Nittany,

Good extension/improvement of what I suggested above. By naming the specific kinds of jobs, it brings the matter home.

Thanks.

WV,

Well said. I understand why you feel that way about the CIA. But, frankly, isn’t that the case with the majority of “the state”? Should people become police officers, for example, given the history of abuses? Should they become border patrol agents, given its long, long history of (what I would call) state terrorism against migrants? Or the military, given its history, which includes wiping out Native peoples? The list goes on and on, and it’s not limited to the United States, obviously. Every empire on earth has that dilemma. Every empire that has ever existed has engaged in mayhem and the slaughter of the innocent, and each hegemon among those empires has engaged to a greater degree than anyone else.

If a citizen’s duty is not to participate, then none of us should ever work for anything remotely attached to state power, or private, corporate power. Hell, the medical community has an awful history of testing drugs and procedures on the innocent, resulting in death and other horrors. Should every citizen say no to the healing professions too?

(Again, splitting this up into two posts. More below)

wv wrote:

Ok, we just have different reactions to Dore. I dont mind his ‘shoot from the hip’ qualities. I think of him as a ‘gonzo’ type. Also, I dont have a problem with saying Anderson Cooper ‘worked for the CIA’ if he indeed interned with them. Its the same thing to me. He chose to intern with Murder-Inc, imho. It tells me a lot about him. Is there really any ‘non-sinister’ way to work for the CIA? They are a Murder-Organization. Or do you see them as more nuanced than that? 🙂

w
v

First off, we agree about how reprehensible it is to smear Gabbard. That was your initial question. And I added the Clinton interview to point out that she smeared Stein as well. Again, that really, really pisses me off.

As mentioned above, Dore was spot on in his critique of the CNN guest, and justified in blasting him for what he said.

I just have a problem with him then turning around and basically engaging in what he just accused others of doing. He should practice what he preaches, in my view.

As for the CIA and Anderson:

I tend to cut teenagers a lot of slack when it comes to their choices. Anderson was a teen when he interned for the CIA. If he’s maintained a relationship without letting his audience know, then I have a problem with that. But not the initial internship.

As for the CIA itself: We’re on the same page when it comes to its ugly history and likely current ugly ops. But I think we differ in the overall picture. I think it is actually possible to work for it and not be a part of that monstrous past and/or present. I think it’s possible to work on Intel that actually saves innocent lives around the world. And I don’t mean as the state propagandists would define innocent. I don’t mean in the sense of “America is the greatest nation evah, so whatever we do is the greatest, evah.” I mean legit, objective prevention of the loss of innocent lives . . . through the discovery and disruption of planned attacks.

My theory of human beings applies to bureaucracies like the CIA too: I honestly, sincerely believe the vast majority of people are basically good, want to just live and let live, and reject hurting others. It’s a relatively small portion of humanity that seeks to harm others, seeks power over others, or worse. A portion of that portion actually loves cruelty, etc. But most of the people in society aren’t like that, and generally won’t engage in that.

I see our problems as top down, predominantly. The traits that drive people to reach positions of power are all too often sociopathic in nature to begin with. So those in power are, ironically, frequently the last people on earth who should hold it.

To make a long story short: Yes, I think people can work for the CIA and not be monsters.

I duckduckgo’d Anderson Cooper and the CIA. It appears to be yet another case of Dore jumping the gun.

He interned with them during the summer of his sophomore and junior years at Yale, apparently. And that was the end of his connection, as far as we know.

Could he have retained the connection? Sure. Of course. Could he be Jason Bourne in disguise? Sure. But Dore should have been honest about this, instead of insinuating that he “worked for the CIA” in some sinister capacity as an adult.

Seriously, I have less and less patience for these youtube-host “progressives.” They don’t practice what they preach.

Starting off, Dore paints a false picture of that the Alliance for Securing Democracy. He makes it sound like it’s a Clinton cut out. It’s primarily run and staffed with former Bush alum. Some Dems. Mostly Republicans.

My experience with Dore is that he’s all too cavalier with the facts, rushes to judgment, while accusing others of doing so, and I have no idea why he wastes a moment’s time trying to defend RT. It’s Russian State TV. It doesn’t try to hide that. I don’t trust Russian or American propaganda. Smartest way to go is to say no to both/and.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Securing_Democracy

Next: He makes a great point about Bacari Sellers’ horrible smear of Gabbard, which really should have pushed the panel to call for evidence. But then Dore does just what Sellers’ did by saying he must be CIA. Does Dore know this? Does he have evidence to support this? If not, don’t say it. Sellers’ makes a stupid, baseless accusation. Dore should have left it there.

I liked Gabbard’s response. She’s tough and poised. I have a feeling that if Sanders wins, she’ll be his VP. I’d happily vote for that ticket.

Next: Dore instantly takes the word of an interviewer, who makes claims about ISIS funding, talking to Flynn, a well-known crackpot and now a felon. Dore accuses others of not presenting evidence, but he’s fine with taking the word of some Youtube host like himself? Might it all be true? Certainly. Obviously. But I’m not going to go with one youtube host I’ve never seen before and the nutcase Flynn.

At that point, I stopped watching.

(Will post a WaPo article that makes a much better case why we should be angered by the smears against Gabbard and Stein, IMO. Clinton’s at it again!!)

Thanks, WV. Really good article.

Ownership. Capitalism is all about legalized ownership of other human beings . . . at least during a certain portion of the day. And regardless of the time of day, everything you make belongs to ownership, not you. As Anderson points out, in many a corporation, your life isn’t even your own when you leave the premises.

Norman Mailer said, back in the 1950s, in the pages of Dissent, that capitalism follows us everywhere. It’s obviously far worse now than it was back then.

There is no “freedom” in working for someone else. There is no “liberty” in producing things with your own sweat and blood that you can never own — that instantly belong to “the boss.”

The answer, IMO, is to simply make it illegal for any human being to own the production of others. Your own? Sure. But just your own. So, to me, the ideal economic system would have a mix of single/sole proprietors and co-ops or WSDEs. If the business is larger than one person, it must be commonly held. If, say, you build custom chairs, just you, with your own two hands, with no employees, you’re good to go. You’re not a capitalist.

I’d also decentralize politics to the community level. Democratic building blocks there. Each workplace is democratic. Each community democratic, federated to one another.

And the rationale for work along the lines Hagglund talks about in This Life.

Four main reasons:

1. Fulfill needs
2. Achieve the Common Good
3. Solve societal problems
4. Generate more and more free time for every citizen.

To me, it’s always been sheer madness to have the accrual and concentration of personal wealth as the rationale. That can’t help but create mass inequality and most of our pathologies.

InvaderRam wrote:

i get this feeling that gurley will not be a ram for much longer.

not advocating that they keep him or release him. but i just don’t know how they keep that many players at a premium rate.

what say the salary cap experts?

Gurley turned 25 this past August. There may be a team loaded enough and willing to red-shirt him for a year. NE, for instance. They’ve done it before. They’d have to do something about his salary, of course, which may not be possible. I don’t know the ins and outs of the Cap either. But if it’s possible, a team like New England might trade for him.

I love his game when healthy. He was a joy to watch, with his size/speed combo, and I was thrilled when the Rams drafted him. It was a chance I thought was worth it, and ended up being arguably a top three running back a good three seasons — and very likely the best pass-blocking tailback in the league. One could make the case that he was the best runner, period, in football for at least a season, maybe two, and he definitely made all things possible for McVay’s offense.

But it does look like those days are gone. Would another team look at him like an Adrian Peterson, who can give you his best off the bench?

If I’m the Rams, I at least explore this. I think Henderson has “it,” and can do many of the things Gurley can do, and seems basically healthy now. The main difference between them at the moment appears to be the pass-blocking, and knowledge of the offense. I’m betting the latter two things kept him on the bench until they had no other choice. If Henderson improves in those areas, he can come close to Gurley’s contribution. Won’t be able to pound the line like Gurley. But they have Brown for that.

(I made some comments about Ramsey in my own thread earlier.)

I think right-wingers, especially right-libertarians, prefer the adjective “crony.” Centrists and moderates, right and left of center, likely do well with your chosen adjective. But they seem to bristle at my critique of capitalism without preamble.

It appears corporate messaging has won the day. They’ve been able to somehow associate “capitalism” with Mom, Apple Pie and America itself.

We live in very, very strange times.

I haven’t watched all the games, but it looked to me like Talib had really fallen off his game. I remember from last year that he didn’t really like contact, so was already in decline. Though, weirdly enough, the stats say the Rams D was much, much better when he was on the field. I never could see it in his play, but must have missed it.

Peters? Actually glad they traded him, though I know nothing about the guy they got. Would have rather seen a second O-lineman. As in, both trades. But I’m happy to see they’re not willing to stand pat. They know something’s wrong, and they aren’t afraid to make changes.

Good to see. Hope Corbett works out at least. Obviously, it’s time now for Long and even Scott to step up. Perhaps a trade for Ramsey?

• This reply was modified 6 years, 12 months ago by Billy_T.

Lotsa good questions, as usual, WV. As well as food for thought.

I’m fine with your term, corporotocracy. But, as you know, I think we need to drill down at least one more level. I sincerely believe that the capitalist system itself, its very “nature,” its internal logic, leads inevitably to corporate control, monopolies and oligarchies. I think that’s inevitable for any system that makes it legal for one human being to own the production of others . . . and capitalism is the first system to codify this into law and then globalize it. It just stands to reason that if you allow one human to own everything produced by others, as if that one human being did all the work, you’re going to generate mass inequality, corruption and injustice. No way around it. It’s the slave model, gussied up to one degree or another. All the incentives point to more and more concentration of wealth and power, and fewer people controlling more and more humans, resources, the planet, etc.

A corporation is just the most logical way of organizing that concentration, at the moment, given capitalism’s internal dynamic. But something else may take its place if that becomes more “efficient” as a means to extract and concentrate more wealth, etc. etc.

The CIA, NSA, et al? I think the folks who pull the strings use those agencies to protect “wealth,” first and foremost. Yes, you get “true believers” too. But their belief systems change over time, sometimes per generation. Enemies change. Blacks, Native peoples, migrants, socialists, communists, Muslims, Jews, even Catholics at one time. Ironically, Bill Barr is a religious nutcase and a Catholic, hoping a new Christian army will take over the workings of government to fight “secularists.”

Enemies change. The only thing that remains the same is the irrational need for enemies — and protecting the rich.

I have no idea how to change those constants. But I do know they won’t change as long as capitalism is the economic mode.

wv wrote:

Well just as a thot-experiment. Do you think Hoover’s FBI was or had parts of it that could be analogous to a ‘deep state’ ? Do you think he had the power, knowledge, will, to create and nurture something akin to a ‘deep state.’ ? The ‘deep state’ aspect of course is not the same as saying the FBI was ‘monolithic’ etc.

Just curious as to what you would label the Hoover thingy.

Btw, just so you know, the Hoover analogy is more of a RIGTHWING version of ‘the deep state.’

w
v

Hoover, of course, was hard-right, politically, and a monster. He basically shredded the Constitution on a weekly, if not daily, basis. He ran the FBI with an iron fist, even before it was called the FBI . . . and it’s always been run by Republicans since his day.

Quick side-note: the Dems brought a lot of this mess on themselves, for seeming indifference when it comes to which party has control over Intel/FBI/Military, etc. . . . Even when Dems hold the White House, they all too often keep Republicans in place. It bit them hard with Comey.

Did Hoover have the power to establish a loyal structure to a degree? Yes. And I have no doubt he did. But the US bureaucracy, at least in “modern times,” is generally too big to establish dominance beyond the layer of leadership and upper management. To the degree that career civil servants obey that leadership, the structure holds. When they finally say “no,” it won’t. Which, to me, says the necessary structure for a “deep state” doesn’t exist in America. Again, for the reasons I mentioned above. It can exist in societies more given to clannish control, more amenable to generational, blood-line (tribal) cohesion and very long memories. Americans are famous for our short memories and seeking “the main chance” in the here and now. So factions will rise and fall. But original structures don’t hold. They’re overturned, and overturned again and again.

IMO, the constant is money equals power. Power is for sale. But that also means short memories and temporary alliances, not blood-memory endurance through time.

Boiled down: We have a top-down dynamic in America, and it’s arguably the most volatile and contingent one in the “developed” world. Money talks. Not blood lines and clan groupings.

First off,

I think it’s good that we can discuss this and not get upset, start hurling insults at each other, question each other’s motives, etc. etc. Most political forums can’t claim that.

Second: Fiona Hill, a highly respected career civil servant, testified yesterday for nine hours. We’re getting reports of some of the things she said, and they support, amplify and extend the remarks of the whistleblower. He or she opened the door. But it’s “the people in the room” who are going to finish off Trump.

(The picture is a link to the NYT story)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trumps-former-top-russia-adviser-to-testify-in-house-impeachment-probe/2019/10/14/e6015c1c-ee34-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

Excerpt from the WaPo:

Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia adviser, told impeachment investigators on Monday that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, ran a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine that circumvented U.S. officials and career diplomats in order to personally benefit President Trump, according to people familiar with her testimony.

Hill, who served as the senior official for Russia and Europe on the National Security Council, was the latest witness in a fast-moving impeachment inquiry focused on whether the president abused his office by using the promise of military aid and diplomatic support to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals.

In a closed-door session that lasted roughly 10 hours, Hill told lawmakers that she confronted Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, about Giuliani’s activities which, she testified, were not coordinated with the officials responsible for carrying out U.S. foreign policy, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to disclose details of her deposition.

zn wrote:

I don’t know what the pic is, BT. But it’s not from GOT.

When you check the image location, the title includes game of thrones and battle of the bastards. Might be a mistake. But that’s what they called it.