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.

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.

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

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

Republican Presidential Candidates Should Put Their Barrels Where Their Mouth is

Ted Cruz via abcnews.go.com

As some of you may have heard, there is a petition circulating to allow open carry of firearms at the Republican Convention.  With an expected crowd of 50,000 in what is looking like a contested convention; with white supremacists, religious zealots, Ted Cruz, and the rest of the freedom-loving critters that form the base of the Republican Party in attendance, the need to pack heat has never been greater.  I for one cannot think of a better place to allow the full exercise of the Second Amendment.

This is how we determine which candidates are true patriots.  The buzzkill brigade otherwise known as the Secret Service is just big government getting in the way of the aspirations of our citizenry, undermining their Second Amendment rights, and jeopardizing their safety.  The candidates must demonstrate both their faith in the Second Amendment and free market principles by refusing Secret Service protection.  With the remaining candidates' net worth ranging from $3.5 million to $4-8 billion, they should have no trouble hiring security and I'm sure there are a number of members of the Aryan Brotherhood that would gladly offer protection to Donald Trump.

Naysayers will contend that arming attendees fueled with drugs, alcohol, and a strong sense of victimhood; in the great American shithole known as Cleveland, with protestors sure to be in the streets, the National Guard and Ohio State Police under the command of John Kasich, the convention could end in a bloodbath.  That is a small price to pay for freedom.

Merica!

Podcast 4/2/2016: The "Bernie or Bust" Movement and Minimum Wage

In this episode,  Vinny and I throw some cold water on the "Bernie or Bust" movement.  We then move on to discuss the political and economic justifications for a raise in the minimum wage.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-cavrx-5e1988/download

Notes:

• Zephyr Teachout is running for the House in New York's 19th Congressional district.  If you're serious about progressive policies then consider donating to her campaign or voting for her if you reside in the 19th.  She's from Vermont, for what it's worth.
• Russ Feingold is a progressive candidate for US Senate (and former US Senator) in Wisconsin. Again, the above applies.
• Tim Canova is challenging incompetent DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the Democratic Primary for Florida's 23rd congressional district.
• The minimum wage went from $0.40 in 1945 to $0.75 in 1950 to $1 in 1956.  
• From 1948 to 1960 unemployment was as follows (BLS): 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

• 1948 3.4 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.0
• 1949 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.7 6.8 6.6 7.9 6.4 6.6
• 1950 6.5 6.4 6.3 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.3
• 1951 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.1
• 1952 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7
• 1953 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.5
• 1954 4.9 5.2 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0
• 1955 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2
• 1956 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.2
• 1957 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2
• 1958 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.2 6.2
• 1959 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.3
• 1960 5.2 4.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.6
 
• There were other things going on beside the minimum wage increase during this time like the baby-boom, soldiers returning from WWII, soldiers going to Korea, the G.I. bill, and the normal cyclical trends of the economy, but based on the above data I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect massive unemployment because of a minimum wage hike.
• During the same period of time as noted above inflation ranged from 10.2% in January of 1948 to -2.9% in October of 1949.  Again, there was a lot going on during this period of time. Since the 1920's the economy had been pretty volatile, so it takes a very selective reading of the data to pin it on a minimum wage increase (Inflation Calculator).  EDIT I just realized I cited the two extremes that occurred before either of the minimum wage increases.  Inflation from 1945-1960 was as follows:


• 1945 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3
• 1946 2.2 1.7 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.3 9.4 11.6 12.7 14.9 17.7 18.1 8.3
• 1947 18.1 18.8 19.7 19.0 18.4 17.6 12.1 11.4 12.7 10.6 8.5 8.8 14.4
• 1948 10.2 9.3 6.8 8.7 9.1 9.5 9.9 8.9 6.5 6.1 4.8 3.0 8.1
• 1949 1.3 1.3 1.7 0.4 -0.4 -0.8 -2.9 -2.9 -2.4 -2.9 -1.7 -2.1 -1.2
• 1950 -2.1 -1.3 -0.8 -1.3 -0.4 -0.4 1.7 2.1 2.1 3.8 3.8 5.9 1.3
• 1951 8.1 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 8.8 7.5 6.6 7.0 6.5 6.9 6.0 7.9
• 1952 4.3 2.3 1.9 2.3 1.9 2.3 3.1 3.1 2.3 1.9 1.1 0.8 1.9
• 1953 0.4 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.8
• 1954 1.1 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -0.4 -0.7 0.7
• 1955 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.4 -0.7 -0.7 -0.4 -0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 -0.4
• 1956 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.9 2.2 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.5
• 1957 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.3 2.9 3.3 2.9 3.3
• 1958 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.8
• 1959 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.7 0.7
• 1960 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7


• Other empirical studies (namely Card and Krueger), have shown little to no increase in unemployment even when wage levels differ in neighboring states.  In the case of Card and Krueger, the minimum wage increased in New Jersey to levels above that of neighboring Pennsylvania.  The result was no discernable loss in employment compared to Pennsylvania and no noticeable rise in prices in affected restaurants.

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 3/13/2016: Super-Duper Tuesday Predictions, Violence on the Trump Circuit, and Rahm Emanuel Needing the Cersei Lannister Treatment

Better late than never.

In this episode, Vinny and I make some terrible predictions regarding super-duper Tuesday, discuss the weather, Trump's white power rallies, and more.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-d4tin-5da0bd/download

Notes:

• I bring up a demographic stat at one point that I can't place a name to.  I still couldn't find it.  I'll keep looking.
• https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-challenged-over-ties-to-mob-linked-gambler-100050602.html Trump and the mob.
• Operation Linebacker II http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/linebacker-2.htm

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

On Occasion, the Hitler Comparisons are Valid

I rarely refer to people I disagree with as Nazis or compare them to Adolf Hitler.  Usually, those comparisons are hyperbolic and not all that analogous.  Today an exception will be made: There are legitimate parallels to be drawn between Donald Trump and Hitler.

Trump has repeatedly cultivated the support of white supremacists.  He re-tweets them with alarming frequency, including glaringly inaccurate crime statistics that cater to the worst prejudices of white people with a sense of victimization.

Much like Hitler, who played to nationalist sympathies promising to restore Germany to former glory, Trump is promising to "make America great again".

Trump is undoubtedly an authoritarian.  He has openly advocated the commission of war crimes in debates, advocating for torture and the killing of terrorists' families.  He has cheered on violence at his rallies and casually suggested that he wished he could "rough up" journalists.  He has even quoted Mussolini.

For Hitler, the demonized outsiders were Jews, democratic socialists, homosexuals, communists, and the mentally retarded amongst others.  For Trump, the "others" are Muslims and immigrants saying:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said. "They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Trump is often laughed at and not taken particularly seriously (including by myself).  Here's the thing:  Hitler wasn't taken very seriously either.  From my Western Civilization textbook, "...To most, Hitler was simply a right-wing rabble-rouser whose views were not worth taking seriously (p924 Nobel et. al.)."

Podcast 3/5/2016: Super Tuesday Review, Preview of Saturday and Sunday Primaries/Caucuses

On this episode Vinny and I review our Super Tuesday predictions.  How wrong were we?

We'll also preview this weekend's primaries and caucuses.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-ycchc-5d4501/download

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Realism for One

One of the things that irritates me the most about the upcoming election is that the media's line of questioning only seems to treat one candidate's policy proposals as though they're actually serious. Bernie Sanders is routinely questioned as though his proposals are crazy and unrealistic despite the fact that he's basically advocating for what every other western democracy already has.  I have no problem with asking Sanders tough questions like how he plans to pay for universal education or how he would get massive overhaul of the health care system through congress.  What I do have a problem with, is why other candidates are not subject to the same level of scrutiny.

Hillary Clinton has proposed a number of "reasonable" policies that under the current congress, where Obama could nominate Robert Bork and still not get him through confirmation in the Senate, would stand absolutely no chance of passing.  Clinton routinely talks about how she "would get stuff done" despite not offering any actual evidence of it.  The only things I see Clinton actually able to do given the current political climate, is work together with the Republicans to get bad free-trade deals and deeper involvement in wars we can't possibly win.

I don't hear how Clinton would pay for her policies.  Sanders at least has the decency to tell us that his "free stuff" would result in higher taxes and not just for the super-rich.  I never hear Clinton questioned on whether her "reasonable" and "technocratic" health care or education policies would create a massive amount of paperwork and bureaucracy for ordinary citizens to navigate.  I haven't heard anything about how these means-tested policies would be extraordinarily easy for congress to remove precisely because they don't apply to everyone.

Podcast 2/26/2016: Post-SC(R)/NV, Pre-SC(D)

In this episode, Vinny and I revisit our predictions of the Nevada caucuses, the Republican South Carolina primary, and make predictions for the Democratic South Carolina primary.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-hqs9h-5d07d0/download

South Carolina predictions:
AM:
Clinton 54%
Sanders 40%

VM:
Clinton 58-59%
Sanders 40%

Notes:

• I said we are more segregated then ever... This is undoubtedly false.  The real story however, is less clear.  It's likely that many of us are more segregated in schooling than in the late 1960s. Bottom line:  It's nuanced.  Check out this 2003 UCLA study. 

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 2/20/2016: Nevada and South Carolina Prediction

In this episode, Vinny and I discuss where I actually agree with Donald Trump, the possibility of a fistfight in the next Republican debate, our predictions for the Republican South Carolina debate, and predictions for the Nevada Democratic and Republican caucuses.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-hqrcw-5cd602/download

Predictions:
VM:
SC Republican:

1. Trump 35%~
2. Cruz 25%~
3. Rubio 15%~
4. Jeb 9%~
5. Kasich 8%~
6. Carson 5%~

NV Democrats:

1. Sanders by a hair
2. Clinton

NV Republicans:

1. Trump 45%
2. Ted Cruz 25%
3. Rubio 15%
4. Kasich 10%

AM:

SC Republican:

1. Trump 30-35%
2. Rubio 20%~
3. Cruz 19%~
4. Jeb Who cares?
5. Kasich Who cares?
6. Carson Who cares?

NV Democrats:

1. Sanders by a hair
2. Clinton

NV Republicans:

1. Trump 35-40%
2. Cruz 20-25%
3. Rubio 15%~
4. Jeb 10%~
5. Carson 5%~

Notes:

• Next Republican debate is 2/25/2016 on CNN

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 1-31-2016: Pre-Iowa

On this episode, Vinny and I ramble on about the Sanders candidacy, luke-warm progressives, Vermont gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne, hot Supreme Court action, our Iowa predictions, and more.

Iowa Caucus predictions:

VM: 

Democratic:

1. Sanders 
2. Clinton 
3. O'Malley 

Republican:

1. Trump 
2. Rubio 
3. Cruz 

AM:
Democratic:

1. Sanders 
2. Clinton 
3. O'Malley 

Republican:

1. Cruz 
2. Trump 
3. Rubio 

Notes:
When speaking of the overthrow of Mossadegh, I misspoke and said the "Iraqi army" when I should have said "Iranian".
Allen Dulles' law firm was "Sullivan and Cromwell" not "Simon and Cromwell"
"The Devil's Chessboard" http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276166/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454520372&sr=1-1&keywords=the+devils+chessboard
"All the Shah's Men" http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454520442&sr=1-2&keywords=all+the+shah%27s+men
"The Siege of Mecca" http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454520556&sr=1-1&keywords=the+siege+of+mecca
"The Seven US Ambassadors Killed in the Line of Duty"
Are agency fees for unions at public sector jobs a violation of free speech protections? http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/supreme-court-tackles-key-public-union-case-on-monday/ Frederichs v. CTA.
History of first amendment protections for public employees: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/FirstReport.PublicEmployees.pdf
Candidacy filings for president http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2pty.shtml
Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger Tim Canova https://timcanova.com/

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

We Should Fear Ourselves

Events like those that just happened in Paris, Beirut, Ankara, over the Sinai, and just this morning in Bamako Mali are severely depressing.  Not so much the attacks themselves, but the subsequent response.  ISIS is terrifying.  They are a group with a nihilistic medieval ideology, battle hardened, well-funded, well organized, and there is no doubt that if they could, they would make the United States part of the caliphate.  Here is the thing though; they cannot even come close.  What they can do however, is provoke us into costly wars, to surrender our values and freedoms, and distract us from our own problems.

ISIS and organizations like them are not existential threats to us.  ISIS is not Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Confederacy, or the Soviet Union and yet judging by the media coverage and the response of many of our political leaders they might be all that and worse.  Donald Trump has advocated a database and ID cards for all Muslims.   Jeb Bush has advocated religious tests for entry to our country.  John Kasich has advocated creating a new government agency specifically to promote Judeo-Christian values (whatever those are).  ISIS believes they are waging a holy war against the west and many of our political leaders are eager to oblige.

Governors and mayors of cities across the country are refusing to settle Syrian refugees fleeing the very people responsible for these attacks.  As if 10,000 refugees, a tiny percentage of whom could be here for nefarious purposes, pose a serious threat to a nation of 350,000,000.  These people are not leaders.  They are cowards and they are laying the groundwork for fascism.

Suddenly after an attack that did not even occur on American soil many of us are perfectly willing throw out other people's rights.  In 2014, there were 13,741 murders in the United States mostly committed by Americans.  Since 9/11, 26 people have been killed on American soil by Islamic terrorists and 48 by radical right wing groups.  Yet when it comes to round the clock surveillance on Muslims, racial profiling, torture, going to war, and purifying our immigrant pool there are plenty of people perfectly willing to go along.  Suggest gun control however, and suddenly these same people become civil libertarians.  In America, the Constitution is only important when it protects the alleged rights of predominantly white males.

Even here in Vermont, where we have a history of taking in refugees from Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, the Congo, and elsewhere; the two Republican candidates for Governor Phil Scott and Bruce Lisman want to delay resettlement for Syrian refugees whom have already been waiting for years to enter the country.  This is despite the fact that Vermont has an aging workforce, shrinking tax base, and in the long run would almost certainly benefit economically from people dedicated enough to travel thousands of miles despite great cost and risk to go live in a strange new place.

The whole fear of Islamic extremism in the United States is illogical as fear often is.  After 9/11, we responded by invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with the attack and was holding the various political, ethnic, nationalistic, and religious factions together via a secular (albeit tyrannical) regime.  Now there is a power vacuum and it has been filled with the most violent and fanatical fighters among them, ISIS.  This is a problem largely of our own making.

Perhaps the most difficult part of all of this is the realization that there might not be that much we can do about it.  National borders in the Middle East were drawn by colonial powers where ethnic groups we played off against one and other.  Brutal regimes were propped up and domestic politics were interfered with by outside powers.  Now Humpty-Dumpty has fallen and all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put him together again.  The best thing the United States can do is not repeat the same mistakes that got us into this mess.

If we actually want to prevent terrorism, we should resettle as many of these refugees as possible.  Nothing lends itself to extremism more than ghettoized people with no hope and no prospects.  Is there better propaganda for ISIS then treating Muslims as second-class citizens or killing more innocence?  I don't think there is; it confirms everything they've already said about us. 
 

The Art of the Grift

Wikimedia Commons

Something amazing is happening in this Republican presidential primary, it is my belief that many of the candidates including the two front-runners have no intention of ever being President or holding any kind of public office.  These candidates are after something far more rewarding, profitable, and easier...the grift.

The most obvious example of these grifters is Mike Huckabee.  Huckabee is running for president you say?  I can forgive you if you forgot, but yeah, I mean he is pretending to anyway.  Huckabee hasn't held political office since 2007.  He ran for President in 2008, which got him a nice seven years of a television show on Fox, numerous media appearances, book deals, speaking tours, and supplement sales.  Since 2014, Huckabee has made just short of 1 million dollars in speaking fees alone.  His show on Fox News gave him a reported annual salary of $500,000, and has used his fame and weight loss story to hawk "natural" diabetes supplements.  Huckabee gave up his show to "pursue" the presidency but rest assured he'll have a job at Fox News when it's all said and done.