Maybe We're Just Screwed, Simple as That

Submitted by Big Al on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 9:57am

In the last installment of "Big Al's Written Record for the CIA, NSA and FBI", I proposed a national referendum against oligarchy and plutocracy and for democracy and freedom.

That was two days ago. I had done some reading about the vote for independence in Catalonia and became inspired to publicly voice the proposal. I was like, "ya baby, let's have us a referendum! Let's go get us some FREEDOM!! Yippie Kay Yay MFers!"

Today I read more articles on the situation in Spain and have a different inspiration.

Maybe we can't do shit about anything.

Don't mistake that for giving up. That's not an option when you consider the stakes. It would be like watching a rape across the street and not calling 911. Or like leaving the scene of a horrifying accident because you're late for work. You might not stop the rape or save anyone at the accident but you have to try. Most people anyway. Not all, that's for sure.

When you consider the stakes. Does anyone consider the stakes anymore?

I read about the Spanish government crackdown on the Catalonians trying to exercise their human right to vote, to have a voice in how they live, how their lives are governed. I read about how the independence movement is primarily an attempt by the Catalan bourgeoisie to carve out an independent capitalist nation-state that would immediately seek membership in the European Union and NATO. I read about how the repression in Spain is part of an accelerating turn to authoritarian forms of rule throughout Europe. I read about past revolutions and how the rich always end up back in power, somehow, some way. I think about Trump and this country. I think about the ignorance, the propaganda, the apathy, the divisions, the differences.

I think about our political system. The one where we elect 537 people to make the decisions for this country and call that democracy. The one that is completely controlled by the rich and powerful, the corporations and banks, the One Percenters who own nearly everything. The one that gave us the choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as president. The one that requires us to have a president. We must have a president, that's how humans roll, there is no other way.

Maybe we're doomed to a sort of Groundhog's Day existence where every two to four years some of us, those that still believe, go vote for politicians to make our decisions for us. Maybe that's all there is to life. Keep electing millionaires and billionaires, who knows, maybe someday we'll be lucky enough to have a trillionaire for president, pending verification by their tax returns of course. Maybe that's what most people want, therefore it will be. We wouldn't want a trillionaire president without verification, that would be like, cheap, un-American.

Destiny.

Maybe there's nothing we can do about it. We're all humans destined to be ruled by the rich, controlled by the cream of the crop, the sociopathic and psychopathic among us who covet all the power, gold and riches the world can produce. Just like always and forever and ever amen. Maybe we who live in this 21st century after a dude named Jesus chastised the money changers are lucky we have twitter and facebook and ESPN to keep our minds off the inevitable. Because the money changers are still at it and we still can't stop them.

What a difference a day makes.

[video:https://youtu.be/cwqhdRs4jyA]

Tags:

Rant

Revolution

democracy

freedom

Justice

Vote

Comments

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 10:25am

George always was my favorite Beatle.

I'm coming to the realization that I can only live my life the best I can for myself and my neighbors. I might not like them, but it's far better to concentrate on the petty politics and annoyances where I can make a difference. This is of course a stoned opinion, and I am totally PUI right now.

Thinking about maybe getting involved with the Portland Tenant's Union. Rents are going up way too fast, and soon those of us on housing assistance won't be able to stay in our current places. (And I need 3 bedrooms. I'm not going to try to sleep with my significant other on a couch thankyouverymuch...)

I'm not going to play the Democrat or Republican game. I'm going to stay who I am, and if a party tries to claim me, I'll tell them to go fuck themselves. I don't do American politics. Oregon politics, sure, but I won't participate in the Empire's business.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Big Al on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 10:37am

We all do the best we can.

@detroitmechworks Being active locally is a good thing and someone has to do it. I can't let myself get past the crimes of those controlling our national government however. They're killing and starving people for greed and power. As I've said before, I know too much now. Kinda sucks in a way, like they say, ignorance is bliss.

Submitted by Granma on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 10:55am

I'm not sure about the bliss part of ignorance

@Big Al but I was happier in my ignorance. The more I have learned, the more I notice and see. There is so very much corruption and greed at every level, in every little detail of our daily lives. And I see no way to change it until or unless a whole lot more people see at least some parts of what is, and has been, going on.
One of the reasons I liked the referendum idea is that people would see how many others think as they do. I thought that would be a step in the right direction, giving courage for some action(s).

Submitted by Big Al on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 11:12am

I suppose that's why alot of people just don't want to know.

@Granma But I agree, a referendum might at least get something started and it could be a good educational/informational campaign.
Good to see you Granma.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 12:03pm

I'm still on the referendum bandwagon

@Granma
myself. It's a start and will establish a baseline.

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by dance you monster on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 12:11pm

Exactly.

@Granma

One of the reasons I liked the referendum idea is that people would see how many others think as they do. I thought that would be a step in the right direction, giving courage for some action(s).

Al, I didn't respond in your referendums post because I didn't want to be Dance-y Downer. The hurdles to introducing referendums are great and differ from state to state. Nowhere to my knowledge does a referendum do more than signal a preference by a populace; nowhere does it actually change the law right then and there, does it?

But as a signal, and as a chance for voters to see they are not alone, it could have a significant impact and deserves more consideration and planning.

Occupy didn't change any laws, or the system it protested, but it did get everyone to suddenly see themselves not as random particles in a political and economic universe but as members of either the 1% or the 99%. Prior to that, I may have been 42%, and my neighbor maybe 36% and on the other side of me maybe 27%, and we all wanted to get to better numbers individually, but Occupy showed us that was not the reality -- the reality was we were all in the 99% and we'd never in a million years be admitted to the 1%, who were the 1% by keeping us much lower. That was a pretty damned big revelation for many. And referendums would have that same potential to open eyes to new perspectives, new ways to look at the universe in which your particular particle might be caroming about.

I still think the actual change in the system will come about only with [a] a violent revolt, or [b] simple dissolution of an unsustainable system (and this is what general strikes would accelerate). Within the US it could come from [c] the rest of the world saying it's done with us and shutting us off to devolve as we please, but that would still leave the system in place in Europe and elsewhere with the same oligarch problem that would just come back to stop any betterment we'd be able to manage in isolation. The path to achieve real change would probably be rather ugly.

But referendums could fertilize the public imagination with the idea that there are real identifiable things -- not just some "well, that's the way it is" fog -- that we need to change.

Submitted by Granma on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 12:55pm

This is a way out there idea, but

@dance you monster we could get referendum on ballot in states that allow, and we just go ahead with it in the other states. It isn't that hard to print paper ballots and distribute leaflets advertising referendum in advance. Think Occupy. They didn't ask permission, they just did it. And we could just hold the referendum. Catalonia did managed to despite all government attempts to stop it.
I'm on the run, will check back this evening to read criticisms.

#1.1.1 One of the reasons I liked the referendum idea is that people would see how many others think as they do. I thought that would be a step in the right direction, giving courage for some action(s). Al, I didn't respond in your referendums post because I didn't want to be Dance-y Downer. The hurdles to introducing referendums are great and differ from state to state. Nowhere to my knowledge does a referendum do more than signal a preference by a populace; nowhere does it actually change the law right then and there, does it? But as a signal, and as a chance for voters to see they are not alone, it could have a significant impact and deserves more consideration and planning. Occupy didn't change any laws, or the system it protested, but it did get everyone to suddenly see themselves not as random particles in a political and economic universe but as members of either the 1% or the 99%. Prior to that, I may have been 42%, and my neighbor maybe 36% and on the other side of me maybe 27%, and we all wanted to get to better numbers individually, but Occupy showed us that was not the reality -- the reality was we were all in the 99% and we'd never in a million years be admitted to the 1%, who were the 1% by keeping us much lower. That was a pretty damned big revelation for many. And referendums would have that same potential to open eyes to new perspectives, new ways to look at the universe in which your particular particle might be caroming about. I still think the actual change in the system will come about only with [a] a violent revolt, or [b] simple dissolution of an unsustainable system (and this is what general strikes would accelerate). Within the US it could come from [c] the rest of the world saying it's done with us and shutting us off to devolve as we please, but that would still leave the system in place in Europe and elsewhere with the same oligarch problem that would just come back to stop any betterment we'd be able to manage in isolation. The path to achieve real change would probably be rather ugly. But referendums could fertilize the public imagination with the idea that there are real identifiable things -- not just some "well, that's the way it is" fog -- that we need to change.

Submitted by dance you monster on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 1:13pm

My first reaction is . . .

@Granma

"Way out there" is the way to go. You need visibility to spark a conversation among more than just your friends. Way out there => visibility => talking => "What the hell, I'm in, where do I vote?" And when enough people vote, someone is gonna notice. Even if TPTB and the media try to throw a blanket over it, people will notice. They noticed Occupy.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 5:42pm

OWS not only opened my eyes to the injustice of

@dance you monster

bailing out the banks after they committed massive fraud that effected so many people all over the world, it opened my eyes to who Obama was and how he felt about the people who elected him.
Just like the only person who went to prison for torture was the person who told us about it, the only people who were arrested for massive economic fraud were the people who were protesting against it and their monetary reward for committing it.
This was wrong on so many levels. While millions of people continued to lose their homes, the banks got trillions more than just the $700 billion we were told about and that came from our money. In what world does giving the banks $20 trillion, while the people's lives barely recovered?

#1.1.1 One of the reasons I liked the referendum idea is that people would see how many others think as they do. I thought that would be a step in the right direction, giving courage for some action(s). Al, I didn't respond in your referendums post because I didn't want to be Dance-y Downer. The hurdles to introducing referendums are great and differ from state to state. Nowhere to my knowledge does a referendum do more than signal a preference by a populace; nowhere does it actually change the law right then and there, does it? But as a signal, and as a chance for voters to see they are not alone, it could have a significant impact and deserves more consideration and planning. Occupy didn't change any laws, or the system it protested, but it did get everyone to suddenly see themselves not as random particles in a political and economic universe but as members of either the 1% or the 99%. Prior to that, I may have been 42%, and my neighbor maybe 36% and on the other side of me maybe 27%, and we all wanted to get to better numbers individually, but Occupy showed us that was not the reality -- the reality was we were all in the 99% and we'd never in a million years be admitted to the 1%, who were the 1% by keeping us much lower. That was a pretty damned big revelation for many. And referendums would have that same potential to open eyes to new perspectives, new ways to look at the universe in which your particular particle might be caroming about. I still think the actual change in the system will come about only with [a] a violent revolt, or [b] simple dissolution of an unsustainable system (and this is what general strikes would accelerate). Within the US it could come from [c] the rest of the world saying it's done with us and shutting us off to devolve as we please, but that would still leave the system in place in Europe and elsewhere with the same oligarch problem that would just come back to stop any betterment we'd be able to manage in isolation. The path to achieve real change would probably be rather ugly. But referendums could fertilize the public imagination with the idea that there are real identifiable things -- not just some "well, that's the way it is" fog -- that we need to change.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 2:28pm

It takes both kinds of people

@Big Al I think far too many people take the local part for granted. I know that I do even though I spent nearly all of my working career working in local government. Local is where most of us can have some impact. That said, some of us are naturally bigger picture thinkers. I tend to think of things in that way. What I am saying is that we need folks on the local level and others on the bigger picture level.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Big Al on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 3:08pm

Agree gg.

@gulfgal98 So much to do, so little time.

Submitted by on the cusp on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 3:48pm

I stay out of local politics.

@gulfgal98 I didn't send money and support a certain judge candidate. She won. She was so hostile to me and my clients that I refused to take cases in her court for 10 years, for their sake. I lost $50k a year for over a decade. She was finally forced out of office.(My complaint on her was the reason.)
A county judge whom the ptb warned not to even run, was mysteriously covered up with porn on his county lap top computer 6 months into his term, removed from office, died before his case came to trial. I received multiple death threats for representing him.
A deputy constable ran for constable against his boss. His home was burned to the ground. He left the area.
A candidate for justice of the peace received multiple death threats. Another candidate in that precinct got enough dead animals in his mail box and front porch that he withdrew his name from the ballot.
The sitting county judge is not who the ptb wanted. His home was recently burned to the ground, he has been pulled over by department of public safety offices at least 6 times, and is constantly facing threats of removal from office, his office in the courthouse was taken from him, he is under felony investigation, etc...He and his staff carry weapons to work.
My office has been burglarized, I have received death threats, just for representing a constable, 2 judges, a county commissioner, and a district attorney that, locally, the ptb didn't like.
Oh. And I had that warning shot fired over my head while I was in my front yard. The guy screamed, "I will burn your house down and your family's house, too!" (They lived next door to me at the time.)
A former district attorney received death threats. A former county commissioner receive death threats. A lawyer running for judge had his law office flooded, ransacked, and I could go on at length.
So, no. No local anything for me. No sign, no financial support, no talk on the street, no nothing.
I had a bullet whizz over my head that would have killed me, but for the fact I bent down to hug my hound dog.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 3:57pm

leave the area

@on the cusp

I didn't send money and support a certain judge candidate. She won. She was so hostile to me and my clients that I refused to take cases in her court for 10 years, for their sake. I lost $50k a year for over a decade. She was finally forced out of office.(My complaint on her was the reason.)
A county judge whom the ptb warned not to even run, was mysteriously covered up with porn on his county lap top computer 6 months into his term, removed from office, died before his case came to trial. I received multiple death threats for representing him.
A deputy constable ran for constable against his boss. His home was burned to the ground. He left the area.

emphasis mine

Maybe you ought to consider this advice:

"Go and do likewise!"
Christian Scriptures, Luke 10:37

#1.1.2 I didn't send money and support a certain judge candidate. She won. She was so hostile to me and my clients that I refused to take cases in her court for 10 years, for their sake. I lost $50k a year for over a decade. She was finally forced out of office.(My complaint on her was the reason.) A county judge whom the ptb warned not to even run, was mysteriously covered up with porn on his county lap top computer 6 months into his term, removed from office, died before his case came to trial. I received multiple death threats for representing him. A deputy constable ran for constable against his boss. His home was burned to the ground. He left the area. A candidate for justice of the peace received multiple death threats. Another candidate in that precinct got enough dead animals in his mail box and front porch that he withdrew his name from the ballot. The sitting county judge is not who the ptb wanted. His home was recently burned to the ground, he has been pulled over by department of public safety offices at least 6 times, and is constantly facing threats of removal from office, his office in the courthouse was taken from him, he is under felony investigation, etc...He and his staff carry weapons to work. My office has been burglarized, I have received death threats, just for representing a constable, 2 judges, a county commissioner, and a district attorney that, locally, the ptb didn't like. Oh. And I had that warning shot fired over my head while I was in my front yard. The guy screamed, "I will burn your house down and your family's house, too!" (They lived next door to me at the time.) A former district attorney received death threats. A former county commissioner receive death threats. A lawyer running for judge had his law office flooded, ransacked, and I could go on at length. So, no. No local anything for me. No sign, no financial support, no talk on the street, no nothing. I had a bullet whizz over my head that would have killed me, but for the fact I bent down to hug my hound dog.

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by on the cusp on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 4:16pm

That sounds really good.

@thanatokephaloides The fact is, this district is the only place in the world where I know who will win, who will lose. Anywhere else I go and set up a law practice in Texas would put me in similar deep shit until I figured it out.
The other lawyers around here are in the same boat.
We work for charities and churches and keep our mouths shut.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 4:16pm

That is seriously fucked up...

@on the cusp and absolutely not the signs of a good, well functioning political system.

Course in my home town we knew who the mayor was going to be when he was in grade school. Old Man Packard's Grandkid. Wants to be a Congressman, and thinks that Sam Farr will give him the seat after his time is up. Pretty much an open secret.

Don't know what the dynamic is here in Portland. I think the housing issue isn't gonna go away, and it's something I can at least work on. There are a lot of local landowners selling right now, and a lot of rental corporations buying up houses because they know they can drive up the rents.

Rent control would shut that shit down fast. As would some serious public housing projects. Low income, fuck the profit, no new luxury houses until every person has a place to sleep.

#1.1.2 I didn't send money and support a certain judge candidate. She won. She was so hostile to me and my clients that I refused to take cases in her court for 10 years, for their sake. I lost $50k a year for over a decade. She was finally forced out of office.(My complaint on her was the reason.) A county judge whom the ptb warned not to even run, was mysteriously covered up with porn on his county lap top computer 6 months into his term, removed from office, died before his case came to trial. I received multiple death threats for representing him. A deputy constable ran for constable against his boss. His home was burned to the ground. He left the area. A candidate for justice of the peace received multiple death threats. Another candidate in that precinct got enough dead animals in his mail box and front porch that he withdrew his name from the ballot. The sitting county judge is not who the ptb wanted. His home was recently burned to the ground, he has been pulled over by department of public safety offices at least 6 times, and is constantly facing threats of removal from office, his office in the courthouse was taken from him, he is under felony investigation, etc...He and his staff carry weapons to work. My office has been burglarized, I have received death threats, just for representing a constable, 2 judges, a county commissioner, and a district attorney that, locally, the ptb didn't like. Oh. And I had that warning shot fired over my head while I was in my front yard. The guy screamed, "I will burn your house down and your family's house, too!" (They lived next door to me at the time.) A former district attorney received death threats. A former county commissioner receive death threats. A lawyer running for judge had his law office flooded, ransacked, and I could go on at length. So, no. No local anything for me. No sign, no financial support, no talk on the street, no nothing. I had a bullet whizz over my head that would have killed me, but for the fact I bent down to hug my hound dog.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by on the cusp on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 4:43pm

Yes, totally F'ed up.

@detroitmechworks The current county judge is having heart issues. I have ties to him and his family, no matter he is a Republican. I sat beside a Democratic judge in his porn-on-the-computer trial while he had his heart attack at a time when the Democratic party controlled the fucking county.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 5:54pm

This was another side benefit from the economic crash

@detroitmechworks

People's homes were fraudulently foreclosed on and instead of doing a few things that would have allowed them to stay in them, such as actually making the mortgage companies refinance their homes, if they were foreclosed on, let them have first dibs on buying them back for what they were selling for, etc.
instead, huge financial institutions bought those homes for pennies on the dollar and then they rent them out for high rental prices, and they became absent slum landlords. There aren't enough affordable homes for sale because they aren't on the market. This is because they were bought up. Home ownership is at the lowest it's been for a very long time.
This too is part of Obama's legacy.
I have written these words so many times that my iPad has them already written. This too should be part of Obama's legacy. He taught computers what people want to write.

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 10:00pm

Florida is just as bad in this regard.

@on the cusp A few trial lawyers have actually turned up dead in Debbie Wasserman Schultz's district. The Awans will no doubt take the blame for it, among other things.

#1.1.2 I didn't send money and support a certain judge candidate. She won. She was so hostile to me and my clients that I refused to take cases in her court for 10 years, for their sake. I lost $50k a year for over a decade. She was finally forced out of office.(My complaint on her was the reason.) A county judge whom the ptb warned not to even run, was mysteriously covered up with porn on his county lap top computer 6 months into his term, removed from office, died before his case came to trial. I received multiple death threats for representing him. A deputy constable ran for constable against his boss. His home was burned to the ground. He left the area. A candidate for justice of the peace received multiple death threats. Another candidate in that precinct got enough dead animals in his mail box and front porch that he withdrew his name from the ballot. The sitting county judge is not who the ptb wanted. His home was recently burned to the ground, he has been pulled over by department of public safety offices at least 6 times, and is constantly facing threats of removal from office, his office in the courthouse was taken from him, he is under felony investigation, etc...He and his staff carry weapons to work. My office has been burglarized, I have received death threats, just for representing a constable, 2 judges, a county commissioner, and a district attorney that, locally, the ptb didn't like. Oh. And I had that warning shot fired over my head while I was in my front yard. The guy screamed, "I will burn your house down and your family's house, too!" (They lived next door to me at the time.) A former district attorney received death threats. A former county commissioner receive death threats. A lawyer running for judge had his law office flooded, ransacked, and I could go on at length. So, no. No local anything for me. No sign, no financial support, no talk on the street, no nothing. I had a bullet whizz over my head that would have killed me, but for the fact I bent down to hug my hound dog.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 2:05am

I doubt that anything is going to happen to them

@The Aspie Corner

not with DWS' brother is in charge of prosecuting them. This seems to be a big conflict of interest, but what do I know

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 7:39pm

Definitely certain parts of Florida

@The Aspie Corner are very scary. Southeast Florida has never been a paragon of virtue politically. I remember when I was growing up in St. Pete that Tampa was considered a hotbed of organized crime with the Trafficante family in charge.

What I find more frightening is that the gross corruption and organized crime seems to be spreading to smaller cities and communities where you would not expect to find it.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 4:36pm

@on the cusp

@on the cusp

What happens when psychopaths achieve absolute control over an area... so sorry that such a state exists and that you - or anyone - is stuck in it!

#1.1.2 I didn't send money and support a certain judge candidate. She won. She was so hostile to me and my clients that I refused to take cases in her court for 10 years, for their sake. I lost $50k a year for over a decade. She was finally forced out of office.(My complaint on her was the reason.) A county judge whom the ptb warned not to even run, was mysteriously covered up with porn on his county lap top computer 6 months into his term, removed from office, died before his case came to trial. I received multiple death threats for representing him. A deputy constable ran for constable against his boss. His home was burned to the ground. He left the area. A candidate for justice of the peace received multiple death threats. Another candidate in that precinct got enough dead animals in his mail box and front porch that he withdrew his name from the ballot. The sitting county judge is not who the ptb wanted. His home was recently burned to the ground, he has been pulled over by department of public safety offices at least 6 times, and is constantly facing threats of removal from office, his office in the courthouse was taken from him, he is under felony investigation, etc...He and his staff carry weapons to work. My office has been burglarized, I have received death threats, just for representing a constable, 2 judges, a county commissioner, and a district attorney that, locally, the ptb didn't like. Oh. And I had that warning shot fired over my head while I was in my front yard. The guy screamed, "I will burn your house down and your family's house, too!" (They lived next door to me at the time.) A former district attorney received death threats. A former county commissioner receive death threats. A lawyer running for judge had his law office flooded, ransacked, and I could go on at length. So, no. No local anything for me. No sign, no financial support, no talk on the street, no nothing. I had a bullet whizz over my head that would have killed me, but for the fact I bent down to hug my hound dog.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 1:06pm

In the end, local is all there is

@detroitmechworks

We the people have no inroads to power in DC. We have no way to influence what is going on there, not directly. My thinking is that DC is corrupt because our society is corrupt. I also think that's why we have the problems with violence that we do. We have so many mass-shootings because our culture is violent and bloody. That fact is written large when one looks at our external actions. Why would it be different internally?

So for me, I just try to talk to people around me and see if I can nudge them towards some key ideas:

Mainstream media is untrustworthy
Neither Republican nor Democratic politicians care about helping their constituents.
We the people need to come together to fight the plutocrats. We can dicker of bathrooms once we've wrested control of our government back into our own hands. Any debate up until that point is just wasting breath since no politicians care what we think.

In short, I try to get them to see the problem space similarly to the way I do. From there, we have mutual ground to talk about solutions.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 1:47pm

Kill your TV is usually a good one.

@SnappleBC I like to point out to people that by killing your cable you can usually save quite a bit of money, and all of the good shows are on the internet anyway...

For now at least, and that leads me directly into my net neutrality speech...

and then on to my Disney copyright vs public domain speech...

I should probably write these all down sometime.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 2:41pm

We killed ours eight years ago

@detroitmechworks and it has made our lives simpler and less stressful, just by noise reduction. When I visit someone and see what is on the tv, I realize just how mind numbing it is.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by SnappleBC on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 5:11pm

I agree but tough sell

@detroitmechworks

One of the things that happened to us when we decided to stop paying for cable and let all our subscriptions lapse is that we were no longer inundated with propaganda. That includes political propaganda but also cultural and economic. It's amazing how much less STUFF we want to buy simply because we aren't exposed to advertising regularly. Cutting ties to MSM saves money in more ways than the immediate savings.

As a handy side-benefit, it also frees up your mind to think since nobody is stuffing pre-thought thoughts into your head.

—

Submitted by dkmich on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 2:37pm

framed and hanging in my house - still.

@detroitmechworks @detroitmechworks

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by lotlizard on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 5:07pm

G.H. sort of looks like Albus Dumbledore might have looked

@dkmich
before the latter’s hair and beard turned white.

Submitted by Lily O Lady on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 12:04pm

Over at Truth-out there is an essay about what the author calls

Con-Con 2.0. He warns of Republicans finally being able to hold a Constitutional Convention to make their right wing agenda part of the Constitution. Some progressives have called for the same but considering the lock the Repigs have on state and federal governments, nothing good can come of it, IMO.

The essay also mentions “draining the swamp,” but so far we are still up to our asses in alligators, with apologies to Alligator Ed who is an excellent reptile. Our overlords seem to want to ensure that they can continue to prey on the 99% without interference.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 6:39pm

I am still wondering why this was allowed to happen?

@Lily O Lady

In too many races at all levels of government, republicans were allowed to run unopposed by any democratic candidates. And this is still happening, or the dem candidate is so far from being a democrat that people don't want them to win. This happened in just 8 years. Has this Big of
This is why they lost 1,000 seats at the federal level as well as governorships and 2/3rds of state levels. Democrats had to know about the danger that this would create, yet here we are. Just short of republicans being able to modify the constitution. We the people should have been made aware of this and maybe there was/is a chance to stop it from happening.
Is this another way for the PTB to further screw us? How badly can this be for our country and our lives?

Submitted by Lily O Lady on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 8:15pm

I don’t think Dems were at all worried about losing

@snoopydawg

power for themselves as the power behind both parties is the same. They let it happen and then blamed it on Republicans be just too, too powerful. Then they asked us for more money so that we couldn’t use it to the detriment of TPTB. Also Dems like money for themselves and their family and friends.

So TPTB are in the final stages of killing any chance for democracy with the help of their Democrat and Republican handmaidens.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Submitted by Craig234 on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 9:17pm

@Lily O Lady I think that's a huge

@Lily O Lady I think that's a huge exaggeration of the 'powers behind both parties' issue. Democrats are very different than Republicans despite some interests that corrupt both, e.g., Wall Street.

But for example, while neither party jailed bankers, Elizabeth Warren isn't going to be in the Republican Party, and the consumer bureau was created by Democrats, While Republicans attack it.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 10:16pm

both parties

@Craig234

I think that's a huge exaggeration of the 'powers behind both parties' issue. Democrats are very different than Republicans despite some interests that corrupt both, e.g., Wall Street.

With all due respect to you, today's Democrats are Republicans.

The "Democrats" you apparently believe in, the kind that would have been recognized as Democrats in continuously-loyal States in 1975, are an extinct species. Hillary Clinton's politics of action are the same ones as she maintained as a Goldwater Girl. (I put no stock in her words, but determine by her actions.)

And "the interests that corrupt both" now call all the shots in both parties.

But for example, while neither party jailed bankers, Elizabeth Warren isn't going to be in the Republican Party,

Why not? It's where she came from to begin with......

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by Lily O Lady on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 10:54pm

You do see the parties as different as did I once. However

@Craig234

the losing streak the Dems have been on makes them appear ineffectual at best or intentionally weak at worst. The things they do accomplish like the ACA are actual Republican policies (Romneycare). Dems couldn’t accomplish gun control after Sandy Hook in spite of overwhelming support by the American people. But zdems don’t work for the American people. They work for the 1%. The NRA pays Congress critters to do their bidding. Mere salaries paid by taxpayers pale in comparison.

This last election disabused me of any lofty notions of what the Democratic Party stands for. I kept waiting for Dems to stand up for themselves and for us, but instead they renounced Democratic ideals. No less a person than John Lewis said Democrats didn’t want “free stuff,” dismissing Bernie’s idea of free college. I realized that it was no longer my party.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Submitted by Craig234 on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 12:35am

@Lily O Lady My view is that

@Lily O Lady My view is that the Democratic Party is split; and that both sides are much better than today's Republicans.

John Lewis did support Hillary, joining the 'wrong side' of the party. Yet Bernie - not even technically a Democrat - got 46% of the party's vote as an almost unknown figure.

That's a party needing people to help the progressive wing take over the party, not to kill the party off and hand the country to the Republicans.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 8:10am

How about killing off BOTH parties?

@Craig234

Seems to me they're both doing a pretty good job of committing hara-kiri while the rest of the world watches and mocks them.

Anybody got plans for filling the void? Because TPTB surely do!

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:46pm

@TheOtherMaven Well, I see

@TheOtherMaven Well, I see killing off either party, much less both, as very impractical to do.

And if we did, as you suggest, I see the same pressures causing problems now getting even worse.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 8:38am

Thing is, they're killing themselves

@Craig234

The Democratic Party more openly and publicly than the Republican Party, which seems to think that playing musical chairs (and leaving Trump standing) will solve their problems. It won't.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Lily O Lady on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 11:05am

The 46% you refer to are being played by the wealthy,

@Craig234

powerful minority (think superdelegates and Clintons) who really run things. If you recall, after the primary was called for Clinton, Bernie supporters were told both to get in line and that we weren’t needed. I’m not going to go into the death by a thousand cuts that the party put Berniecrats through. All I’ll say is that it worked! The Democrat Party (Democratic no longer, IMO) is Dead to Me. I won’t let Lucy hold the football for me yet again. You are welcome to try and kick it, however, and good luck with that.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:50pm

@Lily O Lady Well, the

@Lily O Lady Well, the alternative is effectively surrender and helping the Republicans win.

That way lies far worse than the worst Democrats.

Keep your disgust for the bad things in the Democratic Party, but recognize what it is as well - the only feasible vehicle, just a name, for progressives to have a chance by taking it over.

Republicans LOVE for people to abandon Democrats from the left and splinter their opposition.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 8:43am

Just knock it off

@Craig234

This is NOT a Democratic Party site. Our goals do NOT necessarily include saving the Democratic Party from itself - quite a number of us, having been badly burned by it, are only too happy to watch it set fire to itself and burn.

(The Republican Party, meanwhile, is splashing gasoline all over itself and juggling torches at the same time - they're next on the self-destruct list.)

Trying to scare us with boogeymen didn't work in 2016, doesn't work in 2017, and won't work in 2018, 2019, 2020....

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 2:30am

You seem to keep putting your opinions over others

@Craig234
everyone here is entitled to their opinion, just like you are entitled to yours without being told that you are wrong.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:51pm

@snoopydawg I agree everyone

@snoopydawg I agree everyone is entitled to their opinion, and disagree that I said anything otherwise.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 7:06pm

@Craig234

@Craig234

Just to mention:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-22/hillary-clinton-backed-major-re...

Hillary Clinton Is Backed By Major Republican Donors
Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
Feb 23, 2016

Authored by Eric Zuesse,

An analysis of Federal Election Commission records, by TIME, which was published on 23 October 2015, showed that the 2012 donors to Romney’s campaign were already donating more to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign than they had been donating to any one of the 2016 campaigns of (listed here in declining order below Clinton) Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, or Jim Gilmore. Those major Romney donors also gave a little to two Democrats (other than to Hillary — who, as mentioned, received a lot of donations from these Republican donors): Martin O’Malley, Jim Web, and Lawrence Lessig. (Romney’s donors gave nothing to Bernie Sanders, and nothing to Elizabeth Warren. They don’t want either of those people to become President.)

Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who is even moderately attractive to big Republican donors. ...

...However, the main difference between Clinton and the Republican candidates is certainly the rhetoric, not the reality. The reason for that Democratic rhetoric is that Ms. Clinton is competing right now only for Democratic votes, while each one of the Republican candidates is competing right now only for Republican votes.

Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric is liberal, but her actual actions in politics have been conservative, except for her nominal support for liberal initiatives that attracted even some Republican support, or else that the Senate vote-counts (at the time when she was in the Senate) indicated in-advance had no real chance of becoming passed into law. In other words: her record was one of rhetoric and pretense on a great many issues, and of meaningful action on only issues that wouldn’t embarrass her in a Democratic primary campaign, to attract Democratic voters.

In terms of her actual record in U.S. public office, it’s indistinguishable from that of Republican politicians in terms of corruption, and it’s indistinguishable from Republican politicians in terms of the policies that she carried out as the U.S. Secretary of State for four years. Her record shows her to be clearly a Republican on both matters (notwithstanding that her rhetoric has been to the exact contrary on both matters). ...

... Instead of calling the Saudi regime “aggressors,” we supply arms to them, and cooperate with them against their major oil-competitor, Russia. (For example, we arm the Saudi-funded jihadists that Russia is bombing in Syria, because Syria is a key potential pipeline route into Europe for Saudi oil and Qatari gas, to replace Russian oil and gas in Europe. So, we support the jihadists, even though Obama’s rhetoric opposes them — and even though Obama killed Osama bin Laden, whose Al Qaeda was funded mainly by the Saud family and their friends. Hillary Clinton is even more hawkish against Russia than is Obama. She would be even better for Republican donors than Obama has been.)

Also regarding such fudging: on 27 March 2009, President Obama in secret told the assembled chieftains of Wall Street, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I’m protecting you.” Romney could have said the same, if he had been elected. And President Obama’s record has now made clear that he indeed has fulfilled on that promise he made secretly to them. The reality turned out to be far more like Romney, than like Obama’s campaign rhetoric had ever been. Similarly, on Obama’s trade-deals (TPP, TTIP, and TISA), he has been very much what would have been expected from Romney, though Obama in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primaries had campaigned against Hillary Clinton for her having supported and helped to pass NAFTA. Obama’s trade-deals go even beyond NAFTA, to benefit international mega-corporations, at the general public’s expense.

What Hillary’s fairly strong appeal to Romney’s financial backers shows is that the wealthy, because of their access to leaders in government, know and recognize the difference between what a candidate says in public, versus what the winning public official has said to them (in private) and actually does while serving in office. They know that she keeps her promises to them, not her promises to the electorate.

Hillary Clinton is a good investment for a billionaire — even for the 70% of them who are Republicans. And, based on those 2015 donation-figures, it seems that they would prefer a President Hillary Clinton, over a President Donald Trump. However, their three favorite candidates, in order, were: Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. But, in a Clinton-versus-Trump contest, Hillary Clinton would likely draw more money from Republican mega-donors than Trump would, and, of course, she would draw virtually all of the money from Democratic mega-donors.

In such an instance, Hillary Clinton would probably draw a larger campaign-chest (especially considering super-pacs) than any candidate for any political office in U.S. (or global) history. Hillary Clinton would almost certainly be the most-heavily-marketed political product in history, if she becomes nominated and ends up running against Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/wall-street-republicans-hillary-cl...

Wall St. Republicans' dark secret

By BEN WHITE and MAGGIE HABERMAN

04/28/2014

NEW YORK — The biggest parlor game on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms these days is guessing whether former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will run for president and save the GOP’s old establishment base from its rising populist wing. ...

...Two dozen interviews about the 2016 race with unaligned GOP donors, financial executives and their Washington lobbyists turned up a consistent — and unusual — consolation candidate if Bush demurs, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn’t recover politically and no other establishment favorite gets nominated: Hillary Clinton. ...

... The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation.

“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. ...

... But the private consensus is similar to what Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said to POLITICO late last year when he praised both Christie — before the bridge scandal — and Clinton. “I very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round,” he said. “I held fundraisers for her.”

People close to Blankfein say the same calculus applies to a Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton race as it would to a Christie-Clinton contest. “Those would be two very good choices and we’d be perfectly happy with them,” a person close to Blankfein said. Blankfein is a self-described Democrat, but his comments about Christie and Clinton reflect the ambidextrous political approach that many Republicans and Democrats on Wall Street take. ...

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/27/rehab-jeb-bush-style-iraq-disaster-c...

Rehab, Jeb Bush-Style

The Republican front-runner seems to be addicted to the warmongers and regime-changers who inspired his brother’s foreign policy. Which should drive a sane person to drink.

By Michael A. Cohen
February 27, 2015

... Last week, when former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced the names of his 21 informal foreign-policy advisors, it read like a who’s who of Republican presidents past. There was George Shultz, secretary of state in Ronald Reagan’s administration; James Baker, who held the same job for Bush’s father; and Robert Zoellick, who served under Baker in George H.W. Bush’s State Department and later became U.S. trade representative.

But it is the more recent names that were most notable. Seventeen of the 21 officials on Jeb Bush’s advisory board served in the administration of Jeb’s brother, George W. Bush. In case you’ve forgotten (as it appears many Americans have), George W. Bush was president from 2001 to 2009, and he had the most calamitous foreign-policy tenure of any U.S. president, perhaps ever. ...

Psychopathic birds of a feather, flock to feather their nests together.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-va...

Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger: It’s Personal. Very Personal.
The Clintons and the Kissingers regularly spend holidays together at a beachfront villa.

David Corn Feb. 12, 2016

...What Clinton did not mention was that her bond with Kissinger was personal as well as professional, as she and her husband have for years regularly spent their winter holidays with Kissinger and his wife, Nancy, at the beachfront villa of fashion designer Oscar de la Renta, who died in 2014, and his wife, Annette, in the Dominican Republic.

This campaign tussle over Kissinger began a week earlier, at a previous debate, when Clinton, looking to boost her résumé, said, “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time. So I have an idea about what it’s going to take to make our government work more efficiently.” A few days later, Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his wife in New Hampshire, told a crowd of her supporters, “Henry Kissinger, of all people, said she ran the State Department better and got more out of the personnel at the State Department than any secretary of state in decades, and it’s true.” His audience of Democrats clapped loudly in response.

It was odd that the Clintons, locked in a fierce fight to win Democratic votes, would name-check a fellow who for decades has been criticized—and even derided as a war criminal—by liberals. Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves opposed the Vietnam War that Nixon and Kissinger inherited and continued. Hillary Clinton was a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach Nixon, and one of the articles of impeachment drafted by the staff (but which was not approved) cited Nixon for covering up his secret bombing of Cambodia. In the years since then, information has emerged showing that Kissinger’s underhanded and covert diplomacy led to brutal massacres around the globe, including in Chile, Argentina, East Timor, and Bangladesh.

With all this history, it was curious that in 2014, Clinton wrote a fawning review of Kissinger’s latest book and observed, “America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of legitimacy, not governments alone.” In that article, she called Kissinger, who had been a practitioner of a bloody foreign-policy realpolitik, “surprisingly idealistic.” ...

https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-...

Hillary Clinton’s Embrace of Kissinger Is Inexcusable
Bernie Sanders should call on her to repudiate him as the war criminal he is.
By Greg GrandinTwitter
August 9, 2016

Word comes from Politico that Hillary Clinton is courting the endorsement of Henry Kissinger. No surprise. Kissinger and the Clintons go back a ways, to when Bill in the early 1990s sought out Kissinger’s support to pass NAFTA and to, in the words of the economist Jeff Faux, serve as “the perfect tutor for a new Democratic president trying to convince Republicans and their business allies that they could count on him to champion Reagan’s vision.” Hillary has continued the apprenticeship, soliciting Kissinger’s advice and calling him “friend.” ...

...Kissinger is a unique monster. He stands not as a bulwark against Donald Trump’s feared recklessness and immorality but as his progenitor. As Richard Nixon’s aide-de-camp, Kissinger helped plan and execute a murderous, illegal foreign policy—in Southeast and South Asia, Southern Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America—as reckless and immoral as anything Trump now portends. Millions died as a result of his actions. Kissinger and Nixon threatened to use nuclear weapons, and, indeed, Kissinger helped inscribe the threat of “limited nuclear war” into doctrine. Kissinger, in the 1970s, not only dug the hole that the greater Middle East finds itself in, but, as an influential cheerleader for both the first Gulf War in 1991 and its 2003 sequel, helped drive the United States into that ditch.

Kissinger’s crimes aren’t just related to covert murder, genocide, and illegal bombing. In 1975, for example, as Gerald Ford’s secretary of state, he helped Union Carbide set up its chemical plant in Bhopal, India, working with the Indian government and helping secure a loan from the Export-Import Bank of the United States to cover a portion of the plant’s construction. Then, after the plant’s 1984 chemical-leak disaster, Kissinger Associates, the consultancy firm he set up after leaving the State Department, represented Union Carbide, helping to broker, in 1989, a $470 million out-of-court settlement for victims of the spill. The payout was widely condemned as paltry in relation to the scale of the disaster: The spill caused nearly 4,000 immediate deaths and exposed another half a million people to toxic gases. Kissinger Associates is a private company—Kissinger famously quit as chair of the 9/11 Commission so he wouldn’t have to reveal his client list—so the fees it extracted from Union Carbide for this service is unknown. But Bhopal is a good example of the way Kissinger, as a private consultant, profited from the work he did as a public servant (for Kissinger’s role in negotiating the settlement, see the 1988 letter obtained by the environmental reporter Rob Edwards, found here; also, see New York Times reports that Kissinger’s firm had an account with Union Carbide).

Kissinger’s role in helping to create today’s immiserating global economy and structural inequality didn’t start with NAFTA. As Gerald Ford’s secretary of state, Kissinger was key to making sure Saudi Arabia’s and, until its revolution, Iran’s growing mountain of petrodollars were recycled through private banks and arms merchants in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States—undercutting Third World demands that capital be used to fund a more equitable global economy, what was then called a New International Economic Order. Likewise, in Latin America and Eastern Europe, Kissinger Associates profited from what one of its consultants called the “massive sale” of public utilities and industries, a sell-off that, in many countries, was initiated by Kissinger-supported dictators and military regimes (Kissinger’s fudging of the line between public policy and private finance, especially as it relates to the arms trade and petroleum extraction, echoes through many of the controversies of the Clinton Foundation; see David Sirota and Andrew Perez’s reporting, especially “Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department” and “As Colombian Money Flowed to Clintons, State Department Took No Action to Prevent Labor Violations”). This sell-off was part of the global transformation to what is commonly called “neoliberalism,” and what in this campaign season has come to be known as Clintonism, as opposed to Sanders’s vision of a restored New Deal: the privatization of the world’s political economy and, in the name of “free trade,” its transformation into a series of speculative bubbles, cyanide-spewing open-pit mines, and toxic spills. ...

...As Bill Kristol tweeted, “When Dems are finished running vs Trump’s foreign policy, they’ll be more hawkish than me.”

http://observer.com/2016/03/the-troubling-friendship-of-hillary-clinton-...

The Troubling Friendship of Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush
Both families have circumvented what democracy is supposed to prevent
By Michael Sainato • 03/17/16

... In the most recent Democratic town hall on MSNBC, Ms. Clinton told Chris Matthews her vote for the Iraq War—a manifestation of the Bush administration—was born from her agreement with George W. Bush to secure $20 billion toward rebuilding New York City after 9/11.

“I’m sitting there in the Oval Office, and Bush says to me, ‘What do you need?’ And I said, ‘I need $20 billion to rebuild, you know, New York,’ and he said, ‘You got it.’ And he was good to his word,” Ms. Clinton said. “Literally, that same day, I get back to the Capitol, and the Republicans are trying to take that money away. We kept calling the White House, Bush kept saying, ‘I gave them my word, I’m going to stick with it.’ So, you know, I had a different set of experiences.” ...

... Despite the Bush family being Republican and the Clinton family being Democrats—especially as the polarity between parties is arguably broader than it ever has been in the past few decades—the two political dynasties have maintained a surprisingly close relationship. In a 2014, George W. Bush called Bill Clinton his “brother from another mother” on Instagram, in response to a tweet from Mr. Clinton about Mr. Bush’s latest book. That same year, in an interview with Real Clear Politics, Mr. Bush said of Mr. Clinton, “He’s got a good spirit about him. We’re the only baby-boomer presidents. We were both Southern governors, and we both like each other. He’s fun to be around. I hope he would say I’m fun to be around. And we’re both grandfathers.” In a separate interview with CNN, Mr. Bush described Ms. Clinton as his “sister-in-law.” ...

...Since the 18th century revolutions have been fueled by the abuse and corruption rampant in monarchies and family dynasties. When democracy took place, the people were heard and represented. The Bush and Clinton families have since circumvented what democracy, in theory, is supposed to accomplish: Although they were elected, their rise to power was ensured by the influence of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Each presidency built the foundation for another Bush and another Clinton to reach the White House.

Their closeness exhibits the façade and pseudo-dramas both political parties engage. Aside from a few differences in opinion on certain issues, both the Bush and Clinton families share moderate political stances, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush also shared many of the same wealthy donors—more than 60 of whom contributed to both campaigns, according to The Daily Beast. Given Ms. Clinton’s lead in the Democratic Primaries, she may revert back to her friendship with the Bush family and embrace past stances that are more in line with moderate liberalism and conservatism. ...

Her record as Secretary of State speaks for itself in her share of the damage done in America and around the world to those dispossessed, drained and poisoned, to further enrich and empower those already having most, at their cost and that of environmental health. And that's what used to identify the Republican Party from the Dems, thought to be different and more democratically inclined, as they seemed to be.

This isn't actually about political party labelling, since both brands of the Two-Party Trade-Off to which Americans have been restricted demonstrably stand for corporate/billionaire hegemony and neither one for the people their public office exists to represent the interests of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6U7vvbDI6c&list=RDp6U7vvbDI6c#t=131

Dear Mr President lyrics Pink

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:53pm

@Ellen North Those are some of

@Ellen North Those are some of the sad characteristics of Clinton that made her my last choice for the nomination. But I'd still take her over any of the Republican candidates.

You put up a long list - a similar one could be made of issues showing that despite all those flaws, the Republicans were still a lot worse.

#2.1.1.1 Just to mention: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-22/hillary-clinton-backed-major-re... Hillary Clinton Is Backed By Major Republican Donors Tyler Durden's picture by Tyler Durden Feb 23, 2016 Authored by Eric Zuesse, An analysis of Federal Election Commission records, by TIME, which was published on 23 October 2015, showed that the 2012 donors to Romney’s campaign were already donating more to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign than they had been donating to any one of the 2016 campaigns of (listed here in declining order below Clinton) Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, or Jim Gilmore. Those major Romney donors also gave a little to two Democrats (other than to Hillary — who, as mentioned, received a lot of donations from these Republican donors): Martin O’Malley, Jim Web, and Lawrence Lessig. (Romney’s donors gave nothing to Bernie Sanders, and nothing to Elizabeth Warren. They don’t want either of those people to become President.) Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who is even moderately attractive to big Republican donors. ... ...However, the main difference between Clinton and the Republican candidates is certainly the rhetoric, not the reality. The reason for that Democratic rhetoric is that Ms. Clinton is competing right now only for Democratic votes, while each one of the Republican candidates is competing right now only for Republican votes. Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric is liberal, but her actual actions in politics have been conservative, except for her nominal support for liberal initiatives that attracted even some Republican support, or else that the Senate vote-counts (at the time when she was in the Senate) indicated in-advance had no real chance of becoming passed into law. In other words: her record was one of rhetoric and pretense on a great many issues, and of meaningful action on only issues that wouldn’t embarrass her in a Democratic primary campaign, to attract Democratic voters. In terms of her actual record in U.S. public office, it’s indistinguishable from that of Republican politicians in terms of corruption, and it’s indistinguishable from Republican politicians in terms of the policies that she carried out as the U.S. Secretary of State for four years. Her record shows her to be clearly a Republican on both matters (notwithstanding that her rhetoric has been to the exact contrary on both matters). ... ... Instead of calling the Saudi regime “aggressors,” we supply arms to them, and cooperate with them against their major oil-competitor, Russia. (For example, we arm the Saudi-funded jihadists that Russia is bombing in Syria, because Syria is a key potential pipeline route into Europe for Saudi oil and Qatari gas, to replace Russian oil and gas in Europe. So, we support the jihadists, even though Obama’s rhetoric opposes them — and even though Obama killed Osama bin Laden, whose Al Qaeda was funded mainly by the Saud family and their friends. Hillary Clinton is even more hawkish against Russia than is Obama. She would be even better for Republican donors than Obama has been.) Also regarding such fudging: on 27 March 2009, President Obama in secret told the assembled chieftains of Wall Street, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I’m protecting you.” Romney could have said the same, if he had been elected. And President Obama’s record has now made clear that he indeed has fulfilled on that promise he made secretly to them. The reality turned out to be far more like Romney, than like Obama’s campaign rhetoric had ever been. Similarly, on Obama’s trade-deals (TPP, TTIP, and TISA), he has been very much what would have been expected from Romney, though Obama in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primaries had campaigned against Hillary Clinton for her having supported and helped to pass NAFTA. Obama’s trade-deals go even beyond NAFTA, to benefit international mega-corporations, at the general public’s expense. What Hillary’s fairly strong appeal to Romney’s financial backers shows is that the wealthy, because of their access to leaders in government, know and recognize the difference between what a candidate says in public, versus what the winning public official has said to them (in private) and actually does while serving in office. They know that she keeps her promises to them, not her promises to the electorate. Hillary Clinton is a good investment for a billionaire — even for the 70% of them who are Republicans. And, based on those 2015 donation-figures, it seems that they would prefer a President Hillary Clinton, over a President Donald Trump. However, their three favorite candidates, in order, were: Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. But, in a Clinton-versus-Trump contest, Hillary Clinton would likely draw more money from Republican mega-donors than Trump would, and, of course, she would draw virtually all of the money from Democratic mega-donors. In such an instance, Hillary Clinton would probably draw a larger campaign-chest (especially considering super-pacs) than any candidate for any political office in U.S. (or global) history. Hillary Clinton would almost certainly be the most-heavily-marketed political product in history, if she becomes nominated and ends up running against Trump. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/wall-street-republicans-hillary-cl... Wall St. Republicans' dark secret By BEN WHITE and MAGGIE HABERMAN 04/28/2014 NEW YORK — The biggest parlor game on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms these days is guessing whether former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will run for president and save the GOP’s old establishment base from its rising populist wing. ... ...Two dozen interviews about the 2016 race with unaligned GOP donors, financial executives and their Washington lobbyists turned up a consistent — and unusual — consolation candidate if Bush demurs, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn’t recover politically and no other establishment favorite gets nominated: Hillary Clinton. ... ... The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation. “If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. ... ... But the private consensus is similar to what Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said to POLITICO late last year when he praised both Christie — before the bridge scandal — and Clinton. “I very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round,” he said. “I held fundraisers for her.” People close to Blankfein say the same calculus applies to a Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton race as it would to a Christie-Clinton contest. “Those would be two very good choices and we’d be perfectly happy with them,” a person close to Blankfein said. Blankfein is a self-described Democrat, but his comments about Christie and Clinton reflect the ambidextrous political approach that many Republicans and Democrats on Wall Street take. ... http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/27/rehab-jeb-bush-style-iraq-disaster-c... Rehab, Jeb Bush-Style The Republican front-runner seems to be addicted to the warmongers and regime-changers who inspired his brother’s foreign policy. Which should drive a sane person to drink. By Michael A. Cohen February 27, 2015 ... Last week, when former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced the names of his 21 informal foreign-policy advisors, it read like a who’s who of Republican presidents past. There was George Shultz, secretary of state in Ronald Reagan’s administration; James Baker, who held the same job for Bush’s father; and Robert Zoellick, who served under Baker in George H.W. Bush’s State Department and later became U.S. trade representative. But it is the more recent names that were most notable. Seventeen of the 21 officials on Jeb Bush’s advisory board served in the administration of Jeb’s brother, George W. Bush. In case you’ve forgotten (as it appears many Americans have), George W. Bush was president from 2001 to 2009, and he had the most calamitous foreign-policy tenure of any U.S. president, perhaps ever. ... Psychopathic birds of a feather, flock to feather their nests together. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-va... Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger: It’s Personal. Very Personal. The Clintons and the Kissingers regularly spend holidays together at a beachfront villa. David Corn Feb. 12, 2016 ...What Clinton did not mention was that her bond with Kissinger was personal as well as professional, as she and her husband have for years regularly spent their winter holidays with Kissinger and his wife, Nancy, at the beachfront villa of fashion designer Oscar de la Renta, who died in 2014, and his wife, Annette, in the Dominican Republic. This campaign tussle over Kissinger began a week earlier, at a previous debate, when Clinton, looking to boost her résumé, said, “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time. So I have an idea about what it’s going to take to make our government work more efficiently.” A few days later, Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his wife in New Hampshire, told a crowd of her supporters, “Henry Kissinger, of all people, said she ran the State Department better and got more out of the personnel at the State Department than any secretary of state in decades, and it’s true.” His audience of Democrats clapped loudly in response. It was odd that the Clintons, locked in a fierce fight to win Democratic votes, would name-check a fellow who for decades has been criticized—and even derided as a war criminal—by liberals. Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves opposed the Vietnam War that Nixon and Kissinger inherited and continued. Hillary Clinton was a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach Nixon, and one of the articles of impeachment drafted by the staff (but which was not approved) cited Nixon for covering up his secret bombing of Cambodia. In the years since then, information has emerged showing that Kissinger’s underhanded and covert diplomacy led to brutal massacres around the globe, including in Chile, Argentina, East Timor, and Bangladesh. With all this history, it was curious that in 2014, Clinton wrote a fawning review of Kissinger’s latest book and observed, “America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of legitimacy, not governments alone.” In that article, she called Kissinger, who had been a practitioner of a bloody foreign-policy realpolitik, “surprisingly idealistic.” ... https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-embrace-of-kissinger-... Hillary Clinton’s Embrace of Kissinger Is Inexcusable Bernie Sanders should call on her to repudiate him as the war criminal he is. By Greg GrandinTwitter August 9, 2016 Word comes from Politico that Hillary Clinton is courting the endorsement of Henry Kissinger. No surprise. Kissinger and the Clintons go back a ways, to when Bill in the early 1990s sought out Kissinger’s support to pass NAFTA and to, in the words of the economist Jeff Faux, serve as “the perfect tutor for a new Democratic president trying to convince Republicans and their business allies that they could count on him to champion Reagan’s vision.” Hillary has continued the apprenticeship, soliciting Kissinger’s advice and calling him “friend.” ... ...Kissinger is a unique monster. He stands not as a bulwark against Donald Trump’s feared recklessness and immorality but as his progenitor. As Richard Nixon’s aide-de-camp, Kissinger helped plan and execute a murderous, illegal foreign policy—in Southeast and South Asia, Southern Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America—as reckless and immoral as anything Trump now portends. Millions died as a result of his actions. Kissinger and Nixon threatened to use nuclear weapons, and, indeed, Kissinger helped inscribe the threat of “limited nuclear war” into doctrine. Kissinger, in the 1970s, not only dug the hole that the greater Middle East finds itself in, but, as an influential cheerleader for both the first Gulf War in 1991 and its 2003 sequel, helped drive the United States into that ditch. Kissinger’s crimes aren’t just related to covert murder, genocide, and illegal bombing. In 1975, for example, as Gerald Ford’s secretary of state, he helped Union Carbide set up its chemical plant in Bhopal, India, working with the Indian government and helping secure a loan from the Export-Import Bank of the United States to cover a portion of the plant’s construction. Then, after the plant’s 1984 chemical-leak disaster, Kissinger Associates, the consultancy firm he set up after leaving the State Department, represented Union Carbide, helping to broker, in 1989, a $470 million out-of-court settlement for victims of the spill. The payout was widely condemned as paltry in relation to the scale of the disaster: The spill caused nearly 4,000 immediate deaths and exposed another half a million people to toxic gases. Kissinger Associates is a private company—Kissinger famously quit as chair of the 9/11 Commission so he wouldn’t have to reveal his client list—so the fees it extracted from Union Carbide for this service is unknown. But Bhopal is a good example of the way Kissinger, as a private consultant, profited from the work he did as a public servant (for Kissinger’s role in negotiating the settlement, see the 1988 letter obtained by the environmental reporter Rob Edwards, found here; also, see New York Times reports that Kissinger’s firm had an account with Union Carbide). Kissinger’s role in helping to create today’s immiserating global economy and structural inequality didn’t start with NAFTA. As Gerald Ford’s secretary of state, Kissinger was key to making sure Saudi Arabia’s and, until its revolution, Iran’s growing mountain of petrodollars were recycled through private banks and arms merchants in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States—undercutting Third World demands that capital be used to fund a more equitable global economy, what was then called a New International Economic Order. Likewise, in Latin America and Eastern Europe, Kissinger Associates profited from what one of its consultants called the “massive sale” of public utilities and industries, a sell-off that, in many countries, was initiated by Kissinger-supported dictators and military regimes (Kissinger’s fudging of the line between public policy and private finance, especially as it relates to the arms trade and petroleum extraction, echoes through many of the controversies of the Clinton Foundation; see David Sirota and Andrew Perez’s reporting, especially “Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department” and “As Colombian Money Flowed to Clintons, State Department Took No Action to Prevent Labor Violations”). This sell-off was part of the global transformation to what is commonly called “neoliberalism,” and what in this campaign season has come to be known as Clintonism, as opposed to Sanders’s vision of a restored New Deal: the privatization of the world’s political economy and, in the name of “free trade,” its transformation into a series of speculative bubbles, cyanide-spewing open-pit mines, and toxic spills. ... ...As Bill Kristol tweeted, “When Dems are finished running vs Trump’s foreign policy, they’ll be more hawkish than me.” http://observer.com/2016/03/the-troubling-friendship-of-hillary-clinton-... The Troubling Friendship of Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush Both families have circumvented what democracy is supposed to prevent By Michael Sainato • 03/17/16 ... In the most recent Democratic town hall on MSNBC, Ms. Clinton told Chris Matthews her vote for the Iraq War—a manifestation of the Bush administration—was born from her agreement with George W. Bush to secure $20 billion toward rebuilding New York City after 9/11. “I’m sitting there in the Oval Office, and Bush says to me, ‘What do you need?’ And I said, ‘I need $20 billion to rebuild, you know, New York,’ and he said, ‘You got it.’ And he was good to his word,” Ms. Clinton said. “Literally, that same day, I get back to the Capitol, and the Republicans are trying to take that money away. We kept calling the White House, Bush kept saying, ‘I gave them my word, I’m going to stick with it.’ So, you know, I had a different set of experiences.” ... ... Despite the Bush family being Republican and the Clinton family being Democrats—especially as the polarity between parties is arguably broader than it ever has been in the past few decades—the two political dynasties have maintained a surprisingly close relationship. In a 2014, George W. Bush called Bill Clinton his “brother from another mother” on Instagram, in response to a tweet from Mr. Clinton about Mr. Bush’s latest book. That same year, in an interview with Real Clear Politics, Mr. Bush said of Mr. Clinton, “He’s got a good spirit about him. We’re the only baby-boomer presidents. We were both Southern governors, and we both like each other. He’s fun to be around. I hope he would say I’m fun to be around. And we’re both grandfathers.” In a separate interview with CNN, Mr. Bush described Ms. Clinton as his “sister-in-law.” ... ...Since the 18th century revolutions have been fueled by the abuse and corruption rampant in monarchies and family dynasties. When democracy took place, the people were heard and represented. The Bush and Clinton families have since circumvented what democracy, in theory, is supposed to accomplish: Although they were elected, their rise to power was ensured by the influence of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Each presidency built the foundation for another Bush and another Clinton to reach the White House. Their closeness exhibits the façade and pseudo-dramas both political parties engage. Aside from a few differences in opinion on certain issues, both the Bush and Clinton families share moderate political stances, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush also shared many of the same wealthy donors—more than 60 of whom contributed to both campaigns, according to The Daily Beast. Given Ms. Clinton’s lead in the Democratic Primaries, she may revert back to her friendship with the Bush family and embrace past stances that are more in line with moderate liberalism and conservatism. ... Her record as Secretary of State speaks for itself in her share of the damage done in America and around the world to those dispossessed, drained and poisoned, to further enrich and empower those already having most, at their cost and that of environmental health. And that's what used to identify the Republican Party from the Dems, thought to be different and more democratically inclined, as they seemed to be. This isn't actually about political party labelling, since both brands of the Two-Party Trade-Off to which Americans have been restricted demonstrably stand for corporate/billionaire hegemony and neither one for the people their public office exists to represent the interests of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6U7vvbDI6c&list=RDp6U7vvbDI6c#t=131 Dear Mr President lyrics Pink

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 12:15am

@Craig234

@Craig234

And as long as people continue to encourage evil by voting for it, the evils will continue to trade off endlessly between one party and another and continue to worsen.

There has to be a better way than asking for evil of any kind in 'democratic (s)elections' over and over again, like some mass cloning of Homer Simpsons repeatedly re-bumping their heads against some hard object while trying to rise - without ever changing a thing to avoid immediate future injury.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by WaterLily on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 12:13pm

Sigh.

I oscillate between hope (your suggestion for a national referendum) and cynical nihilism (everything captured in this essay). And to think I used to be an optimist.

Even the politics here in Burlington, Vermont are tainted. You'd think it wouldn't be the case, but true progressives are consistently drowned out by corporatist cronyism. ::cough:: Miro Weinberger ::cough::

Can't we all find an undiscovered island somewhere and quietly start a commune? (Preferably outside the hurricane zone and the Ring of Fire?)

[RIP Mr. Petty]

Submitted by mimi on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 12:46pm

heh, Freedom ! - Uncle Sam and Uncle Bismark, brothers in arms?

I was like, "ya baby, let's have us a referendum! Let's go get us some FREEDOM!! ....

...I read about how the independence movement is primarily an attempt by the Catalan bourgeoisie to carve out an independent capitalist nation-state that would immediately seek membership in the European Union and NATO. I read about how the repression in Spain is part of an accelerating turn to authoritarian forms of rule throughout Europe. I read about past revolutions and how the rich always end up back in power, somehow, some way. I think about Trump and this country. I think about the ignorance, the propaganda, the apathy, the divisions, the differences.

So, now I looked up where Uncle Sam came from:

oops, not this one of course:

The origin of the term Uncle Sam, though disputed, is usually associated with a businessman from Troy, New York, Samuel Wilson, known affectionately as “Uncle Sam” Wilson. The barrels of beef that he supplied the army during the War of 1812 were stamped “U.S.” to indicate government property.
...
In 1961, Congress passed a resolution that officially recognized meat packer Samuel Wilson (1766-1854) as Uncle Sam's namesake. Wilson, who supplied meat to the army during the War of 1812, is reputed to have been a man of great fairness, reliability, and honesty who was devoted to his country.

and now Uncle Bismark, who my brother mistook as God as a five year old when strolling by the statue in Hamburg, Germany, with my mom....

In 1862, King Wilhelm I appointed Bismarck as Minister President of Prussia, a position he would hold until 1890 (except for a short break in 1873). He provoked three short, decisive wars against Denmark, Austria, and France, aligning the smaller German states behind Prussia in its defeat of France. In 1871, he formed the German Empire with himself as Chancellor, while retaining control of Prussia. His diplomacy of realpolitik and powerful rule at home gained him the nickname the "Iron Chancellor". German unification and its rapid economic growth was the foundation to his foreign policy. He disliked colonialism but reluctantly built an overseas empire when it was demanded by both elite and mass opinion. Juggling a very complex interlocking series of conferences, negotiations and alliances, he used his diplomatic skills to maintain Germany's position and used the balance of power to keep Europe at peace in the 1870s and 1880s.

So, no peace and unity without an "Iron Fist Chancellor", but heh, not too much freedom as well.

Uncle Sam though promises you freedom and patriotism and loves to make a buck, I guess, but I guess the buck goes to the PTB, the government, ie the oligarchs and plutocrats these days.

So, what is it now?

I am for a new party, the Jeffersonian Party against unrestricted Corporations and Monopolies.

When you need to restrict, you won't have freedom. Something has to give and it's a matter of balance of power to keep for the good of the people and for peace. What's more important, restrictions for unity in peace or freedom for unrestricted diversity?

Can't figure it out. You tell me. What do I not get? Sure we are screwed. Always. What else is new?

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 4:08pm

what else isn't new?

@mimi

Can't figure it out. You tell me. What do I not get? Sure we are screwed. Always. What else is new?

Or, as they said it 3000 years ago:

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

-- Jewish Scriptures, Ecclesiastes 1:2-10 (KJV) source

I was like, "ya baby, let's have us a referendum! Let's go get us some FREEDOM!! ....

...I read about how the independence movement is primarily an attempt by the Catalan bourgeoisie to carve out an independent capitalist nation-state that would immediately seek membership in the European Union and NATO. I read about how the repression in Spain is part of an accelerating turn to authoritarian forms of rule throughout Europe. I read about past revolutions and how the rich always end up back in power, somehow, some way. I think about Trump and this country. I think about the ignorance, the propaganda, the apathy, the divisions, the differences.

So, now I looked up where Uncle Sam came from:

oops, not this one of course:

The origin of the term Uncle Sam, though disputed, is usually associated with a businessman from Troy, New York, Samuel Wilson, known affectionately as “Uncle Sam” Wilson. The barrels of beef that he supplied the army during the War of 1812 were stamped “U.S.” to indicate government property.
...
In 1961, Congress passed a resolution that officially recognized meat packer Samuel Wilson (1766-1854) as Uncle Sam's namesake. Wilson, who supplied meat to the army during the War of 1812, is reputed to have been a man of great fairness, reliability, and honesty who was devoted to his country.

and now Uncle Bismark, who my brother mistook as God as a five year old when strolling by the statue in Hamburg, Germany, with my mom....

In 1862, King Wilhelm I appointed Bismarck as Minister President of Prussia, a position he would hold until 1890 (except for a short break in 1873). He provoked three short, decisive wars against Denmark, Austria, and France, aligning the smaller German states behind Prussia in its defeat of France. In 1871, he formed the German Empire with himself as Chancellor, while retaining control of Prussia. His diplomacy of realpolitik and powerful rule at home gained him the nickname the "Iron Chancellor". German unification and its rapid economic growth was the foundation to his foreign policy. He disliked colonialism but reluctantly built an overseas empire when it was demanded by both elite and mass opinion. Juggling a very complex interlocking series of conferences, negotiations and alliances, he used his diplomatic skills to maintain Germany's position and used the balance of power to keep Europe at peace in the 1870s and 1880s.

So, no peace and unity without an "Iron Fist Chancellor", but heh, not too much freedom as well.

Uncle Sam though promises you freedom and patriotism and loves to make a buck, I guess, but I guess the buck goes to the PTB, the government, ie the oligarchs and plutocrats these days.

So, what is it now?

I am for a new party, the Jeffersonian Party against unrestricted Corporations and Monopolies.

When you need to restrict, you won't have freedom. Something has to give and it's a matter of balance of power to keep for the good of the people and for peace. What's more important, restrictions for unity in peace or freedom for unrestricted diversity?

Can't figure it out. You tell me. What do I not get? Sure we are screwed. Always. What else is new?

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by mimi on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 4:34pm

thank you ...it helps in a way, but ...

@thanatokephaloides

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by WIProgressive on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 1:35pm

Oh Al you killed me with this!

In the last installment of "Big Al's Written Record for the CIA, NSA and FBI"

Please don't let it be the the last finger in the eye of those pricks!

I am cautiously optimist in the WI gerrymandering case that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the voters. That would put some fairness back into elections here.

Sad that both George and Tom are gone now.

—

O.k. When is the next meeting for the revolution?
-FuturePassed on Sunday, November 25, 2018 10:22 p.m.

Submitted by Wink on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 2:19pm

We're in the matrix. n/t

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 6:01pm

Self-determination is the most important human right

…in the opinion of many. Without that, there are no other human rights. When a distinct historical population wants autonomy and new government, who has the authority to say "No." their culture will appreciate. It is a great mistake to repress a culture under a government they don't want.

I read about the Spanish government crackdown on the Catalonians trying to exercise their human right to vote, to have a voice in how they live, how their lives are governed. I read about how the repression in Spain is part of an accelerating turn to authoritarian forms of rule throughout Europe. I read about past revolutions and how the rich always end up back in power, somehow, some way.

In the backstory, the right-wing Spanish Fascists under Franco seized the Autonomous community of Catalonia in 1939. It was an independent territory with its own culture and language; it had a successful economy. Catalonia is ready to return to its historic independence, and make sovereign the territory the Fascists stole from them. They want self determination over their culture and future. The Spanish are saying, "We won your civilization fair and square; you were outgunned. Too bad."

I believe in the fullness of time, that homeland returns to the cultures that are bound to it by evolution. I believe this is inevitable and that the struggle never ends until the past is set right. I believe that the Palestinians will get their country back. I feel certain the Catalonians will reclaim their principality. I imagine that the Native Americans might even get their continent back, one day. The occupiers may remain, but only as guests.

Maybe there's nothing we can do about it. We're all humans destined to be ruled by the rich, controlled by the cream of the crop, the sociopathic and psychopathic among us who covet all the power, gold and riches the world can produce.

I'm not so sure we are destined to be ruled by the oligarchs, al. They have these massive injustices to atone for, internationally — these things just don't go away. They aren't going to be allowed to sit like fat spiders in their webs after what they have done to the world. It took 15 years of careful planning and structuring for the world to neutralize the weaponized US Dollar and end Dollar hegemony. The time is coming when US will no longer be able to pay its trade imbalances by printing money out of thin air, a privilege that a Reserve Currency has and the US abused. The Dollar will lack liquidity as OPEC discovers there are more lucrative currencies for foreign exchange. Marginalizing the Dollar will definitely stop the aggressive wars the US uses to execute Israel's foreign policy. Foreign military bases will close.

I think the American people will have greater political options going forward. Certainly, better leaders will rise up. The cycle will be broken.

Submitted by Big Al on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 3:11pm

Thanks Pluto.

@Pluto's Republic I hope you're right. I'm probably being naïve, but I believe we can use right against wrong and right will win, especially in this country.

…in the opinion of many. Without that, there are no other human rights. When a distinct historical population wants autonomy and new government, who has the authority to say "No." their culture will appreciate. It is a great mistake to repress a culture under a government they don't want. I read about the Spanish government crackdown on the Catalonians trying to exercise their human right to vote, to have a voice in how they live, how their lives are governed. I read about how the repression in Spain is part of an accelerating turn to authoritarian forms of rule throughout Europe. I read about past revolutions and how the rich always end up back in power, somehow, some way. In the backstory, the right-wing Spanish Fascists under Franco seized the Autonomous community of Catalonia in 1939. It was an independent territory with its own culture and language; it had a successful economy. Catalonia is ready to return to its historic independence, and make sovereign the territory the Fascists stole from them. They want self determination over their culture and future. The Spanish are saying, "We won your civilization fair and square; you were outgunned. Too bad." I believe in the fullness of time, that homeland returns to the cultures that are bound to it by evolution. I believe this is inevitable and that the struggle never ends until the past is set right. I believe that the Palestinians will get their country back. I feel certain the Catalonians will reclaim their principality. I imagine that the Native Americans might even get their continent back, one day. The occupiers may remain, but only as guests. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it. We're all humans destined to be ruled by the rich, controlled by the cream of the crop, the sociopathic and psychopathic among us who covet all the power, gold and riches the world can produce. I'm not so sure we are destined to be ruled by the oligarchs, al. They have these massive injustices to atone for, internationally — these things just don't go away. They aren't going to be allowed to sit like fat spiders in their webs after what they have done to the world. It took 15 years of careful planning and structuring for the world to neutralize the weaponized US Dollar and end Dollar hegemony. The time is coming when US will no longer be able to pay its trade imbalances by printing money out of thin air, a privilege that a Reserve Currency has and the US abused. The Dollar will lack liquidity as OPEC discovers there are more lucrative currencies for foreign exchange. Marginalizing the Dollar will definitely stop the aggressive wars the US uses to execute Israel's foreign policy. Foreign military bases will close. I think the American people will have greater political options going forward. Certainly, better leaders will rise up. The cycle will be broken.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 3:36pm

I agree, Pluto.

@Pluto's Republic

I personally think the American people will have more political options. Certainly, better leaders will rise up. The cycle will be broken.

This will come to pass.

…in the opinion of many. Without that, there are no other human rights. When a distinct historical population wants autonomy and new government, who has the authority to say "No." their culture will appreciate. It is a great mistake to repress a culture under a government they don't want. I read about the Spanish government crackdown on the Catalonians trying to exercise their human right to vote, to have a voice in how they live, how their lives are governed. I read about how the repression in Spain is part of an accelerating turn to authoritarian forms of rule throughout Europe. I read about past revolutions and how the rich always end up back in power, somehow, some way. In the backstory, the right-wing Spanish Fascists under Franco seized the Autonomous community of Catalonia in 1939. It was an independent territory with its own culture and language; it had a successful economy. Catalonia is ready to return to its historic independence, and make sovereign the territory the Fascists stole from them. They want self determination over their culture and future. The Spanish are saying, "We won your civilization fair and square; you were outgunned. Too bad." I believe in the fullness of time, that homeland returns to the cultures that are bound to it by evolution. I believe this is inevitable and that the struggle never ends until the past is set right. I believe that the Palestinians will get their country back. I feel certain the Catalonians will reclaim their principality. I imagine that the Native Americans might even get their continent back, one day. The occupiers may remain, but only as guests. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it. We're all humans destined to be ruled by the rich, controlled by the cream of the crop, the sociopathic and psychopathic among us who covet all the power, gold and riches the world can produce. I'm not so sure we are destined to be ruled by the oligarchs, al. They have these massive injustices to atone for, internationally — these things just don't go away. They aren't going to be allowed to sit like fat spiders in their webs after what they have done to the world. It took 15 years of careful planning and structuring for the world to neutralize the weaponized US Dollar and end Dollar hegemony. The time is coming when US will no longer be able to pay its trade imbalances by printing money out of thin air, a privilege that a Reserve Currency has and the US abused. The Dollar will lack liquidity as OPEC discovers there are more lucrative currencies for foreign exchange. Marginalizing the Dollar will definitely stop the aggressive wars the US uses to execute Israel's foreign policy. Foreign military bases will close. I think the American people will have greater political options going forward. Certainly, better leaders will rise up. The cycle will be broken.

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by Craig234 on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 4:01pm

@Raggedy Ann Or, the opposite will

@Raggedy Ann Or, the opposite will happen. The forces of plutocracy will only grow stronger, develop better tool for keeping power, get more skilled leaders serving them, tightening their grip.

Until the idea of 'better leaderhip' and escaping the plutocracy will be as far off as the North Korean people's having freedom soon.

One problem is that we simply cannot get the American people at all united on this. The election of Republicans shows how far off we are.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 10:17pm

I prefer to remain positive.

@Craig234
Positive vibes are better for humanity and the planet than negativity, imo.

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 4:38pm

this is my hope

@Pluto's Republic @Pluto's Republic I believe you are alluding to the fact that the US dollar may no longer be the world's reserve currency. The rest of the world is sick of US imperialism and so are American citizens. It certainly appears that we are headed for economic collapse.

I think it is the only way out for we the people. Sadly it will come with some great hardship, but perhaps it will be worth it in the end.

…in the opinion of many. Without that, there are no other human rights. When a distinct historical population wants autonomy and new government, who has the authority to say "No." their culture will appreciate. It is a great mistake to repress a culture under a government they don't want. I read about the Spanish government crackdown on the Catalonians trying to exercise their human right to vote, to have a voice in how they live, how their lives are governed. I read about how the repression in Spain is part of an accelerating turn to authoritarian forms of rule throughout Europe. I read about past revolutions and how the rich always end up back in power, somehow, some way. In the backstory, the right-wing Spanish Fascists under Franco seized the Autonomous community of Catalonia in 1939. It was an independent territory with its own culture and language; it had a successful economy. Catalonia is ready to return to its historic independence, and make sovereign the territory the Fascists stole from them. They want self determination over their culture and future. The Spanish are saying, "We won your civilization fair and square; you were outgunned. Too bad." I believe in the fullness of time, that homeland returns to the cultures that are bound to it by evolution. I believe this is inevitable and that the struggle never ends until the past is set right. I believe that the Palestinians will get their country back. I feel certain the Catalonians will reclaim their principality. I imagine that the Native Americans might even get their continent back, one day. The occupiers may remain, but only as guests. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it. We're all humans destined to be ruled by the rich, controlled by the cream of the crop, the sociopathic and psychopathic among us who covet all the power, gold and riches the world can produce. I'm not so sure we are destined to be ruled by the oligarchs, al. They have these massive injustices to atone for, internationally — these things just don't go away. They aren't going to be allowed to sit like fat spiders in their webs after what they have done to the world. It took 15 years of careful planning and structuring for the world to neutralize the weaponized US Dollar and end Dollar hegemony. The time is coming when US will no longer be able to pay its trade imbalances by printing money out of thin air, a privilege that a Reserve Currency has and the US abused. The Dollar will lack liquidity as OPEC discovers there are more lucrative currencies for foreign exchange. Marginalizing the Dollar will definitely stop the aggressive wars the US uses to execute Israel's foreign policy. Foreign military bases will close. I think the American people will have greater political options going forward. Certainly, better leaders will rise up. The cycle will be broken.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 7:22pm

Catalunya

@Pluto's Republic

So, here's the backstory. In 1939, right wing Spanish Fascists under Franco seized the Autonomous community of Catalonia, an independent territory with its own culture and language and successful economy. Catalonia now wants its independence, it wants to reclaim its territory that was stolen from them. They want self determination over their culture and future. The Spanish are saying, "Finder's keepers, loser's weepers. We won it fair and square; you were outgunned."

"We stole it fair and square" is more like it!

The parallels between Spain's treatment of the Native Americans and of today's Catalans are eerie and frightening!

And, as I've pointed out before, Spain followed the Turkish example and put that word indivisible in their constitution, and now whine about how the Catalans are "violating the law" by reclaiming their rightful sovereignty.

As far as the Americas go, I don't think we will ever revert to indigenous rule. There will always be a majority of non-indigenous people living here; that particular toothpaste is never going back into the tube. However, the North American denouement will take another form. As our 99% realize that we have everything in common with our indigenous brothers and sisters, and nothing in common with the fuckers who rip us all off alike, solidarity is forming and growing, as well it should. As the 99% come to realize this, the indigenous Peoples' fight for their needs is receiving strong alliances from other 99%ers. (The anti-DAPL fight is a prime example of this.) In short, we 99%ers are figuring out that we all are in the same boat as the indigenous folks, and we're learning to act like it. In the end, this will have the same happy result for all of us, no matter where our DNA originally hails from.

Likewise, I don't see Catalunya expelling ethnic Spaniards who want to live as Catalans.

Palestine? The first thing everybody there needs to figure out is that the vast majority of original Israelites are the Palestinians today. They are kin -- cousins -- to any and all Jews with actual Israelite blood in their veins, which means damn near all the Jews in the world and especially all the Jews in Palestine/Israel. As soon as they figure out that they're all family, the family can figure out how to live in peace on the old family hacienda. Unless and until that happens, there's no hope at all for peace there. Nina Paley got it right:

[video:https://youtu.be/wsD26QgkNxM]

(A chart showing just who was killing who, when, can be found on Nina's site here.)

EDIT: Yanked that spurious "0" from the word "have".

…in the opinion of many. Without that, there are no other human rights. When a distinct historical population wants autonomy and new government, who has the authority to say "No." their culture will appreciate. It is a great mistake to repress a culture under a government they don't want. I read about the Spanish government crackdown on the Catalonians trying to exercise their human right to vote, to have a voice in how they live, how their lives are governed. I read about how the repression in Spain is part of an accelerating turn to authoritarian forms of rule throughout Europe. I read about past revolutions and how the rich always end up back in power, somehow, some way. In the backstory, the right-wing Spanish Fascists under Franco seized the Autonomous community of Catalonia in 1939. It was an independent territory with its own culture and language; it had a successful economy. Catalonia is ready to return to its historic independence, and make sovereign the territory the Fascists stole from them. They want self determination over their culture and future. The Spanish are saying, "We won your civilization fair and square; you were outgunned. Too bad." I believe in the fullness of time, that homeland returns to the cultures that are bound to it by evolution. I believe this is inevitable and that the struggle never ends until the past is set right. I believe that the Palestinians will get their country back. I feel certain the Catalonians will reclaim their principality. I imagine that the Native Americans might even get their continent back, one day. The occupiers may remain, but only as guests. Maybe there's nothing we can do about it. We're all humans destined to be ruled by the rich, controlled by the cream of the crop, the sociopathic and psychopathic among us who covet all the power, gold and riches the world can produce. I'm not so sure we are destined to be ruled by the oligarchs, al. They have these massive injustices to atone for, internationally — these things just don't go away. They aren't going to be allowed to sit like fat spiders in their webs after what they have done to the world. It took 15 years of careful planning and structuring for the world to neutralize the weaponized US Dollar and end Dollar hegemony. The time is coming when US will no longer be able to pay its trade imbalances by printing money out of thin air, a privilege that a Reserve Currency has and the US abused. The Dollar will lack liquidity as OPEC discovers there are more lucrative currencies for foreign exchange. Marginalizing the Dollar will definitely stop the aggressive wars the US uses to execute Israel's foreign policy. Foreign military bases will close. I think the American people will have greater political options going forward. Certainly, better leaders will rise up. The cycle will be broken.

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Fri, 10/06/2017 - 6:08pm

All interesting and wise points.

@thanatokephaloides

Thanks for the links and your views.

#7

So, here's the backstory. In 1939, right wing Spanish Fascists under Franco seized the Autonomous community of Catalonia, an independent territory with its own culture and language and successful economy. Catalonia now wants its independence, it wants to reclaim its territory that was stolen from them. They want self determination over their culture and future. The Spanish are saying, "Finder's keepers, loser's weepers. We won it fair and square; you were outgunned."

"We stole it fair and square" is more like it!

The parallels between Spain's treatment of the Native Americans and of today's Catalans are eerie and frightening!

And, as I've pointed out before, Spain followed the Turkish example and put that word indivisible in their constitution, and now whine about how the Catalans are "violating the law" by reclaiming their rightful sovereignty.

As far as the Americas go, I don't think we will ever revert to indigenous rule. There will always be a majority of non-indigenous people living here; that particular toothpaste is never going back into the tube. However, the North American denouement will take another form. As our 99% realize that we have everything in common with our indigenous brothers and sisters, and nothing in common with the fuckers who rip us all off alike, solidarity is forming and growing, as well it should. As the 99% come to realize this, the indigenous Peoples' fight for their needs is receiving strong alliances from other 99%ers. (The anti-DAPL fight is a prime example of this.) In short, we 99%ers are figuring out that we all are in the same boat as the indigenous folks, and we're learning to act like it. In the end, this will have the same happy result for all of us, no matter where our DNA originally hails from.

Likewise, I don't see Catalunya expelling ethnic Spaniards who want to live as Catalans.

Palestine? The first thing everybody there needs to figure out is that the vast majority of original Israelites are the Palestinians today. They are kin -- cousins -- to any and all Jews with actual Israelite blood in their veins, which means damn near all the Jews in the world and especially all the Jews in Palestine/Israel. As soon as they figure out that they're all family, the family can figure out how to live in peace on the old family hacienda. Unless and until that happens, there's no hope at all for peace there. Nina Paley got it right:

[video:https://youtu.be/wsD26QgkNxM]

(A chart showing just who was killing who, when, can be found on Nina's site here.)

EDIT: Yanked that spurious "0" from the word "have".

Submitted by BrutallyHonest on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 10:54am

Capitalism and the US government are Zombies

Our economy and system of government has proven to, on purpose, not work for the average American. Also, the psychopathic/sociopathic elite and their boot lickers don't follow the rule of law. It's time we stopped too.

The solution to our problems is at the local level. By pushing forward a Cooperative Democracy we could enact lasting change.