Welcome to the Future: Kirk looks at self driving cars Part 1

Art department discovered stock photos

Welcome to the Future is SeedSing's look at trends and technology that are shaping the world we will live in. Submit ideas of interesting sociological or scientific ideas that are altering our current lives to seedsing.rdk@gmail.com .

We are quickly coming to a point in time when vehicles will be driven by computers in addition to humans. Once this point comes and takes hold, it seems the vehicles that are driven by humans will be the biggest safety risk on the road.

As many are aware, Google has been testing self-driving vehicles for six years and counting. The vehicles have driven about 1.9 million miles since they hit the road and have not caused any collisions. Of the 14 collisions that they were involved in, 11 were caused by human drivers rear ending the robot vehicles. Although, I am not sure that you would get that impression if you happen to merely skim the tech news headlines.

Every time that I hear about one of Google’s vehicles being involved in an accident, before reading the article, I am tempted to think that Google’s vehicle must have caused the accident. For what other reason would the involvement of a self-driving vehicle warrant a mention in the headline?

The following are examples of headlines related to the most recent such accident: “Google Self-Driving Car Involved in First Injury Accident” - ABC News. “Google self-driving car has 1st accident causing injuries” - CBC News. “Google Sees First Injury Accident for Self-Driving Cars” - TIME. “Injuries in Google self-driving car accident” - CNN Money.

If the self-driving capability is not an element in the accident, as has been the case in all incidences with these vehicles, I am having trouble coming up with a reason for them to be part of the story at all. It nearly always seems that once I get past the headline, the story is much more of a couple sentences in the weekly accident report of the local newspaper. Something like: “Rear end accident on 12th & Maple. Minor injuries.” That’s the whole story.

So why do we add in the part about the self-driving vehicle getting hit and expand it to a full article? And why do we often have a vaguely suggestive headline about Google to go with it? My suspicion is clickbait. If there is a way to squeeze an element of fear into a headline, people are more likely to click. New technology, as with any change, is scary. Handing over control of our transportation to a machine that has been proving itself to do a better job than humans is degrading. Many humans want to think they are superior to the machines. They want to believe that the machines will fail. They do not see the machines as an extension of ourselves, but a scary other to fear and conquer.

This fear is only human. These machines, while built by humans who are specialists in building and programming machines, are meant to be used by humans who do not understand them. There is a big divide here and the only way it will be overcome is through time. Just as historically with any new technology, time will bring comfort. People will start to see the convenience and benefit over their fears. They will start to understand it better and trust it more. In fact, as baiting as these headlines may be, those who do actually read the article are going to keep seeing this new era of self-driving vehicles to be safer.

I am not saying that self-driving vehicles are perfect and the day will not come when a self-driving vehicle will be the cause of an accident. I expect that it will. To some, I am sure, that will be all that it takes to dismiss those vehicles entirely. It is my hope, however, that the majority will see some of the major benefits to be gained from these vehicles. It is for those reasons that I am excited. You can read more about that in the second part of my musings on this topic tomorrow. (Read Part 2 here)

Kirk Aug

Kirk is still excited about the New Horizons data. His excitement has led him to be the point person on SeedSing science and technology insights. Follow him on twitter @KirkAug

We need 21st century leaders. Why the Republican party is doomed for failure.

Things do not look very good today.

Greece is a financial mess, China is a bigger financial problem that few people are talking about. The United States is doing nothing to fight exploding student debt, stagnant wages, and out of control health care costs. The world's population is getting older, and many of the baby boomers are not leaving the work force. The workers of generation x and the millennials are finding it more difficult to grow in their jobs and make more money. Home values do not appreciate at the rate they would 20 years ago. Public school funding is under assault by "tax cutting" politicians. Social services are being devoured by local budget deficits. Black southern churches are being maliciously burned down, and the media stays quiet. The world needs bold leadership.

The modern Republican party is largely responsible for many of the current problems facing the world. Once in power, Republican politicians use code words like "freedom", "opportunity", "small business", and "fairness" to lull the masses into thinking the Republicans are looking out for the normal middle class worker. It is a lie. The Republicans have worked extraordinarily hard to consolidate power into the hands of a very small group of rich white men. Do you think I am exaggerating? If you are under the age of 50, how well off are you? According to latest census data, just under 20% of all people in the US make over $100,000. Sounds good? Did you know because of fiscal policy started under the Reagan administration, that $100,000 is worth half as much as it was worth in 1990. We have been tricked into thinking that is a lot of money. We never took into account that the money is becoming worthless. The baby boomers do not understand the value of money being made, because they are finished with the career climbing point of their career. Their only concerns is social security (enjoy it), Medicaid (you're welcome), and living off their pensions (I know what those are, I just do not believe they ever existed). The government has completely changed our economic system, and it took only one generation.

It is amazing that the Republican party can lure any non-baby boomer to vote for their politicians. I hear from many people that they give support to the republicans because of tax policy. When taxes are cut, the hole has to be filled. Reagan filled it by raiding social security. Every President since then has stolen from one program or another to keep rich people taxes low (or to give them bigger loop holes) and to increase pointless defense spending (see the F-35 fiasco). The Republicans continue to feed the american people, with the help of a broken corporate media, the lie of lower taxes. Your paycheck may be bigger, but everything is cost more and is worth less.

While the Republicans continue to trap people with their failed financial policies, the hate from the party will be their eventual downfall. The current bloated field of Republican presidential candidates seem to always have a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or good old hateful thing to say. I get that the party is trying to appeal to old white people who are afraid of "welfare queens" and "angry black men". Most of the under 50 people in society see the Republican party's hate filled ways, and we are rejecting them. Religious conservatism is not the majority, the people of earth have been and will always be progressive.

The middle class has always been the great battleground in every election. Outside of the racism and hate, there is no reason to vote Republican if you are the 80% of america that lives in a family who makes less than $100,000.  Just this last week Wisconsin Governor, and Republican presidential front runner, Scott Walker tried to sneak in a provision to the state budget that would help eliminate the weekend. Think I am exaggerating again? Remember that good conservative hero Scott Walker is also advocating using state money to buy a basketball arena so billionaires can save some money. Today's conservatives seem fiscal responsible, yet they act like socialists when it comes to their rich white donors.

What about the Democrats, says you faithful reader? They are not any better when it comes to corporate welfare. Hillary Clinton may be the presumptive nominee (is she?) but she is definitely aligned with the corporate donors. The issues of the Democratic Party and their lack of support for the middle class will be addressed at a later date, but I will say the big issue that separates the Democratic party from the repubs is the hate. Democrats spent the last few weeks preaching about how #lovewins. The repubs have been falling all over themselves to see who can be the most hateful. 

Right now the Republican party controls the US House, Senate, and most of the state governments, how can I say they are doomed to failure? The recent world events show that we need innovative and bold leadership, that is not in the Republican party DNA. Making old white men even richer is not the future. Hating people who are non-white christian heterosexuals is not the future. The weakness of the local Democratic party is a temporary thing. Many local parties are gearing up for the 2016 elections, and hate is not on the agenda. Entire voting blocks are being energized for the Democrats (LGBT, millennials, non-hateful people). The Republicans are counting on the same people to turn out that they have been counting on for forty years. The Republican tactics are 20th century, the new leaders will be elected by 21st century minded voters.

The world needs bold leaders. The ideas from the modern Republican Party are without vision and without hope. Cut taxes, hate others, and forget about how we devalued the lower, middle and upper-middle class - that is the modern Republican platform. Their ideas are dying on the vine, and no growth will happen until they learn to grow the voter base. The Democratic Party will take the White House in 2016. We can only hope that the new President will see the 21st century problems of the world and tackle them with 21st century solutions. The world needs bravery, compassion, and innovation. Today may be dark, let tomorrow bring in the new light. 

RD Kulik

RD is the Head Editor for Seed Sing. He is looking for the 21st century minds who can participate in finding a New Way Forward. Contact him at seedsing.rdk@gmail.com.

Is piracy helpful? Kirk has some ideas.

Once upon a time, I pirated movies, television shows, music, and software without feeling the slightest measure of guilt. There are many ways that I used to justify this shameless disregard for the artists of the entertainment industry. In some ways I still think that piracy is warranted ethically if not legally. Although I have not given up piracy completely, the media world has changed dramatically and thus negated some of the excuses that I once used.

When I was in college, as I was introduced to piracy through a friend who had a then rare home broadband connection and a piece of software known as Napster, I was poor. I was the typical broke college student. I paid for music from the artists that I already knew about and whose music I knew I would enjoy. What I was downloading was merely for discovery purposes. These were artists that I would never have had a chance to listen to in that era. If anything, it broadened my taste. I probably bought more music as a result.

In the ten plus years since then we have music subscription services like Spotify, Google Play Music, and now Apple Music. I listen to most of the music I want through one of these services and do occasionally purchase an album I would like to own. The fact is, legal music adapted to what the consumer wanted. I could still be pirating music, but the paid alternative is more attractive. Which brings me to another justification that I once used and still, in some respects, do.

The industry has to compete. Prior to high speed internet, folks had to put up with any antiquated system that any of these media companies wanted to use for distribution. There was no alternative and would not have been any alternative without high speed internet. The technology to distribute content in a more user friendly way was there long before the big media companies decided to take advantage of them. I contend that without piracy, big media companies would never have been motivated to offer content on services like Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, Steam, or any of the other digital content service providers that exist in the wake of piracy.

Big media companies are champions of capitalism. In a capitalist system one has to compete with any other service providers. That does include black markets in this case. At first they resisted. They tried to sue their way back into the game. They were used to having control over the method of distribution and did not want to make changes for the kids of tomorrow. Eventually they have started seeing that they would have to offer a more alluring alternative to piracy. It wasn’t hard. Piracy can be clunky. Do you think I am going to pirate a movie or series that I can find on Netflix? Not a chance. It is so much easier to use Netflix and have a library of content at my fingertips. I even tend to choose something that is on Netflix over something else that I maybe wanted to watch which is not. This all because of the efficiency over piracy that Netflix provides. In that light, content providers are losing money by failing to provide it through such a service.

As much as I would like to say that I am a pillar of progress and that through only viewing content which is available through these types of services I am only supporting those content providers, I cannot. I have found that currently airing television series are still served superiorly to me through piracy. I think that network fragmentation is culprit there. Hulu has tried to offer a solution to that issue, but those particular content providers are still too greedy to go for it. I am pretty sure someone could improve on Hulu anyhow. Sorry, but serving ads along with subscription content will not fly.

So, dear reader, what do you think? Has your use or justification of piracy changed with the times? If you were a user of early services like Napster, do you still pirate to the same extent or at all today? Was it ever really justified or would we have progress just the same without it? Let me know your thoughts.

Kirk Aug

Kirk is still the new guy around here.  He is added some gravitas and intelligence to the group. Follow him on twitter @kirkaug

The Republican Hate Trap

It has been a bad week for the Republican Party.

A no good, very bad week.

I am not talking about their failure (once again) to get rid of Obamacare. I am not talking about their failure (once again) to ban gay marriage. This is also not about their victory to eliminate any talk of meaningful gun control in light of another mass killing. The Republican Party's bad week is about how all of those events caused the party's leaders to embrace the typical hate filled white christian majority victim hood that is losing the party voters and any national future.

The Republican party has been fighting the reforms of the New Deal for multiple generations. Their current leaders can not have a meaningful thought about domestic policy without attacking reforms enacted nearly eighty years ago. The programs of the New Deal have been large a part of american society,  removing them would cause a massive  economic crisis. The Republican party has been so invested in dismantling the New Deal,  they have no plan to deal with the catastrophic aftermath of their goals.

These irrational, outdated, tactics infect the current Republican voter outreach strategies. The Affordable Health Care Act was not a perfect law,  far from it. The law did succeed in giving healthcare to more at need Americans. Since the passage of the ACA,  the only action from the elected republicans is to act like petulant children and try to repeal the law. They tried,  and tried,  and tried,  and on and on. There was no plan, only a tantrum. Lower income Americans were beginning to see clearly that the republicans had no interest in helping them. These potential voters were mostly lost to any national campaign by the Republican party.

The need to cater to the outdated and hateful religious right has caused the Republicans to alienate a very powerful and engaged voter group, gay men. The actions of the Supreme Court were long overdue, and many Americans were happy that this embarrassment had been corrected. The response from all the national Republican leaders was predictable, silence or hate. The hate, coming from supposed Christians, was ugly and useless. Christian conservatives always vote in the exact same numbers, and they always vote Republican. If one national Republican realized that gay men tend to be more conservative on fiscal issues,  that person could start to cultivate new voters. Instead the legacy of hate and obstruct stops any movement in bringing in these new, valuable, voters.

Where the Republican hate trap reared its ugly head the most is the aftermath of the Charleston Church massacre. Our government is filled with cowards when it comes to stemming gun violence. The tricky part for the Republicans is they needed a distraction from having to talk about the gun problem in America. The media decided that distraction was going to be the Confederate flag. The hate trap was set, because now Republicans who defended a symbol of hate had to now openly attack it. This was not a good plan to a few deep south Republicans (see Haley Barbour). These politicians defending the Confederate flag kept reminding voters of the parties history of racism. The brain trust that is Sean Hannity even used his tired tactic of false equivalence and demanded rap music be banned along with the Confederate flag. Hannity is whining because he cannot embrace his symbol of hate,  so attacks something else ethnic that he hates. Every single guest on Hannity's radio and television shows will have to defend the Confederate flag and attack rap music. Good bye millennial voters, good job Sean.

The Democratic Party has not been very proactive in creating positive social change. The national leaders usually sit back and wait for social changes to become more viable. This allows the Democrats the luxury to co-opt these movements and be seen as the party of all people. Their biggest asset in claiming the progressive mantle is that the Republicans can not claw out of their hate trap.

Thank God.

RD Kulik

RD is the Head Editor for Seed Sing. He enjoys watching hateful people dig themselves into holes. Fox News is one of his favorite entertainment options. He needs you to write for Seed Sing.

The Problem is Gun Culture

(Ed. note: Seed Sing is a community of voices. The author is expressing his opinion and invites any questions and criticisms. Write for Seed Sing.)

It saddens me to think about the number of times President Obama has had to address the nation after a mass shooting or a race related death. We have nine people dead because in the killers eyes they were a problem. This killer was a racist, a terrorist, and a monster. His motivation was hatred, his tool was a handgun. The same motivation and tool can be attributed to the majority of mass killings in the United States. A large part of my sadness stems from the actual violence and loss of life, but there is another part to my sadness related to modern American gun culture. 

I spent a few years working as an advocate to stem gun violence, or in other words I was a lobbyist working against the NRA. I was somewhat unique in the gun violence prevention movement, I did not have a gun violence victim profile and I was not very interested in banning guns. The primary reason I worked on the issue was the allure of the challenge. I am very socially liberal, but libertarian in my view of personal responsibility. The gun issue stood on the intersection of personal responsibility and social consequence.  I approached the guns as a public relations problem. People either were yes or no on guns. I wanted to make people on the no side become yes on something reasonable. It is always better to argue an issue from the yes perspective. The particular issue I was brought in to manipulate was carrying a concealed weapon (CCW). I would use polls, business testimonies, and advertising to convince the legislators that CCW is not wanted. Never was there a mention of guns, death, or violence. There was some success, and some failure, but the narrative of gun violence prevention was changing.

So I thought. My career did not last long in the gun violence prevention movement. Many of the primary players have been there for years, and the majority were victims of gun violence. More states were passing laws that loosened restrictions on gun ownership. The old guard went back to their old methods. New gun violence prevention groups would rise up after the latest shooting and come up with "new" ideas on curbing the violence. The debate resorted back to yes and no. The media would treat any gun violence news as a debate between an old white guy from the NRA (or the US Congress) and some non-media savvy victim of gun violence. The idea of working to stop gun violence was the most pure Sisyphean task one could image.

My ambivalence to guns changed on December 12th, 2012. The deaths of twenty children and six school staff members at the hands of a person wielding legal weapons caused me to take a side in the gun debate. I started to firmly believe something needed to be done by our government to regulate and ban most firearms. With my professional experience I set out to have a discussion with people on the dangers of firearms.  What I received in return was mostly anger from the pro gun people. The debate quickly turned into why these 26 (28 including the killer and his mother) died and evolved into a discussion about not limiting guns. 

On Wednesday nine people, who were in church, were killed in Charleston South Carolina by a monster with a gun.  It is now Friday and I have heard little about the victims and more about why guns need less regulation. I am confused and pissed off about the society I live in.

The pro gunner's arguments have not changed in the ten years since I left the gun violence prevention movement. Here are some examples of their arguments followed by my hypothetical responses. 

GUNNERS: Guns don't kill people, people do.

ME: The famous comedian Eddie Izzard famously said "Well I think the gun helps". 

GUNNERS: If someone in the church had a gun, this would not have been as bad.

ME: How many times have you heard about a "good" CCW license holder stopping any mass shooting, zero? 

GUNNERS: You are using this tragedy to push your liberal agenda.

ME: I am sorry, tell me once again when we had any kind of reasonable gun control legislation in the last twenty years.  Also when should we talk about gun violence? When everyone has been killed?

GUNNERS: FREEDOM!!!!!!

ME: ???????

There is no way to have a rational discussion with people who use innocent deaths to protect their beliefs. I will admit that guns may not be the problem, gun culture is the problem. Why do we give the gunners a rational position in our society. What is a gun used for. I will give the gunners credit for the hunting argument. Their are a lot of hunters who use rifles.  What about assault rifles and handguns? Those weapons are not used by serious hunters. What in the world are people using assault rifles and handguns for? The answer I normally get is that those guns are for sport shooting and protection. First, you do not need to have those weapons in your home if they are used for sport shooting. Second, what do you need protecting from. Statistics are numbers and have no political motivation.  The incident of accidental death and suicide is a lot larger than the number of people who have successfully used these weapons for protection. We have trained police who can protect you from the "bad guys". I lived in the urban core for most of my twenties and thirties. I know of more people in the suburbs with handguns and assault rifles than I ever knew in the city. 

The best way to approach the problem of gun violence is to marginalize the gun culture. People who make guns a religion need to be treated as non-rational beings. I love Star Wars, yet I do not demean people who do not like it (I privately judge them).  You can love guns, but you do not need to be obnoxious about it. Many people love expensive sports cars, even if they cannot afford them.  One does not need to own a gun to enjoy them. Do you really love guns. Go to a regulated shooting range, play a first person shooter. You do not need to have the extra ability to kill someone with your hobby.

Once the gun culture is marginalized in society, spineless politicians will stop bending over backward for the NRA. Gun manufacturers depend on the NRA to continue a campaign of misdirection, lying, and fear mongering. The fact that the media does not marginalize the NRA makes our congress even more ineffectual. The gun violence prevention movement is way too emotional and fractured in their beliefs to be an effective counterbalance to the NRA. Bringing the gun violence prevention movement together as one voice is a non-starter. Pushing the same boulder up the same hill is going to give you the same results.

The best way to honor the people killed by guns is to do whatever possible to not add new gun violence victims. Forget about the guns and focus on the culture. Once everyone truly sees that the narrative states we honor the dead by demanding more guns, people will wake up and see the insanity. We will demand real discussion, from rational people. Change will start to happen.

Be kind to each other.

RD Kulik 

RD Kulik is the founder and Head Editor for Seed Sing

Why do you demand misery from someone who is trying to not be miserable?

This site published an article recently questioning ESPN's decision to award their Arthur Ashe Courage Award to Caitlyn Jenner (ESPN does not care about courage).  The editorial staff and the writer made it clear that we do not question the courage of Caitlyn Jenner, we question the integrity of ESPN.  What Jenner has done in normalizing the conversation surrounding the transgender community is miraculous. Most of the pop culture and political community have been supportive in Jenner's announcement. The ugly vitriol has come from the obvious non-surprising sources, I will not link to these comments here.  What is truly amazing is that within the hateful community, some Republican politicians have been supportive of Caitlyn Jenner. Maybe the Republicans are realizing that they need to create more votes? 

This week the story of Rachel Dolezal became public (see here for an explanation). The media predictably began to destroy Ms. Dolezal.  People were rending garments and wondering how could this privileged woman do something so horrible. There has been no room for debate, Rachel Dolezal is a racist and she must be brought down. The lazy media moved this story to the top of everyone's news feed. The internet hate machine was put into action, everyone had a negative opinion of the disaster that is named Rachel Dolezal.

What exactly did Rachel Dolezal do that was wrong? She may have lied on a federal form about race. That is a crime. When Caitlyn Jenner files her taxes (or more likely when she sets up her tax shelters) will she commit a crime if she checks the female box on the forms? Will people be up in arms if she is not allowed checks the female box?  Rachel Dolezal has spent her adult life being an advocate for African-american art and issues. By all accounts she was very good at her job. Being a successful advocate means one needs to remove themselves from the conversation. Ms. Dolezal has built a career being the voice behind the faces. Her work afforded the opportunity to serve on a committee where she could enhance the advocacy for African-american issues.

The relation between Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal is minor, except in how the media wants to cover personal identification.  The Huffington Post, once a valuable resource for liberal voices, has quickly become the poster child of clickbait (need to see the latest in celebrity side-boob, the good liberals at HuffPo have you covered). Huffington Post reliably had to weigh in with the pitchfork crowd, and they want to find every way to tear Rachel Dolezal down. The debate in the minds of HuffPo's professional liberals is one of Caitlyn Jenner's courage and Rachel Dolezal's institutional racism. I had never thought of comparing Jenner's and Dolezal"s issues, but thanks to HuffPo I will now look at the issues side by side. Caitlyn Jenner has been part of the zeitgeist for a very long time.  She was able to create relationships, and sympathy, in the liberal popular culture because of Bruce Jenner's treatment by the Kardashian machine.  Transgender issues have made positive strides in our popular culture, and thankfully we are becoming more accepting of people based on their personal identifications. Rachel Dolezal's race identification is an unknown issue in today's society.  New is never good for social liberals or conservatives.

We have thankfully started to accept people's personal identification, except for race. This is the ugly truth of the Rachel Dolezal story. Caitlyn Jenner can be born a man, identify as a woman, and we SHOULD accept it. There is outdated people who will direct hate towards the transgender community, but the good people will control the public acceptance. These same good liberals will not give the same courtesy to Rachel Dolezal.  What is the deal? I have seen some people accuse Ms. Dolezal of engaging in the disgusting practice of blackface. Many high profile white people have recently used blackface in some manner (Robert Downey Jr, Julianne Hough, Sarah Silverman, Billy Crystal, to name just a few). Some of these celebrities were questioned, others were given a pass, but in all cases it was wrong. Rachel Dolezal is not a large public figure, she is not playing a part, she is trying to be the person she is. I can not believe she is trying to cause a stir by being an African-american women. Why has she not sought fame for nearly twenty years of identifying as an African-american? Why does that bother anyone?

My belief is that the good liberals, and predictable social conservatives, fear anything that does not fit their basic narrative. Here is the common ground. The liberals push for acceptance, and fight for equality, but will not tolerate any change in the conversation on race. Social conservatives just want things to not change(I think their ideal year was sometime in the 1950's). Race relations has been on the front of social change conversation recently, and people are understandably touchy on what race means.  Rachel Dolezal is not choosing to identify as African-american because of recent events.  She has been identifying as an African American for years.

Rachel Dolezal has not hurt anyone, as a matter of fact she has helped a large amount of people.  She was already in a lesser power class by being a woman, identifying as an African-american women only gave her less social power. Why does anyone care? She has not been going out of her way maliciously deceiving people. She found out who she is. We celebrate Caitlyn Jenner and urge the public to let her live life in happiness.  Rachel Dolezal deserves to live life in happiness.

RD Kulik

RD Kulik is the Head Editor of Seed Sing. We are looking for contributors and podcast guests. Contact us here.

The impotence of the Republican Party's national identity

The Republican Party has equipment that does not work.  Their national identity does not have the ability to bring excitement and stimulate the imagination of the national electorate.  There are a few of the little things they do right.  They can get some of the small things done adequately, get us mildly interested.  However when it comes to the big show, it will end in disaster with a lot of soul searching and finger pointing.

Tired of the impotency metaphor.  Let's move on.

The modern Republican Party has built a brand that works in carved out legislative districts, and states that have local Democratic parties who do not know how to win elections (see the reasons Democrats have failed in state elections here.) I want to address the issue of branding in the local districts. While the republicans worked to get majorities in state houses, and in turn created districts that look like a 4 year old was coloring way out of the lines, the Democratic Party worked on a national messaging and outreach programs.  The republicans created a brand that would cater to a slight majority of the people in these gerrymandered districts.  Their local brand became dependent on political rhetoric that would cause the majority to fear the minority.  Black lives matter, equal pay for women, transgender acceptance, gay marriage, and many more social issues became the fodder for republican attacks. Divide and hate were the core of republican rhetoric. 

While campaigning in the local districts, these wedge issues can help drive necessary voter turnout among certain segments of the white vote.  In addition to creating the majority fear, the local republicans worked very hard to create a narrative of Democratic party voter fraud.

Go ahead and look up cases of actual voter fraud over the last twenty years, I can wait.

Welcome back, I am sure you came across a few cases (the name Ann Coulter definitely came up) but for the most part there is an insignificantly small amount of voter fraud cases.  Why are the republicans so worried? It works in their narrative to protect the right to vote, and to deny the vote at the same time.

These dividing tactics have served the Republican Party very well in the local elections, and helped push their message through a lazy corporate media.  Why do they not work at the national level? The answer is quite simple. They cannot sell their majority fear to a large nation. The urban areas have actual power in the national election.  Very few big states, like New York and California, can give a candidate a sizable electoral advantage (plus Texas is clearly in the national Democratic Party sights, watch out).  The Democratic party has been less than desirable on their social messaging, just look at Hillary Clinton, but they are not publicly speaking out against these emerging minority groups.  When Caitlyn Jenner makes news, Mike Huckabee makes a moronic joke about dressing like a girl to shower with girls in high school. He completely gave up any chance to win a national election with that comment, and he does not care.  It is more important for Mike Huckabee to be appealing to an out of touch voting block who will vote republican no matter what a candidate says.  When the scion of the Duggar clan admits to molesting young girls, including his own sisters, most of the national republicans do not condemn.  Instead they spend their time pushing false equivalence narratives to again protect a voter base that will never abandon them.  I know the argument will arise that you need the out of touch hate groups of the party to win the primary.  Even if that is the case, what you say to appeal to the hate groups will live on through the election (see Romney and 47%).  

I want you to think about what I just explained, the republicans need the out of touch hate groups.  Regardless of what the Fox News pundits say, America has always been socially progressive.  We have a number of amendments giving people rights, and we have only one taking away rights (plus that amendment was repealed so chalk up one more to giving rights). The electorate has expanded for one group when we acknowledge the minority rights. The early Republican Party (Lincoln's party, not Reagan's) saw an influx of voters after the 15th amendment.  The republicans again saw a voter influx after the 19th amendment.  The USA is the melting pot, we want your huddle masses yearning to breathe free.  Where in the hell does intolerance fit into that narrative.  There is no law demanding that anyone get married, so why do you want to deny marriage? There is no law dictating ones gender, so why do you care what someone feels in their soul?  The Republican Party seems to care about these issues, and that is why they are always fighting uphill in the national elections.

This is where my impotence metaphor is valid.  The republicans have all the right equipment, and it works for the most part.  The issue lies in a very important action, the republicans cannot achieve the ultimate satisfaction (the Presidency I mean of course).  Their grass roots of intolerance does not allow for them to reach out to an audience that does not buy the social division.  The Democratic Party has been sleep walking for decades on governance and strategy.  Their greatest advantage is the disdain for the Republican Party. Social division will always drive the disenfranchised urban centers to turn out (usually barely enough) for the elections that matter to them.  Without Ralph Nader, Al Gore would have been the President. George W Bush needed that Democratic Party division in one particular state to win the election with his light hate. Time has moved forward, communication technology has improved, and the Republican Party has continued their policy of division and hate.  

The first Republican to learn that all Americans can vote will be the person the Democrats have not been prepared to face.

RD Kulik

RD Kulik is the Head Editor for Seed Sing.  He is flabbergasted that people who openly hate other Americans will be featured on Meet the Press this Sunday.  Come write for us to express your ideas. Join us.

Calling all MRAs, Ty has a few thoughts to share with you.

After the phenomenal "Mad Max: Fury Road" I did some internet research on the movie and read about some douche bags who call themselves "Men's Right Activists" that were complaining about the lead of the movie being female.

These guys are the WORST.

I can't believe some assholes are out there complaining that a female has a strong leading role in an action movie. First of all, Charlize Theron is a total badass in the movie, so what's the problem? She kicks as much ass and is as good, if not better, fighter than all of the men in the movie. Where do these "activists" get off complaining about anything that a women gets. Second point - being a man myself, I've gotten way more advantages in my life than an average female gets. I also get to enjoy these advantages and I'm a stay at home dad! My wife goes out there and works her ass off everyday to take care of our family and I couldn't love or adore her anymore for it. She wears the pants in our family and I have no problem with that at all. She brings home the bacon and fries it as well.

She's a boss.

The fact that these guys are out there complaining about women getting more than a man is an absolute joke. They sound like a bunch of ignorant, arrogant, self absorbed dick heads who've probably never kissed a girl before. What a bunch of dildos. I read some more about the "activists" and saw that they are also very concerned and upset about the all female cast of the new "Ghostbusters" movie. Once again I ask, what's the problem? If you want an all male cast of "Ghostbusters", you know what, they made a few of those already in the eighties and they are awesome (ed note - Ghostbusters is awesome, Ghostbusters 2 is ok). Just go and watch those movies and keep your stupid mouths shut. I feel like, in today's culture, people just look for something to complain about. I mean, it's almost impossible, actually it is impossible, to make anything that the majority of people will be happy about. Someone somewhere will find something to gripe about. But, in rare occasions, you get insane people like "Men's Rights Activists".

The MRAs are some of the most difficult people in the world to understand and frankly, I hope they just stop talking so we never have to hear from idiots like this again.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing.  He enjoys being a stay at home dad and never engages in self loathing or being an idiot