David McDonald

Your show tonight gave me a great deal to think about with respect to Mayor Pete. Of course, I never fail to miss any portion of the 'power hours' (as I call it) from MTP to the 11th Hour. That said, frankly, considering the tenor of rank contempt with which you introduced the segment, I was expecting a heinous faux pas at the grass roots level, some really damning insult. But it turned out to be in reaction to some moderately disapproving observation on how D.C. Democrats inadequately consider the importance of 'reducing the deficit.' Your reaction was so furious and bitter, to the point of stumbling over your words-- something you rarely do. You even pulled rank by mentioning your senior senate staff position and Pete had not, so what right did he have in expressing an observation. My opinion: I think you take this too personally. To let him answer for it at debates would be adequate, as any candidate would for talking through his or her hat, though I must give you snaps for inviting him on the show to discuss. As for what 'the Federal deficit' means to me, as a member of a middle class eroding as quickly as the Eastern shoreline, the argument itself is an abstraction. You say the Democrats fight harder against it. Okay. But what does this mean in practical terms? Frankly, regardless of the administration, the only changes I see is the cost of living outpacing wages, despite record high net profits; we're at the mercy of computer hucksters and thieves everywhere (unless you're rich). Now I come to the issue that bothers me the most, the fact that you (and Ms. Pelosi) felt it necessary to drag in religion as the stamp of ethical certitude. I have nothing against a robust spiritual life, but IMHO anyone who looks to a politician of ANY stripe for a moral compass is taking a real risk. By the way, Lawrence, something that might interest you, from "State Sponsored Homophobia", ILGA, May 2016, pp. 72-73.: Penal Code Cap. 7:01 Laws of Malawi. 393 Section 153. Unnatural offences [AGAINST THE ORDER OF NATURE] “Anyone who – has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or has carnal knowledge of any animal; or permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be liable to imprisonment for fourteen years, with or without corporal punishment.” Section 154. Attempt to commit unnatural offences [ATTEMPTED UNNATURAL OFFENCE] “Any person who attempts to commit any of the offences specified in the last preceding section shall be guilty of a felony and shall be liable to imprisonment for seven years, with or without corporal punishment.” Section 156 Indecent practices between males [GROSS INDECENCY - MALE] “Any male person who, whether in public or private, commits any act of gross indecency with another male person, or procures another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him, or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by any male person with himself or with another male person, whether in public or private, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be liable to imprisonment for five years, with or without corporal punishment.” In December 2010, the Parliament passed a bill amending the Penal Code of Malawi. In late-January 2011, President Bingu Wa Mutharika assented to the bill, thus completing its enactment into law.