Jump to content

U.S. Politics: A Democracy In Decay


Recommended Posts

Stuff about Trump’s apprenticeship plans:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/06/15/can-trumps-apprentice-model-fix-infrastructure-and-create-jobs/

Quote

Following a week-long focus on infrastructure, President Trump revealed few additional details on his long-awaited $1 trillion plan. His announcement to privatize air traffic control and the steps he outlined to streamline infrastructure permitting rehashed ideas that have been around for some time.

Today in: Hysteresis effects

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/du-cad060917.php

Quote

When states suffer a widespread loss of jobs, the damage extends to the next generation, where college attendance drops among the poorest students, says new research from Duke University.

As a result, states marked by shuttered factories or dormant mines also show a widening gap in college attendance between rich and poor, the authors write.

Yet simple economics aren't the only factor at play, the authors write. Poor students in economically stricken states don't avoid college simply because they can't afford it. Instead, widespread job losses trigger adolescent emotional problems and poor academic performance, which, in turn, puts college out of reach, say the authors, whose research is published in the June 16 issue of Science.

 

Do you think there might be a problem, when the sanest guy in the room goes by the name "Mad Dog"?

http://angrybearblog.com/2017/06/when-somebody-called-mad-dog-is-the-only-adult-in-the-room.html

Quote

In the last few days it has come to pass that twice US Secretary of Defense, James “Mad Dog” Mattis has shown himself to be the only adult in the room in the Trump administration.  His first such exhibition of adulthood came during the bizarre spectacle of Trump’s first full televised cabinet meeting.  Trump openly demanded verbal obeisance from those assembled, promptly delivered by all but one in the room, with some of them embarrassingly effusive, such as Reince Priebus declaring it to be a “blessing” to serve Trump.  Ugh.  Even SecState Tillerson chimed in with a relatively perfunctory bit of praise for Trump.  Only Mad Dog Mattis refused to go along, making a statement praising US military personnel around the world without a single word about Trump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Do you think there might be a problem, when the sanest guy in the room goes by the name "Mad Dog"?

An interesting aside, Vox's podcast the Weeds had an anecdote that he really does not like being called "Mad Dog" -- which makes it all the more bizarre, concerning, and amusing that Trump insists on referring to him as "Mad Dog".

Googling doesn't come up with Vox, but -- http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-is-trumps-secretary-of-defense-pick-james-mattis-nicknamed-mad-dog/

Quote

However, according to NBC, he is not fond of the moniker and likely prefers the other nickname that has been bestowed upon him — ‘The Warrior Monk.’ The 66-year-old developed this reputation due to the fact that he’s a lifelong bachelor who has dedicated his life to the military and is a student of military history. He’s also an extremely articulate speaker.

All that said -- it's also a bit concerning when the sanest guy room PREFERS to called "The Warrior Monk".

Well, unless there is a d20 in the room as well. I'm sure that Stillness of Mind and Diamond Soul are really coming in handy now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I get the feeling that governments are actually very efficient at what they do, as long as their action is not undermined by political decisions.

But it's just a feeling, and I'm aware of my bias. Simply put, all the modern examples of government failures I can think of are really the product of terrible political decisions, and in the last decades, many of those decisions were completely deliberate.
A common conservative strategy throughout the West has been to deliberately cut or misappropriate funding and then claim that agencies or programs were ineffective.
My instinct even tells me that there is a very conscious strategy at work there, designed to hide just how efficient governments actually are in order to privatize their services. I've seen numbers not being reported and facts being misrepresented. Thus, people are increasingly convinced that government is bad and will gladly vote against their own interests.

If someone knew a good book analysing the subject, it'd be much appreciated. I've read an economist or two having touched on the subject, but they tend to use examples rather than extensive data.

You are 100% correct.  Ever since Nixon the right has trumpeted that government is bad, does't work, etc. and worked 24/7 to make government bad and not work.  One cannot have good government from people who insist they don't believe in government.

It has been a strategy, and one that worked very well, as both short term and long term play.  

Short term, for ex -- taking the post office out of the cabinet agencies, while taking the money it generated for the general federal fund and insisting the post office fund itself, as one of the first things Nixon did, and this splendidly functioning system immediately began hurtling to dysfunction.  Part of the strategy of this was without it being part of the federal cabinet agencies, a huge number of patronage opportunities were taken away from control of the opposing party to the one currently holding power.  The post office was one of the few places African Americans were still able to have federal jobs after Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government in Jim Crow, and they dependably voted for 'liberal', non-white supremacist candidates, etc.

Long term -- funding anti-public education entities (which also has the effect of undercutting poor neighborhood voters and teachers' unions, who tend to vote 'liberal'),  cultivating the religious right, funding think tanks, university chairs and programs, media like Rush and Fox, right wing publishers and o, o, o, funding lobbyists.

There are a lot of articles about this.  Two good ones to start with:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/antigovernment

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/12/the-conservative-1960s/376506/

Books too -- so many:

 White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement

The Rise of Conservatism in America, 1945-2000: A Brief History

Confronting the New Conservatism: The Rise of the Right in America

*Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America Is particularly good among the most recent titles, delving particularly into the Kochs back from the 1960's, and their philosophy that if there is any government at all, it is not to serve the public, but the donors, so elected figures should be done away with all together.  And they've been funding this libertarian ideology for at least a half century.

The problem for many, is that these studies find racism and religion inextricably tied into the anti-government movements, and a lot of readers haven't wanted to confront that, or admit it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Week said:

An interesting aside, Vox's podcast the Weeds had an anecdote that he really does not like being called "Mad Dog" -- which makes it all the more bizarre, concerning, and amusing that Trump insists on referring to him as "Mad Dog".

Googling doesn't come up with Vox, but -- http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-is-trumps-secretary-of-defense-pick-james-mattis-nicknamed-mad-dog/

All that said -- it's also a bit concerning when the sanest guy room PREFERS to called "The Warrior Monk".

Well, unless there is a d20 in the room as well. I'm sure that Stillness of Mind and Diamond Soul are really coming in handy now.

Well the age old rule is you don't get to pick your own nickname, and there's no guarantee that you are necessarily going to like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Well the age old rule is you don't get to pick your own nickname, and there's no guarantee that you are necessarily going to like it.

As someone that has been the giver and receiver of some colorful nicknames, I can attest this is true. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The only nickname that has ever stuck for me is Scot, and my middle name is Scott.

Yeah, I don't have one presently, not that I'm pining away for one. But, growing up, through college, and in the military, I always managed to earn myself a new name from friends. But, I gave few out too (to friends). I guess that's what friends are for. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

Do you think there might be a problem, when the sanest guy in the room goes by the name "Mad Dog"?

http://angrybearblog.com/2017/06/when-somebody-called-mad-dog-is-the-only-adult-in-the-room.html

 

He, and to lesser extent Kelly, seem like the only people in the cabinet who are there to help and protect the country. Everyone else has their own agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Well the age old rule is you don't get to pick your own nickname, and there's no guarantee that you are necessarily going to like it.

The only kid I didn't like in high school once gave me a nickname that I hated. After about a week it was addressed on the football field during practice. He never said anything bad about me again after that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Crude, yet effective. Godammit, I like it!

Haha. He played R-DE, I was one of two RBs. I told the QB to audible to a left sweep with me lead blocking and told the LT to let him go. He was tall, soft and slow and I was short, muscular and the second fastest kid in my grade. And dammit, the moment he came around the LT I caught him, put the crown of my helmet into his chin strap and launched as hard as I ever had. He woke up in the hospital. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Crude, yet effective. Godammit, I like it!

Yep.  Sometimes you have to speak to people in the only language they seem to understand.  Growing up, everyone usually just called me by my last name.  It sort of became a nickname of sorts but my last name lends itself pretty well to that so I've never minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prince of the North said:

Yep.  Sometimes you have to speak to people in the only language they seem to understand.  Growing up, everyone usually just called me by my last name.  It sort of became a nickname of sorts but my last name lends itself pretty well to that so I've never minded.

For me, all my derogatory nicknames actually came from very close friends of mine.

Once, when I sitting in bar, with several close friends, while in the service, there was this other Lt. I didn't like too well, and he decided to call me by my nickname. I just told him that only certain people where authorized to call me by that name and he wasn't one of them. That stopped that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

When your lawyer lawyers up ... :blink:

No really, I'm sure that's standard procedure, but you can't say it doesn't make for a great story in the context.

This surprises me only in a "man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" sort of a way. This man should be representing himself.

 

/Says me, Clownshoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now some sad news:

Quote

Although President Trump has not yet managed to build his infamous wall or implement his notorious travel ban, his administration on Thursday took a significant step toward tightening immigration restrictions in the United States. The Trump administration reportedly ended protections for undocumented immigrant parents, protections that had been put in place during the Obama administration. As a result, millions of families may be vulnerable to separation at the hands of Trump's immigration policy.

https://www.bustle.com/p/trumps-administration-halts-dapa-protections-for-undocumented-parents-64831

And while Dreamers are still safe, their futures are not bright:

Quote

WASHINGTON — President Trump will not immediately eliminate protections for the so-called Dreamers, undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as small children, according to new memorandums issued by the administration Thursday night.

But White House officials said Friday morning that Mr. Trump had not made a decision about the long-term fate of the program and might yet follow through on a campaign pledge to take away work permits from the immigrants or deport them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/politics/trump-will-allow-dreamers-to-stay-in-us-reversing-campaign-promise.html?mcubz=2

I have a lot of friends who are Dreamers, and this is heartbreaking news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if Trump were smart, he’d reappoint Janet Yellen.

Trouble is that he ain’t too bright, so he’ll probably appoint some clown like Art Laffer or something.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-16/janet-yellen-is-her-own-best-successor

Quote

President Donald Trump has reportedly begun the process of deciding who will lead the U.S. Federal Reserve after Janet Yellen's term ends early next year. If he wants the best outcome for the economy, he can't do better than Janet Yellen.

 

Quote

Warsh, Taylor, and Hubbard all reportedly see Yellen’s Fed as having been too dovish, suggesting that that they would have done less to support the economic recovery. This approach would have led to higher unemployment and lower inflation -- an inferior fulfilment of the Fed's dual mandate that marks them as worse candidates than Yellen.  It's also important to remember that Taylor and Warsh argued publicly against additional monetary stimulus in November 2010, when the unemployment rate was almost 10 percent and the inflation rate had fallen nearly to 1 percent. Their concerns about excessive inflation proved to be completely unjustified. Yellen, by contrast, supported stimulus.

LOL, like Taylor or Warsh have any fuckin’ credibility these days. Warsh wanted “pro growth” polices ie tax cuts for the rich. People like Warsh evidently just didn’t want to admit the problem was lack of demand, monetary policy was constrained, ie Krugman was right (along with others), not any type of supply side constraint. If supply side constraints were the problem, you wouldn’t have seen low inflation. And nothing about the financial crises would suggest it was about a supply side problem.

But you know, some people just want to keep relivin that old Reagan glory. And some people want to believe that people like Moore and Krugman are equally crazy.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a good look for Megyn Kelly and NBC -- their public comments are contradicted by leaked audio.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/06/16/what-megyn-kelly-says-leaked-audio-alex-jones/216943

Quote

Kelly soothes Jones’ fragile ego, assures him the interview will not be contentious, tells him that her show is about “fun,” and even promises to let Jones review any clips they use.

I understand that some of this type of thing will need to happen with guests -- placating ego, etc. etc. but this is beyond the pale.

Quote

Kelly pledged that she wouldn’t ask Jones tough questions, that her show was “fun,” and that the interview would not be a “gotcha hit piece”

  • After Jones asked if Kelly would bring up his controversies, including his comments about Sandy Hook and Pizzagate: “No, I can ask you about that. There’s not going to be a contentious, sort of, gotcha exchange. Right? That’s not what this show is and that’s not really what I want to do. I want to do in-depth profiles on people. Just interesting people. So I can ask you that, this is what the critics say. But this isn’t going to be ah-ha, let’s play a clip.
  • “I’m trying to create a different kind of program. And it’s fun. I’ll ask you about some of the controversies, of course. And you’ll say whatever you want to say. But, it’s not going to be some gotcha hit piece. I promise you that."
  • I’m not looking to portray you as some boogeyman, or, you know, do any sort of a gotcha moment. I just want to talk about you. I want people to get to know you. And the craziest thing of all would be if some of the people who have this insane vision of you in their heads walk away saying, ‘You know what? I see, like, the dad in him. I see the guy who loves those kids, and who is more complex than I’ve been led to believe.’”

Kelly told Jones he would have oversight of portions of the interview

  • “I will promise you to personally look at any clips we want to use of you. And have a producer run by you whether we are taking it in context and what you are saying about it.
  • “If I ask you about any controversy, you’ll have the chance to address it fully. And I’m not going to cut you in a way that’s going to take out the heart of your explanation or the real substance of it. I won’t do that.”
  • “We’ll do like a walk-and-talk and we’ll set up something nice. Or we can -- one of my producers will weigh in on that because they know how to make it look beautiful. And they’ll work with you and do something that’s acceptable to you.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...