Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
What they say will affect what many of those who watch old fashioned TV believe.
Comments
Er, just noticed an interesting meme in the twitter air that might be furthered by the big shew tonite, or not, as the case may be
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/30/2018 - 12:53pm
Cuz BIll's jism, yay! That's right - all this angry partisanship is because Bill didn't fall into Kavanaugh's perjury/lechery trap and describe coming in Monica's mouth for all the gleeful ratf*ckers out there.
Obama wasted a year of political capital trying to get 1, 1 stinking Republican to sign on for Obamacare - hoping to get Olympia Snowe or anyone to think about healthcare for the masses. Unh-unh, the GOP spit a loogie back at him and launched into socialist Kenya boy and tea party obstruction. A global economic crisis with auto companies going bankrupt, and the Republicans sharpen up their priorities -
*MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!!*
*BONUSES FOR FAILING WALL STREET BROKERS!!!*
Let's look at that bi-partisanship that Flake has shown - yeah, he kept the GOP from gutting Obamacare on the umpteenth try (without their own plan in sight, just pull the plug, let chaos ensue), but signed on for the $1.5 trillion tax cut with no grownup provisions, just a bunch of money tossed at rich people with a fake tax rebate for the middle class that Trump reneged on a half year later in a "pull my finger" move. But these are the supposed conservative adults worried about spending too much. Bleat about the 2nd Amendment and steal a Supreme Court slot. Shut down judicial approvals under Obama, then ram them through willy-nilly without even giving Dems a say under Trump.
Now we've got a wackadoodle-in-chief who wages huge trade wars without any sense or purpose, just to throw sharp elbows around - Wag the Dog 24x7, while he makes his cash funneling money around his international circles. Screw this faux teamwork - they're just playing us, and they're playing Americans if any think bipartisanship means more than "heads I win/tails you lose".
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/30/2018 - 2:07pm
I hate that this idea keeps coming up. I think it's stupid, so stupid that it just doesn't understand the basic problem we're facing right now. There is no compromise position on most of the disagreements we face right now.
What is the compromise position between accepting the science of climate change and believing its a hoax? If we accept the science we can argue about how much or how fast we should so something. But until then there is no place for compromise.
What is the compromise position between those who want abortion to be legal and those who want all abortions banned? If we agreed that abortion should be legal we could debate and compromise on how legal it should be. Or if banned we could debate whether we should have some limited exemption for incest or rape.
What is the compromise position between those who want to raise taxes on the rich and those who want to lower taxes on the rich? If we reached agreement to either raise or lower taxes on the rich we could debate how much but first we have to decide the direction we're going.
Sometimes there is no win/win compromise to be had. Sometimes one side will have to win and the other lose. I'm not going to support and I doubt Americans will unite behind some theoretical bipartisan ticket.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/30/2018 - 3:03pm
Well, there *are* compromise positions - we could spend less on global warming but still do something (& try to do it more efficiently to make up for it). There were lots of possibilities to bring health care to all w/o the dreaded "socialism". Safe gun checks were always about upholding 2nd Amendment rights while avoiding atrocities and not helping criminals & the insane get guns. There's more than 1 way to assure people register to vote but have guaranteed identity (and aren't imperiled with false arrest). We've done countless compromises on tax cuts only to have the right still try to go lower. Overflights over Iraq were an effective compromise for a decade, and when we did push for inspectors, that was a compromise that discovered critical information - which we ignored and went in anyway.
We *do* have the ability to compromise, and then our more radical right pushes through something crazy anyway.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/30/2018 - 3:08pm
What you're suggesting is that liberals win but compromise by moving more slowly than we want. We could go the other way. Republicans win but the tax cuts for the rich are smaller than they want.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/30/2018 - 4:08pm
Not quite - I'm pointing out where we've compromised practically or there are multiple acceptable paths to reach our goals. With the "shrink gov to drown it in a bathtub" crowd, there's no useful compromise - only cutting money incessantly as a "goal". If the tax cuts in 2009 served a purpose - stimulus, rescuing businesses, etc, I could support. Just giveaways to a greedy constituency in a time of crisis? Wrong way to compromise. Half a shit sandwich is not my objective. Win-win would be fine.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 09/30/2018 - 4:22pm
I too would support a compromise where we have democratic tax cuts passed by a democratic house, a democratic senate, and signed by a democratic president if the republicans would stop passing their tax cuts when they control the congress and presidency. That could be part of a compromise I find acceptable.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/30/2018 - 5:22pm
O-K, I generally agree with you, but it's not quite that simple. There are different ways of compromising. One is to search for middle ground on particular issues as you've described--like the Great Compromise between big and small states or the Missouri Compromise between North and South (which we obviously shouldn't emulate).
But there are other ways. You can also put disagreements aside to forge an alliance against a common enemy. European centrist parties sometimes do this to prevent more extreme parties from taking power. Unfortunately, these alliances tend to be fragile.
You can also find common ground on high-priority issues and put lower-priority issues aside. Every political party does this to an extent. For example, the GOP is united on taxes and abortion, divided on trade, immigration, and prison reform.
I think the third form of compromise is the most sustainable in the long term, but the strongest alliances are based on a variety of compromises. For example, Lincoln's Republican Party was founded on all three forms:
So I would put your objection to a compromise ticket a little differently. A one-off bipartisan ticket is destined to be torn apart. For compromise to work, a new, durable political platform would be necessary. The problem in creating such a platform is not that we have too many disagreements, it's that we lack vital points of strong agreement.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 9:18am
Any Republican who comprised would be labeled RINO and face a primary challenge. Democrats are more apt to compromise. This is not a “both sides do it” argument.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 10:33am
Yes. Key fact is Republicans don't want to solve any issue facing the country. The GOP loves a crisis. It distracts from what they are really doing (see below). It provides opportunity to lie about it's cause or what to do about it, it can be used to misdirect public anger, and to target the opposition as at fault.
The media loves a good crisis also because it ups ratings, and provides ample room for the beltway punditry to blame both sides.
Short of a real crisis, the GOP doesn't want to "stop" abortion and never will, "solve" immigration, reduce the deficit, reduce gun deaths or create a universal health care system. They have huge propaganda media empires to get the messages and lies out, and the fear, hate and anger stirred up in their Base at election time.
Such issues are useful to Republicans as a toolkit of immortal campaign issues, ergo, they never want them to go away,
This is the vote getting scheme, the actual mission is enriching their plutocrat donors, and "gaming" the "norms", "traditions" and democratic principles to stay in power.
by NCD on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 11:22am
Flake doesn’t like Trump’s style but supports most of the things Trump wants to do. Flake will vote for Kavanaugh at the end of the day unless something that he considers outrageous turns up in the investigation. The Kavanaugh anti-Democratic Party rant will not change his opinion. Democrats are better off supporting a Democrat.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 12:22pm
You often talk as if self-identified Democrats are the majority in numbers (and that therefore if they just got out their vote they could always win things.) Is not true.
(Wikipedia)
I would like to point out that what started this discussion is a tweet by this guy saying in all caps YES that it's time for a bipartisan ticket:
This is not a low info. voter. One who worked "rule of law" jobs most of his life where one might presume he's Republican but now he's working with "the left wing media."
I think people who don't take Independent identification seriously are making stupid errors in analysis of the political situation. There's a majority of us out there are not loyal to the parties and vote for individuals.
Our country has always had a strong independent streak to its character, it's a country made of immigrants who chose to leave their home country/tribe and raise children away from the old ways, to have a chance to change their social class and not be limited to tribes. To me, one fruition of that playing out is that those children don't think tribally on politics, either. Just because everyone you know has votes for one party because their parents and grandparents did, doesn't mean that's the way it is for a majority out there now. Party enthusiasm might even turn such people off. Why else would they tell a pollster who is not going to publish their name that they are not of either party?'
The biggest party out there right now is the anti-Trump party. That doesn't mean they all think like rmrd. Many may dislike "Identity politics" of the rmrd Dem party. Many of them might very well think highly of someone like Jeff Flake. After all, he wrote an anti-Trump book and is quitting the highly partisan Congress. Some probably voted for Obama and then for Trump and were disappointed by both, and those probably also think Republicans are often better for the economy.
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 1:07pm
Nothing in your post addresses the fact that Flake supports policies that the overwhelming majority of Democrats do not.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 1:06pm
Who said he did? Why is it always about the Dem party for you, when self-identified Dems are less than 1/3 of the population? Mr. Kirschner actually did not raise the name Flake., someone replying to his tweet about a bi-partisan ticket did with Flake/Coons. Coons is a Democrat. I posted that here because I saw both as evidence of a hunger among many for politicians who exhibit independence from party. Yes, Flake has voted conservative but he works with Coons on this. There were many other answers to Kirschner's tweet, though.
Edit to add: Dem party loyalists angry about Bernie Sanders not being a loyal Dem aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Whether or not you like his ideas, he's Independent for the most part because he knows that's where the foreseeable future is going and it's helped get him re-elected as a Senator time after time.
You really overestimate the popularity of the Dem party. Only a third of the public wants to identify with them.
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 1:23pm
Its about the Democratic Party because I am a Democrat. Most Independents actually lean toward a particular party even though they may not be enthusiastic
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/05/5-facts-about-americas-p...
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 1:57pm
Yeah some even voted for Obama twice and then for Trump when he sold himself as anti-establishment Republican who was for health care for all. Don't underestimate any time a Republican, or Democrat for that matter, bucks their party line. The hunger for doing that is so great for Independents that they start to see stars when someone like Flake does it a couple of times. Trump used this to win, he dissed a lot of his GOP opponents bigly before dissing Hillary as a party hack.Obama used it too, by making an organization of his own to run his campaign, apart from the Democratic apparatus.
It's a dangerous recipe for demagogues to make use of if voters don't really know what the candidate believes, only knowing that he/she dislikes the party.
But there is strong dislike of the traditional party brands.
For an example, you push the traditionalist Dem party brand and especially the Identity Politics brand on this website. To be perfectly blunt, if you came canvassing to my front door with the same shtick, I would have a real hard time voting for the candidate you were supporting even if I liked him, because I find a lot of your identity politics not just offensive but dangerous and against what I think this country is all about. Make no mistake that a lot of Independents feel strongly about not wanting to be aligned with either party. Your rah rah support the Dem troops is a big turn off to many Independents.
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 2:15pm
It’s 2018. People have seen Trump and the GOP in action. We will see who shows up at the polls.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 2:20pm
And there was no need for the Pew link. I posted the exact same info right at the start of my original comment from Wikipedia, including the numbers for Democratic leaners and Republican leaners. Straw manning again, as if I was saying something else. Maybe you do it because you have no reading comprehension, I don't know. You consistently do this, and it's offensive to the person you are responding to, you're not really conversing, you are just pushing against straw men. And then your respondent finds himself wasting time having to talk about shit they weren't saying because something they weren't saying is presumed to be what they were saying.. And sorry they didn't ignore you, because they are wasting time going over the same stuff. Whatever the reason, it ends up trollish, very trollish.
by artappraiser on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 2:27pm
Have a nice day
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/01/2018 - 2:26pm
This country is being ripped apart here. We've got to make sure that we do due diligence.~ Jeff Flake
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/30/2018 - 6:23pm
Flake: I sometimes feel like I'm 'without a party'
By Michael Burke @ TheHill.com - 10/01/18 11:21 PM EDT
by artappraiser on Tue, 10/02/2018 - 2:32am