Give Them Hope

First, on a serious note.  Early last Sunday morning, a gunman burst into a popular gay bar in Orlando and opened fire with an AR-15, killing 49 people and wounding 53 others before being killed by the police. This is the worst mass shooting in American history by a single gunman, and LGBTQ people, specifically LGBTQ people of color, were explicitly targeted. All people were struck by the scale of this tragedy, but personally, it has hit me hard. Mass shootings are always more terrifying when you can see yourself in the people who were killed.

It can be hard and scary to be visible. A lot of queer people spend much of their adolescence, and sometimes much of their lives, hiding a big part of their identity. For me, even now that I'm fully and totally out, I'm faced with a lot of daily situations in which I have to make a choice between hiding a part of myself and coming out to a person I don't know very well. Sometimes I don't have the energy, sometimes I genuinely feel it's none of their business, and sometimes I feel I have reason to fear for my safety.

Gay bars are important because they're one of the only spaces where I know for sure that I don't have to feel unsafe being gay. Unlike everywhere else in the world, in a gay bar, my sexual orientation is the default, and I don't really have to explain myself to anyone. That's why this horrific hate crime cuts so deep. Gay people were murdered in a place where they felt safe, and it has just reinforced for me that, as a gay woman, most places in this world are not safe. This danger is further magnified for people of color, trans and gender non-conforming people, and people of different religions.

After the shooting, I was feeling hopeless for a variety of reasons. I was frustrated that people didn't seem to be acknowledging the nature of the hate crime. I was worried that this shooting would be used as another excuse for Islamophobia. I was outraged at Republican politicians tweeting that their thoughts and prayers were with the victims, when their past actions had facilitated the societal homophobia that made a man think it was ok to murder people for being gay.

I was exhausted by the rhetoric calling for better gun control. We've had so many mass shootings in this country that I had no reason to think that this one would motivate Congress to pass an assault weapons ban, or close the gun show loophole that allows people to buy guns at gun shows without submitting to a background check. In fact, I became frustrated that people were talking about gun control because it felt like such a futile conversation.

And then on Wednesday at 11am, Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut started speaking on the Senate floor, and with the help of other Senators, specifically Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey, held the floor for 15 hours and renewed my faith in government.

Before I go into the details of this specific filibuster, I am a political process blog at heart, and thus I have to explain what a filibuster is. In Congress, the vast majority of bills can be debated on the floor. In the House, there are time limits for how long people can speak on a bill, usually between one and five minutes. The House is allowed to set time limits for debate overall, limiting consideration on a specific bill to forty minutes total. The Senate, illustrious and elitist body that it is, has no such time limit. Usually, Senators keep their speeches short, and debate can move fairly quickly. But individual Senators have the right to speak "as long as necessary" on any issue.

Yes, I know this is the one we're all thinking about.

Traditionally, filibusters are used as a delaying tactic. In 1957, Strom Thurmond took the record for the longest filibuster, clocking in at over 24 hours when he stalled debate on the Civil Rights Act. Huey Long, a Senator from Louisiana, would routinely filibuster bills he thought hurt the poor, with one of his filibusters reaching 15 and a half hours. But filibusters can also be used by members of the minority party to pressure the majority party into action, as was the case with Senator Murphy's filibuster.

Senator Murphy took the floor a little after 11am, and said he would stand on the Senate floor as long as he could. In order to "hold the floor" or retain his right to speak, there were a couple of rules that Senator Murphy had to follow. The biggest rule is that once you start talking, if you sit down, stop talking, or leave the floor for any reason, you have yielded the floor, and debate can go on without you.

Unlike some places (Texas being a notable example where people cannot stray from the topic of discussion even once) United States Senators can talk about more than just the bill they are delaying, or the cause they care about. Senator Long, in his fifteen hour filibuster, read recipes, analyzed the constitution, and read Shakespeare. Senators can also yield for a question, without losing their right to the floor. While a Senator can yield to anyone for a question, it's common practice to only yield to members in your own party who are on your side, so you know that they won't filibuster your filibuster, and monopolize the floor themselves.

The Texas rules are hardcore, and merit a separate post, but we don't have time for that so enjoy Wendy Davis.

In this case, Senator Murphy often yielded for questions, allowing other Senators to speak about their views on gun control and the Orlando shooting. Almost every Democratic Senator, and a few Republicans, came to the floor and spoke for extended periods of time, finally phrasing a question at the end of a marathon speech, usually something like "what will it take for the Senate to pass common sense gun reforms?" These long questions would give Senator Murphy a break from talking, and allow him to drink and eat.

During a filibuster, the only things you can drink are water and milk (I'm really not sure why you can drink milk, but this post is already so long, that's going to have to be a question for another day). You can't eat anything, except the candy from the candy desk on the Senate floor. Yes, that's right, there is a desk on the Senate floor that is full of candy, but you have to walk all the way over to Senator Mark Kirk's (R-IL) desk to get it.

This is a real desk in the real Senate.

You don't want to drink too much though, because you cannot leave the Senate floor for bathroom breaks. And here's the most fun thing I learned about filibusters this week. Elected officials have all kinds of ingenious ways for avoiding nature's call. Wendy Davis wore a catheter. A St. Louis Alderwoman had her aids set up sheets around her lower half while she relieved herself in a bucket. Strom Thurmond set up a bucket in the Senate cloakroom and peed into it while keeping one foot still on the floor. And if you think that's an unprofessional thing to put in a semi-serious blog post, then you will be dismayed to know that I shared these facts with my boss as soon as I learned them.

When does a filibuster end? Some end when the person can't talk anymore. Some can end when other Senators get 60 people together for a cloture vote, to end debate on the subject, effectively killing a filibuster. Or they can end when the Senator gets what they want.

Senator Murphy brought his filibuster to an end close to 2am, with a newly secured promise from leadership that they would hold votes on universal background checks and preventing people on the terrorist watchlist from buying guns. The final seven minutes of the filibuster is one of the most emotionally powerful things I've seen in politics. To editorialize, I can feel how much Senator Murphy cares about this issue, and his passion makes me believe that the government can step up and do something to combat the huge, complicated, terrifying issues that we are facing that seem to be impossible to tackle. 

The actions of Senator Murphy, Senator Booker, many members of the Democratic caucus, and Senator Tammy Baldwin, the only LGBTQ Senator, who gave a moving tribute to the victims of the attack, gave me hope that had been lost in the wake of the devastating hate crime in Orlando. 

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) during the filibuster

Hope alone can't do everything, but nothing can be done without hope. I know that now, just as sure as Harvey Milk knew it in 1978 when he delivered a speech motivated by tragically familiar actions, and a message that is as relevant and important for LGBTQ people today as it was in 1978.

"After Dade County, I walked among the angry and the frustrated night after night and I looked at their faces. And in San Francisco, three days before Gay Pride Day, a person was killed just because he was gay. And that night, I walked among the sad and the frustrated at City Hall in San Francisco and later that night as they lit candles on Castro Street and stood in silence, reaching out for some symbolic thing that would give them hope. These were strong people, whose faces I knew from the shop, the streets, meetings and people who I never saw before but I knew. They were strong, but even they needed hope. 

And the young gay people in the Altoona, Pennsylvanias and the Richmond, Minnesotas who are coming out and hear Anita Bryant on television and her story. The only thing they have to look forward to is hope. And you have to give them hope. Hope for a better world, hope for a better tomorrow, hope for a better place to come to if the pressures at home are too great. Hope that all will be all right."

As we all, but specifically we in the LGBTQ community, work for a better world and fight for what's right, we must also try to find the symbolic things that will give us hope. They won't be the same for everyone, but for me, someone who has put a lot of energy and faith in the government, watching this filibuster, watching my Senators speak so passionately in favor of gun control and in support of LGBTQ people, and watching the first openly lesbian Senator speak about the pain she was feeling from the attack, gave me hope. I hope it does the same for all of you.

Thanks, Federalism

My friend Jason recently messaged me requesting a post on electors, the people who make up the electoral college. My first response was "silly Jason, the electoral college isn't actually made up of people who vote for a nominee. That would be insane, and could possibly lead to the electoral college voting for someone who did not win the popular vote. Our country would never let that happen."

Wow, was I wrong. It only took a couple of Google searches for me to go from "the electoral college is just a way of easily showing who won the election" to "THERE ARE NO LAWS GOVERNING ELECTORS WHY ARE WE NOT RIOTING IN THE STREETS?!" So let's follow that trajectory, shall we?

Yeah, you'll hear wailing in the streets when I'm done with this.

When explaining the electoral college to people, I usually just hit the high points. There are 538 electors, the sum total of each state's Congressional Representatives and Senators, plus three votes for DC. A candidate needs 270 to win the election. More populous states have more electors, and even the smallest states are guaranteed three, because each state has one Congressperson and two Senators.

What I didn't know was that there are actually people who are selected to be electors who actually vote for a candidate. The system of 538 votes is based on the actual votes of living, breathing people. There's no standardized method of selecting electors, and States are left to their own devices (thanks a lot Federalism). Usually, someone is chosen to be an elector as a reward for service to their political party, and can be state elected officials, party leaders, or others at the state level. Even though the number of electors are determined by how many Congresspeople a state has, members of Congress and employees of the Federal government cannot be electors.

Treasury or State, it doesn't matter, you still can't be an elector.

It's still a little unclear to me how many electors there really are. That's because all the official paperwork makes it clear that party loyalty matters a lot in picking electors. This lead me to think that each political party has a full set of electors for each state. For example, there are three Democrat electors in Wyoming AND three Republicans, and the candidate that gets the most votes in their state is awarded the three electors from their party, not a mix of electors with a variety of different political affiliations.

There used to be a custom where electors were listed on the ballot with the candidates, and people could vote for individual electors. Those of you who voted in New York saw a similar set up on your primary ballots. Candidates were listed, and then had six delegates listed next to them who you could vote for. In the presidential election, this caused some problems, where people would vote for electors of both parties, leaving the electorate split. Kind of like when my friend voted for only female delegates in the New York primary, which means she voted for three Clinton delegates and three Sanders delegates.

And if the electors are split, it's up the delegates. It's up to Hamilton.

Today, individual electors are not listed on the ballot, and in 48 states, candidates receive the full amount of electors (Maine and Nebraska split electors based on the percentage of the vote each candidate received). What I have found in researching this blog post is that it's very unclear whether or not there are two slates of electors, one for each political party. It's unclear because everything written on the Internet about electors is either taken from the National Archives, or a paper from the Federal Elections Commission written in 1992. My educated guess is that there is a slate of electors for each candidate, and when the candidate wins, only the electors from their party vote.

I guess that because it turns out there is no Federal law mandating electors to vote a certain way. Some states have laws preventing electors from voting contrary to the popular vote, and some state political parties have electors sign a party pledge, promising that they won't vote outside of the party. In total, 25 states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring that electors follow the popular vote, and some of those states have party pledges as well.

Practice the law, practically perfect it, because it is different all across the country because of federalsim.

For those of you playing along at home, that means that HALF the states in this country do not require their electors to follow the popular vote. This results in the possibility of something called "faithless electors" who cast their votes outside of the popular vote or the party line. Since electors are chosen for their party loyalty, this happens very rarely. The most recent example was 2004, when an elector in Minnesota cast his vote for John Edwards instead of John Kerry (which, come on, really?). The last time an elector actually crossed party lines was 1972, when a Republican elector voted for the Libertarian candidate. This was also the year that every state but Massachusetts voted for Nixon, so I'm sure that the President wasn't too mad about this one faithless elector.

But just because it hasn't happened often doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Once again, thanks to Federalism, our country has no specific laws governing electors. This could mean that if there's a supremely unpopular racist who, oh I don't know, owns a chain of hotels and crappy steaks, and insists he's going to bring manufacturing back to America, and is the presidential nominee, electors in 25 states can legally ignore that and vote for whoever they want. Again, these are people chosen for their party loyalty so that's unlikely, but so was the entire candidacy of Donald Trump, so who knows what could happen.

Alexander, I have to ask, DID YOU INTEND THIS?

Looking into the Future

If you know me even a little, you know that I hold the website 538 in the absolute highest regard. Maybe it's because I've never been good at math so I'm easily convinced by statistics and models that I don't fully understand, maybe it's because the site predicts elections correctly the vast majority of the time, or maybe it's because I'm widely known as the Nate Silver of Oscar Predictions, so I feel a certain kinship.*

So when a journalist from 538 tweeted that Clinton would probably secure the nomination before the polls even closed in California, I had a vision of the future where people were complaining that she "stole the election" because they called if for her before the people of California even decided. This blog post is here to explain why that's not the case.

The tweet that started it all.

To win the Democratic nomination, a candidate needs 2,383 delegates. Right now, Clinton has 1,769 pledged delegates and Sanders has 1,501. Seems like neither candidate is that close to the nomination, especially when you factor in the 694 delegates at stake in the primary on June 7th. However, the 538 Delegate Tracker doesn't count superdelegates, as they have the ability to change their mind right up until the convention in July. 

But if you do count superdelegates, it places Clinton far closer to the nomination. Clinton has 544 superdelegates, for a total of 2,313 delegates overall, and Sanders has 45, for a total of 1,546. With superdelegates, Clinton needs around 70 pledged delegates to secure the nomination, and with the Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands votes this weekend, where over 60 delegates are in play, it's highly likely she will make a dent in that number.

Ah, bold claims and that math to back it up

So going into the June 7th contest, Clinton will have picked up more delegates. The majority of polls show her winning New Jersey, where 126 pledged delegates are at stake. With the pledged delegates from Puerto Rico, and the pledged delegates in New Jersey, she may very well secure enough delegates (super and regular) to win the nomination, without even counting California. That means that at 8pm Jersey-time (5pm California time, before the polls close) news networks may call the nomination for Clinton.

"But Bella!" you say. "She's not really that close to winning the nomination because she's relying on undemocratic superdelegates! Regardless, we're headed for a contested convention!" To you I say, that's not what a contested convention means. A contested convention is when no one has a majority of delegates in any way. It would be like if both Sanders and Clinton had 2,000 delegates each, and the rest of the delegates couldn't pick a side. That's a contested convention. Just because someone doesn't have a majority of pledged delegates doesn't mean it's a contested convention. And Clinton isn't the first person to clinch the nomination by relying on superdelegates.

Thanks Harry!

"BUT BELLA!" you say again. "If Sanders wins in a landslide, some superdelegates will surely support him! They all want to support him anyway, and if he proves he's a winner they will switch from Hillary to Bernie and he will have enough delegates to win!"

You're not wrong, hypothetical friend. A strong showing on June 7th may compel superdelegates to support Sanders. And laying aside the fact that you now want to rely on something you previously considered undemocratic, this would be enough for him to win the nomination. But hundreds of superdelegates changing their support is a Hail Mary pass, not a likely outcome.

Harry, keeping it real.

Is it "voter suppression" to call the election for Clinton before the California polls have closed? I'll be honest, I wish that the media would wait until the California polls have closed before doing anything, but I wish that the media did a lot of things differently. And voters in California should remember that even if the media calls the election, their vote still matters, and they can still make a difference with their vote. But I don't think you can say that the media declaring Clinton the winner is voter suppression. If, by 5pm California time she has more than 2,383 delegates, then mathematically, she is the presumptive nominee, and people have the right to report that fact.

This is all to say, should the primary election be called for Clinton before California voting has happened, it's not a plot by the Clinton camp to stop Sanders from winning California. It's a reflection of the fact that, mathematically, she won the election, independent of any result in California. But if you have any questions or opinions on Tuesday, you know where to find me!

I'm not looking forward to the Internet yelling, but it is inevitable.

*I mean "widely known" in the sense that I hope it becomes widely known, as I am the absolute best at Oscar Predictions.

Stop Worrying About the Zika Virus

Or: Answering Your Zika Questions in Five Parts, with help from my Good Buddies at the CDC

1. "I think I got the Zika virus!"

You probably don't have Zika. Even if you get 150 mosquito bites a week, you probably don't have Zika. Even if you've seen Zika on the news a lot lately. Even if all your friends are tell you that you have Zika. Even if you read the tea leaves and they spelled out Z I K A.

Why? Because Aedes aegypti, the mosquitoes that are most likely to spread the Zika virus, live in tropical, sub-tropical and temperate climates. Is it possible that you could still contract the virus if you live in a non-tropical climate? Of course! Is it likely? Not at all. The same mosquitoes that spread Zika virus also spread dengue fever, and I don't know the last time I heard about someone in the United States contracting dengue fever.

Serious epidemiology discussions, ft. memes

2. "No, I have Zika, my doctor told me so!"

Ok, so you have Zika. Thankfully, most people with Zika don't even know that they have the disease, because they don't even show symptoms. People are rarely hospitalized and almost never die from Zika. The worst thing you're looking at is a week of fever, rash, joint pain and headaches.

The bear just wants you to CHILL OUT

3. "I don't care about me, I care about my future children! My Zika virus will cause birth defects for any children I may bear!"

More good news on the horizon. The incubation period for Zika, or the time it takes between being infected and showing symptoms, is a week. And, once you've contracted it, the virus stays in your blood for about a week more. On average, you're looking at two weeks of being infected with Zika, after which you are likely to be protected from future infections. Your future children will be fine.

Take a deep breath

4. "But I'm pregnant right now!"

Unfortunately, if you are currently pregnant and you have Zika, you are the one group that needs to worry. CDC scientists recently concluded that Zika was causing microcephaly, a birth defect, among babies in Brazil. Zika isn't the only thing that causes microcephaly, and babies can be born with this condition due to genetic changes, other infections, and exposure to toxins. 

While we know that there is a strong link between pregnant women having Zika and microcephaly, there is still so much scientists don't know. It's unclear if every pregnant woman with Zika passes the virus to her fetus. We don't know if every fetus exposed to the virus develops microcephaly. There is no vaccine against Zika, or treatment once you have it, so right now, the best way to prevent Zika is to prevent mosquito bites. 

5. "Wait...so do I have to worry about Zika or not?"

If you're currently pregnant, and live in an area that's seen a lot of Zika cases, yes you probably do have to worry, and should take steps right now to prevent mosquito bites.

If you're currently pregnant, and don't live in an area that has had many confirmed cases of Zika, maybe you have to worry a little. Avoid travel to countries on this list, and take steps to prevent mosquito bites this summer.

If you're not pregnant, you do not have to worry about Zika at all. I can repeat, for those who might be worried. If live in the United States, and you're not going to get pregnant in the next two weeks, you have nothing to fear. And one last time, to make sure you really heard it: Zika is nothing to worry about!!!!!!

In Their Defense

Remember when this blog was just about complicated Congressional bills instead of my opinions about the election and sexism? After trying (and mostly failing) to write about polls and why they're flawed, I decided to tackle a far easier subject and discuss the most recent defense bill that just passed the House, but will probably be vetoed.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 allocates money to the Department of Defense, which in turn, funds the military. I'll spare you an exhaustive account of everything that's in the bill, because the bill is hundreds of pages long, and I don't have time to read it all. The bill appropriates 23 billion dollars in funding, to allow current military campaigns to continue through April of 2017, at which point, the new president will have to request supplemental funding.

Oh my God, how embarrassing, how did a photo of the next president make it into this post?

This is where the first controversy comes in, as both the White House, and the Senate Armed Services Committee feel that this bill gambles with military funding, because the money would run out in April, which is unusual for appropriations bills. The White House has accused Congress of "short-funding" the military, and the Senate will likely pass a different bill that appropriates more money, which would mean there would have to be a conference, so that both houses could agree on a bill to send to the president.

Despite this debate, the bill passed the House last night, 277 to 147, but unlike military appropriations bills of the past, almost all the Democrats voted against the bill. "Short-funding" of the military wasn't the only reason Democrats voted against it, but before I go into what's actually in the bill, I'll tell you some proposals that didn't make it in. For example, there was going to be a provision that required women to register for the draft, but that didn't make it into the final bill. Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) introduced an amendment to move prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay, but it failed 163-259.

Oh my God, how embarrassing, how did a photo of my next boyfriend make it into this blog post?

One of the big sticking points in the bill is an amendment that wasn't brought up in the Rules Committee, but added by Representative Steve Russell (R-OK) during a mark-up session in late April. The amendment would create protections and exemptions for religious associations and corporations that are also Federal contractors. Gay rights groups argue that an amendment like this would undermine an executive order President Obama signed in 2014 that made it illegal for Federal contractors to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

Several legislators offered amendments to remove the Russell amendment from the bill, on the grounds that further discrimination against LGBTQ people would be an unintended consequence of this broad language. To editorialize, discrimination against LGBTQ people is absolutely an intended consequence of this kind of language, and the GOP knows it.

Even more shady, an amendment proposed by Representative Sean Maloney (D-NY) to strip discriminatory language from the bill actually appeared to be passing the House, until some Republicans were persuaded to change their votes.

At 11:27am Eastern Standard Time (thank you C-SPAN!)

And then at 11:33am Eastern Standard Time

Why did people change their votes, even though it appears that voting time is over? According to the many House Democrats I follow on Twitter, Republicans held the vote open while they convinced people to vote against the Amendment.

Both the short-funding, and the discriminatory amendments have led the White House to threaten to veto the bill and right now, enough Democrats have voted against it, that it doesn't seem possible that a veto could be overridden. Does that mean that military funding is in danger? You bet! Remember when we talked about how bad riders are? Without the line item veto, the President can either accept the bill, discrimination and all, or veto both funding and discrimination. Here's hoping both houses can work out a compromise, but at this point, I feel like that's hoping for a new season of Agent Carter; well intentioned, but unlikely and bound to lead to disappointment.

We're gonna miss you Peggy!

Fired Up about the Death Penalty

This week on West Wing, Best Wing Molly and I basically spent the whole time reinforcing each others opinions on the death penalty with a few side anecdotes about Tony Hillerman, murder at sea, and Kenny, Joey Lucas' sign language interpreter who is probably my favorite person in any television series. Listen to the episode here, and follow us on Twitter here.

Shabbat Shalom to all my goys.

Episode 7, which summarizes Take This Sabbath Day, has a ton of facts and we were pretty fired up when we were talking about it, unlike everyone else in that Fake White House. In this episode, the Supreme Court denies a stay of execution for a man facing the death penalty, which means the President is literally the only person who can save this man's life. The actions of the Supreme Court mean that this man was facing the Federal death penalty, which is applied in cases of treason, terrorism, large scale drug crimes and federal murder.  

Murder becomes a federal crime punishable by the death penalty when someone is murdered in connection with a drug arrest (as is the case in this episode), when an elected official is murdered, or a murder for hire. Murder can also become a federal crime based on where it is done, like murder at sea, or killings on a Native American reservation. 

Because of the 1885 Major Crimes Act, certain crimes, including murder, are prosecuted federally if they are committed on Native American reservations. This means that someone who lives on a reservation in New Mexico could face the federal death penalty for a crime, even though the state of New Mexico repealed the death penalty in 2009, thanks to the tireless efforts of State Representative Gail Chasey (in addition to being a powerful state legislator and all around amazing woman, Representative Chasey gave me my first political internship). If you ever needed proof of how racist our justice system was, this is a good place to start.

Representative Gail Chasey, looking on as Governor Richardson signs the bill repealing the death penalty.

According to Molly, this tug-of-war between tribes and federal law enforcement is an issue in many Tony Hillerman books, and according to me, there is a middle school in Albuquerque named after Tony Hillerman, because there aren't a ton of famous people to name things after in Albuquerque.

Straight up, this is not what the middle school used to look like, I think they're doing some renovations.

We both have a lot of problems with the death penalty, which are discussed in detail on the podcast, but one of the main empirical issues with the death penalty is that it costs so much more than regular prison. Housing an inmate in prison for a year costs between 40,000 and 168,000 dollars. By contrast, the death penalty costs up to 11 million dollars a year, as death penalty trials are 50% more expensive than trials where lawyers seek life without parole. In California, it costs 300 million per execution, as death penalty proceedings can drag on for up to 25 years, costing taxpayers literally hundreds of millions of dollars.

Seems like some of that 300 million could be put to better use, remedying societal ills, but hey, our government's priorities aren't always right. We go into far more detail on the podcast about our death penalty opinions, hangovers, liquor laws in Buffalo New York, and the dark side of the walk-and-talk, so what are you waiting for? Check out the podcast! And if you really want to support us, follow us on Twitter! We're promise to be as fun as Josh Lyman after a night of heavy drinking.

Ah, Mr. Lyman and his delicate constitution

Still Relevant After All These Years

If you had told me that the 1994 Crime Bill was going to play a huge role in the 2016 election, I would have been a little surprised. And yet here we are, with a lot of accusations being tossed around about the crime bill, and me not knowing much about it, beyond what's been thrown around by my Facebook friends.

So here you go, a primer on the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. To paraphrase John Mulaney, I know it's kind of stupid to write a blog post about a bill that was passed 22 years ago, but I wasn't a political blogger back then.

In reference to Home Alone 2: Lost In New York.

The gigantic 1994 bill included things that today we see as incredibly important and necessary, like the Violence Against Women Act and an assault weapons ban. It provided more money for community policing, and increased the number of police officers.

The bill also did things that I, and many others, see as problems like the three strikes law, which ensured mandatory life in prison without parole, for people who had committed three violent Federal crimes. The bill also expanded the Federal death penalty, eliminated inmate education, and created new Federal offenses, all of which has lead to an increase in the United States prison population. 

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the 1994 Crime Bill was a good thing, or even explain the context of its passage, because I think "there was lots of crime" is a bad reason to expand the death penalty and cut inmate education. Neither of those actions will do anything to reduce crime, now or in 1994. And I'm not even going to say that the crime bill reduced violent crime, because numerous studies have shown that it didn't.

The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was not a well-written, sustainable bill. It has ended up causing more problems than it solved, and some of the more progressive measures of the bill never actually materialized.

If you've been following the election, you'll know that Hillary Clinton has been taking a lot of heat for her husband's crime bill. You may also have noticed that Bernie Sanders is taking far less heat for his support for the bill. Sanders voted for the 1994 when he was in the House. Furthermore, you may have noticed that people rarely bring up Joe Biden when they talk about the bill, and no one has forced him to apologize, even though he was the primary Senate sponsor of the bill.

Why Joe? Why?

We should be questioning the past actions of our politicians, and they shouldn't get a pass for the bad decisions that they made in the past. We need to interrogate the language that they used, we need to hold them accountable for their opinions, and we need to demand to know how they're going to fix those mistakes. It's our duty as citizens to question our elected officials.

At the same time, is it a little weird that people seem to have focused all their energy on the woman who supported a bill (that her President husband thought was very important) rather than the men who wrote, shaped, and voted for the bill? I think so, but that's also the nature of politics in 2016.

After all, I don't have any real opinions!