Skip to content

Another lesson in linguistics

Monday, January 11, 2016

We live in a world in which the word “literally” now literally means the opposite of what it means, so it is not surprising that words are constantly misused. However, the ways in which they are misused can be instructive. The New York Times published a story this morning about the Western land issue that has supposedly led the nutcases to occupy federal land in Oregon. I’ll remark only in passing that if the group were composed of left leaning types, we wouldn’t be reading such stories at all. The article itself is not totally awful, though it nonetheless is a reward of sorts to a group that has taken up arms against the government and is just one of many that has earnestly and often sympathetically explored the grievances of these criminals.

The article was reprinted in the Boston Globe. You can read it here. What you won’t see at the link is the headline that appeared in the print edition: Pitch to reclaim land appeals to some in West.

Words do have meanings, and I mean that literally. At least in a newspaper, some effort should be made to use them with precision. In this context, the word “reclaim”, according to my unabridged dictionary, means: to claim back; demand the return of as of right, and so forth. It was probably (hopefully) unintentional, but the person who wrote that headline was implicitly conceding a point to these assholes that lacks any historical basis. The land in question was never theirs in the first place, nor did it belong to the several states in which it is located. Those states were federal territories before they were states. The federal government could grant statehood on any condition it wished. The land in question was reserved to the federal government, as the government had every right to do, and let us give thanks to the non-existent God that it did, or it would be wasteland right now. It cannot, therefore, be “reclaimed”. The headline implies that the land was somehow taken from someone who now wants it back. If the folks holed up in Oregon were Native Americans, the word might be properly employed, but so far as I’m aware, they are not advocating the return of the West to its original occupants. There have probably been instances in which words have been misused in a way favorable to some person or group on the left; I just can’t think of any offhand.

Filed in Language | | Comments (0)

Rainy day pessimism 

Sunday, January 10, 2016

The Real News Network recently ran an interview with some British Economists who think that the new Labour Party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is steering the party’s policies where they ought to go. John Weeks, a Professor Emeritus at SOAS, at the University of London, had this to say, and it struck me that there are some obvious parallels with the situation here in America:

WEEKS: First I must stress that our group is not affiliated with the Labour Party. Our report does not endorse the Labour Party. It looks at the British economy. But nonetheless, [inaud.] should be interpreted as showing [inaud.] considerably more credible on economic policy than the current government. I’ll briefly explain why. To understand the context, the American watchers should realize that the election of Jeremy Corbyn as head of the Labour Party would be rather like the Democratic party nominating Bernie Sanders to run for president. There would be that much of a dramatic break. There has been that much of a dramatic break.

The Labour Party before the election in May took a position that most people would call, most people would call, austerity-lite. That is, there was a hesitancy, some people would say a fear, of breaking with the Tory policy of budget cuts because, for fear that the Labour Party would be attacked as not understanding the economy and not being worried about deficits. Jeremy Corbyn has come in and he has picked a chancellor, that’s a person who is in charge of economic policy, with an absolutely clear policy: the Labour Party is now against budget cuts. Cuts are necessary, on the contrary, the government needs to spend, the government needs to spend more to expand the economy and generate productive employment. And John McDonnell has developed a fairly clear and detailed plan that emphasizes public investment in infrastructure, and basic things such as high-speed internet access, and such as that.

So I think that the Labour Party is now credible and impressive on economic policies. I mean, nobody’s perfect. But there’s such an improvement upon the past that they look awfully, awfully good. As a result, of course, of a dramatic change, a basic change that was brought about from the grassroots, I should add. Jeremy Corbyn won over 60 percent of–someone, one of my colleagues may correct me, it may have been more than that–of the Labour Party membership. Maybe up towards 70 percent. And the Labour Party is of course filled also with supporters of Tony Blair, and out of that ideological period. And so there is a very deep split within the party.

And the new leadership faces a very difficult time imposing its policies as the united front of the opposition. And I think some progress has been made in that regard, but we can’t kid ourselves. The right-wing elements within the Labour Party are attacking Jeremy Corbyn, and attacking him precisely for the policies I just described.

via Naked Capitalism

Weeks draws an explicit comparison to Bernie Sanders, but there are other parallels.

The Democratic Party too, even when it was in power, was austerity-lite. Despite the large Congressional majorities he had in 2009, Obama proposed a largely inadequate stimulus package that he further diluted in order to make it “bi-partisan” by getting Susan Collins’s vote. Had Obama, and a fair number of Congressional Democrats not been captive to “austerity-lite” thinking, they could have rammed through an effective stimulus package that would have done more than simply put the brakes on decline. Had there been a real recovery, we might have avoided the 2010 electoral disaster, and the gerrymandered nation it produced. The most charitable explanation for their blindness is that they were victims of the same fears Weeks ascribes to the Labour Party. Less charitably, one might argue that they never really cared to initiate a broad based recovery, because it was not something for which their major donors were particularly pining. After all, the rest of us might have gone nowhere since 2008, but the bankers have been doing great. In any event, there is only one candidate for President who is not, at best, “austerity-lite”, and that candidate is not Hillary Clinton.

Here at home, broadly speaking, I’ve run into two kinds of Democrats, since I am not privileged to consort with the Wall Street types. The first group supports Bernie. The second group supports Hillary, almost universally because they think Bernie can’t win and that they are therefore left with Hillary. I’m sure there are some Hillary enthusiasts out there, but I have yet to meet one. On issue after issue, these folks agree with Bernie, but they’re holding their noses and sticking with Hillary.

Maybe they’re right, but you have to wonder. If you step back and look at the trend line, it seems unlikely that any semblance of real representative democracy can survive four more years of government by and for the plutocrats. It’s all very well that Hillary would likely appoint Supreme Court justices that would protect the social advances of the past few years, but those are issues about which the plutocrats care nothing. On the economic front, it is simply unclear that we can recapture the ground that will surely be lost in the next four years, when Hillary, safely elected, reverses course on issues such as the TPP and the Keystone Pipeline, and reminds us that on other issues she never said she was with us, she simply said she would listen. It just so happens that she listens a lot harder to the plutocrats. Everything put together sooner or later falls apart, and as some have pointed out recently, the period between 1932 and 1980 was an aberration in the first place, a period of retrenchment for the plutocrats. Maybe Corbyn won’t win in Britain, and maybe Bernie won’t win here, but if they don’t, the course of history may be irreversibly fixed, and we will be back, perhaps permanently, to the days of government of, by, and for the capitalists.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Thank you, Canada 

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Or, more accurately, thank you TransCanada:

TransCanada has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration and plans to file a claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement over the U.S. government’s rejection of the company’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

The company said Wednesday it has filed a notice of intent to initiate the NAFTA claim on the basis that the denial was not justified.

“TransCanada has been unjustly deprived of the value of its multibillion-dollar investment by the U.S. administration’s action,” said the company in a release.

The firm says it will be looking to recover $15 billion US in costs and damages as a result of what it says is a breach of obligations under Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

“TransCanada asserts the U.S. administration’s decision to deny a presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline was arbitrary and unjustified,” the company said.

via CBC News

In the old days, when a company risked it’s money on an investment that would require government approvals to move forward, the risk was on the company, not on the government. But that was before they rigged the system; imperfectly in NAFTA (TransCanada may lose), but far more perfectly in the not yet passed TPP. If we manage to stave off the TPP we may have TransCanada to thank, for demonstrating that the warnings of TPP opponents have a basis in fact. It may push some wavering lawmakers in the right direction.

It should be noted that TransCanada’s legal position comes down to this: If a country wants to make a political decision that adversely affects a corporation’s interests, it may do so only if it pays off the corporation. So, if we want to avoid global warming, we can do so only by paying big bucks to the energy companies that have caused the problem in the first place.

Filed in Corporate Crime, Creeping Totalitarianism, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

A Blogger’s Lament

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Regular readers have no doubt been pleased to see a decrease in blogging activity from this quarter. A decent respect for the opinions of mankind impels me to explain the latest stretch of inactivity.

I’ve been doing this, if memory serves, for 11 years. When I started, there were meaty issues being debated, some of which actually had two sides, or, if that was not the case, one side that had to be explained somewhat. For instance, when I started Bush was busily trying to destroy Social Security, and there were real issues to be explored about his privatization scheme.

Partly I have posted less because I don’t want to repeat myself, but primarily I have written much less because the discourse out there has become so dumbed down that it hardly seems necessary to comment, and, when it is, lightning fast reflexes are required, because if you don’t get it out there within minutes of the event, a thousand internet actors have already pointed out the obvious, so why bother to add one’s mite?

Several years ago I put up a post in which I disparaged Twitter, my point being that the 128 character limit was clearly insufficient to deal with any issue intelligently. Nowadays, 64 characters is often sufficient.

Case in point, the ongoing situation in Oregon. You know the one: White guys with guns holed up in government building demanding their constitutional right to own government land. It’s in there somewhere, I’m sure, though I can’t recall where. Anyway, the point is that the tweets write themselves, and unless you’re first off the block, what’s the point of writing an entire blog post about the obvious. Here’s just a few of the things that come to mind right away, all of which have been explored elsewhere:

If they were black, they’d be dead by now.

If they were Muslim, they’d be even deader.

Why does the press label these guys “protestors” or let them label themselves as a “militia”. And why is the press not pointing out that they are being led by a guy who is looking for the ultimate government handout. Not satisfied with no cost to low cost grazing rights on government land, he somehow feels he has a constitutional right to fee simple ownership of that land. Why him? Why not? The important thing to keep in mind is that he is not at all like all those takers that Mitt was going on about on account of he’s the wrong color, don’t you know.

In the no one could have predicted department: Fox News says they’re just good guys protesting a nasty government, nothing like the thugs in Ferguson who, if memory serves, were unarmed and threatened exactly no one. And of course, no one could have predicted that we’d be hearing pretty much the same thing on CNN. No one, that is, except everyone.

The thing is, it’s not just this one story. In the good old days, for example, when a Republican told a lie, he (usually he, after all) at least made an effort to make it sound plausible. It took at least a little work to expose the soft underbelly of his mendacity. Nowadays, they take no pride in their craft. Does anyone with the minimal amount of brains it takes to read this blog need to be told that nothing that escapes the mouth of the Donald, or his competitors (including especially, but not limited to, Ted, Ben, and Carly) has even a nodding acquaintance with objective truth? They make no attempt to hide their dishonesty. It’s no longer a regrettably necessary bug; it’s a feature. The lies are so obvious there is no need to comment in anything longer than half a tweet, and you have to get that tweet out in real time, or retweet the first guy out of the starting gate, and I just can’t stoop to that (very often). That being the case, what need for the struggling blogger, who in olden times took some delight in exposing their falsehoods. We wait instead for those stopped-clock moments when a stray bit of truth exits their gustatory orifices, at which point we can note the event with the appropriate amount of astonishment.

By this time you are probably eagerly anticipating a vow from me that I will blog no more. Unlike your run of the mill Republican politician, I cannot tell a lie. Well, I can, but I’m not going to tell one at the moment. Despite all, I will soldier on. All I need to do is find a way to make the obvious sound profound. Does Thomas Friedman give lessons?

Filed in Rants, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

The road ahead 

Thursday, December 31, 2015

Listen my reader(s), you’ll eventually hear
All my predictions for the coming New Year
Open a bottle of your strongest of stuff
You better get plenty, though it won’t be enough

The future I’ll serve you like holiday dishes
Sorry, I doubt I can fill all your wishes
There’s reason to hope, but far more to fear
But we don’t have a choice, so on to next year

Lets start with the stuff that’s on everyone’s mind
This year, Obama leaves his old job behind
We pick a successor, are we all having fun?
Well there’s lots more coming ‘fore the election is won

The Republican Party, in a century long slump
Will finally hit bottom-Can you say Donald Trump?
And if it’s not him, I’ve even worse news
If it’s not him, it will be Teddy Cruz

As for the Dems, if you’re feeling the Bern
I’ve news that is sad, your affections must turn
For the Titans of Wall Street will allow no such frillery
The fix it is in, we must make do with Hillary

After that, as you know, it is still early innings
Clinton must work before collecting her winnings
From the press there’ll be questions on issues deemed critical
Like emails, Benghazi and motives political

But as they campaign neath the hot August sun
Some things we won’t hear, and I’ll tell you just one
Though the Earth it is warming in ways quite absurd
About climate change we’ll hear nary a word

Still in the end, when the votes are all cast
She’ll win when the race is over at last
If that’s not the case then I’ll sally forth
After packing my bags I’ll head straight to the North

All through the year the gun folks will rage
It will take thirty kills just to make the front page!
Unless you’re a Muslim, it goes without saying
One bullet from them will set the Fox baying

Here’s a prediction that’s sure to come true
If you disagree then you haven’t a clue
The Congress, controlled by the party in red
Will do not a thing but tell the country: drop dead

Are you growing weary; am I starting to bore?
You may have a point, but don’t head for the door
Here’s an end to political prognostication
(I can practically feel your sincere approbation )

Now I can turn to subjects less pressing
Like what will be in, or how we’ll be dressing
But on those two subjects I can’t ply my wit
Because…honestly… I don’t give a (can’t think of a rhyme, please give me time)

There must be a subject that I can explore
Something every American loves to the core
Some port that is safe to which I’ll resort
Isn’t it obvious? Time to talk sport

In the first days of spring they will start to play ball
And this year the Sox will not fail in the fall
At least when compared to the year that has passed
They won’t come in first, but they won’t be dead last

As for the sports that aren’t played with a bat
I give less for them than the ass of a rat
So you won’t hear from me ’bout the Celts or the Pats
I meant what I said ’bout that part of the rat

If you took my advice in stanza the first
And drank your way through this quite wretched verse
Your head it is swimming; you just cannot cope
For an end to your labors you’ve no doubt lost hope

But take heart, I’ve good news: this is certain
Two more lines and then down comes the curtain
For a repeat of this you have little to fear
It won’t happen again for at least one more year

Filed in Ramblings, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Perks of Office

Monday, December 28, 2015

This guy makes John Rowland look like a piker:

As storms once again battered the state of Alabama over Christmas, Republican Gov. Robert Bentley moved to divert funding from the 2010 BP oil spill recovery effort to finance the renovation of a second Governor’s mansion on the Gulf Coast.

Yet that beachside mansion, which Alabama governors beginning with famed segregationist George Wallace have enjoyed, was not damaged by the BP oil spill. It was damaged more than two decades earlier by Hurricane Danny, and has sat empty ever since.

While Alabama’s oyster industry and coastal communities continue to suffer from the effects of the massive Deepwater Horizon oil well blowout, the repairs to the governors’ mansion are estimated to cost between $1.5 million and $1.8 million. Though Bentley says he will stay there only “on occasion,” the administration said the property would be “primarily” used to wine and dine corporate executives considering the state for investment.

…

Yet Bentley argues that the mansion repairs are a priority for economic development, and says the move has no connection to the fact that he recently lost two beachfront properties in a messy divorce.

via Think Progress

And it’s perfectly legal, so far as I can see, as well as being perfectly sleazy.I like to think that had Rowland not ended up in jail, the voters in Connecticut would have denied him a fourth term, but there’s little chance that Bentley has anything to fear. The Southland has been a one-party state since the end of Reconstruction; the parties flipped in the 60s, when the Democratic Party, to its everlasting credit, put principles over politics and championed the civil rights acts that the Supreme Court, along with governors like Bentley, is now busy undermining. In any one party system, but particularly systems dominated by parties of the right, people like Bentley tend to float to the top.

Filed in Republican Corruption, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Smart guy

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Where did this guy get all his brainpower?

Filed in History | | Comments (0)

Last blast of cynicism before Christmas

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

If I had to recommend five must read blogs, Wall Street on Parade would be one of them. Today, Pam Martens exposes a bit of skullduggery buried in the bill that kept the government funded. (As an aside, how low have we sunk when we can consider a Speaker of the House a success because he manages to keep the government running?) Anyway, back to Ms. Martens:

Corporate front groups got a big fat Christmas present in the recently passed Omnibus spending bill. Congress is hoping that voters are too distracted with holiday preparations to look at the fine print in its more than 2,000 pages.

We were winding our way through its copious contents when we stumbled upon its section on the IRS. Somehow this so-called “spending” bill has legislated into law a right-wing vendetta against the Internal Revenue Service. For example, the IRS is effectively stripped of its ability to writes new rules on 501©(4) organizations. Those organizations are increasingly being used as corporate-funded political front groups masquerading as social welfare organizations: The new Omnibus law reads as follows:

“During fiscal year 2016: (1) none of the funds made available in this or any other Act may be used by the Department of the Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service, to issue, revise, or finalize any regulation, revenue ruling, or other guidance not limited to a particular taxpayer relating to the standard which is used to determine whether an organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare for purposes of section 501©(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (including the proposed regulations published at 78 Fed. Reg. 71535 (November 29, 2013)); and (2) the standard and definitions as in effect on January 1, 2010, which are used to make such determinations shall apply after the date of the enactment of this Act for purposes of determining status under section 501©(4) of such Code of organizations created on, before, or after such date.”

via Wall Street on Parade

Being a big Monty Python fan, I always look at the bright side of life, except when I don’t, which we won’t talk about at the moment. The fact is, the IRS wouldn’t have done anything about the plutocrats even if Congress had passed something encouraging it to do so, so really Ms. Martens should cool her outrage. Other than illustrating once again that Congress is wholly owned by the Koch Brothers and their ilk, this statute accomplishes nothing. No harm, no foul.

Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)

History lesson

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Bernie, in Iowa:

In railing against billionaires and Wall Street, Sanders hurled a dig at Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. At Saturday’s Democratic debate, the former secretary of state said “everybody should” love her in response to a question about whether corporate America should love her. Sanders, who rarely calls her out by name, used that statement Monday to position himself as a friend of the common man and an enemy of Wall Street, billionaires and corporate America.

“I don’t need to be loved by everybody. … I don’t need Wall Street’s love,” Sanders said.

via The Des Moines Register

It’s getting to be ancient history, I suppose, and therefore safely forgotten, but perhaps the greatest Democratic president had this to say on the subject:

Not much has changed since then. More accurately, we have, in no small part thanks to Hillary’s husband, it’s sad to say, reverted to the type of society that FDR managed to turn around for a generation. 

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

(One of the) world’s worst people takes a hit

Thursday, December 17, 2015

I am not a gifted enough writer to express how good this makes me feel:

Martin Shkreli, the boyish drug company entrepreneur, who rocketed to infamy by jacking up the price of a life-saving pill from $13.50 to $750, was arrested by federal agents at his Manhattan home early Thursday morning on securities fraud related to a firm he founded.

Shkreli, 32, ignited a firestorm over drug prices in September and became a symbol of defiant greed. The federal case against him has nothing to do with pharmaceutical costs, however. Prosecutors in Brooklyn charged him with illegally taking stock from Retrophin Inc., a biotechnology firm he started in 2011, and using it to pay off debts from unrelated business dealings. He was later ousted from the company, where he’d been chief executive officer, and sued by its board.

…

Authorities outlined years of investment losses and lies Shkreli allegedly told his investors almost from the moment he began managing money. By age 26, they said, he got nine investors to place $3 million with him, began losing their money and covering it up. Within a year, his fund’s account was down to $331.

Shkreli attracted another $2.35 million investment in 2010 and lost about half of that in two months, the authorities said. As the hole grew, he covered it up with scheme after scheme, telling investors that his returns were as high as 35.8 percent when he was down 18 percent. He used client money to pay for his clothing, food and medical expenses and lied to the broker handling his fund’s accounts, authorities said.

via Bloomberg News

I spend a lot of my time trying to get people with mental impairments on Social Security, but I’ve never had a sociopath. They make too much money.

Filed in Good News | | Comments (1)