Saturday, February 27, 2016

Something to Know - 27 February

Mike Luckovich

From the Santa Monica News Bureau comes this NY Times piece by David Brooks.   Rather than report on Donald this, or Donald that, and the rest of the crazies in combat insults, Mr. Brooks drills down to a deeper layer of understanding as to why the politics of our nation is in such a sad state:


The Opinion Pages
 | OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Governing Cancer of Our Time

David Brooks FEB. 26, 2016

Advertisement



We live in a big, diverse society. There are essentially two ways to maintain order and get things done in such a society — politics or some form of dictatorship. Either through compromise or brute force. Our founding fathers chose politics.

Politics is an activity in which you recognize the simultaneous existence of different groups, interests and opinions. You try to find some way to balance or reconcile or compromise those interests, or at least a majority of them. You follow a set of rules, enshrined in a constitution or in custom, to help you reach these compromises in a way everybody considers legitimate.

The downside of politics is that people never really get everything they want. It's messy, limited and no issue is ever really settled. Politics is a muddled activity in which people have to recognize restraints and settle for less than they want. Disappointment is normal.



But that's sort of the beauty of politics, too. It involves an endless conversation in which we learn about other people and see things from their vantage point and try to balance their needs against our own. Plus, it's better than the alternative: rule by some authoritarian tyrant who tries to govern by clobbering everyone in his way.

As Bernard Crick wrote in his book, "In Defence of Politics," "Politics is a way of ruling divided societies without undue violence."

Over the past generation we have seen the rise of a group of people who are against politics. These groups — best exemplified by the Tea Party but not exclusive to the right — want to elect people who have no political experience. They want "outsiders." They delegitimize compromise and deal-making. They're willing to trample the customs and rules that give legitimacy to legislative decision-making if it helps them gain power.

Ultimately, they don't recognize other people. They suffer from a form of political narcissism, in which they don't accept the legitimacy of other interests and opinions. They don't recognize restraints. They want total victories for themselves and their doctrine.

This antipolitics tendency has had a wretched effect on our democracy. It has led to a series of overlapping downward spirals:

The antipolitics people elect legislators who have no political skills or experience. That incompetence leads to dysfunctional government, which leads to more disgust with government, which leads to a demand for even more outsiders.

The antipolitics people don't accept that politics is a limited activity. They make soaring promises and raise ridiculous expectations. When those expectations are not met, voters grow cynical and, disgusted, turn even further in the direction of antipolitics.

The antipolitics people refuse compromise and so block the legislative process. The absence of accomplishment destroys public trust. The decline in trust makes deal-making harder.

We're now at a point where the Senate says it won't even hold hearings on a presidential Supreme Court nominee, in clear defiance of custom and the Constitution. We're now at a point in which politicians live in fear if they try to compromise and legislate. We're now at a point in which normal political conversation has broken down. People feel unheard, which makes them shout even louder, which further destroys conversation.

Advertisement

Advertisement

And in walks Donald Trump. People say that Trump is an unconventional candidate and that he represents a break from politics as usual. That's not true. Trump is the culmination of the trends we have been seeing for the last 30 years: the desire for outsiders; the bashing style of rhetoric that makes conversation impossible; the decline of coherent political parties; the declining importance of policy; the tendency to fight cultural battles and identity wars through political means.


Continue reading the main story
Trump represents the path the founders rejected. There is a hint of violence undergirding his campaign. There is always a whiff, and sometimes more than a whiff, of "I'd like to punch him in the face."

I printed out a Times list of the insults Trump has hurled on Twitter. The list took up 33 pages. Trump's style is bashing and pummeling. Everyone who opposes or disagrees with him is an idiot, a moron or a loser. The implied promise of his campaign is that he will come to Washington and bully his way through.

Trump's supporters aren't looking for a political process to address their needs. They are looking for a superhero. As the political scientist Matthew MacWilliams found, the one trait that best predicts whether you're a Trump supporter is how high you score on tests that measure authoritarianism.

This isn't just an American phenomenon. Politics is in retreat and authoritarianism is on the rise worldwide. The answer to Trump is politics. It's acknowledging other people exist. It's taking pleasure in that difference and hammering out workable arrangements. As Harold Laski put it, "We shall make the basis of our state consent to disagreement. Therein shall we ensure its deepest harmony."


--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Friday, February 26, 2016

Andy Borowitz

Christie's Endorsement of Trump Threatens to Overshadow Equally Prestigious Praise from David Duke
BY ANDY BOROWITZ


(The Borowitz Report)—Aides to the G.O.P. front-runner, Donald Trump, expressed concern on Friday that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's endorsement of their candidate might overshadow equally impressive words of praise that Trump received yesterday from the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

The scheduling of Christie's endorsement just one day after the K.K.K. luminary's boost was "obviously far from ideal," the Trump aide Harland Dorrinson said.


"In a perfect world, you'd like some daylight between Christie's endorsement and Duke's statement of support, so they'd each have maximum impact," he said. "As major as the Christie news is, we wouldn't want the Duke thing to get lost in the shuffle."

The aide said that the events of the past twenty-four hours have been "dizzying." "When the Christie thing happened, we were still celebrating the David Duke thing," he said. "It's been crazy."

Dorrinson said that the Trump campaign expects an avalanche of endorsements from G.O.P. leaders, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis in the days and weeks ahead. "Sure, that's going to cause scheduling problems," he said. "But those are the kinds of problems every campaign would love to have."


--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Something to Know - 26 February

Matt Wuerker

For those of you who either watched the GeeOpie guys duke it out, or are curious as to what their "debate" contributed to the betterment of our political condition, the following article is presented as an alternative to something that makes better sense.  Hope you can follow along.  If it is beyond your comprehension, it is at least closer to the real world:  (click on English button if you really want to read it)


Cómo el remplazo de Scalia en la Corte Suprema puede cambiar el rumbo de Estados Unidos

Por ADAM LIPTAK 24 febrero 2016


El Presidente Obama en el despacho oval. Si decide nominar a un juez liberal para suceder a Antonin Scalia, podría cambiar el balance de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

Read in English

WASHINGTON – Hay una razón por la que los senadores republicanos se niegan a permitir que el Presidente Obama nomine a un sucesor del Juez Antonin Scalia, una figura emblemática de la jurisprudencia conservadora. La nominación que haga Obama implicaría el cambio ideológico más significativo en la Corte desde 1991 y generaría una mayoría liberal que, con gran seguridad, podría reformar las leyes y la vida en Estados Unidos.

Obama tiene una rara oportunidad para hacer su tercera nominación en un momento crucial.

La última nominación con una apuesta ideológica tan importante ocurrió en 1991, cuando se retiró Thurgood Marshall, considerado el juez más liberal de la historia moderna. Después de un arduo proceso de ratificación, fue remplazado por Clarence Thomas, un conservador.

En sus memorias de 2011, el Juez John Paul Stevens, quien se retiró en 2010, escribió: "La importancia del cambio en la jurisprudencia de la corte, que se atribuye a la elección de Clarence Thomas para ocupar la vacante que dejó Thurgood al retirarse, no puede subestimarse".

La elección del sucesor del Juez Scalia podría tener la misma trascendencia. El derecho al aborto podría afianzarse mientras que el de la posesión de armas podría perder adeptos. Los intereses corporativos tendrían menos éxito y los de los consumidores y los trabajadores, más apoyo. La aversión jurídica a los programas para ayudar a grupos minoritarios en desventaja disminuiría. Y tal vez los argumentos basados en la Primera Enmienda en casos de financiamiento de campañas, sindicatos públicos y el discurso corporativo tendrían una recepción más escéptica.

Nada cambiaría de la noche a la mañana pero con el tiempo muchas cosas serían muy diferentes.

El nuevo nombramiento de Obama reforzaría el bloque liberal de la Corte Suprema que actualmente tiene cuatro miembros: los jueces Ruth Bader Ginsburg y Stephen G. Breyer, nombrados por el Presidente Bill Clinton, y las juezas Sonia Sotomayor y Elena Kagan, nominadas por Obama.

Estos cuatro jueces son muy cercanos en términos ideológicos. A menudo votan igual y, últimamente, han tenido cierto éxito para atraer un quinto voto a favor de su posición, con frecuencia del Juez Anthony M. Kennedy, quien podría perder su posición en el centro ideológico de la corte si Obama logra designar al próximo juez.

Hasta la muerte del Juez Scalia, los cuatro nombramientos demócratas estuvieron superados por las cinco designaciones republicanas, todas ellas de postura más conservadora.

Vikram Amar, decano de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Illinois, explicó que "añadir otro juez que tenga una inclinación y visión similares a los de las jueces Ginsburg y Sotomayor podría poner en tela de juicio precedentes contenciosos que han tenido una votación 5-4", y enumeró las resoluciones que podrían ser anuladas.

Amar empezó por Citizens United contra Federal Election Comission, la cual amplificó el papel de la financiación en la política, y la del Distrito de Columbia contra Heller, en la que se reconoció el derecho a poseer armas indicado en la Segunda Enmienda.

La lista es bastante completa y contiene los resultados más destacados de la corte, presidida desde 2005 por el Juez John G. Roberts Jr. Sus omisiones más importantes están en las áreas en que los jueces más liberales se impusieron. Estas victorias incluyeron fallos sobre el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo y la constitucionalidad de un fragmento clave de Obamacare, la ley de salud pública.

Los candidatos presidenciales por el Partido Demócrata, Hillary Clinton y Bernie Sanders, han prometido que buscarán revertir la resolución de Citizens United. Pero Tom Ginsburg, catedrático de derecho en la Universidad de Chicago, opinó que quizá eso no sea suficiente para generar un cambio de fondo.

Eric J. Segall, un catedrático de derecho en el estado de Georgia, afirmó que el cambio podría llegar de manera más bien paulatina. "Todos los jueces, en distinto grado, son sensibles a la acusación de ser meros políticos vestidos de toga". Añadió que "revertir casos porque ha cambiado el equilibrio de poder no es algo que suceda de inmediato".

En lugar de anular precedentes de manera rotunda, explicó, una mayoría liberal podría disminuir algunos de ellos, especialmente en el caso del derecho a la posesión de armas. "Los cinco reducirían a Heller hasta el punto de la irrelevancia", comentó en relación con la ley que establecía que los estadounidenses tienen el derecho constitucional a tener armas en su casa.

El profesor Ginsburg explicó que una corte dominada por liberales podría reformar los derechos incluidos en la Segunda Enmienda sin anular la resolución del caso Heller y de su sucesor en 2010, McDonald contra Chicago.

"Si tenemos un quinto juez liberal en la corte, el péndulo se inclinaría rápidamente hacia el control de armas", declaró. "Espero que veamos un cambio importante en el tipo de leyes de control de armas que la corte aprueba. El primer paso probablemente será aumentar los requisitos de registro de armas".

Un nuevo juez nominado por Obama haría aun más improbable el éxito de una impugnación a las leyes sobre el control de armas con base en la Segunda Enmienda, un punto que el Senador Ted Cruz ha mantenido en la campaña. En un reciente debate republicano entre los candidatos presidenciales, Cruz sostuvo: "Estamos a un juez de tener una Corte Suprema que revierta la resolución en el caso Heller, una de las resoluciones influyentes del Juez Scalia, la cual defiende el derecho que contiene la Segunda Enmienda a tener y portar armas".


--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Something to Know - 23 February

Tom Toles

It has been a while since my last posting.   I have been busy: laughing so hard watching the GeeOpie guys eating each other up....and becoming a grand father (Michael Wilshire Matute).   As to what got me off the couch to write this time - it is this article in today's Los Angeles Times; GUNS.   The concept and take away here is that the NRA is not really crusading to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of "gun owners".   NO - it is really keeping the gun makers in the business of providing the world with guns.  It's like this - the hills of Colombia, the hills of Latin America, and the agriculture of South East Asia and Afghanistan are are just like the NRA.  The other guys are doing it for the drug market, and the NRA deals in instruments that kill - exporting hand guns, bigger guns, and assault rifles to an addicted global market.  Under the guise of 2nd Amendment protection, the NRA ensures that gun factories keep the path the their consumers viable and open.  It all sucks:


Our global guns problem
Americans' right to bear arms keeps the worldwide weapons economy going.
By Iain Overton
   AMERICANS LOVE guns. And Americans hate anyone who dares to criticize their infatuation.

   The first truth is rooted in America's almost unique constitutional right to bear arms — a legal and cultural paradigm that allows its citizens to own more than 300 million guns. This is roughly twice as many firearms per capita than there were in 1968, so it's a growing love affair. It's also a painful one — according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as many as 1.4 million Americans were killed or injured by guns between 2001 and 2013. The second truth is, perhaps, best proved by the outcry after British journalist Piers Morgan condemned America's gun culture. More than 100,000 people 
signed a petition in 2012 called "Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment."

   But more foreigners should be speaking out about America's deadly relationship with the gun. The right to bear arms, and the sheer number of firearms bought and sold in this country every year as a result, has undeniable global implications. For a start, Americans in effect support the world's 
gun economy. In addition to the 8.6 million guns made in the U.S. in 2012, 4.8 million more were imported from overseas. The U.S. import volume of foreign guns more than tripled between 2003 and 2012.

   More insidious, though, is how the licit American gun industry affects the illicit Latin American gun market. The ease with which guns can be purchased in the U.S., and the fact that many sales may be conducted without background checks, has deep consequences. The majority of guns found in Mexico and Central America are from the United States. It is estimated that more than 250,000 guns flow south of the border into Mexico — a country with just one official gun retailer — every year. Roughly 45% of U.S. firearms licensees are believed to rely on Mexican trade for their survival. To the north, Canada estimates that 50% of the guns used in crime in Ottawa were smuggled across the border.

   In 2014, El Salvador had almost 4,000 killings, a rate of about 62 homicides per 100,000 (in the U.S. it is about 4 per 100,000). Most of these slayings were committed with guns — and about 50% of guns traced in El Salvador that year came from the United States. The lifting of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the U.S. in 2004 resulted in more than 2,600 estimated additional homicides in Mexico.

   Even as the 2nd Amendment contributes to rising crime in nearby countries, it also validates the concept of governing with 
guns, both at home and abroad. The U.S. government has, in one decade — between 2006 and 2016 — spent more than $6 billion on small arms alone. That figure reflects a wider trigger-happy reality in which about 250,000 bullets were fired by U.S. troops in Iraq for every rebel killed.

   Such governmental largesse has consequences. The Pentagon acknowledges that it has lost track of about 190,000 rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces. And 43% of the 747,000 weapons given to the Afghan National Army could not be accounted for. Without question, U.S. government-funded arms have ended up in the hands of Islamic State militants. And ammunition magazines identical to those given to Afghan government forces by the U.S. military have been found on dead Taliban fighters.

   But the 2nd Amendment isn't just upholding the worldwide gun market, fueling smuggling networks and inadvertently arming terrorist groups. America's passion for guns also inhibits effective global gun control treaties.

   The multilateral Arms Trade Treaty would, among other things, have prohibited the U.S. from transferring arms to states that might use them in genocide or crimes against humanity. Although the U.S. signed the treaty in 2013, Congress refused to ratify it, in large part because the National Rifle Assn. claimed that it would curtail American citizens' right to bear arms. Amnesty International insisted that wasn't 
true — but lawmakers listened to their favorite lobby.

   The U.S. is also to blame for watering down the United Nations' 2001 Program of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons. Then-Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton ensured the program made no mention of the civilian possession of arms nor the need for laws to control them in the final document.

   It is not just the United States that deserves criticism. Russian and Chinese state arms manufacturers have caused untold harm, as have private manufacturers in the European Union. But Russia and China don't pretend to be fully functioning democracies, and the EU's gun makers have limited sway politically. America, on the other hand, legitimizes and embraces political donations from gun manufacturers. (All but three of the 45 senators who torpedoed gun control measures in Congress in 2013 accepted donations from gun lobbyists.) And it fails to stem the flow of illegal 
guns to the drug gangs of Latin America.

   America's gun control debate has now hit the political mainstream: President Obama makes a point of speaking out after mass shootings. That discourse should acknowledge that measured gun control will not just affect Americans, but could also benefit the entire world.

   IAIN OVERTON is the author of "The Way of the Gun:

   A Bloody Journey Into the

   World of Firearms."

--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Re: Problems with NY Times Online edidtion?

Disregard.  I backed off and digitally kicked the system, and NY Times server magically came to life - like what I learned in the telecom industry - PFM.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Juan Matute <juanma2t@gmail.com> wrote:
Is anyone out there having problems with the NY Times server this morning?   I have continued normal access to all other publications, but I cannot figure this anomaly with the New York Times.

--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story






--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Problems with NY Times Online edidtion?

Is anyone out there having problems with the NY Times server this morning?   I have continued normal access to all other publications, but I cannot figure this anomaly with the New York Times.

--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Monday, February 22, 2016

Andy Borowitz

Americans Nostalgic for Republican Who Only Wanted to Screw Over Forty-Seven Per Cent of Them
BY ANDY BOROWITZ


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a sign of voters' shifting perspectives about Presidential hopefuls, a new survey reveals that Americans are deeply nostalgic for a Republican candidate who only wanted to screw over forty-seven per cent of them.

In interviews conducted across the country, voters expressed wistfulness and even a deep longing for a man who was indifferent to the fates of nearly half the nation's residents.


"When he was running, it seemed like a bad thing that he didn't care whether forty-seven per cent of the country lived or died," said Tracy Klugian, of Akron, Ohio. "Now I realize we were being too picky."

"He threw thousands of people out of their jobs and onto the streets, but he let them stay in the country," said Kent Bantwell, of Springfield, Missouri. "I've got to say, I miss him."

Harland Dorrinson, of Jupiter, Florida, said that he wished that the man would jump into the 2016 race, but admitted that was unlikely. "That secret tape where he said he was screwing over forty-seven per cent of the country would be brought up again," he said. "The fact that he wasn't screwing over a bigger number would come back to haunt him now."

Carol Foyler, of San Dimas, California, said she wished she could take back "all the nasty things" she said about the man when he ran for President in 2012. "I called him a jerk and a tool and a sociopath—and worse," she remembered, shaking her head. "Now he seems like Mandela."


--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Sunday, February 21, 2016

Andy Borowitz

TODAY 7:39 AM

Iraqis Celebrate as Threat of Third Bush Presidency is Over

BY 

CREDITPHOTOGRAPH BY KHALID AL MOUSILY / REUTERS

BAGHDAD (The Borowitz Report)—Thousands of Iraqis poured out into the streets to celebrate in the early hours of Sunday morning, as the threat of a third Bush Presidency was declared over at last.

Iraqis, on edge about the prospect of another Bush in the White House since former Governor Jeb Bush entered the race last year, had been watching returns from the South Carolina primary with a mixture of anxiety and cautious optimism.

Moments after the first evidence of Bush's dismal finish began trickling in, however, Iraqis roared with glee as spontaneous festivities erupted across the country.

Observers were stunned to see Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds dancing together in the streets, putting aside their enmity to celebrate an outcome that they never dreamed possible.

"You must understand, we Iraqis have been living with the fear of a third Bush Presidency for months now," Sabah al-Alousi, a Baghdad shoemaker, said. "Now we can begin to think about a future, for ourselves and our families."

Asked about the possibility of a Trump Presidency, he waved off the question. "This is the greatest day for my country," he said. "I will let nothing spoil this day."


--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Thursday, February 18, 2016

Andy Borowitz

TODAY 11:55 AM

Conspiracy Theorists Say Republican Party Did Not Die from Natural Causes

BY 

CREDITPHOTOGRAPHS BY (L–R) SCOTT OLSON / GETTY; JABIN BOTSFORD / THE WASHINGTON POST / GETTY; CHIP SOMODEVILLA / GETTY

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Conspiracy theorists believe that the Republican Party did not die from natural causes but was instead the target of an elaborately planned killing, a leading conspiracy theorist has confirmed.

Harland Dorrinson, whose basement walls are covered with photos of suspects in the killing of the G.O.P., has spent countless hours connecting those photos with different colors of yarn in the hopes that a larger pattern would emerge.

"Because the Republican Party is one hundred and sixty-one years old, it's assumed that it was time for it to die," he said. "The truth is, that's exactly what the people who killed it want us to think."

While some conspiracy theorists have focussed on the billionaire Donald J. Trump as the most likely suspect in the death of the Republican Party, Dorrinson favors a "two-killer" theory that involves Arizona Senator John McCain and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

"McCain tapped Palin to be his running mate, and that led directly to people like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Donald Trump being considered credible candidates," he said. "There is no logical reason why McCain would have chosen Palin unless he wanted to kill the Republican Party."

In addition to the McCain-Palin cabal, Dorrinson is considering a host of other suspects, including the industrialists David and Charles Koch, the Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, and the novelist Ayn Rand.

"The only suspect I have definitively ruled out is Mitch McConnell," he said. "No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't imagine a scenario where he accomplished something."


--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story