|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
|
|
LeoMarius, 6/16/2015 9:13 AM EDT
reporter1, 6/16/2015 12:58 PM EDT [Edited]
WonderfulWorld, 6/16/2015 10:58 AM EDT [Edited]
Fascism is socialism for the top 1%. |
Jeb Bush is an interesting indication to what extent the USA people are brainwashed by MSM. Financial oligarchy money created an artificial reality in which most American's live. And it dictate what they believe. That's why it is very difficult to make any dent in the right-wing narrative: they just know that the rising number of bums on welfare is a problem, even though there basically isn’t any welfare and there are currently no more bums on welfare then in the past. This of course totally ignores the fact that Americans work longer hours than people in G7 countries and that there no place in the US where a person who is working full-time at minimum wage is able to rent a two-bedroom apartment. In many areas such as NJ such a person can't rent even one bedroom apartment. You can't refute a theology.
At the same time many Americans see nothing wrong with that fact that a deeply provincial, third rate politician, who became a governor of Florida due to his father connections and his political machine being pushed to become the next POTUS. The only thing that make Jeb! a worthwhile candidate is the fact that he comes from the aristocratic family of Bushes. Otherwise he does not have brains, political agility, diplomatic skills even on the level required by State Department Secretary (this is actually a bad example, as State Department was invaded by female sociopaths since unforgettable Madeleine "we think the price is worth it" Albright; each of them was incompatible with the word "diplomacy"). Even taking into account that POTUS became a marionette of "deep state".
There two interesting facts in Jeb Bush biography
PNAC's first public act was to release a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see Signatories to Statement of Principles).. It described the United States as the "world's pre-eminent power," and said that the nation faced a challenge to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." In order to achieve this goal, the statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of "political and economic freedom abroad." It said the United States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values," and preserve and extend "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Calling for a "Reaganite" policy of "military strength and moral clarity," it concluded that PNAC's principles were necessary "if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."[5]
In February, his campaign released a list of 21 Jeb! foreign policy advisers; 17 of them served in the George W. Bush administration. One of them is Paul Wolfowitz which excludes any possibility for adoption of a rational national security policy by Jeb!
His mother, former first lady Barbara Bush, has expressed reservations about a Bush 2016 campaign, because in her opinion along with his name he inherits a half-century of political enemies. This is a problem for Jeb how to navigate between between family loyalty and political necessity. How does the 62-year-old former governor of Florida set himself apart as a candidate without creating too much distance from disastrous Presidency of his older brother?
Level of his self-enrichment efforts, while questionable, is far lower then of previous Republican candidates such as McCain (who actually should be in jail for his Kaeting affair machinations), George W Bush (insider trading) and especially, private equity shark Mitt Romney. So thanks God he is not another insider trader, nor a person who protected financial criminals using his senate seat, not he is a private equity shark.
He enriched himself in a classic "revolving door" way - via sinecures in corporate boards.
Neoconservatives big on “toughness” would rather pick fights with Putin than address the hard law-and-order issues that founded their movement. ...A proxy war with Russia, over Russian borderlands not one American in a hundred could locate on a map—it’s really the full triumph of Wolfowitz. ... This is neoconservatism’s triumph: the creation of an entire Beltway industry, honeycombed through Congress and largely bipartisan, which finds political life not worth living without the prospect of confrontation with a distant enemy... Detente for them is a dirty word, akin to appeasement. Scott McConnell • June 17, 2015 Washington Prepares to Fight for Donetsk (and Ignore Baltimore) The American Conservative |
It is true that Project for the New American Century (PNAC) core ideas were expressed in a September 2000 report produced for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. The Sunday Herald referred to the report as a "blueprint for U.S. world domination." (http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html)
Both he and Hillary are to right of president Richard Nixon. BTW, EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. Essentially Nixon charted the USA course for fifty years ahead (rapprochement with China, unilateral withdrawal from dollar standard, detente with Russia, "oil for dollars only"(oil-dollar) in exchange for Saudi political stability, etc. It's funny the Nixon is to the left of the current Democratic Party, which Clinton sold to financial oligarchy. Such an interesting development.All that means that Jeb Bush is a dyed in the wool neocon, Paul Wolfowitz style (and Paul is a member of his 21 person foreign policy advisory team; can you image this after Iraq http://hamptonroads.com/2015/02/rubin-jeb-bush-iraq-and-truth? How such a person can be adviser to the Presidential candidate? ).
And Republican party itself transformed itself into European style far right nationalist party, some toxic mixture of Tories and NSDAP, which in some areas such as Social security is to the right of NSDAP (see National_Socialist_Program).
In view of Iraq war disaster, participation in PNAC disqualifies him for any public job connected with foreign policy.
Jeb Bush is a dyed in the wool neocon. In view of Iraq war disaster, participation in PNAC disqualifies him for any public job connected with foreign policy.
As Ivy Ziedrich noted ( Jeb Bush Gets Schooled By College Student for 'Spouting War Rhetoric)
"...'Your brother created ISIS,' "
During his trip to Germany, Poland and Estonia in June 2015 Jeb Bush wanted to kill at least two birds with one stone: to enlist the support of critical of the Russian Federation Europeans and to demonstrate the failure of the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton – its main competitor. The weapon of choice in both cases was to surpass Hillary in the anti-Russian rhetoric. Which requires certain efforts, but at the end is a natural line of behaviour for him, as a card carrying neocon.
"Bush will not stop and will scold Russia, at least until the end of 2016. If only ISIS would break out in Jerusalem, it will force Bush to change his mind"
The call to confront Vladimir Putin remained the central theme throughout European tour policy. And his political aides belong to the same neocon flock. For example former state Department official Kenneth Juster is known for his statement that "Putin has destroyed international norms of invading Crimea and seizing the territory." "It should shock the international community," claimed Jester. He also made some contribution in demonizing Putin claiming "Putin is a ruthless pragmatist". Compare this with Hillary's infamous "Putin acts as Hitler" ( Hillary Clinton says Putin’s actions are like ‘what Hitler did back in the ’30s’, March 5, 2015, WashPost) and you see that competition in Putin demonization for those two Presidential candidates became really fierce.
That generated strong backlash even among WashPost readership:
DoubleCheck, 3/6/2014 8:09 PM EST
This is shocking! The US, serial invader, bomber, and rapist of nations around the world are accusing the Russians of breaching international law for trying to deal with the fallout from the fascist coup organized in Washington.
Robert William, 3/6/2014 6:04 PM EST
Former candidate Hillary Clinton will do most anything to get her name in the media. But her remarks of late are completely out of line, even for her. I'm starting to agree with the wag who commented in Paris that her chief problem with Mr. Putin is that he is more attractive without a shirt than she.
jamescnevers, 3/6/2014 12:47 PM EST
I had previously thought, that based upon her experience as Sec of State & U.S. Senator, that Hilary may be the best qualified person to run for the office of The Presidency in our lifetimes. However, Hilary's comment drawing comparisons between Hitler & Putin ARE THE STUPIDIST things I have heard an ex-American diplomat say in a long, long time. LET US NOT FORGET THAT the RUSSIAN PEOPLE LOST 5 MILLION LIVES TO HITLER in WW2!!! In 60 seconds Hilary uttered a sentence that will NEVER BE FORGOTTEN by the Russian people or Putin.
Assuming that Hilary plans to hold the office of The Presidency this highly inflammatory AND IGNORANT remark is guaranteed to cloud Putin and Clinton's ability to cooperate or compromise on future issues for many years to come. Ignorant, Stupid, and Highly Provocative to compare any Russian..or Russian leader to Hitler.....it might be appropos to compare Stalin to Hitler.....but compared to Stalin Putin is is truly a moderate...on the continuum of Russian leaders throughout time.
So there is certain danger for him in overplaying this hand.
In Germany, as expected, Bush pedaled the theme of reunification (in which Bush I took important part) and, of course, noted the importance of the role of NATO. "Who can argue against that, when we see the fate of Ukraine, where the slowly unfolding tragedy?" – he turned to the audience. And moved on to the main theme of his tour – the relations with Russia. "We need to understand that Putin is a ruthless pragmatist, said Bush. – He will not stop until someone does not jerk him to a halt. And I believe that it will make NATO. It is our responsibility to protect the countries of the block, and it serves to strengthen security."
The United States opposes the policies of Putin, but the Russian people they support and consider them to be a "victim of the reckless behavior of their President"
quotes the NYT Bush. And he even have a plan for saving those poor Russian from their evil President.
"The United States and Russia need to clarify the relationship. We don't want to throw Russia a generation ago. In the end, Russia must be European power. First of all we should contribute to the isolation of its corrupt leaders from their own people",
– quotes his statement to the Associated Press.
After Bush outlined the main threats, and methods of dealing with them, he moved on to the next important aspect of the spending budget to strengthen NATO. It is known that very few European countries can afford the increase in the defense budget until required by the Alliance of two percent of GDP. Germany, for example, spend on the military 32.2 billion dollars, which is only 1.09 per cent of GDP.
Jeb Bush expressed concern about the observed reduction in military spending. However, in saying this, he made a smart move, accusing it of not the German authorities, and the U.S. government. "Reducing our defense budget is destructive, and they were the wrong signal to our European NATO allies, whom we call upon to make their defense spending accounted for no less than two percent of GDP," said Bush, adding that the US should increase defense spending.
"One of the responsibilities of the next President is to rebuild our armed forces, to stop the automatic spending reductions which send cooling signals to our allies,"
he added. Note that the US military budget compared to 2014 year increased from 511,2 billion to $ 513 billion, but in relation to GDP it fell from 3.6 percent to 3.4.
Estonia is now the only NATO country, which despite poverty of its population and economic difficulties bravely increased military spending managing even to exceed the requirements of the Alliance – its defense budget in 2015 will amount to 2.05 percent of GDP. Poland which is also in difficult economic conditions due to diminished exports but were rampant Russophobia as dominant among the ruling elite as in Estonia, followed the course and increased the budget to 6.6 billion euro for 2015 from 5.6 billion euro in 2014. Which is a nice present to the USA Military industrial complex.
Of cause Jeb applauded those developments: "As for Poland, the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe in General, I believe that NATO is taking the right steps today, however, they could be more determined, says Jeb Bush. – We need to send a signal about the possible consequences to Russia. I welcome the efforts of Chancellor Merkel, her position on sanctions against Russia, taking into account the economic interests of German business in this country. This is the principled position it has consistently held", – he said approvingly.
And it goes without saying that at the end of his speech the presidential candidate has urged NATO countries together to combat "Russian aggression". "Showing in advance of the inevitable consequences of bad behavior, we will be able to deter possible aggression from Russia, which we all fear... Who can doubt that Russia will do what they like, if her aggression remains unanswered?" "asked Bush. The Germans applauded and sighed.
The main competitor for Jeb Bush remain former U.S. Secretary of state Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton. Despite the abundance of criticism in its address, and also at a serious information campaign waged by Republicans against her, Clinton is still the favorite of the race.
To blacken the reputation of Clinton, the Republicans chose to criticize former Secretary of state for the foreign policy failures, despite her record as stanch neocon and warmonger. They try to assign the blame Clinton for Benghazi attack. To this end data from her email correspondence prove that Clinton knew about the threat, but did nothing to rescue the people. However, digging the Libya attack dirt did not give the expected result. Most Americans do not care much about this event.
Now Jeb decided to use as the trump card so-called reset button, which she presented to the Russian foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in 2009.
"We are beginning to understand that the reset button was not what was needed," said Jeb Bush, speaking in Berlin.
Jeb Bush is not discouraged about the fact that the US citizens became sick and tied of Bush family after disastrous presidency of his older brother. "I haven't seen these polls," he said to the journalists who spoke to him on Wednesday in Germany. "You know, it's very fun to read polls, when you win. Less fun when you're not winning. But I think it's not important. Now only June, and it is too early to cry. We have a long road ahead".
Anti-Russian rhetoric will be the smokescreen to hide his brother blunders, believes co-editor of the analytical website Terra America Boris Mezhuev. "This is an easy opportunity to avoid denouncing brother mistake and thus engaging into internal conflicts within the Bush clan" – he said in the interview to THE VIEW newspaper .
Whatever you say about Trump he is a tough and shrewd negotiator. You don't build a business empire without that. As such he represent a real and present danger to establishment candidates like Jeb! In some success of Donald Tramp is the success stolen directly from Jeb!, the success based on grabbing the national stage with extreme statements. One real threat to Jeb is that Trump point out that now all the jobs got shipped overseas. and that's implicit hint at Jeb's older brother, without shadow of which (and coterie of W advisors like Paul Wolfowitz) Jeb does not weight much in republican field. In this respect, I believe that Donald Trump may be the only Republican, who can actually get anything major done.
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Sep 30, 2015 | www.theguardian.com
Throughout his American visit the pope's approach was deft and nuanced, but challenging. He could speak softly because he carried a big stick; he had fiercely denounced unfettered capitalism in his documents Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato si', which both identified common causes in the rich world's indifference to the planet and to the poor.
This pope is a tactician as well as a moralist. All this could have a significant impact in the US. Politically, there has been a shift that could prove pivotal in terms of the quarter of the electorate that identifies as Catholic.
Under the previous two popes, Republicans could count on papal endorsement for their anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances. Catholic Democrats, by contrast, had a trickier time, treading a tightrope between voicing respect for the pope and for their electorate on such issues.
tjt77 -> ewmbrsfca 29 Sep 2015 20:08
by the time the election actually yawns its way into being, some 14 months away, the public will have long forgotten the visit of Pope Francis..although wahtever current titlilating juicy 'news /entertainment' story plus the words that the still standing bought and paid for clowns utter a few days before might have some impact on the majority voter in (to quote the late Gore Vidal) "the United States of Amenesia."
Dave "marmite71" -> O Robert Cuminale 29 Sep 2015 19:12
No confusion - Every Catholic will say the creed with these words "I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. This is said in every Mass.
I think I was eight when I was taught for my first communion that meant belief in the Catholic church as the only legitimate christian church and church hierarchy headed by the that guy who lives in Rome.
But what would I know, I was only catholic for 25 years, as was all my wider family, two of whom are priests.
Okasis -> MXJones 29 Sep 2015 19:10
Many Progressives Do Give a Damn. Every time I have to listen to one of the Catholic Bigots on the esteemed Supreme Court, I want to puke! Most of us are pretty unhappy about the Anti-Abortion/Gay/Immigrant/Women trash that passes for political dialogue in the US - Much of it aided and abetted by the Catholic Bishops, in all their wisdom...
Robert Cuminale -> Dave "marmite71" O 29 Sep 2015 18:41
I know the Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed and The Athanasion Creed. I'm not Catholic so I asked others who are and they don't what it is either.
Are you confusing that small "c" in catholic (universal) with the large "C" as in the name of the denomination?Maqbool Qurashi -> talenttruth 29 Sep 2015 17:30
It is like the Roman Empire. Its military was spread all over the world while the internal core was getting rotten.
Our infrastructure is rotting. The water system in the Washington DC is 150 years old and leaking 15% of the water. The rate at which they are repairing, it will take another 70 years to fix it.
Education system is in a chaos. As we ignore these deficiencies, the problems become worse. Hey, we do have the largest and well equipped military in the world and we keep feeding it.
John Kayoss -> John Kayoss 29 Sep 2015 16:11
Here's a couple articles, well sourced ones, to begin your education with:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hypocrisy-of-human-rights-watch/5367940
Dave "marmite71" -> O MXJones 29 Sep 2015 15:52Most Americans aren't Protestant - the pew survey last year http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
lists Protestants at 46.5 and it declined 4.8% from the last survey in 2007 when they were 51.3%.I also don't think the dispirit numbers of Protestants voters are as dead set against Papal advice as you seem to believe. My Methodist father-in-law was very impressed by him for instance.
What I think the article makes a case for (poorly articulated I confess -pardon the pun) is that without the American catholic clergy's pushing just narrow moral issues like stopping abortions and gay marriage and failing to mention the church's social justice positions to catholic voters that will make a difference in a key voting demographic, i.e. Catholic Voters.
Even a relatively small switch in the groups voting patterns will have major impact in US elections.
namjodh -> MXJones 29 Sep 2015 14:30A few things ...
1. The Catholic Church in the United States is part of the worldwide Catholic Church. With 69.4 million members, it is the largest religious body in the United States, comprising 22% of the population.
2. Separation of Church and State ... ummmmmmm tell that to the frigging Tea Party, dude, or Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee for that matter.
Your comment like most "Conservative" comments is both factually incorrect and simply bullshit.
ewmbrsfca 29 Sep 2015 13:40Time will tell whether the pope has a decisive influence upon the 2016 race for the White House.
It will be far more important to see how the conservative US Catholic Bishops' Conference, most of the members of which are far more conservative than most conservative Catholics, and who are culture warrior apparatschiks appointed during the long dark winter of the JPII/BXVI-pontificate, will respond to Pope Francis' words and actions.
We will know soon enough during the Synod, which opens its Second Session on October 4 and is slated to last two weeks, or potentially more, given the expected highly controversial debate.
There is a reason why Pope Francis added, by appointment, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich to the number of participants in the Synod, and this must not have escaped Mr. Vallelly. It is Blase Cupich, after all, who most profoundly "gets" what Francis intends to achieve.
Meanwhile, among the US bishops there are still some very recalcitrant holdouts (e.g. the prelates in San Francisco, CA, or Providence, RI, to name only two) who would love to see Francis gone.
What can be said, I think, is that it has become a bit more difficult for the USCCB to unashamedly broadcast the Republican Party Line as it did, to the embarrassment and diminishment of its own moral authority, during the previous Presidential Election Campaign. In that sense, Pope Francis may well have left many Catholics a precious, and certainly by some bishops despised, gift: vote according to your informed conscience, vote for the Gospel, for peace, justice, and equality for all.
chanayutr 29 Sep 2015 13:31
There is simply no way that the timing of Boehner's announcement is completely unrelated to the Pope's visit, so in that way, at least, the Pope has had an influence, insofar as the teabilly faction will be put off for a couple more months, at least. What happens after that will (most likely) be the responsibility of another Irish-American politician, Kevin McCarthy. The timing of the next teabilly-inspired government shutdown, debt-ceiling crisis, or other near death experience has been moved back in such a way that it could very well influence the Nov., 2016 election. So, yeah, in a way, the Pope did cast his vote against the conservatives.
John Kayoss -> Aaron King 29 Sep 2015 12:53
i highly doubt Francis would have bombed Libya based on lies (as even the US State Department infested Human Rights Watch was clear, after the fact, that it was). Nor would Francis have assisted open Nazis in their coup in Ukraine. Nor would he have armed Wahabists in Syria.
Nor would he have used drones to kill a 16 yr old American citizen, simply because the kid chose to have a father that the US didn't like.
This pope would not have given a free pass to Wall Street, nor would he have arranged a nationwide violent crackdown on those who protested this free pass.
The pope would not have jailed Chelsea Manning for documenting the truth about what informed people already knew, nor would he have imprisoned John Kariakou (sp?) for blowing the whistle on torture (nor would he have remained silent as the torture ring run domestically under the leadership of John Burge, in the same area Obama used to "represent", was exposed)
Nor would he have had the plane of a Head of State (who is far closer to Francis's positions than a corporatist like Obama could ever hope to be) grounded, based on a rumor proven to be false.
Of course, to claim that a man who the banks have invested so heavily in, only to be repaid in appointments, and who tries to push monstrosities like TTIP and TPP onto a public whose "representatives" are not even allowed to speak about the details, as being somehow "left" is indicative of the level of (self?) deception needed to support Obama.
And please, do tell me about how Francis had his opposition chained to a desk for 8 hours at a black site during the debates, to keep the media ignorant of her existence. (As Obama did in 2012).
Obama is not fit to kiss the shoes of the Bishop of Rome, much less be equated with him.
fredimeyer -> Al Simballa 29 Sep 2015 12:31
you raise an extremely worrying point. look at the knesset, where parties with a handful of followers with the most bizarre religious notions can sometimes control certain votes.
In America, splinter 'religious' groups from the scientologists to the mormons to the amish have very specific one or two issue political agendas. and Americans fall over backwards to accommodate any mention of 'religious freedom'
Voters do not seem to mind that candidate x is a total nutter and denies the very fabric of science, or wears magic under clothing or insists of snipping the johnsons of baby boys. no matter how whacky, it is 'religious freedom'.
The massive turnout for the leader of a barbaric and medieval 'religion' was frightening. but experience, so far, suggests that even his most devoted followers do not put into practice and of his preachings.
George Williams YorkerBouncer 29 Sep 2015 11:48A little hypocritical since his predecessors condemned to death a lot of heretics, which is what political prisoners were called. The Office of the Inquisition lasted until 1964, when, like ACORN, it simply had its name changed.
GreenLake Cooper2345 29 Sep 2015 11:10
There is no evidence to support your claim that the majority of faithful Catholics oppose the church's teaching on the sanctity of life.
I didn't say anything about "faithful" Catholics -- you inserted that word. I said that the majority of Catholics in the United States oppose the Church's teachings on abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. As evidence, I would cite this Univision poll, which found only 21% of American Catholics support the Church's opposition to abortion. 10% believe it should be allowed in all cases and 66% believe it should be allowed in some cases.
Opposition to the Church's position on every other social issue is even more overwhelming.
StevoKingoftheNewts -> Kevin Parcell 29 Sep 2015 11:07
Hmm. Seems like out of the frying pan into the fire.
A remarkable number of my schoolmates have killed themselves over the years. I believe this is down to the activities of the local priest, who buggered many of them (not me, thankfully) and was helpfully moved by the bishop to another diocese where he did it again. The actual case was reported in the Observer.
I'd no sooner send my child to a Catholic school than I'd sign them up to the junior Ku Klux Klan.
FWIW, I wouldn't send my kid to private school either.
John Kennedy 29 Sep 2015 09:55
The Pope is a great man and a great leader, but I doubt he will have any impact on the election. I think you over estimate the partisan impact, the Pope was very balanced, I suspect on purpose. In fact, I would even venture to say he was a mirror, that reflected your own basis's and views back upon you in a thoughtful manner. I am not surprised that this paper saw this reflection in the mirror.
Daniel P. Ferreira -> bbqtv 29 Sep 2015 09:45
Change has to come gradually, and he is spearheading the biggest change the church has experienced in centuries.
Don't be a hypocrite, governments are the ones responsible to control corporations and stop the destruction of humankind.
Mindless greed in form of short term "profits" at any cost cannot be offset by selling Vatican works of art, which is nothing but another short term fix.We are a sick society, and we can only enjoy our existence by not caring about others suffering or turning a blind eye.
He has leverage and he is using it.
I am an atheist, but highly respect him.BaronVonAmericano 29 Sep 2015 09:18
The Pope does not put wind under the wings of all Democrats. It's hard to see how so-called "centrist" Democrats get much out of the Pope's remonstrations. Those candidates are just as wedded to the golden calf as any Republican, and they are opposed to the Pope's position on gay rights and abortion. In other words, the only good things about right-wing Democrats find no support from the Pope, putting them somewhere behind even Republicans as far as this visit goes.
I think if the Pope's visit boosted any candidate, it was Bernie Sanders, who not only focuses on the equity issues the Pope emphasized, but is willing to reach out without judgment to all who will listen.
Captain_Smartypants -> conifer2 29 Sep 2015 08:44I did say something about you're comment that Christianity doesn't favour credit and lending.
So you've didn't get involved in the original point, and brought in something completely irrelevant instead. Christianity and the Church is hardly one thing, and the Church acts less by Christian values than many an atheist. I don't think we're even having a debate here, unless you're still going to argue for that Christianity (a very different thing from the Church, for the umpteenth time) favours credit.
conifer2 -> Captain_Smartypants 29 Sep 2015 08:39
To make it even simpler for you, it would be like requesting myself to lecture people on debt on the sole basis of myself being a lender. There's nothing in my status as a lender that would require me to do such a thing - in fact, as one I should probably understand that an inherent part of interest is to cover the risk of credit loss, in other words the non-payment of debt, and that this is widespread and part of the business model of any lender.
To make it simpler for you - I didn't say anything about the Pope lecturing Argentina on it's debt. I did say something about you're comment that Christianity doesn't favour credit and lending.
Lysicamus -> Keo2008 29 Sep 2015 06:05
I understand that the Bible forbids usury, lending or changing money for profit. This was why the Jews were moneylenders in Britain; the Church did not want Christians to transgress but didn't care if the Jews did. When the Christians had borrowed too much they expelled the Jews to avoid paying back what they owed.
rivelle -> Zepp 29 Sep 2015 05:56
Chomsky describes the present day GOP as not a party but a "radical insurgency".
Whatever their other disagreements, the people at the magazine "The American Conservative" would probably agree with Chomsky's description.
Captain_Smartypants -> conifer2 29 Sep 2015 05:31
I think you'll find that Christian churches have no problem with credit or the profits from it. Many churches have investment portfolios.
I would not confuse a pragmatic approach to investing surplus funds with the Christian message though, as the latter doesn't moralise about debt and its repayment. I'm pretty sure it's in the Pope's job description to promote Christianity and its values rather than give debt management advice...
DoctorStrangeglove -> JimPNY 29 Sep 2015 00:56
If you somehow see hypocrisy in those not hyde-bound to a religionist-myth version of American history, if that imaginary phantasm is problem for you, then you've no effin' idea what either "separation of church and state", "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." or "freedom of religion" mean.
Gordon Stanly 29 Sep 2015 00:50
The Guardian needs to stop over-exaggerating the Pope's influence. The latest polls show that only 20% of the US population identifies as 'Catholic'.
Most of the Catholic population in America are immigrants from Poland, Ireland, Britain, and South America.
The largest (and fastest growing) growing demographic in America are the "religiously unafilliated" (atheists, agnostics, and nones). They represent about 35% of the US population.
Religion has lost it's influence.
spinnyspace -> Esslloyd 28 Sep 2015 23:48
How dare the Elected Pope attempt to interfere with the 'sole pastime' of the USA in their passion for interfering with other countries leadership.
How dare someone else from one of those little countries who should be doing and thinking what their told not as they want. They don't want people preaching at them? Stop the worldwide policing and judgment of the rest of the world.
peacefulmilitant -> GreenLake 28 Sep 2015 22:51
as the number of white Catholics declines and Hispanic Catholics increases, the trend will probably build more in the Democrats favor.
Except Hispanics are the most likely US Catholics to abandon the Church.
capitalismsucks1 -> Meme Mine 28 Sep 2015 22:40
Add a "Neo" and you are correct. Neoliberals from both corporate owned and operated parties, Republican and Democratic, voted for the war. Socialists and others opposed the war.
Francizek 28 Sep 2015 21:59
Above all, the Pope is realistic and pragmatic. Not so many years ago, the western world was beset with an unsustainable birth rate, and an horrendous infant mortality rate, not so different from the current situation in so-called third world countries today. Medical improvements have certainly helped enormously to change this situation, but equally obviously changes in cultural attitudes involving birth control have had just as big an effect. These changes will not be reversed.
|
|
|
November 16, 2015 | naked capitalism
RedHope November 16, 2015 at 3:20 amcrittermom November 16, 2015 at 6:34 amShe will say anything to win and not care about meaning bc she knows the Democratic base will accept anything.
If you read, at least anecdotally, about the responses of base voters, it seems to be similar to what the GOP does: brush off the discussion as boring, irrelevant, a conspiracy or some combo.
The Democratic base is solely focused on Denial, delusion and hating the Republicans. She will survive this and will likely win with people defending her bat shit extremism.
I completely agree with you in that she will say anything to win. Like a pinball, she will take to whatever side necessary to keep from falling into that hole of defeat.
But please, please let's not give any energy toward thoughts of her winning!
She showed her true colors during the debate, & I still wanna believe–despite being continuously proven wrong, that most folks are smarter than that & were able to see through her. (Probably the only transparency in this current govt?)
oho, November 16, 2015 at 8:53 am
she knows the Democratic base will accept anything.
If you read, at least anecdotally, about the responses of base voters, it seems to be similar to what the GOP does: brush off the discussion as boring, irrelevant, a conspiracy or some combo.
just because the GOP 'accept anything' doesn't make it right if the 'good guys' are dogmatic too.
and my hunch is that right now everyone on in the Democratic Beltway is feeling smug cuz of the GOP clown car. But my gut is that in 2016 if HRC wins the nomination, HRC's load of manure is gonna stink a lot more than the GOP clown car's.
on election night I'll be sitting at home cheering on the makers of humble pie.
Crazy Horse, November 16, 2015 at 11:40 am
Come on people, what is the point of wasting energy and time talking about the two political parties participating in the charade that is called Democracy in the US? In reality there is only one political party - the Oligarch Fascist Party - and the National Election Circus is played out to keep people who mistake it for democracy divided and confused.
Hellary or Chump- do you really believe the choice of figurehead will change the machinery of permanent warfare or diversion of wealth to the favored few?
Malcolm MacLeod, MD , November 16, 2015 at 7:21 pm
Crazy Horse: You speak the unvarnished truth, which is always rather confusing in this day and age.
jgordon , November 16, 2015 at 4:29 am
Any serious analysis of the central drivers of the crisis necessarily lead you to the largest banks as the focal point for the interconnection and risk buildup.
Well if we're concerned about serious analysis it seems a bit odd that we aren't starting with the largest bank of all: the Federal Reserve. If not for the deliberate policy of the Fed to inflate the housing bubble in the early 2000s after the dotcom crash, certainly 2007/2008 wouldn't have been such a mess. Though admittedly government corruption (and for all intents and purposes the Fed is a government appendage) certainly played a part.
The main problem is that there are just way too many zombies and criminals infesting the financial system right now, and they are all being lovingly coddled by the Fed with ZIRP and QE. The only way to slay these undead legions is to end the ceaseless Fed-facilitated blood transfusions from the exhausted living to the dead parasites.
Well I suppose one could claim that its thanks to the zombies that our economy is able to function at all. But come on, is it really a good idea to live in a world ruled by zombies? They eat brains you know.
crittermom, November 16, 2015 at 6:01 am
Excellent article. I watched the debate. I found it very telling that when Wall St was mentioned, the only thing she could seem to equate to it was 9/11.
I found it disgusting that she even brought up 9/11 in an obvious attempt to steer the debate away from the corruption by 'her friends' on Wall St while trying to encourage the voters to give her a pat on the back for 'all she did' after 9/11. Pathetic, cheap, transparent tactic IMO.I found it sad, however, as mentioned in the article "Only when mentioned by a Twitter user later in the debate did the full recognition of the strangeness of that comment shine through." Far too many "trained seals" outside the convention center, as well?
IMO she "put the last nail in her coffin", so to speak, when she brought up AIG & Lehman, showing her ignorance to what really happened. (Or was she just "playing dumb" in an attempt to distance herself from her big contributors on Wall St?)
fresno dan, November 16, 2015 at 8:42 am
I agree. The tendentious quibbling about the definition of "banks" when everyone uses that as shorthand for "excessively large under regulated, corrupt, and stupid financial institutions who have completed co-opted the regulators and politicians who are suppose to oversee them and enforce the rules, regulations and laws" is just deflection from the real issue.
As Bernie said in response: NOT GOOD ENOUGH
dk, November 16, 2015 at 9:05 am
I think you underestimate "most" voters. Don't mistake them for the political media echo chamber that pretends to articulate their subconscious (via absurd polling). Except for the extremes, voters tend to be a taciturn bunch, it's true. One ends up having to pick from an imperfect selection, that's representative democracy; a fact of the circumstance, and voters know it. They play along, don't kid yourself that they actually like it that much.
Comforting stories play well for the comfortable, and when no other stories are being told. The wage disparity issue was almost non-existent in 2008 and got small play in 2012. The BLM narrative is in part a counter-shock to the (granted, naive) assumption that having a black president would have (or indicated) a significant impact on day-to-day racism. The street-level economy has kept sputtering for too many years for that to be passed off as "normal". Too many cats got out of the bag this time around.
Take a look here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-october-fec-filings/charts/In the last quarter, Hillary collected 5.19 mil from under-$200 donors, Bernie collected 20.19 mil. That's just shy of four times as much money, and arguably on the order of four times as many people. Whether Hillary is changing these people's minds at any appreciable rate remains to be seen, but this many people backing a Dem candidate in this way is a new thing (not so new for the Tea Party brand).
Not saying Bernie is a slam dunk by any means, but numerically, in dollars and voters, he can't be dismissed as an impossibility (see also, Corbyn). Political media hacks hate voters, they still can't predict them (and they know it too). Sometimes elections occur in a near vacuum of clear indicators and issues (2012), sometimes the indicators and issues are bigger than even a "big" candidate (2008, Obama would not have won without the financial collapse, which suppressed and fractured Rep voting).
Voters aren't smarter than anybody else, but they're not dumber either. What they are is shy (especially the Dems). But think of Bernie's small donor base as a bunch of wallflowers reacting to something they haven't seen before. That wasn't in anybody's narrative.
Ulysses, November 16, 2015 at 9:09 am
You provide a very astute description, of how the MSM Wurlitzer works to concoct narratives that disempower people. Yet I think that Chris Hedges is also on to something when he observes:
"The frustration, mounting across the country, is bringing with it a new radicalism."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/pray_with_your_feet_20151115
We teeter on a knife's edge, close to societal collapse. My hope is that we will shake off our chains and begin to replace systematic oppression and exploitation with a more humane society. My fear is that the people, who currently benefit from the status quo, will go full-bore totalitarian/repressive in a desperate attempt to cling to their ill-gotten wealth and power.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 12:00 pm
I'm afraid that the impetus is more towards the latter than the former. The PTB haven't spent decades/centuries brainwashing the masses to be good little authoritarians wanting Big Daddy/Momma to "take care" of them for nothing.
Dino Reno, November 16, 2015 at 8:18 am
Yeah, that 9/11 rift was bad, but the "60% of my contributors are women" was worse. I'd love to see this claim fact checked. What a tidy number. Not too big to make her campaign a women's movement, but big enough to throw the guys off their game and make her nomination a foregone conclusion. Meanwhile, corporations make up probably 90% of her actual contributions.
JaaaaayCeeeee, November 16, 2015 at 11:52 am
WaPo fact checked Hillary Clinton's claim that most of her donors are small donors. Only 17% donated less than $200 (she did donation drives asking for a dollar even to get to 17% and most of her donations from women were big donations, too):
Code Name D, November 16, 2015 at 12:41 pm
So corporations have genders now?
nigelk, November 16, 2015 at 1:49 pm
We had one neoliberal Trojan horse get elected twice and if you questioned his policies you were at best a "bad Democrat" and at worst some version of racist…why not try it again? Anyone who questions her bought-and-paid for corruption will be painted as a card-carrying member of the he-man woman-haters club.
Some of us, however, just dislike her since she's an enemy of the working class: http://mattbruenig.com/2015/11/06/my-beef-with-hillary-is-mainly-that-she-is-an-enemy-of-the-poor/
Pat, November 16, 2015 at 9:47 am
Vatch November 16, 2015 at 10:10 amI agree that the remark was cynical and false and typical of Clinton's disdain for both facts and the intelligence of the voters. (And knowledgable in that she knew she would not get fact checked on this in any manner that would make her look like Ben Carson talking about pyramids.) I truly do not think it is as important as you do, as she had already lost that battle.
The people know the great never ending bank bailout of 2008 did not translate to bailing out the economy. There are still foreclosed homes in neighborhoods across America rotting. If they didn't lose a job and are still looking for a decent one they have a parent, a kid, another family member, or multiple friends who are still un or underemployed. They know their bills are going up but their paychecks aren't. And they get to hear about Jamie Dimon becoming a billionaire. They may not know which bank he heads, but they know a whole lot of those billions came from their taxes while they are still struggling. None of this may get into the details of what happened or what went wrong, but they know they got taken. And her response tells them she would take them again. The only people who don't hear that, are the ones who think 60% of my donations are from women makes Clinton a feminist and tribal loyalists. You know the Democratic equivalent of the Bush supporters who never wavered.
Trying to understand the ins and outs of the financial industry shenanigans is deep, dense, and takes way too much time for most folk. I happened to be out on workmen's comp when it went down. This is not my area, I read and read and read and got deeply angry. I still don't understand it all, and I have more facts at my fingertips then probably at least 75% of the population. My point on this, is that sometimes you don't need to know the details to smell the bullshit. And it reeked of manure.
Today is November 16, which is a deadline for the Clinton Foundation to refile some documents, according to this article to which Water Cooler linked on Oct. 28:
https://100r.org/2015/10/clinton-foundation-faces-revisions-and-possible-reckoning/
Here's an article published today about this, although nothing has been resolved yet:
Still, the Clintons have not defined how they decide to designate their speaking fees as income versus charity work. Earlier this year, the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation admitted collecting $26.4 million in previously unreported speaking fees from foreign governments and foreign and U.S. corporations. For tax purposes, who should be treated as the recipient of that money? It is not a silly question.
Jerry Denim, November 16, 2015 at 11:46 am
I couldn't believe my eyes and ears during the debate when Sanders impugned Clinton's integrity for taking Wall Street super PAC money and she seemed to successfully deflect the accusation by going full-bore star-spangled sparkle eagle. She played the vagina card then quickly blurted out "9/11 New York" for applause while attempting conflate aiding and abetting Wall Street with the 9/11 attacks and patriotism. I couldn't believe people were clapping and I couldn't believe Clinton had the audacity to pull such a illogical and juvenile stunt on live television, but yet CBS reported her highest approval scores of the debate were registered during her confusing but emotionally rousing (for some people apparently) "vagina, 9/11" defense.
I loved that Bernie Sanders was willing to drop the "F-bomb" (fraud) on Wall Street but he needs to swing much harder at Clinton. Clinton was quick to zing O'Malley as a hypocrite by noting he appointed a former hedge-fund manager to some state regulatory position when given the chance, but yet neither Sanders or O'Malley hit back with the fact that her only child and Clinton Foundation board member, Chelsea Clinton, worked for the hedge fund of a Clinton family pal and mega-donor in 2006. Neither candidate mentioned that her son-in-law and the father of her grandchild who she is so fond of mentioning, just so happens to be an extremely rich hedge fund manager who benefits handsomely from the Clinton's political connections and prestige. This isn't mud, this is extremely germane, factual material already on the public record. It gets to the core of who Hillary is and where her loyalties lie. Hillary herself chose to identify unregulated derivatives and the repeal of Glass-Steagall as the primary causes of the financial crisis. She either claimed directly or insinuated that she would address these issues as President, but surprisingly no one pointed out that it was her husband's administration that blocked Brooksley Born from regulating derivatives in the 1990's and it was her husband's administration that effectively repealed Glass-Steagal with the signing of Gramm-Leach-Billey act in 1999. It's not a stretch to say the Clinton's deregulation of Wall Street paved the way for the crisis of 2008 and the extreme income inequality of today. Wall Street is deeply unpopular and Bernie Sanders has built a candidacy on two main issues: attacking Wall Street and addressing income inequality. These are punches he can't afford not to throw at his rival when she holds a commanding lead in the polls plus the support of the DNC and media establishment. Clinton is deeply corrupt and beholden to Wall Street. She needs to be beaten with this stick hard and often. Attempting to deflect this very accurate, very damaging criticism by wrapping herself in the flag and invoking feminism is a cheap stunt that will only work so many times before people notice what she is doing. Bernie needs to swing harder and keep at it, he already has the right message and Clinton is highly vulnerable on his pet topics.
I thought O'Malley had one of the best lines of the night when he said "I think it may be time for us to quit taking advice from economists" but it seemed to go mostly unnoticed and unappreciated. I would have loved a frontal assault on the validity and integrity of economists when the bespectacled lady in blue attempted to nail down Sanders with a 'gotcha' question implying raising the minimum wage would be catastrophic for the economy because "such-and-such economist" said so. There is so much disdain for science and academic credentials in the heartland right now, it seems crazy not to harness this anti-academic populist energy and redirect it to a deserving target like neo-liberal economists instead of climate scientists. " How's that Laffer curve working out for ya Iowa? Are you feeling the prosperity 'trickle down' yet?" Sanders did a relatively good job of deflecting and not getting zinged by the 'gotcha' question but a full-frontal assault would have been much better. Stronger, more Presidential and with the added bonus of giving neo-liberal economists under the pay of plutocrats a black eye. Another missed opportunity. The questioner set it up perfectly for him. I would have loved to see the expression on her corn-fed face when Bernie turned her 'gotcha' question that she had spent so much time and thought crafting into the home-run answer of the evening. Perhaps it could happen in a debate in the near future.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 11:58 am
I think what happened there is that Bernie is showing his true colors, unfortunately. While I'm more than OK with Bernie's attitude towards Benghazi & the emails, he really does not confront HRC on her egregious attitudes towards unfettered War, Inc, and most esp not on Wall St and the Banks.
I have no serious expectations of Sanders, however, and never did.
Jerry Denim, November 16, 2015 at 12:15 pm
Perhaps you are correct but Sanders did say Wall Street's business model is greed and fraud. Strong language for a Presidential candidate and unmistakably clear terms. When it comes to attacking Clinton I feel like something is holding Sanders back. Maybe it's his campaign advisors because he's been told his anger scares voters and people don't like negative attacks. Maybe the DNC and Clinton are holding some threat over his head regarding ballot access, debate cancellation or some other punishment if he doesn't play by certain rules. Perhaps he's been warned certain topics are off limits during debates. Seems fishy to me, but maybe it's just as simple as you say.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 1:27 pm
Yes, Sanders has been outspoken about Wall St, greed, fraud and tightening up regulations, etc. That's why it's disappointing and beyond annoying when he clams up vis Clinton and her relationship with and money from Wall St.
The GOP engages in phony baloney food fights much to the tingling excitement of their base. I'd like to see some REAL debate from the Dems. Not just make nice phony baloney bullshit.
Again, I've never expected Sanders to be anything more than someone who'll sound populist and then tell his followers to vote for Clinton… as he's already SAID anyway.
We're told allegedly that "poll after poll" shows Clinton in a double digit lead. I really question that, as well, but clearly no one's showing me the factual data. It is what is. HRC is the anointed one, so get used to it.
To me, Sanders is just window dressing & a distraction, even though, clearly, he's the pick of "both" (or the combined, if you will) litters. Whatever…
JerryDenim, November 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm
"Again, I've never expected Sanders to be anything more than someone who'll sound populist and then tell his followers to vote for Clinton… as he's already SAID anyway"
Yeah maybe, but I believe that was the price of admission to the Clinton / Wasserman-Shultz ball for a life-long socialist who sometimes caucuses with Democrats. The more damage Sanders inflicts on Clinton in the primaries the less sincere and effective any possible Sanders endorsement of Clinton will be later. I too share your distrust of polls and given that distrust it's hard for me to write off a guy who has had every disadvantage in his Presidential bid but is still polling pretty darn well against a extremely well-known political juggernaut early in the primary season.
Sanders has the right message, the right record and popular support on his side in a year when people are fed-up with the entire Washington establishment and sick of pedigreed, legacy politicians like Clinton. Look at how poorly Bush has fared so far against outsider, blow-hard Donald Trump and unknown-nobody Ben Carson. Even conservatives are sick of dynasties.
If there's ever been a moment when Bernie Sanders could win the nomination this is it. If you really think Sanders is the "pick of liter" as you say perhaps you could stop calling him things like "window dressing" and "a distraction". While it may protect your feelings from future disappointment to speak confidently of Clinton as the inevitable nominee it clearly helps her campaign objectives, so…. maybe just try tempering your cynicism just a wee bit unless you are out to help Hillary win the nomination. If you are out to help Hillary then carry on, you're doing a fine job of tarring and feathering Sanders as a loser on behalf of her campaign.
3.14e-9, November 16, 2015 at 2:53 pm
Bernie's campaign never in a million years thought he would get this far. In the beginning, it was calculated to draw attention to income inequality, big money in politics, and other issues that likely would get ignored if the coronation went ahead unopposed. Within that context, it would have been very easy for him to promise the few votes he thought he would get to Clinton.
I have a feeling that his campaign is regretting he ever said that as much as we are. He has a huge number of supporters who, like jgordon above, would write in "Dog Turd" before voting for Hillary (although I don't know why we couldn't write in Bernie). These people are going to be extremely angry if he throws his support behind her, and they have demonstrated well already that they are very vocal. I've commented on NC before that I think there will be hell to pay if and when that happens.
I also suspect that the DNC didn't make a big fuss about his running as a Democrat because no one there thought he'd get this far, either, and they probably thought he would be useful. For all we know, he agreed to that. And then, suddenly, all the unexpected crowds.
Sanders is the ranking minority member on the Senate Budget Committee, which means he definitely could challenge Clinton on economic issues, and competently. So I agree that something has to be holding him back. Yet another consideration is that he might be keeping the most damaging counts against her until later in the campaign. If he showed his hand now, the Clinton machine would kick into gear overtime, get her off the hook, and drag him down into the mud.
Cassandra, November 16, 2015 at 4:10 pm
No need to think of conspiracies, etc. As you point out, Sanders is a senator. He never expected to get this far. He won't win the nomination. He has to think of his post-2016 career. If he goes after Clinton hammer and tongs, he will be (more of) a pariah in the Senate, effectively ruining any chance for him to accomplish anything. As he said in the debate, the VA bill wasn't all he wanted, but it was something. Many think incrementalism is a fool's game, but I believe Sanders is willing to fight for crumbs.
Lambert Strether, November 16, 2015 at 4:14 pm
I think Sanders did pretty well, especially considering the primaries haven't started. He pushed Clinton into two horrible responses, at least: (1) 9/11 and Wall Street and (2) Sanders single payer vs. ObamaCare. Both will be gifts that keep on giving. My thought would is that the opportunity cost of spending a lot of time reverse engineering whatever number of dimensions of chess Sanders is playing failing to use the very powerful ammo he gave - both of which are about policy.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 4:17 pm
I'm willing to be wrong about Sanders, and in fact, hope I am. Time will tell. I agree that he's done better than the odds called for. Willing to listen to him but wish he'd speak up more about HRC's bs. But he is a politician after all and is playing a long game.
3.14e-9, November 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Well, he has to be very careful about that. Clinton's people immediately jump on the least bit of truth from Sanders as "negative campaigning" and then call up their friends in the MSM to back them up:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/05/clinton-campaign-fires-back-at-bernie-/bernie_sanders.
Anyway, thanks for being open.
Jim Haygood, November 16, 2015 at 12:10 pm
'AIG's largest counter-party was Goldman Sachs.'
Thus, the Federal Reserve's "Sunday night special" waiver of the 30-day application period for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to become bank holding companies, and to get their sticky mitts (or tentacles, as the case may be) into "free money" at the discount window. News story from 22 Sep 2008:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26828495
Having essentially zero consumer deposit-taking business, then or now, these two investment banks resemble ordinary commercial banks like mangy wolves dressed in ill-fitting sheep costumes.
Investment banking is a high-risk, high-reward business with some of the most highly compensated employees in the country. Subsidizing GS and MS with Federal Reserve free money is a rank disgrace. It vexeth me greatly, comrades. But changing it is not even on the menu.
TimmyB, November 16, 2015 at 12:35 pm
What really hasn't been discussed is Sander's motivation for breaking up too big to fail financial institutions. Sanders on his website states he wants to break them up because they have too much economic and political power. Sanders says that breaking them up, in and by itself, will provide a benefit.
So when Clinton starts discussing how her plan will be more effective in preventing another financial collapse, she has changed the subject from how breaking up our banks will benefit our democratcy to whether or not breaking them up will prevent another 2008 crisis.
What Sanders needs to do is bring the discussion on breaking up TBTF banks back around to their having too much economic and political power. For example, he could say he wants to break them up because they have too much power and that Clinton want them to continue to hold that power. Clinton has no real response to that claim.
Michael, November 17, 2015 at 11:44 am
Bernie is not running to win. I'm not sure why he is running. If he does not start to hit Hillary then I think it is primarily to keep the left wing of the Democratic Party inside the party instead of seeking a new home elsewhere. The Justice Party is interesting but a third party has no chance unless the Democrats implode.
Honestly I can see the Democrats collapsing before the Republicans. The South and Midwest are just batshit crazy and they'll stick with the Republicans as long as the evangelicals dominate their culture. Does anyone here know anything about previous "great awakenings" in American culture?
MojaveWolf , November 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
For all her vomit-inducing disingenuousness about how she would be the toughest on the financial industry as a whole (really, how does she say that with a straight face?), and her basically sounding like a smarter, saner business as usual neocon on the middle east, I thought her worst moment by far was when she tried to describe single payer as "dismantling" Medicare, Medicaid, etc and letting Republican administrations decide who gets health care, and playing up that the ACA as better and more comprehensive. She is not stupid. She is one of the smartest people in politics from a pure short term IQ standpoint. And she has studied and once advocated for single payer so she KNOWS what it does. Think about this for a minute.
Hillary KNOWS single payer EXPANDS on what Medicaid and Medicare provide.
Hillary KNOWS Bernie's single payer plan would not allow states to opt out, unlike the ACA she is touting, while she was claiming the exact opposite. She knowingly bald-faced lied on national TV & radio (I was driving and listening, not watching) in a way to equal anything Dick Cheney or Mitch McConnell or Newt Gingrich ever did, and she lied about a matter she KNOWS will result in millions of people NOT getting adequate medical care with ripple effects ranging from constant illness and misery to job performance to not seeking treatment until emergency to actual death. People can't pay 3k or 5k deductibles. We already have news reports of people not going for this reason. We paid the penalty on our taxes last year because the only affordable plans that were actually usable required us to make a 2 hr one way drive (over 90% hwy, this is a long way) to the closest hospital/doctor that was included in it. One of my acquaintances who is covered took a taxi to what was supposedly the only local doctor who took her plan (after calling everyone in town), waited over an hr, and was told that whoever she spoke to on the phone made a mistake and she is not covered, and they have no idea where she should go, plus she's out the time and a r/t taxi ride. You think Hillary hasn't studied this and doesn't know things like this happen? You think she doesn't know Bernie's single payer plan (and probably all single payer plans) wouldn't prevent these sorts of situations?
She KNOWS we could cut out the insurance companies, have free single payer, pay for it by taxing the most well off, and people on the whole would get much better service, with much better outcomes, and without having to freak out if the ambulance took them to a hospital outside of their plan or a visiting specialist at the hospital their plan said go to was outside the plan and billed them five or six figures or what have.
But she clearly doesn't care. She just cares about people donating money to her campaign and getting elected as a resume stuffer. She doesn't want to change how things are done more than minor tinkering, even when she KNOWS the changes will make everything better off. She will be the same on climate change, even tho she isn't stupid and knows both what we are doing now and what she is recommending are leading us to a planet of the jellyfish in the long run and a state of neverending crises and mass extinction in the short and medium run.
(I am not saying she knows the misery her foreign policy position has and will cause because I actually fear she might believe in what she's saying there; tho whether she believes it or not she clearly intends to continue the same policies that have led us to destabilize the middle east and are starting to destabilize the entire world; the only reason I'm not thinking this is her worst moment is because she was more hinting at than saying things, and I'm less sure of her actual positions)
She is willing to sacrifice millions of lives to get herself elected and continue enriching her already rich family who doesn't need any more money. She is, basically, a Republican on everything but social issues (yes, these matter, and good for her, tho past cowardly statements on abortion and votes on marriage equality should not be disregarded when compared with her opponents).
i guess people think nothing of this, just as they think nothing of her lies on regulating the financial industry, because they think that sort of flat out lie and distortion is just politics as usual, and more important to be good at lying than good on substance?
And that is why really do need a political revolution. Almost all of the current political class, including the political media, really need to go.
RUKidding, November 16, 2015 at 1:37 pm
AKA, there's very little difference bet HRC and whomever barking lunatic the GOP coughs up… other than HRC isn't such a barking lunatic. She's just mired in pure unfettered greed and imperialistic hubris.
Actually the GOP should be kissing the ground that HRC walks on bc she's probably the biggest War Hawk in the whole amalgamated group, and she's way more for BigIns getting their hugely giant sucking cut out of "health" insurance scams than almost any other candidate.
The GOP puts on a dog 'n pony show constantly wasting time and all taxpayer money on voting against ACA. They do that bc they know their phony baloney bills will never ever pass. The GOP doesn't want ACA to ever go away bc the politicians are getting rich rich rich off of it as much as the Dems are. They just have to play a Kabuki show to appease their utterly stupid base.
Such a waste of time all of this is. Such a monumental waste of money. ugh.
nothing will change. authoritarian USians like Big Daddy/Mommy too much to let ever let go of this system.
Vatch, November 16, 2015 at 3:33 pm
There are at least two advantages to breaking up the giant banks:
1. If one of the fragments gets into financial trouble, we won't have to fear a complete economic collapse.
2. Sure, the owners of the banks will continue to own as much as before (and some of their stock might even rise in value). But the CEOs of the big banks will lose influence, because they will suddenly be the bosses of much smaller corporations. Currently, people like Jamie Dimon have far too much power.
Bob Stapp, November 16, 2015 at 2:17 pm
I'm at a complete loss to understand why Dems, the media, and in fact anyone with two brain cells to rub together, can fail to see or acknowledge that HRC is a liar, a crook, and a generally mean-spirited individual who's only in it for herself and will do and say anything and accept money from anyone as long as it helps her to win.
Sadly, the only difference between Hillary and Obama, is that Barack is a better shape-shifter and, when he lies, he can do so with greater eloquence and charm. Hillary can never manage to completely hide her forked tongue and her poisonous lizard personality.
Our country and, in fact, the entire world is at a crossroads and yet there has never been such a lack of selfless, skilled leadership stepping up to help us get to some version of the common good. Meanwhile, Bernie Saunders and Jeremy Corbyn get pilloried daily for even suggesting that we are all in this together and had better get to fixing things right quick. I guess it's the fate of truth-tellers.
I plan to attend my state's caucus and when I say that if we insist on pursuing the political process as we have always done, we are condemning ourselves to disaster. Going out and working for a person, a personality, or a hoped-for savior, is merely repeating the same kind of insanity that has produced the rotten system we have today. Bernie's right. It's going to take all of us standing up together, not to get Bernie or anybody else elected, but for what we know is right. And we'd better do it soon. Then, when I'm shut down by the party operatives, I'll go home and continue to watch the slow-motion train-wreck.
Lambert Strether, November 16, 2015 at 3:21 pm
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'bank' is."
cassandra, November 16, 2015 at 7:11 pm
After Obama's behavior, and the documentation of Gilens & Page, can anyone believe that campaign speeches have anything to do with post-electoral policies? The nomination process is beyond dysfunctional: everyone knows Hillarity's positions are synthetic, yet she successfully campaigns with the grossest political impunity and she is taken seriously enough for analysis. I don't understand why. The only political power remaining to democracy is resistance, either by voting for a third party, or else by total abstinence. I personally prefer the former, as it's a bit harder to sweep under the media carpet. This keeps me outside the grasp of helplessness.
Telee, November 16, 2015 at 7:38 pm
The refusal of HRC to be for reinstating Glass-Steagall to separate investment banks and commercial banks is a sure sign that she will be a lap dog for the fraudsters on Wall Street. More of the same or worse.
Another point. My readings has lead me to believe that she played a large role in the destabilization o Libya. In her 11 hours before the Benghazi committee she was never asked why she was so hell-bent for a military solution when there were negotiations which would have led to a more peaceful solution.
1 kings, November 16, 2015 at 9:39 pm
"We came, we saw, he died". HRC
aliteralmind, November 16, 2015 at 10:21 pm
Family Guy *exactly* predicted Hillary's 9/11 tragedy-distraction strategy way back in 2008: Life imitating art: http://youtu.be/Rm3d43HLyTI
|
|
|
November 20, 2015 | naked capitalism
Yves here. Readers know I have a weakness for righteous rants…
By Beverly Mann. Originally published at Angry Bear
Hillary Clinton's performance wasn't as clean or as crisp as her last one. Among other things, she invoked 9/11 in order to dodge a question about her campaign donors. But she effectively made the case that, though Sanders speaks about important questions, his solutions are ultimately simplistic and hers are better. Instead of railing about breaking up the big banks, focus on identifying and moderating the biggest risks to the financial system. Instead of making college free for everyone, increase access to those who need it and decline to subsidize wealthy kids' tuition.
– Can anyone really imagine Bernie Sanders in the White House?, Stephen Stromberg, Washington Post, Nov. 15
Stromberg, a Washington Post editorial writer who also blogs there, is an all-but-official Clinton campaign mouthpiece who last month, in a blog post and (unforgivably) a Post editorial (i.e., commentary with no byline, published on behalf of the Post's editorial board) baldly misrepresented what Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon on Tuesday misrepresented about Sanders' single-payer healthcare insurance plan, but from a different angle: Stromberg said that the cost of the single-payer plan would be in addition to the cost of healthcare now. Actual healthcare, not just insurance premiums.
According to Stomberg and the Post's editorial board then, hospitals, physicians and other healthcare provides would receive full payment from private insurers and also full payment from the government. And employers, employees and individual-market policyholders would continue to pay premiums to private insurers while they also paid taxes to the federal government for single-payer-double-payer?-insurance.
A nice deal for some but not, let's say, for others. Also, a preposterous misrepresentation of Sanders' plan.
Fast-forward a month and Stromberg, this time speaking only for himself (as far as I know; I don't read all the Post's editorials) and for the Clinton campaign, picks up on Clinton's invocation of the horror of the public paying college tuition for Donald Trump's kids. But since he probably knows that Trump's kids no more went to public colleges than did Clinton's kid, he broadens it.
Instead of making college free for everyone, increase access to those who need it and decline to subsidize wealthy kids' tuition. Good line! At least for the ears of voters who are unaware that public universities, like private ones, quietly skew their admissions processes to favor the kids of parents who likely can pay full tuition simply by switching the funds from a CD or other savings account into a checking account at the beginning of each semester, thus removing the need for the school to dig into its endowment fund to provide financial assistance. Or to worry about whether the student will have that loan money ready at the beginning of each semester.
Which is why Jennifer Gratz, salutatorian at her working class Detroit suburb's high school, whose extracurriculars included cheerleading but probably not a summer in Honduras assisting the poor, was denied admission to the University of Michigan back in 1995. And why she sued the University in what eventually became a landmark Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality under the equal protection clause of UM's affirmative action program.
She did not challenge the constitutionality of the U's almost-certain, but unstated, admissions policy that would ensure that the freshman class had a substantial percentage of students from families wealthy enough to pay the full tuition.
Y'know, the ones wealthy enough to pay for SAT tutoring, SAT practice courts, and if necessary more than one SAT exam.
What especially angers me about this let's-not-subsidize-wealthy-kids'-college-tuition canard is that it uses disparities in ability to pay the tuition as a clever way to ensure the admissions status quo. Or something close to the status quo.
In her and her campaign spokesman's statements in the last several days-most notably her "Read My Lips; No New Taxes on the Middle Class, Even $1.35/wk to Pay for Family and Medical Leave" declaration, but other statements too-she's overtly declaring herself a triangulator. And some progressive political pundits are noticing it. Yes!* They!** Are!*** And Sanders needs to start quoting these articles, in speaking and in web and television ads.
I said here yesterday that Clinton is running a Republican-style campaign. But it's not only its style–its tactics–that are Republican. Watch her edge ever closer on substance as well. Which is the way she began her campaign last spring and early summer, until it became clear that Sanders' campaign was catching on.
|
|
|
January 6, 2015 | Alternet
The majority of Texas energy production is still by conventional means. North Dakota, on the other hand, relies heavily on fracking, so they are looking at hard times. Already oil rigs are being shut down at the fastest pace in six years."At $50 oil, half the U.S. rig count is at risk," R.T. Dukes, an upstream analyst at Wood Mackenzie Ltd., said by telephone from Houston. "What happened in the last quarter foreshadows what's going to be a tough year for operators. It's looking worse and worse by the day."Employment in the support services for oil and gas operations has risen 70% since mid-2009. Employment in oil and gas extraction has risen 34% over the same time period. The thing to remember is that most job creation in the fracking industry comes up-front, so job losses will hit long before production falls.The most labor-intensive aspect of the oil-field industry is the construction and completion process for new wells, which requires the bulk of investment and provides the most income to the local economy.The price began crashing a couple months ago so the layoffs notices will really pick up on the oil patches any day. The Dallas Federal Reserve projects Texas will lose 125,000 jobs by the middle of this year. This slowdown is already projected to effect the state budgets of Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Alaska.
He predicts ramifications of the oil slide to show up in three to six months, because companies will complete works in progress according to contract.Some will point out correctly that oil sales from production is sold months or years ahead of time, so a temporary drop, no matter how steep, doesn't have an immediate effect. That statement is true, but it comes with two big caveats. First of all, there is no way of knowing when those oil futures were agreed to. They could expire tomorrow, or three years from now. The other caveat is specific to the geology of fracking. Unlike traditional oil drilling, shale oil taps out very quickly. That is simple geology.
the average decline of the world's conventional oil fields is about 5 percent per year. By comparison, the average decline of oil wells in North Dakota's booming Bakken shale oil field is 44 percent per year. Individual wells can see production declines of 70 percent or more in the first year.Shale gas wells face similarly swift depletion rates, so drillers need to keep plumbing new wells to make up for the shortfall at those that have gone anemic.The IEA states that the shale oil business needs to bring 2,500 new wells into production every year just to sustain production, and these shale fields will increasingly become more expensive to drill, "a rising percentage of supplies…require a higher breakeven price."With the current price of oil, almost none of the frackers will be sinking new wells. So if oil prices stay down, most of the frackers will simply be out of business in a year because they will have stopped producing enough oil for their business model. This is a big reason why the Saudis, with their conventional oil production can wait out the frackers.
Of course, there is another factor that needs to be considered when it comes to the fracking industry, and that is high-yield debt.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2013 | naked capitalism
"I didn't think TTIP could get any scarier, but then I spoke to the EU official in charge of it" [Independent].When put to her, Malmström acknowledged that a trade deal has never inspired such passionate and widespread opposition. Yet when I asked the trade commissioner how she could continue her persistent promotion of the deal in the face of such massive public opposition, her response came back icy cold: "I do not take my mandate from the European people."
Those honest, blunt Brussels bureaucrats! So different from our own political class!
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2015 | baselinescenario.com
We have lots of problems: Expensive yet mediocre health care. Lack of retirement security. Out-of-control megabanks. Inequality of opportunity. And, of course, climate change.
At the end of the day, though, there are only two things that matter: early childhood education and electoral reform.
We need smart, motivated, knowledgeable voters. And we need a political system in which all people have an equal say. Without those ingredients, no amount of well-meaning, reasoned, fact-based argument is going to do much good.
michaelhendrickson | September 26, 2015 at 9:47 pm
The presumption behind Lessig's gimmick is that democracy is a good form of government, so that closer adherence to democratic ideals will produce better political results. But democracy is arguably a terrible form of government, as the authors of the Federalist Papers were aware. What we need is intelligent, substantive, inspiring leadership. Mr. Lessig is not offering anything of the sort, so I would discourage anyone from wasting his or her vote on an empty gimmick.
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2015 | www.samefacts.com
Stuart_LevineMark--The passage "As Paul Krugman points out" links not to PK, but to a Brad Plummer Vox article. I assume that you wanted to link to PK's column in this AM's NYT.
BTW, you may want to point to this Jeb! Tweet: http://bit.ly/1gVFixr I think that he may have set a record for the total number of horribly bad policy positions that one can advocate in 140 characters or less.
Couple of side bar comments:...and apparently the buzz in the automotive world is that "everyone" was doing it...
Anybody who thinks Mr. Cook and Apple can't disrupt the automobile industry clearly isn't paying attention to the automobile industry. It seems designed more by cads than CAD. Smart elegant design? The auto industry is retrogressive: low hanging fruit. The whole damn kit: from CEOs to Dealers to Mechanics you can't trust. It's a moral atrocity.
Apple can and will seize the wheel and make a ton of money doing so...
As Paul Krugman points out, the scandal makes a nice counterpoint with Jeb Bush's latest "anti-regulation" rant.
Another nice counterpoint: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27867-cod-...
Of course there are many others. And of course there are also many cases of over-regulation. But you don't win an argument for smart regulation unless you have plenty of examples to draw from. I suspect Mrs. Clinton will be well-armed that way come the big time debates with Jeb!
Brett
Fisher's reaction is so typical for many economic libertarians that I've met. They can't really dismiss environmental problems altogether, so instead they diminish and minimize - "Oh, it's just some marginal emissions/a small amount of forest land/a little pollution into the river! What's the harm? And do you really want to hurt an important company that employs thousands over it over a little bit of dirty air?"
Jarndyce
Mark is too easy on both VW and GM in this paragraph:
"That's not as bad as an ordinary murder, where the killer picks out a specific victim, because being personally singled out to be killed is somehow worse than being a random victim. But in both the GM case and the VW case, people wound up dead (or injured, or sick) through the choice of someone else. In the GM case, the company's culpability was mostly passive: it made a design or manufacturing mistake and then didn't disclose it or act promptly or adequately to fix it. What VW did was much worse: the 'defeat software' wasn't a defect, but a deliberate decision to break the law with the predictable consequence of killing hundreds of people, at least twice as many as died of GM's malfeasance. I don't think you need to live in Marin County to find that objectionable."
The pertinent question is whether VW or GM knew that people would die as a result of their actions. If they did, then they are as culpable as an ordinary murderer, despite not having picked out a specific victim or having acted "passively" in deciding not to disclose their mistake. They are comparable to a person who randomly fires a machine gun in a crowd.
David T
One of the ICCT engineers who uncovered this seems to be telling every news shop that will listen that people should be checking other automakers for the same problem. VW's behavior is so appalling and frankly stupid (destroy a company to sell a few diesels? It's not even their biggest product line) that it's hard to understand what they could have possibly been thinking. The general amorality of corporate culture may be part of it. But I wonder if there was a bit of "everybody else is doing it" going on here too. (BMW must be pretty happy that their car passed.)
Keith_HumphreysPerfect movie reference(The Third Man, 1949). The sociopathic black marketeer Harry Lime is played by Orson Welles and his moral American friend Holly Martins by Joseph Cotten. As they ride in a Ferris wheel far above the people of Vienna, this exchange occurs:
Martins: Have you ever seen any of your victims?
Harry: You know, I never feel comfortable on these sort of things. Victims? Don't be melodramatic. [gestures to people far below] Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays.
egorelick
Ok. This may be an extremely stupid question, but how do we know that this was illegal? Many regulations of this type in the electronics/telecommunications field are overspecified and everybody knows the tests (and they cheat in similar fashions if not so explicitly and in such wholesale fashion). If the regulation was written to state that an engine will pass the following test then that's what would be built. Unless there was an explicit prohibition in switching modes or a requirement that the test mode be comparable to driving mode then the engineers may have just seen it as a game. So I'm not defending the amorality of this, but the question of conspiracy is harder to prove if it may not be illegal except under the EPA's theory. And if it wasn't obviously illegal, then what is the moral obligation of the worker to trade-off their livelihood for exposing the fraud.
|
|
|
September 16, 2015 | Fort Russ/Komsomolskaya Pravda
It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall.
Translated from Russian by Tom Winter
Translator's note: this press account is based on a post on Maria Zakharova's facebook page, and I have changed this account slightly in alignment with Zakharova's original text. It was not clear in KP what was Zakharova and what was KP. I think it is in this translation...
Head of the Information Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry wrote a "critical review" on the "Yalta speech" of the assistant US Secretary of State.
In Kiev, there was a conference "Yalta European Strategy". Already amazing. Yalta is in the Russian Crimea, and the "Yalta" conference was held in the Ukrainian capital. Well and good -- you couldn't miss that one!. But at this Yalta conference came the assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. Yes, the same one that passed out the cookies. But now, considered a shadow ruler of Ukraine, she points out to the Kiev authorities what to do. This time, Nuland said in a public speech:
- There should be no tolerance for those oligarchs who do not pay taxes. There must be zero tolerance for bribery and corruption, to those who would use violence for political ends.And these words of the grande dame of the State Department could not be overlooked. Just think, Americans don't like it when their loans to Ukraine get stolen. And anti-oligarchic Maidan brought the very oligarchs to power, and corruption in the country has become even greater. Some of us have grown weary of this talk. But, let Nuland drone on ...
But then Russian Foreign Ministry official spokesman Maria Zakharova replied. So much so that not a stone was left on stone in the American's "Yalta speech":
"All this a little bit, just a little, looks like a lecture to the fox about how bad it is to steal chickens, but actually it surprised in other ways. As soon as Russian authorities began exposing the tax evasion, bribery, or corruption of the oligarchs, Victoria Nuland's office hastened to call zero tolerance "political repression" - Zakharova wrote on her facebook page.
It would be great to see the Department of State "show that same zero tolerance and inquire a bit about how the initial capital of the Russian (and Ukrainian would not hurt) oligarchs got started, those oligarchs who have been accused of corruption at home, but who, once in London, feel protected by the authorities, enjoying all the benefits of membership in the Club of Victims of Political Persecution" - continued Zakharova."It is impossible to deal with cockroaches in one room while at the same time laying out little plates of bread crumbs on the other side of the wall. Giving the green light to the dirty money from Russia and the former Soviet Union, the Western world is only boosting the zeal with which the domestic thieves shove their loot in foreign bins."
"Though perhaps," wonders the Foreign Minstiry spokesman "this is the actual purpose of the imaginary zero tolerance?""Why do people on Interpol's lists, by the decision of the Russian courts, prove their financial immorality, as they thrive in the Western capitals, and no alarm bells go off in the State Department?"
It turns out to be an interesting story: Taking fetid streams of notes, the West has just one requirement at the border crossing. Scream "victim of the regime." That's it! and you're in spades!
This calls to mind the old Soviet bribery password translated into modern American:
- In Soviet times, it was common phrase, revealing corrupt intent to proceed with plans insidious in varying degrees: "I'm from Ivan Ivanovich." Today the corresponding "Open Sesame" that opens the doors "in Europe and the best houses in Philadelphia," is the phrase "I'm running away from Vladimir".Victoria, if you're going to start cleaning out the cockroaches, stop feeding them on your side.
