Hillary wins, then what?

I tried to figure out the likely aftermath of the election, but I am lacking some data.

Hillary Clinton looks most likely to win as president, but not with a Democratic house and the senate is a toss-up.
So without the House, and with House Republicans controlled by the Tea Party, not much legislation can be passed. Except TPP and such, but lets hope she keeps her current position at that.

But at least she gets nominations and thus the Supreme Court, right?

And here is what I want to ask you: will she be able to pass nominations? Will the republicans continue to refuse to fill the Supreme Court if they retain majority?

If the Democrats hold a majority in the Senate at least there will be hearings, but can the Republicans filibuster nominations?

(If anyone missed it, I am European, I am just trying to understand your election of world supremo over there.)

A Free USA Today at Trump Resorts?

I’ve stayed in hotels before where I was comped a free copy of USA Today each morning. I’ve never really considered how that works financially, but I presume that USA Today can boost its advertising rates as a result of the increased circulation. The hotels just like providing a service that their customers will appreciate.

I suspect that Trump will make sure that guests at his hotels no longer get free copies of USA Today now that the editorial board has declared him unfit to serve as president.

He’s definitely not happy that guests in most of his hotels woke up this morning and found this staring them in the face:

usatodayantitrump

There’s a problem, though.

On Tuesday, the Arizona Republic editorial board endorsed Clinton, marking the first time it had backed a Democrat for president in its 126-year history. The Dallas Morning Newsthe Cincinnati Enquirer and the Houston Chronicle — all with traditionally conservative editorial pages — have also backed Clinton in recent months. The Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for nearly a century. The Morning News hadn’t backed a Democrat for the White House since before World War II.

And on Thursday, the Detroit News abandoned Republicans for the first time in 143 years by endorsing the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. As it happens, Johnson — who didn’t qualify for the general election debates and has been widely mocked for his unfamiliarity with Aleppo and all world leaders worth admiration — has collected more newspaper endorsements than Trump.

There are no papers with national circulation that have endorsed Trump. I’m not aware of any major paper that has endorsed him.

So, I guess the easiest thing for Trump Resorts to do is just discontinue the practice of comping newspapers to their guests. They’ll need to remove them from the gift shops, too.

The Permanent Government’s Ongoing Virtual Reality Show vs. Our Own Hopes and Dreams

I originally posted this as a comment on Tarheel Dem’s fine article The Postliberal Era. Go read it if you have not done so already. Read the links, too. On further consideration I decided to post my comment as a standalone article.

=================

From a link in Tarheel’s article:

Over the decades ahead…we can expect the emergence of a postliberal politics in the United States, England, and quite possibly some other countries as well. The shape of the political landscape in the short term is fairly easy to guess. Watch the way the professional politicians in the Republican Party have flocked to Hillary Clinton’s banner, and you can see the genesis of a party of the affluent demanding the prolongation of free trade, American intervention in the Middle East, and the rest of the waning bipartisan consensus that supports its interests. Listen to the roars of enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump–or better still, talk to the not inconsiderable number of Sanders supporters who will be voting for Trump this November–and you can sense the emergence of a populist party seeking the abandonment of that consensus in defense of its very different interests.

What names those parties will have is by no means certain yet, and a vast number of other details still have to be worked out. One way or another, though, it’s going to be a wild ride.

I only have one question about all of this:

If this sort of movement actually begins to threaten the status quo in any sort of serious way, will the owners of that status quo…the Permanent Government, for short, the Permanent Government and its prime beneficiaries/controllers/owners/call them what you will…allow it to happen?

I seriously doubt it, myself. They are not seriously “devoted” to what we laughingly call democracy here in the U.S., it’s just a convenient…and so far quite effective…control mechanism. Suppose that said control mechanism works once again, Clinton II is elected and when the next real chance for a contested election arises some coalition of the dissatisfied appears under a strong and qualified leader. A coalition that cannot be media-ed away as was Bernie Sanders and as is now apparently happening to Mr. Trumph. (Finally!!!)

What mechanisms are truly in place to stop the controllers from dropping the pretense of “democracy” for some other sort of control mechanism? Given the ongoing proliferation of quasi-military police agencies at the national and local levels, why not just stage some sort of Kristallnacht event and crack down on all remnants of a democracy?

I am quite serious here.

Do y’all really think that the public is in a state of readiness to resist such a thing?

I don’t.

Read on.
Those with arms are no match whatsoever for the professional military. Hell, they’re not even a match for small groups of federal/local police, witness the several confrontations in the west over the past year or so. The only even partially serious threats to resist are rural working class people and armed criminal gangs in the cities. The rural folk are outnumbered and outgunned and the city gangs are a for-profit system. They can be bought off. Those that can’t be bought off can be eliminated, Iraq style. Door to door and damn the consequences.

I live 4 blocks away from where that Bronx marijuana grow house/meth lab/whatever blew up a couple of days ago. One probably quite extraordinary young fire chief died in the explosion…a 2nd generation Irish fireman w/a law degree from NYU. That neighborhood is now essentially a war zone…a quiet, working class/middle class, multi-ethnic neighborhood of mostly three-story brick private homes/apartments only three blocks from the usually sleepy and generally incompetent local police precinct. I’ve been in the immediate neighborhood several times recently…either driving through or shopping at a great local non-chain grocery store on Broadway owned and run by ex-Eastern Europeans…and I am seeing a huge influx of police agencies of all kinds. In the stores, walking the streets, wailing sirens/flashing through the streets, blockading one street in every direction, etc.

All of this because of some stupid drug dealer’s murderous fuckup…or at least that’s what we have been told.

Whatever…

Imagine if some really serious shit went down!!!

Just sayin’…

Tarheel says in an above comment:

…the very notion of “civics” that has been common in public schools is now contested and…folks are tired of the educated liberals lording over them.

But…all of these lovely “postliberal” prognostications were written by members in good standing of the “educated liberal’ class…those wonderful “reality-based” folks of whom people are plainly getting tired!!!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Always keep the following 2002 Rovian tidbit…only 14 years ago, folks…in mind. (Ron Suskind, NY Times Magazine, 2004.

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

There it is, folks.

This is what is really going down. We are always a step behind…”A day late and a dollar short” in NYC street language…because “they” are capable of producing new paradigms faster than we can figure out what they are, let alone how to deal with them.

I have no solutions to offer to you for this except to say:

Trust not the spokespeople of the controller class.

None of them.

They all speak with virtual tongues.

This current problem will work out as it must. The controllers are only succeeding in deceiving themselves if they think that they can successfully defy the universal laws of karma.

Ain’t happening.

Never has; never will.

Eventually they all meet a Nero fiddling while Rome burns/Hitler in the bunker/Marie Antoinette on the guillotine moment.

Bet on it.

Our job?

To survive the karmic winds while they blow.

Bet on that as well.

Later…

AG

Why is Chicago the Murder Capital?

I am going to pick on Don Babwin here, as well as the headline writer at the Associated Press. I do not like the article they produced that purports to explain for us why the city of Chicago is suffering from so much violence that it’s now known as the murder capital of the country.

Let’s be clear, the problem is real and the causes need exploration. There have been more murders in the Windy City this year than in New York and Los Angeles combined, and there were a record-setting 91 murders in Chi-Town in August. I’d like to know what factors that are specific to Chicago can explain the discrepancy between its murder rate and the murder rate in other major metropolitan areas. Chicago is not alone among big cities in seeing an uptick in deadly violence (see Baltimore, for example), but it’s not a phenomenon that is being felt across the board, and it bucks a longer term trend that has seen the national violent crime rate drop by half since the early 1990s.

This Associated Press does one thing right. It actually looks at who the victims are and makes at least some effort to discover why they died. And, it’s true, there are a lot of gang members on the list.

Young African-American men are the chief victims. In a city that’s one-third black, the overwhelming majority of those murdered in August — 71 — were, like Malik, African American. Another 11 had Hispanic surnames. Almost half were in their teens or early 20s.

And more than 70 percent of those shot to death appeared on the Chicago police’s “Strategic Subject List,” which includes 1,400 people considered likely targets of violence based on gang involvement or criminal record.

To those outside Chicago, the rising murder toll might suggest a city wracked by widespread violence, but August portrays a much narrower picture of constant tit-for-tat attacks among gang members, with bystanders sometimes caught in the crossfire.

There are 22 police districts in Chicago, and there are four that collectively provided a third of the homicides that occurred in August. This tells us that most of the murders are localized in identifiable neighborhoods and that most of the victims are predictably at risk of being shot. These neighborhoods have devolved into a downward spiral of revenge killings.

This is a familiar thing. Once violence breaks out on a wide scale it can escalate and burn out of control. But this doesn’t help us understand why Chicago has so many of these neighborhoods relative to cities like New York City and Los Angeles. We’d like to know what got the ball rolling and why the Chicago authorities are having such a tough time fighting the resulting fire.

Instead, we get profiles like this:

Fourteen-year-old Malik Causey loved the way gangs took what they wanted from people on the street, the way members fought for each other, the way they could turn drugs into cash and cash into $400 jeans.

His mother tried to stop him. She yanked him out of houses where he didn’t belong. She cooked up a story about Malik punching her so the police would lock him up to keep him safe for a while.

Then on Aug. 21, Monique Causey woke to discover that her son had sneaked out of the house. Before she could find him, someone ended his life with a bullet to the back of his head a few blocks away.

“I went to him and cried and told him he wouldn’t make it,” Causey said. “But this fighting, jumping on people … this is all fun for them. This is what they like to do, you know, so how can you stop them?”

Later on, there is a small effort to humanize this fourteen year old boy.

Today, Monique Causey, who works for a company that makes pizzas, thinks her son might still be alive if only she’d been able to move him someplace safer. She spoke of how smart her son was, what a whiz he was with computers and how he understood that he needed to leave behind his life on the streets, go to a safer school in the suburbs, graduate and make something of himself.

After he died, she discovered, still in the package, a pair of $400 jeans in her son’s bedroom. She knows where the money came from — the same place that killed her son.

“The streets,” she said.

If your explanation for why this young teenager was shot in the back of the head on August 21st is no deeper than he “loved the way gangs took what they wanted from people on the street” and he enjoyed “fighting, jumping on people,” then you’re not only going to struggle to have any sympathy for him but you’re not going to be any further along in understanding why he belonged to a gang, how that gang makes money, why that gang was feuding, or how the city is trying to resolve the fight.

He was a fourteen year old boy, not an animal. And his neighborhood is currently a killing zone while countless other urban neighborhoods are experiencing a peaceful existence.

On the most basic level, this article fails to provide clues that might explain “Why Chicago is the murder capital.”

Telling us that it has a lot of gang activity doesn’t tell us why those gangs are so active and so much more murderous than the gangs in other cities. There’s no effort to look at Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan for curtailing this violence or the plan of his top police officers, nor any comparison to more successful efforts in other big cities.

What we’re left with is a list of dead people who it’s difficult to mourn.

Police don’t know why someone thrust a knife into Hutchen’s chest. But he had been in many scrapes with rival gangs, and had 56 arrests over the years, mostly in drug and weapons cases. Also, according to his court file, he’d told a judge that he’d worn a wire so federal agents could listen in on a cocaine buy…

…One Englewood victim was Denzell Mickiel, 24, who was shot in the face on Aug. 8 over what police suspect was a gang dispute. At the time he died, Mickiel was awaiting trial for allegedly firing shots at a group of people in 2014…

…On that day, Victor Mata, 22, a member of a faction of the Satan Disciples, was found dead in the front yard of a house. It was the fourth time he had been shot in recent years.

Christopher Hibbler, 42, who belonged to the Black P Stones, a leading black street gang, died when people in a car sprayed gunfire at the corner where he was standing…

…Johnell Johnson, a 37-year-old member of the Black Gangsters on the city’s West Side, was found dead in the street, shot in the face.

When you present the information this way, it’s easy for the reader to conclude that these folks should have been in jail in the first place and that they’re doing the rest of us a favor and saving us money by snuffing each other out. That lets too many people off the hook because, again, what we want to know is what factors make Chicago so much worse than other cities. There are clearly things that are not being done that could be done to tamp down this violence.

The presentation here also makes it too easy to forget that these gang members are terrorizing their neighborhoods and that innocent people are getting killed in the crossfire. A city has a responsibility to protect its citizens and effectively police its neighborhoods, so you can’t just write off these killings as a cheap way of dealing with very bad people.

This is also why it’s so important, in any story like this, to look at the policing, because other cities with lower crime rates and less gang violence are not solving the problem with mass incarceration. We’ve tried the “lock ’em all up” approach, and it produced mostly negative results.

Unfortunately, this article doesn’t get us any closer to understanding Chicago’s problem, and its shortcomings are practically an invitation for us to revert to policies that are known to fail. In fact, the article doesn’t even offer a single idea for what might be done to solve the problem.

Drugs are only briefly mentioned and guns are only discussed as the instruments of death, never as a possible cause of it. We get no insight into what the police are doing or failing to do. Community efforts are not mentioned.

This piece doesn’t educate us. It suggests that all the dead are criminals and makes no suggestion that any of us should care about them, their innocent victims, or have any part in helping their communities.

The fever swamp and Hillary’s medical condition

Drudge Report as related by Digby on Sept. 29:

Seconds after the presidential debate ended, Hillary Clinton couldn’t get off the stage fast enough. She went through the proper motions of thanking the moderator and waving at the few fans she had in the audience before her handler whisked her out of the room and down a private tunnel to her car without realizing that a surveillance camera caught what she tried to hide.

Many viewers speculated that Hillary was heavily medicated while on stage to get her through the public event and hide her illness that’s been a plague on her campaign. With the perpetual grin that she displayed but is not usually known to have, slow blinking as she tried to talk, and even a few seconds of appearing as her brain “short-circuited,” she all but had a seizure to prove what many conservatives have been saying for months. Perhaps the medication was starting to wear off after 90-minutes, which was why she was swept away quicker than her counterpart.

Hillary made a beeline to her medically equipped ride through a special tunnel which she thought was private. The ailing Democratic candidate likely wouldn’t have made it to the vehicle had it not been for a special tool, which a security camera caught, exposing what she thought she had disguised well on stage with drugs and prepared answers that she simply had to recite. Secret Service lit the way for Hillary using pointer lights on the ground specifically designed for those with Parkinson’s disease.

The use of these exact lights was discussed by Dr. Ted Noel days before the debate, as seen in this video here. Another thing the camera caught was Donald Trump exiting through the exact same tunnel after Hillary, but no special lights were used to guide him.

With this side-by-side comparison, along with the facts about these pointers, it’s these things against Hillary’s word that she’s healthy. Americans have the right to know if a candidate isn’t equipped for the job. We’ve had eight years of failed leadership, and we don’t need another liar in the White House who can’t even walk without help, let alone run a country. Her desire to be president is to fulfill a personal need for control and power, and that’s not what this country needs after Barack Obama.

************

Stuff posted on this blog ought not be channeling the tone of Drudge’s article. Please.

Logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks: examples

(1) Writer X states that “apparently such-and-such topic isn’t considered worthy of notice on this blog.” Well, most obviously, since X just raised the topic, it evidently is worthy of notice on this blog. But what this rhetorical trick is really intended to do is to communicate the idea that the Writer X is a discerning individual keenly concerned about such-and-such topic, unlike all those other people, who must be ignorant and uncaring.

(2) Writer Y remarks on topics A and B, expressing concern or outrage, say. Writer X then attacks writer Y, saying, “Ah hah, but you didn’t mention topic C, so it must mean that you are unconcerned about C.” Guess what? Writer Y also didn’t mention topics D,E,F,…Z, or the other eleventy billion issues that one might in principle write about. It’s impossible for Writer Y to mention everything going on in the world; that doesn’t mean Writer Y is ignorant or uncaring about D,E,F, etc.,  but rather that Writer Y has finite time and made some choices. It’s not about you, Writer X, so stop the faux outrage.

Maybe Have a Ground Game

Take a look at these registration numbers from key states and tell me whether or not Donald Trump might have benefitted from an actual ground game:

Take the critical battleground of North Carolina, for example. Between June 2015 and today, total registrations have increased 5.4 percent in the 70 counties where whites without a college degree make up a majority of eligible voters (Romney carried those counties with 62 percent). But in the 30 other less white, better-educated counties, registrations have increased 6.8 percent over the same period (Obama carried those with 59 percent of the vote).

The story is the same in Pennsylvania. Since May 2015, registrations have increased 4.9 percent in the 63 counties where a majority of potential voters are non-college-educated white people. But in the other four counties (Philadelphia, Delaware, Montgomery and Chester), registrations have risen 6.3 percent. Those four more-cosmopolitan counties combined for an Obama margin of 611,724 votes in 2012, nearly twice his statewide margin of victory.

In Florida, registration growth has been roughly even across the map: It’s up 4.7 percent in the 53 counties where a majority of voters are non-college-educated whites (58 percent Romney) since June 2015, versus 4.4 percent in the other 14 counties that are more diverse or well-educated (58 percent Obama). But Florida also tracks registration by race, and non-whites have accounted for 59 percent of the state’s net registration growth since November 2014.

In Virginia, the disparity is even greater. Between June 2015 and the end of August, net registrations have increased just 2.9 percent in the 85 white, non-college-graduate majority localities (58 percent Romney), versus 4.8 percent in the 48 other localities (57 percent Obama).

There may be multiple factors contributing to these numbers, but one of them is surely that Clinton and the Democrats have organizers on the ground and a sophisticated plan for registering their voters, while Trump is relying almost wholly on the RNC and doesn’t seem to believe that he needs to engage in the nuts and bolts of running a presidential campaign.

In any case, it appears that Trump is losing ground from where Romney fought and lost in 2012. If Trump is going to win, it will be persuading a lot of Obama voters to go for him because he hasn’t inspired a disproportionate wave of disengaged white working class voters to go out and get themselves registered.

Post Debate Polling Summary: And we exhale….

And the post debate polls are in:
 photo exale_zpszd0kwsdg.gif

And here is the summary.  Right now the lead looks about 5 points.

 photo stpoll929_zpsx8hqcxdz.gif

Historically you can think of debates as two waves.  The first wave occurs in the immediate aftermath.  A second occurs between 3 and 5 days later, when a consensus emerges as to the winner.

Right now the bounce looks to be about 2.5 points – which is pretty good.  I am researching the bounce durability for a piece tomorrow (at another site)

 photo CB_zpsj48u10tq.gif

If you are interested, PPP does not lean Dem in this cycle.
 photo pollster929_zpsilyejnqz.gif

The Postliberal Era

John Michael Greer sees this election as the hint about the coming of the postliberal (post-Transcendentalist liberalism of Emerson, Thoreau, Brook Farm and that “Golden Day” of the 1830s).

John Michael Greer, The Archdruid Report: The Coming of the Postliberal Era

Over the decades ahead, in other words, we can expect the emergence of a postliberal politics in the United States, England, and quite possibly some other countries as well. The shape of the political landscape in the short term is fairly easy to guess.  Watch the way the professional politicians in the Republican Party have flocked to Hillary Clinton’s banner, and you can see the genesis of a party of the affluent demanding the prolongation of free trade, American intervention in the Middle East, and the rest of the waning bipartisan consensus that supports its interests. Listen to the roars of enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump–or better still, talk to the not inconsiderable number of Sanders supporters who will be voting for Trump this November–and you can sense the emergence of a populist party seeking the abandonment of that consensus in defense of its very different interests.

What names those parties will have is by no means certain yet, and a vast number of other details still have to be worked out. One way or another, though, it’s going to be a wild ride.

Greer argues that the politics of principles was split by the religious right’s alignment with modern conservatism into two moral spheres.  The gridlock between those moral spheres now has frustrated voters to the point that they are returning to a pure politics of interests.  It won’t be totally accomplished in this election, but the cracks in the way business as usual is done are definitely there.

It is worth consideration if only to move the political philosophy conversation forward after this election.  And it is going to be a very dangerous time going forward for those people who have benefited from 180 years or so of American political liberalism.

For Boomers who came of political age in the 1960s, it is going to seem like the end of our world.  And it shakes the foundations of both New Deal liberalism (and its rearguard movements) and modern conservatism (and its rearguard movements like the Tea Party).

That trend likely will be there after the election no matter what happens.  It will erase what is looked upon as a unique American heritage likely even as it clings tighter to the superficial symbols of patriotism.

Only One Thing Seems to Hurt Trump

It looks like the intelligence community is convinced that Russian spooks are trying to undermine confidence in the outcome of our presidential election. Trump and his advisors are unnaturally close to Russian (and Russia-allied) leaders. This would have been a bit of problem in any prior election. Does it matter in this one?

The country’s most famous Klansman, David Duke, says “The fact that Donald Trump’s doing so well, it proves that I’m winning. I am winning.” I was born in 1969. For my entire conscious life, this would have been a major liability for a presidential candidate. Is that still true?

Trump is such a pig that his Rancho Palos Verdes golf club has to take special measures to protect its female employees:

“When Trump did visit, the club’s managers went on alert. They scheduled the young, thin, pretty women on staff to work the clubhouse restaurant — because when Trump saw less-attractive women working at his club, according to court records, he wanted them fired.”

Will Trump’s objectification of women hurt him at the polls the way we’d expect it to?

Politicians usually pay a price for demonstrating risible hypocrisy. For example, Trump keeps pretending not to talk about accusations various women have leveled at Bill Clinton in the past, but (unlike the Clintons) Trump has been divorced twice, and has been accused of rape by his first wife. She later softened that accusation, but it didn’t help matters much when Trump’s lawyer made the following defense:

Michael ­Cohen, special counsel to Trump and an executive vice president at The Trump Organization, went into a tirade — blasting the site via email for targeting “a private individual who never raped anybody.”

“By the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse,” he argued. “It is true. You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.”

I don’t know whether there’s any merit to the civil suit that has been filed “accusing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl over 20 years ago at several Upper East Side parties hosted by convicted sex offender and notorious billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein.” It looks like it was pulled back last week but with the promise that a new witness will be added to the complaint.

It’s true, people can make these terrible allegations without them having even a hint of proof to them. Witnesses can be paid to lie. The Clintons are certainly familiar with this tactic. And if Trump wants to dig up those kinds of unproven and politically motivated stories from the swamps of the 1990s, he’ll discover that people will hear a lot more about the same or similar kinds of allegations against him.

Morally, he has no standing to question anyone else’s marriage, nor criticize anyone for infidelity. It’s insane that he would even try to do these things based on his record of philandering. But he does seem to somehow get away with it, doesn’t he?

I could go on and on providing examples of things that would have sunk any other candidate, but I’ll finish with the revelation that Trump violated the sanctions against Cuba.

“A company controlled by Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, secretly conducted business in communist Cuba during Fidel Castro’s presidency despite strict American trade bans that made such undertakings illegal, according to interviews with former Trump executives, internal company records and court filings,” Newsweek reports.

What does Marco Rubio think about that? What does the Cuban-American community think about that?

It’s quite a trick to simultaneously demonstrate pro-communist, pro-Russian disloyalty to the country and get the strongest possible endorsement from the Ku Klux Klan.

Oddly, it seems like the only thing that really hurts him is when he insults regular citizens, whether that’s a disabled reporter or the parents of a fallen solider or a former Miss Universe who he called “Miss Piggy.”