Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 962

“HoodsOff 2015″ in full effect as Anonymous publishes the names of KKK members — including four sitting US senators

The ongoing war between the online hacktivist group Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan took another turn Monday with the release of the identities those infamous hoods are meant to obscure -- a list that includes North Carolina Senator Thomas Tillis, Texas Senator John Cornyn, George Senator John Hardy Isakson, and Indiana Senator Dan Coats. The exact nature of these senators' affiliations was not revealed, and another "unhooded" politician -- Lexington, Kentucky Mayor Jim Gray -- took to Twitter to vigorously deny any association with the racist organization. Knoxville, Tennessee Mayor Madeline Rogero also denied having connections, writing on Facebook that "I’m not even sure this is worth responding to, but for the record: There is a list circulating online purporting to 'out' elected officials as members of the KKK. For reasons unfathomable to me or anyone who knows me, my name is on the list." "Given my background, my interracial family, my public record and my personal beliefs, this would be hilarious except that it is probably being seen by a lot of people who have no idea who I am," she continued. But the person taking credit for generating the list, who goes by "Amped Attacks" on Twitter, told TechCrunch that he "worked for nine days to gather and verify all the information that was gathered before its release," all of which was allegedly stolen from KKK websites and databases. "I went through many emails that was [sic] signed up with these sites and a few of the emails that sparked my interest was [sic] the ones of the politicians in question there would be no reason for them to be signed up on any KKK website unless they supported it or was involved in it." Amped Attack claimed not to belong to the Anonymous collective, but the group has timed its "HoodsOff" offensive to coincide with the release of these names, and it claimed that many KKK-affiliated websites were successfully hacked and taken offline today. "Today we have shut down servers, gotten personal information on members of the KKK, and infiltrated your twitters and websites," Anonymous announced late Sunday. "And this is just the beginning. On November the 4th we will be having a twitter storm, spreading awareness about the operation. And on the 5th we shall release more than 1000 Ku Klux Klan members Names and websites, new and old." For its part, a prominent KKK Twitter account floated the idea of holding an "anti-Anonymous" demonstration to protest the unhooding of its rank-and-file, though it is unclear how they intend to garner sympathy when they write that they would like to "march on #Nov5th along side those faggots #OpKKK." A Twitter account associated with the group replied to the threat, writing: https://twitter.com/YourAnonCentral/s... https://twitter.com/YourAnonCentral/s...

This is what a misogynist pig sounds like: 6 of Donald Trump’s most sexist moments

Donald Trump has a long history of making horrible misogynistic jokes and attacking women, but since making a splash onto the political scene with his June presidential campaign kick-off slamming Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists," the billionaire mogul has hardly let up on his penchant for making sexist swipes, making at least six controversial statements about women since entering the race. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz  Trump's latest sexist dig is directed at the DNC chairwoman. During a weekend interview with"Breitbart News Daily," the leading Republican presidential contender took out his frustration on the three GOP debates by directing misogynistic attacks toward the Florida congresswoman. "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman," Trump said, describing Wassmerman-Schultz. "This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person," Trump continued. "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." Megyn Kelly "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump said of Fox News host and first GOP debate moderator Megyn Kelly after she pressed the former reality TV star about his past history of misogynistic comments during the first GOP debate. "Blood coming out of her wherever," he added. Trump's lewd comment sparked a short-lived conservative backlash, led by Red State editor Erick Erickson formally rescinding an invitation to his Southern political gathering back in August. Trump also led a Twitter tirade, #BimboBarbie, turning Fox News fans against the onetime star of the network for daring to ask Trump pressing questions: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Carly Fiorina Trump took another sexist swipe at his only female rival on the Republican side, Carly Fiorina. A September Rolling Stone profile revealed a particularly boorish moment for Trump on the campaign trail. “Look at that face!” he said at a conference table while he and his staff laughed as Fiorina took a question about him on television. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” During the second GOP debate when Trump denied he was referring to the former HP executive's face, insisting he was describing her persona, Fiorina delivered a simple debate stage smackdown. "I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said," she said to wild applause. Hillary Clinton  Shortly before announcing his candidacy, Trump got into a bit of hot water for this since-deleted tweet suggesting that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to become president because she "can't satisfy her husband": https://twitter.com/Lennyjacobson/sta... Later, after making his run for president official, Trump again ran into the sexism charge after mocking Clinton during a campaign stop in South Carolina where he raised his voice to mock the former secretary of state. "Hillary, who's become very shrill — do you know the word 'shrill'?" Trump asked the crowd, screeching. "She's become shrill." Trump would later double down on the sexist dis, denying its gendered application. "I think the word 'shrill' doesn't apply to women exclusively," Trump said the next day on MSNBC. "I know many men who've become very loud and obnoxious also," said Trump, adding, "I would call Rand Paul shrill." Ivanka Trump  This one is more creepy than it is sexist but nevertheless serves as an example of Trump's casually dismissive attitude toward women's sexuality. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Trump joked that if she wasn't his daughter, he'd date Ivanka Trump. “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . " For her part, Ivanka defended her father's comments during a CNN interview. "Look, my father is very blunt, he is very direct. He is not gender specific in his criticism of people ... I don't think that he is gender targeted at all." Trump even defends the burqa using sexist logic The political neophyte argued at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire for less U.S. intervention in the Middle East, pointing to cultural differences like the use of full body coverups for women. “They want to” wear burqas, Trump said. “What the hell are we getting involved for?” “In fact, it is easier” to wear a burqa, Trump argued. “You don’t have to put on makeup,” he said, pointing to women in the audience before waving his hand across his face. “Wouldn’t that be easier,” he asked again. “I tell ya, if I was a woman,” Trump continued, signaling a burqa cover with the wave of his hand. “I’m ready, darling, let’s go,” he said, mimicking a woman forgoing makeup for a burqa.Donald Trump has a long history of making horrible misogynistic jokes and attacking women, but since making a splash onto the political scene with his June presidential campaign kick-off slamming Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists," the billionaire mogul has hardly let up on his penchant for making sexist swipes, making at least six controversial statements about women since entering the race. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz  Trump's latest sexist dig is directed at the DNC chairwoman. During a weekend interview with"Breitbart News Daily," the leading Republican presidential contender took out his frustration on the three GOP debates by directing misogynistic attacks toward the Florida congresswoman. "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman," Trump said, describing Wassmerman-Schultz. "This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person," Trump continued. "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." Megyn Kelly "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump said of Fox News host and first GOP debate moderator Megyn Kelly after she pressed the former reality TV star about his past history of misogynistic comments during the first GOP debate. "Blood coming out of her wherever," he added. Trump's lewd comment sparked a short-lived conservative backlash, led by Red State editor Erick Erickson formally rescinding an invitation to his Southern political gathering back in August. Trump also led a Twitter tirade, #BimboBarbie, turning Fox News fans against the onetime star of the network for daring to ask Trump pressing questions: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Carly Fiorina Trump took another sexist swipe at his only female rival on the Republican side, Carly Fiorina. A September Rolling Stone profile revealed a particularly boorish moment for Trump on the campaign trail. “Look at that face!” he said at a conference table while he and his staff laughed as Fiorina took a question about him on television. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” During the second GOP debate when Trump denied he was referring to the former HP executive's face, insisting he was describing her persona, Fiorina delivered a simple debate stage smackdown. "I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said," she said to wild applause. Hillary Clinton  Shortly before announcing his candidacy, Trump got into a bit of hot water for this since-deleted tweet suggesting that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to become president because she "can't satisfy her husband": https://twitter.com/Lennyjacobson/sta... Later, after making his run for president official, Trump again ran into the sexism charge after mocking Clinton during a campaign stop in South Carolina where he raised his voice to mock the former secretary of state. "Hillary, who's become very shrill — do you know the word 'shrill'?" Trump asked the crowd, screeching. "She's become shrill." Trump would later double down on the sexist dis, denying its gendered application. "I think the word 'shrill' doesn't apply to women exclusively," Trump said the next day on MSNBC. "I know many men who've become very loud and obnoxious also," said Trump, adding, "I would call Rand Paul shrill." Ivanka Trump  This one is more creepy than it is sexist but nevertheless serves as an example of Trump's casually dismissive attitude toward women's sexuality. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Trump joked that if she wasn't his daughter, he'd date Ivanka Trump. “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . " For her part, Ivanka defended her father's comments during a CNN interview. "Look, my father is very blunt, he is very direct. He is not gender specific in his criticism of people ... I don't think that he is gender targeted at all." Trump even defends the burqa using sexist logic The political neophyte argued at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire for less U.S. intervention in the Middle East, pointing to cultural differences like the use of full body coverups for women. “They want to” wear burqas, Trump said. “What the hell are we getting involved for?” “In fact, it is easier” to wear a burqa, Trump argued. “You don’t have to put on makeup,” he said, pointing to women in the audience before waving his hand across his face. “Wouldn’t that be easier,” he asked again. “I tell ya, if I was a woman,” Trump continued, signaling a burqa cover with the wave of his hand. “I’m ready, darling, let’s go,” he said, mimicking a woman forgoing makeup for a burqa.Donald Trump has a long history of making horrible misogynistic jokes and attacking women, but since making a splash onto the political scene with his June presidential campaign kick-off slamming Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists," the billionaire mogul has hardly let up on his penchant for making sexist swipes, making at least six controversial statements about women since entering the race. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz  Trump's latest sexist dig is directed at the DNC chairwoman. During a weekend interview with"Breitbart News Daily," the leading Republican presidential contender took out his frustration on the three GOP debates by directing misogynistic attacks toward the Florida congresswoman. "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman," Trump said, describing Wassmerman-Schultz. "This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person," Trump continued. "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." Megyn Kelly "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump said of Fox News host and first GOP debate moderator Megyn Kelly after she pressed the former reality TV star about his past history of misogynistic comments during the first GOP debate. "Blood coming out of her wherever," he added. Trump's lewd comment sparked a short-lived conservative backlash, led by Red State editor Erick Erickson formally rescinding an invitation to his Southern political gathering back in August. Trump also led a Twitter tirade, #BimboBarbie, turning Fox News fans against the onetime star of the network for daring to ask Trump pressing questions: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s... Carly Fiorina Trump took another sexist swipe at his only female rival on the Republican side, Carly Fiorina. A September Rolling Stone profile revealed a particularly boorish moment for Trump on the campaign trail. “Look at that face!” he said at a conference table while he and his staff laughed as Fiorina took a question about him on television. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” During the second GOP debate when Trump denied he was referring to the former HP executive's face, insisting he was describing her persona, Fiorina delivered a simple debate stage smackdown. "I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said," she said to wild applause. Hillary Clinton  Shortly before announcing his candidacy, Trump got into a bit of hot water for this since-deleted tweet suggesting that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to become president because she "can't satisfy her husband": https://twitter.com/Lennyjacobson/sta... Later, after making his run for president official, Trump again ran into the sexism charge after mocking Clinton during a campaign stop in South Carolina where he raised his voice to mock the former secretary of state. "Hillary, who's become very shrill — do you know the word 'shrill'?" Trump asked the crowd, screeching. "She's become shrill." Trump would later double down on the sexist dis, denying its gendered application. "I think the word 'shrill' doesn't apply to women exclusively," Trump said the next day on MSNBC. "I know many men who've become very loud and obnoxious also," said Trump, adding, "I would call Rand Paul shrill." Ivanka Trump  This one is more creepy than it is sexist but nevertheless serves as an example of Trump's casually dismissive attitude toward women's sexuality. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Trump joked that if she wasn't his daughter, he'd date Ivanka Trump. “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . " For her part, Ivanka defended her father's comments during a CNN interview. "Look, my father is very blunt, he is very direct. He is not gender specific in his criticism of people ... I don't think that he is gender targeted at all." Trump even defends the burqa using sexist logic The political neophyte argued at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire for less U.S. intervention in the Middle East, pointing to cultural differences like the use of full body coverups for women. “They want to” wear burqas, Trump said. “What the hell are we getting involved for?” “In fact, it is easier” to wear a burqa, Trump argued. “You don’t have to put on makeup,” he said, pointing to women in the audience before waving his hand across his face. “Wouldn’t that be easier,” he asked again. “I tell ya, if I was a woman,” Trump continued, signaling a burqa cover with the wave of his hand. “I’m ready, darling, let’s go,” he said, mimicking a woman forgoing makeup for a burqa.

Continue Reading...

John Oliver just brilliantly made this election a matter of life and death

The election might be a year away, but there are several elections in states across the country that are happening tomorrow that John Oliver wants Americans to look at. On Sunday's "Last Week Tonight," Oliver discussed the gubernatorial and legislative elections happening in Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia and Mississippi. There are also huge local elections, like Pennsylvania's election of three judges, that could determine redistricting in 2020. But the other major outcome of Tuesday's election is it could determine the expansion of Obamacare. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld "nearly all" of Obamacare in their 2012 decision, that wasn't entirely enough. "Health care is like a pair of gym shorts -- even if it covers nearly all it is supposed to, you’re still left with some problematic gaps and terrible things can happen," Oliver explained. The way states have worked to fix some of those gaps has been to expand Medicaid coverage so for very little money to the states, health insurance is paid for by Medicaid giving the poorest citizens what they need. The SCOTUS struck down the part of the law that would require states to expand Medicaid and 20 states have opted to refuse. Meaning, Tuesday's election could result in treatment or die. In the case of one Texas woman who can't afford treatment for colon cancer, she also can't afford health insurance under Obamacare. But because the state refuses to expand Medicaid, she falls into this terrible middle area that lacks coverage. In at least four states with Republican governors, however, Medicaid was expanded. As Ohio Gov. John Kasich explained, you can hate Obamacare and still want to bring Ohio tax dollars back to the state "to cover the mentally ill, the drug addicted and help the working poor get health insurance." If only he could explain that to the other 20 states who are refusing to expand out of spite. "All he did was see a dump truck full of money backing into his driveway and just not say stop," Oliver explained. Tuesday's election determines whether Mississippi, Kentucky and Virginia expand Medicaid or not, and that will decide whether people stuck in that middle space of making just above poverty wages can have access to health care or not. People will literally die based on the decision voters make on Tuesday. If we don't expand Medicaid in these states to help people, the only real winner is basically a pangolin. You'll understand if you watch the video below: The election might be a year away, but there are several elections in states across the country that are happening tomorrow that John Oliver wants Americans to look at. On Sunday's "Last Week Tonight," Oliver discussed the gubernatorial and legislative elections happening in Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia and Mississippi. There are also huge local elections, like Pennsylvania's election of three judges, that could determine redistricting in 2020. But the other major outcome of Tuesday's election is it could determine the expansion of Obamacare. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld "nearly all" of Obamacare in their 2012 decision, that wasn't entirely enough. "Health care is like a pair of gym shorts -- even if it covers nearly all it is supposed to, you’re still left with some problematic gaps and terrible things can happen," Oliver explained. The way states have worked to fix some of those gaps has been to expand Medicaid coverage so for very little money to the states, health insurance is paid for by Medicaid giving the poorest citizens what they need. The SCOTUS struck down the part of the law that would require states to expand Medicaid and 20 states have opted to refuse. Meaning, Tuesday's election could result in treatment or die. In the case of one Texas woman who can't afford treatment for colon cancer, she also can't afford health insurance under Obamacare. But because the state refuses to expand Medicaid, she falls into this terrible middle area that lacks coverage. In at least four states with Republican governors, however, Medicaid was expanded. As Ohio Gov. John Kasich explained, you can hate Obamacare and still want to bring Ohio tax dollars back to the state "to cover the mentally ill, the drug addicted and help the working poor get health insurance." If only he could explain that to the other 20 states who are refusing to expand out of spite. "All he did was see a dump truck full of money backing into his driveway and just not say stop," Oliver explained. Tuesday's election determines whether Mississippi, Kentucky and Virginia expand Medicaid or not, and that will decide whether people stuck in that middle space of making just above poverty wages can have access to health care or not. People will literally die based on the decision voters make on Tuesday. If we don't expand Medicaid in these states to help people, the only real winner is basically a pangolin. You'll understand if you watch the video below:

Continue Reading...

Donald Trump’s sexist garbage continues: His latest name-calling rant shows exactly how little he thinks of women

Are you a woman who is currently supporting Donald Trump's inane attempt to turn American presidential politics into the world's worst reality show? Do you know any women who are? Are you a man, but like and respect women? Because if you are a woman or care about women and have seriously entertained even the slightest thought of the words "President Trump," we need to do an intervention right now. On Monday, Trump shared a few choice words about DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Breitbart News on Sirius XM radio. Speaking with Stephen Bannon about the debates, Trump noted that "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman. This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person." He added, "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." In contrast, he declared Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus "a very good guy." Trump has certainly lobbed the word "crazy" before — in fact, on Monday, he also called CNBC crazy. He's consistently generous with his insults, calling John Harwood "a dope" and "a fool" at an event on Saturday. And in the past, he's suggested that Texas Governor Rick Perry "should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate." But there was something about Trump's use of the word "crazy" in such close proximity to "neurotic" — especially to describe a 49 year-old woman — that had a particularly familiar ring to it. It was the sound of a nearly 70 year-old man once again not so subtly accusing a female of being "crazy" in a uniquely hysterical lady way. While Trump is unquestionably capable of trolling both men and women, he does have a special way of going after the ladies. They're "shrill" and "can't satisfy" their husbands  like Hillary Clinton, or "neurotic" like Wasserman Schultz. Responding to Trump's comments the DNC issued a statement Monday that "The Republican front-runner's misogynistic attacks are sadly representative of the GOP's outdated approach to women and the issues that affect them and their families." They're also typical Trump. In his world, women who run afoul of his good graces are too attractive — you may recall that in August, Trump put down Fox's Megyn Kelley with the assertion that she's a “bimbo” who only got her job for being "sexy." He's also told a female reporter that "We could say politically correct that look doesn't matter, but the look obviously matters. Like you wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful." Or they're not attractive enough — in September, he boggled over Carly Fiorina, "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!" Back in 2011, he sent writer Gail Collins a copy of her own column and wrote "The Face of a Dog!" over her photo. He's complained about Bette Midler's "ugly face [and] body" and that Arianna Huffington is "unattractive both inside and out" and that "I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man." He's called Rosie O'Donnell a "fat pig" and a "slob," among other things. And he called a new mother who requested a break to breastfeed pump breast milk "disgusting," a sentiment he appeared to stand by to CNN earlier this year. Even when he's ostensibly being kind, his commentary is degrading. He's boasted that "Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers." And of his own daughter he's said, "She's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father …"  So, ew. There are plenty of great reasons to say that Donald Trump is the candidate of your racist, climate change-denying uncle from back home. But his outrageously toxic and seemingly nonstop commentary about women — about their appearance, about their shrillness or bimboness or neuroses — is all you should really need to find him loathsome. And every moment his embarrassing shtick endures is another chance for him — under the guise of a serious representative of the Republican party — to say that degrading women is a completely acceptable political tactic.Are you a woman who is currently supporting Donald Trump's inane attempt to turn American presidential politics into the world's worst reality show? Do you know any women who are? Are you a man, but like and respect women? Because if you are a woman or care about women and have seriously entertained even the slightest thought of the words "President Trump," we need to do an intervention right now. On Monday, Trump shared a few choice words about DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Breitbart News on Sirius XM radio. Speaking with Stephen Bannon about the debates, Trump noted that "You have this crazy Wasserman Schultz — Deborah Wasserman Schultz — who is in there, a highly neurotic woman. This is a woman that is a terrible person. I watch her on television. She's a terrible person." He added, "And in all fairness, she negotiated a great deal for Hillary because they gave Hillary all softballs." In contrast, he declared Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus "a very good guy." Trump has certainly lobbed the word "crazy" before — in fact, on Monday, he also called CNBC crazy. He's consistently generous with his insults, calling John Harwood "a dope" and "a fool" at an event on Saturday. And in the past, he's suggested that Texas Governor Rick Perry "should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate." But there was something about Trump's use of the word "crazy" in such close proximity to "neurotic" — especially to describe a 49 year-old woman — that had a particularly familiar ring to it. It was the sound of a nearly 70 year-old man once again not so subtly accusing a female of being "crazy" in a uniquely hysterical lady way. While Trump is unquestionably capable of trolling both men and women, he does have a special way of going after the ladies. They're "shrill" and "can't satisfy" their husbands  like Hillary Clinton, or "neurotic" like Wasserman Schultz. Responding to Trump's comments the DNC issued a statement Monday that "The Republican front-runner's misogynistic attacks are sadly representative of the GOP's outdated approach to women and the issues that affect them and their families." They're also typical Trump. In his world, women who run afoul of his good graces are too attractive — you may recall that in August, Trump put down Fox's Megyn Kelley with the assertion that she's a “bimbo” who only got her job for being "sexy." He's also told a female reporter that "We could say politically correct that look doesn't matter, but the look obviously matters. Like you wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful." Or they're not attractive enough — in September, he boggled over Carly Fiorina, "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!" Back in 2011, he sent writer Gail Collins a copy of her own column and wrote "The Face of a Dog!" over her photo. He's complained about Bette Midler's "ugly face [and] body" and that Arianna Huffington is "unattractive both inside and out" and that "I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man." He's called Rosie O'Donnell a "fat pig" and a "slob," among other things. And he called a new mother who requested a break to breastfeed pump breast milk "disgusting," a sentiment he appeared to stand by to CNN earlier this year. Even when he's ostensibly being kind, his commentary is degrading. He's boasted that "Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers." And of his own daughter he's said, "She's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father …"  So, ew. There are plenty of great reasons to say that Donald Trump is the candidate of your racist, climate change-denying uncle from back home. But his outrageously toxic and seemingly nonstop commentary about women — about their appearance, about their shrillness or bimboness or neuroses — is all you should really need to find him loathsome. And every moment his embarrassing shtick endures is another chance for him — under the guise of a serious representative of the Republican party — to say that degrading women is a completely acceptable political tactic.

Ralph Nader, epic mansplainer, tells Janet Yellen to listen to her husband

Apparently, Ralph Nader is still talking, though in a way that certainly inspires a deep desire to go to Tumblr to find as many "shut up" gifs as one can find. Over the weekend, Nader published a nonsensical piece at the Huffington Post complaining that "humble savers" are getting screwed by the Federal Reserve's unwillingness to raise the interest rate, which Nader seems to think is an elaborate plot to help the rich banks at the expense of working people. As Jordan Weissmann at Slate points out, the entire argument doesn't make a lot of sense, as "relatively few households actually survive on interest income." Most ordinary people would benefit a lot more from a robust economy than a higher interest rate on their savings account, but Nader seems to assume a nation of people living on investments rather than on paychecks, which really undermines his spokesman-for-the-working-class schtick. But this weird piece is notable not just because of its Old Man Simpson half-baked economic crankery, but because he offers a solid dose of sexism to go with it: "Chairwoman Yellen, I think you should sit down with your Nobel Prize winning husband, economist George Akerlof, who is known to be consumer-sensitive," Nader lectures. Yes, clearly interest rates are low because we live in a madcap world where women are not only allowed to run the Federal Reserve, but they are too willful to listen to the wise counsel of their husbands. Akerlof is far from the only man that Nader suggests as the proper figure to slap some sense into this woman someone let run the Fed. Nader also offers up her friend Robert Reich as a male authority figure to tell her what to do. Which is funny, because Reich, as Weissmann points out, opposes hiking the interest rate. But hey, why let little details like that interfere with a neat little story about how a woman is supposedly failing at her job because she is supposedly failing to listen to the men in her life tell her what to do. This bit of jaw-dropping sexism comes just a few months after Nader pulled a similar act with Hillary Clinton, who Nader also faults for not behaving how the thinks women should. On Larry King's show back in June, Nader let loose on Clinton, arguing that she somehow betrayed "the tradition of women of peace" and that Clinton shows a "shocking militarism that is a result of trying to overcompensate for her gender by being more aggressive and macho." Jeb Bush tries to convince us that he eats nails for breakfast, but it's Clinton that is overcompensating. Got it. You would think, listening to him, that Clinton is somehow more hawkish than the Republicans, which is so ridiculous it hardly needs rebutting. But his paranoia over this makes more sense if it's viewed in context of his fairly obvious sexism. Nader isn't comparing Clinton to her male colleagues and competitors. He's comparing her to a female caricature of pacifism in his head. Peacefulness is great---I wish Clinton were less hawkish, myself---but it shouldn't be gendered in this way. Nader's behavior is more about policing women for not being the gentle, submissive souls he expects than about sincere discussion of the issues at hand.Apparently, Ralph Nader is still talking, though in a way that certainly inspires a deep desire to go to Tumblr to find as many "shut up" gifs as one can find. Over the weekend, Nader published a nonsensical piece at the Huffington Post complaining that "humble savers" are getting screwed by the Federal Reserve's unwillingness to raise the interest rate, which Nader seems to think is an elaborate plot to help the rich banks at the expense of working people. As Jordan Weissmann at Slate points out, the entire argument doesn't make a lot of sense, as "relatively few households actually survive on interest income." Most ordinary people would benefit a lot more from a robust economy than a higher interest rate on their savings account, but Nader seems to assume a nation of people living on investments rather than on paychecks, which really undermines his spokesman-for-the-working-class schtick. But this weird piece is notable not just because of its Old Man Simpson half-baked economic crankery, but because he offers a solid dose of sexism to go with it: "Chairwoman Yellen, I think you should sit down with your Nobel Prize winning husband, economist George Akerlof, who is known to be consumer-sensitive," Nader lectures. Yes, clearly interest rates are low because we live in a madcap world where women are not only allowed to run the Federal Reserve, but they are too willful to listen to the wise counsel of their husbands. Akerlof is far from the only man that Nader suggests as the proper figure to slap some sense into this woman someone let run the Fed. Nader also offers up her friend Robert Reich as a male authority figure to tell her what to do. Which is funny, because Reich, as Weissmann points out, opposes hiking the interest rate. But hey, why let little details like that interfere with a neat little story about how a woman is supposedly failing at her job because she is supposedly failing to listen to the men in her life tell her what to do. This bit of jaw-dropping sexism comes just a few months after Nader pulled a similar act with Hillary Clinton, who Nader also faults for not behaving how the thinks women should. On Larry King's show back in June, Nader let loose on Clinton, arguing that she somehow betrayed "the tradition of women of peace" and that Clinton shows a "shocking militarism that is a result of trying to overcompensate for her gender by being more aggressive and macho." Jeb Bush tries to convince us that he eats nails for breakfast, but it's Clinton that is overcompensating. Got it. You would think, listening to him, that Clinton is somehow more hawkish than the Republicans, which is so ridiculous it hardly needs rebutting. But his paranoia over this makes more sense if it's viewed in context of his fairly obvious sexism. Nader isn't comparing Clinton to her male colleagues and competitors. He's comparing her to a female caricature of pacifism in his head. Peacefulness is great---I wish Clinton were less hawkish, myself---but it shouldn't be gendered in this way. Nader's behavior is more about policing women for not being the gentle, submissive souls he expects than about sincere discussion of the issues at hand.

Continue Reading...

The wingnut myth that refuses to die: The one simple reason why there’s no “liberal media conspiracy”

During the third Republican debate, the winning strategy was not in attacking Hillary Clinton or calling out the absurd policy plans of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, but in slamming the mainstream media as a left wing mouthpiece of the Democratic party. And since the debate, the GOP has gone berserk over CNBC  -- a business channel, mind you -- and it’s supposed liberal bias. The Republican National Committee has even suspended its partnership with NBC News for its February debate, because, as RNC Chairman Reince Priebus writes, “CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates.” Of course, the GOP candidates who were most vocal about the supposed media bias were really just using it to dodge substantive questions and get easy applauses from the partisan crowd. As Charles Pierce puts it in Esquire:

I have come to the conclusion that it is very easy to be a Republican presidential candidate. First of all, to paraphrase J.R. Ewing, once you give up truth, the rest is a piece of cake. Second, and most important, you really only have to memorize one answer.” (i.e it's the Liberal media!).

When confronted about his voting record in the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-FL) was quick to call out the media bias, after mentioning that President Obama had an abysmal voting record during his campaign as well. “This is another example of the double standard that exists in this country between the mainstream media and the conservatives,” he said, to a crowd of cheering conservatives. He even went on to say that Clinton has her very own super PAC in the mainstream media, a point that may have very well won the debate for the young conservative. Seeing the advantage in attacking the much-loathed media, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) responded to a question on whether his opposition to compromise on the debt limit shows he is not a “problem solver.” “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” said Cruz, who would use his time to trash the moderators instead of answering the question, “This is not a cage match.” He went on to mock the Democratic debate as a battle between the “Mensheviks and Bolsheviks,” which seems to imply that the media is not only liberal, but communist. So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? First of all, it should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias -- at least what Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics -- it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. Now, before considering whether the mainstream media is really left-wing, one should look at who owns the media. Consider this: In 1983, 90 percent of American media was owned by 50 companies, and by 2011, that number had fallen to six companies: CBS, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp, Disney and GE, which subsequently sold its media holding, NBC Universal, to cable giant Comcast (which would, in turn, later try to merge with Time Warner Cable, although that deal eventually fell apart). Thus, the media at large has one crucial goal: to make a profit. Not to serve the public, but to make money by selling advertisement spots to other corporations, whether they are selling new cars or tech products or pointless new drugs. All of this profit-making hardly sounds like the socialist media that Republicans would have everyone believe. One has to look no further than the coverage of Donald Trump to see this strategy in action. The Donald and the media have been feeding off of each other over the past few months. Trump loves the attention, and the media loves the “Yooge” ratings that he brings. (The higher the ratings, the more the network can charge for advertising or subscriptions.) CNN, for example, has covered Trump as if he were a natural disaster, and even bumped a 1oth anniversary special for Hurricane Katrina to cover one of Trump’s rambling campaign events. Now consider the media coverage of the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, who has drawn massive crowds to his campaign events and last month broke a fundraising record. The media largely ignored Sanders, and when it finally came around, after his popularity and poll numbers were too big to ignore, the coverage was full of bias and mischaracterization. As Rima Regas writes in Alternet:

“The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a “wall of silence” built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast, especially when his is the more progressive position.”

Why would the media, if it were so left-wing, be so active in its coverage of a right-wing populist like Trump, and so quiet in its coverage of Sanders? The reality is, of course, that the corporate media (a much more appropriate term than mainstream media) is not left-wing. Now, many conservatives argue that the majority of journalists support the Democratic party, which is true. But what does this prove? As Noam Chomsky (a real leftist) has previously pointed out:

“You could find that 99% of the journalists are members of the Socialist Workers Party, or some Maoist group, and that in itself would prove nothing about the media output. The issue is whether the media are free; are the media by their institutional structure free, to allow expression of opinion from whatever source, looking at any topic. If it turned out that 80% of the journalists were from one faction of the business party rather than another faction of the business party, would that tell you anything?”

Anyone who knows the history of left-wing politics understands that the media at large is not at all left-wing, but centrist at best. Again, just because the media lives in reality and does not dispute climate change, doesn't mean that it is liberal, but that the conservative faction of the GOP has become increasingly delusional in its extremism. The corporate media runs for a profit, and wouldn’t dare advocate any true socialist policies that woulds inflict pain on its business model. Sure, the media at large supports issues like gay marriage — but again, what does this prove? Is it a plot to destroy America, as Ted Cruz’s cheerful father believes, or is it because America at large is becoming more socially tolerant? Rubio and Cruz did well for themselves in bashing the abhorred media, but what does CNBC care, the ratings were great (though significantly lower than the first two debates), and the network made $250,000 for each 30 second commercial. And this, my fellow comrades, is what the corporate media is all about. Watch the candidates avoid answering debate questions by ripping into “liberal media” [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/GOP-At..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/ted-cr... "][/jwplayer]During the third Republican debate, the winning strategy was not in attacking Hillary Clinton or calling out the absurd policy plans of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, but in slamming the mainstream media as a left wing mouthpiece of the Democratic party. And since the debate, the GOP has gone berserk over CNBC  -- a business channel, mind you -- and it’s supposed liberal bias. The Republican National Committee has even suspended its partnership with NBC News for its February debate, because, as RNC Chairman Reince Priebus writes, “CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates.” Of course, the GOP candidates who were most vocal about the supposed media bias were really just using it to dodge substantive questions and get easy applauses from the partisan crowd. As Charles Pierce puts it in Esquire:

I have come to the conclusion that it is very easy to be a Republican presidential candidate. First of all, to paraphrase J.R. Ewing, once you give up truth, the rest is a piece of cake. Second, and most important, you really only have to memorize one answer.” (i.e it's the Liberal media!).

When confronted about his voting record in the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-FL) was quick to call out the media bias, after mentioning that President Obama had an abysmal voting record during his campaign as well. “This is another example of the double standard that exists in this country between the mainstream media and the conservatives,” he said, to a crowd of cheering conservatives. He even went on to say that Clinton has her very own super PAC in the mainstream media, a point that may have very well won the debate for the young conservative. Seeing the advantage in attacking the much-loathed media, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) responded to a question on whether his opposition to compromise on the debt limit shows he is not a “problem solver.” “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” said Cruz, who would use his time to trash the moderators instead of answering the question, “This is not a cage match.” He went on to mock the Democratic debate as a battle between the “Mensheviks and Bolsheviks,” which seems to imply that the media is not only liberal, but communist. So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those on the right love to claim? First of all, it should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias -- at least what Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not contest the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change (i.e. science) is a “religion.” But just because Cruz believes this, or his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist lie, does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that climate scientists are religious fanatics -- it means that Rafael Cruz and his son are delusional. Now, before considering whether the mainstream media is really left-wing, one should look at who owns the media. Consider this: In 1983, 90 percent of American media was owned by 50 companies, and by 2011, that number had fallen to six companies: CBS, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp, Disney and GE, which subsequently sold its media holding, NBC Universal, to cable giant Comcast (which would, in turn, later try to merge with Time Warner Cable, although that deal eventually fell apart). Thus, the media at large has one crucial goal: to make a profit. Not to serve the public, but to make money by selling advertisement spots to other corporations, whether they are selling new cars or tech products or pointless new drugs. All of this profit-making hardly sounds like the socialist media that Republicans would have everyone believe. One has to look no further than the coverage of Donald Trump to see this strategy in action. The Donald and the media have been feeding off of each other over the past few months. Trump loves the attention, and the media loves the “Yooge” ratings that he brings. (The higher the ratings, the more the network can charge for advertising or subscriptions.) CNN, for example, has covered Trump as if he were a natural disaster, and even bumped a 1oth anniversary special for Hurricane Katrina to cover one of Trump’s rambling campaign events. Now consider the media coverage of the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, who has drawn massive crowds to his campaign events and last month broke a fundraising record. The media largely ignored Sanders, and when it finally came around, after his popularity and poll numbers were too big to ignore, the coverage was full of bias and mischaracterization. As Rima Regas writes in Alternet:

“The most harmful way anti-Sanders media bias has been manifested is by omission. In this respect, the New York Times is joined by the vast majority of the mainstream media in not typically reporting on Sanders, especially on policy. Overall there is a version of a “wall of silence” built by the media when it comes to serious reporting and analysis of his policies; or when analyzing or reporting on the policies of his opponents, a failure to mention Sanders' in contrast, especially when his is the more progressive position.”

Why would the media, if it were so left-wing, be so active in its coverage of a right-wing populist like Trump, and so quiet in its coverage of Sanders? The reality is, of course, that the corporate media (a much more appropriate term than mainstream media) is not left-wing. Now, many conservatives argue that the majority of journalists support the Democratic party, which is true. But what does this prove? As Noam Chomsky (a real leftist) has previously pointed out:

“You could find that 99% of the journalists are members of the Socialist Workers Party, or some Maoist group, and that in itself would prove nothing about the media output. The issue is whether the media are free; are the media by their institutional structure free, to allow expression of opinion from whatever source, looking at any topic. If it turned out that 80% of the journalists were from one faction of the business party rather than another faction of the business party, would that tell you anything?”

Anyone who knows the history of left-wing politics understands that the media at large is not at all left-wing, but centrist at best. Again, just because the media lives in reality and does not dispute climate change, doesn't mean that it is liberal, but that the conservative faction of the GOP has become increasingly delusional in its extremism. The corporate media runs for a profit, and wouldn’t dare advocate any true socialist policies that woulds inflict pain on its business model. Sure, the media at large supports issues like gay marriage — but again, what does this prove? Is it a plot to destroy America, as Ted Cruz’s cheerful father believes, or is it because America at large is becoming more socially tolerant? Rubio and Cruz did well for themselves in bashing the abhorred media, but what does CNBC care, the ratings were great (though significantly lower than the first two debates), and the network made $250,000 for each 30 second commercial. And this, my fellow comrades, is what the corporate media is all about. Watch the candidates avoid answering debate questions by ripping into “liberal media” [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/GOP-At..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/10/ted-cr... "][/jwplayer]

Continue Reading...

“Salon, f**k off”: Salon staffers read some of their most colorful hate mail

How the GOP almost forced a Social Security disaster: Everything you need to know about their disgraceful hostage-taking

The comprehensive budget deal that passed Congress last week involved the temporary release of three hostages: One hostage was the debt limit, which will not need to be raised before March, 2017. A second hostage was the federal government, which might not, depending on who you ask, experience another shutdown for two fiscal years. The third hostage was Social Security. Like the hostage-taking over the debt limit and funding the government, the Social Security hostage involves something that should be routine. But these days, with this Congress, nothing is routine. To understand the Social Security hostage-taking, it is important to understand a technical aspect of Social Security with which no one but experts should be concerned. When workers have Social Security contributions deducted from their wages, those deducted monies are premiums for Social Security’s insurance against the loss of wages in the event of death, disability or old age. Those deducted funds are sent by their employers to the U.S. Treasury Department. Unbeknownst to most people, the money is then divided between two separate trust funds. This is a quirk of history. Two parts of Social Security’s wage insurance -- protection against the loss of wages in the event of death and old age -- were enacted in the 1930s. That is when the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (“OASI”) was established. The designers of Social Security wanted disability insurance enacted in the 1930s, as well, but it didn’t happen until 1956. When it did, its own trust fund (“DI”) was established. Nothing denotes to those making Social Security contributions what percentage goes to DI or OASI – nor should it. The benefits are intertwined and seamless, all generated from the same benefit formula. Policymakers, experts, and analysts have generally always treated the funds as combined, because of how interconnected all parts of Social Security are. Because all aspects of Social Security are so intertwined, the annual Trustees Reports provide projections as if the two trust funds were combined, and these are the projections most cited and most useful. As just one example of the interconnectedness, the funds which cover the costs of disability benefits are drawn from DI only until the disabled worker receiving them reaches full retirement age, at which point the payments are drawn from OASI. The amount is the same; the beneficiary likely is unaware of the change, since it has no impact whatsoever, but, by law, the monies can only be drawn from the specified fund. Not surprisingly, from time to time, the percentage of the Social Security contributions going to each of the two funds must be adjusted to keep both funds in balance with each other. Though you would think, for something so routine, something having no impact on what workers pay or what benefits are received, the Managing Trustee, who happens to be the Secretary of the Treasury, would have the authority to simply rebalance the funds. What would make even more sense is to simply combine the two funds into one. Many experts have recommended combining them, including the 1979 Social Security Advisory Council, which unanimously recommended a unitary trust fund, arguing that requiring legislative reallocations “is cumbersome and can cause needless public worry about the financial integrity of the Social Security system.” But there remain two separate trust funds, and the Managing Trustee does not have the authority to engage in simple rebalancing. Instead it takes an act of Congress. The goal of the hostage-takers When Congress has been responsible and done its job, this was no problem. Congress has reallocated the percentage of Social Security contributions going to the two funds 11 times in the past. About half the time, it increased the share going to OASI and about half the time, it increased the share for DI. Indeed, because of a projected shortfall in OASI in the early 1980s, Congress over-allocated from DI back then, and has never restored that over-allocation -- and the fund was projected to run dry next year, at the height of election season. This was too valuable a hostage to let go with no ransom. Unlike the other hostages, involving funding the government and raising the debt limit, the Social Security hostage directly affects some of our most vulnerable fellow Americans. If Congress did not act before the end of 2016, benefits would have been cut at that time by 20 percent. The commissioner of Social Security said recently that if Congress did not act, the automatic cuts would be a “death sentence” for those beneficiaries. The average disabled-worker benefit is $1,165 a month, or about $39 per day. These modest benefits keep millions of men, women, and children from deep poverty, even homelessness, and serve as the sole or main source of income for about 80 percent of beneficiaries. Without these benefits, about one out of two beneficiaries would live in poverty; even with benefits, most have low incomes. And one reality bears pointing out here: These beneficiaries could be any of us. Even the healthiest among us can find ourselves in a disabling car accident or stricken with a life-threatening, disabling illness The Republican hostage takers assert, against all evidence, that the disability insurance part of Social Security is broken, overrun with fraudulent payments. But the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration found that only one-third of one percent of the cases his office sampled involved fraud. Despite their protestations to the contrary, those who threatened to hold Social Security hostage were not trying to improve Social Security. They are seeking to cut it while avoiding political accountability. They want to dismantle it, brick by brick. This is not new. The battle against Social Security In 2009, a Congressional effort to hold hostage the debt limit to force a fast-track deficit commission was described by then-Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus (D-MT) for what it would have been: "A Social Security-cutting machine.” That effort was defeated, but President Obama set up the commission by executive order. Not surprisingly, that commission, chaired by two opponents of Social Security, former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and businessman Erskine Bowles, recommended deep cuts to Social Security along with a poison pill that would have slowly and inexorably destroyed it. Fortunately, the Commission did not get the requisite number of votes, and so Congress never had to address its recommendations on an up or down vote. The failure of Bowles-Simpson was followed by once more using the need to raise the debt limit to force the formation of the so-called Supercommittee, which had essentially the same charge as the Bowles-Simpson committee, but which this time had a stick: If the Supercommittee failed, there would be mandatory sequestration that was so draconian that it would force Congress to reach agreement. The Supercommittee failed to reach an agreement, and we are now stuck with sequestration. The sequestration caps were loosened a bit for the next two years as part of last week’s deal. But sequestration should be repealed outright; it should not be traded for the dismantling of Social Security, as Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and others occasionally, in candid moments, suggest. The re-allocation in this deal – the release of the hostage -- should have put both Social Security funds on equal footing, so that all benefits could be paid in full and on time through 2034. Instead, the re-allocation is designed to set up a new false crisis and a new hostage down the road, in 2022 -- but that is certainly better than having the must-pass legislation be acted on in next year’s lame duck session, after the election, which is what would have happened without this deal. The end of 2016, the lame duck session, just after the 2016 election, probably in December, when most normal people are distracted by the holidays, is the most dangerous time for must-pass legislation. Some who are voting will not be returning to Congress, either because they are retiring or have just been defeated. The end of 2016 is as far away from the next election as possible. Everyone is scrambling to finish and get home for the holidays, and the American people are distracted. It is the perfect time for those who want to cut Social Security to do their undemocratic dirty work. Fortunately, thanks to the comprehensive deal just enacted, that bullet has been dodged. The ransom price included a diversion of Social Security resources towards virtually nonexistent fraud. Those provisions will likely require some workers with disabilities to wait longer to receive their earned benefits. That is wrong. But no benefits were cut nor eligibility rules changed, and gambling on a better outcome in the lame duck would have been extremely risky. Time to expand Social Security Now that the false crisis is behind us and the hostage is free, we should expand Social Security’s modest benefits and require the wealthiest among us finally to pay their fair share. That is what most Americans want and that is the right policy, given the nation’s looming retirement income crisis and rising income inequality. Over a half dozen bills have been introduced in Congress this year alone to do just that. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has a bill, for example, that not only would expand benefits substantially, but would assure that all benefits, including the expanded disability insurance benefits, could be paid in full and on time for the next half century. Rep. John Larson (D-Ct) has a bill that expands benefits while ensuring that all benefits, including disability insurance benefits, could be paid for the next three-quarters of a century. Social Security should never be part of a comprehensive deal, as a matter of principle. It should certainly not be part of any deal whose goal is to reduce the deficit or raise the debt limit, since Social Security doesn’t add a penny to the federal debt. Social Security legislation should go through regular order, in the light of day. If that were done, Social Security would be expanded. No hostage taking, no ransom, no behind the scenes deals released and voted on in the wee hours of the morning. Just straightforward, old fashioned legislating. That is what has brought us Social Security, among the most successful domestic programs in the nation’s history. That is what will bring us expansion, if our elected leaders do their job and follow the will of the people they are elected to represent.The comprehensive budget deal that passed Congress last week involved the temporary release of three hostages: One hostage was the debt limit, which will not need to be raised before March, 2017. A second hostage was the federal government, which might not, depending on who you ask, experience another shutdown for two fiscal years. The third hostage was Social Security. Like the hostage-taking over the debt limit and funding the government, the Social Security hostage involves something that should be routine. But these days, with this Congress, nothing is routine. To understand the Social Security hostage-taking, it is important to understand a technical aspect of Social Security with which no one but experts should be concerned. When workers have Social Security contributions deducted from their wages, those deducted monies are premiums for Social Security’s insurance against the loss of wages in the event of death, disability or old age. Those deducted funds are sent by their employers to the U.S. Treasury Department. Unbeknownst to most people, the money is then divided between two separate trust funds. This is a quirk of history. Two parts of Social Security’s wage insurance -- protection against the loss of wages in the event of death and old age -- were enacted in the 1930s. That is when the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (“OASI”) was established. The designers of Social Security wanted disability insurance enacted in the 1930s, as well, but it didn’t happen until 1956. When it did, its own trust fund (“DI”) was established. Nothing denotes to those making Social Security contributions what percentage goes to DI or OASI – nor should it. The benefits are intertwined and seamless, all generated from the same benefit formula. Policymakers, experts, and analysts have generally always treated the funds as combined, because of how interconnected all parts of Social Security are. Because all aspects of Social Security are so intertwined, the annual Trustees Reports provide projections as if the two trust funds were combined, and these are the projections most cited and most useful. As just one example of the interconnectedness, the funds which cover the costs of disability benefits are drawn from DI only until the disabled worker receiving them reaches full retirement age, at which point the payments are drawn from OASI. The amount is the same; the beneficiary likely is unaware of the change, since it has no impact whatsoever, but, by law, the monies can only be drawn from the specified fund. Not surprisingly, from time to time, the percentage of the Social Security contributions going to each of the two funds must be adjusted to keep both funds in balance with each other. Though you would think, for something so routine, something having no impact on what workers pay or what benefits are received, the Managing Trustee, who happens to be the Secretary of the Treasury, would have the authority to simply rebalance the funds. What would make even more sense is to simply combine the two funds into one. Many experts have recommended combining them, including the 1979 Social Security Advisory Council, which unanimously recommended a unitary trust fund, arguing that requiring legislative reallocations “is cumbersome and can cause needless public worry about the financial integrity of the Social Security system.” But there remain two separate trust funds, and the Managing Trustee does not have the authority to engage in simple rebalancing. Instead it takes an act of Congress. The goal of the hostage-takers When Congress has been responsible and done its job, this was no problem. Congress has reallocated the percentage of Social Security contributions going to the two funds 11 times in the past. About half the time, it increased the share going to OASI and about half the time, it increased the share for DI. Indeed, because of a projected shortfall in OASI in the early 1980s, Congress over-allocated from DI back then, and has never restored that over-allocation -- and the fund was projected to run dry next year, at the height of election season. This was too valuable a hostage to let go with no ransom. Unlike the other hostages, involving funding the government and raising the debt limit, the Social Security hostage directly affects some of our most vulnerable fellow Americans. If Congress did not act before the end of 2016, benefits would have been cut at that time by 20 percent. The commissioner of Social Security said recently that if Congress did not act, the automatic cuts would be a “death sentence” for those beneficiaries. The average disabled-worker benefit is $1,165 a month, or about $39 per day. These modest benefits keep millions of men, women, and children from deep poverty, even homelessness, and serve as the sole or main source of income for about 80 percent of beneficiaries. Without these benefits, about one out of two beneficiaries would live in poverty; even with benefits, most have low incomes. And one reality bears pointing out here: These beneficiaries could be any of us. Even the healthiest among us can find ourselves in a disabling car accident or stricken with a life-threatening, disabling illness The Republican hostage takers assert, against all evidence, that the disability insurance part of Social Security is broken, overrun with fraudulent payments. But the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration found that only one-third of one percent of the cases his office sampled involved fraud. Despite their protestations to the contrary, those who threatened to hold Social Security hostage were not trying to improve Social Security. They are seeking to cut it while avoiding political accountability. They want to dismantle it, brick by brick. This is not new. The battle against Social Security In 2009, a Congressional effort to hold hostage the debt limit to force a fast-track deficit commission was described by then-Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus (D-MT) for what it would have been: "A Social Security-cutting machine.” That effort was defeated, but President Obama set up the commission by executive order. Not surprisingly, that commission, chaired by two opponents of Social Security, former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and businessman Erskine Bowles, recommended deep cuts to Social Security along with a poison pill that would have slowly and inexorably destroyed it. Fortunately, the Commission did not get the requisite number of votes, and so Congress never had to address its recommendations on an up or down vote. The failure of Bowles-Simpson was followed by once more using the need to raise the debt limit to force the formation of the so-called Supercommittee, which had essentially the same charge as the Bowles-Simpson committee, but which this time had a stick: If the Supercommittee failed, there would be mandatory sequestration that was so draconian that it would force Congress to reach agreement. The Supercommittee failed to reach an agreement, and we are now stuck with sequestration. The sequestration caps were loosened a bit for the next two years as part of last week’s deal. But sequestration should be repealed outright; it should not be traded for the dismantling of Social Security, as Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and others occasionally, in candid moments, suggest. The re-allocation in this deal – the release of the hostage -- should have put both Social Security funds on equal footing, so that all benefits could be paid in full and on time through 2034. Instead, the re-allocation is designed to set up a new false crisis and a new hostage down the road, in 2022 -- but that is certainly better than having the must-pass legislation be acted on in next year’s lame duck session, after the election, which is what would have happened without this deal. The end of 2016, the lame duck session, just after the 2016 election, probably in December, when most normal people are distracted by the holidays, is the most dangerous time for must-pass legislation. Some who are voting will not be returning to Congress, either because they are retiring or have just been defeated. The end of 2016 is as far away from the next election as possible. Everyone is scrambling to finish and get home for the holidays, and the American people are distracted. It is the perfect time for those who want to cut Social Security to do their undemocratic dirty work. Fortunately, thanks to the comprehensive deal just enacted, that bullet has been dodged. The ransom price included a diversion of Social Security resources towards virtually nonexistent fraud. Those provisions will likely require some workers with disabilities to wait longer to receive their earned benefits. That is wrong. But no benefits were cut nor eligibility rules changed, and gambling on a better outcome in the lame duck would have been extremely risky. Time to expand Social Security Now that the false crisis is behind us and the hostage is free, we should expand Social Security’s modest benefits and require the wealthiest among us finally to pay their fair share. That is what most Americans want and that is the right policy, given the nation’s looming retirement income crisis and rising income inequality. Over a half dozen bills have been introduced in Congress this year alone to do just that. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has a bill, for example, that not only would expand benefits substantially, but would assure that all benefits, including the expanded disability insurance benefits, could be paid in full and on time for the next half century. Rep. John Larson (D-Ct) has a bill that expands benefits while ensuring that all benefits, including disability insurance benefits, could be paid for the next three-quarters of a century. Social Security should never be part of a comprehensive deal, as a matter of principle. It should certainly not be part of any deal whose goal is to reduce the deficit or raise the debt limit, since Social Security doesn’t add a penny to the federal debt. Social Security legislation should go through regular order, in the light of day. If that were done, Social Security would be expanded. No hostage taking, no ransom, no behind the scenes deals released and voted on in the wee hours of the morning. Just straightforward, old fashioned legislating. That is what has brought us Social Security, among the most successful domestic programs in the nation’s history. That is what will bring us expansion, if our elected leaders do their job and follow the will of the people they are elected to represent.

Continue Reading...

This is what a demagogue sounds like: The patriotic appeal which can’t be trusted

It’s the most frequently invoked phrase in American political life. “The American people have a right to know ...” “The American people are asking where their hard-earned tax dollars are going.” “The American people are waiting for the Secretary of State to come clean about what she knew.” So, when we get right down to it, what, if anything, does this greatly overused phrase mean? What do the American people actually want to know? Let’s begin with something concrete. In “founder-speak” (referring colloquially to our national beginnings), “the American people” was a loose term to describe the formation of public opinion. This was a moment in history when “sovereign people,” a largely theoretical construct, contested the crowned sovereigns who then ruled most of the planet. It was not yet the tool of the average demagogue (say, Ted Cruz) or the average attack ad (“The American people have had enough of….”). Let’s see if we can travel from then to now, and make better sense of the history of a phrase. In July 1775, not long after the battles of Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill, the Second Continental Congress petitioned King George III. In the interest of reconciling the United Colonies with the parent state, even after the occasion of much bloodshed, the earnest petitioners bade him (who was yet their king) to make “such arrangements as your Majesty’s wisdom can form for collecting the united sense of your American people.” If he ceased thinking of them as rebels, he would soon understand that their very reasonable desire was a return to the mild government they had previously enjoyed under their sovereign. The patient members of Congress who signed the petition presumed that a sympathetic connection could yet be found if a reliably objective representative of the crown somehow took the pulse of these distant subjects en masse. In Federalist 37, James Madison wrote: “Stability in government is essential to national character and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society.” As the Constitution was being framed, “national character” doubled for “the American people,” and was typically linked to the informed (moral as well as intellectual) choices they made in identifying the public interest with those individuals they considered worthy of office. National character was meant as an expression of the unity of interest and rights in America; it bespoke a desire to be collectively honest, introspective and visible to the outside world as a character-driven republic. Even as we acknowledge all partisan dysfunction, this ideal about who we are has never left our vocabulary. The airwaves draw us to all manner of “Breaking News”: verbal gaffes, inaccurate comparisons to Hitler, hints of scandal. Campaign chatter threatens to burst the collective eardrum. Amid this unfiltered noise, the ultimate authority, “the American people,” lies in reserve, and we expect to hear it invoked as reassurance that a comprehensive viewpoint exists, and that we matter. Readers might be surprised to learn that in the early years of the republic, “the American people” was not used nearly so much as it is now, nor as all-embracingly. Each Fourth of July, newspapers dutifully took note of the general spirit of camaraderie that “distinguishes the American people as one family.” Beyond national celebration, politicians did not rely on this terminology. That is not to say campaign season was ever truly a time of rational discourse, or that presidential wannabes were uniformly acknowledged as the best men for the job. In some ways, the 1848 election was like 2016 in the questions being asked about candidate qualifications and concerns aired with respect to voters’ suggestive minds. In that election year, a newspaper in east Texas — which state had only joined the Union three years earlier — took issue with Whig candidate Zachary Taylor, a victorious general who rode to fame in Mexico but had an ambiguous political identity. “The American people are notorious for their good common sense, and practicality,” went the editorial, “yet they are as easily humbugged as any people on the face of the earth.” To see General Taylor elected “would prove that the people were liable to be humbugged” — in other words, made the victims of a hoax, their political innocence imposed upon. Did the presidential hopeful even understand “the fundamental principles, and complicated machinery by which this great Union is held together?” The editorialist delivered a stern warning. No one actually knew whether Taylor’s success in the late war was due to “good Generalship, the insignificance of his enemy, the chivalry of his own troops, the act of Providence, or a combination of these.” The desire to believe the best about a supposed savior had overtaken reasoned evidence. A political unknown’s “influence over the American people” was, the columnist insisted, “dangerous to their liberties, and degrading to their character as intelligent people.” The year 1848 is not remote, in terms of the perils inherent in democracy. The Texas critic was an early incarnation of today’s questioners who wonder whether a real estate mogul or a neurosurgeon with no experience representing the public interest deserve to be seriously considered for high office. The American people continue to be “humbugged,” only now it comes courtesy of an instantaneous, visually aggressive format. As many have observed, we are glued to our screens, and the message is never neutral. Part of the reason why “the American people” sounds so good dates to the latter part of the nineteenth century, when the phrase was often invoked to describe a superior race. “We are emphatically a people of nerves,” declared the American Magazine in 1888. “Visitors from other lands are astonished at the fierce activity that pervades our most insignificant actions.” The energy embodied in the American character was due in some measure to the “American climate, which teaches in a vigorous and obtrusive manner that quiet and rest do not form part of natural law in this country.” We remained young and wakeful. “Scarcely out of swaddling clothes,” ran this generally upbeat article, “we are called upon to stand squarely in competition with a thousand years of past, and show the old fogies a new thing or two.” The country was in the midst of an immigrant deluge — the Statue of Liberty had just been dedicated. The writer predicted a future of “diluted” Americanness, the national essence weakened through the infusion of questionable foreign blood. Here we see shades of the nativist critique launched by Donald Trump, warning energetic Americans that they have to do something about Mexico’s “worst people” and warning voters to steer clear of “low energy” presidential candidates. The American people were under attack. We hear the same catch-all out of politicians’ mouths day after day after day. Take Ted Cruz in Congress at the end of September: “There is a reason the American people are fed up with Washington. There is a reason the American people are frustrated. The frustration is not simply mild or passing or ephemeral. It is volcanic. Over and over again, the American people go to the ballot box, over and over again, the American people rise up and say the direction we’re going doesn't make sense. We want change … and yet, nothing changes in Washington.” Almost every sentence is dominated by the same subject: the American people. So, who are “We the People”? It depends, of course, on who a politician sees as likeminded, or poised to benefit most, from policies he (or occasionally she) espouses. Generation by generation, the popular, ill-defined term has been cheapened, so that it’s now taken as a throwaway line — except we are supposed to agree when poll-tested. But is that precisely true? It is arguable that its meaning became clearer in 2012, when GOP nominee Mitt Romney was widely seen as the candidate of the one percent, a greed-inspired corporatist oblivious to the life of the average voter. If a president is meant to intuit the just needs and wants of “the American people,” then candidate Romney failed to wear “the people’s” mantle comfortably. President Obama has tended to use the phrase where it seems appropriate, as in promoting affordable healthcare, e.g., “I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance.” He also likes to use the term to describe the essential warmth and neighborliness and resilience of his countrymen. In his First Inaugural Address, it was: “For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job ...” But Rick Perry of Texas had the same take, when he announced his abortive candidacy last June: “The spirit of compassion demonstrated by Texans is alive all across America today. While we have experienced a deficit in leadership, among the American people there is a surplus of spirit.” President Obama tends to avoid invoking “the American people” to inflame passions when he is defining himself in opposition to Republicans, but he can be a bit snarky, too. In the first debate with Romney, the one in which Obama fared so poorly, the Republican held forth: “The American people don’t want Medicare, don’t want Obamacare.” Confronting Romney’s call for reliance on private markets, and doubting the content of his “secret plan” to replace Obamacare, the incumbent said: “I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good?” Snarky, yes, but he legitimately defines the American people as those who must make up their minds before they vote. He also uses the hallowed term as a synonym for the broad middle class: “I also promised that I’d fight every single day on behalf of the American people, the middle class, and all those who were striving to get into the middle class.” “The American people,” in recent Democratic parlance, have most often been job seekers. Running in 2015, Hillary Clinton has made a curious coupling in promoting economic fairness as her theme. It is: “President Obama and the American people’s hard work” that “pulled us back from the brink of depression.” Now let’s compare. Announcing for the presidency at his old high school, Chris Christie of New Jersey proclaimed that government entitlement programs were “lying and stealing from the American people.” Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, in announcing his candidacy, also went negative with the phrase: “It’s time to level with the American people. This president, and his apprentice-in-waiting Hillary Clinton, are leading America down the path to destruction.” Marco Rubio, on the occasion of his announcement, intimated — devoid of specifics — that once Obamacare was history and the tax code reformed, “the American people will create millions of better-paying modern jobs.” We know political rhetoric is, almost by design, evasive. When they raise the term “the American people,” newsmakers have, for well over a century now, credited them with “dispassionate judgment.” Those who draw on the familiar construct operate on the pretense that “the people” have a marked, well-coordinated personality. But that’s much harder to accept today — America is simply too heterogeneous. Romney’s tone-deafness was not strictly a function of his extraordinary net worth; it reminded that one who possesses great wealth must credibly prove accessibility. The billionaire Trump, with his petulance, his childish antics, is still less remote from average folks than Romney. He thrives on crowds — all he cares about is that they cheer him. They may or may not be a good cross-section of the electorate, but they have as much claim to the designation “American people” as any more learned, respectful, policy-wonkish audience. This is our problem. “The American people” are always presumed correct in their allegiances, but, in truth, they have never really been a reliable barometer of good government. Let’s not forget that they are regularly painted as victims, dupes — and have been ever since they were called upon to oust, at the ballot box, the “grasping and unscrupulous railway corporations” that were buying state legislatures in the early 1870s, ever since they ostensibly fell prey to the hyped-up warrior Zachary Taylor. It is odd (and a little frightening) that those in whom the protection of the principles of our republic are lodged — voters — are also adjudged the most susceptible members of the population. We have the Internet, but “the American people” do not reside there either. Political blogs may draw fanfaronade; but few sites truly constitute a forum where ideas are calmly and usefully debated. Similarly, one has to wonder about the GOP itself, a political party that claims to speak for the American people and yet exhibits little interest in finding consensus — “consensus” being the founders’ ideal formula for expression of the people’s sovereignty. It’s an all too obvious dilemma: We can’t police our elected representatives so that they think twice before claiming knowledge of what that fictive “We the People” think and it’s unlikely that there are a sufficient number of discerning voters able to separate the personal ambition of a candidate from their own best interests. Minimally, every candidate for public office should be asked by someone at every campaign event: “Why should I trust your judgment?” The answer should always be specifically focused. And it should not contain the words, “the American people.”  It’s the most frequently invoked phrase in American political life. “The American people have a right to know ...” “The American people are asking where their hard-earned tax dollars are going.” “The American people are waiting for the Secretary of State to come clean about what she knew.” So, when we get right down to it, what, if anything, does this greatly overused phrase mean? What do the American people actually want to know? Let’s begin with something concrete. In “founder-speak” (referring colloquially to our national beginnings), “the American people” was a loose term to describe the formation of public opinion. This was a moment in history when “sovereign people,” a largely theoretical construct, contested the crowned sovereigns who then ruled most of the planet. It was not yet the tool of the average demagogue (say, Ted Cruz) or the average attack ad (“The American people have had enough of….”). Let’s see if we can travel from then to now, and make better sense of the history of a phrase. In July 1775, not long after the battles of Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill, the Second Continental Congress petitioned King George III. In the interest of reconciling the United Colonies with the parent state, even after the occasion of much bloodshed, the earnest petitioners bade him (who was yet their king) to make “such arrangements as your Majesty’s wisdom can form for collecting the united sense of your American people.” If he ceased thinking of them as rebels, he would soon understand that their very reasonable desire was a return to the mild government they had previously enjoyed under their sovereign. The patient members of Congress who signed the petition presumed that a sympathetic connection could yet be found if a reliably objective representative of the crown somehow took the pulse of these distant subjects en masse. In Federalist 37, James Madison wrote: “Stability in government is essential to national character and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society.” As the Constitution was being framed, “national character” doubled for “the American people,” and was typically linked to the informed (moral as well as intellectual) choices they made in identifying the public interest with those individuals they considered worthy of office. National character was meant as an expression of the unity of interest and rights in America; it bespoke a desire to be collectively honest, introspective and visible to the outside world as a character-driven republic. Even as we acknowledge all partisan dysfunction, this ideal about who we are has never left our vocabulary. The airwaves draw us to all manner of “Breaking News”: verbal gaffes, inaccurate comparisons to Hitler, hints of scandal. Campaign chatter threatens to burst the collective eardrum. Amid this unfiltered noise, the ultimate authority, “the American people,” lies in reserve, and we expect to hear it invoked as reassurance that a comprehensive viewpoint exists, and that we matter. Readers might be surprised to learn that in the early years of the republic, “the American people” was not used nearly so much as it is now, nor as all-embracingly. Each Fourth of July, newspapers dutifully took note of the general spirit of camaraderie that “distinguishes the American people as one family.” Beyond national celebration, politicians did not rely on this terminology. That is not to say campaign season was ever truly a time of rational discourse, or that presidential wannabes were uniformly acknowledged as the best men for the job. In some ways, the 1848 election was like 2016 in the questions being asked about candidate qualifications and concerns aired with respect to voters’ suggestive minds. In that election year, a newspaper in east Texas — which state had only joined the Union three years earlier — took issue with Whig candidate Zachary Taylor, a victorious general who rode to fame in Mexico but had an ambiguous political identity. “The American people are notorious for their good common sense, and practicality,” went the editorial, “yet they are as easily humbugged as any people on the face of the earth.” To see General Taylor elected “would prove that the people were liable to be humbugged” — in other words, made the victims of a hoax, their political innocence imposed upon. Did the presidential hopeful even understand “the fundamental principles, and complicated machinery by which this great Union is held together?” The editorialist delivered a stern warning. No one actually knew whether Taylor’s success in the late war was due to “good Generalship, the insignificance of his enemy, the chivalry of his own troops, the act of Providence, or a combination of these.” The desire to believe the best about a supposed savior had overtaken reasoned evidence. A political unknown’s “influence over the American people” was, the columnist insisted, “dangerous to their liberties, and degrading to their character as intelligent people.” The year 1848 is not remote, in terms of the perils inherent in democracy. The Texas critic was an early incarnation of today’s questioners who wonder whether a real estate mogul or a neurosurgeon with no experience representing the public interest deserve to be seriously considered for high office. The American people continue to be “humbugged,” only now it comes courtesy of an instantaneous, visually aggressive format. As many have observed, we are glued to our screens, and the message is never neutral. Part of the reason why “the American people” sounds so good dates to the latter part of the nineteenth century, when the phrase was often invoked to describe a superior race. “We are emphatically a people of nerves,” declared the American Magazine in 1888. “Visitors from other lands are astonished at the fierce activity that pervades our most insignificant actions.” The energy embodied in the American character was due in some measure to the “American climate, which teaches in a vigorous and obtrusive manner that quiet and rest do not form part of natural law in this country.” We remained young and wakeful. “Scarcely out of swaddling clothes,” ran this generally upbeat article, “we are called upon to stand squarely in competition with a thousand years of past, and show the old fogies a new thing or two.” The country was in the midst of an immigrant deluge — the Statue of Liberty had just been dedicated. The writer predicted a future of “diluted” Americanness, the national essence weakened through the infusion of questionable foreign blood. Here we see shades of the nativist critique launched by Donald Trump, warning energetic Americans that they have to do something about Mexico’s “worst people” and warning voters to steer clear of “low energy” presidential candidates. The American people were under attack. We hear the same catch-all out of politicians’ mouths day after day after day. Take Ted Cruz in Congress at the end of September: “There is a reason the American people are fed up with Washington. There is a reason the American people are frustrated. The frustration is not simply mild or passing or ephemeral. It is volcanic. Over and over again, the American people go to the ballot box, over and over again, the American people rise up and say the direction we’re going doesn't make sense. We want change … and yet, nothing changes in Washington.” Almost every sentence is dominated by the same subject: the American people. So, who are “We the People”? It depends, of course, on who a politician sees as likeminded, or poised to benefit most, from policies he (or occasionally she) espouses. Generation by generation, the popular, ill-defined term has been cheapened, so that it’s now taken as a throwaway line — except we are supposed to agree when poll-tested. But is that precisely true? It is arguable that its meaning became clearer in 2012, when GOP nominee Mitt Romney was widely seen as the candidate of the one percent, a greed-inspired corporatist oblivious to the life of the average voter. If a president is meant to intuit the just needs and wants of “the American people,” then candidate Romney failed to wear “the people’s” mantle comfortably. President Obama has tended to use the phrase where it seems appropriate, as in promoting affordable healthcare, e.g., “I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance.” He also likes to use the term to describe the essential warmth and neighborliness and resilience of his countrymen. In his First Inaugural Address, it was: “For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job ...” But Rick Perry of Texas had the same take, when he announced his abortive candidacy last June: “The spirit of compassion demonstrated by Texans is alive all across America today. While we have experienced a deficit in leadership, among the American people there is a surplus of spirit.” President Obama tends to avoid invoking “the American people” to inflame passions when he is defining himself in opposition to Republicans, but he can be a bit snarky, too. In the first debate with Romney, the one in which Obama fared so poorly, the Republican held forth: “The American people don’t want Medicare, don’t want Obamacare.” Confronting Romney’s call for reliance on private markets, and doubting the content of his “secret plan” to replace Obamacare, the incumbent said: “I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good?” Snarky, yes, but he legitimately defines the American people as those who must make up their minds before they vote. He also uses the hallowed term as a synonym for the broad middle class: “I also promised that I’d fight every single day on behalf of the American people, the middle class, and all those who were striving to get into the middle class.” “The American people,” in recent Democratic parlance, have most often been job seekers. Running in 2015, Hillary Clinton has made a curious coupling in promoting economic fairness as her theme. It is: “President Obama and the American people’s hard work” that “pulled us back from the brink of depression.” Now let’s compare. Announcing for the presidency at his old high school, Chris Christie of New Jersey proclaimed that government entitlement programs were “lying and stealing from the American people.” Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, in announcing his candidacy, also went negative with the phrase: “It’s time to level with the American people. This president, and his apprentice-in-waiting Hillary Clinton, are leading America down the path to destruction.” Marco Rubio, on the occasion of his announcement, intimated — devoid of specifics — that once Obamacare was history and the tax code reformed, “the American people will create millions of better-paying modern jobs.” We know political rhetoric is, almost by design, evasive. When they raise the term “the American people,” newsmakers have, for well over a century now, credited them with “dispassionate judgment.” Those who draw on the familiar construct operate on the pretense that “the people” have a marked, well-coordinated personality. But that’s much harder to accept today — America is simply too heterogeneous. Romney’s tone-deafness was not strictly a function of his extraordinary net worth; it reminded that one who possesses great wealth must credibly prove accessibility. The billionaire Trump, with his petulance, his childish antics, is still less remote from average folks than Romney. He thrives on crowds — all he cares about is that they cheer him. They may or may not be a good cross-section of the electorate, but they have as much claim to the designation “American people” as any more learned, respectful, policy-wonkish audience. This is our problem. “The American people” are always presumed correct in their allegiances, but, in truth, they have never really been a reliable barometer of good government. Let’s not forget that they are regularly painted as victims, dupes — and have been ever since they were called upon to oust, at the ballot box, the “grasping and unscrupulous railway corporations” that were buying state legislatures in the early 1870s, ever since they ostensibly fell prey to the hyped-up warrior Zachary Taylor. It is odd (and a little frightening) that those in whom the protection of the principles of our republic are lodged — voters — are also adjudged the most susceptible members of the population. We have the Internet, but “the American people” do not reside there either. Political blogs may draw fanfaronade; but few sites truly constitute a forum where ideas are calmly and usefully debated. Similarly, one has to wonder about the GOP itself, a political party that claims to speak for the American people and yet exhibits little interest in finding consensus — “consensus” being the founders’ ideal formula for expression of the people’s sovereignty. It’s an all too obvious dilemma: We can’t police our elected representatives so that they think twice before claiming knowledge of what that fictive “We the People” think and it’s unlikely that there are a sufficient number of discerning voters able to separate the personal ambition of a candidate from their own best interests. Minimally, every candidate for public office should be asked by someone at every campaign event: “Why should I trust your judgment?” The answer should always be specifically focused. And it should not contain the words, “the American people.”  

Continue Reading...

Climate change claims a new victim: The slow demise of Califonia’s golden trout

Driving through the Owens Valley, a scenic 75-mile-long, U-shaped cul-de-sac on the east side of the Sierras, confirmed extremely dry conditions. California’s prolonged drought wasn't just visible in the low stream flows, charred hillsides and snowless Sierra Nevada Mountains, but I could hear it. In the small town of Lone Pine, I overheard a man say: “I guess we won't get to shower until next winter.” The water situation for local fish isn’t much better. For my journey – a day’s drive followed by four days of backpacking – I wanted to see first hand how one particular “local fish” was doing. At the Whitney Ranger Station, I laid out my trip route into the Golden Trout Wilderness. “You should have the whole place to yourself,” Rene Marshall, the Forest Service Ranger, told me. She mentioned water would be available in both of my overnight stops – Big Whitney and Tunnel Meadows. Wilderness permit in hand, I drove up to Horseshoe Meadow, packed my camping and fishing gear, and hiked out the next morning over Trail Pass. With the single exception of a packer named Billy and his five-mule pack train, Rene’s prediction was right. The Canary in the Creek The freezing mornings aside, camping in the Golden Trout Wilderness in early fall had rewards. Listening to a coyote sing just after the sunset was one. But the high point came after a grueling hike to reach the South Fork of the Kern River – catching and photographing a California golden trout. The golden trout is commonly called “the most beautiful trout in the world.” But in the new era of climate change, golden trout go beyond symbolizing the beautiful state fish of California. These native trout are ecological sentinels. Changing climate poses new risks for California golden trout and intensifies existing stressors from a long history of cattle grazing in their range. New risks resulting from more intense droughts, wildfires, and smaller snowpack will test the resilience of forest and freshwater ecosystems throughout the Sierra. The heavy snowfall on the Sierra Nevada Mountains typically serves as a natural water storage system. But this year, the snowpack hit the lowest level in 500 years. Reduced snowpack will shift stream flow and water temperature during the critical spring and summer months when golden trout spawn and do most of their feeding. Shouldering a 35-pound pack over a 10,000-foot pass, I quickly came to learn that California golden trout swim in rarified water. They live in narrow streams at around 9,000 feet where flows are thin. Their tiny headwater streams of the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek on the Kern Plateau have been their only home for 70,000 years. As cold-blooded creatures, these trout completely depend on water to regulate their body temperatures. Water temperatures in the range of 3° to 20°C are ideal for them to breathe, feed, metabolize food, evade predators, and spawn. When stream temperatures exceed 20°C they get stressed. Long exposure to temperatures above that prove lethal. Here’s the problem – their tiny streams are warming in the summer. The Cattle Conundrum As a research scientist for the US Forest Service, Dr. Kathleen Matthews has been studying California golden trout for over 20 years. Since 2008 she has been monitoring the temperatures of the streams they live in. The 90 temperature probes she stationed throughout three meadow streams reveal a harsh new reality for these trout. Over a five year study, the probes recorded temperatures in two of the streams reaching 26°C with daily temperatures exceeding 20°C for almost two months of one study year. As water warms, it holds less oxygen. When their water warms trout naturally seek out cooler water. Since California golden trout inhabit small headwater streams, it’s hard for them to seek out cooler water. Lacking an escape route to cooler water isn’t the only downside to their home in the High Sierra. Turns out, the streams with the warmest temperatures in Matthews’ study have been trampled over by domestic cattle. Livestock have a long history of grazing within the Golden Trout Wilderness beginning around 1860. As I hiked the trail along Mulkey Meadows, I saw clear scarring of the meadow, and of course, cow pies strewn everywhere. Worse than eyesores, overgrazing reduces shade-producing vegetation and breaks down fragile meadow stream banks. What remains are streams without willows to block the sun and a shallow stream channel that turns warmer during the long days of summer. “We haven’t been able to keep golden trout streams in really excellent condition in the presence of cattle grazing,” Matthews says. A healthy golden trout stream, she says, would have “lush streamside vegetation, the water is clear and cool, there is adequate food in the stream, the banks are stable and contain areas of undercutting for shade and hiding, and there are deeper pools.” The Inyo National Forest administers the wilderness area holding California golden trout. Since the late 1980’s, the Forest Service, with the help of volunteers from Trout Unlimited, California Trout and local fly fishing clubs, constructed fencing around key golden trout habitat. This fencing removed livestock from badly damaged locations and allowed some recovery of stream habitat. But fences break and in remote wilderness areas, without any road access, maintenance is difficult at best. A far better solution to keeping cattle out of meadow streams came in 2001. Inyo National Forest decided to remove cattle completely from two grazing allotments for at least 10 years. Witnessing the recovery of a meadow rested over a decade, Matthews sees the elimination of grazing as a major step in the right direction. The pay-off comes with a less compacted meadow, more undercut stream banks and greater shade producing riparian cover. And ultimately, the cooling that can help offset effects of climate change. Seeking A Cool Shaded Undercut Bank Climate change is reducing snowpack in the Sierra Nevada due to warmer air temperatures. The snow melts earlier on the Kern Plateau and the high meadows become drier by the end of summer. Climate models predict Sierra Nevada streams and lakes will experience significant warming over the next 100 years. Matthew’s water temperature study sounds a clear warning – streams impacted by overgrazing may not be resilient in the face of future warming. The Forest Service holds the key to reversing the damage caused by over a century of cattle grazing in these meadows. Native California golden trout live completely within their namesake wilderness. Many conservationists, including Matthews, would like the Golden Trout Wilderness managed as a refuge for golden trout (i.e., the freshwater equivalent of a marine preserve). Looking past their stunning color, these trout are amazing survivors. The California golden trout represents thousands of years of adapting to a changing climate in one of the most extreme environments. Helping these ancient fish survive without domestic cattle in their wilderness home is the least we can do.Driving through the Owens Valley, a scenic 75-mile-long, U-shaped cul-de-sac on the east side of the Sierras, confirmed extremely dry conditions. California’s prolonged drought wasn't just visible in the low stream flows, charred hillsides and snowless Sierra Nevada Mountains, but I could hear it. In the small town of Lone Pine, I overheard a man say: “I guess we won't get to shower until next winter.” The water situation for local fish isn’t much better. For my journey – a day’s drive followed by four days of backpacking – I wanted to see first hand how one particular “local fish” was doing. At the Whitney Ranger Station, I laid out my trip route into the Golden Trout Wilderness. “You should have the whole place to yourself,” Rene Marshall, the Forest Service Ranger, told me. She mentioned water would be available in both of my overnight stops – Big Whitney and Tunnel Meadows. Wilderness permit in hand, I drove up to Horseshoe Meadow, packed my camping and fishing gear, and hiked out the next morning over Trail Pass. With the single exception of a packer named Billy and his five-mule pack train, Rene’s prediction was right. The Canary in the Creek The freezing mornings aside, camping in the Golden Trout Wilderness in early fall had rewards. Listening to a coyote sing just after the sunset was one. But the high point came after a grueling hike to reach the South Fork of the Kern River – catching and photographing a California golden trout. The golden trout is commonly called “the most beautiful trout in the world.” But in the new era of climate change, golden trout go beyond symbolizing the beautiful state fish of California. These native trout are ecological sentinels. Changing climate poses new risks for California golden trout and intensifies existing stressors from a long history of cattle grazing in their range. New risks resulting from more intense droughts, wildfires, and smaller snowpack will test the resilience of forest and freshwater ecosystems throughout the Sierra. The heavy snowfall on the Sierra Nevada Mountains typically serves as a natural water storage system. But this year, the snowpack hit the lowest level in 500 years. Reduced snowpack will shift stream flow and water temperature during the critical spring and summer months when golden trout spawn and do most of their feeding. Shouldering a 35-pound pack over a 10,000-foot pass, I quickly came to learn that California golden trout swim in rarified water. They live in narrow streams at around 9,000 feet where flows are thin. Their tiny headwater streams of the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek on the Kern Plateau have been their only home for 70,000 years. As cold-blooded creatures, these trout completely depend on water to regulate their body temperatures. Water temperatures in the range of 3° to 20°C are ideal for them to breathe, feed, metabolize food, evade predators, and spawn. When stream temperatures exceed 20°C they get stressed. Long exposure to temperatures above that prove lethal. Here’s the problem – their tiny streams are warming in the summer. The Cattle Conundrum As a research scientist for the US Forest Service, Dr. Kathleen Matthews has been studying California golden trout for over 20 years. Since 2008 she has been monitoring the temperatures of the streams they live in. The 90 temperature probes she stationed throughout three meadow streams reveal a harsh new reality for these trout. Over a five year study, the probes recorded temperatures in two of the streams reaching 26°C with daily temperatures exceeding 20°C for almost two months of one study year. As water warms, it holds less oxygen. When their water warms trout naturally seek out cooler water. Since California golden trout inhabit small headwater streams, it’s hard for them to seek out cooler water. Lacking an escape route to cooler water isn’t the only downside to their home in the High Sierra. Turns out, the streams with the warmest temperatures in Matthews’ study have been trampled over by domestic cattle. Livestock have a long history of grazing within the Golden Trout Wilderness beginning around 1860. As I hiked the trail along Mulkey Meadows, I saw clear scarring of the meadow, and of course, cow pies strewn everywhere. Worse than eyesores, overgrazing reduces shade-producing vegetation and breaks down fragile meadow stream banks. What remains are streams without willows to block the sun and a shallow stream channel that turns warmer during the long days of summer. “We haven’t been able to keep golden trout streams in really excellent condition in the presence of cattle grazing,” Matthews says. A healthy golden trout stream, she says, would have “lush streamside vegetation, the water is clear and cool, there is adequate food in the stream, the banks are stable and contain areas of undercutting for shade and hiding, and there are deeper pools.” The Inyo National Forest administers the wilderness area holding California golden trout. Since the late 1980’s, the Forest Service, with the help of volunteers from Trout Unlimited, California Trout and local fly fishing clubs, constructed fencing around key golden trout habitat. This fencing removed livestock from badly damaged locations and allowed some recovery of stream habitat. But fences break and in remote wilderness areas, without any road access, maintenance is difficult at best. A far better solution to keeping cattle out of meadow streams came in 2001. Inyo National Forest decided to remove cattle completely from two grazing allotments for at least 10 years. Witnessing the recovery of a meadow rested over a decade, Matthews sees the elimination of grazing as a major step in the right direction. The pay-off comes with a less compacted meadow, more undercut stream banks and greater shade producing riparian cover. And ultimately, the cooling that can help offset effects of climate change. Seeking A Cool Shaded Undercut Bank Climate change is reducing snowpack in the Sierra Nevada due to warmer air temperatures. The snow melts earlier on the Kern Plateau and the high meadows become drier by the end of summer. Climate models predict Sierra Nevada streams and lakes will experience significant warming over the next 100 years. Matthew’s water temperature study sounds a clear warning – streams impacted by overgrazing may not be resilient in the face of future warming. The Forest Service holds the key to reversing the damage caused by over a century of cattle grazing in these meadows. Native California golden trout live completely within their namesake wilderness. Many conservationists, including Matthews, would like the Golden Trout Wilderness managed as a refuge for golden trout (i.e., the freshwater equivalent of a marine preserve). Looking past their stunning color, these trout are amazing survivors. The California golden trout represents thousands of years of adapting to a changing climate in one of the most extreme environments. Helping these ancient fish survive without domestic cattle in their wilderness home is the least we can do.Driving through the Owens Valley, a scenic 75-mile-long, U-shaped cul-de-sac on the east side of the Sierras, confirmed extremely dry conditions. California’s prolonged drought wasn't just visible in the low stream flows, charred hillsides and snowless Sierra Nevada Mountains, but I could hear it. In the small town of Lone Pine, I overheard a man say: “I guess we won't get to shower until next winter.” The water situation for local fish isn’t much better. For my journey – a day’s drive followed by four days of backpacking – I wanted to see first hand how one particular “local fish” was doing. At the Whitney Ranger Station, I laid out my trip route into the Golden Trout Wilderness. “You should have the whole place to yourself,” Rene Marshall, the Forest Service Ranger, told me. She mentioned water would be available in both of my overnight stops – Big Whitney and Tunnel Meadows. Wilderness permit in hand, I drove up to Horseshoe Meadow, packed my camping and fishing gear, and hiked out the next morning over Trail Pass. With the single exception of a packer named Billy and his five-mule pack train, Rene’s prediction was right. The Canary in the Creek The freezing mornings aside, camping in the Golden Trout Wilderness in early fall had rewards. Listening to a coyote sing just after the sunset was one. But the high point came after a grueling hike to reach the South Fork of the Kern River – catching and photographing a California golden trout. The golden trout is commonly called “the most beautiful trout in the world.” But in the new era of climate change, golden trout go beyond symbolizing the beautiful state fish of California. These native trout are ecological sentinels. Changing climate poses new risks for California golden trout and intensifies existing stressors from a long history of cattle grazing in their range. New risks resulting from more intense droughts, wildfires, and smaller snowpack will test the resilience of forest and freshwater ecosystems throughout the Sierra. The heavy snowfall on the Sierra Nevada Mountains typically serves as a natural water storage system. But this year, the snowpack hit the lowest level in 500 years. Reduced snowpack will shift stream flow and water temperature during the critical spring and summer months when golden trout spawn and do most of their feeding. Shouldering a 35-pound pack over a 10,000-foot pass, I quickly came to learn that California golden trout swim in rarified water. They live in narrow streams at around 9,000 feet where flows are thin. Their tiny headwater streams of the South Fork Kern River and Golden Trout Creek on the Kern Plateau have been their only home for 70,000 years. As cold-blooded creatures, these trout completely depend on water to regulate their body temperatures. Water temperatures in the range of 3° to 20°C are ideal for them to breathe, feed, metabolize food, evade predators, and spawn. When stream temperatures exceed 20°C they get stressed. Long exposure to temperatures above that prove lethal. Here’s the problem – their tiny streams are warming in the summer. The Cattle Conundrum As a research scientist for the US Forest Service, Dr. Kathleen Matthews has been studying California golden trout for over 20 years. Since 2008 she has been monitoring the temperatures of the streams they live in. The 90 temperature probes she stationed throughout three meadow streams reveal a harsh new reality for these trout. Over a five year study, the probes recorded temperatures in two of the streams reaching 26°C with daily temperatures exceeding 20°C for almost two months of one study year. As water warms, it holds less oxygen. When their water warms trout naturally seek out cooler water. Since California golden trout inhabit small headwater streams, it’s hard for them to seek out cooler water. Lacking an escape route to cooler water isn’t the only downside to their home in the High Sierra. Turns out, the streams with the warmest temperatures in Matthews’ study have been trampled over by domestic cattle. Livestock have a long history of grazing within the Golden Trout Wilderness beginning around 1860. As I hiked the trail along Mulkey Meadows, I saw clear scarring of the meadow, and of course, cow pies strewn everywhere. Worse than eyesores, overgrazing reduces shade-producing vegetation and breaks down fragile meadow stream banks. What remains are streams without willows to block the sun and a shallow stream channel that turns warmer during the long days of summer. “We haven’t been able to keep golden trout streams in really excellent condition in the presence of cattle grazing,” Matthews says. A healthy golden trout stream, she says, would have “lush streamside vegetation, the water is clear and cool, there is adequate food in the stream, the banks are stable and contain areas of undercutting for shade and hiding, and there are deeper pools.” The Inyo National Forest administers the wilderness area holding California golden trout. Since the late 1980’s, the Forest Service, with the help of volunteers from Trout Unlimited, California Trout and local fly fishing clubs, constructed fencing around key golden trout habitat. This fencing removed livestock from badly damaged locations and allowed some recovery of stream habitat. But fences break and in remote wilderness areas, without any road access, maintenance is difficult at best. A far better solution to keeping cattle out of meadow streams came in 2001. Inyo National Forest decided to remove cattle completely from two grazing allotments for at least 10 years. Witnessing the recovery of a meadow rested over a decade, Matthews sees the elimination of grazing as a major step in the right direction. The pay-off comes with a less compacted meadow, more undercut stream banks and greater shade producing riparian cover. And ultimately, the cooling that can help offset effects of climate change. Seeking A Cool Shaded Undercut Bank Climate change is reducing snowpack in the Sierra Nevada due to warmer air temperatures. The snow melts earlier on the Kern Plateau and the high meadows become drier by the end of summer. Climate models predict Sierra Nevada streams and lakes will experience significant warming over the next 100 years. Matthew’s water temperature study sounds a clear warning – streams impacted by overgrazing may not be resilient in the face of future warming. The Forest Service holds the key to reversing the damage caused by over a century of cattle grazing in these meadows. Native California golden trout live completely within their namesake wilderness. Many conservationists, including Matthews, would like the Golden Trout Wilderness managed as a refuge for golden trout (i.e., the freshwater equivalent of a marine preserve). Looking past their stunning color, these trout are amazing survivors. The California golden trout represents thousands of years of adapting to a changing climate in one of the most extreme environments. Helping these ancient fish survive without domestic cattle in their wilderness home is the least we can do.

Continue Reading...