Links 8/9/15

Subscribe to Post Comments

191 comments

1. nippersdad August 9, 2015 at 7:42 am

   Re Sanders and adaptablity: I’m not sure that what he is doing isn’t the right thing in the face of people actively trying to provoke a Dean Scream moment. The polite thing to do is to wave, smile and walk away. The strategy of not being drawn into a confrontation is working insofar as this time the nets aren’t plastered with stories about it. BLM Seattle just came off as a lot of boors and the novelty of such behavior has worn off.
   1. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 8:34 am

      I’m not sure I don’t agree, on reflection. Still, it would be nice to leverage the situation, wouldn’t it? specially since the black lives matter movement (all lower case for a reason) makes a strong case that nobody else is making.
      1. nippersdad August 9, 2015 at 8:50 am

         The almost ludicrously simple answer to what they want would be for the national organization to sponsor a debate about the issue; invite every candidate in both Parties and see who shows up. Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz could not afford to ignore such an appeal for more debates, and Sanders would prolly break down the door to get into one, if not actually organize it for them.

         I just cannot but get the impression that this is some kind of Swift Boating exercise. I don’t really get twitter, but Bernie-so-black and bow-down-Bernie, strident accusations of culpability on the part of/calls for an apology from someone who never did anything to them alongside the obvious lack of pressure on those like the President, the former and present AG, and the Clintons appear to be clear attempts to humiliate and marginalize an insurgent non-establishment candidate.

         I understand their pain, and many of them are prolly young and naive, but this smells just like a ratf**cking of the very people who would otherwise be their closest allies.
         1. nippersdad August 9, 2015 at 9:12 am

            Edit: I just found the link I couldn’t find for my comment.

            https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/24/documents-show-department-homeland-security-monitoring-black-lives-matter-since-ferguson/

            Shades of OWS.
         2. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 9:45 am

            Yes on both counts. There’s a kind of gleefulness to some of the Twitter that has a very 2008 feel. It’s by no means universal, and with the people who are actually out doing stuff, I don’t see it.

            On “otherwise be their closest allies,” I dunno. “White liberals” (note shudder quotes) do not have an unblemished record on these issues, and one obvious blemish is that BLM forced these issues onto the agenda (aided, it must be said, by anti-state sentiment in the libertarian faction of the right). I just fall back on the signature: The signature is that these disruptions only happen to Democrats with no real power. And there’s no pretty answer as to why that would be.
            1. Gareth August 9, 2015 at 10:26 am

               BLM targets the Sanders’ rallies because they are inclusive venues that are easy to disrupt and take over and serve as a demonstration to the Clinton campaign of what could happen to it too. When BLM starts showing up at establishment Democratic events it will be because they are looking for a seat at the table of power. A new generation of the Black misleadership class will appear, leaving the rank and file behind. This is the standard progression in American protest politics.
               1. Brindle August 9, 2015 at 11:45 am

                  I think that by only disrupting events of leftish Dems #blm is doing a “wink and a nod” with the Hillary centric power centers of the party—as for possible positions/jobs. Bruce Dixon basically says this.
            2. nippersdad August 9, 2015 at 11:00 am

               “I dunno. …do not have an unblemished record on these issues…”

               But, isn’t that exactly the point that the Sanders campaign is trying to address? You can rest assured that neither Clinton (who supported her Husband’s, Bush’s and Obama’s neoliberal projects) nor O’Malley (who implemented them) are not the ones who are going to bring any of this up. They are not “liberals” in a sense that actual liberals accept, that is why we always have Nader, Edwards, Kucinich, Stein and now Sanders campaigns.

               The people with the blemishes are not the ones who have been winning the debates over the past thirty years, and they are not the ones who control the agenda today which has denied BLM a podium. To conflate terminology is the hallmark of conservative rhetoric, and the talking points that I am hearing seem to be a classic case of projection. If the recipe for political success for such as Karl Rove was to find a candidates’ strongest points and then subvert them, there can be no better contemporary example than what we are seeing here.

               The Third Way Washington Consensus operates on the same principles regardless of nominal Party affiliation. I see no reason not to believe that the signature you have identified is not indicative of the answer you seek.
               1. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 4:58 pm

                  “But, isn’t that exactly the point that the Sanders campaign is trying to address?”

                  I think it is, indeed; but it will take more than a few weeks in a Presidential campaign to do the job.
            3. fresno dan August 9, 2015 at 2:08 pm

               On the internet (or twitter) most hot, blonde 18 year old cheerleaders are fat, bald, hairy, hyperhidrosis men…
         3. Ian August 9, 2015 at 2:39 pm

            This is on a discussion on FB Just found proof Mara Willaford is a member of the Outside Agitators 206. At third annual Visionary Politics Panel on February 3, 2015, Mara Willaford was listed as a panelist representing the Outside Agitators 206. She is NOT with the BLM group, and has hijacked their logo with the intent to discredit Bernie Sanders and BLM.

            Panelists:
            — Maru Mora Villalpando – NWDC Resistance (Not1More Deportation)
            — Gary Perry – Ending the Prison Industrial Complex (EPIC)
            — Jill Mangaliman – Got Green & Gabriela-Seattle (Bayan)
            — Mara Willaford – Outside Agitators 206
            — Zemzem Ahmed – Women of Color for Systemic Change

            http://carw.org/2015/02/02/visionary-politics-panel-2315/

            And here’s Marissa Jenae, also a member of the 206. Both women were members while the BLM movement was already active in Seattle.

            “Marissa Jenae, community activist and organizer with Outside Agitators 206,”

            http://thedignityvirus.com/…/olympic-medalist-john…
            1. Ian August 9, 2015 at 2:49 pm

               Leads to an interesting trail and they appear to be rightly taking a lot of heat.
               1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 9:25 pm

                  I guess you could belong to both orgs. Seems officialdom at BLM should chime in and help us solve this dilemma. I’ve been wondering if BLM has membership cards or something, or do you just sort of “self identify”, go to a couple meetings, then go off on your own, brainstorming w/ the girlfriend about hijacking a rally happening down the road somewhere?
            2. different clue August 10, 2015 at 3:34 am

               for what it is worth . . .

               Here is a Reddit entry titled ” the racist protester that shut down the Bernie Sanders
               rally” . . . and here is the link.
               http://i.imgur.com/WB1aNYP.jpg

               Anyone that anyone recognize?
      2. NotTimothyGeithner August 9, 2015 at 8:57 am

         Rudeness doesn’t sit well with people. This was rude. The issues being discussed were important. Joe Flacco had more play at the GOP debate than “#Blacklivesmatter.” People do notice this.

         Calling supporters of social security and Medicare “White supremacist liberals” won’t sit well with anyone except to the short term thinking of the Clinton camp.
         1. flora August 9, 2015 at 10:40 am

            Yes. That’s the kind of language I hear from the GOP. “Femi-nazi” for example. The BLM stalkers of Sanders are quickly turning themselves into the new generation’s Al Sharpton. To whose benefit? Clinton is quick to take advantage, and the GOP can sit back, smile, and know it plays into the worst stereotypes. If I were Karl Rove I’d be very happy about this BLM street theater since it could split the Dem party. Actually, this is exactly the kind of “charge them with the opposite of their positions” tactic he’s known for.

            Sanders’ voting record is rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record; and
            rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

            The SS and MC baloney shows a complete ignorance of who benefits most from SS and MC: low income and poor people. So their grandmothers are “white supremacist liberals”?

            If I were the Peterson Institute or Karl Rove I’d happily fund these particular kids’ antics.
            1. petal August 9, 2015 at 11:29 am

               +1. It all smells a bit fishy to me.
            2. NotTimothyGeithner August 9, 2015 at 11:57 am

               I’ve put Rove out of my mind until now. Thanks…I guess. You are right. It does seem like the kind of con he would play, but Rove struck me as less a go loyalist and more of a guy with a favorite horse. Who in the gap field is his horse? My gut is its not as simple as just Jeb. 43 usurped Jeb under Rove’s guidance. Walker?
               1. neo-realist August 9, 2015 at 1:26 pm

                  Walker from the debate is really starting to look like a male Sarah Palin, with less charisma. I would be surprised if Rove thinks he could be molded into a serious national candidate. Possibly Kasich, but he may be a little too rational and independent in way of providing the safety net protections when needed. Rove’s a die hard conservative ideologue and has probably been waiting and preparing to ride another Bush into the White House.
            3. TedWa August 9, 2015 at 12:09 pm

               Agreed – they can’t get to Sanders any other way
            4. hunkerdown August 9, 2015 at 4:03 pm

               If you were Hillary Clinton or any part of the Democratic Party Inc., you’d be putting change in their guitar case too. MoveON is doing a fine job of Rovian projection (there’s an actual term of art for this stuff but it escapes me).
         2. bayoustjohndavid August 9, 2015 at 11:55 pm

            “Calling supporters of social security and Medicare “White supremacist liberals” won’t sit well with anyone except to the short term thinking of the Clinton camp.”

            Unfortunately, every news report that I saw today reported that they disrupted a Sanders rally, not a “Social Security Works” rally. I’ve only seen one MSNBC, one CNN, and one local news report, but the headline on MSNBC’s “Weekend with Alex Witt” page still says BLM disrupts Sanders rally

            If BLM wants to disrupt Sanders rallies, I’ll let Sanders deal with it. But if these fools want to disrupt rallies to save Social Security, there’s no reason for anybody to treat with them with any respect. I guess the obvious thing is try to get corrections from media sites that report it as a Sanders rally.

            Of course black lives matter, but there as a difference in a moral principle and an organization. You can believe one without respecting the other, and an organization that receives as much attention as BLM can work to save black lives without disrupting efforts to save Social Security. As a widow’s son whose somewhat poor childhood would have totally impoverished without SS and a $25K a year adult who will starve in old age without SS, I see no reason to treat people who disrupt rallies to save SS with the slightest bit of respect. So, I’ll make no apologies for calling BLM fools, unless they turn out to be much worse than fools. I assume the percentage of retired black people whose primary retirement income comes from SS is similar to white people, so everybody, not just white progressives, should question their tactics. Hungry people matter.
      3. Ditto August 9, 2015 at 10:52 am

         You can’t leverage anarky

         Anything he says and does will be labeled racist

         You falsely assume the point is not to attack him or that the disruptions are really about improving black lives
         1. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 4:57 pm

            That’s why I said, above: “[I]f it fails, make sure the onus isn’t on the campaign.”
      4. Brindle August 9, 2015 at 11:38 am

         A piece from Daily Kos is from supporter of blm, it makes some goods points. I agree that the Sanders campaign should have it together enough to know how to keep the physical stage for the candidate.
         From DK:

         —I also think that the organizers of this event who invited Senator Sanders to speak failed to maintain control of their stage — and microphones.—

         http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/09/1410170/-Oh-Folks-Wait-a-Minute-Attacking-the-BLM-
         Movement-Will-Go-No-Where
   2. ScottW August 9, 2015 at 9:09 am

      I agree with you. One tactic is to tightly screen the crowd and/or forcibly lead them away from the microphone. That is probably what BLM Seattle wanted. It would be interesting knowing, to the extent BLM has any central organizing force, whether they agree with the disruption tactic.

      For now, I think Sanders handled it perfectly.
      1. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 9:39 am

         Or bring up a (pre-positioned) table and invite them to sit down with you at it; something like that. Surely there’s way to look and be actively inclusive here — and if it fails, make sure the onus isn’t on the campaign. Maybe sure you have a designated hugger :-) — though that’s not the Sanders persona.

         I don’t think it’s a win if BLM looks rude; it just isn’t, because it’s, like, bad that cops whack black people with impunity and that’s BLM’s policy issue. How does one argue that’s not important? Nor do I think it’s ever a win for a campaign if a candidate looks weak at the podium.

         So I stand by not adapting. Good thing for Sanders all of this is a sideshow to the Trump circus!
         1. Ditto August 9, 2015 at 10:58 am

            The rumor is that there were some there and were offered a chance to speak
         2. Brindle August 9, 2015 at 11:58 am

            I went over to centrist/liberal site TPM to see what they had on the Seattle rally and found nothing. It was mostly Trump—even Rosie O’Donnell had more ink than anything on the Sanders campaign, TPM is useful to see what the Dem party wants us to be thinking about.
            1. allan August 9, 2015 at 12:41 pm

               ” TPM is useful to see what the Dem party wants us to be thinking about. ”

               How far TPM has fallen. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair,
               It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his invitation to the White House Correspondents Dinner depends on not understanding it.
               1. sd August 10, 2015 at 2:43 am

                  Everyone always forgets that TPM actively supported the war in Iraq.
            2. NotTimothyGeithner August 9, 2015 at 12:47 pm

               Netroots Nation can at least be labeled as a cynical event (networking and identity politics, Hispanic the new black). This is a second interruption at a social security medicare event while the elephants in the room goes uncontested. It doesn’t look good.
               1. Brindle August 9, 2015 at 1:18 pm

                  Safe bet that Obama and Hillary are immune from any similar attempt at disruption.
                  1. NotTimothyGeithner August 9, 2015 at 1:23 pm

                     Obama was interrupted at various events or at least observed protesters. Lt. Dan Choi springs to mind. Even during his claim credit for gas marriage parade, he was heckled when he tried to claim agency. He got a good soundbite, but he stopped his victory laps because he fought against guy marriage and dadt’s repeal until he was forced to change.

                     The absence of protesters at Hillary events is suspicious.
                     1. ambrit August 9, 2015 at 3:24 pm

                        I suspect that ‘Hillarys Handlers’ learned from ‘W’s minions how to pre ‘sanitize’ a crowd. Don’t let any known ‘malcontents’ or ‘suspicious characters’ in the door. Have a cheerleading squad ready in the hall to drown out any heckling while ‘threat avoidance specialists’ move in to neutralize dissent. It is easy to use ‘access’ to convince media crews to look the other way while ‘dissent removal cadres’ do their thing.
                        The absence of protesters at Hillary events isn’t suspicious. It is a sign of the essentially corrupt nature of her politics.
                        If disruption of Sanders events continues on this scale, we will know that he is seen as a credible threat to the Democrat Party Nomenklatura.
                        1. OIFVet August 9, 2015 at 4:07 pm

                           Any group that’s determined enough can overcome this sort of screening. It can infiltrate “unknown malcontents” and use social media to avoid the “media access filter”. The absence of such disruptions of Clinton events speaks loud enough, IMO.
         3. flora August 9, 2015 at 1:31 pm

            hmm, mis-read the word “sideshow” as “slideshow” and thought: “Does Bernie have a slideshow on his voting rights work, his voting record, his economic proposals, etc?” It’s hard to shout down a slideshow. He could have one ready to go, and if self-described BLM disrupters crash the stage, an assistant could cut the microphones and start the slideshow on a large overhead screen for the audience while Sanders waits for the kids to finish their rant. Well, just an idea.
         4. PQS August 9, 2015 at 2:14 pm

            Lambert –

            How is Sanders not adapting when this was his response:

            http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-campaign-adds-young-black-woman-as-new-public?utm_term=.gpN8GzWYj#.sy0pZo1Kq

            And this was the very next day after the event in Seattle, which, BTW, wasn’t a Sanders campaign event – at least not an official one. It was a preplanned event commemorating the anniversary of Medicare and SS at which Sanders was invited to speak.

            I watched the video (wish I had known of the event, as I would have gone), and those women were not only terribly intrusive and rude (literally jumping up onto the podium before anyone had a chance to speak and screaming in the faces of organizers), they were treated WITH KID GLOVES and not only NOT escorted off the stage, but were allowed to speak their piece. Where else would this have happened?

            Yes, our police department is under DOJ orders, yes, white liberals in Seattle can be terribly insensitive, yes, the BLM raises a lot of important issues. But their performance at this event was reprehensible and ineffective, IMO. They lost a lot more than Bernie.
            1. ambrit August 9, 2015 at 3:29 pm

               I’m suspicious of this whole mess. Even with the decentralized nature of #blm, this degree of self destructive behaviour defies logic. Either these were “True Believer” #blms who were manipulated into their performance, or “False Flag” Decpticons. These women need to be interviewed in depth by someone like the Frontline crew.
            2. Lexington August 9, 2015 at 3:29 pm

               But their performance at this event was reprehensible and ineffective, IMO. They lost a lot more than Bernie.

               Unfortunately I think their performance was all too effective, in that they prevented Bernie from speaking, which is all that the Clinton camp and Democratic establishment could have wished for.

               Sanders supporters need to figure out how they’re going to deal with this tactic before it becomes even more disruptive. Ceding the stage to party crashers may flatter liberal sensibilities about free speech and not ruffling any feathers but this could be a case where liberals are failed by their own values.
               1. PQS August 9, 2015 at 10:55 pm

                  Agreed. Also note the link I posted above. Sanders has immediately hired a spokesperson for juvenile justice and an activist to be a public face on this.

                  And agreed that something here isn’t right. The image of that one woman who did speak was 1000% massive ego. this was a performance, but for what audience?
                  1. allan August 10, 2015 at 2:49 am

                     Bernie Sanders draws 28,000 people in Portland

                     Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who has been drawing eye-poppingly large crowds on the campaign trail, on Sunday night attracted his largest audience yet: about 28,000 people in Portland, Ore., according to his campaign. …

                     By contrast, Clinton’s largest crowd, which her campaign estimated at 5,500, came at her formal kickoff in June in New York. …

                     Sanders’s newly hired press secretary, Symone Sanders, an African American woman, warned the crowd before Sanders took the stage in Portland of the possibility that his event could be a disruption there, too. She told the crowd that Sanders was about bringing people together and urged them to chant, “We Stand Together” if protesters took the stage. But that didn’t happen.
      2. nippersdad August 9, 2015 at 10:18 am

         I think you are right, if this is what they were looking for:

         http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251503360

         They picked the wrong candidate. The only apology offered thus far was one by a supporter of BLM on Facebook that was quickly taken down. If that can be construed as negative support for the strategy then they really don’t have much of an organization. Bruce Dixon is prolly right in thinking that there are those who are just auditioning to replace the Black Misleadership Class, using this as an opportunity, but it still smells funny to me.
      3. Oldeguy August 9, 2015 at 10:20 am

         Fully agree- that Bernie is apparently being singled out for this bullying treatment is suspicious; “something else” going on here ?
         In any case, simply declining to be sucked into an Identity Politics kabucki theater staged event for the benefit of the “activists” is wise. It places the onus where it should be- on the interrupters and not on the speaker.
         The rich irony, of course, is that Social Security and Medicare are hugely important Lives Of Every Hue. It is precisely this type of Identity Politics tunnel vision that balkanizes and isolates the Left.
         1. drb48 August 9, 2015 at 11:48 am

            “It is precisely this type of Identity Politics tunnel vision that balkanizes and isolates the Left.”

            +1
            1. PQS August 9, 2015 at 2:16 pm

               +1
         2. lord koos August 9, 2015 at 6:59 pm

            If it was any other candidate’s campaign a bunch of security goons would have physically restrained the protesters and they wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the microphone. So Bernie is an easy target. I know he wants to be accessible but he should have probably a little better security.
   3. wbgonne August 9, 2015 at 9:52 am

      What it telling for me is the BLM is SPECIFICALLY targeting white progressives. The question is why? I imagine there are several aspects but one I have not heard mentioned is what I think lies at the core. Many blacks are angry at progressives for being critical of Obama. Using Daily Kos as a microcosm for this phenomenon, this is what I have witnessed for the past 6 years: Progressives increasingly angry at Obama’s deceptions, betrayals and neoliberal polices, speaking harshly about Obama and blacks defending Obama on racial solidarity grounds, the two sides battling to an impasse. But now it is payback time and Sanders is the punching bag.

      The other overlooked element is the Hillary factor. Last week, in a FOX-News like move, Clinton tweeted something to this effect: some people say racism can be addressed solely by economic measures. I disagree. Unpack that for a moment and you see two things: 1) a race-baiting attack on progressive whites; and 2) a race-baiting call to reject economic progressivism. That this latest assault on Bernie Sanders followed shortly after Clinton’s tweet is very suspicious to me.

      One other point: unless Sanders stands up for himself he will lose respect across the board. He cannot keep bending over backwards to placate people who have no interest in anything but themselves. No one votes for a punching bag in America.
      1. David August 9, 2015 at 10:53 am

         A single old man should not try to be heard over these thugs. Walking off the stage is the best he can do, unless security can clear them out. But what else could he do? If he writes a moderate-toned editorial, it will be picked apart and deficiencies found (or invented) in him.

         He really needs a Trump-like response, calling them classless boors and telling them to shut up.
         1. abynormal August 9, 2015 at 11:07 am

            maybe the onion piece has some answers: http://www.theonion.com/graphic/most-used-words-gop-debate-51041

            ‘Don’t Look That Up’ comes to mind…a round table like Lambert mentioned and smack’m down with live data we’re living through. they’ll continue running…for the exits.
         2. wbgonne August 9, 2015 at 11:23 am

            He really needs a Trump-like response, calling them classless boors and telling them to shut up.

            Well, that’s what I would do. And if I were advising Sanders on his response, I would also suggest a substantive critique of BLM tactics as counterproductive to their goals, goals which Sanders largely shares and which will be furthered by Sanders’ economic populism but inhibited by Clinton’s neoliberalism. However, I am anything but a politician and there are very treacherous shoals within the Democratic Party today with the neoliberals are just waiting to pounce on the economic populists and perfectly happy to use racial divisiveness to accomplish their goals. Frankly, I wish Sanders would run third party and forget the lame-ass Democratic Party altogether.
            1. Jim Haygood August 9, 2015 at 12:04 pm

               ‘Frankly, I wish Sanders would run third party and forget the lame-ass Democratic Party altogether.’

               Imagine Sanders (independent) vs. Trump (independent), forcing the marginalized Depublicrat duopoly to nominate a Bush-Clinton co-presidency.

               Merger is the last resort of fading colossi. Meet the Depublicrat co-presidency (photo):

               http://tinyurl.com/orwdf8q
               1. craazyman August 9, 2015 at 1:57 pm

                  It should be Sanders/Trump.

                  “That’s the Ticket!”

                  That’s the slogan. The campaign theme song is the tune from The Odd Couple TV show.

                  Anybody old enough to remember The Odd Couple will vote for them. So will a bunch of alienated millenials. Maybe that would be enough!

                  I’m serious guys. You guys can do it! Stop fkkng around with the Depublicrat party and go for it.
                  1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 3:20 pm

                     Yeah, Sanders can mop up Trump gaffs and explain what Trump really was saying. This new independent party could call themselves the Free Speech Party and attract Libertarians too. We would finally have a party spewing incoherent noise at us instead of this carefully scripted and focus group studied nonsense we get from the R&D Party.
                     1. craazyman August 9, 2015 at 6:36 pm

                        they can be the first presidential ticket in history to hold prime time debates with each other!

                        the more I think about this the more sense it makes.

                        America is ready for a change.
            2. neo-realist August 9, 2015 at 1:34 pm

               Sanders should combine a critical statement of the actions of the BLM people w/ a strong pro civil rights/social justice statement that supports the broader aims of those BLM people not engaged in what appears to be provocateur actions against his campaign. I’m afraid that criticism of the BLM actions with nothing further will be used against him by TPTB and provocateur actors to further sabotage his campaign.
            3. James Levy August 9, 2015 at 4:02 pm

               A whole swath of people, some of them decent, would accuse him of instigating a Sister Soulja Moment so he could dis some blacks for the purpose of dog-whistling to blue collar whites who like his economic message but don’t like (uppity) blacks. I think that would be about as awful and divisive as you can get. I don’t think any progressive/Left candidate can win anything at the national level without black votes. Sanders has to walk a fine line on this one.
               1. wbgonne August 9, 2015 at 4:25 pm

                  I agree with you and that’s what I meant by “treacherous shoals within the Democratic Party.” The question that may yet be answered is the converse: Can a Democratic presidential nominee win without the Left? Because that is quite possibly where this will end. Of course, many progressives will fall into line again and vote for Hillary but my sense is that that number is dwindling significantly and these repeated assaults on whites as racists will drive even more white people away. Coalitions must be two-way streets and right now all I see is concern about African Americans deserting the Democrats. What if progressives do so? After all, both progressives and AAs are in the same where else are you gonna go, to the GOP? boat. For progressives, at least, there is the Green Party or even the Socialists or Communists (if they still exist in America). But is there any serious possibility at all that blacks will leave the Democratic Party for the GOP? No there isn’t (and while they might stay home they may do that anyway with Obama gone). No, it is progressives who are far more likely to bolt the Democratic Party. I think the plain truth is that the party-owners might welcome that development and take their chances with the result. The Democratic Party would rather lose as neoliberals than win as economic populists. That’s what this BLM v. White progressives mess confirms for me.
                  1. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 5:02 pm

                     “The Democratic Party would rather lose as neoliberals than win as economic populists” Yep.
                     1. lord koos August 9, 2015 at 7:01 pm

                        It’s one big club… the profiteers keep profiting no matter who is in the white house.
                     2. hidflect August 10, 2015 at 2:26 am

                        The Iron Law of Institutions

                        The iron law of institutions, usually attributed to political blogger Jonathan Schwartz, states:[1]
                        “”The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution “fail” while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution.
                        He was originally describing Nancy Pelosi’s unwillingness to consult with Iraq War protestors in 2007 — and more generally, Democrats’ failure to embrace disaffected leftist voters, as it would affect their power within the party, and in turn, the party’s standing among the overall electorate. (This leaves aside the question of whether there would be enough disaffected voters for this to pay off, and whether it would alienate enough current voters to nullify any gains.)
                        John Milton said much the same (through his character, Lucifer):
                        “”It is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven.
                  2. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 5:45 pm

                     Neolibs never lose. You just follow the Revolving Door and see where it takes you.
                  3. neo-realist August 9, 2015 at 10:24 pm

                     I tend to think that establishment democrats believe that running as economic populists is a bigger recipe for losing the election than running as neoliberals because the big donors would run en masse to the GOP who would then use a much larger financial advantage to run stronger national campaigns and utilize and control much more of the advertising blitzes/media to more effectively manufacture consent (than they do now) to policies that republicans favor. Better to split the bribery to ensure an adequate distribution of power, and that you’re well taken care of by the donors when you leave office.
                     1. Kurt Sperry August 10, 2015 at 1:23 am

                        But of course taking money from the big donors means you may talk about populist progressive or redistributive economic policy in abstract terms and substantively empty puffball rhetoric, but never to actually deliver it as policy. The widening dissonance between the empty rhetoric and the delivered results becomes evident only to the brighter ones first, but there is no way of stopping the group who see through it from growing. Once seen, it cannot be unseen so the base demographics inevitably ratchet inexorably downward until all that remains holding up the entire political edifice are a hollowed out partisan base who will support literally anything carrying the partisan branding. The exits are one way, people leaving never return through that door. OK, as long as the attrition in the electoral base is channeled into cynical political apathy, that’s not a big and immediate problem–that’s exactly what There Is No Alternative is for–but all this disempowered base needs is a nucleation point to coalesce around and the numbers in the electorate that were muted by disillusionment or alienation or hopelessness and forgotten by the political insiders seemingly suddenly appear out of thin air on the political scene. They weren’t counted before because they literally didn’t count. I think maybe this explains the completely unforeseen breakouts of Sanders, and even Trump in a similar but slightly different way.
                        1. nippersdad August 10, 2015 at 10:16 am

                           Excellent comment! I would love to see this written up as a full length op-ed somewhere where more people could see it.
         3. Other David August 9, 2015 at 1:09 pm

            But what else could he do?

            They could have two or three extra mics that could be given to Bernie while the seized microphone is turned off. They could give Bernie a bullhorn and let him climb on top of the SUV to deliver his speech.

            Bernie’s looking like a real wimp.
            1. jrs August 10, 2015 at 1:31 am

               He’s looking like a gentleman, but I don’t know if this garners any votes in this might and fighting and violence and winning make right country.
         4. DJG August 9, 2015 at 2:14 pm

            David: No. The Trump response is distinctive to Trump. Commenters Kurt Sperry and samhill made some excellent comments yesterday drawing compelling comparisons of Trump to Berlusconi. In Italy, only Berlusconi can get away with his tactics. Likewise, Trump.

            So what should Sanders do? I know that many will disagree, but he has to wait it out. I recall various demonstrations against the Iraq war in which we, the beleaguered crowd, had to stand and wait out the speakers. Believe me, as you are listening to some harangue about how all of the demonstrators are horrible monsters and racists, you quickly tune it out. At one demonstration, the speakers went on and on, even as the temperature dropped to about 20F and the wind picked up at 20 mph. Eventually, the crowd more or less rebelled. We had to start demonstrating to get some exercise to warm up.

            Publicly embarrassing Bernie Sanders? A four-minute “moment of silence”? I’m detecting some authoritarian tendencies. As is so often the case in the USA, it may be that we are witnessing the beginning of the group’s self-defeat. Unfortunately.
            1. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm

               Very unfortunately, if true. And speaking of sheepdogs…
      2. nippersdad August 9, 2015 at 11:16 am

         What would have been an effective response to the Hillary tweet would have been that quote by MLK to the effect that “there can be no social justice without economic justice”; let her argue the point with him and see where it gets her. :)
         1. wbgonne August 9, 2015 at 11:36 am

            Indeed. And there is plenty more like that from the estimable MLK. Incidentally, that all came up at Daily Kos but the racialists are beyond reason. Not even MLK moves them. They simply want to attack and humiliate the progressive Left, which suggests to me that this is at least in part a visceral, race-based response to the progressive criticisms of Obama. In fact, before this burst out into Sanders’s campaign there were veiled and not-so-veiled accusations of racism directed at progressives on a routine basis at Daily Kos. And the DK progressives — rather than defend themselves and fight back — apologized for their “white privilege,” which only emboldened the racialists.
            1. nippersdad August 9, 2015 at 11:50 am

               So, the more things change, eh? I wear my skull and cross bones with pride; earned in some of the flame wars of O’s early Presidency. Seldom even look at links to that site.

               I don’t think that such people realize how easy it is to just ignore them. I’d just say that all they need to do is convince the two thirds of the electorate that no longer votes and then they can go home and have a sandwich. In the meantime…..
            2. OIFVet August 9, 2015 at 12:30 pm

               Not even MLK moves them

               That’s because it’s increasingly clear that the leadership of BLM is working for the democrat party establishment or at least making it’s bid to join the other “activist” pigs at the trough.
      3. DJG August 9, 2015 at 2:08 pm

         wbgonne: Excellent point in the first paragraph. The upshot, though, is that Black Lives Matter is mainly just media-savvy and angry. That does not bode well for Black Lives Matter, as Bruce Dixon hints. It also hints at a problem in any number of black movements: Many black people are more conservative than they are willing to admit. So Obama’s economic policies may be a-okay by BLM’s standard, which leads to the question, Just what economic policies does the BLM movement advocate?
         1. wbgonne August 9, 2015 at 2:48 pm

            Many black people are more conservative than they are willing to admit.

            Well, if they weren’t conservative — i.e., neoliberal — before Obama they are now because they have chosen to put racial solidarity above their own economic self-interests. Think of it: who suffers most from neoliberal abuses? Those at the bottom of the economic ladder and, in the U.S. today, that means black people. Just as the white working class abandoned Democrats and liberalism for the GOP and Reaganomics, blacks in the Obama Age are supporting Hillary Clinton and her neoliberal policies even though those polices are causing untold suffering in the black community. For example, what do you think causes more premature black deaths in America today, police violence or childhood poverty? Yet BLM and the like appear to care little about economic injustice and the reason for that, I suggest, is because to do otherwise would mean a rejection of Obama and his policies. Yet one more reason I say Obama is a truly sinister human being.
            1. Kurt Sperry August 10, 2015 at 11:01 am

               This. Black Obamabots are the analog of the much discussed and analyzed white voter who votes conservative Republican in spite of the fact that it is clearly against their own interests to do so, but who are suckered in by identity politics and dog whistles. The good news is that these bots will have to transfer their unconditional loyalty over to Hillary, and all but the least bright among them will resist that to some degree because Hillary doesn’t tick the correct identity politics boxes. And yes, black culture can in many respects be almost indistinguishable from southern redneck white culture–think strongly church-going protestant, football, fishing, violent southern honor culture, firearms fetishes, anti-intellectuallism, social conservatism etc.–which isn’t or shouldn’t be altogether surprising given the deep southern roots of both cultures.

               So what you are looking at with the women protesting Sanders are most likely women who against all odds and logic made the transfer of blind partisan loyalty from Obama over to to Hillary and who see Sanders as a threat to their right wing, conservative, neoliberal and anti-intellectual world view. The good news however is that most black Obamabots will have trouble making that mindless transfer of loyalty. Hillary is even less black in her manner than her husband, she’s almost in fact the epitome of the uptight white chick and, let’s face it, she doesn’t tick the big identity politics check box at the top of the Obamabot list.
               1. JTFaraday August 10, 2015 at 4:38 pm

                  “So what you are looking at with the women protesting Sanders are most likely women who against all odds and logic made the transfer of blind partisan loyalty from Obama over to to Hillary and who see Sanders as a threat to their right wing, conservative, neoliberal and anti-intellectual world view.”

                  No, that is way too twisted. Bernie Sanders = old white guy = “hands off my social security!” = Tea Party = typical white racists.

                  vs. Black Lives Matter.

                  Any emergent BLM organization may end up working for the oligarchs by default because the oligarchs are the government, but that doesn’t mean the trench warriors set out to do that. Some similar will probably try to hit up HRC someday too, which probably won’t work due to better crowd control.

                  I would agree that black people aren’t necessarily anti-capitalist, but neither was the New Deal, which economic historian Ira Katznelson has dubbed “affirmative action for white people” in any case. Hard to say if the mainstream American economy and privatized social welfare state set up by the New Deal has been better for black people than the sports and entertainment and politics lotteries.

                  Historically, your left was not their left.
      4. Llewelyn Moss August 9, 2015 at 7:27 pm

         I’ve been a DailyKos member since 9/11. I recently abandoned DKos because of the noticeable drumbeat to get rid of progressives who question Obama policies. The typical attack is to loosely tie any Obama criticism to “You’re a Racist”. I think it has a two-fold purpose: 1) Drive out non-Hillary people; 2) Get the black voting base fired up.
         1. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 10:29 pm

            Wow, that’s still going on, 8 years later. Sad.
   4. Steven D. August 9, 2015 at 10:41 am

      Hillary and the neoliberals are terrified at this election being about class politics, not identity politics. Identity politics fits to a T the Democrats’ tactic of slicing and dicing the electorate to reach a 50 percent plus one result. Class politics is uncontrollable for them. Sanders is right to avoid getting sucked in although if this becomes a thing for BLM activists to disrupt him, he’s going to have to address it somehow. The overlords have always exploited identity divisions to keep working people down.
   5. Vatch August 9, 2015 at 11:45 am

      The reason that black lives matter is that all lives matter. The set of black lives is a proper subset of the set of all lives. If all lives matter, then it necessarily follows that black lives matter.
      1. James Levy August 9, 2015 at 4:14 pm

         Nice, but in America the definition of “all” has been circumscribed by race for so long that saying “all lives matter” is like saying “all men are created equal”–it leaves a lot to the imagination of the person making the statement. Blacks, by their history and the respective number of them being gunned down by the cops versus the number of whites suffering the same fate, have a damned strong case for pointing out, specifically, that Black Lives Matter. Such a stark claim is in my opinion justified.
         1. Vatch August 9, 2015 at 7:38 pm

            I partly agree with you, but I still stand by the basic predicate logic of what I said. According to the Guardian database, 340 Whites, 179 Blacks, 101 Latinos, and 80 others/unknowns have been killed by U.S. police so far this year. So based on their proportion in the population, Blacks are more than twice as likely as Whites to be killed by police. This is not trivial, and it justifies them for saying that Black Lives Matter.

            But it does not justify them for shouting down anyone who says that All Lives Matter. Instead, they should point out the simple logic of what I said, along with what you said about “all men are created equal”. Otherwise, they fall into the trap of being like Louis Farrakhan.
            1. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 10:29 pm

               Well, I hesitate to say they “should.” I mean, I’m not the one who has to worry about being whacked at a traffic stop.

               “might give consideration to,” perhaps….
      2. lord koos August 9, 2015 at 7:07 pm

         Saying that “all lives matter” as a response to “black lives matter” is perceived as an insult by a black minority who are consistently treated as if they do not matter.
   6. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 2:38 pm

      It would have been a terrible thing if the Social Security and Medicare org called the cops to forcibly remove “BlackLivesMatter demonstrators” from the Bernie Sanders rally – and we would have to endure the resulting news coverage.

      At this point, Bernie did get media coverage, some people attending the rally
      whom obviously would support Bernie whether he says anything or not missed a speech, real BlackLivesMatter officials can come forward and say the “demonstrators” weren’t one of theirs, and if we’re lucky, maybe we can find out who the demonstrators really are. That would be a fun media story.
      1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 3:34 pm

         Just read the rest of the comments on this thread and am getting the sense that the BLM demonstrators were the real thing? As “real” as that gets, anyway. I still had a piece of news stuck in my head left over from last night where it was reported that “the local BLM group denied any association with the demonstrators.” So someone stuck some BS in my head again? I hate when they do that all the time.
2. Victoria August 9, 2015 at 8:40 am

   Can a reader in Greece tell us how to donate money to their free clinics and other free service organizations? I found one place in London that is sending vaccines, but I am not sure who to trust. Thanks!
3. abynormal August 9, 2015 at 8:50 am

   lord koos
   August 8, 2015 at 9:23 pm
   I’m pretty sure that most Americans could not define “neoliberal” even if they have heard the term.

   just yesterday my sister complained of her FB page blowing up over the Trump Savior…i suggested she dump this on them:

   What is less well known are how many times Donald Trump has changed political allegiances. Here is a voter registration form from July 1987 where Mr. Trump declares himself to be a Republican: Next up, we have a voter registration form from October 1999 when Mr. Trump switches allegiances and chooses the Independence Party as his political affiliation: Then, two short years later, we have another change in August 2001 when Mr. Trump selects the Democratic Party as his political party of choice: Eight years later, in September 2009, Donald Trump goes full circle, returning to the welcoming arms of the Republican Party: On a voter registration form dated December 21, 2011, two years after his switch to the GOP, he switched his political allegiance to “I do not wish to enroll in a party”: And, last but not least, just over one year later, on April 19, 2012, he proclaims his return to the right side of the political spectrum.
   http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2015/08/donald-trump-and-his-changing-political.html

   “It would take a while before the postmodern Narcissus perceived the ruins of society behind the emptiness of his mirror.”
   Paul Verhaeghe
   1. wbgonne August 9, 2015 at 10:02 am

      You flagged this comment:

      I’m pretty sure that most Americans could not define “neoliberal” even if they have heard the term.

      This was my response to that comment:

      Probably true but beside the point. People know something is gravely wrong, that the system is breaking down because it has been hijacked by the rich. The word “neoliberalism” will likely gain currency as the pain continues and people move from symptomology to diagnosis. Or maybe some other term will supplant neoliberalism, something like oligarchy or corporatism or even fascism. Or the analysis will remain inchoate and only the pain and anger will persist and grow. History will move forward even if those in the midst of the wave don’t recognize it.

      But your quote is much better:

      It would take a while before the postmodern Narcissus perceived the ruins of society behind the emptiness of his mirror.

      — Paul Verhaeghe
      1. abynormal August 9, 2015 at 10:59 am

         yes, i read your post…btw, glad to see you back stomping around here!
         hope all is well with you & yours.
         in pondering cycles, the degree of ‘corrections/resets’ seems to rely on the majority re/defining terms applied by those that rule without our interest at hand. i never thought i live to witness a wave large enough to encompass the world. by their own definition(s), we are lucky they exist but they couldn’t exist without us…could this time really be different and the majority parishes along with the uber?

         from a zh posting, “today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore“
         1. wbgonne August 9, 2015 at 11:27 am

            btw, glad to see you back stomping around here!
            hope all is well with you & yours

            Muchas gracias.
         2. ewmayer August 9, 2015 at 5:41 pm

            ZH appears to have lifted that quip from – or at least ‘been inspired by’ – this Demotivator: http://www.despair.com/economics.html
      2. beth August 9, 2015 at 12:22 pm

         “Probably true but beside the point. People know something is gravely wrong, that the system is breaking down because it has been hijacked by the rich. The word “neoliberalism” will likely gain currency as the pain continues and people move from symptomology to diagnosis. Or maybe some other term will supplant neoliberalism, something like oligarchy or corporatism or even fascism. Or the analysis will remain inchoate and only the pain and anger will persist and grow. History will move forward even if those in the midst of the wave don’t recognize it.”

         What you say is correct in THIS forum, yet for those that don’t spend time here, we need better terms. I used to be good at “translating” this sort of thing into simpler language, but now due to age and illness, I cannot.

         It is imperative that people here help those who are still comfortable understand the anger and pain of those already affected by the neoliberal and rent-seeking masters of the universe. We need to be able to translate these terms. Many well meaning relatively educated people do not talk like this since they did not study business and economics.

         I am not sure I am making myself clear, but I am convinced that this is important.
         1. wbgonne August 9, 2015 at 12:45 pm

            You are perfectly clear and quite correct. There is danger from not accurately identifying the problem. The danger is that it becomes quite easy for manipulators to harness the pain and anger into something self-destructive. In fact, I’d say that’s pretty much what is happening presently with BLM, but not only BLM. Naming the real culprit helps with clarity. Unfortunately, I can’t right now suggest a pithy alternative to “neoliberalism.” Maybe others can do so. Or maybe neoliberalism will take root. It would certainly help if Bernie Sanders used the term. Maybe Leftists should start harassing Sanders until he does so. (Just kidding … sort of.)
            1. nobody August 10, 2015 at 7:16 am

               Neofeudalism.

               http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_708.pdf
         2. andyb August 9, 2015 at 3:17 pm

            As Carlin said “it’s a big club but you aint in it”

            As we devolve into totalitarianism and incremental mass genocide on a global scale, it would be wise to call the “neos” what they really are. Neocons are descendents of the 3rd Reich and should properly be called Fascist. Neoliberals are nothing more than the Marxist obverse side of the same coin.
            1. hunkerdown August 9, 2015 at 4:18 pm

               “Good, be thou my evil”, to paraphrase John Milton.
         3. jrs August 9, 2015 at 4:29 pm

            It really is pointless to call it neoliberalism, since it really has nothing to do with what is called liberalism in the U.S. (ie something tending toward social democracy/the welfare state). Bernie Sander’s might on a good day be a liberal. He’s not really a socialist. But what does that have to do with neo-liberalism? Nothing, although neither are anti-capitalist.
            1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 6:59 pm

               Neoliberalism has become a official poly-sci term, I think – so the definition is available in academia . The short explanation is the root is early 1900s “Liberalism”, also known as laissez faire. It’s the way Robber Barons liked it, except it included the government helping them out whenever necessary.

               Until the mainstream can drop the left-right, liberal-conservative mindset we’ve been trained in our lifetimes, it is a rotten word to deal with in public discourse.

               But I did see Bill Black come up with a work around. He used “crony capitalism”, which is close enough for government work.

               The other problem is we’ve learned the word neo-con. It now appears this is not a separate group.

               My preference is to go with neo-asshole, but that doesn’t sound very scholarly.
               1. lord koos August 9, 2015 at 7:10 pm

                  The inclusion of the term “liberal” in neo-liberal is a confusing use of language.
                  1. flora August 9, 2015 at 7:56 pm

                     how about neo-RobberBarrons ?
               2. LifelongLib August 9, 2015 at 9:43 pm

                  The Washington Monthly magazine (run at the time by Charles Peters) used the term “neoliberal” in the 1970s. At that time it referred to a politics with liberal goals that was not beholden to traditional liberal power structures like the civil service and labor unions. Of course back then it looked as though liberalism was a done deal. Things have changed.
                  1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 11:13 pm

                     There is another lineage. Maybe this is not all as decided as I had thought, but the version I read somewhere, by supposedly a real poly-sci PhD type, was “Liberalism” goes all the way back to Adam Smith:

                     ———————————-
                     “Robertson’s friend and fellow Scot Adam Smith used “liberal” in a similar sense in The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. If all nations, Smith says, were to follow “the liberal system of free exportation and free importation,” then they would be like one great cosmopolitan empire, and famines would be prevented. Then he repeats the phrase: “But very few countries have entirely adopted this liberal system.”
                     —————

                     It became expanded as time went on to embrace markets, minimal regulation, taxes are bad, etc…

                     Then sort of grew into general early Libertarian philosophy – except the application here was minimal interference on biz, markets and finance from government. This was the Robber Baron era. Milt Freidman came along and ought it was a great idea. So did Mises and Hayek.

                     ‘Course FDR came along and thought it was a rotten idea. So maybe Milt was exiled to Europe for a while to work on the Neo part with his buddies at Mont Pelerin in 1947.

                     I don’t want to try and do a thesis on the thing, but that’s was my takeaway on why that “liberal” doesn’t seem to match up with either Webster’s definition or common usage of liberal.
4. allan August 9, 2015 at 8:53 am

   `Plugging Leaks: Merkel’s War on Germany’s Press and Parliament ‘. I would call this a must read. In the US, the FBI might entrap mentally challenged Muslim men, but in Germany, the BND is trying to entrap an entire parliamentary investigative committee. A German innovation that no doubt will eventually be exported. The Snowden disclosures continue to reverberate, sometimes in unpredictable ways.
   1. Tom August 9, 2015 at 10:50 am

      I am German and my cynical read on this is the following: The Spiegel has a long tradition of attacking politicians that get out of the Anglo-American line. It is always phrased in a way that makes the left rally against perceived misuse of authority. That way Kohl was gotten rid of and German jets appeared over Serbia. (Aginst the wish of the German public but very much to the satisfaction of Washington). I wonder where Merkel has transgressed. She didn´t voice a peep after the Snowden disclosures but Minsk II certainly wasn´t to the linking of the State Departmet. German policy on Greece certainly doesn´t make Washington happy. Who knows. I would take any new scandal blown up by the Spiegel with a large grain of salt. There´s usually an agenda.
      1. Felix August 9, 2015 at 12:10 pm

         Das stimmt. The BND is run from Washington. In fact, the BND is run from K Street in Washington by Ivy League lawyer/lobbyists. They pay congress and their paymasters are more often than not from Riyadh or Jerusalem. Despite the astronomical riches of the Gulf states is it not interesting that Germany is the prime destination for all the mid east refugees….created by politics in the Near East facilitated by manipulated US military intervention? Was it not Netanyahu who pushed for the disastrous Iraq invasion? How many refugees does Israel take? Does anyone believe that the Saudi’s or segments of the Saudi power structure did not have anything to do with 9-11? How many Moslem refugees do the Saudis or Qataris take? You don’t think the bailouts of Greece were designed on Wall Street and facilitated on K Street…….who doubled down on Greek bonds over the years……not the Schwabians.
         1. different clue August 9, 2015 at 7:39 pm

            Why would middle eastern refugees want to go to the petromoney gulf states? The gulf states are cultural and social shitholes. What civilized person would want to be a refugee in Saudi Arabia? For example?
5. fresno dan August 9, 2015 at 8:56 am

   Mornings in America Paul Krugman, New York Times. Unemployment rates under Reagan and Obama look similar over time. Has Krugman changed his mind about Obama’s views on Reagan’s “good ideas,” then?

   http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/why-krugman-should-not-be-surprised?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beat_the_press+%28Beat+the+Press%29

   Actually there is a good reason the record is not more widely discussed. The employment to population ratio is still much lower now than it was before the downturn. This is true even if we restrict the analysis to prime age (ages 25-54) workers to reduce the impact of demographic change.
6. pce August 9, 2015 at 9:32 am

   Australia’s 1st innings fits in a tweet:

   https://twitter.com/rameshsrivats/status/629260282594877440
7. abynormal August 9, 2015 at 9:36 am

   re: Who are the biggest Killers in America?
   “If it takes you an hour to read this chapter, by the time you reach the last page, two of your fellow citizens will have been murdered. During that same time, more than six Americans will die as a result of unhealthy or unsafe conditions in the workplace. Although these work- related deaths were due to human actions, they are not called murders. ” The Rich get Richer, The Poor get Prison 1979

   (scratching head scabs) sorry, once more…why aren’t we charging corporate/personhood with Capital Murder?
   1. sd August 10, 2015 at 2:57 am

      Better yet, fine them – it’s pretty much the only way to speak to their capitalist bottom line.
8. Katniss Everdeen August 9, 2015 at 10:21 am

   RE: Donald Trump’s invite to RedState event revoked over Megyn Kelly comments Politico

   “Earlier Friday night, Trump had blasted Kelly, saying on CNN, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever,” a comment that was immediately perceived by many observers, including conservatives at the conference, as deeply misogynistic.”

   Enough is enough.

   Only a creepy, religious-right, “DEEPLY MISOGYNISTIC” zealot could hear what Trump said and immediately think menstruation. People like these are OBSESSED. This behavior used to be derided as “having your mind in the gutter.” Now it’s called “righteous.”

   Let me explain DEEP MISOGYNY to you, mr. erikson. It is a relentless campaign to deny women control over their own bodies and keep it for yourself, because “god” clearly intended for men to exercise complete control over the “weaker,” less “pure” gender.

   The never-ending jihad against abortion and even contraception, and the relentless shaming and vilification of women who seek either, while lamenting the heartbreak of erectile dysfunction and making certain that “medical” insurance provides a cost-free remedy.

   The staunch defense of an “economic system” which consistently pays women less simply because they are women.

   The cavalier approach to sexual assault, from college campuses to military bases, because boys will be boys and heroes will be heroes.

   The criminalizing and incarceration of prostitutes, while their “johns” just zip up their pants and go back to their important jobs. Like David Vitter, one of your very own.

   The abuse and exploitation of female prisoners at the hands of the omnipotent thugs called prison guards.

   I could go on. But here’s the thing. Megyn Kelly works at FOX NEWS, fer chrissakes. She’s probably heard worse than this at least twice before she has breakfast. And she doesn’t need YOU to “defend her honor.”

   And there are precious few of the rest of us in the 51% of the american population that is female, who think that you or your merry band of twisted “culture” warriors give two hoots in hell about the scourge of “deep misogyny” you have labored so tirelessly to create, maintain and expand.

   PS. Just heard erickson say on a Sunday show that he wouldn’t want his wife and daughters in THE SAME ROOM with Trump. Give. Me. A. Break.
   1. Carolinian August 9, 2015 at 11:16 am

      A blowhard, egomaniac and possibly a misogynist, but Trump is turning out to be a lot more interesting than Sanders in my as always humble opinion.

      And yes Fox and the traditional rightwing power brokers are spinning like crazy. They are worried.
      1. beth August 9, 2015 at 12:47 pm

         I would not say more interesting than Sanders, but I think it would be very unfortunate for all of us if the Republicans remove him from the conversation because he is misogynist. He is giving the public real information that no one else is — pay politicians to do what you want them to do –both parties do it.
         1. jrs August 9, 2015 at 7:47 pm

            It’s really hard to imagine any Americans not already aware of this. They know it, but tend to fall for “saviors” despite it (or if not that then for lesser evilism). Now what’s Trump going to do about it? Advocate for Move to Amend? Maybe that is what giving Americans information would actually look like.

            Maybe if he discussed the trade agreements and sovereignty he would be giving some Americans new information. But that it’s pay to play, everyone knows.
      2. neo-realist August 9, 2015 at 1:47 pm

         Could Trump, a supposedly past Hillary Clinton supporter, be a Clinton grenade of sorts to undermine Jeb candidacy?
         1. James Levy August 9, 2015 at 4:24 pm

            My wife is sure this is true. I have no idea. I think he does have a serious problem with women (the rape story has been suppressed pretty effectively) and talks like a jerk. His entire worldview is in thrall to competition, winning, dominating, and humiliating. He is not remotely sagacious or disciplined enough to be the chief magistrate of this Republic. Those who find him “refreshing” or “interesting” should keep these facts foremost in their minds.
   2. nippersdad August 9, 2015 at 11:24 am

      Interesting that he is now, suddenly, the face of Republican political correctness.

      http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/about-those-debates.html

      You just cannot polish a turd.
   3. fresno dan August 9, 2015 at 2:26 pm

      I hate to reach the point that I use the “H” term, but Erickson accusing Trump of misogyny is like H*tler accusing Stalin of anti antisemitism…

      And what it shows is the whole contrived propaganda of the Fox group. The whole idea that Kelly is some really smart journalist, instead of just another shill for Ailes, who reads his memo and makes sure to say “government run healthcare” instead of “single payer” is what is most disturbing about the whole affair. Kelly is an instrumental part of the viciousness, vacuousness, and well designed propaganda effort that is very carefully run to destroy real debate and reason. I would say Kelly endangers self government far more than Trump does…

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
9. nobody August 9, 2015 at 10:54 am

   Kokura luck:

   The cloud that blocked Mr. Yoshio’s view that morning was the best thing that ever happened to the city of Kokura — and the worst that ever happened to nearby Nagasaki.

   The American bomber was a B-29 named Bock’s Car, and it was supposed to drop the world’s first plutonium bomb on Kokura. Three times, Bock’s Car passed over Kokura, bomb bays open, a hum in the cockpit signaling that the bomb was ready for release, the crew wearing the special goggles that were supposed to protect them from the flash of the atomic explosion.

   But although the radar scope was locked on to Kokura, the orders were to drop the bomb only on visual identification of the huge arms factory that was the target.

   A young man named Kermit Beahan peered through the rubber eyepiece of the bombsight, and he could see some of the buildings of Kokura and the river that ran by the arms factory, but the complex itself was blocked by a cloud… That cloud helped make Kokura perhaps the luckiest Japanese city in the war…

   Before the planned attack on Aug. 9, Kokura was also the backup target on Aug. 6… In schools of Kokura, which is now part of the city of Kitakyushu, teachers tell students what almost happened to their community. Every person interviewed on the streets of Kokura knew that their city had nearly been annihilated.

   http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/07/world/kokura-japan-bypassed-by-a-bomb.html
   1. Chris in Paris August 9, 2015 at 2:39 pm

      Since Yves’ post the other day, I’ve become somewhat obsessed again with reading about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The humanity.

      Whatever opinion one might have of Harry Truman, at least he stopped it on 10 August. The Army-Navy-Civilian atom team were apparently ready to keep dropping them for as long they had permission to…
      1. ambrit August 9, 2015 at 3:55 pm

         Well, it helped that the Allies only had two bombs at the time. Or did they? There has been an ongoing dispute about a “Third Bomb” either at Tainan Island Air Base or the pieces of which were in the delivery pipeline right after the Nagasaki bombing.
         The site I found about it: http://www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm
         1. Chris in Paris August 9, 2015 at 4:08 pm

            Hellish. Thanks for the link.
            1. James Levy August 9, 2015 at 4:32 pm

               The third bomb was not ready. Various scholars estimate that it may not have been ready before November. The hero of the piece is the Emperor, who ordered the military to capitulate. They did not want to and came close to mounting a coup to seize the Emperor and get him to rescind his decision. Truman’s glee at the news of the destruction of these two cities is beyond redemption. Perhaps he had to do it, but the incontrovertible fact that he was smiling and animated as he went on the air to announce it damns him in my eyes forever.
               1. Chris in Paris August 9, 2015 at 4:49 pm

                  Damned forever indeed but g-d willing the worst of the nuclear sinners.
               2. ewmayer August 9, 2015 at 10:21 pm

                  Re. the Atomic bombings, for anyone interested in the subject, the two books by Richard Rhodes (The Making of the Atomic Bomb and the later H-bomb memoir Dark Sun) are essential reading. From Chapter 19 of the first, on the likely timeframe for readiness of a third bomb – in fact said bomb would likely have been ready just 1 week after Nagasaki – and Truman’s (un)readiness to use it:

                  [Henry] Stimson, still trying to bring his Air Force under control, had argued at the Friday [August 10, following receipt of the Hirohito-forced telegram offering surrender which was unconditional in the sense of the Potsdam Declaration except in “not compris[ing] any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler”] morning meeting that the United States should suspend bombing, including atomic bombing. Truman thought otherwise, but when he met with the cabinet that afternoon he had partly reconsidered. “We would keep up the war at its present intensity” [James] Forrestal paraphrases the President, until the Japanese agreed to [a revised, compromise set of tems which was ‘according to the Potsdam Declaration’ but left some deliberate ambiguity about the status of the Emperor], with the limitation however that there will be no further dropping of the atomic bomb.” Henry Wallace, the former Vice President who was now Secretary of Commerce, recorded in his diary the reason for the President’s change of mind:
                  
                  Truman said he had given orders to stop the atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, “all those kids.”
                  
                  The restriction came none too soon. [Leslie] Groves had reported to [George] Marshall that morning that he had gained four days in manufacture and expected to ship a second Fat Man core and initiator from New Mexico to Tinian on August 12 or 13, “Provided there are no unforeseen difficulties in manufacture, in transportation to the theater or after arrival in the theater,” he concluded cautiously, “the bomb should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August.” Marshall told Groves the President wanted no further atomic bombing except by his express order and Groves decided to hold up shipment, a decision in which Marshall concurred.

                  And in Chapter 17 of Dark Sun we see a very different side of Truman than the ‘gleeful’ one James Levy describes above:

                  Sixty B-29s had already made headlines by then, moving from Florida and Kansas to East Anglia. They were bombers of the new US Strategic Air Command and the government made a point of revealing that they were atomic-capable and hinted that they carried atomic bombs — “bringing nuclear weapons,” a newspaper man would write, “for the first time directly into the system of diplomacy and violence by which the affairs of people were henceforth to be regulated.” The implied nuclear threat, the first of the Cold War, was a bluff; none of the planes were atomic-capable Sil-verplates, nor were their crews trained in bomb assembly, nor did they carry atomic bombs. … Forrestal used the occasion of the B-29 transfer to ask Truman to review “the question of custody of atomic weapons” — whether the AEC should physically hold the weapons, as it did, or whether they should be transferred to the military. (“[Weapon] storage bases [are] built by the Corps of Engineers,” AFSWP commanding general Kenneth Nichols explained custody arrangements to the National War College that year; “… when completed they are turned over to the Atomic Energy Commission. They, with our assistance, place the bombs in storage. They have the keys to the igloos, and we have the guard around the igloos… So the question is, Just who is the boss of the storage base?”) Forrestal writes that Truman responded that “he wanted to go into this matter very carefully and he proposed to keep, in his own hands, the decision as to the use of the bomb, and did not propose ‘to have some dashing lieutenant colonel decide when would be the proper time to drop one.’”

                  Truman went into the matter on July 21 in a meeting crowded with AEC commissioners and defense officials. David Lilienthal believed it was “one of the most important meetings I have ever attended.” He thought the President “looked worn and grim… and we got right down to business.” Legally, Truman could transfer atomic weapons to the military whenever he judged such transfer necessary, but in those days the weapons lacked locking mechanisms; whoever possessed them — Truman’s “dashing lieutenant colonel” — could detonate them. Lilienthal argued for keeping the weapons in civilian hands. Stuart Symington, the Secretary of the Air Force, a tall, handsome loose cannon from Missouri, offered up a string of foolish rebuttals. “Our fellas… think they ought to have the bomb,” was one of Symington’s lines, Lilienthal reports. “They feel they might get them when they need them and they might not work.” Have they ever failed to work? Truman responded sharply. Symington “left that one,” Lilienthal says, and went on to cite “one fellow” he had spoken to at Los Alamos who thought the law prevented the military from having the bomb, “I forgot his name… I don’t believe he thought we ought to use it anyway.” Truman took up that question with remarkable candor, revealing the sense of Solomonic burden that agonized him:
                  
                  I don’t think we ought to use this thing unless we absolutely have to. It is a terrible thing to order the use of something like that [“Here he looked down at his desk, rather reflectively,” Lilienthal interjects] that is so terribly destructive, destructive beyond anything we have ever had. You have got to understand that this isn’t a military weapon… It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses. So we have got to treat this differently from rifles and cannon and ordinary things like that… You have got to understand that I have got to think about the effect of such a thing on international relations. This is no time to be juggling an atom bomb around.
                  1. optimader August 9, 2015 at 11:57 pm

                     are essential reading.
                     Indeed, essential reading for armchair historians who insist on adjudicating Heroes and Villains w/ 70 years of hindsight.

                     Both Truman an Hirohito made correct decisions with the information available at the time IMO
                  2. Jim Haygood August 9, 2015 at 11:58 pm

                     ‘You have got to understand that this isn’t a military weapon… It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses.’ — H. S. Truman

                     This is a textbook definition — and confession — of terrorism.

                     Good thing ‘we’ were running the Nuremberg trials, eh!
                     1. optimader August 10, 2015 at 1:04 am

                        This is a textbook definition – of the Dogs of War.
                        Once unleashed, who is a civilian, women, child etc lacks any relevance. The Imperial Japanese Empire didn’t think this one all the way through unfortunately.

                        The US happened to get there first is all. Plenty of people were delighted that Truman had the first (two) opportunities to use the most awesome weapons yet devised.
                        1. ran August 10, 2015 at 1:48 am

                           anyone “delighted” at the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians is amoral scum full stop.
                           1. optimader August 10, 2015 at 2:12 am

                              Its always satisfying to judge amoral scum of the past by standards and awareness of the present isn’t it?

                              And FDR was amoral scum only limited by choice of weapon when it came to the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians w/ firebombings. He lacked the opportunity to use nukes in Germany merely due to availability constraints, and in Japan due to his own death, right?
                           2. optimader August 10, 2015 at 2:23 am

                              REPORTER: General Groves, could we go back for a minute. You mentioned in your book [Now it Can Be Told] that just before the Yalta Conference that President Roosevelt said if we had bombs before the European war was over he would like to drop them on Germany. Would you discuss this?

                              GROVES: At the conference that Secretary Stimson and myself had with President Roosevelt shortly before his departure, I believe it was December 30th or 31st of 1944, President Roosevelt was quite disturbed over the Battle of the Bulge and he asked me at that time whether I could bomb Germany as well as Japan. The plan had always been to bomb Japan because we thought the war in Germany was pretty apt to be over in the first place and in the second place the Japanese building construction was much more easily damaged by a bomb of this character than that in Germany. I urged President Roosevelt that it would be very difficult for various reasons.
10. Chris M. August 9, 2015 at 11:08 am

    How do organizers just sit there and let 2 people take over the mike? I don’t care what cause they are talking about. It’s totally rude and inappropriate and they should have been hauled away by security. Why do they even a target a guy that supports their cause? I wouldn’t be surprised if they have ties to the Clinton campaign. I’d like to see them pull that kind of stunt at a Trump rally.
    1. Brindle August 9, 2015 at 12:12 pm

       Apparently the Sanders campaign has not been working on nuts n’ bolts stuff like stage security. It’s not like he needs to have the Hell’s Angels hanging out around the stage—just something pragmatic and appropriate.
       1. lord koos August 9, 2015 at 7:13 pm

          It’s not rocket science — you cordon off the area around the mic and those without credentials are not allowed to enter.
    2. jrs August 9, 2015 at 5:05 pm

       It was a rally in support of social security and medicare. This is an outrage! We need a candidate who can do the Grant Bargain and cut those to the bone! Hillary is the woman for that job!

       #OldLivesMatter
    3. Elliot August 9, 2015 at 5:29 pm

       It wasn’t Bernie’s rally, so the techs/ security were not his to order around. This was a fail on the part of the organizers (who invited Bernie, and BLM, and several others). I say that as a former stagehand/security person.

       I totally disagree that Bernie not having black women strongarmed off the stage makes him look weak. Stop and think about the images in the press that would have made.

       The organizers offered them time after Bernie’s speech, and they wouldn’t take it, so they were NOT there to speak & gain support for their ideas; they were there to disrupt. Bernie taking them on would have made him look foolish.

       He also spoke to a larger crowd later that day, so it’s not like the two interruptors stoppered him.

       It smells to me like a Clinton or GOP op.
       1. jrs August 9, 2015 at 5:56 pm

          But what would Hillary Clinton do if activists attempted to disrupt a speech of hers (and I wish more than anything some would!). I have an odd feeling she wouldn’t just step aside and let them take the stage.
          1. ambrit August 9, 2015 at 6:20 pm

             This is just crazy enough….
             The Cynical Me sat up and validated this idea as quite evil enough to be a Democratic Party Nomenklatura tactic.
             Step 1: “Promote” #blm ‘demonstrators’ to crash a few Sanders speaking engagements.
             Step 2: Observe Sanders preferred response to said disruptions.
             Step 3: A: If Sanders reacts negatively or strongly against “demonstrators,” promote meme that Sanders is a “Privileged White Male.”
             Step 3: B: If Sanders reacts with calm and courtesy, promote meme that Saunders is a “wimp.”
             Hillary response to 3A: “How dare that Man attempt to demean and degrade our brothers and sisters in arms.” (Faux ‘Solidarity’ legend.)
             Hillary response to 3B: “How dare this wimp demand to be given the reins of Power. He can’t even control his own rallies! I was Secretary of State and ‘Ruled the World!'” (Faux ‘Strong Woman’ legend.)
             Now that Hillaries Minions know that Saunders is playing the ‘Elder Statesman’ courteous gentleman card, full steam ahead for Case 3B Response.
             My scenario: Hills is giving yet another Sermon on the Mount when some #blms ‘disrupt’ her. Hills takes a conveniently available second microphone and proceeds to “talk sense” into the #blms. The #blms slowly calm down and end up enrapt, sitting at Hills feet receiving Divine DNC Revelation. The former ‘dissidents’ surge up and pledge to spread the wisdom of the Great Helmswoman. Crowd ‘spontaneously’ bursts into song: “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.”
             The Millennium arrives.
             1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 6:37 pm

                You have a twisted mind.
                1. ambrit August 10, 2015 at 1:35 am

                   All of my personalities thank you.
                2. JTFaraday August 10, 2015 at 5:17 pm

                   I don’t know why everyone is so certain that there are no black people in social justice movements who don’t promote a reductive “us and them” binary perspective– just like much of the (male dominated) white left.

                   The (male dominated) white left has been asserting for the past 8 years that there can only be ONE important political issue. If that’s the case, then these two women just took the stage so that ONE issue can be their issue.

                   It wouldn’t be the first time such a thing has happened on the left. In the 60s radical feminists took the stage from the (male dominated) left that was patronizing them, before they ended up leaving anyway.

                   I don’t see a need for a neoliberal puppet master in the least. The dynamic is inherent in the populace. The divisiveness works because the people are divided.

                   It might be nice if that were not the case, but that hasn’t happened yet.
             2. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 6:45 pm

                Very nice.

                We need, however, not to take the activists as a proxy for the movement. Synecdoche…
                1. ambrit August 9, 2015 at 6:50 pm

                   In politics, sometimes appearance becomes reality.
       2. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 6:50 pm

          “He also spoke to a larger crowd later that day” Got a link?

          I dind’t know that, and I do try to keep track. So in a way, this is like the Dean Scream, for two reasons.

          The minor reason: A fail at the venue. (Since when does a Presidential candidate not get to order the techs around? Dean’s fail was he had the wrong mike, so he had to shout. That set him up.)

          The major reason: Press zooms in a small piece of the action, gleefully blows it out of all proportion.
          1. Kurt Sperry August 9, 2015 at 8:44 pm

             Requested link (Bloomberg):

             http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-09/bernie-sanders-draws-crowd-of-15-000-in-seattle-following-black-lives-matter-protest
             1. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 10:26 pm

                Thanks.
                1. Kurt Sperry August 10, 2015 at 1:25 am

                   Some of us do take assignments. :D
    4. different clue August 9, 2015 at 7:44 pm

       If they are Clintonite ratfuckers, why would they try it at a Trump rally? They would just keep trying it at Sanders appearances.
       1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 7:54 pm

          I suspect they might know doing it at a Trump rally might be like doing it at KKK rally, and the entire crowd is packin’ iron.

          At a Clinton rally, there would be all the real security people to contend with.
11. john August 9, 2015 at 11:28 am

    http://www.workofwrestling.com/wowblog/2015/8/7/therealityofwrestling

    Kayfabe update The great Mick Foley on wrestling “everything is fake”

    Also, Re: yesterdays Trump drama… esp. banning from ‘debates… in Weimar Germany H*itler was banned from speaking… his response was thousands of posters saying “In all of Germany, only one man cannot speak.” It saw him elected, so unintended consequences alert for the MSM.
12. annie August 9, 2015 at 11:44 am

    going back a sec to yesterday’s comparison of trump to berlusconi.
    early on, silvio campaigned more traditionally–BLOB (leftist comedy) often plays his early campaign ads, sitting in tasteful home library, framed kiddie portraits, putting on the shipboard crooner sly charm. he communicated by winks. only later did he became openly vulgar, flaunt decorum (summit’s childish high-jinks), show off his girls (and even this was after his second wife publicly blew the whistle). he felt he’s won the public’s immunity.
    his precise speech, mentioned yesterday, is not only because many italians speak only dialect; it was mussolini’s tactic too and he was ringing mussolini bells.

    common knowledge that silvio only went into politics on his lawyer’s advice, seeking the legal immunity for officeholders. trump’s fortune was at least made more or less according to rules, such as they are. berlusconi’s not.

    both feel entitled to say anything that pops into their heads about women’s looks.

    right now matteo salvini of the lega nord is every bit as crude as trump. the lega’s whole modus is vulgarity. one prominent lega pol likened a black woman minister in letta’s cabinet to a ‘chimpanzee’–stuck to it, never apologized, never lost anything–likely the party gained. It recently won 20% in tuscany–a first.
    immigration is the issue! and exiting e.u.
13. Brian August 9, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Wild Boar. Do you not find it odd that a wild boar washes its food if it has a chance, and yet humans keep and feed pigs in their own excrement? Humans have convinced themselves the pigs don’t care.
    Which is the more stupid animal?
14. Louis August 9, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    The Bloomberg piece on teen employment is largely consistent with my observations in recent years, especially reason number 3, however, immigrants aren’t solely to blame for the decrease in teen employment.

    There is also the fact that, although the economy has recovered on paper, there are a substantial number of college graduates still struggling to break-in, along with older workers who lost their job mid or late-career and are struggling to regain a foothold. Competition from these workers is as much, if not more, responsible for teens being crowded out than competition from immigrants.

    As long as this phenomenon continues, the impact of raising the minimum-wage on teen employment will be a moot point, since teens are already being crowded out.
15. tegnost August 9, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    Re ACA article, I like the comment by Don McCanne MD. I’ve long had problems arguing about the act with supporters who say “show me the disaster” because I think it was designed such that the worst impacts would take years to be realized and then when the architects are all paid off and gone there will be shock, …shock at how bad it is, but sorry too late to change it. For instance the wealthy create trusts to protect themselves from medicaid clawbacks, the rest lose their house. The IRS involvement likely will have similar characteristics that will take time to reveal themselves. Re bernie, like if you get a nickname you don’t like, the worst thing you can do is react to it, and yes, fishy and seems a little too easy.
    1. jrs August 9, 2015 at 7:36 pm

       If coverage slowly gets worse, networks get narrower, deductibles get higher, premiums get more expensive (but how much of this the government decides to pick up is an open question), and penalties for not buying insurance are raised, plus more and more employers dump their employees on the exchanges, that is the getting worse. Nothing else is needed.

       Yes I think it’s a program designed to get worse over time, even without the hidden gotchas. But is initially a net benefit, not a great benefit, but on net …. but whether it will really be that over time is doubtful. But it’s hard to argue with now.
16. susan the other August 9, 2015 at 1:33 pm

    Learning to Speak Lingerie. Globalism in all its vacuousness. Depressing. It tells of an absence of context, except for one thing: selling crap. Just as a comparison, we might not like neonazis but at least they practice a more nuanced world view than expat Chinese selling whatever they can in whatever country they land in. Setting up carnival-like trade zones to push Chinese factory oversupply. Whenever I read some word describing surplus, I automatically think how much better it would be to never produce an over-supply of anything, especially cheesy retail items. The sewer of any economy.
    1. Emma August 9, 2015 at 8:51 pm

       Why can’t Egyptians have access to a choice in lingerie, Susan?
       This is globalization. If it’s via ‘TINA’ from China with an ‘Iron Lady’ smile, so be it! It proves you can’t knot a dick or stroke one that long to get the shortcomings of religion, can ya?!

       Much more seriously, globalization has obviously damaged our societies but lifted a great number of people out of poverty in China. China is no longer the poor, rural and agricultural-based economy it once was, thanks to their rapid shift to manufacturing. However, just like China today, most countries worldwide are now faced with the unenviable position of economic survival in a world of low growth.

       It’s unclear if the bulk of the money made in Egypt flows straight back to China, or straight into local investments and training. The local labor used appears to be both menial and poorly paid anyway. It’s not win-win when it’s heavily-weighted in favor of the economic development of one side. It results in a lack of human development on both sides.

       Given the present state of affairs and overall instability in Egypt too, what little locally-owned industry there is still operating, doesn’t need a hollowing out by China. Quite the reverse. China shouldn’t get leverage to attain economic dominance with little interference in Egypt. ‘Free-trade’ is fine but under control in this case. There are enough ‘sandstorms’ in the region without unhappy hard-line Muslims lashing out at happy hard-on businessmen from China…….
       1. NotTimothyGeithner August 9, 2015 at 10:49 pm

          Wouldn’t China have emerged after the foreign occupations? The Japanese weren’t distant masters. Giving the globalists credit for China ignores the history of occupation and wars. China was the Middle Kingdom. They aren’t does waiting to be blessed with an economic textbook from the round eyes.
    2. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 10, 2015 at 12:09 am

       I couldn’t disagree more. I think the Chinese showed amazing courage. And I think the picture of Chinese merchants selling lingerie in the Nile delta is sheer amazeballs. And did you catch this quote?

       Lin is in his early fifties and looks a decade older, with the tired eyes and troubled stomach of a Chinese businessman who has shared a lot of heavy meals and drink with associates. He rarely says much about local culture, but once, when I asked casually what he considered to be the biggest problem in Egypt, the forcefulness of his response surprised me.

       “Inequality between men and women,” he said immediately. “Here the women just stay home and sleep. If they want to develop, the first thing they need to do is solve this problem. That’s what China did after the revolution. It’s a waste of talent here. Look at my family—you see how my wife works. We couldn’t have the factory without her. And my daughter runs the shop. If they were Egyptian, they wouldn’t be doing that.”

       Even if Lin’s perception is untrue — readers? — that’s still an amazing statement in context, is it not? One wonders what will happen to the young Egyptian women working in the lingerie shops and whether they will bring about good things.
       1. susan the other August 10, 2015 at 11:25 am

          I don’t object to Lin’s sense of equality. I like it too. The thing that strikes me as hopeless about this whole story is not the entrepreneurship of the Chinese – it’s the assumption that they will make a difference in time to make a difference. It’s the “let the free market change the world” crowd. The one thing Lin was doing that I really did like was that he actively recycled plastic bottles and made synthetic thread-fabric and then made more lingerie. That was cool. But again, one lingerie tycoon in Cairo recycling bottles into buttless body stockings really isn’t going to make a dent in the environmental problems in Egypt.
          1. susan the other August 10, 2015 at 11:40 am

             I mean, selling lingerie is how Sam Walton turned his 5 and dime into an empire. But what good has that done anyone?
17. Vatch August 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm

    Giant spider web in Dallas suburb ‘draping trees like shrouds’ Birmingham News

    Years ago, I had some tent caterpillar webs in a tree where I live. I had never seen this before, and it was creepy and somewhat similar to the webs pictured in the article. At least I didn’t have to worry about the possibility of venom, since they weren’t spiders. But I didn’t want them to defoliate the tree, so I cut off the infested branches with a pole saw. The yuck factor was pretty high.
    1. Justlilolme August 10, 2015 at 12:48 am

       I think you are on the right track. Every few years, we have caterpillar webs/bagworm or similar. Miles of trees on the river road look just like the picture in that story. I’m calling BS to “spiderweb”.
       HA!
18. Ian August 9, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    http://www.trueactivist.com/this-incredible-system-generates-electricity-from-living-plants/
    1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 4:13 pm

       Ya. We can harvest energy from our capacitive discharge smartphone screens too ! If some research team figured out how to connect a wrist strap back to the battery charger usb port.
19. flora August 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    More on the Kansas vote machine story from Thom Hartmann.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOHj-D8ouS8

    And this morning’s paper headline announced Kobach has purged 30,000 voter registrations from KS voter roles.
20. Kim Kaufman August 9, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    “27 Powerful Pieces Of Graffiti That Paint Greece’s Frustration Amidst Crisis HuffPo”

    Does anyone else think it’s weird that the words are in English… not Greek?
    1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 5:51 pm

       At first yeah, but in Europe, the official multinational language is English.
    2. Kurt Sperry August 9, 2015 at 9:07 pm

       Graffiti/street art in much of Europe is very commonly done in English, often more so than in the native tongue. Paris has the best I’ve yet seen.
       1. optimader August 9, 2015 at 11:18 pm

          Paris has the best I’ve yet seen
          That pissant Parisian Graffiti/street art?
          This is the way we roll.
          http://www.ufunk.net/en/artistes/indecline-mojave/
          The American street art collective Indecline took possession of an abandoned airport runway in the middle of the Mojave Desert, achieving probably the largest illegal graffiti piece in the world. A gigantic lettering created directly on the asphalt of the track now owned by the US Army, with the words This Land Was Our Land as a tribute to Woody Guthrie. This creative street art is obviously visible on Google Earth (but not in Google Maps). Indecline is a collective of activists bringing together artists, street artists or writers, photographers and musicians
          1. Kim Kaufman August 9, 2015 at 11:38 pm

             It’s awesome! Signed up for the newsletter. Google maps is old. The picture of the street in front of my house shows a car I owned three cars and over 10 years ago.
21. Kim Kaufman August 9, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    Has this been posted here yet? I’m a little behind. It’s too much fun not to make sure everyone sees it.

    Sources: Roger Stone quit, wasn’t fired by Donald Trump in campaign shakeup
    Trump says he fired his campaign adviser. His adviser says he fired Trump.

    8/8/15 2:40 PM EDT

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/sources-roger-stone-quit-wasnt-fired-by-donald-trump-in-campaign-shakeup-121177.html
    1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 5:55 pm

       This is getting bad. I had great hopes of Trump derailing the R’s, now I wonder if he’ll last to the end of the month.
    2. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 9, 2015 at 6:44 pm

       Roger Stone! One of the greats! And twisty as a corkscrew. Maybe he’s quitting “Because my work here is done”?
       1. Kim Kaufman August 9, 2015 at 11:27 pm

          He quit because Trump wouldn’t listen to him. Trump is too crazy for Roger Stone. I tell you, it’s a great read.
    3. optimader August 10, 2015 at 12:42 am

       “Roger’s mistake was trusting Donald and not establishing a clear record that he was resigning first.”
       Here’s the rub, sociopaths don’t trust anyone.

       When Politico and Eric Eriksson have the same BS talking points about something Trump actually did not say, it means the Republican and Democrat wings of the political-media establishment are both deathly afraid DT is an uncontrolled gravity hole that will create a revenue distortion rift in the status quo quadrennial political media buy/campaign contribution/special interest repayment circlejerk & gift exchange.
       1. Yves Smith August 10, 2015 at 5:03 am

          I fail to see how Trump will distort, as in reduce, media buys. Everyone expects the campaign to cost each party $1 billion. A crowded and fractious primary field means more, not less, spending.
22. ewmayer August 9, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    o [RIP] Frances Oldham Kelsey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey

    Compare her courage to today’s Big-Pharma-bootlicking MO at the FDA.

    o Cops filmed behaving badly say pot shop’s camera illegally recorded raid: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/cops-filmed-behaving-badly-say-pot-shops-camera-illegally-recorded-raid/

    A novel ‘expectation of privacy’ argument, to be sure.
23. john c. halasz August 9, 2015 at 9:35 pm

    The article on the Mont Pelerin Society isn’t really news and perhaps you guys have been remiss in not highlighting the matter sooner. Philip Mirowski has done a lot of scholarly work on tracing the history and origins of neo-liberalism and its ideological apparatuses starting with the origin of the MPS. Muddle-headed people on blogs often say that they don’t know what “neo-liberalism” means and that it’s just a made up name on which to blame everything that people think is wrong with the world. But no, it’s a quite specific term, invented by the MPS, and quite deliberately promulgated as doctrine and via a think-tank strategy. (The idea that the left could reproduce such a strategy, however, is fairly ludicrous, since the left would lack such copious billionaire funding, as well as the willingness to lie and obfuscate manifoldly until something sticks).
    1. craazyboy August 9, 2015 at 10:33 pm

       Sure. I suppose we’re supposed to believe Europe invented the telephone too?
    2. Lambert Strether Post authorAugust 10, 2015 at 12:12 am

       Or perhaps you’ve been “remiss” in not doing even cursory research?
    3. jrs August 10, 2015 at 12:53 am

       Yea but we don’t have to use the enemies terms, especially when noone understands them in a contemporary American context at least. It seems to me that calling it neo-capitalism would at least be *accurate*, though whether it would win one friends and influence people I don’t know (only among leftists who already distrust capitalism, and they may already be converted)
24. JCC August 9, 2015 at 11:03 pm

    Regarding a previous article here on NakedCapitalism concerning “metrics”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/08/09/master-teacher-suing-new-york-state-over-ineffective-rating-is-going-to-court/

    Good stuff, one teacher was penalized because a student’s test score did not meet the predicted score. The predicted score was 3 points higher than than the highest possible score!
25. optimader August 9, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzvqQ1t8B-w
    I sing the body electric – Second sunday in august – Weather Report
26. Skippy August 10, 2015 at 12:45 am

    BLM Activist Who Shut Down Sanders is Radical Christian, Sarah Palin Supporter
    August 9, 2015 by Michael Stone 30 Comments

    One of the Black Lives Matter activists who shut down the Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle is a self-identified “radical Christian” and former Sarah Palin supporter.

    Marissa Jenae Johnson along with another protester, Mara Jacqueline, interrupted the planned Seattle rally for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday afternoon, preventing the Vermont senator from addressing the massive crowd.

    The rally at Westlake Park ended around 3 p.m. with Sanders choosing to leave after the belligerent protesters took the stage and stayed there, controlling the microphone, and hurling racist insults at the progressive crowd gathered to hear Sanders speak.

    After disrupting the Sanders’ event and taking the microphone, a hostile and obnoxious Johnson accused the audience of “white supremacist liberalism” before telling the Seattle crowd:

    I was going to tell Bernie how racist this city is — with all of its progressives — but you’ve already done that for me. Thank you.

    As one might expect, the crowd did not take kindly to the childish insults. Perhaps even more puzzling, an obviously confused Johnson said:

    If you care about Black Lives Matter, as you say you do, you will hold Bernie Sanders specifically accountable for his actions.

    Apparently Johnson is unaware that Bernie Sanders was marching with Martin Luther King Jr. before she was even born.

    Clearly Johnson is a poor student of history and politics. The fact is that of all the current presidential candidates Sanders is probably the most sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the BLM movement.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/
    1. Kurt Sperry August 10, 2015 at 11:29 am

       Thanks, someone did some actual research on these clowns! And it slots in perfectly with my intuition on who these faux radical women actually are. They embrace the superficial form of black radicalism, while at the same time completely rejecting its actual content. Rednecks in cornrows.
27. prostratedragon August 10, 2015 at 2:09 am

    Great stuff!

    Same band roughly, a year or two later:
    “Boogie Woogie Waltz”
28. Eric Patton August 10, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    Probably a little late to comment here, but I really like the article on cutting the work week to 20 hours.
29. malchats August 11, 2015 at 4:31 am

    On that ACA/IRS article:

    It may be much worse than the article reports. I got one of those letters from the IRS a couple of weeks ago, saying that “Our records show that you did not file a 2014 tax return to reconcile advance payments of the Premium Tax Credit” Except, yeah, I did file my 1040, including my Form 8962–if I didn’t, how did they cash the check I sent in with my return to pay the amount I owe? (Easily verifiable through my bank account, which shows the check I sent in and its posted/paid date.) I even sent in a request for my return’s transcript and received it about a week later, which shows all of my information as submitted on my return–including the data from the Form 8962.

    Apparently, the IRS’s record-keeping is so screwed up by the ACA requirements that they don’t even know who actually sent in their returns (with proper forms) or not. Of course a call to the indicated phone number proved pointless–a hang-up the first call, an hour on hold on the second. Am I good for my subsidy for next year? I should be, but who knows? Now I have to find the time to get over to a local IRS office and wave these papers in someone’s face to figure out where the stupidity and incompetence is living in this process.

    I wonder, how many more people who filed correctly and on time got these letters? Ridiculous.

Comments are closed.