Tag Archives: germany

Anti-Immigrant Right Makes Big Gains in Germany

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The backlash against refugees reached new heights in Germany on Sunday as voters swept Alternative for Germany, a right-wing anti-immigration party, into three of the country’s state parliaments with a significant share of the vote.

The three-year-old party, usually known by the German acronym AfD, finished in second place in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt, where it received 24.2 percent of the vote, behind Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats. Anti-refugee sentiment is highest in former East German states, but AfD also earned big totals in two western states. It won just over 15 percent in Baden-Württemberg and 12.6 percent in Rhineland-Palatinate, both of which border France. The party poached votes from across the political spectrum, taking big chunks from the left-wing Greens and Left Party as well as the center-right Christian Democrats and the center-left Social Democrats.

“We have fundamental problems in Germany that led to this outcome,” said AfD chief Frauke Petry after the elections. She blamed immigration, “ethnic violence,” and deference to Muslim social norms for much of the anger that fueled her party’s gains. “We want to be the party of social peace,” she said. (Earlier this year, she called for German border guards to be allowed to shoot people trying to enter the country.)

Germany accepted around 1 million refugees in 2015, by far the most of any European nation. Merkel defended her country’s liberal policy on refugees as both a humanitarian necessity and a historical duty, and even declared an open-door policy for Syrians. But her country’s “summer fairytale” of open arms and moral leadership always competed with anti-foreigner protests, arson attacks on refugee housing, and harsh criticism from high-ranking members of her own governing coalition. Those voices have grown louder as refugee numbers continue to mount, and Merkel has revoked the open door and reduced benefits for asylum seekers. Now AfD’s victory has given the anti-refugee right its first serious political power.

Germany is the latest country where anti-immigrant sentiment has boosted right-wing parties. France’s nativist National Front party nearly won control of several regional governments during French elections in December. It failed to win any of the regions in the second round of voting but still garnered a record number of votes. Right-wing populist parties have also seen major gains in Sweden and Denmark since the number of refugees arriving in Europe exploded last year.

Despite AfD’s success at the polls—and renewed criticism from the powerful Bavarian wing of her party—Merkel pledged to keep Germany largely open to refugees. Germany has tried since last year to get the European Union to create a binding, continent-wide system to distribute refugees, and Merkel said on Monday that she will keep at it rather than close Germany’s borders. “I am firmly convinced, and that wasn’t questioned today, that we need a European solution and that this solution needs time,” she said.

Read this article:  

Anti-Immigrant Right Makes Big Gains in Germany

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Anti-Immigrant Right Makes Big Gains in Germany

The Saturday Profile: German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too

Peter Wohlleben, a career ranger, has topped best-seller lists with “The Hidden Life of Trees,” describing trees as social beings that communicate on the “Wood Wide Web.” Read article here:  The Saturday Profile: German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too ; ; ;

View article:

The Saturday Profile: German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, Oster, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Saturday Profile: German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too

It’s Time to Return to Market-Based Antitrust Law

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Tim Lee makes an interesting argument today. He notes that cell phone plans have gotten a lot better lately:

Next time you go shopping for a new cellphone plan, you’re likely to find that the options are a lot better than they were a couple of years ago. Prices are lower. You don’t have to sign up for one of those annoying two-year contracts. You’ll probably get unlimited phone calls and text messages as a standard feature — and a lot more data than before.

Why has this happened? Because for the past couple of years T-Mobile has been competing ferociously with cheaper, more consumer-friendly plans, and the rest of the industry has had to keep up. But what prompted T-Mobile to become the UnCarrier in the first place?

Back in 2011, AT&T was on the verge of gobbling up T-Mobile, which would have turned the industry’s Big Four into the Big Three and eliminated the industry’s most unpredictable company….But then the Obama administration intervened to block the merger. With a merger off the table, T-Mobile decided to become a thorn in the side of its larger rivals, cutting prices and offering more attractive service plans. The result, says Mark Cooper, a researcher at the Consumer Federation of America, has been an “outbreak of competition” that’s resulted in tens of billions of dollars in consumer savings.

After the AT&T deal fell through, T-Mobile needed a new strategy….So T-Mobile and its new CEO, John Legere, started changing a lot of things. In 2013, the company dropped the much-hated two-year contracts that had become an industry standard. It introduced a new price structure that offered unlimited phone calls and text messages as a standard feature….In 2014, T-Mobile added more goodies, including more generous data caps and unlimited international texting. It boosted its data caps once again in 2015.

Antitrust law in America has been off track for decades, and it’s time to get back on. The government shouldn’t worry about trying to gauge price levels or consumer welfare or benefits to consumers. That’s like trying to centrally control the economy: we don’t know enough to do it well even if we want to. Instead, the feds should concentrate on one simple thing: making sure there’s real competition in every industry. Then let the market figure things out. There are exceptions here and there to this rule, but not many.

Competition is good. Corporations may not like it, and they’ll fight tooth and nail for their rents. But it’s good for everyone else.

Original article: 

It’s Time to Return to Market-Based Antitrust Law

Posted in ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Time to Return to Market-Based Antitrust Law

Map of the Day: Reproductive Rights In Your State

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Courtesy of the Population Institute, here’s a map and accompanying chart that tells you how your state is doing on reproductive rights. More here.

Link:

Map of the Day: Reproductive Rights In Your State

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Map of the Day: Reproductive Rights In Your State

Just Because Donald Trump Says It Doesn’t Mean You Have to Report It

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Stop it, stop it, stop it, STOP IT! Just because Donald Trump says something calculatingly stupid and provocative doesn’t mean it has to be reported as front-page news. Everyone knows that his “Cruz is a Canadian” thing is ridiculous—and he wouldn’t bother saying it if he didn’t know that it was going to get loudly amplified by a media that just can’t say no to him.

Look: he’s a candidate. He’s in the lead. Reporters have to report what he’s doing. I get it. But stuff like this is such obvious media bait that it should be treated as such. It should get one line at the end of the day’s campaign roundup: “In other news, Donald Trump tried to gain attention once again with a goofy claim that Ted Cruz might not be a natural born citizen.” That’s all it really needs.

See original article:  

Just Because Donald Trump Says It Doesn’t Mean You Have to Report It

Posted in Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Just Because Donald Trump Says It Doesn’t Mean You Have to Report It

35,000 Cows: Is That a Lot or a Little?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s a little quiz. Based on the teaser on the right from the New York Times, how serious would you say this blizzard was in terms of milk production? It sounds pretty serious, no?

But nowhere in either the teaser or the linked article does the Times tell you just how much 35,000 cows is. Here’s the answer: there are 9.3 million dairy cows in the United States, so 35,000 represents….

About 0.4 percent.

I don’t get it. The blizzard is a worthwhile story, and the hit to farmers in the region is serious. No problem there. Still, why not take the extra five minutes required to dig up a couple of numbers and give readers a sense of whether this is a big problem from a national perspective? The only hint is 13 paragraphs down: “Consumers should not expect noticeable increases in the prices of milk or milk products.”

Instead, why not put something like this at the top of the story: “So far, more than 35,000 dairy cows have been found dead. Although this represents less than 1 percent of the nation’s dairy herd, for regional farmers it’s etc. etc….” Context is everything.

Continue reading: 

35,000 Cows: Is That a Lot or a Little?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 35,000 Cows: Is That a Lot or a Little?

The GOP Is Running on Fear — And I’m Here to Help

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Oh man, I’m sure glad I don’t live in Iowa. Or New Hampshire or South Carolina or Nevada or Alabama or Minnesota or Oklahoma or Alaska or Vermont or Arkansas or Tennessee or Colorado or Georgia or Massachusetts or Texas or Virginia:

Scenes of masked men toting guns and waving black Islamic State flags. Refugees scrambling across the border. Fires and explosions.

It’s not just a Donald Trump ad. Most of the Republican presidential contenders and their allies are now waging campaigns focused on fear….Former Florida governor Jeb Bush delivers a similar message in a new spot that begins airing in New Hampshire this week. “We are at war with radical Islamic terrorism,” he declares….And in Iowa, a new ad by a super PAC supporting Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas features a frightening montage of Islamic State militants, refugees on the run and rolling tanks before mocking Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida as a lightweight.

So that’s what we’re getting? A multi-month campaign to see who can out-fear the rest of the field? Well, good luck with that. I’ll even help out. Remember Ebola? That was a great bit of fearmongering. A true classic. But now we have something even better: Zika. Here’s the dope:

The Zika virus, a rare tropical disease that’s causing a panic in Brazil — because it may lead to babies being born with abnormally small heads — has now made its way to Puerto Rico….”It’s spreading really fast,” said Scott Weaver, the director of the Institute for Human Infections and Immunity at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. “I think the Zika virus is going to be knocking on the doorstep in places like Florida and Texas probably in the spring or summer.”

Zika is sort of an invisible virus: if you contract it, you’ll either feel nothing or, at most, flu-like symptoms that shortly go away. But it might cause birth defects. Maybe. There’s no need to include that qualifier, though. This is an unseen but implacable menace making its way across our borders and threatening our unborn babies. And what is Obama doing about it? Nothing, I’ll bet—and I really don’t think there’s any need to check on that. So let’s get those ads cranking, guys!

Source article:

The GOP Is Running on Fear — And I’m Here to Help

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The GOP Is Running on Fear — And I’m Here to Help

Back to the Führer: This Guy Studies Baby Hitler Time Machine Scenarios

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
A New York third-grader plays Hitler in a school production, 1942. Marjory Collins/FSA-OWI Collection

This morning, the New York Times Magazine tweeted the results of a survey of readers who were asked if they could bring themselves kill the baby Adolf Hitler. Forty-two percent said they could off the future Führer; 30 percent declined, and 28 percent said they were unsure.

The ensuing Twitter explosion reminded me of Gavriel Rosenfeld’s The World Hitler Never Made: Alternate History and the Memory of Nazism, a fascinatingly comprehensive look at pop culture’s obsession with counterfactual Hitler storylines, including the time-machine-baby-Hitler scenario. Rosenfeld is a professor of history at Fairfield University and the author of the recent book, Hi Hitler! How the Nazi Past is Being Normalized in Contemporary Culture. He also writes about counterfactual history, the study of “what if” events and their consequences.

Rosenfeld, who is not on Twitter, was blissfully unaware of the latest baby Hitler hubbub. But he kindly agreed to talk about why we never get sick of Hitler assassination fantasies and why Nazi references keep popping up in our political discussions.

Mother Jones: When did people start floating this hypothetical idea of, “Hey, if only we could go back in time and kill Hitler, everything would be different”?

Gavriel Rosenfeld: Of course, the notion of killing Hitler and improving history goes back to World War II itself. The idea of going back in time and killing Hitler as a baby is less frequently explored than exploring the possibility of whether Hitler had been assassinated successfully in real life. But what’s interesting is that when you get into the post-war period, many of the narratives in books and movies conclude that if you killed Hitler, you’re actually going to make history worse. So I’m surprised that 42 percent in the Times Magazine survey said they would kill Hitler as a baby. Of the 58 who said they wouldn’t do it, maybe they realize they wouldn’t make history better or they’re just ethically opposed to killing babies. And these are all Americans?

MJ: I don’t know, but I assume they are. They didn’t release any demographic info.

GR: The answers that you get to this question vary quite a bit by nation. British and Americans almost always say that you would make history worse, while German respondents are far and away inclined to say, of course, if you get rid of Hitler you make everything better. And the reason is that the Germans tend to like to blame the Nazi experience on one man who can be scapegoated. If you pile all the blame onto him, you exonerate the German masses from any responsibility. Whereas Americans and British respondents don’t want to let the German people off the hook. They make the case that if you get rid of Hitler, some other leader apart from Hitler would have emerged and, because of the structural constant of German nationalism, would have exploited German national feeling and produce the same kind of events no matter what.

Originally the premise of killing Hitler was fueled by deep traumatic feelings of wishing and fantasizing that if only things had been different, we could have spared ourselves all kinds of suffering. More recently it’s been turned into a comedic trope. As we go forward, tragedy plus time equals comedy, and that is what we’re seeing now.

MJ: In The World Hitler Never Made, you wrote about several books and shows that dealt with the scenario of killing baby Hitler. Do you have a favorite?

GR: My favorite, I suppose, is the British comedian and writer Stephen Fry’s novel Making History. It’s about a grad student in Cambridge who decides not so much to murder Hitler but prevent him from being born by sending, though a time machine, some birth control pills to the well where his mother was fetching water. By that process, his father, Alois Hitler, becomes sterile and Hitler is never born. That leads to a worse Nazi dictator emerging, a fictional guy named Rudolf Gloder. He’s much more rational than Hitler and he gets nuclear weapons and wreaks havoc around the world. He defeats the Soviet Union so there is no Cold War, but there is a cold war between the US and Nazi Germany. The irony is that the grad student then has to go back in time to make sure Hitler is born.

MJ: This baby Hitler moment follows Ben Carson saying the Holocaust could have been prevented if the Jews had been armed and Binyamin Netanyahu saying Hitler got the idea for the Holocaust from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Why do people keep trying to rewrite the history of Nazism and the Holocaust?

GR: We are in a “what if?” moment. In times of uncertainty, we tend to move away from deterministic world views. And when we try to find moral footing for our actions, we compare ourselves to the foil of all foils, the Nazi period. It’s a quest for moral certainty by saying, “Even if we’re not doing great these days, at least we’re not the Third Reich.” Which can be consoling or alarmist. There’s always a present-day agenda behind it.

MJ: As a historian, do you see any good coming from these counterfactuals? Do they result in more people learning the history?

GR: I feel mixed about it. It’s the same as climate change deniers who force scientists to waste their time having to refute nonsensical ideas. On the other hand, it does bring to public attention things that people might not understand. Counterfactual claims make awesome headlines. The first step to get people interested in history is to wonder how things could have been different. Most people experience history as one damn fact after another in high school. But if you can wonder, “Wow, what if the US hadn’t gotten involved in World War II?”, you can become enthralled by the imaginary possibilities. Maybe that’s a way of getting the spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. And it’s why Hitler has become a meme. If you’re a website and you want to get attention, you can Hiterlize anything.

MJ: So if you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you?

GR: I would be very tempted, but I wouldn’t have been born if World War II had never happened, which was caused by Adolf Hitler. My mother emigrated from Eastern Europe to America as a result of World War II. So for personal reasons, I would be a little hesitant. But far more broadly, what I have learned from studying counterfactual history is that the law of unintended consequences always kicks in no matter how secure you are in your plan. We have to live with the historical record as it is, like it or not.

Read more – 

Back to the Führer: This Guy Studies Baby Hitler Time Machine Scenarios

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Back to the Führer: This Guy Studies Baby Hitler Time Machine Scenarios

It’s Been 50 Years Since the Biggest US-Backed Genocide You’ve Never Heard Of

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Fifty years ago today, one of the biggest mass murders of the 20th century began in Indonesia. On the heels of a Cold War-era military takeover, between 500,000 and 1 million people were slaughtered by the army and civilian death squads—with support from the US government. Starting in October 1965 and continuing through much of the next year, these Indonesian victims were accused of being communists, whether or not they supported the country’s communist party: Many were targeted simply because they were seen as opponents of the new US-supported, military-backed Indonesian regime.

In Germany, Rwanda, and Cambodia, mass killings have been followed by truth-and-reconciliation commissions or trials. In Indonesia, despite a transition from military rule toward democracy that began in 1998, there haven’t even been memorials for the victims. The killers were never brought to justice, and many of them remain in power today. Meanwhile, the US government’s own role in the bloodshed remains unclear, as key documents related to the atrocity are classified. Even so, researchers and journalists have dug up some damning evidence of American involvement. Here’s a rundown of what happened and what we do know.

President John Kennedy and Sukarno share a car at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington in 1961. The Associated Press

During the the Cold War, why was the United States concerned about Indonesia? After Indonesia won its war of independence against the Netherlands in 1949, a hero of the struggle named Sukarno became president. The United States was not a fan of his politics: Though he was not a communist himself, he was an anti-West populist-socialist who took steps after the war to nationalize plantations and other lucrative assets. He also protected the rapidly growing communist party, known as the PKI, which by 1965 was the biggest such organization outside of a communist country. The US conducted covert operations during the late 1950s intended to weaken Sukarno’s government and strengthen the staunchly anti-communist Indonesian military. “They considered the army to have the muscle to balance Sukarno,” says Indonesian journalist Andreas Harsono, a researcher for Human Rights Watch.

What sparked the mass murders? In the early hours of October 1, 1965, a group of army conspirators killed six generals in Jakarta, the country’s capital. Maj. Gen. Suharto, who would soon become Indonesia’s dictator for more than three decades, took control of the armed forces, claiming that the killings were part of an attempted communist coup. Then he and the military launched a campaign to purge Indonesians believed to be connected with the communist party or left-leaning organizations. They also targeted hundreds of thousands of Indonesians unconnected to the party who they saw as a potential opponents of their new regime, including union members, small farmers, intellectuals, activists, and ethnic Chinese. The carnage was so intense that people stopped eating fish—fearing that the fish were consuming the human corpses flooding the rivers.

Members of the youth wing of Indonesia’s communist party are taken to a Jakarta prison on October 30, 1965. The Associated Press

So, how was the United States involved? Speculation abounds over the US role in the 1965 military takeover, though there’s no concrete proof in the public record that America had a direct hand in it. However, investigations by journalists, as well as government documents, have made it clear that the United States provided money, weapons, and equipment to the Indonesian military while it was undertaking the killings. What’s more, according to excerpts of contemporary cables released by the US State Department, officials at the US embassy created lists of thousands of names of communists and provided them to the military. It has been reported that the CIA worked on the lists, too, but the agency has denied involvement, Harsono says.

How was the genocide covered by the US press? “It was presented in the American media as good news,” says Joshua Oppenheimer, a filmmaker who has spent the past 12 years investigating the mass murders and producing two award-winning documentaries about them. He cites a 1966 story in Time magazine that said the killings were the “best news for years in Asia.” In a report at the time for NBC News, a correspondent spoke with an Indonesian man in Bali who claimed that the island, famous for its tourism, had “become more beautiful without communists,” and that “some of them wanted to be killed.” The correspondent noted that Indonesia boasted “fabulous potential wealth in natural resources” before showing footage of so-called communist prisoners at a labor camp on the island of Sumatra, some of whom, he said, would be starved to death or released from the camp to be killed by local citizens.

What’s the situation in Indonesia today? Military rule ended in 1998 when Suharto was forced out, but even today many of the perpetrators of the killings remain in power, immune from prosecution. (Under Indonesian law, soldiers cannot be taken to trial in civilian courts.) Schools continue to teach that it was necessary and good to wipe out “the communists,” and the government has yet to issue a national apology or establish a truth-and-reconciliation commission. “It was the darkness period,” says Harsono. “I have hope that sooner or later the Indonesian government will apologize and overcome the handicap to learn the truth of that darkness.” Over the last 50 years, the nation has remained a key US ally in the region. Home to some 250 million people, Indonesia is the world’s most populous Muslim country and an important backer of the United States in the so-called war on terror. Oppenheimer believes a US acknowledgment of its role in the killings might embolden Indonesia’s current president, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, to address what happened.

Is anyone pushing for more accountability? Human Rights Watch and other activists have for years called on the US government to declassify all relevant documents, and last year Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) introduced a resolution in Congress calling for their release. Oppenheimer’s documentaries have brought new public attention in both countries to the period. In his first film, The Act of Killing (2012), which was nominated for an Academy Award, he identified several of the killers and convinced them to reenact the murders they committed. “They offered boastful accounts of the killings, often with smiles on their faces and in front of their grandchildren,” Oppenheimer explained in a recent New York Times op-ed. “I felt I had wandered into Germany 40 years after the Holocaust, only to find the Nazis still in power.” In his second documentary, The Look of Silence (2014), a death squad leader looks straight into the camera and says, “We should be rewarded with a trip to America—if not by airplane, a cruise will do. We deserve it! We did this because America taught us to hate communists.”

Visit site:

It’s Been 50 Years Since the Biggest US-Backed Genocide You’ve Never Heard Of

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Been 50 Years Since the Biggest US-Backed Genocide You’ve Never Heard Of

Debating the Debates: Should Democrats Have More?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ryan Cooper wants more debates. Before we boo him off the stage, though, note that he’s asking for more Democratic debates. And he thinks Hillary Clinton ought to be in favor. Here’s why:

It would stop Republicans from dominating 2016 coverage….While a lot of the attention is negative due to half the candidates being strap-chewing lunatics, it’s still building a sense of excitement.

….It would give the political press something to talk about besides the endless, pointless Clinton email story.

….Clinton could probably use the practice. I still remember the first presidential debate in 2012, when President Obama was roundly defeated by Mitt Romney. Obama looked like a very powerful man who was not used to being sharply challenged, and came off as simultaneously haughty and unsure of himself. Hillary Clinton is a smart, capable person, but sycophantic courtier syndrome is a real thing, and a square debate on equal footing is one of the few ways someone of Clinton’s fame and standing can work against it.

Let’s examine this. More debates would be fun. On the other hand, it would mean yet more long nights of liveblogging for me. On the third hand—wait a second. I’m curious about something. Do other countries have debates? According to Wikipedia, yes. The following countries have regular campaign debates:

Australia
Brazil
Canada
France
Germany
Ireland
Kenya
Malta
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States

That’s not very many. Thirteen countries out of 200—and only seven that aren’t part of the old British Empire. It’s a little odd that the Anglo-Saxon bloc is so gung-ho on debates, considering that Mother Britain didn’t have its first televised debate until 2010. Of course, they only held a grand total of three, but then again, their campaign season only lasts six weeks. At that rate, we’d have 30 or 40 debates in America.

Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh yes: should Hillary Clinton welcome more debates? I’m going to say no. A presidential campaign is obviously a zero-sum affair, and all her competitors want more debates. Unless they’re idiots, that’s because they think it will benefit them—which it would, by giving them priceless exposure. Obviously Hillary has no interest in that, so like most front runners she wants fewer debates.

So all other arguments aside, the DNC is unlikely to change its mind on this. So tune in on October 13 for the first Democratic debate, held at the fabulous Trump Las Vegas. Just kidding. That would be a hoot, though, wouldn’t it? It will actually be held at the fabulous Wynn Las Vegas, owned by a Democratic billionaire rather than a Republican one.

Original post:  

Debating the Debates: Should Democrats Have More?

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Debating the Debates: Should Democrats Have More?