Friday, May 27, 2016

Hillary's Multi-faceted Approach to Marijuana Reform

There are some voters and one-issue voters that are now claiming that Hillary Clinton sides with big pharma over young voters in yet another attempt to create a wedge issue of distrust that isn’t based on the actual facts. 

This latest article from is an example of this effort to pollute the stream. 

Hillary Clinton has explicitly and repeatedly come out in favor of the states that have passed both medicinal and legalized marijuana. 

"Allowing states that have enacted marijuana laws to act as laboratories of democracy, as long as they adhere to certain federal priorities such as not selling to minors, preventing intoxicated driving, and keeping organized crime out of the industry. “Rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance. Hillary supports medical marijuana and would reschedule marijuana to advance research into its health benefits."
+Amazing World
That's from her issues page on her campaign website. She obviously supports current marijuana reforms going on in the states. 

It’s understandable why some would believe a negative perspective about Hillary's position on anything, though. Some people have an extreme bias against her. These articles are meant to capitalize on that negative bias. 

But, when faced with a factual representation that refutes those positions, I would think more reasonable people would take a pause before launching into a full frontal attack on her actual positions on the issue.

Hillary even has a substantive plan for a re-entry program for those that are in the criminal justice system from these non-violent offenses, including marijuana.
"Promote successful re-entry by formerly incarcerated individuals. This year, the number of people released from state or federal prison will reach approximately 600,000. For those given a second chance, and for the health and safety of the communities to which those individuals return, the reentry pathway must not be littered with barriers, but rather paved with a fair opportunity for success. Clinton will work to remove barriers and create pathways to employment, housing, health care, education, and civic participation, including:" 

"Prioritize treatment and rehabilitation—rather than incarceration—for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders. Over half of prison and jail inmates suffer from a mental health problem, and up to 65 percent of the correctional population meets the medical criteria for a substance use disorder. Hillary will ensure adequate training for law enforcement for crisis intervention and referral to treatment, as appropriate, for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with mental health or addiction problems. She will also direct the attorney general to issue guidance to federal prosecutors on seeking treatment over incarceration for low-level, nonviolent drug crimes. Read more on Hillary’s plan to tackle America’s epidemic of addiction."
+Amazing World
When faced with new information and facts, Hillary Clinton haters simply change to another line of attack. They’re just blatantly against Hillary Clinton no matter what her positions have been regarding any issues because they're against her because they’ve been told to be against her. 

Her policies not only address marijuana reforms, it addresses those currently incarcerated and reintegrating them into American society.

People that have actually been through the criminal justice system and have family members that have been brutalized by that system overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton. Why is that? This is what Hillary Clinton critics never ask themselves.
+Amazing World

Allowing the States to act as laboratories is actually the most practical and pragmatic approach. 

Moving forward with decriminalization efforts of non-violent drug offenders in the system, reintegrating those people back into American society while that above process continues to unfold is also the most sensible approach. 

All of those reforms are still very difficult to make a reality, but that coupled with lowering the schedule of marijuana makes a broader effort of national legalization and medicinal use possible.

+Amazing World
The more data there is that medicinal and legalization efforts are good for both public health and don't harm children the more possible national legalization and medicinal reforms will be.

Some want an ALL NOW or NOTHING approach, and if they can't have it all, they’re going to throw a tantrum and not examine the actual positions she has? How does that further the legalization movement?

Hillary has a position not based on making false promises but on what we can achieve and then building on those achievements. That’s what makes her the candidate you can trust. 

The Sanders-Trump Debate Stunt

If you haven't heard, Bernie Sanders asked Jimmy Kimmel to ask the nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, to debate him ahead of the California Primary on June 7th. Even Rachel Maddow has come out against this stunt. You can see her 3 minute take in a clip here

In the long run, I believe this entire stunt is meaningless. In the short-term, however, it exposes a great deal about Bernie Sanders and his candidacy that should concern Democrats, independents, and supporters of Sanders.

This undermines, certainly, Hillary Clinton. It only seeks to demean the voters that have participated in the nomination process and that have yet to participate. 

It also exposes Bernie’s capacity for making himself the issue, not the voters nor his policies. 

+Wonderful World
Although it is true that there was supposed to be a 10th debate between Hillary and Bernie ahead of the California primary, these extra debates were negotiated and added prior to it becoming mathematically impossible for Bernie to secure the nomination for the Democratic Party. 

There was little to gain from her debating Bernie Sanders except further alienating his voters by responding to his attacks, attacks which have become more disingenuous and extreme in recent months. His claims have, in my opinion, have created more disunity, divisiveness, and distrust within younger voters and other segments of his support. That isn’t a welcome energy to foster in our democracy.

That being said, it may have been necessary to have taken the fight to him more throughout this entire race. Anyone can second guess decisions, though, in retrospect. 
+Wonderful World

Considering that the media haven’t done an adequate job with respect for vetting Bernie Sanders, at least in my estimation, she could have offered a more striking difference between their two approaches to governance and creating policy. 

The basic difference is that Bernie’s campaign has become about him and less about the issues central to his campaign’s origins. Hillary has stayed consistent with her pragmatic vision for not over-promising policies that she couldn’t conceivably pass through a divided or narrowly Democratic Congress. Bernie focuses on grand ideas based on what people should want.

This latest effort to create a ‘messy’ convention and to promote stunts over substance won’t amount to much in the end. However, it demeans the process of nominating a candidate and potentially weakens the movement Bernie currently spearheads. That movement is important and deserves and needs to be heard. Any means necessary is not the methods to be using if you really believe in the policies and issues on which he began his campaign. 

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Don't Worry about Bernie and the Convention

I'm not worried about Bernie. The media wants you to be worried because of a few reasons.

A) they missed out on their contested republican convention

B) it's good for ratings in the remaining contests

C) they need to increase ratings for the democratic national convention, as the republican national convention is going to be high

D) weakening Hillary now makes for a more interesting general election contest and will help keep viewers throughout the summer when viewership usually drops off for MSM.

Bernie and his loudest supporters are simply reveling in this IG audit report and in the idea of making a spectacle of themselves at the convention. These are the minority of voters.
+Wonderful World

No one should get all caught up in their fever or infection, whatever it is. The public isn't even paying much attention to it, for one. For another, if Hillary Clinton got out there and capitalized on this by answering questions and promoting her forward-leaning, progressive, optimistic platform for America everywhere she can, she'll turn this disadvantage into an advantage.

Let the hysterical people have their moment. It is a free country and they can make their own movement meaningless by their behavior all on their own. Holding them accountable is crucial, but being afraid of them being foolish and behaving badly . . . That's not something to be afraid of nor is it something we can control. Nor should we even try.

+Wonderful World
 I've tried to find common ground with people every step of the way. It's just not possible at some moments while some events are transpiring, like a nomination to become the candidate for a major political party. 

That's okay. We have to learn to appreciate that some people won't ever accept Hillary Clinton no matter how much factual, logical, or reasoned arguments and statements we make. That's okay too. That's their right.

That doesn't mean that there won't be a massive movement that will elect Hillary Clinton as the first female President of the United States come November. You can bet I'm going to do everything I can to reach out to everyone everywhere to make that a reality.

This very loud minority of Bernie or Bust people may just be left behind. 

The Email Server Audit Report: What You Need to Know

What you need to know about the State Department Inspector General’s Audit of Secretary of State’s use of an email server. 

First, the conclusions of the audit report are crucial to examine. It’s on page 42 of the actual report, (which is on 45 of this PDF link).

“Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.”
+Wonderful World

These technological issues with electronic record-keeping originate back to the late 1990s. 

These are systemic weaknesses that have existed and continue to be addressed. This audit report’s recommendations is the latest iteration of addressing these issues and concerns.

Secretary Clinton is in no way singled out by this audit report. In fact, her behavior is in line with previous Secretaries of State. 

Second, the way that the media and Hillary’s opponents will spin this is of course to catastrophize the findings and make this about her breaking the law.

There is not one shred of evidence within this report that alleges Secretary Clinton broke the law with the use of her email server. 
+Wonderful World

Third, her mistake was in leaving the State Department without submitting written copies of all of her email correspondence before walking out the door. She, in fact, was the only former Secretary of State to submit any of the material to the Inspector General of the State Department, as Hillary had preserved the email server, thus preserving the record.

She has numerous times admitted this was a mistake of convenience. One, anyone can admit by now, has not been convenient in any way. 

Fourth, people will go further to say that despite her submitting 55,000+ emails to the State Department, that she destroyed the rest of her personal emails that were on the server. They state this because it makes FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests difficult.

That actually doesn’t conform with the facts, as it’s been reported that the FBI has recovered all of the emails on the email server.

  • So, Hillary Clinton did not break any laws, but she broke the rule of not submitting the 55,000 emails before she left the Office of the Secretary of State. 
  • She’s not the only Secretary of the State to have used private emails, but she is the only one to have preserved that record and submit that record to both the State Department and the FBI.
  • There has been systemic issues with compliance involving email correspondence, specifically involving senior leadership throughout government. 
  • The government has been evolving its response to technology since 1997. This report’s recommendations will bring the State Department closer to rectifying these issues and concerns.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

The Sensible Approach to Increasing Wages: The Discussion We Should Have

There is a very crucial discussion and dialogue that the American people must have this election cycle. 

‘What is the role of government and what is the role of business in wage growth and services?’

The American people are deeply distrusting of government these days. However, they are also deeply distrustful of business as well. The government, however, is a much more seemingly tangible and constant companion that we all can point to with such entities as the President, Congress, or either or both of the major political parties.

It’s easy for some to pile on the blame on big business. It becomes even more easy to believe because of all the hype in this election cycle regarding the billionaire class coupled with Citizens United. The reality is much more complex. Certainly, it would be far simpler if employers paid their employees more equitably. However, that’s not happened. Some focus on big business as the villain has been welcome this election cycle.

Meanwhile, some despise welfare programs because of waste. Others want to protect these programs because of the real needs of real people throughout the country. It's because of real mismanagement that most of these programs don't work efficiently or effectively. There needs to be real reform and a real metamorphosis of the concept of the administration of these programs and services.

Big business happens to have little to nothing to do with how welfare and other government service programs are constructed, administered, funded, and managed. However, because we all encounter government in one form or another, it is this threat that seems the more imminent for most.

These welfare and other government service programs do on their face add to the deficits. However, they do quantifiably boost the economy across the country as well. 
+Wonderful World

What stands in the way of reforming them are simplistic messaging by politicians of both parties and a lack of courage to correct the unintended consequences of those reforms, i.e., fixing the ObamaCare, eliminating waste in defense, and addressing the tax code.

Big business does have a lot to do with our ridiculous tax code. 

We should gut the code and reinvent it the way it was intended . . . to incentivize better behavior to increase wages for workers. 

The reality of reform and the problems we face is much more difficult to conceptualize and put into action. There are many fears and anxieties that change presents. Inflation, job losses, losing elections: these are all potential consequences of actually trying to solve our nation’s problems.

And, real inflation hasn't been an ongoing threat for years in America. During the first term of President Obama it was because of the Great Recession that we had little to no inflation. It was due to dramatically lower energy prices during his second term. 
+Wonderful World

The Dollar is in the best shape since the mid 90s. That's definitive progress, but still not good enough for most American households. And, having dramatic change in the value of the dollar would be destabilizing. Considering the sustained level of job growth under the Obama economy coupled with the lack of inflation, it seems we're on course for a non-wage growth economy.

This is the big drag on the economy, wages and purchasing power. 

So, how do we increase wages without increasing inflation too much, without too many job losses, and without creating too many untoward consequences?

The only arm government has to attack wages and purchasing power of the American people is through the tax code and artificially by increasing minimum wage, services, and welfare. I’ve already discussed that the services and welfare side of the equation are broken and in need of serious reform in management and administration. 
+Wonderful World

As the business community simply isn't raising wages on their own, the government has to reassert its authority over the tax code and reacquire it's efficient use of services and welfare to better position the American people's purchasing power, which is the driving force of the economy. Consumers actually account for about 70% of the American economy. That’s where American policy should therefore be focused.

The way you increase wages is through the tax code. Simplify it. Then incentivize companies by giving tax breaks to companies that have better ratios between lowest and highest paid employees as well as those companies that introduce profit sharing.  

Some people are very concerned when you talk about increasing wages. 

Why should we even try to increase wages?

The reason to increase wages is due to profits increasing and wages increasing dramatically for the top 10%, and at an extremely high rate, compared to the other 90% of workers. That is why the American economy has stalled out where it has roughly been since the 80s, with both booms and busts.
+Wonderful World

Currently, the American worker is getting by, not able to fuel local economies, i.e., small businesses. The wealthy are hoarding their profits and not reinvesting that back into the local economies or their employees.

Also, we’ve not raised wages in America in three decades. The system of laissez faire has failed, and terribly. The GOP talking point of ‘tax cuts only’ simply doesn't work. This laissez faire economics has failed American workers often in the past. In fact, it was these policies and other massive deregulation efforts that led to the Great Depression.

So, let's try the other alternatives and increase wages through a variety of methods. Because guess what, the American people do drive the American economy. They do deserve to be equitably compensated for their hard work.

Also, some people may believe raising wages is somehow introducing new money into the market; that’s a false belief.  These wages are coming directly from the wealth and profits created from the hard work of Americans. 

By using the tax code to both incentivize employers to have a better wage distribution from lowest to highest paid employees and executives AND to introduce profit sharing, you create a system that increases productivity, and that makes employees part of the business model that benefits their employers and themselves simultaneously.
+Wonderful World
If wages do increase, demand for goods will increase, and therefore, prices will increase. Okay. Some people use that as an argument to maintain the status quo. There is a fatal flaw to this argument . . . executives and the wealthy continue to have had very real and substantial wage and wealth gains over the last three decades while prices have increased. Meanwhile, wages remained stagnant for workers while productivity increased steadily.
+Wonderful World

And, if demand increases, demand for jobs increases. 

We’ve tried the approach of tax cuts for decades. They balloon deficits and debt. They collapse the economy. And, then, we forget these lessons quickly.

We must follow through and push through tax reforms that give us wage reforms. That will finally give Americans the economy they deserve. Small businesses will have renewed customers. Governments will have renewed revenues. And, we must couple all of this with a fundamental rethinking of the welfare and service sector of government. 

Monday, May 23, 2016

The Flawed Nominating Process; Giving Sanders a Break

I think we should all consider how terribly difficult this process actually is and has been for both Bernie Sanders and all of his most passionate and ardent supporters. It is absolutely true that the nomination process is deeply flawed, complex, and with too many layers between voters and the end results. This has made it easy for the loudest voices, especially on social media, to further disenfranchise voters who have participated in this year's primaries and caucuses.

In 2008, it was even more so, with Michigan's voters being completely disenfranchised from the nominating process as well as Florida's delegates being stripped prior to the convention. All of this created further distrust, animosity, and division within the Democratic Party and with all those who participated. Of course, not much changed since 2008, so, once again, we're left with the losing candidate and his supporters making claims, some of them true, to support other claims that are not.

I remember back in 2008 fighting for every vote in Indiana for Hillary, her winning most of the late contests, her actually being much closer in pledged delegates and the popular vote than Bernie Sanders is today, and it being incredibly difficult for myself and many others to transition from supporting her campaign for the nomination and getting behind the eventual nominee, Barack Obama.

Of course, I didn't behave as many of Sanders supporters have this election cycle, and Hillary didn't go out there purporting a narrative about her pathways to the nomination that mislead her supporters. She simply didn't win those contests by wide enough margins to close the pledged delegate gap. That isn't to say that there weren't many loud Hillary supporters in 2008 that voiced that they would never vote for Barack Obama. Most of us ended up supporting candidate Barack Obama. The evidence of that was in how Obama was the first Democratic candidate to win Indiana since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
+Amazing World

That being said, I will continue to post what I feel are relevant, reasoned, fact-based, and above all substantive analysis and opinions regarding the Sanders campaign as long as he and those most avid supporters continue to attack the nominee of the Democratic Party in what I feel are disingenuous, false, and highly misleading ways.

I also remember how deeply troubled I was back in 2004 after the general election loss of John Kerry to the incumbent President George W Bush. I thought our country nor the world could survive another four years of his presidency. I was as wrong then as the most vicious Clinton critics within Sanders supporters are today.

I came to see President Bush as a human being, albeit deeply flawed, deserving of compassion, patience, but absolutely needing of both understanding and support. That does not mean he didn't deserve criticism. The people that take on these roles and responsibilities do so to strive and make a positive difference for us all, no matter how much we may disagree with them. No matter how much they may fail at leaving a positive mark on our country or on the world. We often don't know until decades later what the real results are.
+Amazing World

We do all have choices. Sometimes, those choices aren't the ones we want to have, but within a democracy we are rarely given perfect choices because no one is perfect.

When we tear each other down without consideration for our common humanity and common struggles, we do ourselves and the country an enormous disservice. We could all do better with our discourse. We could all do better within our own communities.

That's what I strive to do in both words and deeds.

We do need to reform the process for nominating candidates for President within both major parties. That doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton hasn't won the nomination to become the Democratic candidate for President, and by millions more votes and hundreds of pledged delegates.

We can all choose what we support moving forward. Of course, that's your choice. Staying engaged, staying involved, and holding whomever is elected accountable . . . that's a far more important choice.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

The Process, the Blame Game, and the Sanders Campaign

Finally, we're nearing the end of the primary season. It appears that life in the Democratic Party has become more difficult. That is normal given the stakes. It's important to analyze the messaging of both campaigns, especially the rhetoric that is divisive and potentially damaging to the process.

Bernie Sanders has made many claims about the process being rigged against his campaign, being rigged against his supporters, and even allegations of violence and proven acts of intimidation have begun percolating across the country aimed at state party and other elected officials. Now, more than ever, it's crucial to discover what has happened and why. 

Proportional allocation of pledged delegates in every state is only done in the Democratic Party's primaries and caucuses. Not only does the Democratic Party award at large state delegates this way, but they also award delegates by district as well. 

The Democratic Party, therefore, awards participation in the process. 

It's his campaign's responsibility to understand the primary process and to win the nomination through that process. 

The problem with Sanders campaign strategy is that they relied on expensive rallies and not on connecting to more people on the issues that matter to them where they live. Sanders said this himself after his NY primary loss. However, he didn't change how he campaigned. 
Each state's democratic party chooses if they have an open primary or a closed primary. And, I do understand how that is frustrating for independent voters, but it protects the party from bad actors. In most of the states that do have a closed primary or caucus process, it's because the other party has chosen to do so. However, there are a few states that have hybridized primaries, meaning one party is different from the other, like California where independents can vote in the Democratic primary.

The evidence of bad actors being present in the process was in West Virginia, an open primary where Bernie won. However, only 64% of his voters said they would vote for him in November. That is compared to 82% of Clinton voters saying they would vote for her in November.

The fact that Sanders has won many closed primaries and caucuses is proof that closed election systems are not always rigged against him. 

His problem has been broadening his appeal among Democratic voters. He obviously has courted millennials quite successfully. However, he's not broadened his support. He's not changed his message.

That's his campaign's inherent problem, a lack of depth in his message in order to reach the majority of Democratic and independent voters.

His claims of bringing in lots of new people into the process just didn't coalesce into real numbers at the ballot box. 

His big rallies are impressive and have the appearance as if he's achieved this. This just hasn't turned into the hard numbers that matter . . . enough votes on election days to win enough pledged delegates to win and compete for the nomination.

Sure, everyone cried foul when the number of debates were announced. Guess what, more debates and more candidate forums were inked and broadcast. 

So, when does Sanders have enough rope given to him that he'd be satisfied with the process? 

His campaign stole campaign data from the Clinton campaign. He got away with that. 
His campaign broke the actual campaign finance laws we do have every month this year. He continues to get away with that while leveling daily accusations at the Clinton campaign for abiding by those campaign finance laws.

He's not released his tax returns. He continues to be given a pass on a lack of transparency while asking much more from his opponent.

What Sanders has been perpetrating at this point is a fraud. That somehow it's the majority of voters' fault, those that have voted for Hillary Clinton over him, that he's not the nominee. That somehow it's the process to blame, the same rules that were in place over a year ago, that he's not the nominee.

Instead of owning his campaign's failures, he's blaming the voters and the process. And, he's made the establishment the enemy as part of his theme throughout his campaign. He's never bothered to prove any of it. 
+Wonderful World

The establishment . . . What is it? He says not him. They're the problem, too. 

A progressive . . . What is it? He’s the only one in the race, he claims.

Bernie also often mentions the polls that show him beating Trump by larger margins then Hillary does. But, these same polls show that more Americans would be concerned with Bernie as President. What is their support about? What could their concern be about? 

It's possibly because people don't know Bernie Sanders. They do know Hillary and they do know Trump. They hate Trump and they're not particularly fond of Hillary. So, some people who don’t follow politics and government would favor a relatively unknown person over the other two. That's why head-to-head match-ups today, while the primary is still ongoing, are fairly irrelevant and hypothetical. 
+Wonderful World

For example, Michael Dukakis was way up in the polls at this time during in 1988. And, we all know what happened to Dukakis. In fact, in May of 1988, Dukakis had a 54% to 38% lead over then Vice President George HW Bush. Dukakis led HW Bush all the way through August. 

Bernie also has a leadership problem. Instead of vocalizing his condemnation of the demeanor of his supporters, he has someone in his campaign send out a press release about it where the condemnation is buried at the end of the press release.

That is not a leader. That is someone that doesn't care what he has to do to further his own personal political ambitions.

+Wonderful World
I sincerely believe Bernie Sanders is a dangerous voice that doesn't inspire respect and decency when it comes to doing the difficult work of reforming our broken government, broken economic system, and making both work better for the American people. He weaves a message of open hostility to Wall Street, big business, and public officials. He does this not to better the system but to break it.

We need leaders who will unite this country, not destroy those who stand in their way. That's what Bernie has represented ever since it became apparent that he could not win the nomination. What once was a campaign based on the issues and of diagnosing the nation’s problems became an angry movement about blaming others for their own failings and failures. 

We can work together to move forward. We shouldn't do it at the expense of common decency and mutual respect. Somewhere, Bernie lost respect. I'm not sure why. I

I do know, at least for me, it’s been a painful journey of disillusionment.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

The Management Problem; The Tangible Solutions

What I've found is that some management don't bother to train or manage. They just expect their employees to 'get it' immediately, throw attitude and disrespect toward those employees that don't, and allow those employees that are not consistent to run counter-narratives to the employees that do work both hard and particularly work smart.

I was always blessed that early on in my life I managed myself, then I had great trainers that taught me what really mattered. When I trained people, I didn't give up on them, and I continued to try and teach them how to better think about everything they were doing.

Believe it or not, some of those people after much effort and consistency on my end, even after training was over, came back to me and thanked me for bothering to care about them, because management certainly did not.

Some owners and management have a great deal of disrespect for employees. That is just the truth. You have to work at training. You have to invest in your employees, with both money, time, and consideration.

If the employer or manager believes it's all about themselves, the employee is likely to believe the same. People model behavior. 

For whatever reason, the workforce is distracted and less able to aggregate new information and experiences. Yes, they have cell phones, social media, and busy, probably difficult lives. As an owner, you have to manage this workforce and the state in which these employees are hired.

Create rules and regulations that are reasonable for running your business that also give managers flexibility as these employees learn how to renegotiate their behavior. Communicating why rules and regulations are what they are is sometimes more important than having the rules and regulations. However, it's the consistent application of these rules and regulations that over time trains the employees.
Consistency matters. Modeling behavior matters more. Consistently modeling behavior matters most.

Regardless of the parents being to blame or not, they're adults now. It's the community's responsibility to pick up the slack. That's why we have public schools with local control via school boards, local government, and the federal government teaching the classes. 

I'm a bit tired of hearing everyone blame others for not doing something about the situation. It's this attitude of blaming others while not doing anything tangible about fixing these issues we face that is the underlying problem.

Most parents these days don't have the skills or training to adequately run their own lives let alone raise kids to do the same. It takes a village.

Everyone wants to blame someone else for why today's new adults aren't work-ready. Well, most people don't go into the schools and try and do something about it. Most people aren't working with these adults to try and bridge the gaps today. They're just piling on the judgement and division that led them to be the incapable, maladjusted adults they are today.

Teach them what they need to know. Train them what they need to do. Model the behavior they need.

Tough love doesn't teach or train any workers how to work better, smarter, or harder. It doesn't give them new skills or new capabilities they had not learned before. It might, however, make someone feel better about feeling bad about them.

Bad parenting comes from a broken America. We're all to blame for these outcomes. It's up to all of us to do something about it. 

It doesn't miraculously change by judging them. It does change by actually bothering to better teach and better train them.

How have I helped change this situation for the better instead of just bitching and complaining about it, you mean.

I've taught in schools. I've taught in community churches. I've done outreach programs in poverty-stricken inner city neighborhoods. 

I trained employees of every educational background. I didn't judge any of them. I did my job by modeling the behavior that i wanted them to have. 
+Amazing World

I've tutored students with emotional and developmental issues that struggle to learn in an overburdened public school system. I've not given up on them or judged any of them. 

I put verbs in my sentences and I actually do something about the situations I see my communities and my country going through.

What have you done lately? What verbs have you put in your sentences? What actions have you done to better other people's children?

Those are the questions we all need to answer every day. If we all did something about these collective problems we face as a country, these problems would be receding and our lives would be improving as a whole.

We can still do this. I've not given up on America, the Dream, nor on the people of this nation. Neither should any of us. 

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Bernie Wins Indiana, Loses Revolution Narrative, Eyes CA

Bernie actually gained just a few more delegates than Hillary Clinton did from the Indiana primary. At current estimates, he actually was awarded 43 and Hillary only 37 pledged delegates. Three pledged delegates left to be awarded. 

Bernie closed the pledged delegate gap by 6 to 9 delegates; nearly 300 more to catchup to Hillary. He actually needed to win by 80% to make a substantive difference. However, he's actually going to win or at least be competitive in a number of upcoming primaries. 

If you compare the 2016 Indiana primary to the hotly contested race from 2008, less than half of the voters showed up to vote this year on the Democrat ballot. This revolution of Bernie's simply doesn't seem to exist. Hillary also didn't spend any money in Indiana.

In 2008, Hillary won a very close race in Indiana, receiving 646,235 votes to then candidate Barack Obama's 632,061. Of course, Obama opened up campaign offices there in February, long before the primary was even on the radar, closely followed by Clinton. Both candidates ended up visiting the state numerous times. This was very different than the strategy Bernie used this primary cycle. 

In the upcoming contests as this primary season heads to a close, KY and WV are fairly good states for Bernie. Oregon is more challenging demographically, but it'll likely be close. And, Montana and South Dakota are probably good states for him as well. California is a huge state with lots of delegates that shouldn't be discounted.

I'm not saying he has any chance, but, he has the capacity to go on a spree in May leading to CA in June. Discounting that reality has kept Hillary's voters on the sidelines. Hillary and Bernie voters in the remaining states need to participate in this process and vote. 

I tell people all the time not to count on the polls or count on others to vot
+Amazing World
e sensibly. You have to go and vote, otherwise, your support doesn't mean anything. 

I know personally many people who voted in the GOP primary just because they felt strongly about voting against Trump. However, that doesn't account for half the Democrat voters in Indiana voting in the Republican primary instead of pulling the Democrat ballot. With Senator Cruz dropping out of the race, there might be less of an interest in that race.

However, the California primary has funky rules. If you're a registered Republican, you can only vote in the Republican primary. The Democrat primary is open to any other registered voters. When people feel empowered, they will be more likely to go out and vote. This is crucial for both Bernie and Hillary supporters in the remaining states.