The Case Against Violence

found online by Raymond

 
From Infidel753:

There are differences of opinion over whether initiating violence (that is, committing violence other than in self-defense) has any proper role in our opposition to the dangerous fascists and bigots emboldened by the rise of Trumpism. I’m not talking about violence or aggression against neutral or uninvolved persons, such as smashing store windows or blocking traffic — such behavior must be avoided, and condemned unequivocally whenever it happens. Not only is it wrong in itself, it can only turn its victims again the people perpetrating it. Rather, I mean the kind of action exemplified by the much-debated Richard Spencer punch. Neo-Nazis, KKK supporters, and the like advocate violence, or at least identify with ideologies notorious for using it. Why not give them a taste of their own chosen medicine?

It’s a question on which I personally haven’t yet come to a conclusion

– More –
 

The Trump Cheat Sheet – Losing Heads or Tails

Heads I win, tails you lose.

It would be a neat trick in any enterprise. If you only have to count income and not expenses, your balance sheets will look pretty good.

You want to get a loan? You tell the bank about all the income generated. Doesn’t much matter what the level is. The income/expense ratio will be out of this world.

“Income looks okay,” says the smiling bank analyst. “What is the level of expense?”

“No expenses,” you say.

“No expenses?”

“None.”

If you can do the reverse, your taxes will be easy to pay. Report all your expenses, and tell them there was no income.

“No income?”

“None.”

So no taxes. Wow.

Just try it.

If the bank is run by insane people, they might believe what you say and give you a loan. The government tax agent might laugh for a second or two before the friendly authorities put on the cuffs. There might be a brief tussle with the bank when they want their money back. But the government will win that one, they always do.

Counting only one side of the spreadsheet? Doesn’t quite work that way in the real world. But they’re about to try just that in the strange Schrödinger world of conservative bookkeeping.

Globalization is an uncontrollable force, in many respects. Your cell phone, your flat screen television, probably your computer would all be impossible without international trade. Even your automobile runs on trade. It may be proudly assembled in America, but important parts are made elsewhere.

Most of that is okay with the Trump administration. Has to be. For all the talk about jobs being exported, they won’t worry about trade with Canada, Europe, Russia, and much of Asia. Why other countries are targeted is open for discussion.

Costing us as much as $60 billion dollars a year with Mexico alone in trade deficits.

President Donald Trump, January 26, 2017

Mr. Trump and his top advisors do have a fixation on Mexico, Mexicans, and those Americans who have any Mexican ancestry. The alt right is a euphemism for something on the dark side of the force.

Countries whose citizens have been responsible for death from terrorism in the United States have many things in common. One important thing is that none, none at all, zero, are on Mr. Trump’s list of immigrants to be banned from entry.

The exactitude with which Trump business interests seem to overlay new definitions of national interest includes, but extends beyond, immigration.

Fact is, a substantial part of trade flowing in and out of the United States is layover and service work. “Value added,” they call it. Kind of like the storage facilities you see along the highway, except with a service department in the back. Trade everywhere has always involved safe harbors, even in ancient times. That’s why stopovers on trade routes were the parts of geography where wealth accumulated.

So, much of the American economy involves trade between other countries, with the United States as middleman. The US provides established pathways, infrastructure for travel and storage, and the technology to add value.

Still, a disproportionate amount of that value-added, in-and-out, sort of trade originates in countries toward which Trump and company have a transparent hostility.

They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

Donald Trump, June 16, 2015

It is not simply undocumented workers who are to be hated. Illegal immigration doesn’t happen because of those fleeing violence or those obeying the eternal desire for a better life of economic opportunity. It is because those who remain in those countries have chosen their worst to send, actually send, to us.

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.

June 16, 2015

So the ongoing Trump campaign to eliminate commerce with select countries is justified by the two types of trade: the criminals Mr. Trump informs us are being sent to us by those countries, and the goods and services they are transporting to us in exchange for jobs that rightfully belong here.

But ethnic justification goes only so far. Something has to be done about the economic argument. A lot of trade creates jobs in the United States. The data that measures that is produced by the very government the Trump administration has taken over.

So a new way of calculating trade balance is being considered.

The way it would work is simple. When Mexico produces goods to send to Canada or Europe or pretty much anywhere, and sends it through the United States, the new slight of hand would apply. The imports into the United States would be counted. When they are then exported out of the United States, to their final destination, they would not be counted.

Coming in, they count. Going out, they don’t count.

So the trade deficit with Mexico would suddenly look like it doubled overnight. If it looks scary enough, the administration can tax, inhibit, or prohibit the re-exports, and also other sorts of trade.

It all might actually cost jobs, but jobs don’t seem to be the real aim, except for presentation to the base. The motivation seems to be to hurt countries Trump and his alt right advisors don’t like for ideological and ethnic reasons.

Whatever the reasons for the hostility, changing the calculation is a hidden way of cooking the books. They propose to take a large amount of the import and re-export trade with Mexico and only count one side of the ledger.

If you and I cook the books that way, we’ll get into some serious trouble.

But, the new administration is bringing in new methods of accountability.

It’s heads they win, tails everyone else loses.


Subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or RSS
to get episodes automatically downloaded.

 

Attack of the Boy Doll

found online by Raymond

 
From tengrain at Mock Paper Scissors:

Remember that time Jerry Falwell attacked the Tellytubbies because one of the genderless critters carried a purse? Yeah, well, we have a new entry in the genre! Let’s meet Reverend Keith A. Ogden who seems to think that the American Girl Doll Company has an agenda because they now make… American Boy dolls!

– More –
 

Take Heart, America—You’re Already Great

found online by Raymond

 
From John Pavlovitz:

Hey America,

I know the past few months have been rough. I know your self-esteem is in the toilet. I know you’re looking around at Canada and Australia and the UK, and you’re feeling really insecure about yourself right about now.

I get it. No one would blame you. You’ve spent the last year hearing over and over that your luster’s gone, that you’re damaged goods, that you’re a mess someone inherited; that your greatness is well past tense and that you need someone to return you to your former glory.

Don’t believe it my friend, that’s a gaslighter’s lie. You are presently fully glorious.

– More –
 

One Hour and Seventeen Minutes

found online by Raymond

 
From driftglass:

For one hour and seventeen minutes today, The Bastard President showed the world that he is a lying, rambling, paranoid half-mad man-baby who could not handle the simplest questions from the press.

It just so happens that almost exactly seven years ago, President Barack Obama held an extended Q&A in front of a genuinely hostile audience: The House Republicans at their retreat in Baltimore. “moderated” by Mike Pence. It was a bravura performance. Working without notes and armed only with — gasp! — facts, logic, good humor and a mastery of the issues, President Obama wiped the floor with them..

It was such a brutal and comprehensive smiting that Fox News cut away from it 20 minutes before it ended.

– More –
 

Ukraine

found online by Raymond

 
From Green Eagle:

We learn that agents of Trump, including his personal lawyer, have delivered a proposal to Russia that the current government of Ukraine be removed, in favor of one led by a pro-Russian party created by Russia, which will enter into an agreement allowing Russia to stay in Crimea. This would, in some perverted reasoning, provide a justification for claiming that there is no reason to maintain the sanctions on Russia which were imposed when it invaded Crimea.

Russia and our absolutely not self-serving Secretary of State Tillerson get their $500 billion dollar deal, Putin gets the big payoff from Trump, and the only losers are the people of Ukraine and the United States. Winners all around! Are you tired enough of winning yet?

– More –
 

Hamilton and the Uncanny Valley of Musicals

found online by Raymond

 
From John Scalzi:

…I don’t love Hamilton like my friends love Hamilton. This is not the fault of the play, nor a matter of me being contrarian to be contrary, and choosing not to love that which my friends love, simply because it’s already gotten all their love. It’s because of something that I already knew about myself, which is that generally speaking I have a level of emotional remove from a lot of live action musicals, both in theater and in film. I can like them and enjoy them, and certainly admire the craft and skill that goes into making them, but I don’t always engage with them emotionally. A really good live action musical can easily capture my brain, but in my experience they rarely capture my heart.

Why? The short answer is a lot of live action musicals exist in the emotional equivalent of the Uncanny Valley for me — an unsweet spot where the particular artifices of musicals make me aware of their artificiality.

– More –