delrem
delrem's JournalI think, maybe,
one should look toward the origin of the spankin' new white toyota trucks, tearing across Libya and the Syria/Iraq borders, and to the payroll of the rag-tag armies of freedom and democracy, the "moderate rebels" that the US bombs in advance of. If one wants to get an answer.
3rd-way and the Republicans they hold in such esteem are so yesterday.
And oh yes, now the leader of 3rd-way (HRC, obviously) wants to undo everything good that Obama did and restore US ties with Netanyahu, because that appeases the Republicans, who are conceded to in principle.
My fucking lord god above, deliver me from this.
I think the big question for Sanders is how he can bring this about.
The entire process in the US is extremely right wing.
By that I mean that the US favors investment capital more than anything, the US creates infrastructures favorable to investment capital at every opportunity, and this has created a right wing war economy having near infinite power.
Impenetrable.
Opinion surveys across the world show that the US isn't considered to be a peace keeper.
It is considered rogue.
He's very popular. Very popular indeed, within the Republican party.
And that party takes up fully half, sometimes more, of US voter turnout.
Jeez, I pity you US Americans! For your political system.
It's like, everything is reduced to two, and those two duke it out with fists in the coliseum while everyone throws tomatoes and even live squid.
You've got these no-holds-barred primaries that occur only right before elections. I mean, right before. To the fucking minute. So there's no time to blink before you get to vote for your monarch.
It doesn't make sense to me, so the kind of year-long campaigning that goes with it doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
I mean, dirty politics? Tell me about it, DU.
The whole process seems to be designed to eliminate any actual political ownership, by the people.
Party politics aside, when it's that much money, that large a part of the economy,
anything that isn't there to grease the wheels is likely smoke and mirrors.
First a disclaimer, I know Palin's a troll, OK? But remember how Sarah Palin was ridiculed for "drill, baby, drill!"?
Considering events post-2007, it's clear that she was just saying it as it is in any case, regardless of what this or that politician says in a campaign.
That was before fracking became the solution to a hell of a lot of problems for the US. And that didn't happen under Sarah's rule.
At the current price of oil and gas the Canadian tar sands are hardly economically feasible.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/20/most-canada-oil-sands-crude-being-produced-at-a-loss-report
"CALGARY - More than three-quarters of Canada's daily output of 2.2 million barrels of crude from oil sands is being produced at a loss at current prices, research from analysts at TD Securities shows, although producers are unlikely to halt operations."
At present, the pipeline isn't immediately necessary for anything to do with making fat profits. The industry probably doesn't mind, at all, putting the project on hold while more profitable and less politically sensitive or well known endeavors are pursued.
By the way, when I just looked it up it seems that "tar sands" is a controversial term and some prefer "oil sands". But that's just image. What is it? "Oil sands are a mixture of sand, water, clay and bitumen", and way back in the long ago when I was a kid I learned that "bituminous coal" the dirtiest and lowest grade of all the coals, far and away inferior to anthracite. So what we have in the Alberta "oil sands" is a sludge of clay, sand, mud and bitumen, which has to be combined with water and a whole shitload ofheavy duty chemicals to turn it into a flowable soup before it can be passed thousands of miles down a pipeline - and all of this has to be processed at the end of the line before it can be sold as some kind of oil product. These products are necessary - oil, gas, plastics, and more - but really, putting Keystone on hold was a no-brainer.
They'll say "Jeb, what have you got that Trump hasn't got?"
They'll say "Jeb, Carson is an awesome force in the Republican party today, and what have you got that Carson hasn't got?"
Jeb'll be flustered and say "but I'm just old likable me!".
Then they'll turn on the home movie of George W. Bush striding across the flight deck of the aircraft carrier, crotch bulging with the kind of magic that had Chris Matthews gushing "we're all neocons, now!", and ask Jeb how his crotch can compare.
I'm not sure whether Jeb'll feel at home with his crotch, at that time.
But that's politics in the USA, and at that it's just half of the Bush and Clinton family series of operettas.
It's ongoing. It's all the rage.
That she finally said it was wrong, doesn't erase the horror.
Then there's Libya. And Syria.
Her accomplishments. AKA "Friends Of X".
You want someone that wrong to lead the USA for the next 8 years?
Yes. Something is truly fucked, when I think "USA and GUNS".
It goes deep.
Hillary Clinton is known to be a "hawk".
She isn't known to be all that understanding.
She is known for being imperious.
But that isn't necessarily a good thing.
The USA needs an Universal Health Care Plan.
So it can join the 21st century.
The USA must by now have had enough of this rinky dink bullshit?
A good read. Thanks for the link.
There's so much to think about, and the important thing is to keep thinking. Not let them drown your thoughts out with their pre-packaged holiday plans.
I'm reminded of a clip I saw of an interviewer doing a quick q & a of some students after Bernie Sanders' speech at Liberty University, where a (just one! others were much more positive!) student said that he agreed 100% with what Sanders said about what needs to be done, but dismissed Sanders by saying that he thinks it (social movement for the betterment of people) all ought to be done through individual charity and by churches. Not through democratic government. The conclusion I came to after listening to the student was that the student preferred that all morality should be happenstance, whimsical, individual, and that there aren't universal standards that people in democratic alliance can and should achieve.
My own view is the exact opposite of that.
I think individuals are too lazy to be "ethical" on any consistent basis.
Although charity is a virtue, for sure, it can't be depended on to solve any existing wide ranging social problem.
To suppose otherwise is to contribute to those problems.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:12 AMNumber of posts: 9,688
