tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:/posts TQ White II 2017-07-14T14:50:47Z TQ White II tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1173486 2017-07-14T14:25:49Z 2017-07-14T14:50:47Z Ukraine v Russia

There are few things more annoying that the permanent effort to litigate Hillary Clinton's campaign. Worse, as the only sense in which it arises is, "Hillary did it, too!" and "Why aren't you mad at her, you hypocrite?" Lots of things are characterized as the last refuge of scoundrels but this has to be the worst. It suggests the comparison of a person who is probably the best human ever to run for president to an uneducated tyrant who disgusts every decent human being in the country. It is truly grotesque.

It also demands a comparison between the two campaigns. One that was carefully and successfully executed in a way that should make any American proud. If you read the extensively prepared positions, look at the immense and carefully organized operational structure or listened to her speeches, you will see a sound candidate running an amazing and effective campaign. Look at Trump's campaign and you find a disorganized nightmare of ad hoc racism, hatred and appeal to the worst instincts of our fellow citizens. Also, grotesque.

But the suggestion that we compare the horrific collusion with Russia shown by Junior's emails with the gathering of evidence about Manafort's connections to Ukraine is the worst yet, only understandable as the last refuge of Clinton haters and Trump apologists. It is unfair, silly and ultimately, dangerous.

The biggest reason is that the Clinton campaign is no longer relevant. Turn it around. When the Republicans started their jihad about email servers, nobody cared, not one tiny whit, that they were completely uninterested in the exact same behavior by people on their side. There was the real, legitimate fact of the precedent but everyone, news organization and Congressional committees alike, treated Hillary's servers as de novo, asserting that it was important because she was an important person who was expected to wield national power some day. Trump's collusion with Russia is important because he is president. He wields national power this day.

Had Hillary sent Chelsea to meet with the government of Ukraine to encourage them to bring the power of their government to bear on defeating her opponent as quid pro quo on relieving sanctions, it would still be completely irrelevant. She lost. There is no possibility that she will put Ukranian interests above America's. There is no possibility that the Ukrainians will have leverage over the government to force foreign policy decisions that help them achieve their goals over ours because she is not president.

Of course, the Clinton campaign did nothing like that. What actually happened is that someone heard that Manafort had improper ties to the Ukrainian government and, before accusing him publicly, went to ask the Ukrainians if it was true. The people with whom she met did not subsequently release a ton of stolen emails in a careful pattern to damage the opposition  or hack into the computers of dozens of strategically chosen voting authorities around the country. The Ukrainians at the meetings, as far as anyone can tell, were not lawyers with a brief to work on sanctions or anything else that would represent a potential corrupt 'ask'. 

Even more, nobody from the campaign management was involved in any way. Only one person was involved and there is no evidence that she was acting at the behest of Hillary Clinton. Don Trump Jr is can't say the same about his dad. Nor Manafort, Sessions or the rest.

The demand for equal consideration of these things is the epitome of false equivalence, fabricated, fictitious and dangerous to the republic. That Trump is a bad person and dangerous is obvious to anyone that is not a dumb partisan. That he very well may be a Mancurian Candidate, secretly working in favor of foreign powers from within the White House is a real possibility. Even setting aside that  he explicitly called for them, it is now all but certain that he and his campaign encouraged illegal acts by the Russians to interfere with the election in his favor and probably in return for acting on his subsequent repeated interest in lessening sanctions. That the Trump people uniformly "forgot" to mention the meetings until they were found out by the media confirms the stench of corruption.

The Clinton family has been harassed for twenty five years, charged with fake crimes and abused with the misuse of government resources from Whitewater to Vince Foster to Benghazi to Email Servers and a thousand steps in between. Hillary, far from being corrupt, is probably the cleanest, least corrupt politician in history as demonstrated by the horrific abuse and endless investigation that has failed for decades to turn up any important dirt. Comparing her to the thug in the White House with his practice of ripping off vendors, blatant lies, and obvious, proven corruptions of character too numerous and disgusting to list, is egregious. 

Demanding equal time for a minor conversation by a peripheral Hillary staffer as we do for the proven truth that the Trump management team met with Russians and concealed the meetings is a ridiculous obfuscation. It is one thing to spend all these years abusing Hillary for sheer political gain. It is quite another to keep talking about her in a way that obscures discussion of the real corruption and real national danger represented by this corrupt president.




]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1164256 2017-06-15T15:18:08Z 2017-06-15T17:44:45Z It is not the left that did this.

Trump and the Republicans have made it clear that they specifically do not represent anyone who didn't vote for them. At the highest levels, they explicitly, openly take pleasure in the doing things that distress those who don't support them. They refer to the institutions we revere, EPA, the fourth estate, safety net, etc, in extreme disparaging terms. 


Trump is not the only one who called for Second Amendment remedies. They all cheered the Malheur occupation and those who pointed guns at the Feds during the Bundy confrontation. They are building prisons as fast as they can, reinvigorating the war on drugs (aka, the war on black people) and abusing even the most innocent of immigrant young people.


The Congress treated Barack Obama brutally and were derisive when our side resisted Gorsuch. Trump led the charge to subvert the president that we elected with intentionally dishonest propaganda about his birth, religion and integrity.


This has been going on for years. Arguably it started with Reagan and welfare queens, certainly by '94 with Gingrich, worsening relentlessly since 9/11. It became clear during the Obama administration that, contrary to the promise of democracy, liberals will never be allowed to be represented or have influence in our governance. This is being done by the right. It leaves people powerless, desperate and angry.


Violence is never the answer but many are people are crazier, less mature or think that it is. This guy was unbalanced but he was not tipped over the edge by liberal ideology. He was provoked, brutally, repeatedly and intentionally.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1163939 2017-06-14T19:05:11Z 2017-06-14T19:05:11Z Please can't we be reasonable?


Funny. We didn't have calls for civility when the guy shot up the pizzeria. No R's called for civility when crowds shouted "lock her up". It was pure civil rights to forcefully take over Malheur. Bundy was a property rights hero. But *now*, we need civility.

How about open hearings for AHCA in the Senate. How about Sessions answers some questions. How about a Democrat in the Cabinet? Trump's thugs have taken over the government completely and revel in doing things, even completely pointless things (lead bullets!) with the intention of offending liberals.

This is to be expected. This will happen more. It is the height of  cynical hypocrisy for R's to be suddenly saying we've gone too far. We haven't. They have. These people are mean-spirited oppressors who have made the government "of the people" only for their supporters. Violence is wrong but it is understandable and will happen again.


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/337742-gop-rep-shooting-a-result-of-political-rhetorical-terrorism
]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1151299 2017-05-03T13:43:52Z 2017-05-03T13:43:53Z Amygdala, Part Oatmeal

Somewhere I wrote about my theory of the 2016 political race and how it was based on some people having fat, juicy, overactive amygdalas.

The guy who draws Oatmeal has some thoughts that are consistent with my views, ie,


Dig it here: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1141632 2017-03-26T15:35:37Z 2017-03-26T15:35:37Z Book ratings: Five stars and then some

I read a lot. I enjoy writing and saying things about books. I use GoodReads, Kindle and Audible.com. I like to rate the books I read. I have always had a fairly rigorous idea of how I use the usual five-star rating but, was trying to decide if four stars was right and realized that it would be helpful if I could consult a standard to decide. Here is mine.


Five stars is reserved for books that are life-changing and superb. Five star books will be amazingly well-written and incredibly interesting. This is rarely given by me but, when I finish a book and truly wish I could stay in it forever or that my perspective on something has been substantially improved, this is where it goes. Five star books are transcendental, wonderful experiences. If you share anything with my views, I believe you will love this book.

Four stars indicates that I really like this book and that I think you should read it. It will be, in my opinion, very well written and interesting. There will be things about it that are unique and present new ideas. Characters, plot, and other mechanics of writing will be very good. These are books that I recommend enthusiastically and that I am sure I will bring up in conversation fairly often. Four star books will leave you feeling satisfied and wishing for the book to never end.

Three stars is for a good book that I think you will enjoy. I am an easy-going person and do not require an author or a book to be perfect. I am happy to overlook flaws in a book if it has some good ideas or is just a pleasant way to while away the hours. I believe that a three star book will please you and that you will feel that the time it took to read was well spent. In my world, Three stars is a positive rating.

Two stars is for decent books that I didn't like very much. My dislike might stem from feeling like the viewpoints are annoying or the mechanics of the book were too evident and distracting. If I'm bored by a book that has an interesting premise that I can imagine others would enjoy, it might get two stars from me. Two star books are ones that someone who shares my views will not be likely to enjoy.

One star is reserved for books that I hate. If I give a book a single star, I probably did not finish it (though I have a 'hundred page rule' so I am never capricious in abandoning a book) because it was so boring or stupid that I felt insulted. In my opinion, a book with one star is  a book that is worth neither the time or money it will consume. When I give a book One star, it's because I am fairly irritated that the author would foist this kind of crap on me.


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1114404 2016-12-10T17:56:49Z 2016-12-10T17:56:49Z Google is wrong. The right to be forgotten is a human right and should be universal.

Google has an article complaining that some places are passing laws that require that a citizen who wants to have Google forget his or her past be forgotten universally. They claim a right to free expression and that the originating country's laws should not prevent them from saying what they want. And that the other country's should be able to choose not to grant such a right to their citizens.

Hilarious corporate bullshit to my way of thinking. Their concern about free expression doesn't extend to supporting a claim that some country should be allowed to pass a law invalidating all copyright. In that case, they would support the 'right' of the copyright owner to withhold it's 'content' from said country.

But, if it's a person whose country gives him or her something tantamount to copyright control over their own history and its use in a corporate product (search results are a corporate product that you are buying from Google with your attention), well, not so much. Corps get to control access. People do not.

This isn't the only perversity. Throughout history, humans have been able to go to the other side of the world and start over. Mistakes they made in their youth were invisible as they started their new lives. Crimes committed, controversies engaged, all of the detritus of a life could be escaped. The idea that every single thing that happens is recorded permanently and made easily available to everyone is a completely novel (and bizarre) thing.

This ability to start over is, I argue, a natural human right. It is a cruelty of the first rank to insist that every person be judged at any age by every single thing they have ever done. It makes youthful experimentation dangerous. It makes personal reform worthless. "I was a criminal. No matter what, outside my country, I will always be considered a criminal. Why bother to change?"

This is real. I have thought it myself because my life infractions are too light to be worth the hassle of trying to get Google to forget me. But, I have thought it. I have thought that I would prefer that some things that I have written online were not discoverable.

Note that no one is saying that the person or institution who had a beef with another person has to censor itself just that Google would not be allowed to sell the service of making a person's sensational past available to all comers.

Google's position has the, no doubt intentional, effect of making it so that the right to be forgotten is completely non-existent. On my computer at this exact moment, I can access Google in just about any country in the world (vpn, baby!). If I really care, I can turn myself into a local citizen Singapore and Google every, single person they 'forgot' in Germany.

I can hear the conservatives whine, "How will we know if a person has committed crimes or said mean things about us before we hire them?" Hard to imagine how civilization worked for the 3000 years before Google but, somehow, people did business, made new friends, and made progress when people had to be judged by who they were as they stood in front of you.

Google is an enemy of human freedom. It's bad enough that they favor corporations over people in their intellectual property policies. It's awful that they only respect the right to be forgotten in country's that pass a law. Now they want to make it so that you can only really be forgotten if we get every country I the world to pass that law.

As a consequence, every person's ability to move on with their life after something happens that would interfere with that is impaired because they want you to remain accessible as raw material for their products.

read more: Reflecting on the Right to be Forgotten

Sat Dec 10 2016 11:31:18 GMT-0600 (CST)
]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1105889 2016-11-06T13:42:53Z 2016-11-06T13:56:16Z Double Standard

Bill Clinton cheats on his wife, impeach him. Trump proudly brags about sexual assault and cheating on his wife, elect him.

Hillary oversaw the Department of State while four people died, put her in jail. Republicans oversee the deaths of 200, no problem.

Immigrants don't pay taxes, round them up and kick them out. Trump doesn't pay taxes, he's a business genius.

Hillary's foundation spends 'only' 87% of donations helping people, she's a crook. Trumps foundation pays his debts, buy art of his image and donated to bribe officials, he savvy.

Trump made turned his gifted millions into four billion dollars when the market says it should have been twelve, he's a business whiz. Hillary took a tax loss of $700k, she's a tax cheat.

Trump leaves a trail of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits and unpaid vendors, he's a smart business strategist. Hillary spends her life in public service, she's part of the problem.

Trump does an attach apology for saying he touched women, all is good. Hillary apologizes for using an email server, lock her up.

The double standard is shocking but not as disturbing as the false equivalence that allows Trump supporters to pretend that these two people are comparable in any way. Trump is a venial power monger who built his business on pure egotism. Hillary has spent her life making a practical difference in the lives of the people of America and the world.

Only one of them is worthy of your consideration. Vote for Hillary Clinton for the President of the United States.

If you’re not helping her, you’re helping him. DONATE. VOLUNTEER. VOTE.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1105655 2016-11-05T02:21:04Z 2016-11-05T03:04:31Z Hillary for President - The Affirmative Case

HIllary is a person who has been working for good causes since she was a very young woman. When she was twenty, she went undercover for a college project to uncover racial discrimination in education in the south. During her career as a lawyer in Arkansas, she was tremendously well respected. She took clients of all sorts but was especially involved in children and family issues.

Though the right-wing defeated her, she organized a huge effort involving experts and stake holders from every aspect of the health care world. It was a huge task that she undertook for no compensation because she felt that it was important to get better health care for millions of people.

That is, for no personal benefit, she undertook an effort for which a consulting company would charge millions and faced tremendous and unfair opprobrium from the right-wing and health care industry.

Her response? She dusted herself off and rammed through the States Children Health Insurance Program. It provides access to health care for many millions of children to this day. Faced with brutal opposition and painful defeat, she kept at it until she found a way to a good result.

As a Senator, she was praised universally for being collegial and imaginative in finding ways to work with people with whom she disagrees. As with her time in Arkansas and as a First Lady, she was praised for being incredibly hard-working, selfless and well-prepared.

When she ran for President, she added a new skill to her portfolio. She organized a national campaign that just about kicked Barack Obama's ass. She did it with such competence that Obama asked her to be Secretary of State. This ability to compete intensely while keeping doors open and relationships alive is a rare skill.

While she had many important accomplishments as Secretary of State the part that we learn that's new is that she is a tremendously kind and engaged boss. While carrying an insane workload (she traveled more than any previous Secretary of State), she also did things like bring the cake when a co-worker had a birthday. She took time to talk to even low level employees. She knew their kids and the issues in their lives.

We also are reminded of something that was said about her as a Senator, that she is unbelievably knowledgable and well-prepared. She was famous in the State Department for knowing more about specifics that the subject team leaders who briefed her. It turns out that she reads and reads and studies more than anyone. When everyone else is being an executive who delegates the details, Hillary takes the time to actually know what she is talking about. 

But, there are the right-wing claims about her. She's been under investigation forever. She wrecked out national security. She is a liar and a cheat. She must be hiding something. She helped Iran get nuclear bombs.

And it's all crap. She has been under investigation forever because, first, her husband's and, now, her Republican enemies want her destroyed. Starting with the completely disproved accusations over Whitewater and the Rose Law firm, and continuing to this day, every single investigation was initiated by people who hate her and her husband.

In the nineties, a right-wing creep named Richard Mellon Scaife was pissed because the Democrats took Congress after Newt Gingrich shut down the government over a dispute with Bill Clinton. Scaife started a company named Judicial Watch. 

Judicial Watch devised the strategy of suing the government over Freedom of Information requests with a specific goal of ruining the Clintons. It was them suing for ever more details about the Whitewater investigation that found the Lewinski problem and one statement over the course of a zillion interrogations that they used as an excuse for his impeachment. 

While the insane harassment over Benghazi (do you know that under her tenure as Secretary there were fewer people killed in embassies than under George Bush) was started by the Republicans, it was was Judicial Watch, still attacking her fifteen years later, that dragged out the email server issue.

The email server is the most insanely false issue of them all. Trump and the rest pretend it is a huge deal but it's not. Hillary used an email server. It was done because government technology was cumbersome. She made a point of not sending classified information though, apparently, a tiny bit leaked through. More importantly, nothing bad happened as a consequence. No secrets got out. National security was not, in fact, compromised.

Donald Trump, because he is a deeply dishonest person (projection being the main characteristics of his kind) calls her a liar. He insists that she was playing fast and loose with national security. He calls her dishonest and a criminal. But, she's not.

That's why the FBI exonerated her. Remember, Comey, who despises her, said the decision "wasn't even close". She did not commit any crimes. She spent eleven hours testifying in Congress. Her enemies screamed and yelled that she must be lying, demanded the FBI compare her testimony to everything she said to them. But here's the real truth: They could not point to one single thing that she lied about. They were left hoping that something she said in a deposition that they had not seen would reveal a mistake.

And that's what she's faced her whole career. Republicans trying to destroy her.

Hillary keeps her head down and keeps working. The people who know her love her. She's funny, smart and kind. The people she's worked with admire her. She has experience with the law. She has experience with failure and success. She's run a huge, international governmental organization (the State Department) very successfully. And, she won the nomination by appealing to fifteen million people with a message of hope and excellent policy substance.

I know, the Democratic National Committee preferred her. But why? The reason is that, while Bernie was doing his own, self-involved thing, she was out making friends. She helped people out. She was supportive and engaged. She built a huge, nationwide team of supporters. She worked to build organizations in every state. 

Remember how Bernie complained that he was stymied by state committees all over the country? He was right. While he was relying on his own vision of an abstract process, Hillary had been recruiting people to her cause for years. She built state organizations and developed friendships and loyalty. When the time came, people wanted to help her.

That's the main reason I want her for President. Though I absolutely believe that the things above add up to her being the best qualified, most highly prepared person who has ever run for the office, to me, her ability to work with people is what I want the most.

Let me be clear, I think that Hillary is a warrior. I think she, better than any of the men who have held the office in my life, knows how to kick ass with cold brutality. But she does it in a context of collaboration, engagement and mutual interests. She does it without keeping score. She works with people instead of trying to dominate them. She recruits people, not controls them. She prefers results to victory. She cares about people.

I won't go into the policy differences between her and Trump. (She has them. His are a joke.) Or his temperament. (The example of thin-skinned Twitter wars stand in for dozens of stories of revenge over small matters.) Or, his business record (bankruptcy after bankruptcy to leave his partners screwed.) Or the conflicts of interest. Or his admiration for dictators.

I note only that, in the testimony of dozens, refuses to pay vendors who can't afford to sue him. Who, in the testimony of dozens, has touched women without their permission. Who spent years dishonestly promoting the obviously false idea that Obama is not an American. Who has publicly ridiculed disabled people, bullied women (not just Miss Universe, for example, but Katy Tur of NBC), disparaged Mexicans and Moslems. 

I repeat these unarguable facts: He bragged about touching women. Dozens complained it was true. He stole from less powerful people because he could. Dozens have come forward with their stories. He was the prime mover of an attempt to discredit the American President while he was in office with a prolonged, false campaign. He has repeated bullied people in public without apology.

Hillary has spent her entire career working to help people. She has sacrificed and endured. She has picked herself up after defeat and helped her victor to achieve good results. She keeps moving and helping.

Hillary is an awesome person. Her policies are uniformly excellent. Her intelligence is superb. Her experience incomparable. She is known to be kind, hard-working, collaborative and honest. She has stood up to intense scrutiny and come up clean. She is immensely accomplished.

There has never been a better candidate for President. I encourage everyone to put aside the foul accusations made by her enemies. To understand that their determination to stop her is the best testimony for her virtue. I encourage everyone to accept the immense gift to our country that Hillary Clinton offers us, her service as President of the United States.


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1105010 2016-11-02T21:14:32Z 2016-11-02T21:14:32Z Your Fellow Voters

Most people do not believe that, even when denying climate change or the age of the earth, that they are 'denying facts'. The problem is that they think that the word 'fact' refers to information consistent with their emotional preconceptions instead of consistent with provable reality.

It is also true that there is no source of information that everyone agrees upon. That's because most of the people in this country are emotional lunatics. They are the people taht used to be kept in the social role often referred to as peasants.

The kings and dictators were able to organize resources and enforcement structures to keep those who were trapped by emotion and stupidity productive because they were, mostly, people who understood facts to be consistent with provable reality and had the intellectual wherewithal to act on them.

In the 1400's, human rights started being a thing. In England, that made it so that they could no longer simply execute troublesome peasants. The solution? Ship them to American.

They are your grandparents.

As with any genetic cohort, there are plenty of people who don't breed true and so had children who were not dominated by their emotions. Also, lots of people who were able to use intellect came here to exploit the less rational people.

So, we end up with a country that, if you take both Trump and Bernie supporters together, comprises a 70-30 split of emotion and anger based idiots vs people who intend to think real thoughts based on provable fact.

We are fucked.
]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1099881 2016-10-18T16:58:00Z 2016-10-18T16:58:00Z Trump v Hillary: Veterans Affairs

Trump (source material HERE)


appoint a good head of veteran affairs

discipline employees who have failed to carry out duties

investigate fraud and wrong-doing

promote honest employees

create a hotline

stop giving bonuses

reform visa system (?)

add mental health professionalsl

allow veterans to use private providers



Hillary (source material HERE)


emphasize service-connected conditions especially prosthetics and brain injury

coordinate VHA care with other programs

encourage use of specialty medical service providers

create VHA oversight board

ask Secretaries of Defense and VA to devise a new system

coordinate Dept of Defense and VA health delivery

joint DoD and VA procurement to reduce costs for veterans

cause the integration of DoD and VA IT systems

upgrade gender specific services

cover all reproductive services needed by female veterans

better childcare for veteran children

increase funding and add programs for mental health care

better pain management treatment to avoid opioid problems

include military sexual trauma as a valid for of PTS

add legal assistance to veterans with other than honorable discharges

maintain presumption of service connection for toxic exposure problems

"expand the current VA burn pit registry" (?)

add research funds and other collaboration for mental health and other invisible wounds

streamline and simplify claims process

integrate DoD and VA so DoD can inform VA of future needs

work to entirely revise the claims process to make it more effective

create a standing President's Council on veterans

end to end evaluation of all benefits to find new areas of investment

personally and regularly meet with "Summit of Veterans" to insure that needs are addressed

work with private and philanthropic organizations to add resources to veterans

make the post 9/11 GI bill permanent and expanded

additional tax credits for veterans employment

increase funds available to state and local governments to transfer military credentials to private sector

expand efforts to train, counsel and fund veteran entrepreneurs

work to prevent ripoff of vets by private schools

use federal contracting to punish companies that overcharge, defraud or otherwise ripoff vets

add veteran status to the Fair Housing Act

work to reduce veteran homelessness by supporting community based organizations

expand outreach programs to find and help homeless vets

clarify Fair Housing Act to eliminate gender specific language that harms veterans and families

offer space to communicate legal organizations in VHA clinics to help veterans with minor offenses, mental health and substance abuse issues

retroactively review LGBT veterans discharge status

empower supervisors to discipline underperforming employees

revise employee evaluation process to improve performance culture

increase whistleblower protections

prioritize VA in budgetary processes

clean up problems with veteran burials


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1098991 2016-10-15T19:12:26Z 2016-10-15T19:13:09Z What Trump Could Do

Recently I was asked "what harm can Trump really do?"

I think he could start a war. I think he could work with a Republican Congress to revise the tax code so that social services are bankrupt and the ultra wealthy get more. I think he could gut the EPA so it cannot function. Same with OSHA. Same with the Justice Department’s racism functions.

I think he could work to sell more military equipment to local police departments. He could press for more charter and other privatized schools. He could work to expand the ‘religious freedom’ charade to abuse gay people more. He could help criminalize abortion. 

He could increase the abuse of Moslems and thereby increase the likelihood that Moslem citizens become enemies. He could encourage more ‘castle doctrine’ laws and increase availability of guns.

he could implement ideology tests for immigration. He could implement drug testing for welfare people. He could encourage the reinstatement of stop and frisk laws.

He could try to put Hillary in jail. He could use the Justice department to harass and jail ‘enemies’ of all sorts. He could work to allow corporations to discriminate against women because “pregnancy is an inconvenience”.

He could increase Russia’s ability to annex more land adjacent to its borders. He could turn the Middle East into a war of total destruction. He could start a trade war with China. 

He could expand the availability of nuclear weapons around the world. 

He could use our military to express his impetuosity and anger.

President Donald Trump could do a lot.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1098734 2016-10-14T15:10:24Z 2016-10-14T15:14:12Z Hillary's Foreign Policy

I had occasion to read an article in Foreign Policy magazine about Hillary Clinton (HERE). It was no encomium. However, it painted a picture of a smart, reasonable and principled Secretary of State. The article is an education on recent international history but, since the article is long, I offer these few excerpts for your edification.


"'The test of a strategic dialogue,' Burns notes, 'is how it can weather unexpected events.' The fact that the Chinese chose not to blow up the talks was itself a vindication of Clinton's tactics.'

"[...]

"'Clintonism properly understood, he asserts, is 'nesting a hard-power approach into a broader smart-power strategy — development, diplomacy, public-private partnerships, rule of law.'

"'[...]

"''Dennis Ross observes, 'President Obama's view was that we had to work with our adversaries and seek to change their behavior by looking at their grievances. I think that Hillary looks at adversaries through the lens of how they define their interests. A focus on interests means recognizing the reality of power relationships, and the need to use power in defense of your interests.'

"'[...]

"'[Regarding Libya] Gates, Biden, and others opposed American military involvement, since even a mass killing would not seriously impinge on national interests. Clinton, like Obama himself, was in the middle. She was coming under great pressure from France and Britain, both of which favored an aerial campaign to stop Qaddafi from taking Benghazi. Only when she won agreement from the Arab League to support and engage in such an effort, which would include Arab as well as European fighter planes, did Clinton join the advocates.

"[...]

"But America is no longer in recovery from George W. Bush, and it is no longer in urgent need of a new face. What it needs is a fresh source of inspiration, a sense that the world matters and that American leadership matters, a recognition that power is not a bad thing so long as it is accompanied by humility and restraint."


Really, though. Read the article. It's very interesting. You can find it HERE.


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1098718 2016-10-14T14:08:26Z 2016-10-14T17:19:26Z Contretemps on Trump

So, yesterdays criticism of Hillary is that she supposedly has said the word "fuck", including in the context of "fuck you". Obviously, if this were a problem, no one on Earth would be qualified for the Presidency but, the Trumpsters are desperate. As you might imagine, my comment on the matter included reference to Donny Sniff and Snort's bragging that he had grabbed women by the pussy. To me, this seems a more important obscenity than the use of "fuck" in conversation.

Fortunately, one of their dim bulbs raised his hand to participate in the conversation. It was a master class in stupid, so I thought I would record the conversation for posterity. You can judge my evaluation by looking at his Facebook (HERE). It tells us that the Constitution is at risk if Hillary gets elected so you won't be disappointed.

Following is the conversation. You will note that he never actually disputes things I say in reply. (I hope you will note that each of my replies is entirely guided by his assertions.) It ends, as usual, with the guy just ignoring the whole conversation.


Greg Grimes I think TQ might want to see a plumber...he has a bit of a case of public pottymouth...so, we'll send foulmouthed Trump packing and get stuck with foulmouthed HRC...a pathological liar, egotist, elitist and panderer to the stars and Wall Street... I can only imagine what the Founding Fathers are saying about the sad state of the Union today...


TQ White II What is wrong with you people? Liar, egotist, elitist and panderer? Do you know the meaning of the word, Projection?


Your DJT is caught in lies every day. I mean, he said "there was no sex tape" when he had said there was days earlier. What is that other than a direct lie?

DJT doesn't talk about anything other than himself. He actually claims to have a big ego. He puts his name on *everything*. Why is it bad for Hillary but good for him?

Elitist? The guy has gold plated bathroom fixtures, three trophy wives, lives on the top floor of a fabulous Manhattan building. What on earth could be more elite than that?

And, pandering? Can you really imagine that his sudden affection for evangelical religion is anything other than the most extreme example of pandering ever?

But what's most hilarious is talking about Hillary being foul mouthed when we are still in disbelief about DJT talking to Billy Bush. Of course, it's ok for a man to have a foul mouth. Not a woman.

I guess that tells us why you really hate Hillary so much because it sure isn't the things you say that DJT does in spades.


Greg Grimes No TQ, it's not the foul language...that is almost a given in today's course culture...I don't even know if I'll vote for him... I cannot in good conscience vote for a woman who, at every turn and with every legal manuever possible, has thwarted our legal system...lied when our citizens died...basically sold her office to the highest bidder for access...left a line of bodies, figuatively and literally back over decades to Arkansas...accomplished little more in her tenure as Sec. of State than help to destabilize an already shaky area...We have lived with the Clintons in some form or fashion since the 70s...wherever they go corruption follows...Is Trump perfect? No, absolutely not, but he has struck a chord that government is broken and people are angry like they haven't been in decades...the public servants that we elect and pay now have become our masters...that the bureaucratic world of DC never sees justice when injustice is done...lives are crushed by over taxation and regulation while our money, your money and mine, is squandrered and when the culprits are caught they are given a pension and sent on their merry way...and HRC is the embodiment of that culture of corruption...and when she attains what she has coveted for so long, the White House, she will consolidate even more power in the executive office and throw the balance of power, set forth in the Constitution, more out of whack...Hate Trump if you must but understand it was politicians excactly like Hillary that created him and though he will likely not win the WH the anger he represents will not go away



TQ White II Greg, I can't imagine that you can be this deluded.


1) You say "thwarted". This overlooks the fact that a) she has been investigated and never charged. And, b) it says that the people that investigated are all stupid or corrupt. And, c) that your Fox News infused prejudice trumps the presumption of innocence.

2) Your understanding of foreign policy is revealed to be, well, I'll hope for ignorant, not stupid, when you characterize her tenure that way. Nobody who actually knows anything agrees. Read Foreign Policy magazine. (eg, HERE) I know. MSM. I'm probably wrong to hope you're not an idiot.

3) Line of bodies, corruption everywhere. That you say this only tells me that you don't actually know things. None of it is true. Everyone has looked deeply into the consequences of the Clinton Foundation and found, surprise, an excellent charitable organization that had no undue influence during her tenure. I know. Only 10%. If you believe that you're more like a mendacious idiot than a regular one.

4) Your overview of the Trump v Hillary throwing out the balance of power. The idea that she created the Trump phenomenon. Even the idea that they have become our masters. All just tell me that you are living in the middle of a cartoon. There is literally no actual, fact-based evidence to support it.

It was George Bush that put in place the PATRIOT act. It was George Bush that created Guantanamo Bay. It was during George Bush's administration that they passed the law encouraging widespread use of civil forfeiture. I cannot think of *any* actions take by Obama or Bill Clinton that have reduced your freedom in any way.

Except, of course, for Dodd Frank, which I'm sure you consider tyranny and to which I point as the final evidence that you are deluded. Dodd Frank reduces the freedom of corporations to fuck you over.

But, of course, that has no meaning to you because you can't actually think about anything but your tremulous joy at having a Big Man sympathize with your tremulous fear. Ooooh Moslems make me want to cry. Oh those big bad media guys.

Bottom line, the big difference between you and me is that I read lots and lots of stuff and I know things. You listen to right-wing radio and think that there is no real difference between the seething angry child who stalked around the debate stage, furious that suddenly people don't care that he's rich and that his bad acts aren't ignored because he's The Donald, and the serious, brilliant politician who has spent her entire life working to help people.

I mean, at twenty years old, she went to the heart of the South alone to work on discrimination. Known by every person whose ever worked for her to be the smartest most sensible person they know. And you talk about a trail of bodies and compare her to a guy who literally doesn't know anything about governing.

Beyond belief. The only thing that gives me hope for this country is that he is going to lose by a Yuge margin.

Greg Grimes Hmmm, no...just cannot abide a career criminal in the WH...maybe I'll vote Johnson...America, I fear, will end, as we know it, if HRC gets the nod
]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1097585 2016-10-10T15:01:19Z 2016-10-10T15:01:19Z Disaster!!

Donald Trump's isn't very articulate. He has a hard time finding ways to criticize things he doesn't like. Consequently, he has to rely on his favorite word: Disaster.

Donald Trump said that things were a disaster fourteen times in his second Presidential debate. He said it about these things:

Inner cities

Obamacare

Single payer

Obamacare

Obamacare

Iraq

Hillary's tax plan

Hillary's Senate record

Hillary's Secretary of State record

Allepo

NAFTA

Inner cities

Hillary's Senate record

The economy

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1097066 2016-10-08T15:38:09Z 2016-10-08T15:48:57Z My Case for Hillary

Here are the points I want to discuss:

- Her judgment about Syria as a reason not to vote for Hillary

- That she should be in jail because she feels she is above the law

- That she won’t do anything good

Hillary was the prime mover in the implementation of SCHIP. That program has, since the nineties kept about 8 million kids in health insurance and thereby given them access to doctors. What does her determination to create that say about her judgement?

Syria is an insanely difficult problem. The alliances and consequences are complicated beyond explanation. As I understand it, the main flaw imputed to Hillary is that she preferred a policy of helping Syrian rebels in their effort to overthrow their dictator, Bashir al Assad. This guy has been a horrible problem forever. Among many other things, he used chemical weapons on his own citizens. He is a monster and a serious impediment to peace in the region.

Now, it’s apparent that 1) those rebels failed to overthrow Assad, and 2) absolutely no one has any idea how to actually solve the problem there. With a half dozen governments actively causing trouble, it is very difficult for me to see how Hillary could hold singular responsibility for any of it. This is a chess game with a lot of players. 

Perhaps, only ‘perhaps’, she was wrong to choose the path of eliminating Assad. However, there were a lot of paths tried. She did, in fact, try to work with Syria to bring it to the table. She did, in fact, work with Iran to try to quell Assad’s violence. She did a lot of stuff and none of it worked. I have never actually read (and I just spent twenty minutes reminding myself) of anyone who had a solid alternative that she rejected.

But, more to the point. If one is going to pick an issue on which to base a decision about Hillary, why choose Syria over SCHIP? In Syria, 400k people have been killed. In America, at any moment, eight million kids have access to health care. In Syria, she was presented with an intractable problem that no one has been able to solve, including her. For health care, she was presented with an intractable problem and she found a way to help millions of children.

While I don’t think anyone should be judged on the outcome of a single project, choosing the most impossible one doesn’t seem like the right thing to do. I prefer to look at the overall person. In this case, suppressing Iran’s nuclear program, international women’s rights and climate change, a lifetime of devotion to moving the ball forward on many women’s and social issues seem to paint  a more complete picture that is a more approbate basis for a decision.

The notion that Hillary is a criminal that would be in jail if the government was not corrupt is a favorite trope on the right. The basic premise is that she has, for the last twenty five years (!) cheated the system by somehow slipping past indictment after indictment. While I would, were it true, sincerely believe that this represents a level of cunning genius and capability that increases my desire for her to be running the show, it’s simply not true.

To begin with, she hasn’t committed any crimes. None. Nada. Not one. She has been at the brutal end of investigation for all those twenty five years, usually with highly biased investigators. None of them has ever found evidence of any crimes. 

While it is true that they continued to talk as if they had found proof, they are lying. James Comey, Republican head of the FBI and well-known Clinton hater, said it best, “Nothing she has done rises to the level of a crime.” “No prosecutor would bring a case.” “No crime was committed.” (These are paraphrases. I don’t have the patience to look up the exact language.)

And that’s just the latest. Do you really think she killed Vince Foster? Do you really think that she stole money but somehow the years of Whitewater investigations never found it? Read THIS article for a review of the viciousness and falseness of these attacks.

All of which is to say, if Hillary deserved to be in jail, she would be or, at least, I would know about it. Instead, what I have learned in my decades of following her and being a hobbyist interested in politics and political controversy is that the truth is literally the opposite. Contrary to being a shady character, Hillary is a person of such high integrity and rectitude that decades of effort by her enemies to prove her a criminal has failed.

It’s true, though, that we live in hopeless times. Lately, I’ve been thinking that one of the weirdest things is that having the biggest army no longer really gets us anything. It makes me think of antibiotic resistance. In the first half of the last century, both our military and antibiotics literally changed the world in every way imaginable. Now, it is frequent that people die because they are attacked by something for which antibiotics do not work. Now, it is frequent that people are killed by political violence for which our army does not work.

It hits America at its very core. This country is defined by two things: Money and Violence. Sure, people like to talk about the rule of law but not when it’s black kids getting shot by police. They like to talk about the resilience of the population but that’s utter bullshit. America knows how to make money and it knows how to defeat Hitler.

So, we find ourselves in an era when the real problems (in addition antibiotic resistance) are climate change, international economic inequality (also known as terrorism), the growth of religious fundamentalism (also known as the American political system), and a bunch of other things that are simply not solved by either guns or money. There is a broad and deep sense of pessimistic ennui among our fellow citizens.

So, they say that Hillary is not Bernie. She’s not an agent of change. She’s a pawn of the banks. She’s part of the power structure. She’s not going to do anything good. But there is absolutely no factual basis for believing such a thing. When I say “absolutely”, I’m not being rhetorical.

Certainly Hillary will face tough obstacles to accomplishment. But, so did Barack Obama. As everyone knows, the Republican leadership of Congress met on the day of his inauguration to make an agreement that they would never cooperate with anything he wanted to do, regardless of its virtue. Regardless, it turned out, if it was a plan that they had, themselves, proposed.

Yet, health care is available to tens of millions of people and America is measurable healthier because of it. We have an international agreement to control carbon emissions that includes both the other big countries and those in the third world. We have record job and economic growth. He was a prime mover in equality for gay people. He reopened relations with Cuba. He did a bunch of things to improve education. He got banks out of the student loan business. He got financial regulation (Dodd Frank) implemented. (You can read about this HERE.)

Barack Obama was a newcomer on the political scene when he was elected. While he said a lot of nice stuff, he had no real record of doing anything novel. We just believed him. And, it was easy. He is a preternaturally charismatic person and he is truly brilliant.

It’s a little harder with Hillary because she is a nerd, and not just a regular nerd, but an ultra-nerd. A nerd who always invests whatever time it takes to make sure that she knows more than anyone else. (Not 'appears' to know more, but actually knows more. She was famous in the State Department for knowing more than her briefers about almost everything.)

Unfortunately, nerds are aware of the complexity of everything. So, when Hillary speaks, she has to choose her words very, very carefully to find just the right phrasing that connects the insane amount of information correctly. This makes her less fluid and therefore less believable than both of the brilliant but non-nerdy men who preceded her, Bill and Barack. They are able to elide the details. She is not.

Hillary, on the other hand, does have a real record of doing stuff. SCHIP is one thing. Sanctions that brought Iraq to the table are another. She invented health care reform when it was a forgotten history lesson. She coined the phrase “Women’s rights are human rights” and, had the insight to force her way to China to say it at a time when the notion of a woman doing such a thing was an innovation in itself.

In both the Senate and the State Department, she was known for being a remarkably effective person at getting things done. She was known for being able to apply her superpower nerdiness to figure out ways to change plans to appeal to more people and thereby bring more support to bear. She was known for being friendly and effective in converting enemies into supporters of the causes she pursued. She is, in short, known for being a person who, first and foremost, is able to get things done.

The only question then is whether she wants to do anything good. For that, you have to decide if working to extend free public education through local college is a good thing. Or, if you think that trying to make it so that every home in America can be powered by clean energy is a good thing or that adding a half a billion (!) solar panels to the economy counts as good. (Her energy program is amazing. You can read about it HERE.) Or criminal justice reform, or revising the tax code so that employers are encouraged to have profit sharing, or improvements in child care options, or, well, let’s just say, she has a lot of ideas for things that, in my opinion, are really good things.

Combined with her lifelong commitment to things that are consistent with my values and her proven record of accomplishing such things, it seems to me a little too easy to join the pessimistic zeitgeist and to apply it to this remarkable, brilliant woman.

I will conclude by noting one other thing about Hillary that makes me want her to be my President. She is known, in actual, personal fact, to be a lovely person. She is said to, by everyone who knows her, to be a very warm and caring person with a good sense of humor and a sincere interest in the people around her. As Secretary of State, she often brought the cake to celebrate co-workers’ birthdays. (Name another chief executive who does that.) The people that know her love her. The reason is that she’s a person whose fundamental personality includes taking care of the people around her, caring about their opinions and wanting to nurture them. That is, the reason is that she exhibits some of the best virtues that exemplify the feminine perspective.

There are many reasons that I support Hillary with a fervor and love that I have applied to none of the other candidates that I have supported in the past. Her experience is unparalleled. Her brilliance is unmatched. Her knowledge and ability to turn that into productive plans and strategies is as good or better than any public figure I’ve ever known.

But the biggest reason is that she is a woman. I am tired of aggression as the primary public cause. I’m tired of a country lead by testosterone and an inclination toward dominance. I am tired of leaders who consider caring to be weakness. I am tired of competition and quick solutions. 

I know Hillary has flaws. I know that she is more of a power-broker than she appears. I know that she will have to kick ass, probably do more war and do a lot of things that I wish she didn’t. But I also know that her fundamental view is different than even the second loveliest President of my life, Barack Obama. She is a woman. She collaborates first.

I want that with a deeply held emotional need that is hard to express. It’s not true that our problems are all caused by men. But enough of them are that I want to give a woman a chance. That is change I can believe in.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1092279 2016-09-21T21:30:20Z 2016-09-21T21:30:21Z Why not a $50 dollar minimum wage?

Because Republicans don't care if people starve while working full time. I would absolutely raise the minimum wage to a level that a person can live a decent life.

It is my opinion that a business owner who pays less than a decent living wage is stealing from each employee. In most cases, they are also stealing from society, too, since we have to deal with feeding, jailing, etc, for people who are desperate.

It is my opinion that any business that cannot afford to pay its employees a decent living wage is a failed business by definition. I see no reason why a failed business owner should remain in business.

And before you tell me that nobody would go into business if they had to pay a decent living wage, I will tell you that it is my opinion that 1) you don't have enough faith in the greediness of American entrepreneurs, and 2) If stuff needs to be done, it will be done.

I would also tax the use of robots (in a broad, general sense of automated systems) in a way that insured that no business owner was encouraged to use fewer people than appropriate. I would use the proceeds of those taxes to support people who could not get a job with, you guessed it, a decent living stipend.

Yes. I am a liberal. You might call me a socialist. I believe that work is the important part of the capitalist system, not management. I believe that the application of capital in my country has to serve the people.

I believe a person who extracts a penny of profit while he has a single worker on food stamps should be taxed until the situation is changed, either by the worker making more or the profiteer being replaced with someone who values America and Americans more than his or her own greed.
]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1092139 2016-09-21T12:29:36Z 2016-09-21T12:29:36Z On the Occasion Where The Donald Changed His Mind

Dear Trumpsters,

Don't you finally see that he is just using you now that he revealed that he was playing you for a fool by pretending to be a birther?

I mean, he had you and your friends saying really goofy stuff about Obama's heritage, fighting vociferously against the Kenyan threat, and he didn't really believe it. He must have been laughing at how sincerely the rubes bought that bit of social manipulation. I know I was.

How did it feel when, with absolutely no new evidence, he said, "He's an American. I was just jerking you around." And then everyone on Earth laughed and wrote articles about the use of the word "lie" in the media.

Hillary never humiliated me like that. Never treated me like a fool.

Sincerely,
A Supporter of the Decent Candidate

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1082507 2016-08-19T15:14:13Z 2016-08-19T15:14:14Z An Exchange on Immigration and Terrorism The person quoted below found me in a Facebook post by a right-winger I know. After some back and forth, I finally convinced him to discuss the topic at hand. He wrote a very nice essay explaining his view in rebuttal to my assertion that 'borders are mainly useful for deciding who to hate'. (He is not a native english speaker and included no paragraph breaks. I separated the sentences in the quotation below for readability.)

Says he.

"This all idea is upsetting to me.

"I grew up in Germany during a time when we did have a wall to keep people in! Any wall works both way...

"But we must have people respect the laws that will protected them once they are in the country.

"From my perspective the reason for illegal immigration is a lack of opportunity in their own countries.

"The best answer would be to create more jobs in Central America.

"I am involved in a project in Tanzania where we provide loans to farmers and educate them in financial management and farming techniques.

"The project has been going on for 10 years and has grown to 40 villages now.

"Most exciting to me is that we have save several thousand children from malnutrition and death and that the life expectancy of people in villages we are active in has grown from 51 to over 60 years!! That is bring in hope and a future for people.

"That is what we need to do an a larger scale in Central America.

"That will stop the problem.

"The terror issue to me is an issue of the conflict of civilizations - there is a book by that same title by a navy strategic think tank guy from back in the late nineties.

"He predicted the great powers to be the christian north west and the islamic east.

"Turkey being the leading power in the islamic bloc.

"I have spend a good deal of time in the middle east and Africa and done a fair amount of business in with Muslims and people of other religious groups.

"You have to understand that as a Christian in the Middle East, you are at fault, regardless of what happened, because you should not be here and if you were not here, what ever happened would not have happened.

"Logical! These civilizations are not compatible and living in the same place is very difficult, because you do need a common set of laws and that means you need to have a common set of fundamental values - and we don't.

"Singapore does a good job of creating a multi religious environment, but they are brutal enforces of law and order; the rest of the world is not good at making this work.

"And as long as we have a competition between the believes living in the same country will lead to conflict.

"Don't get me wrong, I have gained a number of very good friends in the Arab world who are muslims, but the best way for us to live is that they live where they live and I live where I live and we get to gather every so often and enjoy each other and discuss our differences.

"It would be foolish to live in the same place, because we would not be able to agree on who's rules to follow.

"I like them they like me, but let's not move in together."

To which I replied.

"I deeply appreciate your notes here. It is, I think, the first time a person from the right has actually responded to the idea, rather than calling me names. THank you.

"We agree on immigration, at least I think we do. I would expand on your observation to include legal immigration as well. People rarely leave their home if they are comfortable there.

"Your perspective on terrorism is illuminating. I suppose the difference between us is that I do not accept the notion that people with different values cannot live together. I don't disagree entirely. I cannot share space with an ax murderer. But, I am inclined to think that there are values that are intrinsic to being human that can serve as a foundation for sharing a society.

"I note, for example, that the American melting pot easily contains lots of Moslems, Jews and Christians in close proximity. In many places, environmentalists living next to oil barens. Here in Minnesota, we have a large contingent of Hmong people mostly living comfortably among big, blond people of Scandinavian descent. (The office suite next to mine at work has just such a group of tiny people. No problems at all.)

"But there certainly are value systems that seek to dominate in ways that make it difficult for others to cohabit. Fundamentally, our disagreement lies in the response to that fact. Yours is that "it would be foolish to live in the same place". Mine is that we must live in the same place and find a way. This is, at its foundation, where you and I differ.

"But I do not to disagree with the problems of unlike value systems sharing a society. In France, they are having terrible problems, substantially, in my opinion, because their value system requires submission to French culture. But in America, the problem is different and it doesn't have anything to do with Moslems. Moslems in America live with the American value system perfectly well. In American, the value system that is aggressive and intolerant is Christianity.

"And that brings me back around to the topic of immigration. America is not troubled by immigrants. Mexican immigrants, with and without papers, are great people. In general, they work hard, take care of their families, and contribute to society in a thousand ways. I literally do not know of an immigrant population that, generally speaking, fits your concern about disparate values.

"The one group that I argue is causing a problem in your context comprises native born Americans, the Christian right-wing. They are the people who want to pass laws based on their religion, who want to ignore the American value of inclusiveness by refusing to do business with people that see things differently, etc. The problem that you worry about is not immigration or borders, it is people with different values and they show up without immigrating.

"So, what do borders do for this problem. We started, after all, with my claim that borders are a way to decide who to hate. I think you have made a good case that I overgeneralize about right-wing people. Clearly your view of borders is to protect you from those nasty, middle-eastern Moslems based on a legitimate theory that their value system and ours cannot share the same society, not because you hate them.

"But, I also think that I am right for many (I believe almost all) of your co-right-wingers. Almost always, the conversation about immigration on the right starts with Mexicans and they do not, in any way, fit your theory. Their value systems are 100% compatible with ours. Without you theory of incompatible cultures, I cannot see any reason except racial hatred."




]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1078794 2016-08-04T16:06:29Z 2016-08-04T16:06:29Z Noam Chomsky on Lesser Evil Voting
Voting according to your conscience is an unconscionable thing to do. Act according to your conscience when there are not bad consequences for other people. A pacifist who allows many people to be murdered because he won't kill is a monster. A voter who votes against Hillary in principle knowing that Trump will abuse millions of Moslems is a monster.

Says Noam Chomskey, political philsopher,

"Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites. [...]

"[B]y dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve."

http://tqwhite.org?DA4D76

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1061189 2016-06-08T13:28:21Z 2016-06-08T13:28:21Z Leave the Primaries Alone

I see people talking about reforming the primary process to be "simpler and more accountable", "uniform primaries", etc. I disagree. These people want to turn an interesting process that tests the abilities of the candidates and their organizations on many levels into the equivalent of education's high stakes testing.

Contrary to the opinion of the losers, the Nevada process showed us, for example, that Hillary runs a team that covers the details and plans carefully. It showed that Bernie and his campaign were not up to the task. That's important information for voters.

Caucuses show a campaign's ability to reach out in a small-ball, emotional context. The sequence of conventions and their negotiations show the power and savvy of the candidate. These are all important.

Primaries replace this complexity with a single, uniform (and fairly boring) test. Money plays an outsize role because of advertising. So do special interest organizations who can muster volunteers. They, too, have their place but to change it all into a monoculture would be bad.

Super delegates enrich the situation, too. They actually represent one more primary challenge for the candidates. It takes entirely different skills and characteristics to appeal to professional politicians. The stated purpose is to prevent a Trumpian disaster, but they also represent the judgment of the seasoned people who really know how politics works.

I do not think the primary system is broken at all. It fulfills many needs.


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1044435 2016-04-30T17:59:04Z 2016-04-30T17:59:04Z Distracted driving is "Pure Death"


No. Pure death is a bullet to the head. Drinking cyanide.

Distracted driving is highly diluted death. I know because I know of millions of people who are not dead yet and probably never will be.

They say it is as bad as drunk driving, another activity that is wildly overrated as deadly. Though I assiduously avoid it, my few experiences with staggering home in a car have resulted in zero deaths. My old friend and desperate alcoholic Al Spinnabella only drove drunk. To the best of my knowledge, he never killed or hurt himself or anyone else.

To be clear, I do not drive drunk and I do not text while driving. Both clearly increase risk for little reward.

But, talking on the phone is almost as bad. I do that all the time. I know it increases risk but the reward is high. You might feel that way about listening to music. I do about listening to books.

Everything lives on a spectrum of risk. Driving a car is extremely dangerous compared to watching television. But the reward for driving is high.

I am in favor of analyzing risks so that they can be mitigated but I am not in favor of trying to control behavior. Not only doesn’t it never work but the unintended consequences are usually appalling. Making cars safer has had infinitely more benefit that all of the reductions in blood alcohol level, increases in penalties and social opprobrium put together. It will be the same for distracted driving.

Here’s the other thing. It’s so not-close to “pure death” that people continue to do it. In fact, everyone who’s not a nanny-state advocate knows it's not even terribly dangerous. I have been hearing about this for years and am still alive and so is just about everyone else.

The annual death rate for automobiles is 10.7 per 100k (about 33k per year, less than unintentional poisoning) and the number of people admitted to the hospital for auto injuries is 50 per 100k. To accumulate those injuries and deaths, Americans drove three trillion miles in 2015 (it’s up almost six percent so far for ’16).

Which is to say that 350 million people spent (apparently) all day every day in a car and only .0005 of them (.05%) were hurt more than a sprain (non-hospital injury). Those ~90k that got killed or hospitalized represent 1.2 billion (13.7k/driver, I leave out the fact that not all were drivers) miles of driving. That means that we got over 2.99 trillion miles without death despite all the distracted and drunken driving.

Again, I’m not saying that people should do things in cars to increase the risk to themselves or anyone else. What I’m saying is that the alarm presented on the Diane Rehm show is overblown. I read today that New York is working on an implied consent law that would force you to show your phone to a cop to prove you weren’t texting (the article calls it a ‘textalizer’) in the same way that getting a drivers license obligates you to blow for the cop if they want.

Given the level of hysteria that goodie-goodies are working up, we can imagine (and why not?) roadblocks that check both your drunk status but also your phone.

And all this for activities that I believe with perfect certainty are much less dangerous than having a couple of kids in the car between the ages of two and five. There, of course, the benefit of allowing the risky activity is very high so we don’t care.


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1033492 2016-04-14T18:50:04Z 2016-04-14T18:50:04Z UC Davis Pepper Spray Campus Police

It was one of the nastiest events of its period. A bunch of students hosed down with pepper spray at University of California in Davis.

It was an appalling event. Anyone who is trying to figure out if they would allow their child or student to attend the place should consider it. It was an obviously peaceful protest and the campus police were obviously out of control. This suggests a world of irresponsible management at UC Davis.

Take a look and see if you don't agree that the campus police were doing being abusive when they pepper sprayed these peaceful protesters.



http://tqwhite.org?3FCB0F

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1030470 2016-04-10T21:48:38Z 2016-04-10T21:49:55Z Revolution

Personally I don't like the dichotomy being expressed by some Hillary fans claiming to support "evolutionary" over "revolutionary". It supports the Bernie Bros claim that she's into the status quo and "incrementalism." It's counterproductive.

It's also not true that Bernie promises something fundamentally different than Hillary does. They both seek to achieve the same goals. She wants to remove money from politics. She wants college to be affordable. She wants to prevent the financial industry from harming society or the people in it. I cannot think of a single Bernie goal she doesn't hope to pursue.

What she doesn't do is call people enemies and frauds. She doesn't speak in language of destruction and anger. She talks about planning, information and thoughtful policy. Considering where our country is today, that is the real revolution.

Bernie is, in fact, moving in the direction of the main political perspective. The entire Republican party speaks of enemies and destruction. They talk about groups of people who are bad. For the R's it's Moslems and Mexicans. For Bernie, it's "the business of Wall Street is fraud." Like theirs, his entire political strategy is dogma. The same five ideas repeated again and again and again and again. If you don't buy into them as expressed, you are reviled.

Viewed from the meta-perspective of how they want to operate to address the country's problems, Bernie and the R's have much the same strategy, albeit with very different goals. Hillary, different from the mainstream politicians and talking heads, is the revolutionary. She's the one who proposes respect. Respect for knowledge, expertise, collaboration and the political process.

So, this idea that Hillary represents a marginal, incremental approach is just wrong. She emphatically rejects the dogmatic, ideological and bitter strategy of the past - of Bernie and the R's.

She presents a new way of doing things - being smart, adaptable and collaborative. That's my kind of revolution.
]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1023455 2016-04-01T14:47:27Z 2016-04-01T18:02:40Z Does a woman have the right to control her body?

If not, she is a slave. Like a black person in the 1800's who was not allowed to refuse sex and was forced to breed additional slaves, a woman would be forced to create a child at someone else's demand. She would be prohibited from having medical procedures she deems appropriate.

The justification of "life beginning" is a fraud. It doesn't matter. No one doubts the legitimacy of killing in self-defense. Few doubt the legitimacy of killing on the battle field. Few doubt the legitimacy of killing vile criminals. Killing is an accepted tactic for making a person's life, or society work better.

The focus on the "innocent baby" is simply a propaganda way of shaming women and controlling them. It is a way of making sure that no woman can be secure in her future. It is a way of making sure that a slut (any sexual woman) pays, and pays dearly. It is a way of making sure that women cannot survive without bring under the control of a man.

We do have to live together but only because I do not have the balls to raise an army to murder every motherfucker who talks about interfering with the lives of women.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/1011925 2016-03-11T17:18:24Z 2016-03-11T17:18:25Z My Choice is Hillary
Bernie partisans will tell you that he's passionate and committed. Hillary's fans (I am one) will tell you that she's brilliant, experienced and has well thought out policies. Contrary to what the Bernie partisans will say, their values, the overarching goals they will support, are almost identical.

I started the primary season as a long time fan of Bernie but convinced that Hillary had a huge advantage, in addition to the above, of having spent the last ten years building a political organization and otherwise preparing for the Presidency.

Then I witnessed the Bernie phenomenon. It turns out that passion is another word for emotion. Commitment is another word for intolerance. His strategy from the start has been to denigrate Hillary as a corrupt tool of the right wing corporations, to imbue his followers with a clear understanding of who the enemies are and to encourage them to be angry.

I have a lot of arguments with Bernie partisans on Facebook. I have had them tell me that Hillary, a person I have followed fairly closely for over twenty years, is no better than Dick Cheney. That she is a war criminal. That she disgusts them. This is what Bernie's leadership inspires. Irrational hatred for one of the most intelligent and reliable liberals I have ever seen. I think Bernie is a bad influence on America.

By contrast, Hillary is clearly all about being thoughtful and rational. She gets dinged for it all the time but her response is always a plan, well thought out, broken down into workable steps. That is, her main message is that we have problems and the way to solve them is to do things. People complain that she is unemotional because she doesn't think about who is at fault or who is bad or who she doesn't like. She thinks about what can be done to improve the situation.

I am often frustrated because I actually see real emotion in her. When she is explaining what she wants to do, I see a powerful version of the earnest girl with the thick glasses looking at a long-haired Bill. I imagine her screwing up her courage to investigate that racist school when she was twenty. It breaks my heart that people can't perceive her value.

But most of all, I think that she is brilliantly well qualified. Hillary already knows the personalities of the leaders of the world. She already knows how security works in the White House. How to operate the situation room. How to organize a policy organization. She has run the State Department, one of the largest and most important governmental organizations on Earth.

The question, though, comes down to emotion vs rationality. We are in an era where people are angry and disatisfied. The question is how to respond. There are a lot of Bernie people who think the way to do so is to encourage passion, ie, anger at the status quo, to break up things, to revolt, to condemn the enemies. In my opinion, these are people who think that emotion is the most productive way to make things better.

I am not one of them. I believe in thinking and planning. I believe in negotiating and cooperating. I think that negativity and enemies are a counterproductive distraction. I do not really think that emotion is a useful component of governance.

One other thing. The 'woman' thing.

I do not think anyone should vote for a woman because she's a woman. Carly FIorina couldn't get my vote if she was the last person on Earth. But, I do believe that there are differences in the perspectives of men and women and I do believe that this is a moment when that is apparent and important.

We are in a time when the inclination to violence is everywhere. When muscle flexing and intransigence and harsh judgements are rendered enthusiastically throughout society and government. It is my opinion that this is a consequence of a testosterone laden governing class. I believe that the Republicans are exhibiting dominance behavior more than any other thing. I think that we have become a country that is focused on the wrong things.

Hillary has made clear, for her whole life, that she is focused on helping people. From her early days as a student, through her time as First Lady, to her Senate period and even as Secretary of State, human rights, poverty, economic security and a host of other human oriented issues have been the center of her career.

I think we need that now. Families are in trouble. Human rights are under siege. Women rights, especially, are threatened in America, but so are other, non-white-male rights. I think it is time for a woman to give it a try.

I think that Hillary's lifelong interest in working on problems whose solution has nothing to do with kicking ass, assembling great armies or otherwise dominating people would be really helpful now. I think that her inclination to work across the aisle, her female inclination to collaborate and socialize, would be a breath of fresh air. I think the men have held power too long. We need to break up the pattern.

I have always like Bernie. But watching him in the debates has revealed a classic male dominance person. Seeing him shout, gesticulating in large aggressive movements, hearing him talk over Hillary again and again, watching him dancing and waving and upstaging her, all make me think that he is, contrary to his assertion, more of the same.

Boehner talks about "taking back" the country. Trump talking about "kicking people out". I just don't think we need another person to get into government with the same mindset and strategy.

If Hillary gets elected, I believe (and now I have studied on this some) that she will be the most qualified person ever to sit in the Oval Office. She has extraordinary amounts of applicable experience. She is clearly the most intelligent person in public life today. Her plans are thorough, well thought out and intended to achieve goals that any liberal should love.

Hillary is the right person for the job. I encourage you to vote for her.

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/987765 2016-02-07T06:40:55Z 2016-02-07T06:40:55Z Principles

The Democratic decision is actually about the basic male/female question.
Hillary has, all her life, been concerned with taking care of people. Concern for women. Concern for healthcare. Concern about issues identified by the people whose injury she would remedy.

Bernie is going to break things and lead a revolution. He shouts about principles and enemies and the grand armies that he will lead to victory over evil. He talks about the millions he will lead to victory to provide him the ability to make everything different. He. He. He. He.

Ask any decent family man and he will tell you that the heart and backbone of his family is his wife, the mother of his children. The one who remembers birthdays and takes care of sick kids. The one who knows where things are, how to make the phone calls to get the repairs done, to solve the problem with the kid's school, to focus on the facts of the people around her.
When men are dominated by their masculinity, they are more inclined to seek glory, to be filled with pride in themselves and their accomplishments. They are inclined toward hard applications of principle. Consequently, they are the priests, the captains of industry, the generals - to ex-communicate, exploit and kill.

I support Hillary because I see in her the female sensibility that getting stuff done is more important than starting a revolution. That violence and arguing and pushing people around are less likely to make the world better. That the things that are important to other people, their problems and needs and issues that will bring them into a collaborative spirit, are important. I see the opposite of a bully, the opposite of a revolution. I see We, We, We. I hear, "I will work with..."

I see sincerity, caring and a steely determination to make things better for people. I'm not supporting Hillary because she's a woman. I'm supporting her because I think we've had enough confrontation. I want someone who cares enough about our country to cooperate.


]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/945998 2015-12-08T16:07:02Z 2016-01-07T19:04:15Z A Squalid Bit of Dishonesty

He says it's a challenge and he says it's questions but, in fact, it's a list of insinuations that would make Darrell Issa proud.

(Original article here: http://tqwhite.org/?017B0D)

Though the article is contemptible and deserves to be reviled, my rage forces me to answer. 

1. Why is Clinton more capable of leading our nation than Sanders, if it was Vermont’s senator who voted against Iraq and predicted its outcome, while Clinton calls her vote a “mistake”?

Implicit in this argument is that everything Bernie has done is perfect. That all disagreement and every error disqualifies. It is a fascist view of intolerance.

Why is Clinton more capable? Because she has been in the crucible. She has made mistakes, understands their consequences and takes her responsibility. Bernie criticizes. One is the voice of experience. The other, a complaint.

2. Why are supporters of Clinton willing to move the Democratic Party and America dangerously to the right with Clinton’s neoconservative foreign policy?

The use of prejudicial language doesn't make it true. In fact it emphasizes the fallacy of the statement. Were there substance behind this assertion, the supposedly dangerous ideas could be stated and we would see their evil.

Instead, we have rhetoric. Like the Tea Party, we have accusations of sin. The Syrians are dangerous. So is Hillary. In both cases, they are baseless, coward's propaganda.

3. Without claiming Republicans are worse, how is Clinton going to fulfill her promise of ending mass incarceration, when her campaign has accepted $133,246 from two major prison lobbyists?

The premise of this question is that everyone is as dishonest and self-serving as the author and people who support this notion. The surveys tell me that Bernie has increasing support among Tea Party activists because of his hatred of bankers. Are we to think that he will also turn against women's reproductive freedom because he has taken their money?

Politics is a business as much as it is a calling. Hillary has chosen a strategy that requires money. Hillary believes that she cannot prevail against a moneyed, Republican opponent on individual contributions alone.

It is a reflection of the corruption of the opposition that this point is ignored. There is nothing in Hillary's background to suggest that she supports injustice. It is a notion that reveals the internal views of her detractors that they can be so certain that everyone can be bought.

4. Why has Clinton evolved on so many issues, when Bernie Sanders remains true to his principles?

Because Hillary is an intelligent person. Because Hillary is not dogmatic and trapped by her previous viewpoints. Because Hillary has reached beyond her limitations and sought to do great things.

Republicans and, apparently, Bernie supporters require faithful adherence to a single dogma. Hillary has rejected the roles foisted on her as a woman, as a liberal and as politician. She has changed and grown. This author might consider Bernie to be extra virtuous for not having learned anything in the last thirty years. It is a narrow, conservative conception of the human experience.

5. How is Hillary Clinton better for African Americans and Latinos than Bernie Sanders, in light of the fact she utilized Republican strategies (race, Islamophobia in order to defeat a political opponent) against Obama in 2008?

Race-baiting is another way to demonstrate a craven spirit. Announcing the policies she proposes would not support a sneaky accusation of racism. Reaching into the bowels of political speech to emphasize passing ideas and pretend they are representative is another rhetorical devise of the bigot. 

This author could as easily wonder how fabulous it would be to have a President that whose history included so many brilliant and supportive racial statements. That would not support this greasy effort to smear Hillary.

6. Who is more trustworthy?

And so we come to it. She can't be trusted. She's a 'clinton'. She's 'other'.

Why not just say it? She's also a 'woman'. She's a liar. Only Bernie is lovely and virtuous.

It's another right-wing emphasis on faith and character. The kind that can't be refuted and has no meaning but somehow denigrates the accused.

Neither is more trustworthy. Neither is more corrupt. Both are politicians. Both have said things that are reprehensible. Both have lied. Nobody is perfect and people who are working for the salvation of society sometimes have to dance with the devil. The implication that only Bernie is perfect is offensive.

7. Who is more likely to have a scandal-free presidency?

Who is more likely to fly? Who is more likely to learn to sing. Who is more likely to have diarrhea or get a venereal disease? Who is more likely to make love to a Republican?

Who is more likely to succeed?

That last, of course, is the only question that matters yet is the one left unasked. That is, of course, because Hillary has a much stronger chance of actually winning the game of politics. Bernie has been a mayor and a Senator. His policies are simplistic. She's done more and her policies are fully explained and subtle.

We don't talk about policies. Here we talk about virtue, character, faith. Why? Because this author is a Tea Party, emotional, faith-based right-winger in liberal clothing.

Questions 8-19 provide no new perspective and are not really worth discussing.

The real import of this series of 'questions' (irony quotes are appropriate since the questions are all really accusations) is to imply that Hillary can't be trusted. 

It's the same tactic, expressed in almost the same language, as that used by the Republicans against Obama. He's shady. He's dishonest. He's allied with the wrong kind of people. While we are at it, shouldn't we wonder why he won't use the precise language we prefer? Doesn't that make him unqualified? Doesn't that mean he's an imposter.

The only question in the remaining list worth answering is the last one. 

The reason that Clinton supporters question the motives of people who 'critique' Hillary is that the critique is always about her personality and her virtue. The critique never seems to focus on issues, or electability, or intelligence, or capability, or experience.

Instead, we always hear that she's dishonest, corrupt, can't be trusted. These are criticisms that, as they do when uttered by Republicans, say more about the questioner than the subject of the question.

Talking about these points reveals the speaker to be a person who believes that people are corrupt. Focusing on character, personality, family and faith are tricks used by those who do not have real evidence. 

In fact, it is probably right to say that there is no question about the motives of the people who are critiquing Hillary in this way. They are speaking for themselves. their motivations are obvious and never have anything to do with seeking truth.



For the record, here are the questions that were not specifically commented on:

8. Will Clinton continue to oppose Keystone and the TPP as president?

9. How did Clinton evolve on gay marriage?

10. Why did it take Clinton so long to evolve on gay marriage?

11. Does Hillary Clinton really believe wiping a computer server means with a cloth?

12. Does Clinton’s experience translate to good judgment and decision making?

13. Was the Libya bombing a wise decision on the part of Secretary of State Clinton?

14. Why didn’t Clinton mention Sandra Bland, like Sanders, in the debates?

15. If gun violence is a tragedy, then is gun violence also a travesty in Iraq and Libya, if Clinton’s foreign policy decisions helped lead to this violence?

16. Who’s more likely to be influenced by factors other than progressive principles?

17. If Hillary Clinton didn’t have name recognition, but still held the same prior positions and subsequent flip flops, would you still vote for her?

18. If you fear future Supreme Court nominees, then in the future would you vote for someone even more conservative than Clinton on foreign policy, or would you take a stand against the DNC?

19. Which candidate inspires voters?

20. Why do Clinton supporters always question the motives of anyone critiquing Hillary Clinton?

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/914026 2015-10-07T13:41:17Z 2015-10-12T00:12:05Z The Case for Hillary

Dear Hillary,

At next week's debate, open with this. It will elevate you, flummox the entire political class and make it so that the conversation with Bernie doesn't do harm.

"I do not know of any single detail where Bernie's values and mine diverge. I am determined that women are free and equal. So does he. I am determined to protect the environment. So is he. I believe that economic inequality has gone way too far. So does he. Gun control. Labor. Health care. If there is a place where his goals and mine are not the same. If he wins the nomination, I will support him with all my heart and be glad for the country when he wins.

"But, we have an election and we need to provide a way for you to decided who to vote for and that means that we both need to explain the places were we differ. It's not our goals. It's our tactics. The things we think need to be done to achieve our goals.

"I have worked a lot of jobs in national government. Starting with First Lady - and yes, I promise, that was a job and a hard one, through the Senate and Secretary of State. Along the way, I have participated in the Clinton Global Initiative and run an effective presidential campaign. Yes, I lost but not because I have no idea how to organize people and get things done.

"I explain this not because I believe I am 'all that and a bag of chips'. I just want to establish the fact that I am well experienced and that, as those of you who don't agree with me hear this, I hope to help you understand that I'm not stupid or evil. I am sincerely on your side and I know a lot about how to accomplish things on a national scale.

"The difference in our strategy comes down to this: I do not think that one can win in today's divided country by taking strong, unilateral positions. I know many of you think that's how the Republicans have behaved but I have to remind you, they are not winning. Starting with Obamacare, they have suffered a string of defeats and have literally accomplished nothing except keeping the Benghazi investigation alive.

"So, it's true that I'm more supportive of international involvement than he is. I think that active engagement is essential to representing our interests and encouraging better outcomes. There are risks to both treaties and military action but, I believe the risks of allowing events to unfold while watching from the distance are greater. I think it is crucial to support friendships and develop allies. I understand that there is often a price to be paid and risks to be faced but the benefits of international engagement leave us, overall, better off.

"While it's not true, as has been said, that I am a friend of Wall Street (and I have to say - and I know this doesn't come from Bernie - that the idea, at this late date in my life, that I could be bought for campaign donations is, well, it's not even insulting. It's silly.), it is true that I have a healthy respect for the role that corporations play in our economic system.

"It is probably true that some people committed crimes that were unjustly ignored, but it is also true that reality demands that we have banks and trading institutions and all the other functions executed on Wall Street. I agree with Bernie that Dodd Frank should be just the start but, I also think that the goal we share of having a more equitable distribution of wealth will never be achieved without the cooperation, hopefully voluntary, perhaps forced, of those companies. We can't just call them bad and shut them down.

"There are many other examples. The Senator and I come from different backgrounds and have different attitudes about life and conflict and getting things done. I am confident that, if he wins, he will do a lot of good things. But, I do not think he will be able to do so without adopting the, I'll call it, my attitude of realpolitik, my understanding that half of this country is fairly conservative and that Congress is probably still going to be under the thumb of the corporations and that we don't have infinite money or a broadly peaceful world, that we cannot say to our opponents, 'My way or the highway.'

"So, the case I make to earn your vote is this: I have a good strategy for getting things done. I have demonstrated my skills over the last twenty some years in many ways. I am tough and determined. Try to think of anyone in public life who has taken a beating more times but still came back to accomplish good things and keep moving forward. I have unparalleled experience and a good plan. 

"But, I also understand that those plans that I have placed all over my website, that I have worked very hard to make as realistic and sincerely possible as I can, are going to be crushed in the face of events and the opposition of the Republicans. I believe that this perspective, which Bernie's partisans have tried to say makes me almost a Republican, is the best way to accomplish the goals that I share with Bernie. It's not that I am incapable of the determined passion that Bernie presents, it's that I think my approach is more likely to be effective.

"I think that Bernie Sanders will make a great president. If he is elected, he will uphold the highest values of our country and of American liberalism. But, I emphasize: So will I.

"If I am elected, you can be 100% certain that I will fight for women's rights, for labor rights, for economic parity, for the environment, for our position in the world including that of a decent leader of world events. We will, because I think I have the experience to do so, optimize our accomplishments in the battle against the Republicans and I think that I can do a good job of bringing people who are more conservative than me closer to seeing my view.

"We are lucky this season as Democrats to have no bad choices. You will not go wrong choosing Bernie but I believe choosing me will be better.

"One other thing. There are three other people in this race and, I apologize for my focus on Senator Sanders. The truth is that everyone who talks to me compares me to him, so I have become a little single-minded in thinking of him as 'the' competition. I know that's not true and I mean no disrespect. I know that you are good people with good values who would do a good job. As I said, we are very lucky this election season to have nobody taking the role of Trump or Cruz, people who are unqualified and have bad, even dangerous, opinions.

"But, I think you would do best to choose me. I believe that I am the most qualified person in this race because of my experience, understanding of how to get things done and my heart. I love this country and I love the people - including my opponents here. 

"If you elect me, I will do a very good job. I will pursue good, liberal goals in a practical way that will, I think, optimize our opportunities.

"I guess some might say that it's a faint promise, but it's what I believe is the biggest responsibility of a president, fulfill the good goals of the American people in a way that optimizes our opportunities. If I am elected, I will do everything I can to improve the lot of the American people and to make America great."

]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/912443 2015-10-03T16:28:20Z 2015-10-03T16:28:20Z Not Only is the Political Center moving Toward Fox News; Respect for Truth is, too

http://tqwhite.org?35225F

This story false and I am not happy to see the liberal websites publishing it. Pope Francis, via the Vatican spokesperson, made an assertion about the meeting that differs from that of Kim Davis. He did not say anything about her lying or not and it is simply wrong to say he did. He could be thinking that she misinterpreted, or was deluded, or any of a number of things.


He did not say he didn't support her bigotry. He said he didn't want his actions to be used for political ends. He met with gay people. He also said that conscientious objection is a human right. He made no comment whatever about her, her cause or her actions. None.

In the article is says that he did not tell her to "stay strong" but he has not said anything about that either. Not a single word. He, in fact, might have said it in the context of the non-specific experience they said that she had with him.

I'm under no illusions that the right wing media make stuff up all the time. When I see an assertion published by Fox or Townhall or Mediaite or MichelleMalkin, I do not consider the 'facts' they assert to be any more than expressions of their opinions and wishes.

I am increasingly feeling the same way about media on the left and this is an example. People who see this article are now walking around repeating 'facts' that are specifically, 100% untrue. They are wishful inferences drawn from much less specific stuff.
]]>
TQ White II
tag:blog.genericwhite.com,2013:Post/910959 2015-09-29T14:06:44Z 2015-09-29T16:28:09Z The Recent Rash of "I declare Facebook can't..." Postings

I am no big fan of Facebook corporation. Like Google, they are here to exploit our data and I don't love that. However, Facebook's claim to intellectual property that you put on this site is not that weird, extreme or unreasonable.

We all post stuff here so that people can see it. The law says that you own the copyright when you type stuff, post pictures, etc. If Facebook shows that information to your friends, Facebook has violated your copyright and you could sue them.

The reason their terms of service include a license to your posts is so that they are not at legal risk when they show your posts. It's necessary and reasonable.

Some people get upset that the license language allows them to create derivative works. This is also necessary. Eg, any of us can request a copy of our Facebook page/history. This is a derivative work and anything that is in it would be a copyright violation without that provision.

Privacy is a weird issue in the modern age. One big shot I pay attention (Bill Joy) to said, in the nineties, "Get over it. There is no such thing as privacy any more." I think he was probably right.

However, I retain a certain amount by not posting things I feel private about. Facebook will never be able to reveal my important secrets because I don't post them. What I do post, I want known. Honestly, I think that's true of us all.

Which is to say, don't worry about Facebook. Worry about what you say. Facebook is a wonderful thing that provides us with the ability to have conversations with each other though we are separate in time and space. Honestly, I rejoice in it. I think you should, too.
]]>
TQ White II