Musings

(1) In the U.S. military there is a concept of a duty to disobey an illegal order.
(2) The United Nations has says that people under colonial and foreign domination have the right to use armed struggle against their oppressors.

This to highlight the point that governments do not always act legally *or* in the interests of people. We see this regarding climate disruption and massive resistance at the government and corporate level to not only taking action but to prevent others from taking action... so if people have the right to resist, can small local 'governments' in any form (HOAs, PTAs, neighborhood organizations, town councils, etc.) have the right to resist state/federal rules and laws? For example, can they retain tax payments due to larger entities to spend on local efforts to mitigate climate disruption (or any other local initiative)?

***

Factory farming of hogs has a stinky and environmentally damaging effect of hog waste lagoons. Setting aside the animal abuse inherent in factory farming, these lagoons are also hazardous to local residents and workers...

This is an excellent opportunity to implement circular economic flow where the by-product of one industry becomes the input or raw material for another industry. For hog waste, the goal would be to use bacterial remediation to (a) reduce toxicity; (b) reduce odor emissions and (c) generate valuable consumer product, such as methane and garden manure [cow manure and other compost is used by home gardeners and landscapers]. If toxicity can only be addressed by adjusting the hog diet, that may be healthier for the hogs, hog consumers and the environment,

Tomi Lahren says stupid things

Tomi Lahren says stupid things, predictably.


My comment:

She spreads propaganda and conspiracy theories like infectious diseases. The NY public health health authorities quarantined Typhoid Mary for spreading typhoid. White wing media, Tomi Lahren included, are a similar threat to the public health of the nation and planet.

For the sake of the nation...

My comment at an Alternet post:

IMHO, impeaching DJT is a necessary housekeeping for the sake of American democracy. Between Nixon (Watergate), Reagan (Iran-Contra), Bush 41 (Iran-Contra), Bush 43 (illegal wars, domestic spying, war crimes) and now DJT, there have been numerous egregious violations of the U.S. Constitution at the level of the Executive branch of the federal government. Every single violation has chipped away the founding principles of this nation. A presidential impeachment would do much to restore American and international faith in the rule of law. Unfortunately, our politics hates to air dirty laundry so it's not likely to happen. 

As to the Fall of the House of Trump, I'm stocking up on snacks to watch the action. It's small payback for his assaults on my psyche and our nation during his time in office. Let the show begin.

How close to treason...

Rachel Maddow describes election tampering by local North Carolina Republicans at C&L.


My comment:

This is happening under the rubric of the Republican Party... doesn't that mean they are engaged in a conspiracy to abridge a Constitutionally guaranteed right? While perhaps not 'treasonous', it is a bare step short of treason. A crime syndicate would be forcibly disbanded for the same behavior...

Bernie talks concentrated wealth and power

Bernie Sanders talks with Paul Jay at TRNN about the effects of concentrated wealth and power on the American system.


My comment in response to some other comments and Bernie's remarks:

(1) Bernie Sanders is a standing Senator representing the state of Vermont. He has a responsibility to (a) act in the interests of his voters; (b) convey the legislation they want and (c) adhere to his personal code of ethics. To carry out his duties, especially as a member of the minority party, he must be able to walk/talk/commune with other representatives. This involves a level of public diplomacy that he often gets criticized for – supporting Hilary, anodyne comments about the late GHWB… IMHO, Bernie’s critics seem to prefer he behave Newt Gingrich, “allowing hurt feelings over a perceived slight by Clinton to influence his stance in the budget negotiations” and that turn out swimmingly (/s). 

(2) “Raising the minimum wage, 15 bucks an hour. Radical idea a few years ago; kind of mainstream today.”And by the time you actually pass the 15 bucks an hour minimum wage in another few years, workers will be even further behind on the wage scale. The fight should be for a minimum wage pegged to annual average wages. Fighting the same fight is good for keeping Bernie Sanders employed but not so good for the minimum wage workers he’s purportedly fighting for. 

(3) “…And as a nation we have got to think from a moral perspective and an economic perspective whether we think it is appropriate that three people, one, two, three, own more wealth than the bottom half of the American society. You know, that’s really quite outrageous, and it’s appropriate that we take a hard look at that.”Economics originated as a moral enterprise. Even today, economics of average individual families are about working to earn the means to support the members of a family, which is morally superior to not working and allowing your family to languish. It was the introduction of profit as the be all and end all to economies that drove ethics out of policy. Profiteering allows gun makers to ‘morally’ profit from making and selling goods designed to perpetrate objectively morally questionable acts. Profiteering allows the military industrial complex to ‘morally’ profit from the making, selling and use of goods and services designed to murder en masse. Profiteering allows big pharma to ‘morally’ profit from the making, selling, use, misuse and withholding of drugs that can save and/or destroy lives. Profiteering allows extractive industries to ‘morally’ profit from the damaging of viable ecosystems to the extent that much that supports human life is at risk. One place where a basic reform might have immediate and significant impact would be to redefine economies to be self-organizing and self-sustaining systems of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services that promote the well-being of all participants… This would force all policy to account for impacts on sustainability and human well-being as opposed to sole the profitability for investors.

Destroying the Myths of Market Fundamentalism

TRNN has posted a video series of a forum organized by Ralph Nader called 'Destroying the Myths of Market Fundamentalism'. Worth a listen.


My comment on Ralph Nader's introduction:

Market fundamentalism has its flaws, no thinking person would question that. However, the system evolved into its current state through regulatory capture. Arguing for alternate regulatory capture is analogous to replacing a despotic ruler with a benign ruler. In the short term, conditions can improve but the state mechanisms enable reversion are present and calling for turnover.

My comment on Damon Silvers talk:

“Markets are product of government.”“Markets not fundamental but created.”Markets are part of economies (economies can be broadly divided into production & markets). Economies form in any human community, regardless of government (refugee settlements have economies with markets)… thus economies (and markets) *are* fundamental. When communities/economies grow sufficiently large/complex, governments emerge as a property of complex systems.---“How to shape markets and to what end?”“How to shape markets for long term wealth creation for all Americans. For that matter, all of the world’s population?”Is the market aspect of economies the best area to ‘shape’? Economics is a social science; that is, primarily concerned with relationships between individuals, groups and communities. Market relationships tend to be rather transient: buyers examine sellers’ goods; trade transaction occurs (or not); termination of relationship. In contrast, the relationships on the production side, (employer/employee, supervisor/supervisee, colleagues) tends to be of long duration, both in daily interaction and term of employment. Strong/healthy relationships on the production side of the economy empowers workers to become capable consumers who drive (somewhat transient) market activity.---“Challenge for securities regulation…”Also must consider the damaging effects of concentrating capital on the scale of economic operations. For example, mountain top removal mining is only possible because enormous amounts of capital can be pooled to build the massively expensive equipment. The same is true for most large scale extractive endeavors. While these projects may be profitable in the short term, the resulting environmental damage has incalculable long term financial and ecological costs (climate change for one).“(3)…transparency around key problems…data secret…”Information asymmetry plagues far more than the securities markets. It is the source and driver of power imbalance and economic inequality. In fact, the term ‘free market’ is a misnomer in light of the absence of information symmetry regarding market goods/services (working conditions, environmental impact, costs, etc.).

Daniel Ellsberg interviews

TRNN has a 13 part series posted where Paul Jay interviews Daniel Ellsberg. He essentially says: given current nuclear stockpiles, a nuclear war would set off climate conditions similar to those of the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs. Terrifying. 

My comment in part 9:

In this segment and the last segment, Daniel Ellsberg described a nuclear and war-making policy largely determined by (1) a capitalistic military-industrial-complex whose raison d’etre is the pursuit of profit without regard to consequences and, (2) military commanders whose raison d’etre is ‘victory’, pyrrhic and otherwise. The absence of morality is so striking that the only rational conclusion is that the MIC and military consists solely of sociopaths. This would also explain their absolute resistance to rational reform their war planning. 

The performance of DJT as POTUS has illustrated the need to consider the mental health status of presidential candidates. This series of interviews highlights the need for a similar mental health review for leaders in other areas including military and industry {such as MIC). Sociopaths might make the best commanders for immediate [hot] combat, but their lack of empathy, morality and remorse makes them unsuitable for high level leadership positions.

My comment in part 13:

For the vast majority of people without bubble hideouts in New Zealand to wait out a nuclear winter, the only rational response to a nuclear strike is to immediate travels *towards* the first strike zone. Should humanity come to such a pass, it will prove itself not worthy of saving and not deserving of any efforts on its behalf. Let the 'true believers' of rapture inherit the destruction they will have wrought.

Is it inevitable?

I just watched a segment on TRNN about the resurgence of right-wing fascism on Poland. The parallels to the rise of fascism during the period of the second world war are self evident and I was reminded of the repeating patterns of Mandelbrot fractals. My very simple understanding of Mandelbrot sets is that they are a mathematical model of a chaotic set (by definition, chaos cannot be predicted so it probably cannot be defined by an equation). An interesting property of these fractals is that they have very similar although not identical features and patterns at any and all levels of magnification... suggesting an inevitability cyclical pattern of events.

So I wonder... Based on patterns of the past, we are on a path to partly repeat the events of WWII Europe? How much momentum do these trends have? Having to repeat even a small measure of the tragedies of the past would immeasurably sad.

Long or infinite waits of Socialized healthcare

Harry Leslie Smith, a life long advocate for GB's National Health Service has died. His comments are worth hearing. 

My comment:

The most often repeated critique of 'socialized medicine' is long wait times. These same critics rarely point out the high costs of private-for-profit-socialized-health-insurance-medicine; costs that produce infinite wait times for patients without the wherewithal to pay for healthcare. In Harry Leslie Smith's youth, there were no 'long waits' to see a doctor; members of his community had variable waits for death, at times, very painful deaths. Today, many Americans have a similar long/moderate/short waits for death. Given the choice, most Americans chose the 'long wait' for care over the wait for death. We now have a Democratically controlled House and a number of States are under a Democratic majority; they must make this issue a priority. It's long past time to make healthcare affordable to everyone in this country.

Example of nurture over nature

The child of a family friend has recently joined the Air National Guard out of a feeling of patriotism (they have no financial pressure). IMHO, (1) this is a terribly dangerous time to join the military and (2) if this were my child, I would rather they be alive and living in a different country (resulting from invasion) than dead and myself still living in this nation... which got me thinking about the relationship between patriotism and love of offspring.

Patriotism is learned, a product of nurture. Love of offspring is a combination of biology (nature) and society (nurture). The willingness to send or allow your child off to possibly die in war is to value the existence of nation over existence of child. As a reflection of nurtured values over natural values, this is an example of how culture and society have a much stronger impact on individual human outcome than the genes inherited from parents. Nurtured impulses overruled natural impulses.

[For a little context, nature vs nurture often comes up in regards to disease: smoking and tanning are nurtured behaviors that promote cancer. But (natural) genes also play a role in developing cancer because not all smokers and tanners develop cancer nor do all people who avoid those activities escape cancer.]

U.S. Department of Defense failed audit

My comment at TRNN:

We have enabled a rich and powerful Military-Industrial-Complex to legally bribe politicians, policy makers and regulators through campaign contributions, political action committees, think tanks, ideological foundations, revolving door employment, etc. In return, all American taxpayers are forced to pay for ever more expensive, excessive and often unnecessary military hardware (with a side effect of excessively militarized local police) while less advantaged taxpayers send their children to become war fodder by foreign hands or self-destruction by suicide. We pay with our treasure, we pay with our future in our children, we pay with the future of our grandchildren. 

MIC and the military get away with this degree of theft by hiding information. An audit is information about how the military spends its funds. Their audit failure is not an inability to track and report their spending; it reflects an unwillingness by the military to report their spending and allow themselves to be held accountable to our elected representatives. [BTW, elected representatives who have been bought by the MIC and eager the stories told by the military.] It's not about the defense of nation from enemies; it's the offense of military, especially MIC, against Americans and anyone who might interfere with their profits.

It's all legal

Comment at Smirking Chimp (it's a quick and worthy read):

The true conflict is not between the U.S. and Russia/China/N.Korea/Syria/Mexico or Saudi Arabia & Yemen or any other nation-vs-nation aggression. The real fight is between the power elite and everyday working people on the planet. Any 'special' interest (such as Jeff Bezos, Koch bothers, Sheldon Adelson, Robert Mercer, big pharma, oil industry, military industrial complex, health insurance industry) that lobbies Congress for policies/laws/rules that increases their profits at the expense of the well being (health/education/standard of living) of their workers and consumers is participating in a long campaign against public interests. 

As every maker knows, the quality of any end product is largely determined by the quality of the starting material. This also hold true for economies; the quality and productivity of an economy is largely determined by education and health of its starting material of workers and consumers. Neo-liberal economics are marketed on the contrary principle that strong foundations are not necessary for strong economies. The Trump tax cut directly depletes economic foundations by removing money from a slowly growing economy - and he tells taxpayers it will grow faster. Unless neo-liberals have cracked the secret of creating something from nothing (aka, Big Bang), our current economic trajectory offers no hope of better conditions to workers.

Information is power

TRNN did a segment about ballooning drug prices as an issue in the Maryland governor's race.

A commentor wrote: 

"...funding for research should be increased and any licensed, FDA-approved manufacturer should be able to make and sell the drugs, whose patent belongs to the government. This would introduce competition and drastically lower cost."

My response:

Public ownership of publicly funded intellectual property would resolve the problem of big pharma. Tight limits on private control of intellectual property would place severe limits on the corporate growth which would have positive impacts on income inequality. Severely minimizing state secrets would set limits on the power of the state. Information is power. If information were less controlled, the power of current institutions would be curtailed.

The Grifter

Bob Woodward was on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert and said this:

Great missile system called THAAD. It’s the best missile interceptor in the world. We put it in S. Korea so we can shoot down N. Korean missiles… it’s a terrific missile system. So Trump asks, “Well how much does it cost?” “It’s a billion dollars.” … and they show him the lease…. “It’s great we have a 99 year lease.” And Trump says, “Who’s paying for it?” They said the United States. He says, “Take it out! Put it in Portland.”

It's pretty illustrative of Trump. For all his claims to be a 'businessman,' he doesn't understand the relationship between investment and return-on-investment. DJT is all grift.

He's apply the financial model that caused the Flint water crisis on a national level with the leading nuclear superpower. 

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Brett Kavanaugh is playing semantics

DJT's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh supposedly said to Susan Collins that Roe v. Wade is 'settle law'. C&L posted Lindsey Graham's comments.

My opinion:

It is highly disingenuous for any nominee to the Supreme Court including Brett Kavanaugh to call any Supreme Court decision "settled law." For any American not sitting on the Supreme Court, all their decisions 'settle law' (as determined by the U.S. Constitution. Justices on the Supreme Court use their Constitutional power to 'settle'/'resettle' law according to their procedures. As a non-Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh can legitimately claim he personally considers Roe v. Wade 'settled law'. But as a potential Supreme Court justice, that statement is using semantics to deceive the public. Lawmakers know this; Brett Kavanaugh knows this and Brett Kavanaugh's nomination shepherds know this. It is the people most impacted by Supreme Court decisions who do not know this and in a democracy, that is reprehensible.

New value system needed

Good interview at TRNN with climate scientist Will Steffen.


My comment:

"All of these [efforts to mitigate climate change] need to be underpinned by new value systems that value stabilizing the earth's systems as the highest priority that any economy must strive for." 

This should be the take home message of every economics course/lecture from now on. Economics and the values of economics must be defined beyond goods/services and financial return. My preferred definition of economies are self-organizing and self-sustaining systems of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services that promote the well-being of all participants. Capitalism would not be an acceptable primary economic system under this definition because it is not self-sustaining... using fossil fuels will eventually degrade the environment to the point where it cannot sustain human life as we know it. Placing profit and 'economic growth' above all else is the source of climate change, income inequality, health care crisis and many other social ills. But economies are human made social constructs; humans made/make them, humans can reshape them.

When lies are/aren't lies?

Every schoolchild has heard the thought experiment: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,does it make a sound?

I was thinking about this with regards to 'POTUS' DJT's incessant lying. With any lie, there are two participants - the liar and the recipient. Does the intent of the liar or perception of the recipient change the value or intent of the lie? For the U.S., this is not merely a thought experiment. The answer will have broad and long lasting implications for the future of the country, especially in regards to Constitutional rights, freedom of press/speech and transparency.

If a lie is told by someone without the intent of lying, is it a lie? [American press tends to say no. The intent of the liar is more relevant than correcting the lie for the sake of viewers.]

If every pronouncement is presumed to be a lie, is it a lie? [In some respects, this is fiction... But we are currently living under a president who seemingly cannot utter a truthful statement.]

Why not?

DJT is apparently considering pulling out of NATA. 

My comment:

DJT's strategy to "Make America Great Again" is to attack the *real* pillars of American exceptionalism (tolerance, melting pot, economic mobility, reliable ally) and bolster the *very worst* of its character (nativism, hubris, racism, militarism, religiosity - to shield everything, class structure).

BTW, although my observation is written from the perspective of an American progressive, I do not think nation-states are the best way to organize societies - I don't actually believe in 'American exceptionalism'.

A Trump metaphor

This came to my mind when I read a C&L post:

Trump and his peeps are the dung beetles of today's culture. They are burrowing deep into the middens of history and recycling its least humanistic ideas for modern consumption. As receptacles of the rejected, middens are repositories of death and disease. The Resistance has the crucial role of defending the U.S. and the larger global community from the toxins unearthed by DJT & Co. Ideally, his influence can be contained, destroyed and if possible, immunized against.

response:

Dung beetles have a constructive purpose . . . GOParasites don't.

my response:

Indeed, dung beetles recycle organic matter from organic waste back into the ecosystem. DJT & peeps are recycling the worst tendencies of humanity. Everyone needs to heed the words of Martin Niemöller: 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews [asylum seekers], and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew [an asylum seeker].
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

How do the GWB and DJT administrations differ?

Based on the economic/social 'shocks' described by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine:

GWB had the 'civility' to wait for economic/social 'shocks' to occur before triggering his anti-democratic agenda. In particular, September 11 to change the balance of power in the Middle East and any number of domestic power grabs.

Every incident of DJT operating outside of 'normality' is DJT throwing bombs to purposefully manufacture economic/social 'shocks': travel ban, trade wars, 'good people on both sides', Dropping Paris Climate Agreement, dropping Iran Nuclear Deal, meeting Kim Jong-un, splintering asylum seeking families... As this is happening, DJT's Cabinet and the Republican Congress are destroying consumer/environmental protection, civil rights protection, and stacking the courts against democratic governance. And that's only the start.

posted as comment as C&L

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, respectfully

A few days after White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders got a lot of flack for defending the DJT policy of separating children from parents of asylum seekers at the southern border, she and her family decide to dine at the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Va (~180 miles from D.C.). The owner of the restaurant did not want to serve her and asked them to leave. Her twitter response:

Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) June 23, 2018

My comment:

"...Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so"
— Sarah Sanders

The manager did treat you respectfully - you and your group were verbally asked to leave-together. You were not forcibly separated from your children by strangers and sent to different parts of the country without any means of contact or reunification.

Confounds the Science

All too true. Watch it on YouTube.

CONFOUNDS THE SCIENCE
(Written by Don Caron – Music by Simon & Garfunkel)

Hello darkness my old friend.
It’s time for him to tweet again,
but first he’ll have to check in with fox news
‘cause that’s the only place he gets his clues.
That’s how things get planted in his brain,
where they remain,
and it confounds the science.

The problem is he’s not alone.
He tweets to people on his phone
that global warming is a giant hoax
perpetuated by the liberal folks,
and he hires people that all think the same,
that play his game
and it confounds the science.

When he talks to crowds of four
he sees ten thousand maybe more,
believing they all think he’s god on earth
and was the product of a virgin birth
and if you disagree you’re the victim of fake news
or feminist shrews
and it confounds the science.

“Fools,” says he, “you do not know
it makes me smart from so much dough.
I know exactly where the problems are.”
But his solutions are beyond bizarre
‘cause his words never quite a sentence make
and thus he spake
and it confounds the science.

No limits on pollution now.
There’s not a thing we don’t allow.
Dump the garbage in the waterway.
Spray the toxins where your children play.
All the signs say that life on the planet is headed for a downward fall.
Go to the mall,
and continue to confound the science.

Copyright 2017 Parody Project

It's just the capitalistic way

Digby pointed out the Trump administration is selling American foreign policy for private gain. The Trump cabal sees it as an extension of capitalism - profiting from the sale of a sought after service.

Watergate X.0

I noticed someone calling DJT's scandals Watergate 2.0. As someone who has no particular fondness for the Democratic Party, I am of the impression that one hairline difference between them and Republicans is actually significant. And just to be clear, this pertains only to the modern parties (FDR til today). Democrats generally hold true to the letter of the Constitution if not always the intent. So far as I am aware (and please correct me if I am wrong), every Republican since and including Nixon has challenged Constitutional precepts in some form:

Nixon:
Watergate 1.0

Reagan:
Debategate (Watergate 2.0)
Iran-Contra (Watergate 2.1)

Bush 41:
Iran-Contra (Watergate 2.1)

Bush 43:
Declaring War on Terror (Watergate 3.X) - metaphorical war that justified a state of perpetual war and all the actions the administration took to push actual war and hide their lies. Includes outing Valerie Plame, enabling torture (John Yoo), Colin Powell lied to the U.N., forced rendition to CIA black sites, etc.
Lawyergate (Watergate 3.X) - firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons
Warrantless spying on Americans (Watergate 3.X)

Trump:
Russian involvement with presidential campaign (Watergate 4.X)
Emoluments violations (Watergate 4.X)
Using Congress to attack agencies of the executive branch (Watergate 4.X)


Carter did not instigate any major scandals and Clinton's scandals were of a personal nature - he did not pose any major challenge to Constitutional precepts. It was terrible that Obama advanced the prosecution of whistleblowers initiated by Bush 43 and upped deportations but in comparison to his recent predecessors, he was at least faithful to the letter of the Constitution.

The major failing of Democrats with regards to Republicans trashing the Constitution is their acquiescence. Their token fight is meaningless in light of the successive erosion by Republican presidents of Constitutionally guaranteed rights and limits.

Large powerful nation-states are not the best way to organize society.

Keith Ellison on Democracy Now!

Keith Ellison was interviewed on Democracy Now!

He doesn't frame the problem exactly as I do: concentration of power. But he does link concentration of financial resources to political power and that's rare for a politician. It's worth a viewing.

A bit from it:

These huge corporations that give executive compensation with no bearing, no connection at all, to the people who actually make the products on the ground. 

And this is hurting our economy. And it’s—and you asked where it all ends, Juan. You know what? It doesn’t end well, because what it means is that they use all that extra money to buy political influence in Washington, to try to influence people like me to give them even more benefits.

Biased journalism

Ben Norton at TRNN introduced a segment with Gideon Levy with the following: "Today I’m joined by the award-winning journalist Gideon Levy. Gideon is a columnist for the major Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and a member of its editorial board. We’re going to be discussing the protests that have been going on in Gaza for the past six weeks, the so-called “Great March of Return,” which have been very brutally repressed violently by the Israeli military. On Monday, May 14, at least 60 Palestinians were killed, and more than 2200 were injured in a brutal crackdown. That is in addition to the dozens more killed over the past six weeks and the thousands who have been injured."

My comment:

The host of this segment made a big mistake by labeling the Great March of Return the "so-called “Great March of Return”." 

Gazans were exercise the right to protest their repression by the Israeli government. They organized and gave their social operation a name. I do not know Israel's laws regarding free speech but if Israelis have freedom to speak, Israeli's violent response to the Great March of Return was a flagrant violation of the right of Gazans to speak out against their treatment. Labeling their name 'so-called' further denigrates and invalidates their attempt to speak out. Freedom to speak and the free press is under attack in many places of the world, including the U.S. with DJT's 'fake news' moniker. As one of the first countries to codify the right to speak freely into the Constitution, all Americans should respect the right of a people to self-identify, self-organize and freely associate for the purpose of expression. As a [so-called] journalist, the host of this segment should have, at minimum, done the same.

DJT's 'negotiating style'

Fareed Zakaria said this on CNN: "Trump’s negotiating style seems far from being this masterous strategic approach that he's often claimed it is," Zakaria told Anderson Cooper on "Anderson Cooper 360." "It seems somewhat impulsive."

My comment:

In the distant possibility that DJT and KJU actually meet face to face, I predict DJT will attempt a jovial gab-fest followed by grovelling at KJU's feet for any sliver of a 'deal' that he can take to the cameras to announce as the 'best deal in the history of the world' followed by a demand for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

'Businessman' DJT didn't make money through 'deal making'; he made money by using mafia-like tactics to swindle investors, contractors and customers alike. He doesn't deal, he uses fixers like Michael Cohen to strong arm.

A discussion at TRNN asked if a universal basic income were Progressive or Regressive?

My comment:

"What do you think of this basic income, and is it progressive or is it a regressive tool?" 

Her answer already says it's the wrong question. The right question: does basic income change the balance of power in that a few people become more powerful? The answer is yes; the people charged with the power to collect and distribute these monies become more powerful. Further concentrating power is dangerous because those in control will never give up power and eventually power corrupts their original good intentions... just look at the U.S.... many social problems intended to assist/benefit the needy/low income are under constant assault by politicians of both major parties. Instead of creating (political) solutions to inequality (collect and redistribute money), change the system so capital is distributed more equally in the first place. 

"...the idea is that, if the minimum wage were eliminated, then hiring workers would be less expensive and firms would be more likely to hire them, as opposed to investing in labor-saving technology." 

Robots do not eat food, buy shelter nor wear clothing. No-income people cannot eat food, buy shelter nor wear clothing. How do robots which don't earn money and people without money build a functioning economy which requires movement of money? Mass automation will create a class of people without access to traditional money who survive through an underground economy, likely with a lot of bartering... the implosion of capitalism.

This is a huge error in reasoning on part of the interviewer!

The Moral Crisis of Our Age

On Friday, DWT's Midnight Meme of the Day was a quote by Robert Reich. To paraphrase, he essentially said the moral crisis of our age is not social issues but capitalist driven income inequality. My comment:

The moral crisis of our [modern] age is the concentration of power. This is not a new phenomenon; in the past, the Magna Carta, the American Revolution (and Constitution) and French Revolution all attempted to redress inequity. The nuclear bomb and nuclear button epitomizes the immorality of such power - how is it moral to knowingly and voluntarily give power over life and death of humanity to one person (every leader with power to launch a nuclear weapon)? From an economic perspective, how is it moral for the few owners of Koch industries to fully control the livelihoods of 120,000 workers & their families, much less be so prevalent that it's impossible to not use their products. What is the moral justification for allowing a few bankers the power to crash the national economy and likely depress the world economy?

Guns don't kill people...

There was another mass school shooting yesterday. This time in Florida with 17 dead so far. Every American knows the standard NRA/Republican Party response: thoughts and prayers; too soon to talk about gun control and the incredibly hackneyed, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Let me offer an analogy...

Guns don't kill people in the same way the influenza virus doesn't kill people. Flu victims with strained immune systems succumb to secondary infections. In the same manner, the primary condition of being 'people' does not mean they automatically pick up any available instrument to kill other people. It's people with stressful secondary conditions such as mental illness, anger issues and other social pressures who succumb to the easy solution of readily available guns to 'solve' their problems.

So I suggest that all supporters of unlimited/unrestrained gun rights not get a flu shot this flu season. They can take their chances with the flu virus just as they inflict the gun virus on the entire country. Hopefully, their stupidity will earn them a Darwin Award to the benefit of humanity.

Universal Establishment against the Resistance

At TRNN, Charles Derber talks about the need to universalize the resistance to fight the establishment. My comment:

"...on the one hand, this universalization, but on the other hand, are we becoming more fragmented?... How does that go together, on the one hand the universalization and on the other hand this fragmentation?" 

The establishment, also known as the system, is unified and highly successful in fragmenting the working people of the world. They use identity and social issues to splinter voters into opposing groups so they are disinclined to organize significant resistance. For example, the Republican and Democratic Parties don't particularly care abortion; so long as individual politicians can get the medical care they seek for their families, they aren't concerned if poor women have access to abortion or reproductive care. They care about policies that their donors want. Abortion is useful because it polarizes their electorate and generates a mock conflict between the pro and anti sides (like pro-wrestling) which distracts the real policy intent of the Republican and Democratic Parties which is to always advance the concentration and transfer of power/wealth to their donors. 

The key to resist voter fragmentation is not to ignore the differences but to unify to respect these differences and advocate for each others' rights to those positions. The poor, brown, white, low wage, immigrant, women, LGBT and other groups are not outsiders; they are insiders, part of the group. In this country, they are all known as Americans but workers should not overlook the same systemic pattern of deliberate fragmentation that is also exercised abroad. The system uses competition between native and foreign workers to sow division internationally. The entire point of corporate/trade globalization is to create wage competition to force down production costs. Worker unity must also cross national borders if the establishment/system is to be contained.

Arms 'Marketing'

Short video of William Hartung at TRNN describing how the MIC profits from war and government policy. My comment:

William Hartung hit the nail right square on the head. A popular meme spouted by many pro-capitalist economists is that in free markets, market forces (consumer spending/consumption) drives what gets produced. But somehow, these same economists never examine the 'market forces' of the planned military arms economy (created by governments, especially by the U.S. government). The planned military economy creates forces of lobbyists and special interests who advocate for constant war and continuous arms race. Instead of buying food, childcare, medical care, education and intact ecosystem for our children and grandchildren, American taxpayers are buying updated nuclear weapons and other military hardware, war game exercises, ill-will from hundreds of foreign military bases and global instability from waging and fomenting war. These are economic decisions and American voters need to understand the spending priorities of their government in that light. 

Another useful tool maybe to redefine what economies are. The word 'economy' has Greek roots meaning house or home. The common definition of economy is focused on production/consumption of consumer goods for the purpose of generating profit, a far cry from house/home. A much better definition would be self-organizing and self-sustaining systems of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services that promote the well-being of all participants. This would automatically make some sectors of the modern economy 'uneconomic' because they do not promote well-being... the entire offensive arms/military industrial sector.

Name of piece: Code Pink Conference: The Arms Industry Hides Behind Euphemisms (December 29, 2017)