The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: February 2016 Page 2 of 5

The Future Belongs To The Young, Once the Old Die

Science advances one funeral at a time – Max Planck

For years it has been clear that real change wouldn’t come until the current generation of politicians and apparatchniks died off or were forced to retire in large numbers due to age.

One of Machiavelli’s maxims was that people don’t change. They learn whatever lessons they’re going to learn, become who they are, and then act much the same no matter what happens.

What we’re seeing with Sanders’ numbers makes this clear. He’s winning 90 percent+ of the under 30 brigade. In the Scottish independence referendum, we saw that minus the pensioner brigade, Scotland would have left Great Britain. Corbyn’s supporters tilt young.

And so on.

Now, these are very young people, being led by the very old: Sanders is a true civil rights baby, someone who actually walked the walk in the early 60s. Corbyn is a largely unreconstructed British social Labour politician from the sixties.

The left is being led by the remains of the last actually socialist generation. (Hilary’s close to that age, but was a conservative “Goldwater girl,” and she acts like it.)

But the people who are flocking to those oldsters are young, young, young.


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)


And the people who are blocking left-wing change are generally old. Remember the Reagan Democrats? The Boomers, Silents, and GIs who gave their middle finger to the Great Society so long as they could have their nice suburban homes free of of “icky” black people?

As they die, change becomes possible.

They aren’t going to change their minds at this stage in their lives, the status quo is what they know and what they want.

What goes around, comes around.  There is no end to history till we go extinct. The conservative era was never going to last forever.

What it has done is last too long–long enough to lock us into a rather nasty future. And because the conservatives have resisted any reasonable change from the left at all costs, there is a good chance some form of fascism will come to control many core countries.

This was expected. I’ve been warning for years that economic failure was setting up the conditions for fascism: You are more likely to get a Hitler or Mussolini instead of an FDR.

But, those on the inside, who are successful, don’t listen to those on the outside (like myself). They see no reason to do so, because they are “the winners” and the people on the outside are “the losers,” and why would you listen to losers?

And so, here we are. Good riddance to those who refused to deal with climate change and who presided over nearly 40 years of economic stagnation and decline.

The only problem is they have died too slowly. All humanity will pay the price.

(Caveat: You may be, and probably are, of the same age, and you’re probably a nice, good person who did not support these horrible policies. There are always some “Good Germans.”

The Hippies were great people who were right about almost everything. They also were a small minority who lost the culture wars.

So don’t take this post personally, though I know many of you will. (For the record, I think Gen-X, my generation, is pretty awful.)

 

Clinton and Trump Win

Donald TrumpMargin is about 4 percent for Hillary. Trump’s victory is crushing.

Sanders won the majority of Hispanics, but African Americans broke hard for Clinton.

It seems unlikely that Sanders will win South Carolina, given the make-up of its primary voters.

Much of this depends upon whether Bernie’s momentum in the polls continues. African Americans are an important constituency, but if he can extend his numbers with Hispanics and women, he’ll be in good shape.


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)


As for Trump, I don’t see a scenario that doesn’t involve his health, where he isn’t the Republican presidential candidate.

If he runs against Clinton, a lot of Sanders working class voters are going to vote for him, not Clinton, but his bashing of minorities may cost him the election. Unlike mainstream pundits, I am not 100 percent certain of that: After all, mainstream pundits also said there was no way Trump could win a primary.

(Update: I wasn’t going to comment on Jeb dropping out since he’s been such a non-factor, but I think it’s worth noting that he did speak out against Trump’s demonization of Hispanics and his anti-Muslim ban. That said, the fact that Trump said George Bush Jr. lied the US into Iraq and still won this primary is revealing.)

Can Clinton Win Using Super-Delegates?

Hilary Clinton Secretary of State Portrait

Hilary Clinton Secretary of State Portrait

Democratic party super-delegates are unelected officials, Congressmembers, and DNC members.

They are overwhelmingly in favor of Clinton. There are 712 of them, 2,382 delegates are required to win.

Super-delegates were put in place exactly and precisely to stop a candidate like Sanders, who has little to no institutional support. (Remember, Obama did have plenty of insider support.)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, said “Superdelegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists.”

So, if Sanders wins the majority of elected primary delegates, but Clinton has enough super-delegate support to win, will she do it?

Of course.


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)


I have no doubt that Clinton would. She has wanted to be President for so long, and has run her campaign as a coronation. She feels entitled to it, and seems genuinely convinced that she would be a better President–and that people who vote for Sanders are fools.

So the real question is whether superdelegates pledged to Clinton would actually vote for her if it meant overturning the Democratic will of the party.

To do so would be disastrous. I suspect it would cost Clinton and Democrats the election. I’m not American, but if I were, I certainly would not vote for Clinton in such a situation. I think most of the young people who are strongly for Clinton wouldn’t either.

The effects would ripple forwards in time, as well, proving to youngsters that the game is rigged, and that Democrats can’t be trusted.

So many party insiders owe Clinton everything. Those who don’t are mostly aligned with Obama, who has appeared to back Clinton so far. Loyalty means a great deal to these people, it is the liquid coin of insider party politics.

I suspect they would not be so foolish as to throw the primary to Clinton, but it’s not inconceivable. I imagine the plan would be to use Scalia’s empty Supreme Court as blackmail. The Court has always been their go-to “you-have-no-choice but-to-vote-for-us-even-though-we-suck” issue.

I’d guess that super-delegates won’t be an issue in the end. They’ll go where the elected delegates are, or the issue will be made moot by Clinton winning or Bernie crushing her.

But there’s a huge landmine here, and it’s one that could damage the Democratic party for decades.

It’s also ethically despicable, in my opinion, but then that phrase describes everything about Schultz and other insiders who feel they run a political party for their own benefit, and not that of the country.

Fundraiser Update

In ten days, we have raised $3,312 in one-time donations, and $140 in recurring donations. Counting recurring donations at three times, we have raised $3,732

If we reach 6K, I will write 12 reviews about the books which shaped my understanding of the world, and six reviews about books of contemporary interest.

If we reach 9K, I’ll write an e-booklet between 30 and 50K words on The Construction of Reality.

In general, the more I raise, the more I will write.

Sincere thanks to all those who have given.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

First National Poll Shows Bernie Up Over Clinton

Sanders-021507-18335- 0004

Sanders-021507-18335- 0004

Fourty-seven to fourty-four. Within the margin of error, but given the very well established trend, I’m inclined to believe it.

Clinton went down fighting against Obama (which I admired), and I’m sure she’ll go down fighting against Bernie, but at this point, absent some shocking news, I think she’s done.

I really don’t understand Clinton’s campaign. She seemed to feel so entitled to people’s votes that she didn’t even bother to pander and lie. No you can’t have a $15 minimum wage, universal health care, free tuition, Glass-Steagall, or most other things.

I’m glad she told the truth, mind you, but it’s still strange to see someone so blind to political realities.


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)


Clinton has run almost entirely on her biography, on being “capable,” without seeming to understand that her biography includes a lot of actions that primary voters might find objectionable.

She has assumed that women would vote for her, in effect, because she is a woman, and that minorities would stay massively in her column.

Right now only African Americans are holding steady for her; the numbers on virtually every other group are breaking for Bernie.

This is going to get super-ugly, because Clinton can’t win based on who she is, or on her platform, so she’s going to have to fling every piece of mud she can find and hope that something sticks.

She can’t even run on being more electable, because polls are increasingly showing Bernie does better against Cruz or Trump. He even does better than her in a three-way competition with Bloomberg.

This is going to be the most interesting election season of my life. I suppose it already is. Get out the popcorn, and roast your weenies. We may be roasting on fires in the antechamber of Hell, depending on who wins, but at least it’s fascinating.

What Can Rich Countries Afford?

Remember the American GI bill, which put ex-service members through university?

GI Bill

When people talk about how much health care for all will cost, or any other program, you need simply remember the above, or that military spending makes up over 50 percent of all discretionary spending in America.

Spending is a fairly good indicator of a country’s real priorities. It’s easy to afford the cost of something you believe is first priority in a rich country–and the US is still a rich country.  And if you don’t “have enough,” well, by historic standards, the US is hardly taxing anyone at all. Remember, back in the 50s top marginal tax rates hovered around 90 percent and corporate tax rates were much higher (and with far fewer loopholes).


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)


Basically, America can afford whatever America wants to afford, and the same is true of a variety of other countries like France, Germany, and Britain, and so on. The choice not to do something, in rich countries, is a choice, and reflects the goals of the people who run the country, and very little else.

This is especially true because the more a country does, the more it can afford, since doing more means more economic activity and generates a larger tax base.

It’s just a choice. There are countries that are literally unable to choose prosperity, it’s not so easy for them. But all of the major developed countries are perfectly able to do so.

 

Guardian Pushes for Western Countries Involvement in Invasion of Syria

So, Michael Clarke in the Guardian writes that the Saudi Arabian threat to invade Syria isn’t credible (it isn’t, if acting alone, but Saudi Arabia claims Turkey is onside, and Turkey is a credible threat.)

He then goes on as follows:

Militarily, the Saudi threat issued at Munich has to be made credible. If a ceasefire does not materialise soon, the Russians, Iranians and Assad himself have no incentives to quit while they are ahead. Only the possibility of Arab ground forces, from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE, heavily backed by western logistics and intelligence, air power and technical specialists, could force Assad and his backers to make a strategic choice in favour of cessation. Only the US could make that work for the Saudis and others – and only Britain could bring along other significant European allies.

So, he wants America involved in this invasion in a big, visible way, along with Europe.

The sheer crazy here is awe-inspiring. Clarke believes that a “vengeful Assad” would be a huge problem for the West if he reconstitutes Syria.

Big enough to risk nuclear war?

Why?

It’s a small country, destroyed by war, run by a pragmatist. I suppose it is possible Assad could sponsor terrorism, but he’s unlikely to risk anything truly large that would entail risking his own life in retaliation, nor could he expect Russia to defend him if he was truly sponsoring terrorism.

There is nothing in Syria, and never was, that was worth a war there, at least not for the West. Destabilizing Syria has caused nothing but headaches for the West, including the current refugee crisis, which is likely to seen, historically, as one of the causes of the EU either breaking up or becoming a largely toothless and ceremonial organization.  (The main cause will be that the EU cripples its own members economically.)


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year.  If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)


I am shocked at the level of political thinking which the Guardian considers worth publishing. Truly shocked, not just rhetorically. Insane NeoCon warmongering is one thing when you’re dealing with countries like Iraq and Libya, it is another when you are dealing with a country where one of the world’s great nuclear powers is currently fighting.

Stupidity like this could get a lot of people very dead, and not just Middle Eastern people the West doesn’t care about.

Nothing in Syria is worth risking a war with Russia over. Nothing.

 

 

Saudi Arabia & Turkey to Invade Syria?

It’s hard for me to credit anyone for being so careless, but the Independent reports that:

Saudi Arabia is sending troops and fighter jets to Turkey’s Incirlik military base ahead of a possible ground invasion of Syria.

“At every coalition meeting we have always emphasised the need for an extensive result-oriented strategy in the fight against the Daesh terrorist group.

“If we have such a strategy, then Turkey and Saudi Arabia may launch an operation from the land.”

So… they will claim that they are fighting ISIS, which is, by this point, I suppose, traditional. Turkey is already shelling Kurdish positions in northern Syria.

Of course, Saudi Arabia is not credible on this (at least with regards to a large commitment), with their involvement in Yemen, especially as they are also considering invading that country.  But Turkey is. I hope this is just bluster, intended to sway negotiations.

If it isn’t, this is a fiasco, a catastrophe, waiting to happen. Unlike the other foreign forces with boots on the ground (Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia), these forces would obviously not be invited by the Syrian government.

Syrian forces, backed by Russian airpower, are now fighting quite close to the Turkish border. Their aim has been to close that border so that various rebels (including ISIS) can’t receive supplies from Turkey.

It should be pointed out that if Daesh/ISIS has a government ally in the world, it is Turkey. As for Saudi Arabia, well, Daesh’s theology is a very close descendant of their branch of Islam.

Perhaps more to the point, all those armies tromping around in a rather small country risks war between Russia/Syria/Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia/Turkey.

Russian supply lines to Syria are not the best, to put it mildly. Turkey can close the direct sea route from Sevastopol, and alternative routes require going through some dangerous territory.

I wonder what Russia would do in such a situation. The Turkish military is very large and right on the border. A Turkish attack on Syria can’t be considered an existential threat to Russia, so Russian nuclear doctrine doesn’t call for use of battlefield nukes, but… I get twitchy when a NATO member goes up against Russia, and Turkey is a member of NATO.

Russia created “facts on the ground,” which have led to a realization that Assad will probably survive and that the rebels are doomed.

It seems those who wanted Assad gone the most now want to create their own “counter-facts” on the ground. Either they get rid of Assad in peace deals (assuming they avoid outright conflict), or they divide up Syria, with Turkey getting a good chunk of it.

That’s the plan. If they do invade, I find myself almost hoping the plan “works,” because if it doesn’t “work” that will most likely be because of general war between the powers.


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year.  If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)


This is an absolute catastrophe waiting to happen. I find it unlikely this could be done without the US’s approval, and, given Obama’s recent statement about how Russia should stop hitting “moderate” opposition targets in Syria, I can only assume he’s greenlighted this.

Were I in the White House, I’d be telling Saudi Arabia and Turkey not to. If they insisted on doing it anyway, I’d go public with a warning not to, and a UN Security Council motion with the US voting against Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

And let’s be perfectly, brutally frank here: If they want to do this, I’d tell Turkey that NATO’s “an attack on one is an attack on all” principle will not apply here. You do this, we’re not getting into a nuclear war for you. This is not self-defense.

As for Saudi Arabia, I’d have a pointed conversation about the price of oil and their budget. However, as much as they think the price of oil will increase if there is a war in Syria, their economy is still in bad shape, and the US could total it tomorrow if they chose to–simply through Treasury sanctions. Likewise, an end to parts and ammunition for their military would curtail them.

These are stern, even radical steps. Avoiding a war with Russia justifies them. There is nothing in Syria worth the risk of having all these armies stomping around, especially after Turkey has already shot down one Russian plane.

Page 2 of 5

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén