Links 2/21/16

Winston’s 185 mph Winds in Fiji: Southern Hemisphere’s Strongest Storm on Record Weather Underground

That Sinking Feeling The American Prospect (Re Silc)

Buyer Beware: The Vulnerability of One Complex Debt Investment WSJ. CoCos.

Financial turmoil half a world away is melting Minnesota’s iron country WaPo

For Silicon Valley, the Hangover Begins WSJ

Robots at Boeing: Ex-Boeing Employee Chimes In On Robotics MishTalk

A Skeleton Key of Unknown Strength Dan Kaminsky. “TL;DR: The glibc DNS bug (CVE-2015-7547) is unusually bad.”

Xi tours Chinese top state media, demands total loyalty WaPo


Saudi Foreign Minister: ‘I Don’t Think World War III Is Going To Happen in Syria’ Der Spiegel. Good to know.

U.S. Ignores Own UNSC Resolution – Tells Russia “Stop Bombing Al-Qaeda!” Moon of Alabama

America Is Now Fighting A Proxy War With Itself In Syria Buzzfeed

The media are misleading the public on Syria Boston Globe

Libya’s Quiet War: The Tuareg Of South Libya Vice

Will Syrian Kurds defeat ISIL, helping Democrats win White House in 2016? Informed Comment

How the United States benefits if Iran’s economy booms Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

To Keep America Safe, Embrace Drone Warfare NYT. Yeah, if “America” is your gated community in Montana and you own a bunker.

Imperial Collapse Watch

This is How the Liberal World Order Ends Foreign Policy

“They really don’t want this out”: The biggest Iraq War scandal that nobody’s talking about Salon. “Burn pits.” Cheney-era corruption, with Obama suppressing the whistleblowers. Veterans issue for Sanders, if he wants it.

Whither Europe?

EU referendum: An extraordinary 24 hours in politics – Cabinet divided moments after historic vote called Daily Telegraph

Cameron sets date for UK’s EU referendum FT. June 23.

UK’s ‘Special Status’ Deal With EU Means Russia Will Remain the Enemy Russia Insider


Trump’s hostile takeover is on course: South Carolina FT. The military has a huge presence in SC. And Trump calling out Bush on 9/11 and Iraq didn’t hurt him at all.

5 numbers that explain why Trump won South Carolina Politico

For Cruz and Rubio, the moment has arrived: A three-man race with Trump WaPo

Donald Trump Doesn’t Need High Vote Percentages to Pile Up Delegates NYT

Trump Vs. The Kochs American Conservative. I don’t see why it’s so weird that there’s factional conflict among the squillionaires. Soros funds Clinton, after all.

Jeb Bush’s Path To Defeat Began A Year Ago FiveThirtyEight

How Clinton staved off disaster in Nevada Politico. Clinton blew a 25% lead to end with a 5% win (measured, like Iowa, in delegate votes, not popular votes). Not sure why Sanders couldn’t close the gap; it sounds like a late Sanders air war couldn’t beat a dug-in Clinton ground war (plus a ton of surrogates and clients and union help on the strip). But, given the insurgent nature of the Sanders campaign, I’m not sure what the alternative to the air war would have been. Organizing takes time.

Clinton holds off Sanders in tight Nevada race FT

Clinton’s Campaign Just Got Busted Impersonating Union Nurses in Nevada US Uncut

Why aren’t young Latinos ready for Hillary? Because they’re still wounded by Obama. Vox. “[M]any young Latinos carry the responsibility of choosing a candidate on behalf of their relatives and community members who can’t vote.”

Bernie Sanders, the Foreign-Policy Realist of 2016 The Nation (Re Silc)

Arrest photo of young activist Bernie Sanders emerges from Tribune archives Chicago Tribune

Economic Populism at the Primaries The New Yorker

Obama Seeks Generational Bridge Within Civil Rights Movement Bloomberg. Where movements go to die…

Class Warfare

To Fall in Love, Click Here Jacobin. Long form, much better than that title.

Forced arbitration clauses are a form of wealth transfer to the rich Boing Boing (original PDF).

I Sold Concessions at the Super Bowl. Now I’m Suing for the Workers Whose Wages Were Stolen There. Slate

Uber is using its US customer service reps to deliver its anti-union message Quartz

Modern Milgram experiment sheds light on power of authority Nature

Bluebook® vs. Baby Blue’s (Or, Bleak House “Lite”) Another Word For It. Important outside the legal community: If citiation systems are not in the public domain, then authorities located through those systems might as well not be. Imagine if URLs were copyrighted! The parallel is exact.

USDOJ: Make Apple Fix Their ‘Brand Marketing Strategy’ for Our Needs emptywheel

Retrotopia: Back To What Worked The Archdruid Report. I keep waiting for the protagonist’s real mission…

Robin Hood in a Time of Austerity LRB

The Tax Justice Network February 2016 Podcast Tax Justice Network. “Which country is the second easiest in the world after Kenya to set up an anonymous shell company?” I love podcasts, and this is a good one.

Antidote du jour:


See yesterday’s Links and Antidote du Jour here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Guest Post, Links on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


  1. Pavel

    In typical fashion, Team Clinton is triumphant over their victory over Sanders. But who knows what would have happened if he had another week to campaign? I note the MSM is saying NV “puts her over the top” (huh???) and this was Bernie’s last real chance (huh???). He has the money and the troops, this is still a long way from being over.

    And good riddance to Jeb! One dynasty down, one to go. If it’s Trump v Clinton, I’d have a hard time knowing whom to vote for (moot question for me in any case, happily).

    1. Llewelyn Moss

      “Clinton won a decisive 76 percent of African-American voters across the state…”

      WTH are they seeing in Hellery that they like? Maybe because she says she Hearts Obama and Bernie dares to question his policies.

      Oh well, regardless, I will write-in Sanders if he doesn’t win the rigged primary.

      1. Gio Bruno

        The AA vote is very small in Nevada (~9%). The Latino vote is 3x’s that.

        Look. 2 out of 3 Nevada voters live in the Las Vegas area (South) and Hillary has focused effort there for some time (months). Northern Nevada (Reno/Carson City) voted predominately for Sanders; enough to create a small overall differential. (Even though HRC had a 60/40 advantage in Southern Nevada.)

        Many Latinos belong to the SEIUnion and their leadership backed HRC. (My guess is members followed leadership.) That said, Sanders showing in a RED state with only a week of campaigning is impressive. If South Carolina emerges equally close, Sanders will have the ground volunteers to keep making headway ’till the Convention.

        1. montanamaven

          Caucuses are undemocratic. Caucuses can be gamed. Union and Democratic party leadership are very influential and always sound like they are in the know. People can be easily intimidated at a caucus as opposed to a secret ballot. Caucuses are also time consuming. You need three hours or more to caucus rather than going into a voting booth. The casinos gave their workers paid time off to caucus. (You caucus where you work). Who made that all happen? I heard it was Harry Reid that pulled out all the stops for HRC. Even with all the help for Hilary, Senator Sanders really did an exceptional job with very little time.

    2. Pat

      It isn’t just Team Clinton. I was amazed at both the coverage on CNN and the headline at Yahoo. “Big Win” “Decisive Victory”, um no somebody coming from 20 points behind a month ago to within 5 points, and in some cases the victory was winning the tie breaker is neither ‘big’ or ‘decisive’.

      Still Democratic Leadership should be terrified looking at the turn out numbers. The polls that show her losing to pretty much every Republican they could throw at her are probably not wrong. The hey, nothing is going to change except for approved incremental changes but fear the Republicans is not a winning message to convince people to vote for you. And while I might find the thought of Trump frightening and Cruz terrifying they don’t really scare most Americans enough to convince people to run to the polls to vote for Clinton.
      And much as I wish it weren’t true, I’m pretty damn sure there are a whole lot of people who might turn out for Sanders except they have been convinced that there is no point – he isn’t going to win. Now that on its own wouldn’t be a big deal for most of the Democratic Misleadership, but since logic is not their strong suit, let me spell it out for them: if you don’t have the Presidency, the House, the Senate and very few Governors you aren’t going to get that sweet corrupt big money. They don’t need you any longer. It will continue to be thrown at Republicans. because it will be between them. But congratulations because you are so freaking greedy and corrupt you will take most of America down with you. (Yeah, I’m not so sure there will be enough grass roots left to fund another Sanders down the line after this debacle runs it course.)

      I can hope that the voters of South Carolina wake up and smell the coffee about how little Clinton actually gives a crap about them after the election, not to mention voters in the Super Tuesday states. Mostly because much as I joke about it, I really was hoping not to see the pitchfork and guillotine version of revolution in my lifetime, and I’m not sure working within the system will be possible much longer.

      1. sd

        Imagine an actual race between Trump and Clinton. There is just no way she will hold her own. She’s imperious. She could handle a Jeb Bush. Trump is a school yard bully.

        I wouldn’t be surprised to see Trump start really going at Clinton soon which would help him to further pull away from the other Republican candidates. Why bash immigrants, etc when he can start getting in his punches now?

        Bernie seems like a scrappy fighter who has no problem going fisticuffs with a bully. For Clinton, she just seems like she thinks it’s beneath her.

          1. flora

            Trump is against the TTP and TTIP, against cutting SS and Medicare, for ending the Iraq military intervention, and the Koch Bros hate him. All pluses.

            I’ll write in Sanders if Clinton is the nominee.

            1. neo-realist

              Trump is against the TTP and TTIP, against cutting SS and Medicare, for ending the Iraq military intervention

              Those positions are resonating a lot more with the GOP man in the street than most of the pundits and elites realize. Given that, I’m wondering if the elites are very intent on backing Rubio (in all likelihood) for the Presidency and finding a way to f**k Trump out of the nomination prior to or at the convention. He’s clearly not a “team player” if he really means that he won’t follow TPTB SOP.

          2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            How is it that the Republican anti-establishment candidate Trump can win South Carolina, with a large margin over the second place finisher (32% to 22%), taking on Bush, and the Democratic anti-establishment candidate Sanders can’t beat a weak Clinton?

            Should Bernie stay consistent, as he has over the last 40 years, and not prevaricate anymore?

            “Obama is weak,’ Say iT!!!!

            Right before the South Carolina Democratic primary.

            1. sd

              The Democratic establishment has done everything they can to minimize competition for Clinton. It’s quite a feat that Sanders has done as well as he has.

              1. rich

                It’s quite a feat that the MSM, DNC, and Clinton ignore this:

                16 Days : 14 Hours : 59 Mins : 18 Secs
                Since Hillary Promised to ‘Look Into’
                Releasing the Transcripts from Her Goldman Sachs Speeches


                It’s hard work ignoring corruption. This should be posted on Times Square.

                1. Tony S

                  Dem primary voters also largely ignore it, too. At least the Clinton ones.

                  We get the government we deserve.

                  1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                    If the strategy is to seize the Democratic party machine, we need those Clinton voters in November.

              2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                The Clintons are all about triangulating, calculating.

                Sanders can be the anti-Clinton by doing the opposite.

                Just say it.

                I suspect that will energize his base even more.

                If not, it is still the anti-Hillary thing to do and we can’t manage 100% all the best laid plans of man and mice. We do what we believe.

            2. neo-realist

              Lots of corporate media manufactured consent that Sanders’ economic populism won’t sell in the general election; Middle aged/older voters who like Sanders position, but defensively choose to back Clinton feeling that they will hold what they’ve got under her, yet believe that Sanders will lose the general election and get much of the safety net taken away by the GOP President. I’m not saying this is a totally realistic scenario, but I suspect this is the perspective of that demographic voting for Clinton.

              1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                That sounds like Clinton voters are thinking two, 2, moves ahead.

                And people call them low information voters.

                “Can you guarantee a Sanders prevailing over the GOP victory.”

                “Well, it’s likely, but nothing in life is guaranteed.”

                Is that emotional security or is that low-information?

                “Low information voters, we are in November now. Today is eletion day, please vote. We need you now.”

              2. Tony S

                And yet, Trump’s economic populism isn’t perceived as a general-election problem by the same group of people.

                After Trump destroys Hillary in November, the post-election analyses will set a new standard for pretzel logic…

                1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                  When we talk about Trump destroying Hillary in November, we have to remind ourselves that none of us is guaranteed to get another chance to speak what we believe tomorrow.

                  Seize the day. Carpe Diem.

                  If that is what you believe, say it. Obama is weak.

                  It will be a huge catharsis for many voters from 2008 and 2012.

                  You might not get another chance.

                2. neo-realist

                  Trump was a real estate magnate, as opposed to a self-declared “democratic socialist” like Sanders. It may be easier to sell populist policies and fend off corporate media vilification coming from a cache of big business than that of a straight up lefty. Labels and symbolism mean a lot to Americans, even those that aren’t low information.

            3. fresno dan

              Just to beat a dead horse (but I SO LOVE beating it) From the Guardian:

              “Nine months later, Bush suspended his presidential campaign in the state he had hoped would resurrect his fortunes. On Saturday, voters in South Carolina instead overwhelmingly chose Donald Trump, the businessman who a week before had blamed George W Bush for the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and accused the former president of lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

              There, in microcosm, lay the problem that plagued Bush from the off: a surname that earned a record $100m war chest before he had even declared his candidacy, and yet became one of his many disqualifications in the eyes of a primary electorate shaped less by conventional wisdom than anti-establishment fervor.

              Bush appeared somewhat incredulous.

              “The frontrunning candidate for the Republican nomination believes that the Republican president didn’t strive to keep us safe?” he told 200 or so voters in Rock Hill on Thursday, throwing up his arms in frustration. “I don’t get it.”

              “I don’t get it”

              Perhaps Bush tried his best – it just wasn’t very good, whether it was naivete with regard to Cheney, inability to regulate Wall Street, complete cluelessness conducting a war, and so on. Just like Mittens had reality comprehension disorder, and thought he would win the 2012 election, Jeb! apparently actually believes that most people thought Iraq was a minor miscalculation…

              I suspect at some point, the boy wonder, Rubio is going to find out that most repubs really don’t want a candidate whose campaign’s linchpin is more military in the mideast. I’m sure he just won’t get it.

          3. TedWa

            Even Republicans are saying that if Clinton is the nominee that the same demographic democrat voters that voted for Reagan will vote for Trump.

      2. diptherio

        I’m not sure working within the system will be possible much longer.

        That’s so precious…you still think that working within the system is possible. Ahhhhh…..

        Sorry, I can’t help myself. Yes, I think Bernie is the best candidate for Prez we’ve had in my lifetime. No, I don’t think it would make much of any difference if he were elected. “The System” is just that, a system, and no one politician is going to fix it. The time for revolt is long overdue.

        For far too long, Americans have been handing over their tax-dollars to a bunch of liars, in order to subsidize policies that are actively detrimental to their interests. At some point, people have got to figure out how dumb that is and stop acting like children with regards to the Federal government and those who control its levers of power.

        Are you an adult? What should an adult do when they figure out that someone is manipulating them and being destructive to their interests? The answer is not: just keep on as though all were right with the world and the government really is here to help you. The answer is not: keep handing them as much of your money as they demand, and purchase whatever private financial product they require to to buy (for your own good [cough]). The answer is: you walk away, you refuse to comply. You say “screw you,” not “yes, daddy.”

        Rant over (and it’s not directed at anyone personally, just society-at-large).

        1. Michael

          I’d agree if not for pot. Bernie would have the power to legalize pot at the Federal level with the stroke of a pen, and that really is a huge change in how we interact with our government.

          1. James Levy

            You can’t withdraw consent. You can pout. You can stay home. You can shout till you are horse. But unless you leave the country you are not withdrawing your consent to being governed by the system at hand. Thinking that you can live here and “withdraw consent” is make believe.

            1. charger01

              I gently disagree. It is true that you cannot withdraw from income, property, and other forms of taxes. You can choose to live light, garden, buy used/thrift, support the informal economy, and vote for those you personally agree with, even if they are a write-in. Living frugally/debt free is a form of withdrawing consent from our political and economic system. It’s also rational.

                1. Vatch

                  Well, sure, but there can be unpleasant consequences. Prosecution and an involuntary vacation at Club Fed, for example.

              1. Jim Haygood

                ‘You can choose to live light.’

                Yes. Those who live in high-cost urban/suburban areas, pulling in six-figure, two-earner incomes to support the American lifestyle of three cars, three empty bedrooms in the mini-mansion, and a $12,000 stainless grille on the deck, are the cash cows for the welfare/warfare state.

                Cash in your chips, “live light” in a low-cost area on a modest income, and you can legally become a taker instead of a producer, sucking the marrow out of the ‘global domination’ state instead of feeding it.

                  1. Carolinian

                    Because your low cost lifestyle isn’t expanding the economy and business profits.

                    And I would agree with Diptherio except that we all have some responsibility for what our govt does overseas–the drones, the wars etc. Voting is the least we can do.

                  2. different clue

                    Perhaps we shouldn’t call successful neo-peasant subsisters “takers”. Perhaps we should call them ” withholders”. Withholding support. Withholding what consent they can.

              2. Lord Koos

                Storing whatever wealth you do have outside the financial system with precious metals or cash is also a good thing… until they come for your cash of course.

                1. different clue

                  Well then, why not store your wealth ( if you have any) in the form of de-MERSing you records of house ownership and bringing them back to physical earth in a County Courthouse Record of Deeds? If that is still legally possible to do?

                  And then, prepay everything you owe on your house and land down to zero. That will cut one link to the system. Then super insulate your house and install roofwater collection systems for several thousand gallons of water and turn as much yardspace as feasible into high production gardens, microorchards, etc. Get the soil tested and mix in all needed minerals down to a depth of several feet or as deep as you are physically strong enough to dig.

                  Learn how to store food you grow and food you buy and then store it. Keep eating the oldest stored food as you keep storing newer food. Get all the tools you can imagine yourself needing for “subsistence in place”.

                  That is a better way and place to store wealth than in gold or diamonds or cash or other surrogates for “munny”.

                  And if you have any smart neighbors who get the concept and can be trusted not to discuss any of this with stupid neighbors or malicious neighbors, discuss this with them and make co-plans and co-efforts. And practice looking poor poor poor. If there are official Food Emergencies and Government Breadlines, be sure to show up in the Government Breadlines. You don’t want any neighbors to see you missing from the Government Breadlines because then they might think you already have food. And if you aren’t gunned and ammo’d enough to kill all the stupid/malicious neighbors who come to steal your food, they will kill you instead and pry your stored food from your cold dead hands. Better to look poor and hit the breadlines so they never suspect you have food.

            2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              That’s an interesting comment.,,another view.

              “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing.”

              Doing nothing short term.

              Doing something, slowly, long term can be so slow as to be almost invisible…not necessary because that’s the choice, but the situation dictate so.

              Or it could be that sometimes, the way forward is to take a step back.

              It’s likely we won”t know until it is over and we look back.

            3. diptherio

              “Freedom is something you assume; then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.” ~Utah Phillips quoting an old anarchist who’s name escapes me.

              That’s my strategy. I do what I know is right and wait for someone to try to stop me. So far, no one has (or at least not in a serious way).

          2. ambrit

            The idea of rule due to the ‘consent of the People’ assumes that the ‘elites’ take the needs of the People into account. Todays’ ‘elites’ have already ‘crossed the Rubicon’ of dis connecting themselves from the Generality of the population. By doing this, the ‘elites’ have endorsed a ‘might makes right’ style of governance. As long as the governing entities maintain an exclusive hold on force, they continue in power.
            Despite many centuries of agitation for peaceful means of ‘regime change,’ the historical record shows that force wins most of the time. Many people cite the example of Ghandi to ‘prove’ that peaceful methods can win. This example is flawed. What if Ghandi had fought against Fascists? The British gave up in India for many reasons, but, they gave up. This was almost a textbook example of very good propaganda, used by Ghandis’ camp, in the West to undermine the ruling elites’ unity and control. Essentially, the Raj defeated itself. What if Dyer had been encouraged to continue with his massacres, as happened at Amritsar?
            When ‘withdrawing consent’ leads consistently to personal extinction, you soon run out of brave and selfless people to lead the ‘movement.’ Then, the centre collapses, things fall apart.

        2. different clue

          A President Sanders would reject the Free Trade Agreements.

          A President Clinton would sign the Free Trade Agreements.

          A President Trump would be unpredictable. Whatever he did, he would do it without any understanding of the long-range downstream effects.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Sanders has a bit of that ‘let’s all get along’ attitude in him.

            He should be over turning the tables at the temple…now, not later.

            Talk about energizing the base.

            Just say what you believe – Obama has been a disappointment.

            1. Ian

              That conversation at the White House. Some horse trading was done, don’t know what, but I’d love to have been a fly on the wall.

            2. different clue

              Well, if Sanders has some of that lets all get along attitude, then he is just to that extent psychologically unfit to be president.

              The future is zero sum. One class will survive by making the other class die. One class will march to victory on a road of the other class’s bones. Which class will it be?

        1. polecat

          Who? Clinton. … Bush/Cheney, …Pelosi/Reed, …Biehner/McConnell, …Geithner/Blankfein/Dimon, ……….WHO???. I’ll tell you who…….NOBODY !!!!

      3. ScottW

        I am interested in knowing how specific segments of the Black population vote in NV and in SC. I rarely see polling data of Blacks broken down by sex, age, education and income in primary races. It’s just all the Blacks thrown into a big polling pot.

        I wonder if much of Hillary’s Black support is from Blacks who felt victimized by neighborhood crime in the ’90’s, so they are less likely to criticize Bill’s law and order campaign that was created to bring Southern Whites back into the party. Most victims of Bill’s law and order policies are disqualified from voting as convicted felons. As for those suffering from Bill’s welfare reform, they may be low information voters and Blacks who vote in lower numbers. They have given up and see no candidate as offering any solutions to their problems.

        My educated guess is Hillary’s Black support receives a huge boost from grandmothers who raised their daughters’ children. Another large group with be Blacks who are economically successful and really don’t need Bernie’s policies. Finally, there does not seem to be a huge group of young Blacks who support Sanders. At least not in the way young White voters do.

        In the end–no Democrat is going to win any Southern state outside of possibly Florida. Obama lost them all except North Carolina and Florida. So all of the excitement about South Carolina being a “Firewall” makes no sense..

        1. NotTimothyGeithner

          Virginia. Obama won Virgin a twice. It may not be the land of cotton, but Virginia has tobacco, civil war tourist traps, and guns, lots and lots of guns.

          My gut is Hillary (Bill too) is held in very low regard here. Virginia will go red if she’s the nominee. The only party building TerryMac has done (exit polls revealed TerryMac voters were quite open to admitting they only voted against the Republican candidate) is whine how the Democrats couldn’t take the state senate because of gerrymandering which the Democrats controlled at least for the Senate.

        2. Eddie

          I worked the Democratic caucus in Nevada and observed a precinct voting in Las Vegas suburb.

          There were 36 voters in our precinct. They came in evenly split 18/18 and despite speeches back and forth for almost a 1/2 hour no one changed sides.

          In terms of the makeup of the split – Hillary was all white and black over 50. No Latinos from what I recall. There were 2 younger white women and one younger black women.

          Bernie was all under 50 (bulk in 20-30s). Mixed racially (including two Asian voters who were probably in there 70s). There were 2 younger black voters as well as a Kenyan-American who I thought gave the best speech – spoke about his experience going to school in Europe and why we need to make college free here.

          Interesting comment about the grandmas – the only younger black voter who chose Hillary was sitting with her grandma and grandpa. They grandpa was decked out with Hillary pins was actually kinda adorable. Another thing was while a lot of people spoke none of the black voters on Hillarys side spoke up. I wonder if it’s because they didn’t confidently know her platform.

          It was frustrating being an observer as I felt a lot of points made by Hillary supporters went unchallenged. There was an elderly man who was also a bully – interrupting anytime someone on Bernies side mentioned Hillarys money from Wall Street/special interests. He kept saying “that’s a lie…prove it” even though I think that is one of the least contested points/concerns about Hillary. It would also ruin the Bernie speakers momentum.

          Lastly – and I think Bernie needs to hammer this point – no one mentioned that social security and Medicare would most likely be used as a bargaining chip by Hillary in future negotiations. I think that is something older folks should be aware of – it is safe with Bernie but not with Hillary – and I would think that would be the biggest reason to vote for Bernie if you are elderly and retired.

          1. Vatch

            Evenly split? How did they resolve this? Did someone pick a high card from a deck?

            Thanks for the view from the trenches.

          2. Lambert Strether Post author

            It’s really all there for anyone to see: Say what you like about the PUMAs, they were dedicated to Hillary and many actually traveled to Denver with the hope that her name would be placed in nomination (which, given the closeness of the outcome, seems reasonable). No such luck. The Clintons went into the back room with Obama and (I am convinced) cut the deal: State for Hillary and Obama’s support in 2016 for Clinton support of Obama in 2008 and 2012, as well as deep-sixing those pesky Texas Caucus fraud affidavits. And thereby throwing her supporters under the bus.

            Anybody who thinks Clinton won’t throw them under the bus should think again. The track record shows it, even if you don’t buy that corruption has already made it impossible for her to deliver on any of her commitments (to voters, that is).

            1. different clue

              My understanding is that Clinton was threatened and extorted into entering that “back room”. What I have read is that Clinton and Obama were both summoned to the coincidentally-occurring-in-Chantilly, Virginia meeting of the Bilderberg Society and were both instructed that their orders were to make a mutually tolerable deal to end the visible conflict.

              Some of that IS fact-checkable. Was there a Bilderberg Society meeting in Chantilly Virginia at Convention time? Did Clinton and Obama both go to or close-to Chantilly Virginia at that time? If those facts aren’t even factual, then the whole theory falls down. But if those facts really are factual, then the theory deserves a good close look.

      4. Banana Breakfast

        The next President and Congress face another economic meltdown, either in motion as they take office or blowing up in their faces soon after. Only Sanders and maaaaaybe Trump would push for the government spending necessary to right the ship, so a Clinton or Rubio Presidency is likely, I think, to be a 1 term abject failure that discredits whichever Party Establishment has the misfortune to have won the office. Cruz (who hasn’t got a shot, he’s this election’s Santorum – a too far right loonie who has a bit of success early then comes apart) would similarly discredit the Tea Party. If they lose, Sanders and Trump will be back, or their ideological successors, and they’ll be madder and more radical next time.

        1. different clue

          Sanders would be too old. But if his supporters created a real movement and turned that movement into a New Deal Revival Party, they could begin a multiterm political offensive that way.

          1. The Heretic

            Bingo! I hope that Sander supporters realize this must be a multi year effort. Even if Sanders wins the presidency by a wide margin, there are political and bureaucratic enemies among both the repulicans and democrats that would stymie any positive initiative he commissions. However as president he would still he very powerful, the corporate media could not deny him a televised series of ‘fireside chat’ to public, and he would have veto power and substantial executive powers. And his presence and protection might give the necessary boost to the forces of decency among both the repulicans and democrats to act; those people would have to ‘lay low’ in the present day to survive. And imagine what Elizabeth Warren could do with Bernie behind her.

            I do wonder if the CIA, FBI and Homeland security and Justice system will cooperate with him.

            1. Eureka Springs

              Isn’t the largest caucus in the U.S. House, The Progs a perfect ongoing feckless example of a multi-decade Sanders type of movement within the confines of the D party?

              1. Mac

                Do you mean the caucus where the majority of members have endorsed Hillary for President? Even though Sanders was a founding member? The corruption in the political system is complete, and it is unclear how to build an effort that will affect change. Even here in California, there seems to be little hope: The front runner to replace Barbara Boxer as senator is Kamala Harris — an attractive minority with little track record though what is known (for instance civil rights violations of prisoners, among other things) is concerning. She is being touted as the next Obama and a future Presidential aspirant, given her ability to hit identity politics while maintaining a largely blank slate of records and votes.

                I feel discouraged because things are about to become really bad for many in this country. Things are already bad for many, but people are still hanging on. Here in California, the projections are that employer-sponsored health insurance (not insurance from the ACA marketplaces) will cost employees 30% of their median salary by 2020. This is not sustainable. Our climate change and energy usage trajectory is not sustainable. Our military adventurism is not sustainable. Where I work, everyday I see and feel how people are being burdened and beaten.

                How did the original progressives achieve real change in the early 1900’s? The national situation seems very similar to then, and groups then were able to agitate and achieve political improvements.

              2. different clue

                Younger people not infected by contact with the House Progs could stay in touch with eachother and organizers and start a New Deal Revival Party or whatever they want to call it. They could begin a long march through the institutions and offices. They would have to deny membership to any Judas Progs fleeing the burning building.

                1. different clue

                  I would suggest that any officeholders who voted against Free Trade Agreements beFORE they were passed could be considered for perhaps being trusted.

            2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

              Never give up, even if they have rejected you thrice before the cock crows.

              If not this, the next time and the next time after that.

              I think with the two parties in the rear view mirror, during the transition to a new era, it’s possible the stock market unravels, equalizing quite a bit of our wealth inequality problem and taking the Fed down with it.

              That would be a Chinese crisis, as in ‘in everything crisis, there is an opportunity.”

              In that sense, getting the nomination is secondary to speaking what you believe.

              “Obama is weak.”

            3. cwaltz

              I personally believe there should be a top down effort to regain the Democratic Party. If I had my way we’d start with Pelosi.

      5. NotTimothyGeithner

        The great hope of Team Blue was to turn Hispanics into the new black.

        The Democrats have a number of problems.

        -the Democratic Party outside of a handful of people cannot entertain the idea of receiving anti-war votes
        -Social security is still popular. Obama destroyed his second term on the altar of a grand bargain.
        -the economy is terrible and Democrats have been demanding applause for years. Does anyone remember Recovery Summer?
        -ACA. As people deal with the corrupt system ACA will be blamed.
        -the lack of a bench. The Democrats don’t have any Carter or Bill Clinton types who could be brought in as outsiders. After all, Hillary’s biggest problem isn’t her presentation but her record.
        -immigration is not a major issue for much of the country and a very important issue to the people who care. Running on bad immigration policies is the worst of two worlds. Most voters are citizens and don’t care, but the ones who do usually have first hand experience with immigration policies and saw the 2007 Ted Kennedy/George W Bush monstrosity for what it was, an opportunity to bring back slave labor or “guest workers.”
        -the dismissive and elitist attitude of the Clintonites who not only are elitists but clearly not very bright. It’s one thing to be derided by someone with a point, it’s another when it’s a thug.

        Hillary won’t be able to repeat the 2012 coalition when Obama blew out African-American voting records and didn’t attack or deride potential Democratic voters at every opportunity.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          Perhaps it’s our ego.

          “I can change this man, if I marry him.””

          Or “I can make the Democratic Party a better machine. I will make the machine work for my noble cause.”

          I will make better use of those low information voters.

          Maybe the Democratic Party is beyond saving, even with a handful of people who can receive anti-war votes.

          1. ambrit

            I just read your, “I can change this man, if I marry him,” quote out loud to Phyllis. She’s still laughing and just told me to cook my own lunch.

              1. ambrit

                No problem MLTPB. I bought it upon myself by quoting out loud. (I have a well known recurring case of “Foot in Mouth Disease.”) When I do ‘sleep on the couch’ I actually sleep on the floor. Several layers of ‘acquired’ moving van quilts make a comfortable ‘bed.’ When my back acts up, not often now, this is the best bed for me to use.

              1. ambrit

                Another ‘version’ of this is trying to resolve issues with a parent at second hand. One of the most dangerous (to me) things I know to tell Phyl is, “you’re acting just like your mother.” Conversely, she has my inner dynamic with my deceased father figured out just right. Oh well.

      6. fresno dan

        February 21, 2016 at 8:21 am

        “And much as I wish it weren’t true, I’m pretty damn sure there are a whole lot of people who might turn out for Sanders except they have been convinced that there is no point – he isn’t going to win”

        I never cease to be amazed that people will vote for someone they think can win instead of for someone with whose policies they agree.
        It isn’t like your vote is recorded. And it is hard to find someone now who owns up to voting for Nixon. You don’t even have to admit you voted. So if you want to vote for the socialist, vote for the socialistic!****

        Maybe I have been a contrary curmudgeon so long that I just can’t comprehend it, but I just can’t get why people jump off the bridge because everybody else did…


        Bernie is a democratic candidate. There are 3 candidates of parties that have “socialism” in their name. So vote for Bernie…or a socialist. Or anyone. It just doesn’t strike me to voting for someone because everybody else did is a very good reason

        1. Pat

          I agree with you.

          My point about voters and Sanders and his inability to win, is that there is a very and underlying feeling in this country that there is no point in voting. And the meme that the best candidate that many Democrats have seen in years if not in their lifetime cannot possibly win uses that feeling and feeds it. And they then stay home, because what is the point. Think of it as the logical result of a long campaign of psychological voter disenfranchisement by the Democratic leadership. (And yes, I do believe that it is a deliberate choice on the DLC/Third Way types to depress turnout.) I really wonder what turnout would be if a whole lot of the unhappy Dems in this country thought the old guy could actually take it all…

          And I really would love to see the half to more eligible voters who no longer vote in this country that still care what happens to show up and vote third party, write in, etc. If only so both of the main parties can stop pretending they represent a majority in this country. And force notice that NOT VOTING is not tacit approval but may be NONE OF THE ABOVE. Not really shouting but want that highlighted.

          1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

            I’m starting to think US politics is like golf: a game for masochists. Just how much head-into-brick-wall beating can someone take?
            The difference is that a golf game is discretionary, whereas politics affects all the stuff that is mandatory: food, clothing, shelter, keeping someone from killing you, etc.
            And for the record, after a lifetime of voting for McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Clinton, Kerry, and Obomba (once), if Hilary gets the nomination I will be voting for Trump. The system needs a stick of dynamite under it and he is much more likely than she is to provide it. Meantime though I’m all in for Bernie.

          2. Lambert Strether Post author

            “a long campaign of psychological voter disenfranchisement by the Democratic leadership”

            And having shrunk their own base, they are now teaching it to demand less, and framing that as “pragmatism.” Heartbreaking.

        2. Jeff W

          I never cease to be amazed that people will vote for someone they think can win instead of for someone with whose policies they agree.

          That dynamic is something like the “prisoner’s dilemma” or the “assurance game” (or the “stag hunt”) in game theory: people won’t expend their vote unless they are somewhat sure that others will as well so as to make their vote worthwhile—otherwise they are “throwing their vote away.” But it’s all a self-fulfilling morass—others won’t act so you won’t; you (and those like you) won’t act so others won’t. Certainly, in this election year it doesn’t seem quite rational, at least in terms of assurance—if voters just voted for what they wanted in terms of policy, they would, in fact, be in good company because majorities or large majorities agree with many of the positions of Sanders.

          But since people are told that Sanders is “not electable” (i.e., there is no assurance that enough others will vote the way you will)—or one of Clinton’s gambits: that, even if Sanders is electable, he can’t do what you’re electing him to do—many people are not voting on the basis of policy alone. It’s an indication of how broken the system is and how much people have normalized that—that voting based on the policies you want is viewed as a kind of outlier position or even an infantile one, one that’s framed as wanting unicorns or ponies.

      7. dk

        Sanders is more “electable” than Clinton (in the general election).

        Because Sanders can attract crossover Republicans. Hillary can’t, they hate her. Clinton’s popularity among Independents is also weak.

        This would be an issue even if Sanders wasn’t in the race. But Sanders presence and messaging has scotched Clinton’s original strategy of swinging gently to the right and try to peel or at least suppress some votes outside of the Dem corral.

        Crossover voting is often a big determinant in elections, establishment political consultants hate it because the party bases (especially the Dems) consider it disloyal to woo “the enemy”. But I can tell you, it wins races.

        Could Sanders lose Dem votes to a Republican? That depends on which Republican he were to run against. I think the would lose the most to Trump, possibly some to Rubio. But I think Sanders would pick up significantly more than he would lose, especially against Trump. In contrast, Clinton would have to work hard just to defend and turn out the Dem base.

        I’d still favor Clinton over any other Rep, but by a very tight margin. And the election is still a long way off, in political (and media) time.

  2. tony

    “The military has a huge presence in SC. And Trump calling out Bush on 9/11 and Iraq didn’t hurt him at all.”

    This is pretty much what you’d expect. Military men have their faults, but they are exceedingly honest, face reality and they know that war sucks. You call out lies, and unlike most people, they usually accept truth. You can see that in other areas too, the military is the only group that takes threats like climate change seriously. They just don’t like it when members of the feckless left, who support every war when it matters, show up and criticise them after the fact.

    1. Michael

      I . . . guess. The military guys I know are so far into the doublethink that they barely function.

      But that works both ways; if you’re beyond stressed, you’re just plain ok with whoever seems like they know what they’re doing saying things that make some kind of sense.

      1. tony

        True enough. They do tend to be authoritarian assholes pumped full of propaganda and made to fight unjust counter-insurgencies. Barely functioning might be right. But in my limited military experience and according people I respect they do tell the truth and accept it when told it.

        For me and everyone else, the military training definitely conviced us that war is terrible, and boring.

  3. fresno dan

    Trump’s hostile takeover is on course: South Carolina FT. The military has a huge presence in SC. And Trump calling out Bush on 9/11 and Iraq didn’t hurt him at all.

    It is incredible how poor the punditocracy is on understanding what it going on. But of course, they are advocates of the status quo.

    I don’t know how many “analysts” I read that thought the popularity of Dubbya would help Jeb!, that it was anathema to repubs to challenge the northstar of “Dubbya” “kept us safe”, that religious conservatives would be repulsed by Trump, ad infinitum.

    The repub slate is repulsive, but it is the repub policies that really, for the first time in ….40?; 50?; 60? years are getting an actual airing. And surprise surprise – a good number of those old repubs don’t want their social security and medicare cut. And they don’t believe all that much in “free trade.”

    Its funny how the repubs all agree on immigration – and the media emphasizes that, but scarcely points out Trumps numerous deviations from repub orthodoxy, and NEVER broaches the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Trump’s deviations from repub orthodoxy accounts for his success.

    Yet if you were to read establishment repub venues, they just can’t believe that repubs would vote for such a reprobate with regard to repub polices – what is the matter with this stupid base (most poop their pants at hearing that he may eliminate the carried interest tax deduction!!!! Heavens!!!!!! tax breaks for the rich are the BEDROCK or republicanism!!!! Don’t the plebs know this!!!!!)

    1. Steve H.

      – The military has a huge presence in SC. And Trump calling out Bush on 9/11 and Iraq didn’t hurt him at all.


      I read the diary of an utterly cold-blooded officer from the Civil War, who waxed on about how the men needed to believe you cared about them, to get them to fight for you.

      The MIC sends soldiers to their deaths for profit, so the agents for it can’t really afford to care for them after the utility has been extracted. But the soldiers need to believe that their superiors are fighting for them in return. It looks like that’s a battle that has been lost.

      1. fresno dan

        I really don’t know how many accounts of young idealists who joined up after 9/11, went to Iraq, and discovered that the US government is actually run by incompetents, scoundrels, and as*holes, I have read. But it is an awful lot…

        1. neo-realist

          I’m surprised and disappointed Bush didn’t pay the price for that war back in 2004. Then again Kerry made the mistake of not making a blunt argument against the war, but choose to brag that he could fight it better than Bush. Nor did most of the democratic side probably believing it was more expedient for their long term political goals to support a wasteful war.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            It’s always expediency, isn’t it?

            Gotta win the next election, because my cause is noble. Not need to have a clean break.

            Leave the sacred cow be.

            This revolution is special, exceptional.

    2. MikeNY


      Trump says a lot of things that are odious, half-baked and reckless, but a lot of other things that are patently true and that no one else in the GOP has the balls to say, especially wrt to the corruption and mendacity and rot of our political system.

      And I have to say, the latter batch of opinions is really refreshing to year. And it’s rather gratifying and fun to watch the Establishment run around with its hair on fire.

      1. fresno dan

        Oh, I agree a zillion percent. As I have said so many times, add Sanders and Trump supporters together and its a majority. But we have a finely crafted, designed, and regulated system to thwart the majority. The squillionaires didn’t get to be squillionaires by being stupid or by playing fair.

    3. Dave

      The White Working Class guy that used to make a living in the trades and who now has to “compete” against every Latin American that makes into the U.S. is hardly interested in the carried interest rule and probably doesn’t even know what it is.

      1. Andy

        Yeah, but nobody really cares about that fact. They (consumers) just want the lowest price. Even if the lowest price gives the lowest results. Everybody is short term thinking nowadays, IDK why exactly. Waiting for the Zombie Apocalypse I reckon.
        Or as the “Great Gazoo” would say-“Dum, dums.”

    4. charger01

      I had an opportunity to attend the local Republican caucus here in Washington state. After gaining mild interest back in 2014, I was curious to see the nuts-and-bolts of the party machine in action. My PCO is literally my neighbor. It was fascinating- emotion was raw during the entire experience, everyone was quite angry/anxious/giddy at the prospect of the 2016 election, even though the conversation drifted towards Trump and Rubio as the likely nominees. Only a few mentioned Cruz and Carson as contenders.
      Most the conversation revolved around local elections, events, and personal stories. Only about 6 or 7 out of 60ish people in at attendance were under 35. One key topic- the economy. Every retiree and soon-to-be 65 person were openly worried about retirement. It was obvious that the presidential race was a proxy for their anxiety about their personal situation. I’ll be attending the county caucuses in April and give the readers of NC and heads-up afterwards.

      1. fresno dan

        Thanks for that – I will be very interested.
        There is a lot of schizophrenia in politics. With the repubs, endless yammering about balanced budgets, but never, ever is one even submitted, and the deficit is always made worse by tax cuts. A desire of repubs to cut social security and/or medicare, something a substantial majority of their (older) supporters do not in the least support.
        It just seems to me that the internal contradictions of the repubs have gotten so great and so obvious, that it just can’t hold

        1. Left in Wisconsin

          The Repub playbook doesn’t require consistency of of belief or behavior. The point isn’t to balance the budget. The point is to claim forever the need to balance the budget. Except defense.

          1. neo-realist

            They claim the need to balance the budget when the President is a democrat, so he can’t get away with any commie social program spending. But when the President is republican, deficits don’t matter, to paraphrase Cheney, particularly if it involves 1% percenters, defense contractors and the black budget getting as big a cut as they want.

        1. neo-realist

          The GOP caucus might be a bit of a barometer for the republican zeitgeist in WA state. Then again, Western Washington is a different animal from central and eastern WA—–Western WA a bit more “enlightened” than the eastern parts.

  4. johnnygl

    Trump got a big bump in the polls when started talking up tariffs for china and mexico. Media don’t want to see it.

    1. Pavel

      Carlos Slim, one of the richest (if not THE richest) men in Mexico is the largest shareholder in the NY Times. I wonder what he thinks about increased tariffs on Mexico?

      Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim has become the largest shareholder of New York Times Co (NYT.N) after exercising warrants to double his stake in the publisher to 16.8 percent.

      Entities affiliated with Slim exercised the warrants he bought in 2009 when he loaned the company $250 million during the height of the financial crisis.

      New York Times, controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through Class B shares, paid back the loan in 2011.

      Slim’s total stake is valued at $341.4 million, based on the stock’s Wednesday closing price of $12.28.

      He follows other billionaires who have put their faith in the media business. Inc (AMZN.O) founder Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in 2013 while Warren Buffett has invested in several newspapers.

      Carlos Slim becomes top New York Times shareholder

      For that matter, I suspect AMZN’s Jeff Bezos (owner of WaPo) is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to Chinese and Mexican tariffs.

      1. different clue

        What would he care anyway? He’s a Davos Man now. He can put separate bunches of billions here, there and everywhere to work all sides of every arbitrage racket.

      2. 3.14e-9

        Carlos Slim is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, and his foundation is in a partnership with the Clinton Foundation and Frank Giustra in a private equity company in Colombia.

        The Free Beacon (I know, I know) did a story in November. Whatever might be wrong with their facts (I haven’t thoroughly checked it out), after it was published, the Foundation revised the donor list on its webpage to show a substantially reduced contribution from Slim. Also, the website for the investment company, Fondo Acceso, mysteriously disappeared. The announcement of the partnership in June 2010 is still on the Clinton Foundation website, with a link to Fondo Acceso that now goes to a Go Daddy “get this domain” page. Meanwhile, there are spin-offs, Acceso Fund LLC and Acceso Worldwide Fund LLC, both incorporated in Delaware.

        The timing overlaps with HRC’s tenure at State, and her e-mails show that she met with Slim at least once. Investigating whether any of the projects they invested in received money from USAID or other U.S. government agencies would take a lot of digging.

    2. Carolinian

      Our major news outlets are ridiculously bad. Check out that Links Boston Globe op-ed about how the MSM are misinforming the public on Syria. With no reporters of their own on the ground they simply report whatever the government tells them or turn to flaky internet sites that depend on youtubes and other easily falsified evidence. Clearly the culture of journalism has changed and reporters are less interested in exciting “scoops” and more concerned about staying within the lines of their careers.

      1. Brooklin Bridge

        Yes, and the Globe is one of the worst offenders. I would say, “ironically”, but it is beyond ironic.

        It would appear they toss coins for who gets to write articles with a few actual facts thrown in once every other month or so. Kinda like real antiques placed about in a cheap enclosure to give it an “air” when put on the market as a “house” for sale. In the meantime, back to the BG rag, day in day out it’s nose to the neoliberal grindstone of double speak (Hillary talk of late).

        Oddly, at present, they are getting beat out at lucrative game by PBS which is beyond beyond ironic – in fact watching PBS, one would assume it was a spoof like SNL except that they keep droning on and on and suddenly you realize, hey they want us to actually swallow this HS.

        1. Carolinian

          As a big PBS watcher I have to agree. But the Newshour was always more about comment and spin than news. They rely on reporting from British channels (worse than us!) for much of their foreign coverage.

          1. Brooklin Bridge

            worse than us

            Yea, this ‘competition’ to the bottom is another source for dark humor. :(

            As a proper Bostonian, I feel some measure of loyalty to stick with the Globe to win if it can just do so before going belly up. They’ve been so nice to their delivery people (keeping them spiritually fit by material poverty) that they have had to have their reporters and staff do some of the deliveries.

        2. Gio Bruno

          Yes. Listen to this Sunday morning interview of William Cohen (fmr. Sec of Defense). An easy 5 minutes of unchallenged propaganda by Cohen followed by a sigh of relief from NPR host.

          Neo-Propaganda Radio is definitely a spoof on real journalism.

      2. TedWa

        My solution is Ruptly TV. RT. They report from the ground. Might as well get 1 other side to the arguments about the facts/propaganda shared by the monopoly we call our famously free press. RT stated that Russia had drawn up a ceasefire agreement in Syria days before the US came out with it as being their idea.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      One’s backyard or the local community garden is just as beautiful as the top 100 destinations one is indoctrinated to must see before checking out of this hotel…if one is receptive to all the beauty that is around us.


      What about seeing the world, learning other cultures?

      Sadly, all that Grand Tour of Europe didn”t prevent the First World War.

      And ‘the world’s cultures are all here in this melting pot’ (at least according to the propaganda ministry) in Los Angeles – where over 100 languages are spoken.

      So, again, if you open your mind, there are many ethnic communities to learn other cultures….RIGHT HERE AT HOME.

      That’s localism.

      1. polecat

        I started 8 years or so ago……chickens ,bees, fruit trees,shrubs, & vines……raised garden beds in front yard (gasp!!!) solar clothes dryer, making soap, canning food, etc, etc……………..

        1. ambrit

          “Solar clothes dryer!!!” I remember helping Mom hang the clothes out on the ‘solar clothes dryer.’
          For whiter whites, she would hang sheets out on nights around the full moon. (It works too!)

          1. fresno dan

            Solar clothed dryer….clothes line and tanning spot.
            In Fresno, on a nice balmy 112 degree day, by the time you reached the end of the line, you could go back to the start of the line and the clothes would be dry. As a feature, and not a bug, they were stiff as a board as well….And those eggs you put on the sidewalk would be well done by that time as well.

  5. Eureka Springs

    “Bernie Sanders, the Foreign-Policy Realist of 2016”

    Where’s the beef came to mind, but then I realized I couldn’t even find the empty vacuum of space in that article about nothing. When it comes to Sanders on MIC/foreign policy, the so-called liberals are taking the old ‘teflon’ tag for Reagan up more notches on behalf of themselves than this cynic ever dared imagine.

    When one ‘reporter’ finally gets a specific he has to ask Robert Gates to eeek out a ‘compliment’ like this:

    Yet in various cases—such as the 2001 war against the Taliban/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or the 1999 NATO intervention to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s aggression in the former Yugoslavia—Sanders has not shied from military action.

    You Sanders supporters might as well just admit you still have no problem just shooting, droning, blowing up innocent human beings as policeman of the world for profit and blood sport…. At best argument, so you can have health care. Hoping Sanders will deliver the MIC message to you in classic NPR tone and fashion.

    If I recall correctly one F-35 contract will cost as much or more than the billions he squeezed out of his vote for Obamney-not-care.

    1. Llewelyn Moss

      Bernie has said he wants to end the endless wars and stop the US “regime change” mindset in the ME that has left broken countries as incubators for terrorism.

      Who are you supporting that wants to end the MIC as Master of the Universe?

      1. Eureka Springs

        You know who I’m supporting, myself and the most basic element of human decency I can think of. It begins with each individual wholeheartedly, without excuse or apology seeing madness, propaganda and evasion for what it is and saying I’ll have none of it.
        And the Verde party which cannot be named without ridicule and derision among most Dems or Sanderites.

        I noticed the other day in these N.C. threads how far more Sanders supporters quickly promised to support Trump if Sanders falls rather than a third sane party such as it is. Just like Florida in 2000 it was massive amounts of Dem voters who pushed Bushco into theft territory. Small sample to be sure, but all too familiar and telling. Perhaps they were right, saving us all from Vice President Lieberman.

        But “the Saudis just need more skin in the game” Bernie Sanders. Heck even court jester Kerry and the madness of Obama seemed (who knows for sure) to have backed off that option in the last couple of weeks.

        1. Bernard

          that anyone thinks a 3rd party is viable is so oh not in touch with reality, imho. that is so funny and sad to begin with. something here that screams, “thou doest protest too much”.

          sad to see how disconnected these “dreamers” are. the system is killing us and the planet too. having it crash is the only thing the TPTB can’t control. and it’s all about control. not even how lesser of evil Trump is than Hillary. Trump is a lunatic, Hillary is cold, calculated and bought! l can’t believe i would actually say a Republican candidate is a lesser evil. Hillary would also be perfect as the next “plantation overseer.”

          getting a black man to run the plantation was a brilliant move. Consolidate the Black vote to push their own “suicide.” getting the slaves/white slaves in particular/ to support the “Wife” as overseer now that the Black brand has been used, is just a another part to quite successfully further the Republican Plan. Obama furthered the con quite well. Our owners know what they are doing. Trump is so out of control for them. Austerity is converting the white rubes into angry “losers.”

          Trump is a horrible example of our political “choices” today. Hillary is even worse. there aren’t many options left to “dazzle the rubes”. Blacks first, a woman now. who can they sell to us. it’s all about the Markets. sell by dates.

          so far down the rabbit hole. Alice in Wonderland!!

        2. James Levy

          OK, so Sanders isn’t any good. What the hell experience does Jill Stein have in foreign policy, and where is she going to find the 3000+ Executive Branch officials appointed by the president to run the departments? Who is she going to name to the Joint Chiefs, to Defense, the CIA, the NSA, etc. who are going to bring the 180 degree change to US foreign policy over night? How are they going to manage such a revolution without spawning a counter-revolution, and how is Jill Stein set up to win that struggle? And how is she going to convince, over night, the American people that every president since McKinley (because Cleveland, a man 90% of them have never heard of and couldn’t tell you a thing about, was the last anti-imperialist president) was bad, a liar, and a criminal, but you, Jill Stein, know the truth and know better than all of those guys how to run US foreign policy?

          1. different clue

            I suspect Sanders’s main foreign policy problem may be simple ignorance as he has spent his intellectual energy and focus on domestic American concerns. If that view is correct, ignorance can be fixed and he can become informed. The danger is that he become disinformed by listening to the same establishment pool of intellectuals which disinforms every other major candidate. He showed sound instincts on Kissinger.

            Does Sanders have a big enough staff to devote some people to reading good blogs for nuggets of information or even for advice on which few good blogs Sanders himself might spend a few hours reading intensely? Does any steady reader of this blog know someone who knows someone who knows a Sanders Staffer who would think reading a few good blogs would be a good thing for Sanders to do? If anyone else thinks the possibility exists, perhaps people can start suggesting a few good blogs for the Sanders people to read in order to pass genuine foreign affairs information up the ladder to Sanders himself. I would suggest Colonel Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis. If time is limited, I would suggest focusing on the relevant sub-subject headings on the right sight of the SST homepage, such as “Syria” and “Ukraine”.

            1. sd

              What was Obama’s experience with foreign policy?

              It’s pretty much impossible to know everything. What matters is the people you bring together in support of the vision.

          2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Does it slow down the machine if no one is appointed to the CIA and NSA?

            Or do temporary replacements just run the joints business as usual?

            1. ambrit

              One aspect of well designed bureaucracies is their ability to keep functioning without senior apparatchiks at the helm. So, if the groups you mentioned do fall apart without ‘senior’ guidance, than they deserve to die.

          3. Eureka Springs

            Isn’t it amazing what the mere threat of a thought of Stein does here and now to you. It’s beautiful.

            Imagine no joint chiefs, GASP! Imagine Stein pulling out all the troops, emptying bases, etc. A Commander should do that, pronto. Imagine a Commander in Chief not saying the Wahhabis should buy billions more weapons from us and have more skin in the game. It’s easy if you try.

            Imagine 98 percent of U.S. foreign policy/offense/defense ending about 100 miles off the coast, where it should end. I can easily imagine paying those with MIC jobs now to stay home, do nothing, or something else entirely. Lots of things.

            Imagine a Pres. who doesn’t bomb human beings while promising you more health care.

            I would love to know who Sanders would appoint too. Heck we don’t even know what he really thinks, much more who he consults now on such matters (Matt Stoller? lol) or who he would appoint.

            These and many more things are precisely the reasons why Dems cannot stand the Greens far more than they can’t stand R’s.

            When blowing up millions of human beings is the only viable option you should always repeat Krishnamurti edited by Eureka a dozen times.

            – It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick viability.

            1. Gio Bruno

              I respect your frustration with the world. Now, how to convince millions (billions) more to share in that worldview? There are many folks who subscribe to a neo-con viewpoint that encourages world exploitation for personal gain. (“Our lifestyle is non-negotiable.”, D. Cheney.)

              The goal is to convince action via politics/diplomacy rather than armed conflict. It’s a tough nut to crack; nobody can answer all the questions all the time. But without doubt we need to begin solving problems sooner than later.

            2. James Levy

              You are not talking about how things function, as these positions are funded and constitutional and the money is allotted by Congress. You can’t just dissolve the Joint Chiefs because you feel like it, and it would be completely irresponsible to do so anyway. The number of active duty personnel and the weapons they employ are voted on by Congress. The bases we have are again a function of the budget. You are doing the Republican Imperial Presidency hogwash and it doesn’t work that way, even for the Republicans. Jill Stein could no more “close the bases” than Cruz could sell the National Parks. it would take laws written and passed by Congress to allow that to happen. You are doing a “If my gal was dictator, wouldn’t the world be a way cool place!” game of imagination. I’m talking about getting from here to there–a better world with way fewer weapons, a much less bellicose foreign policy, and lots more spent on human needs and not imperial aggrandizement. You are singing “Wouldn’t it be nice” by the Beach Boys.

            3. Yves Smith

              Stein has never held an elective office nor has she administered ANYTHING.

              She’s utterly unqualified, an embarrassment as a candidate. And it’s sad to see the Greens pumping her up despite that.

              1. jonboinAR

                What about Trump?! One of the qualifications we often insist upon in candidates is experience somewhere close to the position they’re running for, yet it amounts to being qualified to administer the same old you-know-what. A good deal of the country is sick and tired of that. Hence Trump’s amazing candidacy, Sanders’, as well, and people wanting to discuss Stein.

              2. different clue

                Maybe the Greens are pumping her up beCAUSE of that. Her innocent ignorance of all things political a practical is a reflection of their own innocent ignorance of all things political and practical. It is a declaration of their own purity of purity.

          4. lindaj

            Jill Stein’s program is much better than Bernie’s. She seems to be principled as she hasn’t pulled any punches there to get $$, etc.

            That’s why I’m voting for her. I wouldn’t worry about her ability to run the joint. The people we have now are running it into the ground. I think she’d be much better.

        3. Llewelyn Moss

          Hey, I like the Greens platform. Jill Stein seems nice. Is she running? The Greens website doesn’t list a 2016 candidate — not that I could find. The last time a green candidate broke the 1% of the vote barrier was in 2000 (Nader with 2.7%). Since then looks like they have averaged 0.5% of the vote.

          So yeah as a protest vote, greens would be a valid choice. But their organization doesn’t seem equiped to pull off a serious Presidental bid.
          Peace. LM

              1. Gio Bruno

                Allow me to rescind my prior comment. ES, when would you propose the Green Party hold it’s convention? If ever.

                I initially construed your prior comment as thoughtful. My mistake.

                1. cwaltz

                  Isn’t August past the deadline for getting someone’s name on the ballot in a number of states and don’t they still need access to those ballots in several states because they aren’t yet eligible in all 50?

                  I love the idea of a national primary but IMO they should be holding it in January so they can get their candidate on the ballot in places like South Dakota.

                  1. marym

                    Every state has its own requirements for signatures and deadlines. The ballotpedia website has info. The goal is to get the party on the ballot. According to the GP website as of 2015 they have ballot access in 20 states representing 55% of the population and will be going for another 26% for 2016. I know in IL and it’s probably true in other states there are subsequent deadlines to add/change specific names for each office.

          1. neo-realist

            I’ve become convinced that unless the Greens increase brand awareness by running candidates in local and state elections, and winning a few of them, they’ll be condemned to getting 1% fringe support in national elections. If you can’t organize and win cities and states, how can you expect to win nationally?

            1. Ulysses

              Yep. A few Green mayors, congresscritters, etc,, would go a long way towards making the GP a genuine third party here in the U.S. !

        4. HopeLB

          The problem may be that Sanders gets his foreign policy news from the tendentious, progandizing MSM and that he has been more focused on domestic policy. I wrote to Michael Brenner asking him to offer his foreign policy advice/knowledge. Brenner emailed me back his latest article but I do not know if he contacted the Sanders campaign.
          Does anyone here know how to get a message directly to them? I have written a paper letter.
          (I also emailed Michael Hudson the economist. He responded that the Sanders campaign has not even contacted him.)
          Bernie needs his celebrity backers to do rallies with infotainment/TED-like talks about foreign/domestic policy highlighting the Clintons’ failed neoliberal policies and how the Clintons built the very political/economic structures from which they feed today and from which many of our maladies derive (Financialization/de-industrialization/militarization/privatization/ Media consolidation/ For Profit Prisons/ Safety net “reform” ).
          Here is an article with the kind of analysis people can learn from;

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            He can call Obama weak, provoking a real debate about our foreign policy in the process.

            Trust the voters.

        5. Vatch

          I noticed the other day in these N.C. threads how far more Sanders supporters quickly promised to support Trump if Sanders falls rather than a third sane party such as it is.

          I don’t think that is true, but I haven’t bothered to actually count who has said something like that. If Sanders isn’t the Democratic candidate, I expect to vote for a third party candidate, as I did in 2012. I do not expect to vote for Trump. I also do not expect a third party candidate to win, so I really hope that Sanders is the Dem candidate.

          Many Sanders supporters have pointed out some similarities among people who support Sanders and people who support Trump, but that’s not the same as saying that they will support Trump in the general election.

    2. jsn

      Taking on the MIC directly is something between self destruction and suicide(see Carter and Kenedy). Getting out of the ME and the regime change business and focusing on the well being of ALL who served are wedge strategies to split the MIC

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        Getting out of the ME is like getting out of Vietnam.

        That’s considered taking on the MIC directly.

        Might as well come out of the anti-MIC closet now.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            It’s like a two-front war.

            You stop patronizing the MIC – they lose the economy of scale – their products are not cost effective (here we rely on neoliberal economic predictions) – the clients states receive USSR quality weapons, or worse – end of client states – out of the ME.

            Do all these out in open, out of the anti-MIC closet.

    3. Carolinian

      That is a rather lame article and its uncertain aim is illustrated by this quote

      Morgenthau faulted the tendency of great powers to “clothe their own particular aspirations” in arrogant assumptions of moral universality. Hubris is what the ancient Greeks termed it—and Donald Trump is only its loudest devotee among presidential aspirants

      In fact it is Trump who has said he wants to work with Putin–very “realistic”–and Sanders who has adopted the party line about Russian aggression in Ukraine. And “arrogant assumptions of moral universality” describes no one better than Mrs. Clinton.

      The truth is that Clinton has a somewhat effective line of attack when she says that Sanders is a single issue candidate. He started out speaking as though everything was the fault of “billionaires” and failed to embrace a wider critique of the current power structure in the Democratic party, the MIC, our imperialistic foreign policy. The “vision thing” was lacking and that’s why many of us saw him as an issue candidate who was simply running to highlight his ideas. The voters on the other hand wanted a real alternative to Clinton and his success has probably surprised even him.

      What the left really needs is a left version of Trump–a charismatic candidate who can lead the country in the right direction. Some us hoped it would be Warren but it was not to be. You go to war with the candidate you have but Bernie’s campaign of just being right on many of the left’s issues may not be enough. It’s still quite possible that Clinton with all her advantages will still sink, but she may have to do it to herself.

        1. Carolinian

          Well he did get himself elected President. I’m not attacking Sanders who is clearly putting up a tremendous effort. But elections are about personalities whether we like it or not. When the right person finally gets the job–FDR would be my example–it may just be luck.

          1. Bernard

            right, to me, Sanders appears to be surprised by how well his “one issue/wealth” has taken him. kind of explains how “low key” Sanders appears in this “race.” he could be a real FDR type, but hasn’t gone there. that’s what i notice about Sanders. FDR told the public he could only get things done with their active support to get the New Deal done.

            since we don’t get to choose who will stop Hillary, Cruz, Rubio, Bush or any of the other Republican candidates the Party allows, i find Sanders somewhat novel. not really there, but closer than others. Trump is the perfect front for the angry voter. whether the angry voter makes a difference is what “crowd control” is really about. it has been “fun” watching Trump fling their memes back at the Party. The Club is only for members. we are not in it.

            it would be part of party policy if Sanders endorsed Hillary after she steals the nomination, and really sad but predictable, as Hillary goes on to steal the nomination. Sanders has to “really want to win” to stop the Owners’ selection of Hillary. it seems Sanders is evolving, which makes him dangerous and liable to sabotage and outright rat-fuccing. Interesting times, indeed

            1. Lord Koos

              “FDR told the public he could only get things done with their active support to get the New Deal done.”

              Not sure I understand your argument here — Sanders is telling people the same thing.

              1. NotTimothyGeithner

                The real advantage isn’t Sanders’ ability to achieve progressive outcomes, but unlike Obama, it’s likely the more liberal elements of society won’t be fighting Sanders on TPP, Keystone, foreign policy, civil rights, Healthcare, the economy, and grand bargains. There will be energy to fight the Republicans.

          2. Brooklin Bridge

            it may be just luck

            Indeed, is it just dumb luck? A nagging question, isn’t it?

            Or, and this doesn’t really answer anything but anyway…, is it not the media and every part of the establishment (such as the DNC – every part of our race to the bottom) much more than just the dice? I don’t think this aggregate force of bending human awareness was present back in the 20’s and 30’s to anywhere near the degree nor anywhere near as integrated into every aspect of life experience as it is today. If it had been, even an American aristocrat such as FDR would probably have been buried. Just the threat he might have represented would have been vastly more analyzed and better understood and would have set up reactions of fear and knee jerk reaction in the investor class (preventing the patch-up of capitalism and thus their own savior, ha,ha,ha,ha). And Trump is not a good example of why that statement might be false. The establishment has plowed the field and sown the seed for Trump’s popularity as a grizzly mirror image of itself which has only the most tenuous of relations to that of Sanders who unlike Trump, and more akin to FDR, actually threatens a number of significant and powerful institutions. Trump is an emblem of the success of Americans having been brainwashed into fooling themselves over and over again, in perpetuity. It’s now part of our national identity. It’s who we are. Trump may be the pinnacle of our anguished brain damaged efforts to get it right.

            1. Brooklin Bridge

              By the way @Carolinian, don’t mean to “pick on you” this morning. Your insightful (as always) comments just caught my attention for what ever reason.

            2. Carolinian

              Sanders who unlike Trump, and more akin to FDR, actually threatens a number of significant and powerful institutions.

              Threatens in what way? He himself has said it will take a movement to accomplish his goals. To create a movement–I think–you need charismatic leadership. A Sanders Presidency might instead give us gridlock which could be a good thing given the impulses of the people in Congress. It’s their desire to do something, anything, which is part of the problem. We need to put the brakes on the crazy train, particularly in foreign policy.

              That said there’s no question someone like Trump gets an easier ride from the media than a left wing version of him would get. After all Trump says he wants to be a pro business President and as a Republican would bring more power to the business party even if he doesn’t support of all of their goals.

              1. Brooklin Bridge

                The banksters and investors would be threatened or feel threatened regardless of the time it took to materialize. Sanders would almost certainly use the bully pulpit and other means to create an atmosphere in which regulation and legislation curbing abuse would be easier. He might, just might, instruct the DOJ to go after criminals in the banking industry more forcefully. They would be threatened alright.

            3. Left in Wisconsin

              I think the biggest difference between Roosevelt’s time and ours was that Roosevelt caught good timing (helped with good policy) and a growing economy. Things bottomed out in 32-33 and employment, esp in mfg, grew strongly from 33-37. Even then, the New Deal political program was no slam dunk.


              Now that TPTB have exported a large percentage of the good jobs, a real alternative politics will likely require an even more aggressive (i.e challenging to capital) program than the New Deal.

                1. Left in Wisconsin

                  Didn’t at all mean to imply that. But I do think the political situation now is in some ways worse than it was then. As I’ve said before, it isn’t evident you can run a prosperous contemporary national economy without a competitive international export sector. That wasn’t something we had to worry about then.

                  1. Skippy

                    Debt needs to be used wisely.

                    Bill Mitchell uses most of this article to explain how to use a sovereign currency to deal with unemployment but also includes this caveat on current account deficits.

                    Balance of Payment Constraints

                    CAD means that real benefits (imports) exceed real costs (exports) for the nation in question.

                    This is why I always say that the CAD signifies the willingness of the citizens to ‘finance’ the local currency saving desires of the foreign sector.

                    MMT thus turns the mainstream logic (foreigners finance our CAD) on its head in recognition of the true nature of exports and imports.

                    Subsequently, a CAD will persist (expand and contract) as long as the foreign sector desires to accumulate local currency-denominated assets.

                    If they lost that desire entirely, then the CAD gets squeezed down to zero. This might be painful to a nation that has grown accustomed to enjoying the excess of imports over exports. It might also happen relatively quickly. But at least we should understand why it is happening.”

                    Skippy…. you are correct that things are different tho subscribe to out dated optics.

                  2. Yves Smith

                    The import/export sector is a comparatively small % of GDP.

                    The issue is that the US is importing more than it needs to thanks to offshoring. We are exporting jobs.

                    Keynes was right that countries needed to be discouraged from mercantilism, as in trying to be net exporters. We just need to stop being the world’s consumers of the last resort.

                  3. different clue

                    If we had Protectionism, we wouldn’t need a “vibrant export sector”. We could make right here the things we use right here, the way we used to do, instead of buying all those things from the slave-haven economies. The more we make here, the less we would have to buy from abroad. Which would mean the less money we would need to buy things from abroad. Which would mean the less we would need to export to abroad to raise the money we would need to buy from abroad.

                    Under a regime of Equal Protectionism for All Countries international trade would be recognized as a necessary evil under certain very limited circumstances. Outside those circumstances it would be recognized as pure EVIL.

      1. different clue

        Sanders’ acceptance of the DemParty line on Ukraine appears to be a tragedy in the making. It could be due to ignorance rather than enthusiastic malice. He doesn’t have a son invested in fracking all over East Ukraine the way Biden does, for instance.

        If someone had the power to get Sanders the whole packet of information about the illegal nazi-nazi Banderazi coup takeover of the Kiev government and start further informing him from there, someone would be doing a very good deed.

        1. NotTimothyGeithner

          If Sanders tells the truth on Ukraine, what is the next step? The simple truth is Barack Obama supported a coup against a constitutional government by Ukranian elites with an election four months away, violating the claimed American Standard of light and transient reasons not being sufficient for revolt. This is simply a unilateral act of war by Obama without Congressional approval. Obama should be impeached and tried for subverting the constitution order. How many people are ready for that?

          The buck stops with the President, even if it was conducted by rogue elements Obama later embraced.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Trump has said that there was no evidence of WMD, no reason we went to Iraq.

            Whatever he is, that’s speaking what he believes, on at least one important topic.

            Would Sanders do something equivalent to show the Republicans and the rest of the nation?

            Will that hurt him or help him?

            1. TedWa

              I’m so glad he brought that up, but when he says 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, he should not forget to mention that the financial meltdown also occurred on Bush’s watch. But I guess that doesn’t matter now that Jeb is out, but I wonder if it’ll come up again. Light does need to be shed on that subject.

            2. NotTimothyGeithner

              Iraq is a known commodity. The people who support the American position in Ukraine believe we are discussing Greenland or Alaska.

              Many of these foreign policy fights can be solved by merely not having a destructive President. Trying to educate the populace on the location of the Ukraine isn’t a fight worth having.

              In the case of WMDs, plenty of likely Republican voters were over there , looking for the WMDs. They saw greed and waste first hand. For a long time, they wanted to believe the did the right thing, but they came home to false applause and destroyed communities.

              Sanders voted against the war in 2003. Hillary will be a disaster.

              Trump: “What do you mean by a negotiating tool?” Who were you negotiating with W, the guy who lied or Hussein.? What was your goal of negotiations? Going to war to shower money on your donors? Do you know how people know I’m honest? I don’t take money from people who profited because of your lies.”

              Sanders is immune to this line of attack.

        2. Yves Smith

          There is not point in fighting that fight, even if Sanders were on the other side or merely somewhat skeptical, till after he gets the nomination. He’s got his hands full fighting Team Dem on his economic policy issues. He does not need the neocons after him scaring voters into seeing him as pro-Russia, hence a Commie.

          Demanding ideological purity from him now guarantees a loss.

          And even if he is up for that fight, it’s WAY smarter for him to hide his cards and take it up in office.

    4. Daryl

      > You Sanders supporters might as well just admit you still have no problem just shooting, droning, blowing up innocent human beings as policeman of the world for profit and blood sport…. At best argument, so you can have health care. Hoping Sanders will deliver the MIC message to you in classic NPR tone and fashion.

      Yes, those recklessly interventionist nakedcapitalism commenters.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        Trust people…at least many who post here.

        it’s not every time people who differ, who are on the other side, are always low-information, need more indoctrination, sorry,, more education to un-indoctrinate themselves.

        It’s still possible that all new spending go to the domestic front, and we see less money for adventures overseas. We just need to constant remind ourselves to be vigilant about it as we march towards November.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      I wonder how many will jump that sinking ship in a few months?

      And the other ship as well.

      Party unity, party loyally, low information voters, high information voters, average information voters, let’s all come together now.

      “Sorry, this low information voter will be another cruise ship now…every cabin is first class, with ocean view.” — that’s how I imagine it will be.

    2. ambrit

      I echo sds’ comment above; this is a senior official of the DCCC??? This man should be fired, that is, if the DCCC were a serious and impartial organization. This post, “Go F— Yourself, Bernie” proves that the DCCC should be renamed the Clinton Congressional Campaign Committee (CCCC).
      More importantly, this issue highlights the point that the Democratic Party has shifted from semi Grassroots organization to top down autocratic organization. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us,” is a sure fire recipe for disaster. It isolates the ‘core’ constituency to the extent that it loses the ability to withstand any serious opposition.

        1. ambrit

          Sorry. I keep thinking that political parties are aggregate institutions. Since ‘olde fashioned’ political parties generally followed the ‘interests’ of a donor class, when did the change to a ‘Strong (Wo)man’ based control structure come about. Either that, or Clinton has no ‘agency’ at all.

    3. bob

      He can’t even keep a thought, included in the title, to the end of the piece-

      “So do I actually mean it when I say Go Fuck Yourself, Bernie? No.”

      More Clinton flip-flopping.

    4. Gio Bruno

      Well, Bernie’s bona fide’s got a big boost when the Tribune Co. recently found pictures of Bernie getting arrested during his protest against school segregation in Chicago, 1963.

      I’m sure Hillary has a similar photo depicting her physical fortitude against Black discrimination.

      1. Massinissa

        Theres probably a picture of her getting arrested trying to protest discrimination against banks and billionaires.

  6. DakotabornKansan

    “It’s very strange, and I cannot understand it.” [Buzzfeed]

    The United States is effectively engaged in a proxy war with itself in Syria.

    M & M Enterprises redux.

    “This time Milo had gone too far. Bombing his own men and planes was more than even the most phlegmatic observer could stomach, and it looked like the end for him…Milo was all washed up until he opened his books to the public and disclosed the tremendous profit he had made.” – Joseph Heller, Catch – 22

    All wars should be conducted by private enterprise so long as the U. S. taxpayer picks up the expenses.

    1. Carla

      “All wars should be conducted by private enterprise so long as the U. S. taxpayer picks up the expenses.”

      And isn’t that how it works now?

    2. Benedict@Large

      Yossarian: You killed Nately! He’s dead!
      Milo: Nately was very lucky, he owned sixty shares of the syndicate, he died a wealthy man.
      Y: What good will that do him? He’s dead!
      M: Then it will go to his family.
      Y: He was too young to have a family!
      M: Then it will go to his parents.
      Y: His parents don’t need it, they’re already wealthy!
      M: Then they’ll understand.

  7. Dino Reno

    Nevada was a toss up. The decider was Nevada unique character. It still loves a grifter who has “juice.” That’s Clinton, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. The endless recession here almost turned this mind set around in Bernie’s favor, but the mobbed-up Boss of Bosses notion is one that will be the last to go. All the big bosses in Vegas backed HRC. None backed Bernie. Just shows you how big an upset Bernie almost pulled off by upsetting this institutional order. If only Bernie had been part of crime syndicate like Hillary, he might have had a chance.

    1. ambrit

      Doesn’t being a member of the Senate count towards that?
      Yes about the Union effect. One thing Unions are good at is ‘getting the vote out.’
      Before this, ‘pundits’ were saying that Clinton needed a big win in Nevada to secure the race. Now, suddenly, a squeaker is ‘good enough.’ As for some of the MSMs that called the Nevada results a ‘big win’ for Clinton, well, does the word ‘propaganda’ ring a bell?

      1. Renoite

        I was a PC for Bernie here in Reno. For the undecideds (and even some of the Hillary Supporters), the issue was ‘head vs heart’. Fortunately, I was prepared thanks to the links and comments from NC. We did well.

        Nonetheless, Reid gave Clinton her victory. She took the entire LV Strip. Here’s an interesting article on what he did.

      2. Brooklin Bridge

        I don’t know how hard it is to rig the caucus in Nevada, but if it can be done, this close a race is where it would be done.

  8. Ed

    “America Is Now Fighting A Proxy War With Itself In Syria ”

    What seems to be really going on, according to the article, that a CIA backed militia is fighting a Pentagon backed militia. So pretty much yes.

    1. gonzomarx

      “CIA backed militia is fighting a Pentagon backed militia”
      I’m going to steal that as an apt description of what’s happening Syria

      1. Antifa

        Gosh, I can’t wait ’til this level of creative destruction comes home, right to my own neighborhood! It’s only a matter of time.

        1. polecat

          uhhh……..that’s NON-creative destruction, as per my comment above…get it right dude/dudett !!…..(winks twice while quickly putting on foil helmet)……….

      2. Peter Pan

        The CIA/State Dept. have been in disagreement with the DIA/Pentagon on Syria, Ukraine & Russia for the past few years. The USA’s foreign policy is scrambled eggs.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          Has it always been like that, and it’s just more open this time?

          Or is it because the supreme leadership of our nation is weak?

          I certainly hope it is not some clever chess move by Putin or other bad guys to split us, to wedge our won factions.

        2. Gaianne

          Yes, and that is old news.

          The new thing is that the CIA and the Pentagons pet teams are actually shooting at each other directly.

          Not sure this is what is meant by friendly fire!


  9. Steve H.

    – To Fall in Love, Click Here

    Fascinating article.

    What grabbed me was how close it is to what Damasio and Ornstein were writing about consciousness in the 1990’s. That our brain is modular, many different parts which operate underneath what we are conscious of, filtering and competing for our attention. That our sense of a unitary self is a constructed delusion presented by our brain.

    Since then, there has been more focus on the individual subunits than on the consequences of the global delusion. This was partly driven by the technology, the advances in brain scans, for example. But also by an incentive system that does not reward the global perspective.

    The way the article addresses derivatives, and the dividuation of identity, is very evocative as a critique of the destruction of the gestalt. Thank you for posting.

    1. John Merryman

      We are nodes in the network and we are composed of networks, but when the network pulls you apart, you are prey.

      Brave New World. Same old rules.

  10. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    America is fighting a proxy war with itself in Syria.

    Well, someone is making lots of money off that show.

    “Forget just-in-time supply. Get it all now. I need to meet my quarter quota.”

  11. DakotabornKansan

    Clinton won a decisive 76 percent of African-American voters across Nevada [Politico]

    South Carolina likely to follow.

    Considering the damage done to the millions of black families by the Clintons with their prior embrace of the mass incarceration and their total capitulation on race, crime, welfare and taxes, this is amazing.

    What would Malcom X say today? Would he call today’s black voters political “chumps,” or political “traitors”?

    “The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro either, but they at least don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the ‘smiling’ fox.”—Malcolm X

    The divide and conquer racial strategy, deliberately manufactured and maintained for the benefit of our nation’s white elites since the founding of our nation, is alive and well today.

    “If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion.” – Martin Luther King, Jr., Address at the Conclusion of the Selma to Montgomery, March 25, 1965

    BAR executive editor Glen Ford: “As usual, the Democrats will try to make Black people more angry at the terminally racist Republican Party than at the police and local administration of their (typically) Democrat-run city. Hillary Clinton is already making noises of empathy with Blacks suffering under the urban police state. However, the Black Lives Matter movement has no institutional stake in the victory of either party, but is, in fact, locked in mortal political struggle with other Black people in the Democratic Party. These Black Democrats will insist on a truce, a cessation of agitation against national or local Democrats, until after the election. As with the Occupy movement, this will be accompanied by intensified police pressures against activists. At the end of the process, the Black Lives Matter movement is meant to go the way of Occupy, lost in the electoral Mardis Gras – killed by Democrats, not Republicans.”

    “This is an era of hypocrisy. When white folks pretend that they want Negroes to be free, and Negroes pretend to white folks that they really believe that white folks want ’em to be free, it’s an era of hypocrisy, brother. You fool me and I fool you. You pretend that you’re my brother, and I pretend that I really believe you believe you’re my brother.” – Malcom X

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      He would say white folks pretending to be friends of Negros, sorry, blacks, sorry, African Americans.

      And he would say African American leaders pretending to be friends of African Americans.

      That real change comes from the bottom up.

      Not getting one African American into the White House, so millions of African Americans will see better days.

      The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

      If millions of African Americans are prosperous, or if one giant country in African makes the best weapons in the world or is the world’s richest nation and it actively hands out grants to promote its culture, money buys friendship, it would be most natural thing for an African American to be elected leader.

      Not the other way around.

      The other way around smells too much of knight jousting contest, of history of kings and queens, not history of the people, history of the masses, people’s history.

      And so, Malcolm X still makes us think today and even more relevantly (too me anyway) in 2008, not just today.

      1. neo-realist

        Unfortunately in the present, Malcolm makes only those who actively seek out his words think: No national celebrations, discussions or attention in the corporate media paid to his message whatsoever. Spike’s movie 20 odd years ago, in my view, diluted the sharp political edge and made Malcolm into nothing much more than a hip consumer fashion statement of caps and shirts with the letter X.

        1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

          He was against a few token people given opportunity to elite positions, in hope of ‘trickle down.’

          We can see that pattern repeated elsewhere.

          Always, we are told to wait for something to trickle down.

          Instead, he was like, NO! we must help ourselves, we must empower ourselves.

          But that trickle-down trick has been very effective, a powerful tool from the beginning of history.

          Just buy off a few of their leaders.

          And let the little guys wait for trickle down.

    2. MikeNY

      I’m bemused by the Black love for HRC. I don’t understand it. Is a white woman perceived to be more sympathetic than a white man? Is it because she’s ‘from’ Arkansas? Is it because she was in BHO’s cabinet? Or has she really done something in her career that marks her as supportive of Black people? I guess she did go to Flint.


      1. neo-realist

        As I believe Anon meant, the fumes of Bill Clinton’s strong people politics w/ black americans, particularly celebrities and politicians, cemented a strong level of trust among the black critical mass that has extended to his wife and a belief that Hillary will carry on the good relations, if not the much needed policies for black economic uplift.

    3. Left in Wisconsin

      This is just more evidence that there is not one African-American “community.” It’s important to see who those actual voters are. My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that many/most were older and people who hold (or held if retired) stable jobs. They would be as apprehensive of Sanders’ message of political revolution as other mainstream Dems.

      Others have pointed out here that many of the AAs who have been most affected by Clinton policies are either not eligible to vote or among the very poor and disconnected. And others have pointed out that many AAs supported the crime crack down in the hopes that it would make their own neighborhoods safer. Again, these might not be natural Sanders voters.

  12. Pavel

    From the other side of the pond… The Guardian states that London Mayor Boris Johnson has come out in favour of Brexit. This is a blow to Cameron — and of course apart from the EU referendum there is intense intra-Conservative party jockeying for the leadership when Cameron leaves.

    Guardian: Boris Johnson ‘to campaign for Brexit in EU referendum’

    [Disclaimer: I despise BoJo as much as I despise Cameron. And as Boris is one of the least principled politicians in the UK, this is all about the leadership contest.]

    Crazy times. I confess I’m surprised that Cameron has called the vote for 23 June. Anything can happen in 4 months — e.g. another refugee crisis or economic meltdown. I give Brexit a 50-50 chance of going ahead.

    [Further disclaimer: I was once a big fan of the EU, but now it is such a cesspool of greedy bureaucrats, crony capitalists, and corrupt politicians I think it should be disbanded.]

      1. James Levy

        A British exit from the EU really doesn’t help most Britons at all; it is the feel good politics of xenophobia at its worst. The EU courts are the only barrier between the British public and the panopticon police state all British elites seem to have been working towards since 1939. Given, the EU is corrupt and venal and stupid. I’d still take the creeps in Brussels over the creeps in Westminster.

    1. gonzomarx

      The poll is during the Glastonbury festival! so that’s 150,000 mostly young voters who’ll have to postal vote.

      Boris is making his official announcement in his Monday column in the Telegraph. A pols way as he can see which way the wind blows before giving any interviews and heaven help us the villagers are already calling the referendum a proxy Tory leadership battle if he’s for Brexit.

      My evolution on the EU is the same. Was pro but after seeing how EU treated Greece, Italy, Ireland etc hard to vote for such a undemocratic organisation.

      1. Pavel

        Precisely — undemocratic.

        When the Irish refused to vote for Lisbon, they forced a re-vote.

        They renamed the “treaty” so it wouldn’t require unanimous approval by all the members.

        They select the “President” in a smoke-filled room (or the modern equivalent).

        Hardly a democratic institution. Plus full of boondoggles and giveaways. The MPs collect 300 euros/day just for “signing in”. They put one EU institution in Strasbourg to appease the French at enormous cost and waste.

        It was a nice idea at the start… perhaps!

  13. gonzomarx

    So while Bernie was getting busted for civil rights Hillary was out stumping for Goldwater.
    I see they’ve both stuck with their principals then!

    1. Pavel

      Hillary was a Goldwater Girl and she has the nerve to complain that Sanders wasn’t always a Democrat!

      She and Bill are the epitomes of shamelessness and hypocrisy.

    1. fresno dan

      Despite nearly 15 years of U.S. counterterrorism operations after the Sept. 11 attacks, Clapper said, “there are now more Sunni violent extremist groups, members and safe havens than at any time in history.”

      reminds me of Vietnam, where the body counts proved how successful we were (Sarc)

  14. fresno dan

    This is How the Liberal World Order Ends Foreign Policy

    1967, Britain unexpectedly announced the end of what, for decades, had been a genuinely global foreign policy. In response to the depreciation of the pound sterling, expensive decolonization campaigns, and the evolving attitudes of the baby boomer generation, Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s Labor government abruptly announced that his government would change course, prioritizing welfare over warfare. That would include withdrawal from all bases “East of Suez.” In response, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk complained that he “could not believe that free aspirin and false teeth were more important than Britain’s role in the world.” But the danger of such a patrician attitude to foreign policy — one that views domestic considerations as illegitimate — is that, over time, foreign policy can become seriously disconnected from the priorities of the electorate.

    If the New Hampshire primary — where populist candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders resoundingly thrashed their establishment rivals — gave us anything to go by, the United States could be approaching a similar moment. Populist candidates threaten the two pillars that have dominated establishment views on U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War: liberal economics and liberal interventionism.

    Take the liberal economic commitment to open markets, represented in the 2016 presidential race by support for the Trans Pacific-Partnership (TPP) trade deal. Rapid globalization since the end of the Cold War has generally benefited skilled workers in Western countries in the middle and upper class, those who can sell their services to the world and enjoy cheap and varied goods.

    But for many lower-middle class Americans, globalization is perceived not as a warm summer breeze, but as a biting winter wind. Their once-stable manufacturing jobs have been sent overseas, immigrants compete with them for low-paying jobs at home, and incomes have stagnated. Shockingly, blue-collar white men are the only group in America whose life expectancy has actually declined since 1999, due mainly to suicide and substance abuse. Yes, globalization brings blue-collar Americans cheap goods too, but that makes no difference to social mobility: it’s unsurprising that the link between individual freedom and economic liberalization pushed by establishment candidates rings hollow to all too many American ears.

    Another article in today’s links points out we now have more Sunni terrorists than before we started trying to reduce the number of Sunni terrorists in the world…..and we don’t have free aspirin and false teeth.

    1. Left in Wisconsin

      Rapid globalization since the end of the Cold War has generally benefited skilled workers in Western countries in the middle and upper class, those who can sell their services to the world and enjoy cheap and varied goods.

      This just goes to show how completely ignorant the author (and everyone else who propagates this meme) is. Very many of the manufacturing jobs that have been off-shored were skilled jobs. (And lots of other skilled mfg jobs were “lost” by disinvestment.) Any look at the data will show that the manufacturing jobs left in the US are on average lower skilled and lower paid than the jobs that have been lost.

  15. Jim Haygood

    Gold, comrades: it has fallen for three consecutive calendar years (2013-2015), while the XAU gold & silver miners index has fallen for an astounding five (5) years straight (2011-2015), reaching its lowest level EVAH last month.

    As you might expect, one of these years, mean reversion will come into play. Dr Hussman, who used to be a bit of a bug, offered this rule a decade ago:

    Since 1974, the Gold/XAU ratio has been greater than 5.0 about 15% of the time.

    Importantly, the return/risk profile for precious metals shares is strengthened further if the economy is experiencing weakness. When the Gold/XAU ratio has been greater than 5.0 and the ISM Purchasing Managers Index has been less than 50 (indicating a contracting U.S. manufacturing sector), gold shares have appreciated at an average annualized rate of +125.6%.

    Not only is the ISM index less than 50 [currently 48.2], but also the Gold/XAU ratio stands at an eye-popping 20.2, meaning that precious metal mining shares are historically, epicly depressed in relation to the product price to which they are leveraged. As an illustration, half of the XAU’s thirty constituents sell for less than $5 a share, a common threshold for defining penny stocks.

    To the extent that ‘gold is the mirror of the dollar,’ the Fed’s dovish backpedaling in response to weak economic indicators is a fundamental factor which could finally cap the US dollar’s run.

    Both gold bullion and its hyper-volatile equity cousins the XAU and the HUI (gold mining only), look like good bets for gains this year. The XAU has already popped 55% since its Jan. 19th record low.

  16. barrisj

    Uh-oh, the “gig economy” just took a big PR hit:

    Uber driver arrested in Kalamazoo rampage that killed 6

    (CNN)The man suspected of killing six people and injuring two more in a Saturday evening shooting rampage in Kalamazoo, Michigan, was an Uber driver who may have picked up passengers that same evening, according to the ride-sharing company and police.

    “Jason Brian Dalton had passed a background check, and was a driver-partner with Uber,” said Uber’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, in a statement. “We have reached out to the police to help with their investigation in any way that we can.”

    While the company did not address reports that Dalton picked up and dropped off customers Saturday night, authorities told CNN that it was “certainly part of our investigation.”

    “We’re looking into his connection to Uber and whether or not he was picking up fares in between the shootings,” said Public Safety Chief Jeff Hadley.

    Sally Pardo told CNN that Dalton is married with two children, and that they seemed to be a “typical American family.”

    “This seems so out of sorts for him,” said husband Gary Pardo, who described Dalton as “quiet” and “nice.”

    He did tell CNN, however, “I know he liked guns.”

    There have been quite a few reports of attacks by “fares” on Uber drivers…how many of the drivers are now packing, one wonders.

    1. Massinissa

      Im not sure but don’t most conventional cab drivers pack heat?

      The main difference is that Uber drivers are treated more poorly than cab drivers, and therefore may have more of a tendency to blow their lids.

    2. bob

      The drivers for uber never handle any cash. It’s all plastic, all the way.

      That’s the “innovation”.

  17. John

    Problem with national matchup poll results is that getting voter pref in Ca, Tx, Ny and Sc is a waste of time and potentially misleading. Who would win swing states Fl, Oh, Pa, Nj, Co, Il etc is the critical question dems should ask themselves.

    Beyond this, trump will not be hesitant, as Bernie has been, to viciously attack hill/bill on being bought and paid for by the banks and other corps, not least foreign ones, the military industrial complex, hill’s votes for foreign wars, and obama’s generally similar disposition; he will ask, ‘do you want another president that refuses to prosecute banker fraud? Hell, no!’

    The swing states are concentrated in the rust belt. Those voters will be very receptive to somebody fighting the above, and will mostly be put off by the racist comments trump made in the primaries… And which will disappear once he gets the nomination locked up. Trump will pick up Bernie’s most popular points, including expanding Medicare, free education, infrastructure spending, etc.

    And beyond this, berny’s millions under 45 that feel left out of today’s economy will stay home… Or worse, as trump pivots away from racism, that he is the lesser evil.

    There is a reason banks and corps are panicking as trump remains on top.

  18. rich

    Welsh Town Leads a British Revolt Against the Tax System and Corporations

    Mr. Lewis, 63, a broad-chested former military man, has helped turn Crickhowell into ground zero for a revolt by small-business owners in Britain against a tax system they see as rigged against them in favor of multinational corporations like Facebook, Google and Starbucks. The town, population 2,063, has become famous for being one of Britain’s last holdouts against the encroachment of big retail chains.

    Mr. Lewis said he paid the 21 percent corporate tax rate on his profits last year, equivalent to 31,000 pounds, or $45,200. By contrast, Facebook — which is based in the United States but does business in Britain and is therefore subject to British taxes — paid just £4,327, or $6,274, in corporate tax in 2014, or about one-seventh of what Mr. Lewis paid.

    Facebook’s bill was also less than the average personal income tax payment and the national insurance contributions that individual British employees pay, which amount to about $7,800 a year for someone making the median income of $40,000.
    That is just one glaring example, Mr. Lewis and his fellow shopkeepers in Crickhowell said, of what amounts to multinational tax dodging on a gargantuan scale, leaving the little guy to pick up the tab.

  19. Skippy

    ***Sigh*** NC thread devolving into atomatistic individualistic consumerist political dreamteam consumer choice…

    Skippy…. Barf~~~~

    1. bob

      I’d say NV is the model for merica, at least their honest about it. The house always has the advantage and a high card draw, from their deck, determines who’s right.

  20. Plenue

    The comments on the NYT drone opinion piece are worse than the inane piece itself. I scrolled through a bunch of them, and they’re almost entirely variations on “well, war is hell, would you rather we just carpet bombed instead?”. No, I would much rather we didn’t engage at all in utterly illegal bombing that only killed a handful of the intended targets in exchange for thousands of civilian lives. But not only is that apparently not a valid choice, basic facts about the drone program utterly elude the NYT readership. No one called out Hayden’s many lies (and I’m not going to be nice and gussy up my language: the shitbag is a goddamn liar) and omissions. The opening narrative he gives is complete fiction; the Hellfire’s may be precise in that they always land exactly where you want them to, but the intelligence apparatus that designates targets is a completely sick joke. And there’s no mention of our double-tap strategy that kills fifty civilians for every one terrorist, or the leaked Drone Papers where the government itself admits that 90% of the people killed in strikes are civilians, or the Stanford/NYU study that finds up to 98% of those killed are civilians. No mention of the views of the recent drone program whistleblowers (who had their financial assets frozen as punishment after going public). No mention that more people in total have now been murdered by US drones than died on 9/11 (most of them under Obama’s watch, and with his personal approval).

    The article itself is propaganda trash that could be ignored, but the fact that the comments section didn’t rip Hayden a new one is what I find most upsetting. So much for the supposedly informed, elite readership of the NYT.

  21. fresno dan

    Gerald Friedman, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, produced an analysis of Bernie Sanders’ economic plan predicting eye-popping benefits from the candidate’s program: 4.5 percent real GDP growth between 2016 and 2026, at which time median income would be $82,151 — about $23,000 above the Congressional Budget Office baseline.

    Reaction from the economics establishment was swift and vicious. Democratic Party heavy hitters — Alan Krueger of Princeton, Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, plus Christina Romer and Laura D’Andrea Tyson of Berkeley, all four former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers — put out an ex cathedra declaration that Friedman’s paper was utterly beyond the pale of serious analysis.
    Ironically, in the frenzy to destroy Friedman’s reputation, nobody actually explained in detail what the problems were with his paper. The CEA pronouncement had no data or economic argument at all — it was 100 percent political handwringing. Krugman gave a very brief gloss suggesting that Sanders couldn’t possibly get labor force participation back up to 1990s levels due to aging, and trying to do so would cause inflation. Kevin Drum gave a similar incredulous stare argument about worker productivity and GDP growth, pronouncing it “insane,” worse than Republican “magic asterisks.”
    Let’s do what the Very Serious Wonks did not, and actually look closely at the paper. Friedman’s analysis is certainly far outside the mainstream, and from my informed amateur perspective, the amounts by which he predicts Sanders’ program will exceed the CBO baseline are mighty implausible. But the basic shape of his analysis — a sharp initial growth spike driven by massive fiscal stimulus, falling rapidly to a lower but still-strong rate — is not at all ridiculous.
    But even a lack of political acumen can be valuable. People who don’t automatically calibrate their work to fit the current intellectual fashion often have a vital role to play in the economic discourse. Because what “sounds reasonable” changes over time, and has an inconsistent at best relationship with economic reality. Austan Goolsbee, who was in early 2007 writing this utterly brain-dead article about how subprime mortgages would help minorities and the poor (days later one of the biggest subprime lenders would file for bankruptcy) ought to know this better than most.

    So should Christina Romer, who was bullied by Larry Summers into low-balling her estimate of how large the Obama stimulus should be, which probably played some role in making the Recovery Act too small and hence creating this milquetoast recovery at the heart of why we’re having this discussion in the first place.

    So if “wonk” is to mean anything besides a cudgel for walloping the unwashed lefties out there, the establishment economists ought to do more actual fine-grained analysis and less wagon-circling.
    So……if standard economic hocus pocus is used, the economist who evaluated a Sanders economic platform found it would be quite nifty. Ostensible (i.e., fake) liberals poop their pants because increasing growth for the benefit of the lower quintiles (take me seriously cause I use economic jargon too!!!!) just isn’t done in a modern global free market economy.

    Really, the only mistake the economist supporting Sanders made is not clearly explaining that what happens in an economy is not the result of free market fairies, but due to the clout that those with vast sums of money have to shape and bend, if not limit, and veto rules that would prevent their controlling markets to their own advantage…
    If you want health care for all, you can have, and have it cheaper as well. If you want fuller employment, you can have it if you want it. And if you want more equality, you can have it if you want it.
    Goldman Sachs doesn’t pay Hillary to listen to her pontificate about the Federalist papers – it pays so it can get her in a room where it can tell her what to do…

  22. bob

    On NV-

    Where’s the push for election reform? Long way to November, and states run these elections. Why not try to turn dis-affected voters into agents for change?

    Get Bernie’s voters to call for state election reform. If it needs a ballot, there’s one a big one a few months away. They need direction, and the best advise would be from inside an insurgent campaign.

    This BS has been going on, and well known since at least 2000, and no one seems to want to begin to deal with it. It need real, grass roots local organization and planning.

    Yes, not clickable enough, because it’s only those rednecks and mexicans in NV. Advantage- house.

    1. cwaltz

      Apparently dementia has set in or he thinks he’s playing some slick eleventy dimensional chess game.

      There’s no other reason that someone who spent close to 900 million to INTERVENE and influence a GOVERNMENT election could reasonably make the argument that he feels GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION is a poor way to influence how society operates. Hypocrisy thy name is Koch.

  23. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit

    “Retrotopia: Back To What Worked The Archdruid Report. I keep waiting for the protagonist’s real mission… ”

    He’s there to demand obeisance to the Atlantic Republic from the Lakelanders. That’s my guess and I’m sticking to it.

    Until I don’t. :D

Comments are closed.