Skip to main content

Apple website screenshot:
Tuesday morning, riding high after yet another gangbusters quarter, Apple reached a new high, worth more than $760 BILLION. This makes it worth more than, well, a ton of things, including all but 18 COUNTRIES in the world.

Think about that ... Apple is worth more than the GDP of Saudi Arabia, or Switzerland, or Sweden. And despite being this financial juggernaut, the company is still experiencing double-digit growth. In just the past three months, Apple booked profits of $13.6 billion on $58 billion in revenue. Four years ago, the last of Steve Jobs' reign, he bragged about hitting $50 billion in revenue ... for the YEAR.

Not only are those numbers eye-watering, but that profit margin is the envy of the entire business world. The company has just shy of $200 billion in its cash horde, even as it has stepped up efforts to return cash to its shareholders. A $1 trillion valuation isn't far away.

So by all objective measures, Apple is the most successful company in the modern era. (The Dutch East India Company wins overall top honors, with an inflation-adjusted valuation of $7.3 trillion.) Yet, keep in mind the following:

* Apple is based on California, and continues to expand its operations in the state. Conservatives bray incessantly about the Golden State's "high taxes and burdensome regulations," yet the world's most high-value and innovative companies continue to be based here. You don't see Apple or its peers fleeing to tax havens like Alabama. Why? Because those taxes and regulations actually create a favorable business climate for Apple, delivering it the talent it desperately needs.

More below the fold.

Continue Reading
Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., before a talk at NYC, March 19, 2011.
In the Senate, please.
Goal ThermometerDonna Edwards for Senate.

Donna Edwards for Senate!

I'm not sure I've ever typed more enthusiastic words in an endorsement. This is the sort of thing I dreamed about when I first started working on a stronger bench back in the early 2000s. The idea is simple: promote strong progressives for lower office, and when higher offices become available, we now have candidates with the requisite background and experience to make the run. And it's working!

We first endorsed Donna Edwards for Congress back in 2007, and now, eight years later, she is making a bid for the U.S. Senate in Maryland.

Since that first endorsement, Edwards has remained true to the values that attracted us to her in the first place. She wasn't someone who just supported the things we cared about, but actively led efforts to enact them. Check out our endorsement questionnaire and Edwards' responses here. Not only is she with us on everything, but she co-sponsored legislation on most of it, from Medicare for All, to immigration reform, to the Employee Free Choice Act. And on efforts to destroy Social Security, she was a leader in efforts by Democrats to derail any talk of "entitlement reform."

In other words, we don't just have an ideological ally here, we have a bona fide leader. It's the reason we pushed Edwards for DCCC chair just a few months ago. I also like this exchange:

6. If elected, do you pledge not to join the Blue Dog Coalition or Third Way?

YES. I have not joined the Blue Dog Coalition and do not rely on policy recommendations from Third Way.

And with Edwards, you know there is no equivocation there. She is the polar opposite of the Wall Street Democrat. She would, in essence, give us a second Elizabeth Warren in the Senate, and who doesn't want that? Third Way doesn't. Wall Street doesn't. We do.

It's up to us to have Donna Edwards' back. I'm in. I hope you are too. Even $3 makes a difference!

You want a better Senate? We give Elizabeth Warren allies. And Edwards is about the best Democrat you'll ever find. This one is big.

Did I mention this is my favorite endorsement post ever? Because it is!


Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM PST

Yup, the GOP is f'd with young people

by kos

Pew Research:

Pew Research polling chart showing cratering support for the GOP among millennials.
This isn't self-IDd ideology. Pew "used a scale based on 10 political values questions about the role of government, the environment, homosexuality and other issues to measure ideological consistency." The results are clear: on the issues, liberalism is ascendant.

The obvious bottom line: the GOP is totally screwed if it doesn't learn how to court young voters. Yet here is the CPAC session today on reaching out to young voters:

Picture of CPAC session on young voters showing a near-empty room
Yeah, good luck with that, particularly when your message is one of bigotry, higher student loan fees, and outright hostility to sex.  

But there's more! You can see the GOP's death spiral in action, as each successive generation is less Republican, and more Democratic, than the previous one. That's demographic destiny, and while it doesn't guarantee progressive governance in the future, it means our job is much easier than theirs.

This chart also shows the death of the conservative Democrat, down to three percent of millennials. And what is that, a resurgence of the liberal Republican? A surprising 17 percent of Republican millennials are "mostly liberal." Given the large sample size (over 10,000 respondents), this isn't a statistical aberration. There really are a bunch of young Republicans who are more liberal than they realize because they don't hate on gays, African Americans, immigrants, the poor, or the environment.

Finally, look at how much more ideologically cohesive millennial Democrats are: 59 percent of young Democrats are liberal, while just 31 percent of young Republicans are conservative. The GOP is changing, whether they like it or not.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel puts on his jacket as he steps out of a phone bank, on election day in Chicago, Illinois, February 24, 2015. Emanuel is expected to easily take first place in Tuesday's municipal election, but polls show he may miss the 50
Winning one of the richest neighborhoods—barely!—doesn't make him a progressive.
Goal Thermometer Under fire for his record of kow-towing to the richest while hurting the poor and the brown in Chicago, embattled Mayor Rahm Emanuel's campaign is defending him against charges that he isn't progressive enough.
The campaign data’s still being sorted through, but Emanuel’s campaign cites his wins in 35 of the city’s 50 wards, including the 51 percent of the vote that the mayor pulled in the progressive Lakefront neighborhood, compared to García’s 32 percent, as evidence that the votes don’t match up to their opponents’ rhetoric. In Hyde Park, part of the South Side area that Obama used to represent in Springfield, Emanuel pulled 44 percent, compared to García’s 34.
Rahm spent $7 million on TV and millions more on other campaign activity (staff, radio, polling, data, GOTV, etc). His entire war chest stood at $15 million, and a pro-Emanuel superpac spent hundreds of thousands more on negative ads. His opponents, let by Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, on the other hand, barely spent a tenth of that.

All of this in a single city, remember. We're not talking the whole state of Illinois.

So thanks to all that spending, Rahm wins 51 percent in "Lakefront", which is not a neighborhood at all. Maybe the author meant Lakeview (Wrigleyville)? If so, that area is about 85 percent white, so the fact that Rahm could barely muster a slim majority in this racially polarized city despite outspending his opponents 10-1 ... doesn't exactly bolster his bonafides as a progressive.

Hyde Park is home to the University of Chicago, and is also one of the more racially diverse neighborhoods in the city: 47 percent white, 30 percent African American, 12 percent Asian, and six percent Latino. Not sure what Rahm's 44 percent there is supposed to tell us about his progressivism. And 56 percent of people there voted against him.

As these maps show, the whiter and richer the neighborhood, the better Rahm did. The browner the neighborhood, the poorer he did.

Now one could analyze these sorts of results by exploring the role of race in the election (goosed, of course, by Rahm's record school closings, a whopping 90 percent in African American or Latino neighborhoods), and use these election results to marvel at Chicago's continued racial polarization. But to point to Rahm's Wriglefield results as evidence of his progressivism is just bizarre.

Those results actually back up the reformer's argument: Rahm is great for the wealthy. He's their guy! He's fine on social issues while protecting their financial privilige. But for those struggling to make ends meet? He's a corporatist asshole Democrat. And if we learned anything in the first round, it's that this very progressive city voted for his more progressive opponents by a 55-45 margin. So let's help them finally get rid of Rahm, by chipping in $3 to Garcia's campaign!

Chicago Mayoral candidate Jesus
Rahm slayer Jesus "Chuy" Garcia.
Goal ThermometerBrilliant Nixonland and Before the Storm author Rick Perlstein has penned the definitive guide to Rahm Emanuel's mayorship and re-election bid, and it's not pretty.

He starts with the revelations that taking a page out of the worst of the CIA excesses, the Chicago police have a secret detention facility. Then there's his school board appointees profiting from school closures, like "the Emanuel school board appointee who runs an investment fund for companies that privatize school functions." Moving on, he discusses how 60 of Emanuel's top 106 contributors received special favors from the city, and how his public schools CEO juked graduation rate statistics, and how he used Rovian tactics to turn his progressive opponents' best strength (their reformer creds and populist record) against them. Seriously, it's a must read if you want to get on your Rahm hate, and who doesn't? The guy is a real piece of shit.

Yet despite having the advantages of incumbency and near-universal name ID, despite spending $7 million of his $15 million war chest on TV, despite having President Barack Obama stump for him ... he still got only 45 percent of the vote, with his opponents racking up a combined 55 percent.

As a Bulls fan, I've watched Rahm's constant barrage of television ads on the popular game broadcasts, so I noticed him going hard negative against his top challenger Jesus "Chuy" Garcia a few weeks ago. It was a curious turn of events, with polls showing Rahm near the 50 percent mark he'd need to avoid a runoff. It was a sign that things weren't looking good for him. You don't go negative unless you absolutely have to.

In Chicago this past weekend, I once again saw the near-saturation levels of Rahm propaganda, on TV, on billboards, everywhere you looked, seemingly. But sitting in a cab, heading out to the United Center to catch a game with my son on our father-son trip, the cabbie had on a soul station. And an ad came on, narrated by the popular Karen Lewis, head of the Chicago Teacher's Union, "the mayor has closed a record number of schools, 90 percent in our Latino and black neighborhoods."

Bam! It was a direct hit, feeding not just into anger over the school closings, but the blatant inequities in the decision to do so. In racially polarized Chicago, you can see in these maps by our elections team just how much Rahm suffered in non-white neighborhoods. Chuy spent less than 1/10th what Rahm did, yet notched a solid 34 percent second place, with other liberal candidates taking the rest. Rahm is wounded and vulnerable.

But you know what they say about wounded and cornered assholes animals, right? Chuy already faced $450K in negative ads from a superpac allied with Rahm, expect that to go up by multiples. But as the first round showed, all the money in the world couldn't buy Rahm love. And all his negative hits on Chuy didn't kill him. But will six more weeks of going nuclear on his opponent do the trick? That's the big question, because it's about to get REAL ugly in Chicago.

But as we saw the first round, money won't decide this. We don't need to outraise Rahm. We just need enough so that Chuy can get his message out. This is our chance to take stock of everything that Rahm Emanuel has done to our party and progressive politics over the past decade, and then say "fuck you" by throwing $3 into Garcia's campaign.

Immigration rally. Group of kids in
GOP public enemy number one.
After years of screaming about Democrats wanting to let terrorists destroy America, it's amazing how blasé they've suddenly become about those dangers. And all because they've decided that the even bigger threat to America is the immigrant parents of American children.

It really is that simple. Check out this poll that Laura flagged earlier, the one that finds that Americans would (rightly) blame Republicans for any Department of Homeland Security shutdown:

Republicans are less likely to see a shutdown as a big problem, 46% say so compared with 66% among Democrats.
Got that? Less than half of Republicans think a DHS shutdown would be a big problem. And certainly their crazy caucus representatives in the House don't see it as a big problem.

Nice turnaround, from the party that once morphed Democratic Sen. Max Cleland into Osama Bin Laden. The party that pretends to be obsessed with defending our country has decided that fuck it, it's more important to tear immigrant families apart, even those of United States citizen children.

Because hatred toward certain families now trumps supposed hatred against terrorism.

Yup, that's your modern GOP at work.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Still not running.
Daily Kos is a reality-based community, and part of that mission requires accurate reading of data. Indeed, privileging good data over bad is central to allowing us to provide an accurate picture of the political landscape. We've been obsessed with it for over a decade, and it has allowed us to deliver some of the most accurate analysis you'll find anywhere.

That doesn't just mean trashing crap right-wing polling, but it also means refusing to accept bullshit data just because it might be favorable to our interests. That is what Daily Kos has stood for, and that is what we want Daily Kos to be known for.

Which leads us to a poll being circulated by the Draft Warren crowd. There is great data in this poll, which I will get to in a bit, but unfortunately, they've focused on the pretense that Elizabeth Warren is viable against Hillary Clinton. The toplines of the poll of likely Democratic primary/caucus voters in Iowa and New Hampshire (emphasis in the original):

* Virtually all respondents agree with the case for a contested race, with 98% agreeing that a competitive primary is good for the party, candidates and voters. Further, the survey reveals that the more Democrats learn about Warren, the more supportive they become.
Nothing controversial about that. Contested primaries are good. That's why maybe the Draft Warren crowd should focus on finding a candidate who actually wants to run.
* After hearing positive information about Elizabeth Warren, 79% said they would like her to run for president in 2016, including 82% of likely Iowa Democratic caucus goers and 76% of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters.

* After hearing this information, without any negatives on other candidates, Elizabeth Warren leads all other candidates for the nomination in both states: 31% to 24% over Clinton in Iowa (with other potential candidates further behind) and 30% to 27% in New Hampshire.

This is an "informed ballot" poll. These kinds of polls are great for crafting a candidate's message and testing any vulnerabilities. They are used by campaigns to craft strategy and anticipate opposition attacks. What they are not good for is actually evaluating the state of a race.

But this poll fails even at the "informed ballot" part, because such polls generally provide positive and negative information on each candidate. This poll? Not only did it skip the negative portion of the informed ballot test, but ...

this is not a so-called “clean” head-to-head ballot question, as voters were provided positive information about Warren but not other potential candidates.
So a poll talks about all the awesome things Warren has done and believes in (all true), but doesn't provide the positive narrative for Clinton or any other candidate. Then, surprise (!) a big chunk of people decide that they'd like Warren. Not exactly shocking news. Or relevant.

In other words, this poll would be relevant if Warren had all the money in the world to make her case to voters in the Iowa and New Hampshire, but Hillary Clinton ran but didn't say a peep. And we know that's not how campaigns run.

Head below the fold for more on this story.

Continue Reading
Illinois Sen, Mark Kirk talks on the telephone
Illinois Sen, Mark Kirk
Crazy, soon-to-be-one-term Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois:
“The Republicans — if there is a successful attack during a DHS shutdown — we should build a number of coffins outside each Democratic office and say, ‘You are responsible for these dead Americans,’” Kirk said Tuesday.
Remember, Republicans are threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security because President Barack Obama is no longer deporting the immigrant parents of American citizen children.

To underscore: Republicans are threatening our nation's security because they want to tear away the parents of American children.

That's what this is all about. Yet Republicans can't really come out and say that, because people will be like "holy shit, they are huge assholes!" So, instead, they pound the table and scream about body bags and coffins and terrorist attacks and IT'S ALL THE DEMOCRATS' FAULT! But really, it's all the fault of the xenophobic Steve King Right.

But then this poll came out, showing Mark Kirk looking weak at home. Even more ominous for him? Illinois voters approved of Obama's immigration measures 62-30. Uh oh. So late yesterday, Kirk came out for a clean DHS funding bill.

"I generally agree with the Democratic position here."
So to recap, within 24 hours, Kirk went from "we should build a number of coffins outside each Democratic office and say, ‘You are responsible for these dead Americans,'" to "I generally agree with the Democratic position." Sad trombone "wah, wah."

Even for a politician, that is some serious whiplash action.

Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, laughs during a news conference to announce details of a newly renovated Madison Square Garden in New York, October 24, 2013. Over a billion dollars was spent on the three year, top-to-bottom renovation.  REUTERS/Carlo
Andrew Cuomo laughing at how easily the Working Families Party surrendered its endorsement to him.
Seriously hilarious.
The New York Working Families Party is calling on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run for president in 2016.

“Senator Warren is the nation's most powerful voice for working families fighting against a set of rules written by and for Wall Street," Director Bill Lipton said in a statement on Sunday. "That's the debate we want to see, and that's why we're urging Senator Warren to run for President."

So adorable! The same crowd that backed New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo last year and abandoned progressives fighting to oust state Senate members of the Republican-backing Independent Democratic Caucus, is now going to pretend to fight against Wall Street?

Remember, at the time Andrew Cuomo was showing real weakness in polling, and was desperate to roll up support from the Left in order to show electoral strength ahead of a future presidential bid. Rather than help crystalize support from the left by recruiting and backing a legit challenger, the WFP decide instead to jump back into bed with Cuomo.

Because they're fighting so hard against rules written by Wall Street yadda yadda yadda.

But this is an easy call for them! They get to build up their list with a phony draft effort, while Elizabeth Warren makes clear over and over again that she has no interest and will not run for president. Period. Underscored. Bolded and highlighted.

If the WFP was legitimately interested in a debate, they would help draft a credible and real challenger to Hillary. As Joan Walsh notes:

In addition to advancing the assumption that the Clinton campaign won’t be progressive enough, before she’s even declared her candidacy, the hype about Warren serves to obscure the depth and breadth of the new populist movement afoot among Democrats in Congress. Why not draft Sen. Bernie Sanders, who says he’ll run if he believes he has organizational backing? Or other progressive senators like Sherrod Brown or Al Franken or Kirsten Gillibrand? Elizabeth Warren is a star in her own right; she doesn’t particularly need this kind of help.
The only way this "draft someone who is definitely NOT running" nonsense makes sense is if you assume WFP is doing this to build their own list and bolster their own fundraising efforts, as opposed to making a serious and credible effort to find a primary challenger for Hillary.

Having hitched the wagon to Andrew Cuomo to ill-effect, WFP now wants to see if latching on to Elizabeth Warren will help wash off some of that stench. And no, it won't. Self-serving publicity stunts rarely do.

12:35 PM PT: I wrote this last summer, and it's just as pertinent today.

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. meet with Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey and Laurie Robinson, professor of criminology, law and society at George Mason University, and a former assistant attorney general, who will be co-chairing a Presidential task force on how communities and law enforcement can work together to build trust to strengthen neighborhoods across the country, in the Oval Office, Dec. 1, 2014
Obama meets with co-chairs of police reform task force.
As we saw yesterday ...
You can also see the undeniable upward trend in gallup's daily tracking poll here. Now what, pray tell, has changed in the last month, when his approvals were 39-57 among registered voters in that ABC/WaPo poll? Well, people better approve of the way he's handling the economy, up to 47-49, from 42-55 a month ago. but that's a net 11-point shift, smaller than the 24-point net improvement in his favorabilities. So what could it be? I have a theory:

* Obama issued executive order shifting immigration enforcement efforts away from deporting the undocumented parents of United States citizen children. Turns out, splitting up families was kinda unpopular.

* Obama has called for free community college tuition. Turns out, making an education more affordable is popular!

* Obama has stood strong against Keystone XL. Turns out, people don't like the despoiling of the environment. And even those who support the pipeline don't really give a shit about it. They just support it because liberals oppose it.

* Obama announced actions to reform police departments nationwide: helping them purchase body cams while overhauling the program that sends surplus military hardware to local departments. Who knew that wouldn't be the death knell of Obama's presidency?

* Obama normalized relations with Cuba, which turns out, delighted more people than the few crusty and cranky old-generation Cuban-Americans left in South Florida.

* Obama announces plan to expand paid sick leave. Turns out, allowing sick people to stay home, rather than 1) working sick, and 2) infecting everyone else around them, is popular.

But hey, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Obama's massive approval gains are entirely based on economic gains. That still shows that doing popular, liberal things won't kill a Democrat. Republicans have lost their heads over every single one of the bullet items above, and it doesn't matter. Conservatives may have decided Obama is the devil, but they're on the fringy outside.

Head below the fold as we imagine what things might've been like had Obama governed this way from the beginning.

Continue Reading

2014 was a shitty year for us politically, but as a community, it was the biggest breakout year since 2003.

The chart above is based on traffic data compiled by Quantcast, and you can see their charts of our traffic here. Our numbers are open and available for anyone to see.

We started using Quantcast in mid-2007, so we only have full-year numbers starting in 2008. As you can see, growth in monthly unique visitors was steady but slight 2008-2011, with a decent bump in 2012, steady through 2013, and then ... last year, when we went from just shy of 91 million monthly uniques to 153 million. Eye-popping!

Now to be clear, that's not total annual unique visitors. Rather that's unique visitors measured each month, so if you visited every month last year, you'd count as 12 monthly uniques. So basically what the chart above tells us is that in 2008, we averaged about 1.1 million monthly unique visitors. In 2013, it was about 3.9 million, and in 2014, it was 6.8 million.

Skipping ahead for a moment, this January? We're already at 9 million. Crazy, huh?

Back to the chart above, you see another big trend at play: the falling of pageviews per visitor. That's why overall pageviews were down in 2010, 2011, and 2013 even though the number of unique visitors was up. That's a function of a web-wide shift toward social media outlets, mainly Twitter and Facebook. Today, the Daily Kos Facebook page gets more comments per day than this website does. It's a trend we've never fought. Remember, our goal is to spread our message far and wide. So if that message ends up on Facebook? Good. There are lots of people there worth talking to. So not only do we NOT fight it, we ENCOURAGE it.

Still, even though that has had an effect on the site's page views, all the social-media trends in the world couldn't stop 2014 from going nuts, with almost 440 million pageviews served, compared to just over 300 million in 2013. Again, amazing.

Daily Kos is not election-driven anymore

Check out our Quantcast chart from 2014:

Once upon a time, Octobers would kill it during election years, as people tuned in during the runup to the election. This year, we had a decent October (7 million uniques), but nothing like months before and after (8.5 million in both August and November). What was happening? Both those months saw heavy traffic from police-brutality related stories. While I have no doubt that we got a boost from the elections, we're now at a place where we get bigger boosts from other key issues and stories.

Facebook and email

Our email action list currently numbers 1.56 million, which is smaller than last year, but we purged non-performing, dead, and/or duplicative emails. So our list is legitimately one-and-half million strong.

Over at Facebook, we have 668,000 likes. Back in September, when I last checked in with one of these updates, it was around 600,000.


See that chart above, with the light blue and dark blue? Well, the dark blue is mobile traffic. This month, about 61 percent of our traffic is coming from mobile devices. And there's no apparent end to that trend. Fact is, fewer and fewer people are accessing the web from computers.

First two weeks of January

So it is January and political news isn't particularly compelling. I mean, Republican took control of Congress, and they're doing and saying all sorts of stupid things. Some of you have complained that we've focused TOO MUCH on those Republicans, but hey, we go where the news cycle takes us. We are a news site after all.

Yet despite the underwhelming news cycle, we've just had the best week ever. Check our our lifetime Quantcast stats, broken out by week:

Last week was about a third better than our next best week in terms of unique visitors. The mix was 2-1 mobile to web. So rather than depress traffic, it appears that our site and community's focus on stupid Republicans has supercharged traffic. Either that or people are generically re-engaging after last year's shellacking. Actually, I don't know why people are tuning in to these extreme levels, but it suggests one major point: 2014 isn't the apex of Daily Kos' potential. We have a ways to go before we max out.

DK5 Beta

So a big question is when we'll open up the new version of the site to its public beta period. Well, I don't have an exact date, but we're talking a handful of weeks away. We're really, really close. The team is busy squashing known bugs like "comments work funky on iPad", stuff like that. No reason to get you guys to report bugs that we already know exist. Doesn't help us and wastes your time. So we're getting the new site to as close to perfect (to us) as we can get it, before we ask you guys to go ahead and break it to ferret out the remaining bugs.

Time-wise, it doesn't help that one of those "bugs" was me deciding that part of the publishing workflow was overly complicated, forcing us to rework a significant part of the project. But in the long-run, the changes will make the site far easier for you guys to use, and that's what's ultimately important.

It looks great, and I'm super jazzed about what's coming, and I can't wait to share with you.

And it's not all we're doing. We've got some incredible projects in the pipeline, all of which will make 2015 the Best Year Ever for this site. Stay tuned. It's going to be a great ride!

Large suburban house
You can't even imagine the suffering contained inside those well-appointed homes!
Are you sick and tired of the poors getting all the attention and sympathy? Are you afraid that you might end up living near scary, thuggish brown people? Then don't miss New York Times columnist Ron Lieber's work!

Let's start with the travails of those woe-begotten rich people and their kids, using the murder case of Thomas Gilbert, the 30-year-old trust-fund baby and Princeton grad who murdered his father when his father cut his allowance.

Twitter responded as Twitter does. He was a “trust fund kid.” The “most spoiled brat.” The whole affair was “morbidly disgusting.”

But at the same time, parents all over my own social media feeds and in out-loud discussions throughout the week were having a more searching conversation.

So uncouth Twitter was making fun of the situation, but his rich fuck friends were like, "woah, that's just like us!"
Before you roll your eyes and mime the playing of violins, let us dispense with the nasty term “rich people problems.” The well-off are human, too, and if some of their children are hurting, it’s indecent to mock or ignore them.
Ha ha ha, no it's not. Fuck you. When your 30-year-old ivy-league grad is living off mommy and daddy and getting an allowance, that's perfectly mockable, no matter how much that asshole moocher and his idiot-enabling parents are "hurting." Ignoring them would be too kind.
Using a variety of data that included families with median household incomes of about $150,000, she found that the adolescents in higher-income families had higher rates of substance abuse of all kinds than those in lower-income ones.  
Yeah, more substance abuse. Because they have more money to buy drugs. And oh, by the way, how many of these rich fuck, substance-abusing rich kids go to jail? How many of their poor peers go to jail? Let's compare that stat, why don't we?
The more affluent suburban youth stole from their parents more often than city youth with less money ...
Because those affluent suburban families have money. You can't steal what you don't have.
... and were more likely to experience clinically significant levels of depression, anxiety and physical ailments that seemed to stem from those mental conditions.
It's nice when you can afford to go to a shrink to get a proper diagnosis and treatment for these mental issues. In poor communities, cops just assassinate these troubled kids. But really, it's the rich kids who are the real victims, because their parents have the resources to steal, and because they can get the proper mental health care they need. Except when one of them blows off the head of his enabling dad, which is a tragedy beyond belief ... in Ron Lieber's social circle.

Now if you want advice on how to avoid the blacks, head below the fold, because Ron Lieber has you covered there as well.

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site