Vote FOR 439 and AGAINST 434

The amount of disinformation, the amount of lying, surrounding the competing abortion referenda on tomorrow's ballot is just pissing me off. 

The anti-439 claims that if 439 passes that men will be able to force women to get abortions or that 439 will guarantee government intrusion into women's health decisions, or that somehow forcing children to transition is involved, is ridiculous, and hopefully no one who was planning on voting for 439 will be swayed to change their mind. 

Initiative 439 guarantees a right to an abortion up to fetal viability, usually around 22-24 weeks, with certain exceptions past that time (there are also similar exceptions in the current law and in Initiative 434). Most importantly, this right would become part of the Nebraska Constitution, preventing the legislature from any further restrictions. If you believe that the current 12 week cutoff if "just right", be aware that we were quite close to a 6 week ban this year - one vote away from it becoming law. The anti-abortion crowd is only interested in compromising insofar as it is a step toward a complete ban. People who believe that abortion is murder will not stop at 12 weeks, or 6 weeks. They will keep pushing until the job is done. 

I've always avoided debates or arguments with anti-abortion people - it's generally not something that's open to discussion. I'm not going to change their opinion. Yes, it's an opinion. There's no science that can unambiguously determine whether the embryo or fetus is a human being, a potential human being, simply part of the woman's body, or when the transition takes place. What you think is no more than your opinion, and it's usually an opinion informed largely by your religious beliefs. And even when that's the case, evidence from the holy book of one's choice cannot be produced - in fact scriptural evidence that a fetus is not yet a person, or at least inferior to a person can be pointed to. 

No one's opinion, no one's religious beliefs, should become the standard for anyone else. 

Vote FOR 439 and AGAINST 434

Voter I.D.

It's now a requirement in Nebraska that you present identification when you vote. It was the subject of a referendum that passed with a majority of votes cast. Nebraskans were swept up in the Republican-led faux-concern about election integrity spurred by the lies told by former president Trump. Proponents claimed that it helped ensure secure elections. But what problem did it actually solve?

Even though we occasionally hear about someone voting twice, or groups turning in fraudulent ballots, and despite the hysterical claims of election interference or the 2020 election being stolen or rigged, there isn't any evidence that our elections are anything but incredibly secure. What isn't secure in many cases is the ability for many people to exercise their right to vote. In early 2021 Democrats in Congress attempted to pass a bill that would have, among other things, made it easier to register to vote. The bill included workarounds for people who did not have a government-issued I.D. and standardized the types of documents that would be acceptable. It passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate. At the time Nebraska Congressional Republicans justified their votes against the bill by claiming that our voting infrastructure in Nebraska was just fine thank you, and didn't require any adjustments. But when the question of voter I.D. was up for a vote by petition initiative, these same Republicans insisted that our elections weren't secure and we needed additional hurdles for voters to leap over. For anyone who lives in a city where there's a handy DMV, who owns a car or is close to reliable public transportation and can afford the fee required to get a license, an I.D. requirement doesn't seem onerous. But in many areas it's not so clear cut. In Nebraska, many DMV offices had to close because they could not staff them. In many states the voter I.D. requirements "coincidently" are most burdensome in areas that tend to vote Democratic. 

What problem is being solved by instituting voter I.D.? Why, it's the problem of too many people voting for Democrats!

In a democratic republic, one might be forgiven for assuming that the goal would be to make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible to vote. And some jurisdictions do try to make it easy. Many states loosened restrictions during the Covid pandemic and there are states where voting is completely done by mail (Nebraska's rural counties have gone to all-mail voting). But for many people voting isn't easy. Election Day is on a day when most people work. Many states and cities limit the number of drop boxes. Even mail-in voting can be a Byzantine process of signing, initialing and dating multiple papers and envelopes. Republican groups routinely go to court to get ballots invalidated for failing to cross their "t"s and dot their "i"s. Not because they care about election integrity, but because it's becoming increasingly harder for them to win over a majority of voters.

Until the 2016 presidential election there was no widespread perception that there was any problem with our elections. Trump, with no basis for saying so, started publicly questioning whether it would be a fair election. He won, which one would think would undercut his argument, but he then started claiming that even though Clinton had received more votes than he did, millions of non-citizens had voted, "explaining" her "winning" the popular vote. He created an election integrity commission, which despite being staffed with his sycophants, found no election irregularities and was disbanded after a few months. And we all know what happened after the 2020 election that he lost. In the wake of the failed  attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, Republicans throughout the country put into place many new laws that ostensibly increased election security, but in reality made it harder to vote: shortening early voting windows, restricting mail-in voting, eliminating drop boxes, restricting absentee voting, disallowing some types of I.D.'s, or purging voter rolls with short notice. 

In Florida a referendum restoring voting rights to convicted felons who had completed their sentences was neutered by the legislature by throwing up roadblocks that were virtually impossible to clear. In Nebraska the Secretary of State unilaterally decided that a law restoring voting rights to former incarcerated individuals was unconstitutional and refused to accept registrations until the State Supreme Court ruled that he lacked the authority. In Nebraska there have been multiple challenges to referendums: An end run around a successful  petition drive to repeal a bill giving public money to private schools involved the Republican-majority legislature repealing the original bill and substituting a similar one (a second petition received enough signatures to get on the ballot tomorrow); two medical marijuana petitions are being challenged in court because a notary failed to follow procedure involving a small percentage of signatures; what could have been a simple yes/no vote on abortion rights has been confused as a second referendum claiming to protect women and children is also on the ballot. In Ohio, the legislature attempted to increase the threshold for passing a  constitutional amendment for 50%+ to 60% (they failed). 

Given enough time I could point to numerous other examples. 

In a nation where there is no credible evidence of "cheating" or "rigging", where the elections are free, fair and secure, what is the purpose of making it more difficult to vote? 

I think I'll be voting for the party that wants me to vote.

Dan Osborn Ad Fishing for Trump Voters

An ad just broke for Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn claiming, among other things, that he's "with Trump" on "China, the border and draining the swamp. In an article about his outreach to Trump voters he is quoted as saying that he would "help Trump build the Wall". None of this should be any surprise.

Osborn has never run for public office. He is a former union organizer who led a strike against Kellogg's in Omaha. He has been outspoken from the beginning that he is not beholden to either party, although early on he seemed friendlier to Democrats, even though no one could mistake him for a liberal. When he first declared his candidacy there was apparently a handshake agreement that he would accept an endorsement from the Nebraska Democratic Party (NDP) in exchange for the NDP not running a candidate. He later reneged and refused to accept the endorsement. 

His public statements seemed to suggest that he was a moderate libertarian. To the left on social issues like abortion and marijuana legalization and more conservative on border security and crime. (He is on record as suggesting that the undocumented immigrants who pay into social security should be "just given a social security card"). He has said that he would not caucus with either party, although how he will get anything done without aligning with one of the major parties is unclear. (Hint: it's close to impossible)

Frankly, I don't trust him. I predict that he will end up caucusing with whichever party holds the Senate majority, and be a thorn in the side of the party that takes him in. Think Manchin without the experience or Sinema without the urge to build consensus. The biggest thing that he's got going for him is that he's not Deb Fischer. Whatever he ends up doing I guarantee that he won't be voting in lockstep with Republicans. 

The purpose of this ad is obviously designed to get Trump voters to vote for him and not Fischer while still voting for Trump. So what does he say in the ad? He's "with" Trump on China. Guess what, there's not a lot of daylight between Trump and Harris or Biden on China. Drain the swamp? He's been railing against corruption in DC since Day One. The border? Okay - I have a problem with that. The ad starts off by accusing Fischer of "betraying Trump", calling her "the same as Hillary Clinton". Ironic since the Fischer campaign is trying to paint Osborn as a AOC/Sanders/Pelosi/Harris liberal - maybe he's trying to counteract those ads.

Anyway, I don't fully trust him, but I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him

Why Should You Vote for Trump?

The election is in nine days and some people are going to vote for Trump. Why?

In another post I speculated that it was people hallucinating that 2017-2020 was an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity, with low crime and virtually no illegal immigration. They believe that in addition to domestic tranquility, we were respected and feared internationally.

Great reasons, other than them not being true. 

On the international stage Trump was viewed by our allies as unreliable and by our enemies as a joke. He was literally laughed at at the United Nations. Russia was in the process of invading eastern Ukraine, even though the full-on war hadn't started yet. We still had troops in Afghanistan and sent troops back to Iraq to fight ISIS, not to mention incursions into Syria and the assassination of an Iranian general. Illegal border entry, while not as high as during Biden's first few years was still substantial. Have we forgotten that Trump declared a national emergency at the border?  Crime statistics are a little hazy (the FBI stats showing crime reduction did not include several large cities) but there's no evidence that crime is any worse than it was four years ago. Inflation, which was a global problem, not specific to any policy of Biden's has resulted in a higher cost of living. Trump claims he will not only "end inflation" (which has receded to pre-2020 levels) but to reduce prices (how?). 

In other words, any reason to vote for Trump is based on a complete fantasy version of what his time in office was like. 

I have seen Trump supporters propose a straw man version of why people oppose Trump: "Orange Man Bad" or "Mean Tweets". No one that In know reduces their opposition to him to those "reasons". 

Trump started off his 2016 campaign with hate and hasn't let up. He has consistently labeled his opponents as enemies and traitors and called for their imprisonment. Not for actual crimes, which he stands accused of, but simply for opposing him. His supporters argue that he just "telling it like it is". But I expect the President of the United States, whether I voted for him or her or not, to represent all the people. I don't expect the president to threaten to withhold disaster relief from states whose governors criticize him, or whose electoral votes he didn't win. I expect the President of the United States to exercise a minimal level of decorum and represent our nation on the world stage and not act like a mafia don. 

Trump, before, during, and after his time in office displayed an appalling ignorance of how things worked. His lack of understanding of how tariffs work and how NATO is financed are two of the most obvious. But his ignorance of the laws that effect the office of the presidency or how legislation is passed is dangerous. And he's proud of his ignorance, displaying no willingness to learn. He's adverse to facts and information, preferring to make decisions based on his gut and has the attention span of a toddler. His appointees are "the best people" when he brings them on, but "losers" when they leave. And they usually resign, rather than be fired. 

Much has been made about Harris recently comparing Trump to Hitler, as well as the ongoing labelling him as a fascist. I'll concede that the comparisons are sometimes over the top and not very helpful, but the fact of his authoritarian tendencies is undeniable. This is what you get when you elect "businessmen". The CEO of a private company is effectively a mini-dictator. What he says, goes. They usually don't understand that an executive in government is constrained by the Constitution and by the other branches. And it's not like we have to speculate. Trump has made clear that he will exercise dictatorial power (but only on Day One) and has made many references to using the Justice Department and the courts to exact retribution on his opponents. 

Think his ignorance and incompetence means that the dystopia that he promises won't come to pass? That it's just rhetoric? The one thing he learned from his time in office was that appointing people whose loyalty to the Constitution was greater than their loyalty to him frustrated his plans. You can guarantee that the appointees in a second Trump term will not only be efficient, but will be unquestioningly loyal to Trump. 

But sure, vote for him because you believe that Harris didn't really work at McDonald's

Election Predictions

Election Day is in nine days. 

Will the election for president be close? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. Polls have proved unreliable over the last few elections for a variety of reasons. Pollsters have attempted to compensate for previous inaccuracies by introducing fudge factors which will supposedly lead to more accurate results. Political action committees and candidates' campaigns have flooded us with "junk polls" that skew the averages. 

What will be the influence of minor parties? Despite the moral high ground that some progressives are dubiously claiming regarding the government's support of Israel, their candidate, the Green Party's Jill Stein has no chance whatsoever of receiving even one electoral vote. Would a vote for Stein, or any other minor party, really be a vote for Trump? Only if you assume that these voters would have voted Democratic if not for Israel-Gaza. Many of them distrust both major parties equally and see no difference between them. Speaking of Israel's Gaza war (expanding into surrounding nations) will the Muslim voters help swing Michigan into Trump's column? Could be, since Michigan Muslims aren't any less stupid than any other American voter and don't realize that getting Trump back in the White House will likely be worse for Palestinians than it is now. 

Will the election be close? Why does Trump appear to have a chance to be re-elected? It's hard to imagine how it could be, given all that we know about Losin' Don, but there's a lot of amnesia about his four years, some people freaking out about the inflation and it's lingering effects during Biden's term and hallucinating that Trump's presidency was one of peace and prosperity. There's a solid base of Trump supporters, what I and others refer to as the Trump Cult, who would vote for him no matter what. Who believe his ridiculous claims and outrageous lies. If that was the sum total of people who would vote for him, he'd never be elected, but it's not. He had two serious challengers in the Republican primaries, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Ambassador Nikki Haley of South Carolina. The two of them received close to 50% of the votes cast in the Republican primaries. Other than registered Republicans who usually vote for Democrats or Independents (I am one of those) none of those people are going to vote for Vice President Harris; they'll vote for whoever the Republican candidate is. This group has significant overlap with the people who are convinced that every Democrat is a Communist and will vote for Trump as the only alternative. Add to those groups those who think that Harris is a lightweight and believe, for all his negatives, Trump will be better for the country. 

Despite all of that, my gut tells me that when all the votes are counted Harris will have a majority of votes cast. But the undemocratic Electoral College could go either way. As little as a few thousand vote win for Trump in all or most of the so-called swing states could give him an electoral college blowout, even if he once again receives fewer actual votes nationwide. Of course if this happens he'll crow about how he "won easily" and claim he also "won" the popular vote, blaming voting by non-citizens and other imaginary Democratic cheating. We all know what will happen if it goes the other way. He and his people have already been ramping up the accusations of rigging and cheating and election deniers are in place in key states, ready to cause chaos. 

Let's not forget that it's very likely that the Senate will became majority Republican, so even if Harris wins, getting anything done, including appointing federal judges, will be virtually impossible.

 

Nebraska's Dueling Abortion Ballot Questions

Nebraska currently has a ban on abortions past the 12th week of pregnancy. That particular ban was passed last year, changing the cutoff down from 24 weeks and narrowly avoiding 6-week and total bans. 

Initiative 434 would enshrine the 12 week ban in the Nebraska State Constitution, but would not prevent a more restrictive ban from being enacted. (There are several exceptions included) Over 300 petition signers claim that they were lied to by petition circulators and signed the petition under false pretenses. 

Initiative 439 would add a state constitutional right to abortion up to fetal viability (around 24 weeks) with "fetal viability" defined as “…the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the patient's treating health care practitioner, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures", which was the national standard before Roe vs. Wade was repealed. 

Abortion opponents have been scurrying around to try to misrepresent Initiative 439, claiming, among other ridiculous points, that "the wording in the measure would give human traffickers and abusers the right to subject women to forced or coerced abortions and allow unlicensed medical professionals to influence a woman's decision." and painting doctors who perform abortion as "the abortion industry". 

Some proponents of Initiative 434 characterize it as a "middle ground" between the anti-abortion and abortion rights camps that creates reasonable limits and exceptions". I'd consider that point if it weren't for the fact that abortion opponents don't compromise and view any "middle ground" as merely a step toward a total ban. They'll continue to chip away, as they have in other states, until there is a total ban. 

Initiative 434 is nothing but an effort to confuse the issue. We should have been allowed to have an up or down vote on abortion rights without having this initiative, which misrepresents the issue. I had read that whichever initiative receives more more votes would "win", but there's more detail than that: 

"For a ballot initiative to pass, it must receive a majority of supporting votes and at least 35% of total votes during the election. If both abortion-related amendments pass, the one with the most votes will be amended into the Nebraska Constitution." - to restate, to pass, an initiative must (1) have more "For" votes than "Against" votes (2) the "For" votes must be greater or equal than 35% of the total votes cast in the election statewide and (3) the "For" votes must be greater than the "For" votes of the competing initiative.
A side note - are the people who are totally against abortion going to vote for Initiative 434, which adds legal abortion to the state constitution?

No Good Guys, Just Innocent Bystanders

Over the last year I have I have refrained from commenting on the War in Gaza. Not because I didn't have an opinion, and not because I was ignorant about the political and religious situation there. I refrained from commenting (including responding to others' comments) because the situation is complicated. I don't "Stand with Israel" (even though I think it should be able to defend itself) nor do I "Stand with Palestine" (even though I think the civilian death toll in Gaza is horrendous) - because neither side has clean hands, terrible actions by one side are used to justify even more terrible actions on the other side and it escalates again and again. What is happening now in Gaza isn't isolated from previous events and goes back beyond the founding of the State of Israel.

There have always been Jews in what is now Israel and Palestine. There has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence from the Hasmoneans through Roman rule, Byzantine hegemony and a revolving door of Muslim caliphates until the League of Nations Mandate administered by the United Kingdom. Arabs have also been a continuous presence in the region. Jews have for at least the last millennium been a minority, but the claim that only the Palestinians are indigenous to the land and that Jews are merely colonizers ignores the demographic history of the area. Even outside the dubious claims based on a kingdom gone for two thousand years, or the rationale given by Christians looking to jump start the End Times, the Jews had as much claim to some of the land of the Palestinian Mandate as the local Arabs. The United Nations apparently agreed. 

The United Nations partition of Palestine granted to a proposed Jewish state the areas where Jews were the majority plus the sparsely populated Negev desert. The Arabs were to receive the areas that were majority Arab. (I use the term "Arab" rather than "Muslim" since the Arab population included a Christian minority). There was much organized opposition to granting the Jewish population even token political rights much less a nation of their own. Most people know that the independence of the new State of Israel was declared in 1948 and that it was immediately attacked by its Arab neighbors. What most people don't know is that the occupation of The West Bank and Gaza did not occur in the aftermath of that short war. The occupation didn't take place until 1967 after another war by Arab states against Israel. Jordan had been occupying the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza strip. 

This is one of the mysteries about this conflict. There could have been a Palestinian state in 1948 based on the U.N. Partition Plan, even after the Arab countries lost their war on Israel. In addition, at any time between 1948 and 1967 Jordan and Egypt could have established an independent Palestine - but they didn't. From the Arab perspective it was all or nothing - either Israel would be eliminated and replaced by an independent Palestine or they would refuse the half loaf and keep waiting and fighting. This set the stage for cycle after cycle of violence. The Arabs, at least their most vocal leaders, claimed that Israel had no right to exist and dedicated themselves to eradicating the Jewish state. The Israelis, seeing that their very existence threatened from all sides dedicated themselves to protecting their home at all costs. 

When the dust cleared after the 1967 War, Israel had taken The West Bank from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Lebanon, and Gaza and the Sinai from Egypt and militarily occupied them. This added an intractable problem to the already impossible situation. In addition to dealing with being surrounded by enemies dedicated to erasing it from the map, Israel had just effectively taken some of those enemies within its borders and made itself responsible for them. 

I'm not going to attempt a comprehensive list of the provocations and atrocities from each participant. Israel's horrible treatment of West Bank residents, including the violence by the so-called Settlers with the collusion of the military, is inexcusable. (They are also, tract by tract, stealing the Palestinians' land) The regular firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel isn't making them any friends. Last October's attacks on Israeli civilians, including rape, murder and kidnapping was met by thousands of deaths of Palestinian civilians. Palestinian governing bodies, instead of trying to make a better life for their people, prioritize fruitless attacks that provoke retaliation, making things worse. Of course, in this conflict Israel is in the position of power and the Palestinians the oppressed people. Although a case could be made that the hopelessness of the situation makes even bloody acts of terror seem reasonable. Israel, understandably anxious after 80 years and several wars, puts security as a high priority, but in doing so they have become the oppressors themselves. 

One could reasonably ask, regarding either the Palestinians or the Israelis, "what were they supposed to do?", but in almost all cases one side is perpetrating an atrocity as a response to the other guys perpetrating an atrocity, which in turn was retaliation for another atrocity. I don't "stand with" the total war in Gaza or the elimination of the Arab presence of the West Bank and I don't "stand with" the Palestinians who provoke retaliation by murdering civilians. Both sides think they're justified in their actions and nothing outside parties do will convince them otherwise. 

There's no "good guys" in all this, just innocent bystanders.