Pages

Thursday, February 29, 2024

George Clooney's Message to Donald Trump

Trump called George Clooney an "elitist," and Clooney fired back:

Here is George Clooney’s response after Trump accused him of being a "Hollywood elite":

"Here’s the thing: I grew up in Kentucky. I sold insurance door-to-door. I sold ladies’ shoes. I worked at an all-night liquor store. I would buy suits that were too big and too long and cut the bottom of the pants off to make ties so I’d have a tie to go on job interviews. I grew up understanding what it was like to not have health insurance for eight years. 

So this idea that I’m somehow the “Hollywood elite” and this guy who takes a shit in a gold toilet is somehow the man of the people is laughable. People in Hollywood, for the most part, are people from the Midwest who moved to Hollywood to have a career. So this idea of “coastal elites” living in a bubble is ridiculous. Who lives in a bigger bubble?

He lives in a gold tower and has twelve people in his company. He doesn’t run a corporation of hundreds of thousands of people he employs and takes care of. He ran a company of twelve people! When you direct a film you have seven different unions all wanting different things, you have to find consensus with all of them, and you have to get them moving in the same direction. He’s never had to do any of that kind of stuff. 

I just look at it and I laugh when I see him say “Hollywood elite.” Hollywood elite? I don’t have a star on Hollywood Boulevard, Donald Trump has a star on Hollywood Boulevard! Fuck you!" 

- George Clooney: actor, philanthropist, humanitarian, and activist

Farewell, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. You won't damage the country anymore.

Click here for Robert Reich's take on Mitch McConnell's announcement that he will step down from his position as leader of the Republican party (although he will remain in the Senate) in November, following the elections.

McConnell has done incalculable damage to the United States.

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Viktor Yanukovych, Paul Manafort, Oleg Deripaska, Konstantin Kilimnik - bad memories from 10 years ago

Click here for Heather Cox Richardson's entry in her blog, Letters From an American, on February 17, 2024. It's ten years since Ukrainians occupied government buildings and marched on parliament to remove Russian-backed president Viktor Yanukovych from office. 

After the escalating violence resulted in many civilian casualties, Yanukovych fled to Russia, and the Maidan Revolution, also known as the Revolution of Dignity, returned power to Ukraine’s constitution.

Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk - Worse than the Robber Barons of the First Gilded Age (we're now in the Second)

Click here for a Robert Reich article on Substack; Bezos and Musk have always been anti-union and have fought the attempted unionization of their companies for years. But now they have both filed lawsuits trying to strike down the 1935 National Labor Relations Act — the Act that legitimized labor unions. If they succeed, the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board), the agency that enforces the NLRA, would be deemed unconstitutional.

They want the Supreme Court to reverse its 1937 ruling and return America to a time before workers had the right to form unions. Reich says:

Evidently, they believe that today’s Supreme Court — packed with right-wing justices who have few scruples about reversing long-held judicial precedents or even taking money from wealthy people with a financial interest in how they rule — will find their argument compelling.

I hope they’re wrong.

 

Saturday, February 24, 2024

The trouble with America

The following is an answer, by Andrew T. Post, who describes himself as a "registered Libertarian,"to the following question:

My first reaction was simply disgust: What's wrong with these people? I downvoted it -- which I've done only two or three times in my entire experience reading Quora for nearly ten years -- and then deleted it. Then, over a period of hours, I had second thoughts; I fished it out of my "Deleted" folder, and here it is.

What I was thinking over that period was: This is frightening. I bet there are not millions, but even tens of millions, of people who think this way. And their thinking is the result of profound ignorance.

Reagan's inaugural address in 1980 contained the following phrase: "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." (Here's a link to Ronald Reagan's inaugural address, January 20, 1081.) That's a statement that shallow thinkers love; they think it's profound. And it illustrates not the entire problem, but a significant part of it.

What is government? "We the people" -- another phrase that shallow thinkers love to parrot -- are a society. The United States has a population estimated in February 2024 to be about 336,000,000 people. How on earth can this unimaginably large number of individuals be brought together to work for the common good of society?

The sad answer is that it can't. The number is too huge; the interests of all those people are too diverse and cannot possibly be unified. So government is only -- and can only be -- a compromise. 

Over millennia, societies have grappled with the problem of how best to govern themselves. It's a perpetual struggle between ideologies -- people with differing visions of how society should be governed. We face that problem today, and it's a problem that will never be solved; it's a back-and-forth struggle which will always be present.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” That quotation is often attributed to Churchill, and he said something very like it in the House of Commons in 1947, but he was quoting an unknown predecessor. Democracy is messy and it's cumbersome, unlike autocracies, which can turn on a dime on a whim of the dear leader.

Anyway, here's Mr. Post's answer to the question:

 was quoting an unknown predecessor
but he was quoting an unknown predecessor

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

Erstwhile conservative here.

I want you to try to imagine something:

Imagine that, for your entire life—or at least a significant chunk of it—the people who run for high office in your country have been, essentially, carbon copies of each other.

You’ve quit watching presidential debates, because there’s no point. You already know what everyone will say. The candidates are just talking heads. Zombies. Robots. They don’t give straight answers to moderators’ questions. They dodge, they prevaricate, they bring every conversation back to themselves and their pet issues. Their statements are a meaningless mishmash of buzzwords carefully calculated to appeal to their base and avoid offending anyone. And at the end of the day, they’re all the same: career politicians who just want your vote and the status quo to continue.

You are desperate for a candidate who’s different. Who says what’s on his mind, consequences and image be damned. Who promises to make real change, clearly means it, and isn’t just saying what he thinks you want to hear. Who is, in other words, not a member of the establishment, that shadowy political class currently running the country and driving it deeper and deeper into debt and chaos. In fact, he’s someone who will fight them and stick it to them, horrify and disgust them. (Them and their useful idiots, the woke progressives, who claim to stand for justice but in fact support tyranny and injustice.)

For such a person, you’d be willing to overlook almost any flaw.

And so it was with Donald Trump. People who only consider the man’s personality and character without really understanding what he represented (and still represents) to the American people are missing the key aspect of his appeal. The 2016 American presidential election wasn’t just Trump vs. Clinton. It was self-made man vs. professional thief. Private businessman vs. corrupt corporatist politician. Dark horse vs. reigning champion. Scrappy underdog vs. galactic overlord. Outsider vs. insider. Anti-establishment vs. establishment. The disenfranchised vs. the enfranchised. The real America vs. the privileged coastal political elite.

Get the idea, now?

The American political arena is chock-full of smarmy, slimy, wishy-washy politicos who speak in sound bites and talk a big game but never deliver. It doesn’t need any more. What it needs is more Archie Bunkers—assertive, unvarnished, politically incorrect types who care less about their positions and more about fixing what’s wrong with the country.

When the hero you’ve waited for your entire life finally comes along, you don’t turn your nose up at his hairdo or his spray-tan or his ego-stroking. You load him into the barrel of a gun and fire him at the enemies of the American people.

Let's break that down.

"The people who run for high office in your country have been, essentially, carbon copies of each other."

That's complete nonsense: To say that Bernie Sanders is a carbon copy of Ted Cruz is ludicrous.

"You’ve quit watching presidential debates, because there’s no point. You already know what everyone will say. The candidates are just talking heads. Zombies. Robots. They don’t give straight answers to moderators’ questions. They dodge, they prevaricate, they bring every conversation back to themselves and their pet issues. Their statements are a meaningless mishmash of buzzwords carefully calculated to appeal to their base and avoid offending anyone."

Agreed -- to a point. That's not entirely true, but it's definitely true in a lot of cases, and it's very frustrating. But where Mr. Post goes wrong is in his next sentence: "And at the end of the day, they’re all the same: career politicians who just want your vote and the status quo to continue." And that is very far from true.

Yes, they're all "career politicians," a phrase which is treated with contempt by people who don't know any better. If I get to choose the pilot of my plane, I want a "career pilot." I want my doctor to be a "career doctor." Get the point? I want someone knowledgeable and trained in the field, not some angry dilettante who thinks the world is flat or that the best medicine is the application of poultices and leeches. And while some politicians do indeed want the status quo to continue, others most decidedly do not, and they fight against it every day.

I can't tell you how many times, reacting to the news of some corruption or dishonesty by a particular politician, I've heard someone say "Politicians are all the same." They're not! And that's the core of the problem. People have to learn to realize which are the bad ones and root them out.

"You are desperate for a candidate who’s different. Who says what’s on his mind, consequences and image be damned. Who promises to make real change, clearly means it, and isn’t just saying what he thinks you want to hear." Well, that has its attractions, though perhaps a bomb-thrower who just wants to burn down the existing system without constructive ideas about how to replace it is not the best choice. And if you think Trump matches that description, you're way off the track: He's an empty vessel, totally without principle, who believes in nothing and will take any position today he thinks will benefit him in the short run, even if he expressed the opposite position last week. He was a Democrat most of his life, and expressed ideas such as support for abortion rights -- completely contrary to what he now claims to be his beliefs. He saw a fractured Republican party after the George W. Bush debacle, the 2008 economic meltdown, and an angry Tea Party, and he knew that he would have no chance to succeed in the Democratic party; opportunist that he is, he chose a badly injured Republican party as his vehicle to con the people into voting for him.

"Who is, in other words, not a member of the establishment, that shadowy political class currently running the country and driving it deeper and deeper into debt and chaos." Again, a glib misrepresentation: "the establishment" is a phrase treated with contempt by the uninformed, and it's a consequence of the widespread belief I referred to earlier, that "all politicians are the same." They're not, and it's lazy and dangerous to claim that they are. And "deeper into debt and chaos"? You realize Trump increased the national debt by $7.8 trillion with his huge tax cut for the rich, right? And believe me, if you don't want chaos, you'd better stay far away from Trump.

"In fact, he’s someone who will fight them and stick it to them, horrify and disgust them." Yes, I'm sure that's what a lot of uninformed people think, and it horrifies me to watch the glee that they express when political leaders express their hatred for the right people -- that is, the people that Mr. Post, and people like him, hate. I hear time and again, "He's saying what we're all thinking!" Yes, he's expressing the racist, bigoted feelings that you have but until now have had to suppress; now that the leader of a "legitimate" political party (it used to be, but it isn't anymore) is saying and doing these things, that gives you the license to say and do them yourself. In many cases their objective seems not to be to introduce good legislation, but simply to "own the libs"; if you've made the liberals cry, you must be doing the right thing. That's not only cruel, it's ignorant.

"(Them and their useful idiots, the woke progressives, who claim to stand for justice but in fact support tyranny and injustice.)" I'll leave that one alone. I'm a progressive (from what you've already read, does that come as a surprise?), and I think that a long list of politicians -- Bernie Sanders, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown; I could go on and on -- are fighting every day for a more fair and just society. Mr. Post apparently disagrees.

"For such a person, you’d be willing to overlook almost any flaw." Boy howdy, how true that is. Choosing Trump as your champion, you've overlooked not one flaw, but a multitude. I honestly can't think of a good personal quality that man possesses.

"The 2016 American presidential election wasn’t just Trump vs. Clinton. It was self-made man vs. professional thief. Private businessman vs. corrupt corporatist politician. Dark horse vs. reigning champion. Scrappy underdog vs. galactic overlord. Outsider vs. insider. Anti-establishment vs. establishment. The disenfranchised vs. the enfranchised. The real America vs. the privileged coastal political elite." 

There's the core of Mr. Post's argument -- a colorful list of positive/negative stereotypes which are far from the truth, but have been presented as an image by a skilled, charismatic con man who is dishonest to the core. (Honestly, I use the term "charismatic con man" with some reluctance -- I have found him to be a shallow, disgusting person since he was tabloid fodder in the '90s, and when he entered politics he didn't "con" me for ten seconds.) You do realize "The Apprentice" was scripted to portray Donald Trump as all-wise and all-powerful, right? He's actually the opposite -- he inherited his wealth, nearly lost it all with his bad business decisions, and was resurrected by a phony "reality" TV show.

"The American political arena is chock-full of smarmy, slimy, wishy-washy politicos who speak in sound bites and talk a big game but never deliver. It doesn’t need any more." I get your point there, Mr. Post; there are people like that -- a lot of them. But your solution -- "What it needs is more Archie Bunkers -- assertive, unvarnished, politically incorrect types who care less about their positions and more about fixing what’s wrong with the country" -- is entirely wrong. What the country needs is to pay attention to what's happening in Washington; to identify the "smarmy, slimy, wishy-washy politicos" and GET RID OF THEM! Vote them out! Your generalization that all politicians are like that is wrong, wrong, wrong, and voters need to be educated to discern which are the politicians who are wrong for the job and replace them.

"When the hero you’ve waited for your entire life finally comes along" -- I'm very sorry that you've been deluded into thinking that this disgusting lowlife con man -- who believes in nothing and is the absolute epitome of the type of politician you claim to despise -- someone lazy, vain, and utterly dishonest -- is the hero you've waited for your entire life. That's sad. I recently read that when an acquaintance called Trump out for cheating at golf, he replied "I cheat on my taxes, I cheat on my wives, I cheat at golf. Get over it." You have to take these stories with a grain of salt, but it's true that he cheats, and he sees cheating as a virtue: Everyone else is cheating, so if you don't cheat too, you're a sucker. This is who you want to lead the country?

Finally, "you don’t turn your nose up at his hairdo or his spray-tan or his ego-stroking. You load him into the barrel of a gun and fire him at the enemies of the American people." Do you really think that people oppose Donald Trump because of his hairdo or his spray-tan or his ego-stroking? Far from it. They mock those things, it's true -- but their opposition is based in their assessment of Trump as a man and as a leader. He is a despicable human being, and he should never again be allowed to hold any position of leadership.

And "the enemies of the American people" are not the people you think they are, and they're not the people Trump has named as such -- the mainstream media, who work hard to dig out the truth; they're a main difference between a free society and a repressive regime such as exists in Russia, China, or North Korea, where reporters are jailed or murdered. No, the enemies of the people are the "slimy, wishy-washy politicos" you complain of. Learn who those people are and get rid of them.

And that's the problem with America: glib, shallow, uninformed people like Mr. Post -- tens of millions of them. They don't think for themselves, and they're easy prey for a con man. I thank my stars every day that Donald Trump is as stupid as a box of rocks -- if he was smart, the country and the world would be facing a far bigger problem.


 

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, February 23, 2024

Hey! That's My Hat!

Thursday, February 22, 2024

Install an AI Chatbot on your computer -- no Internet required

Click here for an article at How-To Geek, by Nick Lewis, entitled "Run Your Own AI Chatbot at Home Using NVIDIA Chat With RTX." It says:

It's a lot like ChatGPT, except it runs locally on your own PC, with no need for an Internet connection. It is fast, efficient, and can even learn from documents you provide or YouTube videos. Here's how to get it running on your PC. 

You have to download and install the files from NVIDIA. Requirements:

  • A 30 series or 40 series RTX (NVIDIA) graphics card with at least 8GB of RAM
  • About 50 gigabytes of free storage space
  • 16GB of system RAM
  • A Windows 10 or Windows 11 PC 
A problem that seems to be inherent with AI chatbots:

Chat with RTX, regardless of which model you use, has the same problem that all AI Chatbots do: it hallucinates. If it doesn't know something, it will usually confidently declare an answer anyway.

When given the prompt "Who is John Wayne," Chat with RTX happily told me when he was born and when he died, what genre he was known for, and his iconic roles in "The Duke of Hazzard," "True Grit," and "Read Dead Outlaw."

Republican Impeachment Efforts Against Joe Biden -- Collapse

Click here for the Heather Cox Richardson entry in her blog, "Letters from an American," for February 21.

It's a good explanation of what is known so far about what looks like the collapse of the Republican effort to impeach Joe Biden. The whole thing has been based on lies and conspiracy theories. The centerpiece of the Republican charges was the statements made by what they called "a trusted and highly credible witness" accusing Hunter and Joe Biden of accepting bribes. That witness, Alexander Smirnov, has been thoroughly discredited and has now been charged with lying to the FBI and making false statements about the Bidens with the intent to harm them and help Trump. Click here for a Forbes article entitled "Who Is Alexander Smirnov? FBI Informant Helped Spark Biden Impeachment Probe—And Could End It."

Furthermore, HCR says:

Meanwhile, that belief [that the Republicans are right] has now overlapped with the evangelical base that supports what it considers traditional values so that, as Alexander Ward and Heidi Przybyla outlined in Politico yesterday, the party is now advancing plans to impose Christian nationalism on the country. Leaders of the Christian nationalist movement incorrectly believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, so they intend to rest the government and public life on what they consider to be Christian values. 

In December, Trump promised: “Upon taking office, I will create a new federal task force on fighting anti-Christian bias to be led by a fully reformed Department of Justice.”

American Taliban.


 

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Me neither!

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Here's a ChatGPT summary of a Helen Cox Richards article on Substack, February 19, 2024; click here to read the entire article:

The historical context provided in the passage outlines a significant period of discrimination and injustice against various ethnic groups in the United States, particularly Asian Americans, during the early to mid-20th century. Here's a breakdown of the key events and themes:

  1. Executive Order 9066 (1942):

    • Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II.
    • Authorized the forced relocation and internment of around 125,000 Japanese Americans, including both citizens and non-citizens, into internment camps.
  2. Legal Precedents:

    • The Supreme Court cases of United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) and Ozawa v. United States (1922) highlighted the exclusionary nature of citizenship laws at the time. Asian immigrants, including Indians and Japanese, were denied citizenship based on interpretations of race and ethnicity.
  3. Discriminatory Laws:

    • The 1790 Naturalization Act restricted citizenship to "free white persons," excluding Asian immigrants.
    • Subsequent legislation, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907, further limited immigration from Asia and imposed discriminatory practices.
  4. Internment Camps:

    • Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II, despite many being citizens.
    • The internment was based on racial prejudice and unfounded fears of Japanese Americans being potential spies or threats to national security.
  5. Post-World War II Changes:

    • The Chinese exclusion laws were overturned in 1943, and in 1946, natives of India became eligible for U.S. citizenship.
    • Japanese immigrants gained the right to become U.S. citizens in 1952, and the last Japanese internment camp closed in 1946.
  6. Repeal of Executive Order 9066:

    • In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford officially repealed Executive Order 9066, acknowledging it as a "setback to fundamental American principles."
    • Ford emphasized the loyalty of Japanese Americans and urged the nation to learn from the mistakes of the past to ensure such actions are not repeated.
  7. Contemporary Issues:

    • The passage also discusses contemporary concerns about immigration policies, including proposals to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and establish internment camps.
    • It references promises made by former President Donald Trump and his advisor Stephen Miller to conduct large-scale deportations and potentially use internment camps for this purpose.

Overall, the passage underscores a dark chapter in American history marked by racial discrimination, unjust policies, and the violation of civil liberties, while also highlighting the importance of learning from past mistakes to prevent their recurrence.

User
Summarize the above article in 150-300 words.
ChatGPT

The passage recounts the history of racial discrimination against Asian Americans in the United States, focusing on key events such as Executive Order 9066 during World War II, which led to the forced internment of Japanese Americans. It highlights legal precedents like the United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind and Ozawa v. United States cases, which denied citizenship to Asian immigrants based on racial criteria. Discriminatory laws, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, further marginalized Asian communities. Post-World War II saw some positive changes, including the overturning of Chinese exclusion laws and granting citizenship eligibility to Indians and Japanese immigrants. However, issues persisted, with concerns raised about contemporary immigration policies, including proposals for mass deportations and the establishment of internment camps. The article emphasizes the importance of acknowledging past injustices, learning from them, and committing to upholding principles of liberty and justice for all individuals.

The Sad Downward Spiral of Texas, from Ann Richards to Greg Abbott

Click here for an article by Mark McKinnon (the guy who insists on wearing the goofy hat) in Vanity Fair entitled "How did Texas Slip Into the MAGA Abyss?:

McKinnon describes himself as a progressive Democrat who moved to Texas in the '70, when Texas was "Big, bold, confident, entrepreneurial, friendly, fierce, independent." He gradually became more conservative, and went from working with the great liberal Texas governor Ann Richards to working for W. 

A fan of W's "compassionate conservatism," McKinnon says he saw the political atmosphere in Texas change:

You can trace the evolution of Texas Republican politics from the days of compassionate conservatism, to the tea party, to MAGA extremists; from George W. Bush and Senator John Cornyn, to Governor Rick Perry and Senator Ted Cruz, to Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. From bighearted to coldhearted to heartless.

MAGA extremism is exemplified by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton; McKinnon excoriates Paxton, and says:

Texas has changed its brand of conservatism from compassionate to downright cruel. Ban books, immigrants, and abortion. Everything but guns. Need more of those.

Thomas Mellon -- His Dynasty Still Plagues Us Today

Click here for an excellent article at Substack by Robert Reich entitled "The poster child for the perils of dynastic wealth," subtitled "Four generations of Mellons are now bankrolling Trump."

 A major financial backer of Trump is -- Andrew Mellon? Treasury secretary for Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover? Well, no, but Mellon's grandson, Timothy Mellon.

As treasury secretary, Andrew changed the U.S. tax code in ways that made it possible for Timothy to donate $20 million to Trump's MAGA super PAC; $30 million to the House Republicans' super PAC; $15 million to RFK Jr.'s super PAC -- Kennedy's candidacy is important to Republicans to siphon off votes from Biden -- and nearly all of the $54 million in donations to Texas Governor Greg Abbott's border wall fund. 

Forbes estimated Timothy Mellon to be worth almost $1 billion in 2014, and in 2024, the magazine estimated the Mellon family was worth $14.1 billion.

Andrew held the position [of treasury secretary] for the next 11 years, from 1921 to 1932 — longer than anyone in the history of the country (or as Nebraska Senator George Norris once acidly put it, “three presidents served under Mellon”). 

Thanks, Andrew.

Andrew's father, Thomas Mellon, successful lawyer and judge and originator of the Mellon family dynasty, started a bank in Pittsburgh in 1869 which attracted the deposits of robber barons like Andrew Carnegie and Henry Frick, and within a relatively short time it became the largest private bank between New York and Chicago.

Thomas viewed the acquisition of wealth as a mark of merit and poverty as a failure of character. Thomas wrote in his autobiography that voting rights were responsible for many of society’s ills, driving higher spending, borrowing, and taxes.

After the Civil War, Thomas toured the South, where he was disgusted to see Louisiana’s Legislature captured by what he called “stolid, stupid, rude and awkward field negroes, lolling on the seats or crunching peanuts.” He wrote that these representatives were puppets of white Northerners who were using “corrupt schemes to rob the property owners and taxpayers.”

Reich concludes his article:

Like his forebears (and like Donald Trump), Timothy Mellon rages against only handouts that go to those born without silver spoons. In his self-published 2015 autobiography, Timothy argued that expanded social programs have only made Black people “even more belligerent.”

“For delivering their votes in the Federal Elections, they are awarded with yet more and more freebies: food stamps, cell phones, WIC payments, Obamacare, and on, and on, and on. The largess is funded by the hardworking folks, fewer and fewer in number, who are too honest or too proud to allow themselves to sink into this morass.”

Timothy Mellon — and the tens of millions he is shelling out to Trump, RFK Junior, and Republican candidates for the Senate and House — is the product of a tax system pioneered by his grandfather that allows the perpetuation of dynastic wealth and the maintenance of its political power.

The Mellon money trail exemplifies the perils of dynastic wealth — and why we need a wealth tax in America. Or the capital gains tax must be applied to the appreciated value of assets held during someone’s life, before they die and hand them off to their heirs at current market value.

 

 



Wednesday, February 14, 2024

A word from Stuart Stevens

A party led by a rapist that believes it can fix its problem with women by attacking Taylor Swift, with weird little creeps like Mike Johnson as a public face in Congress, that has no serious policy, that has decided to abandon decades of support for freedom in Europe to back a genocidal dictator, a party that is 85% white in a 59% white country, a party that has decided higher education is a gateway drug to Socialism, that believes public health policy should be set by random freaks on the internet and not doctors, a party that is still fighting cultural wars of gender politics the rest of America ended a decade ago, a party that has replaced American optimism with anger and fear of the future.... Is there really any question why this party is losing?

Monday, February 12, 2024

"dedication and character of those we entrust with power" -- oops.

“The fate of our country is not determined by the outcome of elections, but by the dedication and character of those we entrust with power.”

Click here for an article by David Frum at The Atlantic entitled "The Good Republicans' Last Stand," subtitled "Will enough of Trump’s party finally be willing to stick up for Ukraine rather than follow his lead and bow to Russia?" (I was able to read it; I hope you don't find that it's behind The Atlantic's paywall.)

The article discusses a Senate bill -- which may not pass in the Republican House, and which Speaker Mike Johnson might not even bring to the House floor for a vote -- to give aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Frum says:

The immediate stakes are the survival of Ukraine and the credibility of NATO. But behind the crisis of today is a larger crisis of tomorrow: U.S.-led defense of collective security, global trade, and the vitality of democracy as a force in the world.

He concludes:

In the most frigid days of the Cold War, a writer named Allen Drury published a novel set in the Senate about a behind-the-scenes battle to protect the U.S. government against the influences of foreign dictators and domestic demagogues. In the introduction to his 1959 novel, Advise and Consent, Drury offered this promise and warning to readers: “The fate of our country is not determined by the outcome of elections, but by the dedication and character of those we entrust with power.”

The Trump years have revealed so many failures of dedication and character by those who understood what and who Trump was but flinched from opposing him all the same. Will they do better in this fight to stand by Ukraine and send a message to the ex-president who aligns with Moscow against NATO?

Trump is campaigning to return to the presidency on four big promises:

  1. to elevate himself above the law and evade accountability for the many crimes of which he has been accused and indicted, including attempting to overthrow an election by violence;
  2. to round up and deport millions of people;
  3. to impose heavy tariffs across the board and return the country to the protectionist policies that deepened the Great Depression; and
  4. to resign from America’s democratic alliances and replace them with an isolationist foreign policy aligned with the world’s dictatorships.

Will a coalition of progressive Democrats and old-style Republicans be able to stand up to Trump and the MAGA mob and get the bill passed in the House? We'll soon know the answer.

 


Does Canada Give Too Much In Foreign Aid?

 The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), an agency of the United Nations, has set a goal for the world's richest countries that they should donate 0.7% of their gross national income (GNI) to foreign aid. Using figures from 2022, how many countries have met that goal? Five -- and Canada's not among them. A lot of Canadians think Canada gives too much in foreign aid. In fact, Canada only gives about half of that goal amount; 15 countries give more. (The United States is 10 behind Canada, giving 0.22%.)

Canada gave 0.37% in 2022.  The countries who gave more are as follows:

Japan 0.39%
Austria 0.39%
Belgium 0.45%
UK 0.51%
Poland 0.51%
France 0.56%
Switzerland 0.56%
Finland 0.58%
Ireland 0.64%
Netherlands 0.67%
Denmark 0.7%
Germany 0.83%
Norway 0.86%
Sweden 0.9%
Luxembourg 1%

 We're a rich country; we can afford to give generously to poor countries in dire need. Yes, we have segments of our own population who do not have enough -- we should give more to them too. There are other areas of the economic pie that can be trimmed somewhat to make up the relatively small amounts that are needed.

Robert Reich on the Trump/Putin love affair

Click here for a Robert Reich post on Substack titled "Who's Vladimir Putin's best friend in the world?"

The answer, of course is Trump: 

The mainstream media doesn’t seem to want to talk about this, but it’s important that America and the world face what seems increasingly clear: Vladimir Putin’s best friend in the world — the person prepared to allow Putin to mount additional wars of aggression in Europe — is the leading Republican contender for president of the United States, Donald Trump.

He elaborates on Trump's love affair with Putin, tells how Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin serves Putin's interests, and concludes his article:

I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party and its spokesmen were intensely anti-communist, anti-Soviet, and anti-Russian. I remember Republican lawmakers blaming Democrats for allowing Russia to occupy and then defeat the revolution in Hungary, in 1956. I remember Republican lawmakers outraged about Russia’s invasion of Czechoslovakia to crack down on reformist trends in Prague, in 1968.

Now, a Russian president can invade neighboring Ukraine without any provocation —targeting civilian populations, killing and injuring hundreds of thousands — and what do Republican lawmakers do? They refuse to help Ukraine — encouraging Putin’s aggression elsewhere.

Why? Because of Donald Trump’s love affair with Putin, which turns on Putin’s obvious support for Trump in the 2024 election. And Trump’s increasing control over the Republican Party.

 

Une soirée surprenante à Istanbul

J'étais perdu à Istanbul. Eh bien, pas vraiment perdu; je me promenais dans de petites rues pavées sinueuses et je savais que j'étais à l'ouest de la Mosquée Bleue. Je savais que si je me tournais et marchait vers l'est, tôt ou tard je verrais la Mosquée Bleue.

Il était tôt dans la soirée et je commençais à avoir faim. J'ai vu un panneau sandwich sur le trottoir avec un menu de restaurant. Le menu proposait un bon choix à des prix raisonnables. Alors, j'ai ouvert la porte et j'ai réalisé que j'étais au bas d'un long escalier.

J'ai monté les escaliers jusqu'à un palier où il y avait un autre escalier. Quand je suis arrivé en haut, j'avais grimpé une bonne distance. On m'a amené à une table et j'ai commandé un repas complet: soupe, salade, apéritif, plat principal et une demi-bouteille de vin. Tout cela coûte environ $20; c'est très raisonnable.

J'ai pris mon temps pour apprécier mon dîner et quand j'ai eu fini, je n'avais bu qu'un verre de vin; il me restait donc du vin. J'ai remarqué qu'il y avait une terrasse extérieure; alors j'ai demandé au serveur si je pouvais finir mon vin dehors, et il a dit oui.

En m'approchant de la terrasse et en sortant, j'ai réalisé que le restaurant se trouvait au sommet d'une colline avec une vue magnifique sur la Mosquée Bleue, l'un de mes bâtiments préférés au monde.

C'était une belle soirée chaleureuse, et le crépuscule tombait lorsque j'ai levé mon verre de vin, et j'ai entendu quelque chose que l'on entend dans tout le monde musulman-- l'appel à la prière -- venant de la Mosquée Bleue. C'était vraiment un moment magique. C'était très romantique. (Bien sûr, j'étais seul, comme toujours.)

C'est tout. Une soirée surprenante à Istanbul.

Sunday, February 11, 2024

HCR: Trump's Shenanigans and Biden's Diplomacy

Click here for an outstanding article from historian Heather Cox Richardson, her February 10, 2024 "Letters From an American" entry. It's mostly about Ukraine, but also covers numerous Biden accomplishments in foreign affairs. It begins:

A key story that got missed yesterday was that the Senate voted 64–19 to allow a bill that includes $95.34 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan to advance a step forward. In terms of domestic politics, this appears to be an attempt by those who controlled the Republican Party before Trump to push back against Trump and the MAGA Republicans.

Paul Manafort's shady activities in connection with Ukraine have faded from the public consciousness, but he's mentioned here:

Rutenberg showed that in 2016, Russian operatives had presented to Trump advisor and later campaign manager Paul Manafort a plan “for the creation of an autonomous republic in Ukraine’s east, giving Putin effective control of the country’s industrial heartland, where Kremlin-armed, -funded, and -directed ‘separatists’ were waging a two-year-old shadow war that had left nearly 10,000 dead.” 

But they were concerned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) might stand in their way. Formed in 1947 to stand against Soviet expansion and now standing against Russian aggression, NATO is a collective security alliance of 31 states that have agreed to consider an attack on any member to be an attack on all.

In exchange for weakening NATO, undermining the U.S. stance in favor of Ukraine in its attempt to throw off the Russians who had invaded in 2014, and removing U.S. sanctions from Russian entities, Russian operatives were willing to put their finger on the scales to help Trump win the White House.

Fortunately:

President Joe Biden stepped into office more knowledgeable on foreign affairs than any president since Dwight Eisenhower, who took office in 1953. Biden recognized that democracy was on the ropes around the globe as authoritarian leaders set out to dismantle the rules-based international order. He also knew that the greatest strength of the U.S. is its alliances. In the months after he took office, Biden focused on shoring up NATO, with the result that when Russia invaded Ukraine again in February 2022, a NATO coalition held together to support Ukraine.

She concludes:

The fight over U.S. aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the other countries with which we have made partnerships is not about saving money—most of the funds for Ukraine are actually spent in the U.S.—or about protecting the U.S. border, as MAGA Republicans demonstrated when they killed the border security bill. It is about whether the globe will move into the 21st century, with all its threats of climate change, disease, and migration, with ways for nations to cooperate, or whether we will be at the mercy of global authoritarians. 

Trump’s 2024 campaign website calls for “fundamentally reevaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission,” and in a campaign speech in South Carolina today, he made it clear what that means. Trump has long misrepresented the financial obligations of NATO countries, and today he suggested that the U.S. would not protect other NATO countries that were “delinquent” if they were attacked by Russia. “In fact,” he said, “I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.”

 

 


Thursday, February 8, 2024

I Think Tucker's Pretty Popular In Russia ...

HCR on Trump's increasing power in the Republican party

Click here for another particularly good essay by Heather Cox Richardson, today's entry in her "Letters from an Amerian" system on the increasing Trumpification of the Republican party:

Amidst the Republican meltdown in Washington, a disturbing pattern is emerging.

Professor Richardson was referring to the fact that Republicans, who have been baying for increased protection at the southern border, almost overnight turned against a bipartisan bill spearheaded by conservative Republican senator James Lankford, Oklahoma, proposing the strongest (and most Republican) changes to the U.S. immigration system in decades.

After four months of Senate negotiations over the bill produced a strong bipartisan agreement, Trump pulled the rug out from under a measure that gave the Republicans much of what they wanted, partly because he wanted the issue of immigration and the border to run on in 2024, it seems, but also to demonstrate that he could command Congress to do his bidding.

It's transparently obvious that Trump does not want the border situation solved, or even substantially improved -- because he wants to continue to bash the Democrats over how terrible the border situation is. He sees it as a winning position in November, and he doesn't want to lose it.

Josh Dawsey and Michael Scherer reported yesterday in the Washington Post that Republicans are afraid to stand up to Trump out of fear that he will retaliate against them. In Politico today, Peder Schaefer described how in Republican-dominated Wyoming, Democrats are afraid to admit their political affiliation out of concern for their safety.

 She goes on:

But there is a method behind the madness. Trump’s actions are not those designed to win an election by getting a majority of the votes. They are the tools someone who cannot win a majority uses to seize power. 

Trump’s base is shrinking as his actions become more extreme, but he has a big megaphone, and it is getting bigger. As Robyn Dixon and Natalia Abbakumova pointed out in the Washington Post today, Putin’s awarding of an interview to right-wing former Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson in Moscow this week “demonstrated Putin’s interest in building bridges to the disruptive MAGA element of the Republican Party, and it seemed to reflect the Kremlin’s hope that Donald Trump would return to the presidency and that Republicans would continue to block U.S. military aid to Ukraine.”

I find some consolation in reading  "Trump’s base is shrinking as his actions become more extreme" in that last paragraph. But it's scary.

 

 


 



Tuesday, February 6, 2024

How to Pan-Fry a Steak

 This is cut-and-pasted from a Quora response by chef Martin Bayer:

Cooking a steak is no small deal. Steaks are pricey and personal, everyone wants there's done the way they want it to be done, no exceptions. This is especially true when it comes to seasoning.

The method I’m going to share with you is the way I like steaks to be done, it’s not carved in stone behind a fancy French restaurant or anything. If you like what you read, give it a whirl. If not, try someone else’s method, or invent your own.

Ribeye’s are my steak. I can ramble off a number of others that I enjoy but most of the time I’m eating a tender, juicy, meaty ribeye. Its richness can stand up to a wide range of seasoning, from a basic salt and pepper, to a spicy Southwestern, Cajun blackening spice or whatever’s your poison. My basic steak seasoning is salt, pepper, garlic and onion powders, oregano and smoked paprika. That combo is the tits on a nicely seared ribeye. What you want to know though is how to get it to the steak, right? Well, here we go.

First, season your ribeye well on both sides with coarse salt and let it sit on the counter for about 20 minutes. Known as dry brining, the salt will pull moisture to the surface of the steak, dissolve in that moisture and the steak will drink it back up, seasoning the meat. Get a heavy skillet rip roaring hot, add a touch of oil and then pat the steak dry with paper towels. Lower the steak into the hot pan and sear the hell out of it, until it is crispy golden brown. Oh, make sure you have your pre-mixed seasoning blend handy, because it’s about to come into play.

Flip the steak and sprinkle the seasoning onto the seared side so it blooms in the hot bubbling oil on top of the steak. Then cook it to your desired doneness. The exception to this would be a blackened steak, where you want the seasoning to make contact with the hot pan, so the seasonings become seared with the steak. My method prevents the spices from burning and becoming bitter from contact with the hot pan, which will happen with onion, garlic and paprika.

 This is an article, "How to Pan-Fry Steak," by Mikinze Gore and Lauren Miyashiro, at Delish.com:

If you think you need a grill to cook the perfect steak, think again. Cooking a beautiful steak dinner on your stovetop is not only easy to do, but delivers ridiculously delicious results. We get it—it can be daunting if you've never attempted it before. But, with our top tips and step-by-step guide, you’ll be well on your way to serving a steakhouse-worthy mainto impress at your Valentine’s Day dinner or fancy dinner party. Here's everything you need to know:

How to cook perfect steak on the stovetop:
Use a THICK cut of steak. You want something at least 1 inch—1 ½ is even better! The Delish test kitchen prefers boneless ribeye steak because of all the marbled fat, but New York strip steak is another great option. If you want to do something thinner like a flank or skirt steak, you’ll need to reduce the amount of time per side to avoid overcooking. Depending on thickness, it could be as quick as 2 or 3 minutes per side!
Take them out from the fridge ahead of time and dry them off. I know it sounds weird, but for a really good crust sear, you want your steak's surface dry as hell: surface moisture is the enemy of crunch! Just pat the steaks with paper towels before you add them to the pan and you are good to go.
Let it rest before. Season the steak with salt let it rest (uncovered) in the fridge for around 45 minutes before cooking. It’s the best way to draw out even more moisture from the raw steak, and as an added bonus, the interior meat will be much more flavorful. 
Get the pan hot. Only when the oil is shimmering and just about to smoke are you allowed to add the steak. Putting the steak in the pan before it's screaming hot will lead to overcooking and, you guessed it, a tough steak.
Let it rest. You’ve heard it a thousand times before, but it is always worth repeating. Before you cut into that beautiful hunk of meat, let it hang out for at least 10 minutes. You don’t want to lose all of those amazing juices!

How long do I cook pan-fry steak?
This all depends on the cut of your steak, and your desired temp. For thicker cuts—like the ribeye used here—our steak was done after 7 minutes on one side, 5 minutes on the other. But, the best way to tell when your steak is done is to check the internal temperature with a meat thermometer. Here's our temperature guide. 
Medium-rare. 130°-135°
Medium. 135°-145°,
Medium-well. 145-155° 

Serving ideas for steak:
This steak goes perfectly with any of our favorite side dishes for steak, including garlic-Parmesan roasted carrots, melting potatoes, and a classic garlic-herb wedge salad. Looking to really up your steak game? Tuscan butter, red wine butter, or cowboy butter would all be welcome additions here. 

Have you made this? Let us know how it went in the comment section below!

Yields:
1 serving(s)
Prep Time:
45 mins
Total Time:
1 hr 5 mins

Ingredients

  • 2 tbsp.

    canola oil

  • Boneless ribeye steak, preferably 1 1/2"-thick

  • Kosher salt

  • Freshly ground black pepper

  • 2 tbsp.

    butter

Directions

    1. Step 1Salt steak and rest for 45 minutes.
    2. Step 2In a medium skillet over medium-high heat, heat oil. Season steak with pepper on both sides. When oil is just about to smoke, add steak. Cook 7 minutes, then flip and add butter. Baste with butter and cook another 5 minutes or until internal temperature reaches 140°, for medium.
    3. Step 3Remove from pan and let rest 5 minutes before cutting.

 

A Hot-Dog-And-Bun Economy

 Click here for an article at The Dismal Scientist, on Slate, by Paul Krugman:

Imagine an economy that produces only two things: hot dogs and buns. Consumers in this economy insist that every hot dog come with a bun, and vice versa. And labor is the only input to production.

Monday, February 5, 2024

U.S. Health Care -- even for people who are pretty well off -- is disastrous

Here's an answer of Quora to the following question: "Why do many people (including the Americans who left the US) say that living in the US is hard and that leaving the country was the best choice they ever made?"

I haven’t left (yet), but this is what happened to my parents.

My parents worked hard and saved the way they were told to save. They retired in their mid-60s with $750k in retirement accounts, $6k/month in social security, and a paid off house.

My mom got breast cancer (for the third time) when she was 70. She spent the last 20 years of her career working for Blue Cross Blue Shield. I mention that to show she had a deep understanding of how health insurance in America works. The only people in America with better health insurance than my parents had are members of Congress. Her mistake was not dying quickly enough. Even with the most comprehensive Medicare supplements available, it still cost my parents about $175k out of pocket over the six-ish years my mom was in treatment. That’s just medical bills.

Three years after my mom died, my dad had a heart attack. He selfishly survived, but being in his late 70s, he couldn’t live by himself anymore. Again, being the good forward thinking Muricans, my parents had long term care insurance. The benefit was “unlimited” with a 3% annual cost of living adjustment — the Cadillac of long term care policies. “Unlimited” meant up to $500k total. It’s going to run out this August. So unless he has the common courtesy to die, he’s going to have to start paying the $12k a month bill himself (it’s an okay spot, not the Four Seasons). Except he probably won’t be dead, because his diet, medications, and exercise are controlled.

My mom’s SSI went away when she died, so my dad has about $3,500/month instead of the $6k. He’s going to have to burn through his savings — that he wanted to pass on to his kids and grandkids — or commit suicide.

This isn’t about me. I don’t need his money. My sister doesn’t need his money. This is about doing all the bullshit you’re supposed to do, for more than 40 years, to chase the American dream, only to have to either die or piss it away to the healthcare industry.

Please explain the upside of American healthcare to me.

Note: Medicare and Medicare supplements don’t cover assisted living.

Addendum: Medicare paid more than $2 million to MD Anderson and various doctors’ offices and drug companies for my mom’s treatment. So, American healthcare isn’t even “fiscally” responsible in its cruelty; it’s just cruel.

Frightening.