2016-o-Rama: Dem edition
Clinton Ominously Tells Iowan Supporters To Mark Front Doors With Campaign Logo Before Sundown The Onion
The Women Who Should Love Hillary Clinton Gail Sheehy, New York Times (h/t resilc)
Hillary Clinton: The Ultimate Outsider Corey Robin
The Clinton System Simon Head, New York Review of Books
In final Iowa blitz, an outraged Clinton channels Sanders Associated Press
Iowa caucus: Hillary Clinton’s latest move to court votes CNN
DNC Agrees To Hold Additional Presidential Debates Talking Points Memo
‘March for Bernie’ Is an Occupy Wall Street Homecoming Rolling Stone
The radical left has Bernie Sanders all wrong Salon.com (h/t Jeff W)
Puerto Rico offers plan to restructure its debt Washington Post
Syrian civil war: Could Turkey be gambling on an invasion? The Independent
Elijah Magnier On The Mistakes Of ISIS And The Future Of Jabhat Al-Nusra Moon of Alabama (h/t furzy mouse)
Tongue-Thai’ed – A woman’s (supposed) worth in a military man’s world Asian Correspondent
And this is why you don’t screw up post-USSR Russia Ian Welsh
‘He forced me many times. I ran away, but he always found me again.’ Washington Post. The overwhelming majority of the Central American migrants are fleeing haunting misery or certain death.
2016-o-Rama: GOP edition
Singer, Griffin Give Combined $5 Million to Super-PAC Backing Rubio Bloomberg Politics
Why it’s curtains for Jeb Bush and his $100M war chest Yahoo Finance
Trump Field Organizer Accuses Campaign of Sex Discrimination New York Times
US consumer is the last defense against strong dollar drag on the economy Sober Look
Strong Dollar Batters Earnings for U.S. Tech Firms WSJ
BofA: The Oil Crash Is Kicking Off One of the Largest Wealth Transfers In Human History Bloomberg
CLOs, Save Our Souls Bloomberg
HSBC to ‘freeze global pay in 2016’ BBC
Barclays, CS to pay $154m over dark pools Financial Times
Wall Street’s Role as Election Donor Grows WSJ
Big U.S. banks will be rolling out ATMs that take smartphones, not cards LA Times. I can think of about 36 mostly privacy-related reasons why this is a terrible idea.
Our modern world:
Loneliness grows from individual ache to public health hazard Washington Post
Too poor to retire and too young to die LA Times. Must-read of the day.
Biden’s cancer bid exposes rift among researchers Politico
Guardian bet shows digital risks USA Today
FBI Investigated Folk Singer Pete Seeger For Years Huffington Post
The Leak Hypocrisy of the Hillary Shadow Cabinet Emptywheel
Antidote du jour:
See yesterday’s Links and Antidote du Jour here.
132 comments
Comments are closed.
Hillary adopts new ‘goth’ look to appeal to youth
http://dandygoat.com/hillary-adopts-new-goth-look-to-appeal-to-youth
hahahahahahahahahaha
Does this mean my teenage self is hip again?
“I’m ready for my closeup Mr. DeMille…”
(The next to last scene in Sunset Boulevard for those who don’t get it)
“I am big. It’s the pictures that got small.”
greenwald has a good post on the “bernie bros” meme hillary supporters are using to slander the sanders campaign:
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/
Are there abusive Sanders supporters? Of course. Are a high percentage of Sanders supporters abusive? Of course not.
Are there abusive Hillary supporters? Of course. Are a high percentage of Hillary supporters abusive? Of course not.
How about everyone stop being assholes, and let’s reject those that pretend they only exist on one side.
Identity politics is the essence of Clintonism going back to slick Bill’s initial run…New Dem, Man from Hope, Fleetwood Mac theme song etc. It’s what you talk about when you don’t want to talk about what you really stand for. Plus they were coming off the 80s and it seemed to work well for the utterly superficial Reagan campaigns. Then, in 2008, they were hoisted on their own petard.
Here’s hoping the voters don’t fall for this hooey again.
well said!
Agree.
One thing I think you should know
I ain’t gonna miss you when you go
— Fleetwood Mac, Second Hand News
Can’t Help it ’bout the shape I’m in
I can’t sing, I ain’t pretty and my legs are thin.
But don’t ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to.
Oh well
— Fleetwood Mac, Oh Well (Then Play On)
And Salon is playing the meme to the hilt:
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/bernie_or_hillary_salon_writers_go_head_to_head_on_their_picks_for_the_democratic_nomination/
Amanda Marcotte and Andrew O’Hehir. Andrew is considerably senior as well as male. Ironically, I respect Marcotte’s writing when she isn’t on the subject of Hillary. For some reason, she thinks “but she’s a woman” is an argument. Well, I know why; it’s because she has a primary identification as a feminist, so the milestone thing is extremely important to her. But I still thought she had better sense than that.
Both have full articles a little higher in the blasted column (really bad architecture). I haven’t read any of these, because I don’t need to decide between the two. I just thought the head-to-head male-female opposition here was revealing.
I used to like Amanda Marcotte’s articles, but after law enforcement arrested the terrorist leaders in Oregon and killed one of them when he charged the officers, while trying to get his gun out of his coat pocket, she wrote a stunningly bad rant about how their three weeks of doing nothing was a genius move and how all of us who had been complaining were vindictive brutes. Then her Hillary stuff. I dunno, has something happened in the last month or two to affect her mind? Really, the Malheur article was just awful, false dichotomies and equivalences. Basically she was saying all the police were cool and justified in allowing the terrorists to go in and out freely, buy groceries and eat in restaurants, collect their mail at the post office, and sleep in motels then go back to posturing at the refuge. She insisted the only alternative critics offered was a full scale military frontal assault. I saw plenty of people, like myself, who wanted them to do what they seem to be doing now, setting up check points and letting people out but not in.
I can’t wait until someone labels me as a Bernie Bro. I’m going to point out that I’ve already voted for a woman for President of the United States, Jill Stein…4 years before any of the Clinton backers considered it. Checkmate!
Greenwald is an indispensable voice of reason.
For a moment I thought Rubio was the new toast of the D-List,
Ho Hum. Just another too slick by half politician sells out to the Zionist/Neocon warmongers.
I get an error500 when I try to access the Bloomberg article.
These 2 guys PLUS one are running their own SuperPac to wage negative ads against a single candidate. The superpac is Future45 .
All that money and Bush’s $100 million war chest – though not in trillions – they are contributing to the economy, trying to stimulate it.
We could already have been in recession already without it.
Regarding domestic violence of Central American migrants: it is generally accepted that domestic violence is the number 1 cause of homelessness of women and children in the US and apparently in much of the world. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/domestic.html
Seems to be a global scourge. Not just in Cental America and not just outside of US.
Capitalism has NO room for this ‘mirage’…truth
1/2015 https://www.domesticshelters.org/domestic-violence-statistics/homelessness-and-domestic-violence
2014 : In just one day in 2014, over 31,000
adults and children found
refuge in an emergency
shelter or transitional housing program.
•
That same day,
domestic violence programs
were unable to meet over 10,870
requests for services because of a lack of funding,
staffing, or other resources.
•
Fifty-six percent(6,126) of unmet requests
were for housing. Emergency shelter and transitional
housing continue to be the most urgent unmet needs
for domestic violence
survivors
http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/NRCDV-Stats-DVHomelessness.pdf
“We have an abundance of rape and violence against women in this country and on this Earth, though it’s almost never treated as a civil rights or human rights issue, or a crisis, or even a pattern. Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion, or a nationality, but it does have a gender.” Rebecca Solnit, Men Explain Things to Me
.
Domestic as in one’s home and one’s home country, for the Central Americans.
One reason I learned after some time working in Honduras that women don’t take birth control is that although they want it and need it and they are the sole support for the families and their plots get smaller and smaller with more and more kids is that the men will kill them if they think they are taking bc because they think they are sleeping around. The men, of course, impregnate everything in sight. It is simply patriarchy run amok……not that different than the muslim world……or Hindu world……we must remember Spain was under the Muslims for almost 1000 years.
This headline in the Guardian caught my eye:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/01/economists-david-cameron-open-letter-refugee-crisis-response-morally-unacceptable?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H&utm_term=154072&subid=1403698&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
The idea that a gaggle of economists have any familiarity with the concept of moral unacceptability seems really rather perverse.
“Strangers when you meet, strangers when you part -a gymnasium of bodies namelessly masturbating each other. People with no morals often considered themselves more free [free to create & implement morals], but mostly they lacked the ability to feel or to love. So they became swingers. The dead fucking the dead. There was no gamble or humor in their game -it was corpse fucking corpse. Morals were restrictive, but they were grounded on human experience down through the centuries. Some morals tended to keep people slaves in factories, in churches and true to the State. Other morals simply made good sense. It was like a garden filled with poisoned fruit and good fruit. You had to know which to pick and eat, which to leave alone.”
~Charles Bukowski
Dylan Thonas : “Ears in the turrets hear “.
The poem, read by P. Madoc on utube, is worthwhile. As a curiosity, one might listen to the abberant versions that are misrepresented as poetry.
Thanks McKillop
WaPo’s Robert Samuelson channels Alan Greenspan:
Greenspan, 2010:
Samuelson, 2016:
(1) There is no such thing as crowding out. This is a failure to understand what money is and how it moves. (2) This is a variation on #1. (3) Treasury auctions are always oversubscribed. Always.
The macroeconomic profession has been dead for over three decades. There are no “respectable authorities”, not even in the CBO. They all subscribe to versions of monetarism, which is based upon a complete misunderstanding of how banks work. The only thing that monetarism ever accomplishes is wiping out whatever middle class there is in any country that adheres to it.
Except: Federal Debt is Money. It is fungible. If is only NOT money if the US Government will not accept T Bills in payment of Taxes.
Both cash (and deposits) are money, “debts” to the Federal Government are are readily exchangeable.
What’s the agenda here? Austerity? Further concentration of Wealth? Both or something else?
I do not believe either of these people ignorant nor stupid. Thus they must have some other agenda.
That NYR article on the Clintons is really quite damning. With so much oppo ammunition lying around you have to wonder why Sanders hasn’t chosen to use it. He did talk about Goldman Sachs (provoking her “everybody does it” reply), but there is obviously so much more. It goes without saying that should the rude, crude Trump conquer the GOP he won’t be so delicate.
Sanders has been reticent to attack Clinton but I’ve noted a change recently: initially, Sanders almost bombastically declared that nobody cared about Clinton’s emails. Now he’s giving himself some wriggle room by saying that there is an investigation that should play out. I’ve been critical of Sanders for not being more aggressive but 1) he seems to be stepping it up, and 2) he appears to be succeeding … though today’s Iowa results will be the first genuine indication.
I moved to Iowa from the east coast 26 yrs ago. I can tell you that Iowans are extremely critical of what they consider negative campaigning. I would not consider factual distinctions to be negative, as long as the material not presented in a misleading way, but Iowans would not see it that way and would be turned off. Any criticism of another candidate here could easily backfire. Trump seems immune to this, but the Democratic voters would hold it against Bernie. Plus the MSM is in Hillary’s camp – look at how the reporters ask Bernie about Hillary’s emails (they bring it up), he answers that it is a serious problem under investigation, but he would rather discuss his policy ideas, then the media twists that into his breaking his vow not to campaign negatively. Bernie is using the best strategy for Iowa.
You make some theoretically valid points.
Bernie is using the best strategy for Iowa.
We’ll find out tonight.
Sanders needs Hillary dead enders and low info voters. Bernie can’t attack them or he risks losing them in the general.
Hillary is the “default” candidate by virtue of her standing. Plenty of her supporters will not vote on their primary day. Hillary doesn’t have the actual enthusiasm to do gotv for her supporters. “Default” Hillary supporters are likely Hillary’s largest bloc and the least likely to participate. Bernie does not want to give them a reason to rally around Hillary even if he holds his ammo. Hillary is obsessed with Bernie Bros because she needs to be a victim to get those people to participate. Trump was the default candidate in the Summer. He became the candidate when the GOP failed to produce mythical Reagan and attacked GOP supporters for not worshipping Jeb. The surges a day varying get degrees of Trump leads were indicative of a search for an other candidate, the mythical Reagan who was an outsider who reshaped the GOP. With the establishment denouncement of Trump, he became the candidate of myth. Sanders needs to prevent this on a smaller scale. Even tonight, low info Hillary voters will switch when they see young people on one side a day the crypt on the other.
It’s the Bill Belichick strategy. Attack strengths, weaknesses take care of themselves.
Hope you are right. However that NYR article just underlines what an incredibly weak candidate HRC is. If Bernie holds fire and allows her to prevail then much of the blame, IMHO, will be on him. Negative campaigning does work and it has worked in the past in Iowa (2004). Plus if your opponent is demonstrably corrupt then you have an obligation to bring that up. Politics, as Lambert keeps saying, ain’t beanbag.
Hop around the nets. The Hillary bots have started a new attack of accusing anyone who isn’t a Hillary supporter of helping the GOP. They are using the same phrases. I think they are worried soft Hillary supporters will be forcefully confronted by the age break down at the caucuses. Hillary field operations were a joke in 2008. Eight years hasn’t improved anything.
Even with a close Hillary win in Iowa, Sanders will crush it in New Hampshire. At that point, Hillary still lacks local enthusiasm which means the field operations of Iowa aren’t going to materialize going forward. They might for Sanders.
“The Hillary bots have started a new attack of accusing anyone who isn’t a Hillary supporter of helping the GOP.
This has puzzled me. Hillary’s campaign declare her strong enough to stand up to Putin, but they can’t handle Sanders’ supporters and Dem party disagreements? Does not compute.
Do you vote using a machine, or do you have a paper ballot?
If you vote by machine, do you really expect it to be counted and verified?
Washington State voter and my mail in ballot has been challenged every time, while with the old tried and true polling place that couldn’t happen, signature confirmed before voting. The Obama admin and bankster dems just look worse and worse by the day as the neolib positions of HRC go through their tortuous exposure. Also, how are all those homeless in seattle supposed to vote, does anyone know how that works? If you don’t live anywhere are you a resident?
Hillary support is reactionary, not logical. Hillary is getting crushed among the age group who weren’t old enough to vote for the co-Presidents in 1996 and maybe even 1992. Hillary is perceived as the embodiment of whatever anyone has attached to the Democratic cause. Many Hillary supporters voted for Bill twice during the height of GOP lunacy (yes, Obots, the 90’s was a bizarre time. There were three Star Trek series). Even though, Hillary has only really won one competitive race against a deranged opponent in a safe Team Blue seat, she has become a “known winner” because people don’t want their votes to have been wasted.
Sanders won’t hit Obama hard if Bernie wanted to because many of Sanders’ supporters are attached to Obama.
Man, I could kill for some new DS9, ST:V, etc.
Theres a 2017 Star Trek series in the work, but everyones assuming its going to be similar crap to the new movies in terms of tone. Or it might not be. Noone has any clue what its going to be like at this point. Its still over a year away.
Kurtsman and Orci the writers of Nu Trek are involved. Resistance appears to be futile.
‘Sanders needs Hillary dead enders and low info voters. Bernie can’t attack them or he risks losing them in the general.’
Yes. It’s probably his personal preference, as a matter of style, to take the high road. In contrast to the lowlife Clintons, who tastelessly sicced their hedge fund millionairess daughter on Bernie with hysterical denunciations.
But also, if Hillary gets indicted (or simply buried in fresh corruption eruptions), Bernie hasn’t burnt his bridges with Hillary’s stranded supporters.
Have to disagree on Belichick. Two of his decisions that perplexed some folks had to do with with keeping PManning off the field.* Those were about respecting the opponents strengths and taking risks to neutralize them. Best coach in football.
* 1) Going for it on 4th down while up in the game. 2) Trying a 2-pt conversion with about six minutes to go.
So which is it, are the HIllarybots going to turn out in droves to reenact their pitched battle against the forces of evil, or are they going to use their majority numbers in the service of sexist bigotry and stay home? The Democratic Establishment can’t have it both ways.
I think the Sanders campaign have made a deliberate decision not to attack too much, especially on issues (such as the emails) that look like Republican talking points. I suspect they know that it would be a turn-off for a lot of their supporters and lots of undecided if they did that. I suspect a lot of casual registered Dems really dislike negative politics when it is within their own party – usually its the hard core political nerds who enjoy that the most.
The problem of course is that it would be reasonable to assume that with so much evidence lying about the mainstream media would do Sanders job for him, and start asking proper questions. But for some really strange, odd, unaccountable reason (that was sarcasm, btw), they haven’t been doing that.
Ideally, someone else would do the attacking, but there doesn’t seem to be any suitable candidates for it. So he may well be waiting for Clinton to panic and step over the line to give him the opportunity to do it.
Thats my guess anyway.
The Telecommunication Act of 1996 explains the absence of the media.
Please explain.
Bill Clinton was a proponent of media consolidation. The modern media companies are out growths of the telecommunications act which ended bans on media cross ownership allowing a single company to control multiple media outlets in a single town. This Act gave rise to the Big Six media companies. Disney, News Corp, Viacom/CBS, and Time Warner own virtually the entire traditional news media due to this act. Hillary won’t work against one of Clinton Inc.’s accomplishments. As far as reporters and editors working group independently, where would they find gainful employment? The other other companies won’t touch loose cannons.
A little more, from a critical source that might be worth a further look:
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
The early to mid-90’s marked a change in the government’s historical relationship to the telecommunications industry. With the election of Bill Clinton – a moderate, pro-business Democrat – and the Republican ascendancy of 1994, an ideological shift took place in the way policy makers think about federal regulations. (2) Lawmakers began to favor laissez-faire, free market solutions to policy problems. In response to issues in the realm of telecommunications policy such as competition, prices, and universal service, many politicians felt they should “get rid of the rules and let competitive markets provide choice, fairness, and opportunity on their own.” (3)
Not coincidentally, these shifts in regulatory thinking came at a time of increasingly media-oriented political campaigns and of huge donations by media corporations to public officials. (4) It was in this environment that Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act specified that rather than the previous arrangement in which companies were lent frequencies on a short-term basis, the government would now auction off long-term control. The legislation effectively redefined ownership of the airwaves as “private sector ownership, rather than public or nonprofit ownership.” (5)
Because there would be greater opportunity for profit, it was argued that deregulation would encourage private sector investment in new technologies and extended service. Faith in a laissez-faire system of oversight convinced politicians that competition between several different companies would ensure that the public interest was served. In addition to auctioning off of the public bandwidth, the Act was intended to foster competition in the local telephone access market.
Public commons redefined as private playground. “Markets.” Bullet in the head of fairness, moneitzation, financialization, crapification. …
…However, the lack of consumer choice within the broadband industry could also pose several problems. As provided by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the FCC allowed large national and multinational firms to bid for frequency rights. Consequently, it was difficult for small, local efforts to compete against large corporations. The result was that 62 of the 99 Internet broadband licenses were won by 3 national bidders, which undercut the professed goal of increased competition. (13) [Part of the same process that the TPP-TTIP-TISA thieves are advancing.]
As in the cable and local telephone industries, broadband competition will be dependent upon the willingness of network owners to open up to competitors. This hasn’t happened in cable or local telephone service, and without government enforcement there is no reason to believe that competition will happen with broadband. If competition does not emerge in the broadband industry, consumers will likely see increased costs. Also, community based organizations that have long relied on partnerships with local businesses will likely find it more difficult to gain help from large, bureaucratic national corporations.
Further, the nature of the Internet could be altered by large broadband providers. The Internet has always existed under the model of open access – one’s ability to navigate the Web has by definition been unrestricted. (14) However, “the industry’s plan for the next generation of the Internet is essentially a closed model” in which cable ISPs will have the power “to determine who has access to deliver information to citizens.” (15) For example, cable ISPs could potentially “restrict customers’ access to [other services’] news, movies, or music. (16) Large ISPs will also be able to “direct traffic toward those content areas in which profits from advertising and e-commerce can be maximized.” (17) https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/rhodesprp/01_02/divide/dereg.htm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z3JLKw0q4kY
This TV fun house is cut from reruns of SNL a day was only aired once live.
Wow. Good work.
I believe Madame Secretary’s campaign is doomed for a reason that will make sense to any economist. It’s the efficiency. Sanders is raising funds at parity with her, without the baggage of a massive fundraising operation or having to do constant multi-thousand dollar a plate dinners. Any of which could provide the kind of candid “just us elites in this banquet hall” remark that turned out so problematic for Mitt.
He is simply doing more with the contributions he has. She hasn’t been able to use her small advantage of resources to undermine his legitimacy. It’s a variation of Jeb Bush (and his bundlers) headache.
And beyond the simple dollars to motivated voters argument it also simplifies the policy side of the shop. Consider the internal vetting and management madame secretary needs to address a policy question like TPP or Keystone, just to name two recent examples. It takes a lot of nuance to sell a 3rd Obama term.
I wonder if Bill is not trying hard enough.
I recall that Mitt, of the honorable and ancient house of Rumney, got in trouble for saying he likes to fire people.
That seems to be Trumps whole angle now.
The whole Clinton scheme is bribery and corruption on an epic scale. If it was occurring in the third world fingers would be pointed everywhere. But because it’s occurring in the US and nearly all congressman senators and governors and industry all have their snouts in the trough, it’s considered business as usual. In the third world it’s just not as sophisticated in it’s execution, thats all. Different setup but the same result.
For example this from the article: “from October 2009 through December 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, there were at least thirteen occasions—collectively worth $2.5 million—when Bill Clinton received a six-figure speaking fee from corporations or trade groups that, according to Federal Government records, were at the time engaged in lobbying at the State Department.”. It’s impossible for a conflict of interest not to occur here.
The other day there was an article in the links called the “normalisation of deviance” which attempted to explain how VW falsifying car emissions was seen internally as ok to do.
If ever there was a case of ‘normalisation of deviance’ it’s the use of ‘charity’ Foundations, speaking fees and campaign finance by the likes of the Clintons and co.
On a much smaller scale Shane Warne, Australian Cricketing legend, has just announced he is shutting down his Shane Warne Charity Foundation after investigations are showed that only 16 cents per dollar raised ended up in deserving recipients hands. The foundation was used to run ‘charity’ poker tournaments and other fun ‘charity’ celebrity bashes. In one year his brother (the foundation general manager of course) was paid $80K but the foundation only paid out $54K to recipients. In 2013 they raised $500K revenue but only paid out $50K.
Everyone is in on the game it seems, charity non profit foundations are such a crock…
So with that hat the hippo has to be on a turtle team. Like to see his jersey too.
I’m impressed by the hippo’s fashion sense. He or she belongs on the red carpet on Oscar night!
Over breakfast one morning, a woman said to her husband, “I’ll bet you don’t know what day this is.”
“Of course I do,” he answered as if he was offended, and left for the office.
At 10:00 a.m., the doorbell rang and when the woman opened the door, she was handed a box of a dozen long stemmed red roses. At 1:00 p.m., a foil-wrapped, two-pound box of her favorite chocolates was delivered. Later, a boutique delivered a designer dress.
The woman couldn’t wait for her husband to come home.
“First the flowers, then the chocolates and then the dress!” she exclaimed.
“I’ve never had a more wonderful Groundhog Day in my life!”
anyone else Blinded by all the Red Flags: According to Harpers, in 2014 police seized more assets than burglars stole. http://www.ianwelsh.net/police-now-steal-more-than-burglars/
Are the police so under-funded that they have to self-finance?
Or is the claim that in the brave new world is one banks rob you and police steal from you, and not the other way around?
“We, as your neighbor, have to invade and attack you to keep you in peace. Want some Turkish delight?”
Gez, at that rate it’s more profitable for the police to encourage crimes.
Job Security. didn’t a firefighter in Denver get caught setting fires for that reason…jobs?
They already do. It is called The War on Drugs, and the authorities has no intention of winning the war, because that is a job killing success.
As is legalizing drug production, distribution and use.
Prohibition gives rise to violent dispute resolution, and thus grows police budgets.
Human nature on any war…War on Poverty, etc…to perpetuate.
I think it was some guy, some guru, in one of the documentaries I have seen who said, after thousands of years of religious charity to help the poor, we have more people in poverty than ever before.
Religious charity, government charity…
Never giving money magic lantern to the people directly…always sacerdotalism. ..some exceptional beings to intercede on behalf of the little guys.,,because they can decipher Latin or Moneyspeak.
Here in Indiana, Mark McKinney is famous for acting as a prosecutor while simultaneously receiving a percentage of forfeited assets as a private attorney.
Gotta love that incentive system…
in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06161101per.pdf
{Whoops, responding to aby…}
It reminds of the tobacco lawsuits.
Never filed ‘In the name of the victims’ nor ‘In the name of the people.”
Some reward money justifiably went to the victims. But the people – the plaintiffs?
Would it be over the top to suggest that characters such as McKinney ‘celebrate ‘ Groundhog Day daily?
Globus Pallidus XI sometimes comments here. I am highlighting his last blog post (http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/) because the first paragraph is a remarkably complete and succinct description of what most Americans are undergoing and what fuels the Trump and Sanders insurgencies:
“Just look at what is going on in the United States today: Wall Street is being given trillions of dollars in subsidies while little people get zero percent interest on their savings, and pensions and social security are set to be ravaged to help pay for this largesse to the plutocrats. A mandatory private health system was enacted that will radically increase the profits of for-profit insurance companies while the average person faces costs so high that they cannot actually afford to use their insurance. Trillions of dollars are spent in wars whose only obvious point is to enrich politically connected defense contractors, while roads and bridges in this country are allowed to fall apart. The borders are being thrown open to massive third-world immigration so that wages for the many can be driven down and profits for the few driven up. None of these things are happening because the people themselves want them.”
The rest of the post accurately identifies a weakness in representative democracy that will probably wind up killing it: the possibility of oligarchs simply bribing and intimidating the representatives.
“…… the possibility of oligarchs simply bribing and intimidating the representatives…..”
Possibility?? Try Standard Operating Procedure.
Economists won’t admit, can’t even contemplate, that at some critical juncture wealth goes beyond influence and can becomes naked power. In the 1950s the wealthy were influential. By the 1980s they had become powerful. Today, they are dominant, although they don’t always get everything they want (many politicos are smart enough to understand that when the day comes when there is no more plausible deniability that the rich get everything they want then the jig is up). So the Big Lie of Neoclassical Economics must be maintained: that in a market economy no one has any power; and, the fact that the power to invest and the power to fire are as real and coercive as the power to tax and to arrest must be denied and denounced at all hazards.
“the Big Lie of Neoclassical Economics must be maintained: that in a market economy no one has any power; ”
This is true (and Adam Smith was extremely clear about it) ONLY IF the units in the market are quite small. Great wealth is also market power, which essentially shuts down the market. The end result is shockingly similar to the monopoly state capitalism the Soviet Union once practiced.
After the government has been captured, including aforementioned representatives, finally, we have a presidential candidate being advised by an expert in enlightening the government about its power to spend as much as it wants.
“the possibility of oligarchs simply bribing and intimidating the representatives.” Hence the NSA. Nationalize the Fed and take away the trough and power of the oligarchs and return it to the people.
He forgot the country’s water systems!
one of the best antidotes ever!
Turtle: Not only is this rock soft, its nice and warm….
Hippo: I think my hat has a French look, and gives me a certain savoir flair
Re: The Women Who Should Love Hillary Clinton
A stealth endorsement. That’s my take anyway.
Sheehy claims ambivalence, but with paragraphs like this, it seems clear she’s trying to sell the Clinton brand:
Does she mean contributing to immiserating poor people and protecting wealthy crooks? Because that’s what she’s been doing. Sheehy acknowledges this reality, but then goes out of her way to ignore it. She is obviously aware of Hillary’s failures, as are the women who “should” love her:
But then Sheehy forgets about all that, and asks the readers too as well, so we can focus on how Hillary has “contributed” to the country and the world by, you know, standing by Bill and not taking sh*t from the media.
The women who don’t love Hillary are upset by her policies (“she’s establishment; she’s a hawk”), but Sheehy thinks it’s about “passion,” whatever the hell that means.
What is it that fires up Sanders supporters? Policy. What is it that has left behind working-class whites (along with working-class everybody else)? Policy.
Note to Gail Sheehy: it’s the policy, stupid
+++++
I have yet to see a list of all the things she (and bill!!!) have “done for women and girls.” As near as I can tell, their reproductive freedoms are being steadily eroded, they’re still being assaulted with impunity in the military, there’s still not equal pay for equal work and their children, even the “girl” ones, are undernourished in greater and greater numbers.
These women who “should” be voting for hillary HAD a candidate that they could support with “passion.” Her name is Elizabeth Warren. I have no doubt plenty of men would have supported her too. That she chose not to run does not change the fact that a woman does not have to sacrifice her integrity to be politically successful. Quality is worth waiting for, and when a quality woman candidate runs, she will be elected.
You don’t have to go to the party just because you were invited.
The glass ceiling HAS been broken. It just wasn’t hillary who broke it.
Changing my handle for the duration, as counterweight to the BernieBro meme. And yeah, I’m a boomer as well as a woman.
And Katniss, I too am looking for that list of Hillary accomplishments. I am not saying I know they don’t exist or anything, but I quite literally can’t find them. And not just with regards to Women’s issues; any substantial accomplishment that isn’t just more of the same capitalist giveaway/chicken hawk crap. I do not count chairing conferences or rousing speeches; talk is cheap.
Please, anyone – has Hillary really been absolutely nothing but propaganda regarding the poor/minorities/women? Or is there something – legislation, a halfway house, anything?
She did join Warren and pushed for opposing the bankruptcy reform bill in 1999 when she was First Lady. However, as NY Senator, she voted for it, in 2001, arguing that she’d gotten a concession for women and minorities. I am told that provision was mere window-dressing. From Georgetown law professor and bankruptcy expert Adam Levitin:
She did not vote on the 2005 bill. Her excuse was that Bill was having an operation. But it was minor, I believe a wrist operation, which means local anaesthetic and outpatient. This was probably not urgent, which makes one wonder why it was not scheduled for a Congressional recess.
‘It took a Hillary … to allow [the Clintons] to continue contributing to this country and the world.’
Breathtaking effrontery! At last count, since the Clintons left the White House penniless (according to Hillary), they and their foundation have raked in over $2 billion in contributions, making the Clinton Foundation the biggest influence peddling operation in American history:
Like Third World dictators, the Clintons draw no distinction between their personal interests and the government’s. L’etat, c’est moi.
Goes with “Apres moi, le deluge.”
The only thing Hillary has protected is the Clinton Foundation funds and her husband from the plethora of sexual attacks he has forced on naive and unsuspecting women. Monica Lewinsky is an example of this:
Monica 21 year old intern vs. Bill Clinton the leader of the “free” world, not exactly a fair fight.
Iowan Paul Street on what a pain it is to participate in the Dem Iowa caucus. They give speeches!
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/01/the-iowa-caucus-is-a-classist-and-ageist-farce/
He has a point, but boy does he overdo it. And the Electoral College is not authoritarian–that’s just a stupid accusation. It’s not at all democratic, but it is not authoritarian. The most obvious thing the caucus points out is our national aversion to granting people holidays. I’m 51 and can still remember days in my childhood when everything was closed. I mean everything, except hospitals and police stations and fire houses. Now, all these patriotic Republicans in congress and the state houses can’t even give us all off on the Fourth of July.
I dunno. The Iowa caucus sounds like the sort of thing this voter would definitely not want to participate in. In our media saturated age if you haven’t made up your mind by election day then you must not be paying much attention. Street makes Iowa voting sound more like jury duty. No wonder turnout never tops 16 percent.
The caucus differs from precinct to precinct. I’ve been told about speeches given in support of the Dem candidates around Iowa City, home of the University of Iowa. My precinct, though, is a residential area that does not overlap with the colleges in my city, and the times I have gone to caucus, there have been no speeches in support of the candidates. The last time I went (2008), there was not even any discussion between the groups. The Hillary campaign had sent a state legislator from a different city who body blocked the Obama supporters from having any contact with the Hillary group.
I do think the caucus, as opposed to a primary, is exclusionary. The whole idea of Iowa voters performing the nation a service in evaluating the candidates, because the voters “kick the tires” up close, is also silly in this day and age. How much information does one get from listening to stump speeches and packaged answers to questions? Much more could be learned from reading about a candidate on the Internet.
About the ATMs that only work with smart phones–I don’t own a smart phone. Banks issue the cards one uses at an ATM. Are they going to issue me a smart phone so I can access my own money?
Few things offend me more than the automatic assumption that 1) everyone has access to the internet, and 2) everyone has a smart phone. My wife works in a rural school district in the Hudson Valley (not outer Mongolia). They surveyed the district. Seventy percent of households have no internet access from home. Yes, that’s right–70%. ATM cards are universal for all those with bank accounts. Smart phones are expensive and intrusive luxuries. You shouldn’t have to buy something in order to loan your money to a bank.
The “big banks” don’t really care about consumers….just their money. They may learn a costly lesson if customers (not in big cities) dump their accounts because of the banking establishment assumption.
I refuse to use a smart phone.
“Too Poor to Retire and Too Young To Die”
Finally newspapers are beginning to write about the true costs of debt-fueled oligarchical-capitalism: it steals your dreams while you live in an illusory world where everything you have is technically not yours.
Seems like everything is fine and dandy until you can’t get a job due to old age and then all the debt comes crashing down. These stories are unbelievably tragic yet I fear they will be more common as the corporations squeeze more and more out of the dead carcass that is the middle class these days.
I’ve got a friend that is in the same foundered boat. Almost 80, crippled by degenerative spine disease, worked until a few months ago when it became impossible, still paying $300 a month on student loans from the master’s and doctorate she finished 30 years ago. Very intelligent and competent in her helping field, but has just buried an abusive husband after years of caregiving his dementia. He had emptied the pension and savings accounts which he insisted on sole control over. So her hopes now are that she can get into HUD housing, qualify for some pittance benefits beyond SS, and live on the kindness of strangers and a few family and friends.
Interesting that abusive policies charge ahead on the basis of often fraudulent anecdotes (Willie Horton, “welfare queens,” e.g.), while the stuff that fosters decency and comity gets zero bump from anecdotes like the linked one and my friend’s. But that is the nature of a human system where the ratchet only turns one way, and the supposed people’s choices can’t usually manage to even keep the lever from winding in another click or full turn of the screw…
Hillary’s Never Ever comment blew me away. My dream is that I live to see Health Care for Everyone in this country.
So how could I possibly vote for Candidate “Something that’s Never Ever Going to Happen”? Especially when there is a candidate who actually has a plan to get it done?
That’s what I’m thinking today anyway.
Seems she “negotiates” just like obama on this issue.
… And I didn’t like it then. His threat to pass ACA or wait maybe 20 years for another shot at it. (Bottom of page, not the best example his statement but this was 4 pages into a google search)
How soon we forget.
“Today, a fiery Obama made a passionate plea for Congress to pass reform legislation by highlighting the struggle of one Ohio woman who faces a serious illness without health insurance.”
No. She faces a serious illness without “healthCARE.” Not that this is “news” to most here. All she got was a crummy INSURANCE policy. Nowhere in that article is the word “healthcare” even used. All “insurance,” all the time.
And hillary wants to “strengthen” the “law,” to build on that “foundation.”
What could that even mean?
Alllllllzzzzzz I know is, we have been warned.
Now, now Katniss – there’s always the “robust public option” sparkle pony. ;-)
It was euthanized.
…canned as a senior animal protien supplement
I was going to write a stand-alone post, but yours is related. On my way into work this morning (at the regional hospital in Lebanon, NH), overnight there had magically appeared 7(!) Hillary Clinton signs stuck in the ground one right after the other, about 2-3 feet apart, at the light/turn off for the hospital entrance road. I found it very ironic.
The Ground Game in action.
” overnight there had magically appeared 7(!) Hillary Clinton signs stuck in the ground one right after the other, …”
Burma Shave!
Yes!! hahaha that is exactly what it looks like-but closer together! I wish I could post a pic of them. It’s almost like someone got lazy and said “To heck with it. They’re all going here. I want to go home.” Just ironic they are all at the hospital entrance road when she isn’t very keen on people receiving health care.
I remember driving through Iowa, back in the day, and yes! Burma Shave signs!
No doubt an updated political application is possible….
Shorter Clinton: “You can’t have nice things. Even when the rest of the world has them.”
And Clinton’s continued beating on single payer is just weird. Any lifelong Democrat who isn’t in the upper-echelons of the party wants single payer, wants Canada’s system and not ours. So denying it will ever happen or would cost more money (we’re not stupid, we know it’s cheaper) basically offends the desires of her “base”. Does a Repub go into a room full of fundamentalists and tell them that Roe v Wade will never ever be repealed?
Clinton tells us to ask for half a loaf, then be happy when we get a quarter or eighth. But we’re still $%*#-ing hungry!!
I submit that Hillary’s statement is even worse than what you describe. We all know that most politicians think nothing of lying during campaigns. Obama was a master at it, even during his days in Illinois. Then they fall back on excuses once elected, and we’re all supposed to heave a collective sigh and believe they really would have fought for change if only…(fill in the blank). Hillary, on the other hand, has told you to your face to, literally, “drop dead.”
I don’t see how this isn’t a game changer for anyone who was even remotely thinking of voting for her. To me, this is her “macaca” moment or, perhaps, the moment she, like Mitt Romney says “there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.” Like Romney, Hillary has just told you she doesn’t believe you are entitled to health care. This is, truly, the one life-or-death issue in our country, and, when a candidate tells you she won’t even try to make your life better, this is the death knell for her candidacy. Why would you vote for someone who wants to make your life worse?
(Ford to New York, Drop Dead)
I wouldn’t vote for her now. It’s just such a shock. I had a great deal of respect for her in 2008. Back then right in her plan she talked about people who were paying 25% of their income on health insurance and people without insurance because they couldn’t afford it. She KNEW that was too much and had to change.
She knew it then and fought with Obama over it. This was why I supported her.
What happened? We are still paying too mich or unable buy it at all. Why doesn’t she care now?
“oil prices…wealth transfer”
I love the framing that Main St has energy futures priced in.
I’m paying less at the pump, but where are the price decreases for all of the other consumer goods that rely on oil? Someone else is reaping those gains, not me.
About 10% of my food budget are imported items whose prices have remained the same although the currencies of the countries of origin have declined precipitously against the USD.
The woman in this story has an annual income from Social Security & a pension of $16, 680.00. That income places her just barely above the income level of $16,242.00, which is 138% of the FPL for a single person. If her income from those two sources was within 138% of the FPL, she would qualify for SNAP food benefits & Medicaid. If she were able to qualify then she probably wouldn’t have to work to earn more income to meet her needs.
I believe that the current level of income to qualify for these Federal benefits are too high. Our country/society should be ashamed.
Hold on there. In many states, the value of that RV would be added to her dollar income as a ‘resource.’ Don’t forget, the present cadre of neo-cons want the poor to become desperately poor, hence, less of a potential nuisance. That dental ’emergency’ she mentioned as pole axing her, we can empathize with. It happened to us recently. As in our dentist offered 40% off of work, and we decided to have Phyls work done while we could afford it. A painful bite out of the budget to forestall a huge one later.
Under USDA rules, the value of a primary residence that is owned or mortgaged for purchase (including lease to own) cannot be considered when determining SNAP benefit eligibility. The same is true for 401K’s, IRA’s and investment accounts.
Is the RV a “primary residence,” and where is her domicile given her mandatory peripatetic life? Is the ancient Buick I just saw people living in (mother and two kids) a “primary residence”? I bet in Rick Scott’s Florida, it is. And maybe WI and MI and KS and TX and MS and the rest…
I’m just sure SOME state bureaucracy, likely operating for years now under a neoliberal regime, is just ACHING to provide any help to a person who so obviously has been able to (minimally) “take care of herself,” the Libertarian Ideal…
It’s actually quite ridiculous when you think about it. She has income of not quite $1400 a month. I live in a low cost of living area and even here she’s end up having problems with finding housing on that. Most of the reputable apartments want you to prove(for their safety as well as yours) that you make 3 times the rent. She’s be looking at having to find housing for under $500 a month to move out of her uninhabitable RV(and even then she’s still got almost $250 in payments for something that at this point isn’t helping her.)
My heart breaks for her because even though I think she’s made some questionable choices(Why in the world would you put off your dental when you already ended up paying for $8000 in emergency dental work?) it’s very clear she is trying her best to balance some semblance of a quality of life with her limited funds.
The second story is downright depressing too. Great! We’ve got a guy who admits he struggles with emotional demons, is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and post traumatic stress with GUNZ. Because here in America nothing mixes better than mental health issues, coupled with financial struggle with a dash of guns……….we’re exceptional alright…..exceptionally stupid.
The government is wasting money on expensive toilet seats, but not even spending enough for people like that.
Big corporations are wasteful as well. Unless you’re a shareholder, a big shareholder, they won’t bother listening to you.
Citizens are, however, masters of the government, that is, the government of the people, for they people, and by the people.
No one will, or should, question or criticize any citizen for looking into public sector waste.
Maybe a particular agency, say your police dept, will tell you their work is not funded by you, the taxpayers.
But, still, they are your public servants and you are their master. You can look into to the waste.
Too poor to retire, too young to die
“deciding she was at her loneliest with a man in her life” Oh yeah, wise words:
“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
Imagine real border controls and no illegals residing and competing for low paying jobs and housing in our economy. How would things be different for the people like those featured in the article?
I wonder who they will vote for, or, if they even bother to vote?
Immigrants will always work harder…because humans have evolved to be more on alert in a new environment.
Min wage law – If an employer violates it, they will be prosecuted. if a worker wants to undercut another worker, by working for $3/hr., it’s illegal.
Max. Working Hours law – if someone wants to work 80 hours a week and charge for only 40 hours, by booking on 40 hours, with the rest of the work done, say, at home. It violates the max. hour law. it’s also a violation of min. wage law, when you take the total pay, billed at only 40 hours, and divide not into 40 hours, but 80 hours. It’s Darwinian at its worse with workers competing against other workers.
“I will study harder. I am taking the work home, studying at my own time to get that promotion.”
How many workers are like that? Working too hard to get ahead?
Yeah right, an unlimited ant line of workers willing to do weekends, nights, holidays all for minimum wage. I’m sure they’ll call the labor department if there are violations!
This old lady and all you young ‘uns better get used to the new normal. Guess you better get ready to “compete” with people “willing to work harder–for lower wages”.
Now hiring, preference given to bilingual Spanish/English.
Atlas Shrugged
John Bennett
The least-favorite son, vying for attention. “Me! Me! Me!” he says over and over until someone calls the police.
The prison system works on incentives now. $50 a head for the conviction of whoever you turn in and a $10 bonus for every ten years tagged on the sentence. This is working out fine. The incarceration rate is at an all-time high, the highest in the world, with least-favorite sons shooting up 40% in the last year alone, surpassing busts for marijuana and being black.
You probably aren’t aware that being a lest-favorite son is a crime. Well, it’s not everywhere, not yet, mostly in southern states and in Michigan. But the trend is catching on, and this is a stimulus for the economy. Incarceration generates cash flow, and the brilliant $50-a-head provision never would have come about if the Prison System hadn’t been privatized.
It’s become a little more difficult to send pot heads to prison, but it can still be done, and of course we all know that being black is a crime, that’s a given. So turning in a black, especially if you live in Mississippi or Alabama, is like money in the bank, $50-plus toward a new car or your favorite son’s college education. Then you can turn in your least-favorite son, pocket another $50, and have one less mouth to feed.
This is just one example of how private enterprise can put the country back on its feet. Given free rein, it would also abolish minimum wage, and then we could afford to give everyone a job, wiping out unemployment. Private enterprise would also convert Social Security into stock options, and the Dow-Jones would soar. It would do away with Medicare or Obamacare or whatever the hell they’re calling it these days, and people would be forced to take better care of themselves, which would mean fewer sick days, another big drain on the economy. People who called in sick without being able to prove it would be subject to prosecution, and you could add them to your list of people to turn in along with blacks, pot heads and least-favorite sons. With a little vigilance and zeal, you could build a pretty good-sized nest egg for a rainy day.
So pull yourself up by your bootstraps and start carrying your share of the load. Think of it as your civic duty.
Given free rein, it would also abolish minimum wage
Given free rein, it would abolish the 13th Amendment, rendering the minimum wage moot.
Minimum wage can be circumvented with workers volunteering to do the work at home.
I was shocked – Bloomberg article throws shade at Uber.
In North America, Uber has come closer to profitability, even with lower fares, in large part by taking a bigger proportion of driver’s wages. The company now pockets as much as 30 percent of a driver’s fares, up from 20 percent two years ago. Over the first three quarters of 2015, Uber lost $1.7 billion on $1.2 billion of revenue.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-01/uber-drivers-plan-strike-to-protest-fare-cuts-in-new-york-city
Unless taxicab companies were wildly inefficient (and I don’t think that is the case), I don’t see how Uber will be more profitable unless they keep more of the drivers earnings.
How long until Uber runs out of people willing to work for these low wages?
Re: Too poor to retire:
This story is awful. Here lies the remainder of the American dream: no retirement security, no nest egg, punitive SS, expensive COLA everywhere…although I question some of her choices, too, (leave your mobile home, your only asset, just throw in the keys?) HOWEVER, the fact remains that it is a crime when so few in this country have so much and so many have to work so very hard to just stay alive.
When the statistic came out recently about 67 billionaires having more than the world’s poorest 3.5 billion, my first thought was, “well, it won’t take much to round them all up.”
On a more practical note, it seems to me that shared living arrangements might go a long way to solve problems like this. Even up here in the PNW, a two bedroom apartment can be had for $1200/month. Shared with another person and that’s $600/month for rent, which might be doable for her. I’m sure there are nine thousand neoliberal reasons why this won’t work, and of course we must have more senior affordable housing, but it seems like a good start.
Re: Joe Biden’s Bid.
Not only cancer research but others as well, ( especially spinal cord injury research ) are inhibited by lack of cooperation, and by ego, and by greed. Not only USA but worldwide. Joe could have done more earlier as VP than as lame duck. Who was it that said ” Science advances slowly, and by hearse.” ?
Hillary Clinton achieved her political eminence by marrying one the most intelligent, canny, and slick politicians in US history. To speculate whether she would have achieved similar eminence solely by dint of her own efforts and intelligence without her husband, as Elizabeth Warren has, is low-grade, pseudo-intellectual blather. What’s feminist about her story?