July 9, 2015

more of a kudo than a question.

I am happy to see that jurors are being officially admonished not to be insulting. I have long thought that an anonymous personal insult to which the insulted person could not respond was the epitome of unfair "discourse." There is a difference between saying a particular alert is bad, and saying that the alerter is a fool, or whatever. f

Anyway, FWIW, if anything, I approve that change.

July 8, 2015

Question for gun enthusiasts from someone who knows nothing about shooting:

If you did not know how to shoot, but wanted to try, just to see if you could hit a target, would you ask a gun enthusiast to teach you, or would you take lessons at a more professional place?

I am asking because of a recent college grad I know. Female, if it matters. I am here just for this specific bit of info, not to argue with either side about guns in general. Thank you.

ETA: After reading some replies, I have decided a pro is the way to go. Anyone know if a place like that might issue gift certificates based on a phone call plus a paypal account or credit card ? If I do that, she can't say she doesn't want to waste money.

July 7, 2015

"What about Mondale?" indeed: Walter Mondale.

Since the DLC took over the the Democratic Party, the Party has used a meme to justify putting center right candidates up for election and also to justify the other activities in which the Democratic party engages that advantage center right candidates and/or disadvantage more leftist candidates. (See, for example, how donations to more leftist politicians get to centrists indirectly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778505)

That meme is that the USA is a center right to right nation in which liberals cannot be elected. This is false.

First, the majority of Americans are not center right or right. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036 Only their politicians are, of late, anyway. The most elected President in US history was, as to domestic economic policy, a populist, namely FDR.

FDR's coattails were so long that Democrats held a majority in at least one house of Congress for decades, notable exceptions being during the Eisenhower and Clinton administrations, beginning in 1994 and, of course, after the Clinton administration, culminating most recently in the disastrous midterms of 2010 and 2014. (Eisenhower, of course, was aided by being a World War II hero, as well as by the war tax that FDR had put into place to pay for World War II, as well as by implementing the national highway project that FDR had begun, but stopped because of the war.) Indeed, Clinton's own election and re-election were aided by Ross Perot and his re-election further aided by the advantage of incumbency. Also, both Clinton and Gore were from the South, which was a built in Southern strategy (albeit of a kind that is nowhere as evil as the Atwater kind).

Gore, a centrist, however, and his centrist running mater. lost to Dimson and Vader, something the center right faction of the Party doesn't mention, unless it using his loss as a club against Nader. It was not, however, Nader's fault--or Jeb's-- that Gore did not carry his own state.

As "proof" of that false meme, Third Way advocates cite the losses of McGovern and Mondale. However, that does not stand up to even superficial analysis.

A thread started by demwing entitled "This ain't 1972," both the OP and the replies, pretty much put to rest that McGovern lost the Presidential election of 1972 because he was a liberal. Not only were there many other reasons that he lost, but it was known before a Democratic nominee was ever chosen that war time incumbent Nixon was going to win that election. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825

However, falsehoods sometimes die hard on DU. So, once the meme about why McGovern lost the election was refuted, someone asked, "What about Mondale? That question prompted some OP's by me.

One of my OPs and the replies, illustrated, I hope, what a formidable candidate Reagan was in 1980.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778872 ("What about Mondale?" indeed: Candidate Reagan)

Another of my OPs and the replies, I hope, illustrated the troubled administration of Carter-Mondale, baggage that Mondale carried as he tried to challenge incumbent Reagan in 1984, four years after the Carter-Mondale ticket had lost to Reagan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778873 ("What about Mondale?" indeed: 1976-1980)

A month after the 1980 election, Carter's approval rating was 34, same as Dimson's as Dimson's was exiting the Oval Office. Could Cheney have won in 2008 or 2012 against a formidable opponent? Meanwhile, when running against Mondale in 1984, Reagan was no longer a challenger, as he had been in 1980, but an incumbent, with the incumbent advantage

So, in 1980, we had a centrist President losing to a formidable candidate after a troubled 4 years. (This loss by a centrist who was also incumbent POTUS and a Southerner and a former Governor and a war veteran, is even tougher for centrists to explain than Gore's loss, so they conveniently blame it on a primary challenge, "conveniently" because centrists would also love to end primaries, especially primary challenges to incumbents. However, don't buy that anti-Democratic meme, either: the reason for the primary challenge was Carter's weakness, due to his troubled administration; and the reasons for 1980 loss were the troubled administration of Carter-Mondale and Reagan's strength as a candidate.

Then, in 1984, we had Mondale, carrying the baggage of both (a) the troubled Carter-Mondale administration and (b) the 1980 loss of the Carter-Mondale ticket, into a contest with an even stronger Reagan than centrist Carter had failed to defeat in 1980. Is it any surprise Mondale lost to incumbent Reagan when incumbents Carter-Mondale could not defeat Reagan when Reagan was only a challenger?

And what kind of candidate was Mondale? Dynamic? Charismatic? I don't know. But, when Wellstone died, Mondale did try to win his old Senate seat back and failed. A former Vice President could not win his own old Senate seat back. To me, that says a lot. And, I think most of us have seen video of the debate in which Reagan stopped Mondale dead in his tracks with the age comment and with "There you go again."

Those videos and more can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=reagan+mondale+debate+age+

Meanwhile, let's examine just how liberal Mondale was, which may just be THE biggest falsehood in this whole fairy tale:

In 1984, Mondale won the Democratic presidential nomination and campaigned for a nuclear freeze, the Equal Rights Amendment, an increase in taxes, and a reduction of U.S. public debt.

A nuclear freeze, when we had more than enough nukes to destroy the world doesn't seem terribly liberal. Limiting nukes was perhaps the signature achievement of Senator Obama, a New Democrat who said that, in the 1980s--when Mondale in fact lost to Reagan--he (Obama) would have been considered a "moderate Republican."

By 1984, the Equal Rights Amendment had already made it out of Congress and was in Constitutional amendment limbo. In fact, failure to get it adopted was cited as a reason why Carter Mondale may have lost in 1980: women were a large part of the traditional Democratic constituency. Besides, it's very hard to believe that Mondale's hope that more states would ratify the ERA played any role in Mondale's loss. Choosing Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate may have been considered too advanced for that time, but I can't say one way or the other.

Reducing debt. That can't have lost him any centrist voters. Increasing taxes--now, who on earth runs for the Oval Office on that? Sure, maybe you seek an increase when you do get elected, but to run on increasing taxes? Doesn't seem like a genius move.

But, what about Mondale's liberal reputation, you might ask. He had NONE. He had served as Vice President under a centrist Southern Democrat well after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act had become "the law of the land." Mondale, in the Senate:

Policies

Mondale worked hard to build up the center of the party on economic and social issues. Unlike his own father, a fervent liberal, he (VP Mondale) was not a crusader for the New Deal. Instead he realized the Democratic base (especially ethnic blue collar workers) was gradually moving to the right and he worked to keep their support.[13] Mondale showed little or no interest in foreign policy until about 1974, when he realized that some knowledge was necessary if he had loftier aspirations than the Senate. He developed a centrist position, avoiding alignment with either the party's hawks (such as Henry M. Jackson) or its doves (such as George McGovern).[14] He took a liberal position on civil rights issues, which proved acceptable in Minnesota, a state with "a minuscule black population".[15] Mondale was a chief sponsor of the federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing and created HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity as the primary enforcer of the law.[16]

During the Johnson presidency, Mondale supported the Vietnam War, but after Richard Nixon became President in 1969, he began to oppose it and participated in legislation aimed at restricting Nixon's ability to prolong the war. Mondale is pro-choice on the issue of abortion. [3][17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale

See also, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024967786 Losses of Presidential elections in the 1980s were due to centrism).

Bill Clinton, the nation's first centrist President and spreader in chief of the centrist gospel, appointed Mondale to several posts:

During the presidency of Bill Clinton, he was U.S. Ambassador to Japan from 1993 to 1996, chaired a bipartisan group to study campaign finance reform, and was Clinton's special envoy to Indonesia in 1998.

id.

"What about Mondale?" indeed. The meme that Mondale lost to incumbent Reagan because Mondale was too liberal is perhaps the biggest fairy tale in the series of fairy tales that has been concocted in an attempt to take the nation further right.

July 7, 2015

Bernie can become President has replaced, "I like him but he can't win"

Speaking just for myself, I disregarded that kind of stuff anyway. IMO, all they really wanted to say was "He can't win."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6600340

H. A. Goodman

Columnist and author published in The Hill, The Baltimore Sun, The Jerusalem Post, Salon, and other publications

'Bernie Sanders Can Become President' Has Replaced 'I Like Him, But He Can't Win'

How many times have you heard the phrase, "I like Bernie Sanders, but he can't win," uttered by people who identify themselves as progressives? The facts, however, illustrate that "Bernie Sanders can win" and nobody in politics foreshadowed the Vermont Senator's latest surge in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He recently raised $15 million in just two months, and his campaign reports that "Nearly 87 percent of the total amount raised during the quarter came from the donors who contributed $250 or less." While Clinton's team isn't worried, they should be, primarily because Hillary Clinton already lost a presidential race (spending $229.4 million in the losing effort) and finished behind both Obama and John Edwards in the 2008 Iowa Caucus.

While Clinton is expected to amass $2.5 billion, Bernie Sanders has cut the former Secretary of State's lead in New Hampshire from 38 percentage points down to just 8. According to a July 4th CNN article titled Sanders snags key endorsement in New Hampshire, Senator Sanders also gained a key ally (referring to New Hampshire's Dudley Dudley):

----

Likely Democratic primary voters are now more apt to see Sanders as the candidate who "best represents the values of Democrats like yourself," the poll found.

It's important to note that Sanders didn't need billions of dollars to earn the trust of voters in New Hampshire, or cut Hillary's lead to only 8 points. Since he voted against the Iraq War and has spent a lifetime championing progressive issues while others waivered (Hillary was against gay marriage until 2013, voted for the Iraq War, pushed for the TPP on 45 separate occasions, and supported Keystone XL), Bernie Sanders doesn't need to prove he's a progressive. Voters know what they're getting with Vermont's Senator. In contrast, Hillary Clinton rarely offers a direct answer on why she failed to champion certain causes when they weren't popular.

Much more encouraging stuff at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-can-become-president-has-replaced-i-like-him-but-he-cant-win_b_7733476.html

July 7, 2015

SOS Hillary: Populists, help me out: What were SOS Hillary's great foreign policy accomplishments?

Please leave out things like most air miles logged.

July 7, 2015

Senator Clinton: Populists, please help me out.

Of the bills and amendments originally introduced by Senator Clinton, which passed both houses of Congress?

I don't want to know about bills that she co-sponsored, only bills that originated with her, and especially those that have nothing to do with 911.

Thank you.

July 7, 2015

Oh, no, not Sanders' hair again.

My fascination with the fringe of the fringe candidate continues.

Apparently, it has always had a life of its own.

July 6, 2015

Why would you let that shut you up?

The first time Godwin explained it, he said he wanted to see how fast it would spread. Not exactly something that should end discussion.

Later, he gave some deeper explanations, but I couldn't buy them.

In either case, it's something one person made up. And, almost always, shutting someone up by referring to Godwin's law works in favor of RW views.

BTW, this is the so-called "law."

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism."

To which my reply is, "Even assuming that is absolutely true, so what? Either a comparison is valid or it is not."

Godwin's alleged law does not change that. Also, you can allude to things like Nazi-like brutality, even if what you are talking about does not involve gassing 12 million people. Nothing before or since has involved that. Does that mean we can never mention a Nazi like mentality? Who would benefit most if we never mention Nazis? Yep. The people who act like Nazis.

In respect for the victims, I would not be frivolous about the comparison--though Jerry Seinfeld certainly was, with the Soup Nazi. However, if I see Nazi like behavior or hear Nazi like statements, I'm going to label it for what it is.

July 5, 2015

Batch Ice Cream Made in Massachusetts

Made in Massachusetts.
No chemical additives
You can pronounce and are very familiar with every ingredient
Fair Trade
Delicious (Full disclosure: So far, I've tried only one flavor, namely salted caramel)



What's not to like?

July 4, 2015

This week's Washington Week.

As most of us know, PBS has not been the same since at least the Bush Administration. Among many other things:

In 2006, Washington Week made an agreement with National Journal which ensures that at least one National Journal reporter is on the show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Week

Obviously, money changed hands for that plum. And it may or may not have come from the Kochs.

I was going to post something from wiki about National Journal (not to be confused with the conservative National Review) for those of you who may not be familiar with it. However, I carelessly clicked on the website itself after googling. Coincidentally, the top left corner of the page contained a cartoon that says it all.

http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=48745&format=nj2013_square_4_columns_large

The caption is, "Dear Democrats: populism will not save you." Yep, National Journal is RW publication.

IIRC, it used to be left-leaning, but was bought out. However, the current wiki, is much, much shorter when I first checked it a few years ago and now gives very little of the long history of the publication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal



On TV talking heads shows, including at PBS, Republicans and Kochites are overrepresented, including i the host's seat; New Democrat neoliberals (e.g., Brazile. Carville) and DINOs (e.g., Cokie Roberts) are a minority; and traditional Democrats are seldom, if ever seen, even at the once-revered PBS.

Anyway, Washington Week mentioned that Hillary's campaign advisors are being seen at the White House. Now, why is that?

Remember that secret meeting between Obama and Hillary at the end of the 2008 primary? Supposedly, the entire deal they struck was that he would help her fundraise to pay off her campaign debt. I was an Obama donor then. I got one, count it, one email from the Obama campaign asking me to donate to Hillary and I think he did one fundraiser.

After that, the Clintons worked hard for Obama's election; she became his Secretary of State; she did not challenge him in 2012; and he's been very supportive of her candidacy. (Compare the neutral joke he made about her at the White House Correspondent's dinner with the one he made about Bernie.)

And, now, her campaign advisors are meeting with the White House. Washington Week mentioned this in connection with a comment that the higher Obama's approvals are, the better it will be for Hillary. Turns out, they actually meant "for any Democratic candidate." However, I doubt the White House has been meeting with advisors from any other campaign.

IMO, the above encapsulates the salient points of the deal actually cut in 2008. Money to pay campaign debts was the last thing the Clintons had to worry about at the end of the primary of 2008. They themselves had assets of over $110 million, probably well over; and fundraising from their wealthy friends, including foreign nations, has never been an issue for them--the Clinton library and the foundation are examples.

The Washington Week panel threw slid of the now all too familiar digs at Bernie, but not that bad, this being PBS, after all. When they weren't palming off subtle digs, they did say some good things about him.

If you want to watch: http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/episode/victories-obama-help-fight-lame-duck-status-and-christie-webb-enter-2016-race