HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 42 Next »

yurbud

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 34,442

Journal Archives

NEW YORKER: The Meaning of Andrew Cuomo’s Embarrassment (hint: it smells like Lieberman)

Zephyr Teachout didn't beat sitting New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic nomination, but her strong showing without the benefits of any ads and against a rising star of the corrupt, corporate-owned wing of the Democratic Party may mean Cuomo will retire to K Street a lot sooner than he planned.

Hopefully, this is a sign that the entire corporate wing of the party's days are numbered.

We don't have a democracy if our only choices are a corporate party that sells itself with hate, ignorance, and fear or a corporate party that sells itself with bland platitudes and coasts on the goodwill generated by New Deal and Great Society Democrats.

On Election Day, when Zephyr Teachout, his largely unknown and unfunded opponent—an opponent he refused even to acknowledge—got more than a third of the vote in the Democratic primary for November’s gubernatorial election, Cuomo was barely seen. After voting in the morning near his home in Westchester, he disappeared. As the results came in, his whereabouts were still unknown. Was he in his midtown office? Was he in Albany? NY1, which was staking out his home in Mount Kisco, said that there was no sign of him there....

***

The strong showing by Teachout and Wu was a victory for progressive voters who warmed to their message about tackling rising inequality, political corruption, and corporate abuses. It was also a rejection of Cuomo’s economic philosophy, which led him to introduce a series of tax cuts for the rich, at the same time that he cut the state budgets for education and social services. I’d be willing to wager that most Democrats who voted against Cuomo objected more to his policies than to his personality.

Teachout and Wu’s insurgent campaigns gave voice to this sentiment. Eschewing the etiquette of internal party discourse, Teachout accused Cuomo of governing as a Republican, acting as a shill for the big banks and other campaign contributors, and being part of a “corrupt old boys’ club” in Albany. Making full use of social media and appearances in more traditional media, she demonstrated that, even in this day and age, a candidate with a real message doesn’t necessarily need the support of the party apparatus, or the financial backing of big donors, to have an impact.

Cuomo wasn’t the only one to whom the rise of Teachout and Wu came as a surprise. Their insurgent campaigns also shocked what might be called the official progressive wing of the New York Democratic Party. The Working Families Party, an important player in liberal politics, had endorsed Cuomo. So had Mayor Bill de Blasio and Melissa Mark-Viverito, the City Council Speaker. Six days before the election, when it looked like Wu, a Columbia law professor (who has contributed articles to this site), had a chance of winning the race for lieutenant governor, de Blasio and Mark-Viverito both declared their backing for his opponent, Hochul.

How can Saudi help fight ISIS when they are their biggest backers?

Our government has an odd way of fighting terrorists.

Saudi Arabia funded, through their agents, the 9/11 hijackers. They also funded al Qaeda to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year before 9/11


Rather than at a minimum, freeze their financial assets here and use any means necessary to stop the flow of money from them, two days after 9/11, President Bush smoked cigars on the back porch of the White House with Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, whose wife wrote checks to the handler of the hijackers.



Instead of clearing up the role of the Saudi government in the attacks, Bush classified that portion of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 report.

Likewise, Saudi sent more foreign fighters into Iraq to stir up sectarian divisions than any other country did.

And when a corruption investigation in Britain got too close to Prince Bandar, he threatened the UK with acts of terrorism. Tony Blair took the threat seriously enough to back off.

Saudi is also the major funder of ISIS.


Even Hillary Clinton was forced to admit the Saudi role in terrorism:

The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups." She said that, in so far as Saudi Arabia did act against al-Qa'ida, it was as a domestic threat and not because of its activities abroad.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html


The usual excuse made is that it's some "rogue" elements of the Saudi royal family or the Saudi equivalent of the Koch brothers making foreign policy on their own, but if they truly were loose cannons and their government did nothing to stop them, that government owns their actions.

Our own government has backed Sunni extremists when it was helpful to chase the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 80's, to help break up Yugoslavia in the 90's, and even after 9/11, Bush quietly backed Sunni extremists trying to destabilize Iran.

I do not oppose all military actions.

But if the president is going to start bombing other countries, I'd like to know if any other countries that are a far greater threat to us are being ignored, or worse, allowed or encouraged to stir up trouble to give our government an excuse to attack Syria and go back into Iraq.

At a minimum, Obama should declassify those pages on foreign governments' involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and if he doesn't, someone else either in Congress or intelligence agencies should figure out how to get that information to the public.

Will Obama talk about how we'll pay for military action? or GOP balk at cost?

After all the budget poor talk and sequestration, that should be front and center since ISIS is not a credible threat to the US, and our bombing of Syria is more likely about getting rid of Assad in any case.

I think I finally understand why Papa Bush and Bill Clinton had troops in Somalia...

They wanted to get an up close look at chaos, so we could reproduce it over and over and over again in all the countries we "liberate."

Is the military-industrial crowd throwing all kinds of shit at the wall to see what sticks?

Seriously, demonizing Russia and to a lesser extent China, destabilizing a different Middle East country every week, going back to Iraq, trying to use our destabilization effort in Syria as an excuse to bomb that country...

I kind of expect to hear that Germany has made a secret anti-US pact with Mexico and Great Britain is pressing American sailors into the Royal Navy at sea any day now.

Or possibly a civil war at home or alien invasion.

They will keep going until some shit sticks.

Or are we just the innocent victims of a world coming apart and coming after us?

RAVITCH: Florida Charter Schools Reap huge profits from Real Estate Scam

Even when charter schools are set up as non-profits or with a modest profit margin, the companies running them rake in the big bucks by having other divisions of their companies buy the land for the schools then RENT it to the district.

Something similar is going on with school closures: the land is coveted by developers, who might buy it for a song from corrupt public officials then rent it back to the district for a charter school or simply use it for other purposes.

And which do you think is cheaper, running a school on land that was bought decades ago and probably owned free and clear, or paying RENT on something you used to own free and clear?

Should our tax dollars being going to these Wall Street grifters to run Enron-like scams with our kids education?

Should politicians who set up deals like this be allowed anywhere near public office?

When will Democratic Party voters get rid of Democratic politicians who are bribed to set up these scams and replace them with true progressives?

If Democrats don't clean house soon, they will so soil their brand with this sociopathic corporate behavior that even if they do so later, the public still wouldn't be able to trust them.

And saying that the Republicans would do the same or worse is no defense.

That's like a wife beater telling his wife she should be grateful he only uses his fist since the guy she didn't marry would beat her with a belt.

Eventually, she will find a way to live without any beating at all.

Charter schools are tuition-free public schools that are authorized by – but not operated by – each school district. For each student who "chooses" a charter, his or her school gets state dollars that would have otherwise gone to the school district.

"Charter Schools USA (CUSA) has been operating charter schools in Florida for 20 years, including recently-opened schools in Hillsborough County: Woodmont Charter, Winthrop Charter, and Henderson Hammock Charter. Although charter schools sometimes struggle financially at first, CUSA eventually collects a 5% management fee from each to provide administration and guidance.

"But 10 Investigates found a much bigger pot of money CUSA has been able to tap into: rent. When the company helps open a new school, its development arm, Red Apple Development, acquires land and constructs a school. Then, CUSA charges the school high rent.

"For example, Winthrop Charter in Riverview may struggle to balance its budget this year thanks to a $2 million rent payment to CUSA/Red Apple Development. The payment will equate to approximately 23% of its budget, even though CUSA CEO Jon Hage has been quoted as saying charter school rent should not exceed 20%.

http://wp.me/p2odLa-8vz

New York Times refuses to endorse Wall Street tool Cuomo for governor

Maybe the New York Times is realizing they won't have many readers left if they keep carrying water for Wall Street and the corrupt politicians they own.

Besides the ethics issue mentioned here, Cuomo has carried water for the corporate education reformers who are devastating K-12 education, so they can take over and charge taxpayers a profit for doing so.

Maybe the Democratic Party, should realize their "lesser of two evils" scam is reaching it's expiration date, and clean house of the corporate trash, before people decide the party can't be saved.

Members of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s team are “ stunned” by latest endorsements of his opponent, Fordham University Associate Law Professor and Top Wonk Zephyr Teachout. The New York Times declined to make an endorsement in the race, attributing the unusual decision to the Governor’s “failure on ethics reform” … meanwhile, Teachout has garnered endorsements from the National Organization for Women’s New York chapter, Sierra Club,the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, the New York State Public Employees Federation, and The Nation, who called her “ a savvy, trust-busting progressive.”

The Working Families Party (WFP) had initially tapped Teachout to run against Cuomo in response to the Governor’s interference with an ethics commission and overall lack of adherence to progressive principles. Cuomo might have thought he was in the clear when he eventually secured the WFP endorsement in a backdoor deal in early June; however, a WFP member recently told the Daily Beast: “ There is definitely a sense right now of buyer’s remorse” … perhaps that is why Cuomo is refusing to debate his up and coming progressive opponent?

Is the TEACHOUT challenge a teachable moment for ethically-agnostic politicians? Should Mug Shot Perry and Gov. Bridgegate read the tea leaves and pack in their presidential ambitions? Or is this just a bump in the road for Cuomo? Time will tell…

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ny-times-vs-cuomo-sign-ethics-rise

Putin Has Now Cornered Ukraine And Its President

I don't know the politics of the author of this piece, but the points he makes about the West's support for Ukraine and that government falling apart ring true based on recent history.

If a country doesn't do business the way "our" bankers and oil companies like, we overthrow their government either by backing rebellions and revolutions, or directly intervening militarily ourselves. Then we establish or support a government that we think will do the bidding of "our" banking and oil companies.

The problem is, the previous governments often didn't do the things they were "supposed to" because they knew they would be run out of office or killed by their own people if they did.

A case in point is Iraq. Our oil companies wanted them to de-nationalize their oil reserves so the oil companies could reap the vast majority of the profits from it. Our government supported or rejected Prime ministers based on their support of this. Maliki supported it, but couldn't get his parliament to enact it because they know the US won't helicopter all of them out to escape the angry mob if they did. And so, Maliki must go for not doing the impossible.

Likewise, in the Ukraine, given the major ass-screwing bankers are giving Europe with austerity right now, to the extent that the new Ukrainian government follows their orders, they will become unpopular and eventually chased out of office.

You can trick people into trading a sack of gold for a sack of shit, but you can't expect them to stay happy once they open the package.




Ukraine's government is in a perilous position after advances by Russian troops into southeastern regions in the country, and it's likely the country will have to accept a cease-fire that hands over large swaths of territory to pro-Russian separatists.

Geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, told Business Insider in an email that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is now backed into a corner. And Bremmer said Poroshenko would most likely seek a quick cease-fire solution to prevent his country's economy from completely collapsing.

"The Ukrainian government has been in an impossible position, they gambled, and they've lost," Bremmer said. "Poroshenko now needs a cease-fire so that he can try to restart negotiations, the terms of which will effectively mean freezing the conflict and ceding significant pieces of Ukrainian territory to the separatists. That's politically perilous for him and risks counterdemonstrations against his government in Kiev. All the while his economy will be falling apart, with very limited support from the West.

"But there's no other way out."

Ukraine and Russia are now at war, Bremmer said, after the Ukrainian government's gamble did not pay off. Russia continued to escalate the situation in response to a strong offensive from Ukraine's military in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, where fighting between the government and the separatists has raged for months. But Russia has important oil, gas, and military ties to Ukraine, as Bremmer pointed out:



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-russia-at-war-invasion-2014-8#ixzz3Bo8ZmeMJ

Wow. Do they have ANY prospects with a credible chance of winning general

Or are they justtrying to create jobs for comedy writers?

The killer cop story we never hear: HEDGE FUND MANAGER SHOT FOR SUSPECTED SALE OF FRAUDULENT DERIVAT

HEDGE FUND MANAGER SHOT FOR SUSPECTED SALE OF FRAUDULENT DERIVATIVES

Goldman Sachs executive Oliver Dauphin was shot and killed today when he failed to respond to questioning by a police officer.

Dauphin was waiting for his limo at the curb outside the Bhutan Grill when police officer Damon Johnson overheard him on the phone, selling what sounded like a rent based derivative.

"I knew how much damage those mortgage back derivatives did to our economy and the world, so I wanted to ask some questions to find out if they were solid or another pump and dump fraud like the mortgage backed derivatives," said Johnson.

Johnson instructed Dauphin to hang up, so he could ask his questions, but Dauphin ignored him and walked a few feet away.

Johnson followed and took his phone out of his hand, ending his call.

Dauphin tried to grab his phone back, and Johnson said, "not until you answer some questions."

Dauphin became enraged and said, "Do you know who I am? Do you know who I am? I'm the guy who's going to get you fired. I'm going to make your life a living hell. You're dead!"

Johnson took his last statement as a threat, drew his revolver, and told Dauphin to put his hands on his head.

Rather than comply, Dauphin made a dismissive noise and reached inside his jacket.

Fearing that he may have been reaching for a weapon, Johnson opened fire, hitting Dauphin three times in the chest and once in the head.

A later search of his body found no weapon, only a wallet and a cigar.

Others in the finance industry were shocked by the shooting and demanded that the officer be fired or at least put on suspension pending an investigation.

The police chief said he had no plans to do so since the officer acted within department policy.

"A suspect wearing a long heavy coat like that could be hiding a shotgun, assault rifle or grenade launcher for all we know, so given his movements, the shooting was appropriate. Police officers deal with very dangerous people in this neighborhood who have been known to rob pension funds, bankrupt local and state governments, and even countries with their fraud. Given that threat, Officer Johnson acted appropriately."

He also said that a cigar had been stolen from a nearby bodega and it was very likely the officer could smell the tobacco. Johnson did not mention this in any of his own statements though.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 42 Next »