Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantIn my view, the top of the heap of each agency is likely to work hard on behalf of the rich and powerful. Ironically, the “deep state” isn’t very deep in that regard. Even in the Intel community, the vast majority of career Joe and Janes believe their mission is a “patriotic” one — to “keep America safe” and “get the bad guys.” I bet most — aside from rogue factions — sincerely believe this. It’s the leadership tier, IMO, that all too often has other ideas. The political class, as opposed to the grunts.
Exceptions obviously occur at all levels. Bad apples at all levels. Surprising cases of “good guys” here and there at the upper levels too. But in the aggregate, I think once you leave the political class, you’re more likely to get the basically well-intentioned. Of course, if they say yes to coups and assassinations and torture and black ops and black sites . . . all of that goes out the window. They’re complicit and responsible at the same time. They’re committing atrocities at that point.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, Zooey.
That’s helpful.
Personally, I think Trump and the right have killed off the term, appropriating it for themselves, perhaps forever. Similar to “fake news,” which started out meaning actual, state-sponsored propaganda campaigns, regardless of provenance (including the US, obviously), but now just means any reportage critical of Trump.
They, of course, think it’s deeply sinister, coordinated, perhaps even global. But, in the real world, it’s just any reporting that makes Trump look bad.
I doubt the left can take back either term. We’ve never been very good at . . . well, reverse appropriation.
;>)
Anyway . . . I think it’s really on this last section that we may differ the most. No biggie. Doesn’t really matter. Big picture, I think we’re all on the same page:
The CIA and NSA, and to some degree other agencies like DoD, TSA, ICE, FBI, etc., serve the long term interests of the rich and powerful – amorphous financial interests.
Will shorten the post by responding in the next one . . .
October 12, 2019 at 3:20 pm in reply to: summary of recent events surrounding Ukraine scandal #106579Billy_TParticipanta number of career officials are willing to spill what they know about it
That’s what wv and I are talking about.
I don’t think anyone has disagreed with that particular narrow take on it though.
I would think the Taibbis and the Greenwalds and the Hedges would be thrilled with exposure of wrong-doing. They don’t seem to be in this case, working overtime instead to impute base (or sinister) motives behind the scattered revelations — to one degree or another.
(I think Taibbi is probably the least “hair on fire” of the bunch.)
It’s all the more baffling to me when we keep finding out about Trump appointees being heavily critical of their boss — after they leave, or when they think they’re off the record. His hand-picked team, pretty much all of whom are Republicans . . . And no president has had more turnover.
The evidence is all there, in my view. The firewall protecting Trump held, more or less, for a long, long time. It finally appears to be buckling. I can’t see how that isn’t a good thing.
Billy_TParticipantDoes that deserve a fancy name? Like Deep State? For one thing that term is meant to name not some actors in one incident, but an ongoing, homogenous, unified entity that is more than the actors in one incident. Both the right and left versions of that term name something big and unitary etc.
If some entrenched professionals got appalled at certain executive actions in one incident, that’s one thing. Condemning that because the CIA played dirty tricks in central america doesn’t strike me as all that relevant.
Concisely put. Again, I agree.
Cool picture, too. Is that from perhaps the best battle scene in all of TV history? Game of Thrones, the battle of the bastards?
Here’s one site’s take on the rankings (twelve best). I think their second choice should be the first.
https://www.vulture.com/article/game-of-thrones-battles-ranked.html
Billy_TParticipantNobody here is claiming that everybody in the Deep State is involved in this, or that they all agree. I would think this might be around half a dozen people. Probably fairly high up in the food chain.
Zooey,
What is your own, personal conception of the “deep state,” and what do you think it’s up to in this case?
Trump and the right’s, of course, is basically this: The Dems and the Media are treasonous bastards, in league together to take down their heroic champion, Trump. They hold this belief despite the fact that one of the main actors in this supposed conspiracy, Comey, actually was a huge factor in helping Trump get elected. He kept quiet about an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign, while letting the public know all about investigation into HRC — twice. If he (a Republican) and all the other actors supposedly involved, pretty much all of whom were Republicans too, had actually wanted to stop Trump, they would have reversed that public disclosure. As in, tell the public Trump was under investigation, while hiding the one on Clinton.
Also, there is no Mueller probe if Trump doesn’t fire Comey. It doesn’t exist. Trump, in reality, brought all of this on himself, both before and after his “win.”
I know you know all this already. But I am curious about your take on the deep state itself. I’m betting it differs radically from the right’s.
Also, if there was a deep state conspiracy — left-wing or right-wing version — it obviously failed utterly. So if this deep state does exist, it doesn’t have the power some attribute to it. It seriously screwed up its supposed “coup” attempt, from all indications.
Billy_TParticipantAs for the first whistleblower. There isn’t the slightest bit of evidence needed to justify the assumptions Taibbi makes. Automatic suspicion isn’t an argument. Paranoia isn’t an argument. He’s usually better than this.
Is it possible he’s right? Certainly. But the argument that a real whistleblower would be torn to shreds falls apart when we learn how many whistleblowers come forward on a monthly basis, and no one hears about them.
We only hear about the Snowdens, etc. There are literally hundreds of them each month, and they don’t get shredded. They don’t even lose their jobs. They aren’t outed. It’s routine for this to happen. If Taibbi had looked into that aspect, perhaps he wouldn’t have jumped the gun like he did. If he had actually read about how “normal” the process is, and that the first whistleblower followed it to the letter, he wouldn’t have written what he did.
But even beyond the normality of the existence of government whistleblowers, the subsequent offers now before the committees will certainly support the first unnamed source. Trump’s own words and deeds already have. The ousted ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified today (despite the White House’s attempt to stop her) lent further support.
And then there was the arrest of the two Giuliani cronies, on their way out of the country, lending more support to Yovanovitch and the first whistleblower.
Again, a thought experiment: What if Trump is just flat out guilty of obsession with the 2016 election, because he knows he cheated? What if he also knows he can’t win unless he cheats again in 2020, and that he’s very likely to go to jail if he isn’t president — the only thing that stopped Mueller from indicting him in the first place? What if there is no “deep state” out to get him? Just people reacting to the appalling things he does and says? Justifiable reactions.
Occam’s razor.
Billy_TParticipantZN,
Well said. I’m in agreement with all of it.
The concept of the deep state, applied to America, is an invention of the right, and arose when Trump won the office. Prior to that, its use was limited to Turkey and Egypt, primarily in reference to generational control behind the scenes, regardless of who ostensibly controlled the government, and primarily by the military. In those two countries, the upper echelons of the military acted as gatekeeper, patron, supplier of favors and creator of lasting networks.
The American left has traditionally talked of a “power elite,” but not a “deep state.” We have financial elites who pull strings, but our bureaucracy of career fed employees is largely impervious to direct string-pulling, with the vast majority of that being done to political leaders and their appointees — a decided minority in DC. Obviously, orders trickle down and the impact is felt. But the vast majority of federal workers are just middle class blokes, keep their heads down and do their jobs. I grew up with them. Many in my family worked for the government. They went to college, got degrees mostly in the Humanities, and chose what once was considered a secure, lifetime job with good benefits and okay pay, rather than the business world. They chose “public service” instead of personal enrichment.
The vast majority of them would make for rather boring James Bond villains.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 12 months ago by
Billy_T.
October 11, 2019 at 12:00 pm in reply to: My stunningly brilliant General Theory of the MSM. #106536Billy_TParticipantAlso: Journalists are taught to get the who, where, what, when and why of the story. I think the MSM are generally pretty good with four out of those five. They tend to falter on the why.
That’s where leftists should come in. It’s one of our strengths. But if we don’t bother with the first four, and just assume the grounds for our whys, our case is weakened.
I’m often all too guilty of this, as I see the why of so many things circling back to capitalism. But in my own defense, I do pay attention to the daily who, what, where and when too. Still, I can admit to my prejudices, but I think they’re based on a lot of info and add up.
Dismissing that info out of hand, however, but going for the whys anyway, isn’t the optimum route to the truth. I think it’s doubly important for people with actual audiences to do their due diligence. Their impact is magnified, multiplied. The average Joe or Jane, OTOH, if we fail, aren’t likely to move mountains. We can afford to be . . . well, “rash” from time to time. Others can’t.
October 11, 2019 at 10:38 am in reply to: My stunningly brilliant General Theory of the MSM. #106532Billy_TParticipantAnother key for me: The MSM actually do a pretty good job of the daily tic tock of political happenings. They report them, in the Trump era especially, as they occur. They use the players’ own words. They give us transcripts and video, etc. They provide background. Not “context.” Background.
Again, what is being reported is (purposely) limited, as mentioned above, but the happenings in question are reported with relatively solid accuracy. When people anywhere along the political spectrum ignore this reporting, but make judgments about controversies in general anyway, they can’t help but err on the side of incomplete information. If they have chosen not to see the day by day events, they’re choosing partial views.
Consumers of Fox News and the Conservative Media sphere, for instance, typically don’t even know “their side” has said and done X, Y or Z when questioned in polls and surveys. If it’s negative, they’re not going to get that info from their sources. In certain corners of the left, with an investment, say, in the narrative that there was no Russian interference, if they refuse to read the NYT, the WaPo and other MSM, they’re not going to see the mountains of evidence, the connections, the admissions by Trump and company, the Republican heads of departments and committees that lend support for counter-narratives. And for all “sides,” the investment in one’s own views is often strong enough to steer them away from accepting anything outside a given view.
To me, the best leftist analyses fill in the gaps. Yes, we should always question whatever is reported, question all “authority,” always, check for correspondence and corroboration, note the discrepancies and errors. Check for critical mass, etc. Obviously, that can’t be done well if the critics don’t bother to read or watch the MSM. It’s like saying you hate a movie you’ve never seen, or a book you’ve never read.
But the gaps are where we do our best work, in my view. And those are legion. What isn’t being reported, which tends to be about corporate malfeasance, weapons proliferation, environmental devastation and capitalism’s massive role in this, in wars, in coups and so on. Capitalism’s control over our government is all but taboo for the media. That’s the biggest gap, from where I sit.
Billy_TParticipantAnyone know about the rules for practice squad call-ups? Is there a preset time delay required? Or can the Rams make instant moves, etc.?
Patrick is apparently day to day now, and he was expected to help out while Matthews is down. It sounds like they’re pretty thin at linebacker now. Ebukan, Fowler and Obo are about it for the outside, right?
The loss of Talib won’t help, either, though I don’t think he’s the player he once was. They still need him.
Billy_TParticipant;>)
That’s a goodin,’ ZN.
Sidenote: most recent Fox News poll has 51% of the country in favor of impeachment and removal.
From what I’ve seen, most of the major polling firms have been relatively good on these questions. As in, they’re trying to be clear about the difference between inquiries, full impeachment, and conviction (removal). I’m actually pleasantly surprised by that . . . cuz it’s an easy set of distinctions to screw around with — and confuse.
October 9, 2019 at 8:05 pm in reply to: Jacobin, on abandoning the Kurds and the annihilation of Rojava #106480Billy_TParticipantWell the Kurds had to be expecting this.
I mean, its Chinatown, and all…
w
vWV,
Can you flesh out that reference? I love the movie, but I’m missing something.
If you had said Lucy and the football, I would have gotten it right away. Of course, the life and death events in the balance probably make references to comics a bit too much at the moment.
=============
The US Imperialist-Corporate/Government is ‘chinatown.’
How could the Kurds not expect this. Again.
I mean, I was expecting it 🙂
w
vThanks, WV.
I get it now.
Did you see this? Words fail me.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-abandoning-kurds-syria-didnt-help-during-wwii-allies-2019-10
bullet point excerpt:
President Donald Trump on Wednesday continued to defend his decision to withdraw US troops from northeastern Syria, abandoning Kurdish forces in the region, by saying the Kurds did not help the US during World War II.
“They didn’t help us in the Second World War; they didn’t help us with Normandy,” Trump said of the Kurds, who played a vital role in the US-led campaign against ISIS.And when asked by reporters whether he felt the Syria retreat and treatment of the Kurds sent a poor message to other potential US allies, Trump said, “Alliances are very easy.”
Trump’s comments came hours after Turkey launched a military operation against the formerly US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria.
Billy_TParticipantAlso: We both agree that the US is guilty of interfering around the world too. To this day. I think to a greater degree than Russia. Trump himself tried to overthrow Maduro in Venezuela, and there must be a thousand instances of things like that we don’t know about.
But to me, that’s all the more reason to accept that Russia did what it did. It likely sees it as a justified response in on-going geopolitical chess going back generations. We do it. They do it. Back and forth, etc. Not sure why anyone would think we do it and they don’t, that they’re angels, or something.
Occam’s razor. Trump actually is guilty. Russia actually did interfere, as we did and do around the world. The MSM actually got it right. Too many cases of Trump and his circle eventually admitting to what the MSM wrote for it to be a grand conspiracy against him, in my view.
(Gonna post a grand theory about the MSM tomorrow, btw. Would enjoy reading your response)
Billy_TParticipantWV,
IMNSHO . . . I think the folks you cite err by starting out with that premise, which just so happens to coincide with Trump’s own public stance. That the deep state is out to get him.
================
You really think Trump and the CIA have been getting along, BT? I dont. Some of us have been talking about his feud with a faction of the CIA from the very beginning of his term. Its been written about a lot.
“….Wash Post, Trump is feuding with the CIA, but he could end up making it stronger,
January 20, 2017
During the transition period from November through January, Donald Trump developed perhaps the most publicly antagonistic relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies of any incoming president in decades. He compared the agencies to Nazis, disdained their reports as fake and dismissed their assessments of foreign interference in the 2016 election. In an interview published in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, outgoing CIA director John Brennan called Trump’s allegations “repugnant.” Other intelligence officials have expressed a sense of dread about what’s to come…..” WashPost:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/20/soldier-spies/Yes, Trump has gone after them from even before Day One. Why? Because they had the nerve to hold the consensus that, yes, Russia interfered in our election and did so to help Trump. The Republican-led Senate just reaffirmed that view yesterday. All the Trump-appointed Intel folks agree that this happened, and that Trump was the beneficiary, and that just messes with Trump’s mind to no end.
Again, thought experiment: Rather than see this as a “deep state” plot against Trump, imagine instead the Intel community’s sensible reaction to his unprecedented, endless, daily, public attacks. His words, his deeds provoked this feud and kept it going.
In order for the premise in question to work, the one shared by the people you cite, they’d have to reverse the order of things. That the Intel community, which just happened to be dominated by Republicans for generations even before Trump named his own team, acted first to “take down” Trump. Not that they had legitimate reason to investigate his campaign, and later to respond to Trump’s daily bashing. That they supposedly invented all of this stuff just to “get Trump.”
I don’t buy that for a second. I see Trump completely obsessed with the idea that anyone would question his win, on any grounds, and that he simply couldn’t help himself but go after them endlessly. I’m also absolutely certain that he knows they got it right to begin with, that he is guilty of “collusion,” and lying about it, and covering it all up, and obstructing the Mueller probe, etc. etc. He knows they know, and that’s killing him to this day. Why else would he send his AG, his personal lawyer, his state department, around the world to manufacture an alternate narrative that supposedly exonerates Russia and Trump in the process?
Again, I don’t see this being nearly as complex as the Mates, Greenwalds and company do. Trump isn’t being persecuted. There is no “deep state” conspiracy against him, especially not as configured by the right. He’s committing egregious offenses and being called on those. That’s it, IMO.
Billy_TParticipantI think the Seahawks, Rams and 49ers are all purty close. And injury here, a bad bounce there is all that separates em, in my view. Whoever gets home-field will of course have an advantage.
I think a lot of us thot SF would be good ‘last’ year, but they had Fisher-level injuries. Lotta bad luck last year.
I dont see any juggernaut in the NFC. Just a lot of good teams. Coupla good teams wont make the playoffs.
w
vThat makes a lot of sense. It may have always been this way, but it seems like injuries are playing a bigger role in a team’s fate than they used to. Maybe it’s just me getting old and I’m noticing them more, cuz I usually feel like one of the walking wounded meself!
;>)
Anyway . . . yeah, bounces here and there, injuries, game of inches. Sheesh. Just Legatron’s kick Thursday is proof of that. This Sunday’s game would be entirely different if his kick had been a coupla inches to the left. It would be all about first place in the division, and I think the winner would have been pumped with “mo” to carry them a good ways forward.
Now, it’s basically a must-win for the Rams. At least if they don’t want to play that extra playoff game.
Should be a goodin’, as Walter Brennan used to say.
October 9, 2019 at 5:40 pm in reply to: Jacobin, on abandoning the Kurds and the annihilation of Rojava #106467Billy_TParticipantWell the Kurds had to be expecting this.
I mean, its Chinatown, and all…
w
vWV,
Can you flesh out that reference? I love the movie, but I’m missing something.
If you had said Lucy and the football, I would have gotten it right away. Of course, the life and death events in the balance probably make references to comics a bit too much at the moment.
October 9, 2019 at 5:38 pm in reply to: Jacobin, on abandoning the Kurds and the annihilation of Rojava #106466Billy_TParticipantThe Kurds are holding tens of thousands ISIS members in captivity. If they suddenly find themselves in a battle with Turkish troops, they will likely be forced to set them free.
I wonder if the leftist ideology of the Kurds played a part in their abandonment? I know Trump incorrectly thinks ISIS has been defeated, but the infusion of thousands of formerly captive fighters could invigorate their fighting spirit.
I read that too. I haven’t checked back on this today, but it’s a guarantee that if Turkish forces go after the Kurds, whom they vastly outnumber, the Kurds have no choice but to stop guarding the ISIS captives and move to that new front. That means all of those captives escape prison, obviously, and find their way back to whatever organizational structure they may still have or can reform.
Aside from the obscene immorality of turning our backs on the Kurds yet again, this is going to cause major blowback. And the Kurds took the brunt of the dying in the battle against ISIS. I think these numbers are roughly correct:
More than 11,000 Kurdish fighters died in the battles, compared with something like a dozen Americans.
Good point about their ideology. I suspect that is a factor, especially for Erdogan. Trump’s alt-right whisperers too.
On the surface at least, there’s nothing that makes sense about abandoning the Kurds to the whim of the Turks.
No matter how he spins it, he knows ISIS isn’t defeated. Surely his military advisors have told him this. Ending US military involvement in the Mid East was a campaign promise, but only after accomplishing objectives that haven’t really been accomplished. Besides, his base likes that we’re over there killing brown people. There’s really no political pressure for him to do this.
Agree with all of that. Part of me thinks that Trump is just a very easy mark for autocrats. Erdogan is supposedly quite the talker, pushing a verbal onslaught of demands, etc. The more cynical part of me thinks this is yet another “deal” Trump worked out to get help with his white whales:
The Mueller Report and Democratic rivals for the 2020 elections. Too bad we’ll never have access to the raw, unfiltered recordings. I’d really like to see which part of me is spot on.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
IMNSHO . . . I think the folks you cite err by starting out with that premise, which just so happens to coincide with Trump’s own public stance. That the deep state is out to get him.
Personally, until we have evidence to support Trump’s theory — and there isn’t any — I think it’s a really bad assumption/premise, and pretty much the root of what I consider their subsequent misreading of events.
As in, their entire stance on Trump, his admin, Russiagate, and now this whistleblower, is fully dependent on a major assumption that they’ve never been able to prove. Yes, the CIA has a horrible history. Yes, it’s done some obscenely disgusting and terrible things. But that does not mean that it is currently acting on behalf of forces opposed to Trump, or has or would protect the Dems, given the same situations. Trump, in fact, has his own hand-picked guys to run these agencies. He’s the head honcho, not some powerless Joe or Jane, victimized by the machinery of the system.
What if it’s simply this? Occam’s Razor, etc. etc.
Trump has done some really stupid, awful things and brought all of this on himself. It’s on him and his enablers. There is no particular faction out to get him. He just keeps stepping in it, has his “fixers” clean up the mess, and these messes keep piling up to such a degree that some of the people surrounding him have simply had enough. That’s been the pattern in his life. His father bailed him out over the course of decades, to the tune of 400 million dollars, and set him up with his own “fixers” first, and then Trump added his own later. He’s always been protected that way. He’s always done truly reprehensible things and gotten away with them, and few people were willing to go up against him because he’s also always been a bully with great resources.
Just imagine for a moment: Trump brought all of this on himself and no particular faction — deep state or otherwise — was ever out to get him. People are just reacting to his words and deeds, and justifiably so. Those words and deeds came first.
Billy_TParticipantI was really hoping all of you would tell me, Naww. They’re terrible!!
;>)
Billy_TParticipantBilly, I agree.
I have to split with Taibbi on this one.
The bottom line is the whistleblower was correct. His information was good. This is no sort of set-up.
If we allow Trump this–what is next? Where would Matt seriously draw the line?
Or is the crime less important that who reports it? And what happens to them afterward?
What happened to the other whistleblowers was wrong.
But that can’t save this President.
For nearly three years, the old horror movie metaphor of “the call is coming from inside the house” has been in effect. That’s what reporters have been telling us indirectly, and the vast majority of their reporting has been corroborated. Yeah, Trump and his circle start out calling it “fake news,” but they soon stop doing that and run the gamut from, “We only did it in this case” to “Yes, there are these other cases that we forgot to mention but it was all no big deal” to “We have every right to do this!” to “Stop persecuting us!!”
Time and time again, Trump and his circle end up confirming that reporting — eventually.
So this is waaay beyond the whistleblower. This is the norm for this White House, and they’ve already admitted that they moved the transcripts to the double secret servers . . . which actually breaks the law. If there was nothing wrong with them, there’s no reason to do that.
(Same with Russiagate. If Trump and company had done nothing wrong, there was never any reason for their endless lies and obstruction)
I think Taibbi and a few of his peers are far too quick to dismiss these things, and confuse legit critique of the media with what ends up being all too close to Trump’s own defense of his actions.
October 9, 2019 at 3:48 pm in reply to: Jacobin, on abandoning the Kurds and the annihilation of Rojava #106458Billy_TParticipantThe Kurds are holding tens of thousands ISIS members in captivity. If they suddenly find themselves in a battle with Turkish troops, they will likely be forced to set them free.
I wonder if the leftist ideology of the Kurds played a part in their abandonment? I know Trump incorrectly thinks ISIS has been defeated, but the infusion of thousands of formerly captive fighters could invigorate their fighting spirit.
I read that too. I haven’t checked back on this today, but it’s a guarantee that if Turkish forces go after the Kurds, whom they vastly outnumber, the Kurds have no choice but to stop guarding the ISIS captives and move to that new front. That means all of those captives escape prison, obviously, and find their way back to whatever organizational structure they may still have or can reform.
Aside from the obscene immorality of turning our backs on the Kurds yet again, this is going to cause major blowback. And the Kurds took the brunt of the dying in the battle against ISIS. I think these numbers are roughly correct:
More than 11,000 Kurdish fighters died in the battles, compared with something like a dozen Americans.
Good point about their ideology. I suspect that is a factor, especially for Erdogan. Trump’s alt-right whisperers too.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV and Zooey for your takes. It’s interesting, because I agree with both of them.
One might look at them and say, they don’t exactly mesh. But, my reading is that really they do. It’s not an easy fit. But I think they both reinforce each other in a sense, and they both speak to the difficulty of living a just life in the here and now. They both hint of despair but definitely not defeat. They’re still in the realm of “bash on” and that’s hopeful/helpful, and that’s where I’m sittin’ too.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, ZN.
You’re a gracious host, a gentleman and a scholar.
Much appreciated.
Hope all is well in the great state of Maine.
Billy_TParticipantAddendum:
It appears almost certain that Trump, in this situation, acted on completely personal and political grounds . . . for no one but himself. That’s the main reason why this is unlike pretty much all previous known whistleblower cases.
1. To manufacture a false narrative about Mueller’s probe
2. To manufacture a false narrative about one of his political rivals.
3. Use foreign powers to help him.
4. Offer carrots and/or sticks to get them to come on board.Trump isn’t acting as the usual head of state in this particular case. He’s not promoting the usual post-war US policy, and being outed for some aspect of it. That’s why the whistleblower hasn’t gotten bombarded yet by “the Establishment.” That’s why his or her life hasn’t been torn to shreds yet. He or she isn’t a threat to the oligarchy. He or she is just a threat to a deeply unpopular, very stupid person, working solely on his own behalf, fighting his own inner demons, which include the last election.
IMO, if the whistleblower were exposing established, sanctified, oligarchical policies that are supposed to remain hidden . . . then that person gets hammered from all sides. This is not that. Which is why it makes no sense to compare it with the past.
Billy_TParticipantWhat does he call himself? A Gothic Marxist? Excellent writer and a very good speaker.
I haven’t read any of his Sci-Fi novels, but I did read his history of the Russian Revolution, October. A must-read, IMO. Really, really important history-telling. Almost a day by day account, and provokes all kinds of additional avenues to walk down.
As for other “progressive fantasy,” you probably already read this, or at least know about it, by Ursula K. Leguin’s The Dispossessed is well worth read. She’s a leftist too.
link: https://www.harpercollins.com/9780061054884/the-dispossessed/
I like her Left Hand of Darkness more, but the above is really good as well.
Billy_TParticipantA CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA’s permission is a whistleblower. A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a spook doing spook things. You can recognize the latter by the way the mass media supports, applauds and employs them. You can recognize the former by the way they have been persecuted, imprisoned, and/or died under mysterious circumstances.
The above baffles me. Apparently this person was assigned to the White House. He or she wasn’t hidden. He or she spoke with several among White House staff who told that person about a series of questionable actions/calls/etc. etc. by Trump, Barr and Giuliani, and felt the need to take it to his/her IG. That person went through all the proper channels. Sought advice on how best to do just that.
I’m baffled by these lefty attacks on someone bringing an abuse of presidential powers to the public. One would think the entire left would support this, especially given Trump’s history, resume and ideological standing on the far right.
The whole world seems to have gone mad, including my own side.
And this baffles me even more:
“The idea that the media needs to ‘protect’ a high-level CIA officer making explosive claims about the president, which have now been used as the basis for impeachment proceedings, is such an insane perversion of journalistic ethics,” journalist Michael Tracey tweeted today on this new development….see link
Is it an insane perversion to try to protect someone from being killed? Cuz after Trump called him a traitor and suggested he be executed, the rabid right was whipped up into a frenzy. They’ve got bounty on the guy, and it’s all over 4chan and 8chan, apparently. We’ve already had several mass killings after one of Trump’s public rants, and several other attempts.
Come on, people. Again, this isn’t rocket science.
Billy_TParticipantI think Taibbi is overthinking this, and letting his paranoia meter get the best of him.
He’s not accounting for the obvious: The whistleblower’s account syncs up very closely with Trump’s own summary of the call in question, which he made public, plus the text messages that have been released, plus Trump’s own public entreaty for China to help him out recently, plus calls to the UK, Australia, Italy . . . plus trips by Barr and Giuliani on the same mission. None of this has been refuted even by the players in question.
This isn’t rocket science, or “deep state” voodoo, or a James Bond novel. It’s simply a very stupid man-child, who has no business being president, who frequently causes the people surrounding him to be stunned, and many times a day insults them and anyone with the nerve to be critical. It makes perfect sense that given his odious nature, he’d provoke this. And I couldn’t care less that the whistleblower is from the CIA. The second one, and those likely to speak out later, will probably be from different departments or just the West Wing.
Taibbi and others are letting that one (possible) fact get in the way of their judgment. They’re letting the idea of a “spook” them, and burdening this one person with the entire history of said agency. That goes waaay beyond mere bias. That’s flat out nonsensical.
Lastly . . . the reason why this is different from past instances of whistleblowing, as far as the way he or she is being treated . . . is that person hasn’t been publicly outed yet, though the political right and Trump’s cultists are trying desperately to do just that. Taibbi also seems to have forgotten that Trump called him/her a traitor and suggested execution was in order. Again, this is prior to any “outing.” Taibbi and company should at least wait until that happens before making comparisons with the Snowdens, et al.
I like Taibbi, but I don’t think he’s thought this out.
Billy_TParticipantThis hit on Mason Rudolph . . . if I’m commish, I lay down the law, let every player, coach, staff member and ref know . . . No more of these. They won’t be tolerated. Not against any player, at any time, under any circumstance. All players included, not just the QB or the ball carrier. Every single player will fall under the umbrella of this rule.
The spearing play will be reviewed immediately, and the refs will determine if it was intentional, or was unavoidable. Flag and ejection if it was on purpose/could have been avoided. Fine levied. Second time, out for a full (16 game) season. Third time, out of the NFL for good.
Again, if I’m commish, I couldn’t care less about the people who say the NFL has gone “soft.” Brain injuries matter a hell of a lot more than the opinions of couch potato, weekend warriors.
Billy_TParticipantWell i havent seen you post a single solitary article by the LA Times that was in favor of Sanders-Health-Care. I’d be pleased to see one of those articles by the LA Times.
As far as the effects of Ownership on reporters and coverage. I recommend the mountain of research on that subject.
At any rate, I usually stay out of the nuances and algebra of the Health Care debate. Its not my thing as I’ve said before. Cause it doesnt matter to me what the algebra sez. What matters is do we want to be a country where everyone gets adequate health care or not. Should the rich get great health care and the poor get none or inadequate health care? Should their be ‘classes’ of health care the same as when we fly on planes — first class, second class, third class, etc. Should we have a health care system equivalent to the airline bizness? Or shold health care be… different. In a class all its own. Special. Beyond profit and capitalism.
For me that answers to those questions dont require a complicated algebra.
You know, usually ‘you’ are the one saying ‘dont over-intellectualize things.’
w
vI think, in general, Americans have a tough time seeing class as a thing, and an even harder time thinking of class divisions and their effects. At least in the present tense. I’d imagine it’s a lot easier to do so in the past tense. With how things “used to be.” They’d probably recognize the inherent ugliness and unfairness of, say, the divisions on the Titanic that enabled the rich to escape and doomed the poor, stuck below deck. They might even thrill to a scene that showed a rich guy getting his comeuppance, sliding down the upturned ship to his death.
But it’s really tough to think in those terms about now, today, here and now, when it comes to education, health care, environmental dangers, disaster relief, etc. It’s much tougher to think in terms of a caste system, which we actually have, that largely determines what people get to be and do with their lives, simply due to the accident of their birth and their built-in networks, support systems, or lack thereof. And all around us, we’re bombarded by the message that it’s all up to us, if we just work hard and be-leeve, we can do any-thing!!
America is the only “developed” nation in the world that has an epidemic of medical bankruptcies. In the rest of the developed world, it’s virtually unheard of. There’s only one reason for that: our formalized, segregated, balkanized, normalized caste system . . . which most of the OECD, at least when it comes to health care, has largely jettisoned.
Again, this isn’t rocket science.
Billy_TParticipantJust to be on the safe side here . . . with the absence of any follow ups:
Nittany, I was kid-ding!!
;>)
Except about the cheating part. The Terps would have crushed Penn State this year if not for that.
Double ;>)
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 12 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
