Reparations Are For Consciences, Not For Students.

Bloomberg reports 

Student debt isn’t just a problem for job-hunting millennials -- it also could take a toll on retailers. As an increasingly large portion of Americans’ budgets go to repaying the loans, there’s less money left over for sweaters or home goods. Annual student debt payments have reached about $160 billion in the U.S., according to Moody’s Investors Service. That’s more than the yearly revenue of Amazon.com Inc., Home Depot Inc. and other major retailers.

Student debt is foremost on the minds of many American families.

It is not so at one elite university in an elite section of the nation's capital, however. Instead

Centuries after Georgetown University sold slaves to keep its doors open, the elite school is taking major steps to right its wrongs. Descendants of the people it sold in 1838 will now receive preferential status during the admissions process — possibly the first concession of its kind.

The State of Texas almost twenty years ago instituted a Top 10% Plan, "which guarantees students ranking in the top 10-percent of their high school class admission to any state universities along with increased financial aid."  Students with great potential with the misfortune  of attending a low-ranking school, often in poor districts, are thus given a hand up. Georgetown, however, will do it upon the color of a student's skin, regardless of his or her current circumstances.  And they're taking other measures to salve their conscience in that

administrators also announced on Wednesday that the school will erect a memorial to honor the slaves who built the school and publicly apologize for its involvement in the slave trade. One of the buildings that was formerly dedicated to a slave master will be renamed after a slave, and a second will be renamed after a prominent black educator. And the school will open a designated institute for people to study slavery.

If slavery isn't already part of the history curriculum at Georgetown University, the school's students are being very poorly served, indeed.   Evidently, the Jesuits were prompted in their actions because

The changes come nearly one year after hundreds of students rallied on campus and staged a sit-in outside President John J. DeGioia’s office, calling on the school’s leader to address racism on campus. The hostile environment, they argued, was a direct product of Georgetown’s historic ties to slavery.

There is no mention of what the "hostile environment" constituted or who was responsible for it. There is no need for that, evidently, and no need to assess responsibility.  Apparently there is a sordid history attached:

Not only did slaves build the Jesuit school, but the priests who ran it also sold 272 of them — including children — to Maryland and Louisiana plantations, in order to pay off the institution’s debts.

These student activists already successfully fought for slave owners’ names to be removed from campus. But now, the school is going even further.

Of course they aren't emphasizing eliminating the honor granted the individuals responsible for the institution's connection to slavery, which would be actually holding people accountable (albeit after death) and sending an important message.  Instead

Before student activism drew national attention to the school last November, DeGioia created the Working Group on Slavery, Memory and Reconciliation to devise meaningful ways for Georgetown to atone for its past sins. The working group — a handpicked group of students, faculty, and alumni — was integral in coming up with the action plan announced on Wednesday.

Now that's a  working group which will carefully assess facts, rationally assess pros and cons, and devise a wise solution.  And I am the King of Jordan.

In related news, full-time tuition, exclusive of any other costs, at Georgetown University has increased by $3,768 in the past two years to a mere $49,968,  We await the intstitution's statement explaining how its dandy new institute will decrease student costs or student debt.




                                              HAPPY LABOR DAY





Share |

No Path To Indentured Servitude

Wind up a Republican, ask him or her an uncomfortable question, and you'll get p. 17 of the GOP manual. And so it was that Eric Trump was asked on Fox and Friends by Brian Kilmeade  "...two things happened after the last twenty-four hours, Jacob Monty and Alfonso Aguilar, two guys that are members of your Hispanic Council have said, 'I don't like the speech, I'm resigning.' What's the story there?"

Luckily for the Clinton campaign, young Mr. Trump opted for page 17 rather than burnish the Trump campaign's arguable credentials as populist and concerned about the working man, or at least the white working man.  He responded

I think it took tremendous leadership to go down to Mexico and meet with the president, but when you saw the meeting, the president of Mexico even said it was a two-way-street. I was really proud of my father and I think they left it in a very good way... and then the leftist media obviously spins it, etc, etc., but it was clear from both leaders that a border is necessary for the protection of their own country.

The most memorable quote from Donald Grump's Phoenix speech was "And Mexico will pay for the wall. One hundred percent. They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it."   It is what he began his primary campaign with, what he emphasized during the primary season, and the one thing he cannot drop without losing a significant chunk of his base.  And as something the moderate right realizes will never happen, it's relatively cost-free.

Yet, on Wednesday Trump did invoke the word "jobs" thirteen times, as in

But if we're going to make our immigration system work, then we have to be prepared to talk honestly and without fear about these important and very sensitive issues. For instance, we have to listen to the concerns that working people, our forgotten working people, have over the record pace of immigration and it's impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills and general living conditions.

This was a smart move, however much it may have confounded Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway, movement conservative turned pollster turned co-campaign manager.  The classic right, fond of the downward effect immigration reform may have on jobs and  wages, is wary of immigration instead because it brings into the country potential Democrats, including individuals who may want to avail themselves of the social  safety net.

And so a confused Crooks and Liars blogger recognizes that Eric Trump is wrong, that Jacob Monty and Alfonso Aguilar left Trump's Hispanic Council not "because they watched Rachel Maddow or read NY Times article after Donald's horrific speech, it was because they listened to what he said."   Unfortunately, he added "Drugs, guns, and borders wasn't what angered them, but his father's refusal to be more humane. It's about the David Duke style ideas that have colored Trump's immigration plans."

Certainly Monty appears unmoved by proliferation of drugs and guns.  Neither, however, is he appalled by Trump's "refusal to be more humane."   Rather, in a Facebook post (emphasis his) he remarked in part

I gave Donald TRUMP a plan that would improve border security, remove hardened criminals, and most importantly give work authority to the millions of honest, hardworking immigrants in the U.S.

Monty feels wounded because Trump ignored much of his advice- and especially that he did not offer a road to legalization without citizenship, a chance for illegal immigrants to work for businessmen at substandard wages with few if any benefits. If not convinced, consider that he comlained to Ari Melber Thursday evening on Hardball without Chris Matthews

And what did he give us? Just more populist propaganda that wasn`t even written by his campaign, but was copied from FAIR and Numbers USA.

So, yes, I was disappointed, because I had the – I guess the naivete to believe that this guy was a businessman, that this guy was a Republican. And we didn`t hear a Republican last night. We heard a populist propaganda con artist. And I`m done with it.

If Hillary Clinton has any luck, Donald Trump will blame the media as son Eric suggests and chuck his quasi-populist message, reverting rhetorically to the pro-business, anti-worker message we've come to know and expect from Republican presidential candidates.  Maybe he can keep the likes of Conway and Monty happy and throw in a thing or two about 47% of the American people being lazy.


















Share |

The Bar Set At Sea Level

The bar has been set so low it's almost underground.

Charlie Pierce has dubbed Politico "Tiger Beat on the Potomac" because it "manages on a regular basis to cover the worst of our politics through the worst of our political journalism."

It should be no surprise, then, that many months ago it assembled "The POLITICO Caucus-  a panel of activists, operatives and strategists in 11 key battleground states" to tell us what to think.

Today's takeaway of the Trump moment in Mexico City is "a majority of Republicans" believes "Trump appeared presidential and diplomatic in the foreign capital."    One Republican from Pennsylvania remarked “Trump finally looked presidential, calm and assured. The voters he needs to win dislike him not on message, but on his approach and demeanor; Mexico and Phoenix will start to allay their concerns."

For the GOP nominee for President, it is now a qualifying attribute for leader of the Free World that he not always appear as if his head is about to explode and he is not preposterously offensive to a wide swath of individuals.

Still, looks can be deceiving. Nonetheless, at a news conference after the meeting Trump stated "Who pays for the wall." Responding, President Enrique Pena Nieta tweeted "I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall."

This is not a case of "he said, she said" (an awful saying, derived from "he said, she said"). Nor did Trump lie; it's unlikely they discussed the wall.  Pena Nieto said Mexican payment is a non-starter, and Trump obliged.   A fellow with a 23% rating in his own country immediately stands up to the self-promoted tough guy who, in Antonio Villaraigosa's words, "comes out barking like a pit bull, goes down to Mexico and turns into a Chihuahua.”

But Trump's statement on the podium with Pena Nieto gives us a flavor of what happened in the meeting.  Rapists, drug dealers, and assorted criminals were a thing of the past now that

the United States first, second and third generation Mexicans are just beyond reproach. Spectacular, spectacular hard-working people. I have such great respect for them and their strong values of family, faith and community.

Trump excoriates the North American Free Trade Agreement is the "worst trade  deal in history," compains the nation "become more dependent on foreign countries than ever before,".and implores us to "declare our economic independence once again." We now find the "America First" candidate wants merely to tweak the agreement, now that he has

shared my strong view that NAFTA has been a far greater benefit to Mexico than it has been to the United States and that it must be improved upon to make sure that workers, and so important, in both countries benefit from fair and reciprocal trade.

The once- anti- NAFTA crusader expressed mainstream views that could have come from Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton, the latter a signatory to the NAFTA after he secured enviromental and labor concessions. Trump maintained the two nations have many "shared goals' and "a common interest in keeping our hemisphere safe, prosperous and free."

"A picture is worth a thousand words." it is said. Sometimes those pictures are misleading. But Donald Trump is adamant that  "Mexico will pay for the wall- believe me," frequently pokes his finger to make a point while he plays the alpha dog before every audience and calls his opponents "little Marco," "lying Ted," "low-energy" JEB, and "corrupt Hillary."

Then he faces a head of state, shuts his mouth about his "big, beautiful wall," and looks like he he got his rear end whipped (photo from Rodrigo Cruz for The New York Times).  And the political media says he "looked presidential." What  would it  take for him not to look presidential?

Share |

Donald Churchill, Indeed

After Donald Trump last week expressed apparent reluctance to deport illegal immigrants, he was slammed by Ann Coulter, about whom I then remarked "isn't right twice a day, and is often bombastic and offensive. Nonetheless, once a decade or so she makes a valid point other conservatives bypass."

Responding to Donald Trump's rally speech on immigration Wednesday night, Coulter made me look foolish when she tweeted "I hear Churchill had a nice turn of phrase, but Trump's immigration speech is the most magnificent speech ever given." (Perhaps she's given to hyperbole.)

So much for "four score and seven years ago," "How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,"  and "let them come to Berlin." Even more substantively, there was "the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." And that is only among American speakers, and a rigidly abridged list. Your mileage may vary.

Trump's speech was a fairly deft mixture of bluff, bluster, and bellicosity.  But it was also, at times, internally inconsistent.

"Hillary Clinton," he claimed "has pledged amnesty in her first 100 days, and her plan will provide Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare for illegal immigrants, breaking the federal budget." That would be true were Hillary Clinton to have advocated amnesty, Social Security and Medicare for illegal immigrants, and a plan which would break the federal budget, in his telling more costly than a wall costing tens of billions of dollars.







That was, however, only a Trumpian-style case of distortion, manipulation, and rank dishonesty. Less obvious was the catch made from the speech, annotated, by Washington Post reporter Philip Bump, who should be an argument for the care and maintenance of the oft-derided "dead tree" media.  "Under my administration," Trump contended, "anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country and back to the country from which they came."

How, more observant critics than I might have observed, is that even possible?  Bump himself asks "First of all, what about the wall?"

Trump sought to sell the idea that his "impenetrable physical wall" will prevent anyone from illegally crossing the border.  After all, "we will use the best technology, including above-and below-ground sensors, towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall, find and dilocate tunnels..."

There will be no one left who would illegally cross the border, he argues.  Of course, his pie in the sky, by and by, when you die scenario is fantasy.  The wall will not be built and, as Bump had explained in detail the day before, "the government has tried to rely on sensors to help protect the border in the past, without much success."

Donald Grump stated "What we do know, despite the total lack of media curiosity, is that Hillary Clinton promises a radical amnesty combined with a radical reduction in immigration enforcement." British wartime prime minister Winston Churchill once declared "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent." Oh sure, Ann, there is no difference.









Share |

He Wins Again

We know that Politico's Edward Isaac-Dovere believes unquestioningly in trade pacts. Today, he refers to "Paul Ryan's anti-trade-focused, Trump-connected primary challenger;" "the anti-trade energy that Trumpand Sanders...."; "anti-trade protesters hounded (Democratic Rep. Derek) Kilmer" of Washington; and "Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), who enraged anti-trade forces..."

But though the words "fair trade" or "pro- fair trade" evade Isaac-Dovere, the concept of fair trade continues to escape someone far more consequential. We learn

And the White House continues to be on edge, with President Barack Obama nervously pushing for the deal to move in the lame-duck session. Not making a convention fight on TPP was the one request the president made of Sanders when they met in the Oval Office in June at the end of the primaries, according to people familiar with the meeting, and aides conveyed a similar message to Wasserman Schultz about the party platform when she was still guiding it as chair.

It worked: Sanders toned down his public rhetoric on TPP, though many of his supporters still went to the convention floor in Philadelphia holding anti-TPP signs. The platform contains watchful language about trade deals, but not the specific condemnation of the TPP that the West Wing dreaded.

Obama is placing the power of his office behind a deal less about "free trade" than about "patent and copyright protection (which) are really at the core of the TPP" and which "was crafted by and for the pharmaceutical industry, the software industry, the finance industry, the telecommunications industry and other major industry groups." It's how he rolls. If that is not surprising, that's part of the problem.

The tacit support Sanders evidently gave Obama in de-emphasizing the TPP at the convention is disturbing, especially because- in the absence of an explanation- the Senator did the President a favor he did not deserve.

Isaac-Dovere continues

Though he hasn’t needed to all that often, Obama has made good on his promise last year to commit himself to helping any member who faced political trouble for backing trade, recording robocalls for Wasserman Schultz and Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), as well as Reps. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), Brad Ashford (D-Neb.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). Kilmer also got a TV ad from Obama, and Kind got a mailer with Obama’s endorsement.

They all  won and, Isaac-Dovere observes, "of the 28 House Democrats who were targeted by organized labor and the progressive base for supporting fast-track, Wasserman Schultz is now the 28th who either skated through a  primary challenge or didn't get one at all."

President Obama can't be blamed for the defeat of all 28, only (and merely in part) for those who were defeated by incumbents he actively supported.  But it was the Obama Party, has been the Obama Party, and remains the Obama Party. Back in late March the President (photo by Getty-Mandel Ngan) claimed "Debbie has been a strong, progressive leader in Congress and a hardworking, committed Chair of our national Party since I proudly nominated her to the role in 2011/  She always stands up and fights for what is right for her district while passionately supporting middle class families."

Barack Obama, still doing great stand-up! At the time, Charlie Pierce, too kind to both the congresswoman and the President, explained

Right now, Debbie is passionately supporting middle-class families by trying to deregulate the payday loan industry, which is probably the least excusable business in America until someone finds a way to franchise drive-thru anthrax dispensaries. She's also fighting for what's right by taking gobs of money from the private prison industry, which is probably the third- or fourth-least excusable industry in America. And, of course, in the past, DWS worked hard and was committed to the election of two of the most egregious Republican congresscritters rather than their Democratic opponents.

That's what passes in Obamaworld  for "passionately supporting middle class families." It has been that way for the past few decades, but not until this presidency has such allowance, and such loyalty, been given by Democratic voters to someone who says things like this.

In the manner of Pierce, who is much more forgiving of the President than I am: This is your (our) Democratic Party, friends. Cherish it.  Do so because the next time we have a President like Barack Obama, he or she won't be able to get away with putting a (D) after the name.








Share |

Look Over Your Shoulder And Walk Fast!

When Nykea Aldridge, cousin of a future NBA Hall of Famer, was murdered in Barack Obama's hometown last week, Donald Trump initially responded by tweeting (emphasis his) "Dwayne Wade's cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!"  (He later tweeted a more conciliatory and appropriate message.)

The supremely conservative Erick Erickson, whose antipathy toward Trump may be unmatched by any Republican, tweeted "you know when Republicans accuse Democrats of politicizing tragedy? Stop saying now, Republicans."

The Hill posted several tweets, from Josh Jordan,  Tim Miller, David Harris-Gershon, Maggie Haberman, Julie Roginsky, Tom Nichols, and Sam Stein. None of them is a Republican politican, though from Paul Ryan there might have been  "Donald Trump's tweet was the textbook definition of a cruel and insensitive comment. He's my choice for President."

For Spike Lee, himself not a conservative Republican, Trump's tweet "just shows where his heart is,," perhaps as the candidate's initial tweet to the massacre at the Orlando gay nightclub did.  However, Lee noted also "what happens in Chicago is way bigger than Donald Trump who is just trying to capitalize on it."

What happens in the USA is also way bigger than what hapens in Chicago, and Trump is trying to capitalize on all of it by frightening the nation's voters.

Two days after Trump's Aldridge tweets, he tweeted "Inner-city crime is reaching record levels. African-Americans will vote for Trump because they know I will stop the slaughter." German Lopez of Vox explains

Let’s be clear: Both parts of this tweet are completely wrong. Inner-city crime isn’t at or reaching record levels, and black Americans aren’t going to vote for Trump. This is just another example of Trump trying to manipulate voters in his direction.

He might have added "and there is no slaughter going on," unless Grump is confusing the USA witho such nations as Syria, Nigeria, and the Sudan.

The fact-obsessed Lopez continues

The most recent data for crime comes from an analysis by Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist at the University of Missouri in St. Louis, for the US Department of Justice, released in June.

Rosenfeld did find a 16.8 percent increase in the homicide rate — which is used as a proxy to measure all crime, since it’s the most reliable crime statistic — in 56 of the largest US cities from 2014 to 2015.

That comes, however, on top of a crime rate vastly lower than experienced almost a quarter century ago, especially in large cities, about which the candidate is trying to frighten people. Specifically

that increase comes after America’s massive crime and homicide drop over the past couple decades, and the 16.8 percent rise is nowhere close enough to make up the difference. The homicide rate in these cities isn’t even at the highest point in the past 10 years, as Rosenfeld’s chart demonstrates.

This chart masks a lot of variation, too. The homicide rate increased in most large US cities analyzed by Rosenfeld, particularly Orlando, Cleveland, and Nashville. But it actually decreased in 15 of the 56 cities included in this analysis, including Boston, Austin, and Miami.

The recent uptick in the homicide rate is troubling, but it’s unclear if it represents a change in the decades-long trend downward. Crime rates tend to ebb and flow from month to month and year to year — for example, in 2005 and 2006, the national murder rate ticked up by about 5 percent before falling down to the lowest point in decades in 2013 and 2014. So we’ll just have to wait a few more years before we know what the long-term trend is.

Donald Trump won't have to wait, however.  He launched his campaign by declaring immigrants are "bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." He later added "tremendous, infectious disease is pouring across the border." He condemned "the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore.” China is not only a threat but is out to "rape our country. That's what they're doing. It's the greatest theft in the history of the world." Moreover," If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore."

The country is no longer great, and is just about gone, according to the self-styled "law and order candidate." HIs first tweet about the shooting death in Chicago was cruel and tasteless but far less consequential than propagating the lie that Americans must be very, very careful because crime is soaring.  Donald Trump's rhetoric may be no more overheated and divisive than when he tries to condemn voters to a life of always looking over their shoulders and waiting for other people to strike them dead.










Share |

Sitting While Others Stand

As an NFL quarterback, the San Francisco 49ers Colin Kaepernick, born to a black father and white mother and adopted by a white couple, possesses a rare combination of strength, extraordinary arm strength, and nearly unparalleled speed,  Now struggling to keep his starting job, Kaepernick has never been known as "cerebral," the term pro football experts use instead of "smart."

Presumably, the word "cerebral" has become popularized now that analysts recognize that not all black quarterbacks are stupid any more than all white quarterbacks are smart uh, er," cerebral."  Thus, someone criticizing a black quarterback for being unable to master the intricacies of a position requiring a very high degree of football intelligence  cannot be accused of "racism" nor of being "politically correct" if accusing a white quarterback of not knowng how to play the position.

If that seems overly cynical or negative, you may want to stop reading.

Mr. Kaepernick now has opted to sit out the National Anthem during the 49ers' three exhibition games, as the league and his team acknowledge he has the right to do. It's not for show, he credily insists, and

I'm going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed.  "To me this is something that has to change. When there's significant change and I feel like that flag represents what it's supposed to represent, this country is representing people the way that it's supposed to, I'll stand.

Recounting an instance at the University of Nevada in which he and fellow students allegedly had guns drawn on them by police simply because they (the guys, not the guns) were black, Kaepernick argued

You can become a cop in six months and don't have to have the same amount of training as a cosmetologist, "There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality. There's people being murdered unjustly and not being held accountable. People are being given paid leave for killing people. That's not right. That's not right by anyone's standards.

Fortunately, most police officers are entitled by contract to due process.  Shooting of civilians is invariably subject to invetigation and officers found to have acted irresponsibly are subject to severe punishment   With the rights of labor constantly under attack, too few workers currently enjoy due process or other protection from termination at will.  The right should be extended more to other fields of employment rather than denied to police officers.

Asked about the relationship between the presidential campaign and his protest, Kaepernick called Donald Trump "openly racist" and contended Hillary Clinton "has deleted emails and done things illegally" and "if that was any other person, you'd be in prison."

No one else would have been in prison becuase nobody but Secretary Clinton would have been in a position to delete three e-mails marked as "classified."  Kaepernick, it appears, does not suffer from understatement, having last month commented "this is what lynchings look like in 2016" upon posting to his Instagram account a video of a confrontation with police that left a civilian dead.

What Kaepernick lacks in judiciousness and football intelligence, however, he makes up for in courage.   He recognizes "I think there's a lot of consequences that come along with this. There's a lot of people that don't want to have this conversation."

That includes some fellow football players.  A far better and far smarter football player, safety Malcolm Jenkins of the Philadelphia Eagles- described here as "active in social issues"- remarked "He's standing up for what he believes in, but at the end of the day, all the headlines are going to be about him shaming the country and not supporting the troops?"

Those headlines can be about shaming the country and not supporting the troops only if individuals who are respected allow such this false narrative to take shape. Kaepernick did not "shame the country" and his protest had nothing to do with "the troops." It pertained to injustice toward black Americans, especially  in regard to police brutality.   And if Kaepernick's failure to show support for the National Anthem shames the nation or soldiers, the quarterback has a lot of company because, as The Philadelphia Inquirer's Bob Ford notes

Paying attention is not required. Fans shift on their feet, forget to remove their hats, surreptitiously check their phones again, take a swig of soda, and wait it out. Again, this is most of the time and most of the people. If you feel differently, and never, ever waver in your laserlike focus on the flag, that's a significant level of patriotism, if that is how you choose to define it, but you are not the norm.

The norm, moreover, includes drowining out the end of the Anthem by feverishly applauding the impending start of the event.

Few people, especially anyone connected with the NFL, will question Colin Kaepernick's cause, however questionable it is.  But if he is slandered by individuals as undercutting "the country" or the "troops," he is in for an undeservedly rough ride.

















Share |