Tag Archives: double standards

Democrats are now Republicans


By Dom Nozzi

March 3, 2017

Now that both the Republicans AND Democrats have been corrupted by big money lobbyists, it should come as no surprise that the Democrats are now sounding like Republicans during the Donald Trump era.donkey-elephantcelebratingtogether

For example…

It was just a short while ago that Dems hammered Repubs on warmongering and hating/fearing the Russians. It is now the Dems that lead the effort to beat the war drums and engage in McCarthyism. For instance, more than any other presidential candidate in 2016, Dem Hillary Clinton forcefully assured us that she was going to ramp up warfighting in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East. It was Dem Obama who increased the number of wars the US was fighting in the Middle East from two to seven or eight.

In the past, Dems accurately criticized Repubs for taking enormous amounts of lobbyist (donor) money from major corporations. It is now the Dems who lead in taking money from Big Pharma, military contractors, and Wall Street. Indeed, Obama accepted more contributions from Wall Street than any Repub challenger when Obama ran for president.

Previously, Dems rightly attacked Repubs for ignoring the working class. Now it is the Repubs who at least pay lip service to the needs of the working class. During the campaign, Trump promised he would bring jobs back home from overseas, attacked NAFTA, called for the deportation of illegal immigrants (who could be seen as taking US jobs), and punish foreign corporations which had taken US jobs and are now exporting to the US. Soon after being elected, Trump ended US involvement in the TPP. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Dems did not even pay lip service to the working class needs. Obama and other Dems openly supported NAFTA and TPP.

In past decades, it was the Repubs that were most eager and successful in spending money on the Pentagon. But during his two terms of office, Dem Obama set all-time records for the amount of money allocated to the Pentagon.

When Obama was president, nearly all Dems BLASTED Repubs for ridiculing Obama, accusing him of being a liar, laughing at him, obstructing EVERYTHING he proposed, opposing ALL of his appointments, joking that he should be assassinated, never giving him credit for ANYTHING, and stating that “Obama is not my president.” Today, a day does not go by where Dems are now joking about Trump’s appearance, calling for his assassination, calling him names, blaming Trump for everything imaginable, and lampooning him in cartoons.

In the past, Republicans were infamous for calling Dems traitors for what Repubs considered excessive friendliness toward “enemies” of the US. Today, Dems regularly engage in calling Trump a traitor for wanting to work with the Russian government.

In the past, Dems lead the fight for freedom of speech and attacking Repub efforts to engage in censorship. It is now Dems who are mostly leading the fight to censor public speakers or silencing speech that they consider “hateful” or “racist” or “sexist.”

In previous decades, it was the Repubs who were the loudest advocates of being “tough on crime.” Under Dem Bill Clinton in the 90s, Dems showed they could build more prisons than Repubs, have more crimes be eligible for the death penalty (from 3 to 60), fund 100,000 more cops, and create a huge increase in the number of mandatory minimum crimes. Dem Bill Clinton also significantly increased the penalty for crack cocaine vs powdered cocaine (100-to-1). Bill Clinton escalated the drug war far more than the Repubs could ever imagine, leading to the largest increase in prisoners ever.

Repubs used to be the most regressive when it came to taxation. But then Dem Bill Clinton successfully passed a capital gains tax cut that was one of the most regressive tax cuts in history.

Repubs were formerly the party most responsible for eliminating regulations that protected us from socially undesirable actions by the powerful. But then Dem Bill Clinton’s deregulation of the investment banking industry played an enormous role in creating the crash of 2008. He repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated commercial from investment banking since 1933, and directly led to the 2008 crash and the need to bail out the too-big-to-fail banks.

Repubs have long attacked Dems for supporting the public nature of Social Security. They proposed such things as investing social security dollars in the stock market. But then Dem Bill Clinton, while in office, nearly succeeded in privatizing social security (another Repub dream) had the Lewisky scandal not led to his impeachment.

I remember when it was Repubs who far outspent Dems in presidential races. In the 2016 election, Dem Hillary Clinton outspent Repub Donald Trump two to one.

Repubs have long lead the charge to engage in invasive surveillance of US citizens. But it was Dem Obama who established, by far, the most extreme and comprehensive surveillance of US citizens in history through the NSA and other agencies.

For a long time, it was the Repubs who were vocal opponents of what they called “The Welfare State.” But it was Dem Bill Clinton’s gutting of welfare that led to a huge increase in poverty. Some have called Clinton’s action “one of the most regressive social programs promulgated in the 20th Century.”

Only a Dem (Clinton) could have rammed a right-wing program such as NAFTA through Congress. No Repub president could have ever hoped to adopt such an anti-worker program.

The Repubs have always been considered the party most hostile to the environment. But in 2016, the Democratic National Committee came out against the carbon tax and against a fracking ban.

Repubs have a long, disgraceful history of calling people un-American! Or treasonous traitors! Over and over, Repubs were seen attempting to prevent people from protesting (often by claiming that the protest would “incite violence”), attempting to censor comments they do not like, and associating the actions of a lone protester with the behavior or beliefs of an entire protest movement. But in response to the violence at the Univ of Virginia protest in August 2017, a great many Dems are screaming to prevent future protests by extreme right wing groups (and wanting to prevent people from boycotting Israel), calling right wing protesters un-American. Or treasonous traitors. Such Dems are demanding censorship of right wing speakers at universities, stopping speeches because they will “incite violence,” and linking a lone protester (who drove his car into a group of counterprotesters) with the agenda of the right wing protesters. In American history, progressives have rightly objected when protests have been prohibited due to fear of “inciting violence.” Feminists, gays, blacks, and atheists have been stopped from protesting discrimination in the past for this reason. Labor rights activists have been stopped because their protests against unfair labor practices would “incite violence.” Peace demonstrators protesting a war have been told they are not allowed to protest because it would “incite violence.” Even Jane Jacobs, the great American urbanist, was charged with “inciting a riot” when she protested the Lower Manhattan Expressway that Robert Moses tried to ram through New York City in the 1960s. Since when is it acceptable to be able to pick and choose which protests or speeches are okay and which should be prohibited? To be able to engage in such a double standard? Does not true support for free speech demand that we tolerate speech that we hate, and not just speech that we agree with? “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.”  — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. “There’s no fine line between ‘free speech’ and ‘hate speech’: Free speech is hate speech; it’s for the speech you hate – and for all your speech that the other guy hates. If you don’t have free speech, then you can’t have an honest discussion.”  — Mark Steyn. “Hateful, blasphemous, prejudiced, vulgar, rude, or ignorant remarks are the music of a free society, and the relentless patter of idiots is how we know we’re in one. When all the words in our public conversation are fair, good, and true, it’s time to make a run for the fence.” ― Daniel M. Gilbert. “[First Amendment protection] must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.” – Justice Hugo Black. “One way that speech restrictions often grow is through what I call ‘censorship envy.’ Say one group wins a ban on speech that it finds offensive. It’s human nature for other groups to then ask: What about speech that offends us — harsh criticism of Israel, or of certain religious belief systems, or of abortion, or of America?… Oddly, many of these [speech] restrictions come from political groups that see themselves as outsiders fighting the powerful. If that’s really so, how can they give the government extra censorship powers that can so easily be used against future ‘progressives’ like them?” — Eugene Volokh.

Journalist Amy Goodman, in February 2017, noted that Dem Elizabeth Warren has said she’s not so clear she’s going to be working with Donald Trump. “I mean, very interesting, [said Amy], when Dem Barack Obama came in, Repub Mitch McConnell made it very clear they won’t work with Obama at all.”

I am not a partisan extremist (everything the other party does is WRONG, says the partisan extremist). But apparently in America today, nearly everyone else IS an extreme partisan.

Extreme partisanship (and the extreme double standards that both the corrupt Democratic Party and the corrupt Republican Party) is toxic to democracy. And guarantees that nothing will be accomplished by our elected officials.

Is it any wonder that our Founding Fathers opposed the creation of political parties?



Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

2016 Elections and the Politics of Friendships


By Dom Nozzi

January 23, 2017

I am increasingly of the view that extreme partisan politics is an enormous problem in our society. I think that problem is increasingly on steroids due to such things as Facebook, the Internet, and the huge array of media sources now available to us.

Due mostly to those tools, people are much more likely to only hear or read things they fully agree with and hear nothing that strays from it – a phenomenon that leads to the “echo chamber” effect. This monochromatic look at the world of course breeds a lot of hostility toward other views (or the other political party).

An irony is that in the early days of the Internet, many of us expected that the HUGE increase in information would allow people to be more aware and tolerant of different views. Many of us did not anticipate that such a world would, instead, allow us to ONLY get info we agreed with.

One thing I notice on Facebook, however, is that the very few Republican friends I have will sometimes post contrary views on topics that we on the left are inundated with, and it is fascinating to me because much of those Republican posts seem believable and persuasive. And are views I never hear at all from my friends on the left.

I am bothered by how easily those on the left these days engage in double standards. Attacking Republicans for things back in the Obama years. And now DOING THOSE VERY SAME THINGS now that Trump is president (such as character assassination, caricature, extreme anger, vowing to always oppose anything he proposes, making fun of him, and screaming that HE IS NOT MY PRESIDENT!!).

An excellent example of extreme partisanship.partisan_voters

Didn’t the Founding Fathers warn against the creation of political parties? If so, it is now more clear than ever why they did so.

The best one can do these days with certain people who are friends is to just tolerate their thoughts and try not to discuss the hot button issues. One thing I have learned in my professional town and transportation planning work is that even if the person is very intelligent, when emotions are involved (traffic congestion and road rage, for example), I need to steer clear of the topic.

This is true even though I am VERY passionate and informed about these topics.

Strong emotions tend to turn off a person’s mind. Evidence and logic are often thrown out the window when strong emotions emerge.

I think this also applies to politics.

When strong emotions come into play, I need to remind myself that people with other views will need to learn on their own…

Something else that has driven much of the divisive hostility we are seeing during this presidential elections time: EXTREME, unvarying hostility by the media towards Trump. I really dislike a great deal about Trump and his views and actions. But I have NEVER seen so much negative media attention. Nothing in the past has been even close to this. One result of the extreme 24/7 media attacks against Trump is that even well-informed people have lost their minds about him. The media has convinced them that he is evil incarnate. The world will end tomorrow! Everything wrong in the world is due to Trump! Trump is the most awful person who ever lived!

It is almost comical if it were not tragic and dangerous. I think that there is a decent chance Trump will be assassinated. If so, the media will largely be to blame.

The left needs to come to terms with the following: Given the EXTREME 24/7 media negativity toward Trump over the past year, how was it possible that over 62 million people voted for him? I’m not saying that Trump must be a good guy despite the media bombardment. He is in many ways an undesirable president. But can the left simply say that there are 62 million morons in America? I don’t think so. I think many on the left are out of touch with what many Americans are looking for. Like with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, a lot of voters decided that America needed to elect a muscular superhero who would be strong enough to not cave in to many of the economic troubles we are facing: NAFTA, TPP, loss of jobs, immigration, etc. Trump created the persona of a strong superman who would stand up and fight for blue collar jobs.

Much of his tactics to do that are inappropriate or ineffective, but I think his overall message appealed to people. Democrats (except folks like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) have mostly turned their back to that concern. And decided that instead of reaching out to the lower and middle class, Democrats could win with HUGE amounts of corporate cash, identity politics, being tough on crime and “terrorists,” and relentlessly attacking Trump as a racist, sexist asshole. The result is that the Democrats lost the presidency, the House, the Senate, and many state governorships.

Yet the DNC now opts to blame the Russians…

With regard to the massive worldwide marches we saw yesterday, I find myself asking where those marches and protests and energy were during the presidential race? During the eight years of Obama?

Our nation has enormous existing problems (war, transportation, economic suffering, pollution, political corruption, the health industry, etc.). We should have had millions marching every week for decades. If Hillary was elected, I’m convinced we would have seen another four or eight years of no marches or protests despite those several huge EXISTING problems – many of which were made worse during Obama’s years in office.

I think many people have concluded that the Democrats have become too much like Republicans (for example, having a lot of corrupt politicians who were bought by lobbyists), and Trump’s campaign pushed the idea that he was an outsider who was not corrupted by lobbyists.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The Bleeding Heart: A Definition and a Critique

by Dom Nozzi

What is a bleeding heart?

A Definition

Wikipedia defines a bleeding heart this way: Someone regarded as excessively sympathetic, liberal in a political sense, or both. It is typically considered a derogatory remark.

My definition is more elaborate. For me, a bleeding heart is someone who is so excessively compassionate towards a minority such as an African-American, a woman, or a poor person that they are blinded to the fact that their efforts of compassion are, in many cases, ultimately harmful to the person being helped, the person doing the helping, the overall community, or a combination of these. The compassion of the bleeding heart is so passionate that they insist that their efforts are helpful despite the evidence, and that those who do not join them in their efforts are evil or callous.

It doesn’t matter that the compassion of the bleeding heart is unfair to those not being “helped.”

The Bleeding Heart Attitude Can Lead to Martyrdom 

A common outcome of the “excessively sympathetic” bleeding heart is that the person often overlooks or sacrifices their own needs to the point where they suffer from exhaustion, poor health, financial woes, failed relationships, loneliness, a decline in their appearance, depression, and anger. The happiness of the bleeding heart is secondary to helping others. Relationships with a significant other or family members can also suffer — for example, by overly neglecting their significant other or family members. The bleeding heart, in some ways, engages in what amounts to martyrdom. Their own lives suffer because too much of what they need is sacrificed to helping others. They become bitter people who are consumed by seeing the world as being constantly unfair or selfish.  The unintended consequence is that the bleeding heart, by leading a less happy or successful life, is less able to help others who are in need.

Victims and Outcomes

The bleeding heart tends to believe in permanent victimhood. That is, the “victimized” person or people they seek to help will forever be victims — be they Jews, African-Americans, or others who have a minority status due to something the victimized person cannot change (such as birth).

The bleeding heart also tends to believe that an unequal outcome is irrefutable evidence that they have been “victimized” by discrimination, racism or other forms of oppression. Examples of unequal outcomes include African-Americans or women or low-income people who are, among other possible outcomes, disproportionately unemployed, are not admitted to colleges in proportion to their numbers, have lower income, or have lower-status jobs.

For the bleeding heart, these unequal outcomes are nearly always fully explained due to discrimination or oppression, and are almost never due to irresponsibility, poor choices, lower-quality genes, or lack of hard work. Typically, the bleeding heart is never able to, in any way, blame their victims for their position in life.

All of us, according to this view, are generally born with the same skills, qualities, and abilities.

The bleeding heart usually has the habit of looking upon “victimized” individuals or groups as “noble savages.” Wikipedia defines a “noble savage” as the idea that in a state of nature, humans are essentially good. Examples of the noble savage, for the bleeding heart, are to see lower income people or African-Americans or women as, by definition, people that are born ethical, intelligent, fair, kind, compassionate, righteous, and supportive of human rights. Such oppressed people are almost never selfish or blameworthy.

In general, it is only white, Anglo-Saxon men who are fundamentally evil.

Double Standards

Specific examples of bleeding heart behavior, given the above, include instances where food or money is given to a panhandler. Or when the bleeding heart supports policies in which extra assistance is extended to African-Americans or women in college admissions – assistance that is not extended to “oppressor” white males. Or artificially tipping the scales in the direction of the “victim” or minority group in hiring or promotion in the job world. Or bleeding heart efforts intended to correct what is considered to be a “racist” or “sexist” imbalance of the college admittance, hiring or promotion of white males. Or speech codes which prohibit white males from using “derogatory” language toward minorities (who are assumed, by bleeding hearts, to be too “sensitive” to avoid being harmed by “racist” or “sexist” words).

It almost never occurs to the bleeding heart that in many cases, an imbalance is due to faults of the minority individual. Almost always, the imbalance can only be due to discrimination, because the bleeding heart almost always assumes that we are all born equal in abilities, and had it not been for oppression, there would not be any instance where societal benefits are disproportionately enjoyed by white, Anglo-Saxon males.

Victimhood is Forever

Our society, according to the bleeding heart, will always be required to give more assistance to such individuals as African-Americans or women than white, Anglo-Saxon males because discrimination is hard-wired into white, Anglo-Saxon males. Again, the victimization is assumed to be permanent.

What about using objective criteria to determine salary, hiring, or admission? Wouldn’t that be fair?


The bleeding heart has a handy retort to such a proposal – one that can be used forever: It is not possible to objectively measure competence or skills as a way to select or promote candidates, because such measures will inevitably be biased by and toward white, Anglo-Saxon males.

Double Standards Promote Discrimination

Ironically, the reverse discrimination that many bleeding hearts passionately justify (or turn a blind eye to) ends up contributing to and perpetuating the very discriminatory or racist attitudes that many bleeding hearts oppose so vehemently. This occurs because when a minority is promoted or hired or admitted or given another form of special treatment over white Anglo Saxon males even though they do not merit such special treatment (ie, there are white Anglo Saxon males who are more deserving due to superior skills or achievement), those who have racist or discriminatory beliefs will witness added confirmation of their beliefs. Others who were not discriminatory in the past may now feel that those who have discriminated against minorities previously may have been right in doing so.

The unfairly rewarded minority individual, for example, is likely to show their incompetence when they are promoted in a job, and this confirms to those who are at least borderline racist or discriminatory that such a minority is indeed inferior due to their gender or skin color or ethnicity.

For many bleeding hearts, two wrongs make a right. That is, the wrong of discrimination can be made right by using the wrong of unfairness against white Anglo Saxon males. And in the same vein, for many bleeding hearts, the ends justify the means. In this case, even if we unfairly treat white Anglo Saxon males, such a wrong is justified because doing so has produced equal outcomes for the victimized minority group. Besides, many bleeding hearts insist on the “justice” of “reparations” that must be suffered by white Anglo Saxon males to punish them and exact compensation for historic discrimination they engaged in.

Fairness is Unfair

In essence, for the bleeding heart, fairness must be sacrificed to ensure equal outcomes or equal societal rewards. It is not enough to provide equal opportunity. If there are unequal outcomes, it is by definition due to discrimination.

Besides, it is only “fair” to be unfair towards white males as compensation (or “reparations”) for past (and endless future) discrimination by white males.

Inevitably, this state of affairs leads to the utterly unfair acceptance of double standards. In many instances, it is perfectly acceptable, for example, for society or “victim” groups to discriminate when it comes to hiring, admissions, use of “derogatory” language, or sexual harassment.

As long as it is directed against white, Anglo-Saxon males.

A parting thought: For the record, even though atheists have suffered from horrible, cruel, open discrimination for several centuries throughout the world, I, as an atheist, am not in favor of offering special treatment to atheists in terms of hiring, promotion, political elections, admissions, or speech codes.


My memoir can be purchased here:

Paperback = http://goo.gl/9S2Uab Hardcover =  http://goo.gl/S5ldyF

The Car is the Enemy of the City (WalkableStreets, 2010), can be purchased here: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-car-is-the-enemy-of-the-city/10905607

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.wordpress.com

Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Visit my other sites:

Road to Ruin can be purchased here:


My Adventures blog


My Best-Ever Lists blog


My Town & Transportation Planning website


My Plan B blog


My Facebook profile


My YouTube video library


My Picasa Photo library


My Author spotlight


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics