A pox on both your parties

As I have noted previously, it has been apparent for a while that Hillary Clinton relies heavily on establishment bias in her bid for the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency in 2016.[1] She enjoys an enormous lead in “superdelegates,” that is “delegates awarded to party insiders,” who are not in any legal sense committed and could change sides, but who promote a tone of inevitability for Clinton’s long-presumed nomination, a tone which appears in mainstream reporting and thus arguably misleads about the state of the race of the Democratic Party nomination.[2]

But there now appears to be more than an attempted self-fulfilling prophesy at work here. Where before the Democratic National Committee’s thumb on the scales was barely concealed, it now seems entirely in the open. Read more

  1. [1]David Benfell, “Two thumbs on two scales,” Not Housebroken, December 19, 2015, https://disunitedstates.org/?p=8456
  2. [2]Adam Johnson, “Hillary is anything but ‘inevitable’: The political press is lying to you about her delegate lead,” Salon, February 25, 2016, http://www.salon.com/2016/02/25/hillary_is_far_from_inevitable_stop_counting_her_bogus_delegate_lead_partner/

On the firing of Melissa Click

The University of Missouri has fired Melissa Click for an incident in which she was caught on video

calling for “some muscle” to help remove a student journalist from a campus protest he was covering. The professor had been helping to enforce a boundary around an encampment, on the main quad, where students had gathered with members of the faculty and staff to protest racism at the university. Her actions made her an instant villain to people worried that free speech on campuses was being curtailed to create “safe spaces.”[1]

She had previously “resigned her courtesy appointment with the journalism school,”[2] She was reportedly “not a faculty member at the University of Missouri’s renowned School of Journalism,”[3] but now it appears she was an “assistant professor of communication” at the university,[4] which at schools I’m familiar with would normally suggest that while she had not yet been awarded tenure, she was on a “track” to be so. Read more

  1. [1]Steve Kolowich, “Melissa Click, U. of Missouri Professor Who Riled Free-Speech Advocates, Is Fired,” Chronicle of Higher Education, February 25, 2016, http://chronicle.com/article/Melissa-Click-U-of-Missouri/235499
  2. [2]Richard Pérez-Peña and Christine Hauser, “University of Missouri Professor Who Confronted Photographer Quits Journalism Post,” New York Times, November 10, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/university-of-missouri-names-law-professor-to-diversity-post.html
  3. [3]Josh Logue, “Journalists as the Enemy,” Inside Higher Ed, November 11, 2015, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/11/video-shows-mizzou-student-press-clash-protestors
  4. [4]Richard Pérez-Peña and Christine Hauser, “University of Missouri Professor Who Confronted Photographer Quits Journalism Post,” New York Times, November 10, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/university-of-missouri-names-law-professor-to-diversity-post.html

Why I do not vote

See update for February 25, 2016, at end of post


There are many reasons people give to criticize non-voting. It is said to be apathetic or lazy. It is said to be a betrayal, that if only more people voted, the country might be a better place. And perhaps most prominently, it is claimed that if you do not vote, you have no right to complain.

But all of these claims overstate the role of voting. Ultimately, they assume first that voting is effective action, which requires one to believe that one vote counts against thousands or millions. It obviously does not; it rather depends on concerted, coordinated action with those thousands or millions of others, which raises questions about whose concerted, coordinated action we will be taking. Further, because in a democratic ideology, difference is to be expected, even celebrated, any action that will be taken will be incremental, even when substantial change is desperately needed. Read more

If markets are so ideally “free,” then why do we hate advertising?

The next time you hear a news editor explain a failure to cover a story by saying some variation on “there’s nothing new here to report,” you might point them to a New York Times story yesterday (February 20, 2016) on the battle between ad-blockers and advertisers.[1] This has been going on for a while, but as far as I know, first started showing up as an issue outside technical forums in 2013.[2] The Times story adds absolutely nothing really new. The best the Times can muster to justify its story is to say that “[w]ithin the last six months or so, ad blocking has left the geek realm and gone mainstream,”[3] which is to say they really haven’t been paying attention to this at all. Read more

  1. [1]Kate Murphy, “The Ad Blocking Wars,” New York Times, February 20, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/the-ad-blocking-wars.html
  2. [2]Andrew Leonard, “The Internet’s next victim: Advertising,” Salon, September 2, 2013, http://www.salon.com/2013/09/02/the_internets_next_victim_advertising/
  3. [3]Kate Murphy, “The Ad Blocking Wars,” New York Times, February 20, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/the-ad-blocking-wars.html

Trump’s alleged Christianity and the schism between ‘nice’ and ‘mean’ Christians

“Pope Francis said ‘a person who thinks only about building walls… and not of building bridges, is not Christian,'” reported the British Broadcasting Corporation.[1] The comments, in response to a question about Donald Trump, were widely interpreted as a personal attack on Trump’s Christianity, which some evangelical Protestant leaders criticized,[2] and to which Trump initially responded harshly,[3] and which the Vatican walked back.[4] Jeff Stein, writing for Vox, parses the wording carefully and cites “religious experts” to conclude that the Pope’s remarks were not, in fact, a personal attack.[5] Read more

  1. [1]British Broadcasting Corporation, “Pope Francis questions Donald Trump’s Christianity,” February 18, 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35607597
  2. [2]Samuel Smith, “Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr., Johnnie Moore Criticize Pope Francis for Suggesting Donald Trump Not Christian,” Christian Post, February 19, 2016, http://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-jerry-falwell-jr-johnnie-moore-pope-francis-donald-trump-not-christian-jfk-wall-158171/
  3. [3]Jeff Stein, “The debate over Pope Francis’s Donald Trump comments, explained,” Vox, February 19, 2016, http://www.vox.com/2016/2/19/11073026/donald-trump-pope-francis
  4. [4]Associated Press, “Trump, Vatican tone down rhetoric over immigration comments,” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 19, 2016, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-pope-rhetoric-1.3455051
  5. [5]Jeff Stein, “The debate over Pope Francis’s Donald Trump comments, explained,” Vox, February 19, 2016, http://www.vox.com/2016/2/19/11073026/donald-trump-pope-francis

The illegitimacy of the opposing party

Update, February 23, 2016: An article in The Hill makes a point that Republican senators in “blue” states may feel pressure to at least consider a nominee to the Supreme Court this year.[1] Nonetheless, it is now evident that Republicans in the Senate have decided to accept the risks of obstruction, such as they may be.[2]

On paper, those risks are not insignificant. Democrats only need to win five (four if they also capture the presidency) seats in the Senate to gain control and an estimate from January 2015, that is, well before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death,  suggests that “historical turnout patterns in presidential years (which favor Democrats) and the division within the GOP create enough good opportunities for Democrats to win at least three and as many as six seats.”[3] More recent estimates, compiled since Scalia’s death in the Prospect, list nine “battleground” states, with Republicans currently holding seven of these seats. In addition, there are a number of pending decisions which may now end in a 4-4 tie, allowing lower court decisions, including some that conservatives oppose, to stand. Worst of all, from a Republican perspective, would be if Democrats win both the Senate and the presidency, in which case, with aging Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer leaving, Democrats might “cement a [so-called] liberal majority for at least two or three decades.”[4]

All this certainly raises the price that Republicans might pay for obstruction. However, while Scalia’s death certainly raises the stakes for both parties, I remain convinced that Democratic Party nominee-apparent Hillary Clinton is a profoundly flawed candidate who cannot win the White House,[5] which means that the Senate, regardless of which party controls it, will have to choose a Republican nominee.

The original posting, published February 18, 2016, follows:


For reasons already stated,[6] it is completely unsurprising to me that Republicans are threatening to refuse to consider any nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.[7] And I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that people on the not-so-far right are outraged that the Republican-controlled Senate may refuse to do its job (figure 1). Read more

  1. [1]Alexander Bolton, “Nightmare builds for Senate GOP,” Hill, February 23, 2016, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/270364-nightmare-builds-for-senate-gop
  2. [2]Alexander Bolton, “GOP Judiciary: No hearing on Obama court nominee,” Hill, February 23, 2016, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/270423-gop-judiciary-no-hearing-on-obama-courtinee; Alexander Bolton, “Senate GOP opens new chapter in judicial nomination wars,” Hill, February 23, 2016, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/270509-senate-gop-opens-new-chapter-in-court-wars
  3. [3]Stuart Rothenberg, “First Look: Can Democrats Win the Senate in 2016?” Congressional Quarterly Roll Call, January 27, 2015, http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/senate-2016-not-in-the-bag-for-either-party/
  4. [4]Peter Dreier, “Nine Battleground States that Could Flip the Senate — and the Supreme Court,” Prospect, February 14, 2016, http://prospect.org/article/nine-battleground-states-could-flip-senate-and-supreme-court
  5. [5]David Benfell, “Updated: Damnation by faint praise: Sanders claims to be more electable than Clinton,” Not Housebroken, January 29, 2016, https://disunitedstates.org/?p=8529
  6. [6]David Benfell, “Worse than Scalia,” Not Housebroken, February 13, 2016, https://disunitedstates.org/?p=8685
  7. [7]Stephen Collinson, “Justice Antonin Scalia’s death quickly sparks political battle,” CNN, February 13, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html; Harper Neidig, “McConnell: Don’t replace Scalia until after election,” Hill, February 13, 2016, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269389-mcconnell-dont-replace-scalia-until-after-election; Matthew Yglesias, “Ted Cruz and other conservatives are arguing Obama shouldn’t get to replace Justice Scalia,” Vox, February 13, 2016, http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987012/should-obama-replace-scalia

Worse than Scalia

Update, February 23, 2016: Please see the update to my follow-up to this post. In short, the price that Republicans may pay for obstruction may be higher than I anticipate here. Whatever that price, it is now apparent that they have decided to risk paying it.[1]


Reacting to news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death,[2] a Facebook friend wrote,

Excuse me while I celebrate. If you have an difficulty understanding why, read this BBC article. For my entire lifetime, this repulsive toad of a man, the sniveling minion of Nixon and Reagan, lorded his psychotic theology of hate over this country. Over my uterus, over my ability to choose to marry a man or a woman of my choosing. Over people of color, over my working poor brothers and sisters. His nomination was Reagan’s response to the uprising of LGBT activism during the early years of the AIDS epidemic. The exit of vile, spiteful human beings from the planet is something that should make the whole country one big jubilant party today. That is all.[3]

Read more

  1. [1]Alexander Bolton, “GOP Judiciary: No hearing on Obama court nominee,” Hill, February 23, 2016, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/270423-gop-judiciary-no-hearing-on-obama-courtinee; Alexander Bolton, “Senate GOP opens new chapter in judicial nomination wars,” Hill, February 23, 2016, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/270509-senate-gop-opens-new-chapter-in-court-wars
  2. [2]British Broadcasting Corporation, “Antonin Scalia, conservative US Supreme Court justice, dies,” February 13, 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35571868
  3. [3]Celeste Gurevich, [Facebook post], February 13, 2016, https://www.facebook.com/CelesteDesmaraisGurevich/posts/10208371052733845

The real reason why Bernie Sanders’ ‘utopianism’ is a problem

In the primary contest between “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders who “sought to establish himself as the true liberal in the race, casting his opponents’ ideas as incremental change”[1] and the pragmatic establishment Hillary Clinton who claims she’s “a progressive who likes to get things done,”[2] there’s little doubt whose rhetoric I prefer. Read more

  1. [1]Colleen McCain Nelson, Laura Meckler, and Peter Nicholas, “Hillary Clinton Confronts Critics at First Democratic Debate,” Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-confronts-critics-at-first-democratic-debate-1444791926
  2. [2]Hillary Clinton, quoted in Colleen McCain Nelson, Laura Meckler, and Peter Nicholas, “Hillary Clinton Confronts Critics at First Democratic Debate,” Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-confronts-critics-at-first-democratic-debate-1444791926