Whitefish

So, there's this Nazi named Richard Spencer.  And let's be clear on this: he's a Nazi.  Not a 'neo-Nazi' --- adding the 'neo' part simply serves to distance him from his true ideological heritage, and in so doing makes his views seem slightly less horrible.

He's not a neo-Nazi: he's a Nazi.

Like all Nazis, Spencer has a mother, and she happens to live in a town called Whitefish, Montana.  I know nothing about Sherry Spencer, really, except that she owns a 'mixed-use' facility there.  She probably isn't a Nazi, but she published a letter recently which, either by accident or design, now has the Nazis of America (otherwise known as the hard-right wing of the Republican party) rather upset.  She alleges that a real estate agent named Tanya Gersh had threatened to boycott her business and draw national attention to it unless she agreed to sell out.  I know even less about Tanya Gersh than I do about Sherry Spencer, so it's entirely possible that Spencer is telling the truth.  However, it's hard to see any malicious intent in the emails Spencer published to back up her claims.  For example, this email from Gersh:

Sherry, Thank you for talking so openly with me today. I just can't imagine what you are going through. I am getting the listing agreement together and having the owner/broker of my office consult with a recommended price as well. I should have something to you later this evening. Please stay in close contact with me if you need anything or have questions at all about what is going on in the community. I put out many fires today just by mentioning the possible sale. All is very quiet right now waiting for your announcement. I will have public statement drafted shortly as well for you to review.

(I'm not linking to the emails, because they contain contact information which the Nazis are now using to harass Tanya Gersh --- but they're easy enough for interested parties to find).

This is hardly a shakedown letter.  The one thing Spencer and Gersh seem to agree on is that something was happening in Whitefish that made Spencer's continued residence there uncomfortable (the 'fires' Gersh managed to put out), and it seems likely that 'something' is genuine harassment on the part of anti-Nazi activists.  And if that is the case, shame on them.  Even if Sherry Spencer IS a Nazi --- and there seems to be no evidence that she is --- she has the right to live her life free of harassment, so long as she isn't running her business in a discriminatory manner or using it to promote a Nazi world view.

What also seems likely --- although by no means certain --- is that Spencer chose to address the problems in Whitefish by selling out, donating a portion of the proceeds to Human Rights Network, and making a public statement denouncing her son's beliefs.  Perhaps that suggestion is a complete fabrication on Gersh's part; more likely Spencer's son or some other Nazi persuaded her to change her mind.  If it's the latter, Spencer couldn't just change her mind, since even the thought of selling out would be perceived as weakness, which is why she instead turned around and accused Gersh of being the harasser.

Whatever the reality, Richard Spencer and his Nazi buddies are handling the situation with the kind of calm, reasoned restraint one might expect:

Andrew Anglin, the neo-Nazi who runs The Daily Stormer, a blatantly racist and anti-Semitic website, has ratcheted up his campaign of harassment against the Jewish community in and around Whitefish, Montana, including announcing an armed march in the town by white supremacists that he has scheduled for January.

And like all Republicans, these Nazis wouldn't dream of staging a protest without their precious guns.  Anglin is rubbing his hands together with glee, saying:

 Montana has extremely liberal open carry laws, so my lawyer is telling me we can easily march through the center of the town carrying high-powered rifles.

And here we see the idiocy of 'open carry' laws on full display.  The First Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to peaceably assemble, and to protest.  The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, although contrary to what the Supreme Court has decided, it's obvious to me that the Second Amendment was talking about community policing, not Glocks for everyone.

Nevertheless, what Anglin and other Republicans like him are really talking about when they talk about open carry, or 'march[ing] through the center of town carrying high-powered rifles' is intimidation, something most definitely not guaranteed by the Constitution.  But this is where we've come as a society, when we have just enough gun-worshippers to defeat common-sense gun control legislation and put an orange stain in the White House.

There are now some hints that the Whitefish protest might be called off, but even if it is, we would all do well (especially Richard Spencer and the Nazis) to heed the final words on this matter from Sherry Spencer:

I strongly urge that everyone stays within the bounds of respectful, civilized discussion of this matter by refraining from abusive comments or targeted harassment of any of the parties involved, or their families. I disavow the harassment that anyone faced as a result of these events first being brought to light by the media even prior to this publication of my side of the story. After all, my own family and I have faced — and continue to face — numerous threats and bullying on social media as well.

Open Letter to the Trump Electors

I’m writing to ask you to cast your vote in the Electoral College on December 19 for anyone other than Donald Trump.

I’m sure that by now, you’ve heard plenty of reasons why Trump is a uniquely awful choice for President of our country.  He holds essentially no qualifications for the job.  He lies as easily as he breathes.  He’s thin-skinned, and more concerned with avenging (real or imagined) personal attacks than he is in promoting the good of our country.  As a serial adulterer, bully, and all around boor, he does not project a positive image of America to the world.

None of those are good qualities in a president, but even taken together, they are not sufficient to override the will of the voters in your state, who have chosen you to vote for Mr. Trump.  However, there are more serious arguments against him, arguments which in my opinion, make him completely unfit for our nation’s highest office.

First, consider how he has conducted himself in the month since the election.  He has had contact with numerous foreign leaders and businessmen, all in the context of his business as a hotel/casino magnate.  He is brazenly using the office of president for his own personal gain, and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet.

Next, consider the disturbing degree of Russian interference in our electoral process.  The Russians obviously wanted Trump to win the election, and they succeeded in achieving this goal by illegally hacking into computer systems of both the Democratic and Republican parties.  And there’s reason to believe that Trump and those around him have inappropriate ties to the Russian government.  Protecting America from this kind of foreign manipulation of our elections and our government is one of the reasons the Electoral College was established in the first place.

Next, consider the individuals Mr. Trump is selecting to serve in his cabinet.  How is the head of Exxon Mobil qualified to be Secretary of State?  And here again we see the troubling associations with the Russian government, as Mr. Tillerson has received Russia’s Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin.  The president of Goldman Sachs as director of the National Economic Council?  How is that draining the swamp?  And let’s not forget Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist, the leader and champion of the neo-Nazi ‘alt-right’ movement.  Conspiracy theorist Michael Flynn as NSA, Jim Crow racist Jeff Sessions as Attorney General --- the list goes on.  None of these people are suitable for the roles in government which Trump wishes to assign to them, and many have significant conflicts of interest.

Finally, I personally believe that Mr. Trump’s stated intention to bring back waterboarding and worse is tantamount to criminal behavior.  Torture is morally wrong under all circumstances, full stop.  And Trump’s further promise to ‘go after’ the families of suspected terrorists --- to ‘go after’ innocent people not even accused of any crime --- qualifies an impeachable offense in my opinion, if not a war crime.

Taken together all of these facts make what I believe is an incontrovertible case that you, as one of our nation’s 538 electors, have both a moral and a Constitutional duty to cast your electoral vote for anyone but Donald Trump.  As a lifelong Democrat, I would like that vote to go to Hillary Clinton, but I understand that you have a different political ideology.  I’m not asking you to abandon your party or your principles, and I won’t try to persuade to vote for someone who’s not a Republican.

But Donald Trump’s offenses go beyond partisan politics.  He is an abomination, and your duty to your country requires that you not vote for him.

(Addresses for Trump electors, as well as a different letter template, are available here.)

Until Proven False

Until proven false, I will report as definite fact that Michael Flynn, The Stain's choice for National Security Adviser, and his son, are operating an ISIS cell out of their Washington, D.C. townhouse, where they regularly throw parties which involve eating orphans alive while having sex with goats.

Things That Make America Great

What exactly does The Stain mean when he promises to 'Make America Great Again'?  Well, I don't believe he's ever spelled it out explicitly, but most observers believe it's a promise to return America to a time when things were better for white men without a college education --- The Stain's prime demographic.  And there's good reason to think that's what motivated that demographic to vote for him:

As for campaigns that pine for rosier economic times, in today's economy who wouldn't miss the job and income trends that prevailed from 1947 through the late 1960s? Manufacturing jobs were plentiful for young men without a college degree, and each cohort of men aged 25 to 29 earned more than three times as much as their fathers had made at a similar age. Since 1980, young men have earned less, on average, than their fathers at the same age.

There's no question that the post-WWII era through the mid-1960s was a golden age for America's working class, and specifically for the white working class.  Unfortunately, the middle class has been eroding steadily since then. And I don't blame anyone for wanting to see that trend reverse; I do, however, believe they will be sorely disappointed if they voted for The Stain thinking he's the right person to make that happen.

Many of The Stain's critics rightly point out that however rosy the 1950's may have been for the white working class, it wasn't such a great time for other groups.  Jim Crow laws were still enforcing racial segregation in the south, gays were still closeted, and women were still thought of as housewives rather than people.

There was, however, at least one other way in which the America of the 1950's was vastly preferable to today's America, and that concerns the integrity expected of public figures.

I just happened to watch the 1994 movie Quiz Show last night, about the quiz show scandals of the 1950's.  If you're not familiar with them, the short version is that in the early years of television, production companies, networks and sponsors were still defining the boundaries of what would and wouldn't fly in the new medium.  Quiz shows proved to be both wildly popular and cheap to produce, and for 3 or 4 years in the late 50's, they proliferated like bunnies.

And in the pursuit of ever-higher ratings, many shows crossed the line from honest quiz shows to scripted drama, to the point where contestants routinely received the answers to the questions before each show.

That's it.  A handful of quiz shows were rigged.  And when these facts were made public, it was considered a huge scandal.  There was a congressional investigation, and peoples' careers and reputations were ruined.  Americans actually cared that they had been lied to, and they shunned the people who told those lies.

Contrast that reaction to this from Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes:

Far from demanding honesty and integrity from public figures --- like politicians --- America has descended to the point where someone can lie with wanton abandon, and receive more than 61 million votes for president.

In this respect, at least, I agree that America needs to become great again.  Unfortunately, America has chosen the worst possible person for that job.

Memo to All Who Voted for Jill Stein

I hope your 'principles' will keep you warm for the next 4 years.  While I grudgingly give Stein some credit for taking the initiative to drive for recounts/audits in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, everyone seems to be avoiding the elephant in the room, which is this:

If everyone who voted for Stein had instead voted for Clinton, she would be the president-elect, not The Stain.  Allow me to elaborate.  These are the current vote totals in the deciding states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as I write this:

	Michigan	Pennsylvania	Wisconsin
Trump	2,279,543	2,955,671	1,409,467
Clinton	2,268,839	2,906,128	1,382,210
Trump's Margin	10,704	49,543	27,257
Stein	51,463	49,678	30,980

I wasn't planning to devote any more time to bashing Stein or her supporters, but it's now beyond doubt that those of you who voted for Stein have Nadered us again.  If you voted for Stein because you thought Hillary is just as bad as The Stain, then either you're lying to yourself or you're simply deluded.  Take a look at everything The Stain has done in just the past 24 DAYS since the election and tell me we wouldn't have been far better off with Clinton.

And no, Stein voters certainly aren't the only reason Clinton lost, but they deserve their share of the blame.  Mostly they're culpable for picking up Republican talking points and attacking Clinton with them from the left, thus persuading thousands of moderate voters who otherwise would have been happy to vote for an honest, competent, mainstream Democrat to either vote for The Stain or stay home.  There's no way to be sure, of course, but I think it's a fair estimate that for every vote Stein got, there were 3 other voters who would have voted for Clinton if Stein and her supporters hadn't been so eager to do The Stain's work for him.  If that's even close to accurate, then without Stein selling The Stain's kool-aid, Clinton not only wins but it's not all that close.

And of course, now we can see that even though relatively few people voted for Stein, that alone was enough to put The Stain in the White House.

Are those principles of yours helping you to feel good right about now?

Operation Ignore

The Stain appears to be more interested in using his office to further his business interests than he is in, say, actually trying to defeat ISIS and keep America safe:

Trump on Tuesday received only his third intelligence briefing since he won the Nov. 8 presidential election, despite an offer from President Barack Obama of daily briefings, three of the officials said.

. . .

Trump's decision to forgo daily briefings and his delay in designating more transition advisers to engage with the intelligence agencies may reflect his focus on filling the top economic positions in his administration.

However, said the senior career official, it also may reflect the disinterest and distrust in US intelligence Trump has expressed during and after his presidential campaign.

I would say that The Stain's disdain for daily intelligence briefings is unprecedented, but unfortunately it's not.  Al Franken, who is now the junior senator from the great state of Minnesota, and my preferred candidate for president in 2020, wrote a nice overview of the early days of the George W. Bush administration, in what he called 'Operation Ignore':

On its 172nd day, Operation Ignore suffered a major blow. Already, the operation was becoming more and more difficult to sustain as the intensity of terror warnings crescendoed. Now, on August 6, CIA Director Tenet delivered a report to President Bush entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. But the President was resolute: Operation Ignore must proceed as planned. He did nothing to follow up on the memo.

Actually, that's not entirely fair. The President did follow up, a little bit. Sitting in his golf cart the next day, Bush told some reporters, "I'm working on a lot of issues, national security matters.'' Then, Bush rode off to hit the links, before dealing with a stubborn landscaping issue by clearing some brush on his property. The next day, he followed up again, telling the press, I've got a lot of national security concerns that we're working on Iraq, Macedonia, very worrisome right now."

The similarities between the ignorant and self-involved George W. Bush before 9/11 and The Stain are more than concerning, but sadly not surprising.  Anyone who was paying attention before the election knew that The Stain already thinks he knows everything there is to know about national security.   They knew that The Economist Intelligence Unit rated a Stain presidency as a top threat to global security.  They knew that 50 Republican intelligence officials believe The Stain is a risk to "our country's national security and well-being."

In short, when the next attack comes --- and there is no doubt it will come, and it will be large and it will be horrific --- the responsibility for it will belong to the attackers, of course.  And to The Stain, for his hubris and his willful ignorance and his refusal to gain even a rudimentary understanding of the threats facing America.

And The Stain's supporters will own it, too.  So when they start demanding that we round up Muslims or Mexicans or foreigners, I will respond by handing them a mirror, and asking if the price we're all paying is worth it to have The Stain in the White House just because "he tells it like it is" or whatever other ignorant excuse made them decide it was a good idea to vote for him.