Hola from America:
I'm a huge Bernie Sanders fan and have been for the 12 years that I've been aware of him. He's the only socialist in Congress, as far as I know, a longtime Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. I prefer his politics to Clinton's certainly, BUT!!! I support Clinton because I don't think Sanders has as good a chance to win in the general election. Clinton's centrism is considered less threatening, while Sanders' socialism, in America, is perceived as extremist. Many centrist Americans see him the way I see Ted Cruz, for instance. I think the negative impact of a Republican in the White House outweighs the positive influence of Bernie Sanders, who can continue to do very important work in the Senate. I'm glad he's running, though, as he very clearly outlines some basic tenets of socialism, which, frankly, many Americans know nothing about, and equate it with either Soviet-style Stalinism or godless Satanism. I'm not exaggerating. It's a good
thing that all of America will hear him. He'll singlehandedly push the dividing line in our country to the left, a line that has been pushed constantly to the right since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980. But because I believe he'll lose in a general election, I don't want him to be the Dem nominee. And I don't dislike Clinton. She will be a practical, pragmatic steward, sort of our version of an Angela Merkel, say, building on the slow, plodding work Obama has begun of moving America into the 21st century. William F. Buckley, Jr., the great conservative writer, said he would always support the most conservative candidate who had THE MOST REALISTIC CHANCE OF WINNING (my emphasis). Exactly. In short, "Run, Bernie, run!" but then when Clinton leads in the delegate count, "Drop out, Bernie, drop out!" and support her wholeheartedly.
I despise Martin O'Malley. He gave the worst speech I've heard in years, if not decades, from a Democrat, at the Democratic National Convention in 2012. He sounded like a wind-up Amway salesman. Also, a few weeks ago he started talking about Benghazi, and Clinton's role in it, something Republicans do, just because he's desperately low in the polls. I expect that from a Republican, but from a Democrat -- well, I despise him, I'll just put it that way.
Jim Webb is interesting, a bit too far to the right wing of the Democratic Party for my taste, but he's...interesting. Known as a very good novelist (a few Vietnam War novels, a conflict he served in), and a former senator from Virginia, which will be a battleground state, very close to going either D or R this year. He might make a good VP running mate for Clinton, a manly macho manly man for all the swing voters who might be uncomfortable with a woman president.
All best,
Bill
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Do it, GOP, Make this thing a real TV show
Dear Reince Priebus, you and the Republican Party have it in your power to make this primary season the best freaking reality TV show ever.
Start with the first debate.
Throw out all the old formats. You have sixteen relatively legitimate (lol) candidates; now if you only have the will you can design a bracket battle that will enthrall America.
First, rank them by latest polls, Trump at the top, and the people whose name I don't want to bother loking up at the bottom, like...Topkapi? Poughkeepie? That guy, and Jindal, at the bottom. Then bracket them in four groups of four each, 1 and 16, 5 and 12 in the first bracket, etc. Make the first debate a quad slugfest, with four debaters a time on stage for thirty minutes total, no screwing around, cut their damn microphones if they go over their thirty seconds. Let that British asshole from American idol moderate. "Illegal immigration: Rand Paul, you have 30 seconds!" or "Don't Ask, Don' Tell, Ben Carson, you have 30 seconds!" Then, and here's the genius, LET THE VIEWERS DECIDE who advances. The viewers vote in real-time, kind of like Dancing With the Stars.
One person advances. One from each quad. So the sixteen are winnowed down to four at the end of two hours. Then those four square off a week later.
Ratings would go through the roof. I would guess the Final Four would be something like Trump, Bush, Walker, and whoever. It would be a freaking blast getting to the Final Four, all America would be talking about you.
Basically, we'd be talking about what assholes you are, but we're already doing that.
Think about it, Reince.
Start with the first debate.
Throw out all the old formats. You have sixteen relatively legitimate (lol) candidates; now if you only have the will you can design a bracket battle that will enthrall America.
First, rank them by latest polls, Trump at the top, and the people whose name I don't want to bother loking up at the bottom, like...Topkapi? Poughkeepie? That guy, and Jindal, at the bottom. Then bracket them in four groups of four each, 1 and 16, 5 and 12 in the first bracket, etc. Make the first debate a quad slugfest, with four debaters a time on stage for thirty minutes total, no screwing around, cut their damn microphones if they go over their thirty seconds. Let that British asshole from American idol moderate. "Illegal immigration: Rand Paul, you have 30 seconds!" or "Don't Ask, Don' Tell, Ben Carson, you have 30 seconds!" Then, and here's the genius, LET THE VIEWERS DECIDE who advances. The viewers vote in real-time, kind of like Dancing With the Stars.
One person advances. One from each quad. So the sixteen are winnowed down to four at the end of two hours. Then those four square off a week later.
Ratings would go through the roof. I would guess the Final Four would be something like Trump, Bush, Walker, and whoever. It would be a freaking blast getting to the Final Four, all America would be talking about you.
Basically, we'd be talking about what assholes you are, but we're already doing that.
Think about it, Reince.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Afghan Heroin Spikes
The default assumption of U.S. ideology regarding the Afghan heroin spike centers on the argument of unintended consequences. In other words, "Gosh, we sure tried to stop heroin production in Afghanistan, but you know...shit happens."
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/afghan-heroin-the-cia-519/
http://rt.com/news/156128-afghanistan-drugs-usa-heroin/
A far more interesting connection would center on the near collapse of the heroin industry after the Taliban took over most of the country; by 2001, heroin production was close to nil for the region that provides 90 percent of the world's heroin.
Somebody was losing a lot of money.
Enter 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, spearheaded by the CIA, which has proven a dab hand at generating drug money when needed for black ops.
Fifteen years later, and billions of dollars spent to "eradicate" the poppy fields, more heroin than ever is flowing from Afghanistan. We can argue and assume incompetence to explain this heroin spike, but it can just as easily be inferred that the point of the Afghanistan invasion was to get the heroin supply flowing again, reclaim the black market fortunes that were being lost.
The "War on Drugs" meme needs to be reframed and rethought for what it is: The war to keep the drugs flowing.
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/afghan-heroin-the-cia-519/
http://rt.com/news/156128-afghanistan-drugs-usa-heroin/
A far more interesting connection would center on the near collapse of the heroin industry after the Taliban took over most of the country; by 2001, heroin production was close to nil for the region that provides 90 percent of the world's heroin.
Somebody was losing a lot of money.
Enter 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, spearheaded by the CIA, which has proven a dab hand at generating drug money when needed for black ops.
Fifteen years later, and billions of dollars spent to "eradicate" the poppy fields, more heroin than ever is flowing from Afghanistan. We can argue and assume incompetence to explain this heroin spike, but it can just as easily be inferred that the point of the Afghanistan invasion was to get the heroin supply flowing again, reclaim the black market fortunes that were being lost.
The "War on Drugs" meme needs to be reframed and rethought for what it is: The war to keep the drugs flowing.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Varoufakis on Saving Capitalism from Itself
Varoufakis:
"A Greek or a Portuguese or an Italian exit from the eurozone would soon lead to a fragmentation of European capitalism, yielding a seriously recessionary surplus region east of the Rhine and north of the Alps, while the rest of Europe would be in the grip of vicious stagflation. Who do you think would benefit from this development? A progressive left, that will rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of Europe’s public institutions? Or the Golden Dawn Nazis, the assorted neofascists, the xenophobes and the spivs? I have absolutely no doubt as to which of the two will do best from a disintegration of the eurozone. I, for one, am not prepared to blow fresh wind into the sails of this postmodern version of the 1930s. If this means that it is we, the suitably erratic Marxists, who must try to save European capitalism from itself, so be it. Not out of love for European capitalism, for the eurozone, for Brussels, or for the European Central Bank, but just because
we want to minimise the unnecessary human toll from this crisis.
"A Greek or a Portuguese or an Italian exit from the eurozone would soon lead to a fragmentation of European capitalism, yielding a seriously recessionary surplus region east of the Rhine and north of the Alps, while the rest of Europe would be in the grip of vicious stagflation. Who do you think would benefit from this development? A progressive left, that will rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of Europe’s public institutions? Or the Golden Dawn Nazis, the assorted neofascists, the xenophobes and the spivs? I have absolutely no doubt as to which of the two will do best from a disintegration of the eurozone. I, for one, am not prepared to blow fresh wind into the sails of this postmodern version of the 1930s. If this means that it is we, the suitably erratic Marxists, who must try to save European capitalism from itself, so be it. Not out of love for European capitalism, for the eurozone, for Brussels, or for the European Central Bank, but just because
we want to minimise the unnecessary human toll from this crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)