deadly 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist fire in New York .
This story introduces Francis Perkins , who was a witness to the fire .
That story allows a transition to a biography of her career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roosevelt administration .
Greenhouse writes twelve pages of narrative of her work and life , wanting , I expect , to give her the recognition she deserves but does not usually get .
Some of us argue she did more for labor and the working class than Franklin Roosevelt , anyone else .
Chapter 6 continues with the December 31 , 1935 General Motors sit-down strike by the United Auto Workers ( UAW ) that allows an easy transition to Chapter 7 with Walter Reuther and the UAW during WWII and into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to a narrative of the 1968 Memphis Sanitation strike and the last campaign of Martin Luther King , Jr .
The history discussions in Part II ends in 1968 , but Part III – Hard Times for Labor – continues with labor history ’ s events of the 1980 ’ s .
After accounts of the disastrous PATCO strike , and then on to the grimy Phelps-Dodge and Hormel strikes Greenhouse declares “ In the 1980 ’ s everything seemed to go wrong for labor.
” He is sure right about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving abroad , demands for wage cuts , lockouts and union busting .
Readers get short accounts of some of the companies and their union busting talk and tactics : T-Mobile , Menards , Staples , Amazon , and of course Walmart , or really Walmart again , since Greenhouse discussed them in his first book .
The title of chapter 12 , Labor ’ s Self Inflicted Wounds , signals a critical look at labor leadership .
This inevitably brings up the honest but opinionated George Meany and the always controversial Jimmy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1957-59 McClellan committee hearings .
Labor needs solidarity but George Meany refused to endorse the 1963 civil rights march on Washington , which represented a legacy of discrimination in the labor movement going back many decades .
Unfortunately Meany was AFL-CIO president a long time : 1955 to 1979 .
Greenhouse devotes the last two chapters of Part III to a narrative account of the attack on public sector unions by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker , his union busting tactics and then a chapter to discuss the declining political influence of labor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to secure favorable legislation or prevent unfavorable legislation .
Part IV – Labor Today and Tomorrow – devotes seven chapters to current topics and trends in today ’ s labor .
The sweatshops of the 19th and early 20th century have a new name : Gig economy .
We hear about the abuses of Uber as a good example of the Gig economy although there are many others .
After the Gig discussions we find some successes and a little optimism .
There is a chapter devoted to raising the minimum wage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who tries to support herself and her infant child on $ 8.50 an hour working at McDonalds .
She wants to help organize in the fight for a $ 15 an hour wage .
She found out something legions of the oppressed and mistreated working class have learned before her : the owner of the McDonald ’ s franchise refused to speak with her .
Management refusals to speak continue to be one of the clearest examples of class warfare in America .
Next we learn about some modestly successful farm worker organizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure the large vegetable purchasing fast food franchises and then move on to Los Angeles to review similar efforts there .
In Los Angeles readers learn about the Los Angeles Alliance for a new economy ( LAANE ) , an organizing group to push for social justice reforms .
Greenhouse devotes a chapter to labor relations at Kaiser-Permanente ( KP ) , the giant , multi-state , health care provider and to the Saint Paul Federation of Teachers ( SPFT ) efforts to improve area public schools .
KP did not always have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s into the 1990 ’ s KP had several disruptive walkouts but in the mid 1990 ’ s management decided to work with their many unions in a Labor Management Partnership .
Greenhouse reviews the workings of this Labor Management Partnership and its success .
The recent statewide teacher strikes get a whole chapter .
Recall the first strike was in West Virginia , which spread to the Oklahoma teachers , to Arizona , to Los Angeles and a few more states not reviewed here .
Teachers need college degrees and licensed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace with scabs and therefore the ideal employees to organize and strike if necessary .
They make a good example for other occupations .
Author-Journalist Steven Greenhouse reports labor news for the New York Times and so has a salary , a travel budget and time to get some of the stories from the legions of under paid , over worked and over taxed Americans that slog along in America ’ s miserable jobs .
Too often we cite and accept empirical data to show wage and price effects as a way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class .
Interviews do not give a percentage change , but hearing the stories of people and their attempts to cope are empirical and valuable in every sense of the word .
The Beaten Down material in the book comes through clearly , but the Worked Up material points to more positive organizing than his previous book , the Big Squeeze .
Too often labor unions start to act like the top down hierarchy of corporate America .
Union officials make decisions on behalf of a barely involved rank and file , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Up material here shows the methods the rank and file can use to make progress organizing from the bottom up .
The last chapter makes a few suggestions for political organizing to change campaign finance laws , the National Labor Relations Act and a few more , but the book remains essentially free of legislative and party politics .
It is well organized , reads easily and has detailed footnotes for those wanting to go a little deeper .
Lets hope in the next book the Worked Up side will continue to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down ; there are still plenty of them .

Steven Greenhouse, Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present, and Future of American Labor , (NY: Alfred A Knopf, 2019) 340 pages
Journalist Steven Greenhouse has returned with a second book on American labor and the condition of life for the working class. This new book is partly an update of his 2008 book, the Big Squeeze, but there are also five chapters of narrative from American labor history, along with new current and emerging topics.
In the introduction Greenhouse tells readers the decline of labor unions has helped to generate income inequality, wage stagnation, declining mobility, low wage jobs and the skewing of politics to favor the wealthy. In this new book he pledges to focus far more on why so many Americans have been squeezed.
The first three chapters are part I – State of the Union - that give a warm up for the discussions to come. In Chapter one, entitled Losing Our Voice, we hear from eight people and their job experiences to show “something is fundamentally broken in the way many employers treat their workers.” After a data review readers get some quotations from corporate America and their self serving justification for what they do and believe, and then finally some news of new labor organizing. Chapter Two continues with this but has longer discussions with people and their work at Burger King, Caterpillar Inc. and General Motors. Chapter Three shifts to one of organized labor’s recent success stories, organizing the Culinary Workers Union and local 226 in Las Vegas.
Part II shifts to five significant episodes from labor history. First, there is the early 1900’s garment industry organizing, mostly in New York and mostly by women. We hear about Clare Lemlich and organizing for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and the courage of women to face assault, arrest and jail for picketing and striking. Next, in Chapter 5, we get an account of the deadly 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist fire in New York. This story introduces Francis Perkins, who was a witness to the fire. That story allows a transition to a biography of her career and work in the depression era Franklin Roosevelt administration. Greenhouse writes twelve pages of narrative of her work and life, wanting, I expect, to give her the recognition she deserves but does not usually get. Some of us argue she did more for labor and the working class than Franklin Roosevelt, anyone else.
Chapter 6 continues with the December 31, 1935 General Motors sit-down strike by the United Auto Workers (UAW) that allows an easy transition to Chapter 7 with Walter Reuther and the UAW during WWII and into the 1950’s. Chapter 8 moves on to a narrative of the 1968 Memphis Sanitation strike and the last campaign of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The history discussions in Part II ends in 1968, but Part III – Hard Times for Labor – continues with labor history’s events of the 1980’s. After accounts of the disastrous PATCO strike, and then on to the grimy Phelps-Dodge and Hormel strikes Greenhouse declares “In the 1980’s everything seemed to go wrong for labor.” He is sure right about that; it was a time of manufacturing moving abroad, demands for wage cuts, lockouts and union busting. Readers get short accounts of some of the companies and their union busting talk and tactics: T-Mobile, Menards, Staples, Amazon, and of course Walmart, or really Walmart again, since Greenhouse discussed them in his first book.
The title of chapter 12, Labor’s Self Inflicted Wounds, signals a critical look at labor leadership. This inevitably brings up the honest but opinionated George Meany and the always controversial Jimmy Hoffa and labor racketeering exposed in the 1957-59 McClellan committee hearings. Labor needs solidarity but George Meany refused to endorse the 1963 civil rights march on Washington, which represented a legacy of discrimination in the labor movement going back many decades. Unfortunately Meany was AFL-CIO president a long time: 1955 to 1979.
Greenhouse devotes the last two chapters of Part III to a narrative account of the attack on public sector unions by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, his union busting tactics and then a chapter to discuss the declining political influence of labor. In recent years the AFL-CIO has been unable to secure favorable legislation or prevent unfavorable legislation.
Part IV – Labor Today and Tomorrow – devotes seven chapters to current topics and trends in today’s labor. The sweatshops of the 19th and early 20th century have a new name: Gig economy. We hear about the abuses of Uber as a good example of the Gig economy although there are many others. After the Gig discussions we find some successes and a little optimism. There is a chapter devoted to raising the minimum wage. Here readers meet Adriana Alvarez, who tries to support herself and her infant child on $8.50 an hour working at McDonalds. She wants to help organize in the fight for a $15 an hour wage. She found out something legions of the oppressed and mistreated working class have learned before her: the owner of the McDonald’s franchise refused to speak with her. Management refusals to speak continue to be one of the clearest examples of class warfare in America.
Next we learn about some modestly successful farm worker organizing in Florida and the tactics applied to pressure the large vegetable purchasing fast food franchises and then move on to Los Angeles to review similar efforts there. In Los Angeles readers learn about the Los Angeles Alliance for a new economy (LAANE), an organizing group to push for social justice reforms.
Greenhouse devotes a chapter to labor relations at Kaiser-Permanente (KP), the giant, multi-state, health care provider and to the Saint Paul Federation of Teachers (SPFT) efforts to improve area public schools. KP did not always have good labor relations. From the 1970’s into the 1990’s KP had several disruptive walkouts but in the mid 1990’s management decided to work with their many unions in a Labor Management Partnership. Greenhouse reviews the workings of this Labor Management Partnership and its success.
The recent statewide teacher strikes get a whole chapter. Recall the first strike was in West Virginia, which spread to the Oklahoma teachers, to Arizona, to Los Angeles and a few more states not reviewed here. Teachers need college degrees and licensed certification, which makes them hard to replace with scabs and therefore the ideal employees to organize and strike if necessary. They make a good example for other occupations.
Author-Journalist Steven Greenhouse reports labor news for the New York Times and so has a salary, a travel budget and time to get some of the stories from the legions of under paid, over worked and over taxed Americans that slog along in America’s miserable jobs. Too often we cite and accept empirical data to show wage and price effects as a way to measure the changing fortunes of the working class. Interviews do not give a percentage change, but hearing the stories of people and their attempts to cope are empirical and valuable in every sense of the word.
The Beaten Down material in the book comes through clearly, but the Worked Up material points to more positive organizing than his previous book, the Big Squeeze. Too often labor unions start to act like the top down hierarchy of corporate America. Union officials make decisions on behalf of a barely involved rank and file, which has not worked well. The Worked Up material here shows the methods the rank and file can use to make progress organizing from the bottom up.
The last chapter makes a few suggestions for political organizing to change campaign finance laws, the National Labor Relations Act and a few more, but the book remains essentially free of legislative and party politics. It is well organized, reads easily and has detailed footnotes for those wanting to go a little deeper. Lets hope in the next book the Worked Up side will continue to show progress and a decline of the Beaten down; there are still plenty of them.


dailykos--2020-02-15--The Democratic Argument for Splitting High-Population States into Multiple States

I have seen several diaries over the years discussing increasing the number of Congressional districts from the current mandated 435 , as a means of improving the political makeup to be better for Dems .
Since they count towards the Electoral College , this also helps diminish the role of smaller states ( population-wise ) , where every state gets 2 Senators in the Senate , and as such at least 3 EVs .
And when I see stories about plots to break up states , it is usually in a more Republican frame of mind .
Because in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the smallest states wield an outsized amount of power .
Looking at it another way , in our political system , there is effectively little advantage to being a high-population state .
Ostensibly , you might think high-population states would wield more power in the more population-representative House of Representatives .
But because of our two-party dominated political system , it doesn ’ t really work out that way .
Even if California sends 50 Representatives to Washington , if they are not of the same party that controls the House majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective power than Wyoming ’ s lone Representative .
Obviously this is a gross simplification , and I understand that high-population states can and do effect national policy in a large way that is not reflected above .
But I feel that would also be the case even if a state like California splits into multiple states .
Consider the following scenarios for California : Compare that to the most extreme case : Since California ’ s population is roughly 39 million , while Wyoming the least populous state is roughly 600k , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all of equal population of Wyoming .
Assuming the same rules apply : 435 max congressional districts , 2 Senators per state , DC gets 3 Electoral votes equal to the lowest state .
California ’ s power at the national level would look like this : In all of those factors , the population of California would be better off .
More representation in the House , more representation in the Senate , and more representation in the Electoral College .
Granted , this is an extreme case , and there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towards dividing the single state of California into any multiple of new states .
But I am mainly illustrating the point , that in terms of the makeup of our country , with regards to how political power is divided , these high-population states should really consider what they are sacrificing , when sharing the country ’ s power with states that are far less populous .
Add in our general Liberal principles of equal representation in government , and there really is a strong case that allowing this huge disparity in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also a serious injustice .
Now , I am not suggesting the above scenario itself , as dividing California into 65 states does not sound ideal nor politically tenable .
But it demonstrates the benefits of such a process , and is still in the realm of what is legally possible .
First of all , as the Democratic Party , it is broadly regarded as politically viable to grant Washington D.C. , Puerto Rico , and other US territories statehood .
There are also initiatives such as the National Popular Vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem of the Presidency ’ s Electoral College , but is still up for debate if it would even be Constitutional .
And , while I think these are great first steps that should be seriously pursued first and foremost , if we are coming from a stance that these are proposals that have political traction , then the idea of splitting up large states should be as well .
If we are thinking of a more reasonable proposal than dividing California into dozens of states , it could still be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states — California , New York , and maybe Texas might arguably want to get in on this , for example — and only a few splits at most .
A single convention could also be convened , for example , to allow any state that wants to consider this route to be considered , provided that any resulting states do not end up with a smaller population than the current smallest .
Historical precedence , after all , includes such situations where multiple states were borne from such deals .
Obviously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most extreme case cited above , but even being able to divide two or three of such states would be a huge step towards a more representative government .
And , while the Constitutional barriers to statehood can be quite high , if Dems are able to push through initiatives like D.C. and Puerto Rico ’ s statehood , this further step should be considered just as achievable .
Of course , there is one final consideration : There is probably a practical reason up until this point why large population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in such a route .
Perhaps the threat alone has been enough to allow the main power wielders in the federal government to see the Pandora ’ s Box that this would unleash , and have done their best to keep the large states placated .
And yes , even outside of hypothetical , I get that the Republican Party would plainly see how California trying to divide in multiple states would be to their detriment , and do everything in their power to oppose it .
But I also see that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact , Medicare-for-all , the Equal Rights Amendment , and D.C. ’ s statehood , are all being regarded as politically viable , and certainly worth working towards , even in light of Republican obstructionism .
And I see a state-division process as being right up there in terms of what should be considered .
Finally , with today ’ s political climate , with a Republican Party more beholden to a few wealthy individuals than the country or even their own constituents , and an Oval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spurn these influential states like California and New York than they have ever experienced up to this point , it seems now , more than ever , the benefits of remaining such huge-population states with low-political power are vanishing more and more .

I have seen several diaries over the years discussing increasing the number of Congressional districts from the current mandated 435, as a means of improving the political makeup to be better for Dems. Since they count towards the Electoral College, this also helps diminish the role of smaller states (population-wise), where every state gets 2 Senators in the Senate, and as such at least 3 EVs.
And when I see stories about plots to break up states, it is usually in a more Republican frame of mind. Because in our political system, the general wisdom is that the smallest states wield an outsized amount of power.
Looking at it another way, in our political system, there is effectively little advantage to being a high-population state.
Ostensibly, you might think high-population states would wield more power in the more population-representative House of Representatives. But because of our two-party dominated political system, it doesn’t really work out that way. Even if California sends 50 Representatives to Washington, if they are not of the same party that controls the House majority, they could see themselves wielding less effective power than Wyoming’s lone Representative.
Obviously this is a gross simplification, and I understand that high-population states can and do effect national policy in a large way that is not reflected above. But I feel that would also be the case even if a state like California splits into multiple states.
Consider the following scenarios for California:
Current Makeup:
Number of Representatives 53 (12% of 435) Number of senators 2 (2% of 100) number of electoral college votes 55 (10% of 538)
Compare that to the most extreme case: Since California’s population is roughly 39 million, while Wyoming the least populous state is roughly 600k, California could theoretically divide into 65 states, all of equal population of Wyoming.
Assuming the same rules apply: 435 max congressional districts, 2 Senators per state, DC gets 3 Electoral votes equal to the lowest state.
California’s power at the national level would look like this:
Number of Representatives 65 (15% of 435) Number of senators 130 (57% of 228) number of electoral college votes 195 (29% of 666) In all of those factors, the population of California would be better off. More representation in the House, more representation in the Senate, and more representation in the Electoral College. Granted, this is an extreme case, and there would be a lot of logistical nightmare towards dividing the single state of California into any multiple of new states. But I am mainly illustrating the point, that in terms of the makeup of our country, with regards to how political power is divided, these high-population states should really consider what they are sacrificing, when sharing the country’s power with states that are far less populous. Add in our general Liberal principles of equal representation in government, and there really is a strong case that allowing this huge disparity in power is not just an irrational situation, but also a serious injustice.
Now, I am not suggesting the above scenario itself, as dividing California into 65 states does not sound ideal nor politically tenable. But it demonstrates the benefits of such a process, and is still in the realm of what is legally possible.
First of all, as the Democratic Party, it is broadly regarded as politically viable to grant Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and other US territories statehood. There are also initiatives such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would help resolve the problem of the Presidency’s Electoral College, but is still up for debate if it would even be Constitutional. And, while I think these are great first steps that should be seriously pursued first and foremost, if we are coming from a stance that these are proposals that have political traction, then the idea of splitting up large states should be as well.
If we are thinking of a more reasonable proposal than dividing California into dozens of states, it could still be a matter of a few of the largest states — California, New York, and maybe Texas might arguably want to get in on this, for example — and only a few splits at most. A single convention could also be convened, for example, to allow any state that wants to consider this route to be considered, provided that any resulting states do not end up with a smaller population than the current smallest. Historical precedence, after all, includes such situations where multiple states were borne from such deals.
Obviously, they would not see the political gains of the most extreme case cited above, but even being able to divide two or three of such states would be a huge step towards a more representative government.
And, while the Constitutional barriers to statehood can be quite high, if Dems are able to push through initiatives like D.C. and Puerto Rico’s statehood, this further step should be considered just as achievable.
Of course, there is one final consideration:
There is probably a practical reason up until this point why large population states have not so far taken steps in such a route. Perhaps the threat alone has been enough to allow the main power wielders in the federal government to see the Pandora’s Box that this would unleash, and have done their best to keep the large states placated.
And yes, even outside of hypothetical, I get that the Republican Party would plainly see how California trying to divide in multiple states would be to their detriment, and do everything in their power to oppose it. But I also see that we are living in a world where proposals like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Medicare-for-all, the Equal Rights Amendment, and D.C.’s statehood, are all being regarded as politically viable, and certainly worth working towards, even in light of Republican obstructionism. And I see a state-division process as being right up there in terms of what should be considered.
Finally, with today’s political climate, with a Republican Party more beholden to a few wealthy individuals than the country or even their own constituents, and an Oval Office occupant who has done more to spurn these influential states like California and New York than they have ever experienced up to this point, it seems now, more than ever, the benefits of remaining such huge-population states with low-political power are vanishing more and more.


dailykos--2020-02-15--I Just Got A Comment Removed By Admin Because I Challenged A Diary Claim About Warren

A diary recently posted by a Warren supporter referenced a diary I had written Thursday about M4A .
This person ’ s post challenged my logic and premise and claimed that Elizabeth Warren has a transition plan but gave no summary of that plan .
I wrote the diary you referenced in the beginning of this piece .
You may may be working for the campaign given your effusive praise so you can probably get a summary to post here .
As for executive orders if something requires funds appropriation it must go through congress .
That was the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a site administrator for violating the rules of the community .
This is very strange .
I have no idea whether the person who wrote the diary is the administrator who censored my comment .
There is no violation in my comment to be found except that it mildly challenged the diarist to produce evidence backing their claims .
I realize there are a lot of Warren supporters on Kos .
Good for you .
I write straight political pieces here , I don ’ t have a candidate that I promote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ here and I don ’ t appreciate being censored for an innocent comment that may have offended someone with a possible agenda .

A diary recently posted by a Warren supporter referenced a diary I had written Thursday about M4A. This person’s post challenged my logic and premise and claimed that Elizabeth Warren has a transition plan but gave no summary of that plan.
I replied with this…
I wrote the diary you referenced in the beginning of this piece. You may may be working for the campaign given your effusive praise so you can probably get a summary to post here. As for executive orders if something requires funds appropriation it must go through congress.
That was the whole comment. I was immediately contacted by a site administrator for violating the rules of the community. This is very strange.
I have no idea whether the person who wrote the diary is the administrator who censored my comment. There is no violation in my comment to be found except that it mildly challenged the diarist to produce evidence backing their claims.
I realize there are a lot of Warren supporters on Kos. Good for you. I write straight political pieces here, I don’t have a candidate that I promote. I also provide a lot of content here and I don’t appreciate being censored for an innocent comment that may have offended someone with a possible agenda.


dailykos--2020-02-15--How Trump Ruined Any Prosecution of Andrew McCabe.

On February 13th Attorney General Barr complained that Trump ’ s tweets “ make it impossible for me to do my job.
” He directly said , “ it ’ s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases.
” The presumption was that Barr was referring to Trump ’ s numerous comments interfering in the sentencing process for Roger Stone .
However , Barr may have also been referring to another case .
The very next day , the Department of Justice formally announced that it was closing its investigation of Andrew McCabe .
In Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great Deep State Satans .
They imagined him responsible for the FISA abuses and believed with this investigation they had him .
Trump world was convinced that McCabe leaked confidential information , then lied to the FBI about it .
Their position was not wholly without merit ( unlike most of their claims ) .
McCabe himself admitted he lacked full candor with investigators , and an internal OIG investigation found that lack of candor violated internal policy .
In Trump world , this was a chance to strike back against the Deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the prosecutions of Flynn , Manafort , Stone , and so many others .
So imagine their disappointment when the DOJ announced no prosecution of McCabe .
Most are in denial , just FYI , convinced this is a mere trick by the good guys to set up bigger things .
It ’ s not a trick , and they may have their hero Trump to blame .
The non-prosecution announcement declined to prosecute “ based on the totality of the circumstances.
” Those circumstances were explained later in the day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision to not prosecute was announced on the deadline to release previously sealed documents in the case .
Those documents include a status conference with the judge in the case .
In that remarkable status conference , the judge expresses his concern that the entire case against McCabe is part of a political vendetta by Trump .
“ The public is listening to what ’ s going on , and I don ’ t think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a banana republic when we go down that road , I think there are a lot of people on the outside who perceive that there is undue inappropriate pressure being brought to bear … It ’ s just , it ’ s very disturbing that we ’ re in the mess that we ’ re in in that regard.
” — Judge Reggie Walton The judge went on to actually express sympathy for the awkward position this put prosecutors in , and how glad he is that when he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put up with such nonsense .
For the record , this judge was appointed to the Federal District Court by George W. Bush .
Prior to that Ronald Reagan appointed him to a District of Columbia court position .
Trump ’ s pressure to prosecute McCabe had been unrelenting and clear and over the top .
Ã¢ÂÂThe biggest abuse of power and corruption scandal in our history , and itÃ¢ÂÂs much worse than we thought .
Andrew McCabe ( FBI ) admitted to plotting a coup ( government overthrow ) when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was fired for lying & leaking.Ã¢ÂÂ @ seanhannity @ FoxNews Treason !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 19 , 2019 Andy McCabe is a major sleazebag .
Among many other things , he took massive amounts of money from Crooked Hillary reps , for wifeÃ¢ÂÂs campaign , while Hillary was under Ã¢ÂÂinvestigationÃ¢ÂÂ by FBI !
https : //t.co/bHweiBBj7z — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) July 13 , 2019 So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Comey , Strzok , Page , McCabe , Brennan , Clapper , Shifty Schiff , Ohr & Nellie , Steele & all of the others , including even Mueller himself ?
DidnÃ¢ÂÂt they lie ?
... .
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) November 15 , 2019 Trump went so far as to fire McCabe one day before his retirement .
McCabe ’ s lawsuit against that remains pending .
With all that , one of McCabe ’ s obvious defenses , had he been indicted , would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Judge Walton was acknowledging just that concern in the status conference , going so far as to label Trump ’ s pressure to prosecute McCabe as reflective of a “ banana republic.
” It should be self evident that when the defense has a credible claim , recognized even by the judge , that a proposed prosecution is politically motivated , that makes prosecuting the case much more difficult .
While self evident to you and me , it is not self evident to our President .
This is what Barr meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep him from doing his job .
Barr can ’ t prosecute even people he and Trump think should be prosecuted , because Trump ’ s tweets undermine the case .
This is not the first time .
As I noted , the judge in the court martial of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl found Trump ’ s “ unlawful command influence ” a basis to mitigate Bergdahl ’ s sentence in a way that kept him out of jail .
As I said then , the “ President has only himself , and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In both instances , Trump only had to keep quiet about the case .
He just couldn ’ t do it , and in both instances he undermined the prosecution of the case .
He just doesn ’ t learn .
Dear Trumpers , if you are angry that McCabe was not prosecuted , blame Trump .
It ’ s his fault .
I hope you are very angry .

On February 13th Attorney General Barr complained that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.” He directly said, “it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases.” The presumption was that Barr was referring to Trump’s numerous comments interfering in the sentencing process for Roger Stone. However, Barr may have also been referring to another case.
The very next day, the Department of Justice formally announced that it was closing its investigation of Andrew McCabe. In Trump world, McCabe was one of the great Deep State Satans. They imagined him responsible for the FISA abuses and believed with this investigation they had him. Trump world was convinced that McCabe leaked confidential information, then lied to the FBI about it. Their position was not wholly without merit (unlike most of their claims). McCabe himself admitted he lacked full candor with investigators, and an internal OIG investigation found that lack of candor violated internal policy. In Trump world, this was a chance to strike back against the Deep State, a balancing of the scales for the prosecutions of Flynn, Manafort, Stone, and so many others.
So imagine their disappointment when the DOJ announced no prosecution of McCabe. Most are in denial, just FYI, convinced this is a mere trick by the good guys to set up bigger things. It’s not a trick, and they may have their hero Trump to blame.
The non-prosecution announcement declined to prosecute “based on the totality of the circumstances.” Those circumstances were explained later in the day.
Not so coincidentally, the DOJ’s decision to not prosecute was announced on the deadline to release previously sealed documents in the case. Those documents include a status conference with the judge in the case. In that remarkable status conference, the judge expresses his concern that the entire case against McCabe is part of a political vendetta by Trump.
“The public is listening to what’s going on, and I don’t think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted … I just think it’s a banana republic when we go down that road, I think there are a lot of people on the outside who perceive that there is undue inappropriate pressure being brought to bear … It’s just, it’s very disturbing that we’re in the mess that we’re in in that regard.” — Judge Reggie Walton
The judge went on to actually express sympathy for the awkward position this put prosecutors in, and how glad he is that when he was in their shoes he did not have to put up with such nonsense.
“I’m just happy when I was in the Justice Department those type of things were not taking place that were putting either perceived or actual pressure on the office as to whether you prosecute somebody for a criminal offense. I’m happy I never had to endure that.”
For the record, this judge was appointed to the Federal District Court by George W. Bush. Prior to that Ronald Reagan appointed him to a District of Columbia court position.
Trump’s pressure to prosecute McCabe had been unrelenting and clear and over the top.


dailykos--2020-02-17--The History of Black History Month

The History of Black History Month

Men make their own history , but they do not make it as they please .
They do not make it under self-selected circumstances , but under circumstances existing [ and ] already given and transmitted from the past .
The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living .
And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things , creating something that did not exist before , precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis , they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language .
I am not afraid of being sued by white businessmen .
In fact , I should welcome such a lawsuit .
It would do the cause much good .
Let us banish fear .
We have been in this mental state for three centuries .
I am a radical .
I am ready to act , if I can find brave men to help me .
— Carter G. Woodson…From : On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Civil Rights Trail , Charles Cobb , Jr. ( January 1 , 2008 ) Algonquin Books , p. 28 .
Black History Month is an annual observance and commemoration in the US , Canada , and the United Kingdom .
Its original purpose was to recall and celebrate important people and events in the history of the African diaspora .
In the US and Canada , it is celebrated annually in February .
The United Kingdom celebrates Black History Month next month , October .
Black History Month began as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was the brainchild of historian Dr. Carter G. Woodson and the Chicago-based Association for the Study of Negro Life and History .
Woodson declared that the second week of February would forever be “ Negro History Week.
” Why the second week ?
Because this week contains the birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln ( 12th ) and Frederick Douglass ( 17th ) .
The principal purpose of Negro History Week was to facilitate and encourage a universal and coordinated teaching of the history of black Americans in this nation-state ’ s public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was met with only tepid response by virtually all education establishments nationwide .
Indeed , only the Departments of Education of the states of North Carolina , Delaware , and West Virginia , as well as the city school administrations of Baltimore and Washington , D.C. , made even lukewarm efforts to incorporate the celebration and commemoration into their curricula .
That meager reaction , however , did not deter the intrepid Professor Woodson .
He , in fact , pronounced that first Negro History Week a resounding success , calling it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken by the Association.
” He and the Association promptly doubled-down on plans for a repeat of the event in 1927 , and for presenting it on an annual basis thereafter .
Woodson believed that teaching black history , was at once separate from yet inextricably intertwined with , “ white history ” ; and that it was absolutely called for and essential for the physical , emotional , spiritual and intellectual survival and growth of black people within this nation-state .
The Journal of Negro History quotes him thusly : If a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no worthwhile tradition .
It becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world , and it stands in danger of being exterminated .
The American Indian left no continuous record .
He did not appreciate the value of tradition ; and where is he today ?
The Hebrew keenly appreciated the value of tradition , as is attested by the Bible itself .
In spite of worldwide persecution , therefore , he is a great factor in our civilization .
Thus , through sheer force of Woodson ’ s indefatigable work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 1929 , as per the Journal , all but two state Departments of Education observed Negro History Week .
Its celebration in “ every state with [ a ] considerable Negro population ” had been made a reality by means of Woodson ’ s and the Association ’ s relentless saturation and distribution of “ official literature associated with the event.
” Also , by ’ 29 , black churches began to play a significant role in the distribution of literature and presentation of classes , programs , plays and special “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Week .
As a child and throughout my formative years , I participated in yearly “ Negro History Week ” events sponsored by my own church , Mt .
Zion Missionary Baptist Church of Michigan City , Indiana .
It was in those classes —rather than in my public school classes — where I first learned of the deep , deep history of black African people , stretching back millions of years to the beginning of mankind itself .
Both the “ mainstream ” white press and a burgeoning black press were also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this new celebration .
Among black people , Negro History Week was enthusiastically embraced from Day One .
Black History clubs sprouted across the country like mushrooms after a Spring rain .
There was overwhelming interest among black teachers , and progressive whites .
Thus , Negro History Week grew exponentially throughout the succeeding decades , as mayors across the United States joined in and many actually endorsed it as a holiday .
But it was black college students and their organization , Black United Students at Kent State University , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black History Week to Black History Month .
Thus , the first celebration of Black History Month took place at Kent State one year later , in February 1970 .
In 1976 , as part of the US Bicentennial celebration , the heretofore informal expansion of Negro History Week to Black History Month was officially recognized by the US government .
Indeed , President Gerald R. Ford exhorted all Americans to “ seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Month reignites debate about the continued utility , necessity , and , yes , fairness of having a designated month dedicated to the history of one race .
Others are concerned that celebration of black history cheapens that history by limiting it to only a single — and the shortest — month of the year , thus implicitly downplaying the historic and ongoing contributions of blacks .
Even others argue that such a celebration reduces the whole idea of “ black history ” to mere “ hero worship.
” Indeed , one high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the celebrated actor Morgan Freeman : “ I don ’ t want a black history month .
Black history is American history , ” he declares .
Freeman ’ s statement both misses and makes the point : He is only half right , though .
Black history is American history .
That ’ s the point .
What Freeman does not acknowledge or recognize is that black history has never been acknowledged or recognized as integral to “ American ” history ; that black history is at least as old ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( read : “ white ” ) history .
Putting it plainly , black American history has never been told or treated as an equal partner , either within or alongside white American history .
With very few exceptions , black history is ignored , or flatly denied , or dismissed as nonexistent or as irrelevant by most so-called “ mainstream ” American historians .
For example , unless one takes specific college courses dedicated to the study of black history , one would never know that : • The very first person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American ” independence from British colonialism was a black man .
( Crispus Attucks , “ The Boston Massacre , ” March 5 , 1770 ) .
• The founder ( first non-native settler ) of what became for more than a century the second largest city in the country — the City of Chicago — was a black man originally from Saint-Domingue ( Haiti ) — Jean Baptiste Point DuSable , 1772 .
That ’ s four years before the Declaration of Independence was signed , signalling the beginning of the Revolutionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1731–1806 ) — a black mathematician , astronomer , clockmaker , author and surveyor , laid out the first architectural design for Washington , D.C. in 1791 .
• Granville T. Woods ( 1856–1910 ) .
Known as “ the Black Edison , ” this man held 60 patents , including the multiplex telegraph , and for invention of the “ third rail ” for electric trains .
• Leonidas Berry ( 1902–1995 ) invented the gastroscope , which allows doctors to see inside one ’ s stomach and intestines .
• September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first blacks were allowed to actually serve in the Civil War via the Black Brigade of Cincinnati .
These first black soldiers , regardless of rank , were paid considerably less than their fellow white soldiers , and restricted to the hardest , dirtiest , and most menial of duties — especially the retrieval and burial of killed-in-action white soldiers .
• Chicago was home to one of the largest ( and most notorious ) prisoner of war camps for Confederate soldiers — Camp Douglas , named after Lincoln ’ s US Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and time do not allow for more citations of black impact on this nation-state ’ s history .
Suffice it to say , though , that thousands upon thousands of entries could be made here .
Do yourself a favor — look it up .
Written by Herbert Dyer , Jr. For more essays by Herb , go to : medium.com/ ...

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please. They do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing [and]already given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis, they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. – Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) I am not afraid of being sued by white businessmen. In fact, I should welcome such a lawsuit. It would do the cause much good. Let us banish fear. We have been in this mental state for three centuries. I am a radical. I am ready to act, if I can find brave men to help me. — Carter G. Woodson…From: On the Road to Freedom, A Guided Tour of the Civil Rights Trail, Charles Cobb, Jr. (January 1, 2008) Algonquin Books, p. 28.
Black History Month is an annual observance and commemoration in the US, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Its original purpose was to recall and celebrate important people and events in the history of the African diaspora. In the US and Canada, it is celebrated annually in February. The United Kingdom celebrates Black History Month next month, October.
Black History Month began as “Negro History Week” in 1926. It was the brainchild of historian Dr. Carter G. Woodson and the Chicago-based Association for the Study of Negro Life and History. Woodson declared that the second week of February would forever be “Negro History Week.” Why the second week? Because this week contains the birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln (12th) and Frederick Douglass (17th).
The principal purpose of Negro History Week was to facilitate and encourage a universal and coordinated teaching of the history of black Americans in this nation-state’s public schools.
The first Negro History Week was met with only tepid response by virtually all education establishments nationwide. Indeed, only the Departments of Education of the states of North Carolina, Delaware, and West Virginia, as well as the city school administrations of Baltimore and Washington, D.C., made even lukewarm efforts to incorporate the celebration and commemoration into their curricula.
That meager reaction, however, did not deter the intrepid Professor Woodson. He, in fact, pronounced that first Negro History Week a resounding success, calling it “one of the most fortunate steps ever taken by the Association.” He and the Association promptly doubled-down on plans for a repeat of the event in 1927, and for presenting it on an annual basis thereafter.
Woodson believed that teaching black history, was at once separate from yet inextricably intertwined with, “white history”; and that it was absolutely called for and essential for the physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual survival and growth of black people within this nation-state. The Journal of Negro History quotes him thusly:
If a race has no history, it has no worthwhile tradition. It becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated. The American Indian left no continuous record. He did not appreciate the value of tradition; and where is he today? The Hebrew keenly appreciated the value of tradition, as is attested by the Bible itself. In spite of worldwide persecution, therefore, he is a great factor in our civilization.
Thus, through sheer force of Woodson’s indefatigable work ethic and a famously iron will, by 1929, as per the Journal, all but two state Departments of Education observed Negro History Week. Its celebration in “every state with [a] considerable Negro population” had been made a reality by means of Woodson’s and the Association’s relentless saturation and distribution of “official literature associated with the event.”
Also, by ’29, black churches began to play a significant role in the distribution of literature and presentation of classes, programs, plays and special “services” in association with Negro History Week.
As a child and throughout my formative years, I participated in yearly “Negro History Week” events sponsored by my own church, Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church of Michigan City, Indiana. It was in those classes —rather than in my public school classes — where I first learned of the deep, deep history of black African people, stretching back millions of years to the beginning of mankind itself.
Both the “mainstream” white press and a burgeoning black press were also inundated with Association literature touting the existing of this new celebration.
Among black people, Negro History Week was enthusiastically embraced from Day One. Black History clubs sprouted across the country like mushrooms after a Spring rain. There was overwhelming interest among black teachers, and progressive whites. Thus, Negro History Week grew exponentially throughout the succeeding decades, as mayors across the United States joined in and many actually endorsed it as a holiday.
But it was black college students and their organization, Black United Students at Kent State University, who in February 1969 first proposed expansion of Black History Week to Black History Month. Thus, the first celebration of Black History Month took place at Kent State one year later, in February 1970.
In 1976, as part of the US Bicentennial celebration, the heretofore informal expansion of Negro History Week to Black History Month was officially recognized by the US government. Indeed, President Gerald R. Ford exhorted all Americans to “seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history.”
Each and every February, Black History Month reignites debate about the continued utility, necessity, and, yes, fairness of having a designated month dedicated to the history of one race.
Others are concerned that celebration of black history cheapens that history by limiting it to only a single — and the shortest — month of the year, thus implicitly downplaying the historic and ongoing contributions of blacks. Even others argue that such a celebration reduces the whole idea of “black history” to mere “hero worship.” Indeed, one high profile critic of Black History Month is the celebrated actor Morgan Freeman: “I don’t want a black history month. Black history is American history,” he declares. Freeman’s statement both misses and makes the point: He is only half right, though. Black history is American history. That’s the point.
What Freeman does not acknowledge or recognize is that black history has never been acknowledged or recognized as integral to “American” history; that black history is at least as old (and many scholars say older) than American (read: “white”) history. Putting it plainly, black American history has never been told or treated as an equal partner, either within or alongside white American history. With very few exceptions, black history is ignored, or flatly denied, or dismissed as nonexistent or as irrelevant by most so-called “mainstream” American historians. For example, unless one takes specific college courses dedicated to the study of black history, one would never know that:
Space and time do not allow for more citations of black impact on this nation-state’s history. Suffice it to say, though, that thousands upon thousands of entries could be made here.
Do yourself a favor — look it up.
Written by Herbert Dyer, Jr. For more essays by Herb, go to: medium.com/...


dailykos--2020-02-18--THE DEATH OF NORMS IS THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY (And YOU.)

There is a difference between norms , and laws .
American Democracy is based upon both codified “ rules , ” laws , and informal procedures , norms .
The informally , and often “ suggested ” codes of conduct .
How people in office , or working for a government , or a company , conduct themselves .
Laws define limits on what government can , and can not do .
Norms govern the day-to-day operation of government for 90 % of the rest of it .
Norms are also part of our media , and our culture .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How we communicate with one another .
There are , unfortunately , thousands , and thousands .
A few that might register : • Attorney General Barr intervening in cases , and screening Justice Department lawyers ’ work to mitigate sentencing for Trump cronies like Roger Stone ; • Democratic majority leader Harry Reid ’ s development of the “ nuclear option ” to override blockage of lower judicial appointments by minority leader Mitch McConnell .
McConnell ’ s extension of that option to the supreme court to prevent Barack Obama from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SCOTUS ; • Trump ’ s use of permanent “ interim ” appointments to avoid confirmations of his cabinet , and appointee picks ; • Trump ’ s constant character assassinations of those who will not become corrupted by him , and of agencies like the State Department , the FBI , and the CIA that will not violate both laws , and norms , on his behalf .
• Trump ’ s refusal to allow his staff to answer Congressional subpoenas ; • The use of Executive Orders , by both parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • The eradication of CBS News Anchor Dan Rather with well-crafted , vettable , fake evidence of a George W. Bush military scandal made investigative journalism more dangerous , and expensive , in a market of shrinking dollars as the Internet rose , and traditional media shrank ; • The move away from the thought-provoking writing of both dramas and comedies in the television stream that framed debates about race , gender , politics , war , and other sociopolitical issues , for thousands of hours of “ reality ” television ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and worst instincts ; • Our huge fear of talking to one another about politics , papering over the growing divides in workplaces , places of worship , and families with silence .
What do norms really do ?
They keep order , and keep us safe .
They ’ re the “ rules of the road ” that regulate decent behavior , stop rampant cheating , corruption , and decay of the institutions that KEEP US SAFE from people like Trump , and his soulless , unethical cronies .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American public , one that you can “ downsize ” as you no longer need large workforces to achieve things , you make sure that you soften them up before you bring them to the slaughter .
While you are being distracted , with the daily barrage of scandals , and have-not TV is saturated with propaganda , bitchy “ housewives , ” the trees of reality , our cultural and governmental heritage of norms , the forest , is being burned to the ground .
Everyone who thinks that the Right ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and society is a recent phenomenon doesn ’ t remember much about American history .
This has been going on since the 1970s , when a vile Robber Baron billionaire named Richard “ Dickie ” Mellon-Scaife set in motion the Watergate burglaries , and began creating the conservative think-tanks that softened up America for the conservative kill .
It used to be good enough that a few key people , a Ted Kennedy , or a John McCain , or a major group , like veterans , or trial lawyers , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s common outrage , and stop the power grabs .
Today , they are run over like the offensive line of the San Francisco 49ers .
Members of the government , at all levels , are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution .
use of the Right-wing outrage machine to shatter safety-valve norms : • Discredit the CIA when it assessed that the Russians had helped Trump in the 2016 election ; • Transform the Secret Service when complaints arose about Trump ’ s use of millions of the taxpayer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Lago ; • None “ Out ” the whistle-blower that turned in Trump ’ s shake-down of the Ukraine ; • None Frog-march Lt. Col. Vindman , and his twin brother , out of the White House , then call for the Pentagon to prosecute him for doing his job , responding to a lawful subpoena Trump brings a new A-Game to the Republican rule re-writes and Nike-like norm gnash : JUST DO IT .
They don ’ t care what important people think .
They don ’ t care what groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t care what YOU think .
One of the reasons that norms are falling , like tons of ice off of a globally-warmed glacier , is because of the utter apathy of the American public , most notably amongst the people , in other countries , who usually have the energy to defend democracy ’ s norms : While millions around the world protested climate change with Greta Thunberg , 99 % of you sat and did nothing .
There was a rumbling , with the Parkland shooting , and with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting woke .
The latter saw us through the 2018 election , which did bring change in our Congress , with more Democratic women being elected .
There has been no sustained backlash to the Russian-led demolition of our democracy .
What do you want us ( me ) to do about it ?
Ultimately , YOU .
You have to care .
You have to defend the norms .
Not here .
Not on Twitter .
Not where it ’ s convenient .
It requires your active participation .
It requires you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get out into the streets , and send back the slimy cretins who oozed out , with the help of the Russians , and America ’ s oil barons , the Kochs , and their pals , backstopped by the white racists and who slithered out from under their rear-view MAGA rocks .
Paddy Chayefsky , the Oscar winning screenwriter , for a movie that virtually no one remembers anymore , “ Network , ” called the devolution of government , law , order , norms , and news , drowned in selfish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nixon attempt at an imperial presidency , in 1976 .
Back then , we had more norms , more structure , and no large platform propaganda agencies , like Fox News .
That stopped it .
The Saturday Night Massacre was stopped .
People with power , in one party , weren ’ t all bought off .
Today , they are .
Today , we do not .
As I pointed out last week , Democracy dies when you sit here and tut , and tweet , and physically DO NOTHING .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
With the other older people .
Gen X , mostly for the protest of Trump ’ s “ hearing ” that never heard a witness , or examined a piece of evidence .
Two people under 40 , were at my rally of over 600 , in the shadow of Mar A Lago , in West Palm Beach .
You would think , at least , the hipsters , who find typewriters , and LP records albums , would at least show up because it was “ cool.
” No young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t read here , or much of anywhere , really .
I stopped to talk to a few , after the protest , who asked about my sign .
” Trump got off ?
How did THAT happen ?
” You need to get MAD .
Madder than mad .
The Trumpers are being played for fools , and you are being manipulated out of existence , because , soon , the extreme Right , and their owners , will not need you , or your labor .
They will want you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s extreme ?
Look at their lines in the political sands on Health Care .
Immigration .
They want you to die , Joe Public .
As I showed you two weeks ago , everything is about MONEY .
Cultural alignments , religious white America ’ s slowly realized love of the Russian Republic , and its strongman , Putin , selling us down the Citizens United sewer , is a symptom , not a cause .
You want to know a “ why ” about what the Russians , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world democracies .
To foster conditions to forcibly reduce global populations , while keeping their oil flowing ?
Start reading here about how the takeover of America boils down to the people with the most money , the the fossil fuel barons who install asshats like Donald John Trump , and Boris Johnson , and other controllable clowns , into democracies to control , and diminish them .
Understand norms .
Stand up for them .
Take to the streets .
Now is the time for all good people to come to the @ @ @ @ @

There is a difference between norms, and laws.
American Democracy is based upon both codified “rules,” laws, and informal procedures, norms.
What is a ‘norm’?
The informally, and often “suggested” codes of conduct. How people in office, or working for a government, or a company, conduct themselves. Laws define limits on what government can, and cannot do. Norms govern the day-to-day operation of government for 90% of the rest of it.
Norms are also part of our media, and our culture. How what we listen to is produced. How we communicate with one another.
Examples of Destroying Norms
There are, unfortunately, thousands, and thousands. A few that might register:
Trump abusing the pardon power to free corrupt politicians, and outright mobsters, caught red-handed accepting bribes, or giving them. A raised middle-finger to the thousands of Judges, and lawyers, who, the prior day, wrote letters to Attorney General Barr to step down;
Attorney General Barr intervening in cases, and screening Justice Department lawyers’ work to mitigate sentencing for Trump cronies like Roger Stone;
Democratic majority leader Harry Reid’s development of the “nuclear option” to override blockage of lower judicial appointments by minority leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell’s extension of that option to the supreme court to prevent Barack Obama from appointing conservative justice Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS;
Trump’s use of permanent “interim” appointments to avoid confirmations of his cabinet, and appointee picks;
Trump’s constant character assassinations of those who will not become corrupted by him, and of agencies like the State Department, the FBI, and the CIA that will not violate both laws, and norms, on his behalf.
Trump’s refusal to produce his taxes;
Trump’s refusal to allow his staff to answer Congressional subpoenas;
The use of Executive Orders, by both parties, to circumvent the democratic process;
The eradication of CBS News Anchor Dan Rather with well-crafted, vettable, fake evidence of a George W. Bush military scandal made investigative journalism more dangerous, and expensive, in a market of shrinking dollars as the Internet rose, and traditional media shrank;
The move away from the thought-provoking writing of both dramas and comedies in the television stream that framed debates about race, gender, politics, war, and other sociopolitical issues, for thousands of hours of “reality” television’s glorification of our most base, petty, and worst instincts;
Our huge fear of talking to one another about politics, papering over the growing divides in workplaces, places of worship, and families with silence.
What do norms really do?
They keep order, and keep us safe. They’re the “rules of the road” that regulate decent behavior, stop rampant cheating, corruption, and decay of the institutions that KEEP US SAFE from people like Trump, and his soulless, unethical cronies.
Why change norms?
If you want a pacified, pliable, controllable American public, one that you can “downsize” as you no longer need large workforces to achieve things, you make sure that you soften them up before you bring them to the slaughter.
While you are being distracted, with the daily barrage of scandals, and have-not TV is saturated with propaganda, bitchy “housewives,” the trees of reality, our cultural and governmental heritage of norms, the forest, is being burned to the ground.
Everyone who thinks that the Right’s transformation of our government, culture, and society is a recent phenomenon doesn’t remember much about American history. This has been going on since the 1970s, when a vile Robber Baron billionaire named Richard “Dickie” Mellon-Scaife set in motion the Watergate burglaries, and began creating the conservative think-tanks that softened up America for the conservative kill.
Who Defends norms?
It used to be good enough that a few key people, a Ted Kennedy, or a John McCain, or a major group, like veterans, or trial lawyers, could voice the warning of the people’s common outrage, and stop the power grabs.
Today, they are run over like the offensive line of the San Francisco 49ers.
Members of the government, at all levels, are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. use of the Right-wing outrage machine to shatter safety-valve norms:
Discredit the CIA when it assessed that the Russians had helped Trump in the 2016 election;
Transform the Secret Service when complaints arose about Trump’s use of millions of the taxpayer’s money at his golf resorts and Mar A Lago;
“Out” the whistle-blower that turned in Trump’s shake-down of the Ukraine;
Frog-march Lt. Col. Vindman, and his twin brother, out of the White House, then call for the Pentagon to prosecute him for doing his job, responding to a lawful subpoena
Trump brings a new A-Game to the Republican rule re-writes and Nike-like norm gnash:
JUST DO IT.
They don’t care what important people think.
They don’t care what groups that represent millions think.
They don’t care what YOU think.
One of the reasons that norms are falling, like tons of ice off of a globally-warmed glacier, is because of the utter apathy of the American public, most notably amongst the people, in other countries, who usually have the energy to defend democracy’s norms:
The Young.
While millions around the world protested climate change with Greta Thunberg, 99% of you sat and did nothing.
There was a rumbling, with the Parkland shooting, and with the Women’s March, of people getting woke. The latter saw us through the 2018 election, which did bring change in our Congress, with more Democratic women being elected.
There has been no sustained backlash to the Russian-led demolition of our democracy.
What do you want us (me) to do about it?
It isn’t pleasant. It isn’t convenient.
Ultimately, YOU. You have to care. You have to defend the norms. Not here. Not on Twitter. Not where it’s convenient.
In the streets.
It requires your active participation. It requires you to get MAD AS HELL enough to get out into the streets, and send back the slimy cretins who oozed out, with the help of the Russians, and America’s oil barons, the Kochs, and their pals, backstopped by the white racists and who slithered out from under their rear-view MAGA rocks.
Paddy Chayefsky, the Oscar winning screenwriter, for a movie that virtually no one remembers anymore, “Network,” called the devolution of government, law, order, norms, and news, drowned in selfish American culture, after the Republicans’ Nixon attempt at an imperial presidency, in 1976.
Back then, we had more norms, more structure, and no large platform propaganda agencies, like Fox News.
That stopped it. The Saturday Night Massacre was stopped. People with power, in one party, weren’t all bought off.
Today, they are. Today, we do not.
As I pointed out last week, Democracy dies when you sit here and tut, and tweet, and physically DO NOTHING.
Protest is not a VR thing, kids.
I was out at the rallies last week. With the other older people. Gen X, mostly for the protest of Trump’s “hearing” that never heard a witness, or examined a piece of evidence.
Two people under 40, were at my rally of over 600, in the shadow of Mar A Lago, in West Palm Beach.
You would think, at least, the hipsters, who find typewriters, and LP records albums, would at least show up because it was “cool.”
Nope.
No young people? Democracy dies. They don’t read here, or much of anywhere, really. I stopped to talk to a few, after the protest, who asked about my sign.
”What’s Move On?”
”Trump got off? How did THAT happen?”
GETTING MAD: A PRIMER
You need to get MAD. Madder than mad. The Trumpers are being played for fools, and you are being manipulated out of existence, because, soon, the extreme Right, and their owners, will not need you, or your labor.
They will want you dead. Gone. Out.
Think that’s extreme? Look at their lines in the political sands on Health Care. Immigration. They want you to die, Joe Public.
As I showed you two weeks ago, everything is about MONEY. Cultural alignments, religious white America’s slowly realized love of the Russian Republic, and its strongman, Putin, selling us down the Citizens United sewer, is a symptom, not a cause.
You want to know a “why” about what the Russians, and the Saudis are spending billions to topple world democracies. To foster conditions to forcibly reduce global populations, while keeping their oil flowing?
Start reading here about how the takeover of America boils down to the people with the most money, the the fossil fuel barons who install asshats like Donald John Trump, and Boris Johnson, and other controllable clowns, into democracies to control, and diminish them.
Understand norms. Stand up for them. Take to the streets. Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the nation!


dailykos--2020-02-18--"Rolling Thunder" terrifies us all under AG Bill Barr.

— Gosh , it ’ s Impossible for non-lawyers to understand or even just appreciate how far out of bounds Barr has gone to interfere with career prosecutors at this extremely late stage in the Trump-Stone criminal enterprise case ( s ) .
But you , constituents of Senators and Representatives do understand !
Laurence Tribe @ tribelaw tweets : This is rolling thunder .
One stuffed goose named Barr is cooked .
2,000 DOJ alumni he can ignore .
1,000 federal judges ?
That ’ s an altogether different kettle of fish .
Senate and House Judiciary Cmte .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses to Impeach Barr immediately .
The potential witnesses from which you can hear include more than 2,000 DOJ Alumni of whom some are active and retired federal judges and magistrates .
More than 1,000 current members of the Federal Judges Association are in that pool of potential witnesses , too .
Judge Amy “ Not-A-Rookie ” Berman Jackson has been attacked repeatedly by both Stone and Orange Monster Criminal-45 as well as indirectly by AG Barr yanking her chain with erratic DOJ filings about Stone .
Philadelphia District Judge Cynthia Rufe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who plans to convene Wednesday ’ s 1:30pm association emergency meeting to address the intervention of Justice Department officials and Trump in politically sensitive cases .
Bill Barr has abused the Justice Department to punish Donald Trump 's opponents , and protect his friends .
It is sliding towards autocracy , and something must be done now .
Please , be the wind in the sails of nine Senators who have signed a letter calling on Bill Barr 's resignation .
Look at just a few of the potential witnesses Judiciary can hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NoahBookbinder , a former Justice Department ’ s Public Integrity Section prosecutor and Chief Counsel for Criminal Justice of the U.S. Senate ’ s Judiciary Committee where he advised Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy [ VT ] , was named executive director of CREW in March , 2015 and was one of the lawyers the House used to question witnesses in the Impeachment process throughout Oct-Dec , 2019 .
You ’ ll see Michael Bromwich @ mrbromwich , who was the Inspector General for the Department of Justice from 1994 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FBI laboratory ; the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 ; the FBI 's conduct regarding Aldrich Ames ; the handling of classified information by the FBI and the Department of Justice in the campaign finance investigation ; the alleged deception of a congressional delegation by high-ranking officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ; and the Justice Department 's role in the CIA crack cocaine controversy .
In 2010 he became the first director of the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy Management , Regulation and Enforcement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill .
In 2018 , he began leading the legal team of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe .
On September 22 , Bromwich announced he would also be joining the legal team of Christine Blasey Ford , the college professor who earlier that month publicly alleged that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982 , when they were both teenagers , in what she described as an attempted rape .
You ’ ll see Lisa Cacheris Burnett who worked 21 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deputy Director , Office of International Affairs , Criminal Division .
You ’ ll see David Epstein who worked being Director of DOJ ’ s Office of Foreign Litigation .
You ’ ll see Jill Wine-Banks @ JillWineBanks who worked being Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutor and first woman to hold the position of US General Counsel of the Army ( 1977–80 ) as well as first woman to hold the position of the executive director of the American Bar Association .
Democracy Depression , Democracy Fatigue , Impeachment Process Exhaustion are privileges we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murder of “ Democracy ” , by which I mean the U.S .
Constitutional Republic , and we have to stop the Birthing of the Constitutional Autocracy that Barr , one member of the Executioners & Midwives Cult , is effecting .
Also , Support Down-ballot candidates like Jessica Cisneros [ TX-28 ] and Marie Newman [ IL-03 ] because in tiny single supports of votes , dollars , goods and services there exists great significant potential for trickle-up influence at the top of the ballots , whereas even large support given to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not trickle-down in a significant fashion to the candidates that are in down-ballot positions .
— To defeat OrangeInternationalCrimesAgainstHumanity-Impostor-POTUS and his minion A.G. Barr , winning every state house seat , U.S.. Congressional seat ( both House & Senate ) , and Presidency is required right now !
— The best , most effective way , to do that is in throwing oneself with abandon into the support of the down-ballot candidates .
— The consequences of that struggle become magnified in trickle-up effects to the top of the ballot .

— Gosh, it’s Impossible for non-lawyers to understand or even just appreciate how far out of bounds Barr has gone to interfere with career prosecutors at this extremely late stage in the Trump-Stone criminal enterprise case(s). But you, constituents of Senators and Representatives do understand!
Laurence Tribe @tribelaw tweets: This is rolling thunder. One stuffed goose named Barr is cooked. 2,000 DOJ alumni he can ignore. 1,000 federal judges? That’s an altogether different kettle of fish.
Senate and House Judiciary Cmte. can swim in a tidal wave of witnesses to Impeach Barr immediately. The potential witnesses from which you can hear include more than 2,000 DOJ Alumni of whom some are active and retired federal judges and magistrates. More than 1,000 current members of the Federal Judges Association are in that pool of potential witnesses, too.
Judge Amy “Not-A-Rookie” Berman Jackson has been attacked repeatedly by both Stone and Orange Monster Criminal-45 as well as indirectly by AG Barr yanking her chain with erratic DOJ filings about Stone.
Philadelphia District Judge Cynthia Rufe, president of the independent Federal Judges Association plans to convene Wednesday’s 1:30pm association emergency meeting to address the intervention of Justice Department officials and Trump in politically sensitive cases. She’d be a wonderful witness from whom testimony could be taken before House Judiciary Cmte. questions Barr on 3-31-20 or whenever.
Bill Barr has abused the Justice Department to punish Donald Trump's opponents, and protect his friends. It is sliding towards autocracy, and something must be done now. Please, be the wind in the sails of nine Senators who have signed a letter calling on Bill Barr's resignation.
Look at just a few of the potential witnesses Judiciary can hear:
You’ll see Noah Bookbinder @NoahBookbinder , a former Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section prosecutor and Chief Counsel for Criminal Justice of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee where he advised Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy [VT], was named executive director of CREW in March, 2015 and was one of the lawyers the House used to question witnesses in the Impeachment process throughout Oct-Dec, 2019.
You’ll see Michael Bromwich @mrbromwich , who was the Inspector General for the Department of Justice from 1994 to 1999 then heading: an investigation into the FBI laboratory; the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103; the FBI's conduct regarding Aldrich Ames; the handling of classified information by the FBI and the Department of Justice in the campaign finance investigation; the alleged deception of a congressional delegation by high-ranking officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and the Justice Department's role in the CIA crack cocaine controversy. In 2010 he became the first director of the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which replaced the Minerals Management Service in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In 2018, he began leading the legal team of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. On September 22, Bromwich announced he would also be joining the legal team of Christine Blasey Ford, the college professor who earlier that month publicly alleged that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, when they were both teenagers, in what she described as an attempted rape.
You’ll see Lisa Cacheris Burnett who worked 21 years in DOJ including doing her work as Deputy Director, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division. You’ll see David Epstein who worked being Director of DOJ’s Office of Foreign Litigation.
You’ll see Jill Wine-Banks @JillWineBanks who worked being Assistant Watergate Special Prosecutor and first woman to hold the position of US General Counsel of the Army (1977–80) as well as first woman to hold the position of the executive director of the American Bar Association.
The attorney general is working to destroy the integrity and independence of the Justice Department, in order to make Donald Trump a president who can operate above the law.” You’ll see Donald Ayer who worked being U.S. Deputy Attorney General under George H. W. Bush and put up, 17 Feb 2020, his scathing opinion in The Atlantic :
Democracy Depression, Democracy Fatigue, Impeachment Process Exhaustion are privileges we absolutely cannot allow to facilitate the Murder of “Democracy”, by which I mean the U.S. Constitutional Republic, and we have to stop the Birthing of the Constitutional Autocracy that Barr, one member of the Executioners & Midwives Cult, is effecting.
Impeach Barr!
Also, Support Down-ballot candidates like Jessica Cisneros [TX-28] and Marie Newman [IL-03] because in tiny single supports of votes, dollars, goods and services there exists great significant potential for trickle-up influence at the top of the ballots, whereas even large support given to the top of the ballot candidates does not trickle-down in a significant fashion to the candidates that are in down-ballot positions. — To defeat OrangeInternationalCrimesAgainstHumanity-Impostor-POTUS and his minion A.G. Barr, winning every state house seat, U.S.. Congressional seat (both House & Senate), and Presidency is required right now! — The best, most effective way, to do that is in throwing oneself with abandon into the support of the down-ballot candidates. — The consequences of that struggle become magnified in trickle-up effects to the top of the ballot.


dailykos--2020-02-18--This company offers free clothes to women candidates running for office

Here is the email sent out on Tuesday , later shared to Twitter .
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave the brand ’ s offer a special nod in an Instagram story , as captioned and screenshot below .
“ When I was running for office ( even now ! )
, ” Ocasio-Cortez wrote , “ accessing clothing for the job was a big challenge both logistically and financially .
As a candidate , a large part of asking people to vote for you is helping them visualize you on the job .
As a member , that professionalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When I [ was ] first elected , I needed an entirely new wardrobe for my new job .
I had NO clothes to prepare me for Congress , and if it wasn ’ t for some hand me downs from friends before I was sworn in I don ’ t even know what I would have done .
So shout out to anyone helping , and if you know someone running ask them if they want an old blazer or dress !
: ) ” Here is a screenshot of that post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story , these sorts of posts tend to auto-delete within 24 hours of being shared ) .
Of course , clothing is not the beginning and end of running for office .
The company seems to get that , as it reportedly wrote in an email then posted to Twitter : “ We never purport that clothes help move the needle on female representation , but we want to do our part to make things a tiny bit easier.
” The necessity of a professional wardrobe can be a burden for anyone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black Americans ) , people with disabilities , and transgender women may face particular pressure due to stigma and bias .
If people are already prejudiced against you being a “ good fit ” for a job because of your gender identity or race , for example , they may be more likely to critique or blame your apparel as a rationale that you aren ’ t “ professional ” or “ right ” for the work environment .
It ’ s all coded discrimination .
The flip side , as Ocasio-Cortez experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throw fire in the other direction .
If your clothes are perceived as too nice , expensive , or stylish , people might accuse one of being wasteful or status-seeking .
A conservative outlet briefly went viral for trying to call out Ocasio-Cortez over spending $ 300 on a haircut , which is actually pretty low in a lot of cities .
She was similarly flamed for wearing an expensive suit for a photoshoot .
All of these jabs were likely intended to paint the congresswoman as inauthentic in her fight for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email readytorun @ mmlafleur.com with a note about the office they ’ re running for , their credentials , name , and location .

Whether you’re interviewing for a job, running for office, or even giving a presentation in class, what you wear really does matter. For a variety of reasons, including racism, ableism, fatphobia, and other biases, this is an unfair standard and an outright burden for all people, especially women. One company, M. M. LaFleur, is offering to loan clothing to women candidates running for any political office, free of charge. And one rising star on the left shared her personal story to highlight how important an offer like this can be for budding candidates at all levels.
Here is the email sent out on Tuesday, later shared to Twitter.
x I love @mmlafleur so much I can't even find words to describe it.
This is how you support women running for office. Right here. I'm actually crying.
PS get the Emily dress in blue and you'll take over the world. pic.twitter.com/SjdzRQjYwj Ã¢ÂÂ Mallory McMaster (@MK_McMaster) February 18, 2020
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave the brand’s offer a special nod in an Instagram story, as captioned and screenshot below. “When I was running for office (even now!),” Ocasio-Cortez wrote, “accessing clothing for the job was a big challenge both logistically and financially. As a candidate, a large part of asking people to vote for you is helping them visualize you on the job. As a member, that professionalism helps you challenge subconscious bias.
”When I [was] first elected, I needed an entirely new wardrobe for my new job. I had NO clothes to prepare me for Congress, and if it wasn’t for some hand me downs from friends before I was sworn in I don’t even know what I would have done. So shout out to anyone helping, and if you know someone running ask them if they want an old blazer or dress! :)”
Here is a screenshot of that post (as it’s an Instagram story, these sorts of posts tend to auto-delete within 24 hours of being shared).
Of course, clothing is not the beginning and end of running for office. The company seems to get that, as it reportedly wrote in an email then posted to Twitter: “We never purport that clothes help move the needle on female representation, but we want to do our part to make things a tiny bit easier.”
The necessity of a professional wardrobe can be a burden for anyone, but people of color (and especially black Americans), people with disabilities, and transgender women may face particular pressure due to stigma and bias. If people are already prejudiced against you being a “good fit” for a job because of your gender identity or race, for example, they may be more likely to critique or blame your apparel as a rationale that you aren’t “professional” or “right” for the work environment. It’s all coded discrimination.
The flip side, as Ocasio-Cortez experienced herself, is that critics may also throw fire in the other direction. If your clothes are perceived as too nice, expensive, or stylish, people might accuse one of being wasteful or status-seeking. A conservative outlet briefly went viral for trying to call out Ocasio-Cortez over spending $300 on a haircut, which is actually pretty low in a lot of cities. She was similarly flamed for wearing an expensive suit for a photoshoot. All of these jabs were likely intended to paint the congresswoman as inauthentic in her fight for the working class.
Interested woman candidates can email readytorun@mmlafleur.com with a note about the office they’re running for, their credentials, name, and location.


dailykos--2020-02-18--The Knees Of Candidates

The Knees Of Candidates

Really ?
Women are still expected to bare their knees and walk on stilts while men are allowed to walk on more solid shoes and cover their whole legs ?
This is 2020 .
The ERA has been ratified by 38 states .
Men should have to compete fairly .
Since we call these political 'races ' why do n't we require all male racers to compete in the same racing uniform as the women ?
I put the picture up because we are so accustomed to seeing women and men dressed like this that we do n't even SEE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how things are .
I 'm hoping readers will start really seeing this sort of thing in the future .
Women candidates are expected to dress 'like women . '
They are allowed to dress like men to the extent they may wear pants .
But if they wore a man ’ s suit and tie and shoes , it would be weird .
It ’ s all the media would write about .
Male candidates would never show up to a debate dressed like the female candidate in this picture .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equality and power .
It ’ s ok for women to dress a bit more like a man , but not the other way around .
I think candidates in a debate like this should be asked about what they are wearing , how they chose their clothing , why , and how their outfit reflects the power of men and women in our society and in elections .
I suspect everyone responds , viscerally , a little differently .
Do the bare legs enhance the woman 's appeal to voters ?
Distract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man wearing shorts affect voters ?
There 's a lot more to unpack from this picture .
[ The photo , by Irfan Khan , is from the LA Times print version of the story ( the online version has different pictures ) and is of Jackie Lacey and George Gascón both running for Los Angeles County District Attorney . ]

Really? Women are still expected to bare their knees and walk on stilts while men are allowed to walk on more solid shoes and cover their whole legs? This is 2020. The ERA has been ratified by 38 states. Men should have to compete fairly. Since we call these political 'races' why don't we require all male racers to compete in the same racing uniform as the women?
I put the picture up because we are so accustomed to seeing women and men dressed like this that we don't even SEE the disparity. It’s just how things are. I'm hoping readers will start really seeing this sort of thing in the future.
Women candidates are expected to dress 'like women.' They are allowed to dress like men to the extent they may wear pants. But if they wore a man’s suit and tie and shoes, it would be weird. It’s all the media would write about. Male candidates would never show up to a debate dressed like the female candidate in this picture. That alone tells us a lot about male/female equality and power. It’s ok for women to dress a bit more like a man, but not the other way around.
I think candidates in a debate like this should be asked about what they are wearing, how they chose their clothing, why, and how their outfit reflects the power of men and women in our society and in elections.
I suspect everyone responds, viscerally, a little differently. Do the bare legs enhance the woman's appeal to voters? Distract from what she says? How would the man wearing shorts affect voters? There's a lot more to unpack from this picture.
[The photo, by Irfan Khan, is from the LA Times print version of the story (the online version has different pictures) and is of Jackie Lacey and George Gascón both running for Los Angeles County District Attorney.]