What is appropriate punishment for treason?

It has been a long time since any politician actually did something approaching treason. Treason is defined in the US Constitution as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Serious question, has Dumbass committed treason by urging the Russian government to hack the computer files of a former Secretary of State? If so, what is the appropriate punishment? I suggest requiring him to serve as President Clinton's butler for 4 years.

I don't know if it's treason, but his buffoonery certainly lays bare the axis of Putin-Snowden-Assange-Trump.

18 U.S. Code § 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

I was pondering this question. It's too hot to think about him anymore.

God bless Paul Manafort.

Wow, gee. I can post links too.

https://www.thenation.com/article/neo-mccarthyism-and-olympic-politics-as-more-e...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/russia-blame-dnc-email-hac...

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-hawks%E2%80%99-election-strategy-pushing...

ETA: not to forget, http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/syria-and-the-dnc-hack-how-believes-turn-in...

It's about all you've ever done. I mean aside from backhandedly supporting Trump.

If by "backhandedly supporting Trump" you mean "supporting Stein and the Green Party," then I'm guilty as charged.

So Edward Snowden exposes how the NSA is illegally snooping into the lives of its citizens---must be a traitor.

Julian Assange is an Australian and I'd like someone to explain to me just how a foreign national could betray the United States and be tried for treason by the US govt?

And then maybe they could explain other whistleblowers in respect to My Lai, Watergate, Iran Contra and Abu Ghraib and explain why they weren't traitors and why Chelsea Manning is in a military prison?

Ah, now I see it. Stein is secretly a Russian agent as well, right?
(See, I get how this works! Nothing ever changes, does it?)

Obviously not. Proximity will still harass women. JGL will assert that the idea that young men should keep it in their pants is laughable and use misogynistic language to describe the Democrat's nominee. There will be threads devoted to telling us all about how Muslims are terrorists, diversity is overrated and arguments about whether or not LGBTQ folk deserve equality.

And it will all be a bunch of largely white males deciding that they don't have to listen to the concerns of anyone but themselves.

And you'll all do it despite the fact that the vast majority of Progressives think you're actively hurting the people you claim to wish to help.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/king-stop-donald-trump-voting-hillary-c...

Nothing will change because your Progressive politics aren't Progressive politics, they're merely looking out solely for yourselves.

Ah, so that's what this is about. Yes, it does so happen that I share some common political ground with posters here who might say things I wouldn't say or think things I wouldn't think. Yes, it's also true that I've largely ignored those points of disagreement. I'm here to share what insights and pertinent information I can, not to try to re-socialize people, and as a rule I try to avoid conflict. I'd rather take a crack at sharing the sort of background information that led me to form my own opinions than jump in a foxhole and start taking potshots. If you want to call me out for not calling people out, fine -- that's a valid enough criticism. But you're painting with a mighty broad brush here, and laying it on rather thick to boot.
We're all pissed off and upset this week, so I'll try not to take things too personally.

ETA: As for the Daily News piece: I read most of it, and I get it. I also get that as it currently stands, we're hostage to an increasingly dysfunctional political system. And as reckless as you may consider it, I vote that we try to take advantage of a rare and precious opportunity to attempt our escape.

How is allowing Donald Trump to be elected an escape?

And mind you, I don't care who you do or don't call out.

I'm worried about whom you're not fighting for.

>13 Jesse_wiedinmyer: That's a hard question to answer, particularly as you phrased it. But as a down payment on a reply, perhaps you might be willing to hear Chris Hedges on the question. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_1_percents_useful_idiots_20160726

You fight for all of the oppressed or none of the oppressed.

Hmmm, why does this sound familiar?

>15 davidgn: (in cite) We have undergone a corporate coup.

That's absurd. The people have more influence and power over the Presidential election then ever before in American history. The most you can say is that there was a peaceful succession of power from the white plantation owners of the antebellum days to the corporate owners of the Gilded Age. Since suffrage was only legally extended to all people in 1920 (and in some practical sense after Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections in 1966), there was no coup.

The Russian writer Alexander Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of anarchists about how to overthrow the czar, reminded his listeners that it was not their job to save a dying system but to replace it: “We think we are the doctors. We are the disease.”

Right; and look how well the Russian Revolution turned out.

RE "OP" :

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

"Serious question, has Dumbass committed treason by urging the Russian government to hack the computer files of a former Secretary of State?"

Serious answer: "No." Nor has he violated the other laws cited in the thread below your OP.

Exposing evidence of a conspiracy to commit fraud is not a crime. Soliciting others who may have it to reveal such evidence is not a crime.

Suggestion: "get real," FFS!

>17 prosfilaes: Ask an American Indian how the US revolution turned out.

ETA: So you are a tsarist?

>19 RickHarsch: I'm not exactly a fan of the American Revolution, either, though I doubt that British rule would have saved the Native Americans in the long run. I'm a fan of moving slowly. Yes, I think a world where the Tsar has about as much power as Queen Elizabeth II would be a much better one. I think that instead of Iran having another big explosive revolution, it would be better that they gradually move to a system where the Supreme Leader has purely nominal power.

But as a down payment on a reply, perhaps you might be willing to hear Chris Hedges on the question.

Hedges piece has to be the most childish, stompy feet delusional rant I've seen in a while. Walking out would do Sanders and the cause he supports no good at all. He actually wants to get things done, and throwing a temper tantrum won't do that.

It is easy for someone like Stein to be a "pure" progressive - she's never held office higher than being on a suburban town council, and she only held that office relatively briefly. She doesn't have to worry about the difficulties of actually governing anything, because she hasn't won an election since 2008.

The reality is that if Stein ever actually won federal office, or even state-wide office, most of her supposed supporters would likely turn on her in short order, just as Sanders' supporters are turning on him now, and just as those who claimed they wanted Warren to run for president (or take the position of vice-president) turned on her. This is because, once she was actually in office, and actually had to deal with actually governing, she would be forced to make compromises and support policies that would outrage her supporters. Government is compromise. The only people who are able to be "pure" are people who never govern.

Sanders didn't "betray" progressives. Sanders did what anyone who actually wants to get progressive policies into action would do. He compromised to get something rather than sticking his bottom lip out and proudly getting nothing.

>20 prosfilaes: Do you recall how the US and its corporate sponsors started Iran on the path to religion-based revolution back in 1953? Not that you were alive then, but do you recall reading about it?

>21 StormRaven: Save for the stompy feet opening sentence, the post is only wrong, I think, in that it takes too seriously the loud noises made by a few Sanders supporters. I agree entirely about Sanders. No, he betrayed no one (and no, there was no revolution, just an old-fashioned progressive politician running for office--obviously many people miss the progressives and progressive ideas, beginning, no doubt, with the progressive income tax...). Sanders at the very end was forced to swallow more shit than he ever deserved, but he did manage to get people focused on issues Republicans would have you forget, like the hideous maldistribution of income. It remains to be seen whether there is any true effect, but there should be, as so many were energized by his campaign.

On the other hand, I really don't get the virulence which those voting for Clinton snarl at those who can't stomach the thought. It seems like a matter of guilty conscience. There is definitely much to be said for doing whatever it takes to preventing a Trump presidency, but there is also a lot to be said for voting for whoever on the ballot has the views that most nearly match one's own. And there is the perpetual need for a viable third party, which provides a second reason for a Sanders voter to vote for Stein. All this by way of saying that most of what I have read by those voting left of Trump is in essence sensible. What is not is becoming unhinged by differing opinions and strategies.

>17 prosfilaes: In Russia a century ago, I would have stood with the Mensheviks.

It seems like a matter of guilty conscience.

It is the ire of those who have been busy actually working to get progressive policies implemented at those who want to throw tantrums and whine about how their "ideal" candidate never gets elected.

And there is the perpetual need for a viable third party, which provides a second reason for a Sanders voter to vote for Stein.

The need for a third party is a terrible reason for voting for Stein. As I pointed out, Stein has never won an election above a seat on a tiny town council - and has shown almost no interest in building the kind of national organization that would make a third party viable. Showing up once every four years to run for president isn't a viable third party strategy. You need to do the work of running people for local office, and then running them for state office, and then getting representatives and Senators into Congress. A third party needs to be a complete organization, and Stein isn't doing anything of substance to make that happen.

Right now the Green and Libertarian parties combined can boast of a single state legislator. They aren't viable third parties. They are vanity projects.

CALLER: Hi my name is Pheasant and I live in Kansas. My question is, why — you guys talk a lot about politics — I would love to hear you guys talk about third party politics: Independent Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party.

I’m a huge Green Party supporter; I’m voting for Jill Stein. And I realize that people say that if you vote for these, it’s just a wasted vote, it’s a vote for Republicans.

But I also feel we need to start sending a message to Washington and to our political leaders that we’re sick and tired of this two party system and candidates who are controlled by corporations and special interest groups. And they can’t piss off their donors, you know, because they buy the votes.

So I’m just wondering why you guys never talk about it because I think Jill Stein — she’s a member of the Green Party — she’s amazing. And for the people that bitch and moan about… Hillary didn’t always support gay rights, and Bernie didn’t always support this… I agree with you Dan, I think it's ridiculous how — that people can change. That’s what we want, we try to get people — hey, stop being a homophobic asshole, hey stop being a racist prick. But you know the Green Party has never changed. They’ve always supported gay rights, equality for all, the environment…

DAN SAVAGE: Alright, blah blah blah. Sorry I had to stop you. Yeah, let’s talk about the Green Party for just a moment, or third parties, getting a third party movement off the ground here in this country. Because we are sick of the two party system!

Here’s how you fucking do that: you run people not just for fucking president every four fucking years.

I have a problem with the Greens, I have a problem with the Libertarians. I have a problem with these fake, attention seeking, grandstanding Green/Libertarian party candidates who pop up every four years, like mushrooms in shit, saying that they're building a third party. And those of us who don't have a home in the Republican Party, don't have a home in the Democratic Party, can't get behind every Democratic position or Republican position, should gravitate toward these third parties. And help build a third party movement by every four fucking years voting for one of these assholes like Jill fucking Stein, who I'm sure is a lovely person, she's only an asshole in this aspect.

If you're interested in building a third party, a viable third party, you don’t start with president. You don't start by running someone for fucking president.

Where are the Green Party candidates for city councils? For county councils? For state legislatures? For state assessor? For state insurance commissioner? For governor? For fucking dogcatcher? I would be SO willing to vote for Green Party candidates who are starting at the bottom, grassroots, bottom up, building a third party, a viable third party.

You don't do that by trotting out the reanimated corpse of Ralph fucking Nader every four fucking years. Or his doppelgänger, whoever it is now, Jill Stein and some asshole-to-be-named four years from now. You start by running grassroots, local campaigns. And there've been — and I'm sure we're going hear from lots of people out there listening — there have been a couple of Green Party candidates who’ve run in other races here and there across the country. But no sustained effort to build a Green Party nationally. Just this griping, bullshitty, grandstanding, fault-finding, purity-testing, holier than thou-ing, that we are all subjected to every four fucking years by the Green Party candidate.

And the folks, including you caller — and I love you and I respect you and we’re having this debate and I'm not treating you with kid gloves because I respect you — who are fooled by them, who are sucked into this bullshit, who are tricked by these grandstanding, attention-seeking, bullshit-spewing charlatans, into wasting your vote.

Which is what you are going to do, I'm sorry to say, to circle back to the top of your call. You are essentially, if you're voting for Jill Stein, helping to potentially elect Donald J. Trump president of these United States. Which would be a catastrophe.

Which is what some people say that they want. People supported Ralph Nader in 2000 and said there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, therefore we could all afford to throw our votes away, protest-style, on Ralph Nader, who had no hope of getting elected, because there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

These same people, at the same time, said that George Bush was so manifestly obviously terrible that he would bring the revolution if he got himself elected somehow. They didn’t say this about Gore, he wouldn’t bring the revolution. They’re exactly the same, exactly as awful, but one would bring the revolution and one wouldn’t. Which means they weren't exactly the same and they weren't equally awful.

And we're hearing the same thing now about Hillary and Donald. That they’re both equally awful. They're both equally terrible, corrupt two party system, fuck it, fuck it, fuck it. Fuck them both, fuck both their houses! Vote for Jill Stein!

like i said about JW: terse.

Either a Trump of Clinton presidency will be an untenable disaster, but each in their different ways. One thing I will say regarding Trump: compared to Clinton, I actually see him as less likely to get us into WWIII -- for reasons which anyone who has been paying attention would understand. I'll refer people again to my posts here and here and the Nation recap of Prof. Stephen P. Cohen's most recent discussion here. The Clinton-Neocon Hawk alliance is absolutely terrifying to me, and its accompanying rhetoric is far more chilling than almost anyone has perceived. Even The National Interest -- mind you, a rag founded by Irving fucking Kristol! -- is going full bore to try and stop it! Does no one else find that astounding?! I'm more convinced every day that a Clinton presidency will lead us to a major war involving the Russians and/or the Iranians. I absolutely cannot, in good conscience, endorse either candidate. As for third-party options, I'll take what I can get!

ETA: Take a step back and blink, then re-read the title of this very thread!

I notice in the link (>26 Jesse_wiedinmyer:) that the Greens responded by saying they run candidates 'from dog catcher on up'. Perhaps the story is not so simple as the Savage or the Raven would have us think. I would also say that questioning Jill Stein's motives--'grandstanding, attention-seeking, bullshit-spewing charlatans'--displays the weakness sprouted from the frustration of having to always politic overly compromised. Never mind the Clinton conspiracy theories, whatever they are: how about the simple fact that she is indeed a representative of the oligarchic interests of the country and is unlikely to do anything to alter the political landscape (here I hope I am wrong--and do expect she will manage to put an end to the assault on abortion rights).

>25 StormRaven: 'those who want to throw tantrums and whine about how their "ideal" candidate never gets elected...' include me in the 1980s, frustrated especially at Reagan's assaults on Central America. I did not actually throw tantrums unless protesting publicly with a very very small number of cohorts counts; but I whined a lot, and screamed, and generally felt horrible because there was absolutely nothing I could do. I have a high regard for the people who recognized the importance of Sanders' platform, and I understand their frustration very well. And I have been told 80% of Sanders supporters WILL vote for Clinton. So why all the vitriol? The first part of the sentence quoted from >25 StormRaven: is 'It the virulence I attributed to guilty consciences is the ire of those who have been busy actually working to get progressive policies implemented...' This implies that people who were energized by the Sanders campaign (seemingly the most broadly passionate I recall, though I live far from the fray) were more or less wasting their time, when in fact they were working hard to get progressive policies implemented. I would hope that most of these frustrated Sanders supporters remain active and do attempt to sway Clinton leftwards. But if this little tempest continues with such anger as displayed and reaches beyond the here and now absurd to future rift you will have many alienated progressives and many thereby empowered moderates.

You've got Trump begging for your ire, why waste it on Jill Stein?

I notice in the link (>26 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Jesse_wiedinmyer:) that the Greens responded by saying they run candidates 'from dog catcher on up'.

Yes. In 2016 they are running a total of 117 candidates for office. There are more than 500,000 elective offices in the United States. Tell me again how they are a serious third party? Both of the major parties are running more than four times as many people for Congress alone than the Greens are running total. 117 candidates is a joke party running a joke campaign.

Never mind the Clinton conspiracy theories, whatever they are: how about the simple fact that she is indeed a representative of the oligarchic interests of the country and is unlikely to do anything to alter the political landscape (here I hope I am wrong--and do expect she will manage to put an end to the assault on abortion rights).

If the "progressives" stomp away and vote ideologically pure candidates, they make a Trump presidency more likely. Do you really think a Trump presidency will be less disastrous than a Clinton one? While davidgn is quoting loony conspiracy theories, actual national security experts are almost universally opposed to a Trump presidency. Every living former President is opposed to a Trump presidency.

More importantly, if progressives walk away, they weaken their ability to actually get things done. To put it bluntly, no Green candidate is going to be elected to a Federal position in this election cycle. If alleged progressives bolt, the Democratic Party has no reason to care about them any more. The Democrats included a fair number of progressive elements in their platform, and almost certainly made deals to appoint progressive individuals to various positions should they win. This is based on the premise that progressives will deliver votes to help elect candidates. If progressives want to run off and boost Stein from getting 1% of the popular vote to her getting 3% of the popular vote, they have accomplished nothing, especially if Trump becomes president. They will have shown that they can't deliver votes even when the Party tries to take their concerns into account, meaning that there is no reason to pay attention to them.

This implies that people who were energized by the Sanders campaign (seemingly the most broadly passionate I recall, though I live far from the fray) were more or less wasting their time, when in fact they were working hard to get progressive policies implemented.

No, it means the people who are proudly declaring they are refusing to follow Sanders' lead and work to get something done and are instead running off to declare their ideological purity by voting for Stein are wasting their time. Working hard to get progressive policies implemented means working for decades, not months. It means going in to the legislature and getting your hands dirty making the sausage - not putting tape over your mouth pretending you are oppressed. It means voting for candidates who will actually win office and actually govern. HRC started working for health care reform in 1993. How long did it take to get even an imperfect version of that goal implemented?

>31 StormRaven: While davidgn is quoting loony conspiracy theories No, I'm quoting a professor emeritus of Russian Studies at NYU and Princeton, and one of the most respected in his field in the U.S. Also some of the best journalists writing on Russian issues today, and in a very similar vein. Their commitment to realism apparently makes them loons? Or did you have some other contention in mind?

>31 StormRaven: I think my general message was lost in some specifics. I don't think progressives will choose to vote en masse for Stein--I think more than 80% will vote for Clinton. I just believe at this point it is unnecessary to deride people who probably basically agree with you politically and very likely will vote as you do when the day comes. Michael Welch puts it well in post #11 of Rise of the know nothings. I think he nails it. And I think Clinton will win barring some catastrophic revelation, something that is as likely in regard to the founder of Trump U.

It seems to me that davidgn simply opposes the system and is less concerned with electoral strategies. Many of his links have been quite good.

I think my general message was lost in some specifics. I don't think progressives will choose to vote en masse for Stein--I think more than 80% will vote for Clinton.

I'm not talking about the people who have made the reasonable choice - the so-called "Sarah Silverman Progressives". I'm talking about people like Hedges who think Sanders should have stalked out of the Democratic primary and joined the tambourine circle around Stein.

Let's assume Clinton wins. Why should she take on board any of Stein's ideas? Why should she care? Stein's voters didn't support Clinton, and the Green Party certainly has no support in any state legislature, let alone the House or the Senate.

Clinton will likely take on some of Sanders' ideas, in part because of the support he received in the primary, and in part because he will be a relatively senior sitting Senator who caucuses with the Democrats. If he had done what Hedges wants him to have done, Sanders would have no influence at all. That's why Hedges piece is delusional stompy feet childishness.

>22 RickHarsch: Do you recall how I complained that you always bring up ancient irrelevancies to find a way to get a dig in on the US? The ball is in the Iranians' court; no coup 60 years ago changes the fact that it's up to them, now, to choose a course for their culture and government.

>24 davidgn: In Russia a century ago, I would have stood with the Mensheviks.

Seems about right. Ideologically pure, so who cares if their actions led to Stalin slaughtering millions. Without them, the Bolsheviks likely could not have overthrown the Tsars and taken over the country.

According to History of Russia, the five most genocidal leaders of the 20th century are Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Leopold II, and Tojo (prime minister of Japan). The top two came into power by pure revolution, and slaughtered tens of millions of their own people. Hitler came in with talk of violent revolution, and killed "only" 12 million, I'm guessing about half of whom were inhabitants of Germany. Leopold II wasn't acting as King of Belgium in the Congo, instead claiming himself as Supreme Klootzak of the Belgian Congo; even as King of Belgium, he got into power without revolution and did nothing to Belgians. Tojo got into power without revolution, and again, his atrocities were directed outside the country.

In other words, on the list of the top five genocidal leaders, the top two got into power through revolution and killed tens of millions of their own people. The two that got into power purely through peaceful means within the system didn't kill nearly as many people, and actually did fairly well by their nations, albeit while slaughtering millions of foreigners.

>36 prosfilaes: I see. So, should I take it that you are a Royalist? Perhaps an Integralist? If not, then please explain to me why, in the present day, you're identifying me with violent revolutionaries, or why you're insistent upon turning metaphorical allusion into concrete analogy?

FWIW there is quite a lot of similarity between Sanders and Stein on a whole lot of issues. So if Clinton does incorporate some of Sanders progressivism into her agenda--which I would hope she would do and which I think it would be smart for her to do if for no other reason than to get a lot of the younger millennials that Sanders beat her up with all primary season long to at least begin to trust her a bit---and keeping in mind that the young voter is the real future of any political party you would think she would want to make a lot more inroad there. But anyway saying that Clinton might incorporate some of Sanders issues but not Stein's kind of ignores that there is so much spillover between the two that to say such a thing makes me think that the sayer has paid absolutely 0 attention to Stein or even bothered to read the Green platform.

So to illustrate free college--Sanders--Stein's for not only free college she's for forgiving college debt altogether. Both Sanders and Stein are very much for a national health care system. They are both anti-fracking and very very much concerned about environmental issues--Sanders has in fact called climate change (not terrorism) the single biggest threat to the United States. Both would break up the banks. Both are anti-war though Stein more so. Neither are neo-liberals and past free trade deals are anathema to both of them. TPP-forget it. Both of them rail against the incarceration rate and how it singles out certain races and particularly black people disproportionately. They both rail against money in politics. Rail against the military-industrial complex. Both have been on the right (left) side of LGBT and civil rights issues their entire political lives. We can go on and on. And they are both well respected by activists in a wide range of fields---environmental, anti-war, black lives matter etc etc.

But anyway saying that Clinton might incorporate some of Sanders issues but not Stein's kind of ignores that there is so much spillover between the two that to say such a thing makes me think that the sayer has paid absolutely 0 attention to Stein or even bothered to read the Green platform.

Go back and actually read what I wrote.

So to illustrate free college--Sanders--Stein's for not only free college she's for forgiving college debt altogether.

Except Stein doesn't understand what she is talking about - she thinks that college debt can be forgiven with quantitative easing, demonstrating she doesn't even know what quantitative easing is. On issue after issue Stein demonstrates in interviews and policy statements that she has no idea how to actually do any of the things she claims to want done.

Ms Stein may be an unwitting stalking horse for Mr Trump.

>37 davidgn: why, in the present day, you're identifying me with violent revolutionaries

In >24 davidgn:, unprompted, you said you would have stood with the Mensheviks. No qualifications, no "in retrospect", just "In Russia a century ago, I would have stood with the Mensheviks." You picked that door, opened it up, and stuck a door jam in there.

why you're insistent upon turning metaphorical allusion into concrete analogy?

In >15 davidgn:, you basically let someone speak for you, who said "The Russian writer Alexander Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of anarchists about how to overthrow the czar, reminded his listeners that it was not their job to save a dying system but to replace it: “We think we are the doctors. We are the disease.”"

Telling a bunch of anarchists "we are not the doctors, we are the disease" is not metaphorical allusion; it's pretty damn clear what is meant.

I believe in reform of the current system whenever possible. I believe when the Mensheviks helped destabilize the existing government, they were responsible for the new one. They fucked up, and helped usher in a horrific regime. I think the fact that you still say without qualification that you would have been a Menshevik goes very directly to why I will try to get the best government I can this election and you're want to start a revolution.

>42 prosfilaes:

"Peace for our time."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Another_talk_with_the_German_Chancellor,_He...

#39--However workable quantitative easing would be to amnestying college debt there are other ways. The main thing blocking such is really the two major parties. My answer to that is where there is a will there are ways. For instance:

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/obamas-trillion-dollar-nuclear-weapons-g...

....which shows that when it comes to unneeded defense spending programs there is always money to be found. We could add to that the 900+ overseas military bases currently in operation--almost all of which we could do without. We could add to that fighting two separate wars/police actions on two separate continents with the potentiality of adding another in Syria and no real strategy for exit for any of those conflicts--other than total defeat of a guerrilla styled insurgencies which are almost impossible to defeat (see Vietnam). Basically those are containment wars that could go for the next hundred years or at least until the oil dries up and we have no more economic interests in those regions.

On the argument that Stein is not qualified and we heard at times somewhat the same argument made against Sanders---I can only say that it seems to me that the democratic party has painted itself into a corner. It's committed itself in the future towards more security and surveillance and military industrial complex spending and possibly it might even give us another war to fight. For most other things progress if anything will be incremental. It takes no credit for the economic mess this country is in--simply points the finger at the other side which truly is more to blame but not altogether all to blame and here you come along to say we're the only ones smart enough to get us out of all the messes our two party political system has gotten us into. Bravo for that StormRaven but I'm still not quite convinced you are.

On the argument that Stein is not qualified and we heard at times somewhat the same argument made against Sanders---I can only say that it seems to me that the democratic party has painted itself into a corner.

Stein is unqualified because she has no experience governing anything larger than a subdivision. She has no real idea of how to actually run a government, or how to actually get anything done.

Stein is unqualified because she doesn't know anything of substance about the issues that she claims to care about. She says she wants to forgive student debt, but has no idea how to actually do it. She says she wants to break up big banks, but shows no understanding of how to do that or what the effects various choices in that regard might have.

Stein is unqualified because she has no understanding of how the executive branch actually functions.

Stein is unqualified because the people she has surrounded herself with are unqualified - she has no pool of people she can draw from to appoint to positions to actually create a functional administration.

Stein is unqualified because the Green Party is unqualified - there are no Green representatives in Congress, or serving as governors, or serving in State legislatures. With no party representatives in Congress, Stein's agenda would have no chance at getting enacted.

Stein is unqualified because she has never actually had to roll up her sleeves and get dirty making things actually happen.

Of the third parties out there, the Libertarian Party is much more prepared to govern than the Greens. I disagree with Johnson on a lot of issues, but he at least has served as governor of a state. So has Weld. They at least know how to win elections and run an executive administration. Stein has done neither of those things, and continually makes statements that shows she has no idea how to do either of them.

>36 prosfilaes: No, I don't recall, but I will take your word for it. I think differently from you, so it is not surprising that I think you are absolutely wrong. But if we agree on what happened 60 some years ago, probably there is no point arguing it, at least not here and now. If you disagree, I will be happy to take it up but better on a different thread (?).

Another sellout.

"But now, going back to who should you push the button for, well, my own—in the primaries, I would prefer Bernie Sanders. If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don’t think there’s any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for, say, a candidate you prefer, a minority candidate, just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump, which I think is a devastating prospect, for reasons I’ve already mentioned. So—but meanwhile, do the important things."

Noam Chomsky http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/16/chomsky_on_supporting_sanders_why_he

>42 prosfilaes: I don't have time just now to give you a proper or rigorous reply, but just a few clarifications and observations for the time being, off the top of my head.

1. I chose to cite Hedges' views specifically in response to Wiedenmeyer, who I noticed has books by Hedges in his library (as do I) and who I thought might be interested to hear what he's saying these days -- this in lieu of giving a more comprehensive response. I've been influenced in my thinking by Hedges, who has long been a major moral figure on the left (now at last sporting a Presbyterian collar -- to make it official, I suppose), but I don't substitute his judgments for my own.

2. You're awfully hung up on the quote attributed to Herzen (who died in the 1860s, by the way, IIRC, or shortly thereafter). The idea that's being conveyed is that once a political system has atrophied and sclerosed sufficiently, there is no use in trying to save it from itself, but rather to prepare for the day when it is no more. The specific context is tripping you up. Anyone who speaks truth to a system no longer capable of recognizing truth or refuses to cooperate any longer with a system incapable of reforming itself is by definition a disease to that system. Also, in context: this is one of Hedges' "golden oldie" quotes that he trots out every time he opens his mouth. Here's another appearance from 2010, in which Hedges contextualizes it a bit more: https://www.adbusters.org/article/chris-hedges-zero-point-of-systemic-collapse/

We stand on the cusp of one of humanity’s most dangerous moments. Aleksandr Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of anarchists about how to overthrow the czar, reminded his listeners that it was not their job to save a dying system but to replace it: “We think we are the doctors. We are the disease.” All resistance must recognize that the body politic and global capitalism are dead. We should stop wasting energy trying to reform or appeal to it. This does not mean the end of resistance, but it does mean very different forms of resistance. It means turning our energies toward building sustainable communities to weather the coming crisis, since we will be unable to survive and resist without a cooperative effort.

Your mistranslation of all the above seems to be along the lines of: "Assassins and saboteurs, forward! Meaningless chaos now and forever, amen!"

3. Notwithstanding additional implications you've decided to put forward, I mentioned that I would have wound up somewhere in the Menshevik camp a century ago in Russia by way of obliquely acknowledging that I know damn well how the Russian Revolution turned out -- I would have been among the first to be purged! Furthermore, I reject the notion that everyone involved in supporting a revolutionary change shares responsibility for the direction the new system takes in the future should it go off the rails. If you blame Herzen for Stalin's usurpation of absolute power over life and death generations down the road, you may almost as well blame Tom Paine for Obama's as of 2010:

Let us hear no more excuses for Barack Obama. Let us hear no more defenses, no more special pleading, no more extenuations. Let us have no more reciting of the "pressures" he is under, of the "many obstacles" that balk him in his quest to do us good, of the "bad advisors" who are swaying him to unworthy acts against his will. Let us be done at last with all these wretched lies, these complicitous self-deceptions that are facilitating atrocity and tyranny on a monstrous scale.

Barack Obama has ordered the murder of an American citizen, without trial, without due process, without the production of any evidence. All it takes to kill any American citizen in this way is Barack Obama's signature on a piece of paper, his arbitrary designation of the target as a "suspected terrorist." In precisely the same way -- precisely the same way -- Josef Stalin would place a mark by a name in a list of "suspected terrorists" or "counterrevolutionaries," and the bearer of that name would die. This is the system we have now, the same as the Soviets had then: a leader with the unchallengeable power to kill citizens without due process.

That this power has not been used on the same scale in the American system as in the Stalinist state -- yet -- does not alter the equivalence of this governing principle. In both cases, the leader signs arbitrary death warrants; the security services carry out the task; and the 'great and good' of society accept this draconian power as necessary and right.

This is what you support when you support Barack Obama. It does not matter if you think his opponents in the factional infighting to control a bloodsoaked empire and its war machine are "worse" than he is in some measure. When you support him, when you defend him, when you excuse him, it is arbitrary murder that you are supporting. It is the absolute negation of every single principle of enlightenment and human rights professed by liberals, progressives -- indeed, by honorable people of every political stripe -- for centuries.

See also Floyd's citations of Arthur Silber here:

Obama and his administration claim the "right" to murder anyone in the world, wherever he or she may be, for whatever reason they choose -- or for no reason at all. Obama and his administration recognize no upper limit to the number of people they can murder in this manner: they can murder as many people as they wish. And they claim there is nothing at all that may impede their exercise of this "right."

This is the game entire. Understand this: once Obama and his administration have claimed this, there is nothing left to argue about. They can murder you -- and they can murder anyone else at all. What in the name of anything you hold holy remains to be "debated" once a vile, damnable "right" of this kind has been claimed?

And no, I did not vote for Obama in 2012.

There's much, much more I could say, but I have other things to do. I'll leave it here for now.

>17 prosfilaes: Two more points.

1. If you want a capsule summary of the main ideas which Hedges polemicizes, try this from The Economist

2. With respect to your assertion that the notion of a corporate coup is "absurd," I'll refer you to this piece wherein Hedges interviews two of his intellectual betters and the sources of some of his major ideas, including the one which you find "absurd.": John Ralston Saul (Wikipedia) (Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West; The Doubter’s Companion: A Dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense; The Unconscious Civilization; On Equilibrium: Six Qualities of the New Humanism) and the now-late Sheldon Wolin (Democracy Incorporated; Politics and Vision).

The Imperative of Revolt

TORONTO—I met with Sheldon S. Wolin in Salem, Ore., and John Ralston Saul in Toronto and asked the two political philosophers the same question. If, as Saul has written, we have undergone a corporate coup d’état and now live under a species of corporate dictatorship that Wolin calls “inverted totalitarianism,” if the internal mechanisms that once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible remain ineffective, if corporate power retains its chokehold on our economy and governance, including our legislative bodies, judiciary and systems of information, and if these corporate forces are able to use the security and surveillance apparatus and militarized police forces to criminalize dissent, how will change occur and what will it look like? ...

>48The only problem I have with the above, almost all of which I read, is that as it was so soon after Awlaki's murder that his son was murdered as well, that there is no reason to speak in the singular in regard to the assassination of US citizens.

eta: numbering problems

>50 RickHarsch: It was written after the first of those shoes dropped but before the second.
ETA: Here's Floyd's response to the assassination of the child.

>52 RickHarsch: It's now been some time since Jeremy Scahill's book about the subject came out, but it was excellent investigative reporting and the rhetoric was in the reporting making it all the more powerful.

>48 davidgn: Your mistranslation of all the above seems to be along the lines of: "Assassins and saboteurs, forward! Meaningless chaos now and forever, amen!"

Speaking to a group of anarchists in the 19th century, it certainly meant "Assassins and saboteurs, forward!" And systems fail when people don't care; and you're telling people not to care about the system. "The price paid by good men for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."* The fact that this will be used as a complaint against the system and an argument against further involvement is ironic.

Few have ever meant "Meaningless chaos now and forever, amen!", and I don't know where you got that from. My point is that even if we get to implement our dreams perfectly, things aren't going to turn out as well as we want, and many utopias have just collapsed. "Assassins and saboteurs, forward!" has an awful record in history of stuff going to Hell in a handbasket, a record much worse than gradual change.

* A paraphrase from Plato's Republic, which seems to have appeared in this form by the 1950s.

If you blame Herzen for Stalin's usurpation of absolute power over life and death generations down the road,

I blamed the Mensheviks and Herzen's philosophy, not necessarily Herzen himself.

you may almost as well blame Tom Paine for Obama's as of 2010:

Thomas Paine is responsible in some ways our current government. But two hundred years tend to blunt direct responsibility for the fine details.

>49 davidgn: 2. With respect to your assertion that the notion of a corporate coup is "absurd,"

Why don't you respond to what I said? When did this supposed coup happen? I don't see how the Gilded Age was any less corporate controlled than the current age, and at any point before that we were at best debatably democratic, given the formal disenfranchisment of women and Native Americans, and the practical disenfranchisment of pretty much all non-white men.

>53 prosfilaes: When did this supposed coup happen? A slow-motion coup it was, but most observers seem to agree on locating its beginning in the first years of the 1970s. A watershed document that often gets cited is the Lewis F. Powell memorandum of August 23, 1971.

Here's Hedges interviewing Ralph Nader (Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State ; Return to Sender: Unanswered Letters to the President, 2001-2015) on that very question. Nader gives a blow-by-blow description of what happened and how, based on having living through the process with a front-row view. (Here's the Easterbrook article Nader cites). 25 very enlightening minutes, and a much better explanation than I could hope to give. http://videos.telesurtv.net/en/video/464504/days-of-revolt-464504

As for your other point, please don't forget that the Gilded Age broadly coincided with Progressive Era. By contrast, as Nader points out, we've seen nothing but rearguard actions on economic and environmental issues since the late 1970s.

And systems fail when people don't care; and you're telling people not to care about the system. Oh please, that's obtuse to the point of insult. You've missed the point entirely. Clearly your remarks are premised on the notion that there is still a functioning system in place to care about, rather than the hollow facade of one wherein rhetoric and reality are entirely at odds. (The link being just one tiny anecdotal example)

I'm very pleased to have stumbled upon Hedges' television show on TeleSur as a result of this thread. Here he is discussing neoliberalism with John Ralston Saul (former occupant of Rideau Hall as consort of the former Canadian Governor-General -- and, incidentally, former occupant of the same dormitory as my father at McGill during their respective undergraduate days). A tremendous conversation. Sadly, this sort of thing would never be seen on American television -- or Canadian, for that matter, I expect.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_chris_hedges_john_ralston_saul_neolib...

Vis a vis this discussion, one more book for the list. I've got a lot of Saul-reading homework to do. :-)
The Collapse of Globalism

>54 davidgn: As for your other point, please don't forget that the Gilded Age broadly coincided with Progressive Era.

panem et circenses.

By contrast, as Nader points out, we've seen nothing but rearguard actions on economic and environmental issues since the late 1970s.

Disagree with Ronald Reagan as much as you want, the simple fact is that people liked him. Disagreeing with you is not a sign that the system is not democratic. Anti-environmentalism has Evangelical roots, it has roots in people's desire to drive big cars and run their air conditioner as much as they want, etc. In the late 1970s, there was stagflation, which opened the door for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to offer their new economic paths, their "voodoo economics". Plus Cadillac driving welfare queens from Hell, and a bunch of people who didn't want to give their money to "those ... people".

Back in >22 RickHarsch:, RickHarsch reminds of a 1953 Iranian Coup, lead by what is now British Petroleum. Smedley Butler says that in 1933 business leaders tried to use him to set up a coup against FDR. He also says that when he was in the Marine Corps, in the Banana Wars, he was used as "as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers ... a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism".

Oh please, that's obtuse to the point of insult.

Oh please, yes, my remarks are premised on the notion that there is still a functioning system in place to care about; it's something about the way that money gets deposited into my bank account without problem, and then goes to the Water District to deliver water to the middle of the desert, to the Electric Company to keep my air conditioning running, to the grocery to get me food, to Amazon to get me books and to Cox to get me Internet.

the hollow facade of one wherein rhetoric and reality are entirely at odds.

Dodging the details, I think the question is what's new? On March 7, 1965, Amelia Boynton was beaten unconscious and 17 marchers (probably including her) were sent to the hospital from Edmund Pettus Bridge. In 1920, Eugene V. Debs ran for president from a prison cell for the appalling crime of protesting WWI.

As I said in >17 prosfilaes:, prior to 1920 and in some sense prior to 1966, the US was not really a democracy. Are you telling me we had about 10 years of real democracy before the coup? They don't strike me as particularly great years. Even if we're looking at 1920 to 1980, I'm not seeing these wonderfully free years. I'm seeing years where particular political positions were criminalized. It wasn't until the 1970s that the average person chose the candidates the major parties nominated.

I don't buy it. Oversized corporate influence on the government, sure. Maybe at some level, some cynical part of me can buy that they're fundamentally pulling the strings, but not that's a change to anything, that some point between 1920 (when at least under law, everyone could vote) and 1980 that they seized control.

* Political scientist Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told us that Kasich’s seven-of-10 claim is on target. But there is an important caveat, according to Burden, who said: "Before the 1970s, candidates often did not run in many primaries and caucuses to win delegates. And contested conventions were quite common. In the ‘modern’ nominating era, contested conventions are uncommon, with 1976 (Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan) being the only close case. Before reforms pushed states to use open processes for selecting delegates, entering the convention with more delegates than an opponent was less meaningful than it is in the contemporary era." Politifact

>56 prosfilaes: It took some corporate cooperation to convince people of the lie of the corporate welfare queens, and it took a lot of corporate money and a lot of corporate-government cooperation to enact Reagan's foreign policy--but most famously it took anti-democratic scheming to continue Reagan's war in Nicaragua, and of course that included secret deals with Iran.

>57 RickHarsch: It took some corporate cooperation to convince people of the lie of the corporate welfare queens,

I don't buy that. It's the perfect example of a story that sells because it fits neatly into people's biases; people who think their taxes are too high and find it easy to blame welfare, people who want a socially acceptable way to talk badly about black people, people who make a little too much to be on welfare and want more excuse to look down at people they see as below them, etc. (And the last group can always think of some person on welfare they ran into. As a Walmart cashier, I had a lot of customers on food stamp cards who were just fine, but I still remember the customer whose long order ended with steaks, and when that was too much, relegated everyone with "I guess the government doesn't want us to live." If you're a cashier, you have that story. If you're a dick, that's a good reason to believe in Cadillac driving welfare queens.)

it took a lot of corporate money and a lot of corporate-government cooperation to enact Reagan's foreign policy--but most famously it took anti-democratic scheming to continue Reagan's war in Nicaragua, and of course that included secret deals with Iran.

How different is this from LBJ? How is this different from the Banana Wars that ended in 1934?

>58 prosfilaes: 'How different is this from LBJ? How is this different from the Banana Wars that ended in 1934?'

First of all no banana war has yet definitively ended--see Honduras. But supposing they did, they started up again and, for one instance, an extraordinary number of people in Guatemala suffered for it. So yes, you are right that the central US foreign policy guided by corporate interests was essentially the same in 1934 as in 1984.

Regarding the welfare stereotypes: No one can prove anything about what made ugly people think ugly things. I was on welfare in Wisconsin back in the good old days of the early 80s. A disproportionate number of people on welfare were black. They had the same benefits as I did. We got our rent paid. We were required to make an average of one job contact per day, two of five had to be actually applications. We were given food stamps. We were given, if I recall, 15$ every three weeks for such things as soap (I usually bought a used book and a gyro). No one of us lived in luxury. No one of us would have refused a non-toxic job at a higher rate of pay. What we had was the most basic living wage. I actually had less. For I lived with three people, only two of whom paid rent. The other was a punk rock singer who was allowed to stay free. The welfare people asked me how many people lived in the apartment. I said four, but one does not pay. I was given one-quarter rent instead of one-third. I had to apply for a job at minimum wage at a place called Bagels Forever in Madison, Wisconsin. If I did not, I would have been kicked off welfare. I applied for a managerial position, listing among my work experiences 'transient leaf-raker.' I considered myself human and free and refused to allow a society I had no input into to enslave me to that extent. Not long after I applied for a job as a desk clerk at a residential YMCA, where many welfare and mentally ill people lived. I wanted the job and I got it and worked for a couple years with welfare people and a variety of outcasts. I made about a dollar over minimum wage, not much, but the job fed my needs as a human.
That explained, I had many discussion about welfare during that time, in particular with a wealthy brother who believed the most hideous crap about 'welfare queens' or 'cadillac queens' or whatever. Where did he get his ideas? Television. Who more than Reagan stigmatized these people? Representing who? What has since happened to the income gap, the tax structure in the US?

Posfilaes, I have no idea why you resist the notion that the US is run in the interestes a very few Corporte interests, but you appear willing to try any contortion to deny it. Fine. Deny it.

eta: the letter e after on to make on read one

>56 prosfilaes:
Oh please, yes, my remarks are premised on the notion that there is still a functioning system in place to care about; it's something about the way that money gets deposited into my bank account without problem, and then goes to the Water District to deliver water to the middle of the desert, to the Electric Company to keep my air conditioning running, to the grocery to get me food, to Amazon to get me books and to Cox to get me Internet.

If that's your measure of a functioning democratic system, I expect you'd find Dubai to be one of the most democratic places on earth!

Acknowledging again the title of this thread and how it began, let me excerpt this very important op-ed from the editors of The Nation as a further warning against permitting ourselves to be pushed towards relapsing into the well-worn, dangerous rut of our national red-baiting reflex.

Against Neo-McCarthyism

 In their zeal to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president—a goal we share—representative voices of the liberal establishment have joined with the forces of neoconservatism to engage in what can only be described as McCarthyist rhetoric. This magazine, which has a long and proud history of standing up to the
 worst excesses of McCarthyism, repudiates this unwelcome echo of the past. Let us recall that McCarthyism impugned the loyalty of American citizens by accusing them of allegiance to the Soviet Union. This political defamation—often a joint undertaking of Congress and the media—suppressed democratic debate over alternative policies and ideas, and in the process destroyed lives by stigmatizing those whose views were deemed insufficiently loyal to Cold War–era orthodoxies. The overall effect was to poison, chill, and censor the political discourse of the nation. While Trump himself has hardly been damaged by today’s revival of McCarthyism, the same cannot be said for our national debate.
....
To be sure, the GOP candidate has suggested that he may pursue a policy of détente with Russia. He also, in our view wisely, threw out a reckless plank in the Republican platform that pledged to further arm Kiev. But Trump is only following the lead of the current administration. Should we assert seditious links between President Obama’s policy and the Kremlin?

This neo-McCarthyism now threatens to derail a vital debate over the substance of the 20,000-plus e-mails, made public by WikiLeaks on July 22, that reveal the purportedly neutral Democratic National Committee’s derision and contempt for Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign—as well as several aborted attempts to tip the scales against him. While the FBI has launched an investigation, as of press time, nobody has conclusively proven who hacked into the DNC’s network, much less demonstrated what their motives were....Nevertheless, liberal-media elites have joined with the Clinton campaign in promoting the narrative of a devious Russian cyber-attack, which Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting’s Adam Johnson correctly points out “is being used to outweigh the damning substance of the leak itself.”

Yes, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned over the scandal, but a fuller accounting is required—and so is reforming the rules governing the party’s primary elections. The Nation calls on liberals to focus on these issues, to undertake a serious conversation about US-Russia relations, and to reject the cheap neo-McCarthyism that undermines these efforts. No one wishes to defeat Donald Trump more than The Nation. But to adopt the pernicious language of McCarthyism is to turn our backs on the best traditions of our country in favor of the worst.

The Nation and a fucking - broken clock ....

I'd rather have the broken clock. It's coincidentally "correct" twice every 24 hours and one knows in the meantime that it's not to be trusted.

I apply that basic assumption to all of the media, with the occasional exception for a few bylines. I haven't read it regularly in the last decade or so, but since when is The Nation worse than, say, the WaPo? (I mean, apart from David Corn... who's not there anymore anyhow, it seems)

>60 davidgn: If that's your measure of a functioning democratic system,

It's not; it's my measure of a functioning system. We certainly have a more democratic system than Iran, and as I said in >20 prosfilaes:, I believe that Iran would be better off moving towards democracy within its current system than violent overthrown.

>61 davidgn: This magazine, which has a long and proud history of standing up to the
 worst excesses of McCarthyism,

This magazine, which also has a long and not-so-proud history of not standing up to the worst excesses of the Soviet Union.

This neo-McCarthyism now threatens to derail a vital debate over the substance of the 20,000-plus e-mails, made public by WikiLeaks on July 22, that reveal the purportedly neutral Democratic National Committee’s derision and contempt for Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign—as well as several aborted attempts to tip the scales against him.

I see; it is far more important that people talked about bringing up certain things against Sanders and didn't actually do them, instead of worrying about an actual attempt to tip the scales against Clinton.

The Nation calls on liberals to focus on these issues, to undertake a serious conversation about US-Russia relations

Not to take on a serious conversation about US-Ukraine relations. Whether it's the hard right or the hard left, the little guys don't matter. Not, apparently, to be concerned about the meddling of foreign powers in our politics; that would be McCarthyism.

>62 proximity1: Can you manage without cliche next time?

>64 prosfilaes: and davidgn The Nation was one of the few great political periodicals of my last two and a half decades in the US and though I have not been receiving it overseas I have yet come across innumerable valuable articles first published in it.

Quite frankly if there are no real repercussions for DWS and her crew at the DNC----the whole value of those emails were the nefarious doings at the DNC---there should be no real repercussions for anyone else. Nobody at the DNC including DWS is going to be damaged permanently by this and DWS has already kind of landed on her feet. She may lose her congressional seat. So what? I'm thinking even most die hard Clinton supporters could care less---might even think with her out of the picture they'll be better off.

All in all what all this is for the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton is embarrassing egg on your face shit---though Clinton's own actual part in any of these emails that I'm aware of is very much peripheral. At worse and it's not exactly clear some hiding of funds by surrogates that should be easy for her or her campaign to evade. How much the DNC tipped the scales away from Sanders and towards Clinton is even less clear---the only thing that is clear is they did tip the scales---but to what degree that was accomplished?--could have been a bit--could have been negligible. It is still her election to win or lose.

FWIW for the Sanders people still hanging on to the hope that Sanders is going to be the democratic nominee---or even those pissed at him for endorsing Hillary Clinton the only thing I can say is that it's over and it's time to move on and stop picking on a 74 year old who spent a good 9 months of his life running all over the country giving two-three speeches a day. He fought a good fight and hopefully that fight will move his opponent to have better policies. You have choices still if you don't like Clinton. Some of those choices might now win but hey......If you can tolerate Clinton by all means vote for her. If not find someone else to vote for or something else to do on election day. I wouldn't vote for Trump---he's a really fucked up plutocrat whose always had the world laid out for him and about as clueless as George W. Bush.

Anyway those are some of my thoughts on the morning of July 31, 2016. Peace.

>64 prosfilaes:

Dubai is a city located in the United Arab Emirates, not Iran. Its citizens are overwhelmingly Arabs, not majority Persians. Its citizens, however, make up only 20% of its population, a percentage which is quickly shrinking. Its...
No, forget it. It's a waste of time for me to continue this argument. Let the record stand.

>68 davidgn: I think Prosfilaes was merely conflating a couple arguments--I'm sure he knows where Dubai is. I disagree with him profoundly on Iran and find that accepting US intervention as something that should somehow magically wear off over time and that a nation once horribly victimized by the US should become more like the US a bizarre notion, or pair of notions...

>69 RickHarsch: I'm sure he knows where Dubai is.

Well enough. I don't think I could have named UAE, but I knew roughly where it was and that it was not in Iran.

accepting US intervention as something that should somehow magically wear off over time

I have Pictish ancestors. If conquest is not something that wears off over time, the list of peoples I have a valid grudge against is impressive; the Celts, the Romans/Italians, the Vikings, the English... My ancestral Scottish clan was driven out of Scotland to the US by another clan. If time does not heal all wounds, then I think we have a problem.

And, again, you mention US intervention 60 years ago, conveniently ignoring the UK hand in that intervention, and the UK/Russian intervention 15 years before. It'd be a tough world if every country that was manhandled 60 years ago refused to deal with the country that abused it.

a nation once horribly victimized by the US should become more like the US

Again, your politics seem more anti-American than anything else. Is it a bizarre notion that this idea of democracy that many Iranians have been touting should come to be? Should every country with a grudge against the US reject democracy?

>70 prosfilaes: '...conveniently ignoring the UK hand in that intervention...' As you don't know me you have no idea what an that insult is. I have written and spoken extensively on British interference in the universe of humankind (tom waits: if there's one thing you can say about mankind, there's nothing kind about man). The reason I leave out the British is that the US had snatched the baton and the UK was rapidly becoming irrelevant and as you perhaps conveniently leave out, the Iranians did have the sense to recognize who the greater evil was.

60 years and Pictish? Please try harder.

India has never recovered from British interference (THERE'S an understatement). Say I chop off your foot before our footrace to the foodpile...you're STILL bitching about it?

Iran is and has been a great nation, region, civilization, far more refined than the US--their Mark Twain wrote in the early 14th century for one easy instance. Theirs is a literate, fascinating culture that was perverted by Russian and UK nation-states fighting over them and further by the US interfering with their own struggle to adapt to the era of free nation-states.

Anti-US? What the fuck does that mean? Of course I am anti-US. Any nation that did what the US did in Guatemala would earn my everlasting scorn. Any nation that did what the US did in Vietnam would as well. Those are two easy examples. Problem on top of problem is that there are literally 100s more. Literally.

You really should know, in my opinion, that Dubai is in the UAE. When i taught high school English to maritime students in Slovenia I made them learn the five new stans. Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgizhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. I told them, beside the fact that these are places in the world where people live, at the very least you will find yourself at a table one day the only one who knows. My son, happily, learned them when he was nine. (he's 12 now, I just called him in and asked him to name the five stans and he did it immediately.)

Now if you still think I am unreasonable read into these two articles

http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-nps-sand-creek-massacre-20160731-snap-htmlst...

http://www.colorlines.com/articles/4-months-after-her-moms-death-laura-caceres-h...

>71 RickHarsch: I think you'd appreciate this podcast -- one of my personal favorites.

https://porkinspolicyreview.com/category/porkins-great-game/
also https://www.patreon.com/porkinsgreatgame

I haven't caught up lately, and seem to have missed their Turkey coup episode. This should be a treat!

ETA:
Also, here's one of the most memorable pieces of journalism about Dubai that I recall reading recently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-du...

...well, relatively recently.

Thanks, dvdgn, i have bookmarked it

>71 RickHarsch: I see that you ignore the question. Again, how long is too long? And at what point are you shooting yourself in the foot by whining about it? Should Tunisia be bitching about the fact they were permanently crippled by the Romans? Is continued complaining about the Vietnamese be a goal for the Cambodians? When I say that Iran should adapt their government into a democratic form, why is that grounds for complaining about the US?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_subdivisions_by_population is quite a list, and nowhere on that list is something as tiny as Dubai to be found. (Nor is it the capital of the UAE.) I think a much closer analogy to the Stans would be the states of India and China, instead of Dubai.

The age of a civilization is irrelevant to the rights of their citizens; the whole idea is racist special pleading that I really hope you don't bother trying to justify.

India has never recovered from British interference

That's a big what-if. Immediately prior to British conquest of India the Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire were fighting over the subcontinent. What India would have looked like had the British and other European powers not intervened is impossible to say.

>The question is that of a child. You want to compare an event that is 60 years old to one more than 2000 years old? There is no definitive answer, but when one happens well within the same historical period it is quite different. Shooting myself in the foot by whining? Is that how you were taught to express your thoughts? You Viet/Cambodia sentence isn't. Iran should do anything at all but what YOU think. You must understand the history of a place--that they were close to a secular democracy at all--they had no time to establish that form of government--and were violently and hypocritically forced to accept the anachronism of a Shah it takes some strange contemplation for one to argue that they should now become a democracy, especially when one who has never known true democracy is the one suggesting it. It's unbelievably naive. The US toppling (yes along with the Brits, but when the Brits were down and out for good and the US was the new power) the Iranian government seems grounds for 'complaining' about the US.

Dubai is a major air hub and a city quite often in the news so you should be a bit embarrassed not to know anything about it. The stans were not presented as analogous--bad boy, poor reading, poor thinking (and I had mistakenly defended you: you couldn't possibly be as dim as Davidgn understood you were...I was half right). The point, and I can't believe I have to explain it, is simple geographical knowledge. I used the stans as an example of a region with countries it would do some good to know about, to be able to name. Do you know, young man, how big Kazakhstan is? More difficult, do you know if a Kyrghiz is more likely to identify as a Kyrghiz or a Muslim?

The age of a civilization has a great deal to do with culture, something you may have heard of. The rights of the Iranians were trampled on by racists. You are utterly lost here, knowing, apparently nothing of history. Nor did I make any argument regarding race; I merely pointed out that an upstart nation of genocidists lucked into power did extraordinary damage to a nation of great wealth of culture just as it was recovering from a century or so of great game dominance.

India has never recovered from British interference, yes.

There is no COHERENT 'immediately prior to British conquest of India' and, no, the Mughals and Marathas were not fighting over the 'subcontinent', which was quite diverse and far larger than even the Mughals could entirely control, though they did a good job of ruling through largely accepting the fact of historical Hindu economics compared to most invaders in most places. Yes it would be impossible to say what India would have looked like without 'the British and other European powers' 'intervening' (what a euphemism!). They would have had it out the way large regions do over historical time, but they would not have had the famines that the British manufactured and allowed, they would not have had diverse agricultural economies forcibly converted to single crop export economies--do you even know what the opium wars were and how they were devastating on the Indian side? Have you heard of the Vijayanagar empire? Tipu Sultan? The Sikhs? The Kerala king Varma? Do you know what Vasco da Gama did during his second 'visit' to India? No, of course you don't, but here is a very short version: https://rickharsch.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/wherein-my-son-renders-vasco-da-gama.... Unfortunately, I wrote it, and equally unfortunately it is all true. If you would like to know more about Indian culture, history, snakes, current city life in the southeast, corruption in modern day Tamil Nadu, and more, you may purchase my Arjun and the Good Snake for a few euros as an Amazon e-book (some of the above was copied from that book), or if you read Slovene you may buy for a good discount the Slovene translation. Or, if you want a real treat, you can pay 20 dollars plus postage for the English hard copy, which is a rather deluxe version, heavy, and including nine color photos.

I understand vaguely that you are somehow involved in IT--correct me if I am wrong--and you might want to think how annoying it would be if I were to argue with you on the topic persistently and vaguely while knowing the little I do about it. Arguing politics with you when history is involved is a bit like that. You simply don't know enough. And given the vicissitudes of my life and mind, India is a particular specialty of mine. There are plenty of things you must know about far more than I do, and you ought to sneak one of them into this discussion because you seem to want very badly to win an argument that has no foundation and therefore has you sliding all over the place. I actually have answered your question--as an historian would, not as if there were any mathematical answer. Probably my best answer was 'Say I chop off your foot before our footrace to the foodpile...you're STILL bitching about it?'

To paraphrase the hooker Rousseau failed so miserably with on a trip to Italy; 'Prosfilaes, lascia la India, e studia la matematica.'

Sorry if some of this comes off as arrogant, I am generally in daily life quite humble, but you have with a variety of misguide thought patterns and near-assertions brought me to a point I rarely reach. You have earned my respect in some areas writing cogent arguments about things you seem to know. In these areas your thoughts are immature. I am sorry that such a blunt statement is true and that you have elicited it from me, but if you are an honest fellow you will stop and think and potentially learn a great deal.

If we're going to make this a teachable moment, the BBC did a passable job a decade ago of covering some of the basics of the Central Asian region -- with the selective lack of contextualization one might expect from the BBC. I found those episodes a good primer at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Stans

A good complement might be found in this flawed and less-than-scholarly (ETA: the most glaring error is citing Cottrell and facts sole-sourced from Cottrell) but still very important lecture delivered at the University of Groningen's Studium Generale. http://sggroningen.nl/en/evenement/secret-war-gladio-and-battle-eurasia

ETA: Also this piece from Pepe Escobar, five years back. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/ML22Ag02.html

I'll certainly have to check out your book sometime, Rick. I'll admit my knowledge of Indian history is woefully incomplete. I certainly would never be so brash as to try to start an argument with you on the subject!

>76 davidgn: well, the fuller facts of it are that it focuses on alcoholism and snakes and fatherhood, too, the subtitle is Being an Ophidiological Account of Six Weeks in India without Alcohol...so it was written in six weeks with passages added as I typed it up over the following half year or more as they impinged on the themes (venom) and randomly drops in on history rather than attempting to provide anything comprehensive. There may be more history, certainly a great deal more philosophy, in a novel I wrote that is deeper in India.

>74 prosfilaes: nowhere on that list is something as tiny as Dubai to be found.

Something as "tiny" as Dubai, home to the tallest building in the goddamn world?!



It's also, I believe, the tallest free-standing man-made structure, full stop.

Give me a break!

>79 RickHarsch: we all have hole in our bodies of knowledge--it's a nice opportunity when we find one. Prosfilaes' posts suggest this was an embarrassing hole. I was wrong--he had no idea where it is.

By the way, Emirates Airlines is my favorite for a number of reasons.

>78 davidgn: Something as "tiny" as Dubai, home to the tallest building in the goddamn world?!

Did they pack it full of people? If no, then why it would it appear on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_subdivisions_by_population ?!? I gave you my context, which was not an absurd one. I would rather know where Hubei, a province where 50 million people come from, is, than a place known for the size of their artificial dick. (Yes, throwing money at building huge buildings isn't impressive. It's gauche. It's ostentatious display of wealth.)

>79 RickHarsch: he had no idea where it is.

Actually, I could have placed it almost exactly on the map; more accurately than I could have placed the UAE.

>80 prosfilaes: Okay

>75 RickHarsch: You want to compare an event that is 60 years old to one more than 2000 years old?

If you strawman my argument. Even in >70 prosfilaes:, I mentioned "My ancestral Scottish clan was driven out of Scotland to the US by another clan."

it takes some strange contemplation for one to argue that ... especially when one who has never known true democracy is the one suggesting it.

That is about as explicit a logical fallacy as I have seen in my life. Who is suggesting it has no logical connection to the what is being suggested.

I merely pointed out that an upstart nation of genocidists lucked into power did extraordinary damage to a nation of great wealth of culture just as it was recovering from a century or so of great game dominance.

"lucked into power". Just the like the Persians lucked into power and culture; do you think it's something inherent in the Inuit that they never produced the Mark Twain of the 13th century, or perhaps it has something to do with the fact the Persians were sitting on one of the most fertile agricultural regions of the world, and the Inuit weren't. There is one group that the US can truly be considered as having committed genocide on, and by this rule the Native Americans don't count, because they had no culture in this fashion. This is racist bullshit.

----

it takes some strange contemplation for one to argue that they should now become a democracy,

Here we come back to the base of the argument. I proposed that Iran should have a peaceful transition to democracy, instead of having a violent revolution, with the unspoken alternatives presumably being the same things, with a different form of government, or the status quo.You chose to drag in the coup in 1954, and I continue to fail to see how it's relevant. What should the Iranians do?

>82 prosfilaes: I'm sorry, but I really don't follow how 'That is racist bullshit.' What is?

Otherwise: somewhere I, as you bizarrely put it, I strawmanned your argument. You don't explain that, but it liberates you to make absurd comparisons and ask a question that confuses math and history.

If you know true democracy, you see it work, you see its beneficence, then you might want to assert that it would be a good idea to have it elsewhere. But you don't know it. There is no logical fallacy. There is one logical hole, though. I don't know how to close it: Iran should have had a democracy of a sort beginning in 1953, but they wanted to keep their own assets and the US could not allow that. We will never know what Iran would have been.

Iran had a violent revolution. I would like Iranians to be free and egalitarian. Unfortunately an indelible mark on their recent history was the coup engineered by the US and Britain in 1953 and the subsequent 25 years of terror. Asking Iranians to 'move on', particularly in some way you vaguely suggest, is akin to asking black US Americans to get over their past. That analogy is not idle, for as with blacks in the US have never been treated equally to this day, nor has the US ever let up on Iran.

I really don't understand the contortions you seem to have gone through to make me, who despises the genocidal assent of the US, a racist, but perhaps you need to calm down a bit, because that's utterly out of the realm of reason.

>83 RickHarsch: 'That is racist bullshit.' What is?

The idea that "cultured" nations have more rights than "uncultured" nations. That's exactly the concept behind colonialism, "white man's burden". Calling Iran cultured doesn't fundamentally change the issue.

somewhere I, as you bizarrely put it, I strawmanned your argument.

You want to compare an event that is 60 years old to one more than 2000 years old?

When, of course, I also compared it to one that is about 300 years old.

If you know true democracy, you see it work, you see its beneficence, then you might want to assert that it would be a good idea to have it elsewhere. But you don't know it. There is no logical fallacy.

The truth or falsehood of an assertion is independent of its maker. Logic 101.

Asking Iranians to 'move on', particularly in some way you vaguely suggest, is akin to asking black US Americans to get over their past.

So you're comparing a sovereign nation to a minority group who live in a racist nation; and yet black Americans somehow managed to push for a more democratic society.

I have never asked the Iranians to 'move on'. I noted that they aren't really happy with their current form of government, and I hope that when they do make a chance, that it's within the system, with all the costs that involves, instead of a full-out revolution.

"Azimi argues that we have fundamentally misunderstood this event by characterizing it as an “Islamic” revolution when it was in reality the expression of a long-repressed desire for popular sovereignty. This explains why the clerical rulers have failed to counter the growing public conviction that the Islamic Republic, too, is impervious to political reform—and why the democratic impulse that began with the Constitutional Revolution continues to be a potent and resilient force." from Havard University Press summary of "The Quest for Democracy in Iran".

nor has the US ever let up on Iran.

During the Cold War, every American woke up knowing there was a nuclear missile in Soviet silos with their address on it. You somehow have not let that free Americans from the responsibility for their actions. Whatever their external politics are doesn't excuse them from making wise choices for their internal politics. If they can't do that, then one wonders about the wisdom of them being an independent nation.

me, who despises the genocidal assent of the US, a racist,

I think you should have gone with "I have a black friend" line. It makes more sense. Believing your statements might be racist is "utterly out of the realm of reason" is pretty bad, because living in a racist society, growing up in a racist society, sometimes you will say racist things. Rejecting out of hand that you could say racist statements means you're more likely to do so in the future.

>84 prosfilaes: That is racist bullshit.' What is?

The idea that "cultured" nations have more rights than "uncultured" nations. That's exactly the concept behind colonialism, "white man's burden". Calling Iran cultured doesn't fundamentally change the issue.

That is as ugly a distortion as anyone has ever pulled on me in a public forum. You should be ashamed of yourself. I DID NOT say they had more rights, I explained more than you knew about their society. You DID NOT KNOW that Iran had a brilliant satirist, a non-conformist who attacked the deadened priestly class of Islam some 600 years before the US attacked Mossadegh. You did not know this and therefore could not understand the significance of it. If you need for me to explain the significance of it, please ask.
On to your extraordinarily ugly invention. To lament, say, the destruction of an ancient city such as Baghdad, is not to turn one's back on Sand Creek. That is an apt parallel to what you have done in taking my support for a region of great culture, superior in all aspects but military to the one attacking it, and accusing me of being racist for not mentioning other crimes committed by the barren empire you live in. I never said or implied that the cultured nations have more rights than uncultured nations. And for an empire apologist such as yourself to attempt to lecture me on the concept of the white man's burden is laughable...but grotesque. Your lack of knowledge of what you speak of--Iran, India--has been laid bare. You are desperate. You are wrong but do not want to be wrong. You would rather try to win an argument than to learn. And of course you have no idea what I am referring to in regard to Baghdad and Sand Creek. You will look up Sand Creek and pretend you knew.

'The truth or falsehood of an assertion is independent of its maker. Logic 101.'
Logic must be applied logically. Because you know nothing about democracy it is highly unlikely that you will assert anything true about it. A surface knowledge of logic is generally your enemy in a discussion forum. It leads you to toss around terms like strawman as if they were so many...straw men. In the context of our argument 300 years is as absurd as 2000. You simply display no understanding of history and culture and display no empathy for humans outside your limited nationalist purview. That is not necessarily racist, but it is anathema to humanity. The more ignorant one is, the more subject to demagoguery and prey to the grandiosity of one's own unexamined notions, which thus live on in the dark of the dimlit brain, breed, multiply and like infinite tiny demagogues turn voracious, gnaw on the brains, leading the sad semi-scientist astray, finishing off the wormy matter before moving on, leaving the tongue flapping about in an agony of ignorant protest, alone and clacking in a skull once pregnant with potential.

Please take your pity the poor US Americans under nuclear threat out into the world beyond your borders. You will quickly find that in the world at large the US is the most feared nation in the world.

I expect you know as little about the advent of the cold war and the us role in it as you seem to about everything else historic.

>85 RickHarsch: That is an apt parallel to what you have done in taking my support for a region of great culture, superior in all aspects but military to the one attacking it, and accusing me of being racist for not mentioning other crimes committed by the barren empire you live in. I never said or implied that the cultured nations have more rights than uncultured nations.

Again, you spend words talking about "a region of great culture", which implies that it matters, that it would be less offensive if they'd attacked some other region.

In the context of our argument 300 years is as absurd as 2000.

So when I asked above when the line was, why did it take so long to get you to limit it to no more than 300 years? If 300 years is clearly absurd, surely you can move the line in?

You will quickly find that in the world at large the US is the most feared nation in the world.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/ I mean, far be it that facts would intrude on your world, and I'm sure you'll find some way to to dismiss them, but the US gets decent favorable ratings on average, and better than China (page 28 of the PDF).

>86 prosfilaes: 'Again, you spend words talking about "a region of great culture", which implies that it matters, that it would be less offensive if they'd attacked some other region.'

YOU are drawing that conclusion, so I can only conclude that YOU have issues with racism.

'So when I asked above when the line was, why did it take so long to get you to limit it to no more than 300 years?'

Because it was and remains a stupid question.

Your Pew does not measure fear. Your Pew means nothing in this context. As with your elementary grasp and use of logic it means absolutely nothing. America retains a positive image because of its wealth and propaganda. I know adolescents take pride in using demi-clever phrase like 'far it be it that facts would intrude on your world', but you have shown that you are grotesquely lacking in knowledge of history, of geographic facts, and the ability to admit your failings.

Oh, and yes, culture matters. Only a racist would take that to mean that other cultures than Iran have no culture as you imply. You need to take a break, because you are in over your head, which says perhaps far more about you than it does me.

I have refrained, kindly, form pointing out how you ignore the bulk of what I write and pounce on things that you contort into what you imagine are points. But you choose foolishly, probably because of the very fact that you do not honestly engage the arguments (look how India was dropped when you realized you were in over your head). So stop now, do a lot of reading and reflecting, try to open your mind, see how things appear to you in five years or so.

>87 RickHarsch: Because it was and remains a stupid question.

Which you spent a long time raging about when you could have answered it quickly. If 300 years is too long, then obviously it is "something that should somehow magically wear off over time". You calling this "a stupid question" is all about your refusing to analyze the implications of your statements.

other cultures than Iran have no culture as you imply.

You mentioned a 13th century Mark Twain. If that means anything, it's an aspersion against all the other cultures that didn't have a 13th century Mark Twain. It's definitely an aspersion on the British culture of the time. No doubt you'd jump all over someone who pointed out that in the 13th century Britain had Roger Bacon writing the Summa Grammatica, unlike Iran.

America retains a positive image because of its wealth and propaganda.

So which is it? Is American the most feared nation, or does it have a positive image? Technically, both could be true, but then "most feared nations" means that very few people fear any nations, which is not saying much. In any case, I've offered data, and you've offered verbosity.

how you ignore the bulk of what I write

I thought about putting an eye-rolling emoji in, especially for all the stupid personal aspersions, but felt it better to let them go. You dodge direct questions, and then find it somehow outrageous that I don't respond to everything you write?

What can I say to your implication that a subcontinent wracked by wars between empires would have become a peaceful place free of war-induced or politically-assisted famine? With someone not already locked into an ideological answer, there's lots and lots of interesting speculation. But you've got your answer.

>88 prosfilaes: So stop now, do a lot of reading and reflecting, try to open your mind, see how things appear to you in five years or so.

I'm in the process of catching up with Stephen F. Cohen's last two weekly discussions. For anyone who would like follow suit, here are the links:

https://www.thenation.com/article/cold-war-detente-neo-mccarthyism-and-donald-tr... (August 2)
https://www.thenation.com/article/neo-mccarthyite-kremlin-baiting-of-trump-conti... (August 9)

Meanwhile, here's the view from Germany. (As I've mentioned before, MoA is the spiritual successor of Billmon's briefly-famous Whiskey Bar blog, now written by a former Bundeswehr tank officer "B" or "Bernhard" who displays a real talent for cutting through false narratives. Not always right, but always worth reading.)
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/08/media-builds-up-enemies-for-hillarys-wars.h...