Skip to content

Suggested Reading

I don’t know if this full article is available online to non-subscribers, but it should be required reading for all my fellow Democrats that try to peddle the line that Hillary is substantively better than Bernie.

Traditional Good Friday music and more

This is Good Friday, so like all good graduates of Our Lady of Sorrows grammar school, I must make note of the day. It is a day sacred to Christians. Even many of us heathens get it off, so I am able to sit here at home and write this blog post.

I am not a Christian. Republicans are Christians. I know because they tell me so, and they wouldn’t lie, would they? So, I know I’m not a Christian, because there are some things I believe, that are inconsistent with Christianity, as near as I can figure, based on what I’ve learned about Christianity from Republicans.

I believe in feeding the hungry. Christians don’t.

I believe in healing the sick. Christians don’t.

As I mentioned, it’s good Friday, when we recall a man who was given the death penalty for a crime he did not commit. I believe that innocent people should not suffer the death penalty. Christians don’t. In fact, I don’t believe anyone should get the death penalty. See the previous link.

There are a lot of other things I believe that Christians don’t believe. I believe we should try to give shelter to the homeless, aid to the disabled, and a decent life to the aged. I don’t know where I got these ideas, but it clearly wasn’t from Christians.

So, I guess I’m not a Christian. But I think I’m in good company. There was this guy, for instance, who lived 2000 years ago….

Anyway, this is neither here nor there. There is a Good Friday tradition on this blog, and I can’t let it fall by the wayside. Words and lyrics of wisdom we should all take to heart in these dark times.

A modest proposal: dealing with Trump

A very perceptive woman, with whom I happen to reside, pointed out to me that the Republican primary battles was like nothing more than the battles that take place on middle school playgrounds, a theme I used in a recent post. Donald Trump is the schoolyard bully, the guy who can zero in on the weaknesses of each of his playmates. The process is particularly painful for the bullied, i.e, the Jeb Bushes and Marco Rubios of the world. Trump has his training in the prep school world, a far more brutal world than the public schools in which we riff-raff grew. Jeb was a prep school boy, but he was one of the bullied, tailor made for Trump, who dispatched him first, and then applied his skills to his other opponents. One by one he’s taken their measure, and taken them down.

I didn’t go to prep school, but I went to a college that was chock full of prep school grads. Generally speaking, they came in two flavors (generally speaking, there are always exceptions), so far as their approach to women was concerned. Bear in mind, prep schools then were sexually segregated. These guys had precious little opportunity to engage with women as people. So, there were the painfully shy guys who had a hard time interacting with women in any way (I even knew a guy who talked expansively about a girlfriend who turned out to be a figment of his imagination) or there were Lothario types who saw women as merely and only sexual objects. We public high school guys may have come from economically deprived backgrounds, but at least many of us were reasonably capable of more healthy interactions with the women who integrated our fair college during my junior and senior year. Not to say we didn’t have normal urges, but we could also interact with women as friends and equals.

I needn’t tell you in which of the two types of prep schoolers I would classify the Donald. One byproduct of his attitude toward women is that, while he is extremely capable of zeroing in on the weaknesses of his male competitors, he is flying blind when it comes to women. His first and almost only instinct is to go after their looks, because in his mind that’s all that matters about a woman. See his recent contretemps with Cruz about their respective wives. If that approach doesn’t work, he’s at a loss.

Before I go on, a bit of a diversion. There is ample evidence out there that Donald has his weak points as well. His competitors simply didn’t have his ability to discern them. About 25 years ago Spy Magazine called him a “short fingered vulgarian”, and he continues, to this very day, to send pictures of his hand (to disprove the charge) to the guy who coined the phrase. Despite the fact that Rubio crashed and burned trying to use the phrase against him (some folks just don’t have the personality to be a successful bully), the issue continues to haunt him, to the point where he goes to needless length to rebut it. So, my point, is that if you needle him in the right place, it gets to him. But I’m not suggesting that anyone needle him about his hands.

Recently, Elizabeth Warren let loose with a bunch of tweets branding him a loser and calling his business savvy into question. They were quite brilliant. His comeback has been, shall we say, rather ineffective. You see, he’s never been in a schoolyard with a girl, so he doesn’t have the slightest idea how to perceive whatever vulnerabilities they might have. My guess is that he’d be totally ineffectual if subjected to concentrated female scorn, particularly from a very smart female (or a bunch of them). I’m fairly sure all the preppies I knew would have been fairly helpless in the face of that onslaught, particularly if the females in question hit them in a sore spot. In other words, what Donald did so well with Jeb, they could do to Donald. I’m not suggesting that Hillary take up the gauntlet. What I am suggesting is that women such as Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer, etc., engage in a coordinated and concentrated assault on the Donald. Before doing so, they might want to spend some time observing kids on a middle school playground or a prep school lunchroom. A little research by a qualified psychologist could no doubt ferret out more of Donald’s insecurities. This has to be done right, of course. No frontal attacks on his manhood, for instance, though indirect attacks might work find. As the wicked witch said, “these things must be done delicately”. My guess is he’d be helpless in the face of the onslaught. He’d quickly find that insulting their appearance wouldn’t work, and after that he’d be helpless.

The only problem with this theory is that Democrats never coordinate. Republicans always sing from the same page, even if their individual political futures are at risk. Democrats never do, even when it would enhance their chances of winning.

Schoolyard rules apply: Trump vindicated

The Republican campaign has now gone beyond penis comparison and is now in the wife comparison stage. I leave it to better minds than mine to determine if the debate is now less elevated or more elevated (if the word “elevated” can legitimately be applied). Whatever the level may be, we are still firmly in middle school/prep school milieu. In other words, we’re in Trump’s wheelhouse, because he’s never matured beyond that stage.

A recap is in order.

A Cruz affiliated PAC ran an ad in Utah featuring nude pictures of Trump’s wife, questioning whether she was the sort of First Lady the good Mormons of Utah would want in that exalted position. Cruz pleaded innocent, claiming that he had no control over his PAC, but the history of this campaign has pretty well proven that dodge to no longer provide remotely plausible deniability. Trump responded with a tweet, pointing out that his wife was far hotter than Cruz’s wife, proving, according to his lights, that his wife was a better woman than Cruz’s wife, hotness being, after all, the sixth grade standard. Trump proved his point with dueling pictures. Cruz responded by telling Trump to “leave my wife the hell alone”.

As a former sixth grader I award the laurels to Trump. His response is obvious, inevitable, and unanswerable:

>“He started it!”

Yet another reason to vote for Bernie

Clinton and the Republicans compete for the position of Israel’s lapdog:

At the annual AIPAC convention, the Democratic and Republican front-runners engaged in what might be called a “pander-off” as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tried to outdo the other in declaring their love and devotion to Israel.

Yet, what was perhaps most troubling about the two dueling speeches was the absence of any significant sympathy for the Palestinian people or any substantive criticism of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

By contrast, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who did not attend the AIPAC convention, delivered a foreign policy speech in Salt Lake City, Utah, that struck a more balanced tone and placed part of the blame for the Mideast problems on the policies of Netanyahu’s right-wing government.

However, in Washington before thousands of cheering attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention on Monday, Clinton, Trump and two other Republican candidates, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, were in full pander mode.

via Consortium News

The strange thing is that there is ample evidence that AIPAC does not speak for the vast majority of American Jews, so one must ask, why have our elites ceded so much power to what is, in essence, the lobby for the State of Israel. It is a very strong tail wagging a very weak dog.

I guess there’s some irony in the fact that the only Jewish candidate in the race is the one making the most sense on these issues.

Anyway, I can understand the argument that one would vote for Hillary because Bernie can’t win, though I don’t agree with it. I can’t understand how anyone calling themselves a liberal or progressive could claim that she is in fact the better candidate.

Journalistic Ethics

What a great idea!

Pam and Russ Martens speculate that Forbes may have pulled an article critical of JPMorgan because they don’t want to damage an interesting relationship they have with said JPMorgan.

If Forbes doesn’t have to worry about a libel lawsuit, what else might be behind its rapid yanking of the article? As it turns out, Forbes sells, for hefty fees, the ability for corporations to write their own articles and post them as news articles on the Forbes web site. JPMorgan Chase is engaged in such a program with Forbes. Instead of stating that the content is paid advertising, the content carries the nebulous appendage of “BrandVoice.”

via Wall Street on Parade

Apparently, this has been going on for years at Forbes and other “journalistic” enterprises , though this is the first I’ve heard of it.

Now, this site is no Forbes in terms of page views, etc., but still, this has me thinking. Would I truly be compromising my principles if I let, say, the Donald Trump campaign post stuff on my site, provided I received a reasonable consideration? The answer is clearly “no”, provided the consideration was decidedly reasonable. That’s the American way.

Of course, like Forbes, I’d attach a clear notice, such as the term BrandVoice to any such post, to make sure my readers were aware that I didn’t necessarily approve of the content. Unfortunately, I’m having trouble coming up with a term as chock full of informational content as BrandVoice.

Half right at the Economist

Over at Down with Tyranny, I had the chance to read something of the Economist’s reasoning for calling Donald Trump a global threat. Don’t get me wrong, he is truly a threat, but their list gives away a lot of what the fear of the Establishment is all about. While we’re worried about living in a Nazi state, they have more prosaic concerns:

Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies– and these tend to be prone to constant revision– but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a “currency manipulator.” He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war– and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the U.S.) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.

Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. It is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress– albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.

There’s a lot to dislike about the Donald, so it’s amazing that the *Economist* managed to concentrate fire on many of his positions that come close to making sense. China probably is a currency manipulator, so it’s hard to take issue with the Donald on that one. The Mideast stuff is truly horrible, all sane people (are we in the minority now?) can agree on that. But an awful lot of us would just love to see him “scupper the Trans-Pacific Parnership”, and it’s on the financial issues that really affect the 1% that the Economist gives itself away.

What should be odd about their fear of the TPP being scuppered is that according to the words presently coming out of her mouth, the Economist’s preferred candidate is going to scupper the TPP if she gets elected. So, on that issue, there’s no difference.

But of course we all know that, in fact, she wouldn’t scupper it. In that, she’s probably no different than the Donald, who, despite what he says, would probably not scupper it either. He has, after all, made it abundantly clear that he feels licensed to do or say whatever it takes to get what he wants. Once he gets what he wants, he feels under no obligation to deliver on his promises. When he was a businessman, he did as a businessman does, and now that he’s a politician, he does as a politician does, and when he decides not to scupper the TPP, that’s exactly what he’ll tell his army of dupes. When Clinton announces that she won’t scupper the TPP, she’ll tell us that she modified it in some minuscule way that makes all the difference, and it is no longer objectionable. Since she hasn’t, at least to my knowledge, said exactly what has caused her to change her mind and want to scupper it, it will be easy for her to claim that a minor modification is sufficient to keep it afloat.

In any event, it’s remarkable that the threat the Economist perceives is not that the world’s most powerful country might be led by a fascist, but that it might refuse to surrender its sovereignty to corporate interests.

Really unbelievable

It is both mystifying and inexcusable that Obama would do this:

Democrats sitting on the U.S. Senate Banking Committee at Tuesday’s confirmation hearing to take testimony from President Obama’s two nominees for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must have felt like they were having an out of body experience — listening to the human personification of billionaire Charles Koch’s money aping his Ayn Rand, anti-regulatory double-talk from a witness seat. What had to be particularly nauseating to them was that this nominee was sent to them by President Obama who ran as a Democrat on a platform of hope and change. While the political makeup of the SEC is prescribed by law, so that one of these two nominees had to be a Republican, why pick this particular Republican?

On October 20, 2015, President Obama announced that his nominee to fill a Republican seat on the SEC would be Hester Peirce, a Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Financial Markets Working Group at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. According to SourceWatch, the Mercatus Center “was founded and is funded by the Koch Family Foundations.”

The Board of the Mercatus Center looks like a Koch brothers’ fan club. Charles Koch, Chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, sits on the Board as does Richard Fink, Executive Vice President of Koch Industries, a sprawling oil, lumber and commodities trading company that is majority owned by Charles and David Koch who each have a net worth currently estimated by Forbes at $42.3 billion.

via Wall Street on Parade

Read on at the link for more of the gruesome details. There must be some RINOs out there that Obama could have chosen. Then again, it’s not like his picks on the Democratic side of the ledger (looking at you Mary Jo White) have been stellar.

Goodbye, Little Marco

This morning I opened up the New London Day (always a depressing way to start the day), and soon found myself brought up short when I read this:

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio ended his once-promising campaign after his devastating home-state loss, so the GOP primary is now down to three candidates: Trump, Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.(Emphasis added)

It was an AP article, and I couldn’t get by the Day’s password barrier, so no link to the Day, but you can read the entire article here.

Now, I can’t claim to have followed this campaign more closely than everyone else in this benighted land, but I’ve paid close attention, and I must admit, it entirely escaped my notice that Marco’s campaign was ever promising.

I know that for reasons that escape me, DC bubble denizens wanted it to be promising, and saw hope where the rest of us saw only failure. It was obvious from the day he announced that Marco Rubio was going nowhere. How could these people not see that? The self delusion apparently continues. My wife told me that after Rubio finally surrendered, Chris Cillizza immediately tweeted about his prospects for the Florida governorship or another presidential run in 2020. This is a guy who lost by 20 points in his home state (that would be Florida), probably because he was a self indulgent asshole who decided that being a mere U.S. Senator was beneath him, and didn’t bother to work even when he wasn’t running for president full time, but Cillizza thinks that the people of Florida will turn around and hire him to be governor after rejecting him by a landslide in a Republican primary. News flash to pundits: He’s toast. This time next year he’ll be a lobbyist, a Fox News analyst, or pensioned off to a right wing think tank. Or, Donald Trump may make him an apprentice.

Crying Wolf

We all know the fable of the little boy who cried “WOLF!”. One benefit he conferred on the villagers he fooled, which always goes unmentioned, is that until he was exposed as a liar, they undoubtedly took measures to protect themselves from the non-existent wolf. Had there been a real wolf, they would have been prepared. So, in that spirit, I am about to cry WOLF!, or at least that’s what I hope I’m doing.

Despite what all the pundits may say, and all the party insiders may say, I believe that Donald J. Trump has a better than even chance of becoming the next president. I think that’s the case no matter who the Democrats nominate. I’ve previously given my reasons for thinking that Hillary could lose. Bernie, who after last night is out of it anyway, could lose for another set of reasons: were it Bernie vs. Trump my bet is that the establishment would find Trump less terrifying than Bernie. After all, when all is said and done, he’s a billionairre whose personal interests line up with those of the other billionairres, and who has been quite frank about the fact that when it’s a choice between what’s good for Donald Trump and what’s good for his fellow man, Donald Trump wins hands down. That’s the kind of thinking that warms the cockles of their hearts, so while they’ll no doubt grumble, they would back him given the alternative, and a compliant media would spend months smearing Sanders. There’s also the very real fact that people have been turning out in droves to vote for him, generally in greater numbers that vote in the Democratic primaries.

By now, it should be clear that the “Trump can’t win” trope is wearing a bit thin. If our betters knew better, he’d have faded away months ago. We are marching toward fascism. I am hoping that come November I will be a laughingstock for having made such a ludicrous prediction. In the meantime, I’ll be pricing out real estate in Canada.