Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantYeah. It’s over. Capitalism is in Stage 4 cancer right now, and we are basically looking at palliative care. I’m kinda curious how these completely self-sufficient billionaire bunkers are going to work out, but I won’t be around to watch that part of the story.
Yeah, to beat a horse that’s been dead for a long, long time . . . I don’t see the problem as a matter of the type of capitalism we have in place at any given time. I see capitalism itself as the death-knell for the earth. At least as far as it being habitable for most of Nature and we humans. Its root motives are simply in direct opposition to sustainable life here . . . or, any possibility of half-way decent distribution of resources, etc.
Half of all wildlife gone in the last 40 years or so. Even birds down by 40%. Etc.
Thanks for the article by Naomi Klein, too, Zooey. She’s great. I wish she were American so she could run for the presidency. If memory serves, she’s Canadian, unfortunately.
Billy_TParticipantI’m rambling, darkly. Again 🙂
None of this means I believe in ‘apathy’ or silence or not-bashing-on-relentlessly. It just means i believe in bashing-on-relentlessly with no hope. Itz a skill 🙂
Rams 99
Browns 1w
vAt least you can find humor in that darkness. Rams 99? You’re such a homer. I can see 77 or 84. But 99!!
;>)
Billy_TParticipantWhitworth and Hav haven’t been doing great these last 2 games.
So. This game is a challenge.
Yes. I am the first to say that.
Greedy fan, speaking: I wanted the Rams to sign at least one really good FA lineman before this year. Preferably two. They probably tried really hard to do so . . . but ended up relying on rooks and second-year guys for the changeover. Easy for me to say, but I think they needed to try harder.
Whit/Age and Havenstein/speed rushers . . . Even their vet starters worry me a bit. I realize the cap/draft positioning makes it virtually impossible for any team to be loaded across the board . . . especially teams that draft late. But I’m not so sure they couldn’t have done a better job with the O-line in the offseason, despite those obstacles.
Oh, well. We’re gonna find out soon. As you say, this game really will be a test. Cleveland has a very good D-line, and Garrett is already playing at Pro Bowl level. Five sacks in two games this year, and 13.5 last year.
It should be an excellent game overall. Looking forward to it.
Billy_TParticipantbrooks:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Brooks
6’3″ 258 Lbs. He’d be kindof a tweener in today’s game.
Anyway, what that article left out was his acting ability. Much like Jim Brown, and unlike Chris Massey, the man could act:
“He made a cameo appearance as a substitute teacher in the ABC sitcom “Welcome Back Kotter”.
w
vDo you remember The Undefeated? Gabe and Merlin were in it. John Wayne was the lead. I think it came out in 1969, the same year Gabriel won the MVP. Loved that movie as a kid. It holds up less well when you see it as an adult, but it’s still enjoyable as nostalgia, etc.
==================
I remember it. Gabe was no Fred Dryer.
w
vYes, Dryer, the Olivier of his generation!!
I remembered him being pretty funny on Cheers, but didn’t know he was under consideration for the part of Same Malone at one time (until just now):
Billy_TParticipantAnd another clean up on aisle 21, just in case:
I love dialogue about political matters, especially with my fellow lefties. In no way do I advocate holding back on that, or “being careful what we say.” Quite the contrary. I say let it all out, etc. In fact, personally, just speaking for myself, I’d rather discuss what the people here think about things, in their own words, than the stuff in the media . . . though it’s often useful to include that in the mix.
And even with the folks who have the megaphones, I don’t want them to curtail their views either, or try to shape them according to their potential effects, necessarily. In fact, that’s part of my own critique of some of their pleas. That their criticism of public discussions about Russiagate, for instance, was largely based on their own predictions of dire consequences, should we continue to debate the issue.
In short, I haven’t expressed myself very well on this topic. Sorry.
:>(
I guess what I’m trying to see is this: We need well-informed conversation about the issues now more than ever, and that conversation should be as broad and deep as possible. There are all kinds of ways to truncate this, flatten it, drive it into little pens like sheep. We should do our best to avoid this, and push others to avoid this as well, when possible.
Rams 31, Browns 20.
Billy_TParticipantOn the Ukraine. I know next to nothing about it. But what I do know is I don’t know what to believe about that country. So many conflicting reports, and that definitely helps Trump and company stir up the mud.
Here’s a recent Op Ed by a Ukrainian (Serhiy Leshchenko) under attack from Trump, trying to set the record straight:
And a New Yorker piece about Hunter Biden and his father:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign
The latter author was just on the Teebee trying to explain his more recent findings. That article apparently isn’t up on the New Yorker website yet. I posted an earlier report.
Trying to boil this down: The reporter, Adam Entous, points out the obvious error of Hunter Biden taking a job with a Ukrainian company while his father was VP and dealing with that nation, often directly. But he finds no evidence of malpractice by the Obama administration. In fact, he says they actually went after Hunter Biden’s company, and that Joe Biden pushed to fire the guy who was protecting the oligarch/owner of said company . . . which led to replacing him with someone who pursued the investigation instead. The reporter basically said they did the opposite of the Trump/Giuliani charge.
Anyway . . . to me, none of the above changes the fact that Biden is a terrible candidate, and the Dems would be foolish to nominate him. Another centrist, corporatist Dem, with some dicey baggage to boot, including the Ukraine. He needs to drop out, in my view. Trump and Giuliani are wrong about what happened, no doubt, and using the power of the presidency to go after one’s political opponents like this is impeachable and removable. But Biden should drop out regardless . . .
Billy_TParticipantThis frustrates me as well: That small group of public-figure lefties seems to ignore the fact that Trump has managed to…
===========================
What ‘lefties’ are you thinking of?
There’s very very few public figures I’d call ‘lefties,’ myself.
99-1
w
vThat may be a poor term to use. Probably is. I just want to distinguish between them and rank and file citizens without megaphones. I’m thinking of people who have access to electronic and print media, as writers, hosts and guests. Like Greenwald, Mate, Dore. To a far lesser degree, people like Wolff who rarely discuss the topic. Those who have the ability to shape the narrative for the public to some degree at least.
As for that 99 to 1. It all depends upon what their deeds are within that structure of legal corruption. What are their deeds? They’re obviously all not doing the same things, or doing the same amount of harm, or hurting the same people, etc. etc.
Trump and the Republicans, OTOH, are bought and paid for AND they do things like the recent rollback of 85 important regulations protecting the environment. They do things like gut protections for endangered species, and go out of their way to block California from reducing pollution in that state.
While we’re in this system — which I despise and want replaced (100%) — it actually does matter who holds power. Even between the two Money Parties, the two War parties, it matters. The Dems simply wouldn’t be eviscerating those environmental standards, or handing over two million acres of protected wilderness to the fossil fuel industry. Obama, for all his faults, set them aside, which was a great thing. They wouldn’t transfer funding from Puerto Rico to try to build a racist wall, and they wouldn’t turn pretty much every government department into its darkside opposite.
They’d still suck. They’d still do the bidding of their donors. They’d still put corporations and capitalism first. But they wouldn’t be nearly as destructive or corrupt as Trump and the Republicans. To me, it’s not close.
Until we actually grow up and create the kind of society Martin Hagglund talks about in his This Life, we’re going to have to work with the two-party/Money/War party system. And it matters to the earth and the masses who sits on top.
Billy_TParticipantThis frustrates me as well: That small group of public-figure lefties seems to ignore the fact that Trump has managed to pretty much purge all the people who investigated him . . . . most of whom were Republicans, btw . . . and some of whom were Trump’s own appointees. He’s either fired them, hounded them out of office, forced resignations, or they just quit after Trump’s endless tweets, etc. Comey, Sally Yates, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strzok and Page, etc. The list is lengthy and hard to keep up with. I think it’s safe to say that no president has ever been this successful in getting rid of threats to his presidency. It’s not close.
The above is the backdrop to this latest outrage, and it really makes me wonder: Why does that small group ignore all of this? Why do they seem to think it’s far more important to talk about Clinton, the Dems, the media overhyping Russiagate (perhaps)? Reading them, one gets the feeling they think Rachel Maddow is a bigger threat to the country than Trump and his white nationalist base.
Compare and contrast. On the one hand, we have a president known for his sleazy, criminal behavior, long before he was elected, which included serious connections with Russian oligarchs. He later hires well-known grifters like Manafort, fanatics like Eric Prince and Flynn, works with dirty tricksters like Roger Stone, and seemingly everyone he adds to his campaign staff has Russian ties and lied about them. He’s investigated. He surrounds himself with protection by his own DoJ, the entire Republican party protects him, Fox News protects him, as does the entire right-wing media complex, and he basically skates. On the other, we have some Dems who blamed Putin for Clinton’s loss, and media who covered an actually existing scandal.
Why on earth would any leftist lift one finger to help this crook, in any way, shape or form, directly or indirectly? And it’s not as if he’s some kind of champion for the poor, the oppressed, or for any leftist ideal. Quite the opposite. He’s made life significantly worse for the very people leftists traditionally champion.
I. Don’t. Get. It.
Billy_TParticipantTrump is an entirely new level of corrupt. He has moved the country from a state of polite corruption into a state of corruption in broad daylight. The really discouraging thing to me is that a significant minority of the country is perfectly okay with that. Not “Trump? Whatever.” There are 50-60 million people in this country who are “Trump? Fuck, yeah!”
That aside…if this whistle-blower thing is what it appears to be…Pelosi cannot sit on her hands any longer. This is treason. This isn’t just run of the mill malfeasance, obstruction, lying, embezzlement whatever. It’s flat out treason.
Good post, Zooey.
I agree with all of it. And, yes, Trump’s corruption is unique, as far as I’m concerned. He’s broken all previous records for hiring foxes to guard the henhouses, for instance. Pretty much every department of the government is headed now by people who once fought against those departments on behalf of corporate America . . . CEOs and lobbyists with direct conflicts of interest are now the norm . . . . the most worrisome to me being the EPA and the Interior, headed up now by fossil fuel guys. He’s cut out all the middle men, basically. It’s a direct line to the oligarchs now.
As far as the whistle blower thing. Apparently, this is about a “series” of events, not just one. Not just that one phone call to Ukraine. The event we’ve heard about is impeachable itself, and Trump compounds this by breaking the law when it comes to blocking disclosure to Congress.
As you say, if this goes nowhere . . . it’s game over.
Billy_TParticipantI’m re-reading 1984 by Orwell right now. About 90 pages to go. He talks a bit about the above.
Orwell was a unique cat, as they used to say. A life-long socialist, a diehard leftist, he spent most of his adult life being critical of “the left.” He said this was important, because he basically saw the right as unreachable. But his side of the aisle, actual leftists, could be pushed into living up to their principles.
Camus was similar in that vein.
In no way am I comparing myself to either writer, but I see the importance of pushing our own side to be true to its principles as well. Extremely important. In my view, Trump has screwed with the heads of a small group of public figure lefties, created a blind spot for them, and they’ve lost their way in the process. If for no other reason that this: Trump and his movement are hard right. Public figure lefties shouldn’t be in the business of even indirectly aiding and abetting the right.
Billy_TParticipant“Everyone and everything is corrupt. I don’t care what Trump does. It’s just more of the same old same old. In some ways, I even find him refreshing. We have bigger things to worry about.”
=================Hmmmm. Well, thats purty close to where I’m at.
I dont think ‘everything’ is corrupt, but I think at the National level the American Government is almost-totally-corrupt. Remember the Senate scorecard — 99-1.
99 to 1.
99 owned by big-money. 1 not.
Its a dark, unsettling, ugly, un-hopeful view. I admit that. Not a fun view to hold.
I would like to have a different view. But….
w
vIt’s not easy to articulate this . . . but, to me, it’s not necessarily a problem for us to think that way, in our heart of hearts. Rank and file citizens. But I do see a major problem when that’s the public narrative. I think it encourages even worse behavior at the top. Much worse. They, in fact, count on the belief that the populace simply doesn’t care. Indifference and apathy are tools of statecraft, going back millennia.
And I also think everyone is kidding themselves if they think it can’t get worse. Much, much worse. As rotten as things are now, if the powers that be think we don’t give a shit, about anything, they’re going to tighten the screws in proportion to that sense of indifference and apathy.
Yes, folks should choose their battles wisely, and not sweat the small stuff. But the fastest way to an actual fascist society is open, obvious indifference, etc.
Just my take, of course.
Billy_TParticipantOn the other thread about Donald and the triple teaming. Apologies if this was already mentioned. That says bad things about the rest of the Rams’ D, in my view. If one guy is getting tripled, no excuse for others on the D not to get to the QB, and often.
Is it scheme? Or player production? Both? Regardless, the Rams need to figure out how to exploit that craziness. It’s like if a D tripled Jordan, someone else on the Bulls was going to be open for a dunk or a layup. That’s just numbers. Two guys to defend four? etc. etc.
Billy_TParticipantbrooks:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Brooks
6’3″ 258 Lbs. He’d be kindof a tweener in today’s game.
Anyway, what that article left out was his acting ability. Much like Jim Brown, and unlike Chris Massey, the man could act:
“He made a cameo appearance as a substitute teacher in the ABC sitcom “Welcome Back Kotter”.
w
vDo you remember The Undefeated? Gabe and Merlin were in it. John Wayne was the lead. I think it came out in 1969, the same year Gabriel won the MVP. Loved that movie as a kid. It holds up less well when you see it as an adult, but it’s still enjoyable as nostalgia, etc.
Billy_TParticipantBrooks was great. Good article as to why.
The Rams had the best defense in the league in the 70s, and for most of the late 60s. They had great offensive lines back then, too, and those lasted well into the 80s. But they seemed to be missing on or two key players, primarily on offense, to put them over the line. Typically, they lacked “dynamic” playmakers. Still, I’d argue the Rams were good enough to beat the Steelers in Super Bowl XIV … and that they should have been in that game several times, from the late 60s thru most of the 1980s.
So many missed chances. That, perhaps, is the essence of being a Rams fan.
Billy_TParticipantCase in point:
We just learned via a whistleblower that Trump “promised” the leader of Ukraine something if he dug up dirt on Hunter Biden, and worked with Trump’s personal attorney, Giuliani, to do so. To me, this is impeachable and should garner Trump’s removal by the Senate. It won’t, but it should. The timeline indicates that Trump did this after the Mueller testimony, which basically assured that Trump would skate on the last time he tried to get help from foreign powers to win elections/pay his debts/get more cash.
Along with enabling others in their pursuit of corrupt practices, this dismissal of all things Trump encourages him to amp up the corruption. He’s getting away with it, so he figures he can do it again, and again, and again.
Of course, even though he does so much of this out in the open, figuring that will be his legal cover, he no doubt is doing it the old fashioned way too: behind closed doors. As in, both/and. Not either/or. Who knows what other leaders he’s pressured into helping him take down his political opponents? Who knows how many other Republicans are doing the same?
And what will Republican dirty tricks likely lead to? A muted, wimpy response from DC Dems, at least in public, and potentially their own dirty tricks. An arms race of sorts.
It’s long past time we take this shit seriously, IMO.
Billy_TParticipantAnother quick observation about the difference between public and private investment:
In my experience, the right, in general, doesn’t see public sector investment as investment. It sees it as confiscation. And if it ever acknowledges the word, it refuses to admit that public investment can ever have positive returns.
Its view of the private sector, of course, is markedly different. It sees capitalist machinery as investment for the good, and with positive returns.
The dominant narrative used to be quite different in America, at least during the Keynesian era . . . before Reagan. Public investment was considered a good back then overall. Conservatives certainly tried to counter that narrative, but they generally failed. But from Reagan on, they’ve owned the scene, and the center/center-left have basically ceded all of that ground to the right. It’s incredibly rare today to hear a Dem even try to make a positive case for public spending, programs, etc. etc . . . at least on the grounds of “investment for the common good.” At least beyond the new DSA members.
This needs to change, or this planet simply won’t sustain most life. Roaches, viruses, and so on, sure. But not much aside from that.
Billy_TParticipant. . . along with helping to save the planet. Sadly, it’s not radical enough. But it’s a huge step in the right direction. Those who argue against it on matters of costs are, at best, incredibly ignorant. At worst, cynically manipulating the general ignorance of Americans.
—————-
Well to me, that article raises fundamental questions about the revered ‘Constitution.’
And my question is, IF this constitution allows the poisoning of poor people, so that rich people can profit, then what the hell is the point of it? Etc, and so forth.
w
vThe Constitution, of course, was written before the Industrial Revolution, and before America became a capitalist nation. Yes, it has all kinds of serious problems, but I don’t think the authors suspected mass pollution and environmental destruction would ever be an issue in the future. I think they pictured an agrarian America, of small farmers, (very small) family businesses, artisans, home producers, etc.
That said, we’ve had plenty of time since then to update it and improve it along the lines you mention. The UN’s universal declaration of human rights would be an improvement, as would FDR’s, and, ironically, the constitution we basically forced on Japan after WWII. It was better than ours. As was Mexico’s after its revolution.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan
I’ve often thought how perverse it was to have a special amendment to protect guns, while ignoring the hungry, the homeless, the impoverished, etc. Basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, health care and education, at least, should have been in the (our) original Bill of Rights.
Billy_TParticipantAnother way to look at it:
The GND is like getting a oil change, versus letting that go for years. Pay me $100 a year, or pay me several thousand in a few years when your engine dies.
The costs for the overall economy, individual Americans, and the planet, if we do nothing . . . are going to dwarf investments in the GND . . . not to mention the likelihood of frequent wars over water, arable land, mass migrations, etc. etc.
Again, the GND doesn’t go far enough. But compared with the usual fare from centrist Dems and the aggressive anti-environmentalism of the GOP . . . it’s just what the doctor ordered. Warren’s widdle biddy eensy two-penny tax to help pay for it? Cry me a river, rich people.
Billy_TParticipantThis is beyond frustrating for me. My entire adult life, I’ve have never read or heard a conservative tell the truth or avoid abject ignorance when it comes to economic matters, and/or social programs. Never. If it’s a social program as the trigger, they simply can’t get beyond their ideological assumptions enough to be honest. Ever.
First off, the richest 1% in America hold, roughly, 50 trillion — that we know about. If the Green New Deal costs that much over ten years — and I don’t believe right-wing or centrist estimates on the costs — all of that money plus profits would be easily recouped in dollar terms, not to mention social and environmental benefits.
Conservatives, without fail, seem to believe that if “gubmint” initiates something, all the money spent disappears, never to be seen again. Gubmint programs “cost” trillions. They never, ever, apparently generate economic activity and profits. But if the private sector initiates it, money magically multiplies like free range rabbits. In reality, Warren’s minuscule (two-penny) tax on the super rich would all end up back in their own pockets, plus profits, at least indirectly. They own the means of production. Who else would end up with it?
(Even flat out payments to the poor end up back in the pockets of the rich — which is one of the reasons why I’d much rather have a true socialist economy than a social democratic one. Rather than government supplements to make up for the grotesque inequalities of capitalism, I’d prefer a system that doesn’t allow the inequalities in the first place, so no “social safety net” is needed.)
The GND would create ginormous amounts of new jobs, radically improve the economy, increase exports, raise productivity, increase all health metrics (including literally saving lives), which increases productivity and saves a fortune . . . along with helping to save the planet. Sadly, it’s not radical enough. But it’s a huge step in the right direction. Those who argue against it on matters of costs are, at best, incredibly ignorant. At worst, cynically manipulating the general ignorance of Americans.
September 15, 2019 at 10:28 am in reply to: 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump #105067Billy_TParticipantThe article breaks this down into specific areas. An example of just one:
Air pollution and emissions
Completed1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Environmental Protection Agency | Read more
2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department | Read more
3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. | Read more
4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators. E.P.A. | Read more
5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways. Transportation Department | Read more
6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions. E.P.A. | Read more
7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollution in surrounding communities. E.P.A. | Read more
8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon” that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order | Read more
9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality | Read more
10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. | Read moreIn process
11. Proposed rules to end federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to inspect for and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. E.P.A. | Read more
12. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow. E.P.A. and Transportation Department | Read more
13. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.) Executive Order | Read more
14. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more
15. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. | Read more
16. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. | Read more
17. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more
18. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule. E.P.A. | Read more
19. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. | Read more
20. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision. E.P.A. | Read more
21. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. | Read more
22. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.) E.P.A. | Read more
23. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons. E.P.A. | Read more
24. Proposed limiting the ability of individuals and communities to challenge E.P.A.-issued pollution permits before a panel of agency judges. E.P.A. | Read moreBilly_TParticipantNot sure, but I think this started with Clinton and her surrogates back in 2015 . . . but much of the current crop of Dem candidates seems to be continuing the lie:
The narrative now is that Sanders and other advocates of M4all want to “take away” health care for 150 million Americans. This is like saying that if we replace your 1978 Vega with a 2020 Honda Civic, we’re “taking away” your car.
Amy Klobuchar was parroting this BS narrative this morning on “This Week with the conservatives.”
It’s to be expected that Republicans will do this. But Dems? Sheeesh. They’d rather lose than let an actual lefty win.
September 14, 2019 at 11:21 am in reply to: Trump opens arctic national wildlife refuge to oil drillers… #105033Billy_TParticipantWhen all is said and done, it’s probably going to be environmental destruction, more than anything else, that defines the Trump era. He and the Republicans are aggressively destroying it, seemingly with relish. Hillary and the Dems would have been “meh” on the subject. But they wouldn’t have proactively attacked the planet. On that issue alone, the difference between the parties is sufficient not to ever want the GOP in power, IMO.
And then there’s this, also from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/border-wall-organ-pipe-cactus-arizona
Excerpt:
‘National tragedy’: Trump begins border wall construction in Unesco reserve
Wall will traverse the entirety of the southern edge of the Organ Pipe Cactus national monument, one of the most biologically diverse regions in the US
The Organ Pipe Cactus national monument, a federally protected wilderness area and Unesco-recognized international biosphere reserve.
The Organ Pipe Cactus national monument, a federally protected wilderness area and Unesco-recognized international biosphere reserve. Photograph: Marek Zuk/AlamyConstruction of a 30ft-high section of Donald Trump’s border barrier has begun in the Organ Pipe Cactus national monument in southern Arizona, a federally protected wilderness area and Unesco-recognized international biosphere reserve.
In the face of protests by environmental groups, the wall will traverse the entirety of the southern edge of the monument. It is part of the 175 miles of barrier expansion along the US-Mexico border being funded by the controversial diversion of $3.6bn from military construction projects.
‘Death sentence’: butterfly sanctuary to be bulldozed for Trump’s border wall
Read moreThis will include construction in Texas, New Mexico as well as Arizona where, according to a government court filing, some 44 miles of new barrier construction will pass through three federally protected areas. These are the Organ Pipe wilderness, Cabeza Prieta national wildlife refuge and San Pedro Riparian national conservation area, the location of Arizona’s last free-flowing river.
The Trump administration has deemed the new structures necessary due to a “national emergency” of unauthorized immigration into the US. According to CBP, in the 2019 fiscal year there have been 14,265 apprehensions in the Tucson sector, where the Organ Pipe wall is going up, compared to 51,411 in the nearby Yuma sector of Arizona and over 205,000 in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.
Billy_TParticipantThe “Dems invented the KKK” thing is too easy. Yes, it’s true. They did. Ultra-conservative southerners did. The Democratic party was overwhelmingly ultra-conservative in the South. As in, right-wing. Far right, in fact.
It’s so weird that people confuse and conflate the Dems with “the left.” They haven’t been even a center-left party since the 1960s, and even back then, they had that Southern bloc of ultra-conservatives. At no time in their existence have they been a majority center-left party, and the instances of “leftists” in their party can arguably be counted on just two hands (across the generations).
The Republican party, OTOH, once was the “progressive” party, relatively speaking. Lincoln exchanged letters with Marx, and he put an actual card-carrying socialist in his cabinet (Charles Dana) who was Marx’s editor. Lincoln also palled around with leftist radicals from the European revolutions of 1830 and 1848, before he entered office. It’s safe to say that pretty much no Republican of that era would be allowed in the GOP of today. Many of them would likely be considered “too far left” for the Dems of today.
It’s beyond disingenuous to argue that “Dem=left, therefore the left invented the KKK.” At the time, the Dems who did create the KKK were hard, hard right, and KKK members today identify as right-wing and despise the left. They always have.
Billy_TParticipantI’m constantly fighting the “the Nazis were socialist because ‘Socialist’ is in the name” battle with my brother.
Your brother should think about North Korea’s official name:
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. What a nation or a political party decides to name itself is totally irrelevant. It’s what it does that matters. It needs to be judged according to that.
And, of course, Hitler’s Germany was a capitalist society, not socialist. It was also a workers’ hell hole, which included (literally) slave labor. And, the nazis got their start (in the 1920s) in the streets thuggishly attacking leftists, including socialists and communists . . . and once in power, slaughtered, jailed, tortured or exiled them and made the German Left flat out illegal.
Oh, and there’s the rather inconvenient fact that all neo-fascist and neo-nazi groups, political parties, individuals, proudly claim the mantle of “right-wing,” and are seen as right-wing by their enemies. Charlottesville’s “unite the right” march was a coalition of neo-fascist and neo-nazi groups. Same thing all across Europe.
There’s no historical support whatsoever for your brother’s view, or Carlson’s . . . but it’s been mainstreamed.
Billy_TParticipantThis is the political climate we live in. A country where one-third of the population gets spoonfed absolute nonsense.
Up until roughly 20 years ago, this was fringe-right-wing nonsense. Now it’s mainstream right-wing nonsense. I bump into it all the time.
There’s a range, of course. From right-wing pundits who know better, but spread it anyway . . . to the rank and file who really believe it now. They apparently actually believe it’s impossible for right-wingers to be in charge of totalitarian systems, or for those systems to be right-wing. They see “fascism” and nazism” as left-wing, even though virtually no one did at the time these systems were in place . . . and when this is brought up to them, they dismiss or ignore the facts. They also dismiss or ignore the fact that all the resistance movements in Europe were led by leftists, and that fascists and nazis started to wipe out their leftist enemies even before they went after the Jews.
I’m currently rereading 1984. This is a replay of “those who own the present, own the past,” etc. etc. They’ve rewritten it to suit their beliefs. They’ve convinced themselves that “big government” is always already “leftist,” even though “conservatism,” going back thousands of years, entailed a massive, generally oppressive “state.” Or a massive, oppressive Church/State nexus, etc.
Right-wing ideology has always been extremely comfortable with Big Gubmint and authoritarian systems. Ironically, it’s “the left” that traditionally fought against them.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantI knew the Pats were gonna sign him. Belichek is one of the few coaches who might be able to tame the diva in AB, and Brady should love him — as long as he focuses on the game. Who knows? But I made the mistake of drafting him for my FFL league . . . and now I’m in a pickle. How can I root for him to have a great game when he plays for the Pats!!
;>)
I also drafted Cooks, Kupp, Woods and Gurley, so I guess it all balances out. Quite the homer, I!!
Billy_TParticipantGlad you’re enjoying it, WV.
I think it definitely deserves the accolades it’s received so far, like the Pulitzer. IMO, it’s a masterpiece. Not perfect. But even among masterpieces, that’s incredibly rare. It tells us things about Nature that are profoundly important. Very few novelists have written about trees/nature as subjects in their own right, worthy of their own story, as opposed to just “things” we humans exploit and see as existing for us and only us. Few novelists have the skills to match science and literature so seamlessly.
I’ve only read one other Powers book, The Gold Bug Variations (1991), which is an all-time favorite of mine. I should read his others as well. Gain sounds really good too, though heart-breaking.
Please add more of your thoughts when you’ve finished it.
Billy_TParticipantConsider this as well:
We learned after the election that the FBI was investigating Trump too. Comey and the FBI didn’t let the public know that until after the election.
He made sure to tell the public on two different occasions that HRC was under investigation, while keeping it secret that Trump was as well.
IMO, no objective person can honestly say this wasn’t a huge factor. And in my view it also tells us, point blank, slam dunk, that the entire right-wing narrative that the so-called “deep state” was trying to take Trump down is absurd. If they had really wanted to do that, if they had really wanted to throw the election to HRC, they would have reversed things. They would have kept silent about the Clinton investigations and gone public with the Trump investigation.
It’s not rocket science.
Billy_TParticipantCal,
Clinton was a terrible candidate. She was abysmal. One of the worst the Dems have ever run.
But Trump was even worse, and far more corrupt. His entire career is one of massive corruption, ripping off employees, supply lines and bankrupting his own companies — six times. He inherited 400 million from his father and he still bankrupted company after company, including casinos.
It takes mad skilz to bankrupt casinos.
If there were an Olympics for corruption, for screwing over the average Joe or Jane, between the Clintons and Trump, he gets the gold, and it’s not close. Yeah, they’re corrupt too, and they get the bronze. Several of them. But no one comes close to Trump.
And, yes, people don’t care about policies. They buy into stories, narratives, vision. And the story was that Clinton was uniquely corrupt. The last-second Comey revelation gave fuel to that fire and put Trump over the top.
Stories win. Fictional narratives win. Not policies. Even though Clinton’s policies were crap, Trump’s were far worse. There is not a single issue in which Trump’s policies are more beneficial to Americans than hers, and hers were lousy.
Again, he won because he made the sale. He sold his fiction. She couldn’t. IMO, it’s as simple as that.
Billy_TParticipantI think Bernie, Biden, or Warren could beat Trump. They could lose too.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in the polls. The polls had Clinton beating Trump pretty handily. Clinton was up by 7 points a month prior to the election.
That’s why I prefaced it with the “way too soon” part. It’s kinda like doing a mock draft for 2020 at this point.
As for those polls in 2016? In my view, they would have been right if not for Comey announcing that Clinton was back under investigation, eleven days out. I’d bet a gazillion in virtual money that she would have won the election if Comey had remained silent . . . or, if he had said, publicly, he was investigating Trump.
America really didn’t like either candidate — and rightfully so. They had record level unfavorables. But I think it’s safe to say, America would have picked the highly disliked Clinton over the highly disliked Trump, if not for Comey’s last second revelation. Which leads to this as well, in my view:
It was truly stupid of the Dems to run someone under investigation to begin with. They should have known it was possible that it would come back to bite them — again. And she had other baggage, of course . . . like the other Clinton. If not for his sexual history, Trump couldn’t have gotten away with the “He did it too!!” shtick after the Hollywood Access tapes came out. I think that would have ended Trump’s run for good. It almost did even with Clinton being such an easy (counter)target. Another candidate wouldn’t have given him that opening.
In short, the polls weren’t as off as the narrative goes. Take away Comey’s public revelation and Clinton is the president right now. Of course, I’m betting she would have been impeached early on by the Republicans. Not sure about her removal. But the GOP would have started impeachment proceedings in the first few months, I’m betting.
It’s really, really time for an end to the duopoly.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
