Skip to content

Cranky Old Man, post 1

Friday, May 13, 2016

This will be the first in a series of projected posts in a brand new category. In a few short weeks I will be eligible to begin receiving social security benefits. I have therefore reached the age at which all white males become privileged to become cranky old men. Many readers might claim that I have been cranky for years, but, let me assure you, you ain’t read nothing yet.

What led me to this pass was a seemingly inoffensive Boston Globe art review of an N.C. Wyeth Thoreau centered exhibition in Concord. Art critic Sebastian Smee begins his review as follows:

People tend to turn to the writings of Henry David Thoreau when they want to be rescued from criteria they’ve successfully met.

Mr. Smee then goes on to prove (at least to his own satisfaction) that N.C. Wyeth did exactly that. Case closed, I guess.

This is a fairly common rhetorical trick, practiced quite often by our punditry. The name David Brooks comes to mind (and now, like an earworm, I can’t get rid of it). Begin with an unexamined premise, and shoehorn the rest into it. I’m sure there’s a name for this rhetorical device, though I don’t know what it is. The writer counts on the reader to accept the premise, since the reader is quite busy, unless he is a cranky old man who begins yelling at the newspaper. This particular instance is quite harmless. I highlight it only because it is so blatant. Does Mr. Smee have even a smidgen of data that supports his premise? I have read almost everything Thoreau wrote, and I haven’t successfully met any criteria of which I’m aware. Any reader of this blog can attest to that. Had Gandhi a need for rescue from successfully met criteria when he turned to Thoreau? On a deeper level, what does the sentence even mean?

As I said, there’s little harm in this particular use of the device, but it causes a lot of harm in other contexts. It’s what allows the Brookses, Friedmans, Kristols, etc., of the world to spew their nonsense behind a smokescreen of faux profundity.

AFTERWORD: Well, this is somewhat distressing. Re-reading this post, I see it doesn’t approach the level of crankiness I was aiming at. I’ll have to start watching Fox News. They seem particularly good at churning out cranky old white men.

Filed in Cranky old man | | Comments (0)

Aiming to lose

Friday, May 13, 2016

Here’s why l won’t give money to the DNC, DCCC, or the DSCC. The depressing thing is that a Hillary victory will mean four more years of this.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Is Facebook failing to meet Fox’s strict standards of impartiality?

Thursday, May 12, 2016

So, it appears Facebook has been accused by some disgruntled ex-employees of liberal bias in its “trending news” section:

Many people were rightly disturbed earlier this week when Gizmodo revealed that Facebook employees allegedly suppressed conservative news stories on the whim of their employer’s political leanings. As alarming as that story is, a new congressional investigation into Facebook for those editorial choices is arguably worse.

Gizmodo’s Michael Nunez provoked a firestorm of criticism towards Facebook on Monday when he reported that a former Facebook staffer accused its news team of refusing to include conservative news outlets like Breitbart and RedState in its influential “trending news” section on the front page – which generates huge traffic for those outlets included. Even if you despise the likes of Breitbart and RedState, the idea of such a dominant corporation controlling what you do and don’t see online should alarm people of all political persuasions.

But now Republicans on the Senate commerce committee have opened an inquiry into Facebook’s editorial decisions, which encroaches on the first amendment in a way that represents a clear and present danger to their free speech.

via The Guardian

I have no idea whether there is any truth to this, but I disagree with the Guardian’s columnist. I think what I’m sure will be a strictly impartial investigation is very much in order, so long as it’s thorough, and doesn’t stop with Facebook. I’ve heard rumors that Fox News skews to the right. As hard as that must be to believe, there is enough evidence to warrant looking into it. The now Bezos-owned Washington Post has a thing about gutting social security and Medicare, and, quite possible (well, definitely, actually) has allowed its opinion to sink into what are purportedly news articles, besides featuring pundits who beat the drum for senior-impoverishment daily. (All of which is well documented by Dean Baker at Beat the Press). That, at least to me, gives off at least a whiff of bias, which likewise bears investigating. Then there’s the remote possibility (still worth looking into) that talk radio is dominated by the right.

Of course Facebook would be well within its rights to purposely inject liberal bias into its news feed. But since when has the constitution stood in the way of the Republican Party? So I’m all for an investigation; as long as it’s fair and balanced.

Filed in Hypocrisy | | Comments (0)

A Terrifying thought

Friday, May 6, 2016

This morning I skimmed this column at the Boston Globe, in which a Globe pundit opined that Hillary would surely beat Donald, though, to give him credit, he acknowledged that anything was possible.

It got me to thinking. For the past year the pundits that are always wrong have been telling us that Donald Trump could not ever be nominated. There’s a partial list here, and it even includes a pundit, Nate Silver, who is almost never wrong. But the usual suspects are there, including, of course, Bill Kristol, as well as Russ Douthat.

These same pundits, and many more, are now, or will soon, be telling us that Trump simply cannot win the presidency. That terrifies me. I know about stopped clocks and all that, but what are the odds that all the clocks will be stopped at precisely the same time, so that can all be right at once?

This pundit would like to believe Hillary will beat Donald (though he thinks Bernie is the better bet, despite all the arguments the Hillary folks trot out), and a few weeks ago I felt fairly confident on that score. Now, I don’t know. I think there may be a bit of a reverse Bradley effect in the polling. It may very well be that many people don’t want to admit to a pollster that they will vote for Trump. But it’s the unanimity of the pundits that really has me scared.

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (0)

Told you so

Thursday, May 5, 2016

My previous post involved passing along some good news. Now, back to normal.

I’ve noted on a number of occasions that Hillary Clinton’s opposition to the Trans Pacific Pact will melt like snow in the spring once she’s safely elected, this being an example:

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.

Signals are already being sent:

Laura Rosenberger, foreign policy adviser for the Clinton campaign, said Clinton still supports the goal of a TPP that advances US interests in the region. However, she said, the pact in its current form doesn’t meet three conditions needed for a trade deal: to create good jobs in the US, raise wages at home, and advance US national security.

Kurt Campbell, who was Clinton’s top lieutenant on East Asia at the State Department and is now advising her campaign, describes TPP as a “strategic commitment” to engage in Asia. The 12 participating nations account for about 40 per cent of global GDP, and other Asian nations are interested in joining.

Campbell said that a full-scale renegotiation would be “very difficult”, but that adjustments could make it more politically palatable in the US[.]

“There are always opportunities to adjust on the margins and figure out how to ensure that we’ve got an agreement which legislators can sell back home,” Campbell told the Truman Centre think tank last week, without giving specifics.

Associated Press via Down with Tyranny.

Look, I know it was so obvious that it hardly seems worth pointing out, but if I don’t pat myself on the back, who will? Besides, it may not be much, but it puts me head and shoulders above pundits like Friedman, Brooks, and Kristol, to name just a few, who have never been known to be right.

Filed in Hillary Clinton, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Really good news

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Some time ago a reader shamed me into attempting to highlight some good news now and then, given my propensity to highlight the not so good to terrible news that regularly afflicts us. I tried, but eventually my resolve sort of fizzled out. I try to resist it, but I am an old white guy, so I’m far better at complaining than anything else.

However, if only briefly, I am herewith highlighting some good news:

The nation’s consumer watchdog is unveiling a proposed rule on Thursday that would restore customers’ rights to bring class-action lawsuits against financial firms, giving Americans major new protections and delivering a serious blow to Wall Street that could cost the industry billions of dollars.

The proposed rule, which would apply to bank accounts, credit cards and other types of consumer loans, seems almost certain to take effect, since it does not require congressional approval.

In effect, the move by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — the biggest that the agency has made since its inception in 2010 — will unravel a set of audacious legal maneuvers by corporate America that has prevented customers from using the court system to challenge potentially deceitful banking practices.

via The New York Times

This move toward private justice systems, a feature of the TPP by the way, has allowed the corporations to complete the takeover of the three branches of the American system of government, through the simple expedient of imposing contractual terms denying their customers the right to a fair tribunal. Rather laughably, the folks who engineered this push to arbitration on behalf of the banks are claiming that this rule would hurt consumers, a claim which the Times article rather effectively refutes.

This is yet more proof of how important the choice of the next Supreme Court justice will be. I can easily see a 5 member court majority setting this rule aside. The present court, when the loathsome Scalia was alive, distorted existing law to uphold these arbitration provisions. There’s no reason to believe it would have done anything other than find a way to nullify this rule. Even if corporate shill Hillary gets in, she’s unlikely to appoint anyone that bad. Nor is she likely to appoint someone to the board to reverse Cordray’s action. A Trump appointee, no doubt, would reverse this and screw us in numerous other ways, all, we would be told, to benefit consumers. Trump, after all, made and is making a living off of defrauding people, so he and his minions would jump at the chance to make fraud even more legal than it already is. So, it matters who’s president as well, even between the choices that will be foisted on us.

Anyway, this truly is good news.

Filed in Good News, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Justice Department throws NC Governor a lifeline

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Not that I disagree with the Justice Department on this, but I do believe, if they stick to it, that it will enhance Republican Governor McCrory’s chances to get re-elected:

The U.S. Department of Justice has unequivocally upended one of North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory’s first promises to his constituents: That the discriminatory HB2 law would not jeopardize federal education funding to the state. In a letter to McCrory Wednesday, a Justice Department official called HB2 “facially discriminatory” against transgender individuals and said the department had determined the law violates both Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

via Daily Kos
It may mean the loss of Federal fund to the state. The Justice Department has demanded that the state agree that it will not enforce the law. This gives the McGrory the opportunity to back down, but to blame the backdown on that bane of all white Southerners: federal interference in a state’s right to promote hate. Well, they don’t put it that way, but that’s the basic idea. This way he gets to satisfy the corporations that have said they would avoid the state, and the cretins who stay up nights worrying that the person in the stall next to them doesn’t have the appropriate plumbing.
I’m guessing that’s how he’ll play it, so he was probably pretty happy to get that letter from the Justice Department.

UPDATE: Looks like I called it right.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

No question it’s so, Joe

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

In case you were wondering (and you probably weren’t) what Joe Lieberman is doing these days, here’s an update courtesy of Down With Tyranny:

Wall Street banksters fund No Labels to destroy Social Security, Medicare and other social services and they have decided on Lieberman and Huntsman as their new frontmen. Reactionary politics is the name of their game and the two of them have been spotted recently lurking around Capitol Hill, shopping their ideas to lawmakers– primarily Republicans and New Dems– and to their natural allies on K Street, the corporate lobbyists. The organization founded by Eric Kingson, Social Security Works is sounding the alarm and demanding that Lieberman and Huntsman stand down. Social Security Works points out that that in the midst of a $7.7 trillion retirement security crisis and with two-thirds of retirees relying on Social Security for the majority of their income, now is not the time to be cutting Americans’ hard earned benefits. Instead, as Kingson, a congressional candidate in Syracuse, and other progressives explain as part of their campaigns, we should be expanding Social Security benefits for millions of Americans. Social Security Works:

The American people are united in our support of protecting and expanding Social Security– the most successful social insurance program in our country’s history. And right now, a majority of Democrats in Congress support our efforts. We cannot allow Lieberman and Huntsman to successfully flip Congressional Democrats– and worse yet, the next president– on the future of Social Security.

All we need in order to strengthen Social Security is to finally ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. Right now, individuals pay into Social Security on the first $118,500 of their income. But if wealthier individuals pay in on ALL of their income, we will be able to expand the benefits of millions of Americans and have enough left to extend the lifespan of the Social Security trust fund.

Via Down with Tyranny

“No Labels” is Lieberman’s faux “bi-partisan” propaganda outfit, dedicating to comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted. It’s his way of cashing in on his former office by soaking money from rich people to advance their “bi-partisan” destroy the middle class agenda. It is truly amazing how much rich people will spend to further impoverish the rest of us, even when they pay almost nothing toward the benefit in question. Further proof that their overriding belief is that it is not enough that they succeed, everyone else must fail.

We here in Connecticut are well rid of Lieberman. Would that there were some legal method that could be used to remove rejected politicians from the political process entirely. One of the things I am most proud of having done in my life is cast a vote at the 2006 Connecticut State Convention for Ned Lamont. That began the process of cleansing Lieberman from our party. Unfortunately, there are many more Liebermans in the party, and more being recruited all the time. In that vein, I recommend Down with Tyranny as a great place to keep tabs on the machinations of that portion of our party that are trying to remake the party in Lieberman’s image.

Filed in Democrats, Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Someone ought to sue

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Meteor Blades and Joan McCarter at Daily Kos, are writing a series entitled The War on Voting. The latest article discusses a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina:

 

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled in favor of North Carolina’s new voting law Monday, prompting plaintiffs in the case to say they would immediately appeal. The law is considered by opponents as one of the strictest in the country. But that wasn’t the viewpoint of the judge.

The law requires voters to have one of a number of state-specified, government-issued photo-IDs. It also barred people from registering and voting on the same day, cut the number of days allotted for early voting, blocked the counting of any ballots that are cast in the wrong precinct. Preregistering teenagers before they turn 18 is also no longer allowed under the law.

via Daily Kos

Let’s stipulate that the intent of the changes in these laws is to suppress voting, particularly among those groups, particularly minorities, that vote Democratic. Still, I’m struck by the fact that some of these states, in many respects, still have voting laws more liberal than we have in Connecticut. We don’t, for instance, have any early voting, except for absentee voters. Many of these cases involving restrictions of, but not elimination of, voting opportunities that are not available to Connecticut residents at all.

Connecticut was never covered by the Voting Rights Act, so its restrictions were never subjected to scrutiny. It’s very doubtful that they were the product of intentional discrimination. The legislature is helpless to liberalize many of our voting requirements because they are contained in the state constitution. There was a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2014 that would have allowed the legislature to liberalize our laws, but it was defeated by an electorate that had no idea what it contained.

Many of the challenges to restrictive voting laws have succeeded in federal court. The North Carolina plaintiffs might succeed eventually. Maybe the Koch owned ACLU could do us a favor and bring suit against Connecticut to get rid of some of the unnecessary restrictions embedded in our constitution. If they brought suit, the Malloy administration would be well advised to not defend the case, as a matter both of justice and partisan advantage.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (1)

A Democratic hypocrite of Republican proportions

Friday, April 29, 2016

It is a sad fact of life that, while they are indeed masters of the art, the Republicans do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Consider Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the more loathsome Democrats out there:

Last week, Florida congresswoman and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced that she was signing on as an original cosponsor of the Stopping Abuse and Fraud in Electronic (SAFE) Lending Act, which would prohibit payday lenders from having access to borrowers’ bank accounts, close loopholes in the payday lending system and “ban lead generators and anonymous payday lending.” A partner bill has also been introduced in the Senate, featuring progressive co-sponsors Tammy Baldwin, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, among others.

The bill is, by all accounts, a solid piece of legislation. Payday lending has recently found its way into the crosshairs of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among other consumer protection organizations, as being an industry that takes advantage of borrowers by trapping them in a cycle of debt, turning initial loans of a few hundred dollars into four or five-figure debts. The SAFE Lending Act would curtail some of the industry’s worst abuses.

However, Wasserman Schultz’s co-sponsorship of the bill makes her a bit of an oddball. As Allied Progress and a collection of other advocacy organizations pointed out in a letter sent to her office yesterday, she remains a co-sponsor of H.R. 4018. Wasserman Schultz previously faced widespread criticism from the progressive community over that bill because it is specifically designed to both make it harder for the CFPB to regulate payday lending and to encourage states outside of Florida to adopt policies favorable to payday lenders. As the Huffington Post explained:

The misleadingly titled Consumer Protection and Choice Act would delay the CFPB’s payday lending rules by two years, and nullify its rules in any state with a payday lending law like the one adopted in Florida. The memo being passed around by Wasserman Schultz staffers describes the Florida state law as a “model” for consumer laws on payday loans, and says the CFPB should “adjust their payday lending rules to take into account actions Florida has already taken.”

via Americablog

This is the woman who heads up the DNC, and is channeling money into the campaigns of DINOs. The payday situation is only the latest of her sins. Listing them all would be impossible. Perhaps the most egregious is her co-operating with Republicans in Florida to gerrymander the state in their favor, all so she could preserve a comfortable district for herself.She is the current reason I won’t contribute to the DNC, inasmuch as so much of their money is devoted to beating progressive Democrats in primaries. She has a serious primary challenger, Tim Canova. Every patriot should donate to him.

Filed in Democrats, Hypocrisy, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)