Member since: Thu Sep 25, 2008, 03:38 PM
Number of posts: 3,075
Number of posts: 3,075
- 2016 (27)
- 2015 (36)
- 2014 (49)
- 2013 (86)
- 2012 (22)
- 2011 (1)
- December (1)
- Older Archives
The hyperbolic or not-so-hyperbolic Trumpfenkreuz:
Feb. 10 2016 3:50 PM
Is Donald Trump a Fascist?
Yes and no.
By Isaac Chotiner
To discuss Trump’s rise and its historical echoes, I called Robert Paxton, a leading authority on the history of fascism. A regular contributor to the New York Review of Books and an expert on Vichy France, Paxton has written numerous books on European history. We discussed the ways in which Trump is and is not a fascist, whether Trump believes what he says, and why now, of all times, so many Americans seem to be embracing him. The conversation has been edited and condensed.
Isaac Chotiner: As a historian of fascism, what do you make of Trump’s rise?
Robert Paxton: Well, it’s astonishing and depressing because he’s totally foreign to any of the skills that are wanted in a president of the United States. What we call him is another matter. There are certainly some echoes of fascism, but there are also very profound differences.
It’s the same thing. It’s enormously tempting. Anyway, the echoes you can deal with on two levels. First of all, there are the kinds of themes Trump uses. The use of ethnic stereotypes and exploitation of fear of foreigners is directly out of a fascist’s recipe book. “Making the country great again” sounds exactly like the fascist movements. Concern about national decline, that was one of the most prominent emotional states evoked in fascist discourse, and Trump is using that full-blast, quite illegitimately, because the country isn’t in serious decline, but he’s able to persuade them that it is. That is a fascist stroke. An aggressive foreign policy to arrest the supposed decline. That’s another one. Then, there’s a second level, which is a level of style and technique. He even looks like Mussolini in the way he sticks his lower jaw out, and also the bluster, the skill at sensing the mood of the crowd, the skillful use of media.
Posted by xocet | Fri Jul 15, 2016, 09:03 PM (2 replies)
Then please read the second article.
Monday, Nov 27, 2000 06:18 PM CDT
How Florida Democrats torpedoed Gore
If the vice president had locked up his party's traditional base in the Sunshine State, the election wouldn't be tied up in the courts.
These votes weren’t “lost” to misaligned butterfly ballots, pregnant chads or some conniving election official who deposited them in a closet. Rather, these were the uncast ballots of almost half of the American electorate, who chose not to vote this year largely because they feel they’ve been cast out of the process by a vacuous, cynical and elitist political system that no longer addresses their needs and aspirations.
These mostly are middle- and low-income folks, people making less than $50,000 a year. While they make up some 80 percent of the U.S. population, exit polls on Nov. 7 found that for the first time they’ve fallen to less than half of the voting population. As the Clinton-Gore-Lieberman Democrats have jerked the party out from under this core populist constituency, pursuing the money and adopting the policies of the corporate and investor elite, the core constituency of the party has — big surprise — steadily dropped away. In 1992, the under-$50,000 crowd made up 63 percent of voters. In 1996, after Clinton and Gore had relentlessly and very publicly pushed NAFTA, the WTO and other Wall Street policies for four years, the under-$50,000 crowd dropped to 52 percent of voters. After four more years of income stagnation and decline for these families under the regime of the Clinton-Gore “New Democrats,” the under-$50,000 crowd dropped this year to only 47 percent of voters.
At the same time, those who are prospering under the Wall Street boom, cheered on by the policies of both the Republican and Democratic leadership, have become ever more enthusiastic voters. In 1996, voters with incomes above $100,000 (about 3 percent of the population), made up 9 percent of the turnout; this year, they were 15 percent of the turnout.
This rising income skew among voters causes both parties to push more policies that favor the affluent minority, which causes an even greater turn-off for the majority, which causes … well, you can see the downward spiral we’re in. This is especially damaging to Democrats, since the non-voters are their natural constituency. This constituency feels discarded, not only by the Democrats, but by the whole process.
Clearly, the attribution of Gore's "loss" to a single cause is fallacious: namely, it fails to take into account the above trend and the reasons behind that trend as noted in the cited article below among many other reasons for Gore's "loss". The theory that you espouse may seem sastisfying, but if one prefers HRC to win the election, one needs to face the root of the problem - not ignore it.
Saturday, Dec 19, 2015 07:00 AM CDT
George W. Bush vs. Al Gore, 15 years later: We really did inaugurate the wrong guy
On the anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling that installed W., a look back at all the mistakes along the way
Bush v. Gore is the US Supreme Court decision that has been credited with—or blamed for—ending the 2000 presidential election with its interrupted recount still unfinished. Bush and Gore, of course, were the two candidates: George W. Bush, the governor of Texas and son of the forty-first president, challenging the incumbent vice president, Al Gore. Bush v. Gore, the court case, is often used interchangeably as shorthand for Bush-versus-Gore, the entirety of the dispute over the outcome of the election.
But that dispute encompassed much more than just the US Supreme Court’s decision, which in truth did not even end the fight. Rather, the end came the next day, December 13, when Gore announced he would not attempt to renew the recount through additional proceedings in Florida’s courts. Had he done so, he and Bush conceivably might have pursued their fight all the way to Congress, as Hayes and Tilden had over the 1876 election. If Bush-versus-Gore had reached Congress it would have been the first real test of the impenetrably ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887, with unpredictable consequences. Thus it was Gore’s concession of December 13, and not the Court’s ruling of the previous day, that truly ended the fight for the presidency as a practical matter.
Bush v. Gore, the court case, moreover, concerned only one aspect of the overall vote-counting dispute: the so-called dimpled or hanging chads produced by incomplete puncturing of punch-card ballots. Bush v. Gore did not concern issues that had arisen over absentee ballots, which the Gore campaign abandoned in the wake of public criticism. Much more significantly, Bush v. Gore did not address the problem of the so-called butterfly ballot, which apparently caused thousands of Gore supporters to mistakenly cast their ballots instead for Pat Buchanan, the conservative pundit running as a minor-party candidate. Even Buchanan acknowledged, both then and subsequently, that Gore would have been president but for the butterfly ballot.
Nor did Bush v. Gore, as presented to the US Supreme Court, involve all the issues concerning dimpled and hanging chads. The US Supreme Court was not in a posture to decide what would have been a fair process for the counting of these chads, from the standpoint of either Florida’s legislature setting up that process in advance of the election or Florida’s judiciary attempting to make the best of the situation once confronted with the challenge of how to handle these chads given the state’s existing statutory framework. Instead, the US Supreme Court’s role was limited to considering whether the Florida Supreme Court had acted improperly in its treatment of the chads, and, if so, what to do about the impropriety at that juncture and given the date by which Florida’s recount procedures needed to end.
The problem for Sec. Clinton is one of either convincing people that her Presidency will better their lives or convincing people that Donald Trump will make their lives markedly worse. Given that she will likely have problems with the former due to her history, one is left hoping that she can make an argument that a Trump Presidency would affect the lives of low income voters in non-abstract ways that they actually would truly care about. Otherwise, there may well be a lot of independent voters who may well decide either not to vote or simply to roll the dice with Trump since they may believe that they already have the measure of Sec. Clinton's suggested policies.
The Nader canard is not a useful piece of analysis.
Posted by xocet | Mon Jul 4, 2016, 05:50 PM (1 replies)
frequently used against Sen. Sanders, that is how your post comes across.
Is that how you intend it? Sure, it is only implied, but it is a very divisive remark to those who have had such remarks directed at them or at those whom they support.
In the new spirit of civility at DU, would you please retract your comment?
Posted by xocet | Fri Jun 24, 2016, 12:49 PM (0 replies)
"As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it." --Sec. Clinton on the TPP, 10/7/15
Sec. Clinton did not say - "As of today, I am not in favor of the TPP."
Sec. Clinton did not say - "As of today, I am not in favor of it."
Sec. Clinton did say - "As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it."
What exactly did she learn about the TPP?
She may have learned that many groups oppose the TPP. In which case, her statement means that she is not in favor of the fact that many groups oppose the TPP.
One should keep in mind that parsing sentences very carefully is what former President Bill Clinton is known for - though the impeachment was ridiculous: "It depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is." That was his formulation.
Sec. Clinton is, at least, as smart as former President Clinton and may be equally inclined to parse uncomfortable or disadvantageous statements rather carefully.
Her actual thoughts on the TPP as evinced in her emails should be released prior to the Democratic convention, rather than after the election.
Posted by xocet | Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:29 PM (1 replies)
in Der Spiegel:
Ex-US Intelligence Chief on Islamic State's Rise: 'We Were Too Dumb'
Interview Conducted By Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark
Without the Iraq war, Islamic State wouldn't exist today, former US special forces chief Mike Flynn openly admits. In an interview, he explains IS' rise to become a professional force and how the Americans allowed its future leader to slip out of their hands.
Michael Flynn, 56, served in the United States Army for more than 30 years, most recently as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, where he was the nation's highest-ranking military intelligence officer. Previously, he served as assistant director of national intelligence inside the Obama administration. From 2004 to 2007, he was stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, where, as commander of the US special forces, he hunted top al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the predecessors to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who today heads the Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq. After Flynn's team located Zarqawi's whereabouts, the US killed the terrorist in an air strike in June 2006.
In an interview, Flynn explains the rise of the Islamic State and how the blinding emotions of 9/11 led the United States in the wrong direction strategically.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: In recent weeks, Islamic State not only conducted the attacks in Paris, but also in Lebanon and against a Russian airplane over the Sinai Peninsula. What has caused the organization to shift its tactics and to now operate internationally?
Posted by xocet | Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:20 PM (1 replies)
I find languages very intriguing and like to try to understand the origins and meanings of words. If that link is one that you think Mr. Dixie will like, here are some more that I have found to be both interesting and useful:
William Whitaker's Words at Notre Dame - Latin <--> English:
The Perseus Digital Library at Tufts - Greek, Roman, Arabic, Germanic, etc.:
The Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary - Old English:
Beolingus - German <--> English, German <--> Spanish, and German <--> Portuguese:
UT Austin Linguistics Research Center:
Also, here is the first link that I consulted regarding the above post by Lucretius:
It has the interlinear Greek translation needed to find what Lucretius mentioned. From there it was off to Perseus to see what they would claim that the Greek translation would be...etc.
I think that the question that I asked of Lucretius is not an easy one, so I don't fault Lucretius for not replying immediately.
P.S. May Mr. Dixie have fun with the above links, but if the original link that I provided was especially interesting, please first take a look at the Semitic Roots Appendix of the online version of the American Heritage Dictionary (https://ahdictionary.com/word/semitic.html). One can understand the meanings of a lot of commonly given Biblical names by reading it.
Have a nice day!
Posted by xocet | Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:29 PM (0 replies)
It is interesting how little would need to be modified for this to be an up-to-date ridiculing of Donald Trump...
Posted by xocet | Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:19 PM (0 replies)
PHYSICAL REVIEW FLUIDS 1, 010001 (2016)
Editorial: Introducing Physical Review Fluids
Welcome to the first issue of Physical Review Fluids (PRFluids), the newest journal
published by the American Physical Society (APS). The field of fluid mechanics is
vibrant, international, and dynamic, with many interdisciplinary applications across
all areas of the physical and biological sciences, as well as engineering. PRFluids
aims to serve these diverse communities by publishing the very highest quality
research in all aspects of fluid mechanics. We are delighted with the very strong
response PRFluids has received, as evidenced by the high quality of the papers
published in this first issue, which are authored by intellectual leaders in the field.
John Kim and Gary Leal, founding Editors of PRFluids, are joined by an outstanding
team of Associate Editors and Editorial Board members, each of whom are
accomplished leading researchers in their fields. PRFluids is the latest addition
to the renowned Physical Review (Phys. Rev.) family of journals, and it is created
with the same commitment to excellence, timeliness, and service. We look forward
to engaging a broad readership that extends beyond the usual fluid mechanics
PRFluids will publish papers both in the classical areas of fluid mechanics, and
also in the newer areas of the subject, such as flow problems involving complex
fluids, bio-fluid mechanics, and micro- and nano-fluid dynamics. The scope of the
journal will be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continues to serve the needs of
the community and captures the most interesting papers in the field.
The launch of PRFluids marks an exciting new initiative in fluid mechanics
publishing, and we are confident that it will quickly establish itself as the premier
journal in the field. However, the ultimate success of PRFluids depends upon the
quality of the submissions we receive. We call on all fluid mechanics researchers
to submit their best work to this journal and encourage their colleagues to do the
same. We look forward to receiving your contributions.
Published 2 May 2016
Here is Physical Review Fluids' homepage on the internet:
It looks like the first issue will be available online without cost to the reader through the end of 2016.
Here is the abstract of a paper on the formation of vortex rings:
PHYSICAL REVIEW FLUIDS 1, 012501(R) (2016)
Pressure evolution in the shear layer of forming vortex rings
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
John O. Dabiri†
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
(Received 10 February 2016; published 2 May 2016)
This study investigated the relationship between the pinch-off of axisymmetric vortex
Fluid mechanics is an interesting topic.
Does anyone know any good comprehensive texts for the field - ones that may be trying to update/replace Batchelor's book on the subject?
That is post number 3003: it seems like now is a good time for a break until after the election or so...à bientôt!
Posted by xocet | Tue May 24, 2016, 02:49 PM (0 replies)
In my opinion, it is always worth seeing it in context:
I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked
By Upton Sinclair
What Acting-Governor Merriam really thinks about
old age pensions is proved by his actions. He has been
acting for six months, and what has he done? Our law
provides a pension for needy persons over seventy years
of age, and fewer than twenty thousand persons are
getting less than twenty dollars per month each; about
eighty thousand more have proved their right to the
pension, but there is no money for them. Has Merriam
moved a finger to get that money, as ordered by the
law of the State? He called a special session of the
Legislature to pass certain fiscal measures; but no word
about money for old age pensions.
Acting Governor Merriam got the extra votes which
he needed, and now he is Governor-Elect, and the grin
is on his face, and on the faces of all the politicians
who worked for him, and of all the big business gentle-
men who put up his millions of dollars. The poor de-
luded old people can take their petitions to Congress
and to President Roosevelt, and cherish their dream of
two hundred dollars a month until they die.
The newspapers said it would be that way with our
fifty dollars a month pension. They would challenge
me to say where I was going to get that money, and
when I answered they did not publish what I said. Im-
possible for any editor of a commercial newspaper to
understand the difference between a profit system in a
state of collapse, driving the State and everybody in it
to bankruptcy, and a system of production for use in
process of growth, providing security and plenty for all.
I used to say to our audiences: "It is difficult to get a
man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it!"
Posted by xocet | Thu May 12, 2016, 12:32 PM (0 replies)
probably future Administrations.
It seems that stating that "We tortured some folks..." will be the extent of the required penance.
The CIA Waterboarded the Wrong Man 83 Times in 1 Month
None of the allegations against Abu Zubaydeh turned out to be true. That didn’t stop the CIA from torturing him for years.
By Rebecca Gordon
April 25, 2016
The new Obama administration replied with a 109-page brief filed in the US District Court in the District of Columbia, which is legally designated to hear the habeas cases of Guantánamo detainees.
The bulk of that brief came down to a government argument that was curious indeed, given the years of bragging about Zubaydah’s central role in Al Qaeda’s activities. It claimed that there was no reason to turn over any “exculpatory” documents demonstrating that he was not a member of Al Qaeda, or that he had no involvement in 9/11 or any other terrorist activity—because the government was no longer claiming that any of those things were true.
The government’s lawyers went on to claim, bizarrely enough, that the Bush administration had never “contended that had any personal involvement in planning or executing…the attacks of September 11, 2001.” They added that “the Government also has not contended in this proceeding that, at the time of his capture, had knowledge of any specific impending terrorist operations”—an especially curious claim, since the prevention of such future attacks was how the CIA justified its torture of Zubaydah in the first place. Far from believing that he was “if not the number two, very close to the number two person in” Al Qaeda, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had once claimed, “the Government has not contended in this proceeding that was a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida.”
Seven years after the initial filing of Zubaydah’s habeas petition, the DC District Court has yet to rule on it. Given the court’s average 751-day turnaround time on such petitions, this is an extraordinary length of time. Here, justice delayed is truly justice denied.
Posted by xocet | Sun May 8, 2016, 11:48 AM (2 replies)