Carl,
I want to be gentle about this, but I can't resist pointing out that on this
list, when you talk about what you think, you do sort of sound like an old time
gospel preacher, except that what you're preaching is the Carl Jarvis version
of Karl Marx with a bit of old time religion thrown in. The Marx part is the,
"we, the working class", piece and the religion part is, "we need to repent and
change how we think and act". And each time you do it, I think about that old
him that starts, "..and when I get to heaven I'm gonna..."
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 11:02 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The White House Seems Excited to Shut Down the
Government
Hi Miriam,
Well, I must agree with you regarding those who provide you assistance. The
good Almighty did not send them along for you to proselytize.
Cathy and I never bring up politics, religion or(blush) Sex when we are working
with clients. But if our client raises something of a political nature, I have
been known to enter into discussion with them. But in such cases I do it with
the utmost respect for the beliefs of our client...even when they are way out
in Right Field.
But mostly I am curious about why people think the things they think, and
believe that which they believe. So I'm usually not challenging them, rather,
encouraging them to explain their thoughts. Very often such an approach helps
the client to think deeper than normal, on a particular topic. Can I say that
this is "planting a seed"? Well, most likely they will go right back to
listening to Fox News, and soon forget any momentary straying they may have
done during our visit.
But on the other hand...
For years, as a child growing up in a Marxist home, I remember confrontations
that had begun as family gatherings at my Grandmother Jarvis' home. She was a
good Abraham Lincoln Republican and a Bible Thumping Christian Lady. My dad
and his sister Bonny, were Marxists.
They had that Misionary Ferver. As a small boy, I loved tucking myself into a
corner and taking in the fireworks. Later, Gramdmother Jarvis had a huge
framed portrait of President Eisenhower hanging above her sofa. As Aunt Bonny
entered, she would glance at that portrait and say, "Still praying to that Bald
Eagle?" And the fireworks would begin. It was great training in what not to
do. And those meetings my folks dragged me to in the store front on Queen Ann
Hill. What a dull time for a young boy. I listened to people hammer a point
until the very point they were hammering on disappeared.
These people, like the Baptist preacher, were going to ram Karl Marx down the
throats of anyone who carelessly strayed in. The number of converts was almost
nonexistent.
And even during my early years in the National Federation of the Blind, I
behaved more like a fanatical Holy Roller, believing that we, the NFB, had all
the answers. I believe that the greatest lesson I learned as I sat at the knee
of Kenneth Jernigan, was that even if you are a brilliant debator, and even if
you could cut up your opponent and serve him/her for dinner, you could not sway
the deep beliefs of those who thoughtfully disagreed with you.
In my later years I simply attempt to help folks think for themselves.
I honestly believe that the more people who do think for themselves, the more
people will begin to wake up and join together to find solutions to the
crushing oppression that is becoming the fate of the Working Class.
Finally, back to my recent vacation. A year ago my nephew was far to the Right
in his thinking. We had some interesting conversations, as well as an email
from time to time. Was his voting for Johnson, the Libertarian, a feather in
my cap? Not at all. But it was encouraging to note that neither he nor his
wife voted for the Trumpster. On our travels we also stopped in Sedona,
Arizona, and spent a day with my former boss. When I worked for her, she was a
middle of the road Democrat. I send her lots of my favorite stuff off this
list and off the internet. She says she reads it...mostly. And she says that
she has found herself sliding to the Left of Center...and she blames Cathy and
me.
We stayed with my kid sister in Sun City, Arizona. For most of her adult life
she had avoided politics. Her husband of 42 years was an opinionated, non
thinking conservative. It was His Way or His Way.
No room for any other opinions. But my sister and I exchange many
conversations via email. Now that she's been on her own since 1996, she has
begun believing that she has a brain and opinions of her own.
Big changes? Not at all. But encouraging people to question their beliefs and
to question those beliefs of the people they idolize, that is the beginning of
a mighty movement. The question is, will we win our struggle before we become
extinct?
Carl Jarvis
On 4/23/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd say that if there are people in your family with whom you can have
that kind of calm, reasonable political discussion, that's wonderful
and it's also unusual. I'd like to believe that I imparted the same
kind of values to my children. Well, neither daughter votes
Republican, but neither questions what she sees on TV and neither is
thinking about the welfare of all Americans, let alone the welfare of
all humankind when she hears about what is going on. My daughter, the
attorney, said last week, that she didn't see why I should be worried
about government surveillance since I'm not doing anything wrong. And
yesterday, when I mentioned the March For Science, she said, "What?"
She didn't even know it was happening. And the rule at family
gatherings, her rule, is that we don't discuss anything political so
that things will remain pleasant and cheerful. The people who assist
me, the person who takes me to medical appointments, the person who
does my food shopping and errands, and the person who cleans my
apartment, are all white working class, blue collar, female Long
Islanders, and they are all right wing politically. I know that one
voted for Trump. One said she didn't like him, but she thought he had
a point about strong borders and illegal immigration, and the third
read one of Bill O'Reilly's books. So if I want to keep this very dependable
help that I have and desperately need, I'm not going to attempt making my
political change through conversations with them.
And if the socialist revolution for which you yearn, actually took
place, that is, by definition, a political revolution. Making the
changes that we'd like to see is, by definition politics. What you're
talking about is the fact that in the US, the political process has
been captured by the 1%. But, in fact, that's what nation states are
all about. They exist to protect the property of property owners and to
further the business of business owners.
When all those Europeans went exploring, it was to find new natural
resources for the companies in their countries, to exploit. If the
workers of the world unite and throw off their chains, that's also politics.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 8:12 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The White House Seems Excited to Shut
Down the Government
Bitch and complain may be one way of putting it, but Investigate and
Explain might be another way.
But first, yes, I do believe that politics is nothing but the wealthy
fighting among themselves for all they can grab away from one another.
If I ever said it was corrupt, I take it back. It's what our Ruling
class does, and what Ruling Classes as far back as I can read, do to
jockey for power positions.
We, on the outside, see what we think is corruption, and sometimes the
combatants accuse their adversaries of corruption. But it's all part
of the Game they are indulging in. While we go forward believing that
some people in high places are liars, cheaters, and corrupt, when the
smoke settles, they hug one another and dine in fine style, and yes, even
sleep together.
But it goes even further than our not understanding their Game Rules.
We have never had a Game Plan. We have allowed ourselves to be led by
our noses, misdirected into supporting the ever changing whims of the
Ruling Class. Presently we are being goaded into believing our
government is at fault because it is too big and poorly managed. It
needs to be smaller, we are told. At the same time we learn that we
need more military power. This means bigger military. And what
exactly is our military? Well, it truly is big government on
steroids. Except for the VA. We are told we need to cut the fat and
sloppiness out of the VA. The solution for everything except our military,
is to cut out the fat and make it leaner and more productive.
And many of us fall into line and nod our vacant heads up and down.
We need to shut down our TV's and put aside our Shot Jocks, and begin
thinking for ourselves.
If I, an average person, can do it, then millions of folks can do the same.
We have three children with spouses, three adult grandsons(two with
wives) and five younger grand children all living in a climate of
questioning. We have taught them to never take anything they read or
hear at face value. Question and investigate until you are satisfied
that you know what is being put before you, and until you have
satisfied yourself as to the position you hold.
Sure, it's an uphill struggle, but it's what must be done if we are
going to change the direction we are now being taken. It is as if we
are under some sort of a magic spell. And until we can kiss the ugly
frog and see it turn into a beautiful Fairy Godmother who will grant
us all of our wishes, we have only two choices. We can go along and
hope enough spills from our Master's plate, to keep us from ruin, or
we can take in a few notches in our belts and go forward educating our
children, teaching them to be proud of who they are and to rely on
their own brains to reason the events around them. Frankly, I don't
think of myself as sitting back, simply because I am no longer able to
march in a picket line, or demonstrate in front of the Quilcene City
Hall...which does not exist. Instead, I question the folks around me.
We just spent time with a nephew and his family in Merced, California.
He told me he votes Republican mostly, but could not bring himself to
vote for Trump. Instead, he voted for Johnson, the Libertarian. We
had some very direct discussions, but never became upset when one or
the other of us did not agree with the other. That was because we
were discussing why the government was behaving the way it is, and how
we might impact some of the actions that will effect our families. A
Radical and a Moderate Republican, agreeing on far more than we disagreed
upon.
It's not a glamorous way of going about making changes, but remember
the old adage, Slow but Steady Wins the Race. And if we are truly
steady, we have the numbers, too.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/23/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
I don't understand your post.
Just how do you think politics works? What is the mechanism that we,
the people, would use, to elect one of us? When has that ever
happened in a western country? And, in case you haven't noticed,
when you read about 'activists" or "organizers", you're reading about
would-be leaders who "educate" and "lead" which implies that the mass
of people don't do anything on their own. And once you've got
leaders, you need to have a culture of democracy and equality in your
society, or else you'll be back to what we have now or Stalinism.
And when you say that we don't have a dog in this fight, that it's
between the various factions of the ruling class, then you're doing
precisely what the majority of people do. You're saying that politics
is dirty and is all about money so all we can do is sit back and
watch the powers that be, fight it out. Well yes, you and I are old
and blind and we're not going to do a thing except bitch and
complain. But all those middle aged and young people, it's this
attitude that they're too busy living their lives and there's nothing
they can do about anything, which has gotten us here!
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl ;
Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 4:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The White House Seems Excited to Shut
Down the Government
While I have no crystal ball to tell me how this budget fight will be
resolved, one thing is for certain. We, the Working Class Americans,
have no dog in that fight. No, I don't mean that the outcome won't
be devastating for us, but the fight is between the various Ruling
Class Factions. The Working Class is both the donor and the victim
of the results, no matter how it plays out. Well, we've now tried
just about every crazy idea that's out there. We've voted in crooks,
generals, peanut planters and now, a shady billionaire(self
proclaimed). How about trying a member of the Working Class? I hear
there's a bunch of them out of work, and most are more tuned into
what's going on. Why don't we hold our own people to be intelligent?
Have we really bought into the slop being fed us by the Billionaires?
Carl Jarvis
On 4/23/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Under terms set forth by Mick Mulvaney, President Trump's budget
chief, the ruination of Obamacare is once again tied up with keeping
the government running. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters) The White
House Seems Excited to Shut Down the Government
By Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker
23 April 17
Next Saturday, April 29th, is President Trump’s hundredth day in
office, a historical marker used by the press to assess a new
President’s progress since the first term of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. F.D.R. was grappling with the Great Depression, and he
had a pliant Congress that would have passed almost anything he proposed.
Presidents since then have often struggled to meet the expectations
of the hundred-day report card but generally can point to a list of
major legislative accomplishments. Trump does not have such a list.
At the same time, the Trump White House is facing a much more
consequential deadline, one that will help define his first months
in office and perhaps his first term: absent a spending deal with
Democrats and Republicans in Congress, next Saturday the government
will shut down.
While the potential for a government shutdown has been overshadowed
by other events—Syria, North Korea, the attempted repeal of
Obamacare—the Trump White House is suddenly seized with the issue.
“Next week is going to have quite high drama,” a top White House
official, who sounded excited by the coming clash, told me. “It’s
going to be action-packed. This one is not getting as much
attention, but, trust me, it’s going to be the battle of the titans.
And the great irony here is that the call for the government
shutdown will come on—guess what?—the hundredth day. If you pitched
this in a studio, they would say, ‘Get out of here, it’s too
ridiculous.’ This is going to be a big one.”
The last government shutdown was in October, 2013, and was widely
blamed on conservative Republicans in the House, with a major assist
from Senator Ted Cruz, who demanded that Obamacare had to be
defunded, a ludicrous strategy given that Barack Obama was President.
Congress failed to pass the necessary legislation, and the
government closed for two weeks before Republicans came back to the
table. At the time, many predicted that the tactic would have dire
political consequences for the G.O.P., but the following year the
Party expanded its majority in the House and took over the Senate.
Republican leaders have prevented their right wing from forcing
shutdowns in the years since, but one lesson from 2013 is that the
threat of a government shutdown is a powerful way to press for
concessions without paying too high a political price.
In recent weeks, the prospect of a government shutdown seemed low.
In the House and Senate, Democratic and Republican appropriators,
who, despite ideological differences, are often united in their
desire to spend money, were making steady progress. But there was an
elephant in the room. In mid-March, the Trump Administration
released a detailed spending request that included a large increase
for the military and for immigration enforcement and massive cuts to
domestic discretionary spending. While the budget was released with
fanfare, the White House seemed to retreat from the talks, leaving
congressional Democrats and Republicans to continue their work
without much guidance from Trump.
Yesterday, that changed. Mick Mulvaney, a Republican and former
congressman who was one of the House members who agitated for the
2013 shutdown and is now Trump’s budget director, announced that
“elections have consequences.”
The consequence, it would seem, was a divisive proposal. Mulvaney
suggested that if Trump didn’t get his defense spending and border
wall—which, it should be noted, he promised would be paid for by
Mexico—then the federal payments, known as cost-sharing reduction
subsidies, or C.S.R., that pay for health insurance for millions of
Americans under Obamacare had to be cut from the spending bill. The
ruination of Obamacare is once again tied up with keeping the
government running.
The funding legislation likely can’t pass in the House without some
Democratic votes, and it certainly can’t pass without Democratic
votes in the Senate, where Republicans need eight Democrats to reach
the sixty-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster. The two sides
aren’t even close.
“There’s a big spread between the bid and the ask here,” the White
House official said, noting that Trump wanted thirty billion dollars
for defense, several billion for more ICE agents and the border
wall, as well as eighteen billion dollars in cuts to domestic
spending and the ability to withhold federal money from cities that
don’t coöperate with immigration officials.
The big priorities for Democrats are the money for those people who
need Obamacare subsidies, the protection of domestic spending, and
increases for programs for opioid addiction and health care for coal
miners, the last two being issues that Trump ostensibly campaigned on.
These shouldn’t be a big deal, Democrats say, and they have accused
the White House of throwing a grenade into negotiations in order to
wrest some sort of political victory in the first hundred days. “For
weeks, the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans have been
working well together,” a Democratic aide said.
“Then,
all of a sudden, the White House is looking at next week and they
have nothing to show for the first one hundred days, and they either
want a health-care bill to pass next week, which seems like a heavy
lift, or to get more on immigration from this process. Even
Republicans don’t want this fight, and they don’t want a shutdown on
Day One Hundred of the Trump Administration.”
The White House, which is trying to force another vote on an
Obamacare repeal, seems desperate to either win some of Trump’s
priorities in a deal next week, or force a government shutdown that
it can blame on Democrats.
That might energize Trump’s supporters, who don’t have much to
celebrate yet.
But it’s not just the Democrats who oppose several Trump priorities.
Congressional Republicans, who are generally united in support for
the increase in defense spending, are divided on the border wall,
which is not popular among border-state Republicans, and the deep
domestic-spending cuts.
So far, it does not look like a bridgeable gap. “This is going to be
high-stakes poker,” the White House official said. When I asked if a
shutdown was likely, the official paused for several seconds. “I
don’t know,” the official said. The official added, “I just want my
wall and my ICE agents.”
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
