DACA and the Republican Destruction of Norms

DACA and the Republican Destruction of NormsWhen DACA was first put into effect, my immediate thought was what would happen if the Republicans went and shut the whole thing down. Now it has happened. And all these kids have given all of the information to the government. Will the information be given to ICE so that they can all be picked up easily?

The word is that it isn’t. But I don’t believe that. Sure, the government hasn’t given ICE all the information yet. But just give it time. Let a terrorist attack happen that was committed by an unauthorized immigrant and see how quickly that all changes.

DACA Is Just Another Norm Set for Destruction

When DACA was first passed, there was an unstated assumption. This kind of thing in government is not supposed to be partisan. Things aren’t supposed to change that much from administration to administration — even when parties change. This is somewhat similar to the way that nations are responsible for the spending of previous despots.

But now what I originally feared is coming to fruition. The only question is how bad it will be. And now quickly it will happen.

The State of DACA Repeal

President Donald TrumpThe whole DACA situation has been very annoying to me. It all started last week with a discussion with my father. He assured me that Donald Trump would not repeal DACA. For all of my father’s negative political beliefs, he is very pro-immigrant, given that he is the son of immigrants.

When Trump did do DACA repeal, my father went ballistic. But then a good 10 minutes of Fox News viewing and he saw things entirely from Trump’s stated position. It was all about process. Trump didn’t want to hurt close to a million young people. He just wanted it done by Congress. Thus, the Congress would have to pass a law. And of course they will. That didn’t mean much coming from the man who said of course Trump wouldn’t repeal DACA.

DACA Has to Go Because of “Process”

This is the typical excuse that all politicians and those who favor their policies use when they do something that is both cruel and unpopular. Supposedly, Trump didn’t want to screw over these kids. But he had to, you see, because Obama use the wrong procedure.

But suppose that if Trump really did think that DACA needed to be on a more stable political grounding. He could have let it continue to make its way through the counts. But he didn’t do that, because he doesn’t care about process. He knows his political support is based on white resentment. He killed DACA because it hurt Latinos and his base hates Latinos. So he talks about process so that ABC News doesn’t report on him as the monster he is. And his supporters know that he is the monster he is.

Republicans Don’t Care About Norms

Given that Republicans will do anything they want without thought of precedence or anything else. And given that they can always find a justification for it that will be accepted by the mainstream media, what are we to do? Should Obama have simply let the Dreamers languish in their uncertain legal status?

What is clear is that the Republicans cannot be trusted about anything. If they can do something they will. They have no commitment to normal political order. And this is why the Republicans must be destroyed as a political concern. As much as I dislike much of the democratic party, at least it is a normal political party. The Republicans are a pox on our nation. And we cannot continue on as a stable nation if the Republicans continue to wield any kind of power.

North Korea and Just How Generous the US Is

North Korea and Just How Generous the US IsThis weekend I was at a family gathering. And I overheard two older people — great-grandparents — discussing foreign aid. One of them noted that it was one thing they agreed with Trump about.

As nicely as I could, I pointed out that our total expenditure on foreign aid was about 1% of our federal budget. I could see that the information was resisted. They just didn’t want to believe it. They just “know” that we spend an enormous amount of money on foreign aid.

It’s odd. But I think it goes along with the idea that Americans have — especially Americans of that generation — that we are an extremely generous people. Is doubtless comes from the Marshall Plan. Of course, given how little Word War II touched us, it was the least we could do. But we did do a lot. It’s just that we don’t anymore.

We Spend a Lot on Our Military

We are, in fact, a fairly miserly country. If you compare the amount of foreign aid that we give out to what other countries give out, we look very bad. Where we spend a lot of money is on our military.

We have bases all over the world. This undoubtedly is what a lot of people think of as foreign aid. But it isn’t that at all. It is the outward manifestation of American Empire. We have those military bases to protect our interests, not to protect the interest of those people who often don’t want our bases anyway.

Aid and Nuclear War for North Korea

But shortly after the family get-together, I learned why the subject even came up. Trump is complaining that we give money to North Korea. “The US has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer!” It is a tiny amount of money. Over the course of 15 years, it has averaged $85 million per year. But as we know, the amounts don’t much matter.

The truth of the matter is almost all of the people in North Korea are effectively prisoners. The aid we give North Korea is for food for these people. Anything we could do to help those poor people would be a good thing. It is certainly something that anyone who calls themselves Christian should do.

Instead, I see a lot of conservatives thinking we should just nuke North Korea. They tend to forget that this would cause a nuclear war with China. But apart from that, who would be hurt by our attacking North Korea? All of these innocent people. We would kill them in the most horrible way imaginable.

How Generous Is the US?

But what about the aid? Just how generous is the US?

Let’s look at how much money we give to other countries and how much money other countries give out. It isn’t pretty. If you look at the total amount that we give as a percentage of our total economy, we give roughly 0.16 percent. The United Nations says that advanced economies should give at least 0.7 percent. Many counties do give around this amount — and more. Sweden — the top country in this regard — give 1.4 percent. But even the tenth most generous country — Switzerland — gives 0.52 percent. We give less than a quarter of what we ought to.

Americans live in a fantasy land where we are noble and generous. But this has no real relationship with reality. And this is why people like my old relatives think that we give so much money in foreign aid. But it is time to give up childish beliefs. Maybe if we accepted the fact that we aren’t generous, we would become generous. But we never will be if we just assume we are.

Libertarianism and Labor Day

Libertarians and Labor DayWhat most annoys me about Libertarians — and free market purist of all varieties — is that they see the only potential liberty killing force as being the government. Or if they don’t believe that they believe that it is only the government that we should be fighting against.

This seems to come from the idea that they can’t stop businesses from doing what they want because that would limit the individual liberty of the business owner. And they are unwilling to make any judgments to maximize liberty. Even if a law would greatly increase the liberty of workers and only decrease the liberty of employers by a tiny amount, it can’t be done. This is largely because libertarians don’t see in terms of trade-offs, and they don’t even know they are making a trade-off.

The result of this is that their philosophy comes down to support for oligarchy. Since they start with business owners’ rights as undeniable, workers always get screwed. And this is why for example Libertarians almost to a person are in favor of Right to Work laws, even though they are clearly liberty killing on the part of the workers and employers. Libertarians just don’t like workers. It is simple as that.

What Limits Your Liberty?

If you vote for a libertarian what you end up getting is a politician who is against all of the good things that the government does. But they are all for continuing the gravy train for the rich.

But think about your life. Do you find it is the government that destroys your liberty? Unless you have spent a lot of time in jail, the answer is almost certainly no. The single biggest thing that gets in the way of your liberty is your boss.

Libertarianism might not be so bad if we still had a rural economy where almost everyone was a self-employed farmer. But today almost no one has any choice but to get a job working for someone else. And depending upon their boss, they are living in tyranny.

I stress the fact that workers had no choice because Libertarians always throw this idea up. To them everyone has endless choices. This may come from the fact that most libertarians are themselves from affluent or at least upwardly-mobile families themselves. But the truth is that people have at most an alternative not a choice. And most people don’t even have an alternative.

Libertarianism Just Helps the Rich

So libertarianism is a useless philosophy. All it stands for is bashing the government and allowing in the rich to do whatever they want. And I will fully admit that governments are often a huge problem. But in the United States it is not. The government is a problem mostly to the extent that it acts as a protector of the rich. Thus it isn’t surprising that the rich tend to be libertarians. In the United States it’s quite a deal. You have a government that supports the powerful and here is this supposedly scruffy political philosophy that wants to destroy the government.

This goes back to something I noticed many years ago and is probably the biggest reason why I stopped being a libertarian. If you vote for a libertarian what you end up getting is a politician who is against all of the good things that the government does like helping the poor, providing healthcare, providing for retirement, and so on. But they are all for continuing the gravy train for the rich.

Now it is true that if you talk to libertarians, they will usually tell you how they don’t believe in all this crony capitalism. But there are two important issues here. One is that in practice this is the way libertarians always act when elected. And the other is if you look at the libertarians themselves and how their default position is pro-business and anti-worker, you will see that it’s no accident that in practice libertarian philosophy always comes down to the worst form of conservatism.

Libertarianism Is Anti-Worker

What workers need to know is that libertarianism is not their friend. Even if it says some nice things about workers and rights it is dead set against them. It believes that if you aren’t a business owner you are just a taker and you should be glad that some great Job Creator is there to give you a job.

When you get down to it, libertarianism is the worst political theory that gets any kind of a fair hearing in our society. It is quite amazing that libertarianism hasn’t been soiled the same way that communism and fascism have been. But I believe this is only because a major country has not explicitly called itself libertarian. The truth is that Pinochet’s Chile was a libertarian system of government. Of course libertarians will never admit this.

Libertarians Will Not Accept Its Practical Results

Libertarianism only exists as a platonic ideal in the minds of its adherents. When it exists in practice it simply reduces to the worst kind of conservatism: absolute law of the jungle capitalism for the poor and crony capitalism for the rich. But this is never the fault of libertarianism. This is because libertarianism is a cult. It can never fail; it can only ever be failed.

Thus I get incredibly tired of even talking to libertarians because they aren’t willing to talk about the real world. They are stuck in their minds. But even on that level they are no friend of the workers. Remember that. If you work for a living, libertarians hate you.

Happy Labor Day!

Afterword

On this Labor Day, you should really read Elizabeth Anderson excellent article How Bosses Are (Literally) Like Dictators. I read it right after writing this article, and I was pleased that she said much of what I had. But she goes into a lot more depth overall. What’s more, she talks about how all the great free market (libertarian) writers were talking about a totally different economic environment, and how the Industrial Revolution made what they were talking about irrelevant. I highly recommend reading it. I’m going to get her book, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk About It).

Check Out My Elvira Page on Psychotronic Review

This is just a temporary page. I’ve been watching a lot of Elvira recently. So I created a page for her. Check it out: Elvira Movies.

See you tomorrow!

Update

I’ve added more to the article. I added a section on the television pilot she created. The video of it is there. It isn’t great, but well worth checking out.

It was 109°F today. And even as I write this at 8:00 pm, it is still 95°F. It’s hard to get any work done when it is like this. That’s especially true in my work/bed room that has two large south-facing windows. It is now exactly the same temperature as it is outside. I’m hoping that things get better by 10:00 pm.

Conservatives Now and in 1865

Conservatives Now and in 1865Jonathan Chait wrote a very good article yesterday, Republicans Confuse the Electoral College With “the American People.” For me, it highlights the fact that conservatives never change. In it, he talks about an article in The Federalist by Josiah Peterson, No, Jesse Jackson, the Electoral College Isn’t Racist. Forget for now the fact that Jackson never said that the electoral college was racist. Let’s just look at Peterson as a fine example of a conservative thinker.

In the article he claims that the Three-Fifths Clause of the US Constitution was intended to give Southern States less power. I’ve heard this argument from conservatives many times in the past. But it turns reality upside down.

The truth is that slave owners treated slaves as property. They weren’t some kind of special property that had rights. They were literally seen the same way that an ox or a cart were seen. So the idea of giving southern states political representation for slaves is the same as giving them political representation for the number of horses they had. These states wanted slaves to be property when it suited them and not property when it suited them.

The slave states insisted upon the Three-Fifths Clause in order to allow the Constitution to be ratified. But there was never any justification for it other than conservatives whining and wanting special rules for themselves.

Special Rules for Conservatives After the Civil War

You may remember that towards the end of the Civil War, when it was clear they had lost the war, the South wanted to give up. But they wanted to be able to keep their slaves. In other words, they wanted the right to wage a civil war so that they could have their own country free to treat human beings as slaves. And then when they failed at that, they wanted things to go back to exactly the way that they were — to pretend that they hadn’t started a war. (Note: they pretty much got that anyway with the help of President Andrew Johnson and other like-minded racists.)

This is entirely typical of conservatives today. They want special rules. It’s interesting to look at the electoral college system. Because conservatives used to be against it. But now that they have won two presidential elections where they lost the popular vote, they think that it is absolutely essential that we keep it.

Conservatives Want It All

I’ve often noted that conservatives only care about power. This is why they destroy norms any time things do not go the way they want them to. If they are legally allowed to do something, they will do it. (Note that this is the way that corporations deal with taxes. If the tax code allows them to write off $500 for something, they will always write off $500 for it. An individual will generally write off quite a bit less. That’s because individuals have some sense of shame — at least the non-psychotic ones do.)

This belief in power only really comes down to this idea that there are special rules for them. They have no sense of community. Think of Margaret Thatcher and her idea that society didn’t actually exist. All that matters is them and their desires. And if the society has to be destroyed because of that, so be it.

We saw this when conservatives owned people, and we see it today. And if there were suddenly a repeal of the 13th Amendment, conservatives would have no problem owning people today.

Liberals Allow Conservatives to Be “Principled”

Ted Cruz - Liberals Allow Conservatives to Be PrincipledYesterday, Michael Hiltzik wrote, More Than 20 Texas Representatives and Senators Voted Against Sandy Aid. How Will They Vote on Harvey? He isn’t alone. A lot of people have written about the same thing. The focus of it is that Ted Cruz voted against Hurricane Sandy aid, but the moment Cruz’s home state of Texas was hit by Hurricane Harvey, he ran to President Trump asking for aid and he will doubtless vote for whatever aid package Congress approves.

What Hypocrisy?

But here’s the thing: Cruz will never admit to hypocrisy. It doesn’t even make sense to talk about. Cruz was interviewed by Katy Tur, and he had exactly the justification that I knew he would, “Two-thirds of that bill had nothing to do with Sandy. What I said then and still believe now is that it’s not right for politicians to exploit a disaster when people are hurting to pay for their own political wish list.”

This is exactly the point I made a few years ago that Josh Barro couldn’t figure out. A politician can always come up with a reason not to vote for a bill. The fact is that bills are never perfect. So if you want to, you can find something. This is talked about at length in the book Winner-Take-All Politics.

A politician will say, “I would love to vote for this legislation, if it just weren’t for… whatever.” And we know that they are disingenuous because we have so many examples of “whatever” being changed to get the politician’s vote, and they always end up finding something new that stops them from voting for this bill that they would so like to vote for. We saw this many times during the debate to pass Obamacare.

Republicans Don’t Do Their Jobs

The Republicans know that when it comes down to it, they can depend upon the Democrats to come in and save them.

So I don’t really care about Ted Cruz’s hypocrisy. What is vile about him is his original vote. We don’t need to wait and see that he will vote for aid to his own state — despite all the problems with it that he could use to justify voting against it. And, of course, Cruz is just a high profile Republican.

Hiltzik laid out the numbers in his article. There are 24 Republican Texas representatives who were in Congress at the time of the Hurricane Sandy vote. All but one voted against it. We know they will all vote for it this time. There are 12 Democratic Texas representatives who were in Congress at the time of the Hurricane Sandy vote. Other than one who did not vote, they all voted for Sandy aid.

These are the politicians who the people of Texas think are okay. They are the problem. Let’s face it: they love these faux-noble stands against bad government. And in the end, it doesn’t matter. These politicians and voters knew that the people of New York and New Jersey would be taken care of. They knew it because people like me vote for politicians who actually take the job seriously — who don’t figure they were sent to Washington to prance around making “principled” votes while others do the hard work of governing.

Republicans’ “Principled” Votes

I don’t believe in compromise as a good in itself. But like most liberals, I understand that not everyone agrees with me about everything. So every law that the government passes will be a compromise. The biggest piece of legislation passed in the last couple of decades, Obamacare, is a great example of that. It’s not something that any liberal was that happy with, but it is a hell of a lot better than what we had before.

What really angers me is that conservatives think that they don’t need to do anything. As a group, they are like that guy you work with who does almost nothing — rightly figuring that others will do the work if they don’t.

And now, with complete power in Washington, the Republicans show that when there is no one else to do the work for them, they are incapable of doing it themselves. How is it that the people continue to vote Republican? How many times can they be burned?

I suppose we know the answer to that. The Republicans know that when it comes down to it, they can depend upon the Democrats to come in and save them. We are fast reaching the point where the government will have to pass a budget and raise the debt ceiling. And it will be done only because almost all of the Democrats vote for it. Meanwhile, people like Ted Cruz will prance around showing just how “principled” they are.

Without liberals like me to elect Democrats to Washington, there might as well not be a government.

Helping Out at Humorless Rants

Helping Out at Humorless Rants

A few months ago, I wrote an article announcing Elizabeth’s new podcast, Humorless Rants Podcast Does James Comey Firing. Well, they are gearing up to do their 17th episode and judging from the 16th, it’s really blossomed. Still, their website hasn’t gotten much love. So without really being asked, I have stepped up. (Stepped up, barged in, potato, potauto.)

Elizabeth does the podcast with two other people: Kara and Kevin. She alternates the two as co-hosts. So the last episode was Elizabeth and Kevin, and the next one will be Kara. That’s good; it spreads the work around and adds variety.

Let me make another recommendation to check out the Humorless Rants podcast. It was good at the very beginning. But it’s really blossomed in 16 episodes.

They are also getting good guests for the show. The last show was mostly about Nazis — interestingly recorded before the neo-Nazi rally in Charlotteville, VA. It featured Jesse Turner who has made a deep study of Nazis. The next episode will feature Neera Tanden. That’s a pretty good “get” for a fledgling podcast.

The Humorless Rants Website

Elizabeth asked if I could do something for the show’s blog. I can’t really remember what it was. But she made the mistake of giving me full access to it. That, combined with being something of a WordPress expert and having very little self-control led me to give the site an overhaul.

When I first saw it before, I was confused. It didn’t have any links. There was just a huge header and what looked like the first (default) post of a blog.

I had just written an introduction for the 16th episode, You Can’t Reason With Nazis. But after I published it, I couldn’t find it. It didn’t show up on the first page. This led to me poking around in the admin area of the site.

Behind the Scenes

At first, I was texting with Elizabeth. Since she didn’t seem to mind what I was doing, I just went with it.

I can’t say that it’s current state is great, but it’s usable now — with links to the about, contact, and blog pages. Given that the website is meant to support the podcast, it really ought to be set-up the way Frankly Curious is — with the blog roll on the front page.

The problem with this is that it would eliminate the use of the blog for anything other than posts about podcast episodes — and there is already one. What’s really needed is two blogs: one just for episode posts that would be displayed on the home page, and another with everything else.

This is easy to do if you are hosting your own WordPress install. But Humorless Rants uses WordPress.com. This is my first experience using it, and it does not have nearly as many options as a self-hosted install.

To the Future!

Eventually, I will probably push Elizabeth to change the site to be self-hosted. It all depends upon how involved I am in this. I wouldn’t mind managing the website and writing the episode introductions. It’s nice because there is no real pressure, given that the real product is the podcast.

But regardless, the Humorless Rants website is now in a state where anyone can add to it, and where visitors will be able to find the information they want.

Let me make another recommendation to check out the podcast. It was good at the very beginning. But it’s really blossomed in 16 episodes.

Debt Obsession and Media Compliance

Debt Obsession and Media ComplianceJonathan Chait noticed something interesting, The Obama-Era Deficit Scolds Want Big Tax Cuts Now. He notes that all the big people behind Fix the Debt and other groups supposedly so concerned about the federal government’s debt are now only too happy to support Donald Trump and his idea of a huge debt-financed tax cut for the rich.

Oh, how can this be?! Could it possibly be that these people never cared about the debt? As Chait noted, “The debt scolds’ professed panic at looming fiscal insolvency turns out to be, in large measure, cover for a panic at a government that would redistribute too much income from people like themselves.” One would have to be Third Way columnist at a major daily newspaper to think otherwise. You know, someone like Thomas Friedman. But people don’t come around here to listen to such Very Serious Nonsense. So I think we can take this as a given.

No One Cares About Debt

The truth of the matter is that everyone can come up with reasons for debt-financed spending as long as they agree with the spending. Debt is not a problem. When people start worrying about debt burden, then I might take their concerns seriously. That’s the amount of money it costs us to pay for our debt.

The truth is that as soon as a Democrat is in the White House, the debt scolds will be back.

All through Obama’s time in office, the cost of US government debt was extremely low. It was so low, in fact, that it was less than it was during George W Bush’s terms in office. In other words, debt was a much bigger concern when Bush was in the White House than when Obama was. Yet we heard very little about the federal debt during Bush and very much about it during Obama.

So it was always clear that the debt scolds were spouting nonsense. And I’m not just saying that now. You can go back and look at what I was writing over the last eight years — there is lots of complaining about this. But the truth is that as soon as a Democrat is in the White House, the debt scolds will be back.

Which Kind of Redistribution?

And the reason is because Democrats won’t increase the debt for things that the scolds want — like tax cuts. Democrats might increase the debt to provide healthcare for poor children! And that would be a bad thing because the debt scolds are committed to a single kind of redistribution: from the poor to the rich.

These are the same people who will tell you that there is nothing we could have done about our loss of manufacturing jobs. It’s just globalization — simple supply and demand — nothing to be done. Of course, even as these people fought to make sure manufacturing workers competed directly against workers in other countries, they were against the same thing happening to doctors, lawyers, and financial advisers.

Both of these things are related because they they shift wealth from the poor to the rich. But we don’t hear this discussed much in the press. We hear lots about how terrible debt is (when it might be spent on the poor). We hear about how great tax cuts on the wealthy are — economic growth! And we hear about how globalization lowers the price of paper towels. But we rarely hear about the good that can be done with debt. (No one blinks when they hear a friend has gone into debt to buy a house.) We never hear about how the professions of rich people are shielded from international competition. And we only hear about the bad parts of globalization except in the context of, “To bad we can’t do anything about it!”

The Real Fake News

I get so tired of hearing President Trump talk about fake news. He’s just lying, of course. But the truth is that our news is largely fake in that it pushes a narrative that is designed to help rich and powerful people like Trump.

So sure, the debt scolds are disingenuous. But why is it that our media outlets follow them in reporting on the subject of the debt. Do they not notice that when a Republican is in the White House all concern about the debt goes away? I’m not good at predicting the future, but I have no problem predicting this: if a Democrat is elected president in 2020, we will start seeing a lot more coverage about the federal debt and how catastrophic it is.

Do We Really Expect Exxon to Save Us?

Do We Really Expect Exxon to Save Us?Over at Vox, David Roberts wrote, Exxon Researched Climate Science. Understood It. And Misled the Public. As you may have heard, a couple of years ago, some news outlets documented that Exxon scientists had studied global warming and found it to be true, but the company hid the information. They then spent a lot of money releasing information designed to muddy the waters and make people believe that it was all a hoax — or at least something that was uncertain.

Now, seventeen state attorneys general have gotten together to investigate whether Exxon broke any laws having to do with “racketeering, consumer protection, or investor protection.” That’s all good. Just the same, I suspect it will come to nothing. And even if it does, no one will go to jail. Instead, Exxon will be fined some amount of money that will be nothing compared to the money they made by deceiving the public.

Exxon Isn’t in the Business of Doing Good

There’s another issue here. Do we really look to our private companies to keep us safe? Isn’t the real villain in this case the Republican Party that has done everything it can to carry water for the dirty energy industry? These elected officials are supposed to look out for the interests of the county and its people, not its campaign contributors. And not the people who will give them cushy jobs when they leave office.

Many conservatives are naive people who live in a fantasy land where Exxon looks out for the best interests of the world.

I have found that it is normally conservatives who are most upset when they find out that a private company like Exxon isn’t doing the “right” thing and is instead enriching itself by any means available. Liberals are rarely surprised by this kind of thing. And that explains to some extent why liberals are for government interference in the marketplace and conservatives are not.

In this case, I’m talking about conservative voters. Obviously, conservative politicians are about as vile and cynical as any group comes. But there is a great deal of naivete among conservative voters. These are, after all, the people who listened to Trump say daily through the campaign that he would repeal Obamacare, and yet thought that he wouldn’t really do it.

Naive Conservative vs Cynical Liberals? No

These naive conservatives will claim that my position is just cynical. I don’t have faith in my fellow man! But my position isn’t cynical; it is just fact-based. Private companies are in the business of making money. That means they will pay employees the lowest amount they can. That means they will charge the highest prices they can.

(This is another thing that drives me crazy. People think that companies set reasonable prices for things. This is not true. They charge as much as they can. It is only in a competitive market that various companies force each other to push the price down. I always hear this nonsense about “reasonable” pricing when it comes to corporate taxes. “If you tax them more, they’ll just raise their prices!” Really?! Then why aren’t they charging more now? Why do these people think McDonald’s is selling hamburgers for less than they could?)

Liberals Allow Conservatives to Exist

It often seems to me that conservatives can only exist because liberals allow them to. Without liberals to make society distinctly better, conservatives would be forced to see the dystopia that their policies actually create.

Thus there are really only two kinds of economic conservatives. First, there are the cynical people who only care about themselves and lording over everyone else. And second, there are naive people who live in a fantasy land where Exxon looks out for the best interests of the world. So economic conservatives really are stupid or evil. And I don’t know which is worse.

Breaker Morant and Systemic Evil

Breaker MorantBreaker Morant is an incredibly compelling Australian film from 1980. It was the breakout film of Bruce Beresford, who would go on to direct many successful films such as Tender Mercies, Crimes of the Heart, and Driving Miss Daisy. It is basically a courtroom drama, which tells the true story of the court martial of Harry “Breaker” Morant, Peter Handcock, and George Witton.

They were Australians who fought for the British during the Second Boer War. The way the film tells it, the men were tried and punished as a way to end the war. As a result, the men come off as martyrs. And you can well imagine how the film played in Australia in 1980, given that there is a distinct nationalistic feel to it.

Guilty Martyrs

As a result of this reading of the film, Beresford has said, “The film never pretended for a moment that they weren’t guilty.” And that’s true. The film is quite clear about the men’s guilt. But I think people watching it pick up on something deeper. It doesn’t much matter that Morant and Handcock were guilty. (Witton appears not to have been guilty at all; it isn’t clear why he was ever put on trial.) The men were martyrs.

Now this isn’t to say that they were great guys. But I’ve never really understood how it is we apply ethics to war. If a superior officer gives you an order in the battlefield that you think is wrong, you have two choices. You can face being put to death right then. And you can face being court-martialed afterward. That’s not much of a choice.

The Evil Is War

In Breaker Morant, the regiment — the Bushveldt Carbineers — was tasked with fighting the Boer guerrilla fighters. The Bushveldt Carbineers thus used tactics that were irregular. As a result, they were more successful than traditional forces had been. Of course, when you start monkeying with exactly what is and is not allowed in fighting the enemy, it isn’t surprising that there will be some disagreement.

I always find myself siding with people like the men in Breaker Morant. When the awful photographs came out of Abu Ghraib (Baghdad Central Prison), I was unhappy about the prosecution of the service members. That’s not to say that I think much of them as human beings. But there is something about it that strikes me as an effort to cleanse an evil system.

There is some evidence that the British were only prosecuting Morant and the others because they were trying to get testimony against Captain Simon Hunt. Assuming that’s true, the wrong is even worse. It means that the authorities were willing to kill men they didn’t even think deserving. And they were asking men who fought together to turn on each other. It’s adding insult to the ultimate injury.

In the end, what we see in Breaker Morant is what we always see in war — and more generally in the society at large. It’s a way for society to try to justify its evil behavior. It’s like they are saying, “Sure, we did all these evil things, but we aren’t as bad as these guys! And to prove it, we’re going to murder them!”

The Meaning of Breaker Morant

According to Bruce Beresford, he wanted to show in Breaker Morant what war does to otherwise decent men. I think we can pass this off as another case of artists being the worst people to analyze their work. Because it doesn’t show this at all.

What it shows instead is how war soils everyone. The only difference between those who live and those who die is power. If there were any justice, Lord Kitchener and those of his rank should be killed for the sin of their wars and how they were fought.

Barring that, the least we could ask for is that we didn’t have these token court martials. Because they don’t clean away the sin of war; they just extend it; at least when the punishment is death.

Astronomy Usually Disappoints: Solar Eclipse 2017

Solar EclipseWhere I live in California, the solar eclipse was supposed to start at roughly 9:00 am. It reaches maximum occultation at 10:20 am. And then it ends at roughly 11:40 am. As I write this, it is 10:00 am, and my world is shrouded in clouds.

I got prepared for the event over the last week. I’ve got a set of welder’s glasses. You are supposed to use shade 12 or higher. I’ve got a double-12 set-up. What’s more, my father drilled a circular hole in a board so we could see the shadow of the eclipse as it makes its way across the sky. It would have been fun.

Astronomy Disappoints

When I was in college, I was friends with a number of people who were into astronomy. So I often found myself freezing in the middle of the night while we tried to see this or that. But what’s happening today is pretty typical of those trips. The weather does not cooperate.

Eventually, the fog will burn off. But it is going slow. As we approach full occultation, I can tell that it is much darker than it normally is. In fact, it’s about as dark as it is at 6:30 am. But this is not a lot to get excited about.

If you want to study astronomy, you really need to take a trip to a nice desert somewhere. The truth is that I live in a rotten area for astronomy. But this must also be some corollary of Murphy’s Law: the cloud cover where you are will be directly proportional to your excitement regarding an astronomical event.

Update

At 4:00 pm, I took a walk down to the supermarket. As I came out at 4:30, the cloud cover had just broken up so that I could see the sun to some extent. So only five hours late!

The next time there is an eclipse, I’m going to head for the desert!

Steve Bannon Is Better Than Donald Trump

Steve Bannon Is Better Than Donald TrumpChief White House strategist Steve Bannon has been fired — or as close to it as anyone in Washington gets. In other words, he will not be employed in the Trump administration anymore. And I’m sure that a lot of people are happy about this — especially liberals like myself. But I don’t much care — largely because it doesn’t much matter.

The truth of the matter is that Steve Bannon didn’t have much power in the White House. But who does? Watching what went on regarding the Charlottesville, Virginia Protest this last week shows this. On Saturday, Trump came out with a statement that cast blame widely. Trump condemned violence “on many sides.” He notably did not call out the neo-Nazis, KKK, and other white supremacists.

His advisers were very concerned about this, so they got him to read a prepared statement on Monday that mollified most people, even though even it was offensive. But Trump can only act like an adult for so long, and on Tuesday, he said things that made his remarks on Saturday look like something Abraham Lincoln said.

Trump Doesn’t Listen to His Advisers

Trump is immune to his advisers. The only thing that seems to affect what Trump thinks is Fox News. In fact, some reporting suggests that his advisers try to get on the racist fear-mongering network just so they can get his attention. So it doesn’t much matter who walks the halls of the White House.

That’s probably more true of Steve Bannon than anyone. Bannon is a vile person. But he had a number of ideas that were good. For example, he wanted Trump to propose a trillion dollar infrastructure bill. And Bannon wanted Trump to raise taxes on the rich. Sure: Bannon only cared about white people. But he did care about them. He wanted to help the white working class. And the truth is that infrastructure spending and taxing the rich would have helped the poor and middle classes of all races.

Steve Bannon Had Some Good Ideas

So Steve Bannon was a nationalist. But he offered both the good and the bad sides of that ideology. Trump, of course, only followed one half of Bannon’s ideology. And that was the bad side of it. So we got all the racism. We got all the belligerent talk. But there was nothing to offset it. The rest of it was the standard Republican platform: take from the poor and give to rich. Pollute on the poor to make the rich richer. Basically: do anything that will further enrich the rich.

What I find remarkable is that Steve Bannon is seen as worse than Trump. The only way you can think that is if you think the rich don’t have it good enough in this country. Steve Bannon actually offers beliefs that compensate for his vile nationalism and bigotry.

Trump Is Worse Than Bannon

It says a lot about our country that the mainstream press take it as a given that economic populism is bad. Note: economic populism is popular. Yet we all put up with a press consisting of upper class reporters pushing an upper class agenda.

I would take a Steve Bannon presidency before a Donald Trump presidency any day. This should be conventional wisdom. But sadly, if Donald Trump were more like Bannon — that is to say: less horrible — he probably wouldn’t have become president.

My fellow Americans: will you ever wake up?