Skip to content

Author: Spocko

How can I prevent abortion? A mansplainer video @spockosbrain

How can I prevent abortion? A mansplainer video


by Spocko
As a man you’ve probably asked, “How can I prevent abortion?” Well, it’s easy! Watch this short video!

From my friends at the Benevolent Order of Nebraskans for Erection Reversal:
Keep It Limp for Life! (B.O.N.E.R. K.I.L.L.) For more info go to their website ProLifeNebraska.com

So we at Pro-Life Nebraska think it is of utmost importance for people with sperm to learn about the hazards of irresponsible ejaculation and to understand that just because they have a boner, it is not too late to reverse it.

If you don’t want your sex partner to be able to choose to have an abortion, stop ejaculating in vaginas. Ejaculate elsewhere or nip that erection in the bud.

Save a life. Kill your boner.

The case they make is that men cause 100% of unwanted pregnancies. “In other words, every unwanted pregnancy occurred because someone decided that they wanted to irresponsibly ejaculate into a vagina.”

You can download the PDF brochure at their website ProLifeNebraska.com

As a half-human half-Vulcan male I refrain from comments on human’s reproductive process, especially considering the Vulcan process.  However, it is more logical for men to control themselves first, when they have the opportunity to avoid the situation, than attempting to control women later.

What can short circuit the delay tactic of Executive Privilege Claims? @spockosbrain

What can short circuit the delay tactic of Executive Privilege Claims?

Back before the Mueller Report was released to the public, I though a lot of redactions in the Mueller report would be Executive Privilege ones. I was wrong.

Barr didn’t use Executive Privilege to redact info, but now the question of Executive Privilege and the Report comes up again.

At the time the report was released I asked my friend Lisa Graves, co-director of Documented , if she would be talking about redactions on the Lawrence O’Donnell show.  I had a few questions about Executive Privilege that I know the answers to now, but I really wanted to know what smart moves Democrats could make given this current delaying tactic?

Trump does things like this all the time, ignoring norms and breaking conventions. The democrats on the committee always seem to be in reactive mode.  Trump’s assertion of Executive Privilege is bogus, so what are the steps to flip it so it hurts Trump and speeds his impeachment?

Ian Millhiser over at ThinkProgress said,

Trump’s claim that the Mueller report is protected by executive privilege is hot garbageHe doesn’t have a legal claim, but he can probably run out the clock. 

There are two big Executive Privilege cases cited in this NY Times piece. One in 1997 in which Clinton’s lost his claim of Executive Privilege another in 2016 where Obama lost his.

If I was in charge of the committee’s media strategy I would get the people who won against Obama and Clinton on Executive Privilege on TV, STAT. Heck, these people could even go on Fox News!

Get the lawyers who beat Obama on TV to say, ‘Executive Privilege FAILED when OBAMA tried it. An attempt by Trump will FAIL too.”

Experts answer technical questions about Executive Privilege for the media all the time, but what I want to know is, “How political are the people in the ruling bodies right now?”

What ideology controls the deciding institutions?Are they all Federalist Society judges? How political are the ones who would get this case first?  Name some names. For example, would it be
Amy Berman Jackson, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia?
She ruled against Obama in an Executive Privilege case. She was appointed by Obama.  (She is also the judge who was taking no crap from Roger Stone.)

Amy Berman Jackson ruled against Obama’s Executive Privilege claim in 2016

Even is she isn’t the judge who would get the case, get some retired judges to comment. Can a judge throw the case out quickly with a warning, “This was already decided, this is bogus, stop doing this.”?

Since Executive Privilege was waived earlier, I wonder if there is a mechanical or automatic process that makes the release of the unredacted report possible?

What happens if someone releases the unredacted report to Congress? Maybe someone released it to congress already before this latest claim of Executive Privilege.  Might they be following orders of a co-equal branch of government when they did this?  What would the consequences be for that person?

I’m trying to think at least two steps ahead of Trump, so I’m going to guess the White House will next claim they can’t release the unredacted Mueller Report because of National Security concerns.  Trump will say, “National Security” and people shut up, so it will be important to get the people in that area, who make those decisions, to be prepared to talk and explain what unredacted info they can give to congress and why it is okay for them to see it.

You don’t have to be from the future like me to know what Trump will do next. Just look for the obvious maliciously, incompetent norm-breaking act that could save his hide from getting busted for his treasonous actions. 

.

What Would Convince Florida School Boards To End Guns In Schools Programs? @spockosbrain

What Would Convince Florida School Boards To End Guns In Schools Programs? 

By Spocko

Florida lawmakers voted to arm teachers. What can convince school boards that guns in schools fail to protect and add danger every day they are present?

On Wednesday the Florida House voted to arm teachers. This despite massive opposition from Parkland student activists, teacher’s unions and parents. However, each school district must still vote on whether or not to implement the program.

Despite droves of residents who protesting the Armed Teacher Program, Brevard County School Board was one of 25 counties that implemented it last year. 

Since this effort to convince lawmakers of the dangers of armed teachers didn’t work, EVERY school board needs to see failures of guns by ANYONE in schools anywhere. There are numerous failures listed below which can be sent to school boards.

Because these stories are only reported locally, most people have never heard of them. If these stories don’t get to the right people in school boards they might think that guns in schools programs are working just fine. They. Are. Not.

During the Florida House Education Committee hearing one representative asked for evidence of the danger of arming teachers. If I was there I could have provided him this list of cases the Gifford’s Organization put together of mishandled guns in schools. Now this info should go to every school board member.

1) Every Incident of Mishandled Guns in Schools 

Since there are other states that and are deciding if they should go down this dangerous road, here is a list from my friends at the Safe Tennessee Project:

2) A Few Recent Examples of Why School Employees Carrying Guns in Schools is a Bad Idea

In addition to showing the gun fail cases of teachers and school employees, I think it is important to ALSO show school boards all the times that School Resource Officers, cops and armed security guards in schools screw up. Because this is the math: More People With Guns Equals More Gun Accidents.

Last year Connie Rooke, who is an educator and gun owner with a background in military policing, talked about gun safety. She pointed out that trained professionals fail with guns. Here she a video of her talking to the Bevard Country School board last year.

Rooke provided this list to her school board:

3) Research Sampling Firearms Incidents By Police, Teachers Or Staff On School Campuses.

Here Connie talks about the danger of guns in a school environment. 

Last year I watched multiple groups go to school boards to convince them to vote against the armed teacher program. In many cases school boards rejected the program.Sadly 25 out of 74 school districts voted to arm administrative staff and non-classroom teachers. There are currently 743 armed school staff employed in Florida.

During the Florida hearings I saw Education Committee members claim that other states have armed teacher programs and “they don’t have problems.” I’ve heard legislators claim that “If there were problems, we would have heard about them.” This is a classic dodge. If someone is right there to point out the problems they pivot to downplaying gun negligence cases as rare or minor. “Nobody was injured so…” If the problems are serious, they claim THEIR armed people are better trained and “It won’t happen here.”

But problems DO happen. For example, here are two school shootings that happened in the last two weeks.

April 30 Pasco County Florida:

School resource officer accidentally discharges gun in middle school cafeteria

April 18, Dallas County Texas:

Mesquite officer accidentally fired a gun in Horn High School, police say

Luckily, no one was injured in either school shooting.  You will note the media headlines: “accidentally discharges gun” and “accidentally fired a gun.” My gun owner friend reminded me that unless the gun malfunctioned, the correct phrase should be “negligently discharged a gun.” But you rarely see that phrase used by the police or the school district spokesperson.

When failures by trained professionals happen parents and teachers need to go to the school boards and say, “Posting Armed Individuals in our schools is dangerous. They are also ineffective. We need to end the program.”

At that point the people arguing to continue to keep guns in schools, hoping for a future successful stopping of a school shooter, will be up against an actual failure of an armed individual in the school. Schools boards need to hear these cases.

Bottom Line: Armed Individuals in Schools Fail to Protect

the answer to a key question — How effectively can someone with a gun protect a school from someone else with a gun? — is almost always missing from the discussion.” Scarred by school shootings, By John Woodrow Cox and Steven Rich, Washington Post, March 25, 2018

In that article they point out that the odds are 200 to 1 that the next shooter will NOT be stopped by an armed guard, SRO or armed teacher. (Link ) In the most recent shooting at the University of North Carolina Charlotte the shooter was stopped by a student, Riley Howell, who tackled him.
Riley Howell, University of North Carolina Charlotte, tackled a school shooter

Why do people cling to the idea the good guy shooting the bad guy must be an option in the goal to protect students and staff? Partly this is because of the gun lobby narrative that guns are the answer. Partly because of unrealistic expectations created by movies, TV and video games.

The evidence shows that most shootings are over in seconds and couldn’t be stopped even if someone was right there with a gun.

It is important to focus on the daily real danger of guns in schools. Each gun fail is an educational opportunity to remind people of why guns in schools are a bad idea. These individual stories need to be brought up to school board members by the community over and over again, because after a shooting makes the national news the drive by the uninformed public for more guns starts again.

The legislators in Florida pushed the final decision to school boards. I’ve seen that school boards can be as uneducated as legislators. There are multiple methods that can be used to educate them. If groups that do not want guns in schools don’t convince them to not to implement programs that allow guns in schools, groups that want guns in schools will win.

Currently there are groups of sheriffs going around talking to school boards about their great armed teachers programs. They have fancy simulation machines. It has become a profit center for them:  Florida sheriffs spend millions on school guardians

School boards need to know that armed police and armed teachers are dangerous and ineffective in stopping school shooters.

There is a 1 in 614 million chance of a mass shooting at a school but a 1 in 8,000 chance of a gun accident. School boards need to understand what those regular gun failures will cost them, not only in injuries or loss of life, but in the environment they are creating by having armed individuals in their school every day.

What Barr conceals will reveal what Trump fears @spockosbrain

What Barr conceals will reveal what Trump fears


By Spocko

The Barr event today is not a news conference, it’s a product launch. The event is designed to conceal, not reveal. It isn’t about releasing the news, it’s about controlling the message. The product is a narrow, specific message.

“Trump didn’t PERSONALLY talk to Putin DIRECTLY about what the Russian GOVERNMENT did BEFORE the 2016 election. Therefore, no collusion.”

Other people who did bad things don’t count. They are bad people that Trump barely knows, and even if he did know them, he didn’t personally do the specific thing that Mueller was supposed to look at.

People like Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Stone, Poppawhatchadopulous and the rest all acted on that Russian election stuff, but Trump didn’t.

Message Repeats:
Trump didn’t personally talk to Putin. Directly. About The ELECTION. BACK before the election. 

Message repeats: “Look at the one law that WASN’T broken!” they will cry.

Remember how the Bush White House wanted people to believe in WMDs so
Colin Powell brought out photos and fake anthrax to push the WMD lie?

They wanted people to have something to look at and fear instead of the real reason for the war. And it worked. Because lots of people wanted to believe.

 Barr is using redaction to hide Trump crimes. However, if you look at what is redacted and ask WHY it was redacted we can learn what Trump fears the most.

The Good News
It’s quite possible what was redacted will already exist in court or public records. The trick will be to not be BORED by what it reveals.

“Oh, well, we knew That! That’s just the usual Trump lying, violating campaign finance laws and conspiring with the Pecker at the National Enquire, about affairs and hush money. Stormy Daniels and pay offs are such old news.”

That was a conspiracy, not collusion with Putin, so Barr will refocus on what didn’t happen to Trump.

I listened to Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow Wednesday night analyse what Barr is doing.

It’s good to hear that they and their experts aren’t fooled by the shenanigans of Barr and the White House, but frankly I’m sick of congress and journalists waiting around for Trump to break norms, stall, delay and set the narrative.

Could someone please get ahead of their heavy handed mob tactics and schemes and back them into some legal corners? If you know what the will do, lay a trap for them!

I asked my friend Lisa Graves from Documented a few questions about executive privilege to answer the next time she is on the Lawrence O’Donnell show. Sadly these will probably be forgotten after the crush of news, but I’ll put them here just as a reminders.

Who has authority to review and CANCEL Redaction Actions?
Which House and/or Senate committee? Which courts?

What laws do the reactions come under, and who interprets what they involve?

Can we get experts lined up to talk now? AND give us a strategy to bust them?
Are the reasons for redaction set in stone or open to interpretation?

Who opposes Barr in HIS REDACTION? Who asked for what when?

We know National Security is one redaction category, but who opposes his National Security redaction?  Can they UNDO reactions? How quickly?

Has Barr broken any laws with his redactions?

We know the White House overextends executive privlidge all the time. WHO rules it isn’t executive privilege?

How quickly can bogus executive privilege sections be UNREDACTED? By whom?

What laws are broken if the unredacted version is released?

Who could release the unredacted version and not break laws?
Could those people release it to someone in Congress and not break laws?

Who will prosecute the person who leaked it? Under what laws? Who will defend them and pay for their defense?

Legal Leaks
Is there a “mechanical” method to release something that can be used? I’m thinking about procedural tricks and legal jujitsu methods that get the report out to CONGRESS and then the public.

Are there procedures that force people to release the report?

(Are there other tricks like someone reading it out loud in the congressional record? .)

Can we find public versions of the redacted info that the public already has seen? Especially in the court documents.

It’s not breaking the law to show an unredacted source document that is already public based on earlier findings.
That would be a legal, SMART and a fast way to show how the redaction was bogus.

Right now I’m flashing the Vulcan hand sign but three of my fingers are bent by Earth Gravity.

My message to Barr and The White House is, Redact This!

No-Permit Gun Carry Bill Dead after Advocate Threatens Texas House Speaker’s Family @spockosbrain

No-Permit Gun Carry Bill Dead after Advocate Threatens Texas House Speaker’s Family

By Spocko

This story starts with an online threat by someone with a gun. Because it was taken seriously by the people threatened, the consequences to the perpetrator extended beyond a single act.  It’s a companion to my case study, What To Do If A Trump Supporter Threatens You. I was going to call it, “What To Do If a Gun McNutt Threatens You.” but that would look too much like a joke. This story is no joke.

In March gun-rights activist Chris McNutt posted rants on Facebook about lack of movement on a Texas bill allowing gun owners to legally carry handguns without obtaining a state-issued license. McNutt, executive director of Texas Gun Rights, then drove to Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen’s home about 50 miles south of Houston while Bonnen was in Austin and his wife and teenage sons were home. McNutt also visited the homes of Reps. Dustin Burrows of Lubbock and Four Price of Amarillo.

Here’s how the story unfolded. The first story is from March 30th in The Facts, a Brazoria County Texas paper. Emphasis mine

After McNutt posted his North Texas visits to social media, the Bonnen family got word the Department of Public Safety felt it would be appropriate to watch the Bonnens’ Lake Jackson home, said Kim Bonnen, the speaker’s wife.

“It’s very rattling as a parent to be sitting 240 miles away and get a text that DPS thinks it’s appropriate to put troopers at your house,” she said.

The Bonnens’ 14-year-old son was the only family member home when McNutt paid a visit Wednesday, Kim Bonnen said. There was no contact between McNutt and the child, she said.

“He chose to pull a tactic of intimidation and threat toward our families,” Dennis Bonnen said.

McNutt could find the speaker and the other representatives at the Capitol to give them whatever information he wanted to share, Dennis Bonnen said. The choice to visit homes where only wives and children are home shows instability and lack of character, Bonnen said.

“To create the impression that he’s willing to threaten my family is unacceptable,” Bonnen said.

Bonnen, a Republican who was elected Texas House speaker in January, said Friday that the activist’s “gutless intimidation tactics” exposed no-license carry as a bad idea, dooming the legislation.

After The Facts reported that Department of Public Safety troopers stopped Chris McNutt, executive director of Texas Gun Rights, in Bonnen’s neighborhood on March 27 Speaker Bonnen issued a written statement condemning the actions and declaring “Their issue is dead.”  Advocate’s actions kill bill allowing no-permit gun carry The Statesman Bonnen’s statement came

Representative Bonnen experienced the fear, terror and underlying threat of violence from gun-rights activists that are regularly used against their critics.  The fear of violence is often dismissed by pro-gun activists and their supporters. They mock people who are concerned about armed men who show up at houses of gun-control activists and protests. “It’s legal!” They will say. Gun-rights activists state proudly they go everywhere armed, then pretend that the implied threat of violence is an overreaction.

Images from Texas Gun Rights Facebook page.

We can’t see what rants McNutt or his group posted on the Facebook pages of legislators, or what emails were sent to them directly. We don’t know what the Bonnen office staff heard in phone calls from Texas Gun Rights members. However, we do know that there was enough evidence for the DSP to have officers stationed at Bonnen’s house.  We also know what the Texas Gun Rights group has posted publicly.  I’ve included some images from their Facebook page.

From Texas Gun Rights Facebook page.
The call to go armed everywhere everyday
 from Texas Gun Rights Facebook page.

Legislators could understand intellectually that making guns legally available almost everywhere would have an impact on political speech, but it wasn’t until a pro-gun legislator saw how this tactic of intimidation and threat toward his family, did he finally get it.  Even the author of the legislation, Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, condemned the action and said Friday he was canceling his request for a committee hearing on House Bill 357.

From The Statesman:

The author of the legislation, Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, said Friday he was canceling his request for a committee hearing on House Bill 357.

“The issue is of great importance to me, but I refuse to act like it is still a possibility and continue to provide false hope to my constituents,” Stickland said in a written statement.

In a video posted Friday on Facebook, Stickland said he was “saddened by the acts of a few individuals that have stolen the conversation about legislation that I deeply care about.”

There is never a time or place to physically threaten an elected official with violence,” he said. “It’s never OK to target their homes or personal businesses when you know they are not in town.”

Here is Strickland’s response video

The message that this behavior was unacceptable made it to Fox News, reaching an audience that might have ignored a statement condemning this if it came from a Democrat.

Bonnen, a Republican, was in the state capital of Austin but his wife teenage sons were inside the home. He said McNutt’s actions were a demonstration of “insanity” and called him an “overzealous advocate for criminals to get a gun.”

“If you want to talk about issues and you want to advocate, you do it in this building. You don’t do it at our residences,” Bonnen said. “Threats and intimidation will never advance your issue. Their issue is dead.”

The language used by the Speaker was hard-hitting and specific. From The Dallas Morning News

“I could no longer watch as legislators and their families are incessantly harassed by fanatical gun-rights activists who think laws preventing criminals from carrying a gun should be repealed,” Bonnen said in a written statement.

“Their goal is to eradicate sensible gun policies by allowing anyone to carry a gun without a license and proper training — making it impossible for law enforcement to distinguish between law-abiding gun owners and criminals,” he said. “The fear and terror used to push this agenda has made it clear this is bad public policy.

If Fox News viewers now see how the pro-gun activists intimidated pro-gun legislators, what kind of harassment and threats have legislators who are not pro-gun experienced? I went to the Texas Gun Rights Facebook page and pulled some images  Before being accused of cherry picking and sensationalism for this order, this was how they were in on Facebook on April 11th–a gun pointing at Rep Kyle Kacal’s head.  I have complete screen shots if they are taken down.

State Rep. Kyle Kacal (D) opposes a no-permit gun carry bill, HB 357, which pro-gun extremists call “constitutional carry”

I’m not an advisor to groups in Texas who want to get laws that protect people from unstable people with guns, but if I was I would think that Bonnen’s experience could be referenced during discussions of Red Flag Laws like HB 131 and SB 157. Texans could contact their legislators, like Bonnen, Burrows and Price with a message like this:

Remember how you felt when McNutt threatened your family? Not everyone can have police protection at their home, but you could make it possible to remove the guns from people who make threats to you or your family. HB 131 gives others who are threatened a tool for swift protection of themselves or their family. Extreme Risk Protective Orders and Red Flag laws save lives. Vote yes on HB 131.

Showing legislators how lax gun laws have personally put themselves and their families in danger, and then giving them a bill to pass to protect their families and constituents, is a good method to get change.

It’s Not About Dropping Off Flyers At Legislators’ Homes. It’s About The Guns

McNutt’s response to these stories was to call it a “media hit piece.”  I watched his response video. I listened to him on the Todd and Don Show where he stated that “Texas Gun Rights does not support any threats of violence, never has, never will.”  Great, nice to hear. But what McNutt failed to do was address his actions in the context of what he and his group say on their site and Facebook page.

McNutt posted images of himself going to legislator’s homes. This time pro-gun legislators stopped ignoring the implied threat of people who may be armed with more than flyers.

What the legislators who voted to enable more people to carry guns in more places don’t want to say is,

“We know the implied threat. You might be carrying a gun. We voted to make it legal for you do to that, but we didn’t expect you to threaten our families!”

McNutt broke the unspoken agreement with pro-gun legislators. He also broke a man code, because he went to homes when the legislators were gone and only women and children would be there.  The pro-gun legislators can’t say,  “People should never carry guns at protests and when canvassing,” since that would go against what they voted for. So instead they focus on how it wouldn’t be a fair fight, since the armed man of the house isn’t there to scare away the other armed man, shoot first if they feel threatened or shoot back after the other armed man missed.

So what is the answer to the fear of legally armed people coming to your door trying to convince you of their ideas? Increase restrictions on who can carry guns and where.
But for the pro-gun legislators to do that would be to admit the frightening world they have created. Their answer is armed guards for the people in the home, armed spouses and children. There are other answers than OFFENSIVE weapons to deal with treats. Especially considering the additional danger of guns in the home.

From Texas Gun Rights page, images that show their views that guns are used to scare “bad people” and that guns should be carried instead of kept in a safe.

McNutt’s actions exposed the charade. He did the gun control movement a huge favor. By giving pro-gun legislators an opportunity to push back on the extremist gun owners, they can walk away from extremist behavior. Was it planned? Perhaps, from The Texas Tribune “It was a setup”: House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, gun rights activist come face-to-face at Texas GOP fundraiser Maybe.

Will the legislators who killed the bill be punished for it from their base? Hard to say.  I read a lot of comments where pro-gun people said it was a stupid move and blame McNutt for “killing constitutional carry for years.”  So they might maintain their base, since they also dislike extremists.

This McNutt action can also be used to remind pro-gun legislators of what to do the next time and armed pro-gun extremists show up at protests. Like this guy at a Beto rally.

In the past when armed protesters showed up at a Bonnen or Strickland rally, they might have been comfortable thinking, “They are on my side. I have nothing to fear.”

But things are different now. This is the time to change that law. Guns have no place at any rallies. The pro-gun legislators could start with banning them at theirs. “McNutt ruined this for you.”

They could then extend the restrictions to other situations. Like large events. Remember July 7, 2016 in Dallas?  Mark Hughes carried his AR-15 rifle during the protest. When shooting started, it was confusion and chaos. From The Dallas Morning News

Senior Sgt. Chris Dyer, president of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Association, said large cities like Dallas should pass ordinances that would ban the open carry of firearms during large events like protest marches.

“Normally in a protest, you’re going to have two opposing sides at least,” he said, noting that tensions can result in violence.

Bringing guns into that situation, Dyer said, is “very distracting” for officers.

“Even open carry proponents will see the common sense in restricting open carry in environments like a protest,” he said.

Now that pro-gun legislators were threatened they know how others feel. They can choose a different action going forward. While it might look like they are going against their base, they are really pushing back against a small extremist group whose actions are condemned by the majority of gun owners.

People often give up hope on Texas having sensible gun laws, but I don’t. This recent response shows that there are rational legislators who aren’t led by fanatical gun-rights activists.

.

Florida House to vote on giving more teachers guns, just days after armed teacher injured child @spockosbrain

Florida House to vote on giving more teachers guns, just days after armed teacher injured child

by Spocko

On Thursday, March 21, the Florida House Education Committee passed out of committee a broad school safety bill (HB 7093) that would expand an existing guardian program to allow classroom teachers at private and charter schools to volunteer to carry weapons on campus if local school boards approve. (link)

On Friday, March 22,  Henry Rex Weaver, 74 a substitute teacher at Blountsville Elementary School discharged his gun inside his pocket. A child was injured, treated at the scene of the crime, and released. (link)

Henry Rex Weaver, Teacher at Blountsville Elementary School in Blountsville, Alabama.
Mug shot from Blount County Sheriff’s Office/Facebook page and WBRC video

On April 3, the bill, HB 7093 on School Safety, goes to the full house. A key part of the bill allows charter schools and private schools to have the Guardian program. If that passes, more teachers will be legally allowed to carry guns in classrooms.  If people  want to stop that, ALL members of the House need to see this story and other examples of failures of armed teachers.  (See more examples below.)

Sadly, the Guardian program is already law, 49 school districts said NO to it, but 25 said yes and there are now 743 Armed Teachers employed in Florida.  People should contact the legislators first, but as the education committee pointed out, school boards decide whether or not to implement the program. School boards need to hear about failures.

If the part of the bill that allows private or charter schools to arm teachers passes, school board members for those schools will need to hear about the problems, failures and costs of armed teacher programs, so they won’t vote to implement them.

This ongoing education about day-to-day gun failures is very necessary because after the next mass shooting the uninformed public will say again, “We should arm teachers!”

The public doesn’t see the daily stories of gun accidents across the country. But I do since I get 3 to 5 every day from my Google Alert. These cases of armed individuals failing need to get to people making decisions about putting guns in the hands of teachers. Just because a legislator or school board didn’t hear something bad, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I expect some people in communities to make uninformed statements like, “I haven’t heard anything bad happening, so it must be fine.”  But it’s especially distressing when legislators and school board members are ignorant of the evidence of problems with teachers carrying concealed weapons in school.

When people say they haven’t heard anything bad happening with the teachers carrying guns, we need people in the room to stand up and say,

“Really? Well you must not be reading the documents and emails I get. For example I’ve got multiple cases of failures of armed teachers, police and staff on school Campuses (link) and almost 200 failures of trained police and school resources officers vs one success (link)

Using the Gun Violence Archive I can show you right now the last 3 months worth of cases of negligence with guns in our city and state as well as throughout the country.  Using the Center for Homeland Defense and Security K-12 School Shooting Database I can show you how each school shooting incident ended 

I can also show you what works. I have documents showing past and current cases where shootings were prevented by alert mental health professionals, social workers or families like the one right before the Parkland shooting In states that have Red Flag laws, like Maryland, I have examples of how they were used to remove weapons from people who threatened to shoot up a school.

For those repeating the falsehood that only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns, let me show you cases of shootings stopped by people without using guns. (Here is one by Jason Seaman, a former defensive end now a science teacher who ‘immediately ran up to a shooter, “swatted the boy’s cocked gun out of his hand before tackling the pupil to the ground.”

And, finally, before you vote to bring a new liability to the schools in your district, let me tell you about the multi-million dollar lawsuits that school boards, school districts and insurance companies seal and don’t want to talk about.  Heck, I can even direct you to the Tumblr page on guns left in bathrooms.

I’ve watched a LOT of hearings, town halls and panels on guns in schools. I watched how people pushed to get more guns in schools with misinformation, slogans and fear. The people who are in decision-making positions need to be constantly shown that armed teacher programs are failures. For some boards it will be a reminder they did the right thing to not implement the program, for others it can provide more evidence not to start an armed teacher programs.  

Last year I watched a lot of smart people go to school boards to convince them not to implement the Armed Teacher Program.  Last week I watched as Education Board Chair Jennifer Sullivan implied that because nothing bad has happened in the Florida program in 7 months, people are being unfair to not trust the newly armed teachers.

Florida House education panel advances ‘school guardian’ bill that will arm teachers -Sun Sentinel March 22, 2018

One of the other things that I’ve learned about legislation and the decision-making process of school boards is that you need multiple ways and types of people to counter the incorrect statistics and bumper sticker logic used by the believers of the “more guns are the solution to gun violence” message.

People read, but most don’t absorb everything without multiple personal exposures to the information.  It’s time for school boards and legislators to hear from the teachers and trained police who failed when it came to using a gun in schools. Florida could start with Sean Simpson, a Parkland chemistry teacher who left his gun in a restroom. (Who pays for armed teachers gun accidents?)

Sean Simpson, Parkland school chemistry teacher, told deputies on Sunday
 that he forgot his Glock 9 mm in a stall at a restroom at the Deerfield Beach Pier.

I don’t think Henry Rex Weaver will come in voluntarily, but it would be good to track down those teachers who shot themselves in the bathroom and have them speak to school boards who are considering the program.  Antonio White, 1st Vice President United Teachers of Dade, gave examples of failures at 26:10 in the hearing.  Scott McCoy, senior policy counsel for the SPLC Action Fund mentioned these gun teachers at 57:36 in the hearing.

Also, for those providing the evidence. I suggest you be prepared for the feelings of board members, since those often don’t respond to facts and evidence. I recommend in-person meetings to show them the evidence and address their questions and concerns before public sessions.

I’ve learned that sometimes you need to be polite and other times you need to push back, in real-time, against a disingenuous narrative.  Please watch the excellent testimony of Nicolette Springer, M.S., Legislative Advocate from the League of Women Voters. Here is the link to the whole committee session, Springer starts at 33:40.

Then watch at 38:30 as Springer pushed back on a disingenuous talking point by Rep. Randy Fine on teachers vs police. Fine, whose bullying of others is so egregious the editorial board of Florida Today called him out on it last year, continued to use multiple bullying techniques throughout the session.

Multiple members of the Florida house will vote on the amended bill this session. If it passes, charter and private school boards will have the ability to implement an Armed Teachers Program. If they have the opportunity what will their boards be basing their decisions on? Real evidence of the increased danger of more guns in schools, or hopes and prayers?

In my next piece I’ll talk about evidence and presenting it to school boards and legislators. Basic Math: More People With Guns Equals More Gun Accidents.

What to do if a Trump supporter threatens you @spockosbrain

What to do if a Trump supporter threatens you
by Spocko

Trump has a long history of making threats. He also directs others, like Michael Cohen, to make threats to specific people.  Trump supporters also hear that Trump expects them to “be tough” when Trump is attacked.

This week Trump explained to a Brietbart editor that when his people in the military and police reach a certain point he expects things will be “very bad, very bad” for his enemies. Trump Again Threatens Violence If Democrats Don’t Support Him

Image by WayneBreivogel

It is clear to me that we cannot stop Trump from inciting and suggesting violence, rather than trying to stop a jackass from braying, I want to focus on what you can do if a Trump supporter threatens you. Below is a case study of someone who was threatened online and the steps she took to deal with it.  Here are the first three steps:

1) Don’t ignore them

2) Demand an investigation of the threats made and the person making them–establish the facts
     There should be due process for the people accused of making the threats

3) If the facts support the case, there should be appropriate consequences for the people who made the threats
     When there are no consequences for threatening others, it continues

Men with guns threaten women online, via email, text or on social media every day. These threats rarely show up in the news unless the woman is shot at, injured or killed. In an average month, 50 American women are shot to death in a domestice violence case. When we look at the background of shooters after the fact we often see a history of domestic violence and threats, which leaves people wondering what they could have done to prevent it.

In this case study our hero, Morena Hockley, didn’t ignore the threat, she did research and found out that the man making the threat was a law enforcement officer. She then demanded an investigation by his employer and got it. What happened after the investigation is also a very important part of the story and that I want more people to learn about.

  Disclosure: I know Morena Hockley through my work on Gun Violence Prevention. I advised her on talking to the press. The photos are in this piece were obtained directly from Hockley or from Facebook.

CASE STUDY PART 1: One of Trump’s “people” in the police threatens his critics

Here’s the story in the San Antonio Express.

Reserve constable deputy suspended after threatening emails to S.A.-area woman over Trump views  
by Fares Sabawi


In December 2018, a conservative New Braunfels resident took to Facebook to express displeasure upon discovering a book mocking President Donald Trump was for sale at Got Toys, a gag store in the Central Texas town that often carries items mocking politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Photos of the book “A Child’s First Book of Trump” by Michael Ian Black and Marc Rosenthal at the Got Toys store

What followed was a barrage of supportive and opposing comments, email threats from a Trump-supporting Bexar County reserve constable deputy and his subsequent month-long suspension handed down on Friday.

Precinct 3 Deputy Calloway Lawson, who works part-time for the constable’s office, was apparently upset over comments from people who supported the book store and criticized Trump in their comments. And he let them know how he felt.

Others were more disparaging, insulting people’s size and appearance and using homophobic slurs. Some of his comments, like those making fun of a poster’s name, were trivial.

“Why don’t you go find a safe place and have a group hug with your f***ing liberal f****t friends, you’re probably doing that right now,” he wrote.

Morena Hockley, a local blogger and craftswoman, tried to engage with Lawson at one point on his negative review of the toy store.

“Too bad a book hurt your feelings so badly,” she wrote.

In response, Lawson posted one of Hockley’s Facebook profile pictures with a mocking caption.

Lawson’s behavior allegedly led to multiple users reporting him, which led to the deletion of his Facebook review and a temporary ban from the social media site.

That’s when the reserve deputy allegedly singled her out, found her email address and sent her multiple messages on Dec. 8, 2018. Hockley said she didn’t report Lawson’s comments and wasn’t sure why she was being targeted. Lawson later told an investigating sergeant he though Hockley owned the store in question.

“Do you actually think it was smart getting me kicked off Facebook for a week I’m coming for you you f***ing c**t I’m coming for you,” his first email read.

Lawson sent a second one a minute later that read “every time I look at your f***ing horse mouth in that giant f***ing billboard of a smile you have I think of Mr. Ed, I can’t wait to see you soon,” the second email read.

Lawson did not respond to mySA.com’s interview request seeking comment on Monday.

Reserve constable deputies usually do little investigative work and patrol only as needed. They more often work off-duty at businesses or events.

Hockley didn’t know that though. She saw a law enforcement officer sending her what she perceived were threats, she said in an interview with mySA.com.

“He said ‘I’m coming for you,’ and I’m not sure what kind of information he has access to,” she said. “I took it seriously.”

Hockley responded to the emails in an effort calm him down, assuring him she was not responsible for his account being suspended.

Lawson responded, “telling you see you soon is not a threat I never threatened you believe me, apparently you didn’t take a look at my profile before this started you would know if I threatened you. Have good holidays no one is threatening you.”

That did not quell Hockley’s fears, she said. She asked Garden Ridge police to provide extra patrols by her house and put up a camera outside.

Hockley also filed a formal complaint with the constable’s office against Lawson a month later, on Jan. 8.

Sgt. Jaime Perales investigated Hockley’s complaint and submitted his report to Constable Mark Vojvodich who suspended Lawson for 30 days, pulling his work permits, which prevents him from working off-duty. Lawson was also placed on probation for the remainder of his employment with the constable’s office.

A letter to Hockley about the investigation dated March 8 said Lawson violated multiple department policies, including conduct unbecoming of an officer, bringing discredit and relations with the public and social media.

“However,” Perales wrote in his letter to Hockley, “the alleged threats did not have the elements to charge Deputy Lawson with terroristic threats.”

Hockley was not surprised to hear that. She said investigators told her that Lawson would have had to explicitly threaten her life to be criminally charged.

“But I took it as a threat on my life,” Hockley said. “How else am I supposed to interpret this. He said ‘I can’t wait to see you,’ especially with his (Facebook) picture showing all his guns in it.”

Though Vojvodich did not respond to interview requests from mySA.com, Perales said it was a complaint the office took seriously.

“We’re sorry it turned out the way it did because Precinct 3 doesn’t condone that language or behavior,” Perales said.

Lawson expressed regret for the incident, Perales said, and said he “should have just kept quiet.”

“He regrets it, he said everybody left negative comments so he left negative comments,” Perales said.

Perales said Lawson told him that, “I’m coming for you,” meant he was planning on posting more negative comments when he was allowed back on Facebook.

“At no time did he mean that he was going to physically harm her,” Perales said.

Though Perales did not decide on Lawson’s punishment, he said the discipline is “pretty significant.”

“That’s how he makes his living and it’s hurting him right now,” Perales said. “We can assure people that won’t happen again.”
———[ See more of San Antonio Express story below]———–
                                           
At this point most stories about complaints based on threats end.  But when Hockley got the letter from Precinct 3 she thought the punishment was too lenient. Several people suggested she take the story to the press, which she did.  In parts two and three I’ll break down the process and next steps

CASE STUDY PART 2: Tell Your Story To the Press

I advise activists about how best to interact with the media. One of the things I explain to them is that reporters will make an effort to talk to both sides. They also like to talk to third-party experts for context. You might have a solid story, but to the reporter your story is just one “she said” vs a trained police spokesperson’s “he said.”

Spokespeople for the police know the exact right thing to tell the media.  For example, in the answers above note what Sgt. Jaime Perales conveyed to the reporter:

  • He recast Lawson’s intent to something that didn’t rise to the level of a firing offence. This recasting happened months later, only after Lawson got in trouble for making the threat.
  • He relayed regret from Lawson, months later, and made a pledge that it will not happen again.
  • He stated department principles and condemnation of Lawson’s manner, which “does not present the department in what it stands for”
  • He shifted focus from the seriousness of the threat to what the organization saw as a serious penalty to the perpetrator

I advised Hockley to ask to speak to the reporter after he talked to the officials to find out what they said about her case. This is because in most stories the officials get the final word. Hockley had done research on Lawson’s history (as referenced in the story).

In addition, when she talked to the press, she provided additional context for the story based on third-party research. It turns out that  Bexar County was named one of the deadliest counties in Texas for domestic violence in 2017.   As Hockley put it, “How can women trust police to keep them safe when men like this are protected by the police department?

Twitter @Bexar3

Political spokespeople use the opportunity to get the last word with the press all the time. It’s called “getting another bite of the apple.” When a politician says something really terrible, the spokesperson “walks it back” or “clarifies.” 

What doesn’t usually happen is a reporter challenging the credibility of an explanation, the redefinition of a term or a different interpretation of a law than is commonly understood. 

To deal with this reporting process it is incumbent on us to prepare for multiple possible responses.

When Hockley spoke to the reporter again and heard what the officials had to say she was able respond to their answers about why she was still concerned and explained her next steps.

——-[The San Antonio Express story continues]——-

 But Hockley disagreed. She felt the punishment was lenient, considering that Lawson was reportedly previously fired from the Cibolo Police Department after a spotty attendance record and a questionable arrest of a woman he said tried to run him over in 2007.

The woman initially pleaded guilty to the charge, according to the University of Michigan’s National Registry of Exonerations, but the conviction was vacated because of her poor legal defense and Lawson’s questionable behavior.

“He’s unstable, has a history of crossing the line and breaking the law and yet he’s still going to be kept on as a peace officer,” Hockley said. “That astounds me.”

Perales said he was unaware of Lawson’s past and that it was not part of his investigation.
Hockley said she supports local law enforcement but still plans on taking her complaint to the next Bexar County Commissioners Court meeting, she said.

“I spent the past three months looking over my shoulder,” she said.

— # # # —

CASE STUDY PART 3: Protect yourself and others from threats in the future

When I talk to people about men with guns making threats and how to respond, they often reply, “If you report them and they get punished, they might get REALLY angry?”  Or, “What if you report a threat and nothing happens?”

In this case, the complaint wasn’t ignored, but the response seemed inadequate. What to do now? This brings up the next steps:

Fix the systems, policies and laws in communities to better deal with threats and the people making them.

4) If the consequences for the threat seemed inappropriate for the crime, work to change the consequences
This might involve going to the police commission and asking them to change their policies.

5) If no laws exist for the situation in your community, find groups that are working to pass them and offer to help.
Many states have created Red Flag laws, Extreme Risk Protection Orders or Emergency Gun Restraining Orders.
If your state doesn’t have these laws, find a group that is working on developing them and help See a list of state that have them here. See current Status of State Red Flag Laws updated interactive chart  

6) If laws exist, but people don’t know about them, learn them and educate others on how to use them
California now has ERPO laws, but many people don’t know how to use them. Some GVP groups, DAs and police department officials in California are traveling around the state educating people on the laws.

7) If laws exist, but aren’t enforced because of lack of resources, demand more resources

Talking to the Bexar County Commissioners Court can be about more than just asking for a change in their policies about threats coming from law enforcement. It also can be an opportunity to get resources to help the entire community deal with domestic violence. 5 years of deaths and injuries from domestic violence cases in San Antonio: Gun Violence Archive.

This might include suggesting the commission support ERPO laws which would protect the safety and security of the entire community.

There are 2 red flag bills active in Texas legislature: HB131, SB157  Session ends on May 27, 2019.

As Think Progress’s Zack Ford said on the David Feldman Show podcast. Americans often debate about how much time people deserve for a crime, but “we should have a criminal justice system that is motivated toward improving the safety and comfort of everyone alive.”  

The Emotional Truth of Corruption in Washington @spockosbrain

The Emotional Truth of Corruption in Washington

By Spocko

I watched the Cohen hearings with the Academy Awards still fresh in my mind.  No awards will be given for the GOP congress people who expressed how disgusting it is that they had to listen to a (shutter) Liar.

 Hearings are performances designed to tell a story.  Cohen is acting as Trump’s John Dean, cast by Lanny Davis.


Of course John Dean the person is very different from John Dean the President’s lawyer testifying against his boss.  I don’t know Dean, but I can’t imagine him making “at least 500” threats against people on behalf of the President. That sounds more like a job for creepy G. Gordon Liddy.

The Democrats are working this story with facts, which is good. Trump is a corrupt bully, who has put his need for money, fame and power first.  Acting this way before running for office makes him a standard corrupt rich guy. But acting this way as President is a bigger offense, one that hurts our entire country.

Cohen is telling the story of a selfish person who loves money. But we need more to get to the emotional truth of just how horrible Trump is for America in his position right now.

 Who is Trump hurting with his actions?

I can say, “The American People” but that’s a bit too broad. If I want to start with specifics I point to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, two women who have been threatened by Trump via Cohen,

But I also think of all the small businesses and contractors that Trump screwed over using threats before he became President. Some of those people might have entered into contracts with him with their eyes open, knowing of his reputation, but were Americans really aware of just how horrible he was?

During the campaign Trump said he would use his knowledge of negotiation to get the best deals for America, some people liked that and thought, “Well he may be a crook, but now he’ll be OUR crook!”  But Trump hasn’t been putting the American people first. His attitude is,  ‘What’s good for Trump’s Businesses is Good For America.” 


Trump’s corruption while in office matters. It turns out that the founders KNEW human nature and they understood there have always been rich people who want to use the power of government to obtain profit for themselves.

“Corruption is when people in public office use that public office for private or selfish ends.”  —Zephyr Teachout on Why Is This Happening podcast with Chris Hayes, August 21, 2018

On the podcast Chris Hayes interviewed Zephyr Teachout author of Corruption in America. She defined corruption now and explained that the founders were obsessed with corruption. It’s a great interview, especially in light of what we have learned in the last few months.

 Hamilton in “The Federalist Papers,” describes the Constitutional Convention saying, we did everything we could to erect every practicable obstacle to corruption. Because that’s the threat, we’re not gonna have self-government if we don’t protect against corruption. Or as somebody else said, if we don’t protect against corruption we will soon be at an end. 

 “So the job of building structures, building a constitutional structure, is not just to punish those who behave badly but actually to protect people from their own temptations. ” 

–Zephyr Teachout, Why Is This Happening podcast, August 21, 2018

America has always struggled with corruption, some periods have been worse than others. I just watched two old movies, Born Yesterday (1950), and Solid Gold Cadillac (1956) that show how Hollywood talked about corruption in an earlier era.

Born Yesterday shows a millionaire junk dealer/business man who goes to Washington and bribes a congressman to get a law passed that will make money for him.

Solid Gold Cadillac shows a board of directors expecting to profit off of defense contracts when their founder goes to Washington to work in government.

In both cases, the men were foiled because they underestimated the competence of the women in the movie.

The men also underestimated people’s need for justice, their desire for fairness under the law,  and the work they are willing to do prevent further injustice or harm to others. 

Here are two clips from the end of the movie demonstrating the understanding of the writer
Garson Kanin, (a friend of Paddy Chayefsky) how corrupt thugs work and what it takes to control them.

In both of these movies there were self-awareness people who knew they had been comprised and used. Some felt bad about it and changed. Others accepted their fate. How they reacted as the various schemes fell down around them depended on how the person was written.

They both stream on Amazon Prime. I highly recommend Born Yesterday. Judy Holliday won the Oscar for Best Actress for portraying the dumb blond Billie Dawn. In real life Holliday had a 172 IQ.  There are so many parallels with Trump’s story it’s spooky. I think every American should watch it. Also read about how Judy Holliday’s dumb blond act outsmarted the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (Dubbed the Senate’s answer to the HUAC) when she testified before them. 

 A Corrupt Person Says What? 

When some people are caught with their hands in the cookie jar they lie and deny. “I didn’t do it! If I did, where’s your proof?!”

Others, after they get caught, say. “Yah got me, but it’s not a big deal.”

Still others attack the people who arrested them and the “disloyal” people who exposed their lawbreaking.

Some people, when they know they are busted, start cooperating to reduce their sentence. (I suspect some of them also want to stick it to the people that brought them into the scheme.)

When I watched the end of these movies I thought about the Mueller investigation. After the investigation is over, I want appropriate punishments for those who have been found guilty of their various crimes. And, I want things to change to prevent further injustice and harm to our country.

When normal people see the smaller fish getting caught and people paying the price with jail time, they think, “I better not do that!” This is what we want. It’s the reasoning prosecutors use when they say, “We want to send a message to the people, ‘Don’t break the law.'”

Some people–those involved in similar corrupt schemes–think,  “How can I not get caught?”
They plan to get trickier when they break the law in the future. They scorn people who get caught, they don’t care about the principles behind the law, just the tricks to avoid technically breaking it. Dick Cheney learned a lot during Tricky Dick’s Presidency, e.g. how not to get caught during the Bush years.

Then there is a group of people who think, “How can we change the law so an action we want to take is no longer illegal?”  This is the group of people who have been ascendant since the 1980’s. These people work to change laws, reduce or remove regulations and write model laws just to help themselves. (See the work of ALEC in multiple areas as an example)

Additionally there is a group of people who work to change attitudes about the actions that the laws were created to address. 

When you look deeper into these people you can see their emotional truth. These are selfish. They hurt individuals. They plan to use the power of government for their own selfish ends. They are hurting our country. It’s our patriotic act to stop them.

.

What Kamala Harris can learn from watching Madam Secretary @spockosbrain

What Kamala Harris can learn from watching Madam Secretary


by Spocko

In the last week Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Tulsi Gabbard announced 2020 presidential runs. Tonight Harris will be on the Rachel Maddow Show to talk about what she wants to accomplish.

Right now all the candidates are putting out their messages. As Michael Brooks of The Majority Report put it, they are “cutting a lane for themselves” in the primary.  (We used to call it their core brand proposition, but that’s so 2000 and late.)

Here’s a New York Times summary story on who has announced they will run and who might run.

The Times summary has the conventional wisdom on each candidate and their signature issues.  For example: Warren, middle class under attack from big corporations and Wall Street’s influence on politics;  Sanders, “Medicare for All,” and free college tuition.

But what I didn’t see in any summaries or signature issues were candidates’ views on National Security. This issue is critical and must be addressed because the United States spends an estimated $1.2 trillion per year on defense.  

Pentagon spending now consumes nearly 70 percent of the discretionary federal budget.

Even if we just count direct US military spending, the figures are enormous. At $610 billion in 2017, US military spending accounted for more than a third of the world total. This dwarfs the $294 billion spent by our potential adversaries—Russia spent $66 billion; China, $228 billion.

From Progressives Need a New Way to Talk About National Security , by Joe Cirincione and Guy T. Saperstein


Now is the time for democratic candidates to get this and start talking about better ways for the country to use that money.  Will Harris talk about this?  Gillibrand and Gabbard didn’t. Maybe someone like Washington Governor Jay Inslee will bring it up.

What all Democratic candidates need to know is that the polling shows that the voters would rather money go to infrastructure and social programs than policing the world. 

But of course the Military Industrial Complex won’t let go of any money without a fight. Last week’s Madam Secretary, Strategic Ambiguity, was a great illustration of how defense contractors will lie, cheat, steal, threaten and scare people into voting for weapon systems that are inadequate, aren’t wanted or needed, and make us less safe.

My favorite scene from the episode is this short clip. 

The Madam Secretary writers, Barbara Hall and Matt Ward, explain the issue and put Presidential Candidate Elisabeth McCord in the position of pointing out the problems with the whole system while the Secretary of Defense and the President explain that yes, a defense contractor can “shake them down.”

My favorite line in the clip is when the secretary of defense defends the fighter jet and the shakedown for more money by saying, “Cost overruns are a feature of defense contracts.”

In this next clip the head of the group within the state department who works with the military on allocation for defense spending explains how untrammeled corporate greed distorts our foreign policy.

Show Me The Brightest Timeline

Madam Secretary shows viewers possible solutions and what the characters are up against. If Elizabeth is going to fight the Military Industrial Complex when she is President, she needs to realize she will be attacked, both behind the scenes and in public.

If President McCord cuts funds for a jet fighter 200 people making the wing fluid delivery system for the jets in a congressional district in North Dakota are going to need jobs. What can they do instead? Fluid delivery systems for commercial jets? High speed rail? Solar heating and cooling systems?

President Elisabeth McCord needs to have a vision that acknowledges the current national security budget and a way to redirect it to positive things.

Maybe she makes a Climate Change Service Corp to deal with emergencies and a cabinet post to prepare and manage climate disasters. 

The Madam Secretary writers showed that Eisenhower predicted and understood the problem.  The interstate highway system had long straight stretches so that the military could land a bomber on them if necessary. Probably not going to happen, but it helped justify the money for the interstate under “National Security”.

The Climate Race Is Like The Space Race 
Johnson split up jobs for the space program for political power. The “Space Race” against the Russians provided an urgency that going to the moon for scientific and exploration purposes didn’t.

We need infrastructure hardening and replacement in communities around the country right now.
Maybe President McCord rebuilds the Civil Defense system. Our enemy is Severe Weather. Having  severe weather as the enemy helps deal with the issue of climate change and could provide the kind of jobs that defense contractors have now.

President McCord could SAY we must prepare cities in case they will be being hit by a nuke from Russia or North Korea. That is probably not going to happen, but it is an excuse to prepare us for being hit by the equivalent of 10,000 nuclear bombs from a hurricane. (Link Scientific America article on the power of hurricanes.)

President McCord could SAY she is worried about Terrorists bombing our nuclear power plants and chemical plants, so we need to harden them. That is possible but a rare event, however it is an excuse to prepare them for the more likely events, hurricanes, floods and tornadoes.

She would need people to design, develop and implement emergency power grids and communications systems. Remember Puerto Rico? We needed this last year. Coastal communities need hardened seawalls, inland cities need strengthened levees.

President McCord could SAY we don’t want hackers from China or Russia to take down our power grid and communication systems, so we must spend money creating distributed and redundant systems. That work prepares us for what really takes down our power grids and communications systems, severe weather.

The reality in America today is that all communities could benefit from better power grids and communication systems in the event of emergencies, it doesn’t just have to help the “coastal elites.”

In our current political situation when you say, “National Security” the money is allocated with no questions asked, no audits demanded. That should change. Until then President McCord could still use that model to get money.  She just needs to change what national security includes.

Fiction has the power to show us what is possible. In the end the President fought the defense contractor to a draw, but Secretary McCord vowed to do better when she is President McCord.

I think she will. Elisabeth McCord 2020

Stop letting lobbyists, pundits and media decide who is electable in 2020 @spockosbrain

Stop letting lobbyists, pundits and media decide who is electable in 2020

by Spocko

 On the January 2nd episode of The Majority Report, Sam Seder talked about the folly of deciding on ‘electability” now.

“Making the electability argument is the most detrimental force to getting a better candidate from the perspective of the left. Because “electability” is exactly what you will hear to discount anyone coming from the left.”

It’s a great point. He goes on to explain that the center right wants to define electability. He points out that there are people and industries that want to set what is electable for the left, especially in certain issues, like health care.

Then they illustrated this with clips of two democrats who were auditioning for lobbyist positions for drug companies and health insurance companies following the 2020 elections.

The drug companies and health insurance firms will want to influence whomever is running for president on the left. Since nobody knows exactly who it will be, they will cover all their bets. They hire former politicians as lobbyists on the left, betting that in 2020 a Democrat president will be in power.

The drug and insurance companies want to determine what is “electable” FOR THEM. They want to set what is a “reasonable” position on any health care changes. Part of this process is teeing up the lobbyists right now. Currently they are looking to hire Democrats who will help them slow down any change from the status quo.  Check out the Sen. Joe Donnelly’s audition tape below. He’s looking for a lobbying position for the health insurance industry.

The drug companies want these Democratic politicians who will soon be lobbyists to first make public statements about what is a “reasonable” policy on health care. If they mention “Medicare for All” they will quickly talk about why this is impossible, then pivot to something amenable to the industry.  In private these Democrat lobbyists will explain to senators, and Democratic presidential candidates in 2020, what the problems will be if they don’t pre-compromise their position to something “doable” or “reasonable.” What is “reasonable?” Whatever the drug and insurance companies say it is.

These Democratic lobbyists will talk about how Medicare for All is “job killing” or it is “too much too soon” or that the country just can’t handle this change. Arguments will range from moral hazard “If you give people free health care they will use it all up” to covert racism. The new Democratic lobbyists will use whatever tools they can, based on the situation at the moment and the people in place at the time. 

The harder the ground is for universal health care, the easier it will be for the “reasonable” ideas of the health insurance industry to be pitched to the Democratic politicians who will be in power in 2020.

It’s Overton Window Moving Time Right NOW. 

All the 
candidates on the left will have a health care position.  Our job is to keep talking about the need for Universal Health care. The insurance industry and drug companies will be backing trucks of cash up to the doors of former democratic politicians to help that message get out.

The pundits will set up what is a “reasonable” policy on health care. The media will then play their part. They will interview Democrats who have a “reasonable” position on heath care. These Democrats’ JOB is to talk about how impossible something like Medicare for all is.

I will always suggest going after Republicans and right-wing media rather than our own people. But if you still have a need to attack a Democrat in the 2020 campaign instead of a Republican, look into folks like Joe Donnelly

You can also attack any of those GOP candidates who fought ACA, voted to repeal it and then went on the stump and said they would protect it. They won’t have as much value to the drug companies and health insurance firms as Democratic lobbyists, but they will be trotted out nonetheless.

The insurance and drug companies go to the people who will be able to influence whomever is in power. They are the enemy to progress in universal health care.