Just Stop and Think for a Minute

If you are unfamiliar with the GOP plan “Project 2025” you should look it up. Here is a link from the wonderful Thom Hartmann describing it and its implications:

https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-shocking-gop-plan-to-dismantle-e60

Basically the GOP plan is a recipe for one party rule and guess which party that is! But you can always count on the Law of Unintended Consequences. What if the GOP gets its wish and, well, mistakes are made and the Democrats take over.

Think about what the Democrats would do with no opposition:
• they could tax the shit out of the wealthy and give it to the poor (Redistribution!)
• they would “come for your guns” and confiscate all but peashooters!
• the would pass government regulations of business willy-nilly!
• they would pass Medicare for All™ for sure!
• they would cut the bloated Pentagon budget!
• they would definitely break up the monopolies the GOP worked so hard to allow!
• they would privilege public schools with public funding and cut all of the voucher programs and charter schools!
• they could bring back Welfare!
• they would allow Critical Race Theory to be taught in law schools again!
• they could allow Jews to replace white trash Neo-Nazi incels!
• they could establish, officially, that the Civil War was about slavery and not state’s rights!
• . . .

So, think about whether you think the GOP plan for one party rule would be a good thing . . . or not. And then remember that when you vote for candidates for various government offices. (There is only one way to keep them from pursuing that plan . . . vote them out of office and then tell them why.)

What Do You Want to Bet . . .

. . . that Florida will ask for disaster relief funds from the federal government?

Please note that the state of Florida reported a $21.8 billion surplus in 2022, the highest in state history. I am sure that, if asked, Mr. Biden will send federal aid, but Florida refers to their pile-o-cash as its “Rainy Day Fund,” and does this not qualify as a “rainy day?” Should they not spend much of that before the rest of us are asked to support their recovery efforts? (I read just this morning that Hurricane Idalia has racked up a bill of $9.36 billion which is expected to go higher but that is for all of the affected states, not just Florida. (Much of that is covered by insurance apparently.)

Gosh, couldn’t Florida demonstrate the superiority of their form of governance by offering to pay what is left after the insurance companies cough up, for all of the damage, even in the other states?

Nah, you watch. They will poor mouth their ability to recover without federal aid and ask for funds.

I will be sending “thoughts and prayers” to Governor DeSantis.

Bad Economics (Is There Another Kind Any More?)

I was reading the “news” yesterday morning (mostly opinions) and I ran across this:

The age-old economic doctrine of “comparative advantage” assumes that more trade is good for all nations because each trading partner specializes in what it does best. But what if a country’s comparative advantage comes in allowing its workers to labor under dangerous or exploitative conditions? (Robert Reich in “Biden Is Turning Away from Free Trade – And That’s a Great Thing” in The Guardian, 8-29-23)

The concept of “comparative advantage,” like the “invisible hand of the marketplace,” is something that works small scale but not so much on a much larger scale. (The same can be said for “free trade.”)

In a small village, the baker is better off focusing on baking bread and the cobbler on making shoes and then the baker and cobbler can trade each other for what they need. It is to your advantage to do what you are good at doing and trading for other stuffs, because you cannot build up enough expertise to make quality goods in many different categories. When we were hunter-gathers we had no choice but to make all of the tools, baskets, etc. we needed by ourselves. And we lived with whatever shoddy work we had to. When populations increased, we could afford specialization. The maker of baskets could specialize and then trade those baskets for other goods, and the quality of everyone’s goods went up.

And small scale it works, but when it gets bigger, then well, things get complicated. In order to trade your goods with someone far away, you need to identify that person, negotiate with them, and then move the goods long distances. This resulted in middlemen, traders, who bought goods as low as they could and sold as high as they could providing that service. The disconnect between trading partners meant that there was room for chicanery and the reputations of the traders suffered over time. The disconnect between trading partners meant that hits to their reputations were distributed over wide areas and were not all that impactful.

This is a little easier to explain using the “invisible hand of the marketplace” concept. The way Adam Smith portrayed it was that if a baker in a village were to raise prices to extraordinary levels, or the quality of the bread produced were to suffer, people would go back to baking for themselves and, possibly, another baker could set up shop and produce better and/or cheaper bread, so the baker has to carefully tend his reputation with his neighbors. But when you go large scale, craftspeople are no longer doing business with their neighbors, neighbors who know them, and are intimately acquainted with their business. That disconnect thwarts the invisible hand a great deal. Workers can’t exactly pull up stakes and move to follow the job that has been exported to Vietnam.

Going back to “comparative advantage,” this concept has been used as a tool of economic repression for forever. Developing countries are told to do what they are good at and let the developed countries sell them the things they need in exchange. What they are usually good at is providing natural resources, but what happens when those resources run out? The undeveloped country is left with nothing to sell. If, on the other hand, those countries develop industries of their own, they will expand the number of things they have to sell and be less vulnerable to such losses. This gives the lie to free markets. Every country which is “developed” now, did it the same way. They protected their nascent industries with tariffs and other protections while the industries were developing. In that way, foreign goods could not undercut the prices they can get for their new products. Think of Korea after the Korean war, or Japan after WW2. Neither was considered a world leader in the production of automobiles or electronics, or the myriad other goods they produce today. Protectionism allowed their industries to develop. Even the U.S., when we broke away from England, did it this way, heavily larded with intellectual property theft, of course. (We stole designs and more on our way to a top-notch economy.)

So, why are concepts like “free trade,” “comparative advantage,” and “the invisible hand of the marketplace” still taught and promoted today? Gosh, do you think the wealthy use them to get even wealthier? Just as Christianity couldn’t oppose slavery in it’s early centuries (being sponsored by the largest slave state in the world at the time, the Roman empire), if economists want to get those cushy corporate jobs or, better, those cushy national and world bank positions, they have to serve the interests of the people who pay their salaries. So, who pays their salaries? I can guarandamntee you it ain’t “the people.”

As Dr. Reich concluded in this piece,

“These trade deals have benefited corporations, big investors, executives, Wall Street traders and other professionals. Middle- and working-class Americans have benefited from these deals as consumers – gaining access to lower-priced goods from China, Mexico and other countries where wages are lower than those in the US.

But the trade deals also have caused millions of US jobs to be lost, and the wages of millions of Americans to stagnate or decline.

Between 2000 and 2017, a total of 5.5m manufacturing jobs vanished. Automation accounted for about half of the loss, and imports, mostly from China, the other half.

You can trace a direct line from these trade deals and the subsequent job losses to the rise of Donald Trump in 2016.”

I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

The Atheist Agenda

I see questions on the Quora question and answer site either asking about the “Atheist agenda” or implying there is one.

Of course, the idea is ludicrous. In order for there to be an agenda, there would have to be an organization behind it and, just as Will Rogers once said “I am not a member of any organized political party, I am a Democrat,” atheists make the Democrats look like a well-oiled machine. Atheists have no politics, no organization, no party . . . collectively.

So where did this idea come from? Ah, that is easy to tease out. Many Christians absolutely, positively are convinced they are being persecuted. They seem to need it, want it. Not able to find any real persecution, they have to invent it. So, what better source for that persecution than atheists. I mean, who would defend them? Their sense of persecution is elevated by their entitlements, which when pointed out as being illegal and eliminated, results in them feeling persecuted.

And my point is that if atheists were going to be actively persecuting someone or something, it wouldn’t be Christians. That would violate the twelfth rule of Politics: “Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.”

Christians engaging in authoritarian politics, perpetrating then hiding sexual assaults of children, preachers begging for donations so they can buy another private jet, railing against immorality in our houses when it is rife in their houses, etc. The pews are emptying and they can’t figure out why.

Postscript The rule above is actually a paraphrase of something Napoleon uttered at Waterloo: ““Never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake; it’s bad manners.” Of course Napoleon said it in French (or maybe Corsican).

What Were They Thinking?

We are told that the god Yahweh, is male and that we were created “in his image.” From that basic “fact” flowed the male superiority meme in all of the subsequently derived religions.

As usual, this makes no sense. We are told that that “God” was singular, a foundation of monotheistic religions: “There is but one god, yada, yada, yada.” Even when Christianity invents the trilogy, folding three gods into the “godhead,” we are told that there is just one god, and only one god and that god has existed forever and will continue to exist for all time.

So, why does such an entity need reproductive equipment? Males and females are components of species which breed sexually. Why would such an entity want to be addresses as “father,” except possibly to usurp the status of a male dominated society?

What were they thinking?

It Ain’t Personal, Folks!

It isn’t surprising that the GOP and the Trump camp are framing Mr. Trump’s current legal woes as personal attacks on Mr. Trump. This strokes Mr. Trump’s ego, making him seem more impactful and also hides the facts of his crimes. Claims that the prosecutions are political are also a way of making the legal actions personal. The fact that Mr. Trump’s crimes were political (he violated laws regulating our politics, except the sex suits and documents suits, I guess).

This “campaign tactic” also hides the facts that Mr. Trump has no foreign policy (sucking up to dictators is not a foreign policy), he has no domestic policy, no industrial policy, no policies whatsoever. While Ron DeSanctimonious is pledging to leave our southern border strewn with bodies, not a peep from Mr. Trump. He has already claimed that he “built” the wall, so he cannot claim, again, that “he will build the wall” on the border.

Don’t expect this approach to change in the future, as Mr. Trump’s fund raising strategy is built on the “Poor Me” approach, “I am being persecuted.” (We need a “Sad Donald Trump” meme like the Sad Michael Jordan meme.)These fund raising and campaign strategies, I am sure, appeal to the “Christians” in his base. (Sorry, I had to put Christians in quotes because those “Christians” claiming they are being persecuted aren’t “True Christians™”, or worse, they are.)

I am sure that dictionaries in the future will have a photo of “The Donald” next to the word despicable.

Call Shirley Ellis, We Gotta New Name Game!

In a comment to another post, a similarity between Donald Trump and the Roman emperor Tiberius was made and so, I bit. My return comment was “Even Trump needs role models! Maybe we need to call him Trumperious, because of his imperious nature.”

So, here is the New Name Game—faux Roman names for Mafia Don Trump that hint at his true nature. Begin!

Loyaltius Demandusnotgivus
Pussimus Grabius
Donpayius Billia
Lieth Bigtimus
Orangus Countenus
Assholus Gigantus
Markup Sharpiust
Rudus Maximus
Spinus Lackimus
Bonespurious Excusus
Goodnaturdus Exitus
Never Honestus
Centerdus Selfus
Moronus Stabilus
Religious Nonevidencimus

So, any other ideas? (Such a larger-than-life personality deserves Mocimus Gigantus!)

WTF Ben Shapiro?

I tend to think of Ben Shapiro is being an idiot, a useful idiot to the far right wing of this country’s political establishment, but an idiot nonetheless.

Recently Mr. Shapiro has stated “Whatever you think of the Trump indictments, one thing is for certain: the glass has now been broken over and over again. Political opponents can be targeted by legal enemies. Running for office now carries the legal risk of going to jail – on all sides.”

So . . . “Running for office now carries the legal risk of going to jail – on all sides.” Is he claiming that Mr. Trump is being prosecuted for “running for office”? I am unaware of that being a crime anywhere (except maybe under Putin’s Russia where it could get you defenestrated).

Is Mr. Shapiro ignoring the minor detail of staging an insurrection or a coup, however you want to phrase it? In Central and South American countries if a legal election is “set aside” it is considered a coup. Here, apparently in GOP circles, a bunch of tourists in the Capitol got a little frisky. Move along, no insurrection to see here.

I just don’t see how Ben Shapiro can claim to have any self-respect, unless that equates to dollars lining his pockets from wealthy Republicans who approve of his nonsense.

Mr. Shapiro is well-educated, a well-educated idiot. I have met more than a few, but they exist. Why Mr. Shapiro insists upon proving it to all of us rather than living with the suspicion that we think so is beyond me.

Calling All Judgmental Republicans!

Thom Hartman, former journalist, now blogs and has asked the question “Has the GOP become the party of hate and trolls?”

“It was once a sensibly Conservative Party that believed in local control and minimal government. It boasted leaders like Dwight D. Eisenhower, Howard Baker, Leverett Saltonstall, and Margaret Chase Smith.

“What does the GOP believe today, other than cutting taxes for the richest?”

What I have seen is that the GOP has become very, very, very judgmental, which proves the lie to them claiming to being Christians. If I may quote scripture of the religion they claim to espouse:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7)

Nope, no Christians in the GOP, not now. If the GOP were still the party of Eisenhower, I could see myself voting for some of them, but those days are long gone.

“What does the GOP believe today, other than cutting taxes for the richest?”

Oh, I know, I know, they believe in lining the pockets of the defense establishment’s manufacturer’s pockets, but then they are like the Democrats in that, often approving weapon systems even the Pentagon says they do not want.

Why Republicans are All Against Immigration

Republicans are against immigration, both legal ands illegal. They tend to frame their arguments so that we would get the impression that they are only against “illegal” immigration because they are tough on crime, but their actions belie that: they are against all immigration.

Now this is country of immigrants. It is immigrants who have made us great. So, why are immigrants so bad? A recent blog post tells us why. Here is an excerpt:

“The country’s strong economic system, great healthcare system, and outstanding universities will continue to attract millions of people from across the world to settle in the most powerful nation on Earth. In fact, according to Pew Research, it is estimated that 82% of the growth between now and 2050 will be due to immigrants arriving in the county looking for better opportunities. Most immigrants will come from Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central America and settle in California, Texas, and Florida. This will result in a more diverse population, and some people are unhappy.” (Source: “You Are Not Ready for These Five Changes in America — 2050” by Luay Rahil, posted on Medium.com (members only).

Ah, so. It comes down to racism and white supremacy in these Republicans. Why am I not surprised?