Good point. I haven't seen anything about it, but I can assume that a
fleet of high paid attorneys could turn nicotine into a wonder drug.
My life in the Boeing Company Town had advantages over the Amazon
Company Town. Strong unions during the years following WW II, helped
keep the economy robust. Amazon pays low wages and part time
jobs...and I think they're doing some contract jobs, too.
Our son works in Seattle, but lives in the outskirts of Renton,
because they can't afford the high rents in the City. Our eldest
grandson works for Microsoft, but he's under contract. His job can be
changed on a moment's notice, and has been in the past. He and his
wife also live in Renton, which is not an easy commute to Redmond.
Besides, even with a salary of over $85 thousand, rents in and around
Microsoft are bloated.
Sadly, one democratic socialist on the Seattle city council will never
solve or correct all the city's problems. In part, Seattle's problems
are region-wide. But to go back to your original question, remember
one thing, the US government has never turned away from breaking or
ignoring agreements, laws or contracts. Also, I suspect that pinning
Amazon down to complying with a government law of any sort is like
holding a Tiger by the tail. Certainly Amazon is powerful enough to
handle the likes of Seattle.
While Amazon might not care to pay their workers well, they have no
problem paying their attorneys more than they would ever make working
for the government. Many bright young folks are in law schools with
an eye on the brass ring, not necessarily on simply doing good works.
Of course it doesn't help having a government that sits by and allows
students to be held for ransom in order to obtain an education.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/12/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What was mentioned briefly in that section and what I've read about briefly,
and what I'd like to know more detail about is how Amazon managed to reverse
the city council's law regarding Amazon paying tax to Seattle which was
supposed to help with housing. If the council voted that Amazon should pay
tax, how did Amazon reverse that?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 10:31 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Elizabeth Warren, 1 more thing
As with all the sources I turn to for information not found in the Mass
Media, I do my best to listen for the facts, and understand that these
sources are about as reliable as I am. There are things I would do
differently if I were Amy Goodman, but by the same token I am not putting in
the hours and the research that she does. I have great respect for the
commitment of Goodman and so many others like her. At least I can piece
together a more clear picture of what's going on in the nation and in the
world.
This morning Amy and Juan had Seattle city councilwoman Kshama Sawant at the
end of the program. While I wish she had someone elses voice, and could
breathe once in a while during her rapid fire talk, nonetheless, Kshama
Sawant has good sound progressive plans, and has delivered on several. The
fact that she won a very close election against the massed opposition of
Amazon and the Seattle Times and the entire Seattle Corporate community, is
awesome. But God, I wish she could present better. Still, if Kshama Sawant
didn't speak out, who would? So I listen. And I do not, even if it sounds
like it, I do not complain publicly about her delivery.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/11/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Amy was trying to ask, what she thought was a provocative and
meaningful question, and Warren was trying to dodge it. But really, I
don't see the point of the question. I've noticed that she often does
something similar, asks public figures to comment on outrageous things
that other people have said. Trying to get someone to say something in
an unguarded moment is not, as far as I'm concerned, doing useful
journalism.
As for your personal concern, I surely do understand that. As I've
explained, my income slowly decreases as municipal bonds are called
and replaced with bonds that pay a lower rate of interest. My expenses
rise, supplemental medical insurance, Medicare Prescription insurance,
and other expenses. As my physical capacities decline, and I'm not
sure how long I'll be able to walk, I'm going to have to have a
different level of care. And that's another issue. I can be empathetic
toward people on the margins of society, but it's quite a different
situation when you find yourself dependent on people who don't
understand your needs, have little education and poor training, don't
speak English well, and may steal your belongings.
Now that Yaneek is leaving to join our military, I may very soon be
back in that situation again. What is most ironic is if I had the
$400,000 annually to pay for what is considered a quality nursing home
here and if I wanted to be in such a place, I'd be cared for by
employees at the same level of education, and they wouldn't be working
for me, but for an impersonal bureaucracy. When my mother was dying of
cancer, she was in a well known Catholic hospital that serves dying
cancer patients. It had a modern clean physical plant. They had her on
medication which kept her free from pain.
But all her personal belongings were stolen. I also remember visiting
one Friday night. The rooms were all laid out in a circle, opening
onto a corridor, and in the center of the circle, there was a glass
enclosed nursing station. As we walked along the corridor, I could
hear a woman crying out, asking for help or something. She must have
been feeling frightened and alone. No one went to her. Those nurses
acted like she didn't exist. That was back in the late 80's. Oh, and
by the way, because she didn't die within a year of being admitted,
they threw her out. She died in the best nursing home I could get her
into, with a much poorer level of care, a few months later.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 7:17 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Elizabeth Warren, 1 more thing
I heard it, both during the "debate" and on Democracy Now. I have no
idea why Amy played that up. It sounded to me as if it were simply
another side step in order to avoid saying anything provocative.
Frankly, I run hot and cold. We have a bunch of brain damaged
candidates eager to be the last president of the American Empire.
The billionaires are so greed driven that they no longer understand
that they need to working class in order to continue enriching
themselves.
My current concern is wondering how long our pensions and social
security will continue. That is the source of the majority of our monthly
income.
If we continue headed down the road the way we are, it won't be long
before Cathy and I will be attempting to live on half of what we need
to stay afloat.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/11/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Democracy Now thought that Warren's response to Amy's last question
was so significant, that they have it as a separate thing on the
website and it downloaded as a separate episode. Amy asked her to
comment on the first 2 primaries being in majority white states where
candidates would have to spend a lot of time wooing voters and then
the third in a state with a large black population. Warren said, "Are
you going to ask me to comment on that?"
and then she said, "I'm just a player in the game." I suppose that
Amy thinks this is significant, Warren refusing to comment on race?
Miriam
