About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

Power Politics Is a Pathetic Need

Power PoliticsI hate power politics. I’m old enough that I’m pretty comfortable with who I am. I’m poor. I’m physically weak. I’m not handsome — I look old for my age. Intellectually I’m reasonable, but certainly not a standout. But I have a fair collection of skills. I don’t doubt that I have a place in the world and that the world, on the whole, values me. So it amuses me when people play power politics with me. They think they are putting me in my place, but all they ever do is just establish that they have some advantage over me in some minor area.

Growing up, like most small boys, I ran into many bigger boys who wanted to establish their credibility by showing that they were stronger. I can’t say that even at the age of six that I thought much of this. I’ve never valued physical strength — certainly not when used in that way. But what are you going to do? I mean we are talking about children here. I’m sure that many of these bullies went on to see the error of their ways and became good human beings.

Others, I’m afraid, did not.

This whole issue of power politics is not usually about physical violence. I’ve been involved with just such a case of power politics. I am currently being taught a lesson. I made the mistake of asserting myself to a bully and now I must be reminded again and again that I have no power. I must show in every way possible that they are the alpha dog. Of course, this is just in their mind. I am involved in a working relationship. I am finishing up the project as quickly as possible and then I will never have anything to do with this person ever again. The power is entirely mine because I have nothing to lose and the publisher does.

Power Politics: the Game Continues

I know I’ve written about this before. But something just happened. A few weeks ago, I received a document that explained the proper format for manuscripts. This is the third book I’ve done for the publisher and the first I’ve ever heard of it, but okay. Then I looked at the document and it was not a standard document that the publisher had been using for years. No, it was one created especially for me: what I must do to prove who the alpha dog is. It was pure power politics.

That was then. Yesterday, after having submitted four sections where everything was all right, the fifth section is balked at: the files must have the date on them! I’d already sent 20 chapters. They had all been accepted and formatted by the publisher. There was nothing in the document about including the date on the file names. No. This is just the publisher deciding that there is a new rule because there has been nothing to yell at me about recently. If dates are wanted, dates it shall be! Oh, the joy of power politics.

Soon I will be gloriously free of all this! But it is like dealing with a 10-year-old schoolyard bully. I guess it does something for them, but to me, it’s pathetic. From my side, this is all about some deeply messed up person trying to claim some power that they don’t feel in their hearts. Power politics is a game that sad and lonely people play. I have very little left to do on this project, but I fully expect a new requirement. Perhaps, “Start all correspondence with, ‘Oh Great and Glorious Publisher Without Whom I Would Be Lost…”

The one good thing about this is that I was totally stressed out before. This time, I just laughed when I got this new requirement. Power politics might make those who engage in them feel better, but any objective viewer can see how pathetic those using them are.

Afterword

I know you are all probably tired of my whining about this. But I find it interesting that in my day job, I manage a number of writers, and one of my primary jobs is to make their work easier. I’m supposed to make them feel good and valued. It isn’t about me, and making my life easier. Of course, this is the way I have always managed people. Life’s too short to be a jerk or to be around jerks — even ones who will be dead for weeks before anyone notices.

Morning Music: Jules and the Polar Bears Live

Got No Breading - Jules and the Polar BearsThere was one final Jules and the Polar Bears album, Bad for Business. I have heard it, but it was years ago and I didn’t much like it. It’s a lot like Fenêtîks (Phonetics) — but more so. So I want to feature a live set that the band did, about the time of the first album. And that, I believe, is Peter Gabriel introducing them. This would be during the time when Gabriel was doing his very best work. (I love those first three albums!)

What’s interesting here is that the live version of these songs sound very much like they do on Got No Breading. You just don’t need that much to create great music: start with a great songwriter, add a great band, and leave them alone. (One thing: the vocal harmonies are sometimes on the far side of embarrassing.) Of course, it doesn’t sound like the audience is terribly excited. Hard to tell. But it wouldn’t be the first time that an audience was clueless that they were being treated to something amazing. And admittedly: look at Jules Shear — he’s a crazy man.

And then there are things like the opening of “Driftwood From Disaster” where Shear totally blows it. This was apparently not unusual. From what I’ve heard, Jules and the Polar Bears itself was not that interested in performing live and rarely took it seriously. But this is where I tend to break with most people on music. I’d rather hear something that is real and uneven than something polished and dead. Although we must give the band its due. Other than the harmonies (which are often quite good, but uneven), they are very good. In particular, listen Richard Bredice on lead guitar! Wow. But they are all excellent, including the bass player (David White) who was not listed on the first two albums.

I’m going to leave Jules Shear for now. I’d like to get into his later adult contemporary work, but I’ll do that later. I’ve got something else to do for the next week.

Anniversary Post: Saint Bones and Nikephoros I

St Nikephoros - Saint BonesOn this day in 847, the bones of St Nikephoros I were interred at the Church of the Holy Apostles. As far as I can tell, this was a big deal. Nikephoros had died almost 20 years earlier. But saint bones were a very big thing back in the day. People thought that by being near them, they could be healed and stuff like that. Those were the days my friend!

That was when the church was kind of sealed off from the rest of the world and people looked upon it as a place of magic. And it was! If you consider power magic. And I do.

But the whole thing makes me think of Cadfael — the series of television movies (based upon Edith Pargeter’s novels, which I have not read). They take place in 12th century England. Cadfael is a monk — but one who entered the church later in life, having previously been a warrior. He is an herbalist and thoroughly anachronistic in that he is clearly an enlightenment thinker. All around him — even the good people — are stuck believing the most ridiculous nonsense. But not Cadfael.

Saint Bones of Winifred

Anyway, in the series, the abbey has the bones of St Winifred, and it acts as a kind of funding mechanism for the church. People come on pilgrimages to the abbey just to be near the bones. But we find out in A Morbid Taste for Bones (which was the first book, but not the first episode), that there are no saint bones in the box that apparently the church keeps these things in. Instead, it is the remains of a murderous (and mentally ill) monk. It makes for wonderful social commentary with people coming from hundreds of miles to be near the saint bones when the the saint bones are actually still in the ground in Wales.

Of course, the way Cadfael sees it, why can’t the bones of St Winifred work their magic from wherever they are? I mean, if it truly is magic — the work of God — what does proximity have to do with it? But these are the kind of enlightenment forms of thinking that do stick out in a story about 12th century England. Still: I recommend the films. They are great fun.

Jonathan Bernstein on Substance in GOP Debate

Jonathan BernsteinThe circus was not in town. No personal insults, no demeaning taunts, no candidate bragging about his… well, you know. Instead, thanks in part to some solid questioning from Jake Tapper and CNN’s other moderators and a strategic recalibration from Marco Rubio after his collapse in recent primaries and caucuses, we had what passes for a serious policy debate on the Republican side.

It was not impressive…

They weren’t all terrible all the time. Rubio and Kasich do know their stuff in several policy areas, and Cruz actually did give a solid defense of international trade. But over and over, there’s just very little substance on the stage. For a major political party’s candidates for president of the US, it’s a sorry show, even if they did stay out of the gutter this time.

—Jonathan Bernstein
Posers on Parade as Republican Debate Veers Toward Substance

Both Sides Do It: Paul Krugman Included

Paul Krugman - Both Sides Do It!A major complaint of liberals about mainstream news coverage is that it falls into a “Both sides do it!” narrative. So we see reporting like, “The Republican Party has stated that they will not consider any Obama replacement for Justice Scalia. But it is also true that Democrats have blocked Supreme Court nominations in the past.” While everything said there is true, it creates an equivalence that is false. In fact, blocking a nominee is categorically different from blocking all nominees. One pundit who has done a great job of calling out this kind of nonsense is Paul Krugman.

But the reason that false equivalence continues on, despite its obvious intellectual dishonesty, is that those who use it actually believe it. And Krugman is aware of this. He’s written about it many times. And it is widely understood. The news industry is filled with people who are committed to the idea that the Democrats and the Republicans are equal and opposite — by definition. These are people for whom it is easy to say, “Both sides do it!” And this is because they don’t see themselves on either side. They see themselves in the “sensible center,” where they are unbiased — just telling the facts.

Both Sides Do It!

So it was interesting to see yesterday that Paul Krugman is having his own “Both sides do it!” moment. He wrote, Trade and Tribulation. In it he argues that freer trade has largely been a good thing and that we would all be richer if only the political landscape were different. Well, I’ve been arguing the same thing for years. That is pretty much what I wrote in my poem and it’s what I’ve said many other times, like last year, No Trade Deals Until Our Economy Is Fixed. My point is that I don’t care what great things trade deals will bring if the great things aren’t shared.

Donate to Sanders!Krugman is making more or less the same argument, but being part of the power elite, it doesn’t have the kind of urgency that it does to, say, Bernie Sanders supporters. But I’m glad to hear Krugman say, “The elite case for ever-freer trade, the one that the public hears, is largely a scam.” But who are the presidential candidates who are saying this? Well: Sanders and Trump. But they also think that things like NAFTA were bad, which Krugman apparently disagrees about. I don’t know why. The same political system that makes trade deals today a bad idea made them a bad idea in the 1990s.

But there were only two people mentioned by name in the piece: Sanders and Trump. Krugman mentioned Trump’s continued use of Chinese currency manipulation. According to Krugman this just isn’t happening, but as Dean Baker pointed out, “China’s stock of reserves is more than $2 trillion above what would be expected if it were just managing its reserves for standard purposes.” But regardless, Krugman thinks Trump is wrong, and he said so.

On the other side of wrong, Krugman points out, “Sanders is demagoguing the issue.” How did he do this? By making an overly broad attack on “Hillary Clinton’s free-trade policies.” Wait for it: on Twitter. So Krugman is involved in his own false equivalence. (Well, he actually spends a whole paragraph on Sanders and a single sentence on Trump; if it comes down to Trump vs Sanders, will Krugman make a protest vote?!) But I’m sure that Krugman doesn’t think he is involved in this “Both sides do it!” business. Because in this case, he is the one in the “sensible center.” It’s just that his sensible center seems to include the entirety of the Democratic and Republican establishments.

“Clinton Is Losing!” Hysteria

This is what happens to people when their hysteria gets the better of them. I wrote about this yesterday regarding Hillary Clinton herself. But does Krugman really disagree with Sanders? I don’t think so. If Krugman and Sanders sat down together, they would largely agree. I don’t think that Sanders is against freer trade when it benefits everyone. But trade agreements without strong unions who are intimately involved in the negotiations is madness.

But it doesn’t matter what the substance is. We all know that Donald Trump is a demagogue, so Krugman doesn’t even have to mention that. When Sanders’ rhetoric gets a touch wild, Krugman is there to point out that he too is a demagogue — never forget that Sanders supporters! Meanwhile, pay no attention Clinton demagoguing the Sandinistas on national television. Both sides do it! It’s just that Clinton isn’t on a “side.” And remarkably, Krugman finds himself on the same non-side!

Morning Music: Fenêtîks (Phonetics)

Fenêtîks (Phonetics)I am sad to report that the second Jules and the Polar Bears album, Fenêtîks (Phonetics) is not as good as its predecessor. It’s not Jules Shear. The songs are as great as ever. I’m sure the record company went to the band and said, “The first album didn’t sell well, so let’s add a bunch of synthesizers!” Not that they needed the push. A very young Stephen Hague was just waiting to do that. And clearly, Shear himself was kind of clueless about production. But he did learn that less is more, and it isn’t surprising that he went on to be one of the main people behind MTV Unplugged.

Another problem is throughout Fenêtîks (Phonetics), there just seems to be too much production. And that is just a problem when you the core of band is one of the greatest living songwriters. So I’m going to offer up a song that actually sounds more typical of Got No Breeding, “Fate.” There are some others that are strong — or at least that’s how I remember them. But not much off this album is available on the internet. So we are stuck with “Fate.” And that isn’t bad, because the song really does work.

The melody is attractive, if perhaps too forceful. And the lyrics are typically clever, with things like, “You cut off your nerves just to spite your love.” Check it out.

Anniversary Post: Girl Scouts of the USA

Juliette Gordon Low With Early Girl ScoutsOn this day in 1912, the Girl Scouts of the USA were formed — although they were then called Girl Guides. Let me just start by saying how much I love that. They should have been called, “Girls Taking Charge.” We could use a lot more of that. Not to mention cookies, but I digress.

For a long time, I thought that the Girl Scouts were just the female equivalents of the Boy Scouts. But then I learned otherwise. Since 2011, they have been open to transgender girls. Meanwhile, the Boy Scouts will fight tooth and nail to avoid entering even the 20th century. You can find out some of my thoughts on the Nazi Youth Boy Scouts in, Why Boy Scouts Have Always Bothered Me. But I have a different opinion of the Girl Scouts.

The thing is, I wish it weren’t done in terms of gender. When I was a boy, I heard about what the Boy Scouts were doing and what the Girl Scouts were doing. And not surprisingly, what the Girl Scouts were doing sounded like more fun. (I’m probably remembering the Cub Scouts and the Camp Fire Girls — I’m not that clear about all the distinctions.)

Of course, I’ve always preferred to hang out with the girls. I don’t wish to hammer this to death (and after all these years, if it isn’t dead, it never will be), but so much of male culture is based on the idea of proving that you aren’t gay that I’m not interested. Would it be asking so much for male culture to accept that there are different kinds of men — far removed from sexual orientation. If other men have hangups and secretly think that they are gay, they really should get some help with that. But barring that: just stop acting like idiots!

Here’s a funny thing: the two most clearly healthy heterosexual men I’ve ever known — men who love women and are loved in return — are both kind of, well, effeminate. I’m not saying that typically masculine men are latent homosexuals; I’m just saying that they are boring. Really boring. Deadly boring. Like: I’m in fear of life boring.

Women don’t tend to have this problem. This isn’t to say that women are perfect. But it isn’t surprising that the Boy Scouts are a dysfunctional organization that teachers noxious lessons to boys and the Girl Scouts is mostly a force for good — generally a group that doesn’t look back on itself a generation and cringe. There’s a lot to be said for that.

Afterword: Girl Scouts and Women in General

Let me note that it is always a bad idea to leave men alone. We really need women around to humanize us. Otherwise, we don’t behave well. As Donald Trump would say, “Really! It’s true!”

Hillary Clinton Is Reactive In a Very Bad Way

Hillary ClintonI would say that overall, Jonathan Bernstein has been very supportive of Hillary Clinton. But he’s also a political scientist, and he tries to be honest. He was very honest after Wednesday, The Test Clinton Failed in the Florida Debate. He’s not saying that she did badly in the debate. I think we can all agree that Hillary Clinton is rather good at this debating business — which isn’t to say perfect, as her answers about her ties to Wall Street always strike me as hollow and tone deaf. But the question of the night was: why did Clinton come in with guns blazing?

I keep coming back to this: Hillary Clinton is way ahead. I would be far beyond shocked if my man Bernie Sanders were able to catch her — even with confirmed delegates. Now how can this be that I know this but somehow Clinton doesn’t? I mean, regardless of Sanders doing astonishingly well in Michigan, Clinton still won the day — increasing her lead in the only area that matters: delegates. And I very much fear that Bernstein is right that instead of looking at the facts, she looked at the Very Serious Idiots, “It’s not to her credit that she allowed the pundits’ agenda to distract her from her own goals.”

The big question is: will she be so bad at this stuff once president? Is she just going to listen to what they are saying in The Washington Post are react to that?

One month ago, I wrote about this, Could Sanders Win? Why Is Clinton Whining?! People want to pass this off as the result of 2008 when Obama came out of nowhere to beat her. But this is the same way that Clinton behaved in 2008. Again, Bernstein noted, “One of Barack Obama’s strengths in the 2008 campaign was his willingness to sacrifice a news cycle in favor of larger objectives.” It has never been a strength of anyone in the Clinton firmament. And in some cases, it’s the correct way to be as we have seen with the Clintons on a number of occasions.

But it isn’t here! I think Sanders has given Clinton a pass on a lot of issues. (It’s telling that the vast majority of criticisms of Sanders are actually criticisms of Sanders supporters on Twitter.) Hillary Clinton now attacks Sanders for supporting the Sandinistas, as if — What?! — he was supposed to support the Contras? Give me a break. I’ve backed away from this campaign, but it’s this kind of nonsense that makes me want to run over and give some more money to Sanders (which I will do as soon as this article is in the can).

Hillary Clinton Is Starting to Sound Conservative

And speaking of stupid, Hillary Clinton made the standard conservative argument about TARP, “It was all paid back! It didn’t cost the people anything!” There is this thing called an opportunity cost. The government loaned a bunch of money to the banks at below prevailing interest rates. They could have loaned that money to normal people at normal interest rates and made more. So it did indeed cost the people money.

What’s more, it gave that money at exactly the time that no one else would have given it. As Dean Baker wrote back in 2010, “Without TARP and the other government bailout programs, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, and many other large banks would have gone bankrupt.” Bankrupt. This canned response makes me think that I’ve been wrong to think that Hillary does actually get it and is just a pragmatist. She seems truly not to get it.

Clinton’s Listening to the Wrong People

But it is even more concerning that she felt she had to come in and hammer away on Sanders, when objectively, she doesn’t. And then she was distinctly disingenuous at times (for example, this nonsense about the second bailout that Sanders voted against). And then she’s making silly arguments against Sanders about Latin American politics few people even remember and even sillier arguments for Goldman Sachs and other banks that she should know do not play to her strengths.

The big question is: will she be so bad at this stuff once president? Is she just going to listen to what they are saying in The Washington Post and react to that? If there’s something like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, I can now see clearly another unnecessary war because she couldn’t possibly wait two days or she wouldn’t “win the week” on The McLaughlin Group. It’s very concerning. And should be especially so for Hillary Clinton supporters.

Opera and the Habanera From Carmen

Opera Star Anna Caterina Antonacci as CarmenSince our hacker friend Dzz screwed up both our morning posts yesterday, I thought we would take a very quick break from Jules Shear and talk briefly about opera. I understand: pretty much no one I know likes opera. I used to be the same way. But when I was still in high school, I had a piano teacher. He was also a singer, and he taught singing to some of the talented young people in the area. He was not a very pleasant man — he terrified me. But one day he told me that a student of his was going be giving a recital at the local college. So I went.

The singer was a soprano — perhaps 19 years old. And she was accompanied by my teacher on the piano. And I was blown away. It was only then that I heard the human voice as a musical instrument and not just something for communicating with. So I enjoyed the performance the same way I would have enjoyed a violin recital. And ever since then, I’ve taken it for granted that opera is beautiful and worthy. And it still shocks me to hear someone say, “I don’t like opera.” To me, that sounds like, “I don’t like music.”

But in addition, opera is theater. I remember reading something that Mozart had written about a performance of Hamlet. And he nailed everything that was wrong in the play. The greatest opera composers were also great theater technicians. I thought about this because this morning, I was listening to Carmen. I came upon the following clip from the Royal Opera House production of it. It is, arguably, the most famous song from Carmen, the “Habanera” or “Love Is a Rebellious Bird.” (It’s hard to say, because the music from Carmen is incredibly well known, and you probably could sing at least five of its main melodies.)

This production is everything that opera can be — and indeed very often is these days. Broadway musicals try to do this kind of stuff and almost always fail miserably by comparison. You can well imagine that a man would desert the army and his bride for Anna Caterina Antonacci in this short scene. I remember a line from Amadeus, “Only opera can do this!” I quite agree.

Opera Afterword

Think about this: every one in that chorus is an incredibly good — even great — singer. That kind of thing always amazes me. The talent of humanity is amazing.

Anniversary Post: Battle of Castagnaro

War Made Easy - Battle of CastagnaroBecause of our good friend 13-year-old porch pisser Dzz, we had no anniversary post yesterday, so let me double up. Yesterday in 241 BC, the Roman Republic defeated Carthage at the Battle of the Aegates Islands — thus ending the First Punic War (thus named because it wasn’t the last — there were three of them). And then, on this day in 1387, Padua defeated Verona at the Battle of Castagnaro. None of it really matters to me in any personal way. I could do military battles every day for ten years without repeating myself. There’s always a war, always a battle.

What stuns me is that roughly 10,000 years ago, humans settled down and invented agriculture. In many ways, since that time, we have become far more civilized. Yet the wars just keep on coming. The United States is now on a constant military campaign. It’s absurd to talk about Congress declaring war because we don’t start wars; we just have a single war, it is global, and it will never end — at least until the American empire falls (which is coming).

But all this time! Thousands of years and we keep thinking that war is the way to solve our problems. And it always turns out the same. People think wars are a good idea to start with and then afterward, it is never clear what everyone was in such a big rush for? I’m very fond of Norman Soloman’s documentary, War Made Easy. The subtitle of it is, “How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” That really is what it’s all about. In general, I am convinced that people just want to go to their jobs, raise their kids, have the occasional barbecue, and that’s about it. But there are always powerful people around who have “bigger” ideas.

The following table from War Made Easy is sobering:

Civilian Casualties

If you want to put it in the most basic of terms: it seems that war is becoming more dangerous for children. You would think after all these thousands of years, we would have figured out how not to fight wars. But maybe it is just too basic. I do think of humans as just machines. What are we to do but what we are programmed for? So the Battle of Castagnaro or the Battle of the Aegates Islands. It doesn’t matter. Humans just like to kill each other.

Work Replaced by Universal Basic Income: Probably Not

Erik LoomisYou know, this is fine so far as it goes — maybe UBI could be some sort of solution. But it’s pretty ridiculous to me as well. What is far more likely to happen is what is already happening — massive income inequality, permanent poverty for many, a downwardly mobile middle class, and the rise of candidates like Donald Trump able to tap into the deep discontent and anger this all causes, channeling that anger away from capitalism and toward black and brown people. The only possible thing UBI as going for it as a realistic policy is that since it is truly universal in theory, even white people might use it. But since that’s not really the intent — it’s a baseline, to a topline, what it really means almost certainly is that it will be seen by the public as another welfare program disconnected from work where the taxpaying white people are subsidizing people of color. Never mind the reality of this where millions of whites would also benefit.

It also totally ignores the centrality of work to American political culture. I know that some disagree with me that work is a fundamental tenet of human existence and that it is something we need, but I maintain that position. While theoretically one could then have their UBI and then go into some hipster logging operation where they look really cool and disheveled in all the right ways while sustainably logging or something like this, a lot of people are going to be lost without some kind of work. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, this is a nation that flatly rejects any kind of economic program that does not include work. That’s a big part of the reason Social Security has always been popular, because you work and pay into it and then get paid back. And that’s a huge reason for the attacks on AFDC that culminated in the Clinton-signed welfare gutting bill, because the lack of work is unacceptable to American political life, especially when the recipients of that welfare are poor and therefore probably black.

—Eric Loomis
UBI and Automation

A Primer on Free Trade In Ten Rhyming Verses

Fairy Tale Castle: the Free Trade DreamThe economists came saying,
“Free trade it is good!”
The world will be rich
If only we would.
And oh did we would
And again and again
‘Til just as they said
We had caught a tailwind.

The economy grew
Look at GDP!
It was right in the numbers
For all seekers to see.
But for all of the gain —
The impressive growth rate,
The people just saw
Their wages stagnate.

The people were angry
They thought they’d be rich
The economist’s notions
Must have had a glitch
But it didn’t seem likely
That this could quite be
Do tent cities trump
Higher GDP?!

The problem was where
Economists live
A fairy tale place
Where no one gets the shiv.
So there was more money
In theory at least
Offsetting mass famine
Were much bigger feasts.

It seems when the money
Began rolling in
The rich didn’t share
Greed was not a sin.
In fact it was only
How we could be free
And if you don’t buy it
Look at GDP!

But when some poor souls
Looked at all the growth
It didn’t live up to
Economists’ boasts.
They stepped back and thought,
At the numbers they stared:
The growth it is higher
When wealth’s better shared!

Workers making coats
Competed worldwide
But doctors and lawyers
They got a free ride.
So as worker wages
Sat stuck in the dirt
The cost of a check-up
Continued to spurt.

Who makes the trade deals
Is it workers like you?
Or lawyers and bankers
And all that rich crew?
It’s free trade for you
But never for them
They may all be evil
But aren’t quite that dim.

Still maybe they aren’t
Quite as smart as they think
They’d likely be richer
If their moral’s didn’t stink
But they wouldn’t be richer
In a relative way
They wouldn’t be able
To point and to bray.

So think of this next time
Economists say,
“We’ll all become rich
One bright shining day!”
It might be in theory
But never for real
The rich spend their time
Finding new things to steal.

Update

I wrote this before I read Krugman’s post, A Protectionist Moment? It’s actually the strongest he’s ever come out against TPP. He actually says that free trade is now mostly a scam. Sadly, the single worst thing I can say about Hillary Clinton is that I feel certain that she will reverse herself on the TPP and decide that acceptable changes have been made and that she can support it. I hope not. But her careful statements about it don’t inspire confidence.