Oh, Trumpeteurs

My initial thought, during the RNC Cruz speech, was "is he really going to give a whole speech without saying "Trump? He is really going to do it, he is really going to do it."

My second thought was "Cruz is not saying not to vote for Trump, why are all these delegates making that assumption?"

And that is all. This post is self-centered, but then the blog is called My Side of Every Story.

Lions, gorillas and parents. Oh my.

Never mind the drone wars. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, and the general uncertainly "about who will die".To name but a few. This points only to American aggression, bear in mind that the aggressors currently at work on the world stage are numerous. Add them up.

Hint: you are looking for the term "civilian deaths".

But seriously man, how are the lions??

Update, H/T Ornella

Libertarians at election time, 2016

Libertarian Forum, Part Deux

Another energizing performance. It warms my heart to know that there are people interesting in running for office AND in speaking to voters as if we were all adults. What?!

Sadly Petersen failed on this note. Compared to the main stream party candidates he probably would have sounded impressive: clearly well prepared and also well read. However next to two people who gave concrete answers, he sometimes fell short.

Example: gun control. We got an educational session on the fight against tyranny, but not a word on what would change, if anything, in access to guns. It's a big issue, highly contentious, you can't get away with a non-answer.

Johnson, again, has the most experience and of all three can probably have the broadest appeal. He is saying things that both Cruz supporters and Sanders supporters want to hear. I wasn't happy with his answer on the EPA (anecdotes do not policy make) and he was also too vague on guns, as if he was not finishing his thought.

McAfee stands out as both principled and intelligent. My view on him remains constant: I wouldn't so much want to see him as president as I would consigliere, so to speak, to the president.

Watch the whole debate below

How to boost Trump's poll numbers

1. Deny his right to speak
2. Insult his voters

Update

Sometimes Rubio is right

Words have consequences:
Posted by Marco Rubio on Friday, March 11, 2016

The Protest Cycle

Considering Trump is the candidate for anti-establishment protest.

And of course I have an opinion to share.

People will say despicable things. They have a right to say those things. If we suppress that right then they simply think them and fester in anger. Better to hear them said and to know with whom I disagree.

The most disturbing parts of the Trump phenomenon have been the invitations and commendations - sometimes subtle, sometimes not - to violence and intimidation. To ridicule and fear. This is how bad people come to power. This will only work, however, if everybody else stands aside and lets it happen. The forces and law and order first of all, and also the citizens.

A commentator on CNN said it best (sadly I forget her name): this has been going on for months but because Trump was not taken seriously, neither was his outlandish behaviour. Any other candidate would have suffered the consequences of his language.

From this stand point I was glad to see people out protesting the Trump rally. Political rallies are protested all the time, and I was happy to see citizens saying "enough with the violent and hateful rhetoric".

Shutting the rally down?

Not so happy about.

Of course I personally am happy to see Trump destabilised and denied a chance to spew more rubbish. I also realise that is self-centered and somewhat petty of me. Does he have a right to bring his followers together, and stand on a podium, and say stupid things? Yes, he does have that right.

And let's not forget: people are reactionaries. 

So continue to protest, and certainly always - citizens, media and police - highlight his incentives to violence and hatred, every single one of them.

That's all I have on that.

Trump Supporters - Talk to me

Candidates are - or should be - about policy. This is why there are politicians with whom I disagree but still understand why others vote for them. We just disagree on the policies. 

I confess, however, to not understanding the Trump phenomenon. So I ask those who have cast their vote in his favor: explain it to me. My question is one of policies: what are his? I have not actually heard him explain a single policy through. What is his tax plan? What is his plan for health insurance (yes - removing the lines around the state, but how when and with what tools)? What is his foreign policy? What is his immigration policy? What is his plan with US troops abroad? What are his trade policies?

Watching him in debates and interviews, I still do not know. I don't each of these things about each candidate, but I get pretty close with any candidate who has had as much air time as Trump. 

So I repeat my question: what are his actual policies on these issues and others, and why do they speak to you?

Executive Power is all well and good

as long as you agree with the decision being made.

Just saying.

Trump is a distraction

And while we are freaking out about this bigoted idiot, "our" government is doing this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/07/syrian-civilians-killed-us-airstrike

Anti-Vaxxers

They make it too easy.

Of Lions and Coffee Cups

Really guys, I'm as amused as the next guy about the Starbucks cup debacle. A crazy pastor made a video saying Starbucks is anti-Christian. It's funny. I'm not sure it has the staying power we are giving it, though.

On the other hand, this happened last week:
9-year-old Tyshawn Lee lured into alley, shot to death
And not a peep on a single one of my social media feeds.

So I will do what I now always do when I don't quite understand how people choose to place their outrage and I will ask: But are the lions ok?

Politcs of Crowds

Trump blames Mexican immigrants who can’t even vote. Sanders blames what he calls "the billionaire class," a class whose purported vast influence doesn’t seem to have done anything to prevent Sanders’ own formidable political rise. The pope blames the bankers, denouncing "usury" and what he called "oppressive lending systems which, far from promoting progress, subject people to mechanisms which generate greater poverty, exclusion and dependence."

Read the rest here

Humility

An arguably over-used concept. How many times this week - especially, I suppose, if you watch a lot of TV or read magazine interviews - have you heard somebody say they were humbled by something or had a humbling experience.

Well.

I am just going to leave this here: