The Kavanaugh Circus Will Anger Reeptards & Generate A "Red Wave" Next Month? Poppycock and Twaddle!

The corporate media now appears to be chocked full of entries claiming - in the wake of Kavanaugh's questioning by Senate Dems -  that there is a "surge in GOP enthusiasm that could recalibrate the political landscape to the Democrats' disfavor".  Do not believe this malarkey for one solitary second.  There is nothing, NADA, that is going to stop or diminish the Blue tidal wave now building to epic proportions   especially as educated and sensible women across the land have seen and heard how one of their own (Christine Blasey Ford) was so contemptuously treated by the Reptiles.

But it seems all the weenies and milk toast, entitled white males have crawled out from their parents' basements to start whining and crying about how the women are grinding their miserable butts under their high heels. Well, in a way this is true - but more arising from male failures -  including at the college level where females are not only demonstrating significantly greater attendance but graduating with better degrees and at higher rates.  See e.g.

At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust - The New York Times

And:

Search Results

Web results

Why Men Are the New Minority in College - The Atlantic

Of course, the whiners and bloviators in the media - like Sean Hannity and Lush Limburger - want you to believe all these poor guys are the victims of an academic structure and system that ensures female success but obliterates it for males.  Well, cry me a river and please pass the world's smallest violin and I can play a little dirge.  The real problem, of course, is not any male victimization by the women - but rather the women righteously working their butts off to get ahead while the guys head for the keggers at frat parties.

But it's petulant male grievances of this type that we are supposed to believe were hatched amidst the animus of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.  Also, that the recent Kavanaugh circus (crafted by the Reepturds, mind you)  is causing all the entitled little males to get their dander up enough to outvote  the millions of raging women next month.  Don't believe it! These guys will still be playing Grand Theft Auto in their moms' basements while they also pout and cry on some dreggy Reddit forum - maybe dedicated to the incels.

What is undeniable is that millions of young, college educated women - mainly in suburbs, but also beyond them - are furious at the patriarchy on display last Friday in ramming through Kavanaugh  - which commentator John Oliver described as "A 'fuck you!' to all women watching".  Especially those women who've been marked as survivors of sexual assault by some over eager young ape with loose paws. Those women - an estimated 25- 30 million-   are now holding their fire but ready to unleash it at the polls.  They won't hold back.

The display by the Reeptard Right was beyond the pale in painting themselves as the aggrieved victims despite controlling both houses of congress, the presidency and now the Supreme Court.  Especially enraging was Dotard claiming the whole thing with Dr. Ford was a "democratic hoax" when the only hoax is the criminal one this Russian stooge traitor tool - who ought to be hung by the neck,
 
is perpetrating on all of us - while having the audacity to appoint the Reptilian turd Brett Kavanaugh to the highest court.  We also know Dotard coached him to be a "whiny little bitch" in the words of Bill Maher (Friday night, on Real Time)  to get through.   As for the bitch fest claim (e.g. by Republican strategist Alice Stewart) that "Democrats were willing to use Dr. Ford's testimony to launch character assassinations on Judge Kavanaugh" - that's total horse pockey.  Indeed, as journalist Rebecca Traister explained last night on 'All In', the Repukes brought the whole acrimonious process on themselves (in 'he said, she said' format) by not interrogating all parties, and especially only offering up a sham FBI investigation.

Look, in the words of former Senate Judiciary staffer Lisa Graves (last night) everyone in the country who isn't a partisan knows the GOP Senators who rammed Kavanaugh's confirmation through  "participated in one of the biggest whitewashes in American history"  Hell, I'd say at least on a par with the bogus Warren Commission which used the lone nut rubbish to whitewash the JFK assassination.

When protesters then erupted, as they had every right to - the people sensing a railroad job - the high and mighty white Reepo patriarchs proclaimed they were the last bastions of "law and order" standing in the way of anarchy! Bull fucking shit! THEY were the ones using lawless minority rule to divide the country in ways not seen since the Civil War.

Even more egregious and outrageous was the Traitor -in-chief yesterday, spouting the following unadulterated bullshit in the packed East Room of the White House:

"On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure. Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception.”

Adding,  like the insufferable maggot he is:

"What happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency, and due process. Our country, a man or woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."

And then capping it with another lie:

“And with that, I must state that you, sir, under historic scrutiny, were proven innocent."

Except it wasn't a trial, you fuckfaced orange baboon, so he can't be 'proven' innocent! It was basically a JOB interview (as journalist Soledad O'Brien explained on Real Time) for one of the most important jobs in the land!  So the miserable, swine ratfucker thereby rubbed more salt in open national wounds instead of healing them. But what do you expect from a traitor who ought to have been swinging from a tree by now as opposed to inserting a guy into the highest court  with the potential to give him a 'get out of jail free' card in the Mueller probe?

All this followed the growing media narrative (e.g.. as expressed in an AP release in The Denver Post Monday) that  "internal polling - by GOP operatives-  has shown that Kavanaugh's acrimonious confirmation has given the party a much needed boost, with GOP voters viewing Democrats as overzealous partisans".

The implication by these operatives being that the Dem takeover of the House is now at risk given the Red "tide"   (like the toxic one now killing sea life in FLA) will wash in and overcome the blue wave. Horse manure!  Then, according to another AP report, a poll late Monday "suggested independents view the Democrats' response to Kavanaugh even more dimly than Republicans."  Well, if such a poll exists it's either statistically skewed - or- the claimed "independents" are really morons or Reepos in disguise. I just don't buy it.

All the most reliable polling now shows the Dems with a huge gender gap advantage - female voters up to 30 points for Dem candidates - with white (mainly non-college educated)  males tilting 9 points toward their favorite Reeptards.   This spells disaster for the GOP in a month and they KNOW it! That is why they are spinning this yarn about a "recalibrated political landscape" that even has Nate Silver biting. (Silver now gives the Dems only a 50-50 chance of retaking the House).

It is clear to this observer that all this huff and puff by the assorted Republican operatives is merely meant to try to pump up the GOP's forlorn loser base, while also attempting to depress Democratic energy and turnout. (Especially as so many in the media, even MSNBC's Steve Kornacki, repeat some form of this hog swill.)

But I take the position that the farce we witnessed this past weekend will only amplify the Democratic Party's pull with female voters, including independents and moderates who may have previously voted Republican.  As pollster Geoff Carlin put it (ibid.):

"Kavanaugh's confirmation will leave a lot of outraged and energized women in its wake"

And those millions of  outraged, energized women are just itching to make their displeasure known at the ballot box next month!

Above all what the whole Kavanaugh ordeal shows is that political party DOES matter! One party clearly is the one for reality and checks and balances - the other is indifferent to those, and intent on propping up a Russian tool.  It beggars the imagination to think any citizen - especially a young,  would- be voter - could argue that "parties don't matter".  The Kavanaugh atrocity perpetrated by the Reepturds proves that they do

See also:

From Kavanaugh to November

And: :

Kavanaugh Is Confirmed. Only Mass Organizing Will Save Us Now.

And:

For Trump supporters,'the cruelty is the point': Adam Serwer for The Atlantic 

Yes, LBJ Ordered The Hit On Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. For His Anti-Vietnam War Stance

As thousands gather in Memphis to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.  we still contend with a corporate media that keeps churning out the B.S. that King's. assassin was James Earl Ray.   Of course, as in the case of a prior "lone nut" narrative, Ray's personality traits have been thoroughly brewed then distilled by the "authorities" yielding a: "career criminal, bitter racist... and loner"  in the words of author William Pepper.

In his riveting 2003  talk  An Act of State - The Execution of Martin Luther King -  Pepper described his in -depth interview (along with Ralph Abernathy) of the alleged King assassin, James Earl Ray:

"He had a virtually non-existent marksmanship score when he took his test in the Army. He didn’t know much about guns. When he was instructed to buy a weapon that became the throw-down gun in the assassination he bought a .243 Winchester rather than a thirty-ought-six [.30-06] that he was told to get. He didn’t know the difference between them. When he showed the weapon he had bought to Raul, who was controlling him, he sent him back to exchange it. It was a matter of record. He went back and exchanged this one rifle for another the next day. That’s not something he thought of himself. It just was the wrong gun. The guy wanted a .30-06 caliber rifle so they had a .30-06 rifle as the throw-down gun. So he had to go back and exchange it. After the interview we became convinced, Abernathy and I became convinced that he was not the shooter. We didn’t know what other role he might have played. But it was clear he was not the assassin of Martin Luther King."

This "Ray did it"  twaddle could be accepted - more or less - up until  the Jan. 1998 Baltimore Sun revelations which referenced the U.S. Army's admission that its intelligence agents had monitored the public appearances of Rev. King in Memphis.  These disclosures then could be seen to dovetail with earlier revelations (from William Pepper's 1995 book, Orders to Kill)  that an Alpha 184 unit had been in Memphis and the purpose was not at all benign. They were to serve as backup to a hired contract killer (via New Orleans' crime boss, Carlos Marcello) - but more on this later. For the moment readers can refer to the image of the attached orders issued to the 20th AFG Alpha 184 team members.  Let me note before moving on, that such orders could not have come from any old government lackey or official, not even J. Edgar Hoover or then Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.  No, they could only have come from the top dog himself, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

For those who've been involved in deep politics research, and especially got their "baptism" with the Kennedy assassination, it's abundantly clear the lone nut assassin in the King case is another  cover story. In fact, all the evidence - including from LBJ's role in the Kennedy assassination - masterminding the plan from Big D-   we know he is the one who also engineered the King assassination. And why not? He'd already gotten away with the first assassination via the cover fraud "investigation" known as the Warren Commission, which even  54 years later has gullible twits buying it lock, stock, and barrel. Emboldened by that, why not take down Rev. King too - who'd become a gadfly over the Vietnam War?

The incredulity of too many in the face of these facts traces to how King has mainly been erected as a civil rights totem in the last 50 years. This hyper emphasis has minimized his fierce pacifism - especially against the Vietnam War- which brought him into direct conflict with Johnson.  An April, 1998 Baltimore Sun piece by Colman McCarthy  ('A Fierce Advocate of Pacifism') summarized how King had been turned into a one-dimensional Milquetoast by the media:

"All the textbooks, for sure, carry excerpts from the 'I Have a Dream' speech. After three decades of being sentimentalized into an historical relic mummified by the formaldehyde of nostalgia, King has been marginalized in ways never thought possible while he was around to defend himself."

McCarthy, like Pepper, cites the powerful moral voice against Johnson's war - and yes, it was his war, given he signed the original NSAM (273) formalizing it, and then confected the Tonkin Gulf incident to justify a massive troop commitment. (Again, for more on the backstory of LBJ's NSAM -273 check out the information in the link below:

http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM273.html )

Among the more visceral words of Dr. King (ibid.):

"We have destroyed Vietnam's two most treasured institutions - the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops... We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men."

As McCarthy points out, no textbook quotes Dr. King in this respect. Which is exactly why - in order to grasp why Johnson would have him killed - people need to grasp the severity of MLK's anti-war stance and the rage it stoked in LBJ.  As King's unswerving opposition to the War increased Johnson became enraged at the prospect of its threatening his precious civil rights and "Great Society" legacy. He also worried about King's promise to bring hundreds of thousands to the Capitol for a poor people's march that summer.    McCarthy recalls how the media at the time tried to back King away from his anti-War mission, e.g.:

"The corporate media's reporters and editorial writers dismissed King as being far out of his depth with his anti-military views. The New York Times and Washington Post instructed King to stick to racial issues and leave weighty foreign policy matters to sophisticated people - like the pro-Vietnam War editorial writers at the Times and the Post. To King critics Carl Rowan and J. Edgar Hoover, anti-war equaled anti-American.  Rowan, a courtier to the warmonger Johnson, accused King of being duped by people 'more interested in embarrassing the U.S. than anything else."

Johnson himself just wanted King to STFU and cease criticizing the War.  Each King moral censure struck Johnson and his Texas Pride like a body blow. According to Pepper (p. 350) , it was Hoover who intimated (to oil baron H.L. Hunt)  the only way possible to stop King was to "completely silence him" , i.e. a kill, an assassination.  Hunt,  at the time, wanted to discredit King by repeated personal attacks via his 'Life Line' program which aired in 398 cities. No doubt LBJ - who was a close friend of Hoover's - was also informed this was his only way to escape the latter day, anti-War  "Jeremiah".

That LBJ was fully capable of masterminding the earlier JFK hit we pretty well know, at least those who have been prepared to follow the leads, evidence and indicators.  Credit here to Steve Kornacki  who first reported (with documents) on the peril Johnson faced  in the tightening Bobby Baker scandal. This was  in his ‘UP’ journal on MSNBC, the morning of Nov. 23, 2013. Using tapes and media documents, Kornacki showed that Johnson was about to be exposed as an influence peddler in conjunction with the Bobby Baker scandal by LIFE magazine in its upcoming issue. He faced not only being knocked from the 1964 ticket but severe prosecution and ultimate disgrace- with the money trail to be published. Hence HE stood to gain the most, at just the right instant of time, with JFK killed. Getting JFK to travel to Dallas,  where LBJ had control at multiple points (including the motorcade route) , was half the effort.

We know now (in retrospect)  a feral rat like Johnson wouldn't have taken this lying down or passively, given some 21 years later his role in the murder of a Texas agricultural official (Henry Harvey Marshall) was exposed e.g.



So we have a damned good idea of what LBJ was capable of. and we know the motive: LBJ felt he was screwed out of the Presidency at the 1960  LA convention, where the Kennedy campaign team did a neat end run about him  and  JFK already had the nomination sewed up at the first roll call – unbeknownst to the hot-headed Texan. LBJ accepted JFK’s offer for VP – but only grudgingly. Meanwhile, he stewed over time, entering the Oval office almost at will in the mornings – according to Kennedy’s secretary Evelyn Lincoln, as she described in her book: Kennedy and Johnson,  (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968, pp. 149-151 ).  He felt he was entitled to be top dog or at least be co-president and even proposed on one occasion a “shared presidency” – at which point Jack kicked him out of his office and gave him some more scut work to do. 

Those who wish to examine the document basis in more detail are advised to get hold of Philip Nelson's, 'LBJ - The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination' which makes a profoundly credible case for Johnson's involvement - again noting Kennedy's removal cleared the way for Johnson to  accede to the Presidency and escape a long prison sentence.  The Warren Commission was his vehicle for clearing any culpability - using his pal Hoover as the "cleanup man". (E.g. ensuring that no controverting evidence -i.e.  to that painting Oswald as the lone nut assassin- found its way before the Commissioners.)

Now, what put Rev. King in LBJ's sights?  Basically, it was King's ever increasing willingnss to condemn and criticize the Vietnam War.  LBJ felt especially betrayed by Martin, given what he (LBJ) thought were his contributions to advancing civil rights.  So LBJ wanted King's voice silenced once and for all. He'd gotten too much attention on the Vietnam issue, and it undermined LBJ's "great legacy" - having already taken control of all of Kennedy's ideas and programs and pushed them through. 

Pepper- in his 2003 speech-  observed that:

 "Martin King was killed because he had become intolerable.  It was not just that he opposed the war and was going to the bottom line of a number of the major corporations of the United States, those forces that essentially rule the world at this point in time - the transnational entities. 

But more importantly, I think the reason is because he was going to bring a mass of people to Washington in the spring of '68 and that was very troubling."

Pepper also noted  that what incepted his further investigation into the King killing was an article  by journalist Steve Tompkins in the Memphis Commercial Appeal.  It dealt with the infiltration of the civil rights movement and black leaders by U.S. military intelligence.

 "One paragraph" from the Tompkins article in particular caught his eye. It noted that on the day of Rev. King's  assassination a Special Forces Alpha 184 team was in place, and no one understood at the time why this 6-man  sniper unit was present in Memphis. Pepper then approached Tompkins, who conceded this introduced a whole other dimension to the case - which was now not nearly as closed as the media would have had us believe.  Once a copy of the (original) Top Secret order was obtained, it was game on.

Pepper's breakthrough (and what led to his book 'Orders to Kill')) arrived on learning that a film existed of the King assassination. It was in the hands of Army psyops (psychological operations) officers who had been in Memphis that day to take photographs of everything, including any vehicles passing in the vicinity of the Lorraine Motel. One of the recording officers, as Pepper noted - in his speech and in the book - just happened to spin his camera around on hearing the shot, toward the bushes in front of the motel, thereby catching the actual assassin - a lone white man - not James Earl Ray. 

As described by Pepper (pp. 484-85) "it clearly appears the hit was to be carried out by a civilian contract killer with the Army snipers there as backup shooters if the contract killer cold not make the shot or he failed to kill Dr. King".

Pepper conjectured the contract killer was likely arranged by New Orleans' Mob boss Carlos Marcello, whose territory would have included Memphis and the southwest. Meanwhile, two members of the Alpha 184 team (Capt. Billy Eidson and Lt. Robert Worley)  "either died or were killed in the years following the events of April 4, 1968" .   Two other members of the Alpha 184 team,  a  "Warren" and "Murphy" (pseudonyms - from the file records),   realized a clean up operation was underway and "left the country".   Another member - the central communications operator "went into hiding in Canada" and another member "J.D." was killed some years later.  In many ways, the cleanup operation followed the witness elimination template after the JFK assassination - and this has been shown to be mathematically substantiated by Richard Charnin in his book,  Reclaiming Science- The JFK Conspiracy, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

For those interested in the details of Pepper's investigation into the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination I suggest getting hold of the book Orders to Kill, or at least availing themselves of this abbreviated account of Pepper's findings from the  transcript of the 2003 speech he gave:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WFP020403.pdf

James Douglass ('JFK and the Unspeakable')  has held all of us to account for not seeing that all the 1960s assassinations (JFK, MLK, RFK, Malcolm X) were interconnected, all orchestrated for the end of silencing powerful voices. Also, each killing, according to Douglass, made the next one easier because we all became susceptible to the anti-conspiracy mindset pushed by the Operation Mockingbird -compromised media. Too many thereby became  enmeshed in the media's lies that "one lone nut" was involved each time. Hence, to the extent we gave the media's apparatchiks a pass we became accomplices and parties to the "unspeakable" 

But in all of this, there is a clear path showing LBJ was instrumental in at least two of the killings -whether his hagiographers and sometime fans - wish to admit that or not.  That is what is truly unspeakable.

Memo To #MeToo: Proportionality Is Not Compatible With "ZeroTolerance"

Sen. Al Franken - victim of a zero tolerance #MeToo Movement and Zephyr Teachout.

Even as allegations of rape were made yesterday against entertainment phenom Russell Simmons, and Harvey Weinstein's pig nature of sex aggression has been exposed in an op-ed by Salma Hayek, e.g.

Salma Hayek:
Harvey Weinstein
Is My Monster Too

We've seen a few others are reconsidering harsh sanctions (such as resignation)  meted out against lesser transgressors - such as Sen. Al Franken. They appear to have recognized that conflation of serious sexual aggression with boorish and loutish behavior is not in the long term interest of the #MeToo movement.. Indeed, it is likely to be counterproductive as the political costs become more apparent, especially after the Ds possibly lose Franken's seat next November.

According to Zephyr Teachout, in a NY Times op-ed (I'm Not Convinced Franken Should Quit), she's now having second thoughts over Sen. Al Franken's ouster by the "MeToo's". It is well she (and others) should, especially liberals that fell for this farce. We now know Franken was absolutely correct when he said he shouldn't have had to resign with the  POS Trump still in office. The worst aspect of Franken's loss is that MN governor Mark Dayton plans to install his Lt. Governor as a caretaker until the primary next year.  A real Dem Senate candidate would then, presumably,  make him or herself known and compete. But unlike appointing an official sitting Senator there is no guarantee the seat will be retained by the Ds. (The last time that was done, in 1992, a Repuke won - the Dem all but hobbled from the primary.)

MSNBC political analyst Steve Kornacki was himself dumbfounded by Drayton's move as he tried to explain it to Rachel Maddow last week. He finally came up with the excuse that: "Well, he's made it clear he's retiring so he doesn't want to leave on a partisan note and would rather let candidates fight it out in primaries".  Fair enough, but that dumb move isn't likely to help the Dem numbers in the Senate - even if Doug Jones AL win holds up. And it is nearly as dumb a move as the Dems ousting Franken in the first place.

Teachout argues that in Franken's case there was not enough nuance, and she is correct. At the same time she claims to also share the "zero tolerance" approach of others in the #MeToo movement, which I have already criticized as moral absolutism. In other words,  like accusing a jaywalker and murderer of the same magnitude crime and punishing each to the same extent.  By its very definition zero tolerance accepts NO form of misbehavior - whether boorish groping or actually assaulting a woman- as deserving differential sanction.  All must be punished to the same extent. So Franken had to suffer the exact same punishment - resignation - as if he'd actually been accused of a sexual assault, similar to Matt Lauer's numerous aggressions before his firing from the Today show.


Teachout's statement is as follows:.

"I also believe in zero tolerance. And yet, a lot of women I know — myself included — were left with a sense that something went wrong last week with the effective ouster of Al Franken from the United States Senate. He resigned after a groundswell of his own Democratic colleagues called for him to step down."

Yes, he did resign and as I previously posted the "groundswell" against him was actually a Dem- sponsored and abetted Kangaroo court that ousted him. Thus Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's exclaiming "I think when we start having to talk about the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and unwanted groping you are having the wrong conversation."   Adding:
"You need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is O.K. None of it is acceptable."

"None of it is acceptable"  so therefore even if you act like a boor and overgrown teenage horn dog you have got to go. Same as if you were Harvey Weinstein assaulting dozens of women.  Or Roy Moore preying on young girls. Pardon me, but this is insane.   But this is precisely where the contradiction enters in Teachout's piece, i.e. she is basically contradicting herself - on the one hand expressing the need for more "nuance" but on the other believing in zero tolerance. Sorry, you cannot have both. Logically this is analogous to trying to square the circle. It doesn't work. If you opt for zero tolerance you cannot be for any form of nuance - which as I've written before- demands "a weighing or interpolation of actions based on critical thinking combined with the exercise of ethical provisionalism. "

Where the latter "provides a middle ground for sanctions imposed on a scale of actions or infractions." On the other hand, with zero tolerance there is "total loss of moral perspective which then insists on the same penalties for all transgressions  - the serious and simply boorish."

Yet Teachout appears to truly believe these can actually be integrated, as when she writes:

"Zero tolerance should go hand in hand with two other things: due process and proportionality. As citizens, we need a way to make sense of accusations that does not depend only on what we read or see in the news or on social media. Due process means a fair, full investigation, with a chance for the accused to respond. And proportionality means that while all forms of inappropriate sexual behavior should be addressed, the response should be based on the nature of the transgressions."

Thereby proving she is logically attempting to square the circle.  "Due process" itself implies a measured legal response - weighing the infraction against legal sanctions historically meted out for such. Hence, one does not (as a rule) impose the same ten -year prison sentence for destroying property with a pipe bomb as for spitting on the sidewalk.  Due process then is the very opposite of the rush to judgment which characterizes the mob action of Franken's fellow Dems - especially the female contingent led by Gillibrand.

"Proportionality" means just what I wrote earlier: that there is an interpolation of the gravity of actions which then necessitates an interpolation or weighing of proportional penalties. For sure what Franken was accused of - while boorish and immature- doesn't measure up to what Matt Lauer and Russell Simmons (as well as Roy Moore) were accused of.

She goes on:

"Both were missing in the hasty call for Senator Franken’s resignation."

Yes, because it is the nature of a zero tolerance or moral absolutist milieu to enable a rush to judgment. That is exactly why nuanced ethical provisionalism is counter to zero tolerance, and why the latter must not be employed in these cases.

She goes on:

"Some might point out, rightly, that Congress doesn’t have good procedures for dealing with harassment accusations. In fact, the congressional process to date has gone something like this: Lift up the rug and sweep the accusations underneath. It’s delay, deny, pay hush money and avoid the consequences."

Adding:

"Here’s what a fair system might look like: Congress should empower an independent arbiter to investigate complaints — like a Government Accountability Office, with trained experts in the field. Clearly understood mechanisms for reporting should be established. A timetable should be set that ensures complaints receive a prompt response. Both the accuser and the accused could submit questions and would have access to trained advocates and free legal consultation."

But this is a pipedream that'll never happen. At least not until the whole political culture is changed which means many more women in top Senate positons and in the Congress overall.  It also will never happen until those voices like Zephyr Teachout's come out squarely on the side of proportionality and reject the meme of zero tolerance. As I forecast to wifey, and she agrees, on the absolutist path the movement is currently going it will implode. This will happen as a sizeable faction of liberal women break off, especially after they behold the political costs of having gotten rid of Al Franken - and a goddamned Repuke mutt taking his place next year.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/jill-richardson/76740/we-agree-assault-is-bad-let-s-agree-on-how-to-punish-it

Sanders Iowa Result: A Technical Draw That Translates Into A Huge Moral Victory

"With more than 99% of the precinct results in, Clinton led 49.9% to 49.6% over Sanders after seeing an apparently comfortable lead slip. The Associated Press and multiple outlets said the race was simply too close to call, though the Clinton camp claimed a narrow victory." - UK Guardian, 'Clinton Pushed to the Limit'

"It doesn't matter what the final numbers are, if you exceed expectations in American politics then you've won." - Nicole Wallace, 'Morning Joe', this a.m.

"There is no absolute win for any candidate. Every candidate gets some piece of pie. The delegates will be divided in proportion to their percentage of votes received. The media should so report to people and not confuse the common man." - Commenter on NY Times website.

In terms of the Iowa caucus for Democrats last night, Sanders's'  achievement of a statistical tie with the presumed front runner will no doubt be spun different ways by the pundits. But considering where he was merely six months ago, in single digits compared to Hillary, one has to reckon in Nicole Wallace's take quoted above.  One can also reckon in E.J. Dionne's take on MSNBC after 100% of the precincts were in this morning- reporting Clinton with 701 delegate votes and Sanders with 697. E.J. noted:

"Not since Eugene Debs ran on the Socialist ticket in 1912 has this set of ideas really gotten this kind of prominence and I think this speaks to a discontent in the Democratic Party and on the Left and in some ways this goes back to 'Occupy Wall Street'"  - noting Sanders's' admonition that one had to take the activist sentiment into the voting booth.

More astounding, as Chuck Todd pointed out this morning, Bernie Sanders got all his support money from 770,000 supporters nationwide, contributing an average of $27 each. Hillary, meanwhile, according to the WSJ report yesterday (p. A6), "has collected a total of $3 million (along with husband Bill) from Goldman Sachs for speaking fees since 2005." (Recall Goldman came out about the only winners in the 2007-08 financial crisis by making credit default swaps bets that banks would fail.)

Another take (which I lean to)  is that of mathematical journalist Charles Seife, in his book 'Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled By the Numbers, in which the art of "proofiness" is revealed. This is the art of using bogus arguments to advance a claim via spurious appeals to numbers or counting. In particular, one of the surest signs of proofiness is the failure to provide attached uncertainties to the measurements - any measurements!  That includes vote counts.

In respect to statistical ties in elections, Seife is adamant that it makes no sense to declare a winner, especially if the difference in percentage is within the statistical errors. The difference between Sanders's' delegate count and Hillary's was just that: 701 to 697. Reinforced by the fact that in one precinct  (as reported by Steve Kornacki on MSNBC's coverage last night) no accommodation could be reached between the two groups of caucus goers - after hours - so the precinct leader simply resorted to a freaking coin toss.  Hillary won the random coin toss which put 3 added delegate votes in her column. Subtract those from her total and add them to Bernie's and what do you get?

Well, 701 - 3 = 698 for Hillary and 697 + 3 = 700 for Bernie

Voila! All of a sudden Bernie now emerges the winner and the Clinton camp is in a state of apoplexy and dyspepsia. (Let us recall again, the Dem caucus process is not like the Repubs' where you just write a name on a ballot and count them one by one. In the Dems' case actual numbered votes aren't counted because the win in each precinct is decided by person to person "horse trading" leading to percentages of the total, with the delegate votes then allotted, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/01/why-caucuses-are-so-difficult-for.html

This renders the Clinton camp's statement this morning totally laughable, i.e.:

"After thorough reporting and analysis. there is no uncertainty and Secretary Clinton clearly won".

Uh no, she just thinks she did, Given there were problems with the delegate counts and allocations thereof  in other precincts beyond the stupid coin flip  for 3 delegate votes (in one). Seife in his book, pp. 162-63, points to disestimation as the number one source of proofiness in close elections, and the primary factor making it meaningless to declare winners in such elections. (He uses the examples of the 2000 Presidential election and the 2008 Senate election between Norm Coleman and Al Franken).

According to Seife (p. 162):

"As long as there are close elections, disestimation will continue to exact a toll year after year obscuring the truth" I.e. that there is no clear winner.

He admonishes political parties, candidates and the media to be aware of all of the following:

- Admit elections are fallible. Even with the most rigorous counting - under ideal conditions and with well designed ballots (or caucus procedures) - there will always be errors of a "few hundredths of a percent"

- Be aware of people entering vote count data incorrectly

- Be aware of ballots misplaced or double counted (more peculiar to the Republican caucuses)

He concludes that the most accurate statement one can make about such close elections amounts to qualifying approximations, i.e. for the case of the Iowa D caucus results:

Hillary Clinton won approximately 701 delegate votes

And:

Bernie Sanders won approximately 697 delegate votes.

Especially, as I pointed out, counting and assessing delegate counts was anything but trivial in something like 90 Iowa precincts - including one that needed a coin toss to allot its votes!

Bernie Sanders should be proud of his showing in Iowa and for further perspective let's note:

- He pulled in almost as large a percentage vote (49.5%) as the two main anti-establishment Repubs  (Cruz and Trump) combined (52%)

- He will take away at least 21 to 22 delegates from the Iowa  Dem caucuses vs. 6 for Ted Cruz, the declared R-winner.

The number one knock from pundits, e.g. Chuck Todd on NBC this morning,  was "If he couldn't get a clear win in Iowa how can he do it in any other states?"

But they miss the point! Unlike the Republican primaries - which are 'winner take all'' - most of the Dem primaries allot delegates based on percentage proportions. Thus, Sanders can still come away with a significant set of delegate votes headed toward the Democratic convention in July. If he has enough, and I believe he will, he can make all kinds of deals to advance his policies into the D-platform,

We will have to see. But again, Bernie's accomplishment in Iowa must not be underestimated.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/the_democratic_primary_miracle_why_sanders_vs_clinton_is_just_the_beginning/

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/65797/want-endless-war-love-the-u-s-empire-well-hillary-clinton-s-your-choice

Hack Blog Politico Goes After Bernie Sanders' Past

"It is widely recognized that Politico is little more than a glorified gossip rag, the belly of the media beast, the embodiment of everything vapid, reckless, and petty that drives America’s media rot. Pointing out the latest examples is pointless and redundant."   - Glenn Greenwald, salon.com (see link at bottom of post)

Let's get it out of the way, in the interest of full disclosure and forthright honesty, I have absolutely zero use for the blog Politico. I regard it as a political cesspit composed of a bunch of retreads and former MSM hacks who've resurrected yellow journalism in the digital age to descend to the level of Neoliberal guttersnipes . They, along with the MSM, are one of the primary reasons that decent people never vie for elective office. Why should they if they can expect to have every nook and cranny of their past lives dug up which have NO relevance to the present?

Last year, in one of my recent lacerations of Politico and those who follow it (and believe they're clued in) I referenced a poll it carried out in which 64 percent believed "the country is totally out of control". 

As I observed in that post from October, last year:

"Do these numb nuts even know what "totally out of control" means? Iraq may be "totally out of control" with the ISIS vermin running amuck and pretty much doing what they want. The U.S. is not totally out of control, which shows to me the extent to which certain Americans' minds have been gutted by the Repuke PR machinery.

Even Joe Scarbrough blurted:

"Wait! America, you really believe the country is a runaway beer truck? "

Please don't generalize this to all Americans. It appears to be instead a deranged subset that follows the hack blog called 'Politico'.  And given just the response here one must question whether these people are even qualified to vote in any objective manner. It instead discloses they have lost touch with reality, and we shouldn't trust those apart from reality to cast a realistic vote."

Harsh words but I stand by them. And further, the news this a.m. that Politico dispatched a low grade hack, Michael Kruse, to nose around Vermont to dig up dirt (for a piece entitled 'Bernie Sanders Has A Secret'), reinforces my take. Kruse, talking to Steve Kornacki (who I regard as an "accessory after the fact" - which I will get to later) claims he "went up to Vermont just interested broadly in Bernie Sanders in the 1970s when he went from perennial third party loser to Mayor of Burlington, Vermont in 1981".

Kruse then claims his "reporting took me somewhere frankly  I didn't expect to go"  and mentions "making a public records request for the birthplace of his son"

WTF?! A records request for his son's birthplace? Are you serious? What the hell has that to do with Sanders' political career or current platform? The only reason to go there would be to dig up some kind of dirt!

This POS hack Kruse then said he learned:

"The mother of the son is not Bernie Sanders' ex -wife, which had never been reported in 44 years of his public political life"

Well, maybe because the people and media of Vermont (which  wifey and I have visited three times on different holidays, including: Burlington, Middlebury, Rochester and Bennington - even considering buying a home there)  have a greater respect for their politicians' private lives than a low grade slime ball from Politico. I.e. a yellow journalist who makes his  dime off sleaze and sensation to further keep Americans' minds in a regressive, knuckle dragger state.

The shameless little weasel then claimed that the context for his story was not about that fact per se, but rather how it managed to "not get reported".

Which brings us to Kornacki himself.

Kornacki, trying to be too clever by half, as he was 2 years ago discussing the JFK assassination, said at the outset of the segment:

"There's nothing wrong with having an illegitimate child outside of marriage. It is only notable in this context to point out that if Hillary Clinton were the parent of an illegitimate child - instead of Bernie Sanders- the nation would have not only heard about it long before now, it would have been dissected over and over and over....Bernie Sanders proves you can keep large segments of your life private if you are a Senator. But can the same be said if you decide to run for President?"

Which is exactly why Bernie kept his private life a secret, because it's no one's goddamned business but his. Also, one has to wonder if now Kornacki is also carrying water for Hillary. Because to compare scrutiny of her with Sanders is like comparing chalk and cheese. One (HRC) has hurled herself into the political limelight from the time she wed Bill Clinton, then - after his 1992 election - insinuated herself into the national fabric as one of the most activist First Ladies ever. (With her health care plan).

By contrast, Bernie's first instincts were never to go into the main stage limelight, including running for President! He only did so after much pushing from progressives - who demanded another contender as opposed to a Hillary coronation. And, btw, this was only after Elizabeth Warren made it clear she had no intention to run - probably expecting the same sort of media shit Sanders is getting now.

Let's wait to see what develops, and hope most Americans now backing Sanders are intelligent enough to ignore this latest Neoliberal ploy to undermine his campaign. In the meantime, one must ask about Kornacki also carrying water for a disgusting, reactionary, garbage -gossip rag like Politico. Has he tossed his show overboard for them in the case of the hit job on Sanders, or is he merely not intelligent enough to see through them? Perhaps, since he also sometimes writes for salon.com,  he needs to read the two links at the bottom.

We deserve better governance, and certainly an end to - or at least mitigation of - inequality. But we will never ever get there if we permit squalid,  irrelevant,  hack reporting to dominate in news cycles. With the only reason to slime and slander a candidate who suddenly poses a threat to the Neoliberal establishment and imperative.

Stay tuned!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/29/the_politico_culture/

And:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/30/new_low_for_politico/