Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantAs far as the question of how does the Russia story (the way the MSM/DNC/Deep-state tells it) fit as a propaganda tool? Simple. The CorporateMSM/DNC story is the usual fairy tale about how the shining city on the hill was attacked by the malevolent outside evil-doers. The beautiful shining american beacon of hope and democracy was polluted and hacked by evil forces. It fits perfectly with the basic propaganda over the last quarter of a century. American system good. Other systems bad.
And how has the corporotacracy reacted to this terrible invasion/onslaught ? Well for starters the internet powers that be have now made it harder to find leftist internet sites like alternet and truthdig and other ‘evil’ voices influenced by evil russians. Etc and so forth.
And it will get worse.
And it was all predictable.
What do i mean by saying the MSM doesnt put the russian thing ‘in context’ ? I mean the MSM buries the real history of the american corporotacracy. You cant put russian interference in context without talking about american interference. You cant talk about interfering with democracy without talking about Citizens United, AIPAC, Saudi Arabia and a gazillion other things the MSM is silent about.
If the MSM WERE putting things in context, our electorate would not be so politically-brain-dead, BT. You know that. You KNOW what the American electorate is. And you know how they got that way. They got that way through decades and decades of propaganda.
The Russian story is not being told with any honest accurate context. Its being ‘used’ by the powers-that-be. Call them ‘deep state’ (i like the term and use it the way Bill Moyers does) or use some other term.
Let me ask you an open question. What do you think of the American NSA/CIA/FBI ?
What do you think of the American Corporotocracy? What do you think of it? Why are you so upset about russian interference with this….thing. ? Do you think this ‘thing’ is a ‘good’ thing?w
vI think we’re watching, reading and hearing different sources in the MSM, cuz I’m just not seeing the story being peddled that you see. I mostly see reporters concentrating on Trump, as mentioned above, his actions, the actions of his campaign . . . and while, yes, there is some silly bluster how the boy scout nature of the FBI and other Intel groups, I don’t bump into the “city on the hill” rhetoric, or the evil Russians and the awesome Americans. It’s all about Trump lies, his and his campaign’s seemingly endless meetings with the Russians, their lies about those and so on. I see the focus mostly on Trump’s criminality, not Russia’s.
To me, that’s as it should be.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
I think you must have missed my followup from 10:17pm. It looks like your most recent response doesn’t include it. I talk more about historical context there, including our own history of interference and worse.
And prior to reading your response, I was thinking of yet another followup last night.
;>)
Basically, from my observation of the MSM, they aren’t (and haven’t been) focusing that much on Russia itself, and I see, read and hear very little anger directed their way, ironically. And next to no calls for retaliation. The focus is on Trump and what he did and is doing, and now the most recent shift is away from “collusion” and onto “obstruction of justice.” Obstruction of justice appears to be the next step in this story.
My take is that Trump has long been THE primary focus, not what Russia did, and I think that’s warranted. My own view is decidedly antiwar, anti-empire, anti-capitalist, as you know, and I want serious international diplomacy, not retaliation. But I ALSO want Trump (and some from his inner circle) to go to jail for what he’s done. I think it’s beyond obvious that he’s a criminal of long standing, and that he was helped in his bid for the presidency by Russian criminals, and “justice” demands that he not be rewarded for such things. It demands that he pay a price for his actions. He never has. It’s time for that to end.
(Will respond more directly to your questions above next post)
Billy_TParticipantForgot to add. There’s that other kind of “isolation” you must be talking about, concerning context and such. The absence of a discussion of Russia with surrounding histories, our international interference, our decades of cold war and proxies and so on. I’m guessing that’s a bit of what you meant. Plus the massive role of the post-WWII Intel machinery.
Yeah, the MSM should bring that up, too. But, you know they never do. You know that’s pretty much asking for the impossible. A deep dive into historical contexts like that? When does that ever happen here?
Wish it would, of course. In shorter form, I can get some of that from places like Jacobin, and once in awhile, from the New York Review of Books, or the LARB too. To mention just a coupla web sources.
But, yeah. We’ve grown up without that kind of context. A tragedy. My recent reading of China Mieville’s October was helpful regarding that as well, and made me think all over again what could have been. What could have happened if America and the West had actually helped the rebellion in Russia in 1905, or at least 1917 before the Bolsheviks hijacked it all for their own ends. What would have happened if we hadn’t pushed for civil war there, or a thousand different places like Cuba, with the embargoes and so on?
At least from WWII on, what would have been the case if we had taken a true “peace dividend” and minded our own freakin business around the world? Invest the trillions we spent on war and the surveillance state on education, healthcare, the environment, renewables and so on instead.
Anyway . . . back to the Russia probe. Even with a serious, scholarly, historical backdrop, which includes our own decades and decades of illegalities and atrocities . . . I’m still not sure how that changes things all that much regarding the Trump campaign and its actions. It still doesn’t make what he did “right.” And it still shouldn’t make it so he gets away with it, IMO.
The man and his little empire should pay the price for what he’s done. I’d say impeachment and removal is an excellent start.
Billy_TParticipantI think what we are all trying to do is….kinda, more or less, ‘describe’ or evaluate or figure out, the ‘situation’ — ie,
the Corporotacracy, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Empire, or whatever. And to me, that requires describing the whole thing. The contexts. And i dont think we can talk about the russian thing (which to me is minor compared to the the other stuff) without talking about Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Propaganda systems (MSM) etc.To me the Russia thing is there, but its so small compared to the other stuff. And yet, the MSM only wants to focus on Russia. For propaganda-reasons. Not to get to the truth — but for PROPAGANDA reasons. They are USING the issue to prop up the usual mythologies. And so, to me, talking about the russia thing IN ISOLATION, basically just gives aid and comfort to the deep-state.
First off, I’ve never advocated for talking about Russia in isolation, and from my observation, our MSM doesn’t do that. They can’t, really. Cuz Trump is forever stirring up the pot with a thousand other things, so our MSM talks about that too. The NFL. Sexual assault. The tax bill. Health care repeals. North Korea missile tests. Charlottesville. Retweeting fake videos from Islamophobes, etc. etc. Their plate is always pretty full. From my perspective, Russia comes up only when there’s a new revelation or indictment, and there’s always something else going on beyond that.
Second, I don’t see how it’s a very useful propaganda tool for America, for several reasons. It shows how vulnerable we are when it comes to cyberwarfare, how incompetent and unprepared, and because we’re so polarized, much of the country disagrees about what really happened, why, how or if it matters. Just not seeing how this helps the “deep state,” and it’s also a fact that Europe thinks Russia interfered there too. It would be quite the worldwide conspiracy if our MSM and theirs “colluded” to invent this interference, with almost no push back from the vast majority of media outlets.
Third, not seeing how reporting this story props up the usual mythologies. This just isn’t your grandmother’s Russia. Another “red scare” wouldn’t make one iota of sense, because Putin’s Russia is even more ferociously capitalist/neoliberal than we are, and well to our right. I just don’t see how it benefits the “deep state” or anyone else here, except, perhaps, for cybersecurity companies. And even they can be made to look pretty bad for their abject failures to prevent this — the hacks and the massive invasion of our social media infrastructure with endless fake news bots, etc.
I’d be interested in your take on how this actually works as a propaganda tool, and for whom. Again, America is so divided, so fragmented, so at odds with itself . . . it’s difficult for me to see how this is a “winning” issue for anyone among the power elite, really. But I may just be missing the obvious.
Great game. Nice to see the Rams win again.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
No worries along the “heat” front. You’ve been consistently civil from the beginning, from my point of view. I may not have the time frame exactly correct, but I think that goes back more than twenty years now.
So, again, no worries.
After the game, want to take up the issue of “context” you raise. It’s vital, essential, of course.
Enjoy the second half.
Billy_TParticipantBtw,
Did you catch this about Kushner?
excerpt:
Jared Kushner Failed to Disclose He Led a Foundation Funding Illegal Israeli Settlements Before U.N. Vote
By Chris Riotta On 12/3/17 at 6:00 AMJared Kushner failed to disclose his role as a co-director of the Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation from 2006 to 2015, a time when the group funded an Israeli settlement considered to be illegal under international law, on financial records he filed with the Office of Government Ethics earlier this year.
The latest development follows reports on Friday indicating the White House senior adviser attempted to sway a United Nations Security Council vote against an anti-settlement resolution passed just before Donald Trump took office, which condemned the structure of West Bank settlements. The failure to disclose his role in the foundation—at a time when he was being tasked with serving as the president’s Middle East peace envoy—follows a pattern of egregious omissions that would bar any other official from continuing to serve in the West Wing, experts and officials told Newsweek.
Billy_TParticipantWell ok, BT. We just disagree on the russia thing. I agree completely with Dore, Blumenthal, Lee Camp, etc.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Lemme ask you this though — how come no-one is complaining about Israel’s influence, and ALL the deep-state’s “collusion” with Israel? There’s MOUNTAINS of evidence that US politicians ‘collude’ with Israel. Crickets though, from the MSM.
w
vI’ve long been critical of both major parties all too often putting Israeli government interests over our own. It’s all the worse when that government is the Likud. Yes, “both parties do it,” but the GOP tends to be more aggressively pro-Likud, pro-Netanyahu, etc. and during the Obama presidency, wasn’t averse to undermining US policy in tandem with Likud.
And, yes, the MSM tends to be silent on the issue. There has likely been plenty of “collusion” (and much worse) over the course of the last 50 plus years, and it should be exposed and stopped.
But I’m not seeing how that’s relevant to the Russia stuff. Again, we can condemn it all. I fear some of those leftist pundits think — perhaps just subconsciously — that if they accept that Russia did interfere, and the Trumps did collude, this somehow vindicates Clinton and the Dems, and neoliberalism itself. It doesn’t. Not in the slightest. Not even a remote whisper of it. Again, we can condemn all of it. Both/and. It’s not an either/or deal.
Billy_TParticipantI have it taped. Will have to watch it today.
The Jesus of the bible was a leftist. He was well to the left of liberal, and on the opposite side of the spectrum from the Christian right. Basically, a DFH before the term was used. A “commie” before the term was used. He and his merry band of leftists went from town to town, sharing everything, refusing monetary compensation for everything, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and never asking for anything in return.
Oh, and he said no rich man could follow him. They’d have to give away all of their money to the poor first. And rich people couldn’t get into heaven.
It’s amazing how the Church subsequently found ways around the frequent Jeremiads against personal wealth, and today some Christians even peddle being obscenely rich as a sign of their god’s favor.
As for refugees? Yeah, Jesus would accept all of them. No limits. No bans on certain religions, etc.
The world is so twisted these days.
Billy_TParticipantQuick side note:
Another place where I part company with the “liberal” reaction. I would be just fine if this investigation ALSO brought down a host of Dems along with Trump and company. Wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if they were caught in the net too, if they’re guilty. In fact, I’d love it. An actual “drain the swamp” action, including both of our sleazy money parties, taking down corruption wherever if comes from.
We desperately need a clean sweep and the proverbial new start. Last month’s election brought me some hope, because Democratic Socialists backed 15 winners, their best election night evah.
December 3, 2017 at 10:53 am in reply to: Senator Warren on the tax bill thread becomes, political cartoons thread #78263Billy_TParticipantThis tax bill is another example of why it was always such a mistake to concentrate solely on Trump. The entire GOP is a menace to America. Actually, right-wing ideology itself is.
Also noticed how Cruz keeps lying about taxes in so many ways. Two examples stand out for me:
1. He says Kennedy wanted to cut taxes, and he wouldn’t even be allowed to be a Dem these days. Well, Kennedy didn’t cut taxes. Johnson did. And Cruz conveniently leaves out the part that Johnson cut the top rate from 91% to 70%, and our national debt was in the hundreds of billions, not trillions.
2. He keeps peddling the lie that Obama and the Dems were taxing us to death, even though Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent, a third of his stimulus was in the form of tax cuts, and he was forever offering up new stimulus packages with more business tax cuts. The GOP kept saying no. Personally, I think both parties need to end their obsessive social engineering via the tax code, and just do direct investment instead. Proactive, direct, no middlemen investment via the public sector. But both parties refuse to do this and the results of tragic.
__
Americans are actually among the least taxed people on the planet (formatting not so good with the copy and paste):
Effective rates from the Motley Fool, by way of AOL:
1 to $25,000
$208
1.7%
$25,000 to $50,000
$1,871
5.2%
$50,000 to $100,000
$6,251
8.7%
$100,000 to $200,000
$16,977
12.6%
$200,000 to $500,000
$55,536
19.5%
$500,000 to $1 million
$173,678
25.8%
$1 million to $10 million
$632,146
29%
$10 million and above
$7,884,775
26.1%
Overall average
$9,118
13.9%
Data source: IRS Statistics of Income, 2014. Effective tax rates are calculated using the average AGI for each income group.
Billy_TParticipantAlso, I don’t see the joy from liberals in the same way as Blumenthal and others. I think smart folks see this as Flynn flipping on Trump — which is why Mueller gave him such a great deal — with an exposure of the truth now being on the table. As in, their joy is in anticipation of the truth finally, finally coming out and Trump being impeached, as he should be.
I see nothing wrong with that emotion. In fact, I share it. I don’t, however, share any belief that this will exonerate Clinton or the Dems. They still ran a horrible campaign. She was still a terrible candidate. And the Dems still turned their backs on the working class decades ago, thus setting the table for a Trump*. Clinton and the Dems gave us Trump, whether or not it turns out Trump colluded or worse, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he did — or at least his campaign did.
*Macron in France is setting the table for a Le Pen victory by being a similar corporatist, etc.
In short, these things can coexist, and I think too many public leftists think it’s an either/or. It’s not.
Billy_TParticipantWatched about 6 minutes of the Dore video. Sheesh. I’ve never seen him be so wrong, and in such a cavalier way, and I hope it’s out of ignorance, not out of cynical omission of known facts. Cuz, contrary to what he said, the Russia collusion story has long been fleshed out in great detail. We’ve learned of DIRECT connections between the Trump administration and Wikileaks, Assange’s direct offers to help them, etc. We’ve learned of DIRECT connections with Russians and THEIR offers to help. We’ve learned of sitdown meetings between Donald Jr., Kushner, Manafort and several Russians in Trump Tower, after emails were exchanged offering dirt on Clinton. Accepting the meeting is “collusion” right there. Just that.
And all the while, the Trumps lied about all the above until they were caught.
Also, we know about Cambridge Analytica and granular voting information. Dore asked why the Russians needed Trump help for their hacking and disruptions? One reason is they didn’t have that detailed, granular info on millions of American voters. This enabled micro-targeting by the Russians for their ads. This enabled the Russians to set blacks and against whites, browns against blacks, etc. etc. . . with umpteen fake news stories and phony Black Lives Matter groups, etc. etc. The list goes on and on and on, and Dore tries to dismiss it all as a nothingburger?
Sheesh. My opinion of him plummeted after those six minutes.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
I don’t think the article was dealing with speculation at all. It’s well documented that Flynn was in deep trouble on several fronts, including conspiracy to commit kidnapping of a Turkish national here. He was also caught red-handed breaking the law via DARA, which is a felony. We know this because he retroactively signed up as a foreign agent months after leaving all of that off his security clearance paper work.
Also, not sure about the “deep state” angle here at all. Flynn is a general, and once ran the Defense Intelligence Agency. One could say he was a part of the “deep state.” And, personally, while I think there is an ongoing “power elite” that remains while politicians come and go, it’s not at all like Trump and his fans envision. It’s not controlled by Democrats, for instance, or the Clintons.
In fact, most of the evidence tells us that the Clintons were never liked by the Intel and military establishments. And Obama? My intuition is that he was the least powerful president, relative to those establishments, evah. Far less powerful than Carter, for instance, who never had their support. And at least since Carter, the Dems in power seem to know this. They tend to appoint Republicans to run key Intel and military agencies.
Remember, Mueller and Comey are both lifelong Republicans.
Anyway . . . I don’t see this as having anything whatsoever to do with the “deep state” going after Trump and company. I see it as a legit look at the most corrupt president in living memory and how he worked with a foreign power to win the presidency and then obstructed justice to prevent exposure. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Billy_TParticipantWell the RT quote was a narrow quote about Flynn. Not all the other stuff. One thing at a time. WHY is it a ‘crime’ for Flynn to talk to a Russian ambassador about policies? Trump had been elected, i believe, but hadnt taken office. Now in this vast-wasteland of a country, why in the world is THAT a crime?
I’m not talking about the lying. I’m talking about the terrible ‘crime’ that Flynn perpetrated — ie, talking to a russian ambassador about policies.
Seems like a witch hunt to me, BT. And i loathe Flynn.
w
vWV, as a lawyer, you obviously know a thousand times more than I ever will about stuff like this, the plea deals, etc. etc. But it appears to me that Flynn got off relatively easy.
Good summary here from the lawfareblog folks ( links/sources on the site) . . .
https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-plea-quick-and-dirty-analysis
Excerpt:
The news that former national security adviser Michael Flynn has reached a cooperation and plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller could not come as less of a surprise. Reports of Flynn’s bizarre behavior across a wide spectrum of areas began trickling out even before his tenure as national security adviser ended after only 24 days. These behaviors raised a raft of substantial criminal law questions that have been a matter of open speculation and reporting for months. His problems include, among other things, an alleged kidnapping plot, a plan to build nuclear power plants all over the Middle East, alleged violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) involving at least two different countries, and apparent false statements to the FBI. In light of the scope and range of the activity that reputable news organizations have attributed to Flynn, it is no surprise that he has agreed to cooperate with Mueller in exchange for leniency.
The surprising thing about the plea agreement and the stipulated facts underlying it is how narrow they are. There’s no whiff of the alleged Fethullah Gulen kidnapping talks. Flynn has escaped FARA and influence-peddling charges. And he has been allowed to plead to a single count of lying to the FBI. The factual stipulation is also narrow. It involves lies to the FBI on two broad matters and lies on Flynn’s belated FARA filings on another issue. If a tenth of the allegations against Flynn are true and provable, he has gotten a very good deal from Mueller.
The narrowness gives a superficial plausibility to the White House’s reaction to the plea. Ty Cobb, the president’s ever-confident attorney, said in a statement: “The false statements involved mirror the false statements [by Flynn] to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year. Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.” Cobb reads Friday’s events as an indication that Mueller is “moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion” of the investigation.
This is very likely not an accurate assessment of the situation. If Mueller were prepared to settle the Flynn matter on the basis of single-count plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, he was almost certainly prepared to charge a great deal more. Moreover, we can infer from the fact that Flynn accepted the plea deal that he and his counsel were concerned about the degree of jeopardy, both for Flynn and for his son, related to other charges. The deal, in other words, reflects the strength of Mueller’s hand against Flynn.
Billy_TParticipantThanks for the videos, WV.
Great Internet resource for leftists — I’m guessing everyone here already knows about it . . . but just in case:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/mikhail-bakunin
I linked to Bakunin’s works, but it has a ton of authors total.
Billy_TParticipantI would ask the pundits at RT this:
If it’s all a “so what?” deal, why has Trump, and his entire administration, lied (endlessly) about their contacts with Russia from the beginning? Lied and lied and lied. We have dozens and dozens of examples from video, audio and written transcriptions attesting to this, including lying under oath (Sessions, especially). If it’s not a big deal, why lie? If there’s nothing wrong with these contacts, why keep them secret? Why not put them on forms for security clearance, for example? Why hide work for Russia and Turkey and Ukraine — all of which breaks the law?
Trump and his admin started out by saying, repeatedly, they had ZERO contacts with the Russians, and zero business dealings, etc. etc. We keep learning about extensive contacts, going back years, and there has yet to be a single case where media reports about this have been proven false, much less “fake news.” The NYT, the WaPo, the Atlantic, the New Yorker, etc. etc. . . . I can’t think of a single time that one of their articles regarding these Russia connections has turned out to be incorrect . . . and much of the corroboration has come from Trump insiders over time.
Yeah, the Flynn, Manafort, Gates and Papadopolos indictments are big deals. I have no doubt whatsoever that Trump won the election with the help of Russia, and that we’ll learn how extensive this actually was in the coming years. I think Clinton was a terrible candidate, and the Dems turned their backs on the working class decades ago, AND Trump won with the help of Russia. To me, the latter isn’t an excuse for the former. The two coexist:
Clinton and Dem rottenness AND Trump collusion with Russia. (Kinda like the LAPD “framed” a guilty OJ.)
And, to me, it doesn’t matter that “we do it too.” It’s all wrong. American serial interference in international elections doesn’t let Trump and the Russians off the hook. It all needs to be exposed and stopped dead in its tracks. All of it. I’m honestly baffled that some of the RT punditry asks “so what?”
December 2, 2017 at 11:41 am in reply to: Senator Warren on the tax bill thread becomes, political cartoons thread #78218Billy_TParticipantI find it, to put it mildly, appalling, that the meme “tax cuts stimulate the economy and pay for themselves” is still peddled. In reality, tax cuts, by themselves, do nothing for the economy. Nothing. It’s just shifting where the money begins its effective journey through the economy — our one and only economy. And they can never pay for themselves. It’s mathematically impossible.
There are, of course, umpteen factors involved in “growth,” with a host of them in conflict, but the relevant factors are these:
1. Tax cuts force government to borrow in order to make up for the lost revenue.
2. Deficit spending — putting federal spending on the national credit card — is what “stimulates” the economy (temporarily; this must be paid back), not the tax cuts themselves.
3. If the government ever cut its spending in tandem with tax cuts, there would be no net stimulus. At best, it’s a wash. At best. It would then be removing X amount of spending on its side while the tax cuts spurred X amount of spending on the other side. Again, at best, a wash.
The media never tells the truth to the American people about this. There is no stimulus from tax cuts unless the government maintains current spending levels or increases them. The stimulus comes from the deficit spending, not the tax cuts. The tax cuts merely force the deficit spending.
Also, the entire “dynamic scoring” thing is a fraud. Because it doesn’t factor in paying for the deficit spending, or eventual cuts in spending down the road. It also doesn’t consider economic downturns, only potential “growth.” Our government data took a huge hit when the Republicans forced that into forecasting models.
Billy_TParticipantAn analogy.
You have this national sport called Mayhem. You’ve had it for more than a century. Two contestants score points by maiming individual parts of their opponent’s body. The most points win the match.
Throughout history, you’ve had various activists pushing for various regulatory regimes . . . trying to reduce the carnage, increase it, make the game more wide open, or a bit less horrific. The most popular way of doing this is to increase or decrease the number of points scored for each maimed area of the body. Five points, ten points, one hundred points for broken bones — higher still if they can’t be mended, etc.
Almost no one talks about the game itself. The actual game. Almost no one talks about maybe, perhaps, finding a different national sport. Instead, they talk about ways of “managing” the pain levels or ending the PC whining about that pain to one degree or another.
One very small group says, “Um, hmm. Let’s try a sport that doesn’t start out with the premise of inflicting the most bodily harm possible, whatever the relative rewards may be. How about that for a change?”
Billy_TParticipantAt the most basic level, capitalism forces countless either/ors throughout the production, sale and compensation process. Either ownership gets X amount of money, or workers do. Either ownership gets X amount of money, or the supply chain does. Either ownership gets X amount of money, or consumers pay more or get less, etc. The math guarantees winners and losers, and because ownership has all the legal power at its disposal, and can legally call all the shots, it’s going to win the vast majority of the time.
Capitalists make their money by NOT paying for work done. If they pay it to workers, they don’t have it in their own pockets. If they pay it to make safer workplaces, they don’t have it in their own pockets. If they pay it to ensure safer products, they don’t have it in their own pockets, and so on. This obviously extends to the destruction of the environment, which is why pretty much every company in the beginning stages of capitalism located next to a river — for easy dumping. This is why pretty much every factory farm still does.
In my view, “neoliberalism,” while much worse than the Keynesian management regime, is still better than what came before Keynes. Keynes was the aberration, and even under it we had mass pollution and economic inequality — especially for minorities, women and the “third world”. Worse before Keynesianism, and today’s mixed bag in comparison is worse, but capitalism has always, throughout its entire history, created mass famine, pollution, wars to slam open markets, wars to protect the shipping lanes, coups, counter-coups and mass destruction of the biosphere.
It’s never had a “green phase,” though there are tiny blips of that here and there when companies eschew the capitalist model within the worldwide capitalist system. It won’t have them, either, regardless of management regime.
Why? Because capitalism itself demands a return on investment now. It demands personal enrichment now. You don’t get that if you leave natural resources in the ground, or act as a wise, beneficent steward of the earth. There’s no profit in that.
Billy_TParticipantWell, I glanced at some of the ads, and they really didnt elicit any processing in my brain. I just kinda shrugged. But my point wasn’t that the ads didnt appear, my point was i havent seen proof or evidence that they were planted by Putin or the Russian government. I read an article the other day about how google/twitter/facebook arrived at their conclusion that something was russian, and their criteria was extremely weak.
But i just dont care about any of that. I really dont. Thats just me.
And the reason i dont care is because of how i view the American system now. I view it as a toxic, empire-stew of lies upon lies upon lies upon lies. From ‘public education’ to Advertising to Public Relations, to CIA-lies, NSA-lies, FBI-lies, ‘National-security’ lies, Defense Contractor lies, DNC-lies, Republican-lies, Economic-Lies…. I believe the biosphere (all life) is in danger by this Corporate-Empire-of-Lies.
So thats the context for me. This soul-less corporate-empire-of-lies is now all aflutter because RT is telling Americans that neoliberalism is destroying the biosphere and causing untold suffering — and I’m supposed to be upset about RT? Because its linked to Putin?
I watch RT everyday. Its the single best political website i know of on the internet.
Just my opinion 🙂
And yes, i know they dont dare critique Russia. Thats a separate subject to me.
As for your question about whether anyone actually listens to RT or absorbs their critiques….well….thats another separate subject. I am not optimistic that RT or ANY group is getting through to Americans. I think the Corporate-Empire has damaged most Americans too much now for anything to get through. But i dont wanna go there 🙂
I’m a curmudgeon now, BT. A Vonnegut-curmudgeon.
Carry on,
Go Rams
w
vBeing a curmudgeon is a good thing in my book. And being a Vonnegut-curmudgeon’s right up there at the top of the heap. I think being one is the main reason I’ve survived cancer for 15 years — or longer, since they don’t really know when it started. It’s kinda ironic that more than a few old curmudgeons, who railed against life, society, the way things are, like Thomas Hardy, Samuel Beckett and E.M. Cioran lived into their 80s.
That said . . . I think I get why you’re attached to RT, and it’s really not the issue here, IMO. It’s more a symptom. But if they’re focusing solely on the evils of “neoliberalism,” as opposed to the capitalist system itself, I think they’re doing folks a disservice. I like sites like Jacobin much more because they’re anticapitalist, and in my view, that’s the real issue.
“Neoliberalism” is the current management regime. It’s just another in a long line of management regimes, and in my view, the thing that’s killing the biosphere is the system it’s managing, capitalism. It’s never NOT destroyed the environment, regardless of regime. And the main reason for that? Any economic system set up for personal enrichment, as opposed to the public good, is going to do that. Any economic system that places the personal accrual of wealth at the core, the center of its reason for being is going to do that. It will always have irreconcilable differences and conflicts between ownership and workers, ownership and consumers, ownership and society, and especially, ownership and the planet.
All the rest is just a matter of tweaking at the edges.
Billy_TParticipantWell first off I’ve not seen these ‘ads’. And i have to say, I dont trust Salon or facebook or google or twitter. I would need real EVIDENCE that these ads are
part of a Putin plot. So far all ive seen from the corporate-media is accusations.I also dont care if RT critiques russia in russia. I would not surprise me in the least if they dont. That to me, is irrelevant. What is relevant to ME, is this: Do they help the AMERICAN public see more clearly? And my answer to that is yes. Definitely. Who the hell else is talking about Zinn and Chomsky ideas on the American corporate media scene? CNN? No. FOX? No. NPR? No. PBS? No. NYTimes? No. Wash Post? No. ABC? No. NBC? No. CBS? No. Talk Radio? No.
RT is it. I dont see any other mega-mainstream-media-organization doing a marxist, radical, leftist critique.
I think RT is a godsend.
I am truly baffled at the opposing views about RT on this board. No big deal, but it does baffle me. Ah well.
Btw, just for the sake of argument, what is the Corporate-capitalist argument against all this “russian propaganda” ? I mean how is it supposed to help Putin? By doing what, exactly?
w
vWV,
You and I both think they do some good, much needed work on TV. And, obviously, leftists are left out of the American MSM (pretty much) entirely. It’s always a shock to see one appear, and when they do, every century or so, they’re usually mocked — even by “liberal” hosts. I saw that happen when Richard D. Wolff appeared on Chris Hayes’ old Saturday show. Wolff was just being truthful, logical, rational and obvious about our economic system, and Hayes and other panelists — supposedly left of center — all but openly ridiculed him.
Anyway . . .
Again, there’s a huge difference between those shows and those ads. That’s my point. And you really don’t have to “trust” the American MSM in this matter. You can find the ads yourself via all kinds of different venues — and search engines (I use duckduckgo, for example).
Americans who were targeted by them aren’t saying this didn’t happen. No one is really denying it.
Your post has me thinking about another issue, though: When you say RT shows help the American public see more clearly . . . . is that really true? We’ve become so polarized, so tribal, in our own silos . . . I’m wondering: Do non-leftists even tune in to RT? As in, isn’t it more “preaching to the choir” than actually converting anyone to a new view? And aren’t good books, essays, histories, etc. etc. . . . better than any RT TV show in the first place?
Billy_TParticipantQuick clarification, just to be safe: When I say “you” in the last paragraph, I’m referring to Russia, not anyone else. I thought that was obvious in context until I just reread it.
November 3, 2017 at 2:57 pm in reply to: October: China Mieville's book on the Russian Revolution is really good. #76845Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV.
I think it was your videos of his talks that tipped me off to him in the first place.
The book listed looks fascinating, and it’s now on my list. The Paris Commune of 1871 was one of those “last, best hopes” for humanity, in my view. Which is why the powers that be had to shut it all down with extreme violence. Several key leftists were involved, before, during and after it. Two have emerged as favorites for me, especially: William Morris and Petr Kropotkin. Discovered them (in more detail) primarily through Kristin Ross’s excellent Communal Luxury.
https://www.versobooks.com/books/2253-communal-luxury
(It’s short, for you and anyone else pressed for time. But it’s jammed full of smart analysis, history, further readings, etc.)
Billy_TParticipantIn general i think the info linked to russia is way more accurate and useful than the american-corporate-media stuff. When i compare the stuff I’ve read from RT and the stuff from usual suspects in the corporate media — I’ll take the RT stuff anyday.
Is it ‘divisive’ ? You bet. Is it targeted at oppressed groups? You bet.
Does it drive the powers that be up the wall ? Obviously. I’ve never seen anything like it. For the first time in my life, something is driving the powers-that-be crazy. I love it. Course its being shutdown.
w
vIn my view, there’s a huge difference between sober, reflective, analytical shows on RT and those ads. Actually, a huge difference. The former does actual critique of American life, oftentimes zeroing in on things our MSM never touches. The latter, however, are blatantly all about pitting Americans against one another, stoking hatred between groups, and that’s incredibly, obviously dangerous.
Also, when it comes to “trust,” right off the bat, if you’re faking who you are — as in, pretending (for example) to be a BLM group when you’re not — no one should believe anything else you’re saying. If your message is valid, there’s no need to set up a fake front out of a Russia bot farm to do it. Just be open about it and make your case.
Another key factor for me: RT doesn’t do critiques of Russian society in Russia, for Russians, and Russia, internally, is actually even more right-wing, hierarchical, plutocratic and anti-democratic than we are. As bad as we are, they’re actually a hell of a lot worse. The absence of Russian critique by RT is simply indefensible.
It’s a bit like, say, the CIA going into Russia, setting up TV shows there that are highly critical of its society, broadcasting that to Russians, while never once saying anything whatsoever about America. That’s pretty much the dynamic in play.
But the bottom line (for me) is to remember those Russian ads, twitter bots, social media bots and their fake-news generation was never, ever in service of making America a better place. It was to sow the seeds of division and chaos, and the way they do it is to pit the most vulnerable Americans against one another. I see that as absolutely despicable and unforgivable.
Go after the powers that be all you want. Go after Clinton, the DNC, the GOP, American corporations, capitalism, etc. But whipping up violent hatred between groups on behalf of Putin is disgusting.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
Just watched the video all the way up to the break. He was spot on right down the line. I couldn’t agree with him more about forced patriotism, nationalism, etc. etc. Direct, to the point, well-said.
Like any human, he has his flaws and strange views of certain things. We all do. Each one of us has what some might consider an odd take on matters here and there. But in that particular video, sheesh. Just right on the mark.
Btw, did my post about YouTube help ya at all? Didn’t see any comments following it. I’m no expert on Youtube, but I know the Internet and computers pretty well. If you have any specific questions, please let me know. I used to do Internet/computer tech support for a living, etc. Though I’m a bit rusty. It’s been five years now.
=============
I think Jessie has moved a little to the left over the last few years, maybe.I’m still researching the utube issue. I’m gonna buy a camera of some sort when I’ve got it figured out. Maybe a used go-pro or somethin.
w
vWonder what Jesse has to say about Mike Pence’s premeditated stunt, walking out of the Colts game yesterday, in protest over the protests.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-did-pence-trip-cost-colts-49ers-2017-10
__
I did some quick browsing for digital cameras with wifi, bluetooth and easy file transfer.
https://www.crutchfield.com/p_05426515/Nikon-Coolpix-W100-White.html?tp=49693
This one is in the $159 range. Has pretty much what you need to do 1080P video and easily upload it or transfer it to your computer for editing. Nikon’s a good brand, too.
https://www.crutchfield.com/p_05426523/Nikon-Coolpix-W300-Black.html
This one is a coupla hundred more, but it shoots 4K.
Lots of stuff in between, etc. Cheaper, more expensive too.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
Just watched the video all the way up to the break. He was spot on right down the line. I couldn’t agree with him more about forced patriotism, nationalism, etc. etc. Direct, to the point, well-said.
Like any human, he has his flaws and strange views of certain things. We all do. Each one of us has what some might consider an odd take on matters here and there. But in that particular video, sheesh. Just right on the mark.
Btw, did my post about YouTube help ya at all? Didn’t see any comments following it. I’m no expert on Youtube, but I know the Internet and computers pretty well. If you have any specific questions, please let me know. I used to do Internet/computer tech support for a living, etc. Though I’m a bit rusty. It’s been five years now.
Billy_TParticipanti am a book hoarder. fwi
books:http://lithub.com/10-famous-book-hoarders/
w
vThanks, WV. Cool pictures.
Always wanted to have a house with a real library in it. Not gonna happen, unless a publishing miracle happens. But it used to be a dream. I have a lot of books, but they’re kinda squeezed into my modest home, with no room with a view of their own.
Love the library rooms with deep, dark wooden panels, high ceilings, second or third stories. Ladders, too.
Strange to look back at a life filled with so many dreams deferred. I much prefer the days I could still look ahead, without thinking of putting all of that aside.
Billy_TParticipantThe rest of the article. Have included the link to the debunking of the Heller decision again here:
In the early 1800s, the militia-based understanding of the Second Amendment began to be replaced by the view that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun for personal protection. After the War of 1812 showed how unreliable militias were for national defense, the country came to depend instead on the standing army that the framers had once feared. Meanwhile, guns were becoming more useful for self-defense due to technological advances in bullet and firearms design. Samuel Colt patented his famed revolver in 1836, the first gun capable of being fired multiple times before reloading. His company’s informal slogan captured the dawn of a new era in gun politics, in which the driving concern was no longer fighting wars but defending yourself from those who could harm you: “God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.”
By the mid-1800s, as state court decisions and congressional debates reveal, the notion of the right to bear arms as an individual right had become commonplace. Yet even strong supporters of guns did not believe gun safety laws were inherently suspect. In the 1920s and 1930s, Karl Frederick, an Olympic gold medalist in pistol shooting who served as president of the NRA, was a leading advocate for requiring waiting periods on gun purchases and limiting concealed carry to those with a special need to have a gun on the streets. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns,” explained Frederick. “I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” It is a sign of how drastically gun politics can change that today’s NRA considers that the laws written by its former president unconstitutional.
For decades, the Supreme Court read the Second Amendment only to apply to militias. It wasn’t until 2008 that the justices decided that the amendment guaranteed an individual right. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in DC v. Heller claimed that the original meaning of the Second Amendment required this ruling, even as he dismissed the framers’ own words tying the right to keep and bear arms to the militia. As the legal scholar Reva Siegel has shown, the court’s decision was instead the quintessential example of the living Constitution: Scalia gave voice to “understandings of the Second Amendment that were forged in the late twentieth century”—largely by the NRA’s campaigning and lobbying efforts.
In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, some advocates for reform argue for reversing Heller or even repealing the Second Amendment altogether. The courts and the Constitution are not, however, the main impediments to good and effective gun safety measures. Even Scalia’s opinion, which held only that individuals have a right to keep a handgun at home, admitted that most forms of gun control are constitutionally permissible. Since Heller, the federal courts have been inundated with challenges to gun laws, but nearly every type of restriction has been upheld.
The Second Amendment does not stand in the way of better gun laws; the NRA does. In states where the NRA has little electoral sway, like Massachusetts and California, gun laws are more restrictive. Today’s battles over laws banning assault weapons and requiring universal background checks are mainly political, not constitutional. Even though such laws are consistently upheld in court when they have been enacted, the NRA’s stranglehold on gun legislation in most states and in Congress prevents such laws from being adopted more broadly.
Despite Heller and the NRA’s political influence, the nation’s leading gun group faces an uncertain future. The country is undergoing major demographic shifts that pose a distinct challenge to the NRA: growing numbers of minority citizens, increasing urbanization, and rising rates of higher education, all of which are associated with greater support for gun control. Even among gun owners, the organization’s rhetoric is seen as increasingly outlandish. How is a “good guy with a gun” supposed to stop someone holed up in a hotel room shooting military-style weapons out of a window? Is 58 dead and nearly 500 injured really, as the former Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly said Monday, “the price of freedom”?
The torrent of mass shootings, coupled with the NRA’s tone-deaf intransigence, has breathed new life into the gun-control movement. Where once the NRA was the only group focused on gun policy that spent considerable sums on elections, the playing field has been leveled a bit by the Michael Bloomberg-financed Everytown for Gun Safety initiative and Gabrielle Giffords’s Super PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions. In a few recent elections, such as a ballot initiative in the state of Washington to require universal background checks, gun-control advocates have even outspent the NRA.
Despite the sense of resignation so many feel after yet another mass shooting, the mood is shifting. Although President Obama was unable to win new federal laws after Newtown, there has been a flurry of activity at the state level, with new restrictions enacted in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, and Maryland. A significant portion of the US population lives in a state that has beefed up its gun laws over the past five years.
The NRA can still count on an influential bloc of intense single-issue, anti-gun-control voters to sway members of Congress, and on the Trump White House to appoint justices committed to the expansion of gun rights. Yet just as electoral politics, rather than the words of the Second Amendment, is the source of the NRA’s power, the democratic process is how the NRA can be defeated. Change is possible. But it won’t come from gutting the Second Amendment. It will come from the same type of political mobilization that gave us the modern NRA.
October 5, 2017, 9:45 pmBilly_TParticipantSeveral ways you can do this, WV.
Most laptops come with built-in mic and camera, and software to make videos. There are freebies online, too, that are better than Windows software, but the latter would work fine as well.
https://www.techsupportalert.com/
If your computer doesn’t have the built-in mic and camera, use a digital camera, if you don’t want to use your phone. It’s going to have the mic built in, and likely an easy upload to youtube, facebook, instagram, etc. Most digital cameras have built-in WiFi now, so you don’t even have to transfer the file to your computer. But you can do that as well — wirelessly or via USB cable.
You’ll need an account with YouTube, of course. Easy to set up with a google email address.
Years ago, it could be a pain in the neck to transfer files like this. Now, most cameras, desktops, laptops are already set up to “share” with all of your social media accounts.
If none of the above fits . . . and your computer has a camera but not a mic? Mics are cheap at any electronics store. Purchase one and plug it into your mic port, which is usually one of the three on the back of the computer designated for speakers or mic. If you don’t have a schema of your computer handy, look it up online and it will show you which one of the ports is used for the mic. It’s typically color-coded.
Billy_TParticipantWell BT, the ‘right’ fears the US Government much more than they fear
crazy-people-with-automatic-weapons.I think thats the bottom line with themz on the Right.
w
vAgreed. I think that’s the heart of the issue.
They fear certain parts of the government. Not all of it, of course. Just the parts they see as threatening their own “freedoms.” They’ve always been fine with Big Gubmint stomping all over people of color, doing mass incarceration, shutting down antiwar voices, Occupy, unions, leftists in general. They actually root hard for that. They also root for Big Gubmint when it comes to immigrants, borders, wars, empire and capitalism. And as I’ve mentioned — probably too often — the real irony in their love of capitalism is that their system of choice requires massive government, or the system dies.
Anyway . . . yeah, that’s their fear. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that governments can’t make public policy just to assuage the fears of fringe movements, especially when they radically increase death and destruction in the process. They have to make public policy that improves and protects the lives of all citizens.
The lack of sensible gun control endangers all of us. It’s literally killing us with its irrational permissiveness.
-
AuthorPosts
