My Newer Deal series, a ten-part – (“tl;dr”) -- array of thirty-five proposals for Democrats and their allies, is finally drawing to a close.
All 35 concepts - some of them wholly unique and desperately needed, right now - are summarized in Part 3.
Parts 1 & 2 were introductory, showing how a 1990s Republican tactic -- both polemically brilliant and hypocritically evil -- offers important lessons for us, today. Or it would, if anyone gifted of curiosity might perk up and notice.
Parts 4-10 dived into the proposals, four at a time, with deeper explanations.
Alas, other than this person, who sagaciously understood and expanded on some proposals, I doubt anyone will pay heed. Democrats may be far less-corrupted and more focused on better things. But their political caste has the tactical skills of a tardigrade.
No matter, I've done my duty. And now I'll drift back into my lane, having at least offered some tools and pragmatic priorities. In case we ever get savvy 'generals' in this awful ninth phase of the recurring U.S. Civil War.
This time, part 10 offers some basic fixes... for taxes and such. Plus (and some of you will mutter "at last!")... the Liberal Agenda!
== Tax Reform ==
THE TAX REFORM ACT will simplify the tax code, while ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. Floors for the Inheritance Tax and Alternative Tax will be raised to ensure they only affect the truly wealthy, while loopholes used to evade those taxes will be closed. Modernization of the IRS and funding for auditors seeking very large caches illicitly hidden wealth shall be ensured by IRS draw upon major penalties that have been imposed by citizen juries.
Tax reporting amnesties will be offered, contingent upon affirmations that no future surprise caches of hidden taxable wealth are found.
The simplification process shall be separate from all other tax issues, while guaranteeing that no large category of taxpayers will be net harmed by simplification itself.
All tax breaks for the wealthy will be suspended during time of war or foreign conflict, so that the burdens of any emergency are shared by all.
This one may need to be parsed-out. First, modernization of the IRS that began with the Pelosi-Schumer-Sanders miracle bills of 2021-22 ... and trashed by Trumpers to protect cheater-oligarchs... will be restored. 1970s computers and software will be modernized and auditors sufficient to the task will be sent to world tax evasion havens.
Tax simplification was offered by Donald Trump and Paul Ryan in 2017: "You'll do your taxes on a postcard!" In fact, many European nations have computerized records so that Tax Day takes less than an hour for most citizens. While it's unlikely that AI omniscience will be delayed in the USA for long, we can try a different, non-European approach. My own proposed method has been around a long time. The "No Losers" concept. A neutral notion that will only be opposed by the vast and powerful tax-preparation cartel.
As for that final paragraph: Elites who send our sons and daughters to war, but not their own, will have to choose whether to keep their overseas adventures or their tax cuts. This will elucidate a poorly known fact. That all previous generations of the rich were at least willing to tax themselves during times of urgency, to help pay for wars they would not personally fight. This provision is not so much an anti-war measure as one that is anti-hypocrisy… one of the most devastating traits to attack in your opposing political side.
== The Excellence Act ==
THE AMERICAN EXCELLENCE ACT will provide incentives for American students to excel at a range of important fields. This nation must especially maintain its leadership, by training more experts and innovators in science and technology and resuming our immensely profitable method of attracting the world's brightest to come and study and work in the USA. Education must be a tool to help millions of students and adults adapt, to achieve and keep high-paying 21st Century jobs.
Okay, that one is pretty much self explanatory.
And yes, it's been noticed and commented that a majority of my proposals are structural, or procedural, for example protecting the neutrality of our civil servants, law agencies and military officer corps... or else ensuring that calamitous failure modes exploited by the Trumpians get patched and sealed!
Fair enough. Structural repairs can and must be passed swiftly - with 60%+ public support. Because saving the Republic and its responsible institutions and democracy -- and preventing an authoritarian putsch -- are paramount! As is prepping the way for a return to the politics of negotiation.
Hence I diverged from varied 'platforms' pushed by liberal or leftist mavens like Robert Reich, whose own proposed "Democratic Pledges" coincidentally appeared a couple of weeks after I started posting this series. To be clear, I generally quite respect and admire Reich! But his 'pledges' amount to a fantasy - give everyone a pony! - wish list of spectacularly unrealistic idealism, learning nothing from the agenda failures of Clinton and Obama when they tried for Grand Vision, all-at-once legislation...
...or from the hugely more-effective (incremental) successes of Biden/Pelosi/Schumer/Sanders in 2021-22.
Am I betraying the ambitious goals of liberalism? In a few cases - where I demur or disagree - perhaps so.
But actually, I share most of the goals expressed by Reich! Indeed, I expect many of them to follow! After we have saved the nation and world. After we have restored honest American political process. After we have protected the professionals on whom we all depend. After we have revived a word "negotiation" - unheard in this century - back into the political lexicon.
Indeed, after keeping our 'contract promises' under the 60% rule, we'll be rewarded with a mandate to do more.
But sure. Let's list some of those priorities here, just to show you that I am an ally who is arguing with you about WHEN, not whether to do these things, too!
== The Liberal Agenda ==
THE LIBERAL AGENDA: Okay. Your turn. Our turn. These are HIGH priorities, though beyond the 60% rule.
· Protect women’s autonomy, credibility and command over their own bodies,
· Ease housing costs: stop private corporations from buying up large tracts of homes, colluding on prices. (See my proposal #19.)
· Help working families with child care and elder care. (See proposal #8.)
· Consumer protection, empower the Consumer Financial Protection Board.
· At least allow student debt refinancing, which the GOP dastardly disallowed.
· Restore the postal savings bank for the un-banked.
· Basic, efficient, universal background checks for gun purchases, with possible exceptions.
· A national Election Day holiday, for those who actually vote in person. (See proposal #13.)
· Carefully revive the special prosecutor law.
· Expand and re-emphasize protections under the Civil Service Act.
· Anti-trust breakup of monopoly/duopolies to restore competition to American market economics.
And of course there are others... that will require that we get past the fanatcism and sloth exhibited by today's Congressional GOP... the laziest Congresses in the history of the Republic.
Once again, those Liberal Agenda items are not afterthoughts! Nor left to the end because they are low-priority! They are here at the end of my series because all but two of them will entail major fights! Battles we'll be better able to take on if we learn from the Clinton-Obama mistakes and start with those 60%+ reforms!
This is called politics, folks. Don't waste your political capital right at the start. Be seen as heroes by a clear majority, and they will reward you. Try it!
And if you have some other fresh ideas of your own, come on by the Contrary Brin comments section below! (And subscribe.) It's one of the best and most erudite comment communities online, with only a couple of occasional (polysyllabic ) trolls. Mostly folks talking in actual, complete sentences! Your cogently clear insights will be welcome.
== A final note about tactics ==
YOU could get this rolling. If you live in a gerrymandered Republican district, REGISTER REPUBLICAN so you can vote in the only election that matters to you - the one where your vote would matter - the GOP primary. Make this a movement. A flood!
Oh, and there's another reason! When (not if) many red states suddenly start purging the voter rolls, just before the next election, they won't purge you if you have registered Republican! Ponder that. And how it's just a word. You can live with it.
Sure, I'm daydreaming. Will that wish-scenario of sudden courage from the till-now craven Goldwater Right come to pass?
So far, with a few exceptions, the decent conservatives* have been utter cowards. But that could change, if YOU show them the way.
------
* They exist! Some of them are your neighbors who would help you if you get in trouble. They have been fooled, sure. But welcome them back into the light. And re-demonstrate to them the arts of listening and negotiation.
And yes, in some states the Register Republican notion doesn't matter. Those like California that have made party labels moot in compined primaries, for example. Still, give it some thought. Hold your nose, if you must. But reclaim some value to your vote.
74 comments:
Taxes on a Postcard: Shortly before Merkel ousted* Friedrich Merz from the party leadership in the early 2000s, he proposed a "Tax on a Beer Mat". It quickly died when people realized they would loose their tax returns and it favored the wealthy.
*They were in opposition, then. Merz could have stayed, but he found it unbearable not to be the number one.
Habeck of the Greens tried to propose increased taxes on passive income to finance the social insurrances but they did not calculate it thoroughly and kept it vague, and he got butchered for it in the election campaign. (This is one example of why the Greens govern well while in office, but are a disaster when campaigning.)
"Making your taxes" is a voluntary thing in Germany. You can file for returns if, for example, you had work-related expenses like commuting. It is capped at $1500, I believe.
Here's a bit of optimism to start the New Year with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUHjLxm3V0
https://bsky.app/profile/rudepundit.bsky.social
Trump's reax to D criticism of military action in Venezuela:
“All they do is complain. They should say, ‘Great job.’ They shouldn’t say, ‘Oh, gee, maybe it’s not constitutional.’ You know, the same old stuff that we’ve been hearing for years & years & years.”
Y'know, if people are complaining for years and years that your actions have been unconstitutional, maybe they're not the problem?
Just sayin'
I hope you all understand that America is not a force for good and hasn't been for decades.
We're just an empire. As evil and ruthless as any other.
I like to quote Karl Jaspers in those moments.
"Power has legitimacy only in service of Reason. From there alone it receives it's purpose. In of itself it is evil."
Putin is absolutely counting on Dems and libs to do what they are now doing, be seen defending a bastard-illegal authoritarian regime that was toppled by our own bastard authoritarian. And there's nothing any of us sensible folks can do about our side's eagerness to fall into the trap..
Maduro is and was an evil usurper and dictator without even a hint of legitimacy. I had thought that Putin would order Trump to leave it at symbolic stuff, because Maduro was a KGB asset. But this event shows something else, that Maduro was a pawn who Putin just sacrificed in order to shore up his knight, Trump. And this will indeed, lift Donald and make many dems look like idiotic marxists for denouncing Maduro's fall.
Again, the Maduro regime was not legal by any stretch of the imagination. It was a criminal gang. What Dems should criticize is engaging in acts of war without consultation with Congress and the blatancy of its main purpose, to distract from Epstein.
Utter utter utter utter BS. See below.
It also shows that you’re a terrible political analyst who believes in absurd conspiracy theories and fairy tales about Putin’s omnipotence and the American empire’s goodness. Not much to be done about such a delusional boomer except wait for time to work its magic.
@Der Oger
No nation or sizable group of humans has ever made power serve “pure Reason”. That’s not how we roll. In reality, reason serves power, which serves various sub-rational drives and supra-rational ideals. Our host, for example, evinces the former when he lets slip his tribal hatred of Russians (comparing them unfavorably to farm animals) and the latter when he fantasizes about humans building a tower of Babel and becoming gods. And this is a dude who claims to be a big proponent of Enlightenment and Reason.
This is common failing I find among this cult: an un-selfawareness about their own deeper psychological and mythological drives, either because Reason makes them dumb or they use it to mask their real agendas. It’s also why the Reason cult continues to struggle to win humanity over and conquer the world: because they don’t understand themselves or humanity very well, being nerds in thrall a false god.
twit. It shows that Putin is LOSING and sacrificing pieces to save his most important one. And I should care what you think? You?
Yeah that's gotta be it. Hard to argue with an unfalsifiable theory where the theorist just makes things up after the fact to explain how whatever happened confirms his theory. I don't really care, but it's kinda amusing.
Hey, isn't Maduro a Spanish-speaking worst-of-the-worst drug gang leader who is in our country illegally? Someone should tell Kristi Noem that he needs to be deported to his country of origin without due process.
Oh, like you ever find the guts to stick your neck out to be either right or proved wrong. I do it a lot and accept when I was wrong... and many tabulations have shown I'm right a lot more.
Gutless.
The thing I wonder about is what happens if
a) the arrest is ruled to be illegal because it was part of an illegal military operation and it targeted a person normally protected diplomatic immunity
b) Maduro is not found guilty by the jury;
c) the ICC gets involved because of a).
Unlikely, but still.
@Treebeard:
It is reason that creates laws that forbids me to hunt you down and kill you. It is a restraint to our base impulses, but not one of fear, but calculations.
Pure reason, of course is an ideal and as such never achievable, but the degree by which we try helps us stave off the worst of our natural instincts.
But I will not further attempt to stop your personal descent into bestiality, the other pole of the system; Nature has the trait to self-correct excesses.
Utter utter utter utter BS. See below.
Celts sentence lacks a word:"We are just an empirenow" or "again".
Insert your favorite Smedley D.Butler quote here.
Trump has killed the Type II Empire and tries to build a Type I one. He will likely fail; I doubt there will be a good outcome on the Venezuelan affairs.
BTW, just learned that the cocaine price in the US dropped by 25%.
Can anyone explain to me the difference between authoritarian drug smuggling president Hernandez of Honduras that Trump pardoned and authoritarian drug smuggling president Moduro of Venezuela that Trump captured?
In regard to your blog post series: While I can see where you come from, and might be effective to mend things, I see difficulties with winning elections in the base of those proposals alone.
It might win minds, but not hearts. And hearts is what you need, especially those that think elections do not matter anymore.
And while I think that outrage over the current regime might suffice, they are not addressing the need for profound change people currently attach to the Far Right and their lies.
You need someone with Charisma and empathy, not just a guy with a suitcase of legislative proposals and consultant-speech.
Oh, and I still don't see measures how your former allies should ever, ever trust you again, beides lip service, or how you want to regain the Soft Power lost world-wide.
Trump fancies the former, and dislikes the latter. Maybe, or better likely after a personal sign of appreciation to your president.
You need someone with Charisma and empathy, not just a guy with a suitcase of legislative proposals and consultant-speech.
A while back here, possibly before you were around, I quoted someone I no longer remember who describing three individuals necessary to a successful ideological revolution. This is my own paraphrasing, and I'm not entirely sure I recall correctly, but essentially:
1) A big idea guy who thinks outside the box
2) Someone with the skills to translate those ideas into common language understandable by the public
3) A charismatic leader who can get people excited enough to rally behind those ideas
Post-FDR Democrats are able to come up with 3) from time to time--JFK, Bill Clinton (to some degree), Barack Obama, even Gavin Newsom--but are sorely in need of the other two.
Jesus was definitely one of the 3)s, and while I don't know enough history to say, he might have been that rare instance of all three types rolled into one.
Which now that I look at those words, is kind of interesting, especially for Catholics.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Senate/Maps/Jan03.html
Due to the developments in Venezuela, we have decided to cut our minivacation a day short. We will have a posting on Sunday, Jan. 4 and then will be back to the regular order on Monday, Jan. 5. Thank you for being a loyal reader. Small request: Make a New Year's resolution to get one friend to join our little community as 2026 is going to be a big year.
Spreading the word.
https://electoral-vote.com/
That's the general, non-date-specific URL to the site mentioned above.
What do you think of the "Soft Secession" proposal by Christopher Armitage? Soft secession refers to blue states remaining formally within the US while increasingly refusing to cooperate with federal authority, building parallel legal, economic, and administrative systems that render federal policies unenforceable at the state level. It's a non-violent, constitutional process rooted in anti-commandeering and uncooperative federalism, distinct from outright separation or civil war. I believe it has promise to move the needle. Link to his article: https://cmarmitage.substack.com/p/its-time-for-americans-to-start-talking
Without having read the article yet, what you're talking about sounds like not only a good idea, but an inevitable one.
Remember Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado?
The woman who the Trump admin said won the last rigged elections in Venezuela?
The first person rubio called as SoS?
Who Trump now says is not a legitimate president?
Trump really, really wanted that Nobel Peace Prize and he really really hates when a woman is not sufficiently subservient to him or God forbid beats him in anything.
And remember global warming?
We had 60 degrees for Xmas with tornados.
Tornados have always been a traditional part of any Christmas right?
Now we are looking at a heat wave in January.
Nothing unusual here, right
Remember how the East Wing of the White House was going to be rebuilt with "private donations"?
Nothing has been done, and nothing is planned for the rebuilding.
But a lot of "donation" money has been given to Trump.
Yes, people are tracking private donations for the Trump White House ballroom (East Wing) project, primarily through investigative journalism by outlets like The New York Times and ABC News, with Senator Richard Blumenthal also demanding transparency, but the White House initially omitted some major corporate donors, raising ethics concerns and leading to calls for full disclosure. While the White House promised transparency, they withheld names of some large companies (like Nvidia, Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft) that have business before the administration, prompting ethics watchdogs and lawmakers to push for the full list, with some donors choosing anonymity but facing scrutiny.
Der Oger, you are in my opinion grabbing at excuses to express long-simmering resentment. "Oh, and I still don't see measures how your former allies should ever, ever trust you again, beides lip service, or how you want to regain the Soft Power lost world-wide."
ALL you need to do is ever, ever consider that Americans (like most peoples) are bipolar and the antimodernists have been especially angry, because our modernists have been very, very effective and strong, changing the world for the better. Something NO other nation ever accomplished during their own times of imperial power.
. I speak often of an ongoing US Civil War. In this case, the plague of our bipolar anti-modernist side got the foreign help they lacked in earlier phases and with that help they conquered our nation's capital and institutions.
WHEN , not if, we recover and resume adult modernity, are you planning to hold a grudge, since nearly all of the harm done was inflicted WITHIN America? That's pretty damn unsympathetic for an ally, especially one whose sense of history warps his view of the last 80 years of American Pax, contorting it to pretend he does not owe us a Himalayan mountain of gratitude.
How will you ever 'trust us again"? You never did, despite all the (net) good that we did. I don't expect you ever will, when Blue-Modernist America returns.
===
Likewise, you skimmed impression of my 35 proposals shows little comprehension. Getting all US CHILDREN fully into Medicare would be a huge step and make the whole outcome vastly more likely for an end to shabby isurance parasitism. Restoring emphasis on sustainability too.
Meticulous and sober PROCESS AND STRUCTURE REPAIR will impress US voters because that is exactly what impressed them enough to embrace Gingrich's Contract gambit, ending 60 years of Democratic control of Congress. (Though KEEPING those promises he never did.)
But yes, we need better generals and charisma up top. Are you criticizing me for not emphasizing THAT? Please show me what power that I have over that. Except that my California Governor - Newsom - may be able to provide it. I wish you had applied your criticism to helping my approach, rather than a general (and useless) snark.
ShowBizSoft Secession has begun at low levels. We shall see.
Now we are looking at a heat wave in January.
I'm not sure where you're located, but here in Chicago, we had a brutal cold and snowy couple of weeks in November and early December--when it wasn't actually winter yet. Since then, almost all of the snow has melted and it's supposed to reach 50 degrees F this week.
The world is upside down.
A more rational POV is that Trump isnt controlled by Putin, and has his own agenda and set of controllers.
Far be it from me to defend a bastard like Maduro, but he was ultimately an issue for Venezuelans to solve, and it is not up to the west to decide who is and is not 'legitimate'
...Trump isnt controlled by Putin, and has his own agenda and set of controllers.
I think it's self-evident that Trump is at least somewhat "controlled" by Putin, although that control may not be absolute. And there are some issues Putin cares less about that others.
In the "What a tangled web we weave" spirit, it may serve Russia's (and China's) interests to protest (too much) about US disregard for international law while benefiting from Trump's subsequent defense of such. After all, Russia is in the process of doing the same to Ukraine while China champs at the bit over Taiwan. How can Trump's US object to them doing what he has just justified on similar grounds of national interest and self-defense?
In need of exercise, I've started listening to Isaacson's "Benjamin Franklin" biography while working out. Uplifting and funny. Anyone who frets about The Collapse will find abundant American wisdom here.
David, many Democrats are doing exactly what you are saying they should do. And they should also push for immediate new elections in Venezuela with international (not American) observers (although by all accounts the last election wasn't so much stolen as nullified.
My #1 hero. Dedicated The Postman to him.
The first section of the book talks about the Franklin* family in Reformation England. They gradually split from the Knox & Calvin doctrine and eventually forged an American form of theology that emphasized enterprise, pragmatism, and proto-humanism. As the non-religious son of a strict Presbyterian Minister, that resonates with me.
* derived from the Middle English and French words for 'Freeholder', similar to the modern term 'middle class'.
I was thinking: is there anything stopping Trump from just taking Greenland? Tiny Denmark? LOL no—them and what superpower? Europe? LOL no—weak-ass vassals. The American people? LOL no—they love a good show of force. China/Russia? LOL no—not their problem. Congress? LOL no—how many divisions do they have? The noble “protector caste”? LOL no—they just follow orders.
Greenland is in the Western hemisphere, and according to the new, improved “Donroe Doctrine” (LOL), America runs the show in this half of the world and does what it likes. I’m sure Trump’s poll numbers would shoot up if he took such a huge chunk of real estate—giant land grabs are (literally!) what made America great, after all. And plenty of imperial liberals would fall in line, as some already are over the deposing of “brutal dictator” Maduro. Gotta love the American empire unmasked. USA! USA! USA!
Jeepers the ent actually lives in a head where that seems plausible? After playing too much RISK? Dig it doof. We're not there yet. What DT MIGHT do is offer each Greenlander $1 million in cash. That could work. Though he might not like how they'll vote two Senate seats... like ten new blue states from Canada.
Okay, pick your fights more carefully for credibility. Is Trump a lawless blusterer, violating the Constitutional requirement to consult Congress and using our military as toys, the way Reagan and both Bushes did? Is the present admin a pack of monsters? Yes. And many of you fell for the trap of defending Maduro! Who was no elected leader but a murderous usurper tyrant. Putin may have rolled on him, sacrificing a pawn in order to maybe save his knight (Trump.)
Only then there’s the worst meme across the left-o-sphere. The “It’s about oil!!!” insanity.
Jiminy will you grow up and KNOW something?
SHOW US the ‘oil!’
Like the ‘oil’ that the USA got from either of the shockingly kludged wars in Iraq? Show me ONE DROP we got? Those wars were about defending Saudia (the Bushes were adopted royals there) and about $20 billions in no-bid logistics contracts for Cheney companies and other parasitical ripoffs. And since then, Obama made the US energy independent and we now EXPORT OIL! Taking Venz oil OFF the market might help Putin a little, but Maduro was exporting dribbles, anyway. (And their oil stinks, literally.) Though there’s another thing. CUBA has been getting subsidized Venezuelan oil. If cutting that off topples the Havana regime… jeepers there goes Florida and more for Trump. Another Putin pawn sacrificed for his knight.
Yes, Trump himself likely envisions gushers of Saudi-level oil lucre that he’ll ‘control,” because he is a dope surrounded by dopes. It’s not gonna happen.
Meanwhile, no one in the West is pointing at the aspect of the Maduro snatch that most concerns the Beijing Politburo and even Putin.* How incredibly COMPETENTLY the snatch was done. Clearly, at work were doctrines, training regimens and technology systems that rendered all defenses utterly moot. (Chinese and Russian air defense assets utterly failed. Compare this to Russia’s “3-day swift takeover of Ukraine. How’s that going?)
And this is the military Pete Hegseth had the unmitigated GALL to call "fat" and "too woke to fight." That $%@! so-of-
Yes, many suspect that substantial forces within Venezuela and even within Maduro's circle were compliant and involved. Indeed, many of the explosions were likely for show and the Caracas blackout may have been done by such folks. So? That implies the CIA was as competent as the US military.
Alas, the pattern is typical. Under Democratic administrations, competence is quietly nurtured. Then every secret preparation gets exposed to the world by the next, garish Republican ego-spasm. Reagan, both Bushes, Trump... they all need to show off and chest thump and squander on showy macho demonstrations.
Meanwhile, this admin wages all-out war vs ALL fact using professions, from science and teaching, medicine and law and civil service to the heroes of the FBI/Intel/Military officer corps who won the Cold War and the War on terror.
See... How Democrats and Republicans Wage War - http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-democrats-and-republicans-wage-war.html
NOT many of YOU, of course. that was a generic facebook snark. ;-)
Well David,
I'm not sure that Republicans are the ONLY ones who have violated congress' constitutional power to declare war. I mean...uh....LBJ???? Clinton in Somolia? Obama in LIbyia?
However, you correctly state that snatching Maduro was no more "wrong" than taking out Noreiga in Panama. In fact, it's cleaner.
In both cases, the only "mandate" was each South American leader was indicted in the US. Both were accused of what we today call "Narco-terrorism." Bush I needed to send troops to Panama. Trump got it done as a special op. US Special ops are MUCH better today than when Carter ordered the hostages rescued from Iran in 1979.
However, Trump blowing up Venezuelan vessels in international waters is a huge problem for me in that, not only does it violate international law, is they didn't even bother to prove that they were indeed correct that those boats were running drugs.
If you're going to break international law, AT LEAST you should prove in the court of world opinion that you have a moral right to do what you did. Coast Guard data shows they don't find anything 21% of the time when they stop vessels for drug interdiction. I can't image Pete Hegesth's reliability is any better.
Eventually, someone we don't like is going to blow up vessels from an ally of ours and say: yeah, they were running drugs into our country. Why can't we do the same thing you did in Venezuela?
Like....oh, say, China deciding to blow up Taiwanese small boats for shits and grins.
One thing I don't see said enough is that Trump doesn't ever make deals. He said that once that he can't negotiate with Putin because he doesn't have any leverage on him. What he does always!!, is to take hostages and negotiate a ransom. He us basically a mafia boss in charge of the most powerful military in the world. Yet another reason why the problem is not the president, it is the presidency (especially since the Supreme Court's ridiculous immunity ruling).
In this particular case, the ransom is oil reserves.
Obama in LIbyia?
I'll quibble with this one. My recollection is that Obama did go to Congress for authorization, and Congress essentially said, "No, do whatever you want, but we're staying out of this." Lindsey Graham was loudly berating President Obama for not going into Libya until the moment he did, at which point Lady G's message did a 180 that would make the "We've always been at war with Eastasia" guy blush.
I'm willing to accept evidence to the contrary.
Treebeard:
I was thinking: is there anything stopping Trump from just taking Greenland?
John Viril:
Like....oh, say, China deciding to blow up Taiwanese small boats for shits and grins.
DJT is not constrained by world opinion or by concern over what happens way over there. I doubt he cares a whit about Taiwan--certainly less than he cares about Ukraine, which at least he can see on a map of Europe and has white people living in it.
No, the reason he hasn't tried taking Greenland yet or enabling China's ambitions in Taiwan, or just daring North Korea to assault the south must be that there are still powerful people he respects warning him off, telling him that yes, these things are important...for now.
The question is how long such restraint might hold.
For the "Pence/Vance would be worse" people, neither vice president would have militarily threatened what we're seeing now.
He said that once that he can't negotiate with Putin because he doesn't have any leverage on him.
I don't argue with your point, which seems solid. I wonder though about leverage that DJT does have over Putin. Providing arms to Ukraine. IIRC, we were all set to give them some awesome weapon and then reneged. Seems like the true reason is that Putin has more leverage than we do.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Items/Jan05-1.html
The only thing we can think of offhand is a law or amendment stating that no one is above the law, including the president, vice president, members of Congress, judges, and justices, and that any of them can be prosecuted for their crimes up to 10 years after they leave office. That might give a president some pause, knowing a future president of the other party could put him or her on trial for crimes committed while president. This might require a future Supreme Court to change its mind on presidential immunity. To encourage that, a future Democratic president could simply arrest the Republican justices and give them a free two-week, all-expenses-paid vacation at lovely Guantano Bay just to make it clear to them why presidential immunity is a bad idea
Can't argue with that.
Um, several of these matters... e.g. war powers resolutions and presidential immunity and the corrupt use of pardons are all in my 35 NEWER DEAL proposals. Right there. As for the last vestige of Congressional consent in sending troops to war, that was briefing the joint military and intel committee chairs, even in an 'emergency' situation. Trump didn't bother this time. Nor will he ever,
@ David Brin
"As for the last vestige of Congressional consent in sending troops to war, that was briefing the joint military and intel committee chairs, even in an 'emergency' situation. Trump didn't bother this time. Nor will he ever,"
If he had informed any democrat in Congress, Maduro would have gotten a phone call from the dems warning him of what was going to happen while the the briefing was going on.
Right, you're one of those imperial liberals who is fine with this sort of thing, as long as it's done in a "nice" way so you can keep up appearances and still wear the good-guy badge.
Riiiiiight MCS. You maniacs rave that your opponents are as dublicitous and treasonously criminal as you are, because you cannot imagine humans thinking positive sum and different that you negative-summers. Despite you having ZERO evidence for such imputations. Ever. And I mean ever-ever.
You are insane people.
Even if it were true (it is ridiculous) what difference would it have made? They must have on full alert anyway based on the build-up of US forces.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2026/Items/Jan06-1.html
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has now claimed, several times, that it was just not possible to advise Congress' "Gang of Eight" as to the administration's plans, even though that is required by law, because of the risk that something might leak out. When we wrote our first item about the invasion of Venezuela, we noted this is an obvious lie. Remember, Congress gives broad approval/advice when it comes to military operations, and does not get involved in specifics. Congress did not decide, for example, to fight a battle at Gettysburg, or to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, or to commence Operation Rolling Thunder during the Vietnam War. That means Rubio could certainly have consulted with the Gang of Eight (or the entire Congress, for that matter), to discuss operations against Venezuela in a broad sense. Leaks would not be an issue in this context, since everyone has known for months an invasion of Venezuela was likely.
And, as it turns out, Rubio's lies are worse than it appeared at first glance. Not only did he fail to speak to the Gang of Eight or anyone else in Congress (and the White House STILL hasn't done so), but in his last meeting with Congress before the Christmas break, he assured the Gang of Eight that "the U.S. is not currently planning to launch strikes inside Venezuela and doesn't have a legal justification that would support attacks against any land targets." We now know that, when he said that, plans for an invasion of Venezuela had been in the works for at least several weeks, and likely more than that.
...
So there's that.
You know, until i saw Stephen Miller and Bibi Netanyahu I never realized the Jews could act like Nazis.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/stephen-miller-cnn
In ‘Unhinged’ Rant, Miller Says US Has Right to Take Over Any Country For Its Resources
In terms of "Liberal agenda" - shouldn't climate change be somewhere pretty high up? Or do you mean "Liberal social agenda"?
Re gun control - I'd like a "put up or shut up" act...
When we talk about gun control, the gun lobby always says "cars kill people too". ... which is true, but when cars kill, or injure people or property, the insurance policy on that car covers the damage. If you want to own a car that is capable of killing people, in most jurisdictions, you MUST show proof of insurance - for that specific car. Of course, cars have a lot of economic value, people are willing to pay $20,000, 40,000, $100,000+ for a car (which means that, for them, the economic value unlocked by the car is MORE than $20,000, $40,000 etcc). So to allow people to unlock that private economic value, without the general public taking on the risk of the car killing people (which is effectively a public negative economic value), privately paid insurance is part of the deal.
Using a similar argument, there is some economic value associated with guns (people are willing to pay money for them, manufacturers gain economic value by selling them). But the negative general
Private gun ownership (whether licensed, registered or unregistered) is the public in general taking on the risk that the purchaser has evil intent, or undergoes a mental breakdown, or is careless and has the gun stolen, and used by the criminal that stole it (or has the gun stolen through absolutely no fault of their own)
Why should the public take on that risk.
So make a requirement that every gun has insurance. A typical wrongful death lawsuit in California ranges up to around $2Million (can obviously be higher), and so far this year, there have been 7 mass shootings in the US, with around 5 victims per shooting - so maybe require $2 Million insurance for a bolt-action long-gun, $10 Million insurance for a handgun, and $20 Million for a AR, etc. *
Then if gun lobby folks are right, and the risks are very low, insurance should be dirt-cheap, gun owners will not be inconvenienced, and the world goes on as it is, just that victims of gun violence will at least be able to afford medical care (or funerals for next of kin), instead of relying on go-fund-me.
OTOH, if gun control people are right, and the risk is very high, insurance companies will demand high fees for this insurance, and people will have to decide if the gun is really so important to them. People who are at higher risk of committing a crime with the gun, e.g. mental health patients, may struggle to find an affordable policy. That's a feature, not a bug.
States with gun control laws that help insurance companies understand the risk they're taking on will presumably have lower insurance costs than states where anyone with any criminal record can buy any weapon.
And it takes these decisions as to "who should be allowed to own a gun" out of the hands of politicians who are swayed by lobbyists and into the hands of people who are betting their own money ($10 Million) that Dr. Brin isn't going to shoot someone.
This death of a GOP Congressman sets my spine tingling. Might he have been part of the simmering pool of quasi-sane conservatives planning a rebellion? In which case his death is a chilling warning to the rest?
c-plus, alas, while I respect your passionate response, you prove that you haven't bothered to actually read the Newer Deal.
Moreover, the general argument that you made re treating guns like cars is essentially here: The Jefferson Rifle: hidden essence of the gun debate - http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/06/doug-lamalfa-dies-congress-california.html
Among other outrages is that if someone shoots me and I don't die, I have to be responsible for my own subsequent medical bills.
* - with car insurance we have odometers that show when cars are being driven (or, not driven, more to the point), cars have (relative to guns) a shorter lifespan, and its hard to conceal car usage, so we rely on a mix of enforcement, the honors system, and point-of-purchase proof of insurance. There's noting to physically prevent someone from buying an insurance policy, buying a car, then cancelling the insurance policy the next month. But the risk of doing so for the driver is some pretty steep fines, and its relatively easy to police, and, compared with guns, car thefts are much easier to solve.
But guns are easy to conceal, can be stolen and used for crimes years later, etc. So For guns we should, instead of having annual policies, have one-time-paid lifetime (of the gun) policies, that are only cancellable when proof of sale occurs, and they should be required to be purchased by even the gun manufacturer prior to manufacture. That way if a gun store or a warehouse, or during shipping, it has an insurance policy associated with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WdoTHg9hAc#:~:text=Gun%20Deliveries%20Stolen%20Off%20Train,This%20content%20isn't%20available.
e.g. you buy a policy, and pre-pay for the policy, which is valid until the gun is destroyed. when the gun is sold or destroyed, or bequeathed to a relative, the insurance company should be required to refund some portion of the policy amount (based on a pre-calculated schedule.
I read "Basic, efficient, universal background checks for gun purchases, with possible exceptions." which suggests background checks, but once you've been checked out, its up to the public to bear the risk associated with your gun). I'll admit I did not go in depth through the full 2007 post, just glanced at the first screen where you were pointing out that the gun control debate has reached the point where no one is communicating.
I agree with what's in that post (obviously) but would suggest lifetime insurance (which gets a portion refunded when legally sold or destroyed) rather than annual insurance, so that manufacturers for example have a stronger incentive to avoid the massive public cost of 100s or 1000s of weapons being stolen by criminals.
Like Britain in 1945, America is the ruler of a vast empire that is financially broke. Britain could no longer afford its empire and we can no longer afford ours.
Like ancient Rome, America is a dying republic that can no longer maintain its freedoms because of the demands of empire. Rome lost its republic when it became and empire. The choice for America is equally clear.
So we can either try to maintain our position as world hegemon, or save our economy and democracy.
We either chose Britain path in 1945 our Rome's path 2000 years ago.
Celt I appreciate your input, but not one thing you just said is true.
The American Pax has been 90% unlike any previous 'empire.' In ways I do not expect fellow like you - steeped in sanctimony - to acknowledge. But watch the world celebrate with huge sighs of relief when we get over this psychotic break between our halves. Whether or not millions are ingrates with no sense of history at all (though you pretend to have some.
From Jim Wright's page
See the aftermath of CIA sponsored regime change in Iran, Laos, The Congo, the Dominican Republic, Iraq, British Guyana, Brazil, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Chili, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Angola, East Timor, Argentina, Iraq again, Afghanistan, Poland, Chad, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq again, Haiti, Iraq again, Haiti again, Zaire, Venezuela (2002), Iraq again, Somalia, Haiti again, Palestine, Syria, Honduras, Libya, Syria again, Bolivia, etc, for details.
That is a signifigant percentage of the world's nations that have "benefited from" from "CIA sponsored regime change"
"The American Pax has been 90% unlike any previous 'empire.'"
Nope - not signifigantly better than the best ones
Nowhere near as bad as the bad ones
But watch the world celebrate with huge sighs of relief when we get over this psychotic break between our halves.
That's not how the thing with accepting national responsibility for past atrocities works. It is a bit like using the old semantic trick by saying "The Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust and WWII" and not "Germans did this".
I recommend Hannah Arendt on that matter.
David Brin @ 3:34,
The American Pax has been 90% unlike any previous 'empire.'
'Has been' does not necessarily imply 'is and will be'. The current President and his entire administration is causing real alarm outside the US. (I am not qualified in any way to opine on the mood inside the US.)
Many serious people have recently pointed out that it takes a long time to gain, and an even longer time to regain once lost, trust. The US is IMHO most of the way towards losing the trust of its most significant allies, as the UK's recent refusal to share Caribbean intelligence (5 eyes protocols notwithstanding) exemplifies.
My main concern is that there are major power players in and around the administration who either don't know or (worse) don't care that this is happening.
Ozajh you are right about all that. Alas.
Duncan 1. That list is insane. Jesus, this psycho religious tenet that "the CIA did it!" when in almost every case the local generals were more thatn ready to do it all themselves. And some local CIA guys who brought in a little added cash were happy to brag and take 'credit.' SERIOUSLY??? The Iranian Generals would've done nothing without their palms greased by some CIA guy?
Some listed items are indeed sources of hellish shame. Cambodia was a catastrophe that merits sulfurous flames for some. Congo and Laos were botched with bad consequences, though neither were ever fated for joy. Chili & Argentina was shameful but just like Iran. We had no causal effect.
Grenada & Panama & (after many bad endeavors) the DomRepublic are vastly success stories like Poland and Americans are VASTLY popular in all 4. And our involvement in Somalia was a botched attempt to 'solve' a monstrous pit of tribal hell.
Nicaragua ? Yeah, every time we touched that country things got worse, time and time again. Indonesia? WTF did we ever do to Indonesia?
Why I keep coming back to WJCC and the early 1980s fork that changed our course from imminent ubiquitous computational thinking to 4+ decades of soma, sifting eye candy, and eventually a vast wasteland of slopchuggers - lack of long-term memory.
I saw a recent CES item where one of the big manufacturers had managed to put a PC inside a keyboard, so all that it required was a display. A spectacular technological advance -- sort of like a C-64.
I remember a grade 5 teacher showing us an old car ad. It exclaimed, "No start button, just turn the key and presto, the car starts!. We laughed at the quaint notion of a 'start button'. Today, pretty much all new cars, have a slick and stylish start button, leaving the antiquated key ignition far behind.
I was surprised about the length of his list!!
Jim Wright is ex US Military - Chief Warrant Officer US Navy - so I think that he does have a better grasp of what has happenned than I do!
"The generals were more than ready to do it themselves "-
Probably! - but a bit of cash and the "CIA backing them" probably changed wishfull thinking into action and hundreds if not thousands of deaths
Iran was definately a Joint US and UK operation!!!
The British Empire may have done as much - but over a much longer timeframe - the USA equalled or beat them in a mere 60 years
Duncan you are entirely making up the leap from 'wishful thinkin' into action. What stunning BS. You have no evidence for it, whatsoever. It's just clinging to a narrative. SHOW me what held the generals back, other than Moussadegh's (and Allende's) utter naivete in declaring uncompromising leaps instead of modest increments. In Iran's case, the KGB was VASTLY busier than the CIA, trying to get the USSR it's warm water port. Jeepers, man.
What stunning crap. The world left by ANY previous empire was a world that hated them. Go poll people round the world about America EVEN NOW!
Dr Brin - if you did that poll I would bet that the USA would poll LOWER than the British Empire - about 30% of the entire worlds people are in the Commonwealth today -
The USA has helped some countries - but it has damaged a lot as well - all of South and Central America would vote against the USA
'wishful thinkin' into action -
you mean that the knowledge that the legendary CIA was backing their actions would NOT make a difference?????
What held the generals back? - fear of failure!! - not difficult to understand and that gets less when they know the CIA is behind them - in truth having the CIA on your side was not a big advantage - but we know that from hindsight - the CIA used to be legendary
Duncan, you're arguing with an America cultist; good luck with that. As far as "WTF did we ever do to Indonesia?", this link has some info: Indonesian Mass Killings of 1965-66.
The CIA facilitated the mass killings, but of course they didn't pull the triggers themselves. Getting other people to do their fighting and good propaganda are the American empire's strengths, as they were for the British. Winning wars on the ground? Not so much. It’s the Anglo way of empire.
Post a Comment