Archive for the ‘US’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Do many Democrats secretly support Trump?

December 12, 2015

The US Presidential election is at a fascinating stage. Clarity may come in a few months, but it could still develop into something of a thriller. Talking to some of my American friends, I have been surprised to find that under the vocal indignation about Donald Trump’s clowning and his outrageous comments, there is an undercurrent of admiration for his “stating of things as they really are”. Much of the criticism of Trump, it seems, is because it is expected of them.

The US Presidential election in 2016 is clearly going to be dominated by the issue of immigration. (This holds also for every election that will be held in any country in Europe and for the regional elections in France tomorrow). Economy and taxes and health care will all, I think, trail immigration by a large margin. And that puts Trump in a rather peculiar but unique position. It may well be that Trump is a “figure of this time”; that he is in the right place at the right time. Immigration, itself, is not a single issue and consists of a number of differentiated issues, such as:

  • “illegals” and their regularisation,
  • citizenship and the commitments to acquire citizenship
  • must all (meaning Muslim) immigrants explicitly assert the supremacy of the law of the land over religious Laws (meaning Sharia),
  • prevention of future illegal entry,
  • the entry rules for the relatives of immigrants who are not citizens
  • screening of would be entrants.

It is politically incorrect for any Democrat to admit to any liking for any Republican and – at the present time – quite unthinkable to consider Donald Trump as anything but a pariah. But I sense a thread of support for Donald Trump from the more centrist Democrats and even some immigrants, which will remain hidden and may only show up next November – assuming, of course, that he gets to be a candidate, either for the Republicans or as an Independent.

I am old enough to remember the Reagan elections and I see a parallel between Trump and Reagan. Just as the Reagan Democrats appeared suddenly in droves, I suspect there could be a significant number of secret Trump Democrats who will not (dare not) surface until the real Presidential election. It is worth remembering, that on many issues Trump is remarkably closer to Democratic dogma rather than traditional Republican positions. I remember how incredulous many commentators were at the idea of Reagan, a not very good B-movie, cinema actor, becoming President. There is a similar kind of incredulity about Trump as a serious contender at the present time.

The Atlantic: Like Reagan, Trump is a former Democrat and a one-time TV star, whom the media initially dismissed as having little chance of reaching the White House. But there is a more significant parallel that has gone unnoticed: Trump is running on essentially the same message as Reagan. Reagan insisted that America’s problems were not as complicated or intractable as everyone seemed to think. “For many years now, you and I have been shushed like children and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems which are beyond our comprehension,” Reagan said at his 1967 inauguration as governor of California. “Well, the truth is, there are simple answers—there are not easy ones.”

And of course that is a very powerful message – perhaps an insight. There is always a simple answer which always provides a clear direction. Ways and means for implementing an answer may be difficult but the direction remains clear. It makes a change from politicians who feel it necessary to justify their lack of achievement by over-complicating issues.

Trump does not fit into the normal, standard shape of a conventional Democrat or a Republican. Many minority and immigrant groups also find him difficult to easily classify. Immigrants, especially newly arrived immigrants, have mixed feelings about further immigration and and how it affects their own insecurities. 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. The black community, in my perception, detests the influx of Asians and their perceived economic successes. Asians themselves consider themselves superior, especially academically, intellectually and in business, to the black community. 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.

Of course any support for Trump from the usually Democratic voters is a moot point unless he manages to get on the ballot next November. It occurs to me that many of them would be more likely to vote for Trump if he was labelled an Independent rather than a Republican. So one possible scenario is that Trump will be so far ahead in the Republican race that the GOP establishment decide to have a brokered convention and choose someone other than Trump. That would cause Trump to jump the Republican ship and go Independent – but as late as possible, and in as damaging a way as possible for the Republicans. The conventional wisdom is that an Independent Trump would lose too many votes to even a weak Republican, and that it would be a complete walk-over for Hillary Clinton.

Conventional wisdom, though, is not proving to be very reliable or very prophetic.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

Trump is changing the field of play as he prepares for an arbitration

December 9, 2015

There isn’t a single paper or TV station, or Democrat that isn’t enraged by Trump’s call to ban all Muslim entries to the US temporarily. The column miles that are being written by the pundits vie to each present a more vicious and indignant rejection of his views than the previous one. Trump is being called all kinds of things. In fact, some of the hyperbole applied and the invective is worse than anything Trump ever came up with. He is labelled a clown, a fool, a racist, an opportunist and even a fascist. Most often he is labelled a demagogue, compared to Mussolini, and even, but a little more circumspectly, to Hitler (for fear of Godwin’s Law). He has got more publicity and column-miles and TV exposure than all the other candidates, Democrat and Republican, together. The consensus wisdom is that if he wins the Republican nomination – which is said to be highly unlikely – then it will be a walk-over for Clinton.

But I wonder.

Let me use an analogy from the business world, not least because that’s where Trump comes from. Let’s suppose that the American election is an arbitration process between two parties in conflict. First, each party prepares its initial submission. This is a litany of the most extreme positions and a collection of the most outrageous claims against the other party that can possibly be imagined. Such a submission, from my experience, fails the test if our own lawyers do not themselves cringe from the extravagance of the claims. The initial submission often contains embarrassingly tenuous and far-fetched claims, ignores any semblance of rational thought and just baldly asserts the claims. In my analogy then the nomination process is this preparation of the initial submission. Trump and Clinton are the lawyers hoping to be engaged and are preparing the submissions they propose to begin with. The Presidential election itself is then the arbitration hearing with the American electorate as the arbitrator. In such hearings the arbitrators are primarily interested in seeing which claims fall away and can be put aside. That depends on how well each party presents each outrageous claim and how effective the other party is in nullifying it. Ultimately the arbitrators rule, based – not on abstract notions of natural justice – but on a practical, prevailing “centre of gravity” position, from among the surviving claims. Arbitrators are concerned with the best justifiable result rather than with justness or fairness. Invariably, an arbitration result favours that party which can protect its own outlandish claims while destroying the opponents claims.

Arbitration Result

Arbitration Result where Clinton is Party 1 and Trump is Party 2

We always used specialist lawyers, rather than our usual contract lawyers, for arbitration cases during my working career. They were the experts at stretching claims. Initially, I used to cringe at some of the shameless and barely justifiable claims that were introduced into our initial submissions. But it soon became clear to me that the critical step was in establishing the shape and the width of the field of play, by extending its area way beyond our desired final result. An arbitration was then a negotiation of claims – under special rules – on the playing field so established. A party comes closest to its desired result by expanding the area of its claims such that the desired result becomes – for the arbitrator – the centre of gravity position of the claims surviving the negotiation.

I see something similar in the way Trump is proceeding. I begin to wonder if Trump does not actually see himself as being in an arbitration in front of the US electorate as the final arbitrator. His over-the-top comments about illegal immigration and “the wall” and now his outrageous proposals about temporarily keeping all Muslims out, are actually defining the boundaries of his playing field. His outlandish claims have to be shot down but the new field of play is established. But just shooting down the claims is not enough. Unless the Democrats are equally outrageous, the field of play remains the one he has defined.

I think the media and the Democrats are missing that the playing field itself is being skewed by Trump’s apparently insane assertions. Every crazy position he has taken is now on the table and part of the discourse. He has been declared dead so many times by the pundits that I no longer take any obituary at face value. And the Democrats will have to shift the playing field if Trump does win the GOP nomination. Merely attacking Trump on his own playing field could prove to be quite ineffective.

Trump is playing a different game to his Republican rivals and to the Democrats. He is not preparing for an election. He is preparing his case for arbitration next November. On his field of play. My expectation is that at some time Trump will go Independent and change the game again.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Trump is changing the field of play as he prepares for an arbitration

Obama has become the best friend the gun manufacturers have

December 7, 2015

Beyond my previous post, this needs no comment.

Market Watch:

Shares of the two publicly traded gun makers rallied on Monday, a day after President Barack Obama gave a prime-time address calling for a modest reduction in the availability of firearms. Both Smith & Wesson SWHC, +7.64%  and Sturm Ruger & Co. RGR, +5.78%  rose over 7% on Monday. 

Smith & Wesson has climbed 116% this year and Sturm Ruger has jumped 69%.

Gun stocks spike after Obama’s speech (graphic – MarketWatch)

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Religion, US | Comments Off on Obama has become the best friend the gun manufacturers have

Obama’s empty speech should increase gun sales

December 7, 2015

Obama’s much heralded Oval office speech said nothing very much. He made it standing up rather than sitting down to show that he was a man of action. But then he didn’t mention any actions of any significance. Perhaps somebody should tell him that symbols of action are not the actions themselves. He was more concerned that innocent Muslims not be discriminated against, rather than that virulent, Muslim terrorists already embedded in the US be rooted out. If I lived in the US I would have to conclude that

  1. the State could not – and would not – protect me by preventing future San Bernardino events, and therefore
  2. I should acquire a weapon, some training on how to use it and take to carrying it.

I watched some extracts from his speech and have just read the transcript. What struck me was all that he didn’t say. He didn’t say

  1. that he would get Turkey to stop trading in ISIS oil,
  2. that he would get Saudi Arabia to stop sending funds to radical Sunni groups in Syria and Iraq,
  3. that he would get Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to stop exporting funds and sick ideologies to mosques and madrassas abroad,
  4. that he would, and how he would, find the ISIS sleepers and the radicalised Muslim youth already embedded within the US,
  5. that he called on the Muslim communities in the US to themselves cease protecting such people hiding within their communities,
  6. that he would get the social media giants to use their undoubtedly, sufficiently capable algorithms to apply some ethical standards to radicalisation rooms,
  7. that he would work with Russia and Iran – even if Saudi Arabia or Israel opposed it – to leave ISIS with no territory in Iraq or in Syria,
  8. that he would prevent ISIS from developing an alternative base of operations in Libya.

But I heard none of that.

Instead he presented his empty,  already bankrupt, do-nothing, four-part “strategy”

  1. “First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary”. (but not apparently in the US)
  2. “Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens”. (and we have seen how $500 million managed to train a handful of fighters and provided ISIS with the weapons of a whole brigade).
  3. “Third, we’re working with friends and allies to stop ISIL’s operations”. (but not if Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Israel disapprove).
  4. “Fourth, with American leadership, the international community has begun to establish a process — and timeline — to pursue ceasefires and a political resolution to the Syrian war”. (we are prepared to have a ceasefire with ISIS but we will not talk to Assad).

In other words, “we will continue not doing what we are already not doing and which we are so good at not doing”. And then he waffled on about gun control. Does he really think that an ISIS, terrorist kill-squad would have any difficulty in obtaining clandestine guns and explosives?

There was one paragraph he got right.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

But then he even ruined that by shifting direction and emphasised the “avoiding of discrimination”

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination.

He ends with the ridiculous statement “Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear”. 

The country was I think looking for Obama to show them that they could enjoy freedom without fear. Instead, he just provided all Americans with the freedom to fear. And with a perfect reason to go out and buy a gun.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, Religion, US | Comments Off on Obama’s empty speech should increase gun sales

ISIS mobilisation in America “unprecedented”

December 6, 2015

George Washington University’s Program on Extremism has just published a report “ISIS in America – from retweets to Raqqa”.

ISIS in America

ISIS in America George Washington University

ISIS in America – Full Report

Some extracts from the Executive Summary:

  • ƒ WHILE NOT AS LARGE as in many other Western countries, ISIS-related mobilization in the United States has been unprecedented. As of the fall of 2015, U.S. authorities speak of some 250 Americans who have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria/Iraq to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and 900 active investigations against ISIS sympathizers in all 50 states.
  • …….
  • Social media plays a crucial role in the radicalization and, at times, mobilization of U.S.-based ISIS sympathizers. The Program on Extremism has identified some 300 American and/or U.S.-based ISIS sympathizers active on social media, spreading propaganda, and interacting with like-minded individuals. Some members of this online echo chamber eventually make the leap from keyboard warriors to actual militancy. ƒ
  • American ISIS sympathizers are particularly active on Twitter, where they spasmodically create accounts that often get suspended in a never-ending cat-and-mouse game. Some accounts (the “nodes”) are the generators of primary content, some (the “amplifiers”) just retweet material, others (the “shout-outs”) promote newly created accounts of suspended users.
  • ISIS-related radicalization is by no means limited to social media. While instances of purely web-driven, individual radicalization are numerous, in several cases U.S.-based individuals initially cultivated and later strengthened their interest in ISIS’s narrative through face-to-face relationships. In most cases online and offline dynamics complement one another. ƒ
  • The spectrum of U.S.-based sympathizers’ actual involvement with ISIS varies significantly, ranging from those who are merely inspired by its message to those few who reached mid-level leadership positions within the group.

Membership of ISIS members within the US legal system is spread across the US but New York, Minnesota, California and Texas seem to be preferred states.

ISIS members in US legal system

ISIS members in US legal system

All religions operate in the space of Ignorance. So when members of one religion criticise a follower of another, it is essentially “my ignorance” claiming to be better than “your ignorance”. However, I don’t think it is just blind prejudice or “Islamophobia” to say that the teachings of Islam are inherently more suited to be perverted and to be used to glorify and inspire gratuitous violence against “non-believers”, than the teachings of any other, current, major religion.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Religion, US | Comments Off on ISIS mobilisation in America “unprecedented”

If the threat of ISIS death-squads is real, then it is the wrong time for gun controls in the US

December 5, 2015

There is a renewed rhetoric in favour of gun controls after the California rampage, just as there is after every mass killing, but which never leads to any action. I am always amazed that Barack Obama, who is so fond of executive actions in other areas where he is opposed by Congress, has been so ineffective in implementing any actions to reduce the access to what are essentially military weapons. But this rhetoric may be misplaced if the killings were by what now looks to have been a husband-wife death squad, operating fairly autonomously(?),  but for ISIS, and possibly led by the wife, who was indoctrinated mainly in Saudi Arabia and Multan. A lot of ifs and buts in that sentence, of course.

It has been the contention of the gun lobby that the citizenry having guns is a deterrent to such massacres and they have pointed to statistics showing that more of these mass killings take place in gun-free zones. The argument seems disingenuous in that not having availability to guns would probably avoid many of these incidents from taking place. There is some truth, I think, in the argument that once an incident has started, the magnitude of the incident can be limited by some of the intended victims being armed and capable of resisting.

Gun controls then ought to reduce the number of incidents but once an incident is underway, then the scope of the incident can be limited by the intended victims having the possibility to resist.

But if this incident turns out to be a terrorist action by a kill-squad, then it would not have been avoided by having gun controls in place. And if some of the victims had been armed maybe the death toll would not have been as high as it was. If this death-squad was just one of many such and the next incident could come at any time, 2 things follow:

  1. The death squads will most likely attack in gun-free zones, and
  2. An armed person is safer in the event of a random attack than an unarmed one.

I think the US now faces this dilemma. Introducing gun controls should reduce the number of the conventional, single perpetrator, mass-killing events which have become almost a “usual” and – on average – daily occurrence. However, gun controls cannot prevent terrorist squads from arming themselves and gun-free zones will be more attractive for a terrorist attack. And if an incident cannot be prevented, then it is safer for people to be armed.

Without any terrorist threat I think the value of restrictions on access to, at least, automatic weapons seems obvious and there would be no serious argument against gun controls. However, if a threat of terrorist death-squads suddenly popping up for a rampage is real, then it would be quite the wrong time to prevent potential victims from being armed.

It is a Bermuda triangle for policy; between a rock, a hard place and the devil.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

Trump’s got his music right and his words don’t matter

November 25, 2015

Trump has got his music right and as long as the beguilement of the music holds, his words don’t matter.

How else to explain Trump’s position? He seems to be immune to the rational consequences of what he says.

The only conclusion I come to is that it is the mood he evokes that people are responding to rather than what he actually says. It is the almost abstract notions of being for less government rather than more, for common sense rather than political correctness, for pragmatism rather than high ideology and for being untarnished by “sponsors” or the establishment which are keeping Trump going.

It is becoming difficult to see how anybody else could overtake him now to the GOP nomination. And that is not something that was even worthy of contemplation 6 months ago.

Trump 25Nov2015 RCP Poll of Polls

Trump 25Nov2015 RCP Poll of Polls

So far, Trump is not penetrating much beyond disaffected Republicans. But he is capturing a mood and riding feelings and emotions in a way not seen since Obama’s first campaign against Hillary Clinton. But Obama had the words too. (It’s just that Obama has not been able to match his actions to the mood he evoked).

If now Trump can get his words right and continues to sustain the right music, then who knows what happens next November.

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Trump’s got his music right and his words don’t matter

“ISIS first, Assad later” gains traction but St. Jeremy makes UK the weakest European actor against ISIS

November 18, 2015

Most of Europe is now falling behind the Russian strategy of “ISIS first, Assad later” as being the only viable way forward in Syria. The UK is also acquiescing with this line, but only verbally, since it is prevented from making any strikes in Syria without parliamentary authority to do so. With the self-canonised St. Jeremy Corbyn now in charge of the Labour party, such a vote may be a long time coming. After Paris, Hollande – though a St. Jeremy soul-mate in normal times – is forced to go all out against ISIS and is now coordinating attacks with Russia. Even Germany is considering supporting military action against ISIS. France has invoked a treaty provision for the first time ever and called for support from the other EU countries. All EU countries have promised that – as yet undefined – support. But the UK is now perceived as the weakest European actor against ISIS terrorism. The instant and automatic opposition of the SNP to any government motion and the naivete of St. Jeremy (which is not so innocent) has seen to that.

The Barack Obama – US led coalition’s “strategy”, if it can be called a strategy, has been to get rid of Assad at all costs. What was to happen afterwards or the question of whether Syria, as a nation , could even exist was left to the future to determine. It has been Russia’s reluctance to abandon Assad and his regime which has prevented any UN resolutions of any significance. Before the Russians recently started their attacks on ISIS they tried to rally support for the strategy of attacking ISIS and other rebels/terrorists first (which would help Assad) and then arranging for Assad to leave the scene after ensuring a transition to something sustainable. Obama and Kerry virtually dismissed that idea but did not go so far as to set themselves up against any Russian strikes on ISIS. The US and their coalition partners did, however, try and project the view that Russian intervention was more harmful than helpful.

After the Russian passenger plane was destroyed by – it is claimed – ISIS, the Western objections to the targets of the Russian strikes were a little more muted. Now after Paris, France has signed up to the line of “ISIS first, Assad later”. The rest of Europe is falling-in line with the notable exception of the UK. The Kurds love this, the Turks don’t. Saudi Arabia is very apprehensive that even if Assad eventually goes, a Shia government could still remain in place. Besides, they are reluctant to be seen to be accepting the demise of a Sunni organisation, even if it is as murderous as ISIS. From Kerry’s recent statements it seems as if the US is preparing the ground to also accept this strategy though the US, of course, can never be seen to falling-in behind Russia.

One way for the UK to save face and even get involved in Syria, would be if a UN resolution establishing “ISIS first, Assad later” could be accepted in the Security Council. Possibly the UK could propose it and recover some of the face they have already lost. Neither the Russians or the US would then veto such a resolution, though one or both might abstain depending upon the text. But it should not be impossible in the present climate. That would give the hapless St, Jeremy something to hide behind when a vote is called for in parliament. But he has already cost the UK a great deal of political clout in the fight against ISIS.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, European Union, Politics, Russia, UK, US | Comments Off on “ISIS first, Assad later” gains traction but St. Jeremy makes UK the weakest European actor against ISIS

Trend reversal and sharp increase of mortality of 45-54 year old, US white population

November 3, 2015

A new paper by Nobel winner Angus Deaton and his wife Anne Case points out a trend reversal and a sharp increase of mortality rates among 45-54 year old, non-Hispanic whites in the US between 1999 and 2013. This is highest among the less educated, less well-off population. It is the reversal of a previous trend and that is both perplexing and a little alarming. It suggests a deeper social malaise prevalent in this group.

A rather deadly – and morbid – case of “White Flight”.

Anne Case and Angus Deaton, Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century, PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1518393112

All-cause mortality, ages 45–54 for US White non-Hispanics (USW), US Hispanics (USH), and six comparison countries: France (FRA), Germany (GER), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada (CAN), Australia (AUS), and Sweden (SWE) Case & Deaton

All-cause mortality, ages 45–54 for US White non-Hispanics (USW), US Hispanics (USH), and six comparison countries: France (FRA), Germany (GER), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada (CAN), Australia (AUS), and Sweden (SWE)  – Case & Deaton

Abstract

This paper documents a marked increase in the all-cause mortality of middle-aged white non-Hispanic men and women in the United States between 1999 and 2013. This change reversed decades of progress in mortality and was unique to the United States; no other rich country saw a similar turnaround. The midlife mortality reversal was confined to white non-Hispanics; black non-Hispanics and Hispanics at midlife, and those aged 65 and above in every racial and ethnic group, continued to see mortality rates fall. This increase for whites was largely accounted for by increasing death rates from drug and alcohol poisonings, suicide, and chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis. Although all education groups saw increases in mortality from suicide and poisonings, and an overall increase in external cause mortality, those with less education saw the most marked increases.

The sharpest increase has been in “poisonings” which is essentially the use of drugs (including pain related opiates) and alcohol.

Mortality by cause, white non-Hispanics ages 45–54.

Mortality by cause, white non-Hispanics ages 45–54.

American Prospect comments:

Case and Deaton’s data indicate that the white midlife mortality reversal was due almost entirely to increased deaths among those with a high school degree or less. Mortality rates in that group rose by 134 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2013, while there was little change among those with some college, and death rates fell by 57 per 100,000 for those with a college degree or more.

Death rates from suicide and poisonings such as drug overdoses increased among middle-aged whites at all socioeconomic levels (as measured by education). But the increases were largest among those with the least education and more than sufficient in that group to wipe out progress in reducing other causes of death. Deaths from diabetes rose slightly but did not account for a significant part of the white midlife mortality reversal.

  ……. Among blacks, midlife mortality has been higher than among whites. But over the period 1999-2013, according to Case and Deaton, midlife mortality declined by more than 200 per 100,000 for blacks while it was rising for whites. As a result, the ratio of black to white mortality rates dropped from 2.09 in 1999 to 1.40 in 2013. Contrary to what many Americans may still believe, drug overdoses are no longer concentrated among minorities; in fact, among the 45-54 age group, drug-related deaths are now higher among whites. …..

American Prospect goes on to suggest that this might be a loss of hope among the white, middle-aged, less educated population, which is part of the malaise which is showing up politically as support for Trump and Carson.

The declining health of middle-aged white Americans may also shed light on the intensity of the political reaction taking place on the right today. The role of suicide, drugs, and alcohol in the white midlife mortality reversal is a signal of heightened desperation among a population in measurable decline. ……  The phenomenon Case and Deaton have identified suggests a dire collapse of hope, and that same collapse may be propelling support for more radical political change. Much of that support is now going to Republican candidates, notably Donald Trump. Whether Democrats can compete effectively for that support on the basis of substantive economic and social policies will crucially affect the country’s political future.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Medicine, US | Comments Off on Trend reversal and sharp increase of mortality of 45-54 year old, US white population

Senility at the GOP: A pity and a shame

October 29, 2015

I only watched some extracts of last night’s “debate”.

It was badly organised (CNBC) and the moderators were not very good. (Couldn’t organise a p***up in a brewery). But even so they were better than a sorry bunch of “candidates”. There wasn’t much shock and awe here. For the Republicans, it was a pity and a shame. The sad part for the Republicans is that – based on the “debate” – one of this pitiful bunch is going to be their flag-bearer and their candidate for President.

There wasn’t much entertainment either. Trump’s clown make-up needs refreshing. Jeb Bush was convinced he was going to lose. Ben Carson said nothing of any import as usual – probably intentionally. Carly Fiorina demonstrated she was a one-debate woman. The establishment figures were the two sitting Senators, Rubio and Cruz, and maybe the GOP will back them as those most likely to stop a Trump or Carson bid. They were possibly the least worst of a pretty awful bunch.

Are these really the best that the Republicans can come up with?

The Grand Old Party is showing signs of senility.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Senility at the GOP: A pity and a shame

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »