Skip to content

A ray of hope

So, yesterday was a bit of a disaster, locally, though we intend to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and come back swinging. 2016 should be a good year, or, if not, it should spell the end of the Republic.

But things were not bad everywhere, and one election in particular gives reason to hope for the future. A few years ago, faraway Jefferson County, Colorado, made the mistake of electing several right wingers to the school board. It can happen, since these people often operate under the radar, and don’t show their true colors until they get elected. Also, people don’t really pay attention to local elections, as we Democrats in Groton learned to our sorrow yesterday.

Anyway, the right wing school board in Jefferson County proceeded to try to turn the high school AP history course into a sham, teaching fantasy history instead of real history. The result gives hope for the future. The students refused to be propagandized. The teachers and parents joined in their protests, and yesterday the entire board was recalled, and replaced with sane people. The vote was by a huge margin (64-36) and came despite (or one would wish, because of) tons of Koch Brother’s money being spent to support the forces of darkness. So, the folks in Jefferson County did themselves proud. It is greatly to be hoped that they are not outliers, and that the rest of the country (the ignorant Southland, of course, excepted) will be ready to follow their lead.

Not news, but fit to print

The New York Times is running a series of articles about the fact that the giant corporations in this country have successfully opted out of the civil justice system by making consent to arbitration a part of every contract. I recently bought a hard drive, and saw some fine print to the effect that merely by buying the hard drive I was agreeing to arbitrate any claims I might have against the maker. I don’t know if that dodge will stand up, but the provisions in credit card contracts have been proof against all attack. Arbitration requirements constitute a “never go to jail” card for giant corporations, because it is usually too expensive to go after them for the amount of money involved in a typical claim (class actions, of course, strictly forbidden) and a waste of time to do so because the arbitrators are in the pockets of the corporations.

The Times should be commended for publishing this series. Who knows, Congress might even do something about it, though the likelihood is that if the present Congress does anything, it will make it easier for the corporations to demand arbitration. It is also possible that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could step in, at least with regard to credit card contracts, but it’s almost a given that the Roberts court would set any such action aside.

There are a number of things that go on in the public sphere about which everyone knows the truth, but around which grow, at least in certain quarters, an unspoken agreement to pretend to believe a false but convenient narrative. The recent Benghazi hearings are a good though trivial example. Everyone knew that the hearings were a politically motivated hatchet job, but until forced to do so, the media happily pretended that it was a serious investigation. The movement to arbitration is supported by a similar unspoken agreement between giant corporations and hard right judges. The corporations will insist that the arbitration system is far better for consumers. Everyone knows they are lying, including the judges who hear these cases, but the judges of the Scalia ilk (and they are all that matter these days) will repeat the lie to justify stripping Americans of their rights to legal recourse in an imperfect, but not totally rigged judicial system.

But, while it’s great that the Times published this article, it’s not news. The destruction of the American system of justice has been common knowledge in the legal profession and has been, I know, the subject of multiple left wing blog posts over the years. It’s great that the Times is on the case, but the fact is that the article has uncovered something that was hiding in plain sight for years.

Republicans whine, Dems silent

It’s a given that Democrats are better at governing than Republicans, though these days that’s not saying much. That has been the case at least throughout my lifetime, but it has not always been the case that Republicans were far better at playing politics than Democrats.

A couple of days ago the Republican Party told NBC it would not participate in an planned debate, because they didn’t like the questions they were asked during the CNBC sponsored debate. By any measure, the questions were reasonable. It is a fact that the media has been so often accused by the Republicans of liberal bias that it in fact has bent over backwards to be “fair and balanced”, thus the surplus number of Republicans on the Sunday talk shows and the media’s willingness to pretend that the Benghazi witch hunt was a straight investigation.

Now, let us imagine if Democrats did the unthinkable, and accused the press of bias at one of their debates. I say the unthinkable, because Democrats never attack the press, even when they have ample reason to do so. As a result, the press feels no compunction about, for instance, amplifying memes about Hillary Clinton’s dishonesty, while pretty much ignoring the blatant lies told by each and every Republican candidate.

But I digress.

If the Democrats did what the Republicans did, the first thing you’d hear is charges from every corner of right winglandia that the Democrats were afraid to answer tough questions. How, we’d hear, can we expect [candidate X] to stand up to Putin when he or she wilts before a tough question from the media. We’d also hear loud demands that the press not let up; that the Republicans will be watching, and that if the hard questions aren’t continued, it will be more evidence of liberal bias. The message would be coordinated and constant.

Do you hear this type of talk coming from Democrats today? Maybe, but I haven’t. The Democrats have this heart warming belief that they can count on people behaving rationally, and their faith cannot be shaken, no matter how many times they are proven wrong.

Now, there are two quite predictable results of this failure of pushback. First, the media will in fact start lobbing softballs at the Republicans. Second, in order to prove how fair and balanced they are, they will more aggressively question Hillary and Bernie. These things are almost certain to happen. The fact that the Democrats have not already pounced on this is proof of massive incompetence at the DNC.

UPDATE: Good News. Looks like Obama reads my blog.

Remind me of a folk song I once heard

When will they ever learn?

Oh, when, will they ever learn?

Lying liars, but IOKIYAR

Those of us who survived the 2000 election recall the determined efforts of the media to paint Al Gore as a serial liar. Although he never said he invented the internet, they repeatedly claimed that he had, and cast him as a liar. There were other examples, most of them equally specious. But it became the meme of the campaign, and considering that Gore didn’t win by enough to get by the Supreme Court, it may have been the difference between victory and defeat for Gore, and sane government and Bush government for the rest of us.

So, right now it looks like Ben Carson is leading the Republican pack. Like the rest of his rivals (not just looking at you Carly), he is a serial liar. Check out the video here for absolute proof. So, that raises the question: will any one of the Republican candidates, Carson in particular, get the kind of treatment the media dished out to Al Gore? The media often insist that there’s really no difference between the parties. They are, within the media and beltway bubble, equally to blame for the governmental paralysis that is, in fact, solely the product of right wing machinations. Yet the media does seem to see one difference between the parties. It’s still okay, if you’re a Republican. Carson’s blatant lie will be quickly forgotten. And if you think they’ve changed their approach to Democrats, consider the eagerness with which the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation (reminiscent of the same paper’s poorly sourced Whitewater stories), and the reluctance of the media generally to recognize the Benghazi committee for what it was. If they ever caught Hillary in a lie as clear and unambiguous as Carson’s, we would literally (and I mean “literally” in the sense of “literally” and not “not literally”) never hear the end of it.

Jeb! hands the Dems a talking point 

As all the world knows, Jeb! has turned out to be a terrible politician, the latest example coming yesterday, when he announced to a room full of supporters that his brother George (remember him?) was a case study in leadership. Now, if your brother was inarguably the worst president in history, and you were trying for the office yourself, wouldn’t you avoid talking about him as best you could, and keep on insisting, as Jeb! did at the start, that you are your “own man”?

But Jeb!, like so many of his Republican compatriots, apparently lives in a bubble, and he seems to have convinced himself that hanging George around his own neck will actually be good for him. This is nothing but good news for the Democrats, because should he beat the odds and get nominated, he will have legitimized an obvious campaign tactic: equating Jeb! with George at every turn. Oddly enough, he appears to believe the crap he’s spewing about his brother, but most of the country got beyond W worship a long time ago. The more people are reminded of George, the less willing they’ll be to vote for Jeb!.

On a slightly different note, the Republican presidential contest seems to be approaching the denoument I’ve predicted in the past: this time the nomination will go to a legitimate crazy. No McCains or Romneys need apply. (Not that either of them were stellar candidates, but they weren’t totally bonkers) At this point, there are really only three sort of legitimate contenders that can lay a sort of legitimate claim to being non-crazies: Bush, Kasich, and Christie, and yes I know an argument can be made that none of them need apply. Neither of them will get the nomination. So we are left to wonder, when the dust settles, who will be left standing? Will it be the most crazy of the bunch, and if so, which of them wins that honor? The pundits seem to have settled on Rubio, almost a sure sign that he’s out of the picture. (Remember Pawlenty?) Someone is going to be nominated, it’s in the rules. The Republican Party has taken up the challenge. Jeb!’s brother was the worst ever, but the nominee of 2016 will make George look like Lincoln.

Trump sticks up for Muslim women 

Trump said some stupid things in New Hampshire the other day. I know that’s not news, but since it’s treated as such, it seems to me that the media owes us a little context.

Here’s the story from the Boston Globe, and for purposes of discussion, let’s put aside the sexism:

ATKINSON, NH – Businessman Donald Trump told a packed room the United States should not challenge countries that require women to wear burkas as he unleashed a full-throttle criticism of America’s current foreign policy.

“Why are we fighting that?” the presidential candidate asked to cheers in the crowd, and added the United States should “let them” wear what they want.

Trump, waving a hand across his face, also said women might prefer wearing burkas because it obviates the need for make-up.

via The Boston Globe

So, a little context might be in order. Like, for instance, what is he talking about? I googled “United States policy burqa” and was unable to find anything that indicated or stated that the US was involved in suppressing the burqa anywhere. If a leading presidential candidate (I know it’s unbelievable, but he is one) attacks US foreign policy, it would seem incumbent that those reporting on him find out for us whether his attack has any connection to reality. That means, in this case, telling us whether there is such a policy.

One other thing about Trump’s position on this non-issue. Note that the crowd cheered him when he stuck up for the right of Muslim women to wear burqas. Is there a soul out there who thinks he wouldn’t get the same cheers from the same people if he demanded that they stop wearing them and that the US make them stop? Trump is preaching to people who will claim that they are the true American patriots, and yet they’re ready to cheer any and every attack on the United States government, without even bothering to decide whether they agree with the speaker, and by the way, they’ll tell you without pausing for breath that it’s people on the left that reflexively hate America.

Also by the way, the other stupid thing Trump said was this:

During the “town hall,” which the television show billed as question and answer session at the Atkinson Resort and Country Club, Trump said that he had been told ‘no’ many times.

“My whole life has been a no,” he said. “It has not been easy for me. I started off in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.”

There’s no success like failure

The New’ York Times has a story today about a subject I’ve covered several times in the past (see category “grifters”): the prevalence of grifters on the right, who raise piles of money from the true believers, mainly to line their own pockets. They’ve gone into overdrive recently, and are now raising money with calls to protect the Republic from that liberal, Paul Ryan. It’s almost comical how they justify the huge percentage of the money that goes into their own pockets:

Larry Ward, the founder of Constitutional Rights PAC, defended the move to derail the ascension of Mr. Ryan, calling it a worthy goal.

“Politics is supposed to be bloody. It is supposed to be a battle of will,” Mr. Ward said. “And the one who can get the American people siding with them is the one who wins.”

But Mr. Ward also has a financial stake in the fight. He runs Political Media, a Washington-based firm that will charge Constitutional Rights PAC a fee for sending out the blast email with the dual purpose of asking conservatives to help dump Mr. Ryan and to donate to Mr. Ward’s political action committee.

“Help us fund the fight by making an emergency donation of $30, $50 or even $100 today,” the email said, even though records show that Mr. Ward’s PAC spends every dollar it gets on consultants, mailings and fund-raising — making no donations to candidates. Mr. Ward defended his use of his own firm, saying he gave his PAC a discount on his company’s regular service charges.

via The New York Times

Well, that’s alright then. So long as he keeps giving himself a discount, it’s all on the up and up.

In the past I’ve argued that this is great for Democrats, as it diverts money that might otherwise go into actually supporting Republican candidates into the pockets of consultants, where it lies fallow. But as I read the article in the Times, it occurred to me that there is perhaps a double blessing, though also a looming threat in all of this. For while these folks have not been particularly effective at getting some of their purported political goals enacted (death to homosexuals and to Obamacare, for example), they have succeeded in driving the Republican party in the direction they say they want it to go. In fact, they might cogently argue that they have achieved what they’ve promised the suckers. Boehner has tumbled; McConnell is in a precarious position, and Ryan, if elected Speaker, will be living on borrowed time. The party will be increasingly perceived as irresponsibly crazy by the American public. Who knows, even the mainstream media may come to see them as they are. But even that would be good for the grifters, because it will merely increase the suckers’ sense of victimization. Of course, there is always the possibility that they will get the shutdown/debt default that they claim to want, and that would not be terribly good for the rest of us. Thus the looming threat.

But the grifters don’t want success, at least not over the long haul. A few minor victories are probably useful, but for the long term, nothing succeeds in their business like failure. It would be way harder for them to raise this kind of money if the Republicans were in control of the White House. In fact, the reason they’ve had to go after their own is because, since they control both Houses of congress, the only remaining targets are Obama and the Republican leadership, which must, since Obama is still president, gays are still living, and Obamacare still law, be selling out to the liberals. Or so they must be painted in order to keep the ATM functioning. Nothing would please the grifters more than to see Hillary win, and a majority Democratic congress would be “very heaven”. The money that would bring in would make their present “earnings” look like peanuts.

Thanks to FS for pointing me to the Paul Krugman post that referenced the Times article.

Ryan Express derailed

Paul Ryan has agreed to be speaker of the House, so long as the members of his own party take a solemn oath that they won’t fire him. There is an interesting dynamic in all of this, leaving this pundit to wonder whether there is any way out, for the Republicans, and, more importantly, any way the country can avoid the coming train wreck that may result from this chaos.

There is a seldom acknowledged fact that must be borne in mind when considering this shutdown nonsense. The members of the “Freedom caucus” don’t want the government to shut down, or at least they don’t want it to shut down for more than a few days. If it did, their constituents that expect their social security checks, etc., would be seriously inconvenienced when they discovered that the shutdown their Congressman has been talking about, which they heartily supported because of him and Fox News, actually adversely affects them, rather than just them. No, the Congressional crazies want the government to chug along, but they need for it to appear that it is doing so over their dead bodies. For them, the fact that they are members of the majority party is a serious inconvenience, because at one and the same time they need a Speaker who will keep them from getting what they keep saying they want, and one they can castigate for doing just that. It was so much easier when that person was Nancy Pelosi. Now, that person must be a Republican, upon whom they rely to protect themselves from themselves, but against whom they must also take up arms.

So don’t expect the “Freedom caucus” to agree to Ryan’s terms. Every revolution eats its own, they say, and the caucus is still hungry. They are looking for someone stupid enough to volunteer to be the next sacrificial lamb, and credible enough to garner the votes of the not so crazy Republicans (they purportedly do exist) in the House. There are a lot of stupid people on the R side of the aisle, but not many that fit those specs. Ryan is a con artist, but he’s not that dumb. The problem for the rest of us is that since the person who fits the bill may not exist, we may have no way to avoid a disastrous shutdown. The nutcases may get what they say they want, despite themselves.
UPDATE: Boy, was I wrong. Ryan is apparently that stupid.

UPDATE II: Maybe Ryan isn’t that stupid. In any event, I think my analysis of the problem stands. What the “Freedom caucus” needs is Speaker Pelosi.

What, me cynical?

Apparently, there is a movement afoot to abolish tipping in restaurants, and we are supposed to believe this is a good thing for the employees involved. The theory is that restaurant should pay their employees a living wage, increase their prices to cover that cost, and we can then all be happy, knowing that we both needn’t tip and needn’t worry that our waitresses kids are going to bed hungry. Apparently, this is the way it’s done in Europe, so it’s about time we did it here.

But this is America, the home of Wal-Mart, the company that gets a federal subsidy by paying its employees so little they qualify for food stamps. So let me tell you how this is likely to play out, assuming the movement gains momentum. At first, it will happen pretty much as advertised. Prices will go up, along with wages. Once Americans are trained to not tip, and come to expect that their servers are being properly paid by their employers, employers will start to squeeze their employees. After all, it may take $15.00 an hour to come close to a living wage, but except in places like San Francisco, there’s no law that says you have to pay that much, and, if I, the restaurant owner, want to make money for myself, the logical place to look is at the outrageously high amounts I’m now paying my employees, which can surely be cut, because if they don’t like it, they can always quit, and I can find someone else who will work for minimum wage. This will especially be the case in the chain restaurants, which will likely be the first places to apply the squeeze.

Personally, I’d humbly suggest that any restaurant with a no-tipping policy be required to post the minimum amount it is paying its employees on an hourly basis, so those of us who actually give a damn about whether the person serving us is making a reasonable amount of money can make an informed decision about whether we should continue patronizing the place.