Editorial cartoon: Hiding

sc160926

Stuart Carlson

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

Should you talk to the police?

No.

That was easy!

Oh, fine. Let me go into a little more detail.

If you are the victim of a crime or need assistance in any way, absolutely talk to the police. But that’s not what this question is really asking. If there is any way that you might possibly be considered as a criminal, should you talk to the police (without a lawyer)? The answer is always no.shut-up

The main reason is that people just don’t know when they should or should not talk. So it’s better to just not talk in all situations.

Will it help you to talk to the police sometimes in these situations? Only if you have an air-tight alibi. (“I was in Europe all week, here’s my passport.”) The problem is that many people think what they say will help, and it doesn’t.

“If I explain to the cop why I hit the guy, he’ll certainly understand and not charge me” will not help you.

“Yes, I was there but I wasn’t involved with any of those guys” just gave the police half of what they need.

“I only had two beers, so surely the cop will understand that I’m not really drunk if I tell him that” isn’t in your best interest to say. (Unless maybe you actually are talking to Shirley the cop.)

It’s not your job to prove yourself innocent. It’s their job to prove you guilty. They need to prove that you were there, that you did something, and that the something you did was against the law. If you say, “Yes, I was there that night, but that didn’t happen” you’ve already made 50% of the case for them.

Remember: the police are trained to get confessions. That makes their job so much easier when that happens (and makes my job so much harder). Note that I said they are trained to get confessions. That’s not the same thing as saying they are trained to get the truth.

Look, I’m a trial lawyer. I’m trained to get confessions in a different way. I look at the statements made by officers and witnesses and look for errors, mistakes, misunderstandings, and lies. And I will use what you said against you at trial whenever I can. You’ll have to explain why you said what you did when you did. You think the District Attorney isn’t going to do the same thing to you, the defendant? Why give the DA the ammunition needed for that?

No, remain silent, as is your Constitutional right. Provide your name and address and identification if asked; don’t argue with the officer; don’t talk about your rights; remain polite and calm. Let the lawyer do the arguing for you later.

If nothing else, by not talking, I can work out a better deal for you if you have to plead to a crime. If you’ve already given the police everything they need, I have nothing to negotiate with on my side; nothing I can offer in exchange for a better deal.

The best legal advice I can give anyone is really quite simple:

Shut up!

Editorial cartoon: Never forget

Clay Bennett

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.

Editorial cartoon: Comparisons

fdr

Darrin Bell

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.”