Carl,
You are a very busy man. I, on the other hand, have nothing but time so
there's not a whole lot to distract me from what I read or hear on the web,
or the books that come tumbling into my awareness and miraculously now, that
I actually can read! So many of the reporters and commentators have become
real people to me. They keep reappearing in various places. Fifteen or more
years ago, that wouldn't have been the case.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 10:05 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: With Trump Certain to Lose, You Can Forget
About a Progressive Clinton
Miriam,
There are two major forces at work inside my head...you know, where the
brain is supposed to be. Forgetfulness is the first issue. Never good with
names, I read stuff too quickly and forget who wrote it before I have
finished reading. This is not getting better with age.
So I take back my snide
remarks about Thom Frank. I do recall reading some other stuff by him, and
now feel I need to expand my list of people I should pay attention to, and
include his name.
The second issue inside my head is Time. I tend to skim as many posts and
articles as possible, while doing other stuff...like work. And sometimes I
just have to eat Crow, for having shot from the hip without looking.
Fortunately I do not have a national audience to be making my off the cuff
remarks to. Unlike Donald Trump. I do worry at times that old Donald and I
have similar traits. We both appear to be more surface skimmers, than deep
thinkers. And we both need to learn to look before we shoot off our mouth.
On the plus side, I happen to be human.
Seriously. I understand that "they" are returning to snatch Donald up as a
failed experiment. He was supposed to be the Second Coming...just ask him.
Well, a few more quick checks on my email, and then off to help Cathy
shampoo her mother's apartment, take her to the doctor, and probably to
lunch. The next two days will be full working days, with Thursday having
only one client. Then on Friday we head for Ellensburg to daughter Jennifer
and hubby Don's home in what is looking to be the hottest weekend of the
summer. Ellensburg sits just East of Snoqualmie, pass and temperatures run
about ten to fifteen degrees hotter in the summer, and about ten or so
degrees colder in the winter. It's supposed to reach around the low 90's
here over the weekend, and well over 100 degrees East of the mountains. At
least Ellensburg has a good breeze that comes off the mountains...most of
the year.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/15/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thoms Frank is talking to all of the people who define themselves asTrump.
liberals. Perhaps if you'd read his books, you'd have understood how
sarcastic he was being in that article. His latest book, Listen
Liberal, is basically telling all of the Washington elites who define
themselves as liberal, precisely what Chris Hedges is telling them.
There's also a terrific video of a discussion between Thomas Frank and
Robert Sheer on Truthdig, in which they discuss the ssame issues.
Robert Sheer dates back to the anti war movement in the 60's when he
was the editor of Ramparts, a far left magazine. People like Thomas
Frank, Robert Sheer, Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Nick Terse, John
Pilger, Juan Cole, Stephen Zumes, the other Intercept reporters, and
more whose names I can't think of right now, are our allies and our
heroes. They are the people who say the things that most reporters and
academics have difficulty saying.
Miriam
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 12:20 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: With Trump Certain to Lose, You Can
Forget About a Progressive Clinton
The greatest moderate of all? Hillary Clinton? Hogwash!
Hillary is a Wall Street Shill wearing the skin of a Chameleon.
This is a woman who thinks she really made a big jump from campaigning
for Barry Goldwater, to kissing the golden backsides of Wall street.
Again, I say Hogwash!
And Thomas Frank had better trade in his Leftist friends for a new bunch.
Are there really Leftists who believe Clinton will honor her
concessions to Bernie's Revolution?
Well, it's all blather. I think Thomas Frank must be paid by the word.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/14/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Republican wreck."
Frank writes: "My leftist friends persuaded themselves that Clinton's
many concessions to Sanders' supporters were permanent concessions.
But with the convention over and the struggle with Sanders behind
her, headlines show Clinton triangulating to the right, scooping up
the dollars and the endorsement, and the elites shaken loose in the
great
with the Democrats'
Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
With Trump Certain to Lose, You Can Forget About a Progressive
Clinton By Thomas Frank, Guardian UK
14 August 16
Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory - not as a
champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate
of them all
And so ends the great populist uprising of our time, fizzling out
pathetically in the mud and the bigotry stirred up by a third-rate
would-be caudillo named Donald J Trump. So closes an era of populist
outrage that began back in 2008, when the Davos dream of a world run
by benevolent bankers first started to crack. The unrest has taken
many forms in these eight years - from idealistic to cynical, from
Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party - but they all failed to change
much of anything.
And now the last, ugliest, most fraudulent manifestation is failing
so spectacularly that it may discredit populism itself for years to come.
Two weeks ago, I wrote in this space about how the Trump phenomenon
had reconfigured the conventional geometry of the two-party system.
Trump was riding high in the polls at that moment, and there was
reason to believe that his criticism of trade deals - one of several
Trumpian causes long associated with the populist left - might play
havoc
happy centrist plans.
Now let us ponder the opposite scenario. In the intervening two
weeks, Trump has destroyed himself more efficiently than any
opposition campaign could ever have done. First, he heaped mounds of
insults on the family of a US soldier killed in Iraq, then prominent
journalists raised doubts about his mental state, and then (as if to
confirm his
doubters) he dropped a strong hint that gun enthusiasts might take
action against Hillary Clinton should she appoint supreme court
justices not to his liking.
His chances, as measured in the polls, went almost overnight from
fairly decent to utter crap. For much of this year, populism had the
gilded class really worried. There was Bernie Sanders and the
unthinkable threat of a socialist president. There was the terrifying
Brexit vote. Just a short while ago the American national newspapers
were running page-one stories telling readers it was time to take
seriously Trump's followers, if not Trump himself. And on 3 August,
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman actually typed the following:
"It scares me that people are so fed up with elites, so hate and
mistrust [Hillary] Clinton and are so worried about the future -
jobs, globalization and terrorism" that they might actually vote for
comfortable.Yes, it scared Friedman that the American people didn't like their
masters any longer. As it has no doubt scared many of his rich
friends to learn over the past few years that the people formerly
known as middle class are angry about losing their standard of living
to the same forces that are making those rich people ever more
neoliberalism.Well, Friedman need be frightened no longer. Today it looks as though
his elites are taking matters well in hand. "Jobs" don't really
matter now in this election, nor does the debacle of "globalization",
nor does anything else, really. Thanks to this imbecile Trump, all
such issues have been momentarily swept off the table while Americans
come together around Clinton, the wife of the man who envisaged the
Davos dream in the first place.
As leading Republicans desert the sinking ship of Trump's GOP,
America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party
system. And within that one party, the political process bears a
striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Party office-holders
selected Clinton as their candidate long ago, apparently determined
to elevate her despite every possible objection, every potential
legal problem. The Democratic National Committee helped out, too, as
WikiLeaks tells us. So did President Barack Obama, that former
paladin for openness, who in the past several years did nearly
everything in his power to suppress challenges to Clinton and thus
ensure she would continue his legacy of tepid, bank-friendly
Trump.My leftist friends persuaded themselves that this stuff didn't reallycome.
matter, that Clinton's many concessions to Sanders' supporters were
permanent concessions. But with the convention over and the struggle
with Sanders behind her, headlines show Clinton triangulating to the
right, scooping up the dollars and the endorsement, and the elites
shaken loose in the great Republican wreck.
She is reaching out to the foreign policy establishment and the neocons.
She
is reaching out to Republican office-holders. She is reaching out to
Silicon Valley. And, of course, she is reaching out to Wall Street.
In her big speech in Michigan on Thursday she cast herself as the
candidate who could bring bickering groups together and win policy
victories through really comprehensive convenings.
Things will change between now and November, of course. But what
seems most plausible from the current standpoint is a landslide for
Clinton, and with it the triumph of complacent neoliberal orthodoxy.
She will have won her great victory, not as a champion of working
people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all, as the
leader of a stately campaign of sanity and national unity. The
populist challenge of the past eight years, whether led by Trump or
by Sanders, will have been beaten back resoundingly.
Centrism will reign triumphant over the Democratic party for years to
This will be her great accomplishment. The bells will ring all overwith the Democrats'
Washington DC.
In this ironic and roundabout way, Trump may prove to be a disaster
for the reform politics he has never really believed in. Indeed, it
would be difficult to find a leader who could discredit populism more
thoroughly than this compassion-free billionaire. For Friedman's
beloved "elites", I predict that Trump will come to serve an
important symbolic purpose. Trump loves to boast that he is immune to
the scourge of money in politics, that he's nobody's puppet, and from
his coming ruin and disgrace we will no doubt be told to draw many
lessons about how money in politics actually helps prevent the rise
of people like Trump and makes the system more stable.
For decades, the Davos set have told us that doubt about "globalization"
was
a species of racism, and soon Trump, as a landslide loser, will
confirm this for them in overwhelming terms.
My friends and I like to wonder about who will be the "next Bernie
Sanders", but what I am suggesting here is that whoever emerges to
lead the populist left will simply be depicted as the next Trump. The
billionaire's scowling country-club face will become the image of
populist reform, whether genuine populists had anything to do with
him or not. This is the real potential disaster of 2016: That
legitimate economic discontent is going to be dismissed as bigotry
and xenophobia for years to come.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-e
l
ection
-chances-moderate-policies-economyhttps://www.theguardian.com/comment
i
sfree/
2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-election-chances-moderate-policies-economy
With Trump Certain to Lose, You Can Forget About a Progressive
Clinton By Thomas Frank, Guardian UK
14 August 16
Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory - not as a
champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate
of them all nd so ends the great populist uprising of our time,
fizzling out pathetically in the mud and the bigotry stirred up by a
third-rate would-be caudillo named Donald J Trump. So closes an era
of populist outrage that began back in 2008, when the Davos dream of
a world run by benevolent bankers first started to crack. The unrest
has taken many forms in these eight years - from idealistic to
cynical, from Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party - but they all
failed to change much of anything.
And now the last, ugliest, most fraudulent manifestation is failing
so spectacularly that it may discredit populism itself for years to come.
Two weeks ago, I wrote in this space about how the Trump phenomenon
had reconfigured the conventional geometry of the two-party system.
Trump was riding high in the polls at that moment, and there was
reason to believe that his criticism of trade deals - one of several
Trumpian causes long associated with the populist left - might play
havoc
happy centrist plans.
Now let us ponder the opposite scenario. In the intervening two
weeks, Trump has destroyed himself more efficiently than any
opposition campaign could ever have done. First, he heaped mounds of
insults on the family of a US soldier killed in Iraq, then prominent
journalists raised doubts about his mental state, and then (as if to
confirm his
doubters) he dropped a strong hint that gun enthusiasts might take
action against Hillary Clinton should she appoint supreme court
justices not to his liking.
His chances, as measured in the polls, went almost overnight from
fairly decent to utter crap. For much of this year, populism had the
gilded class really worried. There was Bernie Sanders and the
unthinkable threat of a socialist president. There was the terrifying
Brexit vote. Just a short while ago the American national newspapers
were running page-one stories telling readers it was time to take
seriously Trump's followers, if not Trump himself. And on 3 August,
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman actually typed the following:
"It scares me that people are so fed up with elites, so hate and
mistrust [Hillary] Clinton and are so worried about the future -
jobs, globalization and terrorism" that they might actually vote for
comfortable.Yes, it scared Friedman that the American people didn't like their
masters any longer. As it has no doubt scared many of his rich
friends to learn over the past few years that the people formerly
known as middle class are angry about losing their standard of living
to the same forces that are making those rich people ever more
neoliberalism.Well, Friedman need be frightened no longer. Today it looks as though
his elites are taking matters well in hand. "Jobs" don't really
matter now in this election, nor does the debacle of "globalization",
nor does anything else, really. Thanks to this imbecile Trump, all
such issues have been momentarily swept off the table while Americans
come together around Clinton, the wife of the man who envisaged the
Davos dream in the first place.
As leading Republicans desert the sinking ship of Trump's GOP,
America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party
system. And within that one party, the political process bears a
striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Party office-holders
selected Clinton as their candidate long ago, apparently determined
to elevate her despite every possible objection, every potential
legal problem. The Democratic National Committee helped out, too, as
WikiLeaks tells us. So did President Barack Obama, that former
paladin for openness, who in the past several years did nearly
everything in his power to suppress challenges to Clinton and thus
ensure she would continue his legacy of tepid, bank-friendly
My leftist friends persuaded themselves that this stuff didn't reallycome.
matter, that Clinton's many concessions to Sanders' supporters were
permanent concessions. But with the convention over and the struggle
with Sanders behind her, headlines show Clinton triangulating to the
right, scooping up the dollars and the endorsement, and the elites
shaken loose in the great Republican wreck.
She is reaching out to the foreign policy establishment and the neocons.
She
is reaching out to Republican office-holders. She is reaching out to
Silicon Valley. And, of course, she is reaching out to Wall Street.
In her big speech in Michigan on Thursday she cast herself as the
candidate who could bring bickering groups together and win policy
victories through really comprehensive convenings.
Things will change between now and November, of course. But what
seems most plausible from the current standpoint is a landslide for
Clinton, and with it the triumph of complacent neoliberal orthodoxy.
She will have won her great victory, not as a champion of working
people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all, as the
leader of a stately campaign of sanity and national unity. The
populist challenge of the past eight years, whether led by Trump or
by Sanders, will have been beaten back resoundingly.
Centrism will reign triumphant over the Democratic party for years to
This will be her great accomplishment. The bells will ring all over
Washington DC.
In this ironic and roundabout way, Trump may prove to be a disaster
for the reform politics he has never really believed in. Indeed, it
would be difficult to find a leader who could discredit populism more
thoroughly than this compassion-free billionaire. For Friedman's
beloved "elites", I predict that Trump will come to serve an
important symbolic purpose. Trump loves to boast that he is immune to
the scourge of money in politics, that he's nobody's puppet, and from
his coming ruin and disgrace we will no doubt be told to draw many
lessons about how money in politics actually helps prevent the rise
of people like Trump and makes the system more stable.
For decades, the Davos set have told us that doubt about "globalization"
was
a species of racism, and soon Trump, as a landslide loser, will
confirm this for them in overwhelming terms.
My friends and I like to wonder about who will be the "next Bernie
Sanders", but what I am suggesting here is that whoever emerges to
lead the populist left will simply be depicted as the next Trump. The
billionaire's scowling country-club face will become the image of
populist reform, whether genuine populists had anything to do with
him or not. This is the real potential disaster of 2016: That
legitimate economic discontent is going to be dismissed as bigotry
and xenophobia for years to come.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
