The Union Future

by David Brooks

DEC. 18, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/opinion/david-brooks-the-union-future.html?comments#permid=13630253

This is really quite an amazing column.

The title and first paragraph lead one to believe that Mr. Brooks, of all people, is intent on starting a serious conversation on how to address the horrific income and wealth inequality in the US, and the possible role of Labor Unions in that process.

But then, very quickly, Mr. Brooks reverts to character and concentrates on lambasting public sector unions, one of the favorite targets of some of the more odious GOP Governors. The little snipe, almost as an aside, at the Teachers Unions is just a warm up. He then has the audacity to blame the Police Unions for the racial tensions, which are really the remnants pervasive racism in the Us in general.
Unions, just as any other large organization, needs to be controlled so as not to abuse their power. But this kind of baseless and one-sides bashing of Unions is not only silly, it is downlight disgusting. There is a strong correlation between the decline of Labor Unions and the ever increasing wealth and income disparity between the 10% and the 90%.

The US VW subsidiary took the initiative to implement the labor representation in management boards customary in Germany. The GOP dominated state government in Tennessee prevented that - it would set a bad precedence which might actually improve the lives of middle class workers again.

Obama Announces U.S. and Cuba Will Resume Diplomatic Relations

By PETER BAKERDEC. 17, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/world/americas/us-cuba-relations.html?comments#permid=13613462

It's about time!
The cold war has been over for 25 years, and even before that, clinging to a completely idiotic no-contact policy vis-a-vis Cuba was completely counter-productive. This policy catered to the left-overs of the terrible Batista regime, who had found refuge in the US. We pontificated about the terrible human rights violations of Castro's Cuba, but the Batista regime was at least as bad.

The blokade made sense while the Siviets were trying to use Cuba as a forward base for their military and spying operations, but by the time that was no longer an issue, the Batisata Cubans had managed to co-opt our right-wing fanatics to perpetuate and non-sense policy.

Congratulations to Obama for having the courage to end this rediculous policy. There is something to be said for being a lame-duck President with nothing left to loose. In this and the immigration policies, he is (finally) showing courage to do what is right rather than what "the Right" insist on.

The Rise of ‘Welfare Chauvinism’

by Thomas B. Edsall

DEC. 16, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/opinion/the-rise-of-welfare-chauvinism.html?comments#permid=13613928

Contrary to many of the other comments, I found this to be a interesting and well written article.

I agree that the US political system has (at least) one major disadvantage compared to European parilamentary systems: our two party system offers little in the way of new ideas to enter the politican process - any "new ideas" are quickly subsumed by one of the the two major parties and then quickly become irrelevant and invisible in the actual legislative process, or serves only to further throttle any real legislative action, as in the case of the Tea Party.

Globalization and technologigal change are, indeed, difficult problems for stricly national governments to deal with, as by definition these issues are "global". The ability for multiple new parties to gain visibility and power in Europe allows for issues to become focused and new ideas to be tried out. These new political parties, like UKIP in Britain and AfD in Germany, also serve as a safty valve for resentments by agrieved population groups - they thus feel visibly represented in the political process and are less likely to seek extra-democratic routes to power.

The EU is another effort in Europe to deal with the "global", trans-national nature of many of todays pressing problems, at least on a large regional scale. Although a work in progress, the EU is at least a step in the right direction to reduce national emnities and social conflicts among nation-states.

We’re Always Still Americans

by Thomas L. Friedman

DEC. 9, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/opinion/thomas-friedman-were-always-still-americans.html?comments#permid=13547213

It is disheartening that Americans always feel that they must, at all times and under all circumstances, wrap everything in "American exceptionalism" ("...we are a beacon of opportunity and freedom...") even when describing facts which paint a completely different picture of America and Americans. This need to immediately frame the discussion in the context of the supposed "American exceptionalism" prevents us from truly appreciating the depravity to which we, too, are capable of descending, and prevents an HONEST self-examination.

This "enhanced interrogation" scandal is but the latest of a continuing stream of actions by Americans which are anything by "exceptional" in the positive sense:
Slavery; the Civil War; racial discrimination for 100 years after the Emancipation Declaration, continuing to this very day; McCarthyism; assassinations of Presidents and other leaders; the Vietnam War; the "Axis of Evil"; the lies and deception surrounding the Iraqi WMD; NSA; Abu Ghraib atrocities; Guantanamo; and the list can go on and on.

This compulsive need to cloak these kinds of events and facts with "American exceptionalism" (which supposedly makes all these issues relatively unimportant) only shows the fragility of America's and Americans' continued belief in their own "essential goodness" and "exceptionalism" - we are scared to admit to ourselves that we are potentially just as stupid and evil as any other country. Such delusional behavior prevents real and lasting solutions.


Response to ConcernedCitizen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/opinion/thomas-friedman-were-always-still-americans.html?comments#permid=13547213:13551640

Yes, agreed - that is certainly the image of America I had when I immigrated here over 50 years ago, and is, in many ways, still true. However, more and more, especially when the military and perceived "national security" are involved, Americans now switch to a hyper-patriotic mode, the "love it or leave it" syndrome, which prevents us from learning important lessons from some of our more dramatic failiures (Vietnam, and most recently, Afghanistan and Iraq) - and the enhanced interrogation scandal is certainly one of those failures.
Even beyond that, however, politician and opinion-makers like Mr. Friedman, use the "exceptionalism" argument much more broadly in order to avoid hard truths about where we are no longer "the biggest", "the best", "the richest" etc., in order not to have to make difficult political and policy decision. Up until recently, and even now, it is not unusual to hear politicians pontificate about how we have the best medical system (even after ACA that is still laughable), or that The American Dream is still alive and well (not - France now has greater upward mobility than the US).
So, in many ways, "American exceptionalism" has become a cop-out for not facing tough issues....

• Flag

Class Prejudice Resurgent

by David Brooks

DEC. 1, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/opinion/david-brooks-class-prejudice-resurgent.html?comments#permid=13473389

The Ferguson tragedy has been misappropriated, primarily by the media and some among African American leaders, to stoke the still very real racial divides, especially black-white, in the US.

I agree with Mr. Brooks that this racial tension is, at it's base, a socio-economic divide, which accentuates the racial divide. At some level both the racial and the socio-economic divide will always exist. There are many, many social and political policies to be discussed and implemented which could mitigate these divides (most of them, btw, vehemently opposed by the GOP). Inciting and organizing witch hunts against police officers, as in Ferguson, fueled by ignorance and willful misinformation, is NOT a useful policy in this regard, indeed is counter productive, like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Most police shootings occur in conjunction with the police protecting the poor and disadvantaged (disproportionally black) from other poor and disadvantaged (disproportionately black). Our veneer of "civilized society" is very thin indeed, and as we see in Ferguson, can quickly degenerate into anarchy, with looting and arson. Wholesale demonizing of the police, that thin blue line between a semblance of order and complete anarchy, especially in poor and disadvantaged areas, is completely counter productive, especially for the disadvantaged. 

Identifying and rooting out the few bad cops is absolutely necessary, but officer Wilson was NOT one of the bad cops.

Should The Times Have ‘Left It Out’ — and What, Exactly, Was ‘It’?

By MARGARET SULLIVAN DECEMBER 1, 2014 2:57 PM

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/should-the-times-have-left-it-out-and-what-exactly-was-it/?comments#permid=13473216

"It" is the publication of news about Officer Wilson's marriage, including an image of the marriage license.

I have commented on the original post of the article, that I question the need to "report" on the marriage of Officer Wilson at all.

Officer Wilson was already being pilloried in the media, based mainly on early misinformation by the media (for example, that he could not have known that Michael Brown, the "unarmed innocent 18 year old child", had just robbed a convenience store - false, we now know that officer Wilson was responding to a call about that incident, including a description of the subject -- and that thus Wilson must have been just one of those racist pigs out to hurt African Americans, whereas in reality he had just finished a call helping a mother get her sick young child - truly a child - to the hospital).

In that context what possible benefit was there to public ANY details about officer Wilson's personal life, including his recent marriage, which in any way shed more light on the events surrounding Michael Brown's shooting. The entire piece, in my mind, was completely irresponsible and bad journalism.

After Ferguson, When Will We Listen?

By JONATHAN L. WALTON

   NOVEMBER 26, 2014 11:51 AM

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/after-ferguson-when-will-we-listen/?comments#permid=13442147:13464300

Unfortunately, African-American leaders, like Mr. Walton, seem less interested in factual discussions to solve undeniable instances of racial bias in policing and legal matters, but rather to promote a hysteria about out-of-control, racially bigoted, thuggish police, intent on "killing innocent 18 year old black children" - certainly Michael Brown was not "innocent" and he was not "a child". 

The greater problem for poor and minority communities is better police protection from violent crimes committed by other poor and minority people - vilifying police officers who risk their lives every day to do just that is counterproductive, but it seems to be the current "politically correct" approach.

How many poor black "children" are killed by other black "children", as opposed to by police officers? Where are black leaders like Mr. Walton in finding solutions for that problem? 

The riots instigated in Ferguson by this irrational witch hunt, leading to burning and looting, hurt primarily others in the black community. And the rhetoric of the black leaders (nor that of the mainstream media, like CNN) did nothing to try and cool tempers, on the contrary, did everything to inflame tempers (Michael Brown was a innocent 18 year old "child"). Just as, now that the evidence and the considered judgement of the Grand Jury is in, Mr. Walton's ridiculous cherry picking of individual words ("it" and "demon") from the testimony serves only to further inflame.

The Retreat to Identity

by Ross Douthat

NOV. 29, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-retreat-to-identity.html?comments#permid=13464112

We can, and unfortunately, will have endless discussions about which policy bias will be more successful in easing and ultimately removing the black/white bias in our society. That's fine.

But to me the Ferguson dilemma points to another, much more serious problem preventing serious political discussion: the inability to talk honestly and factually about issues and the explicit and implicit pressure to be "politically correct".

There are, without a doubt, enough valid examples of racial bias in policing and law enforcement to allow better policies to be developed. But in the case of Ferguson the politically correct slant on the story - that the police acted irresponsibly, illegally and with racial bias - was immediately adopted by the media. 

The initial reports (e.g. on CNN) reported that an unarmed black teenager had been shot and killed by police - so far, completely correct. But then when the videos of the robbery appeared, the media immediately, and without verification, reported (complete speculation) that the police involved in the shooting could not have known about this robbery, thus reenforcing the FALSE, but politically correct tale that the shooting was completely unprovoked and based on racial bias. This set the stage for the entire media coverage on the shooting, and as usual in our wonderful American journalism, once an unverified (and false) report is made, all other media feel free to quote and perpetuate this initial false report. Fiction trumps facts.

The Unifying Leader

by David Brooks

NOV. 24, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/opinion/david-brooks-the-unifying-leader.html?comments#permid=13429463

Mr. Brooks, in his typical passive-agrassive mode, leads in to this discussion of collaboration by referring to "leaders", which is correct and proper. But, expectedly, he quickly degenerates into blaming only the president for lack of collaboration.

Every half-way intelligent and open-minded observer can see that the non-collaboration, indeed the closed-mindedness and confrontation, was primarily on the side of the GOP leadership in House and Senate - add a good dose of incompetence to the mix, also.

Any "leader", who states as his primary legislative goal after the 2008 election, to make the president fail to ensure a one-term president, does not know the meaning of collaboration.

President Obama, in designing "his" ACA, leaned over backwards to include Republican ideas, indeed modeling the legislation on the example of his future GOP opponent, Romney. Many of the problems with the ACA are indeed the result of this excessive attempt to include conservative ideas.

Let's see how well the new GOP majority is at "collaboration". So far the signs are very bad, as the standard GOP response to everything seems to be "shut down the government".

No Indictment of Officer in Missouri Death

By MONICA DAVEY, JULIE BOSMAN and JOHN ELIGON

NOV. 24, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/ferguson-darren-wilson-shooting-michael-brown-grand-jury.html?comments#permid=13425578

Our brainless 24 hour news media, in their instant reporting of false statement from "witnesses", and false "facts", simply in order to fill their 24hr air time and obtain "scoops" on new information, are complicit in the insanity that is happening now in Ferguson, with burning of police cars and looting shops of innocent people, just trying to make a living.

This false and irresponsible reporting by the 24 hour cable news (first and foremost CNN) led from the very beginning to false conclusions being drawn from the premature, false and erroneous "witness" statements. And all the subsequent speculation by the idiotic "experts" which were paraded before us for the past three months only served to increase the misinformation and heighten the tension.

CNN, with their parade of talking heads, all, for the most part, spouting nonsense "opinions", from the very beginning introduced the notion of some vast conspiracy to kill young blacks by an out-of-control police force.

It is certainly true that many police departments have serious problems with unequal enforcement and "targeting" of minorities. But for "reputable journalists" (if that term can be applied to the irresponsible nitwits on 24 hour news) to heighten these existing tensions in completely irresponsible ways, by selecting "witnesses" more for their shock values rather than any verifiable factual information they can provide, borders on willfully inciting rioting.

Have these people ever heard of checking and verifying sources?

My response to a comment on my comment....

If you read my comment, you will see that I am not blaming the media for a non-indictment, I am blaming the media for encouraging and spreading mis-information, which then encourages the kind of violent protests we saw in Ferguson last night.

And my singling out of CNN was premature. NBC, for example, is just as uninformed and polemical: In an interview of the Brown's lawyer on "Today" this morning, Savanna Guthrie framed a question as to the reason for the non-indictment as "was the evidence too weak, or did the prosecutor just not trying hard enough". The option that the evidence was STRONG in vavor of officer Wilson never seemed to have entered her mind.

The African American community have ample and valid reasons to be suspicious of police and "the system" - Treyvon Martin was/is an outrage, and many more examples abound. However, in this case, by misplaced, blind support for a young thug, the African American community, with the help of witless media, unleashed a witch hunt against a police officer.

A Quiet Wedding for Darren Wilson

by JULIE BOSMAN AND CAMPBELL ROBERTSON

Nov. 24.2014

http://www.nytimes.com/news/ferguson/2014/11/24/quiet-wedding-for-darren-wilson-police-officer-in-ferguson-shooting/?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

This article strikes me as over-the-top yellow press tactics - why is the fact that Officers Wilson and Spradling proceeded with a quiet wedding a necessary component of informing the public? Officer Wilson has received death threats and is very likely going to resign, no matter the outcome of the Grand Jury. This malicious piece strikes me as unnecessarily putting another person at risk (Officer Spradling), who in no way is connected to whatever police misconduct MAY have been committed. Shame on you, NYT.

Hagel Submits Resignation as Defense Chief Under Pressure

By HELENE COOPER

NOV. 24, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/hagel-said-to-be-stepping-down-as-defense-chief-under-pressure.html?comments#permid=13420608

The notion of "honorable men" in politics seems to be a quaint relic of past times, but Mr. Hagel was/is just that.

Knowing the cruelty and, in his case (Vietnam), the senselessness of war, he spoke the truth as he saw it, repeatedly voicing skepticism about the insane reengagement in Middle Eastern wars, where we demonstrably have no clue and a terrible track record.

As much as I support President Obama's domestic goals and policies, in his conduct of the Middle East wars, he has been the captive of the incompetent military leadership at the Pentagon, where ignorance and ineptness is hidden behind "patriotic" blathering. Mr Hagel was a welcome exception, but ultimately (and expectedly) he lost to the Generals.

The Making of an Imperial President

by Ross Douthat

NOV. 22, 2014

This whole notion of an "imperial presidency" is complete nonsense. It is the typical hyperbole Republicans always employ in order to deflect from their abject incompetence. Just as the hype and political posturing of the GOP about Benghazi has been shown to be utter nonsense, (kudos to the GOP led commission, which had the courage and integrity to publish an honest report), this imperial nonsense is aimed at distracting from the inability of the GOP to muster a legislative program that can get support even within their own fractured caucus.

A country as large and powerful as the US needs a functioning government - the US is a joke among Europeans for its inability to pass even basic legislation to attack any of its multiple serious problems. Congress has proven itself to be completely inept, and even after their electoral victories, the GOP cannot muster a cohesive legislative program (where are the "reform conservatives?). In that situation it is natural, even necessary, for the president to push the limits of his authority in order to move the country forward.
The main reason the GOP is foaming at the mouth about President Obama's actions is that they are completely incapable of presenting a legislative program. They could short circuit the President's actions by passing one of the many legislative proposals for immigration reform, even if it is done piecemeal. But their incompetent leadership can think of nothing better than to threaten to shutdown government altogether.

Three Thoughts on an Amnesty

by Ross Douthat

NOVEMBER 21, 2014 11:11 AM

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/three-thoughts-on-an-amnesty/?comments&_r=0

Lets take a short time-out from the hysteria:

Who benefits from the pre-Obama initiative status quo on illegal aliens? Certainly not the illegals who are here, forced into the shadows and legal limbo, rife to be treated like the slaves of past ages.

All the "free market" enthusiasts, the "job creators", intent on pushing wages down to slave labor levels in order to increase their profits, or, less polemically, all the employers who would have to deal with major structural changes (agriculture, hotel/restaurant, low level services) in order to survive the disappearence of the illegal alien slave labor pool.

All the nonesense about "constitutional crisis" and "amnesty" not withstanding, the GOP is still acting as the lacky of these industries in avoiding dealing with the immigration issue as a normal problem solving legislative issue. Many legislators, including, most likely, Democrats, are accepting large sums of money for the specific purpose of blocking any rational legislative action to address this problem for the benefit of the powerful industries which depend on slave labor.

Certainly the Obaba initiative leaves many questions unanswered, but the current, and expected conservative outrage is transparently nonsesensical. As Obama said, if you don't like it, pass legislation. Some of your own prominent people (Bush II, Newt, to name just two) have made some very reasonable and rational proposals, but where whistled back by the crazies in your ranks. That is the real Constitutional crisis!

Obama’s Immigration Plan Could Shield Five Million

by MICHAEL D. SHEAR and ROBERT PEAR

NOV. 19, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/politics/obamacare-unlikely-for-undocumented-immigrants.html?comments#permid=13387394

It is discouraging that Americans seem to be so backwards on so many issues. For many generations Americans have refused to join the civilized world and acknowledge that Universal Health Care is not just socially and ethically desirable, but economically necessary - it is no coincidence that Americans pay the most, on average, for health care and get some of the worst results for it. This has been a verifiable fact for many years, yet large segments of the population and, worse, political leaders, have chosen to remain ignorant.

"Illegal immigrants" is a similar issue - de facto North America allows (with a wink and head in the sand) movement of labor across borders - just as the EU does, but there it is a matter of policy. And the EU is learning, the hard way, but it is learning, how to handle the tradeoff between the desirable aspects of this free movement - getting skilled labor to where it is needed vs. just to take advantage of better social programs in richer countries. The recent European Court ruling is the latest step in this learning process: it allows for people who do not get work in the host country, indeed have never worked there, to be denied social services and shipped back to their country of origin.

In both health care and now "immigration", the Obama initiatives are severly flawed, by comparison with the rational European approaches, but by the standards of American politics, dominated as it is by stupidity and partisan malvolence, they are welcome steps.

Did Dubai Do It?

by Thomas L. Friedman

NOV. 18, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/thomas-friedman-did-dubai-do-it.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


"Maybe the beginning of wisdom is admitting that we don’t know what we’re doing out here and, more important, we don’t have the will to invest overwhelming force for the time it would take to reshape any of these places — and, even if we did, it is not clear it would work.”

That is truly an insight - it is just such a shame that it comes so late, after 4500+ American casualties and likely several 100,000 Iraqi and Afghans killed, and helping to unleash the current bloody wave of terrorists. Too bad that “experts” such as Mr. Friedman are so sloooow….

Unfortunately, Mr. Friedman then turns around and makes the same mistake again - that “we”, the West, the US, can do anything significant to promote this “containment” and “amplification” — he sure does like buzzwords…

The rest is of course pure rubbish - again demonstrating Mr. Friedman’s penchant for glorifying, and taking as gospel truth the last interview he’s had.

Dubai/UAE initiated the Arab awakening/spring? what utter nonsense!

The “average Arab” is looking to Dubai for inspiration on how to join the modern world, as his newest wiseman claims? the “average Arab”, struggling to survive hunger, filth, lawlessness, etc. is looking to an incubator for “media and entertainment” to show them the way out of centuries of religious war, despotic leaders, starvation, etc.? What absurd rubbish.

The only valid point in the midst of all this nonsense is that the impetus for liberalization and modernization in the Arab world does not, and will not come from some abstract, idealistic striving towards “freedom and democracy”, but from basic needs to better ones social and economic conditions. 

Yes, change in the Arab world has to come from within, but not from some ruthless capitalists in Dubai...

Miscellaneous Thoughts on 2016

by Ross Dothan

NOV 12 11:37 AM, 2014

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/miscellaneous-thoughts-on-2016/?comments#permid=13311433

I'll repeat my prediction here, first made on election night 2014, that, in spite of their overwhelming victory, the GOP has not basically changed from a party which lives from, fosters and perpetuates, social conflict and political ignorance through the multitude of "nut cases" in its midst. 

There is no "reform conservative" renewal of the GOP, as much as Douthat and Brooks would like to talk it into existance. To think that Marco Rubio is the best the GOP might have to offer in 2016 is just too pathetic for words.

The "nut cases" in the GOP, including Cruz (and Huckabee, btw) will dominate the primaries and will continue to make the GOP a laughing stock on the national level. And with their current majority in both houses, the GOP will continue to pound away at repealing ACA, and will focus on devisive issues to feed the ignorance and prejudices of their core constituents, and thus fail the test of actually governing at the national level.

Having supported Hillory Clinton in 2008 until the "bitter end", even I am not enthused by the prospect of her candidacy in 2016 (her statements on Syria recently demostrate a complete unawareness of our mistakes in the Middle East), but in a face-off between Hillary and Marco Rubio (or Paul Rand), she will be obviously the superior candidate, in intellectual capacity, experience and stature.

Freud and the Middle East

by Thomas L. Friedman

NOV. 11, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/freud-and-the-middle-east.html?comments#permid=13311111

"What politicians here tell you in private is usually irrelevant. What matters most, ... is what they say in public in their own language to their own people."

Coming from a Pulitzer Prize winning "journalist" this "realization" comes frighteningly late. Going back through Mr. Friedman's commentary on the Middle East, his analysis often seems simplistic, as in his repeated statements that social media/twitter would be the boon of a new Arabic liberal/democratic awakening, and gullible, as in his frequent exhortations that the "solutions" were those he had just heard in his latest interview (in English) with a Middle East "personality", political or not - remember his commentary on the idea that the problem/solution in the Middle East had its roots entirely in ecology and access to water.

As a complete amateur (albeit, fairly well read), I have been hammering away in my comments, that the problems in the Middle East are at their root a centuries old religious war, not unlike the long battle beween Catholics and Protestants in Europe. It would have been helpful if Mr. Friedman had accepted this reality (very well described in this piece) before he acted as a cheerleader for the brainless US intervention in Iraq, where we completely ignored this underlying religious conflict in the Middle East, and in our pathetically simplistic way (fed by the unique situation of WW II) assumed that we would be welcomed as "liberators".

We poked a stick into a hornets nest and created ISIS.

The Big Sleep

by Timothy Egan

NOV. 6, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/opinion/timothy-egan-the-big-sleep.html?comments#permid=13274102

This commentary skirts the real issues - there is a deeply rooted (Constitution, both explicitly in the way elections are defined, essentially mandating a two-party system, and implicitly in its current interpretation, e.g. one $, one vote, rather than one person one vote) problems with America's version of representative democracy, which puts it into constant, continual election campaign mode, with no time left for actual governing - Mr. Egan proposes concentrating on 2016 to avoid the hard task of dealing with the realities posed of 2014.

Many, if not most other system of representative democracy have a parliamentary system, where the conflict between legislative and executive is not pre-programmed, but indeed completely eliminated, as the majority in parliament (even if a coalition of some sort) is always the legislative also. These systems also allow for more than just two (relevant) political parties, which permits "protest votes" (such as this mid-term obviously was, at least in a substantive part) to be reflected in a third or new party, rather having one of the only two parties be hyjaked by crazies, which even the GOP now admits they have been. These parliamentary systems also do a much better job of limiting the length and cost of political campaigns, so that time and energy remains to actually govern in between.

So, as the loosers in the mid-term, let's not just stick our heads in the sand for the next two years, but work hard to be constructive partners. They won!

Triumph of the Wrong

by Paul Krugman

NOV. 6, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/opinion/paul-krugman-triumph-of-the-wrong.html?comments#permid=13273825

While I agree with the substance of Prof. Krugman's commentary, i.e. the GOP was/is wrong in virtually all its problem assessments and policy proposals, we must remember that they, indeed, achieved a resounding electoral victory, both on the local and national levels. And in a democracy, which we still sotra, kinda are (or claim to be), that is what counts.

Democrats/liberals/progressives must avoid falling into the "we're right/you're wrong" obstinence trap, which the GOP demonstrated so abysmally during the past six years, and instead cooperate on issues vital to the US (immigration, health care, reducing inequality, revitalizing the middle class, etc.) even if the policies put forward by the GOP are not ideal. For example, if "tax reform" comes to mean just simplifying the tax code and eliminating some of the most egregious loop holes, but does not include rebalancing the tax burden in favor of the lower and middle class. let's support it anyway. If immigration reform falls short of allowing the 10 or so million "illegals" to emerge from underground, let's support it anyway. Even small, incremental, non-optimum steps are preferable to the complete log-jam we have experienced in the past decade.

There is one area where I would absolutely draw the line, however, and that is the ACA. If the GOP continues their insane attacks against the demonstrable benefits of ACA, the President should use his full veto power to stop such moves.

The Governing Party

by David Brooks

NOV. 6, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/opinion/david-brooks-the-governing-party.html?comments#permid=13273505

This is an understandibly euphoric view of the mid-term elections. There is no denying that conservatives won a huge victory and that the GOP has been greatly streangthended. 

I hope, but doubt, that the crazy phase of the GOP is indeed behind us. As Mr. Brooks and most other conservative talking heads have stated, the spotlight is now fully on the GOP in Congress to use their majority to actually get something done, rather than continue to spend most of their time and energy to discredit President Obama (which has been their stated objective over the past six years).

The first test will be, if they can give up on their insane efforts to rollback, or otherwise weaken the ACA. By most objective analyses the ACA, although far from perfect, has achived its primary goals of reducing the number of uninsured, stopping the inhumane practices by insurance companies to deny needed coverage, and to stem the explosive growth of health care costs. Yet we already hear renewed battle cries by prominent Republicans, like Ted Cruz, that the opposition to ACA is still at the forefront of Conservative thinking.

The other urgent test for the GOP is, if they can actually come up with legislation to address some of the urgent problems faced by the US. I would even give the GOP credit if such legislation, although I may not agree with the policy, actually represents an honest attemp to solve a problem, rather than just to make a political statement and/or maneuver Obama into vetoing legislation.

For Republicans, What Counts as Victory?

By Russ Douthat

NOVEMBER 4, 2014 12:59 PM

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/for-republicans-what-counts-as-victory/?comments#permid=13245582

Now that the election evening projections seem to validate the polling over the past few weeks, and the GOP is set to take control of both houses, it is interesting (and for me, scary) to imagine what the GOP will do with that victory.

My suspicion, given past performance, is that the GOP, in a typical show of ill-tempered malice will immediately move to repeal, roll-back, or whatever you want to call it, the ACA. In addition, they will probably also propose a bunch of policies designed not to solve any real national problems (like immigration and the continuing stagnation of our once famous middle class), but rather which are designed to embarrass Pres. Obama.

Resurrecting the Rantings of a Grumpy Old Guy

Given the recent events, both domestically (the 2014 Mid-Term) and internationally (primarily our blundering back into Iraq and the Middle East in general), I feel compelled to resurrect this blog - I need a means of working off my frustrations about all the bad news.

As before, most of my posts will be copies of "Comments" I submit, responding to articles and editorials, primarily in the NYT. Each of these comments will lead off with links to the original article or editorial to which my blog post is a response.