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 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months 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 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 2 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Howard Schultz May Save the Democratic Party From Itself
By artappraiser on Mon, 01/28/2019 - 4:53pm |Posting because it's someone going contra the current popular narrative I'm seeing.Since everyone loves to dis Starbucks, it's easy to pile on and ignore other realities without thinking
URL:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/how-howard-schultz-may-save-democratic-party/581443/
- Add new comment
- 8485 reads
Comments
I don't think Schultz will draw shit away from shit.
For 20 years I've believed the Democratic Party unfairly demonized big business when it could draw a lot of support & needed synergies there, depending. But I much prefer a Bezos who says, "let's figure out a way to vastly lower healthcare's operating costs to make it much more affordable" than a loudmouth coffee baron who just wants to slam liberals for thinking education & health care are worth paying for. Somehow a guy who built his empire on 20-something baristas working for cheap doesn't seem to be the oracle we need in Washington - in fact I suspect he'll be right up there with Grover Norquist banging the austerity & lower taxes drum.
Our tax base is out of whack, and the supposed growth that would fuel government hasn't happened becuase the feedback cycle is broken once it hits rich fuckers' pockets. Whether the upper margin needs to be 50,60,70%, I dunno - as my kid says, it depends on what you're going to spend it on as to whether it's fair. But still, it needs to be paid, as the offshore tax loopholes and other lobbyist-abetted tax cuts for the rich have gutted the suppose American dream, except equality to mean we're mostly all in a crappy mess together that has no chance of getting better.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/29/2019 - 6:06am
Schultz credits Ocasio-Cortez plan for an increased marginal tax rate with driving him to run as an Independent.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/howard-schultz-blames-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-for-his-decision-to-run-as-independent?ref=home
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/29/2019 - 9:52am
Nate Silver has strong feelings about this, been tweeting like crazy on it for the last 18 hrs., and he's not done commenting, says he's going to do some articles.
by artappraiser on Tue, 01/29/2019 - 12:52pm
One thing I always admired about the right is how they separate citizens into real Americans and not real Americans. Schultz spends a lot of time deciding what policies and people are unamerican. Since he generally agrees with the far right about who is a real American and what policies are unamerican I think he'll do a lot to heal divisions, which is one of his reasons for running. At least those divisions between himself and the far right.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 1:36am
Yeah, I had a leg that was giving me problems, wouldn't heal, finally just lopped it off - doing much better, body feels whole again, none of divisions to fret over. Though one thing puzzles me - "a house divided cannot stand", but now that I'm (more or less) whole & unbothered again, I still cannot stand. I'm sure Howie will clue me in when the time comes.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 4:39am
As they say if thy right eye offends thee pluck it out. I also support Gandhi who not only advocated universal blindness but had a plan to achieve it.
An eye for an eye means the whole world will be blind.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 6:33am
Then the 1-eyed man will be King - that's me! And the 1-legged man will be his footman. What's that quote about the fleet-footed?
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 10:31am
I read your last argument and my first thought was you didn't have a leg to stand on. But now, I guess I was wrong about that.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 4:49pm
Yeah, but at the moment I'm still leaning against Schultz, as I'm pretty sure I couldn't support him long-term. That speech of his just made me hopping mad.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 4:57pm
I know I'm going to win because everyone hates me which is proof of how good I am.
“I must be doing something right to create so much interest and backlash from the Democratic Party,” Schultz said. “Some of it is a surprise, but we expected to see some of the level of vitriol but not the extent it’s been."
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 2:01pm
BREAKING NEWS
Relatively poor democratic candidate asked billionaire who claims to be a "lifelong democrat" for a campaign donation.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 4:56pm
Lifelong skinflint who just discovered health benefits for employees last year cuz Trump gave him a huge tax windfall, and *upped* barista pay to $9-10 from somewhere around $8 now thinks he's a man of the people. Even all the talk about $15/hour vs $12/hour didn't get Starbucks to hop up to say $10. Even all the years debating Obamacare didn't get him to think about his workers getting sick with no insurance.
But this overvalued jerk thinks he's going to revamp our economy and tax structure for the future? Fuck him, the wiseass. I'd rather listen to LIz explain how women get the short end of the stick across the economy and try to figure out something proper to do about it.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 5:11pm
It's all rather surprising. Who would have thought that a billionaire who got massive tax cuts year after year would suddenly decide to run for president after a couple of democrats propose tax hikes on billionaires. Or that he would make the deficit his signature issue and propose cuts to entitlements.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 5:48pm
Contrary to urban myth & Andy Warhol, there is such a thing as "bad publicity", as OJ and Mel GIbson can attest.
Howie thinks he hit a home run cuz he shit the bed and people came running. But aside from Trump, I haven't seen any other politician pull off shitting the bed as a major unique qualifier, and I'm doubting this will be a trend.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 5:02pm
Here's the personal opinion so far of long-time registered Independent who loathes the whole idea of political partisanship but also realizes it is a most unfortunate necessity in this country at this time. That's moi.
I've read all this stuff. I haven't watched the speech. I did see him interviewed on the teevee this morning and a day or two ago. I think he's a noblesse oblige type like Bloomberg, there's significant up sides and down sides to that syndrome. Also like Bloomberg, he lacks charisma, almost an anti-charisma. I find the Starbucks brand problematic, I'm not a fan, I don't get it ,don't get why it sells. I hate their coffee, always have.
I suspect this from watching the teevee interviews: he has no supreme ambition to be president. He's running for president in order to get presidential candidates to focus on policy uber alles and to lower all the horse race political partisanship dirty tricks name calling shit. What Trump has done to the discourse and government, perhaps upping the partisanship to levels never before seen and making mishmosh nonsense and lies of policy is what is driving him to do this. It's very noblesse oblige, he sees himself as a savior of his country if he can manage to influence campaigning to move to a higher level. This is why he is making a point to dis certain liberal policies, so he gets creds with the conservatives when he brings up liberal policy that he thinks is smart.
On the spoiler thing, I heard him say straight out this morning in response to the interviewer (CNN, I think) asking about being a spoiler causing Trump to win. She very specifically brought up the Ross Perot effect, and hammered him on it, on the danger of him causing the same. He said he would not, if there was any danger of that happening he would anything possible to make sure it did not. I.E., dropping out, telling his supporters to vote for the leading opponent. That getting Trump out of office is the highest priority.
I really do suspect he is only doing this to change the political discourse during the primary season. To get them all to talk policy. And of course, to push the policy he favors at the same time. He is arrogant enough to think he can do that, that he is the person who can make that happen. Like a schoolmarm, just like Bloomberg. I do not think he is not arrogant enough to think he can win hte presidency nor do I think he thinks he would be a great president. He's not trying to sell himself as president, he's trying to sell thinking outside-the-partisan box policy think. He thinks the majority of voters are with him on that. He could be wrong about the latter. All just my humble instinctual read. We'll see.
One thing I am sure of: he's not going to try to be charming or charismatic, he's not trying to sell himself. He doesn't give a shit about what people think of him personally. He's going to ruthlessly try to redirect the country's discourse during the primaries to policy, that's the main reason he's running. He thinks the growth of Independent registrations means lots of people will be with him on that. In that he's like the ultimate anti-Trump.
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 5:56pm
I disagree with your analysis. If Schultz was so interested in policy discussions why is he refusing to discuss his policy ideas?
He only talks in the most nebulous ways about healing divisions and being a president for all the people. If there was such a large number of voters in favor of his center right views why isn't he voicing clear centrist policy positions? He's upset that a few candidates are advocating higher taxes on him to finance large social spending initiatives. He's pushing back against that without advocating any clear centrist policies.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 6:12pm
Unlike Bloomberg's world of finance, media & a few terms as NYC mayor, I'm not quite sure I see the big connection between coffee chains & sports franchises and running government.
If he wants to think outside the box, perhaps he should start thinking outside the box. I mean, did the 90's call and say "we really got to do a Steve Forbes reboot"? aside from crappy pay & health benefits, Schultz is known for a failed racial healing campaign - the schlotzy kind of exploitive feel-good personal touch that only a corporate giant can do so well. "They're paying me a crappy salary *AND* I get to promote world peace for their save-our-ass marketing blitz" - nice.
How about less noblesse, more mordicus insight? Or does the world need another tasteless lukewarm cup of political joe?
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 6:28pm
No arguments about the extra dollop of arrogance thing. Especially because for me at least, Starbucks is not a shining light of anything. It's like this > would be more understandable, though still arrogant, if it were a titan with very innovative product that revolutionized life, or innovative management style, or even true lifestyle thing, like Apple. Heck, comes to mind Martha Stewart has more chops as regards the "vision thing."
(She's only on my mind because someone just sent me her book as a re-gift: The Martha Manual: How to Do (Almost) Anything). Then compare Oprah...billionaire with a real vision thing....
This guy seems extra-extra technocrat, like he has it worse than Bloomberg. As technocraty as Bloomberg is, he's got some passions, i.e., guns, nanny state proclivities like smoking, etc. And his terminal really was revolutionary innovation.
by artappraiser on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 6:46pm
Yeah, exactly - Bloomberg did enough things to give him some credit, some cred, whatever his lacks. Martha Stewart's advantage over Oprah is she doesn't seem like she even has to try - I don't expect you'd ever get her to bite into a James Frey "A Million Little Pieces" thing (though the $40K stock bit was a bit of a screwup & an amazing bit of irony considering the billions/trillions traded inside each year)
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 6:58pm
Our pyramid scheme rentier economy:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/30/wealth-banks-googl...
I started noticing in the tech world a while back how the idea of hacking for fun was turning into "how to control a niche", gone was the Open Source free-as-in-speech mentality, that investment was all about "software as a service", later "cloud", i.e. stuff that didn't intrude on the meat universe and could just scale and scale and scale, ka-ching. Well, it's the same with non-IT, just find that monopolizable area that hopefully no one else has thought of, and hammer the shit out of it.
Yeah, it's great, we make the future worker drones pay $25K--35K in tuition per year so they can fill those slots to make billionaires multi-billionaires as they shift from internet surfing to corporate serfing to pay off their debts. No, forget about the house; no, forget about a competitive wage; yeah, you can afford your daily Starbucks & an occasional Sushi, maybe Netflix, but buy your own iPhone & iMac, while as a "software developer" or someone tied to the IT world, you're essentially a slightly higher barista to be exploited or max hours for possibly 10-15 years and then cut loose for someone fresher, stupider, more exploitable. Now there are "incubators", a nice trick for "show us all your secrets in development and we'll either take your idea outright, or "finance you" in terms that control whatever you develop to the tune of 30-50% for near 0 invested. The rubes think the incubators are for them - no, it's like having a salon for 10 prostitutes to show their wares, parade up & down, jump through some sexual antics hoops - and then decide which ones get to stay. Being a John was never so lucrative and easy. Of course good luck if you think you're going to develop anything in cloud, bitcoin/blockchain, machine learning, AI, robotics, or basic business apps (real estate? fitness & health? banking? news? social effing media?) without simply realizing there's no market share to share and that you'll sell out to one of the big players for a relative pittance. (yes, almost all the ad revenues go to Google and/or Facebook, and if you thought you were going to *charge* for your app or service, you are so 15 years ago).
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 6:51pm
Schultz is the “both sides do it” gift to the Republicans and MSM. Trump shutdown government and threatened DACA, but Democrats are equally to blame. Trump berates his intelligence agencies and lifts sanction on Russians, but nothing to see here.
https://crooksandliars.com/2019/01/howard-schultz-huge-gift-both-siderist
Edit to add:
Michael Tomasky has a similar take on the issue.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/howard-schultz-is-wrong-about-both-sides-its-republicans-who-ruined-the-country?ref=home?ref=home
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/31/2019 - 8:23am
Schultz has to attack Democrats to win the Electoral College and he has no hesitation in the condemnation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/budding-independent-howard-schultz-aims-most-of-his-ire-at-democrats/2019/01/30/28210ab4-24a7-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?utm_term=.317be2cb4559
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/31/2019 - 11:08am
I would only remind those like Driftglass and Tomasky not just of Ron Fournier and what Driftglass calls "the beltway media" but David Frum's essay that I posted to start this thread. As Frum's tweet says
If you’re worried that Schultz could draw fiscally moderate suburban voters away from the D nominee in 2020, maybe consider a D nominee who appeals to such voters?
What I am feeling is dejas vus allover again. an attitude and argument from the remains of the lefty blogosphere just like in 2004. When everyone in the lefty blogosphere couldn't believe that John Kerry lost to the warmongering Bush because everyone they knew and communicated with didn't vote for him. It must be a plot. Because the majority in America must think just like them, they never hear anyone say anything different and the stuff the evil "MSM" says about most people being centrists is all lies. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, the "beltway media" has a better bead on things politically where the majority is at because they have to go for ratings? And don't only communicate with their own kind? Maybe, just maybe the majority agrees with them about both siderism? And to win national elections, a candidate needs to think about that and not just please the Driftglass and Tomasky contingent?
A majority dislikes the package that both parties offer, deal with it. And swings rule the national elections, deal with that. I don't buy that it is the MSM or "the beltway media" causing that with their "both siderism", I believe it is the other way around: they are pandering to the majority way of thinking for ratings. If the media stopped talking about "both sides do it", that wouldn't change that the suburban Smiths are talking about how both sides do it at the strip mall and drug store line. Nearly two decades of passionate lefty blogging hasn't really changed the voting population much as far as I can see. I don't buy their argument about the media influencing people on this, I just don't. People seek out the media that has the approach they like, not the other way around.
by artappraiser on Thu, 01/31/2019 - 2:33pm
The Naderites made the same argument. If democrats are worried that Nader will draw votes from the left of the party maybe consider a democratic nominee that would appeal to such voters. They may have had problems with Gore but in the end I doubt that any Naderite was happy that they helped Bush beat Gore. I doubt that any of the so called moderates will be happy if their vote for Schultz gives Trump another 4 years. We are close to a 50/50 nation with policy ideas pretty clearly divided and defined by party. If either party gets too purist about their ideology and votes for a third party candidate it usually means that someone you agree with even less than the party consensus candidate wins.
Success usually means taking the long view and voting pragmatically. Trying short cuts usually results in losses.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/31/2019 - 3:04pm
I don't see Naderites as the same at all as what I am talking about, as Nader drew away lefties and idiosyncratics, the purist portion of the very same anti-centrist lefty blogosphere contingent.
Gore still came close within a few votes because he was a centrist.
Hillary the DLC type centrist won a majority, even despite her unlikeability factor, Trump team only won by manipulating the electoral college factor and was still shocked that that worked.
Howard is not what I am talking about--it is clear he's not going to fly already, he's incapable. I'm talking about the argument that centrism is the problem and if only Dems would go more lefty and the MSM would stop talking centrism the electorate would see the light and lefties would win. It's delusional bullshit created by groupthink. If they know anything, the bean counters at the cable news networks and the big mainstream media websites know what politically interested people want to hear because they have to know to get eyeballs. They know better than pollsters. It's delusional to think otherwise.
The majority think "both sides do it", they hate partisanship and don't trust it and would like bipartisan centrism if alt possible, that's how Obama won two terms! Same with Bill Clinton, with him it was a plan and a plot, starting with the formation of the DLC because the DNC was only good at losing since at least Reagan. But it was the Obama win that was most amazing, basically proof of the pudding. A black guy with the foreign name that sounded like an Islamic terrorist and with an elite education and manner won. Just by being a centrist with bi-partisan leanings, he won. Twice.
by artappraiser on Thu, 01/31/2019 - 4:20pm
Schultz cannot win but he can be a spoiler. Hillary faced voter suppression, Comey, and Russian hackers. That is not the case in 2020 (except for the Russians). If enough voters choose Schultz and re-elect Trump, the authoritarians win. If voters buy that both sides are equally responsive, the country has already been lost.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/31/2019 - 3:34pm
I am already seeing some of the supposedly fawning centrist MSM ridiculing him about his stra-tee-gery. That was rather quick fawning, over in a day. After decades of watching this over and over I am never going to buy the lefty blogosphere narrative about this, it's faux conspiracizing and counter-productive. Where the political MSM really can do damage: it hypercritical about any quirk, they run with any wind because the whole horse race drama is what sells to politics junkies, day in, day out:
Looks like he's already out unless he comes up with some shiny new thing. Wonk without at least Bill Clinton type charisma isn't going to sell like Starbucks.
Now I am reminded of: covfefe. Further irony: I looked up the actual original tweet, it was a partial sentence that said Despite the constant negative press covfefe
by artappraiser on Thu, 01/31/2019 - 5:28pm
Despite the title, interesting stuff here about "the exhausted majority", my underlining:
Howard Schultz Derangement Syndrome
The left’s war on centrism bodes ill for Democratic chances in 2020. by Bret Stephens @ NYTimes.com,
I think this is why Obama won two terms, for one thing. He never stopped trying to be bi-partisan.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/02/2019 - 12:08am
Stephens may be saying something of value about the electorate but it's simply not true that the opposition to Schultz has anything to do with some purported leftist war on centrism. This is a democratic war on an independent candidate that would likely draw mostly from the democratic candidate. If Nader tried to run again you'd see the same reaction. He's never tried because even those on the far left who might be inclined to support him do not want to see an independent candidate run as a spoiler. Having been burned in 2000 with Nader virtually no one who leans democrat wants to see it happen again.
Stephens would not have been so encouraging if there had been some republican lite independent candidate running against Reagan or either Bush. I read enough of Stephens to be pretty sure he was complaining about Perot and blaming GHWB loss on his independent run. I like some conservative writers like George Will but I've always thought Stephens was a lying hack with an agenda.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/02/2019 - 12:45am
this Stephens may be saying something of value about the electorate is the only thing in it for me. And I think it's an important meme that is well worth pounding over and over.
Scultz on the other hand, he has already shown himself to be a stereotypical clueless egotistical billionaire. Been there, done that. If there's some beef to that burger, he doesn't know how to show it. He doesn't even seem to realize the similarities with Trump he is giving off. If he manages to stay in, I see so little danger of stealing votes that would go to a Dem. And there's little harm in trying to get more discourse on serious economic tax policy, even if the initial volley is trickle down. Better than what we usually get out of debates and such.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/02/2019 - 1:58am
So as a Seattlite, we know Howard Schultz and we know him well, and we don’t like him that much, and it isn’t because he’s a centrist either, because he isn’t.
Howard Schultz has made a habit of being selfish rich dude. He claims he started Starbucks for one, but that isn’t true, he purchased the original Starbucks from some locals who had their coffee shop at Pike Place Market, did he grow it, yes, very large, very bad coffee but he most certainly made Starbucks successful on the world stage. But so is McDonalds, so who gives a fuck if your coffee sucks.
Now let’s talk about the Seattle Super Sonics, because this episode in Howards life exposes him for the Trump like character he really is. Howard was pissed, Seattle didn’t want to pay to upgrade the Arena, as it had just been done a few years prior and the Sonics had a 10 year lease to stay in that Stadium because we had paid for massive upgrades. But to Howard, there were not enough luxury sky boxes and he wanted more. Well, we had a vote, and prior to the vote Howard ran an astro-turf campaign to try to make sure he would get his way and Seattle would have to pay for more upgrades. Well he lost that vote and he did what only a billionaire asshole would do, he sold the team and the rest is history. He really did do that over the luxury sky boxes. He isn’t great, he’s lucky, but he is also an asshole who has no idea how to run a country, and I think if the OrangeYears haven’t shown folks that billionaires are not equipped for this kind of job promotion because they only care about themselves. Howard won;t even discuss his ideas for taxes etc, because he doesn’t think that is relevant to his campaign, but it is, it isn’t some hypothetical thing, it’s what potential presidents have to know, have to think about, they need to know something about developing policies. He doesn’t know shit. Sure, he speaks English better than Trump, but the reality is, he is a small man, who hates it when he is challenged, if he i s challenged he calls everything he doesn’t agree with unAmerican.. so fuck him, he is Trump, he just isn’t orange.
If there is one thing that Howard and Trump have in common, is that they do not expose themselves directly to regular people, that’s the help and they have no need to do anything for the help.
by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 02/02/2019 - 9:57am
appreciate your input, tmac.
And see the tweet I just posted below.
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/02/2019 - 5:39pm
by artappraiser on Sat, 02/02/2019 - 5:38pm