Category Archives: Media

Politics, Media

Is There a Split in the Democratic Party?

1 Comment
Bernie Sanders painted by Donkey Hotey
Bernie Sanders painted by Donkey Hotey

Over 100,000 Bernie Sanders supporters have signed a pledge, saying they won’t vote for Hillary Clinton. The problem in answering the question, “is there a split in the Democratic party,” is that the goal posts on what it means to be a Democrat keep moving.

Those in the establishment act like Sanders is an outsider who doesn’t belong. Take, for example, the rumor that Cenk Uygar reported, that if Clinton were to be indicted, the DNC would not give the nomination to Bernie but would instead “parachute in” Joe Biden to be the nominee. Obviously, this would make many Sanders supporters furious. It suggests that to the Democratic Party’s establishment, Sanders isn’t the second choice; he’s the never-choice. If they picked Biden, the DNC  would rather drive away Bernie’s supporters than have them win.

Though Bernie Sanders has vowed to stay in the Democratic party now for the rest of his life, he would have to live a long time to make up for the 26 years he’s served as an independent in congress. Clinton’s biggest applause lines have been around the accusation that Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat. Maurice Mahoney, the head of the Burlington Democratic Party in the ’80s, claimed Bernie’s goal at the time “was to destroy Democrats.” Sanders himself has accused the Democratic Party of being “ideologically bankrupt,” and (prior to this election) has claimed that he’s never been a Democrat.

 

So there’s a clear message being sent that, despite their words to the contrary, the Democratic party doesn’t feel like Bernie Sanders is a Democrat at all.

The Democrats Need Those Sanders Votes

42% of Americans have no party preference, that’s compared to only 29% who are registered Democrat, 26% registered Republican. That means that no single party can win the election. It’s generally agreed that Sanders supporters are more likely to be independent voters than are Clinton supporters. Sanders pulls in voters who would otherwise vote for the Green Party, Peace and Freedom Party, or even Libertarian. This may be why he continues to beat Trump in nationwide polls, while Clinton’s numbers are flagging.

Whether or not those voters see themselves as Democrats, depends, in part, on what the Democratic party stands for. Independents aren’t fools, they understand a vote for a third party can’t have the same impact as the vote for one of the two major parties. These 42% of Americans don’t feel they owe their votes to Clinton (or Trump…not all of them will be progressive), because they already feel alienated enough from the establishment to register for a third party/no party.

Before Bernie Sanders entered the race, many of these people weren’t planning to vote Democrat at all. If his entry into the race brought in a bunch of new Democrats, the party’s reaction to this should be to welcome them with open arms. If they can’t do that, fine, they acknowledge that those votes were never the Democrats to claim in the first place. You really can’t have it both ways.

The recent events in Nevada only accentuate this. Why should the local Nevada Democratic party seek to disenfranchise or exclude Sanders supporters, if they see him as part of the Democratic party? Clinton supporters say bully to the Sanders delegates, that if the Nevada Democratic Party played the rules to exclude them, then it’s just too bad the Sanders supporters aren’t better at political gamesmanship. But there’s no reason that the Nevada establishment should be choosing sides in the first place, if Sanders delegates are indeed part of the democratic party. Rather, they act like they are fighting for their life, from an attack from within their own party.

This and so much more suggests that, at least to the establishment of the Democratic party, Berniecrats are not Democrats. One might say that Bernie’s calls for a revolution describe exactly this ambition to take over the party from the more progressive left, as the tea party did with the right.

What Is a Democrat?

However, if Bernie supporters aren’t welcome in the Democratic Party, where does that leave them?

The problem is that we have a two-party system. What makes it a two-party system isn’t the number of parties we have, but the way the candidates are chosen. There are more than thirty political parties to choose from in the United States. But those parties can’t gain a foothold, because the candidate with the majority takes everything. In contrast, societies with parliamentary systems award power by percentage. For example, if the libertarian party wins 30% of the vote, in parliamentary democracy the libertarians then would make up 30% of the congress. Whereas in the US, it’s winner-takes-all, no seats for second place. In order for a third party to have an impact, it would have to be the #1 overall overall winner, toppling both of the main parties…but if that were to happen (which it has, exactly once in American history) the third party would most likely take over the power of the losing party, rather than opening our democracy up to a third party system.

Therefore, if Bernie supporters are too progressive or too socialist for the Democratic party, that leaves them with no representation at all. They can join with the Democrats, or they can send a “message vote” that at best can only impact the election indirectly by pulling the main parties further to the fringe.

Because third party candidates are not likely to win, a vote for anything other than a Republican or a Democrat is seen as a “throwaway vote.” And if enough people “throw away” their votes on a more progressive spoiler candidate, the Democrats don’t get enough votes, and the GOP wins (or vice-versa).

If you’re an American, it’s *likely you already understand this. There’s a good chance you yourself have discouraged a voter from voting third party, because it will waste their vote, and if Trump wins it be “their fault.” You might have mentioned Ralph Nader.

Because the Democrats are further left than the Republicans, any progressive who wants their votes to count would have to vote Democrat. By this logic, if you believe that people should not vote for third parties, you believe that Berniecrats are Democrats by default. Regardless of who you support, there’s a logic here that can’t be denied. But there’s a problem too: it’s a paradox.

The Great Paradox of the Democratic Primary

The problem for Bernie Sanders supporters is that the Democratic party is giving them the sense that they don’t belong in its fold, while in the same breath telling them they have to vote for Clinton. Barbara Boxer gave a speech at the recent Nevada primary, where she chastised Sanders delegates about party unity, while they were protesting discrimination by party officials. If the Democratic party wants to bring Sanders voters into the fold, why were six times as many Sanders delegates as Clinton delegates excluded from the primary for irregularities on their applications? Why were voice votes used to railroad through decisions that were favorable to Clinton? Why were the lights turned off and the music turned up, to drown out the complaints of Sanders delegates? Why are there reports from Clinton delegates that Sanders supporters were treated unfairly, and that the county chair was telling officials that they had the authority to throw away delegate applications…and that most of the ones trashed were for Sanders delegates? If this is a united party that is not trying to push through a Clinton win, why would they behave this way? No wonder the Sanders supporters were angry. Barbara Boxer claimed in her speeches, “if you’re booing me, you’re booing Bernie Sanders,” because we’re all just one big happy Democratic party. But just hours later Boxer claimed that she “feared for her life” because the Sanders delegates were yelling, even though there’s video of Boxer blowing kisses to the crowd as she walked from the stage.  If Boxer really cared about party unity, why is she lying and fear-mongering to make his followers look bad? All the while the media runs a smear campaign of violence from Sanders delegates, when you can watch the entire thing on video and see not a single chair was thrown. The message: hurry up and unite around the party that is obviously doing everything it can to exclude you.

I’m starting to get pissed at HRC supporters claiming Sanders supporters “have to” support the Democratic nominee or it’s “their fault” if the GOP wins the White House. It’s irksome because it seems these same voters will argue that we shouldn’t support Sanders because his ideas are too grand or go too far… Fine then, if what I want is big, grand ideas, and the Democratic party can’t deliver them, they’re basically saying the Democratic party is not and won’t ever be our party. So why are we obligated to support them?

They can’t have it both ways. Don’t tell me I’m obligated to vote for a party if in the same breath you laugh at the notion of Democrats getting behind Bernie’s platform. And don’t claim Sanders and his supporters are really independents if you feel they owe their votes to Democrats.

*likely, but I’ve seen some voters who still don’t understand this, so I think it bears explaining.

All, Politics, Tech, Media

Four Net Neutrality Fact Fails on Real Time With Bill Maher…In Under One Minute

1 Comment

There’s still a lot of confusion about net neutrality and why it matters. And no wonder people are confused, even the media often gets it wrong. Take for example this recent statement from Real Time With Bill Maher.

There’s a big misunderstanding about what net neutrality actually is. What’s happening is you have certain companies like Hulu and Amazon, they’re streaming videos, and that actually takes up a lot of bandwidth. And so what they’re trying to do is make it such that those people pay more. Why should they pay as much as the woman on Etsy selling hair bows?

The point of regulation is not to be neutral. It’s to protect the little guy.  It’s to create competition. Where we don’t have competition right now is with broadband providers. There’s very few of them. We need to have more competition in this space so that all of this flow continues to flow. I actually think a lot of politicians don’t really understand the issue. People making the rules really need to be under 32 to get this right.

Monica Mehta on Real Time with Bill Maher, proving she is over the age of 32

Bill Maher goes on to verify he too has no idea how the Internet works with two simple words, “good point.”

Nope, noppity nope. Mehta’s heart may be in the right place, but her facts are painfully wrong. You can listen to Monica Mehta’s quote on net neutrality here, it begins at 47:30 and goes on for a minute…one little minute, and yet this statement is riddled with problems.

Now to unravel all the ways she got it wrong, so you don’t make the same mistake.

1. Mehta is Confusing a Web Host With an Internet Service Provider (ISP)

a comic about net neutrality
Net Neutrality is about free speech of humans over the “free speech” of corporate dollars.                [comic via Oddysseus9]

Big companies do pay more for streaming video. They pay that money to their web hosts, which provides the computers where their websites live. Granted, a big company like Netflix probably owns their own servers, but they are definitely paying a lot more for bandwidth than some seller on Etsy.

(Further showing her lack of clarity on this, the gal on Etsy pays $0 to a web host—instead she pays Etsy to use their site and then Etsy pays a web host, but that’s nitpicking and besides the larger point.)

Every person who visits a web page is downloading data from the web host, so the more visitors a site has, the more they will have to pay in bandwidth fees. These transactions are between the company and the web host, they have nothing to do with the Internet Service Provider (e.g. Comcast).

Comcast is not hosting the sites for these big companies, they simply provide the pipe that sends it into your laptop and living room. They are a middle man, and in the tradition of middle men everywhere, they now want to charge extra fees. Net neutrality is about not allowing them to do that.

2. Those Opposed to Net Neutrality Aren’t Advocating Government Regulation

see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil monkeys
LA LA LA LA LA…I’M SURE COMCAST WILL DO A FINE JOB REGULATING THE INTERNET                                                                                                 [image via Wikimedia]
This isn’t “government regulation” any more than it is when we cover our eyes and allow factory farms to self-regulate. So when she says “the point of regulation is not to be neutral” she is further confusing matters. Comcast is not a regulator. They are a business, looking to profit.

In this particular case, they want to charge Netflix more because Netflix competes with them as a cable provider. It would be like Barnes & Noble marking up the price on all copies of The Idiot’s Guide to Amazon.com. That’s all fine and dandy until Barnes and Noble is the only bookstore in town, which is the case for most Internet Service Providers.

Which leads us to… Continue reading Four Net Neutrality Fact Fails on Real Time With Bill Maher…In Under One Minute →

Culture, Gotta Hear This Music, Politics, Racism, Media

Basic Bitches, Hate Labels and an Amazing Kreayshawn Remix

image of Kreayshawn from her Tumblog
Not a Basic Bitch

I’ve been listening to a lot of podcasts lately, among them Slate’s Double X Gabfest. In a recent podcast they discussed the concept of the “basic bitch.” Immediately I thought of Kreayshawn’s 2011 hit, “Gucci Gucci” which proclaims “Gucci Gucci Fendi Vendi Prada: basic bitches wear that shit so I don’t even bother.” At one point in the show one of the hosts declared she wanted a remix of that song, and I am here to supply. How can I resist when Party Ben’s remix is so damn good?

The hosts discussed basic bitches as compared to hipsters. They seem to me to be perfect binary opposites. Both groups are lashing out at the presumptions they expect from their counterpart. The basic bitch thinks the hipster is uppity for not following social conventions (I gave a perfect example of this in my first article on hipsters, sourced from Urban Dictionary’s hipster definition). While the hipster thinks the basic bitch is just the sort of girl who made fun of him/her in school for not wearing the right clothes or participating in sports.

If you’ll allow me to further digress, I was having a tangential conversation last night with a Puerto Rican woman I’d just met. We were drunkenly discussing Florida racial politics (a favorite pastime of mine) in particular the ongoing hatred between Cubans and Puerto Ricans.

She felt that Cubans were the ones keeping this going, always accusing Puerto Ricans of selling out, for not revolting against the Yankee oppressor. This parallax view fascinated me. As one raised amongst Cubans, the narrative was similar, but different. My upbringing taught me it was the Puerto Ricans who started it all, with their big flag necklaces and upper-middle-class pride. True, Cubans were proud of their revolutionary status, but the hatred was coming from the Puerto Ricans. They were the ones bragging about their status, thinking the Cubans were lesser, for both their poverty and their questionable legal status.

Now there’s a lot to this conversation, (and much of it that most people wouldn’t be willing to discuss or admit even sober), but the part that is germane here is that in both cases the prejudice towards the other group stemmed from some underlying insecurity. If that Puerto Rican in fifth grade hadn’t gone basic bitch on me for accidentally referring to her as Cuban, I’d not have had prejudices against Puerto Ricans and their pride flags. The prejudice was born out of my own insecurities. And if hipsters weren’t so frequently taunted and bullied as kids, maybe they wouldn’t be so eager to brag about their current elite taste in coffee, music and thrift shopping.

It’s so easy to see one side of that coin, from whatever side a person happens to identify with most closely. What is fascinating to me is that there’s insecurity coming from both sides. That the basic bitches and the Puerto Ricans were hating from a place of insecurity too. It reminds me that deep down there are no bad people, just terribly broken people in search of healing. And that all gets back to the opening of the Gabest episode, where they discuss the gender confidence gap. Nice when things come full circle, isn’t it (discuss!)?

I promise this remix is better than the one used in the closing credits of the Gabfest…though that one was satisfying too.

Kreayshawn – Gucci Gucci (Party Ben’s Bringing Back Fidget remix)

OK I really only meant to start this post as an excuse to share this Kreayshawn remix. This junk will really get you dancing. Seriously one of my favorite remixes of the decade, though Kreayshawn won’t inspire the Oakland hipsters like she used to. And for your patience during my rant, I’ll throw in this cover by suspected-hipster never-to-be-a-basic-bitch Neon Hitch. Neon Hitch drops the “basic bitch” from her version, take from that what you will.

Neon Hitch – Gucci Gucci (Kreayshawn Cover) (2:40)

If you like this cover, it’s in my Best Electro of 2011 list. There may be more there to your tastes.

PS, the women of the Double X Gabfest claimed Kreayshawn is now a “mommy blogger.” As a media professional well-acquainted with mommy bloggers, I’m going to challenge that. Having just visited her Tumblr, I’d say that Kreayshawn is not at all a mommy blogger, but simply a public figure how happens to be a mom and have a blog. A distinction a group of feminists should surely acknowledge!

Books, Writing, Publishing, Culture, Writers, Media

Hipster Hating Lives On

I love the latest article in The Awl, “I Am An Object Of Internet Ridicule, Ask Me Anything“. It’s about a typewriter busker who ended up getting labeled as a hipster in an Internet meme. For one thing, I dig typewriter buskers.

the photo of the typewriter busker who got hated on for being a hipster
If only people were as upset about NSA surveillance as they were about this picture.

More importantly, as my regular readers may recall, I’ve written two articles about hipster hating, which were republished in a Kansas City entertainment weekly.

It’s this weird quirk of mine that I’m opposed to threats of violence against strangers, simply because of their fashion, beer and bicycle choices, no matter how strange those choices may be. The post in The Awl chronicles what it’s like to be on the receiving end of such threats, and reminds us that people doing weird things (like God-effing-forbid, taking a typewriter out in public) often do them for perfectly understandable reasons. Personally, I take an even more radical position that I don’t think people should be bullied for weirdness, even if there’s absolutely no rationale for their fashion crimes. If only the people posting their hatred of hipsters could devote that passion to fighting climate change or fixing the economy. But no, those are not issues they feel affect them personally, not in the way a guy with clunky glasses, shorts, and a typewriter does. I mean, WHO GAVE THAT GUY THE RIGHT TO SIT IN A PARK WITH A TYPEWRITER?

Before you call the lynch mob though, I ask that you please read the articles I’ve posted on this. Maybe some reason can be talked into you hipster haters before your pitchfork and torches army burns down the whole village.

Hipster Hating

Hipster Subculture Ripe for Parody [Time Magazine]

 

Culture, Humor, Politics, Writers, Media, All

Why the Daily Show Keeps Winning Emmys

1 Comment

In a recent segment on The Daily Show Jon Stewart notes the contrast between hackers and potheads whom the DOJ targets and the big banks that continue to be prosecution proof. He leads into this with a segment that compares the Obama administration’s words to their action in their commitment to freedom of the press.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Priorities USA
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

 

The LULz just keeping coming over a juxtaposition of news clips that no other news source would put together. You get news stories about: the prosecution of state-run marijuana shops, a man who faces twenty-five years for hacking a Taylor Swift article, and otherwise boring C-Span clips of the coverage of the DOJ’s attempts to find a bank they can prosecute. This isn’t news, it’s political commentary with jokes. What distinguishes political commentary from news is that it goes beyond stating facts, it combines facts to suggest new ideas.

The Daily Show on Hackers, Potheads, and Banks (not) “Too Big to Jail”

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Priorities USA – Too Big to Jail
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Thirty years ago, Jon Stewart’s role would have been filled by a columnist, nestled below Doonsebury on the back of the Opinion section. But Jon Stewart doesn’t have to state his facts. With the power of video to show you, rather than tell you, the news-makers hang themselves with their own words.

Most of what he says are jokes; the commentary is in the juxtaposition itself. This is what The Daily Show does best. Where the newspaper columnist of yore would paint a picture with facts and statistics, they make a collage of news clips that, alone, would be the tripe of another news day but together emphasize the hypocrisy, folly, or failure of their target. He doesn’t have to say that the administration’s targeting of journalists and sources goes against their stated values, he can prove it by showing clips of Obama’s words contrasting with his actions. Likewise, by showing a bunch of clips wherein the DOJ passes out prison sentences to hackers and potheads while those who caused the bank crisis go free, he can let the condemnations go unsaid. The video clips say it all, leaving him to make a joke of the irony.

They don’t have to do this. Nothing about The Daily Show requires political analysis. When it began, it was little more than a half-hour competitor to Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update.” If you’re old enough to remember the show Not Necessarily the News you know that jokes can be thrown over a news show without giving analysis too. But it’s often the case that while Jon Stewart is making Jew jokes and funny faces, the clips his team puts together are making astute political arguments that can make you angry and make you laugh at the same time. Any given episode of The Daily Show inspires more pathos than an entire season of The Cosby Show. As it should, because you begin to think, hey I listened to CNN all morning and nothing hit me as hard as that four minute segment on The Daily Show.

Following this is an equally brilliant segment wherein Jason Jones interviews a conservative lobbyist who was a victim of the IRS’s recent political targeting. Then it’s a Physics chat with Morgan Freeman. Here’s the full episode: The Daily Show with Morgan Freeman 5-23-2013.