Links 9/22/16

Horses Can Learn To Communicate Specific Needs To People PopSci (Robert M)

Canadian Mint employee pulls off heist by sticking $180,000 in gold “up his bum.” Slate (resilc)

Banning microbeads may not be enough to stop water pollution in our freshwater Quartz (resilc)

Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s $3 billion effort aims to rid world of major diseases by end of century,” Washington Post. Bill B: “Zuckerberg is pulling a Rockefeller, trying to wipe the dirt off his name with philanthropy. That Ivy Lee was a clever fellow, no wonder Rockefeller hired him.”

How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds — from a Magician and Google’s Design Ethicist Medium (Selva)


Bahamas files leaks expose politicians’ offshore links Guardian (Richard Smith)

Amber Rudd and Monticello: an ill-fated step in a complicated career Guardian. Richard Smith:

The Amber Rudd story is a bit of an eye opener (she’s Theresa May’s successor as Home Secretary and so I suppose just one Brexit cockup away from the top job). I remember her father Tony Rudd from numerous mid-80s pump and dump allegations. I never realised they had anything to do with each other until now. Anyway Amber seem to have inherited the family pump and dump business


Suitcases of Cash: China Travel Data Hint at Capital Outflow Bloomberg

China’s prudential housing bubble bind MacroBusiness

Target Zero a “Commitment to be Irresponsible”: Latest Insanity from Bank of Japan Michael Shedlock (EM). Amusingly, Mish does not recognize that the economic impact of “consumer price deflation” of which he approves, is the same as “rising real worker wages” which the US can do without creating much (if any) inflation because….drumroll…profit share of GDP is at a record high. Businesses have plenty of room to raise wages and be plenty profitable. But they’ve gotten hooked on a level of profits nearly double that which Warren Buffett deemed to be unsustainably high in the early 2000s.

EU citizens depend on internal conflict interests to assert their rights failed evolution


The City of London strategy for Brexit talks faces hurdles Financial Times

Why there should not be a General Election ‘about the EU’ – and why the UK isn’t a democracy British Politics and Policy at LSE

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi Will Do Whatever It Takes to Reform His Government Vogue

Minsky Meets Brazil Part IV New Economic Perspectives. Has links to earlier installments.

Imperial Collapse Watch

Saudi Arms Deal Backed By US Senators Who Got Cash From Weapons Contractor That Will Benefit International Business Times

Saudi Arabia’s Clout in Washington Isn’t What It Used to Be Bloomberg (resilc)

Trade Traitors

Trade Agreements and the Globalization of Fascism Defend Democracy

Free trade lowers prices — but not on things poor people need (and it pushes up housing prices) Boing Boing (resilc)


Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump by 6 Points in WSJ/NBC News Poll of Likely Voters Wall Street Journal. Looks like a bounce after the 9/11 health incident.

If You Vote For Trump, Then Screw You GQ (Randy K)

How Trump Could Win the Debate Politico

Whom Should We Blame for Our Deranged Democracy? William Greider, Nation. Many great observations, like: “The Democratic Party is now simply a mail drop for political money.”

Progressives Are Targets of Hillary’s “Basket of Deplorables” Speech Counterpunch. Quelle surprise!

Trashing the white trash: Hillary and the new bigotry spiked (resilc)

The Clinton Foundation Is Reportedly Laying Off Dozens of People Vanity Fair. Resilc: “Maybe we can do an aid concert?”

Ex-Red Sox pitcher ‘Spaceman’ brings curveball politics to Vermont guv race. Fox Resilc: “Oct. 6, do not miss THIS debate!!!!”

Bernie Sanders: The ‘Nation’ Interview Nation (Kevin C)

Black Injustice Tipping Point

Police Killings from Charlotte to Tulsa Spark Calls for Boycotts and Justice Real News Network

State of emergency declared in US city BBC

Governor Declares State of Emergency in Charlotte Associated Press

Wells Fargo

In Wells Fargo’s Bogus Accounts, Echoes of Foreclosure Abuses Gretchen Morgenson, New York Times

The Wells Fargo Scandal Was By Design Ian Welsh (Chuck L)

What yesterday’s hilariously awful testimony by Wells Fargo’s CEO portends for his future Boing Boing

Clawing Back Bankers’ Pay at Wells Fargo Is Harder Than It Looks Bloomberg

Does a Golden Parachute Await Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf? Real News Network. Bill Black interview.

Cooperman Says ‘I Won’t Let These People Destroy My Legacy’ Bloomberg. I was at Goldman when Cooperman was head of the research division. He was the only guy in the firm to have the guts to object when the J. Aron acquisition (which was a horrible peak of commodities market deal, it immediately started hemorrhaging losses) was being rammed through the partnership by the management committee (it was a revealing lesson on how partnerships really work). But that doesn’t say anything about his recent conduct. John Thain, who I also knew as a young thing at Goldman, was a good guy back then. It’s been revealing to see how malleable most people’s values are as they’ve decayed on a societal level. But the flip side is it would be really embarrassing to the SEC if Cooperman is proven correct and he made his stock pick solely based on research. The SEC is a one-trick pony and pretty much only does insider trading cases. If it can’t even tell a real case from a not real one there, what is it good for?


Yellen Rebuffs Pressure to Hike as Fed Gives Economy Room to Run Bloomberg

Overcapacity Macro Man (resilc)

Class Warfare

Wal-Mart pays quarterly bonuses to more store employees Reuters. EM: “Contrast with I make $13/hour at Walmart. I don’t always get a bonus, but the CEO does” CNN

Lickspittle consigliere: how the super-rich abuse their wealth managers as loyalty tests Boing Boing (resilc)

Forensic techniques sending people to prison may not be scientifically valid Verge. Resilc: “But works on TV.”

Poor Families Evicted From Silicon Valley Apartments so Building Can Rebrand for Facebook Workers Alternet

Antidote du jour (yahoo7):


See yesterday’s Links and Antidote du Jour here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Arthur J

    I don’t know that horses need to be tool wielders as they are already masters of subtle persuasion. When a 1500 lb animal looks you in the eye and then leans over a bit and stands on your foot, the message comes through loud and clear.

    1. Katharine

      But if they seem to think this new form of communication is useful to them, shouldn’t we respect their opinion?

    2. ekstase

      “When horses realized that they were able to communicate with the trainers, i.e. to signal their wishes regarding blanketing, many became very eager in the training or testing situation…Some even tried to attract the attention of the trainers prior to the test situation, by vocalizing and running towards the trainers,”
      What if at least some species are waiting for us to realize what they actually know?

    3. Irish native

      It’s funny….my father has absolutely wild, bouncy Labs but his horses are the most well-behaved and gentle creatures. I never understood why people would go on vacation and get a pet sitter for their dogs but they would leave their horses at the barn with the bare minimum of food and water but no people time (and not much time with the other horses).

  2. ArkansasAngie

    “because….drumroll…profit share of GDP is at a record high. Businesses have plenty of room to raise wages and be plenty profitable.”

    This may be true for big business which has not been forced to mark to market.

    For small business … not so much.

    Which, in part, explains why job creation isn’t there.

    Trickle down liquidity to solve insolvency hasn’t worked out very well.

  3. allan

    The forensic report URL needs a `t’ added to the end. Also too,

    Already, however, the Justice Department has said it rejects the recommendations from the report. “While we appreciate their contribution to the field of scientific inquiry, the department will not be adopting the recommendations related to the admissibility of forensic science evidence,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said …

    Destroying the Democratic coalition, one betrayal at a time.

    1. paul

      A link below ithe forensic article is fascinating:

      Mr Musk goes to Mars

      It’s hard to believe, but in eight years we’ll have the makings of an interplanetary shuttle to a Mars colony.

      On that day in 2024 I think the antidote should be this nasa memorial to those who went before (with sun strength fill lights)

      Richard Branson will be envious, twelve years and counting without so much as one low earth passenger.

      Tags: The shit they expect us to swallow.

      1. subgenius

        I am still waiting to see how he intends to lift that mass out of the gravity well.

        There is a reason man doesn’t go to the moon…

        Physics, mother nature’s bitch slap to the ego…

        1. JGW

          How are they solving the 500-years-equivalent of Earth radiation on a single 26 month round trip? That 6 ft of lead spacecraft encasing is going to cost more than the bank bailout to lift. (One of the major omissions from The Martian, IMO). Galactic radiation is a bitch, those little protons an near light-speed love to bust up your DNA.

          1. paul

            I’m sure, like Matt Damon’s character in ‘The Martian’, Elon will just

            “Science the shit out of it”.

            ….Unless it goes wrong like it did for Matt Damon’s character in ‘Interstellar’, where he attempted murder to cover up his techno bungling.

            For now,we can only hope for the best, like when Matt Damon’s character in ‘The Adjustment Bureau’, against all the odds and bureaucratic naysayers, resets the timeline through the power of self true love.

  4. abynormal

    what happened to China’s 2015 caps? double down??…skerrieshit!
    “China has capped the amount of money Chinese holders of bank and credit cards can withdraw outside the country, in its latest effort to discourage people from moving badly needed capital offshore.
    China’s foreign-exchange regulator put a new annual cap on overseas cash withdrawals using China UnionPay Co. bank cards, a UnionPay official said on Tuesday. Under the new rules, UnionPay cardholders can withdraw up to 50,000 yuan ($7,854) overseas during the last three months of this year, and the amount will be capped at 100,000 yuan for all of next year, the official said.
    State-run UnionPay has a virtual monopoly on processing card transactions in China, meaning the limits extend to nearly all Chinese bank- and credit-card holders. It wasn’t clear when the new cap was issued. The new cap is in addition to an existing 10,000 yuan daily withdrawal limit, part of China’s curbs on how much money can flow across its borders. The move by China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange is the latest by Beijing to scrutinize capital outflows.
    The People’s Bank of China, the country’s central bank, said earlier this month that its foreign-exchange reserves fell by $93.9 billion, the biggest monthly drop ever, after it surprised the market on Aug. 11 with its decision to devalue the yuan by around 2%.”

  5. vlade

    on the lse link’s “bonus” – which is why I claim that if people wanted to really stick it up to elites in the UK, they should have voted in the previous referendum (about the voting system).

  6. Pat

    So ABC is pushing big bad Trump has too much of his business tied to Russia to be dependable on the Hard stance with Russia. Funny how we got questions about how much a blind trust means when that doesn’t get questioned by the usual players, but not so funnily we get no discussion of whether that Hard Stance should even be in play.

    Common not so accurate knowledge is one of the biggest reasons we have these two horrific major party candidates.

  7. EndOfTheWorld

    Give Trump credit—he at least won the nomination by actually getting more votes than his republican opponents. Hill cheated everywhichway to win.

    1. anti-social socialist

      No. You have to vanish the overwhelming majority of AA voters, who decided the D primary race, to espouse this conspiracy theory. Probably not the best timing for that.

      1. Yves Smith Post author

        Sorry, the cheating in California and New York were massive. And those states have tons of votes. The fact that he got 45% of the vote despite the rampant stealing, initial media blackout, DNC cheating, and then misrepresentations of how he was doing strongly suggest that if the campaign had been fair, he would have won.

        And you airbrush out that Sanders had support among younger blacks, driven by Black Lives Matter. That’s showing up now in the general election, where black support for Hillary is markedly lower than for Obama or Bill.

        1. anti-social scientist

          Your site so of course you are free to speculate at you wish.

          However, there is no evidence that DNC’s clear bias in favor of Clinton resulted in
          a) cheating b) any affect on primary outcome

          Voter purge in Brooklyn hurt her more than Sanders. What was the alleged “cheating” in CA? Last I saw, after a painstakingly slow count, she was marginally ahead.

          Will wait for GE to see how AA’s vote instead of speculating on those percentages, but your focus on millennials again dismisses million of other AA primary voters, of which Clinton received lion’s share.

  8. Pat

    I do love today’s antidote. Very calming. Unlike the one from the other day with the massively cute puppy in the uncomfortable and dangerous position in the tree. * shiver*

    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      Sled dogs are climbers. Chain link is no obstacle. Their kennels need a roof or a climbing obstacle in the center to keep their interest, or they are gone.

      1. JGW

        Massive escape artists! Had one that drove the family crazy. Pack animals MUST rejoin the pack at all costs. Most trainers will not train Huskies (I went 0 for 5 and gave up).

  9. Don Midwest USA

    The road system in So. CA was designed to distribute traffic. Kill off the electric car after killing off the earlier mass transit system, and “develop” everything in sight.

    The same car disease spread to the UK

    It was a mistake – a monumental, world-class mistake. Cars for everyone was one of the most stupid promises politicians ever made. Cars are meant to meet a simple need: quick and efficient mobility. Observe an urban artery during the school run, or a trunk road on a bank holiday weekend, and ask yourself whether the current system meets that need. The vast expanse of road space, the massive investment in metal and fossil fuel, has delivered the freedom to sit fuming in a toxic cloud as your life ticks by.

    The primary aim has become snarled up with other, implicit objectives: the sense of autonomy, the desire for self-expression through the configuration of metal and plastic you drive, and the demand for profit by car manufacturers and fossil fuel producers whose lobbying keeps us on the road rather than moving along it.

    Step back from this mess and ask yourself this. If you controlled the billions that are spent every year – privately and publicly – on the transport system, and your aim was to smooth the passage of those who use it, is this what you would do? Only if your imagination had been surgically excised.

    Even in a small, economically mature, densely populated nation like the UK, where change is easy, we’re still driving in the wrong direction. The government boasts that car use is rising again, after being knocked back by the recession. It is spending £9bn of our scarce money on roads every year, 70% of which is on new capacity. Thanks to the cuts, bus services supported by local authorities reduced their mileage by 10% last year.

    Our roads are choked. We’re on the verge of carmageddon:
    Car use takes a huge toll on our health and on the planet. We need to kick our addiction to driving

  10. Desertmerf

    Reading about the history of race issues in Oklahoma and Tulsa in particular sheds new light on the subject. I recommend it highly. Especially the Black Wall Street massacre in the Greenwood neighborhood. American history is more horrifying to read than horror novels……

    1. Jim Haygood

      While Illinois talks a good game, the dynamic duo of New York and New Jersey (where Christie’s aides are on trial for Bridgegate) leave Illinois in the dust every time, when it comes to institutionalized corruption.

      East coast good taste dictates that governors should not be subjected to the indignity of prosecution.

      1. neo-realist

        East coast good taste dictates that governors should not be subjected to the indignity of prosecution.

        Add some brought and paid for prosecutors and judges to that.

  11. Katniss Everdeen

    RE: Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump by 6 Points in WSJ/NBC News Poll of Likely Voters Wall Street Journal.

    Paywalled. Didn’t read. But it’s being discussed ad nauseum on msnbc (the “gold” standard) this morning. They are keying in on the fact that Trump is seen as more honest and trustworthy than clinton by a 10 point margin.

    I read something interesting the other day, can’t find the link. In any “national” poll, 1 in 7 people polled will be from California, and 1 in 10 will be from Texas. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds important.

    Also too, can’t figure out the point in reporting results of a “2-way race,” since that won’t be the case in any state. I’m thinking it’s about setting “expectations,” in case the actual vote “count” becomes problematic for the status quo.

      1. Rhondda

        So shiny. So square. And all glommed into a clumpy cube-on-cube mass. Jim, you’ve outdone yourself this time. That is FunnyAsHell.

    1. justanotherprogressive

      MSM generated sympathy vote?
      One of the great things about not having cable is that I am not duped into hearing all that Clinton propaganda.
      It is interesting to note, though, that the polls are all over the place, and that WSJ\NBC always report Hillary numbers higher than other polls. Rasmussen has Trump up by 5 points. Who knows which polls are accurate and which are not?

      1. hunkerdown

        justanotherprogressive, it is well-known and readily seen that Rasmussen has a known systematic GOP bias and is a pretty consistent outlier.

        It’s safe to assume that all polls are props designed to bolster a narrative. Elections, too.

    2. Whine Country

      Polls, polls, polls. No matter how or where you frame the questions asked of those polled, it comes down to are you going to vote for the only legitimate candidate, supported by those who know what’s best or are you one of the deplorables who would be stupid enough to vote for a racist, bigot who is promoting facism and hatred? How could anyone not believe that many, if not most, would prefer to keep their real answers to themselves?

  12. Jim Haygood

    Hillary: genuinely surprised that she is not 50 points ahead [as she remarked to an LIU convention in Las Vegas].

    Hillary: genuinely surprised that she is not toted round in a silk-upholstered sedan chair by grateful working families.

    Hillary: genuinely surprised that when the poor run short of money for food, they don’t simply jet off to Thailand, where they could eat cheaply in the night markets.

    Empress Hillary: elegant in ermine.

    1. MikeNY

      toted round in a silk-upholstered sedan chair by grateful working families


      I had the good fortune to catch Elizabeth Taylor’s “Cleopatra” over the weekend on some movie channel. Such a camp-fest, but it’s worth it all just to see Cleopatra’s celestial entrance into Rome!

      1. Clive

        Taylor’s Cleopatra to Marc Antony:

        “Whad’da you want?”

        (I guess that the historical records didn’t capture the fact the Cleopatra was brought up in Cairo’s American quarter and at least one of her parents came from Brooklyn)

  13. ProNewerDeal

    I didn’t like HClinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment. It reminded me of Mint RawMoney 47% comment. Contrast this what Sanders, Stein, & the Occupy Movement: no bashing of poor, median, or even upper quintile non-ruling class workers (the 99%).

    A poor or median income White Christian worker is correct to be upset with the 1% business class oligarchs & the 0bamneyBush type politrickians they own, given the 1981-now reign of neoliberal Reaganomics with crapified economic stats: flat or declining median income, lowering employment-to-population (e.g. perhaps what should be called “the real measure of employment”), etc. Perhaps said worker should have the time, education (at least HS degree), & intellectual curiosity/critical thinking to bash the oligarchs instead of other workers that are non-White &/or non-Christian &/or women. However, the K-12 education system, & BigMedia are not strong in these ideas. In addition, said workers may be very busy between possibly working 40+ hrs over 2+ jobs with uncertain schedules and family responsibilities. Any available free time they allocate to “the news” is likely to be BigMedia garbage like C”N”N, not nakedcapitalism nor say a Noam Chomsky podcast on youtube.

    IMHO such a White worker who blames say undocumented Mestizo workers ala “dey took er yabs!” (c) South Park, is mistaken but not necessarily deplorable.

    OTOH 1% oligarchs like Wall $treet, MIC, Sickcare Mafia incl pharma & private health insurance oligopolists, & their wholly owned politrickians like HClinton are much more deplorable.

    Perhaps Sanders would’ve won a sizable portion White workers as voters, they may have preferred Sanders over Trump. Even a hypothetical racist may be interested in a $15 min wage & MedicareForAll. Yet instead HClinton insults said White workers while rarely emphasizing any such Concrete Economic Benefits in her policy set.

    1. Paid Minion

      Businesses where illegals have, in fact, cost citizens their jobs: meatpacking (unions busted by illegals), residential construction and roofing, fast food/restarants.

      I remember going to a Wendy’s at dinner time back in 1999, and was told the sit down area was closed, because the one English speaker on duty had to run the drive thru window. There’s a reason why they started naming their “Value Meals” by number.

      1. Rhondda

        “Businesses where illegals have, in fact, cost citizens their jobs: ”
        also… landscaping and tree trimming, house painting, hotel and hospitality work (most f&b, all grounds + housekeeping), residential maid service/housecleaning, nanny/childcare, upholstery, no doubt there’s more…

        1. ProNewerDeal

          In the case of these occupations like meatpacking workers, where some employers actually prefer undocumented workers for the Indentured-Servant like power over the worker, a good solution is combining e-verify with massive ~$100K+ fines/undocumented worker found.

          Neither HClinton nor Trump is suggesting this Illegal Employer fine policy. Neither HClinton nor Trump is labeling Illegal Employers as Deplorable. Trump incorrectly bashes the undocumented worker as Deplorable. HClinton bashes the White worker who mistakenly concludes the undocumented worker is his enemy & not his Illegal ex-Employer that replaced him with an undocumented worker, as Deplorable.

          For misdiagnosing the problem, & furthering a Divide & Conquer solution that benefits the actual Evil Doer Illegal Employers, I state the Illegal Employer Oligarchs & the wh0re politrickians they own like HClinton & Trump are The Real Deplorables.

  14. Pavel

    I watched the Robert Downey Jr et al short video which in typical celebrity PSA fashion has about 20 actors and other celebs (and a few token “civilians”) pleading on people to register to vote. (And there is a gag that Mark Ruffalo will go the full Monty in his next film.)

    It’s as well done and as ernest as similar PSAs, though a bit of a caricature of itself. My criticism is that it was all about defeating Trump “to save America”. (And don’t forget THE SUPREME COURT!). It completely ignored the rest of the world and the possible effects of an HRC neocon-led presidency. For all the concerns about Trump having control of the nukes, Hillary seems much more dangerous. Just ask the victims of all her “smart uses of power” in Libya and Syria and elsewhere.

    As for registration, Jill Stein in a tweet suggests the following:

    * Make Election Day a public holiday.
    * US citizens are automatically registered to vote at birth for national elections

    Seems sensible enough. I believe in Australia one *must* vote or be fined. It would help as well to have a “None of the Above” choice which would be counted and announced along with the others.

    1. Roger Smith

      It was no different than a Ted Nugent political commercial. Except that it is “cool” and “hip” when Democrats tell people for whom they are “obligated” to vote.

      This video is emblematic of one of the big reasons I never voted in previous elections I was able to. “VOTE VOTE VOTE, exercise your right! Freedom! Unless… you are voting for that person, then you are an idiot or you are wasting your vote!”

    2. Pat

      Said ad produced and directed by Joss Whedon, who has reportedly already given a million dollars to help elect Clinton.

      The thing is that I get being appalled by Trump, he is a hideous candidate. The failure is to recognize that the alternative is no alternative. Including on the Supreme Court, if you care about civil rights, continued and growing unaccountability of corporations, women’s rights, workers rights, climate, etc once you strip the rhetoric away you either have no record or one that almost consistently offers either tepid support or actively undermines them. The one thing I can use for people about SCOTUS, is if X is important to Clinton why did she choose as her successor a guy whose entire record as Governor was to take an opposite stanch on those policies?

      I would add two things on the vote idea: Required voting. Election day for a national election is 24 hours, as in the polls open at 6:00 am EST and close at 5:59 am EST the next day everywhere in the country. Although a different start time could be established for the East Coast, so that the start in Alaska and Highway is not in the middle of the night. But the polls are open and close at the same time. Secondly, none of the above counts and if it wins all the candidates are rejected and barred from running for that office for two terms (President would mean eight years, Congress would mean four). It also triggers a new election with new candidates in eight weeks. People wanting to run will have two weeks to find a way onto the ballot. Voters being able to say hell no and have it mean something would be very clarifying for our clueless political class.

      1. ProNewerDeal

        Disclaimer: I am a non-swing state, I’ll vote for Stein.

        Having said that, I think the Lesser Evil Voting for HClinton in swing state advocates do have a good point on SCOTUS. At worst, apparently HClinton will nominate center or center-right Merrick Garland types, where Trump is claiming his “model” is extreme-right Scalia, & his Heritage “think tank” list of 12 possible justics are Scalia clones. Podcaster SamSeder (on youtube) claims that just since Scalia’s death in February forcing a 4-4 court, has meant that 1 voting rights & 2 public sector unions existence, there were SCOTUS cases on both topics where the status quo would’ve worsened significantly if Scalia & a 4-5 court were still operative.

        1. MikeNY


          I’m in the same boat as you. Non-swing state, Stein. In addition to the SC, I think the stance on global warming is very important.

          1. Pat

            Global warming, see her support for fraking in other countries and her choice for Chief of Staff. I’m serious when I say her choices proclaim her lack of interest or even a ‘don’t give a f*$k about that when money is on the table attitude.’ She will not nominate anyone who gets in the way of any of her money making ventures.

            1. jrs

              fracking in this country as well, it was the Sanders people who tried to put an anti-fracking plank in the Dem platform and the Hillary people who rejected it.

              I agree that the positions Trump has taken on the environment are horrible though.

              1. Jen

                They are horrible, and they’re out in the open where you can see them. Which IMO is preferable to Clinton’s horrible positions which are cloaked in lawyerly parsing and the omnipresent magic asterisk of the TPP, which of course she opposes.*

                *As long as it costs jobs or drives down wages.** Totally fine if it destroys our national sovereignty.
                **But she will cite any number of bogus studies showing it won’t, and then sign it.

          2. nippersmom

            What is there about Clinton’s record that leads you to believe she will take any kind of action in regard to global warming?

            1. MikeNY

              She does not deny that it is occurring.

              Chomsky has posted a few good pieces on this, btw. YouTube has a few good, short clips, easily searchable.

              1. pretzelattack

                but she does weasel and prevaricate about the trade treaties, which will make it much harder, if not impossible, to effectively address climate change. she does support fracking.

              2. jrs

                Obama doesn’t deny it is occurring either. But whenever there is a climate conference the U.S. weasels out of and actively undermines any commitment. Yes Trumps position on the issue are terrible.

                1. nowhere

                  Exactly. Even as evidence of the damage being done because of methane leakage during fracking/extraction operations continues to mount, Obama’s cronies have cashed in developing our compressed nat gas exporting capabilities.

                  Actions speak much louder than words.

                  1. hunkerdown

                    Better yet, ignore the words and trust only the actions. It takes a very special kind of fool to believe anything their exploiters tell them without independent, disinterested verification.

            2. Brit

              I’m a huge Bernie fan who is almost obsessively following Clinton’s many shortcomings. I may vote for Stein. That said, a Trump administration could be game over for the climate, to echo James Hansen, particularly with a Republican Congress. Here are their stated goals, from their respective websites:

              Donald Trump’s Climate Plan:
              • Rescind all Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
              • Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s “extremist agenda.”
              • Ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline.
              • Lift moratoriums on energy production in federal areas.
              • Revoke policies that impose restrictions on new drilling technologies (aka fracking).
              • Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.

              Hillary Clinton’s Climate Plan:
              • Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.
              • Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
              • Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.

              Hillary’s plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. She will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050. As president, Hillary will:
              • Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
              • Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families.
              • Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers.
              • Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.
              • Reform leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
              • Cut the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
              • Cut methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
              • Revitalize coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations.

                1. optimader

                  “stated goals”.
                  Reminds me of a story a WWII vet I worked w/ when first out of college.

                  Originally from the NE, Vermont IIRC, when inducted they looked at his background was told they need ppl w/ skiing background and so assigned to

                  Did a year of high altitude training on Mt Rainer, then was shipped off to Libya.

              1. Anonymous

                And you believe Hillary and her promises?

                She promotes fracking to the world. Lobbied for 2 giant polluting coal plants in South Africa (not renewables) and her cronies got the construction jobs.

                She won’t even agree to the simplest carbon tax to help combat climate change when actually pressed to do something.

                She has lied to voters and betrayed EVERY campaign promise she ever made. Just look at her promises re: trade agreements. She turned around and lobbied and voted FOR South Korea, Singapore, Colombia, etc.

                  1. Rhondda

                    I got a lotta dollar bills here– and one of those feather-tipped fishing rods so beloved by cats. I am gonna sprinkle some catnip and get Hillary so bumfuzzled with unrequited greed and avarice she falls sound asleep under the sideboard on her back with all four limbs in the air.

                    By keeping the Ermine Empress busy this way, I will prevent her from starting WW3.

                    Perhaps if I wear a white helmet while doing it, some Canadian asshats will nominate me for a Nobel.

              2. jrs

                Has Hillary taken a stand on what is going on with the Dakota pipeline? Because that’s where the battle is. Which side are you on Hillary?

              3. crittermom

                Yep. “stated goals”
                If only we could believe her.

                Remember how on the campaign trail against Bernie she suddenly ‘flipped’ her position and was now against the TPP, when she saw how much support he was getting by opposing it?

                Yet once she had Bernie’s support, suddenly she is the only one in her camp against it, while everyone else in her camp refused to vote against it.
                Very telling. (And remember, she stated she was opposed to it–‘under its current wording’. Wiggle room!)

                How ’bout her choice for VP, who was in favor of TPP less than a week before her choosing him, while she still stated she opposed it. Uh, huh.

                Yeah. It would be great if she truly meant what she’s now saying.
                Her actions have proved otherwise, however.
                It’s been obvious for too long now that she’ll say whatever it takes to be elected, and then do whatever the hell she chooses.

                With her total disregard for security regarding her emails, IMO, she shouldn’t even be allowed to run. She should be prosecuted, instead, as have others for far fewer security breaches.
                Lame excuses such as ‘she doesn’t remember the security briefings of 2012 because that was the year she suffered a concussion’ don’t cut it.
                Excuse me?!!!
                If she was so affected by it, then why the hell didn’t she step down as SOS for a time to recover? I just wanna slap her with the BS she continues to think will excuse her actions.

                Trump doesn’t believe in climate change.

                Hellary does, but with her ‘poking the bear’ name Putin, we won’t have to worry about climate change, as we’ll be nuked out of existence.

                Fact: We’re screwed with either candidate.

              4. hunkerdown

                Brit, your credulity and your belief that listening to your betters is a worthwhile pastime rather than arrested development is the reason this mess exists and needs to be corrected. Work that one through for a while.

              5. Skippy

                Bush Jr ran on an eviromental platform in his first bid for preznit [head gore off at the pass], until he got into office and was unceremoniously told without a doubt that pushing foreword would destroy the economy…… we know the rest…

            3. clarky90

              In my mind, ANYBODY who is pro-war, is, by that very fact or act, pro (in favor of) global warming and the destruction of our environment.

              How much pollution has been generated by the USA’s wars (constant) against the Middle East over the past 25 years.

              War mongers are not environmentalists.

        2. Pat

          I’m also in a state that will clearly be in Clinton’s column (although I think it will be closer than they would like) and will be voting Stein.

          And I also agree that the split in the court has largely been helpful. Where I disagree is that while he is not a clear Scalia wannabe, there is good reason to think that Garland might not and in the case of the public sector unions most assuredly would probably not be any better than they would. And Clinton’s choices are very likely to be worse than Obama’s.

          I do get that even that small likely less of a religious bigot social conservative asshole MIGHT be better than Trump’s choices on small issues. Unfortunately I think when it comes to our increasing military state, consumer rights, workers rights, civil rights to privacy and dissent both of these candidates will be nominating judges that resemble them in that those nominees shouldn’t be anywhere near those offices.

        3. ChipOnly

          Long time listener, first time caller. Thank you!

          I’ve had this SCOTUS pick argument come up elsewhere and personally find it a pretty weak argument. For one, they all have to go through a confirmation process – we’re not going to see Justice Melania Trump.

          More importantly, we have no idea who HRC or Trump especially might appoint, what cases the court might choose or not choose to hear, or how any one justice, or the justices collectively might rule on those cases – sure, we can take an educated guess, but consider that Bush I thought he was getting a solid conservative in Souter (look how that turned out), or that it was Roberts who cast the deciding vote to save the ACA (twice, was it?). So IMO the argument is rather rickety there.

          Consider also that when one is being interviewed, either by POTUS or during confirmation, for a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in federal government, I think a person likely may say anything they have to in order to join the court, knowing full well there is no real accountability for contradicting themselves when it comes time to write some opinions.

          The point that if one looks at who HRC has already chosen (that would be VP Tim Kaine and his decidedly “moderate” views on right to work, firearm access, reproductive rights), or Obama’s latest rather meek and mild nominee, Garland, this idea that democrat HRC is necessarily going to pack the court with a new generation of Ginsbergs or Brandeises is hard to accept wholesale.

          For these reasons, I don’t find SCOTUS an overwhelming reason to vote one way or another. IMO why this argument is made is that some Clinton supporters have a hard time coming up with reasons to vote for her, and the SCOTUS fear is but another way to advance the “but….Trump!” argument.

          JMO YMMV Thanks it was fun to comment! :)

          1. sid_finster

            Keep in mind that after eight years of Bush 2.0 as Supreme Court boogeyman, the court’s rulings did not change much.

            1. a different chris

              Also – there is a lot of questions from the right about “judicial overreach” and a general dislike of the courts. That could be flipped right back in their faces.

              You put up with a not-so-great commute. You make a major change (job or home) when you have a terrible commute. Republicans like Garland won’t offend anybody and thus nothing useful will change.

              I’m very queasy about this “make it even worse to wake people up” argument, and I do not want to present it as my final thoughts, but it is out there. Funny that frogs turn out to not be stupid enough to sit in a pot until it boils, but people – not so sure.

              1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

                Circuses are good, though bread is stale.

                Plus we have pain killers…including sacred herbs in our pot.

          2. cwaltz

            I might be okay with Justice Melania Trump. She certainly couldn’t be much worse than Scalia was and I probably will find her a hint more trustworthy than anyone that a “bipartisan” committee in Congress will support.

            As it stands Souter, one of our more liberal justices came from a GOP administration so it isn’t like it’s Democrat = liberal and GOP = conservative.

          3. hunkerdown

            Welcome, ChipOnly! Pull up an adult beverage and stay a while. Just as a bit of intro, I work in health IT and I’m pretty far to the left.

            SCOTUS is a good fear-based argument precisely because we are at least twice removed from the outcome and have no recourse. The Democrat(ic) Party, built on liberal Christian mythos as it is, thereby easily spins an original sin/debt story around the state of affairs in order to cynically guilt its members into submission and compliance.

            The facts instead point to the guilt of belief in “representative” “democracy” (which is neither) and the murder of the public interest by bourgeois liberals who steal Catholic doctrine, grind off the ghost stories, and recast themselves as the archangels to which we all shall bend our knees, rather than the Richard Pryor shadows on the cave wall they really are.

            I often wonder just how many armed security personnel it would take to shepherd an anarcho-socialist to the top spot.

        4. polecat

          I’m voting for the ‘ditch’ ….cause that is where we’re collectively heading, sooner .. or later .!

          … opting for sooner is the better choice, as it is at that point people will be faced with an unvarnished view of just how badly we’ve been had !

          …at least for those of us left alive …

        5. lyman alpha blob

          Question – if the Supreme Court is so important, then why aren’t the Democrats pushing for Obama to nominate a new justice right the hell now as is his constitutional right? Why leave the vacancy there for a possible Republican nominee in the first place?

          Don’t fall for all this kayfabe about SCOTUS.

            1. CraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazyChris

              From the article, “With the Senate wrapping up its longest recess of the year, communities are refusing….

              So, remind me again why Obama hasn’t made a recess appointment? To me it looks like both sides are fine with the 8 member SC.

        6. oh

          The implicit assumption in using the SC as the deciding factor on voting is that it assumes that the Democrats will not oppose a Trump choice of candidate. This appears to be true considering that the Democrats played wonderful “Gang of Fourteen” Kabuki to let Alito and Roberts get in.

      2. justanotherprogressive

        You will forgive me if I prefer not to be forced to vote for one of two equally bad candidates chosen for me by the 1%? Sometimes not voting is the only protest possible to a bad situation.
        In this election, many of us (not all) will have the option of choosing a third party, but you can bet that if voting is “required”, there will never be a third party candidate again.

        1. Jeremy Grimm

          I hope that by “not voting” you mean you are going to vote — but will not make a selection for President. Better to be an undercount to register your dissatisfaction than a non-show.

          Sorry — I don’t understand your comment about “required” voting eliminating third party candidates. I’m curious — Why do you believe that would be so?

          1. justanotherprogressive

            If the “powers that be” can force us to vote, they can force us to vote for only the candidates they want us to vote for, ala Hong Kong. Somehow, I don’t think a third party candidate would meet the requirements of the “powers that be”, since a third party would take away votes from their candidates.

            As for voting, why should I support the candidates of either of the two parties? Do you think those people would ever go against their own parties in favor of our interests? But to be honest, I haven’t really decided yet whether to vote for my state or local candidates yet. It seems that they are spending more time trying to convince me to vote for Hillary or Trump than to vote for them.

              1. hunkerdown

                +1. An undervote still ratifies the system and the narcissists who believe they are the system. Depriving the state of its popular mandate actually seems like a really strong idea right about now.

                Show us your “authority”, HSBC hack Comey.

                1. Jeremy Grimm

                  An undercount shows up as something more than apathy. Whether you’re ratifying the system of not an undercount more actively shows discontent.

                  Apathy is the desired end. Why ratify that cause?

            1. Jeremy Grimm

              Thanks for explaining. What you describe reminds me of the old Russian joke:

              Of course we have democracy and in fact we must vote. We can chose between Stalin, Stalin or Stalin.

              Whether to vote for state or local candidates — surely there must be at least one candidate you can vote for or vote for to vote against their opponent. [Lesser Evilism at a state or local level makes a tiny bit of sense.]

        2. clarky90

          Trump was not “picked” by the 1%. They loathe him, AND are terrified of him.

          The 1% picked a Cruz or a Bush, and lost.

          The 99% (The People), picked Donald Trump as their Republican nominee.

      1. hunkerdown

        jrs, “the purpose of a system is what it does”. Elections are rituals designed to produce cognitive dissonance, thus encouraging investment in the status quo and fealty to the class of “betters” so assembled. That is, they are meant to manufacture consent, not measure it.

    3. Jeremy Grimm

      @Pavel at root of thread — I like your idea for a “None of the Above” option.

      [Blog threads seem very like tree structures but the root of a thread sounds odd. Base of a thread? Thread origin? not sure what would fit — seems it should be word related to thread or cord.]

  15. DWD

    Morning, all

    In my lifetime I have retired from two jobs. The first was a union member working in a foundry where I did everything from unload iron in the yards to being chief final inspector (and EVERYTHING in between) and from being an elementary teacher.

    What has slowly driven me far away from the current crop of democrats is summarized in this statement from the article referenced above (

    But most Democrats aren’t that self-critical. In particular they won’t admit their candidate for president is an elitist with a low opinion of millions of Americans, and that her dismissiveness of working-class people is driving lots of them into the arms of Trump.


    I have noted this bigotry among my liberal friends and it sickens me.

    Working people in the Midwest (and other places) have been terribly abused these past twenty years and have had their livelihoods, cities, schools, and everything else sorely attacked by both Republicans and Democrats at a national and local level.

    Jobs have been shipped overseas and replaced with nothing and the wealth that was theirs has been slowly sucked into bastions of wealth on both coasts and the DC Area.

    Yep, It pisses them off but rather than address these concerns, they are denigrated and ridiculed.

    This pisses them off more and anyone who will even SEEM to give a shit, garners support.

    Another reason to play Mahjong (I am down to less than 2 minutes) and write a bit.

    1. Jim Haygood

      Compare and contrast:

      During an address via video conference to a gathering in Las Vegas of the Labor [sic] International Union of North America, [Hillary] ticked off her pro-union positions, including investing in infrastructure, raising the minimum wage and supporting collective bargaining.

      “Having said all this, ‘Why aren’t I fifty points ahead?’ you might ask?” Clinton ranted said.

      What we have here is a failure in communication. She literally does not get it.

      1. jen

        “The facts are on our side, about what I’ve done versus what he’s done.”

        Yes, let’s do make it about that, shall we, as all the animatronic cheeto has done is run his mouth, whereas, you, dear lady have done quite a bit to bring death, destruction and misery to millions.

      2. JohnnyGL

        It’s really incredible, isn’t it. The sense of entitlement to people’s votes is amazing. It hasn’t been dented much at all. She has other quotes in the article imploring supporters to ‘lay out the facts’. Maybe I can give a short, sweet explanation for her?

        1) No one believes her. She’s only adopted most of those positions grudgingly, and in a calculated manner, while under pressure during the campaign and she also has a track record that stands in contrast to it.

        2) She hasn’t put those positions at the core of her campaign, they’re on the periphery. If she’d run a campaign trumpeting plans that were a) not small-ball, technocratic changes and b) trumpeted them loudly and repeatedly at every opportunity, then she might have built some support. Instead, the core of her campaign has been, “reject hate, bigotry, -isms, and -phobias, and unfit to lead, and PUTIN!!!” while courting the so-called “moderate” Republicans that the Republican base just spent a year wiping out of the election campaign.

        3) Mountains of evidence of a history of corruption, bad judgement. Dems need to be careful when they scream, “facts!!!”, because the facts don’t tilt the way they want them to tilt.

        1. DWD

          Let’s say I am dubious. I remember these gems . . . .

          President Obama who was going to, “Renegotiate NAFTA” and “Put on his comfortable shoes to walk with the unions.”

          I find the last one particularly galling as he actually was in Chicago and flew to Minneapolis (for a fund raiser) and managed to fly over the teachers and other union workers trying to get some justice in Wisconsin. The very same time frame down to the hour. He could have stopped and lent his support, he did not.

        2. Jen

          Courtesy of the Talking Heads…

          Facts are simple and facts are straight
          Facts are lazy and facts are late
          Facts all come with points of view
          Facts don’t do what I want them to
          Facts just twist the truth around
          Facts are living turned inside out
          Facts are getting the best of them
          Facts are nothing on the face of things
          Facts don’t stain the furniture
          Facts go out and slam the door
          Facts are written all over your face
          Facts continue to change their shape

        3. Jim Haygood

          ‘not small-ball, technocratic changes’

          Hillary’s one effort to Go Big was her health plan in 1993/94. She wrote it in secret meetings with industry insiders, handed it down from Mt Olympus to six Congressional committees, who collectively went WTF? She actually thought her “pretty in pink” celebrity would “power it through” the 535 faceless plodders on the Hill.

          It’s widely believed that Hillary drove her colleague Vince Foster to suicide by telling him in a large meeting that he was just a small-bore, hick town lawyer, in over his head, who would never amount to nothing. Little did she realize that she was quoting her own political epitaph.

          1. Pavel

            Hmmm…. She wrote it in secret meetings with industry insiders

            Actually not so different from what Obama did with the ACA. Apart from all those live C-SPAN hearings, I mean.

            Hillarycare was such a clusterfuck (1.0, I guess, Lambert!) that that alone should have ruled her out from any subsequent office.

        4. Anne

          If she’d run a campaign trumpeting plans that were a) not small-ball, technocratic changes and b) trumpeted them loudly and repeatedly at every opportunity, then she might have built some support.

          If she’d done that, she’d have been Bernie Sanders, wouldn’t she? Because that’s what he did – that and make the election not about him, but about us. He wasn’t about “oh, no, we can’t – it’s too hard to be bold – we must first accumulate crumbs before we have the whole loaf of bread.”He was about “if this is what you want, if you believe this is what the country needs, then we absolutely can, but it isn’t going to happen if you sit at home on your butts and whine about it: you have to bring the pressure to bear and make your legislators do it.”

          And her ongoing insistence that “we can’t” is why millions of people are not signing on to her candidacy. Couple that with her political multiple personality disorder, where it’s never clear which Hillary is in charge on any given day, and the sense most people have that she’d probably sell her own grandchildren if the price was right, and what you end up with are voters who are struggling to find any enthusiasm for her at all.

          As for celebrity endorsements imploring us to save the world from Donald Trump, why does anyone think that “celebrity” confers additional IQ points and renders their opinions more meaningful than anyone else’s? Oh, maybe it’s because there apparently is a large portion of the electorate that can’t be bothered to think for themselves anymore.

          Jesus, this is depressing.

        5. curlydan

          Her entitlement is based partly on the gifts she was given in the past. She was “gifted” New York’s Senate seat. She did a token bus tour of upstate New York (not that it mattered) and got her seat. She was later gifted her Sec of State position after being outmaneuvered and out-campaigned by Obama. Finally, she was gifted the 2016 Democratic nomination although she almost lost that.

          She’s just not a politician, and at this rate with these comments, she’s going to get crushed. One headline above shouldn’t be “How Trump Could Win the Debate” but “How Could Trump Not Win the Debate?”

            1. cwaltz

              Because Trump is also a horrible candidate……….

              It’s a real indictment of the duopoly that this election is literally an argument on which candidate is the worst for the job rather than one where we are discussing which one would be the best.

          1. Rhondda

            terrible — horrible — deplorable
            Poe and would be stroking his chin and Nabokov nodding.
            French-ness is so dramatique.

      3. Pat

        What she really does not get is that much of the people she is trying to con are smarter than she is giving them credit for.
        I would lay odds that more than half her audience for that could finish her list to make it more accurate:

        She has supported infrastructure investment in other countries rather than in the US. Supported as in helping create policies that actually enable and encourage it.

        She didn’t support raising the minimum wage until activists made it impossible for many state and local governments to avoid it, and she still doesn’t support the level of increase those activists do.

        And she only supports collective bargaining rights on the campaign. Otherwise she is busy arranging a trade deal with a country that murders trade unionists.

        Much of this country underestimates those ‘deplorables’ ability to recognize that these same people are ignoring and/or being condescending about their very real concerns.

          1. aab

            You know Drew’s a snarky sportswriter, right? Whose employment situation is tenuous, and whose primary employer is now a major Clinton donor?

            I love his writing, but I didn’t bother with that piece.

      4. Kokuanani

        There are 3500+ comments on the WaPo article on Hillary, and from what I’ve read [5 in or so worth] they’re pretty damning of her.

      5. Roger Smith

        I am sorry but I am having trouble controlling THE VOLUME OF MY VOICE!

        What is going on here? Why is she yelling in an empty, green screened room?

        1. Jen

          I hadn’t watched the video until I read your comment. WTF???? How hard is it to find a real room, slap a few flags and some “Stronger Together” swag up, and film a video?

          I feel like the slow motion train wreck is picking up speed.

    2. NotTimothyGeithner

      Hillary is such an awful candidate and standard-bearer for the stated values of the Democratic Party that everyone who voted for her falls into her corrupt in error circle or breathtakingly stupid and ignorant, not taking taking their duty as citizens seriously. How can smug liberals have messed up? The reality of Hillary’s candidacy undermines the core of the liberal identity as reality based voters.

      These “liberals” need to blame others. Poor whites aren’t chic. They would have blamed blacks for 2010 and 2014 if they weren’t worried about being labeled racist. They have blamed minorities in the past for not voting.

      1. DWD

        These “liberals” need to blame others. Poor whites aren’t chic. They would have blamed blacks for 2010 and 2014 if they weren’t worried about being labeled racist. They have blamed minorities in the past for not voting.

        So nice I wanted to see it twice.

        The soft bigotry of contempt that permeates these people is disgusting.

        As I said before (here for example ) when there is plenty, these issues fade into the background.

        When people are scrambling for everything they get testy.

        I think this is by design myself but I am paranoid.

        1. justanotherprogressive

          I too wish people would stop referring to Clinton and her followers as liberals. There is nothing liberal about proclaiming that you promote the best interests of women and children all over the world, while promoting war and bombing cities full of women and children.
          There is nothing liberal about proclaiming yourself a great supporter of black rights while working to throw more black people into prison.
          There is nothing liberal about proclaiming what you are going to do for the poor and the middle class while supporting economic policies that make the poor and the working classes’ lives worse.

          1. Pavel

            THANK YOU.

            Especially this: There is nothing liberal about proclaiming that you promote the best interests of women and children all over the world, while promoting war and bombing cities full of women and children.

          2. nippersmom

            Yes, people seem to think that words don’t have actual meanings, and they can ascribe whatever definition to them they wish.

          3. hunkerdown

            No, that is perfectly liberal. if you are liberal, you support the market. Whatever you believe is “liberal” probably was just co-opted.

            nippersmom, exactly. Does John Stuart Mill define liberalism or do the many Humpty-Dumpties projecting their self-righteousness onto the term and presuming to tell us what liberalism is “to them” as if it obligated us?

            1. Skippy

              Remember FDR changed the underlining meaning of – liberal – and the olds took offense, that culminated in push back by the MPS posse under the auspices of the Chicago school et al…

    3. Michael

      The challenge with all of this is that while the Dems have been very bad for white folks in the working class, ye gods in Heaven are the Republicans utterly awful.

      Compare Pat Quinn to Bruce Rauner in Illinois or Jim Doyle to Scott Walker in Wisconsin. The Democrats look bad. The Republicans are uniformly dumpster fires, themselves contained in dumpster fires, which are on Superfund sites.

      At some point, the simplest explanation wins out. White people be cray and racist enough to destroy their own kids’ futures to take down people of colors’ with them.

      1. cwaltz

        I’m pretty sure there is enough blame to go around instead of pinning this on racist white people.

        It certainly would help if the government wasn’t busy making the argument for the GOP that they really can’t problem solve and that essentially paying taxes is a money grab from a corrupt, incompetent government instead of a necessary means to provide for the common good.

        1. Michael

          Speaking as the scion of racist white people —

          it’s racist white people. Holy crap is it ever racist white people. If the Trumpers could let go of the hate, they could take over the Dem party and make good things happen.

          1. cwaltz

            Well you are certainly welcome to speak for yourself.

            However, my conversations with his supporters has been different. Most of them are jaded when it comes to government- they want government out of their lives.

            My viewpoint is that if the government were doing it’s job(again…working for the common good) then we wouldn’t be talking about who would be best to stymie it- and that conversation isn’t just occurring from the right side of the aisle any longer- it’s occurring from the left too.

  16. John Wright

    Re: If You Vote For Trump, Then Screw You

    This closes with “I lived through one Clinton, and I can live through another.”

    This is the logic expressed by a George W. Bush voter when explained his choice by saying “I liked his daddy”.

    Yes, we lived through one Bush and then another.

    That is slim comfort.

    While Magary sees Trump as “Trump is an unqualified, ignorant sociopath” I suspect many of the Trump supporters Magary is angry with view Clinton as an unqualified ignorant sociopath riding her husband’s coattails to a padded resume of failures (Libya, Syria, Balkans, Iraq War, Prison industrial complex, welfare reform, FOIA violator) all abetted by the Democratic Party and insider money.

    Yes, most Americans will live through another Clinton, but the same might not be said for foreign citizens targeted in Hawk Hillary’s “Humanitarian” military interventions if she becomes president.

    1. Pavel


      Yes, most Americans will live through another Clinton, but the same might not be said for foreign citizens targeted in Hawk Hillary’s “Humanitarian” military interventions if she becomes president.

      The greatest risk is an actual war with Russia, arising from the insane NATO “exercises” in East Europe (how DARE Russia put its country so close to our NATO troops!) or the equally insane Syrian “no fly zone” that seems to be the main part of HRC’s new Mideast strategy.

      Dmitry Orlov and others have made some very cogent arguments about how the risk is very real.

      Team Hillary wants us to fear Trump on the one hand because “he has his hands on the nukes” but also because “he is a Putin stooge”. I’d rather have a Putin stooge in office right now than a crazed neocon.

      1. justanotherprogressive

        Nothing scared me more about Hillary Clinton than her remark about using a military response against hackers. Nope this is defintiely NOT the person I want to have “hands on the nukes”.

        1. JohnnyGL

          That Michael Morell interview with Charlie Rose takes the cake for me. Former CIA director openly auditioning for a job in Clinton’s administration, ready to kill Russian and Iranian troops.

          You can’t have a history with guys like that being close to you and then try to claim the other candidate will cause nuclear war. Clinton hasn’t disavowed what Morell said, and he must be saying it at least partially because he thinks it will boost his stock with her.

      2. temporal

        Right now the question is whether the NATO exercises are more dangerous than the incremental escalations of the proxy war in Syria. A month ago I’d have gone with the Euro games. The lack of discourse, of blame without offering proof and violence without the pretense of justification probably leads to somewhere near Syria.

        Maybe Obama’s mothballed peace prize will sway him at the last moment.

      1. hunkerdown

        cm, if you really operate under the belief that linkage is endorsement, I politely suggest you come back when you’re 18 and understand that people and groups have interests which need to be known if one wishes to resist them.

  17. fresno dan

    Canadian Mint employee pulls off heist by sticking $180,000 in gold “up his bum.” Slate (resilc)

    All that glitters is not gold…
    The goose that laid the golden…egg
    Where men traipse to mine gold
    gold digger…whoa!

  18. temporal

    Progressives are targets

    “…correctly bemoans the failure to discuss the existential question of avoiding nuclear war and rebuilding détente with Russia. There is no better time than the presidential election to bring this question front and center, something the Left did once upon a time. All the more so since the two major candidates differ so starkly on these questions, which involve our very survival.”

    The Left still wants to address these issues. The (neo)liberals whether Ds or Rs, on the other hand, now dominate public discourse and their only goal is to succeed through intimidation. Their success is personal financial growth at the expense of the deplorables and their associates. If you don’t have some people you can label as enemies you won’t have a pool that you can guiltlessly oppress.

    Sadly the popularity of this kind of discourse seems to have really gotten it’s launch with the success of Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz (had find his name via IMDB to verify the spelling). It’s very compelling to make fun of those you want to believe are not as special as you. Entertainment is now dominated by this style, making Hillary it’s natural spokesperson.

    Attack of the angry, successful liberals that want it all for themselves. Well, maybe a little bit extra for their special friends.

    Believing in issues and wanting improve everyone’s life is for chumps.

    1. Robert Hahl

      WF fired employees who called the company’s ethics hotline to report fraudulent practices. If that one is ignored, it will affect the elections.

  19. Katniss Everdeen

    RE: The Wells Fargo Scandal Was By Design Ian Welsh

    Financial fraud of this sort always follows this pattern: executives get rich doing it, the company takes a hit but not the executives, and the executives have no reason not to go on to their next fraud or even go back to what they were doing (sub prime loans are a thing again, and we’ll find out many of them were based on fraud, again.)

    And the “investigation” of the fraud always follows THIS pattern: a “sincere” “apology” by the now-wealthier perp to an “outraged” people’s “representative,” I’m talkin’ to YOU senator warren, without the word “illegal” ever having been spoken, since that might trigger the recognition that an actual “law” was broken and punishment would be “appropriate.”

    Having played his part, the perp struts off for cocktails while, at election time, it becomes unimaginable that the public “servant” should be unseated by anyone less “qualified.”

    It’s just so deplorable that anyone would want to torpedo this elegant, finely-tuned system by voting for Trump.

  20. DJG

    Renzi puff piece in Vogue. (I’m sure that if we go back far enough, we’ll find a puff piece about that ultra-groovy Tony Blair, too.) An antidote:

    Fatto Quotidiano, video and article about how the economic elite and the U.S. ambassador (yes, Italy as the new Honduras) are telling the voters how to vote–and the dire consequences of a No vote.

    And video of Marco Travaglio, who being a Turinese, doesn’t exactly mince words either:

  21. RWood

    “It’s been revealing to see how malleable most people’s values are as they’ve decayed on a societal level.”
    How malleable are we? And how comfortable and active in denial?
    “As the trade agreements represent the final stage in the complete takeover of the political sphere by the economic sphere – the fascist project – their imposition will result in nothing less than the globalization of fascism. None of us can remain silent or indifferent about this fact!”
    …then we lost our way…

    1. Paid Minion

      The system promotes the “ethically malleble” because they can make more money for the organization. When your upper management is filled with these people………Exhibit A, Wall Street over the past 20 years.

      Government/laws used to keep these people in check. Until they found a few work-arounds

    2. RWood

      Something on the process of malleation:
      “…the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets…”

  22. fresno dan

    The teenager had been selling herself for money since she was 12. She had been “exploited by pimps,” she says, and was in the act of running away from one when she met Brendan O’Brien, a police officer in Oakland, Calif.

    But instead of helping the then-17-year-old prostitute, O’Brien and more than 30 other law enforcement officers “continued to traffic, rape, victimize and exploit a teenage girl who needed to be rescued,” according to a legal claim filed with the Oakland city attorney’s office. “Instead of helping [the teen] find a way out of exploitation, they furthered and deepened her spiral down into the sex trade,” the claim adds.

    A few bad apples….well, quite a few bad apples.

    1. Divadab

      Hot goods; damaged goods- fair game

      Tough jobs have their perqs

      It’s not like anyone with $200 couldn’t do the same

      -Officer Friendly

  23. JohnnyGL

    Morning Joe losing patience with Clinton campaign mgr.

    I find it amusing that Scarborough makes a reference to Gary Johnson’s ‘gaffe’ over Aleppo as if it killed his campaign, yet his polls numbers haven’t budged.

    Another one of those signs that political pundits have their own system of point scoring and it’s detached from the rest of us.

  24. optimader

    Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s $3 billion effort aims to rid world of major diseases by end of century,” Washington Post. Bill B: “Zuckerberg is pulling a Rockefeller, trying to wipe the dirt off his name with philanthropy. That Ivy Lee was a clever fellow, no wonder Rockefeller hired him.”

    But ppl still ubiquitously subscribe to his very successful data sucking social media platform, so I seriously doubt that MZ or PC even remotely perceive themselves as “dirty”.

    My personal cynicism tells me this more likely amounts to designing a philanthropic wrapper to serve as a private foundation asset firewall in perpetuity.

    It’s emotive like a Save the Baby Seal Foundation only bigger! Who can possibly be against a Foundation with ending all major diseases as we know them as a Mission Statement?

    Needless to say, with an ad-infinum objective akin to Creating Life, we’re talking quite a few BOD Gulfstream hours and Mediterranean cruises with Foundation associates and donors without a lens of class warfare scrutiny!

    IMO, using a clearly stated but unachievable objective that no one can criticize in principle makes the Clinton Foundation look even more like a Grifter blunt instrument.

    IMO all about asset preservation, less so philanthropy. But like I say I’m a cynic.

    1. Skippy

      And own the IP on it – all – for saving the world….

      Disheveled Marsupial…. gessh…. ya have to incentivize opti… otherwise some would rather say home than go broke…

    2. clarky90

      Marc Zuckerberg is building a wall!, and you (not Mexico) are paying for it (if you are a Facebook person)

      Billionaire Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg has annoyed locals on the Hawaiian holiday island of Kauai after he began construction a large stone wall around his $100million 750-acre retreat.

  25. Jess

    File under class warfare: Last night Sacto mayor Kevin Johnson, husband to despicable Michelle Rhee, was struck in the face with a pie by a man who rushed the stage at a banquet where the mayor was speaking. The guy got arrested for felony assault on a public official.

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Make up stuff much? That’s against our site policies.

      How about most Trump fans are indifferent to “Oh the scary clown is a grifter too” because the Clintons have a decades long record of grifting, starting with her 1978 commodities trade and selling out the Lincoln bedroom? And you are seriously telling me the Clinton Foundation is not a massive grifting operation? It spends virtually none of its donation money on charity, it all goes to ops (which is seen as a horrible sin in the not for profit world, you are supposed to spend 90+% of donations on the charitable activities). And it’s clearly acting as a 501 (c)4 (political/policy protagonist, like Public Citizen, so donations to it are not tax deductible) when it is organized as a 501 (c)3. And that’s before you get to all the favors she sold as Secretary of State. I’ve got specific allegations from foreign officials as to how they were hit up, delivered, and what the quid quo pro was (and in this case, the payoff was big enough to be a major international news story), and also can even see donations on the Clinton Foundation site consistent with the payoff, but I don’t have enough independent sources to run it as a story here (the journalistic rule is three if they will only be cited in the story as anonymous and I have only two).

      There is a case to be made against Trump, but attacking his supporters and accusing them of not recognizing that both candidates are crooks is lame.

      1. Raj

        The counter point from Clinton supporters is the Foundation doesn’t donate to charity because it does all of its humanitarian work in-house. If there’s an article that details the in-house operations of the Clinton Foundation, I would enjoy reading it. It would be interesting to understand how much is going to executive, admin and mgmt staff versus how much is actually spent on humanitarian activities. As we saw with Haiti, even the Foundation’s humanitarian activities are intertwined with pay offs and back scratching. It’s all very eyebrow raising to put it nicely.

    2. flora

      Watching the Clintons for the past 25 years has been like watching the movie Groundhog Day.
      They’ve gone from the Office of President and the Lincoln bedroom to the office of Secretary of State and the Clinton Global Initiative. I think of them as a scam fractal. They’re consistent across ever larger scales of magnitude.

  26. Daryl

    > How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds — from a Magician and Google’s Design Ethicist Medium (Selva)

    This is a very thoughtful article. No wonder he’s no longer the design ethicist at Google.

Comments are closed.