Links 3/1/16

The Animals That Sniff Out Tuberculosis, Cancer, and Landmines Pacific Standard (Chuck L)

Mysterious Chimpanzee Behavior May Be Evidence of “Sacred” Rituals The Conversation via Scientific American (Chuck L)

Yosemite landmarks set to lose famous names in ‘ugly divorce‘ Reuters (Chuck L)


China data signal deepening slowdown Financial Times

Caixin China PMI sinks as well MacroBusiness

China Frees Banks to Boost Lending, in Shift on Yuan Stance Wall Street Journal

China’s state-owned Zombie economy Financial Times

Fighting Deflation: ECB Needs Support in Lonely Battle Wall Street Journal

Refugee Crisis

Calais ‘Jungle’ evictions due to resume BBC

Refugees in Greece: No way out Economist

Argentina Reaches Deal With Hedge Funds Over Debt New York Times


Brexit Would Disrupt and Take a Decade, Says Official Report Wall Street Journal

Would Brexit lead to “up to a decade or more of uncertainty”? Open Europe


American Jewish Millennials Aren’t Disengaged From Israel, We’re Angry Haaretz. Paywalled, but Googling the headline should work..

Big Brother is Watching You Watch

NY judge backs Apple in iPhone case Financial Times


Super Tuesday showdown: How the U.S. South won the spotlight Reuters (EM)

Trump closes in on Super Tuesday romp Politico

Former CIA Director Says Military May Defy a President Trump Real News Network

On The NYT’s Sorry Whitewash Of Clinton And Her War On Libya Moon of Alabama (barrisj). A must read. Circulate widely.

The Meeting That Never Was: One UN Weapons Inspector’s Effort To Educate Hillary Before Her Iraq Vote Huffinton Post (Chris I)

Clinton Manipulates Language of ‘Intersectionality’ To Preserve Support From Minority Voters Shadowproof

NPR Interview with Clinton Emerges: ‘My Roots Are Conservative, I’m Proud I Was a Goldwater Girl US Uncut (Ed Harrison)

Hillary Clinton 2016: DC Lobbyists Set To Raise Cash For Hillary Victory Fund International Business Times

Sanders raises $40m in February Financial Times

The Post-Hope Democrats Doug Henwood, Jacobin. Another must read.

In A Houston Megachurch, Bad Omens For Trump And The GOP Come November Huffington Post

The Graveyard of the Elites Chris Hedges, TruthDig (RR, Glenn F)

Clarence Thomas Breaks 10 Years of Silence at Supreme Court New York Times

U.S. top court rejects union challenge to New Jersey pension reforms Reuters. EM: “NJ immunized from violating a black-letter legal obligation. Legalized fraud upon the taxpayers in the form of permanent underfunding … it’s what’s for breakfast.”

U.S. court test on abortion reflects success of strategy shift Reuters (EM)

Police State Watch

Man fatally shot by North Carolina police officer during foot chase Associated Press

Gruesome Police Killing: Daughter Sues After Her Mother Shot to Death in Her Own Bed Courthouse News


Bond Markets Losing Faith Even In Large Oil Companies OilPrice

We just got another massive sign of how badly Saudi Arabia is suffering from the oil price crash Business Insider

The End of Big Banks Simon Johnson, Project Syndicate

The World’s Reluctant Central Banker Project Syndicate (David L)

Fed’s Dudley sounds warning on US economy Financial Times

Class Warfare

Democrats always prove the commies right Fredrik deBoer

The Best and Worst States for Women in America, From Wages to Life Expectancy Alternet

Antidote du jour (Kittie Wilson, via Lawrence R):

little bird links

See yesterday’s Links and Antidote du Jour here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. allan

    “U.S. top court rejects union challenge to New Jersey pension reforms”:
    File under Contracts Are Sacred, Except When They Are Not (CASEWTAN).
    In the WaPo, Larry Summers, who was a great believer in CASEWTAN at the time of the bailouts and banker bonuses, warns of Trump’s rise and explains it by saying that

    …democratic processes can lose their way and turn dangerously toxic when there is intense economic frustration and widespread apprehension about the future…

    In Summers’ account, that frustration and apprehension has no agency.
    As in Rumsfeld’s world, in Summers’ world `stuff happens’ and we don’t need no stinkin’ accountability.

    1. kj1313

      My favorite part of the article is his handwringing over the possibility the TPP is blocked.

      ” The geopolitical consequences of Donald Trump’s rise may be even more serious. The rest of the world is incredulous and appalled by the possibility of a Trump presidency and has started quietly rethinking its approach to the United States accordingly.  The U.S. and China are struggling over influence in Asia.  It is hard to imagine something better for China than the U.S moving to adopt a policy of “truculent isolationism.” The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a central element in our rebalancing toward Asia, could collapse. Japan would have to take self-defense, rather than reliance on American security guarantees, more seriously. And others in Asia would inevitably tilt from a more erratic America towards a relatively steady China.”

      This stooge can’t meet the guillotine fast enough.

      1. Lambert Strether

        I don’t want to sound unduly reactionary but the US has the middle of a large continent, with Canada to the North, Mexico to the South, the Atlantic to the East, and the Pacific to the west. We could be completely self-sufficient in everything should we choose to do so, and we’re safe from invasion. So we need the MIC why, again?

    2. Brindle

      Summers concerned the Confidence Fairy will desert us if Trump is elected:

      —“Even the possibility of Trump becoming president is dangerous. The economy is already growing at a sub-two percent rate in substantial part because of a lack of confidence in a weak world economy”.—

      1. diptherio

        How do the first and second sentences in that Summers quote have anything to do with eachother? Is fear of a Trump presidency the cause of a weak world economy? What’s the economic mechanism for that one, Larry?

        1. rich

          no, but maybe a payday loan via dnc chair Schultz ????????………the committee to hock the world?

          The Democratic Party’s Civil War Escalates – DNC Chair Attacks Elizabeth Warren’s Reform Efforts
          Hillary is the candidate of the corrupt establishment. The status quo wants Hillary in the White House so the parasitic gravy can roll on. DNC head and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is one of these people. She isn’t interested in reform, because reform wouldn’t advance her personal interests. She wants things to stay the way they are, because it’s working great for her.

          Genuine liberals are finally starting to see these people for the frauds they are, which is why the Democratic Party is currently splitting in two. On one side there are those who understand United States policy doesn’t need a tweak here or there — it needs to be hauled off the emergency room immediately. The so-called “elites” in the Democratic Party are just as disconnected and clueless as their Republican counterparts. Instead of accepting that paradigm level reform is required, they merely double down on their support of cronyism and rent-seeking.

          A perfect example of this has just been revealed in the person of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Specifically, she is intentionally trying to sabotage Elizabeth Warren’s reform efforts when it comes to the abuses of payday lenders.

          The Huffington Post reports:

          WASHINGTON — Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They’ve had plenty of help from congressional Republicans — longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle — going after it’s budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.

          To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

          Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB’s forthcoming payday loan regulations. She’s also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.

  2. Christopher Fay

    “Links was posted via force majeure.” Does that mean I can sue Argentina for a billion dollars?

  3. Brindle

    Clinton and Dem establishment going after State Dept OIG on Clinton emails investigation. The Clinton Foundation has been subpoenaed for documents. Look at the dance being played out by Podesta and a Clinton mole in the State Dept:

    —John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, says there are “serious questions” about the integrity of the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG).

    The OIG is locked in an increasingly contentious fight with Clinton’s campaign on a host of issues, including her use of a private email account during her time as secretary of State.

    It has also reportedly subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation for documents related to charity projects and is investigating close Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s work as a “special government consultant” while she worked at State.

    A source within the OIG contacted The Hill claiming that the office has grown increasingly partisan, accusing it of having an “anti-Clinton” bias.

    Told by The Hill about the remarks, Podesta described the source as a “whistleblower” whose comments called into question the integrity of the OIG investigations.

    “This person’s account is highly troubling, and is cause to ask serious questions about the independence of this office,” Podesta said of the source. The Clinton campaign says it does not know the identity of the source.

    An OIG official strongly disputed the source’s account.—

    1. wbgonne

      This is what the Clintons are. Why anyone wants more of it is beyond me.

      BTW: Not that reality matters in these things but here is another data point to be ignored:

      In the scenario that appears most likely to emerge from the primary contests, Clinton tops Trump 52% to 44% among registered voters. That result has tilted in Clinton’s favor since the last CNN/ORC Poll on the match-up in January.

      But when the former secretary of state faces off with either of the other two top Republicans, things are much tighter and roughly the same as they were in January. Clinton trails against Rubio, with 50% choosing the Florida senator compared to 47% for Clinton, identical to the results in January. Against Cruz, Clinton holds 48% to his 49%, a slight tightening from a 3-point race in January to a 1-point match-up now.

      Sanders — who enjoys the most positive favorable rating of any presidential candidate in the field, according to the poll — tops all three Republicans by wide margins: 57% to 40% against Cruz, 55% to 43% against Trump, and 53% to 45% against Rubio. Sanders fares better than Clinton in each match-up among men, younger voters and independents.

      1. wbgonne

        The fog of bad faith is so thick that this may not be worth pointing out … but here goes. At the outset of the Democratic race, many Dem partisans argued that they preferred Sanders’ more progressive policies but supported Clinton because she was more electable. That has proved false. And it doesn’t appear to matter a whit.

        1. Brindle

          Clintonism is making the Dem party a “President only” party. Hillary’s coattails will bring more Republicans into the House and Senate—which is just fine as far as the Dem Elites are concerned. For their neoliberal purposes it’s better to have the GOP in control of both bodies.

          1. NotTimothyGeithner

            Not to mention the extinction at the state and local level. Republicans don’t need to the Supreme Court to end abortion. Zoning laws have wiped out clinics and women’s health sites all over. Abortion clinics aren’t exactly money makers. They depend on funding. The Republicans under Obama accomplished what they couldn’t do when they controlled Congress and the White House which is wipe out access to safe abortion clinics.

            Don’t worry Hillary will be great for the egos of upper class women.

          2. kj1313

            That will work for a short time. The same anger that has built up on the Republican side is starting to build on the Progressive side especially among the younger voters.

            1. Brindle

              I know a few 19 year olds and what strikes me is there optimism and their unwillingness to be satisfied with the way things are. Younger voters don’t get their news from the MSM which is a plus in my view.

              1. kj1313

                They know who sold them out. There is also anger building towards Baby Boomers as a whole.

                1. different clue

                  Including anger towards poor Baby Boomers? Including anger towards unemployed Baby Boomers?
                  Including anger towards all the Baby Boomers who prepayed DOUBLE on their FICA taxes so as to pre-fund their OWN Social Security ever since the Great Reagan Rescue of 1983?

                  Because if that’s where youngers wish to scapegoat-target their anger, then we-the-targets will return that anger right back at them. If that’s what they want, that’s what they will get. If the youngers really want to burn down and destroy my old age, then I want to burn down and destroy their future in revenge. So maybe the youngers should think about the long-term consequences of blame-the-Boomers.

                    1. Lambert Strether

                      Thank you for sharing your Boomer hate. Can you direct me to the Boomer office in K Street, so that I may speak directly to the Boomer nexus of political power?

                    2. Lord Koos

                      In the last several years I’ve seen the anti-boomer meme in the media quite a bit (especially online, since it is targeted at millennials). Here’s one take on it –

                      It has been consciously promoted and funded by a Koch-brothers like approach to molding public opinion. Unfortunately I can’t recall the name of the wealthy right-winger who funds a lot of it, and I’m not having any luck with google searches. But if you search for “blame baby boomers” you get thousands of links. Divide and conquer, same as it ever was.

                    3. m

                      Boomer vs young is obvious divide and conquer, they need to keep pushing it so we forget about corporations, free trade, politicians and the rich.
                      Things online that young read or watch aren’t part of main stream media and focus on free trade, laws that benefit rich & corps, and sell out politicians.
                      Don’t fall for divide & conquer.
                      Young don’t read the times unless forced for homework assignment.

                    4. different clue

                      Which Boomers were given the keys to the kingdom? You stupid god damned liar.

                      I make $42,000 per year. I have been physically injured on the job. I cost you money? If you bastards try to act on that filthy lie, people like me will get every bit of revenge on you which we can get.

                      I WILL NOT BE ABUSED.

                    5. Skippy

                      Every time someone says boomers they kill their own brain cells… its like huffing gas… death loop….

                  1. jrs

                    Their future has of course ALREADY been burned down and destroyed. The environmental situation guarantees it.

                    1. local to oakland

                      Not a millenial. But as an Xer, in university, everyone knew that social security would run of funds or be cancelled just as we retired. I didn’t believe it, but that was the prevalent meme. I can only assume someone paid to spread it. Im guessing Boomer blame is likewise being propagated.

                    2. Propertius

                      Not a millenial. But as an Xer, in university, everyone knew that social security would run of funds or be cancelled just as we retired

                      When I was in university “everyone” knew exactly the same thing. I’m a boomer. The propaganda campaign has been going on for a very, very long time.

                    1. different clue

                      If you believe that, then you are my enemy. And that is how I will regard you and everyone who thinks like you.

                  2. Michael

                    Why don’t you try meeting a couple and seeing how they feel, instead of blaming them for how you got hosed?

                  3. diptherio

                    Hey now, two wrongs don’t make a right. Let’s all of us ‘demographic categories don’t have agency’ believers stick together on this one, eh? :-)

              2. neo-realist

                The question for those young adults then is that if they know who sold them out, will they get active politically–agitate? run for office?, or will they retreat into social networks and video games believing there is nothing they can do? I’ve known 20 somethings and early 30 somethings who are of the mind that politics are stupid and not worth the time.

                1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                  If politics is stupid, what do they preoccupy themselves with?

                  Paying down student debt?

                  Making ends meet, trying to survive?

                  Going to school, graduating to become unemployed?

                  Eating right, exercising to stay healthy?

                  Staying home, to reduce public transportation energy consumption?

                  1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

                    You forgot: taking selfies.
                    I have no patience for millenial boomer-hate, they have the entire power to DO something about their grievances but almost NONE do, they lie back in the pot like frogs, remarking how nice and warm the water is becoming. Now they even have a candidate who will push for their interests, and what is the turnout, something like 20% of eligible voters?
                    OK here’s an old fogie Boomer tale: when I was your age, I got arrested for occupying a draft board office, then I got my head smashed protesting at an anti-war march. Guess what? We stopped the war and changed the society.
                    So get off your McNugget asses and get mad. Do something.

                    1. ambrit

                      Don’t forget being tear gassed! (I don’t forget, teargas hurts!)
                      I went out with a woman in high school who’s dad sold insurance. One day, I noticed some pictures on their living room wall. Sid, her father, was in several, looking very beaten up. When I asked him about it, he admitted to having been part of the Freedom March in Mississippi back in ’63. So, someone who I had considered to be an “old fogey” had been on the bus! There is a lot of unused human capital available to the disaffected young around.
                      Focus is the key. Learn to do it for yourself. Don’t fall for some ‘hidden agenda’ to nudge you somewhere you won’t be happy ending up.
                      United Front all the way.

        2. GlobalMisanthrope

          That’s because what they were really saying was, “Hey, could you guys keep it down? We’re trying to sleep.”

    2. Yves Smith Post author

      OIGs vary greatly in their degree of independence. I have been told that the OIG is appointed by the Secretary of State (I was not able to confirm either way with a quick Google search, so reader confirmation/correction would be appreciated,) so this “partisan” accusation (which usually refers to party bias) sounds mighty weird. The current head of State’s OIG was appointed in 2013, seven months after Kerry became Secretary of State. So no matter how you slice it, he’s an Obama Administration appointee. How does that make him partisan?

      Pray tell, why is asking for Clinton Foundation records and probing the multi-hatted Huma Abedin’s activities not reasonable?

      1. Uahsenaa

        I could be wrong, but my parsing of Podesta’s defense is that “partisan” here, given the several references to “anti-Clinton” attacks, presumes Clintonia and HIllaryland to be a party unto itself, which would bring to mind the “vast rightwing conspiracy” from the ’90s, which, incidentally, if it existed was only directed at Clintonia’s many scandals.

        In other words, the partisan parties are not Dem/Repub./whatever but rather the Clinton sphere of influence and everyone else. Which, when you consider Obama and his sphere of influence’s lack of affinity for Clintonia, makes sense in this instance.

      2. Brindle

        Steve A. Linick is the current OIG, looks like he has plenty of experience uncovering fraud.

        —Mr. Linick was an Assistant United States Attorney in California (1994-1999) and Virginia (1999-2006). He also served as both Executive Director of the Department of Justice’s National Procurement Fraud Task Force and Deputy Chief of its Fraud Section, Criminal Division (2006-2010). During his tenure at the Department of Justice, he supervised and participated in white-collar criminal fraud cases involving, among other things, corruption and contract fraud against the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        Mr. Linick has a BA (1985) and MA (1990) in Philosophy, and a JD (1990); all from Georgetown University.—

        1. OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL

          LOL contract fraud in Iraq, I wonder if he ever questioned the GIs in jeeps tossing out pallet-loads of $100 bills, or the cool half billion for the never-to-be-used embassy in Kabul

      3. NotTimothyGeithner

        Kerry might not appreciate Clinton trying to claim credit for Iran or advice from 2004.

      4. Mike From Michigan

        The OIG is appointed by the Sec of State. There was no inspector general appointed for the State Department for five-and-a-half years from 2009 to 2013.

    3. Jim Haygood

      ‘John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, says there are “serious questions” about the integrity of the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG).’

      Smearing critics and investigators as biased has been the Clintons’ modus operandi since they were running for student council in high school.

      It’s just their nature.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        Well, either there is a vast right-wing conspiracy or a vast left wing conspiracy.

        1. RP

          I wish there actually was a vast left-wing conspiracy.

          That would require cohesion and discipline, however. And we’re talking about the *American* left here, or at least what passes for it.

  4. roadrider

    Re: Democrats always prove the commies right

    I also have never claimed that the two major political parties are the same.

    The Republicans are batshit-insane, right-wing extremists wedded to an ideology based on mythology, scientific illiteracy, racism, militarism and kleptocrcay.

    The Democrats are corrupt, spineless, hypocritical grifters who feel entitled to your vote because… they are not Republicans (even though they support an only slightly watered down version of the Republican agenda).

      1. Ulysses


        Career Democrats never fail to sell out the people. Dick Gephardt, for example, successfully impersonated someone who actually cared about working families– for decades. Shortly after leaving public office he got into the even more lucrative field of union-busting, and consulting for Goldman Sachs.

  5. Dino Reno

    Former CIA Director Says Military May Defy a President Trump

    Single best moment in the election process so far. The military announces it will stage a coup of the democratically elected government if that government asks it to break international law.

    Nice to know we still have standards.

    1. Llewelyn Moss

      Trump can always turn the nuclear missiles inward. He will have the launch codes. (just kiddin, I think)

    2. ran

      You’re hanging your hat on the military doing the right thing? Good luck with that. Ever hear of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? All illegal wars of aggression where the military did what they were told.

      1. different clue

        It was JCS Dempsey and others who successfully obstructed the Obama effort to bomb and attack Syria after the false and lying attribution of the Turko-Saudi jihadi Sarin gassing to “Assad”.

        1. ran

          And yet, there we still are in Syria, bombing who knows what, our spec-op goons training this or that band of “moderate” head-choppers, still trying to get rid of Assad, not because he’s a tyrant but because he doesn’t genuflect for his Usraeli masters.

          It’s a disgrace.

          1. different clue

            I thought our Special Forces people were working strictly with the Kurdish militias, in particular the YPG. Would I be wrong about that?

            And yes, the actions of Dempsey and others prevented the overthrow of Assad under cover of humanitarian bombing at the time of the false flag Sarin attack. So because of Dempsey and others, there was still a coherent Syrian government able to recieve and use genuine help from Russia and others. Which means that because of Dempsey and others at that time, the Syrian government is now reaching a position of being able to exterminate all the jihadis in Syria except for those who escape back into Turkey for Erdogan to send on terror missions to other countries at some future time. So Dempsey then had a real effect on events now.

            It could even be possible that the R + 6 will have the rebellion so comprehensively exterminated by the time President Clinton takes the oath of office that she will not even have any cannibal jihadi liver-eaters left to support the way she would like to.

            1. Andrew Watts

              I thought our Special Forces people were working strictly with the Kurdish militias, in particular the YPG. Would I be wrong about that?

              It’s probably more accurate to say they’re embedded with the Syrian Democratic Forces which the Kurdish YPG/J is a part of. American special forces allegedly participated in the Tishrin Dam offensive against Islamic State. They were also spotted in the recent SDF liberation of al-Shaddadi.

              The Pentagon has been careful about disclosing their precise location in spite of social media chatter. They did confirm their presence in Shaddadi though. Also this video from al-Shaddadi allegedly shows a FGM-148 Javelin being fired at an IS suicide bomber. I’m guessing that was the work of special forces in action.

      2. Jason

        While we will likely never know for certain, it’s likely that Admiral Fallon, Commander of the United States Central Command, prevented the Bush/Cheney administration from starting a war with Iran toward the end of their term in office.

    3. NotTimothyGeithner

      I’m sure the former director of the CIA and lifelong intelligence officer for the Air Force has much of a pulse on the current army with its Iraq and Afghanistan veteran heavy presence.

      Interestingly enough, Hayden warned that Muslim refugees would be a disaster for Europe and was an advocate of torture, I’m sorry “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

      Trump’s greatest asset is the establishment wields the dual hammer of malice and incompetence with reckless abandon.

      1. neo-realist

        It’s interesting and ultimately rather disappointing that Hayden has been making the rounds of the talk shows pushing his book, including the so-called liberal ones–The Daily Show and Maher—and none of them had the stones to press him on the warrantless wiretapping program he conducted during the Bush administration.

    4. Optimader

      Notionally absurd. That cow is long out of the barn after kicking over the kerosene lamp.
      What is the differentiation of Trump utilizing the US MIL to break the law vs any other POTUS past or future?

    5. jgordon

      Yeah right. If the military were concerned about “breaking international law” they would have revolted when Bush was president.

      When I was in the Marines there was this notion that we had a duty to disobey unlawful orders–but everyone knew that actually trying to disobey an order based on that ideal would result in a long stint in military prison. If the military does decide to stage a coup on Trump (which I think is extraordinarily unlikely), it’ll be because he’s insufficiently committed to lavishly funding boondoggles–not because he’s inhumane.

      1. Carolinian

        It’s likely that Hayden is really worried that Trump will order the military not to violate international law, thereby giving them nothing to do.

        That won’t be a problem with Hillary.

          1. Carolinian

            Trump said let the Russians–invited in by the Syrian government–take care of Isis in Syria. The US has no legal right to drop a single bomb on Syria unless their govt asks us to do so. Presumably as an Amerca firster Trump is also uninterested in our self-appointed “responsibility to protect” other nation’s citizens. This latter is Hillary’s excuse for sowing chaos.

            Of course Trump says many things and it’s unclear what he would really do as president. But I did say “worried,” not certain. Hayden may very well be concerned that Trump will upset the neocon apple cart. Careers are at stake….

            1. vidimi

              he also said we should be going after the terrorists’ families and thinks ted cruz is a ‘pussy’ for his more vanilla war crimes proposals.

    6. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      You think this sets the stage for a personal oath of allegiance?

      The news is quite unusual for American politics.

    7. fresno dan

      Dino Reno
      March 1, 2016 at 8:35 am

      what I said yesterday:

      fresno dan
      February 29, 2016 at 3:24 pm
      “Former CIA director Michael Hayden believes there is a legitimate possibility that the U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump if the Republican front-runner becomes president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges” [WaPo]. Entirely spontaneously, of course. Interestingly, the Brit political class raised the same spectre with Corbyn: “British Army ‘could stage mutiny under Corbyn’, says senior serving general” [Independent]. I wonder if Trump will be hit by a lone gunman, acting alone, but very conveniently leaving behind a diary?”

      Too bad we didn’t have a military that could have disobeyed Dubbya’s orders….

      One could posit that Trump is….uh, anti anti war…uh, or pro anti war or anti pro war…or pro pro war – – who knows what he really is???? Asserts he was against going to Iraq but appears to be all for going back to………Iraq….

      My point was going to be if Trump was going to be consistent about not being in the mid east, is Hayden saying the military will disobey by just starting invasions on its own? Hey fellow grunts – we need more war!!!! Does that just work for MORE war, or do the soldiers get not to go as well???? Wonder what the neo cons would think of that….

      I can hear Hillary and Kerry now – “We didn’t vote on the military invading because that really is our PREFERRED position…not “invading” – – or “not invading” mind you…..just NOT voting one way or the other. Jeez, our past votes for Iraq slightly endangered our re-elections….and we can’t have that again! What an ordeal!!!!!. Plus all those silly people who tell us to vote our “conscience”….like we have one….”

    8. polecat

      Hayden should immediately be arrested, clapped in irons, charged with treason, and brought to trial BEFORE the next pres. nom. takes place !!

  6. Llewelyn Moss

    Chris Hedges showing his trademark optimism about the state of the US non-Democracy. He does not say the word fascism, but it sure sounds like it. Depicting Bernie as a ‘Judas’ was a bit much but we’ll see if his prediction comes true.

    The revolt may be right-wing. It may have heavy overtones of fascism. It may cement into place a frightening police state. But that a revolt is coming is incontrovertible. The absurdity of the election proves it.

    Time to restock the rice/beans in the basement I guess. See y’all in Mad Max Land.
    Happy Taco Tuesday.

    1. Brindle

      Is Taco Tuesday a nationwide thing? My local Bar/Eatery has a great taco special today—I will partake.

    2. wbgonne

      Is Hedges actually too optimistic?

      The seeds of destruction of corporate power, however, are embedded within its own structure. The elites have no internal or external constraints. They will exploit, manipulate, lie and oppress until they create an ideological vacuum. No one but the most obtuse, including the courtiers who have severed themselves from reality, will sputter out the inanities of neoliberal ideology. And at that point the system will implode.

      Or is this simply how he processes his despair?

      1. Llewelyn Moss

        Unfortunately, i can’t disagree with anything Hedges says in that piece. Maybe it will take a Pres Trump (or Hellery) to finish burning it to the ground before people wake the f___ up.

    3. Ulysses

      “Chris Hedges showing his trademark optimism.”

      Haha!! Although I must say there is a sense in which his continued passion, to be the Cassandra of our times, shows a certain optimism. I recall very strongly, a few years back, listening to him preaching for radical change in Madison Square Park. Many in his audience were corporate drones, in expensive clothes, on their lunch breaks. He must have known that most of them were simply amused, and not much enlightened, by his well-polished harangues. Yet he persists in calling out the greedheads and warmongers.

      More power to him!

    4. Left in Wisconsin

      Memo to Bernie Sanders: Please, please, please steal this line from Chris Hedges:

      We do have a class of “superpredators.” These superpredators are not poor people of color walking the streets of marginal communities. They inhabit the exclusive corporate enclaves of the privileged and the powerful.

      1. neo-realist

        At the very least, Sanders should use that line if he has to give a concession speech at the Democratic convention. Something for the voter base to chew on if Clinton is coronated.

  7. David Carl Grimes

    Why hasn’t Elizabeth Warren not endorsed Bernie Sanders? I think it’s about time she did.

    1. aliteralmind

      I think that time has passed. Massachusetts is a very tight race, and she could’ve changed things if she really wanted to.

      1. wbgonne

        Another phony, happy to get headlines for shooting spitballs from the back of the classroom. If Warren had any guts she, not Sanders, would be running against Clinton. And Warren would be winning. The plutocrats thank you for your service, Senator Warren.

        1. RP

          You’re right, she would be winning.

          She’ll probably be getting sworn in in Jan 2025, just a matter of whether it’s for her first term or her 2nd.

          Hard to imagine whoever wins the clusterf*&% of ’16 getting two terms. If somehow Trump wins, ’20 would be tailor made for an *ACTUAL* Progressive to run against him.

      1. Higgs Boson

        The establishment is very firmly entrenched in her home state. I did some canvassing for the Sanders campaign this past weekend. The number of Clinton backers, even in college towns like Northampton is depressing. While some of them are at least civil (“I’m all set thanks” and then close the door), many view Sanders as a traitor & his supporters as hippies and don’t mind telling you.

        I know that’s purely anecdotal, but that’s my direct experience.

        I think Warren understands the high esteem with which she is regarded generally, is not necessarily present in Mass among the establishment Dems.

    2. DanB

      Well, as one of her constituents, I’d like to add my skepticism that she agrees in the main with Bernie’s platform. Recall that she supports Obamacare -after being caught dissembling about coauthoring a book that concluded single payer was needed. Further, when she spoke at my college here in Massachusetts in 2013 one of my students posed for a photo with her and then told her, “I wish you’d get the rich to pay their fair share of taxes.” She then scolded him, “I’m not here to discuss that,” and scurried away. I think Warren calculates that just by withholding her endorsement from Hillary she’s sending a message of potential support for Bernie and, simultaneously, preserving her place among the party power wielders. Endorsing Bernie openly would single Warren out for a trip to the woodshed or outright ostracism and shunning. And let’s not forget she had a private meeting with Hillary last year.

    3. GlobalMisanthrope

      Why does this keep coming up? She’s irrelevant in this race.

      1. She is a dyed-in-the-wool centrist, no more left-leaning than Sheila Bair.

      2. Sanders supporters are already for the reforms she champions, but Warren supporters are not natural Sanders supporters.

      3. Nobody outside of Washington and New England knows or cares who she is.

      4. And, finally, most voters sadly don’t understand the issues that are her hallmark. Oh, plus Ivy League.

        1. susan the other

          Yes, Warren would also be a dangerous VP pick for Bernie. Much better to have Nina Turner. If only as an insurance policy.

            1. GlobalMisanthrope

              I’m thinking Maria Cantwell. Mind you, I’m not saying I want her. I’m saying I think that’s who I’d offer it to if i were Sanders.

              1. neo-realist

                She’s pro TPP and pro Clinton.

                Unfortunately, so many dems whose politics align with Sanders, back Clinton, e.g., Sherrod Brown, Juan Castro.

                1. GlobalMisanthrope

                  I know. But with Clinton out of the picture Cantwell’s prior support of her would help to smooth things over with other Clinton supporters and a Sanders presidency would make TPP a dead letter.

                  On the plus side, she supported the public option and would have broad appeal (no pun intended).

                  Like I said, I’m not saying I like her. I’m saying I think she makes an excellent strategic choice to beat Trump/Haley, say.

                  1. Kurt Sperry

                    Naming Cantwell would give me pause before voting that ticket, she’s my rep and she’s really dreadful, like seemingly all the high profile WA state Dems. Bernie needs someone further left than he is as VP if anything, just as protection.

              2. Lord Koos

                Why would Bernie pick a VP who voted for the Iraq war? Cantwell isn’t all that progressive.

      1. Jason

        In my internal shorthand, I think of vampire squid capitalism as having two dissenting sides. One, represented by, say everyone from Clinton, Romney and Goldman Sachs to the Koch Bros, just wants to keep sucking blood until there’s nothing left. The other side, represented by, perhaps, Warren, Buffet and such, fully agrees with vampire squid supremacy, but believes that if you either utterly destroy the body public or force it into open violent rebellion, things will become ugly for the vampire squid.

  8. cwaltz

    Oldest and I went and voted. Bernie has at least 2 here in Va. Spouse is sleeping. He and our third will hopefully vote later(this will be 1st time for kidlet to vote.)

    1. curlydan

      what kind of outreach did the Sanders campaign have with you or your household leading up to the primary?

      It’s 5 days until I “caucus” in KS, and I got one door knock visit by Sanders people (none from Clinton). But I have gotten 1 phone call and three direct mail pieces from Clinton or her surrogates. I’m a little concerned about why Sanders doesn’t try direct mail more. It’s $1 apiece basically for a nice, color direct mail piece. With $40 in the bank, why not roll some of that out on a direct mail to registered Democrats? In KS or OK, a direct mail to every registered Democrat wouldn’t cost more than $200,000–that’s for sure. There aren’t many out here.

      1. James Levy

        I’ve gotten physical mail and email from Sanders in MA. This morning I got an email from the campaign reminding me that this is primary day and to go out and vote for Bernie.

        1. Romancing the Loan

          Boston here. I had emails, text messages, and an in-person visit, but all of it started after I gave him $50 in late January.

      2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        The nuts and bolts of democracy.

        To remind people it’s election day.

        To ask people to vote for you, by mail or calling – but what if you just reminded the other side’s voter to vote? Is the call the deciding factor which candidate to vote?

        Authority endorsements – that’s like argument from authority.

        Every vote is an endorsement.

        “This janitor just endorsed me.”

        “Another endorsement from a waitress.”

        “More endorsement from a truck driver.”

        What’s wrong with promoting information like that? Nothing. We should do it more often.

      3. katiebird

        Also in Kansas (Overland Park) and I’ve had one direct contact — a text message from a phone bank reminding me to caucus.

        I have also received several mailers from the Clinton campaign but since they were addressed to me and not my husband or family, I think it’s because of my support for her last year.

        He did come here last week and will be in Lawrence on Thursday.

        Oh, and the JoCo County for Sanders FaceBook Group has phone banks scheduled at the Library nearly every week. So they must be contacting someone???

      4. cwaltz

        They didn’t do any outreach. :(

        He didn’t do ads, mailers, or send anyone door to door.

        Clinton is running ads here.

        I personally think that Bernie ceded this state to her(probably because it has an older demographic and the governor here is a personal friend of the Clintons.)

        It’s a shame because Virginia is a swing state. If you are thinking ahead then you should be trying to be competitive here.

      5. jhallc

        My wife and I just voted for Bernie here in MA as well. Turnout at 11:30 was actually not bad. I usually vote in the evening so can’t say how that compares. I reported the total of number of ballots cast as of that time to Bernie’s HQ. Just over 400 votes cast in my precinct out of 2400 registered voters. Usually about 30-40 % of the total votes have been cast by 12PM based on past voting time numbers. So, if the trend is the same we are looking at about 37-42% voter turnout. Turnout in 2008 as about 43%. Remember this is both parties so no way to tell how it breaks down by party until tonight. However, my town tends to lean strongly Democratic and is demographically at the upper end of the whiteness and income chart.

        1. jhallc

          FYI- I’ve received two text messages reminding me to vote from Bernie and just got a recorded phone call from him on my land line.

    2. James Levy

      I’m off to vote for Bernie after lunch, and my wife will hit the town hall on her way home from work this evening. Many people around here, from the look of their front yards and bumper stickers, are going to vote from Sanders as well.

      1. James Levy

        UPDATE: went to the polls here and the polling people reported an excellent high turnout (about 20% of registered voters had already cast ballots at 1:30 and the polls are open until 8 PM). Of course, the Berkshires are in many ways as much a cultural as they are a geological extension of the Green Mountains, but Bernie is going to do well out here. I’m praying low turnout in the more populous areas of the state will be offset by Bernie voters in rural areas.

      1. Romancing the Loan

        Mine was also dead quiet. The few people who were there were far whiter than the demographics of the area would indicate. But that might just be because I was there during regular work hours.

        1. cwaltz

          Same, one lone person on our way in thanked us for taking the time to vote. We had NO line.

    3. Brooklin Bridge

      Just went. 3 more for Bernie in MA – that should do it… There were people with placards for HIllary, none for Sanders. Tough town.

      No nibbles on the bridge today, things are slow. Hopefully that’s good news for Bernie.

      1. Brooklin Bridge

        Update, Clinton is pulling ahead in Ma (52/46).

        Not over till it’s over (I guess).

        1. Brooklin Bridge

          Thumb on scale? Too consistent a sliver lead. I imagine the pressure to win MA is huge for Clinton and very ripe for heavy thumbs.

          1. Brooklin Bridge

            Really odd. Politico has Sanders checked (forecast) as winning even though Clinton is ahead by about 24 thousand votes (less than 2.5%) whereas HuffPo with the same numeric count has Clinton checked as winning.

            Opps, now Politico has reversed it. Clinton is winning.

            1. Brooklin Bridge

              95% of the vote in. Clinton ahead by less than 2%. Damn, Sanders really needed Massachusetts.

                1. bob

                  Advantage to the house. The machine in MA is alive and well. Tie goes to the incumbent, or owner of the party- Hillz.

                  It’s also why Warren didn’t want to come out for either, she still doesn’t have much say inside ‘the machine’.

                2. Brooklin Bridge

                  The bums have stopped updating the real numbers: at 97% counted, it’s about a 1.6% or 1.7% split but they’ve frozen it at 1.8%. Most of the urban areas (wi a few exceptions, Sommerville rocks!) went for Clinton, most of the rural areas for Sanders.

                  What gives? The poor ALWAYS vote against their own interests???? (where is the manuel explaining at what cut-off you are part of the FUCK MOI club?) Fear of things getting worse? (is THAT powerful?), heavy digital thumb?, what???

                  1. wbgonne

                    We’ll have to wait for the official breakdown but it appears that MA followed the same pattern as the other states so far. Clinton is dominating with African Americans, the wealthy, and the elderly (with perhaps significant overlap between AAs/elderly and wealthy/elderly). Sanders is winning with everyone else. IOW: Clinton is winning with a coalition of AAs and neoliberals (or beneficiaries of neoliberalism). Should this persist, we can expect to see an especially hideous Clinton GE campaign of identity-politics pandering and middle-class platitudes masking neoliberal grand theft. This is so transparently fraudulent that Trump could easily tear Clinton apart since he has no fear of violating political correctness, either on economic policy or race.

    4. thoughtful person

      Here in Charlottesville, VA, I’ve still not seen any Hillary lawn signs or bumper stickers. I did see one Trump bumper sticker in a parking lot a week or so ago. Otherwise 99%+ of those that are up say Bernie.

      Still, I am not sure it will be a huge turnout, but maybe higher than 2012 primary or possibly even last congressional midterms…

    1. Steve Gunderson

      “Make Christians Great Again” – some how I don’t think Marcus Goldman would have agreed with that.

    2. thoughtful person

      I am willing to bet that Trump has had some loans in his career from at min. 2 of the top 5 banks. I think the choice might be more accurately characterized, in these terms, as a choice between a Goldman employee and a Goldman / JPM etc fellow country club member (who happens to be an experienced kayfabe actor). Which imo is not much difference.

  9. Steve H.

    Too cool to not share:,39.59,813

    Right now, California is showing rather high carbon monoxide concentrations, which is what this particular graphic illustrates. Not man-made, apparently from seismic fissures.

    1. Llewelyn Moss

      That is pretty darn kool. You can rotate the globe by dragging it. And when you click on a place in the map, it displays the GPS coordinates. Impressive.

    2. voxhumana

      I think the “seismic fissures” theory has been refuted… can’t remember where I read it…. suggested that strong wind currents off the coast are chaneling and trapping smog from So. CA (mostly L.A.?) and pulling in smoke from (unusual for winter) fires in Canada… and that the size of the concentration you reference is much too big to result from seismic activity.

      I am just passing on what I read and am no expert so…

    3. neo-realist

      Gee, California is slowly turning into Dad’s garage with the door closed and the engine running:/

  10. Sam Adams

    It can’t be true. If it were true and the source calling into question the integrity of the OIG investigators were actually a ‘whistleblower,’ the Obama administration would have thrown the source into the deepest darkest hole in the furtherest prison it could find. Stop being silly.

  11. jgordon

    On Clinton and intersectionality:

    This push for openness, inclusiveness and progressive social policy is more and more becoming deeply associated with the destruction of the working class in the minds of Americans.

    If you want a recipe for a popular neo-fascist resurgence in America you got it here, and Trump just happened to stumble into it. Not that I’m happy about it, but my feeling is that due to the toxic interactions of various factors at play in American society a whole lot of very ugly and non-progressive ideals are about to surge in popularity. And the most disheartening thing of all is that it’ll be better than the inclusive and LGBT-friendly neoliberal dictatorship that Hillary and her ilk have planned for us.

    1. Massinissa

      I think its safer to let Trump beat Hillary. I think if Trump gets the presidency now the damage to LGBTQ folks and minorities will be more limited because the Right will get to let off some steam.

      8 years of Hillary and they will be VERY VERY VERY pissed off (for largely legitimate reasons no less), and we wont have anything positive to show in exchange. Im kinda hoping Trumps presidency will be like a pressure relief valve and keep the GOP kettle from blowing its lid.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        If it damages the Black MisLeadership, hopefully a new, more progressive leadership will replace it.

        When Saplosky’s apes lost their alpha male, they were happier.

        It’s not unlike when the English barons went to war with the French barons, and then, suddenly, there were no barons anymore, anywhere. I think the serfs would know what to do.

        “Free brioche at the manor house.”

      2. EmilianoZ

        I also agree that since Sanders is now becoming an improbability, the best option might be Trump. After 8 years of Hillary the economy will be much worse, people even more angry. Somebody much worse than Trump, a real fascist, could come along.

        Trump, on the other hand, might turn out to be repubs’ version of Obama, all talk no action, a farcical fascist, more Mussolini than Hitler. The economy will not improve under him. But at least Americans will be inoculated against fascism, they will learn to distrust the fascist bombast. Trump could work as a vaccine against fascism. Then, hopefully, will be the time for a new FDR.

        1. different clue

          Especially if the Sanders movement becomes a post-Sanders movement with lots of coherent leadership and informed aware eyes-open followership which can start running people at various local and regional levels to start many little FDR gardens and breeding programs from which an FDR might emerge.

          1. cwaltz

            The other bleaker more likely reality is even MORE left leaning people become apathetic and feel disenfranchised.

            1. neo-realist

              That is my fear with the younger left leaning people who would otherwise be the future of the party.

              1. wbgonne

                I really have no idea what’s going to happen. I have been pleasantly surprised to see young people step up and make Sanders viable. If Sanders goes do young people go too? I’d guess — and that’s all it is — that young people will indeed pack it in, at least for the 2016 elections. Hillary Clinton represents everything young progressives oppose and I see little chance the Democrats can corral these people absent Sanders. They will try, of course, but I really doubt it will work. I’m afraid that political apathy is my most likely alternative. But who knows? A mass move to the Green Party could be a very significant development. Interesting times.

                1. m

                  No Bernie and I won’t waste my time. The system wants Hillary. The system needs to fail, maybe Trump would be best for that.

                    1. ambrit

                      I don’t know if your convoluted mind meant to suggest this, but, it could well be ‘National Socialists for America.’

        2. Steve Gunderson

          I think President Trump would get along with Congress as well as President Cruz would.

          1. cwaltz

            Or for that matter a President Clinton.

            Who here doesn’t believe that from the moment she were to take office they’d be holding hearings to impeach her over her emails?

            I mean geez, it isn’t like these guys haven’t repealed Obamacare something like 60 times. But they are totally going to give Hillary a hall pass even though she violate FOIA by exclusively using personal emails? Heck, I’d be surprised if the very first thing they’d pass would be the explicit prohibition of private emails for conversation between public officials. *shakes head*

          2. neo-realist

            Cruz may be a douchebag, however, he is much more of a team player than Trump vis-a-vis the GOP script on economic issues, military affairs, and health care than Trump. He’d have more success w/ a republican majority than you think.

          1. different clue

            The Clintonite Forces will launch the very same sort of WWTSBQ (Why Won’t That Stupid Bastart Quit) campaign against Sanders. If they do that, which I think they will, and if their agents in the field show the same rude nastiness against Sandernistas which Obamazoids showed against Clinton supporters, the Clintonite Forces will end up creating a legacy of deep and abiding hatred in the hearts of many Sandernistas . . . a hatred which will burn for decades to come.

            Whereas if the Clinton campaign is polite or even just acts polite, and Sanders loses fair and square, the Sandernistas will be sullenly resigned to their defeat this round.

            So the Clinton Campaign has a decision to make, a decision which will echo down the decades. To WWTSBQ or not to WWTSBQ? That is the question.

            1. Lambert Strether

              Again, I think this is easy. Clinton affirmatively does not want Sanders supporters. This is reflected in the online behavior of Clinton supporters. Clinton and Sanders, and their constituencies, do not have the same goals.

              1) Socialism is anathema to the Democratic Establishment

              2) Political economy as opposed to identity politics is anathema to the Democratic Establishment

              3) A 100% small-donor funded operation would defund vast swaths of the political class

              4) A political economy that’s not neo-liberal would defund vast swaths of the technocrats and “wonks”

              5) The Black Misleadership Class would lose power under Sanders, and retain it under Clinton

              Clinton may make some vague verbal gestures to Sanders, but that will be it. She would far rather tack to the center and appeal to the “moderate” Republicans appalled by Trump; note that the neo-cons are already raising their hands and crying “Pick me! Pick me!”

              “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” If Clinton is serious about party unity, then she’ll take concrete and verifiable steps toward Sanders on policy, and not the mush she’s slinging right now. Single payer would be a good start, but free college would work. And the only way for Sanders to force that, I would argue, is to turn the Sanders campaign operation into a free-standing permanent organization — say, “Socialists for America” and threaten to split the party if concessions* aren’t made.

              UPDATE * Adding, and the appropriate response to a concession is profuse thanks, along with a new demand in, say, three months. “But what have you done for me lately?”

              1. ambrit

                I have the strong feeling that, Sanders will have no influence with a Neo Clinton Administration that he doesn’t carve out before and during the Democratic Convention. Once Sanders concedes, he’s toast. Hillary is a control freak. Sanders has demonstrated independence, therefore, he has to go. If things are stacking up to be unsuccessful for the Sanders campaign this year, then he should start setting up a permanent Opposition Wing of the Democrat Party right now. It is too early to switch to a ‘Bitter Ender’ strategy, but the groundwork can be laid in quiet. (Perhaps the Rump Occupy cadres could be invited into the True Democrat Party apparat?)

        3. neo-realist

          Considering his attitudes about Muslims, illegal aliens and Black demonstrators at his rallies, Trump may end up putting the fascist beast already on display in Middle America on steroids.

          1. jrs

            For Trump voters: What kind of message do you think it sends to you Muslim etc. neighbors when you vote to Trump? It scares them and rightly so. They fear for their lives, not necessarily really from Trump which is probably overstated, but from his supporters. This is what you vote for when you vote racist bigotry.

            Oh Trump voters think it only sends an anti-establishment message. But no, that text can be read many ways, and Trump is hateful enough, it’s not like he’s just anti-establishment, he’s also anti a lot of other things. Thinking it’s just anti-establishment, how white privilege that is. I won’t vote for either Hillary or Trump.

            1. Massinissa

              Get ready for Stein people! ^_^

              Or stay home. That also works. That way you can do more important things, like knitting or watch the teevee. I mean, its not like voting does anything anyway. Theres a reason half the country doesn’t bother.

          2. Massinissa

            It might be better that way. That way no one can deny it exists anymore. Lets remove that plausible deniability so that maybe in the future people will notice it has to change.

      3. cwaltz


        Clearly you need to watch Samantha Bee’s outstanding coverage of what the GOP has done to reproductive rights in 6 short years.

        Let’s be really clear. Hillary Clinton will likely be a disaster for this country. She’s status quo and pretty much an oligarch puppet. However, this idea that elitist Donald Trump and the GOP beingin charge is a better option is absurd.

        We’re going to be screwed for 4 years no matter what. It’s just a matter of who is going to do the screwing and who is going to be screwed the hardest.

        1. neo-realist

          The more I watch Trevor Noah and Samantha, I believe Samantha should have been the one to inherit Jon Stewart’s chair. She throws hard elbows at the monsters while Noah throws puns and softballs.

    2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      The People’s Money is open, progressive and inclusive – everyone gets an equal share of new money – and it is not destructive to the working class and it doesn’t enrich the Praetorian Guard.

      1. Katniss Everdeen

        Can you imagine playing the game Monopoly if, every time the Shoe or the Dog passed Go!, the Top Hat got THEIR $200 and the privilege of lending the money back to them at interest?

        It’s not too hard to figure out who’d wind up owning Boardwalk and Park Place with hotels and who’d be paying all the rent.

    3. Left in Wisconsin

      Why does Clinton get to use the term “intersectionality” when her usage is the exact opposite. Intersectionality is explicitly about how concerns over race, class, and gender intersect. Her usage is not intersectional, it is additive: race: check; gender: check, class: check.

      The interview with Vivek Chibber on Shadow Proof is awesome. Too many good parts to excerpt but here is a taste:

      Basically what has happened in the past twenty years is what it means to be left-wing or radical has been very successfully redefined by the academy, by professors, and by grad students. …

      How do you expect to address the real plight of African-Americans in this country around their everyday lives without a jobs program, without universal healthcare, without decent and universal public education? To think that these are matters that, by virtue of being economic, are not relevant for people of color is not just wrong. It is fantastically dishonest.

      The reason that Hillary is able to get away with this is because the so-called left—and I don’t really call it the left anymore. I don’t know what to call it because it’s a disease formation. The so-called left intelligentsia has succeeded in equating the word “class” with white guys. And we should look at this as an achievement because it’s never happened on the left before. It was always understood among the more savvy radical activists that, even though people’s economic conditions don’t explain all the liabilities they face, addressing the oppressions that men and women who are poor are facing—Addressing those without addressing their economic conditions – is an elite strategy to keep off the table the real concerns of poor, working class black men and women.

      It was always understood. Now, it is … just a sign that the middle class and the upper classes have taken over the discourse of the left, whether they’re professors, whether they work in non-profits, or whether they’re these talking heads for think tanks. It’s the same thing, which is the middle class gets to define what it means to be radical.

      1. Lambert Strether

        Yes. As I wrote back in January:

        (Note that what one might call “vulgar identity politics” as practiced by the political class and both legacy parties and distinct from Crenshaw, does not permit “multiple dimensions of identity,” at least in public discourse; I don’t know how campaigns typically query their databases.) Being of a technical bent, I at once see “multiple dimensions of identity” as overlapping sets, like Venn diagrams, a “both/and” data structure of great utility; one wonders how, for example, one might use intersectionality to categorize Trump voters.[1]

        Odd that we never see wage work as the master key to intersectionality, the set that overlaps almost all others.

      2. JTFaraday

        Oh, it’s all so easy. No. “Intersectionality” was pushed on white feminists and academics absolutely kicking and screaming. And as you’ll see Bernie Sanders can’t win without it either, while the Trumpertantrums automatically define the working class as white because, well, it’s well known that the _____ “don’t work”—and that’s exactly the way it will stay if they have anything to do with it.

        Stop blaming people who actually try to think for America’s fucked up cultural politics. The American “working class” is coded white and male because the New Deal coded it that way, in order to create a male prerogative where none previously existed. Just because you don’t want to hear that doesn’t make it not so.

        Why do you think Nancy Fraser’s writing is so tortured? A diverse “working class” is very nearly an unthinkable thing. Certainly a diverse working class with 100% wholly uniform interests does not actually exist in the real world.

        1. Lambert Strether

          If a Martian were looking at this, they would ask “Isn’t wage work the intersection di tutti intersections,” simply because it overlaps (intersects) all the others?

          Further, if you think that capitalism commoditizes everything, surely all the identities are being slowly but surely ground away?

          JTF, I’m not sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing (or, of course, both).

  12. katiebird

    I just heard that Bernie has added a rally in Lawrence, Ks (4:30 at the fairgrounds) … I hopes this helps get the KU students to their caucuses. I think there is a conflict with the caucus and basketball game.

    1. curlydan

      Yes, there is a direct conflict. KS Dem caucuses line up at 3PM, and the KU basketball game tips off at 3PM. Decisions, decisions…

      1. katiebird

        ALSO — this totally sucks. But, 1/3 of the Lawrence voters have to go to Topeka for their caucus!!! It’s almost designed to keep people from participating!

        1. grayslady

          Yup! You get home from work, try to grab something to eat, and then drive 27 miles one way to attend a caucus. Looks like they don’t care much about turnout.

            1. flora

              +1 The DNC owns the Kansas Dem establishment.
              The GOP caucus, on the other hand, starts in the morning and is done before the basketball game starts – the final regular season home game that is also senior night, in a town where KU basketball is a near religion. Clinton lost the 2008 KS caucus to Obama. I’m sure that didn’t have anything to do with this year’s timing (that will likely reduce the number of college students caucusing in the Dem party.) Just a coincidence.

              1. Lord Koos

                This is not a partisan issue. The entire system likes depressed voting, and the two-party system has been designed to make it easy to minimize voter participation. Primaries, caucuses, electoral college, voter ID, voting takes place on a workday, etc. Some countries make voting mandatory, and some make a election days into holidays. But not the USA.

                Shorter version — if voting actually changed things, it would be illegal.

    1. diptherio

      Me too. That’s a good link to keep around to send to party loyalists who claim to be progressives.

      What we need, imho, is a third party based not around a particular set of policy proposals, but rather on having a transparent way for party members to affect the votes of party representatives. Which is to say, a political party which runs on direct democracy. That way, people from both left and right will be encouraged to become party members (which is what you want).

      Ideally, the party’s membership becomes a close approximation of the populace as a whole, and allowing rank-and-file members to vote on what the representative should do will provide actually democratic outcomes. This also removes problems of corruption, attack politics, blackmail, etc. in politics, since all of those assume that the representative controls which way they are going to vote. If the constituency controls the rep’s vote, they you have to convince the constituents if you want to get your way.

      My 2 cents…

      1. fresno dan

        I agree with you – But as Mark Twain said, it voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let you do it….

        My view would be if there are two parties (and don’t tell me about 3rd parties – are there anything BUT dems and repubs in gevernment???), that every voter should get 2 votes – a vote for each party, as that is the only realistic choice of who will be running the government. If I am to be ruled by a dem or a repub, I should pick which dem and/or which repub. Primaries are set up, financed, and run by the government. Why should I be excluded from voting in a primary? The fact of the matter in the majority of districts, one party predominates, rendering the voice of the people not of that party silent.
        I should be able to choose a preference for Hillary or Bernie, and a preference for Kaisch or Trump – I shouldn’t have to constrain myself to one party, and somehow presciently determine which party will more likely be to win in the next election!!!!! I LOSE my right to determine how I will be governed because I can’t predict the future?????????

        I was on the Bloomberg channel and Haley Barber and Christie Todd Whitman, and the question was put to them: Will you vote if Trump is the republican nominee. Barber danced around, but said he would vote repub. Whitman said she would vote for Hillary before Trump.
        But what Whitman said struck me as incredibly unusual. Just as I have pointed out humans irrational, illogical, mindless loyalty to sport teams, party loyalty strikes me a worse.
        We have people who hate, hate, HATE Obama, not due to logic or what he actually has or hasn’t done, but because of a BRANDING exercise that vilifies dems. Indeed, all of our politics is more about who you hate and fear than the actual administration of a country.

        Substantively, what is the real difference between Dubbya and Obama? On the banks, on war, on economics, trade, and even health care (Obama care is Romney care!!!) politics makes liars of every politician and non-thinkers of voters. We should be doing everything we can to weaken parties.
        And IRONY – after all this about how lousy the country is under Obama, we shouldn’t be angry!!! No, No, No – we were just kidding about American being Hell on earth!!!
        And more IRONY – Hillary has to say things are great (parsing aside) – I’d hate to wear that yoke around my neck this fall….

        1. different clue

          Well, the Republicans are trying to stop whole bunches of people from voting so they must think voting can change things if their non-supporters are freely permitted to vote.

        2. diptherio

          I feel like you’re kind of missing my point – your vote will matter within the party. Voting for a candidate has never mattered before because the candidates have never had any accountability to their constituents once elected. This changes that.

          The party itself will run on direct democracy and representatives will be contractually bound to vote on that basis, regardless of their personal feelings.

          The benefit of this approach is that it doesn’t require any changes to the constituion. It’s a shot across the bow of establishment politics by providing a democratic alternative to our current system at the party level. As Ed Whitfield put it, “People think democracy is ‘everybody hears my opinion and I get my way most of the time.'” But that’s not democracy. As Ed says, democracy is thinking together. This new party would provide a platform for people to think together and exert political power in a democratic, transparent way. And that’s something that I think people from both the left and the right would get behind.

          Podemos was a first attempt at this sort of thing, but we could do a lot better. It would probably be a good idea to start locally as a demonstration project. The tech tools already exist for doing this, Loomio being just one option (but a good one to start with).

          1. Left in Wisconsin

            Well, Podemos must have taken it from us. Our local 3rd party here in Madison began (mid-90s) under these rules but ultimately abandoned them because our electeds (to local non-partisan offices), ONCE ELECTED THE FIRST TIME WITH LOTS OF OUR SWEAT EQUITY, would drop party membership for subsequent elections rather than be bound to our “radical” program.

            Maybe Podemos has figured out how to make it work better than we did. Maybe their election rules are different. I’m not sure it would work absent a system with party lists, where you could ensure that at least some of your elected representatives were down with the program.

            Which is not at all to say that someone else shouldn’t try it again. But it won’t be us.

            1. diptherio

              Interesting. I hadn’t heard of any experiments with this kind of system here in the US. Maybe the representative problem could be overcome with a sortition process for choosing someone to represent the party? At any rate, it’s good to know other people are thinking and acting along similar lines, even if it didn’t work out. Rome wasn’t built in a day you know, and I’d rather spend time working on something new that fails than trying to fix the Dems and failing.

          2. fresno dan

            Well, I wish there were no parties. But I have a tough time envisioning gun control advocates and gun owners coming together in one party.

            1. cwaltz

              Why? My spouse and I peacefully coexist in a household. He owns several guns and has since he was young while I had a father who was mentally ill who ended up incarcerated for shooting a police officer(but not before I spent years being afraid that my father was going to shoot us and then himself.) Needless to say we have very different views on guns.

              Many responsible gun owners are fine with limitations and accountability though. They don’t like reading 2 year olds got hurt thanks to a gun anymore than we do. They aren’t happy when they find out some crazy person shot up a building. They just don’t want to be held responsible for other people’s actions and have what they see as a hobby(albeit a dangerous one) taken away from them when they aren’t doing anything wrong.

              1. wbgonne

                Many responsible gun owners are fine with limitations and accountability though. They don’t like reading 2 year olds got hurt thanks to a gun anymore than we do. They aren’t happy when they find out some crazy person shot up a building. They just don’t want to be held responsible for other people’s actions and have what they see as a hobby(albeit a dangerous one) taken away from them when they aren’t doing anything wrong.

                Perfectly fair and reasonable. This is how we find common ground. Thank you very much.

      2. Lambert Strether

        I don’t think a party that doesn’t make some ideological or even ontological commitments can be a functional party. When you say “close approximation of the populace,” which of many possible vectors are you using for the comparison? And how do you handle real clashes of values and interests?

        If parties are bundles of factions, and factions are in essence driven by property interests (Madison’s model, which I find utterly plausible), then a left/right coalition founders on its own internal contradictions (supposing for a moment the right and the putative left to have different property interests.

  13. nippersdad

    I thought that this was a simply wonderful overview of the Republican Presidential race. There are some great lines in it that almost makes me wish I had spent more time watching their race:

    “Belatedly stirring from their catatonic trance, they now resemble a forlorn tourist lost in a bad neighborhood during a rainstorm, vainly shouting at the last taxi as its’ taillights vanish into the night.”

    1. fresno dan

      March 1, 2016 at 9:47 am
      That is a great link!!!!
      Though I bring my usual skewed view to it…

      “Thus, to their astonishment, Republicans have watched Trump build a cult of personality that transcends ideology or experience. His mindless bluster against his chosen foes fills his legions with a visceral pleasure. Such is their hatred of the establishment that they hear any critique of Trump as another condescending message from the despised elites. They follow Trump’s abusive tweets with abusive tweets of their own, often filled with libelous virulence. They are impervious to reason, indifferent to policy, immune to fact. They don’t want to think; they want to feel.”

      Uh, just like most repub candidates – The Donald just didn’t dilute, or use dog whistles or code words with regard to the repub message. The fact that The Donald doesn’t clean up his language for the suburban repubs, and INSTEAD uses the Rovian 50% + 1 strategy is pure delicious irony!!!!!

      {{{{{“Crucial to this phenomenon was the GOP’s failure to perceive that the broadcast media was enabling Trump to build an uncritical mass following, making him ever harder to take down. Here, again, Trump was lucky and also shrewd: shamelessly avid for ratings, cable news gave him priceless months of free media, a seemingly endless infomercial for his siren song of self. With the honorable exception of Fox News, his debate interrogators largely extended his free ride, even as morning chat shows built him into a political Wizard of Oz.”}}}}}}

      I’m sorry, but saying FOX news is honorable is – BATSH*T INSANE!!!!!!!!! Fox is not conservative – it is establishment repub – it believes in pretty much more, more more for the 1% and even much, much, much more for the 0.01% and of course, all war all the time, except if a dem is in the white house and supports it. As far as race, it is worse than Trump, as it has been doing that for decades, and is the more EFFECTIVE evil.

      To the extent that Trump could possibly question saint Dubbya, our glorious liberation of Iraq, and TAX CUTS for the Wealthy, he was seen as a maniacal monster, who must be destroyed!!!!!!!!!!!!
      FOX is more responsible for Trump than any other institution in America, and rebpubs are more responsible for FOX TV news than any other institution in America. It is the master of lying by omission, slanted reporting, unbalanced thinking, and a purposeful ignorance that makes 4 Americans dying in Libya an unmitigated disaster, while thousands dying in Iraq under equally dubious conditions is a great and glorious victory, and any doubters are communist traitors.

      {{{{{{{{“Too much, too late. And, as ever, Rubio’s dependence on hysterical right-wing talking points was on full display, as when he pandered to the Sheldon Adelsons of the world by labeling Palestinians en masse as suicide bombers, making Trump sound almost statesmanlike. There was a brief, queasy moment where an awful thought presented itself: Would this lightweight be an even worse president than Donald Trump? Truly terrible to contemplate, and a measure of what the GOP establishment has come to.”}}}}}}}}}}

      What is happening here makes Frankenstein’s monster by comparison the greatest medical success in the history of science.
      Poetic Justice, your name is Trump!!!

      So the author has many good points, but his conventional “left” perspective he gets two things wrong:
      1. The other republicans, despite circumspect language, are in actual fact, WORSE. Because Rubio uses Washington speak, his war mongering is truly frightening.
      2. Trump’s revolt against idolizing Bush, Iraq, and tax cuts represents a REAL and significant base revolt against the repub establishment – it is not ALL racism or “low information”

    2. Brooklin Bridge

      Yes, some good lines indeed, but a lot of hyperventilating as well. As with most such critiques of Trump, it leaves out any of the populist remarks that actually make sense, or his comments on how the current crop of politicians on both sides have screwed up the ME and, particularly, Trump’s extraordinary success in de-robing the royalty.

      It did excell in pointing out Trump is a GOP and Fox created example of needing to be more careful of what you wish for.

      Matt Taibbi has nailed the multifarious sides of the Trump phenomenon better than just about anyone else, showing it can be done.

      1. Brooklin Bridge

        That said, I’m beginning to wonder if all the officially sanctioned piling on top of Trump’s back by the entirety of the insect media isn’t starting to have an effect. Trump is a bully and bullies are notorious for being able to dish it out but not take it in. This simple pile on just might push him over the edge.

  14. Massinissa

    I put in a vote for Bernie in Georgia just now.

    Now I can vote for the Greens in the fall when Bernie loses with a clear conscience.

      1. Vatch

        Thank you both. I’m still hoping we’ll be able to vote for Sanders in the fall. I guess we’ll know more later.

        1. nippersdad

          I hope so too, but it is always good to have a back up plan.

          He looks like he is going to do very well once he gets out of the South. Strange, or perhaps not, that Hillary’s “firewall” is a Republican stronghold. That is not something that I would want to crow too much about these days.

          1. RP

            Absolute radio silence on the fact that the majority of HRC’s delegates come from states the (D) has no prayer of winning in November. Astonishing.

            The (D) Establishment would rather lose with HRC than win with Bernie.

            1. flora

              “Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
              to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
              Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”

              Milton, ‘Paradise Lost’

    1. jgordon

      I’d just like to offer a suggestion: if Bernie’s imminent endorsement of Clinton is sufficiently nauseating for you, consider voting for Trump! Admittedly there is not much good about Trump (well, aside from the fact that he looks like a radical leftist peace-loving hippie compared to Hillary) though he has said that he’ll prosecute Hillary as soon as he’s elected. It might not be as good as having a Green as president, but that’s still something to look forward to!

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        Wonder who his Attorney General would be.

        And he probably needs a strong person at the Pentagon.

        One thing for sure, if he is relying on Mexico to pay for the wall, it likely will take a long time, so long, that most voters will have likely forgotten.

        Maybe that’s why he says it like that…to build a wall there is provocative enough. To get the other guy to pay for it, unless you have a way to enforce, it’s like…unrealistically provocative.

        1. jgordon

          Few to no actual Trump supporters really believe that he’s going to have Mexico pay for a wall, so pointing out how irrational it is really misses the point.

          The fact that he says things that are offensive, bombastic and nonsensical is what makes him so charismatic and compelling. I daresay that if he suddenly started making sense his nascent political career would come to an abrupt end. People like Trump because every other candidate who talked sense and said things they wanted to hear ended up screwing them hard.

          1. cnchal

            . . . really believe that he’s going to have Mexico pay for a wall, so pointing out how irrational it is really misses the point.

            A week or so ago, the former Mexican President was asked about Trump’s wall, and started arguing that Mexico wasn’t going to pay for the wall, that Trump should pay for it himself.

            So there will be a wall, whether it’s rational or not.

            I too, salute your limitless cynicism. :-)

          2. reslez

            What you’re saying is you have no idea which 50% of the things he says he actually means. A deeply irresponsible way to cast a ballot.

            If Trump is also charismatic that only means he is dangerous.

            1. jgordon

              No, you missed something important that I said: 50% of the stuff Trump is saying may be lies. However by the same toke 50% of the stuff might be true too.

              The American people have pretty much gotten used to the notion that nearly 100% of everything a politician says is a lie, so when someone comes along who seems to have a 50% truth telling ratio, he looks mighty good.

              By the way, the people perceive that Donald is at least 50% truthful because he is overtly rude, arrogant, and demeaning. Being nasty means that he doesn’t give a F what and therefore is by default “honest”. Being slick, careful, and flattering with language, like every other candidate, are sure signs of a liar.

      2. cwaltz

        I will not be holding my nose and voting for an elite idiot with a big mouth.

        I AM going to enjoy watching him eviscerate her though during the debates.

      3. Massinissa

        Im sorry Gordon, but im not really interested in voting for either the lesser evil or greater evil (I cant even tell which is which!). I don’t vote for evil, period.

        1. jgordon

          If it were simply a matter of voting for the lesser evil (which Trump admittedly is) I wouldn’t vote either! SCREW voting for the lesser evil crap; that sort of thinking is good for spineless weasels pretending to be humans, but not suitable at all for real humans.

          The most attractive thing about a Trump presidency is that it’ll be fun. Rather than the quiet and well-oiled corruption machine where everything is kept under the table and behind locked doors that’ll be instituted the moment Hillary takes office, Trump offers a Circus-Maximus style spectacle of WWE proportions, an incendiary and epic soap opera of strife and schadenfreude every day that’ll keep everyone, especially the elites, in a constant state of shock and suspense. Sure it might not be any less wretched than a Clinton presidency would be when you get down to brass tacks, but think of the drama!

          Beside, 3rd parties aren’t going anywhere unless the entrenched corrupt mainstream parties are thoroughly cleared away first. And supporting Trump is working towards that goal for at least one of them. Therefore supporting Trump now is a strategic investment for your Green Party’s future. Think long term. Fun + Strategy = Trump 2016!

          1. cwaltz

            What you mean to say is it will be fun for you. It’s not going to be very fun for anyone muslim, hispanic, black, gay or probably even female.

            But hey, those people must not matter because they aren’t you.

            Yeah, I’m sorry I’ll pass on voting for a loud mouthed idiot. Very tempting though. NOT

            1. jgordon

              *coughs* You’re implying that Hillary’s neoliberal vision would be any better for these groups than Trump’s vision happens to be.

              Hillary is already on record saying that economic justice is utterly irrelevant with regards to racial/gender/LGBT justice. So–you know just how awful her position is going to be right away. Now–we can quibble about whether it’s better or not to let gay people marry while we’re all in our interment camps/work houses/debtors prisons, but I think gay marriage is not going to be a priority for most people under the coming regime no matter who is in charge.

            2. jgordon

              Oh, I just saw this in case you are still under the misunderstanding that Hillary actually gives a crap about racial minorities (video):


              Clinton is good at “evolving” into the right position when it’s needed, but her history shows that deep down she’s probably even more cold-hearted and indifferent towards the plight of minorities (and the poor) than Trump.

              1. cwaltz

                Hillary Clinton will not be blatant in her disdain. The party will not allow it. They NEED to be able to use them each election cycle.

                Trump will not have the same problem. Republicans live to overtly disdain anyone who isn’t a Christian, white heterosexual male. You need only look to the states to see exactly where the GOP will go. They’ll do their best to codify discrimination against LGBTs. They’ll eviscerate women’s body autonomy. They’ll try to outlaw mosques. The cherry of course will be eviscerating what’s left of a social safety net and then making sure anyone who is on it works as a company owned slave.

                1. NotTimothyGeithner

                  She has largely avoided any kind of confrontation with anyone outside of Republican establishment attacks.

                  Trump won’t hold back, and Hillary will have to make an appeal for the youth vote. It’s possible the lack of Sanders coverage has covered a serious flaw which is Hillary is only liked by the bourgeois. Young people aren’t going to ask panty or thong anymore. Can Hillary handle serious questions on a consistent basis? She’s hiding from the media now.

                  Glenn Ford thinks one problem Southern blacks have is they believe the alternative is lynching, but outside the South, I’m not sure this is the case. Sanders may not have had the time or resources to compete with Hillary, but Hispanics, the great hope of Team Blue officially becoming a multi-ethnic GOP will remember the Obama administration’s brutality and will remember the betrayal on the Dream Act and the fraudulent 2007 immigration slave labor bill.

                  Even the BLM protest the other night required a $500 donation. At so excited point, she will need people to mobilize voters which Democrats aren’t doing right now.

      4. reslez

        As a citizen I have an ethical duty to my country. That duty includes not voting for torturers. That in itself excludes Trump.

        1. fresno dan

          Trump hasn’t tortured anybody …. yet. Will he? I don’t know.
          What we do know (absolutely, positively for sure, for people in the world of reality) is that Dubbya has, and Obama has said that we should go forward and not worry about the past, i.e., not prosecute people by any objective criteria that have tortured.

          Which is worse: A bombastic big mouthed candidate?
          Or a devious, legalistic person who has designed and implemented polices of war and destruction crafted to evade responsibility for decades???

        2. Lambert Strether

          Hmm. Last I checked, the Obama administration hasn’t put any torturers on trial. They’re looking forward and not back, exactly as with the banks.

          If Clinton resigned as Secretary of State, on principle, over torture, then I guess I didn’t get the memo. Otherwise, she supports it — and was in a position to do something about it, unlike Trump.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      He still can’t top his own Delphi Automotive deal.

      And America is still greater than China.

      In barbaric China, the state is being ruthlessly mean to their tycoons. No billionaire dares to go against the party, much less proposing to shut down a critical manufacturer.

    2. RabidGandhi

      It’s all good and well to blame Singer (vulture’s gonna vulture) but none of this would have been possible without the help of the new “pro-market” Argentine presidency.

      A couple of days ago someone here commented about the US “overthrowing Argentina’s government in the 60s”, something that never happened. Fact is, Argentina is not Chile: the only one who has installed dictatorships here in the last 200 years has been ourselves. We don’t need anyone to shoot us in the foot, we can do it ourselves tyvm.

      The deal still needs to pass congress though, so they should wait for the Peronists to sell the country out vote before they crack open the “pizza con champán”.

      1. Jim Haygood

        Back on July 30, 2014 — the expiration of the grace period after the June 30th 2014 default — Adeba (the Argentine Bankers Association) was willing as a third party to step in and buy the defaulted hedge fund debt, with a wink-and-nod agreement that the Argentine government ultimately would compensate them for doing so.

        Probably we’ll never know whether that deal would have cost Argentina less than the 2016 deal. But for sure, the Widow K’s order to FinMin Axel Kicillof to kill the deal and fly home cost the country another two years of double-digit interest accruals.

        That Argentina would eventually liberate itself from its self-imposed financial pariah status was never in doubt. FDI (foreign direct investment) should surge, now that the peso exchange rate is no longer grossly misaligned, and foreign investors can actually expect to import materials and remit dividends. It’s like … a normal country or something!

        1. RabidGandhi

          1. I have a dyed-in-the-wool Kirchnerista colleague (an economist) who says that Ms Kirchner’s biggest error was, as you said, not forcing Kicillof to cut a deal with the vultures, since his hardcore negotiating position would have gotten the country a much better deal than this current prostration. Hubris: the K’s never thought they would lose the elections. But like you say, that’s all supposition now.

          2. This financial pariah stuff is just plain silliness. Argentina’s time as a pariah (2003 – 2015) are the best years of growth and GINI improvement ever (even better than 1946-55): highest level of investment, highest GDP growth and lowest unemployment (all according to IMF/World Bank). FDI (as Patrick Bond et al have shown) is a poor motor for growth in any economy– especially considering the beatings the poor must take to placate the Confidence Fairy.

          3. Since you’re so consistently into this idea of a “natural rate for the peso” you’ll be thrilled to know that over the last week this “pro-market” government has shelled out over $550m in reserves to prop up the “natural rate” of the ARS. Così fan tutte.

          1. Jim Haygood

            Presumably Argentina is remitting forex reserves abroad in connection with the multiple default settlements it has made, and will replenish its reserves with fresh borrowing soon.

            The central bank’s daily monetary report indeed shows a sharp contraction of the monetary base in the past 30 days. Unfortunately BCRA’s report, replete with tables and charts, is devoid of narrative — they could use your help:


            What stands out in Argentina’s pariah years is persistently high inflation — probably about 25% annually compounded, though it’s impossible to say since Argentina’s inflation stats were notoriously falsified during the Widow K’s rule.

            To ever become un país serio (as the late president Néstor Kirchner promised in 2003), Argentina must wean itself from the “greasy kid stuff” of high inflation, seen nowhere else on the continent except in the shambolic Bolivarian Workers Paradise.

            If Prat-Gay can bring Argentina’s inflation into line with its LatAm peers, he will earn high praise indeed.

            1. RabidGandhi

              Most of the contraction you see there is due to the sharp interest rate hikes Prat-Gay instituted starting in late December. The default settlements have not been paid yet because they are pending congressional approval (ley del cerrojo). And the report does not cover last week’s open market operations.

              What I am referring to is the central bank going into the open market to buy pesos to keep the ARS-USD exchange rate down. This was the Kirchner’s favourite tool for propping up the peso, and every time they did it, the folks now in power would scream bloody murder. My point is così fan tutte: they all do it. There’s no such thing as a natural rate.

              As to inflation, in Argentina it’s structural. The only one who ever got inflation under control was Menem/Cavallo in the 90s– and they did so by pegging the peso to the USD, which led to rampant unemployment, a 54% poverty rate and the 2001 crisis. All other regimes had double digit inflation (just look at the hyper inflations of the 70s and 80s reaching 20,000% in 1989). Macri said just today in Congress that he will “have it improved by the end of the year”– but what will improvement be? Most unions have already signed off on 30-40% pay increases, most suppliers/manufacturers have 2-5 year contracts with scheduled 30%+ price increases… the only way monetary policy can bring inflation down then is for the population to eat those structural price increases = poverty.

              1. bob

                Thank you for responding to Jim’s constant scolding of anything south american, especially, Argentina and Venezuela. Not that the are anything similar.

                He’s usually good for 3 or 4 stories a week, sounding like they were written by Milton Friedman himself. “deadbeats- let the markets rule!”

                “markets” meaning people with money in other markets.

                  1. bob

                    Who said friendly? You constantly treat the two as interchangeable.

                    You’re going to need more than a picture to try and prove that.

                    How are they similar? Except that they are both “deadbeats” and in South America?

          2. fresno dan

            Thanks for that.
            Its a strange thing how when you look at the numbers, and the numbers of other countries, that the “big” problems that are suppose to arise when you don’t kowtow to banks really don’t seem to have any objective data to back them up…

            1. RabidGandhi

              Or look at the inverse: all major economies (eg, US, Japan, China, Brit. Empire…) grew not by kowtowing to markets but by doing the opposite: trade barriers, subsidising domestic industry, tariffs…

              Once you dominate the market, then you start to preach about the free market and how everyone should lower their trade barriers.

              1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                Similarly, once the elites (of some Third World country, of course) knew how to control the mind, they proclaimed freedom of speech.

                Some, or well, many, have not mastered the skill quite yet, so, they busy themselves cracking down.

        1. RabidGandhi

          No prob. So many CIA backed coups to keep straight.

          Just for the record, Chile was 1973, as was Uruguay. Brazil was 1964.

  15. GlobalMisanthrope

    Context for the coming Texas “landslide” victories:

    approx 17,000,000 voting-age people who are not foreign-born (2014, U.S. Census estimate)

    9,162,986 registered voters (Texas Sec of State)

    1,107,067 early voting count (TXSOS)

    If the Dems wanted to win in Texas, all they’d have to do is register people and get out the vote.

    1. Steve Gunderson

      Texas Lt. Governor Patrick is approaching trial for some investment shenanigans. Even if convicted, I have no doubt he will be easily re-elected.

      This is a state where non-Hispanic whites are now only 45% of the population.

  16. Spring Texan

    Google the headline for the Ha’aretz article, and you’ll be able to read the whole thing.

  17. Jim Haygood

    This morning’s ISM Purchasing Managers manufacturing survey registered 49.5, up from 48.2 last month.

    “The past relationship between the PMI and the overall economy indicates that the average PMI for January and February (48.9 percent) corresponds to a 1.8 percent increase in real gross domestic product (GDP) on an annualized basis. In addition, if the PMI for February (49.5 percent) is annualized, it corresponds to a 2 percent increase in real GDP annually.”

    These estimates are quite consistent with the Atlanta Fed’s current GDP Now forecast of 2.1%.

    Although the financial forest is full of recession Jeremiahs warning darkly of doom (multiple times per day, in the case of the ‘z’ site), so far the evidence does not support their claims.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      And it’s wrong to think they are just manufacturing votes.

      “We need raw data.”

      “Why? ”

      “Well, it’s either raw data or cooked data.”

      “Not even sun dried data?”

      “It’s still considered cooked data.”

    2. Lambert Strether

      That’s a survey. What is the real economy telling us?

      I’m not a Jeremiah either. When you ask Mainers about whether we’re in a Depression, they say: “We’ve always been depressed!” So if the US were an autarky, I’d say we could bump along the bottom for quite some time in the new normal, gradually turning our homes into AirBnB’s, picking up some Uber work, and working as waiters or hairdressers. But we aren’t. China and Europe sure look awfully sketchy, and I don’t think anybody has any idea what happens if there’s a real downdraft from either place. I mean, fiscal policy is out (unless Trump throws that part of neoliberal orthodoxy out too). So what do we do? Lower interest rates?

  18. James Levy

    Doug Henwood’s article is interesting in a depressing sort of way. What I think is missing from this line of analysis is that the Democratic Party is staffed by, and sees itself as, a bulwark of the “middle class”, by which they mean Keynes’s educated bourgeoisie. The Dems are the party of professionals who are not Fundamentalist Protestants. They are looking out for the interests of largely secular and Jewish people who have good jobs, 401ks, and college savings plans for their two children and no intention of letting the needs of those above or below them interfere with their besieged and privileged lifestyle. They are now clearly reactionary, but reactionary in a different way from a Cruz or a Rubio or a Koch brother, because their target audience (constituency) is different. If the Republicans are clearly the party of the 1%, then I think the Dems are the party of the next 9%, and the 90% are just beyond the mental horizons of either party at this point.

    1. different clue

      Isn’t the Jewish population of America about 5 million? And isn’t the secular and professional percent of that 5 million just a plurality? How many of America’s secular professionals are Jewish really? Does anyone have any data on that?

      I wonder if the view from Greater New York and its cultural gravity well where half-or-more of America’s Jews live might be blinkering and skewing against seeing reality in the “other 3 million square miles and 330 million people” of America.

      1. James Levy

        I said secular and Jewish–by which I meant people who are secular and people who are Jewish (about 80% of Jewish people identify or vote Democratic). You can be Catholic and secular. Or Episcopal. Or Methodist. Basically, the Dems play very well to people with a certain level of education and hold specific jobs (professor, teacher, nurse, and are corporate types who are not interested in banning abortion or stuffing gays back in the closet). These are pretty clear by the polling data. The Republicans have been for 150 years the party of white Protestant America. This hasn’t changed much. What came into play after Kennedy was the 22-24% of Americans who were or are Catholic. That’s why overtly (through abortion) or covertly (by sticking so many on the Supreme Court) courting the Catholics has been a big deal since 1973.

    2. RP

      No comments/opinions on the Jewish question (I live on the Not-LA unpopulated part of the West Coast, so they’re few and far between around my parts);

      However, the comment “If the Republicans are clearly the party of the 1%, then I think the Dems are the party of the next 9%, and the 90% are just beyond the mental horizons of either party at this point”

      seems to be about as spot-on as I’ve ever heard it put when said so succinctly. 2 rules of neoliberalism definitely tie in.

    3. Left in Wisconsin

      I would say, in a similar vein but slightly differently, that the D’s have become the party of the meritocracy (supported by the votes of a lot of poorer people who vote lesser of 2 evils).

      But the thing is, the meritocracy is shrinking. Many of those who have been bumped already are gravitating to Sanders. What is left are those, like HRC, who just know that they will be running things regardless, and those who see the writing on the wall but are barely hanging on by their fingertips. Interestingly, to me, the latter group also seems totally in the bag for HRC – I’m guessing more through fear of the unknown than real support.

      Regardless, another thing all 3 groups (running the show, hanging on, no longer hanging on) demonstrate is a fierce determination to ensure that their own kids make it. To me, this is the real reason why class is taboo among the merit-ers. As much as they can see that the current system is no longer working for everyone (ha, ha, but this is how these people think), at least they get the rules of this system and can guide their children accordingly. (A friend of mine, a leftie by all appearances, has just started a side business helping already high-performing high schoolers refine their college applications. Sigh.)

      1. James Levy

        I agree, just think you are talking ideology while I am talking status/occupation. But the overlap is enormous. Keynes liked identifying himself as part of the educated bourgeoisie because he thought that differentiated him from those who got where they were through family/connections. We see the meritocracy theme right there. And it was Barbara Ehrenreich who years ago in Fear of Falling taught me that the big issue for the educated upper middle class was that their positions were not inheritable. You can’t pass on an MD or a Ph.D. or a JD. You can only try to ensure that your kids have the inside track and the backing to recreate the parents’ success. Thus the obsession with elite education and credentialing and the abstruse processes for gaining those things that insiders can game but which baffle outsiders.

      2. FluffytheObeseCat

        “The meritocracy is shrinking…. those who see the writing on the wall but are barely hanging on by their fingertips. Interestingly, to me, [this] group also seems totally in the bag for HRC – I’m guessing more through fear of the unknown than real support.”

        Very shrewd assessment. This is what I see as well, in a very different part of the country. I saw it in spades at the NV caucus 10 days ago. Spoke with a good older man who wanted to vote Sanders, but who sided with Clinton. He’s retired and not afraid of falling into the precariat himself, but his 30-something kids………………

        1. Left in Wisconsin

          Since you asked, I can take a swing. But all just speculation.

          1. I still think a huge amount of HRC support/Sanders fear revolves around health care. Merit-ers have relatively good employer-sponsored health care, even if it is also crapifying. (Remember, if your health care is better than average and crapifies more slowly than average, it becomes relatively better as it becomes absolutely worse.) And when push comes to shove, they won’t “risk” it for single-payer. One reason even privileged young people are all in for Bernie is likely to be the recognition that their health care situation is likely to become tenuous once they age out of parental coverage.

          2. The Dem meritocracy is not left. They are tolerant, cosmopolitan, liberal, etc. but in my experience (in and mostly out of the progressive policy community) virtually to a person they are most comfortable in hierarchies (that they control) and much prefer HRC-friendly “policy innovations” and “policy entrepreneurs” to things like “jobs programs” and “$15/hour minimum wages.” And, as I said, while they support liberal programs to help “the poor” (who are totally an “other”), they are hell-bent to make sure their own kids have every leg up in the next-gen jobs competition.

          3. Otherwise, I think the Clinton fear message is just political crap – this week’s strategy in response to what some focus group told her last week. I noticed last night that she seems to have changed message again – the new one comprised entirely of general platitudes that name check every problem she is going to solve (racism, sexism, low wages, good jobs) without any specifics. Almost the opposite of last week’s message. Maybe she has pawned of the fear-mongering on surrogates.

  19. Bunk McNulty

    I live in Northampton too. The most “liberal” community in America! I was thinking it was wrong for the polling place to be way out by Smith Voke-Tech, but if Smithies are gonna vote for Hillary, then let them work for it. (Hey, look at me, I’m in favor of voter suppression when it works for my candidate. For a change.)

    1. cnchal

      The problem is not with Trump’s policies, though they are wacky in the few areas where they are not indecipherable. It is that he is running as modern day man on a horseback—demagogically offering the power of his personality as a magic solution to all problems—and making clear that he is prepared to run roughshod over anything or anyone who stands in his way.

      It means you’re fired, Larry, so stop sucking up.

  20. susan the other

    scientific american. Chimpanzee male rituals. Mysterious behavior. They wander off and throw big rocks at hollow trees, leaving pile of such rocks around the tree much like early human rock shrines and tree worship. hmmm, can’t get that image out of my head and the chimp in my head has Donald’s face.

    1. Chris in Paris

      Was in West African villages a number of times over the years and there are plenty of fetish trees that are very sacred and complex offerings are given. Not surprising that our evolutionary cousins do something similar.

      1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

        The question is, did we inherit it from apes, or are the chimps aping us?

  21. susan the other

    also moon of alabama on the NYT on Hillary on Libya. good followup, thanks…. clearing the way in Africa.

    1. fresno dan

      On The NYT’s Sorry Whitewash Of Clinton And Her War On Libya Moon of Alabama (barrisj). A must read. Circulate widely.

      “Libya is now, as predicted, a failed destroyed state. Leaving failed destroyed states behind has been the consequences of ALL U.S. wars in the last 20 years. The wars on Yugoslavia left several of those. Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya all ended up destroyed. Are we to believe that its the same bug that infests every U.S. intervention? Or is it not rather more plausible that the outcome of destroyed states is the intended feature of U.S. bellicose interventions?”

      Whether its pure stupid or pure evil, its time to put a stop to it.
      I think little Marco will be crushed, as apparently he couldn’t catch on that Jeb! failed due to the idea that, remarkably, most repubs don’t want more Iraqs….
      We can wait and see what happens to Bernie, but I doubt he will dethrone the queen.

  22. DakotabornKansan

    “We are no sans-culottes — but we’re thinking of voting for The Donald”

    Affluent American couple – no sans-culottes like the prototypical Trump voter – are contemplating voting for Trump, who is “really a moderate in wolf’s garb, who would owe nothing to either party.”

    “Yes, we could be like the good citizens who voted for a “tameable” Hitler in 1933 to get things back on track. But the alternatives look worse.”

    I remember reading William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, telling about how surprising and sometimes consternating it was to find that notwithstanding the opportunities one had to learn the facts and despite one’s inherent distrust of what one learned from Nazi sources, a steady diet over the years of falsifications and distortions, calculated and incessant propaganda, made a certain impression in one’s mind and often misled it; and how seemingly educated and intelligent people would parrot the outlandish assertions. Shirer wrote about “how useless it was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for truth, said they were.”

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      The stock market is doing its best to make sure people vote for Clinton.

      “Be happy. Nothing to see or complain about here Move along (the status quo projection).”

  23. fresno dan

    Clinton Manipulates Language of ‘Intersectionality’ To Preserve Support From Minority Voters Shadowproof

    “We spend time on Washington Post Jonathan Capehart, who helped the Clinton campaign do damage control and even went so far as to defend what Clinton said about “super-predators” back in 1996. We also highlight recent developments with the closure of Guantanamo and Rasmea Odeh’s case.”
    Oh my gosh – that hummingbird is red and gold!!!! Never seen anything like that!
    What has this got to do with reporters helping candidates?

  24. Steven

    Re the Post Hope Democrats. The right is able to mobilize popular resentment because the Democrats leave it lying on the table. The Democrats could pick it up and run with it if they chose.

    1. Massinissa

      As is posted here often, they would rather lose with a corporate democrat than win with a populist one.

      1. cwaltz

        They aren’t going to be happy until the electorate is demanding their heads on pikes. The “crumbs” offered keep getting smaller and smaller.

        Eventually it won’t matter that the alternative is reckless and crazy because the opinion is going to be it’s better to burn the whole thing down.

        As it stands there are already a whole bunch of people willing to vote Trump to SPITE Hillary Clinton.

        1. Massinissa

          Im not going that far, but honestly? I WOULD rather vote for Trump if we had one of those laws that forced people to vote and there was no third party choice.

          If there was no Green or Libertarian party to vote for I would probably just stay home… Getting ready to vote Stein again.

  25. barrisj

    Evan Osnos, of the NYer, has been tasked with writing about the Trump phenomenon from the perspective of white nationalists, racists, and neo-Know Nothings who have wholeheartedly endorsed the Donald…he first had a long piece several months ago, entitled, “The Fearful and the Frustrated”, interviewing many of the aforementioned demographic on why they actually support Trump:

    Today Osnos has a short commentary detailing in particular He, Trump’s rather lengthly connections with the KKK…interesting bit of stuff here:

    February 29, 2016
    Donald Trump and the Ku Klux Klan: A History
    By Evan Osnos

    Marco Rubio, and other prominent Repubs who also are late to the party, are attempting to take down his candidacy by invoking the above associations of Trump to white supremacy groups…laughable, as the modern Republican Party has in fact covertly and overtly appealed to this rather significant subset of American voters since the Nixon years, and the fact that a national candidate is bracketed with and even welcomes such support from such people – even minus the code-words and so-called “dog whistles” – is one of the big stories in the 2016 election cycle.

  26. fresno dan

    The Post-Hope Democrats Doug Henwood, Jacobin. Another must read.

    There’s a perverse form of American exceptionalism circulating around the Clinton camp: just because things work in other countries doesn’t mean they can work here. As Hillary herself put it, “We are not Denmark. I love Denmark, but we are the United States of America.” True enough, but that has no bearing on why single-payer couldn’t work here. The only obstacles are political — elites, which include Hillary and Starr, don’t want it.
    American exceptionalism
    exceptionally stupid, exceptionally illogical, exceptionally ignorant, and exceptionally irrational.
    And of course, our great American attitude of “CAN’T DO” – yeah, read it again. Not CAN do – CAN’T DO. Funny how those disincentivized Swedes spend less and live longer on their health care….or those surrender monkey French manage to do the same.

    A cynic, might, just might, thing that a cabal control congress to assure that massive economic rents are extracted from the public – in effect, socialized medicine for the rich, in a system that incessantly preaches free market, but that absolutely positively makes sure every vendor receives full price every time… and that it is not a law of nature, like gravity or the speed of light.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Another indoctrinated attitude: Keeping up with the Jones and surpassing them, because we always aim to be the best.

      That contributes a lot to the consumption and the GDP.

      Personally, I think it’s OK to come in second, third or worse.

    2. tongorad


      Starr does have one substantial point — Sanders’s tax proposals wouldn’t be up to financing a Scandinavian-style welfare state. Taxing the rich more could raise substantial revenue, but nowhere near enough.

      Cute, except the government doesn’t need to raise tax revenues in order to spend.

  27. fresno dan

    Democrats always prove the commies right Fredrik deBoer

    And that history demonstrates that the party has consistently been a tool of establishment power and an impediment to changing the class hierarchy of our society. Despite all the condescension, the anger, the redbaiting, the personal insults, the unhinged recriminations that the Democrats online will throw around this election season, nothing will change the basic antagonism of the Democratic party to left-wing change. That is what the facts say. Don’t look to the predictably dismissive, thoughtless, substance-free attacks from the usual suspects. Look at the evidence: what have the Democrats done for us in your lifetime?

    Uh, I remember my mom got some free cheese….and she gave me some of it. It didn’t really tie me to the dems cause I’m not a big cheese fan…

  28. JIm

    The Sanders supporters on this site should consider how they can persuade the Trump insiders/outsiders to move from a more authoritarian populism to a more democratic/participatory populism.

    This means that Sanders supporters need to come up with, or widen their fundamental assumptions, to articulate a political theory of the State which could potentially mobilize a significant proportion of the white working class(who are being economically squeezed to death) toward deep political structural reform.

    Simply using the word political revolution won’t cut it but an actual call for radical political decentralization (consistent with our historical tradition of genuine federalism) just might.

    A populist left and right together, in the future, would be unstoppable.

    1. cwaltz

      It’s probably not going to happen this cycle.

      I think that left and right really see problems the same. We disagree with the solutions.

      Unfortunately, until we get a modern day version of Jefferson(states rights) and Adams(strong central governance) that’s going to be problematic. There would have to be some unity and some compromise and unfortunately the country is tending polarized even as we agree that establishment DC is not the solution.

      I also might add I have serious reservations about trusting some of the GOP party faithful. Many of them crave an authoritarian figure. They truly believe we are a “Christian” nation. They are governed by their fear of different. I see them as very dangerous to the cause of liberty and people’s right to pursue happiness(as long as it is not at the expense of another.) There are a few things I don’t see as compromisable and I’m not wiling to throw people willy nilly under the bus to appease them.

    2. Massinissa

      Im sorry but I agree with Cwaltz. A lot of these populist rightists are really looking for a strongman of some kind who can “make ‘Murica’ great again”. I assume that if Trump doesn’t work out many of them will go further authoritarian, not less.

      Unless we get a Huey Long type figure, I don’t think all the “political theories of the state” in the world will bring the far Right into our fold.

      1. jrs

        I’ve heard this is particularly the case with Trump supporters, as some studies say he attracts authoritarians (well except on this website where he seems to just attract people who don’t care WHAT replaces the system they burn down!). Possibly other Rs are to a smaller or larger degree less authoritarian. So I don’t even want to paint them all with the brush of Trump, although I am skeptical of any alliance working just because of how deep the disagreements go (it’s not just side issues like guns etc. – many have direct class interests in maintaining the status quo).

        Simply using the word political revolution may not be enough, I think ultimate maybe we need teach-ins to try to educate people. Yes there is plenty of information out there, but it’s not reaching people. Not to educate them on choosing one exact candidate as none of us have perfect foresight of what any candidate will do, but on the larger issues.

  29. kevinearick

    Synaptic Plasticity, Attribute Silos, & Search Engines

    The State is not all-powerful; it’s just a ground, from which there are many to choose. Big Brother is a circumspect broadband of special interests, made up of many so-immobilized little brothers and little sisters, who think that mobility is a function of technology, watching you implicitly, the odd one out. Circulate, but don’t expect due process.

    If your personality depends upon group association, is it yours? To whom does identity belong? How different is a male republican from a female democrat? What is the role of parents?

    I am not suggesting that you avoid people; distance is a frame of mind, depending upon experience and objective. If you want to enjoy a long and healthy life, synaptic elasticity is necessary, and no drug is the answer. The study of medicine, beyond what is available locally in nature, which presents its basic character, is a waste of time.

    Current, charge flow, is what regenerates the tail, and it is a far better solution than imported drugs. Acupuncture is a step in the right direction, but most of it is trial and error mythology, because you are unique. Chiropractic care temporarily improves circulation, but it can’t change your habits, and it increases slippage with replication.

    Behavior essentially acts like a virus in association, which you will adapt subconsciously over time if your synaptic network is not elastic. Adopting a habit is much easier than getting rid of it, and no amount of simulated intelligence is going to change it. Empire is just the counterweight of DNA meltdown.

    Physics tells you that linear time is an illusion, which will lull you to sleep with oscillation toward order, zero energy, if you let it. Math and language are fascinating, but they merely separate humanity from other species. Bacteria are far more dominate than humanity, and the opposing assumption places you in a closed system, competing in collectives for the purpose of dominance, an illusion.

    Human globalization has already peaked, and the pendulum is swinging back toward local behavior, disassembling all that infrastructure on a path to nowhere, leaving the increased behavioral mobility of a few. With much bigger problems, the nation/states are fighting over control of the sunk costs. The time to exit DNA meltdown was long ago, long before behavioral fascism reared its ugly head, again.

    Energy is just separation of charge, increasing and decreasing in complexity, stored in oscillating event horizons; that’s it. That counterweight on the other side of the sheave lightens the load with a biased balance, reducing the energy barrier, and surface provides state separation, a ground with vortex action. A circuit behaves the same way, not by accident, and dynamic braking employs gravity to return the current, through which power may be articulated in upcoming technologies.

    RE control, feudalism, has been employed to subsidize the DNA mutation counterweight for thousands of years because it’s simple, efficient, and even the money changers can manage it. Silicon Valley is expanding into San Francisco and demanding that the people it is programming out of its existence be removed, so the ignorant inbreeds don’t see them, which isn’t going to end well, for Silicon Valley. Replacing RE control with a basic income isn’t a terrible idea, but it cannot be implemented from the top, politically.

    Social Security is already effectively bankrupt and its constituency melts by the day, so it’s inflated away, boiling the frogs desperately holding onto yet another false promise. And keep in mind that many of the recipients are in a position to reduce rent and increase income for the young people. Special interests build nothing but DOA infrastructure, with debt politically assigned to others, each other.

    In an actuarial ponzi, win-win today at expense of minority exclusion is lose-lose tomorrow, and sooner or later tomorrow becomes today, which is today, when the age of minority reaches the age of majority. The brain is a muscle that requires exercise to tune in more frequencies. And the antenna ground is where you want to go, which for most is rebuilding the past into the future, until they can’t, and there isn’t much you can do about that…

    Except NOT play the game.

    Are you finding what you are looking for, or are you finding what others want you to see, misdirection and noise in an efficient search, of empty promises? How is a drug like an electrical circuit? Why can’t medicine cure you?

    Icons are pervasive, but they don’t get you anywhere, which may be what you want, but labor has better things to do. There’s never a shortage of crapification machines to fix, and few are capable of doing it. Exactly what behavior has changed, other than becoming more efficient?

    Each horizon has its trade-offs.

Comments are closed.