Democrats Disconnected from "Reality"

 This is my response to the recent Chris Hedges piece, which features an interview with Jimmy Dore. I can’t post this reply on his substack because I am not a paid subscriber. I am extremely low-income and can’t afford to pay to read anyone’s substack. I am a fan of Hedges and have read most of his books. I think his interview with Dore is definitely worth your time. Yet it was also disappointing in what it didn't include.

Anyway, this is what I would post there:

Chris Hedges talks to comedian Jimmy Dore about his reporting at the 2024 Democratic National Convention. The pair find the event illustrative of the past few decades of liberalism in American society, namely that its entire concept is not “reality based.” 

Not “reality based” might well be the understatement of the century. The democratic party and its DNC engineers have become completely, utterly disconnected from “reality”. Especially the reality of us non-investor class Americans. Instead of working towards badly needed changes, they’ve spent their efforts trying to massively re-engineer the culture.

The democratic party has adopted divisive and destructive post-modern social theories, such as gender ideology, racist theories, and queer theory, which apparently seeks to destroy healthy and stable social structures – starting with the family unit. Public schools have been overhauled, curriculum replaced with the new think, the new language, which everyone must adhere to or else.

Even very little kids are being taught wildly age-inappropriate content, as well as absolute nonsense, such as there are over a hundred different “genders”, and that biological sex is irrelevant and that people can actually become the opposite sex.

First graders have come home crying because they were told that they were born racist. Children of color are taught that they can’t succeed because white people will “keep them down.” This is nuts. How is this helping society? What problems are these bizarre, destructive theories solving?

Thanks to the democrats, public schools and their personnel are trying to “transition” children behind their parents’ backs, and laws have been passed that allow schools to hide this information from parents. Some states are trying to remove kids from parents who refuse to start their children on a pathway of life-altering drugs and surgery.

Women have lost their sex-based rights and protections in law and policy, rewritten by the democrats with ZERO public input or in most cases, knowledge of what’s been done. This means that women no longer have the safety and privacy of single-sex spaces, spaces like locker rooms, bathrooms, domestic violence or other shelters, spas, changing rooms. There is no longer any lesbian bars, because they have been taken over by men in dresses and woman-face, men who insist that lesbians have sex with them and their “lady dick”.  Those who don’t want to are decried as “bigots” and transphobes”, as is any woman who doesn’t buy into the nonsense.

These men have been allowed, thanks to the democrat agenda, to take over women’s sports, ruining the fair playing field that women used to have, taking away sporting and scholarship opportunities from women and girls. And women are at risk of serious injury, especially when facing men on opposing teams. There are many significant physiological differences between males and females, NONE of which are ameliorated by wrong-sex hormones. There’s a reason men and women have always had separate sports teams. A reason why women don’t play in the NFL and NBA.

But now, democrats and what passes for “the left” pretend that they don’t know this.

Violent abusive men who “identify as women” are being placed in prison cells with actual females, who are unable to escape them. Many of these imprisoned women have been abused by violent men their entire lives, and now they find themselves unsafe even in a prison cell.

Women as a sex are literally being erased from law, policy, and also in the orgs which used to support women’s rights and wellbeing. If you doubt this, go to any NGO website that deals with domestic violence, breast cancer, abortion rights, birth control, etc, and see if you can find the word WOMAN or WOMEN anywhere on these sites.

I have asked democratic candidates and office holders about their ubiquitous support for gender ideology, etc., and they all, without exception, refuse to answer. Kara Dansky wrote a powerful book about the democratic abandonment of women’s rights, called The Reckoning: How the Democrats Betrayed Women and Girls.

amazon.com/Reckoning-Democrats-Betrayed…

And not one so-called leftist media platform or journalist has addressed this. It’s as if the impact to women and their rights is completely invisible to them. Or irrelevant. The fact that none of them have the awareness or willingness to address this, and the impact on not just women, but kids and families, is very telling to me.

No one will discuss these impacts in the mainstream media, either. Why? And why the immediate total buy-in from government, all these orgs, universities in the past 10 years? None of them ever put a fraction of this effort into pushing women's rights or civil rights on everyone - but we’re supposed to believe that all this, this overhaul of our social constructs, language, and institutions, is ostensibly for this small fraction of the population? I don't think so.

But there is nothing but deafening silence on these issues.

I expected so much more from platforms and journalists who comprise “the left”, but I see now that the left I thought I was familiar with doesn’t exist, and hasn’t for a long time.

So, I am completely turned off to what passes for "the left" now. Particularly democrats... I kept thinking that they were the “lesser of two evils” but now I see that wasn’t true. And I know the democratic party doesn’t care – they have nothing but contempt for voters. No matter what happens in elections, dems just cling to their failed policies.

 (If you're on substack and resonate with what I've written here, please follow me there).

Democratic Party Emails in my Inbox

 Just to establish a couple of things up front: I am an independent voter, not affiliated with any political party. Based on results, I believe that neither party gives a crap about regular (non-billionaire) citizens, the planet, or being leaders in working toward global peace.

While I usually refer to the two main corporate parties as the Dims and Repugs, for this piece I will tone it down and simply use D & R. The D as in Twiddle Dee Dee, their usual response, and the R as in ARRRGH! Need I say more?

The Ds have been flooding my inbox over the past year or so with histrionic emails about the dire future of reproductive rights. Being careful, of course, to avoid using the word WOMEN. (Which is odd, since females are the only folks who actually do get pregnant. Even the women who like to pretend they aren’t really women, are absolutely biologically female. But I digress).

The emails seem to spike after each disastrous court ruling and/or state legislation which further limits a woman’s right to make choices about her health, her pregnancy, and her family’s wellbeing. In some cases, even when the pregnancy is not viable or her own life is in danger.

The Rs have been celebrating – the issue of reproductive rights has been “tossed back to the states”. So their efforts are now being focused there. This means that rightwing legislatures will get to eliminate a woman’s choice in the matter altogether. Which of course has always been the actual goal.

So now, the Ds are telling me that we HAVE to vote to vote for them, because they are our only hope of securing “reproductive rights” (For those uterus-havers whose name they dare not speak).

Hmmm. I find that interesting.

Interesting, because aside from the first two years of the Clinton presidency and the triple dem majority that existed then, I seem to recall another triple dem majority, during Obama’s first two years in office.

In fact, when candidate Obama was campaigning for President, he promised that signing the Freedom of Choice Act would be “the first thing I’d do as President.” The Freedom of Choice Act would have codified Roe v. Wade as federal law.

But shortly after taking office in 2009, he said in April that passing the bill “was not a legislative priority” for him, and presumably his party (Reuters April 29, 2009). And it clearly remained “not a priority” for Obama and the Ds for the entire 8 years of his presidency.

Then, during the Trump years, conservative lawmakers were on a roll. They were able to make it significantly more difficult to get an abortion in dozens of states.

 Yet astoundingly, against this backdrop of frenzied legislative activity by the Rs, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared that “democratic voters just don’t care about abortion anymore, at least not to the degree they used to.” (Wash. Post 5/3/17) “It’s kind of a fading issue”, she announced to WP reporters. “It really is.”

So in other words, this is when Ds chose to do absolutely NOTHING. Other than roll over for the GOP every chance they got, that is. Not to mention the lack of any real fight over GOP nominees for the higher courts. And the Supreme Court.

According to Wikipedia:

​The total number of Trump judgeship nominees confirmed by the Senate was 234, including three justices of the Supreme Court, 54 judges for the US Court of Appeals, and 174 judges for the US District Courts.

 As of May 2020, Democrats had voted to confirm Trump’s nominees 39% of the time.

The Rs were upfront about their goal to “pack the courts.” Which they accomplished, with the help of the Ds.  

As Spenser Mastel wrote on Vice.com (5/4/2020), “With the stakes so high, and the ramifications so indelible, why have Democrats been so willing to confirm Trump’s nominees?”

Why indeed…

Then, there was the first two years of Biden’s presidency. Once again, Ds had the House and Senate, plus the White House.  There were high hopes from voters for a number of important issues to be addressed. And lots of "political capital”. But once again, federal legislation guaranteeing a woman’s right to choose somehow never materialized.

(Yet Obama and Biden DID manage to find time, almost immediately, for executive orders establishing that nebulous and imaginary “gender identities” would be prioritized over women’s sex-based rights and protections in law and policy).

And naturally, almost immediately after the election the Ds began their campaign of lowered expectations. Talking about “bipartisanship”, and “reaching across the aisle”. Trying to backpedal on the things they had talked about doing, things they had promised before the election.

So, when the Ds send me their urgent messages about the dire state of women’s ability to access abortion or birth control, I see it for what it is: A cynical attempt to capitalize on the very situation which they themselves created and enabled. And let’s face it, it’s been an absolute fundraising bonanza.

Paul Street wrote in CounterPunch+ that this was actually a planned election strategy.

 If the Ds do manage to get into office again, rest assured that they will exert the same amount of effort to legislate abortion rights that they have during the past 30+ years. Once elected, Ds will relegate the issue to the bottom of the heap, only to be trotted out and dusted off again in time for the midterm election cycle.

So you’ll have to excuse me – I’m opting out of this cynical charade. It’s depressing and futile, and I no longer have the energy for this bullshit.

How Do You Know?

 While on my early morning walk today, I was scrolling through the fm radio shows when my attention was caught by one of those generally inane, hosted by two-guys-who-think-they’re-hilarious shows. What they were talking about was interesting to me, but not for the reason they were discussing.

They relayed the news story of a woman who was defrauded out of $6,000.00. Someone pretending to be from her bank called, and told her account was at risk of fraud, and that she needed to okay the transfer of her funds to a new debit card account – which was from another bank. So apparently without asking any questions or becoming suspicious, she does this. Transfers all of her money to this card. Then later, the fraudsters contact her via Facetime and tell her they need to do a full body scan, to verify her identity. She is then instructed to remove all her clothes on camera and spin around, which she does. When she hears them snickering, she finally realizes it’s a scam.

The radio hosts were incredulous, as I’m sure many of the listeners were, as to the extreme gullibility of this person. No one deserves to have their money stolen, obviously, but this level of naiveté is stunning.

I have long thought that the inability to think critically is a dangerous epidemic in our culture. In spite of being able to investigate and fact-check statements, sources, or theories more easily than ever before in history, the problem has only seemed to worsen.

What interested me the most about this incredible tale was the level of compliance here, the unquestioning response to what a person is told by a perceived authority figure of some sort. In this case, a corporate/banking authority, but a perceived authority nonetheless. This woman assumed that the person on the phone was a bank authority figure whose intention was her best interests and protecting her assets. In spite of thousands of dollars at stake, she didn’t ask questions, or ask to talk to a manager, or hang up and call her local bank directly to question what she was being directed to do. (And as a side note, women who demand answers or ask for a manager are vilified in the misogynist media as “Karen”).

When hear stories like this, we tend to shake our heads and feel pleased with ourselves that we would never be this gullible. And in terms of emptying out our bank accounts on request, we’re very likely right.

But it’s worth our time to examine how we’re compliant and unquestioning in other ways. Whether it’s the self-hating concepts we were raised with, entrenched stereotypes about others, the pronouncements from the political party we favor, or the post-modern social theories being perpetuated like gospel on mainstream and social media, many of our assumptions are in fact unexamined, and lacking a reality-based foundation.

How often do we question our attitudes and beliefs? Our go-to thoughts or feelings? Do we assume that a person who is some sort of authority (or socially popular) can be believed because of that authority, or popularity? How often do we assume that because we think something it must be true?

How often do we ask ourselves: Is this true? Who says so? What if it’s not true? What else might be the case? Who benefits from this? Are this group's actions congruent with its claims? With how/where it spends its money? 

What other agenda might be operating here? Whose interests are being served by people buying into this? Can this statement/concept/theory be factually confirmed? Why do I believe this? Have I found this to be consistently true in my own life?

Or how about - is this habit, attitude, or behavior helping me function better and enjoy my life, or is it keeping me in a diminished place?

How often do we believe our own bullshit without question?

I’m thinking that being able to see through our own stuff (at least on a regular basis!) is a necessary prerequisite to being able to see through the blizzard of bullshit we’re all inundated with daily, from the human-created world around us.

And as that world continues its crazy onslaught on our brains and senses, that will be an increasingly important skill for discerning what’s actually happening.

Does that make sense to you?

For Those Who Aren't Afraid to Keep Asking Questions About Social-Political Agendas

 This is a powerful video about the Gender Ideology agenda that's been relentlessly forced onto everyone in a relatively short period of time. And this societal transformation been a global effort.  I sent this to a close friend several months ago - at the time I was blown away by how spot on it was.  He's in the early boomer cohort, and I was curious if his experience as a young person was similar to mine in this regard. In the email that went with it, I commented:

"I think she nailed it. This is a war against reality, against our embodied reality  - our connection with all other biological life. I especially related to what she pointed out about how this just dropped down from above right around 2014. 

 

When I was a kid, there were no "trans kids" and I went to several elementary schools and junior highs. When I was in college there were no "trans kids". When I was teaching there were no "trans kids". And no gender ideology. What about for you? Wasn't this your experience as well? When you were in college, did you have even one "trans" classmate? When your kids were in school, did they have "trans kid" classmates?

 

In my last blog article I posed a number of questions, and some of them were answered by this - such as, why is this something no one is allowed to discuss in the media, social or otherwise? And the immediate total buy-in from government, all these orgs, universities? None of them ever put a fraction of this effort into pushing women's rights or civil rights on everyone - but all this, this overhaul of our social constructs, language, and institutions, ostensibly for this tiny fraction of the population?? I don't think so. Clearly there's something else, another agenda here, and I believe she's spot-on."

 

So, I watched it again and remembered why the questions and answers addressed here are so important. I encourage you to watch this:

 Who is Behind the Trans Agenda? Journalist Jennifer Bilek

 Also, please see THIS one:

How a Handful of Billionaires Created the Transgender "Movement"

5 Principles for Keeping Life in Perspective

 These are some basic psychological realities that I wish I had assimilated long ago. I would have gladly traded my advanced degrees for an actual realization of these basic truths. I believe it would’ve made a real difference for me in how I operated in my life on a daily basis, including a significant reduction in needless mental suffering. Fortunately, as long as we’re alive and conscious, it’s not too late to grow and evolve.

These are taken from a book by Richard Carlson, Ph.D, and while it came out originally in 1997, some of these concepts have been articulated elsewhere by others, in some cases by ancient spiritual teachings. Carlson’s book expresses these concepts in very simple language that anyone can understand and relate to, no matter what their background. Some may seem so obvious that they feel simplistic when we read them, but the fact that we regularly fail to incorporate this wisdom suggests that these concepts need to be better absorbed.

I’m summarizing these principles here as briefly as I can, and have condensed them in order to present the highlights. Carlson chose the title “You Can Be Happy No Matter What”.  I wish he had used the phrase “at peace” instead of happy. Imo, what many of us think of as “being happy” comes and goes, but a sense of being at peace no matter what the trauma/drama du jour is, feels like more of a do-able thing.

Principle of Thought: Your thoughts are not “reality”, no matter how much you’ve convinced yourself that they are at any given moment. They are an attempt to interpret a given situation. Thoughts are cranked out by your mind every waking moment because that’s what our human minds do.  We think the way we do because of our own individual thought systems. Thought systems are complex, perfectly woven patterns of thought and past experiences, linked together into concepts, beliefs, expectations, and opinions. Your thought system uses past information to interpret the significance of everything that happens in your life. Our thought systems lead us to believe that we are realists and that the way we see life is the way life really is. (Buddhists know this as egoic mind, or conditioned mind).

Principle of Moods: Our moods change frequently. When you’re in a high mood, things look and feel good. When you’re in a low mood, things don’t look or feel good; you tend to start convincing yourself of what’s wrong with, well, pretty much anything. Or everything. And often, with the people in your life – and everyone else “out there”. Don’t make decisions about your life, try to solve problems, or tackle issues in a low mood. If there truly is an issue, it will still be there when you’re in a better place emotionally. We are never in one place emotionally for too long. Stop trying to “fix things” from a bad mood (which seems to be almost a compulsion for so many of us).

Principle of Separate Realities: It’s impossible for two human beings, no matter how much they have in common, to see things in precisely the same way. The nature of individual thought systems is such that no two people have the same thought system. Each of us sees life from our own separate reality, our own interpretation of life, our own frame of reference. We don’t question our own version of reality because to us, it always seems to be true. And people spend their lifetimes proving to themselves that their personal version of life is valid, realistic, and correct. We all do this; unaware until we bring this insight to mind.

Principle of Feelings: Our feelings tell us, with complete accuracy, when our thinking is dysfunctional. When we think, we immediately feel the effects of our thoughts; it happens in an instant. When we aren’t caught up in thoughts systems, our feelings remain peaceful, positive. This is the state of mind from which new, creative ideas evolve. Negative feelings let us know that we are seeing life in a distorted manner, and remind us to drop the thinking which is coming from a distorted and habitual frame of reference. Again: Don’t trust your feelings in a low mood. In a low mood, your thinking and therefore your feelings will always be distorted. When you’re feeling good, you are much better equipped to handle or solve any problem that arises.

The Principle of the Present Moment: The only way to experience genuine, lasting contentment, peace, satisfaction, or happiness is to learn to live your life in the present moment. When your attention is primarily in the present moment, the bulk of your experience comes from a place of wisdom rather than reactivity. Wisdom helps you keep your bearings and perspective. When your attention is mired in the past or future, it’s likely that your quality of life will diminish. This doesn’t mean that every moment of your life should (or ever will) be spent focused in this moment, only that it’s important that this happen more often than not. Many people live as if the past is the power running their lives. Your past, as it actually exists today, is nothing more than the thoughts you have about it.  When mind spins forward toward worries, concerns – or backwards toward regret and past hurts – we can actively observe our mind and make gentle mental adjustments, suggesting to ourselves that we bring our attention back to the present (“whoops, there I go again!”). The present is the only place our life actually exists.