August 19, 2015

Well said. We cannot afford Clinton's "mind conservative" approach.

I think Hillary was fine as Secretary of State. I see her as a smart, sharp-elbowed lawyer, but one who fundamentally thinks the status quo is either desirable or inevitable. A conservative Dem to the core.

I was struck in recent days by very odd proposition that Sanders is a sheltered, white-culture-only Vermonter who never thought about civil rights until recently, rather than the Brooklyn-born, Chicago-educated, die-hard civil rights advocate he has been all his life. Hillary is, respectfully, not fit to carry his protest sign.

Right about the time Sanders was being arrested for protesting college housing segregation, Hillary Clinton was literally president of the College Republicans at Wellesley College, not yet having even decided whether she supported the Civil Rights Movement at all:

Sanders was getting arrested for advocating de-segregation. Clinton was a Republican activist opposed to the Civil Rights Movement. He is a civil rights hero. She gradually evolved from a conservative person and a Republican.

This is not a talking point to me. This is indicative of a person who is a conservative, establishment Democrat who fundamentally sees the existing power dynamics in the country and the world at large as not something to fight to reform, but simply as an environment in which she can operate.

I see this more and more in the Democratic Party, as conservative-minded people flee the increasingly irrational positions Republicans have used to build their brand since the Newt Gingrinch, culture war, "It's not liberal policies we hate, but liberals themselves" attitude. It's led the Republicans to disavow reason entirely and change the debate from how we should be governed to quite literally whether government should do anything at all, besides get out of the way of the wealthy and business interests.

I think there is a core to this conservative element of the party that includes a specific eagerness to accede to the demand of investment bankers like Pete Peterson to dismantle the social safety net and funnel all retirement proceeds into private investment -- a greed-driven, disastrous plan that has already wreaked untold damage on the country by replacing pension plans with 401(k) subject to the violent ups and downs of a successfully de-regulated stock market. Peterson has been part of Clinton Foundation summits, and when I listen to Clinton speak, I do not hear the rock-ribbed support for the New Deal policies I hear from Sanders and Warren, who are both affirmatively pushing to expand those policies, rather than half-heartedly defend them, or prepare to trade them away entirely.

I do not hate Hillary Clinton. I will vote for her over whatever the Republicans do if it comes to that. But if she is the nominee, my hope is that the economic populism sweeping the country will force her out of her comfortable relationships with Wall Street interests and into policies that will stop the ceaseless push to grab more and more from the middle class and feed it upward.

But I see her as a conservative technocrat with an outdated, self-deluded view traceable to Bill Clinton's presidency that giving away the nation's wealth to Wall Street "floats all boats," because everyone can invest in the stock market. This is just another version of the trickle down myth, and in the wake of the $4 trillion decimation of middle class wealth that just occurred, we cannot afford it.

August 18, 2015

I have several thoughts on why Trump is still here.

I disagree with the general idea out there he's just the most outrageous, or the most right-wing.

His main attitude is contempt, largely aimed at the Republican establishment. Look at the way he's attacked Graham, McCain, and Rick Perry.

He seems to be playing on the continuing crisis within the Republican Party, where they take their support from ludicrous propositions, then get into office and focus on distributing funds to their friends (and, for some reason, trying to destroy women's right to equal pay and reproductive care).

Has he gone after any Dem that hard?

And Trump's immigration bombshell yesterday is potentially a big mess for them. He "went there" and argued for eliminating birthright citizenship -- the provision in the 14th Amendment that being born on American soil grants citizenship.

Think about that. Rightwing nativists are all het up about "anchor babies," furious that people here without proper documentation can give birth to a child who will have the full rights and privileges of an American.

Actually changing the 14th Amendment, though, is huge loser of a position. It would tear families apart. "Deport babies," as the media is characterizing it. Anyone seriously pushing it will be destroyed in a general election.

But that leaves no room to the right on immigration. Scott Walker is already dodging the issue -- he doesn't want to disagree with Trump, but he's afraid to agree.

On immigration, Trump is bringing base-pandering RW rhetoric to life in a way Republicans

a) Can't disclaim, for fear of alienating their base, but
b) Can't embrace because these ideas are insane, would destroy the economy, and ensure Republican defeat at the polls.

Something is up with this guy. I do not think he is a "plant" or anything so explicit as that. But he IS functioning to disrupt the Republican primaries, without any discernible harm to Dems.

Look at Trump's "misogyny" problem. He has said rude, crude, disrespectful things about individual women. But then he defends Planned Parenthood, points out that abortion is a sliver of what it actually does, and refuses to play ball while Huckabee and Rubio and Walker are talking about giving fetuses (but not pregnant women) full Constitutional "rights." By doing that, he is de-legitimizing the entire Republican crusade to destroy abortion rights. He doesn't subscribe to it, and he's in front.

However, whyever, for however long, Trump is PLAYING THEM.

It would a very bad idea for Donald Trump to ever be President of the United States. But I don't think that's likely in any event, and for now, I don't mind that Trump is driving the GOP bus. He's got it up on two wheels, headed for a cliff, and the rest of the party appears to be strapped to the roof rack.

Good.

August 16, 2015

It is a gold mine of hypocrisy

Remember this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/03/25/850561/-An-Open-Letter-to-Dr-Laura-Schlesinger

August 16, 2015

We can only gain by talking about it.

As it stands, we have millions of Americans who will scream "socialist" as an epithet, while threatening to shoot anyone who touches their SOCIAL Security or Medicare, without a moment's concern as to the yawning contradiction in values there.

People get away with a lot of name calling in politics, and a lot of weird, giant blindspots that we don't discuss.

America was not founded on the principle of unregulated capitalism, nor is that in the Bible anywhere, so far as I know.

But living here, you'd think that was the case much of the time.

Just having a high-profile candidate willing to espouse FDR-style economic reforms is a great benefit to everyone. With a bit of luck, policies and programs won't be dismissible by someone just burping out "Socialismmmmmmm!" at it going forward.

Wouldn't that be nice?

August 16, 2015

"You fell for our lie, and therefore share blame."

People like to talk about "entitlement" and "privilege?" Here it is. The Bush administration actively lied about Iraq, made up stories and leaked them to the press, then quoted the press reports as evidence. Interfered with CIA reports. Continued citing evidence OUR PEOPLE had discredited for months.

And their spin is that because they lied, tricked, and strong-armed various others to go along, we are all equally culpable.

Their argument is literally that the lying doesn't count BECAUSE THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT.

August 16, 2015

Our election cycle is too long.

All of "this" strikes me as the respective Dem and Republican bases shaking their collective ids.

Bernie's "longshot" status is vastly more realistic than Trump's. He is, after all, a career political leader with detailed (incredibly detailed) thoughts on policy and so forth, whereas Trump just kind of yells stuff.

But Bernie's still a longshot.

Trump is something else. I don't contest the idea that America is in fact dumb enough to elect an obnoxious New York real estate developer who calls Mexican immigrants "rapists" and is best known publicly for saying nasty things about Rosie O'Donnell to the White House.

But it's highly, highly unlikely. I'm not even entirely convinced Trump wants to be President. His entire strength lies in the fact he has utter contempt for the Republican Party and politics in general. He is doing weird things like giving out Lindsey Graham's cell phone number and leaving Democrats largely alone.

I think he is the embodiment of the Republican base yelling at the Republican establishment. They had one "revolution" in the Tea Party, and didn't like where that went. But they did like the anger and the anti-establishment rhetoric. So they want him out there, yelling all the things they yell at their television, out loud.

For now.

But if the election were tomorrow, I don't think there would be a Donald Trump candidacy. I think it will evaporate at some point, although it's already gone on longer than most would have guessed.

The U.K. only allows much less time -- a few weeks? of campaigning. Imagine how much less bullshit we would be subjected to if people had to focus on electing a viable leader in a short period of time.

We'd have no time for "The Donald."

August 16, 2015

Religion in politics is cognitively dissonant.

If we thought someone literally believed a supernatural being was giving them instructions that superseded everything else: law, reason; science, we'd be crazy to put them in office.

If it was some other deity besides Yahweh -- his same-but-not-entirely-the-same cousin Allah -- or Xenu or Baal or Zeus or Horus, they would be laughed off the stage -- or booed.

I remember, not more than two years ago, some sober speaker on NPR explaining how some group or another wasn't irrational or silly, "like people who believe in aliens" and therefore should be taken seriously.

But people who believe in the aliens in the Bible are fine, of course.

I read somewhere that people were less likely to vote for an atheist, or found them less trustworthy or something, than any group against which people typically have irrational prejudices. Race, nationality, gender. No one skeeves Americans out more than people who don't say they go to church and believe in God.

But we don't really want true believers either, do we? Most of us. Obama demonstrated the kind of "religion" we trust -- went to church, made passing reference to religion here and there. But had he said, "Jesus came to me last night and told me what to do about the Middle East!" we would have been rightfully panicked.

We don't believe, most of us, but we feel uncomfortable with people not sort of pretending to believe. It is a lie agreed upon. We don't trust that in the absence of magical stories about right and wrong, we can figure it out for ourselves.

My take is that we worry that people relying on their own moral compass and careful reasoning will just go off the rails. Decide that "anything goes," which is something I've heard actual religious people claim would be the result if we cast religion aside. Running naked in the streets eating human flesh and so forth.

But I think the opposite is true. In continuing to pretend, we encourage cognitive dissonance, and that's the bigger threat. We suppose that religion imparts humility, but look at Mike Huckabee. He is certain that "God" is a jowly Southern man who thinks women need birth control because "liberals have convinced them they can't control their libido." He thinks he IS God. That the nasty, small, angry voice in his mind has supernatural authority. And people inclined to agree with him tell themselves the same.

We have elected a black man President, and celebrated that. We stand poised to perhaps elect a woman, and if we do we will celebrate that.

I look forward to our first election of a national leader who declines to swear an oath to a mythological being. Someone who rejects cognitive dissonance and the Lie Agreed Upon.

August 13, 2015

I am increasingly amused by the Trump "candidacy!"

Trump is

a) Not going to be President

b) A continuing problem for the Republicans, far more than he is for Dems.

Look at what he's doing here.

He's pointing out that he's a "donor," who has actually written checks to these people (and "our" people). So Republicans have a philosophical problem right off the bat. In GOP-world, the rich are *supposed* to make all the decisions. They are our betters. Witness the group boot-lick when Jamie Dimon went to Congress to explain Chase's crimes. Witness the ludicrously inflated "$10 billion net worth." He's a rockstar to mid-low information Republican voter.

So how can they attack him as illegitimate? Under-qualified? He is everything the Republicans aspire to be: Brash, irrational, dismissive; smug.

They can't come after him. Not hard anyway. Not yet.

Look at his "policy" views as well. He says nasty things, sure. But they're playground taunts, and they play to other problems Republicans have.

On immigration:
The most egregious thing he's said (since being a "birther," anyway) was his attack on Mexican immigrants, calling them "rapists." Horrible, to be sure, but also so gross as to be dismissed by most. AND, what can the Republicans do? They can't attack him too hard, because they all need the base that believes that garbage. And YET, at some point, the big business people can't have illegal immigration restricted *too much,* because they know it actually makes them money.

And we're not building a gigantic wall, or having a business meeting with Mexico or whatever Trump's supposed solution is. It's kiddie talk. Exactly the kind of thing Republicans like to imply, but would never implement. Who would provide the cheap labor on their factory farms?

They're TRAPPED. Trapped with this guy, in a little bitty phonebooth of their own premises and talking points. Did you see their pale, quivering faces at the debate? They're terrified to even criticize him. Lindsey Graham did, and Lindsey's basically gone now.

The man is an idiot, but he's not stupid, if you know what I mean. So the net is that he's throwing out things that make conservatives look moronic, which the business class cannot (but must) refute, that the base loves, but which will NEVER HAPPEN.

On women:
Yes, he says all kinds of nasty names. But did you notice his support of Planned Parenthood? He pointed out abortions are a fraction of what they do in the process. What the hell do Republicans do with that?

Or the fact that he's a relatively recent convert to "Pro-life," who never weighs in on all the insane propositions the Republicans have to actually destroy the right to abortion? When Huckabee and Walker and Rubio start talking their grotesque theories about fetal Constitutional rights being superior to the life of women ... NOTHING from this guy.

He doesn't believe it.

On religion:
I heard a clip yesterday, in which someone brought a copy of Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal" to one of his events. He was thrilled, and started to say something typically smarmy about it being the best book or whatever. Then he stopped himself, and very carefully said it was his "second favorite book." Besides the Bible. (waits for applause). "Because, yeah, nuthin's better n' the Bible. Yeah." (or awkward words to that effect).

Have you ever heard this man quote the Bible?

He is PLAYING THEM. I don't want to speculate as to whether Trump's ego would lead him to actually accept the nomination, although I think it's highly unlikely it gets that far. If he did, though -- yay for us? I've got my eye on Rubio and (blerg) Bush as the likely GOP nominees. Either of them could conceivably be a problem for whoever we nominate.

But Trump? I think every second he is in the spotlight is a win for Dems. He is swinging the Republican base at its nominees like a wrecking ball. He's not even bothering Hillary (She came to my wedding?) or Bernie.

Yes, the man presents himself as an ass. And that part frankly is probably not an act. But "Republican candidate for President?"

He's hurting their brand, mocking their candidates, and taking up nearly all the media coverage, without advancing their cause AT ALL.

As Dems, we could wish for a lot worse.

August 11, 2015

Oh please. No one ever said it was ONLY Glass-Steagall.

That's a straw man argument. It's not the point either Warren or Sanders are making. No one has said Glass-Steagall was the primary cause of the market bubble and the collapse. But it wasn't irrelevant either. The primary cause was widespread de-regulation and consolidation, combined with the utter lack of concern on the part of the financial houses as to what would happen when they inflated yet another speculative bubble and allowed it to explode all over the world's economy.

This is rather silly:

Talk about half-truths and peddling myths. The gigantic, world-destroying market bubble didn't happen because people just suddenly couldn't remember how to pay off loans. The banks and financial houses, free of regulation and oversight after decades of whining that the bad old government was holding them back, and with full confidence the American taxpayers would bail their sorry behinds out when they blew it, CREATED THEIR OWN MYTHS, deciding that "real estate prices never go down everywhere at once" and that therefore any mortgage, good, bad, or otherwise, could be chopped up and sold as a highly-rated mortgage-backed security.

The lenders had ZERO CONCERN as to the quality of the loans, and yet they were the ones in the best position to ensure the loans they were making weren't imaginary.

When even the crappy loans ran thin, JP Morgan Chase sent around its infamous "Zippy Cheats & Tricks" memo, helpfully advising its underwriters as to how to circumvent Chase's own underwriting software by falsifying personal income until the loan got through.



http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/03/chase_mortgage_memo_pushes_che.html

The result of all this deliberate self-deceit was that real estate prices skyrocketed. Anyone could get any loan, for any amount, because the lenders ceased caring about anything but shoving them out the door. The result was that even the most careful, considerate home borrowers imaginable were presented with a market based entirely on the theory that prices would continue to go up and up and up. People making far too little to afford a given property were being given gigantic loans and told they could re-finance, so who cares?

Borrowers weren't in a position to tell people making $20k a year they couldn't afford a $400,000 house. The lenders created the reality for everyone, and then took the profits and left, billing tax payers for whatever damage they did to themselves in the process.

It's a bit rich for the lenders to be blaming the borrowers they lured and snookered and lied to and about for the disaster they foisted on everyone.

A hedge-fund manager, writing on Forbes:


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

The Washington Post allowing that the repeal was not "the proxmimate cause" but was a factor:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/repeal-of-glass-steagall-not-a-cause-but-a-multiplier/2012/08/02/gJQAuvvRXX_story.html

There is nothing even remotely "fringe left" about the rather unassailable observation that BANKING DE-REGULATION CAUSED THE MARKET CRASH. Glass-Steagall, the failure to regulate derivatives, giant mergers, and on and on and on.

No one in the world honestly thinks it was just some kind of $4 trillion fluke of irresponsible borrowers, descending on the poor banks and forcing them to create a gajillion bad loans and selling them as B-rated securities when everyone knew they weren't. That is not a thing that "business and financial experts" think. It is a really weak lie they tell, because they want to go and on, sucking the country dry with one greedy scheme after the other, because so far, no one has stopped them.

August 4, 2015

One of the studies ...

Behold, the Pettiness of Man:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322092057.htm

(Emphasis mine)

I don't even think this is the one I was thinking about.

So there are probably more like this.