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 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months 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 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
- artappraiser (86)
- artappraiser (64)
- PeraclesPlease (50)
- artappraiser (39)
- artappraiser (37)
The Warren Retort
By PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/07/2016 - 4:07pm |URL:
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/06/30/elizabeth-warrens-consolidation-speech-could-change-the-election/
- Add new comment
- 11011 reads
Comments
This is such a good distillation of what needs to be done that pretty much anyone who will make the effort can understand. Thanks for this.
Special mention for the Award Winning Title, BTW!
by CVille Dem on Fri, 07/08/2016 - 4:39pm
I've been pushing these puns "In the News" for a year now, glad someone noticed.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/09/2016 - 3:30am
Great read, thanks!
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 07/08/2016 - 11:27pm
Yeah, I should have flagged this harder - it's the practical details-side where I largely agree with those complaining about the oligarchy - not to get rid of trade and such, but what needs to be done to keep the playing feel level and still fruitful for new entrants. Everyone's looking for arbitrage - cornering a new market or consolidating an old, and sucking it dry. And our government bodies are either in cahoots or just moving at 1/1000th the speed of the private companies. And we seem to have no limits on what companies can do - 2 players in a market = "competition" somehow.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/09/2016 - 12:27am
Of course I agree with what Warren
wrotesaid. I've been saying much the same for years. What's ironic is that many of Clinton's strongest supporters here are shouting bravo even though their chosen candidate (and her husband - who will be "in charge of" her recovery team) are responsible for many of the policies that led directly to or exacerbated seriously the problems Warren outlines.Media deregulation, repeal of Glass-Steagall, big bank bailout, free trade deals, MFN for China, etc., are all a big part of the problem. But I guess for Clinton's claque none of these are really a big deal. Just like war with Iraq and her private email server are de minimis.
by HSG on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 10:39am
Hal, I am disappointed that you either didn't read, or discounted all the salient points when PP wrote an excellent explanation of why Hillary did not vote to go to war in Iraq. The FBI director admitted finally that there were no emails marked classified. No one saw the emails that shouldn't have, and everyone who should have access does. That is enough for us.
Agreeing with Warren doesn't equal despising everything WJ Clinton did 20 years ago, especially those he didn't actually do, and that the First Lady absolutely didn't do.
I don't understand why you conflate the two of them. Saying that she will use his expertise is not a bad thing, any more than their charity which helps needy people around the world. But if you are a Clinton, what ever you do has to be bad, or at least suspect, I guess.
Considering your unwillingness to look at the Iraq War / Hillary situation with any objectivity and keep bringing it up as you infer that her "claque" of supporters are blind, immoral, or ignorant, I have reached the conclusion that when President Clinton accomplishes as many of her goals as she can in the present atmosphere, you will likely just complain that there still isn't Universal Single Payer Health Care. Disappointing.
Especially considering that Bernie would not be able to accomplish any of his goals.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 11:20am
The fact that they connotation admit that Bernie Sanders cannot accomplish his goals of single-payer, etc. is rarely addressed by Sanders supporters. Instead of laying out Bernie's plans, they will lap up a story about Mena, Arkansas promoted by Alex Jones. They will put resources into the mythical voter fraud that targeted Bernie Sanders and put no effort into actual voter suppression targeting ethnic minorities. This again proves that Sanders would have been a disastrous Presidential candidate.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 12:00pm
In 2002, Hillary voted for a law entitled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." W used that law to justify war on the Iraqi people. At no time, did Hillary Clinton argue that Bush's war was illegal because he exceeded his authority. She did not support any type of investigation into the legality of the decision. Nevertheless, you are "disappointed" that I lack "objectivity" as evidenced by my refusal to consider PP's arguments supporting Clinton's vote to authorize the use of force.
What about you? Are or were you open to the argument that Clinton actually did vote for war when she voted in favor of "authorization for use of military force against Iraq?" Are you objective or did you choose to believe the explanation that justifies your support for Clinton?
Even if Clinton deserved the benefit of the doubt for her vote to authorize force against Iraq, doesn't her subsequent history - refusing to turn against Bush's war until she was well-nigh forced to in 2008 and her frequent support for military action as Secretary of State - demonstrate she is an irresponsible hawk?
Personally, I would be much more inclined to excuse Clinton's pro-Iraq War vote if she had acknowledged much earlier on that she was wrong and showed she had learned from the mistake. This to me does show that I am reasonably objective. But Clinton's record as Secretary of State suggests she did not learn from her mistaken vote and probably did support war right?
Regarding servergate, Clinton lied to me and you. She told us what she did was allowed when it was not. I don't like being lied to. Do you?
Hillary and Bill together and apart championed the very policies that have led to the concentration of wealth and power that Warren rightly decries. "Free trade", tightening of bankruptcy regulations, repealing Glass-Steagall and opposing a new one, the big bank bailout. It makes no sense to support her with virtually no reservations if you rightly decry the results of her actions.
I guess Sanders isn't wholly irrelevant to this conversation if your argument is that Clinton was the better alternative than Sanders because he couldn't get anything done and she's better (obviously) than Trump. Okay, we had that argument. I disagree with the basic premise that Sanders couldn't pass legislation. Obviously doesn't matter now. But you didn't just argue that Sanders couldn't accomplish things, you and PP and O-K and others argue repeatedly that Clinton is really good. That she isn't a neocon and isn't a neoliberal. Those arguments are clearly belied by the evidence.
by HSG on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 12:38pm
Now that you are in a mood to work with a coalition, are you ready to work to GOTV for Hillary?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 12:43pm
I said I would work with you to help register voters and fight poverty. I did not say I would help get out the vote for Hillary. I understand you will only work with people who promise not to criticize Clinton under any circumstances while you are free to praise her to the skies. Is that correct?
by HSG on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 1:26pm
I am willing to work with anyone wiling to work on getting out the vote for Hillary.
Logistically that is easier to work on. You can GOTV in your area and I can do the same in mine. We can work on combating police abuse and poverty in our local areas. Thus we can work together on the same issues.
Hillary is the Democratic nominee. She will be selecting Supreme Court justices, making judicial appointments, formatting policy. The Democratic platform committee has a Progressive posture. Supporting Hillary seems to be the best way to encourage changes from the top. Electing downstream Democrats seems to be the best way to aid making that change. Applying public pressure is the best way to pressure change from the bottom.
I am not going to spend time criticizing Hillary when Trump and the GOP are the clear and present danger. I will accept the criminal justice and climate change stance as reasons to support Democratic candidates. I am not going to waste time criticizing the fact that there is no plank in the platform that demand halting the TPP. The TPP can be adjudicated after the election as it would be anyway since the platform is not binding. There are enough Democrats who do not want the TPP stance to stand as something that goes counter Obama's position on the issue. I agree with that position on the TPP. Once Obama leaves office, there will be a fight over the TPP. That is the pragmatic approach.
If you don't want to work with me on GOTV for Hillary, I really don't care. You feel free to disagree with my position on putting TPP in the platform. You set up conditions but are upset when others have an opinion that differs from your view.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 2:54pm
If you're not willing to get out the vote for Hillary, just go away - you're useless, you can't win an election and you're out to spoil a brand. You're a selfish self-promoter and you don't understand the compromises and long-distance effort to create a party or a movement. You think ideas stand on their own - good luck with that.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 3:07pm
Michael Wolraich - In response to a question you posed, I explained it was important to me that Clinton supporters acknowledge the obvious flaws in their candidate because only then could we work together to make America better. You expressed contempt for my position and instead urged me to reach out to Clinton supporters to find common ground. I did just that. But as you can see the Clinton supporters are unwilling to work with me except insofar as such work comprises helping their candidate win. So it seems I was right doesn't it? Until they recognize their mistake, we cannot work together even on somewhat unrelated issues like immigration, registering voters, and supporting progressive Congressional candidates because Clinton's backers insist that I not just support but actively work with them on their cause celebre.
by HSG on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 4:55pm
Until these people who disagreed with me recognize that they were wrong, I'm going to have a tough time agreeing with them! #neverchangehal
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 5:04pm
"But as you can see the Clinton supporters are unwilling to work with me except insofar as such work comprises helping their candidate win" - what else is there, Hal? It's an election, not a turnip growing contest. You want to figure out "mistakes", we want to win an election. Come back in December, maybe we'll have time to throw away then.
And your definition of "support" is like someone pissing in the tub and bragging they kept the water warm. I for one don't want you anywhere near the candidate - you're only good at poisoning the well, nothing for teamwork and finding middle ground.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 5:18pm
Let us both make concessions to the other. I will say that Hillary voted for war if you will say Sanders turned into a sore loser who was unable to face the fact that the voters didn't want him and that he lost in a landslide. It became all about him and his ego and he's now helping Trump to win.
We both will then have criticized our candidate in a way the other side believes to be true. We can both do that and work together, both not do it and work together, or you can walk away and help Trump win. I don't care what you choose.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 5:51pm
Hal. you are a true heretic who would support democracy and register voters who might have the spine to vote for someone other than HRC. I don't think you can effectively fight poverty in the abstract but you can attack the root causes of poverty, Capitalism, a captured political class and unrestrained greed.
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 3:54pm
So who is that someone other than HRC? It's either Trump or Jill Stein or stay home. Good luck rationalizing those.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 4:00pm
You've stated here that you not only supported Kerry but that you expended considerable energy working for him when at the time he not only didn't he apologize he defended his vote for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. All your attempts to explain that away seem like rationalizations to me.
I find the discussions claiming Hillary is a neocon or a neoliberal to be simplistic. There's much grey between neocon and isolationist. Many democrats voted for the Authorization but none of them would have introduced as president. There's no question in my mind that had Gore won the election he would not have invaded Iraq in response to 911, Neither would have Hillary or Obama. For all the talk about Obama's one speech against the Iraq war given his actions as president I think it's likely he too would have voted the the Authorization.
Too often I think you don't deal with the complexity of the issues you discuss. I posted a long interesting article about the history of trade deals as a geopolitical strategy. Your response was: just bring back tariffs. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the article it was a silly and simplistic response not worthy of engaging. Just as the Sanders faction that wants to ban fracking and takes Hillary to task for supporting it in Europe as SoS. In countries that get much and often a majority of their oil from Russia there are geopolitical reasons to support fracking. It's not simply an environmental issue.
The problems we face are complex and multifaceted and need complex and multifaceted solutions. That's one of my problems with Sanders as well as his supporters. He defines complex issues as simple and comes up with simple solutions. The world is just more complicated than he sees it.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 2:30pm
Actually, the problem of job loss is a very simple one. We have shed millions of manufacturing jobs because labor costs 1/20 or less in some other countries than it costs here. It's kinda like why we stopped using sperm whale oil in the 1860s. Petroleum was much cheaper and more plentiful. Had we enacted heavy taxes on petroleum then, the sperm whales would have been very quickly hunted to extinction. The problem of global warming is equally simple. We over consume fossil fuels now because in most instances they generate more calories per dollar expended than clean green alternatives. If we raise the prices with a fossil fuels tax, we will consume less.
With respect to geo-political strategy, the free trade deals have been devastating for America. We have empowered and enriched the Chinese Communists such that they are now lording it over Tibet and scaring Australia in the South China Sea. Likewise, free trade has vastly increased the sway of neo-fascistic governments in Singapore and Malaysia where human trafficking continues unchecked. Greece is approaching third world economic status due to the control over its economy exercised by Germany by virtue of the "free trade" Eurozone.
Regarding my support for John Kerry, it would seem I picked the right horse back then given he has done much more for peace - especially with Iran - as Secretary of State than Clinton did. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/hillary-clinton... Kerry has also been willing to criticize Israel and Netanyahu whereas Clinton wants to take our relationship with Israel to the next level. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/25/kerry-netanyahu-wrong-on-iraq-and-wr... In any case, some time back, I explained the differences between Kerry and Clinton and why he was a better choice then than she is now.
The question you have to ask yourself O-K is am I going to nitpick everything Hal writes because I don't like his conclusions or is it just possible that he's been right and I've been wrong all along.
by HSG on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 4:43pm
It's not about right and wrong. The vast majority of our discussions were subjective. My subjective analysis about Hillary's economic plan to expand on Dodd/Frank and Sanders plan to reinstate Glass/Stegall hasn't changed. You seem to want me to admit you were "right" before you will help the democrats win. Not going to happen.
My subjective analysis is that health care corporations are a small force against single payer. The largest force against single payer is the fact that 70% of the population gets their health care from their employers, are happy with it, and will resist any change. I support an incremental change building on the ACA. You want me to say I'm wrong before you're willing to help Hillary win. That is not going to happen.
My views haven't changed. Of course I think my subjective analysis is more correct than your subjective analysis. I post what I believe. I'm not spinning for Hilary. I'm not going to lie about my views as the cost of getting your help to elect Hillary. Go help Trump get elected. I don't give a fuck what you do.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 6:29pm
Hal, I can no longer respond to your comments as long as they continue to be the usual way that you non-respond to legitimate efforts to discuss ideas. I remain disappointed because you block out so much information, and just remain like a chunk of ice, so sure that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and I do think it is unfortunate, most particularly for you. You are deaf/blind/whatever to anything you have not already decided on. I don't care who you vote for. I don't care what you say you are doing for the upcoming election. Somehow I don't think a lot of people are making their voting decision on what "Hal" is promoting. As the judge on People's Court says, "Good Luck."
The truth is that I also think that I am right, but I don't require everyone who has a different (and well-thought-out viewpoint) to admit that they are wrong. Good people can disagree. You don't seem to get that.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 9:19pm
No, Hal - you don't say what Warren says - you toss out a litany of superficial issue plugs like you do here with no practical evaluation. Warren is for business, just not tilted business.
For the record, I thought greater media consolidation was a bad idea, but the internet and later smart phones changed the survivability of papers, radio and TV, so it's more complex as the status quo was unsustainable.
Glass-Steagall we've beaten to death and wasn't so much about competition (yes, it would be nice if occasionally you could stick to the fucking point, but that's asking a lot).
Trade deals I've asked you over and over how poor countries can compete and survive without some accommodation codified, but crickets from you - I assume you're a typical selfish American that talks about american jobs and not the rest of the world's.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 1:00pm
by HSG on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 1:28pm
Sorry, meant to include compassion trolling but no actual solutions. Like the woman I met who wouldnt buy anything from Vietnam because she'd heard about exploitation (though would buy prisoner-made goods from China). How people from Vietnam would survive outside of Nike? She had no concern. So are we pure American jobs firsters, or are we trying to raise all boats? Whatever.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 3:00pm
All right. I'll reply although I have
littleno hope you'll actually take seriously what I write or consider changing your opinion.It is possible that free trade very slightly improves the quality of life for barely surviving people in third world nations. Rather than starving in the countryside, they may live incredibly difficult stressful lives in sweatshops and factories. If this is the best that can be done for them, I suppose it would be okay if the same "free trade" that you and some others champion didn't also impoverish millions in the first world while making others multi-billionaires.
So, if "free trade" were the only workable solution for reducing poverty in the third world, we and others in rich nations must ensure the pain such trade inflicts on people in the first world is shared by all and those at the top suffer more than those at the bottom. Obviously, the precise opposite has transpired over the past 35 years.
But is "free trade" the ideal solution for third world poverty. Almost certainly it is not. Land reform, education for girls and women, anti-poverty programs, and economic development that relies on developing small businesses in industries that serve domestic markets are all much better, i.e., more sustainable, more environmentally sound, more equitable long-term strategies.
by HSG on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 4:29pm
Land reform => still farming? competing against industrial farms? forget that. Better to drive a cab. Or at least was.
"anti-poverty programs" - uh, that's like "world peace programs" - who could be against? what does it mean?
"education for girls and women" - what do you do if they're educated and there are no jobs nor affordable ways to export goods?
"small business that serve domestic markets" - there are no serious domestic markets - people there are poor and have low discretionary income. It's either export or go hungry.
"Free trade" means essentially lowered barriers. Yes, in cases barriers are good for survival if incoming goods & services swamp the local market. But we're often talking about pathetic levels of competitiveness. How does the biggest market help poorer countries compete, have opportunity, grow next generation industries?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 4:51pm
Sounds great, but let's not pretend there's not a trade off here. Say I live in Baklistan and we have developed a sustainable, local business that supplies me with Yurps. But what if the world's best Yurps come from outside of Baklistan? They are cheaper and better and they come from Freedonia. I am a consumer in Baklistan. We have trade protections in place that keep Freedonian Yurps out of our market. Is it right that I am forced to purchase inferior Yurps at inflated prices, just because the local Yurpmaker has built a business that way?
Put another way, the locally owned store can actually be as oppressive as Wal-Mart, if it is the only game in town.
Put yet another way, how would your trade regime affect my ability to get the world's best wines?
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 4:54pm
In a democracy, the people elect leaders who appoint representatives to Trade Commissions who balance the various factors that you raise. What we don't do is throw up our hands and say anybody can bring anything in here and
compete witheviscerate our middle class.by HSG on Wed, 07/20/2016 - 11:36am