Have you read the Constitution?

I completed the sale of my parents’ house today. After almost 54 years it has passed out of the family. I went from the title company office straight to the bank to deposit the check. Then I went north to have lunch with my sister and her wife at a lovely Asian restaurant owned by a lesbian.

On the way home I listened to a program from the Aspen Ideas Festival on Michigan Radio. Walter Isaacson, CEO of the festival, brought together Normal Lear and Khizr Khan for a discussion of the Constitution. Lear is famous for the many TV shows he created, one of them was All in the Family, featuring the character Archie Bunker.

Khan is famous for a brief moment in the Democratic National Convention in 2016. Khan’s son had been killed in 2004 in the Iraq War, so at the Convention Khan sharply criticized the nasty guy, especially on the then proposed ban on Muslim immigration. A couple paragraphs of that speech were frequently quoted by media. This one is key:

Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you, have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words "liberty" and "equal protection of law."

During that paragraph Khan pulled out a miniature copy of the Constitution out of his pocket and held it up. Yes, he carries copies with him.

This Aspen Ideas Festival discussion was about what Khan is doing to promote knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, evidently with Lear’s help. Khan reports that most schools no longer have a class in civics, so he and his colleagues go into schools (a great deal of interest in middle schools), pass out copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and talk to the students about what it all means. Khan focuses on what he says are the two most important amendments, the 1st and 14th. No other countries have in their constitutions have such phrases, such “dignities” as he calls them, of “freedom of assembly” and “equal protection.” Because of such phrases Khan highly prizes the Constitution and is doing what he can to defend it.

During the program it is clear that Khan has a great deal of reverence for our Constitution.

The audio is 52 minutes.

My brother is visiting his daughter (with husband and 3 children), who lives a half-day drive south of here. His other daughter is also there. I’ll be visiting them for the holiday weekend, so this is my last post of the year.

Fox on trampoline

I don’t watch much TV. I turn it on maybe a half-dozen times a year. One of several reasons is all the commercials. They’re for stuff I don’t need and are annoying.

So why would I travel a half hour to pay money to sit in a theater to watch 80 minutes of commercials?

Because they’re the winners of the British Arrows for excellence in commercials. And the Brits have an unusual sense of humor.

This was put on by the Detroit Film Theater. I had seen previous winner reels before (also presented by the DFT), though they hadn’t done it for a couple years. Some of these films are what we Americans expect from a commercial, others appear to be 3-4 minute short stories. Some of my favorites:

Skittles, of Mars/Wrigley. The teenage boy is throwing skittles at his girlfriend’s window to get her attention. She doesn’t respond because she is catching the skittles in her mouth. After a few catches she scoots over so others can also catch skittles – her brother, dad, grandma, policeman, and the family pet.

Harry and Ahmed, for UNICEF. Harry was a child when he left Nazi Germany as a refugee. Ahmed is a child now, a refugee from Syria. We see how similar their stories are.

Tumbleweeds, for Pearl and Dean, showing some of the additional jobs needed by the movie industry. In this one we meet the woman who trains tumbleweeds to roll across the scene at just the right time in Western movies.

Unlimited You, for Nike. First we see people encouraged to take up sports. Then we see them going to extremes, such as woman diving off a cliff and a child ready to skateboard down a San Francisco hill.

Duel, for Audi. We see a man and a woman fighting it out and crashing into things in a posh hotel, but the film is played backwards so we see all the upset trays being reassembled. At the end we see they are two valets vying for who gets to drive the Audi (at least I think so).

Buster the Boxer. At Christmas the parents buy a trampoline for their boy and install it in the yard after dark. The animals – foxes, badger, squirrels, and others find it and have fun. Buster is stuck inside, watching. The next morning as the boy is allowed out the dog races past and jumps inside first.

The best of the year was We’re the Superhumans, for Paralympics. We first see a drummer without arms who holds the sticks in his feet followed by a singer and a band of differently abled people as they play in the background to accompany other paralympians do all kinds of other wonderful stuff, such as sports from wheelchairs and dancers with artificial legs.

I see from the website that not all of the winners were included in the show I saw tonight. I may have to watch them online, perhaps tomorrow. You can watch them here.

True belonging

To my Christian readers, Merry Christmas. To all my other readers I wish you peace and joy in whatever way you celebrate the Solstice and New Year.

A few days ago one might have wondered if we would get a white Christmas in the Detroit area. Then a snowstorm blew through yesterday and handled that issue. On the drive home after the Christmas Eve service at my church with weather reports of more snow today I wondered what my Christmas driving would be like.

The gathering – all of family still in Michigan – was at my sister’s house about 100 miles north of my house. I got on the road much later that I originally thought. Then the usual 1:45 drive turned into a 2:15 adventure. I had sunshine when I left home and sunshine approaching my destination, but in between was a snow storm that slowed traffic to a crawl.

Once at sister’s house I assembled my contribution to the meal, and we ate. Then there was a brief gift exchange (significantly shorter than when a herd of nieces and nephews were in attendance). We had some pleasant conversation and then I thought it best to head home while I could do much of the route in daylight. The trip home was 1:55.

A few days ago I mentioned not being in the mood for Christmas. That has included usually turning off Christmas carols that take over even the classical music radio stations in town. So on my trip north I listened to an NPR program and the next CD up in my car’s sound system (the Saxophone Concerto by Michael Torke is really cool!). NPR covered the entire trip south.

That NPR program this morning was The 1A hosted by Joshua Johnson. This show was a rebroadcast of a conversation with Brené Brown, research professor at the University of Houston. Her latest book is Braving the Wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the Courage to stand Alone. She became known for a TED talk on The Power of Vulnerability, now viewed over 30 million times (I haven’t watched it yet).

I didn’t take notes while driving this morning, so I listened to the 47 minutes again this evening. Here is some of what she talked about.

Brown is a qualitative researcher. She asks people to tell their stories and she draws meaning and principles from them.

Empathy means “I feel with you.” It drives connection. It includes the idea that I could be in your situation, and when I am I’ll need you – we’re here for each other. Sympathy means “I feel for you.” It drives disconnection because it can include condescension – “You poor thing!”

She was asked to define her term “True belonging.” She had thought belonging meant being a part of something bigger than ourselves. But true belonging is a spiritual practice about belonging to yourself. It’s about being so true to yourself you are able to be a part of something larger and about standing alone when required. When we truly belong we are not asked to change who we authentically are. It demands we be who we are. Before we belong to any sort of group we must belong to ourselves. We must know our own self-worth, must believe in our own self. Then we carry belonging with us.

Trying to fit in with a group is the greatest barrier to belonging. Fitting in asks what am I supposed to do, say, feel, and believe in order to not be challenged by a group (which could be the dominant culture). It is a hollow substitute for belonging. It means sacrificing ourselves to achieve it. The connection to others is not real and we can feel lonelier.

We cannot belong to a group of people in a stronger way than we can belong to ourselves. Belonging is not something we negotiate with groups of people.

We are sorting ourselves into factions of like-minded people, but as we do that we are becoming lonelier. In these bunkers of people we have only “common enemy intimacy” – we hate the same people.

Definition of vulnerability: uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure. We think of vulnerability as weakness, but courage only comes out of vulnerability. Vulnerability is an accurate measure of courage.

Social media does not promote connection. People are emboldened to say things they wouldn’t dare say in person. Social media is a great way to communicate, to decide how to meet in person to build connection, but is horrible as a way to build that connection.

Pain will never be denied. You can’t drink or drug it away, you can’t surround yourself with stuff. Pain will find a way out. Pain, partnered with fear, erupts into blame and rage. A government that supplies you with an opponent to rage against is a very seductive formula.

Blame is a discharge of pain. Its opposite is accountability, an act of vulnerability – accepting concern, making amends.

When confronting opponents here are some practices: People are hard to hate close up, so we should move in. Speak truth to BS, but be civil.

A global problem is rampant dehumanization of people. This is the start of every genocide in history. It begins with language, the names we call each other. We are not biologically wired to be cruel to each other, not wired for hate, violence, rape, murder. To allow ourselves to be cruel we first dehumanize, push people outside the circle of protected humanity. Both the right and left use language to push people away.

Families can be tribal. A family member outside the tribe can have difficulty. The discussion should be about boundaries, what is good and not good to discuss. Do this when emotions are not high. But we don’t want to sever ties unless there is an issue of physical safety or when humanity is denied.

I can be empathetic to people who have vastly different experience – for example, I can relate to the Black Lives Matter movement even when I’m not black. There is something greater – love and compassion. Empathy isn’t about shared experience, but about shared emotion. Do you know rage, pain, joy, grief, love? If so, you can extend empathy. It is about digging to find when I felt afraid, powerless, enraged. Alas, we tend to not be be fluent in emotional identification.

Stop walking through the world looking for evidence you don’t belong. You’ll always find it. Belonging begins in your own heart.

On to some of my own thoughts. I’ve written a lot about ranking (racism, misogyny, etc.) being behind and a part of many of the problems facing the nation and the world (the GOP tax scam is all about ranking). Behind that is the question: Is ranking a natural, perhaps inbred, part of being human? If yes, then we can’t fight it and might as well accept it and our own place in that ranking. If no, then ranking can be swept away and we can work towards a life without it.

I have answered that question for myself, though maybe not in a definitive way that would convince a skeptic. My answer is that ranking is not natural, though we are definitely susceptible to it. Since we live in a culture that teaches it with nearly everything it does we learn it readily. However, humans have constructed culture not built on ranking, such as ancient Crete as discussed in the book The Chalice and the Blade.

Brown’s discussion on dehumanization supports my viewpoint. She says we are not wired to be cruel. Before we can be cruel we must see the other side as not human. Thus ranking is not natural.

That’s the power of hatred

In August 2016 I came across this quote from President Lyndon Johnson:

If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you.

I posted it as part of my growing understanding ranking, which explains we have been taught to assign rank to people in our society – men over women, white over black, going through many other categories. As I recognized from this quote a person’s need to feel superior to other people (especially in a culture that teaches such superiority) is much more important than a person’s need to feel economically secure. Ranking is an amazingly strong force.

Twitter user Propane Jane expands on this idea in a long series of tweets. Recognizing the strength of ranking is important to understand how the GOP tax scam got passed. In case you aren’t up on your acronyms: WWC is White Working Class. Excerpts of what Jane wrote:

People need to understand that his socioeconomic self-sabotage keeps occurring repeatedly because the White American majority would rather be robbed blind by the White 1% than align themselves with the majority of people of color to elect Democrats. Equality is too risky. A rising tide lifts all boats, which is PRECISELY why non-wealthy White Americans continually vote in majority for the GOP’s austerity. Skin privilege and feigned supremacy are worth more to them than money in the bank, especially when POC still have less than they do.

I know it makes folk uncomfortable to ponder this thought, but I’m sick and fucking tired of people asking “why do they vote against their self interest” as if maintaining racism as an institution isn’t a self interest or these voters’ primary electoral motivation. It’s one thing for them to keep lying to themselves but the rest of us don’t have time to participate in their denial along with them. The WWC hasn’t been duped by the GOP, they are *willful* participants in their own demise.

These people are intentionally making a habit of finding out who people of color are rallying behind and which party we’re giving our votes to so they can vote the complete fucking OPPOSITE.

Learn this basic fact now, y’all.

NO amount of facts or self-inflicted economic hardship will stop these people from voting GOP for bigotry, misogyny and homophobia’s sake. Give up on that fantasy now. Also the folk on the left who foolishly think that if shit just gets bad enough for the White majority they’ll wake up one morning and join the multicultural coalition they’ve intentionally avoided for the last FIFTY YEARS need to snap the FUCK out of it. It ain’t happening. Trust and believe that impoverished White people who live in the reddest of red states and religiously vote Republican are already suffering the dire socioeconomic consequences of their votes, they just don’t give a fuck b/c Whiteness is their sustenance. They won’t have a pot to piss in or window to throw it out in Trump’s Amerikkka, just like they didn’t under Reagan and GWB. Predictable economic hardship hasn’t stopped them from voting GOP and it never will. That’s the power of hatred.

Jane uses the recent election in Alabama where many people willingly voted for a pedophile. She also mentions the “unpopularity” of Hillary Clinton. Then she continues:

The more folk insist on playing dumb and burying their privileged heads in the sand, the more America retreats from its stated ideals and reverts back to all of its original sins. We ignore and deny the impacts of racism and misogyny on our politics at our own peril. No one should be surprised that non-stop glorification of White people who were so hateful and ignorant that they wanted to take their country back simply b/c a Black man was running it has resulted in a GOP government intent on destroying everything he/we built. No one should be surprised that the refusal of White “moderates” to lay down their privilege and join the multicultural Democratic coalition results in GOP victory and maintenance of the discriminatory status quo.
…
Y’all can be certain I won’t stop calling it out no matter how many folk jump in my mentions to say “not all white people”. Until the White majority gets its shit together, our ONLY hope is in our collective recognition that they won’t change and we have to OUTVOTE THEM. Give up on chasing these racist, sexist dummies who don’t even have sense enough to vote to keep their own fucking healthcare coverage. Focus your time, money, and energy on fighting GOP voter suppression that’s targeted at people of color.

Votes out of a hat

A few days ago I wrote about a race for the Virginia House of Delegates that Democrat Shelly Simonds won by a single vote. This particular race would also determine whether the GOP would control the House or would have to work out a power sharing agreement with the Dems.

Sigh. It was great while it lasted.

The GOP took one of the rejected ballots to a three judge panel. They ruled it counted for the GOP candidate David Yancey.

This is a ballot that had been rejected because the voter filled in the ovals for both Simonds and Yancey, then drew a slash through the oval for Simonds. This was considered an overvote. The voter should have gotten a fresh ballot. The GOP agreed it was an overvote during the counting – until they needed one more vote. The race is now declared a tie.

So sometime next week the race will be decided by essentially drawing a name out of a hat. Again, the control of the chamber hangs on the outcome. Not democracy at all.

I heard that in Virginia Dem Delegates got 200,000 more votes than GOP Delegates or about 10% more. Yet because the state is so highly gerrymandered the result is only a 50-50 split in seats. But even a few districts gerrymandered for the GOP elected Dem Delegates.

Heaps of praise

We’ve seen GOP members of Congress steadfastly refuse to provide the checks and balances on the nasty guy as the constitution says they should do. We’ve seen his cabinet heap praise on him. All this in a democracy?

Another example is some GOP members are working to destroy the credibility of investigator Robert Mueller. That prompted Melissa McEwan of Shakesville to write:

One man does not subvert our democratic norms and systems to usher in authoritarianism on his own. He has help, and lots of it. The Republican Party is willing, even eager, to provide all the help that Trump needs.

The inaction and even assistance in Congress has me thinking whatever authoritarian actions the nasty guy does the rest of the GOP wants it too. Don’t upset the guy when he is doing exactly what they want him to do. They’re as much authoritarian as he is. They want that. They’ve been working towards this moment for decades.

Sarah Kendzior proposes another possibility for the way the GOP sucks up to the nasty guy.

Blackmail.

Perhaps a year ago (I don’t remember the date – at least a year, maybe 18 months) there was a lot of news that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was hacked just before the Democratic Convention. Some of the info gained in that hack was dribbled out over the fall campaign and made a difference in the results.

Very little has been said that the RNC was also hacked (and, apparently, Sen. Lindsay Graham’s personal email) at about the same time. Little was said because that info wasn’t used during the campaign. But it certainly wasn’t forgotten. The nasty guy could be hanging it over certain members of Congress.

There may be other reasons for all that praise for the nasty guy. Kendzior lists a few:

* One is the careerism and opportunism I mentioned above. Take the chance to impose the nasty policies while we can. Kendzior dismisses this. It’s just everyday politics. But everyday politicians don’t heap praise like this.

* Threats to family and friends.

* Contamination – of being on the outer edges of the administration’s criminality. This could include bribery by the nasty guy’s donors (but that’s also everyday politics).

* Threats to the country, such as provoking another country to attack America or disrupt our infrastructure.

Kendzior says these threats can be used against more than Congress – they can be used against any government official. And even mass media.

When these threats are wielded against the media our news begins to sound like propaganda or at least the stories that expose a lot are killed. Either action could be because of fear.

When officials are threatened they become afraid to criticize the executive branch, perhaps even afraid to state concerns privately. This comes from a suspicion of surveillance. Self-censorship becomes a survival mechanism.

When it gets to this point – when you self-censor by instinct, when you’re always on guard, when punishment always looms, and accountability is annihilated, you’ve passed into authoritarianism.

We’re not there yet. But we’re getting close.

It is important not to let them change your values, your morals, your individuality. Authoritarianism isn’t just a matter of external control; it’s most insidious aspect is what it does to you inside.

That prompts a question. Are GOP members naturally authoritarian or are they being blackmailed into it? Perhaps both? That they have been acting authoritarian is demonstrated by the scam masquerading as a tax cut bill. Yeah, the giveaways to the rich and the resulting threats to the social safety net is bad. What is worse, says Will Wilkinson writing for the New York Times, is the contempt they showed for democracy in the process. There were no hearings or debate on the bill. Sections were rewritten by hand and a vote was forced before anyone could read it.

Wilkinson explains this isn’t an issue of “makers” protecting themselves from “takers.”

Democracy is fundamentally about protecting the middle and lower classes from redistribution by establishing the equality of basic rights that makes it possible for everyone to be a capitalist. Democracy doesn’t strangle the golden goose of free enterprise through redistributive taxation; it fattens the goose by releasing the talent, ingenuity and effort of otherwise abused and exploited people.

A bit more on that tax scam bill. The Center for American Progress estimates the nasty guy will save somewhere between $11 million to $15 million a year on taxes. His children and the children of many in his cabinet will save $4.5 million in estate taxes.

So Joy Reid said on Twitter journalists and constituents should be busy asking every GOP Congresscritter five important questions:

* What is your net worth?
* How much will you gain financially from the bill?
* Did your voters urge you to vote for it?
* How much will the average person in your district see in tax relief?
* Will you vote to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to cover the deficit?

One of Reid’s Twitter replies suggested showing the size of the Congresscritter’s houses. Yeah, they’re big.

Butterfly

My church has what it calls a Longest Night service, held appropriately on the winter solstice, the longest night of the year. This isn’t a celebration of the solstice, but an acknowledgment that some people are not happy during the Christmas season, some people are grieving. The grief is usually because of the death of a loved one, though could be because of a broken relationship, severe illness or depression, or something else.

One of the songs this evening was “Worn” by Tenth Avenue North. Some of the words:

I’m worn; my prayers are wearing thin.
I’m worn even before the day begins.
I’m worn; I’ve lost my will to fight.
I’m worn, so, heaven come and flood my eyes.

Le me see redemption win,
Let me know the struggle ends,
That You can mend a heart
That’s frail and torn.
I wanna know a song can rise
From the ashes from a broken life,
And all that’s dead inside can be reborn.

Melissa McEwan uses her blog Shakesville as a community meeting place. Each December she offers a place for the community to vent about why Christmas won’t be sparkly snowflakes. And readers do, offering all kinds of stories of dysfunctional families. The one that sticks in my mind is the woman who says it is not safe for her to be around her father, which means she can’t spend Christmas with her mother, brother, and his family.

My Christmas is nowhere near that bad, but life isn’t sparkly snowflakes either. Our lives have changed a lot in the last few years. I’ll have a quiet day with my sisters along with the wife of one and the daughter of the other. We’ll exchange a few simple gifts and share a meal.

I’ve attended the Longest Night service for three years now. The first one was a few months after Dad died. I don’t remember it. I remember a particular aspect of the second one very well. We were asked to write a message on a piece of paper, then come forward and slip the folded paper into the straw of the manger. My message was anger at Dad because of the enormity of the task he had dropped in my lap. I had already been cleaning out the house for 20 months and still had a long way to go. I still had to manage money for Mom’s care, which could go for several more years. In addition, Tim had died. Karen had died. I got back to my seat and the grief overwhelmed me.

This year I still had a few tears. This time the slips of paper were in the shape of stars and we were given three of them. On one I wrote a name in each point: Dad, Mom, Tim, Karen, and now Ruth and added “I miss you.” On the second I wrote, “I have completed the task as well as I am able.” The task isn’t quite done. There is still a closing on the house and a final tax season. Even so, what looked enormous a year ago is done. The house has been emptied and repaired. The investments have been distributed.

I noticed the back of the third star was a pattern of butterflies. Mom’s first bout of cancer – melanoma – was at age 50. Surgery removed part of her cheek. Melanoma appeared again at age 55. Some time after that she also had breast cancer. At age 50 Mom adopted the butterfly as a personal symbol. She saw hope in the chrysalis bursting open and a beautiful butterfly coming out. Mom’s hope was rewarded and each time she returned to a busy, vibrant life. This year the cancer came back. There was no butterfly.

Perhaps not for Mom. The task Dad dropped in my lap is (nearly) done. I intend to break into and keep a busy, vibrant life.

Listening to voters

Gosh, those Congresscritters really listen to their voters! The Senate passed their version of a bill to steal from the poor disguised as a tax cut a couple weeks ago. The Tax Policy Center analyzed the mess and determined that it delivered 62.1% of its benefits to the richest 1% of Americans.

It is the least popular legislation in three decades. Voters made their displeasure known and the GOP leadership listened. The new bill – approved by the House this afternoon – has changed that distribution. The 1% richest Americans now get 83% of the tax cuts. You’re so sweet! Thanks for thinking of me! But… you shouldn’t have.

The GOP says they phased out the middle class tax cuts after a few years as a budget gimmick – gotta keep the bomb that will blow up the deficit under $1.5 trillion, at least on paper. But no future administration or Congress will actually allow such a giant tax hike on the middle class to actually take effect. So, no worries! That 83% going to the top dogs, won’t really happen. All cool!

Yeah, the middle class should see a tax cut big enough to actually notice. At least for a few years. Just don’t peer under the rug where the poor get nothing.

Every vote matters

In my wrapup of the November election results I noted that a few seats in the Virginia House of Delegates were so close they had to be recounted. That recount finished today. The last to be recounted was district 94 in which Democrat Shelly Simonds won over Republican David Yancey – by one vote. That means each party will have 50 seats. And, unlike the state Senate, there is no way to break a tie.

So the GOP will not control the House as it has for 18 years. The two parties have to work out an agreement to share power.

So every single time you have the opportunity, VOTE!

Strong responsibility

A couple weeks ago in a Detroit Free Press editorial Stephen Henderson had a lot to say about rich white supremacist Richard Spencer being invited to speak at the University of Michigan. Henderson says U of M had a very good reason to refuse to let Spencer speak. He is very good at inciting violence and his followers are happy to come along and oblige.

Even so, Henderson agrees that Spencer should speak. However, with the invitation extended the university has a strong responsibility.

The goal should be to give Spencer space to speak, but to deny him control of the time, place and manner in which the speech takes place, and to prevent the violence attendant at his other speeches from happening in Ann Arbor.

The university also needs to make as clear as possible how awful Spencer’s ideas are with smart but aggressive counter-programming. Invite other speakers to speak back to his message. Organize – preferably with students – robust events that show the power of town-square-style competition of ideas.

Whatever happens, the university cannot let Spencer have the spotlight alone.

But…

The university has a dismal record of upholding this responsibility. The campus is already tense for minority students because of racist incidents. Spencer’s rhetoric would likely embolden these perpetrators. In addition the university has a record of twisting free speech to crack down on dissenting speakers, such as during the civil rights and women’s rights movements.

If the university is going to be tolerant of speech as offensive and intimidating as Spencer's, it had better be sure that it is doing all it can to protect speech equally – more so than other institutions, perhaps, because of its call to principled, open and vigorous debate.

It hasn’t always done that in the past. And it hasn't ensured that the students who'll feel victimized by Spencer's speech also feel like the university has their back.

The Spencer speech is an opportunity to recommit, and to excel to a space where diversity of thought and reason, as well as diversity of ethnicity and class, are respected for everyone on campus.

Women are good for business

In last Sunday’s edition of the Detroit Free Press there was a front page article, Breaking the Boardroom Ceiling. It reported that women on corporate boards are good for business. General Motors’ board of directors is 50% women and the boards of Ford and Fiat Chrysler are well above 20%. In addition, 20% of board seats in Michigan based Corporations are filled by women and nationwide women fill 20.8% of board seats.

A nonprofit organization “2020 Women on Boards” started advocating for women on corporate boards back in 2010, aiming for 20% by 2020. The goal was reached three years early.

This trend of more women on boards is being pushed by investment companies that want a good return for some pretty large pension funds. That includes funds run by men. Their reasons for the push:

* Gender diverse companies are 15% more likely to outperform their peers. Women interrupt the “head-nodding group think.”

* The more male-dominated board has a higher likelihood of fraud. Women are more ethically sensitive.

* Women are less overconfident, and are more risk-adverse.

* At least half of consumer spending is influenced by women. Their views need to be represented during crucial decisions.

* Incidents that jeopardize corporate reputations and disrupt revenue streams would not have happened or would be addressed more quickly with more women on the board. This likely refers to sexual scandals, but probably a lot more than that.

Don’t stay indifferent

When I lived in Germany for two years starting 28 years ago the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe were crumbling. I heard it described this way (though I had to look up the details): Poland’s revolution took ten years. The revolution in Hungary took ten months, in East Germany it took ten weeks, and in Czechoslovakia it took ten days.

So, starting about 1979 Lech Walensa captured the imagination of the West. Democracy arrived in 1989.

I remember the elation I felt when the Berlin Wall was opened. A few weeks before I planned a trip to Berlin, not knowing what was coming. I was there five days after the Wall opened – after the weekend party in West Berlin finally subsided. Easterners were allowed to freely cross to the West, but us Westerners still had to go through passport control. I spent a day in East Berlin, which included a requirement to change a certain number of West German marks to East German marks (made of aluminum) and spend it all before I returned to the West. I used it to enter a couple museums and buy lunch. Back in West Berlin I went through the Checkpoint Charlie Museum that documented the various ways (many bizarre and ingenious) people tried to escape from behind the Iron Curtain. Some were successful.

I went back to Berlin 18 months later. The experience was different – no wall. I could pass from West to East just by walking past the Brandenburg Gate. No passport check, no lightweight coins. Watch for the vendors selling trinkets to the tourists.

East Germany is now safely a part of Germany, a very democratic country. But Poland appears to be another matter. The government led by the Law and Justice Party and its leader (though not Prime Minister) Jaroslaw Kaczynski is becoming authoritarian. In response, Martin Mycielski of the Committee for the Defense of Democracy organized the largest mass demonstrations in Poland since 1989. For these efforts Mycielski and his organization were awarded the European Citizen’s Prize by the European Parliament in 2016.

Mycielski has long admired American culture and politics. He was quite alarmed by the election of the nasty guy. He is helping us in the way he knows – describing for us what authoritarians do. For that he created the website Learn from Europe.

Mycielski starts with “Year 1 Under Authoritarianism – What to Expect?” He has a list of 15 items. All of them seem to accurately describe what the nasty guy and the GOP have been doing over the last year. Some of them:

They will come to power with a campaign based on fear, scaremongering and distorting the truth. Nevertheless, their victory will be achieved through a democratic electoral process. But beware, as this will be their argument every time you question the legitimacy of their actions. They will claim a mandate from the People to change the system.

Remember – gaining power through a democratic system does not give them permission to cross legal boundaries and undermine said democracy.

They will divide and rule. Their strength lies in unity, in one voice and one ideology, and so should yours. They will call their supporters Patriots, the only “true Americans”. You will be labelled as traitors, enemies of the state, unpatriotic, the corrupt elite, the old regime trying to regain power. Their supporters will be the “People”, the “sovereign” who chose their leaders.

Don’t let them divide you – remember you’re one People, one Nation, with one common good.

They will create chaos, maintain a constant sense of conflict and danger. It will be their argument to enact new authoritarian laws, each one further limiting your freedoms and civil liberties. They will disguise them as being for your protection, for the good of the People.

See through the chaos, the fake danger, expose it before you wake up in a totalitarian, fascist state.

On to the “Authoritarian Checklist.” A couple of those items:

* Win elections on fear & populist promises

* Limit minority & women’s rights

Mycielski provides “6 Rules for Survival under an Authoritarian Regime.” The first of those:

Don’t stay indifferent. It WILL concern you eventually. It will concern your family, your friends. Voice your objection IMMEDIATELY. Show them you care. RESIST.

And “7 Rules on Approaching Authoritarian Supporters.” This is a list of guidelines to follow if that regime supporter is a neighbor, friend, or family member. Rule 1:

Don’t look down on them, don’t patronize them, even if you know what they’re saying has no factual basis or you find it offensive. Don’t preach, ask questions. Try to understand them, where they are coming from, what their problems are and why they see solutions to them in the regime. Treat them as people, as equals. They believe what they’re saying is true and they might have valid reasons for their support.

Host Ray Suarez interviewed Elaine Tyler May on today’s edition of All Things Considered on NPR. May wrote the book Fortress America: How We Embraced Fear and Abandoned Democracy. A lot of our leaders have made a big deal of danger to personal safety – fear of dangers increased even while the dangers statistically declined. This fear has its uses.

Don’t want women in the public arena? Warn them they are only safe at home. Want to keep the races separate? Loudly proclaim that young black men were dangerous. But the most likely victims of violence are black men and the least likely are white women. May’s conclusion:

[Fostering fear] has really affected our political life. It has affected our personal lives, and really since the late 1960s, American politicians, American leaders, have used the fear of crime to call for law and order kinds of policies, to encourage Americans to be afraid of their neighbors, of people they don't know. And that has really caused a sense of retreating of the common good. It's created distrust where we know those fears are highly exaggerated and completely out of touch of the reality of the situation.

Deeply comic

Friday evening I went to the Detroit Film Theater to see the movie The Other Side of Hope, directed by director Aki Kaurismaki of Finland. It was described as “deeply comic” and rated rather high, so I gave it a chance.

The story is topical. Khalid has escaped the war in Syria and is applying for asylum in Helsinki. He is also looking for his sister who got separated from him during their travels. One of the locals is Wikstrom, a guy who has had enough of selling shirts to clothing stores. He gets someone to buy out his inventory and uses that to buy a small restaurant. He got it cheap because the three employees haven’t been paid in three months. Of course, Khalid and Wikstrom meet up.

The characters and situations are a bit eccentric such as attempts to liven the restaurant to make it more profitable. But the humor is droll to deadpan to subtle to lost in translation. I smiled some and laughed a bit. It was OK, but not the laugh festival I anticipated with a description such as “deeply comic.”

What are we defending?

I found a good quote by a person with the Twitter handle of Indigenous and who displays Native art on the home page:

If the U.S. can’t afford to protect the environment, build bridges or teach children anymore, then what exactly is it defending with its military budget?

Sydette, a Twitter user, tweeted:

… oh my god y’all really think #metoo is just getting a backlash? … it’s gonna be all out WAR for YEARS. Are y’all really that new?

Several others echoed the sentiment that what women are experiencing is much more than a simple backlash. They also provide examples. In the discussion Twitter user Manoushka quotes Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid’s Tale:

Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.

A clash between views

Jessica Mason Pieklo, writing for Rewire, offers another review of the case of the bigoted baker before the Supremes last week. A few of her observations.

Noel Francisco argued the case for the nasty guy’s Department of Justice. He has ties to at least one extreme right think tank (though the group tried to hide the connection so Francisco would be seen as unbiased) and was probably well schooled.

Francisco insisted that under the Colorado law, a Black baker would be forced to create a cake for the Ku Klux Klan. This is a point the conservative justices jumped on, despite knowing that the KKK is not a protected class and therefore not subject to the same anti-discrimination protection as a same-sex couple.

Pieklo then focuses on Anthony Kennedy, who has been balancing the dignity of LGBT people with the dignity of religious people. In the same-sex marriage case Kennedy was on our side. In the Hobby Lobby case (in which the company was given permission to not provide contraceptive services for its employees) Kennedy was on their side. This baker case is a clash between Kennedy’s two views.

So Pieklo thinks Kennedy may not fully support our side. And whatever he decides his reasoning will be mushy.

Delighted with wrong prediction

I predicted yesterday that in the Alabama special Senate election scoundrel Roy Moore would win. I am delighted that my prediction was wrong. Democrat Doug Jones won by enough of a margin that there won’t be an automatic recount.

I said the GOP was cheating. Ari Berman, who wrote the book Give Us the Ballot; the Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America, confirms it. He lists the ways the cheating was done in a tweet, so I’ll expand a bit.

Police at polling stations. This has an intimidation factor. Also in previous elections police have checked voters for outstanding warrants, a big deterrent.

Voters listed as inactive. This is likely a surprise to many regular voters.

Long lines at polls. That can be accomplished by not supplying enough voting machines (of course, plenty of machines in affluent areas) or being really slow when a machine stops working. People in long lines have a higher tendency to give up.

Voters told they have the wrong ID. Of course, people who don’t drive (likely can’t afford a car) don’t have a drivers license. In addition, after saying the driver's license is one of a few acceptable IDs, Alabama, claiming a budget crisis, closed DMV offices in counties where blacks make up more than 75% of the voters.

Melissa McEwan of Shakesville says, yeah, there was some cheating. But that fraudulent Election Integrity Commission didn’t pull out all of its sinister dirty tricks yet because Roy Moore wasn’t worth exposing them before 2018. So stay vigilant.

I had lunch with my friend and debate partner today. And we debated. A bit. He thought the accusations of Roy Moore being a pedophile were unproveable, irrelevant, and a sideshow. The real issue, with very little mention in the media, is that Moore has no respect for the rule of law. The evidence is that Moore was twice removed from the Alabama Supremes for defying the national Supremes. That should have been what disqualified him from being a Senator.

While I agree with my friend I’m not so dismissive of Moore’s sexual assaults. I’ve concluded that how a politician treats women, LGBT people, and minorities is a good indication of the kinds of policies they will promote and whether I’ll agree with those policies. So, yes, Moore had no respect for the rule of law, which should disqualify him. And also Moore treats everyone but white Christian men like dirt and that also disqualifies him.

The political question is now which of those disqualifications will sway the most voters?

No surprise

On the way home from rehearsal this evening I heard in the 10:00 NPR news that in the Alabama special Senate election the race is too close to call with 70% of the vote counted. Even so, I’m going to make the disappointing prediction that the scoundrel (don’t have enough room for all the adjectives) Roy Moore will win. I make that prediction based on a little bit of evidence.

The GOP is cheating.

Come on now. Don’t act so surprised. Infuriated, yes. Surprised, no.

The details:

John Merrill is Secretary of State in Alabama. He was an election monitor in Russia and declared their election to be “free and fair.” It wasn’t. He said he would implement Russian tactics in Alabama.

I previously reported on voter suppression.

Today voters are being turned away because they have been declared “inactive” or told they have the wrong ID.

I would be delighted to wake up tomorrow and hear that my prediction is wrong.

The partisan outcome would never have been possible

As I’ve mentioned a few times now I’m part of the campaign to end gerrymandering in Michigan (the campaign website explaining gerrymandering is here). So I’m quite interested when I find links to articles on the issue. Especially one that can satisfy my inner geek.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at the University of Chicago, wrote an opinion column for The Inquirer of Philadelphia. Like Michigan, Pennsylvania is highly gerrymandered. Like Michigan the voters are about evenly balanced between Dems and GOP. Yet, the GOP sent 13 representatives to Congress while the Dems sent only 5.

Back in 2004 the Supremes heard a case about gerrymandering in PA. The justices said we don’t like gerrymandering but we don’t know how to measure it. Another case, based on the 2011 redistricting, is before the PA Supremes with a ruling expected by the end of the month.

Since the 2004 case political scientists got to work. Last year I’ve discussed one measure that came out of that work, called the efficiency gap. This news article mentions a couple more. It doesn’t describe them, though does link to the scholarly papers (as PDF) that were presented in court. I took a look at the one under the link “maps” written by Jowei Chen, Ph.D, an associate professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan who has testified in several gerrymandering cases.

Chen used a computer simulation that randomly drew districts and compared the results with what the lawmakers drew. Chen lays the goals (which gives you an idea whether you want to read the rest of the paper).

By randomly drawing districting plans with a process designed to optimize on traditional districting criteria, the computer simulation process thus gives us a precise indication of the range of districting plans that plausibly and likely emerge when map-drawers are not motivated primarily by partisan goals. By comparing enacted plans against the range of simulated plans with respect to partisan measurements, I am able to determine the extent to which a map-drawer’s deviations from traditional districting criteria, such as geographical compactness and county splits, was motivated by partisan goals.

The traditional criteria for districts are: population equality (specified in the federal constitution), being contiguous, avoiding county splits, avoiding municipality splits, and geographic compactness.

Chen randomly created 500 maps using the traditional criteria. Then applied precinct voting data to each map and to the enacted map. Then he ran all his statistical measurements to the created maps and the enacted map. Finally, he drew some tables and charts.

For example, The random maps gave the GOP 7 to 10 districts, with 54% of the maps giving the GOP 9 out of 18 seats (what the overall vote tallies suggest they should get). None of the maps gave the GOP more than 10 seats. And yet the enacted map gave them 13. Chen supplied 3 more graphs of various measures. In all of them the random maps were all clustered over here and the enacted map was way over there. Chen wrote:

I thus conclude with overwhelmingly high statistical certainty that the enacted plan created a pro-Republican partisan outcome that would never have been possible under a districting process adhering to non-partisan traditional criteria.

Stephanopoulos tackles some of the arguments the GOP lawyers tried in court. In one of those arguments professor Wendy Tam Cho said that all those hundreds of simulated maps may not be representative of all possible lawful maps. Stephanopoulos says that’s true but irrelevant. All those maps do prove (1) there are hundreds of maps that are more fair, and (2) Pennsylvania geography (in which Dems tend to cluster in cities) didn’t cause the GOP to get the extra seats. The other GOP arguments are just as logically flawed.

Just aren’t energized

With the senate race in Alabama coming to a vote in just a few days, some people are wondering why black people seem so disengaged. They certainly wouldn’t want bigoted Christian supremacist Roy Moore to win. But they don’t seem all that excited about Democratic challenger Doug Jones. A lot of reasons are offered. Perhaps Jones isn’t appearing enough in black communities. Or the organizations that do black voter turnout lost out in the latest campaign finance laws. Maybe even though Jones prosecuted Klansmen, black voters just aren’t energized. Perhaps Jones isn’t talking to black crowds to avoid alienating white crowds. Maybe news of the race or Doug Jones hasn’t reached black communities.

Vann Newkirk of The Atlantic says all these breathless commentaries miss one important thing. Voting has always been a burden for black people in Alabama and the latest voter suppression efforts have made it worse. Why get excited for a candidate if you can’t vote?

Thankful I’m gay

Mikey Rox writes The Frivolist, a column that appears in Between the Lines, the LGBT newspaper for Michigan. In this week’s edition the column is titled, “10 Reasons I’m Thankful I’m Gay.” There was a time in his life (and in many gay lives) where he though it would be so much easier to be straight. But now he considers being gay a blessing and shares his gratitude. Here’s his list and under a few of them I’ll give my own version.

1. Compassion and empathy comes naturally. Rox wrote:

I know what it feels like to be called names and spat on and beaten for being different, and every day those memories inform how I treat others. In hindsight, I’ve realized that many people lack compassion and empathy because they’ve never known what it feels like to need and want it.

I add: I wasn’t picked on for being gay. But I saw how other LGBT people were treated and knew it could have easily been me. I agree that being gay and battling the church’s stance on LGBT people has very much formed my sense of compassion.

2. No accidental babies.
My version: I’m also definitely a party of one.

3. I wouldn’t know half the people I love.
My version: My important friends at my current church are in the LGBT community. I’ve been feeling a bit adrift lately because a couple of them have been out due to health issues.

4. I’ve helped change people’s minds about the LGBT community.
My version: I tend not to discuss the issue with our opponents. But as I’ve become more comfortable with my orientation those around me have taken it in stride and have also added a touch of challenge to the world.

5. An appreciation for the male body.
I’ll leave it at that.

6. I live by my own rules. Rox wrote:

Today, I don’t give a f*** what anybody thinks about my sexual orientation. This is my life. Come along or don’t, but this ride isn’t stopping for anybody.

7. My open-mindedness grants me access to experiences that many people are afraid of. Rox wrote:

I’m living my truth and learning every day about all the different people with whom I share this planet.

I add: Part of my reply is the learning I do through this blog. I’ve become quite interested in how patriarchy affects the lives of women. Part of my reply is if I wasn’t gay I doubt I’d volunteer at the Ruth Ellis Center where most of the youth are black.

8. My humor, even as a defense mechanism, makes me more attractive.
My version: Sheesh, I’m not skating through life on my looks.

9. I wouldn’t have such a satisfying career.
Rox is paid to write about gay issues. My careers in the auto industry and in teaching at a local college may not have been different if I was straight. But my “job” of writing this blog came about because I’m gay and the evolution of my ideas and principles and ethics developed through this writing.

10. My life would be completely different – and I love it just the way it is.
My version: Back in high school and college when I dated women (perhaps I just “hung out” with them?) I assumed I would marry and have kids. I didn’t and I love what I have now.

A few years ago I realized I’m a complete package. The gay parts influence the ethics parts and the compassion parts and the music parts and everything else. My ethics would be a lot different if I wasn’t gay. I suspect I would have matured to be a lot less tolerant and accepting. I love what I have now.