Republicans love to pretend that they have no idea why this country has so much more gun violence than the rest of the world. Of course they know, they just don't want to admit it. To simplify it so there is no misunderstanding, I've put it in the form of a simple formula:
GOP LETS ANYONE BUY AN ASSAULT WEAPON WHO WANTS ONE + ALL THE LETHAL AMMUNITION THEY CAN CARRY + GOP ENCOURAGES THESE PEOPLE TO HATE OTHER AMERICANS = CARNAGE
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Tuesday, July 30, 2019
The Trump Type
I always get a kick out of articles that speculate on Trump's mental state. Is he a madman? Insane? Unhinged? An evil genius? In the final stage of terminal syphilis? Okay, I made that last one up. I'm amused at these articles, because evidently, his type of human being is completely outside the daily experience of the authors, so, they assume he must be a person of unique, beyond-the-pale attributes.
As for me, someone who lives and works in the middle of Trump country, the only way I can imagine not having met someone like him is if you spend every waking hour engaged in some combination of working from home; working for a liberal newspaper; working for a liberal magazine; or drinking expensive coffee drinks in a cafe in an upscale urban neighborhood. Because if you've ever worked in a normal public or private sector job, or played on a recreational-league softball team, or been to any sporting event, or if you have family, or if you have friends, then you have to have met some Trump types at some point.
They typically are men, white, Republican, have some college, and work at jobs that require talent in being both a salesman and a con man: fields such as insurance, real estate, financial investments. Now these are legal professions to be sure, but the most successful practitioners often seem to be those who blur the boundaries between lawful practice and scams. And, sometimes, the most successful are individuals who cross the line completely into illegality but are clever enough not to get caught, or if they do get caught, are able to escape punishment.
These individuals, like Trump, tend to provide well for their families, even though the ability to do so primarily comes at the expense of victims of their cons. And, also, like Trump, their success and ability to sell themselves can result in a large contingent of friends and acquaintances hanging around them, usually including some who have been conned by them, but value being part of the group too much to leave.
Based upon my observations from the heart of Trumpland, if any one of these numerous Trump-type individuals were to be elected president, we would have much the same administration as we have now. There would be the same ignorance of anything outside the president's area of expertise - namely selling and conning; the same lack of principles, ethics, and anything resembling a coherent world view or personal philosophy; the same lack of empathy for anyone other than family members; the same disdain for anyone who doesn't contribute to the president's personal wealth; the same willingness to lie, cheat, and steal from anyone and everyone; and the same lack of self awareness that there is anything wrong with any of this behavior.
That one of these Trump-types was elected President of the United States says less about Trump than it does about those who voted for him. Just as they voted for Bush Junior because he seemed to be like them, the kind of guy you could have a beer with, they voted for, and continue to support, Trump because he, too, is like them. Smart people vote for smart candidates. Honest people vote for honest candidates. Compassionate people vote for compassionate candidates. On the other hand, dumb people vote for dumb candidates. Racist people vote for racist candidates. Deplorable people vote for deplorable candidates who take advantage of them more than any other group. Unfortunately, the rest of us must pay for their stupidity right along with them.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
.
As for me, someone who lives and works in the middle of Trump country, the only way I can imagine not having met someone like him is if you spend every waking hour engaged in some combination of working from home; working for a liberal newspaper; working for a liberal magazine; or drinking expensive coffee drinks in a cafe in an upscale urban neighborhood. Because if you've ever worked in a normal public or private sector job, or played on a recreational-league softball team, or been to any sporting event, or if you have family, or if you have friends, then you have to have met some Trump types at some point.
They typically are men, white, Republican, have some college, and work at jobs that require talent in being both a salesman and a con man: fields such as insurance, real estate, financial investments. Now these are legal professions to be sure, but the most successful practitioners often seem to be those who blur the boundaries between lawful practice and scams. And, sometimes, the most successful are individuals who cross the line completely into illegality but are clever enough not to get caught, or if they do get caught, are able to escape punishment.
These individuals, like Trump, tend to provide well for their families, even though the ability to do so primarily comes at the expense of victims of their cons. And, also, like Trump, their success and ability to sell themselves can result in a large contingent of friends and acquaintances hanging around them, usually including some who have been conned by them, but value being part of the group too much to leave.
Based upon my observations from the heart of Trumpland, if any one of these numerous Trump-type individuals were to be elected president, we would have much the same administration as we have now. There would be the same ignorance of anything outside the president's area of expertise - namely selling and conning; the same lack of principles, ethics, and anything resembling a coherent world view or personal philosophy; the same lack of empathy for anyone other than family members; the same disdain for anyone who doesn't contribute to the president's personal wealth; the same willingness to lie, cheat, and steal from anyone and everyone; and the same lack of self awareness that there is anything wrong with any of this behavior.
That one of these Trump-types was elected President of the United States says less about Trump than it does about those who voted for him. Just as they voted for Bush Junior because he seemed to be like them, the kind of guy you could have a beer with, they voted for, and continue to support, Trump because he, too, is like them. Smart people vote for smart candidates. Honest people vote for honest candidates. Compassionate people vote for compassionate candidates. On the other hand, dumb people vote for dumb candidates. Racist people vote for racist candidates. Deplorable people vote for deplorable candidates who take advantage of them more than any other group. Unfortunately, the rest of us must pay for their stupidity right along with them.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Shutdown
I'm always amazed when Democrats are perceived to have won government shutdown battles of the past. And they've won all of them if my memory is correct, at least in the sense that Republicans have never gotten their way by shutting down the government by refusing to fund its operation.
Of course, no one really wins when the government shuts down. Everyone loses, but primarily federal employees who lose their source of income, which means they lose the ability to feed, clothe and house their families. Other big losers are the millions that directly depend on services provided by the federal government in order to survive, and all the rest of us who depend on the safety of the food we eat, the medicine we take, and the air we breathe.
The problem for Democrats in the shutdown battles is that they care about the suffering of all these people and Republicans don't. A simplistic statement, I know, but true nevertheless. Oh, an individual Republican will care if they know a person who suffers because a federal program ceases to operate, but in addition to not caring about anyone they don't know personally, Republicans possess the ability to rationalize away facts they find unpleasant. So, for them, any suffering endured by them, their friends or family, is the fault of Democrats, even if clearly the fault of Republicans.
Democrats lack this ability to twist reality into the form they wish it to be, and are at an even greater disadvantage by caring about the millions of fellow Americans who suffer during a shutdown. The primal impulse for Democrats is to alleviate suffering if they can, while Republicans, recognizing and scorning this Democratic characteristic, are only too happy to use it against them.
In a hostage situation, which is how Republicans view shutdowns, the negotiating party at the greatest disadvantage is the one that cares about the hostages the most. Democrats suffer along with the victims; Republicans gloat at their suffering.
Given this Democratic disadvantage, it's a wonder that Republicans don't get their way every time there is a shutdown. The only reason they don't is that their objectives are always odious to a majority of Americans, such as taking away affordable health care, or building a thirty foot wall along the southern border.
It is a measure of just how corrupt and venal the Republican party is that they cannot get their way during shutdowns given the huge negotiating advantage they have. So, while things look bleak, I guess there's that.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Of course, no one really wins when the government shuts down. Everyone loses, but primarily federal employees who lose their source of income, which means they lose the ability to feed, clothe and house their families. Other big losers are the millions that directly depend on services provided by the federal government in order to survive, and all the rest of us who depend on the safety of the food we eat, the medicine we take, and the air we breathe.
The problem for Democrats in the shutdown battles is that they care about the suffering of all these people and Republicans don't. A simplistic statement, I know, but true nevertheless. Oh, an individual Republican will care if they know a person who suffers because a federal program ceases to operate, but in addition to not caring about anyone they don't know personally, Republicans possess the ability to rationalize away facts they find unpleasant. So, for them, any suffering endured by them, their friends or family, is the fault of Democrats, even if clearly the fault of Republicans.
Democrats lack this ability to twist reality into the form they wish it to be, and are at an even greater disadvantage by caring about the millions of fellow Americans who suffer during a shutdown. The primal impulse for Democrats is to alleviate suffering if they can, while Republicans, recognizing and scorning this Democratic characteristic, are only too happy to use it against them.
In a hostage situation, which is how Republicans view shutdowns, the negotiating party at the greatest disadvantage is the one that cares about the hostages the most. Democrats suffer along with the victims; Republicans gloat at their suffering.
Given this Democratic disadvantage, it's a wonder that Republicans don't get their way every time there is a shutdown. The only reason they don't is that their objectives are always odious to a majority of Americans, such as taking away affordable health care, or building a thirty foot wall along the southern border.
It is a measure of just how corrupt and venal the Republican party is that they cannot get their way during shutdowns given the huge negotiating advantage they have. So, while things look bleak, I guess there's that.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Monday, April 23, 2018
The Problem with Tariffs
Placing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum is just as dumb as all the other Republican ideas, economic and everything else. You'd think they would stumble on a good idea once in awhile by accident, but it never happens.
The way the world grows wealthier through global trade is that poorer countries mine their natural resources like coal, iron ore, and bauxite, or purchase them from other poor countries, and use their unskilled labor to produce steel and aluminum to sell to richer countries which use their skilled labor and industrial technology to turn the aluminum and steel into value-added products like cars and appliances which they sell to their fellow countrymen and export to the citizens of poor countries which have money to buy the products made in rich countries because they have jobs mining minerals and making steel and aluminum.
So, eventually poor countries become rich and their work force becomes educated and their technology advances, and they begin to make cars and appliances, but because their younger work force will work for cheaper wages, their cars and appliances are cheaper, so the richer countries move on to making even more value-added products like airplanes, spacecraft, robots, electromagnetic trains, and products not yet invented.
This is the way global capitalism works until one of the wealthy countries screws things up the way America is doing now under the leadership of Republicans.
Instead of improving our infrastructure, supporting research that will create technological advances, and investing in workforce training and education, Republicans are siphoning off trillions of national income to make the wealthy wealthier. And to further exacerbate the damage, they have decided to support, by placing tariffs on imports, dangerous, polluting, low- tech, low-wage jobs in mineral extraction and aluminum and steel making - jobs that the American economy moved on from decades ago.
It makes no sense until you look at it through the lens of Republican economic policy, which places no value on America moving forward into new realms of high tech, high-wage jobs in new, exciting, clean industries of the future. Instead, old, dirty, dangerous jobs of the past will do just fine, as long as the natural order is preserved and the rich get richer as the poor get poorer.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
The way the world grows wealthier through global trade is that poorer countries mine their natural resources like coal, iron ore, and bauxite, or purchase them from other poor countries, and use their unskilled labor to produce steel and aluminum to sell to richer countries which use their skilled labor and industrial technology to turn the aluminum and steel into value-added products like cars and appliances which they sell to their fellow countrymen and export to the citizens of poor countries which have money to buy the products made in rich countries because they have jobs mining minerals and making steel and aluminum.
So, eventually poor countries become rich and their work force becomes educated and their technology advances, and they begin to make cars and appliances, but because their younger work force will work for cheaper wages, their cars and appliances are cheaper, so the richer countries move on to making even more value-added products like airplanes, spacecraft, robots, electromagnetic trains, and products not yet invented.
This is the way global capitalism works until one of the wealthy countries screws things up the way America is doing now under the leadership of Republicans.
Instead of improving our infrastructure, supporting research that will create technological advances, and investing in workforce training and education, Republicans are siphoning off trillions of national income to make the wealthy wealthier. And to further exacerbate the damage, they have decided to support, by placing tariffs on imports, dangerous, polluting, low- tech, low-wage jobs in mineral extraction and aluminum and steel making - jobs that the American economy moved on from decades ago.
It makes no sense until you look at it through the lens of Republican economic policy, which places no value on America moving forward into new realms of high tech, high-wage jobs in new, exciting, clean industries of the future. Instead, old, dirty, dangerous jobs of the past will do just fine, as long as the natural order is preserved and the rich get richer as the poor get poorer.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Friday, March 23, 2018
Republican Tax "Reform" 2018
I put Reform in quotation marks in the title, because that word has a different meaning to Republicans than to the rest of us. To them, tax reform consists of cutting taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals. Oh, they will throw in a few minor cuts to the middle class as a bribe, but they evidently think middle class voters can be bought cheaply, since the sources I read reported that approximately 85% of the benefits of the"reform" go to the wealthy, none goes to the poor, and the paltry amount that goes to the middle class disappears in ten years.
Now, I'm not completely sure these numbers are accurate, but I accept they are, since they conform with my observations of Republican fiscal policy over the years. In fact, transferring as much wealth as possible from 99% of Americans to the top 1%, pretty much sums up Republican public policy in total. Everything else is ancillary to that.
No one should be curious as to why the incoming Bush Jr. administration took no action on the warnings of a major terrorist attack that had been relayed to them by the outgoing Clinton administration. They were concentrating on their policy priority: tax cuts for the wealthy. If you remember, prior to the 2000 election, Bush was trying to buy the election by saying that since the economy was doing so well, the country could afford a tax cut for everyone. Of course, what he really meant was a big tax cut for the wealthy and a much smaller one for the middle class, but, hey, those are just details. We're supposed to hear "tax cut" and leave it at that. But then, when the economy slowed down soon after taking office, the Bush Jr. administration had to switch gears and justify a tax cut for the wealthy which was needed in order to rejuvenate the economy. Changing gears so quickly regarding such an important issue left no time for such non-revenue-producing matters as national security.
In order to sell tax cuts to those who benefit from them little or not at all, which is 99%of the population, Republicans, over the years, have created myths which they promulgate widely and often. Each of these myths has been shown to be demonstrably false, but Republicans never let an inconsequential thing like the truth stand in the way of getting richer.
Myth 1: Tax Cuts for the Rich Pay for Themselves. It's a lie. Always has been a lie, always will be a lie. But claiming that cutting taxes for the rich actually generates more overall tax revenue is so appealing to Republicans that they can't resist it, so they keep repeating it over and over, evidently with the belief that if they really and truly believe it, someday it will magically come true.
Myth 2: Tax Cuts for the Rich Jumpstart the Economy. The opposite is actually true. Tax cuts for the poor and middle class ignite the economy, because most of it is spent on things they need, and a little on things they want. The rich already have everything they need and most of what they want, so tax cuts for them just make them richer.
Myth 3: Tax Cuts for the Rich Create Jobs. When Republicans are forced to admit the obvious, that their tax cuts are for the benefit of the rich, they respond by claiming that everyone else benefits because the rich are "job creators". This makes no more sense than any of the other conservative economic principles. Corporations and rich individuals don't create jobs when they are handed more money; jobs are created by demand. When poor and middle class families have money, they buy goods and services. In response, existing businesses expand and new businesses are created.
The reality is that the American economy needed no tax cut stimulus after Trump took office. It was already humming along nicely, thanks to Democratic efforts after the Republicans almost managed to wreck the entire world economy in 2008. Now would have been the time to run a surplus and start to pay down our national debt. But the only reality Republicans recognize is the need for the rich to get richer, even if that means everyone else must get poorer.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Now, I'm not completely sure these numbers are accurate, but I accept they are, since they conform with my observations of Republican fiscal policy over the years. In fact, transferring as much wealth as possible from 99% of Americans to the top 1%, pretty much sums up Republican public policy in total. Everything else is ancillary to that.
No one should be curious as to why the incoming Bush Jr. administration took no action on the warnings of a major terrorist attack that had been relayed to them by the outgoing Clinton administration. They were concentrating on their policy priority: tax cuts for the wealthy. If you remember, prior to the 2000 election, Bush was trying to buy the election by saying that since the economy was doing so well, the country could afford a tax cut for everyone. Of course, what he really meant was a big tax cut for the wealthy and a much smaller one for the middle class, but, hey, those are just details. We're supposed to hear "tax cut" and leave it at that. But then, when the economy slowed down soon after taking office, the Bush Jr. administration had to switch gears and justify a tax cut for the wealthy which was needed in order to rejuvenate the economy. Changing gears so quickly regarding such an important issue left no time for such non-revenue-producing matters as national security.
In order to sell tax cuts to those who benefit from them little or not at all, which is 99%of the population, Republicans, over the years, have created myths which they promulgate widely and often. Each of these myths has been shown to be demonstrably false, but Republicans never let an inconsequential thing like the truth stand in the way of getting richer.
Myth 1: Tax Cuts for the Rich Pay for Themselves. It's a lie. Always has been a lie, always will be a lie. But claiming that cutting taxes for the rich actually generates more overall tax revenue is so appealing to Republicans that they can't resist it, so they keep repeating it over and over, evidently with the belief that if they really and truly believe it, someday it will magically come true.
Myth 2: Tax Cuts for the Rich Jumpstart the Economy. The opposite is actually true. Tax cuts for the poor and middle class ignite the economy, because most of it is spent on things they need, and a little on things they want. The rich already have everything they need and most of what they want, so tax cuts for them just make them richer.
Myth 3: Tax Cuts for the Rich Create Jobs. When Republicans are forced to admit the obvious, that their tax cuts are for the benefit of the rich, they respond by claiming that everyone else benefits because the rich are "job creators". This makes no more sense than any of the other conservative economic principles. Corporations and rich individuals don't create jobs when they are handed more money; jobs are created by demand. When poor and middle class families have money, they buy goods and services. In response, existing businesses expand and new businesses are created.
The reality is that the American economy needed no tax cut stimulus after Trump took office. It was already humming along nicely, thanks to Democratic efforts after the Republicans almost managed to wreck the entire world economy in 2008. Now would have been the time to run a surplus and start to pay down our national debt. But the only reality Republicans recognize is the need for the rich to get richer, even if that means everyone else must get poorer.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
The Obama Portraits
Here is one way to look at the portraits of Barack and Michelle: If you are only familiar with classical music, then jazz is going to sound mighty strange. But if you listen to classical and jazz treatments of the same song, you begin to discern the similarities and the differences, and can appreciate that both are valid interpretations of the same reality.
Let's say that the portrait paintings that most of us have seen in museums, in galleries, in historic homes, in courthouses and state capitols, are classical in nature; that is, to the greatest extent that the artist is capable, they are realistic interpretations of the likeness of the subject of the painting, and their quality is judged on how readily the subject can be identified.
A jazz interpretation, however, while similar in essence, might be very different in execution. When people say "It doesn't look like Michelle," they are referring to the lack of classical familiarity. What about a jazz interpretation, though, as when a jazz musician riffs on a familiar musical theme? Does this portrait communicate something about its subject on a different level than physical likeness? Can you see a truer likeness of Michelle in this painting than in a portrait that looks like a photograph, in the same way that Van Gogh's self-portrait looked very little like him, and at the same time, very much like him? Does the painting make you say, "Now that is Michelle," even more than a photograph of Michelle would?
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Let's say that the portrait paintings that most of us have seen in museums, in galleries, in historic homes, in courthouses and state capitols, are classical in nature; that is, to the greatest extent that the artist is capable, they are realistic interpretations of the likeness of the subject of the painting, and their quality is judged on how readily the subject can be identified.
A jazz interpretation, however, while similar in essence, might be very different in execution. When people say "It doesn't look like Michelle," they are referring to the lack of classical familiarity. What about a jazz interpretation, though, as when a jazz musician riffs on a familiar musical theme? Does this portrait communicate something about its subject on a different level than physical likeness? Can you see a truer likeness of Michelle in this painting than in a portrait that looks like a photograph, in the same way that Van Gogh's self-portrait looked very little like him, and at the same time, very much like him? Does the painting make you say, "Now that is Michelle," even more than a photograph of Michelle would?
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Monday, November 20, 2017
Bill Clinton
In light of recent news about prominent men being accused of sexual assault and abuse, I think back to the Bill Clinton days. Then, as now, Republicans were dishonest and hypocritical. Now, they criticize any man on the left outed as being an abuser and remain silent on the same behavior from the right. When forced to comment on one of their own, they typically choose to withhold judgement until all the facts are in, secure in knowing that there could never be enough facts presented to force them give an honest assessment.
Back then, it was the same. I remember the day I heard the name Monica Lewinski,White House intern, and what Bill was accused of. Even though I was a committed Democrat and a Clinton admirer, my first thought was that he should resign the presidency. And I believe many others who voted for him thought the same.
But over succeeding months, that changed as Republicans used a special prosecutor and an investigation into a real estate deal in Arkansas to move toward impeaching him for lying about his encounters with Ms. Lewinski. If they had been honest, and made the case that his actions with her, and the other women that came forward, disqualified him to lead the nation, I, and a lot of other Democrats would have agreed with them and he might have been forced to leave office. But they weren't honest of course, and they tried to convince the country that they were moral champions of decency and to impeach him for lying about his affair was the righteous thing to do. Only Republicans bought that charade and he remained in office for a full second term.
Whether his behavior with Ms. Lewinski or any of the other women could be classified as assault or abuse I don't know, since there wasn't much of an honest investigation by legal authorities or legitimate media into the incidents. But from what I know, Trump's activities with women were a lot more heinous than Bill's. Republicans did then what they're doing now: covering up their own misdeeds and trying to criminalize the same actions by their opponents. I'm not sure if not having the capacity to recognize your own hypocrisy is a prerequisite of becoming a Republican, or if that ability is lost over time, but it is a constant with them.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Back then, it was the same. I remember the day I heard the name Monica Lewinski,White House intern, and what Bill was accused of. Even though I was a committed Democrat and a Clinton admirer, my first thought was that he should resign the presidency. And I believe many others who voted for him thought the same.
But over succeeding months, that changed as Republicans used a special prosecutor and an investigation into a real estate deal in Arkansas to move toward impeaching him for lying about his encounters with Ms. Lewinski. If they had been honest, and made the case that his actions with her, and the other women that came forward, disqualified him to lead the nation, I, and a lot of other Democrats would have agreed with them and he might have been forced to leave office. But they weren't honest of course, and they tried to convince the country that they were moral champions of decency and to impeach him for lying about his affair was the righteous thing to do. Only Republicans bought that charade and he remained in office for a full second term.
Whether his behavior with Ms. Lewinski or any of the other women could be classified as assault or abuse I don't know, since there wasn't much of an honest investigation by legal authorities or legitimate media into the incidents. But from what I know, Trump's activities with women were a lot more heinous than Bill's. Republicans did then what they're doing now: covering up their own misdeeds and trying to criminalize the same actions by their opponents. I'm not sure if not having the capacity to recognize your own hypocrisy is a prerequisite of becoming a Republican, or if that ability is lost over time, but it is a constant with them.
There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)