See “The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election”, Jill Filipovic, New York Times, 2017-12-01.
Jill Filipovic wrote an interesting column about the bad treatment that Hilary Clinton got from several male interviewers. I don’t watch TV and so I don’t know the details, but I believe she is right about their bias towards Clinton and their misplaced bias in favor of Trump.
However, in many ways Clinton was her own worst enemy. Many felt she had a sense of entitlement to the presidency. I can think of several women who would have made better candidates: Elizabeth Warren (who supposedly decided against it), Amy Klobuchar, Kathleen Sebelius, and many others others who are already prominent in politics.
I would have gladly voted for any of them over Clinton. However, given that her opponent was Donald Trump, I reluctantly voted for her.
Unfortunately, too many others who thought that she was not the best possible candidate stayed away and gave the election to the worst possible candidate.
Remember, the only way you throw your vote away is to stay away.
Showing posts with label Elizabeth Warren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elizabeth Warren. Show all posts
Sunday, December 03, 2017
Monday, October 24, 2016
Politics: Donald Trump, Listen to the Grandmothers
I read a New York Times article about Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren blasting Trump for calling Clinton “a nasty women”. It was titled “Senator Elizabeth Warren Tells Trump: ‘Nasty Women Vote’" by Matt Flegenheimer. The lead line was “In Introducing Hillary Clinton, the senator said, ‘We nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes’ against Donald Trump.”
After I sent the link to my wife, grandmother of my grandchildren, I realized that both Clinton and Warren are both grandmothers. If a grandmother chides you, you should always listen.
When I went back to write this it had morphed into a different article, but it still had Warren blasting Trump for his comment. See “Liberals Hope Elizabeth Warren Will Serve as Clinton’s Scrutinizer-in-Chief”, New York Times, 2016-10-24, Amy Chozick and Matt Flegenheimer, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren.html.
The video that accompanies this article does have Warren’s remarks in full. Her fervor is far greater than what comes across in print.
After I sent the link to my wife, grandmother of my grandchildren, I realized that both Clinton and Warren are both grandmothers. If a grandmother chides you, you should always listen.
When I went back to write this it had morphed into a different article, but it still had Warren blasting Trump for his comment. See “Liberals Hope Elizabeth Warren Will Serve as Clinton’s Scrutinizer-in-Chief”, New York Times, 2016-10-24, Amy Chozick and Matt Flegenheimer, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren.html.
The video that accompanies this article does have Warren’s remarks in full. Her fervor is far greater than what comes across in print.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Iconoclastic ideas (or mysteries)
“I would love to talk to people, and say ‘Why do you need so much money?’ And why do people say it’s so admirable? I think the world has gone quite mad.” - John Cleese as reported by Lee Schafer, Star Tribune, 2016-02-17.
I haven’t yet gone back to “Dark Money”, the book I mentioned last week, but I keep wondering why so many exorbitantly rich have so much money to slosh around that they spend exorbitant sums to ensure that they get even more. When one has hundreds of billions of dollars, what’s a hundred billion or two less?
What is galling is that many claim they earned it, every penny. But how many people worked for a pittance or even a decent salary to create and implement the ideas to earn this money? Often several thousand people showed up every day to bring in that money while the billionaire was jetting here and there on vacation or attending a conference to rail against taxes and government, the same taxes and the same government that subsidizes many of their enterprises. For example, I’ve seen estimates that every Walmart store costs government entities one million dollars a year.
Many who want strict adherence to the Constitution seem to forget "Regulate commerce among states" and "establish a post office”.
The Republicans and their giant-corp backers are doing their best to nullify the EPA rule about emissions. Are these polluters keeping their emissions in the state where they are produced? If any of these emissions go to another state, then the President is right to regulate this commerce in emissions.
The Republicans seem to be bending over backwards to dis-establish the Post Office. The latest gimmick was to impose far greater requirements on pension funding than many corporations get by with. The last I looked my Unisys pension was funded at 77 percent. I exaggerate, but it seems like the Republicans want the Postal Service to be fully-funded on pensions for employees who have not even been hired yet.
I really don’t know what a “fair share” of taxes is, but it is a mystery how many people want perfect infra-structure, immediate arrest of all criminals, and bombing of countries far, far away but do not want to pay any taxes for any of these. Is there a correlation between complaints about government and complaints about burdensome taxes?
A good case in point is the following headline: “Wisconsin crackdown on repeat drunken drivers will cost taxpayers”, Mark Sommerhauser, Wisconsin State Journal, published in the Duluth News Tribune, 2016-02-19. Duh!? What is the cost to taxpayers of the death and destruction caused by drunken drivers? I submit that it is quite a bit higher than the cost of the crackdown. In other words, spend what seems too much to prevent something that costs even more. Even that crackdown on fourth offenders may be too soft. Sweden had or maybe still has tough drunk driving laws: first offense was two years in jail, even for members of Parliament.
Why does Clinton have to be president so we finally have a woman president? Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren are much better choices, but neither seems to be interested.
Why do we have reach out across (fill-in the blank) lines? Can’t we just be nice to everybody. I hold doors for others, they hold doors for me. Rodney King said, “Can’t we all just get along.”
We do have to reform or at least neutralize people who judge people by factors which have nothing to do with a given situation.
Right now many established and respected media are giving misleading information. Clinton “won” in Nevada and Trump “won” in South Carolina. I posted a comment on a New York Times article; the article made no reference to the actual delegates gained. Sorry, I didn’t note the article. Interestingly, my comment was not posted for all to see. At least, as I write this hours later, I have not been emailed that my comment was posted.
Well, Trump did win in South Carolina because the South Carolina Republican primary is winner take-all. He “won” with less than a third of the vote. However, in Nevada, Clinton received 22 delegates and Sanders received 16 delegates. Oops, another source gives 19-15, and yet another shows a spread of about 600 votes. Sorry, I’m visiting so many sites to get to the truth that I have forgotten where I found which figures. Clinton does have an advantage because of super-delegates, elected and party officials who are automatically delegates to the convention. The super-delegates are overwhelmingly pro-Clinton.
One of these sources was “How many delegates do Trump, Clinton need to win? What's the delegate count for each candidate?” by Jonathan D. Salant at http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/how_many_delegates_do_hillary_clinton_and_donald_t.html.
Let's skip caucuses and primaries and even do away with political parties. Even though the writers of the Constitution warned about factions, they soon split into them. The most famous being the long feud between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
Let’s start at the local level. Let each registered voter send in a nomination for each position by email or mail. Rank the nominations by number of votes; those who are in the top half of the list go on to the next ballot. Repeat as necessary until one is chosen. Named candidates can drop out at any time.
Some may say that this is too expensive and subject to fraud. Isn’t the low turnout expensive to our society? Supposedly we already have too much fraud if you believe those who demand onerous restrictions on voting.
The only vote that doesn’t count is the vote not cast.
Also in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-02-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/25/6797_iconoclastic_ideas_or_mysteries.
I haven’t yet gone back to “Dark Money”, the book I mentioned last week, but I keep wondering why so many exorbitantly rich have so much money to slosh around that they spend exorbitant sums to ensure that they get even more. When one has hundreds of billions of dollars, what’s a hundred billion or two less?
What is galling is that many claim they earned it, every penny. But how many people worked for a pittance or even a decent salary to create and implement the ideas to earn this money? Often several thousand people showed up every day to bring in that money while the billionaire was jetting here and there on vacation or attending a conference to rail against taxes and government, the same taxes and the same government that subsidizes many of their enterprises. For example, I’ve seen estimates that every Walmart store costs government entities one million dollars a year.
Many who want strict adherence to the Constitution seem to forget "Regulate commerce among states" and "establish a post office”.
The Republicans and their giant-corp backers are doing their best to nullify the EPA rule about emissions. Are these polluters keeping their emissions in the state where they are produced? If any of these emissions go to another state, then the President is right to regulate this commerce in emissions.
The Republicans seem to be bending over backwards to dis-establish the Post Office. The latest gimmick was to impose far greater requirements on pension funding than many corporations get by with. The last I looked my Unisys pension was funded at 77 percent. I exaggerate, but it seems like the Republicans want the Postal Service to be fully-funded on pensions for employees who have not even been hired yet.
I really don’t know what a “fair share” of taxes is, but it is a mystery how many people want perfect infra-structure, immediate arrest of all criminals, and bombing of countries far, far away but do not want to pay any taxes for any of these. Is there a correlation between complaints about government and complaints about burdensome taxes?
A good case in point is the following headline: “Wisconsin crackdown on repeat drunken drivers will cost taxpayers”, Mark Sommerhauser, Wisconsin State Journal, published in the Duluth News Tribune, 2016-02-19. Duh!? What is the cost to taxpayers of the death and destruction caused by drunken drivers? I submit that it is quite a bit higher than the cost of the crackdown. In other words, spend what seems too much to prevent something that costs even more. Even that crackdown on fourth offenders may be too soft. Sweden had or maybe still has tough drunk driving laws: first offense was two years in jail, even for members of Parliament.
Why does Clinton have to be president so we finally have a woman president? Amy Klobuchar or Elizabeth Warren are much better choices, but neither seems to be interested.
Why do we have reach out across (fill-in the blank) lines? Can’t we just be nice to everybody. I hold doors for others, they hold doors for me. Rodney King said, “Can’t we all just get along.”
We do have to reform or at least neutralize people who judge people by factors which have nothing to do with a given situation.
Right now many established and respected media are giving misleading information. Clinton “won” in Nevada and Trump “won” in South Carolina. I posted a comment on a New York Times article; the article made no reference to the actual delegates gained. Sorry, I didn’t note the article. Interestingly, my comment was not posted for all to see. At least, as I write this hours later, I have not been emailed that my comment was posted.
Well, Trump did win in South Carolina because the South Carolina Republican primary is winner take-all. He “won” with less than a third of the vote. However, in Nevada, Clinton received 22 delegates and Sanders received 16 delegates. Oops, another source gives 19-15, and yet another shows a spread of about 600 votes. Sorry, I’m visiting so many sites to get to the truth that I have forgotten where I found which figures. Clinton does have an advantage because of super-delegates, elected and party officials who are automatically delegates to the convention. The super-delegates are overwhelmingly pro-Clinton.
One of these sources was “How many delegates do Trump, Clinton need to win? What's the delegate count for each candidate?” by Jonathan D. Salant at http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/how_many_delegates_do_hillary_clinton_and_donald_t.html.
Let's skip caucuses and primaries and even do away with political parties. Even though the writers of the Constitution warned about factions, they soon split into them. The most famous being the long feud between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
Let’s start at the local level. Let each registered voter send in a nomination for each position by email or mail. Rank the nominations by number of votes; those who are in the top half of the list go on to the next ballot. Repeat as necessary until one is chosen. Named candidates can drop out at any time.
Some may say that this is too expensive and subject to fraud. Isn’t the low turnout expensive to our society? Supposedly we already have too much fraud if you believe those who demand onerous restrictions on voting.
The only vote that doesn’t count is the vote not cast.
Also in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-02-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/25/6797_iconoclastic_ideas_or_mysteries.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Maybe I'm preaching to the choir
The following was published in the October 10 edition of the Reader Weekly of Duluth. It is also available at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2013/10/10/2216_party_of_one.
Almost every time Bob Boone sees me, he asks me to write again for the Reader. When I saw him last week he twisted my arm so hard that I yelled “Uncle!” Unfortunately, my arm is so sore that I’ll have to do a lot of cutting and pasting from my notes and blog postings. I must admit I gave in partly because so many people ask if I’m still writing for the Reader but few visit my blog (it has more Russian reverse-spammers than American readers).
By the time this is published will the government be open again? Regardless, consider what the uproar would be if the Democrats in the Senate would not approve a spending bill unless certain provisions were removed from the PATRIOT Act.
Many are promoting Hilary Clinton for President in 2016. My own view is that we have had enough of Presidential dynasties. If you think a woman should be President, consider Kathleen Sebelius and Elizabeth Warren. Sebelius has governed and with some bi-partisan success. Warren really is good at exposing contradictions in the positions of the powers that be.
Once again it is that tiresome time of year in the Northland. Off in the distance, bang! Too close for comfort, bang! Bird season has started and then next month is deer season with a few other hunting seasons thrown in.
Last time I checked, landowners in Minnesota are supposed to post their property with "No Trespassing" signs every 300-500 feet. In other words, hunters are free to trespass on private land that is not posted.
Even if posted, some hunters ignore the signs or even evidence that they were shooting into private property. One fall a bird hunter shot down our driveway with our red pickup plainly visible. My wife happened to be nearby and yelled at him. He grabbed his bird, ran to his truck, and drove off as quickly as he could.
What if my wife had a gun in her hand? If Minnesota had a "Stand Your Ground" law, would she be in the right to shoot the trespassing hunter?
Last season some bird hunters shot into our land where there was no brush under the power line. There were "No Trespassing" signs within 300 feet of where they shot. What if I had been walking on a trail that paralleled the road and had a gun with me. Would I have been "standing my ground" to shoot back? They were also shooting within 200 feet of an occupied dwelling on the other side of the road.
Given that a GPS unit costs less than most rifles and that St. Louis County, Minnesota, publishes plat maps, available free online, listing all the properties and owners, should landowners even be required to post their property?
Responsible hunters know where they hunt and respect property rights. They would be safe. But the few irresponsible hunters give the impression that all hunters do not respect property rights. These irresponsible hunters should be very glad that Minnesota doesn't have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
How often have we heard the following before:
"Notwithstanding the NRA’s win in Colorado in knocking off two gun control Democratic State Senators for supporting more stringent ‘gun control’, if Liberals vote they will win. In fact if one analyzes the Colorado race, Liberals were disinterested and stayed home, something that must be worked on going forward. Voters must learn that it is their civic duty to vote every time. Political engagement must be a requirement for effective citizenship."
- Egberto Willies, "America Is A Liberal Nation. A Liberal Wins On a Liberal Message."
Maybe I’m preaching to the choir. Reader Weekly readers always vote, don’t they? Remember city council and school board elections are on November 5th as well as a school levy.
Ah, a school levy! How often have you heard people complain about taxes for schools because they don’t have any kids in school? Conversely, how many younger people complain about paying into Social Security and it goes almost directly into the pockets of seniors?
Well, we have many cross-generational transfers and we always will. Who paid for seniors’ schooling? People long dead. Who paid the Social Security for those long dead? The seniors now collecting Social Security. Who paid for the highways and public buildings? People long dead. Who is paying for new roads and public buildings? People who will use them only a few years of the lifetime of those roads and public buildings.
Schools, roads, and public buildings are considered public goods. That is, things that benefit all people regardless of their ability to pay. Would you have been able to go to school if your parents were poor? Would you want to pay a toll for every section of road you drove on? We all get to use these public goods independent of how much we paid for them. It is these public goods that help make a civil society. Those countries that let the rich pay few or no taxes and make the poor pay lots of taxes are not pleasant places to live.
Almost every time Bob Boone sees me, he asks me to write again for the Reader. When I saw him last week he twisted my arm so hard that I yelled “Uncle!” Unfortunately, my arm is so sore that I’ll have to do a lot of cutting and pasting from my notes and blog postings. I must admit I gave in partly because so many people ask if I’m still writing for the Reader but few visit my blog (it has more Russian reverse-spammers than American readers).
By the time this is published will the government be open again? Regardless, consider what the uproar would be if the Democrats in the Senate would not approve a spending bill unless certain provisions were removed from the PATRIOT Act.
Many are promoting Hilary Clinton for President in 2016. My own view is that we have had enough of Presidential dynasties. If you think a woman should be President, consider Kathleen Sebelius and Elizabeth Warren. Sebelius has governed and with some bi-partisan success. Warren really is good at exposing contradictions in the positions of the powers that be.
Once again it is that tiresome time of year in the Northland. Off in the distance, bang! Too close for comfort, bang! Bird season has started and then next month is deer season with a few other hunting seasons thrown in.
Last time I checked, landowners in Minnesota are supposed to post their property with "No Trespassing" signs every 300-500 feet. In other words, hunters are free to trespass on private land that is not posted.
Even if posted, some hunters ignore the signs or even evidence that they were shooting into private property. One fall a bird hunter shot down our driveway with our red pickup plainly visible. My wife happened to be nearby and yelled at him. He grabbed his bird, ran to his truck, and drove off as quickly as he could.
What if my wife had a gun in her hand? If Minnesota had a "Stand Your Ground" law, would she be in the right to shoot the trespassing hunter?
Last season some bird hunters shot into our land where there was no brush under the power line. There were "No Trespassing" signs within 300 feet of where they shot. What if I had been walking on a trail that paralleled the road and had a gun with me. Would I have been "standing my ground" to shoot back? They were also shooting within 200 feet of an occupied dwelling on the other side of the road.
Given that a GPS unit costs less than most rifles and that St. Louis County, Minnesota, publishes plat maps, available free online, listing all the properties and owners, should landowners even be required to post their property?
Responsible hunters know where they hunt and respect property rights. They would be safe. But the few irresponsible hunters give the impression that all hunters do not respect property rights. These irresponsible hunters should be very glad that Minnesota doesn't have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
How often have we heard the following before:
"Notwithstanding the NRA’s win in Colorado in knocking off two gun control Democratic State Senators for supporting more stringent ‘gun control’, if Liberals vote they will win. In fact if one analyzes the Colorado race, Liberals were disinterested and stayed home, something that must be worked on going forward. Voters must learn that it is their civic duty to vote every time. Political engagement must be a requirement for effective citizenship."
- Egberto Willies, "America Is A Liberal Nation. A Liberal Wins On a Liberal Message."
Maybe I’m preaching to the choir. Reader Weekly readers always vote, don’t they? Remember city council and school board elections are on November 5th as well as a school levy.
Ah, a school levy! How often have you heard people complain about taxes for schools because they don’t have any kids in school? Conversely, how many younger people complain about paying into Social Security and it goes almost directly into the pockets of seniors?
Well, we have many cross-generational transfers and we always will. Who paid for seniors’ schooling? People long dead. Who paid the Social Security for those long dead? The seniors now collecting Social Security. Who paid for the highways and public buildings? People long dead. Who is paying for new roads and public buildings? People who will use them only a few years of the lifetime of those roads and public buildings.
Schools, roads, and public buildings are considered public goods. That is, things that benefit all people regardless of their ability to pay. Would you have been able to go to school if your parents were poor? Would you want to pay a toll for every section of road you drove on? We all get to use these public goods independent of how much we paid for them. It is these public goods that help make a civil society. Those countries that let the rich pay few or no taxes and make the poor pay lots of taxes are not pleasant places to live.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
An alternative to Hillary mania
I see two strong opposing notions about Hillary Clinton running for president. On one side we have all the Clinton haters who think the Clintons are second only to Obama in being the worst thing that could happen to U.S. politics. On the other side we have those who think we must have a woman for president and that Hillary Clinton is the best choice.
I don't agree with either side. We have had worse presidents than Clinton or Obama. Although I'm not opposed to a woman being president, it doesn't matter to me whether it is sooner or later. And is Hillary Clinton the best possible woman to have as president?
What really bothers me is that we seem to be trending to "elected" hereditary office. Because George H. W. Bush was president, then George W. Bush and Jeb Bush should also be president. Because Bill Clinton was president, then Hillary Clinton should be president.
If you want women for president, I have two better choices and I would vote for them over many, many men: Elizabeth Warren and Kathleen Sebelius. Maybe even a pair - president and vice-president. Pick your order. I lean to Sebelius as president because she has been a governor who could work with the opposition. Warren might be a good campaigner as vice-president because she is being a good "attack dog" in the Senate.
I don't agree with either side. We have had worse presidents than Clinton or Obama. Although I'm not opposed to a woman being president, it doesn't matter to me whether it is sooner or later. And is Hillary Clinton the best possible woman to have as president?
What really bothers me is that we seem to be trending to "elected" hereditary office. Because George H. W. Bush was president, then George W. Bush and Jeb Bush should also be president. Because Bill Clinton was president, then Hillary Clinton should be president.
If you want women for president, I have two better choices and I would vote for them over many, many men: Elizabeth Warren and Kathleen Sebelius. Maybe even a pair - president and vice-president. Pick your order. I lean to Sebelius as president because she has been a governor who could work with the opposition. Warren might be a good campaigner as vice-president because she is being a good "attack dog" in the Senate.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Video of the day - Elizabeth Warren on prosecuting big banks
In this undated video, Elizabeth Warren asks government regulators when they last prosecuted a big bank for violating the law. They answer by saying that they settle with the banks who pay some penalty. I recommend that you view this to the end for her zinger comparison to other situations.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
And the "Free Market" Party keeps opposing free markets
The Democrats are often wishy-washy on issues and often beholden to corporate interests, but the Republicans take the blue ribbon on hypocrisy.
The Republicans claim they are for free markets, but an economist's definition of a free market and the Republicans' definition of a free market are polar opposites.
The economist's definition of a free market includes that both buyer and seller should have all the information they need to make a decision.
The Republic's definition is that big corporations should be free to do what they want, including hiding or obfuscating information buyers need to make a decision.
A case in point is the opposition to Elizabeth Warren to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. She is called "controversial", but what is controversial about true free markets in:
“We’re trying to make the price clear, the risk clear, and make it easy to compare products,” Warren said. “If banks can’t build a business model without fooling people about the price, or hiding the risks, or obfuscating the products so nobody can make any direct comparisons, they’ve got a problem.”
This quote is from "Warren tells the controversial truth", Al Lewis, MarketWatch, 2011-04-22.
The Republicans claim they are for free markets, but an economist's definition of a free market and the Republicans' definition of a free market are polar opposites.
The economist's definition of a free market includes that both buyer and seller should have all the information they need to make a decision.
The Republic's definition is that big corporations should be free to do what they want, including hiding or obfuscating information buyers need to make a decision.
A case in point is the opposition to Elizabeth Warren to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. She is called "controversial", but what is controversial about true free markets in:
“We’re trying to make the price clear, the risk clear, and make it easy to compare products,” Warren said. “If banks can’t build a business model without fooling people about the price, or hiding the risks, or obfuscating the products so nobody can make any direct comparisons, they’ve got a problem.”
This quote is from "Warren tells the controversial truth", Al Lewis, MarketWatch, 2011-04-22.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)