July 10, 2017

A Question for Lawyers on DU

As y'all know, at some point in both civil and criminal defense practice, you often end up having to have "the conversation" with your client.

You know... "the conversation" in which you use a lot of gentle euphemisms and tactful terminology, but it essentially comes down to:

"Do you want to look stupid? Or do you want to look criminal?"

And then gently explain that, while things don't look real good, and there's likely to be some stuff the client isn't gonna like having to deal with, either way, the stuff that'll come based on looking stupid will definitely last a shorter time and do less horrible long-term damage than looking criminal.

As in "Either way you're f*%d, but if you go with "stupid" you get lube."

THAT conversation.

So, tell me this: Do ya think >Redacted<'s legal staff are prepping for having that conversation?

And... how would you like to be them?

Because I don't think it's gonna go well.

curiously,
Bright

July 4, 2017

Unifying Democrats

Put not your faith in an individual. No leader, no candidate. They are all human, they all have strengths, they all have flaws. The one who seems "just right" today may still be a fine human being next year or three years from now, but events, conditions, people may combine to eclipse their strengths and magnify their flaws.

Individuals can lead, even unify, political parties temporarily. But what unifies parties and gives them staying power over the long haul isn't this leader or that leader, but an idea. An idea that inspires, draws out the commitment and energy of the voters- both the party faithful, and the broader electorate.

Conversely, the most effective way to shatter a party is to prevent it from articulating and coalescing around an idea.

It's been a long time since the Democratic Party had an idea that could really inspire unity.

And no, "opposing the GOP", sadly, is not it. Nor is "opposing >Redacted<", potent as those notions seem to us right now as we suffer under the wrecking ball.

The idea that will unify us must have the kind of instant clarity that translates into widely shared understanding. It must embrace an array of concerns that includes an overwhelming majority of the electorate. It must both encompass and transcend the vast complexity of detail that is inescapable in the governance of 350 million people.

Every now and then I bring the idea I think best meets these demanding criteria out, and wave it tentatively around. It rarely gets more than a few smiles. Still, I persist. One day, I think, its time will have come. So today I'll try again.


Anyone willing to work full-time may raise a child and retire, without fear for basic needs.


Every single important word or phrase in that comparatively simple sentence encompasses important ideals that the Democratic Party should embody.

"Anyone"- young people, older people who choose to work, people with different physical and developmental capabilities, immigrants and people born here, people of all religious (or no religious) beliefs, people of all ethnicities, appearances, gender identifications, orientations. "Anyone."

"willing"- implying a commitment to participation, to preparation, learning, in pursuit of economic effort of all kinds. "willing."

"work"- an economy that will include enough economic opportunity for all. Wage employment, entrepreneurship, self-employment, co-operative enterprises, all kinds of models to provide all kinds of economic support. "work".

"full-time"- a definition that will balance the needs of a broad workforce and a diverse economy. Right now it's 40 hours, but perhaps it should change to 30? We should discuss. Along with expectations about family leave, vacation and other relevant policies. Certainly, no one should have to work more than that. "full-time".

"may"- everything in this statement is a choice, a choice that rests with each person. If you wish to do these things, the America of the Democratic Party will ensure that the choice is yours to make. If you don't wish to raise a child, work full-time, retire, no one will compel you. You won't be forced into jail, humiliating make-work jobs, deported, etc., just because you don't choose to do these things. "may".

"raise a child"- not just 'have' a child, but raise them. A Democratic America will ensure parents have the resources they need to raise healthy, well-educated children. Including clean air and water, soil that grows healthy food, quality child care, health care, education and more. We value our children and the people who raise them, for all of us. "raise a child".

"retire"- everyone who makes the choice to work full time should be able to look forward to a time when their work pays off in the form of freedom to work less or retire altogether, with dignity and comfort, including health care, communities that value them, safe and comfortable housing, transportation options, and other freedoms. How else can the rest of us enjoy the payoff of having the experience and wisdom of elders integrated into our lives? "retire".

"without fear"- we, the Democratic Party, will not use fear to manipulate voters, and we pledge to build an America secure from fear itself, working to promote equity and economic opportunity throughout the world, to fight terrorism and the forces of fear. "without fear".

"basic needs"- a livable environment, peaceful solutions to global conflicts, an economy that provides opportunity for all, a social infrastructure that supports everyone and embraces the diversity- ages, talents, needs and contributions- of ALL of us. No one willing to participate in this should have to worry about having a home, getting health care they need, education for their children, food that nourishes rather than makes us sick, communication and transportation for us all to connect and thrive. "basic needs".


Anyone willing to work full-time may raise a child and retire, without fear for basic needs.


I truly believe that if the Democratic Party stands for this, we WILL see a stronger unity, a more powerful appeal to the whole electorate, and a better future.

Will it solve all our problems? Hardly. But making this the one thing everyone can say when talking about what the Democratic Party stands for will build a stronger party. It will help us recruit committed members and leaders of conscience. It will give us a touchstone of accountability for the candidates we support.

It doesn't encompass everything. It doesn't include a specific mention of many issues that are critically important to many of us. It says almost nothing about the "hows" of getting from point A (where we are now) to point B (where we want to be).

But I think that's a strength. It gives us room to grow, to evolve as needed. As technology and global conditions change, there's space to adapt how we work to realize this goal.

Once again, I very much doubt this will actually have any effect. But it's worth my time to get it out and wave it around again, because I love America, and the Democratic Party means a lot to me. And so does my grandson's future.

Happy Independence Day, Democratic Underground.

idealistically,
Bright

June 14, 2017

It's Not Okay.

It's not okay when "they" do it.

It's not okay when "we" do it.

It's not okay when 'you can understand why' someone did it.

It's not okay when 'it was completely unexpected'.

It's not okay when there were "reasons."

It's not okay when it was "without reason."

It's not okay when there's 'background.'

It's not okay 'in context.'

IT'S NOT OKAY TO USE VIOLENCE.

That is all.

June 11, 2017

About "Bipartisanship"

I believe it is true that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

I also believe that the overwhelmingly vast majority of human beings are neither entirely 'good' nor entirely 'evil' by inherent nature. We are all human. We are all capable of doing incredible acts of altruism, and we are all capable of acting with tragic selfishness.

I also believe we are almost all capable of learning from our mistakes- although at very different rates, and that capability is much affected by personal, social, and cultural characteristics. But the capacity is there.

Bipartisanship SHOULD be possible.

Why doesn't it happen more often? Especially when we have had such powerful demonstrations of how bad the outcomes can be when we refuse to go there?

There are lot of reasons, I guess.

The most fundamental one starts with semantics: The "bi-" in bipartisanship implies a duality, a spectrum or arc with two endpoints and a middle. It also implies reciprocity and compromise. It rejects the zero-sum model in favor of achieving common good through mutual sacrifice.

Willingness to embrace bipartisan operations relies on both an understanding of the non-zero-sum model, and a minimum level of trust between the parties that the understanding is shared and mutual reciprocity will be forthcoming.

American culture- and the politics that are a product of that culture- has devalued the non-zero-sum model, and profoundly embraced a zero-sum model. This has resulted in the growth of a short-term reward/penalty system based on zero-sum outcomes for almost all of our economic and political operations.

I don't think it's going to change quickly, but it can change with leadership from both sides: Citizens, voters, and party members who are willing to look beyond the zero-sum model and base their support and feedback on more 'reward' than 'punishment,' and leaders, elected officials, and advocates who are willing to take risks and highlight the values of non-zero-sum outcomes and long-term commitment, rather than short-term victory.

It has been a long, strong tide in the wrong direction. But I still hope the shift can happen.

I don't minimize the difficulties, nor the pain of the short-term costs.

But I still hope.

wistfully,
Bright

June 1, 2017

Dear World: Laugh at us some more, please

Dear World,

Don't think I haven't been aware of the sniggers, the sly jokes, the snide remarks about America and Americans that have been gathering steam since early on November 9th, 2016. Intermittently, of course, they change to incredulous gasps, followed by full-throated guffaws and nigh-uncontrollable belly laughs.

Yes, it's humiliating. No, I don't actually enjoy it.

Nevertheless, America merits it for allowing ourselves to be conned into condoning the brazen theft of our democracy by a cabal of ignorant, nihilistic, dick-banging clowns.

And while not all of us went gently into this choking, devastated, tempest-riven night (and indeed, we are fighting, continuing this fight and will NEVER give it up), those of us who had no part in it and continue to resist can handle a little personally-unmerited humiliation and ridicule for the sake of a greater priority: a livable planet for our grandchildren.

Although it's almost impossible to know the operational facts of our particular rake's progress in Washington, it does seem clear that until fairly recently, a final decision about the Paris Accord rested in abeyance. There was real, albeit small, hope that science, expertise, and diplomatic experience might have a chance to prevail. Of course, last week's visit to Taormina and the latest round of carefully diplomatic politesse and carefully-but-thinly-veiled snubs seems to have been the thumb on the wrong side of the scales.

The Bottomless Sinkhole of Ego Fragility, ever-sensitive to the least intimation that the boundless admiration and respect to which He Is Entitled is being withheld, was of course onto y'all in spite of all the formal protocol. The soccer ball pic didn't help, either, but I'm totally not blaming anyone for it. I'll even pretend to believe it had NOTHING to do with the weirdness in Riyadh.

Because, seriously, nothing short of the kind of bizarre all-autocrats-together grotesquerie of excess the Saudis cannily whomped together for him could ever have convinced him otherwise, especially after the extreme awkwardness of the Israel and Rome visits.

To say it bang: He believes you were laughing at him. He suspects you'll keep doing it, even while he finds it utterly incomprehensible that anyone could fail to appreciate his near-superhuman accomplishments in every conceivable area of massive-dick dominance.

And today's Samson-in-the-Temple I SHALL DESTROY YOU ALL HAHAHAHAHAAHHHH!!! stunt is the response. So much so, that he even went off-script, ignoring the teleprompter's carefully-phrased list of disingenuously spinning talking-points, to say so: "At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?"

Well, he's had the uneasy feeling that the answer is "Hell, they've been laughing at us since mid-2016 if not before," and the reptile cortex under that dead opossum has been diligently protecting him from the shameful reality that he's the focal point for much of the humor.

Today's travesty was just that: Another manifestation of the reptile cortex protecting his fragile bottomless sinkhole of low self-esteem from reality.

So, please. I beg you. We have such a small window if time remaining.

Laugh. Tell jokes. Point fingers. Let loose your best and most trenchant comedians, editorial cartoonists, humor writers, and quick wits among the punditry. A hailstorm escalating to a Category Five hurricane of ridicule of America, Americans, and the cognitively-impaired, selfish, tiny-dick goons that reflect all that's worst in us and who've been elevated so far past their level of incompetence that Laurence Peter's spinning a deep-bore tunnel to Antarctica as I write this.

Mock.

Ridicule.

Belly-laugh.

Snark.

Those of us with the basic maturity and intelligence to have some perception of how the hell we got here, we can take it.

If we're lucky, though, a wave of catastrophic cerebrovascular accidents, childish tantrums, and blatant incompetence might thin the herd to the point where damage control can begin.

So have at it, please. PLEASE. It's time.

beseechingly,
Bright

May 22, 2017

Dear Senator Franken: You are a hero of American democracy.

Dear Senator Franken,

I don't live in Minnesota anymore, but I was born and raised there, and lived there long enough to understand exactly how Minnesota culture affects the expectations on public servants.

Which is not to say all Minnesota elected officials and bureaucrats are paragons of rectitude, transparency, humility, and moderately progressive values. And I would point out that while at least one of your predecessors, the infamous Norm the Weasel, was NOT born and raised in the North Star State, plenty of gormless numpties nurtured in the Land of 10,000 Lakes have been elevated to office by appealing to the stubbornly contrarian 'well, who do you think YOU are, then' streak of Minnesota character.

You, however, are on the roster that includes Paul Wellstone, Eugene McCarthy, Hubert H. Humphrey, Bruce Vento, Alexander Ramsey, Don Fraser, Floyd B. Olson, and so many more. America is lucky to have you, and we owe Minnesota a debt of gratitude for sending you to Washington.

I'm fairly sure you would say that you were "just doing your job" when you called out JeffyBeau Sessions on his Big Fat Lie during his confirmation hearing.

But the thing is, you did it. You put genuine concern for the quality of public service ahead of good-old-boy Senate traditions, and didn't go along with the 'easy ride' to a former colleague.

And the other thing is, you and your staff did the homework. You foster and uphold the standard of conscientious preparation, investigation, and inquiry, and the day of that hearing you were prepared, with the right information and the right questions. You couldn't be dismissed as a mere partisan hack shooting from the hip in an effort to grab the news cycle. (Well, you could, and were, but only by The Usual Suspects, which is a back-handed form of confirmation of the value of your work.)

The result of that seemed like a minor speedbump, at the time- JeffyBeau had to publicly recuse himself from any DOJ activity connected with the relationship between Russia and >Redacted<'s campaign.

There were a lot of us who'd have preferred to have him withdraw from consideration for the post but it has become increasingly clear that this was far too critical to the >Redacted< Administration's policy plans to be possible. Failing that, we'd have loved to see his confirmation denied. But, again, the current configuration of the Senate, combined with the good-old-boy culture of that institution, made it a forlorn hope.

Instead, he had to recuse himself.

And it's now becoming just how clearly that's put a foot in the churn the Administration was trying to use to obfuscate the whole Russia connection.

You played a big role, Senator.

And you did so because you were just doing your job, as you conceived it. A conception based on your own fundamental decency, intelligence, and respect for democracy.

It's a quiet kind of heroism, but it merits acknowledgment.

Thank you.

respectfully,
Bright

May 10, 2017

You Want My Applause for Firing Comey? Here's What to Do:

Dear GOPpie Lurkers/Trollbots

Let's start from the common ground we have. I agree with those who are saying:

• Comey has definitely bungled some things. He's made poor decisions and some of them reflect very negatively on his agency.
  
• In particular, he bungled reviewing how a Democratic Presidential candidate handled classified materials from her previous cabinet level service, and he did the bungle during the Presidential campaign with catastrophically injudicious timing.
  
• Democrats should be (and are) scathingly critical of this particular bungle, among other things, and probably have good reason to say their confidence in Comey as FBI Director was profoundly impaired.

So we're all on the same page there. Am I weeping and planning on sending flowers and a stoutly-phrased note of support to Mr. Comey? I am not. On some level, yes, I'm glad to see him get a little comeuppance for what was either reprehensible ineptitude or inappropriate (and possibly illegal) partisanship in handling of investigations/reviews pertaining to BOTH candidates during the election.

Yes, I am. There, I said it.

Now, HAD those items upon which we share common ground been the actual, motivating force behind the decision to fire Mr. Comey, how would a competent, judicious Administration, conscious of the importance of process in buttressing the rule of law, have handled such a firing?

It is, indisputably, the privilege of a Chief Executive to fire the Director of the Bureau, even in mid-term, if deemed necessary. The key issue is not "whether" but "HOW".

They could have taken precedent from the Sessions firing. They could have begun by having private discussions with him laying out the case for the damage to the Bureau's standing, talking about requesting his resignation (the 'tacit heads-up, here it comes' meeting). Then they could have initiated private discussions with the key leadership in Congress, laying out that case again and planning an orderly transition process.

Over several weeks, with the White House communications quietly signalling that such a case is compelling, and that a transition is under discussion, they could work out the most critical concerns from both sides of the aisle. They could address possible appearances of conflicts of interest, assuring everyone that the transition plan maintains a high level of impartial attention to those concerns.

Of course, that didn't happen.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the motives for firing Comey are ENTIRELY as stated above in the common ground agreement, and that there is not only no fear at all of the still-ongoing investigations into Republican Presidential campaign connections with the Russian government, but that there is no conceivable reason for such fear. So, y'all are genuinely and truly gobsmacked at all the foofooraw about Watergate and Saturday Night Massacres and Independent Investigators and WTF is Kissinger doing in the Oval Office hard on the heels of the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador!?!?!

Poor you.

Why are people so suspicious? Let's review:

• There IS such an investigation ongoing at the FBI, and everyone knows it. Your protestations about "no there there" and "wanting it to continue and be done so we can move on" are all very well, but as long as every single thing you do can reasonably bear the appearance of attempting to obstruct or shut down said investigation, that's the construction that will be put on it. Grow up. You're in Washington. Whether you "won" or not, there's still gonna be politics.
  
• Within the past couple of weeks, two important things have happened in connection with this investigation: a) Grand Jury subpoenas have been issued; and b) The guy you fired asked for more resources to conduct the investigation properly and quickly.
  
• You involved the Attorney General, who had already recused himself from related procedures and investigations, in the process.

Of course you look like roaches in the midnight kitchen when the light goes on, scuttling for cover. And yeah, it's all just so unfair, yadayada... Poor y'all.

However can you redeem yourselves in the eyes of a suspicious electorate?

Here's a list:

• Turf JeffyBeau out of the process altogether. Even though this of course had nothing to do with the Russia investigation, the fact remains that he was involved in firing the guy in charge of the investigation he recused himself from having anything to do with. Talk about bad optics. No, he may NOT suggest candidates to replace Comey. No, he may NOT be involved in interviews or discussions thereof.
  
• Have ALL of Comey's records and files relating to this investigation placed under seal, NOW, and appoint a special master from the local Federal District Court (Merrick Garland, for example, would be a nice touch) to maintain them sealed until...
  
• The horse is miles down the road. Don't try to slam the barn door. If you've truly got bupkis to worry about, it shouldn't matter anyway: request a bipartisan Congressional panel to nominate an Independent Special Investigator and invite the FBI, DOJ, Senate Republicans, and Senate Democrats to each appoint a Special Commission member to take over the investigation under the ISI. FUND IT. Have Comey's records turned over to them.
  
• Then, finally, stop whinging about it. Stop commenting on it, tweeting about it, sniping at it. If y'all are asked to testify, do so, with quiet dignity and accuracy.

Give it a try. If you really want to put this to bed, I can't guarantee it'll work but it's the best chance you have to wrest control of the narrative back, spike the guns of the vile, partisanship-motivated character assassins arrayed against you, and reveal the Fake News for what it is.

Worth a try, nyet?

helpfully,
Bright

P.S. Major bonus points for releasing the tax returns.

May 3, 2017

I'm Disappointed in My Party Leadership... Again...

"Yo, Ladies... Hang on Under that Bus, There... We'll Stand up for Your Rights Over Your Own Bodies....... Eventually."

No, sorry, Nancy.

Just letting you know that I'm one of those annoying women who shares the belief that denying women a fundamental human right is, like, a hard line.

In 1992, our Party Platform acknowledged that reproductive choice was a fundamental right, and that ALL women's health care costs should receive the same status with respect to government programs and funding for services. All. As in, yes, if a woman on Medicaid wants to terminate a pregnancy, her Medicaid should cover the cost of doing so in a safe, fully-equipped medical facility.

Of course, we never actually delivered on that.

And we've done a buttload of backpedaling on that since 1992. When some kind of compromise, or concession, is needed, to achieve some kind of "greater good," guess what went under the bus.

Time, after time, after time.

Suppose we backpedal on Jim Crow laws being okay in the South, next time.

Or maybe we go ahead and allow some states to invalidate certain marriages b/c they think they're icky.

You know, just to get over it and move on.

Maybe it should be okay for a candidate to run under our banner even though they're cool with state legislatures implementing racist vote suppression laws, because, you know... fraud!

Maybe it should be cool for someone who loudly sez maybe there isn't really any need to get all worked up about anthropogenic climate change to run as a Dem.

Hey, how about we go ahead and endorse candidates who think it's just peachy-cool for cops to get a few weeks' paid suspension at most for killing brown people? Because Blue Lives REALLY Matter.

And when all the people who are pissed off about that bullshit have joined us under the bus, there will be enough of us under here to STAND THE FUCK UP, and roll that sucker over a cliff.

So think about it, Nancy.

I'm not real happy with you and your enablers right now. Don't you have some real work to do? Like organizing the resistance in Congress?

irritatedly,
Bright

April 22, 2017

A dinner conversation that's still bothering me.

We were dining out with friends tonight. One of them has been paying attention to media coverage focused on the "why" of white, low-income people who voted for >redacted<.

She told the story of a Louisiana >redacted< voter who was spending time in Yerp, where they don't have "real" news, like, yanno, Faux. And most of what they have is in furrin' language, so her only choice for teevee news was, apparently, the Yerpeen CNN service.

The >redacted< voter had just never seen anything like it. That Christiane Amanpour woman was doing a segment on the famine in Africa. She had a little African kid, rake-skinny, bloat-bellied, dull-eyed, sitting next to her while she recounted the terrible conditions in the famine zones and how many Africans were affected.

The >redacted< voter's take on this?

That Christiane Amanpour was trying to make HER, the >redacted< voter, FEEL GUILTY about the famine. Like the famine was somehow on HER, the >redacted< voter, and it was somehow up to HER, the >redacted< voter, to feel bad and do something about it, with HER hard-earned money that she needed to help HER family and HER relatives who were terribly victimized by the bad unfair system in America that only helps undeserving welfare people and not people like her and her family.

And this friend, the one who was recounting this to me, said that the coverage she'd seen of people like this woman, and the terrible economic conditions in Louisiana, and their 'unique' culture, and the generational poverty they struggle with, and the devastation of their environment and everything, well... it doesn't EXCUSE their woolhat assholery, but it kinda made it, yanno, understandable.

And that just pushed my button.

"Look," I said, "my Dad's family were 'Cadian. Sure, Minnesota French Canuck, but that's 'Cadian, we had oyster stew for Christmas dinner and frog leg fries for 4th of July, and my Dad's Gran'mere spoke 'Becoise more than English. Don't tell me it's the culture.

And we were poor. After he got out of the Marines my Dad had a hard time holding a good job. We scraped. My Mom had to work, in an era when women didn't do that much.

We wore hand-me-downs. We had "cowboy hash" for dinner all too often (Mom used to call leftovers baked in a casserole with lima beans and tomato soup "cowboy hash" to get us to eat it.) We got socks and coloring books for Christmas some years, not the cool toys. We brought sack lunches of baloney or peanut butter, or went home to eat canned soup for lunch.

But here's the thing. Each one of us kids was given a piggy bank. And there was a bigger piggy bank on the sideboard. The 'rents put their spare change in that one. We were supposed to put at least a nickel from every allowance in ours, plus "found" pennies and any other money we could.

And a couple of times a year, we'd empty those piggy banks, and send the money to help kids who were... wait for it... yep, starving in Africa.

So, no. It's not understandable to me."

And it's still not.

But it makes me wonder: When did that stuff change? And how? At what level, did it stop being important for good parents to teach their kids about compassion, empathy, and connection with other parts of the world?

WTF?

uncomprehendingly,
Bright

April 8, 2017

That Awkward Moment When You Realize YOU are Now the "Conservative."

Here's the basic definition via Merriam Webster, excluding the ones about being a member of the British Conservative Party or being a Conservative Jew:

a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional conservative policies
b : marked by moderation or caution a conservative estimate
c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners a conservative suit a conservative architectural style

I sat staring at that, and my world, my identity went fluid, morphing, disorienting me profoundly.

I want to conserve the institutions of a representative democratic government-- the right of a President, for example, to appoint a Supreme Court justice, even in the final year of their term.

And the established institution of an independent Civil Service that functions, not at the whim of patronage or loyalty to a party, but based on competence, skill, and dedication to impartial service under established Federal laws and regulations.

I want to conserve the institutional rights of workers to organize, the official rights of LGBTQ individuals to marry, the established rights of women to make decisions over their own bodies and access safe and legal abortion as needed.

I want to conserve the institution of municipalities that may declare themselves sanctuaries for immigrants and refuguees, the institution of states' rights to refuse to permit fracking, the institution of school districts providing meals to hungry children and in-school health clinics to their students.

I want to conserve the reputation of America as a nation that strives after equity as well as justice, that is willing to learn from our mistakes, and that respects international law and the efforts of nations to settle differences through negotiation rather than warfare.

I want to conserve the institution of law and justice administered not by private for-profit contractors but by dedicated independent civil service employees under the scrutiny of elected officials and an independent judiciary.

I want to conserve the institutions long-established to promote citizens' health and well-being through public investment in environmental protection and public health.

I want to conserve the established role of government in regulating trade, markets, and currency in order to prevent catastrophic economic disruption.

I want to conserve the expectation that those elected to the highest offices and gravest, most consequential duties of governance will accept the responsibility to enact those offices and duties with restraint, equity, gravitas, and respect even for those whose opinions and ideologies differ from theirs.

I have not abandoned the mission of progressive change. I still want universal health care, and an economy built on ensuring the broadest possible distribution of both benefits and opportunities. I still value the greatest possible access to quality education, and I'm still committed to the government's role in ensuring a livable planet for our grandchildren. I still believe in all of those progressive doctrines that look to a better future.

And I know that some of those things can't necessarily be accomplished only by "building on" what is already established. Some changes will be, must be, more profound.

But I also know that in the face of an existential threat to our Republic and its people, change that is to endure and provide long-term benefits must be achieved by people working with a sense of possibility, building on hope, from a positive conviction of shared good. Not, as we are seeing now, by the heedless, smash-it-all-up iconoclasm of DickBro nihilistic greed.

And so it becomes imperative to focus on conserving the bedrock institutions we've already fought to establish over America's long march of history and justice. It becomes imperative to conserve the wisdom that has come with making the most hideous and costly errors, and learning from them. It becomes imperative to focus on conserving the core values of equity and justice, and meeting threats not with fear and hate, but with courage, love, and humility.

Guess that makes me the real conservative.

Who ever would have imagined?

introspectively,
Bright