Trance Encounters

Politics, education, art, and things that matter. By: John Prosser 

[prosserjohn]

Dear White People, You’re Not That Well-Intentioned

On my way through town, after work, I pulled up to a stop light in a quiet part of town. There was some construction and the stop was longer than normal, but not obscene. This particular intersection stands as a portal of sorts to an infamous stretch of street where, growing up, the local police would ticket anyone going over the posted 25 mph speed limit. I think they still do.

As I was waiting a few cars deep, a white woman, probably in her late 60s, walked up to my car. She was holding a picture, printed on regular white paper, of her grandkids. I had no idea who this woman was, but I rolled down my window. She handed me the picture. Cute kids. About 10 or so in all. All of them were white, except for one. The young child in the center was Black. This matters.

When she approached my window, after handing me the photo, the woman said, “I saw the message on your car and I like it. But I can’t say ‘Black Lives Matter’ because all of my grandkids lives matter. All lives matter.”

Here’s a photo of the back of my car.

Sitting behind me at a traffic stop, this woman was so...moved? Distraught? Guilt-ridden? that I wrote this on my car that she had to absolve herself of the reasons why she can’t bring herself to say “Black Lives Matter.” This matters.

I didn’t catch the woman’s name. She seemed kind, I suppose. As kind as walking-up-to-a-stranger’s-car-at-a-stop-light-to-show-him-your-grandkids-so-he-knows-that-you-have-9-white-grandkids-and-1-Black-grandkid-and-you-can’t-bring-yourself-to-say -“Black Lives Matter”-because-the-lives-of-your-white grandkids-matter-too can be.

If I’d had more time I would have taken the photo out of my sun-visor of my 3 kids. I’d have shown her that I think their lives matter too. And yet, I can still say “Black Lives Matter,” because there’s nothing about loving my children that takes away the urgency with which we need to recognize and honor Black lives.

If I’d have had more time I would have explained that her Black grandchild’s lived experiences will be different from her white grandchildren’s lived experiences. That her Black grandchild will face barriers that were established at the very founding of this nation to ensure that Black people don’t have access to the same opportunities and resources as white people. He will have to navigate a world where the police can walk into his home and shoot him in his own bed and be charged with a property crime. He will have to navigate a world where an entire major political party (the GOP if you weren’t sure) targets millions of Black voters for suppresssion campaigns - gerrymandered voting districts, closing polling locations, voter ID requirements, and the sordid list goes on. This matters.

This woman wanted to convince me that she was “well intentioned.” But she wasn’t well intentioned. She said she “liked the message on my car,” only to explain to me why she didn’t like the message on my car, or at least to imply why she was too cowardly to stand up for the only one of her grandchildren born without the advantages that being white affords. This matters.

White people like this woman don’t want to be called racist. They don’t like it. But they don’t dislike it with sufficient frustration to change their behaviors or change their words or change their attitudes. But that’s what moral conviction should do - it should change our attitudes and behaviors when we feel guilt. And that’s what she was truly expressing: guilt. When you are compelled to engage a stranger because of the words on his car, but not engage your own attitudes, for whatever reason, you’re a moral coward.

So she wasn’t well-intentioned at all. This matters.

It shouldn’t be hard for white people to acknowledge that Black Lives are deserving of dignity. It shouldn’t be hard for White people to acknowledge that Black Lives are threatened in ways that white lives aren’t. And yet, white people like the woman who approached my car struggle to find the room to acknowledge either of the above sentiments, as if doing so would betray her to her white grandchildren. It doesn’t. My white children are my heart and soul, and they are not betrayed by my commitment to fight the oppression and violence against Black Lives.

Shortly after this encounter, on September 29th, I started writing this blog entry. I never finished it. A month later, I put my thoughts into the following Twitter thread from my @prosserjohn account. I’ve decided to merge these two pieces of writing together with the hope that these words will help white people learn how to become more than well-intentioned; I wish for them to become well-actioned.

The October 20, 2020 Twitter thread:

1/ p v ~ p. This symbolic sentence, read as “p or not p,” is a tautology, meaning it’s always true. Either the proposition p is true & satisfies the truth of the sentence, or its denial is true & satisfies the truth. E.g. The kitchen light is on or the kitchen light is not on.

2/ Tautologies like the above are not controversial. They don’t express a ton of information, but they are useful in logical reasoning. We know that if a proposition is not true, that it’s denial must be true. And that if a proposition is true, it’s denial must be not true.

3/ E.g. We know the proposition “Bananas are blue” is false, so it’s denial, “Bananas are not blue,” must be true. It doesn’t tell us what color they are, but we know what color they aren’t. So the proposition “Bananas are blue or bananas are not blue” is always true.

4/ “The sun rose today or the sun did not rise today.” This statement is always true. p v ~ p, where p stands for the proposition “The sun rose today.” This is not controversial.

5/ “It is raining right now, right here, or it is not raining right now, right here.” This statement is always true. p v ~p, where p stands for the proposition “It is raining right now, right here.” This is not controversial.

6/ The p v ~p tautology is always true and never controversial. Well, almost never controversial. There is a special controversy right now, with this very tautology, that has some people very angry. Can you guess the tautology?

7/ Now, let p stand for the proposition “Black Lives Matter.” So p v ~ p reads “Black Lives Matter or Black Lives Do Not Matter.” This tautology is still true. Not controversial. But what makes this statement true & informative, is that p itself is true: Black Lives Matter.

8/ And this is where the controversy suddenly arises.

When I say “Black Lives Matter,” I’m uttering a proposition, a statement about the way the world is. I’m declaring that Black lives do indeed matter. That Black lives have value and worth. That Black lives deserve rights.

9/ But when I say “Black Lives Matter” and someone gets angry at this statement, they reject proposition p, which means, necessarily, they assert proposition ~p. That is, to deny “Black Lives Matter” is to, necessarily, assert that “Black Lives Do Not Matter.” p v ~ p.

10/ Either p is true, or ~p is true. One must be true. So denying the claim that “Black Lives Matter” means you are arguing in favor of the truth of its denial, I.e. ~p, I.e. That Black Lives Do Not Matter.

11/ The oddity within this “controversy” isn’t that there are racists and racists don’t value Black Lives. We know racists exist & we know they don’t value Black Lives.

12/ No - the oddity here is that the ppl who reject the proposition “BLM” refuse to admit that they believe it’s denial is true. They will simultaneously erupt in anger at the claim “BLM” & throw a tantrum if you clarify “So you’re saying Black Lives Don’t Matter?”

13/ Try it sometime. Find someone who thinks “Black Lives Matter” is offensive, then ask them “So you’re arguing that “Black Lives Don’t Matter?” And guarantee they’ll say “That’s not what I’m saying!” or “I’m not racist. All lives matter!”

14/ Except it’s patently true: if you reject the simple, uncontroversial claim that #BlackLivesMatter, then you necessarily assert its denial, that Black Lives Don’t Matter, and this...this makes you a racist. It really is that simple. So don’t be a racist. Support Black Lives.

[prosserjohn]

On Friends and Politics

Growing up, I was taught that it was rude to talk about certain topics with guests. The two that stood out the most were religion and politics. Looking back, the reason is clear: these topics can reveal deep rifts between the beliefs of some and the beliefs of others. And, as the sentiment went, friendships don’t need to be hurt over mere disagreements. Mere disagreements. What does that phrase even mean? I think people want it to mean that individuals are entitled to their beliefs, and because of that entitlement, getting heated over disagreements is simply not worth it. After all, the disagreement can’t be worth the cost of friendship, right? And so, in the course of growing up in my (wonderful) family, anyway, I was taught that disagreements are small things that can be side-stepped. Mere pebbles on a long and winding road with far bigger obstacles. I love my family, and I love my friends. I would do almost anything for anyone that falls into either category. I’m fiercely protective of my friends and family, and I am blessed with the most loving and beautiful people to grow with and learn from. With that in mind I don’t say this lightly: I will abandon even a lifelong friendship over political disagreement. I want to be clear, though. While I was raised to believe that most political disagreements were mere disagreements, I want to make a necessary distinction between types of disagreement, and in so doing articulate why the distinction matters.

In politics there may be mere disagreements and also what I will call uncompromising disagreements. A mere disagreement in politics is a disagreement over a political mechanism - the “how” within a system used to achieve an end. For example, people agree they want a healthy education system. One person says that they believe in the traditional model of public education governed by local school boards and funded through local, state, and federal taxes. The second person says that they believe charter schools are a viable means of promoting innovation and support to areas in need of strong growth. In this example, both people want the same thing, a healthy education system, but disagree about what it might take to reach those ends. This is a mere disagreement. Other mere disagreements include the role a government plays in regulating the market to achieve a stable and growing economy; the rate of taxation needed to sustain necessary infrastructure; whether the subsidizing of stadiums by municipal governments is a net gain for a community or a net loss. Mere disagreements can indeed lead to spirited and passionate debates. People can be deeply invested in either side of a mere disagreement. But, at the end of the day, we can “agree to disagree” with a person who makes a reasoned and principled opposing argument. Uncompromising disagreements are fundamentally different; it is this type of disagreement that justifies my willingness to abandon even a lifelong friendship. Whereas mere disagreements are mechanical in nature, uncompromising disagreements arise when people have opposing and contradictory beliefs about fundamental principles of humanity. For example, if a person utters the phrase “Women are incapable of leading as strongly and effectively as men,” then that person communicates a personal value of male superiority and asserts a proposition “men are necessarily stronger and more effective leaders than women.” This assertion is in direct contradiction to my belief, that women are as capable, or more capable, than men to be strong and effective leaders. In a disagreement such as this, we’re no longer merely disagreeing over the process of achieving an end. Rather, we fundamentally disagree about equality between the sexes. This is a big deal. I cannot merely side-step a disagreement of this type. Consider another example. I believe that a fundamental right of existence for all people is the right to express your gender identity and sexual orientation with a guarantee of safety and acceptance; that human autonomy is essential to living a fulfilling life; that this entitles humans to express their identities and orientations without judgment, without being condemned, and without fear of harm. Imagine then the person who condemns people with non-conforming gender identities or sexual orientations, who calls such persons abominations, sinners, monsters, perverts, or criminals. That person and I have an uncompromising disagreement. Our beliefs regarding the nature of gender identity and sexual orientation are in diametric opposition. This is a topic fundamental to humanity. And in this subject we can distinguish the nature of our beliefs. My beliefs value and dignify human autonomy, choice, and life. The opposing beliefs degrade, dehumanize, and oppress human life. My belief is rooted in love. The opposing belief, in fear or hate. In this opposition there is no middle-ground. There is no side-stepping or turning a blind-eye. There is no compromise. The opposing view in this example is antithetical to a core moral principle I have about human nature, making it abhorrent to my very nature. Similarly, beliefs deriving from racism, sexism, xenophobia and other bigotries would lead to uncompromising disagreements.

Friendships are bonds forged over time because of shared experiences or beliefs. People grow together, learn together, play together, and love together. But people also grow apart and we cannot be bound in our future to relationships that are stuck in the past. I will end friendships over uncompromising disagreements. I will not agree to disagree, look the other way, or make excuses because we’re friends. My friends are important to me, but the nature of my existence? My character as a person? No friendship is worth sacrificing who you are at your core. And I cannot ally myself with people whose attitudes and behaviors are destructive to others. Karl Popper, a famous 20th century philosopher, wrote about the Paradox of Tolerance, essentially saying that uncritical tolerance of intolerance can destroy a society - that tolerance need not tolerate intolerance. His words, from “The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1” are relevant to the above discussion: “Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.” I have zero tolerance for beliefs rooted in the hatefulness and fearfulness of bigotry, sexism, racism, transphobia, homophobia, or xenophobia, etc. And if it turns out that someone I care for has a deep and invested belief in such a system of nastiness to fellow humans? That person is gone. Uncompromising disagreements justify walking away from friendships. The alternative means looking the other way, empowering bigotry through silence, and giving tacit permission to carry on because all is well. Friend - if we find ourselves in an uncompromising disagreement, then we’re not truly friends. I’ve cut ties and walked away from friends before with no guilt. Life is too short and our duty to each other too important to waste our resources on oppressors.

[prosserjohn]

A Cross-Examination of Americans Who Oppose #TakeAKnee

Q: Do you grieve when Americans die?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you grieve when an American soldier is killed at war?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you grieve when an American police officer is killed in the line of duty?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you grieve when an American teacher is shot and killed in the safety of their school?

PA: Yes.

Q: And do you grieve when an American student is shot and killed in the safety of their school?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you grieve when an American child loses a battle to cancer?

PA: Yes. 

Q: Do you grieve when an American parent dies of natural causes too soon, leaving their children motherless or fatherless?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you grieve when an American teenager is killed in an automobile accident?

PA: Yes.

Q: So, you are saying that your heart is big enough to grieve for all of these people?

PA: Yes.

Q: Are you patriotic?

PA: Yes.

Q: So you support the US Constitution?

PA: Yes.

Q: The Second Amendment?

PA: Yes.

Q: And the First Amendment?

PA: Yes. 

Q: To be clear, let me read the whole 1st Amendment.

PA: Ok.

Q: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - You agree with all of that?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is human life precious?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is it more precious than a pencil?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is it more precious than a pen?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is it more precious than the ink in the pen?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is it more precious than ink in general?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is it more precious than a jacket?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is it more precious than a pair of pants?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is human life more precious than the cotton in your jeans?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is it more precious than any fabric?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is it more precious than ink and fabric?

PA: Yes.

Q: So you would rather save a human life than ink and fabric?

PA: Yes.

Q: Would you do anything to protect your children?

PA: Yes.

Q: Would you protest?

PA: Yes.

Q: If taking a knee could save your child’s life, would you take a knee?

PA: Yes.

Q: If taking a knee could save your niece or nephew, would you take a knee?

PA: Yes.

Q: If taking a knee could save the child of your friend, would you take a knee?

PA: Yes.

Q: If taking a knee could save the child of a total stranger, would you take a knee?

PA: Yes.

Q: If taking a knee could save your child’s life, but you had to take a knee during the national anthem, would you take the knee?

PA: Yes.

Q: If taking a knee could save your niece or nephew’s life, but you had to take a knee during the national anthem, would you take the knee?

PA: Yes.

Q: If taking a knee could save the child of your friend, but you had to take a knee during the national anthem, would you take the knee?

PA: Yes.

Q: If taking a knee could save the child of a total stranger, but you had to take a knee during the national anthem, would you take the knee?

PA: Yes.

Q: So, to generalize, you would take a knee to save a life, even if taking a knee had to happen during the national anthem?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is that because human life is more precious than ink and fabric?

PA: Yes.

Q: Can ink and fabric be replaced?

PA: Yes.

Q: Can a human life lost be replaced?

PA: No. People are irreplaceable.

Q: Do some people have experiences that you don’t have?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is “walking a mile in someone else’s shoes” a good idea if you want to understand why people make the choices they do?

PA: Yes.

Q: In general, do you think other people would do anything to protect their children?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you think other people would take a knee if it meant saving their child’s life?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you think other people would take a knee if it meant saving the lives of their nieces or nephews?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you think other people would take a knee if it meant saving the life of the child of their friend?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you think other people would take a knee if it meant saving the life of a child of a stranger?

PA: Yes.

Q: Do you think other people would take a knee to save their child’s life, even if it meant they had to take a knee during the national anthem?

PA: Yes.

Q: So you would take a knee during the anthem to save your child’s life, and you think others would too?

PA: Yes.

Q: And do you think others would take a knee to save the lives of their nieces or nephews, child of their friend, or child of a stranger?

PA: Yes.

Q: If someone says, “I’ve had life experiences that are different than yours,” would you believe them?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is that because everyone has distinct experiences from everyone else?

PA: Yes.

Q: Is that also because, even if you had similar experiences, no two experiences are identical?

PA: Yes.

Q: And is it possible that it could be because others can have experiences totally unlike anything you’ve experienced?

PA: Yes. 

Q: Would you be angry if the United States government killed your child?

PA: Yes.

Q: Would you be sad if the United States government killed your child?

PA: Yes.

Q: If you thought it would keep other people’s children from being killed by the United States government, would you exercise your Second Amendment rights?

PA: Yes.

Q: If you thought it would keep other people’s children from being killed by the United States government, would you exercise your First Amendment rights?

PA: Yes.

Q: All other things being equal, if both resulted in saving other people’s children from being killed by the United States government, would exercising the First Amendment be preferable in most situations? 

PA: Yes.

Q: So, if you thought it would keep yours or other people’s children from being killed by the United States government, would you exercise your First Amendment right to protest?

PA: Yes.

Q: And if you thought it would keep yours or other people’s children from being killed by the United States government, would you exercise your First Amendment right to free speech and take a knee?

PA: Yes.

Q: And if you thought it would keep yours or other people’s children from being killed by the United States government, would you exercise your First Amendment right to free speech and take a knee during the national anthem?

PA: Yes.

Q: So there are some situations where it would be justified to take a knee during the national anthem?

PA: Yes.

Q: And is that still because human life is more precious than ink and fabric?

PA: Yes.

Q: Even when that ink and fabric is a United States flag?

PA: Yes.

Q: Did you know that there are people protesting during the national anthem at sporting events?

PA: Yes.

Q: And that their protests take the form of taking a knee during the national anthem?

PA: Yes.

Q: What is it that you think they are protesting?

PA: They are protesting the flag and the national anthem.

Q: So you would be surprised if I told you that’s not what they are protesting?

PA: Yes.

Q: Did you know that police officers are agents of the state?

PA: Yes.

Q: Did you know that people are taking a knee during the national anthem to protest the killing of children by police officers?

PA: No. 

Q: Did you know they people are taking a knee during the national anthem to protest the killing of unarmed persons of color by police officers?

PA: No.

Q: But remind me again - if your child was killed by the United States government (and by US Government here I mean any agent of the state, including state or federal police officers), you said you would be willing to protest?

PA: Yes.

Q: And in this situation you would even be willing to take a knee during the national anthem?

PA: Yes.

Q: And if you took a knee during the national anthem, taking a knee would not be to protest the anthem or the flag, but to call attention to your child who was killed by agents of the state?

PA: Yes.

Q: And again, unless you have walked a mile in someone else’s shoes, it’s hard to know what their life experiences are?

PA: Yes.

Q: So that, a good way to learn from others’ experiences is to believe them when they explain what their experiences have been?

PA: Yes.

Q: One last question. If you aren’t a person of color, and you don’t share their life experiences, but listening to them and believing them is the best way to understand their life experiences, and they say that their children, and brothers, and sisters, and fathers, and mothers, and husbands, and wives, and aunts, and uncles, and friends, and family are being killed by the police, and they wish to peacefully exercise their First Amendment right to free speech by kneeling during the national anthem to call attention to these crimes against their families, and calling such attention to these crimes is not about the flag or the anthem or even the First Amendment, but to the crimes themselves, then how is their kneeling any different from what you would do if it were your children, or brothers, or sisters, or fathers, or mothers, or husbands, or wives, or aunts, or uncles, or friends, or family that were killed by the police?

PA: ……..

Q: No further questions.

(*Note* Q stands for “question.” PA stands for “probable answer.”)

[prosserjohn]

iDad

There was nothing to prepare me

For the anguish I confronted

The morning after

My children moved

More than 2000 miles away.

In that moment

Reality was a vast tomb -

My casket the expanse

Between me and my children.

A suffocating distance.

But a surmountable distance.

My greatest relief

From the daily depression

Is the moment I see my children

After soaring to them.

Whether to visit,

Or bring them home,

There is no moment in my life

More powerful

Than that moment

We see each other.

Whether it's at midnight

And their sleepy eyes widen in surprise,

Or it's at noon

When they sprint down their school's corridor

As they spy me from behind the entry doors,

Those hugs,

So strong and so pure,

Fuel me.

But flights are expensive.

What once was monthly has reduced

To bi-monthly or more.

Bankruptcy,

A result of the constant travel,

Tethers me to Washington

And cautions me against more frequent visits.

It's a beast to abide by.

But it's necessary

To ensure a solvent future for my children.

I see my children

A cumulative span

Of less than one-quarter of the year.

But we make it work.

Imagine running your car

Without gas

Three out of every four days

And making it to your destination intact.

My children and I achieve such a feat daily.

Technology makes it so.

Every night,

With few exceptions,

I see my children.

Their faces digitized,

Their hugs verbalized,

Their kisses mimed.

But their love expressed.

Clearly. Sincerely. Powerfully.

Every day I see my children,

And in those minutes,

Sometimes 5,

Sometimes 15,

I replenish with a new fuel.

Two-dimensional love

Through a screen the size of my hand

Sustains me for days on end.

Months on end.

I miss their embrace

But I hear their voices.

I see their faces

But miss their choices.

Miss the routines

Of dinner, bath, and bedtime.

The stories,

The songs,

Will wait until the summer.

The iPhone and iPad

Saved my life.

They create a taunting window

Between me and my loves.

A window that is at once

Generous and compassionate,

And devastatingly cruel.

A portkey without port.

Still,

Technology connects me to my children,

My greatest loves.

And for that I am grateful.

This life is not the life I imagined,

But it is the life we grind through.

My children

Grind through

Without their dad

And are tough enough,

Without the benefit of experience,

To survive.

They know I love them

And I know they love me.

I am their Daddy.

In this digital plane,

A portal connecting two-thousand miles

Of heartache and longing, we get by.

They get by.

I get by.

I, their Daddy,

No longer just analogue,

But pixelized and digitized and synthesized.

A light-speed traveller for whom

No speed is fast enough

To break that glass feeling.

We get by.

They get by.

I get by.

I, their Daddy.

I, Dad.

iDad.

[prosserjohn]

Nameless Again

How far can you go Without hearing your name in person? Would you measure the distance on a watch or a calendar? Your name is water. It is blood. It is constitution. It is essence. Without your name are you not hollow? Sunken? Adrift without anchor? Detached from your name, who are you? Anyone or no one? I can last droughts. This time a distance of three months. Measured in nightly tears and ensuing deep breaths. Without my name I am adrift without anchor, A leaf on a river Coursing on the deliberations of the current, Afloat And perpetually onward, Light enough to avoid the fate of any rock Stuck in bed drowned by the sheer weight and volume of the water. Sturdy enough to reach the end. My drought ended the moment I set foot in their room and cast my eyes upon their sleeping visages. They awoke, The oldest two, anyway, And I saw the look in their eyes. After 13 weeks apart My daughter saw me first, Dazed, Skeptical of her eyes, Only to find clarity, And peace At the sound of my voice. Saying her name brought reassurance that I was no mirage, No dream, No phantasm. Her name, whispered in darkness Broken only by shuttered street-light, Was water, was blood, Was constitution, was essence. She called my name, First as question, Then as fact. Daddy? Daddy. So shocked to see me she nearly lost her breath. Her eyes grew to match the magnitude of her relief before Jumping out of bed and into my arms. Her embrace my anchor. Her kisses my restoration. In that moment My identity returned. My oldest son awoke almost immediately after her first embrace. Daddy! Sheets off and out of bed. He rushed to my arms as my youngest remained asleep. I love you Daddy. My daughter in my right arm Which bears a tattoo of her name on my inner bicep. My oldest son in my left arm Which bears a tattoo of his name and his brother's on my inner bicep. I wasn't letting go And neither were they. We might as well have been kneeling in prayer. Our love, our strength, our names - Daddy, son, daughter - made whole again. Reconstituted. Three months of pain vanquished instantly. For me and for them. And in two days the drought begins again. They will make it. They know their names And they are far stronger than me. Far stronger than me. I lay in bed, unable to sleep. The inevitability Of our waning time Arriving despite warning. Eight days. Seven. Six. Five days. Four. Three. Two days. Tomorrow. My oldest is the last to fall asleep, Snuggled next to me. I crash. I wake Sporadically throughout the night. Exhausted. Emotionally and physically. This pattern continues until finally My alarm sounds. It's 5 in the morning. The kiddos need their sleep So I wake and escape the bed. Quietly. Heavy hearted. I make my way to the shower. If they wake up while I shower There's a risk they'll think I left Without saying goodbye. The mere thought terrifies me. They mustn't wake. If I could will it I would. I shower quickly, Dress, And finish packing. One duffle with all my clothing. Light travel is quick travel. And quick travel means That I can linger minutes longer. Each tick both an infinity And an instant Too shallow to bear. It's time to say goodbye. I crawl on the bed to wake my loves And give them parting hugs. Parting mana. Lembas bread. My daughter wakes and wraps her arms around me. Such a hug. Her tiny arms, strong from softball, Strong with love, Tie a knot around my neck. I love you Daddy. My name. I leave it with them. And with them I will find it again. In 8 weeks. Too long, but shorter than before. I can last droughts. The boys wake too. Each sitting up to follow suit And say goodbye. Their parting hugs And crying eyes Equal parts strength imbuing And devastating. I love you Daddy. I love you Daddy. I love you too. My time is up. My anchor ripped from my hull. And as I soak up the last moments of love From these magnificent children My oldest slays me With an unintentionally painful blow. Don't go Daddy. Why do you have to go? Why can't you stay? There are no words To comfort Such creatures. No words to ensure Or convince That distance is necessary Right now. That Daddy must leave them, Again. Our names are water. Are blood. Are constitution. Are essence. And with their names on my lips we part. My children, My sons, My daughter, I love you more than life itself. And I will see you soon. Two months. So until then Take care of one another. Love one another. Because each of you shares the same pain. So help each other in your pain. You are strong. Stronger than me. For you are 9, 6, and 4, And able to withstand our time apart. I love you all. Sweet dreams. And I leave. The closing of their door A cruelty. Mere feet away And already a continent. The timer starts. The tears run. And my name detaches again. As painful as leaving an arm behind. Or my very heart. But they know their names. And they are far stronger than me.

[prosserjohn]

Donald Trump's two-bit Presidency is just an historic retread of pat failed ideas. We don't want your bigotry in any of its forms. Stop trying to load your fascism into our American console.

[prosserjohn]

Resist fascism & authoritarianism. Fight his bigotry. Fight his xenophobia. Fight his hatred of Muslims. Fight his sexism.

[prosserjohn]

#DonaldTrump's #TheNightmareBeforeChristmas #OogieBoogie #Deplorables #NeverTrump #Resist #HappyHolidays #MerryChristmas #HillaryClinton

[prosserjohn]

A Response to Claudia Rowe of the Seattle Times from an Erin Jones supporter and donor

The following letter is from David Nierenberg to Claudia Rowe at the Seattle Times. It addresses the false claims some are making that the only reason big money donors contribute to Erin Jones is because they believe that she will support charter schools and the like. This letter strongly rebuts those arguments. This letter is reprinted with permission. Dear Claudia, In your 11/1 article about the SPI race you wrote that “many of Jones’ wealthiest supporters—like David and Patricia Nierenberg….have pushed for charter schools….” I don’t recall that you interviewed me about this article or that you know me.  Jim Brunner does know some things about me; we have talked occasionally.  And my son Jacob interned this past summer at the Times as a feature story writer, and had a great experience with your paper. I wonder why you characterized me as pushing for charter schools or why the article implied that charter schools was an important factor in my decision to support Erin for SPI.   As you noted, Erin has made plain that she is no died in the wool  fan of charter schools; what she cares most about is whatever is in the best interest of the kids. I feel exactly the same way.   I have spent two decades helping the Evergreen School District in Clark County in a variety of donor and volunteer capacities, as has my wife.  I have served six years on the board of trustees of Whitman College.  And I have served for a decade on the WA State Investment Board, which invests retirement funds for all public employees in our state, including teachers and school district staff.  Ask any of the people I have worked with in these three fine education/public service organizations whether they think that charter schools is among my top concerns in the field of education.   What should come across, instead, is that Patricia and I share a passion for breaking the cycle of poverty, starting with birth, then with early learning, and then to school and on to college.  It’s that simple.   Most of our philanthropy and community service has been focused on healthcare for newborns and on education. The day the PDC disclosed our and others’ contributions to Erin, Chris Reykdal blogged that millionaires were trying to buy this election, claimed that these millionaires allegedly knew nothing about public education, and that we allegedly believed that schools should be run like for profit companies.   Chris doesn’t know Patricia and me from a hot rock, but this is what he wrote that day, without any proof at all. My record of political giving is an open book.  You can see in the two decades I have lived in WA that I have been a major donor to both D and R candidates.  True, recently, I was one of 8 original national finance chairs for Romney for President, from 2006-12.  I did this because I have known Mitt for 39 years; he was my first boss and mentor; I worked with him for six years at Bain & Company; Mitt is the most capable person I have ever met.  But you will also see that I contributed generously to Chris Gregoire, Gary Locke, Maria Cantwell, and Brian Baird.  And you will see that I also have given to Bill Bryant, Lynda Wilson, Sam Reed, Kim Wyman, Paul Harris, the late Andy Hill, and other Republicans.  I don’t force-fit myself to conform to party or ideology; I try to identify the best candidate for each job, the candidate with intelligence, integrity, substantive knowledge, intensity, and great team-building skills.  I don’t believe in litmus tests on issues.  The only litmus tests I use are character and competency. My support for Erin Jones for SPI is in this same vein.  After studying Erin and her opponent, I came to the conclusion that Erin is the better candidate for SPI.  She is not beholden to anybody or any interest group except all school-age children of our state.  She has a quarter century of hands on experience in the classroom and in administration.  She has wonderful coalition building skills, something which can easily be seen in the extraordinary breadth of her support.  She is a doer; not a trash-talking politician.  I would want her instructing our kids about citizenship, because she practices good citizenship every day. As you and Jim do, I am sure, I find our national Presidential election this year a disgrace (Meg Whitman and I have endorsed Hillary in national TV network interviews, though we both were Romney finance chairs).  Similarly, as Jim knows, I have been disgusted by the caustic politics of County Councillors David Madore and Tom Mielke in Clark County and therefore created a PAC which successfully kept Madore out of the general election.  In the SPI contest, I am saddened that Chris Reykdal tries to reduce me to a phony and misleading stereotype.  I encourage you not to let him get away with sliming decent, well-meaning people.  If we let abuse from ambitious pols drive good people away from politics, all of us will suffer the consequences.   Special interests and insiders will game the system for themselves.  Democracy still works in this country because courageous, independent, decent people make it work.  And fresh, brave candidates like Erin Jones.  The Presidential race is too big, ugly, and expensive for most of us to make a difference.  But maybe in the SPI race we still can.  For the sake of the kids of our state, I hope that we can. David David Nierenberg The D3 Family Funds

[prosserjohn]

The Stranger is Wrong: A Reply to Voters Who Have Been Persuaded by The Stranger's Attacks on Erin Jones

This blog post is reposted (with minimal edits for typos only) from my Facebook. Originally, it was a reply I wrote to a Facebook commenter who questioned Erin Jones' fitness as a candidate as a direct result of several articles published by the Seattle paper, The Stranger. I then posted this reply as my own Facebook status. As people started to share this post, the links attached were posting but not the original commentary. I am reposting here so that people can share my reply in full without risk of losing the content. The following is my reply in full. Hi Steve, I found the Stranger's article troubling too, but not for the same reasons as you. I found it troubling because it reads to me, as someone who knows Erin and has worked with her (I'm a public school teacher). Concerning her being an "evangelical Christian." The Stranger is using this term as a pejorative and attaching to it assumptions, innuendo, and caricatures which are grossly inaccurate. I'm an atheist. Erin knows I'm an atheist. We are friends. She has never evangelized me, tried to use her religion as a wedge towards me, or in anyway demonstrated anything other than the Christian value of love towards me and those around her. There are plenty of people I know who aren't evangelicals who judge me for being an atheist (so I acutely know what it feels like), but that's not Erin. The Stranger is simply wrong. It's dangerous reporting and it's discriminatory. For the record, Dr. ML King was an evangelical Christian, too. He's not good enough for The Stranger? Second, let's consider the attacks against Erin that accuse her of being anti-LGBTQ. Erin Jones is a surrogate mother of two adult children whose families turned their back on them for coming out. Erin loves these young adults as her own, supporting them and creating a safe space that wasn't there when they needed it. Explain how someone is simultaneously anti-LGBTQ and a de facto parent to LGBTQ identifying young adults whose biological families turned on them. Ann Hawkins, a colleague of mine and the best teacher I know, strongly rejects The Stranger's claim that Erin is anti-LGBTQ. Ann is a lesbian, a mother, teacher, and feminist. Here she explains how she knows that Erin is an ally: https://www.facebook.com/anne.hawkins.963/posts/10154525102087792. People who think Erin is anti-LGBTQ simply don't know Erin. They are taking an article which is grossly distorted and using it in lieu of the personal testimonies of those who know her best, including members of the LGBTQ community. Third, Charter Schools. Let me be clear: I am a 7 year public school teacher and former lawyer. I was a legal intern at the WEA under former general counsel Jerry Painter. I fought against anti-education groups and continue to do so. I am a union rep in my building, was a 2013-3014 NEA fellow in a program that looked at strengthening union leadership and participation in early career educators. When Michelle Rhee attacked Seattle teachers a few years back for boycotting the MAP test I rebutted her op-ed in the Seattle times on my blog, which was then picked up by Diane Ravitch in her blog. She called my essay brilliant. (Have a read: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/03/09/michelle-rhees-dishonorable-attack-on-the-garfield-teachers/). Point is, I'm not a fan of charters. Neither is Erin. But Erin is a sophisticated education leader who understands nuance. Erin has worked for decades in public education. She's a public education champion. But there are realities out there that anti-charter people disregard. As SPI, if the voters of WA pass a law allowing charters, she would be duty bound to implement those charters. So would Reykdal. That doesn't make either of them charter proponents. Second, there is a real problem in our country with certain segments of society getting left behind. Students of color are disproportionately disciplined for the same behaviors as their white peers, are punished more severely than their white peers, and are suspended/expelled more often than their white peers. I don't support charters one bit, but can out tell the parent of a child that has been left behind that a charter school she wants to try isn't viable to her? The traditional school wasn't either. Charters aren't a curriculum or guarantee of innovation - it's a management system. Public schools are too. These terms just describe where the money comes from and the rules of how it's used. Neither system is a guarantee of anything in terms of sound instruction. Erin is committed to all students. Period. And even though she continues to be on record as having voted, as a private citizen, against charters, and has clarified that she is not a proponent, she is also empathetic enough to see that it's possible other educational avenues may benefit some students and families. That does not make her pro-charters. It makes her pro-student. And finally, please read my own blog piece About Chris's treatment of Erin. It's a thorough examination of comments he made about Erin to his supporters. Spoiler alert: his comments were atrocious. http://prosserjohn.tumblr.com/post/150888997760/chris-reykdal-misrepresenting-himself

[prosserjohn]

Chris Reykdal: Misrepresenting Himself, Misrepresenting Erin Jones

Chris Reykdal and I have something in common it seems: we’re both sick of privileged white men.

In a campaign email he sent to his supporters asking for donations just this Saturday morning (September 24th, at 8:58 AM) Reykdal emphasized that he is “Sick of Donald Trump!”

Me too, Chris, me too. Trump is racist, sexist, and a notorious liar. I am not a fan of electing racist, sexist liars to any position. President or otherwise.

Which brings me to the otherwise.

Like Trump, Chris Reykdal is a privileged white man content with lying and using dog-whistle racism to win an election against a more qualified woman candidate.

“John,” you find yourself saying, “it’s a bit much to compare Chris to Donald Trump. Trump is a racist, sexist, liar. How can you compare Chris to that?”

That’s an interesting point I anticipate you raising. Comparing any local political candidate to Donald Trump seems excessive, dishonest, over-the-top, and offensive.

But that’s exactly what Chris Reykdal did Saturday morning when he sent his email soliciting donations from supporters: he compared Erin Jones - who after winning the primary has an excellent shot at becoming Washington State’s first black person (man or woman) elected to a statewide office - to Donald Trump.

Let me reiterate that slowly and clearly: Chris Reykdal, a privileged white man, just compared Erin Jones, a black woman vying to become the state’s first elected black leader at the state level, to Donald Trump.

There are some Donald Trump tactics being used here, only it’s Chris Reykdal, not Erin Jones, who is gutter diving.

Examining Chris’s Email to Donors

Chris begins his solicitation email with the Trump comparison and then supports his disgust with claims that Erin Jones is being bought by corporate reformers. Not only is this statement untrue (stop lying Chris), Chris is the candidate who is being supported by excessive organizational contributions. Let’s examine his claims.

Here is Chris’s email in full (bold is original to the email):

I'm sick of Donald Trump!  I’m sick of the bigger symbolism of his campaign.  I'm done with excessively wealthy individuals trying to buy elections without a remote understanding of how to effectively serve the interests of the public.  Guess what?  It's happening even in my OSPI race!  The millionaire corporate-style reformers are writing $2,000 (maximum) checks to my opponent.

I respect their desire for “change,” but these folks know nothing about the Superintendent’s office or quite frankly, how to truly help kids, teachers, and schools – most likely because they’ve never worked in education, public policy, or education finance!  They want schools to run like for-profit companies.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!  THE paramount duty in our State Constitution is FULLY and AMPLY funding our K-12 public schools.  The Constitution does not say vouchers, charters, or privatization.  Our kids and our schools are not profit centers to be shut down or “right-sized” to make an extra buck.  In fact, quite the opposite.  We need to drive additional resources to communities and kids most in need!

Unlike my opponent, I won't be getting $2,000 checks from wealthy school privatizers, but I do have you:  $25, $50, $100, and $250 at a time.  Ballots go out in four weeks and it is critical that our army of supporters step up right now.

Chris claims that “the millionaire corporate-style reformers are writing $2,000 (maximum) checks to my opponent,” and that “unlike my opponent, I won’t be getting $2,000 checks from wealthy school privatizers.” Let’s address these claims first, since they are the theme that underlies his being “sick of the bigger symbolism of [Trump’s] campaign.”

A review of the Public Disclosure Commission’s database on campaign contributions reveals that Reykdal is blatantly misleading his supporters. Both simple math and a line-by-line analysis tells us so.

Erin Jones has received, as of this writing, $144,345.15 in contributions from 1,627 donations. That is an average of $88.72 per donation.

Chris Reykdal has received $184,460.96 from 703 donations. Less donations and more money will equal a higher average donation. Chris’s average donation is $262.39. That means, on average, Chris has received almost three times the amount of money per donation than Erin (2.96 times more per donation that Erin).

That Chris has less donors but more money tells us right away that he has more big money donors than Erin. But let’s examine those numbers. (Note, I will examine these numbers in greater depth below in my specific rebuttals to Chris’s response to another blog that addressed Chris’s solicitation email.)

The chart below shows donations to both candidates of $1,000 and above. Erin has 23 of those and Chris has 39.

Examining the contributions we see that, of Chris’s 39 donations of $1,000 or more, only three were from individuals and one of those individuals is a lobbyist. The remaining donations are from Microsoft, Weyerhaeuser, unions, corporations, the Nisqually Tribe, and PACs. In fact, of those 39 donations, 10 are from PACs, making Chris “PAC-man” Reykdal’s accusations that Erin Jones is beholden to special interests blatantly hypocritical.

Of Erin’s 23 donations of $1,000 or more, all but five are from individuals (Tulalip Tribe, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, National Women’s Political Caucus of WA Campaign Fund, Public School Employees for Washington Political Fund, and the Justice for All PAC).

The chart below captures the difference between individual and organizational donors of $1,000 or more to each candidate.

Chris wants his donors and voters to believe that Erin Jones is raking in some endless stream of corporate contributions, but that is a gross distortion. Of Erin’s seven $2,000 donations, one is from Howard Behar (former President of Starbucks), one is from Chris Larson (Co-owner of the Seattle Mariners), and one is from Maryanne Tagney (President of the Board for the Seattle Opera). Three donations from philanthropic individuals is neither a harrowing trend nor a scary revelation.

Chris’s email likening Erin Jones to Donald Trump is. It’s also dog-whistle racism. By likening Erin to the exuberant racist Donald Trump, Chris is signaling a coded and subtle message to his supporters of Erin’s non-existent reverse racism. That is wrong. That is racist. Shame on Chris Reykdal.

Chris’s Hypocrisy

Chris’s email contains other noteworthy claims. In his second paragraph he wrote: “but these folks [excessively wealthy individuals] know nothing about the Superintendent’s office or quite frankly, how to truly help kids, teachers, and schools – most likely because they’ve never worked in education, public policy, or education finance!” (emphasis added) In this paragraph Chris does two things: first, he highlights an expectation that individuals or organizations that donate to the OSPI race know something about the Superintendent’s office and how to truly help kids, teachers and schools; second, he implies a need for the Superintendent of Public Instruction for Washington State to be an experienced educator. Let’s examine both claims.

Claim 1: By asserting that wealthy donors know nothing of the Superintendent’s office or how to truly help kids, teachers, and schools, Chris makes a brazen claim that, besides being unsupported by any evidence, misleads his donors into thinking that, while Erin’s donors know nothing of education, his donors are especially knowledgeable about education (and hence, why they are voting for him). Hogwash. Examine Erin’s list of donors and you will find more individual teachers and educators contributing to her campaign than Chris. But that’s almost beside the point – raising the issue in the first place is a dirty trick that encourages voters to disregard the substance of Erin’s campaign because of not-so-subtle accusations that she’s in the pocket of big-money donors.

Even worse is that Chris’s own claim is contradicted by his own donor base! Someone should remind Chris that the Washington Beer and Wine Distributors Association, who contributed $2,000 to his campaign, know less about the Superintendent’s office or how to truly help kids, teachers, and schools than any of Erin’s individual donors.

Claim 2: I actually agree with Chris: the Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction should be an experienced educator.

But don’t be fooled. Chris Reykdal is not an experienced educator; Erin Jones is.

Chris worked for a few years as a teacher almost 20 years ago. Big deal. I worked as an attorney for several years almost a decade ago – that doesn’t mean I’m going to run for the State Supreme Court, nor would I advise you to hire me as your attorney for any upcoming cases. Similarly, I wouldn’t want Chris to be the teacher for any of my three children.

In the two decades since Chris last taught, technology has revolutionized classrooms and learning. The speed of computing has grown exponentially. Advancements in personal devices, like iPhones and iPads, were invented! Digital technology is literally changing the physiology of the brain, and Reykdal has not been in a classroom to experience it. Erin Jones has. Chris has not been equipped for decades to deal with the demands of teaching and learning. If I wouldn’t want him teaching my kids, why would I want him leading all of Washington’s schools?

White Saviors Need Not Apply

Consider this:

Embracing diversity is not an exercise in being color blind. Quite the opposite; it is absolutely about seeing color, seeing diversity, seeing barriers, having crucial conversations, and strategically moving our communities to a greater passion about their public schools and the expectations of all students.

And:

As Superintendent I will diversify the OSPI staff and create a policy framework for the organization that embeds solutions to the opportunity gap in everything we do!

Do you know who said those words? Chris or Erin?

It was Chris.

The candidate who admits that seeing color is essential to embracing diversity just compared his black female opponent to Donald Trump and believes that he, the white male of privilege 20 years removed from the classroom, is uniquely positioned to establish and maintain that diversity. This arrogance is the epitome of the white savior complex: insisting that he understands the needs of students of color more than the candidate of color and that he is more qualified to meet those needs than a life-long, award-winning educator – essentially, that he, the white male, can swoop in and rescue persons of color from the barriers preventing their learning in our schools.

Some Words from Chris and 10 Rebuttals

Chris’s email was also examined by the SWWEducation.org blog (a blog I only learned of after it examined Chris’s email). The blog post compared donations between the two candidates. I mention its post because Chris took the time to reply in the comment section of the blog to allay any concerns raised by his soliciting email.

Here is Chris’s reply in full. I am underlining and numbering claims that I will rebut below.

Thank you for covering this topic. My opponent has dozens and dozens of donors on installment plans. They pay small amounts every month so each contribution appears to look like a unique donor. Some people are reflected 6, 8, even 10 times as unique donors.(1) A simple PDC download of contributions into Excel and a “remove duplicate function” will reveal that we are within a few hundred donors of each other.(2) Both campaigns are very grassroots.(3) Let’s face it, this is a non-partisan position that doesn’t get much attention or resources.(4) Combined we have raised barely over $300,000 or about 5 pennies per voter.(5)

The major point of my fundraising letter is the growing trend of exceedingly powerful individuals who try to buy individual elected seats for themselves or their champions.(6) BOTH SIDES of the political aisle have these influencers. I used Trump as the example only because he is going for the ultimate office – the White House.(7) I even say it is the symbolism of his campaign that most bothers me. But make no mistake, Democrats have plenty of these folks as well.

I am proud to have support by Republicans and Democrats across the state. Business and labor across the state. What I don’t have, that my opponent does, are exceedingly powerful individuals with a history of giving large amounts of personal money to candidate and PACs.(8) I find this kind of donation far different than a business or a labor union. They are not representing a group of people (workers, employees, shareholders, customers, etc.). They are representing only themselves and their singular interests.(9)

I believe deeply in one person – one vote.(10) I believe in our Constitution! When some individuals can influence one political race – whether the White House or a school superintendent (whether a Democrat or Republican), I believe we have trouble with the Republic and our larger Democracy.

Anybody is free to contact me directly at [email protected] or my personal cell phone at 360-790-3151 if they would like to discuss this further.

Rebuttal 1: Erin Jones has “dozens and dozens” of donors on installment plans because Erin Jones has more individual donors, like teachers, that can’t simply give big-time money every paycheck but still deeply care about this election and office. Chris’s shaming of these donors is troubling.

Rebuttal 2: Chris challenges voters to export the PDC numbers into Excel and use the “remove duplicate function” to reveal the true numbers of unique contributors. He claims this “will reveal that we are within a few hundred donors of each other.” This is a blatant mischaracterization of the unique number of contributors. After using the “remove duplicate function” it turns out Chris has 413 unique contributors and Erin has 914 unique contributors. This is not “within a few hundred donors.” In fact, this reveals that Erin has more than twice the number of unique donors than Chris. Using these numbers to determine the average contribution per donor (as opposed to the average contribution per donation, which I examined above), we find that Chris’s donors contribute an average of 2.58 times more than Erin’s donors. That is, unique donors to Erin average $157.93 of giving while unique donors to Chris average $407.20 of giving. Chris wants to minimize the significance of these numbers by claiming the campaigns are “within a few hundred donors of each other,” but his dishonest characterization shouldn’t fool anybody.

Rebuttal 3: “Grassroots” means “ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization's membership.” Chris’s biggest donors (over $500 single donations) are overwhelmingly organizations, not people. This is not grassroots. Of his 43 donations of more than $500, only 3 are from unique individuals. Comparatively, Erin Jones has 25 donations of more than $500 and of those, 15 are from individuals. That’s five times as many contributions from individuals with 18 less single donations of more than $500. Chris wants to appeal to the liberal ideal of grassroots, knowing that Washington voters were keen on Bernie Sanders and his grassroots efforts. But the facts show that his campaign is demonstrably less grassroots than Erin Jones’s. Don’t be tricked by his misleading language.

Rebuttal 4: Chris wants people to believe that this race gets little attention. While this may have been true in the past, it is not true this year. The Washington State Supreme Court’s 2012 McCleary decision has brought an unprecedented level of attention to this race. McCleary found that Washington State is failing to amply fund public education. To this day, the state legislature has yet to meet the Court’s funding mandates. Chris Reykdal has been a member of this ineffective legislature since 2010 – before McCleary was even decided. This race is a marquee contest in Washington’s 2016 elections and our vote for Superintendent is critical to ensure that Washington’s students get a leader that can transform our inequitable system of education into a system that benefits all children.

Rebuttal 5: Chris claims that between the two candidates they have raised barely over $300,000. While we differ that $328,806.11 is barely over $300,000, the more important takeaway is that, of the total contributions between two candidates, Chris has raised 56% of that figure. Chris is the big-money candidate but you wouldn’t know it by his solicitation email. He paints Erin with a brush accusing her of being beholden to donors while it is he, not Erin, who gets more money from less people.

Rebuttal 6: Chris wants voters to believe that individual donors are a greater threat to democracy than organizational donors. This claim is contrary to logic and evidence. Individual donors in Washington are capped in the amount they can contribute to specific candidates. However, individuals can give an unlimited amount of money to Political Action Committees (PACs). Even if PACs abide by the same limitations of individual donors, there is no limit to how many distinct PACs can contribute to a candidate. An individual wanting to circumvent campaign finance regulations could theoretically give unlimited amounts of money to multiple PACs, each of which support one candidate. A PAC therefore poses a distinct threat to democracy because it obscures from view the source of contributions to candidates. The danger of PACs should be clear when you consider Super PACs at the federal level and their ability to contribute unlimited amounts of money to candidates. Super PACs are not at issue here, but they serve as a rebuttal that individual contributions are more dangerous than organizational contributions. Chris “PAC-Man” Reykdal is swimming in PAC money. That is a far greater red-flag than Erin’s contributions from several wealthy individuals.

Rebuttal 7: Chris’s comparison of Erin Jones to Donald Trump was meant to associate Erin Jones to Trump. It was not, as Chris claims, “merely because the candidate is running for the highest office.” Chris’s comparison is similar to throwing pasta at a wall to see if it will stick. If it does, he gets money and votes; if it doesn’t, he can walk it back (e.g. say it was “merely because the candidate is running for the highest office”). Trump himself uses this technique when he tells his racist, sexist jokes. The technique, masterfully examined and detailed by English Professor and attorney Jason Sneed, helps a candidate to assimilate ideas, even at the risk of alienating voters (the alienation serves a purpose of grouping people into two groups: in-groups, those people who agree with the idea, and out-groups, those who reject the idea). By comparing Erin to Trump, Reykdal is trying to assimilate the idea of Erin being an untrustworthy, unqualified, candidate for this office. By sending this idea to his supporters, he effectively tests its use with his in-group (which would allow him later to use the language, if assimilated and well received, at large). Chris’s comparison is racist. He should be held to task for its use.

Rebuttal 8: Erin Jones has very few (less than 5) of the big-money donors Chris is referring to. I identified these donors above. Chris, however, is awash in PAC contributions. That is a far greater threat to transparent elections than Erin’s individual donors. See also “Rebuttal 6.”

Rebuttal 9: I am a member of a union. I disagree with my union’s endorsement of Chris Reykdal. The process by which unions choose their endorsements is not as democratic as unions would like you to believe. At a union meeting, while any member may attend, only representatives with voting credentials get to vote. For example, at my teacher’s union meetings, I am one of four voting members from my school. My colleagues elected me at my school site to represent them, but with 54 school sites, and limited representation per site, only a fraction of union members actually get to vote. When an organization endorses a candidate, the process is even less representative. I am the former PAC-Chair for WEA-Tacoma, meaning I used to organize and conduct candidate interviews. Only a handful of people sit in on these interviews, and it’s their recommendation that gets brought to the larger body to vote on. An individual with a personal agenda wishing to sway an endorsement would have great power on this small committee. Chris may find that this process better represents the interests of more people (as opposed to individual interests), but especially in this election, a large population of my union’s teachers (both locally and at the state level) disagree with the union’s endorsement. Our voices are therefore chilled by our union’s endorsement. This is not ideal democracy.

Rebuttal 10: Chris doesn’t understand the meaning of 1 person 1 vote. When he takes union money raised from the funds of all of its members, after a vote by less than all of its members, he violates 1 person 1 vote. When Chris takes seemingly endless contributions from PACs (which can receive unlimited contributions from individuals), he violates the ideal of 1 person 1 vote. When he takes money from Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser directly, organizations who can benefit directly from the votes of state legislators, he violates 1 person 1 vote. “PAC-Man” indeed.

Conclusion

Chris Reykdal’s email to supporters Saturday was racist and full of lies -a tactic straight from the playbook of Trump himself. Misleading his supporters to believe Erin Jones is funneling countless donations from education-reformers obscures the reality that Chris takes in more big-money donations from more big-money organizations than Erin. This is the truer threat to an honest election. Erin Jones is a grass-roots candidate who relies on small donations from you and me. Don’t buy into Chris’s lies. Don’t subscribe to his dog-whistle racism. Don’t believe in his white-savior mentality. Don’t vote for Chris Reykdal. Our kids deserve the best. Erin Jones is the best.

Tacoma’s News Tribune endorsed Erin Jones this past week, I encourage all voters to look at the facts and then do the same.

[prosserjohn]

Our latest creation at #OmbrelloDesign. You can find this #tshirt for $18 at http://ombrellodesign.tictail.com

[prosserjohn]

Some valuable information for voters. Visit MikePence4VP.Com to learn more.

[prosserjohn]

Ombrello Design's newest #tshirt is out. http://ombrellodesign.tictail.com/product/seanhawkunisexwhite Our Sea 'n Hawk tee has a retro PNW design with a modern appeal.

[prosserjohn]

The convergence of Bernie and Ray: a Game of Thrones analogy

Sandor Clegane, The Hound - a Game of Thrones favorite character. When we saw him reappear on this week’s episode single-handedly carrying a felled tree, we collectively boiled over in excitement. “Yes! The Hound is back! He’s still alive!” Still alive after being left for dead by Arya Stark, another fan favorite.

Excitement at the Hound’s return is not a surprise, but it is surprising that a character who has reveled in violence, who was the personal bodyguard to Joffrey (as repugnant and unlikeable a character as the story has produced), is as well-received as he is. I love The Hound because he is a relatable character. Not for his violence, but for his honesty, for his frustrations, and for his growth. He’s a likable character despite his many flaws.

And then we meet Brother Ray. Brother Ray is even more likable than Clegane. A former warrior, Brother Ray has turned to peace, leading a small band of followers as a septon in the wild. He was the one that found The Hound and nursed him back to health. His friendship to The Hound was a model of accepting people despite their histories, of displaying sincere empathy and kindness to a man many would say is undeserving. And Ray’s honesty regarding his faith, that he knows not the name of the God or gods, just that something larger than himself exists, is an unparalleled humility in a universe littered with zealots and arrogant characters.

So we wept for the septon upon his death, despite knowing it was required in order to advance the narrative. No man who adheres so virtuously to a code of peace could survive in Westeros. And he didn’t.

Clegane knew as much. In a telling exchange where Brother Ray articulates his pacifism, Clegane pushes back. Sandor questions whether Ray would resort to violence in order to defend himself. The exchange that follows is now famous.

“Violence is a disease; you don’t cure a disease by spreading it to more people,” Ray says to The Hound. Clegane replies, “You don’t cure it by dying either.”

And within hours of this exchange Brother Ray and his followers had been slain. Strict adherence to a noble life brought about a noble death. But he’s still dead. Ray can no longer help the world. He’ll be a footnote to history, his lasting influence being to inspire The Hound to a new sense of purpose. He brought Sandor Clegane back to life and gave him a new purpose. Still, before Sandor can fulfill his new destiny he must dispatch of those brutes who murdered’s his friend. And so we see The Hound leaving the site of the attack, axe in hand, ready to exact vengeance upon the Brotherhood Without Banners, that group of roaming warriors that killed Brother Ray and his flock.

Bernie Sanders’ followers could learn a lesson from The Hound: the good you seek will end with you if you can’t survive the fight.

Bernie supporters are becoming notorious for their #BernieOrBust approach to this election. If Bernie doesn’t win the nomination, they say, then voting for Hillary is out of the question. "She’s just as bad as Trump!” “She’s a crook! A liar! In the pockets of big corporations and Wall Street!” Brother Ray’s approach to peace was no less dogmatic and stubborn than Bernie’s flock. And like Brother Ray, their dogmatism will be their undoing.

I love Bernie Sanders. I love what he stands for, his principled approach to politics, his views on the economy, and his voice for the 98%. I like Bernie more than I like Hillary. But the change Bernie seeks is monumental in scope. It cannot come overnight, but with great effort, in can come. Dan Savage makes this very point in a brilliant podcast on 3rd parties, (https://youtu.be/T34hGXwCF9g) pointing out that 3rd party success needs to happen at the local level, where successes can lead to its being built upwards; but Savage concludes you can’t start at the top and demand legitimacy every 4 years without laying that local groundwork.

Can you imagine if Brother Ray demanded the Iron Throne?

“You don’t cure it by dying, either.” The Hound could equally be saying this to Bernie. “Hey! Sanders! What revolution will come about if your movement dies with a Trump election?” Because a Trump election would destroy the movement. It’s already empowering bigots, racists, and misogynists to spew their filth. A Trump victory would draw out more supporters for his style of governing, to bullying and demagoguery, and weaken the ability of his opposition to dissent without retribution. Just as Bush’s election steal didn’t mobilize the left, a Trump election, as argued by Savage, would fail to mobilize the left today.

Bernie’s fall was nearly as inevitable as Brother Ray’s. It wasn’t without purpose, it wasn’t without virtue, and it wasn’t without merit. But it’s measure in idealism was equal and opposite to its lack of realism. Even a Sanders’ victory would’ve been fraught with challenges. Just as Obama’s efforts to make progress were stymied and sabotaged by the GOP and it’s loathing of everything Obama, so too would Sanders be stuck, possibly on both sides of the aisle, without Congressional support. So his ideas -no matter how inspiring - unless they could be made a reality, were an IOU to his supporters.

Brother Ray’s ideas are not dead. The Hound remembers. Ray’s efforts helped bring Clegane to a new sense of self. It changed his mindset.

Sanders’ ideas are not dead either. His efforts have refreshed an often stagnant Democratic Party, and have brought Hillary left. She needs Sanders’ supporters support, but they need her too. Jill Stein is unelectable. Any 3rd party run is destined to fail at this moment in history. The only way Bernie’s ideas progress is with the help of Hillary Clinton.

So when Sandor Clegane marches through to the Brotherhood Without Banners and mows them down, picture Hillary Clinton doing the same thing to Donald Trump’s ideas. She’ll destroy the dangerous meme that is Donald Trump, and in so doing, preserve the left’s march towards a real, sustainable, systemic change.

Rest in peace Brother Ray.

Rest in power brother Bernie.

Grab that axe sister Hillary. It’s time to get to work.

[prosserjohn]

#RestInPeaceChamp #MuhammadAli #TheGreatest

[prosserjohn]

#HowDoYouLikeThemApples? #SeattleSuperSonics #SonicsGate #BringBackOurSonics #NBA