Imagining in POTUS-land

The presidential race (assuming that nothing weird happens and both presumptive nominees become actual nominees) has been referred to lately as a “dumpster fire.” As a simile it doesn’t make a lot of sense but it got me thinking. So, my little head-game for the day: to imagine what a Clinton or Trump presidency might look like.

Hillary first:

a. A continuation of Obama’s foreign policy. Now that’s sort of okay. He got put in a very bad place in the Middle East by the disaster that was Bush/Cheney and he’s tried to extricate us from it. She’d likely follow the same course which means more money, more fighting, battling terrorists and difficult liaisons with friends and foes alike. I’m not crazy about this but don’t see any obvious options.

b. An expansion of social issues including increasing support for minorities, the LGBT community, women, children, the elderly and the disadvantaged. Efforts to improve the ACA and a renewed interest in boosting the reach of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

c. A shift in the tax code to make it more progressive and a gradual increase in the minimum wage. I suspect we’d see a dangling of the possibility of taxing all Wall Street trades as a way of generating revenue. I know folks think she’s in the bankers’ pockets. I don’t. I suspect there’s a Keynesian lurking inside her. And I think Sanders’ success taught her some important things.

d. Support for science, research and development, a focus on the environment and climate change and offers to work cooperatively with businesses and corporate interests.

e. Efforts to deal with student debt and a gradual move to convince states to provide more funds for public colleges and universities.

f. Liberal appointees to Federal benches including more women and minorities.

g. Ambiguity on TPP. Frankly, I have no idea where she will end up on this issue. Trade is a complex issue and every move we make has wide-spread implications. Globalization is real. Care and tact are called for.

In short, I expect her to be very much like Obama, pragmatic and thoughtful, moderate on matters of the economy and liberal on social issues, temperate in foreign affairs and expansive on issues of culture, science and education. I also hear coherent and balanced language in speeches, pronouncements and dealings with the media.

Now some in the GOP may see this as a disaster approximating a dumpster fire but not me. Is she “likeable?” I don’t know. I don’t care. Bush was likeable.

Now Trump:

Sigh… I’m thinking… I am. I can’t come up with anything coherent. I don’t know where he stands on any of this. Virtually every position he’s ever taken he’s reversed. Almost every program he’s ever supported he’s rejected. The few constants are bizarre like that idiotic wall, an immigration policy that is unconstitutional and an anti-trade stance that is astonishingly naive.

What would he actually do (or try to do) on the economy? taxes? Social Security? education? the Middle East? the environment? the military? judicial appointments? health care? minority rights? abortion? anything? anyfuckingthing at all?

I have no idea. He has no ideas, just slogans and posturing.

But imagining this thin-skinned, puffed-up narcissist who cannot find his way out of a sentence without committing some linguistic, social or cognitive gaff giving major addresses, handling the varied opinions of advisors, dealing with criticism, holding press conferences, working with world leaders, making decisions that must fall within the rule of law and not the fantasies that bounce about in his head actually sitting in the Oval Office produces (at least in my head) a crazy mix of worry, fear and trembling.

Seriously folks, play the game, try to imagine what it would be like to have as POTUS someone who revokes the press credentials of a respected newspaper because they published articles that criticized him, insults reporters who ask him embarrassing questions, who uses racial slurs against a Federal judge because he didn’t like a ruling, who calls for violence against protesters, says he’d murder civilians to defeat ISIS, advocates religious discrimination, accepts endorsements from racists, approves of torture and would ignore the Geneva Conventions, admires dictators, claims he’ll tear up approved international treaties and who wants Korea and Japan to have nuclear weapons.

Just try. Form this image. Let it sit there for a time, festering.

Yet close to half of the electorate seems poised to check the box next to his name. Defenders say he won’t really do what he says he will, that he won’t really act that way, that it’s only for the election, to fire up his base.

Why would they believe that? What do they think he will do?

What if they’re wrong?

Stupid Things -- The Fostering of Ignorance

I. Two states have legalized recreational marijuana and several others are considering it. Twenty-five states plus the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It is, however, surprisingly difficult to do scientific research on pot.

Conducting large-scale clinical trials (the gold standard for investigating all drugs) is under the control of the FDA and the regulations currently in place are so onerous that virtually no scholarly work is being done. The application process can take up to two years and even if a proposal is approved, FDA guidelines restrict the THC levels that can be used in the research. Currently the only studies approved use 3.5% to 7% THC. To put that in context, Colorado’s recreational product averages over 18% and levels as high as 35% are being sold. Levels in use in states with medical marijuana have even higher concentrations.

So we find ourselves in a situation that no one, not the consumers, not the sellers, not the researchers and, if they knew about it, not the general public is happy with. A drug with known medical effects and well-documented psychotropic effects is being sold and used with and without both local and Federal approval and without a full understanding of its bio-psychological impact because the agency that is, in principle in charge of overseeing research won’t allow anyone to do the research.

Imagine the anger if the FDA were to put similar thresholds on the study of other drugs like antibiotics or cholesterol lowering compounds.

——————————————————————————————————-

II. Some 33,000 people are killed by gun violence in the US every year. Approximately 150 mass murders have occurred in recent years with an average of two per month. Nearly half of all mass murderers were suspected of having serious mental health issues. Note the fudge words “estimated,” “approximately.” They’re there because, astonishingly, we don’t really know with certainty what the real numbers are. In fact, we know precious little about gun violence, its links with various personality types, with mental illness or any of the scores of demographic factors that likely play a role.

When you have an epidemic where half a million Americans have died since the turn of the century you’d think there would be well-funded research into it. When something kills people, causes suffering, diminishes the quality of life, we collect data, pour over the numbers, look for patterns, find ways to mitigate the damage. It’s what we’ve done with tools, cars, planes, mining, drugs and disease. It’s what we’ve done with children’s toys, toasters, farm machines and bed sheets. It’s what we’ve done with our water, air and food supplies.

But not guns — because there is actually a Federal statute that prohibits funding research on gun violence and, remarkably cynically, it was renewed just after the Charleston mass shooting in 2015.

And if that little tidbit (which I suspect few know about) doesn’t get your dander up there’s the even more pernicious Tiahrt Amendment. Named for former Congressman Todd Tiahrt it prevents the release of information about the registry of or records about firearms to anyone other than a law enforcement officer or a court. It also blocks the use of these data in any civil law suit against a gun manufacturer.

But to me, a retired academic who’s spent well over a half-century as a scientist pursuing knowledge and understanding, the truly bizarre feature of this piece of legislated insanity is that it also forbids the use of these data in academic research of gun use in crimes.

Imagine the howls of outrage if the CDC were to put in place similar restrictions on the study of heart disease.

Hillary Derangement Syndrome -- An Addendum & An Endorsement

Okay, I’m losing it. Some my friends on the left (where I’ve lived my whole social-political-academic life) have fallen so far down the slippery slide of Hillary-hating that I’m beginning to worry about them.

Here are some of the more off-the-end-of-the-pier posts that I’ve run across recently in the popular social media outlets. I’ve not included names or screen handles and I’ve corrected spelling and punctuation errors because I don’t want readers to think they’re mine.

To be clear, these aren’t from Trumpeters, none of them came from right-wing sites or blogs. All are from Bernie supporters.

And, full disclosure, I caucused for Bernie. I believe in his vision and support virtually all of his positions. But he lost. He actually never had a chance but I am glad he ran, delighted that he got his message out and overjoyed at the impact it had on the Democratic Party and on Hillary. But the level to which his supporters are sinking is, at once, disturbing, amusing and incomprehensible. So, here we go:

“She’s a war monger, a cold heartless hawk. I will never vote for someone who wants to start WW III.”

“She’s a weapons dealer who’s sold arms to terrorists and funnelled the money back into the Clinton Foundation.”

“She’s the brains behind the crafting of the TPP and no matter what she says now, will put it in place the day she’s sworn in.”

“Hillary is a pathological liar who cannot help herself. Nothing she says can be trusted.”

“Hillary is really a moderate Republican and I cannot, will not ever vote for a Republican.”

“She was raised a Republican and always been one at heart. She loves Wall Street and wars.”

“If she ends up in the White House she will be worse than G. W. Bush. We have to save the world from Hillary!!!!” (yes, all four exclamations marks were in the original).

“She’s a warmonger but luckily Putin and Xi are on to her and can neutralize her if she wins.”

“All she wants is power and she will do anything to get it. I still think she had Vince Foster killed.”

There are lots more like these and they tend to get repetitive so I’ll just drop in one last, deliciously paranoid comment:

“Donald Trump is a Hillary-plant. She and Bill are behind his whole campaign. They encouraged him to run last year because they knew it’s the only way she can be made to look good.”

Friends and fellow leftists, it’s time to bury the hatchet. Ms. Clinton won the nomination and as fairly as any nomination gets won. She’ll be a fine president. She’s a life-long feminist, the first to propose a national health care program, she supports Obama-type immigration policies, has always been a staunch defender of minority rights, LGBT rights, a woman’s right to choose, an opponent of unregulated capitalism (yeah, really). She’s worked on children’s issues her whole life, backs gun control, a progressive tax code and a gradual increase in the minimum wage.

She will nominate progressive judges to the Supreme Court and place thoughtful, liberal people in government agencies and her cabinet.

Are there positions of hers that are not ones I support? Yes, of course — no one gets their ideal candidate. I wish she’d back off her stance on fracking, though I understand why she takes it (it produces a large proportion of relatively clean energy and there are those swing states) and I worry that she might be pushed into returning to her earlier support of the TPP. And I wish she’d take a harder line on the idiotic war on drugs, back Federal legalization of marijuana and support a $15/hr minimum wage.

She was a fine Senator (with a voting record that matched Bernie’s 93% of the time) and when she stepped down from her job as Secretary of State she was compared with the greats like Dean Acheson.

She’s been accused of dozens of things, been investigated scores of times and nothing has come of any of it. And these investigations weren’t softballs. They were cranked up by Republicans hell-bent on finding her guilty of some crime or complicit in some illegal scheme. They found nothing. 

The glaring brutal truth is that she is, right now, running against Donald J. Trump — a man who cannot be allowed to become president. It is incumbent on all Moderates, Liberals and Progressives to vote for Clinton. A vote for Stein, a Sanders’ write-in or a blank ballot is, effectively, a vote for Trump.

Perhaps some have forgotten — Nader gave us Bush and the world is still reeling from his catestrophic eight years. Imagine the wreckage that a Trump in the Oval Office would create. 

Hold your nose if you have to but punch that chad for Hillary.

More Trumpian Thoughts

Trump’s been pushing the bonkers-ville envelope with some seriously crazy shit.

1. He insinuated that Obama is a secret Muslim and that he was complicit in the hate-crime massacre in Orlando.

2. He reiterated his call for closing the borders to all Muslims and added that Muslim communities should be under close surveillance and that Mosques should be monitored.

3. He barred reporters from the Washington Post from his meetings and press conferences.

4. He attacked a Federal judge for the crime of being born of Mexican heritage.

And then for something different:

5. He hinted that the minimum wage might be raised.

6. He slammed NAFTA, saying he’d tear up the deal and announced his opposition to the TPP.

7. He supported Medicare and Social Security and promised not to scale them back.

The first positions are certain to turn off any moderate who might consider voting for him. The second make it unlikely that traditional Republicans can support him.

Is it possible that he is slowly coming to grasp how far over his head he is, how unprepared he is for the job, how unfit he is to be commander-in-chief? Even the most ego-encrusted narcissist can have moments of self-revelatory doubt.

Is it possible that, at some level, he is trying to push his GOP colleagues to find some way to deny him the nomination? Is it possible that, if this die be cast, that he is ensuring that he loses the general election?

Just asking…

Thoughts for Today

1. The Orlando massacre was not a terrorist act. It was a hate crime. The Republicans are trying to deflect the issue away from the need to reinstitute the assault weapons ban, the need to introduce sensible gun regulations and the need to diminish the influence of the gun lobby.

2. Climate change is real. There is nothing called “climate skepticism.” There is only climate science and climate science denial. The latter represent a cohort bought and wholly owned by the fossil-fuel industry. Denying climate change is like denying evolution — oh, wait a minute ….

3. Washington DC should become the 51st state. It has more people than either Wyoming or Vermont. It currently lacks representation in the US Congress (its House member has voice but no vote) which, in my head, isn’t what representative democracy is all about.

3a. It ain’t gonna happen until the Democrats take back the House and Senate.

4. The ACA has to be amended to allow for the public option. The insurance companies are starting to ratchet up rates and many are going to find their policies unaffordable. It feels like an effort to undermine the success of the legislation. It’s important that this not be allowed to happen.

5. Sanders’s people will come ‘round. A month or two of Trump and even the most recalcitrant among them will realize that a Trump presidency would make Bush II look good — and don’t forget it was Dubya who made Nixon look good. See how that works?

6. Moderate, sensible conservatives, independents and Republicans will vote for Hillary. They won’t like it. They won’t tell anyone. They will hold their noses and punch that chad.

7. Trump may be under indictment when the election is held. Eric Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General, is currently ascertaining whether Trump’s actions while head of Trump University (sic) violated RICO guidelines. And that “biased” “Mexican” judge is still on the bench in the class-action suit.

8. And FWIW, I have a title for the world’s shortest book: “A Compendium of Sensible Proposals Put Forward by Donald J. Trump.” It’s a quick read. Trump won’t even need a ghost writer this time.