Robert Reich endorses Ted Cruz

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that I’ve got your attention, read this.

Towards the tail end, there’s a Facebook book (January 20) by Robert Reich, who was Clinton’s Secretary of Labor. Reich makes it clear that he—and other liberal/left Democrats—should and do prefer a President Trump over a President Cruz.

Now, I’m not one to say that if liberals or the left like a candidate, it means that candidate is automatically a bad choice for conservatives. But Reich’s list of reasons for liberals and the left to fear Cruz constitutes what, to a conservative, would be a ringing endorsement. The items on the list can be summarized by saying that Cruz is brilliant, has character, and is a staunch conservative who has fought for conservative principles all his public life. And Trump? None of the above.

I suggest you read the whole thing. But here are some excerpts:

1. [Cruz is] more fanatical. Trump is a bully and bigot but doesn’t hew to any sharp ideological line…

2. Cruz is a true believer. Trump has no firm principles except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz really does detest the federal government, and has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views…

3. [Cruz is] Smarter. Trump is no slouch but he hasn’t given any indication of a sharp mind. Cruz is razor-sharp…

4. [Cruz is] more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz hews to a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game…Cruz’s legal career entailed a sustained use of the courts to achieve conservative ends, and he plots his moves carefully.

5. Cruz is a loner who’s willing to destroy institutions. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. Most of his Republican colleagues in the Senate detest him. And Cruz is eager to destroy: He has repeatedly crossed to the other side of the Capitol and led House Republicans toward fiscal cliffs…

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Don’t sit on a hot stove till Hillary is indicted

The New Neo Posted on by

Those of you who think Hillary Clinton will be indicted may be mistaken:

“That will be a decision made by the Department of Justice and prosecutors over there,” said Earnest. “What I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it’s trending. But I’m certainly not going to weigh in on a decision or in that process in any way. That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors but again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction.”

They’re being careful to send out the word that it’s highly unlikely, but they won’t say it will not happen because they like to build in a little flexibility in case they can think of a candidate for 2016 who might be a great deal more likely than Hillary to win. I think that, at this point, they not only think she will win, but they just don’t see anyone better for their purposes who is willing to run.

I have continued to say that the Obama DOJ will never indict her, and it doesn’t matter what the FBI says or thinks, or what new revelation of wrongdoing emerges. It doesn’t matter, just as it hasn’t mattered what Obama or the IRS or any number of other agencies or people have done. It’s all about politics and power.

And if she is indicted without some dramatic weakening of her position and a strengthening of a rival’s position, I’ll be happy to say I was wrong.

Oh, and I think the person they all want to see nominated to run against her is Donald Trump.

The woes of a blogger

The New Neo Posted on by

Oh, woe is me.

First of all, I keep trying to stay away from so many Donald Trump posts—and mostly failing. Only two days from Iowa, I feel a certain sense of urgency to get the word out by writing about things I keep discovering about him of which most people are unaware. I realize that his activist supporters do not care, but everyone else certainly should.

And then this morning I spent almost an hour trying to embed an especially wonderful Ukrainian dance video that someone had sent me through Facebook. I’m not on Facebook, and although I copied the embed code it didn’t work. Then I tried to find the same video on YouTube. No dice, but I had to watch a large number of them that seemed similar before I gave up. For now.

But even before that happened, I couldn’t get to my blog dashboard page. That’s sort of command central for a blog, and there’s no way to post without it. Every now and then this happens, but when it does there’s really nothing to do but wait, and sweat: why is it happening? when will it end? is it just my blog or is it the host or WordPress? Those latter questions can be checked out, of course, but that takes time, too, and meanwhile the entire episode is always tension-provoking. In this day and age there’s also the chance it was purposeful action by someone trying to mess with the blog, and although there are all sorts of safeguards built in, it’s still always a possibility, even for a relatively little fish like me.

Yes, I want a little sympathy/empathy.

On the other hand, we’re in for a warm spell all over New England in the coming week. So there’s that.

Sweden’s got a surplus of young men

The New Neo Posted on by

And demographically speaking, 123 men to 100 women (as is now estimated to be the case in Sweden) is not usually a good thing, as China has already discovered :

Under each of these scenarios, large numbers of young men competing for dominance elevate local rates of violence, homicide and lawlessness…

China is already feeling the effects of so many bare branches. The economist Lena Edlund estimates that every one percent increase in the sex ratio results in a six percent increase in the rates of violent and property crime. In addition, the parts of China with the most male-biased sex ratios are experiencing a variety of other maladies, all tied to the presence of too many young men. Gambling, alcohol and drug abuse, kidnapping and trafficking of women are rising steeply in China.

But in China these extra men are Chinese, part and parcel of the dominant culture. They are the result of the reproductive policies of China’s government that encouraged one-child limits, and widespread abortion of female fetuses followed.

Sweden is different. There, the extra men are recent arrivals from Muslim countries. For teenagers 16-17, that country is most likely to be Afghanistan:

Sweden has received more asylum applications per capita than any other country in Europe – 163,000 last year. The country’s population is just 9.7 million.

What is surprising is that if you look at the breakdown of the ages of applicants in Sweden, there’s a huge bump in the figures at the age of 16 – often unaccompanied minors arriving without a parent or guardian.

And 92% of unaccompanied minors aged 16 and 17 years old are male.

The author uses the term “surprising.” But there’s nothing surprising about it. If you reward a behavior, you will get more of it, and word has gotten out that this is the way Sweden deals with its arrivals:

“If you’re underage, first of all, you get housing, you get more financial resources. You also have a lot of staff around you helping you with different issues,” says Hanif Bali, a member of the opposition Moderate Party in the Swedish parliament – which is on the centre right of the political spectrum. “If you need food, clothing, everything, you can go to the municipality and demand this money.”

But there is another even bigger benefit, which Bali believes is significant. “You have the right to family reunification. So you can bring all of your family to Sweden, if you are underage.”

So there are huge incentives for getting to Sweden before you turn 18. This might explain why many young people make the journey at this point in their lives.

Or do they? The article goes on to say that there is a strong suspicion that many of the new arrivals are lying about their ages in order to make themselves seem younger than they actually are. Makes sense. And since most of them have no papers and Sweden accepts them without those papers, one would expect a lot of lying to be going on. Apparently, the Swedes are considering being more rigorous about age, but it hasn’t happened yet, and it’s not clear what standards would or could be applied.

But the article ends on what I can only assume the authors think is a happy note. Or perhaps it’s a sarcastic note. I’m really not sure:

Long term, the gender imbalance in the group of people who are currently 16 and 17 may shrink. As refugees under 18 can invite their immediate family to join them, it’s possible that their sisters will one day also travel to Sweden.

Well, that could end the “surplus of young men” problem. But it certainly wouldn’t end the problem of how Sweden might avoid cultural suicide (see also this and this).

[Hat tip: Legal Insurrection.]

The EU is in trouble

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s agreement on all sides that the EU’s state of health, and even its very existence, is threatened. Depending on what you think of the EU, that’s either good news or bad news (I think the EU needs to go). But whichever way you slice it, it’s destabilizing news:

“Europe could fall apart,” Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament, declared in a recent speech, adding that the EU’s “failure is a realistic scenario.”

The grim prognosis could have come from the mouth of Marine Le Pen.

Reflecting on the potential repercussions of Brexit last month, the nationalist French politician predicted it would “be the beginning of the end of the European Union.”

“I compare Brussels to the Berlin Wall. If Great Britain knocks down part of the wall, it’s finished, it’s over,” Le Pen told The Telegraph.

But it could limp along:

Still, a classic European muddle, a series of half-measures that keep the union intact at all cost without addressing the root causes for its problems, could be worse than a total collapse in the long term.

“The worst case scenario is a system that can’t die,” Guérot said. “It’s like the frog that doesn’t jump out of boiling water.”

Jump, jump!

Government places kids with traffickers: of course

The New Neo Posted on by

This is outrageous, and it’s shocking that it’s not more surprising:

The Department of Health and Human Services placed more than a dozen immigrant children in the custody of human traffickers after it failed to conduct background checks of caregivers, according to a Senate report released on Thursday.

Examining how the federal agency processes minors who arrive at the border without a guardian, lawmakers said they found that it had not followed basic practices of child welfare agencies, like making home visits.

The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations opened its inquiry after law enforcement officials uncovered a human trafficking ring in Marion, Ohio, last year. At least six children were lured to the United States from Guatemala with the promise of a better life, then were made to work on egg farms. The children, as young as 14, had been in federal custody before being entrusted to the traffickers…

The report also said that it was unclear how many of the approximately 90,000 children the agency had placed in the past two years fell prey to traffickers, including sex traffickers, because it does not keep track of such cases.

Excuse me while I go throw up.

Iowa, the nomination, the election: predictions, predictions

The New Neo Posted on by

Shortly after the debate last night, commenter “The Other Chuck” noted that some evangelicals and conservatives had endorsed Trump in Iowa, and then added:

Should this con artist win Iowa he will be the nominee and probably president.

Sorry, Other Chuck, I don’t mean to pick on you. I don’t even mean to pick on the Original Chuck. I picked your comment because I see so many similar statements all over the blogosphere, and they puzzle me.

Some of them don’t puzzle me at all. Some are from trolls who are pro-Trump and trying to create a steamroller effect of inevitability, engendering gloom in people who support other candidates. The hope is that supporters of other candidates will lose energy, stay home, not work as hard for their guy, and surrender to their fate. Another motive is to cheer on the Trump troops: “Trump, Trump, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, NOBODY CAN!!!”

That’s not The Other Chuck, of course, who’s made it clear he’s not a Trump supporter. He might be part of that second group, the ones who’ve lost heart because they’ve heard so many times about how Trump will win the whole thing is he wins Iowa. Or he might have come to that conclusion on his own—as many people have—for his own logical reasons. There are probably plenty of people of each type, adding to the swelling chorus.

As for me, I call it like I see it. Trump could certainly win Iowa, the nomination, and even the general. But I think the first is most likely, the second somewhat less likely and does not follow from the first, and the third unlikely and follows from neither (although the nomination is, of course, a necessary prerequisite for winning the whole thing; I doubt Trump would win as a third-party candidate, if only because of the way the electoral college works).

Iowa has never been a typical state, nor have its primary results been especially predictive. I think, however, that what Chuck and the others mean is that Trump winning the Iowa primary is exactly what one would not expect, given its Republican population and their belief system. So if he does win, that means his appeal is enormous.

But all polls in all the states where Trump is leading (and which have been polled) say approximately the same thing: 1/3 of the GOP primary voters want him. Basically, the GOP primary voters are voting 1/3 for Trump and 2/3 against Trump.

The important question is which other candidates will drop out and when, and where their votes will go if and when they do. If no one drops out for a long time, or if very few do, and the non-Trumpian 2/3 of the votes continue to be split so very many ways, Trump could win the nomination. Or, it could go to a brokered convention (oh, wouldn’t that be fun). Once people start dropping out, however, their votes will go to someone else, and according to polls where people choose a #2, most of those votes wouldn’t go to Trump.

So unless he starts winning outright, with majorities, it’s still up in the air. Which isn’t to say that Trump can’t win. Of course he can. But it remains to be seen, and I don’t see that Iowa is any sort of special predictor.

That leaves is with the general. As I’ve written many times in many posts, Trump does the worst in head-to-head polls against all the Democrats who might run in the general, and usually the Democrats beat him. In the same polls, Rubio does the best by far against Democrats who might be nominated. And no, Trump does not appeal to black voters or Democrat voters more than the other GOP candidates do; if anything, he appeals less. You may hate those facts, and you may discount them and say they don’t matter, or you may like them, but right now there’s no indication that Trump would win in a general election if he were to be the nominee.

Twitter nation holds an election

The New Neo Posted on by

I never did watch last night’s debate. I got home towards the tail end of it, and I just didn’t have the energy to watch. Instead I read a bunch of comments at different sites, and that’s when it occurred to me—and not for the first time—that we’ve turned into Twitter nation and this election is the Twitter election.

I don’t use Twitter, and rarely read it. But I certainly check it out now and then, when there’s a tweet in the news that catches my eye. Right from the start Twitter held little interest for me, although a lot of bloggers took to it immediately. I suppose tweeting can also be very good to build readership, but I just can’t stomach it and don’t want to spend a moment of precious time doing it.

I’ve not only not been drawn to it, but something about it repels me. I used to think that “something” was just that I prefer lengthier, more fleshed-out thoughts, although I do understand the value of conciseness, and I like a short and witty bon mot as well as the next person, maybe more. Funny quips are great, and often quotable, but too steady a diet of them is like eating nothing but M&Ms.

To me, that’s what Twitter always was—a lot of people being snarky together, trading barbs to see who could be the most clever. Like a bunch of teenagers getting together after school in someone’s basement, having fun at everyone else’s expense.

Yes, some information is imparted now and then through Twitter, but it is usually of the “here’s a great thing I just did!” variety. So Twitter favors snarky one-liner put-downs and/or bragging. Those of you who like Twitter may say I’m selling it short, but every time I go there, that’s what I see and that’s about all I see.

Twitter began in the summer of 2006, and its growth curve went like this:

It had 400,000 tweets posted per quarter in 2007. This grew to 100 million tweets posted per quarter in 2008. In February 2010, Twitter users were sending 50 million tweets per day…As of March 2011, that was about 140 million tweets posted daily…

On March 21, 2012, Twitter celebrated its sixth birthday while also announcing that it has 140 million users and sees 340 million tweets per day…

As of September 2013, the company’s data showed that 200 million users send over 400 million tweets daily, with nearly 60% of tweets sent from mobile devices.

And now, we’ve got about 500 million tweets per day, and counting.

This research bears me out about content in Twitter (although it’s from 2009):

San Antonio-based market-research firm Pear Analytics analyzed 2,000 tweets (originating from the United States and in English) over a two-week period in August 2009 from 11:00 am to 5:00 pm (CST) and separated them into six categories:

Pointless babble ”“ 40%
Conversational ”“ 38%
Pass-along value ”“ 9%
Self-promotion ”“ 6%
Spam ”“ 4%
News ”“ 4%

In this particular election cycle of 2016, Twitter seems to dominate much more than before, and of course it is tailor-made for the strengths of Donald Trump. He has developed snarky one-liner put-downs and bragging to a fine art, and Twitter gives him the perfect platform for that, with a ready-made potential audience of many millions who are drawn to the game. Other candidates also are Twitter users—I’d say that, in this day and age, they must be—but Trump is a natural. I don’t know how many of all the candidates’ tweets are self-generated or if they use specially-trained Twitter assistants (with the candidates having the right of final approval of tweets, of course), but Twitter has been a very active factor in this election, more so than ever before.

Although this post focuses on Twitter, it’s not only Twitter. I’ve noticed over and over—on blogs, on television, in comments, in life—that snark has become the dominant conversational style, the coin of the realm these days. And the phenomenon is only growing.

Nearly everything is irony or mockery, coming from what appears to be a very deep public cynicism, fed in turn by the constant cynicism and mockery. No one is really laudable any more. Elect a narcissistic con man? Why not? They’re all narcissistic con men, so let’s back the conny-ist and most narcissistic con man of all. And let’s laugh about it, and taunt the opposition. Integrity is for suckers, and only saps would believe that anyone smart has it. Except, paradoxically, the snarky, who show the depth of their integrity by the depth of their mocking cynicism.

You might say in response that their cynicism is deserved: we’ve been betrayed by everyone, in government especially, Republicans and Democrats, they’re all lying thieves, yada yada yada. I’m not at all sure it’s that much worse than it used to be. But even if it is, it’s certainly not everyone, and what I see is an incessant, petulant, nit-picky fault-finding on the part of a public that rejects good (or good enough) people in public life for one mistake, one bad judgment, one intemperate remark, and tars them as forever beyond the pale.

The public wants—as I put it a while ago—madder music and stronger wine. Trump gives it to them today, but it needn’t be Trump—next cycle it will be someone else. It’s not about Trump, it’s about what the public has come to be interested in, and what the public demands.

Perhaps we will get the government we deserve. I certainly hope not. I hope we get a government much better than we deserve. But that’s not often the way it works, is it?

[NOTE: I tried to make that last paragraph come in under 140 characters (spaces apparently count as characters on Twitter, which has a nice symbolism to it), so it could qualify as tweet-length. Couldn’t quite do it without making it sound more stupid, so in the end I just let it be.]

Open thread: tonight’s debate[s]

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m going out in a little while for a social engagement (yes, every now and then I leave my computer) and I don’t plan to be back until fairly late tonight.

So I will miss blogging the debate in real time. I plan to watch it later—probably—or maybe just highlights. I’m particularly curious about tonight’s debate because of the changed dynamics resulting from the absence of He Who Shall Not Be Named.

Here’s a thread for you all to discuss it. Enjoy!

When Trump supported amnesty

The New Neo Posted on by

It was not so long ago, either. About the time that Rubio was in the Gang of Eight:

To make its point, the ad pulls from sources that range from 1990 to July 2015. The older sources go to the use of immigrant labor in building Trump’s hotels, although there is more on that from last year, too. The sources on Trump’s positions on “amnesty” come from 2013 and June of last year, both close enough to present day to potentially raise questions about Trump’s credibility on the one topic that has raised him to front-runner status.

The tweet in 2013 came at the same time that Marco Rubio put together the Gang of 8 deal on immigration in the Senate, for which voters and other Republican candidates have punished him ever since. Trump’s 2013 tweet basically summarizes the Gang of 8 approach ”” secure the borders, then legalize most of the remaining illegal immigrants after background checks and fines, which some consider “amnesty.” The June 2015 statement appears to go a little farther in providing a “path,” presumably to citizenship, and Trump made that statement in the context of the presidential campaign. The difference might be that Trump wants a “touchback” first ”” deportation followed by immediate readmission ”” but that would be almost impossible to accomplish, and in the end no different in substance than the Gang of 8 deal which GOP voters mainly opposed.

I have little doubt that Trump will either say he is being misrepresented in this ad, or has changed his mind. And I have little doubt that most of his supporters would find that A-okay. But I’ve long wondered—long before I ever saw this ad, which is made by the same PAC, Our Principles, that made this recent ad—why Trump is forgiven for words and revisions that other candidates aren’t forgiven for. Many of his supporters say it’s because he’s strong on immigration, and that’s the most important thing, but I’ve also long noticed that he’s not been consistent on immigration and that, even if you only consider his words since he entered the campaign, they sound much tougher than they are.

Iran: now the business deals begin

The New Neo Posted on by

The nuclear deal wasn’t the only deal, of course. It was a prelude to this sort of thing: France and Iran are trying to make a financial deal, now that sanctions are no more. Will it work?:

Exactly what stage the Airbus deal was at remained unclear on Thursday, however, amid scepticism over how far and how fast western firms can get into Iran.

French officials said Iran was putting the finishing touches to the Airbus deal, and Iran earlier this week gave estimates of up to 127 Airbus planes, but Iranian Transport Minister Abbas Akhoundi declined to give further details and sources close to the discussions said technical talks were continuing.

Banks also remain wary so soon after the lifting of sanctions, senior French bankers have said…

Among other deals flagged on Thursday were one involving French national railway operator SNCF and another for aluminum company Fives.

For Peugeot, the Iranian factory tie up is critical. When it suspended sales in Iran in 2012 it lost nearly 10 percent of global deliveries and interrupted a relationship with the country that dates back more than 50 years.

Europe’s chomping at the bit, warily. Can you chomp warily?