Taking someone's MAGA hat is a violation of the law. Just like taking a flag-burner's flag.

I see these stories pop up every once in awhile.  This time, a possibly drunk woman took a man's Trump/Make America Great Again hat while in a Mexican food restaurant.  

It is a shame most Americans have never understood the flag burning/desecration cases (which personally represented one of those rare times I agreed with Scalia).  I recall trying to explain to people that if I buy an American flag, and then want to burn it, it is my right, subject to health and safety rules.  You don't have the right to take my flag from me, a flag I own, been given to be my property, or which I have purchased.  

The same goes for taking away someone's MAGA hat.  I get that, if I was Mexican-American (or Latino/Hispanic) or Muslim, I may feel about a person wearing a MAGA hat the way a Jew may feel in, I emphasize here, 1933/1934 Germany seeing someone with Nazi regalia.* But the fact remains the MAGA hat the fellow was wearing was his private property, and the woman committed an assault as well as she ripped it off his head. If the woman wants to say she is acting with uncivil disobedience against purported rises in fascist, racist (Nazi) behavior, then she has to accept the legal consequences.  If Martin Luther King, Jr. can go to jail for civil disobedience for a just cause, then this woman ought to accept what has happened to her, which is being arrested for her behavior. 

This is why I joined with Scalia in recognizing flag burners had a First Amendment right, but I wanted Scalia to be more clear than he was.  I wanted Scalia to squarely say:  You have a right to burn, desecrate, or discard your own flag you own or purchase; and with burning or other desecration, subject to health and safety rules. You do NOT have the right to take someone else's flag, or a flag not belonging to you, to burn or discard.  The political commentary at the time of the two Supreme Court decisions never made this point, either, which is why I think this woman thought she was Rick Monday (not that she would know at this point who Monday was), and she was going to save America by ripping the hat off that older white guy's head.**

* I recognize the need to use Nazi comparisons sparingly, and cautiously.  It is why I say 1933/34, before the Final Solution, before the crematoria, before Kristallnacht.  As Yale historian Timothy Snyder says, however, it remains important to note and perhaps morally correct to respond to a tyrannical trend before it proceeds too far.

** Rick Monday was a former Major League Baseball player who, when playing for the Chicago Cubs at Dodger Stadium, ran over to two guys who had illegally entered the field of play during a ballgame, and began trying to set the flag they owned on fire.  Monday ran over and scooped up the flag to protect the flag from burning. What Monday did was in violation of the rule Scalia pronounced, but the two young men were already violating the law, and Monday could have easily tried to tackle one or both of them, as they were not going away quietly. Monday chose to take the flag from them, as the guards were coming over to apprehend the fellows.  Again, Monday's act was a  violation of the law, but, as the maxims of jurisprudence tell us, the law disregards trifles.  No D.A. would ever arrest Monday for that act, especially as it was not an assault, though Monday's own comments at the time showed a mindset which mirror the woman's mindset who pulled off the man's MAGA hat.  And the two fellows who had run onto the field at Dodger Stadium?  If they tried to sue Monday for taking their flag, they would most likely have been barred from gaining any relief for damages or anything else, based upon applicaion of the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands," where one's inequitable conduct relevant to the incident in which they sue stops them from being able to recover. Fun Fact: Monday was later traded to the Dodgers, and eventually became a color commentator for the team.

A fascinating cultural piece that speaks to our time

This article in today's Los Angeles Times, which made the left side front page, is a fascinating cultural piece.

Lisa Borders' rise into power/celebrity status came at a price: her son has surely led a messed up life. I often say my own life failures in terms of achieving economic and power status stem partly, and I emphasize partly, from my devotion to our children. When I held my son in my arms the night he was born over 25 years ago, I felt a tremendous weight of responsibility surge throughout my body. I knew I had to be there for this child, and that was that. And when our daughter was born, the weight of responsibility fell even more deeply upon me. Whenever I had to move for jobs, my wife and I chose areas to live where there was a strong public school. Had I been more of a self-focused striver, either to pursue or gain a PhD, or pursue writing or even music (the latter way back in the day), we could have moved to a cheap, high-crime area, saved bucks, and pursued my dreams, letting the children "fend for themselves" (my wife could have done the same as an artist, and who knows, divorced me for having a defective electrical heart system, and not being as successful as she thought to pursue her art.  Heck, why not?  We have dreams to pursue, and our loved ones are always getting in the way...As I often joke, I live the alternative reality Jack Campbell from "Family Man." However, when our children tell us they love and respect us, or when they themselves do well in school, as they are still in either graduate school or a university, I feel a deep sense of pride and joy. When they need our help, which continues, we are there for them, with our souls and whatever we can afford or borrow to help them. Another reason for my relative failure in terms of economic/power status, this one largely outside of my control, was, by the time my son was born, I was more than five years post-first heart surgery, and I needed to stay in my job, working for others, to ensure I could have health care benefits. We did not take the type of risks necessary for economic and power based success. On the other hand, I must also admit something else about myself that is most important reason for my relative failure, internal to me personally: I never had what John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" song says one needs to be like the "folks on the hill," which of course is something I think Lisa Borders has, though I'm just guessing. 

The other cultural aspect of this article worth noting is the whole yoga instructor/crystals healer subplot. This part of the story is so "Los Angeles lifestyles of the rich and famous." Those who hawk yoga instruction and crystals healing are often hangers-on to manic, wealthy, elite people, and though the hawkers themselves are often not wealthy, they somehow insinuate themselves into the lifestyles of the rich and famous.  And those professions contain their own sexually exploitive behaviors--when not social climbing.  

When reading this story, we may eventually learn this was a date gone bad, as the two persons involved were friends for over a year before the incident that is described in the article. Still, the text messages tell us something occurred which was likely not consensual. On the other hand, at some point, though, as a guy who came of age in the totally schizoid, from a gender relations perspective, Dazed and Confused mid to late 1970s era, can't the ladies just tell us guys to back off in the moment, instead of writing a text right after, saying everything about the evening was great, but three days later, saying it was assault? Oh well, at least Lisa Borders will end up in some other perch in the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and, if high profile enough, go on Oprah's show to tell us how she had to overcome personal obstacles, get the audience to go "Awwwww" and applaud her, and all will be well for Lisa Borders. But, at least Ms. Borders recognizes being a parent means making certain sacrifices for your children, even adult children who long ago had needed you.

One more thing: The MeToo movement is still in its accusations stage, which I believe is probably culturally correct. The stoning process therefore remains in full swing, and that is why Lisa Borders had to step down. She can't be throwing stones at others while simultaneously protecting her son from the stone-throwers she is leading.  As a culture, we are miles away from forgiveness. One never can predict how much more stoning will go on, but we will know we have entered a forgiveness mode when we begin, as a culture, to focus more on how the sexes communicate better with each other when it comes to romance and sex, and how we men become better trained, from the start, to be cognizant of others' feelings. The days of "Grok-want" are now properly, and perhaps finally, seen as assaultive behavior in every context, as opposed to us merely shrugging our shoulders and saying "Boys will be boys...," while questioning the woman as if we were a Dark Ages cleric and she a witch. It is not to say this no longer happens. It does. But there is also the Jussie Smollett story swirling around, where a victim may have made up a hate-crime assault for publicity and more money from his Hollywood producers--though with respect to women, the statistical analyses show made-up stories are rare (my sense tells me, as the stoning continues, we may find a slight rise in false reports, though maybe Jussie Smollett's story is an antidote to such a theoretical belief). While I think the regular white collar workplaces already largely transitioned, there remains much sexual abuse of minimum wage female workers in retail, if one reads the lawsuits and studies that have been conducted. What we are seeing more in the capitalist/corporate media, however, and at long last, are the power and money citadels being crashed, i.e. DC world, Media world, and Financial world. These have been worlds where people climb over and around each other, and where the psychopaths are often more in evidence than those who may have true talent or ability. And, sorry, the psychopath label goes for the women as well as the men, though the patriarchal structures make it more often the men who hold the power and abuse the authority (and yes, in the "psychopath" link, I noted, too, lawyers are one of the professions where psychopaths tend to gravitate; I've come across more than af few lawyer-psychopaths over the years).  

Oh well.  As Kurt Vonnegut liked to say, So it goes.

Bernie and the DNC, Round 2

Next week, Tom Perez, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) he leads, will hand all candidates, including Sanders, a piece of paper.  It will read that, to run as a candidate in the Democratic Party's presidential primary 2019-2020, one must affirm in writing (1) one is a Democrat, (2) one will accept the Party's nomination, if nominated, (3) one will run as a Democrat in the fall election, and (4) one will serve as a Democrat if elected.

The Vermont State Democratic Party considers Bernie a Democratic Party member.  In one of the links to this article, another Politico article which states:

"The Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution over the weekend supporting Sanders’ move, proclaiming that he could still be considered a member of the party 'for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.'"

I get a kick out of that last part, which says Bernie is entitled to all rights and privileges of a party member at the "federal level."  Does a State Democratic Party resolution bind the national party with respect to membership?  That is a fun one for DNC chair, Tom Perez, to have to consider.  A part of me would like to see Bernie say he is a member of the State of Vermont's Democratic Party and leave it vague as to the rest.  If Perez wants to make a federal case about it, it would be fun to see him try.   Nonetheless, if I was advising Bernie, I would say, Just sign the damn piece of paper and move on.  Who needs the vapid noise?  

Whenever I hear criticism from Democratic Party members who say, "But Bernie's not even a Democrat!"  I laugh, and say, Really? You're really concerned about that? Or do you actually mean to say you disagree with his economic policy positions?  If the conversation gets deeper, I sometimes say, Bernie has the heart, soul, and public policy philosophy of FDR and the New Deal as well as LBJ's Great Society.  Those are the high points in the often sordid history of the Democratic Party.  Then, if I really want to get tough, I ask the person, What part of the Democratic Party's history do you stand with?

Anyway, I do expect Bernie will sign the Randi Weingarten-inspired rule.  But this much must be said:  The rule and piece of paper have more in common with an anti-Communist loyalty oath than something a mature, outward reaching party should have.  I say Randi Weingarten-inspired because Weingarten is a longtime "I'm with her" Clinton supporter who was so excited about the rule change, she posted the rule change to her social media account at the time.  Weingarten is the long time president of the American Federation of Teachers, a venerable teachers' union.  However, my view of Weingarten is she is a walking, living personification of the failure of union leadership in our nation.  She has no vision with respect to developing unions as a social good, and is primarily about protecting her own power, and only incidentally her members.  She has none of the moral vision and strength of Rose DeMoro of the nurses union, or Sara Nelson of the flight attendants' union.  Weingarten's power position has helped solidify corporate power in our nation, particularly when one looks at the candidates she and her executive board--not her membership, as members don't have a voice for endorsements--have supported over the years.  And really, for someone so concerned about who is a Democrat, would someone please ask this horrible person why she and her union leadership supported Republican George Pataki for NY State governor in 2002, over a very good, liberal-minded Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate?  If I ever met this cynical, corporate Democrat in a union-garment person, it would take all my strength not to curse her out as a traitor to unions and a traitor to workers across America.  When one reads in the initial link how this resolution was required to get to a tepid compromise about limiting the power of so-called "superdelegates," one smells the stink that emanates from the national DNC, over which people like Weingarten currently preside.

So, again, my advice to Bernie: Sign the stupid piece of paper.  Move on. Move forward.  And, then, think of Ronald Reagan, who fought a bitter primary against Gerald Ford in 1976, lost the primary, and, unlike Bernie with Hillary, only tepidly campaigned for Ford, who then lost to Jimmy Carter.  In 1980, Reagan entered a crowded Republican Party primary as the oldest candidate ever to run for president in a major party. Then, Reagan withstood the Establishment Republicans' attacks, including from the Republican National Committee (RNC).  For a decent backstory to what I am talking about with Reagan and Ford in 1976, and Reagan's "comeback" in 1980, see, ironically, the hagiographic bio of Reagan from Craig Shirley, pages 8-25.  Shirley cites various NY Times pieces, which he claims emanated from the Ford camp, showing how tepidly Reagan supported Ford after Ford's defeat of Reagan in the primaries.  Shirley later describes how the Establishment Republicans kept saying in the Carter years how the nation was too "moderate" for the type of policies and positions Reagan was promoting.  See: pages 56, 95-97, 103 (the last page cite shows how Reagan refused to work with the RNC in the period leading up to his nomination in 1980).  One has to translate most of Shirley's book, but it is well-researched, and worth reviewing the sections I am describing. 

A matter of hopeful analysis, not predictive analysis. Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party's presidential primary

As Klouchbar, Harris, and others walk back support for Medicare for All, free public college tuition, and the Green New Deal, apparently due to the fact they are relying on corporate/financier money, I have stayed with the tried and true, Bernie Sanders. There are two overarching factors for early primary voters that any smart political strategist would tell us: (1) name recognition and (2) trust. This time, Bernie has both, and nobody else has that combination. My take has always been it is not "Bernie vs. Some New Face." It is Bernie v. Biden or some coalesced corporate media hyped candidate. It is not about "new faces," "young faces," compelling biographies, or the like. It is about protecting corporate power and we have to be more vigilant in recognizing what emanates from our televisions and radio, in terms of punditry especially, is corporate propaganda. Once we start with that recognition, we are able to discern where the hype is, and is not. Note the media was not anywhere near as breathless about Bernie's announcement compared to, say, Harris' announcement. 

As for Elizabeth Warren, corporate media is not going to coalesce around Warren, unless the corporate media has another death wish to re-elect Trump. I love Warren's policy proposals, and her domestic policies are outstanding. But sadly, I also find too many potential Democratic Party voters in the very States Clinton lost in 2016, but should have won, feel as if they don't trust Warren due to the Native American imbroglio. I find that to be a trivial issue, and one where Warren is being flogged in a way that is deeply unfair. However, it speaks to a resentment from the white working classes (lower to upper middle) in places like WI, MI, PA, and OH, who don't like the feeling she may have maneuvered her career based upon a misleading heritage claim. One more thing about Warren: Let's not give her a pass on her foreign policy positions.  Too often, she shows she is afraid to challenge any aspect of the Empire, and the conduct of Israeli governments, while Bernie has been far better, though some may say he pulls punches, too. 

I like the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttegeig. A lot. I especially liked his answer the other day to the question about socialism making a comeback in American politics.  He said younger people don't worry about whether something is socialist or capitalist as much as whether it makes sense or works or not--and that whether something is socialist is the beginning of a debate, not the end; something I have said for decades out here in the cold.  I also don't get the sense Mayor Pete is walking back from the positions Klouchbar and the others have walked back, though that may be a function of his not getting corporate/financier money, and not being a corporate media executive darling...I can't say. Still, Mayor Pete suffers from a lack of name recognition, and corporate media is not interested in promoting him, which means death in the early primaries, including SC and CA. 

Therefore, right now, it makes the most sense for progressives to publicly back, endorse, and promote Bernie. And even if we are still not certain, sitting back, and not endorsing Bernie, is only going to play into corporate media hands, as corporate media executives are contemptuous and fearful of Bernie's positions.  That is why these newbies have buckled under the pressure from the elites behind corporate media to walk away from progressive positions that a majority of American support.  

If another progressive with high levels of trust does well, Bernie would be the first to recognize it and step away. He has far less ego than most people who run for president. However, if the field stays crowded into 2020 early primaries, Bernie will get at least 25% or more of the vote, based upon trust and name recognition. This will make him a kingmaker and potential person for the younger candidates to decide to hitch their stars. I hope Bernie chooses a VP candidate by the end of 2019 so we may see a progressive team which speaks to the issues that are at least as much class based, as identity politics based. I have become convinced over the years that one without the other is a betrayal, and to speak of class based economic populism and identity politics as separate and exclusive is the problem.  It is not about whether we accent one or the other; they must be part of a seamless garment. 

None of what I have written here is a prediction analysis, once one gets past the name recognition and trust factors. This is an analysis of hope for our nation, for our children, and grandchildren, and for our planet.  Therefore, when someone asks you, whether a friend, acquaintance, pollster, etc., Who do you support for President?  Just say "Bernie."  And let's see how we can mess up the corporate media narrative makers, at least.  It will also push the newbie candidates into a corner where they say to their corporate/financier donors, "Bernie's making us look bad.  We have to adapt.  Sorry."  It won't mean we trust those others, but it changes the narrative the corporate media is trying so desperately to sell us.  And yes, I recognize what the DNC did last time.  Last time, the point of the HRC candidacy was to muffle progressive positions.  Bernie ran because he wanted to promote progressive policies, and the DNC did what it could to sabotage the effort, with their handmaidens in the corporate media outlets.  This time, the DNC strategy to sabotage progressive politics is to flood the field with "new" people.  It is to create chaos, and hope Biden or some media executive darling gets 20-25% of each vote to create momentum and push people into that corner for neo-liberal domestic policies/neo-conservative foreign policies.  That is how the system operates.  It is again why standing with Bernie upsets that systemic narrative cycle.

Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

Hmmm....So hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans take to the streets to support the current executive branch leadership.  At least those are the photos from Venezuelan state run television.  Still, a majority can be "wrong" if there is electoral fraud, mistrust, and oppressive behaviors afoot. 

I am deeply disappointed in the Venezuelan leadership over the years. But let's just begin with their squandering of oil revenues over those years. It was nice the current Venezuelan leadership did far more things for the people than most other Latin American nations in the time period of their rule, starting with building more hospitals, better roads and schoolbuildings, and economically developing and supporting people more than most Latin American nations of the past 150 years. But there is still a matter of simple accounting, ensuring there is protection against down times, and promoting alternatives to fossil fuels--instead of living on the short-term largess of what were high oil prices. 

There is, of course, and correctly, the very serious matter of the way the current Venezuelan leadership have run the politics, which have often been authoritarian and counter to transparency and open government, and not afraid to reach for the type of fraud Republican officeholders here may well be dreaming about. However, I began with the economic issues because American leadership says they care about "democracy" and such, but American government actions over the past 120 years of imperial adventures (and of course before then in earlier guises, including the stealing of Native American land and genocidal policies) show they are primarily interested in dictatorships on behalf of corporate power and the wealthy. When American leaders talk about promoting "democracy," they are, in short, lying--if History is any guide at all. 

Those of us who believe in procedural civil liberties, open government, and the like, are mostly without power, and, in foreign policy "crises", forever having to live in the world of the lying power centers in our nation. Therefore, when we are in situations as we are with respect to places such as Venezuela, the proper take is American leadership should do NOTHING about Venezuela. Let the Venezuelans sort it out. It is not pretty, and it fills me with frustration. But we simply are not to trust any American leadership who hold the reins of American foreign policies. First and foremost, Do no harm. There is no "Second." We lack the power, and if we exercised it, we are going to prison.