Bolton and the Half-Baked Neo-Con Thinking

John Bolton, the most hawkish of hawks in the Bush-Cheney years (and one-time UN rep) has an op-ed in the New York Times. It is an example of the John Bolton that progressives have come to dispair over. It epitomizes the half-baked thinking of the neo-cons. 

In classic “half-bakedness” the writer gets the first half right and then goes down the rabbit hole (David Brooks is the absolute best at this). The thing to pay attention to in these policy recommendations is the reasons for the second-half flame-out.

In this essay Bolton gets the first half right: only a Sunni state can function effectively once ISIS is gone (as if that were a given). He identifies the key problem facing everyone: the current cock-up in the Middle East is at the deepest level a battle between the Sunnis and the Shia. ISIS is Sunni; Syria, Iran and Iraq are Shite. The only coherent outcome is a Sunni state. 

But then he does the classic neo-con “thing.” He assumes that the ultimate arrangement can be brought about by Western intervention when the alternate move is to support and nurture the non-violent Sunnis who are as horrified at the actions of ISIS as the rest of the world. But not Bolton. He still clings to that horrific strategy that got us in this fucking mess in the first place. We need to take charge of the situation — just like we did when we invaded Iraq and that worked out well, didn’t it.

Bolton’s a classically “half-smart” guy. And the smart he’s missing is the social psychological smart, the kind that understands ethnic identity, that realizes that imposing “solutions” on people just pisses them off. He is totally lacking in empathy and never asks himself, “how would we feel if some big, alien power forced their vision of life on us?”

I’ve long felt that foreign policy can’t be made by people without serious psychological chops. Reading this crap and seeing how persuasive it could be to the untrained is deeply worrisome.

Bozos…

Down What Rabbit-Hole is Trump Heading?

Trump started out as a joke, a fishing expedition, a toe in the water, a run-it-up-the-flagpole staging. Not much happened until he turned up the heat by characterizing the Mexicans crossing the border as drug runners, criminals and rapists. This lightning bolt of incivility didn’t do much to woo Latinos but it boosted his popularity among people I, for one, would not want to be popular with. But it registered where it matters most in politics, the polls.

Since that outburst, which was followed by his “program” to solve the immigration “problem” by deporting 11 million people and building a wall along the entire US-Mexico border, he’s never lost his lead among likely primary Republican voters.

We’ve had to live with hearing him repeat this obviously idiotic and unworkable policy position for months with little more than a few tweaks in the details. Then the terrorist attacks in Paris hit and everything changed and in ways that are disturbing. The imagined Mexican problems disappeared as targets for his quiver of hate to be replaced by Islam with a bit of good ol’ fashioned anti-Black sentiment to fill in any gaps in his schedule.[1]

He started by declaring that no Muslims should be admitted into the country, no matter what their origins are and no matter what kinds of horrors they’re fleeing.

He said that, as President, he would have to close many mosques because, he maintains, they’re not used as places of worship but as secret enclaves for political action.

He has said (repeatedly) that thousands of American Muslims cheered the events of 9/11. Alas, no matter how often he repeats the lie it remains a lie.

Then he kicked it up a notch — because his base was beginning to think that maybe he’d mellowed a bit. Christie out-Trumped him by stating that he wouldn’t even let an orphan under 5 years old in if their parents had been Muslims. And Ben Carson began gaining in the polls.[2]

He then introduced the argument that the way to deal with his fantasized Muslim scourge was to have every Muslim in the country, citizens included, be forced to have their vital information on a national data base that could be monitored. But Carson kept gaining and even Cruz started creeping up so he hinted in a Tweet that perhaps Muslim would also need to wear identifying badges.

After a session in which he outlined his plan for a national data base for Muslims a reporter from NBC asked him if he saw “a difference between requiring Muslims to register and how Jews were treated in Nazi Germany.” He answered, “You tell me.”

Even though he later tried walking this national data base notion back, it’s clear what his fans are hearing. It’s not hard to hear. There’s not a lot of subtlety to The Donald. The more nuanced use of “dog whistles” in past political campaigns has been replaced by outright, unvarnished racist and religious hatred. It’s deeply worrisome how his supporters are reacting to his message.

In a recent speech Birmingham, AL (of all places) a black man showed up wearing a T-shirt that had “Black Lives Matter” emblazoned on it and interrupted Trump by chanting those three words. Trump bellowed, “get him the hell outta here.” The man refused to leave — after all, it was an open political rally. The crowd knew how to get this unwelcome interloper out. Several men shoved him and punched him. One tackled him. A woman kicked him after he’d been dragged to the ground and he was repeatedly punched before security escorted him from the rally.

These are the folks who are gathering around Trump. This is where his xenophobic, racist and anti-Muslim blathering are taking us. It is not a happy place. No good can come from this.

 

---

[1] He recently posted a set of totally fabricated statistics making it look like virtually every Black person killed in the country was murdered by another Black. In fact, the vast majority of killings are within-race for the simplest of reasons: proximity and opportunity.

[2] While there’s some overlap, Carson’s and Trump’s bases are different. Trump draws the racists and those frightened by “otherness.” Carson’s supporters are overwhelmingly evangelical Christians. Most evangelicals, even if they back Trump’s racist views, are suspicious of his religious commitments.

GOP Candidates: Disqualifying Levels of Raw Hatred

The astonishingly ugly, bilious anti-refugee hatred being spouted by Republicans (and, alas, a few Democrats) is deeply disturbing. It’s a frightening warning about what could happen to our land if any of these cretins were to actually become president.

Equally disturbing is the equally astonishing ignorance of the whole crew — or, if it’s not ignorance then it’s deviousness and a calculated effort to induce fear and incite hatred. The governors of various states, most pointedly Mike Pence of Indiana who today had refugee families relocated to Connecticut rather than provide a safe haven, seem not to know this (from The Economist):

“Refugees apply for resettlement at American embassies or through the United Nations. If they pass that first hurdle, they are screened by outposts of the Department of State all over the world. They undergo investigations of their biography and identity; FBI biometric checks of their fingerprints and photographs; in-person interviews by Department of Homeland Security officers; medical screenings as well as investigations by the National Counter-terrorism Centre and by American and international intelligence agencies. The process may take as long as three years, sometimes longer. No other person entering America is subjected to such a level of scrutiny.”

It’s tough to find words for the things that people like Ted Cruz are saying (no Muslim should be admitted), Donald Trump (close down mosques) and Chris Christie (not even orphans under the age of 5) but most troubling is that they are being said by people who love to wrap the flag of Christianity around their shoulders and talk about values and morality.

It’s a hideous display of raw hatred. Every one of these vicious people has publically disqualified them holding public office, let alone the presidency.

Carson is a Moron -- And Even His Advisors Know It.

Not too long ago I posted a blog on intelligence — specifically focusing on Dr. Ben Carson. My point was one that most people find odd, just how smart are brain surgeons? My conclusion, which most people also found odd, was “not very — certainly not necessarily.” If you go back and look at the analysis it’s not complicated. The kinds of mental dexterity and knowledge you need to be a surgeon isn’t all that it’s made out to be. You need good sensory-motor coordination, a solid grounding in physiology and anatomy and, critically, an ego the size of Wisconsin. Carson has all of these. But what he lacks is what is typically regarded as true intelligence: the ability to sift complex ideas, to “get” the balance between alternate visions, the capacity for critical thinking and an openness to new ideas and the ability to incororate them into one’s overall grasp of reality.

As the campaign has moved along Carson’s intellectual weaknesses have become more apparent. We first saw it when he denied climate change. It got kicked up a notch when he dismissed Darwinian evolution and got elevated to Trumpian levels when he suggested a “Christian” litmus test for high public office.

But what really knocked my socks off is that even his advisors and managers acknowledge that the great, esteemed, brilliant Dr. Carson is —- an intellectually challenged soul who seems incapable of learning the most basic elements of foreign affairs, an area that, last time I checked, was pretty close to the top of things a President needs to be on top of.

Don’t take it from me, this is from Carson’s foreign affairs advisor:

“Nobody has been able to sit down with him and have him get one iota of intelligent information about the Middle East,” said Duane R. Clarridge, a top adviser to Mr. Carson on terrorism and national security. He also said Mr. Carson needed weekly conference calls briefing him on foreign policy so “we can make him smart.”

Bottom line: You cannot “make” someone smart. The best you can do is to disguise his/her intellectual impoverishment in verbal flummery (are you paying attention Mr. Trump?) or teach them the delicate art of never answering the questions asked (hello, Mr. Cruz?) but when you’re assigned the impossible task of making Carson into someone who can lead the free world …. fuggedaboutit (sorry, lived in Brooklyn for 35 years).

Gambling Taxes: Poker and "Windfall" Income

Poker winnings are taxed in the United States. In fact, all gambling winnings are. Lottery winnings, slot jackpots, large exotic wins at the race track are all taxed when they exceed certain thresholds. The IRS regulations can be found here. In a country where one major political party makes lowering taxes its primary goal this is just weird. It also conflates poker with other forms of gambling, a problem I’ve addressed elsewhere.

Most industrialized countries have sensible and progressive income tax codes in place. And in virtually all of these gambling winnings (including poker — though there’s a subtlety that I’ll get to in a bit) are not taxed for the simplest of reasons: they’ve already been taxed.

Slot machines only pay back at rates from around 80% (penny slots) to 95% - 96% for the high roller machines ($10 a spin and upwards). The casinos’ drop on them is substantial and they pay corporate taxes on these profits.

Payouts at the race track have a similarly high vig with the so-called exotic bets only returning some 75 to 80 percent. The rest goes into the state coffers.

Lotteries are the worst of the bunch with the states taking out fully half of the pool.  

In short, these winnings are being double-taxed — and, as noted above, one of our major political parties screams bloody murder at inheritance taxes claiming that they’re unfair because the money is being taxed twice.

What most sensible countries do is to declare these large wins as “windfall” income and not subject to tax.

To get a felling for how bizarre the situation is consider this: If you hit the lottery for $10 million in the United States you’ll be lucky to get 3 million to spend. First, the actual pool was 20 million, so 50% is gone already. Second, the jackpot is paid out over a twenty year period during which the state will hold the principle (and keep the interest). Third, your annual return is degraded by inflation and, of course, subject to income tax. If you choose to take it in a lump sum the state will reduce the win by some amount (usually around 30%). If you live in a high-tax locale like New York City the burden is significant since the money is triple-taxed (Federal, State and City).

If you win a $20 million dollar lottery in Canada or the UK you’ll get the full twenty million up front and untaxed.

It’s hard to fathom the situation in the US. The GOP, the guilty party in the tax screw-ups, seems more than a little comfortable with hypocrisy here. I can only guess that it stems from another of their odd perspectives: gambling is a sin and should be taxed and taxed and taxed. Where did all the Libertarians go?

Okay, how about poker? Well, poker is a game of skill that more than a few play professionally — and, that, sports fans, is the key on how the tax issue should decided. If you’re a professional poker player and derive all or most of your income from the game then you should be paying taxes on it. And, because you’re declaring your tax status in this manner, you get to deduct business expenses. These would include travel to tournaments, business expenses when away from home, tournament entry fees. In short, you should be treated by the IRS like other professionals — tennis players, golfers and bowlers who play games for a living.

But if you’re an amateur who plays recreationally and manage a big payday (like Neil Blumenfield just did in the WSOP Main Event) then it should be treated as windfall income and not taxed. In this year’s Main Event the final table paid a total of $24.8 million to the nine players and, according to an analysis by Russ Fox, some 34% of it will go to taxes. The only player to be able to enjoy his full windfall is Pierre Neuville who lives in Belgium.

The same principle should apply to other “gambling” forums where skill triumphs like sports betting, horse racing and, if the dust ever settles, fantasy sports.