I hear of a lot of people saying that they like legal immigrants and hate illegal ones. To me, that makes as much sense as loving people when they have a drivers' license and hating them when they don't. What kind of charm spell do these immigrant documents have on them? This is as transparently a racist statement as "some of my best friends are Hispanic."
In other news, yes, I know Republicans now give Trump a 90% approval rating. I could see them doing that until Trump tanks the economy. Oh, you forgot Trump was supposed to make Republicans weathy? Everything about the Republicans and Trump is really about money. His trade policies, his tax cuts, and his immigration policies are one way or another supposed to make his supporters rich. Even defunding Planned Parenthood diverts money to Pregnancy Counseling Centers, whose denominations are enriched, and this makes God happy. In the Conservative worldview, the Prosperity Gospel says if you make God glad, you'll be rich. Trump is just selling people Trump University again, but with much more racism.
Trump, the ultimate know-it-all helming our economy, is pulling levers and pushing buttons, like a drunken, angry monkey. However, luck makes geniuses into idiots and into geniuses. Just because the Captain's an idiot doesn't mean we'll hit an iceberg.
If economy tanking doesn't fill you with joy, remember Republicans are only 30% of the electorate. The Democrats can beat a 27% hurdle.
Monday, June 25, 2018
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Eugenics: the pseudoscience behind racism and genocide
Eugenics:
noun (used with a singular verb)
I bring up eugenics because President Donald Trump is a eugenicist. He's never come out and said that, but he has declared he had "good genes," in several pre-presidential interviews.
The better evidence is from who Trump the Younger lets into his inner circle, such as Steve Bannon. Bannon's eugenic and racist credentials are impeccable. Trump has praised neo-Nazis as "good people." He's come out in favor of racist Confederate statuary. Then you look at the rest of the people who he appoints: white as cotton. Also, consider the difference in the way he treated Texas and Puerto Rico after they were struck by hurricanes. Puerto Rico is still struggling.
Of course, there's also the elephant in the room, Trump's morally reprobate and impractical immigration policies. (Can you tell I don't like Trump?) Even if Trump doesn't say the word eugenics, and probably doesn't know a word that big, neo-nazis and white supremacists definitely hear the message. He encourages their belief.
An argument against Trump has to attack eugenics. Not only is it immoral, but it's also fatally flawed.
At one time almost every educated white person in North America or Europe was a eugenicist. There've been vague forms of eugenics throughout history. However, modern style was an unfortunate interpretation of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory. This was posited by Darwin's half-cousin, Francis Galton. Darwin disagreed with his half-cousin's interpretation. Unfazed, Galton coined a new word: "eugenics" and gave birth to a movement.
From there the idea spread like a meme through other Western countries, having harmful effects wherever it caught hold. Galton's gift provided scientific legitimacy to colonialization that Western Europeans needed to continue their ventures. In the US, states passed sterilization laws aimed at "inferior" people. Of course, it also reinforced the crudest racism, letting New Englanders agree that the Jim Crow might be useful after all. Racism had always been a potent force in US politics, now it was scientifically sound.
One effect that we're struggling with as I write is immigration policy. The first federal immigration law, The Page Act, was passed in 1875 before; eight years before Galton's initiatives. It was targeted only at Chinese. While that might be a counter-example, it also means our country didn't limit immigration for the first 86 years. Not just that: the Constitution doesn't mention immigration. That's what priority the issue had. The document does allow Congress to set rules for granting citizenship. Without anything in the founding documents, the ninth and tenth amendments would seem to suggest it's up to the states to regulate it. The states, however, wanted more population wanted more population in the early days. As far as know, the Constitutionality of immigration laws has never been tested in court.
Emergency Quota Act of 1921 the Immigration Act of 1924 were both passed, and both were very eugenic. For the first time, immigration was constrained by quotas. People from Northern Europe had much higher quotas than people of Southern or Eastern Europe (or from anywhere else). They also singled out Jews, Italians, and Slavs as especially unfavorable. The 1924 Act bolstered the prohibitions on Asian migration. The effects of eugenics were evident in these laws. We were trying to invent the superior race. Sterilization was done in every state of the union. Across Europe was mostly the same.
Until the cataclysm of the Second World War when the Concentration and Death Camps were liberated. The Nazis pushed eugenics to an extreme and chose the Jews as the most inferior race. The sight of dead bodies carpeting the ground to the horizon gave people a glance at the evil they were practicing to lesser extremes. Eugenics fell from favor.
But it was never scientifically refuted. That was a colossal oversight. That should have been the Epilogue of the Nuremberg Trials. The fact that eugenics was never formally disproved is coming back on us now, in the form of neo-nazis who think their racism has a basis in science but a conspiracy has suppressed it. But most importantly in Donald Trump who thinks he's keeping America safe for white people.
Some have pointed out that the superior people inevitably happen to coincide with the group that's in power at the time. That makes a short point for me: decisions about who's superior must be made politically, not by objective scientific standards.
For politics, words like "superior, perfect and truth" only have a meaning in specific, limited contexts. Such as we say, "Mike Trout is a superior baseball player." Or, "Sandy Koufax pitched a perfect game," or "The truth is, he pitched a perfect game." Those qualities can only be determined in a narrow context, such as within the rules and events of a baseball game. The statistics and videos are there to doublecheck the factuality of the claim.
Outside narrow contexts those words are seductive. They can trick a person into believing they can be boundless, even eternal, qualities.
Keeping that in mind, let's talk about a superior race. It is a myth that evolution makes species superior when the environment is harsh. Remember that evolution doesn't go one way. In nature, we were never evolving into a "superior" species. Also, evolution isn't stopped because life is so easy. No, you can't stop evolution any more than you can stop gravity. If we harshen up our environment, what might happen is that human brains shrink, because our brains require a lot of resources expending 20 percent of our energy intake. No other animal comes close. If the harsh environment were short of food, our extra intelligence could be the first thing overboard.
Evolution over generations makes a species more successful in its environment, this success us measured by how many of an organism's genes are later found within the species. This is why our superior minds can't get rid of cockroaches, mosquitos, and rats. Those animals aren't superior, they're entrenched in their niches. If the environment changes radically, all can go extinct.
Outside the narrow scope I described, "superiority" is an entirely human judgment wholly disconnected from environmental favor. While not necessarily arbitrary, the traits human beings regard as superior might be far from what evolution will award. I don't think we can be successful at eugenics, but if we are, there's a good chance we'll kick ourselves into extinction.
To change the direction of evolution toward what we think is superior, humans would have to completely control the environment; breed the people with favorable traits, and eliminate the people with inferior attributes. That requires a lot of brutality and attrition. I don't Hitler think would have gotten very far with this, but it wouldn't have been implemented. Practically speaking, he couldn't have. I'm not sure he would've recoiled from those imposing these requirements on Germans, but he might have.
We've been creating dog breeds since Darwin. We haven't, however, created a "superior dog," that is one that beats us in chess while reciting Cervantes. Instead, by controlling their environment and interbreeding them, people have created a lot of specialized breeds.
My last point is evolution is a slow process working by the geological clock. The nation-states that are around now will all be gone by the time any effect whatsoever is apparent. How are we supposed to set up a regime that stands and continues to implement eugenics after all else we create fails?
Forty-five percent of people think he's doing a good job. He has to appeal to that deplorable class, so be prepared to see worse.
- the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
Evidence
I bring up eugenics because President Donald Trump is a eugenicist. He's never come out and said that, but he has declared he had "good genes," in several pre-presidential interviews.
The better evidence is from who Trump the Younger lets into his inner circle, such as Steve Bannon. Bannon's eugenic and racist credentials are impeccable. Trump has praised neo-Nazis as "good people." He's come out in favor of racist Confederate statuary. Then you look at the rest of the people who he appoints: white as cotton. Also, consider the difference in the way he treated Texas and Puerto Rico after they were struck by hurricanes. Puerto Rico is still struggling.
Of course, there's also the elephant in the room, Trump's morally reprobate and impractical immigration policies. (Can you tell I don't like Trump?) Even if Trump doesn't say the word eugenics, and probably doesn't know a word that big, neo-nazis and white supremacists definitely hear the message. He encourages their belief.
An argument against Trump has to attack eugenics. Not only is it immoral, but it's also fatally flawed.
A Short History of Eugenics
At one time almost every educated white person in North America or Europe was a eugenicist. There've been vague forms of eugenics throughout history. However, modern style was an unfortunate interpretation of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory. This was posited by Darwin's half-cousin, Francis Galton. Darwin disagreed with his half-cousin's interpretation. Unfazed, Galton coined a new word: "eugenics" and gave birth to a movement.
From there the idea spread like a meme through other Western countries, having harmful effects wherever it caught hold. Galton's gift provided scientific legitimacy to colonialization that Western Europeans needed to continue their ventures. In the US, states passed sterilization laws aimed at "inferior" people. Of course, it also reinforced the crudest racism, letting New Englanders agree that the Jim Crow might be useful after all. Racism had always been a potent force in US politics, now it was scientifically sound.
One effect that we're struggling with as I write is immigration policy. The first federal immigration law, The Page Act, was passed in 1875 before; eight years before Galton's initiatives. It was targeted only at Chinese. While that might be a counter-example, it also means our country didn't limit immigration for the first 86 years. Not just that: the Constitution doesn't mention immigration. That's what priority the issue had. The document does allow Congress to set rules for granting citizenship. Without anything in the founding documents, the ninth and tenth amendments would seem to suggest it's up to the states to regulate it. The states, however, wanted more population wanted more population in the early days. As far as know, the Constitutionality of immigration laws has never been tested in court.
Emergency Quota Act of 1921 the Immigration Act of 1924 were both passed, and both were very eugenic. For the first time, immigration was constrained by quotas. People from Northern Europe had much higher quotas than people of Southern or Eastern Europe (or from anywhere else). They also singled out Jews, Italians, and Slavs as especially unfavorable. The 1924 Act bolstered the prohibitions on Asian migration. The effects of eugenics were evident in these laws. We were trying to invent the superior race. Sterilization was done in every state of the union. Across Europe was mostly the same.
Until the cataclysm of the Second World War when the Concentration and Death Camps were liberated. The Nazis pushed eugenics to an extreme and chose the Jews as the most inferior race. The sight of dead bodies carpeting the ground to the horizon gave people a glance at the evil they were practicing to lesser extremes. Eugenics fell from favor.
But it was never scientifically refuted. That was a colossal oversight. That should have been the Epilogue of the Nuremberg Trials. The fact that eugenics was never formally disproved is coming back on us now, in the form of neo-nazis who think their racism has a basis in science but a conspiracy has suppressed it. But most importantly in Donald Trump who thinks he's keeping America safe for white people.
Refutation
First, I'm not a scientist. I've done a lot of scientific reading, but mainly I'm just a guy doing his best.Some have pointed out that the superior people inevitably happen to coincide with the group that's in power at the time. That makes a short point for me: decisions about who's superior must be made politically, not by objective scientific standards.
For politics, words like "superior, perfect and truth" only have a meaning in specific, limited contexts. Such as we say, "Mike Trout is a superior baseball player." Or, "Sandy Koufax pitched a perfect game," or "The truth is, he pitched a perfect game." Those qualities can only be determined in a narrow context, such as within the rules and events of a baseball game. The statistics and videos are there to doublecheck the factuality of the claim.
Outside narrow contexts those words are seductive. They can trick a person into believing they can be boundless, even eternal, qualities.
Keeping that in mind, let's talk about a superior race. It is a myth that evolution makes species superior when the environment is harsh. Remember that evolution doesn't go one way. In nature, we were never evolving into a "superior" species. Also, evolution isn't stopped because life is so easy. No, you can't stop evolution any more than you can stop gravity. If we harshen up our environment, what might happen is that human brains shrink, because our brains require a lot of resources expending 20 percent of our energy intake. No other animal comes close. If the harsh environment were short of food, our extra intelligence could be the first thing overboard.
Evolution over generations makes a species more successful in its environment, this success us measured by how many of an organism's genes are later found within the species. This is why our superior minds can't get rid of cockroaches, mosquitos, and rats. Those animals aren't superior, they're entrenched in their niches. If the environment changes radically, all can go extinct.
Outside the narrow scope I described, "superiority" is an entirely human judgment wholly disconnected from environmental favor. While not necessarily arbitrary, the traits human beings regard as superior might be far from what evolution will award. I don't think we can be successful at eugenics, but if we are, there's a good chance we'll kick ourselves into extinction.
To change the direction of evolution toward what we think is superior, humans would have to completely control the environment; breed the people with favorable traits, and eliminate the people with inferior attributes. That requires a lot of brutality and attrition. I don't Hitler think would have gotten very far with this, but it wouldn't have been implemented. Practically speaking, he couldn't have. I'm not sure he would've recoiled from those imposing these requirements on Germans, but he might have.
We've been creating dog breeds since Darwin. We haven't, however, created a "superior dog," that is one that beats us in chess while reciting Cervantes. Instead, by controlling their environment and interbreeding them, people have created a lot of specialized breeds.
My last point is evolution is a slow process working by the geological clock. The nation-states that are around now will all be gone by the time any effect whatsoever is apparent. How are we supposed to set up a regime that stands and continues to implement eugenics after all else we create fails?
Right now
The way Trump is treating immigrants shocks us. Be ready for when his grade of brutality grows. I expect this after he meets with Putin and gets advice. Trump had rather imprison ten thousand innocent Hispanics than arrest the only the thirty criminals among them. For deterrence, he'd separate children from their families. This has required more facilities. For somebody purported to be fiscally responsible, he's ticking up a lot of needless costs. That's nothing compared to the atrocity he's committing. He could build his wall on the funds he saves from arresting the guilty and letting the innocent in and allowing them to keep their children. But that's beside the point: doing unrealistic things to hurt people is called evil.Forty-five percent of people think he's doing a good job. He has to appeal to that deplorable class, so be prepared to see worse.
Friday, June 22, 2018
The nature of power
As humans, we are mysteries to ourselves. Every day we handle money. Do we ever stop to wonder what it is and why we're so compelled to use it? A piece of green paper with George Washington's portrait and "1's" at the corners is just what I described. Same with a green piece of paper with Ben Franklin's portrait and fifties at the corner. When we believe it's money, we treat it differently. We count it carefully, safeguard it, save or spend. We don't just possess the money, we're able to command it: buy something on a credit or debit card. Then you never handle the dollars you're exchanging. The money "emblem" doesn't even need the bills, it doesn't need to be visible. A few million electrons, too small for the eye to see are sufficient. Money is the difference between life and death, wealth and destitution. The amount we have divides us into classes.
That's some powerful magic because when you get right down to it, money exists only in the human mind. Some people are disturbed by its etherealness and insist we must use gold. It doesn't matter really what we use to physically represent money, it's whether we regard it as money. Gold is impractical for our economy, there's not enough of it, it's heavy and cumbersome to transfer. During the 1870s-1933, in the planting seasons, farmers would take out loans for seed. The banks would run out. They had to send to Britain for more. The trip from Britain took two weeks, and by that time, banks would fail by the dozens.
My point being: money is imagined. We do a lot of things to keep up the illusion. Our social understanding that sees it creates it and respects it. Other things that have enormous influence over us exist only in our minds. Borders. Nation-states, private property. Why do we all go along with it? Because some people might not have an objection, and there's a cost to rejecting them, just like there's a penalty for ignoring any of the cornerstone social imaginations in our lives.
Money is power, and power is imaginary, too.
Money's not the only form of power. What is power then? The measure of a person's power is in how many people they can get to cooperate with them, over what duration, and to what extremes. I'm sure if the observations could ever be done, it can be described as people x duration x extremes.
And in judging power, it doesn't matter what the method is, whether he does it by his charm, her money, his ruthlessness. Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, did it by being charming at first and then making the charmed people do brutal things, while the dictator did more charming. Once the dictator has surrounded himself by ruthless, but charmed people, and they have power networks of their own, he's set for life.
Money is power, and if people were aware of that, they wouldn't let anybody get too wealthy. The Koch Brothers have $40 billion dollars. How many assassins can that buy? How many mercenaries How many politicians? Even if one might turn the billionaire down, there's always another one to buy. Remember, it's the number of people cooperating, directly or indirectly, that makes somebody powerful.
Is there any practical use for my observation? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all major and minor dictators through history were only men that people started to obey. Just remember we don't have to follow the dictator. It's the people in his network who can stop obeying him, and negate their obedience and the reason for it. I don't suggest they take that lightly because as I said, there are penalties.
I consider this to be very pertinent for today when we're facing a president who's an authoritarian.
That's some powerful magic because when you get right down to it, money exists only in the human mind. Some people are disturbed by its etherealness and insist we must use gold. It doesn't matter really what we use to physically represent money, it's whether we regard it as money. Gold is impractical for our economy, there's not enough of it, it's heavy and cumbersome to transfer. During the 1870s-1933, in the planting seasons, farmers would take out loans for seed. The banks would run out. They had to send to Britain for more. The trip from Britain took two weeks, and by that time, banks would fail by the dozens.
My point being: money is imagined. We do a lot of things to keep up the illusion. Our social understanding that sees it creates it and respects it. Other things that have enormous influence over us exist only in our minds. Borders. Nation-states, private property. Why do we all go along with it? Because some people might not have an objection, and there's a cost to rejecting them, just like there's a penalty for ignoring any of the cornerstone social imaginations in our lives.
Money is power, and power is imaginary, too.
Money's not the only form of power. What is power then? The measure of a person's power is in how many people they can get to cooperate with them, over what duration, and to what extremes. I'm sure if the observations could ever be done, it can be described as people x duration x extremes.
And in judging power, it doesn't matter what the method is, whether he does it by his charm, her money, his ruthlessness. Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, did it by being charming at first and then making the charmed people do brutal things, while the dictator did more charming. Once the dictator has surrounded himself by ruthless, but charmed people, and they have power networks of their own, he's set for life.
Money is power, and if people were aware of that, they wouldn't let anybody get too wealthy. The Koch Brothers have $40 billion dollars. How many assassins can that buy? How many mercenaries How many politicians? Even if one might turn the billionaire down, there's always another one to buy. Remember, it's the number of people cooperating, directly or indirectly, that makes somebody powerful.
Is there any practical use for my observation? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all major and minor dictators through history were only men that people started to obey. Just remember we don't have to follow the dictator. It's the people in his network who can stop obeying him, and negate their obedience and the reason for it. I don't suggest they take that lightly because as I said, there are penalties.
I consider this to be very pertinent for today when we're facing a president who's an authoritarian.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Like a good Fascist
I will say one thing about Trump, he has kept his campaign promises. But that's only a virtue if the pledge you make isn't wicked.
Nothing that's happening with the separation of children from parents surprises me in the least. During the campaign, Trump was adamant on detaining immigrants at the border, with expelling illegals and refusing "frivolous" asylum requests.
I heard him say he would do it humanely. Nobody asked him how his policy could be performed benevolently. A reporter taking him seriously might have asked if he planned to put more money into building more detention centers, more vehicles, more supplies and hiring (qualified) guards? Or was he going to wait until Walmart closes a few stores? (Trump really should go easier on Amazon.) All of this might cost more than his wall. He should have been pressed on this during the election campaign.
Instead, as we're seeing, Trump would rather eat corn nuts for every meal every day of his remaining life than send one more buck toward making detention and processing somehow humane. He despises Hispanics so much that details aren't worth his effort, and definitely aren't worth any money, as hurricane Maria showed.
So, Trump will alter his plans under pressure. The government might allow parents to stay with their children, and that would be somewhat more humane at the beginning.
But it won't stay so that humane. What Trump will be refugee camps and ghettos, depending on whether it's an urban or rural environment. My bet is on the camps. How badly will they deteriorate? It could become a major atrocity because he has shown an uninterest in details that require it. He approaches his work as an authoritarian, and he presumes anything he trusts to be there will there.
He stepped up arrests at the border, for that he needs more police, then more trucks to transport immigrants, then detentionaries to keep them warehoused. These will require guards, then energy for heat in the winter. (I'm supposing AC would be a luxury.) Then food and water. Update: Since he has already separated 20,000 children from families, it has multiplied the number of facilities by at least two. Children are going to require care, somebody's going to have to change the diapers. Trump doesn't even think about all this, but to perform the stepped-up seizure and imprisonment without committing an atrocity, he needs far more resources than he started out with. He needs infrastructure he doesn't have.
Instead of assuming all Hispanic immigrants to be potential criminals, it would be far easier to arrest only the ones that ARE criminals. It would certainly be easier to house and feed only those that break real laws, the way the Founders meant it.
I say "real" laws because there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate immigration. Though, to be clear, it does put the fed in charge of naturalizing immigrants. However, not until a hundred years after Independence were the first immigration laws passed. The only way the laws have stood up since is that immigration courts are not real courts. They're like hearing rooms of the executive branch. The "judges" are really civil servants working for the president, not judges appointed for life. So, if an immigrant wanted to challenge immigration laws, it would be in immigration court. The case would not be a judicial; the appeal would go to the AG, not to a real judge. If a non-immigrant wanted to challenge them, then the "real" court would say they have no standing to make the challenge. They're not a party with interest in the outcome. So, the immigration system has stood balanced on loopholes.
I expect my government to arrest criminals. I don't expect it to make America whiter. Purification of the American pedigree is not its cause. Such a thing has never existed. For Trump supporters, lashing out at other races is not only foolish and futile, but it makes everybody more miserable, including the Trumpers. They aim for a purer race, and the only thing they'll learn is it will solve nothing and make life a lot worse as it fails.
Unfortunately, I expect conditions for the growing number of detained immigrants to continue to worsen. As heinous as it is, the breaking of families is not what underlies this problem. If Trump stops breaking families, we'll get refugee camps and ghettos, and conditions in them will deteriorate because Trump and his henchmen in Congress will never provide funds to make the places inhabitable.
No, Trump's immigration policy is the real problem, and racism is the wickedness at its root. The camps and the detention centers are symptoms, the growing sores on the land.
Nothing that's happening with the separation of children from parents surprises me in the least. During the campaign, Trump was adamant on detaining immigrants at the border, with expelling illegals and refusing "frivolous" asylum requests.
I heard him say he would do it humanely. Nobody asked him how his policy could be performed benevolently. A reporter taking him seriously might have asked if he planned to put more money into building more detention centers, more vehicles, more supplies and hiring (qualified) guards? Or was he going to wait until Walmart closes a few stores? (Trump really should go easier on Amazon.) All of this might cost more than his wall. He should have been pressed on this during the election campaign.
Instead, as we're seeing, Trump would rather eat corn nuts for every meal every day of his remaining life than send one more buck toward making detention and processing somehow humane. He despises Hispanics so much that details aren't worth his effort, and definitely aren't worth any money, as hurricane Maria showed.
So, Trump will alter his plans under pressure. The government might allow parents to stay with their children, and that would be somewhat more humane at the beginning.
But it won't stay so that humane. What Trump will be refugee camps and ghettos, depending on whether it's an urban or rural environment. My bet is on the camps. How badly will they deteriorate? It could become a major atrocity because he has shown an uninterest in details that require it. He approaches his work as an authoritarian, and he presumes anything he trusts to be there will there.
He stepped up arrests at the border, for that he needs more police, then more trucks to transport immigrants, then detentionaries to keep them warehoused. These will require guards, then energy for heat in the winter. (I'm supposing AC would be a luxury.) Then food and water. Update: Since he has already separated 20,000 children from families, it has multiplied the number of facilities by at least two. Children are going to require care, somebody's going to have to change the diapers. Trump doesn't even think about all this, but to perform the stepped-up seizure and imprisonment without committing an atrocity, he needs far more resources than he started out with. He needs infrastructure he doesn't have.
Instead of assuming all Hispanic immigrants to be potential criminals, it would be far easier to arrest only the ones that ARE criminals. It would certainly be easier to house and feed only those that break real laws, the way the Founders meant it.
I say "real" laws because there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate immigration. Though, to be clear, it does put the fed in charge of naturalizing immigrants. However, not until a hundred years after Independence were the first immigration laws passed. The only way the laws have stood up since is that immigration courts are not real courts. They're like hearing rooms of the executive branch. The "judges" are really civil servants working for the president, not judges appointed for life. So, if an immigrant wanted to challenge immigration laws, it would be in immigration court. The case would not be a judicial; the appeal would go to the AG, not to a real judge. If a non-immigrant wanted to challenge them, then the "real" court would say they have no standing to make the challenge. They're not a party with interest in the outcome. So, the immigration system has stood balanced on loopholes.
I expect my government to arrest criminals. I don't expect it to make America whiter. Purification of the American pedigree is not its cause. Such a thing has never existed. For Trump supporters, lashing out at other races is not only foolish and futile, but it makes everybody more miserable, including the Trumpers. They aim for a purer race, and the only thing they'll learn is it will solve nothing and make life a lot worse as it fails.
Unfortunately, I expect conditions for the growing number of detained immigrants to continue to worsen. As heinous as it is, the breaking of families is not what underlies this problem. If Trump stops breaking families, we'll get refugee camps and ghettos, and conditions in them will deteriorate because Trump and his henchmen in Congress will never provide funds to make the places inhabitable.
No, Trump's immigration policy is the real problem, and racism is the wickedness at its root. The camps and the detention centers are symptoms, the growing sores on the land.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Collusion not illegal? Try Subversion
While I agree that legal definitions must be precise. Public opinion doesn't turn on legal arguments.
Take the word collusion. Republicans are fond of pointing out, "That ain't no crime."
Neither is copying unless it's plagiarism or counterfeiting.
Neither is fibbing, except when it's defamation.
Neither is a traffic accident, except when it's a hit-and-run.
Neither is sex unless it's rape.
Collusion is a general term for actions that might have been illegal. The press likes the word because they don't have to say "alleged."
However, the actions being discussed are not that innocuous. I can suggest a much better word than collusion to describe what happened between the Trump administration, the Russians, our election system, and our government:
Ironic Republicans, so guarded against subversion for generations, are now welcoming it in the person of Smugly the Clown and the Smugly family.
I suggest that "subversion" is the only term we ought to use to describe the crimes against our country.
Take the word collusion. Republicans are fond of pointing out, "That ain't no crime."
Neither is copying unless it's plagiarism or counterfeiting.
Neither is fibbing, except when it's defamation.
Neither is a traffic accident, except when it's a hit-and-run.
Neither is sex unless it's rape.
Collusion is a general term for actions that might have been illegal. The press likes the word because they don't have to say "alleged."
However, the actions being discussed are not that innocuous. I can suggest a much better word than collusion to describe what happened between the Trump administration, the Russians, our election system, and our government:
SUBVERSION.
Now, when I put it like that, it sounds illegal and threating. Maybe it's because the Cold War wore it out that it hasn't been used. However, since "collusion" is being scoffed at, we might now have a good reason to dust off the word "subversion." Also, ask them what might happened in the Cold War if Russia did to us then what it did in 2016 and whether the Conservatives would be so obdurate about whether it was a crime.
Ironic Republicans, so guarded against subversion for generations, are now welcoming it in the person of Smugly the Clown and the Smugly family.
I suggest that "subversion" is the only term we ought to use to describe the crimes against our country.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Only Trump could have spurned Canada
Speaking on CNN, National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow said Trump's retailatory Tweet to Trudeau was Trump's effort to look tough before the big Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s leader.
No, Trump's implosion at the "G6+1 Clown" and explosion afterward was not a strategy. It's what Trump always does. A strategy implies some kind of change in behavior for the needs of the moment.
I'm not worried about the Korean meeting. Kim and Trump are like Hitler and Stalin. They like each other. Authoritarians often do. Kim's not going to give up his nukes (which were finished under Trump, BTW.) Trump's not going to stop US-South Korea war games. He's got too much of a hard on for hard power. Though he might step them back a little: pretend the forces are invading the Philippines instead of Kim's feifdom.
The worst that could happen is Kim might give Trump some good advice on how to run a prison state. I'm not too worried about that. Trump's not capable of learning anything. He's all 'tude.
No, Trump's implosion at the "G6+1 Clown" and explosion afterward was not a strategy. It's what Trump always does. A strategy implies some kind of change in behavior for the needs of the moment.
I'm not worried about the Korean meeting. Kim and Trump are like Hitler and Stalin. They like each other. Authoritarians often do. Kim's not going to give up his nukes (which were finished under Trump, BTW.) Trump's not going to stop US-South Korea war games. He's got too much of a hard on for hard power. Though he might step them back a little: pretend the forces are invading the Philippines instead of Kim's feifdom.
The worst that could happen is Kim might give Trump some good advice on how to run a prison state. I'm not too worried about that. Trump's not capable of learning anything. He's all 'tude.
Monday, June 4, 2018
Money: In my brash opinion (IMBO)
People don't understand money. I think if they did they would never allow people to amass millions and billions of dollars.
Here's my declaration: money is power. If you define power in a human social structure as the ability to get other people to follow your wishes, money definitely does that. Money is power that you can count. If a person has enough money, their power cuts through other considerations by subordinates like charisma or expertise. In fact, people will follow somebody with money to get money of their own, so they then get other people to do something for them.
If you question the premise of what power is, a good example I might give you is Josef Stalin. Why was he so feared? He was just a person. If he had been isolated from everyone else, he would have been no more dangerous than a single man. Yet, he was formidable because of how many people would follow his orders or even his wishes. According to history, everyone was happy when he died. Yet, nobody would kill him, nor even imprison him. A fear that everyone else would defend to the death, and would destroy not just turncoat, but all of the person's family and friends. With the purges, where Stalin's accomplices would kill anybody who might have been thinking about betrayal, people became even afraid of thinking about overthrowing the leader.
That was a power structure held together by terror. Money, however, is as sufficient, and it's more humane. Yet, we ought to notice just how much power we're delegating to the wealthy by letting them make money without limit. This raises a question: can we do anything? That I will have to leave for another posting.
Here's my declaration: money is power. If you define power in a human social structure as the ability to get other people to follow your wishes, money definitely does that. Money is power that you can count. If a person has enough money, their power cuts through other considerations by subordinates like charisma or expertise. In fact, people will follow somebody with money to get money of their own, so they then get other people to do something for them.
If you question the premise of what power is, a good example I might give you is Josef Stalin. Why was he so feared? He was just a person. If he had been isolated from everyone else, he would have been no more dangerous than a single man. Yet, he was formidable because of how many people would follow his orders or even his wishes. According to history, everyone was happy when he died. Yet, nobody would kill him, nor even imprison him. A fear that everyone else would defend to the death, and would destroy not just turncoat, but all of the person's family and friends. With the purges, where Stalin's accomplices would kill anybody who might have been thinking about betrayal, people became even afraid of thinking about overthrowing the leader.
That was a power structure held together by terror. Money, however, is as sufficient, and it's more humane. Yet, we ought to notice just how much power we're delegating to the wealthy by letting them make money without limit. This raises a question: can we do anything? That I will have to leave for another posting.
Sunday, June 3, 2018
Why Trump pardoning accomplices could backfire
Trump apparently can't pardon himself. The Constitution says pardons are "granted." Legally speaking, you need two people for that. He might try, I don't think the courts will let him.
You can only pardon somebody after a crime's been committed. I'm not even sure there's been any fact-finding in Manaforte's case, and he's the one most loaded down with charges. There has to be some fact-finding before the crime has been proved. Is Mueller holding off cases until he either indicts or recommends impeachment for Trump? He might be.
Also, pardons will be a double-edged sword. If Trump pardons somebody, they can still testify against him. And there's no Fifth Amendment for them and no way they can be prosecuted.
If Trump takes this direction, he better stay on the good side of the people he pardons. Like, if he pardons Manafort, he better also be ready to him hire him, and for a lot of money, because Manafort still owes the Russian mob big-time. There's a bond of guilt between accomplices. Take away that bond, and they could say anything.
So, what might Trump be guilty of? I sat down and came up with an incomplete list:
Money Laundering, (hiding the funds that bought off Stormy Daniels), conspiracy to commit money laundering (with Cohen), profiteering (Mar-a-Lago), espionage (holding secret meetings with Russian officials, and giving them secrets), receiving stolen goods (Democratic emails), conspiracy to commit cybercrime (agreeing to knowingly receive and use stolen emails), obstruction of justice (attempts to strongarm Comey, the Firing of Comey, the threats of Firing Mueller, the firing of FBI officials who helped Comey. There are many counts here), fraud (the bailout of ZTE, done for a bribe), violating campaign finances laws (Stormy Daniels again), insider trading (revealing the unemployment levels before it was officially released) . . .
I feel sorry for Mueller. It's a feast of riches. How's he ever going to narrow that down. We have a President who breaks laws constantly. But he'll stay in office for as long as Republicans in Congress continue to protect him, or until they're replaced.
You can only pardon somebody after a crime's been committed. I'm not even sure there's been any fact-finding in Manaforte's case, and he's the one most loaded down with charges. There has to be some fact-finding before the crime has been proved. Is Mueller holding off cases until he either indicts or recommends impeachment for Trump? He might be.
Also, pardons will be a double-edged sword. If Trump pardons somebody, they can still testify against him. And there's no Fifth Amendment for them and no way they can be prosecuted.
If Trump takes this direction, he better stay on the good side of the people he pardons. Like, if he pardons Manafort, he better also be ready to him hire him, and for a lot of money, because Manafort still owes the Russian mob big-time. There's a bond of guilt between accomplices. Take away that bond, and they could say anything.
So, what might Trump be guilty of? I sat down and came up with an incomplete list:
Money Laundering, (hiding the funds that bought off Stormy Daniels), conspiracy to commit money laundering (with Cohen), profiteering (Mar-a-Lago), espionage (holding secret meetings with Russian officials, and giving them secrets), receiving stolen goods (Democratic emails), conspiracy to commit cybercrime (agreeing to knowingly receive and use stolen emails), obstruction of justice (attempts to strongarm Comey, the Firing of Comey, the threats of Firing Mueller, the firing of FBI officials who helped Comey. There are many counts here), fraud (the bailout of ZTE, done for a bribe), violating campaign finances laws (Stormy Daniels again), insider trading (revealing the unemployment levels before it was officially released) . . .
I feel sorry for Mueller. It's a feast of riches. How's he ever going to narrow that down. We have a President who breaks laws constantly. But he'll stay in office for as long as Republicans in Congress continue to protect him, or until they're replaced.
Saturday, June 2, 2018
Trump the Pardoner?
It now looks like Trump is going to use the pardon as his own personal samurai sword (I back away from calling it his "trump card," which from now on I'll call the "asshole card.") Rachel Maddow last night had a discussion about the pardon power, which is practically unchecked with the President. The only symantical limit is the president can't pardon himself, and he can't pardon ahead of time. There definitely has to ba a crime to pardon anybody. Her guest (sorry, didn't get the name) said that a pardon in an ongoing investigation against the President would probably (depends on the judge) lead to another charge of Obstruction of Justice.
However, Politifact doesn't mention this possibility, so I don't think it's very likely.
The only way to eject Trump is to impeach him, and that's not going to happen with Republicans running Congress. Remember, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Congress can remove a president for no crime whatsoever.
However, Politifact doesn't mention this possibility, so I don't think it's very likely.
The only way to eject Trump is to impeach him, and that's not going to happen with Republicans running Congress. Remember, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Congress can remove a president for no crime whatsoever.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
I'm back! Right on time . . .
Yes, I'm back finally, blogging again. I'm happy to see Missouri has shed itself of Eric Greitens. If we can get rid of Greitens, how much harder can it be to get rid of Trump? My nickname for Trump, BTW, is Smugly the Clown. He pissed me off when he said the Nazis at Charlottesville were good people. That's when I began to call him Smugly (I think it was then).
Really, I've never liked Trump. Going back to the 80s, my feelings were that he hand no redeeming qualities. So, you can imagine how depressed I was when the Electoral College selected him. I consider that people who didn't like Obama inflicted that misery on themselves. Obama's domestic policies were really nothing too different from any liberal Democrat. Except then there was the racism that always made it tolerable to lie about him.
I might call Trump names (or one name), but I won't lie about him.
Really, I've never liked Trump. Going back to the 80s, my feelings were that he hand no redeeming qualities. So, you can imagine how depressed I was when the Electoral College selected him. I consider that people who didn't like Obama inflicted that misery on themselves. Obama's domestic policies were really nothing too different from any liberal Democrat. Except then there was the racism that always made it tolerable to lie about him.
I might call Trump names (or one name), but I won't lie about him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)