Market politics

[Norbert]

There is a tremendous amount of information the administration has refused to turn over and a significant number of witnesses the White House has illegally banned from testifying. They are claiming "blanket immunity" which doesn't exist.

The whole unitary executive theory Barr bases everything on is in the Federalist Papers (though didn't make it into the Constitution). Hamilton was a big proponent of a strong Executive Branch, but he was also a very strong advocate of Congressional oversight and impeachment for wrongdoing. Barr took the first and conveniently forgot the second part of that.

Trump, Barr and some other republicans appear to want to move incrementally in the direction of autocracy. I consider this a significant danger. Our future depends on the separation of power.

I think the true nature has shown itself, but I talk to and listen to a lot of lawyers. However there are parts missing because of deliberate actions to cover up evidence.

When I said "incomplete", I wasn't referring to the evidence, but to our whole understanding of the scope of events. I'm not sure if you understood it that way. I'm glad to hear that so many lawyers (outside the so-called beltway, I assume) agree on the evidence.

 

[bkp_duke]

Trump, Barr and some other republicans appear to want to move incrementally in the direction of autocracy. I consider this a significant danger. Our future depends on the separation of power.

Amazing . . . I heard this same argument from the right when Obama was in power.

 

[Norbert]

Amazing . . . I heard this same argument from the right when Obama was in power.

But now you argue in the opposite direction?

 

[wdolson]

Trump, Barr and some other republicans appear to want to move incrementally in the direction of autocracy. I consider this a significant danger. Our future depends on the separation of power.

It's absolutely terrifying.

When I said "incomplete", I wasn't referring to the evidence, but to our whole understanding of the scope of events. I'm not sure if you understood it that way. I'm glad to hear that so many lawyers (outside the so-called beltway, I assume) agree on the evidence.

This is an appellate attorney my SO has corresponded with:
Musing about law, books, and politics - Teri Kanefield

She does a good job of boiling down the issues.

Amazing . . . I heard this same argument from the right when Obama was in power.

We have Barr himself on the record advocating these things. His justice department has pushed this position in court and Barr advocated this position in his speech to Notre Dame:
Notre Dame had a right to host Barr — but his talk was ridiculously stupid

There were pundits on the right who said all sorts of things about the Obama administration, but nobody within the administration ever advocated any of those positions. The unitary executive theory is the unique purview of a small cadre of nutty right wingers. If there is anyone on the left who holds that interpretation of the constitution, they are far from the reigns of power and I've never heard of them.

There is a big difference between some guy saying something about someone else with no facts to back it up and someone actually saying that's what they believe.

One of the strategies of the right wing media is to get people to disbelieve everything. To a lot of people there is the sense that its now the thing that one party investigates the other when one party wins power because of the bogus investigations of Clinton and rumors about Obama's not being a citizen during his administration. Those were BS and they led nowhere because there was nothing to find.

There are heaps to find here and every rock overturned leads to another huge problem to untangle. The right wing media convinces their followers that their story is the only truth and the rest of the media is lying, but their secondary goal is to get those who aren't believing them to believe that nobody is telling the truth, or both sides are equally corrupt. They have been staggeringly effective at this.

 

[Paracelsus]

Krystal Ball: Andrew Yang's #BoycottMSNBC shows how the network lost the left

 

[Curt Renz]

General Dwight Eisenhower was the supreme military commander of the western allied forces during 1943-45, and could claim a great portion of the credit for the victory in Europe during World War II.

He later served as US president for eight years. Three days before leaving office in 1961, he delivered his final address as president in large part to warn against the growing influence of what he labeled the military-industrial complex. Below is that speech. It is presented here now, because his expressed concern is prominently shared by one of those currently running for president.

 

[Off Shore]

Not just one, alas. Joe Biden as well and to a distressing degree, Elizabeth Warren.

 

[Paracelsus]

Great post @Curt Renz . My Dad used to tell the story that one day in 1954 a couple of well dressed men showed up at their one-room country school house in rural Nebraska to inform the teacher and all the kids in school that day that the Pledge of Allegiance had been officially changed, and that it now included the phrase "under God" in it. He was 9 years old at the time and didn't think much of it till years later. The men walked the students and the teacher through it a couple times, and then they quietly departed and headed to the next school.

I do not find it a coincidence that on that same year (1954) under Eisenhower's presidency, the title of Armistice Day was officially changed to Veterans Day. And thus that same day of remembrance that much of the rest of the World still observes for ALL people who have fallen in all wars in hopes that none would ever fall again has ever since just had its script rewritten in the US to be a day of making soldiers heroes, and thus making war.......well perhaps a little bit less unattractive. Perhaps more important is that the combination of 'Veteran's Day' and 'Under God' gave the impression that we were once again fighting for God & Country - the very same concept that kept soldiers marching into battle since the Declaration of Independence here in the US, and the same concept that made the public swell with pride as they sent their loved ones off to battle. Did those behind the scenes believe they needed to revive this concept after the US had become sick and tired of the concept of war by the time the Korean War was over?

There is No Doubt in my mind that these two seemingly insignificant changes were meant to be significant over time, and that Eisenhower would later go on to warn us about the concepts behind these efforts and others, as you posted. And perhaps every war after the Korean War could be argued to be about profit instead of about Humanity.

As a Desert Storm Veteran, when people thank me for my service on Veterans Day I tell them I would very much like to see us officially return the name of Veteran's Day back to Armistice Day because it better represents the reasons I served.

 

[Curt Renz]

Great post @Curt Renz . My Dad used to tell the story that one day in 1954 a couple of well dressed men showed up at their one-room country school house in rural Nebraska to inform the teacher and all the kids in school that day that the Pledge of Allegiance had been officially changed, and that it now included the phrase "under God" in it. He was 9 years old at the time and didn't think much of it till years later. The men walked the students and the teacher through it a couple times, and then they quietly departed and headed to the next school.

I do not find it a coincidence that on that same year (1954) under Eisenhower's presidency, the title of Armistice Day was officially changed to Veterans Day. And thus that same day of remembrance that much of the rest of the World still observes for ALL people who have fallen in all wars in hopes that none would ever fall again has ever since just had its script rewritten in the US to be a day of making soldiers heroes, and thus making war.......well perhaps a little bit less unattractive. Perhaps more important is that the combination of 'Veteran's Day' and 'Under God' gave the impression that we were once again fighting for God & Country - the very same concept that kept soldiers marching into battle since the Declaration of Independence here in the US, and the same concept that made the public swell with pride as they sent their loved ones off to battle. Did those behind the scenes believe they needed to revive this concept after the US had become sick and tired of the concept of war by the time the Korean War was over?

There is No Doubt in my mind that these two seemingly insignificant changes were meant to be significant over time, and that Eisenhower would later go on to warn us about the concepts behind these efforts and others, as you posted. And perhaps every war after the Korean War could be argued to be about profit instead of about Humanity.

As a Desert Storm Veteran, when people thank me for my service on Veterans Day I tell them I would very much like to see us officially return the name of Veteran's Day back to Armistice Day because it better represents the reasons I served.

Well said. I agree. And while in third grade in 1954, I was told by a teacher that something had been added to pledge. It was inserted in a spot that diluted the point of what was originally the amnesty pledge for Confederate veterans. Ours is the only supposedly non-totalitarian country with a pledge of allegiance. But back then we were supposed to hate Russians, because they were atheists, as though that were something really bad, so those words were added to the pledge. In Eisenhower's address, warning of a military-industrial complex, he did make some religious references, but that was to be expected of a politician. He rarely attended church services before running for president.

I was drafted into the Vietnam War. For twenty years after that war we were certainly not thanked, and understandably so. Then by the time of your war, there was no draft. So to encourage enlistment, those in power suggested that current military and veterans be thanked for their service. It's embarrassing, but rather than go into a harangue about how unhelpful was my war, I reluctantly mumble a polite "you're welcome." Now the honoring of military service has grown ridiculous at sporting events. We're all referred to as "heroes". Back in my day a hero needed to have earned the Medal of Honor or something close.

No other nation's military is going to invade our shores. Even if they could do so easily, the costs of administering our government and economy would not be worth it. Yet we spend more on the military than does most of the rest of the world combined. Much of that money could be spent far more wisely, or be allowed to remain in our pockets.

 

[Norbert]

Yet we spend more on the military than does most of the rest of the world combined. Much of that money could be spent far more wisely, or be allowed to remain in our pockets.

While we are at it, we could also reduce oil industry subsidiaries by $20 billion.

 

[Curt Renz]

While we are at it, we could also reduce oil industry subsidiaries by $20 billion.

Much of the hidden but real portion of those oil subsidies is in the form of our seemingly never ending military involvements in the Middle East.

 

[wdolson]

Great post @Curt Renz . My Dad used to tell the story that one day in 1954 a couple of well dressed men showed up at their one-room country school house in rural Nebraska to inform the teacher and all the kids in school that day that the Pledge of Allegiance had been officially changed, and that it now included the phrase "under God" in it. He was 9 years old at the time and didn't think much of it till years later. The men walked the students and the teacher through it a couple times, and then they quietly departed and headed to the next school.

I do not find it a coincidence that on that same year (1954) under Eisenhower's presidency, the title of Armistice Day was officially changed to Veterans Day. And thus that same day of remembrance that much of the rest of the World still observes for ALL people who have fallen in all wars in hopes that none would ever fall again has ever since just had its script rewritten in the US to be a day of making soldiers heroes, and thus making war.......well perhaps a little bit less unattractive. Perhaps more important is that the combination of 'Veteran's Day' and 'Under God' gave the impression that we were once again fighting for God & Country - the very same concept that kept soldiers marching into battle since the Declaration of Independence here in the US, and the same concept that made the public swell with pride as they sent their loved ones off to battle. Did those behind the scenes believe they needed to revive this concept after the US had become sick and tired of the concept of war by the time the Korean War was over?

There is No Doubt in my mind that these two seemingly insignificant changes were meant to be significant over time, and that Eisenhower would later go on to warn us about the concepts behind these efforts and others, as you posted. And perhaps every war after the Korean War could be argued to be about profit instead of about Humanity.

As a Desert Storm Veteran, when people thank me for my service on Veterans Day I tell them I would very much like to see us officially return the name of Veteran's Day back to Armistice Day because it better represents the reasons I served.

"In God we trust" was also added to the money in 1956. A lot of these moves were the work of the Dulles brothers.

 

[Intl Professor]

"In God we trust" was also added to the money in 1956. A lot of these moves were the work of the Dulles brothers.

John Foster was also prominent in the hierarchy of support of the US Anglican Church, if memory serves. They were both attorneys for and perhaps partners in the powerful international law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, famous for the creation of Panama for "our" canal.

Edit: Wikipedia check confirmed they were both partners in the firm and responsible for a lot of the worst sugar of the Eisenhower admin. Not Anglican Church but more broad organs in support of Christianity. Also, surprisingly JF opposed on religious grounds dropping atomic bombs on Japan.

 

[Paracelsus]

John Foster was also prominent in the hierarchy of support of the US Anglican Church, if memory serves. They were both attorneys for and perhaps partners in the powerful international law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, famous for the creation of Panama for "our" canal.

And at that time all roads also seemed to lead to the United Fruit Company, which shaped much of our Central American policies while John Foster Dulles was the Secretary of State under Eisenhower while representing the United Fruit Company..........and while Alan Dulles was the head of the CIA during the time that all things Eisenhower had feared began to manifest. No conflict of interest there........ And soon we were off to the races with the 1954 Guatemalan coup, and haven't let off the gas pedal trying to wreak havoc with Latin American politics ever since. Although it could have weaved a tighter tale, this was one of the most fascinating books I have read regarding our history during this time in this arena:

And it led me to wonder if it was the United Fruit Company that had a hand in the assassination of Louisiana Governor Huey Long even before things really ratched up in DC

While all this seems like ancient history, I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't consider the idea that so many of these Latin American regime change policies that were first hatched by the Dulles Brothers were the catalyst for a significant number of people being held at our boarders today that simply fled the countries we have never really stopped disrupting in their search for a better life.

 

[wdolson]

And at that time all roads also seemed to lead to the United Fruit Company, which shaped much of our Central American policies while John Foster Dulles was the Secretary of State under Eisenhower while representing the United Fruit Company..........and while Alan Dulles was the head of the CIA during the time that all things Eisenhower had feared began to manifest. No conflict of interest there........ And soon we were off to the races with the 1954 Guatemalan coup, and haven't let off the gas pedal trying to wreak havoc with Latin American politics ever since. Although it could have weaved a tighter tale, this was one of the most fascinating books I have read regarding our history during this time in this arena: View attachment 481490

And it led me to wonder if it was the United Fruit Company that had a hand in the assassination of Louisiana Governor Huey Long even before things really ratched up in DC

While all this seems like ancient history, I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't consider the idea that so many of these Latin American regime change policies that were first hatched by the Dulles Brothers were the catalyst for a significant number of people being held at our boarders today that simply fled the countries we have never really stopped disrupting in their search for a better life.

The amount of political wrangling the US has done in the name of bananas is just plain crazy.

It's almost as bad as what the US has done in the name of oil, but oil impacts many different parts of the economy and bananas are just one food among many. On top of that the Cavendish banana most commonly available today is going extinct. There is a disease that targets that particular banana that's killing them off. We'll have to come up with a different variety in the next decade or so.

 

[JRP3]

Getting more interesting

 

[Paracelsus]

The amount of political wrangling the US has done in the name of bananas is just plain crazy.............
It's almost as bad as what the US has done in the name of oil, but oil impacts many different parts of the economy.............

Controlling food....? Controlling oil...........? Now where have I heard that before?

 

[wdolson]

Controlling food....? Controlling oil...........? Now where have I heard that before?

View attachment 481587

Controlling a staple like wheat or rice would control the people. The US has tremendous power in the world wheat and corn markets. The Arab Spring started over protests about the rising cost of wheat in poor countries of North Africa and the Middle East.

But controlling the banana market is like controlling the avocado market. They are both popular fruits, but they aren't critical to survival. Avocados are fairly common in most of North America, but they are an expensive, but very trendy import in a lot of parts of the world and there were a lot of complaints when prices rose last year, but nobody starved.

As far as South American foods that would hold more control, I would think coffee would have far more impact. A lot of Americans are literally addicted to caffeine and would be jonesing for a hit if coffee became hard to get. If bananas disappeared from the shelves store managers would get complaints and some angry mothers would write about it on Facebook, but it wouldn't be any worse than the avocado shortages in many countries.

People talk about how rich in potassium bananas are, but potatoes have more. Especially if you eat the skins.

 

[Norbert]

John Bolton is asking the public: "What national security matters are most important to you?"
Answer: Trump. Tell us what you know, already. And stop playing mind games with your twitter acount.

 

[Intl Professor]

Getting more interesting

Apparently these are already in possession of Schiff's Committee and being analyzed as we gab online.