I'm actually starting to warm to this idea. Not because I support him; quite the contrary. I truly think Clinton as President would be a disaster for the progressive movement Sanders highlights. There has been a big fear in the establishment GOP that Trump's nomination would devastate down-ticket races, likely re-winning a Democratic majority in the Senate and picking up several seats in the House. So with Democratic control in the Senate we could use the GOP playbook and let Trump and the GOP get absolutely nothing done for two years, including blocking any Supreme Court nominee.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Democratic Party is Ivy League for the rich
Building on the last post, this video highlights exactly why it's far too late to change the establishment Democratic Party from the inside. It's time for progressives to dump it and start over with a new Party of the People.
Maher on getting rid of outdated systems
In this New Rule he starts with old cars in Cuba that constantly need juryrigging to stay on the road. But he then equates it to our outdated voting and energy systems and crumbling infrastructure. He hits Clinton's bullshit illogic of just tinkering with the system at hand with an apt metaphor. Same goes for capitalism.
Worldwide letter to Trump
The following is from this petition. If you agree please sign, thanks.
Dear Mr. Trump,
This is not what greatness looks like.
The world rejects your fear, hate-mongering, and bigotry. We reject your support for torture, your calls for murdering civilians, and your general encouragement of violence. We reject your denigration of women, Muslims, Mexicans, and millions of others who don’t look like you, talk like you, or pray to the same god as you.
Facing your fear we choose compassion. Hearing your despair we choose hope. Seeing your ignorance we choose understanding.
As citizens of the world, we stand united against your brand of division.
Sincerely,
[Add your name!]
Dear Mr. Trump,
This is not what greatness looks like.
The world rejects your fear, hate-mongering, and bigotry. We reject your support for torture, your calls for murdering civilians, and your general encouragement of violence. We reject your denigration of women, Muslims, Mexicans, and millions of others who don’t look like you, talk like you, or pray to the same god as you.
Facing your fear we choose compassion. Hearing your despair we choose hope. Seeing your ignorance we choose understanding.
As citizens of the world, we stand united against your brand of division.
Sincerely,
[Add your name!]
Wilber on ethics and morality
Today I was reminded of the video below. I was at this presentation. My essay "Giving guns to children" grew out of it. (The section on Ethics references this seminar.)
Clinton supporters immune to facts
See this article, which dissects all the faux 'reasons' for their support with facts. Clinton is losing to Sanders among independents, the deciding voting block in the general election. Her favorability ratings are far lower than Sanders. She will favor that status quo Wall Street paradigm despite her populist rhetoric. She will also maintain the 'great leader' mythology rather than participating in a people's movement that drives government. While she is experienced in foreign affairs as Secretary of State, that experience is again status quo war mongering. Clinton's black voting majority has much more to do with getting black leaders in positions of power and influence and far less about helping struggling black folk. He concludes: "Hillary progressives seem immune to most of these facts and figures."
Ralph Nader w/Hartmann on civic org convention
They start by discussing that in order for a movement to gain traction it must 1) be supported by the populace and 2) have access to dissemination via the media. And that right now big media simply refuse to even report on such matters. This includes issues of agreement and coalition between left and right. Then they move to an unprecedented conference coming up where several civic activist groups come together to promote populist issues. It will also give us the tools for effective civic action in our communities, with plenty of real life examples of success. Go to breakingthroughpower.org for more. (Note the conference can be streamed online.) But again, will big media even cover it? Who cares, we can through our social media connections. Let's get busy people and engage participatory democracy. If you don't you will lose it. (Also see part two on the interview here.)
Friday, April 29, 2016
Republicans won't protect Americans from financial advisers
See this story. The Dept. of Labor passed new rules that require financial advisers to put their clients retirement interests ahead of their own profits. Never mind that they don't have to do that now via Republican corrupt legislation. So the House Republicans passed a resolution blocking the new rule, saying it would raise the price of retirement advice. So I guess it's ok to screw people out of all their retirement money as long as it costs less in fees up front? I'm pretty sure most of all of us would rather pay a higher fee up front--if that claim is actually true (and it's likely not)--and have an intact retirement account when it's time to do so.
A worker-owned tech startup
See this article.
"Loomio’s values have won it a devoted user base. But they’ve also meant that the usual rules for starting a tech company don’t apply. The most common method for building a big online platform is to raise a lot of money quickly, achieve ubiquity, and then sell the company in a buyout or an initial public offering in the stock market. To get that quick money early on, founders pass considerable ownership and control to investors, who then cash out when the company gets sold.
"But this won’t work for a mission-driven co-op.
"Loomio’s values have won it a devoted user base. But they’ve also meant that the usual rules for starting a tech company don’t apply. The most common method for building a big online platform is to raise a lot of money quickly, achieve ubiquity, and then sell the company in a buyout or an initial public offering in the stock market. To get that quick money early on, founders pass considerable ownership and control to investors, who then cash out when the company gets sold.
"But this won’t work for a mission-driven co-op.
Hillary Clinton, career criminal
It's a long track record of corruption that simply won't be acknowledged by
her supporters, instead claiming it's all false propaganda by the evil
Right. Also read Clinton Cash. But again, as it's written by a W. Bush guy it will be perceived as just lies. But it is a lot of facts. Btw,
there is NO such history for Sanders, quite the opposite. And why
establishment (corporate) Democrats don't want him around.
Yes, the numbers are against Sanders
538 once again tells us that it's virtually impossible for Sanders to win at this point. But
the point is far larger than winning the Democratic nomination: It's
about building a people's movement. And that will go on long after the
nomination. We need a progressive movement to keep the establishment
Democratic Party, including Clinton, in line with the will of the
people. Without that progressive movement the Party and Clinton will
only continue to be dominated by big money and corrupt politics. I'm
sure 538 can come up with some cold, hard numbers for that corruption if they were so inclined.
Marxism 101
By Professor Richar Wolff. For all of you out there that don't know anything about it, or have only been fed regressive spin, it's time for school. A sample:
"I think the best way to understand it is that the difference between Marxism and other things is that it wants to go to the root. It is radical in that sense. It wants to see these problems: homelessness, inequality, an economy that bounces around having a recession or depression every 3 to 7 years, a society that concentrates political power in the tiny number. These recurring problems of capitalism, Marxism says, are built into the system, and if you want to solve them you can’t do that within the framework of the system. You have to face the fact that this system itself is the problem, which is why Marxists tend to be people who abide by the idea that we can and we should do better than capitalism. We should reorganize society because that will be a better way to deal with all those problems than dealing with them individually as if you could solve homelessness or solve inequality by a quick fix, by a marginal adjustment. No, the problems are systemic, so you have to understand how capitalism as a system works in order to begin to work your way to a solution."
"[Capitalism] is the opposite of democracy, and if you don’t have democracy at the workplace [socialism], you can’t ever have it real in politics, either, because those at the top will buy the political system, something which we see in the United States so starkly every day that everyone knows."
"I think the best way to understand it is that the difference between Marxism and other things is that it wants to go to the root. It is radical in that sense. It wants to see these problems: homelessness, inequality, an economy that bounces around having a recession or depression every 3 to 7 years, a society that concentrates political power in the tiny number. These recurring problems of capitalism, Marxism says, are built into the system, and if you want to solve them you can’t do that within the framework of the system. You have to face the fact that this system itself is the problem, which is why Marxists tend to be people who abide by the idea that we can and we should do better than capitalism. We should reorganize society because that will be a better way to deal with all those problems than dealing with them individually as if you could solve homelessness or solve inequality by a quick fix, by a marginal adjustment. No, the problems are systemic, so you have to understand how capitalism as a system works in order to begin to work your way to a solution."
"[Capitalism] is the opposite of democracy, and if you don’t have democracy at the workplace [socialism], you can’t ever have it real in politics, either, because those at the top will buy the political system, something which we see in the United States so starkly every day that everyone knows."
Thursday, April 28, 2016
A comment on transgender bathrooms
In North Carolina it will need a chaperone to prevent unwanted sporking.
Never mind there's never been any problem with that.
When your deeds belie your talk
Continuing from the last post, Hartmann
knows Uber is fake 'sharing' and what the real sharing economy is. But even
while he rails against the corporatocracy his show is sponsored by them,
as he accepts that it's the only paradigm for getting his message out.
In the process he's compromised by that system. Same with the liberals
on MSNBC. They really don't care what the liberals SAY as long as they
DO the corporate paradigm.
Forget the Democratic Party
Hartmann
keeps pushing that the only way to change the Democratic Party
establishment is by becoming part of it. And I think he's wrong, for one
only gets converted by that system, to wit, Obama and the Clintons. We
really need a vibrant and effective multi-party system like some other
countries. The two-Party system is corrupt beyond repair and its only
reason for existence is to maintain itself in league with the power
elite.
As another example, Hartmann, for all his talk about the decimation of the working class, and how the corporate 'sharing economy' contributes to that, shills for Uber several times an hour on his radio program.
As another example, Hartmann, for all his talk about the decimation of the working class, and how the corporate 'sharing economy' contributes to that, shills for Uber several times an hour on his radio program.
Feel the Bern music video
This is a People's movement for all people. And an environmental movement to protect and nurture our home.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Progressives Unite into One Party
From this website with a petition included. Quote:
The Presidential Election of 2016 has seen support and enthusiasm for progressive politics like never seen before in the history of the United States. The Bernie Sanders campaign has united Independents, Progressive Democrats, Green Party voters, Democratic Socialists, unregistered voters, young first-time voters, and disenfranchised Democrat and Republican voters too. The Sanders campaign has risen to historic, record-breaking heights in fundraising for both numbers of individual contributions, as well as, number of individual contributors, with a mere average of $27 per contribution. The Sanders' campaign is the campaign of the people, for the people and one in which millions of us have been waiting for but had almost lost hope it was possible.
Despite making history and fueling unbridled enthusiasm from his supporters, the Sanders campaign has had a plethora of obstacles; an extreme media bias from mass-media conglomerates resulting in a near media blackout during the pre-primary season, ongoing skewed journalistic reporting, and press coverage clearly providing his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton a handicap-lead which has been difficult to overcome.
Please join me in asking the Green Party of the United States, the Democratic Socialists of America, the Progressive Democrats of America, and the Sanders campaign and supporters to join forces to create a unified voting block to propel Bernie Sanders into the White House and to create THE LARGEST progressive voting block the United States have ever seen. It's time!
The Presidential Election of 2016 has seen support and enthusiasm for progressive politics like never seen before in the history of the United States. The Bernie Sanders campaign has united Independents, Progressive Democrats, Green Party voters, Democratic Socialists, unregistered voters, young first-time voters, and disenfranchised Democrat and Republican voters too. The Sanders campaign has risen to historic, record-breaking heights in fundraising for both numbers of individual contributions, as well as, number of individual contributors, with a mere average of $27 per contribution. The Sanders' campaign is the campaign of the people, for the people and one in which millions of us have been waiting for but had almost lost hope it was possible.
Despite making history and fueling unbridled enthusiasm from his supporters, the Sanders campaign has had a plethora of obstacles; an extreme media bias from mass-media conglomerates resulting in a near media blackout during the pre-primary season, ongoing skewed journalistic reporting, and press coverage clearly providing his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton a handicap-lead which has been difficult to overcome.
Please join me in asking the Green Party of the United States, the Democratic Socialists of America, the Progressive Democrats of America, and the Sanders campaign and supporters to join forces to create a unified voting block to propel Bernie Sanders into the White House and to create THE LARGEST progressive voting block the United States have ever seen. It's time!
Hartmann on Lerner's Tea Party of the Left
Would you vote for Sanders as an Independent?
See this website to answer that question. The below is their projection map if Sanders did so in terms of electoral votes. Accurate or wishful thinking?
Nothing is Everything seminar
The Nothing is Everything Seminar is here! Now you can achieve Nothing
permanently, the highest and lowest state and stage of non/existence.
And all for the low low price of everything you have. You really don't
need money, food, shelter or anything else once you have Nothing. And I
can give you exactly Nothing in exchange for all your money and
property. It's the deal of eternity, right here, right now. So come on
down today and buy Nothing from me, a certifiable expert in absolutely
Nothing. You won't be sorry so call today.
You've heard of double negation, now Triple Negation is here!
You've heard of double negation, now Triple Negation is here!
Clinton Cash
See Noonan's review of this book here.
"Mr. Schweizer announces upfront that he cannot prove wrongdoing, only patterns of behavior."
"Mr. Schweizer announces upfront that he cannot prove wrongdoing, only patterns of behavior."
We've only just begun
Here's Reich's FB post on the people's movement. Just because Sanders won't win doesn't mean we quit. We've only just begun to fight and we will fight until we the people win. Reich:
"Here's what I say to all those who are telling me Bernie should leave the race: Baloney. He should – and will – fight on, despite the worsening odds of his winning the nomination.His campaign isn’t and has never been mainly about Bernie Sanders. It’s about a movement to reclaim our democracy from the moneyed interests, and thereby have an economy that’s working for the many rather than the few.
"Here's what I say to all those who are telling me Bernie should leave the race: Baloney. He should – and will – fight on, despite the worsening odds of his winning the nomination.His campaign isn’t and has never been mainly about Bernie Sanders. It’s about a movement to reclaim our democracy from the moneyed interests, and thereby have an economy that’s working for the many rather than the few.
More of the same with The Big Shill
So acolytes really think she'll change the very system that got her into power? Are people really that naive or stupid? Even a child knows better.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
What's in Hillary's purse?
Colbert riffs on how blacks carry hot sauce with them, so what does Hillary do?
Ryan hates expertise
Continuing from the last post, Speaker Ryan provides the perfect example of how to spin against expertise in fact-based scientific. His goal is to create resentment to those with higher education and skill, the elite. I for one want such elite to be teaching me and governing me, not some ignoramus bigot that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
What the frack?
See this article on a former fracking shill. His job was to troll online groups defending fracking. He maintains that if done properly it is safe. But the fact is that fracking companies always look to ignore the laws and/or cut corners so that fracking is not safe. Another tactic was to paint opponents as anti-science. The fact is that most opponents use the actual science to defeat the argument. If all that failed the shills job was to paint opponents as crazy conspiracy theorists. Which of course is hard when they cite the science and the facts.
Monday, April 25, 2016
More on the progressive revolution
See this Rolling Stone piece. It's happening people. Now that we've energized and active in the Sanders campaign we going to build on that to fight for a government truly of the people, for the people and by the people. Some excerpts:
Encouraged by the momentum Sanders' campaign has generated, the young people heading up some of the last decade's most influential social movements are grappling with how to build a new kind of politics, as active in the streets as it is in the halls of power. [...] While millennial organizers may have been excited about a Sanders administration, many see a bolder goal on the horizon: an alternative to politics as usual, one that's of, by and for the grassroots. From backing candidates up and down the ticket to marching on Washington, activists are looking to create a popular outlet for anger at the status quo, with electoral teeth."
Encouraged by the momentum Sanders' campaign has generated, the young people heading up some of the last decade's most influential social movements are grappling with how to build a new kind of politics, as active in the streets as it is in the halls of power. [...] While millennial organizers may have been excited about a Sanders administration, many see a bolder goal on the horizon: an alternative to politics as usual, one that's of, by and for the grassroots. From backing candidates up and down the ticket to marching on Washington, activists are looking to create a popular outlet for anger at the status quo, with electoral teeth."
Kristin & Toby
A blast from the past, their 2005 Masters Showcase two-step routine in the UCWDC championships.
Good discussion on climate change
In this Real Time clip the Republican on the panel at least admits there is climate change and we need to do something about it, unlike most of his ilk.
Robert Reich on a progressive third party
The following is from his FB post. I agree it's time for a third Progressive Party. Only Reich is talking future tense, when the Democratic Party is already long defunct and the time is now for the new Party.
"The real battle is not about pushing the Democratic Party to the left, as the media wants to characterize it (see article below, for example). It’s about getting the Party to recognize that the current concentration of income, wealth, and political power is not sustainable – neither politically nor economically – and to join in the movement to reverse it.
"Nor, for that matter, is it a 'battle for the soul of the Democratic Party,' as the media are portraying it. Far more Americans are independents than they are Democrats. If the Democratic Party doesn’t become a leading part of this movement, the Party will become irrelevant to the future. And millions of Americans – especially but not exclusively younger Americans -- will abandon the Democrats and begin a third party that will lead the charge."
"The real battle is not about pushing the Democratic Party to the left, as the media wants to characterize it (see article below, for example). It’s about getting the Party to recognize that the current concentration of income, wealth, and political power is not sustainable – neither politically nor economically – and to join in the movement to reverse it.
"Nor, for that matter, is it a 'battle for the soul of the Democratic Party,' as the media are portraying it. Far more Americans are independents than they are Democrats. If the Democratic Party doesn’t become a leading part of this movement, the Party will become irrelevant to the future. And millions of Americans – especially but not exclusively younger Americans -- will abandon the Democrats and begin a third party that will lead the charge."
Sunday, April 24, 2016
The real Hillary Clinton
See this short documentary about Clinton's consistent actions, which belie her progressive rhetoric. Don't be fooled by the spin. The real Clinton is an integral part of the very establishment she claims to be against.
The Love and Justice Party
Please read this article by Rabbi Lerner of Tikkun Magazine about progressives forming a "Tea Party of the Left." He encourages Sanders to use his organization to mobilize a long-term movement implementing the people's agenda. And to do it now while he still has some media attention, for when that fades, and it will if/when he loses the nomination, it will be too late. Come on Bernie. Forget the corrupt Democratic Party establishment. If
you want to see your/our values implemented you'll have to help organize a
new Party. The old one will simply never go along with your/our agenda;
it's too far gone. Otherwise a Clinton candidacy and Presidency will also quickly abandon any pretense to progressive change as did Obama. For example:
"Subservience to Wall Street and the policies favored by the 1 percent whose money shapes elections on the national and state levels, the false belief that terrorism can be defeated by our own brand of terror (war through drones), fossil fuels will continue to be extracted from the earth and accelerate global warming, millions of people languishing in our prisons (many for nonviolent crimes), social services (child care, health care, elder care, etc.) will continue to be sacrificed on the alter of 'no new taxes,' the economy will continue to depend on endless 'growth' with devastating consequences for the life support system of the planet, the U.S. will continue to have the most expensive and least successful health care and pharmaceuticals in the advanced industrial countries, the values of selfishness and materialism that are the 'common sense of global capitalism will continue to pollute friendships and families causing psychic pain and family instability, and cynicism toward government and despair at the possibility of fundamental change will give new opportunities for racist, sexist, xenophobic and fascistic forces to gain public credibility."
The new Party will be more like the following:
"Subservience to Wall Street and the policies favored by the 1 percent whose money shapes elections on the national and state levels, the false belief that terrorism can be defeated by our own brand of terror (war through drones), fossil fuels will continue to be extracted from the earth and accelerate global warming, millions of people languishing in our prisons (many for nonviolent crimes), social services (child care, health care, elder care, etc.) will continue to be sacrificed on the alter of 'no new taxes,' the economy will continue to depend on endless 'growth' with devastating consequences for the life support system of the planet, the U.S. will continue to have the most expensive and least successful health care and pharmaceuticals in the advanced industrial countries, the values of selfishness and materialism that are the 'common sense of global capitalism will continue to pollute friendships and families causing psychic pain and family instability, and cynicism toward government and despair at the possibility of fundamental change will give new opportunities for racist, sexist, xenophobic and fascistic forces to gain public credibility."
The new Party will be more like the following:
The end of US democracy
Bill Moyers doesn't hold any punches in this accurate take down of our failing system.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Jill Stein's letter to Senator Sanders
See this article containing the letter. I so hope Sanders coordinates with her, possibly even starting a new progressive party. One thing we've learned in this primary election is that the Democratic Party is corrupt and bankrupt, and certainly not worthy of Sanders' (or any progressive's) support.
My email to Sanders on this topic:
Please consider working with her to implement the progressive movement you started with your campaign. I recently say a news statement that now that you're a registered Democrat you'll stay in that Party. Please reconsider, since one thing this election has taught us is that that Party is corrupt, anti-democractic and captive to big money. Stein has the same values and ethics and is much more in keeping with your long tenure.
My email to Sanders on this topic:
Please consider working with her to implement the progressive movement you started with your campaign. I recently say a news statement that now that you're a registered Democrat you'll stay in that Party. Please reconsider, since one thing this election has taught us is that that Party is corrupt, anti-democractic and captive to big money. Stein has the same values and ethics and is much more in keeping with your long tenure.
White liberal self loathing
Maher's new rule on white self flagellation as a means of self congratulation for how much you care about minorities.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Republicans hate the environment
See this article. Some facts to back up the claim:
"Late last year, the House voted to kill the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which seeks to limit carbon emissions from the electricity sector, even though a solid majority of American voters want to limit greenhouse gas emissions. (The effort failed). Two-thirds of the public wants more solar and wind power, but the House has repeatedly tried to kill programs that support those technologies."
"Late last year, the House voted to kill the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which seeks to limit carbon emissions from the electricity sector, even though a solid majority of American voters want to limit greenhouse gas emissions. (The effort failed). Two-thirds of the public wants more solar and wind power, but the House has repeatedly tried to kill programs that support those technologies."
Libertarian Eco-Socialism
The last two posts remind me of Corbett's developmental spin on the topic.
"Any discussion of socialism these days must keep in mind the developmental distinctions of socialism: Stalin and Mao were red-authoritarian and blue-traditional state socialists, with orange-industrialist aspirations. The USSR and Mao's China never had communism, those were state socialist dictatorships in a mostly agrarian society (red-blue), something Marx suggested could not develop into communism because you cant skip levels of development, meaning you cant skip the stage of orange-capitalism and its dialectics of development for the means (technology and resources) and capabilities (knowledge, skills, and organization) to emerge whereby a global communist society could eventually thrive.
"Any discussion of socialism these days must keep in mind the developmental distinctions of socialism: Stalin and Mao were red-authoritarian and blue-traditional state socialists, with orange-industrialist aspirations. The USSR and Mao's China never had communism, those were state socialist dictatorships in a mostly agrarian society (red-blue), something Marx suggested could not develop into communism because you cant skip levels of development, meaning you cant skip the stage of orange-capitalism and its dialectics of development for the means (technology and resources) and capabilities (knowledge, skills, and organization) to emerge whereby a global communist society could eventually thrive.
Libertarian Socialism
Continuing from the last post, it is one strain of libertarian socialism:
"Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of anti-authoritarian[6] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy,[7] as well as the state itself.[8] It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace,[9] instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[8] and decentralized structures of political organization,[10][11][12] asserting that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[13] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy and federal or confederal associations[14] such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[15][16] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[17] and voluntary human relationships[18] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life."
"Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of anti-authoritarian[6] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy,[7] as well as the state itself.[8] It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace,[9] instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[8] and decentralized structures of political organization,[10][11][12] asserting that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[13] Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy and federal or confederal associations[14] such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[15][16] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[17] and voluntary human relationships[18] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life."
Participatory Economics
See this article. An excerpt:
"The defining institutions of a capitalist economy are: private ownership of the means of production, limited liability corporations, and markets. In contrast, the major institutions that comprise a participatory economy are: social ownership of the productive 'commons,' democratic worker councils and federations, neighborhood consumer councils and federations, and a very carefully constructed procedure we call participatory planning that these councils and federations use to coordinate, or plan, their interrelated activities themselves."
"The defining institutions of a capitalist economy are: private ownership of the means of production, limited liability corporations, and markets. In contrast, the major institutions that comprise a participatory economy are: social ownership of the productive 'commons,' democratic worker councils and federations, neighborhood consumer councils and federations, and a very carefully constructed procedure we call participatory planning that these councils and federations use to coordinate, or plan, their interrelated activities themselves."
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Democratic Stockholm Syndrome
See this article on how so many registered Democrats vote against their own best interests because they have been so abused by their captors they don't know any better. Some excerpts:
"A key takeaway from the [NY] Primary is that regardless of where the movement goes from here – it must recognize the affective hold that establishment Parties and candidates still have on voters, even those committed to and desiring of real change. [...] So many see Centrist Democrats like Clinton as their advocate even when they are so willing to betray them when in power. They represent a now established fantasy of incremental rearguard progress that seeks to inspire not by its idealistic ambition but its clear eyed “realism”."
"A key takeaway from the [NY] Primary is that regardless of where the movement goes from here – it must recognize the affective hold that establishment Parties and candidates still have on voters, even those committed to and desiring of real change. [...] So many see Centrist Democrats like Clinton as their advocate even when they are so willing to betray them when in power. They represent a now established fantasy of incremental rearguard progress that seeks to inspire not by its idealistic ambition but its clear eyed “realism”."
Independents the largest US voting block
And hence their being Bernie Blocked in closed Democratic primaries, why Sanders lost in NY.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Warren defends people fucked by Wall Street
In this speech she defends those whose pensions got decimated by the Wall Street crash. And now their pension funds are to be cut as a result. Why the hell should those who worked hard and played by the rules pay for Wall Street's mistakes?
Nyle & Sharna
They got the first 10 of the season for this dance. And Nyle is deaf! He has to get the rhythm through sight and body contact. Amazing.
Arcade City alternative to Uber
See this article. Some excerpts:
"Christopher David thinks Uber and Lyft are already relics. He’s created a ride-sharing app that drivers, themselves, will one day own, and he’s gamified the app in the process. Arcade City is the name of the game, and – if David continues to coax this fledgling app out of its nest – it could pose a threat to these established industry leaders."
"Christopher David thinks Uber and Lyft are already relics. He’s created a ride-sharing app that drivers, themselves, will one day own, and he’s gamified the app in the process. Arcade City is the name of the game, and – if David continues to coax this fledgling app out of its nest – it could pose a threat to these established industry leaders."
The sharing economy and platform cooperativism
There's quite a difference
between the for-profit sharing economy and platform cooperativism. It's just a matter of putting our money where our mouth is. Some excerpts:
“The ‘sharing economy’ wasn’t supposed to be this way' [....] the actual result of the rise of mobile-based sharing platforms has been something else altogether. 'This new economy is not really about sharing at all. Rather, as Trebor Scholz argues in this study, it is an on-demand service economy that it spreading market relations deeper into our lives.'”
"Scholz’s concept of platform cooperativism encompasses three core action areas.
“The ‘sharing economy’ wasn’t supposed to be this way' [....] the actual result of the rise of mobile-based sharing platforms has been something else altogether. 'This new economy is not really about sharing at all. Rather, as Trebor Scholz argues in this study, it is an on-demand service economy that it spreading market relations deeper into our lives.'”
"Scholz’s concept of platform cooperativism encompasses three core action areas.
Open participatory organizations
This link is to a podcast interview with Bonnitta Roy on the above topic, which also contains a link to Roy's manifesto. The blurb:
How can organizations support our authentic and meaningful engagement in work we actually care about? How can we value openness, participation, reputation, legitimacy, connectivity, and abundance in the way we work together? How can we can organize in ways that liberate rather than stifle our creative spirit?
How can organizations support our authentic and meaningful engagement in work we actually care about? How can we value openness, participation, reputation, legitimacy, connectivity, and abundance in the way we work together? How can we can organize in ways that liberate rather than stifle our creative spirit?
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Fuck work
See this article. It shows that overwork in the US is endemic, both for the rich and everyone else. The rich see overwork as a status symbol, as well as participating in the never-ending quest for more because one can never have enough. For everybody else it's a matter of mere survival to pay the bills and eat. It's
one reason I retired 'early,' as while well compensated I was literally
being worked to death. Fuck that. Now, while technically being labeled
in poverty, I have enough to live my simple lifestyle and I've never
been happier.
Which of course the article shows, that the less one works the happier they are because they are free to pursue their true passions. It's also a plug for a guaranteed basic income for the same reasons.
Which of course the article shows, that the less one works the happier they are because they are free to pursue their true passions. It's also a plug for a guaranteed basic income for the same reasons.
Then White House (sort of) admits Saudi complicity in 9/11
Following up on the last post, this story has the Obama administration admitting that there were some wealthy Saudi's who directly contributed money to Al Qaeda, the latter involve in the 9/11 attacks. And the SA government was well aware of it and did nothing to stop it. Meanwhile SA threatened to sell off its $705 billion in US Treasuries if those 28 pages are revealed. How did we ever let them buy this much of our debt in the first place?
Obama doesn't want 9/11 sources revealed
See this story. There's 28 pages of the 9/11 report being withheld for 'security' reasons. Some speculate that it reveals Saudi Arabia's (SA) direct support in the 9/11 attacks. And now there's a Bill to open up that investigation and allow victims to sue SA. The White House released a response basically saying no, can't happen and let's not look into it ever again. By the way, Sanders wants those 28 pages released to the public.
Postmetatheory
Bruce posted at Facefuck the Introduction to the new book Metatheory for the 21st Century. My response:
I appreciate that Murray's last chapter was valued for 'prepositioning' metatheory itself, something I've long harped on in the relationship of image schema to differance. Also how it anchors abstract metatheory in the body, for without that it's just more 'complex' but less 'real,' more metaphysical and less postmetaphysical. Perhaps we might call it postmetatheory? Of course it we use metatheory's usual definitions and assumptions then postmetatheory would transcend and include and thereby supersede metatheory, thereby outmeta-ing the meta. Poetic justice, that.
I appreciate that Murray's last chapter was valued for 'prepositioning' metatheory itself, something I've long harped on in the relationship of image schema to differance. Also how it anchors abstract metatheory in the body, for without that it's just more 'complex' but less 'real,' more metaphysical and less postmetaphysical. Perhaps we might call it postmetatheory? Of course it we use metatheory's usual definitions and assumptions then postmetatheory would transcend and include and thereby supersede metatheory, thereby outmeta-ing the meta. Poetic justice, that.
Monday, April 18, 2016
More on Clinton's money laundering
Following up on this post, here's more on the Clinton money-laundering scheme. In this story the Sanders' campaign is claiming the Clinton campaign is using a joint fund with the DNC that has higher donation limits and is supposed to be for down-ticket races to launder that money into her direct campaign fund that has much lower limits. Not only that, the majority of the joint fund is going to Clinton directly instead of its stated destination in other races. Smells fishy and illegal.
Wall Street whistleblowers unite
Part one is below. For the other three parts see this link. As a retired professional liability insurance underwriter I can attest that the same dynamic was going on with some companies in that industry.
Only Sanders can break capitalism's power
See this article by Paul Mason. Some excerpts:
"America’s progressive majority needs not just a Democratic president. It needs a presidential candidate who can deliver, either this year or by mid-term, a majority in both houses of Congress and who is determined to engineer a liberal supreme court for a generation. Whether on the issues of class or identity, that is the war that needs to be fought. And only Bernie Sanders can win it. [...] There is zero chance of Clinton achieving that. Though she has shifted her programme to the left rhetorically, her deep roots among the free-market elite and her inability to engage with Sanders’ young supporters militate against the kind of bandwagon you need to enact generational change."
"America’s progressive majority needs not just a Democratic president. It needs a presidential candidate who can deliver, either this year or by mid-term, a majority in both houses of Congress and who is determined to engineer a liberal supreme court for a generation. Whether on the issues of class or identity, that is the war that needs to be fought. And only Bernie Sanders can win it. [...] There is zero chance of Clinton achieving that. Though she has shifted her programme to the left rhetorically, her deep roots among the free-market elite and her inability to engage with Sanders’ young supporters militate against the kind of bandwagon you need to enact generational change."
Sanders and the theory of change
See this article.
"Krugman’s mistake is very basic. He’s wrong about the Sanders campaign’s theory of change. It isn’t that a high-minded leader can draw out our best selves and translate those into more humane and egalitarian lawmaking. It is that a campaign for a more equal and secure economy and a stronger democracy can build power, in networks of activists and alliances across constituencies. The movement that the campaign helps to create can develop and give voice to a program that the same people will keep working for, in and out of election cycles. In other words, this is a campaign about political ideas and programs that happens to have a person named Bernie at its head, not a campaign that mistakes its candidate for a prophet or a wizard."
"Krugman’s mistake is very basic. He’s wrong about the Sanders campaign’s theory of change. It isn’t that a high-minded leader can draw out our best selves and translate those into more humane and egalitarian lawmaking. It is that a campaign for a more equal and secure economy and a stronger democracy can build power, in networks of activists and alliances across constituencies. The movement that the campaign helps to create can develop and give voice to a program that the same people will keep working for, in and out of election cycles. In other words, this is a campaign about political ideas and programs that happens to have a person named Bernie at its head, not a campaign that mistakes its candidate for a prophet or a wizard."
Real and false reason revisited
A
couple quick observations on the last post. As I noted ad nauseum in this
forum, the notion of 'rationality' in this system is the deficient or
dissociative phase of what is termed formal operations in developmental
speak. It is so abstract that it is divorced from other people and the
environment, from it's own very embodiment. It is what Lakoff calls
false reason. It manifests in an entire philosophy explored at length in
Philosophy in the Flesh.
The tragedy of the commons fallacy
See this article debunking the fallacy and providing a realistic alternative.
"There is just one significant flaw in the tragedy parable. It does not accurately describe a commons. Hardin’s fictional scenario sets forth a system that has no boundaries around the pasture, no rules for managing it, no punishments for over-use and no distinct community of users. But that is not a commons. It is an open-access regime, or a free-for-all. A commons has boundaries, rules, social norms and sanctions against free riders. A commons requires that there be a community willing to act as a conscientious steward of a resource. Hardin was confusing a commons with 'no-man’s-land'—and in the process, he smeared the commons as a failed paradigm for managing resources."
"There is just one significant flaw in the tragedy parable. It does not accurately describe a commons. Hardin’s fictional scenario sets forth a system that has no boundaries around the pasture, no rules for managing it, no punishments for over-use and no distinct community of users. But that is not a commons. It is an open-access regime, or a free-for-all. A commons has boundaries, rules, social norms and sanctions against free riders. A commons requires that there be a community willing to act as a conscientious steward of a resource. Hardin was confusing a commons with 'no-man’s-land'—and in the process, he smeared the commons as a failed paradigm for managing resources."
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Clinton and big money
Is this interview the Sanders spokesperson makes clear the relationship of Clinton's big money: It's not so much she changes her position when receiving it than she gets it because she already agrees with its agenda.
Paul Ryan is not not running for President
Yes he is going to push for a contested Republican convention where he is there Presidential nominee. How do we know for sure? Because is said unequivocally he is not running. And we know what that means out of a Republican's mouth.
Irrelevant ICE
In this piece Corbett discusses the Institute of Cultural Evolution's analysis of American political polarization. He reveals how kennilingus ideology imposes itself in political
events and thereby distorts them beyond recognition.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Where's Lakoff on Sanders' moral framing?
I'm
wondering why Lakoff isn't singing praises for Sanders' moral framing at the Vatican. Lakoff effused voluminously on the Pope but
nary a word on Sanders yet in this regard. I wonder what's up with
that?
Tax religion
Here's Maher on the tax the church movement. Isn't it about time we left behind this draconian freebie?
Sanders at the Vatican on a moral economy
See this story, which has a transcript of the full speech at the bottom. Some excerpts:
"Some might feel that it is hopeless to fight the economic juggernaut, that once the market economy escaped the boundaries of morality it would be impossible to bring the economy back under the dictates of morality and the common good. I am told time and time again by the rich and powerful, and the mainstream media that represent them, that we should be 'practical,' that we should accept the status quo; that a truly moral economy is beyond our reach. Yet Pope Francis himself is surely the world’s greatest demonstration against such a surrender to despair and cynicism. He has opened the eyes of the world once again to the claims of mercy, justice and the possibilities of a better world. He is inspiring the world to find a new global consensus for our common home."
"Some might feel that it is hopeless to fight the economic juggernaut, that once the market economy escaped the boundaries of morality it would be impossible to bring the economy back under the dictates of morality and the common good. I am told time and time again by the rich and powerful, and the mainstream media that represent them, that we should be 'practical,' that we should accept the status quo; that a truly moral economy is beyond our reach. Yet Pope Francis himself is surely the world’s greatest demonstration against such a surrender to despair and cynicism. He has opened the eyes of the world once again to the claims of mercy, justice and the possibilities of a better world. He is inspiring the world to find a new global consensus for our common home."
Musicians and philosphers
It's like being an internet philosopher: Spending a fortune on an education to ruminate on a free internet reaching very few for no pay and little recognition.
Capitalism or Socialism? There’s an Even Better Option
By David Korten. An excerpt:
"Assuming that capitalism is about the economy and democracy is about governance, we fail to recognize an essential truth: There is no political democracy without economic democracy. [...] Democracy is a governance system in which power resides in the people. That power cannot be limited to voting for political representatives every few years. It must be rooted in economic structures that distribute power equitably and link it to the interests of communities of place. Such structures can come in many forms: Individual and family enterprises, community-owned enterprises, cooperatives–large and small—and even governmental and quasi-governmental bodies. Democracy is the life-serving alternative we seek to the life-destroying capitalist tyranny under which we now live. Democracy, not the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, should be the election’s framing issue."
"Assuming that capitalism is about the economy and democracy is about governance, we fail to recognize an essential truth: There is no political democracy without economic democracy. [...] Democracy is a governance system in which power resides in the people. That power cannot be limited to voting for political representatives every few years. It must be rooted in economic structures that distribute power equitably and link it to the interests of communities of place. Such structures can come in many forms: Individual and family enterprises, community-owned enterprises, cooperatives–large and small—and even governmental and quasi-governmental bodies. Democracy is the life-serving alternative we seek to the life-destroying capitalist tyranny under which we now live. Democracy, not the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, should be the election’s framing issue."
Neoliberalism: The Zombie Doctrine
Check out this article on neoliberalism. It's a good analysis of what it is and why we unconsciously accept it. And it's true that we need to find a socio-economic system to replace it. But he is mistaken that as of now progressives don't have an alternative. The Neo-Commons is alive and well and gaining strength daily and fulfills all of the necessary requirements. Perhaps the author is also so embedded in capitalism that he can't see what is blatantly in front of him? An excerpt:
Friday, April 15, 2016
A Tale of Two Tax Codes
From Robert Reich on tax day:
"A study released yesterday by Oxfam shows the astonishing political power of big corporations. For every $1 the nation’s 50 largest corporations have paid in federal taxes since 2008, they’ve received back $27 in corporate welfare – bailouts, federal loans, loan guarantees, and subsidies. How is this possible? Because of their campaign contributions and lobbying clout. For every $1 they’ve paid in lobbying, they’ve received $130 in special tax breaks, and more than $4,000 in federal bailouts, loans, loan guarantees, and subsidies. All this corporate welfare means less money for education, infrastructure, and the poor. Meanwhile, corporations are contributing less and less: Back in the 1950s, corporate taxes accounted for almost a third of all federal revenues. Now they account for only 11 percent. You and I make up for the shortfall. Happy tax day."
"A study released yesterday by Oxfam shows the astonishing political power of big corporations. For every $1 the nation’s 50 largest corporations have paid in federal taxes since 2008, they’ve received back $27 in corporate welfare – bailouts, federal loans, loan guarantees, and subsidies. How is this possible? Because of their campaign contributions and lobbying clout. For every $1 they’ve paid in lobbying, they’ve received $130 in special tax breaks, and more than $4,000 in federal bailouts, loans, loan guarantees, and subsidies. All this corporate welfare means less money for education, infrastructure, and the poor. Meanwhile, corporations are contributing less and less: Back in the 1950s, corporate taxes accounted for almost a third of all federal revenues. Now they account for only 11 percent. You and I make up for the shortfall. Happy tax day."
Metamodern philosphy and religion
As another metamodern artist sang:
Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
Religion is the smile on a dog [...]
Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion is a light in the fog
Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box
Religion is the smile on a dog [...]
Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion is a light in the fog
Amazing Grace
Recently I watched the movie Amazing Grace. It's about the slavery abolitionist movement in England. At one point, when the movement was gaining momentum in Parliament, those legislators opposed said ok, sure, we'll do it, but gradually and incrementally knowing full well that it meant delaying to overcome the initiative. It reminded me of Clinton's same tactic about so-called incremental change on major issues like minimum wage, healthcare, Wall Street regulation and so on.
Btw, while slavery as the literal ownership of another was abolished, it was only incremental in that most of us are wage slaves under capitalism. So indeed this is what 'practical' incrementalism gets us. With pretty much the same oligarchs as owners.
Btw, while slavery as the literal ownership of another was abolished, it was only incremental in that most of us are wage slaves under capitalism. So indeed this is what 'practical' incrementalism gets us. With pretty much the same oligarchs as owners.
Transcendent metamodernism
Following up on this post, below is an excerpt from Abramson's article x. Recall in the previous post that philosophy must reflect the broader
context of our daily bread. Otherwise it becomes a stale game of inbred,
elite intellectualism jailed in ivory towers never to affect the daily
life of those not so privileged. In that sense the art of Watts and like ilk do indeed directly affect us, not through some arcane
philosophical argot but through easily accessible formats that reflect
our embedded experience, e.g. a fuck shit stack. This excerpt from "On transcendent metamodernism" is in the context of art that reflects our lived experience.
Last night's Clinton/Sanders debate
We've
seen numerous examples like this of how money directly changed Clinton's tune, in this case on single-payer healthcare.
Yet in last night's debate, when Clinton asked for such specific
examples, Sanders again dodged the question in generalities. He needs to
take the gloves off and answer with the specifics. It's not like there
isn't a shitload of evidence of this.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Corrupt military contractors
This short film reveals just how corrupt this system is. And it's legally supported by corporate lackeys in Congress on both sides of the isle. Which Democratic candidate do you think will continue support for this, and which will fight it?
Big media refuses to cover the revolution
Hartmann exposes who big media just won't cover the Democracy Spring march from Philly to DC, or any of the DC demonstration arrests. It just shows how big media is part of the problem and does not want democracy. Fortunately alternative social media is covering it and most of us with half a brain get our information from this media. We could even call it democracy media versus corporate media. The first is for Sanders, the latter for Clinton.
Senator Warren on big bank revisionist history
The following is from her FB post today. She debunks the notion promoted by Clinton and Krugman that big banks were not the cause of the financial crisis. Indeed they were as five of these big banks recently failed to pass a Dodd-Frank requirement proving how they were financial viable in another crash. This could lead to yet another crash. The following is quoted verbatim from the Warren post:
"Eight years ago, Too Big to Fail banks sparked a financial meltdown, then sucked up hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts. Today, after an extensive, multi-year review process, federal regulators concluded that five of the country's biggest banks are still – literally – Too Big to Fail. They officially determined that five US banks are large enough that any one of them could crash the economy again if they started to fail and were not bailed out.
"This announcement is a very big deal. It’s scary. And it means that, unless these banks promptly address the concerns identified by the regulators, the government must push these banks to get smaller and less complex.
"The announcement also dramatically demonstrates the danger of taking our focus off the big banks as we think about how to prevent the next major crisis.
"There’s been a lot of revisionist history floating around lately that the Too Big to Fail banks weren't really responsible for the financial crisis. That talk isn't new. Wall Street lobbyists have tried to deflect blame for years. But the claim is absolutely untrue.
"Eight years ago, Too Big to Fail banks sparked a financial meltdown, then sucked up hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts. Today, after an extensive, multi-year review process, federal regulators concluded that five of the country's biggest banks are still – literally – Too Big to Fail. They officially determined that five US banks are large enough that any one of them could crash the economy again if they started to fail and were not bailed out.
"This announcement is a very big deal. It’s scary. And it means that, unless these banks promptly address the concerns identified by the regulators, the government must push these banks to get smaller and less complex.
"The announcement also dramatically demonstrates the danger of taking our focus off the big banks as we think about how to prevent the next major crisis.
"There’s been a lot of revisionist history floating around lately that the Too Big to Fail banks weren't really responsible for the financial crisis. That talk isn't new. Wall Street lobbyists have tried to deflect blame for years. But the claim is absolutely untrue.
Esperanza Spalding
On Colbert. My first experience with this group and I like the way it challenges rigid musical structure.
Tax havens of the rich and powerful
See this article. When they don't pay their fair share of taxes that puts the burden on the rest of us. And because they also move work overseas to places that don't have minimum wages or worker safety laws, our income plummets and we can't afford to make up the difference in tax dollars. Hence our social and material infrastructure continues to erode, which of course erodes our spirit to fight this corrupt system. But the greedy bastards that don't feel obligated to society in any way continue to benefit while Rome burns. From the article:
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Clinton bought the superdelegates
See this expose on how this was done. Clinton laundered large sums of cash to State Democratic Parties who fund their candidates, many of whom are superdelegates adamantly pledged to Clinton. If they don't support her then the money is cut off. This was accomplished legally by the McCutcheon Supreme Corp decision that knocked down aggregate campaign limits. So can we really expect Clinton to want to overturn such decisions, including Citizens United, when she takes full advantage of them to buy an election?
Top 10 corporate tax dodgers donated to Clinton
See this article. It not only lists the top 10 and what they donated to Clinton, but what she gave in return for the money.
The real corporate tax rates
See this article citing the recently released Government Accountability Office report on real corporate tax rates. In 2012 two thirds of them paid no federal taxes. "In 2012 alone, 42.5 percent of businesses that the GAO defines as large
did not pay federal taxes, including 19.5 percent of big corporations
that posted a profit." Even though the top statutory tax rate is 35%, even those that pay corporate taxes only average an effective rate of 14%.
Update: As to the previous post on the Verizon strike, this article notes that Verizon paid no federal corporate income tax 2008-2013.
Update: As to the previous post on the Verizon strike, this article notes that Verizon paid no federal corporate income tax 2008-2013.
Sanders joins Verizon picket line
See this story. You don't see Clinton doing this sort of thing. Sanders joined 40,000 union workers protesting the abysmal working conditions at Verizon, like "making devastating cut backs, increasing job insecurity, refusing to
negotiate improvements to wages, benefits and working conditions,
freezing pensions, and demanding that technicians work away from home
for months on end, destabilizing the home lives of their workers."
Dark money and Democratic superdelegates
See this Amy Goodman article and video on the topic where she interviews Lee Fang. Seems the Democratic Party, not being part of the corporate oligarchy, has a number of superdelegates that are lobbying for it. And they are for Clinton, not Sanders. The interview also notes Clinton's avid support for fracking while Sanders opposes it, again reflecting who is with the oligarchs and who is not.
Who is the moderate Republican?
See this article which argues it's Clinton. Both Parties tacked right when corporations starting buying them. The Democratic Party of FDR, JFK and Johnson was progressive, but those days are long gone. Sanders of course is progressive, and is running as a Democrat. But given the Party's shift it's also why they are trying to sabotage him at every step. Clinton, while changing her tune on issues for this election, are not consistent with her previous positions and Senate votes, which have been more in line with moderate Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Governor Christie missing and no one noticed
From Borowitz:
TRENTON (The Borowitz Report)—No
one in the United States has taken note of the total disappearance of
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who vanished from view several weeks
ago. In interviews with residents
across the country, few if any Americans displayed interest in, or
concern about, the whereabouts of Christie, who, until he disappeared,
had been a once-prominent political figure.
Monday, April 11, 2016
Goldman Sachs to pay $5 billion
For their dastardly deeds in the '08 crash. And yet there were no criminal penalties or sanctions. They did though acknowledge their knowing participation is criminal fraud. So tell me how this is justice, when they pay $5 billion in fines after making how many $trillion on criminal fraud and no one goes to jail and they get to keep the stolen money? That's not how it works under a Sanders administration. But Clinton and her lackey Krugman would be just fine with it.
Thompson and Prasangika
Following up on the last post, in this Thompson presentation at CIIS at around 1:07:00 he's asked if
his view is Prasangika. He clarifies that is it more how Tsongkapa reads
Chandrakirti, also distinguished in the Batchelor thread with how
Gorampa sees Prasangika. Hence the two
truths debate elaborated therein. Thompson is using the distinction
between Yogacara and Madhyamaka, and the Batchelor thread shows the
heavy influence of Yogacara in the Gorampa versions of Prasangika
Madhyamaka.
Nonduality koolaid
In a FB IPS discussion on transcendentals, Mark Schmanko said the following:
"It's funny - here on this forum, many of us are all very sophisticated, resorting to all the 'postness' and adjacency, and realism, and enactment talk. But, still, we seem incapable of discarding (or just metaphysically refuse to discard) the nonduality gospel. That, my friends, is the real metaphysics of presence around here, the elephant in the root-identity of the consoled mind, the presumption of some realizable 'prior' or simultaneously all-pervasive unity with all things, with all-that-is; all the contemplatives and meditators, all the philosophical adepts around here continue to take repose in the solace of an imagined unity, kataphatically or apophatically (for the Buddhist-oriented), as such taking perpetual, rhetorrically unfindable subtle-causal pleasure in self-affirming their attunement to it.
"It's funny - here on this forum, many of us are all very sophisticated, resorting to all the 'postness' and adjacency, and realism, and enactment talk. But, still, we seem incapable of discarding (or just metaphysically refuse to discard) the nonduality gospel. That, my friends, is the real metaphysics of presence around here, the elephant in the root-identity of the consoled mind, the presumption of some realizable 'prior' or simultaneously all-pervasive unity with all things, with all-that-is; all the contemplatives and meditators, all the philosophical adepts around here continue to take repose in the solace of an imagined unity, kataphatically or apophatically (for the Buddhist-oriented), as such taking perpetual, rhetorrically unfindable subtle-causal pleasure in self-affirming their attunement to it.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Krugman's brain gets in the way
See this article, which makes the point that Krugman's policy wonkishness is not what gets things done. Ironic, since his support of Clinton and criticism of Sanders is based exactly on this wonkish and specious belief. The article makes clear that nothing can get done unless we the people get involved and make our representatives enact our agenda. And that takes a populist movement, something neither Krugman or Clinton can deliver, but what Sanders can and is. But perhaps that's the point, since both Krugman and Clinton really don't want to be led by the unwashed masses but they want to lead us with their supposed superior and elite knowledge. We the people should just be good sheep and do what they tell us.
PS: While Luntz knows well what gets people to vote, so does Lakoff on the progressive side. And both are adamant its not policy wonkishness but broad moral appeals based on worldviews that get the job done. Again, Sanders is doing that and Clinton not so much.
PS: While Luntz knows well what gets people to vote, so does Lakoff on the progressive side. And both are adamant its not policy wonkishness but broad moral appeals based on worldviews that get the job done. Again, Sanders is doing that and Clinton not so much.
Saturday, April 9, 2016
So who gets invited to the Vatican?
Not all those claiming to be religious Christians but the Jewish guy.
Neoliberal economists against Sanders
See this article, which explores Sanders suggestion to fund single-payer healthcare with a financial transaction tax. The aforesaid neoliberals economists, including Krugman, just can't accept that while us ordinary folk pay all sorts of taxes on necessary purchases the rich should not also pay taxes on their financial investments. This excerpt tell us how these 'experts' are caught up in the neoliberal agenda:
"Leading the assault have been supporters of Hillary Clinton, especially Paul Krugman, and other 'stars' of the economics profession like Christine Romer, Laura Tyson, Alan Kreuger, and Austan Goolsbe -- all of whom have served in past Democratic administrations and are no doubt looking to return again in some capacity in another Clinton administration. [...] The irony of the Krugman/Gang of Four attack is that Sanders' proposals represent what were once Democratic party positions and programs -- positions that have been abandoned by the party and its mouthpiece economists since the 1980s as it morphed into a wing of the neoliberal agenda."
"Leading the assault have been supporters of Hillary Clinton, especially Paul Krugman, and other 'stars' of the economics profession like Christine Romer, Laura Tyson, Alan Kreuger, and Austan Goolsbe -- all of whom have served in past Democratic administrations and are no doubt looking to return again in some capacity in another Clinton administration. [...] The irony of the Krugman/Gang of Four attack is that Sanders' proposals represent what were once Democratic party positions and programs -- positions that have been abandoned by the party and its mouthpiece economists since the 1980s as it morphed into a wing of the neoliberal agenda."
Reggie Watts, metamodernist artist
Following up on this post, this
Abramson article on Reggie Watts, the band leader for The Late Late
Show, sees Watts as a metamodernist artist. A few relevant excerpts:
"Back in the early twentieth century, a number of European literary movements, including Dadaism, Futurism, and Surrealism, bred young radicals who used wild-eyed manifestos and ultra-challenging experimental literature to force workaday men and women to more carefully consider the pitfalls of modern living. While sometimes this form of social protest included an element of performance, more commonly it was found in texts that—ironically—only the Continental intelligentsia were likely to ever come across. The aim of all these movements was nevertheless an admirable one: To make the conditions under which art is created and performed every bit as dramatic and complex as the conditions under which those who don’t make art are forced to live. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way this ambitious aim got sidetracked and stifled in the offices and classrooms of university-dwelling English scholars. Metamodernistic artists like Watts offer our best hope, now, of once again seeing America’s artist class making art directly relevant to how we live today."
"Back in the early twentieth century, a number of European literary movements, including Dadaism, Futurism, and Surrealism, bred young radicals who used wild-eyed manifestos and ultra-challenging experimental literature to force workaday men and women to more carefully consider the pitfalls of modern living. While sometimes this form of social protest included an element of performance, more commonly it was found in texts that—ironically—only the Continental intelligentsia were likely to ever come across. The aim of all these movements was nevertheless an admirable one: To make the conditions under which art is created and performed every bit as dramatic and complex as the conditions under which those who don’t make art are forced to live. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way this ambitious aim got sidetracked and stifled in the offices and classrooms of university-dwelling English scholars. Metamodernistic artists like Watts offer our best hope, now, of once again seeing America’s artist class making art directly relevant to how we live today."
Clinton doesn't want you to hear what she said
To a big fundraiser in Denver. See this article where a white noise machine was used during her speech at the fundraiser. She apparently doesn't want anyone to hear what she says to her big money donors.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Nader on big union leaders
And how they betray their worker-members. In particular, by endorsing Clinton with no input from their membership. Those that do so overwhelmingly endorse Sanders. Even when big union leaders endorse Clinton, over 80 locals of said unions override that and endorse Sanders. The union behavior mirrors the two different campaigns: one for big money and power, one for power to the people.
Warren questions Koch-funded SEC nominee
In this video Warren raises legitimate questions of SEC Commissioner nominee Hester Peirce. Warren shows how time and again Peirce has written against provisions of the Dodd-Frank law and questions if she'd be able to enforce said provisions. Peirce said she could still enforce them even if she disagreed. But Peirce is a research fellow of the Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank at George Mason University funded by the Koch network. The Koch agenda is specifically to infiltrate academia, government and the courts to implement their so-called free market ideology that detests regulation of any kind interfering with their profits and power. So Warren is right to not only question but block this nominee, a nominee appointed by President Obama, by the way. Seems he has a lot of favors to pay back for his own Wall Street money.
Reich responds to Krugman on Sanders
Krugman posted this today about Krugman. Reich's FB response is copied below. I agree with Reich on every point. Quote:
Ordinarily I wouldn’t pick on a particular columnist but I respect Paul Krugman. Also, his perch at the New York Times gives him broad influence – especially just two and a half weeks before the important New York State primary. But his piece today (which I’ve attached) is shot through with errors.
1. The biggest Wall Street banks did indeed precipitate the crisis on Wall Street in 2008 because of their gambling in newfangled financial instruments and fancy derivatives even they didn't understand.
2. Their size did make a difference because they were so interconnected with other financial entities both in the U.S. and around the world that they were "too big to fail." Today's biggest Wall Street banks are much bigger than they were in 2008.
3. Size also has a bearing on their political influence. The reason the Glass-Steagall Act was scotched by Bill Clinton's administration, and the Clinton administration wouldn't agree with the CFTC to regulate derivatives, had a lot to do with the influence of Wall Street over the Clinton administration and over Congress. The political power of the biggest players on the Street is even larger today – as evidenced by their capacity to whittle back significant parts of Dodd-Frank in the regulatory process.
Ordinarily I wouldn’t pick on a particular columnist but I respect Paul Krugman. Also, his perch at the New York Times gives him broad influence – especially just two and a half weeks before the important New York State primary. But his piece today (which I’ve attached) is shot through with errors.
1. The biggest Wall Street banks did indeed precipitate the crisis on Wall Street in 2008 because of their gambling in newfangled financial instruments and fancy derivatives even they didn't understand.
2. Their size did make a difference because they were so interconnected with other financial entities both in the U.S. and around the world that they were "too big to fail." Today's biggest Wall Street banks are much bigger than they were in 2008.
3. Size also has a bearing on their political influence. The reason the Glass-Steagall Act was scotched by Bill Clinton's administration, and the Clinton administration wouldn't agree with the CFTC to regulate derivatives, had a lot to do with the influence of Wall Street over the Clinton administration and over Congress. The political power of the biggest players on the Street is even larger today – as evidenced by their capacity to whittle back significant parts of Dodd-Frank in the regulatory process.
Sanders invited to Vatican City
"The April 15 event, which will be hosted by the Pontifical Academy of
Social Sciences [PASS], is scheduled to cover a number of the Democratic
presidential hopeful's signature campaign issues, including income
inequality and the environment."
There is some controversy on this trip as reported here. The President of PASS said Sanders committed a "momumental discourtesy" for not contacting her office on the visit, instead getting the invitation directly from the Chancellor of PASS. She also said it was a political ploy.
There is some controversy on this trip as reported here. The President of PASS said Sanders committed a "momumental discourtesy" for not contacting her office on the visit, instead getting the invitation directly from the Chancellor of PASS. She also said it was a political ploy.
Ten basic principles of metamodermism
I've recently discovered Seth Abramson at Huff Post, as he's writing articles on the Presidential election. Going to his website
I discover that metamodernism is also one of his interests. E.g., on
the essays link see "the 10 basic principals of metamodernism." I'll
just provide the bullet points below; see the article for details:
1. Metamodernism as a negotiation between modernism and postmodernism.
2. Dialogue over dialectics.
3. Paradox.
4. Juxtaposition.
5. The collapse of distances.
1. Metamodernism as a negotiation between modernism and postmodernism.
2. Dialogue over dialectics.
3. Paradox.
4. Juxtaposition.
5. The collapse of distances.
Bitbol's transcendental deduction
From the archives, some ruminations on Bitbol's paper "Some steps toward a transcendental deduction of quantum mechanics."
The shift away from "passive, mental shaping" to "instrumental shaping" is akin to Bryant's objects enacting their actualities in exo-relations with other objects. And which does not need reference a human object aka 'mental' shaping, thereby avoiding an epistemic fallacy. Granted some kind of observation is needed, that is, an experimental (experiential) context within which an object interacts with another object, thus creating an instrumental shaping.
The ontological is not ontotheological in that a priories are not transcendent but constructed (built), and they can and do change depending on "mode of activity," much akin to Bryant's not only changing exo- but endo-relations, the 'virtual' side of an object.
This is related to my prior criticisms of set theory and the MHC, which presupposes a universal de-contextualization. Hence Commons even relates the MHC to ideal Platonic forms. Bitbol explains that we must remove this 'constraint' and contextualize through transcendental deductions. He then goes into a incomprehensible (to me) discussion of how set theory etc. is still useful if limited, and how it can be organized into some kind of meta-math, but it was over my head. If any math-heads can elucidate please do.
All of this math and deduction though can only describe an object under very limited and specific experimental conditions, akin to Bryant's exo-relations. But the object's virtual substance cannot be accounted for, let alone its actuality in toto.
This reiterates Bryant's (and Morton's) notions that we cannot get outside our limited 'awareness' to some totality or assholon, always requiring some sort of context within which to relate or respond. Granted we can speculate about transcendental conditions but it leaves a lot open, not only in the future but in the past and present as well, given virtuality.
Also recall Bryant's blog post here.
The shift away from "passive, mental shaping" to "instrumental shaping" is akin to Bryant's objects enacting their actualities in exo-relations with other objects. And which does not need reference a human object aka 'mental' shaping, thereby avoiding an epistemic fallacy. Granted some kind of observation is needed, that is, an experimental (experiential) context within which an object interacts with another object, thus creating an instrumental shaping.
The ontological is not ontotheological in that a priories are not transcendent but constructed (built), and they can and do change depending on "mode of activity," much akin to Bryant's not only changing exo- but endo-relations, the 'virtual' side of an object.
This is related to my prior criticisms of set theory and the MHC, which presupposes a universal de-contextualization. Hence Commons even relates the MHC to ideal Platonic forms. Bitbol explains that we must remove this 'constraint' and contextualize through transcendental deductions. He then goes into a incomprehensible (to me) discussion of how set theory etc. is still useful if limited, and how it can be organized into some kind of meta-math, but it was over my head. If any math-heads can elucidate please do.
All of this math and deduction though can only describe an object under very limited and specific experimental conditions, akin to Bryant's exo-relations. But the object's virtual substance cannot be accounted for, let alone its actuality in toto.
This reiterates Bryant's (and Morton's) notions that we cannot get outside our limited 'awareness' to some totality or assholon, always requiring some sort of context within which to relate or respond. Granted we can speculate about transcendental conditions but it leaves a lot open, not only in the future but in the past and present as well, given virtuality.
Also recall Bryant's blog post here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
So one engaged in kennilingus could be called an akenmanuensis, akenman for short, since all they do is repeat verbatim with no thought of their own.