nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

For me the priority is removing Trump/Pence from office. So while I agree that it’s important for Americans to be aware of our own interference in elections in other countries, the focus should be on Trump’s collusion with Russia and anything else that makes his removal possible. All other considerations are secondary to that.

————-

Ok, cool, but i couldnt disagree more
Trump is driving the biosphere off the cliff at 90 mph.
The Dems would drive the biosphere off the cliff at 75 mph.

I just dont see replacing trump with a dem as a priority.

When we are this-totally-fucked….i dunno what the priority is anymore.

w
v

w
v

The Dems are diving it off the cliff at 75 mph, Trump is doing it at mach 2.

I agree, Nittany. While no one is gonna confuse the Dems with the Greens, they’re just waaaay better on the environment than the GOP. Trump has already done the following, and has anti-environmental, pro-corporate ideologues in place to go much further:

1. Opened up drilling along our coasts. Opened up drilling in previously protected Arctic reserves

2. Signed off on the Tar Sands pipelines

3. Privatized more than two million acres of previously protected wilderness.

4. Killed regulations for protected species

5. Raised tariffs on Wind and Solar

6. Killed funding for Wind, Solar and other clean alternatives

7. Left the Paris Accords

8. Installed the head of Exxon as his Secretary of State

9. Put a lifelong opponent of the EPA (Pruitt) in charge of the EPA. They no longer support Climate Change research, or even that it exists. They’ve massively deregulated our already too weak environmental laws in favor of business

10. Interior is being run by another lifelong opponent of conservation efforts (Zinke), who installed, at taxpayer expense, secret rooms to deal with lobbyists for the extraction industries, in secret.

As you know, from Day One, they’ve been at war with science as well, all across the board, from NIH to the EPA, to CDC, to Interior, Commerce, etc. etc.

It’s not close.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

That said, how often should our media bring that up? Should they preface every discussion regarding Russia bots, facebook, google and twitter hacks, DNC hacks, Trump campaign collusion . . . with the fact that our two empires have been going at it for what seems like forever? Should every discussion be prefaced with the fact that this is not the good guys against the bad guys, but something far, far more complex? .

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

Yes. Imho, the media should put the story in context every single time they talk about it 🙂

As it is now, the MSM NEVER ‘prefaces’ the story with any context. Never.
And thus the story simply ends up being propaganda. Its not like a Warner / Bulger story where you can tell one story without the other. In this case, any story that ignores context (how much did the CIA ‘collude’ in the choice of Yeltsin?) simply dums down the American public and manufactures consent about American exceptionalism which then makes it easier for american-oligarchs to bring neoliberalism and bombs to the rest of the world.

w
v

In a fair and righteous world, our media would actually take the time to do what you say. And, yeah, every time. I agree. And some print publications do try to take that time. But the TV side of things? They rush through their short blocks between ads, for the ads, and I don’t see them choosing that route, evah. I also don’t think it’s being done in other nations via Mass Media, either. At the risk of “whataboutism,” we’re not alone in that manufactured consent. It’s pretty much the rule. No excuse for it. But it’s everywhere.

Also, just to clarify on the Dem/MSM thing. I’m by no means trying to say it’s just the GOP and not the Dems. I’m saying it’s both, with the GOP being worse. Both parties are guilty. I get confused a bit by some of the videos you post, cuz it seems like the people in them are saying it’s all on the Dems, and not the GOP at all. Like Trump and the GOP are the victims. I may be misreading them completely, but they seem reluctant to mention Republican complicity and responsibility. I mean, when Cohen talks about Dems degrading political speech in the era of Trump . . . with his constant insults and direct, personal attacks on a daily basis? Sheesh. He just called the Dems “treasonous” yesterday for not giving him standing ovations at his SOTU speech.

Oh, well. I know in the larger scheme of things, that’s trivial and a distraction.

wv wrote:

Ok, how about the ‘context’ and the ‘big picture’. Which is a separate-but-inseparable aspect of this to me. ;>)

Assume for the sake of argument that Trump had connections and deals with Russians that amount to “collusion” or whatever terms you wanna use. OK, assume the worst and assume its all true and even more is true that we dont even know about.

Put it in context.

How does it fit with all the ‘collusion’ America/CIA/NSA/Pentagon/Executive-Branch has done all over the world since, say, the end of World War II ?
Do you see any problem with the MSM discussing Russia-gate without putting it in historical context? IE, telling a story of russia being the bad guys and america being the shining city on the hill?

Second question — Again, assume all the russia-gate stuff is true, for the sake of argument — How is the system USING this issue? In what ways, if any, are the MSM/Dems using this issue?

w
v

For me, it’s assumed from the bat that we’ve been doing this shit too, though it’s in much different forms, and we can’t do to Russia what it’s doing to us via cyber, because they’re nowhere near as open to it as we are. We can’t attack their social media systems in the same way. But, yeah, it’s back and forth, back and forth, for more than a century.

That said, how often should our media bring that up? Should they preface every discussion regarding Russia bots, facebook, google and twitter hacks, DNC hacks, Trump campaign collusion . . . with the fact that our two empires have been going at it for what seems like forever? Should every discussion be prefaced with the fact that this is not the good guys against the bad guys, but something far, far more complex? In my view, and I think it’s safe to say yours too . . . both “sides” being bad actors?

As for the last part. I think you and I agree about a lot of this, but we part ways, I think . . . and I’m still not exactly sure where you stand on this . . . I don’t see any tight nexus at ALL between the MSM and the Dems. I see the MSM as essentially “conservative,” and the narrative they push is “conservative,” and they mostly hope for both parties to keep things running smoothly — to the degree possible — for capitalism around the world. They’re going to “side” with the party that gives them that to the greatest degree, and for the majority of the time, for generations, that’s been the GOP. The Dems are close. But Corporate America gets a better deal from the GOP.

In short, they definitely like the way the Dems treat them, treat world capitalism. But they absolutely LOVE the way the GOP helps them.

Good questions, WV.

Will flesh out a bit more later.

Btw, I recently reread a pretty good book on moral philosophy, by Susan Neiman (written during the Bush administration): Moral Clarity.

It’s not perfect, primarily because she sometimes injects too much current politics to make her point, IMO, which was that “the left” should take another look at the Enlightenment. Eyes wide open, but another look all the same. On balance, I agree with that. Kant is her main voice, but I’m partial to the pre-Enlightenment Spinoza.

Toward the end, she talks about four brave activists in recent times, one of them being Daniel Ellsberg. Had forgotten a lot about the Pentagon Papers, and aspects of the bombings in Vietnam. But this factoid stood out for me:

Just during the time after the Papers were released, Nixon dropped 1.5 million tons of bombs on the Vietnamese. Neiman also reminds us (via the Nixon Tapes) how obscenely indifferent Nixon and Kissinger were to the carnage they leveled on the Vietnamese people. Among a host of other leaders, of course.

This one is good, too:

6 tortured arguments Republicans are making about the Nunes memo By Aaron Blake February 5 at 11:33 AM

Excerpt:

1. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to Fox News on Friday night: “I would say that this is far bigger than Russia or Donald Trump, or even the Mueller probe. This is the first time in American history that politics has weaponized the FBI.”

In defense of Gaetz, who is 35 years old, he did not live through any part of J. Edgar Hoover’s nearly five decades in charge of the FBI and its predecessor.

But even before Hoover, what was then called the Bureau of Investigation was founded by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 to assist in Roosevelt’s trust-busting efforts. As the FBI’s own website says today, the bureau “was not yet strong enough to withstand the sometimes corrupting influence of patronage politics on hiring, promotions, and transfers.” By the 1920s, the FBI’s website recalls, it “had a growing reputation for politicized investigations. In 1923, in the midst of the Teapot Dome scandal that rocked the Harding Administration, the nation learned that Department of Justice officials had sent Bureau agents to spy on members of Congress who had opposed its policies.”

Hoover took over the bureau in 1924 on the promise to reform it. That … didn’t exactly happen. And for anybody who needs a refresher, read up on what the Church Committee found in the 1970s.

Blake chose a rather tame comment by Gaetz, relatively speaking, though it’s crazy. He’s been a guest on Infowars, and a real bombthrower, hysterically talking about jailing people involved with the Russia probe, etc. Unfortunately, plenty like him among far-right House members.

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, 10 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.