I know, you wanted them separate. But my little mind just doesn't work that way.
All my blogging -- politics, music, theater, film, etc., will be at
Monday, July 20, 2020
Friday, April 10, 2020
The Progressive Case for Joe Biden
If elected, Joe Biden will be the most progressive President in the history of the United States of America.
As vice-President he was used as a "water tester", finding the best time and place to move the Obama Administration to the left on various issues. In particular with the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask Don't Tell." These were issues that, in Obama's first term, were not terribly progressive (there was clearly a political calculation to not push against DOMA at the time as the right were good at freaking out massive numbers of old people with the fear of gay marriage), but Joe could, and did, put things out there in his sort of rambling media forays and help guide public opinion to "move the needle" so to speak on gay marriage and gays serving openly in the military. I mean, there's a reason Obama chose him as his running-mate.
So let's look at what's meaningful with the difference between, say, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
The first, and presumably biggest, difference, is in healthcare. Sanders favors a "Medicare for All" and Biden favors a "public option."
Now, a public option, if actually enacted, would give us the most progressive national healthcare plan we've ever had. And Medicaid for All would be even more so.
But here's the thing: the President does not present legislation. Both houses of Congress would have to vote in favor of a bill that the President would sign. And the "Medicaid for All" is not popular with the public (which is the fault of our idiot media circus but that's a story for another time.) So it's very unlikely that a President who even champions Medicare For All will even get a bill to sign.
Furthermore, a "public option" might happen first and be a good gateway drug to more comprehensive healthcare. I'm sure that's how the Republicans will see it.
As for higher education, Biden favors a more conservative plan than Sanders, but again it would be the most progressive plan the US has ever seen if it got passed. However, introducing legislation is not the President's job. All bills start in the House. But then they need to be passed by the Senate. Everything is a moot point if Republicans control the Senate.
Both Biden and Sanders are aiming for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Sanders wants 100% renewable energy by 2030.
Early Childhood Development. Let's fact it, neither Sanders nor Biden can even come close to the detailed, exact, and specific plan that Hillary Clinton had. But between free Pre-K and raising teacher's salaries, I don't see a lot of daylight between Biden or Sanders' positions. Obviously a bill would need to be written and passed by both houses.
Central and South America. You'd think an old socialist like Bernie would be all over this but nope, it's Joe who wants to build what we might call the un-jerk plan for US relations with our southern neighbors. For those of us of a certain age, the constant American jerkiness of our policy toward pretty much every country of Central and South American has been a nightmare. Bill Clinton closed the School of the Americas. The Democrats have a pretty good record of doing something positive with the Americas and Biden seems to have a specific plan. This is an issue which is the purview of the President and honestly I'm a tad befuddled about Bernie's lack of policy, at least that I could find on his website.
Guns. Joe wants to have the government buy back assault weapons. He is WAY to the left of Bernie on guns.
Other than that, what have we got?
These are big freaking deals. These are all issues which directly affect the lives of workers. The NLRB has a great deal of power to affect, for instance, when overtime is paid. Right now many companies use a nonsense definition of "manager" in order to deny workers overtime pay. Under Obama, the NLRB was about to really help people who managed McDonalds and other places because in reality those people are dramatically under-paid and expected to happily work long hours without OT.
The CPFB puts the fear of god into banks who want to play games with consumer lending -- doing absurdly criminal things to lock poor and working people into worse than loan-shark-level loans.
A functioning pandemic response team that actually, you know, responds to pandemics. The sheer number of people who have died because of the blundering of this Administration is horrifying.
I would expect those appointments would likely be mostly the same between Joe and Bernie, perhaps not the same individuals, but people with the same sorts of ideological temperament.
Biden is pro-choice, pro-trans rights, pro-climate, pro-working-class, pro-science, pro-education, pro-early childhood development.
If elected, Joe Biden will be the most progressive President the United States has ever seen.
As vice-President he was used as a "water tester", finding the best time and place to move the Obama Administration to the left on various issues. In particular with the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask Don't Tell." These were issues that, in Obama's first term, were not terribly progressive (there was clearly a political calculation to not push against DOMA at the time as the right were good at freaking out massive numbers of old people with the fear of gay marriage), but Joe could, and did, put things out there in his sort of rambling media forays and help guide public opinion to "move the needle" so to speak on gay marriage and gays serving openly in the military. I mean, there's a reason Obama chose him as his running-mate.
So let's look at what's meaningful with the difference between, say, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
The first, and presumably biggest, difference, is in healthcare. Sanders favors a "Medicare for All" and Biden favors a "public option."
Now, a public option, if actually enacted, would give us the most progressive national healthcare plan we've ever had. And Medicaid for All would be even more so.
But here's the thing: the President does not present legislation. Both houses of Congress would have to vote in favor of a bill that the President would sign. And the "Medicaid for All" is not popular with the public (which is the fault of our idiot media circus but that's a story for another time.) So it's very unlikely that a President who even champions Medicare For All will even get a bill to sign.
Furthermore, a "public option" might happen first and be a good gateway drug to more comprehensive healthcare. I'm sure that's how the Republicans will see it.
As for higher education, Biden favors a more conservative plan than Sanders, but again it would be the most progressive plan the US has ever seen if it got passed. However, introducing legislation is not the President's job. All bills start in the House. But then they need to be passed by the Senate. Everything is a moot point if Republicans control the Senate.
Both Biden and Sanders are aiming for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Sanders wants 100% renewable energy by 2030.
Early Childhood Development. Let's fact it, neither Sanders nor Biden can even come close to the detailed, exact, and specific plan that Hillary Clinton had. But between free Pre-K and raising teacher's salaries, I don't see a lot of daylight between Biden or Sanders' positions. Obviously a bill would need to be written and passed by both houses.
Central and South America. You'd think an old socialist like Bernie would be all over this but nope, it's Joe who wants to build what we might call the un-jerk plan for US relations with our southern neighbors. For those of us of a certain age, the constant American jerkiness of our policy toward pretty much every country of Central and South American has been a nightmare. Bill Clinton closed the School of the Americas. The Democrats have a pretty good record of doing something positive with the Americas and Biden seems to have a specific plan. This is an issue which is the purview of the President and honestly I'm a tad befuddled about Bernie's lack of policy, at least that I could find on his website.
Guns. Joe wants to have the government buy back assault weapons. He is WAY to the left of Bernie on guns.
Other than that, what have we got?
- Supreme Court nominations.
- National Labor Relations Board appointees.
- Head of the CPFB appointment.
- A functioning Pandemic Response team.
- A working military that doesn't have to kow-tow the the President in order to save the lives of their soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen.
These are big freaking deals. These are all issues which directly affect the lives of workers. The NLRB has a great deal of power to affect, for instance, when overtime is paid. Right now many companies use a nonsense definition of "manager" in order to deny workers overtime pay. Under Obama, the NLRB was about to really help people who managed McDonalds and other places because in reality those people are dramatically under-paid and expected to happily work long hours without OT.
The CPFB puts the fear of god into banks who want to play games with consumer lending -- doing absurdly criminal things to lock poor and working people into worse than loan-shark-level loans.
A functioning pandemic response team that actually, you know, responds to pandemics. The sheer number of people who have died because of the blundering of this Administration is horrifying.
I would expect those appointments would likely be mostly the same between Joe and Bernie, perhaps not the same individuals, but people with the same sorts of ideological temperament.
Biden is pro-choice, pro-trans rights, pro-climate, pro-working-class, pro-science, pro-education, pro-early childhood development.
If elected, Joe Biden will be the most progressive President the United States has ever seen.
Friday, December 13, 2019
The Nationality of Jews
So Maggie Haberman, of the New York Times, wrote that three Administration officials said the new executive order would make Jews part of a nationality.
Now, either
1. Haberman made that up out of whole cloth, or
2. the three officials coordinated and lied to her or
the three officials coordinated and somehow all thought they saw the same language in the EO, or:
3. the nationality of Jews WAS in the original EO (written by Stephen Miller, whose ideology that would factually represent) and after the immense criticism, the Administration delayed the EQ after announcing it and Jared Kushner had it re-written to be similar to previous EO's.
As far as I know, Haberman has not explained why the EO turned out so anodyne.
Sunday, June 30, 2019
3 times
At least three times in my life has a Republican presidential candidate conspired with a foreign power in order to attain the office of the Presidency and succeeded.
At least twice, the previous Democratic administrations had been aware but decided to not bring the case to law enforcement or to the American people for fear that the press would consider it "politicizing" or fear of burning intelligence assets.
At least twice, the previous Democratic administrations had been aware but decided to not bring the case to law enforcement or to the American people for fear that the press would consider it "politicizing" or fear of burning intelligence assets.
- In 1968 Anna Chennault, conspired with the South Vietnamese government to scuttle the Paris peace talks, assuring Saigon that Nixon would give them a much better deal if he became President. It was a clear violation of the Logan act, which Johnson called treason. Chennault was directed by Nixon to contact Saigon and keep the Paris peace process from continuing.
- In 1980, the Reagan team clearly executed an agreement with Tehran to keep the American hostages until after he won the election, preventing Carter from getting an October Surprise. Yeah, the Gary Sick allegations turned out to be nonsense, but let's get real -- the hostages were turned over 20 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and then, for some reason, the Reagan Administration decided to participate in the Iran-Contra Affair.
- And now, Trump/Putin.
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Against
Who would have thought it would be any sort of radical statement to write an anti-rape essay? Well, these are the times we live in I guess. So here is my diatribe against rape.
I was watching the brilliant Hannah Gadsby and she was saying that the awful predators -- from Weinstein to Trump to Kavanaugh -- were not the exceptions but rather the rule.
I don't agree. And this is why.
Statistically they are the exceptions. Indeed, by knowing their names we are all but guaranteed to know they must be exceptions. (We don't tend to have lists of specific people in mind when we're talking about things which are typical.)
That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of them, many more than just the "top ten" of terrible men you can think of, but it does mean (and yes, I realize what this sounds like) it isn't most men. Not 51% of them. Sure, there are way too many of them, but they don't even make up a majority of men. And that's very important. Because the bigger concern is: what do the non-rapey men do?
Clearly, not enough.
The sex creep, the rapist, the bully: they all want all of us to think what they're doing is "normal."
When a woman gets groped in midtown and screams and the creep tries to run away and two bystanders catch him, what does he do as he's sitting there waiting for the cops? He tries to talk his way out of it. The perp tries to talk to the men who caught him. He chuckles, saying "Hey man, everybody does it."
Now that gets him a kick in the head.
Because here's the thing, they know they're outnumbered. So they want to gaslight everyone -- women and men -- into thinking this is normal boys will be boys this is normal If someone did not commit sexual assault in high school, then he is not a member of the male sex this is normal.
Kavanaugh knows he's sexually assaulted women. And he wants you to think it happens by everybody all the time. He wants to normalize assault on women.
But the problem he has there is that actually, most men are against it. Most men don't rape people. Some, like his weird friend, actually awkwardly stopped him from raping Ford by jumping on Kavanaugh.
To be sure, Mike Judge didn't directly address Kavanaugh and tell him what he was doing was wrong, so he took what he thought was the socially-acceptable path of drunk white boys and jumped on top of his friend to stop him from raping a 15-year-old girl. (And this is not to say Judge did not at other times partake in raping women and girls who had passed out from drugs slipped into their drinks, but he did at least stop one rapist once.)
So no, Hannah Gadsby, I agree with pretty much everything you say, but this behavior of men? It's not the rule. These jerks are the exception. They just really really want us to all believe what they're doing is the "normal" thing. They want to live in a world where all women are walking targets, and the only way to do that is to convince most men that's what all the other men do.
But it's not what they do. The exception is the rapists.
The rule is how they get away with it. They make a fuss about how "manly" it is to rape girls. (And the sheer number of women who blame other women for getting raped is simply unsettling in an existential manner.) Between those two pro-rape forces (the men who rape and the women who defend the rapists), it becomes harder to get what we might call "good" men to stand up and say "No."
Harder. But not impossible. So you know what?
No.
§§§
I was watching the brilliant Hannah Gadsby and she was saying that the awful predators -- from Weinstein to Trump to Kavanaugh -- were not the exceptions but rather the rule.
I don't agree. And this is why.
Statistically they are the exceptions. Indeed, by knowing their names we are all but guaranteed to know they must be exceptions. (We don't tend to have lists of specific people in mind when we're talking about things which are typical.)
That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of them, many more than just the "top ten" of terrible men you can think of, but it does mean (and yes, I realize what this sounds like) it isn't most men. Not 51% of them. Sure, there are way too many of them, but they don't even make up a majority of men. And that's very important. Because the bigger concern is: what do the non-rapey men do?
Clearly, not enough.
The sex creep, the rapist, the bully: they all want all of us to think what they're doing is "normal."
When a woman gets groped in midtown and screams and the creep tries to run away and two bystanders catch him, what does he do as he's sitting there waiting for the cops? He tries to talk his way out of it. The perp tries to talk to the men who caught him. He chuckles, saying "Hey man, everybody does it."
Now that gets him a kick in the head.
Because here's the thing, they know they're outnumbered. So they want to gaslight everyone -- women and men -- into thinking this is normal boys will be boys this is normal If someone did not commit sexual assault in high school, then he is not a member of the male sex this is normal.
 |
| Jackson Katz |
Kavanaugh knows he's sexually assaulted women. And he wants you to think it happens by everybody all the time. He wants to normalize assault on women.
But the problem he has there is that actually, most men are against it. Most men don't rape people. Some, like his weird friend, actually awkwardly stopped him from raping Ford by jumping on Kavanaugh.
To be sure, Mike Judge didn't directly address Kavanaugh and tell him what he was doing was wrong, so he took what he thought was the socially-acceptable path of drunk white boys and jumped on top of his friend to stop him from raping a 15-year-old girl. (And this is not to say Judge did not at other times partake in raping women and girls who had passed out from drugs slipped into their drinks, but he did at least stop one rapist once.)
§§§
So no, Hannah Gadsby, I agree with pretty much everything you say, but this behavior of men? It's not the rule. These jerks are the exception. They just really really want us to all believe what they're doing is the "normal" thing. They want to live in a world where all women are walking targets, and the only way to do that is to convince most men that's what all the other men do.
But it's not what they do. The exception is the rapists.
The rule is how they get away with it. They make a fuss about how "manly" it is to rape girls. (And the sheer number of women who blame other women for getting raped is simply unsettling in an existential manner.) Between those two pro-rape forces (the men who rape and the women who defend the rapists), it becomes harder to get what we might call "good" men to stand up and say "No."
Harder. But not impossible. So you know what?
No.
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Space Farce
So, first of all -- I thought everyone was joking about this.
Okay. Not.
No joke.
Secondly -- how did Putin approve of this? How would this serve the Russian Federation's interests?
And again, last paragraph -- right there in the article.
Here's the exciting thing about the incredibly overpriced and behind-schedule F35 fighter. It can't dogfight. It can't fly faster than Chinese or Russian fighters. It is super-duper over budget.
But what's one thing it CAN do?
Pass undetected through Russian Federation airspace. In and out.
You might recall that one of the first things Trump wanted to do when he came in was to cancel the F-35 program. But then Republicans, whose districts had defense contractors, revolted. So the program didn't get cancelled.
Now, the US has known since the 80's and the "Billion Dollar Spy" (a Soviet national who was executed by the KGB for giving secrets to the US government) quite a bit about Soviet air defense capabilities. For a variety of reasons, including geography and the fact they don't have an economy because of the Magnitsky Act, Russia's modern defense system still ain't all that. And the US knows plenty about it, and how to build airplanes that can avoid it.
Putin knows this. Trump knows this.
So why Space Force? Well you see, it will help take apart the US military's ability to keep the Russian Federation from any (more) funny business in countries which punched out of the Soviet Union just as soon as they could. So how do you weaken the military under a smokescreen of not weakening it?
Space Force.
Space Force will necessarily require cannibalizing the other branches of the armed forces. And it'll start with the Air Force, which will likely be getting the most F35's (and will certainly have the F35's the Russian Federation is most worried about.) The more chaos is sown in the Air Force, the less able it will be to do anything if (say) Russia decides that it's time to force the issue on Ukraine.
So sure, this has little to do with what Putin can do to US sovereignty. This issue here is the Baltic states and Ukraine. Although Trump has done his darndest to dismantle NATO at the behest of Putin, he hasn't been able to damage it as directly as he'd hoped (and as Putin had hoped). "Space Force" is the next best thing -- take apart military capabilities that might affect Putin's aspirations to grow the Russian economy by expanding back into the Baltics and Ukraine.
Okay. Not.
No joke.
Secondly -- how did Putin approve of this? How would this serve the Russian Federation's interests?
And again, last paragraph -- right there in the article.
Here's the exciting thing about the incredibly overpriced and behind-schedule F35 fighter. It can't dogfight. It can't fly faster than Chinese or Russian fighters. It is super-duper over budget.
But what's one thing it CAN do?
Pass undetected through Russian Federation airspace. In and out.
You might recall that one of the first things Trump wanted to do when he came in was to cancel the F-35 program. But then Republicans, whose districts had defense contractors, revolted. So the program didn't get cancelled.
Now, the US has known since the 80's and the "Billion Dollar Spy" (a Soviet national who was executed by the KGB for giving secrets to the US government) quite a bit about Soviet air defense capabilities. For a variety of reasons, including geography and the fact they don't have an economy because of the Magnitsky Act, Russia's modern defense system still ain't all that. And the US knows plenty about it, and how to build airplanes that can avoid it.
Putin knows this. Trump knows this.
So why Space Force? Well you see, it will help take apart the US military's ability to keep the Russian Federation from any (more) funny business in countries which punched out of the Soviet Union just as soon as they could. So how do you weaken the military under a smokescreen of not weakening it?
Space Force.
Space Force will necessarily require cannibalizing the other branches of the armed forces. And it'll start with the Air Force, which will likely be getting the most F35's (and will certainly have the F35's the Russian Federation is most worried about.) The more chaos is sown in the Air Force, the less able it will be to do anything if (say) Russia decides that it's time to force the issue on Ukraine.
So sure, this has little to do with what Putin can do to US sovereignty. This issue here is the Baltic states and Ukraine. Although Trump has done his darndest to dismantle NATO at the behest of Putin, he hasn't been able to damage it as directly as he'd hoped (and as Putin had hoped). "Space Force" is the next best thing -- take apart military capabilities that might affect Putin's aspirations to grow the Russian economy by expanding back into the Baltics and Ukraine.
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Why Are You a Dupe?
Ever wonder why you fall for every "Hillary is a corrupt pizzagate" nonsense?
Well, as it turns out, you're a dupe of very specific propaganda.
The Medium lays it all out for you, aimed at making you a white supremacist.
But if you're a BernieBro, then perhaps the analogy is more like this breakdown of Gamergate by Innuendo Studios
Dupes and useful idiots are easily manipulated by targeted psyops campaigns. The good news is that understanding how the alt-right and the FSB work is the first step to ridding the world of these scumbags. Good luck out there.
Well, as it turns out, you're a dupe of very specific propaganda.
The Medium lays it all out for you, aimed at making you a white supremacist.
But if you're a BernieBro, then perhaps the analogy is more like this breakdown of Gamergate by Innuendo Studios
Dupes and useful idiots are easily manipulated by targeted psyops campaigns. The good news is that understanding how the alt-right and the FSB work is the first step to ridding the world of these scumbags. Good luck out there.
Friday, March 23, 2018
I Was A Tool of Russian Federation Psyops
Dear pandoramachine,
As part of our commitment to transparency, we want you to know
that we uncovered and terminated 84 accounts linked to Internet Research
Agency or IRA (a group closely tied to the the Russian government)
posing as members of the Tumblr community.
The IRA engages in electronic disinformation and propaganda
campaigns around the world using phony social media accounts. When we
uncovered these accounts, we notified law enforcement, terminated the
accounts, and deleted their original posts.
While investigating their activity on Tumblr, we discovered that
you either followed one of these accounts linked to the IRA, or liked
or reblogged one of their posts:
- mooseblogtimes
You aren’t in trouble, and don’t need to take any action if you don’t want to.
We deleted the accounts but decided to leave up any reblog chains so
that you can curate your own Tumblr to reflect your own personal views
and perspectives.
Democracy requires transparency and an informed electorate and
we take our disclosure responsibility very seriously. We’ll be
aggressively watching for disinformation campaigns in the future, take
the appropriate action, and make sure you know about it.
— Tumblr
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
The 50-caliber Mark
So, I find it kinda weird that the whole "right to bear arms" has essentially an intrinsic limit. Indeed, it would seem the limit is the National Firearms Act of 1934. That act has had a mightily confusing history. There's also the Gun Control Act of 1968.
What is that limit?
The caliber of what is acceptable debate concerning allowable weapons seems to top out at about, well, 50 caliber. Above that one ends up with a "destructive device" which is illegal. New Jersey, which has fairly restrictive laws regarding firearms may be banning 50 caliber guns. Nobody ever gets killed with those things -- they're fairly uncommon. But NJ may be topping out at 49 caliber. (Shotguns are exempted.)
It just seems odd to me that no one really seems to object that their right to bear arms doesn't actually include weapons a militia does in fact use. Like grenade launchers, rocket launchers, that sort of thing.
The entire argument over gun in the US is limited by a shared fiction that "arms" seems to begin and end with guns of certain calibers, that do not have explosive projectiles. So what does this right to bear arms really mean? Who knows?
Well, whatever the courts decide it means is what it means I suppose.
What is that limit?
The caliber of what is acceptable debate concerning allowable weapons seems to top out at about, well, 50 caliber. Above that one ends up with a "destructive device" which is illegal. New Jersey, which has fairly restrictive laws regarding firearms may be banning 50 caliber guns. Nobody ever gets killed with those things -- they're fairly uncommon. But NJ may be topping out at 49 caliber. (Shotguns are exempted.)
It just seems odd to me that no one really seems to object that their right to bear arms doesn't actually include weapons a militia does in fact use. Like grenade launchers, rocket launchers, that sort of thing.
The entire argument over gun in the US is limited by a shared fiction that "arms" seems to begin and end with guns of certain calibers, that do not have explosive projectiles. So what does this right to bear arms really mean? Who knows?
Well, whatever the courts decide it means is what it means I suppose.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Gender and things to do
I'm taking sewing classes. And I'm trying to come up with examples of things we do where the gender divide has gotten worse, not better.
I think 100 years ago it would not have been as uncommon for a man to be interested in sewing. Of course, men are "tailors" whilst women are "semstresses" -- they're not even some diminutive form of "tailor." Because, you know, everything is awful.
But what else? Dancing? I think we used to see more men interested in dance.
I think 100 years ago it would not have been as uncommon for a man to be interested in sewing. Of course, men are "tailors" whilst women are "semstresses" -- they're not even some diminutive form of "tailor." Because, you know, everything is awful.
But what else? Dancing? I think we used to see more men interested in dance.
Sunday, December 17, 2017
Oh Look, A New Narrative from the Kremlin
Hey, remember when we were told that the Democratic Party was too focused on brown people and their "identity politics" to win a national election?
Remember how it was time to reach out to white working-class voters instead?
Well things have changed. New orders have come in.
It looks like the Russian Federation has gotten a bit freaked by the election of Jones over Moore in Alabama. So their news, and their dupes and useful idiots in the West (like The Intercept), are working full-time to divide up the coalition which kept Moore out.
If you'll recall, back during our general election, the narrative that kept being pushed was that Bernie was the "people's" choice and the black women (who are a majority of the actual base of the Democratic Party in the United States) are irrelevant (because defacto their votes are worth less than those of rural, white, voters.1
That was then.
But now they lost Moore. So the new narrative being pushed is that "black women are being ignored by the Democratic Party." Which is true, but mightily rich coming from those sources. But the purpose of this new narrative is to divide the Democratic party. Before it was a matter of following the Bernie line of "Don't think in terms of identity politics, only care about the single abstract thing which matters to my white, educated base!" But now we're all about the identity politics because blacks and white liberals working together beat Moore.
So the new line is that the DNC only cares about white people. Not that it wasn't caring enough about them (which is how they lost the Electoral College.) Eastasia has always been our enemy, etc.
And that, for both the Russian Federation, and their useful dupes and willing agents, simply will not do.
1. See the 3 million more votes that HRC received than DJT and yet still lost -- ).
Remember how it was time to reach out to white working-class voters instead?
Well things have changed. New orders have come in.
It looks like the Russian Federation has gotten a bit freaked by the election of Jones over Moore in Alabama. So their news, and their dupes and useful idiots in the West (like The Intercept), are working full-time to divide up the coalition which kept Moore out.
If you'll recall, back during our general election, the narrative that kept being pushed was that Bernie was the "people's" choice and the black women (who are a majority of the actual base of the Democratic Party in the United States) are irrelevant (because defacto their votes are worth less than those of rural, white, voters.1
That was then.
But now they lost Moore. So the new narrative being pushed is that "black women are being ignored by the Democratic Party." Which is true, but mightily rich coming from those sources. But the purpose of this new narrative is to divide the Democratic party. Before it was a matter of following the Bernie line of "Don't think in terms of identity politics, only care about the single abstract thing which matters to my white, educated base!" But now we're all about the identity politics because blacks and white liberals working together beat Moore.
So the new line is that the DNC only cares about white people. Not that it wasn't caring enough about them (which is how they lost the Electoral College.) Eastasia has always been our enemy, etc.
And that, for both the Russian Federation, and their useful dupes and willing agents, simply will not do.
1. See the 3 million more votes that HRC received than DJT and yet still lost -- ).
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Scumbag Parents
The Benghazi wrongful death lawsuit brought against Clinton has been dismissed.
"Secretary Clinton did not portray plaintiffs as 'odious, infamous, or ridiculous...'" but I will. They used the death of their own child to score cheap political points in order to elect a racist puppet of a foreign regime.
Patricia Smith, the mother of State Department information officer Sean Smith, and Charles Woods, the father of CIA operative Tyrone Woods -- just what kind of parents are they? Ones more than happy to use the death of their own kids in order to make sure rich people get some tax breaks, that's who.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Friday, January 27, 2017
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Race and the anti-class
"Identity politics" and the "political economy" is essentially the schism between Blacks and Whites in America.
Marx is pretty much the father of all modern thought on the political economy. Even anti-Marxists have to go over to Marx's house to pay respects before moving on to complain about his math, or how his analysis of the present system held up but his predictions for the future all fell apart. And mostly, ever since Marx, economists of the left and right have wanted to put everything under an economic header.
Marx is pretty much the father of all modern thought on the political economy. Even anti-Marxists have to go over to Marx's house to pay respects before moving on to complain about his math, or how his analysis of the present system held up but his predictions for the future all fell apart. And mostly, ever since Marx, economists of the left and right have wanted to put everything under an economic header.
So things like racism and sexism were always put under economics, even by left-leaning economists. To them, racism and sexism exist to support the economic hierarchies. So we have to get rid of economic oppression before anybody can really be "free". And, in fact, sexism and racism are just part of capitalism and once we're rid of them everything will be just all right.
And, of course, this has turned into "If we fight sexism and racism and homophobia now, we're just wasting time because we really need to be fighting banks [or something]."
But my treason is thus:
- Racism and sexism are completely unexplained by Marx or any other governing philosophy
- Homophobia: also unexplained by Marx.
Even Bernie Sanders has missed the bus on this one when he complained about "identity politics" and how
he's sad the Democratic Party "can't talk to the white working class".
“One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics" -- Bernie Sanders
See, "beyond" means that we get to the "superior" thing which is the political economy. Or in other words, "what white people care about."*
Vox put it best when it said:
Sanders’s comments represent a flank of the Democratic party that partly blames Clinton’s loss on her strong embrace of race and gender issues, which could have turned off white male voters in particular. Meanwhile, the marginalized groups who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats fear being thrown under the bus, as they have many times before, so that the party can curry more favor with white Americans.
(This is where I put out that Sanders more often says things which contradict his quote above. He's coming along, albeit too slowly for my tastes.)
White progressives, well-versed in traditional left-wing notions of how workers trump (heh) women and blacks, are completely down with marginalizing a majority of the population as long as white men get good jobs. And that's because traditional leftism and actual anti-racism are mutually incompatible.
It is increasingly clear that it was neither white economic anxiety operating in isolation nor the white working class as a monolithic group that won Trump the White House. Rather, it was the fact that Trump’s campaign, in an extension of at least five decades of Republican strategy, was able to use overt white racism and white racial resentment to exacerbate and manipulate misplaced anxieties about relative group power and privilege in American society.
Historically, to be white was to be the quintessential American. In the United States, whiteness also proceeds from an assumption that white people are always and forever to be dominant and consequently the most powerful of all racial groups. This is white identity politics as both a practice and ideology. It is also the not-so-subtle meaning of Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again!”
People aren't racist because it helps them economically. The capitalist ruling class isn't actually helped by racism (note the revolt among businessmen when Gingrich targeted affirmative action.) But there are a lot of racists. Most of these racists are on the right. But we ignore the racism on the left at our peril.
*I'm
caveating that Sanders seems to be able to be talked out of this
nonsense though. His hard-core supporters are a different matter.
Monday, November 28, 2016
My letter to selected Electors in the Electoral College
11/27/2016
<<name>>
<<address>>
Dear <<name>>,
I am writing you with great concern regarding the influence of the Russian Federation in the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States.
I recognize that your election implies that you may vote for Donald J. Trump when the Electoral College meets. And I recognize that from a constitutional perspective, choosing to not vote for Donald J. Trump is a matter that necessitates grave pause and reflection. However, for the first time in my 50-odd years I believe we have come to the time where our country will seriously be imperiled by a president-elect.
The Russian Federation and its security services have repeatedly attempted to influence the American presidential election by using teams of hackers and cyber warfare agents aimed at servers housed in the United States.
Although Russia initially denied interfering in the election, the Vladimir Putin-controlled Russian media made clear their preference for Trump throughout the campaign. Trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration for Putin. Trump’s indications that the U.S. will no longer support NATO, the Kremlin’s bold moves to put missiles back in range of Germany, and Trump’s willingness to allow Putin’s government to operate unilaterally in Syria create, for me, a stunningly dangerous precedent and put the United States in clear and present danger.
It is my sincere belief that honorable electors, such as yourself, have a duty to prevent a president from taking office under the shadow of such foreign influence. I ask you, with my allegiance to the United States and not to a party, not to vote for Donald J. Trump for president of the United States of America.
Sincerely,
Andrew Bellware
§§§
Note that I didn't get terribly specific about Russian influence. The reason is that every dang day something new comes out. I mean, it's a real nightmare. I figure that by the time any Electors get this letter there will be more information about the closeness of the Kremlin to Trump.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Soooo Much Better Without the Clintons. So much. Soooooo much.
This Guardian editorial about how thankful we should be that we've gotten rid of the Clintons.
First of all, "moving the Democratic party – the party of FDR – away from what it once was and should have remained: a party that represents workers. All workers." -- now THAT's some ahistorical nonsense. Because the DNC was majorly split on race. Remember that? When the Democrats were the party of segregation?
Secondly, complaining about how there was a delicate balance between the party that represented the capitalist class and another that represented workers is also ahistorical and has a very strange relationship to reality. "This delicate balance ended in the 1990s." Really? What else happened in the 1990's. Oh wait! I know! The Republican monopoly on the US Presidency ended in the 1990's. Before Bill Clinton the DNC had only held the Presidency 4 years in 22. He ran the only way he could get elected. And it worked.
Thirdly -- we're making some wild suppositions here that if HRC ran a more left-wing campaign that somehow she would have won. The American Left loves to think that -- but every Democratic president (including FDR) has run from the right of the party.
I mean what's going to happen? "Oh thank god we got rid of those Clintons, now let's elect Jim Webb"? Every single time the DNC loses and the country shifts to the right. Every. Single. Time. The next DNC President has to run to pick up those right-wing votes.
Note, for instance, that Obama's health-care plan was to the RIGHT of Hillary Clinton's 1992 plan. That's what he ran on as a platform in 2008. (HRC has since adopted the Obamacare outlook.)
"Many blame Reagan and Thatcher for destroying unions and unfettering corporations. I don’t." Well, why not? What union-busting did Bill Clinton do? The incredible level of damage to labor under a Republican president stacking the NLRB is staggering.
Finally, Bill Clinton actually closed the School of the Americas. The American left HATES to admit this. That the nightmare of fascist revolutions in Latin America was brought almost to a complete halt by Bill Clinton. GHW Bush tried to start it up again in Venezuela but his coup failed. (And no, HRC did not support the Honduran coup.)
The shortness of memory is disturbing. The Left doesn't really remember when George HW Bush lied about intelligence in Iraq, manufactured intelligence, outed intelligence officers who opposed him, and started a war we're still in. But they "remember" a time whenAmerica the Democratic Party was great.
Gimme a break.
First of all, "moving the Democratic party – the party of FDR – away from what it once was and should have remained: a party that represents workers. All workers." -- now THAT's some ahistorical nonsense. Because the DNC was majorly split on race. Remember that? When the Democrats were the party of segregation?
 |
| Huh. Any difference in coverage you can see here? |
Secondly, complaining about how there was a delicate balance between the party that represented the capitalist class and another that represented workers is also ahistorical and has a very strange relationship to reality. "This delicate balance ended in the 1990s." Really? What else happened in the 1990's. Oh wait! I know! The Republican monopoly on the US Presidency ended in the 1990's. Before Bill Clinton the DNC had only held the Presidency 4 years in 22. He ran the only way he could get elected. And it worked.
Thirdly -- we're making some wild suppositions here that if HRC ran a more left-wing campaign that somehow she would have won. The American Left loves to think that -- but every Democratic president (including FDR) has run from the right of the party.
I mean what's going to happen? "Oh thank god we got rid of those Clintons, now let's elect Jim Webb"? Every single time the DNC loses and the country shifts to the right. Every. Single. Time. The next DNC President has to run to pick up those right-wing votes.
Note, for instance, that Obama's health-care plan was to the RIGHT of Hillary Clinton's 1992 plan. That's what he ran on as a platform in 2008. (HRC has since adopted the Obamacare outlook.)
"Many blame Reagan and Thatcher for destroying unions and unfettering corporations. I don’t." Well, why not? What union-busting did Bill Clinton do? The incredible level of damage to labor under a Republican president stacking the NLRB is staggering.
Finally, Bill Clinton actually closed the School of the Americas. The American left HATES to admit this. That the nightmare of fascist revolutions in Latin America was brought almost to a complete halt by Bill Clinton. GHW Bush tried to start it up again in Venezuela but his coup failed. (And no, HRC did not support the Honduran coup.)
The shortness of memory is disturbing. The Left doesn't really remember when George HW Bush lied about intelligence in Iraq, manufactured intelligence, outed intelligence officers who opposed him, and started a war we're still in. But they "remember" a time when
Gimme a break.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Quite Worrying
If we follow the GW Bush administration example, there will be about 9 months of Trump's buffoonery and incompetence and high-hilarity followed by a dangerous attack on the United States which sweeps him into greater power and war.
The incompetence of the Administration is what brought us 9/11. At all levels the Bush Administration was warned of an attack by al Qaeda, the FBI knew some of the operatives and the CIA knew they were in the country. But the Bush Administration did not want to focus on terrorism because that had been what the Clinton Administration had done.
The incompetence of a Trump Administration could bring us anything. And the press, as they did with Bush after 9/11, will be eating out of his hands even more than they are now.
The incompetence of the Administration is what brought us 9/11. At all levels the Bush Administration was warned of an attack by al Qaeda, the FBI knew some of the operatives and the CIA knew they were in the country. But the Bush Administration did not want to focus on terrorism because that had been what the Clinton Administration had done.
The incompetence of a Trump Administration could bring us anything. And the press, as they did with Bush after 9/11, will be eating out of his hands even more than they are now.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Germany in '33
If indeed we are standing on the precipice of Germany in 1933, where a racist demagogue will be swept into office, we are certainly in a Constitutional crisis.
Let's not normalize fascism.
We throw around terms like "fascist" and "traitor" all the time. But those words do actually have meaning. Until now, we've never actually had a fascist President. Sure, through some tortured logic you could say that someone had some authoritarian impulses, but not actual fascist ones. Not Nixon or Ford or Reagan or either of the Bushes. Some might have been war-mongering, some might have done spectacularly illegal things, but non have been actually fascist.
Until now.
And we (or more accurately, the Right) say people are "traitors" all the time. But treason is a very very specific crime in the US. The Constitution even defines it. And now we actually have a President Elect who is a puppet of a foreign state.
Now, it's also true that the FBI is in the bag for Trump. So much so that it's clear they will look the other way when Trump's Kremlin masters start pulling the strings. Arguably that, too, is treason. But not hyperbole. My guess is that they will be good at covering it up.
There is merit in having the Electoral College refuse to elect Trump. This is an actual Constitutional crisis but unfortunately the "good" people of the country are the ones who want to hold it together and there's a feeling that we can just ride this out.
Even when the country starts "registering" Muslims.
Relying on the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center to protect us is problematic as wars can be started with impunity as there will be no war crimes trials. The courts can be loaded and there will be no repercussions for any domestic or foreign actions. And then by the time a reasonable President is brought in they will have to spend all their political capital fixing the mess.
A theoretical fix, which is actually enshrined in the Constitution even though it hasn't really been used, is the Electoral College. This would be a drastic measure. But a racist demagogue who is a puppet of a foreign state, indicates a drastic time.
Otherwise we need to ask: what exactly do we do when Trump orders the Night of the Long Knives?
Let's not normalize fascism.
We throw around terms like "fascist" and "traitor" all the time. But those words do actually have meaning. Until now, we've never actually had a fascist President. Sure, through some tortured logic you could say that someone had some authoritarian impulses, but not actual fascist ones. Not Nixon or Ford or Reagan or either of the Bushes. Some might have been war-mongering, some might have done spectacularly illegal things, but non have been actually fascist.
Until now.
And we (or more accurately, the Right) say people are "traitors" all the time. But treason is a very very specific crime in the US. The Constitution even defines it. And now we actually have a President Elect who is a puppet of a foreign state.
Now, it's also true that the FBI is in the bag for Trump. So much so that it's clear they will look the other way when Trump's Kremlin masters start pulling the strings. Arguably that, too, is treason. But not hyperbole. My guess is that they will be good at covering it up.
There is merit in having the Electoral College refuse to elect Trump. This is an actual Constitutional crisis but unfortunately the "good" people of the country are the ones who want to hold it together and there's a feeling that we can just ride this out.
Even when the country starts "registering" Muslims.
Relying on the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center to protect us is problematic as wars can be started with impunity as there will be no war crimes trials. The courts can be loaded and there will be no repercussions for any domestic or foreign actions. And then by the time a reasonable President is brought in they will have to spend all their political capital fixing the mess.
A theoretical fix, which is actually enshrined in the Constitution even though it hasn't really been used, is the Electoral College. This would be a drastic measure. But a racist demagogue who is a puppet of a foreign state, indicates a drastic time.
Otherwise we need to ask: what exactly do we do when Trump orders the Night of the Long Knives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)