Yes, it's time for another book. I
will state up front that I have not read this book...yet. It just
came to my attention today. However, it's subject matter deserves
delving into. For it deals partly with an issue that has been
brought up in the comments section in the past, the effects of
population growth. As so many have assumed, me included, the
effects of a rise in population on our planetary resources could only
lead to their depletion. But as some have suggested there may be
technological, and other advances, that have just the opposite effect. This book sheds light on that argument. The book
is:
Without further introduction I will
let Andrew McAfee explain:
I think it important to emphasize the
last point that McAfee makes about the involvement of good
government. None of this would have occurred if it weren't for smart
policy decisions by past governments. And we are now in danger of
undoing some of that good,
84 comments:
More with less? As a confirmed tree-hugger, I was thinking there'd be stuff in there about how we don't recycle, re-use, buy local and such. To some extent that seems to have been a good guess, although it would seem to me that he was just making homage noises as a cover for his real argument--i.e. tech will save the day so we don't have to worry 'bout it after all.
I would note that he skips lightly over the fact that polymers--OIL--have replaced metals in many applications and that explains a lot of the "decoupling" of "wealth" from metal consumption that he finds so significant. (Having made that note, I'll now move along.) And, of course, use of oil and natural gas has largely displaced higher-carbon coal as fuel in America, which explains the drop-off of atmospheric carbon per dollar of wealth produced.
I have some other complaints with his presentation, but, at this point, I'll let it go with those two direct challenges to his chosen criteria.
The GIGO principle does still apply.
I would agree with the part about good government choices being necessary to force the capitalist system to work correctly here, i.e. to make it ‛internalize’ the actual, total costs of production and distribution. He did manage to get that much right. But it largely seemed to me to be an add-on to his underlying argument that tech will save the day; wasn't his main thesis.
Off topic:
I suspect that Trump trying to keep the reasoning behind his unscheduled visit to Walter Reed Hospital is gonna be an issue in the coming days. That's not gonna go away until it's adequately explained.
Why do I think that a major health issue would be too easy of a way out for him? While it might prevent further damage to our country in the near term I would really like to see the American people remove him from office.
Also, I've been thinking about those people who were and may still be concerned that the impeachment inquiry may hurt the Democrats at the polls because when they impeached Clinton it wasn't a winning move for the Republicans in the next election.
I suspect that they are missing something with that analysis. That something being that most American's weren't really into the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Trump's behavior is something far more serious than lying about an affair. Serious enough that Americans may actually take notice of what the inquiry is showing us. Perhaps the canary in the coalmine is in those elections in Kentucky and Louisiana.
I think he was pointing out the decoupling of growth from energy use. He states that America has grown 15% since the Great Recession yet we use 3% less energy. He doesn't really break down where that energy comes from, oil, coal or alternative forms.
"…we use 3% less energy."
Yeah, we use 3% less energy. We've off-shored our manufacturing--we get the goods and we get to charge China with the energy use for their production. We also charge China with the fuel use to get their goods to our markets. (Same for fruits and veggies--economists generally lay the shipping fuel at the feet of the the seller, not the buyer.) Meanwhile our growth since 2009 has been in services and the financial sector, not energy intensive exercises. (And that's too short a term to count as a trend when he's otherwise measuring his trends across centuries.) He's gaming his numbers I think.
I've been watching the various court cases Trump has instigated with his refusal to comply with "all" the subpoenas, full-tilt stonewalling has spawned a whole double handful of cases, many of which now seem likely to be decided finally by the Supreme Trumpkins before the 2020 election.
Trump may come to regret his timing on this front. The bad news may be coming out just as he's ramping up his efforts to close the deal with the few remaining swing voters over the coming summer.
We've off-shored our manufacturing--we get the goods and we get to charge China with the energy use for their production. We also charge China with the fuel use to get their goods to our markets. (Same for fruits and veggies--economists generally lay the shipping fuel at the feet of the the seller, not the buyer.)
Good point.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trashing his ideas across the board. Of course there's a role, a requirement even, for technology to address the many issues involved in a solution. And he's certainly correct that the problem will require governmental, and even international, impositions. This not "The Revenge of the Tree-Huggers" that I'm pushing here.
But, I will warn that a techie type giving a lecture at MIT is almost certain to over-indulge in the technology side of the problem.
Supposed to be a busy day in the impeachment hearings. I imagine Trump will have much tweeting to do.
I see that the Swedes have decided to drop the sex charges against Julian Assange. He's currently doing British time for jumping bail, got about 10 months left to do on that charge, and then he's ours (assuming the extradition goes through).
Rumor's running 'round D.C. that Sondland will take the 5th tomorrow.
Well, he's not taking the 5th; he's going to say instead that it's all Rudy's fault.
"Everyone was in the loop."
Gonna be hearing that one again during the 2020 election season.
Ain't gonna drain the swamp after giving the White House over to the alligators. Just ain't gonna happen.
In light of Trump's appearance for the cameras today during the impeachment hearings, I might oughta review an explanation I tried to lay out once before.
"It is an unfortunate truth that the rise of the Federalist Society
among the ranks of American judges has coincided with string
of court decisions which have gutted our campaign financing
laws to the point where it is just almost legal to bribe
American politicians. I say almost because there's still one barrier
to direct negotiation of the bribes. The participants
cannot engage in a quid pro quo discussion.
***
"On the other hand, there's still a federal Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, which the Federalist Society judges haven't yet
overly scrutinized. So, it's pretty much still illegal to bribe
foreign politicians.
"If Trump was the one offering the bribe that might make it
rather easier to get a conviction than it would be if he were
the one offering the favor in exchange."
Lee C. ― U.S.A. @ (Fri Sep 20, 02:59:00 pm)
Trump's appearance before the cameras today indicates that he's still thinking like the shady New York City land developer that he once was. He just doesn't understand that it's not legal to bribe foreign politicians; it's just not sinkin' in with him. Failure to observe this distinction may buy him some jail time after his term of office is over.
Ain't gonna drain the swamp after giving the White House over to the alligators. Just ain't gonna happen.
I wonder if this will sink in to enough American voters?
Amy Klobuchar just finished her wrap-up speech. She did up her game a bit tonight (not enough to jump back into the 1st tier, but better than her last couple of outings.).
Bootigieg upped his game a bit as well.
Biden managed to be Biden again.
Today is the scheduled final day of impeachment inquiry hearings. They're hoping to wrap it up today. Some time later, not yet scheduled, will come the vote on Articles of Impeachment.
I missed the debate. I heard that both Buttigieg and Harris did well. I may have to dig up video and see why CNN reported that Yang "stole the show".
They are reporting that Netanyahu will be indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.
I think he and Trump get along quite well I believe. So this doesn't surprise me.
The public House Impeachment Hearings are probably over. There's an outside chance they'll reopen public hearings for some blockbuster testimony, but it's not very likely. (Maybe if John Bolton decided to unload on Trump, but that's not likely on account of he hates the Democrats probably more than he hates Trump.)
I think it'll be a week, maybe two weeks before we know definitively whether these hearings moved the needle. My guess is not much. Most of the dedicated Trumpkins are now fully aware that Trump tried to coerce Ukrainian officials into announcing an investigation into the Bidens on his behalf, and they're okay with that. All they really want is a "defense" that they can repeat back with a straight face, and FoxNews will give them that, and that's all they need. The Republicans on the congressional committees worried a couple of times about the real story getting out, but it turns out they need not have worried. The dedicated Trumpkins know what happened, and they're okay with it.
On the other hand, this still has a chance of tarring Republican Senators when they vote to vindicate Trump's actions. And that's the only really good reason I saw in going through with the investigation and the impeachment. It might cost Trump another small slice of the already small slice of voters who might possibly be convinced at this stage. And, it might cost the Republicans some senators come 2020, and that would make it worth it.
"…Netanyahu will be indicted…"
He still has a chance at returning as Prime Minister of Israel. That'll be interesting, the sitting Prime Minister sitting in jail maybe.
"Maybe if John Bolton decided to unload on Trump…"
Lee C. @ Thu Nov 21, 06:24:00 pm ↑↑
OR, if they get access to Mueller's grand jury evidence and/or get the Supreme Trumpkins to follow the unanimous decision of United States v Nixon and give them former White House Counsel, Don McGann, as a witeness, long now in defiance of a congressional subpoena.
That would likewise qualify as probable ‛blockbuster testimony’
The Republicans on the congressional committees worried a couple of times about the real story getting out, but it turns out they need not have worried. The dedicated Trumpkins know what happened, and they're okay with it.
I believe you are right. The Trumpkin I know was basically pretty dismissive of the whole impeachment process. They are living in another universe, rather like the alternate Arab universe that Jeffrey always talked about.
"They are living in another universe…"
Yeah.
They are hostile to the idea of Trump conspiring with the Russians because they don't want to have to admit to that in public--not because they'd turn on Trump should it be eventually proven that he had conspired with the Russians. They don't want to be embarrassed or to have to back-track just to keep on supporting Trump. But they will keep on supporting Trump. (At least, until he loses; the one thing they will not accept from him is losing to their chosen enemies--that'd be the "other" Americans--us.)
The good news is that while they make up a majority of the Republican Party, they make up a distinct minority of the American public, maybe 37-38%. Hang in there though; 2020's comin'. When he loses in 2020 their coalition will shatter, because screwin' the rest of us over is their one unifying concept, that only thing that keeps them together. When they lose that the coalition will shatter.
Typo, should read as: "…the only thing that keeps them together."
"But they will keep on supporting Trump."
We should also remember that, if and when it's proven that the Trump campaign did coördinate with the Russians, FoxNews will construct and disseminate the necessary "straight-face" defense of that conduct. They don't want to have to do that; they always lose a few when they have to re-bathe the faithful in such extremes, and they're already a minority, but they will accept the loss of a few if it comes to that. They will bless the coördination as necessary, and move on from there.
[Lynnette]: "I wonder if this will sink in to enough American voters?"
I saw a poll that suggested that no more than 8% of the American public would change their minds about Trump no matter what the impeachment hearings concluded. That goes for Republican and Dems. The Dems have never been able to let go of Russiagate. Republicans continue to believe that the sleazebag in the White House is squaring up to the bad guys. That, in spite of him more or less admitting to the impeachment charges on live TV yesterday. Although he might get off on grounds of insanity given how rambling and deranged he sounded on that Fox interview. I believe a bigger picture -- bigger than Ukrainegate and Trump himself -- was painted by Fiona Hill's testimony. Foreign powers are executing a plan to sow discord in American public discourse and it's working.
Speaking of Fiona Hill, I had to laugh at this Tweet which equated her accent to that of disgraced Prince Andrew, and cast her as a non-American. (As far as I understand, she's an American by citizenship). Andrew has a clipped "received pronunciation", a non-regional accent that only a minute percentage of the highly privileged acquire through upbringing and elite schooling. Hill has got a conspicuous Durham accent which is almost synonymous with underprivilege and the post-industrial wastelands of north eastern England. She said herself that her accent would be less of a hindrance in the US than the UK, and I suppose being compared to a prince bears it out even though I don't think the Tweeter's motivations were generous.
"Foreign powers are executing a plan to sow discord in
American public discourse and it's working."
They are merely attempting to snatch some profit from a plan laid long ago by the American political ‛right’, to seize the moment as it were now that the plan is coming to fruition after a couple of decades incubation.
Chumpy proves my point.
It's sometimes hard for me to tell when you're just bullshitting for the sake of being Petes, and when you actually believe some of the foolishness you spout.
In this case though, I'm fairly sure you're clueless enough to actually believe your own BS here.
Therefore: I would point to the practice of gerrymandering political districts to prove that both American political parties are quite capable of laying decades-long political plans, and I would point to the Federalist Society and their current crop of federal judges and Justices as evidence that the American right-wing is, in fact, much better at it and has been at it a lot longer this last go-round.
On the other hand, you have your desire to be "right" on some subject, eventually, but that is evidence of nothing of any use to us here.
I saw a poll that suggested that no more than 8% of the American public would change their minds about Trump no matter what the impeachment hearings concluded. That goes for Republican and Dems.
I believe it. People who are paying attention seem to have made up their minds.
It is those who don't take polls, who are not interested in politics, who are the wild card.
The federal government, under Trump, has now started taking private land to build The Great Wall of Trump. Somehow I can't believe this will sit right with those affected, or their families and friends.
I was talking to someone recently who, one might have assumed, was a Trumpkin only because of his blue collar roots and his home location. However, he wasn't too pleased with Washington's policies with regard to China. No, he wasn't a farmer he dealt in scrap metal. Those dealers are going under.
I think it is those who are flying under the radar who may affect the next election in ways the pollsters don't anticipate. Not all of these people are riding high off of the stock market.
"I believe it. [about the 8% thing]"
Yeah, me too. That's why I said earlier that I'd consider it a success if we could get a 3% point swing against Trump outta this. (And that's lookin' less likely day-by-day.)
I believe a bigger picture -- bigger than Ukrainegate and Trump himself -- was painted by Fiona Hill's testimony. Foreign powers are executing a plan to sow discord in American public discourse and it's working.
This was Comey's warning as well. While we have always had fissures within our society I do believe that there are those, Putin comes to mind, who would attempt to encourage those fissures.
Our divisions have been out there from the early days of the revolution. But those who strove to create our country were smart enough to figure out ways to bind us all together into one unit. Even if it meant deferring some things that needed to be done, such as the end to slavery. It took a civil war to end that practice, but we are still dealing with the residual affects today.
That's why I said earlier that I'd consider it a success if we could get a 3% point swing against Trump outta this. (And that's lookin' less likely day-by-day.)
Sorry to say it won't be the impeachment thing that may swing this. It will be the affects of Trump's horrible governance that affects too many people adversely.
I would have liked to believe that people would see the kind of swamp thing Trump is and that he has been the one who has brought his little swamp things to Washington. But I have lost faith in some people's desire to stand up for the right things anymore.
"Sorry to say it won't be the impeachment thing that may swing this."
You judge too soon. This is not a "one-off". They're not done. They've got a whole year of impeachment investigations to go on for round two. McGann, Mulvaney, Pompeo (I think), and a whole host of others who've refused to comply with their subpoenas. Assuming the Supreme Trumpkins follow the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in United States v Nixon then there'll be high level administration members and former members sitting for examination all next year, to and including Bill Barr and John Bolton--the former has been subpoenaed already, the latter will be if the congressional subpoena power is upheld against Trump's stonewalling.
This ain't near over with one swipe at a minor infraction involving Ukraine. They ain't forgotten that Mueller wimped out on his investigation. They'll pick up the slack there when the Supreme Trumpkins are obliged to uphold their subpoena power (unless they get voted out of the majority, and I don't see that happenin').
I was rereading, and noticed something I'd missed the first time.
"Republicans continue to believe that the sleazebag in
the White House is squaring up to the bad guys."
Yeah, that would be us.
Petes doesn't want to admit to this (much prefer to gloss over the point), but it's us they cast as the bad guys; we are the evil they fight. The Russians can be seen as allies by folks who hold to that view.
They've got a whole year of impeachment investigations to go on for round two.
Except the House has talked about wrapping up the impeachment hearing and taking a vote by Christmas. If the vote to impeach the Senate will have to go to trial. I don't know how long after the impeachment vote takes place this is required to happen. I can envision the Republicans in the Senate rushing to get that over with and voting not to impeach before the election campaigning in 2020 is in full swing.
"Among us friends let's be honest," a prominent presidential adviser once remarked, after the pro-chaos crowd left the White House meeting. The slimmed down group was comprised of White House officials and cabinet secretaries. "About a third of the things the president wants us to do are flat-out stupid. Another third would be impossible to implement and wouldn't even solve the problem. And a third of them would e flat-out illegal." Heads nodded."
"Most concerning are the one-third of "things the president wants us to do [that] would be flat-out illegal."
"He might order an agency to stop spending money on something he dislikes, not knowing he generally can't cut off funds Congress has already approved.
In other cases he thought of the funds as bargaining chips, as in the case of money earmarked by Congress to go to Ukraine, and tried to pause the funds for whatever purpose suited him at the moment, perhaps until he got something he wanted in return."
"A Warning" by Anonymous
I am only a little way into this book, but so far I am starting to lean back toward early stage dementia for most of what Trump is doing rather than out and out treason. I may change my mind at the end, but...in any case the results of his policies will be the same, no matter what his motivation really is.
"Except the House has talked about wrapping up the
impeachment hearing and taking a vote by Christmas."
That is the currently suggested time-line. Nevertheless, we've got evidence still out there, still hidden behind the White House stonewall efforts. They'll be looking at that evidence, holding hearings of record, as the evidence comes in.
"I can envision the Republicans in the Senate rushing to get
that over with…"
Probably true, but impeachment is not a judicial criminal proceeding subject to the double jeopardy prohibition. The Republicans investigated "Benghazi" and Hillary Clinton eight (8) separate times, (mostly just to keep the story on the news at FoxNews).
And, this congress hasn't even gotten into investigating the question of Trump's 2016 "collusion" with the Russians as of yet. They ain't gonna let that go unexamined. This story ain't over yet, not by a long shot. We're just a third, maybe half way, into round one. And round one is just the opening round, hurried along to get it on record before the 2020 elections.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I am starting to lean back toward early stage dementia for
most of what Trump is doing rather than out and out treason."
Maybe, but I rather lean toward the theory that it's just a matter of Trump being Trump. I think he's been like this for years now.
"I have lost faith in some people's desire to stand
up for the right things anymore."
As the old 60's saying goes: "Keep the faith."
They've always been out there. New organization and new technology has allowed them to grow to the point they could take ownership of the Republican Party. But, they know they'de already hit their "peak facist" moment and were already on the decline, so they were forced to move too soon. (The fluke of Trump's election has forced their hand on this.)
But they were and still are on the decline, and they knew it (this is why Petes keeps harping on about how we simply must appease them--they're already on the decline and he knows it too; if they were on the ascendance he'd sure as hell not be suggesting that they appease us; it'd be "crush them while we can").
They were gonna havta make their move within a few years anyway, but the 2016 fluke forced their hand before they were ready.
(I been telling ya for years now that I expected to see the crackup within my lifetime; the election of Trump merely triggered it prematurely. The outcome will still be the crackup of the Republican Party, post-Trump.)
Fixing the typo gives me a chance to say it again:
"But, they knew they'd already hit their "peak facist" moment
and were already on the decline…"
" They'll be looking at that evidence, holding hearings of
record, as the evidence comes in."
(emphasis in original) ↑↑
For instance: It's just now being reported that there was an extensive effort to provide an after-the-fact legal justification for the President's hold on the Ukrainian aid, an effort begun after that hold had been made public. WashingtonPost
There is also something odd going on with Lebanon. There has been money approved for that country that has been held up by Washington. The White House isn't explaining to those inquiring minds who want to know.
"There is also something odd going on with Lebanon."
I'd noticed some grumblings about that. So far I've not seen anybody writing on it with an even barely credible explanation. Seems to be a mystery pretty much across the spectrum.
This is probably a good time to note the landslide wins in the Hong Kong City Council elections for "reform" candidates affiliated with the pro-democracy movement in that city.
There is substantial reporting (plus tweets from Trump) indicating that Trump has promised the Chinese leadership that he'd look the other way if Chinese President Xi decides to crack down on the protesters.
The recent Trump intervention in the case of the Navy Seal appears to be classic Trump behavior according to "A Warning". Only this time instead of screwing up civilian leadership authority he is interfering in the military.
Incompetent isn't the word for him.
There is substantial reporting (plus tweets from Trump) indicating that Trump has promised the Chinese leadership that he'd look the other way if Chinese President Xi decides to crack down on the protesters.
Okay back to traitor. Or at least a traitor to democracy.
The case of Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher has been a particular hobby-horse for Sean Hannity for a couple of years now.
It would seem that the Pentagon has managed to substantially reverse Trump's decision to abandon northern Syria to the tender mercies of the Turks and the jihadi (but quietly though, so's to not set our large Dear Orange Leader off on another tear). American Special Ops are once again partnering with Kurdish forces to re-clear areas just recently abandoned to the bad guys. NewYorkTimes
Reading through some of the more "conservative" sources I often browse (so self-styled, having long ago given up any legitimate claim to the adjective), I'm becoming more and more convinced that when Trump loses the 2020 elections we're probably gonna havta suppress a bit of actual insurrection on the part of some of the more fanatical elements among the dedicated Trumpkins.
I don't think Mitch McConnell will go along with it, nor the Pentagon brass either for that matter. But I'm beginning to think there are elements that'll have to be suppressed. And they very well may be urged on by Trump himself come the end.
"But I have lost faith in some people's desire to stand up
for the right things anymore."
Okay, now normally I'd keep this theory to myself a bit longer to see that the movement is actually a trend that that it'll stick for awhile, but you seem to be ready for a little buckin' up here. ↑↑ So….
Impeachment for Trump got much more popular right after the evidence for Trump's perfidy with respect to Ukraine first broke on to the scene (i.e right after he released that White House phone log sometimes erroneously referred to as a "transcript"). Then it got way less popular in the ensuing weeks as the Republicans pounded and pounded on their faerie tale versions of what actually happened.
But, the actual evidence--the public hearings, came in starting just about a week ago, and now, suddenly there's a marked turn in direction once again. Suddenly the trend lines have sharply cut back towards majority approval for Trump's impeachment. RealClearPolitics; 538 blog
I said up above ↑↑ (Thu Nov 21, 06:24:00 pm) that it'd be a week, maybe two, before we could judge whether or not the evidence had any effect. Well, it's been less than a week since the evidence began to come in, and we have movement. Another week should tell us something definite. Probably too early to declare the hearings a success, but it's definitely too early to be pessimistic.
It would seem that the Pentagon has managed to substantially reverse Trump's decision to abandon northern Syria to the tender mercies of the Turks and the jihadi...
I noticed that there was still some US military activity there.
I think like the civilian members of Trump's administration before them the military is still trying to conduct the country's business despite an incompetent president.
Probably too early to declare the hearings a success, but it's definitely too early to be pessimistic.
I will try to keep the faith.
Not only in America that partisans indulge in ‛motivated reasoning’ and succumb to ‛confirmation bias’.
In regard to the Hong Kong elections…
"In newsrooms in Beijing, however, the results began a
panicked scramble to find a way to spin them in favor of the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In stark contrast to most
observers in Hong Kong, editors—and the officials behind
them—appear to have sincerely believed that the establish-
ment parties would win an overwhelming victory. Propaganda
is a heady drug, and Beijing got high on its own supply.
"*** At each paper, copy was filed to editors the night before
the Nov. 24 elections assuming a strong victory for the
establishment. This included predictions of increased
majorities (with numbers left to be filled in as needed) for
figures such as Junius Ho, whose vicious rhetoric against
protesters has left him widely hated but whose comments
regularly appear in the [Beijing] Global Times.
"The misplaced confidence in Beijing’s victory points to a
worrying problem; at high levels within the CCP, officials
believe their own propaganda about Hong Kong. That’s a
frightening prospect…."
ForeignPolicy
America's drift towards feudalism, dull, long, but worth the read. AmericanAffairs (Those "originalist" Federalist Society Justices Trump has been approving should approve of the developments outlined, after all, the Founding Fathers originally envisioned an aristocracy running this country, not the widely franchised democracy that developed later.)
I'm not entirely certain about the explanation. It might be on account of Trump rolled out his new defense just prior to Thanksgiving, and the appropriate Keepers of the FoxNews Echo Chamber were too busy gettin' ready to chomp turkey.
Or, could be this story just doesn't pass the "with a straight face" test, even among the dedicated Trumpkins.
Whatever the reason, the new Rudy did it defense coming from Trump doesn't seem to be meeting with an enthusiastic reception among the Keepers of the FoxNews Echo Chamber.
Lookin' like Trump will probably have to roll out a different deflective defense come next week when people start paying attention again.
That article on American feudalism sounds interesting, but I'll have to tackle it a little later. I had to make an apple pie this morning and pull some snow off of the roof. We got dumped on yesterday and it looks like we are getting more this weekend. *sigh*
Happy Thanksgiving!
It's beginning to look like Trump's weekend announcement that peace talks with the Taliban were "back on" may have been premature.
It seems that he had neglected to get the Taliban's prior agreement to the supposedly "back on" peace talks, or to even let them know about it. It was as much news to them as it was to everybody else, 'cept Trump.
Got some light reading to recommend for Sunday. Vox has written about a problem we're gonna have with the Supreme Trumpkins even after Trump's been sent packing. They're gonna represent the rear guard, defending the fossil fuel industry against a return to sanity on climate change regulations. They've prepared themselves to block the reconstruction of the Environmental Protection Agency after the reign of Trump is over.
We may have to take extraordinary steps in the coming years to correct the ideological tilt to the law that the Republicans have managed to impose on the country since Mitch McConnell first held up the nomination of Merrick Garland.
“Happy the nation whose people has not forgotten to how to rebel,” noted the British historian R. H. Tawney.15 Whether we can understand and defy the new feudalism will determine the kind of world our children will inherit.
Good article. Unfortunately I fear that rebellion is still alive and well, it is just not based on something we agree with. It is based in the support being given to Donald Trump.
"Unfortunately I fear that rebellion is still alive and well…"
Various writers are reaching for descriptions, metaphors, historical precedents, some way to describe the current economic stratification of society. It's not a new thing. It comes around fairly regularly.
I'm still a free-market capitalist by inclination, but that doesn't mean I think capitalism is without its defects. It is an inherent defect in the capitalist system that it leads almost inexorably to the consolidation of wealth and results (eventually) in an impoverished society with a few hereditary lords at the top. (It is a paler image of the feudal society from which it evolved, tending to return to that model where possible.).
Conversely, a broad middle class tends to produce a broad conservative majority in favor of the status quo. (And the maintenance of a broad middle class in a capitalist society requires that the government engage in the peaceful redistribution of wealth downward from those who've been coming out on top in the unending competition to consolidate the wealth.) As the middle class shrinks and the wealth gets reconsolidated, the majority in favor of the status quo likewise shrinks.
So, it has been the necessary role of democratic government to resist capitalism's tendency towards social stratification and economic consolidation. When government fails to perform that necessary function it invites revolution.
The peaceful redistribution of wealth is something the government is supposed to do on a fairly regular basis to stave off violent revolution.
That's how things work. That's how it's always worked.
(On the question of the Trumpkins being revolutionaries--I don't think so. They're not the revolution; they're the reactionaries; it's sometimes easy to get them confused because they too tend towards violence.)
I ran across a theory by Robert Reich (who's an economist not a lawyer) which holds that after Trump is impeached he cannot be pardoned.
Apparently Reich thinks this applies whether or not Trump avoids conviction in the Senate. I've never heard this interpretation before, and, again, Reich isn't a lawyer.
But it's an intriguing notion. I'm gonna keep an eye open for any more credible sources who might hold the same opinion.
Trump is not going to be so lucky. The House will probably impeach him before Christmas and then his chance of getting a pardon for his many crimes will be gone.
I very much hope he is correct. Trump needs to be brought to account, one way or another. If the Republicans won't do it maybe our justice system can.
Anonymous' warning to Republicans:
"The base will not matter to Trump if he is reelected in 2020."
Something I had never really considered. If Trump is not really a conservative, which is what Anonymous is telling us, he will have no use for them if he is elected to a second term. Trump is only looking out for Trump.
Also, if you are ever in the market for Flip Flops, you may want to visit President Flip Flops. Sadly, the electoral college ones appear to be sold out. But there are many other options.
The flip-flops appear to be all sold out, all styles, all sizes.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The "investigation" of the FBI ordered and personally overseen by AG Bill Barr is soon to be released, but it has already leaked. It's said that the report is going "to absolve the top ranks [of the FBI] of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump" NewYorkTimes.
Nevertheless: FoxNews is still reporting, as late as tonight that:
"…there is little doubt the senior leadership of the Obama-
era FBI was weaponized in the service of the Democratic
Party. But as America awaits what many expect to be the most
damning investigation of all, , it's fair to ask what has been
done to rein in our rogue FBI."
Alternate reality. Fact free reporting. It's little wonder we have the dedicated Trumpkins running loose among us these days.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"The base will not matter to Trump if he is reelected in 2020."
That may overstate the case a little bit. Trump wants a third term. Hell, Trump wants a life term, although it's not yet time to admit to that. And he may take a shot at it when the time is right. He'll need his base for that. One thing's for sure; he'd not consider the law nor the Constitution to be an effective deterrent against his misconduct. He will view his base as his defense against either. (And, he'll be mostly correct in that view; it's generally true that he could shoot somebody in the street and most of them would stick with 'im. They might politely disapprove of his shooting people, but they'll mostly stick with him.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Trump needs to be brought to account, one way or another."
Absent a pardon by President Mike Pence¹, I wouldn't be shocked to see Trump indicted and arrested within days, possibly within hours, of his separation from office on 20 January 2021. (Not a prediction, but I'd not be shocked.)
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
¹ I'll let you work out the elevation of Mike Pence to the Presidency. It's not hard to figure.
House subpoenas for Trump's financial records from Deutsche Bank (which has been in trouble before for helping launder Russian oligarch funds) and from Capital One have been upheld in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The House committees behind the subpoenas said, point blank, that they're investigating money laundering and foreign political influence in relation to the financing of one Donald J. Trump, President of these United States. Reuters
This will, no doubt, be appealed to the Supreme Trumpkins.
Trump wants a third term. Hell, Trump wants a life term, although it's not yet time to admit to that.
Now then I could really imagine Civil War in either case.
The flip-flops appear to be all sold out, all styles, all sizes.
LOL!
¹ I'll let you work out the elevation of Mike Pence to the Presidency. It's not hard to figure.
I could imagine it.
This will, no doubt, be appealed to the Supreme Trumpkins.
Trump's ace in the hole.
Kamala Harris is dropping out. For some reason I thought she'd last longer.
"For some reason I thought she'd last longer."
Politico says she ran out of cash. (Otherwise she'd have tried to last a bit longer.)
I think the Republican "expert witness" to yesterday's impeachment hearings probably inadvertently revealed the Republicans' greatest objection to the impeachment of Trump; i.e. the matter of timing. (Never mind that the expert's stance on impeachment now is so very much different from his testimony on impeachment back when he was a witness in favor of the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It's quite simply true that litigants have been hiring tame "experts" for years now and nobody really expects them to be anything other than well and truly faithful to the theory that employs them. That's cynical, but that's reality. But, I digress…)
The Republicans had been hoping to use the impeachment to fire up their base to come out and defend Donald J. Trump and their own 2016 vote in favor of said Trump. However, the impeachment is going to be long over by the time Trump gets his people fired up into full campaign mode. (Trump may be in full campaign mode already, but the dedicated Trumpkins think it's months away yet; the Democrats haven't even selected their champion yet.) So, the Republican Senators are going to have to do the defending, probably in January of 2020. This is not what they wanted.
They're gonna let Trump off the hook on all three counts (bribery, obstruction, and abuse of power look to be the counts that'll be filed against Trump), and then all next year there's gonna be those court cases Trump instigated coming back mostly decided against him. The campaign season is going to be filled with unfavorable news for Trump's reëlection, and they're gonna get to campaign for their own reëlections while trying to justify why they let Trump off the hook.
This is not where they wanted to be. This is Pelosi making the best of what she's got to work with, and what she's got to work with is the reality that the Republican Senate will not impeach Trump, no matter what the evidence shows. If she can't make Trump himself pay for his transgressions, maybe she can make them pay for his transgressions.
This is not where they wanted to be.
"I have lost faith in some people's desire to stand up for the
right things anymore."
Lynnette in Minnesota @ Sat Nov 23, 10:10:00 am ↑↑
Got bad news on that front. It's been a full two weeks now since the actual evidence from real witnesses was splashed across the TV screens. It hasn't damaged Trump's "against impeachment" ratings; instead the Republicans have rallied to his defense and are even more opposed to impeachment than before. (Only slightly so rallied, but they certainly won't agree that he's done an impeachable wrong.)
RealClearPolitics 538 Blog
I'm listening to a little of the Nancy Pelosi Town Hall on CNN. She took a question regarding what it would take for the Republicans in the Senate to impeach Donald Trump. She said she didn't know, the evidence is quite clear against him. She eventually bluntly stated that the Republicans have taken an oath to Donald Trump.
I suspect she is right. The Republicans are not looking at this from the standpoint of America and her well being. And that is the only thing they should be concerned with.
"She eventually bluntly stated that the Republicans have taken
an oath to Donald Trump."
I expect she meant that to refer to the congressional Republican politicians she has to deal with on a daily basis. So limited, I imagine she's mostly correct there. But it's not Trump who commands their loyalty to that "oath"; rather, it's the dedicated Trumpkins who'll turn them out in the next Republican primary if they don't display the proper commitment to the FoxNews' faerie tale of Trump.
(It is, therefor, incumbent upon the Democrats in Congress to conclusively commit their Republican opposites to saving Donald Trump before the Republican primary season opens in the spring. They need to saddle the Republicans with the burden of having "saved" Trump, and to simultaneously keep the investigations going through the spring and summer and into the fall; keep dropping adverse information in front of the voters that the Republicans will have to answer for, and leave them no way to back out, having already saved Trump from impeachment. That's why the Democrats should be in a hurry to get the impeachment over to the Republican Senate; they can tie the Republicans firmly and irrevocably to Trump while the Republicans can't back away, i.e. before their primaries are held. Then, come the fall, hopefully, the Democrats will be able to take back the Senate as well as turn Trump out of office.)
Scott Jennings, Republican pundit with a long history of dedication to the Party, explains why the dedicated Trumpkins are so steadfastly loyal to Trump.
"You have to remember: Donald Trump…was elected to
break them ["them" being defined as "the political, intellectual
class"]. And that's apparently what he's done."
CNN
Simply put, the dedicated Trumpkins believe that their most consequential enemies are other Americans, not foreign dictators, not jihadi fanatics. They have chosen as their most bitter enemies other Americans, us. And they think they're winning. It will come as a shock to them when it turns out otherwise.
I would remind people of the between-wars fantasy of the Germans, the "dolchstoßlegende" which helped grease the rise of the Nazis in post-WWI Germany.
The more dedicated among the Trumpkins may be hard to convince come 2020.
Simply put, the dedicated Trumpkins believe that their most consequential enemies are other Americans, not foreign dictators, not jihadi fanatics.
Then they forget a major founding principle of our country..."united we stand, divided we fall". I'm guessing Putin is a better scholar of history then are some Americans.
What's with the Wikipedia drive for money? Who is behind that website? And who do they need to pay?
The Guardian is doing the same thing, but I at least have some idea who they are.
"…they forget a major founding principle of our country…"
On the bright side: The average (median) age for a FoxNews viewer is 68 years. That business model will expire of its own accord in fairly short order. Trump was a fluke.
Speaking of business models: I'm not up to speed on the Wikipedia business. Can't help ya there except to note that they do have to pay techs to keep the machinery and software running and the hackers out as well as to pay for their internet access in the first place.
Historically, we could usually expect to learn of new weapons testing by the North Korean regime from American military sources (or sometimes South Korean or Japanese, but usually American sources). Yesterday's revelations, such as they were, by the North Koreans prior to any release of information by the American government was unusual.
I suspect that means the Trump administration has little excess bandwidth to devote to North Korean problems when there's still the matter of digging up dirt on Joe Biden consuming their attention.
(I further suspect the dedicated Trumpkins will likewise not be bothered to divert their attention from their domestic enemies.)
Post a Comment