HassleCat
HassleCat's JournalI'm going to be blocked
Sooner or later. I just know it. I got blocked from the Clinton group yesterday, and it's probably just a matter of time until I get blocked from the Sanders group, too. Here's how it happened, and why it will happen here, too.
Even though I'm a Sanders supporter, I sometimes drop in and post something in the Clinton group. I try to be nice, complementing Clinton when she does something good, like speaking up for unions the other day. I knew it couldn't last, and it didn't. One of the Clinton supporters took that chart showing Clinton getting big money from financial institutions and explained how it was all a lie. I won't go into the details, but it was total crap, a spin doctor effort worthy of Karl Rove. I couldn't restrain myself. I made a sarcastic comment, and they banned me. Which is fair, since I'm a Sanders supporter, not a Clinton supporter. They don't need me in their comfy little echo chamber.
The problem with the candidate groups, particularly during the primary season, is they have ceased to be groups, and become fortresses. The combatants who are afraid to venture onto the field of General Discussion can stay inside the fort and hurl flaming tar balls at the other fort. The post appears as it would in General Discussion, but nobody can criticize it. I think this is cowardly and dishonest. If you have something to say about the other candidate, say it in GD and let everyone comment on it. If I post here, in the Sanders group, saying Clinton does quid pro quo with the big banks, I will get mostly agreement. If I post the same thing in GD, the responses will be quite different. But I would make such a post in GD, because everyone deserves an opportunity to let me know how they feel about my post, and there is a chance someone will make an intelligent defense. A small chance, a small and rapidly diminishing chance, but still...
Anyway, it's going to happen to me here, just as it did over there. Someone is going to post something that turns the truth on its head, and it will find its way into Latest Threads, and I simply will not be able to restrain myself. I will make some snide comment and be banished from the island. Don't worry. It will not diminish my enthusiasm for Sanders. I can hardly believe someone is running for president who is a democratic socialist and a progressive, as I have been for 35 years. Believe me, it's lonely out here, as most of you can appreciate.
Scotty and Sarah, non-finishers
Just as Sarah Palin left the governor's office before finishing her term, Scott Walker left college before getting a degree. Scott Walker did not finish college, even though part of his spiel now is encouraging young people to finish and get degrees. Here are some snips from a Milwaukee Journal article when Walker ran for governor.
Madison — If elected to the state's top job this fall, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker would become the first Wisconsin governor in 64 years who doesn't have a college degree, breaking the mold of the current crop of governors nationally.
(snip)
Walker declined to release his transcripts, but his campaign said he had a grade-point average of 2.59, in the C's. He had just established status as a senior when he left after four years of mostly full-time coursework at Marquette University.Walker's supporters - and even some of his detractors - say it shouldn't matter that he didn't attain a degree.
(Snip)
Walker, for his part, has said at times that he wished he could finish so his children would see that he had followed through. He said in an interview he should be judged on his record of keeping taxes down in Milwaukee County rather than whether he finished college.
(snip)
Just three of the country's 50 sitting governors fell short of a college degree, a review of biographies shows. Most of the graduates have an advanced degree, typically a law degree.
(snip)
The next governor will be in charge of the budget for the University of Wisconsin System and the state's technical schools. The governor also appoints the regents who oversee the system.
(snip)
Asked how he performed in school, Walker said: "I'd have to go back. That was 20 years ago. I mean, I had some classes I was more interested in than others, I suppose."
You can tell he's just lying, claiming he doesn't remember how he did in school because it was twenty years ago. What crap. I remember my classes, how well or poorly I did in most of them, my GPA, etc. from 25 tears ago. He was apathetic about college, obviously, and saw an opportunity to be a rising star in the GOP political universe by bashing public employees. Perhaps this helps explain his hatred for teachers, public education, and the university system. I believe he is one of those guys who sees himself as the protagonist in an Ayn Rand novel probably Hank Reardon from Atlas Shrugged. Well, Scotty, if that's how you see yourself, you're not alone. Every other geek loser sees himself as Hank Reardon, too. Welcome to the club. Quitter.
Cuban Embassy announced
I just heard a radio clip of the president announcing we will establish an embassy in Havana. Of course, they will have one here too. Thanks, Mr. President. Something that should have been done 30 years ago. We just needed a president with the courage to do it.
Chelsea Clinton Speaking Fee Flap
Chelsea Clinton’s big speaking fee is attracting much attention on DU this morning, particularly since her mom asked for $275k to speak at a luncheon to celebrate a women’s center opening at a university. Hillary Clinton’s detractors are pointing it out as evidence of naked greed. Her supporters are firing back, accusing the detractors of vitriolic cheap shots, and pointing out the money goes to the Clintons’ foundation, not to them personally. This made me curious about the foundation and how it spends its money. Rush Limbaugh said most foundation money goes for salaries, but he’s not much of a source.
Here’s an excerpt from the New York Post, but the Post is not exactly a paragon of journalist excellence.
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
Charity Watch gives the foundation an “A” rating, and calculates 89 percent of money donated goes to program activities, with only 11 percent for overhead. So why the difference? Reading the Post article gives the impression the foundation operates as Clinton slush fund, which is exactly the words they choose for their headline: “Charity Watchdog: Clinton Foundation a Slush Fund.” But wait! If you read more of the Post article, they claim the information comes from the “most influential” charity rating organization, and I always thought that was Charity Watch, but the Post says it’s Charity Navigator. So off to another website to find out their rating of the Clinton Foundation.
“We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.”
What! No talk about slush funds? No accusations of misuse? No mention of warnings, alerts, watches or alarms? This hardly matches the Post’s implication that the foundation is just a personal petty cash fund for the Clinton family. In fact, it seems the foundation is entirely above board. Well, as much as any other big charity. Sure, they may employ some of their friends in jobs that don’t involve much work. Sure, they take money from big corporations who expect political access. This is not unusual for large charities in the United States.
What’s the conclusion, here? Yes, the Clintons do use their foundation as a political tool, which is clear when looking at big donations from corporations involved in Canadian energy production, for example. The Clintons demand large speaking fees and send the check to the foundation, which they use to promote their political agenda, as well as their personal political ambitions. But this is not illegal. If you want to pay Chelsea Clinton $65k to speak at your event, you can see where the money is going, and how it’s used. In fact, some of the foundation’s work appears to be on behalf of good causes, things almost anybody would say are valuable contributions to society. Yes, they rub elbows with the rich and famous, and they lay on the luxury thickly to attract people who will give money to the foundation. I don’t like this very much, but the starving children don’t get fed unless you serve the expensive champagne.
So, the high speaking fees are par for the course. You can argue, as I would, that it’s a case of greed by proxy, and the foundation is as much a political tool as it is a charity. But it still does good stuff, and the Clintons are not pocketing the money. I would prefer a presidential candidate who is less connected to big corporate donors, but it’s not realistic to expect all public servants to follow the Socratic model. I’ll wager most Americans see nothing wrong as long as no illegal activity occurs. This doesn’t make Hillary Clinton untrustworthy or anything like that. In fact, she can claim a certain patch of moral high ground, when compared to past presidents who collected big speaking fees and didn’t give the money to anyone but themselves. So Clinton is probably much better than Ronald Reagan, but maybe not as pure as Jimmy Carter. I realize that pleases neither her supporters not her detractors, but politics and politicians are people, and they make certain compromises. Yes, even my guy.
Blood lust in response to shooting
COLUMBIA, S.C. — (Associated Press) Two days after the shooting deaths of nine people during a Bible study at a Charleston church, Republican Gov. Nikki Haley made a bold public statement: The gunman "absolutely" should be put to death. But her state, though largely pro-death penalty, can't secure one of the drugs needed for lethal injections and hasn't executed an inmate since 2011.
Yeah, that's right! Our first concern should be revenge... oh, excuse me... "justice" for the victims. The governor has not even admitted the shooting was racially motivated, which indicates she hasn't though about it very seriously, and she's calling for Roof to be executed. Before he's been convicted, by the way. Maybe it would occur to her to hold her tongue for a couple weeks, maybe talk with the victims' families and find out how they feel. You know, all that rational sort of stuff. But, no. She just has to get her mug on TV and show how "tough" she is.
OK, governor, here's a deal for you. You can show everyone you are just one bad ass woman. When they convict Roof, we'll march him out into the middle of a sports stadium and you can shoot him in the head, in front of thousands of people. In fact, we'll let you knee cap him first, and dance around joyously, while cheered on by 20,000 bloodthirsty admirers. Would that do it for you?
A little odd for DU
When I open the "latest threads" page, an ad for the NRA comes up next to the list of topics. I guess DU does not control the pop-ups.
My socialists vs, your socialists
It may surprise many people to learn there are different kinds of socialists, just as there are different kinds of Democrats and Republicans. No... I take that back. There is only one kind of Republican, the crazy kind. The Socialist Workers Party came out with some criticism of Bernie Sanders, implying he's not a "real" socialist and saying he can't possibly win the presidency, etc. I imagine they want us to vote for their candidate, since they almost always run one, because his or her chances of winning are so much better than Sanders' chances. Anyway, I'm a democratic socialist, same as Sanders, so I hopped on over to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to see if they felt differently about Sanders. Whaddya know? They certainly do.
This is from the DSA web page:
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has announced that he is officially running as a candidate for President in 2016 to further a desperately needed political revolution in the USA.
Senator Sanders is a lifelong champion of the public programs and democratic rights that empower working class people. His candidacy could help expand both the progressive movement and the democratic socialist voice within that movement.
Bernie.PNG
By running in the Democratic primaries, Independent Senator Sanders will challenge the dominant discourse of neoliberal Democrats that privilege corporate business interests over those of all working people. He will contribute to building a strong movement to halt the vicious attacks of Tea Party Republicans at all governmental levels on workers' rights, voting rights, and people of color in general.
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) strongly supports Senator Sanders as the strongest candidate for President of the United States. We encourage him to meet with grassroots activists throughout the country to discuss how his candidacy might effectively promote their varied struggles for social and economic justice, human rights, world peace and a healthy environment.
Those who wish to promote the goals of democratic socialism should consider taking concrete and specific actions at the grassroots level that would support Sanders' candidacy. Volunteer with DSA and join us in saying: #WeNeedBernie!
Socialists vs. Socialists
It may surprise many people to learn there are different kinds of socialists, just as there are different kinds of Democrats and Republicans. No... I take that back. There is only one kind of Republican, the crazy kind. The Socialist Workers Party came out with some criticism of Bernie Sanders, implying he's not a "real" socialist and saying he can't possibly win the presidency, etc. I imagine they want us to vote for their candidate, since they almost always run one, because his or her chances of winning are so much better than Sanders' chances. Anyway, I'm a democratic socialist, same as Sanders, so I hopped on over to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to see if they felt differently about Sanders. Whaddya know? They certainly do.
This is from the DSA web page:
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has announced that he is officially running as a candidate for President in 2016 to further a desperately needed political revolution in the USA.
Senator Sanders is a lifelong champion of the public programs and democratic rights that empower working class people. His candidacy could help expand both the progressive movement and the democratic socialist voice within that movement.
Bernie.PNG
By running in the Democratic primaries, Independent Senator Sanders will challenge the dominant discourse of neoliberal Democrats that privilege corporate business interests over those of all working people. He will contribute to building a strong movement to halt the vicious attacks of Tea Party Republicans at all governmental levels on workers' rights, voting rights, and people of color in general.
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) strongly supports Senator Sanders as the strongest candidate for President of the United States. We encourage him to meet with grassroots activists throughout the country to discuss how his candidacy might effectively promote their varied struggles for social and economic justice, human rights, world peace and a healthy environment.
Those who wish to promote the goals of democratic socialism should consider taking concrete and specific actions at the grassroots level that would support Sanders' candidacy. Volunteer with DSA and join us in saying: #WeNeedBernie!
Attention Bernie Sanders fans
I can't post this on the Bernie Sanders forum, since I was blocked by one of the hosts. I pointed out that Sanders' old admission to being a democratic socialist would be the end of him. Once the media get ahold of the "socialist" thing, they will murder him. I guess this bit of reality is so upsetting to Sanders supporters they had a complete meltdown. They called me a troll, etc. and chased me away. As a Democratic socialist myself (Gasp! No! He can't be!) I know how this works. When people find out you're a socialist, whether democratic or not, they really freak out. I understand why people like Bernie Sanders. I like him. I would vote for him. I just don't think it's healthy to get so invested in a candidate that I ignore the way the popular media work, and how they will glom onto the "socialist" thing and use it to make Sanders look extreme. It would be great if they would not do that, but we live in the United States, and we know the media can't look at democratic socialism without going nuts. If I am wrong, by some miracle, I will be the first to jump up and shout ""Hooray!" Anyway, here's the post, so you can judge for yourself.
That's pretty much the end of Bernie. Once the "liberal media" get done screaming, "Socialist! Socialist! Socialist at the door!" people will think of him the same way they thought of Jerry Brown after Mike Royko called him "Governor Moonbeam."
"Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks
I like this book because I like to dislike George W. Bush. Thomas Ricks asks some important questions. How did we forget the lessons of Vietnam? How did we stumble into the Iraq quagmire? Who dropped the ball? Who should we blame? How did we win a quick military victory, then turn success into failure? Ricks interviews mostly military people, and comes up with some interesting examples. He names names, and he places blame squarely on the people he feels deserve blame. This is a detailed historical account, so it's not an easy read, but it's interesting if you want to know what happened and how it happened. Wolfowitz and the chickenhawk crowd get raked over the coals pretty thoroughly, and GW Bush is portrayed as a bumbling incompetent who allowed the PNAC crowd to lead him around by the nose.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 PMNumber of posts: 6,409