Neoliberal environmentalist Karens in the wilderness

And, I mean that literally. 

Several times on my recent trip, in both Colorado and New Mexico, I saw dogs off-leash in federal wilderness areas. Even if not posted (it wasn't in Lizard Head Pass Wilderness), that is strictly illegal. 

It's for the wildlife's sake more than the dog's. That said, a dog could tangle with a coyote and come out the worse for wear, a skunk and come out stinky, or a porcupine and possibly have to be put to sleep if it gets quills in its neck that work into its throat and esophagus. I speak from childhood knowledge.

When called out on it, the Karens, whether one woman or a group, tend to get indignant.

Hence, the full title.

I mean, seriously, it's like they think it's a doorknob-given right.

Sadly, they're aided and abetted by others. New Mexico magazine, a year or so ago, had a story about a woman wilderness hiker who let her dogs run off-leash in wilderness in or near where I have hiked, near either Taos or Santa Fe.

I emailed the publisher saying that it was poor form to have that in the story without at least having an editor's note at the end about federal regulations. Heard crickets back.

The magazine arguably mirrors the state as The Land of Disenchantment at times.+

China, the steno apologists and tankies, and real foreign policy

The Nation has a very good overall piece by David Klion on how "progressives" should have a China policy that rejects neoliberal based free trade AND calls Beijing out on human rights abuses, but yet looks to avoid military or military-related "solutions."

As for the Uyghur issue? Uyghurs living abroad, per Klion, would like to see actions by the US like the Global Magnitsky Act being applied to China.

It's not perfect, starting with Klion not going further left than the DSA roseys, but it's a start. I'm sure that not only the allegedly outside the box stenos like Maté and Blumenthal, but today's tankie types like Richard D. Wolff and Rainier Shea of The People's Republic of Humboldt Bay likely don't accept the facts on the ground that Klion presents.As an ex-Green, I know the tankie train runs there, too.

There's nothing new to the stenos. It's just a new version of neoliberal "engagement" with tankie lipstick smeared on that pig. The tankies themselves are of course heirs to those who tried to pretend away the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, and other disasters.

One thing Klion gets at is we need to reject other twosiderism beyond that of "confront bluntly" or "appease" — namely, that of "capitalism" vs "communism."

Anybody who's not a tankie or a wingnut knows that China is some version of state capitalism. And, no, NOT state capitalism in the sense of classic Marxist-Leninist ownership of the means of production. Rather, it's more on the lines of state control, indirectly but far beyond the US regulatory state, but kind of like American GSEs — indirect control or quasi-ownership. Given the degree of Chinese economic ownership like this, one could bring out the third label of "fascism."

I don't totally agree with something like this, though:

Isabella Weber, a German political economist whose recent book How China Escaped Shock Therapy traces the origins of the economic liberalization implemented by Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s and ’80s, rejects these simplistic labels. “I think of China as a state-constituted market economy that relies on a strong capitalist dynamic,” she told me. “This is a new kind of economic system that we have to study on its own terms.”

That comment still gives too much of a capitalist fetish to the whole idea of "markets." (And, with that, shows that The Nation remains left-liberal, not actually leftist.)

That's even more true when one looks at the reality of these markets. This:

In Weber’s analysis, over the past four decades China’s powerful one-party state has created enormous markets that have reintegrated the country into the world economy (enriching capitalists and undermining unions in the process), but it has always done so in pursuit of China’s long-term economic development and political sovereignty.

Is certainly not 100 percent true. State-owned industries, owned at the provincial, county or municipal level, have been a hive of Chinese-style corrupt crony capitalism, and in a country with nearly four times the US population and more land area, even a top-down government in Beijing can't track all of that.

Klion misses other issues here, ones that aren't about human rights, etc., but are straight fiscal issues.

Most notably, he doesn't discuss monetarism and China's continued refusal to let the renmimbi fully float on world exchanges. That would be a non-military stick to be used with things like the Global Magnitsky Act, and with various carrots as well.

Other than that, Klion doesn't offer much in the way of solutions, attempted solutions, or actual or attempted partial solutions. Trying to nationalize an "essential industry" like computer chips may help, but the biggest players there are Taiwanese, not Chinese.

IMO, what would really help would be applying the Global Magnitsky Act to US companies, not just Chinese, who participate in human rights abuses. If it currently doesn't allow that? Fix it! Raising the cost of doing bad business in Beijing would be neither carrot nor stick, but Archimedian leverl.

Texas Progressives: Status Quo Joe is officially large and in charge

The Lege has started, it faces a budget shortfall that Comptroller Glenn Hegar is surely turd-polishing, and we await seeing just how wingnut it will be this year.

Meanwhile, Texas Democrats are again overpromising. And, somebody besides me is telling them to stop it.

Finally, Texas Monthly must have had a really slow month because it's got not just one, but two, pieces of bullshit in its February issue.

Meanwhile, yes, it's Jan. 20 and Trump is gone, but Trumpism isn't; Joe Biden is here, and Democrat neoliberalism is back.

Let's dig into this week's Roundup.

Texas

The Texas Observer offers its analysis of the new Lege session, and reminds anybody with a brain that if we didn't live in a banana republic with an every other year Legislature, we wouldn't have the worst of national economic slowdowns (see 2010 after the Great Recession).

In Captain Obvious news analysis, the Texas Tribune notes that the bankrupt (morally as well as financially by legal definition) NRA's planned move to Texas will be more a legal than physical one. That said, there's no guarantee the Chapter 11 filing will be approved. And NY State AG Letitia James can appeal if it is. She also can probably seek to bounce some of this to federal court, and ask for that to be heard in the Southern District of New York.

Will last Tuesday be the last Confederate Heroes Day in Tex-ass?  A number of Dem Legiscritters say yes, but, we know how much the Texas Democratic Party continues to overpromise and underdeliver.

Speaking of, the Observer suggests they stop overpromising and instead celebrate what they've done the past few years and build on that.

Off the Kuff takes an early look at voting-related bills that have been filed in the Legislature.

Raise Your Hand Texas asserts there's enough money to fully fund public education.

Texana

Texas Monthly peddles a novella of placebo miracles about a eucalyptus tree that ain't an olive tree in South Texas.

The Monthly, in what must be a slow month, goes on to peddle bullshit about Sanderson being the new Marfa East or something. (No-follow settings on both links; no clickbait assistance from me!) I guess we need to talk about Texas-fried self-Californication or something? (I've been through Sanderson on a return home on one of my trips to Big Bend; it' AIN'T all that or even half of all that.)

North Texas

The protestors over Cooke County's Confederate statue have not given up on trying to get that removed. Sadly, and not for the first time, they're engaging in untruth when they claim Gainesville is the most racist small town in the former Confederate States of America. The fact that the city of Gainesville voted to remove its statue is one refutation. (You too get the "no-follow," Simone Carter.)

National

Racist cops and Army grunts? Say it ain't so. Well, Parler location data on smartphones DOES say it's so.

There is, if you will, a "deep state." It's the unelected, hired-not-nominated, federal bureaucracy, which includes branches such as the national security branch. Nicholas Grossmann notes that the QAnon nutters at the heart of the Capitol insurrection have kicked a deep state beehive. (That said, given racists among the Capitol Police and other things, I'm less certain than him of how dire the consequences may be.)

 

The Facebook-Google incestuous ad sales collusion has been publicly exposed. Thanks, a big thanks to whomever failed to redact Kenny Boy Paxton's legal filing.

Trump's flirtation with a Patriot Party will be a flop, if it even gets off the ground — which it likely won't, says this take.

Noah Horwitz minces no words in claiming treason on Jan. 6, and obviously doesn't know the constitutional meaning of the word "treason." Noah, make sure you learn better at law school if you ain't gradu-ma-wated yet. (I have so commented there; Noah, as do I, have a moderation hold. I don't really care if it posts or not, just that he sees it.)

Independent Political Report talks about the first two (of maybe three?) state Green parties being booted by the national organzation.

Steve Vladeck explains the Insurrection Act.

Rick Casey draws a parallel between Ken Paxton and Earl Warren.

Mean Green Cougar Red worries that things will get worse before they get better.

Libertarians AND neoliberals versus behavioral psychology and economics

Reason magazine, the closest thing to a "house organ" for small-l libertarians and read by many in the party as well, is "interesting." But not interesting enough to sniff my blogroll.

I'd say I'd largely agree with 15 percent of what it rights, fairly agree with 25 percent, fairly disagree with 35 percent, and think 25 percent is batshit. And the same person can write in all four categories.

Take Radley Balko, a great guy on things like police brutality and militarization.

But, also one of those libertarians who believes on many issues that "the lawsuit is the answer for everything."

Like DWI checkpoints. He has in the past called for them to be abolished on the grounds that they violate civil liberties AND that the threat of lawsuits is a deterrent.

Dude? There is SO much wrong with this.

First, to the degree that driving is a right and a privilege, it's not an absolute.

Second, to the degree that even libertarians will admit the state has public health regulatory rights (tho many libertarians are wingnuts on masks, shutdowns, etc. on COVID), driving is surely one of those. Just as the rights of your fist (or your germy cough) end at my nose, even more so, your rights behind the wheel of two tons of metal end when you're on the same highway as me.

Third, lawsuits don't bring dead people back to life.

Fourth, re the War on Drugs, alcohol is deadlier than any illicit drug.

Fifth, the biggie for purposes of this blog post?

Libertarians refuse to wrestle with, let alone actually consider, the implications of behavioral psychology and economics for the false idea of Homo sapiens economicus as a rational actor. No surprise, though. From what I can tell, they fail to consider that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" comes from his Enlightenment Deism, even though there's proof on Smith's pages, and that said Enlightenment Deism has had things like quantum mechanics "put paid" to it.

But, neoliberals are problematic, too. With them, with the likes of Cass Sunstein, it's been an overeager, uncritical, still capitalism-based acceptance of the interlocked disciplines.

Sunstein has never asked whether a capitalist nudge is the best way — as in either the most productive or the ethically best way — to actually effect long-term changes in behavior. Ditto in spades on whether it's the best way to effect changes that work well within long-term societal, not just individual, needs.

Coronavirus and a likely new Cold War (longer read)

Atlantic Monthly had a good speculative piece on likely fallouts from COVID. Neocons and many centrists wanted a new Cold War after 1989. Thanks to the toxic mix of the Brer Rabbit and Tar Baby of Xi Jinping Thought (a good read is here from the Beeb) and Donald Trump Mouth (evident to any non-MAGA American), they likely have gotten it. This is not to exonorate China in general or Xi in particular for technology theft far beyond the old USSR or modern Russia (or democracies like France, or like the US, for that matter) nor its forcing companies to surrender trade and business secrets (which they always could have resisted).

Some specific factors in both Xi's and Trump's makeups, while not making a new Cold War inevitable, at least made it more likely. Hubris, a certain amount of which is necessary to becoming a leader, is one that is toxic in too high of amounts, per the biblical statement that "pride goes before a fall." It's one that both of them have in excess. The photo at left underscores how much disdain they have for each other at bottom line, though Xi better masks his.

Let's start with Xi.

I'm not such a close China-watcher that I know that he had an excess of hubris early in his his first term. But, asking for, and being granted, the possibility of being president for life rather than being restricted to the two terms that had been on the books since Deng Xiaping's time, put it on full display. It's clear, by the CCP's rubber-stamping of the idea, that Xi had been wanting this for what, a a full year in advance? (He publicly broached the idea six months before his second-term election by not providing an apparent successor. And clearly, that also had been planned.)

That said, whether directly connected to imperial hubris or not, Xi's actions during his first term had helped grease the skids. His anti-corruption campaign surely not only eliminated actual corruption, but per Franz Joseph's old bon mot, "Is he a patriot for ME?" eliminated people who refused to be corrupt directly for and to Xi and Xi alone.

And then, just 18 months later, Xi became the first of two people to learn that you can't bully a pandemic.

And, it's "interesting," or "ironic," while ultimately tragic and worse that his mindset and Trump's on the coronavirus appeared to mirror each other. Both essentially, in their own ways, tried to pretend it away.

Xi had the advantage, or disadvantage, of being able to use brute force. Telling government agencies to destroy records, for example. Oh, wait, Trump told the CDC to scrub its website. Actual records are still available, but trying to hide stuff from the public? That said, the good side of American federalism meant that Trump couldn't get state health departments to outrightly lie, like we know Xi did with Chinese national stats and continues to do so. See here for more.

Pre-coronavirus, Trump wasn't totally wrong about China. It was all of the above, and given the growth of its economy, also arguably a currency manipulator and more.

But, he was totally wrong on how he handled this.

First, while globalization is not all good, it's not all bad, either.

Second, his America Firsterism cut out potential allies in battling China, namely Canada and the EU.

Third, his record of semi-failures in the business world, with something that looks like long-term success being achieved only through six US bankruptcy filings, a likely infusion or three of Mafia money (beyond what we know of his willingness to do business with mob-controlled companies in his early days), some known infusions of Russian money (but no, Putin didn't collude to elect him president, and doubly no, he hasn't been a Russian asset since the 1980s), and the Deutsche Bank ongoing lending to him that has raised eyebrows as to possible ultimate reasons, fueled an already high level of hubris. Well, international affairs isn't like one-off business deals, first. Second, the only ultimate results to bailing out a country are the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and given that both are ultimately based on the dollar, that would have meant harikiri for them.

Fourth, per my post on how Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational" has insight for human reactions to the coronavirus, Trump is a poster child for human nature's general willingness to throw good money after bad, plus the human, and definitely not-Asia specific, worry about losing face.

So, in international affairs, he had a history of wreckage, carnage and more before this. Specific to Xi, he had a history of insults, some of them at least marginally racist in nature long before his description of the coronavirus, and a refusal to really negotiate with Xi on any terms other than at least a partial surrender in advance by Xi.

Then this. We know Trump had some national-intelligence knowledge of the severity of COVID even while Xi was trying to cover it up, before that failed. And Trump? Like the stereotypical Nero fiddling while Rome burned, Denialism Don entered his usual mode when there's bad news he can't fully control.

The US will have more total cases and deaths than China by the time this is done, even with the most liberal allowance for Xi's lies. For US, and global by country, deaths and cases, click those links. (With notes that China's, especially is of course inaccurate.)

The fallout of all of this will be, as Atlantic notes, an increase in lack of cooperation between the US and China. Whether China's supply of help to EU nations can buy off knowledge of its lies remains to be seen. So, too, does the issue of other EU countries largely leaving Italy adrift in its early days.

Given that the EU doesn't border China, or Chinese satellites, and neither does NATO, of course, assuming we're already in the start of a new Cold War, this one will be different from the last. If COVID drives more austerity, it's likely that more European nations that are NATO members will look at further military budget-cutting.

As for the EU? Union-wide bonds for its short-term post-COVID future sound great. Germany continuing to keep a budget surplus sounds great to Chancellor Angela Merkel, I'm sure. It probably sounds even better to the AfD. The next six months are going to determine if she'll go down in history as the first leader of 21st-century Europe or "just" as a great chancellor of Germany.

Odds? 50-50, in my opinion.  Yes, as head of a parliamentary-based government, she has more restrictions than a President Macron. But, she's not running for re-election, and she still has some wiggle room outside the Bundestag. The 50-50 includes a guess on how much she'll try to use that wiggle room, or not.

Some of the Cold War 2.0 picture will depend on the US presidential election.

If Trump does get re-elected (shut up, Dems, it's a real possibility, and your claiming it isn't just makes it more real) of course, Trump's personality and everything driving the Cold War from his side just gets worse, and per my "Tar Baby," it just gets worse on Xi's side as well.

If Biden is elected (shut up, Berners, he's not getting the nomination, and that's in part due to him being a bad candidate, not your conspiracy theories), he'll do his best to undo the worst of Trump's damage. Unfortunately, it will be on the path of pursuing the bipartisan foreign policy establishment's idea of "engagement" with Beijing, which Xi will see as weakness.

Xi will also have no problem smiling when the allegedly outside the box stenos, the cadre within leftist American journalists who think America is almost always wrong on foreign policy, keep that up, as well as folks like the People's Republic of Humboldt Bay.

 Russia's own president for life, Vladimir Putin, remains a wild card. The median age of the Russian population as a whole isn't much higher than the US, and is well below, say Italy (and Germany). BUT? The median age of ethnic Russians, plus Belorussians and Ukrainians inside its borders, is higher than the various minorities, like those at the edge of Russia's Central Asian neighbors or those in the Caucuses. On the other hand, it's relatively non-dense, even in the European side; Moscow and Petersburg are the only metro areas of more than 5 million in Russia.

On the other hand, Putin's already treating this just like Xi did, to the point of arresting one doctor. And, Dr. Anastasia Vasilieva had been challenging Putin's official numbers.

So, it could survive COVID fairly well. It could survive the oil price wars fairly well. Climate change could improve its agricultural situation. If farm mechanization increases, Russia could be the next US.

==

Update, April 28: For purely domestic political reasons, Mitch McDonnell's senatorial campaign committee wants to push a new Cold War.

The downsides of Wrong Kind of Green

Recently, I wrote a blog post about Wrong Kind of Green, and frequent and prolific writer Corey Morningstar's in-depth series about how neoliberal environmentalist NGOs have, a la Noam Chomsky, "manufactured consent" around Greta Thunberg.

The ultimate goal seems to be a "capitalism as usual" battle against climate change.

This I reject.

But, I also reject a lot of the background mindset of Wrong Kind of Green.

First, in his newest update, Morningstar seems to be falling into the fallacious belief that native peoples are Roussellian noble savages on the environment. Tain't so. Not so at all. Pre-Columbian Contact, American Indians had slavery, the bestiality of Aztec human sacrifices and other things. Today, American Indians have Utes drilling for oil and gas, others tribes operating casinos, etc. etc. And, please don't try to blame all of that on American Indians being co-opted and brainwashed. The potlatch culture of the Pacific Northwest, which also existed pre-Contact, shows that something along the lines of western capitalism was here before Columbus was. (In the most extreme potlatch events, slaves were killed on the same bonfires used to destroy material goods.)

That's far from the only problem with WKOG, too.

One is either a moral self-blindness or something similar. Calling wind farms "Fossil Fuel+" because they expropriate indigenous people is true to the degree that's true. That said, it's no more true than it is with fossil fuels themselves. If they use this to mean we not only need to de-carbonize but de-electricize? No, you first. Shut down your website. It's just like with people pushing population reduction around the world. No, you first.

The biggest problem of WKOG is that most writers there are Marxist. Marxism, whether in its traditional form or modern spinoff, is pseudoscience within what's already the scientifically weakest of the social sciences. No, really. Hegelian dialectic is crappy philosophy and pseudoscience when used as the basis for a theory of economics. Period and end of story. And Marx himself was as dogmatic as Herr Hitler.

Beyond that, I wouldn't call myself an anti-capitalist. With WKOG, I see enough problems with capitalism of today to call myself a post-capitalist, at least in my yearnings, but not an anti-capitalist.

Beyond that, what IS capitalism and when did it start? I certainly see capitalism as being centuries older than when Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations." Does it go back to when Croesus allegedly issued the first coinage? Tang China's first paper money? Medieval Italians' double-entry bookkeeping?

Or maybe, to riff on "The Gods Must Be Crazy" and some anthropologists, the invention of the triad, basically, of cultivated agriculture, settled civilization and private property.

For me, this plays out in my voting. I'm currently a Green at the presidential level and in most other cases where available. If the GP screws the pooch enough, my next destination would be SPUSA. But, I could never go further "left" than that.

The Resistance and tariffs fake news

About two weeks ago, the Donut Twitter corner of The Resistance was lamenting Dress Barn going out of business, and following on the footsteps of Payless Shoes — and some were blaming Trump's tariffs on China.

This is fake news, of course. China is the leading importer of apparel to the US, but with a plurality of less than 30 percent.

It's also callous, and finally, it's blame shifting. Let's tackle all three, as they're interrelated, especially the first two.

Yes, a fair amount of imported clothes and shoes are made in China. But, in most cases, even more is made outside China, in places like Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Honduras, Cambodia etc. Specifically, countries 2-7 combined top China. So, Trump's tariffs wars have not driven either store out of business. And, let's take women's, or men's, walking shoes. (Hold on to that order.)

Would you pay $54.99 instead of $49.99 at Payless, rather than $64.99 for American made? Many of you would.

Plus, the first Donut Twitterer I saw claimed this was a war specifically on women. Really? Last time I checked, men wore shoes, too, even if we're not overwhelmed by capitalist fashion brainwashing to buy 15 pairs. That's on you. Men also wear clothing (we hope) last I checked.

Second, all of those countries I listed have poor labor rights. (Not that Trump cares about that. He just hates free or even fair trade. Goods could be made in Canada and especially if they were old-time manufactured objects, he'd still hate them.)

But, Donut Twitter, especially those of you who are political insiders? You haven't cared about labor rights, or pollution safeguards for the 25 years since the Slickster got you to sign off on NAFTA. So, put your hands down again.

Finally, are you really buying stuff at Dress Barn? And I mean you individually.

Maybe you went to the Big Yellow A.

So, blame Jeff Bezos.

Then blame yourself.

==

Sadly, without neoliberals of the Resistance doing an ounce of introspection, Trump has given real tariff new stupidity news with his 5 percent until you stop the migration threat. That's just after he cut some Mexican, and Canadian, tariffs to try to get the Senate to pass NAFTA 2.0, aka USMCA.

Organizing against Trump — #IndivisibleTeam has #TeaParty based ideas for suckers, by Dem sheepdoggers (newly updated)

Sounds great, huh? Take some ideas that the Tea Party used to fight Obama, do a little intellectual judo, and use this new set to fight Trump? (They have a new Web version now, which is no better.)

Erm, not so fast, Cochise, or rather, not so fast Jeremy Haile and compadres. There's a bit more, and a bit less, to the situation than what you claim. Haile worked for Lloyd Doggett, so he KNOWS some of the things that I'm going to list below are true. Levin also worked for Doggett and I suspect that Angel Padilla has similar Texas connections. In other words, per items they list, and my responses below, they know better.

Time for a bit of additional sharp elbows. GovTrack ranks Doggett as less liberal than Eddie Bernice Johnson! Yoikes!

First, they don't tell you that Preznit Kumbaya, by continuing to sing from the Kumbaya playbook, helped shoot some of his own plans in his own foot.

Second, they don't tell you that Preznit Kumbaya was and is a neoliberal who, initial statements aside, hated people trying to "push him" from the left.

Third, they don't tell you that, even though a fair amount of the Tea Party movement did start at the grassroots, much of it became corporately co-opted by people like Dick "Dick" Armey.

There's more here, part of it as noted in a screengrab of I sent Haile.

And, that part about Eddie Bernice and Jelly is true, true, true. Sorry, folks.

Shit, in my current district, where I've not been for too, too, long, but way too long, my Congresscritter hasn't even had a staff member visit. Nor has he announced a visit of even a staff member to my town, or the nearest town of over 25K, in local media.

Speaking of local media, there's "issues" with Indivisible outposts, as noted below under Localization Problems

Update, April 5, 2017: I'm sure the "team" doesn't want the general #resist idea-makers wondering why the hell, nearly three months since they organized, their mentor, Doggett, per the graphic at right, has yet to sign on to John Conyers' "Medicare for All" HB 676 — Conyers' bill for single-payer national health care.

And, if you look at the graphic? Ted Cruz challenger Beto O'Rourke, and possible O'Rourke challenger Joaquin Castro, are both among non-supporters. So too is wasted space Eddie Bernice Johnson, the Texas House Dems' hot young gun Mark Veasey and others.

That's eight in all, or almost three-quarters of Texas 11 Democrats in the U.S. House. Guess the Indivisibles need to look inside themselves on this whole advocacy schtick.

As for grassroots advocacy stopping Obama? Nooo, he helped with that himself, not to mention the moneybags co-opting of most Tea Party groups.

Dear Leader undersold and underfunded his stimulus plan, and part of its projects weren't shovel-ready. TARP et al were used to insure banksters got money even on defaulted mortgages that were shite in the first place. The "quick rinse" bankruptcy for Ford and GM pissed off others. And, failure to put banksters through any sort of nationalization, or close to that pissed off yet more people from Dear Leader's left — the types of people he said he wanted to "push" him, then bitched when they did.

And, Larry, Moe and Curly above know that, too.

As for Tea Partiers pushing their own members in the GOP? Well, that's true.

When was the last time you saw a left-liberal Dem primary a Rahm Emanuel Blue Dog, though? Larry, Moe and Curly know that, too.

Claiming, in essence, for Congresscritters that there is no such thing as a "safe district" is even more laughable.

Besides, the authors undercut themselves by admitting that Congresscritters don't care about deep-thinking voters:

MoC Cares a Lot About	MoC Doesn’t Care Much About
Verified constituents from the district (or state for Senators)	People from outside the district (or state for Senators)
Advocacy that requires effort - the more effort, the more they care. Calls, personal emails, and especially showing up in person in the district	Form letters, a Tweet, or Facebook comment (unless they generate widespread attention)
Local press and editorials, maybe national press	Wonky D.C.-based news (depends on MoC)
An interest group’s endorsement	Your thoughtful analysis of the proposed bill
Groups of constituents, locally famous individuals, or big individual campaign contributors	A single constituent
A concrete ask that entails a verifiable action - vote for a bill, make a public statement, etc	General ideas about the world
One single ask in your communication (letter, email, phone call, office visit, etc)	A laundry list of all the issues you’re concerned about.

Note No. 4 on the right-hand list:

(Member of Congress) doesn't care much about ... your thoughtful analysis of the proposed bill.

In other words, he/she allegedly, contra No. 3 on the right, DOES want something social-media like. BUT, they also contradict No. 2 on the "does like" side, to a degree. This would apply to groups as well as individuals.

(This also ignores using a "cutout" address within a Representative's district, or Senator's state, to get around the verification issue at the top of the left-hand side of the list. For former Congresscritter staffers, we don't have the brightest people in the book.  That said, the whole piece looks like it's written at Citizen Engagement 101 level, if not remedial level.)

As for occupying a Congresscritter's office. mentioned elsewhere? Our Democratic snowflake sheepdoggers, if they don't know the answer, need to be told that someone as "librul" as Bernie Sanders will arrest you for trespassing. My soon-to-be-former Congresscritter, Gohmert Pyle, aka Louie Gohmert, would sure as hell arrest people in his quite safe, very non-swing, district, for that.

Update, Jan. 24: Ted Cruz's staff called the cops on people at his Houston office.

And, the sheepdoggers know that. (Update, Jan. 26: And Trump, taking a page from Cruz, has shut down the White House phone line. But, as this story notes, you can call his businesses instead.)

More naivete, or bullshit, follows in the next chart:

Jill Stein didn't do it — but Hillary and Hillbots did

As the Hillary Clinton coalition, and to some degree, national Democrats in general, refuse to let their anger at The Anointed One losing to Donald Trump because of a craptacularly run campaign, which the campaigner has lied about in her latest book, and which Uranium One shows to have been headed by a person and her husband with ethics problems far beyond her email server, they grasp at ever-wider straws.

The latest? Hauling Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Glenn Greenwald gets it. BOTH parties want to put Stein in their lasers. The GOP can make it look like the shambolic "Putin Did It" investigation covers more than just Trump, while Democrats can give the appearance that more people than Trump are Kremlin fellow travelers.

People like Casey Michael, who is clueless about Russia but in the tank for Hillbots, perpetuate what Michael, acting as one of Neera Tanden's flacks at Think Progress claim, now saying that Stein was MORE pro-Putin than Trump.

First, Michael — who actually cares nothing about the actual Green Party — has claimed elsewhere, by insinuation, as has the Crap Progress piece, that other Greens boycotted the Green presidential debate that Russia Today / RT hosted.

Not true! Three of five candidates were actually there. As shown by the RT video embedded at Crap Progress' story above.

The gig is up in this Michael Tweet. What Hillbots really hate is her showing the emperor has no clothes in American foreign policy. If one is charitable, Ukraine was only a semi-coup. In either case, it left neo-fascists running the country. And that's not to mention the full coup in Honduras that occurred while Hillz was Secretary of State. Nor to mention the coup by bombing in Libya that wrecked Africa's strongest economy.

Besides, Michael, as Mueller has uncovered so far, Flynn was so far, as determined, not working for either Vladimir Putin OR Turkish President Reçep Tayyip Erdogan, but for Israeli leader Bibi Netanyahu on settlements. Shouldn't you all be DEFENDING Flynn?

The image above is copied from Brains, who offers his own, briefer take. It IS new McCarthyism, and as he notes, not only for we Green-leaners and independent leftists, but also for BernieBros, as Hillbots on Twitter talk about trying to frame him on sexual harassment, is likely to backfire. In short, the Neera Tandens of the world are, if anything, helping to increase the likelihood of Trump's re-election.

Brains gives goofball dilettante writer Eve Peyser too much credit, and airspace, by linking to her as an alleged Stein defender. (Peyser's Twitter feed and other articles on Vice has led me to call Vice the kiddie pool for Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias wannabes.)

Brains also links to David Bruce Collins, who has a whole roundup of "Jill didn't do it" links.

Some of these links also point me to thinking about the likes of ShirtLost DumbShit Zack Haller and his late partner in spreading a certain brand of moral equivalence, Actual Flatticus. Sure, Haiti was a splendiferous example of grifting, per Doug Henwood. But, until Trump releases his taxes, we can't even fully compare him and them. We can point out Trump being sued by HUD for racist non-rentals, and his apparent Mob ties.

Chief of those is Stein being interviewed about this by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. That would be the Amy Goodman who Flatty slimed and came close to legally libeling about her pay and radio holdings issues. (This is also the same Flatty who hated not just Stein but the entire GP, and I think ShirtLost DumbShit is of similar mindset. And yes, Brains, I'm going to keep kicking Flatty when I don't have to reach too far to do it.)

Aaron Mate, who's also written for the likes of The Nation, has a good piece here, also a Stein interview. It's important to note again, per Brains, that Stein notes this is neo-McCarthyism. See David's post for the whole roundup of links.

Was Stein perfect as a candidate? Hell no. She was too much of an AccommoGreen during it, and even more after her Dems-only recount after the election. I have noted on my own that she has been less than forceful in standing up to antivaxxers, although also noting that she has distinguished between vaccine safety and vaccine business.

But, I can trump Michael there, too. A year ago, the California Democratic Party, in its platform, supported acupuncture as medicine. Or remind him of Clinton's own semi-quack doctor.

Back to what I said above — if it takes more Green (or Socialist Party USA, but NOT the DSA, which never endorses non-Dem candidates) pushback against this level of asshattery before the current Democratic Party implodes? So be it.

==

Meanwhile, most of the MSM has committed media malpractice on the Putin Did It issue, yet Jay Rosen wrongly thinks Trumpism — as overblown by Yascha Mounk — is the story of the year.

Meanwhile, leaders of the so-called "deep state" are now trying to sue away free speech rights and put them into capitalist oblivion.

Insurers get self-righteous on #Trumpcare vs #Obamacare

The likes of Blue Cross / Blue Shield, Delta, Cigna, etc., are making me vomit in their mouths over Mitch McConnell's ongoing attempt to repeal Obamacare, whether "repeal and replace" or "repeal now, replace later" or simply "replace."

The "statement" by the Blues shows why.

Self-righteousness over a veneer of hypocrisy usually gets under my skin.

They're really committed to insuring those with pre-existing conditions because Obamacare requires it, while giving them money to do so. Pre-Obamacare, they told people with pre-existing conditions to fuck off and die just like most Senate Republicans want to do right now.

A system that doesn't require people to PURCHASE coverage is what's truly needed, of course, but what we will never get supported by these folks.

I'd be fine, per my call-out for at least a partial version of a British-style NHS, if the Blues et al still had some modicum of existence selling the equivalent of Medigap plans to those under 65. They could otherwise disappear.

As for their employees finding future employment under such a change, well, maybe they'd start supporting a guaranteed basic income or universal income.

Remember, folks, often, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend, but just a temporary ally of convenience. Accept the Blues' help on fighting Trumpcare.

But stop settling for Obamacare.

Vote Green. Vote SPUSA. Stop voting Democrat. Stop being a sucker for neoliberals who wanted to reward bloodsucking leeches by giving them more reward money. You know, like Cory Booker, a B-grade neoliberal on the Democratic neoliberal second team. A shadow Obama. An even bigger shill for Big Pharma.

Remember, national health care would transform the whole employment world, too. You wouldn't be chained to a crappy boss. You could work part time if you didn't have to work a minimum number of hours for health insurance. You could freelance. Etc., etc.

That's why American neoliberals hate single-payer. And why they despise something like a British National Health System, which is what America really needs.

#Resist! — with a side of risotto, Clintonista neoliberal style

We'll explain that header, as I usually do with such creative headers, in just a minute.

Risotto for the resistance?

The Democratic Party establishment's version of "resistance" to Donald Trump is apparently going to be led by the Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America — two of the most shameless Clintonista outfits in last year's Democratic primaries.

CAP was founded by John Podesta, who gained new levels of cooking fame when Wikileaks one dump of emails from the Democratic National Committee email hacks laid bare for the world his risotto recipe. Current CAP head Neera Tanden apparently wasn't passing around her own curried basmati recipe.

MMFA was started by David Brock, the Clinton concierge who is the question-answer to "The Democratic hack who looks like a constipated Newt Gingrich." During the 2016 campaign, it metastasized into half a dozen spinoffs, led by people like Clinton Boys Peter Daou and Tom Watson.

These are the type of people who agreed with Hillary Clinton on promoting Trump, seeing him as the best candidate to run against. These are the types of people who surely agree that Donna Brazile did the right thing in leaking primary debate questions.

That said, I'm not a Democrat. This is just another reason for me to promote to others the idea of leaving the Democratic Party.

So, #DemExit and #VoteGreen (or better).

Does the US need a full-blown British National Health System (updated)?

I've regularly berated Dear Leader for not pursuing single-payer national health care. As part of that, I've regularly mentioned the lack of cost controls in Obamacare, including stating that electronic patient records may have been a neoliberal's techie idea of what might work as cost control, but actually don't, at least not so far. I've also talked about cost controls as an issue in general, such as when Vermont decided to end the idea of a state-level single-payer system.

And now we have a new president, determined to undercut Obama's idea, and with Obama himself having given him the tools to do so. And Democrats defending O-care instead of promising single-payer.

That said, I'm now ready to think that, if we'd had a president with both balls, and convictions, back in 2009 (the only conviction Obama has is for being worse than Bush in the War on Terror, as I see it, along with being worse than Bush in thinking technology + capitalism will solve anything), we should have gone to a "Medicare for All" or other single payer system.

And, beyond.

To exactly what my header says.

A full government-run health care provider system. And, not just one that makes doctors, nurses and other medical staff into government employees, but one that nationalizes for-profit hospitals, which are their own type of vulture, and (since the NFL is a non-profit organization) carefully controls non-profit hospitals.

We need to drop a neutron bomb on the entire current U.S. health care system, raze it to the ground, and make it publicly controlled. (Just like Obama should have taken over banks in 2009, but there you go.)

What's brought me to this point?

A column by Chris Tomlinson noting that within Wall Street's own "1 percent," it's led by two industries: High-tech (no surprise) and health care.

And, this piece showing one health care company CEO getting $100 million, in 1 year. Back in 2009, when Obamacare was being discussed!

And, per my patient records link, not only is it not saving money, it's costing money and the companies who make programs for such record-keeping are making a killing.

And, as of early 2017, a second issue has brought me even further to this point. American hospitals offering spa-type luxury, pseudomedical treatments, or both, are wasting insurer dollars, and would waste taxpayer dollars if we had single-payer national health care without attacking this as well.

We should have had a president with balls and convictions enough to say something like this:

Dear Americans: The only way I can reasonably see to take full control of spiraling health costs, to not only cover all Americans with medical insurance but also to keep that cost from spiraling onward and upward, is to create a true National Health System, like Great Britain has.

Therefore, I am asking Congress to pass complete overhaul legislation where doctors, nurses and other professionals who want to be paid by our Medicare for All program will become government employees. In turn, we will provide generous assistance with medical education tuition, financial stability and speed in cost reimbursement and more.

This is how you force cost control through the whole system.

Doctors and hospitals would have to tell pharmaceutical companies: Sorry, we can't afford anything but generics until you lower your costs. Ditto for makers of medical devices. And, don't boo-hoo that that might cost a lot of American jobs. The pharmaceutical companies have international plants already; ditto for device makers.

Insurance companies like United Health and its $100M CEO could make money only by charging rich individuals cash. But, that would be true under a single-payer system even without the NHS. It's just that an NHS would start at the python's mouth and force the pig of cost control into the whole health care python.

And, if even some Democrats had opposed that, you could have negotiated down to "Just" a single-payer system, with doctors remaining private employees, but with rates and charges under more control than now.

Beyond all the above, Obamacare's been as much clusterfuck as success. And, enough of "Obamacare" has actually had its implementation delayed that we don't even have it, not fully.

Of course, that's another one of Dear Leader's biggest problems — he has consistently negotiated "compromises with himself" in public before ever bringing legislation to Congress. It started with the stimulus bill in 2009.

And, if you think using Twitter as a callout is the modern version of TR's "big stick," that further shows the technie-neolib cluelessness/sellout.

Per the one label on this post, I have long called such stupidity "salvific technologism."

And, we need it more than ever.

Pro Publica has some of the best evidence yet on how doctors and hospitals, just like insurers and Big Pharma (and medical device makers, etc.) rip off the hypercapitalist health care system.

==

Update, 2017: A basic version would put a government medical clinic in every county in the United States. It would also let national standards trump state ones on what medical professionals could treat what; ie, a lot of it could be done by physician's assistants and nurse practitioners. Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar shows how bad the doctor shortage is here. At a minimum, a partial NHS, with a government health clinic in every county, is a sine qua non.

We could then combine that with some version of national health insurance. But, having national CARE for basic and preventative services would immediately start the ball rolling on de-capitalizing our current system.

And, THAT is how you do things bottom up. People get used to the government taking care of their kids' vaccines, their own routine physicals and other preventative care, and basic medicine, and they get OK with it. States realize that non-MDs are doing this just fine and accept because they have no other choice.

The US government already runs TWO hospital systems. The VA is not bad, though certainly not perfect. Most its current problems stem from the government not adequately increasing its funding in light of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The other? The Indian Health Service hospital systems have quietly chugged along for decades.

If we had a free clinic in every county in the US, we could then mix and match otherwise.

We might have universal insurance coverage at private hospitals paid by either the government, private insurers or a mix. Many countries with national health care use a two-tier system like that. Government insurance covers all basic medical and surgical needs. You buy private care for elective and experimental surgery and other things.

And thus, per a Vox piece, throwing aside the code phrase of "Medicare for all," I would be OK with a single-payer system with copays and deductibles IF we got the free clinics along with it. Beating for-profit medicine over the head will help make things less expensive than Vox frets.

==

Update 2, 2017: Tomlinson links to another Chronicle business-section staffer who reports how, here in Texas at least, ER doctors are deliberately ripping off patients with insurance shenanigans and how their hosting hospitals are basically ignoring it. And, yes, Tomlinson himself notes that that's basically what hospitals are doing.

(That also brings to mind a fault with Texas' medical system in general, of how doctors technically aren't employed by the hospitals at which they work. And, I think most other states have similar arrangements.)

Beyond that, insurers do have some fault.

The system as a whole has the biggest fault, though, and doctors, who would benefit more from a universal-payer system, even if not an NHS, still aren't fighting enough for change.

==

Update 3, May 31, 2019: Arguably, per a longform by Ed Yong on what the next possible plague could do, an NHS would leave us better prepared to fight said plague.

==

Update 4, June 27, 2019: And, we're now almost at 2020, and while more Democrats say they favor some version of Medicare for All, NONE of them favors making doctors and hospitals take a haircut. And, if you don't, the government goes broke on health care costs, not individuals, but somebody still does go broke. We're not addressing the capitalist camel inside the tent. Kick all of it out, including the nose.

 ==

Update, Aug. 12, 2023: Pseudo-socialist Jacobin and PNHP reps talk about a National Health System, but without once mentioning the phrase "fee for service medicine." Nice head fake and I told them that.

Greg AtLast tackles Grizzly Steppe, Golden Showers and Putin's Pisser

Now that Greg's laid that out, the neoliberal conspiracy theories riding on the tails of the national security establishment that's been spying on you and me under Dear Leader for the last eight years, let's see what he's talking about.

First, here's the reality about Golden Showers. As Greg notes, even Hillbot David Corn wouldn't print actual content from it, it's that bad. Add in Christopher Steele's highly ostentatious "going into hiding," and hints of other things far less substantial than Alan Simpson's "over the transom" stuff during the the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Second, here's the reality about Grizzly Steppe. It's a mix of a puerile fixation on Russia Today mixed with random thoughts about malware that may have been created by somebody inside Russia or not, who may, or may not, even if inside Russia, be connected to the Russian government, who, even if connected to the Russian government, may or may not be connected to Vladimir Putin. Got it? It's pretty thin toilet paper indeed — fitting as the prelude to "Golden Showers."

Third, here's the reality of our having baited Russia for 25-plus years and counting, ever since we told Boris Yeltsin in 1990 that we would NOT expand NATO eastward. Not just the Hillbots, but top Berniecrat surrogates like Nina Turner, are on board with this nonsense. (Note: Take last 10 percent of that piece, stuff related to the original, actual Cold War, with a grain of salt. NOT with two or more grains, but yes, with one grain.)

Fourth, the neoliberal politicians that the Josh Marshall and Talking Points Memo alums fellate? They don't care about you.

Here's Dear Leader's presidential legacy. Does it look like he cares about you?

Here's the reality of Sen. MBNA's 30 years of whoring himself out to credit card companies before Dear Leader put a medal around his neck. Does it look like he cares about you?

Cory Booker has long been a sellout to Big Pharma, as a pale shadow of Obama, as he showed again a week ago — along with 13 other neolib Dems. Does it look like he, or they, care about you?

Even a civil rights icon like John Lewis shows he has no problem being a machine politics hack in peddling the #IBlamePutin bullshit. Maybe he cared about you at one time, but does he really today?

And, at least one Russian national says the ball hasn't been moved forward since June. And, that's just the time when Steele started peddling his toilet paper.

Maybe Trump will tie both parties, and #neoliberals, into knots on #freetrade (updated)

Most people have heard about the keeping of 1,000 850 Carrier jobs in the US, with the flip side of approximately $7 million in incentives for Carrier's parent company, United Technologies. (It should be noted that the deal doesn't save as many jobs in the US as Trump first claimed, but, does require Carrier to make new investments in the Indiana plant.)

Setting aside issues of the military-industrial complex, it seems the biggest mouth-foamers on this one (Kevin Drum was the first I saw) are majority neoliberals, follow by people who, whether neoliberal or not, would be identified as Democratic Party apparatchiks above all.

Well, Trumpy ain't done yet.

First, he's targeted another company, Rexnord, that has announced plans to move jobs to Mexico. This one, like Carrier, is headquartered in Indiana, which makes one wonder how much power to cut deals like the Carrier one Trump will have after Jan. 20, 2017, when Mike Pence becomes vice president and stops being governor of Indiana. No matter. That bridge will be crossed then.

Second, and in clear disagreement with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Trump has openly espoused a "buy American" requirement for iron and steel in water infrastructure projects. Yes, per the story, he's arguably hypocritical, as his skyscrapers have used imported steel.

So what? If he wins this battle, it will send out shock waves. First, by the number of Congressional Democrats that are already supporting him, Trump may force those Party apparatchiks to do what they don't want to do on their own — accept non-free trader, non-hardcore neolibertarians into party leadership, and apropos the just finished presidential primaries, to accept them as candidates, as well.

As the likes of Matt Stoller have already said on Twitter, Trump may well actually deliver more on jobs protection than Obama promised.

And, on cost savings from federal contractors, too.

It remains to be seen how it pans out, but, The Donald bashing Boeing over estimated costs for a new Air Force One is refreshing. (And, contra Politico, on paper at least, more robust than Presidents Obama or Clinton on the Democratic side.)

And, even St. Bernard of Sanders is wrong on this one, and I presume acting as Democratic (because he really is a Democrat) apparatchik first, labor backer second.

As Stoller has also noted, as have others, in the case of Carrier, presidential administrations both Democrat and Republican have given trade preferences to defense-related industries. And (although I disagree with them) states and municipalities have long had economic incentive grants. Bet you did as Burlington mayor, Bernie.

Survey says?

Per this piece, Mayor Bernie supported a bond issue that helped benefit a high-end development. When it didn't get a two-thirds majority, he used an eminent-domain lawsuit in conjunction with the state. Per The Nation (which mentions part of the Lake Champlain development but "overlooks" the suit) Bernie provided seed money for start-up businesses. The Nation also says he "helped" other businesses, not just start-ups, but again, no details, except in one case where it says he "provided capital." This was all part of the Community and Economic Development Office that Sanders created as mayor.

Yes, Bernie did help nonprofits, help get affordable housing, and more, but! He gave already established businesses money — possibly after hints they'd move elsewhere or something.

And we haven't even mentioned Senator Sanders voting to increase federal handouts to Big Ag dairy farmers, and Rep. and Sen. Sanders lusting after F-35s.

Of course, when other people are having buyer's regret over voting for a man whose Treasury Secretary-designee foreclosed on their houses during the Great Recession (setting aside that the woman in question induced her own moral hazard by buying the property in the SoCal bubble market for rental income), things will be very fluid politically for some time. That itself is generally good.

And, even there, blame Obama's Treasury Secretary, Tim Geither, and Obama himself, for setting up an alleged "bailout" plan for homebuyers that was really a way to launder more money to banksters. Trump is replacing an incrementalist and knocked off another; again, the fluidity is generally good, IMO.

And, Trump might upend the GOP as well. Paul Ryan's Wisconsin district has a fair amount of blue-collar workers. If he opposes Trump on issues like this repeatedly, I would in no way be surprised if Trump tried to get Ryan "primaried" in 2018.

It's time to stop ENABLING the Democratic Party

I've thought this since before the 2004 election, the first time I voted Green for President.*

That said, a new opinion piece totally agrees with where I'm coming from, hence the all-caps header.

Like Sarah Gray, I"ve had "oh, the SCOTUS" thrust in front of me for more than a decade. It's to the point that I anticipate Clintonistas doing it in advance, and then love when they get upset and protest that they weren't going there, then do go there.

And, Gray is also right that there's a whole country outside the Beltway, and anger on the left as well as tea party type anger on the right.

My one caveat on her piece is using the phrase "the left" anywhere in conjunction with today's institutional Democratic Party. I call myself a "left-liberal" rather than a "liberal" precisely because "liberal" (and more and more, "progressive,") have become vapid. The "left" prefix is a qualifier to make clear I don't associate with today's Democrats, who are most certainly NOT "the left."

The "enabling" is exactly true. Per the addiction-and-recovery world, it's like "enabling" a drunken Democratic Party to keep chasing that magic Overton Window. And, I've seen it entwined with a drunken embrace of neoliberalism, especially its new tech-neoliberalism version.

Speaking of ...

Besides being "in the Beltway," the other problem is that the Democratic Party, as an institution, has sold out to neoliberalism. Yes, the word may be a bit overused or misused at times.

But, it's very real, and there's a very good definition of what it means:

I am working under the assumption that “neoliberalism” is a useful umbrella term to describe the interconnected and (generally) explicitly articulated ideas, principles, political views and ideological commitments that have ended up running the table in higher education and much else besides. 

 Without getting too far into the devilish details of my project or plunging right away into the twists and turns of my argument/analysis — that’s what the book is for, after all — I will simply say that “neoliberalism” as an abstract term describes a school of thought privileging the “free market” not as a neutral mechanism for the efficient allocation of resources within a very broad (but still, in the end, limited) sphere, but rather as a positive moral force for determining social values in every sphere of human life.

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

Here's a follow-up thought from Burnett:

But there is nothing conservative about radical free-market ideology.  What has been conserved by the near-total (I say near-total if I’m being hopeful) subjection of higher education to the liquidating logic of the market?  This is precisely why I wish to avoid using such oxymoronic terms as “free-market conservatism” to describe the regnant philosophy of political economy that is currently setting the agenda for higher education.

Indeed. Capitalism is a corrosive acid. It's certainly not religiously conservative, despite Tea Partiers, Success Gospelers and others trying to make it so. 

Robert Reich claims that Sandernistas will continue their revolt against the Democratic establishment until they take it down, if he doesn't get the nomination. Well, maybe. If they do, unless I, Brains and others successfully pitch Plan B, their revolt will remain inside the Democratic Party. Second, unless their revolt goes beyond Sanders' own stances on foreign policy issues, it will be a fairly pale revolt overall.

And, Bob, short of the butler with the candlestick in the conservatory, you've got a LONG way to go when your own party chair, Dancing with the Schultz, is now trying to gut payday lenders' regulations within the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau that Sen. Elizabeth Warren fought to create. More on that issue, including that she's not the only Dem who thinks this is a good idea, from Consumerist.

In general, I trump the "oh, the SCOTUS" or similar with "lesser of two evils can still be evil," or "neoliberalism," or 'Overton Window."

Beyond THAT, if Hillary Clinton allegedly needs my help (if she's the nominee) to beat Donald Trump (if he takes the GOP crown) then she needs a lot more help than I have to offer.

* = (I voted nobody in 2000, seeing already then that Ralph Nader had a bigger ego than either Al Gore or George W. Bush. And, for the likes of Jeff St. Clair and other diehard Naderites who claim a 2004 Green Party conspiracy against him, sorry, but it's true.)