There is a clear-cut choice

by Guest Blogger David Gerrold

So … I think I’ll blur the details here.

There was this person who was expounding on the upcoming election and why he wasn’t going to vote for Hillary Clinton. It was his first time voting, you see, and he wanted someone who understood and represented his generation.

He said to me, “You don’t understand — “donald-trump-h-1024

And that’s where I had to stop him. “Look, I do understand. Really.”

“How can you understand? You’re too old.”

“Do you think I was born old? Y’know, I have pictures. Here’s me at thirteen — ”

“But times were different then — ”

“Yes, they were. You could get polio and measles and smallpox. An appendectomy was a serious operation. People smoked everywhere, there was no getting away from the smoke. In school, they taught us to duck and cover in case of a nuclear attack. Whites and blacks still had separate restrooms and drinking fountains. Women couldn’t get a legal abortion. Gas had lead in it. Vegetables were sprayed with DDT. You could be arrested for being gay. Yes, times were different.”

“No, I meant that protesting was a fad, not serious like — ”

“Excuse me? Do you want to see the scar on my scalp where I was hit by a thrown bottle at the first gay rights march? We also had civil rights demonstrations, anti-war marches, and rallies for women’s rights as well. That was no fad. People were dying — ”

“No, look, man — it’s the establishment. That’s what’s wrong — ”

“And you want to replace the establishment with what? A different establishment? Listen — when I was your age, when my generation was your age, we were just as frustrated and just as impatient as you are now. Honest. Am I saying we were wrong? Hell, no. We were right. Better than that, we were so right, we were self-righteous. We went around saying, ‘Don’t trust anyone over 30,’ as if somehow when you turned 30, you became one of them. Y’know?

“You know what we missed? We missed the obvious — that there were a lot of good men and women over 30 who understood the issues, and the complexities of the situation better than we did — because they’d been fighting that fight for a lot longer. We had emotion, we had energy, we had spirit — but we didn’t have enough experience, enough history, enough of everything we needed to effect real change.

“So we didn’t turn out for Hubert Humphrey and we handed the country to Richard Nixon. And a generation later, other people didn’t turn out for Al Gore and handed the country to George W. Bush. And what was missed — both times — was the fact our impatience was the single biggest mistake we could make.

“Hubert Humphrey had experience, he had wisdom, and he shared our goals. Al Gore had experience, he had wisdom, and he shared our goals. But somewhere, enough of us decided that he was too old or too much of the establishment or didn’t really represent us enough, or would just give us more of the same when what we really wanted was more, better, and different, even if we couldn’t define it — enough of us felt that way to hand the presidency to a much worse administration.

“So, no — it isn’t that you’re wrong. It’s that there are people who’ve been down this path before. We know where it leads. And it’s not a good place. We know what this mistake looks like. Because we’ve made it ourselves — and we’re asking you not to make the same mistakes we did, because each time we make this mistake, everyone gets hurt.”

And he said, “So that’s a fancy way of saying ‘suck it up, buttercup, you can’t have what you want.”

And I said, “No, but if that’s the way you want to hear it, then that’s the way you’re going to hear it. The way government works, nobody gets everything they want. The way government is supposed to work, everybody negotiates — and eventually everybody gets a piece of what they need to keep going. Nobody likes that, but consider what the alternative is — if some people get everything they want, that means a lot of people are going to get nothing at all. We keep trying that, it doesn’t work. Let’s go back to the stuff that does work.”

“But I don’t like her — ”

“I’m not asking you to like her. I’m asking you to respect that she knows how to do the job. He doesn’t. You can have your protest vote, that’s your right, but that’s letting everybody else decide who gets the oval office. And you might want to think long and hard about which of the two will build on what President Obama has accomplished and which of the two will tear it all down with no idea of why it worked in the first place. Your choice.”

And he said, “That’s not much of a choice.”

And I said, “The hell it isn’t. It’s a choice between experience and ignorance. That’s the clearest choice I’ve ever seen in an election.”

He didn’t have an answer for that.

And that’s the point —

I might be old, but I’m not stupid. And I suspect that a lot of other members of my generation feel the same way. We remember when we were impatient. And we remember the mistakes that our impatience created.

Old people don’t tell young people what to do and what not to do because we want to control your lives — we just want to warn you not to make the same mistakes we did.

But you will. Or you won’t. Because it’s your choice. Always.

Nebula and Hugo award winning author David Gerrold is the author of over 50 books, several hundred articles and columns, and over a dozen television episodes. TV credits include episodes of Star Trek, Babylon 5, Twilight Zone, Land Of The Lost, Logan’s Run, and many others. Novels include WHEN HARLIE WAS ONE, THE MAN WHO FOLDED HIMSELF, the “War Against the Chtorr” septology, The “Star Wolf” trilogy, The “Dingilliad” young adult trilogy, and more. The autobiographical tale of his son’s adoption, THE MARTIAN CHILD won the Hugo and Nebula awards for Best Novelette of the Year and was the basis for the 2007 movie starring John Cusack, Amanda Peet, and Joan Cusack. He also has a story in the upcoming anthology BAKER STREET IRREGULAR, edited by me. His web page is here.

 

 

 

Editorial cartoon: Dehumanizing

14352358_10153777712757541_5163437594667256291_oWilliam Bramhall

Selfish Stein Supporters

Look, I get it, you like her positions on the issues.

But that’s not the point.

We have the possibility of a terrible, selfish person becoming President who, by all standards, will ignore the Constitution, destroy the economy (like what happened to Britain with Brexit), and start wars with other countries while probably being under indictment for crimes he’s committed. He will fill his cabinet and the Supreme Court with unqualified people and support actions against minorities with the support of a bunch of know-nothing yahoos.

58fj0pqj

“Trump is a millionaire who has never been elected to office and is therefore unqualified!  I, on the other hand, am a millionaire who was elected to a city council a while ago. It’s completely different!”

We have to stop him.

Unfortunately, the only possible way to do that is to vote for someone we didn’t want. (I was a Bernie supporter, you know.) But comparatively, there’s no question — Clinton is tremendously more qualified than Trump is, even though she has her own problems.

But I’m going to get one of these two candidates, and the choice between them is clear.

There is no way in this or any universe that Stein is winning. She barely meets 1% in many polls, less than the margin of error. You’re dreaming if you think voting for her will make any difference other than to help Trump win.

You want to help the Green Party? Get people elected at the local level and build your way up. (You know — “grassroots politics.”)  Even if she won the Presidency (in Bizarro America), you have to consider this: Obama couldn’t get hardly anything done with one of the parties actively working against him. Stein will have two parties working against her.

You have the power to stop Trump, but you’re refusing to do it.

It’s like stepping aside as the Nazis march by and then claiming that you had nothing to do with their actions because you didn’t help them — even though you had the opportunity to try to stop them.

You think you’re keeping yourself pure and noble by voting your conscience while ignoring the part of your conscience that should be telling you that you need to take whatever action is best to stop the Bad Guy. There is nothing noble about being neutral in the face of evil.

It’s selfish, really.

Editorial cartoon: Comparative negligence

15993767521232466517

Darrin Bell

Deadly skittles

The Trump campaign posted this ridiculous meme yesterday:

skittles

Ignoring the proofreading problems the Stupid Party has (Skittles is capitalized, comma after “you”, no capital “w” on “would”), and the layout problems (why doesn’t the right side margin line up?), let’s address instead the absurdity of this claim.

First of all, based actual odds of getting killed by terrorist refugee, you’d need 10.8 billion skittles to find three killers.

Then let’s consider what this is saying. Three of these skittles could be dangerous. So therefore, let’s let the hundreds of others die so we can be safe.  Yeah, that’s exactly the kind of heroism we of the United States are known for. It’s exactly what Superman, who stands for Truth, Justice, and the American Way would say, right?  “Can’t save that trainload of people because there may be three of them who want to hurt me and the other people.”

This is something they never seem to mention. The Syrian refugees are refugees from terrorism. They need our help. Yes, some evil terrorist may sneak in at the same time, but if the terrorists really want to sneak in, they can do it anyway. The Trump campaign clearly believes in the “Bad Samaritan” policy.

If this were the 1930s, I suppose you could replace “Syrian refugee problem” with “Jews” and this would be a great ad for Germany.

The Trump campaign believes turning away refugees running from terrorists will “make America great again” because if there’s one thing we don’t need, it’s huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Come on folks, Skittles won’t kill you.

Unless you meet George Zimmerman.

The Enthusiasm Gap

Although polls show the race tightening, as every political scientist worth his or her salt told you would happen months ago, Hillary is still predicted to be the winner by anyone who studies these things. Nate Silver has her chances at 70%.

The “worst case scenario” map

But there’s still one problem, and that’s the enthusiasm gap.

The Tea Party people are thrilled. For years, they’ve been portrayed as outsiders, crazy, on the fringe — racists, bigots, ignorant people that possibly could win a few House seats every now and then but clearly could never get into the big leagues. Trump has been their standard bearer, and this has emboldened them to be angrier, meaner, more public, and more violent.

These people will vote.

We were able to hold them back in the past partially because there are more of us than them and when we come out and vote in equal percentage, math works to benefit us.

And our enthusiasm was great, too, when we had Obama running. Young voters came out like never before, and minorities voted in almost equal percentages as whites for the first time ever.

But now?  Hillary’s enthusiastic supporters are primarily women my age and older who grew up with terrible sexism and discrimination and identify with the candidate and want the first female President. They’ll come out and vote, but will they be enough to counter the Trump fanatics?

This is why I still say that we would have been better off with Bernie. Sure, they’d be attacking him left and right for being a socialist, but I think he’d probably be doing better than Hillary because his support was enthusiastic (and even conservatives admired him for his honesty in the same way liberals used to admire McCain without agreeing with his politics). Young people especially would be out working for him and would be voting for him. Many of these people will instead be staying home in November like they usually do or else wasting their vote on Stein or Johnson.

So while I still predict a Hillary victory, I think it will be closer than expected given that our candidate may suffer in the “enthusiasm gap.”

How to Defeat ISIS by Donald Trump

For many years now, ISIS and other similar radical Islamic groups have caused problems for the world. But Donald Trump knows how to deal with them. When asked recently what to do, he made a bold promise:

derp-trump

“Me have plan. Plan good. Me solve problem.”

“I will convene my top generals and give them a simple instruction to, in 30 days, submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS.”

“Of course!” the generals said, slapping their foreheads like David Byrne. “A plan! Why didn’t we think of that?”

Donald Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals. We know this because he told us so. (“Believe me.”)

“It’s why we no longer have to give him national security briefings as a candidate,” stated a White House spokesperson. “Instead, we just listen to him, since he knows more about it than those of us in the military and intelligence community who have dedicated our lives to just this thing.”

The White House and the generals assembled were pleased for the guidance Trump was providing. “A plan!” they said. “Dammit. If only we had considered that years ago.”

 

Why Gary Johnson would help the debates

I am not a Gary Johnson fan by a long shot. And I don’t like setting a precedent of allowing candidates who are getting less than 10% be in the debates.

However, there would be two advantages to having Johnson participate in the debates.garyjohnson

First: It might make it more substantial. I can just imagine a debate moderator asking stupid questions about email servers and taco trucks and so on instead of real issues that Presidential candidates should be asked. With Johnson up there, perhaps the moderators will ignore some of the non-issues and ask real things just so he can be included.

Second: I am sure that the more that conservatives find out about Johnson, the more appealing he will be to them — and the more liberals find out about him, the less appealing he will be. Already, one major newspaper has endorsed him (The Richmond Times-Dispatch, my hometown paper, and one of the most conservative papers around). This can only help to split the Republican vote, and for a Democrat like me, that’s a very good thing.

So sure, I’ve changed my mind. Let Johnson debate. It will only help Hillary.

Don’t get cocky, Kid: The election’s not decided yet

Hillary is ahead in all the polls, and pretty much has been except for one week right after the Republican convention where Trump enjoyed the traditional convention bump.

Nate Silver has her with a 70% chance of winning, and, as I pointed out two years ago, the Democrats begin any Presidential election with a large advantage in the electoral college.


If the election were held today

The problem is in being complacent, because we Democrats have done a very good job of losing elections we should have won.  And there are reasons for that:

We don’t get out and vote. These Trump supporters are maniacs. I see their signs all over the place, and they are not shy about yelling their support. At a recent county fair where I live, they yelled obscenities at the Democratic booth (with their kids watching — how pleasant!), punched a cardboard stand-up of Hillary Clinton next to the booth, and acted like the bullies that you would expect most Trump supporters would act like.

These people will vote. They are convinced that the white male Christian privileges they are used to (and which they think are “patriotic”) are disappearing, and they’re right. That’s what they mean when they say they want to “take America back” and “make America great again.”  They are angry, and angry people vote.

There are more of us than there are of them, but they always vote in huge numbers and we don’t. And then we lose.

We split our vote because we think we’re being “pure.” Instead of being pragmatic, we’d rather shoot ourselves in the foot, watch the country go down the drain, and then say, “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for him.” Well, sure, but not voting for the person who could stop him and wasting your vote on someone else has the same effect, so you might as well have voted for him.

Republicans do that too, of course, and some this year are going for Johnson as their protest vote. We should encourage this while not falling into the same trap.

We don’t always nominate the best candidate. One of the differences between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats tend to vote with the head and Republicans with the heart. We nominate the smartest nerd in the class and they nominate the most popular jock. Hillary is quite unpopular. Some of that is due to thirty years of meaningless smear attacks from the GOP but, let’s face it, she doesn’t have the charisma of her husband or of Barack Obama. If we had nominated someone with some charisma (or even Bernie Sanders, in my opinion) we’d be doing even better in the polls.

It is tremendously important this year that we come out to vote and vote down all the Republicans, including those in state races. Having a Democratic president who can get nothing accomplished because she’s fighting against Republicans doesn’t get us anywhere. But mostly, we need to send a signal. We need to destroy the current GOP so hugely that they finally reorganize themselves and do something to kick out the crazies and once more become a reasonable conservative party. We need to make sure they know that America will not stand for a candidate who preaches hate, divisiveness, and racism.

 

Editorial cartoon: The Trump outreach isn’t working for some reason

trump kkk

Mike Peters