MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
![]() |
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
I've been so concerned that Mueller wouldn't be able to come up with the smoking gun that tanks the imposter in the White House, that it never crossed my mind to ask "What if he proves everything we think we know and it doesn't matter?"
Now the question has been asked.
This article will scare the living crap outta you.
Comments
Is curious that many on the left are demanding truth and fair play as, their *main goals* whereas the right has simply disappeared these quaint nostalgic principles. A true bifurcation. Must review my catastrophe theory mathematics (yes, it's a field that means something diffrent than it sounds like)
If you go to RealCkearPolitics, you get to see the parallel constructs every day. Left version, right version, little similarity
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 2:02am
A little bit of hope here (On the Mueller issue, if not the state of general right wing national disinfo.; found link on Jay Rosen's Twitter feed, after seeing his tweet in the Vox article and following through):
‘Concerned’ conservatives, aiming to build a Trump resistance, call for GOP to protect Mueller
By David Weigel @ WashingtonPost.com, Nov. 1
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 2:27am
There is a segment of white voters that believe these fantasies. We ignore that fact at our own peril. The Republican establishment does nothing to counter these delusions. Flake and Corker are wingnuts who vote with Trump almost 100% of the time. The only disagreement Flake and Corker have with Trump is “style”. Susan Collins has joined the Fusion GPS investigation nonsense.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/924718512333041664
A significant segment of whites have gone crazy.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 8:30am
Hope springs eternal, and often falls flat into the winter of our discontent. Ain't no cure for the summertime blues.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 8:33am
Ed Gillespie is running for Governor in Virginia using Confederate symbolism.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/as-ed-gillespies-campaign-goes-so-goes-the-memory_us_59fb8aa7e4b01ec0dede40af?section=us_contributor
Gillespie, like Susan Collins, is a supposed moderate.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 8:48am
America's bottom 50% has seen, at best, no improvement in its financial situation in 40 years. Democrats and the "liberal" media tell them that they have only themselves to blame. They also tell them that they're deluded when they claim it's because of "free trade" that the factory that supported their town shuttered and all the jobs moved to China. They also tell them that the best that they can hope for when it comes to health care is a for-profit system that grudgingly provides them with barely affordable mandatory policies. They also tell them that we're going to be in an endless war that their children will fight and their taxes will pay for.
Republicans and right-wing media put the blame squarely on the wrong people's shoulders - immigrants, people of color, outside agitators, Hollywood.
Given the choices offered them, it's kinda easy to see why so many Americans have tuned out the partisan squabbles and vote based on personality cults if they vote at all.
by HSG on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 9:48am
like you did?
BTW, the GOP is the party that blames the victims. Even the evangelicals preach that wealth is there for all who are truly deserving. The Democratic Party, of which you know so little, aims to help them.
by CVille Dem on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 9:58am
I debated internally whether to respond to this comment but ultimately decided it was worthwhile so here goes:
1) I do not vote based on the cult of personality. If you read through my myriad of posts here and elsewhere, you will see that I urge people to vote and I myself vote based on the actual records of the candidates, the policies that they champion, their credibility, and nothing else.
2) The Republican party generally does not blame those people whose votes it is seeking for their problems. Yes, they extol the rich as deserving and the poor as undeserving but when Republicans campaign for struggling working-class votes, they invariably scapegoat "the other" as I note in my comment.
By contrast, Democrats specifically do attribute the problems confronting many working-class voters to their own fecklessness. Thomas Frank explains this phenomenon well:
by HSG on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 12:42pm
You are wrong
Pew study. Republicans blame effort. Democrats blame circumstances.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/02/why-people-are-rich-and-poor-republicans-and-democrats-have-very-different-views/
Conservatives blame the poor for being poor.
https://newrepublic.com/article/145504/conservatives-blame-poverty-poor
Evangelicals blame the poor for being poor
https://www.salon.com/2017/08/10/so-much-for-christian-charity-evangelicals-blame-the-poor-for-poverty-which-makes-them-a-lot-like-other-republicans/
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 12:52pm
The Pew study you cite surveys registered voters. I am talking about the rhetoric and policies of Democratic elites and elected officials. In fact, the Pew study proves my point. Democratic candidates are rejecting their base's values when they turn their backs on the working class and blame it for its struggles. This is a big reason that the party has lost so many seats since 2009.
by HSG on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 1:02pm
Nice huge paintbrush you got there, fella - please name 1 Democratic candidate, official or "elite" besides Rahm Emmanuel who blames the working class for its problems and struggles.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 1:43pm
If the Democratic Party base does not accept Sanders as its leader, do you think it is better to stay home rather than vote for a Democratic candidate against a Republican?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 11:19am
I think every American citizen over 18 years old has a moral and intellectual duty to vote in every election for the most progressive trustworthy viable candidate [edited to add the following] regardless of whether that candidate has reached out specifically to him or her or to his or her identity group. Granted, however, that in many cases, reasonable voters may differ over which candidate is most progressive, what progressive really means, and which candidate will best address the issues that are of paramount concern to the individual voter.
by HSG on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 11:35am
So a third party candidate who cannot win and guarantees a Republican win is the better option?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 11:45am
Did you see the word "viable" in my answer? Viable means that the candidate has a shot. How do you believe individuals should vote?
by HSG on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 12:30pm
Vote for any Democratic candidate to block the Republican
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 12:34pm
How about in primaries?
by HSG on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 12:46pm
Go with your personal preference. Any Democrat is better than any Republican.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 11/04/2017 - 10:16am
by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 12:51pm
Disagree. I think the best way in the U.S. and western democracies at least to reduce the likelihood of authoritarian rule is if we all vote in the manner I set forth. I acknowledge that the best candidate is not always obvious or that we cannot have reasonable disagreements over this question. But sitting out elections is almost always worse than voting even if the only options are unpalatable. By the way, that was not the case in November 2016. There was at least one palatable, if not ideal, candidate on the ballot.
by HSG on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 12:57pm
Trump may have sold his brand to a population that was anxious for something to change the dynamic in Washington but one would need to smoke a fair bit of opium to think Trump is or ever was a usurper of corrupt elites.
by moat on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 1:00pm
From NYTimes' The Learning Network for student discussion, so a "fair use" paste:
Should Voting Be Mandatory?
By Michael Gonchar
November 10, 2015 5:00 amby artappraiser on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 3:36pm
But I think I'm going to take advantage of it not being mandatory in this counry and stay home next time because national Dem candidates never ever reach out to us NYC residents, they never knock on the door, they take us for granted that we will vote for them and we always do, instead they spend all their time and money trying to woo swing districts and swing voters, because they'd like to win, go figure. it's so unfair </sarcasm>
by artappraiser on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 3:47pm
Well, you elite Art Establishment types know how to feather your own nests, never caring for the common man (and I do mean "man" in this case). Personally I think you're revelling in your unique identity and ignoring the more important class divisions that keep the underclass from even *knocking* at the door. You blame their unknockability on them, the victims, when more progressive values and taking money from the rich could easily fund a whole new knocking culture that so far escapes them.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 4:36pm
It it means nothing? There is an ancient Greek app for that:
Thucydides: III 69-85
by moat on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 10:31am
Stilli, thanks for posting this. I agree whole heartedly with the case it makes, with the danger it describes. I have also worried like you that even if what we believe based on the growing weight of the circumstantial evidence available publicly is proven to be true with hard unassailable facts, it won’t make any difference.
The way I see it at the present time is that while there is a ton of accusations flying through the air, there are but a few pounds of circumstantial evidence now available to the public that should be given credence. That circumstantial evidence, though, is strong enough to completely justify thorough investigations. When the chips fall where they may the mess must be cleaned up regardless who those chips fall on. My own fear that that won’t happen is amplified by the fact that there have been some pretty weighty matters in our recent history when the hard evidence proved serious crimes, crimes that I believe were part of leading us down the road towards the crisis we face now. But, the fact is, those crimes ultimately were excused, white-washed, ignored, and forgotten as we hobbled on. Ultimately, as far as justice is concerned, those crimes didn't matter. They 'meant nothing' because they were not treated in a way that did not alter our course.
So, with these thoughts in mind I encourage you to read the article by Chris Floyd which I just posted at “In the News”. I think it applies when considering the article here in question. Of course posting it at "In the News" is intended as encouragement to everybody but what the hey.
Cheers and happy [ha!] reading.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 1:16pm
I never would have thought we'd get to this point, especially so quickly. But if there is anything trump has been remarkably successful at, it's been lying through his teeth while accusing everyone else of lying. It's like these people have had their brains sucked out and replaced with jello.
Now we are faced with a situation where there doesn't seem to be any "truth." Whatever you "think" is your reality and nothing will change that view. In fact, the more "facts" that are presented, the more entrenched people are in believing the opposite.
I don't know how we push past this.
In the Civil War, there were defined boundaries. The South vs. the North. Had the south won, we knew where the boundaries of the new, separate country would be.
But now, how would that work? How do the coasts separate themselves from the middle? The urban areas from the rural?
I'm seriously concerned that the country is in peril, but I have no concept of what the end result would be. If the Republicans "won" the potential civil war, would all the Democrats get rounded up and exterminated? Or would there be separate lands given to each side? Would the military side with donald or with the loyalists? Or would the repubs be the loyalists and the rest of us be the rebels?
I know I'm getting WAAAAAAAAY ahead of myself, but it feels like we are being led down a very ominous road, and if we don't take steps toward taking a different direction, how will we turn back? Without some help from Republicans that don't want to see the country divided, how can we avoid going over the edge? Are we going to have a real, shooting war? Or will we wake up one morning and find that he HAS taken over and we are now being ruled by a dictator?
In some respects, I see that we (or is it just "I"?) need to relax and let this whole thing take it's course, but if it truly doesn't matter, what then? Are we going to take it lying down?
by stillidealistic on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 7:14pm
I like the way you address the problem in terms of trying to find something in between completely freaking out and just letting grass grow over oneself. In addition to trying to figure things out, we need to take care of ourselves. That is politics too.
by moat on Fri, 11/03/2017 - 7:36pm
That's for sure, Moat. I'm sure my health has suffered as a result of this creature being in control of the country. Try as I might to just live life and not let him overwhelm me, I am experiencing a low level anxiety 24/7. It's frustrating knowing we have to do SOMETHING, but having no idea what that is. Sitting back and trusting that SOMEONE is going to do something isn't working for me. So I stew about it. The idea that Mueller's investigation might be irrelevant only heightens that anxiety.
by stillidealistic on Sat, 11/04/2017 - 2:53am
Except as I keep reminding people, those Blix inspections at least set in place documented lies, something the Mueller investigation is doing. They may still roll over the Constitution in the end, but the fact that they did it will at least not be buried.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 11/04/2017 - 3:35am
Let me add my thanks for the Vox piece.
Perhaps extrapolating beyond the range of the data If that ,not just disregard for, but actually hostility to, reality were to extend to the commercial world we'd have airplanes falling from the sky ,TV's that electrocute the viewer and scientists that refuse to accept the validity of Global Warming- oops, we do.
But.
When I get out of the Emerald City and visit my country relatives they seem to still remember that 2 plus 2 doesn't equal twenty two. Could we be lucky enough that the contagion will be restricted to the chattering classes?
Which would become even more irrelevant.
by Flavius on Sat, 11/04/2017 - 6:10am
US media still not reporting half the stories, and much of the other half was actually known 6-8 months ago, but due to sloth, competing glitz, probably conflicts of interests and payoffs/paybacks/intimidation (like the Weinstein methods), well, it all stays bottled up.
Ronan Farrow sticks out as perhaps the most persistent journalist of the year, while Seth Abramson has been likely the most insightful & prolific citizen journalist, whereas Buzzfeed broke the hidden and not-so-hidden play-it-safe rules in releasing the Steele Dossier, the defining and still shunned news event of the year. Note that these 3 are the exceptions, no longer the rule.
Below - Seth's summary of just Papadopoulus - bolded items not reported in the US yet.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/06/2017 - 7:13pm
Retread: Abramson's thread on Trump Tower Moscow and how we got here.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 11/06/2017 - 9:02pm