The story seems to be getting a lot of press on TV, but if there are ongoing OPs about it, I seem to be missing them (or having some sort of brain blank episode and not remembering having read them.) I think I saw one or two early on, then it seems to have disappeared.

I realize there are new police killings of black men what seems to be every single day, but off DU the story seems to be getting a lot more coverage.

(This is the guy who was chased down and arrested because he 'made eye contact with police' then turned and ran away. Thankfully, somebody cameraphoned them, and you can hear him screaming in pain after they take him down to the pavement to 'secure' him. They drag him to a police van and ignore his pleas for medical attention for 40+ minutes, a week later he's dead, and they say his spine was something like 80% severed.)

Now obviously he wasn't running with an 80% severed spine, and he was in police custody from that point on until his death. Something happened between the time they 'took him down' and he started screaming in agony and that 40 minutes later when he finally got medical attention. Now the media seems to keep talking about his time in the van, the fact that no seatbelt was put on him, etc, but if I were a betting man, my money would be on it happening just before he started screaming in pain. Which would mean that however his spine was almost completely severed, it was a direct result of what police did to him, and not simply to some sort of negligence in 'securing him' with a seatbelt in the van.

My guess is that the police, knowing they can't simply blow this one off entirely, are angling to have it passed off as simply some sort of 'accident' from him not being seatbelted in the van. They don't want to admit that something they did while 'subduing' him directly led to his death, just as in the Eric Garner case. That he was killed BY a policeman, and not simply 'had an accident' while in custody.

First, before I forget again, I saw a comment saying HRC was actually not a NAFTA booster, but lost track of it before responding. So here's a link and a comment from same, courtesy of Barack Obama.

Clinton on NAFTA

(This was a comment made during the 2008 primary.)

Second, another link, this one on Clinton and the TPP.

A Timeline of Hillary Clinton's Evolution on Trade



Several times this morning, I've heard MSNBC talking head types say Clinton is 'distancing herself from the TPP'.

Yet we see a history here. When not campaigning, Clinton is firmly pro-free trade, and her proclaimed reasons for being such are virtually identical from deal to deal. But when problems arise with the deals she supports, suddenly there is an effort to proclaim that the problems were other people's fault. With NAFTA (see the timeline article) when it becomes obvious that NAFTA sucked rocks for America, she switched from playing it up to blaming it on the prior administration, and ignoring her prior comments in favour of it at Davos or even in her own books.

So now that it looks like many Democratic voters remember what happened with NAFTA and don't want 'NAFTA on steroids', here we go again, with politically expedient comments to distance herself from a deal she previously lauded as a 'gold standard' before she was campaigning.

So what's the truth? Does she want TPP or not? Does she now have legitimate concerns about it, or is she only worried about losing votes in 2016, and will be happy to support it again as soon as she is safely in the Oval Office?

Miller pretending the war criminals of the Bush regime simply 'got it wrong', saying 'no evidence that they lied'.

Historic revisionism on a monumental level, and the morning joke crew are lapping it up, and sympathizing with her whining about being a scapegoat and not a cheerleader for war.

I happened to be over at my parents' house this morning, and the TV was on in the background as I was helping my father with some things. At one point there was a lull in our conversation, and I started hearing what was being said on the TV, rather than it just being background noise. As it happens, it was a western, probably made in the 70s or so, and at that point in time the 'school marm' was teaching an evening class on reading to adults of the community. One student had just read 'The duck swims on the lake.' off the chalk board, when a younger looking, well dressed man, perhaps in his 30s, then said 'The duck may swim on the lake, but my Father owns the lake.' The teacher, irritated, dismissed the class for the night, but the rich scion type came up and tried to get her to 'go on a picnic' with him. When she said no, he pulled the entitled 'Nobody says no to a 'whatever my name is' man' line out.

This rattled around my head for a while, then collided with something said about politics on MSNBC later in the day and got me thinking about money in politics. Now obviously, we all know the reason rich folks love to say that money is speech is that they have more money, and can use it to speak loudest to politicians, and make sure politicians work for them more than for the rest of us. But going back to the scene in the Western, it suddenly gelled for me just why Republicans always want to privatize everything, why they hate taxes, and why they love to talk about charity.

Control. Sure, they want to make money off privatization. And they hate to have even a smidgeon of their 'hard earned' money taken away. But beyond that, on a deeper level, taxes are an abstraction that prevents them from using their money to directly control those around them. Poverty is an economic club over a poor person's head, held in the hands of the wealthy, that says 'Do as I say, or die of starvation or exposure or disease.' When public services are provided to the rest of us non-wealthy through taxation, the wealthy don't get to hold that club, even though 'their money' is backing much of those services.

When services are privatized, the poor have to take out loans or subsist on charity. Both of which leave them directly vulnerable to that economic club over their head. When the rich banker's son wants to make demands, 'No one can say no' without directly endangering themselves by risking his anger. Maybe he holds the lease to your house, or has loans out to the company where you work.

Every time a right winger works to remove another layer of the social safety net, to tear holes in it and leave the poor or middle class less secure, it's to make them more vulnerable to economic blackmail. It's a way to impose sanctions on the 99% to try to gain even more direct control over what we can and can not do by controlling our economics. To tear down the barriers of government by the people, for the people that loosen the control the haves have over the have nots.

Sure they want your money. But they want power over your lives even more. The Kochs have more money than they can spend, can continue to make ever more money. But that's not enough. They want to be able to hold their giant economic club over the heads of every other American, in an America where we're all truly on our own, without a government that can feed us when we're hungry, give us medical care when we're sick. They want us back at the 'company store', dependent upon them for everything, and able to be controlled and be born as they believe we should be born, live as they believe we should live, die as they believe we should die.

They don't want us to be 'independent'. They just want to make sure we're dependent upon them, not 'the government'.