We never ate at either the little, local restaurants of yesteryear or at the
big, fast food ones of later years. We always brought food and unpacked the
picnic basket at picnic tables along the road and ate food brought from home...
On Aug 12, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ah yes, your memories on the East Coast are the same as mine, out in
the Wild West. I loved looking down the bumpy old two lane roads that
wound through the mountains and took us into Main Street of so many
charming small towns. Each town had its own special charm. Little
shops and hotels that existed nowhere else. Sure, it took us all day
to travel from Seattle to Spokane. We would hit the road by
six...seven at the very latest, stopping along the way to break out
the over loaded picnic basket and lunch alongside a mountain stream
just off the highway, and arrive at Grandma's around five or six in
the evening. Today we have made the same trip in under four hours.
Well, I say the same trip, but it really isn't. It's a rather boring
race down a highway that is never smaller than four lanes, often
growing to eight. Straight past those sleepy little villages, or
worse yet, dividing small towns in half. Rushing past, we see signs
that point to "rest stops" and "Food and Lodging" It's always the
same chains, both the eateries and motels. My memory is that Ike did
not decide that the average American needed to get from point A to
point B, faster. He promoted the "super" highway expansion so in
event of an attack, we could move our military hardware and troops
quickly.
But whatever the reason, the Super Freeways changed everything.
People were lured to the "suburbs"at the edge of town with the promise
that they could enjoy the beauty and quiet of the country, while being
only minutes away from the office. And this opened even more remote
communities, clusters of family homes on once fertile farmland.
Bigger, faster and more expensive automobiles. Strip malls. Fast
food for the fast pace of our Mobil generation. So many downsides to
those new straight roads. I remember the Everett police, a town about
30 miles North of Seattle, complaining about the gangs of teenagers
who would drive from Seattle and cause havoc in Everett, escaping out
of town before they could be apprehended.
Meanwhile, our great railroad system fell further and further into disrepair.
So much changed, all because of our new belief that we just had to get
to Grandma's in four hours instead of a leisurely ten.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I remember my parents' negative response to the highly praised new highway
system. In the 1940's and 1950's, we used to take lovely meandering
vacation
trips to Canada to visit my father's family. We traveled up through New
York
State to get there and back home through New England with many side trips.
Some of the best parts of those trips was exploring new places, small
towns,
little out-of-the-way restaurants or overnight cabins and bed and
breakfasts. The new highway system changed all of that. They made travel
boring and predictable. Eating was at chain restaurants and rest stops.
Overnight stops were at chain motels. It was the beginning of the
Walmartization of America.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's
Impeachment
as Undemocratic, Calls for New Elections
In many ways Eisenhower would rate a "C" on his Presidential Report Card.
And in truth, although he graduated at the top of his class at West Point,
he was a general of modest talents, just lucky enough to be a general in
what was fast becoming a world power. But Ike had something about him that
the average man in the street liked. He had a stern but kindly face. A
grandfather figure who inspired trust. It makes me grin to think that Ike
is remembered best for his warning, as he left eight years of presiding
over
our nation. He came through some ugly days appearing unflappable. I
remember clearly seeing Ike on TV, sitting behind his desk, reading a long
statement. When he was finished reading, he would remove his reading
glasses and look directly into my eyes and talk to me as if I were sitting
with my dad.
Below are some interesting accomplishments and failures while Ike was
president.
Carl Jarvis
*****
IKE'S TOP
5
PRESIDENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
(arguably)
5. He Sponsored and Signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1957.
This was the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. Much to
Eisenhower's dismay, Congress amended the bill and critically weakened its
effectiveness.
4. He Sponsored and Signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.
This gave birth to America's interstate highway system. Eisenhower worked
hard to get the bill passed and it was his favorite piece of legislation.
3. He Balanced the Budget, Not Just Once, But Three Times.
Despite much pressure to do otherwise, he also refused to cut taxes and
raise defense spending. His fiscal policy contributed to the prosperity of
the 1950's.
2. He Ended the Korean War.
He alone had the prestige to persuade Americans to accept a negotiated
peace
and convince the Chinese that failure to reach an agreement would lead to
dire consequences. Eisenhower considered this to be his greatest
presidential accomplishment.
AND EISENHOWER'S NO.1 ACCOMPLISHMENT AS PRESIDENT:
1. He Kept America at Peace.
Eisenhower was confronted with major Cold War crises every year he was in
office: Korea, Vietnam, Formosa, Suez, Hungary, Berlin, and the U-2. While
more than once America seemed on the brink of war and those around him
clamored to drop the Bomb, Eisenhower always kept a level head. He dealt
calmly and rationally with each situation, always finding a solution that
avoided war without diminishing America's prestige.
President Eisenhower's Top 5 Failures
IKE'S TOP
5
PRESIDENTIAL FAILURES
(debatedly)
5. He Failed to Improve the Plight of the American Farmer.
The goal of his farm policy was to get government out of agriculture and
strengthen the family farmer. He failed at both.
4. He Failed to Moderate the Republican Party.
This was a personal goal of Eisenhower's. He wanted to reenergize and
modernize the Republican Party, making it less conservative and more
acceptable to mainstream America. His failure became evident when
Republicans nominated the conservative Barry Goldwater as their
presidential
candidate in 1964.
3. He Failed to Provide Leadership in Civil Rights.
One could argue this, and many do. It’s fair to say Eisenhower was not
considered a champion of civil rights at the beginning of his first term.
His response to the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown decision to abolish
segregation in public schools was less than enthusiastic and he failed at
first to speak out against racial violence in the South. But he went on to
desegregate Washington DC, send the Army into Little Rock to desegregate
Central High School, and sign the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Perhaps most
importantly, he appointed liberal judges to the southern federal courts who
would be instrumental in upholding the civil rights legislation of the 60s.
Although he certainly failed at times to demonstrate leadership on civil
rights issues, he grew more supportive of civil rights as his presidency
progressed.
2. He Failed to Denounce Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Had he publicly condemned McCarthy and his investigations, there would have
been much less damage inflicted on innocent lives and the country's morale.
But Eisenhower believed that to personally confront McCarthy would demean
the Presidency and give McCarthy exactly what he craved: more publicity.
AND EISENHOWER'S NO.1 FAILURE AS PRESIDENT:
1. He Failed to Defuse the Cold War.
He certainly tried. And he seemed to be on the verge of success when the
Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, visited the U.S.
in 1959 and agreed
to a Paris Peace Conference for the following spring. But then the Soviets
shot down the U-2 spy plane, Khrushchev scuttled the peace conference, and
all hope of deflating the Cold War ended. When Eisenhower left office, the
Cold War was even more threatening than when he embarked upon the
presidency
eight years before.
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Everyone praises Eisenhower for that speech. But he was involved inneed to compromise.
deposing a democratic leader of Iran, and of one in Guatemala. He got
us involved in Vietnam. I can't even remember all the stuff he did.
But then, when he was retiring from the Presidency, he saw fit to warn
us? Wasn't it a bit late since he'd contributed mightily to the
military industrial complex about which he chose to warn us?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:20 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's
Impeachment as Undemocratic, Calls for New Elections
What is that deafening sound coming from Washington D.C.? Oh, it's
the loud sound of silence. Is Bernie Sanders the first US Senator to
publicly declare the coup in Brazil to be exactly that, a coup?
Of course it might have carried more weight if Bernie had sounded the
alarm when the coup occurred. But that was not going to get any
Brownie Points for Bernie, who is, after all, still part of the
Establishment. Bernie found that if he were to have any exposure he
would
Hisineffectual after glow.
big compromise was to stay out of the nation's horrific foreign affairs.
Too bad, he might have come out in better shape if he's been as
critical of our world messes as he was about those within our borders.
But Bernie was just about as culpable as any other US Senator,
including the former Senator Hillary Clinton.
Speaking out is good. But speaking out when it might do some good is
even better. And, like that profound warning by outgoing president
Eisenhower, calling on us to watch out for the Industrial/Military
Complex, Bernie's declaration of a coup in Brazil comes as a weak,
But don't blame old Bernie, or Ike, or even Barak Obama, the masterls-impeachment-as-undemocratic-calls-for-new-elections/https://theintercept.
compromiser. They are/were all rendered impotent by the Ruling Class.
How many great causes have faded from view through compromising their
basic values?
Although it will make not one speck of difference, this is why I
refuse to "unite" with the Democratic Party and vote for Hillary
Clinton. Promises aside, she is totally owned by the Ruling Class.
And so is Donald Trump. He just hasn't figured it out yet. Claiming
to be a Billionaire, he thinks he is "one of the elite". But Donald
Trump will roll over, even if he is kicking and screaming, and do the
bidding of his Masters. It is not a case of the lesser of two Evils.
It is a question of, is there anyone out there who can lead us, the
working class?
Sadly, the horizon appears empty. No Knight in shining armor, no
bugles announcing the arrival of the Cavalry, no crash of thunder and
a voice crying out in the wilderness. We are on our own. Either we
learn to look out for one another or we will be picked off, one at a
time. We must become our own Savior if we are to take our place in
the Sun.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
president.
Greenwald writes: "Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced
in harsh terms the impeachment of Brazil's democratically elected
Asoffice.'"
the Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later this month,
Sanders described his position, set forth in a statement posted on
his Senate site, as 'calling on the United States to take a
definitive stand against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma
Rousseff from
present).
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Karen Bleier/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment as Undemocratic, Calls
for New Elections By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
09 August 16
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced in harsh terms
the impeachment of Brazil’s democratically elected president. As the
Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later this month, Sanders
described his position, set forth in a statement posted on his Senate
site, as “calling on the United States to take a definitive stand
against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff from
office.” He added: “To many Brazilians and observers the
controversial impeachment process more closely resembles a coup d’état.”
Sanders also condemned the unelected center-right coalition under
Michel Temer that has seized power during Rousseff’s suspension and
is now trying to install themselves through 2018. “After suspending
Brazil’s first female president on dubious grounds, without a mandate
to govern,” he said, ” the new interim government abolished the
ministry of women, racial equality and human rights” and “replaced a
diverse and representative administration with a cabinet made up
entirely of white men.” They are now attempting to implement radical
policies that could never be democratically ratified:
“impose austerity, increase privatization and install a far
right-wing social agenda.”
Sanders’ statement comes as Brazil’s elites – virtually unified in
favor of Dilma’s impeachment – have taken extraordinary (and almost
comically
futile)
measures during the Olympics to hide from the domestic public, and
the world, how deeply unpopular Temer is. Brazil’s largest newspaper,
Folha de São Paulo, last month was caught manufacturing polling data
when it claimed that 50% of Brazilians want him to stay (in fact,
their own poll showed a large majority (62%) want Temer out and new
elections held and the paper’s Ombudsman harshly criticized them).
Brazilian media spent months hyping the prospect of Temer’s election
in 2018 without mentioning the rather significant fact that he’s been
banned by a court for running for 8 years because he violated
election law (they were forced to mention that last week when the São
Paulo prosecutor called attention to this fact in the wake of a new
media movement to have Temer run).
Temer himself, fearful of intense booing, demanded that protocol be
broken by not announcing his presence at the opening ceremony of the
Olympics (he was intensely booed anyway when Brazilians realized he
was
Peaceful ticket-holders have been systematically and at timesTemer!”
forcibly removed by Brazilian soldiers from Olympic events for
holding “Fora
(Temer Out) signs, creating international controversy; watching thenewsmagazine.”
military use force to silence citizens criticizing an unelected
“president” is a jarring image in a country that suffered under a
21-year military dictatorship that only ended in 1985 (a judge last
night ruled such removals violate the Constitutional guarantee of
free expression).
Sanders’ denunciation of Temer could not come at a worse time for the
would-be unelected President. Executives from the construction giant
at the heart of the Petrobras scandal, Odebrecht, told investigators
this week that Temer’s Foreign Minister, José Serra, received R$ 23
million (US$ 5.5
million) in illegal funds for his 2010 presidential campaign. In just
two months in office, three of Temer’s ministers have been forced to
resign due to corruption scandals. Even worse, as The New York Times
noted yesterday, Odebrecht executives also “told investigators that
Mr. Temer [himself] had requested more than $3 million for his
centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. As part of a plea deal
they are seeking, the Odebrecht executives said the payment had been
made in cash through a unit used to deliver bribes, according to
Veja, a
It’s a bit difficult to justify the removal of democratically elected
President by citing corruption, when far more serious corruption
scandals are engulfing the person eager to replace her along with his
closest associates. But that has been the sham at the heart of this
anti-democratic process from the start. As Slate‘s Franklin Foer put
it in a long article on Brazil yesterday: “Dilma’s impeachment was a
farce, if only for the fact that her accusers have benefited from
graft on a mind-bending scale and ginned up the spectacle to distract
from their own misdeeds.”
Sanders’ denunciation of the attack on Brazilian democracy is part of
a growing international recognition of the illegitimacy of Temer’s
rule. Just two weeks ago, “40 Democratic members of the U.S. House of
Representatives published a letter … expressing ‘deep concern’ about
threats to democracy in Brazil.” Similar denunciations of Dilma’s
impeachment have been issued by British MPs and labor leaders, the
Organization of American States, dozens of members of the EU
Parliament, and Brazil’s first Pulitzer Prize winner.
So dubious is Temer’s standing that, as AP reported last month, many
world leaders are avoiding the Rio Olympics so as to avoid the
quandary of whether to shake his hand.
One question that arises from Sanders’ statement is timing: why,
after months of silence on Brazil’s political crisis, did he finally
speak out now? One of the significant flaws of his candidacy was that
he rarely addressed foreign policy at all, notwithstanding the fact
that his primary opponent is a war advocate and militarist who (even
long before Trump’s
emergence) was attracting neoconservative support. He was a candidate
steadfastly on message. Requests had been made for Sanders by his
supporters to speak out on Brazil during the primary race, but those
requests were rejected or ignored.
When Sanders did speak on foreign policy, it was to offer the mildest
critiques, while endorsing many of the fundamentals of the bipartisan
War on Terror. There were noble exceptions – some of his statements
on Israel and Palestine were among the best from any major party
candidate in decades, and his refusal to repudiate some of his more
controversial 1980s positions when confronted with red-baiting was
impressive – but by and large, Sanders avoided any foreign policy
views that could be castigated as left-wing or out of the mainstream.
Now that his presidential campaign is over, he is free to speak out
in ways that would not necessarily be politically beneficial in the
eyes of the Democratic Party voter base. Some of his most prominent
supporters have been steadfast in their opposition to Dilma’s
impeachment. Whatever the explanations on timing, Sanders’ statement
is strong and unequivocal.
Perhaps most significant is his call for the U.S. Government to
“demand that this dispute be settled with democratic elections” – the
solution which a large majority of Brazilians also support as the
resolution to their political crisis, but which the country’s
anti-democratic elites, fearful of who would be elected, vehemently
oppose.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Karen Bleier/Getty Images)
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/as-temer-weakens-sanders-denounce
s
-brazi
com/2016/08/09/as-temer-weakens-sanders-denounces-brazils-impeachmentpresent).
-
as-und
emocratic-calls-for-new-elections/
Bernie Sanders Denounces Brazil's Impeachment as Undemocratic, Calls
for New Elections By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
09 August 16
ermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday denounced in harsh terms the
impeachment of Brazil’s democratically elected president. As the
Brazilian Senate heads toward a final vote later this month, Sanders
described his position, set forth in a statement posted on his Senate
site, as “calling on the United States to take a definitive stand
against efforts to remove Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff from
office.” He added: “To many Brazilians and observers the
controversial impeachment process more closely resembles a coup d’état.”
Sanders also condemned the unelected center-right coalition under
Michel Temer that has seized power during Rousseff’s suspension and
is now trying to install themselves through 2018. “After suspending
Brazil’s first female president on dubious grounds, without a mandate
to govern,” he said, ” the new interim government abolished the
ministry of women, racial equality and human rights” and “replaced a
diverse and representative administration with a cabinet made up
entirely of white men.” They are now attempting to implement radical
policies that could never be democratically ratified:
“impose austerity, increase privatization and install a far
right-wing social agenda.”
Sanders’ statement comes as Brazil’s elites – virtually unified in
favor of Dilma’s impeachment – have taken extraordinary (and almost
comically
futile)
measures during the Olympics to hide from the domestic public, and
the world, how deeply unpopular Temer is. Brazil’s largest newspaper,
Folha de São Paulo, last month was caught manufacturing polling data
when it claimed that 50% of Brazilians want him to stay (in fact,
their own poll showed a large majority (62%) want Temer out and new
elections held and the paper’s Ombudsman harshly criticized them).
Brazilian media spent months hyping the prospect of Temer’s election
in 2018 without mentioning the rather significant fact that he’s been
banned by a court for running for 8 years because he violated
election law (they were forced to mention that last week when the São
Paulo prosecutor called attention to this fact in the wake of a new
media movement to have Temer run).
Temer himself, fearful of intense booing, demanded that protocol be
broken by not announcing his presence at the opening ceremony of the
Olympics (he was intensely booed anyway when Brazilians realized he
was
Peaceful ticket-holders have been systematically and at timesTemer!”
forcibly removed by Brazilian soldiers from Olympic events for
holding “Fora
(Temer Out) signs, creating international controversy; watching thenewsmagazine.”
military use force to silence citizens criticizing an unelected
“president” is a jarring image in a country that suffered under a
21-year military dictatorship that only ended in 1985 (a judge last
night ruled such removals violate the Constitutional guarantee of
free expression).
Sanders’ denunciation of Temer could not come at a worse time for the
would-be unelected President. Executives from the construction giant
at the heart of the Petrobras scandal, Odebrecht, told investigators
this week that Temer’s Foreign Minister, José Serra, received R$ 23
million (US$ 5.5
million) in illegal funds for his 2010 presidential campaign. In just
two months in office, three of Temer’s ministers have been forced to
resign due to corruption scandals. Even worse, as The New York Times
noted yesterday, Odebrecht executives also “told investigators that
Mr. Temer [himself] had requested more than $3 million for his
centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. As part of a plea deal
they are seeking, the Odebrecht executives said the payment had been
made in cash through a unit used to deliver bribes, according to
Veja, a
It’s a bit difficult to justify the removal of democratically elected
President by citing corruption, when far more serious corruption
scandals are engulfing the person eager to replace her along with his
closest associates. But that has been the sham at the heart of this
anti-democratic process from the start. As Slate‘s Franklin Foer put
it in a long article on Brazil yesterday: “Dilma’s impeachment was a
farce, if only for the fact that her accusers have benefited from
graft on a mind-bending scale and ginned up the spectacle to distract
from their own misdeeds.”
Sanders’ denunciation of the attack on Brazilian democracy is part of
a growing international recognition of the illegitimacy of Temer’s
rule. Just two weeks ago, “40 Democratic members of the U.S. House of
Representatives published a letter … expressing ‘deep concern’ about
threats to democracy in Brazil.” Similar denunciations of Dilma’s
impeachment have been issued by British MPs and labor leaders, the
Organization of American States, dozens of members of the EU
Parliament, and Brazil’s first Pulitzer Prize winner.
So dubious is Temer’s standing that, as AP reported last month, many
world leaders are avoiding the Rio Olympics so as to avoid the
quandary of whether to shake his hand.
One question that arises from Sanders’ statement is timing: why,
after months of silence on Brazil’s political crisis, did he finally
speak out now? One of the significant flaws of his candidacy was that
he rarely addressed foreign policy at all, notwithstanding the fact
that his primary opponent is a war advocate and militarist who (even
long before Trump’s
emergence) was attracting neoconservative support. He was a candidate
steadfastly on message. Requests had been made for Sanders by his
supporters to speak out on Brazil during the primary race, but those
requests were rejected or ignored.
When Sanders did speak on foreign policy, it was to offer the mildest
critiques, while endorsing many of the fundamentals of the bipartisan
War on Terror. There were noble exceptions – some of his statements
on Israel and Palestine were among the best from any major party
candidate in decades, and his refusal to repudiate some of his more
controversial 1980s positions when confronted with red-baiting was
impressive – but by and large, Sanders avoided any foreign policy
views that could be castigated as left-wing or out of the mainstream.
Now that his presidential campaign is over, he is free to speak out
in ways that would not necessarily be politically beneficial in the
eyes of the Democratic Party voter base. Some of his most prominent
supporters have been steadfast in their opposition to Dilma’s
impeachment. Whatever the explanations on timing, Sanders’ statement
is strong and unequivocal.
Perhaps most significant is his call for the U.S. Government to
“demand that this dispute be settled with democratic elections” – the
solution which a large majority of Brazilians also support as the
resolution to their political crisis, but which the country’s
anti-democratic elites, fearful of who would be elected, vehemently
oppose.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
