mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Bad Journalism/Bad Advocacy
Gender Diversity Doesn’t Boost Corporate Profits

The fact that women are dramatically underrepresented at the highest tiers of American corporate leadership—and that, for many years, they were greeted with discrimination and dismissal when they tried to break in—has given rise to an understandable effort, especially at elite financial and technology companies, to increase gender diversity on corporate boards. Initially, feminists argued that such efforts were important as a matter of basic fairness—to redress the effects of discrimination, past and present. Recently, however, some of the more ardent champions of corporate diversity have taken to making a different, and more provocative, argument: that increasing the share of women on boards and workgroups dramatically improves companies’ economic performance.

The problem, argues Northwestern University Professor Alice Eagly in a recent paper in the Journal of Social Issues, is that such claims—while usually backed by the best of intentions—simply don’t hold up under scrutiny. They are based on a combination of substandard research, a misreading of that research by impassioned political activists, and the failure of social scientists to act as “honest brokers” when they “produce findings that are not what advocates want to hear.” From the abstract:

In an ideal world, social science research would provide a strong basis for advocacy and social policy. However, advocates sometimes misunderstand or even ignore scientific research in pursuit of their goals, especially when research pertains to controversial questions of social inequality. To illustrate the chasm that can develop between research findings and advocates’ claims, this article addresses two areas: (a) the effects of the gender diversity of corporate boards of directors on firms’ financial performance and (b) the effects of the gender and racial diversity of workgroups on group performance. Despite advocates’ insistence that women on boards enhance corporate performance and that diversity of task groups enhances their performance, research findings are mixed, and repeated meta-analyses have yielded average correlational findings that are null or extremely small.

As Eagly notes—echoing Christina Hoff Sommers and other feminists critical of some of some of the movement’s excesses—propagating false or misleading statistics does not generally serve women well. The same goes for other familiar statistics often repeated by women’s advocacy groups: that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, or that one in five women will be raped during their time in college. There are surely ways to attack issues like sexual violence and workplace discrimination without resorting to discredited statistics, which are likely to only corrode feminists’ credibility in the long run. And there is surely a case to be made for creating more opportunity for women in business that doesn’t rest on the premise that gender diversity has a measurable impact on companies’ bottom line (even if, as Eagly points out, that kind of argument is particularly attractive to today’s neoliberal corporate elites).

Eagly’s work also highlights some of the benefits that might flow from a more politically diverse class of academic social scientists. Just as left-leaning professors are more likely to challenge research that is seized on by right-wing activists, right-leaning professors might be more likely to challenge claims that are seized on by left-leaning activists. The problem is that many social science fields have no political diversity whatsoever, so the research process—which relies on competition, falsification, and sustained skepticism—can get out of whack, especially with respect to the most politically charged questions.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Blackbeard

    Social science is a worthless cesspool of leftist propaganda but it does provide fodder for NY Times editorials so working as intended I guess.

    • Johnathan Swift Jr.

      And of course the basis for remaking every aspect of society of course, no matter how small, all by the dictates of those always beneficent government “experts.”

      “A man’s admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him.”

      ― Alexis de Tocqueville

  • Jim__L

    The Socalled Sciences are simply bunk; advocacy has rendered the whole field useless.

    Is there a single social science experiment after, say Milgram’s obedience experiment, that could not simply be forgotten with little or no impact to the functioning of human society?

    • qet

      I wouldn’t even credit the Milgram experiments as having any worth.

      • Jim__L

        Some of us who believe in Original Sin have a confirmation bias that makes it attractive, I guess. 😉

        • qet

          Yeah, except that those experiments demonstrated no such thing.

    • Boritz

      It’s a true saying that no discipline with ‘science’ in its name (e.g. social science, computer science) is actually science.

    • Johnathan Swift Jr.

      Socialist Science would be more precise.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Most women in the USA would be less than interested in putting more women on corporate boards for the sole purpose of increasing the profits of those corporations. They’ve met the typical Carly Fiorina via Carly’s campaign this year and know she’s a windbag and a colossal jerk. Even conservative women didn’t buy her.

    • Anthony
      • FriendlyGoat

        Thanks.

        • Anthony

          You’re welcome. FG (after you go through your list of responses), something worthy of your time: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/the-problem-for-poor-white-kids-is-that-a-part-of-their-culture-has-been-destroyed

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks, as always. Most people in America won’t read this, but it would be helpful if they did. We really need to realize that middle citizens in other countries are under-going problems not too dissimilar from ours and that Bernie Sanders is not a lone loony voice in some wilderness as to what has gone wrong. Because of the world race to the bottom on taxation at the high end and the mobility of money, the next step (if there is one) is some unity in multi-country politics on fiscal matters. I have this feeling that the Panama Papers are going to be a big story for quite a while and we may be prodded to re-think what may presently be called “perfectly legal”.

          • Anthony

            You’re welcome. I thought you could appreciate the Thacher reference. And Panama Papers ought to increase focus but you never know. Sanders, if nothing else has been a consistent voice for thirty years (very rare in our political class). Of note FG, you’ve had a full day. Finally, I appreciated your commentary on Berger’s essay – well said.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks.

    • M Snow

      I’m a conservative woman and I liked Carly; I just liked Marco Rubio more.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Well, to each her own. But, you’ve got to admit that Carly didn’t sufficiently capture the imagination of today’s Republicans, let alone independents or Democrats.

        • qet

          Ha! Hillary puts Carly to shame in the windbag department. The only reason Hillary’s still in the race is because the Clinton Foundation spent the last 12 years buying all the superdelegates.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Hillary is getting millions of Democratic votes. Carly did not get very many Republican votes. I’m just reporting the news about that, ok?

          • qet

            Hillary has been running continuously for 12 years, and by “running” I mean having her husband shake down investment banks, universities and foreign governments for campaign cash while studiously doing nothing that anyone would notice in Senate and State Dept. safe spaces. So it would be a testament to Bill’s incompetence if all that effort didn’t translate to votes in a year when no Democratic Party stalwart or rising star dared challenge Clinton Incorporated in the primaries.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Mrs. Clinton simply represents not signing junk a GOP Congress might send up to The White House and not appointing bad judges. She will have a good effective cabinet on a broad range of issues. That’s all we Dems want and need from a president.

          • Jim__L

            So, is Hillary’s success a result of the Money In Politics Is An Evil Thing And Should Be Stopped point that you keep making?

          • FriendlyGoat

            No. But please don’t ask the Dems to unilaterally disarm on the money factor while the party of the business community does not.
            That line of suggestion is an insult to intelligence.

            Yes, I would like less money in politics. No, that is not reality unless and until imposed by law or courts on both sides at once. If you say that’s unconstitutional, then expect Dems to have enough sense to raise money from wherever they can get it. Your side is, as you know.

          • Jim__L

            That’s two letters towards answering my question, and several sentences of “tu quoque” deflection.

            What makes you think that when Hillary raises money from rich people it’s somehow not the corruption you decry?

          • FriendlyGoat

            It is, but we’re not giving up unilaterally because you think you can bully us into it. When citizens through law DRAMATICALLY reduce the money on both sides, including outside election-advocacy groups, then we’ll all be seeing fewer ads. Until then, the race is on.

          • Jim__L

            OK, so we’d be seeing fewer ads. That would be nice. Except, like many people in my generation (and subsequent ones), we don’t consume the media that has all those ads so we don’t see them anyway.

            So… apart from ads, is there any, you know, actual substantive impact on our democracy that All This Evil Koch Brothers Money causes?

            Didn’t think so.

            At least, none that you can’t also pin to Her Royal Clintonness and her Wonderful Political Favors Machine. I just wish one of those political favors wasn’t “here, let me put all my State correspondence on an eminently hackable server — oops! How in the world did foreign hackers manage to get all that sensitive data?”

          • FriendlyGoat

            If no one was watching political ads on TV, radio and the Internet, no one would be running them. The fact that you don’t think you see them much because of what media you “consume” is completely irrelevant. Each cycle has more of them. They are intended to sway someone’s vote. Most of them lean negative. The flood of this sh*t turns the whole society negative.

          • Jim__L

            It is a demonstrable fact that over on the GOP side you can’t typically make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear by stuffing more money into it.

            It may be true over on the D-side — Hillary is arguably the worst presidential candidate since the Nixon / Kennedy debate. Why in the world are you not objecting to that more?

            As for that last paragraph — that’s more from life experience than anything. I haven’t seen a single campaign ad referring to Hillary’s apparent felonies, only news articles in reputable publications.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Ah, but you haven’t seen the ads of the general election yet. If Mrs. Clinton is the nominee, the airwave assault on her will be the biggest in history. Just months until we see it in action.

        • M Snow

          No, I didn’t want Marco, “for the optics.” I wanted him because he most closely agreed with my positions, especially on foreign policy. Why do you need to ascribe poor motives to our choices? As to Carly, the fact that she wasn’t the first choice of the conservative women I know doesn’t mean we didn’t like her. Most of us thought hers was a VP play or, perhaps a bid for a cabinet post.

          • Tom

            He’s FriendlyGoat, that’s why.

          • M Snow

            Usually pretty civil, but doesn’t seem all that friendly today.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Just allergic to modern political conservatism, sorry to say.

          • Jim__L

            He says he likes to hear what women have to say.

            You made the mistake of actually saying something.

          • M Snow

            My mistake. I’ll try to be more careful in the future.

          • Jim__L

            That was a little harsh on my part. Please keep saying what you have to say. For FG’s sake, if nothing else — he’s trapped in a very small world of Leftist talking points, and it’s good to show him the light outside of his little self-imposed cell.

          • M Snow

            Ok, I guess I forgot the lol at the end. I wasn’t planning to stop answering FG or any other leftist.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The more you or anyone else omit the “lol”, the more credible you are.
            Don’t let Jim invite you to diminish your own image.

          • M Snow

            Nice to hear that you are concerned with my image, but I don’t find “lol” to be quite so diminishing as you do. When writing, as opposed to speaking, it it sometimes difficult to convey tone. He was kidding; I was kidding, but I only added lol to make that clear. Just curious, do you dislike the term “leftist?” I don’t mean it as a pejorative, but rather as just descriptive.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I would concede that “lol” has its place among family members or friends who may be communicating real laughter about this or that being shared—-something really funny.

            But in these anonymous comment sections, I have been treated with “lol” many times by people who are less than strong thinkers or communicators. What I have always known is 1) They aren’t laughing, they are mad, 2) They are copy-catting other people with the term instead of actually expressing a thought, (and fibbing about the laugh), 3) They are seeking to demean someone else, sometimes me, sometimes everyone in my world view—–but lack replies of substance

            So, for me “lol” is a negative alert sign—-sort of like the other copycat people who don’t know “I could care less” from “I couldn’t care less”.

            As for “leftist”, I don’t mind the term at all and have used it to describe myself. I take it to mean aligned with those seated on the left side of the House, generally Democrats, generally favoring or voting for liberal measures. Of course I don’t like people believing that leftist is interchangeable with Marxism, communism, totalitarianism—-since it isn’t. Bernie Sanders is a good solid leftist, even to the point of calling himself a socialist—-but he’s not “going all” Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, or Mao. I’m not either.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The “poor motives” I find in Republicanism would be found in the platform. Trying to sell those to the American people via a young good-looking candidate who seems articulate and has a pretty family, well, that’s just marketing. Everyone from pillar to post in the GOP establishment has wanted to run Rubio as the “face” of the platform. Those pesky primary voters just didn’t go along.

            As for Fiorina, she may still be running for VP or a cabinet post. It’s conceivable that part is not over.

          • M Snow

            If you disagree with the Republican platform, fine. I agree with most of it because I believe it’s best for the country and wanting an articulate spokesman to sell it is not nefarious. Isn’t that exactly why your party chose Obama over the aging Hillary last time around?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, probably so. Obama has been saying sensible things in public, impromptu and otherwise, since he announced in early 2007. We’re going to miss him more than most people think.

        • Jim__L

          Once again, you say you want to hear from women… then dismiss it when you hear something you don’t like.

          Women can control their own reproduction just fine without abortion. Controlling yourself just takes controlling yourself.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Sure, Jim, I don’t allow myself to be bull-dozed by Republican women—-because they are Republicans, not because they are women.

            As for your last sentence, that is the point about abortion. Women are to be controlling themselves without help from the male-majority legislatures. As a man, the subject is none of my business and none of any other man’s business either.

          • Jim__L

            Whether a pregnant woman is alone in her own skin or whether she is sharing her body with someone else is a valid question.

            Does a woman pregnant with twins have three noses? Of course not, that’s absurd.

          • Tom

            FG wants Democrats to make decisions, not Republicans. Which is fair, but it would be nice if he’d say so outright.

          • Jim__L

            Well, not entirely fair. He supports a party that has decided that you can’t legally hold a point of view it doesn’t like.

            It continues to shock me just how little substance he brings to the debate here.

          • Tom

            Well, I’d be okay with fewer Democrats and more Republicans in positions of power and making decisions, so I can’t be *too* hard on him.

          • Jim__L

            Do you think that Democrats’ points of view should be punishable by fines and imprisonment? That’s how Democrats are trying to harass social conservatives into conformity against their conscience.

          • Tom

            No; however, so far as I know FG does not endorse that viewpoint from their side.

          • seattleoutcast

            He’s a typical leftist. He assumes he’s reached his decisions through reasoned thought, therefore a different conclusion must be wrong. Little does he know that he often begins with faulty assumptions and his reasoning is emotionally clouded. Also, many leftists I’ve met often use their so called intellectual skill to mask pure greed as they take more from the government than they put in.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Republican women, like Republican men, are either primarily driven by churches in opposition to abortion and gay marriage or they are apologists for the wealth class to which they already belong. There are no other explanations for the sum of self deceptions one must otherwise embrace in order to be a Republican.

          • Jim__L

            A rational person can conclude that biological reality is a woman is sharing her body with someone else when she is pregnant, and that new person deserves rights. (Does a woman carrying twins have three noses? No. She only has one. The other two are someone else’s.) When that new person in the sonogram is about to be born, few people question his or her right to live; some people have decided that there is no way to draw the line on where this right begins, short of protection all the way to up conception.

            A rational person can also conclude from the demographic collapse enveloping the developed world — with the “greying” crisis and migration crises that collapse is causing — that there is a compelling national interest to maintain laws that advance heterosexual pairings (i.e., traditional marriage) with a view to encouraging and supporting children.

            Neither wealth nor religion need be consulted to come to these conclusions.

            Even so, what right have you to dictate what is a good motivation and what is a bad motivation for a vote? it is a monstrous tyranny for the Democrats to declare that people should be disenfranchised — that their views must be invalidated by courts — on the grounds of religion or even class.

            This is why I can’t possible vote for a Democrat. Your voice only counts if you agree with them. It’s exactly what I’m seeing you do to M Snow here, but on a national scale.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Jim, if you and a woman have a conception and you view it as having legal rights from that moment—-NO ONE IS TRYING TO STOP YOU.
            When you seek to impose that view on every other person or couple by force of law, that’s a problem. When you seek to shift the fiscal policy of the nation by dwelling on that singular issue for your votes, that’s a bigger problem. I already know you won’t vote for a Democrat. As for M Snow, she doesn’t need your help because she can make her own arguments without you.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            By their very nature, many laws place a restriction of some kind on the population at large. Other laws are passed to have the city, county, state or federal government take some kind of an action. So, by their very nature most laws will create a “problem” because there are at least a few people who will disagree with them. Thus, those in the minority will feel a law is “imposed” on them.

            The thing that made the United States unique in human history was that its founders and framers set out to create a new type of government, one that not only made laws with the consent of the governed, but one where the power of the state was severely truncated, limited, through a Constitution that attempted to limit the federal government to the role that was set forth in that document. The power of the state over the individual was also limited by a Bill of Rights and furthermore, through the influence of Montesquieu, the federal government was divided into three branches, which were designed to be in tension with each other, to protect their own prerogatives. This system with two legislative houses was also created with an eye to limiting the power of the state by making the legislative process cumbersome and difficult.

            Many of us on the right would like to see a greatly diminished role in our lives for the federal government. And many would like to see a reduced role for state and local governments as well. It has been from the Progressive Era on, through the New Deal and then the Great Society, where that role has expanded greatly. Those of us who wish to see a much smaller state apparatus and even much less legislation want to see many fewer laws and perhaps even more than that, fewer rules by unelected and thus unaccountable bureaucrats. Much more of the imposing comes from the left, which wants to expand the state, than the right, which much more often wants to diminish it.

          • FriendlyGoat

            In other words, you are one more conservative who wants to harp on abortion for the purpose of tax cuts, de-regulation of business practices, packing the Supreme Court with corporatists and making the federal government “small”. What’s new?

            You write long comments with an expanded vocabulary, but in opposition to my suggestion we let women write abortion laws, this sentence of yours jumps out for its absurdity: “There are of course some inconsistencies on your side, for if you would restrict a man’s voting role, then by nature, he should then be freed of any other obligation, right?”

            No, not right.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            I don’t know why anyone with a few working synapses would conflate abortion and tax cuts, one has nothing to do with the other, they are issues that can and should be addressed the way most intelligent commentators do, one at a time in a reasoned discussion. I made a number of cogent points on the abortion issue in reply to some of yours and you come back with the argument that discussing abortion is some sort of cover for an agenda of tax cuts.

            I am not a single issue advocate. I have never been a campaigner of any sort on the abortion issue whatsoever, I was explaining the inconsistencies in the Pro-Choice side of the argument to you. Abortion is a strong issue to people on both sides and there are clearly voters for whom it is the paramount issue. I have a cousin in the states for whom being Pro-choice is the overarching issue. He has gradually become more fiscally conservative and more concerned about government’s growth and spending, but he will never vote for an anti-abortion candidate. There are plenty of religious people and even some who are not religious who are on the opposite side of the issue and vote that way. There are liberal Democrats who are anti-abortion. It is a moral issue for the very reasons I stated in my original post, no one who feels strongly about it has been bamboozled by tax-cutters, they are intelligent enough to see the issue as a moral one, or one of simply pragmatism on the other side, or one of mother’s rights where the baby has none. It stands or falls on its own.

            And, I would love to see how you support the notion that the main reason that women have abortions is because of men who they have had sex with want to escape responsibility. First of all, men have a legal responsibility to support their offspring and the vast majority do, even when they are unplanned. I know a number of men who have done exactly that. If support was of course the issue, then the baby can be adopted out right? You know that there is a long waiting list for babies to adopt by people who are unable to conceive, that people go to the ends of the earth to find babies to adopt? So, that’s a pretty simple answer, if the idiot a woman has sex with is too irresponsible to step up and do the right thing, then give it to someone who will love the child and raise it.

            And, I have been respectful to you. I did not call you crazy, which I am not. You were the one who advanced a crazy idea, the idea that men should be prevented from voting on the issue of abortion, that for this issue alone, all the foundational principles be thrown out. That’s crazy.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The reason why abortion and tax cuts (as well as regulatory cuts) are inseparable is because EVERY election cycle, the Republicans campaign vigorously, seamlessly and simultaneously on both together. It’s a package. No one gets to run as a Republican in any significant election without declaring support for ending abortion and declaring support for lower taxes and “smaller government”. Anyone who elects anti-abortion power elects tax cut power. Church people have being roped into supporting ridiculous economic and business policy again and again and again since Reagan—by being fooled on “pro-life”.

            I do not write these platforms with those two issues glued together.
            Your side does. I want to think you’re a nice well-meaning fellow, but PLEASE stop imagining that you can chase me around the barn again and again and cause me to abandon my common sense.

          • Jim__L

            You’ve read enough of my posts to know that’s far from my only issue.

            You have a child. Is it “imposing” your view that they have legal rights to say that if a doctor harms them, that doctor should be held liable under law?

          • FriendlyGoat

            I can only presume that you are introducing a discussion of lawsuits for malpractice. I have never sued anyone in my life, nor has my wife or our son.

            As for you and abortion as a single issue, it’s true that you also dislike gay marriage and the arrogance of Silicon Valley people who happen to enjoy enough market demand to enable their own (unfortunate) arrogance. I half agree with you on the latter but disagree that the appropriate punishment for arrogance is to give them a big tax cut.

            We’ve been through this all before. No need to go again. I’m familiar with the root of your grievances which was recently expressed by you saying you’d give liberals more of a hearing on a range of issues if they weren’t (in your view) attacking religion.

          • seattleoutcast

            “Republican women, like Republican men, are either primarily driven by churches in opposition to abortion and gay marriage or they are apologists for the wealth class to which they already belong. ”

            A person can be opposed to abortion without being religious. It isn’t hard to think this through.

            By the way, a good friend of mine makes $15.00 an hour and he is now $5,000 in debt because Obamacare eviscerated his health insurance. He will also get fewer raises because Seattle is forcing the company to give his raises that he deserves based on experience to people in the company who have worked less than a year. How’s that for wealth? How’s that for democrats helping the little guy?

          • FriendlyGoat

            You are not the first person I’ve met who now blames economic misfortune on those who have even less fortune. I guess it’s GOP orthodoxy, now, for the consumption of low-information voters, but it doesn’t make any real sense.

          • seattleoutcast

            Um, if you can’t even see a cause and effect relationship, I pity you.

          • FriendlyGoat

            No, I do not see a cause and effect relationship that people with less than you or your friend are dragging you down WHILE wealth has never concentrated at the top faster than at this moment, worldwide.

          • seattleoutcast

            I find it odd that you are given reams of news on this website of the failure of the Blue Model, yet you dismiss it as readily as Galileo’s friends dismissed the moons of Jupiter. Your side has INCREASED the inequality in this country. You have doubled the national debt and given more money to the banks than any other administration in the history of the United States.

            I must conclude that you are either a concubine of the state that relies on others paying your way or that you are one of those paid shills for George Soros.

          • FriendlyGoat

            And I must conclude as I told you elsewhere that you are of a perverted mind with visions of concubines and seed sowing.

            I should be paid for arguing well against naysayers, but I’m not being.

          • Jim__L

            That could be because you’re not arguing well.

          • Jim__L

            Nope, he’s just a Leftist ideologue forced to defend points he really hasn’t thought through.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            The “whole wealth” class notion of conservatives is a red herring. Both parties and all political movements have their elite, their wealthy, their rich and their oligarchs. The left in the United States seems to boast many more oligarchs that the right today.

            Mrs. Clinton is every bit as much of the inter-connected global elite as any member of the Bush family and today, I would argue she is much more tied in with the global elite than perhaps any other politician alive. The entire Clinton foundation was intended to create a Clinton political dynasty that could dominate American and International politics for decades to come. Their events are for the interconnected global elite.

            When you speak of trying to fool someone, how could anyone believe that the Clintons are for the little guy? Mrs. Clinton basically made the Department of State an adjunct of the Clinton Foundation for four years, where tit for tat, favors were done, donations made, donations made, favors done. And in her defense, all her spokespeople have been able to say is that “there is no smoking gun,” as if influence peddling isn’t proven by the favors and timing alone.

            I have little faith in any of the elite, connected class, I spent years dealing with them and increasingly, they are borderless, virtually untouchable. They have homes in London, New York, Monaco, Hong Kong,a counts in the Caymans and as we see now, in Panama. Their allegiance is to themselves and their spawn, not to anyone else. I wouldn’t fool myself into believing that any of them is “for us” or “one of us.”

          • FriendlyGoat

            We’re dealing with Donald, Ted, Bernie or Hillary at this time. Donald and Ted are off my radar for running on the wrong platform. Bernie most likely will not be nominated. I can’t abandon Mrs. Clinton under these circumstances because she is alleged to be too “elite”.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            Well, I would not find that as a reason not to vote for her either, but there is that other little matter:

            8 USC 1924, here is the statute:

            (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

            (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

            (c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

            (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

            Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

            18 USC 793:

            (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

            Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

            file:///Users/macuser/Desktop/11.%20Politics/The%20Countless%20Crimes%20of%20Hillary%20Clinton:%20Special%20Prosecutor%20Needed%20Now%20%7C%20%7C%20Observer.webarchive

            file:///Users/macuser/Desktop/11.%20Politics/Hillary%20-%20None%20Dare%20Call%20It%20Treason%20-%20Reason.com.webarchive

          • FriendlyGoat

            Republicans dream of disqualifying everyone but the standing Republican. Your “little matter” is just too convenient for my taste.

            Last time we were treated to a civics lesson on how Barack Obama’s American mother could not possibly make him a citizen if he was born in Kenya and now you are most likely running a man born in Canada to an American mother.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            Please read the law. You still apparently believe that you live in a nation governed by law, the rule of law rather than political consideration do you not?

            It should never be a matter of what is convenient for anyone. No one is protected nor exempted from the law for political consideration. No one is exempt because it is inconvenient for them and their party convenient for someone else, an opposing movement or party. The Democrats benefitted massively from Watergate, but the fact that they benefitted was a side issue because Nixon and his henchmen broke the law. When there is a scandal, your opponents may benefit, but if that was not the case, each party would cover the other’s scandals up.

            Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. Justice Brandeis

            Mrs. Clinton clearly broke the law. Each document that was removed “from its proper place of custody” represents a criminal count. Each time a document – all of which belong to the Department of State and by extension the United States Government and the American people – was stored on her server she “became possessed of documents” and each document is a count. Each time she generated classified information in discussion and stored it on her own secret server represents a count. Each time she forwarded a document to someone else who was operating in the same insecure environment or legally untitled to receive a classified document it was in the law “delivered to someone” Simply with the thousands of documents we know of she committed thousands of individual felonies due to the classification status of the documents. This is to say nothing of the thousands that were deleted – based on keyword searches, not even based on a reading by someone who was not authorized to do so – which may or may not have been recovered.

            And of course, based on the documents that Mrs. Clinton signed, she knew about the law, she knew that she was responsible for safeguarding government documents and secrets and classifying the documents that originated with her and that upon leaving her office she would be held criminally responsible for any documents or state items in her possession. There is no wiggle room in the document she signed, a PDF of which is available. And by simply reading the two laws I have reproduced above, only two of the laws she has violated, you will see that this is one of the few laws where intent is immaterial and you will also notice that the classification status is absolutely immaterial, which of course is to prevent the convenient (there is that room again) dodge of being able to claim a document wasn’t secret without a header or classification or to protect someone who strips the information out of a document, translates it or quotes from it without copying it in its entirety. And of course anyone who knew of the existence of the secret server and any state documents on them is a criminal as well because they all had an affirmative obligation to report a potential breach or breach.

            Anyone who set up a secret server system to avoid FOIA and oversight and to hide their activities, holding, hiding and transferring tens of thousands of State Department documents and state secrets is of course a felon, thousands of times over and unsuitable for any role where national security is concerned. The notion that you are fine with someone who has the F.B.I. investigating her, a broad investigation that has widened in size and scope, rather than being “wrapped up,” with no end in sight, says a lot about your party. The Huffington Post ran a lengthy article in just the past few days about Mrs. Clinton’s unsuitability for office. They are trying to save your party from Clinton and Clintonism, why not you? Is the bar really that low, that a felon is your representative?

          • FriendlyGoat

            If you succeed in knocking out Mrs. Clinton on this matter, the Democrats will nominate and run someone else. If that were to happen, I would expect an outpouring of support for that alternative person which would knock your electoral socks off. We’ll all just have to wait and see what happens.

          • Jim__L

            FG, do you believe we are a nation of laws or not?

            And why are you not joining throngs of people to demand Hillary step down and allow the nomination to go to Sanders? I would have thought you’d absolutely leap at this suggestion, especially given Sander’s polling against most Republicans.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m waiting for the primaries, the investigation and the conventions to run their courses. Of course I would be delighted with Sanders as president. He is my pick from this herd. There are also considerations of practical handicapping involved here. The idea is for a Democrat, whichever one, to not lose the general election. You can call me a party animal because the platform, not the person, is the point of elections.

          • Jim__L

            Again, you skipped the first question.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, we are a nation of bad laws and good laws. I’m focused on them as they affect millions of people—getting good ones and getting rid of bad ones. I know where you’re going with this and you are not so thick-headed as to not know that I am not biting.

          • Jim__L

            Is the law about state secrets a good law or a bad law? (This is not a hard question.)

            Not answering *is* an answer. And I don’t think it’s one you could ever be proud of.

            You know, you could go look at RCP’s General Election Matchup poll results. The ones I’ve seen show Sanders with a much bigger lead over GOP candidates than Clinton. (In fact, mostly Clinton loses.)

            I think you’re fighting this a little too hard, and I don’t really know why. Put the Big Money candidate behind bars, dismantle the favor machine, and get your preferred candidate into the general election — which he has a better chance of winning! What’s not to like?

            Does the Her Royal Clintonness’ money machine really have you that brainwashed, to think such a mediocre candidate really is The One? Have you really swallowed so much feminist propaganda that you think “Must vote for a woman… must vote for a woman… except Republicans, they’re not really women…”

            All this is lending some credibility to your argument that Big Money can brainwash people, I guess. Being brainwashed hurts you more than helps you credibility-wise, though.

          • FriendlyGoat

            What’s “not to like” is advice on sheep management from the wolf.
            It seriously does not matter what I support in some barely-read comment section. The 2016 election is going to play out as it plays out. You can go on day-rants against Hillary Clinton. I’m not.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            Boy, am I disappointed in you. Do you care about your nation, its laws, it’s national security or not? It is not me who is succeeding in knocking out Mrs. Clinton or not. It is whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation decides whether she 1) Broke the law. (which is quite obvious) and 2) Whether the DOJ decides to file charges or not.

            The problem is that of course this was a large conspiracy. Many people had to cooperate in setting up the alternative bootleg server system, many people had to know of its existence (which is a felony if not reported) and then a number of people had to be involved in illegally transferring the very information she needed to do her job onto the system. So, with so much evidence of wrongdoing, so many interviews ahead, so many chances for perjury charges (which is often what brings down the high and mighty), it is virtually inconceivable not to see charges, but how do you charge the smaller conspirators and not the bigger ones? This would be the dilemma for a DOJ who may be reluctant to charge. And of course, if they recovered deleted files, who knows what they maintain as the ones that are out there are already so bad for her.

            I don’t know why the only prism you see this through is political. It is incomprehensible that anyone can only look at this through some sort of political fun house mirror. It’s much more than that.

            I don’t want to see anyone breaking laws, especially ones that are practical, logical and need to be enforced to protect a nation and its legitimate secrets, with the negotiations of a Secretary of State, foreign policy strategy, military deployments, capability and of course spying and tradecraft being of critical importance. General Petraeus broke the law and was given a very light sentence because of his years of valiant service, but even then some of us feel he was let off too easy.

            This is about an entire server full of documents, the Secretary’s entire four year digital footprint, all of which was simply kept on a poorly designed system, then incredibly given off to a small firm without security clearance, then kept in a water closet, where anyone could have cloned or copied its contents.

            The Democrats must have enough of a bench to finally be rid of Clintons and Clintonism. Run who you like, who you feel is best, but you would have to be able to do better than a felonious woman with such a long history of scandals and a cavalier attitude towards her job and national security.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Because you are a long-winded writer, I want to like you, and I want to give you shorter answers. I’m going to wait to see what happens with what Sanders called “the damn emails”. I am a confirmed liberal who is only going to support liberals. You can write volumes to me on all the reasons I should switch sides and I’m not going to do it, okay?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Nice try, I would say, except it isn’t “nice” to try to turn politics into sexism. It’s not a question of who is a real woman. It’s a question of who is intellectually honest. I contend Republicans are not.

          • M Snow

            We pro-life conservative women have no problem with women controlling themselves. We just view the unborn baby as ANOTHER person, a defenseless person who deserves the protection of society. Except in the relatively rare instance of rape, women get pregnant from consensual sex. I would also favor exceptions for the life of the mother and severe fetal abnormality.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I have told others before and would tell you too that I would favor America getting its abortion laws from elections or legislative action in which only females are allowed to vote. This is not a “men’s issue”. I am aware that there are lots of “pro-life” women, perhaps a majority, or perhaps the definition of “pro-life” itself would be more complete and sensible after women exclusively make it—–taking into consideration the types of exceptions you have mentioned.

            Meanwhile, this issue has been “used” for two generations mainly to influence the number of men in Congress and legislatures who want to cut taxes for the richest people in the country and de-regulate business practices. Abortion opponents from the churches are really the only significant numbers of of people driving Ted Cruz at all—-even as he promises his wife’s employer (Goldman Sachs) the most sweeping high-end tax cuts ever imagined. That is a political “crock”, you know?

          • Jim__L

            Politics make for strange bedfellows. If the Democrats eased up on attacks against religion, I’d be a whole lot more willing to give them a hearing.

          • M Snow

            Since we have not yet reached the glorious days of cloned human babies, I believe abortion is still an issue to be decided by both women and men since every baby has a father as well as a mother. That said, I appreciate your willingness to submit the issue to some sort of legislative process. The European countries have managed to come up with compromises that recognize the value of human life while still providing for abortion in some or most cases. One example is requiring all “stakeholders,” such as husbands or potential grandparents being allowed to weigh in on the woman’s decision. There could be more restrictions on late-term procedures. I am concerned about the corrosive effect of abortion on-demand on our general respect for human life.

            Regards to your contention that fiscal policy is hiding behind social policy, I’m not quite sure what you are getting at. Has it escaped your attention that Wall Street gives more to Democrats than Republicans? Do you really think that listening to Hillary drone on for an hour or two is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the folks at Goldman Sachs just because she’s so delightful to listen to? Both parties use the abortion issue to fundraise so that they can then pursue their other agendas.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yes, marathon fund-raising remains a negative reality for all candidates because, in part and most recently, five Republican justices at the Supreme Court over-rode the will of Congress and the will of most people in both parties with Citizens United and McCutchen. Nothing to do but fund-raise like heck until that travesty can be undone.

            On abortion, for me, the goal is to reduce them and drastically so after more than a few days or weeks. I would like to see someone from the pro-life community with a stronger voice(s) to men to not cause them. I am in favor of Plan B cheaply available to all women and girls of any age with no restrictions, notifications, permissions, hoops or hurdles. I am in favor of other safe chemical pregnancy termination beyond the 5-day window of Plan B but as soon as possible. I am in favor of women who choose not to have abortions at all. I’m not immune to the negative reactions which conservatives have to later-term baby murder. No one “likes” that scenario, and severe fetal abnormalities discovered later on present a very hard choice. (I had a neighbor couple once who spent nearly 30 years caring for a literal “basket-case” child from birth. We should not be legislating that on anyone.)

            As for the law forcibly involving husbands, non-husband biological fathers or any potential grandparents, I think that’s a completely crazy idea or scenario for any woman to endure. The “law” and the “legislators” need to mind their own dang business on this.

          • Jim__L

            England actually requires two doctors to agree that the procedure is medically necessary.

          • M Snow

            Interesting. I did not know that. Thanks.

          • Jim__L

            I read it somewhere on the Internet… you might want to double-check it before you quote me.

          • M Snow

            OK.

          • seattleoutcast

            Not a men’s issue? Half the biological information comes from the man. The responsibility for raising the child is partially the man’s. Dude, it’s not 1968.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, as soon as you can get the man to do half the carrying of the pregnancy, half the actual giving of birth, half the recovery, half the pain, half the medical risk, and half the cost, let us know.

          • seattleoutcast

            So a man has responsibilities but no rights? You think that’s fair?

            If I have no rights, then I may simply sow my seed wherever I wish with no thought of responsibility.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The situation with many to most abortions is that the man has no intention of shouldering any responsibility. That’s one of the main reasons why she’s getting an abortion.

            As far as you thinking women with a right to choose have put you in slavery, you’re insane. For your middle thought, I’ll call you a pervert as well. Buzz off.

          • seattleoutcast

            No, most abortions are done out of convenience. And if you can’t understand my logic of rights versus responsibilities then you are an ignoramus. You really should go back to logic 101.

            And I will refuse to buzz off when trolls like you shove their opinions down my throat and insist on enforcing them with the iron fist of the state. Your name belies the truth behind your types. Friendly on the outside, thug on the inside.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You have your opinions. They are nutty. The longer you talk to me the more clearly you demonstrate the nuttiness of them. Your presumed entitlement to sow seed wherever you wish if women unrelated to you have independent reproductive rights is the example on which I rest my case. The way you stated it above identifies you as a pervert with criminal intent.

          • Jim__L

            This is you, struggling against reality.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Describing reality is what I am doing here.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            Well, perhaps you should start your own country where you can determine just who is entitled to vote on each issue. However, for the present, the United States is a constitutional republic, thus the people – through their duly elected representatives – are the ones who get to determine who gets to create the laws.

            At present, it is men AND women of voting age who then vote for their representatives. Perhaps you could just advocate eliminating all the men altogether, that would end the problem forthwith. But in the meantime, the United States still has federalism, so state by state, the voters are able to place restrictions on the practice of abortion when and where they have the votes. Then, in other places, the voters are able to remove past restrictions and allow abortion any time, anywhere for any reason. This is as it should be for abortion is not mentioned in that pesky document as the domain of the federal government and as yet no amendment has been passed legalizing unlimited abortion, nor banning the practice.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Yeah, I know where we are and what we have. We have a Supreme Court that will hold over-bearing state legislatures at bay—-or it won’t. I’m not really expecting to get a situation where women can exclusively decide anything. But I am expecting us to maintain a Court which protects individual rights over so-called states’ rights. If we don’t, there won’t be individual rights. Laws are whatever that Court says they are, not whatever a state legislature says they are—-thank goodness.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            Actually, it was intended for the state to have the only say in all matters that were not constitutionally given to the federal government, this was after all, the essence of federalism. The intent of the framers has of course been thwarted beyond all measure through the mischief made of the commerce clause and a number of other decisions. However, the idea was to have a radically proscribed federal role, which is accentuated by the 10th amendment:

            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            This seems quite simple, straightforward and it remains the law of the land. Abortion is of course not mentioned, nor are many other things, so whether they affect an individual or not, they are a matter for the individual state.

            The idea sprung from the fact that the colonies, which eventually became states were founded by different people, usually members of persecuted religious sects, so their natures differed greatly. One or more of my ascendants in the Quaker faith were burnt at the stake by the Puritans, which was rather inhospitable, even for that day. Eventually, as the colonies matured and they began to chafe at Mother England, they decided to hang together rather than individually and the states were confederated and then the written Constitution and the Bill or Rights was adopted and ratified.

            Because the states were all quite different, with different religious observations in the main, different groups of settlers, different climatic and geographical conditions, differing resources, trades and crops, each of them was intended to operate autonomously, with little interference from the federal government intended or desired. The concept was that people could vote with their feet to live with the Scots-Irish along the Carolina borderlands, among the Quakers in Pennsylvania, with the Puritans in New England or too flee farther west to avoid as much civilization as possible. If I want to live in a highly regulated environment, from juice containers to minimum wage, I can live among the New Yorkers, while if I want to live in a more libertarian environment, even if it is simply because of geography, I can live in the heart of the Sawtooths or the Wind River Range or the Judith Basin, this was the essence of the American ideal, that one size did not fit all, that our rights were God-given, not awarded by an omnipotent state. The Mormons could move west where they could find happiness, while others could settle on the shores of the Great Lake.

            The founders were clever enough to see that there was no way that someone in Philadelphia or Washington could manage a fractious and fragmented population from afar, especially to micromanage them, thus they sought to put paid to this notion from the start, fearful of tyranny, which was so often the route taken a strong and centralized state, which could easily fall into despotism, whether all at once, or gradually as de Tocqueville feared.
            We have long since reached the state of “soft despotism” in the view of many across the West, where rules are imposed in Brussels for the nations of the E.U. or in Washington, where they are imposed on the states.

            We both fear despotism, you fear it, especially on abortion from the various states, I fear it from a massive federal government. The difference is that the federalist view was the one the nation was founded on and the one that is still enshrined in the Constitution, as tattered as it has become.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thankfully, we have overcome the notion that, as you put it, the founders intended that the states have the ONLY say in matters that were not constitutionally given to the federal government. The civil rights act and voting rights act are examples. Roe is an example. USDA SNAP is an example. A federal role in education is an example. Any number of cases overturning state laws as unconstitutional are examples. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and ACA are examples. Conservatives generally argue these are all bad ideas and we liberals all argue the opposite. The simple problem is that statehouses are easier and cheaper to purchase than the entire federal government, so if you’re poor and living in a red state, your A$$ is GRASS and for life under pure “federalism”. America is tired of that and has been tired of it for generations. Decades of Jim Crow were enough, for heaven’s sake.

            As for the tenth amendment, I’m for some kind of consideration of novel ways to make use of “are reserved to the states, respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE. The best way THE PEOPLE have asserted themselves is by having the right people on the Supreme Court from time to time. That’s the whole ball of wax.

            Right now, the best thing that could happen to people is to have employment-at-will and right-to-work laws terminated in the states that have them, making the entire country competitive on a level playing field labor-wise. Naturally, we need Citizens United reversed. We need the statehouses reminded that they once were like “little countries” and today they are effectively political subdivisions of “one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all”. (Or—-maybe we could stop pestering the kids with that pledge if conservatives actually despise it in action.)

          • Jim__L

            It’s not just that the federalist view is enshrined in the Constitution — it is that ONLY under the federalist view can one escape the tyranny of the Federal Government by moving to another state. That is a critical asymmetry between the two.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            I would differ from you here Jim. It is impossible to escape a tyrannical government without leaving one’s nations, as of course so many had to do when they immigrated to America When the men of the Continental Congress hit the tipping point at Lexington and Concord and decided that they had to chart a new course, to found a new nation, in its formation and formulation the founder’s were all obsessed with tyranny. They disagreed about the nature of the new nation, Jeffersonians v.s. Federalists, but they all wanted to prevent the new nation from slipping into tyranny, whether all at once or gradually.

            So, what made the United States unique was that its Constitution was designed to prevent its federal government and potential despots from imposing tyranny on its people. It is the written Constitution, which from beginning to end, seeks to limit rather than empower the central state, that is accompanied by a Bill of Rights that guarantees the natural rights of the citizens, that makes it exceptional. Whatever its other qualities, the most unique aspect of America was the attempt to enshrine liberty by limiting government through a written document that gave a very specific and limited role to the central government, that made laws difficult to change and pass through a cumbersome legislative process that would be despots find incredibly frustrating, but which few people stand up to see, “That’s by design, stupid.”

            So, the problem with a tyrannical or all powerful federal government is that no one can escape its tyranny by moving from state to state because it is the central government that is the problem. That is precisely what the problem is today, the federal government now controls virtually everything through there gradual erosion of the Constitution, though purse strings. The power to tax is indeed the power to destroy.

            “It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in the great things than in the little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without the other.”
            ― Alexis de Tocqueville

          • Jim__L

            Sorry, misstated my case there. We agree on this point.

          • seattleoutcast

            Um, the Constitution allows the legislative body to determine laws. Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t make them wrong. You prefer 9 justices who think your way over the will of the people. That’s what I call a dictatorship.

          • FriendlyGoat

            It’s not a matter of whether I agree with them. It’s a matter of whether a Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional. In recent years, the Supreme Court has done some things you would find great and I find abysmal—–and vice versa. The point is that state legislatures are not untouchable and beyond the possibility of having their bills thrown out by a higher authority.

        • seattleoutcast

          HAS TO adopt the crazy talk of the right

          Wow, what a repugnant remark. You sir, are a crazy loser. (How does that make you feel?)

          • FriendlyGoat

            It doesn’t change how I feel. I’ve met you here before.

          • seattleoutcast

            Of course we’ve met. Many times.

            If you think the right is crazy and refuse to look at our arguments than you are just an ideologue. Thanks for the massive debt your generation has forced on us. We’ll have a lower standard of living because of it.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m always looking at your arguments. That’s why I hang out in conservative places—-seriously—-to see what the conservative arguments are. The PROBLEM is that almost all of them are falsehoods. But I’ll keep looking.

          • seattleoutcast

            So what is wrong with a balanced budget, for one?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Nothing, so long as the one you or other Republicans would fashion would not have the effect of concentrating even more wealth at the top.
            The current GOP “position” is FIRST OF ALL massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, to be followed by unspecified spending cuts to pay for those tax cuts plus some more unspecified spending cuts to pay for reducing the deficit which already exists. Given that all spending cuts of any significance are either job eliminations or transfer payments to people on the lower end of the spectrum, your typical GOP plan offers nothing but rich richer and poor poorer. That never changes, by the way.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            The funny thing about this consistent downwind tack is that inequality has been on steroids for the past seven years. The superrich have left everyone increasingly far behind during the Obama years. In one of his more honest speeches about the nature of inequality, the current President explained that there were differing views on just why inequality has increased so much across administration after administration, in your view good (Democrats of course) and dastardly evil (GOP) and that perhaps not a lot can be done about it.

            Some of it at least can be attributed to computers and software. A former client manages a significant hedge fund out of a one floor office. Fifty years ago, he would have had to have acres of bookkeepers, CPAs, messengers and the like. The computer has eliminated countless middle management jobs, allowing the ownership and major stockholders to outpace everyone else.

            Crony-connected-capitalism is another factor, where those that are wired in have enormous advantages over the rest of the nation. Laws are passed that jump start new industries with state sponsorship and loans, allowing political insiders to fill their pockets.

            The inequality train has left the station. Unless you are for confiscating their wealth, not taxing their earnings, there is precious little that can be done about it. In the current world, if you can make enough or sell enough of something, even when they tax the crap out of you, one can still become a billionaire. I had another client who invented/developed and marketed something sold on television. He has made hundreds of millions of dollars on a single product a few dollars at a time, but sell enough of them.

            The markets are global now, inequality is at least in large part due to the current state of modernity, with precious little to do with the usual diatribe against “tax cuts for the wealthy.” Most of them manage to pay few taxes anyway and countless among them operate their own foundations, allowing them to fly anywhere and stay at four star hotels while they trade favors with the global elite. Does this dodge sound familiar? Could a well known woman in Mao suits and her noxious husband have developed this one into an art form?

            To the Democrats inequality is a cyclical and cynical campaign issue, even while the Treasury of both types of administrations are wholly owned subsidiaries of Wall Street and Goldman-Sachs, where Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are paid to speak for enormous fees. The United States has had a Wall Street recovery, not a Main Street recovery, which has been propped up by loaning the contents of the Treasury at zero interest, after bailing them out of course.
            When Main street has seen little movement, hindered much more by regulation, which large companies can navigate easier than mom and pop shops, Wall Street has become richer and richer and richer. So, while he whines about it, how much does this President care about inequality? Mrs. Clinton? Please.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Why does this all sound to me like you are trying to make an iron-clad case for Ted Cruz to lead the USA into the most audacious high-end tax cuts ever (and ignite another worldwide race downward)? Because you are.

            You would have me believe that growing world inequality is Obama’s fault, that nothing can be done about it ever in the technology age—-so don’t deign to even think about it—–in fact, go hard the wrong way.

            Nice talking to you, but pardon me for not taking the bait.

          • Johnathan Swift Jr.

            I almost always discuss or argue about difficult subjects in good faith. I wrote at great length about some of the forces that drive inequality and complimented the current President on one particular speech where he was more honest about the issue.

            Both sides sell their base snake oil, easy answers or complaints about problems they cannot solve. There is simply no way for any Democrat to do anything meaningful about inequality unless they are going to confiscate money or nationalize assets, at which point the nation becomes a dictatorship and everyone begins to flee with whatever they can hold onto. So, all the speeches mean little unless you have a way to curb inequality? Again, economists can’t even with certitude explain what drives inequality for sure. I don’t blame him for American, nor international inequality. I was pointing out the irony of inequality advancing double time during his administration. Perhaps you have the answer to curbing inequality, if so, I am all ears.

            Before I largely retired, I worked for and with some of these people that were very wealthy and in the oligarch class. Some of them have doubled their net worth since the recession, during the Obama administration. They are able to borrow massive sums of money because of credit and high net worth, then turn it into more via the stock market or real estate, they are able to buy into dodge funds none of us mere mortals can enter because of laws that actually stack the deck in favor of the high net worth individual.

            The elite have the system wired. In general, they are able to make sure their children will keep their wealth through trusts and all sorts of tax shelters and foundations. They have the world wired, the best prep schools, the best universities if the children do well at all in school, then capital for any enterprise they want to start or a job in a glamorous industry. Everything, everything they do, all of their political contributions are made to insure that they and theirs continue on the gravy train.

            And you are fooling yourself is you think Mrs. Clinton does not have near unanimous Wall Street support because she will keep the money train rolling for the elite and Wall Street, that is the whole purpose of their foundation, to make them indispensable to the world’s oligarchs. The thing that should be apparent is that oligarchies do not produce any fluidity, because they want to keep competition down. The bigger the government, the more control the top 1% of the 1% of the 1% have, because they are wired in. Thanks.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, I do not disagree with your assessment of the built-in advantages for those already well-endowed or well-connected, nor with the extraordinary stock-market opportunities exploited by some after the market low of 3/06/09. This is the price of living in a free-enterprise society where those who take on risk sometimes reap extraordinary rewards, and sometimes in highly questionable places. Las Vegas Casino stocks were depressed after the Great Recession and people made big money on the rebound of Wynn and LV Sands, for instance.
            Likewise the small caps and the financials were amazing rides for those who got on low and rode up the bull market, maybe even especially so if they used some of the amplified-power ETFs based on certain indices.

            So, combating growing inequality is hard. The one thing I do know is that it will not be done by enacting Cruz-style tax cuts in this country or in any country. That’s why I am not ever seduced into supporting Republicans. My personal view is that Sanders would be our best choice of president because he is exposing a lot of truth, but that he is almost certainly not electable in the general. So even though I like him, I can’t hope for him. That leaves Mrs. Clinton who is, as you say, marginal. BUT—-I’m not switching sides because of her.

          • seattleoutcast

            This is so foolish. The average federal employee makes far more than I would ever dream in my lifetime. The OMB admits there is over 300 billion dollars wasted in duplicate and wasteful programs.

            No, the only people who would be hurt in a smaller budget are those concubines who rely on milking the average taxpayer out of his or her hard earned money.

          • FriendlyGoat

            When you lay off employees funded by public-sector spending, you increase the pool of people who will be competing with you for your job. You imagine they are all incompetent bureaucrats. They’re not.

          • Jim__L

            Competent managers would be starting their own companies rather than simply “competing” for jobs.

            It’s just not a zero-sum game.

      • Andrew Allison

        The problem here is the conflation of gender and character. The business world is full of men who also, like Carly, achieve nothing except advancing their own careers. Your preferred candidate demonstrates that the same is true in politics: Carly & Marco are birds of a feather. Incidentally, I’m stunned that as a conservative woman you would even consider another first-term Senator for President. What was that about the lessons of (recent) history?

        • M Snow

          Perhaps I have a longer term horizon. Lincoln was a one term member of the House. Yes, he was in the Illinois legislature for awhile as Marco was in the Florida legislature. No, Marco isn’t Lincoln and yes, in general I would prefer more experience but when I added up each candidate’s pluses and minuses he seemed the best. The lesson of recent history is “Don’t elect a left wing narcissist,” not, “Don’t elect a first term Senator.”

    • Johnathan Swift Jr.

      I didn’t have that impression. Whatever the details of her time at HP was – and there seemed to be two sides to the story – she was extremely well prepared. I found that she usually had a cogent answer to every question and had an exceptional grasp of a wide variety of weapons systems and strategic issues. Most of them are of course egotistical. As far as bluffing, blustering, bloating windbags, I found Mr. Trump to be in a class by himself. You can listen to a half hour interview and not come away with anything of substance. He seems no more knowledgeable about how the government functions or how his nation’s constitutional republic was designed to work and now operates than he was last summer. Trump seems to be so egotistical than he doesn’t feel like he can learn anything from anyone. The current occupant of the White House is of the same mind and well, that didn’t work out so well.

      So, I find Ms. Fiorna much more impressive that the once-and-forever-Queen Ms. Clinton, who is perhaps the single most corrupt public official of the past century, a woman who simply sold her office to the highest bidder and is responsible for one of the largest security breaches in the State Department history, this after a lifetime of scandal.

  • qet

    While seconding Jim_L’s and Blackbeard’s remarks, I also think it is important to point out that the methodology of the social sciences has been corrupted in service to ordinary venality. The tens of thousands of full, assistant, associate and adjunct professors of social sciences populating the thousands of US educational institutions from community colleges to the Ivies, plus the tens of thousands of graduate students, need to publish research “findings” early and often. A too-rigorous method would make it too difficult to produce “findings” in the abundance and with the regularity required for publication in the superfluity of journals created for that one sole purpose. So the statistical methods–operational and interpretive–employed to produce “findings” have loosened over the decades to better support career comity. Social scientists have been veritable Norman Borlaugs, perpetually modifying the genetic sequence of research methodology in order to produce ever higher yields from the same exhausted soils, but the crops are bland-tasting and lack all nourishment.

    • Tom

      Sir, please retract your slander against fine, upstanding members of the scientific community.

      Norman Borlaug was a much better scientist than these boys and girls.

      • Johnathan Swift Jr.

        Well, I like the Borlaug analogy because it is apt, not indented as an insult to a stellar scientist. I would not even use the term science in connection with this set of film-flam artists. It would better to describe them as “Social Researchers” or “Social Surveyors” or something of the sort that recognizes that there is little empirical in what they do. It may be better than a wild-assed guess, but so much of the time there is a thumb or perhaps even a rather obese personage on the scale do that the survey aligns with the progressive’s plans for all of us.

  • Johnathan Swift Jr.

    The amusing thing about this entire notion is that it is the same idiots who minimize male-female (the two, yes two binary sexes) sex differences who then peddle the notion that each of the two sexes who are the same minus a cleft here and a dangling bit or two there, will contribute something so different to business life that corporate profits and morale will soar. That the sex differences that don’t exist will create a diverse work place.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service