Think We Should Do Away With The Electoral College? Think Again - Red Jahncke

The Constitution provides for a federal republic because if the U.S. were a direct democracy, a few large states could elect a president by themselves. That would be a disservice to the remainder of the nation.

The Electoral College doesn’t reflect one-man-one-vote because it wasn’t designed to. It's a blend of the pure democracy of the U.S. House (with one elector per U.S. representative, each of whom represents about 750,000 Americans today) and our federal system.

As a nation, we are both a democracy and a federation of states. The Electoral College was designed specifically to prevent the tyranny of big states over small states, as was the U.S. Senate, which affords all states, large and small, equal representation.

If we did away with the Electoral College in favor of the national popular vote, the election would still be decided in a handful of states — populous states such as California and New York. Voters in small states would be completely disenfranchised. Candidates would never have to campaign in small states.

The 2000 and 2016 presidential elections are only the fourth and fifth where the winner lost the popular vote, out of 58 contests, with the other three being elections in the 19th century. That means the Electoral College is batting 53 for 58.

The full article is available here

Trump Admits Wall Isn't A National Emergency - USA Today

In his Rose Garden press conference, Trump admitted that he didn't need to declare a national emergency to fund his border wall, but that he did it so he could "get it done faster."

30 minutes into an off-the-cuff defense of his decision to declare a national emergency to help build his border wall, President Donald Trump made an admission that may have handed ammunition to legal opponents of the move.

Trump admitted that he didn't need to declare a national emergency to fund his border wall, but that he did it so he could "get it done faster."

U.S. government data from the southern border indicates the vast majority of narcotics captured at the border is coming in through ports of entry, not the wide swaths of border in between where additional barriers could be erected.

And the number of migrants apprehended for trying to enter the U.S. illegally is significantly less than it was a decade ago.

The full article is available here

The MAGA Hat Boys Aren’t Totally Innocent, But I Feel Empathy Towards Them - Jeff Wiersma

I unfortunately recognize the smug arrogance, the dehumanization and bullying of all that was other, the toxic masculinity and Eurocentric Christendom all too well, because it was my adolescent worldview. 

Despite rejecting the claims of one investigation that found no fault in the Covington Catholic boys’ actions at the National Mall last month (while acknowledging that the so-called "Black Israelite" group were the instigators), and despite my ardent opposition to the Trumpism the boys are caught up in ... I still feel empathy for them.

Why?

Because they’re just like who I was at that age. As a teen, I was a full-fledged, enthusiastic foot soldier for the Religious Right. I was fully convinced that what I learned from those sources was true - that I needed to be fought for in order to save our country from God’s judgment. Obviously I was 100% wrong, but I was naive and took what I was told by those sources at face value.

I unfortunately recognize the smug arrogance, the dehumanization and bullying of all that was other, the toxic masculinity and Eurocentric Christendom all too well, because it was my adolescent worldview.

The only things that rescued my from continuing to be that person were (1) being held accountable for my actions (2) converting from Fundagelicalism to Christianity (3) realigning my political and philosophical beliefs to align with Jesus, not Movement Conservatism.

Given who my parents are - how they’ve always questioned the powers that be and stood up for the least of these - it may have been inevitable that I reformed. It also coincided with maturing from an adolescent to an adult.

BUT it still took being held accountable for the harmful beliefs I took on as truth.

Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats Dispute Claims That Russia Probe Found No Collusion - Mother Jones

"The intelligence committee hasn’t discussed the matter, let alone released a committee report.”
- Senator Angus King (I), Maine

Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee are pushing back on a claim by the panel’s chair, Richard Burr (R-N.C.), that the committee’s two-year investigation has not found “anything that would suggest there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

And they dispute an NBC News report saying that Democrats agreed with Burr that they have yet to see clear evidence of a conspiracy between President Donald Trump and Moscow.

“That’s not true,” Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, told Mother Jones. “I think it’s misleading. The intelligence committee hasn’t discussed the matter, let alone released a committee report.”

The full article is available here

In Early 70’s, Republicans Favored Abortion & Liked Roe v. Wade. What Changed? - Heather Cox Richardson

The recent disinformation campaign against New York's new abortion law reflects the takeover of the Republican Party by radical Movement Conservatives in the 1970s. It's a story not about principle, but about the pursuit of political power.

In 1971, the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention agreed that abortion should be legal in some cases, and vowed to work for modernization. 

By 1972, Gallup pollsters reported that 64% of Americans agreed that abortion was between a woman and her doctor. 68% of Republicans agreed.

In 1973, the Supreme Court, under Republican Chief Justice Warren Burger, in a decision written by Republican Lewis Blackmun, decided Roe v. Wade, legalizing first-trimester abortion. 

So in the early 70’s, Republicans favored abortion and liked Roe v. Wade. What changed? 

In 1972, Nixon was up for reelection, and he and his people were paranoid that he would lose. Nixon's handler Pat Buchanan was a Goldwater man who wanted to destroy the popular New Deal state that regulated the economy and protected social welfare and civil rights. To that end, he believed Ds and traditional Rs needed to be kept from power and Nixon had to win reelection.

Catholics, who opposed abortion and believed that "the right of innocent human beings to life is sacred," tended to vote for Democratic candidates. Buchanan (himself Catholic), urged Nixon to woo Catholic Democrats before the 1972 election over the issue of abortion. 

Nixon/Buchanan Movement Conservatism wanted to dismantle the active federal government that regulated business, enforced civil rights law, and promoted social welfare. They attacked anyone who supported such a government as immoral. And with the issue of abortion, Movement Conservatives re-framed the entire scope of women's rights around a single use, and as murder, in a cynical power play.

The full article is available here

My Abortion Debate Wishlist - Jeff Wiersma

Both sides: Stubbornly refuse to dehumanize those who you ultimately may not find common ground with.

Here is my wishlist for what I’d like to see from both sides in the often-vitriolic abortion debate.

Pro-lifers: I'd like to see an acknowledgement that,  if it ultimately comes down to the life of the mother or the life of her unborn child, the mother is the one who has the right to make the penultimate unenviable choice.

In that vain, I’d really like to see an end to ascribing wantonly homicidal intent to people caught in unthinkably traumatic medical crises; horrific tragedies where a wanted pregnancy isn’t going to come to completion as dreamed of by the parents.

Pro-choicers: I’d like to see a increase in the willingness to acknowledge that - even though a fetus isn’t viable and is still dependent on its mother to survive - it is growing and taking nourishment, and therefore alive and equally deserving of a chance to thrive as its mother.

Pro-lifers: I’d like to see you become more consistent/systematic in arguing for life; specifically in areas such as war, gun violence, capital punishment, pollution, environmental regulation, climate change, and healthcare being a human right, et al

Pro-choicers: As a progressive liberal, I’d like to see a less libertarian/absolutist individualism view of the issue. I feel that there is a progressive societal interest in defending the right of all living things being afforded a chance at a good life - with the disclaimer that I fully understand that a lot of the pro-life camp are defenders of patriarchy - and seem to have maintaining that as a top priority in many policy areas (birth control immediately comes to mind).

Pro-lifers: I’d like to see the prioritization of reducing the overall number of abortions vs serving as conveniently-mobilized foot soldiers of a partisan agenda that, in my assessment, is by and large not pro-life on many other issues. Also, I feel that those who genuinely want to reduce the overall number of abortions should support sex education, contraception, universal health care, and a living wage.

Both sides: I’d love to see a posture of inquiry towards those don’t share your position.

Ask questions and then follow up/clarifying questions. Don’t assume intent or motivation.

And finally, stubbornly refuse to dehumanize those who you ultimately may not find common ground with.