I wasn’t planning on writing about Ahmed Mohamed – the 14 year old boy who got arrested for bringing a digital clock he had built to school. The reason was that I didn’t think it needed comment. I pretty much was that kid, although I didn’t get into this kind of stuff until I was in college. But I built pretty much the same thing outside of class when I was taking digital electronics. It’s a lot of work even if it doesn’t take a great deal of creativity — a fact that I’m sure Mohamed would agree with. But actually getting it to work is totally awesome! And I showed it to everyone, even though no one was as thrilled as I was.

So I totally get the kid. But it didn’t seem worth talking about him because of course everyone would see this as an obvious injustice. It’s like the dentist who killed the lion: everyone agrees so it is really meaningless. It would be like writing an article, “Everyone Is Right: Hitler Was a Bad Guy” or “Mothers Are Necessary for the Continuance of the Species.” But apparently, I was wrong to assume that everyone would be in agreement that the treatment of Mohamed was totally wrong. I hadn’t remembered that Bill Maher existed.

Heather at Crooks & Liars wrote, Bill Maher Justifies 14-Year-Old Being Arrested for Bringing Clock to School. And the video she provided (below) is amazingly vile. Maher is making the argument that this is not racism or even bigotry against Muslims because it just so happens that the last 30 years Muslims have been blowing stuff up. Maher seems totally unaware that bigots at all times and in all places had reasons for their bigotry. Southern segregationists were certain that African Americans were less intelligent and more violent. They had to be kept away from “our women folk.”

But it was worse than Maher. Mark Cuban made repeated mention of something nefarious supposedly going on because during his phone call with Mohamed, his sister was in the background giving him answers to questions. Now this means nothing, other than that maybe a 14 year old nerd isn’t the most media savvy, and mostly feels comfortable talking tech. And that might have something to do with why he wasn’t (by the standards of Mark Cuban) communicative enough with his teachers. But his comments blow apart Maher’s notion that Mohamed is owed an apology. Cuban is implying that there is something behind this all — maybe a test to see if the school was properly guarded against an attack that Mohamed’s sister plans in the future?!

George Pataki was also there talking about “zero tolerance.” But they had already established that this never would have happened to a white kid. And the idea that this looks like a bomb is ridiculous. When I was a kid, my friends and I made bombs — although it might be more accurate to call them glorified firecrackers. But the thing about a bomb is that you need some material to explode. This was an empty case with a couple of circuit boards. If it “exploded,” the worst it would do is burn the hands of the person holding the box.

Heather pointed out something that gets to the very heart of this. She asked of the teachers and administrators, “If any of them actually believed that this kid brought a bomb to school, why wasn’t the school immediately evacuated?” And the answer is obvious: because none of them actually thought that. And rather than arresting Mohamed, why didn’t the police get a bomb expert while they simply detained the boy?

The problem here is exemplified with Maher, Cuban, and Pataki: they all find reasons to suspect a particular minority group. It wasn’t at all surprising that Jorges Ramos was the only one who made any sense. He has direct experience with the way the white majority makes up its own myths to justify its hatred of minority groups. History will not judge Maher as the brave truth teller he fancies himself on this issue. He will be seen as having a major blind spot about Muslims — kind of like Thomas Jefferson and slavery.

Over the weekend, Dean Baker wrote, Fed Fails to Raise Rates in Timely Manner, End of the World Is Imminent. For normal people, hearing that the Federal Reserve didn’t raise interest rates last week would be like being told we weren’t invaded by space aliens: it hadn’t occurred to them that such a thing might have happened. But for economists and financial types, the last month was spent speculating whether the Fed would raise interest rates to head off inflation.

The weird thing about it is that it would have made no sense. Analysts have to turn themselves into intellectual contortionists in order to justify raising rates. But that didn’t mean that the Fed was not going to raise rates. There are always those who want the Fed to raise rates because they can make (even more) money from the move. But mostly, the argument is incredibly selfish for a certain class a people. Inflation is way below where even the Fed wants it — much less where I think it should be. But these people argue that we must raise rates because even the prospect of a little inflation is far worse than putting real people out of work.

Also this weekend, Paul Krugman wrote, The Creativity of the Permahawks. In this context, a “hawk” is someone who wants to raise interest rates — thus slowing the economy — because she is afraid of inflation or something. But a “permahawk” is someone who always wants to raise interest rates. And the point that he was making in the article is that the permahawks are very creative: they can always find a justification for why we absolutely have to raise interest rates now now now!

The thing is that all of these people were screaming about inflation back in 2010. And they kept saying it year after year. Well, now they just sound silly. So they can’t reasonably claim that unless the Fed raises interest rates, we are going to turn into Zimbabwe. But they always find some excuse to push for higher interest rates from the Fed. And this is so because they want higher interest rates because it benefits them — not because they are worried about inflation or financial vulnerabilities or anything else that they claim. It’s like Republicans running around claiming we must cut Social Security benefits because they are worried about its long-term finances, when they really just want to cut Social Security benefits because they want to destroy all of the New Deal and Great Society programs.

But Krugman brought up a great comparison. The truth is that the people who always and forever want to raise interest rates are treated seriously by economists and the media. This is the way, is it not? When people are spouting nonsense that will hurt workers, then it is Very Serious. But the same thing coming in support of workers is a very different matter:

In another article, Krugman provided an analytical reason why it is that the finance types are always screaming for interest rate increases. It’s a bit technical, but it turns out that the lower the interest rate the the Fed sets, the smaller the difference between the the amount of money that banks borrow and lend at. Thus: low Fed rate means lower profits for banks.

None of this would probably matter if we lived in a democracy. But we don’t. Those of us who risk losing our jobs aren’t listened to at all. Those who own banks are listened to a great deal.

According to The New York Times, “Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign.” By the time you read this, he will have held his press conference and explained to the world that sadly, it is true: the Republican presidential contest will have to live without the bright light of his charisma. Oh, what will it do!

But who are we kidding here? This is a clear sign of the Republican Party establishment trying to take control of the presidential nominating contest. There are currently four candidates who are diluting the already anemic “establishment” vote. So I’m sure that the power brokers in the party went to him and said, “Kid, this ain’t your night — I mean, year.” And I suspect that the party promised him something like a top spot on the VP list. So if Rubio or Bush get the nod, don’t be surprised if Walker gets the backup spot.

It’s funny that the 2016 nominating contest is turning out to be a far bigger problem than the 2012 contest. Remember all the wringing of hands about how the “moderate” Romney was “forced” to take extreme positions — and how that ruined him for the general election? And then there was The Republican Autopsy Report, which said that the party kinda maybe shoulda not work so hard at alienating everyone outside its old bigoted white man base. But this year was going to be different with the “deep bench.” But it has turned out that the three top contenders for the nomination — the people who the base most like — are the people with literally no actual experience in politics.

So I suspect that the Republican power brokers really are freaking out. First it was thought that Trump would collapse after the first debate. He didn’t; he really took off after it. Then Bush was really going to destroy Trump in the second debate — or at least hold his own. Instead, he looked weaker than he ever has before. The big winner of the debate was Carly Fiorina — a candidate who is probably even worse for the party than Trump. The only glimmer of hope was that Marco Rubio did well as the Eagle Scout who will get tough with Russia, Iran, and most of all, Cuba.

I’m sure there is some pressure on John Kasich to get out of the race. I think that would be very shortsighted. In the end, he may be the only reasonable choice. But if the Republican establishment thought long-term about things, it wouldn’t be in the mess it now finds itself in. I wonder if there isn’t pressure on Jeb Bush to exit the race. After all, that $100+ million that he raised is almost all in a super pac. If Bush left the race, it could be used to finance Rubio’s campaign. Again: I think Rubio is a mistake, because I think that he ultimately comes off as very un-serious — like one of those Republican kids (eg, Jonathan Krohn) who is really good at repeating talking points, but who really doesn’t understand them.

But I suppose that I should come clean: I really thought that Walker would get the Republican nomination. That was based upon the fact that he was everything that the power elite wants. Even though I knew him to be a very boring fellow — like the Republican kids, but without any of the charm — I figured that he could finesse his way into the nomination. But I was so wrong! First, he apparently can’t finesse anything at all. Second, he was even more boring than I had thought before. He is not a man who wears well.

Overall, this is good news. It means I will likely never again have to hear about how he stood up to angry workers from inside his limo. But ultimately, I must admit: Scotty, I Hardly Knew Ye. Because there wasn’t much to know.

See also: Scott Walker Is a Follower and the Base Knows It.

Update (21 September 2015 3:41 pm)

According to USA Today, it’s even more explicit than I thought: