No Single Cause of the Disaster

draft

Every month or so since November 2016 I have read an analysis of why Trump (did not) win the election and each time someone says that "this is the true and only reason".  But it is almost certainly the case that no one reason can be identified for the simple reasons that (a) Trump won on a technical having lost the popular vote by a lot and (b) there were so many anomalies.

I maintain that nothing is clear, there was no single cause of this disaster. A failed constitution, right-wing voter fraud, independent and democratic voter indifference, a condidate who utterly failed to connect to an important part of the democratic base, the destructive influence of social media, russian intelligence disruption of the civic discourse, and of course collusion between the criminal right wing candidate with the foreign intelligence services all conspired to create a situation where a flawed constitution could be used to install a right wing thug as president. It was not one thing.

Marching in San Marcos, California

draft

I attended the “Women's March” today at San Marcos, California and it was a blast. As always I do not care for the speakers, they embarrass me a little. But there was a whole lot of people, easily a thousand, of all ages, from 3 or so to 70 at least.

Will it do any good? I have no idea, but it was certainly a real morale builder.

San Diego Free Press March Announcement

Also, for what it is worth, the organizers picked a good day for the march.  The day before was rain and today, the day after, there is so much rain we are having flash flood warnings.  Good job!

The Day After Disaster

As I madly dress for the San Marcos Women's March, I want to review for you another inaugural address, none other than that most hated liberal elitist of them all, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Oh the flames of protest! Not that horrible person. Yes, that very same horrible person. Rich kid, swore like a sailor, abandoned his men on an island to swim for help (some say). Here is what he said on his inauguration:

Now the trumpet summons us again – not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are – but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, ‘rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation’ – a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Clearly this is inadequate. What would that master of all that is right and decent, Donald Trump, tell us? Well, of course, he would attack his enemies. And he would play to his base.

For too long a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. While they have celebrated there has been little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

What is funny about this, from my point of view, is that even when I agree with Donald, I disagree with him. I generally think that some of this is correct.  That Washington did pursue a neoliberal economic policy that hurt millions and millions of Americans whose struggle and complaints were ignored. But that is not what I would put in my inauguration speech. There is a way to say this, even (some of) these exact words, and spin it in a new way forward. This is not a campaign speech, you idiot, I want to say, this is your inauguration speech. You won (well, sortof). Its a speech that is supposed to show us the way forward, the way for all of us forward.

And one more time, Donald, you failed. This is just the beginning of your failures, I think.

________

An afterthought. I want to thank all the idiots who disgraced America with this narcissistic swine. Just to let you know how much you are hated. And you are truly hated.

Introducing Alisa Elega Shevchenko Glamourous Russian Cybercriminal

draft

We end 2016 on Global Wahrman with a note of hope in a world otherwise diminished by death, war, greed, and hypocrisy.

The Obama Administration, in one of its final acts, has published a list of Soviet, I mean Russian, firms and individuals implicated in the DNC hack. Those of us who are concerned about the lack of women in computing, particularly the important new field of Cybercrime, can take heart by the inclusion of poster child Alisa Elega Shevchenko on this list.

Although she modestly claims to have no idea what people are talking about, adolescent men and some women can be encouraged by her excellent photograph which could have come right out of Soviet Vogue.

Please give a warm welcome to Alisa Elega Shevchenko.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/12/accidental-mastermind-dnc-hack/134266/?oref=d-river

Two Essays on the Trump Catastrophe

As a way of procrastinating on things that must be done, and also to self-medicate my anxiety about the insanity of a Trump presidency, I read a lot on the Internet, that bold new paradigm of lies, stupidity, pornography, exploitation and fake news. From time to time, I come across what seems to be an exceptional essay written by those who share my concerns.

Here are two.

"This Political Theorist Predicted The Rise of Trumpism. His Name Was Hunter S Thompson"
by Susan McWilliams

"What I Had Lost Was a Country"
by Jedediah Purdy

The Electoral College Having Done Its Work Leaves the Stage

"Tomorrow we discover if Americans, specifically Republicans, have any guts or if we are all doomed by their cowardice to be slaves of the Russians and the rich forever. The Republican electors could choose to postpone the process in order to hear the results of the CIA investigation but they will not. They are craven traitors who are betraying their country out of ignorance and self-delusion."

Oh come now, I say in retrospect, did you really believe for a moment, for even one moment, that dedicated functionaries of the Republican party, all of them vetted for their reliability, did you really think they were going to turn their back on their party's candidate and vote for Hillary Clinton in full view of the world?  And then what, to return home to accusations of betrayal, their lives destroyed, their careers destroyed?  Did you really think that of all people they would vote for Hillary Clinton, the target of their lies and hate campaign for 30 years?

Grow the f-word up.  Lets be real here.  The Republicans want power, pure power is their goal, and with Trump although they have a wild-card, they have one that generally conforms, or who can be believed to conform to their racist, misogynist,  homophobic, xenophobic vision of America.

Letter to Bob Re: Trump, Bullying and Debating Technique

draft

Another letter to my friend Bob who has tried to argue that since Trump has “forgiven” some people he previously attacked, that he is suitable to be President of the United States.

Bob

A climate denier will say that the climate is not warming, see Antarctica is gaining ice mass for 3 years in a row.

But we are not discussing whether or not there was a temporary increase in ice mass in Antarctica (if there actually was, or whether that was an anomaly of an imperfect measuring system due to budget limitations on earth science), we are discussing whether or not the hundreds of indices we have, combined with climate theory that makes certain predictions about a very complicated and imperfectly understood topic, global climate, tells us that our release of carbon into the world is or should affect climate, and yes, the evidence says that it does.

This is a well known debating technique when one does not want to acknowledge that the other side has all the evidence and you are grasping at straws. So while I do appreciate the compliment I am not all that interested in wasting my time.

Trump has been a bully in public, often via Twitter literally hundreds of times since I have been watching, less than a year. If you pay me, I will be happy to count the number of times, usually an ad hominem or a direct and unambiguous lie.

I thought I was discussing with friends whether or not Trump was in any way a suitable person to be president of the United States.

To save you some time, I have enclosed a list of phony and fallacious debating techniques for you to use in the future.

But if you would do me a favor, please avoid using them with me. I am a little busy and I dont respect the arguments so its a waste of both our time.

https://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html

Sincerely,

MW

Global Wahrman

How to Remove a President (Other Methods)

draft

This post is a continuation of the discussion of how a nation may remove a non-performing or insane chief executive that is outside the more constitutional methods of a nation.

I use the term “chief executive” as a synonym for “President”, “Chancellor”, “First Secretary”, etc.

As we discuss some of these famous cases from history be particularly alert for the principle of “unintended or unanticipated consequences” and remember that these examples are usually very specific to the country and the period of time they are a part of.

1. The General Rebellion

The "rebellion" as defined here often also goes by the name of revolution. They generally only happen after a prolonged period of distress and/or dysfunction of the government.  It requires that a significant portion of the population decides that the situation is untenable and that rebellion is the only alternative. Or they may not be thinking too hard about rebellion or revolution, they may simply be protesting the lack of food or the murder of one of their own by the security forces and things spin out of control.

This revolt may or may not include a substantial portion of the aristocracy and it may or may not be encouraged by foreign governments.

The rebellion is distinguished from the coup d'etat by being generally unplanned and involving a sizable percentage of the general population, in other words, people outside the present government.

Notable examples of the rebellion or revolution include the Glorious Revolution of 1638 in Great Britain, the American Revolution of 1776, the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Islamic Revolution of 1989 in Iran. All of these cases resulted in a new constitution for the country. The Glorious Revolution and the Russian Revolution also had aspects of a civil war.

The Islamic and Russian Revolutions both started with a broader base of support and then were taken over by one of the revolutionary groups which came to control the government.  The Islamic Revolution started as a rebellion against the Shah's government but was only later taken over by orthodox Shia.  The Russian Revolution first resulted in the Kerensky Provisional Government and was later taken over by the Bolsheviks. 

2. The Coup d'Etat

Far more common in recent history is the coup d'etat which is distinguished from the General Rebellion by being initiated by a much smaller group of people working in secret. Very often the people who attempt a coup are part of the ruling government and generally includes in the conspiracy a part of that nation's military and internal security forces.

In the classic coup d'etat, members of the government and the aristocracy conspire to take over the government and depose the chief executive and his primary supporters. There is usually a specific event or date of the coup, the part of the military that is in control of the plotters attempts to take control of the capital, imprison or kill the chief executive, his loyal ministers, and anyone else who is perceived to be a threat. They generally attempt to control the primary media outlets, traditionally a radio or television station, in order to control the news about the situation. They generally attempt to seize and control the parliament of the country.

A successful coup will do all these things and the former chief executive will either be killed or be forced into exile, or in a few cases, internal exile. A coup that is not successful generally results in the death, imprisonment or exile of the coup supporters and a purge of suspected supporters from the government and from the country. The end result of an unsuccessful coup may have the result of leaving the existing government more powerful than before the coup. The fall of the Soviet Union was an unexpected result of an unsuccessful coup d'etat. 

The coup d'etat has in the past been a device of intelligence agencies of various nations attempting to execute regime change on a country that is not their own.

3. The Assassination

Perhaps the most direct way to change the chief executive of a country is to kill him or her. However, assassination has a mixed track record for achieving political goals as it often results in unanticipated or undesired results. Very often assassination may be the work of a very small cabal leading to questions of conspiracy and a strong counter-reaction.

Classic assassinations in history include John Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and Julius Caesar. In the case of Kennedy, it is not known why the assassination happened although of course there are numerous theories. In the case of Lincoln, the assassination did not help the Confederate cause, if anything it hurt it. In the case of the Archduke Ferdinand, the goal of the assassin involved regional politics and was not intended to start a general global war. In the case of Julius Caesar, the assassins were all dead within a few years and the Roman Republic was definitively destroyed.

Sometimes we are not sure whether a chief executive was assassinated.  An example of this is the death of Joseph Stalin who may or may not have been poisoned by Beria.

4. Suicide

In some circumstances, the chief executive can be encouraged to commit suicide as Hitler did at the end of World War 2.  This is not so easy to arrange and when it does happen it is usually in conjunction with some other circumstance, such as the one below.

5. Change of Government After Defeat in War

The final case of a non-consensual change of government is that which occurs after defeat in a war. The governments of Germany, Austria, and Japan in particular were imposed by the victors after World War 2, generally without the consent of the citizens of the defeated country.  If it does involve the citizenry of the defeated country, then that consent is only pro forma.

An Open Letter to My Friend Bob

draft

The following is a letter to a former friend, a true believer in the free-market system, who wants to "wait and see" about Donald Trump.  In my opinion, my friend is delusional on a number of different issues.  The most annoying of these ideas is that he can somehow convince me that Trump is a good guy.  But facts are facts, whether or not you like them.  And Trump ran on a platform of racism, misogyny and hate.


Dear Bob,

I understand that you support a racist, misogynist, homophobe for president, but I don't. Trump is a bully who attacks with obvious lies in order to intimidate people who disagree with him and force them into line. Maybe you think that it is OK for the president to act in this way, but I don't.

The CIA says something Trump does not agree with, and he attacks them. The Carrier union leader says that Trump grossly misrepresented the Carrier deal (and he did) and he is attacked by Trump.  Then, "anonymous goons" call this enemy of Trump and threaten his life and the life of his family.  These are not isolated incidents. What about this don't you understand?

You tell me that Trump is not lying, he is bargaining. But we are not talking about negotiating how much cheese to buy.  We are talking about our country here and people need to know what positions their potential leaders will take in order to make judgments about whether or not to support them.  When Trump takes the oath of office on Jan 20 and he swears to support the Constitution and laws of the United States of America will that also be a lie?  

Exxon funded fake science and worked to derail any attempt to deal with global climate change. Trump said that climate change was a hoax and then he said that "nobody can really know if we are causing climate change or not". More lies of course because we, the best scientists we have, do think they know.  Its not "just a theory" as the Creationists would say.  Then in beautiful Trump-style, his goons demand to know who in the government supports these theories, presumably so they can be punished or fired for incorrect thought.

The new head of the Energy department has vowed to destroy the department. The head of the EPA wants to violate our environmental laws. The head of the Education department is well known for destroying Michigans public school system. The rumors of his abuse of women are not invented, a friend of mine knows a woman who was attacked by Trump when she was 14 years old. Trump has said he will appoint a supreme court justice that will vote to repeal Roe v Wade. I am sure Haley and Perry kissed Trumps flabby white ass to get their jobs. Trump appealed to the most racist parts of our society to get elected. Trump suggested that if HRC were elected that people should shoot her. Trump publicly asked Putin to attack the Democrats.

This conversation is not productive.

I can not be friends with someone who wants to murder women and destroy the environment.

Sincerely,
MW

Proposed Constitutional Amendment in Honor of the Election of Donald Trump

draft

Every honest and informed American is aghast at the election of Donald Trump to the President of the United states. A misogynist, racist, would-be murderer of women, xenophobe, narcissist in the non-clinical sense, possible narcissist in the clinical sense and most of all, completely inexperienced and inappropriate for the office of President. The people who voted for him and the Republican party must be held accountable for this abomination who is likely to damage the American republic for decades to come.

But moving forward, what can we do to prevent this kind of uninformed election in the future? What was the structural problem here and is there a solution?

I want to propose (seriously) a constitutional amendment to address this. Although I am not a constitutional lawyer and just a common citizen, so forgive the wording which no doubt would need work.

The intent of the amendment would be as follows, “No person may be elected President of the United States who has not been elected to and served honorably in a major political position of the country, such as a member of the House of Representatives, or of the US Senate, or Vice President of the United States.”

In this way, we would know that the would-be president would be cognizant of foreign policy issues, budget issues, legal issues, and many other topics that the President must deal with upon election.

It is arguable that being elected Governor of a state should also qualify a person for election as president, but it is a little questionable because in general a Governor does not have the same foreign policy responsibilities. It is possible that a justice of the peace would also be eligible. It is possible that a senior military leader would also be eligible (see for example Eisenhower).

Obviously these issues would have to be debated before proposing an amendment.

How to Remove a President (Constitutional Methods)

draft

The obvious question to ask in the context of the Trump disaster, is how do you remove a president who is a maniac, or who suffers from a personality disorder, or is a fanatic and who is expected to involve us in war and attempt to destroy the country hand-in-hand with the incredibly stupid faction that put him into power?

There are a variety of case studies from history, both recent and ancient, and we will review some of them here. Please be aware that each of these is contingent on that nations culture, its institutions, its laws and the specific situations at hand (e.g. an unpopular war, a famine, riots, police oppression, etc).

This post will discuss constitutional methods only. A second post will discuss some of the extra-constitutional methods.

I use the term “President” below as a synonym for other titles including “Chancellor”, “Premier”, “Prime Minister”, “Shah” and “First Secretary”.

1. The President is installed / removed on a technicality which may or may not be legal.

In 2000, the right-wing US Supreme Court forced the recount in Florida to be halted in order to install Bush Jr as president. Anyone who examines that situation comes away with the following impression: had the recount continued Al Gore would have won the election. In this way, by controlling the Supreme Court, the right wing was able to defeat the results of an election. Whether or not you believe that or not is irrelevant. A substantial number of Americans do believe it.

If in 2016, the Electoral College were to install Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump, it would be perfectly legal to the best of my knowledge and the Trump faction would go nuts. The Electoral College is an artifact from 200 years ago and is itself a technicality that many people do not find legitimate. I doubt this situation will occur.

2. The President / Tsar / whatever is responsible for (or inherits) a policy so unpopular that he/she resigns from office or declines to run for re-election.

There are many examples of this in history, a notable one being LBJ's decision not to run for re-election and is also probably the case of the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.  In the latter case the situation in Russia was far more complicated and dire than simply an unpopular war.

3. The President loses a vote of confidence or is impeached and convicted by Congress.

This is more common in parliamentary governments than in our type of government. It requires a congress / parliament that is not controlled by the President's party and/or the President loses control of his own party. As the impeachment of Clinton showed, the fact of an impeachment does not have to be based on anything real and that it is quite possible to survive an impeachment when the charges are baseless and merely the irrational actions of an irresponsible Republican party.

Since the Republicans currently control both houses of Congress and is likely to appoint one of their goons to the Supreme Court, this is an unlikely scenario for the immediate future.  However much the mainstream Republicans hate Donald Trump, he is still technically a Republican and better than a stick-in-the-eye for their right wing, America-hating causes.

There is the entertaining possibility, however low probability, that the Republicans might impeach Trump if he did something egregious, as a way of putting a more compliant reactionary in charge, e.g. Pence.

4. The President commits a crime which is exposed and the resulting scandal causes him/her to resign.

In general for this scenario to work, the scandal has to be so egregious that it overwhelms the attempts of the administration to suppress it.  In this country it usually requires an “independent prosecutor” to be assigned, its report has to be damning, and the threat of impeachment has to be real.

This scenario also requires, or may require, such things as an internal security unit doing the right thing and trying to enforce the law, or a whistle blower who is aware of the crime coming forward, or a responsible press, and usually a combination of the above.

This is a likely scenario ultimately for Trump. But there are many reasons to think that it also might not work in his case. Trump has proven to be remarkably immune to borderline insane behavior already exhibited, the Republicans control both houses of Congress and would have to approve an independent prosecutor, and our internal security forces would have to do the right thing which in general is not a realistic expectation on our part.

5. The Constitution permits a president to be removed without impeachment.

There is a technique for removing the President if he/she is judged to be insane in the opinion of his/her own administration. I know very little about it but I think it is intended to prevent nuclear war in the short run while the government figures out what to do with a certified loony at the top. To the best of my knowledge, these provisions have never been used.

In the next post on the subject of removal, we will review some of the more entertaining but illegal methods of removal of the chief executive such as assassination.  

Causes and Mysteries about Election 2016

A minority of American voters have elected an irresponsible, racist, misogynist, narcissistic, and unqualified asshole to be POTUS and are in complete denial of how they have fucked this country.

Causes

In order to achieve this, a number of things had to happen. I review a few of them here. First, women and Hispanics who were presumed to vote for HRC and against Trump did not do so in substantial numbers. Trump could not have won without their support. Second, we learn that the country is perfectly willing to ignore their leaders. Just about every elite politician, intellectual and news source supported HRC, some of them half-heartedly, and opposed Trump. Third, voting Republicans, not their leaders but the rank and file, supported their candidate and the Democrats did not. Fourth, we, the Democrats, won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. We may have to do something about the Electoral College, but that will be hard. Fifth, you can not run a candidate for POTUS unless he/she is a superior communicator and HRC is not. Sixth, we ran a Washington insider in a year when the country seethed with anger about how the system was failing them.  We had plenty of warning, see the Occupy movement and the campaign of Bernie Sanders. In other words, we, the Democrats, chose the wrong candidate.

Mysteries

I do not understand why the Washington elite has completely failed to understand and recognize the anger about the economy that has been building for over 30 years. 

Also, remember that the Trump vote only reflects the anger on the right.  There is a similar anger but on the left, what we might call the Sanders supporters.  These people were completely and utterly disenfranchised in this election being forced to vote for HRC as a lesser evil than Trump.

There is anger about the wealth inequality. There is anger about a justice system that favors the rich and punishes the poor. There is anger about a tax system that oppresses the middle class. There is anger about a justice system that lets corporate criminals commit any crime and go free.

The Polls

I do not understand why the polls were so wrong, nor do I understand why so many people, including the pollsters themselves, are in denial of the scope of their disaster.  This is as bad as "Dewey Defeats Truman". 

The implications of the polling failure are not commonly recognized. For example, you think you know what percentage of women or Hispanics voted for Trump? Well, you don't. Those numbers come from exit polls. The same technology that was so wrong going into the election. The fact is that this technology is thoroughly discredited. You can believe those numbers if you wish, but I don't.

The Good News

There is good news, its not all bad.

First, Washington needed a wake up call that business-as-usual does not work. Probably nothing less dramatic would have gotten the message across and even so it is not clear that Washington heard the message. Second, Trump is essentially a third party candidate that used a weak Republican party to get nominated and then elected. So if you want a path for a third party to win the White House, one has just been demonstrated for you. Third, Trump does not exactly have the support of the Republican Party. He will not get things all his own way in the Congress. Fourth, Trump has no track record of working with Washington. The last time we had a true Washington outsider, Jimmy Carter, it made a very big difference on what got done and what did not.

Conclusions

I can only hope that this clusterf*ck that is Trump will be a wake up call and that the principle of unintended consequences will apply here.

In the long run, we don't know if this is a complete disaster, or whether it was a necessary transition to a better government.

Notice to Trump Supporters

We are going to find a more polite way to say this.  Or something like this.  I would skip this post for the time being.

Election 2016 What We Learned Part 1

My first impression when I saw Trump winning was that “we are so fucked”. And we are. But here are a few notes on the things that we learned, or that I learned.

1. Polling science is bullshit. If they have not figured out the Bradley Effect by now, they never will.

2. Polling may have thrown the election to Trump because some people voted for third parties who might have voted differently if they had only known the real situation.

3. Women and Hispanics did not support Hillary.

4. There is no reason to think that a woman candidate can be elected president.

5. Trump's support is not just uneducated white men. He could not have done what he did without considerable support from women and minorities.

6. Washington thought they could fuck the middle class with impunity, and the middle class fucked back.

7. The Democrats ran a Washington insider in a year when Americans were pissed off at being impoverished.

8. America has voted what it thinks about immigration, Globalization, fucking the middle class to make money for the rich, and LGBT rights.

9. By fucking up on this election, we lose the supreme court for the rest of our lives, and we may very well lose abortion rights. We chose these positions, and the country voted, and we lost.

Hold Your Nose and Vote for Hillary ?

In our first ever presidential election since Global Wahrman came into existence, we have decided to hold our nose and vote for Hillary Clinton. Maybe.

Its true that HRC stands for so many things I despise, and that there would be no hope under an HRC administration of things getting better. Surely if you wanted an example of what the word "corporate whore" means, one should look no further than Ms. Clinton.  And if you want to see Globalization continue to crush Americans in order to give more money to the rich, HRC is your candidate.  She hates unions, she hates the poor, she hates the working classes.  

She is pretty much despicable in every possible way.

But we have the following reasons for voting for her and ultimately they have won out.

1. Bernie Sanders, who I adore, whether or not he would have made a good president, is working for her and has asked his supporters to vote for her, so in deference to him, I will.

2. Trump is an abomination and I have promised my overseas friends that I would do what I could to defeat him. Particularly those who have been fucked by the Brexit madness have requested this.

3. Even though my vote is meaningless as HRC will win CA easily, there is still the issue of the popular vote and I think that there is some validity to adding my pittance to the destruction of Trump.

4. Our enemies are gloating over the stupidity of this election and I hate that. Yes, even though our country's government has fucked its people as hard as it can in order to make more money for the rich, I have a residual self image of this being a great country once, and it irritates me that China is gloating over our self-inflicted stupidity.

If you dont believe me, the Guardian has an excellent article here.

5. The right wing thugs at the FBI have really pissed me off.

Since HRC will certainly win (editors note: oops!), I will go over in a later post the minimum that is required for her to have any credibility in my eyes.  Of course, HRC will not give a fuck what I or any other powerless American cares, so why bother?

It will make me feel better, that's why.

HRC On the Issues Part 1

In a recent Facebook (FB) brouhaha, I started a shitstorm by (a) advocating that Donald Trump must not be allowed to have the nuclear codes but at the same time stating that (b) I find HRC to be at best a middle-of-the-road American politician whose stated policies, designed to be non-controversial, seem far too tame to me and insufficient for the situation that 30 years of "kicking the can down the road" has caused.. Because of the controversy this caused, I recommended two things.

The first was that we adjourn the discussion from FB which is more appropriate for slinging insults and take the discussion to my blog where I can actually have a paragraph without being offensive to someone's bad reading skills. And second was that I would examine HRCs positions based on what I believe, not what you believe, but what I believe and give her a score.

What would that achieve? Not much beyond a better statement about whether HRC holds positions that I support, or not. You are perfectly welcome to have your own beliefs, I mean, like, WTF. Duh.

In the following scores, a positive score means that it is a good thing, a negative score means that it is a bad thing, and a zero means that it is neither good nor bad overall. At worst we would hope that a candidate for political office that we supported would have a positive score, even if only a tiny positive score. A zero would be disappointing of course. But a negative score would be a very bad idea. Values range from -1 to 1. 

HRC's positions were found by searching for "Hillarys position on <x>" where "<x>" might be "health care reform" or what have you.  Then from the results, I picked those that looked official and tried to avoid political third parties whenever possible.

1. Health Care Reform

"Defend the Affordable Care Act and fix it."  No thanks, what we need is for the US Government to cover health care costs for everyone, and control the greed of the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies with legislation. We need to criminalize price gouging in drug costs. Score 0. What she advocates is not bad, but neither is it likely to make a significant difference.

2. Education Loan Reform

Some of the reform ideas are pretty good. Of course, they should have been there to begin with if this country was serious about helping people get an education, which it isn't. I do not see anything here on increasing the total amount one can get for education and the issue (which may be a non-issue, it is just impossible to tell) of to what extent these loans can pay for living expenses while attending college/grad school. Without this ability, it is all just pretentious bullshit. The poor have to live you know. Score 1/2. What she advocates is good and will make a difference. Not enough of a difference IMHO, but a difference nevertheless.

3. Welfare Reform

HRC was a force in favor of the destruction of the welfare system under the Clinton administration. This reform was a complete disaster and you can read more about that on this blog, if you care. She has never disavowed her role in this egregious republican attack on the poor. I can expect no improvement in that area under Hillary. I have been reminded since I first wrote this that HRC and Bill Clinton were not exactly responsible for this reform, the Republicans were.  Bill did sign it however.  Ok, I am going from a -1 to a -.5.  Score -.5. 

4. Visa Reform

HRC supports increasing the H1B, H2B visas in order to help corporations destroy American employment. Score -1. 

5. TTP

HRC backed off of her support of the TTP after assessing the rage that egregious trade treaty provoked. But what does she really believe. I have no doubt that she supports the TTP in her heart and will see to it that the important provisions are put into law one way or another. To an extent this ties in to the HRC credibility problem. Do I believe her or not? In general, no I don't. Furthermore, we know her inclinations based on her initial support and role as Secretary of State in creating this abomination. Score -1/2 

6. Globalization

HRC supports it of course. Anything to destroy American jobs and impoverish as many Americans as possible. Score -1. 

Conclusion

Our subtotal comes to 0 + .5 - .5 -1 - .5 -1 = -2.5.

Oh a score of -2.5 is terrible. Well, we will just have to examine more issues and see if we can not make this more positive. What shall we examine? How about where HRC stands on criminalizing corporate crime, on eliminating statute of limitations on corporate crime, on civic asset forfeiture for the poor and middle class, on civic asset forfeiture for rich and corporate criminals, on having the DOJ enforce the law even as it applies to local police departments.

Whatever this means, and I do not think it means much, we have a clear responsibility to vote for the candidate most capable of defeating Donald Trump at the polls. This is not my favorite approach to a political process, but we do not seem to have any choice.

Hillary Clinton and the Welfare Reform Disaster

My little personal review of the systems of support for the poor in America (really in California) has been unexpectedly interesting.

It turns out that if you are poor, you can be quite sure that the US and California State governments will not help you have shelter or keep the power on. It will help you eat and get medical care, as long as you dont mind being homeless and completely impoverished.

Furthermore, it may be that there was never really any support except for women with children, anyway. I am not sure about that, but whatever there may have been, was destroyed by the Republicans with the help of none other than Pres. Bill Clinton with the so called Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which you can read about at the link below.

One of the worst aspects of this so-called "reform" is that welfare is now run by the states, which allows the Republicans to further demean and attack the poor.  In many states, drug tests are required and only counseling is provided, when what is needed is money, pure and simple. What arrogant swine the politicians of America are.

And how little respect I have for the Democratic party for their role in this abomination. When I refer to the Democrats as being "compromised", their participation in this sort of thing is what I am referring to.

What this means is that if you are poor in America, you are fucked. Thats the way people seem to want it, but it is not the way I want it. The government has gone out of its way to destroy employment in this country, and to see that their rich friends do well. They can damn well provide a basic subsistance amount without limitation to those of us who did not happen to benefit from their corrupt and egregious economic policies.

Oh yes, not only did Hillary round up votes for this offensive bill in Congress, but she also allegedly encouraged her husband to vote for it. And she has never disavowed her support for this so-called "reform".

Remind me again why the presidency of  Hillary Clinton is going to be heaven on earth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

Tim Kaine Notes

First of all, Tim Kaine is not from Virginia, he is from Missouri by way of Harvard. This is good and bad but no one from Virginia would for a moment think he was from Virginia, so you should know that. Second, he is not old-school Southern Democrat. That is good. Third, he is not a racist. Most of my ignorant west coast friends think all Southerners are racists. Fourth, he has been elected to political offices on a regular basis in a state that is heavily gerrymandered, has a large African-American vote, but which is a very conservative state, in the classic sense of the word.

Kaine is not in any way a radical, a progressive, or anything else along those lines. He will reinforce the Hillary Clinton approach to things, which is to say, a Rockefeller Republican approach. He may help to trivially increase education benefits. He may understand how hopeless the poor and the minority population is in this country, but he is not likely to stick his neck out too much unless Hillary tells him to, which I doubt. When it comes to foreign policy, he will be a solid American representative and will not embarrass us.

I can not emphasize the following too much. Kaine is a representative of the Harvard/Washington elite. If you have been happy with that elite's governance of America, then vote for him. If not, dont vote for him. He is not unlike John Kerry, if you will.

I dont think that voters in this country have any choice in who they will have to vote for in November. And I am not at all happy about this. Do not think that these people represent a big chunk of America just because they win in November. We had a gun to our head, and you know what I am talking about here.

I will update this post with new information about Kaine as it comes in.

Autobiographical note.

For what it is worth, I was born and grew up in Virginia (and California). A Californian friend of mine recently told me that Virginia was the Deep South. Another friend was angry that they had to have votes from the Southern states, e.g. that the South had votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate. I didn't have the heart to tell her that this was not the fault of the South, they did not want to be part of the Union either. There was a war about that, recall? It is my impression that most of my friends out here don't know much about the South but are completely certain that they do, a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Meditation on a Corrupt Primary Season

The NY Times, that fine defender of equal rights and political justice, as long as you agree with them, has run another editorial telling me that a vote for Bernie is Bonkers, but a vote for Hillary is for Truth and Justice.

The editorial goes over and over how bad the Republicans are for Gay Rights, and how good Hillary will be for Gay Rights. I have no doubt that the editorial is correct. But, Horrors of Horrors, as much as I support Gay Rights, I think it is an issue blown all out of proportion by the Religious Right and that it is not the only issue on the table. Sure, Gay Rights, no problem. Absolutely, Gay Rights! How about Criminal Sentences for Top Executives who Violate the Law? How about Taxation of the Rich? How about a real Economic Strategy for this country that is more than “Make more money for the rich; destroy the middle class; destroy the labor movement”.

And of course they trot out the issue of Bush vs Gore. Now, as a Gore supporter, I feel that "electing" Bush was a disaster for this country and the world. But Al Gore is not Hillary Clinton. Gore is not a compromised "Tool of the Corporation". Where was the NY Times when the Supreme Court pissed on the Constitution in public in 2000? I was there, I was watching, and I can tell you that the NY Times bent over and fell into line.

Trump is a Red Herring. He is nothing more than an attempt to manufacture consent for the Rockefeller Republican candidate Hillary Clinton.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. And I can tell you flat out that I have no idea what she stands for beyond her strong support for Globalization and the status quo. Is she a bad person? Probably not. 

Now it may be that under that $12,000 Armani jacket burns a heart filled with compassion for the poor and disenfranchised, for the unemployed and the abandoned. We won't know until she is elected and I am a firm believer in the principle that you can not know how someone will really be as President until he or she is there.

There are other problems as well. In California, there is a law that keeps anyone who ran in a party primary from running in the main election as an independent. Its called the “Sore Loser” law. So that means that Bernie can not run as an independent in California, or that is my reading. Why does this matter? It matters because what with Nevada, Massachusetts, New York and many other irregularities, issues of whether independents can vote in a primary, etc., we have a nomination process which is illegitimate in many Americans' eyes.

Maybe I need to lower my expectations about what constitutes a fair election.  But I would have thought that by 2016 we would have this more together. You know, Democracy? Free and fair elections?

And that's a problem.  When you blow your credibility on things like this, how can you expect people to believe you when something even more important is on the table?

My Dialogue on Facebook About Hillary's Concern for the Unemployed

The following has been edited for formatting purposes and to fix minor grammatical and spelling errors.  I have removed the identity of the person who set me off.  We have been friends for years and if anything are closer after this little exchange.  I will call her "Sandra Smartperson".

Sandra Smartperson.  She would never ever want to care about the unemployed? Really? Michael, you are full of baloney.

Michael Wahrman Dear Sandra, no, I dont think so. Do you just want to insult me, or do you want to know why I think what I do?

Michael Wahrman OK, lets party. 1st the unemployment metric that we are constantly told about is, if you care to spend 5 minutes researching it, guaranteed to not only under report the number of unemployed, but to ignore those who are most in trouble. All it reports is those who are known to have lost their jobs in the last 18 months, anyone who is not employed again in those 18 months is dropped off the metric. Furthermore even those who find a job in that 18 months, there is no way of telling whether they got a job again at their previous salary. Someone who was working at 80 K per year, could now be working for 30K and it would all be reported as great. The first thing anyone who was serious about helping the unemployed would do is to work to create a more honest index or series of indices so we could at least discuss the problem. That is point one.

Michael Wahrman Second, the H1B visa program is well known for being abused by corporations in Silicon Valley (in particular, I presume other industries use it as well in this way) to train people from India and China so that those services can be outsourced to India and China. Pick up pretty much any issue of Computerworld, or read about the (in) famous ongoing Disney IT situation. Hillary not only supports the H1B visa program, she wants to expand it.

Michael Wahrman Third, HRC is on record for not supporting the minimum wage initiative and she gets very little support from the Unions at all. Why is this, Sandra? If Globalization is so good for the economy then it would be just hunky fine to have laws that said that a corporation that off shored labor would be held criminally responsible if that labor was forced labor or abused. I mean the top executives would go to jail. But even though we know that in fact many of these famous off shore companies use indentured labor, nothing is done. Or when high tech companies use raw materials that come from violence torn regions of Africa and the revenues thus generated are used to support the wars that murder tens of thousands of civilians, our government just laughs and pats those corporations on the back for making more profits through globalization. I mean, god forbid our corporations would have to use Americans and pay them benefits! What about the profits to the shareholders?

Michael Wahrman Globalization as we have implemented it in this country is guaranteed to enrich the corporation at the expense of the worker. And it has. And yet no effort has been made by either government or industry (to the best of my knowledge) to either measure the number of Americans put out of work by Globalization nor to make any provision for retraining them for another field. This is not just manufacturing, although I do not understand why manufacturing is held in such low esteem, but is many fields including the glamourous and rewarding fields of visual effects. To the best of my knowledge, HRC has not indicated anything in her platform that would gather these numbers or provide real funding for retraining these disenfranchised workers.

Michael Wahrman Furthermore, if Globalization is so good for the economy, then why should the corporations who have increased profits not be responsible for paying for this retraining? Oh and by the way, it wont be cheap. We are talking about at least 2 years probably 3 to get a Masters degree in a new area, and then find a job, and these are not teenagers but adults with families who need to be supported. If HRC cared about these people, she would have something in her platform somewhere to address it, but to the best of my knowledge she does not. I admit, I have found it hard to figure out what it is HRC does propose, but that may be my fault or how I use the Internet. I might be wrong about this, I hope so.

Michael Wahrman No one knows how many chronically unemployed and impoverished Americans there are today. Although I think the number of 100 M that I have heard is hopefully over the top. The point is, no one knows, and I see nothing in the HRC platform that makes me think that she has anything more in mind than more of the same. You know, 10 percent more of this, 15 percent off of that. By the way, if Obama were running today I might (probably) say the same thing about him.

Michael Wahrman Furthermore, this has been going on for a long time now, this studied neglect while the 1 percent (or 10 percent you tell me), does so well. So do I think that HRC gives a rats ass about the unemployed? No, not really. But all you have to do to prove me wrong (and make me happy, I want to be proven wrong) is to point to a program that she is advocating that is not just more of the same, because more of the same is unlikely to make much of a difference.

Michael Wahrman Now its true, could such a program get through Congress? I guess it depends on what it its, but I am inclined to believe that it would be over Congress's dead body. Nor do I think HRC is in any way to blame for this situation (well maybe a little, but no big deal). But on the other hand, she *is* running for president, pretty much the only serious candidate (I love Bernie but I do not think he is actually running for president exactly, I think he is trying to give a voice to the impoverished and disenfranchised and I love him for it, but its another topic), so it makes sense to me to look at her proposed platform and see what she says. And that gets to the big mystery ....

Michael Wahrman The big mystery is how it is possible for this to be going on so long without Washington realizing that there is a problem here. It is not fair nor am I laying all this at Hillary's door, by which I mean she has only had a small part to play in creating this problem. But I am absolutely blaming our Government, that is the federal government: Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme and other Courts, etc. How it is that Washington was able to believe that this could just go on without blowback (I love that word) is what amazes me. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe people are doing just great. If that is so, where does all the anger come from? Why are so many people saying, hey, its all very well to give the better part of a trillion dollars to help your friends on Wall Street (and give speeches to them but not tell us what you said) but maybe you might have some of this vast wealth left over for us. You remember us, right? Remember? You want us to vote for you every four years or so, right? So when I say that Hillary does not care less, that is only because that is what I seem to see when I look at her positions. Now maybe she has in mind some very interesting and dramatic solutions (and has some idea about how to get them through Congress) but if so I am unaware of them. Maybe you are more aware of them than I am and can help me understand. Is it fair to put all this at Hillary's feet and say fix it? Well, no, not really. Doesn't seem fair to me. But we do give the President a lot of power and it is a good place to start.

Michael Wahrman Finally, Sandra, I may very well be full of shit, but probably not baloney. Aside from a degree in Economics and my time at the RAND Corporation (for what that is worth, probably not much, but it is true so why not) I have been a vegetarian since 1978 and so I am unlikely to be full of baloney. I hope you are doing very well, and that you are recovering from surgery, and that I am all wrong about either Hillary's plans or the state of the nation, because if there is one thing I am quite sure of, I am not in a position to do much of anything at all except to complain. Feel better ! Nice to hear from you!

Michael Wahrman By the way, I write a blog and here is a post I wrote about how the homeless are helped down here in N San Diego county.... I wish that everyone who has read this far would read it, because I believe I have done a good job at expressing my outrage and disgust.  See Law Enforcement Provides Moral Instruction To The Poor

Michael Wahrman Ok, I lied one more thing. If the three founders of Google can share 7 widebody jets and rent Moffet field as a place to store them, then I can see a program in a leading candidate's platform about how we are going to help that homeless person I wrote about above, and help her right now. I am tired of waiting. I have waited long enough. I can stare in disbelief at what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says how they measure unemployment only so often. I can be disgusted at how the former chief of police of Los Angeles will spend 4 months in jail after abusing the civil rights of tens of thousands of prisoners in Los Angeles over two decades and see no outrage anywhere only so long. So does Hillary care about the unemployed? Really? Hey, I am hungry, anybody have some baloney?