Oh, this should be good!

Saw this on Tumblr:


Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Know Diddly-Squat About Wall Street →


A: yes he does. And B: you can tell this guy is a serious writer because he borrows phrasing from Ned Flanders.

Senator Sanders has gotten a lot of mileage by bashing Wall Street “billionaires.” His call for a “political revolution” usually includes a reference or two to how Wall Street is full of greedy bankers who “drove this economy to its knees” in 2008 and should return the favor of being bailed out by transferring some of their wealth to the struggling American middle class.

And so now I assume you're going to explain why he's wrong?

These are great applause lines, and it’s easy to see why. Since the full extent of the financial crisis began unfolding eight years ago, the general public has come to view bankers as a group of reprobates who, for large fees, packaged up shoddy home mortgages as securities and sold them off around the world as good investments—even when, in many cases, they knew full well that they were not. The fact that the Department of Justice let the wrongdoers off scot-free has only exacerbated this ire.

And?

Is the general public incorrect in these beliefs? Did the banksters not actually do all that?
(spoiler alert: Yes, they did.)

Sanders is right that Wall Street still needs reform. The Dodd-Frank regulations fail to measure up; Wall Street lobbyists and $1000-an-hour attorneys work away each day to gut the meager reforms signed into law by President Barack Obama in July 2010. It is also unconscionable that Wall Street’s compensation system continues to reward bankers, traders, and executives to take big risks with other people’s money in hopes of getting big year-end bonuses. Thanks to this system, which has been prevalent since the 1970s, when Wall Street transformed itself from a bunch of undercapitalized private partnerships (where those partners had serious capital at risk every day) to a group of behemoth public companies (where the risk is borne by creditors and shareholders while the rewards go to the employees), Wall Street has become ground zero for one financial crisis after another.

So. . .  Sanders is right? So he does know at least Diddly if not squat about Wall Street?

But Sanders never talks about the compensation system on Wall Street. In fact, he rarely mentions anything concrete at all. Instead, he dwells on bizarre and nebulous notions such as imposing “a tax on Wall Street speculation,” as he did during his speech on Monday night.

How is a tax on Wall Street speculation "bizarre?" And do you even know what the word "nebulous" means?

It took me about a minute on Google to find this:


(source)

Washington, D.C. – A broad coalition of nurses, students, religious and civil rights groups, environmentalists, labor and housing advocates today enthusiastically welcomed plans by Sen. Bernie Sanders to introduce two new Senate bills Tuesday that would impose a small fee on Wall Street speculation to pay for college education for all and other critical community needs.

Both bills set a nominal tax – 50 cents on every $100 of stock trades on stock sales, and lesser amounts on transactions involving bonds, derivatives, and other financial instruments.

How is that not a "concrete" proposal?

It spells out exactly what he proposes to do, a 50 cent tax on every $100 worth of stock trades. I'm sorry if that's confusing for you, but I don't think anyone else finds it "nebulous."

But what exactly is Sanders proposing and does it make any sense?

Um, we already covered that and, um, yes.

The answer to the first question is: it is difficult to tell. The candidate’s website does not really flesh out the idea, other than to say that the tax “will reduce risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation.” If one goes back to a bill that Sanders introduced in the Senate last May, there is slightly more meat on these bones; still, the proposed legislation seems to have very little to do with actually taxing “Wall Street speculation” and more to do with taxing every trading transaction—the buying and selling of stocks and bonds and derivatives—that Wall Street and hedge funds engage in.

Yeah. that's speculation.

speculation

 noun

     engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, especially trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.

 Everything Wall Street does, if it does it honestly, is speculation.

This, of course, makes no sense whatsoever—why tax the very behavior the system depends upon?

Um, because we need the money? I mean, what's the downside here? Oh, no, Wall Street is being taxed on the very behavior it depends on! Oh, no, whatever will we do if Wall Street gets hit with a one-half of one percent tax on their behavior? How will they survive? And what would we ever do without them? Imagine the horrors of a world without Goldman-Sachs!

Even if Sanders eventually elaborates on his plan more fully, does taxing Wall Street speculation even make any sense? That one is simple: nope,
[italics in original]

Oh, sure, yeah, a one-word answer is totally sufficient. No explanation needed. Why back up your assertion with evidence or statistics or anything?

That one is simple: nope, and it actually reveals the candidate’s ignorance about our banking system. Simply put, Wall Street’s purpose is to re-allocate capital from people who have it (savers) to those who want it (borrowers) and then use it to grow businesses that employ billions of people around the globe and help give them a modicum of wealth that they did not have before.

Well, okay, that may be its purpose but that is not the function it serves. Wall Street is just as likely to be involved in helping Bain Capital-type outfits buy up businesses, strip them for parts, throw the employees out of work and stash the profits in the Caymans than growing businesses and employing billions of people and everyone gets a little bit wealthier and we all live happily ever after.

Ooh, look at me. I'm Wall Street! I'm making everybody rich!!!

One man’s speculation, in other words, is another man’s risk-taking.

It's -- it's the same thing! Speculation and risk-taking are exactly the same thing! It's like saying one man's idiot is another man's imbecile.

Without people willing to take those risks, and having the chance to reap their reward, there wouldn’t be an Apple, a Google, a Facebook, or countless other large corporations. The billions of people around the world who are employed by thriving companies would lose their jobs.

And do you honestly think that, say Steve Wozniak, when he was creating Apple Computer, would have gone to Wall Street looking for investors and they would have said "Sorry Mr. Wozniak, but if we invest money in your company, we might have to pay a one-half of one percent tax on the transaction, and even though this looks like a million dollar idea you've got there, well, we just can't afford to take that kind of hit. In fact, we're mainly in the business these days of stuffing cash under mattresses!"

I don't know why right-wing corporate apologists always expect people to believe that if the "job creators" are taxed at all on their enormous income they will simply close down shop and stop making money at all. Like someone is offered an executive position with a seven-figure salary and says "sounds great! Oh, wait. I'm going to have to pay taxes on that income? No thanks, I'll just go be poor and live in a box somewhere." Or that if Wall Street firms have to pay a tiny tax on the one thing that they do to make money, they're just going to say "fuck this, I'm closing the brokerage and getting my old band back together. We'll play for spare change in the subway and we'll never make enough money to have to pay taxes. Hahahahaha! Take that, United States government! I win again!"

But sure, it's Bernie Sanders who doesn't know diddly about Wall Street.

Cliven Bundy rears his ugly, stupid, crazy head again.

This is what happens when you let this braying jackass get away with it once. He comes back for more.

So with Almond Bundy behind bars, Cliven has apparently stepped up to fill the void, sending this letter to the sheriff of Harney County:






It begins "We, the people of Harney County. . ."

Um, no, dude. You don't live in Harney County. You are not one of the people of Harney County. And the actual people of Harney County have been very clear that they don't want you or any of your family/gun club/Constitution misinterpretation society playing out your civil war fantasies in their county. They want you to stay in your own damn county. Where do you get the balls to act like you're speaking on their behalf?

And he gives notice that the few straggler nuts left in the Malheur Wildlife Refuge "will retain possession" of it.
 Yeah, you'll retain possession as long as the feds are willing to tolerate you pretending to possess it. Once they decide they've had enough of your childish and illegal bullshit occupation, it's game over for you. You think you're going to fight off the Federal Government of the United States of America? There's what, like 5 of you not behind bars? You're going to fight off the FBI, the ATF, the BLM  and whatever other law enforcement agencies the feds can throw at you? You don't have a snowball's chance in hell, you delusional ass.

And then he has the temerity to start issuing demands of the County Sheriff, the Governor and the President of the United States of America! What the hell kind of leverage do you think you have? What makes you think you're in a position to demand the removal of all state and federal policing agents? Why would you think that any of these officials would possibly listen to your demands or take them seriously? Oh, right. Because they did last time. last time you had a run-in with the federal government, you got a bunch of loonies to come to your ranch with assault rifles and the feds backed down. So of course you're going to try it again.

You know, all this could have been prevented if Bundy and his accomplices had been rounded up and jailed in the first damn place. I get that the feds were afraid of having another Waco or Ruby Ridge on their hands, but you can't just do nothing. You could have waited until the minions began to drift away then arrested them individually in their hometowns. You could have thrown the Bundy clan in prison, seized all their assets and auctioned off their livestock. But no. You let them think that they had won. So they did it again. And it's going to keep happening unless Bundy and his cohorts do serious time for this. And, yes, they'll be seen as martyrs by the fringe elements on the right that are a danger to us all, but it's better than letting them look like heroes.

It's the stupidest day of the year

Everything about Groundhog day is mind-bogglingly stupid.
For starters, where in the world did anyone get the idea that whether or not  a certain small fuzzy animal sees its shadow  is somehow predictive of anything? What is that even based on? I'd Google it, but I'm sure it's stunningly stupid and  I just don't care enough. Also, how in the hell would you know whether this particular cute fuzzy animal has seen its shadow or someone else's shadow or a blade of grass, or. . . how could you possibly know what an animal has seen or not seen?

And yet, every year, these idiots dress up in formal wear and watch this rodent pop up out of some hole and pretend that they're doing meteorology.







Which is bad enough, but every year every goddamm news agency in the country sends reporters, actual reporters who probably went to journalism school to report on this stupid waste of everyone's time. And they're not allowed to report what actually happened. They're not allowed to say:

Dateline: Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania.
A strange ritual occurred today in this quiet little town as a douchebag in a top hat held aloft a large rodent while pretending that it had some effect on the weather patterns of North America. People who had gathered around for some reason that this reporter could not fathom began to cheer inexplicably as if they had witnessed some sort of actual event. No word yet on whether the top-hatted imbecile has been committed to a mental asylum, but he clearly seems to be a danger to himself as well as not doing the local woodland creatures any favors.

No, they have to go on camera and, with a straight face, talk about how we're going to have a longer or shorter winter this year based on some idiot's idea of what a cute fuzzy animal may or may not have seen. And they have to act like there's something to it. "Well, Bill, it looks like old man winter's going to be around a few more weeks since this overgrown chipmunk seems to have seen its own shadow. reporting live from Pennsatucky, I'm Joan Smith. Please give me a reason not to slash my wrists right here on the air."


I mean, I get why they go on the air and pretend that there are radar sightings of a flying sleigh on Christmas Eve. That's to make children happy. But no child gives a fat fuck about Groundhog Day. Even the smallest child isn't stupid enough to think that a fuzzy animal has any bearing on the climate. So who is it for? There can't possibly be adults who enjoy pretending that an oversized squirrel can predict the future, can there?

Also, the groundhog's name is "Punxsutawney Phil." Who came up with that? If you're going to give the animal a name that starts with "P" to go along with Punxsutawney, why not use a name where the "P" is pronounced as a "P," not an "F?" Why not Punxsutawney Pual or Punxsutawney Pete or Punxsutawney Pat? How hard is that?

Also, what is "Gobbler's Knob?"

A crowd gathered at Gobbler's Knob early this morning, awaiting the emergence of the groundhog named Punxsutawney Phil. After a tap of a cane on Phil's tree-trunk cage, his door was opened, and the animal emerged.

The town is Punxsutawney, PA. Why do they say it happened at "Gobbler's Knob?" What is Gobbler's Knob? Never mind, I'm pretty sure I don't want to know.

Gobbler's Knob is a pretty stupid name for a town or a neighborhood or geographical location, but it's probably the least stupid thing about Groundhog Day, the stupidest day of the year.

Bad Decision

Look, I get it. Every network programmer is looking for the next anti-hero. the next Tony Soprano or Walter White, or Jax Teller. I understand that. And I understand if you're WGN, a network best known for being the station that I think still shows the Cubs games? Maybe? Anyway, I get why you'd want to make a big controversial splash for your foray into original programming. I get it. But honestly, this seems like the exact worst time possible to start running this:





Given recent events, is it really a good idea to run a show glorifying anti-government gun nuts? People who have decided that the laws don't apply to them because they're off the grid or they live off the land or are just special somehow?  And do we really want to have as the protagonists of our show a group of heavily-armed rednecks who threaten the lives of law enforcement personnel?

From what I can tell, this show seems to center around a group of people living on land that someone else owns who have decided that their own personal moral code supersedes the actual laws of the land.  And they are willing/eager to take up arms and violently repel anyone who tries to enforce the actual law.

So, WGN, are you really sure that now is the time you want to romanticize these guys? Not that there's ever going to be a good time, necessarily, but still. This really seems like the exact worst moment in history to be celebrating this kind of mindset.

I swear to God, the more I learn about Ted Cruz and his batshit insane father. . . part 4 or 5 or something.

Somehow, Ted Cruz's campaign handlers haven't stopped his lunatic father from speaking in public. So he keeps saying things like this:

Rafael Cruz: Public Education Is A Communist Plot

Rafael Cruz, the father of and top campaign surrogate for Sen. Ted Cruz, claimed today that the country’s public school system was founded by “a member of the American Communist Party.”

Um, what year is it again? I mean, even the Birchers have moved on from the "everything's a Communist plot" motif by now.


Also, America has had public education long before there was any such thing as a "Communist," let alone the "American Communist Party."

According to CityOfBoston.gov:

 The first public school in America was established by Puritan settlers in 1635 in the home of Schoolmaster Philemon Pormont

And here's an excerpt from the education timeline on RaceForward.org ;

1820
First public high school in the U.S., Boston English, opens.
1827
Massachusetts passes a law making all grades of public school open to all pupils free of charge.

1865-1877
African Americans mobilize to bring public education to the South for the first time. After the Civil War, and with the legal end of slavery, African Americans in the South make alliances with white Republicans to push for many political changes, including for the first time rewriting state constitutions to guarantee free public education.

The Communist Manifesto wasn't even published until 1848.

So, which Communist traveled back in time to "found" America's public school system?

The elder Cruz alleged in an interview on the Sirius XM program “Breitbart News Daily” this morning that public schools are brainwashing children into communism as a result of the work of education reformer John Dewey.

John Dewey?

I'm no expert on John Dewey, but was John Dewey a Communist?

 I mean, his glasses probably were, but was he?

Not according to anything I could find online that wasn't from some right-wing hack site like "American Thinker" or "Conservapedia." In fact, he apparently was one of the founders of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, an anti-Communist group with strong ties to the CIA.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good insane rant? Go on, Mr. Cruz.

Cruz spins an imaginative alternate history, in which he identifies John Dewey as the Patient Zero of a virulent depravity known as secular humanism. Dewey, an atheist and (yes) a secular humanist, was also an influential reformer of American education in the early 20th century; Cruz labels him a member of the Communist party. In fact, as Right Wing Watch helpfully notes, Dewey was an “avowed anti-Communist” who advocated that “known Communists should not be permitted to teach children.”
But never mind. This foul doctrine arrived at America’s shores, infiltrated our classrooms — thanks to Dewey, with assists from the Bolsheviks and Teddy Roosevelt — and lured us into a moral relativism that has driven us further and further from our Judeo-Christian origins. And it manifests today in the nefarious educational initiative known as Common Core:

Teddy Roosevelt?!?!?!

Teddy Roosevelt was in on the Communist plot?

The Rough Rider?

My God, this goes all the way to the top! Why even a Senator could be involved. Like Senator Ted Cruz!
Oh, where's Joe McCarthy when you need him?

You rang?

Common Core is not really about standards. That is just a facade. Common Core is about redefining education, redefining history, and attempting to brainwash kids with a secularist view of history, which denies the fundamental principles that have made America great.

God, I wish Common Core was that interesting. Maybe all the hullaballoo would be worth it.

But you know, it says a lot about the Cruz campaign, and the state of Conservative politics in general, that no one has taken Cruz Senior aside and suggested that he maybe tone it down a bit. And I'm pretty sure no one has asked "Ted" whether he disagrees with any of the delirious lunacy his father so regularly spouts. It seems to be taken for granted that this paranoid madness can't hurt his campaign and might even help him. And sadly they're probably right, at least in the primary. He's still not going to win because he's creepy as hell and everyone hates him, but won't be because of Reverend tinfoil.