Tag: Politics

By on

Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of New York and billionaire, donated $5 million plus to Andrew Cuomo’s losing bid for mayor. Cuomo lost but is staying in the race because he thinks he can win in the general election. This leaves billionaire New Yorkers in the dilemma of which incredibly weak candidate (Cuomo or Adams) to throw their cash at in their effort to stop Mamdani.

Before you shed too many tears for Bloomberg, realize that he dropped all this money when it became apparent that Cuomo might lose and the people with money were desperately trying to drag Cuomo over the finish line. He probably knew he was flushing money down the toilet but he had to start somewhere, Cuomo’s losing campaign was as good a place to start as anywhere.

If a normal person were to donate $100 to a political campaign, it hurts a little. $5 million is a lot of dollars to drop on one mayoral campaign, yet Bloomberg seems to be more alarmed about a Socialist running the city than the fact he blew 5 million on a loser. Even after such a large loss of money, he is financially able to throw even more money at any candidate that might beat the Commie Mamdani. Think about it. He lost $5 million dollars and still has money burning in his wallet to give away to really lackluster candidates.

Bloomberg is also donating to other candidates running for city offices in the upcoming general election. This is not without consequence in how Bloomberg is seen at City Hall. Some officials might have the courage to vote against one of their bank rollers, but they certainly would feel obligated to sit down in a tony Manhattan eatery and listen to what Bloomberg has to say. Particularly if Bloomberg is paying. Bloomberg is getting access that the average New Yorker is unable to get.

If anyone has this type of cash, they also have enough cash to pay more taxes. Let’s face it if he is willing to panic contribute to a losing campaign, he can afford to drop some money in the public till for a better pay for government employees, better services for the poor, more money for education and a whole list of general welfare needs.

What about a law that if a person can contribute $1 million or more in any one campaign they must also pay an equal amount in taxes. It doesn’t discourage small contributors and big contributors get a reality check and, perhaps, think a bit harder before blowing their wad on losers like Cuomo.

By on

There is a debate going on right now on how fictional characters might have voted in the 2024 elections. Some people have speculated that Ron Swanson, a character on the television show Parks and Recreation, would have voted for Trump. Nick Offerman, the actor who played Ron Swanson, disagrees. A debate is now raging.

My only thought on the matter is who cares? Why are people getting so worked up over how a fictional character might have voted? They aren’t real people so they couldn’t have voted in the first place. More importantly, and I can’t stress this enough, is why are news organizations reporting on this incredibly irrelevant matter.

The media is jumping on this ginned up controversy because that is what makes the news business money — ginned up controversies. People want to see action and emotion. Controversies are the bread and butter of television. On the other hand, People don’t watch television to see reasonable people talking calmly about their opinions and then working towards a solution. This means that television executives exploit any controversy that might get people’s hackles rising.

Though, debating about Ron Swanson’s voting decision seems to be near the bottom of the ginned up controversies barrel. There is nothing there. Absolutely nothing. The person doesn’t exist. He can’t really have an opinion on the matter because of that. Still, despite this very important fact, people are getting worked up about this and actually to and froing about it like it matters. Such is the state of the American free press.

For the record, in case you are wondering, which I am sure you are because everybody in the civilized world is, I don’t care who Ron Swanson voted for.

By on

I remember when a lot of liberals thought George McGovern was going to be president because he was winning all of the Democratic primaries in 1972. I was also devastated when Richard Nixon crushed him the general election. Liberals, based on absolutely no real evidence, think that all the Democrats have to do is become even more liberal than they are presently are. And when the more liberal candidate got beaten, money was the problem.

There just wasn’t enough money to win. If liberals only had enough money, the people would vote sensibly. Donald Trump has proven the money theory wrong. It is about noise and media attention. Trump used very little of his own money instead he created a media feeding frenzy in which he made headlines every day saying outlandish things and the press would slavishly report them.

Zohran Mamdani, the new Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, may have the right stuff to get elected but I am yet to be convinced that he is the answer to the Democratic Party’s problem getting elected. I have been burned too many times — George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson while more conservative Democrats seem to do better – think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. There is a perception problem that liberals fail to see. Liberals see a young energetic well polished candidate. Other people might else sees a Muslim Communist.

This is why I am being cautious in my enthusiasm:

  1. New York City has a fundamentally different electorate. It is a different group than what one would find in Missouri or Ohio. Test driving well in New York, doesn’t mean he will test drive well in the rest of the country. Just because the most liberal candidate won in New York doesn’t mean this translates to the rest of the country.
  2. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s main opponent, was a severely wounded candidate. He had to resign his last post because of credible reports of sexual harassing his employees. There is also growing evidence that he mishandled the AIDS crisis in his state. A lot of people didn’t like him and weren’t going to vote for him.
  3. In first round voting, Mamdani’s opponents got 57 percent of the vote. So even with a more liberal electorate than the rest of the United States, an awful lot of people voted for other candidates.
  4. Now that he is the Democratic candidate, the knives are out for Mamdani. His socialism becomes communism. His support of the Palestinians becomes his support of terrorism. People thought Obama was a Muslim without any evidence whatsoever what can the Republicans do with an actual Muslim.
  5. Making fun of establishment Democrats might be a lot of fun now but, in order to win, the Democrats need to keep everyone on board. There might be two former Democrats in the general election — Adams and Cuomo. Plausible alternates for people who might be afraid of Socialism. Gloating about your win is unseemly and irritating. A better use of Mamdani’s time, particularly now, would be reaching out to Cuomo and his supporters.

I wish Zohran Mamdani all the luck in the world. Right now, I am thinking he can win but a lot of work needs to be done to make that happen. Assuming Mamdani is going to win just because he is the Democrat in an overwhelming Democratic town is short sighted (see Guiliani, Rudy).

By on

I generally support Israel. I want to continue to do so but the behavior of the Netanyahu government is troubling.

Here is what I am grappling with:

The Palestinians want to wipe Israel off the map. Or, at least, remove them from their present location. This is impossible. There are close to 10 million Israelis who don’t want to be moved. The Palestinians believe the 1948 partition of Palestine was wrong. The problem is it did happen. Israel is now a fact of life. Removing 10 million people isn’t going to be easy or peaceful so the Palestinians who oppose Israel are at choice here.

Sadly, they have chosen terribly. They are still trying to scare the Israelis out of the region. It isn’t working. Everything they have done has caused the Palestinians to loose more lives, to loose more land, and to loose more autonomy. They are worse off now than they were in 1948, 1967, 1971, and will you get the point. They keep coming out of each confrontation with Israel in worse shape. The definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Killing Israelis is clearly not working to change the dynamics in Palestine. The only thing that has occurred is a growing list of Palestinian martyrs to a seemingly hopeless cause.

Israel doesn’t care about world opinion. Or, at least, they care more about their own survival than world opinion. And the world doesn’t appear inclined to help the Palestinians much more than utter some rather meek criticisms of Israeli actions. Israel continues to bomb away while Palestinians continue to die. The world is standing by, waiting to see what happens but don’t count on much more.

The side getting the shit kicked out of them normally surrenders their army and their weapons in order to stop their children from being killed. Hamas isn’t willing to do this so Israelis continue to bomb the shit out of Gaza. The sad fact is Hamas is more than willing to let these children die rather than surrender. Killing children will not change anyone’s mind (see Sandy Hook shooting).

Why Israel continues their campaign is beyond me. The idea that they will eliminate every bit of Palestinian resistance is just as foolish as the Palestinians believing that sacrificing their children to Israeli will somehow change World Public opinion. It just isn’t going to happen. Adding extra Hamas hit men to an already high body count has reached a point of no return, Israel has won all that it can win and they continue to hold the upper hand in the region. Yes there is a danger of Hamas regrouping and staging another attack. But then that is always going to be a danger, given the animus Palestinians hold against Israel. They are as safe from Hamas as they possibly can be, why not see what diplomacy can do now.

By on

I am so confused. I thought the Israelis took care of Iran’s nuclear capabilities last week. So why is Trump bombing the burnt out facilities again? Last week everyone was saying that Israel had crippled Iran’s nuclear capabilities for the foreseeable future.

Trump was making sure that Iran’s nuclear capabilities are destroyed for good. Is anything for good? I mean building a nuclear bomb isn’t all that difficult. The science is readily available. The infrastructure and materials are the hard part and we were assured that Israel had taken care of that part. Since Israel had already delayed it, what was the point of the extra bombing? A few extra months, a few extra years? Trump’s additional bombing seems unnecessary and a waste of money and effort.

Also since Israel had just bombed the shit out of Iran’s nuclear facilities, where was the urgency in doing it again so quickly. This is the excuse for failing to consult Congress. Trump needed to act quickly to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capability was destroyed. It wasn’t likely that Iran could hobble together a nuclear bomb in the next few days, so there was no danger in waiting for Congressional approval. The only problem with waiting was that Congress might no approve of the bombing.

Well, Democrat Presidents have bombed without consulting Congress, why can’t Trump? This is true and Democrat presidents were wrong to do it. On the other hand, this is hardly a defense of Trump’s action here — particularly for people who claim to be strict Constitutionalists. As every mother in the world has ever said to their children if everyone jumped off the Empire State Building, would you do it too? You are saying I should be able to do a wrong thing because everyone else is doing the wrong thing and getting away with it. It isn’t fair that I can’t do the wrong thing too is hardly a credible defense.

So in review: Trump bombed, without the consent of Congress, an already neutralized weapons sites because Iran could maybe revive their nuclear weapons capability in a couple of years. Go Team.

By on

Donald Trump thinks that Abraham Lincoln mishandled the Civil War. He should have tried more peaceful methods to end the conflict in order to avoid avoid the 600,000 deaths the war caused.

Wow. That is just gobsmackingly arrogant and stupid even for a man who is known for being gobsmackingly arrogant and stupid.

When someone talks like this, it gives me the impression that he has thought long and hard about the Civil War and that, through his study of the war, he saw some alternate peaceful approaches that Lincoln missed in 1860. Well, Donald tell me more. Trump is, after all calling into question the actions of the most esteemed president in American History regarding the pivotal issue of his presidency — the very issue that most people think makes Lincoln great. It requires a thorough explanation of Trump’s reasoning in order to understand how Lincoln erred so badly in his decisions.

Unsurprisingly, Trump just leaves it at that — Lincoln could have done better. Which leads to a different impression of what Trump said. Mostly that he doesn’t know a God damn thing about the Civil War and has no business expressing opinions about it.

The Lincoln of 1860 was quite willing to let the South keep their slaves. He drew the line at expanding slavery to any territory wanting to join the USA. He wasn’t seen as a hardcore abolitionist and was willing to do anything — including selling out the slaves — to keep the Union together. Something that many modern historians rightfully are critical of. What more could he have done to peacefully end the conflict? Particularly after the South attacked Fort Sumter which started the war. Yes, the South started the Civil War. Not Lincoln.

The most terrifying thing about Trump is that he is both painfully ignorant and he has his finger on the button that could send nuclear missiles flying through the air. He, facing his own divided country, delights in antagonizing his political opponents to such a degree that people are talking about a new civil war. Well, if Trump wants to show how to bring peace to a divided country he now has an opportunity to show it. Let Trump heal the divisions plaguing our country now.

Trump criticizing Lincoln. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

By on

The problem with nuanced explanations about emotionally charged situations is that people are getting pretty worked about it. People are seeing violence on the streets of Los Angeles. Saying things like we are handling the situation, the protesters are mostly peaceful, the president is breaking all historical protocol on how these situations are handled is fine when people are discussing budget deficits. It is all together a different story when you have rioters on the streets. The only appropriate answer is this is a big problem and we welcome all the help we can get.

Unfortunately the ever crafty Donald Trump doesn’t do nuance while Gavin Newsom can’t stop himself from trying to explain the unexplainable. Yes, this is a shit sandwich but it isn’t a lot of shit and we can get rid of shit if the President would only leave us alone to do our jobs. Don’t get me wrong, Newsom is absolutely right but sometimes being right doesn’t stop someone from looking ineffective in a dangerous situation.

Some of the protesters have gone over the line. Yes Trump provoked it and this certainly needs to be said but not by a man who has rioters loose in his state. Other people can point that out. Newsom needs to blunt an effective attack on his competence.

Admittedly Newsom is in a difficult situation. Trump is taking advantage of a situation he created. This doesn’t matter when police are under attack and cars are being set on fire. Newsom is already, somewhat undeservedly, trying to remove the egg from his face based on the January fires that devastated portions of the city. He does’t need more damage to his competence.

Middle-class people disapprove of rioting. They also have a tendency to vote. They might prefer, no matter how much they hate the man, a person who says this is wrong, the people who should take care of it aren’t taking care of it and I will take care of it as a better person for the job over someone giving a nuanced explanation of why there are rioters in his state and why he doesn’t need the President’s help.

So maybe, for the time being, a better plan would be to say I welcome the President’s help in getting this situation under control and immediately try to start working with Trump on containing the violence. This gives Trump some impetus to work with Newsom on resolving the problem.

Plus it might make things awkward for Trump who would then be forced to work with local authorities on a town they know well. If he preferred to go it alone. Newsom can say he tried to work with Trump but his assistance was declined. Thus, if things go South, and given Trump and his cronies penchant for going off half-cocked about things, it would probably go South pretty fast without the co-operation of Newsom and local authorities, then Trump would be holding the shit sandwich while Newsom could shrug his shoulders and say he tried.

There is a potential for blood in the streets because Trump and his cronies seem to be looking for a way to assert control. Unfortunately the potential for blood is already there. I don’t know about you but it sounds really dangerous for two different armed groups independently trying to put down a small riot than to have one co-ordinated force. Worse still it would be Democrat fighting Republican in the streets.

No doubt, this wouldn’t be a win for Newsom but it certainly would be better for him than looking like an incompetent ninny.

By on

Yeah, the Texas legislature is making sure that the Ten Commandments are on display in all Texas classrooms. How this might help improve Texas education is still a mystery but never mind children need to see the Ten Commandments because it is a foundational document for the American Constitution.

There are numerous foundational documents to the Constitution, why stop at the Ten Commandments?You could throw in the Magna Carta and English Common law if you wanted to give them a thorough knowledge of the basis for American Law. You might even post the Constitution if you really wanted to show them the basis of American law. But the Republicans are only interested in the Ten Commandments.

What now is going to happen for Texas students? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The problem here is that posting something doesn’t mean anyone is going to read it. Just one more of the numerous postings that go up in a classroom that most students will ignore. Furthermore posting the Ten Commandments without context is pointless particularly if the child is being raised by heathens. What do the authors of this law think is going to happen? If any child is so bold as to read the post that the child will be struck by a bolt of lightening and have a come-to-Jesus moment. Good luck with that.

Since Texas is a big state with lots of people, there are a lot of classrooms which need the Ten Commandments posted. This will cost a lot of money. For nothing. Absolutely nothing. It isn’t going to make heathens Christians and it isn’t going to give anyone a better understanding of American law. But lots and lots of money will be spent to make it happen. Money spent on getting the law passed. Money spent on the actual posters. Money spent on seeing that the law is being followed. Money spent on law suits defending the posters. All money that could have been spent on making Texas education better. What program that helps the poor will lose funding to promote this law?

The only conceivable benefit coming from this law is that Republicans get to gloat about passing a bill that promotes Christianity. All it is is a big middle finger to their opponents and nothing else. This from the Republican party who claim to believe in fiscal responsibility.

So Texas post away.

By on

The most mind boggling aspect about Qatar’s gift of an airplane to Donald Trump is his seeming lack of understanding that this is wrong and why he should pass on the gift. This isn’t a bottle of whiskey or a box of chocolates, this is an airplane.

There is a difference and, if he had paid attention to the HR presentations that most working stiffs suffer through every year, he would know why. The last company I worked for repeatedly reminded its employees that they never should take a gift over $100 because, even if everything is above board, it looks suspicious.

The best case scenarios on this, and I mean by that you can still plausibly claim to be honest, are still wrong. If someone has been kind or generous to you, you are more inclined to help them. This is unfair to other less generous customers and, more importantly, may cloud your judgment on what is right for the company. It shifts the power dynamic in a business relationship. The gift giver has this little bit of extra power over the gift receiver when making difficult decisions.

Trump, despite his unsubstantiated claim of being a good businessman, is clearly ignorant of modern business practices which are both pretty basic and universal. That he is unable to see the problem with this is shocking because I absolutely believe him. He doesn’t understand the power shift. He doesn’t understand why it would be wrong to give consideration to a country who has given him plane. I am sure he thinks it is all right to scratch your back if you scratch mine.

This should be more than troubling to Republicans. And lets face it, the Democrats just aren’t in any position to do anything about it. It has to come from Republicans. The sad thing is they think they are clinging to power. But whatever power they had is long gone. The only person who holds significant power in the Republican party is Trump. The rest are his lackeys. Sadly, they appear to be really suited for the role.

By on 1 Comment

Heather MacDonald writes that Donald Trump took “the most important step it can to restore meritocracy. to American society” by eliminating disparate-impact. When exactly was there a meritocracy in the United States? Certainly no time before 1964 when discrimination against people of color and women was legal. Not directly after the passage of Civil Rights laws in 1964 when White resistance to the new laws was so fierce it required the implementation of Affirmative Action in order to ensure that Whites complied with the new law. Since MacDonald finds any tool that aids people of color a boost is an affront to meritocracy, it certainly isn’t the recent past So MacDonald needs to identify the golden age of meritocracy in USA because from the evidence I can see, there never has been a meritocracy.

MacDonald glosses over 200 years of American History. She assumes that the 1964 Civil Rights ended discrimination and nothing more needed to be done. For her racial prejudice is obvious, racists are obnoxious assholes in a Ku Klux Klan robe screaming the N word. It certainly couldn’t be nice middle class whites who hire employees or admit students to Ivy League colleges. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a Ku Klux Klan robe, so how could they be prejudiced.

The advantage of the public bigots is that they are easy to identify. The problem is the more prevalent form of racism that Blacks encounter is from polite and powerful White who, just the same, might be disinclined to hire someone different from them. They don’t say we are picking a White over a Black. They know the game. They say that the White guy is just more qualified for the job than the Black guy. For this reason, discrimination is difficult to prove. This is the barrier that Blacks face. MacDonald doesn’t appear to be bothered much by this more subtle form of racism or even acknowledge that it might exist.

Disparate-impact was one of the tools that the government used to show discrimination. If an employer has never hired Blacks, year after year, in a community where the population is 25% Black, then the government can see that there might be a problem with discrimination in hiring. Without disparate impact, how does MacDonald propose to identify non-compliant businesses and schools?

She doesn’t. She views discrimination as a phantom problem that doesn’t occur any more so there is no reason to investigate. People are only looking for the best – Black, White, Man, Woman. Race and Gender don’t matter only quality. Well, maybe, but how do we know this is happening unless we evaluate?

Finally, for the record, there will never be a meritocracy as long as rich families hand over their businesses to their children. It is never going to happen as long as some people have connections and others don’t. It never is going to happen as long as people with money can buy their children’s ways into universities. It never is going to happen when White middle class people can avoid “bad” school districts. It never is going to happen as long as poor Black children are given a second rate educations while White middle class children are given a first rate one.

How does MacDonald feel about those problems? Until she addresses them, I don’t believe that she gives a damn about meritocracy.