Briefs

Graham-Cassidy
Why do some governors favor block grants even though their states will lose billions?  Given enough "flexibility," it lets them divert federal funds to influence peddling, pork barrel spending, and just plain theft.  The further the funds pass down the ladders from state to regional to local government, the greater the opportunities for corruption and abuse.

Tauntology
In the battle of the schoolyard bullies, "Rocket Man" pulled ahead when he called Our President "the mentally deranged US dotard."  To date, neither has referenced the other's mother.  Watch Twitter for further developments.

Kurdistan
When would be "the proper time" for the Iraqi Kurds to hold a referendum that will start them on the path toward statehood?  While the US might prefer to delay Iraqi, Turkish, and Iranian outrage, the Kurds represent the best chance for a secular state in the Middle East; ideologically, their strongest commitment is to capitalism.

What Happened?
I've heard enough interviews with Hillary so that I feel no need to read the book.  Could things have been done differently?  Maybe.  Would it have made a difference?  Probably not.

Puerto Rico
"Recovery" from Marilyn most likely will consist of privatizing anything that might turn a profit for off-island investors — essentially a vast, neoliberal social experiment.  I suggest that all boricuas left on the island move to Alabama, register to vote, and take over the state, thereby finally achieving the full rights of US citizens.

Outlook outlook

This post was supposed to be the foreign policy outlook, but who the hell knows?  First, I figure, our esteemed leader-to-be has to figure out who is a safe bet to do it for him.

In the meanwhile, it's nice to see backtracking on a bunch of campaign promises.  Somebody probably mentioned that a special prosecutor for Hillary, or  an investigation of the Clinton Foundation might look bad when nobody can find any malfeasance, and it turns out they actually can't "lock her up."  Better to express "pity for the vanquished."  Is it conceivable that the USofA might adhere to the Paris agreement on climate change, or are we just being teased?

This is not to say that plenty of damage won't be done in the name of "law and order" -- Jeff Sessions has the potential to make the concept of civil liberties seem quaint.  Add to that a resurgence of mandatory minimum sentences and a new surge of voter suppression, and the triumph of vindictive moralism will be nearly complete.

Are there two Republican Senators with enough conscience to hold back the worst of the worst?  Maybe.  Probably not.

Well, THAT's over...

If Hillary's speeches to the banking industry were as eyes-glaze-over boring as her acceptance speech at the convention last night, she was vastly overpaid.  Shopping lists make for lousy oratory, even when they include a few of your own favorite goodies.  Chelsea's introductory attempt to "humanize" her mother kind of fell flat.

Finale notwithstanding, I suppose the Democratic Convention will be accounted a success.  The Obamas and Bill Clinton were predictably silver-tongued; Booker and Biden wound their stumps quite nicely; Warren and Sanders were workmanlike despite some sabotage by their own supporters; Bloomberg added a nice touch; the second-tier pols didn't embarrass themselves; and "all the little people" played their roles quite well.  (The "entertainment" was awful.)

Something was puzzling me about Tim Kaine's perky, quirky stylings, and it wasn't the digressions into español.  His mannerisms are — there's no other way to put this — gay.  Go figure.

Anyway, I hope Hillary's handlers let her be sarcastic, dismissive, and generally condescending to Tr*mp in the debates.  He does have a soft underbelly, and it does require some unconstrained poking, including below the belt.  You don't beat a bully with statesmanship.

And, yes, if New York looks safe enough in the Fall, I will be voting for Jill Stein.  It has to look quite safe though — otherwise I'll get out my very large clothespin and do what I must.

Catch-up

Email
“If there’s any chance of her getting indicted, they shouldn’t even consider her for the nomination,” said Zachary O’Neill, 21, of Escondido. “We can’t have a criminal in the White House.” (NYTimes-5/28)

Young people can be so cute.  Of course, the email "scandal" arose more out of incompetence than chicanery.  One can use two email accounts from the same device, and if Hillary wanted to keep her badmouthing of Bill quiet, that's what she should have done.  Oh, well!  Too late.

Little Marco
So he's jettisoning any vestige of self-respect and endorsing Tr*mp.  Little Marco indeed.

The TSA
From its beginning, I was under the impression that the TSA was more a PR stunt than a genuine effort to stop potential terrorists.  Hence, I am never surprised by how ineffective it is at keeping guns and bombs off airplanes.

Let's speed up the lines by installing wide portals with "scientific" looking flashing lights; let people walk right on through; and occasionally pull some swarthy actor out of the stream and pretend we've caught him with a bomb.  I would like them to find more traditional looking bombs — the ones that look like cannonballs with fuses sticking out — so as to maintain the cartoon aesthetic

Briefly

What's With Bernie?
"Surely," all the talking heads have been saying, "it's time for Bernie to cede the nomination to Hillary and unite the party!"  It hasn't happened, and if we need a figurehead for Bernie's problem with the Democratic establishment, look no further than Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  She and the DNC were looking forward to a coronation, and set debate schedules, fundraising procedures, and media connections to ensure it happened.  Well, it didn't happen, and Bernie is pissed.  Should anyone be surprised?

What's With Netanyahu?
Bibi is set to replace Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon with a nationalist, religion pandering, totally despicable psychopath by the name of Avigdor Lieberman.  It's not for the good of Israel — it's solely for the sake of maintaining Bibi's hold on power, and any chance for some belated reconciliation with the Palestinians will be destroyed.  The Army opposes the move.  We'll see what happens.

What's With Maduro?
Venezuela is in crisis.  People there can't even buy basic goods like toilet paper, but Nicolás Maduro is stubbornly refusing to accept that his own incompetence is largely responsible.  The only thing that can save the Bolivarian Revolution is a rapid jump in oil prices, and that just ain't happening.  Things have deteriorated so far that one even could justify calling in the IMF — and nobody has ever heard me say that before!

Fear and Loathing

If this has become a battle between fear and loathing, it appears that Republicans who know both candidates are deciding they’d rather be afraid. — Gail Collins

It's true.  Ted Cr*z is making Donald Tr*mp look reasonable by comparison, and that's extremely problematic.  Cr*z, after all, is despicable, genuinely despicable.  Even John Boehner — not the world's cuddliest man — calls Cr*z "Lucifer incarnate."  The danger of a Tr*mp who appears "reasonable," of course, is the possibility of President Tr*mp in 2017.

Hillary is hard to like, even now that Bernie has pulled her far enough to the left to be significantly out of her comfort zone.  She's the consummate politician, and we don't like politicians.  People just don't trust her.  (I don't.  Maybe I'm wrong to tar her with the same brush as that lying, plutocrat pandering husband of hers, but I can't forget Bill promising us "Two for the price of one."  Two of him?  Just kill me now.)

Anyway, I'll be reaching out to any young, idealistic Bernie supporters I encounter, and trying to teach them the hardest lesson of politics: sometimes you just have to hold your nose and swallow.

President Tr*mp?

I'm beginning to think it can happen.

True, the Donald has very high negatives.  So does Hillary, though, and it will be just as hard to prevent Hillary from winning the Democratic nomination as it will be to prevent Donald from winning the Republican.

Matched in a general election, Hillary will be the Establishment candidate, Tr*mp the "outsider."  Since Americans are justifiably sick and tired of the way their government operates, the "outsider," however potentially dangerous and patently bizarre, has the advantage.  The outcome might surprise a lot of people.

Hillary's disavowal of free trade pacts certainly is suspect, reversing decades of enthusiastic support.  How many of those working class Sanders supporters will switch their allegiance to Tr*mp if their alternative is another Clinton?  Labor will reflexively "endorse" the Democratic candidate, but how well will a former Wal-Mart board member serve Labor's interests, and how many rank-and-file union members will play "follow the leader?"

What will happen if voters, who tend to stick to a single party line on their ballots, fail to return the Senate to Democrats?  Who would Tr*mp nominate to the Supreme Court?  (Nobody has even a vague idea of the answer to that last question.)

Nobody seems to have asked any of the candidates how they might fill jobs like Secretary of the Treasury, chief economic adviser, Chair of the SEC, etc.  Tr*mp, hopelessly ignorant of the actual workings of government, would have to depend on "advice" from the likes of Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions.  Clinton is most likely to return to the charlatans of her husband's "economically successful" administration, meaning more acolytes of Robert Rubin.

Frankly, I think Bernie Sanders is America's best bet, despite the fears of Establishment black, labor, and "liberal" figures.  Compared to Hillary, Bernie is far more likely to win.

Less Evil?

Corporate America doesn't care whether or not blacks get equal justice, nor whether or not women have access to abortion services. It is okay with current immigration law, but wouldn't mind if it got more or less welcoming.  It has made peace with Dodd-Frank, well aware that a law is only as good as its enforcement.

People who plan to "make do" with Hillary Clinton for fear of some ideologue from a dysfunctional Republican party winning the presidency are playing right into corporate America's hands.  If Clinton becomes president, the revolving door between the SEC and Wall Street will remain firmly in place.  Some petty criminals may serve five-year sentences instead of ten, but corporate executives guilty of enormous financial crimes will continue to avoid any threat of jail, paying impressive sounding but realistically negligible fines out of the pockets of stockholders.

Military contractors will continue profiteering as our new president continues to prove her figurative "balls" by encouraging military adventurism.  (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton overcame objections from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to take us on our ill-fated adventure in Libya, and is likely to take us back there again.)

If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I, personally, won't have to decide between her and, say, that little turd Rubio.  I live in New York, so I can keep my conscience clear by voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party (again.  My friends are familiar with my politically incorrect reference to Barack Obama as "Clinton in blackface."  Hillary will be "Obama in a pants suit," only more hawkish.)

In today's Times, Elizabeth Warren stopped short of endorsing Bernie Sanders, but discussed some of the political problems we would continue to face under President Hillary.  It's worth a read.

Demarcating Dems

Last night's debate might have had a real impact on undecided Democratic voters had any of them been watching it.  Somehow, though, I suspect the audience was comprised primarily of persons already committed to either Bernie or Hillary.  Might any of them been swayed towards the other side?  Maybe.  Probably not.

Partisan towards Bernie, I thought my candidate did an excellent job of casting Hillary in the role of toady to the rich, with special emphasis on big banks and big pharma.  Hillary did well portraying Bernie as soft on the NRA; but gun control is far down the list of important issues to most Democrats.  Martin O'Malley (whom I do not believe is angling for a vice-presidential spot) joined in on both attacks, and will be a man to watch in 2020 or 2024.

Is Hillary being honest when she says Bernie wants to "destroy Obamacare?"  No.  He'd like to replace it with a far superior single payer system, but nobody in her right mind could think he wants to first cancel the Affordable Care Act and only then work towards "Medicare for all."  Would Bernie be able to get his ideal single payer system if he were elected?  No, but if nobody even is willing to talk about single payer, it will never become a real possibility.

Bernie stands against kleptocratic plutocracy, which pulls the strings of our alleged "government by the people," and has been with us roughly forever.  Okay, maybe it is inevitable, but that doesn't mean we have to like it, nor just roll over and accept it.

Hillary is a better option than some others — pick any of the Republicans — but she should not go into the election thinking of herself as the ideal Democrat.  (O'Malley is working hard to win that title.  Yes, definitely keep him in mind for the future.)  Personally, I think Bernie actually could win the presidency if matched against many of the Republican contenders.  Maybe he would have a very frustrating one-term presidency, but it would signal an historic shift in American consciousness.

Now that the Republicans are tearing themselves apart, why should the Democrats step in to take on the role of defenders of corporate dominion?  (Answer: so Democratic politicians can dig their hands deeper into the corporate goody bag.)

Another Year Shot to Hell

As 2015 draws to a close, it's hard to find anything redemptive about it.

The Iraqi army seems to be largely in control of the rubble that used to be Ramadi, indicating that the carpet bombing approach endorsed by almost all the Republican candidates for president is not too different from the approach being used by the Obama administration.  A couple of Sunni militias seem to have been involved in the "reconquest," but it remains to be seen whether the Abadi government will turn out to be any less sectarian than the Maliki government.

Tamir Rice's murderer has been cleared by a grand jury under the transparently biased guidance of County Prosecutor T. J. McGinty.  Anybody who's watched the intro to "Law and Order" knows that police and prosecutors are as close as two turds in a toilet.  Cases of potential police abuse should always be handled by outside prosecutors — preferably from outside the state.

The Canadians have started admitting the 25,000 Syrian refugees they plan to accept in the coming year.  Uh oh!  Looks like we'll need a border wall to the north as well as to the south!  (Tr*mp, of course, will make the Canadians pay for it.)

I was looking at my very first post to this blog, from January 2008, and found the following:

     Hillary Clinton says, "Just trust me. My experience as First
     Lady means I understand the change you want even better
     than you do, and I promise to deliver.  It'll be just like when
     Bill was President. You'll be back to drinking lattes and
     making paper fortunes in no time flat!"

     Uh huh. She'll just "change" things back to the way they were
     before Dubya and all your dreams will come true. But what if
     you're like me, and the Clinton Administration made you
     nostalgic for the liberalism of the Nixon  Administration?
     And by the way, just what's the chance of Hillary voluntarily
     giving up those new authoritarian powers Bush/Cheney
     usurped for the presidency? (I'd put it just shy of 0.03%.)

I didn't have much hope for "hope and change" either, and I was right.  Happy New Year.

Catch-up

Russia in Syria
The main question: why?  Is Putin acting for internal Russian consumption, continuing his "strong man" routine?  Is he concerned about losing Russia's naval base?  It's not because he likes Assad — nobody likes Assad.  Maybe he's just decided that since Syria probably is the most fucked-up arena in the world, Russia, hoping to re-establish itself as a "world power," just has to be there.

Initially, it seemed inevitable that Russia only could make the megamess worse, but there is a possibility that Russia might make things better, by sharing some of the responsibility for pumping out the cesspool.  After all, Syria can't get much worse.

Hillary and Benghazi
Yawn.

Migrants
The United States has no valid excuse for admitting so few war refugees, leaving others to shoulder the load.  The idea that we need two years per applicant to filter out potential "terrorists" is nothing but an excuse.  The real motive for the unconscionable rigmarole is xenophobia and racism.

Paul Ryan
Of course.  All the "I don't wanna" was bullshit from word one.  He always had the essential quality: allegiance to the economic policy of soaking the poor to further enrich the rich and pretending it creates "growth."  Despite it's other bizarre obsessions, the Freedom Caucus agrees.

The Primaries
I'm still giving Bernie money, even though it's dead certain now that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, and that Bernie's pulled her about as far to the left as she's ready to go.

In the meanwhile, the Republican field continues to be a total freak show: Ben Carson!?  He makes Trump seem reasonable (and intelligent) by comparison.  Bush, despite all his money, appears to be dead in the water.  Ted Cruz, who is straight-out evil, is moving up — but he's far too ugly to be elected president.  Rubio, the quintessential opportunist but pretty as a picture, may end up the candidate — and, sadly, he might even win.

Brief Takes

Homicide
Cops across the USofA are all in a huff (or, maybe, soiling their underpants) thanks to that indictment of six Baltimore cops in the Freddie Gray killing.  Nobody should be surprised that three are black, and one is a woman — the police mentality/culture is not necessarily racist.  Many cops are people who enjoy having and exercising power over others, and the weaker their victims, the more they enjoy it.  Since poor blacks are, as a group, extraordinarily weak in terms of political power and public support, they make perfect victims.  Maybe smacking down some abusive cops will encourage some of the typical bullies to seek different career paths.

TPP
I'm not all that worried about the Trans-Pacific Partnership sucking more jobs out of the American economy.  I suspect most of the jobs that people worry about losing already have been transferred overseas.  Mostly, I'm concerned about loss of sovereignty.  I don't want multinational corporations suing state and local governments to overturn health and safety regulations that might have negative impact on corporate bottom lines — and since the people negotiating the treaty on "our" behalf are drawn largely from corporate board rooms, it would be nice to know what they've negotiated before giving our corporate-beholden president fast-track authority.

Bernie!
I really would like it if Bernie Sanders actually could become our next president, but, at the very least, he's likely to get Hillary discussing some left/populist issues she'd rather ignore.  Mind you, any commitment a candidate makes on the campaign trail should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.  (I'm still waiting for Obama to close Guantanamo, for example.)  As the old joke goes:
      Q: How do you know if a politician is lying?
      A: His lips are moving.

Candidates

Is Hillary a real person?  Sure.  Everybody's a real person.  Is she the kind of person I'd want to support for President of the USofA?  Not really, but if she ever comes out with some concrete policy positions, I just might feel better or worse about her.  Right now, I'm with Bill DeBlasio, waiting to see if she might (ahem) "clarify" what she's thinking.  Her history would have me believe she's more hawkish than I can accept, and a bit more in the pocket of Wall Street than I'd like.  Needless to say, whatever positions she takes for the campaign will not bind her to any particular positions she takes as president, but that's true of anybody in politics.

While it would be nice if Ted Cruz managed to win the Republican nomination since that would more or less guarantee a Democratic victory next year, I'd much prefer somebody who might push Hillary further left.  Given the yahoos who form the Republican base, Rand Paul doesn't seem to have much of a chance, but given his foreign policy positions, I might even consider voting for him over Hillary (or the third-party candidate I usually wind up supporting here in dependably Democratic New York.)  Tell me though: what is libertarian about opposing abortion and same-sex marriage?  And if, by some miracle, he ended up our next president, would he follow through?  Politics as usual.

If the Republican base had any brains, it would nominate Marco Rubio.  He's good looking, articulate, and smart.  Granted, I don't much care for his positions on, well, anything, but if the GOP is looking for a winner, I think he'd be a better bet than Jeb Bush.

Very Short Subjects

That "Open Letter" to Iran
Sillier and sillier.

Boku Haram "joins" Islamic State
So?

Nemtsov assassination
Chechens?  Really?

Hillary's email
Just order some copies from the NSA.

Deporter in Chief vs. "Friend of Latinos"

Barack Obama, whom I have come to sincerely dislike, has presided over more deportations than any previous President — and by a lot.  Latinos in the USofA, who voted overwhelmingly for Our President in 2012, have started to re-evaluate their support, so Our President now is promising Executive Actions to protect, perhaps, five million of the undocumented.  This is the same President, by the way, who told us he didn't think he had legal authority to do so — and not so long ago.

What can we expect of him?  Based on prior experience, we can expect he'll do as little as possible, while spouting as much "inspirational" bullshit as he can.  Will he insist on legal representation for the child immigrants from Central America claiming asylum but already being deported?  Not likely.  Not much matters to him except the "optics."

Okay, maybe now that the Democrats screwed up the midterms, he'll feel "liberated" to take some tough stances against the right wing crazies — but I'm not counting on it.  He spent too much time at the University of Chicago, home of the Hayekian homeboys, and I suspect he was infected.  May the ghost of John Maynard Keynes haunt him, reminding him that he was pretty much a pussy during the financial crisis, and since.  (Is "pussy" politically incorrect?  Sorry. My reference was to a little cat.)

.....

If the Democrats nominate Hillary in 2016, they'll be offering us just more Bill and Barack.  Let's not forget who teamed with Phil Gramm to overturn Glass-Steagle — not to mention who designed the first pro-corporate "health care reform" based on "free market" principles.  Some on the left are talking about nominating Robert Reich, who has a fantastic intellect.  Just the same, I don't think the USofA is quite ready to be led by a dwarf.  Maybe a woman.  Not a dwarf.

Elizabeth Warren, are you waiting for 2020?  I'm an old man, and I need somebody brilliant and articulate and inspiring and (sorry) kind of hot, NOW!  (I have such a crush on Elizabeth Warren!  She's my ideal woman.)

Anyway, I'm not happy — but when am I happy?  I want my new granddaughter to grow up in a caring, ethical environment.  I can't do much, but I'll do what I can.

Hillary

I suppose you've heard about the Atlantic interview, where Hillary went all hawky and dissed Obama.  Personally, I'm not fond of either one of them, but I'm happier with Obama's foreign policy than Clinton's take.  Minimalism makes a lot of sense to me, after the past thirteen years.

So, I'm trying very hard to think of somebody who might present the Hill with a credible challenge in the Democratic primary.  I like Biden, but I don't think he could win.  I like Warren, but she says she won't run, and she's not a liar.  Still, I think we need a woman this time — I just can't think of whom.

Maureen Dowd, who shares my view of the Clintons (hyperpolitical shitheads), did a very nice "fuck you" column in today's Times.  Still, I don't think we could get Maureen Dowd to run.  Suggestions?

Endorsing Hillary

Clearly, I was not happy when John Edwards tossed in the towel. It's not that often I have a vaguely viable candidate saying the things I want to hear. Paul Krugman tells me Edwards had a genuine impact on both the Clinton and Obama candidacies. I hope he got that right.

So, like a lot of Edwards supporters, I found myself trying to decide between what looked like the black Bill Clinton and the female Bill Clinton. (While I might have a certain admiration for John McCain as an independent thinker, I don't much care for where his independent thoughts might take us.)

I was really torn! Barack or Hillary? (Most often, those internal conflicts ended with, "Well, really, who gives a shit?") For reasons I couldn't put a finger on at the time, I found myself drifting towards Hillary. But why? (I don't easily let myself get away with emotionally based choices -- at least not without some analysis.)

Well, here's what I came up with: of the two remaining Democratic candidates, the one who reminds me more of Bill Clinton is Barack Obama. Since I really don't want another Clinton Administration of the 1990s variety, I'm supporting Hillary. Am I nuts? Maybe. Nevertheless, I believe that Hillary will be less like Bill than Barack -- less style, and more substance. I also think Hillary has the political skills to achieve genuine progressive goals by reaching out to specific Republicans on a bill by bill basis, not by reaching out to the Republican Party, which is still mired in its ideological tar pit.

Anyway, we boomers deserve at least one more presidency -- look how long we had to wait for the World War II crowd to get out of the way! My sincere hope is that somewhere inside Hillary's technocratic armor beats the heart of a sixties idealist; tempered by time and (yes) experience, but not willing to give up the fight.

"Honest, hon, I was just tryin' to help!"

So last week, I was thinking that Hillary was moving away from Bill. Well, maybe I was just hoping. Anyway, Bill came roaring back. Big time.

Maybe Barack would have done just as well in South Carolina if Bill hadn't so completely and irresponsibly screwed up, but I don't think so. Bill Clinton is no dope -- so what happened?

Here's a thought: maybe he wanted to screw up. Not consciously, perhaps, but on some level... (My ex used to accuse me of "passive aggression." I never saw it, of course, and "no dope" is a pretty fair description of me too. It's always easier to see faults in others that you miss in yourself.)

The Clintons have been a successful political partnership for many years, but you have to bet that two such highly competitive people compete with each other too. Sadly, Bill's presidency will be best remembered for a single blowjob. What might Hillary accomplish in the office? Whatever it might be, it's bound to be better than a blowjob.

But wasn't he hurting his own "legacy" as well? Of course! But what the hell -- the things our bloated but vulnerable egos inspire us to do don't always leave us smelling like roses. My advice to Hillary is to stuff Bill in a closet somewhere until the primaries are over -- and, if she wins the primary, to keep him out of the way until after the election. (Maybe he could solve the Middle East problem in his spare time. He'd like that.)

But what if she wins? What can she do with him for four or eight years? The last thing Hillary needs is to have Bill kicking around the White House, getting both of them in trouble.

My suggestion: make him Ambassador to the United Nations. He could stay in the Greater New York area, where he could make use of his house, his offices in Harlem, and an endless supply of chubby Jewish girls. Moreover, he'd probably make a pretty good job of it.