Quick addendum to the above: In America, especially, we don’t have much — if anything — in the way of a pure public sector exchange. The private sector has lobbied for and won inroads on virtually everything, including Medicare, so that the potential for amazing tax and share deals is at least a bit watered down. If . . . if we had a system where the private sector could NOT do this, and that our public goods and services were truly non-profit, without an iota of privatization of ANY kind, it would be even more amazing.

As in, all non-profit, and universal, all public, without ANY influence from the private sector, and the bang for the buck goes up even more.

I don’t think the private sector can compete against a model like that, which is why they fight to the death to prevent it everywhere. It’s also why our government actually fights to prevent this in other nations too. The capitalist elite simply don’t want any unfettered examples of a fully functioning non-profit, public sector operating, any place on the planet.

nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

Wow. I was totally unaware they were even working on that.

I’ll have to process that for a while.

Hard for me to believe it will ever be cheap enough for poor people to afford.

w
v

Well, unless they can make it affordable for the masses, it will never become anything more than a novelty.

But I think as technology improves and the process continues to become more efficient, eventually lab grown meat could become cheaper than conventional farm raised meat. For example, think about all the resources and time necessary to grow a cow to maturity. The land, food, and medical requirements, waste generated, etc…

I like the idea. I also like the idea of finding a way to make people require far less in the way of food and water. I can’t even play a scientist on TV, and haven’t stayed at a Holiday Inn in years . . . but I would imagine that we’re not too far away from tweaking our own biology a bit to downsize our needs.

Of course, I also worry about how “designer babies” and the whole array of monkeying around with our genetics is going to go . . . and I’m about 99% sure it will be abused to generate an even greater gap between rich and poor — like an update from Gattaca. So we’d have to create air tight preventative measures, democratically, first. The Wrath of Khan was a 1960s story, if memory serves . . . and science has advanced in leaps and bounds since then, obviously.

But if there were a way to guarantee egalitarian implementation, it could be a major plank in our survival. As in, reducing our environmental footprint by reducing our daily nutritional needs/desires . . .

Zooey wrote:

He is hit and miss. That socialism rant isn’t even about socialism, and he ignores the obvious fact that many countries have those things AND MORE all without Santa Claus’ intercession.

He is hit or miss. He’ll say something fairly intelligent about capitalism and then come back and say something truly ignorant about socialism. Very few Americans know that the Soviets never implemented it. Lenin said he had to institute capitalism first to pull Russia into the 20th century, and no subsequent dictator there altered that.

They had State Capitalism, not socialism. For more than two centuries, socialists have described what it means, and it’s abundantly clear it’s never been tried ANYWHERE in the modern world on a national basis. But folks still think Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, China, etc. etc. had “socialism.” Not even remotely close.

Socialism means the economy is democratized, the people — not political parties, juntas or dictators — own the means of production, and the surplus value of what they generate belongs to the people, not “the state.” The Soviet model is “capitalism” for a host of reasons, but primarily because the people don’t own what they produce, the surplus value they generate is appropriated from them by non-workers, and there isn’t any democracy.

Mr. Chomsky still has one of the best short videos on the abuse and misuse of the word, evah:

I hope America learns a lesson from this fiasco. Never, ever elect big business tycoons, especially when they try to hide their business dealings, refuse to divest, won’t publish their taxes, and bring in family.

We actually have nepotism laws against much of this, but the GOP basically said, whatever. Same with the security forms, which Kushner has revised more than 100 times, apparently — after being caught in lies and omissions. That’s why his permanent clearance was never granted. There are dozens and dozens of staff still waiting for clearance.

Drain the Swamp? He’s the biggest swamp creature in American history.

I also hope — but doubt — this will force Congress to enact laws for the Executive and itself that will prevent future abuses. Those “norms and traditions” obviously failed, and we can’t trust the Dems or the GOP to follow them, at all. Gotta have real teeth.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

In general, most people around here don’t initiate political discussions these days. I have a feeling people are burnt out. They’d rather talk about pretty much anything else.

Hope all is well —

================

I bought “The Invention of Capitalism”. Dunno when I’ll have time to read it, but i have it. In a pile.

I also bought a turn-table. Havent had a turntable since i was a teenager.
I am looking forward to discovering quirky old records in junk shops. This is the first album i bought, for a dollar. I think its from 1970. John Mayall. Havent played it yet:

Perelman’s book is a must-read, IMO. Very thorough, extremely well-researched and heavily documented. It’s also a pretty good read. I’ve mentioned it before, but I’d also highly recommend you follow that one up with The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View by Ellen Meiksins Wood. It’s also a must-read. Short, comprehensive, concise, and highly accessible. It’s the best single description of what makes capitalism unique and why.

I like Mayall. Great blues guy. You’ve always had a talent for discovering stuff at those yard sale thingies.

wv wrote:

The Reason i like the term ‘deep state’ is it suggests the ‘secretive’ nature of much of what goes on ROUTINELY in the Empire. So much is secret. How much? Who knows? How could any citizen know? But read Clintons quote (which we all have seen before) and think about the ‘casual’ way its said. Like this kind of thing is essentially ‘routine.’

Rigging foreign elections is just another day at the office
in the deep state. Imho.

This is why the russia thing just makes me crazy. The hypocrisy.

w
v
———————–
2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election
Influencing/Rigging Elections:http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

“….
…….has taken on new relevance amid persistent accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton’s Republican opponent Donald Trump that the current election is “rigged.”…
…………
….Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).

“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

Eli Chomsky recalls being taken aback that “anyone could support the idea—offered by a national political leader, no less—that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.”

You and I are both against empire and the violent machinations needed to create and maintain them. I just finished rereading two really good book about the late Roman Empire and early Christianity: God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism (Viking, 2004, and Richard E. Rubenstein’s When Jesus Because God . . .

Fascinating histories. Roman emperors murdering each other, their family members, sons, wives, turning on each other soon after merging families via arranged marriages . . . bishops killing each other, or starting riots in various cities, resulting in hundreds dead, all to gain or keep power . . . ostensibly because various factions disagreed over the tiniest of doctrinal differences (Arians and anti-Arians, etc.).

The back-stabbing, sometimes literally, the betrayals. In the 4th century, for instance, the Huns scared the Goths to death when they went on their rampages on their way to Rome’s door . . . so the Romans promised the Goths a safe space if they’d join their armies, but then basically left them to starve. The Goths, btw, prior to the Huns, were considered the most fearsome fighters in Europe. Roman soldiers were scared to death of them. But the Goths were scared of the Huns.

Fast-forward to today. We have an (dis)organized crime family in the White House. And, IMO, that’s not hyperbole. Clinton? She’s small potatoes in comparison.

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

Too many to quote but I disagree that Trump is clearly worse than Hillary would have been. I don’t think we’ll ever know but don’t forget she was for a no fly zone in Syria and Russia said if she was elected it was war. Don’t get me wrong Trump is worse than I imagined but Hillary is no garden variety dem , she’s a genius level Dr.Evil lawyer and had she got all that power there’d be no stopping her.Trump has exposed his newly adopted party for what it is. I am on rooting for the tipping point. No more business as usual . Something good could come out of it, meaningful change.

Personally, I think Clinton was just a garden-variety corporatist Dem, who, unfortunately, managed to convince enough powerful Dems it was “her turn” and was coronated before the primaries even began. I don’t see her as a “Doctor Evil” at all, and certainly not a genius. Just a typical Wall Street Dem, but more hawkish than most.

Just some dime-store psychology here, but I think MOST of that hawkishness comes from her being a woman, and feeling the need to be tougher than the next guy to avoid a whole range of gender-based critique.

Beyond all of that, if she had won the White House, the Republicans would have blocked her from doing pretty much anything, accelerating what they did to Obama . . . and I have no doubt they’d have umpteen investigations into her and likely try to impeach her, and early.

It would have been a mess.

IMHO, Trump was always going to be worse on all counts, in all areas. Perhaps the only benefit of his election is that it caused a major reaction, which would not have been there if Clinton had won. No women’s march. No metoo movement. Likely, no new gun safety push.

As you mention, no way to know, of course. But the above is just my guess.

Hey, WV,

Gotta run some errands but will come back to watch Dore. I respect him.

Could you add your own thoughts regarding the first video? And, if you feel like it, thoughts about my response to it?

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

But Trump has already killed more than Obama did in his eight years, according to an article I saw on Business Insider. So, first-year death totals probably go Nixon, LBJ, Trump and then Obama.
.

==================

Ok, so if we are talking about flat-out Killing humans, then Trump is not even close to being the worst president. At least so far. Is that what we are saying?

w
v

Just to be clear, I suggested an order for just the four presidents you mentioned.

Beyond all of that, to me, it’s important to put any president in the context of what they inherit. Did they inherit wars, covert ops in the works, proposed coups in the works, known threats, imminent, likely threats and strong drum beats regarding threats that may have been total nonsense?

What did they do under the conditions they inherited? Did they escalate, deescalate, start new wars, end them, start or end torture programs, etc. etc.?

If we’re going to compare them, that context is vital, IMO.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

< But I think the impeachment process will bring out so much Trumpian ugliness, he’ll be forced to step down by his own party.
.

================

I’d bet the house against that ever happening. Trump step down because of Republican pressure, ugliness or whatever? Never. Ever. His nature is to fight, fight, fight. And then fight some more. His base will never leave him. Ever.

He’d fight impeachment to the end. And so would his base. He’s here for the duration of his term at the very least. Imho 🙂

I always keep in mind, fwiw, that it took actual TAPES for Nixon to be forced out. Nothin else mattered. It was only the existence of the tapes that did him in. He would have and could have stonewalled everything except for the tapes. Aint no tapes with Trump. Just witnesses sayin this or that. He’ll just disagree with them witnesses, play dum, turn it into a political circus, etc.

The upcoming Dem vs Rep elections will be interesting. Maybe the Reps will gain seats. Who knows. This country is a shit-stain country 🙂

w
v

Good point about the tapes. They probably don’t exist regarding his business practices or damning stuff he’s done while in office.

Ironically, it’s long been rumored that there are tapes, far worse than the Access Hollywood tape, regarding his sexual predations and escapades. People who have worked with him on his TV shows say producers have the goods on Trump, but they happen to be his friends. They’ve either destroyed them or refuse to release them.

Bannon said Trump’s lawyers had to pay off hundreds of women, which sounds like hyperbole, but it’s likely at least dozens. What happens if those “agreements” start to unravel, like the one with Stormy Daniels and the Playmate?

Again, it just amazes me, the sheer volume of scandals, lies, nasty words and deeds, coming from this one person . . . and he seems to have gotten away with all of it . . . again, that’s not even counting the Russia stuff.

How long will his incredible luck hold out?

snowman wrote:

It’s a political shitstorm out there and Trump is still in the White House. I think he stays there until he wants out, and his ego probably won’t permit him to just quit. I think he serves the full term and “retires” having made America great again, in his opinion.

The wrench in the gears for that will be if the Dems take the House in November. IMO, if that happens, Trump will be impeached. The Senate, unless it, too, is taken over by the Dems, won’t vote to remove him. But I think the impeachment process will bring out so much Trumpian ugliness, he’ll be forced to step down by his own party.

And then there’s Mueller’s probe. If he’s allowed to continue and present his findings — and there’s no guarantee Trump will let him — Trump and his associates are toast. I have no doubt that Mueller has enough on Trump and company to send at least several more insiders to jail, while making it more than clear that Trump is a crook. While the precedents are pretty shaky regarding indicting a sitting president, I’m guessing that’s his firewall. So Trump probably avoids jail, but his presidency would be, for all intents and purposes, dead.

He’ll be forced out in that case. But it all depends on whether Trump fires Mueller, or somehow blocks the report. We know he tried to get rid of him last summer, and he’s done everything possible to obstruct the investigation, so that’s all still up in the air. But if Mueller gets to make his report . . . . the Trump presidency is dead in the water. I will gleefully rejoice and pour libations to the Goddess on that day.

And, as mentioned before, I just don’t buy the idea that these discussions of Russian meddling or the Mueller probe have increased tensions, at least not enough to matter. Saying it could lead to WWIII, to me, is the real “hysteria.”

I see zero evidence that it has done the former, and less than zero that it could lead to the latter. In fact, I find the idea absurd. It also strikes me as a bogus “ought” factor when it comes to “focus on or don’t focus on,” etc.

It’s not the most important issue we face, obviously. But I think it’s well worth our time to get to the bottom of it all. And my guess is — though it’s just a guess at this point — that if Mueller were really allowed to go wherever he wanted to go, with zero interference, this would take down folks in both parties, though the GOP would dominate the indictments. It’s long past time for a good house cleaning anyway.

That was tough to watch. I struggled mightily to get through the first 35 minutes, and then just had to stop and go to sleep.

GG monopolized the time, and Risen was given very little of it to respond. Greenwald also was far too defensive, and wasted a lot of time on silly side issues like the meaning of “treason,” which, btw, he got wrong. It does not say that we must be at war with the nation in question. He missed the “or” in front of the clause regarding adhering to and aiding and abetting enemies.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Risen, IMO, made good points about the lack of attention paid to the underlying issue, which is Russian meddling and Trump’s connection to this. I’ve noticed that the folks in the “don’t discuss Russia-gate” camp tend to do this. Stephen Cohen, for example, was on CNN recently and pretty much made his entire case on the “ought” rather than the “is” of the subject at hand. As in, we “ought” not to even discuss this because it increases tension with Russia. That should not be the rationale for investigations, public discussions, or investigative reporting. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, etc. etc.

It still puzzles me why this issue, above pretty much any other, is bringing this idea out in certain people. I just don’t remember the same “ought” being pushed for hundreds of different scenarios, involving different nations. I don’t remember GG saying we shouldn’t investigate, discuss, etc. etc. other matters because of the supposed tensions it might create. Only “Russia-gate.”

I find this all too surreal.