tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83017876024557758302024-02-07T16:59:23.424-08:00ThatMansScopeTimely political and other commentary from an independent perspectiveBlogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.comBlogger564125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-58185543659174084022022-02-02T10:23:00.001-08:002022-02-02T10:23:30.957-08:00The Hidden Costs of Containerization: A revealing article from The American Prospect<a href="https://prospect.org/economy/hidden-costs-of-containerization/#.YfrLubuaANc.blogger">The Hidden Costs of Containerization</a>: How the unsustainable growth of the container ship industry led to the supply chain crisisBlogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-25364122027879723172021-01-19T10:07:00.000-08:002021-01-19T10:07:50.011-08:00A New Day<p> <span style="font-size: medium;">Trump will soon be out of office (in about 24 hours let's hope), so maybe it's time to start blogging again. You may remember that this blog started sometime around the beginning of Obama's first term, when I started commenting about the "Affordable Care Act" and how it might become law: it did, but by a pretty narrow, largely partisan vote.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Today we can look forward to more narrow, largely partisan votes. This is still better than the terrible things that happened (or almost happened) in the last four years.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Paul Krugman today talks about policy based on fact, and how that may be staging a return. You can find a link to his "blog" <b><a href="https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20210119&instance_id=26160&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=235910&segment_id=49689&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2Fcc6d114b-bfb2-5f0b-9f92-84366f23067f&user_id=bddeaaf2e95a3ab9406145fa754e180e">HERE</a></b>. A key point he makes to back up his assertion is:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><p style="color: #333333; font: 17px / 25px georgia, serif; margin: 0px 0px 15px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">"</span>The change started with a remarkable <a class="css-1sybz1k et1n85g0" href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/19/18271276/alan-krueger-economist-death-minimum-wage-princeton?te=1&nl=paul-krugman&emc=edit_pk_20210119#:~:text=In%20a%20paper%20first%20published,effect%20on%20April%201%2C%201992." style="-webkit-text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(40, 110, 208); color: #286ed0; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; text-decoration: none;">paper</a>
by the labor economists David Card and Alan Krueger, who had the bright
idea of surveying fast-food restaurants near the Delaware River before
and after New Jersey raised its minimum wage, while Pennsylvania did
not. As far as I can tell, they expected to see employment declines in
the former relative to the latter. But they didn’t.</p><p>This
result — no noticeable employment decline after an increase in the
minimum wage — has since been replicated many, many times. The evidence
is now overwhelming that minimum wage hikes don’t have major negative
effects on employment, while they do raise workers’ incomes and reduce
poverty. This isn’t a conclusion driven by politics... "</p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Of course, there have been other examples. One is the under-publicized failure of "Tea Party" economics in Kansas, where the low-tax and low-spending conservative policies of Gov. Sam Brownback created such a disaster -- especially in public education -- that the Republican legislature overruled his spending veto. I blogged about this a while back: </span><span style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="http://thatmansscope.blogspot.com/2017/06/an-important-story-in-kansas.html">http://thatmansscope.blogspot.com/2017/06/an-important-story-in-kansas.html. </a></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Any way, I am cautiously optimistic that the new "Biden Era" will see important and positive changes in the economy and health of this country. I also am cautiously optimistic that threats of violence by the right will be put down pretty effectively by police and National Guard. I'm not naive enough to think that these organizations aren't riddled with white nationalists etc., but I think, like the country as a whole, a large-enough majority are loyal to democracy. Of course, as Krugman says, what we want is evidence, so we shall wait and hope.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: medium;">More after the inauguration. </span><b> <br /></b></span></p>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-44530665854290014102020-03-21T09:27:00.003-07:002020-03-21T09:27:49.323-07:00New Name for Covid-19 in the U.S.<span style="font-size: large;">TrumPandemic</span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-5032906552561064782020-03-20T03:59:00.003-07:002020-03-20T04:06:08.271-07:00Krugman Says it All<span style="font-size: large;">The worst president we ever had contends with the worst pandemic since the "Spanish Flu": read today's<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/opinion/trump-coronavirus.html?algo=top_conversion&fellback=false&imp_id=92405646&imp_id=107521351&action=click&module=trending&pgtype=Article&region=Footer"> column by Paul Krugman.</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">And, of course, there's this quote from Trump:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">“The federal government’s not supposed to be out there buying vast
amounts of items and then shipping. You know, we’re
not a shipping clerk.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Not only is this wrong factually and morally, it shows what kind of scum the president is. </span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-74165371779843398602019-11-03T14:55:00.004-08:002019-11-04T07:40:44.799-08:00Medicare For All: Warren's figures<span style="font-size: large;"><b> As a "public service" I am providing three links to articles about Elizabeth Warren's proposal on "Medicare for All". These are not the last words of course, but they show some of the initial reactions to her numbers from sources that neither endorse her numbers nor reject them out of hand. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/upshot/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-cost-estimates.html?module=inline">New York Times (just before Warren's plan was announced)</a></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all.html?campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=18432&user_id=bddeaaf2e95a3ab9406145fa754e180e&regi_id=235910ing-news">New York Times (just after Warren's plan was announced)</a></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://prospect.org/health/warrens-medicare-for-all-plan-includes-no-new-taxes-on-the-middle-class/?emci=c64ab91c-cefc-e911-828b-2818784d6d68&emdi=547ef794-d6fc-e911-828b-2818784d6d68&ceid=1115052"><b>New American Prospect (just after Warren's plan was announced) </b></a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><b>Finally, here is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/opinion/did-warren-pass-the-medicare-test-i-think-so.html">Paul Krugman's take.</a></b></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><b>Oh, and one other thing: Medicare for Some -- what we have now -- does not even provide 100% coverage for its recipients. Nominally, the coverage is only 80% of costs. That is why so many older folks who are on Medicare also have supplemental plans to pay the remaining 20%.</b></b></span><br />
<br />Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-88066447149042481322019-10-22T10:00:00.000-07:002019-10-22T10:00:11.778-07:00What Warren should say about Medicare for AllThis is from<b><a href="http://prospect.org/"> The New American Prospect:</a></b><br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><strong>October 22, 2019</strong></span><br />
</div>
<div align="center">
<h1>
Meyerson on TAP</h1>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>How Elizabeth Warren Can Address the Medicare for All Question. </b></span></span><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Elizabeth
Warren is now dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on her own Medicare
for All plan, which she has pledged to release shortly. As David Dayen
astutely <a href="https://click.everyaction.com/k/11103594/112659969/1660494670?nvep=ew0KICAiVGVuYW50VXJpIjogIm5ncHZhbjovL3Zhbi9FQS9FQTAwMy8xLzczODg3IiwNCiAgIkRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvblVuaXF1ZUlkIjogIjA0MzE5MTVhLWViZjQtZTkxMS1iNWU5LTI4MTg3ODRkNmQ2OCIsDQogICJFbWFpbEFkZHJlc3MiOiAiTUFSS19CUklER0VSQFlBSE9PLkNPTSINCn0%3D&hmac=-I3UNFnzhu8JLS5aDnvy8KjofpPKCH5iBlObTa4QSnk=&emci=1cdae3e9-e8f4-e911-b5e9-2818784d6d68&emdi=0431915a-ebf4-e911-b5e9-2818784d6d68&ceid=1115052" rel="nofollow" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank">notes today</a>,
the plans put forth by Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s primary
opponents—chiefly, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg—will, if they’re any
good, end up costing about as much as the Medicare for All proposals
they’ve disparaged.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">B&B’s
emphasis on the taxes that will fund Medicare for All (and, not that
they admit it, their own plans, too) misses the fact that the great
majority of Americans pay far more for their private insurance than they
would in higher taxes, though what they pay now is largely concealed
from them because their employer routinely takes it out of their pay.
(Of course, if we do go to Medicare for All, workers will have to fight
to compel their bosses to transfer the savings to them, rather than
divert it into dividends and buybacks.)</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">How
can Elizabeth Warren address the major savings workers can win by
shifting to Medicare for All? My friend Steve Tarzynski, who’s president
of the California Physicians Alliance, suggests something like the
following:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background: white;"><i><span style="color: black;">Right
now, you and your family pay $18,000 a year in premiums for
employer-sponsored insurance that doesn’t even cover everything and that
you could lose at any time. Plus another $2,000 in deductibles before
it even kicks in and another $1,000 in co-pays. That’s about $21,000
every year for a basically defective product.</span></i><span style="color: black;"> <i>That’s the “private tax” you’re paying right now</i>.<i>
And your choice of doctor is restricted and you can even lose access to
your doctor at any time. All that would go away with Medicare for
All—no more premiums, no more deductibles, and no more co-pays. And all
the care you and your family need will be covered</i> <i>and can never be taken away.</i> <i>You
can choose any doctor you want. Yes. You’ll pay $5,000 more in taxes
for all of that. But it will put $16,000 back in your pocket. And it
doesn’t even include the share of the premium that your employer pays
now that you could get back in wages and salary. Would you settle for
that?</i></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background: white;"><i><span style="color: black;">And to my fellow Democrats on the stage here who oppose Medicare for All, who are you really working for?</span></i><span style="color: black;"> <i>Because what you propose is exactly what the insurance industry wants.</i></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That’s so good I got nothing to add. Would work not just for Warren but for Bernie, too.</span></span><span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="letter-spacing: normal;"><span style="text-transform: none;"><span style="white-space: normal;"><span style="word-spacing: 0px;"><span><span style="text-decoration: none;"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><strong>~ <strong>HAROLD MEYERSON</strong></strong></div>
Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-18384133078070272592019-10-21T07:45:00.000-07:002019-10-21T10:28:15.032-07:00The Cost of Medicare for All<span style="font-size: large;">Both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have come out as favoring "Medicare for All" as <i>the</i> only healthcare plan for America they support. Neither has given a definite figure for the costs; Warren has been cagey and Sanders does not deny a figure in the $30 <i>trillion dollar</i> range. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The claim (by both Sanders and Warren) that fails to be emphasized is the <i>net</i> cost to Americans: While their taxes will certainly go up (you can't get something for nothing), their total out-of-pocket expenses may very well go down, since they will pay no premiums and have no deductibles. The media, in its need to create controversy and "gotcha" moments, keep insisting that the candidates talk first about the increase in federal taxes. Maybe this is an attempt to bring up some sort of anti-government feeling in the electorate. It is unfortunate that this conservative attitude has been allowed to grow. The Democrats a long time ago should have pointed out that the government is <i>our government</i> -- we have a direct say in what it does and a constitution that codifies this say; this is opposed to our direct say in what private entities like corporations do, which is nil. (Why don't our kids learn this in school? Answer: because right-wingers have eliminated or emasculated "civics" courses where we used to learn about our government, how we direct it, and how it protects us.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Of course, the belief that current premiums and deductibles are greater (in dollars) than the (projected) increase in federal middle-class taxes under Medicare for All has itself has not been definitely established. Bernie points out that similar programs in other countries have produced medical care that is at least as good as what we have now, but at half the cost. This argument itself has been attacked (see below).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">A lot of the cost estimates are discussed in a fairly long Politifact article which can be found<b> <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/sep/13/cost-medicare-all-sticker-shock-or-bill-relief/">HERE</a>.</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">What has happened in other countries is not necessarily a foretaste of what will happen here. First of all, not all other countries that have universal healthcare (and that is pretty much all developed counties except the US) have a Medicare for All system -- some, <b><a href="https://www.expatica.com/fr/healthcare/healthcare-basics/a-guide-to-the-french-healthcare-system-101166/">like France</a></b>, have a very good hybrid system with both public and private insurers. Secondly, drug expenses may be lower in other countries because of the simple fact that they are high in the US. Big Pharma still makes enough profit here so that they can charge less there. Also, the financial culture of doctors and hospitals in other countries is different from ours: Here doctors pay a lot for their education and consequently expect to get paid a lot after they become credentialed (they've been told this for decades by their peers and their guild, the AMA). Hospitals here have a different style of ordering and paying for tests and using doctors (and nurses) and charging for rooms; this "style" is the result of the influence of Big Pharma, the medical device industry, and doctors themselves who are often associated financially with these industries (e.g. many doctors have interests in medical scanning and testing businesses). These things will all have to change in order to bring down the costs of healthcare here, and it will not be easy. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">(In response to questions from both the media and other Democratic presidential candidates, Elizabeth Warren has announced that she will publish her plan for Medicare for All, including proposed finances. She obviously has to be careful since everyone will be ready to pounce on her inevitable use of increased taxes.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-12631939811201761782019-07-02T07:55:00.002-07:002019-07-02T07:55:36.683-07:00Who's helping whom?As usual, Paul Krugman says it best. Here's his column explaining how Blue states are bailing out Red states, and being slapped in the face for it:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/opinion/2020-democrats-taxes.html?action=click&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=Article&region=Footer&contentCollection=Opinion">The Moochers of Middle America</a></div>
Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-40804140734679350872019-05-02T11:51:00.000-07:002019-05-02T11:51:17.773-07:00Waiting for the Dems<span style="font-size: large;">It is getting very frustrating waiting for Democrats to actually act. They threaten they might hold Barr in contempt ... in a few days. They threaten subpoenas of information (say from IRS staff) </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;">... in a few days</span>. They might institute perjury charges ... in a few days. They may issue subpoenas for Barr and Mueller to appear ... in a few days. <br /><br />How many days will that be? <br /><br />Why isn't Mueller subpoenaed right now? <i>Now</i>. Yes, he is supposedly still an employee of the Justice Dept. (such as it is under Barr) -- so? Subpoena him now and he has time to quit or even appear without quitting. Will he be prosecuted by Trump or Barr for appearing while technically still an employee? Will he be fired and lose his salary? <i>Who cares?</i> Let's have Mueller on the stand next Monday.<br /><br />While Trump and his allies seize the moment, the Democrats will do something... in a few days. If Pelosi and Nadler and Schiff think Barr is a liar (which, of course, he surely is) what are they waiting for? In a few days, lies travel around the world many times.<br /><br />Could we please have some action from the Hamlet-like Dems?</span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-13397718836909094332019-04-17T08:32:00.001-07:002019-04-17T11:01:03.170-07:00Center for American Progress Cannibalizes Sanders<i>Think Progress</i>, the commentary arm of the Democratic <i>Center for American Progress,</i> has levelled an <b><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/how-off-brand-bernie-sanders-is-barely-a-millionaire-653da838c44c/">ad hominem attack on Bernie Sanders.</a></b><br />
<br />
Harold Myerson, of The American Prospect, muses that this is exactly how the right-wing attacked FDR. You can read Myerson's remarks<b> <a href="https://prospect.org/article/how-think-progress-would-have-attacked-franklin-roosevelt">HERE</a></b>.<br />
<br />
Just what we need: the Hillary Clinton arm of the Democratic establishment attacking the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination -- not on the basis of his policies, but because he has made money on his very popular writing. Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-30898216631447904062019-04-14T10:01:00.000-07:002019-04-14T16:22:58.344-07:00Enlightened Monarch or DemocracySupposedly, many "millennials" who work in "Hi-Tech" have decided, on the basis of their work experience with successful startups, that having an all-powerful genius leader is the way to produce fast and effective results. They then extend this "principle" to national affairs and push for "strong executives" -- i.e. national autocrats -- who will lead the country to greatness. Here is an article from Salon magazine discussing (somewhat lightly) these ideas:<br />
<br />
<b><a href="https://www.salon.com/2019/04/13/why-some-in-silicon-valley-are-advocating-for-monarchy/">https://www.salon.com/2019/04/13/why-some-in-silicon-valley-are-advocating-for-monarchy/</a></b><br />
<br />
Here's my take.<br />
<br />
<div>
People who work or have
worked in successful startups (no one talks about unsuccessful ones --
see below) have observed that a hierarchical structure seems to be the
way to go. The Originator of the idea or prodect knows best -- at least
at first -- what it's all about. Decisions must be made quickly and, of
course, correctly. There is no time for voting and even if there were,
it's the Originator who most likely knows best. Democracy is probably
not the best way to procede at the "startup" stage. </div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
Already
one begins to see that the argument here has a bit of a hole. No one
talks about the unsuccessful startups -- maybe they are not even
remembered. In these, the Originator may not be, in fact, that smart and
imaginative -- maybe just lucky. Since the structure is autocratic,
there is no way to correct the Originator who errs, and so the
enterprise fails. And no one remembers why.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
Once
we turn to endeavors other than startups we see that the autocratic
structure is far more likely to fail. The important example is the
nation-state. Here there is not just a single process or invention, as
in a startup, but a complicated mesh of economics, power, and special
and general interests. It almost never happens that there is a One
Person who understands every strand in this mesh and can consistently
make correct decisions. One needs a lot of ideas and a way of choosing
among them that has the highest odds of being correct. I think that
history has shown that democracy and division of powers is the best
(though not infallible) way to come up with these ideas and to choose
among them. The more power a single autocrat has in a nation, the more
chance there is that he/she will make a terrible decision. Look at the
list: kings, czars, tyrants; Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin. Even in
a near democracy, when (presidential) power is too concentrated or
unchallenged or secretive, disasters occur: Lyndon Baines Johnson
(Vietnam), George Bush (Iraq, Afghanistan), Trump (everything). It is
exacly when there are no checks and no openness that disaster is likely
to occur, and when it does, is most likely to be most costly.</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
In complex life, Democracy is a far better way of solving problems than autocracy. Think of the lines from Shelley:</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
"And on the pedestal, these words appear:</div>
<div>
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;</div>
<div>
Look on my works ye Mighty and despair!</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay </div>
<div>
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare</div>
<div>
The lone and level sands stretch far away"</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
See what I mean?</div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
<div>
<b><a href="https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46565/ozymandias">(Here's the rest of the poem.)</a></b></div>
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-76206926760659745242019-03-12T12:04:00.004-07:002019-04-17T11:01:40.391-07:00Climate Change is Worse Than You Think<b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8301787602455775830#editor/target=post;postID=3129427428318352531;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=5;src=postname">Previous Blog</a></b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html?gtm=bottom&gtm=bottom">New York Magazine Story</a></b>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-60779026271177597582018-11-11T03:03:00.000-08:002018-11-11T03:04:53.438-08:00Not the way to go.<div class="ydp2e5750cdyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">I
watched the<b> <span style="color: magenta;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvfqUMg10uM">video</a></span></b> of the now infamous press conference and I really
thought that CNN's Acosta was cross-examining Trump, interrupting him at
several times while trying to make various points and refutations (such
as over the meaning of "invasion"), etc. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">I don't think
that that is the role of reporters at a press conference, and I'm sure
that not only hardcore Trump supporters found this rude. Some
may think that Trump is such a total shit (which he surely is) that such
behavior is justified, but I think that it is rude and, more importantly, simply
counter-productive: it plays right into Trump's hands. You simply can't out-Trump Trump.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">Let
Congress attack the President hard and often. The print/broadcast
journalists should use their media positions to expose Trump's lies and
distortions and vileness. A press
conference is not the place to do this. It seems that if this kind of
behavior persists, Trump will simply cancel press conferences. (Though,
arguably, Trump came out of this one with a pretty good boost
nationally, though not among hard-core Trump-haters; I say this because
even I was uncomfortable with Acosta's behavior).</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">What
reporters might do at these conferences is get together beforehand
(privately) and agree to follow up on each other's questions -- which
questions should be, of course, cleverly constructed but short, and not
obviously prosecutorial. That would avoid ego-trips such as Acosta's
that look like cross-examination. Related questions from several
reporters would also show that concerns about Trump's lies is more
across-the-board.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">(Of course the doctoring of
the news conference tape by the White House was outrageous; it was great
that they were caught by experts. In the future, I'm afraid, it will be
harder technically to catch this sort of thing as the techniques will
get better on the pixel-level...)</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div>
<br clear="none" /></div>
</div>
Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-7032473602005251322018-10-03T12:43:00.000-07:002018-10-03T12:43:08.346-07:00There and more Kavanaugh lies<span style="font-size: large;">In the last blog I quoted a description of a lie that Brett Kavanaugh told while under oath in his confirmation confrontation in the Senate. Here are some more, all of which were assembled by the Huffington Post:</span><br />
<br />
<b><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-lies_us_5bb26190e4b027da00d61fcd"><span style="font-size: large;">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-lies_us_5bb26190e4b027da00d61fcd</span></a></b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> It is unlikely that any of this will influence the Republican senators, since they are desparate to confirm Kavanaugh. Susan Collins is weighing the political consequences of her vote, but basically she prefers to vote with her party; I don't have a lot of hope that she will do the right thing simply because it is the right thing -- she doesn't want to get "primaried" by someone to her right. She foolishly believes (or claims to believe) that Kavanaugh will not vote to gut Roe v. Wade if he gets confirmed. I don't know enough about Lisa Murkowski (R. Alaska) to hazard a guess as to her eventual vote, but she is no fan of Trump's.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-36808331559710436542018-10-02T07:58:00.001-07:002018-10-02T07:58:56.773-07:00Kavanaugh is a perjuror<div>
There is plenty of evidence that Brett Kavanaugh is a perjurer. Here is an example in Kavanaugh's own words (he had sworn under oath that he had never "blacked out" while drinking):</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span><div class="ydpc9e44be7content-list-component ydpc9e44be7yr-content-list-text ydpc9e44be7text" data-rapid-cpos="38" data-rapid-parsed="subsec" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph">
<span style="font-weight: 400;">In <a data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="13" data-v9y="1" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:38;elm:context_link;itc:0" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/Kavanaugh-binge-drinking-Yale-speech-.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a 2014 speech</a>
at Yale, Kavanaugh recounted his fun partying days with a story about
“falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about
4:45 a.m.” after attending a Red Sox game at Fenway Park. He then
admitted that he and a friend had to put together their memory of the
drunken night the next day.</span></div>
<div class="ydpc9e44be7content-list-component ydpc9e44be7yr-content-list-text ydpc9e44be7text" data-rapid-cpos="39" data-rapid-parsed="subsec" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph">
<span style="font-weight: 400;">“Indeed,
as a classmate of mine and I were reminiscing and piecing things
together the other day, we think we had more than a few beers before the
banquet,” Kavanaugh said.</span></div>
<div class="ydpc9e44be7content-list-component ydpc9e44be7yr-content-list-text ydpc9e44be7text" data-rapid-cpos="40" data-rapid-parsed="subsec" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph">
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Kavanaugh,
in an email to friends after a fun weekend vacation, apologized for
getting belligerent after losing games of dice and said he didn’t
remember it happening.</span></div>
</span><span><div class="ydpc9e44be7content-list-component ydpc9e44be7yr-content-list-text ydpc9e44be7text" data-rapid-cpos="41" data-rapid-parsed="subsec" data-rapid-subsec="paragraph">
<span style="font-weight: 400;">“Excellent
time,” reads Kavanaugh’s email dated Sept. 10, 2001. “Apologies to all
for missing Friday (good excuse), arriving late Saturday (weak excuse),
and </span><strong><em>growing aggressive after blowing still another game of dice (don’t recall)</em></strong><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Reminders
to everyone to be very, very vigilant w/r/t confidentiality on all
issues and all fronts, including with spouses.” (Emphasis added.)</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Note: "piecing together" is what drunks do to try to account for events that happened when they had, in fact, "blacked out."</span></div>
</div>
</span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-79660147957087587752018-09-28T08:08:00.000-07:002018-09-28T08:08:46.662-07:00Bring it on<span style="font-size: large;">Enough talk about bipartisanship, "civility" and other blather. The Republican party is beneath contempt, and there really is no possible rapprochement with them. They are bad on everything that is good (you name it).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The voters will decide. Eventually, if Republicans lose big, Trump, Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas should be impeached. This will almost certainly not happen, but the lines are irrevocably drawn.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Bring it on. </span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-31294274283183525312018-07-06T08:28:00.000-07:002018-07-06T08:28:09.830-07:00Heat waves and "worst-case" scenarios; Scott Pruitt resigns.<span style="font-size: large;">I am not a climate scientist, but as a mathematician I think I understand something about differential equations and "feedback" loops.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I have believed for several years now that actual climate scientists have been taking special care to avoid their real understanding to climate change -- deliberately softening their feelings of deep pessimism over its speed and intensity. Consider what climatologist Nick Humphrey says in his <b><a href="https://wxclimonews.com/2018/07/02/extreme-heat-event-in-northern-siberia-and-the-coastal-arctic-ocean-this-week/">blog about the recent heat wave.</a></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">He concludes:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> <i>In addition to the immediate impact on sea ice, there is also the impact
on permafrost. Or perhaps, what was “permafrost”. More of these kind of
intense heat events now hitting the Arctic at the height of summer will
result in more rapid destruction of land permafrost as well as heating
of the shallow waters just offshore where sub-sea permafrost is located,
allowed for increasingly more carbon dioxide and methane to be released
into the atmosphere, speeding up global warming and resulting climate
change, including effects on storm patterns in the mid-latitudes.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">In other words, we are entering the era of the "feedback loop": Heating creates melting which <i>increases the rate of heating.</i> This results in not just a simple increase in (global) warming, but <i>exponential increase</i> (and maybe worse) in warming, We are not talking about a disaster for our grandchildren anymore (bad enough, of course) but a disaster for our children and probably many of us. A week of temperatures in the mid-nineties in the Northeast will be the norm for spring-summer-fall seasons here. It will be worse in other places: death-dealing heat waves lasting weeks; and, eventually (in years, not decades) these will be the norm just about everywhere in previously "temperate" regions.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><i>This can not be blamed on the Trump administration. </i><i> </i>This is on all of us, especially the major industrialized nations, especially the ones which industrialized first and most (England, Europe, US). Fossil-fuel consumption in China, India, Brazil etc will simply make things much worse. What we are seeing now will not go away: exponential heating and melting will continue for maybe a century, maybe more: <i>surely more if we do nothing</i>. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Although it has not received anything like the attention it deserves, Bill McKibben's book <b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_6?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=eaarth+by+bill+mckibben&sprefix=eaarth%2Caps%2C342&crid=Z6MOFQP64F62">Eaarth</a></b>, I think, pulls few punches in giving a pretty fair account of the "new" planet we will have to face and live on as the effects of climate feedback become worse.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Politics will have 2 important roles to play:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">1. Making industrial and economic changes that will diminish (radically) greenhouse gas pollution.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">2. Making sure that we protect humans and food crops from the thermal (and social) devastation that will result from what has already happened and is happening.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Given the political "climate", I'm pretty certain that neither of these things will happen for decades. The wealthy will flee to their bastions of air-conditioning, private food supplies, armed force and protective walls. The Koch brothers and their friends will fight to the last to preserve coal and oil and their personal enclaves and wealth. Hundreds of thousands then millions then hundreds of millions (and more) will be "on their own" to face the new world of unrelenting heat and rising water levels (which will not be "lifting all boats" for sure).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">We can all try, for the sake of our families, friends and relatives, to work to implement points 1 and 2 above, and hope for the best. I'm sorry to say that that's about all I can take away from this recent heat wave and the almost-pointless resignation of Scott Pruitt.</span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></b>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-33726862447113492162018-04-30T17:22:00.000-07:002018-05-01T09:26:24.001-07:00Three Cheers for Michelle Wolf<span style="font-size: large;">The comedian Michelle Wolf did the stand up routine at the end of the White House Correspondants Association dinner last night. Everything she said was true. A lot of it was funny. A lot of it was painful for a lot of the people listening, and rightfully so. In the context of the worst president and most corrupt administration in American history -- a group of selfish and rich individuals presided over by a dumb, sexist and racist bully -- there is little uncomplimentary that can be said that is not totally justified. That Wolf's remarks were largely not "polite" sort of goes without saying.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Anyway, the following opinion piece by comedian Adam Conover pretty much says it all:</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/opinion/michelle-wolf-white-house-correspondents-dinner.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region"><span style="font-size: large;">Conover in the NYT.</span></a></b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">And here's another:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.vulture.com/2018/04/michelle-wolf-sarah-huckabee-sanders-whcd-joke.html"><b>Jen Chaney.</b></a> </span><b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></b></div>
</div>
Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-33303591253185639722018-04-10T09:22:00.000-07:002018-04-10T09:22:23.070-07:00The cornered animal<span style="font-size: large;">In recent weeks I've been reluctant to write about Trump, since I imagine anyone reading this blog pretty much knows too much about the President. Attacking him and his administration is, as I've said more than a few times, like "shooting fish in a barrel."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">However, at this time, we should all feel a special sense of unease. Trump's world has turned upside-down on him, with the latest -- and perhaps heaviest -- blow being the "raid" on his personal "consigliere" Michael Cohen. There is a good chance that Cohen was caught flat-footed by this (entirely) legal confiscation of records, before he was able to (illegally) destroy them. If this is the case, both he and Trump may very well be playing out the last of their game.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">That being the case, what can we expect Trump to do? Many fear that he will find a way -- exactly how is not at this point clear -- to fire Mueller. This may, in fact happen, though I don't think that act will, even in the short-to-medium term, save him. My fear is that he will use the tried-and-true end run of starting a war -- somehow and somewhere. There are lots of possibilities. A massive Gotterdammerung, for someone like Trump, is a very real and terrifying possibility. Those of his followers of the evangelistic persuasion are, after all, looking toward the "End of Days" with some anticipation and would almost certainly egg him on (some are already doing so). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Arlie Hochschild in her fascinating book "Strangers in Their Own Land" relates how some of the people she studied, when asked about the destruction of their homeland by environmental polluters, explained that ecological destruction is only a brief and contemporary problem, while the afterlife that stretches before them is infinite. While Trump himself no doubt has no such lofty feelings, his followers will certain make it easy for him to move in very bad directions.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Who will tackle him before he does something that may not be undoable? </span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-58230209302425739002018-03-10T12:31:00.003-08:002018-03-10T12:41:09.512-08:00The failure(s) of the Republican economic vision<span style="font-size: large;">On the federal level there is no evidence that "tax cuts pay for themselves" -- even Republicans like Bush Sr. know that it is "voodoo" economics. The "Reagan tax-cuts" were a result of some compromise and came when tax rates were considerably higher. There is, conversely, no evidence that higher tax rates dampen the economy; in fact, Clinton presided over a modest budget surplus in spite of somewhat higher tax rates.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">There are, however, two notable examples where taxes have been drastically cut at the <i>state</i> level. In both cases the result has been a disaster for the state's economy. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I have discussed the case of Gov. Sam Brownback in a previous blog about Kansas: <b><a href="http://thatmansscope.blogspot.com/2017/06/an-important-story-in-kansas.html">http://thatmansscope.blogspot.com/2017/06/an-important-story-in-kansas.html</a></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The situation in Kansas was so bad that the conservative Republican legislature passed tax increases <i>over Brownback's veto</i> in order to keep the state from bankruptcy and preserve its basic transportation and education services.<b> </b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Just recently, the New York Times featured an article on a similar disaster in Louisiana: <b><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/opinion/louisiana-tax-cuts.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/opinion/louisiana-tax-cuts.html </a></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> This has not been resolved yet. The disaster of voodoo economics has been compounded by the usual Republican contempt for the environment, which has lead to terrible contamination throughout the state, especially chemicals along its bayous and oil along its Gulf coast.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The national Republican party tries to pretend that the tax cuts which it advocates are important to keep the federal government "under control". But even that is a phony since the same Republican party, at the state and local level, is constantly attacking any and all taxes. It would seem that their goal is to privatize everything: the schools, with the best ones for the rich; the roads on which the wealthy will pay for the best lanes; the water supplies and beaches and parks (the RMP -- the Rich Man's Party -- wants to use our national parklands for mining). They probably think that they can have private clean air and a private climate: if Scott Pruitt has his way.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The Republicans (not just their President), <i>if left to their own devices</i>, will make this country unlivable for all but their rich masters (the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson e.g.). We have the evidence in Kansas and Louisiana (above) and (Flint) Michigan and lots of other places. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">It is up to us to do the necessary job of alerting people to these "devices" and their failures. So far, the national Democrats have failed to publicize these well-documented results -- all they seem to do is attack Trump and his administration and ask for more money. That's why I don't contribute to their national "committees" but to individual candidates and groups such as <b><a href="https://swingleft.org/">Swing Left</a></b>, <b><a href="https://actionnetwork.org/">ActionNetwork</a></b> or <b><a href="https://front.moveon.org/">MoveOn</a></b> (there are other good ones -- especially on the local level).</span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-33597947063631564402018-03-02T11:50:00.001-08:002018-03-02T11:54:42.096-08:00What's good for Ohio Democrats is good for Democrats nationally<span style="font-size: large;">John Russo, writing in <b><a href="http://prospect.org/">The American Prospect</a></b>, points out that Ohio Democrats have failed to offer economic reasons for getting white working class votes. Instead of a solid platform, they offer attacks on Trump and fund-raising appeals. This important article can be found <b><a href="http://prospect.org/article/have-ohio-democrats-learned-anything-about-working-class">HERE.</a></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">This lesson is one that the Democrats on the national level could well learn. Each day I receive in my mail letters from the Democrats (usually the DSCC) with scary titles about how bad Donald Trump is (and he is <i>very bad</i> of course), coupled with pleas for money. I have yet to see a Democratic "platform" about how to raise working-class wages (other than vague approval of "minimum wage" laws), help unions, start infrastucture programs, or extol the very real benefits that government provides for all of us (for example: safety laws, food and drug testing, local and national environmental protection, research on disease prevention and cure etc. etc.) Democrats have also been reluctant to laud the many successes of the ACA ("Obama-care") and push for its extension.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">In short, the Democratic Party U.S.A. has given us very few positive reasons why we should vote <i>for</i> them -- only reasons why we should vote <i>against</i> Trump et. al. It's almost as if they either have no program, or are afraid of or distrust real ideas. That is a formula for another disaster like 2016. </span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-89589173223005490882017-12-08T12:42:00.000-08:002017-12-08T12:42:23.380-08:00Robert Kuttner (American Prospect) on Al FrankenKuttner, as usual, is right on target here. The Dems have been out-flanked again. Here's what he says:<br />
<br />
<i>As I wrote yesterday, Democrats made a huge mistake of both principle
and tactics by throwing former Senator Al Franken under the bus. They
hoped that ousting Franken would create a dramatic contrast with the
Republicans’ indulgence of Roy Moore.<br />
<br />
But Moore continues to deny that he did anything wrong. Who
thinks the ouster of Franken will change one vote in the actual Alabama
Senate race?<br />
<br />
It would have been much fairer, as well as smarter
politics, to allow the ethics investigation to play out, and insist that
similar scrutiny be applied to both Moore and to the sexual
predator-in-chief who sits in the Oval Office. As David Axelrod recently
noted in a tweet, “Strange principle is emerging. If you admit
misconduct, you resign. But if you deny it, however compelling or
voluminous the testimony against you, you continue in office—or onto
office—with impunity.”<br />
<br />
The move to force Franken to resign is also hailed as an
embrace of zero-tolerance. “I think when we start having to talk about
the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and
unwanted groping you are having the wrong conversation,” Gillibrand said
Wednesday at a conference. “You need to draw a line in the sand and say
none of it is OK. None of it is acceptable.”<br />
<br />
This strikes me as dangerous nonsense. Just as there is a
difference between armed robbery and shoplifting, there is a difference
between rape and an unwanted pat on the butt. All are illegal or
improper, but Roy Moore’s alleged child abuse and Franken’s bouts of
misdemeanor misconduct are not in the same moral universe. Plus—whatever
happened to due process?<br />
<br />
This season marks the beginning of a long overdue reckoning
of male sexual harassment and abuse of women. It doesn’t mark the end
of shades of gray, or innocent until proven guilty. Right now,
Republican stonewallers and sexual predators are having a good laugh at
the Democrats’ expense. <strong id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1512764696356_13166">~<strong><em> </em></strong>ROBERT KUTTNER</strong></i><br />
<br />
(See: <a href="http://prospect.org/"> http://prospect.org/</a><i><strong id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1512764696356_13166"><a href="http://prospect.org/"> The American Prospect</a>.)</strong></i>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-71892478743371081652017-12-04T12:54:00.000-08:002017-12-04T12:54:11.012-08:003 Riddles<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Question</b>: What does a politician have to do to lose the white evangelical vote?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Answer</b>: Act like Jesus. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Question: </b>Is there any level of hypocrisy and lack of sympathy for their fellows that Republicans won't sink to?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Answer: </b>No.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Question: </b>Do Republicans serve any function other than to transfer wealth from the non-rich to the rich?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Answer: </b>None that anyone these days can effectively detect. </span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-91376374287109285002017-09-11T14:07:00.001-07:002017-09-11T14:07:21.635-07:00What Trump is not<span style="font-size: large;">There's been a lot of talk recently that Trump is emerging as an "independent"; I don't think that this word is correct with a capital "I" since he does not have an official position within any Independent Party, nor does he hew to a truly independent way of thinking. He doesn't hew to <i>any</i> way of thinking actually since he doesn't think in the usual sense of mulling over facts and coming to some sort of reasoned conclusion. He is firmly in what shrinks call the "Concrete Operational Stage", as in: "This is pleasant sounding (feeling, tasting) and I like it, so I'll call it good (The Best! The Biggest!) and I'll do it." Those who think that he is "independent" because he is independent of the two political parties should review his appointments and executive orders: they are all parts of the Republican Wet Dream (RWD); i.e. they are anti-labor and pro-wealth and Big-Business; they are anti-environmental and pro-racism and pro-sexism. You name a Republican fantasy and he has stroked it. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">So why is the press suddenly coming out with nonsense about his independence? Simply because he has decided to blame his failure to enact many of his campaign promises on the Republican leadership: Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. In Trump's brain-of-a-pre-adolescent you have to win and be liked and push people around, and he hasn't been able to do as much of that as he would like. In fact, aside from some petulant words, the only thing he has actually <i>done</i> that isn't part of the RMP (Rich Man's Party) agenda is to agree with Chuck Schumer to extend the dept ceiling for 3 months instead of the 18 months that Ryan and McConnell want.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">(The reason that they want the 18 months is that they don't want pesky arguments against a government shutdown to extend to midterm election time. Government shut-downs are not popular with most people who look -- with good reason -- to their government to help them by providing for "the common good" as our Constitution demands.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">In short, Trump is still the ignorant, selfish, childish and vicious (remember DACA?) blowhard who embodies the heart and mind of the modern RMP, especially its more "conservative" (conserving what? The Confederacy?) wing.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Looking for someone independent of the Republican Party? You'll have to find a Democrat or, even better, a Bernie Sanders follower. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8301787602455775830.post-77659746058136610652017-06-30T08:12:00.000-07:002017-06-30T08:12:52.118-07:00Why are they so cruel?<span style="font-size: large;">The gratuitous cruelty of the modern Republican Party leaves one asking: Why? Where did this come from? In an essay written more than a decade ago, when "compassionate conservatism" was the phrase that marked (for Bush II) a coverup of this cruelty, George Manbiot wrote in <i>The Guardian</i> an interesting essay tracing this ideology back to the Puritans of the 17th century.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">You can find his article <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/09/usa.comment">HERE.</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">As my daughter, an historian, points out, puritan thought was also wedded with neo-conservative ideology to produce the modern American Republican Party. Chicago School economists and other apologists for Big Money had maintained academically that the accumulation of wealth was the only measure of success in a capitalist society, and, in fact, gave the only meaning to virtue and value and worth therein. Thus, so-called economic "computations" proved that "greed is good" (in the immortal words of Gordon Gekko, and endorsed by Ronald Reagan). So, "cold calculation" and economic theory were combined with puritan theology to give us the RMP ( = "Rich Man's Party", formerly the GOP). In summary, wealth was the only analytic measure of value and success, and this was ratified by the Will of God. Neat package, and so far quite politically successful here and abroad. </span>Blogmeisterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09403276569733381203noreply@blogger.com0