Member since: Wed Nov 17, 2004, 03:00 PM
Number of posts: 2,423
Number of posts: 2,423
Source: NY Times
The 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee that rolled backward down a driveway and killed the actor Anton Yelchin early Sunday was a model that Fiat Chrysler has recalled for a gearshift issue that has confused drivers, leading them to accidentally leave the car in neutral when they think it is safely in park.
Los Angeles Police investigators and the carmaker said on Monday that it was too soon to determine the cause of the accident. But Mr. Yelchin was killed after he got out of his Jeep and it rolled down his steep driveway, crushing him against a concrete-reinforced mailbox, a police spokeswoman, Liliana Preciado, said.
Ms. Preciado said she did not know if the vehicle’s transmission was in neutral. But Mr. Yelchin’s Jeep was part of a recall by Fiat Chrysler in April of almost 812,000 vehicles including the 2014 and 2015 Grand Cherokee models. That recall was prompted by an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, after complaints by car owners and reports of dozens of related injuries.
Fiat Chrysler has been a prime target of the government’s efforts to penalize automakers for lax safety practices. Last year, federal regulators accused Fiat Chrysler of failing to conduct recalls and complete repairs in a timely fashion, and hit the company with $105 million in penalties.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/business/jeep-that-crushed-anton-yelchin-had-been-recalled.html
If this is the cause of Yelchin's death it is truly shameful, and hopefully there would be more than the usual posturing in DC as a result
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Tue Jun 21, 2016, 04:48 PM (21 replies)
of what to do if Hillary is the nominee.
I believe that hanging in there, first struggling over the platform (with many ideas that a lot of grassroots supporters of Hillary among the delegates should be likely to join in on, unless there is an incredible obedience-machinery afoot), and then, after doing the best if Hillary is the nominee to fulfil Bernie's promise to support the Democratic nominee in any case, and THEN, starting day 1 AFTER the November election to use all the resources (contax, etc) gained in the campaign to seize the opportunity to mass mobilize progressives into an opposition (NO MATTER WHICH CANDIDATE WINS) makes the most sense
Note that the appeal to Democrats who may not have supported Bernie in the primaries but who have progressive leanings on many key issues will be MAGNIFIED if Bernie supports the nominee and platform in this election. Those who insist on, say a 3d Party approach here are not going to slog it out over time within the Democratic Party anyway. And Bernie & his base can and should mobilize BOTH within AND outside the Democratic Party, eg having progressive candidates in solid Democratic districts primary nonprogressive Democrats, and in some cases seek the endorsement of a Green or other platform to challenge the Democrat in that setting in the general. (We are NOT talking about situations where any "Trump-like" candidate has the plausible chance of being handed victory thereby -- and there are a LOT of such situations politically, especially increased as a result of systematic gerrymandering.
Note also that if HILLARY is in the White House, there will be much MORE reason, given the means and the effort by Bernie and his supporters to beging with, for the (relatively) progressive wing of the Democratic Party at the grassroots to mobilize to PUSH the party & the country in a progressive direction. Just as we had sometimes more than one RW response televised to the SOTU addresses by Obama, so there should routinely be an opposition televised in the mainstream in response to the SOTU from the LEFT of a neoliberal Democrat. Under Obama, many factors worked against such a major opposition ELECTORALLY being put together in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. For one, there was no significant portion of the African American community ready to join a progressive opposition to Obama on any issue or series of issues, and of course, other progressives would have difficulty mounting a mass movement of white lefties challenging Obama, which would (not without reason) be pilloried. But with Hillary in the White House, even with overwhelming black support (which Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all also had) failures on issues to be strongly progressive -- and one could more or less count on there being plenty of such failures -- would NOT yield anything like the same resistance to progressive autonomous mobilization.
Although there is great benefit to the Non-electoral oriented efforts of Occupy Wall Street & those many aspects of the Black Lives Matter Movement that are NOT oriented to working within the electoral system (whether candidates or ballot measures), it also makes sense going forward that a well-mobilized broad progressive movement COULD AND SHOULD use all means available, say, in fighting climate catastrophe INCLUDING electoral. In all these efforts, progressives will be in a much better position to develop an independent voice of importance in US politics if there is someone like Hillary in the White House than someone like Trump (putting us back into a neoliberal/progressive alliance of necessity against the right)
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Mon May 30, 2016, 12:30 PM (14 replies)
There are two wings of the Democratic Party's base, epitomized by the CANDIDATES (not always the voters) Bernie and Hillary. To the neoliberal/mainstream Democrats, the other wing of the base are Greens & Socialists, rallying behind an actual Social Democrat, which is to them all the worse, especially with him getting some 46% of the vote this primary cycle. And don't think that the mainstream/neoliberals can count on the majority of blacks and latinos always supporting them -- the Clintons presided over unprecedented and broadly shared prosperity unlike any other period since the 60s, and are mainly for that reason widely popular as well as well known. Until about a month before Iowa in Jan 2008, Hillary Clinton was leading Barack Obama, in most polls until well into late autumn 2007 by double digits. I remember as an Obama supporter (hoping he would be a significant break from neoliberalism, even if straddling the two wings of the party) being very frustrated by this. But if Hillary became president, DON'T expect that loyalty to last like it did for Obama through his entire presidency. If large numbers of black and latino grassroots are turned off by triangulation, TPP and other similar deals (and the HUGE surprise that Hillary would only tinker modestly with these) and interventionism, in the context of less of a spectacular boom than the 90s, you could EASILY see the progressive wing become the solid majority of Democrats.
Are all the relatively progressive Democrats at the base as ideological as many on DU? Probably, as with ideological conservatism in the GOP, less so, but remember that Bernie HAS gotten 10 million votes and counting as it is.
Obviously the anti-Hillary sentiment will have to be more muted -- at least until the election, if and when she clinches the nomination and the campaign ends. But these concerns will not go away as they are very real within the Democratic Party
This is one reason that while I am happy with third party efforts like Socialist Alternative, and would like their Seattle performance repeated in dozens of major cities across America, I do NOT agree with those who would abandon the obvious advantages Bernie has shown of at least ALSO working within the Democratic Party, even as some like the OP think we are party traitors
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Thu May 26, 2016, 09:41 PM (0 replies)
I am a total Bernie supporter, one who strongly favored him running -- and running AS A DEMOCRAT IN THE PRIMARIES -- even before he declared, and have supported him including with multiple (modest) donations since day 1. I also support Bernie in his apparent position that after fighting as hard as possible for the nomination, and in the process getting as many delegates as possible so as to maximize leverage at the Convention, and SURELY in some form continuing his autonomous progressive movement efforts beyond the November elections no matter who wins -- he would support Hillary if she is the nominee
There are I know many, including on DU (from the sound of it, a higher percentage on DU than among Bernie supporters generally) who insist on "Bernie or Bust", not supporting Hillary no matter what.
This raises the question -- particularly pointed for those who have the opportunity to cast votes in swing states -- would a Trump presidency REALLY not be any worse for the country, and for progressive politics in the US, than Hillary? Really? As for the argument that a Trump presidency would make the pendulum swing way to the left, beyond neoliberalism and into the arms of progressives, this "radical perversity" is belied by history. When Nixon was leading in 1968 polls, Leonard Bernstein predicted that a Nixon presidency would bring on the revolution. We got Jimmy Carter instead. Some said the same about Reagan -- again no dice. And the disaster of the W presidency was followed by a neoliberal only slightly more progressive than the Clinton presidency. So where's that pendulum?
I am particularly interested in ANY DUers from swing states who do NOT think that a Trump presidency would be no worse than HRC for America or for progressives
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Sun May 8, 2016, 12:55 PM (61 replies)
Full disclosure: I have been a DU member for over a decade, and well remember how bitter the primary election cycle of 07-08 was (as a staunch Obama supporter from the first months of his declared campaign). Of course, there were few if any supporters of Hillary Clinton that had any problem supporting Barack Obama on or off DU, as far as I could see. And indeed, the political climate was such that Democrats had much smoother sailing INTRINSICALLY as opposed to relying on how distasteful the GOP choices were.
This cycle, I supported the idea of Bernie Sanders running -- and running in the Democratic primary campaign rather than as a 3d party splinter candidate -- from before he even announced, and have backed him from day 1 with multiple (albeit modest) donations.
I plan to continue to support him all the way, and if Hillary is the nominee, then in that situation I plan to join Bernie, as he has promised, in supporting her. I also support every effort to get as many Democrats to defeat GOP candidates in both House and Senate races, and have already donated in a number of these to Democratic candidates.
But I am aware that MANY MANY Bernie supporters, both on DU as among others that I encounter on the web, say at least at this point that they have no intention of voting for Hillary ever. There are many who advocate for what I think would be the counterproductive approach -- one Bernie surely is too smart to indulge -- of splitting off and running an Independent candidacy for president or endorsing Jill Stein or something if he isn't nominated. One reason this is counterproductive FOR BERNIE'S OWN MOVEMENT GOALS (and those of supporters like myself) is that any further effort to mobilize the more progressive Democrats WITHIN (as well as mobilizing outside) the Democratic Party would be largely foreclosed; this would be especially true of efforts to reach out to those who are progressive leaning and who backed Hillary in the primary campaign.
At any rate, Bernie supporting the Democrats would apparently NOT be sufficient for a lot of "Bernie-or-busters". I would like to both try to win them over during the campaign (particularly if they are eligible to vote in 'swing' states) but if they are purged or silenced on DU, that won't be possible at least here. Some suggest just going to other venues (like Reich's FaceBook threads) but that is rarely if ever as good a forum for that kind of discussion as DU
I would like to open up debate about the 'purge' policy. At minimum, those who cannot (at any point from the Convention on) bring themselves to support the Party's nominee should at least have limited posting priveleges, if that can be cybernetically accomplished by DU) in certain fora or forum, where at least their political allies in the primary campaign who now support the nominee can debate with them. That would I think be more likely to further DU's goals. And if posting privileges are limited, the danger of somehow damaging the larger site can be obviated
Personally, even this goes against my very strong free speech principles, but it would be better than the status quo
DOES ANYONE out there think there is anything to broaching this discussion? Is it permissible?
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:32 PM (16 replies)
... and endorsing Hillary IN THE PRIMARY CAMPAIGN?????!!!!!!
I think someone who has access to some kind of internet media (whether the Nation itself, or Talking Points Memo, or whatever) should put arguments here and elsewhere together into a rebuttal that actually gets published and distributed.
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Wed Apr 13, 2016, 11:24 AM (21 replies)
I know that literally HUNDREDS of other Bernie supporters have been banned from the Hillary group -- indeed many more DUers have been banned from the group than are members. So I have tried to be extra careful, while not bowdlerizing my criticisms -- a fine line to walk
I recently received an automated message that I had been banned from the Hillary group -- it doesn't even give a specification of a post or any reason or reference either to the group's SOP or to DU's rules. I would at least like an explanation (I sent a DUmail to the host who did the banning). As far as I know none of my posts have been hidden or put before a jury, so I guess neither that nor a warning is a pre-requisite
That strikes me as a very lousy system
At the very least people at DU should get some kind of explanation and reference to a post or posts that are at issue. That is only common sense.
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Thu Apr 7, 2016, 12:23 AM (1 replies)
Villanova won its first National Championship in 31 years after Kris Jenkins made a 3-pointer at the buzzer, besting a talented and slightly favored North Carolina squad 77-74 Monday night, capping off one of the most impressive NCAA Tournament runs in the history of college basketball.
Phil Booth made a career high 20 points, the Wildcats shot their tournament usual of above 50 percent (they bested UNC by a 58.3-49.2 percent margin) and suffocating defense helped lift Villanova after a lackluster first half.
With Villanova leading by three and just a few ticks left, UNC's Marcus Paige drilled a game-tying three to even things at 74-all. With 4.5 seconds left, the Wildcats had the ball and a chance to hit a shot and walk off as National Champions. Ryan Arcidiacono took the ball up court, passed it off to Jenkins and the three from the right side went in, finishing off one of the greatest National Championship games in history
Read more: http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/villanova-wins-national-championship-on-kris-jenkins-game-winner/zsJpde---nvUIlR2PjxP1U/
This was quite a game -- even if it wasn't THE championship, it would have been a thriller, tied up literally to the last second
This is a game that will obviously go down in history -- and this from a total non-basketball maven.
This was the time that was supposed to be for the primary debate?
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:41 PM (19 replies)
I see enormous energy poured as in 2008 into the clash of forces between the Democratic presidential nominees. I would say that the relative attention given to Democrats in all Congressional races on DU to be less than 1% of the time given to the Bernie/Hillary clash. I have been a Bernie supporter from day 1 donating multiple times. But if the relative attention given to the Congressional races is any indication (and I think it is, though perhaps not one-to-one) I would guess that my own general formula of donating at least half or so of what I donate cumulatively (in a series of modest donations) to Bernie to Democrats in Congressional races is probably not widespread at DU. And that is a great weakness on DU. The tendency to draw attention to a fight (fight!fight!) like in grade school accounts for much of the disproportionate focus, and why attention usually declines once the primaries decide on the nominee.
It is true that many of the Congressional races are undecided -- still to have primaries, like the FL senate race -- but I see almost no attention paid to these competitive races (as in the national media). But DUers need to rise way above high-school type thinking or reflecting the attention given to political matters in the MSM (and online too to some extent) and focus on how to try to bring the GOP down to a goal of being the defunct -- as in the Whigs -- party that they deserve to be. At that point, the polity might redivide along new lines, most likely would, but at least the present total veto power in the hands of a Party with ZERO of relative benefit in their national platform relative to the Democrats (who need to change drastically, which is one reason I support Bernie) would be brought to an end and not a minute too soon
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Sat Mar 26, 2016, 01:46 PM (11 replies)
Cruz Wins All of Utah's Delegates, Sanders Wins Both Caucuses and Trump and Clinton Win Arizona Prim
Source: LA Times
Cruz wins all 40 delegates in Utah
Sen. Ted Cruz had such a big win in Utah that he captured all 40 delegates at stake, even as caucus results are still coming in.
Last updated: 3:38 AM
Leader by county Leader by margin
Cruz is projected to win by the AP
TedCruz k 40 118,904 69.2%
JohnKasich 0 29,015 16.9%
DonaldTrump 0 23,984 14.0%
Other 0 0.0%
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-live-updates-utah-arizona-primary-trailguide-20160322-htmlstory.html
Posted by cloudythescribbler | Wed Mar 23, 2016, 06:39 AM (0 replies)