Roger,
He may well have had a request for no heroic measures. Many of us
have a signed document in place to prevent the prolonging of life, to
avoid suffering. When I was young I was shocked by such an idea. I
remember telling folks, "What if a cure was found the day after you
died?" At my age I understand that miricle cures only happen in story
books....well, maybe in Mostafa's world. But in the real world we
seldom see that last minute appearance of the Knight in White, coming
to our rescue.
I know it wore very thin having Cathy's mother living with us for four
months. And she was able to get out of bed by herself and use her
walker. And later, the 11 months we spent driving back and forth to
the nursing home at least three or four times every week began to put
a serious strain on our lives. But none of us ever wished for a quick
closure. This was Cathy's mother. And even as we wore ourselves out
some days, still, we would have done anything to keep her alive and
comfortable for a few weeks or months longer.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/23/19, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You remind me of something. Remember that I told you not too long ago
about the death of my neighbor and uncle-in-law? On that night my aunt
called his nurse who said that she was on the way over, but that this
was probably the end and it was the end. But my aunt told me, at least,
and I suppose the nurse too. that he was gasping for breath and there
was a rattling in his chest. It was the so-called death rattle. But what
is a death rattle? It is the sound of air being forced out of a
collapsing lung. It is kind of like a lung fart except that it sounds
different from what we usually call a fart. No wonder he was gasping for
breath. That means that if paramedics had been called they could have
reinflated his lungs and extended his life. I don't know for how much
longer it could have been extended, but being able to breathe would have
given him some time at least. So why were paramedics not called? I
haven't said anything about it or asked anyone involved, but I have been
wondering. I can understand why my aunt might not have known what she
was hearing, but the nurse should have known. I am wondering if it was
just a matter of giving in to the inevitable. I am wondering if my aunt
did know and was looking forward with relief to the end. After all,
taking care of him had become an around the clock job and a very hard
job too. And I am wondering if even if his life could have been extended
if it could have been extended for long enough that it would have been
worth the bother. But whatever the case, I am pretty sure that a
collapsed lung or collapsed two lungs was the immediate cause of death
and that can be fixed at least temporarily by immediate treatment.
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/23/2019 1:20 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Carl,
Your story about the nurse and the oxygen reminds me of what happened when
my husband was dying. Interestingly, this is a very different story and it
took place in St. Rose's Home, which is a Catholic facility dedicated to
the care of dying cancer patients. When the doctors at the very fancy
Manhattan hospital that specializes in treating cancer, finished
experimenting with Fred's body for their research and indicated that he
was terminally ill and we needed to find a facility to care for him, our
neighbor, who had been the president of the New York City Fire Fighters,
arranged for Fred to have a bed at St. Rose's that was normally saved for
the use of dying fire fighters. This ensured good care with no financial
payment of any kind. On the day that the staff at St. Rose's, new that
Fred was dying, they called me and my daughters and I gathered at his
bedside. He was barely conscious. After some time had passed, apparently,
it became evident to his care givers that he was having difficulty
breathing and he was suffering and in pain. They didn't tell us anything,
just ushered us from the room. After about 20 minutes, they brought us
back in. He was still alive, but appeared to be sleeping or in a coma.
Actually, they had probably given him a huge dose of morphine, enough to
ease the suffering and ease him into death. This was a very Catholic
facility, and they cared enough about their patients, to help them die.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 12:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden,
Staggering Frontrunner
Thank you, Miriam, for your words and thoughts. As for Dorothy's 11
months of suffering, she held firmly to her conviction that as a good
Catholic, she would leave this life and open her eyes in the arms of
Jesus. It was harder on Cathy and her sister and brother to see their
mother as an invalid. And yes, we do treat our pets with more compassion
than we treat our suffering human family. Dorothy had signed a paper
stating that she wanted no heroic measures. The nursing staff tried
several times to violate this request, but Cathy and Marlene demanded that
their mother's wishes be upheld. Then, on the day she died, Cathy and I
stood by Dorothy's bed watching her struggle with little gasps of breath,
already gone from this world, and the nurse came in with an oxygen tank
and connected Dorothy to it. Cathy said, "That is putting oxygen into her
nose, but she's only gasping through her mouth". The nurse finished her
task and said, "Doctor's orders!" Shortly after that we told Dorothy
goodbye for what we knew would be the last time, and headed for home. We
agreed that Dorothy would not have her life extended by the little bursts
of oxygen, and the stress of demanding that Dorothy's request be honored
would be to no avail, we just let it be. And sure enough, Dorothy died
within minutes of our leaving the building.
When our buddy Winston, the Wonder Cat began crying in pain, and the Vet
wanted to do exploratory surgery, we opted to have him...the cat, not the
doctor, put to sleep. But when Dorothy could not even roll over, and
began to have terrible pains in her joints from being immobilized for
months and we could see that she was never going to regain normal
functions, we could only stand by and watch, telling her lies about how
she needed to regain her strength and walk again before we could take her
home. I have no way of knowing whether she believed this, or not. But it
took its toll on Cathy.
Even knowing that Dorothy would never leave that bed, we carefully stored
her belongings in boxes in our garage, waiting for the day she either
underwent a miracle healing, or died.
Well, next Friday will wrap up Dorothy's trip through Life, with a grand
service at her church in Renton. Then after a breather, we will begin the
process of disposing what remains of Dorothy's life.
Again, Miriam, I thank you for your thoughtful words. Often those who
also suffer and are ignored, are the "Outsiders", those who are not the
blood relatives.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/23/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
I'm so sorry that Dorothy had such a sad, long period of dying and I
can only try to imagine how difficult this year has been for all of
you. It must be such a relief that it is over. The death of human
beings when they are aged and suffering is so hard for us to deal with
because euthanasia is such a complex and frightening prospect for us
to consider. Its misapplication can be so drastic. But I often think
that we are kinder to the pets we love, than to the human beings whom we
love.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 9:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden,
Staggering Frontrunner
Miriam,
I was responding to Richard's remarks when he wrote: "We must make a
effort to not over complicate our comments and over simplify them at
the same time."
And I have no idea of what Richard was talking about, or why I wrote
what I did.
By the way, Cathy's mother died this past Wednesday. She was 28 days
shy of her 93RD birthday. We could see her slipping each time we
visited her. Our last two trips prior to Wednesday were not visits in
the sense that we interacted with her. She could barely whisper, and
her speech was so garbled that it made no sense. Wednesday we found
her unable to respond to our words or our touch. Cathy tried to have
her mother squeeze her hand, but with no success. It was last July
17, Dorothy's 92ND birthday, when Cathy found her in her apartment,
disoriented and unable to make sense, verbally. The doctor told us
that the extent of the stroke was so vast that she would not live
beyond three days. At the end of the third day, he said she might
live another three weeks. While she did seem to rally some, she never
was able to walk, even with a walker. She had no use of her right
side, which made eating difficult. She could say a few words clearly,
but most of what she said was garbled.
It's been a long, hard 11 months for Dorothy. She was unable to turn
over in bed without assistance. She could not remember what the Call
Button was, or the TV remote. And it was a hard 11 months for Cathy
and her sister Marlene...and for me, too.
It was a good thing we'd decided to work only part time this past
year, since we spent a good 5 hours each time we drove to Bremerton to
visit Dorothy and to make certain that she was receiving good care.
Cathy and Marlene each went every other day. This meant three or four
days each week. And mostly, when Cathy headed out I was riding
shotgun. Once the dust has settled and everyone has headed home,
we'll probably wonder how we suddenly have so much time on our hands.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/22/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
What did he say?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 12:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden,
Staggering Frontrunner
And, Richard, you have done a magnificent job, if I do say so myself.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/22/19, R. E. Driscoll Sr <llocsirdsr@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Comment: We must make a effort to not over complicate our comments
and over simplify them at the same time.
A difficult process for most people.
Richard Driscoll
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 21, 2019, at 8:21 PM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
OK. So I got the term wrong. But my idea was right. The view is
mechanistic. All these labels and definitions that are so important
to you, are not important to most of us. We don't think the way you
do. We don't understand all the terms, nor are we so literal. But
instead of fighting with me because I got the words wrong, try to
understand the general thought behind it. Your view is a
mechanistic view of history as economic class struggle and it is
not the way in which I conceptualize the world or human nature or
history. But I certainly do see class struggle as part of the whole.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 9:30 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden,
Staggering Frontrunner
Miriam wrote: "I suspect that what you are referring to, is a very
mechanistic formula of economic theory like, "dialectic materialism"
How many times have I explained dialectical materialism on this list?
Not as many times as I have explained concepts like class
relations, but I have still explained it more than one time and you
still do not seem to understand what it is. First, dialectical
materialism is not an economic theory. It is not a theory at all.
It is a philosophical framework presented to understand the dynamic
nature of the universe.
It concerns itself with the unity of contradictions. It is true
that it applies to economic theory just as much as it applies to
anything else, but before it can be used in economic theory the
dialectical relationships have to be identified. Second, calling
dialectical materialism mechanistic shows not only a very
fundamental failure to understand the concept, but it shows a
failure to understand the polemics of the debate that originated it.
Materialism is the view of the universe without appeals to the
supernatural to explain it. Some antiquated materialist concepts
have been identified as materialism itself, specifically mechanical
materialism.
That is the view of the universe as a clockwork universe with a
specific mechanical event causing every other event which causes
another event until all events have occurred. Dialectical
materialism denied that over simplistic view of the universe. It
gave the view of the universe that allowed for a constantly dynamic
universe without the necessity of falling back on mechanics or the
supernatural either. Calling dialectical materialism mechanistic is
like calling a spacecraft a submarine. This reminds me of a
conversation I once had in a bar. Somehow the subject of
materialism came up. The other person said that he was completely
aware of what materialism was and so I started talking about some
of the implications. I was not even talking about dialectics. Soon
it became apparent that my conversational partner thought that
materialism meant something that might be better called consumerism
or acquisitiveness. That had nothing to do with what I was talking
about. So I started trying to explain what kind of materialism I
was talking about. No matter what I said he persisted to assume
that I was talking about the desire for expensive consumer items.
Finally someone who had been just sitting there listening said,
"You two are on entirely different wavelengths." Miriam, I am
suspecting that is how you and I can be described. We are on
entirely different wavelengths. I am talking about one thing and
you respond to me with the assumption that I am talking about
something and you go ahead and talk about that something else as if
I had been talking about it. ---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/21/2019 5:27 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
You say that if we talk about economic classes, we must name them
and then you give them names like national bourgeoisie,
bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat, lumpen proletariat
labor aristocra peasantry, proletarianized peasantry and so forth.
These are simply names that describe classes in a capitalist
economic system
Those are names that Marx gave them back in what year? In what
country?
Even if I chose to think about contemporary issues only in terms
of economic class, as if no other variables influenced what is
happening in today's world, there is no rule that says that I must
use those names.
Those names are not relevant to America in 2019, not as far as I'm
concerned. And I haven't heard any current Marxist economists use
them either. Not that they may not have used them as they were
learning Marxist theory, but if they want to communicate with
their fellow Americans, they need to use language and concepts
that feel relevant to people's everyday lives.
You write about how class can be used to understand people's
economic situation. You said, The categories of what is commonly
called class is there to let us know what economic role people
play in economic relations and how they relate to each other on an
economic basis. Ethnicity, religion or even the specific job one
performs are mostly irrelevant to this.
I cannot imagine how it is relevant to talk about people's
financial situations, about who has more privileges or more power,
about who ends up homeless or incarcerated, without taking
ethnicity, race, religion, and personal psychology into account. I
suspect that what you are referring to, is a very mechanistic
formula of economic theory like, "dialectic materialism" or some
other economic theory, the reverse side of market theory, which
doesn't take real people and their thoughts, feelings, or
motivations into account.
In fact, one of the criticisms made of Bernie Sanders by some of
his detractors on the left, is that he doesn't talk enough about
how race impacts people's economic situation. I don't agree with
that particular criticism of him, but I do think that one can't
look at class status in the United States without analyzing the
impact of race, religion, and ethnicity on just who is a member of
which economic class.
We also have, in this country wide differences in philosophical
viewpoints regarding religion, sexuality, and civil liberties and
this divergence of viewpoint exists among the very wealthy. So
although in some ways George Soros and the Koch brothers have
similar self interests, in other ways, they use their money in
very different ways when it comes to influenceing events.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 3:24 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: Clueless and Shameless: Joe
Biden, Staggering Frontrunner
Okay, you are getting into some of those quibbles that I alluded
to that I have with what Carl had to say, but your quibbles come
from an entirely different perspective. I will have to agree that
it is over simplistic to divide everyone into two classes, the
ruling class and the working class.
However, this talk about different ethnicities, religions and
things like that does not even address the whole point of dividing
people into classes at all. In some contexts the word class means
category and that is what you seem to be talking about. You can
divide people according to their ethnicity. You can divide people
according to whatever shade their skins are. You can divide people
according to whether they prefer to play chess or checkers. But if
you divide people by any of those criteria or any of the vast
number of criteria available for you to divide them by you have to
ask the question of why are you dividing them. Any such division
you come up with may very well have some usefulness in some study
or endeavor like psychology, sociology marketing studies or
whatever, but you are still talking about categories as opposed to
class.
Okay, dividing people into classes is categorical too, but the
purpose of doing so will not be the same as dividing people into
the categories of people who stand under five feet and people who
stand over five feet. The categories of what is commonly called
class is there to let us know what economic role people play in
economic relations and how they relate to each other on an
economic basis.
Ethnicity, religion or even the specific job one performs are
mostly irrelevant to this. As I have said before, you can be
either a lumper or a splitter and varying degrees of lumping or
splitting may be more or less appropriate for whatever you are
doing with your categories. You could pick out at random any two
people from the human population of the earth and compare them and
find that one or the other has some advantage over the other with
some amount of greater power or privilege, but to what purpose
would you be making that comparison? The only thing I can think of
is that you might be studying individual psychology, but that
doesn't have much to do with what is ordinarily meant when the word
class is used.
This comparison of just one person to another, though, is an
extreme example of splitting. What Carl has explicated, though, is
an extreme example of lumping. Okay, there is the ruling class.
They are called the ruling class because they rule.
They control how the economic system is conducted and they have
life and death power over a lot of people. However, there are
other people who have a lot of power too who are not quite as
powerful as the ruling class. Their own lives may be subordinate
to the ruling class, but they still have a high degree of
privilege and they maintain that privilege by implementing ruling
class directives and by making their own directives when not
directly implementing ruling class directives. You have powerful
people who own the biggest manufacturing companies and who control
those companies.
You have other powerful people who manage the transfer of money
who are the bankers. Below those kinds of people you have managers
of various levels and owners of smaller companies. You have
company owners who not only own and so implement their own power,
but who also perform productive labor themselves. Then you also
have people who make their living only from productive labor.
Other people perform agricultural labor for a wage or perform
agricultural labor while owning the farm where they work. Then you
have a reserve of unemployed people who are maintained to keep the
price of labor from being bid up so high that the owners would
fail to make a profit after paying wages. Among those unemployed
are a layer who have to resort to criminal activity to make a
living and may become professional criminals. There are a lot of
other gradations too and it has very little to do with their
ethnicity, religion or other characteristics that you mention. But
my point in mentioning all of these layers in the economic system
is to illustrate just how over simplistic Carl's division is.
There are a lot of classes other than the ruling class and the
working class and just how far you are going to split or lump them
depends on what you happen to be doing with the information. Now,
let me add what I have been avoiding so far.
These various classes have names.
If you are going to talk about anything and have it make sense you
have to give it a name. Oh, I suppose you could describe it every
time you mention it, but that would be very unwieldy. I know,
Miriam, that you don't like it when I put a name to these classes,
but they have to be named in order to make sense of what is being
talked about. When someone calls classes by their names it does
not mean that there is an attempt to make you think in a certain
way.
It does not mean that you are being looked down on. It does not
mean that anyone is dismissing your own cultural perspective. It
does not mean that you are being personally attacked or however
you see it.
It only means that the person who uses those names is calling
something by its name. The names of those classes include names
like national bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie,
proletariat, lumpen proletariat labor aristocracy, peasantry,
proletarianized peasantry and so forth. These are simply names
that describe classes in a capitalist economic system and the
names were never given to any of these classes to offend you or
anybody else.
And if we only call the class divisions ruling class and working
class we just cannot talk about the ways these varying classes
effect and relate to each other.
---
Carl Sagan
“ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ”
― Carl Sagan
On 6/21/2019 9:25 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
My feeling is that you can't just lump everyone together in, "the
working class". People have different levels of education, come
from different ethnic and racial and religious backgrounds, do
very different kinds of work, have very different kinds of life
styles, and most importantly, have very different views of who
they are and what their place is in this world. You're talking
about power and it's true that you don't have any more power than
the people with no education or who struggle to make a living for
their children.
That is, you don't have any more power to influence whether or
not we have war or peace, or whether or not we get a single payer
health system. But you do have enough power so that you will be
treated with more consideration by business people, politicians,
and police officers. To me, for people like us to say that
there's no difference between us and migrant workers or fast food
workers or Walmart employees, is to trivialize the kinds of
problems that those working class people have. You're not one of
them.
They know it and you know it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden,
Staggering Frontrunner
With all due respect, I continue to consider all of us who are
not members in good standing of the Ruling Class, to be members
of the Working Class. Unless we are homeless or chronically
unemployed, which would put us in the Lower Class.
Middle implies halfway between something and something else. In
the economic structure of the American Empire, there is no "Middle"
anything.
My wife and I earned, back in the early 1990's, a bit over
$100,000 per year between us. So $100,000 would put us mid way
between
$000,000 and $200,000. But in order to be midway between
$000,000,000 and $100,000,000, we would need to come in around
$50,000,000.
Middle Class is just another make believe term that soothes the
Soul, but means absolutely nothing.
But hey! All of the rest of you can call it anything you want,
because the fact of the matter is that all of us who are not
members in good standing in the Ruling Class are owned by one or
more members of that Ruling Class.
Remember, when you get set to disagree, a Monkey on a golden
chain is just as much of a prisoner as a Monkey on an Iron chain.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/20/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Clueless and Shameless: Joe Biden, Staggering Frontrunner By
Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
20 June 19
Joe Biden just put a spotlight on his mindset when he explicitly
refused to apologize for fondly recalling how the Senate "got
things done" with "civility" as he worked alongside some of the
leading racist lawmakers of the 20th century. For Biden, the
personal is the political; he knows that he's virtuous, and that
should be more than good enough for African Americans, for
women, for anyone.
"There's not a racist bone in my body," Biden exclaimed
Wednesday night, moments after demanding: "Apologize for what?"
His deep paternalism surfaced during the angry outburst as he
declared:
"I've been involved in civil rights my whole career, period,
period, period."
Biden has been "involved" in civil rights his "whole career" all
right. But at some crucial junctures, he was on the wrong side.
He teamed up with segregationist senators to oppose busing for
school desegregation in the 1970s. And he played a leading role
- while pandering to racism with a shameful Senate floor speech
- for passage of the infamous 1994 crime bill that fueled mass
incarceration.
Such aspects of Biden's record provide context for his comments
this week - praising an era of productive "civility" with the
virulent segregationist Dixiecrat senators Herman Talmadge of
Georgia and James Eastland of Mississippi (known as the "Voice
of the White South"), who often called black people "an inferior
race."
Said Biden at a New York fundraiser Tuesday night: "Well guess
what?
At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn't
agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it
finished."
To Biden, any assessment of his past conduct that clashes with
his high self-regard is unfair; after all, he really means well.
On the campaign trail now, his cloying paternalism is as evident
as his affinity for wealthy donors.
Biden shuttles between the billionaire class and the working
class
- funded by the rich while justifying the rich to everyone else.
His aspirations are bound up in notions of himself as
comforter-in-chief.
"I get it, I get it," Biden said during his brief and
self-adulatory non-apology video in early April to quiet the
uproar over his invasive touching of women and girls. He was
actually saying: I get it that I need to seem to get it.
"I want to talk about gestures of support and encouragement that
I've made to women and some men that have made them
uncomfortable,"
Biden said in the video. "In my career I've always tried to make
a human connection - that's my responsibility, I think. I shake
hands, I hug people, I grab men and women by the shoulders and
say, 'You can do this' . It's the way I've always been. It's the
way I've tried to show I care about them and I'm listening."
Weeks later, appearing on ABC's "The View," he declared: "I have
never in my life, never, done anything in approaching a woman
that has been other than trying to bring solace." It was not a
credible claim; consider Lucy Flores, or the countless other
women and girls he has intrusively touched over the years.
For several decades, Biden has made his way through the
political terrain as a reflexive glad-hander. But times have
changed a lot more than he has.
"What the American people do not know yet is whether Biden has
actually internalized any of the blowback he's earned over the
years for his treatment of women," journalist Joe Berkowitz
wrote last week.
"So far, it's not looking good."
What's also looking grim is Biden's brazen adoration of wealthy
elites who feed on corporate power. His approach is to split the
rhetorical difference between the wealthy and the workers. And
so, days ago, at a fundraiser filled with almost 180 donors
giving his campaign the legal limit of $2,800 each - an event
where he tried and failed to get funding from a pro-Trump
billionaire - Biden
declared:
"You know, you guys are great but Wall Street didn't build
America.
You guys are incredibly important but you didn't build America.
Ordinary, hard-working, middle-class people given half the
chance is what built America."
The formula boils down to throwing the "hard-working middle class"
some rhetorical bones while continuing to service "you guys" on
Wall Street.
Given his desire to merely revert the country to pre-Trump days,
no wonder Biden keeps saying that a good future can stem from
finding common ground with Republicans. But for people who
understand the present-day GOP and really want a decent society,
Biden's claims are delusional.
Biden sees his public roles of winking patriarch, civility
toward racists, and collaborator with oligarchs as a winning
political combination. But if he becomes the Democratic
presidential nominee, Biden will suppress turnout from the
party's base while providing Republicans with plenty of
effective (albeit
hypocritical) fodder.
Already the conservative press is salivating over the
transparently fraudulent pretenses of Lunch Bucket Joe, as in
this headline Tuesday in the right-wing Washington Examiner:
"Biden Rubs Elbows With Billionaires in $34M Penthouse."
When Bernie Sanders (who I continue to actively support)
denounces the political power of billionaires and repeats his
2020 campaign motto - "Not Me. Us." - it rings true, consistent
with his decades-long record. But Biden can't outrun his own
record, which is enmeshed in his ongoing mentality.
And
so, the former vice president is in a race between his pleasant
image and unpleasant reality.
As the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination,
Joe Biden is the biggest threat to Joe Biden's political future.
He continues to be who he has been, and that's the toxic problem.
Email This Page
Norman Solomon is cofounder and national coordinator of
RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from
California to the 2016 Democratic National Convention and is
currently a coordinator of the relaunched independent Bernie
Delegates Network.
Solomon is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy:
How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to
Reader Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
