Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

There is always a silver lining: Cruz Victory Gives Hope To Despised People Everywhere

 

 

Looks like a fun year ahead!

 

I swear I thought the link would take me to The Onion.com

[gwnn]

A surprise canadacy.

[akwoo]

I was brought up understanding that I was to support myself. How was my business. I know it is harder now, we all agree on that. But harder becomes impossible when common sense is abandoned. We recently had our roof replaced. I have no idea if the roofers can solve a differential equation but I am guessing that they cannot.

 

And it will be harder yet when the folks who are kids now grow up. I wouldn't be surprised if in twenty years, the two or three guys who put the tiles on your roof will be one guy with a roofing machine, and that one guy will at least be good enough to program the machine (I don't mean like a computer programmer - I mean like programming a VCR) and make minor repairs when it breaks. The guy probably won't know how to solve differential equations, but he'll need to be smarter than the guys doing the job now.

 

From where I sit, I'm seeing a significant portion of the population, whether because of lack of innate ability, poor education, or whatever else, who simply will not have the ability to support themselves. Frankly, this is true already; just look at the explosion of people who have been put on long-term disability on some excuse or other. Many people won't be able to add anything to the available technology. I agree that students with a D in pre-pre-algebra trying to be nuclear engineers don't help. The truth though, is that most (though not all) kids with a D in pre-pre-algebra aren't good enough at anything to make it. It's not as if pre-pre-algebra is a skill completely uncorrelated with everything else.

 

Maybe the Unabomber was right, though I certainly don't think sending mail bombs was the right way to make his point.

[Phil]

I swear I thought the link would take me to The Onion.com

 

Even the article smacks of satire when it quotes a real estate agent in FL.

[helene_t]

I swear I thought the link would take me to The Onion.com

Borowitz is similar to the Onion except that his jokes are almost always political.

[kenberg]

And it will be harder yet when the folks who are kids now grow up. I wouldn't be surprised if in twenty years, the two or three guys who put the tiles on your roof will be one guy with a roofing machine, and that one guy will at least be good enough to program the machine (I don't mean like a computer programmer - I mean like programming a VCR) and make minor repairs when it breaks. The guy probably won't know how to solve differential equations, but he'll need to be smarter than the guys doing the job now.

 

From where I sit, I'm seeing a significant portion of the population, whether because of lack of innate ability, poor education, or whatever else, who simply will not have the ability to support themselves. Frankly, this is true already; just look at the explosion of people who have been put on long-term disability on some excuse or other. Many people won't be able to add anything to the available technology. I agree that students with a D in pre-pre-algebra trying to be nuclear engineers don't help. The truth though, is that most (though not all) kids with a D in pre-pre-algebra aren't good enough at anything to make it. It's not as if pre-pre-algebra is a skill completely uncorrelated with everything else.

 

Maybe the Unabomber was right, though I certainly don't think sending mail bombs was the right way to make his point.

 

First, perhaps you are right. But I resist such pessimism until/unless there is no other choice.

 

The WP had an interesting article about the iron range

 

The guy featured lost his job when the mine shut down. He has other skills, but he is going through a very rough time. A good summary would be that he knows how to work and knows how to learn. Disaster can strike anyone, but I would hope we can still follow policies that can work out for such a person.

 

Economic forces can roll over very decent people. But policies matter.

 

Now there are people who can't or won't do what he could and would. Absolutely this is true, and I doubt anyone knows what to do about that. But I give up on someone only as a last resort so I hope the number of such people is of modest size. People such as this miner, and I have known a fair number including some miners, may not look all that good in a college class. But that is far from the end of the story, and I hope that we pay more attention to their needs than we have been doing. They need work that will allow them to raise a family.

 

 

Added: The article mentioned that one worry this guy had was that his medical benefits from his work in the mines could run out, and they are expecting a child. The author does not explain how the ACA would or would not help with this. Does anyone have any knowledge on this? I would assume it helps.

 

It seems to me most everyone wishes this guy and his family the best of luck

[akwoo]

First, perhaps you are right. But I resist such pessimism until/unless there is no other choice.

 

You've led a productive life and are retired. You've earned the right not to worry too much about what the world is going to be like 30 years from now. But some of us are still going to be alive and kicking then, and we have to worry about it.

 

I don't want to give up on anyone. But this is a matter of attitude towards the person in front of me, not a matter of reason. Even as we hope for the best for everyone, it strikes me as reckless not to try to prepare for things not working out.

 

You say you doubt anyone knows what to do about this problem. You are probably right, but that doesn't mean we all throw up our hands and bury our heads in the sand. Again you've earned the right to do that, but we have to worry. Pessimism serves a purpose after all; it pushes us to try to prepare in case things don't work out. If there is going to be a problem, any feasible solution is going to take a lot of work to come up, and even more work to implement. Social solutions to social problems take a long time to put in place. If we let things drift, and keep hoping for the best, then no one comes up with anything, and we won't be prepared if technologically-induced mass unemployment starts happening.

 

If it really becomes a problem, I imagine it would end rather poorly. Some nuclear-armed state in dire economic straits is going to choose, democratically or not, a Hitler as their leader, and we'll be leaving Earth to the cockroaches.

[y66]

You've led a productive life and are retired. You've earned the right not to worry too much about what the world is going to be like 30 years from now. But some of us are still going to be alive and kicking then, and we have to worry about it.

 

I don't want to give up on anyone. But this is a matter of attitude towards the person in front of me, not a matter of reason. Even as we hope for the best for everyone, it strikes me as reckless not to try to prepare for things not working out.

 

You say you doubt anyone knows what to do about this problem. You are probably right, but that doesn't mean we all throw up our hands and bury our heads in the sand. Again you've earned the right to do that, but we have to worry. Pessimism serves a purpose after all; it pushes us to try to prepare in case things don't work out. If there is going to be a problem, any feasible solution is going to take a lot of work to come up, and even more work to implement. Social solutions to social problems take a long time to put in place. If we let things drift, and keep hoping for the best, then no one comes up with anything, and we won't be prepared if technologically-induced mass unemployment starts happening.

 

If it really becomes a problem, I imagine it would end rather poorly. Some nuclear-armed state in dire economic straits is going to choose, democratically or not, a Hitler as their leader, and we'll be leaving Earth to the cockroaches.

The question is what to do? These guys ask themselves this question every Friday morning. They also do stuff, including working with Rob Grunewald and others on the early childhood development front (Grunewald, who works for the Minnesota Fed, has been a leader on this front for more than 10 years).

[y66]

Fact Checks of the Fifth Democratic Debate.

[helene_t]

Fact Checks of the Fifth Democratic Debate.

It includes the republican debate as well.

[kenberg]

You've led a productive life and are retired. You've earned the right not to worry too much about what the world is going to be like 30 years from now. But some of us are still going to be alive and kicking then, and we have to worry about it.

 

I don't want to give up on anyone. But this is a matter of attitude towards the person in front of me, not a matter of reason. Even as we hope for the best for everyone, it strikes me as reckless not to try to prepare for things not working out.

 

You say you doubt anyone knows what to do about this problem. You are probably right, but that doesn't mean we all throw up our hands and bury our heads in the sand. Again you've earned the right to do that, but we have to worry. Pessimism serves a purpose after all; it pushes us to try to prepare in case things don't work out. If there is going to be a problem, any feasible solution is going to take a lot of work to come up, and even more work to implement. Social solutions to social problems take a long time to put in place. If we let things drift, and keep hoping for the best, then no one comes up with anything, and we won't be prepared if technologically-induced mass unemployment starts happening.

 

If it really becomes a problem, I imagine it would end rather poorly. Some nuclear-armed state in dire economic straits is going to choose, democratically or not, a Hitler as their leader, and we'll be leaving Earth to the cockroaches.

 

There are quite a few things that I favor doing. Addressing education is near the top of my list and we probably agree on that as a general principle.. I regard inequality of access to a decent education as more serious than inequality of income, although of course they are strongly linked.

 

One place that we perhaps disagree is on the emphasis on college. College is, of course, important. But when someone suggests making post-secondary education free, I want to ask if this includes training at trade schools. Sure trades become more technical, although I am not expecting robot roofers any time soon. Take car repair. 60 years ago I used a torque wrench. There was a dial that gave an estimate of the amount of torque being applied. When tightening down a cylinder head you tightened the bolts going through them in a prescribed order, first tightening to a certain torque, then going through again tightening further. Now mechanics have computer stuff they read They can do it. And I expect they still need to use a socket wrench. Advocates speak of making students college or career ready but if you listen to the follow-up, they usually are thinking of college ready.

 

The (very useful) fact checker posted by Y66 addresses Rubio's claim that welders make more money than philosophers. Of course it depends on how you classify. Having a BA in Philosophy is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a philosopher. Regardless, the interesting question for me is whether someone ( I almost said guy but I have seen Flashdance and anyway I know there are women welders) can make a decent living at it. Maybe S/he doesn't want to be a philosopher.

 

There are many problems in education. Some schools, quite a few of them, are just crappy. Some kids are in such bad circumstances that it is really difficult to help them. And there is more to education than job preparation. But job prep is very important, I doubt anyone disagrees.

[Flem72]

And now for something completely different:

 

 

[kenberg]

And now for something completely different:

 

 

 

I suppose someone should comment but I was unable to watch more than the first minute or so of the first one so, other than that, I don't know what to say. Well, dumb beyond belief comes to mind.

[PassedOut]

I watched the republican debate and am glad that I'm not the only one who picked up on this: The real problem with Marco Rubio’s scripted debate performance: His ideas

 

None of his opponents talk about Obama nearly as much; in some of the debates it has become almost comical, as every question Rubio gets on any subject is answered with a diatribe about Obama’s malevolent schemes. Rubio is now sending out fundraising emails referencing Saturday’s debate, saying that “President Obama has been very deliberate about achieving his bad policies — they’re no accident; he’s really trying to change this country for the worse.”

As disturbing as this campaign has been, lots of it has been darkly funny. But this is just nasty.

[kenberg]

I am now revising my view that Hillary will, in the end, withstand the challenge from Bernie. Many Dems welcomed the challenge as an opportunity for Hillary to show how she could cope with a challenge. I think that the results are not favorable for her.

 

When Obama was running, the idea, and in fact the shouted slogan, was that race doesn't matter. Of course this is not entirely factually correct. Some took his race into account in one direction, others took his race into account in the opposite direction. But the underlying approach was that he was running for president on the basis of his qualifications. Going further back the argument Jack Kennedy advanced was not that it was high time for a Catholic to be president but rather that his religion should not be a factor. Again some took his religion into account, but the argument was that he was running on his qualifications.

 

Hillary is in trouble, and she cannot seem to resist the temptation to bring up the historical importance of her gender. This is a huge error. Most of us at least strive to support the candidate that we believe will do the best job. Suggestions that we should vote for her because of historical importance do not sit well with us.

 

 

In the last day or two we have had Madeleine Albright, Gloria Steinhem and Bill Clinton all weighing in on this. If I were Hillary's campaign adviser I would have her tell her husband to shut &*%# up, have her express gratitude for the support of Albright but make it clear that Albright's views were not her views, and acknowledge that Steinhem had said something silly that she had since acknowledged was silly. I would tell Hillary that under no circumstances is she to talk further about the historical importance of her candidacy.

 

Economic issues are complex, foreign policy issues even harder, but here we see a simple issue of judgment. Hillary is not looking good.

[akwoo]

There seems to be an undercurrent in some parts of the Republican party that the proper role of government is to organize (white, male) Americans into a gang to beat up on everyone else and share the spoils, and the best country is the one most capable of beating up on everyone else. (Note: This is not at all a solely American phenomenon; the European far right, which controls a few Central European countries, believes this to a much larger degree.)

 

From this point of view, people who are trying to make America into a just nation are in fact trying to change this country for the worse.

[mike777]

There seems to be an undercurrent in some parts of the Republican party that the proper role of government is to organize (white, male) Americans into a gang to beat up on everyone else and share the spoils, and the best country is the one most capable of beating up on everyone else. (Note: This is not at all a solely American phenomenon; the European far right, which controls a few Central European countries, believes this to a much larger degree.)

 

From this point of view, people who are trying to make America into a just nation are in fact trying to change this country for the worse.

 

 

wow the republican party is a gang bent on beating up everyone else...and share the spoils

 

thank goodness we have the democratic party who do not want to beat on anyone and share the spoils

 

do you understand how partisan you come across

[helene_t]

Economic issues are complex, foreign policy issues even harder, but here we see a simple issue of judgment. Hillary is not looking good.

Agree. But who is looking good on foreign policies? Sanders doesn't know anything about foreign politics. That he voted against the Iraq war means he has good judgment, at least sometimes, but he doesn't really seem to have a plan for the Middle East. At least he acknowledges that he will need to rely on his team (this is a lot better than Trump and Cruz who are at least as clueless but seem not to acknowledge this so they might actually try to implement their ridicolous plans).

 

But it does mean that if you consider voting for Sanders and if foreign politics is your top priority, you really want to know who will be his VP and who will be his secretary of state.

[kenberg]

Agree. But who is looking good on foreign policies? Sanders doesn't know anything about foreign politics. That he voted against the Iraq war means he has good judgment, at least sometimes, but he doesn't really seem to have a plan for the Middle East. At least he acknowledges that he will need to rely on his team (this is a lot better than Trump and Cruz who are at least as clueless but seem not to acknowledge this so they might actually try to implement their ridiculous plans).

 

But it does mean that if you consider voting for Sanders and if foreign politics is your top priority, you really want to know who will be his VP and who will be his secretary of state.

 

 

When Sanders speaks of his vote against the Iraq war I think of Jeanette Rankin. She voted against American entry into both WW1 and WW2. I don't know much of Sanders' history. When Iraq invaded Kuwait there were many prominent people who thought nothing could be done about that, it just had to be accepted. GHWB said we could reverse this and we did. Does Sanders view this as a mistake? A little internet browsing suggests that the answer is yes, or at least he thought so at the time. Now if he thinks that the use of military force is always a mistake, that is a respectable position. But speaking only of his vote against the GWB Irag war is a little too cute for me.

 

When GWB was first running for president some newscaster asked him about which military interventions in the past he would have favored. GWB went thorough a brief historical list. Those that had worked out well he said he favored, those that had gone badly he said he opposed. Very wise, very wise.

 

I do think a guy who wants to brag about his wisdom in voting against our entry into Iraq under GWB owes us a more complete description of how he sees the use of military force in the world. What are we to confront, what are we to accept?

 

I have grown weary of much of this campaign so perhaps he has done this and I just haven't gotten/got around to reading it.

[gwnn]

Sanders voted for intervention in Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan after 9/11. This "article" seems to imply he's some kind of warmonger (I haven't really read it but there you go):

 

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

[hrothgar]

So, only a few days left before the Iowa caucus.

 

I am expecting a bad night for Sanders and Trump.

 

From what I understand, Sanders voters are packed into a relatively small number of districts. There is a very real chance that a lot of his votes are going to be wasted. I've heard several stories saying that Trump's ground game is near non-existent and that his get out the vote efforts are extremely inefficient.

 

The most interesting outcome for the night would be if either

 

1. Trump wins which would be a crippling defeat for Cruz - If Cruz can't win the nut job "lane" in evangelical Iowa he's going to lose a lot of momentum

2. Trump comes in third which would cast real doubt into his organizational model and overall competence

 

So, here we are! The NH primary! And no one actually cares who wins on the Republican slate, rather, the key question would appear to be who comes in third and how much separation is between them and the rest of the pack.

 

Really a fun year to be watching politics. (No sure I have ever seen a campaign rise and fall as fast as Rubio over the last week)

[kenberg]

Sanders voted for intervention in Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan after 9/11. This "article" seems to imply he's some kind of warmonger (I haven't really read it but there you go):

 

http://www.alternet....violence-abroad

 

Thanks for the reference. It certainly places Sanders outside of the Jeanette Rankin category.

 

Discussing foreign policy is a tricky business for candidates. In the recent Republican debate Jeb! spoke favorably of a possible preemptive strike against North Korea. This level of detail about a developing problem is an error I think. But it is fair to expect a candidate to explain whether s/he thinks that North Korea's nuclear weapons development and missile development is something that must be forcefully addressed, forcefully enough to be successful, or whether we should just stand aside and let whatever happens happen. I imagine the people of South Korea are pretty uneasy about either choice.

 

My view of the world is pretty pessimistic. There seems to be a constant drift toward war, and we are developing ever more efficient ways of killing people. I simply do not know the best way to contend with this. Myself, I have never had any interest in killing anyone. Except in self-defense. But that's the problem, there is always the "except".

 

Going back to the article for a moment, Sanders is criticized for voting to fund the Iraq war even though he voted against the war. I don't agree with this criticism. I think it is reasonable to say, in effect " I think the war is a mistake but I was outvoted so I am supporting the funding".

 

For example, if the Republicans could bring themselves to say "I opposed the ACA but it passed anyway so now I will support implementing it effectively", this would be very good. A crazy dream in today's political climate.

[helene_t]

Sanders voted for intervention in Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan after 9/11. This "article" seems to imply he's some kind of warmonger (I haven't really read it but there you go):

 

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

Don't you think that Kosova, Bosnia and Afghanistan count as interventions that, if not quite "success" stories, at least could be counted as interventions that may have worked better than a pacifist attitude would have worked?

[gwnn]

Don't you think that Kosova, Bosnia and Afghanistan count as interventions that, if not quite "success" stories, at least could be counted as interventions that may have worked better than a pacifist attitude would have worked?

Yes. I forgot to add a smiley to my post, I just added scarequotes around article to show that I disagree with it. I think it's quite absurd to call Bernie a warmonger, but wanted to show that there exist people who believe he is.

[kenberg]

Yes. I forgot to add a smiley to my post, I just added scarequotes around article to show that I disagree with it. I think it's quite absurd to call Bernie a warmonger, but wanted to show that there exist people who believe he is.

 

The article, or "article", is definitely written from a viewpoint. As I said above, regarding all use of military force as wrong is a respectable position. It is not my position, and I think it is not realistic. It does appear to be the place where the writers of the article hang their hat.

 

The article's main usefulness for me is to clarify some of Sanders' history. Pretty clearly, Sanders views military action to be reasonable in some instances, Most agree with this general view, some don't.