More chewy and crunchy morsels, sans the gravy...
--> Since the election, I have noticed that many online outlets, especially those affiliated with the MSM like Newsweek and The Daily Beast, seem to go out of the their way to remind people that Bernie Sanders lost the 2016 primary. They talk of his "failed" candidacy, that he "lost", and more like-sounding tropes. This phrasing is not an accident: many of these organizations supported Clinton in the primaries and the General Election, and are doing everything they can to bury the well-founded idea that the 2016 DNC primaries were rigged. They want the readers to think that the primaries were conducted fairly and squarely (see New York, Nevada, Arizona, and California, to start with). They are also, as part of the political establishment, attempting to hold sway in the Democratic Party, and thwart the insurgence of Berniecrats who have sworn to primary several establishment Democratic politicians. I find it interesting how the politics hasn't seemed to slow down after the election and "normal life" returns as it does post-most election years - because life isn't normal after this last election.
--> There has been much discussion about the possibility of T-Rump leaving the presidency, by either impeachment or resignation. Here's my take: at this stage, politically, it's best to leave him in the Oval Office. The Republicans now have no excuse whatsoever: they own him and his administration now. He's at historic lows for approval rating at this stage in his Presidency, and the more he twists in the political winds, the more the Republicans won't be able to back away from him in 2018 and 2020. Make them OWN him, and then the Dems might have a chance. Besides, lose T-Rump, and who do you have? Bible-beater Pence, followed by Ayn Rand fanboy Paul Ryan, followed by other Repub monsters. Now, if the Dems can get a spine...
--> There is an opportunity here for third parties to make a dent, in no small part due to the #DemExit movement. The Democratic Party membership number has declined precipitously since the 2016 Primaries, and with the right people, message and strategy, we might see the Greens put up a congressman or two in 2018, as well as make strides at the local levels.
More later...
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Subdivisions
Yes, yes, I know that the 2016 Election is four months decided, and we've had about six weeks to sample the governmental strains of T-Rump. In elections past, the red side and blue side would take sides, and after the dust settled from Election Day, we (more or less) would come back together.
Not this time. Not in my just-under-50 years on this planet have I seen the nation so divided, so partitioned, so divvied up by ideology. T-Rump talks about fences to enclose the country - but our nation already has these build around ourselves. Fences more like moats, keeping out all of the "undesirable" news, information, and people so that we all live in our own protective bubbles.
Separated - just how those that really run things in the world want us to be.
And the fractures are being seen at the personal level in a way I've never seen before. We all know and have some familiarity with how family gatherings, especially around dinner tables, can be awkward experiences when you're dealing with people who are equally opinionated about their polar-opposite view from one's own. Yet, I didn't hear much of families being permanently torn apart by political issues.
I've seen, and heard, a far different story this time out.
I remember turning on the radio to listen to some talk, and on more than a few occasions, I've heard of friendships breaking up due to the issues surrounding the election. I will venture a guess that more than a few marriages split up as a result, as well. The Facebook memes seemed to take a darker, separationist turn. One such meme told of a Trump supporter who stated that a vote for him doesn't mean the end - that "we can be adults", right? But the answer to that meme was, "No, I can't call you a friend when you vote for somebody who is so completely against everything I believe in, and on a core level".
What does this mean? The more I think about it, the more questions I have rather than answers to give. Is this yet another symptom of a collapsing empire? It looks to me like America can't come to a consensus on what is even means to be an American at all. Without that, what else do you have? Without knowing what it means, you have a Nation-In-Name-Only - an empty shell with no substance. Other nations can see it - but when will we agree to look at our own reflection in the mirror or reflecting pool and see what it is we've become?
Divided? Our nation is subdivided.
And if we don't find a consensus on a common set of values, our nation will crumble.
Not this time. Not in my just-under-50 years on this planet have I seen the nation so divided, so partitioned, so divvied up by ideology. T-Rump talks about fences to enclose the country - but our nation already has these build around ourselves. Fences more like moats, keeping out all of the "undesirable" news, information, and people so that we all live in our own protective bubbles.
Separated - just how those that really run things in the world want us to be.
And the fractures are being seen at the personal level in a way I've never seen before. We all know and have some familiarity with how family gatherings, especially around dinner tables, can be awkward experiences when you're dealing with people who are equally opinionated about their polar-opposite view from one's own. Yet, I didn't hear much of families being permanently torn apart by political issues.
I've seen, and heard, a far different story this time out.
I remember turning on the radio to listen to some talk, and on more than a few occasions, I've heard of friendships breaking up due to the issues surrounding the election. I will venture a guess that more than a few marriages split up as a result, as well. The Facebook memes seemed to take a darker, separationist turn. One such meme told of a Trump supporter who stated that a vote for him doesn't mean the end - that "we can be adults", right? But the answer to that meme was, "No, I can't call you a friend when you vote for somebody who is so completely against everything I believe in, and on a core level".
What does this mean? The more I think about it, the more questions I have rather than answers to give. Is this yet another symptom of a collapsing empire? It looks to me like America can't come to a consensus on what is even means to be an American at all. Without that, what else do you have? Without knowing what it means, you have a Nation-In-Name-Only - an empty shell with no substance. Other nations can see it - but when will we agree to look at our own reflection in the mirror or reflecting pool and see what it is we've become?
Divided? Our nation is subdivided.
And if we don't find a consensus on a common set of values, our nation will crumble.
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Quibbles and Bits, Down the Slope and Up The Creek Edition
Straight to the snacks...
--> T-Rump is pretty much performing as expected. By this, I mean that his propensity for executive orders, his hostility to the press, and his closing of executive power around a few confidants confirm that we did not elect a president in November 2016: we elected an authoritarian strongman.
--> T-Rump's cabinet choices (Tillerson, Devos, etc.), many of whom taken straight from the ranks of Corporate America and the Banks, define his stripe as a fascist in the classic, Mussolini-concocted definition of the term: the merger of Corporate and State interests. These selections show that he is just removing the middle man from the transaction - Big Oil now has a direct line into Foreign Affairs through Rex Tillerson, charter school management companies have a direct line into the White House through Betsy Devos, and so forth.
--> We will never know for sure what would have happened if Clinton fulfilled her bank-appointed destiny and claimed the Oval Office, but we can be fairly sure of a couple of things. For one, the TPP, with a few cosmetic touch-ups, would have been passed, and also, we would be in a full-on shooting war with Russia. It might be plausible that Trump's business connections in Russia, and the inevitable corruption that goes with them, might just be what is preventing an all-out war with Putin - as ironic and twisted as that might sound.
--> There are a few new-ish "third party" political organizations/donation bundlers appearing on the scene, such as Justice Democrats. Debbie Lusignan from Sane Progressive has done some digging into these organizations, and surprise-surprise, the Democratic Establishment has their hands in those cookie jars. Howard Dean gave a shout-out to Justice Democrats recently, and they are getting heavy promotion from The Young Turks and Secular Talk. My advice is the same as Debbie's: don't donate to these organizations without doing your homework, and at that, only give directly to the candidates themselves.
--> Finally, regarding Justice Democrats, et. al. Their stated mission is to elicit a takeover of the Democratic Party by "Berniecrats" and other, more progressive elements, and to root out the corruption endemic within the Party. I see this as a fool's errand due to what I think is a simple line of logic. To start with, money is a form of power. Big Money (Banks and Corporations) donate billions to the DNC, thus, they have the clout as to what and who get promoted. Power does not concede without a demand, neither will it concede willingly. As an example: look what happened after HRC's coronation at the DNC Convention, and at what the mainstream media didn't show: it tore the party apart (Check out the Youtube videos made immediately after the coronation. Josh Fox did a 2-minute panorama of the arena and showed hundreds of empty seats, and noting the lack of enthusiasm. Others showed the delegates walking out of the arena and going into the press tent. Does any of this sound like a united party to you?). The HRC campaign responded by gambling that the Berniecrats had nothing of value to offer the campaign, that she and her people had this in the bag, that the Berniecrats had no place else to go, and as such would naturally fall in line behind her. Plus, her opponent was Donald Trump! The Benito Cheeto! How could she possibly lose?
Yeah.
Not to mention, Kshama Sawant's recent statement on Democracy Now which an increasing number of progressives are subscribing to: that the Democratic Party is the place where progressive ideas go to die. There is no real home for true progressive ideas and leaders in this country, save for the scattered third parties and political interest organizations.
What is needed, as I see it:
1. Propose a meeting between the leaderships of the major progressive third-party organizations: Socialist Alternative, The Green Party, Peace and Freedom, etc. Without suggesting any kind of merger, find out which issues they can agree on and work together on. This might even be applicable to particular candidates - cross-endorsements might be a way to create cohesion toward achieving specific goals;
2. Build from the ground up. Kshama Sawant had the right idea, of running for and winning a local seat rather than national. The state and local seats are where a party's (or political movement's) power base is located, and the more local seats, the more influence over a larger realm or area. The Republican Party figured this out after Goldwater's disastrous 1964 campaign, and look where they area now;
3. Think long term. The things we progressives seek may not be achievable in our individual lifetimes. But this isn't about my Generation X, or the Boomers. This is about future generations - so they will have a world better than the one we lived in and created. We owe them this.
4. #DemExit. Forget the Democratic Party as an organization. Support Democratic politicians only if their progressive words match with their progressive actions (sorry Cory Booker). Contribute only to those politicians, not to the DNC, the DCCC, or any of their other alphabet soup money clatches.
As always, more later.
--> T-Rump is pretty much performing as expected. By this, I mean that his propensity for executive orders, his hostility to the press, and his closing of executive power around a few confidants confirm that we did not elect a president in November 2016: we elected an authoritarian strongman.
--> T-Rump's cabinet choices (Tillerson, Devos, etc.), many of whom taken straight from the ranks of Corporate America and the Banks, define his stripe as a fascist in the classic, Mussolini-concocted definition of the term: the merger of Corporate and State interests. These selections show that he is just removing the middle man from the transaction - Big Oil now has a direct line into Foreign Affairs through Rex Tillerson, charter school management companies have a direct line into the White House through Betsy Devos, and so forth.
--> We will never know for sure what would have happened if Clinton fulfilled her bank-appointed destiny and claimed the Oval Office, but we can be fairly sure of a couple of things. For one, the TPP, with a few cosmetic touch-ups, would have been passed, and also, we would be in a full-on shooting war with Russia. It might be plausible that Trump's business connections in Russia, and the inevitable corruption that goes with them, might just be what is preventing an all-out war with Putin - as ironic and twisted as that might sound.
--> There are a few new-ish "third party" political organizations/donation bundlers appearing on the scene, such as Justice Democrats. Debbie Lusignan from Sane Progressive has done some digging into these organizations, and surprise-surprise, the Democratic Establishment has their hands in those cookie jars. Howard Dean gave a shout-out to Justice Democrats recently, and they are getting heavy promotion from The Young Turks and Secular Talk. My advice is the same as Debbie's: don't donate to these organizations without doing your homework, and at that, only give directly to the candidates themselves.
--> Finally, regarding Justice Democrats, et. al. Their stated mission is to elicit a takeover of the Democratic Party by "Berniecrats" and other, more progressive elements, and to root out the corruption endemic within the Party. I see this as a fool's errand due to what I think is a simple line of logic. To start with, money is a form of power. Big Money (Banks and Corporations) donate billions to the DNC, thus, they have the clout as to what and who get promoted. Power does not concede without a demand, neither will it concede willingly. As an example: look what happened after HRC's coronation at the DNC Convention, and at what the mainstream media didn't show: it tore the party apart (Check out the Youtube videos made immediately after the coronation. Josh Fox did a 2-minute panorama of the arena and showed hundreds of empty seats, and noting the lack of enthusiasm. Others showed the delegates walking out of the arena and going into the press tent. Does any of this sound like a united party to you?). The HRC campaign responded by gambling that the Berniecrats had nothing of value to offer the campaign, that she and her people had this in the bag, that the Berniecrats had no place else to go, and as such would naturally fall in line behind her. Plus, her opponent was Donald Trump! The Benito Cheeto! How could she possibly lose?
Yeah.
Not to mention, Kshama Sawant's recent statement on Democracy Now which an increasing number of progressives are subscribing to: that the Democratic Party is the place where progressive ideas go to die. There is no real home for true progressive ideas and leaders in this country, save for the scattered third parties and political interest organizations.
What is needed, as I see it:
1. Propose a meeting between the leaderships of the major progressive third-party organizations: Socialist Alternative, The Green Party, Peace and Freedom, etc. Without suggesting any kind of merger, find out which issues they can agree on and work together on. This might even be applicable to particular candidates - cross-endorsements might be a way to create cohesion toward achieving specific goals;
2. Build from the ground up. Kshama Sawant had the right idea, of running for and winning a local seat rather than national. The state and local seats are where a party's (or political movement's) power base is located, and the more local seats, the more influence over a larger realm or area. The Republican Party figured this out after Goldwater's disastrous 1964 campaign, and look where they area now;
3. Think long term. The things we progressives seek may not be achievable in our individual lifetimes. But this isn't about my Generation X, or the Boomers. This is about future generations - so they will have a world better than the one we lived in and created. We owe them this.
4. #DemExit. Forget the Democratic Party as an organization. Support Democratic politicians only if their progressive words match with their progressive actions (sorry Cory Booker). Contribute only to those politicians, not to the DNC, the DCCC, or any of their other alphabet soup money clatches.
As always, more later.
Sunday, January 1, 2017
If The News Fits Print It
There is something Orwellian about the term "fake news". The term, of course, implies judgment as to what constitutes "fake" and "real", and who makes that judgment - an ugly place for any society that calls itself a republic or a democracy of any kind. Thomas Jefferson spoke of the critical role of education in a society where the people decide who represents them - and it speaks to the colossal failure of America's educational system that some people in high positions of power have determined that the American people no longer possess the critical thinking skills necessary to determine the difference between ice cream and BS. Given, in the Wild Wild West of the Internet, anybody can post anything, and if it goes viral, it can shape a narrative - true or not. This phenomenon is most acutely expressed on social networks like Facebook, who recently enlisted the help of the "fact filter" service Snopes in helping it determine what is real and what is not. These issues have always been with us, ever since the advent of the printing press, and exploding exponentially with the advent of electronic media and the Internet. But, why the interest in "fake news" now, at this point in the history of the American experiment?
Many of us who followed the 2016 Presidential Election, from the beginnings of the primaries through November 8th, saw how the Democratic Primary was increasingly, and obviously, being slanted, gamed, and ultimately, rigged to favor Hillary Clinton. We saw how Wall Street loved her, how many of the worst neocons loved her, and many mainstream Republicans (such as the Bushes) voiced open support for her, in chorus with the establishment of the Democratic Party. She had the Mainstream Media (especially CNN and MSN-BS), as well as the other apparatuses of the political establishment, on her side. She, in short, was virtually anointed the next President.
But as we all know, things did not go according to the establishment script - a script written and drafted by the DNC and the Clintons, polished by the MSM and the donors, and executed by the candidate and her surrogates. But one set of actors in the ensemble did not follow the script: the swing state voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. They defied the "directors" in this play - the donors and monetary backers of the DNC and the Clinton campaign. While Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million, she did not win the swing states she needed to carry the Electoral College. The swing state voters delivered what Michael Moore called the "biggest F$#% You" in history, to the political establishment and to its perceived representative, Hillary Clinton. In any other election year, Trump and his ilk would have been destroyed in the polls, and it would not have taken a politician with the talents of Obama or Bill Clinton to do it.
But this was not an ordinary election year - a fact painfully overlooked by the Democratic establishment, the DNC, and their purveyors of "big data" campaigning.
What happened? Why did the voters deviate from the script?
The writers of the script, and their supporters, realized that they lost control of the narrative surrounding their chosen candidate. The Wikileaks dispatches, the exposed rigging of the 2016 Democratic Primary, and a host of other accusations - most of which the DNC was not able to control or manage adequately - were outside of the script and thus, outside of the control of the DNC.
So, how does the establishment try to regain control of the mechanisms that spin their narratives?
Enter "fake news" - a combination of McCarthyite labeling of undesirable opinions and Orwellian gaslighting of those who don't conform. A new-ish website, www.propornot.com, declares itself a "freindly neighborhood propaganda identification service" in the service of identifying those websites who publish what they deem to be "propaganda" favorable to the Kremlin. I will agree that the sites they list can be of varying quality as far as the information they disseminate. I find, however, that several questions are begged by the exercise of looking through the site:
1. Does the team at propornot have evidence that the purveyors of these sites take their orders from the Kremlin?
2. Who exactly runs propornot? What are their credentials?
The first place I looked in trying to address these questions is the "about us" section of the website. I find this section, however, wanting for specifics: it describes the site's proprietors as:
"an independent team of concerned American citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs."
Note the lack of specifics as to exactly who and what.
It's mission is described as:
"We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political and policy discussions. We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence and improve public discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election."
Again, who is "we"? Where are they getting the information that somehow, Russia is hacking our elections and influencing the discourse? The CIA seems certain, but is not revealing how or who - we are just expected to "trust them" (as if they never had any reason to lie.). But the Russians themselves, as well as Julian Assange, assert that the source of the Wikileaks dispatches was not Russian hacking, but a leak from the DNC - also quite plausible considering the state of the Clinton campaign.
In short - who do you believe?
Much more on this later.
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Show Me Don't Tell Me
The sturm-and-drang-and-storm-and-drain of the post-Election Wheel of Blame In-fortune continues to spin like a swirling whirlpool, with various heads popping up in the descending water column to take desperate breaths. Among the heads identified over the week have been:
----> Huma Abedin, the Clinton aide whose ex-husband, Anthony Weiner, allegedly housed tens of thousands of Clinton emails on his laptop;
----> James Comey, the Attorney General whose letter indicating a re-opening of the email case against Clinton, at the time he released it (less than two weeks before election day) certainly didn't help HRC's cause;
----> Vladimir Putin, who is now seen as T-Rump's puppet master - Edgar Bergen to T-Rump's Mortimer Snerd;
----> American voters in general, for not voting for the establishment's preferred candidate.
The roles these heads played in the 2016 Debacle vary in their importance, and in whether or not they belong in the swirling drain in the first place. I don't put much blame in the hands of Abedin - it was her ex-husband's laptop, so why isn't he-with the-so-appropriate-surname being brought into the conversation? The timing of Comey's letter was certainly suspect, but I go back to the initial case made by many: why did Clinton have the server in the first place, and why was classified material stored there? I'll get to Vladimir in a moment. Finally, if you want to hear the voters take the pilloried blame for Clinton's defeat, look no further than the leftie press: Markos Moulitsas was in rare form in a recent Daily Kos rant where he, with obvious sarcasm, says that we should be happy that coal miners voted, almost in a block, for Donald Trump. Hey, this is a democracy, and you get the government you deserve when you vote a certain way, says Kos. Zero Hedge has a nice rebuttal to Kos' verbal convulsion. But what you rarely hear, except for a few enlightened leftie sites (and as you would expect, the right side of the ledger) is blame being assigned to Hillary herself, who in my opinion, is where the lion's share of said blame belongs. She was the captain of the ship - and the ship sank.
As promised, let's talk about Vladimir. Honestly, I don't know who to believe, insofar as the Russian Federation's alleged involvement in hacking of the DNC's (and as we later learned, the RNC's) email servers. It is also alleged that these hacks provided Julian Assange with the material he needed for Wikileaks' dissemination of the same. It is also alleged that Russia had nothing to do with the Wikileaks' disclosures, that the source was a CIA insider. Fingers and rhetoric are flying around on both sides of this one, to the point where some members of the Electoral College (due to meet on December 19) requested the viewing of classified documents related to Russia's alleged role. From down here, the fog of doubt is too thick - but don't tell that to Keith Olbermann.
I'm sure there are many more heads to pop in this whirl-cess-pool in the coming weeks and months. It's a consequence of having witness what is perhaps the biggest political upset in American history.
Stay tuned. This ride is far from over - in fact, it might just be getting started.
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Truth or Consequences, Reasons or Excuses...
The previous month has seen more finger pointing and assignment of blame for the defeat of Hillary Clinton than I can recall from any previous Presidential campaign. She had all of the advantages a candidate could ever hope for or dare to dream of: deep-pocketed donors, the Wall Street financial juggernaut and the mainstream media outlets it owns, sycophantic television and radio pundits, the entertainment industry and big-name entertainers, even prominent Republicans and neoconservative leaders were "with Her".
And she lost.
Sure, she won the popular vote by over two million at this writing. However, this popular vote advantage didn't truly manifest itself until after California was called, and the votes came in at a 2:1 margin for her. She didn't win the swing states in the Rust Belt and in Florida - the so-called "Blue Wall" that was to keep Democrats in the White House for a generation - hence, her downfall.
Here is what I think happened, and why:
And she lost.
Sure, she won the popular vote by over two million at this writing. However, this popular vote advantage didn't truly manifest itself until after California was called, and the votes came in at a 2:1 margin for her. She didn't win the swing states in the Rust Belt and in Florida - the so-called "Blue Wall" that was to keep Democrats in the White House for a generation - hence, her downfall.
Here is what I think happened, and why:
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
As The Dust Settles...
I had to step away from blogging for a while. The 2016 "Election" provided too much information to process given the stories, slants and accusations flying through the psychic room like steel-pointed arrows, in combination with the recent activities in my personal life. Now that I'm back, I've plenty to say about what has transpired over the last several months, came to a head on November 8th, and what is still boiling over as a result. Here are a couple of snippets:
--> I can't say I'm surprised that T-Rump won. That so few media people were not caught off-guard about T-Rump winning stands as a testament as to just how out-of-touch they are with "flyover state" America - especially in regards to the prevalence of white voters who turned out for T-Rump in droves. Explaining their mind-set will take at least it's own, extended post (or two, or three, or more). Expect one from me in the coming weeks - but in the meantime, this article in thehill.com can offer a good start to the discussion.
--> Hillary beat T-Rump in the popular vote by almost 2 million votes at this writing, but the popular vote doesn't seem to matter too much in the World's Greatest Democracy/Republic/whatever this is becoming. Even if Hillary won this in the same way T-Rump did - purely through the Electoral College - I would still call for the elimination of the Electoral College. It's an anachronism put in place by the wealthy in order to dilute the influence of the masses, and to give an inordinate amount of influence to smaller states. The Presidency is a national office, thus, the votes of the states, counted in amalgamation, should be rendered as irrelevant. One person - one vote. Period.
Much more to come - stay tuned.
--> I can't say I'm surprised that T-Rump won. That so few media people were not caught off-guard about T-Rump winning stands as a testament as to just how out-of-touch they are with "flyover state" America - especially in regards to the prevalence of white voters who turned out for T-Rump in droves. Explaining their mind-set will take at least it's own, extended post (or two, or three, or more). Expect one from me in the coming weeks - but in the meantime, this article in thehill.com can offer a good start to the discussion.
--> Hillary beat T-Rump in the popular vote by almost 2 million votes at this writing, but the popular vote doesn't seem to matter too much in the World's Greatest Democracy/Republic/whatever this is becoming. Even if Hillary won this in the same way T-Rump did - purely through the Electoral College - I would still call for the elimination of the Electoral College. It's an anachronism put in place by the wealthy in order to dilute the influence of the masses, and to give an inordinate amount of influence to smaller states. The Presidency is a national office, thus, the votes of the states, counted in amalgamation, should be rendered as irrelevant. One person - one vote. Period.
Much more to come - stay tuned.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Quibbles and Bits, Food Fight edition
...and the quibbles and bits fly through the room!
--> I'm watching the Second Democratic Kerfuffle - oh, excuse me, "debate". One of the miracles of the internet, though, is the ability to take the kerfuffle with a bit of a sanity back - in my case, listening to Jill Stein's responses to the questions and "answers". From what I'm observing, it seems like the moderators are handling this in a more balanced way than Mr. Holt in the first debate. Trump looks like a buffoon and corrupt, Hillary looks and sounds like the political slickster she is. And of course, they are hurling personal insults at each other. Like the first "debate", this is turning into an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people.
--> Can we please stop the press blackout of the Jill Stein and Gary Johnson campaigns? At least Gary Johnson seems to be willing to play ball with the bankers - but he's also a first-class idiot. Jill won't play ball by the "accepted" rule book, and that's why you won't see her on the MSM alphabet soup media outlets.
--> Keith Olbermann, in a recent offering for GQ, called Jill Stein a "simpleton". Uh, Keithie - do you know the first thing about Jill Stein or her campaign? You're proving to be as big of a shill for the one-party-two-brand system as the rest of your former colleagues at MSN-BS, not to mention Slate, Daily Kos, and the rest of them. Mr. Olbermann also stated "we have had enough" of people like me, who will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Uh, Keithie - who's "we"?
More later...
--> I'm watching the Second Democratic Kerfuffle - oh, excuse me, "debate". One of the miracles of the internet, though, is the ability to take the kerfuffle with a bit of a sanity back - in my case, listening to Jill Stein's responses to the questions and "answers". From what I'm observing, it seems like the moderators are handling this in a more balanced way than Mr. Holt in the first debate. Trump looks like a buffoon and corrupt, Hillary looks and sounds like the political slickster she is. And of course, they are hurling personal insults at each other. Like the first "debate", this is turning into an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people.
--> Can we please stop the press blackout of the Jill Stein and Gary Johnson campaigns? At least Gary Johnson seems to be willing to play ball with the bankers - but he's also a first-class idiot. Jill won't play ball by the "accepted" rule book, and that's why you won't see her on the MSM alphabet soup media outlets.
--> Keith Olbermann, in a recent offering for GQ, called Jill Stein a "simpleton". Uh, Keithie - do you know the first thing about Jill Stein or her campaign? You're proving to be as big of a shill for the one-party-two-brand system as the rest of your former colleagues at MSN-BS, not to mention Slate, Daily Kos, and the rest of them. Mr. Olbermann also stated "we have had enough" of people like me, who will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Uh, Keithie - who's "we"?
More later...
Monday, September 26, 2016
For The Love of...
Among the many, many subtexts that I've studied in my observation of political life in America is that of the role of money, especially in how it works, how it flows, how it determines what gets passed into law and what gets filibustered. Throughout these observations, a common theme emerges: that of the mindsets that possessing varying amounts of cash tend to lend themselves to. These attitudes are part of the foundation of the class strata that has become ever more glaringly apparent in this country, and exists in even more glaring obviousness in other "developed" countries.
Let's start with the "rich", which I define by the classic "1%" meme perpetuated since the height of the Occupy movement. The rich have their own culture and their own, separate "universe" outside of the rest of the world - it's called "Richistan" by some observers. As an example, how many times have you seen a celebrity or other well-known individual take a commercial airline flight? In all of my days flying, I saw one: Erik Estrada, flying first-class on his way to Chicago. They own, either outright or through shared ownership, their own airplanes, or at the very least, pay one of the new flight subscription services x-thousand dollars per month to fly anywhere, anytime. Add to this the country clubs and private golf courses, the high-profile nightclubs (and the underground ones so "sacred" to them that the commoners have no idea they even exist), the super-expensive hotels, and all of the other plums associated with wealth, and the result is a protective "bubble" surrounding those of the means to live within it. It's the 21st century equivalent of the feudal lord's castle, with the subjects of that castle being the rest of us, the "99%".
By contrast, the middle class and lower look at money as a means to obtain for purposes of survival, with maybe a little left over for leisure or entertainment if you're fortunate. The consumer base of most developed economies consists of people in this strata. Without people of the necessary means to purchase the product you are selling, how can you expect, then, to sell anything at all? The elites' answer: globalism. Perhaps there will be fewer of means in my home country, but hey, look at all of those expanding economies and middle classes in China and India, and elsewhere! They'll do the consuming and manufacturing, while we in America and the "developed" world do...what?
Let's start with the "rich", which I define by the classic "1%" meme perpetuated since the height of the Occupy movement. The rich have their own culture and their own, separate "universe" outside of the rest of the world - it's called "Richistan" by some observers. As an example, how many times have you seen a celebrity or other well-known individual take a commercial airline flight? In all of my days flying, I saw one: Erik Estrada, flying first-class on his way to Chicago. They own, either outright or through shared ownership, their own airplanes, or at the very least, pay one of the new flight subscription services x-thousand dollars per month to fly anywhere, anytime. Add to this the country clubs and private golf courses, the high-profile nightclubs (and the underground ones so "sacred" to them that the commoners have no idea they even exist), the super-expensive hotels, and all of the other plums associated with wealth, and the result is a protective "bubble" surrounding those of the means to live within it. It's the 21st century equivalent of the feudal lord's castle, with the subjects of that castle being the rest of us, the "99%".
The driving force behind this separation is perception of value. The Rich recognize that economic power and political power are one and the same. Money IS power, and power can be monetized. It may be said that this is a simple supply-and-demand argument - the rich have what "everybody else" wants. It sounds like a simplistic argument, and it is - but think about it. This entire mindset informs our current political situation, especially as it relates to lobbyists and their de facto ownership of the politicians with whom they expect favor. Their money is the lifeblood of most campaigns - and it's a weapon to use against those who fall into their disfavor by sending it to an opponent. This is why some politicians describe money as the "mother's milk" of politics, and do so with no irony intended. It also demonstrates why there seems to be absolutely no interest whatsoever in reviving our nearly dead middle class. Why support the existence of an entire economic class who won't support you? The entire concept of a large middle class is foreign to advocates of pure, unregulated free markets, and is viewed with disdain among the elites, because as stated above, economic power and political power are viewed as one and the same by those same elites. A large, economically empowered middle class is a large, politically powered middle class - and their interests are not at all in line with the elites. One can read Russell Kirk or any of the other classic conservative authors to see this dynamic at play.
By contrast, the middle class and lower look at money as a means to obtain for purposes of survival, with maybe a little left over for leisure or entertainment if you're fortunate. The consumer base of most developed economies consists of people in this strata. Without people of the necessary means to purchase the product you are selling, how can you expect, then, to sell anything at all? The elites' answer: globalism. Perhaps there will be fewer of means in my home country, but hey, look at all of those expanding economies and middle classes in China and India, and elsewhere! They'll do the consuming and manufacturing, while we in America and the "developed" world do...what?
The middle class is what stands between the rich and the pitch forks. Conservatives counter, with considerable trepidation, the 1960s - when we had a strong middle class and protests and demonstrations seemed to be breaking out all over. Those conflicts, however serious they were, are a walk in the park when compared to a growing population with no food or shelter - and thus, nothing to lose.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Quibbles and Bits, Putting a Cheesy Steak in Philly Because It's Done Edition
As the dust settles on the 2016 Presidential Primary season, let's take a look at some of the things that are peeking through the dissipating clouds:
--> The 2016 Presidential Primary was RIGGED, and the result was the INSTALLATION of Hillary Clinton as the Nominee. She didn't WIN the nomination - it was predetermined. She was always going to be the Dem nominee, come hell or waters high, regardless of Bernie Sanders or any other high-minded insurgent candidate with big ideas. The evidence of the rigging is overwhelming (thanks to Wikileaks and evidence gathered by Debbie Lusignan and others), and often available only through non-mainstream outlets. Lee Camp, of RT's Redacted Tonight, dedicated air time for several weeks to the election fraud issue.
--> Good on the people outside the convention hall (and some inside) who provided the coverage of the protests and other events that the mainstream media would rather you not see. I send a special shout-out to Josh Fox, for his 2-minute video of the half-empty arena immediately after Hillary's formal coronation. It went viral, and it shows just how little inter-party support from the rank and file Hillary truly has. Another shout-out to Debbie Lusignan, aka The Sane Progressive, who filmed hours of coverage and commentary in and around the Crime Scene. (By the way, check out her absolute take-down of Tamron Hall regarding John Lewis' hypocrisy in regards to his HRC endorsement. The sound of the video is highly distorted, but the distortion perfectly suits the anger and righteous indignation Debbie serves to Ms. Hall and her cohorts at MSN-BS.) There were many others who contributed to telling what really happened in Philly last week - thank you to all of you.
--> I was disappointed about the results, and felt the proverbial knife in the back when Bernie called for nomination by acclamation. But, after letting emotions process, I think I have a better idea as to why he did what he did and what he's doing now. He has always said that he would support the Dem nominee - it was a condition of the DNC for allowing him to run as a Democrat, and he has always been clear as to that fact. He now has an international following, which when combined with his new national profile, will make him a VERY powerful senator when he goes back to Washington. He's also continuing to support causes and politicians ("Berniecrats") who push his overall message and platform through new organizations like Our Revolution. As much pain as I felt about what he did, I don't hold it against him. He and his family have gone through a tremendous amount of hard work and emotion, and the only way for it to be in vain is for us to not follow through on what he started.
--> Let's take a look at what the Bernie Revolution accomplished, even though the man himself will not be the Dem standard bearer (he should be, and would be without the Election Fraud which he and his campaign did very little to fight - more on that another time.) He made economic inequality the centerpiece of his campaign, and brought it and other progressive issues to the front and center of the political mainstream. He proved that a major campaign can be fought, and won, with minimal donations and no Super PAC help. He pushed a rightward-lurching Democratic Party back toward the left, showing that it's in progressive ideas that the votes really lie - even in some typically Republican strongholds. His campaign, and offshoots like #BernieOrBust and #NeverHillary, showed that progressive votes and voters should never be taken for granted - they are not guaranteed and need to be earned by the candidate, something Bernie has said flat-out on several occasions. He showed the world outside of the US that yes, there are people in America who want much of what Europe and other countries have and are willing to fight for it. He ran one of the cleanest campaigns in modern political history and was able to win 22 states and 13 million voters - all while declaring himself a Democratic Socialist. Most of all - he showed that America wants their leaders to possess INTEGRITY and HONESTY, qualities sorely lacking in today's retail politics.
What this means is - by 2018 and 2020, America will be ready. Bernie opened the door to what is possible. We now must walk through it, and with organization and continued commitment from we the people, we can.
I'll have more to say about the primaries and the election in the coming weeks leading up to November. The role of non-traditional parties and organizations, fighting election fraud, and other topics will likely surface. Stay tuned.
--> The 2016 Presidential Primary was RIGGED, and the result was the INSTALLATION of Hillary Clinton as the Nominee. She didn't WIN the nomination - it was predetermined. She was always going to be the Dem nominee, come hell or waters high, regardless of Bernie Sanders or any other high-minded insurgent candidate with big ideas. The evidence of the rigging is overwhelming (thanks to Wikileaks and evidence gathered by Debbie Lusignan and others), and often available only through non-mainstream outlets. Lee Camp, of RT's Redacted Tonight, dedicated air time for several weeks to the election fraud issue.
--> Good on the people outside the convention hall (and some inside) who provided the coverage of the protests and other events that the mainstream media would rather you not see. I send a special shout-out to Josh Fox, for his 2-minute video of the half-empty arena immediately after Hillary's formal coronation. It went viral, and it shows just how little inter-party support from the rank and file Hillary truly has. Another shout-out to Debbie Lusignan, aka The Sane Progressive, who filmed hours of coverage and commentary in and around the Crime Scene. (By the way, check out her absolute take-down of Tamron Hall regarding John Lewis' hypocrisy in regards to his HRC endorsement. The sound of the video is highly distorted, but the distortion perfectly suits the anger and righteous indignation Debbie serves to Ms. Hall and her cohorts at MSN-BS.) There were many others who contributed to telling what really happened in Philly last week - thank you to all of you.
--> I was disappointed about the results, and felt the proverbial knife in the back when Bernie called for nomination by acclamation. But, after letting emotions process, I think I have a better idea as to why he did what he did and what he's doing now. He has always said that he would support the Dem nominee - it was a condition of the DNC for allowing him to run as a Democrat, and he has always been clear as to that fact. He now has an international following, which when combined with his new national profile, will make him a VERY powerful senator when he goes back to Washington. He's also continuing to support causes and politicians ("Berniecrats") who push his overall message and platform through new organizations like Our Revolution. As much pain as I felt about what he did, I don't hold it against him. He and his family have gone through a tremendous amount of hard work and emotion, and the only way for it to be in vain is for us to not follow through on what he started.
--> Let's take a look at what the Bernie Revolution accomplished, even though the man himself will not be the Dem standard bearer (he should be, and would be without the Election Fraud which he and his campaign did very little to fight - more on that another time.) He made economic inequality the centerpiece of his campaign, and brought it and other progressive issues to the front and center of the political mainstream. He proved that a major campaign can be fought, and won, with minimal donations and no Super PAC help. He pushed a rightward-lurching Democratic Party back toward the left, showing that it's in progressive ideas that the votes really lie - even in some typically Republican strongholds. His campaign, and offshoots like #BernieOrBust and #NeverHillary, showed that progressive votes and voters should never be taken for granted - they are not guaranteed and need to be earned by the candidate, something Bernie has said flat-out on several occasions. He showed the world outside of the US that yes, there are people in America who want much of what Europe and other countries have and are willing to fight for it. He ran one of the cleanest campaigns in modern political history and was able to win 22 states and 13 million voters - all while declaring himself a Democratic Socialist. Most of all - he showed that America wants their leaders to possess INTEGRITY and HONESTY, qualities sorely lacking in today's retail politics.
What this means is - by 2018 and 2020, America will be ready. Bernie opened the door to what is possible. We now must walk through it, and with organization and continued commitment from we the people, we can.
I'll have more to say about the primaries and the election in the coming weeks leading up to November. The role of non-traditional parties and organizations, fighting election fraud, and other topics will likely surface. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Heart Bern
UPDATE: This might not be over just yet. I've received information that Bernie is still instructing his delegates to show up at the convention in Philly, and will ask for a full roll-call vote. At this time, Hillary is less than 400 delegates ahead of Bernie, who has approximately 1900. Neither of them have the magic 2383 needed to secure the nomination and will need to rely on super-delegates to go over the top. Also, Bernie's endorsement might be a technical maneuver, in order to secure a prime speaking slot at the convention per DNC rules. He endorsed Hillary, yes, but he did not expressly concede defeat. So while what I say below still applies, I'd would break out a bag of Orville Redenbacher's and your favorite beverage, and sit back and watch how this transpires. FDR won one of his elections in this manner, so it's not unheard of.
Like many of you, I heard about Bernie Sanders’ inevitable endorsement of Hillary Clinton this morning. Inevitable for two reasons: one, because he has been making noises to this effect over the last several weeks, and two, because let’s face it: the establishment of the Democratic Party (and their owners) were never going to allow Bernie to get anywhere near the White House, despite the double-digit lead he holds over the T-Rump. The Dems and their handmaidens made sure of it with repeated and documented examples of election fraud, a media blackout of Bernie despite holding rallies of tens of thousands of people, a rigged election process in which the super delegates were counted along with the pledged (and added to the overall delegate totals by CNN, MSNBC, et. al), and a debate schedule which intentionally kept much of the country in the dark about just what Bernie and Hillary are all about.
Yes, I feel betrayed, because the donations and online lobbying I did on his behalf seem to be for nothing. This emotion can be multiplied exponentially for those who conducted and participated in phone banks, built and maintained Bernie’s formidable online presence, and other volunteer work. I feel defeated, not so much by HRC herself (as much as I despise her) but by the DNC and the political establishment who made DAMNED sure that THEIR candidate was the Dem standard-bearer, and Bernie’s supporters like myself never had a say in it all along. I feel insulted by a Democratic Party whose leaders (especially the Clintons) actively look down on the voters, and have treated Bernie and his supporters with classic condescension. Finally, there was the evidence that the assumption was made even before the primary season began that Hillary was going to be the nominee. Bernie, in the minds of the DNC, was never even supposed to enter the race - this was expected to be a HRC coronation.
Bernie’s spoken rationale for his endorsement was keeping Donald Trump out of office. Yes, this is a good reason, but there are many other factors at work. For one, take a look at news over the last couple of weeks. Police shootings and the corresponding outrage and protests, and law enforcement’s excessively heavy-handed management of these protests, took center stage. The Democratic Convention in Philadelphia is set for less than two weeks from this writing, and there are tens of thousands of people expected to converge around the fortress passing as the Wells Fargo Center, many of them “Bernie or Busters” who have absolutely no interest in a President Hillary Clinton. With an already angry population and a divisive primary fight, the stage was being set for a potentially explosive situation in Philadelphia. It may get to that point anyway, but with Bernie officially ending his campaign and supporting Hillary, at least he won’t get fingered for the blame for any violence that occurs. Another factor is his awareness of the power of the DNC political establishment. He knew how much they were working against him, and despite his formidable fundraising prowess, he did not have the resources to continue at this time (not to mention, what would have happened if he DID win, and had to contend with the bought-and-paid-for Congress). Then, there are also the relationships in Congress that he has to maintain if he is to remain an effective senator. As I’ve stated in previous posts, his remaining in Congress is based in part on the relationships he built with key Democrats, as he caucuses with them. If he loses or further strains those relationships, then the Democratic Party will likely run a well-funded challenger to him in his home state of Vermont.
What about his promise to take this to the convention? Well, he is going to Philadelphia, just not with the same approach as if he were still in fight mode. If the Republicans picked a more “sensible” candidate than the despot-in-waiting T-Rump, then I could see Bernie engaging in a more fierce battle for the nomination. This would have further exposed the corrupt underpinnings of the Democratic Party, which his campaign already has to a large extent. The election fraud would have been called out with much more gusto, as well (it should have been called out more heartily, anyway). But, there’s the literal and figurative Trump card that must be countered with a winning trick, and the Dem establishment figured that the safe bet was to play dynastic politics. We’ll see if this approach works - at this point, it’s problematic.
A word abut the election fraud evidenced in Arizona, Nevada, California, and other places. Bernie should have realized that if he was going to battle for us, then he needed to put up a much more fierce fight than he did on this issue. Those weren’t merely Bernie Sanders’ votes - those were OUR votes we were entrusting to him. His supporters would not have seen him as a sore loser, but rather than as a candidate trying to win. The MSM, on the other hand, would have played the sore loser card to the hilt - they have too much on the line for Hillary.
I am shifting my allegiance to Jill Stein and the Green Party. The Greens’ platform is in line with much of Bernie’s economic philosophy, and goes further by advocating for a peaceful approach to solving international problems rather than the neocon tendencies displayed by Hillary. Remember, Bernie himself said (to his credit) that he is not a pacifist, during the Q-and-A session after his “Democratic Socialism” speech of several months ago. The Greens, at the juncture, simply represent my values most clearly, and that is how I am going to vote. I will no longer play the one-party-two-brand game that the nation has been suckered into one more time. Trump is evil, yes, but so is Hillary - and the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Like many of you, I heard about Bernie Sanders’ inevitable endorsement of Hillary Clinton this morning. Inevitable for two reasons: one, because he has been making noises to this effect over the last several weeks, and two, because let’s face it: the establishment of the Democratic Party (and their owners) were never going to allow Bernie to get anywhere near the White House, despite the double-digit lead he holds over the T-Rump. The Dems and their handmaidens made sure of it with repeated and documented examples of election fraud, a media blackout of Bernie despite holding rallies of tens of thousands of people, a rigged election process in which the super delegates were counted along with the pledged (and added to the overall delegate totals by CNN, MSNBC, et. al), and a debate schedule which intentionally kept much of the country in the dark about just what Bernie and Hillary are all about.
Yes, I feel betrayed, because the donations and online lobbying I did on his behalf seem to be for nothing. This emotion can be multiplied exponentially for those who conducted and participated in phone banks, built and maintained Bernie’s formidable online presence, and other volunteer work. I feel defeated, not so much by HRC herself (as much as I despise her) but by the DNC and the political establishment who made DAMNED sure that THEIR candidate was the Dem standard-bearer, and Bernie’s supporters like myself never had a say in it all along. I feel insulted by a Democratic Party whose leaders (especially the Clintons) actively look down on the voters, and have treated Bernie and his supporters with classic condescension. Finally, there was the evidence that the assumption was made even before the primary season began that Hillary was going to be the nominee. Bernie, in the minds of the DNC, was never even supposed to enter the race - this was expected to be a HRC coronation.
Bernie’s spoken rationale for his endorsement was keeping Donald Trump out of office. Yes, this is a good reason, but there are many other factors at work. For one, take a look at news over the last couple of weeks. Police shootings and the corresponding outrage and protests, and law enforcement’s excessively heavy-handed management of these protests, took center stage. The Democratic Convention in Philadelphia is set for less than two weeks from this writing, and there are tens of thousands of people expected to converge around the fortress passing as the Wells Fargo Center, many of them “Bernie or Busters” who have absolutely no interest in a President Hillary Clinton. With an already angry population and a divisive primary fight, the stage was being set for a potentially explosive situation in Philadelphia. It may get to that point anyway, but with Bernie officially ending his campaign and supporting Hillary, at least he won’t get fingered for the blame for any violence that occurs. Another factor is his awareness of the power of the DNC political establishment. He knew how much they were working against him, and despite his formidable fundraising prowess, he did not have the resources to continue at this time (not to mention, what would have happened if he DID win, and had to contend with the bought-and-paid-for Congress). Then, there are also the relationships in Congress that he has to maintain if he is to remain an effective senator. As I’ve stated in previous posts, his remaining in Congress is based in part on the relationships he built with key Democrats, as he caucuses with them. If he loses or further strains those relationships, then the Democratic Party will likely run a well-funded challenger to him in his home state of Vermont.
What about his promise to take this to the convention? Well, he is going to Philadelphia, just not with the same approach as if he were still in fight mode. If the Republicans picked a more “sensible” candidate than the despot-in-waiting T-Rump, then I could see Bernie engaging in a more fierce battle for the nomination. This would have further exposed the corrupt underpinnings of the Democratic Party, which his campaign already has to a large extent. The election fraud would have been called out with much more gusto, as well (it should have been called out more heartily, anyway). But, there’s the literal and figurative Trump card that must be countered with a winning trick, and the Dem establishment figured that the safe bet was to play dynastic politics. We’ll see if this approach works - at this point, it’s problematic.
A word abut the election fraud evidenced in Arizona, Nevada, California, and other places. Bernie should have realized that if he was going to battle for us, then he needed to put up a much more fierce fight than he did on this issue. Those weren’t merely Bernie Sanders’ votes - those were OUR votes we were entrusting to him. His supporters would not have seen him as a sore loser, but rather than as a candidate trying to win. The MSM, on the other hand, would have played the sore loser card to the hilt - they have too much on the line for Hillary.
I am shifting my allegiance to Jill Stein and the Green Party. The Greens’ platform is in line with much of Bernie’s economic philosophy, and goes further by advocating for a peaceful approach to solving international problems rather than the neocon tendencies displayed by Hillary. Remember, Bernie himself said (to his credit) that he is not a pacifist, during the Q-and-A session after his “Democratic Socialism” speech of several months ago. The Greens, at the juncture, simply represent my values most clearly, and that is how I am going to vote. I will no longer play the one-party-two-brand game that the nation has been suckered into one more time. Trump is evil, yes, but so is Hillary - and the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)