Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
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.
Billy_TParticipantA rightwing response to Kimmel:
WV,
I didn’t hear a single truth escape from Shapiro’s mouth. Not one. Not one of his criticisms of Kimmel was true. And I always find it utterly laughable when right-wingers claim “the left” is attacking the right solely on issues of “intent” or “motives.” Anyone who has spent any time online, arguing against folks on the right, knows at best, on their best day, the right does that at least as much. My own experience is that they do it far more, are more hysterical about it, and more vicious. On balance, “the left” is far more measured and more likely to discuss the issues, instead of the person.
But the most important lie he delivers is to say no regulation could have prevented this. I list several above that would have saved most, if not all of the people who died, and most, if not all the gun shot injuries. And none of that would run afoul of an actual objective reading of the 2nd Amendment, which people like Shapiro can’t do. They can only do the usual right-wing revisionist reading. A great example of this is their bizarre insistence that the founders wanted everyone to have “military grade weaponry” and that this somehow is future-proofed to include all new technological improvements.
First of all, there is NOTHING in the amendment that remotely points to that fantasy, and second, the difference between “civilian” and “military grade” in the 1780s was non-existent. It was all single-shot, load powder and ball one at a time. Maybe, if you were super fast, you could get off two or three shots a minute, and it made no difference if you were a hunter or a soldier. Same weaponry.
In short, he’s full of shit.
Billy_TParticipantBTW: did anyone watch Jimmy Kimmel’s moving address to this issue?
=============
====
w
vI watched it, WV. Kimmel has been really good, in relative terms, on social issues lately. He’s showing a lot of guts. Anyone who talks about gun control in public is doing that, because they likely will receive death threats.
IMO, people who publicly advocate for strict gun control are heroes, at least when it comes to that issue. Not only is it the sane, rational and logical thing to do, they may be risking life and limb by doing it.
Billy_TParticipantWaterfield,
Interesting idea. I was listening to NPR this evening, on my way toward some communing with Nature and reading — we have a pretty cool new arboretum nearby — and I heard some interviews of gun-rights folks in the Vegas area. Most of what they said made me want to punch a hole through the roof of my car, but in retrospect, one of the more “moderate” interviewees had an interesting comment along the lines you raise.
He talked about the rush people get by firing those automatic weapons, and he basically, kinda sorta, suggested the reporter should do so. Again, I’m thinking about punching a hole through my car roof as he’s saying this. I’m saying to myself, your blankety blank pleasure in firing those guns isn’t worth one single life, and that IS the trade off in existence. No one’s “freedom” to blow up shit is worth a single life. Not one. Not even one single injury. It’s the height of extremism and selfishness to put your pleasure above other lives.
But . . . hmmm. Not that they would agree to this, cuz the vast majority of gun-rights folks are absolutists and won’t budge an inch. But if they’d trade their guns for the ability to rent ’em and use ’em in one spot, in a shooting range, etc. etc. . . . I could go with that. Make them illegal to own, to have in one’s possession, except in designated, licensed places ONLY, and maybe there’s some room for compromise.
But if they say no, then I think the only answer is to match their absolutism with our own. Ban all bullets.
That, as mentioned, goes beyond the issue of militias. Even if you remove that clause, there is still no “right” to a loaded weapon, or bullets, or firing of those weapons. All it says, with or without the militia clause, is “keep and bear arms.”
Not a word there about ammo or actually using the weapons. Not even implied.
Hope all is well, W.
Billy_TParticipantHere’s a video on how easy it is to make semi-automatic into automatic through a “bump stock”. The bump stock is perfectly legal by the way.
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2013/09/11/n-rifle-machine-gun-slide-fire.cnnmoney/index.html
Which is why it’s not even enough to try to limit the kinds of semi-automatics we allow via number of rounds. For the Dems, this is usually 10.
To me, that’s just insane. Make them ALL illegal. Dial back the capacity of weaponry to six shots, max, which must be loaded by hand, one bullet at a time. The reason why ANY kind of semi makes mass shooting easy is because you can slam in a magazine in seconds and start firing again.
Gun nuts want zero restrictions on that or numbers of rounds. Dems counter with limiting the rounds. Both are dead wrong.
Just limit all legal weaponry to internal chambers only. Problem solved. You can’t gerry-rig that to fire automatically. It’s internal chambers only.
Just flat out make it illegal to have detachable ammo containers of any kind, regardless of rounds.
One’s “self-defense” is kept in place. “Keep and bear arms” is kept in place. But you save lives.
I honestly don’t see how anyone could argue against that, or for the need for more firepower and capacity.
Billy_TParticipantAnother major point here: Even Republicans in Congress accept that we can ban automatic weapons. Right off the bat, that blows anyone’s argument that gun rights are absolute and we can’t regulate them. The ban on automatic weaponry blows that insane idea out of the water. It sets a limit. So the issue starts out with regulations already in place, and it’s just a question of WHERE we draw the line.
If it can be drawn at automatic weaponry, it can be drawn at detachable ammo containers. It can be drawn at six bullets max per gun, with hand-loading, one at a time, being necessary. It can be drawn at limiting range, and quantity, and lethality. It can be drawn at no armor piercing bullets, etc.
Get folks to the table for compromise on this by being every bit as maximalist as the gun nuts. You want to stick with your absolutism? We have an answer. We ban ALL bullets. Want to get some of those bullets back? Come to the table and negotiate in good faith.
Billy_TParticipantListening to various Republicans talk about why we can’t prevent this drives me up a wall. Their slavish devotion to a radically stupid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment — an archaic, totally unnecessary “right”, set up to protect the state FROM American citizens, especially slaves — is the true “anti-American” position.
By definition, we could stop this carnage. No rational human being can make a legitimate argument that we can’t.
The gunman purchased 47 weapons, legally — that we know of so far. Most had rapid fire capabilities, and long range. He killed dozens of people and wounded more than 500 BECAUSE he could shoot rapidly and from far away. By definition, if you make that impossible, he can’t do that.
Ban all weaponry with detachable ammo. Max out the firepower of weaponry at a six-shooter, with internal chambers only. No possibility to slap in dozens of rounds in one motion, in seconds. Force the shooter to reload by hand, one bullet at a time, and stop the manufacture, sale, import, export, trade, exchange, gifting, etc. etc. of long-range weaponry. There is no justification, via self-defense, or hunting, for long-range capabilities, or rapid-fire capabilities, and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect them. It only protects “keep and bear arms” if you’re in a state militia, which also means bullets have no Constitutional protections, either. Or usage of any weapon.
It’s not in that amendment. Nothing about bullets or actually using the weapon. And if someone says, “Well, that’s all assumed.” No, it’s not. It was assumed at the time that people would load their single-shot weapons when needed. They didn’t walk around with them loaded. And “bear arms” means “present arms.” It says noting about actually firing them.
Almost no one is talking this, but the 2nd amendment is actually toothless. It can EASILY be bypassed via several routes, the most devastating one, at least for gun fanatics, is the one about bullets. We could literally ban every bullet on the market and we’d still adhere to the 2nd amendment, even if we throw out the part about militias.
It’s time to attack this insanity from that and so many other angles. It’s time to end this carnage.
Billy_TParticipantFrom Sandy Hook to Los Vegas: I grieve.
I’m more than heart-broken, TSRF. I’m outraged. And in my view, the blood of the dead is on the hands of anyone who fights against gun control — from either party. Strict gun control. They are indirectly responsible for all 59 deaths and everyone injured. And I don’t give a shit about anyone saying it’s not time to talk about guns. It’s ALWAYS time to talk about our insane laws, or lack thereof, that make this possible.
The Second Amendment doesn’t protect anyone’s right to slaughter Americans. If it did, then that’s all the more reason to end it. There is no Second Amendment protection for buying unlimited weapons, with unlimited firepower, world without end. All that amendment says is that if you’re in a state militia — which no longer exist — you can keep and bear arms. It doesn’t protect bullets, or using arms. Just keeping and bearing them, and bearing them meant presenting them at the time in military processions.
We can do serious gun control under the SA, now. The ONLY thing standing in our way are right-wing, anti-American, hate-filled, gun fanatic cretins who only care about their own gun fetishism and their own desire to compensate. There are zero legal obstacles to serious gun control, and that would include banning any kind of weapon we want to. As long as we leave just ONE kind of gun on the market, we fulfill the “keep and bear arms” part of the SA. And since the amendment offers NO protection for bullets, or usage of guns, we could also ban the thing that makes them usable.
My own suggestions for saving tens of thousands of lives each year are the following:
1. Test, license and register all guns/gun owners. Just like car and driver. Retest them yearly.
2. Ban all detachable ammo containers. Ban the parts. Ban all guns that can use them. Ban all magazines, clips, etc.
3. Limit guns to internal chambers only. Must hand load bullets, one at a time. Limit of six chambers per gun.
4. Universal background checks. No exceptions
5. Smart gun tech. Required on all guns.
6. Mass, nationwide gun buyback program. Melt them down.
7. End the ban on government studies of gun violence. Establish permanent departments for year-round study in the CDC, HHS and NIH, completely independent from partisan interference.
8. Push Hollywood to stop glorifying guns and gun violence. If they don’t voluntarily change, establish restrictions via ratings and taxation. Make it very, very expensive for Hollywood to continue depicting slaughter if it’s gratuitous and romanticizes violence.
9. End conceal carry laws in all states through a federal override. End all open carry laws through a federal override. End all “stand your ground” laws through a federal override.
10. Educate American kids that gun ownership radically increases the risk of death, in the home and on the street.For starters.
Billy_TParticipantSo, yeah, when is it okay to protest social injustice? For far too many white Americans, “never” is their answer. “Shut up and clap louder!” is what they want Americans to do.
Fuck that.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, ZN.
That article is spot on. Direct, to the point, and spot on.
I think it’s rather stunning how the political right has managed to spin this and redirect the narrative their way.
Boiled down, the political right can trash certain Americans up and down, back and forth, morning, noon and night, and it’s not, supposedly, “an attack on America.”
They can say the most disgusting, vile, heinous things about people of color, leftists, feminists, environmentalists, antiwar activists, union activists, gay people, etc. etc. . . . harass them, oppress them physically, discriminate against them, lie about them, demonize them and worse, say they’re destroying America, blame them for every bad thing that has ever happened . . . and that’s apparently not an “attack on America.”
But a black athlete, speaking out against social injustice? That’s an “attack on America”?
America has lost it’s fucking mind. And that article reminds us, this insanity goes back to Day One.
Billy_TParticipantHave you read any good books lately?
Oryx and Crake.
.
Have not read that. Read her Handmaid’s Tale, which I loved — (Have not seen Hulu show).
Recently finished rereading Dr. Zhivago, via a new(er) translation. Impressed once again with Pasternak’s vision. But the book is uneven. It doesn’t all work for me, and I think he needed a stronger editor, telling him, maybe cut a few characters and scenes. Tighten it up. But there are moments of true genius in the work, and on balance, well worth reading. David Lean’s great movie sticks with it for the most part, but veers away in some parts. The ending is quite different, more “romantic” in the movie, for instance.
Also finished Happy Moscow, by the great and unfairly neglected Andrei Platonov. Liked it, but it’s not as good as his Soul or the even greater The Foundation Pit. Just a one of a kind writer, a true genius, IMO. Mixes the surreal with Dada, plus all kinds of whimsical non-sequiturs that make you smile. All with an undercurrent of stoic tragic sense of life.
Kind of like, Boris Vian meets Samuel Beckett meets Kafka, within the context of the early Soviet State. If you haven’t read him, I’d recommend The Foundation Pit as starting point.
Billy_TParticipantI think you always have. I don’t believe in “historical inevitability/necessity” and I’ve mentioned that several times.
And that is not what I said BT. Or anything like it.
You’re misreading as much as you seem to conclude I am.
People misread all the time. It’s the net, it happens. It’s part of the net. You’re doing it now, in what I quote. It’s not something we take umbrage at, or get personal about. People either straighten it out assuming good faith, or they drop the subject.
Okay,
So we’re both really messing up!!
;>)
Let’s start over, then.
Have you read any good books lately?
Billy_TParticipantWell, it looks like I posted before you altered your own.
Yeah, I can easily assume no malice. But if I think you’re misreading me, even with all the best intentions in the world, don’t you think it makes sense to correct the record?
Again, I don’t see that we’re far apart on “history” at all. I do think we’re far apart on what “socialism(s)” mean, etc. And how certain theories can function within an enemy camp. I just don’t see it working — again, historically, practically, pragmatically.
Am I glad to see aspects of it fighting for their space within the greater neoliberal framework? Definitely. That’s why I’d greatly prefer Sanders to any of the current folks running. And why I’d prefer European social democracy even to Sanders, whom I see as being a bit to the right of European versions.
But I want the whole thing, and I don’t think it can ever come close to doing what it’s supposed to do, as long as it only has fractions of a partial space to work with.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by
Billy_T.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by
-
AuthorPosts
