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.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

A smarter president would have just shut his mouth, and made sure he and his team got all of the usual forms right from Day One.

All true.

But Manofort is interesting in his own right way beyond this year’s headlines.

That’s a long article but it’s an invaluable read.

I’ll take a look.

Does it mention that Republican insiders were shocked that he wound up with Trump, at least at first? Former GOP campaign gurus like Nicole Wallace and Steve Schmidt have said that Manafort was well known as seriously damaged goods long before he ended up with Trump. They’ve stated no one else would have hired him.

wv wrote:

truthdig:https://www.truthdig.com/articles/unlearning-war/

…U.S. troops are now in 70 percent of the world’s countries and engaged in active conflict—what we used to call war—in, by even a modest count, some seven countries. In 2017-18, we’ve killed and been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Niger and Pakistan. At least for starters….

This is the kind of “context” that needs to be repeated in the Media. Endlessly. Every time there is some complaint about a country having the gall to want to influence events in its OWN region — like, say, Iran — it needs to be restated that we’re everywhere. There has never been an empire with as many military bases, worldwide.

Currently rereading a coupla good books about the Roman empire and early Christianity, and it’s amazing to think about Roman power versus our own. We dwarf theirs.

(Will post about the two books later. They’re very interesting, even moreso on second reading.)

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

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Armed teachers. That’s totally insane..

Well I think the pro-armers are thinking it would be a deterrent.

I dont think it would be, but even if it were a deterrent, wouldnt the shooter just go elsewhere to shoot people? A church or a library or wherever?

I suppose the next step would be to arm church-goers and libraries….once you start down that policy of arming teachers, you have to arm pretty-much everyone. Which is what the NRA and gun-sellers want, i guess.

What if a hospital gets shot up? Arm the patients? The nurses?

What if Seaworld gets shot up? Arm the Orcas?

w
v

I might be in favor of arming the orcas. At least until they can unionize.

;>)

. . .

As for deterrents. The pattern for these mass shooters, especially in the schools, is they seem to want to die — or at least get caught. They seem to plan for it before they go in. So I don’t think the threat of armed teachers will be a deterrent at all. They’re just going to take out as many kids and staff as they possibly can before they’re killed or caught, and they likely think, with guns like an AR-15, they’re going to be able to take out a ton. Which is the entire point of those kinds of weapons.

What is never talked about, and should be, is this: As horrific as these shootings are, they would be a hell of a lot worse if the people doing it were — I know this sounds ghoulish — “experienced.” Cruz reportedly fired 150 rounds, at least, and he killed 17 and wounded nearly as many. Imagine if the shooter had been “highly skilled.” You’re talking about hundreds of deaths, not 17. Of course, it’s not really about greater numbers. One death is a tragedy. Just one. To that person and their family, it’s everything. The entire world. But, if we’re cold-eyed about this for a second, we’ve avoided, so far, much, much higher death totals almost entirely due to the shooter’s own relative youth and limited experience.

Cruz was 19, small, a likely victim of bullying himself — most school shooters are — but there’s no indication that he was particularly adept at guerilla warfare. It won’t be long before America experiences shooters who are — perhaps multiple shooters at the same scene. Perhaps that’s what it will take for the nation to finally wake up: body counts in the hundreds for a single mass shooting.

Armed teachers. That’s totally insane. If it happens, and a shooter with an AR-15 appears, people scramble, run for their lives, or hide. Expecting a teacher to remain behind, standing, facing the shooter, is suicidal. Expecting them to beat the shooter to the draw is straight out of Hollywood fantasies. Jason Bourne, etc. If he or she were able to get off a shot or two before the shooter kills them, which is highly unlikely, the chaos of the situation likely means they shoot students accidentally. Teachers may well end up killing students the shooter misses.

Again, it’s insane.

The NRA has gone full blown fascist. Anyone who caught its president’s rant at CPAC can see that. Full on fascist. He talks as if it’s the early 1950s and there’s a McCarthyite red scare going on. Any company that does business with them is siding with fascists. Any member of the NRA who has heard La Pierre or Loesch speak and still keeps their membership? They knowingly belong to a fascist organization with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans on their hands.

Zooey wrote:

Yeah, it’s my post from an argument elsewhere. I didn’t say so because I wanted to hear responses to the ideas themselves without consideration of me.

For several years, I allowed students to write on those papers, and the result was exactly as zn described…the kids just accused me of being partisan, and giving their papers grades because I don’t agree, rather than on the paper’s merits. I think it’s better to teach them critical thinking/argument/rhetorical skills first with issues they don’t have their identities tied up in. Sometimes kids will start in pursuit of an argument, and then while doing the research for the paper, come back and ask if they can change their position and argue a contrary position to what they set out to do originally. Once they learn how to do that, they could be ready for abortion, guns, and so on. (The problem with abortion is that one side argues from a “rights” and self-determination point of view, and the other argues from a position of perceived morality, frequently backed up with sketchy Biblical references. They are just having completely separate conversations. And try telling a student his Bible text has no connection to abortion whatsoever, and furthermore expresses a sentiment that is completely contradicted somewhere else in the Bible).

But that isn’t the part of the post I was interested in getting feedback on because years of experience with emerging writers has already convinced me of that part of it.

What interests me is this idea that guns themselves are so intractably part of a person’s identity that “gun nuts” are actually incapable of holding an open conversation about guns. Guns are an extension of Self for a large number of Americans. Yet that isn’t true of most of the world. Now…why is that? That’s what interests me. Why the love affair with guns that transcends the rational, and moves the conversation into a different realm from…say…seat belt laws, or even smoking restrictions.

And my posit is – and billy disagrees – that the frontier mentality from American history never updated itself.

I read an essay by a guy named Webb on the frontier mentality of Americans a long, long time ago. I could probably find it somewhere. As I recall, he was more focused on the idea that our Frontier experience had contributed to our assumption of limitless resources and opportunities in our culture than on the gun identity aspect, but the piece has always made me think of ways that our Frontier experience shaped our cultural identity as Americans.

After rereading my own response, I should probably clarify. I shouldn’t say that it all starts anew for all of us, without remnants of the past finding their way to us, with or without present-day inputs. Admittedly, I’ve never studied transmission across generations to any great degree, so I really don’t know. On that topic, it’s mostly my gut feeling. But, yeah, we probably pass on bits and pieces of the past, across more than one or two generations. So there’s going be some of that that winds up with us. But, again, my sense is, that without the reinforcement of our present-day cultural landscape, which includes those old movies and TV shows, novels, etc. etc. . . I just don’t see the remnants as being strong enough to keep this thing going.

I think the remnants would lose out to a different media/cultural/educational landscape, if it didn’t include our myths about Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, George Washington, etc.

Why DID we so easily slip into those shoot em up games as a kid? I don’t remember being taught any of that by parents. I just remember the neighborhood kids, together, all of us, running around, playing army with our sticks, hiding, bang bang!! you’re dead!! falling over, etc. etc. We were mimicking what we saw on TV, and using tools we might see in toy stores . . . . though, as children of educators, we weren’t given those toys. We made our own.

Anyway . . . so, I wonder. How does that “frontier mentality” survive in the 21st century, when our lives are so far removed from it? How much is “inherited,” if any? How much comes from other sources (mostly current)?

Good questions and topic, Zooey.