As yet another severe case of cognitive dissonance descends upon conservatives across our nation, so does the growing cries of skewed polls. Remember how well that worked out in 2012? The polls were accurate in predicting the election.
Nate Silver put up a piece a few weeks ago that should have put all of this to rest. But it didn't. Take a look at this nonsense. Aside from the fact the Silver (and the reality of 2012 outcome) have already pwned this shit, Durden misses a very key point. Polls showing a big lead for Democrats can actually be detrimental to voter turnout. People will see how high up she is and maybe just stay home if their XBox or latest binged watched show seems more alluring.
Perhaps the skewed polls mouth foamers should spend more energy on nominating a conservative candidate who is more appealing to voters. It can't possibly be that voters don't like what we are selling. Or that it doesn't function in reality!!
Monday, October 24, 2016
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Sex and the Presidency
There's a bit in Woody Allen's Annie Hall where Allen and co-star Diane Keaton are talking to their therapists on split screen.
The dialog goes like this:
If men could have sex all the time, they would. And all that sex has consequences. It either requires birth control, or it results in pregnancy. And if those pregnancies are undesired, it can result in abortion.
The American right wing always frames abortion issue as a moral failing of women. But all of those women are pregnant because men had sex with them. That's why women are more hesitant about having sex: they can get pregnant. Men initiate sex far more frequently than women and they often use coercion -- physical or emotional -- to get sex when women really don't want it. For this reason, you can blame most abortions on men.
A lot of evangelicals support Trump, even knowing his history of greed, immorality, divorce, adultery and assaulting women. Evangelicals famously used to say that "character matters," that immoral private behavior disqualified a person from higher office. Well, they don't say that anymore: Trump has endorsements from numerous prominent evangelicals, including Jerry Falwell Jr.
In just five short years evangelicals have completely flipped on this issue: 30% used to say that "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life." Now 72% say that. The reason? Donald Trump.
Why have evangelicals abandoned their moral high ground and talked themselves into this flip-flop? Because they think Trump will nominate Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
I don't know why they think he'll keep this particular promise. He denies things he's said on video. He's declared bankruptcy multiple times while enriching himself at the expense of investors. He's cheated on his wives, failed to pay people who did work for him, failed to release his tax returns, and screwed Trump University students out of millions of dollars for phony "courses."
The corrosive influence of Trump's sleaze is already affecting how people think: it has already convinced 42% of evangelicals that immoral and illegal behavior is okay.
In evangelical parlance, electing Trump would embolden sexual predators like him. A Trump presidency would encourage more licentious and aggressive masculine behavior. It would result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions -- whether abortion is legal or not. There will always be abortion because the bastards who get women pregnant always bail on them.
So, let's look at the moral implications of this election, as if evangelicals still practiced what they preached:
With Donald Trump as president men will think they can do whatever they want to women, then brag about it, and then lie about it. They will cheat on their wives, their business associates and their taxes. They will get their mistresses pregnant and force them into back-alley abortions.
With Hillary Clinton as president people will think they can delete old emails and make lame excuses about it. They will forgive their spouses, work to cure malaria around the world and pay their taxes. They will practice consensual, protected sex to avoid unwanted pregnancy and reduce the number of abortions.
It seems like a pretty simple choice, based on the morality.
The dialog goes like this:
Allen's Therapist: How often do you sleep together?This is funny because it's so true: most men think about sex all the time, while most women don't. Estimates vary, but some studies indicate that men think about sex 34 times a day.
Keaton's Therapist: Do you have sex often?
Allen: Hardly ever. Maybe three times a week.
Keaton: Constantly. I'd say three times a week.
If men could have sex all the time, they would. And all that sex has consequences. It either requires birth control, or it results in pregnancy. And if those pregnancies are undesired, it can result in abortion.
The American right wing always frames abortion issue as a moral failing of women. But all of those women are pregnant because men had sex with them. That's why women are more hesitant about having sex: they can get pregnant. Men initiate sex far more frequently than women and they often use coercion -- physical or emotional -- to get sex when women really don't want it. For this reason, you can blame most abortions on men.
A lot of evangelicals support Trump, even knowing his history of greed, immorality, divorce, adultery and assaulting women. Evangelicals famously used to say that "character matters," that immoral private behavior disqualified a person from higher office. Well, they don't say that anymore: Trump has endorsements from numerous prominent evangelicals, including Jerry Falwell Jr.
In just five short years evangelicals have completely flipped on this issue: 30% used to say that "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life." Now 72% say that. The reason? Donald Trump.
Why have evangelicals abandoned their moral high ground and talked themselves into this flip-flop? Because they think Trump will nominate Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
I don't know why they think he'll keep this particular promise. He denies things he's said on video. He's declared bankruptcy multiple times while enriching himself at the expense of investors. He's cheated on his wives, failed to pay people who did work for him, failed to release his tax returns, and screwed Trump University students out of millions of dollars for phony "courses."
Electing Trump will normalize sexual assault
But the worst thing about Trump is that electing him will normalize sexual assault. When his private banter became very public, his supporters passed off his bragging about molesting women as locker room talk. This gives men license to think that this kind of criminal behavior is normal. People at Trump rallies brag about how his pussy-grabbing makes him a real man.The corrosive influence of Trump's sleaze is already affecting how people think: it has already convinced 42% of evangelicals that immoral and illegal behavior is okay.
In evangelical parlance, electing Trump would embolden sexual predators like him. A Trump presidency would encourage more licentious and aggressive masculine behavior. It would result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions -- whether abortion is legal or not. There will always be abortion because the bastards who get women pregnant always bail on them.
So, let's look at the moral implications of this election, as if evangelicals still practiced what they preached:
With Donald Trump as president men will think they can do whatever they want to women, then brag about it, and then lie about it. They will cheat on their wives, their business associates and their taxes. They will get their mistresses pregnant and force them into back-alley abortions.
With Hillary Clinton as president people will think they can delete old emails and make lame excuses about it. They will forgive their spouses, work to cure malaria around the world and pay their taxes. They will practice consensual, protected sex to avoid unwanted pregnancy and reduce the number of abortions.
It seems like a pretty simple choice, based on the morality.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Friday, October 21, 2016
Thursday, October 20, 2016
How Everybody Can Win
Mark criticized Trump's debate claim that the United States isn't making things anymore as false. However, not everything Trump says is an outright lie: sometimes there's a glimmer of truth to it.
Mark's observation that manufacturing in the US has doubled since 1979 may be true, but it ignores important facts. Pretty much all consumer products -- cell phones, clothing, shoes, TVs, computers -- are no longer made in the United States.
We were #1 in manufacturing until as recently as 2002. But by 2012 China had overtaken the United States, producing 22% of the world's manufacturing output, with the United States coming in second with 17%.
Clearly the United States still does a lot of manufacturing and export, but a lot of what we're manufacturing is high tech tools and machinery that are sent to foreign countries that are then used to manufacture consumer products that are then imported into the United States. We also build expensive things like airplanes and gigantic earth movers: things that cost a lot but employ a small number of Americans.
We're mostly out of mass-market consumer goods business -- that's why Trump's "Make America Great Again" hats and plastic Fourth of July American flags are made in China.
But developing countries like China and India are finally developing a middle class and the consumer market has grown drastically. That means manufacturing worldwide is way up, but the US share of worldwide manufacturing has declined markedly; more to the point, the number of people employed in manufacturing in the US is way down.
This is why Trump's claims on US manufacturing are false. To do make the US the largest manufacturer of consumer goods again we'd either have to pay Americans the same slave wages that Chinese factory workers are paid, or our factories would be totally automated.
In 1960 manufacturing had a 25% share of employment in the United States. In 2011 it was about 9%. Manufacturing as percentage of GDP has remained stable at about 12% the whole time.
This is the "gotcha" that Trump isn't mentioning. If we bring manufacturing back to the US according to Trump's plan, it'll mean a huge cut in pay for American workers, or it will mean more automation and fewer workers in manufacturing. We can't create more well-paying manufacturing jobs unless other conditions change.
We do lead the world in some export categories, notably agriculture and aircraft. If Trump starts a stupid trade war with the rest of the world by slapping tariffs on imports, we will lose all our export markets.
This is the key: in order for the people in developing economies to be able to afford to buy American goods, they need jobs that pay enough to afford to buy our stuff.
The current problem is that large parts of the world pay their workers a lot less than the American or European middle class wage: their labor markets are cheaper than ours. Those people want to make as much as Americans, and it's in America's best interests for people in those countries to make more: their countries will lose the advantage of lower labor costs.
It might seem contradictory, but for Americans to prosper, the rest of the world needs to prosper -- so they can afford to buy our stuff.
That should inform how we write the trade agreements. We shouldn't be shutting out products made in foreign countries with Trump's prohibitive tariffs, we should be making sure that companies in other countries pay their workers salaries commensurate with Americans. One way is to require that all trade agreements with the US have anti-corruption clauses and strong protections for trade unions -- something we should have in all states of the Union. The agreements should also eliminate tax havens, like Ireland.
This would have another benefit: if people in Mexico and China are paid salaries that approach American levels, they'll have no incentive to leave their countries and come to the United States.
History shows this to be true: in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Europeans flooded into the US by the millions. But after Europe stopped being a war-torn hellhole, they stopped emigrating here in huge numbers.
If we use trade as tool to improve the lot of people of in other countries, they will want to stay home and they'll be able to buy American stuff.
Everybody wins.
Trump does not think this way. For him, and an awful lot of Republicans, life is a zero-sum game and there can only be one winner.
This, in a nutshell, is why someone like Hillary Clinton will make a far better president than an egotistical narcissist like Donald Trump.
Mark's observation that manufacturing in the US has doubled since 1979 may be true, but it ignores important facts. Pretty much all consumer products -- cell phones, clothing, shoes, TVs, computers -- are no longer made in the United States.
We were #1 in manufacturing until as recently as 2002. But by 2012 China had overtaken the United States, producing 22% of the world's manufacturing output, with the United States coming in second with 17%.
Clearly the United States still does a lot of manufacturing and export, but a lot of what we're manufacturing is high tech tools and machinery that are sent to foreign countries that are then used to manufacture consumer products that are then imported into the United States. We also build expensive things like airplanes and gigantic earth movers: things that cost a lot but employ a small number of Americans.
We're mostly out of mass-market consumer goods business -- that's why Trump's "Make America Great Again" hats and plastic Fourth of July American flags are made in China.
But developing countries like China and India are finally developing a middle class and the consumer market has grown drastically. That means manufacturing worldwide is way up, but the US share of worldwide manufacturing has declined markedly; more to the point, the number of people employed in manufacturing in the US is way down.
This is why Trump's claims on US manufacturing are false. To do make the US the largest manufacturer of consumer goods again we'd either have to pay Americans the same slave wages that Chinese factory workers are paid, or our factories would be totally automated.
In 1960 manufacturing had a 25% share of employment in the United States. In 2011 it was about 9%. Manufacturing as percentage of GDP has remained stable at about 12% the whole time.
This is the "gotcha" that Trump isn't mentioning. If we bring manufacturing back to the US according to Trump's plan, it'll mean a huge cut in pay for American workers, or it will mean more automation and fewer workers in manufacturing. We can't create more well-paying manufacturing jobs unless other conditions change.
We do lead the world in some export categories, notably agriculture and aircraft. If Trump starts a stupid trade war with the rest of the world by slapping tariffs on imports, we will lose all our export markets.
This is the key: in order for the people in developing economies to be able to afford to buy American goods, they need jobs that pay enough to afford to buy our stuff.
The current problem is that large parts of the world pay their workers a lot less than the American or European middle class wage: their labor markets are cheaper than ours. Those people want to make as much as Americans, and it's in America's best interests for people in those countries to make more: their countries will lose the advantage of lower labor costs.
It might seem contradictory, but for Americans to prosper, the rest of the world needs to prosper -- so they can afford to buy our stuff.
That should inform how we write the trade agreements. We shouldn't be shutting out products made in foreign countries with Trump's prohibitive tariffs, we should be making sure that companies in other countries pay their workers salaries commensurate with Americans. One way is to require that all trade agreements with the US have anti-corruption clauses and strong protections for trade unions -- something we should have in all states of the Union. The agreements should also eliminate tax havens, like Ireland.
This would have another benefit: if people in Mexico and China are paid salaries that approach American levels, they'll have no incentive to leave their countries and come to the United States.
History shows this to be true: in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Europeans flooded into the US by the millions. But after Europe stopped being a war-torn hellhole, they stopped emigrating here in huge numbers.
If we use trade as tool to improve the lot of people of in other countries, they will want to stay home and they'll be able to buy American stuff.
Everybody wins.
Trump does not think this way. For him, and an awful lot of Republicans, life is a zero-sum game and there can only be one winner.
This, in a nutshell, is why someone like Hillary Clinton will make a far better president than an egotistical narcissist like Donald Trump.
Third Debate Post Mortem
While the rest of the media falls into yet another Trump Trap (OMG!! He's not going to accept the results of the election), I'd like to focus on a few other items from last night.
Donald Trump said "We're not making things anymore, relatively speaking." Well, the relativity dial must be broken because US factory production has more than doubled since 1979. The problem is that computerization has taken the place of the human worker. That's simply the free market doing its thing and if you are one of these workers, time to get a college degree or be retrained in another line of work.
Hillary Clinton would add more than a penny to the national debt...about $200 billion dollars over 10 years. That's what independent analysts have said of her economic plan. Donald Trump's plan would about $5.3 trillion dollars to the debt with all of his tax cuts.
I could give two shits that Hillary Clinton wants an open, global market, for energy or any other economic sector. Free trade prevents wars. Period. If we go back to protectionism or mercantilism, we raise the risk of blood conflicts again as we saw in World War I and World War II.
Donald Trump said "We're not making things anymore, relatively speaking." Well, the relativity dial must be broken because US factory production has more than doubled since 1979. The problem is that computerization has taken the place of the human worker. That's simply the free market doing its thing and if you are one of these workers, time to get a college degree or be retrained in another line of work.
Hillary Clinton would add more than a penny to the national debt...about $200 billion dollars over 10 years. That's what independent analysts have said of her economic plan. Donald Trump's plan would about $5.3 trillion dollars to the debt with all of his tax cuts.
I could give two shits that Hillary Clinton wants an open, global market, for energy or any other economic sector. Free trade prevents wars. Period. If we go back to protectionism or mercantilism, we raise the risk of blood conflicts again as we saw in World War I and World War II.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
The Latest 2016 Election Map
Here's my latest 2016 Election Map.
As we can all see, Hillary Clinton is poised for a landslide. Most of the major polling outfits and predictors are seeing a flip to a Democratically controlled Senate. And now it looks like House is in play with Republicans scrambling to retain their majority.
One thing to note about this map is the grey shade of Utah. I don't Hillary will win Utah but I do think that the presence of popular son, Evan McMullin, on the ballot will take away votes for Trump. They could end up tied or McMullin could just win it.
Donald Trump has been in a tailspin since the first debate. He's made it much worse with this complete and utter lovemaking to right wing bloggers in the last week. Arizona, Alaska, Georgia and Missouri are now in play. I actually think that Arizona will go for Hillary. The rest, we'll see with some more polls. Even Texas is getting tight now.
As I have said many times, she needs a landslide in order to govern effectively. On the day of the last debate, it appears that she has one in the making.
Click the map to create your own at As we can all see, Hillary Clinton is poised for a landslide. Most of the major polling outfits and predictors are seeing a flip to a Democratically controlled Senate. And now it looks like House is in play with Republicans scrambling to retain their majority.
One thing to note about this map is the grey shade of Utah. I don't Hillary will win Utah but I do think that the presence of popular son, Evan McMullin, on the ballot will take away votes for Trump. They could end up tied or McMullin could just win it.
Donald Trump has been in a tailspin since the first debate. He's made it much worse with this complete and utter lovemaking to right wing bloggers in the last week. Arizona, Alaska, Georgia and Missouri are now in play. I actually think that Arizona will go for Hillary. The rest, we'll see with some more polls. Even Texas is getting tight now.
As I have said many times, she needs a landslide in order to govern effectively. On the day of the last debate, it appears that she has one in the making.
Crocodile Tears
Boy oh boy, have we heard a lot of mouth foaming and "See? I told you sos" from Republicans these days regarding the Affordable Care Act. They've even pointed to Mark Dayton's recent comments about rising insurance rates as evidence that Obamacare has failed and stuff.
Today, my esteemed governor has penned an op-ed which offers a more insightful analysis.
As disturbing as the falsehoods is the hypocrisy of some Republican politicians, who are crying crocodile tears over problems with the Affordable Care Act, which they have prevented solving. Time after time, Republicans in Congress blocked changes to the ACA because they want to destroy the law, not improve it — and because they believe that the worse the ACA’s current problems, the better their chances of re-election.
Indeed.
The real challenge with the ACA is that we need more young people to get insurance. They'd rather take the hit on taxes than pay a premium every month. Better marketing, more incentives and perhaps stricter punishment for being uninsured should all be pursued. The rate increases were going to happen anyway and likely be worse without the ACA.
And in that world millions would have been uninsured and thousands would probably be dead. I think I'll take the whining...:)
Today, my esteemed governor has penned an op-ed which offers a more insightful analysis.
As disturbing as the falsehoods is the hypocrisy of some Republican politicians, who are crying crocodile tears over problems with the Affordable Care Act, which they have prevented solving. Time after time, Republicans in Congress blocked changes to the ACA because they want to destroy the law, not improve it — and because they believe that the worse the ACA’s current problems, the better their chances of re-election.
Indeed.
The real challenge with the ACA is that we need more young people to get insurance. They'd rather take the hit on taxes than pay a premium every month. Better marketing, more incentives and perhaps stricter punishment for being uninsured should all be pursued. The rate increases were going to happen anyway and likely be worse without the ACA.
And in that world millions would have been uninsured and thousands would probably be dead. I think I'll take the whining...:)
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Monday, October 17, 2016
I'm Just Askin'...
The day after three Kansas militiamen were arrested for plotting to blow up a mosque and an apartment building where hundreds of Somali immigrants live, someone threw a firebomb into a Trump campaign office in North Carolina.
Trump blames "the animals representing the Clinton campaign" for the firebombing, even though no one knows who is behind it.
At least one of the militiamen is a confirmed Trump supporter. By Trump's own logic, if we can blame Clinton for the firebombing, can't we blame Trump for the plot to kill Somalis in Kansas? The assault was planned for the day after the November election: clearly they anticipated Trump will lose, and wanted to exact revenge for a humiliating loss.
Trump has adopted the style and rhetoric of right-wing neo-Nazi hate groups and conspiracy theorists, normalizing racism and misogyny and bringing it to the forefront of a presidential campaign. Trump has advocated violence repeatedly: he's told his supporters to assault protesters at his rallies. Trump has said that if Clinton wins she should be dealt with by "Second Amendment people." Trump has advocated torture and murdering the wives and children of terrorist suspects.
One of Trump's more vocal supporters is Alex Jones, of InfoWars infamy. Jones is an alt-right conspiracy theorist, who has put forth various conspiracy theories, including several about 9/11, that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked, and that the Orlando shooting was a "false flag operation."
Lately Jones has been pushing the conspiracy theory that Clinton will somehow steal the election. Jones was apparently prodded to do this by Trump campaign operative Roger Stone, a dirty trickster who has worked for Republicans since the days of Dick Nixon (he even has a tattoo of Nixon on his back).
I myself don't go for conspiracy theories. But since Trump and his supporters are so enamored of them, here's one: what if the firebombing of the Trump campaign office was a false-flag operation ordered by Roger Stone to distract attention from the arrest of Trump supporters who were plotting to murder hundreds of Muslim immigrants?
Put on your tin foil hat for a moment: if "truly evil" people were behind the firebombing, why would they do it when the office was empty? Why was no one hurt?
Doesn't that seem more like a Roger Stone dirty trick? Or at least a shady landlord trying to collect on an insurance policy, taking a page from Donald Trump's playbook?
There's no possible benefit for Clinton's campaign in the North Carolina arson. Isn't it more likely the Trump campaign itself staged the fire to elicit more outrage from his supporters?
I'm just askin'...
Trump blames "the animals representing the Clinton campaign" for the firebombing, even though no one knows who is behind it.
At least one of the militiamen is a confirmed Trump supporter. By Trump's own logic, if we can blame Clinton for the firebombing, can't we blame Trump for the plot to kill Somalis in Kansas? The assault was planned for the day after the November election: clearly they anticipated Trump will lose, and wanted to exact revenge for a humiliating loss.
Trump has adopted the style and rhetoric of right-wing neo-Nazi hate groups and conspiracy theorists, normalizing racism and misogyny and bringing it to the forefront of a presidential campaign. Trump has advocated violence repeatedly: he's told his supporters to assault protesters at his rallies. Trump has said that if Clinton wins she should be dealt with by "Second Amendment people." Trump has advocated torture and murdering the wives and children of terrorist suspects.
One of Trump's more vocal supporters is Alex Jones, of InfoWars infamy. Jones is an alt-right conspiracy theorist, who has put forth various conspiracy theories, including several about 9/11, that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked, and that the Orlando shooting was a "false flag operation."
Lately Jones has been pushing the conspiracy theory that Clinton will somehow steal the election. Jones was apparently prodded to do this by Trump campaign operative Roger Stone, a dirty trickster who has worked for Republicans since the days of Dick Nixon (he even has a tattoo of Nixon on his back).
I myself don't go for conspiracy theories. But since Trump and his supporters are so enamored of them, here's one: what if the firebombing of the Trump campaign office was a false-flag operation ordered by Roger Stone to distract attention from the arrest of Trump supporters who were plotting to murder hundreds of Muslim immigrants?
Put on your tin foil hat for a moment: if "truly evil" people were behind the firebombing, why would they do it when the office was empty? Why was no one hurt?
Doesn't that seem more like a Roger Stone dirty trick? Or at least a shady landlord trying to collect on an insurance policy, taking a page from Donald Trump's playbook?
There's no possible benefit for Clinton's campaign in the North Carolina arson. Isn't it more likely the Trump campaign itself staged the fire to elicit more outrage from his supporters?
I'm just askin'...
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Saturday, October 15, 2016
What would it take for Trump to lose your vote?
At this point, it's safe to say these are same sorts of people that drove Germany to where it was in the 1930s...
Quoran Quickie
It's weird how things can go viral on Quora. My answers that I think will generate many views and upvotes invariably don't. The ones I think are just throwaways, like this one, get thousands of views and upvotes.
I guess now that extends to comments. A recent answer on who won the first presidential debate led me to this comment on it.
My hope is that Trump loses by a large margin and the GOP returns to the party of Reagan and Bush 1. Even though I am a Democrat, I want an opposition party that can keep the left in check on some of the more outlandish ideas (all corporations are evil, globalization is always evil etc). They have to get rid of all that anger, hate and fear, though, and I’m not sure how that happens.
As of this morning, it has 129 upvotes, the most I have ever had for a comment and the most I've seen on Quora in a while. It took me less than a minute to write but I guess it had an impact.
I guess now that extends to comments. A recent answer on who won the first presidential debate led me to this comment on it.
My hope is that Trump loses by a large margin and the GOP returns to the party of Reagan and Bush 1. Even though I am a Democrat, I want an opposition party that can keep the left in check on some of the more outlandish ideas (all corporations are evil, globalization is always evil etc). They have to get rid of all that anger, hate and fear, though, and I’m not sure how that happens.
As of this morning, it has 129 upvotes, the most I have ever had for a comment and the most I've seen on Quora in a while. It took me less than a minute to write but I guess it had an impact.
Friday, October 14, 2016
Lock Him Up!
When I was in fifth grade, I took up the trumpet. Kids in band had to stay after school for practice. On the way home a gang of bullies from the parochial school would ambush me. To avoid them, I gave up the trumpet so I didn't have to walk home late.
In sixth grade I was a police boy, what they call a crossing guard nowadays. In the 1960s the older kids were given bright orange crossing flags and were responsible for making sure the younger kids crossed busy streets safely. (They don't seem to let kids do this anymore -- adults are crossing guards, in the few locales where they let kids walk to school.)
These duties made me late again and the same bullies went after me. Instead of ratting on them, I quit being a police boy to avoid them.
The next year I went to junior high at a public school, while the bullies went to a parochial school two miles in the other direction. The bullying ended, partly because our paths rarely crossed, but partly because I had grown to almost six feet tall.
I relate these incidents to establish that I know a bully when I see one. Donald Trump is a bully. His every word and action for the last 40 years has established this without question. No one, not even his supporters, tries to deny this: they glory in it.
Now Donald Trump stands accused of sexual assault. At its core, sexual assault is essentially a more aggressive and perverted form of bullying. I've never been molested personally, but I've seen it happen.
One day in eighth grade I was walking home. Across the street a gang of bullies was attacking a girl from my class. Lori was a thin, shy, quiet girl. She was nice. They were grabbing her breasts. She was crying and afraid. I didn't intervene, I just ran home. As far as I know Lori never reported the crime, and neither did I, I'm ashamed to admit. I suppose I didn't want to get in trouble with bullies again.
So Lori suffered in silence, like the vast majority of women and girls who are sexually assaulted.
Why did they go after Lori? She wasn't the prettiest or most curvaceous girl in class. She was very quiet and never bothered anyone.
The bullies chose her because she was available, vulnerable, and powerless against them. If she told on them they would deny it, and no one would believe her. Later, they would go after her and do something even worse...
Today Donald Trump says he wouldn't have sexually assaulted the women who are now accusing him of because they aren't attractive enough. Because I know bullies, I know Trump is lying.
Sexual assault is bullying: it's about establishing dominance, not sexual pleasure. Many of the women Trump attacked had come to him for help. Like any street bully, Trump assaulted them because he wanted to show he had the power. He could count on their silence because he could destroy their lives through crushing lawsuits and social ruination: if they ratted him out he would drag them through the mud, making their husbands and boyfriends think they had somehow invited the attack.
That woman on the airplane that Trump felt up? Today Trump scoffs at the idea that he would do such a thing. But just like the eighth-grade bullies in the street, Trump attacked that woman because she was available, vulnerable and powerless against him (who'd believe a billionaire would do such a thing?). Last Friday we heard Trump admitting that he just can't control himself around women, assaulting random women on planes is completely consistent with that.
And just like the eighth-grade bullies in the street, Trump's gang of thugs rallied and cheered him on. Listen to the comments of Trump's supporters when interviewed by the Daily Show's Jordan Klepper. One said, "You know what? So what if he wants to grab pussy. I wanna grab pussy."
Hey, Republicans: your voters are wanna-be sex offenders!
I am completely baffled by this clown. How is grabbing a woman like that in any way pleasurable for either party? What kind of demented, sick people are these guys? Trump supporters -- even the female ones, incredibly -- think that rich, smelly (Tic Tacs), fat, old, bald men are entitled to molest women and girls. For them sexual assault is completely normal and to be expected, and women must submit without complaint.
The fact is, these are sex crimes.
After the news of Trump bragging about molesting women broke, writer Kelly Oxford shared her story of being sexually assaulted. When she was 12 an old man on a city bus grabbed her pussy and smiled at her. By Saturday evening a million women had responded with stories of their own. The behavior Trump brags about is appallingly common in this country. But that doesn't excuse it: it's a sex crime.
A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for a bully, a vote for a sex offender. Supporting Trump is condoning the violation of women. Trump's election would mean the normalization of molestation and invite a wave of sexual assaults against millions of American girls and women.
America needs to stand up to bullies, molesters and sex criminals like Donald Trump. Trump may not have any regrets, but I do: I regret that the thirteen-year-old me didn't stand up to the bullies who molested Lori.
Donald Trump is a bully and a criminal sex offender. This time around I'm not going to stay quiet and let a molester get away with assaulting women. Donald Trump's repeated molestations of women are sex crimes, plain and simple. The man should go to jail.
Let's get a chant going: Lock him up! Lock him up!
In sixth grade I was a police boy, what they call a crossing guard nowadays. In the 1960s the older kids were given bright orange crossing flags and were responsible for making sure the younger kids crossed busy streets safely. (They don't seem to let kids do this anymore -- adults are crossing guards, in the few locales where they let kids walk to school.)
These duties made me late again and the same bullies went after me. Instead of ratting on them, I quit being a police boy to avoid them.
The next year I went to junior high at a public school, while the bullies went to a parochial school two miles in the other direction. The bullying ended, partly because our paths rarely crossed, but partly because I had grown to almost six feet tall.
I relate these incidents to establish that I know a bully when I see one. Donald Trump is a bully. His every word and action for the last 40 years has established this without question. No one, not even his supporters, tries to deny this: they glory in it.
Now Donald Trump stands accused of sexual assault. At its core, sexual assault is essentially a more aggressive and perverted form of bullying. I've never been molested personally, but I've seen it happen.
One day in eighth grade I was walking home. Across the street a gang of bullies was attacking a girl from my class. Lori was a thin, shy, quiet girl. She was nice. They were grabbing her breasts. She was crying and afraid. I didn't intervene, I just ran home. As far as I know Lori never reported the crime, and neither did I, I'm ashamed to admit. I suppose I didn't want to get in trouble with bullies again.
So Lori suffered in silence, like the vast majority of women and girls who are sexually assaulted.
Why did they go after Lori? She wasn't the prettiest or most curvaceous girl in class. She was very quiet and never bothered anyone.
The bullies chose her because she was available, vulnerable, and powerless against them. If she told on them they would deny it, and no one would believe her. Later, they would go after her and do something even worse...
Today Donald Trump says he wouldn't have sexually assaulted the women who are now accusing him of because they aren't attractive enough. Because I know bullies, I know Trump is lying.
Sexual assault is bullying: it's about establishing dominance, not sexual pleasure. Many of the women Trump attacked had come to him for help. Like any street bully, Trump assaulted them because he wanted to show he had the power. He could count on their silence because he could destroy their lives through crushing lawsuits and social ruination: if they ratted him out he would drag them through the mud, making their husbands and boyfriends think they had somehow invited the attack.
That woman on the airplane that Trump felt up? Today Trump scoffs at the idea that he would do such a thing. But just like the eighth-grade bullies in the street, Trump attacked that woman because she was available, vulnerable and powerless against him (who'd believe a billionaire would do such a thing?). Last Friday we heard Trump admitting that he just can't control himself around women, assaulting random women on planes is completely consistent with that.
And just like the eighth-grade bullies in the street, Trump's gang of thugs rallied and cheered him on. Listen to the comments of Trump's supporters when interviewed by the Daily Show's Jordan Klepper. One said, "You know what? So what if he wants to grab pussy. I wanna grab pussy."
Hey, Republicans: your voters are wanna-be sex offenders!
I am completely baffled by this clown. How is grabbing a woman like that in any way pleasurable for either party? What kind of demented, sick people are these guys? Trump supporters -- even the female ones, incredibly -- think that rich, smelly (Tic Tacs), fat, old, bald men are entitled to molest women and girls. For them sexual assault is completely normal and to be expected, and women must submit without complaint.
The fact is, these are sex crimes.
After the news of Trump bragging about molesting women broke, writer Kelly Oxford shared her story of being sexually assaulted. When she was 12 an old man on a city bus grabbed her pussy and smiled at her. By Saturday evening a million women had responded with stories of their own. The behavior Trump brags about is appallingly common in this country. But that doesn't excuse it: it's a sex crime.
A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for a bully, a vote for a sex offender. Supporting Trump is condoning the violation of women. Trump's election would mean the normalization of molestation and invite a wave of sexual assaults against millions of American girls and women.
America needs to stand up to bullies, molesters and sex criminals like Donald Trump. Trump may not have any regrets, but I do: I regret that the thirteen-year-old me didn't stand up to the bullies who molested Lori.
Donald Trump is a bully and a criminal sex offender. This time around I'm not going to stay quiet and let a molester get away with assaulting women. Donald Trump's repeated molestations of women are sex crimes, plain and simple. The man should go to jail.
Let's get a chant going: Lock him up! Lock him up!
State Department Bans Superman Disguise
WASHINGTON — To prevent terrorists from using Superman's foolproof disguise, the State Department is banning applicants from wearing eyeglasses in photos taken for passports.
In a notice published Friday, the department says that effective Nov. 1, applicants must remove glasses for passport and visa photographs. It says the step is being taken to "ensure aliens from extinct planets that used to orbit red suns" do not pose as American citizens. Only in rare circumstances, such as when the applicant's eyes "emit powerful energy blasts that can rupture steel plate and pulverize rock," will glasses be allowed.
The department says it expects to process a record number of passports — more than 20 million — in the current budget year that ends next October.
Minneapolis StarTribune
In a notice published Friday, the department says that effective Nov. 1, applicants must remove glasses for passport and visa photographs. It says the step is being taken to "ensure aliens from extinct planets that used to orbit red suns" do not pose as American citizens. Only in rare circumstances, such as when the applicant's eyes "emit powerful energy blasts that can rupture steel plate and pulverize rock," will glasses be allowed.
The department says it expects to process a record number of passports — more than 20 million — in the current budget year that ends next October.
Minneapolis StarTribune
Cease The Lying
The facts on the Affordable Care Act as of October 13, 2016.
Now stop lying about it because you had some kind of an issue with authority in your adolescence and get catty every time the federal government does something in the best interest of this country and succeeds at it.
Now stop lying about it because you had some kind of an issue with authority in your adolescence and get catty every time the federal government does something in the best interest of this country and succeeds at it.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Unrealistic Corporate Growth Expectations Caused Wells Fargo Debacle
Wells Fargo's CEO was just forced out after testifying before Congress about the scandal at the bank. The company created a quota system for employees to sign up existing customers for additional accounts. These quotas were so unreasonable that thousands of employees created accounts for customers they never asked for and never knew they had.
Honest employees who refused to cheat their customers to meet the unreasonable quotas were fired (and have since filed a $2.6 billion lawsuit for unlawful termination).
The problems at Wells Fargo are not unique. Wall Street has totally unreasonable expectations for revenue growth: companies that don't meet "analyst expectations" are hammered in the stock market. CEOs are given bonuses when their stock price increases, and are fired (albeit with a golden parachute) when they don't meet those unreasonable expectations.
There are only a few ways that revenue can be increased: 1) sell more products, 2) reduce costs, 3) increase prices, 4) create more customers, 5) create new products, 6) create new markets.
Wells Fargo tried to do #1: sell more products to their existing customer base. The problem was these people didn't want these products, but since Wells Fargo had all their financial information it was trivial to rip them off.
This fails when customers already have all the product they want, or can't afford to buy more products. Since salaries have been pretty much stagnant since George W. Bush was in office, there is little hope for growth here.
Most companies try to do #2: reduce costs. This typically involves reducing the cost of production (like Apple switching touch screen suppliers, or cutting employee salaries, or moving production to Asia), or improving productivity (firing employees and making the survivors pick up the slack, reducing the number of employees by replacing them with machines, or using technology to improve the productivity of existing employees).
Problem is, cost reduction often reduces the quality of the product or service. It's also hard for employees whose salaries have been cut (or never rise) to afford to buy the products and services that companies need to sell to increase their revenues.
However, there is a huge potential for cost savings that remains untapped in the vast majority of corporations: executive compensation. CEOs and their executives can pull down billions of dollars in compensation: in 2014 the average Fortune 500 exec made $16 million in salary -- 300 times the average employee, and oodles more in retirement and stock grant benefits. In 1965 the average exec made only 20 times as much as an average employee.
Since execs are just management overhead, the quality of products and services will be almost completely unaffected.
Wells Fargo will save tens of millions of dollars by firing John Stumpf. Not as much as the $185 million in fines they'll have to pay for bilking their customers, unfortunately.
Method #3 -- increasing prices -- is a problem for most companies for the same reason as #1: customers don't have the money. But certain companies can get away with it: in particular, drug companies who have a monopoly on life-saving treatments. Like, for example, Martin Shkreli increasing the price of Daraprim fifty-fold, Mylan jacking up the price of the EpiPen several hundred percent, or the tripling of the cost of insulin for diabetic patients.
Drug companies can get away with this extortion because people will sicken or die without this medicine: they are holding a gun to their customers' heads and saying, "Your money or your life."
Number 4 -- creating more customers -- used to happen automatically: for centuries population increased geometrically. But population growth has stopped in most developed economies. The United States' population is still increasing but only due to -- you guessed it -- immigration.
Many young people today don't have very good jobs and don't anticipate that they'll be making enough money to afford a home and a family. So we won't be procreating our way out of this problem. Conservatives, afraid of losing their tenuous grasp on political power, are also afraid of immigration, so there's very little hope on that front.
In any case, population growth is not a solution: at 7 billion people, the world has already exceeded its carrying capacity. As the effects of climate change really start to hit hard and natural resources decline, the number of people the earth can support will decrease.
Item #5 -- create new products -- is the favorite of entrepreneurs. The problem is, again, that customers don't have the money to buy new doodads. And truly new products are extremely rare: the personal computer, the cell phone, the Internet were revolutionary.
But every time you come up with a new "killer app" it kills off some older product or service. The personal computer killed off the typewriter and jobs like secretary, file clerk, etc. The cell phone and the tablet are killing off the personal computer. The Internet is killing off newspapers and television networks.
And a lot of "new products" are just recycled garbage. The Great Recession was due to financial institutions selling failing mortgages by repackaging them in more and more obscure bundles to hide just how toxic they were.
Creating new markets -- #6 -- sounds great, but the only place to create new markets is to move into new countries. That means international trade. This is a hot topic in this election as Donald Trump touts gigantic tariffs on foreign countries' products to "punish" them for unfair trade practices. If we do that, they'll do the same to us, making it impossible to create new markets.
Also, in order for these new markets to buy our stuff, their citizens need the money to pay for it. The only new markets left are places like India, Indonesia, and Africa, where average incomes are generally very low. The only way for them earn the money to buy our products is if they have well-paying jobs. And the only way they can do that is if they're selling products and services to people who can afford to pay for them, and that means selling into western economies -- like ours.
(Creating new markets by going into outer space is intriguing, but impossible until we develop compact nuclear fusion generators -- something that doesn't look any closer than it was 50 years ago.)
All of these factors produce one inescapable conclusion: we are entering a steady-state economy and only a few small new companies can experience 10 to 15% revenue growth.
What this really boils down to is: what is the purpose of corporations? To make a small number of people filthy rich? Or to provide products and services to the people of the United States while giving a living wage to the people who actually do all the work?
The outcome of this election may very well answer this question, and determine the fate of the planet.
Honest employees who refused to cheat their customers to meet the unreasonable quotas were fired (and have since filed a $2.6 billion lawsuit for unlawful termination).
The problems at Wells Fargo are not unique. Wall Street has totally unreasonable expectations for revenue growth: companies that don't meet "analyst expectations" are hammered in the stock market. CEOs are given bonuses when their stock price increases, and are fired (albeit with a golden parachute) when they don't meet those unreasonable expectations.
There are only a few ways that revenue can be increased: 1) sell more products, 2) reduce costs, 3) increase prices, 4) create more customers, 5) create new products, 6) create new markets.
Wells Fargo tried to do #1: sell more products to their existing customer base. The problem was these people didn't want these products, but since Wells Fargo had all their financial information it was trivial to rip them off.
This fails when customers already have all the product they want, or can't afford to buy more products. Since salaries have been pretty much stagnant since George W. Bush was in office, there is little hope for growth here.
Most companies try to do #2: reduce costs. This typically involves reducing the cost of production (like Apple switching touch screen suppliers, or cutting employee salaries, or moving production to Asia), or improving productivity (firing employees and making the survivors pick up the slack, reducing the number of employees by replacing them with machines, or using technology to improve the productivity of existing employees).
Problem is, cost reduction often reduces the quality of the product or service. It's also hard for employees whose salaries have been cut (or never rise) to afford to buy the products and services that companies need to sell to increase their revenues.
However, there is a huge potential for cost savings that remains untapped in the vast majority of corporations: executive compensation. CEOs and their executives can pull down billions of dollars in compensation: in 2014 the average Fortune 500 exec made $16 million in salary -- 300 times the average employee, and oodles more in retirement and stock grant benefits. In 1965 the average exec made only 20 times as much as an average employee.
Since execs are just management overhead, the quality of products and services will be almost completely unaffected.
Wells Fargo will save tens of millions of dollars by firing John Stumpf. Not as much as the $185 million in fines they'll have to pay for bilking their customers, unfortunately.
Method #3 -- increasing prices -- is a problem for most companies for the same reason as #1: customers don't have the money. But certain companies can get away with it: in particular, drug companies who have a monopoly on life-saving treatments. Like, for example, Martin Shkreli increasing the price of Daraprim fifty-fold, Mylan jacking up the price of the EpiPen several hundred percent, or the tripling of the cost of insulin for diabetic patients.
Drug companies can get away with this extortion because people will sicken or die without this medicine: they are holding a gun to their customers' heads and saying, "Your money or your life."
Number 4 -- creating more customers -- used to happen automatically: for centuries population increased geometrically. But population growth has stopped in most developed economies. The United States' population is still increasing but only due to -- you guessed it -- immigration.
Many young people today don't have very good jobs and don't anticipate that they'll be making enough money to afford a home and a family. So we won't be procreating our way out of this problem. Conservatives, afraid of losing their tenuous grasp on political power, are also afraid of immigration, so there's very little hope on that front.
In any case, population growth is not a solution: at 7 billion people, the world has already exceeded its carrying capacity. As the effects of climate change really start to hit hard and natural resources decline, the number of people the earth can support will decrease.
Item #5 -- create new products -- is the favorite of entrepreneurs. The problem is, again, that customers don't have the money to buy new doodads. And truly new products are extremely rare: the personal computer, the cell phone, the Internet were revolutionary.
But every time you come up with a new "killer app" it kills off some older product or service. The personal computer killed off the typewriter and jobs like secretary, file clerk, etc. The cell phone and the tablet are killing off the personal computer. The Internet is killing off newspapers and television networks.
And a lot of "new products" are just recycled garbage. The Great Recession was due to financial institutions selling failing mortgages by repackaging them in more and more obscure bundles to hide just how toxic they were.
Creating new markets -- #6 -- sounds great, but the only place to create new markets is to move into new countries. That means international trade. This is a hot topic in this election as Donald Trump touts gigantic tariffs on foreign countries' products to "punish" them for unfair trade practices. If we do that, they'll do the same to us, making it impossible to create new markets.
Also, in order for these new markets to buy our stuff, their citizens need the money to pay for it. The only new markets left are places like India, Indonesia, and Africa, where average incomes are generally very low. The only way for them earn the money to buy our products is if they have well-paying jobs. And the only way they can do that is if they're selling products and services to people who can afford to pay for them, and that means selling into western economies -- like ours.
(Creating new markets by going into outer space is intriguing, but impossible until we develop compact nuclear fusion generators -- something that doesn't look any closer than it was 50 years ago.)
All of these factors produce one inescapable conclusion: we are entering a steady-state economy and only a few small new companies can experience 10 to 15% revenue growth.
What this really boils down to is: what is the purpose of corporations? To make a small number of people filthy rich? Or to provide products and services to the people of the United States while giving a living wage to the people who actually do all the work?
The outcome of this election may very well answer this question, and determine the fate of the planet.
Wells Fargo Chief=Out
Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf steps down amid sales scandal
"The San Francisco bank said Wednesday that Stumpf is retiring effective immediately and also relinquishing his title as chairman. He won't be receiving severance pay and the bank announced earlier that he will forfeit $41 million in stock awards."
To my friends on the right: This is the direct effect of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. (See also: Tea Party Movement RIP)
To my friends on the left: Stop whining about how you don't have any power. You do.
"The San Francisco bank said Wednesday that Stumpf is retiring effective immediately and also relinquishing his title as chairman. He won't be receiving severance pay and the bank announced earlier that he will forfeit $41 million in stock awards."
To my friends on the right: This is the direct effect of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. (See also: Tea Party Movement RIP)
To my friends on the left: Stop whining about how you don't have any power. You do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)