Recently I heard a similar line of reasoning from women about two actual or potential woman candidates.  I heard one woman say that she really did not want Martha Coakley to run for Governor because Coakley is such a marvelous Attorney General and should keep dong that job.  I have also heard arguments that Elizabeth Warren should not run for President in 2016 because she can do more good as a Senator.

I am not disputing what actual glass ceilings there are that are imposed by outside forces.  However, I am just wondering out loud if some women are holding back other women from the full measure of their potential.  I won’t speculate on why that may be.  I don’t want to follow in Larry Summers’ footsteps by proposing reasons that I do not even agree with myself.

Of course it is not only women who do this.  In my career as an  engineer, I had often heard it said that if you make yourself too indispensable in your current job, that will stand in your way of being promoted.  Though notice the different tone of this “advice”.  The advice is on how to get promoted, not how to keep yourself trapped in a role that is beneath your potential.  (There is nothing wrong with keeping the role that you are in if that is what you want.)

Time magazine has a second article on the same topic Hillary Clinton’s Unapologetically Hawkish Record Faces 2016 Test.

Whatever the truth of that surge anecdote—Clinton’s camp won’t comment on it—the larger truth is impossible to deny. Clinton has demonstrated a well-documented willingness to use American military power overseas. Gates’ book is just the latest evidence, along with previous reporting and original interviews with current and former Obama officials, of the strikingly hawkish voice Clinton offered during Obama Situation Room debates.

When I wrote the previous blog post Hillary Clinton Discussed U.S. Approval of an Israeli Strike On Iran, I had not followed their link to the current article.

This article is more devastating than that previous post.  I have looked askance at Time Magazine reporting for many years, but how can I ignore these pieces which seem to confirm what I have long suspected about Hillary Clinton.

Given her close ties to the Wall Street advisers and participants that brought on the recent economic collapse and continuing hardships, when you add on this ugly face of her foreign policy, it is hard to believe that this country would benefit from her election as President in 2016.

Time Magazine has the article Hillary Clinton Discussed U.S. Approval of an Israeli Strike On Iran.

Around the same time, senior officials met to discuss ways the U.S. might dissuade Israeli Prime Minister from taking unilateral action. In one such meeting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised a bracing question, according to two former Obama administration officials: Was it possible that, instead of trying to restrain Israel, the U.S. should instead provide what one of those official described as “a tacit green light to the Israelis to take care of the problem for us”? In other words, instead of begging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give diplomacy more time, perhaps it was worth telling him to go proceed with airstrikes.

Clinton did not actually endorse the idea. She only raised the notion “as one option to consider,” according to one former official, who adds that it gained no traction inside the administration. Clinton’s current press secretary, Nick Merrill, did not respond to requests for comment this week on this matter.

While the very idea of a U.S.-approved Israeli strike on Iran is dramatic, Clinton’s thought experiment was actually responsible act of bureaucratic deliberation, says Kenneth Pollack, a former White House national security aide under Bill Clinton and author of a recent book on Iran

Some people commenting on the article seem to be thinking that this piece boosts Hillary’s image.  To me, it just seems to confirm what I have suspected of Hillary all along.  Obama’s foreign policy is much more warlike than I would have expected from his campaign.  I always wondered if he was driving it in this direction or Hillary was.

When are we going to see articles about how much more successful our diplomacy seems to have gotten since John Kerry took over?

I wouldn’t so much say that the Iranians reacted poorly to the initial Obama administration offerings.  i would think they were really reacting to the sucker punches we delivered at the same time we were delivering messages of friendship.

Our Republicans and some Democrats are trying to deliver the usual sucker punch now while we seem to be succeeding with Iran.  Iran is reacting with great forbearance to continue diplomacy despite such moves by us.

The Daily Kos has the story Rachel Maddow Destroys Any Credibility Chris Christie Might Think He Still Has.  It has the video below and what looks like a transcript.

Maddow seems to have Christie dead to rights in a number of cases where he pretty clearly did not tell the truth. I hope nobody on Christie’s staff has a blue dress that has not been taken to the cleaners and she has it hiding in her closet.

I received this email from Elizabeth Warren. (7:00PM – She has now posted this on her blog.)

Steven,

Millions of families are hanging on by their fingernails to their place in the middle class – and the United States Senate just voted to let them fall.

I’m ashamed that the Senate didn’t extend unemployment benefits yesterday. I’m sickened that my colleagues went home last night knowing that they just cut off a little help for millions of people who have worked hard and who can’t find a job.

And I’m appalled that so many Senators cannot admit the simple reality: we are still in the middle of a jobs crisis. People have been looking for work for months or even years. Many are starting to give up entirely. Young people are beginning to think that there isn’t a future out there for them. Long-term unemployment isn’t just about money; it’s also about losing hope.

These people – our friends, our families, our neighbors – they weren’t the ones who broke our economy. So many people worked hard, played by the rules, and did everything we told them to – and now struggle to find work. They need our help.

We help because we care about people, but we also help because it is good for the economy. The numbers show money put into unemployment goes right back into the economy to help stimulate more demand and more business activity. According to a new Congressional report, in just one week after unemployment benefits expired, our state economies lost $400 million. Extending unemployment makes good business sense.

There’s so much we should be doing to strengthen our economy and rebuild our middle class, and yesterday we took a step backwards. Washington needs to get back to work solving problems – not making them worse – so families can get back to work.

I really don’t get why the Republicans would stand in the way on this issue. I don’t get it, but I’m taking stock – and like many of my colleagues who voted to help people yesterday, I’m not giving up.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

All content © 2013 Elizabeth for MA, All Rights Reserved PO Box 290568 Boston, MA 02129

Paid for by Elizabeth for MA

Rolling Stone has the article Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For.

4. Make Everything Owned by Everybody

Hoarders blow. Take, for instance, the infamous one percent, whose ownership of the capital stock of this country leads to such horrific inequality. “Capital stock” refers to two things here: the buildings and equipment that workers use to produce goods and services, and the stocks and bonds that represent ownership over the former. The top 10 percent’s ownership of the means of production is represented by the fact that they control 80 percent of all financial assets.

This detachment means that there’s a way easier way to collectivize wealth ownership than having to stage uprisings that seize the actual airplanes and warehouses and whatnot: Just buy up their stocks and bonds. When the government does that, it’s called a sovereign wealth fund. Think of it like a big investment fund that buys up assets from the private sector and pays dividends to all permanent U.S. residents in the form of a universal basic income. Alaska actually already has a fund like this in place. If it’s good enough for Levi Johnston, it’s good enough for you.

This is exactly what I am suggesting for the Social Security Trust Fund. I didn’t want to mention this aspect of what would happen if the fund invested this way for fear that the 1% might wake up to this fact. Now that Rolling Stone has let the cat out of the bag, I guess there is not point in hiding this anymore.

It was the Daily Kos article When are we going to invade communist Alaska? that led me to the Rolling Stone article.

National Report has the story Colorado Pot Shop Accepting Food Stamps – Taxpayer Funded Marijuana for Welfare Recipients.

In all, 136 licenses have been approved by the state of Colorado for retail operations for the purposes of selling marijuana.  A majority of those licenses were issued to businesses in Denver with just eighteen city stores completing the process in time for opening day. One of those shops, Rite Greens, located on E. Colfax Ave in Denver, has taken the steps needed to accept food stamps (now called EBT cards) for the purposes of purchasing marijuana effectively leading to taxpayer funded marijuana for welfare recipients.

I did find this disclaimer on the National Report web site.

*DISCLAIMER: The National Report is an online portal for “citizen journalists”. The views expressed by writers on this site are theirs alone and are not reflective of the fine journalistic and editorial integrity of National Report. Advice given is NOT to be construed as professional. If you are in need of professional help, please consult a professional. National Report is not intended for children under the age of 18.

Maybe I should also mention that I was led to this story by the Daily Kos article Fake news story apparently prompts real legislation in Colorado.

You might also want to check this out on the Snopes article Brownie Points.

Yes, it’s funny. Just remember that we are “forced” to make sarcastic jokes about the rich in order to right some injustices. However, in the back of my mind I do worry about being too successful at demonizing managers and CEOs.

Some of the productivity of workers comes from the introduction of labor saving capital investments – computers, automation, and machines in general. Some of these productivity enhancers were introduced by management to lower the cost of labor. If the remaining workers were given all the proceeds of this “cost reduction”, then there would be no net cost reduction. Some of the incentive to make the company more efficient would be taken away. Notice that I used the adjective “some”, not the adjectives “all” or “much”. This is not a binary decision to grant the workers all of the benefits or none of the benefits.

Also, while it seems to be true that some executives are being paid exorbitant salaries and perks, we should not forget that good executives do good work for the corporation. The corporation would not do very well without good people in all positions within the company including among the executive ranks.

Ok, now that I have gotten that out of my system, I can feel free to go back to my regular schedule of excessive demonizing of the ranks of the rich.

Naked Capitalism has the article Your Humble Blogger Speaks on RT: “Banks Are Still Getting Away With a Lot”.

I had fun on this interview, although there was one point where the host, Erin Ade, hit me with a remarkably broad question: what was the worst pre-crisis bank abuse? I neglected to include chain of title, the pretty much pervasive failure to transfer the mortgage rights as stipulated in securitization agreements to the trusts used to hold them. That actually was the most stunning thing I came across as more and more information came out after the the dust had settled. But it didn’t play directly into the meltdown, so I neglected to include it.

Warning: Know where your mute button on your computer is. There is introductory music and a break in the middle that can stand to be muted.

The interviewer, Erin Ade, seemed fairly knowledgeable during the interview with Yves Smith.

However, after the interview there was a segment of the program where she and produce Ed Harrison discussed a couple of viewer questions. This segment was so unintentionally silly, that I had trouble picking my jaw up from the floor. The first question did actually raise an issue with Modern Monetary Theory that concerns me a little. The answers by Erin and Ed were not worth listening to except to prove what a good actress Erin is. I actually thought she knew something for a while during the show.

The Rachel Maddow Show has a Facebook post  about her article Meet Ron Johnson’s Doctor.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has based much of his hatred of the Affordable Care Act on the medical care that saved his daughter.

According to the surgeon responsible for that life-saving care, Johnson’s completely wrong

What’s the matter with Wisconsin?  Too much cold weather?