Suddenly, post Brexit, some politicians (other than those the left, the Warren Wing or the Bernie supporters) are talking about the effect of middle class wage stagnation and increasing inequality. Obama mentioned it albeit somewhat pejoratively in remarks at the NAFTA summit. Even the Tories (Theresa May) noted that both parties had failed the working class.
However, not everyone has woken up to smell the roses. Segolene Royal, speaking to Jeremy Saker, made clear that she was still hell bent on protecting the European project as was. And she intends to exact revenge for what she sees as David Cameron's stupidity "asking the wrong question". What she and the establishment more broadly aren't seeing is that there would be no need for threats and punishment were there any tangible benefits the majority of voters could point to for remaining in Europe. If there were, and if she could articulate them, Europe would have nothing to fear; no one in their right minds would want to leave the fold.
But since there isn't and she can't, everyone must be locked in their rooms until they see the "benefits" of staying.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
A(nother) self-inflicted wound
Congress voted yesterday to over-ride the President's veto of a bill that allows private citizens to sue in US Federal Court any state and government that they believe might have been involved in sponsoring terrorism.
This is absurdly short sighted, and the fact that 28 of the senators who almost unanimously voted to over-ride the veto signed a letter today saying they didn't like the bill for which they had just voted simply reinforces the perception of the stupidity, incompetence, and unworldliness of our elected representatives.
Mitch McConnell, ludicrously, blamed the President for not getting involved, despite that fact they Obama explicitly warned the Senate in advance that he would veto the bill and set out exactly why - but they took no notice, and voted not once, but twice, on a bill they now say they don't like (or didn't read) despite being warned of its broader implications.
The bill is not one that limits its reach to the Saudi government and to the 911 attack but could be used to sue any government for any alleged involvement with terrorism.
For example, suppose a terrorist enters the US via Canada and kills a US citizen. The relative of the victim might allege that the Canadians knew he was a terrorist when he crossed into the US and sue the Canadian government in US court for supporting terrorism through negligence. In the process, the plaintiffs might demand that Canada make public (or at least available to the court) information that it could not disclose for national security reasons, effectively forcing it to settle the claim rather than fight the allegations; in the business world, that known as greenmail.
Since this sets a precedent, other countries would be likely to pass similar legislation of their own. Thus, a Nicaraguan national whose relatives had been killed by the Contras might sue the US government in Nicaraguan court for the US' involvement in supplying arms to the rebels.
And to McConnell to say he wasn't warned (Obama made statements on the implications of the law in April) and that he hadn't thought it though when it came to the vote is simply an embarrassment. And yet another shameful black eye for the US Congress.
This is absurdly short sighted, and the fact that 28 of the senators who almost unanimously voted to over-ride the veto signed a letter today saying they didn't like the bill for which they had just voted simply reinforces the perception of the stupidity, incompetence, and unworldliness of our elected representatives.
Mitch McConnell, ludicrously, blamed the President for not getting involved, despite that fact they Obama explicitly warned the Senate in advance that he would veto the bill and set out exactly why - but they took no notice, and voted not once, but twice, on a bill they now say they don't like (or didn't read) despite being warned of its broader implications.
The bill is not one that limits its reach to the Saudi government and to the 911 attack but could be used to sue any government for any alleged involvement with terrorism.
For example, suppose a terrorist enters the US via Canada and kills a US citizen. The relative of the victim might allege that the Canadians knew he was a terrorist when he crossed into the US and sue the Canadian government in US court for supporting terrorism through negligence. In the process, the plaintiffs might demand that Canada make public (or at least available to the court) information that it could not disclose for national security reasons, effectively forcing it to settle the claim rather than fight the allegations; in the business world, that known as greenmail.
Since this sets a precedent, other countries would be likely to pass similar legislation of their own. Thus, a Nicaraguan national whose relatives had been killed by the Contras might sue the US government in Nicaraguan court for the US' involvement in supplying arms to the rebels.
And to McConnell to say he wasn't warned (Obama made statements on the implications of the law in April) and that he hadn't thought it though when it came to the vote is simply an embarrassment. And yet another shameful black eye for the US Congress.
2020 Foresight
Some years ago, I was in Chicago. My flight home was early in the afternoon so I decided to use the morning to take a brief look round the Chicago Art Institute. From my outbound journey I knew the rail link from the airport took about an hour (as far as I remember), so I left the gallery at about 11:30, waked to the station and got onto a train to the airport.
For whatever reason (longer than expected wait for the train, a slower train going west than east, misremembered timing...) I arrived only 20 minutes before my flight. I ran all the way to the gate, arrived in the nick of time, the last to board, and took my seat completely out of breath and (to the probably discomfort of my fellow passengers) drenched in sweat. But I made it!
So what did I learn? The literature on learning suggests that a positive result reinforces the antecedent behavior. So if one considered making the flight a positive outcome, then my visit to the gallery and my somewhat cavalier attitude to being early is likely to be repeated. Alternatively if one considers my discomfort and stress, then this was a negative outcome and the behavior that caused it is likely to diminish.
Assuming that (thank the Good Lord), Trump doesn’t move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January, the question we need to ponder is do we consider this to have been a positive or a negative outcome? On the face of it, it would seem to be rather positive, a seriously dogged bullet. But I think that would be wrong. Looking at averting disaster as a positive outcome means we are destined to repeat the same fiasco in another four (or possibly 8) years.
We should, rather, consider what led us to this point. Better, I think to face the fact that there are some serious problem of which Trump is the most visible and obnoxious manifestation. Slow or stagnant economic growth for all but the wealthiest and growing income inequality, a broken justice system with many minor offenders locked up for decades, latent racial animosity (see also Hillary's list of -phobias), a structurally corrupt political system (campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving door), out-of-control health care costs and rapacious drugs companies, concentration of oligopolistic corporate power, the conflation of money and free speech... The worst sentiments that the Republicans have spent the last 8 years fanning ferociously will be hard to extinguish; just putting out the flames will be hard enough.
And if we think we averted the Trumpocalpse, the incentive to fix any of this will be gone, and the history that is now being made may well repeat itself with a less inept character in the starring role in 2020. Then God help us all.
For whatever reason (longer than expected wait for the train, a slower train going west than east, misremembered timing...) I arrived only 20 minutes before my flight. I ran all the way to the gate, arrived in the nick of time, the last to board, and took my seat completely out of breath and (to the probably discomfort of my fellow passengers) drenched in sweat. But I made it!
So what did I learn? The literature on learning suggests that a positive result reinforces the antecedent behavior. So if one considered making the flight a positive outcome, then my visit to the gallery and my somewhat cavalier attitude to being early is likely to be repeated. Alternatively if one considers my discomfort and stress, then this was a negative outcome and the behavior that caused it is likely to diminish.
Assuming that (thank the Good Lord), Trump doesn’t move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in January, the question we need to ponder is do we consider this to have been a positive or a negative outcome? On the face of it, it would seem to be rather positive, a seriously dogged bullet. But I think that would be wrong. Looking at averting disaster as a positive outcome means we are destined to repeat the same fiasco in another four (or possibly 8) years.
We should, rather, consider what led us to this point. Better, I think to face the fact that there are some serious problem of which Trump is the most visible and obnoxious manifestation. Slow or stagnant economic growth for all but the wealthiest and growing income inequality, a broken justice system with many minor offenders locked up for decades, latent racial animosity (see also Hillary's list of -phobias), a structurally corrupt political system (campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving door), out-of-control health care costs and rapacious drugs companies, concentration of oligopolistic corporate power, the conflation of money and free speech... The worst sentiments that the Republicans have spent the last 8 years fanning ferociously will be hard to extinguish; just putting out the flames will be hard enough.
And if we think we averted the Trumpocalpse, the incentive to fix any of this will be gone, and the history that is now being made may well repeat itself with a less inept character in the starring role in 2020. Then God help us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)