PatrickforB
PatrickforB's JournalSo, allow me to pose a question.
You suggest that polls are the conversation because the press is too lazy to bother learning and reporting on issues and policies.
That the media always wants to report on a 'horse race' is a fair point, and one with which I quite agree.
Your point there is no national primary is also well put.
But, where I differ with you is that by saying, "...mostly due to the laziness of the political press, who don't want to go through the bother of learning and reporting on issues and policies..." you seem to be suggesting that it is a matter of laziness and ignorance, nothing more.
I think it is more. In fact, I'm convinced that the corporations who own our media outlets exercise quite a bit of power over what these talking heads report. So, even if the talking head is well versed in the issues, they are still beholden to their owners to bring in high ratings because shareholder profits rule all else in this society. So, you see, I am convinced the truth has long been made a slave to profit.
This is why Trump, the quintessential reality star keeps harping on 'fake news.' He knows this. He knows ratings, and thus shareholder profits, are king. So he deliberately undermines the fourth estate so people become acclimated to being fed lies and then watching the conflict that ensues.
Donald Trump's most horrible act, among very, very many, is this tearing down of American institutions. He has made political discourse just like 'professional' wrestling - everyone knows it is fake, so they watch it only for entertainment.
Cory Booker - I thought for a long time about where to post this. Yes, it is about Cory
Booker, but it is about something he's been working on for years, well before his presidential run.
I saw a piece earlier today on MSNBC highlighting the effort, and it is something you all need to know about, because it has true bipartisan support, and could dramatically improve the lives of many, many people, particularly people of color.
The Dems support it because it is morally right and saves money. Republicans support it because it saves money - they don't care much about morality.
So, here's the article. You can read it yourself, and I sincerely ask you to make a quick call and/or send an email to your US Senators and Representative in support of this legislation. It is past due, and if we light up the proverbial switchboard, we can really accomplish something nice this year!
So, please, I urge you to act for this excellent purpose. We say we are for leveling the playing field and getting rid of institutional racism, and we are! But here's a real-life chance to make a change that does that!
Cory Booker aims to give aging prisoners 'a second look': The Democratic presidential candidate is unveiling new legislation to take prison reform another step forward.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/cory-booker-aims-give-aging-prisoners-second-look-n1029711
Booker, who first met Underwood in 2016, says he's a prime example of the kind prisoner who should be eligible for release. He points to Underwood's age, the time he's already served and his record of good behavior as as reasons why more reforms are needed, noting that even the prison guards have said Underwood doesnt belong there.
The bill would also give people who have served more than ten years an opportunity to petition the court for release. And for prisoners over the age of 50, they would be offered the presumption of release, which means the the judge would have to show that the inmate should remain behind bars because they are a threat to society.
The measure likely faces an uphill battle in part because it would shift the burden onto the judicial system to make the case that a prisoner should remain locked up.
Now, it has some problems, like how there isn't an exclusion for certain crimes, which is why it faces an uphill battle. But if you don't like that, maybe suggest to the staffer you speak to that your person could add an amendment excluding those crimes you don't think should be considered under the law.
But this is a good thing, good policy. We've known for YEARS that people of color are disproportionately affected by the justice system, and here's a piece of good policy that could release people who should never have been sentenced as harshly as they were. Like this Underwood.
Thanks for listening!
And, by the way, I could easily support Booker if he ends up being our candidate.
No, it actually isn't. The concept is called conflation, and what it looks like
on the ground is that there are two separate issues.
First, the Obamas are waiting until the primary is over, or at least well underway to endorse any one of the candidates.
Second, Biden is under criticism for playing up how he successfully worked with these segregationists, and subsequently apologized.
Two...
separate...
events...
But, by putting them together, the reporter and editor of the for-profit news media outlet can make it 'seem' more 'interesting' i.e. controversial, by writing the headline so it implies a causal relationship between the two separate events. Because to me, the headline seems engineered to imply that a) Biden made the comments, b) Michelle Obama heard the comments, c) Michelle Obama was offended by the comments, d) Michelle said she was specifically going to withhold endorsement from Joe Biden BECAUSE of the comment.
Then, of course, when you read the article, you see it doesn't say that at all.
Pardon me for being curious, but surely you've noticed this penchant for creating faux 'controversy' in headlines before? I mean, all you have to do is look at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and you can see this in action. I will remind you also that our major media outlets are all, every single one, owned by for-profit publicly held corporations. Remember that the primary mission of ANY emission from ANY of these stations is to either keep revenue stable or increase revenue, because increased revenue is the fiduciary responsibility of the CEO - to keep shareholder profits up regardless of the welfare of workers, consumers or the environment.
That's just how it is, blue.
Now, your motive here seems to be to take a poke at Biden supporters based on this misleading headline and generate lots of back and forth responses, but the problem is those back and forth responses are based on the fallacy of conflation. There are plenty of things all of the candidates need to answer for during this primary season, and it seems to me that you do not need to use a misleading headline that conflates two separate issues to do so.
If you wanted to make a credible criticism of Biden, there are certainly enough factual things out there, votes, support for bills, etc. to do that without this particular article. That is my point.
Well trade is a very complicated subject and your second sentence seems to imply that because
I may disagree with you about trade issues, I'm somehow flawed, or worse, in the Trump camp. I actually do resent that, not because it isn't true, which it isn't - I'm most definitely NOT in the Trump camp, but because I have seen many of your posts on here and they are much more thoughtful than this one is. So...I'm answering you now because I felt you deserve a thoughtful answer.
Trade is complicated. There are three major players - workers, businesses and government. And, yes, there are pros and cons to free trade as an economic concept. If you think it through, you'll also hit on some moral conundrums that go with it as well, particularly if you believe, like most billionaires and CEOs seem to, that we live in a zero sum world and that for me to win, you must lose.
I won't belabor those recognized pros and cons out of respect for you, because your post to me suggests you are aware of them.
Instead, lets merely explore the types of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and see why having these provisions in a trade agreement can be good or bad. Or both.
Clearly, the main 'pro' around having ISDS provisions in place is that they protect companies that invest in operations in a foreign country from losing that investment to nationalization or other corruption. That is a good thing, at least on its face.
But what happens when we take the concept too far, as the TPP did? In the TPP, a company based in say, Seattle, could sue the city, the state of Washington and the federal government for loss of profits due to the imposition of regulations. Now, you know as well as I that there are some of these suits in court now. One example that comes to mind is the oil companies suing the US government for loss of profits over the Keystone Pipeline.
So, to be truly effective, an agreement must have benefits for all the stakeholders, and protections for all the stakeholders. Unfortunately, by the nature of these ISDS agreements, protections for the environment as a stakeholder simply is not included.
Now, stakeholders in any trade agreement are a country's people, workers in affected industries, consumers of product, shareholders and the environment. Right now, in this business climate, the pendulum has simply swung too far toward the primacy of the shareholder over all else, and it is materially hurting workers, consumers and the planet we live on.
Eliminate that doctrine by expanding fiduciary responsibility of C-Suite officers to recognize the interests of these four stakeholders as coequal would go a long way toward rectifying many of the seemingly intractable problems that beset us.
The proverbial bottom line here is that yes, we do need trade agreements, and yes, these agreements need ISDS provisions because there is corruption all over the earth, and a business expanding into an area in good faith needs those protections, PROVIDED that expanding business also must, by virtue of the way those ISDS provisions are (should be) written, protect the interests of the other stakeholders too.
In my opinion, the ISDS provisions in the TPP did not do this, thus I opposed the TPP based on that. Be mindful of the secrecy that surrounded the entire thing - members of Congress being allowed to go into a room alone, not take notes and simply read the thing was very strange to me. The 'fast tracking' of Senate approval was problematic. And the lack of any kind of open debate was problematic.
So you see, you cannot really just assume, as you did, that because I disagree with X must mean I agree with Y. That is a fallacy in logic and you are better than that. It is better to say, in a mathematical sense that I agree with X(business) + X(community governance) + X(workers) + X(consumers) + X(environment), but not merely X(business). And, since the TPP was written primarily by corporate attorneys deliberately trying to be obtuse - I know because I read it on wikileaks - to my mind other stakeholders were NOT considered as they should have been.
But again, please do not put words in my mouth or try in the heat of argument to impose some position that has nothing to do with my actual thinking on the matter.
********************
The primacy of the shareholder doctrine, and our desperate need to expand fiduciary responsibility of CEOs in publicly held corporations is why I'm supporting Warren. This is the root cause of most of our problems. It really is, and in August 2018, she introduced legislation called the 'Accountable Capitalism Act.' She 'gets' it. I like Warren a lot.
And, you know, none of the candidates are perfect, including Warren. But Trump is a monster. Now, for a time, our primary race was pretty good in terms of not ripping each others' guts out. Now, just in the space of a few days, that has changed. Not good. The people on here have positions along a continuum between progressive left (social democrat) and centrist (like Eisenhower Republicans - if you read Ike's brilliant 1963 essay titled, "Why I'm a Republican," you will see what I mean).
I loved Obama and still do, but he was a centrist. I supported Bernie in 2016 but voted for Clinton when Bernie lost the primaries. That was a bitter battle on here, too. Now, we have a whole bunch of younger, fresher candidates that look a whole lot more like the American people, and they are elevating the dialog. People are talking about healthcare and the environment now, and our job is to advance arguments so people actually understand that medicare for all won't make private insurance illegal. Or my favorite - it will 'rip away the employer coverage you love,' when the truth is actually that what you will have will be better than what you did have. But that's a different debate.
Hopefully this clarifies my positions on the ISDS provisions in TPP and on ISDS provisions in general.
Sharia court orders jail for rape victim unless kids handed to rapist. No, wait.
That was in Alabama.
This is utterly appalling. I know women face gender discrimination daily but THIS goes way beyond the pale.
Here's an excerpt followed by the link. This is utterly shameful and un-American.
Despite the DNA evidence, her uncle was never convicted of rape. It wouldnt matter if he had been anyway: In Alabama, a rapist is entitled to visitation rights to children resulting from his crimes, and can even sue for custody. Alabama is one of only two states that allow this.
However, this horror takes on new meaning in Alabama, because last month the state passed a law outlawing the destruction of embryos for all victims of sexual assault. The law even prescribes jail for doctors who perform abortions. In fact, the only exception to the law is given to in vitro fertilization labs, which routinely destroy tons of fertilized eggs.
Now that abortion is outlawed for all rape survivors in Alabama, the survivor is forced to bear a child if one is conceived. At the very least, youd think the lawmakers would fix the loophole (assuming it even is a loophole) that would give the rapist custody and visitation rights. Well, actually, one Alabama lawmaker did try to do just that by introducing a bill to terminate the parental rights of rapists. Unfortunately, pro-life lawmakers amended the bill so that it pertained only to people who rape their own children, and required that the perpetrator be convicted of first-degree rape.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/16/1864985/-Sharia-court-orders-jail-for-rape-victim-unless-kids-handed-to-rapist-Wait-I-meant-Alabama?detail=emaildkre#comment_74166228
Hello everyone! I seldom post in the Lounge but I was thinking about something
on my way home from work the other day.
For some reason, don't know why because I haven't heard the term in some time, I thought of 'supergroups' while listening to a song by Supertramp.
Now, I like Supertramp but I personally - just my own opinion - don't think of them as a supergroup. Not because they aren't good, because they are...or were. No, it isn't that.
I mean, what IS a supergroup? For me, they are groups whose music is absolutely timeless - most of it - and you can hear it now and love it just the same as when you first heard it when you were 10 or 12. They are groups, who when you hear them, somehow elevate your spirit in some indefinable but visceral way.
The bands I personally would think of as 'supergroups' would of course include the Beatles, the Who, and Led Zeppelin. Don't get me wrong - there's tons of really, really good music out there, but these three groups, when I hear their music, elevate me somehow in ways other music groups do not.
The term 'supergroup' was first coined, I suspect, by the 'money' side of the music 'industry.' I believe they positioned Supertramp as the next 'supergroup' and did a sophisticated marketing campaign around the concept, but to me Supertramp, even though I like them just fine, never really reached that realm of exaltation where the Beatles, the Who and Zep live in my spirit and memory.
You know what I mean?
That's right.
The right-wing noise machine has long been calling for 'action' on the part of 'brave' 'patriots.' My wife's crazy sister's ex husband has somehow got me on his email list, and I let it happen so I hear the more extreme right wing talking points.
The latest he sent was Billy Graham Junior's disgusting soliloquy on white christian men. I won't pollute this thread with his actual words, but these people hate everybody but old white men. They want women subservient, and to continue subjugating any not like them.
It's disgusting, immoral and very, very un-Christian, if you look at the basic tenets of the faith in Matthew, chapters 5-7. I've often wondered how the Christians could have gotten so far away from the actual wisdom literature of the faith.
OK............I cannot resist..................I see the true culprit here as capitalism. To my mind, it, specifically the primacy of the shareholder doctrine, is to blame for the rise of hate-talk radio and the right wing noise machine, the death of the Fairness Doctrine, the rise of Fox and the rise of the neoconservative and neoliberal movements.
Naomi Klein writes about it in her books - the mantra of 'privatize, deregulate and gut social programs' exists for one purpose only: to funnel more and more and more wealth to a very few.
Heard of 'iron triangles?' They are cabals made up of billionaires, organized crime and corrupt politicians. Trump is the apotheosis of the slow coup that was begun against our republic - against the western democracies as a whole - decades ago. The plain truth is that our republic and the other western democracies CANNOT COEXIST with unrestrained capitalism, which is the goal of the neoliberal movement.
We must dilute the primacy of the shareholder doctrine and force corporations to consider the welfare of workers, consumers and the environment on an equal footing with shareholder earnings.
We must reverse 2017's giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations, cut the military budget, and reimpose a steeper graduated tax for the wealthy. Our fiscal house must be put in order.
As to our monetary house, we are going to have to explore public banking. The bankers at the Fed, as well as the IMF, have created such a system of scarcity that the whole thing has become unsustainable. The forces of greed are blind, though. Everyone knows it is unsustainable - the are just stalling so they can eke out just a little more profit. Just one more pound of flesh from the middle class.
You want to be able to afford single payer healthcare, free college for our kids, strong social security and a newly upgraded and updated infrastructure, then we must rethink the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
It begins with this question: If the national debt is money we owe to ourselves, then why are we paying it back to bankers and investors with interest?
One more thought. The root of terrorism is austerity that causes discontent among the middle class, and by fomenting fear and mistrust among us for the sake of routing more money from our treasury to the very few, the gate has been opened for white nationalists to rise here and throughout Europe. Let's try and avert the next Holocaust, shall we? Because Holocaust is the logical conclusion of this system of scarcity.
This is from tomorrow's NYT front page:
A quote from the Mueller Report:
Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/djlavoie/status/1119057513897504769
I'd say get the paper out and begin drafting the Articles of Impeachment, because you cannot get much clearer than that. We have to impeach, even if the Senate won't try and remove.
The Democrats in the House (and Republicans with any sense of morality, if there are any of THOSE left) have a clear duty. With this report, there's no way Trump should not be impeached and the massive investigations not continue into his utter corruption and criminal activity.
I was talking today with the CEO of a chamber of commerce in my metro area, and in private, off the record, he said the same thing I just did.
TRUMP HAS GOT TO GO.
My first post here.
I think Buttigieg is by far the smartest candidate, and the most well-versed on both domestic and foreign policy. I also like his position on taxes. Not to mention healthcare and global warming.
As the human race runs at breakneck speed towards
extinction...
What will it be?
Drug resistant strains of fungus caused by fungicides manufactured by companies like Monsanto?
Reckless overuse of antibiotics in agricultural production by companies like Angus Beef and Perdue Chicken?
Or maybe just high carbon emissions and other greenhouse gasses, courtesy of oil & gas, auto manufacturers, and utilities?
Hey, take your choice!
Or...wait...you want to solve the problem? Get rid of the primacy of the shareholder doctrine by expanding the fiduciary responsibility of CEOs and other C-Suite people running publicly held corporations. Seriously. Check out the 'Accountable Capitalism Act' introduced in August 2018 by a Senator who shall remain nameless (in this forum). Do this and we go a long way toward solving thousands of problems just like the three above. Truth is, capitalism is the plague that will end humankind, UNLESS WE GET RID OF THE PRIMACY OF THE SHAREHOLDER DOCTRINE.
OR....
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: Not disclosed
Home country: USA
Current location: Not disclosed
Member since: Mon Apr 28, 2014, 06:28 PM
Number of posts: 15,116