Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

“….But I also reject and detest and find despicable right-wing efforts to demonize opponents, and the escalation of those efforts that increasingly seem more and more unhinged. The bogus Seth Rich story is a part of that…”

Except Sy Hersh is hardly a rightwing nutjob pushing a rightwing conspiracy theory.

w
v

This issue . . . It’s one of those “no dog in this race” kinds of things for me. I don’t take it personally. I don’t feel any personal animosity toward anyone with a different view. It’s okay. As the young kids used to say, whatever.

That said, yeah. I think Hersch is falling hook, line and sinker for a far-right fake news conspiracy, straight out of the Alex Jones school of trumped up idiocy. He should know better. And I know he’s not a RWNJ. But, IMO, he’s fallen for a RWNJ fake news story.

Anyway, hope we can just agree to disagree, etc. And with that, I’m bowing out of this one.

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

Sure we can agree to disagree. No big thing. I just dont think Hersh is that naive, BT. I dont think he’s on the same planet as Alex Jones.

w
v

“….But I also reject and detest and find despicable right-wing efforts to demonize opponents, and the escalation of those efforts that increasingly seem more and more unhinged. The bogus Seth Rich story is a part of that…”

Except Sy Hersh is hardly a rightwing nutjob pushing a rightwing conspiracy theory.

w
v

Noam on health care:http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41488-noam-chomsky-on-how-the-united-states-developed-such-a-scandalous-health-system

“….All of this is part of the background for the US departure in health care from the norm of the OECD, and even less privileged societies. But there are deeper reasons why the US is an “outlier” in health care and social justice generally. These trace back to unusual features of American history. Unlike other developed state capitalist industrial democracies, the political economy and social structure of the United States developed in a kind of tabula rasa. The expulsion or mass killing of Indigenous nations cleared the ground for the invading settlers, who had enormous resources and ample fertile lands at their disposal, and extraordinary security for reasons of geography and power. That led to the rise of a society of individual farmers, and also, thanks to slavery, substantial control of the product that fueled the industrial revolution: cotton, the foundation of manufacturing, banking, commerce, retail for both the United States and Britain, and less directly, other European societies. Also relevant is the fact that the country has actually been at war for 500 years with little respite, a history that has created “the richest, most powerful and ultimately most militarized nation in world history,” as scholar Walter Hixson has documented.

For similar reasons, American society lacked the traditional social stratification and autocratic political structure of Europe, and the various measures of social support that developed unevenly and erratically. There has been ample state intervention in the economy from the outset — dramatically in recent years — but without general support systems.

As a result, US society is, to an unusual extent, business-run, with a highly class-conscious business community dedicated to “the everlasting battle for the minds of men.” The business community is also set on containing or demolishing the “political power of the masses,” which it deems as a serious “hazard to industrialists” (to sample some of the rhetoric of the business press during the New Deal years, when the threat to the overwhelming dominance of business power seemed real)….

….

…..Why aren’t Americans demanding — not simply expressing a preference for in survey polls — access to a universal health care system?

They are indeed expressing a preference, over a long period. Just to give one telling illustration, in the late Reagan years 70 percent of the adult population thought that health care should be a constitutional guarantee, and 40 percent thought it already was in the Constitution since it is such an obviously legitimate right. Poll results depend on wording and nuance, but they have quite consistently, over the years, shown strong and often large majority support for universal health care — often called “Canadian-style,” not because Canada necessarily has the best system, but because it is close by and observable. The early ACA proposals called for a “public option.” It was supported by almost two-thirds of the population, but was dropped without serious consideration, presumably as part of a compact with financial institutions. The legislative bar to government negotiation of drug prices was opposed by 85 percent, also disregarded — again, presumably, to prevent opposition by the pharmaceutical giants. The preference for universal health care is particularly remarkable in light of the fact that there is almost no support or advocacy in sources that reach the general public and virtually no discussion in the public domain.

The facts about public support for universal health care receive occasional comment, in an interesting way. When running for president in 2004, Democrat John Kerry, the New York Times reported, “took pains… to say that his plan for expanding access to health insurance would not create a new government program,” because “there is so little political support for government intervention in the health care market in the United States.” At the same time, polls in the Wall Street Journal, Businessweek, the Washington Post and other media found overwhelming public support for government guarantees to everyone of “the best and most advanced health care that technology can supply.”

But that is only public support. The press reported correctly that there was little “political support” and that what the public wants is “politically impossible” — a polite way of saying that the financial and pharmaceutical industries will not tolerate it, and in American democracy, that’s what counts.

Returning to your question, it raises a crucial question about American democracy: Why isn’t the population “demanding” what it strongly prefers? Why is it allowing concentrated private capital to undermine necessities of life in the interests of profit and power? The “demands” are hardly utopian. They are commonly satisfied elsewhere, even in sectors of the US system. Furthermore, the demands could readily be implemented even without significant legislative breakthroughs. For example, by steadily reducing the age for entry to Medicare.
Truthout Progressive Pick
Optimism Over Despair: Noam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change

The new anthology from Truthout and Haymarket Books collects wide-ranging interviews with the acclaimed public intellectual and critic of US policy.
Click here now to get the book!

The question directs our attention to a profound democratic deficit in an atomized society, lacking the kind of popular associations and organizations that enable the public to participate in a meaningful way in determining the course of political, social and economic affairs. These would crucially include a strong and participatory labor movement and actual political parties growing from public deliberation and participation instead of the elite-run candidate-producing groups that pass for political parties. What remains is a depoliticized society in which a majority of voters (barely half the population even in the super-hyped presidential elections, much less in others) are literally disenfranchised, in that their representatives disregard their preferences while effective decision-making lies largely in the hands of tiny concentrations of wealth and corporate power, as study after study reveals.

The prevailing situation reminds us of the words of America’s leading twentieth-century social philosopher, John Dewey, much of whose work focused on democracy and its failures and promise. Dewey deplored the domination by “business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda” and recognized that “Power today resides in control of the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Whoever owns them rules the life of the country,” even if democratic forms remain. Until those institutions are in the hands of the public, he continued, politics will remain “the shadow cast on society by big business.”

This was not a voice from the marginalized far left, but from the mainstream of liberal thought.

Turning finally to your question again, a rather general answer, which applies in its specific way to contemporary western democracies, was provided by David Hume over 250 years ago, in his classic study Of the First Principles of Government. Hume found

nothing more surprising than to see the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and to observe the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is brought about, we shall find, that as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. ‘Tis therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.

Implicit submission is not imposed by laws of nature or political theory. It is a choice, at least in societies such as ours, which enjoys the legacy provided by the struggles of those who came before us. Here power is indeed “on the side of the governed,” if they organize and act to gain and exercise it. That holds for health care and for much else.” see link

Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Another part of my reaction to all of this:

I don’t really “blame” Russia for wanting to manipulate elections around the world. It actually makes a lot of sense, in a Game of Thrones sort of way. And it’s what all the great powers have done, in one form or another, using the tech of the day, ever since we first had those elections . . . and before that, palace intrigue and so on.

We do it. They do it. All the powers do it.

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

Ok if Trump is Cercei….who is/was Hillary? And who is Putin? And who is Bernie :>)

w
v

;>)

I’d like to see everyone weigh on on this.

I don’t know. Bernie as Davos Seaworth? Putin as Euron? Hillary as a much older, much more bitter Sansa?

I don’t know if there’s a Danaerys or a Jon Snow on the horizon. But we definitely could use a Tyrion, or two, or three. And, well, Missandei. Perhaps Naomi Klein?

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

Ok now I’m bringing HEAT — Hillary is SANSA? No way, dude. Sansa is…is…good…and…nice….and…good.

Hillary is Cersei. Trump is…the Night King? The Night Clown?

🙂
w
v

Billy_T wrote:

What’s your personal take on him, WV?

This part of Trump’s speech struck me as especially moronic:

“Most people know there were no Russians in our campaign; there never were,”

It’s as if he thinks most adults don’t get that people can cut deals across national borders. Ya know, people from different countries and all. Like, um, you don’t have to have actual Russians in your campaign to collude with them. And, of course, it helps that so many live in Trump Tower in the first place.

WV, I seriously can’t wait until all of this is over, if I survive it, that is . . .

Hope all is well —

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

Well, see I just think Trump has been evil-ly-brilliant since his loss on Obamacare. He’s switched channels and gone straight to what his base loves — immigration and hatred of the elite-media.

I think his remarks about russia are dead perfect for his base. They love it.

The next election will probably be another close one, i guess, BT. I dunno. Unless Bernie somehow gets the nomination. And the Dems are in bloodbath mode against Bern.

w
v

Billy_T wrote:

But the CIA is only one part of that, WV, and, again, the various intel organizations typically fight each other on issue after issue. They virtually never agree. But on this they do.

And that trust thing cuts many ways. It’s logical to be highly skeptical of any government’s intel community. But that includes Russia’s, too. Or any government’s “official story.” But that includes Russia’s too. So what are we left with, when it’s the competing stories of institutions we can’t really trust? Media. Corporations, etc. etc.

Common sense and logic. And it’s not logical, IMO, to assume that the DNC put out a hit on a staffer, even if we do say he leaked the info, and there’s no proof whatsoever that he did. Common sense and logic also tell us that, given Russia’s superiority in this realm — we’re superior in military and economic might; they’re superior in cyberland — Russia would focus on what they’re really, really good at . . . and would do what they did in Europe:

Push the far right parties and candidates to the degree possible. In America, that’s Trump/Bannon/Breitbart/Alt-right, etc. In France it was Le Pen. In the Netherlands, Wilders. And so on.

IMO, we’re waaay past all of this. It’s a done deal. It happened. We need to do whatever we can to prevent it from happening again, and to hold our own government accountable for its interference in elections overseas too.

Fuck both parties and both empires, in short. Or, as you’ve called them, gangster governments.

I just keep coming back to my sense of raw puzzlement over these discussions by some public figures/journalists. We just don’t have to choose sides here, but it seems some of these people think we do.

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

But the CIA also Cooperates with many ‘Intell agencies’ (and i hate that term ‘Intelligence’ — i’d rather just call them professional torture-lie-and-murder-agencies).

I think the corporotacracy/deep-state/whatever expands outside one nation. I think oftentimes many ‘intell’ agencies cooperate in the game of ‘protect and expand global corporate-capitalism.

As far as ‘trusting russian Intell’ yes, we should be wary of that. But I’m listening to Sy Hersh — is HE a member of Russian Intell? He’s a maverick. He’s been right about a LOT of things in the past. Has he suddenly gone stupid? Who knows more about ‘Intell’ than Sy Hersh?

At any rate, i dont know who ‘put out a hit’ on the guy. I have no idea. I ‘am’ interested in whether he gave the info to Wiki.

w
v

PS — that last Hersh Vid. Part 2 its called. The one on Syria. Go to about the 13 minute mark, and listen for five mins or so. Its about what the CIA did with Syria’s old chemical-gas stuff. I dont think anyone but Hersh has talked about this. It was dumped into the ocean off the coast of Italy. Just dumped. In the water.

I know, what a shock that the CIA/Pentagon/Corporotacracy would do something like that.

w
v

Yeah, i have the opposite view, but we know we disagree on this one.

Why do you think he’s wrong? He seems awfully sure that he’s right.

w
v

What is each character’s main Flaw?

J.Snow ?
Mother of Dragons?
Little Finger?
Tyrion?
Cersei?
Jamie?
Arya?
Sansa?
Three Eyed Raven?
Hound?

w
v

zn wrote:

My take on GOT is this. When it doesn;t work, it;s a lot of contrivance where you have to overlook things. So do I not believe all the following: Arya gained access to the Frey castle, killed the 2 sons, and had the whole kitchen to herself to cut them up and then cook them into pies (can Arya even cook?) All so we get the scene of old Frey eating the cannibal pie? That asks you to forgive too much.

But more often than not, the set pieces remain top notch. And what’s strong about the show continues to work.

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

Well if u hate Game of Thrones so much, why dont you go to North Korea
and watch it.

w
v