HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » madfloridian » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 78 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Florida
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 85,434

About Me

Retired teacher who sees much harm to public education from the "reforms" being pushed by corporations. Privatizing education is the wrong way to go. Children can not be treated as products, thought of in terms of profit and loss.

Journal Archives

Great post at DailyKos about Bernie's NPR interview today.

BERNIE - Amazing NPR Interview "what Democracy is about"

Basically the question was "Aren't you just ruining Hillary's chances?"

The BERN responds with the ultimate take down:

"Is your point that people should not contest elections, that we should simply have the establishment bringing forth a candidate? So the implication is that somebody should decide who the lead candidate is, and we'll go to sleep. That's a good idea, that's what democracy is about, right?"

The interviewer seemed obsessed that Bernie wouldn't at first use the phrase "Black Lives Matter".... and then Bernie derided all the phraseology... like a politician using a phrase will change anything.

The poster added some comments from listeners at NPR...since I don't know where to look for them at NPR I will use some he posted at DKos.

"I also love how he TOTALLY schooled David Green several times! At one point, especially, Green was interested only in getting Bernie to diss Hillary Clinton for her "ALL lives matter" statement, but Bernie didn't just dodge the question; he showed Green how stupid, meaningless, and insulting to voters the question was."


I had a hearty laugh when Bernie scoffed and derided "Phraseology"


Yeah I was dumbfounded by how unprofessional David Green was in this interview. "It sounds like you are not ready to say that phrase (Black lives matter)." Why focus on this irrelevant minutia?

Bernie wanted to talk about the real issues behind this divide and David Green was baiting him to say some inflammatory phrase the media has blown up over.

Adding this comment from the Daily Kos post:

Bernie is schooling interviewers (11+ / 0-)

not to ask him dumb questions. With takedowns like these, they will hesitate to try it.

Neither of our candidates are the least bit racist in views or actions. We do them both harm with such attacks.

I will vote for Bernie in the primary. I will vote for the one who wins the nomination.

"Not a bloodless process"...

Transcript of Obama's speech at the Brookings Institute 2006

I think that if you polled many of the people in this room, most of us are strong free traders and most of us believe in markets. Bob (Rubin) and I have had a running debate now for about a year about how do we, in fact, deal with the losers in a globalized economy. There has been a tendency in the past for us to say, well, look, we have got to grow the pie, and we will retrain those who need retraining. But in fact we have never taken that side of the equation as seriously as we need to take it. So hopefully, this is not just going to be a lot of preaching to the choir. Hopefully, part of what we are going to be doing is challenging our own conventional wisdom and pushing boundaries and testing these ideas in a vigorous and aggressive way.

....Just remember, as we move forward, that there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. There are people in places like Decatur, Illinois, or Galesburg,Illinois, who have seen their jobs eliminated. They have lost their health care. They have lost their retirement security. They don't have a clear sense of how their children will succeed in the same way that they succeeded. They believe that this may be the first generation in which their children do worse than they do. Some of that, then, will end up manifesting itself in the sort of nativist sentiment, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiment that we are debating here in Washington. So there are real consequences to the work that is being done here. This is not a bloodless process.

I guess we soon find out who the losers are in this deal that is about far more than trade.

If you include aid bill for workers who lose jobs to overseas...that means you expect it to happen

And it is ludicrous to deny that job loss will be one of the consequences of the trade bill that is more than a trade bill.

On the other side of the argument is the trade pact's potential to foster economic growth and job creation — "650,000 jobs in the U.S. alone," as Secretary of State John F. Kerry asserted last month. But that widely challenged figure is extrapolated from a 2012 report by the Peterson Institute of International Economics, which didn't offer a jobs estimate. In fact, the report said the TPP might dislocate workers and drive older people out of the workforce — and that any benefits might be canceled out by the resulting costs to workers and society. Evidence from earlier trade pacts, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, suggests that the benefits for developing countries among the treaty signatories are similarly oversold.

Back to today:

From Slate:

It Turns Out That Obama Won the Free-Trade Fight in Congress After All

Barack Obama with his best friends John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Larry Downing/Reuters

Here's the long and short of what happened:

The majority-Republican Senate had passed a bill giving the president fast-track authority and providing aid to workers who might lose their jobs because of TPP.

The majority-Republican House split that bill into two. They passed the fast-track part—with mostly Republican votes—but rejected the aid part. Many Republicans simply didn't support the aid bill at all, and while many Democrats do want to give aid to workers, they decided not to vote for the bill because they didn't ultimately trust the president to negotiate a good enough overall trade deal.

It seemed like this had killed both the fast-track and the aid elements because the Senate's version had passed both of them together.

But then, Tuesday, Democratic senators were persuaded to peel the fast-track part off from the aid part and approve the fast-track separately.

Of course, the process still isn't over: Democratic senators only agreed to approve fast-track on its own because they were promised that a compromise on aid could ultimately be reached and a separate aid bill passed

Since Fast Track passed, let's hope the Democrats who voted yes did not trust in vain.

They already know it will affect workers here.

Bernie Sanders: Corporate America wins again. Today in Senate.

A big to cal04 who posted this in the Bernie Sanders forum.

Huge 30' by 60' Confederate flag in Tampa. Dedicated to Daniel Ruth who called them simpletons.

When President Obama carried Tampa in 2008 Tampa Tribune columnist, Daniel Ruth, wrote a celebratory column called Night of Cheers. The link is dead but I saved the pertinent parts.

The flag flies on I-75 near the I-4 intersection. It's huge. And shocking to see.

It's on private property.

Here's the dedication plaque.

Night of Cheers

In a few more moments the country would officially elect its first black president at the end of a campaign more than 200 years in the making, winding through Selma and Birmingham and Watts and Hough and all the other stations of the cross of the American civil rights movement.

.."And just then, Florida - stumblebum Florida, the state that has historically been little more than a Wal-Mart gift card for the Bush family - was declared in favor of Obama.

..."Tuesday night, Barack Obama carried Hillsborough County, the same county where a bunch of narrow-minded simpletons fly a massive Confederate flag near I-4. That's hardly atonement. But it is a giant step across the breach of bigotry. One step down, more to come."

This is shameful. Most I know agree it's shameful. The people who put it up need to take it down.

What beautiful children. Pics of some who died in care of Florida's childrens' services.

I was remembering some of them I have written about through the years when I read TheNutcracker's post about DCF at DU today.

There was this child who was found wrapped in plastic in the back of her adopted father's truck.

Handout photo shows Nubia Barahona, a 10-year-old whose body was found wrapped in plastic in a pest control truck. The girl's adoptive father, Jorge Barahona, is being held as a suspect in the girl's death.

Florida's childrens' services sued to keep media from covering death of child, torture of brother.

On Valentine's Day, 10-year-old Victor Barahona was found with life-threatening chemical burns in a pickup truck on the side of Interstate 95 in West Palm Beach. The battered-and-decomposed body of his twin sister, Nubia, was dumped in the back of the truck like so much garbage.

The real trash was spewed by the "child welfare" system that allowed Jorge and Carmen Barahona to "foster" the twins, and later adopt them despite unmistakable evidence that the couple was torturing the children to whom they were supposed to be loving saviors.

..."The miracle that Jackson Memorial's medical team had worked on Victor was a bright and badly needed point of light in this dark drama. After days of shocking revelations about the vile stew of bad social work, bad management and bad lawyering that these children had sustained, finally there was one picture worth a thousand words of thanksgiving.

You'd think the folks at the DCF would praise the Lord and pass the popcorn. Instead, they hauled Channel 7 into court to try to stop the broadcast.

Then there was Rilya Wilson.

They never found her body.

A caretaker for Rilya Wilson, the foster child whose disappearance four years ago exposed serious flaws in Florida's child-welfare system, was indicted Wednesday on charges of murdering the girl, who was 4 years old when she vanished.

The caretaker, Geralyn Graham, was also charged with kidnapping and aggravated child abuse. Rilya's body has never been found.

Here is a collage of other children missing from DCF care.

Could Florida's DCF Have Prevented These Children's Deaths?

The recent deaths of so many children who had had contact with DCF has brought renewed scrutiny on a troubled agency: (clockwise from the top left, name, followed by their age at death, if known) Dontrell Melvin, unknown; Antwan Hope, 4; Dakota Stiles, 3; Ezra Raphael, 2; Aliyah Branum, 2; Jayden Morales, 2; Jewel Howard, 3; Cherish Perrywinkle, 8; and Christian Byrd, 2.

A Miami Herald investigation uncovers another 16 children who died in recent months even though their families were involved with the Department of Children and Families.

"Is anybody here not outraged?" demanded one foster parent at a recent town hall, where a group of lawmakers heard from the public and received blame as well.

Also, in just two months, Floridians are supposed to be able to shop for health insurance as part of Obamacare. But Florida Governor Rick Scott is now worried about the privacy of patient information.

There are way too many more. I worked with social workers many times when I was teaching. I admired every one of them. They were concerned about the systemic failures and had a fear of being equated with a few who did not do their job correctly.

The importance of Bernie....

is that now the Party insiders may start listening to the Party outsiders.

One commentator called it governing class vs activist class.

The clash will be between the "governing class" and the "activist class."

From November 2004, Time Magazine.

What happens to the losing team

If there's a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, predicts Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, a moderate advocacy group, it won't be the usual skirmish between the liberals and moderates of the professional political class in Washington but one between the Washington insiders on one side and the rank-and-file activists spread out across the country on the other. "What's changed over the past two years is that activist Democrats believe that Republicans are venal people," says Rosenberg. These activists "are going to be very intolerant of Democrats in Washington who cooperate with the Republicans. There's going to be tremendous pressure to stand up and fight and not roll over and play dead."

Well, it's happening.

Howard Dean really showed that hunger for truth in campaigns. And from a 2005 article in the NYT about triangulation.

The governing class and the activists

Nothing better illustrated the passing of the party's long ideological debate better than the explosive presidential campaign of Howard Dean (now the party's chairman), whose record as a pro-gun, pro-Democratic Leadership Council governor did nothing to prevent him from seamlessly assuming the role of chief spokesman for those liberal voters who had always embodied the so-called Democratic left.

What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between "insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington -- politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots" Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

NOW they know something's happening.

Finally a news anchor to trust.

Edit to add the hilarious video, a commercial from Japan. Thanks Art from Ark.

Found at Twitter.

NYT 2009 American workers are overpaid. Gap must close. Happening now. Thanks, Obama.

and to any other Democrats who have supported trade agreements that apparently are set up to bring our workers' salaries in line with the rest of the world.

EDITing to add:

The article mentions a possible 20% cut for American workers to meet "global balance." Thought I was including it at first, but guess not.

Global wage convergence is great for the poor but tough on the overpaid. It’s possible to run the numbers to show that American manufacturing workers should take average real wage cuts of as much as 20 percent to get into global balance.

The required cut may be smaller. But if American wages get stuck above global market-clearing levels, as in the 1930s, the result could well be something approaching Depression-era levels of unemployment.

American Wages Out of Balance

American workers are overpaid, relative to equally productive employees elsewhere doing the same work. If the global economy is to get into balance, that gap must close.

Of course, workers in the United States should earn more than their peers in China, Moldova or Vietnam. Americans take advantage of the higher productivity that makes their country rich: better education and infrastructure, abundant capital and a strong work ethic. But how much higher should American wages be?

The answer depends in large part on two measures: the difference in productivity in making goods that can be traded across borders, and the quantity of such goods. Both measures point to a narrowing wage gap.

See, that's what it's all about. Closing the gap even if it hurts our workers here.

I really much prefer the way Marmar posted it back at the old DU in 2009.

Read this huge pile of MIERDA from the New York Times:

There are some good comments there, so be sure to read it.

And this is my repost from May just because I feel so passionate about "adjusting" our wages to fit the global economy.

Lowering our living standards to fit with other countries is wrong.

Whenever a new trade agreement is offered up we hear talk of how it will help developing countries and raise their standards of living...which in turn they say will make the world safer for all.

What they never say is that in order to lift other countries up to a supposedly higher level, ours takes another hit. They are equalizing the economic playing field at our expense.

There must some great incentives for a country's leaders to be willing to do that to their own country.

I simply do not understand how a president and/or our major political leaders can push such policies that have the potential to do so much harm to our own people. So what if Nike offers to maybe possibly perhaps create 10,000 jobs here in the next ten years? So what? What about the millions of job from US companies that went elsewhere?

I am sure I will be told I am thinking simplistically on this issue....so be it.

The fact remains that we are losing our lifestyles in just a few decades. When our president gets done praising Nike, let him answer to us.

You know what else makes me angry? The rise of the terrible extremism on the right might not have happened if we had an opposition party in this country instead of one that catered to corporations so they would not have to pay attention to the liberals, unions, and other traditional constituents of the party.

The takeover:

At the national convention of a major political party, an ideologically rigid sectarian clique secures the ultimate triumph. It inserts two of its own as nominees for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Heavily financed by the most powerful corporations in the world, the group's leaders gather in a private club fifty-four floors above the convention hall, apart from the delegates of the party they had infiltrated. There, they carefully monitor the convention's acceptance of a platform the organization had drafted almost in its entirety. Then, with the ticket secured and with the policy course of the party set, they introduce a team of 100 shock troops to deploy across the country to lock up the party's grassroots.

For years our political leaders have stood by while billionaire groups financed the rise of the Tea Party while calling it a grassroots movement.

If enough had spoken against their methods of shouting everyone else down, we might have gone in another direction. Now we have some members of congress who are so ignorant they are laughed at around the world.

The way Obama is pushing for the new Trans Pacific trade agreement sounds desperate. It worries me.

It is one of the many reasons I am supporting Bernie Sanders. I am proud of that decision. I hate that since that decision there have been so many snide remarks about the intelligence of Sanders' supporters. Our gullibility. How naive we are.

I have a plan to support him while refusing to say bad things against Hillary Clinton. I think that can be done.

But there is a third thing that must be dealt with. Whenever someone speaks of Clinton's former support for the TPP and her role in its development...we must provide proof which of course is never acceptable.

Here is a video of Secretary Clinton speaking in Singapore in November 2012. If she is not speaking of the TPP, please tell me what she is talking about.

It's a long video, but if you wade through it like I did...it's worth it.

And a little more about the same topic while she was in Australia.

Trade deal poses dilemma for Clinton in Democratic primary

WASHINGTON (AP) — On a trip to Australia in 2012, Hillary Rodham Clinton lavished praise on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, calling it the "gold standard" in efforts to create open and fair trade.

Now, early in her Democratic presidential campaign, she's striking a different tone — determinedly non-committal, with a hint of skepticism about the sweeping trade agreement she promoted as President Barack Obama's secretary of state. "Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security," Clinton said at a New Hampshire community college last week.

The 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership under negotiation by Obama has divided the Democratic Party, leaving Clinton caught between angry liberal activists and the president she once served. It's a fight Clinton has seen before.

For years our jobs have gone overseas. For years any jobs opening here are at much lower salaries than than before.

I am so angry about this. Don't insult our intelligence by saying just look at what great things we will be doing for other countries.....and not mentioning the harm being done to ours.

As 3 Southern Baptists run for president, their church will refuse to recognize same sex marriage.

I am not being disrespectful toward this denomination. I grew up in that church. We withdrew our membership finally when the church leaders from the pulpit declared Iraq a holy war.

I just would like to know the stance of the three who are running for president. Do they side with whatever the Supreme Court rules about same sex marriage? Or do they side with their church.

Here are the ones running:

Three Southern Baptists running for president

A third Southern Baptist entered the 2016 presidential race when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) threw his hat into the ring June 1.

Graham, who announced his candidacy at a rally in his hometown of Central, S.C., joins fellow Southern Baptists Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee in an increasingly crowded field for the GOP nomination.

.....Graham is the ninth Republican to formally announce his candidacy for the nomination in 2016 and the third Southern Baptist. Cruz, a U.S. Senator from Texas, is a preacher’s son and member of First Baptist Church in Houston. Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and Fox News personality who ran for president in 2008, was a pastor and one-time president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention before entering politics in the early 1990s.

Here is the Southern Baptist Convention declaration of spiritual warfare.

Southern Baptists declare ‘spiritual warfare’ on Supreme Court with resolution denying marriage authority

Southern Baptist Convention President Rev. Ronnie Floyd (SBC/screengrab)

The Southern Baptist Convention declared this week that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to overturn bans on same-sex marriage because they were defending an institution that had been created by God.

At its annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio on Tuesday, the denomination prepared for a Supreme Court ruling that could effectively legalize marriage equality nationwide.

“WHEREAS, the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will continue to weaken the institution of the natural family unit and erode the religious liberty and rights of conscience of all who remain faithful to the idea of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife,” the resolution said.

“Southern Baptists recognize that no governing institution has the authority to countermand God’s definition of marriage,” the statement continued. “No matter how the Supreme Court rules, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirms its unwavering commitment to its doctrinal and public beliefs concerning marriage.”

In his presidential address to the 5,000 attendees on Tuesday, SBC leader Rev. Ronnie Floyd said that it was time for Christians to declare “spiritual warfare.”
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 78 Next »