This starts as follows:
If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are
the 2016 presidential candidates, gender will be part of the campaign
in an unprecedented way. It goes beyond the fact that Clinton would be
the first woman nominated by one of the two major parties as its
presidential candidate: Polls consistently show that women really,
really don’t like Trump, and men — to a lesser but still
significant degree — really don’t like Clinton.
I say. I didn't know this. Neither
difference between men and women amazes me, but the differences also
seem quite large:
Here is the summary consequence the article
Americans overall don’t like Trump or
Clinton. In polls taken over the past six weeks, Trump’s average net
favorable/unfavorable rating has been minus 23 percent, and Clinton’s
has been minus 12 percent.
However, beneath the surface, it’s the
high level of distaste for both of them among the opposite
gender that is driving those awful ratings.
Women dislike Trump with what’s likely a
historically unique intensity for a national politician. Trump’s
average net favorability among women over the past six weeks is minus
33 percent — far worse than the minus 2 percent net favorability
among women for Marco Rubio or the minus 14 percent for Ted Cruz.
In the end, it seems impossible
that men’s views of Clinton, and especially women’s views of Trump,
won’t have an impact if it comes to actual voting. And in recent polls
of a head-to-head match between Trump and Clinton, women say they would
vote for her at a rate 19 percentage points higher than that of men.
That seems a fair conclusion. (And I
should also say that while I think this information is probably
correct, and that the statistics are based on averaging a considerable
number of polls in February 2016, I found it not presented very
clearly. But this may just be me.)
FBI Says It May No Longer Need Apple’s Help to Unlock iPhone of Slain
San Bernardino Killer
is by Eric Ortiz on Truthdig:
13 Years After America's Disastrous Iraq Invasion, Obama Quietly
Deploys More Troops
The third item is by
Sarah Lazare on AlterNet:
This starts as follows:
It has been thirteen years since former
president George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office and announced the
invasion and large-scale bombing of Iraq to “free its people and to
defend the world from grave danger.”
That war and occupation would go on to
take the lives of over one million Iraqi people, according to
some estimates, and leave behind decimated
poison, a sectarian
political system and the conditions that fueled
the rise of the “Islamic State.”
That seems a fair if brief summary, and I
only add that the fact that over one million Iraqi's - about 1
in 30 of
all Iraqis - were killed in the war and the occupation is very
mentioned in any main media news that I saw.
Then there is this on Obama's
Now, on the anniversary of a war that is
broadly considered to be a disaster of epic proportions, and even
acknowledged as a mistake by some
of its initial supporters, the Obama administration is quietly
deploying more troops to the country. These deployments come despite
the president’s previous pledges
that there would be no “boots on the ground” in military operations
against the “Islamic State,” which have now been waged in Iraq and
Syria for roughly a year-and-a-half.
All I can say in defense of Obama is that
he often says one thing (for the electorate) and does
(for his rich backers).
As to "The Transparency" that Obama claims
his government: He not only sends troop after declaring no more
would be send, he also does not say how many troops he did send:
“The fact that the U.S. is sending
undisclosed numbers of marines back to Iraq is a sad indication that
the the Obama administration’s policy in the country does not depart
from the policies of former administrations,” Raed Jarrar, government
relations manager for the American Friends Service Committee, told
AlterNet. “In addition to direct military intervention, the U.S. is
also sending Iraq weapons and military aid. It is indirectly supporting
human rights violations and war crimes committed by our partner in the
4. Chomsky: 'Republicans Are a Danger to the Human Species'
The fourth item today is by Patricia Lombroso on AlterNet (and originally, it seems,
on Il Manifesto):
This starts as follows:
With terrifying clarity, the author and
philosopher Noam Chomsky spoke to Il Manifesto about chaos,
barbarism and destruction of human life. After so many years of giving
alarming interviews, Chomsky is more cynical than ever that we can
avert global disaster.
“The human species is facing a situation
that is unprecedented in the history of Homo sapiens,” he said.
“We are at the crossroads of a situation that has never occurred
before, and very soon we will have to decide whether we want the human
species to survive into something that has the appearance of existence
as we know it, or if we want to create a planetary devastation so
extreme that one cannot even imagine what could emerge.”
I agree more than not with this diagnosis,
but I don't agree with the "we": These choices are not
mine, and they are also not the choices of most people.
These choices are the choices of a few leading politicians and the
choices of a small number of very rich men, and these are not
democratic choices in which "the people" decide what they want.
Here is Chomsky on why Republicans are
a danger to the human species:
IM: Can they ignore (at their
expense) the serious economic and social repercussions of this choice?
NC: Republican leaders know the daily
consequences of the epochal migrations of populations from one
hemisphere to another, such as has never occurred in history. They also
know of the destruction of that part of the world we know as civilized
and the risks that this entails, but each candidate vying for the race
for the White House in today’s presidential campaign denies any
evidence of the effects of global warming and has no intention of doing
anything. Today’s Republican Party, I would add, is one of the most
dangerous organizations in human history.
I agree: If you deny
global warming, you are a scientific idiot, and since the
dangers are very big, you are being very irresponsible.
Here is the ending of the article:
IM: In this disastrous context,
what risks do we run in 2016, the election year for the next president
of the United States?
NC: The risks are very serious. If the
comments of the Republican leaders vying for the presidency correspond
to the reality of the future White House, we should expect a real
disaster, and that is: We ignore global warming, we tear up the nuclear
agreements with Iran, we increase our military power, we act with
greater aggressiveness and determination in the rest of the world
despite the risks of unleashing a world war. If a country with the
power of the United States endorses these policy strategies, the
chances of survival of the human species are minimized.
Again I agree. And by the way: I do not
know to what extent the chances of survival of the human
species are minimized, but I agree they are, simply when
compared with the opposites of the Republican choices.
This is a recommended article.
Trump’s and Cruz’s Tax Plans
The fifth and last item today is by Robert Reich on his site:
This starts as follows (and I abbreviated the
long title "Why Either Trump’s and Cruz’s Tax
Plans Would Be the Largest Redistributions to the Rich in American
The tax cuts for the rich proposed by
the two leading Republican candidates for the presidency – Donald Trump
and Ted Cruz – are larger, as a proportion of the government budget and
the total economy, than any tax cuts ever before proposed in history.
Maybe you should read that again - but yes
"The tax cuts for
the rich" proposed by Trump and Cruz "are larger,
as a proportion of the government budget and the total economy, than
any tax cuts ever before proposed in history".
This is probably also why Trump loves
"poorly educated people": They are so easy to deceive.
Here is a survey of five points Robert Reich makes, but without his
I merely note that each cut increases the
profits of the rich, and that the late Supreme Court Judge Oliver
Wendell Holmes Jr. very probably would have called both Trump
and Cruz dishonest and uncivilized, simply because he wrote (in 1927,
but it is still true, in principle) "Taxes
are what we pay for civilized society".
1. Trump’s proposed cut would
reduce the top tax rate
from 39.6 percent to 25 percent
2. The Cruz plan would abandon our century-old
progressive income tax
3. Cruz also proposes a 10 percent flat tax.
4. The Republican plans also repeal estate and gift taxes
5. These plans would cut federal revenues by as
$12 trillion over the decade
Here is the ending of Reich's article:
Bottom line: If either of these
men is elected president, we could see the largest redistribution in
American history from the poor and middle-class of America to the rich.
This is class warfare with a vengeance.
Alternatively, it is dishonest deception of
the many poor by the few rich, that is presented as a service to the
poor, but works to enrich the rich.
This is a recommended article.