Ethnicity and Representation

I am strongly in favor of each ethnic group having strong and appropriate representation. Differing voices should be heard and the needs of a disparate group of people can help strengthen the whole of society.

When I watch TV (which I do way too much of) I see a current trend: every single show I watch, whether drama, sci-fi, fantasy, comedy, long or short, high-end or low-brow has at least one relatively major character who is LGBT on it these days. They are getting their voices heard and those who are LGBT have people to look up to in mainstream media.

The most recent stats I can find indicate that approximately 4.5% of the US population is LGBT. So, having so many LGBT characters (and, hopefully, the actors who play them) is actually a huge amplification of the voice of this one minority.

Most shows these days have at least one but usually two or three people of color on them. This is great! Blacks and Latinx people deserve to see people like them on TV and in the movies (Will Smith, Kerry Washington, Oscar Isaac, America Ferrera, et al). More importantly, enough PoC have been successful behind the scenes making TV shows and movies that more productions headed by PoC are coming out and in the works (Jordan Peel, Les Daniels, Alfonse Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, et al). Even the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has opened its doors to more representation, allowing for a new diversity in films during the Oscars presentation. This is all a fabulous turn of events and PoC voices are strong and should be heard.

The most recent stats I can find indicate that just over 13% of the US population is Black and about 18% is Latinx, while about 76% of the population is White. If most shows have such a strong Black and Latinx showing, then their voices are similarly amplified beyond what their population percentage indicates.

(Note: Since "Hispanic" refers to the language spoken and not ethnicity, but is grouped together by the US Census with "Latinx," the statistics for the ethnicities of White and Latinx have some overlap, which often results in numbers above 100% for the population.)

While I do see more Asians on shows in general, it is not to the degree of other ethnicities. However, strides have been made with the successes of some TV stars (Lucy Liu, John Cho, Ken Jeong, et al) and movies (Crazy Rich Asians, To All the Boys I've Loved Before, et al) -- although with a caveat: many successful Asian properties get re-made by Hollywood with White actors rather than simply released in America with English subtitles or language tracks. Strangely, this is not often the case with other PoC's TV and film contribution (but does happen on occasion).

Asians make up around 6% if the US population.

Every ethnicity's voice should be heard. The diversity of voices is one of the strengths that has made America great throughout its history. A constant influx of new people with new ideas and strong work ethics has helped build America into the leading nation in the world. However, I wonder if the current path of amplifying voices that haven't been strongly heard in the past is the best way of ensuring that those voices are not only heard but really listened to.

I am also concerned; the violence I see in speech and action from some within the White majority cannot be discounted. A certain segment of that population is angry and feels, rightly or wrongly, that PoC are "taking over" or, more importantly, "taking away" from them in some fashion: jobs, houses, money, culture, identity. These voices rise up as Neo-Nazis, Incels, the angry white male, the current leadership in the GOP, and, too frequently these days, the gunman with a manifesto.

Historically, the most social change has occurred when women of color, specifically Black women, have led the charge. Whether it was ending slavery, giving women suffrage, protecting the environment, advocating for social security nets, or, more recently, denouncing violence against PoC, economic disparity, and other social injustices, Black women have been at the forefront each time. It seems that the country needs to hear from these people and their voices should be amplified.

So, how do we balance the need to allow the under-represented voices of PoC and other minorities to be heard against the fear and potential violence of a certain segment of the White majority? Should we balance that need? Is amplification the best way to show the majority how vital and valuable these other voices are? How can we get the biases that are inherent in society to allow these voices to be heard without using amplification? Should we care that some of the majority are made uncomfortable, feel threatened, and otherwise lash out when these voices are heard?

Maybe we should trust that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward moral justice? Maybe if we amplify PoC voices now, and ride out the hatred and terror that doing so causes in some, we can find the balance later as the society is bent toward moral justice? I simply don't know what the right answer is -- are the small numbers of the White majority who fear change unimportant enough to ignore? Or should we listen and try to find a common ground that both makes them feel secure AND allows PoC to voice their own concerns and be represented?

Just the Facts, Ma'am

I'm wondering how we can restore journalism to the position it once held in the US. At one time, newsmen were the lifeblood of democracy, holding the powerful in business and government accountable to the people. People trusted journalists and when Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, and so many others wrote about it or spoke about it, the people listened, trusted, and rallied.

And then CNN and other 24-hour news networks were born. While that, by itself, didn't spell the death knell of journalism, it started a slide toward the sensational and lurid which Fox News turned into an avalanche. Soon, journalism became all about "if it bleeds, it leads" and profitability. And, once news channels became profitable, the desire to keep them profitable started to inject itself into every decision that newsrooms made. What was once a loss-leader for whatever production company owned the channel became a cash cow. And the decisions made slanted toward whatever would keep them in the black.

The internet exploded. Now, anyone could report the news. People with no understanding of bias, sourcing, context, and accuracy were presenting news. With these pseudo-reporters scooping real journalists, papers and news programs started to pay for video or eye-witness accounts and letting their actual reporters go. Profitability increased.

Soon, we entered the era of the mega-rich, superstar on-air personalities. And the people paid attention. The more outrageous the personality, the more people glued themselves to their TVs and radios. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum the viewers leaned toward, there was a personality to cater to them. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh on one side, Rachel Maddow and Howard Stern on the other and every personality in-between.

The money rolled in. Rather than presenting real news, they became opinionated. Without clearly labeling what they were saying as opinion, many of these personalities claimed to be real journalists even though what they presented couldn't be sourced, wasn't accurate, and was, in fact, either their own or their corporate leadership's opinions. They became little more than talking heads spouting a single party's or corporation's agenda.

These days, you have a President who claims that all news that doesn't cater to his whims is "fake." People are turning away from traditional news sources and listen more and more to an echo chamber of like-minded talk show hosts and news presenters that only present opinions those people already agree with. It makes them feel safe and understood in a world that is changing rapidly and, possibly, leaving them behind. You have people working for the President whose job it is to tell the truth who are instead lying every day, all day long. You have corporations funding biased research and presenting it as fact and not being held accountable. You have corporate lobbyists who take advantage of people's ignorance and shill what the corporation wants. You have people who feel they have become experts via the Internet who then preach to the masses ignorant views and semi-literate beliefs that find an audience.

In the end, the next leadership in America needs to somehow stop the division and bring journalism back to prominence and trustworthiness. They need to pass legislation that forces written and viewed commentary pieces to be labeled as such, so people know when they are being told real, hard news and when they are listening to someone's opinion. We need to make sure that the people know who has funded a particular news piece in question clearly and simply.

Lastly, we need all journalists to take a look at the four main tenents of journalism and rededicate themselves to upholding them:

1. Seek Truth and Report It
2. Minimize Harm
3. Act Independently
4. Be Accountable and Transparent

For more information on what a real journalist should do, see the Society of Professional Journalists site.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

Our educational system must be even worse than I thought when people can't recognize, understand, or cope with famous words spoken or written by well-known individuals.

Every year for quite some time (about 30 years), NPR has presented the Declaration of Independence on-air. They recently also started tweeting it out. The last couple of years, a number of people have complained because they thought that NPR was releasing a screed against President Trump! They didn't recognize it as the Declaration of Independence. First, what does it say that people don't recognize one of the two most important documents in their country's history? Secondly, what does it show if they mistake a call for freedom from the tyrannical government of King George III for a plea against what Donald Trump is doing as President?

Today, I saw someone post and attribute the famous "Pale Blue Dot" speech of Carl Sagan. I then saw a bunch of people react negatively to it. They were claiming it is not true; that Sagan must be a political hack, a leftist, one of those environmental activists; even that the earth is flat and therefore the whole speech is inaccurate; etc. Yes, this was said about one of our greatest astronomers and astrophysicists about the subject he knew best! A call for people to be better to one another was met with derision and hatred. Go figure.

I've seen people complain about the words of Lincoln, Jefferson, Hawking, Franklin, Roosevelt (pick one), de Grasse-Tyson, King, Jr., and many others. I've seen GOP people complain about how leftist the words of Ronald Reagan, their Republican Godhead, were before being told that the words were his! It's actually fun to watch them stammer, stutter, and try to walk back their angry retorts. Again, it just goes to show how far we've changed that anything Reagan said in the 80s is now considered leftist and progressive... and that members of the GOP don't even recognize his words!

When did America stop thinking? Or, more precisely, when did a certain segment of America decide to leave the thinking to others? Why is ignorance the default setting now?

GOP Lies

For at least the last 20 years, the GOP has been telling lies through the media about various groups of people. The reason for this is to inure you to the speech and to those people so that they can move on to the next step: making you afraid of those people.

For example, they have been telling the public at large that Muslims are bad people. It doesn't matter to them that Muslim violence and issues account for far less than 1% of any crime in America, they keep saying it. Then, finally, when a single Muslim does something violent, they turn around and say, "See, we told you so." It doesn't matter that hordes of White Americans have done the exact same crimes thousands of times, maybe more, they point to the one Muslim as the culprit of this crime and then start making you afraid of all Muslims.

They have been telling you for two decades (really, since the late 1970s, but in earnest over the last twenty years) that Black and Brown people are a huge problem. They are more violent than you. They are more crafty than you. They will rape your women. They will steal from you. Then, when a Black or Brown person is caught doing one of these crimes, they say, "See, we told you so." The White Americans who are in charge of every aspect of the criminal system then give those Black and Brown people harsher sentences, get away with murdering them, and make sure they are put forth as examples of what they've been saying. They completely ignore and sweep aside the thousands of white Americans who have done the exact same crimes. If a white person can't be ignored, then they get greatly reduced sentences for the same crimes and are out to rape, murder, steal, whatever that much sooner.

The GOP has been telling us for at least two decades that women don't know how to control their bodies. They make bad decisions about those bodies and they must be legislated so that they can't make these poor decisions. It doesn't matter that these bills mostly target Black and Brown mothers (and low-income White mothers). It doesn't matter that they have no plans to care for the increased birth rate that results from these bills-- once the child is born, it isn't their concern anymore. It doesn't even matter that more women are dying in childbirth due to these laws.

The facts simply don't matter to the GOP anymore. Statistics don't matter. Hell, reality doesn't matter anymore. Only the feelings of anger, oppression, and fear matters to them at this point. If they can't sell you on the pros of their plan -- and, let's face it, they don't have any plans; they refuse to actually govern anymore -- they will certainly do everything in their power to ensure you are enraged or scared of the other guy's plan.

Don't be fooled by this rhetoric.

Pregnancy in America

I suggest the following laws be proposed and debated.

Deterrents:

• All male rapists must be either chemically or physically castrated after conviction.
• If the father of a child does not help care for the child, either by missing childcare visits, payments, or similar, the father will be chemically castrated until such time as he is able to fulfill his minimum duties as a parent (i.e., he makes restitution for the missed childcare).
• All children of male rapists that are not wanted by the mother must be given to the rapist to raise.
• Vasectomies can only be performed after the age of 25 and with a partner's, or the person's parents, consent. There is a waiting period of a minimum of 7 days to get a vasectomy. The person requesting a vasectomy must watch an hour-long video on the dangers of the surgical procedure and the joys of parenthood.
• In Texas, both the male and female participants will be tried and, if convicted, sent to the death penalty if the woman has an abortion. DNA testing is mandatory to determine with the greatest accuracy who the father of the child is.
• Males must wear athletic supporters and protective cups whenever performing any sports activity or dangerous activity to ensure their reproductive organs are safe from harm. Anyone found to be willfully harming the penis or testicles can be arrested and confined for up to 5 years or a fine of $25,000 per offense.
• Males must see a doctor a minimum of once a year and have their reproductive organs checked, including providing a semen sample to check for sperm viability.

If we make it in any way illegal to have an abortion, and it is done to "protect the child," then we must also propose the following laws to ensure the safety and welfare of that child:

• Increased federal funding and mandated minimum staffing for foster care.
• Increased federal funding and facilities for pregnant mothers to help ensure successful pregnancies and births. Alternately, a program by which all pregnant women get free healthcare while pregnant and for a pre-determined time after pregnancy to ensure both the mother and child are healthy long-term.
• Funding for and research into accessibility to medical care to ensure that all pregnant women have "reasonable" access to healthcare. Reasonable will be defined to mean within a 1-hour car, bus, or train ride from the person's home, a fully-staffed hospital, clinic, or other facilities that can perform all identified healthcare needs for a mother and child through the age of 5.
• Increased funding and accessibility for mental healthcare for pregnant mothers and post-partum women.
• Increased federal funding and increased access to food and post-birth medical care to ensure as many children that are conceived live to see the age of 5 (an age where mortality rates drop significantly).
• Federally mandated vaccinations.
• Increased federal funding for schools and all education programs.
• Federal funding for childcare services after birth so the parent(s) can go back to work, if needed, or can get child care services when required.
• Federal minimum time off requirements of at least 6 months for both the mother and father to care for the newborn baby.

If the pro-life, Republican politicians that are so stringently against abortion are *really* proposing these laws "for the children," and are not simply about controlling women's bodies, it seems like these rules are pretty much the *bare minimum* they should be proposing to both a) ensure that every child conceived has the best chance to survive to birth, b) to give every mother the best chance to carry the child to birth, and c) to give the parent(s) the best chance to raise a healthy child after birth.

Somehow, though, I don't think these suggestions will even be considered nor do I think these laws would make it even up for a vote. During the debate, I bet these white, male, "pro-life" politicians will laugh at the suggestions that males be held equally accountable for the pregnancy. I know already that they won't even consider plans to educate, care for, feed, or otherwise provide for the best welfare of the child once it is born as they have systematically attacked all of these institutions already.

These people are not pro-life. They are simply against women's rights because they know that to keep women "in their place" is to keep the men in power and to keep the current power structure strong. Women are a threat and this group is scared of them.

Don't Go Gentle Into that Good Night

The comic book industry is in turmoil. It is, once more, on the edge of being wiped out. It makes a product that is (at least currently) overpriced (averaging around $4 US for 22-28 pages of episodic story) and very niche.

I'm a huge comic book fan. I prefer the superhero genre but have dipped my toe into other genres that comic books support. I have collected comics for about 40 years and have an embarrassing number of them bagged, boarded, and boxed in my basement. And I've read them all. I even worked in a comic book store for almost 3 years as well as practically working at two of the comic book stores I used to frequent (so much so that I was allowed to watch the store and check out customers when the staff needed a bio break).

Price and Value

While the art, paper, and printing processes have all improved a great deal from the 1970s when I first started reading comics, the stories haven't really changed much. Yes, they have waxed and waned between being more or less adult in their storytelling, more or less explicit in the art, but the core storytelling is the same; it is a soap opera featuring people with extraordinary powers reacting and interacting with the rest of the world.

I have comics that were purchased for 10 cents. Many were bought for 75 cents, where the price stayed for about a decade or so. Then comics prices edged up to $1.00 followed very quickly by another boost to $1.25 and then $1.50. As I mentioned above, now comics are pretty set around the $3.99 range, give or take. But, here's the thing: you aren't getting much more story at that price than you were 30 years ago. Matter of fact, the Big Two publishers (DC Comics and Marvel) seem to be re-imagining, re-creating, or otherwise re-booting the same stories from the 1980s and 1990s that were their biggest successes and hoping long-time fans don't notice and they draw newer fans. But they are even failing with that, because the original (better) stories are available in many formats, including the original comics themselves, trade paperbacks, cartoons, and even movie versions. We've seen it all and done it all.

So, the audience, in a time where real wages have declined almost 10 percent in the last decade due to inflation and stagnant pay increases, has to ask themselves, Is it worth it to pay $4 for 22-28 pages of an episodic medium when I can get an entire live-action comic-book story told to me via Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, on TV, or in the movies for the same or only slightly more money? I would argue the answer is No.

The -Isms

Recently, a thing called "Comics-gate" cropped up wherein a bunch of "fans" (I use the term loosely) of the medium jumped on publisher's throats because they were replacing existing, long-time characters with newer versions that reflected a non-white, non-male perspective. Peter Parker was replaced with Miles Morales. Bruce Banner was killed off and a new, younger genius, Amadeus Cho took his place as The Hulk. She-Hulk was given a higher profile. A new Ms. Marvel who was Muslim and of Middle-Eastern descent replaced the older, white character. Some characters were suddenly gay. You get the picture; the industry was trying to get more readers by going after untapped markets.

Needless to say, a small section of the predominantly white, male, straight audience went apeshit. They saw any hiring of a female writer or artist as being "SJW"-ing at its worst. They claimed that female writers and artists were producing inferior work. They claimed that the new characters or changed versions of existing characters were somehow worse than the original. Basically, they got seriously butt-hurt because, somehow, everything they knew and were the gatekeepers for, was trying to broaden and expand its appeal.

An argument can be made that the companies made many of these changes in a ... haphazard manner. Maybe more thought could have gone into it. I mean, there were successes; Miles Morales (half-Black, half-Latino) caught on because, at first, he didn't replace the original Peter Parker Spider-Man. Miles was introduced first in an alternate universe. Readers could choose to continue reading about Peter Parker or they could start reading about this new guy over in this other world where that world's Peter Parker had died fighting crime. He became a hit.

Ms. Marvel actually became a hit, too, and I think some of it had to do with the fact that the original character was still around. Some of the other changes happened too quickly, or without enough build up to or interest in the new character. I don't know anyone who was looking for a replacement Bruce Banner or The Hulk... they just decided to kill off the character and replace him with a young Asian fellow. And the book's sales suffered. Same too with the introduction of RiRi Williams -- there wasn't enough of a build up or connection to Tony Stark to have this genius Black girl suddenly taking over his role in the Marvel Universe.

The point is, the industry, seeing falling sales, looked at their demographics and saw mostly 20-50-year-old white males and said, I wonder if we can get more people to read our books. Whether you agree or disagree with how they handled it, they decided to go for more female readers and to see if they could maybe pull in some minority readers with characters of different ethnicities and sexuality. They even decided to look within their ranks and realize they were an industry dominated by the same demographic and decided to make an effort to bring more diversity to their writing, art, and other aspects of the business. They were sometimes hamfisted in how they made this transition and didn't always give their existing readership time to ease into the transitions being made, and there was a lot of backlash. But, if the number one axiom of writing is "write what you know," then the industry was going to continue to be niche unless they broadened their available pool of knowledge.

Media

In 1978, Warner Bros made you believe a man could fly. In 1989, audiences were treated to the first decent age of comic books in movies with Michael Keaton's uttering of, "I'm Batman." In 2000, the second great age of comic book movies began with X-Men and was followed by a steady stream of increasingly good movies leading up to the creation of the MCU (Marve Cinematic Universe), which became the high-water mark.

In an era where we can go to the films and see "real people" being superheroes on the big screen for $10 a couple of times per year, it becomes hard for a comic book fan to justify paying $4 a month for each title of each character he or she is interested in, not to mention all the addendum titles, specials, one-shots, and special events the comics industry throws at readers. I mean, if you want to follow Batman and not even counting all his "Bat-family" titles (like Catwoman, Batwoman, Batgirl, Nightwing), you're looking at Batman, Detective Comics, The Dark Knight, Batman and Robin, and probably Justice League. So, that's at least $20 a month, or $240 a year, not including special titles, annuals, one-shots, and other titles where he may guest-star. Now, as a viewer with limited funds, compare that to, say, 4-6 tent-pole, big, can't-miss superhero movies a year at $10 a ticket.

Now, let's look at TV and paid subscriptions. Just off the top of my head, you can currently watch: Arrow, Black Lightning, Flash, Supergirl, Legends, Legion, Daredevil, Punisher, Luke Cage, Gotham, Iron Fist, Jessica Jones, iZombie, Walking Dead, Lucifer, The Gifted, The Runaways, The Tick, Preacher, and Agents of Shield. There are Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Spider-Man cartoons from Marvel and Justice League and Young Justice from DC.

In other media, superheroes have had a strong showing in various video games, including fighting games, MMOs, and strategy games. I'm not even going to list all of those here, there are so many.

Again, it comes down to economics -- if you have limited entertainment dollars, are you going to spend $4/mo or $48 a year on a comic book that is often only part of the story (they are primarily episodic stories, remember) or are you going to take that same $50 and get an infinitely replayable video game, go to 4-5 movies, or watch the same type of stories on TV?

The Present

The people who write and draw comic books are very talented. An argument can be made that they create the content that is then transported over to other media where it is more successful. However, the counterargument is that most of the movies are using tried-and-true stories from the characters' pasts and not anything from the new era of comic books. We keep seeing the same origin stories, the same four X-Men stories, the same couple of Batman tales in the movies and on TV. Plus, there are 80+ years of good stories still to mine for other productions. Because of this, it's hard to see the comic book medium surviving in its present incarnation. The people who write comics today would just transition over to writing the same stories for TV and movies and video games. The same stories would be told, they just wouldn't be told in the comic book format going forward.

The Future

I do see ways for the comic book medium to survive, however. I wouldn't bring up this topic if I didn't see a silver lining. I think the following changes could benefit the industry:

• Issue Price: They have to get the price down. If you can sell comics for $2 or less per issue, I think you have a chance.
• Issue Quality: Lessen the quality of the paper and inks used.
• Issue Schedule: Many titles shouldn't be on a monthly cycle. Team books, in particular, should only come out 3-6 times a year. Characters who are "overpowered," like Superman, Thor, Hulk, etc., should be published per-story. I.e., Rather than having a monthly Superman title, you solicit story concepts for the character, pick the 1-2 best stories, and publish those as an omnibus edition once or twice a year. This way, the reader gets the best of the best stories and doesn't have to wade through months of filler or setup or transition writers.
• Publishing Style: Instead of publishing as a monthly magazine, take a page from Manga and make books. Work on the best 100-page story(ies) for Batman and publish it as a book for $25 instead of spreading that 100-page story out over a year of smaller comics. When you factor in weather delays, the grind of trying to publish X number of comics per month, printing issues, shipping delays, etc., you would actually be saving yourself, and your readers, a lot of headaches by publishing in a Manga book style.
• Online: Shift to a predominantly online-only market; no physical books. This will most likely destroy the direct market and means you will have few physical copies on bookshelves or in racks on a stand in a grocery market, but you do away with many of the issues listed in Style, above. This also ties into Price and Quality, as you can set up a process to make one "PDF" file of the comic in question and then everyone buys the rights to view or download that one copy. This should lower the cost and increase profits, over time. And no more of this selling an online copy for the same cover price -- we're too savvy for that. We know you are making one electronic copy of the item that we all then have access to; creating one master should NEVER be as expensive as all the paper, ink, printing, and shipping costs of each individual comic each month!
• Story: I shouldn't have to mention this, but with the plethora of re-boots, re-imaginings, and thinly-veiled sequels to previous work, I feel I have to: write good, original, new stories. Stop going to the Civil War well. Stop re-hashing Watchmen. Just stop. You have talented people who, I'm sure, have incredible stories they want to tell-- let them! I don't want to see Secret Wars 2, 3, or 13. I won't give you money for a more modern rewrite on Crisis on Infinite Earths. Just... stop. Please.

Comic books can survive as an industry. But the industry is quickly making itself redundant by being too expensive when compared to other, similar media that can provide the viewing audience with the same stories. Unless it is willing to make some changes, it will cease to exist as we know it now. Can it change to meet the demands of the fractured media landscape now and in the future? I'd like to think so. If there is one thing I have taken away from my decades of reading comic book stories it is to always have hope!

Speech and Debate

What I would like to see in the next Presidential election cycle at the debates is a new set of rules put in place. And appoint moderators that will expressly follow those rules. I'd also like to see rules like this applied to politic ads, as well.

Rule 1: No talking about the other party

When asked a question of any type or style, all answers must be from YOUR perspective. You cannot talk about "well, according to my opponent ..." or "the philosophy of the [other party] is to ...". None of that. All questions must be answered based on your own position, your own desires, your own reasoning.

Rule 2: No pejorative words toward or attacks aimed at the other party

You are not allowed to use ANY negative words toward the other party. Your ads and your words cannot be deemed to attack the other candidate(s) position or perceived faults. This seems like it should be covered in #1, but I want it stated outright and for the record. No use of "snowflake" or "childish" or anything harsher. No fear-monger ads that misrepresent or make something seem more dire or dangerous than it is. Nada.

Rule 3: No false statements

If you are saying something and the fact-checking crew catches you in an outright lie, you get one warning. If they catch you in another lie, you pay a penalty. Lies will be determined by factual content within your statement, not normative statements.

Punishments

If you break any of the rules, the punishment for that infraction is that your microphone is cut off immediately and you do not get to finish your statement (or, in the case of Rule 3, it is cut off on the second lie within the same answer).

Once your mic is cut off, the moderator will immediately respond to the audience why the microphone was cut off and move to the next question for the next candidate.

I think that these simple rules can keep the debate lively, focused on what the candidate will do once in office, and give the audience a reason to watch. Too often the debates (and especially in the last election cycle) turned into diatribes about what "the other party" wanted to do or what "the other candidate" wanted to do... that isn't helpful. Also, it often is not true. You cannot speak for someone else. You don't know where they are coming from, what they plan to do, or how their mind may have changed.

In addition, by focusing on the candidate's position, it is easier for the audience/voter to hold that candidate accountable once they get into office. You must answer questions directly, responsibly, and on-record in front of both a live crowd and the millions watching the debate. It gives you a chance to talk about you -- and only you.

If these same rules are applied to political ads, then the punishment for those would be slightly different. The company/group providing the ad will be asked to re-edit the ad to remove the offending piece. If they are caught airing an ad that infringes on one of those rules a second time, that company/group cannot provide any more ads for that campaign season at all, for any candidate.

The rule will be doubly-applied to both the company/group name (The X Group to Elect Candidate Y, or whatever Super PAC, PAC, Candidate Committee, or grass-routes group) AND to the people who make up that group. So, for example, if Jim Walsh is the founder of a Super PAC that releases two ads that are deemed to violate one or more of the rules above, that Super PAC cannot release any more ads at all AND Jim Walsh (and all his coworkers at that Super PAC) also cannot be involved in any more ads during that election cycle, for any candidate.

These rules, and others like them, can keep the political climate open, fair, and more positive. If the audience can only hear what a candidate will do for them, they have a better chance of picking a viable candidate and hold that candidate accountable. No more attacking. No more fearmongering. No more divisiveness in the election cycle.

Petty By Nature

People are petty and vindictive by nature. This is doubly true when those people are in politics. Why is it that Trump thinks that anything he does will last more than a year after another person takes the office? Hell, even Republicans are starting to listen to their constituents and hear that they want universal healthcare, don't want a wall, want stronger EPA regulations, etc.

The only way I see what he's done/doing working long-term is if the next person in the office (regardless of party) does what he did and puts the least qualified people into place again. Anyone who actually is qualified to lead the various gov't departments will reverse everything their predecessors did, too.

I imagine that we'll also see the next president put into the appropriate policing agencies (FBI, Homeland Security, et al) people with a decidedly anti-Trump bent. Even if he avoids impeachment and manages to keep his job until the next election after he is gone from the office he will have to constantly look over his shoulder.

Remember what he did the first few weeks of taking the office: he sat down and signed a record number of Executive Orders that, while many of them wound up being unConstitutional and/or unneeded, those that were left basically were designed to undo what the Democrats and Obama had managed to accomplish for 8 years. After those EOs went into effect, we started to see flaws in the economy, funding issues in various areas, and the general populace getting angry.

Now, when a new person takes office, especially if he/she is a Democrat, the petty nature of politics will decree that the person will sit at his/her desk and write out a shit-ton of EOs that will... yes, you guessed it... undermine and/or undo everything that Trump ever signed.

And, frankly, this is why compromise is the key to politics. If all parties agree, then the next power shift won't bring about a slew of reversals. But, when you have an idiot like Trump take office, who based all decisions on his own lack of education as well as a petty and vindictive nature, you will see the next party that takes office reciprocate in kind.

So, keep talking, Trump. Keep bringing forth your conspiracies, lies, and idiocy. Keep proving how important education is in our leadership. Keep being petty and vindictive. You won't be more than an obscene and unqualified footnote in history after you are pushed out of office.

Addendum

Others are coming to that same conclusion. Link