Greek voted no to the austerity plan that the Troika was forcing on it. I’m a little surprised that it went down to such a stunning defeat, “Greeks voted by more than 60% to 40% in support of the prime minister.” This is much different from what the polls showed, which was that it was a tight race and that the margin would be razor thin. I’m thinking that the polling was skewed toward the rich. But it hardly matters. This is a good result, even for those who thought Greek should agree to decades more of crushing austerity. At least the current Greek government has a mandate.

Of course, I’m glad for the no vote because I think it was the right decision on the merits. I discussed this earlier today, The Shortsighted Viciousness of the Greek Haters. And it is the right decision in so many ways. But I think the most important way is that the no vote was a vote for democracy. If the Greeks had voted yes, they would have been admitting that democracy doesn’t exist. Or at least that democracy doesn’t exist if the Troika doesn’t like the government. Of course, this isn’t over. And the Troika will now do everything it can to make the Greek people regret this vote.

But we should be clear about what cannot be done. On Friday, James Galbraith wrote, Nine Myths About the Greek Crisis. His first myth was, “The referendum is about the Euro.” He noted that a lot of people had been talking about how a yes vote would make Greece exit the euro and the EU. Syriza — the Greek government — has always maintained that it is committed to both. It has been those who want to control Greece that have made claims otherwise. As Galbraith noted, “And legally, according to the treaties, Greece cannot be expelled from either.”

That doesn’t mean that the Troika won’t do everything it can to push Greece out of the euro. The European Central Bank (ECB) has already pursued policies designed to bully the country. In February, it stopped direct funding of Greek banks, only providing so called emergency liquidity — which was very expensive. And then a couple weeks ago — after Syriza backed out the negotiations and called for a referendum — the ECB capped support causing a bank run requiring the initiation of capital controls. It’s only going to get worse.

I must admit to being confused as to where things go from here. What I assume will happen is that the Troika — and really, pretty much all of Europe — will see this referendum as just another example of how terrible Greece is. And this will lead to the Troika doing everything in its power to harm the country. And it may just get to the point where Greece has no practical alternative to leaving the euro. I certainly think that’s the best thing for Greece in the long run. But it’s going to be very difficult — and dangerous — in the short term. I wish them the best. And I certainly hope that the Troika comes to be seen widely for the brutal and incompetent minions of the power elite that they have shown themselves to be over the last five years.

Today is the Greek referendum. Will the people be so afraid of the oligarchs that they will vote to accept savage austerity, aimed at the bottom of their economy? In a fundamental sense, it doesn’t matter. Even if the people vote “no” — as I think they should — it will not be an overwhelming victory. As in the United States, apparently, half the people in Greece still think the best thing is to allow the power elite to bash in their heads with ball-peen hammers. And as I’ve noted many times before, people are very risk adverse. Doing what all the “smart” powerful people want them to do is a natural response, even if the last five years of failure of the “smart” people ought to give cause for reflection.

But I don’t blame the Greek people. And I’m not really very interested in talking about them. I am interested in talking about the German people — and more specifically, the power elite who have caused the German people (and many others besides) to think of Greece as a badly behaving child. It reminds me of something that Paul Krugman used to say all the time, “Economics is not a morality play.” It doesn’t matter what Greece did in the past, there is a situation today. And regardless of how badly Greece behaved in the past, even if you did think that it needed to be punished, wouldn’t the last five years have been enough? Isn’t it time to move on?

Of course, the issue isn’t about “morality” for the power elite. That’s just what they use to make the German people puff themselves up as the paragons of virtue while looking down at naughty Greece. The power elite are involved in economic engineering. They are trying to turn Greece into the kind of “free market” dystopia that will allow them to take an ever larger fraction of the European economy. And that makes them just like the power elite here at home.

Right now, Syriza controls the government in Greece. The Troika and the power elite that it represents, could have decided to make the best of that situation. But instead, it set about destroying the government — even going to the extent of not allowing Syriza to save face after it had given in to every conceivable demand — totally repudiating everything it was elected to do. And let’s suppose that the power elite get what they want. Suppose that the Greek people vote for the austerity. It will be the end of the current Greek government. And it will send a powerful message to people in struggling euro countries.

But what will that message be? The power elite think that message will be that that their will is supreme and that the people should never forget that democracy is a myth and that the power elite will crush them should they ever vote to do what the people actually want. That might be the immediate effect. But in a year, a month, even a day, people are going to start thinking differently. People are going to conclude that they can’t depend upon those nice people on the left, so maybe they should give those strong people on the right a look.

A big part of the EU project was to eliminate the possibility of another world war. But I guess no one thought that whole thing through. The EU has provide the main belligerent of both the world wars — Germany — with unrivaled political power due to its economic power. I’ve watched in amazement over the last five years as Germany has abused its power. If Greece turns into a fascist state — or just a failed state — it will be because of the power elite of Europe. But the German people are not worried about the shortsighted greed of the power elite; they are worried about teaching the Greek people a lesson.

Regardless of what happens, it is going to be a bumpy ride. Greece should have left the euro zone five years ago. The Germans — and to be honest, the whole of Europe — was never going to allow the Greek economy to heal.

I was over on No More Mister Nice Blog the other day, and I learned, Some of Ted Nugent’s Best Friends Are Illegal Bear-Penis Traffickers, Allegedly. It’s all about that strange little man and his hunting activities. The main thing involving Nugent dates back to 2009 when he was hunting black bears with a bow up in Alaska. But he apparently isn’t that good. He hit one, but it only wounded the bear, who ran away. Undeterred, Nugent found another bear four days later, which he shot and killed. This was illegal because once he wounded the first bear, his license was for that bear alone. He had no license to kill the second bear.

I’m not a vegetarian, so I certainly understand that animals die for the sake of my life. Still, I’ve always found “pleasure” hunting to be awful. Killing another animal shouldn’t be something one takes pleasure in. But it isn’t part of my culture and I don’t dismiss the practice altogether. I do, however, think that whatever thrill or joy one gets out of it should go along with a great deal of seriousness. To give you some idea of where I’m coming from, I will not swat a fly if I can’t get a clean hit. I don’t wish to be cruel to a house fly and I would hope that hunters would feel the same way about their quarry.

What Nugent seems to have done strikes me as especially vile. If you wound a black bear, you should move heaven and earth to track it down and end its suffering. I often wonder if house flies have the same connection to pain that I do. But there is no doubt that a black bear does. Now according to Nugent’s lawyer, Wayne Anthony Ross, the arrow just grazed the bear. He said, “They’ve got apparently some crazy law in Southeast that says if you even touch an animal with an arrow, it becomes your animal… [Nugent] looked to see if he had hit it and didn’t believe that he’d hit it fatally.”

So Nugent’s arrow just “grazed” the bear. They’ve got a law that if you “touch an animal” it’s yours. The lawyer goes on and on to indicate that it was nothing big. But there are problems. There was blood at the site. I assume the arrow was still in the bear because no mention was made of finding it, which would have been exculpatory. But there was no trail of blood, which might be a sign that the the bear was moving fast — you know, adrenaline and all. And Nugent and his “buddies” looked for the bear but didn’t find it. Ross’ conclusion: “The bear didn’t die.” My conclusion: Nugent and his “buddies” aren’t good trackers and they didn’t care enough to track the bear anyway.

The form of hunting that Ted “real man” Nugent takes part in is pathetic anyway. They set up a “bait station” and wait for the bears to come by and then kill them. Now I see this as totally reasonable for those people who are hunting out of need. But for the sport hunter, it doesn’t seem very sporting. It sounds to me like a bunch of guys just sitting around drinking beer waiting for animals to be prone and then blowing them away. It’s about as sporting as the buffalo shoot in Bless the Beasts and Children.

For Nugent, apparently, the whole incident is about the law. His lawyer claimed, “He only took one bear.” But it really should be about his incompetence causing a fellow mammal to suffer. All in the name of Ted Nugent feeling like a real man to make up for the fact that he refused to go to war when he had the chance. It’s just pathetic and horrible.

Paul Waldman wrote a useful little article over at The Week, How to Stay Abreast of 2016 Campaign Coverage Without Becoming an Idiot. It is presented as a list of ten rules that we all ought to follow, but there is cross over. It’s worth thinking about.

His first rule is, “It’s OK to care about the horse race, but it should be consumed in moderation.” It’s good advice, but a practical impossibility. Even I get dragged into it, and I really don’t much care about the horse race. The problem from my perspective is that horse race coverage focuses on the day to day race. And this is usually meaningless. Thinking back to the 1988 presidential election, most people think of a couple of bad Dukakis moments: his horrible response to the “What if Kitty were raped and murdered?” question, and the “tank ride” photo op. Also, there was the Willie Horton ad. But neither of these had anything to do with Dukakis’ defeat; the economic fundamentals were overwhelmingly in Bush’s favor. So Bush won. The rest was interesting, but irrelevant.

Waldman’s next two rules deal with exactly these issues: “Ignore all ‘gaffe’ coverage” and “Remember that not everything is consequential.” I’ve already seen this during the election so far. I understand that Hillary Clinton’s handling of her email while Secretary of State drives conservatives crazy. They think it plays into a wider narrative about her trustworthiness — or lack thereof. But no one cares. Unless it turns out that she confessed to killing Vince Foster in one of the email messages, it won’t mean a thing. Similarly, Jeb Bush’s behavior regarding Terri Schiavo makes him unfit for elected office, if you ask me. But no one cares.

The fourth rule is really important apart from the campaign, “Pay close attention to the candidates’ promises.” This goes along with his sixth rule, “Believe that candidates can be sincere.” This is something that constantly annoys me. I think of myself as a fairly cynical person. But my cynicism is not automatic and most definitely not casual. Too many people use cynicism to justify supporting people and policies they can’t otherwise justify. I run into this in arguments with conservatives all the time: when their arguments become untenable, they throw up their hands and announce, “Well, they’re all crooks!” No they aren’t. And I know that conservatives who say this will not then choose not to vote; they will continue to vote with their “guts” — and that means they will vote for the conservative. But I also see a lot of casual cynicism among liberals. This bothers me even more, because it does cause liberals to just not vote. It was the whole Tweedledum and Tweedledee narrative that brought us President George W Bush.

In addition to this, it is well established that presidents really do follow through on their campaign promises. People have a tendency to listen closely to campaigns but then tune out after the new president starts to work. So they assume the candidates didn’t even try to follow through. But they do. What’s more, they usually succeed with regard to many of their promises. So believe candidates when they make promises.

Four of Waldman’s rules are really just about paying attention what’s really going on in campaigns instead of the grand narratives that the media so love to create. He noted that changing positions are important in what they say about the changing parties — not anything about the candidates being unstable or “flip-floppers.” Judge the candidates’ private lives on how they would affect their presidencies. Pay attention to how candidates plan to affect their goals. With regard to this, Waldman noted, “If they’re saying they’ll amend the Constitution for some reason, don’t forget that actually, they won’t.” And above all, “Keep asking, ‘What does this mean for the next presidency?'”

But it is Waldman’s last rule that is the most important, “If your usual news sources suck, look around for some others.” I would put it differently, “Your usual news sources do suck!” That’s true of 99% of Americans. I recommend Democracy Now! and Al Jazeera America. The latter of these is especially good in being a network — but one that has a much greater focus on political substance than just about any other news network. Check our Reed Richardson’s article on the network, Can Al Jazeera America Save Cable News?

I think that Paul Waldman’s rules are very good. They can be boiled down to a single rule: stay focused on reality. But that makes the rules fundamentally liberal — in a modern American context. Because I really believe that all the Republican Party has to offer the people is an outlet for their fear and resentment. When a conservative tells me they take politics seriously, I know that the next thing out of their mouths will be some arcane subject only discussed deep in the bowels of conservative media: Solyndra or Benghazi or Jade Helm. On the right, being serious about politics means being a gnostic: having special knowledge that “they don’t want you to know about.” So obviously, Waldman is part of the liberal media conspiracy to get you to think about reality instead of the far more interesting “hidden reality.”

But just imagine if instead of new consumers following Waldman’s rules, the news providers did so. They won’t. That’s because news is a business. In a capitalism, businesses do whatever maximizes profits. So journalists live with great cognitive dissonance: they want to inform, but they know that they are paid to construct narratives and produce content to justify them. Doing better work would end with them working for less money, not more. So we can depend upon more coverage like we’ve gotten before: Al Gore exaggerates and George W Bush is a regular guy and Obama is an elitist and John McCain is a maverick. On a personal level, it really will help to follow Waldman’s rules. On a national level, it is business as usual. Yes: we are doomed.

Almost from the first day of Obama’s presidency, I began seeing a really offensive bumper sticker, “So how do you like Obama now?” My reaction even at the time was, “I’m fine with him.” But my problem with the bumper sticker has always been that it was presumptuous. The implication was that Obama promised something that he hadn’t delivered. Or even more: that supporters of the president were duped by him. What it really says is, “I told you so!” But it isn’t clear what the reader is supposed to have been told. What’s really going on is that the conservative with the bumper sticker didn’t like Obama before and doesn’t like him now. There’s a shocker!

But recently, I’ve been thinking more about the “bait and switch” message of the bumper sticker. I’ve looked. There don’t appear to have been any bumper stickers that said, “So how do you like Bush now?” The only thing I’ve found is another bumper sticker that came out a bit later; it features an image of Bush with the text, “How do you like me now?” So there was a sense among conservatives that Obama had in fact conned the American people. And now they must know.

I’m not completely against that reading: I think that the nation as a whole (including Obama) conned itself into thinking that the Republicans were just like the rest of us and that they wanted what was best for the country. The only way that Obama misled the country was by claiming that he would usher in a post-partisan era. Well, he tried — far harder than was reasonable. But that was a pretty vague notion to start with. And regardless, that is not what conservatives were thinking of when they put these lame bumper stickers on their SUVs. They were thinking of policy. In general, they were not upset because Obama didn’t do what he said he would do but rather because he did almost exactly what he said he would do.

But now this is linked in my mind to Scott Walker. What do the voters of Wisconsin think of Walker now? Well, they aren’t as keen on him as they once were. And in that case, they have a reasonably good case: Walker did deceive them. Rather than telling the truth when faced with the subject of Wisconsin becoming a “right to work” state, Walker always brushed it aside claiming that it wasn’t in the realm of possibilities. When it was, he couldn’t get to his pen fast enough to sign it.

I’ve been critical of the people of Wisconsin — and other states as well. Anyone who pays attention to politics should have known what Scott Walker was up to. It wasn’t just his hedging on the “right to work” issue. Everything he had done in his four years as governor indicated that he would do absolutely anything he could to destroy unions. Politicians are usually pretty clear about what they intend to do. And when they won’t answer a question, it means they intend to do what is unpopular.

But most people are busy just trying to make ends meet. So they can be forgiven for not noticing some of the subtleties of politics. Obama did not intend to deceive. But clearly Scott Walker did. In fact, pretty much any Republican politician will intentionally deceive — unless they are in an area that is overwhelmingly Republican. That’s because (for the umpteenth time), Republican policies are unpopular. So it makes a lot more sense to ask voters what they think of Republicans after they have betrayed their voters.