Hearing that Michael Cohen had given word today that he would not be testifying before Congress on February 7 as promised, citing threats made against members of his family by Donald Trump, I decided to pull together a little “witness intimidation” timeline for us to go over as a group. I hope you find the exercise worthwhile and instructive.
NOVEMBER 29: It was announced that Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, had accepted a plea deal with federal prosecutors that would, among other things, require that he acknowledge having knowingly lied to Congress in October 2017 in response to questions about Donald Trump’s ongoing negotiations with representatives of the Russian government during the 2016 election for the construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow. [note: Whether or not you believe the Buzzfeed story about Trump having personally directed Cohen to lie to Congress, it’s worth noting that Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani has conceded that the two men may have talked just before Cohen’s perjured testimony on Capitol Hill.]
DECEMBER 10: Donald Trump takes to Twitter not only to accuse Cohen of lying to federal prosecutors, but to float the idea that his Department of Justice could go after Cohen’s wife and father-in-law for having committed unspecified crimes. [note: By December 16, Donald Trump would be referring to Cohen as a “rat”, for cooperating with prosecutors.]
JANUARY 10: It was announced that, before entering prison to serve his three-year sentence, Cohen would be testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. [When the Democrats took over the House on January 3, calling Cohen to testify was among the first things that they did.] Among other things, we were told that Cohen would be asked by the Democrats on the committee about the campaign finance laws he violated when he paid off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal on Donald Trump’s behalf, as well as his knowledge concerning those negotiations between Donald Trump and the Russians during the 2016 campaign over the construction of the aforementioned Trump Tower in Moscow.
JANUARY 12: Trump, in a live interview with Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, once again appears to threaten Cohen’s father-in-law… Here’s the exchange.
TRUMP: “In order to get his sentence reduced, he says, ‘I have an idea. I’ll tell… I’ll give you some information on the President.’ Well, there is no information… But he should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at. Because where does that money… that’s the money in the family. And I guess he didn’t want to talk about his father-in-law. He’s trying to get his sentence reduced. So it’s pretty sad. You know, it’s weak. And it’s very sad to watch a thing like that. I couldn’t care less.”
PIRRO: “What is his father-in-law’s name?”
TRUMP: “I don’t know, but you’ll find out, and you’ll look into it. Because nobody knows what’s going on over there.”
JANUARY 13: Representatives Elijah Cummings, Adam Schiff, and Jerrold Nadler, the Chairmen of the House Committees on Oversight and Reform, Intelligence, and the Judiciary, issued the following statement in response to the above comments made by Donald Trump on Fox News regarding Michael Cohen’s testimony before Congress, and what might happen to his family members if he were to follow through.
“The integrity of our process to serve as an independent check on the Executive Branch must be respected by everyone, including the President. Our nation’s laws prohibit efforts to discourage, intimidate, or otherwise pressure a witness not to provide testimony to Congress. The President should make no statement or take any action to obstruct Congress’ independent oversight and investigative efforts, including by seeking to discourage any witness from testifying in response to a duly authorized request from Congress.”
JANUARY 20: Giuliani says on CNN that Cohen’s father-in-law “may have ties to something called organized crime.”
JANUARY 23: Through his attorney, Cohen says he no longer intends to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on February 7, citing the repeated threats to his family. In the words of Cohen attorney Lanny Davis, “Due to ongoing threats against his family from President Trump and Mr. Giuliani, as recently as this weekend, as well as Mr. Cohen’s continued cooperation with ongoing investigations, by advice of counsel, Mr. Cohen’s appearance will be postponed to a later date.”
Well, as you might imagine, a few folks are suggesting that what we’re seeing play out is, in fact, a felony.
First, here’s Representative Ted Lieu’s take.
And here’s what Representatives Cummings and Schiff had to say.
“We have received Mr. Cohen’s notice postponing his voluntary appearance in an open hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Reform. We certainly understand the completely legitimate concerns for the safety and security of Mr. Cohen and his family members in light of the attacks last week by President Trump and again this past weekend by his attorney, Rudy Giuliani…
Nevertheless, when our Committees began discussions with Mr. Cohen’s attorney, not appearing before Congress was never an option. We will not let the President’s tactics prevent Congress from fulfilling our constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities. This will not stop us from getting to the truth. We expect Mr. Cohen to appear before both Committees, and we remain engaged with his counsel about his upcoming appearances.”
For what it’s worth, Donald Trump, when asked about his intimidation of Cohen today, said today that he did not threaten his former attorney. He says that Cohen was merely “threatened by the truth.”
President Trump on Michael Cohen: "He's been threatened by the truth." pic.twitter.com/iFvzxls8bW
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 23, 2019
162 Comments
Trump knows that by threatening to have organized criminals exposed/investigated he is essentially sending the message that they need to silence Cohen. They may very well take that message seriously and do what they see as necessary to make sure Cohen doesn’t get a chance to testify. I wonder how things will proceed if Cohen gets whacked. They’d have to make it look like suicide. They may take out a relative or friend first to give Cohen a chance to clam up. Watch for a suicide or accident among Cohen’s friends and associates. Then, if there is one, expect Cohen to have a change of heart.
I’m surprised HW hasn’t called me all kinds of names for that last comment. I assume it’s coming. Go ahead, HW. Let me have it.
I think it’s bizarre to insinuate President Trump would have someone assassinated but that’s about it. Look at the Clinton body count; how many people around them commit suicide or have bizarre fatal accidents. What is the probability? Any situations like that you can think of with Trump?
NYT: “Trump Calls Cohen a ‘Bad Lawyer’ and Links Him to Clinton in a Morning Tweet”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/us/politics/trump-cohen-clinton.html
JUST IN: Michael Cohen has been subpoenaed to testify before the Senate Intel Cmte., a source close to Cohen tells @NBCNews.
More: https://on.msnbc.com/2HvvQUv
HW,
I’m not saying Trump would have someone murdered himself. I’m just saying his threats to expose mobsters publically could be interpreted by the mobsters to mean they need to protect themselves.
I agree with you in that I haven’t seen a lot of suspicious deaths around this Trump Administration, though I haven’t been looking. So someone else here may be able to name a few.
The thing you learn in politics about this stuff is that it’s always ordered by much more powerful folks than the stooges in elected office. The individuals around the Clintons that died under suspicious circumstances were mostly killed for their knowledge of the Mena guns/cocaine smuggling operation which was run by the more renegade elements of the CIA.
Vince Foster, for example, was the middleman between the Clinton Arkansas Governor’s office and the CIA group operating out of Mena. They also murdered those children who trespassed onto airport property and witnessed aspects of the operation there.
I assume you know what I’m talking about here. I also assume most folks here don’t know anything about this stuff, tell themselves it’s not real and therefor not worth of attention or taking seriously. A few folks who rarely comment, but do read this blog regularly, do understand some of this stuff.
Trump is used to being able to say anything he feels the impulse to say. As a multi billionaire developer in New York City, if you say you will expose a mob operation or individual who has important information, someone is likely to die suspiciously.
I am familiar with that information of course. The Mena Arkansas coke smuggling ring? With the Clinton and Bush? The two kids who both passed out on the tracks and got hit by a train? Yeah.
*Clinton/The Clinton’s/whatever
Putin/FSB/GRU/polonium/whatever
Yeah, that’s what your people were messing around with. Uranium One, bitch.
What kind of fucking moron would confuse Polonium, atomic number 84 and one of pootins assassin’s tools, versus Uranium, atomic number 92 and used in bulk globally for a multitude of commercial uses. And these fools have the right to vote, and more shockingly to buy ammo by the barrel.
You are the one who added ‘whatever’. Radioactive elements, you pedantic little bitch. Your people are in trouble for dealing them.
That’s right, treason for the ones you adore and nothing against Trump. 145 million from the guy who sold U1 to Rosatom to the CF. Constantly pretending Trump did anything wrong at all with Russia doesn’t mean shit. I guess it gives you that good mean but dim feeling you like to get all the time to way things like that but it means nothing. Can’t WAIT till all you people’s shit is allll fucked up.
*say things like that
Can’t forget about buying false information to frame Trump from…Russians to…influence an election…Who is going to be up on treason charges again?
HW, you have to admit it’s a bit out of line for Trump to be making threatening sounding statements about any court case. Mark’s not off on this.
I know you admire Trump’s style, but isn’t this a bit thuggish?
I didn’t mean to be impolite by interrupting your fight with JB, but I just thought we’d bring things back onto Mark’s topic for a bit.
I was glad to see JB even comment. I thought this thread was going to be only you and me again. We seem to be the only regulars willing to talk about this sort of stuff.
He’s claiming Cohen is making up stories. If that’s true then how is it threatening to point that out?
I was mocking you dumbass. Ain’t no fight when one side is brain damaged. Whatever.
Cohen, Manafort, etc aren’t afraid of Agent Orange. They’re afraid of his boss. You know, the dude with the Polonium tipped umbrellas?
That’s retarded. You have zero evidence after all this time. Oh, I’m just going to keep saying Agent Orange till collusion magically becomes true!
Roger Stone just got arrested in Florida.
Roger Stone, a longtime Donald Trump associate, arrested and charged with obstruction, witness tampering
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.freep.com/amp/2675742002
Yeah, Cohen is threatened by the truth. Maybe “The Truth” will climb in the window in the middle of the night and strangle him, and then hang the body to look like suicide.
Is it too much to ask that the President of the United States act like an adult?
Bill Clinton just happened to be Governor at the time that these CIA operators set up their smuggling base at the Mena airport. Clinton was given the choice to cooperate by keeping state police out of their business, or chose to be dealt will as uncooperative. Naturally Clinton ordered the state police to stay clear of the Mena airport operations. Had Clinton not agreed, he would soon cease to be Governor, and he’d be blocked from getting into any other office. Anyone who doesn’t cooperate with operations like the ones in Mena end up ruined or dead. Obviously Clinton wouldn’t be privy to exactly what was being smuggled through Mena, but he was almost certainly told it was the guns that were being shipped down to Central America. That was the “sell” to President Reagan as well. Naturally these CIA guys aren’t going to say what the planes have in them on the return trips. Anyone who noses into what was going on there ended up dead, including those poor children who were just out exploring the area in and around the airport.
I didn’t mean to kill the lovely banter we had going here between JB and HW. I just wanted to fill in some gaps in HW’s understanding of the suspicious deaths the dopey right call the “Clinton body count.”
We can get back to discussing what Mark brought up too. I think if we quote Trump directly regarding Cohen, you can’t deny he’s talking like a NYC gangster businessman toying with mob-speak. When you bring up a guy’s family, you’re talking like a degenerate mobster.
So in your version Clinton went along with CIA smuggling because otherwise he would be blocked from future aspirations. That’s bad enough. You’re not going to take a stand against treason if you have a chance?
“Obviously Clinton wouldn’t be privy to exactly what was being smuggled”
I don’t see how that is obvious or apparent at all.
“you can’t deny he’s talking like a NYC gangster businessman toying with mob-speak. When you bring up a guy’s family, you’re talking like a degenerate mobster.”
I think that is ridiculous. Mentioning Cohen’s father-in-law makes Trump mafioso?
Those posts are from a crazy imposter, not me.
Yeah, it’s so crazy all those things I actually said. What a bitch-ass move to post in someone else’s chosen nickname; someone who you never ever have an actual argument against. All it does is make you look like dog shit. How can you stand to be so mentally weak? You can’t stand it which is why you mock me. Too bad that means nothing.
It’s obvious and apparent that Clinton wouldn’t be let in on any detail of what the CIA operation is doing. That is standard. The CIA operates under the strictest standards of secrecy. Threats to that are dealt with by any and all necessary means. They do not let anyone in on details of operations who aren’t in an absolutely need-to-know position. That means, if you aren’t a direct participant in the operation, you are not to be told any details of the operation. Even the individuals necessary to the operation only have the very minimal knowledge of detail. Only the detail absolutely necessary for each individual to carry out their particular function is ever shared with them. No civilian is informed of any detail. No Governor. All someone like the governor of a state would be told by CIA agents conducting an operation through an airport in their state would be that it was classified, and at the highest level. It’s possible that Clinton was told it involved supplying weapons to the rebels in Nicaragua, and was ordered at the highest level of the federal administration. By the way, President Reagan knew there was a CIA operation flying guns down to support the “freedom fighters,” but naturally he was not told the planes were being anything back. Oliver North was fully in on that knowledge, as was indicated by his reference to “paste” in his messages to others in the operation.
HW, Clinton didn’t have any information which would suggest the CIA team operating out of Mena was in any way treasonous. Also, Clinton didn’t agree to keep the state police out of the CIAs business just because he wanted to preserve his political future. He would be putting himself and others in danger if he didn’t agree. The notion that the CIA tells outsiders details of what they are doing is absurd. They eliminate individuals who present a threat to absolute operational security. Any agent or contracted individual who violates the strict standard is executed. The strictest level of operational security is understood to be protected by any and all means.
Go volunteer to do contract work for the CIA in the Middle East. You will quickly understand that nobody just casually tells you shit you don’t have clearance to know. Nobody will tell you shit about the broader objectives. You will be provided the minimal detail necessary to perform your very narrowly defined function. You will be told at the last moment necessary as well. That’s for purposes of security also. You won’t even have time to make a phone call. Even if you don’t have any critical knowledge of the operation details, and you are discovered to have shared any detail of what you do know with anyone, you will be determined to be a hostile and a threat to the operation, and eliminated. Intelligence work is really lonely, scary and unfulfilling. The stuff you read on the websites pushing partisan hatred are full of bullshit. You should read more from guys who’ve actually worked in intelligence and espionage. It’s really educational.
By the way HW, it’s not “my version” of what happened in Mena. It’s what the congressional investigation revealed of what happened.
To get back to Mark’s topic, Trump has no legitimate reason to talk about Cohen’s relatives, especially in the form of a thinly veiled threat. It’s a thuggish impulse which we’ve seen him display a number of times in the past two years. In his business dealings he is used to making those sorts of threats. He has difficulty withholding that impulse now, even though he’s President. It’s rediculous that he doesn’t know better and can’t control himself. I don’t know if I really believe you don’t understand all this. Are you really to the point that you can’t see and admit to something so obvious.
I’m cool with taking to the real HW or the fake HW. I’ll respond to either one essentially the same anyway. No offense.
Bill Clinton was probably higher up back then than anyone you will ever know. Mr. future President doesn’t know shit about what is in his own state huh? The Bush’s had nothing to do with it either I’m sure.
“no legitimate reason to talk about Cohen’s relatives”
If he is lying to protect his freedom and money which the father in law holds then why is it not legitimate to say so?
When Clinton was governor of Arkansas he knew the CIA was running an operation out of the Mena airport, and that he just needed to keep the state police from interfering. That’s all he needed to know to feel he was assisting an important federal operation to supply “freedom fighters” in Nicaragua. He certainly felt there was no reason not to cooperate with these feds. They had the approval of President Reagan, who also felt that, though it violated a congressional order, it was important to the cause of stopping the spread of communism in Central America. Both Reagan and Clinton were under the impression that the operation was just about that. Clinton, as governor, would not be in any position to oppose a highly classified CIA operation in his state. There was nothing he could do, even if he did suspect there was something seriously illegal going on.
Now I’m hoping the real HW and/or the fake HW can understand that. If the fake HW understands that, but the real HW doesn’t, could the fake one explain it to the real one for me? I’m going to sleep.
Good story
Back when Ken Star was investigating Whitewater, I was telling the idiots I knew who worked for GOP cobgressmen that they should dig as deep as possible, so the CIA whacks ‘em. The Whitewater land deal was really about the payoff the CIA Mena group set up for the Clintons in exchange for them keeping their mouths shut about Mena. The alternative would have been meeting with unfortunate deaths.
You should read the actual details as they were revealed by the congressional investigation into Iran-Contra and the independent digging some reporters did.
Buying into that partisan bullshit you so live is only going to lead to further misunderstanding and hostility towards the wrong individuals.
I don’t blame Trump for anything. He was lied to about getting into the presidential race. He was manipulated and had no idea the plan was to actually put him in. You’re smart enough to think for yourself HW. You don’t need to be spoon fed by partisan dupes.
You like the CIA whacking politicians? Huh! You like politicians who fail to investigate CIA smuggling bases in their own state and go on to become President.
HW, have you seen the movie “American Made” with Tom Cruise playing CIA contract pilot Barry Seal? I didn’t even know about the movie until just now when I saw this article:
“Tom Cruise’s ‘American Made’ Nixed Scene With Bill Clinton Getting Lap Dance (Exclusive)”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/tom-cruises-american-made-nixed-scene-bill-clinton-getting-lap-dance-1044025
Apparently, the original name of the movie was going to be “Mena.” I’m going to see if it’s on Netflix.
Nobody likes that shit, HW. A few people can conprehend things they don’t like though.
You can’t crusade against the CIA. You have to reign them in carefully – very carefully. It’s the only way. A po-dunk Governor is in no position to do shit. Even other intelligence agencies have to proceed very cautiously. Did you see that movie “American Made”? I’m going to find it on Netflix now.
Yeah, the podunk Prez! You get your opinions from Hollywood.
You two are just so whacked. It’s not even amusing anymore. It’s just sad. Are you seriously reopening the Clinton CIA drug running from Arkansas nonsense again? The one that built an entire industry for conspiracy theories and has never yielded a single credible piece of evidence? The direct line which runs straight to pizzagate? You are some sad little fuckers.
HW: “You like the CIA whacking politicians? Huh! You like politicians who fail to investigate CIA smuggling bases in their own state and go on to become President.”
Don’t be rediculous, HW. Nobody “likes” the CIA whacking politicians, or reporters (Gary Webb). People are pretty universally against it, and disgusted by it. It’s the stuff of nightmares. But understanding it is essential to having any sense of what is going on in the highest levels of politics and business. Thinking Trump isn’t just another guy whose being used as a tool by powerful interest is stunningly child-like.
You’re a moron, Bob. Read though the Iran-Contra hearings documents, testimony and findings. Is that too challenging for you. Until then, keep your ignorance to yourself.
HW, I get my opinions from 35 years of experience in politics, and an interest in how intelligence agencies and criminal organizations function.
I am not interested in Hollywood, except on very rare occasion. Have you seen “American Made”? I haven’t. Do you follow? Do you conprehend? I know Bob is too dumb to get simple things, but I still believe you have some brains. Or at least you are the moronic sucker he is.
Can you imagine how hopeless America is if Bob represents the average citizen and their knowledge of recent history. He doesn’t even know it’s well established that the CIA was running guns down to Central America and Cocaine back. Articles detailing it have been in every major US newspaper, news network, and in much deeper detail in congressional investigations. Apparently Bob doesn’t read or pay attention. Don’t be a Bob Hopeless, HW.
I meant to say you “aren’t” the moronic sucker Bob Hopeless is.
I really like this web site. I found it thanks to one of his music shares.
The truth is out there. And I don’t mean that stuff FF says.
https://themetalden.com/?p=56067
Holy cow, SAD. I clicked on that link and now I can’t unsee it. The time when I felt such conspiracy theorists were amusing has long passed. I would love to be in position to dismiss them with a curious gaze and a shrug again.
Life goals.
Sad and Jean, have you read any of the Iran-Contra documents, testimony, or findings? Have you read the huge volumes of articles printed in national newspapers about all that Mena stuff?
I know Jean is well read…recently. This might go back to her pre-woke days.
Bob Hopeless doesn’t remember any of it. So apparently he is either in his 20s or he was illiterate pre-2000. Either way, he doesn’t think it’s important for a democracy to have an informed citizenry.
Anyway, to get back to Mark’s thread topic here, I think we can all agree Trump often talks like a mobster thug in his statements. I’m not saying he is actually a mobster. I’m also not saying he isn’t. That is something for the FBI to determine. I’m just saying he talks like one. I also agree strongly with Mark that Trumps comments about Cohen are very thinly veiled threats, and are absolutely inappropriate.
HW feels all of what I’ve just said is wildly out of line and ignorant somehow.
I listened to the entire Iran Contra hearings. I don’t argue with your assessment. I was responding to the link SAD provided. Generally speaking, illegal activosties are most successfully perpetrated when as few people know as possible, so theories which involve successful implementation of evil that involve many people in the know stretch credibility for me. I’m sure Clinton knew a CIA operation was being run out of the airport but I doubt he knew the quo’s pro quo arms for hostages piece. (I do doubt the drug smuggling angle although I suspect they would do whatever was necessary) I believe Reagan likely aptocedvthe arms for hostages deal. I’m sure Bush Sr did.
You are jumping to reactivity and assumptions again iRobert. Click the link… The Clinton angle has been well investigated and explored. It’s minor (use of an airstrip for a covert operation) relative to other bad action, but it has been inflated by those out to nail the Clintons…. Bob is right that nothing much was unconcerned. We all knew we were sending arms illegally to rebels all over the globe. It was terrible —dusasterous even—but it’s not news. Playing into the hands to Clinton conspiracists is stupid not open minded. I’m sorry I placed myself in position to be a target in common for you, FF and HW. You fell into an unholy alliance with them. It doesn’t take too much analysis to see why. It’s your problem not mine.
Jean: “You are jumping to reactivity and assumptions again iRobert.”
My statements are only a little off yours. Ken Starr’s investigation showed the Whitewater land deal was likely a payoff to the Clintons for keeping totally quiet about Mena. Further investigation by Gary Webb and others found some links which suggested the same. The reason Starr’s investigation could never get enough on Whitewater to do anything with it was because of CIA interference and intimidation.
I think you’re too partisan to acknowledge any of the details which you think make the Clinton’s look complicit. I’ve worked for the Clinton’s. I like them. I don’t think they initiated any of what happened with Mena or Whitewater. I know they had few choices afforded them.
Otherwise, I’m glad at least one other person here has paid any attention to a very important and informative story from recent US history.
Bob Hopeless is a moron. He doesn’t know anything about any of this. You, Jean, have at least read a little. If you don’t understand that it was established that this CIA operation was bringing vary large quananies of cocaine into the country, you haven’t read any of the research done by investigative reporters such as Gary Webb. You also haven’t listened to the interviews with individuals who were contracted to provide the planes and pilot them. It’s well established that most of the cocaine which was brought in ended up dumped into the ghettos of Los Angeles. There was quite an uproar about it. But apparently this is where your concern for racism ends. That cocaine did a lot of damage in minority communities in LA.
You also didn’t read Oliver North’s written communications where he talks about the amounts of “paste” being brought in on each flight.
Keep reading, Jean, and stop pretending like you have a superior level of information on this. You’re just being childish.
What’s hilarious is that you boobs attach the Clinton’s to Republican scandals and treason. Or that you think any of that is important as you defend the current administration. The crimes unfolding right now are so much more insane. As are you clowns.
iRibert— I said you were being reactive because I never questioned your take on Iran contra. You asked about my take I gave it. I never said I was more informed than anyone. I happened to be painting houses that summer and so heard the whole hearing, beginning to end. I read a bit at the time.
I understand we are not too far apart on this one. That was my point. You keep attacking me for little cause and it’s growing tiresome. There’s a degree to which I accept it because it so handily exposes your bias. But you really are out of control.
Ps you really should click on SAD’s link so you can see what my post was actually about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHXCHpnLIb8
Saying ‘partisan’ doesn’t make sense. George Bush (Bill Clinton’s other other dad, you know?) was involved in this and I would never cut him any kind of slack.
I can’t help attacking you Jean. I’m a white male and I’m threatened by all strong women.
Bob Hopeless doesn’t seem to understand I worked for Bill Clinton. I still think he was one of our better presidents of my lifetime. I wouldn’t blame him for anything I wasn’t pretty sure he did. And all he did was allow what he thought was simply a covert gun running operation to operate without his state police nosing around. It’s true that the operation was mostly devised and sanctioned by right wingers.
I do prefer to focus on the issue Mark raised in his post at the top of this thread. I’ve said I agree with him that Trump’s comments are witness intimidation. I don’t think anyone, if they are being honest, wouldn’t agree his comments are at least inappropriate for a President to be making about a court case.
HW has expressed that he feels this is a wild accusation. I really am stunned by that.
How is it a threat to say the wife and her dad hold his shady money and are getting away with it if that is the case? I don’t understand the outrage. You can see it as some kind of gangster intimidation if you want to but that doesn’t make it true.
HW did Trump have CHRIS CORNELL killed?
No Hillary did, SAD…. Duh.
Jean,
When is the Ypsi drag queen story hour?
JH, “so theories which involve successful implementation of evil that involve many people in the know stretch credibility for me.”
and yet we have numerous examples of the government violating the law. This is most obvious in foreign affairs when the Executive will routinely violate laws to implement political policies. As a result of allowing this type of lawlessness, we routinely have, Government officials committing perjury before Congressional committees. Most of this lawlessness is accomplished through “open” conspiracies. The President says he is going to violate a law, and nobody stops him. Subordinates lie in pursuit of the Presidents agenda, Congressional committees are presented with evidence of their perjury and they look the other way.
The Iran Contra hearings are a perfect example of Government officials getting away with open lawlessness. Even when it has been “officially” exposed and judicial prosecutions are on-going, Presidential pardons for all–clearly that is going to be in the Trump play book.
And yet I guess you will find that “many people in the know stretch credibility for me.”
I agree Wobblie.
Open ethical and international law violations by governments are very different than what is in discussion here.
EOS– you can look that up yourself. I welcome your protests. That would be amusing.
It’s not on the Library’s calendar. So if you are being truthful and they do have a “drag queen story hour” – they don’t tell the parents in advance. That seems even more problematic.
I’m going to let you figure it out EOS.
Studies show a link between excessive pot use and adult-onset (atypical) schizophrenia and other mental illness. Studies also show that people with severe mental illness are much more likely to smoke pot in excess. HW may want to take note. He regularly cites research. Turns out there isn’t much.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/14/is-marijuana-as-safe-as-we-think
“Messamore reports that, following the recent rise in marijuana use in the U.S. (it has almost doubled in the past two decades, not necessarily as the result of legal reforms), he has begun to see a new kind of patient: older, and not from the marginalized communities that his patients usually come from. These are otherwise stable middle-class professionals. Berenson writes, “A surprising number of them seemed to have used only cannabis and no other drugs before their breaks. The disease they’d developed looked like schizophrenia, but it had developed later—and their prognosis seemed to be worse. Their delusions and paranoia hardly responded to antipsychotics.”
Very sciencey: a doctor making a claim. When unbiased research is finally allowed you will see that Cannabis has tremendous benefits for many who suffer schizophrenia; for many more patients than it hurts at all.
Cannabis-derived compound may help treat schizophrenia
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317768.php
the article stated that more research was necessary HW.
I searched your source (Medical News Today). Here are the results including your one selective link:
-Cannabis-derived compound may help treat schizophrenia
05 Jun 2017
New research investigates the potential of the cannabis compound cannabidiol for treating cognitive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.
-Cannabis and schizophrenia: New evidence unveiled
28 Apr 2017
Whether smoking cannabis increases the risk of developing schizophrenia has been hotly debated. A new study using genetically modified mice weighs in.
-Marijuana use and schizophrenia: New evidence suggests link
26 Dec 2016
Recent findings appear to reconfirm evidence of a two-way link between schizophrenia and cannabis use, suggesting that one leads to the other.
-Teens who use cannabis at risk of schizophrenia
17 Jan 2016
THC, the psychoactive chemical found in cannabis, alters the brain in ways related to neuropsychotic disorders such as schizophrenia when it is used by adolescents.
-Schizophrenia and cannabis use may have genetic link
25 Jun 2014
New study finds that genes known to increase risk of schizophrenia may also increase likelihood of cannabis use, while not ruling out cannabis use itself as a cause of the disease.
-Cannabis Use May Lead To Schizophrenia
07 Nov 2012
Schizophrenia patients who have a history of cannabis use show a different brain activity pattern in an fMRI than schizophrenics without prior cannabis use, according to a study published in…
-Schizophrenia Can Stem From Cannabis Use Which Mimics Cognitive Weakness
06 Nov 2012
Researchers at the University of Bergen in Norway have found new support for their theory that cannabis use causes a temporary cognitive breakdown in non-psychotic individuals, leading to…
-Potential Link Between The Genetics Of Schizophrenia And The Genetics Of Cannabis Dependence
15 Oct 2012
A paper by Shizhong Han and colleagues in the current issue of Biological Psychiatry implicates a new gene in the risk for cannabis dependence.
-Minimal Relationship Between Cannabis And Schizophrenia Or Psychosis Suggested By New UK Study
24 Oct 2009
Last year the UK government reclassified cannabis from a class C to a class B drug, partly out of concerns that cannabis, especially the more potent varieties, may increase the risk of…
-The Daily Consumption Of Cannabis Predisposes To The Appearance Of Psychosis And Schizophrenia, According To A Study
26 Mar 2009
The daily consumption of cannabis predisposes to the appearance of psychosis and schizophrenia, and those episodes of psychosis which are fruit of this substance present certain specific…
-Cannabis does not induce schizophrenia, Dutch scientists say
19 Aug 2004
A group of Dutch scientists say that there is no proof that cannabis induces schizophrenia.
-Cannabis triggers transient schizophrenia-like symptoms
15 Jun 2004
The principal active ingredient in marijuana causes transient schizophrenia-like symptoms ranging from suspiciousness and delusions to impairments in memory and attention, according to a Yale…
I have explained the state of Cannabis research before. Who controls research? Under what circumstances is research on natural cannabinoids granted? Are there many frustrated researchers? What is their complaint?
HW— I’m just suggesting some confirmation. Of our collective experience dealing with you here and the emerging research. I made no claim to be an expert. We dont know enough about the impacts of excess cannabis use. You nevertheless speak about it with certainty. As always.
But you are the paranoid schizophrenic if anyone is here. You think white supremacy is in the very air we breathe.
You actually hold that as a position. At the same time you believe that eugenicists were the greatest minds of the 20th century. What???
Stop trying to confuse the moronic Maytards. People are either good or bad. Moral complexity is just a coverup for bad. I wonder why that is????
I never said eugenicists were the greatest minds of their time (just the beginning of the 20th century); I said that many of the greatest minds of that era, hopped up on Darwinism, believed in eugenics. Just as many very smart people believe that pot will cure all our ills. Or even most of them. (Ps I support pot legalization and always have)
And yes I hold that we live in a country deeply embedded with white supremacist thinking, which simply means that most Americans have enough bias to believe the marginalized deserve their status and the privileged earned theirs (aka white are superior to others) and so there’s no need to do anything structurally or culturally to create greater equity. We simply need to be race blind. Textbook denial.
What to do about inequity and whether government support would truly help is a bigger question once one accepts the white supremacist bias. FWIW I think many expressions of liberal pity and concern for and glamorization of POC (absent any real action) are also a reflection of white supremacy— or at least paternalistic thinking.
How do you define White Supremacy, HW?
Ps I truly hope that moral complexity comment was from
Your parody doppelgänger.
It should be obvious which comments are mine.
Jean Henry:
“I never said eugenicists were the greatest minds of their time (just the beginning of the 20th century); I said that many of the greatest minds of that era…believed in eugenics.”
So some of the greatest minds of the early 20th century were eugenicists according to you.
That’s an accurate statement, HW. Factual even.
Even the smartest people are wrong a good chunk of the time.
Also it’s very hard to distinguish between your doppelgänger and you. I’m not the only one who has said so.
Lastly you didn’t define white supremacy. How can we discuss whether or not we love ina white supremacist society if you don’t define the term as you see it.
Re white supremacist culture this event is re-scheduled for tomorrow. I suggest you,iRobert and FF go to catch up:
https://lsa.umich.edu/ac/news-events/all-events.detail.html/58198-14441905.html
Hyborian Warlord, your parody doppelgänger is actually getting pretty good at mimicking you. I’m starting to worry that you’ll be replaced entirely.
Thank you for tip, Jean. Are you trying to get us frostbitten to death?
Actually it is an opinion. In the past you said almost everyone was a eugenicist at the turn of the 19th century. Name a handful of those who stand head and shoulders above the throngs and why you think they are great. Also show evidence almost everyone approved of eugenics.
I can’t tell the fake HW from the real. Maybe they are both fake? Maybe they are both real?
Come to think of it, any one of us could easily be replaced by basic comment generating software. Has anyone said anything in the comment section in months that they hadn’t said a number of times before? Mark may have replaced many of us already!
“Lastly you didn’t define white supremacy. How can we discuss whether or not we love ina white supremacist society if you don’t define the term as you see it.”
I was talking about the nominal thread topic actually. You made an insinuation about mental illness and ‘doing the pot’ that had nothing to do with it. I’m just saying your ideas about eugenics juxtaposed with your white supremacy goggles (you see it everywhere all the time) are evidence of how insane you are but you are trying to call ME crazy.
Curiously enough, the individual is usually so deeply immersed in his culture that he is scarcely aware of it as a shaping force in his life. As someone has remarked, “The fish will be the last to discover water.” People who know no other cultural patterns but their own tend to regard them as God-given and intrinsically right.
John Maynard Keynes, Alexander Graham Bell, Teddy Roosevelt, HG Wells, Churchill. Francis Crick, Helen Keller, WEB Dubois, Helen Keller, Clarence Darrow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, George Bernard Shaw, Linus Pauling, Herbert Hoover, The League of Women Voters, Most US Universities and State Governments, and yes, Margaret Sanger etc all supported eugenics as a means to support positive social change and general well being in the population.
HW– the conversation on white supremacy has been ongoing. You brought it up on this thread. I would still like to hear your definition.
iRobert– UM has closed for two days, so the event will be postponed yet again. Meanwhile, I’d love to hear your definition of White Supremacy.
Let’s throw in Patriarchy while you’re at it, or is that term more comfortable for you? I
f we can say we live in a patriarchal society in which many if not all of us have internalized some of those precepts, why can’t we acknowledge that we live in a white supremacist society, one that has been so since it’s founding, in which many if not all of us have internalized some of those precepts?
Is that a CRAZY idea???
Jean, I don’t have my own personal definition of “White Supremacy.” I just defer to the dictionary definition. Isn’t that what we’re all supposed to do? Why would we have our own special definition?
Jean, I keep asking you how you react when you visit other continents such as Asia, Africa and South America. Do you consider Asian countries to be living under systems of Asian Supremacy? Would you use the term Yellow Supremecy? In Africa is it African Supremacy. Would you use the term Black Supremecy to describe established social structures there? What about India, Latin America, and other places. You’ve never answered these questions.
You expect me to explain to you how your thinking is flawed, but you expect to dodge simple questions which would establish how we define terms.
I’ve stated it many times and somehow it hasn’t gotten through to you, that I believe it would be best for all of us here in the US if we had institutions which reflected the population make-up. That goes for all institutions, including all government, business, etc. Currently, we are not seeing that balance between general population and important institutions, but we’ve been experiencing considerable movement in that direction.
Tell me the simple answers to my questions, and I’ll be happy to explain where you are making the logical errors that bring you to your bizarre positions. (Understanding that you don’t subscribe to concepts of logical reasoning, it still helps you to understand the positions of others who do)
Asia, Africa and South America have all been victims of colonial white supremacy. The legacy of white supremacy (or lack of) is a direct co-relationship to those countries which most successfully resisted or triumphed over European (read white) colonialism. iRobert, I thought you were much brighter than this question implies.
Western (white) colonialism has been substantially replaced by Western (white) capitalist domination of society–(helps explain our fixation on militarily intervening in browner looking cultures.
If I was Zhuang (18 million), Manchu (15 million), Hui (10 million), Miao (9 million), Uyghur (8 million), Yi (7.8 million), Tujia (8 million), Mongols (5.8 million), Tibetans (5.4 million), Buyei (3 million), Yao (3.1 million), or Korean (2.5 million) I could correctly speak of Han domination of China. Or if I was a christian or muslim Indian I could talk about Hindu supremacy.
Why ask stupid questions?
iBobert you must be a big supporter of the YPG and the Kurdish resistance in Syria, seeing as they are struggling to make, ” institutions which reflected the population make-up.”
iRobert– Yes, tribalism is human and all societies deal with it, for some it’s racialized. Many countries do not care to upend their own tribalism and have as a result either homogenous countries or a permanent underclass of distinct ethnicity or race. I believe that as progressives, no matter where we live, we have an obligation to dismantle racism and tribalism where it becomes structurally embedded. We live in America. I’m talking about American racism/sexism…I have never talked about it elsewhere because that’s not my field of view or concern.
Representation is an important antidote to racism, but it’s not the only one. Representation forces people with different viewpoints to consider the other’s position. My point is that you seem to be unwilling to do exactly that. You will in fact use selective Black voices to provide defense against other Black perspectives. When I voice those other perspectives as best I can (no I didn’t make this stuff up myself), you tell me I am trying to speak for POC. Well yes, I am in this uber white forum. I wish I didn’t have to, but I speak as someone who believe that exact conversation is the most necessary one for our mutual counties’ fate. And,f rankly, when I speak as a woman, your response is much the same. You see identity politics as a threat to progress. I see the discomfort created by those ascendant voices as the pain of change-making… of progress. When I say ascendant voices, it’s with intention. Those voices are the future of the left. The struggle isn’t supposed to be easy for you or me nor should it make us feel proud.
I understand that you believe in equity. I also see abundant evidence that you seek, perhaps subconsciously, to preserve the status quo by denying full agency to voices of women and POC in what is often called ‘identity politics.’ You, like almost everyone, are all for fighting racism and sexism right up until it asks you to consider your own engagement and investment in them. This again, is normal. Where you really distinguish yourself, iRobert, is in you defensiveness when asked to self-examine. You attack like a cornered dog. And yet there you are with every possible societal advantage but wealth (as far as I know). You insist you have no investment in preserving that advantage but you seem awfully threatened by the idea of independent movements for social justice or at least the voices within them or reflecting them.
white su·prem·a·cy
noun
the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.
You may not consciously believe the white people are superior and should dominate society but you feel very free to malign black movements for independence and extraordinarily defensive/paternalistic in your response to such thinking. All of which functions to preserve your privilege, one big piece of which is the ability to ignore what Black social justice movements are telling you, even by selectively interpreting MLK’s position by ignoring much of what he said and how much of what he resisted persists. I see the commitment to white supremacist thinking in your attitude iRobert. This understanding developed over time and with abundant exposure to your political and cultural thinking. I believe you when you say that upsets and surprises you. I can see why you feel it’s a misrepresentation of your point of view.HW and FF and EOS also believe strongly that they are not invested in white supremacist notions or in preserving them. It doesn’t change my perspective. I could be wrong– (I don’t trust any logic, even my own) –I’m just waiting for evidence.
I don’t think all of your thinking, or anyone’s here, is white supremacist, iRobert. Not by a long shot. I’m not saying its the philosophy by which you live (which is how many here define white supremacy in opposition to it’;s dictionary definition). I’m saying you are invested in the preservation of white dominance in this country, because you appear to be so threatened by movements to upend it, that you feel a need to deride them. That you feel free to deride them is the real marker… Humans resist change especially social change. You use arguments for equity and fairness to do so and as a cover. That’s simply egregious. It’s so misguided that it upsets me more than open white supremacy honestly.
JH, you are also a supporter of “white supremacy”. You have consistently supported economic political objectives which are promoted by the white male elite (nuke power, fracking, oil dependency, and the accompanying pipe lines). Your support for the USA’s geo-political objectives (US war making every where) also make you a supporter of white male domination.
There is no doubt we internalize our oppression, but actively supporting the oppression of others is the key denominator determining one’s place on the political spectrum. There is in fact very little difference between your positions and HW’s or EOS–you can be passionate about the details of our oppression, but the totality is not some thing to be questioned.
wobblie– thank you for framing this conversation within white colonialism and white capitalist domination. Both legacies are at play within our own society. America was born of white colonialist ideas in increasing friction with enlightenment ideals. American racism uses the same means of exclusion from opportunity (including capital) as Western capitalist dominance. What you call global capitalism just looks like Western imperialism to me. I don’t think capitalism has to be imperialistic any more than communism or socialism require totalitarianism, but it is certainly for each system an established tendency. One that must be corrected for in order for them to achieve their own ideals.
I wish racism would end with the upending of capitalism, but we have seen racism and tribalism and ethnic dominance persist under all human economic and governance systems. Functional democracy is the only possible antidote to tribalism, as its entire reason for being is as antidote to tyranny. But democracy will always be vulnerable, as Plato saw, to totalitarian creeps, most of whom depend on some form of ethnic nationalism/tribalism to concentrate and preserve their power. I agree with Wobblie’s analysis.I think his implied solution is simplistic however. I do not think changing the economic system alone will solve the issue of racism in the US. It has not done so abroad. Whatever economic system we democratically resolve ourselves to, the issue of fighting social injustice and white patriarchal dominance will persist.
We double posted Wobblie. I anticipated your response and my reply is above.
Huh… It didn’t post. I’m not sure I have the energy or time to rewrite it. It may have been held back and will appear later.
In very brie summary, I agree with your analysis of western capitalist dominance. I think you are ignoring however how racism and sexism have persisted also under socialist and communist systems. I don’t believe upending capitalism will solve inequity. I think you compare the reality of end stage, failing capitalism to the fantasy of socialism. All human systems are subject to tribalism and totalitarian dominance. The only antidote os representative democracy and its very vulnerable. And it alone won’t solve racism or sexism. Only a conscious and deliberate and constant assessment of both insidious forces will offer us a path out. I honestly don’t prefer one economic form to another. We simply occupy capitalism, so that;s the framework within which I look for solutions.
“There is in fact very little difference between your positions and HW’s”
You better shut the fuck up.
HW– wobblie is a socialist true believer. So, from that perspective, in which the State solves all, our perspectives might as well be the same because they are neither fundamentally anti-capitalist. Don’t take it personally.
I’m not a racist, sexist, war-monger like you though.
Hw, I see very little light between you and JH. Other than your fixation on pedophilia and pot, and a very vengeful streak that seems to run through you, your political economic support of Trump has led to no differences in the foreign or economic policies that were being pursued under Obama. It is like I said, we will tear each other apart over the details of our oppression, while all the time the uber rich (how many dark faces and woman were at Davos?) continue to call all the shots that matter.
JH, participatory democracy is the answer. Representational democracy has been a failure. With over half the population female, we can not even get an Equal Rights Amendment added to our constitution. Socialist and Communist societies (precisely because of the lack of participatory democracy) are only slightly better than our system.
Trump is going against everything Obama stood for. He is ending endless wars and bringing back manufacturing jobs for example.
Wobblie– I believe strongly in many precepts of participatory democracy and they are not in conflict with a representational republic. I believe means of participatory democracy are essential to it’s function actually. Did you mean to contrast pure or direct democracy with a representative form? If so, that simply allows for the dominance of the majority and the preservation of same. Any functional system requires the means to overcome the dominance of majority interests and the capacity to represent minority interests. Representation is one such means. Like all, it is still vulnerable to preserving inequity v solving it. While I support many public referendums, including the movement to re-establish the ERA amendment process, I have also seen first hand that they can be used to prevent progress. See the anti-abortion movement. There is no perfect system. Democracy requires the friction between competing interests and perspectives and the dialogue that engenders to be effective. With majority dominance, no one would have to listen to any member of any minority interest group. I do not see how that would ever upend white supremacy.
Wobblie– you may want to ask yourself why communist and socialist societies do not allow for participatory democracy. As a South American friend once said, ‘Americans don’t know what is required to get everyone to march in the same direction at once.’
“John Maynard Keynes, Alexander Graham Bell, Teddy Roosevelt, HG Wells, Churchill. Francis Crick, Helen Keller, WEB Dubois, Helen Keller, Clarence Darrow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, George Bernard Shaw, Linus Pauling, Herbert Hoover, The League of Women Voters, Most US Universities and State Governments, and yes, Margaret Sanger etc all supported eugenics as a means to support positive social change and general well being in the population.”
How great and positive to sterilize the degenerates, the infirm and the poor and kill their babies before they get a chance to exist outside the womb! Yay!!!
HW– I am not defending eugenics. I have never defended eugenics. I am saying it’s possible to be right about many things and still very very wrong about some others. Having once supported a view that has now been legitimately rejected does not mean that all ones views are to be tossed out and that one is wholly corrupted. That you cannot wrap your head around such complexity and nuance is very telling.
I won’t be discussing this further. Its stupid. You asked for examples and I provided. You were shown to be wrong and so now, as always, you attack. There is nothing in providing that list which can be construed to support eugenics or minimizes the misguidance of its precepts.
But you do. You support Planned Parenthood which is no different today than in Sanger’s time. What do you think eugenicists were correct about? You are a big J. Edgar Hoover fan for instance?
The list is broad and diverse. Many people with whom I agree and many with whom I disagree. And it’s wildly incomplete, because eugenics was widely accepted up until world war 2. I was speaking factually when I said Many of the greatest minds of the 20th century supported eugenics. You were incredulous. A simple google search would have backed me up. You couldn’t bother to question your assumptions even that much. You chose to attack me instead. You are pivoting again away from admitting you were wrong.
That post was not from me. As I’ve already said, I am a xenophile. I treat all other people equally.
They don’t call it the ‘Democrat Plantation’ for nothing. At Trump rallies the crowd seems to cheer record-low minority unemployment with extreme enthusiasm. Dems be like “Now don’t go getting any ideas that you’ll be going back to work anytime soon. Have some more benefits to keep you alive…*cough* for now…And don’t forget white supremacists like Donald Trump are trying to keep you down and together we can stop them.”
I said me why YOU think they are great. If greatness = influence then sure they were great. A lot of those I noticed were not necessarily race-based but Sanger was. I know Hitler expressed admiration for Sanger’s ideas and of course Hitler was influential to say the least. So you support a racial eugenics ‘outfit’ who still targets “the underserved” whose founder was admired by Hitler. I am the one with the problem though according to you!
*tell* me
HW, the experiences of people who engage in grass roots participatory democracy, combined with administration by representational individuals, such as in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or in Chiapas Mexico since 1991, or Rojava today ( or was attempted by many during Occupy) actually demonstrates a way forward for us all.
And as always HW’s comments are hardly worth noting. The fact that the crowds of Trumps adoring fans cheer all of his lies is hardly note worthy. The unemployment numbers have been manipulated to the point of meaninglessness. Is Trump emptying the prisons of poc? Is Federal money pouring into Flint, Detroit, Oakland and DC rebuilding the infrastructures of these overwhelmingly black cities? HW your analysis is juvenile at best. You would do so much better for yourself if you engaged in some serious reading.
My initial comments were directed to JH, not HW as he has no sense of what you and I were discussing, sorry for the wrong initials.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. We are finally going in the right direction. You can claim unemployment isn’t down but it doesn’t seem to be true. Jobs created in the last quarter demolished expectations. Pretty sure “poc” (condescending sounding term you use) are in fact working more along with non-poc.
For example HW, they are touting today’s ADP report about 213,000 jobs being created in January. Among labor economist it has been common knowledge that you need to create at a min. of 200,000 to 250,000 NEW jobs each and every month to supply sufficient jobs to new individuals (ie. those turning 18) entering the labor market. ADP commonly over states the number of jobs created. So under the GREATEST, BEST, STRONGEST economy the world has ever seen, we are barely able to create sufficient employment for our high school graduates. To get individuals to return to the labor market (ie. those who are long term unemployed) you need to create in excess of the 250,000 jobs per month. Of course under this GREATEST, BEST, STRONGEST economy the world has ever seen, you would think we would be seeing real wages rise. As inflation continues its inexorable rise, incomes are not maintaining living standards. But HW, don’t try to learn about any of this, it is far more fun to know everything there is to know about Pizzagate.
You addressed me directly. Why should I care about your “initial comments”? Condescending but dumb.
But wage growth fell off a cliff in 2015, not to mention the 2008 catastrophe. Since Trump it’s been back.
No one in either party wants to seriously address anything about the quality of the jobs being created. The 200-250 thousand jobs per month were based on the notion that the jobs being created would be of a quality that would allow for new household formation. Household formation has been stagnate for decades-a bi-partisan consensus that low wage jobs are best.
Job formation and unemployment numbers are meaningless if they are not resulting in a growing economy for individuals.
http://economistsoutlook.blogs.realtor.org/2018/07/02/25-34-year-old-population-has-been-rising-but-not-household-formation/
It’s not Trump’s fault young adults resorted in droves to living in mom’s basement for years before he ran. How many are just now moving out because they do have a decent job for the first time? That must be why that aggressive derp tries to say that about me. It’s another projection: The Obama era was the era of thirty year old “kids” who couldn’t earn the cost of living so they stayed at home.
And no, don’t ask me for “proof”. You wouldn’t know what to do with it because you’re too blinded by your derpiness. Just trust me on this, you’ll see. It’s just starting.
That one was pretty good. Only problem is I do back up what I say with evidence. That’s all there really is so putting quotes around proof is good.
Wobblie— please compare the size and diversity of population in Catalonia and Chiapas to the United States.
Thanks.
A simple question. Who on this web site beside myself opposes US policy towards Venezuela.
Which part of US policy towards Venezuela? It’s not that simple. You insist on Black and White. There’s a lot of gray. Nowhere more so than Venezuela.
I will say this. I wish we would not place sanctions on places like Venezuela or Cuba. I feel differently about Russia, where we are not causing people to starve. (And, yes, I know there is food insecurity in Russia too; its just not attributable to us.
Wobblie– what is your perspective on Maduro and Chavez? Do you oppose their actions?
Wobblie –
My last set of questions were specifically directed to JH, and you see the response they got. My questions for you would be a bit different, as you are wearing your own set of blinders, which should go without saying. It’s a bit funny to hear you are disappointed in the positions you imagine I have. I’d like to say I was disappointed in your assumptions about why I asked them, but I can’t.
Jean –
I understand you don’t care to consider race issues global, but my questions were simple. I assert that your insistence on ignoring global context is revealing of where the flaws in your thinking lies.
Wobblie –
I oppose much of US policy toward Venezuela. See how easy that was for me to simply answer your question, rather than attack where I assume you are going with it? You and JH may like to try it sometime. I’m disappointed that so few people comprehend how productive discussion works, and perceive opportunities for discussion as prompts for them to vomit their idiology. This is why this blog hasn’t been a place where anyone serious about discussion comes for it.
I can’t go in to a cafe in Ann Arbor without overhearing someone talking about the “Maytards” and the obsurdity of their conversation. I’m a bit offended to be called by that slur, but I’m going to take ownership of it. I think we all should. Maytards unite!
I do not have a position on Maduro. Not being Venezuelan, their domestic policies are non of my business, nor the business of our country. The US’s repeated interventions in that country seem to have bi-partisan support among the political elite. That is enough for me to know that it is not in my interest.
iRoberts, I only asked what you thought of the Kurds in Syria. My question about Venezuela was to the group–why do you think I made assumptions about your position. I usually find your comments worth reading, like JH’s. I may not agree with much of what you say, I don’t make any assumptions about people on this web site, I try to base my comments on what you and others actually say here.
Wobblie –
I asked JH about other continents and whether or not they are living under “Yellow Supremacy” or “Black Supremecy” or “Brown Supremacy” not because I’m so stupid as to be unaware of European colonialism which has impacted so much of the world (not always entirely negatively) but because I want JH to tell me what she labels situations and dominant cultures in those places. Jean’s “worldview” only seems to apply to this very small fraction of the world.
Theoretically, I think we could have some great discussions here if we could get even a few of us actually interested in legitimate discussion, rather than just pushing idiologies. I have many opinions and positions which I don’t expect I’ll ever have the opportunity to discuss here. Few people here ask questions, which is the key to discussion and discovery. Everyone just wants to broadcast their BS.
iRobert, so what do you think of participatory democracy? I put forward a number of examples of alternative ways of organizing democratic decision making as developed by folks in other countries, and at least in some small ways emulated by Occupy. The Syrian Kurds (6 plus years) and the Zapatista’s in Chiapas (27 years) are long lasting experiments in alternative forms of Democracy. Despite war and military aggression against them they have continued with their experiment. JH, given her question seems to think it is all about size and the number of people participating, and that some how these experiments are illegitimate because they do not include whole continents of people. On the one hand the US has facilitated the Kurds, on the other we (as a Nation) have been doing everything short of bombing to derail the Venezuelan democracy. Venezuelan democracy politically is much closer to US representative democracy than the Kurds or Indians of Mexico, but the Venezuelan’s have begun spreading industrial democracy through the economy (kinda like Argentina). Why do you think Venezuela is a pariah as far as the US is concerned? But everyone gets all weepy eyed over the prospect of withdrawing from Syria and leaving the Kurds to the mercy of Assad. For myself, I don’t think democracy has anything to do with US policy any where in the world.
I like participatory democracy when and where it has been allowed to work. I wish we had more experimentation with various forms of government on the scale of municipalities, counties and even entire states here in the US.
I’m convinced the problem in the US now is the terrible culture. I don’t know if any structural changes in our government would be effective enough to shift this culture to something that works better for all of us. I strongly suspect not. My belief is that we’ve dug ourselves into a hole essentially, culturally. I’m convinced we’re in a lot of trouble.
I apologize for the somewhat lame answers. You’re asking some pretty big questions here. I don’t think I could say much of any use without doing a lot more reading and reflecting on the topic than I have. Naturally, I prefer we have far more interest and understanding of government among the general citizenry than we is situation currently. Anything which engages people and inspires them to seek more understanding would be a move in the right direction, in my view. To develop that at any level would be at odds with so many aspects of our lives these days. People are far more desperate for escape now, in every sense.
IRobert— I write a long thing re colonialism and it got lost. I’m not going to indulge you again on that. I have never once said tribalism and bias is unique to the US. I do think we have a different mandate here —As a nation of immigrants with a foundational legacy of both slavery and the ideal of individual liberty and equality. Talking about how humans are shitty and horrid elsewhere does not excuse our nation.
Re the use of white supremacy, the legacy of oppression of white Westerners by Other races is extremely limited. There has been ethnic strife everywhere and genocide many plAces (as I have said) but it relied less on racialization. Even the Indian caste system which engages in colorization is a legacy of colonialism as I understand it. Bigotry is different than racism. Sexism might be a better point of universality and even there it’s not one size fits all. At any rate, as I said, understanding that tribalism and sexism are extremely common in the world does not mean it’s not a human tendency that should be remedied. ISolationism is one way out for many places, but It’s counter to US identity (and our economy) to do more than you with that idea.
I think the US has a vastly improving and steadily progressing culture despite the legacy of Reagan and the presence of Trump. Looking through the lens of social progress both domestic and international, people lives have been dramatically improved. We have greatly reduced the global and domestic poverty rate. We enjoy much longer lives and better lives than most people in previous generations. I can’t even imagine wanting to go back. That seems the kind of fantasy that only a middle class white dude could have.
I agree it’s a scary time, where many chickens are coming home to roost, but those chickens were already out and running around hard in the past so many are nostalgic for.
Wobblie— it’s widely accepted that direct democracy is not viable beyond a certain scale. It’s simply too volatile and there are to many interests to address within a larger diverse population. I would welcome a counter example. But I’m not making this stuff up on my own.
When you present an alternative S preferable that most experts consider not viable than the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is. I feel no burden to prove what is accepted truth among experts.
https://prospect.org/article/5-reasons-why-maga-conservatism-has-never-made-any-sense
Direct (participatory?) democracy got Michigan a constitutional amendment banning same sex unions in 2004.
iRobert– Re your alternative answer for me on Venezuela.
1) my answer was specific not general as the one you proposed. I’m not sure how a general answer v a specific one leads to better discourse. I found your answer limp and unproductive at best.
2) Wobblie framed the question as black/white. I could not answer it as such.. It limits discourse into two categories and is worth speaking to.
3) your instructions to us on civility are unbelievably paternalistic. You don’t get to dictate tone here so as to make it more comfortable for yourself (you assume others).
4) your instructions to us on civility strike as extremely ironic given the ad hominem attacks you have employed jokingly (Mark) and seriously (me)when your fragility flares.
It’s bad form to tone police in discourse. This does not create better discourse. It simply preserves the status quo. We’ve been round the block on this. The role of discourse is not to make everyone at ease. It’s to challenge them.
You don’t want to be told what to do.
You don’t want to be told not to tell others what to do.
You want to tell others what to do and never be told what to do.
Got it.
You want to be treated with respect while treating others with none.
Got it.
This is all so familiar…
I treat others with some, though admittedly little. It’s not important to me to be treated with respect here. In fact, it kinda throws me off my game when someone does.
Mark goes into a bar and says to the bartender, “Make me a zombie.” The bartender replies, “Looks like someone beat me to it.”
On what basis, then, do you tell others how to engage in respectful and/or productive discourse iRobert?
Your and vaudeville act is cheap cover.
Here, I don’t tell others what to do, Jean. I make fun of them for not knowing.
Thank you for the feedback on my Vaudeville act. I’m always looking for constructive criticism. The most constructive criticism would probably be “give it up.”
Jean, what is your take on Trump’s bizarre relationship with his own intelligence people?
What are the Maytards views on why Agent Orange is handing pootin a gift by withdrawal from the mini nukes treaty, instead of putting his nuts in a vice like Hillary would have done?
iRobert– you literally gave me instruction on how to better phrase my position for greater harmony. So yes, you do tell people what to do, regularly. I’m not answering your stupid pivot questions either.
Jean, I only gave you instruction to mock you. I don’t really think I am somehow ordering you to do something, or that you’ll actually listen. That’s the joke. You do realize we’re all just here typing text, right? This isn’t a real-world situation. Discourse here is a joke. Everything I do here is mockery.
To answer your question, John Brown, this particular Maytard is convinced Putin has a video of Trump doing something humiliating and/or horrible, as Russian intelligence has on thousands of western businessmen and diplomats. I thought it was pretty obvious in Helsinki.
Yeah. Pee pee tapes. And/or a threat of disabling the grid. Either way ruskies are enemies, not friends.
In other news 9 tons of pangolin scales siezed in Hong Kong. While that’s not as irrational as a belief in an omnipotent sky being, it doesn’t reflect well on us hairless chimps. Maybe the folks angling for a cull have a point…
I think whatever the Russian’s have on Trump is a lot worse than a posture of some sex workers peeing on a bed, or even the president himself. It seems clear they have something. Too many secret meetings. It could simply be the collusion thing. There’s no real risk to them if they blow his cover on it. This still interests me: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/was-there-a-connection-between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign
Who cares about Trump?
Is it going to be Harris or Warren?
Or both?
Bloomberg is building a robo candidate running on data driven campaign messaging. Either he or Biden. We know that because the media mogul’s ‘secret’ plan was ‘leaked’ the other day. Because media moguls never manage their messaging. We will have a demo candidate created by algorithm to appeal to the broadest group of Dems. He will be an old white dude and will run on fear of not beating Trump. He will run on the status quo not change… because the change we’ve seen under Trump scares the shit out of people and they don’t want to lose this one. They will convince us all that only an old white middle of the road guy can win– despite all data to the contrary.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/bloomberg-building-data-organization-crush-trump/581710/