Sunday, November 12, 2017

Dr. Hedges Diagnoses the Disease That Is Neoliberal Globalism.



Chris Hedges writes that, in order to fully grasp the disease of neoliberalism, it helps to take stock of the symptoms.

The disease of globalized corporate capitalism has the same effects across the planet. It weakens or destroys democratic institutions, making them subservient to corporate and oligarchic power. It forces domestic governments to give up control over their economies, which operate under policies dictated by global corporations, banks, the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. It casts aside hundreds of millions of workers now classified as “redundant” or “surplus” labor. It disempowers underpaid and unprotected workers, many toiling in global sweatshops, keeping them cowed, anxious and compliant. It financializes the economy, creating predatory global institutions that extract money from individuals, institutions and states through punishing forms of debt peonage. It shuts down genuine debate on corporate-owned media platforms, especially in regard to vast income disparities and social inequality. And the destruction empowers proto-fascist movements and governments.
...

There are within America’s corporate power structures individuals, parties and groups that find the hysterical, imbecilic and irrational rants of demagogues such as Trump repugnant. They seek a return to the polished mendacity of politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They hope to promote the interests of global capitalism by maintaining the fiction of a functioning democracy and an open society. These “moderates” or “liberals,” however, are also the architects of the global corporate pillage. They created the political vacuum that the demagogues and proto-fascist movements have filled. They blind themselves to their own complicity.
...

The 400 richest individuals in the United States have more wealth than the bottom 64 percent of the population, and the three richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of the U.S. population. This social inequality will only get worse as the weak controls that once regulated the economy and the tax code are abolished or rewritten to further increase the concentration of wealth among the ruling oligarchs. Social inequality at this level, history has shown, always results in these types of pathologies and political distortions. It also, potentially, presages revolution.
...

Attack the symptoms and the state will be passive. Attack the disease and the state will be ruthless.

Once Trump’s base begins to abandon him—the repression in Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a good example of what will happen—the political landscape will turn very ugly. Trump and his allies, in a desperate bid to cling to power, will openly stoke hate crimes and violence against Muslims, undocumented workers, African-Americans, progressives, intellectuals, feminists and dissidents. He and his allies on the “alt-right” and the Christian right will move to silence all organs of dissent, including corporate media outlets fighting to restore the patina of civility that is the window dressing to corporate pillage. They will harness the power of the nation’s substantial internal security apparatus to crush public protests and to jail opponents, even those who are part of the faux resistance.



The Fox is Guarding the Hen House. Really, No Kidding. It's True.


The Trump government has just awarded a $2.83 million contract for security at its Russian installations including the US embassy in Moscow and its consulates in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok.

The US embassy in Moscow is to be guarded by a company owned by a former head of KGB counter-intelligence who worked with British double agent Kim Philby and young Vladimir Putin, after cuts to US staff demanded by Russia. 

Elite Security, a private company and the oldest part of the eponymous holding, was founded in 1997 by Viktor Budanov and his son Dmitry, according to a Russian business registry.

A 2002 article posted on the site of Russia's foreign intelligence service identified Mr Budanov as a major general in the agency who became a Soviet spy in 1966 and retired a year after the collapse of the USSR.

His long work in Soviet and Russian intelligence could raise questions about whether the guard services contract poses a security or intelligence risk to the US mission.

The Telegraph's request for comments went unanswered by Tillerson's State Department.

The White On the March




An estimated 60,000 white supremacists took part in a torchlight parade through the streets of Warsaw this weekend.

Police estimated 60,000 people took part in Saturday’s event, in what experts say was one of the biggest gathering of far-right activists in Europe in recent years.

Demonstrators with faces covered chanted “Pure Poland, white Poland!” and “Refugees get out!”. A banner hung over a bridge that read: “Pray for Islamic Holocaust.”

The march organised by far-right groups in Poland is an annual event originally to mark Poland’s independence in 1918. But according to Nick Lowles, from UK anti-extremism group Hope Not Hate, it has become an important rallying point for international far-right groups.

Many carried the national white-and-red flag while others held banners depicting a falanga, a far-right symbol dating to the 1930s. A demonstrator interviewed by state television TVP said he was on the march to “remove Jewry from power”.

“It was a beautiful sight,” the interior minister, Mariusz Błaszczak, said. “We are proud that so many Poles have decided to take part in a celebration connected to the Independence Day holiday.”


Take It From Mitt



Mitt, son of George (beloved former governor of Michigan), Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and Republican presidential candidate in 2012, offers a cogent take on Alabama's whack-job senate candidate, Roy Moore, in this tweet:

Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) November 10, 2017


Well put, Mitt. Almost makes us want to forget what an elitist jerk you are.

Meanwhile, judge Roy's problems just keep getting worse.  Theresa Jones, a former deputy district attorney who worked alongside Roy when he was a prosecutor, says that old rascal was known for chasing young skirt.

I was a deputy DA in Gadsden with Roy Moore. I have no doubt these stories have validity. Roy was known to eschew dating his own age and preferred teenagers. I challenge all of my colleagues in the Bar and on the bench at that time to come forward to support that Roy Moore should not be elected to represent the place of my birth and my home for many years. Teresa D.Jones, Sarasota Florida






Last Night's SNL Opener



You Won't Like These Odds



A new report has identified 27 ways a heatwave can cause human death. And, if we keep up with our fossil fuel fondness, up to 75 per cent of humanity may at risk of one of those 27 outcomes.

[Camilo Mora of the University of Hawaii] and colleagues report in the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes that they worked through the medical literature to discover in as much detail, and in as many ways as possible, how heat can kill a warm-blooded mammal equipped by evolution to maintain a constant body temperature of 37°C in normal conditions.

“We know of many cases where people have died as a result of heatwaves. However, why people died is a question whose answer is scattered”, Dr Mora said.

Their study focussed on seven vital organs – heart, brain, intestines, kidneys, liver, lungs and pancreas – and five physiological mechanisms triggered by heat: for the medically-minded, these are ischaemia, heat cytotoxicity, inflammatory response, disseminated intravascular coagulation and rhabdomyolysis.

That meant 35 possible combinations, and of these, they found 27 different pathways in which extreme heat could lead to organ failure and then death. Any one of these, or a combination, could kill.

Dr Mora and his colleagues have already warned that lethal heat waves will become a more frequent hazard: by 2100, if humans go on burning fossil fuels under the notorious business-as-usual scenario, 75% of us could be at risk. He has also warned that climate change could be happening faster than many researchers expected and that rising temperatures could actually reduce harvests, especially in the tropics.

The story goes on with really grisly details of what can go wrong within the human body. If you want that detail use the first link at the top. 

“Dying during a heatwave is like a terror movie with 27 bad endings to choose from,” said Dr Mora. “It is remarkable that humanity overall is taking such a complacency on the threats that ongoing climate change is posing.”

Friday, November 10, 2017

And the Prize for "Least Affordable City in North America" Goes To...



Yeah, Vancouver, the city where your kids have zero chance of being able to afford to live where they were born and raised.

Thanks, Ottawa, you assholes and, by "assholes" I mean every prime minister going right back to Brian Mulroney and up to and including Justin Trudeau with all his fancy new immigration offices across China.

As if we needed another reason to despise Ottawa.

Why Ottawa and Edmonton Must Move Now Against Tar Sands Operators

Federal and Alberta governments have created a nightmare in Athabasca, a massive environmental catastrophe in waiting.  The threat comes from toxic tailing ponds so huge they're visible to the naked eye from space. And for too many years, decades now, our governments have given the energy industry a pass on cleaning up their mess. From the Pembina Institute.

Back in the early 1970s, the Alberta government effectively made a Faustian bargain. It allowed the oilsands industry to keep on mining, despite the sector not knowing how to clean up its fluid tailings waste — the assumption being that future technologies would solve the problem. Unfortunately, no silver bullets have been discovered, and the industry has kicked the can down the road on this mess for the last 50 years. In the meantime, the oilsands’ tailings ponds have grown so massive they impound a globally unprecedented 1.3 trillion litres of toxic waste. These tailings are unlike any other industrial by-product in the world; they contain residual hydrocarbons, a cocktail of toxic chemicals, and fine particles of clay and silt that remain suspended for centuries in a sort of artificial quicksand.
... 

This grim situation should deeply concern all Canadians. By allowing oilsands tailings ponds to continue to grow, the Alberta government is signing up all of Canada for decades of further uncertainty and risk. If any of these ponds were to breach, an unimaginable environmental disaster would result, affecting the Mackenzie River Basin as far as the Arctic Ocean. Moreover, according to recent estimates by Environmental Defence Canada, these ponds represent as much as $50 billion in total clean-up costs — of which only $1.3 billion is held in securities. All of the major political parties in Alberta seem strangely quiet on one of the largest fiscal issues facing the province. Should the oilsands mining sector face bankruptcies in the coming decades, the environmental and fiscal liability of these ponds would inevitably become a burden borne by Albertan and Canadian taxpayers.

We must face the uncomfortable reality that the future economic viability of oilsands mining in the context of the 21st-century global energy transition is uncertain at best. It follows that companies must be held accountable for addressing their environmental impacts today, while they are still around to do so. After five decades of procrastinating, the time has come for the Alberta government to finally step up and lift the substantial weight of these liabilities off the shoulders of Canadians.


The "Bought and Paid For" Tax Reform Bill



The menacing face of Congressional corruption is being exposed in the Republican's tax reform bill. They can't hide it any longer. They've stopped even trying to deny it. They're bought and paid for, have been for some years, and now they have to do their patrons' bidding.

Even Senator Lindsey Graham admits the Republicans are at a 'fish or cut bait' moment with their affluent owners.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday became the latest Republican to admit the GOP is trying to ram through massive tax cuts for the rich to satisfy its wealthy donors, telling a journalist that if the party’s tax push fails, “the financial contributions will stop.”

Lindsey Graham says “the financial contributions will stop” if tax reform fails.

— Alan Rappeport (@arappeport) November 9, 2017

David Sirota, reporter with the International Business Times, responded by noting that it is both “laudably honest for Graham to admit this” and “a repulsive glimpse of how politicians see so many public policies as private financial transactions between them and their donors.”



As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) has made a similar comment recently, complaining that his donors are pressuring him to pass tax cuts or “don’t ever call me again.”
Critics had the same response to Graham as they did to Collins: “Dude, you’re not supposed to actually admit that out loud.”


It’s nice to see Republicans in Congress looking out for the people who really matter: their wealthy donors. pic.twitter.com/BfS5TyaTGt

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 9, 2017


This is
(A) true
(B) an incredible thing for so many Republican lawmakers to say out loud this week. https://t.co/jTmHzYxyDA

— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) November 9, 2017


In a heroic effort to save the middle class, @GOP will pass #TrumpTaxScam because their wealthy donors will stop bankrolling their campaigns if they don’t. https://t.co/j3zIGb797Q

— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) November 9, 2017


They keep saying the quiet part out loud https://t.co/VjJ4ohBsA7

— Sam Stein (@samstein) November 9, 2017


Republicans are literally out here warning each other that their big donors will stop writing checks if they don’t do their bidding. https://t.co/7kheh52bzA

— Matt Ortega (@MattOrtega) November 9, 2017


Will this ever sink in with Republican voters. These guys are saying, "We're on the take, we're on the pad, we're on the payroll and we're not working for the voting public. We're in service to the guy with the chequebook."

It's interesting that the decline and collapse of Rome and its empire were also marked by the rise of transactional democracy. If you were rich enough you could buy pretty much whatever you wanted from the Senate. Today, if you're rich enough, you get to buy pretty much what you want from the Congress of the United States of America. And one of the things those rich folks expect for their money is that tax reform bill that will see 80 per cent of the benefits flow to the top 1 per cent.




Well That's Not Very Polite



In the pages of the world press Justin Trudeau has suddenly gone from pretty boy to bad boy. Our prime minister has made waves by purportedly sabotaging the Trans Pacific Partnership talks at the APEC summit.

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has sabotaged a pact to salvage a multibillion-dollar, 11-nation Pacific Rim trade deal at the last minute, surprising leaders of the other nations, including Australia's Malcolm Turnbull.

Mr Trudeau failed to show up at a meeting late on Friday that was set to officially revive the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that had been negotiated on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in the Vietnamese coastal city of Danang.



Wait a second, he's Canadian. Our leaders don't just "fail to show up" leaving a gaggle of other world leaders in the lurch. That would be rude. I'm not even sure Trump would do that.

"There were a lot of unhappy leaders left sitting there," said an official who was in the meeting.

All 11 foreign ministers of the grouping had agreed on Thursday night to revive the agreement that was rejected by US President Donald Trump days after he took office.

But Mr Trudeau raised issues at the last minute that forced Japan's Prime Minister Shino Abe, who is chair of the gathering, to announce the meeting had to be abandoned.

Mr Turnbull has been spruiking the benefits of the TPP since arriving in Danang on Thursday, telling an APEC leaders' reception the pact "creates rules of the road to match the new economic world in which we're living".


"It aims at old hidden trade barriers like corruption and new ones like data protectionism," he said.

Mr Trudeau's walk-out is deeply embarrassing for Canada's Trade Minister Franois-Philippe Champagne, who has agreed to the deal.

Officials expected that the leaders would simply rubber-stamp what had already been agreed by the trade ministers, despite the agreement being unpopular in Canada.


This is completely weird. It's the diplomatic equivalent of ditching the bride at the altar - times ten.


Growth as Theft, Ch. 2


The previous item, reposted from December, 2011, addresses growth as theft. The subject also came up today in an item in The Guardian.

In the medieval legend made famous by the brothers Grimm, the German town of Hamelin is besieged by a plague of rats, until the mysterious pied piper appears and agrees, for a fee, to rid them of the infestation. The mayor then reneges on payment and the piper exacts a savage revenge on the town’s ingrates by luring away their children, who are never seen again.

The tale could also be an allegory for today’s grim intergenerational smash-and-grab – the global economy. As environmentalist Paul Hawken put it: “We have an economy where we steal the future, sell it in the present, and call it GDP.”

Like the hapless mayor of Hamelin, elected officials all over the world are today blindly pursuing growth-as-usual, while the gathering climate catastrophe rumbles ever closer. We adults may, if we’re lucky, get to die peacefully in our beds, but it’s our children who will be left to pay the ecological piper. 
...

Pope Francis, the first pontiff from the global south, weighed in powerfully on the moral arguments against the havoc to the biosphere wrought by neoliberalism: “The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenceless before the interests of a deified market.”

Geophysicist Dr Brad Werner made waves five years ago with the publication of his paper titled: Is Earth F**ked? (the asterisks are his). When pressed for an answer to his own question, he ventured: “more or less”. In his analysis, the system itself is incapable of internally responding to the deepening ecological crises that encircle civilisation. The only possible hope, he suggested, lay in active resistance. He identified this as “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers and other activist groups”.
...

With politicians failing to step up to the climate challenge, what are the alternatives? One intriguing experiment in direct democracy has just concluded in Ireland, where a government-appointed Citizens’ Assembly composed of a nationally representative group of people selected at random heard detailed expert testimony on climate change from a range of experts. No lobbyists or politicians were allowed in the room.

The result: 13 recommendations for sharply enhanced climate action were overwhelmingly endorsed early this month, including citizens being personally prepared to pay more tax on high-carbon activities
. The recommendations will now be discussed in parliament.

Democracy may be dysfunctional, but rumours of its death have, perhaps, been exaggerated.

The Irish example suggests that, left to ourselves, the public, we will probably do the right thing where, when important problems are left to the system, our political caste, it persistently shows itself incapable of internally responding to the crises that encircle civilization. They can't get us out from under neoliberalism. They embrace neoliberalism. And you'll never find effective responses to climate change by entrusting the problem to neoliberals.


Thursday, November 09, 2017

Recycled Stuff - Growth as Theft

This from December 24, 2011.  I re-posted this because I felt the three paragraphs below that are bold-faced needed to be restated.


Time to Break Our Growth Addiction

Imagine being trapped in a society that considers heretical the notion of living within its finite means.  That is very much the civilization within which you and I and the rest of humanity live.

Life on Earth, in all its many forms, lives within our biosphere which is today about the same size it was long before man as a species evolved.   Our unique traits allowed us to supposedly master and to manipulate our biosphere, to extract its riches and transform them to elevate our comfort and enjoyment.  But, rather than revere this biosphere as the very source of so much good, we instead turned it into our midden, our cesspit.

Now we stand in numbers unimaginable just a century ago, each of us consuming the bounty of our biosphere at levels undreamed of a century ago.   Compared to the beginning of the last century, we have grown from barely two-billion to seven while increasing our consumption levels to the equivalent of twelve billion or more.

During the 20th Century our per capita energy consumption grew enormously.  Buckminster Fuller created the concept of an "energy slave" to represent the output of a hard-working man that he figured at 150,000 foot pounds of work per day.   At the end of the century the average American had at his disposal the equivalent of 8,000 energy slaves.

"Moreover, Fuller pointed out, 'energy-slaves, although doing only the foot-pounds of humans, are enormously more effective, because they can work under conditions intolerable to man, e.g., 5000 F, no sleep, ten-thousandths of an inch tolerance, one million times magnification, 400,000 pounds per square inch pressure, 186,000 miles per second alacrity and so forth."

This cheap energy revolution also fueled enormous increases in America's population.   From barely 76-million in 1900 it closed the century at 275-million that has further swelled to 312-million in just the first decade of the 21st century.

Some, such as George W. Bush, lament that Americans have become "addicted to oil" when, in fact, oil dependence is a symptom, a manifestation of a much greater addiction - an addiction to growth.  It is our abuse of growth that has become modern society's heroin.

"The short-term effects of heroin abuse appear soon after a single dose and disappear in a few hours. After an injection of heroin, the user reports feeling a surge of euphoria (“rush”) accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, a dry mouth, and heavy extremities. Following this initial euphoria, the user goes “on the nod,” an alternately wakeful and drowsy state. Mental functioning becomes clouded due to the depression of the central nervous system."

Growth gives us comfort, a warm euphoria and sense of well-being.   But it's illusory and short-lived.  Before long we crave more growth.   We must have more.  It's how we live.  It's a dysfunctional urge that turns increasingly ugly as our tolerance levels soar and our need for growth increases.

Hard core heroin addicts, especially the street variety, are known for resorting to all manner of anti-social and ultimately self-destructive behaviour to satisfy their addiction from prostitution to theft, sometimes even worse.

Our hard core growth addiction reveals itself in similar, dysfunctional behaviour.   We embrace a promiscuous convergence of actual needs and insatiable wants.  We indulge wants to the point of overdose that eventually surfaces in garage sales, junkyards or landfills.  We steal to feed our addiction.   We steal from other peoples in distant lands by stripping the oceans, destroying their forests or corrupting our shared atmosphere.   We steal from future generations, bequeathing them a much worse future to supposedly improve our present.  We steal what we can, where we can, however and whenever we can.

We must steal if we are to feed our growth addiction because there's no other choice.   There is no other way.   There isn't enough to go around anymore.  We're stealing from our biosphere and we're stealing from each other and we're even stealing from generations not yet born.   For example, we're emptying our oceans of essential food species, depleting them beyond their baseline reproduction stocks.   And, as we fish one to the verge of extinction, we move on to the next most desirable species and find ways to market that.  We're draining our groundwater reserves to drive the hopelessly unsustainable Green Revolution and, in the process, subjecting farmland to massive amounts of fertilizers and pesticides that speed its exhaustion and transform it into useless desert.  With food scarcity already spreading through the world we're diverting vital farmland and increasingly scarce water to grow crops to make biofuels.

Yet we're beginning to hear voices calling for us to break our addiction to growth and end this madness.  We hear people like British scientist James Lovelock imploring mankind, especially in the West, to embrace what he calls "sustainable retreat", to become smaller.  Then there's former World Bank economist, Herman Daly, championing what he calls "steady state economics."

Daly's school of Ecological Economics departs from classical economics  in rejecting the delusional assumption of infinite growth.   The theory of economics idiots like our prime minister operate under are slaved to growth which is why their efforts are increasingly failing.

Economists like Daly argue that the myth of perpetual economic growth and "the iron cage of consumerism" are the chief causes of world economic dysfunction and environmental crisis -- and the biggest obstacle to our very happiness.

The problem, says Daly, is that the economy, once an inconsequentially small part of the natural world, has become so supersized that -- sort of like an ingrown toenail or an evasive Japanese knotweed bush -- it's now growing into the remaining ecosphere and jeopardizing our ecological life supports: things like drinkable water, fresh air and a stable climate.

...Those ideas can be found influencing, among other things, the slow money movement, D.I.Y. culture, modern barter systems, car sharing, and corporate sustainability rhetoric. They are also reflected in the views of ecologists such as Lester Brown and Jeremy Rifkin, the author, pundit and adviser to the European Union, as well as entrepreneurs such as Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, which ran an advertisement this holiday season urging consumers not to buy the pictured jacket and to think twice about making any purchases they don't really need. Even Unilever, the consumer goods conglomerate, has embarked on a corporate social responsibility campaign pledging to "decouple" its growth from its ecological footprint.

Obviously the threat of global warming is a powerful influence on Daly's "degrowth" movement but so are other drivers including resource depletion, the freshwater crisis, species extinction and overpopulation, among others.

A good deal, perhaps even most, of what we thought we understood or took for granted in the last century may not survive very long into the 21st, at least not if we're to live in harmony with our planet and with each other.  It is human nature to resist change, especially of this magnitude, but it's not a matter of choice and, from my own experience, I can vouch that getting smaller, doing with less, living more modestly, doesn't have to mean hardship. 

It's Getting Hot In Here



No, not the temperature, although that too is getting hot. I'm referring to the tenor of our social and political discourse. We're turning venomous, turning on each other. Society is degrading into camps, tribes.

We write off others, denounce them, vilify them and call them stupid childish names. We write them off at the very time when we most need to reach out and find common ground to restore and rebuild the framework of social cohesion.

When I began blogging about 10 years ago there was a marked difference between our side and the Tory camp. They were much quicker to pick up on the degeneracy of hyper-partisanship as it took hold in the United States. If you weren't in their camp you were a libtard or a lieberal or some equally puerile epithet. On their side it was constantly positing us, all of us, as their enemy. We might criticize their leaders but they had no hesitation in demeaning all of us. It was a shameful thing, a petty nastiness that they appeared to share with their American cousins.

Flash forward ten years and that same contagion of darkness has a foothold in our camp. The same hyper-partisanship, the same derogatory names, the same rage and hostility.  And so we have fallen lower. The thing is, this demeans us. The other side, they don't care. It merely validates their own view of irreconcilable and warring camps. We confirm what they want, even need, to believe about us to justify their own ugliness.

This is not a harmless indulgence by an intemperate few. It seeks to divide us, pull us ever further apart. Some quest to destroy a political party that predates Confederation and that still commands the support of more than 30 per cent of our fellow countrymen.

To those who boast about wanting to destroy the Conservative Party, what then? What do they want, a one-party state? Do they want their party in perpetual control of our country and our society? Do they really imagine their party is infallible or magically immune to corruption? It's not. Two years in and we've seen that this government has plenty of foibles and a good many failures. It has reneged on the critical promises that got it elected. It's a pretty face on some pretty shopworn politics.

The Trudeau Liberals, on the strength of some major promises they did not fulfill, got 39.5 per cent of the vote. 60.5 percent of the voting public supported other parties. By a 3 to 2 margin, the Canadian public was defeated in that election. Trump got a much better share of the popular vote in his country than Trudeau did in ours.

It is not disloyal, it is not aiding the enemy, to roundly criticize the Trudeau government for its grievous failings. It is not disloyal to expect far more and far better from the Liberals than we had to accept from the Harper Tories. Moreover it is not loyal to sit mute when our side strays and falters as the other side did.

I want to hear no more of this rabid nonsense about destroying the Conservative Party. This is stacking up to be a hellish century. We need social cohesion more than at any time in humanity's past. This is a time when we need to be reaching out, finding common ground, restoring consensus wherever that can be achieved. We will need to win them over, not alienate them and not create rifts among ourselves.

Why Do the Rich Get to Secede?


The Guardian editorial puts tax havens and those who use them to shirk taxes in a useful perspective. It's a group of privileged individuals who are seceding from society.

Well, not really seceding. No, they continue to enjoy all the privileges and benefits of society. They want it, and usually get it, both ways.

It’s clear a dramatic shift is under way: not only is the amount of wealth flooding into tax shelters around the world rising to unprecedented levels, but so much of wheeling and dealing is also done by a tiny fraction of humanity. Some of this is historical: until the early 1980s the wealthy really could only squirrel away their cash safely in Switzerland. Since then there has been an explosion in no-tax, high-secrecy locations at the same time that deregulation and globalisation swelled the ranks of the super-rich. Tax havens have facilitated the rise in global inequality. If it feels like there is one set of rules for the rich and another for the poor, it is because there is. A report in September, co-authored by the economist Gabriel Zucman, estimated that approximately 10% of global GDP – about $7.8tn (£6tn) – is held offshore. This is about the size of Japan’s and Germany’s economies combined. The academic says 80% of all offshore cash is now owned by 0.1% of the richest households. In Britain the top 0.01% of households stash about a third of their wealth in tax havens – and, once this is accounted for, their share of wealth is significantly higher today than in the 1960s.
...

When a group at the top of society secedes and forms a globally mobile republic, able to choose which jurisdiction they wish to operate under, the public is right to ask why we allow this to happen. Why should taxes just be for the little people?

This is true of corporate entities as well as individuals. Increasingly – and worryingly – the international profits of many corporations are showing up in tax havens. It’s no good for ministers to claim the sharing of information on British residents will assuage public anger. There’s little evidence that the tax authorities or the police have the resources to go toe-to-toe with the global elite. The government could shrink the tax avoidance industry overnight – by banning giving public sector contracts to big consulting firms that offer tax advisory services. If crown dependencies and overseas territories want to trade on an association with Britain then tell them to accept mainland standards for regulating financial services.

After the austerity years of private affluence and public impoverishment, there are few takers for the idea that the rich shift cash offshore for laudable reasons. The public mood is one of cynicism, not merely scepticism – and it’s justified by the revelations that politicians have failed to take seriously enough for years.


It's time to treat the rich for what they are, scofflaws. First of all we have to make this practice illegal, civilly and criminally. We need treaties, agreements among every advanced nation, every place these reprobates enjoy living to cast them out and deny them the privileges of civil society. We need effective means to punish them by recovering every dime they've offshored with interest and stiff penalties.  No more nonsense like the sweetheart deal Ottawa lavished on KPMG and its tax cheat clientelle.

Put their very citizenship in jeopardy. If they wish to be part of as "globally mobile republic" then that's their choice and they can take their chances elsewhere.



The Evisceration of a Thug.


Few have done it so well as Roger Cohen's op-ed dissection of Donald Trump in Der Spiegel.

Many of us tend to take Trump's insults to decency as they come, one at a time, but Cohen stitches them all together to paint a picture that's much darker and dangerous than we may perceive. It's a good read.

Meanwhile Foreign Policy's Max Boot writes that, while America may survive Trump, it will never again be the same.

One critical area in which Trump has already inflicted irreparable harm is the State Department where, by some reports, upwards of 60% of America's professional diplomats have already left, taking with them the department's "institutional memory." These are the people who make the place work. They know their counterparts in foreign capitals, who to call and how to reach them. They know what to do when things go wrong, how to fix what's broken, what worked and didn't work in the past, how things get done. Anyone who has ever worked in the management side of a large organization knows the type, the indispensable few.


Scores of senior diplomats, including 60 percent of career ambassadors, have left the department since the beginning of the year, when President Donald Trump took office, according to the letter. There are 74 top posts at State that remain vacant with no announced nominee.

“Were the U.S. military to face such a decapitation of its leadership ranks, I would expect a public outcry,” [Barbara Stephenson, president of the American Foreign Service Association] wrote.

It’s not just top leadership that is fleeing. New recruitment is falling dramatically as well, shrinking the pool for future talent. The number of applicants registering to take the Foreign Service Officer Test this year will be fewer than half the 17,000 who registered just two years ago, she wrote.


What they're seeing on the diplomatic front, as in other areas Trump is abandoning, is the Russians and the Chinese quick to exploit the vacuum.

When you lose that institutional memory it can take years, decades to rebuild and, by then, you may find yourself in a world radically changed. Trump has no grasp of how he's undermining America, now and for future administrations. 

First Harvey Weinstein, then Kevin Spacey, Now Christo-Fascist Republican, Roy Moore?



Roy Moore, twice disgraced chief justice of Alabama and now Republican candidate for the US Senate, seems to be a bible-thumping magnet for controversy.

Roy, the US Army officer who slept on a bed of sandbags in Vietnam out of fear his men would roll a grenade under him if he slept on a standard cot, is now being accused of inappropriate relationships with young girls.

Leigh Corfman says she was 14 years old when an older man approached her outside a courtroom in Etowah County, Ala. She was sitting on a wooden bench with her mother, they both recall, when the man introduced himself as Roy Moore.

It was early 1979 and Moore — now the Republican nominee in Alabama for a U.S. Senate seat — was a 32-year-old assistant district attorney. He struck up a conversation, Corfman and her mother say, and offered to watch the girl while her mother went inside for a child custody hearing.

"He said, 'Oh, you don't want her to go in there and hear all that. I'll stay out here with her,' " says Corfman's mother, Nancy Wells, 71. "I thought, how nice for him to want to take care of my little girl."

Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

"I wanted it over with — I wanted out," she remembers thinking. "Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over." Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did.

Two of Corfman's childhood friends say she told them at the time that she was seeing an older man, and one says Corfman identified the man as Moore. Wells says her daughter told her about the encounter more than a decade later, as Moore was becoming more prominent as a local judge.

Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were between the ages of 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s, episodes they say they found flattering at the time, but troubling as they got older. None of the women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact.


Fake news, of course.

In a written statement, Moore denied the allegations. 

"These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign," Moore, now 70, said.

The campaign said in a subsequent statement that if the allegations were true they would have surfaced during his previous campaigns, adding "this garbage is the very definition of fake news."

Update:

Republican Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, wasted no time getting his, establishment Republican views across on Moore's predicament. From The Atlantic.

The age of sexual consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16, so Moore’s alleged action would constitute second-degree sexual abuse, a misdemeanor. Enticing someone younger than 16 into a home for genital touching is a felony.

The Post corroborated elements of Corfman’s account using court records and interviews with her mother and a friend to whom she recounted the events at the time.

“If these allegations are true, he must step aside,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. A string of other Republican officeholders, including Cory Gardner, who leads the GOP’s Senate campaign, made similar statements.

Senator John McCain, though, was unequivocal. “The allegations against Roy Moore are deeply disturbing and disqualifying,” he said. “He should immediately step aside and allow the people of Alabama to elect a candidate they can be proud of.”


It's War on Neonicotinoids - Just Not in Canada, Not Yet



The British government has decided to support a Europe-wide ban on certain insect-killing pesticides believed responsible for the massive die-off of bees and other flying bugs.

The decision reverses the government’s previous position and is justified by recent new evidence showing neonicotinoids have contaminated the whole landscape and cause damage to colonies of bees. It also follows the revelation that 75% of all flying insects have disappeared in Germany and probably much further afield, a discovery Gove said had shocked him.
Neonicotinoids are the world’s most widely used insecticide but in 2013 the European Union banned their use on flowering crops, although the UK was among the nations opposing the ban. The European commission now wants a total ban on their use outside of greenhouses, with a vote expected in December, and the UK’s new position makes it very likely to pass.

“The weight of evidence now shows the risks neonicotinoids pose to our environment, particularly to the bees and other pollinators which play such a key part in our £100bn food industry, is greater than previously understood,” said Gove. “I believe this justifies further restrictions on their use. We cannot afford to put our pollinator populations at risk.”

In an article for the Guardian, Gove said: “As is always the case, a deteriorating environment is ultimately bad economic news as well.” He said pollinators boost the yield and quality of UK crops by £400m-£680m every year and said, for example, gala apple growers are now having to spend £5.7m a year to do replace the work of lost natural pollinators.


Canada's federal government is dragging its heels on a similar ban. In June, Health Canada said it would be at least six months before it issued a ruling.

F#@K Off, That's Not F#@king Fair!



Funny what you read in the foreign papers.  Apparently the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council has ruled that it's permissible to say "f#@k" on the radio, on one condition. It's only okay on French-language broadcasts.

It may be still be too blue for English speakers, but authorities in Canada have ruled that the word “fuck” is no longer taboo on French language broadcasts as its use is so commonplace.

The Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council (CBSC) had previously classified the word as being suitable only for adults in both French and English, banning its use on radio and television to beyond the evening watershed and even then, only with a warning.

But after complaints from listeners that the French-language Montreal radio station CKOI-FM had twice aired clips with the word this year, it changed its mind in a ruling released Wednesday.

The CBSC agreed with the station’s argument that “fuck” was now “part of the common French spoken language” and therefore does not have “the same vulgar connotations when used in French.”

Oh dear.

A Pearl Saved, For Now.



The Trudeau government has come up with $1.6 million to keep the doors open at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory. It's enough money to keep the lab operating for almost two more years.

The funding, announced jointly by Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and Science Minister Kirsty Duncan, will serve as a bridge that may be used to buy time for a longer-term approach to funding the laboratory that tracks climate change, ozone depletion, and atmospheric pollution from its frigid perch on Ellesmere Island about 1,000 kilometres from the North Pole.
...

Scientists stress that one of the important functions of PEARL is to provide an unbroken record of the atmosphere in the high Arctic, the part of the world where climate change is projected to unfold most rapidly.

The facility faced a crisis and scaled back under the Harper government when its funding body was phased out in 2012. At that time, Ms. Duncan, then in opposition, was among those who strongly advocated for saving PEARL. The Harper government responded by establishing a five-year funding program for a number of climate science projects, including PEARL, called the Climate Change and Atmospheric Research Initiative (CCAR).

That program expires this year and climate scientists grew alarmed when the federal budget gave no indication that it would be renewed or replaced. Today's announcement ensures that PEARL will continue for a while longer but it also means that, so far, there is no reprieve for the other projects despite a favourable internal review of CCAR.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

An Election Should Never Become a Defeat for the People.



Sure, there are winners and losers in an election, but that should be confined to politicians and parties. The people should never be vanquished.  The public should never lose an election. Yet they routinely do.

That's especially true for what we in Canada endure today in our multi-party, first-past-the-post system where a party can garner scarcely 40 per cent support and yet receive a powerful majority. To "rule" with 40 per cent support and consider that some sort of mandate to do whatever you fucking well like is, frankly, despotic. It's the antithesis of democracy. When, as in the case of the current regime, that minority/majority was won on empty promises, it's that much worse.

Canadians have become accustomed to that. We acquiesce in it. They got 36 per cent, you got 38 and so you're the master of the universe until we get a chance to see our will defeated again in four years. Fuck That!

When governments do that, as so many of ours have, you're not just defeating your political opponent, you're defeating the public, the majority of the people. And, when the majority of the public lose to your false political majority, just what kind of government do we have? It's an illegitimate government whose power is cheap and thinly procedural at best.

What is a government that governs without the consent of its people? I don't know but I know we've had plenty of them. One thing it's not, it's not a liberal democracy. It's something else and that may vary depending on the whim of the ruler of the day.

That ruler, not leader but ruler, may be benevolent. That ruler may not be. Democracy becomes a matter of whim and that can ebb and flow markedly even during one term of power. We wind up with rulers, some less authoritarian, some much more. And that's the back door where special interests always insinuate themselves between the public and those elected to serve them. And, when that happens, the real losers from the election are the people. Somebody wins. The prevailing party and the special interests, their patrons. Somebody loses. The people, the nation.

That's why Canada needs electoral reform. We're no longer a two-party system which has come to guarantee that an election spells defeat for the majority of our people. That's obscene.

An election should never become a defeat for our people. Why do we continue to tolerate that?

Trudeau promised electoral reform. He got elected on that promise. He reneged. Ditch him.

Wow. Is This the Trump Factor?


The Dems took the governor's mansion in Virginia and New Jersey tonight. This comes on the same day that the French president's office confirmed Trump is not on the guest list for the December climate conference in Paris.

America's narcissist in chief appears to be getting his ass handed to him from all sides. Fortunately there's plenty to go around.

The Mango Mussolini may be getting out onto the thin ice. With word coming out that the Republicans' tax reform will raise taxes overall on the middle class, not cut them, and that the 1 per cent will pocket most of the savings, upwards of 80 per cent, those Repugs must be getting cold feet given that the mid-terms are just one year off.

I'm sure there'll be a lot of Republicans fervently testing the winds in the coming weeks.  With his personal numbers in the toilet, Mueller closing in and voters turning toward the Dems, Trump will be testing the resolve of Congressional Republicans.

Trump Off Guest List for December Paris Climate Conference


Think of it as the ostracization of the Cheeto Benito.

Following this month's UN climate summit in Bonn there's to be a follow-up climate conference in Paris. Over 100 countries and several NGO's are on the invite list. Notable by his exclusion is Donald J. Trump, the Mango Mussolini.

French president Macron's office confirmed that Trump is persona non grata at the Paris soiree although a lower-level American delegation may attend. I guess that's French for "nothing against America but your leader is a total jerk."

What If Gerson Is Right? What If Government No Longer Works?



I can be pretty hard on Justin Trudeau. He does deserve credit for the good things he's done but that comes with responsibility for his lapses and willful failures. I prefer Trudeau by a country mile over the Tory party and their leadership, past and present, but that's still not enough to make me think the Liberal prime minister is doing a good job. He's not. He's doing a less worse job than I'm sure we would be getting from his Conservative adversary but that's about it.

Is it Trudeau's fault or is it a systemic failure of our politics? Probably it's some measure of both.

The final paragraph in Michael Gerson's op-ed in today's Washington Post resonates in my mind.

"It is quite possible that moderate conservatism and moderate liberalism are inadequate to explain and tame the convulsive economic and social changes of our time. Which places America’s future — uncertain, maybe unknowable — on the other side of an earthquake."


Could that hold true for Canada? Are moderate conservatism and moderate liberalism no longer adequate to the challenges that we face, "the convulsive economic and social changes of our time"? Is the future of Canada and generations to come consigned to uncertainty "on the other side of an earthquake"? In several ways that seems to be the case and that perception grows stronger with the passage of time as we see Canada, like every other nation, being overtaken by some rather dire events.

What can you say for a government in denial? Trudeau's government certainly fits that bill.  Take climate change, generally accepted as the gravest threat facing mankind.  As nations go, Canada has a much better than average chance of avoiding the very worst impacts. It's not that we're better or brighter or wiser. We're simply latitudinally blessed. We're more distant from the equator than most countries, the one with which we share a border in particular. Our land reaches further beyond the polar circle than most. We have a population density advantage. We have a natural resources advantage. So what is our government doing to ensure we maximize the benefit of our natural advantages to avert or reduce the impacts we will otherwise sustain?

A carbon tax. Really, that's it? A carbon tax. Is that the best they can do? Earlier this week I posted an item about Swedish bomb shelters. The Swedes have a network of 65,000 bomb shelters but they think they need more in this Age of Trump, enough to shelter an additional 3 million people. At first it sounded a bit funny, 65,000 bomb shelters. How many do you imagine our government built during the Cold War? A couple of dozen, maybe? But then humour gave way to wonder at the resolve the Swedish government must have had to build all those shelters in the first place. Plainly they recognized a peril and identified a response and, despite the magnitude, they went ahead and built 65,000 shelters.  Bravo Sweden.

Is the threat we're facing from climate change somehow less certain, less dire than the threat the Swedes perceived faced their people during the Cold War?  Yet little Sweden, about a third the size of our population, mustered the resources and resolve to tackle this Herculean chore. So what have we don't to address an even graver threat that remotely approaches what Sweden did to protect its citizens against Cold War threats? Obviously we haven't done much so far but what are we planning to do? Anything, nothing? No, not nothing, a carbon tax.

There is so much that can be done right now. We can assess what Canada will be like in 20, 30 and 40 years from now, new areas that may open up, low lying coastal areas that might have to be abandoned, populations displaced and needing relocation, especially in the north. We can evaluate what we may need by way of essential infrastructure, communications, transportation and power grids, that sort of thing. We can explore how the future may change ways we're governed and how we're organized and how we'll interact.   We should be identifying all of our options and opportunities and their relative merits.

These are indicative of what Gerson calls the "convulsive economic and social changes of our time" and yet it's becoming increasingly obvious that moderate liberalism and moderate conservatism are inadequate to rise to these challenges.

The worst part is that I suspect Trudeau and Scheer and Singh know they're not up to these challenges. They know that our political apparatus isn't sufficiently robust to meet our uncertain, unknowable future which could also leave us on the "other side of an earthquake."


Africa Wants Trump Given the Boot



African states attending COP23, the UN climate summit in Bonn, want America's delegation turfed out. From Deutshe Welle.

The Panafrican Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) represents a coalition of civil society organizations from diverse backgrounds across Africa. Secretary General of PACJA, Mithika Mwenda, told DW that part of the organization’s mission at COP23 is to push industrialized countries to set more ambitious goals to reduce their carbon emissions so that African states don’t have to contend with the adverse effects of climate change.
...

Mwenda also openly questions the presence of an official US delegation, out of fear it may prove to be a bad influence on other states that are already reluctant to take serious action on climate change – something he terms as the "Trump effect."

"[The US] withdraws from the Paris Agreement, yet they still want to show that they can negotiate the implementation framework," said Mwenda, "That’s why we are calling in delegates here to sign our petition to kick Trump and his government out of these negotiations. We have to make it very clear that we are not kicking [out] the people of America. We are in solidarity with [those who oppose Trump’s actions]. Our target is the Trump government."

Holding high-polluters to account – including the possibility of financial reparations for small-polluters, including African countries – is likely to be another flashpoint issue at this year’s COP, especially with island nation Fiji at the helm.

"It is quite symbolic that a small island state is hosting COP23,"Mwenda told DW, "[Developed nations] hold a lot of power in terms of determining what is on the agenda…The problem is the apathy of industrialized countries. We want to challenge them on that."

It May Be Legal, Barely, But It's Not Victimless. You Oughta Know Better.



Rich folks see themselves as victims. It's just not fair that they should have to cough up a sizeable chunk of their hard-earned cash to the government. That's why so many stash that cash in tax havens, all within the letter of some very accommodating laws.

Not many little people get to shelter their equally hard-earned cash. It goes on food, clothing and shelter for the family and, yes, a chunk to the taxman.  It doesn't compare to what the rich guy pays the taxman. He pays loads more. And there's the argument for tax shelters.

However if you follow that scenario through just a bit more you'll see how much more, as a percentage of overall income, the rich guy has to spare. It's enough that the three richest Americans - Gates, Bezos and Buffet - have amassed more wealth in their lifetimes than the bottom 180-million of their countrymen.  That's the cash that goes into those carpet bags that winds up within spitting distance of some tropical beach, way beyond the reach of the taxman.

It's not just money shielded from taxes, it's a different sort of money. It's money that fuels inequality in all its forms - inequality of income, inequality of wealth, inequality of opportunity. The taxes not paid on that money become taxes levied on those of more modest means who cannot shelter their minuscule incomes.  Tax havens may be legal but they are not victimless - assuming you accept that we're all equal citizens of this same country.

Teddy Roosevelt explained the difference between ordinary money and what today has become tax haven money.

In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.

At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth.


Did you catch that last part, how equalizing opportunity is essential to enabling the nation to get the "highest possible value" from its citizens. It's about building a stronger, better, more prosperous country.

Practical equality of opportunity for all citizens, when we achieve it, will have two great results. First, every man will have a fair chance to make of himself all that in him lies; to reach the highest point to which his capacities, unassisted by special privilege of his own and unhampered by the special privilege of others, can carry him, and to get for himself and his family substantially what he has earned. Second, equality of opportunity means that the commonwealth will get from every citizen the highest service of which he is capable. No man who carries the burden of the special privileges of another can give to the commonwealth that service to which it is fairly entitled.

Roosevelt knew that not all money is equal.

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.

No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered — not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective — a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.


And then there's this. Not from Marx or Lenin or Trotsky but from the guy who led the charge of the Roughriders up San Juan hill.

Nothing is more true than that excess of every kind is followed by reaction; a fact which should be pondered by reformer and reactionary alike. We are face to face with new conceptions of the relations of property to human welfare, chiefly because certain advocates of the rights of property as against the rights of men have been pushing their claims too far. The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.


Roosevelt's words stand as an indictment of our current government and previous regimes going back decades, generations. They lost sight of these essential truths and our nation is the poorer because of it. They went along to get along. They accommodated the "swollen fortune" and sacrificed equality of opportunity in the process.

Yes it's legal that Paul Martin's fortune be offshored, first to low-tax haven Barbados and then on to no-tax haven Bermuda. But is it right? Are we to be the doormat of the Paul Martins of this world? It's all the worse that much of this wealth is, in one form or another, gifted from mentor to apprentice, from father to son, the very foundation to perpetuate oligarchy. We're seeing entire generations who, by accident of birth, come into wealth they have not earned, a class of men who "have been pushing their claims too far."

It's time to push back.





More Guns = More Gun Deaths



You would think anyone could understand that the more prevalent the presence of guns, the more opportunity for gun play, the more gun deaths that will occur. You can be as brain dead as a Republican and understand that much, right? Wrong?

Well there's research that's been around for almost 20 years proving that's right no matter what the NRA and the Mango Mussolini claim to the contrary.

The study compares death rates during property crimes in New York, where there are plenty of guns, versus London, where gun use is rare. Fortunately property crime rates in both cities are comparable. Outcomes, especially death rates, are far different as a sane person might expect.

As Zack Beauchamp explained for Vox, a breakthrough analysis in 1999 by UC Berkeley’s Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins found that the US does not, contrary to the old conventional wisdom, have more crime in general than other Western industrial nations. Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence — and that’s driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.

“A series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in New York City and London show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar,” Zimring and Hawkins wrote. “A preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in New York City as in London.”

This is in many ways intuitive: People of every country get into arguments and fights with friends, family, and peers. But in the US, it’s much more likely that someone will get angry at an argument, be able to pull out a gun, and kill someone.


54 times as deadly in New York City as in London. 54 times.


And what's Trump's answer to gun massacres? Of course, more guns. Open carry, concealed carry. Hand gun, assault rifle. Permit, no permit. It's the American Way. 

A Ship of State With Neither Rudder Nor Compass



Washington Post columnist, Michael Gerson, looks to America's horizons and sees only intellectual and moral exhaustion.


Our times are not normal — and it is a disservice to the country to normalize them. In a recent Post-ABC News survey, Trump’s approval rating is worse — far worse — than any president at this stage in seven decades of polling. About half of those surveyed stronglydisapprove. The public assessment of Trump’s leadership, character and competence has grown harsher in every category.

All this is true following two quarters of more than 3 percent economic growth, with the stock market booming and unemployment at 4.1 percent. Practically, this means that Trump has no cushion or margin of public support when economic circumstances worsen. At a time of (relative) peace and prosperity, Trump is still broadly viewed as divisive and ineffective. The ship of Trump has strong winds at its back — but is sinking too fast to take advantage of them.

And yet . The Post-ABC News poll shows that if the Trump/Clinton presidential race were re-held today, it would be a tie. Think on that. Arguably the worst president in modern history might still beat one of the most prominent Democrats in the United States. This indicates a Democratic Party in the midst of its own profound crisis. During the Obama years, it collapsed in large portions of the country. Its national establishment has been revealed — with extensive footnotes provided by Donna Brazile — as arrogant, complacent and corrupt. But the only serious ideological alternative to that establishment is frankly socialist — the fatuous and shallow sort of socialism held by college freshmen and Bernie Sanders.

We have reached a moment of intellectual and moral exhaustion for both major political parties. One is dominated by ethnic politics — which a disturbingly strong majority of Republican regulars have found appealing or acceptable. The other is dominated by identity politics — a movement that counts a growing number of Robespierres. Both seem united only in their resentment of the international economic order that the United States has built and led for 70 years.
...

The lead ideology of the Republican Party at the national level is now immoral and must be overturned — a task that only a smattering of retiring officeholders has undertaken. The lead ideology of the Democratic Party is likely to be overturned — by radicals with little to offer the country save anger and bad economics.

Where does this leave us at Year One of the Trump era? With two very sick political parties that have a monopoly on political power and little prospect for reform and recovery. The stakes are quite high. If America really develops a political competition between ethno-nationalism and identity socialism, it will mean we are a nation in decline — likely to leave pressing problems (educational failure, unconstrained debt, a flawed criminal-justice system) unconfronted. Likely to forfeit global leadership, undermine world markets and cede to others the mantle of stability and firm purpose.

There is a serious prospect that the president will truly crash and burn in a colossal fiasco so disastrous as to be undeniable proof against all things Trump. But that would be so bad for the country that it is hard to wish for.


So what should we wish for? It is a measure of our moment that this is not obvious. It is quite possible that moderate conservatism and moderate liberalism are inadequate to explain and tame the convulsive economic and social changes of our time. Which places America’s future — uncertain, maybe unknowable — on the other side of an earthquake.

Guns for Jesus



New Rule - from now on, as in "henceforth," those who wish to praise Jesus had better be packing heat.

The Cheeto Benito has spoken.  Responding to the latest massacre (I think it's still the "latest") at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the Trumpster opined that, but for the free and generous access to guns, the mass murderer could have slaughtered far more.

Speaking at a news conference in South Korea on Tuesday where he was asked about “extreme vetting” for gun purchases, the president said: “If you did what you’re suggesting, there would have been no difference three days ago and you might not have had that very brave person who happens to have a gun or a rifle in his trunk.”

As he did following last month’s Las Vegas massacre of 58 people, Trump pushed back against the question, calling it a “situation that probably shouldn’t be discussed too much” and noted that he was “in the heart of South Korea”.

Trump added that if “Good Samaritan” Stephen Willeford had not had a gun, “instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more dead”.

So there's your answer. You want to come to Jesus, you come packing heat. If you can't afford your own gun and ammo well you don't have to bring your own Bible to church, do you? Loaner Glocks will be available in every pew. Get in, sit down, lock and load. Maybe the first hymn could be "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition."