Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Half of all union members in the US work for the government

January 29, 2016

It is only to be expected that most people will vote in favour of their own vested interests.

It is also only to be expected that those whose income depends on government spending will vote for the continuation or the increase of government spending or for the continuation or increase of taxation for that purpose.

One of the fundamental strengths of  “democracy” is supposed to be that every individual has an equal vote, but the corresponding weakness is that merit and ability and behaviour are not of any value.

The result is that it is mere existence as an individual that suffices to have an “equal vote”. And if everyone has the vote it is assumed that “democracy” has been attained – as if it were some sort of state of grace.  The only real criterion is that of age, even if some countries still have some other criteria in force. The merit of the individual is irrelevant. Votes can and are bought by promises or by free meals or by money or by a bus-ride. A “bought” or coerced vote weighs as heavy as one that is freely given. (There is nothing wrong in buying or selling votes – the flaw lies in that the seller has a vote equal to that of free elector). A fool has the same vote as a wise man. A large tax contributor is equated to a small tax contributor. Government servants paid for by taxes have the same weight of vote as the tax payers. Priests and politicians have the vote. The behaviour of an individual does not affect his vote. Experience, intelligence, wisdom, competence or criminality are all considered equally irrelevant. A majority vote is considered to be the “will of the people” where “constitutions” are supposed to prevent excesses against minorities. But constitutions are subject to the same majority vote. One hundred and one idiots take precedence over one hundred wiser men.

And there is something nor quite right if a majority living off a minority can vote to continue the oppression.

CNS News: 48.9% of Union Members Worked for Government in 2015

The percentage of American wage and salary workers who belonged to a union was only 11.1 percent in 2015, but the percentage of union members who worked for government was 48.9 percent, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“The union membership rate–the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions–was 11.1 percent in 2015, unchanged from 2014,” the BLS said in press release published today. But the 7,241,000 government workers whom the BLS estimates were members of unions in 2015 equaled almost half of the estimated total of 14,795,000 union-member wage and salary workers in the nation.

…… Government wage and salary workers were far more likely to belong to a union than private-sector wage and salary workers, the BLS reported. “Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (35.2 percent) more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.7 percent),” the BLS said in the press release that accompanied the release of the data.

It is only to be expected then, that most of these will vote in favour of increased government spending (which means the Democrats in the US.


 

In Sweden, “pc” now stands for political cowardice

January 27, 2016

I am an immigrant in Sweden. I suppose I was, like any expat, an “economic migrant” when I was recruited into Sweden 32 years ago, since I accepted the economic package that was offered then to move to Sweden. But an initially expected 3 year stay has now become 32 years. Our children grew up here and though I have lived in five countries over the years (India, UK, Japan, Germany and Sweden), we have settled here and made Sweden our home. It is the most open country I know. And as the Swedish national anthem puts it Ja, jag vill leva, jag vill dö i Norden (“Yes, I wish to live, I wish to die in Norden”).

One aspect about life in Sweden that I find frustrating though, is the amount of servile conformity I find in the supposedly “free press” and among the main-stream political parties. Conformity and “political correctness” have religious overtones here. I suppose the media are free to apply self-censorship if they so wish. But their fear of deviating from “political correctness” borders on cowardice. It becomes interesting when one “political correctness” conflicts with another. In the wake of the mass sexual harassment of girls and young women by gangs of “asylum seeking youths”, the sexism narrative is pitted against the multiculturalism orthodoxy. We now have the ridiculous statements of Swedish feminists (and the conforming media), claiming that the harassment is just about gender and not about culture.

Normally the media are so sanctimonious and correct about “feminism” versus “sexism” (TV even more than the press), as to be positively embarrassing. I cringe at the banality of some of the programs on Swedish TV. They end up as religious ceremonies to the glory of the pc gods (and LGBT is the name of one such god). But it is apparently even more divinely correct to pretend that ignoring problems with immigrants (which are cultural rather than race or ethnicity issues), will make the problems go away. This fear is in turn based on the misguided assumption that culture and ethnicity are the same (or could be mistaken to be the same).

The media (and political parties) have lived in the belief that reporting problems with certain groups of immigrants will only play into the hands of the right-wing, anti-immigrant, Sweden Democrats. Yet the backlash to this intentional hiding of reality has only helped propel the Sweden Democrats to record highs in support. If the intentional self-censorship was meant to prevent that, then it has been spectacularly counter-productive. After the refugee crisis, the immigration policies of the Red/Green government are now almost identical to those proposed earlier by the Sweden Democrats. If there is one thing I have learned over the years, it is that hiding a problem or pretending it does not exist, always precludes addressing the problem. Craven compliance with political correctness has become political cowardice. Integration of immigrants in large numbers can never be easy. There are different things to be done for integration depending upon whether the newcomers are from Somalia or Afghanistan or Morocco. But these things can be done. But not if the the press and authorities pretend that the problems don’t exist.

Why is it, for example, that it is only the right-wing web-sites and the foreign press which reports that the 15-year old asylum seeker who allegedly stabbed a young asylum worker to death was of Somali origin? There cannot be many people in Sweden who do not now know that – but yet the authorities and the mainstream media will not mention the fact. They persist – in a denial of intelligence – in pretending that the origin of the alleged murderer is not pertinent to the case.

Why is it that no part of the mainstream Swedish media has the courage to publish anything along the lines of these two recent articles in The Spectator. The Spectator in the UK may support the conservatives and is certainly right of centre, but it is hardly a fascist rag.

Spectator 1:

It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men… Sweden’s record is shameful

…… The answer can be discovered in the reaction to the Cologne attacks. Sweden prides itself on its sexual equality and has even pioneered a feminist foreign policy. When hundreds of women were reported to have been molested and abused in Cologne — at the hands of an organised mob — the reaction from Swedish politicians and pundits ought to have been one of outrage.

Instead, we were told that the events in Cologne were not unusual. An article in Aftonbladet, Sweden’s largest tabloid, argued that it was racist to point out that the perpetrators in Cologne had been described as North African or Arab, since German men had carried out sexual assaults during Bavaria’s Oktober-fest. Another Aftonbladet article said that reporting on the Cologne attacks was bowing to right-wing extremism. Over the last week, we have been told over and over that the real issue is men, not any particular culture — that Swedish men are no better.

Then last week Sweden’s own stories began to emerge.

And then The Spectator had this article about the murder of Alexandra Mezher by the alleged 15-year old Somali asylum-seeker.

Spectator 2:

Why can’t the Swedish authorities be honest about crime and immigration?

…. Yesterday, a 15-year-old at an immigration centre stabbed and killed one of its female employees in Mölndal, near Gothenburg. It’s the kind of story that shakes the country to its core. Sweden has taken a staggering number of unaccompanied children – some 20,000 in the past four months – so the government has to act in loco parentis. To keep them out of trouble, as well as educate and accommodate then. It’s a very tough ask, a job that many Swedes fear is simply beyond the competence of government. In such circumstances, appalling things can happen.

A police spokesman had this to say:

‘It was messy, of course, a crime scene with blood. The perpetrator had been overpowered by other residents, people were depressed and upset. These kinds of calls are becoming more and more common… We’re dealing with more incidents like these since the arrival of so many more refugees from abroad.’

What makes this worse is that in Sweden, the police refuse to say if the suspect was an asylum seeker or not. This happens time and time again: a weird and unusual crime (say, a stabbing in Ikea or a rape on a ferry) and the Swedish police (and press) refuse to say whether the perpetrator is an immigrant – as if admitting as much would somehow feed anti-immigrant sentiment.

In fact, the refusal to level with the Swedish public is having the opposite effect. News of an attack brings grief and outrage, but the sense that the authorities are not telling the whole truth brings a new level of anger and suspicion. All of this further undermines public support for immigration, and hands votes to the Sweden Democrats.

….. And, in this way, a xenophobic populist backlash is being incubated in the most open country on earth.


 

Increasing attacks from “establishment” media only feed support for Trump

January 23, 2016

The National Review, Weekly Standard, Red State are among the Republican, “establishment” media. They are supposed to be among the heavyweights in forming and reflecting Republican opinion. All of them have now come out against Donald Trump. Of course all the more liberal media (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, Boston Globe, Politico …) came out heavily against Trump some time ago. The left-wing media (HuffPo, New Yorker, Slate …) went so far as first dismissing Trump, then trying to laugh him off but are now all reporting him -albeit reluctantly – as the embodiment of all that is “bad”. (I discount the brainless part of the US media represented by CNN and NBC and Fox News).

When the left and liberal media attacked Trump, it seemed to energise his Republican supporters. No establishment figure has appeared to be the white knight for the Republicans. As Trump’s support has survived and thrived, the Republican “establishment” media have become increasingly agitated. Initially they were quite circumspect in their criticisms but have now started a concerted attack on Trump.

But the curious thing is that even the attacks from the Republican side of the “establishment” seem to feed Trump’s support.

Reuters rolling poll 22nd January

Reuters rolling poll 22nd January

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.

If no Republican is prepared to take away the ground he stands on, by occupying the same ground, then Trump could well be the Republican nominee. And if the Democratic candidate also ignores the ground he stands on, the result could be a very close run thing.

Germany joins Switzerland and Denmark in seizing refugees’ wealth to pay for their stay

January 21, 2016

Denmark and Switzerland are already going down this path and now southern German states have also started confiscating the wealth of those refugees applying for asylum to finance their stays in the country. It is difficult to argue against the concept of those with wealth paying for their upkeep. The principle that is being applied is said to be that personal wealth must be exhausted first before state aid becomes available. And I cannot see anything wrong with that principle.

In Denmark, valuable (but not personal) items with a value of above about $150 would be subject to seizure, as would sums of currencies above about $1500. In Switzerland it is planned that assets over about $1,000 would be subject to search and seizure. The threshold above which confiscation applies might seem low at first,  but it seems that receipts are being issued, and any wealth over and above what is needed for their upkeep will be returned to them. It is not quite the callous and heartless robbery of poverty stricken refugees as is being portrayed by some of the media.

The southern German state of Bavaria is following the Swiss example and plans to set the threshold for seizure at about €750 for those who have “dues outstanding”.

The Local(de)Germany’s southern states are confiscating cash and valuables from refugees after they arrive, authorities in Bavaria confirmed on Thursday.

“Cash holdings and valuables can be secured [by the authorities] if they are over €750 and if the person has an outstanding bill, or is expected to have one.” Authorities in Baden-Württemberg have a tougher regime, where police confiscate cash and valuables above €350.

The average amount per person confiscated by authorities in the southern states was “in the four figures,” Bild reported.

By confiscating valuables, the states are implementing federal laws, which require asylum seekers to use up their own resources before receiving state aid. “If you apply for asylum here, you must use up your income and wealth before receiving aid,” Aydan Özoguz, the federal government’s integration commissioner, told Bild.

“That includes, for example, family jewellery. Even if some prejudices persist – you don’t have it any better as an asylum seeker as someone on unemployment benefit,” Özoguz added.

In Germany even the Green party had no real objection to advance to this approach. The Left party had no arguments of any substance to put forward, but they objected anyway.

….. But there were few critics of the practice inside Germany.

Opposition Green party MP Volker Beck told Der Tagesspiegel that it was right for asylum applicants to pay for services to the extent they could. “Of course asylum seekers aren’t in a better position than those on unemployment benefits,” Beck said. “Asylum seekers must repay the costs of accommodation and care to the state.”

Only the Left party (Die Linke) criticized the confiscations, with MP Ulla Jelpke telling Der Tagesspiegel that “those who apply for asylum are exercising their basic rights [under the German Constititution].

“That must not – even if they are rejected – be tied up with costs,” she argued.

I cannot see that forcing those with wealth to pay for their own upkeep is any infringement of supposed Human Rights.

Obama’s goodbye elevates Trump

January 13, 2016

I didn’t stay up to watch Obama’s final State of the Union address live, but have just read the transcript and a few reports.

It was a goodbye speech. He came in hope and leaves still counselling hope. Though the country’s economic position is inevitably better now than it was in 2009 in the valley of the financial crash, he leaves, as I perceive, a country with a much higher level of fears than of hope.

I was a little surprised that he attacked Trump (though not by name) as much as he did. I suspect that being elevated to the level of being the subject of a State of the Union address, by a sitting President, can only benefit Trump. Especially as Trump was being written off as not worthy of any consideration, of any kind, just a few months ago. His playing down of the monsters of Al Qaida and ISIS, born of twisted interpretations of Islam, but nurtured largely by US policy (including Obama’s), also fuels Trump’s narrative.

Obama has not lived up to the expectations that his own rhetoric had engendered. “Yes, we can” has morphed to “Well, we could have”.

History may remember Obama, vaguely, for his Syrian misadventures. He may even be remembered as having attempted to introduce universal health care. History may also record that his tenure was characterised by an aversion to risk and some paralysis-by-analysis. But he will primarily be remembered as having been the first half-black President of the US and of having served for 8 years, but without special distinction.

A passing grade then for the speech, a C+ and maybe even a B-, but not much more.


 

“Democrats for Trump” is not just fantasy

January 10, 2016

The conventional wisdom is that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, Hillary Clinton will wipe the floor with him. But a few weeks ago I thought that, like the Democrats for Reagan, we might see a similar phenomenon of Democrats for Trump.   I saw immigration in the US and the consequent fears of many white Democrats together with the dynamics between different minority groups as being the possible driver for generating these cross-over voters. I wrote then:

Latinos are incensed at Trump’s comments about immigration, but quite like his hard line about Islamic terrorists. East European immigrants are also attracted to this hard line about both Mexican illegal immigrants and Muslim terrorists. Asian immigrants can be split generally into two groups; Muslims mainly from Islamic countries and non-Muslims. Many of the non-Muslims feel threatened by the Islamisation of their communities and the insidious, creeping encroachment of – and perceived silent surrender to – Sharia Law. A large portion of the Asian communities are not comfortable with the influx of illegal, Latino immigrants. ………. Even the black Muslims feel under threat from all the “new Muslims”, since they come quite low down in the hierarchy of “true Muslims”. Normally the bulk of the immigrant population in the US would be Democratic supporters, but Trump is tapping into some of their greatest fears of other immigrant groups. There is also – I think – a large section of the white, middle-class Democratic support which is inhibited from expressing its fears of immigration and Islamisation and are suddenly quite glad that these fears are being expressed by somebody – even if it is only a Trump.

A new survey suggests that such a scenario is not entirely fantasy and there may well be substance to the existence of a “Democrats for Trump”. The poll indicates that 20% of Democratic voters could cross-over to Trump. If my memory serves many of the Democrats for Reagan were “secret” and never actually admitted that they would vote for Reagan. I suspect that the “secret” Democrats for Trump could be a larger proportion even than for Reagan. And I suspect that Trump is not as unacceptable for well-established minority groups as the media assume.

US News:

So if Donald Trump proved the political universe wrong and won the Republican presidential nomination, he would be creamed by Hillary Clinton, correct? A new survey of likely voters might at least raise momentary dyspepsia for Democrats since it suggests why it wouldn’t be a cakewalk.

The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and “dial-test” of Trump’s first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed “likely voters” ……. Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they’d cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they’d vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are “100 percent sure” of switching than the Republicans.

Tied in a statistical dead heat: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. REUTERS combo

That Trump is not quite the pariah with Democratic voters as the media seek to portray is also shown by this Reuters/IPSOS poll which has Trump matching Clinton if they were to be pitted against each other

ReutersIn a hypothetical head-to-head race, the real-estate tycoon and TV personality would be supported by 39 percent of likely general election voters, compared with 40 percent for Clinton, according to the latest 5-day average from Friday’s Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll.

The driving issue is likely to be immigration all through 2016. The recent New Years eve rampage of male, “refugee”, Muslim youths in Germany, the politically correct silence by the media about it until forced, and similar behaviour in Finland and the UK and in Scandinavia, only play into Trump’s narrative. Every atrocity committed by ISIS begs the question as to why the male, unaccompanied youths who are seeking refugee status in Europe or North America, are not fighting against ISIS in their own countries?

Bill Clinton stopped North Korea’s nuclear weapons program – back in 1994

January 6, 2016

Though N Korea’s claims to have tested a hydrogen bomb have not yet been confirmed, it is worth remembering how Bill Clinton made a deal that he claimed would stop N Korea’s nuclear weapons aspirations in 1994.

NY TimesOctober 22nd 1994:

After almost four months of difficult negotiations, the United States and North Korea signed an agreement today to end their dispute over North Korea’s nuclear program but kept secret many details of how the accord will be put into effect. ……

After the signing today, North Korea’s chief negotiator, Kang Sok Ju, described it as “a very important milestone document of historic significance” that would resolve his country’s nuclear dispute with the United States “once and for all.” He said the agreement, once put into effect, would resolve “all questions of the so-called nuclear weapons development by North Korea” that have raised “such unfounded concerns and suspicions.” “We have neither the intention nor the plan to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Kang said.

At a news conference in Washington, President Clinton said the treaty was “a good deal for the United States.” “The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments,” he said. “Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.”

Stevengoddard notes the similarities between Clinton/N Korea and Obama/Iran

2016-01-06-11-52-03

Clinton/N Korea vs. Obama/Iran

Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby and droit du seigneur

December 31, 2015

I noted – or thought I noted – that Hillary Clinton’s attack on Trump’s “sexist attitudes” petered out when he responded by bringing up Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. How Bill Clinton got away with his blatant sexism and treatment of women in awe of his position still perplexes me. It was a period when a display of “sexual power” by Bill Clinton in the US seemed to be admired by the electorate just as much as Silvio Berlusconi’s bunga-bunga excesses were admired by the electorate in Italy.

I am not sure though that what Bill Clinton got away with as a minor transgressions, can be transformed and utilised by Hillary Clinton as being something positive and to her benefit. In fact, that she was quite as forgiving of his peccadilloes as she was does not reflect that well on her today. It suggests that she also shared his attitudes of the time. It will not be long before his strategic blunders in Somalia and his downright cowardice in Rwanda are compared to her apparent incompetence in Benghazi, Libya.

But today as Bill Cosby finally faces a criminal charge, it occurred to me that there is a commonality of the attitudes exhibited by Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby. They both felt their positions entitled them to certain “perquisites”. No doubt it was, to some extent, an attitude of the times they reigned in, but that does not excuse them. There were very many others of their time, who also reigned as kings of all they surveyed, but who did not succumb to the de facto power they had. They both effectively believed in a form of Droit du Seigneur. Bill Cosby reigned as king of the TV world and all aspiring young women, who felt he could be of some advantage to their careers, were seen by him as “fair game”and part of his right of office. Bill Clinton was king of the White House, and all female groupies, interns and the like caught up in his train, were also seen as “fair game”, and part of his perquisites of office. Neither could (or can) see that they did anything wrong. Hillary Clinton also accepted – perhaps reluctantly and only by default – Bill Clinton’s Droit de Seigneur at that time. Her relatively weak “feminist” credentials are not enhanced by her acceptance of Bill Clinton’s transgressions.

It does not mean that Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton were not likeable. They still are. So was Rolf Harris. But they represent a time that has gone and attitudes that are not defensible – even for their times. They could have chosen – as others chose – not to indulge in the excesses available to them.

I am not sure that Hillary Clinton can get any advantage – except among the already converted – by relying too much on Bill Clinton’s support.

 

Czech President has a point – How come young Syrian and Iraqi refugees are not fighting ISIS?

December 27, 2015

Miloš Zeman is a Social Democrat, a former Prime Minister and now President of the Czech Republic. But he is known for being unconventional and not averse, at times, to being politically incorrect and even taking “right wing” positions when it involves common sense. On the refugee situation he takes a fairly hard line – but it must be borne in mind that the Czech Republic is at heart an anti-immigrant nation (>70%).

His Christmas message has been heavily criticised – though mainly outside the Czech Republic:

The Guardian: The Czech president, Milos Zeman, has called the movement of refugees into Europe “an organised invasion” and declared that young men from Syria and Iraq should stay in their countries to “take up arms” against Isis.

“I am profoundly convinced that we are facing an organised invasion and not a spontaneous movement of refugees,” said Zeman in his Christmas message to the Czech Republic.

Compassion was “possible” for refugees who were old or sick, and for children, he said but not for young men who should be back home fighting against jihadists.

“A large majority of the illegal migrants are young men in good health and single. I wonder why these men are not taking up arms to go fight for the freedom of their countries against the Islamic State,” said Zeman, who was elected Czech president in early 2013.

Fleeing their war-torn countries only served to strengthen Isis, he said. ……… 

Migrants are not the only target of Zeman’s caustic remarks: he said last week that his country should introduce the euro on the first day after indebted Greece’s departure from the common currency, causing Athens to recall its ambassador.

He also said he was “very disappointed” that talks in the summer to eject Greece from the euro did not come to fruition.

Both the Czech Republic and Slovakia, former communist countries that joined the European Union in 2004, have rejected the EU’s system of quotas for distributing refugees amid the current migrant wave.

To talk of an “organised invasion” may be a bit of an exaggeration and he could have chosen his words to have been a little kinder to the Greeks, but on both issues I think he voices the correct, but politically incorrect, positions that must be addressed, but which others fear to express.

  1. Why are there so many young, single males among the refugees who are not opposing ISIS in their own countries? and
  2. With Greece remaining within the Eurozone, the Euro is significantly weaker and less attractive to any new prospective members.

The EU and its treaties are not Holy and written in stone. If the whole concept of the EU is to work it requires the club to be able to alter its rules – written for 6 members – to suit the realities of an expanded membership. And a Holy European Empire with a Pope in Brussels is not the way to go.

Time running out to stop Trump

December 23, 2015

The US Presidential election beats the new Star Wars for plot and entertainment.

The latest Reuter’s rolling poll shows Carson and Cruz fading and Trump consolidating his position. Clinton-Trump match-ups are meaningless for the moment since the currently secret Democrats for Trump will start coming out of the woodwork only after he has won the nomination – and that will not be till July 2016. Trump’s support is now three times larger than that of his nearest rival.

Reuters Rolling Poll Republicans 22nd December 2015

Reuters Rolling Poll Republicans 22nd December 2015

The primaries start in February and there is little time left for the Republican establishment to stop Trump. I suspect that they will fall in behind Trump if he maintains this lead till March.

Republican primary schedule

Republican primary schedule

I have a theory – which is a little far-fetched – that if it becomes a Trump – Clinton battle, the Democrats for Trump could include large chunks of traditional white, middle-class, liberals who are running a little scared of the demographic changes taking place. It might be thought that the immigrant communities would all be strongly Democratic, but Trump will play successfully to the entrepreneurial instincts that are so strong among many of them. In this scenario, a large section of these “immigrants” would prefer a lively Trump to a jaded Clinton. So, in my theory, Donald Trump could well split the white, liberal vote and even the “immigrant” vote while the Democrats will retain the bulk of the black vote and of the less enterprising immigrant community.

It’s just a theory, of course, but I expect an eventual Trump-Clinton fight to be much more favourable to Trump than the conventional wisdom allows. In any event, it could be a vastly entertaining election.