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!