Morning Music: I Felt Like a Gringo

I Felt Like a GringoThe Fourth of July always makes me think of the Minutemen’s song “I Felt Like a Gringo.” It tells the (true) story of the band taking a day trip down to Mexico on 4 July 1982. It ends with the line, “Why’d I spend the fourth in someone else’s country?”

I guess that’s why I don’t much go in for this holiday. I feel like an outsider. I think that’s a lot of my desire to live in Mexico: if I must feel like an outsider, I might as well be one.

Anyway, “I Felt Like a Gringo” was first released on the EP, Buzz or Howl Under the Influence of Heat. It was the first Minutemen album I bought. Less than three years later, D Boon would be dead in a tragic car accident, and one of the best bands ever was finished.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone!

Got a ton of white boy guilt, that’s my problem,
Obstacle of joy, one reason to use some drugs.
Slept on a Mexican beach — slept in trash
American trash — thinking too much can ruin a good time.

I asked a Mexican who ran a bar for Americans
“Who won,” I said, “The election?”
He laughed, I felt like a gringo.
They played a song and they had some fun with us.

Why can’t you buy a good time?
Why are there soldiers in the street?

Why’d I spend the fourth in someone else’s country?

Clara Shortridge Foltz’s Smack Down

Clara Shortridge FoltzCounsel tells you that I am a woman. I wonder that the planets did not stand still in their course and rivers cease to run to the sea at the announcement of this startling discovery. I am amazed that His Honor did not faint upon the bench and that you gentlemen of the jury have survived this awful shock to your nervous systems.

Let me kindly admonish the learned counsel that in a matter of great pith and moment like this he should break the news gently and not plunge such an original thought upon an unprepared jury. A few more such thoughtless revelations and your nervous forces will be destroyed and your reason dethroned. Counsel should beware how he heedlessly enlightens an unprepared jury on such a vital topic.

Again he tells you that I am a woman. By a natural antithesis I presume he would have you infer that he is not. I suppose he wants me to tell you that he is a man and he takes this hurried opportunity and adroit method of testifying to the fact. Though nobody has yet denied it, he seems to be in a fever of anxiety to emphasize that he is a man. I don’t know why he should make such unseemly haste in announcing it…

I am that formidable and terrifying object known as a woman — while he is only a poor, helpless, defenseless man, and he wants you to take pity on him and give him a verdict in this case. I sympathize with counsel in his unhappy condition. True, the world is open to him. He is the peer of all men — he can aspire to the highest offices, he can carry a torch over our streets during a political campaign and sell his vote for a dollar and half on election day, and yet he isn’t satisfied. Like Alexander, who wanted more worlds to conquer, he wants verdicts, and in order to awaken your sympathy for him, he tells you that I am a woman and he is only a man.

—Clara Shortridge Foltz, 1890
(Quote is in response to attorney Thetas Stonehill noting that she was a woman.)
On The Art of The Smack-Down

A Message to Us All: 2016 Democratic Party Platform

2016 Democratic Party PlatformFriday brought exciting news! The 2016 Democratic Party Platform (PDF) was released to the collective yawn of everyone not obsessed with these kinds of things. So naturally, Frank told me to write about it because “it would be interesting.” The wreckage of my eyes due to the draft watermark was a special bonus just for me.

There has been quite a bit of ranting in the press over the supposed two sides (Clinton and Sanders) and the disagreements on various parts of the platform. But I don’t want to get into those kinds of fights on this blog as it is an oasis of calm compared to the rest of the internet. So I will just go over the highlights of the document.

Issue Number One: Economics

The primacy of economics is crystal clear in the 2016 Democratic Party Platform. The first two sections (after the standard preamble, “this is who we are” opening) were dedicated to economics. Although even that understates its importance, because the following two sections are also primarily interested in economics.

The section on the minimum wage and unions was artfully done, in my opinion. It blended the need for people to make a better wage ($15 an hour) with the right to organize and collectively bargain. These two issues alone would fix many of the biggest problems we face.

Economic Fairness

After dealing with improving the economy and creating good jobs, the platform transitions into issues of economic fairness. These often ignored issues greatly impact women and their families. They include: lack of equal pay, paid leave, and proper wages for caregivers. This is actually a big deal.

Unfortunately it did not include specific language that covers what is needed to achieve equal pay: transparency in wages. This, along with vigorous backing of those who bring up pay disparities, is crucial. It is a very real and important issue.

I like that paid leave has become a major issue. And just as important is the treatment of caregivers. They need to be rewarded in the one way we seem to use to measure respect in this country: more money. If you don’t like income inequality, this is one of the ways to fight it.

Wall Street and Trade

The Democratic Party Platform includes a lot of details on how to reign in Wall Street. But it is clearly a very careful effort to balance the divergent views on how to handle the problem that is Wall Street.

And that isn’t the only place that acknowledges that there are some major disagreements on policy. Trade policy is another. The TPP is mention only once and very carefully. The word is that Obama didn’t want the platform to come out against it. It is important to acknowledge dissenters even if their exact wording isn’t adopted.

Social Security

There is language to strengthen Social Security. It discusses making high income earners pay more, but it doesn’t seem to be referring to the payroll tax cap. Instead, it states, “And we will make sure Social Security’s guaranteed benefits continue for generations to come by asking those at the top to pay more, and will achieve this goal by taxing some of the income of people above $250,000.” (The current cap on payroll taxes is less than half of that.) I give it a pass, however, since I think that is something that needs to be legislatively worked out and they do mention making the wealthy pay more.

What’s most interesting about this section of the Democratic Party Platform is how clear it is about maintaining Social Security. When Republicans talk about making the program stronger, they almost always mean that they want to cut benefits. They don’t put it that way. They say they want to cut cost-of-living adjustments. The Democrats explicitly say no. The Republicans want to raise the retirement age. The Democrats explicitly say no. Most important, the Democrats explicitly say that strengthening Social Security requires investing in it — not cutting it until it is a useless program.

Miscellaneous

Since 2006, the Republicans have been on a mission to kill the Constitutionally mandated US Postal Service. So it was very nice to see that the Democratic Party Platform included proposed language to turn a portion of the USPS into a community bank.

The platform has multiple planks detailing how to improve and repair our current failing infrastructure. It calls for a “major federal jobs program” to address this problem. It also calls for a “national infrastructure bank” to pay for “critical infrastructure improvements.” These are exceptionally good ideas.

Death Penalty

For the first time (as far as I can tell) the Democratic Party Platform staunchly opposes the death penalty. The last platform barely mentioned criminal justice and didn’t say much other than more care should be taken for the imposition of the death penalty. This is a pretty big deal since it is stating something that a lot of the members have believed for a long time.

Final Thoughts on the 2016 Democratic Party Platform

One thing I noticed early on is that it entirely ignores the Republican Party. Usually these things are filled with language like, “And this is how we are different from our main opponents.” This time, it only mentions Donald Trump as if the Republicans are completely irrelevant. Considering the current mess of the party? That might be true.

The Democratic Party Platform is long — almost 40 pages. Almost every issue that Democrats care about is addressed in it. As a result, I haven’t gone over every detail and make this long post even longer. But it’s worth reading in whole — or at least skimming for issues you care about. And enjoy the fact that no matter what, it will be better than Trump’s the Republican’s.

Glenn Greenwald on the Brazil Coup

Glenn GreenwaldJust think about what has happened when it comes to control over the world’s fifth most populous (and very oil-rich) country [Brazil]. The democratically elected president was impeached despite no allegations of personal corruption — by politicians who are knee-deep in bribery and kickback scandals. The primary pretext used to impeach her has just been debunked by the Senate’s own independent expert report. The corruption-plagued man they installed in her place — who currently has a 70 percent disapproval rating, and whom 60 percent of the country wants impeached — is now secretly meeting with the very judges whose supposed independence, credibility, and integrity were the prime argument against calling this a “coup,” all while he plots to save his bribery-enriched fellow party member. And while all this happens, they are blithely proceeding to impose a right-wing agenda of austerity and privatization that democracy would never allow.

—Glenn Greenwald
Major New Brazil Events Expose the Fraud of Dilma’s Impeachment

Why Donald Trump Will Be the Republican Nominee

Donald Trump: Republican NomineeScott Lemieux wrote a laugh-out-loud funny article, #NeverTrump: Never Stop #NeverTrumping. It’s about the newest anti-Trump effort. But unlike those loser attempts that came before, this one is really going to work because a lot of people you’ve heard of but who don’t actually have any power are involved in it. But I thought it might be a good time to discuss why Trump absolutely, positively will be the Republican nominee for president.

The truth is, the party can do whatever it wants to do. It can make anyone at all the Republican nominee. It can change the nomination rules to say that anyone is eligible except Donald Trump. And it could do a lot of other more subtle things that would accomplish the same thing. But the party won’t do that because the party would be crazy to do that.

Why Elites Don’t Want Trump as Republican Nominee

Don’t be fooled. The biggest thing against Trump that the Republican establishment has is that he’s going to lose. Him being on the ballot will cause some percentage of Republican voters to not even show up to vote. And that means they not only lose the White House, but a number of down-ballot races that they would otherwise have won. That’s a problem — no doubt about it.

Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that a big loss for Donald Trump will fix the Republican Party. The base will just say that the party didn’t back him. And the elites will just say that you’ve got to keep the bigotry as subtext.

But imagine if the Republican elite come in and say, “You silly Republicans don’t know what you’re doing; so here’s Paul Ryan to run for president!” Now, instead of “some percentage” of Republican voters not showing up to vote, you have a movement. they might show up to vote, just to write-in “Donald Trump.” And then they’ll leave without even looking at the down-ballot Republicans, because they are just part of a corrupt and anti-democratic system.

This is why Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for president. I can imagine what it must be like for long-time Republicans like Bill Kristol. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing. He must have known all this time that the people who were voting for his side weren’t doing it for the same reason. But still, what a shock to have that cognitive dissonance destroyed — and in such a public way! No, they didn’t care about your crazy notions of tax cuts for the rich or rebuilding the Middle East into a libertarian utopia. They just cared about sticking it to black, brown, and poor people.

What the Republican Party Really Is

But like it or not, that is the Republican Party. If it had to depend upon the “reasonable” Republicans like Bill Kristol, the party would get maybe 5% of the vote. The power of Republicanism is the power of hatred. Trump is great because he is the latest and greatest and most obvious example of this. Sure, Ronald Reagan was a bigot who started his campaign as the Republican nominee near where Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were murdered with a speech about states’ rights.

Wink!

Wink!

Wink!

But Trump would never be so subtle. Those civil rights advocates came down to Mississippi to make trouble and they got what they deserved! (Of course, Trump wouldn’t say that today; hating blacks explicitly just isn’t what you do; you hate Mexicans and Muslims instead.) And the people who find that kind of thing appealing are critical to the Republican Party.

Without Bigotry, the GOP Is a Regional Party

Even if you want to be really generous to the Republican Party and say that such people are only a third of the party (and I think it’s more like 80%), that would still make the Republicans a regional party — only competitive in the deepest of red states. And note: I said “competitive” not “dominant.”

Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that a big loss for Donald Trump will fix the Republican Party. The base will just say that the party didn’t back him. And the elites will just say that you’ve got to keep the bigotry as subtext. Nothing’s going to change in the Republican Party. If old school Republicans didn’t leave the party a decade ago, they aren’t going to leave it now.

But Trump will be the Republican presidential candidate. I am as certain of that as I am about what I had for breakfast this morning. And for the record: as usual, I had nothing for breakfast.

Who Cares About Istanbul — They’re Muslim

Erik LoomisI for one am shocked that when terrorists strike the Istanbul airport, there’s not an outpouring of grief and sympathy from the west. Where’s all my Facebook friends changing their image status to the Turkish flag like they did with the French flag after the Paris attacks? Where’s all the talks about the threat to the glorious Turkish civilization? Where’s the 24/7 news coverage? It’s almost as if these things only matter to Americans if they happen to other white countries! If it’s outside Europe or one of its white settler states, it’s just another thing happening to those people.

—Erik Loomis
Where’s the Empathy for Istanbul?

Why Yes, Samuel Alito Is the Most Evil Man on the Court

Justice AlitoAlito attempts to get around Smith through a kind of bait and switch. “A law that discriminates against religiously motivated conduct is not ‘neutral,'” Alito writes, and he tries to paint this law as one that singles out religious conduct — and religious conduct alone — for inferior treatment. “The [Washington State Board of Pharmacy] has specifically targeted religious objections,” Alito claims. “Upon issuing the regulations, the Board sent a guidance document to pharmacies warning that ‘[t]he rule does not allow a pharmacy to refer a patient to another pharmacy to avoid filling the prescription due to moral or ethical objections.'”

Did you catch what Alito did there? First, he complains that the state “specifically targeted religious objections.” Then he supports this claim by noting the Board’s warning that “the rule does not allow a pharmacy to refer a patient to another pharmacy to avoid filling the prescription due to moral or ethical objections.” But “moral and ethical” objections are an entirely different concept than “religious” objections. The implication of Alito’s opinion is that the only basis for a moral or ethical viewpoint is religious faith. But that is an offensive suggestion that redefines the words “moral” and “ethical” in an idiosyncratic way.

—Ian Millhiser
Justice Alito’s Bizarre And Offensive Attack On Atheists

Richard Seymour on Brexit

Richard SeymourThe racists have successfully articulated a broad anti-establishment sentiment — originating in class injuries, regional decline, postindustrial devastation, generational anxieties, etc — along bigoted, national chauvinist lines. The vote cannot be reduced to racism and nationalism — but that is the primary way in which it has been organised and recruited and directed, and that is the primary way in which the outcome will be experienced. That this was achieved so soon after the fascist murder of a center-left, pro-immigrant MP, is stunning in a way. It says something about the truculence of some of the chauvinism on display. It says something about the profound sense of loss which a reasserted “Britishness” is supposed to compensate for.

There is a lot of finger-wagging on Twitter and elsewhere about how the exit voters have just triggered economic self-destruction. House prices will fall, savings will be diminished, the pound will weaken, jobs will dry up. Well, that’s all true. Except. Not everyone benefits from the insane property market. Not everyone has savings. Not everyone benefits, as the City does, from a strong pound. Manufacturing has suffered from that priority. Large parts of the country have been hemorrhaging jobs for years. “The economy” is not a neutral terrain experienced by everyone in exactly the same way. And some of the votes, coming in core Labour areas, not necessarily strongly racist areas at first glance, indicate that. So people have voted against an economy that wasn’t working to their benefit. That doesn’t mean the practical alternative will not be worse. I suspect it will be a great deal worse.

—Richard Seymour
EU Referendum Vote

Man-Boy Scott Adams Humiliated by V-Neck Sweaters

Scott AdamsI have been vaguely aware that Scott Adams was a Men’s Rights Advocate (MRA). It doesn’t come as a complete surprise. The female characters in Dilbert are typical of the thinking of teenage boys, which is pretty typical of MRAs. But I did find his recent article amusing, The Humiliation of the American Male in 2016. Here’s the first line, “Perhaps the biggest unreported story of this presidential election is the humiliation of the American male.” There’s nothing quite so wonderful as the combination of self-pity and conspiracy theories coming from a super rich and famous guy.

His concern is the following commercial for Cascade Complete. You can check his own video of his television, if you like. It’s really hard to make out what’s going on in it, but you can see that Scott Adams sticks to the script by being a Fox News viewer. You can see the video below. But basically, it’s a guy that went to the store and bought an off-brand detergent for half the price. His wife tells him that they will now have to use twice as much detergent. So he has to go back to the store.

Update of Typical 1950s TV Commercial

It’s interesting just how clueless Scott Adams is. I mean, it’s the woman doing the dishes. What’s being presented here is something that is straight out of the 1950s. It’s the man that picks things up from the store when he’s around. It’s the woman who is managing the house. To me, it seems like a pretty boring commercial. The woman does seem kind of harsh and the guy does seem kind of like an idiot. But you really have to be a total wimp to look at this commercial and feel threatened. And to see it as indicative of “the humiliation of the American male” makes you even more pathetic than the character in the commercial.

The rest of Scott Adams’ blog post doesn’t make much sense. He seems to have something against the v-neck sweater. Now personally, I don’t like v-neck anything and I don’t like sweaters of any kind. So I’m with him on that. But he thinks that v-neck sweaters are “the uniform of a man who is owned by a woman.” So I guess the Cascade Complete commercial was a perfect MRA storm.

Humiliated Men Will Elect Trump!

Scott Adams then goes on to hint that Trump just might become president because of the “coming tsunami” of men who feel humiliated by women. Men don’t talk about it because, well, it’s humiliating, “But in the privacy of the polling booth, the men who don’t talk are free to act.” This is the language of the abused. But it is the language of the actually abused — not of whiny little man-boys like Scott Adams.

The problem with people like Scott Adams is that they have surrounded themselves with other man-boys who think exactly the same way. And far from being silent about their humiliations, they do little but jabber on about it. So they assume the rest of us men are quietly steaming about all this humiliation. But we don’t feel it. We get along just fine with women. We aren’t so insecure that we need them to constantly tell us how awesome we are.

Scott Adams is pathetic. I realizes that he just lets his id go and writes things that make no sense. But he’s been on the MRA subject long enough that I think we all know that regardless of the size of his penis, he’s ashamed of it. He ought to be ashamed — just not about that.

The Meaning of Hillary Clinton’s VP Pick

Brian BeutlerIf Clinton does select Warren, or another progressive, like Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, political junkies will undoubtedly interpret it as a strategic decision to keep movement progressives in the Democratic fold — or, in Brown’s case, to tighten the Democratic Party’s hold on a crucial swing state. But it would actually be an indication that Clinton approves of the party’s ideological drift since the end of her husband’s presidency, and wants her presidency to boost its momentum in that direction.

But the same logic will make progressive criticism stickier if she decides to elevate an establishment Democrat or a Clinton loyalist or someone else of whom, say, Wall Street would approve. (Virginia Senator Tim Kaine has been floated in this role.)

As she considers her options, Clinton is uniquely insulated from external pressure. Wall Street and other progressive bêtes noire have less leverage than they’re accustomed to having, which may explain why they’re trying to sway her now in public venues. But if she follows suit, it will be because she didn’t need convincing in the first place.

—Brian Beutler
Hillary Clinton Can Pick Any Veep She Pleases

The Disingenuous Nature of Conservative Politics

Anti-Choice Abortion Protesting ChildI’m very pleased that the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ anti-abortion law, HB2. It was a law that required that any abortion clinic have admitting rights to a hospital. Conservatives claimed this was for the health and safety of the patient. Of course, abortion is an incredibly safe procedure. No one was in any doubt that the law was enacted to limit access to abortions.

The numbers on the matter are really quite amazing. A total of 19 abortion clinics shut down as a result of the law — 11 of them on the very day the law took effect. And this isn’t the first such law. For years, conservative local and state governments have been coming up will all kinds of laws that just happened to make it harder to get an abortion.

I find this interesting because I don’t ever recall being in an argument with a libertarian in which they didn’t make the argument that local control was always better. But cases like this where individuals’ rights are limited are overwhelmingly done by state and local governments. I guess when libertarians talk about liberty, it is meant only to apply to rich white men.

Even Conservative Justices Know

Scott Lemieux wrote a good rundown of the decision, Why the Supreme Court Couldn’t Tolerate Texas’ Abortion Laws. What I thought was most interesting about it was what he said about the dissent:

Another striking indication of how specious Texas’ justifications for its law were is how little of the 60 pages of the dissenting opinions, written by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, actually defend the law as not constituting an “undue burden.” Rather, both Alito and Thomas focused on technical, jurisdictional arguments that would have prevented the Court from hearing the case.

They know. Everybody knows. Conservatives are disingenuous when it comes to abortion law. But the fact of the matter is that conservatives are disingenuous about everything. That’s especially true when it comes to economics. They say that we must cut the taxes of the rich so that we will have more economic growth. But because of conservative economic policies, there’s been no correlation between worker pay and productivity. Again, they know.

Above All, the Media Knows

Of course, I don’t blame the conservative politicians: they are getting rich by helping out other rich people. I blame the media. The media most definitely know. They knew that Texas passed HB2 to stop women from getting abortions. But they didn’t cover it that way. Instead, they said that the bill required that abortion clinics had admitting rights to hospitals. That did have the advantage of being true.

But when it came to the purpose of the bill, well, then it is just a matter of opinion. Everyone knew. If only HB2 started, “This bill is meant to stop women from getting abortions. You see, we can’t just outlaw abortions because of the Constitution. So we offer this bill to make running an abortion clinic so onerous that almost all of them will shut down.” In that case, then the press could have reported it. But no inductive argument — regardless of how strong — will ever do for American media.

That’s because our media is made up of a bunch of wimps who are far more worried about conservative ideologues calling them liberal than history calling them evil.

Everybody knows.

Aziz Ansari’s Unfortunately Necessary Pander

Aziz AnsariI’m a bit of a fan of Aziz Ansari. He plays Darryl, the young nerd on Bob’s Burgers. (Yes, Bob’s Burgers is such a great show that it features two nerds without it being a “thing.”) And this weekend in The New York Times, Ansari wrote a thoughtful and touching opinion piece, Why Trump Makes Me Scared for My Family. It starts with him recollecting how he texted his Muslim mother not to “go anywhere near a mosque” right after the Orlando mass shooting. It’s good advice. But it’s also extremely sad that we live in a country where it is good advice.

Go and read the article, it is well worth your time. I want to focus on one tiny part of the article. Ansari describes an incident after 9/11. In it, someone shouted at him from a car, “Terrorist!” He said that maybe he was being an inconsiderate pedestrian. But “I’m not sure that warranted being compared to the perpetrators of one of the most awful incidents in human history.” Now we can get into a discussion of exactly how big that list is. Or what counts as an “incident.” But I wouldn’t say that 9/11 was one of the most awful incidents in human history.

That isn’t to say that 9/11 wasn’t awful. It’s just that human history is filled with so many vile acts. You really have to dig to get down to 9/11 territory. Obviously, I could bring up the Holocaust. But forget about it. As you probably know, I don’t think the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was necessary. But even if you don’t believe that, it’s hard to justify bombing Nagasaki. And that killed roughly twenty times as many civilians as were killed on 9/11. But I don’t blame Aziz Ansari for this exaggeration. He would have been condemned if he had not pandered to America in this way. Anyway, I’m sure he didn’t think he was pandering.

None of this should be taken as a criticism of Aziz Ansari or the Muslim community at large… But this is a criticism of our society for treating Muslim Americans as though they are defined by their heritage.

I’m sure he didn’t mean it in this way, but Aziz Ansari’s description of 9/11 alone tells you everything that the rest of his article talks about explicitly. I’m a white guy. I have nothing to fear from noting that as a factual matter, 9/11 wasn’t some wound so horrible that it has rarely been seen on this earth. But as a man of Muslim heritage, Aziz Ansari’s act of 9/11 pandering is just as expected (and ultimately ignored) as Muslim groups loudly condemning every bad thing any Muslim ever does.

None of this should be taken as a criticism of Aziz Ansari or the Muslim community at large. I understand their attempts to show their unity with the society at large. And I’m certain that those attempts are so earnest that they aren’t even conscious. But this is a criticism of our society for treating Muslim Americans as though they are defined by their heritage. The only “good” thing you could say about it is that they aren’t alone. Muslims have a lot of company when it comes to being a mistreated minority group. In fact, that’s how I know that I’m white: because no one thinks that anything I do is typical of my kind. If my mugshot for murder was shown on the evening news, no one would think, “Well, what you expected from a white guy?!”

Aziz Ansari is right to be scared. And in a less direct, but still extremely important, way, we should all be scared. In his article, Aziz Ansari twice showed us why.