Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet . . . July 31, 2019July 31, 2019 Stop the Knee-Jerk Liberalism, argues Nick Kristoff. He could not be more right. Likewise, Thomas Friedman’s widely circulated column (well worth reading in full): . . . Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win! But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump. . . . George Will makes the case that Senator Mike Bennet is such a candidate. My own feeling is that whoever we nominate will win if we turn out our voters. All our candidates are decent. And I don’t think we’ll nominate anyone who promises to force people off their employer-provided health insurance. Or who doesn’t support enforcing our borders. (Obama, “the most ignorant president in our history,” according to Trump, actually did a better job on this front. And would have been able to do better still if the then-Republican House had not blocked the bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill that passed the Senate 68-32.) Clearly, we should choose the candidate most likely to win, because this time winning is everything. And the only thing. Our democracy and quite possibly our species survival depend on it. (You don’t think a nuclear war could wipe us out? That climate change could not pass the point of no return and render the planet uninhabitable?) One candidate who presumably won’t win the nomination (fine president though he would be) is Andrew Yang. I did not sit down with Andrew recently, but — being a fan of his book — I imagine this is how the interview might have gone if I had: A.T.: So what’s the deal with this signature plan of yours? YANG: I call it The Freedom Dividend — $1,000 a month for every adult citizen from 18-64 — based on an idea endorsed by everyone from conservative economist Milton Friedman to Martin Luther King, Jr. I pay for it five ways: First, by eliminating most of the 126 welfare programs — and their bureaucracy and fraud — that we wouldn’t need anymore. Second, by taxing that $1,000 – so higher income people would be giving a good chunk of it back. Third, by what I call The Climate Solution — the carbon tax most people agree is key to moving toward a sustainable planet. But for people without yachts or private planes, they’d still come out way ahead with the $1,000. Fourth, by the growth in our economy that would come from greater consumer demand. And finally, by a modest value added tax of the kind almost every country in Europe already has. But smaller. Add all this up and most Americans would come out well ahead of where they are now. A.T.: Would you give it to undocumented immigrants? YANG: No. Only to citizens. This wonderful country is enough of a magnet as it is. But think of the challenges we face — it’s a wonderful problem, really, that our forefathers and mothers worked so hard to give us: we now have the technology and resources so that most things that really NEED doing — like growing food and getting it to our table — can be done by just a few of us. Leaving more and more of us free to do non-essential things. That’s the Freedom Dividend. You don’t have to be a truck driver or an Uber driver — cars will drive themselves. You can be an artist or a Pokémon coach or teach rock climbing or spend more time with the kids as parents used to, before it became necessary for both parents to work, let alone two jobs. A.T.: Why do you choose not to wear a tie? YANG: Because we have to think differently. No one in the tech world I come from wears ties. Steve Jobs didn’t wear a tie when he changed the world. I’m no Steve Jobs, but I do want the freedom to concentrate on what’s important. Until I get my $1,000 a month, it’s my own little freedom dividend. A.T.: Do you worry that $1,000 a month would make people lazy or be blown on booze and drugs? YANG: No. Study after study, experiment after experiment, has shown this not to be true. No one can live well on $1,000 a month, so there will still be plenty of incentive to work and make more money. But think of the freedom and flexibility this dividend would give working families, how it would help them raise their kids. Before you dismiss this idea, imagine what it would mean to YOU and YOUR FAMILY. The truth is, some form of this is coming. The futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts every country in Europe will have a universal basic income just a dozen or so years from now and we in America within 20. But why wait? A.T.: What would you do about Iran? YANG: I would have the smartest, most competent cabinet and advisors — vastly better than Trump’s — and I would LISTEN to them on everything from Iran to border security to all the other tough questions. I’d take the advice of our intelligence community over the word of Vladimir Putin. Tech people know how to solve problems. Just put your hand in your pocket: that little phone of yours can connect a video call to a friend canoeing in Montana — and give you directions so you never get lost — and play all the music in the world — and screen movies — and handle your email — and still be a flashlight. Don’t you think we need young problem solvers — people who “believe in” science, not people who believe in the future of coal, to solve the challenges we face? Do we really want to entrust our kids’ future to a multiply bankrupt, morally bankrupt, egomaniac? A.T.: How would you tackle the opioid epidemic? YANG: There would be so much less despair in this country, so much less stress, with the Freedom Dividend. Everyone would know they have a basic floor of resources — the product of their ancestors’ amazing hard work and ingenuity that brought us from elbow grease and mule power to technology that harvests limitless energy from the sun. Hey! We should be allowed to ENJOY the fruits of all that. And not feel the despair that drives us to opioids. I have much more to say about this, so if anyone is interested, read my book! Andrew did not say any of that to me, but that’s how I imagine him answering.
The Hideous Senior Senator From Kentucky July 30, 2019July 27, 2019 Dana Millbank writes: When It Comes To Russia, McConnell Is No Patriot By Dana Millback Mitch McConnell is a Russian asset. This doesn’t mean he’s a spy, but neither is it a flip accusation. Russia attacked our country in 2016. It is attacking us today. Its attacks will intensify in 2020. Yet each time we try to raise our defenses to repel the attack, McConnell, the Senate majority leader, blocks us from defending ourselves. Let’s call this what it is: unpatriotic. The Kentucky Republican is, arguably more than any other American, doing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bidding. Robert Mueller sat before Congress this last week warning that the Russia threat “deserves the attention of every American.” He said “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious” challenges to American democracy he has ever seen. “They are doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign,” he warned, adding that “much more needs to be done in order to protect against these intrusions, not just by the Russians but others as well.” . . . Yet McConnell blocks it all. Read on for the specifics. Better still, watch this discussion. The Republicans are blocking paper ballots! And all the other measures that would enhance the security and reliability of our elections! Think about it! In addition to hacking and disinformation to adantage Trump, the Russians will very likely cause the losing side next year to doubt the validity of the outcome. Trump will almost surely say it was rigged, if he loses. Democrats will be skeptical if there is no paper trail and he wins. Either way, Putin wins: we will be at each other’s throats. He will have destroyed the foundation of our democracy: faith in free and fair elections. This is so much worse than hanging chads or routine — albeit despicable — Republican voter suppression. Seriously: Watch. We so need a march on Washington — specifically, on the Senate — with the chant: DO YOUR JOB!
Something Concrete You Can Do July 29, 2019July 27, 2019 Paul Abrams: “The British just made Boris Johnson Prime Minister. They have BoJo, we have Bozo, and Putin has them both.” The American Century ended January 20, 2017, when judo-master Vladimir Putin installed an ignorant fascist sociopath to lead the free world. We’re fast losing our democracy. The habitability of the planet is coming into question. (Paris hit 108.7 degrees a few days ago. Anchorage, 90. The U.S. is heating up.) Want to save the world? Even if you don’t have big bucks, could you find a dozen people to sign up for $50-a-month to help fund the early organizing needed to win? With 15 months to go, that’s $9,000! Look at you! You may have just saved mankind! Let me know if you want to try your hand at this. I’ll get you set up with a web page so you can see who’s given and can jump through their computer screens to say thanks. Why do I have to do all the jumping? It’s exhausting.
Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and lessons from the 1930s July 26, 2019July 26, 2019 A column from the Financial Times not to be missed, about this 1939 memoir of concerning relevance today. . . . Then, as now, political moderates were constantly having to ask the question, how serious is this? Is it just distasteful or is it truly dangerous? . . . . . . One strong temptation was simply to stop paying attention to the news and “shut one’s windows tightly and withdraw into the four walls of one’s private life.” Another was to take comfort in the things that had not changed — the parts of the state and of public life that still seemed solid and familiar. . . . . . . The US president has just told black, Hispanic and Muslim congresswomen to “go back” to the “places from which they came”. Britain’s likely incoming prime minister has said that Muslim women wearing the niqab look like letter boxes. But it still seems unimaginable that storm troopers might one day drive minority groups out of public places. But when do you sound the alarm? From exile in London, Haffner reflected: “It took me quite a while to realise that my youthful excitability was right and my father’s wealth of experience was wrong; that there are things that cannot be dealt with by calm scepticism.” My instinctive reaction to the rise of Mr Johnson and the rhetoric of Mr Trump is still “calm scepticism”. But then again, I’m at roughly the same stage of life as Haffner’s father was in 1933. Though it makes no mention of the fact Trump kept a book of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside, or that he scores 100% on the criteria for “sociopath” and “fascist,” this column raises important questions. I urge you to read it. (It may cost you $1 for a month’s trial subscription to the FT, but $1 well spent.) CRY, THE BELOVED COUNTRY DEPT. Conservative Max Boot makes this bleak assessment of the Mueller hearings, concluding: Mueller has marshaled copious evidence to support impeachment, but the American public doesn’t seem to care. Who can bother to read a 448-page report when the Trump show is on? Being entertaining is more important these days than being virtuous or competent. Mueller may be an infinitely better person than Trump, but he is an infinitely worse television performer, and that is all that seems to matter in our debased age. Earlier in the piece he says impeachment is now off the table. I disagree. As I’ve argued before, it’s time to start the impeachment inquiry — but with one big caveat: At the same time, we must constantly call on the Senate to pass the numerous bills the House has already passed, and a few more it should soon pass, that would make regular Americans better off. All our talking heads should demand it; all our presidential candidates should demand it; there should be massive marches on Washington — specifically the Senate — to demand it. (The chant: DO YOUR JOB!!!) No one asked about impeachment should fail to lead with something like this: “Well, the FIRST thing the Senate needs to do is pass the dozens of bills the House has already passed this year to make regular people’s lives better. Lower prescription drug prices, universal background checks, a higher minimum wage and so much else — the Senate needs to DO ITS JOB and vote on those bills.” Then, when the moderator interrupts and says, “but I asked you about impeachment,” they would continue: “Look: our nation is under attack and the President constantly denies it and praises our attacker. So, yes: it’s part of our job to investigate that. WHY were there hundreds of contacts between Trump’s people and the Russians? WHY did so many of them lie about it if it was all innocent? If you actually READ the Mueller report, as Republican Congressman Justin Amash bravely did, you will conclude as he did that impeachment is warranted. But let me stress: the FIRST priority should be for the Senate to take up the dozens of bills the House has passed this year to make regular Americans’ lives better. It’s an outrage the Republican Senate is blocking all this.” Even blocking bills, I might add, designed to protect our next election from more Russian interference. Have a great weekend.
No, No, No. July 25, 2019July 24, 2019 On the off-chance you’ve not yet seen Adam Schiff’s seven minutes. Or read them. This will go down as one of the great speeches in American history. Thank you @RepAdamSchiff. #MuellerHearings pic.twitter.com/9hcYvwEVAT — Power to the People ☭🕊 (@ProudSocialist) July 24, 2019 The president has said over and over that your report totally exonerated him. Did it? MUELLER: No. The president has been lying to the American people. The president has said over and over that your report found no evidence of obstruction. Was he correct? MUELLER: No. The president has been lying to the American people. The president has said over and over that your report found no evidence of collusion. Is that a fair reading? MUELLER: No. The president has been lying to the American people. The president has said over and over that your office was conducting a witch hunt. True? MUELLER: No. The president has been lying to the American people. I haven’t used quotation marks above, but that’s what it boils down to. Watch or read Adam Schiff’s seven minutes More to come.
Finally! July 24, 2019July 22, 2019 I’ll keep this super short to give you maximum time to watch Mueller’s testimony. Volume II of his report makes clear to more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors that, were he not president, Trump would have been indicted on multiple felony charges. Volume I makes clear that of course there was collusion! Witting, unwitting, or slightly (dim?) witting, Trump is a Russian asset. Note to herpetologists, following up on Friday‘s post: a defense of real snake oil. (Thanks, Michael Rutkaus.)
John Bolton and Kentucky — Sweet Defeat July 23, 2019July 22, 2019 Michelle Goldberg led off her July 1 column: Say this for Donald Trump. He may be transforming American politics into a kleptocratic fascist reality show and turning our once-great country into a global laughingstock, but at least he’s humiliating John Bolton in the process. Who could fail to read on? That same day — I am so far behind! — Paul Krugman gave us The Moochers of Middle America. The first two-thirds are definitely worth reading — the Democrats aren’t radical, he argues, Republicans are — but the final third is must reading: . . . Last but not least, if your view is that the progressive agenda is morally wrong, that people shouldn’t receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, you should be aware how many Americans are already “takers,” “moochers,” whatever. In fact, we’re talking about a vast swath of the heartland that includes just about every state that voted for Donald Trump. I’ve been reading a recent Rockefeller Institute report on states’ federal “balance of payments” — the difference for each state between what the federal government spends in that state and what it gets back in revenue. The pattern is familiar: Richer states subsidize poorer states. And the reasons are clear: Rich states pay much more per person in federal taxes, while actually getting a bit less in federal spending, because Medicaid and other “means-tested” programs go disproportionately to those with low incomes. But the magnitudes are startling. Take the case of Kentucky. In 2017, the state received $40 billion more from the federal government than it paid in taxes. That’s about one-fifth of the state’s G.D.P.; if Kentucky were a country, we’d say that it was receiving foreign aid on an almost inconceivable scale. This aid, in turn, supports a lot of jobs. It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined. So if you really believe that Americans with higher incomes shouldn’t pay for benefits provided to those with lower incomes, you should be calling on “donor” states like New Jersey and New York to cut off places like Kentucky and let their economies collapse. And if that’s what you mean, you should let Mitch McConnell’s constituents know about it. . . . In a recent post, I asked whether any of you had tried Sweet Defeat. Dr. Richard Feinberg: “I was so curious about Sweet Defeat that I ended up trying it. As far as the biochemistry, it really works the way they say it does. Right after I chewed one pill, I could not stand the taste of anything sweet. And at least for some period of time, I did not have cravings for anything sweet just because I did not want to have any more of the yucky taste. “Now the hard part . . does the biochemistry of Sweet Defeat translate to an effective approach to weight loss? I really can’t say. However, based on just my own experience plus prior work with many patients who wanted to lose weight, I am somewhat doubtful. I don’t believe that this is some sort of magic elixir and that all you have to do is just take a few of these every day and voila . . the pounds just melt away. There is so much more involved in weight loss. Unless some of the motivational factors, movement and exercise, and psychological issues are able to be integrated into a weight loss program, I feel quite sure saying that Sweet Defeat will not work for most obese individuals. Things like a rebound effect are bound to occur in which people don’t take any pills during a part of the day or night in order to gorge out on sweets. “This doesn’t mean that it won’t work for folks who want to lose, say 20 pounds or less. I have not tried using Sweet Defeat over a longer period of time with the express purpose of shedding some pounds. I would still think the more one includes other relevant factors and develops a realistic self-help program with tracking, the better the chances of success.” → For a lot of folks, help losing five or ten pounds could be worth looking into. (Full disclosure: I own none of this, but the lead investor is a friend.)
He Is A . . . July 20, 2019November 30, 2019 Liar Racist Sociopath Fascist Russian asset Who loves autocrats and kept a book of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside. If you doubt any of these characterizations, click the links for proof. And feel free to add your own: his megalomania, his cheating little people out of money they’re due, his treatment of women, his mob connections, his recklessness, his incompetence, his multiple bankruptcies . . . but aren’t the seven above enough? Lindsey Graham, who in 2015 called Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic bigot undercutting everything we stand for” remains a backer. The hideous senior senator from Kentucky remains a backer.* Even my Ivy-educated LGBT septuagenarian friend of long-standing “Chris” (as I’ll call him or her) remains a backer . . . disgraceful though Chris acknowledges Trump’s behavior to be. After a particularly frustrating phone call in which I enumerated the above — doesn’t it bother Chris that Trump is a liar and a fascist, etc.? — I sent a link to David Leonhardt’s, “So This Is Where We Are” . . . . . . with this rant: << Yes, of course you’re not for dishonesty, fascism, bullying, the Russian mob, racism, or sociopathy, Chris – but if that’s what it takes to get Mexico to pay for the big beautiful wall to reduce gang violence on the streets of [Chris’s quiet little town, where there is no violence] while we cut aid to Nicaragua; if that’s what it takes to get everybody great health care at a tiny fraction of the price [which no one got]; if that’s what it takes to allow use of pesticide killing off the honeybees as we fire all the scientists in the Agriculture Department and put a fossil fuels lobbyist at the head of the Bureau of Land Management; if that’s what it takes to move away from our “free world” allies toward autocracies and exit the Paris Climate Accords; if that’s what it takes to appoint anti-LGBT, anti-voting-rights judges – well, then, in your view, so be it. Nothing comes without a price. >> It’s just NUTS. But so are world wars, eating Tide pods, and all sorts of other human folly. So I will leave you with this: Jim Burt: “The ‘National Conservatism’ gathering was just held in Washington. The sponsoring organization was the Edmund Burke Foundation. I find two aspects of this gathering especially notable: The name, ‘National Conservatism’ strongly echoes Germany’s ‘National Socialism,’ and I believe that was a conscious choice. They’re telling us, in essence, that their program is Nazism without the benefits. The sponsoring organization can call itself anything it wishes, but Edmund Burke, the prophet of classical conservatism, would have been revolted to learn that an ideological organization had coopted his name. Classical Burkean conservatism utterly rejects ideology in any form, preferring a ‘whatever works’ approach with a strong bias in favor of not changing anything that is currently working. “The attendees included the usual assortment of right wing goons, loons, and poltroons, including Missouri’s brand new Republican senator, Josh Hawley, whose keynote speech repeatedly denounced ‘cosmopolitan elites,’ a timeworn trope usually translated as ‘Jews.’ This is not likely to end well.” → But it can! If you have the resources, chip in to make sure it does. *I can’t bring myself to use McConnell’s first name — it sounds too friendly. “Hey, Mitch!” “Hey, Bobby!” “Hey, Scooter!” How can one be friendly to a man who’s done such harm to tens of millions of people? And if I only use his last name, some might not know to whom I refer. So let’s just call him the hideous senior senator from Kentucky. And while I’m at it — why does everyone call Trump by his first and last name? We all know who you mean. Adding the first name, besides wasting breath, fails to convey contempt. And I say that as — ordinarily — no fan of contempt. But for a vulgar, bullying, lying, cheating, fascist sociopath who is destroying the world? Yes: I have contempt. As Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and so many others once did.
Snake Oil, Fish Oil, And Fat Shaming II July 19, 2019July 18, 2019 But first: listen to the 7-minute trailer for The Asset podcast. Riveting. Yes, of course there was collusion. And — not to embarrass you, but — are you the only progressive in America not to have read Tom Friedman’s column? (“Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?“) He just might get re-elected if we don’t all read that column. And in my ongoing crusade against food waste, I’m pleased to report that the unrefrigerated, unopened 20-ounce package of Kirkland Signature “Tart Montmorency” Dried Cherries recently discovered on a top shelf, and “best before May 4, 2012” (so barely 7 years ago), are fine. I’ve been eating them all week. And now on to snake oil, fish oil, super-fish oil, and fat-shaming. Chris H.: “I learned about AMRN from your column many years ago and have followed and invested since. AMRN has a drug, Vascepa, that is a highly purified form of EPA. It is well tolerated, affordable, and was shown in a 4-year double blind study to save people from heart attacks, strokes, and deaths when paired with a statin. Wanted to highlight that they are expecting/hoping for FDA approval in September of an expanded indication that would make this a blockbuster drug. It is already approved as a triglyceride drug and sales are surging 60% YOY. Stock is currently in the low 20s and will go significantly higher with expansion. Maybe longtime readers can benefit and use some profits for fairer and more responsible governance?” → Remember my two recent “Buy and Hold” columns? Well, I checked back with Guru. It might be wise t0 take your triple in this one and sell. Yes, he says, it may well get FDA approval — but shouldn’t! — and yes, he says, it may get bought out a few points higher — but shouldn’t! In small part: . . . In the 1880s, they were hawking snake oil and we laugh at that. Snake oil: meet your fellow fraud, fish oil. And for what it’s worth, you can buy this exact same fish oil over the counter for a fraction of the price. If the FDA approves it, then there is some case to be made that there will be a buyout. Of course, it is fish oil, there isn’t a patent that can block anyone from making the same thing, any pharma company could “patent” a version of this and run a bioequivalency test to show it’s the same and get a quick approval from the FDA, so I don’t see where the long-term franchise (to quote Buffett) comes from. It is also still possible that truth matters a tiny bit to the FDA . . . If so, they should be saying something by August 3. If not, you should assume approval, and the stock probably goes up 3-7 points. So if you want to get fancy, rather than sell, you could buy some mid-August puts to lock in most of your gain, if it craters. Or sell (especially if you hold it in a tax-sheltered account) and take a little of the profit to buy some October calls. But I’ve never done great with fancy. Meanwhile, from the depths of the Antarctic comes a super-nutrient,”8X More Potent Than Fish Oil That Could…FIX Your Heart, Memory, And Joints In As Little As 7 DAYS!” Click the link and see if it doesn’t intrigue you, if you have a heart, memory, and joints. “Presumably quackery, given the marketing,” I wrote my pal Wipperman, “But what do you think?” “Quackery indeed,” he responded, “but let’s dive in. Do you have a favorite corporate logo? Mine is Cochrane‘s. Who in the name of Sackett (the founder of evidence-based medicine) is Cochrane? Well, it’s the organization that utilizes the most powerful tools in medicine to ask these sorts of questions, and nicely summarizes the results. The Cochrane logo is actually the tool itself. It’s called a ‘Forest Plot.’ It is the way researchers summarize the results of multiple clinical trials to make a definitive conclusion about some question in medicine. This is the best tool we have to gain new knowledge about whether some intervention works. (E.g., ‘Do Omega 3 fatty acids benefit my memory?’) “Here is their description of their logo. Basically, back in the day, it was unknown whether corticosteroids given to women about to give premature birth would save the life of the baby. There were some hints that this would work, but the clinical trials never panned out, and doctors therefore never adopted this practice. Then somebody pooled together the data from multiple clinical trials into a ‘systematic review,’ and determined that indeed, corticosteroids are good for saving the babies. Each horizontal line in the logo is a clinical trial from this actual study, and while each trial independently did not show an effect, collectively they did show a positive benefit. The result is that little diamond at the bottom of the logo. “Why bother telling you this? Because we’ve run a boatload of clinical trials on Omega-3s (that’s the magic that this dude is claiming is in Krill Oil). In one recent systematic review, they looked at 79 clinical trials (!) and found virtually no benefit to Omega-3 intake. “The response from the ‘Dr.’ in the offer you sent — who does not appear to have a PhD or MD, nor as far as I can tell, any training in medical biochemistry or evidence-based medicine — would be that these people weren’t taking his super-potent Omega 3s, and you have to buy his stuff in order to actually see a benefit. I would simply say, go eat a fish and exercise, and you’ll be fine. If he’s that passionate about his product, and there really is that much evidence of a benefit, perhaps he could use some of his profits to run a clinical trial of his own. That is the only tool we have right now to show that there is indeed a benefit to some intervention — so he can put some skin in the game, and fund one himself.” → And yet, if I had heart problems or joint problems or — what’s the third thing this stuff is supposed to fix? the Energy Department? — I might not wait for the clinical trial. Such is the power of hope. Marissa: “Re your post on fat shaming, here’s a study suggesting that kids whose parents encourage them to lose weight ending up fatter. As a chubby person with one chubby and one thin kid, this is the stuff of my nightmares. Because I know that my son’s life will be easier both physically and socially if he doesn’t grow up overweight, but I also don’t want him to grow up hating himself if it ends up happening anyway.” → It is, for sure, a tough one. I love Obama’s mantra – “be kind and be useful” – and this problem challenges us to find a way to be both. If kids grow up being offered healthy food (fruit instead of Twinkies) . . . and forced to walk or bike when it’s safe and practical . . . and if they get gentle “I’ll-love-you-no-matter-what-but-I-think-you’ll-have-an-even-happier-life-if-you-get-into-the-right-habits” advice . . . could that be a balance of kind and useful? Also: anybody here tried SweetDefeat? Have a great week-end!
Be Logical And Be Generous July 18, 2019November 30, 2019 My recent plea to “be logical and be generous” generated lots of dough (thanks!) but also this from a wealthy friend: << No $$$$ until I see if sanity prevails. Trump may be insanity but why waste money if we cannot nominate someone who can win? >> Tough questions like that are truly appreciated — because there are answers: 1. You’d be investing in registration and turn-out that – even if we didn’t beat Trump — would help us hold the House, win the Senate, and flip state legislative chambers. That last – the state races – is particularly important as it will determine redistricting for a decade after the 2020 Census . . . and as it could get the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact over the hump, effectively eliminating the Electoral College. Thereafter, if we won the popular vote, as we generally do, we’d also win the White House. What a concept. 2. Investing NOW is way more powerful than waiting, because the organizers we’re hiring will have that much more time to roll the “volunteer snowball” downhill. It’s like planting seeds with plenty of time to take root and grow rather than the exact same dollar value of seeds a month before dinner. Little snowball seeds; perhaps the ultimate mixed metaphor. 3. ANY nominee that emerges can beat Trump. Almost no one thought HE could win last time; so it’s kinda defeatist – and self-fulfilling – to think that this time he can’t lose. We just have to get our folks registered and to the polls, especially in these 7 states. If we make the investment now, our odds go up. 4. Too much is at stake not to “risk” helping. We only live once. This is our moment to step up. If YOU’RE in a position to be logical and generous, go ahead — make my day. I’ll see it right away to say thanks.