Look, mostly, I just want the Dem Wars to end.  I’m saying that because this piece might come across as facetious and I don’t mean it that way.  I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out how the DNC might have handled things differently – in a way intended to prevent the problems the left experienced during the primaries.  I figured it out, too.  As it happens, the solution is simple, though I can see how it might have seemed less simple at the time.  Here it is:  Dear DNC, the next time you pre-sale the nomination, say so clearly and publicly…and cancel the primaries.

I know that last bit is likely to evoke howls of protest from party members insisting stubbornly – and often rudely – that there has never been a more fair process in the history of fair processes.  I get it.  Frankly, I’m going to put less stock in the scripts of the Democratic talking heads like Maddow and Hayes or the speculations of the rank and file and MORE stock into the statements of the acting head of the DNC, Donna Brazile so…save it.  I’m going with the notion that Brazile knows more about the inner workings of the DNC than you (or I) know…

The first question that comes to mind when I suggest making an announcement and canceling the primaries is, “Do you know how mad people would be if they just announced the candidate?”  I got stuck on that one for awhile.  But it turns out, the answer is, “Did you notice how angry people were – and still are – after the way it actually played out?”

Look, I can see how it happens.  They sell the nomination.  (Apparently, all legal, I’m told.)  They let the old man with the crazy hair run for appearances.  As soon as people hear about his crazy ideas, the pre-sold candidate seems the obvious choice.  The DNC gets the cash infusion it needs and the preferred candidate ends up on the dais and the rank-and-file are none the wiser.  On paper, it seems simple enough.  But this falls under the category of “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive…”

See, the DNC severely misread the mood of the people.  Most people on both sides of the political divide are unhappy about the direction this country is taking and the “more of the same”, “incremental baby steps” candidate was NOT bringing the message most Americans wanted to hear.  The real problem was that the crazy socialist caught on.  NOW things had to be…adjusted.  The rest, as they say, is history…

So, what if the DNC HAD just announced the candidate?  Obviously, they wouldn’t say the part about the pre-sale.  ‘Poor optics’, it’s called.  (That means it doesn’t look good…)  They’d say, instead, the candidate was swept into the role on a tide of public opinion.  Sure, people would have been angry.  But they would have been angry an entire year earlier.  They would have had an entire year to “get over” the insult of having their “choice” taken away.  The DNC wouldn’t have had to make the “adjustments” that cost them so dearly in their reputation.  They would have avoided the potential legal troubles of fraudulently collecting money for a candidate they had no intention of running.

Most importantly, there would not have been a more appealing candidate for the disenfranchised voters to rally around.  I think it likely that even people who were angry the “choice” had been made for them would have, eventually, come around to the pre-paid nominee.  So, you see?  It actually makes more sense.

The truth is, I don’t even know if they WILL pre-sale any more nominations but knowing corporations the way I do, I’d bet they will, if I had to bet.  So, I hope they’ll at least consider my proposal should another pre-sale occur.  Make an announcement, cancel the primaries.  In the long run, honesty might have made all the difference…

Look, I know I could be wrong but I’ve been having a VERY hard time accepting the idea that these black-clad thugs who show up to start violence at various conservative events are progressives.  The reason is simple: I can’t think of a single way – not one – in which the masked little cowards benefit or advance progressive positions.  In like fashion, I can’t think of a single way – not one – in which the masked little cowards do NOT benefit or advance conservative positions.  It’s the age-old question: who benefits?

For clarity, it’s important to point out that I’m referring to the fringe group known as the “black bloc” and not necessarily to every person out there who claims to be Antifa.  Truthfully, I have no issue with people who stand against Fascism.  MY issue is with those who turn to violence as a first choice…and they just don’t pass the “smell test” for me.  Since the first time I heard of them (through conservatives, by the way) they just haven’t…fit.

So, I admit, I start out a little biased on this one.  Maybe it only LOOKS like they accidentally tipped their hands in a San Francisco rally in August.  Events moved so quickly at the time, it took me awhile to realize but with a little reflection, I noticed something…

After the violence in Charlottesville, the bay area was to be treated to a new rally event called ‘Patriot Prayer’ in which conservatives could get together – ostensibly to talk about conservative things in a non-violent way.  They applied for, and received, a permit from the National Parks Service to hold their rally at Crissy Field.  Fearing a repeat of the Charlottesville scene, San Francisco prepared.  They limited traffic access.  They built a tall, chain-link fence around the area.  They created a single entrance through the fencing and declared that people wouldn’t be allowed to bring in anything that might be used as a weapon, anything that could be used as “armor”, and NO MASKS!  They deployed every cop in the city.

In short, San Francisco created as much of a “safe space” as it might be possible to create, making it difficult to impossible for the “Black Blech” to attack.  In response, the conservatives who organized the event…cancelled it – citing “safety concerns.”  Wait, what?  The City created a very safe space for conservatives to have their little rally, chant their slogans, and all go home safe and sound and the conservatives cancelled their event due to safety concerns?  What, too much safety?

It was a mistake.  I would guess it won’t happen that way again because it provided an accidental glimpse into the workings of these “events.”  See, it looks very much like conservatives realized there was no way for “Antifa” to attack…so they cancelled their own event!  No way for the riot to start, so no need for the rally, right?  That suggests the ROLE of the “Black Blech” is to create sympathy for conservative groups by making them look like victims.

In the meantime, San Francisco has now provided a model to defeat the “Antifa” activists: control access to the event leaving NO open area from which to attack.  Don’t use low, little barricades, use full fencing with only one access point.  Station cops at the gate.  No weapons, no armor, NO MASKS!  You’ll get no “Antifa” and no violence!

I’ll tell you this: I feel more strongly than ever that time is going to show that one or two of the leaders of these obnoxious, black-clad thugs are on some conservative payroll somewhere…

I was reading through a thread in social media the other day.  One of the writers questioned the tactic of using masks when showing up to political events.  Why, she wondered, are the masks necessary?  It was a question I’ve asked several times…it’s why the thread caught my eye.

A little background.  There’s a group known as “Antifa.”  Apparently, that’s shorthand for anti-fascists.  (Really?  A special group to oppose fascism?  Sign me up!)  Word is, they support violence as a primary technique of disrupting “the opposition.”  (Crap, violence?  I’m out…)

I’ve always been bothered by the masks.  It seems they promise ill-intent.  But in response to the question “why the masks”, another writer suggested the masks were to protect the wearer’s identity to prevent “doxxing.”  That one got me.  At first blush, it makes sense.

“Doxxing” is the practice of searching out and publishing on the web identifying information about some person.  Names, phone numbers, addresses, employers, that kind of thing.  It’s often done with malicious intent – the idea is to open up a given individual to ongoing harassment.  It allows “your” group to intimidate and punish a member of “the other” group for not believing the way you think they should believe…

It wasn’t always about punishment.  There was a time, for example, when Paul Ryan got into some scrape with Americans about some thing and people wanted to deliver a petition of protest to him.  So, he bravely locked all his office doors so people couldn’t get in and unplugged his phones so people couldn’t complain and hid under his desk – you know, to show his connection with the people.  Since Ryan had taken such a bold stance at his office, some clever sod out there encouraged people to send postcards to Ryan, instead – and published Ryan’s home address in the hope that the postcards would be sent there.

I have to confess: I kind of liked that early bit of doxxing.  At the time, I thought that if Paul Ryan wouldn’t do his job at his job, he could do his job at home.  In truth, I hadn’t given enough thought to the reality that people surely sent more than postcards on the subject and, of course, made Ryan and his family subject to some of our more…unhinged elements.  (What can I say?  Sometimes it takes awhile to fully get one’s arms around new developments…)

So, when I read the suggestion that these Antifa individuals were simply trying to avoid doxxing, I thought that kind of made sense.  I thought that, perhaps, it had put a hitch in my giddy-up about the masks.  Maybe there WAS a legitimate reason to protect one’s identity.  As I said, on first blush, it made some sense…but not for long.

The idea that a person showing up at a political rally wearing masks to protect their identity in order to avoid doxxing is what I call a philosophical argument.  If you don’t think about it too much, it seems to make sense – but there is no practical application.

See, they aren’t JUST wearing masks.  They’re also wearing body protection of various kinds.  As often as not, they’re packing SOME kind of weapon.  To my mind, the most salient part of the question of showing up armored for – and, often armed for – battle is the “battle” part.  People don’t come to rallies like that ready to engage in a vigorous exchange of ideas.  They’ve come for the violence.  They’ve come to initiate the violence.

You can tell the difference by the people on BOTH sides of any issue who are NOT covered head to toe in protective gear and still managing to wave placards and banners and shout their various beliefs and who intend, after the event, to go home quietly and make jokes about how foolish the opposition is…and so are not worried about doxxing.  Why would they be?  Oh, I got caught out standing up against hatred?  Well, I’m standing tall…

But it turns out, if violence is your first response, I WANT you doxxed.  If violence is your first response, you clearly do not know how to live in a society and the society in which you dwell has a right, perhaps an obligation, to protect itself.  The society needs to know who you are so we can, as a group, try to correct your behavior.

As a bonus, we could all find out who you really are.  ARE you a far left nut ball trying to advance the cause of peace through violence?  Are you a far RIGHT nut ball pretending to be a far left nut ball?  Perhaps you’re just some apolitical individual on somebody’s payroll.  I’ll tell you this: whichever it is, I condemn your violent tactics and I WANT you unmasked…