Steve's Politics Blog

NPR has the article Einstein’s Universe Turns 100. I do not know how to better convey the gravity of the situation other than to quote the starting words of the article.

One hundred years ago, a 36-year-old Albert Einstein presented the complete formulation of the General Theory of Relativity to the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Across the world, events and conferences will be celebrating what is considered, without hyperbole, the most beautiful of physical theories, marrying mathematics with physical concepts in deeply meaningful and elegant ways. Some consider it the highest intellectual achievement in history.

You can probably get a grasp on the theory if you don’t think about it too deeply. Once I start thinking about what the typical illustration of the theory really shows you, that’s when I lose my understanding, somewhat.

I really have to wonder at this illustration I chose at random from a Google search. I don’t think that ridge at the rim of the canyon belongs there. Terry Steiner, can you explain this to me?

The US edition of The Guardian has the story Hillary Clinton: an empire of progressives strikes back.

Leftwingers hold back their endorsements for Hillary Clinton until she presents a clearer campaign ‘vision’ as the only Democrat in the running so far
.
.
.
“I was not particularly impressed with it,” said Zephyr Teachout, a New York Democrat who ran for governor in 2014, warning on Twitter it was “surprisingly free of content, lacking autobiography, policy [and] vision”.

Teachout said she had not given up on the chance of more progressive candidates entering the race – or of Clinton taking a more populist approach on issues such as free trade and banking reform, on which Democratic leadership has tended to be more economically liberal in the past.
.
.
.
De Blasio, who ran Clinton’s 2000 campaign, echoed the view that such pressure may help shape a bolder Clinton agenda, even without the formal entry of more radical opponents like Warren.

“Clearly what’s happening in the progressive [wing] of the Democratic party is a demand for our candidates to come forward with a vision,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “That’s creating some of the same positive pressure you see in the primary process.”

I am proud to be a part of the effort to put positive pressure on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  You wimpy progressives who immediately fell in line without making any demands can thank me later for making sure our values get represented by the Democratic nominee.

I just got an email from End Citizens United.

This weekend, more than 5O,OOO people signed our petition urging Hillary Clinton to focus on ending Citizens United in her presidential campaign.

Today in Iowa, she made it official. Hillary announced her support for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United!

Sign your name to thank Hillary Clinton for fighting to end Citizens United:

When she does something right, we should encourage her.

I have just received an email from the town with the final results of the town election yesterday.

I have uploaded the PDF version of the results for you to read.

With only 5% of the electorate voting, and some positions having no official candidates, it is amazing what you can accomplish with a write-in campaign that was organized after the last moment.  After the last moment seemed to me to be  what it was, when I got word of it on Sunday afternoon before the Monday election.  Some of you reading this blog must have helped.

Well it was actually on Facebook, not here that I mentioned the election and the write-in.

As Hillary Clinton starts talking more and more progressive, we will be faced with the quandary of trying to figure out if she really means it, or is just saying it to get our vote.  One way to get a handle on this is to follow the money.

You can access all the candidates’ financial filings with the Federal Election Commission.  I just checked and there is no committee yet on file for Hillary Clinton’s current run for the President.  Since these reports are filed quarterly, we may not see anything until June.

I have experience analyzing this data from the 2008 campaign for President.  I think I will give it a try this year.  Recent Supreme Court rulings seem to make it easier to hide the data, so this analysis might not be as informative as it was in 2008.

You probably don’t even have to know much or any database query language to do the analysis.  However, if it is needed, I have enough experience to get along pretty well.  I also have enough disk space on my computers that this will never be a stumbling block for me.

If you are feeling left out because you don’t have a button to counter your friends’ Hillary Clinton buttons, then here is a little something you can print out and paste on a  button.

This top image is actually large, but I had the browser scale it down to fit on the page.

This bottom button is shown actual size.

Feel free to print out these images to apply to your own buttons.

The Washington Post has the story Clinton calls out CEOs for making too much money.

For Clinton, executive compensation is a safe target. You can find plenty of economists with no interest in soaking the rich who agree that our system for negotiating CEO salaries is inefficient and wasteful. The question is to what degree talking about executive compensation will mollify Clinton’s critics on the left.

At least it is a start in the right direction. She still has a lot of catching up to do. Will we see her evolve to the positions that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have established over decades of their careers?  Or will we see a video of her telling the wealthy CEOs why they don’t really have to worry about her rhetoric?

When I discuss my dislike of the idea of Hillary Clinton as  our next President, some people who have my same distaste say to me something like, “If she is the Democratic candidate in the election, of course you will vote for her because of her power to appoint Supreme Court Justices.”

I keep forgetting the answer that Michael Kinnucan posted on Facebook. Since I live in Massachusetts, it is unlikely that if I don’t vote for Hillary Clinton that it will make much difference on the outcome of the election.  If she can’t win Massachusetts without my vote, then she and Martha Coakley ought to get together and commiserate.  (Democrat Martha Coakley actually got my vote both times she ran for statewide office and lost.  One of those times gave us Senator Scott Brown, and the other time gave us Governor Charlie Baker.)

So, as a Massachusetts resident, I am free to vote my conscience.  If I had to cast my vote tomorrow, my conscience tells me to vote for Bernie Sanders.

Democracy Now has the video Debate: Hillary Clinton Sounds Populist Tone, But Are Progressives Ready to Back Her in 2016?

Former secretary of state, senator and first lady Hillary Clinton has formally entered the 2016 race for the White House in a second bid to become the first woman U.S. president. We host a roundtable discussion with four guests: Joe Conason, editor-in-chief of The National Memo, co-editor of The Investigative Fund, and author of “The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton”; Michelle Goldberg, senior contributing writer at The Nation; longtime journalist Robert Scheer, editor of TruthDig.com and author of many books; and Kshama Sawant, a Socialist city councilmember in Seattle and member of Socialist Alternative, a nationwide organization of so

The part of the show with the debate starts at 12 minutes and 6 seonds (12:06) into the video

I have only had a chance to watch the first third of the discussion so far, essentially the opening remarks, but I think this is going to be an interesting discussion. I don’t know if Hillary’s candidacy will survive the “debate”.

New Economic Perspectives has the article Capitalism’s Defender Unknowingly Indicts the Banksters by William K. Blank.  If you need a refresher course in what I mean when I talk about bank fraud by the CEOs of major banks, this article might do.  I know you need a refresher course, because you are not paying any attention to my claim of the crookedness of Hillary Clinton.  These are her BFFs in the financial world, and she would rather you pay no attention to their criminal acts.  Since they are funding her campaign for the Presidency, she isn’t about to promise you that she will call for prosecution of their ongoing fraudulent behavior when she gets into office.

I know, she talks like a Democrat so you like to pretend that her craven acceptance of bribery isn’t as bad as the craven acceptance of bribery among the Republicans.  She throws you a few bones about issues like LGBT rights, women’s right, equal pay, environmental concerns, the Supreme Court as a way to keep you pacified.  If you buy that line, then you are also accepting craven bribery.

It is hard to figure out who is the greater threat to this country, the politicians who accept craven bribery or the voters who accept their own share of such bribery.  Perhaps the real moral failure of this country is the acceptance of bribery on all sides.  We can’t expect more from the politicians when the voters who elect them are just as bad.