Yep, the Establishment doesn’t want to talk about MLK as an anticapitalist and antiwar activist. They don’t want to talk about him as a socialist, either. Same goes for Einstein, Orwell, Camus, Helen Keller, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Oscar Wilde, Kafka (a libertarian socialist, to be more precise), etc. etc.

It is amazing that Trump managed to gain such rabid support from Christian evangelicals, especially considering his three marriages, frequent adultery, trysts with porn stars, serial sexual assaults, endless lies (more than 2000 since he took office), ties to the mob, six bankruptcies, endless, vicious attacks on minorities, women, etc. etc.

If Trump is a “good Christian man,” then I could go out, right now, and take Aaron Donald’s job away from him, cuz I’m obviously a much better pass-rushing, run-stuffing defensive tackle. It wouldn’t even be a contest!!

wv wrote:

Well we disagree on most of this russia-gate thing, as you know, BT, but I’m pulling for you in your cancer-battle.

PS — i am reading the China Mieville book “October”.

w
v
“The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths. These persons have an appreciation, a sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen.” ― Elisabeth Kübler-Ross

Mieville is really good. I think you’ll love the book, especially the way he provides context, shows the complexity, the rapid changes, shifts, divides, etc. I hope he follows this with more Russian history.

Can’t remember if I mentioned it before, but I also reread Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago around the same time, in a new translation, and that was enlightening too. A beautiful, moving novel with flaws.

Not long before that, read another novel (Happy Moscow) by one of my favorite Soviet-era writers, Andrey Platonov. A neglected master, who really can’t be compared with any other writer I know of, though if Kafka and Boris Vian had a literary child, it might be in the ball park. Surreal, Dadaesque, nonsensical and wonderfully strange all at once. One of a kind.

I like to mix fiction and non-fiction in that way, though recently have concentrated more on the non-fiction.

Anyway . . . hope all is well with you and yours.

All the best to the everyone at the Huddle.

Hey, Matt,

Thanks.

Won’t go into details, but the cancer flared back up again, and am back on chemo as of yesterday. A mess getting this all started, with umpteen tests, delays, red-tape mess-ups, etc. etc. and I’m fighting bronchitis at the same time — two months’ worth. It’s been a rough winter.

Oh, well. At least the Rams made the playoffs!!

;>)

Beyond that, I’m doing a lot of reading and rereading of good books, mostly philosophy, literary criticism and comparative myth and religion. More than I have in a long time and loving all of that. I just wish I didn’t give a damn about the current events stuff, so I’d do nothing but read and work on my novels. In my sharpest moments, I realize I’ve wasted far too much time on politics.

All the best —

Nunes, or his bosses, were pretty smart about this in at least this one way:

The American people will likely never, ever be able to see a side by side comparison between the actual underlying evidence and his summary (Ironically, he apparently never read that underlying evidence, while Schiff has). We will never be able to see if the summary is accurate. They no doubt knew this. They no doubt knew that while the FBI might push back — they have — they wouldn’t divulge the underlying classified information, either. Nor will the FISA judges — all of whom were named by Chief Justice Roberts, btw.

IMO, this cherry-picking fits a pattern in conservative thought, and, to me, it’s a big mistake if the Dems try to make this only about Trump, or the Trump era. I’ve been reading and thinking lately about how far, in fact, this goes into the deep dark past, and one could say it begins with Adam and Eve, especially by way of Augustine (the first world-historical “conservative,” perhaps), on through Hobbes, Burke, and into Trickle Down Economics, “Welfare Queens,” Willy Horton, into Fast and Furious, the bogus IRS scandal right up to the Nunes memo.

(Might flesh this little theory out at a later date.)

To make a long story short, I think conservative ideology requires endlessly taking the part for the whole in order to score its points. This is the case, all too often, because the overwhelming evidence goes against conservative/reactionary theories — on evolution, climate change, the environment, the social safety net, economics, etc. . . . and, right now, GOP control of pretty much everything.

Another key factor: Taking one’s own, personal experience has universal, and universally applicable.

btw,

A major premise for the bogus memo is this: Christopher Steele is supposedly biased against Trump, and anyone who signed off on allowing his dossier to be a factor is by extension “biased.”

It offers no proof for that bias, but even if it’s all true, that’s irrelevant. In a court case, “bias” is often assumed. People typically don’t dish the dirt on people they like. But what matters is the veracity of that dirt.

I heard this analogy on air, and it makes sense:

John Doe runs a meth lab in his basement. He and his neighbor don’t get along. The neighbor hates Doe, actually, and this goes back to an old argument about fences and failure to return equipment.

The neighbor tells the police Doe is running a meth lab. They get a warrant, search the house, discover the meth lab, and Doe ends up in jail. It wouldn’t have worked as a defense in court to say the neighbor had a “bias” against Doe in the first place. What matters is if the info seemed sufficiently credible for probable cause.

I’ve been following the media reaction to Trump far more closely than I should, especially considering my current health situation. I can say, categorically, that Cohen is wrong on his take about the media and what it’s said about Nunes and Trump. He’s basically in Opposite Day world.

Cohen also does exactly what Republicans have done with the memo: cherry picked the data and distorted it. He cited ONE person, Heilman, to somehow indict the entire media and Democratic Party and show that they’ve “degraded” our political discourse. One person. I’ve never heard any other media member suggest Nunes might be compromised by the Russians, and no one is saying Trump is, either. They rightfully talk about his deep ties to Russia, money laundering, hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, which he and his admin lied about endlessly — If they did nothing wrong, why lie routinely?

The memo deals with just Carter Page, and offers allegations without proof. Cohen also never mentions the endless lies and hair’s on fire conspiracy-mongering coming from the GOP and its media, which this memo is a part of. It was driven by right-wing media blowhards like Hannity, and is self-evidently an attempt to protect Trump at all costs. While I don’t think Nunes is a Russian agent, I do think he’s complicit in Trump’s obstruction of justice, and has already been caught lying about this in the past. He supposedly recused himself because he was caught. Apparently, he never really was.

I think it’s an ongoing national scandal (and disgrace of epic proportions) that our election system is under the control of both major parties, together, or separately. Beyond that, it’s a national scandal and disgrace that our governing system is in the hands of political parties at all. As in, none of this should be controlled by either the Dems or the Republicans, separately or jointly. It should always and forever remain absolutely “non-partisan,” not “bipartisan” or partisan.

Yeah, we can have political parties vie for seats to represent the people, but they never, ever, not in any way, shape or form, should be able to set the rules for that representation or monopolize power. All of that should be outside the control of the parties, and subject to truly popular consent, protected by Constitutional right.

On just the issue of districts, they should all be formed via computer program, designed to completely ignore party affiliation of any kind, going by population numbers instead, mixed with whatever “natural” boundaries can be adduced. Set up districts by number of citizens, not geographical space, and apportion them that way.

The Dems and the GOP haven’t earned the right to govern any of this, much less set up rules.

wv wrote:

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

I dunno, BT. I’m not sure any or all of that would come close to 26,000 actual bombs dropped. But, I dunno. I would like to know. But of course as american citizens we are not allowed to know what our CIA/deep-state is really doing and who it is murdering on our behalf.

Could be Trump is a bigger mass murderer than Obama. Maybe Obama is the bigger mass murderer. Its debatable at this point.

w
v

WV,

Trump started with Obama’s baseline. There was no rollback of military action when he took over. From that point, he actually increased troop levels in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, as mentioned, and he added dozens of new fronts on the so-called GWOT.

How could he NOT drop more bombs and kill more civilians? Add to that, his relaxation of military rules of engagement, because he said, repeatedly, that our military had been previously handcuffed due to PC. Translation? Don’t worry about civilians as much as before.

Throw in a huge shift in Justice Department goals, methods, “enemies,” etc. Gloves off for migrants, minorities, inmates, dissidents, etc.

Again, I would be completely shocked if the Trump era did not cause a major spike in killings and maimings of the innocent, domestically and internationally. It would defy logic, common sense and everything we know about right-wing ideology, the GOP and Trump himself. And I say this knowing full well that Dem-controlled governments had obscene levels of this as well. Trump is worse. He and the GOP are worse.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 8 months ago by Billy_T.

I would be shocked if the numbers of civilian dead had not seriously increased under Trump, over the already unconscionable and indefensible levels under Obama. I can’t see how it’s even possible that they haven’t.

Some reasons why:

The US military is fighting terrorism in 76 countries around the world — here’s where

1. Trump increased troop levels in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and added brand new fronts in Africa and Asia.

2. He loosened “rules of engagement” protocols for the military (and domestically, for police, border agents, etc.), mocking previous rules as “PC.”

3. He increased defense spending, with more increases in the pipeline.

4. His ICE and Justice Department have been far more aggressive in going after migrants — inside and outside the country.

5. His Justice Department has been far more aggressive in the war on drugs, as well as going after dissidents, especially those who protest against Trump.

Also, Trump’s bizarre blind eye toward everything Russia made this far more likely:

Syria and Russia’s latest offensive has killed 177 civilians in 2 weeks

wv wrote:

I dont have any real problems with the article other than I’d say Reagan didnt ‘start’ that about the ‘Gubment bein bad’. The rich-and-powerful had been using that argument long before Reagan came along. Ya know. Just like corporate-power didnt begin with Citizens United, etc.

When i talk to rightwingers or rightwing-libertarians, they are completely blind to the problem of Corporate-Power. All they see is Government-Power. They only see half the problem. Many reasons for that, as weve discussed over the years.

w
v
“Our picture of the world is provided by those that profit from our ignorance.” Gavin Gee

“It is arguable that the success of business propaganda in persuading us, for so long, that we are free from propaganda is one of the most significant propaganda achievements of the twentieth century.” Alex Carey

The right-libertarian (propertarian) argument is supposedly about the unchecked power of government, and its monopoly on force. So one would think the issue of the concentration of power would be key for them as well — wherever it exists. But it’s not. Propertarians are fine with concentrations of wealth and power in the private sector, and their vision of a night watchman state, or minarchy, whether they admit to this or not, would simply accelerate and multiply the concentration of wealth and power in that private sector. It would, by definition, be even more unchecked than it is now.

I think the vast majority of leftists — with very few exceptions — want all concentrations of power checked, wherever they may be. And this is the main difference between the two forms of “libertarianism.” The left’s form wants to do away with hierarchy and disperse power and wealth, and end its concentration, as the most logical answer to problems of power. The right’s version — which is far more recent — wants to do away with just the public sector’s concentrations, not the private’s. In a world in which private sector power largely dictates and controls the public sector, this strikes me as . . . to be generous . . . misguided.

PA Ram wrote:

Where government does fail it is often set up for failure by the forces that want it to fail.

The Republicans hate government.

So they run for office, defund programs or in Trump’s case do that and put the most incompetent people they can find to run it–make a lot of noise about how it is failing(even though they share that responsibility) and offer a solution of private enterprise as the tonic this nation needs. Only that solution can work. Only that solution can save us.

Except it doesn’t.

It isn’t made for that.

But yes–people are being conditioned to hate government.

Look–the government can pick winners and losers by writing the rules.

A government that does not serve the economic interests of the majority of its citizens will eventually be doomed to failure. But on the way out–some people will get very very rich. And they may not have much of a need for government when all the gold is gone.

That’s what is slowly happening.

And many Americans–those who will be hurt by this–are cheering the loudest.

The Dems didn’t help this, either, by basically, at least since the early 1970s, shooting for Republican Lite.

It ticks me off, for instance, when they say they want to do business tax credits too. Sheesh. The answer isn’t more bribes for business. The answer is to hire directly into the public sector. The private sector has proven that it’s just not going to pay enough to the rank and file, and it will always chase after cheaper and cheaper labor overseas, and/or automate it out of existence. IMO, we need to stop pampering, coddling, begging, bribing businesses to do what they should be doing all along: hire Americans and pay high wages.

Cut out the middlemen. Hire into the public sector directly, where we can also secure jobs and prevent them from going overseas or disappear due to automation. The Dems never should have capitulated to the GOP regarding this endless slashing of social spending. They should always have fought them ferociously and gone with direct spending/hiring, without apology.

IMO, NOT doing this is what led to Trump and the rise of white nationalism. Same thing happened in Europe. The soft neoliberalism of centrists gave us the hard neoliberalism PLUS white nationalism of the hard right. This simply can’t be stopped by more centrism. It can only be stopped by aggressive left-populism, in my view — and, it’s the most effective and efficient answer to boot.

I also find it ironic that leftists actually have answers for how we can really get to “small government,” and as close to no “state” as possible — which is my own dream.

The key to that is replacing the capitalist system with a fully democratized and egalitarian, publicly held, non-profit economy, based locally and federated. And by publicly held, I mean directly, not through proxies like political parties. Not through “the state.”

I’ve never read anyone on the political right who has a valid plan to get to “small government,” because, almost to a person, they cling to the capitalist system. Small government is simply incompatible with capitalism for a gazillion reasons. It depends on massive international government to keep it going for the reasons list above and . . . . it’s the first economic system in history to unify all previously independent systems/markets. It’s the first unified economic system, evah. No way that can be maintained without the concerted efforts of dozens of Big Gubmints worldwide.

Also . . . . going back to earlier discussions and metaphors:

Gangster states fighting other gangster states; Godzilla versus King Kong, etc.

When it comes to Trump and the GOP, I think it’s a mistake to see him as cancelling out other bad guys within the government. I get the sense that some people hope this will happen. As in, they see him as “bad,” but somehow believe he can reduce the total net “bad” via his disruptions and aggressiveness, his desire to blow stuff up.

To me, there is no evidence for this, whatsoever. I think all the evidence points to him adding more net bad. Much more. He hasn’t cancelled out any of the existing rot, none of the establishment’s corruption, hawkishness, empire, imperialist intentions, etc.

It’s not two heavyweights going at it, with only one surviving. It’s an additional level of the horrible, like a second gang terrorizing a town where there was only one previously. They’re not cancelling each other out. They’ve doubled the bad, at least.

In and of itself, the Deep State is not necessarily sinister, and it has never acted with one voice — as in, conspiratorially. Too many divergent interests. And while it does have many common interests, it’s absurd to think it suddenly decided to turn its guns on Trump, especially when the man and his party are so generous to corporations, the military industrial complex and the intel groups.

Trump doesn’t want to undo their power or reform them. He wants to use them and control them, while feeding them far more money. If certain members of the Establishment are against Trump, it’s not out of fear that he’s some great champion of the people out to get the Establishment. He’s not. Quite the opposite. If they are against him, it’s because he’s reckless and dangerous, a vulgarian, a serial liar, power mad and a raging narcissist. They see him as too erratic for the job, and I’m guessing at least a few of them honestly find his far right views and his embrace of white supremacists and bigots in general as despicable.

In short . . . for me, I think there are serious limits to the concept of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” And I think it’s a major mistake to view the scattered criticism of Trump by members of the power elite as a sign that Trump is on the right side of these issues. As I keep saying, it really is possible — and often the case — that both “sides” are dead wrong. And in the case of Trump, he’s not going to diminish the power of the other side one iota. He’s going to do whatever he can to add to the atrocities.

Ozoneranger wrote:

Hope all is well with you, too, Billy.

That’s a good question. I think the definition of median is half above and half below. I was a tad confused by the context, too. The incomes the authors listed were high, but taxes were higher for a decade or so too.

That said, I have to disagree with you on the wage stagnation. Our economy is way different from 73. Since then, we’ve gone from manufacturing economy to a service and “intellectual” one. Big difference. I’m not sure where you live, but here in Cali (Metro areas) wages are off the charts. I know a few millennials that are pulling in $150k a few years out of college (yeah, STEM grads). Those Mils are 5%ters.

I noted after I posted this that the piece is 20 years old. Nevertheless, the concepts these people apply to their financial goals are time tested and work today. Me and my wife applied them with success for the duration of our marriage. And I still do today. We lived frugally, well within our means, invested heavily and put our kids through university. Really, it does work. I’m pretty well off, but I still pack a sandwich or leftovers for lunch everyday. I rarely eat out. My watch is 22 years old and cost $75 on a cruise ship. And I have two tailored suits. I consider myself secure, not wealthy.

In the end, to me, managing money is a pain in the ass, but necessary. I view it strictly as security. I don’t want to be a burden on my kids when I’m old and infirm. So I work to build wealth *for them*. After all, our generation, and those before have fucked them over.

Take care, bro…

When I talk about wage stagnation since 1973, I’m referring to rank and file wages. That, too, is a bit tricky to define, but it generally means the working class. The people you cite are well outside of that, and make a lot more. Yes, they’ve done pretty well. But the median wage for individuals and households has been flat for decades, when you account for inflation.

As mentioned, last time I checked, it’s roughly 30K for a single person, and 55K for a household. Too often, economists and the media speak of households and I think this distorts reality a bit. Cuz a household can have any number of incomes within it. But it’s still pretty low (at 55K) when you think of people making billions.

To me, it’s just better to stay with a single income and compare that.

But, back to your article. I’m guessing your author had to have been thinking of a “median” wage for his fellow millionaires. Cuz, again, it’s really far higher than even the one for households in America.

The rest of your advice? Sound, sensible, etc. But the real problem for all too many Americans is that they’re not paid enough to save like that. Wages for far too many Americans just don’t enable the kind of “wealth creation” you and others mention, and we know that high-paying jobs are relatively scarce, given the concentration of money at the top. As of 2016, for instance, the richest 1% now holds more wealth than the rest of the nation combined. We’ve never been that unequal before.

And worldwide? Just six humans now hold as much wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population combined.

To me, this goes waaaay beyond smart investing, saving, frugality, etc.

Take care. And if you’re not back before the end of the year, Happy Holidays to you and yours.