Asses Clutching Pearls

The Democratic Party bigwigs won't be satisfied until Bernie Sanders packs up his whips and heads straight out to Vegas to give a personal spanking to all his rude supporters. Although only one upended chair (as far we can tell from watching the video*)  landed on absolutely nobody, harming absolutely nobody, the whole class must be punished. A sternly worded message must be sent in order to bewilder the herd.

 Bernie is also supposed to don his Sherlock Holmes deerstalker and put a trace on a bunch of threatening phone calls and emails to the state's party chairwoman. Apparently, the Vegas police are too busy pulling over drunk gamblers to bother with run-of-the-mill harassment cases. Funny that party leaders haven't demanded any such investigation by law enforcement.

And after Sanders is done whipping the whippersnappers and tracking down the trolls and stalkers (who might even be paid Trump or Clinton black ops provocateurs for all we know) he is then supposed to give A Major Speech to condemn himself and his campaign. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was shocked and appalled when Sanders suggested that it was his supporters who are the victims of a rigged system, that it is the Democratic bigwigs themselves who were the provocateurs when they refused to give his delegates a seat and a voice. Reid expects Sanders to disown all who dared loudly complain about the dirty tricks at the weekend party convention.

Obviously taken aback by what he perceived to be non-collegiality on the part of Sanders, Reid sputtered on the teevee with all the incoherence he could muster: "Bernie should say something and not have some silly statement. Bernie is better than that. He should say something about this and not have some statement someone else prepared for him. Bernie needs to say something and not what he said, but something he would say. I expected words to come out of his mouth as if they were his. Um, not read them and uh, prepared. Prepared by someone else. Bernie really should have said something."

(Bernie apparently is not up to par on that whole Homeland Security directive to rat out your fellow citizens whenever you see them driving wearing a hijab or typing on an iPad with a long dark beard in an airport. If he saw film of chair-throwing by those always-suspicious working class white dudes, he should likewise say something.)

To be fair to Reid, though, the intra-party cluelessness on display is actually deeply ingrained and endemic. Maryland Democratic Chairman Bruce Poole, for example, groused: "I think Bernie has got to watch it, because at some point he's got to be accountable and if he allows this to go from debate and democracy to mayhem, there will be backlash."

Poole seems to think that Bernie set the debate schedule, and that democracy is something more than a public relations concept. He forecasts "backlash," but doesn't specify its source. If he were honest, he would admit that any mayhem that broke out in Nevada was instigated by the party machinery itself. The backlash is already here, Bruce.

DNC chair and Clinton supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not accepting Bernie Sanders's statement calling for nonviolence, because he had the unmitigated gall to also address the psychic violence of the party machinery itself. “With all due respect, when there is a ‘but’ in between condemnation of violence generally, and after the word ‘but’ you go on to seemingly justify the reason that the violence and intimidation has occurred, then that falls short of making sure that going forward this kind of conduct doesn’t occur in the future,” she said.

But-Haters of the World, Unite!

I haven't heard one politician, other than Sanders, point to the root causes of the popular outrage that has fueled both his campaign and that of Donald Trump. Nevada was hit especially hard by the housing crash, with foreclosure and eviction rates among the highest in the nation. Even though the unemployment rate has decreased in the state over the past few years, wages are still low and jobs are still precarious.  The psychological effects of man-made recession can last a lifetime. And at one point, the unemployment rate among Nevada youth shot up to above 20 percent, very similar to the statistics of the Great Depression. And both parties have reacted by imposing austerity and by cutting New Deal and Great Society social programs such as Job Corps and food stamps and direct cash aid to the poor and unemployed.

The Nevada Democratic leadership should count itself blessed that Saturday's meeting was actually as restrained as it was. They act as if it was an armed attack, with guns a-blazing. A couple of shoved chairs and an outbreak of yelling and screaming at officials is nothing compared to the corporacracy-sanctioned harshness that some of the youthful participants in the political process have endured in their own lives.

Bernie Sanders is perfectly right and just in putting their interests above those of the tone-deaf, self-interested Democratic machine. If his original function was to be a sheepdog, he seems to have abandoned it and instead donned his pit bull duds. Spiked collar and no muzzle. I hope it lasts!

***

Paul Krugman of the New York Times was even more inchoate than Harry Reid when he began one of his shocked, shocked I tell you blog-posts yesterday with: "Ugh. More primaries today. Do they matter?" (Does this guy write just like Thurston Howell III talks, or what? I keep picturing the monocle fogging over with disgust before it slides completely off so as to save him from reading any more of his imaginary Berniebro Tweets.)

Krugman seems to think that the main problem of millions of suffering people is not social and economic injustice, but rather a math disability coupled with a failure to perceive reality. And with a few carefully chosen words, he actually proceeds to dehumanize them.  "If news reports say that he 'won'  tonight, they’ll persist in their illusions — and the narrative that Clinton is somehow stealing the nomination will continue to fester." (Like suppurating sores, Lovey. Ugh!)

I admit that I took the toxic click-bait, and bit down hard:

Icky poo, for sure. Democracy keeps rearing its ugly head, persists in delaying the inevitable coronation. The great unwashed masses are just too stupid to gobble up the yummy reality that the elite consensus-builders keep patiently serving up. What is wrong with these Sanders supporters anyway?

I assume that at least some of them are hoping for an indictment or a scandal based on some actual reality and evidence, as opposed to the vast right-wing conspiracy. But I think what a lot of them have trouble wrapping their heads around is the reality that political parties are not inherently democratic. They are actually closed, private corporations with rules that ensure their own survival and nothing else. They exist for the sole purpose of perpetuating themselves, raising money from wealthy investors, and maintaining their power. They'll invite you in on occasion for public relations purposes, but if you don't behave yourselves, they'll either disinvite you or kick you out. And Paul Krugman will even add his own very special "Ugh" to give the slobovians an extra inkling of just what the establishment expects of them.

 Sanders told his supporters last week that he should not be considered any kind of hero. He will endorse Hillary Clinton after all the voters have had a democratic chance to cast their votes. My hope is that this endorsement will be as tepid as decently possible and that he will then go on to inspire, perhaps even lead, an extra-party movement from the ground up.

The elites are afraid, because their main electoral platform of NotTrump, presented by one of the weakest and most loathed candidates in modern history may, in fact, end up with the election of Donald Trump. I'm even beginning to suspect  that these miscreants would rather have a President Trump than a President Sanders, despite all their hectoring that Bernie supporters are the depraved anarchists in the mix.

***

Sanders, meanwhile, essentially tied Clinton in Kentucky and beat her handily in Oregon.

 Here's his entire statement on the Nevada controversy:

“It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics. The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors.

“The Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change – people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy.

“Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
“If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned. I am happy to say that has been the case at state conventions in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii where good discussions were held and democratic decisions were reached. Unfortunately, that was not the case at the Nevada convention. At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:

• The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
• The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
• The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.
  The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.

“These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.”

*Update: Please see comments for more links to film of the Nevada "chaos." It seems that the footage I embedded in Monday's post was from only one strategic angle, making it appear as though somebody had deliberately tossed a chair. Other angles tell a whole different story.

Nothing New Under the Corporate Media Sun

Even though Bernie Sanders now has little to no chance of getting the Democratic nomination, the media are not letting up on him. The fact that he is still campaigning and still railing against the malefactors of great wealth has the malefactors screaming for him to stop, just stop already and be quiet or go away and leave them alone unless it's to help "unify" their private, closed Party.

The latest incident that has them clutching their pearls in elite hysteria was his appearance last week on The Rachel Maddow Show, where he had the effrontery to criticize the corporate-owned media.

Though he speaks truth to power about the shallow, sporting-event, identity politics-driven nature of the coverage, his solution -- for a Democratic Party-financed TV network to counter Fox News propaganda -- had me scratching my head. I sadly suspect that his particular "revolution" is now devolving into a public relations battle between the two big business parties. Why not go whole hog and call for a resurgence of an independent socialist press that is not beholden to advertisers at all? He could have plugged Jacobin, Counterpunch or any of the several genuinely leftist outlets. 

I suppose I quibble. But personally, I wouldn't want Debbie Wasserman Schultz's lunch-hooks anywhere near a new progressive version of Fox.

 MSNBC, for years the unofficial house organ of the DNC and the Obama administration, only recently pivoted to general election coverage. Comcast is not stupid. The "overlords," as Maddow calls them, know a good Donald Trump deal when they see it. There is more advertising value in airing an empty Trump podium or an empty Trump suit for minutes or hours at a time than there is in discussing "issues" or covering a Bernie Sanders rally. 

Since Bernie is still out there, New York Times pundit Paul Krugman continues to falsely equate reactionary Trump supporters with "Bernie Bros," who allegedly are sending harassing Tweets to both himself and the Two Nates (Cohn and Silver) -- the duo who so successfully predicted a near-zero chance for a Trump nomination.

Krugman just can't seem to quit his angry white Bernie straw-dudes, even though the Left actually does include women, older people, and black and brown citizens to boot. The scary socialist trolls are as big on "empirical denial" of "center-left" facts as conservatives!

Although it’s a bit worse when some of those supporters are actual campaign surrogates. Of course, campaigns can’t be held responsible for everything their supporters say, all, we can ask whether Sanders himself is inclined to dismiss inconvenient facts. Well, as you know, I think the answer is yes, on issues ranging from economic projections to the sources of Clinton primary victories.

 I was therefore primed to notice when Sanders declared that Democrats need their own version of Fox News. What does he mean, exactly? Should the proposed network engage in similar factual distortions and outright falsehoods, except this time in the service of progressive goals?

 By the way, it wouldn’t work. Fox caters to an audience of angry old white men; the angry young white guys who would want a left-wing version of this message are fewer in number, have less purchasing power, and anyway don’t get their news from TV. But that’s a side point.

I broke down and wrote a response, because it seems that despite my avowed boycott, I just can't quit the habit of occasionally calling out the Conscience of a Neoliberal:

 Krugman is right. Some on the left, whom he persists in denigrating as "Bernie Bros", are indeed in empirical denial. They have trouble accepting the fact that wealth rules the world, and that the corporate-owned media do not represent the public interest.. They believe in a utopia of debt-free public education, health care for all, a decent job at a decent wage, a secure retirement, a more or less permanent roof over their heads. How silly of the desperate ones to want change today or tomorrow instead of 50 years from now, if even then. How anti-pragmatic of them not to get with the program, and join in the team effort of lambasting Trump and cheerleading Clinton to the finish line.

Why won't they listen to Krugman and former DNC Chairman Ed Rendell, who has already warned them not to make a fuss at the convention of party bigwigs?

What this is really about is a resurgence of socialist ideas, with or without Bernie Sanders. Back in the waning days of the last Gilded Age, vested wealthy interests were terrified of an anti-capitalist muckraker named Upton Sinclair. Getting the Bernie treatment in the NYT and elsewhere is nothing new. Sinclair even went so far as to measure the column inches devoted to plutocrats as opposed to humanitarians to prove his point.

Read "The Brass Check," his exposé of corporate journalism, and you will see that nothing much has changed, except that the media are much more consolidated.

The "facts" still have a well-known money bias.

My comment was inspired by Chapter XXII of Sinclair's book, which begins:

The thesis of this book is that our newspapers do not represent public interests but private interests; they do not represent humanity but property; they value a man, not because he is great, or good, or wise, or useful, but because he is wealthy, or of service to vested wealth. And suppose that you wished to make a test of this thesis, a test of the most rigid scientific - what would you do? You would put up two men, one representing property, the other representing humanity. You would endeavor rigidly to exclude all other factors; you would find one man who represented property to the exclusion of humanity, and you would find another man who represented humanity to the exclusion of property. You would put these two men before the public, having them do the same thing, so far as humanly possible, and then you would keep a record of the newspaper results.

Sinclair, never famous for personal modesty, compared his humanitarian self ("besides Jack London, the most widely known of living American writers throughout the world") to Vincent Astor, whose only claims to fame were first that he was born; second, that he lived on an estate; third, that he married money, and fourth, that he inherited $65 million -- at the time, beating the all-time record for inherited wealth. Sinclair continued,

And now for the action of the two men. It appears that the New York Times, a great organ of world capitalism, in its effort to camouflage its true functions, had resorted to the ancient device of charity, used by the Christian Church ever since it sold out to the Emperor Constantine. Early in December of each year, the Times publishes a list which it calls "One Hundred Neediest Cases" and collects money for these hundred families in distress. The Times never goes into the question of the social system which produces these harrowing cases, nor does it allow anyone else to go into this question; what it does is to present the hundred victims of the system with enough money to preserve them until the following December, so that they may never again enter into competition for mention in the list, and have their miseries exploited by the Times.

That should help answer Bernie's question. Plutocrats don't want you to know about their game, because what they don't want you know could hurt them, very badly. Sinclair self-published his book in 1919, ten years before the oligarchic greed he decried crashed the entire economy. Later, it was the activist pressure of the socialist movement that actually ushered in FDR's New Deal. If they'd had the likes of Hillary Clinton, Paul Krugman and their neoliberal free-market ilk around to lecture the proles and propagandize for the wealthy, who knows? We might never have gotten a national jobs program, publicly funded infrastructure, and Social Security.

The Times still does its annual charity drive as it serially glorifies the extremely wealthy all the year round. Just check out the real estate section on any given day, to see what kind of digs $10 million will buy you. 

 Were it not for real estate magnate Donald Trump's billions, do you really think he could have gleaned all his free front-page publicity from the Times and other outlets? You don't need a scientific study to prove that Trump has gotten more coverage than the Pope, Bernie Sanders and millions of actual poor people combined -- or anyone who can't afford the price of a subscription, let alone the price of a display ad.

Upton Sinclair finished his New York Times take-down with the following humorous anecdote. When he wrote an open letter to Vincent Astor in 1914, asking him to justify his lavish lifestyle when millions of his fellow citizens were starving, only one of the many city papers in circulation at that time published it. That was the New York Call, a small socialist paper. The Gray Lady turned up her nose at such a thing. An attack on capitalism? No way!

Then Astor got wind of the letter, and he answered it. Or, as Sinclair theorized, a shrewd family lawyer or a secretary probably answered it. Astor's reply was offered to every major newspaper, and every major newspaper published it. Most of them, including the Times, splashed it on their front page, with Astor's picture. They wrote glowing accompanying editorials about the magnanimous indignation of the young multimillionaire who deigned to defend himself against those nasty socialist attacks. Astor complained that Sinclair's ideas were "fallacious and impracticable," and that help for the needy would come over time, without the need for radical change. Besides, he sniffed, he'd spoken to experts, and was informed by experts that "the condition of laboring people has greatly improved over the last several generations."

Sound familiar? Upton Sinclair was a Bernie Bro.

And less than two decades later, the whole economic system came crashing down because of oligarchic greed and the media's enablement of it.

I have a feeling we won't have to wait 20 years for the next big "event." For one thing, the earth itself, drowning and burning and melting as it is, just never learned how to get with the incremental, pragmatic program. 

Mother Earth is an impatient Bernie Bro. Pass it on. 

Krugman Backlash

It's when even the Clinton-leaning Huffington Post publishes a listicle called The Internet's 10 Best Responses to Paul Krugman's Hit Piece: 'Sanders Over the Edge,'  that you realize just how badly and deservedly the Times columnist's professional reputation has been damaged.

In case you've forgotten that nasty column published on Friday -- described by some critics as "Peak Krugman" -- the Nobel Bank Prize winner went on a demented tear, calling both Bernie and his supporters petulant, angry, purist, cultish, insubstantial, and vague. He also displayed a shocking ignorance of how banks work, which is probably why that group of Swedish bankers gave him a million or so bucks in the first place: to keep the ignorance flowing.

Naturally, the responses elicited by the column were just what the Clintonistas wanted: total outrage. I believe that this technique is called "gaslighting." See? Krugman and the other surrogates told you that Bernie Bros are off-the-wall paranoid! Tsk, tsk, tsk. You know, they never actually said Bernie is unqualified to be president: they just planted that headline so that he'd counterattack, just like they wanted him to. Of course they don't want him to drop out while they're busy blaming him for every shooting death in America! Now, let's everybody calm down and be civil about it.

Topping the HuffPo list is this withering critique:

And when you're done watching, be sure to check out #5.

The Times Is the Pits (and the Pendulum)

Edgar Allan Poe, who blended fact and fiction in his dual careers as journalist and horror writer, would have had a field day working at the New York Times.

  For what other reason than fear-mongering would the Times conduct a premature Bernie Sanders burial service right on its most coveted plot? (top left corner of its homepage)

In what macabre liberal pundit Paul Krugman gleefully calls a "premortem," the newspaper has grimly collated several Bernie eulogies from Canned Obituary Central.

However, to avoid any appearance of hackery or complicity, the news ghouls were very careful to use the smarmy passive voice in the headline: "Early Missteps Seen As Drag on Bernie Sanders's Campaign."

The morning after he lost the Nevada caucuses in February, Bernie Sanders held a painful conference call with his top advisers.

Mr. Sanders expressed deep frustration that he had not built a stronger political operation in the state, and then turned to the worrisome situation at hand.

His strategy for capturing the Democratic presidential nomination was based on sweeping all three early-voting states, and he had fallen short, winning only New Hampshire — to the consternation of his wife, Jane.

Actually, he did build a good operation. And he has ended up winning Nevada after all, a factoid which the Times conveniently doesn't see fit to print. The truth might take all the fun of out its exercise in S & M. It might take the fun out the premature burial festivities. It might even relieve the pain from the editorial torture.

So, although Sanders is gaining ground and "campaigning more effectively," he is still the Walking Dead as far as the media establishment is concerned. The subliminal message in the Times article is this: "Don't even bother to come out for the primaries, Wisconsinites and  New Yorkers and Californians. It's over before it's even over."

But to be fair, The Times does have a point when it chides Bernie for not attacking Hillary in the very first debate, when he so gallantly claimed that Americans are "sick and tired of your damned e-mails!" He had been polite to a fault, always careful to criticize the corrupt system rather than the corrupt Clinton machine. And, I suspect they're right when they posit that at the outset, Bernie's main goal had been to spread the social democratic message without seriously expecting to win contests and raise more money than any other presidential candidate in history.

And Cornel West, his surrogate from the Black Left, is right that Sanders should have engaged sooner with Southern black voters.

But the Times is revealing itself as a passive-aggressive propagandist, criticizing Sanders from two separate directions. He's not nearly mean enough. He's way too mean. Reading his political obit reminds me of the Pushmi-Pullyu character from Doctor Doolittle. His critics, their toxic centrism so deeply ingrained, seem to want to have it both ways.

Doctor Krugman the Undertaker, meanwhile, is forging ahead with his own obsessive-compulsive smear campaign against both Bernie and his progressive supporters. He, too, thinks we don't know our brains from our asses. So he pulls and he pushes and achieves diddlysquat for his efforts. 

 As I see it, the Sanders phenomenon always depended on leaving the personal attacks implicit. Sanders supporters have, to a much greater extent than generally acknowledged, been motivated by the perception that Clinton is dishonest, which comes — whether they know it or not — not from her actual behavior but from decades of right-wing smears; but Sanders himself got to play the issue-oriented purist, in effect taking a free ride on other peoples’ character defamation. There was plenty of nastiness from Sanders supporters, but the candidate himself seemed to stay above the fray.

Facts are such troublesome things. It is so much easier to bury someone than to  damn him with even the faintest of praise. Krugman actually sounds like a Grand Inquisitor here, purporting to know the inner workings of the minds of vast numbers of people. Whether we know it or not, our asses-for-brains have been taken over by the Republicans. We are no longer capable of reading books and even thinking for ourselves.

He is sounding more and more like his fake nemesis, David Brooks, all the time. He even indulges in a little liberal colorblind racism with this verbal belch:

But it wasn’t enough, largely because of nonwhite voters. Why have these voters been so pro-Clinton? One reason I haven’t seen laid out, but which I suspect is important, is that  they are more sensitized than most whites to how the disinformation machine works, to how fake scandals get promoted and become part of what “everyone knows.” Not least, they’ve seen the torrent of lies directed at our first African-American president, and have a sense that not everything you hear should be believed.

And now the hidden thoughts of Sanders are coming out in the open, endangering the chances of the Empress of Waiting even when Bernie himself hasn't the faintest chance of survival. Does it get any meaner, more gruesomely political than that?

My published response to Krugman:

I suspect that black and brown people ("non-whites") have a lot more on their plates than honing their sensitivity about the fabled Clinton Disinformation Machine.

Black Agenda Report has run several pieces about the lack of enthusiasm of Blacks for Bernie Sanders. Its leftist writers posit that black voters from the South were settling for Clinton out of sheer terror of what the GOP would do to them. At least Hillary wouldn't go so far as to overturn the Civil Rights Act. She doesn't hold rallies like Trump's, which actually resemble racial cleansing sites more than political rallies. She's a relatively safe bet.

That said, black (or as Krugman euphemizes them, "non-white") voters are not some sort of monolithic block. Northern black voters are supporting Bernie in higher numbers. And that includes Northern black politicians. James Sanders (!) of New York is primarying Hillary supporter Greg Meeks for his seat in Congress, and both Sanderses are giving each other support. So much for Bernie allegedly not caring about down-ticket races.

 Vile as the vast, right wing conspiracy is, the Clintons have always paradoxically thrived on it. It helps to tamp down and delegitimate fact-based criticism of them from the left. That Krugman is now accusing Clinton's progressive critics of enabling the Republicans is the oldest trick in their political grimoire. It's as anti-democratic as the super-delegate system.

The coronation of Hillary is as premature as Bernie's funeral.

 ***

So, contra Krugman and the Times, who is to say where exactly the boundary lies between political life and political death? As Poe wrote in the fictional version of  "The Premature Burial,"

 To be buried while alive is, beyond question, the most terrific of these extremes which has ever fallen to the lot of mere mortality. That it has frequently, very frequently, so fallen will scarcely be denied by those who think. The boundaries which divide Life from Death are at best shadowy and vague. Who shall say where the one ends, and where the other begins? We know that there are diseases in which occur total cessations of all the apparent functions of vitality, and yet in which these cessations are merely suspensions, properly so called. They are only temporary pauses in the incomprehensible mechanism. A certain period elapses, and some unseen mysterious principle again sets in motion the magic pinions and the wizard wheels. The silver cord was not for ever loosed, nor the golden bowl irreparably broken. But where, meantime, was the soul?

The coverage of the endless presidential horse race of death by the Times and other corporate media outlets does indeed seem incomprehensible to us mere mortals.

And then Wisconsin happens. (tomorrow) And that unseen mysterious principle known as the Living Electorate sets in motion those magic pinions, those wizard wheels which have so befuddled the pundits this season.

Unlike most of Poe's fiction,"The Premature Burial"  actually does have a happy ending.

The narrator, used to being declared dead due to a condition called catalepsy, (or in modern times, burial deep within the pages of the Paper of Record) lives in constant fear of being interred alive. And then one night, his fears come true. He has been entombed despite taking what he had thought were all the necessary precautions.(telling the truth to anyone who would listen.)

And then he wakes up. He dreamed he was moribund because he was actually aboard a ship, sleeping in a very cramped space quite similar to a coffin.

My soul acquired tone—acquired temper. I went abroad. I took vigorous exercise. I breathed the free air of Heaven. I thought upon other subjects than Death. I discarded my medical books. "Buchan" I burned. I read no "Night Thoughts"—no fustian about churchyards—no bugaboo tales—such as this. In short, I became a new man, and lived a man's life. From that memorable night, I dismissed forever my charnel apprehensions, and with them vanished the cataleptic disorder, of which, perhaps, they had been less the consequence than the cause.

Hopefully, Bernie and his supporters have already given up reading bugaboo Weird Tales of the Times, so full of the charnel apprehensions of Paul Krugman and the whole banal coven of hack writers.

And hopefully, any new "tone" that Bernie acquires will not be of the politically correct variety being urged upon him by Clinton surrogates, whose own campaign talking points seem to be suffering a cataleptic disorder of their very own. And temper? Bernie has never lacked it. You don't bellow about how sick and tired of the corruption you are without possessing a very healthy temper.

Sighin' Over Ryan

(Graphic by Kat Garcia)

House Speaker Paul Ryan is back in the news. The photogenic Ayn Rand poster boy for plutocratic supremacy is being dragged out by the centrist chattering class as the last great, white hope to defeat the great white dope named Donald Trump --  who is, by the way, a pure genius in the way he manipulates the media for billions of dollars' worth of free air time.... not to mention the pure genius of manipulating the media who provide such prominent coverage of the media manipulation.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is champing at the bit to finally dispose of her true threat, Bernie Sanders, the better to sink her teeth into Trump in the general election. Barack Obama, long portrayed in the media mythology textbooks as "the only adult in the room," is now reportedly working on a whole book of new hilarious Donald Trump jokes. He not only aims to put the fun back into fighting fascism, he aims to keep pretending that fascism (corporatism) hasn't been an integral part of the American political process ever since our nation was born out of slavery and mass extermination.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, apparently feeling confident enough in a Hillary coronation to cease and desist from his serial rabid Bernie-bashing, is regressing back to his own true area of expertise: bashing the Republican Party in general, and Paul Ryan in particular. Like just about everybody in the liberal class, Krugman whines that the GOP, in all its "invincible ignorance," is disowning its own responsibility for the rise of Donald Trump:

Like just about everyone in the Republican establishment, Mr. Ryan is in denial about the roots of Trumpism, about the extent to which the party deliberately cultivated anger and racial backlash, only to lose control of the monster it created. But what I found especially striking were his comments on tax policy. I know, boring — but indulge me here. There’s a larger moral.

You might think that Republican thought leaders would be engaged in some soul-searching about their party’s obsession with cutting taxes on the wealthy. Why do candidates who inveigh against the evils of budget deficits and federal debt feel obliged to propose huge high-end tax cuts — much bigger than those of George W. Bush -- that would eliminate trillions in revenue?

As is his wont, Krugman glosses right over Democratic complicity (Third Way free-market Clintonism) in the rise of Trump. My published response:

 Since the official embrace of ignorance has been a mainstay of right-wingery for more than 200 years, the GOP is simply following a grand old tradition. Their beef with Trump is that he wears his ignorance on his sleeve.

Lyin' Ryan and his cohort, meanwhile, couldn't survive without the complicity of the other big business party. Just last week*, President Obama praised him for being a good husband, father and a patriot. He doesn't often agree with him, of course, but he has no reason to doubt Ryan's sincere concern for "folks."

Obama (and the entire Establishment, it seems) are, however, chiding the young agitators who are disrupting Trump's fascist rallies. What really scares them is bottom-up democracy, citizens who aren't just consumers, and the inclusive message of Bernie Sanders.

 They would prefer to work with nice family men like Ryan to quietly "trim" or "reform" social programs, while pouring trillions of dollars into permanent war and the surveillance state. Every extra crumb for the needy is offset by a reward for the rich. The slow destruction of the safety net and the funneling of all the wealth to the top 1% must be conducted calmly and efficiently.

Their Exceptional America is for the exceptional top 1%. They, who are so devoted to family: their own. They are true patriots, whose love for the corporate state trumps everything: particularly the "folks" they claim to represent.

Hear the duopoly roar: politely, seriously, invincibly.

*Obama's complete "both sides do it"  remarks at a St. Patrick's Day luncheon can be found here. The salient excerpts, in which he fawned over Ryan and scolded political protesters for being rude to The Donald, implicitly including the Black Lives Matter activists, are here:

And so I know that I’m not the only one in this room who may be more than a little dismayed about what’s happening on the campaign trail lately.  We have heard vulgar and divisive rhetoric aimed at women and minorities -- at Americans who don’t look like “us,” or pray like “us,” or vote like we do.  We’ve seen misguided attempts to shut down that speech, however offensive it may be.  We live in a country where free speech is one of the most important rights that we hold.

(Except when militarized police forces get together and use batons and pepper spray to squelch free speech at Occupy camps and at anti-war and anti-corporate "free trade"  protests. It is "misguided" for protesters to shut down roads that lead to a demagogue whose whole raison d'etre is to incite riots.)

In response to those attempts, we’ve seen actual violence, and we’ve heard silence from too many of our leaders.  Speaker Ryan, I appreciated the words on this topic that you shared with us this morning.  But too often we’ve accepted this as somehow the new normal.

(No word about the physical courage of people who are willing to get beaten up for their protests against racism and xenophobia. Aren't their protests also free speech? Probably what Obama really fears is the whole corrupt duopoly collapsing in upon itself, and of course, protests at Hillary Clinton's rallies. Better be quiet little consumer-citizens and wait for the Adult President to tell Trump jokes to lighten things up a bit.)

And it’s worth asking ourselves what each of us may have done to contribute to this kind of vicious atmosphere in our politics.  I suspect that all of us can recall some intemperate words that we regret.  Certainly, I can.  And while some may be more to blame than others for the current climate, all of us are responsible for reversing it.  For it is a cycle that is not an accurate reflection of America.  And it has to stop.  And I say that not because it’s a matter of “political correctness,” it’s about the way that corrosive behavior can undermine our democracy, and our society, and even our economy.... 

(This is from the guy who until quite recently openly embraced Grand Bargain austerity and the Sequester, is still covering up portions of the CIA torture report, still shielding war criminals, shielding Wall Street criminals, waging wars both openly and secretly, killing thousands of civilians in drone strikes, and orchestrating coups in Honduras, Ukraine and other democratic countries. Violence is, and always has been, an accurate reflection of America. And yet Obama is singling out protesters at Trump's political rallies and glossing over the de facto social policy violence of Paul Ryan.) 

And this is also about the American brand.  Who are we?  How are we perceived around the world?  There’s a reason that America has always attracted the greatest talent from every corner of the globe.  There’s a reason that “Made in America” means something. It’s because we’re creative, and dynamic, and diverse, and inclusive, and open.  Why would we want to see that brand tarnished?  The world pays attention to what we say and what we do....

(America is pure propaganda, an advertising brand, a low-wage talent magnet, a maudlin appeal to patriotism in order to quell anger and dissent. Not much is actually made in America any more, thanks to NAFTA, the WTO inclusion of China into the Walton family oligarchy, and other "trade" deals. Obama seems more concerned about his reputation and legacy and public relations than about the reality that the whole world has been noticing for quite some time now.) 

So when we leave this lunch, I think we have a choice.  We can condone this race to the bottom, or accept it as the way things are and sink further.   Or we can roundly reject this kind of behavior, whether we see it in the other party, or more importantly, when we see it in our own party, and set a better example for our children and the rest of the country to follow.  It starts with us.

(And if the duopoly has anything to say about it, the horrible example they set will be kept largely confined to opulent rooms behind closed doors. After all, this administration is credited with being the most secretive in memory. If only the angry citizens would just shut up, the kids won't look around and discover that one out of every 30 of them is homeless for the sole reason that the elite political class has never seen fit to implement a humane, affordable housing policy in this country.)

Speaker Ryan, you and I don’t agree on a lot of policy.  But I know you are a great father and a great husband, and I know you want what’s best for America.  And we may fiercely disagree on policy -- and the NFC North -- (laughter) -- but I don’t have a bad word to say about you as a man.  And I would never insult my fellow Irish like that....

 That’s what carried us through other times that were far more tough and far more dangerous than the one that we're in today -– times where we were told to fear the future; times where we were told to turn inward and to turn against each other.  And each time, we overcame those fears.  Each time, we faced the future with confidence in who we are and what we stand for, and the incredible things that we’re capable of together.

The corrupt duopoly is capable of so much more. Capitalism is awesomely incredible. The only thing the elites have to fear is Bernie Sanders-style Democratic Socialism. 

The State of the Uniparty is Strong and Hearty-Har-Har-Har

Kitchen Sink #4: "Left-Leaning Economists"

Major Bernie Scandal Alert! Four Democratic economists who served at various times as economic advisers to Presidents Clinton or Obama have written a scathing open letter, accusing another economist not even affiliated with the Sanders campaign of doing math which does not add up to their unspecified specifications.

Gerald Friedman of UMass-Amherst, who recently received progressive accolades for his own scathing takedown of a Wall Street Journal hit piece falsely asserting that Sanders's single payer health care plan would bankrupt the middle class, now finds himself the target of attacks from the neoliberal centrist faction of the Democratic Party. And Bernie Sanders himself has been declared guilty by association.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, in one of a whole series of recent breathless posts damning progressive "unicorns," and other perceived enemies of the Neoliberal Order, is demanding that Sanders immediately disown Friedman -- with whom he has no direct association at all. "Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now," Krugman shrilled. "If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president."

 As I responded in my published comment, this kind of fear-mongering McCarthyesque attack is reminiscent of the media hysteria over the Obama-Jeremiah Wright controversy during the 2008 campaign. As you may recall, Obama dutifully "disowned" Wright after the pastor preached what were deemed by the Establishment to be un-American sermons.

The source of the latest angst is a newer analysis by Friedman, leaked to CNN, which purportedly claims that Medicare for All would boost economic growth by more than five percent. 

The false equivalency engine immediately went into overdrive. The Four Wonks of the Neoliberal Apocalypse took up their pens of outrage, even going so far as to set up their own WordPress blog which they call "letters to sanders." So I guess we can expect more scathe in the future. Here is their first entry, in its entirety:

  Letter from Past CEA Chairs to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman -- Posted on February 17, 2016 by lettertosanders 

Dear Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman,

We are former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers for Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. For many years, we have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy. When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims. We have applied the same rigor to proposals by Democrats, and worked to ensure that forecasts of the effects of proposed economic policies, from investment in infrastructure, to education and training, to health care reforms, are grounded in economic evidence.  Largely as a result of efforts like these, the Democratic party has rightfully earned a reputation for responsibly estimating the effects of economic policies.

We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.

As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.

Sincerely,

Alan Krueger, Princeton University

Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 2011-2013

Austan Goolsbee, University of Chicago Booth School

Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 2010-2011

Christina Romer, University of California at Berkeley

Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 2009-2010

Laura D’Andrea Tyson, University of California at Berkeley Haas School of Business Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 1993-1995

Mind you, this letter was written immediately after renowned economist Thomas Piketty published an op-ed in praise of Bernie Sanders and his tax-the-rich, New Deal agenda. It follows a grand total of 170 economists who last month wrote their own letter endorsing Sanders's and Elizabeth Warren's plan to break up the big banks. (h/t Meredith.)

 The letter from the Fantastic Four dovetails ever so nicely with a New York Times editorial posing as a news story by Jackie Calmes, whose unabashed slant-fest was obliterated very ably by Doug Henwood, writing for FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.)

Henwood notes that most Bernie-bashing from professional Left-Leaners uses the same formula. Show some initial surface sympathy for his agenda (I always loved Single Payer!) before immediately pivoting to concern-trolling its "impracticality" in the Current Climate, and then finally building up to a crescendo of outright derision and mockery and straw man attacks. The mockery, as practiced by Krugman's Puppies, Rainbows and Unicorn-Hating Coalition, has now achieved true art form, iconic status. Henwood also reminds us that concern-trolling economist Goolsbee is the same duplicitous political operative who once assured the Canadians that Obama didn't "really" plan to overturn NAFTA. Goolsbee, since leaving the Obama administration and writing nasty Open Letters, also advises hedge funds in his spare time.

I wrote two separate responses to both of Krugman's authority-appealing posts on the Four Worried Wonks:

The four worried wonks worked for two centrist administrations. They falsely equate fraudulent GOP trickle-down with righteous FDR-style trickle-up/opening of the floodgates.  Krugman tellingly does not define "winners and losers." Could it be that under a President Sanders, the losers would be the plutocrats and the winners ordinary people now struggling just to survive?

The Four Wonks of the Apocalypse work for a party which has not served the interests of the plebes since the Clintons surged to power on the second wave of Reaganism. This neoliberal "Third Way" is loosely defined as free market conservatism loosely papered over with "social responsibility." 

 The select Democratic Wonk Committee on Bernie-Bashing Paranoia is about the fortunes of the Party, not the fortunes of the people. Why else would the DNC try to limit its primary debates? They were worried that the "conversation" would extend beyond the acceptable arguments between centrists and right-wingers. As Simone Weil wrote, political parties have one main goal: their own continued existence and hold on power. Once they gain power, they tend to forget the basic social contract.

Many of us are simply disgusted with this spate of fear-mongering and concern-trolling. We're all too aware that recent columns by Brooks, Blow, Friedman and Krugman all sound the same. And no, they're not corrupt or looking for jobs. They're simply banal.

The only logical response to these elite "concerns" is a big, fat group Meh.

A big, fat Meh.

And my follow-up to his Worried Wonkopalypse follow-up post, demanding that Bernie disown Friedman, himself, and us..... because if he doesn't fall into line, we'll get ourselves a President Trump:

OK, now I get it. Gerald Friedman is to Bernie Sanders what Rev Jeremiah Wright was to Barack Obama. The concern trolls are demanding A Major Disowning Speech. They want reassurances from Bernie that the teeming masses are not really coming after the sensitive elites with their pitchforks. They want Lloyd Blankfein to get over his crippling pathological fear that millions of bank-evicted unemployed people are lurking just beyond his heavily guarded compound(s.) And all Blankfein ever said was that struggling people shouldn't count on getting Medicare and Social Security while he rakes in a cool billion!

I'm not a wonk myself, so I have no way of knowing whether Friedman's math adds up. But this is just a distraction. Nobody is asking Hillary Clinton how her own math adds up. Campaigns are by their nature aspirational rather than mathematical. Politicians do want people to show up to vote, or so I would assume.

 Bernie Sanders is being held up to an impossible standard.

I stand by my comment in the previous thread. This is all about the Wall Street wing of the Democratic establishment wanting to hold onto power. Lesser Evilism is way past its sell-by date. The days when pundits and plutocrats could manufacture the consent of the masses through fear and smears are gone, baby, gone.

Friedman doesn't work for Sanders. Nor does Sanders refer to the Four Worried Wonks as right-wingers. Nor is he treating them with any disrespect (though god knows they mightily deserve it.)

Update: The Unicorn-Hating Collective is now a news story unto itself. Legions of aggrieved Wonks are joining Krugman (and of course Hillary Clinton herself) in playing the victim card. The Bernie Bashers are getting bashed all over the place by mere plebes. They're getting called out on their insufferable wonkitude, and their feelings are apparently hurt. I mean, the fact that we live in the only country on earth without basic health care for all its citizens is simply a matter of charts and math that the wonks work so tirelessly to invent. The New York Times, as ever, is On It: 

But there may be something broader going on here beyond the specific disagreements about growth assumptions, or cost savings from a single-payer health system, or how to regulate the financial system.

Behind closed doors, among the left-of-center policy types who populate the congressional offices, executive agencies and think tanks of Washington, I’ve seen enough eye rolls when Mr. Sanders’s name comes up to suspect something more tribal is going on.

The wonkosphere vs. Bernie clash is not just a story of center-left versus left-left. It is also a clash between those who have been in the trenches of trying to make public policy for the last seven years versus those who can exist in a kind of theoretical world of imagining what public policy ought to be.

Don't you lowly people realize that Wonks work all night on your behalf? Do you really think that politicians only have to answer to their constituents? Bernie Sanders will never, ever be able to make nice with the Wonk Collective, which realistically admits that lobbyists and bankers are people, too!

The article conveniently forgets to mention that Bernie once suggested Paul Krugman, wonk extraordinaire, to lead the Treasury Department. Methinks those wascally wonks doth protest way too much.

Trouble On Hemlock Hill

The rich are different from you and me. Their money has done a number on their basic cognitive functions.

You and I went to bed last night thinking that Bernie Sanders had clocked Hillary Clinton but good in their latest corporate-sponsored party debate.

You and I got up this morning and were stunned to learn in the New York Times that Hillary Clinton had "won" the debate simply by wrapping herself in the mantle of her erstwhile nemesis, Barack Obama, and obliquely accusing Senator Sanders of causing the Charleston Massacre by virtue of his vote for an arcane loophole in the tepid gun laws of our blood-soaked violent nation. The Times did not note that Charleston was the venue of the debate, and that she is forecast to win in South Carolina by pandering to the Black vote.

Still, the establishment elites are panicking. They thought that their money and scheduling would control this election. They forgot to repeal our voting rights. Their inverted totalitarianism -- the system in which oligarchs rule through social oppression, propaganda from a consolidated media, and the most extreme wealth inequality the world has ever known -- has been subverted by the masses of people and turned right upside the head.

To paraphrase Mehitabel the Cat, there's life in the old democratic girl yet. The plebeian chiggers are burrowing under the sensitive skin of the plutocrats. The proletarian fleas are nipping at the ankles of the elites.

Paul Krugman, economics pundit of the Gray Lady, has abandoned all pretense at intellectual honesty as well as the last vestige of his alleged liberal conscience by openly embracing the lies of Chelsea Clinton -- lies which claim that Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, immediately stripping millions of their medical coverage, and  throwing the election to the Republicans in the process.

Chelsea has been the deserving target of such cliches as "a chip off the old block" and the "apple doesn't fall from the tree." But a more apt metaphor might be that she, Krugman and the whole panoply of elites from the Council on Foreign Relations and other plutocrat-funded think tanks are the little white umbelliform flowers of the poison Hemlock. They cling to the parent plant like dessicated parasites before finally drifting downwards, burrowing into the wasteland, creating their own dense fetid clumps, and crowding out all the potentially nutritious herbage in the process.

The grazing creatures that actually survive ingesting Hemlock become both immune and addicted to it, and keep coming back for more, despite the awful taste and the stench. 

 Krugman's job is to create docile herds of carefully inbred cattle who become mildly intoxicated, but personally unharmed, by the poison of neoliberalism. The herds prefer vitamin-rich fodder, of course, but they can be taught to make do on noxious weeds. 

Once a proponent of single payer, Krugman now shamelessly claims that true universal health insurance in the United States would be just as "kludgey" as the 2,000-plus page Affordable Care Act; he apparently hasn't read the 13 pages that constitute the Canadian medical care system. He obviously has never had to choose between paying the rent and filling a prescription. He is a blatant shill preaching the free market gospel from high atop his perch on Hemlock Hill.

My published response to his dreck:

Hillary Clinton will most likely grab this influential column to further curb the enthusiasm of voters with their pipe dreams of nobody ever going bankrupt just because they get sick. She, and the corporate media, and high finance and predatory insurance (paying her hundreds of millions in speaking fees and "donations"), will do their utmost to kill the hopes of the millions of Americans hanging on by a thread, who despite the ACA, must still choose between medicine and food.

After all, as Gilens and Page have established, the rich get what they want. And what they want is to get richer and more powerful at the expense of everyone else.

Krugman blandly observes that in the current pathocracy, single payer would be a tough sell. After all, the GOP's idea of helping people is not only the repeal of Obamacare. It's the postmodern eugenics project now underway in Flint, Michigan, and in other blighted places throughout this greatest, most exceptional, most unequal country on earth.

The first step is to get the big money out. Bernie himself says this won't happen without a people's revolution. We need to pick up where Occupy left off -- before it was squashed by the same neoliberal state that informs us that universal health care is impossible. Just because they say so.

But guess what? All the cold water in the world, thrown by "experts" on the "Bern" of a resurgent bottom-up democracy, will not put out the flames.

It's Martin Luther King Day. And we still have a dream.

Nobody will ever accuse Paul Krugman of being a champion of economic and social justice, that's for sure. But this latest column was a new low, even for him.

Even the centrist Washington Post sounds progressive today, compared to Krugman and the Times. Most pundits are declaring Sanders the winner, albeit "narrowly."

The usually mainstream Chris Cillizza, for example, raved: "More than anything he said, though, it was the passion and disruption that Sanders oozed from every pore over the two hours that should push Democrats on the fence about the race into his camp. Sanders effectively positioned himself as the anti-status-quo candidate, a very good position to have in this electoral environment."

Contrast this to the anal-retentive New York Times piece by Hillary Clinton publicists Amy Chozick and Patrick Healy: "Clinton Seizes on Policy Shifts by Sanders" is the slanted headline, which immediately sets the stage for Bernie's role as a "shifty" guy vanquished by Hillary of Arc. 

Among the derogatory phraseology used to describe Sanders: "anti-political", "appearing frustrated at times" by Hemlock Hill's tactics, and prone to testy "eye-rolling and sighing". His fans were termed "restless" --  which in Times-speak can only be defined as being a tad unhinged.

The Times went through the motions of "fact-checking" the debate, seemingly surprised to learn that Sanders' figure of 29 million uninsured Americans is, in fact, true. But, but, but.... Obamacare is supposed to be universal health care! Say it ain't so, Bernie!

One toxic whopper by Hemlock Hill about the reign of Belladonna Bill that should have been fact-checked, and wasn't, was this cubic zirconium she palmed off as the Hope Diamond:

 .. I’m going to have the very best advisers that I can possibly have, and when it comes to the economy and what was accomplished under my husband’s leadership and the ’90s — especially when it came to raising incomes for everybody and lifting more people out of poverty than at any time in recent history — you bet.

I’m going to ask for his ideas, I’m going ask for his advice, and I’m going use him as a goodwill emissary to go around the country to find the best ideas we’ve got, because I do believe, as he said, everything that’s wrong with America has been solved somewhere in America.

We just have to do more of it, and we have to reach out, especially into poor communities and communities of color, to give more people their own chance to get ahead.

Through their repeal of FDR's Aid to Families With Dependent Children, Hill and  Bill did more to condemn women (mainly women of color) to lives of grinding poverty than any Republican administration or congress could ever have done on their own. That this reality was not immediately apparent during the booming 90s of the bubble economy and reckless financial deregulation was pure serendipitous timing. Not until the Bush years would it be revealed that the Clinton years of "prosperity" were based on inflated stock prices, manipulation and outright fraud. When the Clintons left the White House, the gap between rich and poor was already greater than it was when they began their co-presidency in 1992.

During the Clinton reign, as pointed out by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, the incomes of the wealthiest 1% increased by nearly 100%, while that of the bottom 99% increased by only 20%. The repeal of Glass-Steagall (described as "modernization") sent the Clintons' banker buddies on a rampage, fueling a bubble as they gambled with customer deposits and used some of the ill-gotten, untaxed surplus to reward Hillary and Bill's family foundation and campaign coffers as well as those of their neoliberal political cohort.

Money begat power begat more money begat more power in an endless closed corrupt feedback loop. And Hillary and Bill are avid to "do more of it." They've been ever on the lookout for the growing number of American and global waste spaces on which to infest neoliberal umbelliform life-forms.

Until along came master weeder Bernie Sanders, riding on the coattails of the never-moribund Occupy movement.

The elites are tearing out their hair even as the populist gardeners are tearing out whole clumps of invasive political hemlock by the deep, grasping, corrupt roots.