The Kode of the Kavanaugh Klique

It's too bad that the New York Times royally botched coverage of what is supposed to be a well-researched and nuanced new book about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, written by two of its own reporters. Because in choosing to highlight a previously unreported and unknown episode that had Kavanaugh's Yale frat brothers shoving his penis into a girl's hands at a drunken dorm party, the paper went the exact opposite of nuance, and veered into full tabloid territory.

Only after more than a day's worth of outraged calls for Kavanaugh's impeachment by the Times-reading public and anxious Democratic candidates did the paper finally append an online correction to the piece, acknowledging that the second woman allegedly abused by Kavanaugh at Yale University has no memory of it and refused to be interviewed for the book.

 The one alleged eyewitness serving as the authors' second-hand source is one Max Stier, who is lauded by The New Yorker's Jane Mayer, among others, for being a bipartisan Rhodes Scholar and a Washington insider with an impeccable set of credentials. Thus does the minima-culpa "explainer" piece written by Times Deputy Editorial Page editor James Dao simply double down on the specious claim that since Stier's account has been "corroborated" by others, including members of Congress, it's fit to print. In Times World, apparently, corroboration is defined as at least two important people confirming to the Times that yes, they had indeed heard that story first-hand from Stier. As such, even though Max Stier himself refuses to repeat his account to the Times, it is not grounds for the paper refusing to publish what amounts to second-hand gossip.

Dao wrote:

During the authors’ investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Stier, witnessed the event and later reported it to senators and to the F.B.I. The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said they found it credible. Based on that corroboration, we felt mentioning the claim as one part of a broader essay was warranted.

This is very much related to the Times and other corporate media outlets regularly writing evidence-free #Russiagate and war-mongering propaganda pieces based purely upon the "high confidence" of well-placed government sources who must always remain anonymous because of the sensitivities of the matter.

But the printing of gossip wasn't even the worst part of the Kavanaugh story. In promoting its "blockbuster" article on Twitter on Saturday evening, somebody* on the Times Opinion Page actually blurted out this gem:

"Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn't belong at Yale in the first place."

(Just to be clear, the alleged victim who has no recall of the previously unreported incident and refused to be interviewed for the book is not Deborah Ramirez, who is the main focus of the Times essay.)

So even before the offensive promotional Tweet and the apology for the Tweet, the feeble semi-retraction, and the pitiful disclaimer/explainer by James Dao, another problem with the essay is its implication that as a good, virginal, sheltered working class Catholic girl, Ramirez was more traumatized by Kavanaugh's behavior than a more experienced and worldly and non-religious young woman would have been. That subtext, in my view, became the whole basis for the Times's original promotional Tweet: that a non-virgin, or your typical sophisticated Ivy League gal, would have found having a penis thrust in her face to be stupid, harmless fun, and she would have taken it in her stride. 

In other words, if Brett Kavanaugh had only adhered to the Kode of the Klique and restricted his frat boy antics to jaded young women of his own high social class, then everything would have been hunky-dory. So while the essay treats Ramirez sympathetically and respectfully, and is not at all kind to Yale "culture," the promotional Tweet had a distinctly snobbish, classist, even sexist, undertone to it. It didn't quite blame the victim for feeling offended, but it came close enough. It also implicitly slut-shamed more well-off young women who "fit in" better at abusive elite institutions. The subliminal message is that their money and possessions and position protect them from all harm and hurt feelings and constitute the basis of their self-esteem. 

But that's not how Dao sees it. Rather than directly addressing the classism and sexism of the tweet, he simply puts forth the usual boilerplate excuse of how, since some sort of undisclosed rigid "process" wasn't followed, the tweet was not up to the Times's usual standards of excellence. They will be reviewing this unexpected process failure very carefully to determine how they can do better in the future. Process failures seem to be the rule rather than the exception lately, as in the Times' retraction of a recent headline that had Donald Trump vowing to fight racism, right after the El Paso gun massacre committed by a fan of Donald Trump. 

So despite the Times's obvious cherry-picking of the "scoop" of the previously unknown story of a second female Yale victim, I still get the sense that the book itself is probably well worth a read, that it is an in-depth sociological examination of what made Brett Kavanaugh who he is, and how his upbringing and class status and connections have catapulted him all the way to the Supreme Court.

The criticism by some of my fellow Times readers of my own early comment, which called for Supreme Court term limits, was based entirely upon my failure to get with the desired narrative program and immediately jump on the Kavanaugh Impeachment bandwagon. 

Here's how I responded to writers Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly:

Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's high school pal and alleged witness to the attack on Christine Blasey Ford, wrote a revealing book called "Wasted" in which he describes the insular, privileged, and alcohol-saturated world of the Georgetown preppies, their parents and even their Jesuit instructors. It's a highly conservative world, and a very misogynistic one.

 Even rich girls in the D.C. suburbs were subjected to the "pranks" perpetrated by these boys. including one group calling themselves the Inquisitors. Every weekend they'd don religious garb and trash the expensive home of a girl whose family, they'd ascertained, would be out of town. When finally caught, they were not prosecuted, but the Jesuits cooperated with the police and made the culprits do community service in a local soup kitchen. When they reneged and faked a written report on their charitable works, about a dozen of them were barred from graduation ceremonies.

Judge's parents then fondly and proudly dubbed them the Twelve Disciples.

 Kavanaugh is a permanent member of this club. The patriarchy that preys together, stays together.

His disturbing presence on our highest court should be the impetus for term limits. Without them, we could get rid of Trump tomorrow, but his horrible legacy would persist for many decades to come. The court should be staffed by revolving teams of jurists from lower courts. This will help prevent its further dangerous politicization, especially under predatory presidents like Trump.

The book "Wasted" has nothing in it about how the girls in this exalted social circle felt about being "harmlessly" pranked by having their homes destroyed. Tellingly, though,he affectionately describes the well-off victims as the Klique's "little sisters" who were such good sports they never bore them a grudge. One of the vandalized properties, Judge claims, was owned by a senator (whom he respectfully doesn't name, along with protecting the identities of everyone else in the book except himself and his parents) You get the distinct impression that the rich are very carefully taught, from earliest childhood, to keep each other's secrets. Because you never know when this unwritten Kode of Silence will come in handy, and if the drunken guys who once trashed your house (or worse) might be in a position to help you advance someday. Because their parents know your parents, and at the rarefied top of the power elite mountain, everybody is connected to everybody else. It's a small, small world.

The rich are different from you and me. It's not just that they have unlimited money. It's that friendships and ethics don't seem to matter to them as much as the life-long transactional relationships they cultivate for purely Machiavellian reasons.

*Update: Robin Pogrebin, the book's co-author, finally copped to writing the offensive tweet herself, after initially having denied doing so. As a jaded New Yorker and Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh she, personally, would have reacted differently to having a penis thrust in her face. Therefore, "people" took her tweet the wrong way.  Come to think of it, I think I'll skip her book. My experience has always been that if people can so glibly lie about one thing, they lie about other things. Plus, I am already sick of this story. 

Banality and Bile At the Democratic Debate

Like Dante's fifth circle of hell, the fifth in an endless series of Democratic Party debates was an infernal three-hour mix of anger and sullen resentment. If you made it through all three hours,  you deserve more than a medal for valor. You rate an upgrade to Purgatory. That's because ABC-Disney didn't stop at torturing you with too many candidates and not enough substantive questions. The network actually chose to air a graphic ad showing Alexandria Ocasio Cortez melting down in flames - ostensibly to get Trump's base all fired up and ready to go.

The first part of the epic featured Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders furiously arguing health care at center stage, just above the River Styx. Once the TV moderators managed to get the requisite neoliberal talking points about "how you gonna pay for that?!?" out of the way, it was on to the supporting cast, who in a true democracy would have been left sullenly gurgling just beneath the surface.

But the theme of the evening had been decreed as "The Reanimation of the Moribund Centrists" in keeping with Dante's Fifth Circle actually being the middle portion of hell. Therefore, candidates polling in the low single digits got as much, if not more, speaking time than the lead actors. Except for Joe Biden, of course, uncomfortably sandwiched as he was as he was between Warren and Sanders. He talked up a word-salad tempest.

But in their homages to Droner and Deporter-in-Chief Barack Obama, their loyalty to the world's biggest military machine, their waffling on immigration, their jingoistic approval of American exceptionalism, their naming of Donald Trump as the source of all evil without criticizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's own shamefully complicit role in preventing passage another assault weapons ban, the 10 candidates admirably proved that they are, indeed, simply different sides of the same coin. As centrist Amy Klobuchar so brilliantly posited, a  Democratic Party divided against itself cannot stand. She didn't add that this is especially true when it's stuffed to the rafters with tons of foundation-busting filthy lucre. She also didn't add that the collapse of shoddy buildings is not only inevitable, it is desirable once the area has been safely evacuated.

But if we ourselves just couldn't stand listening to that litany of feel-good claptrap for three tortuous hours, and collapsed or tuned out from sheer disgust or just plain boredom, then we're probably too extremist for them to even bother with.

Not that the heavily coined candidates are all equally tarnished, of course. At least two of them are actually counterfeit. Kamala Harris, with her sordid "progressive" history of jailing poor mothers of truant kids, is one. Pete "Medicare For All Who Want It" Buttigieg is another. 

Joe Biden, though, is the real deal. Besides constantly hectoring suffering people to "get real, man!" while flouting his obvious senility, Biden also proved that he is as much a biliously burbling unabashed racist as ever:

Linsey Davis: Mr. Vice President, I want to talk to you about inequality in schools and race. In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” You said that some 40 years ago, but as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?

Biden: Well, they have to deal with the … Look, there is institutional segregation in this country. And from the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Redlining, banks, making sure that we are in a position where—

Look, we talk about education. I propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title 1 schools, triple the amount of money we spend from $15 to $45 billion a year. Give every single teacher a raise to the equal of … A raise of getting out of the $60,000 level.
No. 2, make sure that we bring in to the help with the stud—the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. The problems that come from home, we need… We have one school psychologist for every 1,500 kids in America today. It’s crazy. The teachers are required—I’m married to a teacher. My deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them.
Make sure that every single child does, in fact, have three, four, and five-year-olds go to school. School! Not day care, school. We bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t want to help. They don’t know what— They don’t know what quite what to do. Play the radio. Make sure the television—excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night. The phone—make sure the kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school—er, a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.

Somewhere in the murky pit that passes for his brain, Biden thinks that black and brown parents, well-meaning though they may be, are too ignorant to take care of their own children without a lot of outside professional help. He also seems to think these poor parents should playing LPs on their vintage phonographs in order to boost their children's vocabulary. It is essential that every single child develops the skills to make three, four and five-year-olds go to school.  Because their poor incapable parents never did. They might even be as befuddled as Uncle Joe himself.

Of course, besides being an unrepentant racist, Biden is also still an unrepentant plagiarist. His prescription for vocabulary therapy (in lieu of living wages, food aid, housing aid, etc) for black and brown people was stolen from Chelsea Clinton and her campaign for books in the laundromats frequented by black and brown mothers. If there's one thing that earnest bigots without a racist bone in their bodies sincerely believe, it's that black and brown mothers would never talk to or read to their children on their own initiative.

Biden made his remarks at a historically black college in Houston. It's too bad that Julian Castro didn't slam him over them like he did when, earlier in the debate, he accused Biden of senilely forgetting what he'd just said five minutes ago about healthcare.

The other candidates were not much better. Even Bernie Sanders obligingly described Nicolas Maduro, the brown Venezuela president, as a "vicious tyrant" - in an apparent effort to defend himself from comparisons to Venezuela-style socialism. He also didn't redeem himself in the post-debate spin cycle when he called the unabashedly racist Biden a decent human being and "a friend of mine."

I guess it was a blessing in disguise that the moderators kind of forgot that Bernie was even on the stage, because he'd appeared to be losing his voice. Croaking dissonant outrage combined with the cracked Biden-style long-playing record is not the kind of smooth, relaxing,"electable" sound that ABC-Disney obviously wanted to sedate its audience with.

Maybe if Biden and Bernie and Liz are the last candidates standing many months from now, they'll finally lose all the friendly pretense and the slick collegiality that reminds the rest of us that we're not in their club, and we never will be.

But How You Gonna Pay For That?

Warren's Social Security Reform Not As "Scrappy" As Bernie's

Just in time for the third Democratic debate in Fossil Fuel Boomtown USA (Houston, TX) Elizabeth Warren has unveiled a plan that would increase the monthly Social Security benefit by $200 for every recipient by "asking the richest Americans to contribute their fair share to the program."

Unlike the very similar bill reintroduced by Bernie Sanders earlier this year, Warren doesn't flat-out suggest entirely scrapping the current $132,900 cap on taxable earnings. But just like Bernie's legislation, her sweeping, smart and totally original brand-spanking new bold plan also calls for separate taxation of select investments to augment the payroll tax system. 

Interestingly enough, Warren did not join with four other Democratic senators - current presidential contenders Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, along with Jeff Merkley and former contender Kirsten Gillibrand - in co-sponsoring Bernie's original Social Security expansion bill in 2017.

Hmm.

 But back to the gist of it all: as Bernie has been talking about for many decades and as Warren has begun talking about as the 2020 horse race heats up, the very restrictive cap now in place means that the ultra-rich essentially finish paying off an entire year of Social Security taxes on January 1st, contributing exactly the same amount to the program as someone who earns $132,900 a year. Wealth is by no means taxed at the same rate as work. It's not even close.

Put another way, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates pay the exact same amount in Social Security taxes as a middle class single or two-income couple living in a modest home in the suburbs. If oligarchic empires were subject to full progressive taxation, the nation's retirement program could conceivably flourish into perpetuity. 

So, unlike Bernie's bill, whose progressive taxation of plutocratic wealth would guarantee the solvency of the Social Security trust fund for the next 50 years, Warren's more modest proposal would extend it for less than half that span, or for 20 years. 

Therefore, her claim that she is proposing the "biggest and most progressive increases in Social Security in nearly half a century" is a bit overblown, and not just because it copies the Sanders bill without crediting it. Her language is a lot less class-conscious than his is. Instead of demanding that the wealthy pay more, she is politely "asking" them to, as though they actually have the choice to refuse. Her suggestion that plutocrats contribute more is also far less than what ordinary people might consider a "fair share."  This is especially true since this requested, allegedly fair share serves to protect the long-term interests and the rattled psychic security of the rich in this age of rising civil discontent. Her tax reforms to benefit regular people are really no skin off rich financial noses at all. Best of all, the convoluted tax figures which she puts forth, unlike a true permanent scrapping of the cap, would be very much subject to back-room tinkering and bipartisan sausage-making and horse-trading, with maximum input from the minimally affected donor class and their teams of hungry lobbyists. The poor, of course, have no lobby.

In her own much more liberal way, Warren echoes the mantra of her former boss, Barack Obama, uttered reassuringly to the Wall Street bankers who ruined the economy. She is the latest thing standing between the squeamish, tax-averse wealthy and what Obama denigrated as the "pitchforks." Oh, and she also wants to seduce older Joe Biden fans into her camp as she brings up his own myriad disgusting efforts to cut Social Security.

It's interesting to note, meanwhile, that even as she claims to support Bernie's Medicare For All legislation without yet putting forth her own original detailed plan, one of Warren's rationales for modestly increasing monthly retirement benefits is to help struggling seniors meet their rising medical and drug costs. She writes in her Medium post:

In 2019, the average Social Security beneficiary received $1,354 a month, or $16,248 a year. For someone who worked their entire adult life at an average wage and retired this year at the age of 66, Social Security will replace just 41% of what they used to make. That’s well short of the 70% many financial advisers recommend for a decent retirement — one that allows you to keep living in your home, go to a doctor when you’re sick, and get the prescription drugs you need.

She makes it a point to sell her plan as a stopgap measure just "in case we don't adopt Medicare For All." (wink, nod to the neoliberal Clinton operatives she is reportedly canoodling with these days.) And just to emphasize, Sanders's M4A legislation would abolish the 20 percent co-pays that are financially breaking so many struggling older people covered under regular Medicare.

And in pointing out that Congress hasn't increased Social Security benefits in 50 years, her suggested $200-a-month increase, adjusted for inflation and the rising cost of living, is actually a pittance. To her credit, she does call for revising cost of living calculations to ensure that monthly benefits keep pace with the costs of barely staying alive. It's certainly a lot better than Barack Obama's failed attempt to reduce benefits through a chained CPI formula.

So don't get me wrong. There's plenty to like in Warren's plan, not least of which is in the inclusion of unpaid stay-at-home mothers and other caregivers in the earnings tables, thus boosting their future Social Security benefits. 

But here's the catch (there's always a catch):

My plan will give credit toward the Social Security average lifetime earnings calculation to people who provide 80 hours a month of unpaid care to a child under the age of 6, a dependent with a disability (including a veteran family member), or an elderly relative. For every month of caregiving that meets these requirements, the caregiver will be credited for Social Security purposes with a month of income equal to the monthly average of that year’s median annual wage. People can receive an unlimited amount of caregiving credits and can claim these credits retroactively if they have done this kind of caregiving work in the last five years. By giving caregivers credits equal to the median wage that year, this credit will provide a particular boost in benefits to lower-income workers.

Given that caring full-time for a newborn, a toddler, a preschooler, or a sick or elderly relative means being on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, this reimbursement formula seems far from generous or fair. It's giving part-time status to a full-time job whose "median wage" includes mandatory unpaid double overtime.

 Say you're a single mother in her 40s, 50s or 60s who struggled financially ten or 20 or 30 years ago and has a spotty paid work history and no retirement savings as a result. You're out of luck under Warren's plan. You would have had to squeeze all that approved care-giving into the last five years to qualify for better retirement benefits. And even if you had, you'd still have to jump through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops in order to qualify for "credits." What busy parent or caregiver has ever bothered to keep a written record of his or her hours?

Given that we are increasingly becoming a jobless society in a "gig economy," wouldn't it make more sense to phase out the traditional work requirements for Social Security altogether? And no, Social Security should never be replaced with the universal basic income (UBI) proposals so beloved of technocrats and billionaires like Elon Musk. For starters, UBI would eliminate all other programs serving the vulnerable, the old, the young, the sick and the disabled. It would, effectively, be a highly regressive scheme, with the poor essentially subsidizing the middle classes and the affluent because those in need would get less than they do now, even under already meager assistance programs like SNAP (food stamps.)

Chunks of Warren's own technocratic Social Security reform package seem unnecessarily stingy - not to mention confusing and complicated - especially when they're coupled with her worthy suggestions to give full widows' benefits to prematurely retired disabled women, and to restore a deceased parent's survivor benefits to full-time students up to age 22. (Under Ronald Reagan, survivor benefits were cut off when the beneficiary reached age 18 or graduated high school.)   

Bernie demands that avaricious billionaires pay more, and he welcomes their hatred. Warren not only politely asks them to contribute a fair share, she consistently refers to the wealthy as "families," thus gifting them with qualities of nurturing and humanity that many of them don't even remotely possess. She lumps professionals making a tad more than $250,000 in with criminal oligarchs who've looted billions from the body politic. This effectively removes the onus from the oligarchs, besides, perhaps, alienating a few of the wealthy elites currently rooting for her while attracting less well-off Biden supporters who might be convinced to root for her with the dream of an extra two hundred bucks a month wafting through their heads.

 Her new suggested FICA tax rate of 14-odd percent on the entire top two percent, split with one's putative employer, certainly seems meager compared to the 90 percent rate imposed upon the highest earnings in the Eisenhower years. A self-described "capitalist to my bones," Warren is loath to directly address the class war, loath to demonize the obscenely rich, loath to directly call them out by name.

There's just enough wealth redistribution in Warren's plan to make the neoliberal thought collective pretend to howl with outrage at the mere prospect of being parted with even a modest percentage of their wealth. They might even have to fire one of their maids or forgo purchase of their third luxury car next year. 

Bernie is much more to the point. He cuts right to the chase and he names names and he unabashedly evokes the public indignation so absolutely necessary if we are ever to truly change the system rather than just tweak it around the edges.

Bernie Sanders

✔@SenSanders

Donald Trump made $694 million in 2016. That means he stopped paying Social Security taxes 40 minutes into the year.

Meanwhile a middle-class worker paid Social Security taxes the entire year.

I say to Trump: pay your fair share. Let's scrap the cap and expand Social Security.

Chins Up, All Ye Denizens of Hell!

If you're one of the millions of people suffering from terminal despair, please don't despair. Because you don't have an economic or a social problem as much as you have an attitude problem or a spiritual problem. The cure for what ails you is just the right blend of sermonizing, technological tweaks, and maybe even a little uninsured psychotherapy or drug rehab.

Furthermore, advises Ross Douthat,  the New York Times' resident conservative scold, you should also take heart knowing that climate change will not do all of us in nearly as quickly as substance abuse is doing some of us in right now. In other words, you might be feeling desperate, but at least you're not dead. Unless, of course, you're one of those Bahamians whose unburied body lies rotting in the rubble of the one of the worst hurricanes in history.

Douthat does not go there, because he is solely concerned with American despair and the presidential horse race. In any case, the devastated Bahamas are still largely inaccessible to both rescue crews and journalists. Even some of the lucky few Bahamians who managed to get on a rescue boat were kicked off and refused entry at Florida ports, ostensibly because their travel visas were lost in the storm. If Douthat talked about their despair, then he would also be forced to talk about the Trump administration's sadistic policies. 

But cruelty at the highest levels of corporatized government is not the purpose of his column. Selling hope in a can is, one "smart" little aerosol huff at a time. Like toxic vaping product, hoping product even comes in a variety of colors and flavors to help us overcome such personal handicaps as "meaning deficits" and "loss of purpose" which get all entangled with low marriage and birth rates and other such "gently dehumanizing drifts."

(Now, if you wonder why Douthat sounds like a refugee from a TED talk, just remember that until Saturday - the very day that this column was published -  the New York Times Company's Board of Directors had included Joichi Ito, disgraced head of the "prestigious" MIT Media Lab, a major financial neoliberal corporatist source for the lucrative TED franchise. See Ronan Farrow's excellent takedown in The New Yorker for all the gory details about how the trafficking of humans and money intersects, and how corrupt power attracts corrupt power.) 

Nevertheless, Douthat persists:

So if we’re going to answer whatever is killing tens of thousands of our countrymen, it’s as important to pay attention to the would-be cultural healers — from the old churches to the New Agers, the online Nietzscheans to the neo-pagans, Jordan Peterson to Marianne Williamson — as it is to have the policy conversations about what’s possible in the next presidential term.
Despair as a sociological phenomenon is rarely permanent: Some force, or forces, will supply new forms of meaning eventually. And it matters not only that this happens, but which forces those will be.

I'm surprised he didn't end his screed with "May the Force Be With You." I'm not at all surprised, though, that he still has a job on the prestigious op-ed page of the Times, whose board consists entirely of tech moguls (including Facebook's marketing director), vulture capitalists and corporate CEOs -  but not one actual journalist. 

I'm also not surprised that the Times buried my submitted comment so well that I wasn't even aware it had been published until a reader of this blog clued me in (see comments). I assumed it was rejected because I had never received the customary email notification from them thanking me for my submission.

 A former comments moderator, denying that censorship exists at the Times, once told me that an algorithm controls reader comment placement or rejection as well as timing, and that its secrets shall never be disclosed to the teeming masses. Nonetheless, the Times ostentatiously welcomes gender and racial "diversity" from its comment writers - so long, apparently, as the diversity of opinions runs the entire Dorothy Parker gamut from A to B. 

Anyway, here's my response to Ross Douthat: 

"Despair is all in your head."

 That is the subliminal message of this column, based upon a report issued by a GOP senator, Mike Lee. The report downplays deaths from despair by blaming them on opioids. Were it not for people taking drugs, the report facilely concludes, the despair death rate, adjusted for age, would be at the same level as it was in 1975.

This is another way of blaming the victim instead of blaming the neo-feudal capitalist system that is literally crushing the life and hope out of millions of people. The rising US death rate for the third straight year cannot just be ascribed to overdoses.

 Another recent study shows that more older people are literally starving in the richest country on earth. The waiting time to get Meals on Wheels home deliveries is now as long as one year. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is seeking even more cuts to the food stamp program, disqualifying at least 25% of current recipients. Hunger is indeed a desperate situation, coupled as it is with the unaffordability of prescription drugs and rising medical bankruptcies, even among those with health insurance.

Douthat also doesn't mention the student debt crisis. The birth and home ownership rates are both drastically down because indebted people can't afford kids or a roof over their heads.

So we should feel better knowing that in another hundred years or so, our lives will be just peachy-keen, because societal despair is a cyclical thing?

 What a depressingly obnoxious and deeply cynical suggestion.

The Total Devastation of Trump's Fake Hurricane Map

Maybe it's because the human mind can absorb only so much death and destruction and misery. Maybe it's because the consolidated media borg doesn't enjoy the same access to the Bahamas as it does to the White House and the halls of Congress. Maybe it's because their oil and gas and war industry sponsors would rather they talk about anything but Hurricane Dorian being the most glaring symptom to date of the heated-up planet.

Therefore, the scandal of Donald Trump's apparent doctoring of a map in order to "prove" his false statement last week that Alabama was in the storm's original tracking cone has actually vied for precedence with the actual storm, especially once Dorian had finally left the islands but had not yet begun its slow march up the Atlantic coast of the United States.

If there's one thing that the 24-hour news cycle abhors besides lack of insider accessibility, it's slowness. After awhile, a stalled-out hurricane and before-and- after aerial shots get boring. Anything that doesn't adhere to the spirit of capitalism and horse-race politics, anything that doesn't move at the speed of death is a yawn. People stop clicking unless they can see stuff up close and personal.

The world might be coming to an end, but the media will obsess over Trump's every oafish affront to reality to their last dying breaths. Nothing he does is too petty or too silly to turn them away, not even the tragedy of the Bahamas. Anything, anything to avoid the reality of the world outside of Washington, D.C. Some particularly bored enterprising journalists even went so far as to detect the tell-tale black Sharpie pen on the Resolute Desk and to helpfully circle it for our contrived outrage.

Dorian is not just your ordinary Category Five storm, you see. It's been officially dubbed a "political hurricane" by NPR, whose own storm coverage rotates around Trump focusing only on his base. If a story about disaster on an epic scale doesn't have a presidential campaign angle, then it might as well not even exist. The only eye that counts is Trump's beady little blue eye. The only wall that counts is not the eyewall of the hurricane, but his vanity border wall and his diversion of billions of Pentagon dollars from more deserving construction projects, such as the rebuilding of hurricane-devastated Puerto Rico.

Not that the Democratic leadership is as concerned about making regular Puerto Ricans' lives better as it is about the clear and present danger of Trump's threats to "national security." After all, Puerto Rico has become prime disaster capitalism real estate in the wake of Maria, with salivating plutocrats counting on all that government reconstruction money to help create another exclusive and secure paradise for themselves. 

There has certainly been no mainstream coverage this week about the US military being the most voracious consumer of polluting fossil fuels on Planet Earth, the burning of which causes global warming, which in turn spawns more powerful hurricanes like Dorian, which in turn create more short-term investment opportunities for the voracious uber-rich.

It's safer, and certainly a lot more fun, for the corporate media borg to ignore the roasting globe and instead to gleefully exult about Trump getting roasted for his weather map flimflam:

The illustration, shown in a video released by the White House Wednesday afternoon, instantly caught the attention of many, including late-night hosts, who ridiculed the president for once again appearing to distort facts. By early Thursday, “#sharpiegate” and other similar hashtags were still trending on Twitter.
“He’s not even trying to hide the lies anymore,” ABC host Jimmy Kimmel said. “Not only do we have fake news, we now have fake weather, too.”

Now, to it's credit, CNN did hold a climate change "town hall" for the Democratic presidential contenders on Wednesday. The candidates all did their earnest utmost to become Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez clones-for-a-day as they promised trillions of dollars to combat climate change. This televised spectacle was held to make up for the fact that the Democratic National Committee has refused to include climate change as an official debate topic. In light of the devastation of Dorian, therefore, the party elders actually vie with Trump himself in the feigned cluelessness and cynicism departments. Of course, the party had also reneged on its pledge to refuse any more donations from the fossil fuel industry only two months after agreeing to ban them.

 Chairman Tom Perez probably signed the initial divestment pledge with a Sharpie pen retrofitted with disappearing ink.

Washington Post Says Anger Is So Yesterday

Now that Joe Biden is, by growing corporate media consensus, heading for both the cognitive and political sunset of his life despite his current lead in polls, it's time for them to elevate Elizabeth Warren, the better to denigrate Bernie Sanders.

It's time once again to call the Tone Police.

Since the "Bernie Bro" trope has outlived both its utility and credibility in light of the fact that women and minorities are supporting Sanders in ever greater numbers, the corporate media must find a new trope. Actually, it's only an update on the 2016 trope that had Sanders suffering from a chronic anger management problem.

The manufactured dilemma contrived by the Washington Post is that since Donald Trump has already cornered the market on anger, staying mad at social and economic injustice makes Bernie sound just too Trump-like for the sensitive sensibilities of even past Bernie supporters, a handful of whom the Post carefully cherry-picked to quote in its latest anti-Bernie propaganda piece.

Anger is just so damned exhausting and so futile, says the Post, that these Bernie fans might as well support Elizabeth Warren. Although she, too, broadcasts anger at her campaign rallies, her version is supposedly softer and less "cantankerous and rowdy" than Bernie's. Reporter Hailey Fuchs writes:(bolds are mine)

In 2016, Sanders and his supporters shared a visceral anger at the nation’s economic and political systems, which they contended had been corrupted by wealthy capitalists. Hillary Clinton proved the perfect foe for an anti-establishment campaign then. But with a sitting president who has also used anger to galvanize his base and claims to represent the antithesis of the Washington elite, some now find that aggressive messaging unappealing.

 The overall dynamics also have shifted. During the 2016 presidential cycle, the independent senator stood alone in his — oftentimes cantankerous and rowdy — fight for a single-payer health-care system, tuition-free four-year public college and a $15 minimum wage. Several presidential hopefuls have fully embraced his once-radical ideas without adopting his boisterous tone.

Naturally, the Post article is accompanied by the usual unflattering photo of Sanders, mouth wide open in a grimace, finger pointed threateningly at all the sensitive sensibilities in the audience.

He and his angry supporters are not only mad, the Post says, they might even be ill-informed, since they merely "contend" that capitalism corrupts politics. Hailey Fuchs, a recent graduate of Yale with an impressive triple major in ethics, economics and politics, apparently has never read the numerous studies which conclusively prove that capitalism absolutely does corrupt politics. Take, as just one example, Martin Gilens's "Affluence and Influence" study showing that deep-pocketed donors invariably get whatever they want, in the way of tax breaks for themselves and cuts in social programs for everyone else, from the politicians who "we" are invited to vote for every two and four years. Fuchs is therefore being a bit unethical, to put it charitably, when she insinuates that Sanders supporters are using their guts (viscera) rather than their thinking brains in "contending" that such corruption exists in all levels of government. Then again, she is no doubt interested in continuing her career at a paper owned by the richest man in the universe.

So while Elizabeth Warren can and does sound every bit as angry as Bernie Sanders at her own campaign rallies, she has also been quietly courting Democratic Party insiders and its undemocratic super-delegates to reassure them that deep down, she is on their side. This tactic is apparently working, because the Washington Post, the New York Times and other consolidated media behemoths are not so quietly boosting her candidacy. Why wouldn't they? She is said to appeal to the highly educated bourgeoisie, while Bernie is totally down with the down and outs, a/k/a the working class and the poor.

Of course, the scary angry "Bernie-tone" that the Post claims is so suddenly upsetting to both his current and former supporters is pure propaganda, if not genuinely fake news. 

The people who are really scared of Sanders are the ruling elites. They're terrified of the righteous - and global - anger of the Sunrise Movement, Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion and the Yellow Vests. So the Washington Post buries the true lead, and actual truth, 13 paragraphs deep into the article: 

It’s not as though [Warren is] content to thunder against the evildoers like an Old Testament prophet. That’s much more his mode,” said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton. “Sanders sees [his campaign] as a revolutionary mass movement to upset the established order. While Senator Warren is obviously very dissatisfied with the status quo, she describes her campaign in very different terms and terms that I think are less scary.”

Sanders isn't scary to oppressed people and poor people. He's scary to rich people and the centrist Democrats, neoliberal think tanks, party operatives and consultants who serve them. They have sunk so low as to join with the GOP in pathologizing  the anger of the very people they have victimized with four decades of cruel neoliberal austerity policies. 

In the interests of surface fairness and balance, the Post smarmily concludes its latest Bernie hit piece by tempering its propaganda with quotes from people who can relate to Bernie's anger. Here's the problem, though: the inconvenient fact remains that, just like every other human being, he's aged three years since 2016 - and that is suddenly giving them pause. He is, sadly, also not black or a woman. To convey this desired scary message, Hailey Fuchs searched for the perfect squeamish Sanders supporter. She hit the desired jackpot with this doozy: 

But the Sanders supporter is concerned that her candidate will fall short of the nomination once again. She worries that his age — 77 — will be used against him, and that other voters may be drawn to a candidate who offers the appeal of diversity.
(Jennifer) Convery was not quite sure how Sanders could expand his voting bloc.
“He reaches out as much as anybody else as much as he can. He’s not going to change who he is and how he is, so he can’t make himself younger or black or a woman, so I don’t know,” she said. “What do you do? You’re not going to change your points.”

Gosh, if only Bernie wasn't so damned white and kvetchy, his fair-weather friends would feel ever so much better. It's not that they care about identities as such, it's that other people care. If other people care, it's because the Post tells us that unless we, too, start to care about cosmetic appeal and "electability," we'll get four more years of Trump. So squelch that anger, all you tired, poor, huddled masses of America!  

If only there were more righteous anger in the United States. Except for the vibrant youth movements battling for a green new deal, America's electorate are not yet taking to the streets, as they are in Hong Kong, France, Haiti, and elsewhere on the planet. Is it because we have enough streaming services, social media accounts, drugs, booze to keep us placidly hiding our quiet desperation? More likely, it's because most people are already finding day-to-day survival enough of a challenge and often have to work second or third jobs just to make ends barely meet.

As Oscar Wilde wrote more than a century ago in The Soul of Man Under Socialism, it is actually abnormal for economically struggling people not to feel intense rage at an oppressive system which insists that we should be grateful for whatever crumbs fall from the rich man's table while heeding the hackneyed  advice to "keep calm and carry on" - even as the Democratic party elites do their utmost to ignore the ongoing climate catastrophe by refusing even to discuss it at a presidential debate. 

It's worth quoting Wilde at length (and assume that he uses "man" in the generic sense - not that he cared a whit about political correctness, of course) and applying his critique to the trite and tiresome lectures of the Washington Post and the rest of the oligarchy-controlled media:

Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practice thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly fed animal... No, a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest.

"As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinary stupid. I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under those conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.

"However, the explanation is not really difficult to find. It is simply this. Misery and poverty are so absolutely degrading and exercise such a paralysing effect over the nature of men, that no class is ever really conscious of its own suffering. They have to be told of it by other people, and they often entirely disbelieve them. 

 "That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilisation."

Oligarchic propaganda sheets like the Washington Post want to scare people stupid. Candidates like Bernie Sanders, with his ambitious new climate plan, want to scare people out of the toxic, capitalism-imposed stupor of what some critics are calling the Necrocene, or the Age of Death.

The bright side is that seriously broke, seriously depressed, and seriously exhausted people probably have neither the money nor the energy to breach the paywalls of the major cable and print outlets to be tainted overly much by the corporate propaganda. So maybe there's hope for "civilization" yet.

When Virtue-Signaling Backfires

Trump Allies Target Journalists Over Coverage Deemed Hostile to White House is the scare headline in Monday's New York Times.

The lead paragraph follows up with the desired alarmist tone. Cue Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia - or if you're not all that adventuresome, just settle for Joe McCarthy's America:

A loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive operation to discredit news organizations deemed hostile to President Trump by publicizing damaging information about journalists.

OK, so at least Trump hasn't as far as we know yet ordered a hit on a reporter, as Richard Nixon did on muckraker Jack Anderson. Or seized the phone records of reporters and subpoenaed journalists to testify against whistleblowers, as Barack Obama did.

So are the Trumpies going through reporters' garbage to glean their private financial information? Interviewing old girlfriends or boyfriends or spouses to dig up some sleazy dirt on them? Tapping their phones? Hacking their email accounts? Breaking into doctors' offices to steal their medical or psychiatric records?

Well, not quite:

 It is the latest step in a long-running effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting. Four people familiar with the operation described how it works, asserting that it has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at some of the country’s most prominent news organizations.

This is truly shocking stuff. The Trumpies have had the unmitigated gall to read embarrassing information posted by the journalists themselves on social media. And not just regular journalists, like the ones targeted by the Washington Post and the shadowy Prop Or Not organization in 2016,which accused both right-wing and leftist writers of being witting or unwitting Putin operatives who helped steal the election from Hillary Clinton. The public social media posts that are being collected by the Trump operatives were written by employees of some of the most prominent and important news organizations in all of Corporate America. And the operatives are not only reading their social media posts, they are nefariously secreting them in Putinesque dossiers for sordid political purposes!

The Times breathlessly continues:

Operatives have closely examined more than a decade’s worth of public posts and statements by journalists, the people familiar with the operation said. Only a fraction of what the network claims to have uncovered has been made public, the people said, with more to be disclosed as the 2020 election heats up. The research is said to extend to members of journalists’ families who are active in politics, as well as liberal activists and other political opponents of the president.

How can one make something public that is already in the public domain, for all to see? Could the "research" extending to journalists' families possibly include the widely-known fact that the spouse of NBC anchor Chuck Todd is a paid Democratic Party official, or that CNN personality Chris Cuomo is the brother of the New York governor, or that CNN legal analyst Laura Jarrett is the daughter of chief Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, or that nepotism is pretty much a standard hiring and promotion principle within the consolidated, oligarch-controlled media? The Trump operatives aren't saying, and neither is the New York Times. But when the operatives do leak out their treasure trove of widely available speech transcripts and public tweets and Facebook posts, I'm sure that the Times and the Post and all the rest of the Prominents will be right on it.

Of course, if the right-wing operatives are also targeting lesser-known (and unprotected) critics and writers, that would be a completely different story, ranking right down there with Prop Or Not. But it's telling that the Times seems to be restricting its First Amendment concerns to its own employees and to those employees of other "major" outlets.

No prominent major outlet has ever, for example, written critically about the Prop Or Not smear campaign against some 200 relatively powerless writers and websites. We still don't know the identities of those who compiled the blacklist and tried to ruin the careers and reputations of those decidedly non-prominent journalists.

While it keeps its readers in suspense, the Times claims that at this moment it is virtually impossible for them to speculate on future possibly career-destroying leaks. This is especially true since the already-leaked media posts were all true,  and even future, already-public information from the past is also true, mainly because the targets themselves had already openly and honestly leaked and exposed and even bragged their own dirt and hypocrisy back when, as the Times insists, they were mainly callow, brash young adults who didn't know enough to keep their vile qualities to themselves.

Nonetheless, the Times pleads ignorance, because admitting that it doesn't examine either its potential hires' or its current employees' social media histories would be tantamount to admitting that they really don't care if their staffers don't practice or believe in what they now preach. They are loath to admit that their screening practices are also a bit on the shoddy side. The newspaper was caught with its pants spectacularly down only last year, when new editorial hire Sarah Jeong was fired after only six hours on the job when her own fairly well-known public association with Neo-Nazis was publicly "leaked" all over social media.

But that was then, and the Times has conveniently shoved that ancient truth down its memory hole. And this is Now: 

It is not possible to independently assess the claims about the quantity or potential significance of the material the pro-Trump network has assembled. Some involved in the operation have histories of bluster and exaggeration. And those willing to describe its techniques and goals may be trying to intimidate journalists or their employers.
But the material publicized so far, while in some cases stripped of context or presented in misleading ways, has proved authentic, and much of it has been professionally harmful to its targets.

It is not until we delve deep into the Times coverage that we get to the true nitty-gritty of the piece. Here is the carefully buried lead: it seems that a pair of editorials decrying Donald Trump's recent anti-Semitic remarks and the shady employment past of his new press secretary had been edited by a staffer on the political desk who a decade ago had written a bunch of his own nasty racist and anti-Semitic tweets. And when the Trumpies called the newly "race-woke" paper out on its hypocrisy, the Gray Lady was not amused:

One person involved in the effort said the pro-Trump forces, aware ahead of time about the coverage... were prepared to respond. Early Thursday morning, soon after the profile appeared online, Breitbart News published an article that documented anti-Semitic and racist tweets written a decade ago by Tom Wright-Piersanti, who was in college at the time and has since become an editor on the Times’ politics desk. The Times said it was reviewing the matter and considered the posts “a clear violation of our standards.”

My published comment:

The right-wingers are using "reverse virtue-signaling" and cashing in on the obnoxious Call-Out Culture to do damage to writers whom they perceive to be their political opponents.

When, for example, they exposed a reporter's old anti-Semitic tweets, it wasn't for the purpose of fighting xenophobia, but to gleefully point out that liberals ("elites") can at times be as hypocritical as reactionary neo-fascists. This is not to excuse the anti-Semitic tweets by the reporter, because a 20-something should know better. His excuse that he was only trying to rile up his peers falls flat.

 Journalists and aspiring journalists, and for that matter, anybody who cares about their careers and life prospects should probably just stay the heck off Twitter. As the article points out, once you press "submit" or "send" there is no going back. Your whole life can be ruined because of a few ill-advised words that will float forever in cyberspace to be plucked, sliced, diced and taken out of context.

What's more disturbing, to me, is that the Trumpies are also targeting the relatives of reporters in an obvious effort to get them to self-censor. It has the whiff of organized criminal extortionists who threaten the children of their targets to get them to pay up and shut up.

 Journalists and all writers should fearlessly keep writing articles and commentary and forgo Twitter wars and trolling. It's a waste of their talents, it's mentally exhausting, and it can come back to bite them.

Like a bedbug in the New York Times "Wellness Room" for embattled and Twitter-exhausted journalists.