Trump Suggests e-Vehicle Methodists and Catholics Should "Rot in Hell"

According to Business Insider, Donald Trump isn't happy with those who support electric cars and wishes they would "rot in hell." I wonder if Trump has any electric carts on any of his golf courses. I bet he does. 

Trump's particularly harsh and baseless judgement (the Bible doesn't take a position on electric cars) would apparently apply to the Washington-Baltimore Conference of the United Methodist Church. Given that their parking lots are pretty much empty six days out of the week, they decided to install e-car charging stations at more than 600 churches! 

And Trump's not just implicitly telling Methodists where to go and what to do when they get there. The Catholic Diocese of Worchester, Massachusetts is encouraging parishioners to support driving and charging e-vehicles. 

Perhaps a sign of how out of touch Donald Trump is with energy and world affairs, and how poorly informed he is, generally, Pope Francis Himself has two Volkswagon ID.3 Pro Performance models and has directed the entire Vatican City State fleet to purchase electric vehicles and be carbon-neutral by 2030.  

Photo credit: Aleteia.

Not Trusting Our Institutions: How Did We Get Here?

Former Reagan White House official and one-time nominee for Labor Secretary (she withdrew after it was discovered she employed an undocumented worker) Linda Chavez has an opinion piece The Most Worrisome Effect of Russia's Election Meddling in the New York Post arguing that the worst aspect of Russian meddling in the recent presidential election is the erosion of public trust in our democratic institutions.In conclusion, Chavez makes what seems to me to be a a very reasonable point:

"Democracy can only exist as long as the people trust its institutions. The greatest calamity of this election cycle has been the weakening of that trust" - Linda Chavez.

Team Putin appears to have succeeded in hacking American (and world) confidence in its own election process, its intelligence agencies, and its freedom of the press. They didn't accomplish this on their own, however. They've had some help along the way, such as:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

One thing seems clear: when each of our major political parties is in power, they call for trust. When they are out of power they attack the other side in increasingly bitter and nefarious ways.

In the present crisis, partisanship is not the solution to our problem; partisanship is the problem.

How do we fix it?

1. Start by recognizing both sides, Republicans and Democrats, are complicit in problems facing ordinary Americans.

2. Read and listen to a variety of news sources, i.e., consider other opinions that do not conform to our own biases.

3. Engage in constructive change activities. Don't tune out and drop out.

4. Keep calm; keep working.

Is Trump Preparing to Stiff China?

President-Elect Donald J. Trump (DJT) has promised to "rebuild our depleted military" and spend a lot of money building new infrastructure. Where will he get the money?

Trump's recent phone call with Taiwan's President has angered the People's Republic of China (PRC) leaders who've made it clear that a "two-China" policy would be unacceptable. U.S. relations with China are already deteriorating before DJT takes office. What are we to make of this?

Trump has a history of using bankruptcy  and stiffing contractors as part of his business practice.

How much does the U.S. owe China? Over $1 trillion.

Suppose China-U.S. relations continue to the point DJT calls for sanctions and puts a stop to payments on our Chinese debt. Suppose such a move doesn't scare the hell out of the rest of America's debt holders and throw the international financial markets into a fit. What are the other risks?

Remember when the U.S. pulled out of Iraq and left a lot of weapons in the hands of the Iraqi military? Those weapons ended up in enemy hands. A similar situation has been created by U.S. corporations setting up industrial facilities in China, which now has an excess of industrial capacity.

If DJT forces a "showdown" how much can U.S. policies actually hurt China? The fact is, if the U.S. wanted to beat down the Chinese economy, it's probably 20 years too late. China leads the U.S. economy in manufacturing and agriculture.

Everybody the U.S. can sell to, China can probably sell to at a cheaper price.

If it loses market share, how will the U.S. rebuild its industrial capacity?

Do we need to revisit 1939 to find the answer?

Robert Reich Comments on Washington Post's Silly Attack on Sanders

Former Labor Secretary and prolific author Robert Reich is out with an article solidly defending Senator Bernie Sanders against an absurd attack from the Washington Post (WaPo). The article is Why the Washington Post Attack on Bernie Sanders is Bunk.

Evidently, the WaPo thinks Sanders' plan for extending public funding beyond K-12 to include college would mean a government takeover of colleges. I don't think the WaPo writer has ever filled out a FAFSA or has much of idea the way colleges are currently influenced by outside money, as Robert Reich points out. 

It's true that Bernie Sanders wants to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans to rebuild the American Middle Class. We're going to see those corporations and wealthiest Americans mount an enormous campaign against him.

Capitalism Offers No Guarantee of a Middle Class

Reuters global editor at large Chrystia Freeland wrote in a 2011 column, Capitalism is Failing the Middle Class, what many of us have been complaining about for years, but what may finally be sinking in to skulls of the policy wonks that have influence with the movers and shakers of global capitalism. She sited two studies, one written by Michael Spence, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, and the other David Auter, published by the Brookings Institution. Both papers warn of the long term national consequences of lower wages and fewer job opportunities caused by shipping jobs overseas. From Chrystia Freeland:

Globalization and the technology revolution are increasing productivity and prosperity. But those rewards are unevenly shared – they are going to the people at the top in the United States, and enriching emerging economies over all. But the American middle class is losing out.

To Americans in the middle, it may seem surprising that it takes a Nobel laureate and sheaves of economic data to reach this unremarkable conclusion. But the analysis and its impeccable provenance matter, because this basic truth about how the world economy is working today is being ignored by most of the politicians in the United States and denied by many of its leading business people.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that capitalism by itself is no guarantee of the kind of large, prosperous middle class that used to define Americans as a land of opportunity. Businesses in this world can find poor grunts to work long days under terrible conditions for enough food to keep from starving. Businesses should remember that working customers will spend more if they're paid more.

Do people work for the economy or does the economy work for people?

The middle class was brought to us by those who fought for a combination of government policies and labor contracts: compulsory education and the schools that needed to be built, the Land Grant College Act, child labor laws, the minimum wage, workers compensation, social security, unemployment benefits, Medicare, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the eight-hour day, weekends, collective bargaining, anti-discrimination laws that were all passed despite fierce opposition from conservatives and corporations.

And they’re still at it.

Beirut to Benghazi: Scarborough's Selective Memory

Before going off to work in the morning, I often watch Morning Joe, hosted by Joe Scarborough. Joe, a former Republican congressman from Florida, is cool. He plays guitar and had a band when he was younger, he taught high school for awhile, he's got some wit and spontaneity. He can "dance."

The best part about his show is, although Joe's a conservative, he brings in guests with other points of view, including some left-of-center voices such as Eugene Robinson and Howard Dean. The show "airs" on MSNBC from 6-9AM weekdays.

Last Friday (24 January 2014) Joe and his guests were discussing President Obama's apparent unwillingness or inability to go out schmoozing with other politicians in the Washington social scene. Joe seemed quite convinced this was the problem with Obama. If he could just go out after work and yuck it up with conservative senators and representatives, he could get a lot more of his agenda passed.

His guests pushed back: it won't work, there's more partisanship, positions have hardened, compromise is a "dirty word," times have changed, it's a different world.

This is not an exact quote but Joe's response was something like "No, No! It's not a different world!....It was just as bad back when I was in!"  He was a bit loud and his guests didn't interrupt as he made his impassioned plea.

I wish Joe would have used some examples, instead of just his passion, to convince us that the political discourse is no more partisan now, than it was in, say, 1983. He could have compared Benghazi with Beirut. I wish he could have described how Democrat presidential hopefuls leaped at the opportunity to blame President Reagan for not preventing the bombing of the Marine barracks that killed 241 Americans. But, he couldn't. Because none did.

Reagan had been warned ahead of time of the vulnerability of the Marines' situation. His Secretary of Defense, Weinberger, said this:

"They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull's-eye," Weinberger said. "I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position."

Joe might have described how  Congressional investigations were launched by Democrats to get to the bottom of the Marine barracks attacks, just like Republicans held committee hearings on Benghazi.  But he couldn't. Because there weren't any.

Reagan appointed a military commission to investigate the bombing and the final report blamed a faceless "military chain of command."  Reagan, the "Teflon" president, was home free.

Contrast that with the Senate  and House investigations of the Benghazi attack, an issue Scarborough and other Republicans continue to raise with the hope of discrediting Obama and Hillary Clinton, or countering any alleged wrongdoing by Republicans. 

Back to the "Obama's not a schmoozer, therefore he's not a successful President" criticism. Seems to me, what Joe is really saying is,  Republicans don't read, they need their vanities stroked, are impervious to reason, and only got into politics with hopes of going to Washington to party in the White House.

Guess we can't expect them to remember much.

Further reading from Pew Research:
Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years

Ben Stein: Anti-Science Extremist with Mainstream Credentials

The problem with Ben Stein is that he is too likable. Too cute. He's smart, he's funny. Ben is the son of Herbert Stein, a top economic advisor to Nixon. He's undoubtedly a well connected and influential voice in American politics and popular culture. He's a prominent Republican. He's a "player." And, he's fun. Who could resist his Hollywood roll as the boring economics school teacher in Ferris Beuller's Day Off ?

Actor, game show host (Win Ben Stein's Money), movie maker, Nixon and Ford speech writer, lawyer, economist, degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law, he's politics-made-for-TV entertainment's equivalent of Ironman. He can do it all.

Ben Stein (right), in tennies. Photo by Alex Mazerov, Wikimedia Commons.

Stein writes a regular column for the American Spectator, published by the right-wing 501(c)(3) American Spectator Foundation, which apparently holds that tax-deductible status by offering internships to young journalists. He's also a frequent guest on CNBC's Kudlow Report. It seems safe to say Ben Stein is not associated with the far right likes of Quran-burning Pastor Terry Jones. Stein's a mainstream elite guy - who says scientists are murderers.

In 2008, while promoting his anti-evolution movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Stein gave an interview to Trinity Broadcasting Network, where Stein's remarks were so off-the-wall, that even the conservative journal National Review couldn't tolerate them.

From the transcript, as reported by John Derbyshire in the National Review:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.


With the general election approaching, the Republicans are busily portraying themselves as moderates. Is such an extreme view of science a "reasonable centrist" position? If given more power in Washington, would Republicans be champions of the advancement of science and technology with the goal of inventing and manufacturing products that advance the arc of civilization? It's seems pretty hard to do that if you've decided "science leads you to killing people."

Scientific American has responded to Ben Stein, particularly his movie, in the following related articles.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Scientific American's Take

Six Things Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed--Ben Stein Launches a Science-free Attack on Darwin