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
Friday, October 14, 2016
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.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Russian Lawmaker Threatens to Nuke U.S. If Trump Loses
Trump has been kissing Vladimir Putin's ass for quite some time, and now other Russian politicians are returning the favor. In addition to regaining the endorsements of some Republicans who had dumped Trump only days before he threatened to torpedo their reelection campaigns, Trump picked up the endorsement of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, one of Russia's most hateful men.
Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.How would Trump de-escalate tensions? Obviously, by rolling over and caving in to Putin on Ukraine and Syria. Putin's tactics of propping up Bashir Assad in Syria and widening the war there have destabilized Europe and Turkey with a flood of refugees, allowing several ISIS terrorists to launch attacks in Europe and heightening fears of terrorism in the United States.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an interview that Trump was the only person able to de-escalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.
Russia's corrupt leaders can hardly contain their glee over the prospect of the United States joining the tin-plated dictator club.
Loyalty to the Republican Party's John Wilkes Booth
After the tape of Donald Trump bragging about committing sex crimes was released, dozens Republican legislators and governors withdrew their endorsements of him. Trump responded by blasting them as "disloyal."
What does loyalty mean in this case? These Republicans claim to be loyal to the Republican Party and its ideals of morality and decency, small government, and all the rest. Trump does not represent any of those ideals, and his candidacy will damage the party, perhaps irreparably. So not supporting Trump is in fact expressing loyalty to the Republican Party.
Donald Trump has never been loyal to the Republican Party. Since 1987 he has variously been registered with the Republican Party, the Independence Party, the Democratic Party (starting in August 2001, during W's first year in office), and with no party as recently as 2011.
Now, there's nothing wrong with this for a private citizen. But it demonstrates that Donald Trump has absolutely no loyalty to the Republican Party. Why should lifelong Republicans feel any compunction to remain loyal to Donald Trump, since he has never shown them any loyalty?
When Mitt Romney ran for president he gave state and local politicians money for their reelections and helped them campaign. Donald Trump didn't do this. He flew around the country on a self-promotional tour. He didn't give local politicians any money. He didn't help them campaign. He used them as props for his own self-promotion.
Donald Trump has been disloyal to lifelong Republicans: has blasted George W. Bush over and over for his blunders in the Iraq War. He insulted John McCain's war record. He has claimed Bush created ISIS (he also blames it on Clinton and Obama; Trump's not known for consistency). Trump has spent this entire election cycle blasting Republican "elites," the very people whose loyalty he's now demanding.
So what possible motivation should Republicans have for being loyal to Trump? He has never been loyal to them. He has only insulted and demeaned and stabbed them in the back.
Some establishment Republicans still support Trump, because they feel not doing so will "hurt the party." The problem is that political parties are not unchanging moral monoliths: they are simply the collective will of the people who claim membership in them.
Once upon a time the South was solidly Democratic. Southerners despised the party of Lincoln because of the Civil War. But over time the Republican Party became the party of fat old rich men. Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt popped up every once in a while, but more and more the Republican Party become the party of bankers, millionaires, industrialists. It was headed by men like Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. The laissez-faire attitude of Republican administrations over the wealthy ultimately led to the Great Depression.
The Democratic Party became the party of the people. The Democrats joined with unions to fight the power bloc of the Republican Party and the wealthy. They fought to create the Social Security program. They joined with minorities to fight for the right to vote, end segregation, achieve medical care for the elderly, and campaigned for equal rights for women.
White Southerners, dismayed by the Democrats' policy stands, fled the party in droves. Republicans picked up on this and started courting the Southern white vote, intentionally talking in code about crime, "inner city problems" and "welfare queens."
Were Southerners "disloyal" for abandoning the Democratic Party when it would no longer promote segregation and disenfranchisement of blacks? No: the people who become its majority had renounced white supremacy and embraced equality for all. The philosophy of the Democratic Party had completely shifted.
The Republican Party has continued its racist shift haltingly, sometimes pulling back with Republicans such the Bush family and John McCain, who, for all their warts, seemed earnest in their desire for racial equality and economic fairness. But though many Republicans have paid lip service to those ideals, they did nothing to stop the nativist and racist forces within their Party. They stood by and cheered when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance reform. They have actively assisted in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters with "Voter ID" laws that Republicans have bragged were enacted solely to prevent blacks and Democrats from voting.
Donald Trump has staged a hostile takeover of the Republican Party: he has inflamed its racist and nativist elements even further. But worse than that, Trump's entire campaign has been about Trump, not the Republican Party -- he's only been a Republican since 2012.
Donald Trump thinks he's the godfather of a New York crime family, the capo di tutti capi of the Republican Party. To him, party loyalty means subservience to the boss. And he's the boss. Acknowledge his primacy or be snuffed out.
To real Republicans, loyalty to the party means loyalty to the ideals that the party is based on. Candidates come and go, but the party and its ideals are supposed to be eternal.
But that idealistic notion is false: parties are just the people who join them. When Trump put the agenda of misogynistic racists front and center in this presidential election, he shot the party of Lincoln in the back of the head.
Donald Trump is the Republican Party's John Wilkes Booth.
What does loyalty mean in this case? These Republicans claim to be loyal to the Republican Party and its ideals of morality and decency, small government, and all the rest. Trump does not represent any of those ideals, and his candidacy will damage the party, perhaps irreparably. So not supporting Trump is in fact expressing loyalty to the Republican Party.
Donald Trump has never been loyal to the Republican Party. Since 1987 he has variously been registered with the Republican Party, the Independence Party, the Democratic Party (starting in August 2001, during W's first year in office), and with no party as recently as 2011.
Now, there's nothing wrong with this for a private citizen. But it demonstrates that Donald Trump has absolutely no loyalty to the Republican Party. Why should lifelong Republicans feel any compunction to remain loyal to Donald Trump, since he has never shown them any loyalty?
When Mitt Romney ran for president he gave state and local politicians money for their reelections and helped them campaign. Donald Trump didn't do this. He flew around the country on a self-promotional tour. He didn't give local politicians any money. He didn't help them campaign. He used them as props for his own self-promotion.
Donald Trump has been disloyal to lifelong Republicans: has blasted George W. Bush over and over for his blunders in the Iraq War. He insulted John McCain's war record. He has claimed Bush created ISIS (he also blames it on Clinton and Obama; Trump's not known for consistency). Trump has spent this entire election cycle blasting Republican "elites," the very people whose loyalty he's now demanding.
So what possible motivation should Republicans have for being loyal to Trump? He has never been loyal to them. He has only insulted and demeaned and stabbed them in the back.
Some establishment Republicans still support Trump, because they feel not doing so will "hurt the party." The problem is that political parties are not unchanging moral monoliths: they are simply the collective will of the people who claim membership in them.
Once upon a time the South was solidly Democratic. Southerners despised the party of Lincoln because of the Civil War. But over time the Republican Party became the party of fat old rich men. Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt popped up every once in a while, but more and more the Republican Party become the party of bankers, millionaires, industrialists. It was headed by men like Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. The laissez-faire attitude of Republican administrations over the wealthy ultimately led to the Great Depression.
The Democratic Party became the party of the people. The Democrats joined with unions to fight the power bloc of the Republican Party and the wealthy. They fought to create the Social Security program. They joined with minorities to fight for the right to vote, end segregation, achieve medical care for the elderly, and campaigned for equal rights for women.
White Southerners, dismayed by the Democrats' policy stands, fled the party in droves. Republicans picked up on this and started courting the Southern white vote, intentionally talking in code about crime, "inner city problems" and "welfare queens."
Were Southerners "disloyal" for abandoning the Democratic Party when it would no longer promote segregation and disenfranchisement of blacks? No: the people who become its majority had renounced white supremacy and embraced equality for all. The philosophy of the Democratic Party had completely shifted.
The Republican Party has continued its racist shift haltingly, sometimes pulling back with Republicans such the Bush family and John McCain, who, for all their warts, seemed earnest in their desire for racial equality and economic fairness. But though many Republicans have paid lip service to those ideals, they did nothing to stop the nativist and racist forces within their Party. They stood by and cheered when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance reform. They have actively assisted in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters with "Voter ID" laws that Republicans have bragged were enacted solely to prevent blacks and Democrats from voting.
Donald Trump has staged a hostile takeover of the Republican Party: he has inflamed its racist and nativist elements even further. But worse than that, Trump's entire campaign has been about Trump, not the Republican Party -- he's only been a Republican since 2012.
Donald Trump thinks he's the godfather of a New York crime family, the capo di tutti capi of the Republican Party. To him, party loyalty means subservience to the boss. And he's the boss. Acknowledge his primacy or be snuffed out.
To real Republicans, loyalty to the party means loyalty to the ideals that the party is based on. Candidates come and go, but the party and its ideals are supposed to be eternal.
But that idealistic notion is false: parties are just the people who join them. When Trump put the agenda of misogynistic racists front and center in this presidential election, he shot the party of Lincoln in the back of the head.
Donald Trump is the Republican Party's John Wilkes Booth.
Vote November 28th!
Donald Trump tells supporters to vote on November 28
I guess is what happens when the shackles come off...:)
I guess is what happens when the shackles come off...:)
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Do Democrats and other Hillary supporters have the fear of God in them?
This recent piece from Reuters has me more worried than anything else has in this election. With Hillary up anywhere from 7-11 points nationally and well ahead in several swing states, complacency could creep in with voters thinking that she wins so they don't have to vote.
If I were a Democratic leader, I'd shift my strategy to focus on the down ballot elections. Let the Democratic base know we want a strong majority in the Senate and, with Trump at the top of the ticket, we now have a shot at the House. Paul Ryan certainly knows this.
And if I were Hillary Clinton, I'd start talking more about her positive message for the future and how that will be in jeopardy if voters don't turn out.
If I were a Democratic leader, I'd shift my strategy to focus on the down ballot elections. Let the Democratic base know we want a strong majority in the Senate and, with Trump at the top of the ticket, we now have a shot at the House. Paul Ryan certainly knows this.
And if I were Hillary Clinton, I'd start talking more about her positive message for the future and how that will be in jeopardy if voters don't turn out.
Monday, October 10, 2016
Second Debate A Go Go
Last night's debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump looked much like the first debate. Media pundits have been saying that Trump "won" it merely because he stopped the intense bleeding from the previous 24 hours. Polls say otherwise. A CNN poll taken last night showed 57% percent of viewers say Hillary Clinton won with Donald Trump getting 34%. A YouGov poll had Hillary Clinton winning the debate against Donald Trump by 47% to 42%.
Many pundits on Morning Joe this AM felt like Hillary didn't deliver a knockout punch. I'm not sure what that would have been given Trump's weekend which saw GOP Senators and House members fleeing from him in droves. Paul Ryan has effectively given up and will now focus on Congress. Did she really need to do anything? His pre-game shit show of trotting out former Bill Clinton accusers was par for the course. "You did it too!!" was classic right wing blog commenter redirect heavily rooted in emotional immaturity.
Hillary spend most of the night pointing out specifics on policy points while Trump would throw out one thing and then repeat it over and over as an answer. What is he actually going to do as president, other than act like an 8 year old having a temper tantrum? The one thing he was very successful at last night was speaking directly to his supporters who all suffer from CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) and live the bubble of the Bubble of Self Referential Confirmation. They aren't enough to win an election.
The latest polls-plus has been drifting Hillary's way since the last debate and I expect to expand even more in her favor in the coming days. She's at 260 according the RCP map and I can see her expanding into Arizona and maybe even Georgia with the weekend of the sex tape. And what if there are more tapes that come out about Trump? We are officially back to the possibility of a landslide for Hillary Clinton.
Many pundits on Morning Joe this AM felt like Hillary didn't deliver a knockout punch. I'm not sure what that would have been given Trump's weekend which saw GOP Senators and House members fleeing from him in droves. Paul Ryan has effectively given up and will now focus on Congress. Did she really need to do anything? His pre-game shit show of trotting out former Bill Clinton accusers was par for the course. "You did it too!!" was classic right wing blog commenter redirect heavily rooted in emotional immaturity.
Hillary spend most of the night pointing out specifics on policy points while Trump would throw out one thing and then repeat it over and over as an answer. What is he actually going to do as president, other than act like an 8 year old having a temper tantrum? The one thing he was very successful at last night was speaking directly to his supporters who all suffer from CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) and live the bubble of the Bubble of Self Referential Confirmation. They aren't enough to win an election.
The latest polls-plus has been drifting Hillary's way since the last debate and I expect to expand even more in her favor in the coming days. She's at 260 according the RCP map and I can see her expanding into Arizona and maybe even Georgia with the weekend of the sex tape. And what if there are more tapes that come out about Trump? We are officially back to the possibility of a landslide for Hillary Clinton.
Best Tweet From Last Night's Debate
I'm a Muslim, and I would like to report a crazy man threatening a woman on a stage in Missouri. #debate
Saturday, October 08, 2016
Evangelicals Say "We're electing a leader, not a Sunday school teacher"
A lot of Republicans are cutting Donald Trump loose today after the release of a tape of him bragging about how he molested women using the shield of his stardom. But a lot of evangelicals are, incredibly, standing by Trump.
Corey Lewandowski summed up the attitude of many evangelicals when he said, "We're electing a leader, not a Sunday school teacher." It's curious that Corey mentions Sunday school teachers...
The number of priests and pastors who have sexually abused congregants and children is staggering: American churches have spent hundreds billions of dollars settling lawsuits with victims whom priests and pastors have abused in exactly the same way Donald Trump bragged about.
Yet these evangelicals still support Trump. What is going through their minds?
Apparently they believe that those who have been appointed to their position "by God" can do no wrong. Since God chose them to "lead," and God is all-knowing, God knew this would happen from the get-go and was just fine with it. Who are we to question God's judgment?
But of course, God has nothing to do with who becomes a priest or a pastor, and He certainly had nothing to do with Trump's nomination.
Trump characterized his vile comments as mere "locker room banter," and it started out that way:
“Your girl’s hot as s---, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.But by the end of the exchange Trump is admitting to criminal sexual conduct. Depending on the jurisdiction this varies from second to fifth degree sexual assault. It's "just" a misdemeanor in most places. But "forcible touching" can still get you on the sex offender list.
“Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”
“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”
“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”
“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.
“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”
Trump bragged about committing a crime. He counted on his celebrity to prevent the women from reporting it. He also has a large stable of lawyers on retainer, and given his propensity to sue anyone who crosses him, a woman who dared accuse him would be inundated by a withering barrage of extremely expensive lawsuits.
One woman was brave enough to challenge Trump: Jill Harth, a woman he was briefly in business with. But that wasn't the last of it: Erin Burnett reported that Trump was still pulling this kind of crap in 2010, five years after bragging about it to Billy Bush.
How many women did Trump victimize who have been intimidated by his celebrity status and his army of lawyers? When these kinds of stories began to leak out about Bill Cosby there was a great deal of disbelief because Cosby was such a nice guy; with Trump there are no such illusions.
Are Republicans and evangelicals really just fine with their president being a sex offender? Or do they condone it because, in their minds, "them bitches is askin' for it," or, "they knew what they were getting into," or "that's all women are good for?"
Or worse: "It's God's will."
Boys Will Be Boys
Well, it looks like the Donald is in deep shit now! With the release of this video,
the GOP nominee's chances of becoming president have sunk to zero. Universal condemnations from fellow Republicans have rained down from everywhere over the last 24 hours. What amuses me about all of this is that they seem to be acting shocked. Is this really anything new from Trump? He's been like this all along and they have still supported him.
This video will probably be enough to turn Iowa back blue with all its evangelical voters. Arizona has been looking for an excuse to go blue as well lately. Given the likelihood that Trump won't drop out, a Hillary landslide, something that seemed implausible just a few weeks ago, now seems likely.
The best thing the GOP could do would be to dump Trump and have Pence be at the top of the ticket. Here's why that won't happen. I think that Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders see an opportunity here to wrest control back from the short wave radio listener turned email forwarder turned blogger turned all social media believer crowd.
No doubt, the debate tomorrow night just got a whole lot more interesting. This is especially true given Trump's late night apology (see also: hostage) video in which he quickly shifted the blame to the Clinton...just like a good little conservative should:)
the GOP nominee's chances of becoming president have sunk to zero. Universal condemnations from fellow Republicans have rained down from everywhere over the last 24 hours. What amuses me about all of this is that they seem to be acting shocked. Is this really anything new from Trump? He's been like this all along and they have still supported him.
This video will probably be enough to turn Iowa back blue with all its evangelical voters. Arizona has been looking for an excuse to go blue as well lately. Given the likelihood that Trump won't drop out, a Hillary landslide, something that seemed implausible just a few weeks ago, now seems likely.
The best thing the GOP could do would be to dump Trump and have Pence be at the top of the ticket. Here's why that won't happen. I think that Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders see an opportunity here to wrest control back from the short wave radio listener turned email forwarder turned blogger turned all social media believer crowd.
No doubt, the debate tomorrow night just got a whole lot more interesting. This is especially true given Trump's late night apology (see also: hostage) video in which he quickly shifted the blame to the Clinton...just like a good little conservative should:)
Friday, October 07, 2016
The Bubble of Self Referential Confirmation
I posted a question on Quora regarding the Trump supporters video I put up yesterday. There are really some great answers. The top one included this sentence.
Since they live in a bubble of self-referential confirmation, there can’t be substantial amounts of people who disagree.
A bubble of self referential confirmation...that pretty much explains every right wing blog which I have ever read. So, that's now going to become a tag for future posts regarding the right wing cocoon they have all ensconced themselves in.
The best answer to the question was this....
Amazing...if only more people inside the bubble of self referential confirmation had such a high level of reflective ability...
The problem with authority thing is also important to note. It's like they never got over...BEING AN ADOLESCENT.
Since they live in a bubble of self-referential confirmation, there can’t be substantial amounts of people who disagree.
A bubble of self referential confirmation...that pretty much explains every right wing blog which I have ever read. So, that's now going to become a tag for future posts regarding the right wing cocoon they have all ensconced themselves in.
The best answer to the question was this....
They seem to be the kind of people who are taught from a very early age not to trust authority figures. Of course, the funny thing is, it’s always authority figures that tell them this, but it they won’t see that disconnect or even think about the double standard. The intellectual, people with “book smarts” (“Ever met someone who was so smart they were stupid?” is a favorite tag line), are just as dangerous as “niggers and Jews”, even more so, because “they look like us”. Since they are so smart, they must be using them smarts to “get over on us”. Why do they believe that? Because it’s what they would do if they were smart!
I have had to do a little self analysis to understand this phenomenon. Back in the 7os, there was a rumor going around that Ray Kroc, head of McDonalds, tithed to the Church of Satan. Here is how I fell into the pit of repeating it:
It originated at church. I do not recall that it was started or spread by a pastor, but it was in the church environment that I heard it. I was a naive, devout 16–17 year old who thought that all the people who went to our church were just as devout and would never lie about something that important…or slanderous. If “so-and-so” said it, it must be true. This was pre-Internet, so there was no way to Google it and very hard to squelch such things.
I also found that when I repeated it to like-minded people, their response was almost universally also acceptance, wide-eyed, “You don’t say!” kind of acceptance. WOW! This FELT GOOD! I experienced a frisson of superiority and authority that I had never felt before. I KNEW a secret, and by repeating it, I was elevated through the ranks to the dizzying heights of “the Aware”. It’s an incredible ego boost. Here we were, ready and prepared to boycott Mickey Dees, and I was in the vanguard, leading the way…with the pitchforks and torches.
Word finally reached the office of the man himself, Ray Kroc, and I just so happened to read the paper containing his response. It was pitiful; the gist of it was, “Look, I don’t know where or how this rumor got started, but it’s not true! I’m a Presbyterian for cryin’ out loud!” (may have been Catholic or Episcopal or somesuch). I don’t wish to pat myself on the back, especially after admitting to be one of the purveyors of the vicious rumor, but I differ from the Trump-type conspiracy theorist in my ultimate response. I felt sick. I had slandered a perfectly innocent man, and for what? Christian virtue? An ego boost? A game? Pure gossip, which is wrong even if true if the intent is to hurt (unless it is public knowledge).
I wish someone had had the courage to ask a simple question from the beginning: “How do you know this is true? Are you really willing to potentially damage a person’s reputation based upon such an unfounded accusation?” I might not have taken part, especially since I was young and teachable, in spreading the rumor. As it was, I learned my lesson and learned it well. NO, I am not willing to risk ruining a person’s reputation with unfounded and scurrilous rumors. I refuse to “follow the crowd in doing evil” (“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.” Exodus 23:12) If anyone wants me to believe something, they damn well better have evidence to back it up.
Amazing...if only more people inside the bubble of self referential confirmation had such a high level of reflective ability...
The problem with authority thing is also important to note. It's like they never got over...BEING AN ADOLESCENT.
Thursday, October 06, 2016
Offshoring to India Results in Massive Fraud
For the last 20 years American companies have been offshoring their call center operations to India, Asia, Ireland and even Jamaica. Here's the result:
Computer savvy criminals posing as Internal Revenue Service officers at call centers in India may have bilked unsuspecting Americans out of millions, police in India said Thursday.How many times have you gotten one of those scam calls from "Microsoft Windows" to help you get rid of viruses on your computer?
Police in Mumbai conducted a dramatic midnight raid at a call center in the country’s commercial capital of Mumbai on Tuesday, and detained 770 employees for questioning, of which 70 were later charged with fraud, wrongful impersonation and violating the country’s internet safety law.
The call centers were making more than $150,000 a day through these scams that took place for a little over a year, police said.
The callers told their American victims they were conducting a “tax revision” or that they had defaulted on payments to the IRS and would then obtain their personal finance information and withdraw money from their bank accounts, according to Param Bir Singh, a senior police officer in Mumbai who led the raid.
Meanwhile, in another call center in the suburb of New Delhi, police say workers allegedly duped thousands of American citizens by offering to remove a virus from their computers. On Sunday, police in Noida arrested six people for running a call center that sold insurance to Indians by day, but by night, also allegedly duped American consumers with fake offers of tech support to correct malware and viruses.Numerous American banks, including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, have moved their call centers to India and the Philippines. These call center employees make peanuts, and they have total access to their customers' most sensitive financial information.
American companies have unwittingly provided criminals in foreign countries with
the office space, hardware, training and information to defraud American citizens.
Wells Fargo is undergoing a PR crisis because their American employees committed fraud on a massive scale as a result of unreasonable quotas placed on them. They are opening their customers up to even worse kinds of fraud and identity theft by putting their call centers in third world countries, where poorly paid call center employees come and go without any kind of background checks.How safe are these call centers from attacks by Russian and Chinese hackers? Or someone just walking in and using the computer of someone who went to the bathroom?
The president of the Philippines has been on an anti-American rampage for the last month, comparing himself to Hitler and threatening to cut military ties to the United States. This man controls the Internet infrastructure that connects Philippine call centers to bank databases in the United States. Do you trust Rodrigo Duterte with your financial data?
As Wells Fargo has shown, American employees are not angels. Wells Fargo management was in the same building where agents were creating fake accounts for customers, racking up billions in phony fees. But with call centers in foreign countries, management has no control over what happens to their customers' information.
I'm not an isolationist. If companies want to put tech support in India and Jamaica, that's fine. But putting all our financial data on the Internet in foreign countries seems extremely unwise: the US government has no jurisdiction over what goes on there; we're totally dependent on foreign governments to find and prosecute the people stealing our information.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. It has the potential to be blow up even bigger than the Great Recession.
The FBI Vets CIA Analysts and Cabinet and Court Nominees: Why Not Presidential Candidates?
An opinion piece in the Times notes that in both the Obama and Bush administrations cabinet and court nominees were required to divulge their tax returns:
In both the Bush and Obama administrations, a bad attitude about paying taxes was a deal killer. Both of us saw instances of nominations that were doomed by the arguably legal but unsavory use of tax loopholes, as well as by the failure to pay Social Security taxes, the taking of excessive deductions for home offices or the sidestepping of sales taxes on out-of-state purchases. Explaining to the Senate and to the American people how a billionaire could have a $916 million “loss carry-forward” that potentially allowed him to not pay taxes for over a decade, perhaps for as long as 18 years, would have been far too difficult for the White House when many hard-working Americans turn a third or more of their earnings over to the government.Furthermore, most nominees -- especially those nominated to sensitive national security positions -- are vetted by the FBI to make sure they don't have any serious conflicts of interests or skeletons in the closet that could be used to blackmail the nominee once in office.
When I was a senior in college I briefly considered working for the CIA because of my language background (my sister- and brother-in-law had long careers as translators there). One of the strangest questions on the application was, "Have you ever used heroin?" It seemed crazy that they'd ask this on a form, because it seems to be automatically disqualifying. Who would tell the truth?
But it isn't a deal-breaker. Since they do a background check, they're likely to find out if you're lying. When you tell the truth you get credit for not being deceptive: if your positive assets outweigh the negatives of your drug history, they'll still hire you.
The FBI does extensive background checks on cabinet and court appointees, but also deputy positions in executive departments, NSA analysts, and even low-level translators working for the CIA. CIA applicants are submitted to polygraph tests during their interview, and regularly during their course of employment (my brother-in-law says he always failed his polygraph, but he's still contracting back to the CIA).
Yet we don't thoroughly check out all presidential candidates. This person will have access to the most sensitive information there is, including the nuclear codes. You'd think the FBI should get involved here.
One of the candidates, in fact, has already been thoroughly vetted by the FBI. And Congress. Multiple times. All investigations, even the ones conducted by the most partisan hacks, found there were no crimes were committed. Yes, she's made some mistakes but she has copped to them.
In an interesting development Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security director under George W. Bush, has endorsed Hillary Clinton. This is odd not just because Chertoff is a Republican, but because he was the special counsel in the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons in the 1990s. As senator Clinton voted against Chertoff for positions that required Senate approval.
And yet Chertoff has endorsed Clinton for president. The guy who looked through all Clinton's dirty laundry still thinks she should be president.
The other candidate is constantly deceptive: Donald Trump routinely denies saying things that have been recorded on video and replayed on television over and over. He flatly lies about everything.
He has known ties to the Russian mob, East Coast organized crime, and Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. He broke the Cuban embargo. He illegally hired aliens for his modeling agency. He abuses the H1B visa program, giving hotel jobs to foreigners instead of Americans. He refuses to release his tax returns, which are essential to determine if he has any disqualifying conflicts of interests -- like, say, being in hock to a foreign bank for half a billion dollars.
Donald Trump even pleaded the Fifth 97 times during his divorce proceedings.
It's clear that the CIA would never someone with Donald Trump's resume and his propensity for blatant deception. Just ask Michael Chertoff, the guy who the director of the CIA reported to: he wouldn't hire Trump.
Why should the person the Homeland Security director reports to be held to a lesser standard than the lowest level employee in the agency?
Wednesday, October 05, 2016
Pence Isn't Running as VP: He's Running for President in 2020 -- or Sooner
The general consensus is that Pence won the recent vice presidential debate by not defending Donald Trump. And Trump was not happy, according to several reports. Trump is notorious for surrounding himself with incompetent sycophants because he doesn't want to be outshined by people who are smarter than he is. Pence is clearly smarter than Trump, and Trump can't abide that.
Matt Yglesias at Vox baldly states that Pence threw Trump under the bus. The Daily Beast says Pence ditched Trump and the debate was the beginning of his 2020 presidential run. That's assuming that Trump loses, which seems more and more likely based on his performance in recent weeks.
But the question is, why did Pence ever agree to run with Trump in the first place? Won't his association with this immoral, unethical, incompetent, tax-dodging, misogynistic corrupt businessman, bigot and serial adulterer tar his image?
It might, if Pence got too close to Trump. And the debate showed Pence has no intention of defending Trump. Pence contradicts Trump all the time on the campaign trail. He only half-heartedly defends Trump's nonsense, or just laughs it off. He accepted the VP nomination to give rank and file Republicans a reason to vote for the Republican ticket.
When Trump loses, Pence can claim to be a hero for sticking by the party from the get-go, while guys like Ted Cruz blustered and whined with wounded pride, then hemmed and hawed before finally caving in and sucking up to Trump.
On the off chance that Trump wins, however, it still wouldn't be too bad: Pence will still only be 65 in 8 years. The problem, though, is that as VP he will run the risk of inheriting all Trump's baggage. And there would be a lot of it. After eight years Pence would be an ineffective nobody, because Trump won't trust him with anything that might upstage The Donald.
But perhaps Pence's plans are shorter term than that. It's extremely likely that some scandal from Trump's past will emerge soon after the election: it might be the Trump University lawsuit, the Trump Foundation bribery scandals, Trump's connections to the mafia, Trump's connections to Russia, some childish Trump meltdown during a public appearance, backroom deals with Deutsche Bank to settle his half-billion dollar debt, some colossal blunder in the Middle East, an affair in the Oval Office, ordering troops to commit war crimes, some crazy unconstitutional power grab, or a coverup of one embarrassing thing or another -- it's the coverup that always gets you.
Or Bluto -- uh, Trump -- could die of a heart attack, choke to death inhaling a Big Mac. Don't laugh, it can happen: W choked on a pretzel and fainted.
Because so many Republicans absolutely despise Trump, even a small scandal would rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Trump could be impeached by his own party in order to install Mike Pence, a real Republican, as president.
Trump knows that Pence and the entire Republican establishment would be standing behind him with daggers drawn. The entire congressional leadership would be love to see Trump crash and burn: they could finally get Ted Cruz to agree to something.
Trump thinks his celebrity status and Twitter followers would insulate him from Republican backstabbing: the wrath of "the people" would stop Republicans from betraying him.
He would be wrong. By the time the Republicans impeach Trump the American people would have tired of his antics: Americans have a short attention span, and Trump would no longer be novel. His constant whining and excuses will turn even his strongest supporters against him, because he'll be the establishment, and he'll have to do establishment things, and they'll be pissed that Trump broke all his promises in order to achieve whatever self-dealing scandal led to his impeachment.
In the end, Trump -- who always bills himself as the outsider -- would still be the outsider, all alone in Washington, with only his kids and his wife on his side. The "establishment" in Congress would hold his fate in their hands, and after all the abuse Trump has heaped upon them, they wouldn't be kind to him.
In the backs of their minds, many Republicans are probably thinking, "I'll vote for Trump so that Pence can become president. Because there's always the Second Amendment solution."
Matt Yglesias at Vox baldly states that Pence threw Trump under the bus. The Daily Beast says Pence ditched Trump and the debate was the beginning of his 2020 presidential run. That's assuming that Trump loses, which seems more and more likely based on his performance in recent weeks.
But the question is, why did Pence ever agree to run with Trump in the first place? Won't his association with this immoral, unethical, incompetent, tax-dodging, misogynistic corrupt businessman, bigot and serial adulterer tar his image?
It might, if Pence got too close to Trump. And the debate showed Pence has no intention of defending Trump. Pence contradicts Trump all the time on the campaign trail. He only half-heartedly defends Trump's nonsense, or just laughs it off. He accepted the VP nomination to give rank and file Republicans a reason to vote for the Republican ticket.
When Trump loses, Pence can claim to be a hero for sticking by the party from the get-go, while guys like Ted Cruz blustered and whined with wounded pride, then hemmed and hawed before finally caving in and sucking up to Trump.
On the off chance that Trump wins, however, it still wouldn't be too bad: Pence will still only be 65 in 8 years. The problem, though, is that as VP he will run the risk of inheriting all Trump's baggage. And there would be a lot of it. After eight years Pence would be an ineffective nobody, because Trump won't trust him with anything that might upstage The Donald.
But perhaps Pence's plans are shorter term than that. It's extremely likely that some scandal from Trump's past will emerge soon after the election: it might be the Trump University lawsuit, the Trump Foundation bribery scandals, Trump's connections to the mafia, Trump's connections to Russia, some childish Trump meltdown during a public appearance, backroom deals with Deutsche Bank to settle his half-billion dollar debt, some colossal blunder in the Middle East, an affair in the Oval Office, ordering troops to commit war crimes, some crazy unconstitutional power grab, or a coverup of one embarrassing thing or another -- it's the coverup that always gets you.
Or Bluto -- uh, Trump -- could die of a heart attack, choke to death inhaling a Big Mac. Don't laugh, it can happen: W choked on a pretzel and fainted.
Because so many Republicans absolutely despise Trump, even a small scandal would rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Trump could be impeached by his own party in order to install Mike Pence, a real Republican, as president.
Trump knows that Pence and the entire Republican establishment would be standing behind him with daggers drawn. The entire congressional leadership would be love to see Trump crash and burn: they could finally get Ted Cruz to agree to something.
Trump thinks his celebrity status and Twitter followers would insulate him from Republican backstabbing: the wrath of "the people" would stop Republicans from betraying him.
He would be wrong. By the time the Republicans impeach Trump the American people would have tired of his antics: Americans have a short attention span, and Trump would no longer be novel. His constant whining and excuses will turn even his strongest supporters against him, because he'll be the establishment, and he'll have to do establishment things, and they'll be pissed that Trump broke all his promises in order to achieve whatever self-dealing scandal led to his impeachment.
In the end, Trump -- who always bills himself as the outsider -- would still be the outsider, all alone in Washington, with only his kids and his wife on his side. The "establishment" in Congress would hold his fate in their hands, and after all the abuse Trump has heaped upon them, they wouldn't be kind to him.
In the backs of their minds, many Republicans are probably thinking, "I'll vote for Trump so that Pence can become president. Because there's always the Second Amendment solution."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)