Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 2,311 through 2,340 (of 4,322 total)
1 2 3 … 77 78 79 … 143 144 145
  • Author
    Posts
  • January 14, 2018 at 6:26 pm in reply to: The Exceptional(?) Mr. Trump #80216
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    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

    January 4, 2018 at 8:01 am in reply to: 15 Steps to Corporate Feudalism #79906
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    zn wrote:
    Billy_T wrote:

    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.

    Yeah.

    BUT.

    The left (generally speaking) does believe in the good the public sector can do, eg. single payer insurance. Just stating the obvious of course but if something like that led to some branch of gubmint growing larger, that’s just simply not an issue.

    .

    Just to be clear: I was talking about left-libertarian/libertarian socialist views and goals, not the entire left spectrum’s.

    I think the expansion of the non-profit public sector, unfettered by corporate interests, is both a major benefit in itself and the best way toward those goals. As mentioned before, IMO, if the American public were able to freely choose between truly non-profit public goods and services, versus for-profit private ones . . . . they’d eventually switch over to the public side. But things are rigged to prevent this, of course.

    So, yeah, definitely. I’m in favor of Single Payer right now. Have been for a long time. Plus a massive expansion of non-profit health care on the delivery side of things too. And “free” cradle to grave education at all state schools . . . and the creation of a massive “Green” grid — for energy, transportation, agro, cleanup, etc.

    It’s not the size of government. It’s what it does, how well it does it, and who it represents.

    Also, there is a big difference between “the state” and government. I think humankind needs to evolve away from “states” and toward true egalitarian, democratic, self-government, stripped of hierarchies, bureaucracies, etc. etc. to the degree possible. But this will obviously take time.

    January 3, 2018 at 12:12 pm in reply to: 15 Steps to Corporate Feudalism #79885
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    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.

    December 29, 2017 at 6:58 pm in reply to: 15 Steps to Corporate Feudalism #79744
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Another thing to consider: Representation. Government, ideally and theoretically “represents” all of us, if it’s based on (small d and small r) democratic, republican principles. The degree to which it does is perhaps THE metric for its success.

    Corporations? They never do. Never will. Never have that intention. It’s not anywhere on their radar. They “represent” the interests of ownership. That’s it. No one else. Not workers, consumers or the sustainability of the earth. Just ownership, which is a tiny sliver of the population.

    I understand the anger toward any government that does not represent we the people. But it’s never made any sense to me that the same people, angry at government, would prefer that the private sector gains even more power over our lives. The answer isn’t to crush the only sector with at least the potential to represent us, the public sector. It’s just not possible in the private sector under the capitalist system.

    IMO, the only way to attain real representation is to make the economy fully democratic too, and hold everything else to the highest standards of full representation under the law. Place everything in the “commons” except one’s home and personal affects. That would be my own preference.

    Knowing that won’t happen in my lifetime . . . . I’d certainly take making America a social democracy like Scandinavia instead.

    December 29, 2017 at 6:26 pm in reply to: 15 Steps to Corporate Feudalism #79743
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    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.

    December 29, 2017 at 4:22 pm in reply to: 15 Steps to Corporate Feudalism #79733
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    zn wrote:

    First off I positively do not care about hits to welfare because that stuff is economically insignificant.

    I do care that Reagan ruined the american economy by fostering the illusion that trickle down economics works when in fact it flat out does not. Giving more wealth to the top 1% hurts the economy, it doesn’t help it. The evidence on this is overwhelming.

    Plus the developed world is full of thriving economies that are heavily into basic social welfare, including things like single payer insurance. That stuff works. It’s better, and it works.

    The mere slogan “government’s big” does nothing for me. I consider right libertarians to be trapped in what amounts to a religion where beliefs, however false, blind them to truths.

    ..

    Lotsa good points, ZN.

    The system is rigged, but not in the way movement conservatives believe. We’re not allowed to have fully non-profit, publicly held choices for key goods and services, because Corporate America won’t allow it. And they won’t allow it because they know that they can’t compete with it.

    Reagan and his followers also did a bang up job pushing the Big Lie that the private sector is always better at everything. In reality, if the public sector were set free, had zero private interests dictating what it could do, it would trounce the private sector in virtually every sphere. I honestly can’t think of a single exception at the moment, though there may be some. The private, for-profit sector simply can’t compete on price, value, working conditions, rank and file pay or overall quality, because its overhead is far too high. And its overhead is far too high because it chooses to maximize executive/ownership compensation, and has far too many additional expenses, like shareholder dividends, tax lawyers, ads/marketing, unsold merchandise, etc . . . and it needs to make profits on top of all of that. As in, it needs to charge more, give less to consumers, pay less to rank and file workers, in order for it to all work out (maths). And it needs a hell of a lot of help from the public sector beyond that.

    The public sector never comes close to the same overhead costs, and is far more egalitarian in its wage ratios (in the 5 to 1 range).

    In short, Americans would be far better off if we could at LEAST choose between non-profit, public sector and for-profit, private options. We aren’t allowed that choice.

    December 29, 2017 at 4:09 pm in reply to: 15 Steps to Corporate Feudalism #79732
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    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.

    December 29, 2017 at 3:59 pm in reply to: 15 Steps to Corporate Feudalism #79731
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Good article. But I’d argue against the statement that the middle class needs the government the most. IMO, it’s flat out obvious that the rich need the government the most, and always have. In fact, the capitalist system itself would die a very quick death if movement conservatives and right-libertarians (propertarians) ever got what they say they want: “small government.” The dirty little secret going back to the earliest rising of capitalism is that it never could have achieved hegemony without massive public spending on its behalf, and it never would have survived even its first downturn.

    (Without exception, the public sector has saved/revived capitalism every time it goes into contraction.)

    In short, taxpayers have spent trillions of dollars to promote it, expand it, sustain it, reduce business costs and bail it out endlessly. Just since 1970, the world has had more than 100 massive taxpayer bailouts of capitalism, with the most recent (2007-2009) at one point hitting 16 trillion. And all the infrastructure, currency/valuation, treaties, trade agreements, wars, coups, courts, police and rescue, R and D, etc. etc. . . . It just pisses me off to no end when I hear conservatives talk as if the government is unnecessary, even for business, not to mention the victims of its dominance and destruction.

    To make a long story short, I think Reagan and his followers are, to be very generous, among the most mendacious and opportunistic cretins in American history — for a host of reasons. One of the biggest is this: the very institutions they bashed, scapegoated and helped destroy paved the way for 100% of the “success” capitalists can ever claim. They basically wanted to pull up the ladder they inherited so no one else would benefit, living under the delusion that “big government” had suddenly become unimportant for the continuance of the capitalist system.

    More than thirty years later, and they’re still operating under this delusion, and even more fiercely, aggressively dedicated to Ayn Rand’s poisonous vision of the world.

    December 8, 2017 at 9:18 am in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78549
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    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.

    December 8, 2017 at 8:59 am in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78548
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    I said it during the campaign, and it’s proven out during his presidency. Trump was never really about pulling us back. He was never really about fighting fewer wars, or shrinking the military, or empire, etc. etc.

    He bamboozled his supporters, and they weren’t listening when he also talked about fighting wars to win, instead of being “PC” about it. And he constantly talked about making the military great again, and radically expanding our nuclear program.

    As president, he’s supported massive increases in military spending, and still wants a radically bigger nuclear program. He’s taken us to the brink of nuclear war with North Korea, rattled his saber repeatedly at Iran, just recently said he supports Israel’s move to Jerusalem as their capital, which has the Arab Street aflame. He’s also embraced autocrats all over the globe, embraced Duterte in the Philippines and the Arab dictators. There’s not an antiwar bone in his body or in his policies, and the GOP is right there with him.

    To me, anyone who preferred Trump over Clinton over fears of the latter’s hawkishness was fooling themselves. Trump is far more hawkish and has surrounded himself with more hawkish advisers and cabinet. Too many people also saw Trump’s bromance with Putin as a sign of reduced hostilities in the world, while forgetting all the other nations he’s promised to go after. They’ve also dismissed the reason for Trump’s embrace of Russia. He’s up to his eyeballs in debt with the Russians, not to mention their help in the election. As in, he’s not going easy on Russia because his overall philosophy is tempered, measured and careful on matters of war. It’s because he’s fully compromised. His language is far too bellicose overall to think otherwise.

    He and the Republicans are far more dangerous to peace and the planet than the Dems. The latter party sucks. But they’re just not as bad as the former. They’re just not as dangerous — Deep State or not. IMO, leftists should be aligned against Trump and the GOP even more so than against Clinton and the Dems. I see zero reasons for defending Trump, on anything.

    December 8, 2017 at 8:44 am in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78547
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    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.

    December 8, 2017 at 8:43 am in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78546
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    wv wrote:

    Billy whats your take on this article from WSW’s website:

    wsw:http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/pers-d07.html

    excerpt: “…It is evident that a significant faction of the ruling elite has concluded that Trump must go, in one form or another.

    There is not, however, an ounce of democratic or progressive content to this campaign. The conflicts in Washington are conflicts within the ruling class, pitting the Trump administration—which is increasingly relying on far-right and fascistic forces—with powerful elements of the military and intelligence apparatus with which the Democratic Party is aligned….” see link

    w
    v

    Fox News, especially Hannity, Breitbart and other Trump media are aggressively pushing the “Dems control the Deep State” meme. It’s reached Congress, where several Republicans are trying to discredit Mueller (a Republican), Comey (a Republican) and the entire FBI now as hopelessly biased against Trump (in open hearings). To me, this is sheer nonsense. It’s also highly dangerous, if it ends up working.

    At this point, I think it’s abundantly clear that Trump and his allies know he’s in trouble. Legitimately under threat of exposure for decades of corruption, self-dealing and the already proven “collusion” charge. The rest is panic, desperation and projection.

    IMO, the import of the “Deep State” is wildly exaggerated by the right for political and propaganda ends, mostly to protect Trump and deflect from his criminality. They’re trying to make it seem like this is something new, when it actually goes back well over a century, and it’s not controlled by either party. It’s basically the American Frat system, writ large. Big money, Old money, New money, merged with corporate power, protected by the Intel agencies and the MIC, the latter being traditionally far more aligned with right of center Republicans than anyone else. It’s the social network of the super rich and powerful. The Establishment. The power elite.

    (breaking this into two to avoid TL;DNR.

    December 6, 2017 at 10:22 pm in reply to: The Millionaire Next Door #78498
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    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.

    December 6, 2017 at 10:22 am in reply to: "why buddhism is true" #78470
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    wv wrote:

    Robert Wright’s “Mindful resistance” notions:

    ___

    His The Evolution of God is really fascinating. I’m putting his new book on Buddhism my TBR list. Thanks for the video.

    http://evolutionofgod.net/

    He has several excerpts from Evolution of God on this site.

    December 6, 2017 at 10:17 am in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78468
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Thanks, WV.

    I want my own posts to remain within the realm of friendly discussions. At times I fear I’ve unintentionally moved it elsewhere. That’s an ongoing struggle for me.

    __

    ZN,

    Cool picture of Portugal. I’ve been to Ireland, France, Monaco and dipped a toe on the other side of the French Pyrenees, so can technically say I’ve been to Spain. But haven’t made it to the land of Jose Saramago and Fernando Pessoa yet.

    Aside from the natural beauty, culture and cuisine of Portugal, it would also offer easy connections to the rest of Europe, which is extremely appealing to me. If for no other reason than cultural/historical depths, I’d prefer being in Europe to here.

    No place on earth is without its problems, of course. But on balance . . . . the art, music, cultural centers, the castles, the ancient ruins, etc. etc. . . . I’m drawn to the world across the Pond.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    December 5, 2017 at 10:21 pm in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78445
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    WV,

    I do this too often. Get a bit carried away with the discussion, and I think I come across in too harsh a manner at times. Sincere apologies. We’re all on the same team here.

    Regardless, found this article about great places to retire in Europe. Portugal sounds really good to me.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/best-places-europe-retirement-american-retirees-2017-12

    December 5, 2017 at 9:07 pm in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78435
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    wv wrote:
    Billy_T wrote:

    WV,

    If you get the time, would be interested in you fleshing out what you mean by that media split (Dem versus Rep) a bit more.

    It may well be I’ve just misread you. Wouldn’t be the first time. Won’t be the last.

    Regardless, hope all is well.

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

    What i mean is simply the “Fox-News/Rightwing-Radio/Washington Times…MSM’. Which of course is nothing more than propaganda for the Corporotacracy.

    And. the “MSNBC-NYTIMES-PBS/NPR…MSM” part of the media. Also fulfilling propaganda function. Also providing the grease for the Corporate killing machine.

    Yes, I see a difference between the two MSMs. Just like i see a difference between the Dems and Reps. But they both fulfill the meta-mission of greasing the corporate-killing-machine. Neither part of the Meta-MSM fosters discussion outside the usual dem-rep-PRO-corporate-shared-reality-tunnel.

    Neither of the MSM’s wanted a Bernie or a Jill anywhere near the Presidency. Neither of the MSM’s ever offer any non-corporate-capitalist solutions. Neither of the MSM’s ever question American exceptionalism or american good intentions or the white-washed sanitized version of history….blah blah blah.

    Its not like either Fox or PBS ever had Howard Zinn come on as a regular weekly guest expert, right?

    w
    v

    We definitely agree that they block any discussion of alternative societies — egalitarian, just, equal, fair, cooperative and peaceful societies. And this is horrifically wrong. They all try to narrow the framework to just Dem versus Rep, and this is, well, blah blah blah. We are in full agreement about how bad that is, how wrong, how immoral and destructive.

    Ironically . . . back in the 1960s, you did find folks like Zinn on regular TV once in awhile. Even on entertainment shows like Mike Douglas and Merv Griffin. They’d have 60s radicals on now and then. They probably thought they could make them look bad, and usually failed, but they had them on.

    Our media has gotten far more “conservative” and corporatized by the year, at least since 1968 or so.

    I’m with Zooey. I want to leave this country and never look back. Hoping to retire to Portugal, or maybe the South of France in five years. If all goes well. I will miss my family, but they should visit often. And I’ll miss access to the Rams.

    But it’s time.

    December 5, 2017 at 8:56 pm in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78432
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    wv wrote:
    Billy_T wrote:

    Another example of a difference that matters. To me, this is outrageous and scary stuff….

    “…The Trump administration is considering a set of proposals developed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a retired CIA officer — with assistance from Oliver North, a key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal — to provide CIA Director Mike Pompeo and the White House with a global, private spy network that would circumvent official U.S. intelligence agencies…

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

    Well, that was predictable in my view. I (and others) think there is a split in the deep-state. A fracture, in the deep-state…concerning Trump. Trump ‘gets that’. Otherwise why would he want a separate intell force? He knows there’s an ‘anti-trump’ contingent in the ‘Intell community’.

    He doesnt trust a large part of the deep-state’s intell-community. He wants a group he can trust. So, he privatizes an intell-group.

    Now for me, its more “King Kong vs Godzilla” stuff. I am appalled at the monstrosity of the CIA. They are godzilla to me. A torturing, lying, enforcing subsystem of the Corporotacracy. So i dont get quite as upset about Trump creating a ‘different’ hideous, lying, enforcing, torturing thing. Trumps intell-system and the Establishment Intell systemy — King Kong vs Godzilla. Both, non-democratic hideous subsystems.

    Will Trumps private-cia be worse than the establishment-cia, Billy? The films i posted about are about Indonesia — the place where the CIA participated in the extermination of a million labor leaders, artists, academics, chinese, and ‘communists’. The CIA provided many of the names to the death squads. Goodyear benefited from the slave-labor of many of them before they were butchered.
    Will Trump’s group be worse than that?

    Maybe. But my point is, when a system is as bad as the CIA, i dont get all that upset about ANY alternative to it.

    Btw, who killed more humans in his first year as Prez – Obama or Trump? I dont know the answer to that. I really dont. Does anyone know?

    w
    v

    WV, I consider you an online friend, but stuff like this just baffles me. Honestly. Your reaction to this baffles me.

    Mostly for this reason: Trump’s attempt to add ANOTHER intel group, privatized, with Eric Prince of Blackwater fame at the helm, a hard-right, Christian fundamentalist fanatic . . . along with his family’s billions . . . . won’t prevent any of the bad stuff the CIA does. It will ADD new shit to the mix, with zero accountability.

    I could see your reaction if this was about STOPPING the CIA and various official intel organizations, reforming them, democratizing them, making them transparent and accountable to America, but it’s not. It’s like adding another rapacious horde of mongols to attack a previously safe area of Asia.

    This isn’t a Gandhi, or an Orwell, or a Camus, coming to the rescue. This is ADDING another brick in the wall of insanity, corruption and destruction.

    To me, that’s the most baffling aspect of any sort of “so what?” response from the left when it comes to Trump. He’s not OPPOSING the horrible stuff we all agree is horrible. He’s adding more of it, with his own special hard-right twist.

    Oh, well. We leftists are a diverse bunch, aren’t we?

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    December 5, 2017 at 8:16 pm in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78422
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    WV,

    If you get the time, would be interested in you fleshing out what you mean by that media split (Dem versus Rep) a bit more.

    It may well be I’ve just misread you. Wouldn’t be the first time. Won’t be the last.

    Regardless, hope all is well.

    December 5, 2017 at 8:13 pm in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78421
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    And, speaking of colluding with Israel, The Intercept has this article as well:

    https://theintercept.com/2017/12/05/michael-flynn-jared-kushner-israel-settlements-trump/

    Excerpt:

    Trump’s Transition Team Colluded With Israel. Why Isn’t That News?
    Mehdi Hasan
    December 5 2017, 11:36 a.m.

    Did the Trump campaign collude with Vladimir Putin to win the 2016 election? Maybe. We await Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s next move to learn more about that. But in the meantime, why aren’t more members of Congress or the media discussing the Trump transition team’s pretty brazen collusion with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to undermine both U.S. government policy and international law? Shouldn’t that be treated as a major scandal?

    Thanks to Mueller’s ongoing investigation, we now know that prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration, members of his inner circle went to bat on behalf of Israel, and specifically on behalf of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, behind the scenes and in opposition to official U.S. foreign policy. That’s the kind of collusion with a foreign state that has gotten a lot of attention with respect to the Kremlin – but colluding with Israel seems to be of far less interest, strangely.

    December 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78420
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Another example of a difference that matters. To me, this is outrageous and scary stuff.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/12/04/trump-white-house-weighing-plans-for-private-spies-to-counter-deep-state-enemies/

    Excerpt:

    Trump White House Weighing Plans for Private Spies to Counter “Deep State” Enemies
    Matthew Cole, Jeremy Scahill

    December 4 2017, 10:24 p.m.

    The Trump administration is considering a set of proposals developed by Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a retired CIA officer — with assistance from Oliver North, a key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal — to provide CIA Director Mike Pompeo and the White House with a global, private spy network that would circumvent official U.S. intelligence agencies, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials and others familiar with the proposals. The sources say the plans have been pitched to the White House as a means of countering “deep state” enemies in the intelligence community seeking to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency.

    The creation of such a program raises the possibility that the effort would be used to create an intelligence apparatus to justify the Trump administration’s political agenda.

    “Pompeo can’t trust the CIA bureaucracy, so we need to create this thing that reports just directly to him,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official with firsthand knowledge of the proposals, in describing White House discussions. “It is a direct-action arm, totally off the books,” this person said, meaning the intelligence collected would not be shared with the rest of the CIA or the larger intelligence community. “The whole point is this is supposed to report to the president and Pompeo directly.”

    North, who appears frequently on Trump’s favorite TV network, Fox News, was enlisted to help sell the effort to the administration. He was the “ideological leader” brought in to lend credibility, said the former senior intelligence official.

    Some of the individuals involved with the proposals secretly met with major Trump donors asking them to help finance operations before any official contracts were signed.

    December 5, 2017 at 8:06 pm in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78419
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    WV,

    I’m not getting the distinction between “Dem-Media” and “Rep-Media” that you’re talking about, unless you mean opinion pieces and partisan shows, outside the “straight news” coverage. If you’re talking about a Maddow versus a Hannity, and so on, yeah. You have Dem versus Republican. But even there, there’s asymmetry when it comes to the use of facts, which partisans like Maddow are much better at than their counterparts on the right. The partisanship is still destructive. But one side is a lot better when it comes to facts.

    But if you’re talking about just regular news reporting at outlets like the NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, then I’m not seeing it. In fact, I think they’re tougher on the Dems overall than the Republicans, relative to what each party actually does. And there are several reasons for this, the two biggies being:

    1. Virtually every MSM company is owned and managed by center-right folks. Conservatives, with conservative, corporate agendas. There’s not a left of center management/ownership group among them, as far as I know.

    2. They fear being labelled with the “liberal bias” smear. They act accordingly.

    And, again, if it’s the cumulative tally of negative coverage that makes you believe in this split, the GOP is objectively guilty of more shit than the Dems. It would be a distortion to try to even this up, and the MSM tries to all too often.

    Bottom line for me: The MSM at the ownership and management level is more in line with GOP ideology than Democratic Party ideology, though on key issues, like economics, taxation, war, empire and so on, the two parties are not that far apart. The Dems are best buds with the powers that be, but the GOP makes love to them. They get a far better deal from the GOP.

    December 5, 2017 at 3:43 pm in reply to: The Millionaire Next Door #78406
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Hey, Ozone, hope all is well.

    * Our household’s total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.

    That was a lot to get through, so I skimmed. But this part jumped out at me. Noting, of course, this is from 1997, not now, I’m still puzzled by his claim of median income. Does he mean the median for millionaires? Or overall?

    Cuz last time I checked, the median income for an individual in America was roughly 30K, and roughly 55K per household. Logically, it would have been even lower back in 1997, but maybe not by a lot, cuz rank and file wages have stagnated since 1973.

    Guessing you either read the book or read the article with more care than I did. Do you know what he was referring to as “median” income?

    December 5, 2017 at 10:47 am in reply to: Trump ordered the privatization of two million protected acres today. #78398
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    wv wrote:

    PS — dont know if you know who Don Blankenship is, BT (he’s from my neck of the woods), but this i think reflects ‘the situation’ now, in the USA.

    He’s running for Senate :>)

    link:http://grist.org/briefly/convicted-coal-baron-don-blankenship-is-running-for-u-s-senate/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily

    w
    v

    Did not know about him. Pretty sick stuff. The mountain top removal issue is widespread in your home state, as you know. One of the great tragedies of our time. And Trump promised to bring back Big Coal.

    This isn’t going to end well.

    December 5, 2017 at 10:45 am in reply to: Trump ordered the privatization of two million protected acres today. #78397
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Economic inequality is THE issue of the day. It drives everything else, and it’s almost never been this bad. But, again, this is baked into the capitalist pie. Capitalism generates massive inequality “naturally.” So we’re talking about degrees, and those are primarily dependent upon the amount of democratic checks and balances to capitalist power. But as long as we have capitalism, no amount of checks will rid us of horrific levels of inequality, or pollution and environmental destruction. The only answer is to replace capitalism itself with actual democracy.

    Leave it alone, and you’re going to have sultans and slaves. Tweak it a bit, and you get stuff in between that. But the system itself guarantees steeper hierarchies of wealth, privilege, access and power than any other economic system before it. And it’s the first “imperialist” economic system in history. All on its own. Via its own internal dynamic and mechanics. It must grow or die and unify all previously independent, local markets under one roof. For most of its history, it did this through violence. This means it must also extract natural resources more and more aggressively. It has zero incentives to protect them.

    There are now roughly six people in the world with as much wealth as the bottom half (3.75 billion people.) The 18th century denizens of Versailles would blush at such obscene levels of inequality. Marie Antoinette would likely apologize for his talk of cakes and such.

    December 5, 2017 at 10:25 am in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78396
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    It’s also worth noting the factors that tilted the election in favor of Trump and the Republicans, which also led to more coverage about this by the media. None of this should ever have happened:

    1. Wikileaks’ being in the tank for Trump and the GOP. We now have a concrete paper trail showing that Assange directly offered help to the Trump campaign, and we know he gave it to them. Directly. And the timing? Their doc dump happened right after the Access Hollywood tapes hit. How convenient!

    The Wikileaks connection to the Russians is less clear, but likely.

    2. Comey went public with the Clinton investigation during the campaign, twice. But he withheld the fact that Trump was being investigated too. This also distorted media coverage and was likely a big factor in Trump winning.

    . . . .

    I voted for Stein, and couldn’t stand either candidate. But I think it’s a major misreading of what happened to suggest that media coverage was “pro-Clinton.” I also think it’s a huge misreading of things to think that the powers that be preferred Clinton over Trump.

    The Dems and Clinton are quite good for those powers that be. Like really good friends. But the GOP and Trump are exponentially better. They’re more than just friends. They’re lovers.

    (Again, I wish both parties would go away.)

    December 5, 2017 at 10:12 am in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78395
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    And painting EITHER of them as “better” just insures destruction.

    On this we part. It’s just not the job of the media to consciously try to paint the two parties as the same. They aren’t. Again, it distorts reality if they do. And I don’t think they do try to paint one party as “better” than the other. Media is almost always in the business of presenting what’s wrong. The negative. The bad. How often do they ever talk about what’s right, what’s good, what’s “better” about things?

    If it bleeds, it leads.

    But, again, if the cumulative effect of presenting the mountains of horrible, odious shit committed by the GOP and the political right, versus the smaller mountains of odious shit committed by the Dems and the political center, results in folks seeing the Dems as the lesser of two evils . . . well, I think that’s accurate, fair and definitely helpful. Because, whether we like it or not — and I hate it — the two parties rule all. And there really is a difference between them. The GOP really is significantly worse for the planet, for workers, for women and minorities. They really are far more aggressively in the tank for plutocrats. So when our choices suck, and when BOTH parties suck, and when BOTH parties do horrible things, but one party is significantly worse than the other — and it is — logic demands our media make that clear to everyone. Not via the Op Ed route, but via flat out telling the truth.

    If it’s doing its job, it’s also making clear that neither party should be in power, that neither party has earned that, and that America would be far, far better off with leftists in charge. But we’re not going to get that. So the next best thing? Be truthful about the differences between the two controlling parties.

    Btw, speaking of “planet killing,” did you see my post on Trump’s new executive order privatizing two million (formerly) protected acres in Utah? The Dems don’t do things like that. In fact, Obama set it aside to begin with.

    December 5, 2017 at 9:57 am in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78394
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant
    wv wrote:
    Billy_T wrote:

    Something to keep in mind when we look at media coverage and do compare and contrast.

    If Joe Smith commits dozens of crimes, and Bob Jones commits a few, and “the media” cover them as they happen, in accordance with what happened, it’s going to appear they’re being “unfair” to Joe Smith.

    If they wanted to be “fair and balanced,” they’d take six crimes from Smith, and six crimes from Jones, and deal with that. But it would distort reality.

    Between the two criminal money parties, the GOP is aggressively worse, and if the media cover what they do as it happens, and what the Dems do as it happens, it’s going to appear to be “unfair.” Because the GOP simply does more ugly, odious shit than the Dems, and that’s been the case at least since the 1960s, and during stretches prior to that.

    Same thing goes with Trump versus whomever. If the media tries to “balance” coverage so that they don’t report most of the ugly, racist, deeply corrupt shit Trump does, so it looks like it’s all a lot more even with Dem ugliness, that distorts reality and that’s not “helpful.”

    They need to just report what happens and say to hell with trying to artificially manipulate “balance” between the parties. There isn’t any.

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

    Well my view overlaps some with that, but also diverges. If the media only covers the Dems and the Reps, and only compares/contrasts the TWO corporate-planet-killers and ignores the other parties (such as the green party, socialist parties etc) then i think what you have is a corporate propaganda system. And since its a corporate propaganda system, i dont get all ‘into’ the idea that the media should hammer the reps more than the dems. That just plays into the hands of the Dem-powers-that-be.

    Its like if you have Godzilla, King Kong, and Mr Rogers running for President. And lets say, Godzilla is worse than King Kong. But King Kong is still a city-stomper. Well, i dont really care if the MSM says Godzilla is better than King Kong, or if the media says King Kong is better than Godzilla. Because both are city-killers. And painting EITHER of them as “better” just insures destruction.
    But Mister Rogers is running too…so, if the MSM is ignoring Mister Rogers….then its a propaganda system and thats all it is.

    I’m exaggerating to make a point, of course.

    w
    v

    I like the Godzilla versus King Kong analogy. We both agree that the media shouldn’t be concentrating just on the two parties. I think that’s horrifically bad for this country and have mentioned that countless times. Our political conversation is among the most narrow in the world, in fact, because of the duopoly’s monopoly and stranglehold on the system . . . which serves the powers that be in so many ways . . . chief among them is to block all discussion of alternatives to our economic system, which powers everything else. We don’t get to discuss ending empire, wars, protecting the planet, ending the surveillance state, ending the carceral state, etc. etc. . . . because the two parties are it. Virtually nothing outside them is discussed, except when it comes to scapegoating:

    “Jill Stein voters gave us Trump!!!”

    Bullshit.

    Anyway, on the topic above, I think we’re closer than you may have considered. Will add more thots later . . .

    December 4, 2017 at 7:28 pm in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78367
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    WV,

    I’ve mentioned the China Mieville’s book, October, before.

    You really need to read it. He deals with the civil war in part, though he concentrates primarily on the lead up to the October revolution. (Recently read new translation of Doctor Zhivago, which spends more time on the civil war. Excellent novel.) Amazing history, and he shows the complexity of it all, how it could have gone in a thousand different directions, hundreds of different times. The wind blew and stuff changed on a dime so often, it’s incredible.

    Nothing was inevitable.

    And, yes, our support of the Whites was unconscionable, and the West’s in general. I’ve long believed that if we had stepped into help early on, we could have helped a true democracy take hold, if we had just rid ourselves of our ignorance regarding socialism. It never had to get to the point wherein the Bolsheviks made their move . . . and even after that, we could have prevented their inward and dictatorial turn by embracing them, instead of fighting on the other side in their civil war and then embargoing them.

    America made that mistake countless times after that, too. It was monstrous for us to invade Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and countless coups and covert wars in between. The world would have been a much more peaceful, prosperous place if we hadn’t.

    But all of that said, for me, none of that excuses what Trump and his campaign did to win the election. To me, it’s not relevant. I condemn it all.

    December 4, 2017 at 7:19 pm in reply to: Robert Reich on the Russia investigation #78365
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Something to keep in mind when we look at media coverage and do compare and contrast.

    If Joe Smith commits dozens of crimes, and Bob Jones commits a few, and “the media” cover them as they happen, in accordance with what happened, it’s going to appear they’re being “unfair” to Joe Smith.

    If they wanted to be “fair and balanced,” they’d take six crimes from Smith, and six crimes from Jones, and deal with that. But it would distort reality.

    Between the two criminal money parties, the GOP is aggressively worse, and if the media cover what they do as it happens, and what the Dems do as it happens, it’s going to appear to be “unfair.” Because the GOP simply does more ugly, odious shit than the Dems, and that’s been the case at least since the 1960s, and during stretches prior to that.

    Same thing goes with Trump versus whomever. If the media tries to “balance” coverage so that they don’t report most of the ugly, racist, deeply corrupt shit Trump does, so it looks like it’s all a lot more even with Dem ugliness, that distorts reality and that’s not “helpful.”

    They need to just report what happens and say to hell with trying to artificially manipulate “balance” between the parties. There isn’t any.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 30 posts - 2,311 through 2,340 (of 4,322 total)
1 2 3 … 77 78 79 … 143 144 145