Good Op Ed, from a surprising source:

Excerpt:

It is right to decry this culture of intolerance and advocate for civility and engagement instead of boycotts and reprisals. The cure for bad speech is better speech — not censorship. Take that message to the heartland, and conservatives cheer.

Until, that is, Colin Kaepernick chose to kneel. Until, that is, the president demanded that the N.F.L. fire the other players who picked up on his protest after he was essentially banished from the league.

That was when the conservative mob called for heads to roll. Conform or face the consequences.

On Wednesday, the mob won. The N.F.L. announced its anthem rules for 2018, and the message was clear: Respect the flag by standing for the national anthem or stay in the locker room. If you break the rules and kneel, your team can be fined for your behavior.

This isn’t a “middle ground,” as the N.F.L. claims. It’s not a compromise. It’s corporate censorship backed up with a promise of corporate punishment. It’s every bit as oppressive as the campus or corporate attacks on expression that conservatives rightly decry.

You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times

But this is different, they say. This isn’t about politics. It’s about the flag.

I agree. It is different. Because it’s about the flag, the censorship is even worse.

One of the most compelling expressions of America’s constitutional values is contained in Justice Robert Jackson’s 1943 majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. At the height of World War II, two sisters, both Jehovah’s Witnesses, challenged the state’s mandate that they salute the flag in school. America was locked in a struggle for its very existence. The outcome was in doubt. National unity was essential.

But even in the darkest days of war, the court wrote liberating words that echo in legal history: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Excellent article by Hedges, as usual.

I talk to people all the time who confuse the Dems with the left. And I try to correct them, but it never really matters. It’s hopeless. I try to show them how the Dems have mostly been a center-right party at least since the 1960s, but they still think of them as commies. I even try to differentiate between liberals and leftists, which also generally doesn’t get through.

And when they talk about “socialism,” I try to remind them of some truly great socialists, who were the opposite of Stalin — a huge number of Americans see “socialism” and immediately think Stalin . . .

MLK, Gandhi, Helen Keller, Einstein, Kafka, Dorothy Day, Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, William Morris and Peter Kropotkin, Oscar Wilde, Camus, Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein, Michael Harrington, Naomi Klein, Richard D. Wolff, David Harvey . . . to name a few. I often add “ooooh, scary!!!” after that . . . again, to no avail.

Too many Americans see Dems in monolithic terms as “far left,” and they see the “far left” in monolithic terms as Stalinist. They see an either/or instead of the thousand and one actual options and alternatives.

I think this is all by design. The powers that be WANT us to think in terms of two. It’s much, much easier to control us that way and keep us frustrated but ultimately docile and compliant. Herd us into two pens — Dem or Republican — and even narrow down the possibility of what THAT could mean.

We’re screwed primarily, IMO, because too many people see only a tiny slice of what the world could be.

The latest is, of course, is managing to gain access to evidence against him, against his own campaign, from the DOJ, which has never happened.

And, to take this one step further on the crazy train, tomorrow they’ll be a White House, Republican-Only meeting with the DOJ and DNI, Nunes and Gowdy — no Dems allowed — to “share” all of this evidence of the supposed “spygate.”

Trump managed to get an investigation going into the investigation OF Trump and his campaign — and to shut out Democrats in the process.

How is this not leading to impeachment proceedings? Even WITH the GOP in full control?

Zooey wrote:

That’s why Mueller is compiling cases in the state courts. Trump cannot pardon anyone for state crimes. He can’t stop it. And much of his dirty work was performed in New York, and so that’s where I am expecting some encylopedias to be dropped.

He’s screwed, Billy. It’s a matter of time. I have maintained all along that this might be all for naught, but I’m changing my mind. And it’s not just Mueller anyway. I am about to post re: Stormy Daniels which I think needs a separate thread.

Zooey,

Again, I hope you’re right. I really do. Cuz if Trump gets away with this, I think that’s it. We’re no longer a nation. We’re a “failed state.” Stick a fork in us, etc. etc.

On a personal note, hope all is well with you and yours.

Zooey wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I think the evidence is overwhelming that Trump colluded with the Russians. In fact, the sheer overwhelming nature of the evidence may be helping Trump. His scandals, his endless lies, cover-ups, obstruction of justice, have hit the “unbelievable” point, and too many Americans have either tuned it all out, or just don’t believe it’s possible…

It’s like an en masse TL;DNR syndrome. Too long, did not read. Americans, already weakened by the Internet and smartphones, just don’t have the attention span anymore for this kind of onslaught . . . and I’m guilty of this too.

But that doesn’t matter.

Donald Trump, and his associates, are not being tried in the court of public opinion. They are going to be tried elsewhere, and whether Americans have combat fatigue or not is not relevant at this point. Everybody treats this like what matters are his poll numbers.

Public opinion will matter only if Mueller turns the entire enchilada over to congress where all those assholes will decide to impeach or not based on their own constituencies.

But when that happens…the entire thing will get a reboot. That is…all the charges will be laid out specifically, and everybody will pour over the actual charges. Right now, like you said, it’s overwhelming and hard to follow. But once it’s laid out, it will be classified by category (financial crimes, Russian interference, campaign coordination, transition contacts, and obstruction of justice), and the lists of names, dates, and crimes will all be laid out. It will be overwhelming because this thing is a fucking Gordian knot, and some shit is going to still be Classified since it will involve people/contacts still in “the field,” but my point is…the actual conclusion of the investigation is going to hit the reset button, and we will start brand new with everything laid out clearly.

So right now, it is overwhelming as we learn something new almost every day, and you’ve got Trump and his supporters out there running their fog machines full blast, and everyone claiming Mueller is just making crap up out of nothing…none of that will matter when he drops his set of encylopedias on the table.

I realize there’s a huge difference between the public “ruling” (or opinion-making) and the legal one. But Trump and company no doubt hope they can sway public opinion for at least two reasons:

1. If they actually allow Mueller to drop those encyclopedias, and I don’t think they will, Trump is trying to set up a bogus, entirely “political” case for ignoring the results entirely. If the GOP-controlled Congress fears that public view enough, they may well dismiss the findings too, or seek ways to suppress them. They suppressed a recent study on unsafe drinking water across the nation. Why wouldn’t they suppress Mueller?

2. The public crusade is there to give Trump and friends cover for killing the investigation, firing all those involved, and the GOP obviously won’t stop Trump from replacing these people with sycophants. He’s already done a ton of that.

In short . . . while I HOPE you’re right about this, I’m not sanguine about it at all at this point. Trump has gotten away with more than I thought humanly possible already. I fear he’ll get away with this too . . . one way or another.

An attempt at not being TL; DNR:

I find it appalling that a sitting president may well get away with calling for a DOJ investigation INTO the investigation INTO his own criminal activities.

Anyone who enables this, directly or indirectly, is aiding and abetting a thug, a monster, and the monstrous ideology that surrounds him — which is far right. That some of this comes from “the left” makes it all the more sickening.

Goddess, but I want to leave this country a thousand times over. We’ve jumped the proverbial shark.

Cal wrote:

Billy,

Can you compare the growth in income in, say, the last 2 years of Obama and Trump’s first 18 months?

That’s a significant piece of the picture. I cite manufacturing jobs, because as I said earlier, I see the crappy jobs added by Wal-Mart, McDdonald, Home Depot as part of the problem.

The fact that WalMart continues to expand and add jobs is not encouraging.

The growth in income is lower under Trump, compared with Obama’s last six years.

I’m trying to find good articles about this, or the clips from Morning Joe. But they’ve put up the charts several times in the last few months showing this. I’ll post them when I can.

Enjoying the discussion, Cal. Gotta head out.

Cal wrote:

But what are those policies, Cal?

I paid very close attention to Trump during the campaign, and he never spelled them out for anyone. And I would ask his supporters what they were, and they couldn’t answer, other than to say Make America Great Again.

If he does get credit for the economy, it will likely only be among the people who would vote for him anyway, and he’ll get it from them without ever revealing exactly what he’s done to “earn” that credit.

I have no interest in defending Trump. But what I would like to do is have an accurate picture of the conditions in our country.

How would you explain the fact that an important industry saw a small retraction in 8 of the 12 months before Trump AND then reversed course and saw significant growth in 12 of the 13 months after Trump took office?

Is that just a coincidence? Maybe, the economy does seem a bit mercurial to me.

But i know–and I think you do too–what Republicans will say.

And they have a damn good argument too.

Here’s a link to an interview from the time of the discussions about the tax cuts that underscores the arguments that Republicans will be making in the mid-terms if the trends in job growth continue.

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace/11162017

I don’t know about that one change. But, again, overall, Trump has fewer new jobs per month than Obama averaged in his last six years, and income gains for workers are lower under Trump, too.

What’s more important? The overall numbers, or one small sector?

Anyway, I personally don’t think the GOP has any good arguments regarding the economy. They always do very stupid things when they gain control. No credible economist, for instance, thought it was a good idea to slash taxes in the middle of one of the longest recoveries on record, when unemployment was already at 4%, corporations were already sitting on trillions, the debt was already at 20 trillion and counting.

And, remember when the GOP bashed Obama endlessly for deficits? Suddenly, since they’re in power again, deficits don’t matter. They meant the end of the world while Obama and the Dems ran things. Now they’re apparently meaningless.

The smart thing to do would have been to actually raise taxes on the rich — it would have been a Nixon goes to China moment — balance the budget while times are good and start to pay down the debt.

America is pretty much the only OECD country not to try to some form of debt reduction while the economy is relatively good.

Cal wrote:

By my math, the US spent 560 billion on safety net programs (SNAP, EIC, Medicaid, TANF, HUD) in 2016.

We spent 2.4 Trillion on everything besides medicare and social security, which should be paid for with payroll taxes. See my link to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:CBO_Infographic_2016.png

So, about 1/5 of the budget, apart from medicare and social security costs, went to supporting the safety net.

Based on that graphic from Occupy Democrats, I would have paid 200 bucks in taxes if 1/5 of my taxes went to supporting the safety net. I paid a helluva lot more than that last year. And I’m probably unusual in that I can claim 3 kids.

I’m not against helping the poor. I’m just arguing that the system is broken and conservatives who complain about an over sized safety net have a point.

This country needs to do a better job of providing poor people with good paying jobs.

Cal,

The problem with conservatives in this case, though, is that they’ll never force companies to pay better wages. In fact, their agenda is to remove the all too lax regulations we do have on the books, and to crush unions to death, which once were able to ensure higher wages for everyone — even non-union workers — and much better benefits.

In short, they want to shrink the safety net but offer nothing else to replace it. Just more of the same old same old hard neoliberalism. The Dems, unfortunately, counter with soft neoliberalism, so there is no party in power fighting for workers, the poor, the consumer or the environment — at least not enough to matter.

As mentioned upthread, I’d rather we had the kind of economy that provides for everyone upfront, so no government offsets are needed later. I’d rather it do its job so there isn’t any need for help from charities or the public sector.

As long as we have capitalism, however, that’s not going to happen. Capitalism is built to concentrate wealth, income, privilege and power at the top. It’s always going to generate poverty in its wake, and the working poor, and a shrinking middle. If there isn’t any government intervention to offset this, those people will suffer even more.

In short, we can’t have capitalism and no safety net at the same time. That’s just sadism on steroids, and we’d end up with revolution in the streets, too.

Cal wrote:

There is a shift in the political wind. It’s happening. I don’t know how big it is, but it’s underway. And not just because Trump is a jerk, but…because of his policies.

I don’t want to sound like a Trump supporter because…well gag me.

But there’s a ton of positive stuff happening for Trump right now.

The North Korea talks and reconciliation with South Korea is amazing. Before those developments there seemed to be murmurings in the MSN about Trump’s incompetence leading to a nuclear showdown. Now peace seems to be on the horizon.

Again, I hate the guy, and wonder how much–if any–credit he deserves for this development. But you know he will take credit for resolving the problem. And millions of Americans will accept that and give him credit.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. The economy keeps adding jobs. Manufacturing has added 245,000 jobs going back to last April. Again, Trump will attribute this growth to his tax cuts and take credit.

I suspect people who are now working and making more money won’t argue with him.

Mining industries have added 86,000 jobs since last April. Do you think that growth would have occurred with anyone besides a Republican?

Trump appears to be actually fighting and working for American manufacturing jobs. I know your no fan of Obama, but I can’t recall Obama doing much to defend and support American manufacturiong.

(All this info comes from the bureau of labor and statistics. Just google “job reports”)

When I read the tea leaves I don’t see much positive apart from the Mueller investigation. We’ll see, but I’m not hopeful.

Cal,

Trump is averaging fewer jobs per month so far than Obama did in his last six years. It’s roughly 187K to 203K. He’s also averaging a lower rate of income gains than Obama.

I wasn’t a fan of Obama’s governance, because I saw him — and still do — as governing like a moderate Republican. But the results were better for him than for Trump.

Also, if people are happy with a few dollars more on their paychecks (after the tax cuts), they should think about a coupla things at least:

1. All of that money was borrowed and has to be paid back.
2. The tax cuts made economic inequality skyrocket, because most of them went to the rich. Trump himself should pocket tens of millions more each year, and his heirs could potentially pocket billions — if he’s as rich as he says he is.

Cal wrote:

BT wrote

I’d also disagree with Trump voters who claim the government’s social safety net is out of control. It’s actually been curtailed

The number of people who receive benefits like SNAP has steadily increased since the 1970’s. Back then, it was 7-9% of the population that received SNAP benefits.

Currently that number is 13% or so. When the US pays SNAP benefits for an extra 4% of the population that’s over a billion dollars a year. It’d be nice to put those billions dollars a year to solve some other problems.

And that’s just SNAP. I’d bet there’s been a similar increase in the percent of people who receive WIC, EIC, Mecicaid, housing, and other benefits.

Cal,

SNAP goes to mostly children and the elderly. They are the largest recipients, by far. That’s food they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford. It keeps those 45 million people from going hungry. To me, there isn’t a better way to spend that money . . . and it all works its way through the economy too. Not only does it feed children and the elderly, it also boosts the economy, from farms to grocery stores, etc. etc.

As for why the numbers have grown: Wages for the rank and file in America have been largely flat since 1973, which was the end of our one and only middle class boom. Since then, more and more families had to switch from one income to two, and then use a credit card, and then mortgage their house, just to keep above water. If business owners/corporations paid better wages, we wouldn’t need the SNAP program, or most of the rest of the safety net. It’s there because of the immense greed at the top of the pyramid.

If the private sector paid fair wages, we could do without a great many of the programs that bother you. Walmart is a great example of this. Many of their employees are on SNAP — this while their CEO makes 1200 times as much as their rank and file.

A side note on the “self-interest” thing.

Read an excellent history of the Paris Commune of 1871, its backstory and the philosophy of several of its major thinkers, especially Peter Kropotkin, William Morris and Elisee Reclus:

Communal Luxury
The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune
by Kristin Ross

https://www.versobooks.com/books/2253-communal-luxury

She touches upon a very interesting divergence between Western and Eastern (in this case, Russian) evolutionists. We in the West take for granted the idea of the survival of the fittest, and a kind of endless battle to stay alive. The Russian evolutionists of the time — mid to late 19th century — were convinced that a very different scenario took place, that we survived as a species because we worked together, worked cooperatively, and instead of fighting each other to the end, as if we were automatically each other’s enemies, we joined forces to fight against our real enemies, or obstacles, or dangers . . . the elements, predators in the wild, etc. etc.

I took this to also mean that Darwinian theory may well have been influenced by capitalism and its modus operandi . . . competition. That Darwin and his followers may well have been overly influenced by their own day’s economic system, back-dating its rules and internal logic . . . and forcing it to fit our earliest days on this planet.

Personally, I think the Russian evolutionists make a hell of a lot more sense. I don’t think we ever would have survived if we had the dog eat dog mentality of the capitalist world back then. Hobbes’ war of all against all would have meant some other species would have surpassed us, most likely.