Blog note

Notices of comments are coming in delayed. I am just now getting some comments that people made three days ago. I do not know why there is a slow down. This lag has been slowly increasing over the last few weeks. I hope it goes away in due course.

Regarding conflicts of interest in government: The Clintons & their legacy

Conflicts of interest have long been a plague in government, probably forever. In the previous presidency, the plague morphed into an aggressive cancer. Rules of ethics were simply blown off. They were shown to be toothless norms. The ex-president kept his businesses operating and money flowing in, including from foreign governments. That constitutes either an actual conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict. Either way, it is often or usually impossible for the public to know with confidence what government and politician actions associated with money are corrupt and what are honest.

In view of recent history, a question that comes to mind centers on what role, if any, did the Clintons play in normalizing acceptance of real or apparent conflicts in government? In hindsight, they may have been significantly more important than one might have thought before the 2016 elections. Some reporting from the past helps put this in context. In 2015, MotherJones wrote in an article entitled Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors: 

In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.

The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department. IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration. The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses.

An article in The Hill from 2015 reported:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton authorized arms sales to countries that had donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report.

State approved $165 billion worth of weapons sales to 20 foreign governments during Clinton's tenure, the International Business Times reports. Among the countries involved in the sales were Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The Clinton Foundation received between $54 million and $141 million in donations from the foreign governments and defense contractors involved in those sales, the report says.

Certain defense contractors also paid her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for speaking engagements during that time.

While the report does not allege a direct connection between the arms sales and the donations, the activities of the Clinton Foundation have become a growing headache for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

A new book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash, questions whether foreign governments sought to curry influence with the Clintons by making donations to the foundation.

The Clinton campaign has dismissed the book as a hit job by a conservative author, arguing it is filled with "sloppy research and attacks pulled out of thin air. 

A 2015 article by Vox, 4 experts make the case that the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising was troubling, also focused on this issue:

During and before the four years Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation run by her husband took tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and corporations.

Many of these donors had a lot riding on Clinton’s decisions. Saudi Arabia gave the foundation up to $25 million, and Clinton signed off on a controversial $29 billion sale of fighter jets to the country. Oil companies gave the foundation around $3 million, and Clinton approved a lucrative gas pipeline in the Canadian tar sands they’d long sought.

We've known the basics of this story for months now. But another media feeding frenzy over the foundation kicked off again on Monday, when the State Department was forced to release emails showing that the foundation’s leadership tried to land its top donors meetings with the secretary of state.  

How do we know foundation donors really did get better access to Clinton’s State Department? Well, it’s impossible to prove — no Clinton staffer was stupid enough to write, "Thanks for giving $10 million to Bill! Now we can get coffee!"

There’s no evidence that donors to the Clinton Foundation did anything like buy off Clinton, and there’s no definitive proof that they got access to the State Department because of their donations. But the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong.   

But the money in politics experts argued that these aren't the only standards of wrongdoing by which we can or should judge Clinton. To them, the fact that the Clintons allowed for an appearance of a conflict of interest — that the suspicion could be reasonably raised — is itself a major shortcoming worth criticizing.

"What's so troubling is that these revelations suggest that if you want to see the secretary of state, it helps to make a large donation — that’s the perception this gives," says Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center.  

[Quoting Noble:] "Politicians like to say things like, "I would have given the lobbyist for Exxon a meeting regardless of their donation," and that might be true. But the problem is that it’s impossible to know if the meeting would have happened anyway, if the meeting was given out of a favor, or what. 

So they don’t get the benefit of the doubt. It’s their job to make sure they avoid the appearance of a conflict in interest in the first place — because if a politician has made a decision that affects a major donor [whose money they want], then it becomes basically impossible to sort out why they did it. It calls into question the decision even if it’s totally legitimate and the best one they could make. 

That’s why the very idea that access to government depends on how wealthy you are — and how much you give — is so dangerous. What the Clintons did here helps create the impression that if you’re a small-business person who wants to talk to the secretary of state, then you’re out of luck. But if you donate a few million dollars to her husband’s charity, you can talk to her." 

In other words: Since it’s so difficult for anyone to ever prove a quid pro quo, it’s incumbent on politicians to recuse themselves so it can’t even look like they’re swapping favors for private donations — or to not take those donations in the first place. 

By that standard, Hillary Clinton clearly failed.

In hindsight

Consider the ex-president’s moral compass over his adult life. What was his level of concern about conflicts of interest, real or not? He could not have cared less about conflicts. From the moment he was sworn into office, he was awash in obvious major conflicts. What was the effect, if any, of the Clinton’s conflicts of interest, real or not? One can reasonably argue that in the ex-president’s mind, what the Clintons did constituted precedent and cover for him ignoring the issue. 

Would it have made any difference if what the Clintons did was irrelevant and the ex-president would have acted no differently? That is possible, probably likely, but it ignores the fact that corruption stemming from her real or perceived conflicts of interest was used to attack Clinton in the 2016 election. That probably cost her some votes. It was a legitimate attack on Clinton’s moral character[1] that drove some people away from supporting her.

Question: Is it reasonable to believe that the Clintons moral failings, including Bill’s sleazy antics while in office and money flowing to their charitable Foundation, played some non-trivial role in the rise and/or behavior of the ex-president?

Footnote: 

1. Yes, the ex-president had no moral character in 2015-2016 and thereafter. All he ever had as an adult was an immoral character. But in authoritarian radical right tribal politics that morphed into fascist cult politics on and after the 1/6 coup attempt, moral or immoral character made and still makes no difference to the tribe, then cult. Morals are beside the point when it comes to a sacred tribe or cult leader and their sacred cause.

On the right to repair

Broken stuff heading to the landfill -- it's a really big pile

One tactic companies use to boost profits is to discourage or bar people from repairing broken products. That is done by voiding warranties, by making repairs literally impossible, by sabotaging 'unauthorized' repairs and so forth. The tactic is used for all kinds of products including appliances, cell phones, TVs, computers, cars, medical equipment and farm equipment. In the case of people replacing broken iPhone screens with low cost third party touch screens, Apple changed its software to make the new screens inoperable. This tactic is worth tens of billions in annual product repair revenues, which tend to be quite profitable. The BBC comments:

There is growing pressure on manufacturers around the world to allow consumers the right to repair their own devices.

The UK has introduced right-to-repair rules that legally require manufacturers to make spare parts available to people buying electrical appliances.

The European Commission has announced plans for right-to-repair rules for smartphones, tablets and laptops.

And later this week, US President Joe Biden is expected to sign an executive order asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to draw up rules on the repair of farming equipment.

It would give farmers "the right to repair their own equipment how they like", the president's press secretary, Jen Psaki, said.

And some expect the rules to go further and take in consumer electronic devices such as phones or game consoles.

Not surprisingly, manufacturers strongly oppose this. Corporate excuses vary, but all are efforts to protect a lucrative aspect of their business. Farm equipment manufacturer John Deere opposes the right to repair as a safety risk. Amazon, Apple and Microsoft limits who can repair phones and game consoles allegedly because independent repairs could impair device safety and security. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, etc.), started a lawsuit to block a Massachusetts law requiring third party access to mechanical and electronic car repair data because it allegedly creates a major cyber-security risk. Some manufacturers claim that trade secret data would be lost if third parties have access to repair manuals and diagnostics. They also argue that putting car parts information at a centralized location provides a target for attackers.

A probable downside of right to repair laws would be that some products would become more expensive. Repairing products would extend their useful lifetime, maybe up to 10 years for some manufactured products. At present, manufacturers of products tend to make their products short-lived (planned obsolescence) so they need to be chucked into the landfill and replaced. Right to repair laws are intended to deal with "built-in obsolescence" of appliances to break down after a short time, forcing consumers to buy new replacements.

The fight between John Deere and farmers over the right to repair has been intense for years. NPR reported this in an interview:

URI BERLINER, BYLINE: Walter Schweitzer is a third-generation Montana farmer. He never expected to get political in the middle of haying season, but there he was last summer on his John Deere tractor, hustling to cut and bale his hay while the weather was still good. And then at the worst possible time, he says his tractor kept shutting down, randomly.

WALTER SCHWEITZER: Kind of did all the things that a farmer or rancher does to try to troubleshoot the problems.

BERLINER: But he couldn't do much because he didn't have access to the software that would help him diagnose what was wrong. Only a John Deere dealer could do that - not an independent mechanic or Schweitzer himself, the guy who owns the tractor.

SCHWEITZER: It's not like they didn't know that this was an issue. It just became personal. You know, when you're staring at a hay crop that needs to be in a bale and your tractor's not working, you get real nervous.

BERLINER: Schweitzer wound up sending his tractor to the dealer. He says it took about a month for the repair to get done. His bill to replace the fuel sensor? Nearly $5,000. He says a local independent mechanic would have charged only a small fraction of that. Schweitzer was fortunate he had an old backup tractor, so his crop didn't get ruined, but the experience made Schweitzer eager to fight for change. 

SCHWEITZER: Equipment manufacturers are not supposed to hold you hostage, and that's what's happening here. These equipment manufacturers are holding me hostage to them, forcing me to use their dealerships to repair my equipment - on their schedule, on their time and at their rates. That's wrong.  

TOM BRANDT: So let's say you've got a couple hundred thousand dollars and you buy a bright, shiny new tractor. You only own the hardware. Today that software is still controlled by the original equipment manufacturer.

BERLINER: Nebraska's bill would change that. It would unlock software and allow farmers and independent shops to make the same repairs as dealers. An industry group, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, tells NPR these kind of right-to-repair bills, they permit illegal tampering and create safety and environmental risks. And that's why states have rejected such bills in the past. But those right-to-repair bills, they keep coming. O'Reilly of U.S. PIRG says right-to-repair bills for agriculture have been introduced in 12 states. ....  But some farmers aren't waiting for bills to get passed. They're hacking their own equipment to get around repair restrictions. Others, they're going back in time. They're buying vintage tractors from the '70s and '80s that don't run on software.

This is just another garden-variety example of the business of business being profit. Concern for consumers is a lower priority. And, if there were no laws to protect consumers, it would be a lower priority. 

But maybe that is the way things should be. Business looks out for business, and government looks out for the people first and business second. But that vision of a reasonably well-functioning government and society assumes that the business community and the fascist Republican Party had not opposed and significantly neutered government's ability to protect consumers. But maybe for this issue at least, political will is on the consumer's side for a change.

I say, do us all a favor… “Eat up!”

Other than one too many McDonald’s Big Mac Meals, I’m wondering what will finally put a stop to Trump’s negative political influence?

Barring his bad eating habits, or being sent off to prison (not gonna happen for many reasons), I believe the only other thing that will finally get rid of him is a landslide victory for the Democrats in 2022, followed up by another landslide in 2024 (granted, tough to do with all the latest voter suppression laws being enacted). 

Until Trump is a “losing” influence, he, like the Energizer Bunny, will keep going and going, keep getting more national media attention, and keep disrupting any kind of possible compromise between the two major political parties.

So, what do you think is the magic bullet (no pun intended 😉) to get rid of the current Trumpian influence?  I can’t think of anything else that will do it.  Can you?

Thanks for posting and recommending.

What rank and file Republicans are thinking

An intense personal interest is in observing how the human mind sees and thinks about reality, especially reality related to politics. By now, it is clear from cognitive and social science that the human mind is an amazingly fast and effective reality-distorting machine. Humans can make all kinds of stuff up on the fly and not even know it. Most don't have an even a tiny inkling of what their minds are doing. The human mind evolved to make us as psychologically comfortable as possible by simplifying the world and justifying the beliefs and behaviors of self and tribe.

Attendees at the “Festival of Truth” listened to speakers spout 

election and coronavirus conspiracy theories in Vermontville, Mich.

Along these lines, a New York Times article today, In Michigan, Pro-Impeachment Republicans Face Voters’ Wrath, discusses what is going on in rank and file Republican minds. It is a reason and reality-detached festival of fearful and angry fantasy wrapped in a comforting “illusion of truth.” At the least, it looks like there is going to be some more RINO hunting in the FGOP (fascist GOP) pretty soon. The NYT writes:

Representative Peter Meijer, a Republican who voted to impeach Donald J. Trump, seeks “decency and humility” in Western Michigan, but has found anger, fear and misinformation.

“Sometimes when you’re surrounded by cacophony, it helps to have someone sitting there who isn’t adding another screaming voice onto the pile,” Mr. Meijer added.

Six months after the Capitol attack and 53 miles southeast of Grand Rapids, on John Parish’s farm in the hamlet of Vermontville, Mr. Meijer’s problems sat on folding chairs on the Fourth of July. They ate hot dogs, listened to bellicose speakers and espoused their own beliefs that reflected how, even at age 33, Mr. Meijer may represent the Republican Party’s past more than its future.

The stars of the “Festival of Truth” on Sunday were adding their screaming voices onto the pile, and the 100 or so West Michiganders in the audience were enthusiastically soaking it up. Many of them inhabited an alternative reality in which Mr. Trump was re-elected, their votes were stolen, the deadly Jan. 6 mob was peaceful, coronavirus vaccines were dangerous and conservatives were oppressed.

“God is forgiving, and — I don’t know — we’re forgiving people,” Geri Nichols, 79, of nearby Hastings, said as she spoke of her disappointment in Mr. Meijer. “But he did wrong. He didn’t support our president like he should have.”

Under an unseasonably warm sun, her boyfriend, Gary Munson, 80, shook his head, agreeing: “He doesn’t appear to be what he says he is.”

Well, there you have it. God is forgiving but we're gonna scorch Meijer right out of elected office because he done us and the president wrong. And, it is not just Meijer who is going to get scorched by voters. The fascist ex-president and his FGOP are fixin' to scorch all congressional Republicans who voted to impeach. 

The NYT goes on to assert that all Republicans who voted to impeach face a backlash from Republican voters. The rank and file are enraged by what they believe are multiple outrages. They include (i) an FBI that is ruthlessly hunting down the “peaceful” 1/6 coup attempters, (ii) a vicious radical liberal news media that silences conservatives, (iii) a Democratic governor who took away their livelihoods with tyrannical pandemic restrictions, and (iv) a Democratic secretary of state who stole their votes and laughs in their faces about it. The false claims the ex-president constantly spewed on the American people have well and truly “taken root with voters who now look past him,” as the NYT puts it.

In other words, if this is competent evidence of rank and file Republican reality and anger, and I believe it is, American-style fascist rot has spread from the ex-president and the FGOP leadership. The rot has now become entrenched in tens of millions of adult American minds. 

Poor Mr. Meijer confesses that he is in a pickle. He comments: “The challenge is if you believe that Nov. 3 was a landslide victory for Donald Trump that was stolen, and Jan. 6 was the day to stop that steal. I can’t come to an understanding with somebody when we’re dealing with completely separate sets of facts and realities. People are willing to kill and die over these alternative realities.” One woman told Meijer that he would soon be arrested for treason and hauled before a military tribunal, presumably to be shot.

Right, there is no basis for mutual understanding when facts, realities and reasoning are completely different. That evinces the raw power of dark free speech in real time, right now. That power can overthrow a democracy and the rule of law. 

The urgency and severity of the FGOP threat to democracy and the rule of law is about as clear as it can get without a successful coup. But, just to gently reinforce some of these unsettling thoughts, consider this from the NYT article:

Pro-Trump activist Audra Johnson is one of the challengers to 

Meijer in next year’s Republican primary 

She comments: “People are terrified. We’re heading toward a civil war, 

if we’re not already in a cold civil war.”

That irrational fear, anger and distrust is mainstream Republican reality and thinking. This is what is on the minds of most rank and file Republicans. By now, it is arguably reasonable to see most or all of these citizens as fascists who are, knowingly or not, opposed to democracy and the rule of law. Ms. Johnson is dead serious about acting on her emotions. Those emotional responses are either more reality than illusion or vice versa. 

Questions: In view of all the evidence now in the public record, e.g., a massive FGOP nationwide voter suppression effort, is it now reasonable to see most or all rank and file Republicans as more fascist and rule of demagogue-dictator driven than democratic and rule of law driven? 

If not, why not? What else would be needed to constitute an American fascism, e.g., an actual, large scale shooting civil war with blood flowing in the streets? An actual overthrow of the government and its replacement with a single party (the FGOP) and an above the law demagogic dictator as supreme ruler? 

Or, are rank and file Republican fears justified by the horrors of the Democratic Party and its evil critical race theory, its openness to minority participation in government and its other anti-Christian and/or pro-tyranny beliefs and behaviors? Who are the tyrant wannabes here, dems, repubs, both or neither, and how do you define tyranny?

THE PEOPLE'S PARTY

 Ok, gonna preface the following by saying - who the hell came up with the bright idea to call a potential new party in the U.S. "The People's Party?"

While well intentioned, maybe, the name alone will invoke images of Communism. 

AND I thought we had alternative parties already, like the Green Party, at least their title doesn't invoke images of Communism.

BUT HEY - for those who are curious:

https://peoplesparty.org/

THE PEOPLE’S PARTY: Our vision is a major new progressive populist party that will deliver what regular people take for granted in so many other countries: single-payer health care, free public college, money out of politics, an infrastructure jobs program, a $15 minimum wage, financial regulations, and more.

We need actual representation in our government. A majority of people in the US don’t feel represented by either the Democratic or Republican parties. We’ve watched these parties turn their backs on us to answer every call of the billionaires and donors. Overwhelming numbers of Americans understand these parties cannot be salvaged. Polls show that almost two out of three Americans are now calling for a major new party. It’s time to build the party we’re looking for — one that brings us all together.

WELL FOLKS, WHATCHA THINK?

They could have picked a better name?

Sounds too far left?

Who should lead their cause? I vote AOC.

Would you vote for such a party?

AND FOR ME: Will they end up dividing the left and make it even easier for Republicans to keep winning elections?