MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 week ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Hits of the Day
- Doctor Cleveland (50)
- Deadman (5)
- Doctor Cleveland (5)
- PeraclesPlease (4)
- artappraiser (4)
Fake News’: Wide Reach but Little Impact, Study Suggests
By HSG on Thu, 01/04/2018 - 1:16pm |Of course this seems intuitively correct. People inclined to believe stuff like Obama was born in Kenya weren't going to vote for Hillary anyway.
URL:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/health/fake-news-conservative-liberal.html?module=WatchingPortal®ion=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=8&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F01%2F02%2Fhealth%2Ffake-news-conservative-liberal.html&eventName=Watching-article-click
- Add new comment
- 25985 reads
Comments
Well, the NYTimes didn't bother to discuss their publishing on the front page large excerpts of Clinton Cash, one of the biggest Fake News events of the season. They pull out stupid examples, and ignore ones that caught fire like Seth Rich murdered by HIllary & DNC, or PizzaGatae Pedophile case that had a true believer go in with an AR-15 and start shooting. Then there was the Hillary Uranium "scandal", and the biggest fake news, that those FBI & NYPD jokers in New York had seen the big evidence against Hillary and were going to go rogue and reveal it if Comey didn't. Oh, and then Hillary's Parkinsons Disease. And what else? Probably a fair number of those Clintons-in-Haiti stories, etc. Yes, the major media outlets continued to pick up bullshit from these little outlets as filtered through Drudge and Breitbart and Sputnik and Fox News....
You know how to pick 'em, Hal - a totally uninspiring, uninquisitive "study" and you lap it up like a Huskie on the home stretch, because it fits all your preconceptions. And margins in the Midwest states were <100,000 votes - the stupid article didn't even address the *targeting* that went on in North Carolina, Florida, and various Midwest states. A complete waste of time.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/04/2018 - 4:21pm
Fox News has very few followers and very little impact.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/12/11/fake-news-try-fox/9hyplENOT2DPQbJ63iI3UM/story.html
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/04/2018 - 5:32pm
Do you have evidence that the fake news stories helped Trump win? Isn't it as or more likely that backlash against the Pizzagate kooks, for example, activated Clinton voters? Regardless, on what data do you rely that nefarious outsiders overbore the will of the voters in the decisive states?
by HSG on Thu, 01/04/2018 - 6:56pm
Hal, look up Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory on Wikipedia and read the NYTimes own piece on how a guy's mistaken post on Hillary busing in fake protesters went viral.
You're the guy always looking for stories on how awful Hillary is/was, and how none of this jazz hurt her chances - have you ever tried to debunk one of these stories? Why then do you expectthink others to, or to be motivated towards her mire than they already are? *You're* a perfect target for this Fake News. You even have your own radio programs and blog to rebroadcast disinfo.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/04/2018 - 7:37pm
It's fake news that fake news pays dividends, somebody tell those teenagers in Macedonia who made 6 figures spreading it in 2016, or Putin's gang of trolls.
The small tent strategy.
Whose the racist now, and why? Hillary is the racist?
Of course, the Democratic Party is big enough to block some of the Republican Party agenda.
But we need a purge to achieve a purity, even though the purity of the GOP is comparable to the purity of an organized crime syndicate.
by NCD on Thu, 01/04/2018 - 8:24pm
Scholarly sober analyses of last year's Presidential election concluded she lost because: 1) She was too hawkish. 2) She had a long history of supporting job-destroying trade deals. 3) She ran a "policy-free" campaign. 4) She didn't excite people of color in swing states.
If you have evidence or can cite to studies that rely on evidence for a different point of view, I would love to read it.
by HSG on Fri, 01/05/2018 - 9:37am
NO, that's not "scholarly sober" - that's your repetitive wish list that you keep pounding over and over and fucking over. RMRD does race, you do your 3 points (your "doesn't excite people of color in swing states" is just simply bullshit that you threw in to show race consciousness)
I've posted a lot more serious "evidence" than you ever have, and I'm not going to go chasing my dick just to make you happy. Done enough, been there, there is no t-shirt
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 01/05/2018 - 2:31pm
I put in "failed to excite people of color" because it's true. She didn't excite black voters and why would she have? 1) In 1996, she campaigned aggressively for her husband by citing "three strikes and you're out." 2) She supported job-destroying free trade deals that have disproportionately harmed people of color both in the US and abroad. 3) She backed welfare "reform." 4) She opposed Medicare-for-all. 5) She opposed legalizing marijuana. 6) She took money from the private prison industry. 7) She took money from red-lining banks. 8) She was captive to Wall Street where only 2.5% (maybe) of the executives are black. 9) She stymied a minimum wage hike in Haiti to 61 fucking (you happy now that I finally cursed) cents per hour for garments workers - nearly all of whom are black women - because that's what the Levi-Strauss Co. wanted. 10) "Hard-working voters WHITE voters."
There are three major reasons that she lost and none have anything to do with fake news: 1) She lost because of the electoral college. 2) She lost because she is at heart a neoliberal at a time when Americans want economic justice. 3) She lost because she is fundamentally dishonest.
Here's a fourth for you: 4) We cannot rule out the possibility that she lost because voting machines in several swing states were rigged.
by HSG on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 9:53am
Using data that was only available after the election, the black vote for Hillary was down about 1%. No one expected Hillary to reach Obama’s numbers in the black community. Bernie Sanders’ numbers in the black community were abysmal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/a-2016-review-turnout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html?_r=1
In Wisconsin, data suggests that voter suppression of black votes may have thrown the race to Trump.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 10:37am
Blah blah blah. She got 94% of the black female vote, sy 85% of black male vote. Black vote was down only 5% (rmrd reports 1%) despite no black candidate, horrendous new anti-black voting laws and other obstruction, plus still weak job recovery for blacks. I'm sure if she got 105% of the vote you'd say she needed 110% to prrove herself.
As I've documented, Americans are likely more concerned about the threat and strangeness of immigration than de facto "economic justice". You're just a fanatical socialist qith only a few cards in your deck, so "economic justice" is good for weddings, funerals, stock car races, movie premieres...
"Fundamentally dishonest" - howler, Hal. 2017-2018 we've seen so much blatant dishonesty from so many quarters - congressmen, the president's men, mainstram and partisan medi, Twitter/Facebook, Apple-Google, movie moguls, sports owners, police, etc. Even that Donna Brazile hit piece in Politico. What's Hillary's big dishonesty? Where is any horrible email after thousands released? Where's that Benghazi smoking gun? With all that fundamental dishonesty, all these congressional and media investigations, we should have something pretty incriminating and prosecutable. Let me know, I can take it. She's Satan's succuba, isn't it? She co-raped Bill's mistresses? She laughsawkqardly? Letme know.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 10:44am
If the focus is going to be on Hillary, we need to be concerned that Sessions DOJ is targeting the Clinton Foundation at the request of Trump. Trump is targeting a political adversary and being aidined by Sessions and Republicans in Congress. This type of political attack is usually found in authoritarian governments. It is 2018 not 2016. It is no longer about flaws that Hillary had during the election. We are witnessing a want to be dictator attacking a perceived political opponent.
Edit to add:
The DOJ is also reviewing Uranium One and the emails.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 11:25am
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 2:36pm
You must be paid well to shill this much for Trump.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 2:49pm
You call me a "fanatical socialist" because I recognize the primacy of voters' economic well-being when they make voting decisions. Do you acknowledge that the actual economic conditions of individual voters may affect their voting decisions?
by HSG on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 1:19pm
Yes, economic condition impact voting. Sanders was rejected because his solutions weren’t credible.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 1:33pm
Which of Bernie's solutions have been shown not to work?
by HSG on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 7:46pm
The true test of that condition would be having those policies put into place and observing the results.
Your question is like asking Hillary Clinton why the health care plan she tried to put together as First Lady would not have worked. We will never know.
And maybe that level of actualization is not enough. Obama pushed through a package that many have criticized from the beginning and it has been hard to separate the merits of the policy from the direct highly publicized attempts to make it fail.
What does "work" mean in this context?
by moat on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 8:06pm
All of them because he never had solutions — he only had wishes and rants, without a single suggestion about how to make them happen. How did the free tuition work out? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to go after alleviating current student debt first? How did his single-payer health care affect the country? Instead of that Bernie sowed more distrust about Hillary and all Dems, and so what we have now is a DISASTER that would not have happened without his help.
What “solutions” of Bernie’s have been shown to work?
Nada
by CVille Dem on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 8:57pm
Single payer failed in Vermont.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanderss-single-payer-health-care-plan-failed-in-vermont
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 10:01pm
Well, there are a number of different arguments about whether single-payer was ever proposed let alone did or didn't work in VT. Let's say it didn't work in a state of 500,000 people. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA are all forms of single-payer in the US. Do they work? Canada, France, Germany, the UK, Japan, Israel, and many many other countries - some with hundreds of millions of people - deliver health care to their citizens via single-payer systems. Do those systems work?
by HSG on Sun, 01/07/2018 - 8:32am
Hal, if you bring up VA hospitals as working systems, you are truly out of touch. VA hospitals are flooded with complaints.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/09/16/staff-veterans-hospitals-lead-federal-government-criticizing-their-employer-far/gHc8SYqcVze3tk2Xn8YAeI/story.html
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 01/07/2018 - 10:50am
The four groups of Americans who are most satisfied with their health care are in this order: 1) veterans, 2) Medicare recipients, 3) Medicaid recipients, 4) union members. http://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-sat...
by HSG on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 9:08am
I'd appreciate it if you'd try to understand nuance before just posting something that has the word "veterans" in it.
Veterans frequently get extend insurance called TriCare, which allows them to get treated at public facilities as part of the hospital network signed up to handle vets, not just VA hospitals. So it's extremely possible that vets are happy as shit about their coverage when they just go to their local private doctor or public hospital and don't have to deal with the VA hospitals at all. (I have personal experience with this). Nevertheless, 1.3 mllion of 12.5 million vets were uninsured in 2010 for various reasons - 2.5 million if including family. Presumably if they're satisfied with their health care, it's because they're insured through their work (though don't know why they'd then be called non-insured) or are simply young enough and healthy enough that they're not worried about it yet.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 9:35am
You are more than welcome to present evidence that veterans are unhappy with the care that they receive from the VA. I'll be waiting. Regardless of whether you supply such evidence, the fact remains that veterans are happy with the health care that they receive and that care, courtesy of the U.S. government, is single-payer. The bottom-line: recipients of single-payer health care are the Americans who are happiest with their health care. The obvious corollary - Democratic candidates, like Bernie, who champion single-payer are more likely to defeat Republicans like Trump.
by HSG on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 2:00pm
rmrd gave you a link. Take it up with him.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 2:48pm
The cited article describes complaints from VA employees not the veterans themselves. I'm not saying that's okay and obviously there are real problems at the VA but when it comes to patient satisfaction in America, veterans are the most satisfied group.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 11:20am
um, you have no actual evidence for that.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 9:51am
None but 1) the polls that consistently showed (a) Bernie would fare better against Trump and the other Republicans than Hillary, (b) most Americans support single payer, and 2) the fact that Trump himself periodically called for some form of universal care during the campaign.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 11:25am
Trump also periodically called for nuking Iran and deporting all the Hispanics and building a bigger Wall, and locking up Hillary and returning to coal and grab 'em by the pussy and whatever. Which of course means universal single payer healthcare is what we need, because that's always the answer, whatever the question.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 11:38am
Yeah. That's what I argue - all we need is single-payer. Do you see how you have to distort and mischaracterize my arguments in order to defeat them? Do you do that consciously or is it just ingrained at this point?
by HSG on Wed, 01/10/2018 - 8:42am
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 01/07/2018 - 11:59am
The citizens in the countries I listed and dozens more besides pay less per capita for health care to get better results. Single-payer is, admittedly, a bit of a catch-all. There are various systems in place in these countries and yes individuals do pay out-of-pocket for some services in some of them. Nevertheless, they are all characterized by much greater involvement by the government in financing care and its guarantee that every single person get treated when care is sought and called for.
by HSG on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 9:15am
*EVERY* developed country in the world pays much less per capita than the US, frequently with as good or better care. (see AA's link for the 50% unneeded procedures our system sells patients, as just 1 example of the inefficiencies). I think Bob Somerby's repeated list had our nearest competitor as 2/3 the rate we pay. But this has less to do with "single payer" than with lobbyists getting all sorts of inefficient benefits that rig the system to be bloated and uneconomical. That has much more to do with American cronyism.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 9:38am
The inefficiencies result directly from our failure to embrace a far more stream-lined system, i.e., single-payer or something much more like it than what we have now.
by HSG on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 2:02pm
NO, for fuck's sakes. I noted what AA posted, that doctors are over prescribing treatments that don't work because they're trendy or simply gold plating. Having single payer for unneeded treatments won't help much. But you just keep recycling the same answer, single payer single payer single payer, much like nyam yoho rengkyi kho. Health care in the US is nowhere near that simple.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 2:56pm
Is there any correlation between the combined number of "fucks" and "shits" in your posts and the level of irrational thinking in them? Just askin.
by HSG on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 5:01pm
That you have to fucking ask is a fucking problem. No, is the obvious answer. It's the level of my fucking frustration with writing the same goddamn thing over and over again to no effect.
BtW, saw this on Twitter: "Ohio has purged 2 million voters since 2011, more than any other state. Black voters 2x as likely as whites to be purged in state's largest counties. GOP wants to do this everywhere"
The obvious Hal conclusion - Hillary failed to inspire those 2 million voters, plus we need single payer. Fucking awesome doing business with you, sir.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 5:29pm
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 6:32pm
Yes, that's why it's before the Supreme Court
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 7:36pm
It's "Money Driven Medicine" just like Maggie Mahar used to try to splain over @ TPMCafe in the pre-Obamacare days.
Another big factor is that we have a stock market that just luvs it some new health care stocks, any new treatment or drug that could be profitable. MEDICARE IS PRONE TO THIS! THOSE WITH MEDICARE who do not have signed over to a managed care plan ARE FEEDING THIS. Not an argument for those who will admit reality based facts. Because it is fee for service. This is the problem of Medicare going broke. People and doctors are free to feed the wall street machine or like unscrupulous companies advertising on the teevee that will getcha one of those motorized scooters courtesy of Medicare when to maintain your mobility and use of your body, you really should be using a walker and getting physical therapy.
Truth is fee-for-service Medicare is what's mainly driving this, care has to be managed somehow away from money-driven medicine and in fee-for-service the patient can just be fooled into spending on lots that is harmful and making them worse. Any single payer would have to be managed better than Medicare fee-for-service. (And yes, many would fight that with the "death panels" type accusations.) Just reality: if you don't have the "death panels" (being facetious) thing, you will get money-driven medicine. Especially with the huge boomer population. People who won't say that now for fear it will hurt liberal goals are no better than any other faux facts pushers for other aims.
Mho, national health is best, with additional insurance available to buy if you want to be sure you get all the newest hot treatments that make you the guinea pig of wall street investors and doctors who want to practice the hot new stuff salesmen are yammering about. British citizens are happier with their system than any other on the planet. The reason why is that when doctors are on salary, they are more likely to act like objective professionals and do what's right, not what's hot or profitable. In addition, if you work hard at it you can find a doctor who will work with you as a team and go around the basic rules if you have truly found something that will help. There is still the problem of specialists who have an equally bad non-monetary incentive to prescribe unnecessary treatments, especially as interns in a training institution, they push to do their own little special procedure even if it's not really right for you, just to get practice, it's what they do. That's the reality of specialization, but it can be handled by having a good primary care doc willing to work with the patient wholistically to research what would produce "quality of life".
I'm just tired of the lies about health care for political gaming. This is not something that should be politically gamed. My advice is to trust Dr. Atul Gawande's articles from the New Yorker and elsewhere on all of this. It's not beyond the population at this time, after the learnin' they got from going through the whole Obamacare process, to understand the complexities. Especially as the more highly educated about health boomer population (as opposed to "greatest generation") starts accessing Medicare and starts seeing the problems. And Gen X and Millenials have become accustomed to being able to research their own conditions on the internet. Political people pushing a health care system need to stop lying about the facts, now's the time, I think, with the coming decade, population will be ready. One big problem, side effect, people don't talk about: profit again! Another side of it: stock market goes crazy over the next best knee replacement or whatever, those companies are in retirement portfolios, those companies provide jobs jobs jobs. Sometimes the best therapies are the least profitable. So they try to make them more profitable, like: physical therapists billed in 1/2 hr. rather than 1 hr. segments and making patient come more often. It's gonna crash things when the "subsidy" is taken away, when medicine is not money-driven. It's a huge huge business....
by artappraiser on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 6:43pm
Fanatical because the "primacy" of your posts are Clinton/Democratic Party bashing and division, you post nothing on the reality of the ongoing assault on "voter's economic well-being" by the Party of Trump.
A Party whose tax and economic subterfuge Bernie has been relentlessly speaking on to expose to the workng class you feign to care about the fact the GOP is lying, and selling them and their children down the river to pass tax and regulation cuts for the billionaires who profited from crashing the economy in 2008.
by NCD on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 2:54pm
Voters will turn against Trump and the GOP to the extent that they view viable alternatives as superior. The Democratic Party needs to embrace policies that demonstrate that it is truly superior and to pursue those policies when it has the power to do so. Right now, the "resistance" appears to be doing pretty well. To the extent that Dems have power next year and thereafter in blue states and (hopefully) with control of one or both houses of Congress, they must demonstrate through pro-people proposals that they will govern differently than they have in the recent past.
Leaders in the Clinton and Obama administrations sided far too frequently with the corporatists and militarists. In so doing, they did grievous harm to our nation. Last year, the nomination of a pro-corporate/militarist/dishonest Democrat helped elect Trump. This same cycle will repeat itself unless/until Democrats - especially the rank and file - reject the failed neoliberal policies and their espousers whom the donor class greatly prefers.
by HSG on Sun, 01/07/2018 - 8:43am
You are either with Trump and his Party or against him and with the opposition Democrats.
You are with the Republicans.
You have never expressed any regret for how your assiduous work attacking and seeking to divide the Democrats helped Trump and the GOP to win.
by NCD on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 6:25pm
Forming coalitions with groups one does not agree with in many ways is hard work. Especially if it involves courting groups who do not subscribe to the idea of coalitions.
HSG represents a group who do not think we are in an existential struggle with people who oppose certain values and that the conflict has been going on for decades. The new movement treats all that has gone before as instruments of corruption and deception and nobody but them has ever put up a fight.
We need the old and the new to join forces at some point to confront what faces us. Or as many of us who are willing to gather together.
A hard rain is going to fall.
by moat on Mon, 01/08/2018 - 8:21pm
I do think we're in an existential struggle Moat and I have written that on many occasions. I believe the struggle is between those who champion the interests of the rich and powerful and those who support the poor, working, and middle-class. I back all coalitions that promote the latter. I most certainly do not believe all who have gone before are instruments of corruption. Indeed, most of us are very complex and have been to some degree corrupted. The question is what have people done or can we expect them to do?
Three of my American 20th century heroes are MLK, FDR, & LBJ (with qualifications). Like all of us, none was perfect but each worked extremely hard and successfully to make life a little better for the least among us. I believe in forming coalitions with people who support policies that will do the same.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 7:56am
The number of people acceptable to your coalition seems to be very small. Do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton qualify?
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 8:27am
Sure. To the extent that they support policies that reduce wealth and power disparities around the world and improve the quality of life enjoyed by poor, working, and middle-class Americans I'm with them.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 8:37am
What policies have they put forth that fit your criteria?
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 8:43am
Here are a few examples of some positive policies pushed by Obama and Clinton: The 2009 stimulus was more good than bad. I support Obamacare as a significant improvement over what we had before but with serious flaws that need to be addressed. The Iran Nuclear deal was very good. Hillary's work with Orrin Hatch on S-Chip led to good results.
Were you part of Obama's coalition to expand the use of drones to kill thousands in the Middle East? How about his plan to reduce social security payouts? Did you support that? Did you join the Obama/Clinton coalition to pass the TPP?
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 9:03am
You voted for Obama and Hillary. did you support everything they did?
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 9:26am
Hal did not vote for Hillary.
by CVille Dem on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 10:00am
LOL. Don’t spoil my fun
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 10:05am
See below.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 11:56am
And how do you feel supporting keeping billions in 2nd & 3rd world nations in poverty? Does it ever bother you, or have you put the guilt behind?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 12:16pm
Absurd mischaracterization of my positions. I oppose the "free trade" deals that have exacerbated income and wealth inequality in India and China. You support them
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 12:28pm
Free trade hurt poverty in China? Bizarre.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 1:01pm
If forming a coalition means that each contributor agrees on what should be done, that sounds like building a single party with a cohesive plan, not gathering together people with divergent views who come together to fight an immediate peril.
I understand the logic of refusing to join others on the basis of such expediency. In these matters, one cannot have it both ways.
What is your choice?
by moat on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 8:38pm
The immediate perils humankind faces are wealth and income inequality/extreme poverty and anthropogenic global warming. I am happy to work with anybody who is trying to fight them.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 9:42pm
Doesn't appear to work at all your way or his in purple states like Coloradah, where the majority of registered voters aren't affliliated with either.
Just sayin', was just thinking about it because in my inbox there's an email that says this:
That was quick from 1st link to second. Spoilers? Maybe, maybe not, maybe it's time where past spoiling is past. The GOP is as divided as Hal vs. NCD; funny that there's very similar arguments over @ redstate and national review....
by artappraiser on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 2:54am
Response to Hal above.
You mention drones, etc when it comes to Obama and Clinton. You support a man who supported gun manufacturers and voted for the 1994 crime bill. He spouted off about identity politics in the midst of voter suppression. He has still not be seen in an African-American neighborhood. I’m sure you support his every action. You would still have voted to put him in office.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 12:04pm
You asked me whether I could form a coalition with Obama or Clinton. I identified areas where I believed they had done good work and was happy to support them. In return, I asked you about areas where I don't believe that they acted in the best interests of poor, working, and middle-class Americans or worsened global problems. Rather than respond to my question, you ask me another question. First answer mine then I'll answer yours. Here they are again:
------------------
Were you part of Obama's coalition to expand the use of drones to kill thousands in the Middle East? How about his plan to reduce social security payouts? Did you support that? Did you join the Obama/Clinton coalition to pass the TPP?
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 12:24pm
This factoid about drones is useless. What were the circumstances - the Pakistanis themselves said not that many civilians died. What was the alternative? I know you don't do details, and can flippantly claim for example that trade hurt poverty in China despite trillions of dollars in evidence counter?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 1:06pm
Obviously the alternative to drone strikes is no drone strikes. I did not and do not claim that our one-sided trade with China increased poverty in China. I did claim correctly in the teeth of your scoffing that it increased wealth and income inequality in China and India.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 1:16pm
So why should I give a fuck about income equality in China when it cured poverty? That's your socialist think, distributing wealth evenly - I simply don't care as long as people aren't starving and can survive well.
Here's your chart - would you rather see people starving on 50 cents a day or income inequality?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 3:17pm
By the way, China is busy resettling 10 million people by 2020 to alleviate poverty. Is that good? Is that bad? Or shall we just criticize it afterwards based on how it affects single payer or minimum wage in the US or TPP or something else? We could actually discuss real issues, but when it's all reduced to the least informative, most politically arcane attributes, what's the point?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/07/china-move-millions-people...
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/08/chinas-war-on-poverty-could-hurt-the...
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 3:41pm
Previously you argued that trade deals reduce inequality. When the proof came that they do the opposite, you dropped that argument. In any event, you should care about inequality because inequality fosters resentment, anger, and violence against elites. In response, elites seek out scapegoat, build up their militaries, and try to distract the people with genocide - see Rohingya - and militarism and oppression - see North Korea.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 6:11pm
No, Hal, I never argued that. I don't care. I care about people surviving, about poverty. Perhaps you can play gotcha with me letting that word slip in somewhere, but really, it's about 2+ billion people rising out of poverty. from less than a dollar a day. *You're* the one worried about inequality. Maybe I *should* care, but I don't. We all have our preferences and opinions, and I just laid out most of my most important for Dreamer. And I really don't think the massacre of the Rohngya people is about inequality or related resentment - I think it's just anti-Muslim racism from the Buddhists. And post-WW2, the Burmese were supposed to hold elections with the Karen people to figure out their part in the new government and some kind of federalism, but that vote was never held. Such is Burma/Myanmar.
And North Korea - it's about "inequality"? again, that's a bizarre reading of world politics.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 6:26pm
You write here: "I never argued that [free trade reduces inequality]" Back on August 30, you wrote: "I recall the days when the leaders of Nicaragua, Philippines, Iraq, Congo and China controlled say 95% of the wealth. Are you saying it's got worse, or you're still looking at this from a purely American viewpoint and projecting on everyone else? Tell me with a straight face that India and China's wealth distribution has goten [sic] worse even as living conditions have gotten vastly better[.]" http://www.dagblog.com/comment/242396
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 9:38pm
In the 70's under Mao before Deng Xiao Peng, the party in China indeed controlled everything, so yes, incone equality was likely worse than today. As the graph I posted notes, it's gotten worse from 20 years ago, but everyone has more money, and they're trying to help out their huge entrenched rural poor.
So yes, you caught me talking about inequality - once - in response to you, way own in the comments after a very lengthy discussion, since you said "
everything fits as I tried to say - those topics are your priority, not mine. Because that thread was on *my* lengthy post on GDP growth and the 3rd world rising out of poverty, where I didn't mention inequality once, and it's not till halfway thru the comments that it comes up.
You're a weird dude.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/10/2018 - 12:20am
Your claim that trade is driving growth in the 3rd world is based on the fact that GDP per capita is growing in those countries. I pointed out that rises in income per capita don't mean much if all the new wealth is going to elites. You claimed that couldn't be the case. I responded that it could of course be the case if wealth and income inequality are rising. You said they're not. I showed that they are.
Now, I don't argue that there hasn't been a significant reduction in poverty in the third world. I don't even claim that trade hasn't been a factor. What I claim is that those improvements could have been achieved without harming tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Americans and without nearly all of the benefits going to the rich and powerful in both developed and developing nations.
You really really really hate it when you're claims are debunked. Not weird. Just sad.
by HSG on Wed, 01/10/2018 - 8:39am
If you read what you write, you didn't debunk anything - you just claimed it.
Here is a chart showing ratio of top quintile to liwest quintile in China. They're nearly constant at 5.5 urban and 8 rural, which means as China total income rises, the bottom continues to rise. You may nit like the ratio, and China is trying to address the plight of the poor, but it's happening.
Now say you're wrong, Hal - it's a bit tough the first time, but it gets easier.
Plus 1 showing steady rural gains over the years, but also their income gap with urban areas (rural income vs. urban disposable income), but we of course know why urban incomes are rising - largely through trade, eh?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/11/2018 - 12:04am
Your snide remark - "now say you're wrong, Hal - it's a bit tough the first time, but it gets easier" - begs the obvious retort how would you know?
In any case, the charts that you post, as is your wont, tend to undermine your argument. Since the US conferred MFN permanently on China, inequality has risen by fits and starts but it is significantly greater now both in cities and the countryside than it was then.
Before and after 2000, income rose rapidly. Since your second chart's income scale is arithmetic not logarithmic it is impossible to tell whether the rise in net income has been increasing more rapidly since 2000 when competition from Chinese manufacturing began causing massive worker dislocation in the West.
Despite classical economists' embrace of "free trade" in the early 1990s, the consensus now is that it has generated a number of thorny problems - a major one is exacerbating inequality. From a Centre for Economic Performance research June 2017 paper on the likely costs and benefits of Brexit:
In October last year, the IMF reported:
I understand that you are emotionally committed to the notion that international trade is an unmitigated good. My sense is that this stems from your career. That is fine. Cheerleading and hype are an essential part of any business. But at some point even the sewer company president has a moral and intellectual duty to step back from the open waste pit and acknowledge how badly it stinks.
by HSG on Thu, 01/11/2018 - 8:56am
Of course trade creates problems - I've never espoused unnanaged free trade. But I care more about whether peasants in the 3rd world starve or not, not if their pay keeps up with some Bollywood star or Jackie Chan or not. Billions of people pulled out of poverty, and all you can do is dwell on negatives - negatives that people including leaders recognize and are trying to ameliorate. Under those conditions, the benefits of carefully designed trade.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 01/11/2018 - 9:39am
Hal doesn't care about drones. He just cares about bashing the Democratic Party and drones are just a prop. Republican power and policy doesn't affect him, Trump threats of nuclear war don't alarm him. He really doesn't care about those harmed or threatened with ruin by Republican policy. They too are just props for use in presenting his anti-Democratic Party credo. While suffering is inflicted on millions by GOP actions, he blithely repeats ad nauseam his socialist fantasies, which have no prospects of passage. He always concludes by absolving himself of any blame for failures of the opposition Party which he relentlessly attacks as being too impure to support or even to exist.
by NCD on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 2:01pm
The only basis you have for knowing what I care about is what I write. Nothing I have written supports your claim about me. In any case, I could say with much more accuracy that you don't care about drones or cutbacks to social security or drilling in the Arctic since you never mention them in your posts except to defend whoever's responsible.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 6:08pm
Hal you are not important enough to play your game. A coalition means that you accept the person despite disagreements. If you can form a coalition with Obama and. Lingonberry it means that you are willing to overlook what you consider to be their flaws. Coalition means that you are willing to overlook the drones to accomplish another goal. So are you talking coalition, or are so just talking gibberish?
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 2:32pm
No. A coalition forms to achieve a certain goal or goals. Would you join a coalition led by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to cut back on increases to social security? By the way, you're the game player RMRD. You asked a question. I responded. I posed a question. You responded with another question. FWIW - despite the drones, I would work with and did support President Obama's call for Obamacare and to approve Merrick Garland.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 6:07pm
It is 2018. Trump is using his office to target Hillary. That is a pressing concern because it is the action of an authoritarian.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 7:48pm
Why can't you answer the simple questions I've been asking you? Here they are again: Were you part of Obama's coalition to expand the use of drones to kill thousands in the Middle East? How about his plan to reduce social security payouts? Did you support that? Did you join the Obama/Clinton coalition to pass the TPP?
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 9:45pm
Hal, I no longer care about your questions.
While you engage in nonsense a demented authoritarian is in office, 90% of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary because she was the best option.You are stuck in 2016. Bernie Sanders swore in de Blasio. He is adjusting to 2018.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 10:37pm
Bernie Sanders swore in de Blasio. He is adjusting to 2018.
More like they have always been bosom buddies as to policy and message preferences.
Not venturing into whether that's good or bad, just that it is. DeBlasio has always preferred to think of himself as a "progressive" more than a Dem, he just curried favor with Dem leaders for power
What I am trying to say is: he was always a Bernie/Hal type guy in his heart. More along that line @ Politico Magazine Dec. 26
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/10/2018 - 3:45am
de Blasio was the campaign manager for Hillary’s Senate race. He was sworn in by Bill Clinton in his first inauguration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/nyregion/bill-clinton-will-preside-at-de-blasios-inaugural.html
de Blasio endorsed Hillary, not Sanders, in 2016.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/bill-de-blasio-endorses-hillary-clinton-215376
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/11/2018 - 9:18am
It's not about whether one can find a direct correlation between fake news stories in 2016 and significant change in voting patterns for Hillary or Trump. Something has happened over my lifetime that changed a sane republican party into a bunch of kooks. The attacks on Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter were basically sane. By the time Clinton was elected the attacks were a list of murders they committed mostly to hide the drug smuggling operation run out of an Arkansas airport. The accusations were so extreme the Clintons looked more like mafia dons than moderate politicians. The ever expanding conspiracy theories about where Obama was born defied any concept of a believable reality. Yet believe it they did.
Sure there were some crazies in Carter, Kennedy, and Johnson's day. The Birchers and LaRouche had some conspiracy theories they spread but neither were major parts of the party. They were fringe groups with little to no power or influence. Most people had little idea who they were. But there was nothing like today where complete and total nonsense can be fed to republicans and a significant number of the people will believe it.
How did we get to the point where a candidate can be a pathological liar and most of the republican party can't see it? The ground has been prepared for decades. It was prepared to accept Trump. It was prepared to accept lies about Hillary, lies about Obama, lies about Bill. I'm not talking about exaggerations or spin about his extramarital affairs. That's normal politics. I'm talking about the crazy accusations. One can't solely blame the internet for making the crazy go viral. The internet wasn't developed enough for that during the early Clinton years.
Hillary won by 3 million votes. It didn't take many votes to shift to get the electoral college win. Maybe we can't point to a few stories in 2016 as the cause but maybe after years of being primed to believe the crazy just enough bought it 2016. Maybe it wouldn't have even been close if there hadn't been decades of crazy about Hillary for years. How much did the insane attacks on the Clintons prime people to believe the insane birther nonsense about Obama? Maybe there wouldn't have even been a Trump if enough republicans hadn't bought the crazy birther nonsense. Maybe we can't measure the influence of the 2016 fake news, or the birther nonsense, or nine Benghazi investigations, or the accusations of Vince Foster's murder, or or or. But each one was a straw that produced an unmeasurable change that has led us to the truly insane world we find ourselves in today.
So what's next? What unmeasurable change will follow the unmeasurable change of 2016 fake news? How and when will we begin to find a way to push back against these unmeasurable changes that over decades seemed to have added up to a very significant change? Because sooner or later one of these unmeasurable changes is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. In fact it just might be happening right now.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/04/2018 - 8:48pm
Yes, measuring the influence of political agents and ideas in an environment where crazy things become ever more plausible requires a different approach than deploying surveys that sort responses to loaded questions into different piles.
One element that got us to this place was Reagan declaring that our standard of living in this country was a Right. Previous conservatives emphasized a Libertarian ethos where some win and some lose. There was once a species known as "fiscal conservatives". If you go to the zoo, you can see George Will pacing in his cage under that label. Others going by that name are confused Norquistists who cannot understand their own shortness of breath that comes from strangling something they don't understand.
Reagan combined the promise of better times (that every politician does) with the demand that government, as an institution, get out of the way of the engines of prosperity. If that notion was presented (as had been done in the past) as an argument about how wealth and freedom are generated, the message would not have had the demographic power to draw in groups who built up the tidal wave that swept Reagan into power and kept him there when his lights were on but nobody was home. By declaring our standard of living as a Right, Reagan transferred the role of government and political process to Capitalism itself. All the objections to a Nanny State now become the responsibility of a system of value exchange. This proposal is a country mile from promising a chicken in every pot. This is the pot itself promising you a chicken.
So, the rise of the New Democrats tried to balance the new equation. One of the interesting features of that time was them not promising so much. They had to replace a missing element of politics once all the GOP started going to the Ecstasy raves. Gingrich Lives.
/rant
by moat on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 7:14pm
Hal, you are blinded by your inability to see objectively. Hillary had nothing BUT policies. She also had thought-out plans of how to implement them. Realizing that improving on Obamacare was the only realistic option with a GOP Congress, that was her plan. Included in that were government options that would open the door for Medicare for all. She also had policy positions on childcare, tuition debt-relief, climate change, infrastructure, and public transportation. If you watched the debates with an open mind you would realize this.
Bernie had wishes as opposed to policies. He had no clue how to get any of his wishes granted. He still doesn’t. No matter how many lies you tell about Clinton, repetition does not make them true.
by CVille Dem on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 1:47pm
She had bad policies that were proven to work well for her funders but not the people.
by HSG on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 7:44pm
"Proven" - cute.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 8:44pm
I’m sure her “funders” were very worried about their health care, their student debt, their child care, public transportation, and all the other Middle Class policies that Hillary championed.
You remain stuck in your little hamster wheel. Sadly for you, the more truth you are exposed to, the more self-satisfied you become with your spin.
by CVille Dem on Sat, 01/06/2018 - 8:49pm
The fact that you're still spinning bullshit out of Fake News after 2 years and we're still wasting so much time on your bullshit going round and round belies the claim of this article - Fake News has been extremely damaging to all sorts of dialogue and serves to mask real issue and real reforms.
There's an old joke, "How do you keep a <insert ethnic here> busy all day? Put him in a round room and tell him to sit in the corner." We're continually walking in circles looking for an out - there is none. There is no t-shirt, there is no convincing, it's just tossing out fake claims and then watching people pile on disproving, and then toss the exact same claim out and watch it happen again.
When I was a baby, I used to throw toys out of the pen and my brothers would bring them back and I'd throw them out again - great fun for all, or at least me.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/07/2018 - 4:56am
Dude - policy discussions are the what I'm about: Job-destroying trade deals. Anthropogenic Global Warming. Single-payer health care. Tax policy. Publicly financed elections. American imperialism. Etc.
Blaming fake news, Bernie, Russia, etc., for 2016 is a way that neolibs avoid these issues and the Democratic Party's culpability.
by HSG on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 7:44am
Counterpunch punches hole in story:
So Counterpunch realizes that a guy like Horner can make a good living writing lies about Trump & Hillary on Facebook (ironically *also* appearing in the NYTimes), yet the Times' new "study" contends this type of mass distribution that provides an easy way to pay the rent had 0 effect on the numerous suckers who read and retweeted this fake news - numerous enough for him to survive off writing this crap. Anything not add up?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 01/07/2018 - 4:19pm
Counterpunch had its own Russian troll, Alice Donovan.
https://louisproyect.org/2017/12/26/how-a-russian-troll-sucker-punched-counterpunch/
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 01/07/2018 - 5:14pm
And now for something completely different.
DELETED UNREADABLE
by Flavius on Wed, 01/10/2018 - 11:24pm
Yeah, well, I don't agree with those around here that reminding people that "she won the vote", meaning the majority vote, is a bad thing, that it's better not said because she lost the presidency. Well, I care much more about what the majority of the people in this country think and how they think than who ended up being legally appointed president for 4 years. If we had 65% of this country as Trump fans, I'd have emigrated by now, and if I couldn't do that, I might shoot myself. But we don't. We got the same 1/3 nut case conservatives we've had for decades. It's a good thing to remind people that she got the majority vote even though many had problems voting for her because of personal pecadilloes.
It's especially important when people are getting all chicken little-ish about falling skies and such: all is well that so many dislike Trump. And that a majority didn't vote for him and also that if turnout had been just a bit better,if she had gotten a teeny bit more as passionate about her as most of Trump's voters were about him, she be in.
And another thing I don't get tired of mentioning: he wouldn't have disappeared, he'd be leading chants of "lock 'er up" every day, and she'd have a GOP Congress and he'd probably be leading chants about locking at least half of them up, too! And she'd probably have a problematic up/down approval rating with almost as much shitstorm going through no fault of her own.
by artappraiser on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 3:07am
Yeah
by Flavius on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 10:01am
p.s. Running around the net tonight, I note that this other gal, miz popular as always, also knows how to do P.R., who'd a thunk it:
The Hill headline:
Prospect of President Winfrey thrills Dems
Politico headline:
Democrats say 'O! Yes!' to Winfrey/Hardened political operatives from both parties are taking a potential 2020 bid seriously — and say she'd be formidable
followed by: Should Oprah Run? We asked 14 pundits on both sides to take the question seriously.
And then there's their "latest": Ivanka Trump: Oprah's Golden Globe speech 'inspiring'
WaPo's got this whole section on its home page:
But as much as the NYT gets razzed for being trendy, so far all they got is thesenattering nabobs of negativism
Oprah, Don’t Do It By THOMAS CHATTERTON WILLIAMS
The idea of President Winfrey underscores the extent to which Trumpism has infected our civic life.
Oprah for President? Democrats Have Mixed Emotions
By ALEXANDER BURNS and AMY CHOZICK
With a speech at the Golden Globe Awards, Oprah Winfrey launched a thousand fantasies. In the imagination of some Democrats, she seemed an answer to the party’s problems. Others questioned whether the country could accept another TV star.
What Politicians Could Learn From Oprah Winfrey
by artappraiser on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 4:32am
Oh, everybody who knows anything would've thunk it - how many negatives do you get if you do talk show right?
I'm so pleased that women have come so far that it's now conceivable to put an unqualified one with a nice smile and a good down-home patter with guests in the White House, just as the "draft Michelle" and Tulsi Gabbard instant fandom and Sarah Palin stunt and other curious emergences have fed the flames of late. Okay, I guess GIlibrand and Kamala Harris are a bit more serious, but not much, while the Liz Warren proposition ignores a heapload of impracticalities.
[the election of Obama didn't help expectations that it's easy, what with his meager 4 years of prior federal experience - he might have been our "first female president" except a bit young - women don't usually get their first national position until they're 45 or 50, such as Harris (52), Pelosi (47), Gillibrand (43), Warren (64), Boxer (43) - often with the help of a husband or an assassination/special election.
And my concern with applauding Hillary's 3 million vote "win" is much like applauding Obama for almost getting his appointee Merrick Garland put on the bench. If we want to use that 3 million votes to inspire more Congressional & FBI investigations and nationwide GOTV and yes, female *qualified* or *will work hard to become qualified* (but not on-the job training as President, nothanks), great. If we want it to show how wonderful we're doing while standing in a parking lot searching for our stolen car, not so much.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/09/2018 - 6:06am