Permanent Rebels

One of the purposes of political parties is to consolidate the almost infinite variations of the people's wants and needs for and from self-government. Another is to educate the electorate about competing visions for our collective future and decide on a program that has the broadest possible appeal to their side. Then to persuade as many voters to support that platform. It never works perfectly, certain things can help in the process such as including as many different people in building the party as possible and maintaining trust between leaders and members. We are as far from those as we can possibly be and therefore we have a barely coherent party system. The republicans are busy ripping their party apart with the members supporting Donald Trump while their leaders fret about not being able to control the hideous beast they created. But that is a subject for another time, today it is the disconnect between Hillary Clinton and an unknown percentage of leftist voters.

The percentage may be small, but they are stubborn and they are loud. These #NeverHillary people or whatever they are calling themselves now are so angry now that the Secretary has been cleared by the FBI. They are also angry that their hero has "sold out" and endorsed her. It is almost impossible to distinguish between the vicious smears coming from republicans and the cries from these silly dead enders. There may be a lot of overlap there too, a lot of the people hooked on Ron Paul last time have mysteriously become democratic socialists this time. And there's no shortage of right wing trolls playing at attacking Hillary Clinton from what they believe the left looks like. But the true believers that I know are definitely of the ideologically schizophrenic variety.

Who are these people who are so selfish and insulated from the hurt that He, Trump can and will put on America? In my unit in the Army being an individual was a grave offense and being a selfish one was worse. Yet these #neverhillary people have convinced themselves that echoing right wing talking points loudly is somehow noble and pat each other on the back for their imagined integrity. 

What Do You Want For Christmas?

Just as a thought experiment, let's say that the election goes the way it should and the Democratic Party sweeps it in the landslide that really could be. So we, the non-insane portion of the electorate, have control over the federal government and hopefully made some progress unraveling teabag control over so many of the states. What do "we" do? And I guess it has to be stated as what is your wish list of progressive ideas? The number one challenge facing the United States is the Republican Party, for argument's sake let's assume that they have been rendered more or less harmless in the wake of a landslide election for the moment, what is number two? There is such a backlog of issues, such a huge pile of reforms necessary. What would you prioritize if you could have the ear of President Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Chuck Schumer? There is a good chance even with the professional liberal class of Democrats in charge, we progressives will get at least one thing from our list addressed. Last time it was health insurance reform, and judging on what Obamacare has actually done as opposed to what could have been it has made a real difference in the lives of many Americans for the good. This time around the issue that could make a real difference in the long run is the establishment of a financial transactions tax on stocks and bonds.

Of course, the sheer number and depth of problems facing this country and the world is breathtakingly immense. Why start there? My contention is that the force driving all the other problems is rooted in the fact that too few people have too much money and therefore power. Imposing what is in effect a sales tax on the things they buy will begin to drain the swamp of the speculative capital that has wrecked so much havoc on main street. Busting through the obstruction from the parasitic right and the resistance from Democrats who foolishly respect wall street as the paragon of professionalism will be difficult in the extreme, that's why it has to be the first thing done. Riding in a wave election and still beholden to the little people, I think there's a chance to ram it through. First, a tax on financial transactions could be very small, even 0.1%, just the establishment and legitimization of such a direct assault on entrenched privilege would be enough.

Income and wealth equality; a whole package of "social questions" that Thomas Frank, Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, and so many others have articulated; is the cause of most problems and the impediment to addressing so many others. This country is so flooded with capital that the uber rich cannot find productive uses for it, or perhaps they don't want to. So they buy politicians, both personally while in office and guaranteeing future obedience through lobbyist jobs and other perks. This is just intolerable. The only way to start reducing the bribery, greed, and injustice at the top of our society is to drain that swamp of money that just corrupts people and distorts markets. That is why the financial elite have bought the important politicians in both parties and drive the price of entry into politics so high that only themselves or their servants can have a chance at power.

The primary effect of charging a sales tax on stock exchanges is to slow things down. That is how the original idea of James Tobin's tax was envisioned. He wanted the tax imposed on spot conversions of currency that would penalize speculation against currencies and stabilize economies, especially after computers skyrocketed the amount of speculation that occurs in those markets. That is a good idea too, as global capital now has the power to crush countries with attacks on their currencies. But just in terms of domestic financial markets a small transaction tax would slow down and stabilize markets too. Would the Dow Jones have lost so many points after the "leave" vote was tallied in the UK if people had to weigh paying an absolute tax for impulsive trades? It is likely enough investors would remember that the Brexit was actually non-binding, a momentary loss of reason by the mob that did not need to be repeated in the market.

The practical effect is all upside for the public interest. If trading is slowed down then mutual fund managers will have fewer opportunities to lard up pension funds with fees. Also, it will be more difficult for panics to set in if every investor has to weigh the tax they paid for a stock against the gains, they will on average wait a little longer. Plus, it will absolutely eat into the obscene compensation packages of managers and brokers. When a uniform cost like a tax is levied on all businesses of an industry, if there is any competition between firms they have to eat some portion of it or someone else will and steal all the business. There is a lot of competition between firms on wall street. And we won't even have to take seriously the moans and shrieks of outrage by the fat cats that a sales tax on stocks will sink grandma and grandpa, the usual line of propaganda whenever regulating wall street comes up, because average investors buy long. No, the tax will be borne most heavily by the big players that buy and sell all day, every day.

But the symbolic effect of taking on wall street by a Hillary Clinton administration, even in a way that will encourage stability in the market, will defuse so many of the detractors who say she is too cozy with the fat cats. It will be the first step in democracy finally reimposing regulation over an out of control and very dangerous sector of the economy that has so much power. It is really difficult to find actual dollar amounts for the trading on wall street, but it is likely in the trillions... per day. Therefore, even a 0.1% tax would raise significant revenue for a federal government always strapped for cash. That would amount to a billion dollars for each trillion bought, each day. A billion dollars not available for Goldman Sachs and the rest to lobby, bribe, and extort government. A billion dollars a day "redistributed" from the vultures and pirates who stole it. Maybe for once we could use it for something productive? Shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid come to mind. Or, a real Public Option, infrastructure spending, buying back all of the toll roads and parking meters that have been privatized, even getting the cost of education down to what it was when our parents went to college or forgiving student loans. The possibilities are endless, the public needs are great, and once put in place the tax could be raised and lowered as one more fiscal tool to manage the economy.

Anyway, that's my Christmas wish. If you agree, share this post and let's make it happen.

Teaching The Paranoids To Fish

Even Sea Monsters get high blood pressure sometimes...

Last night this picture popped up in my news feed. Let's grin and look at it for a moment, anything look... askew? That's an awfully big head you've got there Osama, hmm, could this picture possibly be... fake? When it popped up again half a dozen times from the same source, an amateur hack named Ed Dane from Idaho, I assume that it was just shared from the original poster. I did not even get through typing "Hillary shakes..." before Google knew what I meant and spit back another version and a link to Snopes.com. This photo was originally faked for a Photoshop contest back in 2007. Way to be cutting edge guys!

The other version is a little cleaned up but why in the world are they depicted wearing the Star of David? It does not really matter. My point is this particular meme has been in the cyber circulatory system for EIGHT YEARS and there are lazy, gullible people still floating it around as though it was genuine. Are "conservatives" really so caught up in their fantasies that they are incapable of shame? When supporting "evidence" can be cooked up in an hour using Photoshop to go along with made up facts, is there any more reason to fight this fight? These memes are the experiment that broke out of the lab. Cyberspace dog catchers like Snopes can try to net the worst ones and put them back in cages, but that is not what anyone living in the reality-based world should be shooting for.

When people like me, who are politically active and look around online for news, ideas, dialogue, etc., encounter anonymous trolls in the comment sections in less savory internet destinations, the natural impulse is the dismiss them outright as hopeless idiots. Then you can ignore or engage them without having to take anything they say personally. Most of the time trolls are just deliberately provoking the community. But, you guessed it, these are from my former brothers-in-arms. I have cut ties with the larger community of tankers online, but am still friends with many of the guys I actually served with. It personally upsets me to see my friends repeatedly spout nonsense like this without any shame, uncritically passing along memes made by others with an agenda that will negatively impact my friends and their loved ones. I get it, you don't like Hillary, I'm not exactly her biggest fan either but these attacks on her are ridiculous.

I know for a fact that the guys who shared this picture do not like being made fools of. We all went through the hazing rituals in the Army that sent young Privates fresh from OSUT all over the place looking for squelch oil, boxes of reticles, and so forth. I was sent to Squadron Commo once for a "Prick E-5" by the guy who posted this "Fake and Shake" picture. As young and naive as I was, I did not fall for it. Nor did I ever waste time hazing the guys who came after me. Maybe that is why I study history; I want facts, not silliness. Since there are no footnotes on blogger I will explain: a PRC-77 was a radio, commo was the communications equipment office, an E-5 is a sergeant so he was trying to get me to call the NCO on duty there a prick. The guys that are already in the unit throw a million bits of jargon and acronyms at you in short order, so they just sneak one in now and then that sounds legitimate but is actually a joke on you. That is what the vast majority of right wing memes are, a joke on the person sharing them.

In spite of this, I don't want my brothers to be laughed at for falling for these partisan political hazings. Which is why I'm not using names. When you post a meme like this one in support of the conspiracy theory around Benghazi, it only takes a few seconds to look it up on Snopes and shove your nose in the fact that this meme is nonsense. But that is the beauty of the conspiracy theory, the paranoids believe anything negative about Hillary Clinton and will be taken in by this, if you point out that this manufactured meme is easily debunked then you must be part of the conspiracy or you are a sheep. I want to take the intellectual lightweights aside and explain the order of argument to them. If you make a claim, it is on you to provide the evidence. Actual evidence that can be independently verified, not the other way around. Making a claim this intricate without evidence and expecting anyone skeptical of your assertion (that was made by some remote and anonymous third party) to provide evidence to disprove it is just laziness. Sharing memes with no supporting evidence is the political equivalent of masturbation, it may be fun for you but you look ridiculous and should feel ashamed when caught.

These stupid memes are the same as ordering a Private to fetch up some squelch oil. I fear that the "think tank" or whatever warehouse of conservatism that keeps serving these things up is called, knows that this stuff is bullshit and they laugh whenever one of their little creations goes viral off of the gullible, lazy social media users out there.

The questions for those gullible people I have is: "Do you like being taken advantage of? Do you get something out of sharing these things? Does it ever bother you that those of us outside the bubble are laughing at you for being so gullible? Have you ever considered taking a moment to look up that delicious and sexy anti-liberal meme? Why not? Afraid you might find out something you don't want to know?" In the previous paragraphs I have detailed the conflict inside, I don't suffer fools gladly but what is the point of making a fuss? Will I gain anything from confrontation? Most likely not.

Sayings and cliches are an intellectual crutch and I shouldn't have put a play on one in the title of this post, but seriously, debunking these things could be a full time job, one I don't want, and I get so disgusted trying to swat them down that it is no fun. Is there a way to teach some elementary critical thinking to the average Joe out there?

I'm definitely not giving any fish to the paranoids. They don't deserve a free ride.