The Crazy has never been so robust!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2017

These are the days of The Crazy:
"These are the days of miracle and wonder."

Long ago and far away, we believe Paul Simon said that.

By contrast, these are the days of The Crazy. Has our discourse ever been as crazy as it is right now?

Last Friday morning, the Washington Post presented this report. In the report, a woman claimed that Roy Moore had molested her when she was 14 years old.

That was a very serious charge. Across the journalistic landscape, it touched off The Crazy.

The Crazy has been voluminous ever since. We couldn't come close to getting to all The Crazy this week.

A continental nation can't long endure if everyone's going to be this crazy. We'll leave you with this point:

On the whole, our upper-end press corps has been venal, self-serving and largely crazy for a very long time now.

On balance, Crazy is what they do best. Crazy, plus working from script. No nuance allowed!

These are the days of Putin's great triumphs! Not to mention all the scuffling in search of the children's next jobs.

Next week: Believe the accusers!

60 comments:

  1. "A continental nation can't long endure if everyone's going to be this crazy."

    Not everyone, just the liberal zombies.

    "These are the days of Putin's great triumphs!"

    Well, that's old news, Bob...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ka-Ching, Mischa!

      Delete
    2. Mitch McConnell - Liberal zombie

      Delete
  2. I just took a look at TDH's archives, and I was struck by the lack of growth that Somerby shows as a thinker and as a writer. His figures of speech, his obsessive anger at the left, his shaky logic, it's all there. He's updated some of his targets, although many remain the same. I went back three years, four years, six years, eight years, and except for the specific issues at hand, those old posts could be swapped with the new ones without anyone noticing. The only slight difference might be that his bitterness is now ramped up to an almost insane degree. (Lack of results, maybe? No one pays attention anymore?)
    Another thing I noticed about the old posts was that there were more comments, and the comments were more interesting then. Nowadays, his posts about Maddow or Roy Moore (or whoever the current outrage du jour is) trigger an inundation of troll commenters from Breitbart or god knows what other forlorn right-wing safe space. Not to mention the regular trolls who seem determined to post their repetitious bullshit with every single TDH posting as an amplification to Somerby's motor mouth.
    Sad. Somerby mattered so much back in 1998. Now he's just spinning his wheels, a vinyl LP with the needle stuck in a groove, a patient in an asylum frothing at the mouth, endlessly repeating the same tired outrage, unseemly sometimes in his uncontrollable rage. I barely read his rubbish anymore. And that's disappointing, because he meant so much to me back then; his blog was a treasured discovery, a real eye-opener.
    Somerby is on automatic pilot mode, and these days the reader comes away from this blog feeling dumber. A good writer should develop over time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You read him then and you read him every day now. You're just disgruntled he didn't follow you off the cliff of stupid.

      Delete
    2. His old posts were more interesting in content - yours above is a case in point.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I'm super left wing, and I agree with him about the crazy. Especially the MSNBC kind.

      Love the petty personal attack against him and the blog though. It's incredibly juvenile. And btw, ALL blogs have seen a big reduction in comments. It's because of Facebook and Twitter.

      Delete
    4. Several of the more substantive commenters stopped bothering. Somerby doesn't read his comments and he doesn't moderate, so there are an endless stream of annoying troll comments that get in the way of actual discussion.

      The volume was pumped up a bit by KZ's garbage. He may still be with us but apparently his meds are helping him.

      Delete
    5. I think he reads them. You can tell that because he often takes cues from the more thoughtful ones.

      Delete
    6. No, I don't think Somerby does read comments. Commenters have called him on factual errors in his columns/blog-entries, but he's never made corrections accordingly.

      Here, for instance, Somerby claims that Yevgeny Yevtushenko wrote the poem "People" in 1933. The very first comment points out: "Seems unlikely, as he was born in 1932." No correction has been made so far in the 12 days gone past....

      Delete
  3. When you look around the poker table and can't identify the chump, chances are that it is you.

    When the rest of the world looks crazy, chances are that you are not the sane one.

    Societies have norms. Somerby has been bucking this one. Allusions to old movies, old music, philosophers and writers of literature about pedophiles, such as Nabokov, cannot disguise that Somerby is the one out of step here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are evil.

      Delete
    2. "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him."

      Delete
    3. Bob's right. The news is incredibly nuts right now in its irrational "I love to hate you" mode. They can't even get the most basic info correct in their quest to all outrage each other.

      "He dated younger women!"
      "He bought an 18 year old a glass of wine!
      "His wife is 13 years younger!
      "He took a gag photo. It's sexual harassment!"

      The outrage of it all! But, I'm so good in comparison!

      Delete
    4. 7:30 PM,
      They still ask Newt Gingrich, professional bomthrower and bullshitter, his opinion, as if he might answer in good faith at some point.
      Everybody is good in comparison (to both Gingrich and the media).

      Delete
    5. > "When the rest of the world looks crazy, chances are that you are not the sane one. / Societies have norms."

      Yet, looking back, we can fairly well say that significant parts of the world (including oh-so-civilized Europe) went crazy during the first half of the twentieth century; and that people who objected to concentration camps — even the USA's rounding up of American citizens of Japanese ancestry — were not crazy in their objections due to having been in the powerless minority then.

      Delete
  4. D Nexon: Progressivism, Trump-Russia, and Transnational Kleptocracy

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/11/progressivism-trump-russia-transnational-kleptocracy

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well yes, Bob. But as bad as the left has been, it is the Right's steady assent in into the getter of madness that, over time, has put us here. At some point you decided the Right did not have to own up or be held to account for it's actions, and you endlessly browbeat the left.

    Many of the things you have said about the left are true.
    But that is the heart of the madness. And you chose to
    look away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's not looking away. He's saying that we - on the left and in the center - need to be better in our response to the right-wing propaganda machine. He's saying that years of clowning and a refusal to be intellectually rigorous has left the media vulnerable to the arguments that they produce "fake news," which isn't worthwhile and is just as unreliable as the propaganda.

      I don't know if he's right, but it makes sense to me. The right-wing propaganda is very good at making arguments that result in "both sides" being seen as equally corrupt and worthless. Look at Donald Trump v. Harvey Weinstein, or Roy Moore v. Al Franken. Most people in America are buying the argument that they're all the same, which leads to people listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Breitbart, because they do propaganda better than the MSM.

      This is dangerous stuff. Our country is being driven off a cliff, and the world is going to be in for a big problem when that happens. It would be great to find a way to turn it around. Bob's saying that we need to be smarter and better in order to do it.

      Delete
    2. TDH has a take that is outside the accepted narrative, and it seems most of the criticism just can't tolerate that. Is he always right - no, and maybe he hits the bulls eye only every once in a while. It does seem that democrats, the left, the liberal media, etc. lately have become more and more clueless, and that has a lot to do with why Trump got elected, and far right republicans control both the House and Senate, and most State governerships and legislatures. This could change if our side somehow became smarter, but more likely when the rightwing control leads to a disaster.

      Delete
    3. "Bob's saying that we need to be smarter and better in order to do it."

      Bob wants liberals to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. He doesn't want them to use the tactics which has won the GOP the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.
      Fuck that!

      Delete
    4. There is no middle any more so we have to choose right or left. I don't see any choice there -- left has flaws but right is deplorable and irredeemable, as Hillary noted.

      You can't talk to people on the right. You can't change their minds. It is a waste of time and anything you do say will be used against you.

      Throw Russia into the mix and we are in hell. I suspect that a good percentage of the stuff Bob is blaming the left for originated with Russian trolls, either directly or laundered through Bernie or Jill's campaigns. Screwing up communication is their mode of attack in these modern times.

      We aren't going to deal with that by cleaning up our act, as Somerby suggests. It is going to take national action to warn the public and clean up social media. That's where our energy needs to be directed -- not self-flagellation, Somerby style.

      Delete
    5. I always figured leftists wanted "control of the means of production"... once they were cool with giving those means to another nation like China I just assumed they were full of shit, just like they are now about Russia.

      Delete
    6. 11:23,
      Are you the guy who found Saddam's WMDs?

      Delete
  6. People in Bob's and my generation were educated to respect facts and logical reasoning. When these are subordinated to emotion, particularly the emotion of hatred, bad decisions are apt to be made that hurt all of us. Which side wins may be less important than whether the winning side policies are based on facts and sound reasoning.

    Bob is loyal to the liberal side, so he wants his side to lead in virtue, by using facts and proper reasoning. I wish the conservative side would do the same. We have both been frequently disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a right wing meme that the left is emotional whereas the right is rational. That’s a lie. Further, reason is useless without sound facts.

      Delete
    2. David,

      If what you say is true, you'll have to admit that you have been much more frequently and deeply disappointed than those honest sorts on the liberal side. Your side is and always has been more dishonest and opportunistic. It's not even close. This is why Bob pisses off so many from his own "tribe" as he calls it. And as far as "so he wants his side to lead in virtue," both you and Jonny (above) at least start to make the case for Bob's angle, a case he has never made effectively himself. This is his blind spot and another reason he pisses people off. Bob's niche can be distilled to: a media critic who holds those that share his political ideology to a higher standard than those that favor an opposing ideology. Very commendable (and rare) but I offer that he hasn't articulated the case for this odd angle--not even as well as you and Jonny just started to do in a few short paragraphs. It's actually an easy case to be made. As you are wont to do, I refer whoever hasn't yet indulged to Lying by Sam Harris. Harris could have done much better with a longer development, but at least he makes a case for intense honesty. One could argue that Bob does what he does (point out the "what") and challenges us to figure out for ourselves the "why" (and how it benefits us in the long run), like a good teacher, but this is pure bullshit. Bob really needs to do this.

      Delete
    3. dude, just to follow this logic, if one was upset with the direction of the conservatives but one was decidedly not liberal then a vote for trump would be more or less logical. he wasn't GOPe and definitely wasn't campaigning as a leftist, so between hillary or trump you'd vote trump right?

      for those pissed off at the right, but still a conservative, who are you going to vote for? a known and demonized liberal like hillary or a guy who won based off pissing off both libs and GOP establishment?

      Delete
    4. My view is that both sides are pretty awful. In terms of facts, Trump is worse than most. But, really, most politicians and most pundits say whatever they're supposed to say, with little or no real understanding of the issues.

      This is why most government actions don't work very well. Therefore, I would rather see the government focus on things only the government can do and not expand into optional areas. E.g., I recall opposing the ACA by saying that it would put the equivalent of George Bush in charge of our health care. That's just what happened. The ACA was never going to work, but Trump's actions will lead to quicker collapse. When the ACA does collapse, we can argue about which party to blame. But, the point is, many of us won't be getting proper health care.

      Delete
    5. Dude, I hear what you're saying but you created a bit of a strawman here. You define Bob's niche on your terms and then say he has not lived up to this description that is your invention, not his. Just a slight tiny bit of logical flimflam .., worthy of Sam Harris!

      Delete
    6. My view is that both sides are pretty awful.

      Hey look, the treasonous bastard Comrade
      DinC said "both sides". Guess what. That is how we ended up with the abomination in the WH. Every time someone says "both sides", Satan wins a new soul.

      I reached the point where I agree with driftglass:

      "The only valid reason to interact with Trump voters anymore is to study them for the same reason the FBI profiles serial killers: to understand how some people can get this fucked -in-the-head and how can we prevent it from happening in the future."

      Fuck you DinC, there was nothing special about our generation and you have jack shit in common with Bob Somerby. How dare you! You just admire a lying sack of shit. Most normal people find that repulsive.

      Delete
    7. mm, you are mentally ill

      Delete
    8. "mm, you are mentally ill"

      Fake news!

      Delete
    9. mm -- here's the thing: policy matters much more than personal characteristics. Trump and Bill Clinton are both disgusting human beings (although Clinton is more charming.) But, Clinton's policies worked pretty well for you and me. So far, Trump's policies are working well for us. Politicians come and go. Policies are what affect our lives.

      OTOH Barack Obama is an admirable human being. But, his decision to overthrow Khadafy did enormous damage. It destabilized Libya and it also told the world that US guarantees cannot be relied on. And, there wasn't even any gain to hope for.

      As as citizen, I'll take effective policies from sexual predator Clinton over bad policies from estimable human being Obama.

      Delete
    10. The George W. Bush Presidency (and it's long list of failures) has been completely forgotten. Just as the Republican Party (and the media they own) would like it.

      Delete
    11. I agree with David in Cal that Obama should have prosecuted financial crimes (or what the Right-wing calls "punishing success") and torture. And don't even get me started about how he should have created "National Do Not Ingest Draino Day" by Executive Order.

      Delete
    12. Fuck you again, you treasonous bastard, Comrade DinC. Don't you fucking dare compare President Clinton to that lying sack of shit pervert flimflam man racist fraud and money launderer for the Russian mafia. Trump doesn't have "policies" because he's too fucking lazy and ignorant to do any of the hard work. He just runs around flapping his lips and blames everyone else for his miserable failures. President Clinton was a poor kid from Arkansas from a poor and broken family who rose on his own merit to make to Georgetown University, Yale and Oxford. While racist trust fund baby tRump fucked everyone he has done business with for 50 years, to the point where he can't even fucking borrow a red nickel in the financial capitol of the world. That lying sack of shit abomination you voted for isn't fit to polish Clinton's shoes.

      And fuck you twice again for calling President Clinton a sexual predator when you know for a fact that every accusation was tediously investigated and found to be bullshit. You know that just from reading this blog how Ken Starr investigated and how none of them had any credibility. So take your "respect [for]
      facts and logical reasoning" and stick it up you lying sack of shit sorry ass.

      Delete
    13. mm,

      Not sure if you intended it but there is a very persistent and rhythmic iambic quality to much of your diatribe. Can't disagree with any of your points but I'd like to add something about the under-discussed inciting of violence that His Orangeness indulged in during the campaign, both against protesters and through dog whistles to the knuckle draggers among his supporters if the election did not go his way. "Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." Conservative principles might be defensible, but this shit isn't and anybody who tries is not worth arguing with or listening to.

      Delete
    14. mm - even the New York Times is belately addressing Bill Clinton's actions. See

      I Believe Juanita

      Of the Clinton accusers, the one who haunts me is Broaddrick. The story she tells about Clinton recalls those we’ve heard about Weinstein. She claimed they had plans to meet in a hotel coffee shop, but at the last minute he asked to come up to her hotel room instead, where he raped her. Five witnesses said she confided in them about the assault right after it happened....Put simply, I believe her.


      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/juanita-broaddrick-bill-clinton.html?_r=0

      Delete
    15. You just keep fuckin' that chicken, David.

      Delete
    16. DinC: Except — "When [Paula] Jones's attorneys first subpoenaed her in their sexual harassment lawsuit against the president, Broaddrick swore out an affidavit and testified in a deposition that Clinton did not make unwelcome sexual advances toward her in the late 1970s. ... [S]he stated Clinton never tried to influence her story." When she recanted in response to Ken Starr's driving investigation, the FBI interviewers found her story "inconclusive", and even the impeachment-happy House Republicans decided it "would not be relevant to the trial."

      It turns out there was a problem with mismatched location/times, and then shifting them, but still mismatching them — her (differing) reported times for the (single) event all conflicted with his recorded itinerary — so no luck finding any occasion on which the two of them, Juanita and Bill, could actually both have been at the particular same hotel at the same time... which puts a damper on the meeting story, let alone the assault story.

      But sure, except for that, believe....

      Delete
    17. Dude @ 5:44:

      Thanks for that. You know he did something similar on multiple occasions and numerous of his surrogates suggested she be executed on various occasions also. The abomination tRump crossed so many lines it's impossible to full comprehensive recap of how ugly and repugnant his campaign was. He also insulted the military multiple times and accused the FBI director of corruption - in his own friggin' convention speech, the theme of which was "Lock her up".

      Comrade DinC is pathetic as he twists himself into a pretzel trying to justify his support for that abomination. He has ceded so much ground he is now reduced to defending it simply on tRump's "job performance"!!!! There is no one on either side of the aisle who denies his first year has been anything short of a disaster in terms of accomplishing any major legislative goals, yet here is Comrade DinC standing his ground.

      Delete
    18. ...even the New York Times...

      You really are an ass, Comrade DinC. "Even" that liberal NY Times? You don't say.

      Delete
    19. 2:43 - Trump is no different at all from Obama and Clinton except maybe a little bit more heated rhetoric. What the hell did Obama do about the oligarchy? What did he do about the new gilded age in which we live? Pull your head out. Your falling for the trick. Ask Obama, ask Clinton, ask any Democrat - what are you doing about the oligarchy? That's all that matters dumb faggot jackass.

      Delete
    20. "at all"
      How to undermine any point you were trying to make in the very first sentence, 10:20.

      Delete
  7. All liberals are disgusted with the political left. It does not reflect liberalism and at the right-of-center one will find better representation of free speech and other First Amendment rights in particular, as well as more compassion, better reasoning and intelligence in argument. The Democratic party is more defined by extremists who are driven by identity and grievance with the central guiding principle "If it hurts the feelings of blacks, gays, or women it's wrong and should be banned." This now includes legitimate law enforcement and criminal prosecution (presidents will step into criminal proceedings and try to get citizens convicted if the person the defendant maintains attacked him "looks like he could be my son), except for rape, unless the accused is politically useful.

    The main, rage-driven focus is on eradicating masculinity (in males only). All Western ideas, which include democracy, freedom, family, free enterprise, and Christianity will be opposed, even in favor of a dictatorship, because they are seen to accommodate masculinity and because whites and males are credited with establishing them. Speech is attacked, along with policies that are more humane and ethical but offend those groups. Howard Dean declared that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Generally, the moderate-right is now more liberal than the Democratic left, which is really not a coherent ideology, just a form of crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The main, rage-driven focus is on eradicating masculinity (in males only)."

      Just because they want them to stop shooting-up schools, churches, and concerts? How dare those left-wing bastards!
      ------------------------------
      God is a figment of dim-witted imaginations. Can't wait to hear the complaints about having "atheism shoved-down the throats" of the God botherers.

      Delete
    2. You sound like every one of my less bright college Freshman students after they take Sociology 101 and watch Religulous, especially those coming from a religious background who are brand new to skepticism.

      Delete
    3. Wow, the youngsters are finally waking up. Thanks for letting us know Professor.

      Delete
  8. Being raped hurts more than your feelings.

    Way to demonstrate the compassion you claim exists on the right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't know how to read.

      Delete
  9. mm claimed Trump doesn't have "policies" because he's too fucking lazy and ignorant to do any of the hard work.

    Not only does Trump have policies: they are actually working. Trump campaigned on growing the economy. So far he has done that. During the first two full of his administration, the economy grew at 3% - substantially faster than under Obama. He did this by reducing some burdensome regulations, among other things.

    Trump doesn't get full credit, because the media downplay his achievements. E.g, I was unaware of his big success with China:
    Last weekend in Beijing, as part of his 12-day trip to Asia, President Trump announced that the US and China had signed an $83.7 billion memorandum of understanding to create a number of petrochemical projects in West Virginia over the next 20 years.

    If the agreement holds tight, it is an economic game changer for the state....an investment this large — nearly three times the total annual budget for the department of energy

    https://nypost.com/2017/11/18/why-no-one-is-talking-about-trumps-game-changing-deal/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He gets zero credit because he hasn't done anything. There's been zero change in economic policy," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, a research firm. "This uptick is happening across the globe. It’s not just the U.S."

      Few economists expect the economy to continue to expand at a 3 percent pace in coming quarters, given the waves of baby boomers retiring and exiting the workforce. Under President Obama, the economy grew an average of 2.1 percent a year, although he also had many quarters where growth exceeded 3 percent.

      Trump repeatedly promised growth of over 4 percent on the campaign trail, something that hasn't happened consistently since the late 1990s.

      “An above-trend quarter does not mean that the trend has picked up,” says Jim O'Sullivan, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics.



      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/27/u-s-economy-grew-3-percent-from-july-to-september-meeting-trumps-goal/?utm_term=.9c1fee442174

      I guess we can credit Obama many quarters of economic growth rate exceeding 3% due to his reducing burdensome regulations.

      You're a real ass, Comrade DinC.
      Tell us specifically what sectors of the economy are responsible for this amazing economic growth miracle tRump's "policies".

      What specific burdensome regulations have been "reduced" and how has this had such an immediate almost spontaneous impact on the economy?

      Growth was faster 91% of the time when Clinton was president.

      https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-first-9-months-the-economy-and-markets-are-ok-but-not-the-greatest-ever-2017-10-20


      Delete
    2. only one swear word this time mm, you must have just taken your pills you crazy weirdo

      Delete
    3. mm your own link responds to the portion you quoted

      Conservatives, however, point out that Trump has dramatically scaled back regulations on businesses, which is helping to spur more corporate spending, they argue. Third quarter growth was bolstered by companies beefing up their inventories and spending more on equipment.

      "It's striking how much has been done on the regulatory front. It has to matter to the economy," says economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the right-leaning American Action Forum. His organization keeps a tally of how much government regulations costs.


      Businesses respond to actual events and also respond to future expectations. Trump being President gives confidence to businesses that regulatory reform will continue. OTOH a liberal Democrat in the White House would mean a likelihood of additional burdensome regulations.

      It's anyone's guess how the economy will do in future years, but the New York Fed says that economic growth in the 4th quarter of this year will be near 3.2%.

      The New York Federal Reserve on Friday kept its view on U.S. gross domestic product growth for the fourth quarter near 3.2 percent given the dearth of economic data this week.

      The regional central bank’s “Nowcast” model calculated the economy was expanding at an annualized pace of 3.15 percent in the fourth quarter, quicker than the 3.16 percent rate calculated a week earlier.


      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-nyfed/n-y-fed-sees-u-s-economy-growth-near-3-2-percent-in-fourth-quarter-idUSKBN1DA2AX?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5a060c4f04d3013537cf53b1&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

      Delete
    4. Oh bullshit, Comrade. You are just like trump. Blame everyone else for the bad news and take credit for something he had jack shit to do with.

      You claimed it was due to "by reducing some burdensome regulations, among other things."

      What "burdensome regulations" were removed? You were saying the same thing little more than a month after trump took office.

      Delete
    5. mm - one big one was having the EPA regulate carbon emissions, something which Obama had put in place and which had been approved by a court. Virtually every business emits some CO2, so the EPA was in a position to regulate just about every industry. Thank goodness Trump undid that.

      Delete
    6. An article from CNBC also addresses Trump's regulatory reform

      The anti-regulatory environment that Trump promised just got a big boost
      President Donald Trump promised a less restrictive regulatory environment, particularly in banking.
      Three recent developments — leadership changes at the Comptroller of the Currency Office and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as approved changes to the Dodd-Frank reforms — move that agenda forward.
      The Dodd-Frank tweaks "might send a powerful political message to the Fed," according to analysts at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/19/the-anti-regulatory-environment-that-trump-promised-just-got-a-big-boost.html

      Delete
    7. > “During the first two full of his administration, the economy grew at 3% - substantially faster than under Obama.”

      The “first two full” what? — days? weeks? months? years? — No, there haven’t been two full years yet, and the first two full days, weeks, or months (which would cover only until March 20) hardly seem to allow enough time for major economic changes, considering that previous administration (and even Congressional party) handovers have taken up to a year to change the economic graphs. Generally what we see in those first few months are the leftover results of the previous administration’s actions. To counter that, one would need to point to very specific, and dramatic, and real-world (not rhetorical) actions of the new administration and explain how they had caused these differences.

      That the new administration had merely promised beneficial change, and that had made all the difference? Oh, my goodness, what it promised didn’t seem all that beneficial to a lot of people, which might be why more of them had voted for the opposing candidate, and the inauguration protest marches were the largest ever recorded (unlike, say, the inauguration celebration itself).

      Delete
    8. Yeah, sure David. Pretty much what I expected from you. You have jack shit specific. It's amazing that you choose to live in a state that is more heavily regulated with respect to environmental policy yet still seems to outperform the national economy. Why don't you move to WV so you can drink their polluted water?

      The EPA regulates CO2 emissions because of a little thing called the Clean Air Act. This was already litigated in the Supreme Court :

      The Supreme Court ruled in a 7-to-2 decision Monday that the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is free to regulate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as long as the source of emissions in question is a traditional polluter, like a factory or a power plant, rather than a school or a shopping mall. The decision was largely written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

      http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/24/supreme-court-the-epa-can-and-will-regulate-co2/

      The following chart of the annual growth rate for private credit and commercial and industrial loans shows the fall off in those metrics. Total credit to the private sector has fallen from a recent high of 12.85% annually to only 3.49%, while commercial and industrial loans have slumped from a recent high of 8.28% annually to 2.35%.

      Not surprisingly, aggregate demand (measured by final sales to domestic purchasers) is growing at a annual rate of 4.13%, which is below its trend rate of 4.69%. Thanks to Washington, D.C., the U.S. is in the grips of regime uncertainty trap, and a “Trump Bump” is nowhere to be found.


      Delete