cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2019 01:03 pm
@maporsche,
I lived in Chicago a couple of times during my long life. Once on Clark Street not far from Wrigley Field, and the second time on Wilson Ave with a buddy whose parents owned Honolulu Harry's Club Waikiki and Nakanoya restaurant across from Lincoln Park. I met him in the US Air Force at Walker AFB in New Mexico. Being the only Asians on the base, we became fast friends, and he invited me to move to Chicago after my discharge if I didn't have any other plans, so that's what I did. He adopted me like a brother, and took care of me like a sponsor. When we went on double dates, he usually paid 90% of more of the cost. After about a year, I moved back to California to live with family and friends, and he eventually moved to California too. I introduced him to the woman he eventually married, but on a trip to Hawaii, he had a heart attack and died. After I got married, I worked for Florsheim Shoe Company as the Field Auditor in the seven western states. After 3.5 years, they promoted me to Audit Manager, so we moved to Chicago, and bought a home in Naperville. After 3 years, I missed my family and friends in California, so we moved back and lived in Sunnyvale where my wife's parents lived. We've lived here since the mid-1970's, and love it here. I have met Chicagoans on able2know, and have met them on my trips to Chicago; joefromchicago and Jaye B. When I visited Chicago once, Joe took me to a SF vs Cubs game at Wrigley Field, so when Joe visited us, I took him to a SF vs Cubs game at AT&T Park. I miss many of the museums and architecture in Chicago, but not the climate.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2019 02:47 pm

Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
·
What I’ve learned from the labor movement is that one worker alone can beg for a wage, decent working conditions and retirement benefits, but when people stand together they don’t have to beg. They can win what they rightfully deserve. There is power in a union.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2019 03:00 pm
@edgarblythe,
I believe in unions, because that's the only way workers can have a voice. While going to college, I belonged to the union as a teletype biller for a trucking company (night work). It was union wages, and that was back in the early 1960's, I was making $8/hour. Some people today aren't making that much! Why federal minimum wage is still $6.25 is the biggest mystery.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2019 03:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yeah, I was a teamster for a time. They protected me from some jerks and I will always be grateful.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2019 03:48 pm
@edgarblythe,
It has also been learned that union wages help nonunion workers to get better pay and benefits.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2019 04:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, I know that to be true also.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2019 07:26 pm
@edgarblythe,
I worked as a steelworkers and had union protection. Without it I would have been fired by a safety person because of my refusal wear an unmecassary face mask. She tried to get me for insabordination.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2019 07:59 pm
@RABEL222,
Some people try to use their management power that is beyond common sense. I worked with steel in a foundry in Oakland many decades ago while going to college, and my boss told me to train somebody to become my boss. I quit on the spot.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 12:05 am
You can find this article by searching rollingstone.com.


"IN THE mid-2000s, then-congressman Sanders invited me to tag along to work in the House for nearly a month. He explained he wanted national audiences to know how money-dominated and dysfunctional our national legislature could be.

I found him odd at first. Sanders almost never asked to go off the record, and he seemed so indifferent to how some of his more blunt observations about his workplace might play in print that I wondered at first if there might be something wrong with him.

It took a while to realize that Sanders simply is who he appears to be. There’s no second-level calculation there, no chilled-out off-duty version who stops babbling about public heating oil programs or VA coverage once you turn off the recorder.

This makes him odd, and an abject fail according to the “candidate you want to have a beer with” standard, but it doesn’t make him dishonest, a fact voters picked up on four years ago. It’s one of the reasons why the septuagenarian did well with young people, and why he currently polls better with nonwhite voters than white ones, despite legends to the contrary.

This is why cynics always respond negatively to Sanders. In their world he doesn’t compute at all, so they keep inventing angles to explain him: he’s an “egomaniac,” or in it for personal gain somehow (“He has three houses!”), or a delusional bumbler out to poison the electorate with irresponsible and unrealistic expectations.

As to that last point: Sanders in 2015-2016 went from harmless, terminally ignored fringe-left curiosity to despised, possibly Russian-backed Hillary Spoiler virtually overnight. He’s probably second only to Trump as a target of press and social media invective, which paints him as a racist, socialist serpent in the fallen Eden of the should-have been Clinton presidency.

Some of this negativity is predictable, given that the Sanders platform would massively disenfranchise the traditional financial backers of the modern Democratic Party: Wall Street, pharmaceutical and insurance companies, Silicon Valley, lobbyists and corporate law firms, etc.

Whether it’s now or later, whoever takes on those interests is going to take a hell of a beating. That Sanders seems willing to be that person seems reason enough to embrace another run. Someone has to take up those fights eventually. It might be a while before anyone else volunteers for the job."
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 06:14 am
The world is boiling.

https://apnews.com/24304b673965484e9f10c022e4a3cc6c?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) — As the world’s financial and political elites convene here in the Swiss Alps for the World Economic Forum, their vision of ever-closer commercial and political ties is under attack — and the economic outlook is darkening.

Britain’s political system has been thrown into chaos as the country negotiates a messy divorce from the European Union.

Under President Donald Trump, the United States is imposing trade sanctions on friend and foe alike, and the government is paralyzed by a partial shutdown over immigration policy that forced Trump and a high-level U.S. delegation to cancel the trip to Davos.


A year after getting a standing ovation from the elites at Davos, French President Emmanuel Macron is sinking in the polls as he contends with “yellow vest” protesters who have taken to the streets to call for higher wages and fairer pensions. Nationalist political movements are gaining strength across Europe.

And the economic backdrop is worrying: experts are downgrading their forecasts for global growth this year amid rising interest rates and tensions over trade.

“Judging by the state of the world right now 10 years on from the financial crisis, and the dysfunctional state of global politics I would suggest that these annual events have achieved the sum total of diddly squat,” said Michael Hewson, chief market analyst at CMC Markets UK.

The collective worries have sent a shudder through global financial markets: The Dow Jones industrial average is down nearly 9 percent from Oct. 3.

David Dollar, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, said the buckling market “represents a lot of anxiety that we’re seeing from the corporate elite who meet at Davos.”

How times have changed.

For most of the past quarter century, the worldview symbolized by the World Economic Forum — of ever-freer world trade and closer ties between countries — had dominated. Then came a backlash from Americans and Europeans whose jobs were threatened by low-wage competition from countries like China and who felt alienated at home by wealth inequality and immigration.

In 2016, U.S. voters elected Trump, who advocated restricting immigration and scaling back free trade, and the British chose to leave the EU.

“The winners from globalization have had the megaphone,” said Paul Sheard, a senior fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Harvard University’s Kennedy School. “The losers have been somewhat silent, but now are starting to express themselves through the ballot box and through the political process.”


The Davos confab has always been vulnerable to snark: hedge fund billionaires flying into Davos in fuel-guzzling private jets to discuss the threat of climate change; millionaire CEOs discussing inequality while downing cocktails; endless conversations between people who describe themselves as “thought leaders.”

First among them, perhaps, is WEF founder Klaus Schwab. In an interview Sunday, he stressed the need for more global, “forward-looking” cooperation and a “human-centered” approach to technology as populism feeds on fears of a possible economic downturn in many parts of the globe.

Globalization produced millions of “winners” over the years, but also “has left certain people behind,” Schwab said at the Davos conference center, where his teams gave pre-event tours to delegations ahead of the formal start on Tuesday.

“In the age of social media, you cannot afford any more to leave anyone behind,” he said.

Access to the elite gathering, for businesspeople anyway, doesn’t come cheap. It requires WEF membership, which starts at 60,000 Swiss francs ($60,259) and rises up to the “Strategic Partner” level at 600,000 ($602,605). Getting into the Davos event requires an invitation and an extra fee, which WEF spokesman Oliver Cann said is 27,000 francs ($27,117) per person.

That’s just for corporate chieftains. Civil society, non-governmental groups, U.N. leaders and governmental officials don’t pay: They get in free. Lodging during high-rent Davos week, however, is another matter.

Although Davos is seen as a redoubt for global elites, populists have come, too. Trump got a polite reception when he showed up in 2018, and he had planned to come again this year before the shutdown intervened. Brazil’s newly installed president, the populist Jair Bolsonaro, will attend this year.

Even with some key Western leaders missing, organizers say a record 300 government ministers and nearly 60 heads of state or government including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan will attend. About 3,000 people attendees overall are expected this week.

Davos serves as a global stage for world leaders and executives, and the conference center transforms into a warren of public and private meetings. Executives talk possible deals. Government leaders either meet and greet each other or seek to iron out differences — mostly quietly. Academics and chiefs of non-governmental groups speak out in webcast panel sessions or comb corridors looking to rub elbows with decision-makers.

“They make the trek up to Davos, yes, to drink champagne and to wheel and deal and everything else,” said Sheard, who participates in WEF projects. “But there is sort of an attempt at purification and thinking, ‘We need to do a better job.’”

Gabriel Sterne, head of global macro research at Oxford Economics, argues that top economic decision-makers have much to atone for.

In a report this month, Sterne noted that most major economies performed dramatically worse than expected after the 2007-2009 Great Recession. He blames many central banks — besides the U.S. Federal Reserve — for not responding to sluggish growth more aggressively with easy money policies. And, Sterne says, politicians should have juiced growth with tax cuts and higher government spending.

“There was genuine underperformance by the big institutions,” he said. The result is a populist backlash. “If you don’t do anything about your failings, they can come back and bite you.”

Sterne worries that the populist response “could trigger radical and ill-conceived” policies that overshoot and drive up inflation and swell government budget deficits.

The ride could get even bumpier. The World Economic Forum is focusing on what it calls the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” — a series of rapid advances in technology and medicine expected to transform society. Advances in robotics and artificial intelligence could further threaten jobs and feed the populist revolt.

“We seem to be on the cusp of an incredible new era of automation and critical breakthroughs in health sciences,” Sheard said. “But how do we manage this process? And how do we manage it in a way that doesn’t leave millions of people behind?”

___

Wiseman reported from Washington. Pan Pylas in London contributed to this report.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 06:17 am
@Lash,
That's a conspicuously awful piece. There are perhaps 10 or 12 descriptions of Brock included. Of these, all are anonymous but for three, the first being Weaver. The second two actually speak positively of Brock.

I don't know this author but biographical data notes that his wife works at Reason magazine which, if ya didn't know, is funded by the Koch brothers.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 06:20 am
@Lash,
They would have the populations living like lab monkeys if they could get away with it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 06:27 am
@blatham,
Several prominent Dems are happy to directly take Koch money, so some loose association between the writer’s wife and a Koch industry is meaningless.

If you care to defend David Brock on any assertions made in the article, I’d love to be more specific. He’s far worse a slur against democracy than that piece alludes.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 06:54 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Several prominent Dems are happy to directly take Koch money

I expect that's true. Do you have their names? But in any case, given who the Koch's, overwhelmingly, give their money to (it ain't the Dem or liberal folks/groups) AND given their extremist, anti-democratic John Birch ideology I think we can manage the conclusion that Bernie Sanders is at the polar extreme from them.
Quote:
so some loose association between the writer’s wife and a Koch industry is meaningless.

"Loose association"? They pay the large portion of her wages. Beyond that, do you really not understand Reason's history and political agenda?

But the key point (aside from your weird, rightwingland position on Brock) is that the piece is an example of (at least) very bad journalism.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 07:05 am
@blatham,
It is evident that you’re still operating on a dated idea of who the left is in the US, where they split, and how the different factions come down on Brock. He is more virulently anti-Bernie than any Republican ever aspired to be.

Centrists love him because he’s their own dedicated online ‘Russian botfarm’, lying on Bernie and misrepresenting him with any slur he can think up.

Progressives despise him.

Open Secrets shows soft money handed over to Republicans and Democrats. More interesting is the money trading hands between Democrats and journalists, and the emails that clearly define their corrupt pay for play collusion. If my author’s once-removes financial relationship casts his veracity into doubt, surely the smarmy payoffs and cozy off-the-record parties between Democrats and ‘journalists’ is even more damning... Right?
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 07:30 am
The money paid to both bribe and elect politicians goes beyond the Koch brothers. In 2018 there was just one Democrat receiving Koch money that could be so designated. I think thirteen in the election prior to that. But so much of the money is untraceable we don't always know who gets Koch money. Since all of it is used to bribe and elect, I view with distrust all who receive vast sums, regardless of political persuasion.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 07:32 am
@Lash,
Good grief. Is there any further right wing agitprop you'd like to add to that?

Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 07:35 am
@blatham,
You just don’t know what you’re talking about, so you resort to ad hom: evidence of a losing argument.
Brock’s war against Bernie and progressives
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna953976

From a Politico piece
To many progressives, Brock represents the insider, establishment wing of the party—the Wall Street Democrats who have roused the ire of Americans who rightly feel that they’ve been sold out. As a longstanding member of Hillary Clinton's team, during last year’s primaries, Brock orchestrated attacks on Bernie Sanders were brutal and unfair—as when he proclaimed that “it seems black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders”—and exacerbated divides within the Democratic Party.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/democrats-progressives-


new-leaders-david-brock-third-way-214811

Journalists colluding with Democrats
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/13/emails-show-cozy-relationship-between-media-and-cl/

Leaked emails detail cozy relationship between Clinton campaign, media

By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 13, 2016
Leaked emails show that Hillary Clinton’s campaign officials boasted about getting favorable news coverage from compliant journalists, received political advice from cozy reporters and circulated the names of journalists who were “friendly” to the candidate.

Private emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta also show that campaign officials reluctantly devised a media strategy for handling the Democratic nominee’s sometimes troublesome brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, a strategy that involved Washington lawyer/lobbyist Lanny Davis.


Whatever other revelations lurk in the huge cache of campaign emails being published by WikiLeaks, one thing is clear: Clinton campaign officials clearly exude an air of confidence that much of the mainstream media are in the bag for their candidate and hostile to Republican rival Donald Trump.

Clinton traveling press secretary Nick Merrill was practically gloating after a series of local media interviews with Mrs. Clinton in Michigan in March before the Democratic primary.

“[Six] radio interviews and [two in] coffee shops this morning,” Mr. Merrill wrote. “No flags. Every single interviewer was for her.”

He said the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, “came up in every one, and then education, and [the Affordable Care Act].”

In another email, in February, Mr. Merrill described CNN Politics Producer Dan Merica and Mrs. Clinton as “basically courting each other at this point.”

He recounted an encounter between the two: “Dan Merica asked her if she was jealous that she didn’t get [New Jersey Gov. Chris] Christie’s endorsement, to which she responded with a prolonged smile (you could see the gears turning), and then said ‘Dan, I really like you. I really really like you.’ They are basically courting each other at this point.”



blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 07:47 am
@edgarblythe,
I think that's right, edgar. Election finance reform is, in my view, the most vitally important policy needed to build the sort of democracy we'd prefer.

And that's closely tied to needed election reforms. Here I don't just mean reforms to police voter suppression, redistricting fraud, etc. Elections have become a HUGE industry in themselves. Billions go to media entities, billions more to an enormous array of businesses and groups that function as parasites on the system. Most of those who profit off this existing system want to keep it just as it is (or make it even more beneficial to themselves).

These are intimidating dynamics, for sure. But we have no other alternative except doing what we can to move things in a more proper direction. It's a never-ending fight. John Dewey once said that "politics is the shadow cast by business". It is. But we've made changes in the past towards democracy and egalitarianism so it's not hopeless.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2019 08:14 am
@Lash,
That's cool. I love the Washington Times. Great paper. Dependable. Trustworthy. Progressive.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 04:47:27