Only millenials can save us

In the middle of the #MeToo era, our two major party choices for president are an old man credibly accused of sexual assault and possessing a history of bad conduct toward women and another old man credibly accused of sexual assault and possessing a history of bad conduct toward women.

I really can't imagine why young people have so little faith in the current lesser of two evils political system that their elders - which includes my Generation X - continue to prop up.

Young people are the only generation that seems to have a clue about the transformations that need to happen and the backbone to see it through. To my eyes, this is pretty much beyond debate.

They know that needed changes have been obstructed for so long that sclerotic incrementalism - itself deemed too radical and intemperate for most of the last quarter century - is no longer a credible option for the major challenges we face. They actually realize what has been clear to me for decades: the longer we kick the can down the road, the more disruptive and less effective the changes will be. If the country and the world are going to be saved, it's going to be by them. Just hope it's not too late.

Donald Trump will be your president. It's up to you to make sure he knows that.

Donald Trump will be my president in a few months. Just as Barack Obama will be my president until then. This is true even though I never voted for either of them.

There is a very simple reason for this.

If he is not my president, he owes me nothing.

If he is my president, then he is my public SERVANT. If he is my president, then he has the obligation to represent me. If he is my president, then I have standing to hold his rear end accountable and his administration's if he doesn't. If he is my president and I don't think he's doing a good job, I can try to get him fired in four years.

He will be the president of ALL Americans in a few months, whether he likes it or not. He needs to be reminded of that. Don't give him and his team an excuse to do otherwise.

He will be your president. It's up to you to make sure of that.

Trump, not Sanders, is the candidate for the entitled generation

Sen. Bernie Sanders promotes taxpayer-funded college so that students can earn a degree, EARN a living, pay taxes and contribute to the system, rather than live off social programs. And he's the candidate of the entitled?

Sorry, but Donald Trump is the spoiled brat. Don't get what you want? Don't like the well-established rules? Just throw a temper tantrum and bait your supporters into doing the same. Try to intimidate the judges. Compare your critics to ISIS (but then claim you don't want them hurt). And enable this entitlement by paying the legal bills of thugs who break the law as long as they support your candidate. Trump is an entitled brat for the entitled brat demographic.

Oh and if building a wall and expecting someone else to pay for isn't 'socialism,' then I don't know what is.

Hillary Clinton's Al Gore problem

Even aside from propping up the oligarchy, purely as a campaigner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to have two of the same problems as then Vice-President Al Gore did in 2000.

The first is that she, and her supporters, give the impression that she thinks she is owed victory, simply because it's her turn. When the fate of people who work for a living is center stage, coming across as entitled is bad politics.

Outrageously offensive comments by feminist icon Gloria Steinem and another former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, both supporters of Mrs. Clinton, illustrate that. Both are upset that young women overwhelmingly support Clinton's primary opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders. Steinem said that young women only supported Sanders to get boys. Albright said that a "special place in hell" was reserved for females who supported Clinton's opponent (some argue that there's a special place in hell reserved for Albright herself).

Their "feminist" message is that young women should shut up, turn their brains off and do what their (feminist) elders command them to. Does their idea of feminism want to replace patriarchy with matriarchy or with meritocracy? Seems like they are hijacking feminism to push their partisan agendas.

The second, and it's really related to the first, is that Clinton and Gore both suffer from what the French call syndrome de premier de classe, the smartest kid in the room syndrome. They are both extremely intelligent people. They think that alone is enough.

Being intelligent and well-versed on key issues is very important to being president. We've seen the disaster of presidents who aren't and end up being manipulated by their inner circle.

At the same time, we've also seen extremely intelligent presidents get themselves into trouble because either they were borderline sociopaths (Nixon) or they grew up thinking their intelligence gave them impunity (Bill Clinton).

Politics and governing are not school exams where the smartest person always come out on top. But politics does have one similarity with school: no one likes the person who thinks they're entitled.

Who's not welcome in Emperor Andrew's New York

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been in hot water lately for his administration's apparent role in a bridge closure debacle and its alleged role in denying disaster aid to a mayor, both based on a political grudge.

  

New York's own Andrew Cuomo has the same arrogance problem as Christie. It makes you wonder when Cuomo’s Bridgegate will explode.

Just last Friday, Emperor Andrew told the public broadcasting show Capital Pressroom, speaking of conservative Republicans, “Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” Not surprisingly, he quickly ran away from his reckless words.

Readers of this blog know that I am as harshly critical as anybody of right-wingers and their extreme positions. But to suggest they should be purged* from the state is pompous and despicable. Not quite as despicable as blaming autism and dementia on anti-bigotry efforts, but highly irresponsible for someone with presidential aspirations.

People have criticized me for describing him as Emperor Andrew. But until he realizes that his job is to represent all New Yorkers, including the ones he would rather discard, then the label will fit.

(*-I’m not suggesting Cuomo would actually engage in the sort of actual purge that Vladimir Putin is stirring up in Russia or Goodluck Jonathan in Nigeria. But when you say they have ‘no place in the state,’ it is leaves just enough rom for interpretation.)

The 'two party' system in one cartoon

This cartoon succinctly encapsulates our two (corporate) party system. They are not identical... the speed at which you will be devoured by the predators may vary slightly... but the final result is the same.

pic.twitter.com/Mqfmg6EhvU

— Wake Up America (@WakeUp__America) January 8, 2014

America won’t go bankrupt just because Barack Obama got re-elected...

... and if it does, it’ll be the consequence of very bipartisan efforts.

Here’s a little reality check for all the hysteria out there I’ve seen.

Democrats will continue to control the presidency and the US Senate.

Republicans will continue to control the US House, almost 60% of the governorships and, quite significantly, almost 65% of the state legislative chambers.

We’re not suddenly lurching toward a Democratic Party dictatorship. The two corporate controlled parties have a pretty good split on power amongst themselves. 

(And if you believe Republicans and Democrats are two different social issues-based factions of the same corporate-controlled party, then it’s been that way since Clinton’s reign. Obama’s re-election changes this in no way.)

To all the people who didn’t care about the debt/deficit during Bush’s reign and suddenly got all worked up once a Democrat entered the White House, here’s a little reminder of 8^th grade social studies.

All federal spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.

The president can submit a budget but it’s nothing more than a suggestion. No budgets get passed without the approval of the House. The House will remain comfortably controlled by... Republicans.

The national debt increased from nothing to a little under $5 trillion in the 220 or so years leading up to 1995. Though it started increasing consistently during the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

Since 1995, the national debt has increased by $12 trillion in a mere 18 years.

The Republicans have controlled the House for 14 of those 18 years. The Democrats have controlled the presidency for 10 of those 18 years.

So if you think the debt is a problem, it’s a problem that resulted out of that most sainted of actions: bipartisanship.

If the nation goes bankrupt, which it wouldn’t if we had rational military spending (another sensible idea blocked by bipartisanship), it won’t be because Pres. Obama and the Democrats did it by themselves.

I was wrong: people really are content with our political system

Looks like it's time for a mea culpa.

It seems Americans are overwhelmingly content with how our political system is functioning.

I believe there were only four candidates who were on the ballot in enough states to form an electoral college majority. Democrat Obama, Republican Romney, Green Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson.

If you wanted a candidate who represented real human beings (presuming you didn't consider corporations to be such), if you wanted someone who opposed militarism and if you wanted someone who opposed corporate control of government, there were only two choices: Stein and Johnson. They were very different candidates but they were the only candidates who were pushing those fundamental conditions needed to make America into a true republican democracy.

I thought the time was right for a decent smaller party showing. People were very lukewarm about Obama and Romney. The last few years saw some very significant grassroots movements in the Tea Party (which we forget really was grassroots originally before it was hijacked by the far right money machine), by Occupy movement and the Ron Paul insurgency inside the Republican Party. This was anti-establishment discontent we hadn't seen since the days of the Vietnam aggression. Johnson and Stein were two very active, substantive candidates. They were aggressive in their use of social media (whose influence on politics is vastly overstated but in the face of a media blacklist, it was the best they could do). Each represented a significant demographic: true small government advocates dissatisfied with Republican hypocrisy on the issue and progressives disillusioned with Obama's complete abandonment of their agenda. I knew the media blacklist would be a significant barrier but I still Johnson and Stein had a reasonable shot to get 5 or 6 percent of the vote between them.

They actually combined to get 1.3 percent of the vote; all smaller candidates only combined for 2 percent. Now, 1.3 and 2 percents were orders of magnitude greater than the amount of media coverage they received, but it was still only 2 percent who voted for real change of some sort or other to our political system. 

Thus 98 percent of voters voted to fundamentally preserve the status quo.

Americans complain about divided government but elected another divided government.

Congress has an approval rating of 21 percent but 90-something percent of incumbents were re-elected, as is usually the case.

People complain about both Democrats and Republicans but over 99 percent of members of Congress will be of those two parties.

Everything bad piece of public policy Americans complain about was enacted by Republicans, Democrats or, more often, both. Every 'onerous tax,' every 'job killing regulation,' every billion wasted on corporate welfare, every war of aggression that you complain about was enacted by one or both of the parties supported by 98 percent of the voters.

From this, I can draw one of two conclusions. Either Americans are actually fairly satisfied with the functioning of our political system or they are unhappy but aren't really interested in doing anything about it. Either way, the incessant whining is not compatible with either of these two options. If you're happy, why are you whining? If you're unhappy, then go beyond whining and try to do something about it.

I was wrong. I believed people when they said they wanted certain things or held certain values. But I guess was wrong to assume they'd vote for those things or values. And of course, some truly did. But from what I can tell, most didn't. Most voted against a candidate, not for one. That's their prerogative. And I'd be wrong to say I don't understand the reasoning. But I simply fail to see how change will every happen if only 2 percent of the people are willing to make it happen. 

Or maybe they really don't want it to happen. Maybe they are not interested in any sort of real change on the federal level. So be it. I accept that's democracy. Just quit whining when you get what you choose.

Now people need to take the next step and quit whining about what they don't want or are not willing to change.

Clinton-worship sad indictment of modern Democrats

It’s sad, yet telling statement about the modern Democratic Party that the most popular politician among its faithful remains Bill Clinton, the guy who jettisoned what remained of the party’s progressive roots and sold it out to the highest corporate bidders.

He babbled on about ‘patience’ but it’s a lot easier to make argument when you make hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop for a single speaking gig.

And while partisans may have selective memories, it’s worth remembering that the reckless deregulation that facilitated the 2008 economic crash was signed not by an evil Republican but by a Democratic president... one William Jefferson Clinton.

The purpose of voting

"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene V. Debs

The 'suffocating, self-imposed conformity' of political reporters

The Common Dreams website ran a great essay on the stultifying reporting (not to be confused with journalism) of the presidential campaigns. It describes the corporate media's 'suffocating, self-imposed conformity of reporters and commentators' which results in an obsession with tactics and particularly the facile horse race/polling punditry - all at the expense of serious, issue-based journalism. The conscious blacklisting of smaller party and independent candidates is also mentioned.

The cost of a 'part-time' legislature

New York legislators have to be among the most well-paid 'part-time' workers in the world. 

(They insist they are 'part-time' as an excuse to avoid conflict-of-interest disclosure laws that might reveal their leve of corruption). 

Legislators receive a base salary of $79,500 for 62 scheduled work days in Albany, plus more if they chair committees or serve in leadership posts. 

Yes, I know they do some work in their districts but this base salary works out to nearly $1300 a day of the legislative session. Plus, they get a $165 per diem for every day of the legislative session they are in Albany (or, apparently, even if they’re not).

If the state is only run by three people -- the Assembly speaker, the Senate majority leader and governor -- as many rank-and-file legislators complain, then why do we need the other 210 legislators at $1465 a day per member?

But apparently $1465 a day isn't enough. These part-timers want a pay raise.

Polls show we're not doing our job

This morning, North Country Public Radio just did a news brief, about 30-ish seconds, about (what else) a pol -- this time,l showing that hardly any New Yorkers knew anything about the primary challengers to NY Democratic US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. I have heard similar polls relating to Massachussetts' Democratic US senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's primary challengers. Is it possible that this is because the mainstream media refuses to do any actual reporting on said primary challengers?

Why America needs multipartyism

The Liberal Ironist had an essay on the origins of partisanship in Washington. Like most analyses, it seems to be based on the erroneous premise that there was little or no partisanship in Washington prior to the 1990s. Anyone actually familiar with American history knows there have been several times when the country and the Congress have been far more bitterly divided than it is now: the late 18th/early 19th century, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Vietnam years.

The current hyperpartisanship is really the result of the convergence of the two major political parties on economic issues. Since Reagan's reign, BOTH major parties have veered sharply to the right on economic issues. And while liberals comfort themselves by blaming Republicans, even Democratic presidents have pushed the conservative economic orthodoxy of deficit reduction, tax cuts, heavy cuts to social services and the fraud mislabeled “free trade.”

Because the two parties have so heavily converged on economic issues, the only real difference remaining between them is on social issues. Since this is really only a small handful of issues – primarily whether gays, women and Hispanics deserve to be treated as human beings or deserve to be treated by 14th century standards – the two parties play these up to the hilt. 

It's called the psychosis of small differences. They already agree on so much, they can't compromise on the few things they disagree with or else they will be completely identical. The illusion of choice in our corporatacracy depends upon these few differences being hyped up as much as possible so as to rally the bases.

You now have a Democratic president who’s campaigning on his health insurance scheme... a scheme originally conceived and implemented by his Republican opponent... who’s now attacking what he created. 

I can’t think of anything that demonstrates the convergence (as well as the cowardice, corruption and intellectual bankruptcy) of the two corporate parties more perfectly. The Democrats have become Republicans. And the Republicans have become Medievalists. What's a rational voter to do? Follow Albert Einstein's advice and avoid the insanity of "doing the same thing over and over but expecting  different results."

Vote for smaller party and independent candidates, like Dr. Jill Stein. At the bare minimum, inform yourself about candidates from outside the two corporate parties. This will take some work, since the corporate media tends to blacklist them, but it's worth the effort.

The US is probably the only democracy in the world with so few (two) parties represented in their national legislature – even in democratic paragons like Russia and Zimbabwe have at least three. This won’t solve all the problems. But clearly, fresh ideas and approaches are needed and the Republicans and Democrats are not interested.

I meant every one of those unprofessional words I claim to be apologizing for

The boring fake apology of the typical public figure goes something like this: “I apologize to anyone who might have been offended by my comment/action.”

But the town supervisor in Hartford (NY), who thinks government meetings are prayer sessions, tried the less common defiant fake apology.

 I can’t link to it, due to the daily’s new pay wall, but here’s The Post-Star account of a heated Washington County board of supervisors argument over the potential sale of a county asset:

 "You’re nothing but a bunchy of pimps, prostituting land in the name of money," Hartford supervisor Dana Haff shouted to his peers. 

[...] 

"You guys have screwed Hartford for 20 years because it makes you feel good," he screamed, while pointing his finger in the face of Dresden Supervisor Bob Banks. 

Haff, in a comment on the Post-Star website later Tuesday, apologized for "unprofessional" use of "unvarnished, salty language," adding he "meant every word."

NYS budget observers 'heartened' by secrecy

There’s something appropriate about the fact that the New York state budget is due on April Fool’s Day.

Public radio journalist Karen DeWitt reported on the adoption of the budget. She noted that observers “were heartened by the process” immediately before commenting on the nature of “the secretive negotiations”...

The fact that this can be said without apparent irony speaks volumes about NYS government.

Greens and media bias, Occupy and outsourcing police

A show on the excellent al-Jazeera English explored the question of whether the Green Party could influence this year's US elections. It's a sad indictment of our corporate media and its biases that the only mainstream media outlets that acknowledge the existence of the third largest party in the United States are non-American ones. In a related piece, NPR's Ombudsman explored accusations by American hero Ralph Nader that the public broadcaster ignores real progressives.

Speaking of NPR, it also pointed that just because that rumors of the Occupy movement's imminent death are greatly exaggerated.

Privatization of public resources, one of Occupy's main objections, have led to some disastrous scandals. The partial privatization of the military led to a variety of scandals with Blackwater including corruption, impunity and human rights abuses. The privatization of some prisons has led to Orwellian nightmares like Pennsylvania's Kids for Cash scandal. But a few people were making a lot of money out of these hideous abuses. So it's appalling, yet not surprising, that a few police forces in Britain are also outsourcing some of their public safety duties. Let's hope this reckless experimentation is short-lived and, especially, that it doesn't cross the Atlantic.

Moderate Republicans still exist

I keep hearing people say moderate Republican politicians are bordering on extinct. That's not true. It remains quite numerous. They are just now called Democrats.

Green announces run for NNY Congressional seat

The Adirondack Daily Enterprise’s Chris Morris did a nice profile of Donald Hassig, the Green Party candidate for New York’s 23rd Congressional seat. The seat covers most of northern NY and his opponents will be (presumably) the incumbent Democrat Bill Owens and whomever the Republicans nominate. North Country Public Radio did a profile as well.

Hopefully this won’t be the only ADE and NCPR coverage of Mr. Hassig’s campaign. One would expect other major media outlets who claim to be responsible, such as The Watertown Daily Times and Plattsburgh Press-Republican, to present Hassig’s ideas to voters as well, alongside Owens’ and the Republican’s. So far, they have not done so.


Editor's note: an earlier version of this post incorrectly identified the author of the ADE piece. It has been corrected.

When did Republicans start hating the rich?

"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.

I've been a bit bemused by the latest irrelevant kerfuffle obsessing the chattering classes: about Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet gaffe. When a self-entitled multimillionaire wants to dodge taxes, he's an "job creator." But when that self-entitled multimillionaire is a political enemy, he's an "out of touch elitist." Funny how that works.