The South may yet again be the place where a progressive vision for the country dies

A Monmouth University poll taken before Tuesday’s Democratic debate appeared to show Joe Biden enjoying a very comfortable lead over his nearest challengers, with more support than the next two challengers—Bernie Sanders and Tom Steyer—combined. This likely will not change post-debate, especially for those candidates who chose not to pander to black voters, and stay on “message” assuming that their “progressive” views would resonate with those voters on their own merits—although frankly, I don’t know why Elizabeth Warren thinks that making charges of “sexism” as a privileged white woman would help her in a state where racial identity is paramount, especially when she again lied about her own experiences of “discrimination” and has a history of trying to fob herself off as much a “minority” as blacks are. If anyone “misjudged” the audience, it was Warren. 

But as a Sanders supporter in 2016 who was angered by the fact that the media would be pushing the nomination of a person with a long history of corruption, telling falsehoods—and as Bill Clinton’s “co-president,” often publicly advocated for laws and policies such as on criminal justice, social welfare programs, public housing, immigration and banking regulation whose effects clearly pleased those right-of-center. The Clintons were clearly comfortable with working with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was primarily responsible for the hyper-partisanship of today’s political discourse. The signing of the banking “reform” law that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had successfully prevented the financial abuses that led to the Great Depression, was largely responsible for the Great Recession less than a decade later. 

People who attack Sanders on his supposed gun rights positions (despite his poor “rating” by the NRA) forgot that he voted against the Iraq War, which Hillary Clinton did vote for—despite the fact that international weapons inspectors who were allowed to scour Iraq insisted there were no WMDs for American forces to “eradicate,” while alleged Al-Qaeda “links” simply didn’t exist. The collapse of the Sunni regime in Iraq only “eradicated” the principle bulwark in the region against Shiite Iran, with a Shiite regime in Iraq now very much in league with the U.S.’ principle enemy in the region. The result was that more than 4,000 American soldiers were needlessly killed, and many thousands more maimed, in Iraq. Add to that the thousands more needlessly killed and maimed because the Bush administration failed to focus its resources on the Taliban when they were on the run. 

Such details were not on voters’ minds when the primary season reached South Carolina in 2016, and I was disabused of the notion that black voters would be “impressed” by Sanders’ civil rights activities on behalf of blacks during his younger days, or his endorsements of Jesse Jackson for president against the Democratic establishment, or his progressive record in general. Black voters in the South just wanted someone to give them “special attention,” because in their own states they had little power or say in policy making that effected their lives. Sanders was just some “old white guy” from a “white” state up somewhere in the boondocks. Ideology or past record didn’t matter: black voters in the South were in many ways as conservative as whites in those states. One suspects that Donald Trump’s immigration policies do not bother them even in light of his recent banning of immigration from Sudan and Nigeria—two of his “shithole” countries—given such commentary we have heard in the past from MLB players like Torii Hunter, who claimed that Latin American baseball players of African descent were “imposters” and are not really “black.” 

In the 2016 primaries, while Sanders was beating Hillary Clinton in supposedly “blue” states like Wisconsin and Michigan, he was getting wiped-out in the South as black voters flocked to Clinton. The irony, of course, is that Clinton lost Wisconsin and Michigan in the general election, and she was “wiped-out” in all the Southern states save Virginia, with its increasingly “moderate” urban population adjacent to the DC suburbs. The arrogant pro-Clinton media and the Democratic powerbrokers failed to read the mood of the country which had tired of the inactivity that the last six years of the Obama administration was mired in, and the black voters on whose back Clinton rode to the nomination were plainly used to counter a move from the “status quo.” The fact that Clinton tapped a vanilla-white Southerner with no personality and even less progressivism as her running mate only further demonstrated the Democratic establishment’s drift from reality—and there are clearly those voters in unwinnable states who would continue to aid and abet this drift with the desire to nominate someone who will not go toe-to-toe with Trump with a drastically different vision of this country.

South Carolina primary will determine if chaotic debate changed anything--especially for Warren, who again lied about her past and regurgitated policy points as old as the hills

Last night’s CBS News debate was set to a rock concert-like atmosphere, and perhaps because of that was a near disaster from start to finish; the two “moderators”—Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King—allowed things to get out-of-control like a pie-fight early and often. A large part of the reason was that for the first half of the debate the “other” candidates were busy falling over themselves taking shots at Bernie Sanders, with the “kids” waving their hands like school children to get their two-bit in. Mike Bloomberg called Sanders a tool of the Russians, Joe Biden slammed him on gun control (Sanders pointed out that he had a “D-“ rating from the NRA) while trying to alienate black voters from him by refusing to cite the obvious—that Barack Obama was more “centrist” than “progressive.”  Elizabeth Warren continued to make the tired claim that even though she and Sanders agree on a “lot of things,” she has the better "plan” to implement them.  The attacks from Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were the usual vanilla ice cream with attempts to show their “progressive” side by putting a little chocolate syrup on top to entice black voters. Tom Steyer—probably knowing that he needed to get his “program” across in his first debate appearance—largely refrained from attacks on Sanders, and although the “experts” gave his performance a thumbs-down, outside a few stumbles here and there I wasn’t unimpressed by his performance. 

Sanders—who unlike the other candidates did not stray from message to pander to black voters in an obvious and self-servingly opportunistic way—tried to strike a balance between staying on message and responding to the attacks, which was obviously difficult given the limited time. Given the circumstances, I didn’t think that Sanders was hurt too much, and the “booing” that has been referred to was due not to Sanders “misjudging” the audience as one commentator claimed, but were by Bloomberg supporters when Sanders attacked “billionaires,” and the second time when he mentioned Biden’s support of free trade agreements (which I don’t necessarily agree with Sanders on); I think any commentators who thought the booing was “personal” are the ones who “misread” where it derived from. Sanders also managed a slight “backatcha” on the support of Israel question, forcing other candidates to fumble on their position on Palestinian rights.

While Biden was clearly pandering to black voters throughout the debate (and CBS deploying James Clyburn—who endorsed Biden—to introduce the debate was clearly with partisan intent), the only candidate who “stood out” was Warren, but that was only because she was allowed by the moderators to talk without being interrupted like the other candidates. Otherwise, she didn’t really say anything that wasn’t as much a “talking point” than what everyone else was saying—she just spoke more “forcefully,” or whatever. Most (but by no means all) post-debate commentary was very impressed by her “performance,” reiterating her media reputation as a “policy wonk.” Yet others have pointed out that Warren has not been putting forth policy ideas she can claim as her own; she simply has been borrowing the policy positions of many, many other people that have been set forth many, many times before over the years. If you are old enough to remember the political and social humor on The Smothers Brothers’ Comedy Hour and Laugh-In, you know that the things that Warren was talking about are as old as the hills. Hell, FDR was talking about many of these policy issues in his famous Madison Square Garden speech in 1936. 

I think before people start thinking that Warren’s version of “socialism” is “superior” to Sanders’ version just because the media thinks that it “sounds” better coming from a woman should remember that Paul Ryan had a reputation as a “policy wonk” too, and that didn’t exactly work out for him or the country—in fact his failure is a major reason why Donald Trump is running wild with “executive authority." Ryan could have worked with moderate Democrats and jettisoned the far-right “Freedom Caucus,” but he refused to do that. There is no reason to believe that Warren can work any better than Sanders with Republicans on “progressive” policy—such policies can only be done through executive authority—and if the rest of the field tries to be "bipartisan," we will only get the regurgitation of the  “centrist” policies of Bill Clinton, which have provided the country with a whole raft of disastrous results, whether people like former Clinton aid and Sanders bedwetter James Carville want to admit it or not.

But you have to hand it to Warren: she speaks very clear and understandable English when she accuses people of being “sexist,” like Bloomberg supporting Republicans senatorial candidates over Democratic female candidates like herself. But like Hillary Clinton, Warren does have a credibility problem.  If by some chance of fate she is nominated, she will likely be pummeled on the “trust” issue, given the constant lies and misinformation she has told about herself. It is remarkable to me that the other candidates have not spoken out about Warren’s problem with the truth and how that couldn’t be differentiated with that of Trump, or why debate moderators haven’t questioned her whether anything she says can be believed. Warren, like Clinton, lives in her own “alternate fact universe,” and if people question this reality, she devolves into those “sexism” attacks and the election becomes less about “the people” than her own megalomania.

During the debate Warren again lied about her losing her special education job because of pregnancy. No, her “resignation” was “regretfully accepted” according to board meeting notes—in fact it may be the other way around: she used her pregnancy as an “excuse” to get out of the position. And she didn’t just “go home,” she was preparing herself to go to law school as an “underrepresented minority.”  Warren again and again “forcefully” talked about ideas, but she wasn’t bothered by the moderators about “petty” details like how and how much like Sanders was. Warren did say she said that we should only send in the military if it will do any good, and there is an “exit” strategy”; but who isn’t for that? Is someone as egotistical and willing to act impulsively and disingenuously when she feels personally slighted as Warren (much like not just Clinton but like Trump) to be trusted to make those decisions?

The second half of the debate ran out of steam when people ran out of things to attack Sanders on, and mostly focused on Trump and the other candidates. This, the last debate before Super Tuesday, did not have the “clarifying” result as to who would be Sanders principle challenger. I expect that Biden will win the South Carolina primary despite his not exactly “progressive” record, because of his ties to Barack Obama in as state in which black voters are the large majority of the Democratic vote (and most refuse to be aware of Sanders’ civil rights activities and his endorsement of Jesse Jackson’s presidential bids in the 1980s), but if Sanders finishes a strong second, that will likely mean that this debate was indeed too chaotic and embarrassing to change many minds.

Hilary Duff and Amber Heard are not making it "easy" for cynics to see them as "victims"

The other day, there appeared a story about actress Hilary Duff posting on her Instagram account something about a “creepy” guy who was taking pictures of the kids playing football at a park. Along with a phone video grab of the “creep” was her estimation of the situation:" “Paparazzi shooting KIDS. Go 'practice' your photography on ADULTS! Creep! Laws need to change! This is stalking minors! Disgusting!" In the video, Duff is heard asking the man "Who are you here with? Do you know any people on the team? Can you stop taking pictures of the kids please?" The man tells her it is “legal” for him to take pictures, but she insists it makes her “uncomfortable.” He tells her she shouldn’t feel uncomfortable, and offers to show his ID. Duff says “I'm not asking for your ID. I'm asking you to stop taking pictures of our 7-year-old children if you don't know anyone that's here.” She goes on "I'm asking you human to human, as a mother, if you don't know anyone here, can you please stop taking pictures of our children playing football this morning." The man tells her he is “practicing photography” and she shouldn’t feel “uncomfortable.” Duff reiterates her desire to “protect” the children, and says she will post the video for 15 million people to see what a “creep” looks like.

Why would Duff have assumed that the man didn’t know anyone there? Maybe because he is black and everyone else is white? The man is wearing glasses and appears to be around 60. He doesn’t look like a “creep,” just a regular person with an expensive-looking camera. Now, I don’t know why he would choose to take pictures of white kids when he should know that there might be paranoid white women about, although that Duff seems to be the only one present to respond to him in that manner. There was a link to her Instagram account; I expected to see a few people questioning her paranoia, but those immediately responding seemed to share her view of the situation. I did not. I decided to throw in my immediate response: “Racist.” I figured an explanatory response was necessary, so I added the observation that the man didn’t look “perverted” to me, and it seemed to me that it was “perverted” minds that were informing this episode. I didn’t hang around waiting for the legion of apologists to rain down on me; my point was made. A check on the Internet a day after seems to suggest that other people are questioning Duff's mindset as well.

You would think that Duff would have learned a lesson when she was accused of racial insensitivity wearing a Native American outfit on a Halloween outing with her partner wearing a “Pilgrim” outfit.  If this black man was taking pictures of black children playing football, I suspect the parents of the kids would have not taken him for a "creep" or a “pervert.” Duff’s knee-jerk reactions seems racist, no matter how she tries to justify it with what Trump pardonee Dinesh D’Souza called “rational discrimination.” If the man was Hispanic, she probably would have made the same accusation; but if he was Asian, she probably would have thought that was just what they do. She can call the man what she wants to; other people can call her what they want to, too. 

The problem is that we have seen the racism behind such incidents so many times before. I recall an incident in 2004, when  a black man, Ian Spiers, was taking photographs for a photography course at the Ballard Locks in Seattle. Yeah, that “progressive” Seattle. Apparently a white female thought it was “suspicious” and called the police; a half-dozen black-clad officers arrived, one of them who identified himself as “DHS.” After some “discussion,” Spier was allowed to leave; it was observed that there were many tourists who were there taking photographs. The “problem,” it seemed, was that they were white and Asian; Spier was the only black person taking photographs, which of course was “suspicious.” There have been more recent cases, involving white women and “suspicious” black folk, like the Mississippi woman who threatened a black couple with a gun because they wanted to have a picnic in a campground, and the Arkansas woman who held four black teenagers at gunpoint after they knocked on her door while out for an annual fundraising drive for the school athletic department. 

Duff isn’t the only woman who thinks she can make sordid accusations without being annoyed by resistance. The UK’s Daily Mail somehow got a hold of audio from a "therapy" session between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Now we remember that Heard had written an op-ed that was printed in the Washington Post about being a domestic violence “survivor.” I don’t know if the paper now “regrets” its publication any more than TIME regrets putting California Assemblywoman Christina Garcia on it “silence breakers” cover after she was accused of sexual harassment and “groping” behavior by four men, but it should be a hit on its credibility and on any media that thinks that everyone who posts an accusation in the “MeToo” pages is actually telling the truth—or at least the “whole” truth. There is usually two sides to every story, even if only one is allowed to be heard. Those who heard the “other side” loud and clear on those tapes are now calling for the cosmetics company L'Oréal to dump Heard in her lucrative role as a spokesperson. In one of two such online campaigns, it is stated that "Amber Heard for years now has been claiming to be the victim of abuse from her husband Johnny Depp. In light of recently leaked recorded sessions between Ms. Heard and Mr. Depp, it has come to the attention of many that it was in fact the other way around."

Although both Depp and Heard are for the most part speaking in “reasonable” tones, it is clear that he is frustrated by her inability to take responsibility for her own abusive behavior, particularly since it is implied that she is the principle instigator, while she admonishes him for acting like a “baby” for wanting to just walk out when one of their rows occur. She insists that her hitting him or throwing objects at him has no “equivalency” in him knocking on her door, something she repeatedly accuses him of doing (do they sleep in separate bedrooms?). 

For example, Depp says “I left last night. Honestly, I swear to you because I just couldn't take the idea of more physicality, more physical abuse on each other. Because had we continued it, it would have gotten f**king bad. And baby, I told you this once. I'm scared to death we are a f**king crime scene right now.” How does Heard respond? “I can't promise you I won't get physical again. God I f**king sometimes get so mad I lose it.” In his $50 million lawsuit for defamation of character following her Post op-ed, Depp claims that he is the victim and Heard is the perpetrator; it seems that here she is admitting as much. In his lawsuit, he claims that “She hit, punched and kicked me. She also repeatedly and frequently threw objects into my body and head, including heavy bottles, soda cans, burning candles, television remote controls and paint thinner cans, which severely injured me.” Heard claims that she was the abused party, although Depp claims that her selfies indicating bruising were “painted on.”

We can all be cynical about a man claiming domestic violence against him, but what can it be like living with a person like Heard who sees nothing wrong with inflicting abuse? The illogic of a female domestic abuser is evident in the following from the Daily Mail transcript:

Depp complains he's forced to leave when she becomes 'manic and angry', telling Heard: 'I'm not going be in a physical f**king altercation with you... you f**king hit me last night.' He goes on to add: 'I'm not the one who throws pots and whatever the f**k else at me.'

 

Heard responds: 'That's different. That's different. One does not negate the other. That's irrelevant, that's a complete non sequitur. Just because I've thrown pots and pans does not mean you cannot come and knock on my door.' When Depp cuts in to suggest he's also had vases hurled at him, she replies: 'Just because there are vases does not mean that you come and knock on the door.'

'Really, I should just let you throw?' Depp replies, tailing off as they carry on sniping.'The only time I ever threw anything at you was when you f**king threw the cans at me in Australia,' he admits.

Heard asks: 'Why are you trying to justify who throws things based on whether or not you come knocking on the door? I don't get why one informs the other.'

Depp says, raising his voice: 'Because that is a f**king irrational and violent f**king maneuver. So a man would want to get out of that area so that he doesn't get so f**king angry that he actually does pop the f**king wife.'

Throughout, Heard appears to believe that engaging in physical violence is “normal” for her, and should not be taken at all “seriously.” For example, Depp mentions a previous incident where he contacted the building manager to “intervene” before their fight “escalated”:

'I said to you, ''hey tell Travis what just happened'... And that you that you punched me in the f**king thing... In the face''. And you said, ''no I f**king didn't. What the f**k are you talking about?''' And I watched you lie,' he says.

Heard replies: 'I didn't punch you. I didn't punch you, by the way. . . I'm sorry that I didn't, uh, uh, hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you, it was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched. '

Depp cuts in to protest: 'Don't tell me what it feels like to be punched.'

Heard sarcastically replies: 'I know, you've been in a lot of fights, been around a long time. I know, I know. Yeah.'

Getting audibly upset, Depp fires back: 'No! When you have a f**king closed fist.'

Heard responds: 'You didn't get punched. You got hit. I'm sorry I hit you like this. But I did not punch you. I did not f**king deck you. I f**king was hitting you... I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine, I did not hurt you, I did not punch you, I was hitting you.'

At another point, Heard tries to justify her violence even when Depp tries to leave the area: “I'm not going to get into the details of that fight. You and I both know that you split when there is no physical violence involved and that you do it... like at the very beginning of fights these days. And if you split and you go into a different room and you don't actually leave that house, it does nothing but perpetuate the fight and you don't actually do it respectfully.”

At another point, Depp tells her: “If the fight escalates to the point of where it's just insulting for both of us, uh, or if it gets to that physical f**king s**t, the violence, that's when we just said, look, let's go to our corners, man, you hang wherever you want, baby. I'm going in the office and I'm just gonna f**king sit there and try and de-jellify my f**king brain,” to which Heard replies unhelpfully “I can't promise that it will all be perfect. I can't promise you I won't get physical again. God I f**king sometimes I get so mad I lose it.”

Here we are. This is very likely a typical scenario of a dysfunctional relationship where there are two sides to the story, where the female is as much or more guilty in the perpetration of domestic violence. Yet the media, domestic violence promoters and the MeToo movement would have us believe that this either does not occur, or doesn’t matter. Just ask Amber Heard—she seems to know that the score is in her favor.

Trump's visit to India--uh, not as great as he thinks, anyways

Here are some headlines from the presidential visit to India:

 

“U.S. president (fill in the blank) greeting the massive crowds in India” proclaims one headline. “(Fill in blank) Visit Attracts Huge Crowds in India,” says another to underscore the obvious. “US president (fill in the blank) began a landmark visit to India on Sunday with a bear hug from prime minister Narendra Modi” proclaims another. Again: “(Fill in the blank) Visit Attracts Huge Crowds in New Delhi.” “(Fill in the blank) feted in Delhi as US cements closer ties with India.” And: “In a ceremony reminiscent of past centuries, cannons boomed and (fill in the blank)’s limousine was escorted by scarlet-uniformed cavalry down a red-clay path during the official welcoming ceremony in New Delhi on Monday at Rashtrapati Bhavan, India’s presidential palace.”

And these:

“(Fill in the blank) Repeatedly Butchers Words During Speech In India As Crowd Walks Out” and “India Loves (fill in the blank) For Some Reason, Is Welcome To Keep Him.” 

The headlines in the first paragraph, from ABC in Australia, NBC, The Guardian and Reuters, are referring to Barack Obama’s visit in 2015. Those in the second paragraph, from Inquisitr (quoting from a BBC report) and Wonkette are referring to Donald Trump’s visit. According to the BBC, while reading from a teleprompter Trump “struggled to pronounce several Indian words - from Ahmedabad, the city where he was speaking, to Swami Vivekananda, an Indian philosopher, greatly admired by Mr Modi. He also called the Vedas - ancient Hindu texts – ‘Vestas’…He spoke after Mr Modi, and crowds began leaving mid-way through the US president's speech.” 

The Washington Post pointed out—unlike the Obama visit, where Indians turned out by the hundreds of thousands to see a black American president—“tens of thousands” of supporters of Modi in his own home state turned out to see him hobnobbing with this oddball American president they had heard so much about. The BBC noted that “Inside the arena Mr. Trump was welcomed warmly, but the biggest cheers were for Prime Minister Modi - no surprise, this is his home town.” 

The BBC also wondered what Trump was expecting to get from his brief visit. For one thing, unlike the reception he has received from other countries—especially in the West and very likely would in any Latin American country, a part of the world he hasn’t visited even once—did have suitable-for-Trump optics. But it was Modi, whose Hindu nationalism was blamed for the killing of 2,000 Muslims in 2002 when he was governor of Gujarat, who was actually the “star attraction” of the visit, not Trump.  The BBC noted that it was unlikely that any of Trump’s other excuses for the visit would materialize, particularly in regard to trade.

The Associated Press noted that while fans of Modi helped with the optics—Modi introduced Trump in the “world’s largest cricket stadium” like Elvis introducing second-stringer Carl Perkins—elsewhere it was a different story: “But miles away in the capital of New Delhi, police used tear gas and smoke grenades to disperse a crowd of clashing protesters hours before Trump was due to arrive, as violence broke out over a new citizenship law that excludes Muslims. Anti-Trump street demonstrations also erupted in Kolkata, Hyderabad and Gauhati.” No such protests occurred during Obama’s two visits to India.

It was suggested by the BBC that Trump—like after his visit to Israel—hoped to entice more support from a domestic voting demographic. However, this seems unlikely; Indian-Americans in general “favor social welfare spending," said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Riverside, who noted that if there is any change in voting patterns—only 16 percent of Indians voted for Trump in 2016—it would likely be on the “margins” and not likely to last much longer than his trip. 

You can say one thing for Trump: he always finds a way to muck things up for himself. Maybe his “base” won’t care, but the rest of us ought to get a few laughs once those videos of him making an idiot of himself again appear, along with shots of those disappearing crowds while he was still speaking.