Testing Your Vocabulary; Saving Your Democracy; Interferepence July 17, 2016July 18, 2016 This is just fun. About three minutes. How many English words do you know? Mike Pence is deeply religious. Wonderful. Nothing in the Democratic platform would interfere with his right to live as he wants. But his agenda deeply interferes with women’s lives — he would not allow them to control their own bodies — and deeply interferes with my own. He would deny my right to full equality. He would forbid my marrying the person I love. He even favored diverting money from HIV/AIDS prevention in order to fund “conversion therapy.” Better, in his view, to try to change people’s sexual orientation* than try to prevent the spread of AIDS. Welcome to the Republican ticket. In the words of Esquire‘s Charles Pierce, “This Isn’t Funny Anymore. American Democracy Is At Stake.“ Click here. *Can you imagine changing your sexual orientation? Or wanting to? Even back when more than a few gays desperately did want to — so great was the stigma and discrimination — it turned out to be basically impossible. There are so many examples of this, but one I remember best (having written it), is the story of Mitchell Adams, who signed up for literally hundreds of therapy sessions, some including electroshock, to no avail. It turned out, all he needed to do to have a happy, productive life was stop trying to change. Yes, there are some who claim to have “changed.” But often they wind up changing back. E.g.: “The so-called ex-gay movement was left in shambles when Exodus International announced it was shutting down and the group’s leader, Alan Chambers, publicly apologized for the harm it had caused LGBT people over the years for insisting they could be turned straight.”
Convention Funding July 15, 2016July 14, 2016 Here’s a piece that decries all the “big money” that goes to fund the conventions. (“Convention Cash More Controversial Than Ever.”) I share much of the dismay. But the author might have noted that it was the Republican justices whose 5-4 McCutcheon ruling removed the “aggregate” limit on federal campaign contributions.* The Republican-controlled Congress that killed public funding of the core convention expenses. The Republican Congress that multiplied 24-fold what donors can give the party committees (10-fold in the case of RNC and DNC plus 7-fold each in the case of the Senate and House campaign committees.) Just saying. Click here. *Uncapping the arguably-already-too-large $123,200 ceiling per individual for the 2015-2016 cycle so that it effectively exceeds $5 million.
Race July 14, 2016 In case you missed the President’s remarks in Dallas, they are moving and deeply thoughtful. Here. Donald Trump takes a different approach. The New York Times reports (in small part): . . . In a country where the wealthiest and most influential citizens are still mostly white, Mr. Trump is voicing the bewilderment and anger of whites who do not feel at all powerful or privileged. . . . In the months since Mr. Trump began his campaign, the percentage of Americans who say race relations are worsening has increased, reaching nearly half in an April poll by CBS News. The sharpest rise was among Republicans: Sixty percent said race relations were getting worse. And Mr. Trump’s rise is shifting the country’s racial discourse just as the millennial generation comes fully of age, more and more distant from the horrors of the Holocaust, or the government-sanctioned racism of Jim Crow. Some are elated by the turn. In making the explicit assertion of white identity and grievance more widespread, Mr. Trump has galvanized the otherwise marginal world of avowed white nationalists and self-described “race realists.” They hail him as a fellow traveler who has driven millions of white Americans toward an intuitive embrace of their ideals: that race should matter as much to white people as it does to everyone else. He has freed Americans, those activists say, to say what they really believe. . . . This year, for the first time in decades, overt white nationalism re-entered national politics. In Iowa, a new “super PAC” paid for pro-Trump robocalls featuring Jared Taylor, a self-described race realist, and William Johnson, a white nationalist and the chairman of the American Freedom Party. (“We don’t need Muslims,” Mr. Taylor urged recipients of the calls. “We need smart, well-educated white people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”) David Duke, the Louisiana lawmaker turned anti-Semitic radio host, encouraged listeners to vote for Mr. Trump. And with many, it’s working. Click here.
So Let Me Tell You My Carl Icahn Story July 12, 2016 The despicable Roy Cohn — Senator Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel during the McCarthy hearings — was Donald Trump’s mentor: . . . They came together by chance one night at Le Club, a hangout for Manhattan’s rich and famous. Trump introduced himself to Cohn and sought advice: How should he and his father respond to Justice Department allegations that their company had systematically discriminated against black people seeking housing? “My view is tell them to go to hell,” Cohn said, “and fight the thing in court.” It was October 1973 and the start of one of the most influential relationships of Trump’s career. Cohn soon represented Trump in legal battles, counseled him about his marriage and introduced Trump to New York power brokers, money men and socialites. Cohn also showed Trump how to exploit power and instill fear through a simple formula: attack, counterattack and never apologize. . . . ☞ So if you’re thinking Trump might be your man, read the whole thing. But much as I could tell you about Roy, with whom (bizarrely) I shared two close friends and many of the same high school teachers — though I met him only once — I want to tell you about a different Trump icon. Carl Icahn. Trump has regularly cited him as the kind of great deal maker he’d recruit (“Donald Trump’s first Cabinet pick is just as controversial as he is, and a lot richer”). And he owns the Trump Taj Mahal, recently shutdown by a strike. (Four other Atlantic City casinos reached last-minute agreements with the union, but Icahn, like Trump, knows how to be tough on workers.) To tell you about Carl Icahn, I need to tell you about MaryAnn Smilen. And to tell you about MaryAnn, I need to tell you about her husband Ken. Ken Smilen in the Seventies was widely regarded as one of the smartest big-picture analysts on Wall Street. He had his own firm — Smilen and Safian — and clients paid a ton for his insights, printed on dark blue paper that made them impossible to photocopy and share. On his office wall — in a super-cheap frame — hung a valuable copy of Rudyard Kipling’s most famous poem — “If “– in Kipling’s own hand. (“If you can keep your head when all about you / Are losing theirs . . .” If for some reason you don’t know this poem, you must.) That was Ken — able to see past the noise on Wall Street. Wise, gentle, and generous, he used to take me to lunch once or twice a year, back when I was writing for New York, and comped me to his newsletter A confirmed bachelor in his mid-forties with a little bit of a facial tic. But then he got married! (I didn’t see that coming.) His beautiful bilingual European bride, MaryAnn, was elegant and educated, yet down-to-earth and modest. She cooked us dinner at their lovely Park Avenue apartment; just the three of us in a large, somewhat spare dining room with a chandelier. At some point I started to hear rumors about Ken — he was in a bad way, embarrassed by having made some bad calls (who can possibly get the market right all the time?!) . . . and over a period of weeks or months I’d hear that he was depressed. I called once or twice to buck him up. And then one day (I would come to learn), MaryAnn walked into that dining room to find Ken hanging from the chandelier. Decades later, it still hurts to write that. Ken was such a nice man. He had killed himself out of depression, yes, but also embarrassment. He was so used to doing well by his clients, but now had misread the market; he so enjoyed funding worthy causes, like the literary prize and symposium I attended, but now he couldn’t say yes when people asked for contributions. He was embarrassed. So there I am with hundreds of others at Ken’s memorial service and Carl Icahn, Ken’s great friend, is the principal speaker. He speaks — and speaks and speaks — on the theme, “How could Ken and I have been so much alike, yet I am so successful, while Ken’s life went so tragically wrong? What is there about me that makes me a winner?” Of course he didn’t use quite those words, and memory fades as to the specifics, but it was (to me at least) jaw dropping. The first and last time I’ve ever been in a room with Mr. Icahn, but I will never forget how appalling I thought it was. Meanwhile, to add to MaryAnn’s agony, it developed that, because of his depression, Ken had stopped paying his life insurance premiums. She was left with next to nothing but an expensive Park Avenue apartment to maintain. (This was before such apartments were worth a fortune.) With no career of her own to fall back on, but wonderfully poised and bright, she went to one of her husband’s best friends — billionaire and eulogist Carl Icahn — and asked whether she could work for him in some capacity while she got her footing. Analyst, receptionist, anything. He said no. She eventually took a job selling ties at Barney’s on Madison Avenue. And a couple of years later, about to lose her home, she opened one of the windows in that Park Avenue apartment and jumped. So that’s my Carl Icahn story. With Roy Cohn and Carl Icahn as mentors — and Hitler’s speeches as bedtime reading — what’s not to like about Donald Trump? This is a guy who knows how to manipulate crowds, fire people, stiff venders . . . the self-proclaimed “king of bankruptcy” and, next week, it seems, the Republican nominee to lead the country and the world. And he could win. Click here.
Correction To Correction July 11, 2016 In today’s post, I said Britain’s youth turn-out, ages 18-24, was not 36%, as had been widely reported — and echoed by me — but (amazingly) 64%. Thanks to Guy Bradley for correcting that. “No,” he writes, “36% was the percentage of the 18-24 age group who voted . . . but not all eligible voters are registered. Only about 55% of eligible voters between 18-24 were registered. And if you multiply 64% (percentage of those registered who voted) by 55% (percent of eligible voters who were registered), then you get . . . wait for it . . . 36%. Not really your fault: the article you linked to (and plenty of others) made the same mistake.” Young people: Register! Vote! Make a world you’ll want to live in!
Meat Is Horrible July 11, 2016July 10, 2016 So says the Washington Post, here. (Included: two burgers frying side by side, one beef, the other pea protein. Can you tell which is which?) It takes 48 times more water to produce beef than veggies; three times as much to produce a calorie of beef as a calorie of chicken. And according to this, eating beef puts four times as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as eating chicken — eight times as much according to this. (The bar chart with farm animals — page 5.) As human sacrifice goes, I think having to substitute chicken for beef — or even veggie burgers for beef — beats most of what humanity has had to endure. I know: I am nothing if not annoying. Look! If she wins, Misty Snow would be the first woman senator Utah has ever elected. And the first millennial elected to the Senate (she’s just 30). And the first transgender senator. A long shot — but she beat a much better financed opponent in the primary, so who knows? Jim Burt: “Re your post over the weekend . . . When I was in the military, the three-tiered classification scheme of ‘Confidential,’ ‘Secret,’ and ‘Top Secret’ was explained to me this way: Confidential information is information which the other side knows, and we know they know it, and they know we know they know it, but we don’t want to disclose it publicly. Secret information is information which we know the other side knows, but we’re not sure they know we know it. Top Secret information is information which we think it’s at least possible the other side doesn’t know yet. The (C) note in the three suspect Hillary Clinton e-mails indicated ‘Confidential’ classification, which is essentially meaningless. As for those e-mails which were retroactively classified as ‘Top Secret – Special Access,’ all except one concerned drone strikes, which are classified in an abuse of the classification system, because the same information is published in the news media and actually released by government agencies on purpose.” CORRECTION: It was widely reported — and repeated by me — that young Brits, aged 18-24, overwhelmingly favored remaining in the European Union, but that only 36% of them actually turned out to vote. It now seems — how could this have been reported so inaccurately? — it was more like 64% turnout.
Must Must Read: Arnovitz On Clinton – The Follow-Up July 9, 2016July 11, 2016 Artie: “A little while ago, you linked us to an excellent article by Michael Arnovitz about Hillary Clinton. I forwarded it to a number of friends, and now he’s posted another, in part responding to feedback he had received. Like the original article, this one is both long and excellent. If you have not already seen it, here is the link.” From the first: . . .the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years. . . . . . .I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.” . . . From this second one: . . . the beginning of my real education was the acceptance that many of the things I already knew I didn’t really know at all. And that’s a lesson I’ve tried never to forget. . . . For example, did you know that Elizabeth Warren was actually a Republican until she was well into her 40’s, and that the main reason she switched parties was because she no longer believed that the GOP was “principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets?” No? Follow-up question: does that sound a little different than the progressive warrior you created in your mind? Yes? Well, people are complicated, and maybe you don’t know Senator Warren quite as well as you think you do. . . . . . . take it from me, when you write a piece about Hillary Clinton you get a lot of people who are very excited to tell you she is awful, but considerably less interested in showing you how they know that. Indeed, the vast majority of the anti-Hillary commentariat function as if their accusations and conclusions are simply self-evident. For all of those people however, let me point out a general rule of thumb: the only thing truly evident about people who think that their positions are self-evident is their own intellectual laziness. . . . . . . the right have essentially blamed everything on immigrants and brown people, and the left have blamed everything on bankers and rich people. Both of these positions are ridiculous and juvenile. And unfortunately, they are also dangerous. But they have the advantage of being simple. And for a depressingly large slice of the electorate, that’s what works. . . . The antidote to this poison is not greater “purity” of doctrine, it’s not a demand for all-or-nothing policy positions and it’s certainly not a surrender to fear and anger. The cure is reason and pragmatism. And if it’s possible to propose a political stand that’s less sexy than that I can’t imagine what it is. But the truth is that politics isn’t actually sexy, and it doesn’t really look like an Oliver Stone movie. Usually it looks more like C-Span. Real politics is “the art of the possible”, which is a fancy Prussian way of saying you’re going to have to compromise. For years an increasing number of conservatives have insisted that compromise is a dirty word, a public display of submission, capitulation or even betrayal. But actually it’s just standard, competent governance. And the inability to acknowledge that is one of the key reasons the GOP can now barely function. Democrats and others on the left do ourselves no favors by following that lead. . . . Try to find time to read this piece (and the first one!). You will learn a lot. I did. For example: Hillary’s years on the Wal-Mart board. That’s a paragraph we should all read. And the fracking issue we should all be concerned about. Indeed, there is so much wisdom and good sense (and humor) in Arnovitz’s post, all thinking citizens should read it, whether on the left (well, especially they) or the right. And yes, I am sending him a cheesecake. Jim Burt: “Much of the Clinton e-mail kerfuffle concerns three e-mails [out of tens of thousands] which lacked classification headers but which had a “C” in parentheses in the text denoting that parts were classified. In an ASCII text message, a ‘C’ in parentheses looks like this: (c). But in differently coded text messages, a ‘C’ in parentheses looks like this: © . The latter just indicates copyright. And even the former indicates copyright, rather than classification, to people outside the corridors in which classified information is routinely handled.” No one is saying the home server was a good idea. But here is an extensive discussion of the issue. Needless to say, it’s not nearly the disaster Congressional Republicans — who’ve held eight Benghazi hearings — would have the country think. Ignoring climate change is a potentially existential disaster. Delaying Zika funding could prove a disaster. Blocking the American Jobs Act that would have put millions to work revitalizing our infrastructure was all but treasonous. The three emails with (c) designations someplace in the text? A concern, for sure, but hardly a disaster. Nor something on which the course of history should turn, if we have any regard for our own self-interest as a nation.
Late-Term Abortion July 7, 2016July 6, 2016 So much of the debate is carried on with protesters holding up signs. Three-word messages and maybe a chant. This difficult but gripping account of a woman who recently had an abortion at 32 weeks provides a thousand times more insight — for those who might be willing to read it.
Two Money Books July 6, 2016July 5, 2016 Neither will make you money, but both are amazing. Bill Broder’s Red Notice is subtitled: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice. I listened to it on tape. Sam Polk’s For the Love of Money is a riveting memoir. I read it with my eyeballs. Both are the stories of super-driven young men, one of whom became very, very rich; the other of whom could have. Enjoy!
Scaring The Children July 5, 2016July 5, 2016 You know the Sondheim lyric — “Careful the things you say / children will listen.” (Don’t know or remember it well? Listen.) It turns out, kids are listening to Donald Trump. ‘The Trump Effect’: Hatred, Fear And Bullying On The Rise In Schools A new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center shines a light on a disturbing trend. Summarized here on the Huffington Post or read the whole report here. What kind of nation do we want to be?