Corporate America is overconsolidated, and there are too many mergers

Too many mergers are damaging the economy.  This is happening in a number of ways that I'll hopefully get into, but the biggest effect it is having is on the free market.  The free market, and the concept of supply and demand, depend on a high amount of consumer choice.  When consumers have many choices, it forces businesses to achieve a high level of service for a lower price.  The less players there are in a market, the lower amount of choice consumers have.

This is playing out in a number of industries right now.  According to the New York Times, "consolidated businesses can raise prices more easily without worrying about losing customers" which dents the amount of total products and services the average costumer can obtain. This is especially hard on small businesses.  Think about it:  if your cell phone bill is going up because you're down to only a few choices, it lessens the amount of money you have left to eat at your local restaurants.

This also hurts investors and the financial sector, as JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon notes in the Bloomberg article below (even though he omits how he helped this happen).  Less possible investments to make means less financial advisors are needed, less analysts because there are less companies to analyze, and this is before we factor in the scourge of short-term dividend-chasing activist investors (stay tuned for a post about them in due time). 

We need to return to the time I think our idiot president t.rump is talking about when he says "make America Great Again", namely the late 1940s through the early 1990s.  This was a time when large outfits like AT&T and the International Boxing Federation, to name only a few, were broken up to foster more market competition.  Many people know this, but we often gloss over just how much harder it was to even merge to be that big in the first place.  We need to get back to this before corporate monopolies complete their cornering of markets and eventual takeover of governments, because especially when driven by activist investors this will only entrench a rigidly unequal class system and those people don't seem to have any compassion for people who were not born as fortunate as they were.

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-04-05/jamie-dimon-forgot-to-mention-mergers-are-part-of-the-problem
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/how-mergers-damage-the-economy.html

Housing Segregation, or, how to explain White Privilege to suburbanites

So basically in one very significant group of ways, it works like this: you have two people.  Let's say everything about them is the same.  Both middle aged men with a wife and 2.3 kids and a house in the suburbs.  In fact, about that house... literally it's the same house.  It's a common design home-builders used in the early 90's when both houses were built.  Same size plot of land and everything.  Both of these men own small businesses too.  Let's say they're both bakeries.  Both in similar areas.  Both need continuing rounds of investment in order to keep current equipment and grow the business.

Here's where the skin kicks in.  A very common and encouraged thing to do is take out a home loan.  It is the key to success for most people, because banks want you to have something to lose to keep you wanting to rather pay them then eat if it came down to that choice.  So racism works like this: the same house is worth more when it is owned by a white man in a white neighborhood.  That is a complete and absolute fact.

So you know where this is going.  Both men refinance, but the white man's home is worth more so he gets more out of his home equity loan.  Because of this, he can invest more in his business and reap more return on said investment than the black man could.  Eventually, if they're competing for business, the greater investment in the white man's bakery will give him a leg up against the black man's bakery.  Eventually the black man's bakery will close if that keeps up.  Then the black man will have to take another job that will almost certainly pay less.  Because school taxes are a percentage, this will lower his contribution to his son's school, causing his son to have a comparatively lower education than the white man's son.  This will in turn lower the value of the black man's house even further, and that's how poverty entrenches itself across generations of black people.

I'm white though, and I have the privilege of not being subject to this vicious cycle.  All white people do.  It's time all white people recognized this, then we can work on how to stop the cycle.

Paris, or, I should not be held responsible for my actions.

So of course it is well known by now that we've pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.  One thing that actually struck me is the amount on misinformation on the agreement, and how well Republicans have used that to their advantage.

The agreement never sets limits for us, or anyone else.  What it does is establish carbon markets, a program to assist poorer nations to develop renewable energy infrastructures by providing funding as an incentive against fossil fuel usage even when fossil fuels cost less, and a fining system for those who violate parts of the agreement.

This has been a big sticking point with some Americans.  "Why should we have to give them anything?" Because we in the United States extracted the largest material gain, by far, from two centuries of unchecked fossil fuel consumption and polluting. This is ill-gotten wealth we have obtained, and now we're going to act like we don't owe anyone anything?

We are more responsible for human-related carbon emissions throughout history than all other nations, both historical and present, combined.  By, like, a lot too.  We used to be a nation that took responsibility for our actions, and made things right when we did wrong.  But now we have Lying Traitor trump is I guess whatever.

Good Riddance to the Filibuster

Strom Thurmond's 24-hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957

The Republican majority in the senate recently confirmed Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch after the majority changed the rules to do away with the filibuster of Supreme Court justices. The move to end the filibuster will continue until an important enough piece of legislation is passed by the Republicans and filibustered by the Democrats; then the filibuster will finally be gone for good. I for one, am happy about this. I'm not happy about Gorsuch or the wave of terrible legislation that will eventually become law, but the filibuster itself is one of the more reprehensible legislative tricks allowed in our government.

The filibuster is a procedural technique allowing a single senator or senators to ramble on endlessly to prevent a vote on legislation that has been passed by the majority. The filibuster was first used in 1837 and in 1917 a rule called cloture was introduced. Cloture was the ability for a larger majority to end a filibuster and it originally required a vote of two-thirds and then three-fifths in 1975. The existence of the filibuster and the rules of our senate get even more bizarre: Cloture can be eliminated by a simple majority vote, but as I just said, cloture can only be invoked with 60 votes or a "supermajority" but the rules can be changed with merely a majority vote. Does anyone else find this whole process a little odd?

The filibuster itself is mentioned nowhere is the Constitution and while the Constitution states that the senate can set its own rules, it also says in the Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". Now in fairness, the Ninth Amendment could be interpreted to make a great number of things unconstitutional, but since the Constitution lays out a few very specific scenarios in which more than a majority vote is needed and passing routine legislation and making appointments isn't one of them, I think it's certainly fair to question the constitutionality of the filibuster.

Constitutionality aside, how is any of this remotely democratic?* Shouldn't a majority be able to rule as a majority? I think so. 

Ultimately, elections have consequences and the majority that wins out should be able to rule with constraints, but those constraints shouldn't include simply finding an angry minority to blather on about something as to prevent legislation or an appointment favored by the elected majority. With a majority in congress, the presidency, the elimination of the filibuster, and a majority on the Supreme Court, the Republicans own everything that happens. That's the way it should be.

*Some of you may correctly point out that the senate isn't democratic. This is true of course, but that's another post.

We're All Criminals

A common rhetorical dodge used by people who want crackdowns on immigration is that they're only opposed to "illegal" immigration.  I have to wonder if these people have ever received a speeding ticket because that is roughly the same level of crime we're talking about.  We're all criminals in one form or another.  I have yet to meet someone who has never driven their car too fast, drank underage, used illegal drugs, downloaded music or movies illegally, or stolen office supplies.  The entire American southwest was stolen from Mexico in the Mexican-American War to expand slavery; a practice which is now illegal.  You could say that collectively, all of us who descended from immigrants posses stolen property.  Legality has nothing to do with justice or morality, it merely expresses power.  It's hard for me to get worked up about people who cross some arbitrary line in the sand or overstay their visa usually for the purposes of working.

With Trump's latest executive action, any undocumented immigrant suspected of any crime or deemed by any law enforcement officer as a threat to public safety will be subject to deportation. Furthermore, I've always been unclear about what counts as probable cause for arrest for an immigration violation.  Is being brown and speaking with an accent probable cause?  If you don't have ID on you, are you subject to detention?  On the books already, is the constitutionally dubious ability of customs to set up checkpoints 100 miles from the border.  The new and existing practices of ICE, along with the rushed hiring of more ICE officers, and lack of immigration judges, leaves a system that is ripe for abuse and is a nearly vertical slope toward authoritarianism.

The immigration policies of the Trump Administration will cause fear among our immigrant community, documented and undocumented alike.  Immigrants will be reluctant to report serious crimes due to fear of being deported, racists will feel emboldened, employers will continue to exploit their workers, and ICE will be so overwhelmed with cases that truly dangerous criminals will inevitably slip through the cracks.  Deporting millions of immigrants will do nothing to make us safer or to improve working conditions; it will do the opposite.

I sincerely doubt any ICE officers are reading this, but if there are, then you need to quit.  What you're doing is immoral and runs contrary to the idea that is America.  If what you wanted when you took a job in law enforcement was to be a hero, then do something heroic and resign.      

The Muslim Ban is the Policy of the Republican Party

Ronald Reagan pictured here with notable racist/traitor Richard Nixon and notable criminal Spiro Agnew in 1971.  Reagan kicked off his 1980 Presidential campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, with a speech emphasizing "states rights" just a couple miles from where civil rights workers had been the victims of state-sanctioned murder.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are the leaders of the Republican Party and they endorse Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees.  The order is the policy of the mainstream Republican Party.  This is important to emphasize because many people including the Clinton campaign, have engaged in the habit of going after Trump personally, but at the same time letting Republicans off the hook.

Trump and the Republican Party are one in the same.  Trump is the perfect expression of the Republican id:  Racist, nationalistic, greedy, anti-intellectual, fear mongering, and worshipers of the prosperity gospel.  This white nationalism did not begin with Trump, nor will it end with him.  Watch the primary debates again, if you can stomach it; they all endorsed some iteration of the Muslim ban. Watch how many Republicans vote for Jeff Sessions.  This is why it is important to go after the whole party.

Trump is crazier than a generic Republican candidate is, but all the policies are the same.  The party will own everything Trump does until they decide to impeach him.

Get Ready

If the schedule of the confirmation hearings is any judge, expect a lot of bad legislation to come out of congress in coming days and weeks.  This legislation needs to be fought at every turn.  If the ACA's replacement (for example) is anything less than Medicare for all...oppose it.

Oppose all of Trump's cabinet appointments, but particularly Sessions, DeVos, Pruitt, Carson, and Price.  I may be missing some, the lightening speed of the hearings has my brain going in all directions (this is a deliberate effect), but the point is:  Universal opposition can work. 

Get ready to protest, boycott, and be disobedient.  Get ready to call your elected officials more often. 

The left is going to lose far more battles than it will win.  There is no preventing this, but we have to try.  Ultimately if we can tie the Republicans to Trump and vice-versa, and get people to show up to the polls, we will win. 

Go After the Money

One of many tools to fight the Trump Administration and the Republican power grab is to go after those who contribute material support to such endeavors.  By "go after" I don't want to be misinterpreted: I do not condone any kind of illegal or threatening behavior.  However, boycotts, protesting, and starting uncomfortable conversations, are not only legal but necessary.

So how do we find out who has been contributing to the party of insecure white resentment?  It turns out, there is a very easy online tool http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/?name=campaign%20contributions

Using my own arbitrary judgment, I'm choosing donors who've contributed more than $500.  Who are these people in Montpelier?

JOHNSTON, DARCIE
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, CONSULTANT, JOHNSTON CONSULTING INC.

$2,000 to Donald Trump

$295 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

HENEY, MARY M
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

W. J. HENEY & SON, INC.

$600 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

GRAYCK, DAVID
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

$500 to Tom Reed (R)

$1000 to Elise Stefanik (R)

$500 to Steven Wells (R)

$240  to John Faso (R)

SCOTT, PHILIP
MIDDLESEX, VT 05602

GOVERNOR

$500 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

LAMBERTON, WAYNE
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

LAMBERTON ELECTRIC

$2,500 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

Liberals Suck at Politics

I attended an emergency community meeting the other night sponsored by the AFL-CIO and I came away with one giant take-a-way:  Liberals/progressives suck at politics.  I've actually known this for a while, but it was reinforced by some of the denial that I witnessed.  With the election of Trump, I think it's critical that liberals understand some things.

1. Don't care what the opposition thinks.  There is value in listening to other perspectives and understanding other points of view.  That being said, energy is much better spent trying to get non/low propensity voters to show up to the polls than to persuade conservatives to change their minds.  Are you really going to convince someone who completely disregards the scientific community and thinks climate change is a hoax that climate change is real?  No.  Are you going to persuade someone who thinks that black people have major advantages over white people that racism exists?  Not likely.  Are you going to sway someone who thinks that there is no difference between the two parties that Social Security and Medicare are more likely to be cut if they elect a Republican?  Maybe.
2. Understand the opposition.  If I had to choose Obama's biggest failing as a President, it would be not understanding conservatives.  I think that Obama thinks, that all conservatives are like the ones he met at Harvard (think David Brooks).  They're not. Newsflash:  People who allow your citizenship to become a defining issue for the first part of your presidency are not operating in good faith.  People who impeach a president over lying about a blowjob are not operating in good faith.  People who hold the economy hostage by credibly threatening not to raise the debt ceiling, are not operating in good faith.  People who refuse to even hold hearings for your SCOTUS nominee are not operating in good faith.
3. Emphasize the stakes.  You know what I didn't hear from the Clinton campaign?  I didn't hear about the Supreme Court.  I didn't hear about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  I didn't hear about climate change.  I didn't hear about college tuition.  I didn't hear about building infrastructure.  Clinton had policies to improve these things, but they rarely if ever came up. Not in her ads, not in the debates.  The only things I heard were "Trump is a monster" (true) and "Go to HillaryClinton.com" which is the single worst phrase a candidate can utter.
4. Bipartisanship is a means not an end.  Working with the other side is fine if it aimed at achieving a greater good even though you don't get everything you want, but that is never where you should begin the conversation.  Working with the other side is bad if it ends with overly complicated policies that barely address the problem and make it easy for conservatives to label government ineffective.   Too often I see Democrats beginning from a negotiated position before negotiations have even started.  Set high goals and aim for them to be implemented broadly (like Social Security), that way if they're repealed they fuck over a much larger chunk of the population.
5. Politics happens more than once every four years.  Generally speaking, if Democrats show up to the polls, they win.  The problem is, they only show up occasionally and usually only for a presidential election.  Republicans show up to nearly every election like clockwork and that is why they control the majority of statehouses, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and soon the Presidency and the Supreme Court.  Democrats didn't even show up in high numbers in the primary where there was the possibility for real divergence from the party elite.  As brilliant film director and sexual predator, Woody Allen said, "80% of life is showing up".
6.  You don't need to like the politicians you elect.  I very seldom vote for someone I like as a human or don't have some serious disagreements with.  You have to be a little off to run for office, so don't expect these people to be perfect.  At the end of the day, you're electing someone to do a job.  Politicians are vehicles for change, not the catalyst.  It's crazy to place a whole lot of trust in politicians, so regard all of them with skepticism.
7. Voting is a collective act, not personal expression, or a consumer choice.  Refer back to rule six.  If voting was supposed to be a form of self-expression, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anonymous.  Voting is a collective action to assign power.  Nothing more, nothing less.
8. Expect them to cheat.  People cheating to gain power?  Next thing you'll tell me is people lie on their resumes.  Seriously, they cheat because they know the electorate as a whole is not on their side.  What's the best way to respond?  Get more people to vote.
9. Politics is about power.  This is rule number one of political science, but it seems completely lost on many people.  Ultimately, power is being assigned and divided up.  The only difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms of government is how power is assigned.  If you want to understand politics don't watch The West Wing, watch Game of Thrones.

It's Perfectly Fine to Label Most Trump Voters Racists

Wikimedia Commons

I have heard may people whom I often agree with saying that we should not label all Trump voters as racists.  Maybe not all Trump voters, but most are completely indifferent to racism.  The Trump voters who think racism is disgusting but voted for him anyway are either:

1.  Completely ignorant of who Trump is and politics generally.
2.  View other positions as more important than letting a racist faithfully execute our constitution, in which case...Fuck you.

Voting is not an abstraction.  Voting is not equivalent to speech.  Each vote is the expression of a very small amount of power.  Trump is a man who through both actions and words has left no doubt in my mind that he is a racist.  Therefore, if you voted for a man that was running a campaign based primarily on bigotry, racism, xenophobia, and nationalism, then you have enabled all those things.  I do not care if what was deep in your heart had more to do with tax cuts, the outcome is racist and is having an effect before Trump even assumes office.

Do I think Paul Ryan believes black people are inferior human beings?  No, probably not more than most people, but I also think that does not matter because has helped enable Trump's rise to power.  I was taught that actions speak louder than words...  So guess what?  Voting is an action.  If you voted for Trump for reasons other than bigotry, you are still saying that those other reasons are more important than the freedom and dignity of your fellow humans.

Most of the white people in the era of lynching in the South were normal, as were most of the people in Nazi Germany who looked the other way as Jews were sent to concentration camps.  The fact that lynch-mobs and Nazis were largely normal citizens does not mean that they were not culpable.

It's Time to Start Writing Your Congressional Delegation

I wrote the below letter tonight and I urge everyone to follow suit.  You are free to copy the letter and modify it as needed for yourself, but it would be better for you to deliver the message in your own words.  The coming days, weeks, months, and years will require action and a lot of letter writing.  A few things about contacting your elected officials:

• Snail mail gets way more attention than an email.
• Be courteous but clear.
• Provide contact information.
• It's best if possible to reference legislation that is up for debate.
• Proofread.
• Find members of your congressional delegation here:  https://www.congress.gov/members

 November 12, 2016

Senator Patrick Leahy

87 State Street, Room 338

Montpelier, VT 05602

(802) 229-0569

Dear Senator Leahy,

Like many Americans, I am outraged by the election of Donald Trump as our next president. Republican obstructionism has prevented any meaningful legislation that benefits the middle class in President Obama’s second term and now we have elected a neo-fascist.

I am urging you along with the rest of Vermont’s congressional delegation to return the favor to the Republicans with the same full-throated opposition and obstruction.  I hope you will urge President Obama to make Merrick Garland a recess appointment.  I understand that this may trigger a constitutional crisis, but these are extraordinary circumstances.

I want every piece of legislation favored by the Trump administration and a Paul Ryan led house to be filibustered.  I want investigations whenever there is the slightest hint of wrongdoing.  In short:  No quarter should be offered and no olive branch extended.   

I am 32 years old, I have voted in every election since I was 18, I am a state employee and a taxpayer.  This will be my generation's fight and it will take years to undo the damage that is likely to take place.  Please fight, this is my future. and you will be dead from old age while I am dealing with the consequences of this election.

Sincerely,

Andrew M

Being a Nice Guy Isn't a Qualification for Governor

By all accounts, Phil Scott the Republican candidate for Governor of the State of Vermont, is a fairly moderate Republican.  Scott seems to be pro-choice, pro-LGBT, not adamantly against social programs, and acknowledges the existence of global warming.  There are however, a number of economic issues where Scott more or less tows the line ideologically for national Republicans.  I've read Scott's economic plan several times and a number of things strike me:

• Firstly, despite being 40 pages long the plan contains very little detail.  Scott outlines a number of vague policy proposals, some free-market buzz words, and a number of pictures of Scott and his family, but there is very little in the way of concrete proposals likely to create growth.  There are also a number of proposals that would presumably cost money, but there are no dollar figures attached to these policies nor any mention of how they will be paid for.
• Scott frequently mentions the increased spending that has occurred under outgoing Governor Peter Shumlin, but this spending is mostly the result of increased healthcare costs and increased pension payouts.  Scott hasn't said what he would cut but he has said he won't raise taxes.  This position necessarily demands that cuts take place so he would either have to gut pensions or cut spending in state government.  Cuts to state government would likely have the consequences of shrinking growth further, increasing unemployment, increasing downward pressure on wages, and cause further dysfunction within state government.
• Nowhere in his plan does Scott demand anything of employers.  He opposes increases to the minimum wage under the disproven notion that a higher minimum wage will drive up unemployment (it should also be noted that Vermont has an unemployment rate well below the national average).  He also says paid sick leave should be "voluntary" which it is now and would have no effect on exactly the jobs where there needs to be paid sick leave.
• Oddly, when it comes to the legalization of marijuana, a policy which would at the very least bring in some new revenue, Scott opposes it, saying it's not about money.  The "this isn't about money" standard is something Scott applies to none of his other policies.   The longer we wait on the legalization of marijuana, a policy with relatively few drawbacks and is inevitable at this point, the less economic benefit it will provide the state.

The biggest economic issue Vermont faces is the aging of the workforce and the shrinking of the tax base.  Things like providing a couple years of free community or technical college as Sue Minter is proposing would help bring and keep young people here.  An increased minimum wage would increase economic activity among the part of the workforce where it has the most room to grow and also decrease the pressure on college graduates to immediately find a job that can pay well (most likely out of state).  Scott also initially opposed taking in refugees and then reversed course.  Apart from the morality of this, it makes no sense economically.  These refugees have skills, the desire to work, and where immigration like this has happened like in Lewiston, Maine, it has been a boon to the local economy.

Scott seems like a good guy, but the policies that he is proposing work against the ends he purportedly wants.  I don't care if my governor is a nice guy, I want good policy.

Podcast 7-24-2016: Guns-a-Blazing

On this episode, Vinny and I engage in some free-association.  We talk about Trump voters, the Republican National Convention, and we go window shopping for weaponry on Armslist.com.

http://s71.podbean.com/pb/4f4e570e701a841b54e4eebd6f91a397/579e9a4f/data1/fs181/958366/uploads/Podcast_7-24-2016_podcast_7-24-2016.mp3

Notes:

• We talked about drinking here's an Economist article about global alcohol consumption.  The cited article is as of 2012 if anyone has newer or more detailed information please forward it to me.
• Tim Kaine is 58.
• Sen.  Mike Lee is running for reelection.
• A demographic breakdown of Trump supporters.

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Bernie Didn't Lose Because of the DNC

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an idiot, a hack, and the DNC had their thumb on the scale for the Clinton campaign, but it had little to do with Clinton winning.  Clinton won because she had millions more votes than Sanders.  Her supporters showed up to vote in greater numbers and she had longstanding connections in minority communities.  That's it.

Were there incidents of voter disenfranchisement?  Yes.  Did they materially influence the outcome of the primary?  No.  In fact, the incidents of disenfranchisement particularly in Maricopa County in New Mexico, probably hurt Clinton more than they hurt Sanders.  Did party rules hurt Sanders? Maybe, but they were in place well before this primary and an equally good argument could be made that the long primary process helped Sanders by allowing his name to get out there.

Clinton received 16,847,075 votes while Sanders received 13,168,214.  This is in contrast to the 2008 Democratic primary where Obama received 17,584,692 votes and Clinton received 17,857,501.  The turnout numbers for 2008 don't even include the large states of Florida and Michigan that were excluded from the final count because they moved their primaries in violation of party rules.  The bottom line:  Worry about showing up to vote, not massive conspiracies between the incompetent DNC and the clueless Clinton campaign.

Sanders campaign accomplished a lot despite not winning the nomination:

• The TPP will likely be killed well before it has the chance to reach Clinton's desk.
•  The default position in the Democratic Party is now a public option that is the best way toward universal health care. 
• Clinton has now endorsed free tuition for families making under $125,000 a year. 
• The number of super-delegates has been cut by two-thirds in the primary process.  

These are all good and tangible things accomplished by the Sanders campaign and they will be completely abandoned if Donald Trump is our next president.

The next President will get to name 1-4 Supreme Court justices and greatly influence how the constitution is interpreted for the next 30 years. The choices are Clinton or Trump. If you're a progressive voter and you cast a third party vote or don't show up, that's half a vote for Trump.  Voting is a collective action, not a consumer choice.

Podcast 7-16-2016: May You Live in Interesting Times

In this episode, Vinny and I discuss HRC's emails, argue about Syria, talk about underinflated footballs, and the terrifying specter of a Trump presidency.

*NSFW

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-jv2ym-6133e3/download

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 6/26/2016: Brelf-Harm

Getty Images

In this episode, Vinny and I discuss the British exit from the European Union and the DEA.

*NSFW

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-bh8ax-609cf9/download

Notes:

• Vinny mentioned the ability of the Scottish parliament to possible block exit from the EU. While it is true that an exit would require "consent" of the Scottish parliament, it's still unclear whether they would actually be able to block an exit.  I guess it if the Scottish parliament voted to block an exit it might provide a good excuse for English lawmakers to backtrack, but I don't know enough about British politics to make a judgment one way or the other. 
• We forgot to mention that a large part of Greece's financial crisis was exacerbated by Goldman Sachs aiding the concealment of debt from the rest of the EU.  Read a little about it here.
• The retirement age in Greece was 65 prior to austerity.  Not terribly different than other EU member states.
• The Greeks also work more hours than many other OECD states.  They work more hours per year than the Germans, the French, and the British.  The idea that Greece was in financial trouble because of an overly generous welfare state or lazy workers is mostly fiction.

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 5-12-2016: Looking Toward a Long Hot Summer

After a long hiatus, Vinny and I discuss Libertarians, Clinton as the presumptive nominee, billionaires suing media outlets into oblivion, Deflategate/Ballghazi, trigger warnings for Vinny's dates, and more.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-53nm2-605ee5/download

NSFW
*Really disturbing images of Libertarians below the cut.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

There are so Many Other Amendments to Violate

NRA official Chris Cox:

...In the aftermath of this terrorist attack, President Obama and Hillary Clinton renewed calls for more gun control, including a ban on whole categories of semi-automatic firearms... 

...The terrorist in Orlando had been investigated multiple times by the FBI. He had a government-approved security guard license with a contractor for the Department of Homeland Security. Yet his former co-workers reported violent and racist comments. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s political correctness prevented anything from being done about it...

There is just so much stupidity here to unpack...

Firstly, over a hundred years of jurisprudence prior to 2008 recognized no individual right to own firearms.  Even in Heller v. DC, the ruling still left open the possibility that types of firearms could be restricted.

Secondly, yes, the FBI interviewed gunman/terrorist/homophobe/nutcase and there was no evidence of a crime.  In this case, "political correctness" is referring to constitutional protections like the First Amendment's protections of religion and speech, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the Fifth Amendment's right to due process, and the 14th Amendment's right to equal protection under the law.

Thirdly, it's a bit ironic that people who are constantly bitching about vague notions of "political correctness" in which they're usually referring to the "right" not to have their fee-fees hurt for saying bigoted and/or sexist things, are implying that this man should have possibly been arrested for doing just that.

I do find the notion that someone could have something recognized as a right taken away for being on a list that is arbitrarily applied and lacks any kind of due process problematic, which is why I don't think individual ownership of firearms should be a right.  Humans just aren't that good with weapons of mass-destruction.

Despite all this, one freedom remains strong in America:  The freedom to get shot.

What a D!ck

 

From the man who built his life sucking on the teat of government, who wants to cut social security but spent his formative years collecting survivor benefits, wants to continue his assault on people who work for a living.  Speaker of the House and Alfred E. Neuman look-alike Paul Ryan has voiced his opposition to the Obama Administration's expansion of overtime raising the cap from $23,660 to $47,476 for those who work more than 40 hours a week.

WTF is a "Moderate" Anyway?

From time to time I hear people pining for reasonable "moderates", centrists, and bi-partisans to come together and solve the problems that our political parties won't.  These arguments are non-sensical, self-congratulatory, completely devoid of the political system we operate in, and in many ways...extreme.  There are many problems with the desire for "moderates", among them...

Moderates aren't that moderate

As mentioned in this piece by Ezra Klein, the policies moderates actually believe in aren't that moderate.  It's possible to be a "moderate" who believes in gay rights, supports internment camps for Muslims, wants universal health care, and wants to eliminate the IRS.  None of those policy positions are moderate, but by virtue of statistics, those voters would be considered moderates.

Even insofar as "moderates" exist in American politics, their positions are highly ideological, just not particularly partisan.  For example, there is a certain segment of both parties that embraces things like free-trade, education reform, entitlement reform, austerity, and exploitive immigration.  These are positions that are extremely neoliberal, corporatist, in many cases a divergence from the status quo, and not at all in the interest of most of the American people, but in the context of American politics "moderate".