Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Hillary Clinton’s tweeter doesn’t understand Venn diagrams

May 22, 2016

I don’t suppose Hillary Clinton does it herself. I am sure she has a small army of bright young tweeters to help her engage socially.

This is the meaningless (to be kind – but incredibly stupid to be accurate) Venn diagram she tweeted about gun control.

clinton tweet

clinton tweet

The US has a population of 324 million (April 2016) and an adult population of about 240 million. Only about 160 million are registered to vote. Perhaps about 120 million will vote in the November election. So the next President will be elected with about 60 million votes (less than 20% of the population he or she will represent).

Surely the US could have produced two better candidates then Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.


 

If you put children in Parliament, you must expect temper tantrums

May 20, 2016

Justin Trudeau’s #elbowgate is extensively covered by all the press.

But why the indignation?

Quelle surprise.

The Guardian:

Canada’s normally staid House of Commons erupted into chaos on Wednesday, after the visibly annoyed Trudeau marched into a group of MPs, grabbed Conservative Gordon Brown by the arm and led him out of the group.

Parliamentarians were waiting to vote on a controversial motion from the Liberals to limit debate on assisted suicide legislation. The vote was delayed while several New Democrat MPs gathered around Brown, seemingly impeding him from taking his place.

Trudeau swore as he strode toward Brown, reportedly telling MPs to “get the fuck out of the way”. Footage from the House of Commons showed Trudeau elbowing New Democrat Ruth Ellen Brosseau as he pulled Brown away from the group.


elbowgate

elbowgate

Pretty children – especially those who know they are pretty – are prone to temper tantrums. It does not change just because they are in parliament. His admirer’s and apologists are hard at work trivialising his outburst. And like all spoilt children, he will probably get away with it.


 

100 years on and Boetcker’s 10 cannots are still valid

May 19, 2016

John Henry Boetcker’s (1873  – 1962) 10 cannots were first published in 1916. Some of his ten are often attributed in error to Abraham Lincoln. And they are just as valid today as they were then. They are more widely applicable today and especially for all the developing countries who need – above all – to ensure sufficient growth to fulfill the aspirations of their billions.

You cannot

  1. bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
  2. strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
  3. help little men by tearing down big men.
  4. lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
  5. help the poor by destroying the rich.
  6. establish sound security on borrowed money.
  7. further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
  8. keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
  9. build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.
  10. help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

 

Washington Post “promotes” video of Clinton lying

May 19, 2016

That somebody has made a montage of clips about Hillary Clinton’s untruthful statements over a number of years is not – in itself – so newsworthy or surprising. A Youtube video was posted in January this year. That such a video is promoted by the Drudge report is also not very surprising.

But I think it is a little surprising that the Washington Post (via Kathleen Parker) has helped this video to go viral is a little surprising. That a similar video of Donald Trump could be produced is certain. But why would the WaPo effectively help the Trump camp? Why now? The WaPo oped certainly has reached parts of the Democratic body corpus that other beers cannot reach. Of course the WaPo is far to the left of Hillary Clinton and they will do what they can to help Bernie Sanders. But even Sanders’ most ardent supporters cannot give him much of a chance.

Hillary Clinton’s vast resume of, shall we say, inconsistencies, is the dog that caught the car and won’t let go. A viral video collection of her comments on various subjects through the years is bestirring Republican hearts.

To those who’d rather vote for a reality show host than a Clinton, the video merely confirms what they’ve believed all along. For independents and even Democrats, it’s a reminder of how often Clinton has morphed into a fresh incarnation as required by the political moment.

Most of the highlights would be familiar to anyone who follows politics — her varying takes on Bosnia, health care, Wall Street, NAFTA — but the juxtaposition of these ever-shifting views is more jarring than one might expect. Politicians count on Americans’ short attention spans (and memories) as much as they do their own policies and/or charms. This video (https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI), inartfully titled “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight,” clarifies blurred recollections and recasts them in an order that, among other things, reminds us how long the Clintons have been around.

The video is worth watching in its own right: Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight

 

 

In defense of walls – where human security is rooted

May 16, 2016

The wall that Donald Trump talks about to keep out illegal immigrants and the ridicule that it attracts has become a political football in the US presidential election. Barack Obama talks about no good coming from any wall. Yet, he also talks about increasing the height of the wall around the White House. “Knocking down walls” is a phrase loved by the shallow of mind and is supposed to always be a good thing. But it is the building of walls which has provided the fundamental human security – and privacy – which in turn has enabled human development.

The demonisation of walls is dishonourable and puerile.

Human security is rooted in and depends upon the building of walls. Whereas the control of fire is what distinguishes the species of homo, it is the building of walls which is one of the distinguishing features of homo sapiens. The origins of wall building probably go back to the very origins of AMH (anatomically modern humans) and that that takes us back at least 100,000 years.

Probably the very first walls, in the very first human enclosures, were boundary barriers. Initially there were probably nothing more than sticks and stones piled together to keep unwanted predators out. They enabled settlements. Without walls there would probably be no roofs. They developed in sophistication and in use of materials to keep unwanted weather out.

And the rest is history.

Without the security that walls provide there would be no settlements. Without boundary walls, cities would not have developed. Without settlements the agricultural revolution would not have taken place. Without cities and the specialisation they allow (and require), specialised buildings would not have appeared. Human technological and social development would not have occurred in the manner that it has. Walls were originally to keep unwanted things out. It was only later that they came to be used to keep things in.

Section of Hadrians wall near Carlisle

Section of Hadrians wall near Carlisle

In history walls have provided more “good” than “bad”.

The oldest walls found in existence so far are those of the temple of Gobekli Tepe in Urfa, southeast Turkey which date to 11,500 years ago. City walls, which became common for purposes of defense, are first seen around the city of Jericho (now in the West Bank) around the 10th century BCE and the Sumerian city of Uruk which was founded somewhat later (though both cities lay claim to the honor of `first city in the world’). The walls of Uruk were thought to have been built by the great king Gilgamesh upon which he inscribed his heroic deeds which formed the basis for the later epic he is most famous for. 


 

Trump does not need the GOP as much as they need him

May 11, 2016

Reuters’ rolling poll on the Trump/Clinton battle now becomes something to monitor. It is still early days, but the Reuters’ poll suggests that things are much closer than the headlines in the US media over the last few days. I begin to think that many of the stories in the liberal/left media are more wishful thinking rather than any real understanding. In fact, nobody still quite understands why Trump is riding as high as he is. Trump seems to be within 1 percentage point of Clinton rather than the tens of percentage points difference that some were quoting just a week ago.

RR 10 May

RR 10 May

I see no reason to change my opinion that this is an anti-establishment wave where the content of what Trump has to say is less important than how “anti-establishment” he is perceived to be. And that perception is directly related to how many establishment figures (including the media) are attacking him. Headlines against Trump in the Washington Post or Huffington Post or NYT are just as effective as attack speeches by GOP establishment figures in solidifying his support.

Chaos within the GOP is not necessarily a bad thing for Trump. In fact, visible opposition from establishment Republicans is probably a good thing for him. The GOP needs a Trump to rally around to keep the Party relevant, much more than Trump needs establishment GOP support to woo the electors.

For the Democrats Sanders is riding the same anti-establishment wave, and not a left-leaning socialist wave that some assume. There is very little chance for him to displace Hillary Clinton, but she has also misread the mood. She has been moving   to the left to try and steal Sanders’ thunder but traditional “left” and “right” are not drivers. Just moving to the left in policy terms will not serve her and will not remove the stigma of being “establishment” to her bones.

The rejection of “establishment” is showing signs of being a global phenomenon. Anti-establishment views are helping candidates from both the left and the right all across the globe (Greece for the left, Philippines for the right …). It is the perception of offering a “new way” which challenges old, “politically correct” platitudes, which is, I think, the dominating driver.

2016 could be the Year of the Mavericks.


 

Swedish Greens make Åsa Romson the scapegoat for Gustav Fridolin’s incompetence

May 9, 2016

Breaking:

The feminist credentials of the Swedish Greens are going to take a real hit. The recent fiasco with radical islamists infiltrating the Greens is – to a large extent – the result of the incompetence of their male, co-leader, Gustav Fridolin. The Greens nominating committee (the same incompetent committee which proposed a radical islamist for a Steering Committee post) has just proposed that their female, co-leader Åsa Romson be replaced by Isabella Lovin.

It seems Åsa Romson, who has not distinguished herself, but who was not really responsible for the islamic fiasco, is to be the scapegoat and take the blame for Fridolin who, they propose, should remain. Certainly Fridolin’s popularity was low but Romson’s was even lower. The Greens have their conference at the end of the week. But there are few male contenders for the co-leader post to challenge Fridolin. Perhaps it is the lack of competent males which allows Fridolin to remain.

So it looks like Fridolin will escape the consequences of his incompetence. He has been pretty ineffective as Education Minister as well. But the Greens (or at least their nominating committee) seem to be rather sexist in the way in which they are protecting and favouring Fridolin.

The Greens nominating committee has little courage and their competence is already in question. But Fridolin should not be in government.


 

Mona Sahlin’s mortgage affaire is now morphing into a “bodyguard” affaire

May 7, 2016

Mona Sahlin resigned (again).

The basic story is given in The Local:

The Swedish newspaper Expressen revealed on Wednesday that Sahlin provided written certification that her bodyguard earned 120,000 kronor a month so that he could buy an apartment. The bodyguard, in fact, only earned 43,000 kronor a month.

When confronted by Expressen, Sahlin initially stated that she had paid the difference out of her own pocket, before retracting the statement when it was proven by Expressen to be false.

The Ministry of Culture and Democracy then announced that Sahlin had resigned with immediate effect.

There are new revelations every day and what seemed to be just a mortgage affaire where Mona Sahlin had tried to help her personal bodyguard to buy a very expensive apartment by falsifying his apparent income is now morphing into something else. And that something else is centered around the “personal bodyguard” and his relationship with Mona Sahlin.

  1. The “personal bodyguard” (PB for convenience though he cannot be named) was not actually her bodyguard. She had 6 personnel from the police seconded for her security.
  2. The PB was ostensibly employed by the Ministry of Culture as an “assistant” but at a salary far in excess of other “assistants” at Mona Sahlin’s request.
  3. At the Ministry he is recorded as being an assistant to Mona Sahlin for handling press enquiries.
  4. The PB was the only person at the Centre against Violent Extremism who did not report to the Chief of Staff but reported directly to Mona Sahlin.
  5. His duties at the centre were said to be to include “future security questions” which, presumably, is the justification for his being called a bodyguard.
  6. The PB was rarely to be seen at the Centre.
  7. Mona Sahlin accompanied her PB for the showing of the 10 million kronor apartment he later bought.
  8. A 50,000 kronor per year “VIP parking place” was paid for by the Centre but was only available to the PB (and Mona Sahlin). It was hired over the objections of the Head of Staff at Mona Sahlin’s insistence and nobody else at the Centre even knew where the parking was located.
  9. The PB drives a very hot set of wheels – a sports car in the $120,000 class – which is not out of place in the VIP parking.
Mona Sahlin and anonymous PB image Expressen

Mona Sahlin and anonymous PB image Expressen

Speculation in the blogosphere is rife. Mona Sahlin and her PB have now resigned. There are reports of a very chaotic situation at the Centre. Mona Sahlin also sits on some other Boards  – with quite generous remuneration – but her somewhat sporadic and ill-prepared attendance is now receiving scrutiny.

The Sahlin affaire is now the lead story and has relegated the travails of the Green Party (islamic infiltrators in the cupboard) and even Donald Trump from the top spot. I really don’t much care what politicians get up to in their private lives. But it is beyond the pale when public people are incompetent and think they can escape scrutiny. And when it is preaching politicians who trip up it only proves that they are all proponents of “Do what I say and don’t look at what I do”.

But the burning question – which she has brought on herself – is “What was her relationship with her PB”?


 

Why Trump couldn’t win – but did

May 6, 2016

I have made this point before. Attacking Trump head on only fuels his anti-establishment support. It is only by occupying the ground he occupies that some of his support can be captured.

Attacking Trump – from any direction – only seems to strengthen his support. That suggests that his support is coming from those who feel that their fears are completely unrepresented by any of the other candidates. The 2016 election is dominated, I think,  by the avoidance of worst fears and not by the meeting of aspirations.  It could well be that nobody will be able to take away from Trump’s support unless they can articulate the same disdain for establishment politics and political correctness that he does and address the worst fears that exist.

The current headlines in the US media are now about how and why Clinton will trounce Trump. It all sounds exactly like the reasons given over the last year for why Trump couldn’t win the Republican nomination. Some of it – especially in the left leaning media – HuffingtonPost, Slate, Politico and Washington Post – are more like wishful thinking rather than analysis. They have not learned from their past mistakes and still haven’t understood the strength of the anti-establishment wave. Bernie Sanders is the only other candidate from either party who has begun to understand the mood abroad. To take away the “politically incorrect” territory from Donald Trump may be beyond Hillary Clinton.

My prediction for November is that Clinton support is more likely to collapse than that Trump’s campaign will implode. And therefore I will not be at all surprised at a very close run election and even if Trump wins.

I started compiling some of the articles since June 2015 which explained why Trump was not going to win the Republican nomination, but I found this had already been done by Moon of Alabama.

Pundits Knew It Early On – Trump Could Not Win The Nomination

And of course the reality is

Kasich Dropping Out Of Presidential Race; Donald Trump Assured GOP Nomination – NPR, May 4 2016


 

Clinton supporters started the Obama “birther” movement

May 5, 2016

The level of ridiculous rhetoric is now going to rise in the US and it will be difficult for Clinton to match Trump. Yesterday he proclaimed (again) to the electorate that she had started the Obama “birther” movement. We can expect much more from Trump and Clinton’s staff may be hard put to keep up. In battles of exaggerated rhetoric, tempo is of critical importance. The person who makes the first claim always has an advantage. It is having the white pieces in a chess game.

But on the birther story, this certainly originated during the Clinton / Obama battle. There is still not much love lost between Clinton and Obama. The birther story was started, if not by Clinton, certainly by one or more of her supporters, and it was in 2008 during her primary battle with Obama.

The right wing is quick to point this out.

Hillary Team Started Birther Movement

  1. More than a full year before anyone would hear of Orly Taitz, the Birther strategy was first laid out in the Penn memo.

  2. The “othering” foundation was built subliminally by the Clinton campaign itself.

  3. Democrats and Clinton campaign surrogates did the dirtiest of the dirty work: openly spread the Birther lies.

  4. Staffers in Hillary’s actual campaign used email to spread the lies among other 0225_obamaturban_460x276Democrats (this was a Democrat primary after all — so that is the only well you needed to poison a month before a primary).

  5. The campaign released the turban photo.

  6. Hillary herself used 60 Minutes to further stoke these lies.

But even an objective review of the history does show that this narrative is essentially correct. The article reblogged below was published by FactCheck in July 2015, just after Trump had announced his intention to run for President.

Was Hillary Clinton the Original ‘Birther’?

 by , Posted on July 2, 2015

Two Republican presidential candidates claim the so-called “birther” movement originated with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008. While it’s true that some of her ardent supporters pushed the theory, there is no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with it.

In an interview on June 29, Sen. Ted Cruz said “the whole birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008,” and earlier this year, Donald Trump claimed “Hillary Clinton wanted [Obama’s] birth certificate. Hillary is a birther.”

Neither Cruz nor Trump presented any evidence that Clinton or anyone on her campaign ever questioned Obama’s birthplace, demanded to see his birth certificate, or otherwise suggested that Obama was not a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as president.

For those unfamiliar with the controversy over Obama’s birthplace, it refers to those who contend that Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to be president.

At FactCheck.org, we have written about the issue of Obama’s birthplace on multiple occasions — indeed we were the first media organization to hold his birth certificate in our hot little hands and vouch for the authenticity of it. But facts have done little to squelch the conspiracy theories that continue to bounce around online.

The issue arose again this week in an interview with Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Yahoo News’ Katie Couric asked Cruz if he thought that was going to be an issue for voters.

“It’s interesting, the whole birther thing was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 against Barack Obama,” Cruz said (at about the 25:25 mark). Cruz then went on to say that he believes he clearly meets the constitutional requirement for a president to be a “natural born citizen.”

The claim about Clinton’s tie to “birthers” was made earlier by Donald Trump in February at the CPAC event (at 24:20 mark). Trump — who has a history of pushing bogus theories about Obama’s birth —  said, “Hillary Clinton wanted [Obama’s] birth certificate. Hillary is a birther. She wanted … but she was unable to get it.”

We asked the Cruz campaign for backup, and it pointed us to two articles. The first ran in Politico on April 22, 2011, under the headline, Birtherism: Where it all began.”

Politico, April 22, 2011: The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama.

According to the article, the theory that Obama was born in Kenya “first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.”

The second article, which ran several days after the Politico piece, was published by the Telegraph, a British paper, which stated: “An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.”

Both of those stories comport with what we here at FactCheck.org wrote  two-and-a-half years earlier, on Nov. 8, 2008: “This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls.”

Claims about Obama’s birthplace appeared in chain emails bouncing around the Web, and one of the first lawsuits over Obama’s birth certificate was filed by Philip Berg, a former deputy Pennsylvania attorney general and a self-described “moderate to liberal” who supported Clinton.

But none of those stories suggests any link between the Clinton campaign, let alone Clinton herself, and the advocacy of theories questioning Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

One of the authors of the Politico story, Byron Tau, now a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, told FactCheck.org via email that “we never found any links between the Clinton campaign and the rumors in 2008.”

The other coauthor of the Politico story, Ben Smith, now the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, said in a May 2013 interview on MSNBC that the conspiracy theories traced back to “some of [Hillary Clinton’s] passionate supporters,” during the final throes of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. But he said they did not come from “Clinton herself or her staff.”

Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said Cruz’s claim is false. “The Clinton campaign never suggested that President Obama was not born here,” Schwerin wrote to us in an email.

It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction. Candidates are expected to be held accountable for the actions of their campaigns. Neither Cruz nor Trump, whose campaign did not respond to our request for backup material, provides any compelling evidence that either Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with starting the so-called birther movement.

— Robert Farley