Word of the day: Twidiocy

Used by “Socrates” in comments to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/trump-agenda-corruption.html.

It’s a reference to unthinking Twitter usage.

Russian collusion and Donald Trump

If you have a few hours free, read the Washington Post’s long article on Donald Trump and the Russians.

If you still have time read all the comments.  This is a bit more time consuming because the Washington Post allows instant commenting.  It’s great to have instant posting rather than waiting hours for arbiters to approve comments, but some people criticize others over and over again, often with insult rather than insight.

“How to Stand Up to Trump and Win”

Nicholas Kristof gives several ideas about standing up to Trump in a New York Times article, 2017-04-13.  See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/opinion/how-to-stand-up-to-trump-and-win.html.

When I forwarded the link to my wife, I added the comment "Don’t just hold a sign. Experts share how to resist and get results.”

Can travelers stop Trump?

I thought I saw an article in BBC News that many people in other countries who could travel to the U.S. are choosing to go elsewhere.  For example, a British professor who received a travel grant decided to use it to travel to a conference not in the U.S.  In addition, travel to the U.S. supposedly is down.  Is this seasonal or because of Trump.

Trump’s travel ban is having an effect on doctors for small towns.  See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/us/doctor-shortage-visa-policy.html.  Many of these small towns depend on foreign doctors because many U.S. doctors aren’t interested in working in low-paying areas.

I wonder how much people leaving the U.S. and people not considering can put a crimp in the support of Trump.

What if all those U.S. residents who are foreign-born decided to go elsewhere?  I have many foreign-born friends, some who are also citizens.  I would not like to see them leave.  But as with the doctors, if large numbers of engineers, professors, programmers moved outside the U.S., would the U.S. economy be hurt enough to get many of Trump’s enablers to abandon him?

What if large numbers of temporary visitors decided to go elsewhere?  Would the travel industry feel it enough to complain to politicians.

If this came to pass, I know who Trump would blame: me.

Actually probably not me, but I’m sure he would find lots of scapegoats other than himself.

An additional thought along these lines.  How much do U.S. travelers enable other anti-democratic leaders?  Could a large enough boycott have an effect on these leaders, or would their countries become another North Korea?

Jumping to conclusions can…

Lead one to fall flat on one’s face.

See http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-fed-bashing-is-ridiculous-181419495.html

The problem is the usual one of ascribing more power to a person or an organization than if available i reality or law.

The generalization that frosts me the most is calling the President of the United States the “Leader of the free world”.  One, who elected him or her to such a position.  Certainly not people in England, France, Germany,…

The world is a complex place.  The President of the United States cannot even get his or her allies to agree to each and every U.S. position. if POTUS cannot get allies to jump through hoops, how can anybody assume that POTUS can get adversaries to agree even to a small portion of a U.S. position?

I keep thinking the best course for all the governments that want peace and prosperity for all should be working through the U.N. a lot more.

Quote of the day: Capitalism and Liberalism

 "Capitalism is not a form of government."
- Ghost Dansing, comment to Roger Cohen's “Death of Liberalism” column, New York Times, 2014-07-14

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/opinion/the-death-of-liberalism.html?comments#permid=18202173:18206074

This link includes Ghost Dansing’s and my comments.

Religion, politics, and corruption

Mustafa Akyol in Islam without Extremism wrote that when politics interfered with Islam then Islam became narrow and restrictive.  When politics let Islamic scholars have more open discussions, then Islam, culture, and commerce flourished.

In the United States we have restrictive religions corrupting politics, and many believe that if they get their way, the U.S. will be a less pleasant place to live for those who don’t hold to these restrictive religions.

For the latter, see How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom, by Jacques Berlinerblau.  He doesn't call for no religion, but asks that people be tolerant of other religions and wary of religions that want their way for everybody.

For the latter, see How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom, by Jacques Berlinerblau.

People power can beat too much money power

The Coffee Party posted on Facebook a cartoon of a politician at a podium on a plank out over a cliff.  The only thing preventing him from falling into the abyss is the number of people standing on the other end of the plank.  Except one person who is walking away.  The words on the cartoon are “The people don’t know their true power.”

I posted the following comment on Facebook.  If you have a Facebook account you can find it in context here.

“The problem with too much money in politics is too few votes to counter misinformation.  The cartoon is clever, but the person leaving should be walking to a politician's plank on solid ground.

“Let's show up each and every election day and get off-year turn-outs better than the Afghan turnout.  Too many of us don't bother because it's too inconvenient; the Afghani's stood in long lines at the risk of being attacked!”

If you don’t have a Facebook account or just want to see how often this has been published, search for “The people don’t know their true power”.  You’ll find hundreds of postings of this cartoon going back at least two years.  You’ll find many comments on it, but you will be hard pressed to find who created the original.

As I was adding “money in politics” to the keywords for this entry it occurred to me to have a keyword “people in politics” because the only way to get money out of politics is to get people into politics, even if it only to get more people to show up on election day.

Military training from outside

Why is an outside military needed to train a country's military on fighting rebels?  If the rebels are so effective against government troops, could it be that the government troops are either unmotivated or corrupt?  In the case of Afghanistan, why has it taken 12 years to train Afghan troops in counterinsurgency.  Shouldn't those who were trained 12 years ago have enough expertise to train others?  Consider that many of the outside trainers had no military experience at the outset of the war in Afghanistan.

From what I've read, the Afghani soldiers are in it for the money, honest or otherwise, or because they were drafted.  Too many of them have no loyalty to the government.

I think U.S. policy long ago should have been: Karzai! Shape up or we ship out!

See also “Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government”.

Insurgencies, outside forces, and good government

Why is it that those seeking to overthrow a government can often do it without outside help other than weapons, but that government forces need outside advisers?

We saw it in Viet Nam where the Viet Cong kept fighting and fighting against both the South Vietnamese government and their U.S. advisers.  It got to the point where the "advisors" were doing more of the fighting than the government forces.

We saw it in Iraq where a large variety of "insurgents" fought against the foreign invaders and then against the Iraqi government as well as each other.  The outside invaders stayed to advise the new government, but that government seems ineffectual against the "insurgents".

We see it in Afghanistan where the Taliban keeps striking at the foreign invaders/advisers and the Afghan government, including local governors as well as the Afghan army and police.

Could the common thread be that all these governments were not only corrupt but not fully supported by the general populations?  Could it be that the only way to put down anti-government forces is to have a strong, dictatorial government or to have wide-spread popular support of a freely elected government?

And a freely elected government cannot really be imposed from outside.

U.S. oligarchy, history repeats itself

"The Penguin democracy was not ruled by itself: it obeyed a financial oligarchy that put its opinions in the newspapers, and held in its hand the deputies, ministers and the president.  It was the final power in the finances of the republic and directed the foreign policy of the country."

Anatole France, L'Ile des Pingouines (The Isle of Penguins), 1908
My translation based on Google Translate

"La démocratie pingouine ne se gouvernait point par elle-même; elle obéissait à une oligarchie financière qui faisait l'opinion par les journaux, et tenait dans sa main les députés, les ministres et le président. Elle ordonnait souverainement des finances de la république et dirigeait la politique extérieure du pays."

Or as Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr wrote in 1849:
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plus_%C3%A7a_change,_plus_c%27est_la_m%C3%AAme_chose

Freedom of anonymous speech?

I was inspired to write the following by "How I Became Stephen Colbert's Lawyer -- And Joined the Fight to Rescue Our Democracy from Citizens United", Trevor Potter, 2012-05-23, speech at the Annual Meeting of th American Law Institute.

I wonder what the writers of Bill of Rights would think of the Supreme Court interpreting the first amendment as "freedom of anonymous speech".  Speech is meant to be heard.  If it is heard, those hearing it know who said it.

Second, if someone started a whisper campaign that disparaged you or your business and you found out who and were able to afford the right lawyer, wouldn't you probably win a defamation case?

If you started a campaign making false (or even damagingly true) accusations against a large corporation, wouldn't its lawyers be doing their best to get you into court?

So, why do large corporations or wealthy donors get to make scurrilous, misleading statements without identifying themselves or being held accountable for libel?

Oh, I forgot.  Although corporations are people, they are super-people who are above the law.

ALEC takes a licking, sheds crocodile tears

In response to several large corporations withdrawing their membership or promising to withdraw from the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC has issued a press release "…on the Coordinated Intimidation Campaign Against Its Members".  The truly ironic statement by an organization that behind a well-funded, expertly co-ordinated intimidation campaign of manipulating public policy is "Today, we find ourselves the focus of a well-funded, expertly coordinated intimidation campaign."  See http://www.alec.org/2012/04/alec-responds/

For commentary on how ALEC does not believe in the free market it promotes, does not really want small government, and definitely does not want free speech see "As Donors Flee, Corporate Front Group ALEC Whines That Critics Are Trying To 'Eliminate Discourse'", Zaid Jilani, Republic Report, 2012-04-11.

The Republic Report gives its purpose as "Investigating How Money Corrupts Democracy".  One of the articles featured in today's issue (2012-04-15) is "Corruption Responsible for 80% of Your Cell Phone Bill", Matt Stoller, 2012-04-09.  However, if you think the Republic Report is a left-wing rag trying to discredit Republicans, see "The Real Hilary Rosen Scandal: Does Her Firm Sell Access To The White House To Powerful Corporations?", Lee Fang, 2012-04-13

Coffee Party's call-in "Who's your Daddy?"

The Coffee Party suggested today, Nov. 9, as a day to call our senators and representatives asking them "Who's financing your campaign?" They were hoping to flood the switchboard. I don't know if they did, because when I called at 1:00 CST, I had an answer on the first ring from the switchboard, and was politely and cheerfully forwarded to the office of my Representative Chip Cravaack, Rep. MN-8.

The young man who answered on the first or second ring listened to my question, "What percentage of his contributors can vote for him, and what percentage of his campaign dollars came from voters in his district?" Before he answered, he asked my name and ZIP code. Fair enough. He asked me to hold while he conferred with somebody else. When he came back he referred me to the Federal Election Commission site and to the campaign headquarters.

I chose the first. Now two hours later I have some results on a spreadsheet. For 2011 through September, Rep. Cravaack has raised $539,748 with $270,517 from 352 named individuals and $146,567 from 106 other than party committees. There was also $122,664 unitemized individual contributions, probably less than $100.

Of named individual contributors, 11.65% were from out of state, but 82.08% of PACs were from out of state. Of dollars raised from individuals, 17.32% were from out of state, but 81.73% of PAC dollars were from out of state.

Of the total itemized dollars, 39.95% were from out of state, and 35.14% were from PACs, both in and out of state.

I didn't check on Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken. It wouldn't surprise me that they had similar PAC and out-of-state contributions.

You can find the finances of all currently declared Congressional candidates at www.fec.gov. It can make for some interesting and time-consuming reading and calculations.

How can we fight too much money in campaigns?

One, don't watch TV. That is probably where most of the declared and undeclared money goes.

Two, let candidates who you think are too dependent on outside donors that you don't like such dependence and might not vote for them.

Three, be sure to vote, even if it has to be for Wright In. Staying away like nearly half the eligible voters do only helps the big bucks people get into office.

Quote of the day – money and Congress

"Money is not evil. Buying and selling Congress to protect Wall Street, is."

Sign carried by Sally Paulsen, Treasurer, Independence Party of Minnesota, at OccupyMN on 2011-10-07. See "IP impressions of OccupyMN".

Her colleague Ted C. Williams gave a more jaundiced view. He thought many of the demonstrators wanted to show they were mad but that they didn't have any answers. How many problems throughout our history have been pointed out by those who were mad before anything concrete was done? Taxation without representation, slavery, women's suffrage, alcohol abuse, labor laws, civil rights, wars…

Some simple steps to end corruption

1. Show up and vote
2. Choose candidates you believe in, ignore what the polls say about the "front runners".
3. If you don't strongly believe in any, rank them according to campaign contributions. The order is up to you among corporate contributions, total contributions, individual contributions, and location of contributors.
4. Show up and vote
5. Choose the candidates who rank most favorably according to step 3.
6. If you find all the choices for an office equally "corrupt", then consider somebody who you think is not corrupt and write that person's name in.
7. Show up and vote
8. If you can't think of anybody in step 6, then consider "Wright In".
9. Show up and vote
10. The only "spoiler" vote is the vote not cast.
11. Show up and vote
12. If you don't like the outcome of the election and you didn't follow steps 1, 4, 7, 9, and 11, don't blame me. I will have showed up and voted.

Quote of the day - campaign contributions

"What's the difference between a bribe and a campaign contribution?"
- Richard Coates, mostly jobless construction worker who demonstrated outside Bank of America in Boston, quoted in "Can 'Occupy Wall Street' really get money out of politics?", Mark Trumbell, Christian Science Monitor, 2011-10-14.

Quote of the day - "single vote that matters"

"Eventually, the corruption in elections will get so bad that change will occur again and election reform will happen. The question is how long? Will it be this decade, the next decade or generations? I can only hope and believe that the government of the people, by the people, for the people will remember and believe it is their single vote that matters and not the money that makes a true democracy."

- John Cashon, "Government of the People, for the People, by the People", Coffee Party USA, 2011-09-05.

Cashon wrote quite a few more quotable paragraphs, for example, Theodore Roosevelt taking on J.P. Morgan.

The truth shall make you free but "THE TRUTH" can imprison you

The truth is a never-ending quest that leads to more knowledge and sometimes wisdom.  For example, many people discovered chemical elements that they thought were indivisible.  Then others discovered that the elements were composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons.  This led to greater understanding of compounds.  Then yet others discovered that there were many more sub-atomic particles than these three.

Governance is another truth that many are discovering.  Once it was thought that kings ruled by divine right; how else could they have become kings?  More and more people are discovering that democracy can be a much better form of government.  Now we need more and more people to discover how to make it work better.

On the other hand, "THE TRUTH" can lock people into a very limited view of the world.  For example, "THE TRUTH" that the Sun revolves around the Earth gave very limited ability to predict celestial events, knowledge that was needed to make accurate calendars.

"THE TRUTH" can divide people based on religious or other differences.  If we still held "THE TRUTH" that women are inferior to men, would we have some of the scientific, literary, musical, and political ideas we now have if only men were deemed capable of complicated thought?

I got another view of the distinction between the truth and "THE TRUTH" reading Sheri S. Tepper's "The Visitor".  Most of it takes place centuries after "The Happening" when some astronomical object struck the Earth and wiped out most of the population.  One group of survivors considers themselves "The Spared" and believes that the only other beings are demons.  This belief gives inordinate power to a few, and as Lord Acton said "Power corrupts".  If you decide to read "The Visitor", be forewarned that the powerful deal in gratuitous violence.

Compared to North Africans, Tea Partiers are quibblers

Many people in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen are staging wide-spread protests against autocratic governments that were elected, if you can call it that, by sham processes.  Their governments have been corrupt, the top raking in all kinds of benefits with no accountability, the bottom requiring bribes to do the simplest things, like even apply for a government job.

The protesters are fighting the police and army with their large presence, stones, and returned tear-gas canisters (made in the U.S.A.)  In Alexandria, the protest was so overwhelming that the police gave up and shared water bottles with the protesters.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S.A., underwriter of these corrupt regimes in the name of defense, some Tea Party supporters are appearing in public with weapons to protect themselves against "the overreaching government".

How is the government "overreaching"?  It is taxing them more than they would like to provide services they claim they don't like.  They complain that their freedoms are being taken away, but it seems that they have plenty of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly to express their views.  Have you heard any reports of blocking of the internet, shutting down newspapers, or canceling the licences of broadcasters in order to silence supporters of the Tea Party?

How were these "overreaching" government activities achieved?  By elected officials and their appointees.  Sure, we see flawed elections.  But the Floridas and Ohios are the exceptions rather than the rule.  Do we have corruption and bribery?  Sure!  But how often are those who complain about or who expose corruption put in jail or otherwise silenced?  If such silencing was going on, would we even have a Tea Party?

If America is supposedly "exceptional", would we even have a Tea Party to complain about all the things that "are wrong"?