This is an excellent article. The teachers in these places are heroes. There are many in the ruling elite, particularly on the right, that are against public education altogether. While this sentiment may be more prevalent in the south, it should not be discounted that the attack upon teachers and public sector workers was not limited to red states. Though there was a R governor in NJ, for instance, many machine D politicians teamed up with him to assault collective bargaining, eliminate cost of living adjustments, and reduce benefits. They presided over a massive shift in wealth from government labor to big health insurance and medicine. There has been some rebellion against this recently in Jersey City, where teachers fought back some against benefits contribution, which is tagged to the group insurance rate (over which there is no realistic cost control). The strategy was a quite cynical one of pitting private worker against public, leaving aside the demonizing of labor (still having roots in red scare). It is important that labor or people in general unite against "austerity." How hypocritical that there are calls for cuts in Medicare and Social Security, the so called entitlements (leaving aside the dastardly cuts to programs for the poor), while the policy at the national level has been Reverse Robinhood Tax "reform" and interventionist war of election. It is hard for people employed in private sector to resist demagogic appeals to reduce the economic standard of those employed in the public sector. At the same time, those employed in the public should seize opportunities to express solidarity with the private.
Seems to me that much as there is ambivalence and division within Sunni population within Syria, the division being somewhat along class lines (though the issues are far more complex and multi-faceted), there is ambivalence among the hypothetical interveners among neighboring nations. It is very unlikely that there will be decisive commitment to such intervention. It is very sad for the Sunnis who have been resisting the regime (probably religiously authentic but not Al Qaeda terrorist), and so too the Kurds, if the US abandons the endeavor. There is a difficult moral question here, raised by Sen. Mosley Braun apropos of the Iraq War during a debate way back. While there might or might not be obligation to help in mediating civil violence within a nation, it is another matter when one has played a part in creating instability. It is regrettable that foreign actors are playing so prominent a role in the lives of the people who actually live in the area and have a greater claim to control their lives, let alone the resources and wealth that could help to improve their lives.
Agreed Pence would be no better than Trump. Nor Ryan for that matter. They've already done much damage, and whatever happens in November, it will take decades to undo harm they already have done, through legislation but also through appointments to court. Pretty sad state of affairs, challenging the
will to be optimistic.
Let's not forget good journalists/guests who appear or have appeared on cable. Richard Engel. And there are many who wish they had listened a little more attentively when Peter Bergen was talking about the man who declared war against the united states. A bit too confident to say Ds will take back Congress. They should, but many things can happen between now and then. Case can go up to Supreme Court fast and end the whole inquiry into dirty works of Trump et al. Possible Rs on court could find fine spun distinctions in Nixon precedent. These people will not go down without a very hard fight.
The issue is government access to user data, however strongly encrypted. If Apple and US government have it, that does not mean that Russians will, unless Apple or US government is careless. There may be something to the idea that US government prefers weaker encryption to facilitate its own access to citizen. There is a problem when all of this, (communication between government and private providers) happens in the dark. Congress has a role in this, after all. So too the courts. Ultimately it seems to boil down to when, under what circumstances, should government have access to citizen data. There is some law on this, albeit data collection was happening for a while between telecom providers and executive branch w/o judicial oversight. Congress has made abdication a bad habit of long standing, this when it comes to privacy, and also matters of war and peace (and many other matters, where there is either apathy or stalemate). Within DOJ, DOS, DOD, much is relative. Comey better than Gonzalez, McMaster better than Bolton, for example. Easy to call on people to resign, and I often wonder why more decent of people would want to remain and be associated with bad doings or lot, but, in considering a given official's resignation "on principle," serious consideration must be given to what/who will remain or take that official's place. We live in the world of the possible, and a substantial shift in the balance of power will be needed to achieve the types of "privacy" protection that appears to be needed.
May be dense, but, in the main, do not see how US attack on computer privacy of US citizens helped the Russians hack. The US government accessing US citizen private data does not seem to equate with facilitating Russian access. I can see the connection only insofar as it involves US pressuring a company like Apple to weaken encryption. That aside, to the extent the US government accesses individual data, the hacking by Russians seems only to be as good as it is able to hack American intelligence (which is not the same as the DNC). If the US government adequately guards its records from foreign governments, there does not seem to be a problem as far as US data collection compromising US security. Not saying I agree necessarily with US access or compromising of US citizen data, but the pressuring of Apple aside (maybe no small matter), I am having a hard time seeing the connection. Seems strained. Also, it seems the main issue with Apple was not so weakening security/encryption, but allowing US government to have access to it, which again does not necessarily equate with access by foreign governments. I am far from pleased with how Comey conducted himself as FBI director, including public announcement about Clinton invest windup, and then Weiner and the reopening. Seems to me he overplayed his role. That he seems still not to get. At the same time, his firing by Trump seemed to be a big event, an indication perhaps that Trump was concerned that he might not have been "corruptible." It also seems to me that in evaluating the actions of these long time public officials in high positions, their commitment to duty aside, it seems people do not appreciate the importance of staying on the job and even rising more. People say they can make millions in private practice and such, but that often is not what they are more interested in. There are issues of legacy, the value/importance of the institution, and trying to do a decent job under trying circumstances. And, whatever one things about McCabe, with him running to White House and such and keeping close friends there, his firing one day before he was due to pension out was an abuse of very high order, designed to intimidate any public official who would stand up. These FBI folks may not be sympathetic figures, but it seems more perspective may be needed in making comparison with Trump and his inner circle.
Healthcare is a huge part of this. People cannot afford to buy insurance, and the quality of plans (high deductibles and co-pays) often leaves them with large bills in any case. There is tremendous pressure on the bottom in the current health care system, and Rs want still more, forcing people to choose between medical care and the poorhouse, and inviting unscrupulous underwriting practices. They in fact do not care whether the average person lives or dies. There is no denying it, it is so obvious from the policies they are pursuing. Also, the need for jobs with benefits tends to keep people in the work force effectively enslaved. That is what the economic elites want and largely are getting when it comes to full time workers, though there many n the work force who have no benefits at all and cobble together part time jobs just to get by. It will take decades to undo the great harm that Trump and Rs are doing, if it ever can be undone.
With release of Nunes memo, let alone refusal to release the D response, Reality Winner legitimately may be considered a political prisoner. If she should be jailed, why not the various Congressmen responsible for the release of this memo. Moreover, there is crisis point at which release of all the information overrides security interests warranting classification of any of the intelligence bearing on this question. This article raises a very valid point. Excessive classification enhances the ability of the government to manipulate intelligence to further hidden agendas. Excessive classification is inimical to democracy and legitimate representative government.
Women wailing on American TV while bombs falling, ancient artifacts destroyed, too many killed and maimed (Iraqis and Americans), and US soldiers standing by at public hangings. A very sad chapter in US History. Carol Moseley Braun spoke of obligation that might arise to fix something once you have broken it. A good argument against the breaking, and for repair of things that have not been broken beyond repair.
It is true that the seeds of fascism already have been sewn. This looting of land and people embodied in R Tax Bill is evidence that the Rs and backers foresee unrest and reversal, and are trying to take what more they can as fast as they can. When more pain kicks in, as it inevitably will, the excuses are already built in. It will be the fault of the immigrants and minorities, and those of a non-traditionalist cultural points of view. Clinton represented a last chance at fragile consensus. Instead of rule with message of inclusion, there is rule by division, cultural warfare. Without corporate welfare in 2008, there could have been broader unrest. Back then Rs already had been courting danger, with appeals to nationalism and prejudice. Such appeals are even more explicit now. It also is more likely that economic distress emanating from this tax bill will generate unrest, this in the near future, years not decades. The forces of plutocracy are poised to deal with this likelihood, to repress opposition, and to embark upon a kind of warfare that is more than just cultural. It may not even take unrest to unleash some repression, as the fear of the sheer consequences of the vote could well be enough.
Why it is so vital to provide a quality education for many of the young. Another part of the right wing agenda, suppress and limit education. There have been hard times before, times when it had to get worse before it got better, when all kinds of deceptions in the main held sway. Unfortunately, Americans have let an important chance at fragile consensus, and moderate change, slip away. Energy is at the fringes, in unreality, with myths of permanent revolution counter-weighing convenient myths (at the service of the powerful) of the threatened individual (who would be a millionaire if not for government, and the less rugged, the needy, dragging him down). It may be that consensus will not emerge, and there will be rule by repression, and restriction of access to information and the means to get it out. It may be that these are the last days of effective republican government. The hope is with the young, who, in the main, are less weighed down by prejudices, even as the world grows harder for them. Let's not give up on them, they are more valuable than any asset, and still can lift the nation up. They are what is at stake in this struggle, as two generations worth of poverty and ignorance can eliminate all potential for enlightened self government.
Rs have been using divisive appeals to worst elements, old confederacy, white supremacy, patriarchy. Trump, a more direct mouthpiece, perfected it, turning it on the others and making them look like lambs, though the populism always was a con, a false populism predicated in significant part on the false premise that white (especially white male) grievance, rooted as it is in privilege, is more justified. Trump and Rs fast showed their fangs in unison, with policies designed to loot the land and the people, even if there might be pretense at populist appeal. They correctly perceive that they entail a last stand of white supremacy, seeing the dead end of their strategy; and that the majority will see light and demand more power and justice, even if they, the Rs, have attempted to occlude matters with cynical sunset provisions and the like. It is very likely that the more ruthless, wanting in institutional inhibition, will emerge, if only to guard power more jealously, and be a drought to any American spring. The article suggests the reasonable question of whether the nation would better or worse off with Trump (a win at all cost person interested largely in personal victories) gone, with the likes of Pence and Ryan (win at all costs persons who are ideologically hard, espousing ideology that serves self and donor interest) waiting in the wings. In any case, there is determination on the right to leave a large footprint, so that the damage they do will last for decades. 2008 was a transitional moment, which, without corporate welfare, could well have led to crisis before. This was held at bay, and what emerged eight years later was a soft coup rooted in the dark forces of hatred. There is a price to pay when consensus is lost; the risks are high. More power to populist women (not Trump apologist double talkers like Haley). They at least represent some hope on the horizon, however distant.
Very unfortunate. Elections have consequences, and the republicans have no shame. They will seek to cut even more after inevitable revenue shortfalls. And there is no requirement that in exchange for tax breaks companies do anything to help families. The need not pay higher wages; they need not keep jobs in the county; and they need even do business in the US. It is simply a reverse Robinhood Act. And there is a fine hypocrisy to it, as Rs profess that this is for the people's benefit. This is in keeping with their false piety in any number of other realms.
Article is good corrective to myth of free market. It is always an issue of degree. Rs have managed to sell a lot of this neo-liberal fluff to people, but most of those purveying it do not believe it themselves. It is propaganda. Ideology promulgated for expediency, designed to occlude unkindness, as what policy maker would state explicitly that he/she is about harming people. They sin more than by omission, but by commission as well.
This is an excellent article. The teachers in these places are heroes. There are many in the ruling elite, particularly on the right, that are against public education altogether. While this sentiment may be more prevalent in the south, it should not be discounted that the attack upon teachers and public sector workers was not limited to red states. Though there was a R governor in NJ, for instance, many machine D politicians teamed up with him to assault collective bargaining, eliminate cost of living adjustments, and reduce benefits. They presided over a massive shift in wealth from government labor to big health insurance and medicine. There has been some rebellion against this recently in Jersey City, where teachers fought back some against benefits contribution, which is tagged to the group insurance rate (over which there is no realistic cost control). The strategy was a quite cynical one of pitting private worker against public, leaving aside the demonizing of labor (still having roots in red scare). It is important that labor or people in general unite against "austerity." How hypocritical that there are calls for cuts in Medicare and Social Security, the so called entitlements (leaving aside the dastardly cuts to programs for the poor), while the policy at the national level has been Reverse Robinhood Tax "reform" and interventionist war of election. It is hard for people employed in private sector to resist demagogic appeals to reduce the economic standard of those employed in the public sector. At the same time, those employed in the public should seize opportunities to express solidarity with the private.
Seems to me that much as there is ambivalence and division within Sunni population within Syria, the division being somewhat along class lines (though the issues are far more complex and multi-faceted), there is ambivalence among the hypothetical interveners among neighboring nations. It is very unlikely that there will be decisive commitment to such intervention. It is very sad for the Sunnis who have been resisting the regime (probably religiously authentic but not Al Qaeda terrorist), and so too the Kurds, if the US abandons the endeavor. There is a difficult moral question here, raised by Sen. Mosley Braun apropos of the Iraq War during a debate way back. While there might or might not be obligation to help in mediating civil violence within a nation, it is another matter when one has played a part in creating instability. It is regrettable that foreign actors are playing so prominent a role in the lives of the people who actually live in the area and have a greater claim to control their lives, let alone the resources and wealth that could help to improve their lives.
Agreed Pence would be no better than Trump. Nor Ryan for that matter. They've already done much damage, and whatever happens in November, it will take decades to undo harm they already have done, through legislation but also through appointments to court. Pretty sad state of affairs, challenging the
will to be optimistic.
Let's not forget good journalists/guests who appear or have appeared on cable. Richard Engel. And there are many who wish they had listened a little more attentively when Peter Bergen was talking about the man who declared war against the united states. A bit too confident to say Ds will take back Congress. They should, but many things can happen between now and then. Case can go up to Supreme Court fast and end the whole inquiry into dirty works of Trump et al. Possible Rs on court could find fine spun distinctions in Nixon precedent. These people will not go down without a very hard fight.
The issue is government access to user data, however strongly encrypted. If Apple and US government have it, that does not mean that Russians will, unless Apple or US government is careless. There may be something to the idea that US government prefers weaker encryption to facilitate its own access to citizen. There is a problem when all of this, (communication between government and private providers) happens in the dark. Congress has a role in this, after all. So too the courts. Ultimately it seems to boil down to when, under what circumstances, should government have access to citizen data. There is some law on this, albeit data collection was happening for a while between telecom providers and executive branch w/o judicial oversight. Congress has made abdication a bad habit of long standing, this when it comes to privacy, and also matters of war and peace (and many other matters, where there is either apathy or stalemate). Within DOJ, DOS, DOD, much is relative. Comey better than Gonzalez, McMaster better than Bolton, for example. Easy to call on people to resign, and I often wonder why more decent of people would want to remain and be associated with bad doings or lot, but, in considering a given official's resignation "on principle," serious consideration must be given to what/who will remain or take that official's place. We live in the world of the possible, and a substantial shift in the balance of power will be needed to achieve the types of "privacy" protection that appears to be needed.
May be dense, but, in the main, do not see how US attack on computer privacy of US citizens helped the Russians hack. The US government accessing US citizen private data does not seem to equate with facilitating Russian access. I can see the connection only insofar as it involves US pressuring a company like Apple to weaken encryption. That aside, to the extent the US government accesses individual data, the hacking by Russians seems only to be as good as it is able to hack American intelligence (which is not the same as the DNC). If the US government adequately guards its records from foreign governments, there does not seem to be a problem as far as US data collection compromising US security. Not saying I agree necessarily with US access or compromising of US citizen data, but the pressuring of Apple aside (maybe no small matter), I am having a hard time seeing the connection. Seems strained. Also, it seems the main issue with Apple was not so weakening security/encryption, but allowing US government to have access to it, which again does not necessarily equate with access by foreign governments. I am far from pleased with how Comey conducted himself as FBI director, including public announcement about Clinton invest windup, and then Weiner and the reopening. Seems to me he overplayed his role. That he seems still not to get. At the same time, his firing by Trump seemed to be a big event, an indication perhaps that Trump was concerned that he might not have been "corruptible." It also seems to me that in evaluating the actions of these long time public officials in high positions, their commitment to duty aside, it seems people do not appreciate the importance of staying on the job and even rising more. People say they can make millions in private practice and such, but that often is not what they are more interested in. There are issues of legacy, the value/importance of the institution, and trying to do a decent job under trying circumstances. And, whatever one things about McCabe, with him running to White House and such and keeping close friends there, his firing one day before he was due to pension out was an abuse of very high order, designed to intimidate any public official who would stand up. These FBI folks may not be sympathetic figures, but it seems more perspective may be needed in making comparison with Trump and his inner circle.
Healthcare is a huge part of this. People cannot afford to buy insurance, and the quality of plans (high deductibles and co-pays) often leaves them with large bills in any case. There is tremendous pressure on the bottom in the current health care system, and Rs want still more, forcing people to choose between medical care and the poorhouse, and inviting unscrupulous underwriting practices. They in fact do not care whether the average person lives or dies. There is no denying it, it is so obvious from the policies they are pursuing. Also, the need for jobs with benefits tends to keep people in the work force effectively enslaved. That is what the economic elites want and largely are getting when it comes to full time workers, though there many n the work force who have no benefits at all and cobble together part time jobs just to get by. It will take decades to undo the great harm that Trump and Rs are doing, if it ever can be undone.
With release of Nunes memo, let alone refusal to release the D response, Reality Winner legitimately may be considered a political prisoner. If she should be jailed, why not the various Congressmen responsible for the release of this memo. Moreover, there is crisis point at which release of all the information overrides security interests warranting classification of any of the intelligence bearing on this question. This article raises a very valid point. Excessive classification enhances the ability of the government to manipulate intelligence to further hidden agendas. Excessive classification is inimical to democracy and legitimate representative government.
Women wailing on American TV while bombs falling, ancient artifacts destroyed, too many killed and maimed (Iraqis and Americans), and US soldiers standing by at public hangings. A very sad chapter in US History. Carol Moseley Braun spoke of obligation that might arise to fix something once you have broken it. A good argument against the breaking, and for repair of things that have not been broken beyond repair.
Cabinet a disgrace.
EPA Head is for dirty air and water.
Labor Sec is against Labor.
Education Sec is against pubic education.
Now they want military parades.
Need civilized civilians in the cabinet.
Bannon or no, the country would do well to consider white supremacists as more than a fringe element in American politics.
Amazing how Trump and Rs can manage to make something bad out of "Merry Christmas."
It is true that the seeds of fascism already have been sewn. This looting of land and people embodied in R Tax Bill is evidence that the Rs and backers foresee unrest and reversal, and are trying to take what more they can as fast as they can. When more pain kicks in, as it inevitably will, the excuses are already built in. It will be the fault of the immigrants and minorities, and those of a non-traditionalist cultural points of view. Clinton represented a last chance at fragile consensus. Instead of rule with message of inclusion, there is rule by division, cultural warfare. Without corporate welfare in 2008, there could have been broader unrest. Back then Rs already had been courting danger, with appeals to nationalism and prejudice. Such appeals are even more explicit now. It also is more likely that economic distress emanating from this tax bill will generate unrest, this in the near future, years not decades. The forces of plutocracy are poised to deal with this likelihood, to repress opposition, and to embark upon a kind of warfare that is more than just cultural. It may not even take unrest to unleash some repression, as the fear of the sheer consequences of the vote could well be enough.
Why it is so vital to provide a quality education for many of the young. Another part of the right wing agenda, suppress and limit education. There have been hard times before, times when it had to get worse before it got better, when all kinds of deceptions in the main held sway. Unfortunately, Americans have let an important chance at fragile consensus, and moderate change, slip away. Energy is at the fringes, in unreality, with myths of permanent revolution counter-weighing convenient myths (at the service of the powerful) of the threatened individual (who would be a millionaire if not for government, and the less rugged, the needy, dragging him down). It may be that consensus will not emerge, and there will be rule by repression, and restriction of access to information and the means to get it out. It may be that these are the last days of effective republican government. The hope is with the young, who, in the main, are less weighed down by prejudices, even as the world grows harder for them. Let's not give up on them, they are more valuable than any asset, and still can lift the nation up. They are what is at stake in this struggle, as two generations worth of poverty and ignorance can eliminate all potential for enlightened self government.
Rs have been using divisive appeals to worst elements, old confederacy, white supremacy, patriarchy. Trump, a more direct mouthpiece, perfected it, turning it on the others and making them look like lambs, though the populism always was a con, a false populism predicated in significant part on the false premise that white (especially white male) grievance, rooted as it is in privilege, is more justified. Trump and Rs fast showed their fangs in unison, with policies designed to loot the land and the people, even if there might be pretense at populist appeal. They correctly perceive that they entail a last stand of white supremacy, seeing the dead end of their strategy; and that the majority will see light and demand more power and justice, even if they, the Rs, have attempted to occlude matters with cynical sunset provisions and the like. It is very likely that the more ruthless, wanting in institutional inhibition, will emerge, if only to guard power more jealously, and be a drought to any American spring. The article suggests the reasonable question of whether the nation would better or worse off with Trump (a win at all cost person interested largely in personal victories) gone, with the likes of Pence and Ryan (win at all costs persons who are ideologically hard, espousing ideology that serves self and donor interest) waiting in the wings. In any case, there is determination on the right to leave a large footprint, so that the damage they do will last for decades. 2008 was a transitional moment, which, without corporate welfare, could well have led to crisis before. This was held at bay, and what emerged eight years later was a soft coup rooted in the dark forces of hatred. There is a price to pay when consensus is lost; the risks are high. More power to populist women (not Trump apologist double talkers like Haley). They at least represent some hope on the horizon, however distant.
Very unfortunate. Elections have consequences, and the republicans have no shame. They will seek to cut even more after inevitable revenue shortfalls. And there is no requirement that in exchange for tax breaks companies do anything to help families. The need not pay higher wages; they need not keep jobs in the county; and they need even do business in the US. It is simply a reverse Robinhood Act. And there is a fine hypocrisy to it, as Rs profess that this is for the people's benefit. This is in keeping with their false piety in any number of other realms.
Article is good corrective to myth of free market. It is always an issue of degree. Rs have managed to sell a lot of this neo-liberal fluff to people, but most of those purveying it do not believe it themselves. It is propaganda. Ideology promulgated for expediency, designed to occlude unkindness, as what policy maker would state explicitly that he/she is about harming people. They sin more than by omission, but by commission as well.