home

Friday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 01:47:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I've not read one thing about today's UnFestivities.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< "El Chapo" Press Conference in Brooklyn | Trump's Shameful Inaugural Speech >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Open Thread | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Conservative Republican, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 03:11:44 PM EST
    David Brooks (NYTimes, "Internal Invasion", Jan 20): This is a remarkable day in the history of the country.  We have never over the centuries ever inaugurated a man like Trump as president of the USA."  ...." We have never had a major national leader as professionally unprepared, intellectually ill-informed, morally compromised, and temperamentally unfit as the man taking the oath.."

    Mr. Brooks calls for all Americans to unite by "containing" Trump.  However, in his inaugural address, Trump see unity, not as something he works for, but rather, Americans are expected to do the work so as to unite behind his vision. Those who do not are not patriotic. Dissent is not heralded.

     So, Brooks needs to beware: we have methods.  It is as if all Americans have now been involuntarily enrolled in Trump University.  We can look forward to our golden diplomas and new golden lives.  All those white rural people will not be forgotten, nor will all those white swamp dwellers. Indeed, everything will be golden, including showers.

    The rest of Trump's address was stock rally talk, although he did have enough of the sense of the historical moment so as not to demand imprisonment or assassination of his political opponents on stage.

    But, based on the restive response to Democratic Senator, Chuck Schumer's, patriotic remarks and the looks on the faces of some of those wearing make-america-great-again tractor caps, it would not take much for them to follow their leader off the cliff..no cliff being too high.

    A weekend for a movie, maybe an old TCM classic movie; Dr.Strangelove would be appropriate.  And, Saturday night, don't forget to turn your clock back--200 years.

    Re: the "restive response" to Schumer (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 03:25:19 PM EST
    So, its sounds like you watched the Inauguration.

    I am glad that Schumer gave some pushback at the formal event.  

    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 03:38:58 PM EST
    I did watch. The side events were worth it. President and Secretary Clinton looked good..Mrs. Clinton was radiant, wore a winter white coat (as did Mrs. Laura Bush, who also looked good, President Bush not as much).   Crowds seemed sparse, from a TV viewer perspective.

      Nice to see the dignified departures of the Obamas and Bidens. Chaffetz had the bad taste to offer his hand to Mrs. Clinton on the way out.  She was, of course, gracious and presidential.  Much talk is made of President Obama speaking up when needed. The country could use the voice as well of Secretary Clinton. A little time is needed, perhaps, but her constructive criticisms will be needed.

    Didn't take long: it is reported that the WH website, as of 12:01 noon, pages on climate change, civil rights and LGBT rights taken down. Also, similar take downs on studies at Labor Department.  

    Parent

    Yeah , that creep Chaffetz shook her hand (none / 0) (#7)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    and then tweeted this.
    Did not have the courage to say that to her face. What a d0uchebag.

    I did not watch the Inauguration but have been reading BTD's tweets. About all I can handle today.

    I got a bunch of DVDs from the library today. Husband is out of the country, so dogs and I will be watching Billy Elliot and Transamerica this evening.

    Parent

    Felicity Huffman kills it in Transamerica (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 04:47:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I saw both of those movies when they first came (none / 0) (#14)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:43:48 PM EST
    out (no pun intended!) and liked them then, so thought I would watch again. I remember being wowed by Felicity Huffman's performance. Good enough reason to watch it a second time.

    Parent
    200 years ago (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 04:52:12 PM EST
    when the only reactionary conspiracy theory, aside from religion itself, was that the Indians were descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel.

    Parent
    Today's events... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:37:11 PM EST
    call for something beautiful and fast.

    Larry & Teresa tomorrow night in Bay Shore will do it...Keep your lamps trimmed and burning my friends.

    My Great Uncle Danny (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:47:35 PM EST
    My Great Uncle Danny died yesterday at 94. He grew up in the Bronx, joined the marines at 18 (1941), served in the pacific, then went to Columbia for grad school on the GI bill. He eventually ended up in Hawaii, where he lived between the 1970s and his death. He was living independently until a few months ago, when he took a fall, as sometimes happens with people of that age. I finally got my Grandma--Danny's younger sister--to laugh this morning when I said that I think Danny just decided to exit on his own terms (he always did everything on his own terms) and didn't want to see one minute of the Trump Presidency.

    After hearing the theme of Trump's speech this afternoon--I did not watch myself--it was hard not to reflect on the fact that unlike Trump, Danny was personally familiar with the first "America First" campaign.

    I don't think Danny had any confusion about what Trump represented, or what we face.

    Sorry for your loss (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:59:06 PM EST
    Long time, no see.....

    Parent
    I am sorry for the loss of your Great Uncle Danny. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by vml68 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:02:43 PM EST
    Sounds like he was a wonderful man.

    And, Hello!!! Stranger. Hope the lawyer life is treating you well.

    Parent

    My condolences... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:05:50 PM EST
    old school TL friend.

    Parent
    Oh, and garden, I am so sorry (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:29:43 PM EST
    for your loss. It sounds like your Great Uncle Danny had a long and good life. And, having already lived through more than his share of demagogues, he decided to leave on his own schedule.

    Still, the death of a loved ne is hard. So, my thoughts are with you.

    Nice to see you here. Wish it was under better circumstances.

    Parent

    So sorry for (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:51:41 PM EST
    your loss Andgarden. And George Will even agrees with your uncle.

    Parent
    Good to hear from (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 08:49:07 PM EST
    you, but sorry it is under these sad circumstances. Your uncle sounds like a great person; a gift of generations.  

    Parent
    Andgarden, I was thinking (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:47:19 PM EST
    about you last week and wondered how you were doing. It's been a long time since we've heard from you. Thanks for your comment about your Great Uncle Danny. My parents would have felt the same way. The "America First" is just cringe-worthy.

    Parent
    Miss you around here (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 09:25:18 AM EST
    Sorry for the loss of your wonderful own terms Uncle. Thank you for sharing your Uncle. I meditate on needing and cultivating that strength of person and intent. I hope I don't fail. So many gave everything they had for the country I fear we are in danger of losing.

    Parent
    Iv'e been (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 07:50:47 AM EST
    paying attention to the women's march all over the world. It's amazing to see women in Australia marching with Hillary's slogans. Even small countries like Latvia are having marches in support of women. So many wearing pink hats. Also enjoying the pictures on the airlines where the flight attendants and pilots have been so supportive of women marching in DC today.  

    I called Schumer's (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 02:16:50 PM EST
    office and told the staffer that Schumer is the last Democrat standing with any leverage left, now that Obama has left.  It is all on Schumer now.

    I told her today is a terrible day and we are all now relying on Schumer and his staff to save us from this new guy.

    I at least felt better.

    If you are expecting leadership (none / 0) (#20)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:41:47 PM EST
    from Chuck Schumer, you have a very long wait. Schumer us a big a grifter as captain cheeto. With less backbone.

    Parent
    Imperfect vessels (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 07:11:16 PM EST
    is all we got.  Must make do.

    Parent
    YEah, that (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    is why the stupid whining about Corey Booker's ONE vote got on my last nerve.

    Parent
    And Booker did not oppose (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 08:36:09 PM EST
    The gist of that bill. Apparently, what angered Sanders was that Booker and the other Dems Bernie excoriated did not vote for Bernie's bill, but instead voted for Wyden's bill which covered the same issue, but with fewer strings attached. They thought Wyden had the better bill.

    Parent
    Reviews (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 02:52:11 PM EST
    of Trump's speech seem to be it was dark and dystopian. So like his approval numbers the left and the center detested it and the far right loved it.

    Darkness at Noon (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 03:47:14 PM EST
    The oath was at Noon.  And on a Friday to boot.

    And, now we have a baby Caligula....

    This analogy works it seems quite well.

    This is the dawning of the Age of Dystopia. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 04:17:09 PM EST
    We're flying to Honolulu tonight to the Democratic Unity concert at the Waikiki Shell, and then we'll take part in the Women's March tomorrow at the State Capitol. (I've accumulated so many airline miles, I might as well put them to good use.) We'll be back tomorrow night.

    I Didn't Watch (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    but I read the annotated version of the inaugural address done by the NYTimes.  For example Trump's statement: "Together we will make America strong again. We will make America wealthy again".  Had the comment: "America has never been wealthier. The issue, as Mr. Trump noted earlier in his speech, is that the middle class is not benefiting from that prosperity, which is accumulating disproportionately in the hands of a wealthy minority (the latter fact was not pointed out by Trump-RJ).
    Binyamin Appelbaum, Economic Policy reporter"

    Basically, there was nothing in the speech about the following major problems or even a hint that he regards them as a danger to the nation:

    1. World overpopulation.
    2. Income inequality.
    3. Climate change.
    4. Access to weapons of mass destruction.


    captain cheeto (none / 0) (#21)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 06:44:39 PM EST
    is president of a country the does not exist. America us not the sh**hole described in his speech. Though I predict it will become that.

    Parent
    seems an odd list (none / 0) (#24)
    by linea on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 07:39:37 PM EST
    why would "World overpopulation" be a #1 issue? most modern countries dont reproduce themselves. if you discounted sub-sahara africa, the world population is probably shrinking? what are you proposing? because if it's something other than universal free birth control im against it.

    also what does "Access to weapons of mass destruction" mean? the short list of countries you havent bombed yet? the mythical suitcase nukes being sold in Bangledeshi bazaars? the government of Togo with three chemists can make 1916 type German mustard gas. will you go Team America on Togo?

    Parent

    There Are Loads of Such Lists on the Web (none / 0) (#26)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 08:21:37 PM EST
    Except for human migration (to the US) Trump doesn't seem concerned much with any of the problems I see on the lists.  While about half the countries on the planet have seen their population quadruple since 1950, I think the threat to the US comes mostly from the fact that the growth in available jobs doesn't keep pace with growth in population.  

    If you don't think that it is just a matter of time until terrorists some how get a hold of enough material to make a dirty bomb or get a real one from Pakistan or North Korea, you go against current thinking by atomic experts.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 08:36:58 PM EST
    World population is probably #1

    Population is at 7.5 billion, will hit 10 billion around 2056

    Population growth exacerbates all other troubles.

    Fight for space, food , water will only increase.

    Parent

    not really (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by linea on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 08:47:45 PM EST
    america is like a giant uninhabited wasteland. people live in a couple cities and the rest is emply pasture and cow fields.

    Parent
    This is such (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:20:04 PM EST
    a piece of abstraction that I have no clue how serious you are.....

    Since you do not do irony, but since the comment is so obviously wrong, I must wonder what it is you are trying to say.

    I once wrote a small brief (a motion in limine) that I asked a junior person to find a case that just had certain word in it--it did not matter what the case said--just have that particular word in it.  And Voila! I created a brief around that case with the "word."  A deliberate attempt to be less than clear.  

    The judge was a bit flummoxed but we got what we wanted.

    The senior partner said after the fact that he loved the brief--a peace of abstract art, a Picasso, he called it.

    I have no idea what led me to have such gaul to do that other than the arrogance of youth.

    In any event, linea, what the hell did you just write?  

    Parent

    gall; galling (?) (none / 0) (#42)
    by linea on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    i loved your story! thank you!
    like an episode of The Good Wife.

    Parent
    Uh, yeah, not ancient France (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:44:18 PM EST
    but chutzpah.

    Parent
    A haiku about Norway? (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:24:43 PM EST


    Parent
    A tax /accouting term (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:15:22 AM EST
    We really dinged a major corporation in that case....

    Parent
    General (Warrior Monk), (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    Mattis was confirmed Friday as Secretary of Defense, the first Trump cabinet officer confirmed.

    i just watched (none / 0) (#29)
    by linea on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 08:43:18 PM EST
    the video of trump's inaugural address.

    seemed a perfectly fine "populist" speach.  if he's actually serious about what he declared in that speach it would all be a good thing.  except his concern for drug abuse concerns me.

    Most people (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:02:48 PM EST
    seemed to think it was dark and dystopian. Not a positive version for America and sounded like America is a 3rd world country on the eve of destruction. Maybe the eve of destruction thing something he's projecting for the country.

    Parent
    i'm sorry (none / 0) (#37)
    by linea on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:19:29 PM EST
    i dont understand the question.

    what was dystopian?

    you do agree that the deindustrialisation of america is a bad thing dont you?  obviously i CAN NOT IMAGINE that trump would actually desire to restructure the entire economy of america to benefit labourers and working class.

    Parent

    Question (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:49:47 PM EST
    seemed a perfectly fine "populist" speach.  if he's actually serious about what he declared in that speach

    Your comment suggests that you take this buffoon seriously.

    How many times in a row can you be fooled by the same trick?  Clearly the number is greater than three.  Thousand.

    Trump does not believe anything, he did not write the "speach" [sic] and since he would lie about what day of the week it is or the color of the sky, only an idiot would believe that the words spewing from his mouth have actual meaning.

    Wait, you don't believe he actually THOUGHT about this stuff, do you?  

    Parent

    you didnt read me! (none / 0) (#48)
    by linea on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:02:38 PM EST
    i wrote:

    obviously i CAN NOT IMAGINE that trump would actually desire to restructure the entire economy of america to benefit labourers and working class.


    Parent
    If you don't believe ... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:24:34 PM EST
    ... that Trump was sincere/truthful in his speech, your first comment makes no sense:

    i just watched the video of trump's inaugural address.  seemed a perfectly fine "populist" speach.  if he's actually serious about what he declared in that speach it would all be a good thing.  except his concern for drug abuse concerns me.


    Parent
    Good luck (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:56:11 AM EST
    trying to figure it out.

    Parent
    My theory involves a bridge (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    ... and some goats.

    Parent
    Do you actually believe ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 08:47:39 PM EST
    ... he was truthful in his speech?

    Parent
    One (none / 0) (#33)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:02:29 PM EST
    Obvious point, the speech was not about him.

    Said I maybe once or twice in the speech.

    The speech I guess was a bit scary, to the political establishment, of both parties.
    He said we are giving the power back to the people, taking it from those ensconced in Washington for years.  (Sounds like Bannon)

    That would be something I would like to see as well

    Parent

    That is not (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:05:31 PM EST
    what bothered people from both parties. What bothered them was his dark vision for the country and it was considered Hitlerian.

    And yeah, anybody who believes Trump is going to give power back to the people of this country has not paid attention to one of his cabinet picks. They are all for taking MORE away from the people of the country. Of course, he has been able to fleece enough rubes with this BS so he's going to keep it up. The thing is it seems more and more people are catching on everyday to the con.

    Parent

    Do not see that at all (none / 0) (#36)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:19:03 PM EST
    These are all rich and powerful men,

    Who are talking a substantial paycut for this public service.
    And I think most of them are doing it as public service.
    Mattis and Kelly.
    Tillerson does need this, he could have stayed at Exxon and reaped more financial rewards. He sees a chance to do more than make money.
    No, these men do not need that cesspool called Washington, they are going to try and make a difference.

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:54:48 PM EST
    Yeah, that's the Kellyanne Conjob talking point about these poor little millionaires.

    Mattis is doing it to keep the country out of Russia's hands. He's already gotten into one fight with Trump so I'm not sure how long he's going to last before Trump fires him. He has another motivation than those other bozos.

    Tillerson is doing it because he's going to get rid of sanctions and enrich himself. He still has Exxon stock, no? He'll be back clinking champagne with Putin in short order.

    And you neglected to name the other clowns like DeVos. Well, we know she wants to keep grizzlies out of schools. And Sessions wants to reinstate Jim Crow. And Tom Price certainly wants to enrich himself. He has a history of doing it already at the hands of government.

    Parent

    Tillerson (none / 0) (#59)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:01:39 AM EST
    Is out of oil and gas business.

    I think he is a seasoned and tough negotiator, and think he will be a formidable representative for American interests in the world

    Tillerson will give up about $7 million in compensation and establish an independent trust that will manage the converted value of about 2 million shares he would have been awarded over the next 10 years, Exxon said late Tuesday. At Tuesday's closing price, the value of those shares was more than $180 million.

    He has also "committed to the State Department that, if confirmed, he would sell" all of his current Exxon stock, the oil giant said in a statement.

    As part of the deal, Tillerson would agree not to work in the oil and gas sector for a decade. If he breaks that covenant, he would lose the value transferred to the independent trust, which would then distribute its capital to "one or more charities involved in fighting poverty or disease in the developing world," according to Exxon.

    Taken together, the moves reflect a concerted attempt on Tillerson's behalf to convince skeptical senators that he wouldn't have a conflict of interest by serving as the nation's chief diplomat.

    http://tinyurl.com/z7dhntc

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 07:13:26 AM EST
    He'll get rid of the Exxon stock just like Trump is going to get rid of his foreign business interests. Tough negotiator? Well, I guess if your definition is being a Putin stooge.

    Parent
    How naive (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    It is called ego.  Love of power.  

    And they will make even more money in a few short years.

    Parent

    Love of fame (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:24:26 PM EST
    An attempt to be in the history books.

    You really swallowed this whole businessman thing.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#43)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:27:40 PM EST
    If they do a good job. Have a successful administration. That is what they are striving for

    Parent
    How cynical (none / 0) (#41)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    sorry,

    They do not need the money.

    This is public service, unlike others who made a career out of it.

    They are sacrificing a lot to do this.

    Parent

    I can't tell who sounds more naive. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    You or linea.

    Parent
    At least linea has an excuse (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:50:14 PM EST
    she hasn't been here that long. Plus she sounds like she's had a couple of glasses of wine.

    These libertarian-moonies on the other hand are as dogmatic as the religious fanatics they often make common cause with.

    Parent

    well yes, i have (none / 0) (#56)
    by linea on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:58:55 PM EST
    but im getting ready to go out tonight.

    and i am the most anti-Libertarian person on this site. they are Utopianists and thus no different than Communists.

    Parent

    Bah (none / 0) (#61)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:06:00 AM EST
    Humbug!!

    Animal Farm is the best example of communism, I haven't seen one ever put into practice that was beneficial to the people. (Only those running the show)

    A small federal government is desired, not no government. The states can enact more detailed legislation, if the majority of the citizens so desire reams of laws to dictate their life.

    Parent

    Uh, you mean, like (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:40:34 AM EST
    California and all our regulations?  That protect the environment, and Right to Choose, etc.?

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#77)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:34:58 AM EST


    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    You are opposed to protecting the environment?

    You want to reverse Roe and take away the Right to Choose?

    Good for you if you will admit this.

    Parent

    I love (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 11:16:43 AM EST
    Clean air and water.  The EPA has stretched its authority far beyond that, and the Court system has agreed.  Just enforce the laws as written.

    Notorious RBG thinks Roe was wrongly decided, which doesn't take away the right to choose if reversed.

    Parent

    You missed the gist of linea's (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:49:56 AM EST
    comment.

    She was not praising Communism but comparing it to Ayn's religion and finding them quite similar--in a no so nice way.

    It is this kind of post by linea that really has me at a loss.  A nice, pithy slam of Libertarianism.  But then she has the most off-the-wall comments that often make no sense, or appear to have been written by a grade schooler.

    I am half convinced that it is a put-on, elaborate performance art.  The appearance of trying to relentlessly mimic e.e. cummings punctuation. And mini lectures on meanings of words generally already understood. Peter G, being the decent guy that he is, takes her at face value, being a true liberal and giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    I will say her posts are less predictable (at least to me) than our conservative contingent.

    Parent

    There are a lot of possible gradations (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:33:39 AM EST
    and variations in between unbridled laissez faire capitalism and Orwell's nightmare scenario.

    Do you think Denmark is a totalitarian nightmare?

    No it isn't. Psychologists have rated it one of the happiest, most non-violent countries on the planet.

    Conservatives love to postulate this cartoonish, either/or, false dichotomy: the only two choices being Reaganomics or "communism".

    Good vs Evil. That's not how things work in the real world.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 05:59:45 AM EST


    Parent
    This is funny stuff (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    Leaving aside the amateur psychoanalysis and attempt at reading their minds, there's the blatant hypocrisy and double standard.  Hillary was doing it for the power and the money, despite the fact that she's also wealthy.  But these guys are sacrificing for their country, after spending a lifetime working only for themselves.

    Heh.

    Parent

    They have to be people (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:58:52 PM EST
    of selfless, unshakable virtue or else they wouldn't be calling for deregulation and tax cuts.

    Parent
    What is wrong with (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:01:50 AM EST
    making a career out of public service?

    Why denigrate public service?   If the current crop of nominees are selfless people seeking public service, why do you deny that altruism to those who make a career of it.

    Parent

    Some in public service (none / 0) (#62)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:11:27 AM EST
    Are altruistic and quite admirable. But I find that list to be short.
    The pay is not remarkable, comfortable, not gaudy.
    And the hours long. Too many find the temptation of personal benefit hard to resist.
    There are not that many Biden's, come in poor, and go out poor.
    I am for term limits, 18 years for Senators, 12 for House of Rep.
    And then a hearty and well deserved thank you for your service.

    Parent
    If you hate governement (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:13:15 AM EST
    you will denigrate public service.

    The answer is not hero worship of CEOs.

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#67)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:16:33 AM EST
    It is the size of government and its intrusive impact.

    A small effective government.

    That does not denigrate public service, despite you saying so

    Parent

    What about the intrusive impact (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:44:22 AM EST
    of the corporations and Wall Street?

    You've imbibed the conservative party line Kool-Aid.

    It's theology disguised as simplistic "common sense". Government Evil, Unbridled Capitalism Good.

    Parent

    What about it (none / 0) (#82)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:50:34 AM EST
    I fully supported Too Big to Fail

    Too bad Dodd Frank only boosted the large banks and have succeeded in eliminating many smaller banks from the industry

    Glass Steagall would also be welcomed back by me

    http://tinyurl.com/jfzddre

    The latest salvo from the President's Council of Economic Advisers ignores the reality that more than one in five U.S. banks have disappeared--1,708, or more than one every business day--since Dodd-Frank was enacted. Meanwhile, virtually no new banks have been formed, a historically unprecedented lack of investment and startup activity for the industry.

    Then there's a recent Politico op-ed from think tank fellow Mike Konczal arguing that community banks are at the zenith of their political power and able to bend Capitol Hill to their demands--another head-scratcher for anyone actually fighting in the policy trenches. While community banks have seen a few small wins last year, those are counterbalanced by a long list of needed reforms and unnecessary rules that have virtually stopped bank startups and pushed thousands of community banks to sell or merge.

    And while community banks remain resilient in the face of regulatory and economic pressures, it defies reason to suggest that their growth and ability to serve customers has been unhurt by Dodd-Frank and the massive regulatory burden it represents. Powerful organizations tend not to disappear by the thousands.



    Parent
    What denigrates public service ... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:50:14 AM EST
    ... is your broad-brush denigration of public servants and their motives (with no evidence), while lauding (and pretending to know) the "good" motives of Trump's wealthy appointees.

    It's the double-standard and the hypocrisy.

    Parent

    Term limits (none / 0) (#83)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:52:18 AM EST
    18 years and out

    Parent
    I think the better way to go (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:59:13 AM EST
    is no term limits and radical campaign finance reform.

    Parent
    That's nice (none / 0) (#86)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 09:03:27 AM EST
    Can't really blame you for wanting to avoid addressing my post.

    Parent
    Ayn hated (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:22:54 AM EST
    Jesus, you know.

    Parent
    She (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:54:02 AM EST
    would probably be cool with the new supply side Jesus, as is Trump,
    No surprise in this news: Donald Trump has invited at least two preachers of the so-called "prosperity gospel" to offer prayers at his inauguration.  
    The "prosperity gospel" -- which is preached in a few (not most) evangelical churches -- basically teaches that God rewards true believers with material wealth. Indeed, material wealth is an exterior sign of God's blessing.

    Blessed be the billionaires, for they shall inherit the earth.

    Parent

    Why should I care (none / 0) (#78)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:36:09 AM EST
    What Ayn thought about everything?

    Parent
    Why should anyone here (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 11:50:33 AM EST
    care what you think.

    This is TalkLeft not TalkLibertarian.   Go away.

    Parent

    If you really want... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 04:39:38 PM EST
    the lickspittle to go away, stop giving him an audience. Why should he go anywhere when he has willing foils right here?

    Parent
    please do not tell other (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 12:47:30 PM EST
    commenters who is and who is not welcome here.
    Only I make those decisions. This is my blog, not yours. If you want to control comments, you will have to start your own blog. All points of view are allowed here, in moderation, and so long as they comply with the comment rules, no name-calling or allegations of things like racism or bigotry.

    Parent
    She hated that scourge of humanity, Leo Tolstoy (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 01:24:46 PM EST
    too. Her ideal was the ideology of the 19th century robber barons.

    And she was a speed freak, which explains her inability to have a sense of empathy, or to experience any other feelings for that matter..

    She even expressed admiration for a  psychopathic killer because, in her view, he transcended the petty morality.

    This is exactly like Nietszche with his admiration for Cesare Borgia.

    Admiration for Rand's ideas is probably the most common intellectual denominator amongst the business savants that Trevor seems to look up to.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#100)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    Have never read any of her books, nor seen any of the movies.

    Parent
    Maybe it's just that (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    great minds think alike.

    Parent
    The people (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 20, 2017 at 10:42:57 PM EST
    Which people is the question. A lot of "the people" of plenty of power already.

    Sounds like we're back to the libertarian article of faith that "the people" in the private sector, including corporate persons, are only prone to destructive behavior, corruption, wastefulness, and every other folly only because of the influence of the Great Satan, governnent.

    Parent

    Finally (none / 0) (#57)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 05:58:27 AM EST
    You are on to something.

    What would attract men from 60 to 80, having accomplished so much success in the private sector, basically have been their own boss, took orders from no one,  to then become part of a governing group, without having  the ultimate say so?
    I can only imagine some of their business meetings, whenever the topic came down to politics, all of them most likely all had the same lament, the damn government is inefficient, is bad for the economy.
    Out of nowhere they have been offered a opportunity to correct things in the marketplace, to have a go at it.
    You are silly and just blinded by hate if you think it is for money. They have more than enough. Yes, it is ego, that is what has driven them to accomplish so much in their lifetime, and now, they will devote their time for another, different challenge.
    I get you don't agree with their style or politics , but you don't get their motivation.

    Although I don't think they fully realize the impediments that government has in place to enact the changes they desire. Some may leave in disgust, as nothing gets done, they are used to having their plans take hold. Some may leave because too many strong willed people in one organization, some may not get what they want.

    I am giving them a opportunity to prove their worth, and hope they succeed, hopefully we will finally have growth in the economyof 3 and 4% annually.

    Parent

    And you know their (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:11:45 AM EST
    motivation?

    Best explanation is they will have the same views they always have.  

    This hero worship of financially successful people is naïve and misguided.

    These guys are among the most boring and morally clueless people around.   (I have worked with enough of them to know.)  Very predictable in their ways of doing things.  Not much compassion.  Thoroughly uninteresting as people.  Usually talk about themselves incessantly.

    And fungible.  They are all fundamentally alike.  You have even taken a stab at what they say in business meetings.  It doesn't take much to script out what they talk about most of the time.
     

    Parent

    Not hero worship (none / 0) (#65)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:13:58 AM EST
    But I do think they can do a better job than the politicians of either party.

    We will see

    Parent

    Because they have less (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 06:19:25 AM EST
    experience?

    You really believe this private enterprise is always better line?

    Just a belief.....a religious article of faith really.

    We did this CEO love by electing W.  And, so it has been done again.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:40:56 AM EST
    Because they have more experience in the real world

    At getting things done

    Politicians talk a lot, they are very good at talking, they like to hear themselves

    Parent

    So we should just make (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 09:04:46 AM EST
    successful businessmen Surgeon General and head of the EPA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

    Because they "know how to get things done"?

    Parent

    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 09:39:30 AM EST
    So many straw men there,

    with the thoughts you'd be thinking,
    You could be another Lincoln.....

    A pretty impressive group is in place right now


    Parent

    That's not a strawman argument (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    It's yours.  You're smearing public officials/workers while lauding the appointment of business people with no experience in government because of your imagined beliefs about the motives of each.  Then you claim the business people are better qualified because they have more experience "getting things done".

    BTW - That quote of yours should be directed towards the nearest mirror.

    Parent

    I lauded this Cabinet (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    And the people in it.

    They are very experienced, and that is why they have lieutenants.
    which is where Priebus and Pence lend their skills and contacts.

    Parent

    I will (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    remember to get an electrician to do a knee replacement for me when I need it just to follow your advice.

    Apparently your ignorance is as good as anyone else's knowledge.

    Parent

    Ga6, so you would't get knee surgery (none / 0) (#106)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 11:48:06 AM EST
    at a hospital where the CEO isn't an orthopedic surgeon?

    Parent
    You're making (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    a completely different argument and avoiding my point entirely.

    Would you be okay with an electrician doing your knee surgery if the CEO was an orthopedic surgeon?

    Good lord. Just accept the fact that these cabinet picks are laughable and move on. Everyone of them is pretty much the dregs.

    Parent

    Nope, you are not using an (none / 0) (#109)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    applicable analogy. The boss/CEO/head of a government agency needs to be able run the agency and be an effective leader. Doesn't need to have the expertises of the key areas in the agency. Doesn't need to be able to perform any of the "knee surgery". Running a large corporation or a large area of the military would seem to be good experience for running an agency.

    Parent
    You're assuming a lot here, Green (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    for one thing, to "run" an agency, particularly a government agency, there has to be optimal communication between all the moving parts; optimal communication requires a more than superficial understanding of what each department of the organization does, and it requires the ability to problem solve that can goes beyond simply reflexively delegating authority.

    There's a lot on ongoing differences of opinion about what it means to "run" an organization well.

    An ex-ceo whose main orientation throughout his career was to simply maximize returns for shareholders by hook or by crook, may be in more of a foreign country than you think in trying to head a government agency that is charged with working for the benefit for the whole country, as opposed to a relative handful of shareholders.

    Parent

    Doesn't look like you (1.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    went to business school or ran a business of any size.

    Parent
    A government agency isn't a business (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    and simply having an MBA doesn't automatically qualify you to head a law firm or a hospital or an army.

    Parent
    I could tell from your prior post (none / 0) (#113)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 02:43:18 PM EST
    that you don't understand management and what it takes to run a business, or a government agency.

    Parent
    So what government agency (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    did you run?

    Since you want to personalize this.

    Parent

    Why don't you answer your question first? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 09:17:35 PM EST
    Feel free to tell us about any other relevant qualification or experience that might be relevant to running a government agency too.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 09:17:21 AM EST
    ... how projection works.

    Parent
    Businessman as Superman? (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    there's this unexamined assumption current in some circles that of course ceo's and the rest of the 1% must be all supercompetent renaissance men capable of righting any wrong..faster than a speeding bullet..capable of leaping talk buildings in a single bound..

    So of course any one of them would be ideal to head the CIA or HUD..

    Parent

    Correct (none / 0) (#117)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 05:15:47 PM EST
    Having a business degree, a MBA, doesn't qualify anyone for much of anything nowadays.

    And in fact , being a CEO of a corporation is not automatically a stepping stone or qualification to run a government agency.

    However, the individuals in this Cabinet seem quite accomplished, been successful creating business, or had accomplished military careers.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    but yes, the person does need to have expertise in that area. If a surgeon is going to run a hospital it usually requires him to have an MBA and some business background. Or do you live somewhere they just pull people off the street and make them CEO's?

    The fact of the matter is that business people make poor leaders in government. Look no further than George W. Bush for the most recent example. Yeah, he had a few years as the figure head governor of state but business leaders get to make the decisions and order everybody else to do what they want to do. They do not have to take advise or create consensus like government agencies do. Perhaps you prefer the dictator form of government but I do not.

    Parent

    Yes, you did (none / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 03:56:25 PM EST
    ... and the same "logic" could be applied to any business person who's run a large company.  The fact that you smear experienced public officials while lauding inexperienced businessmen is just more of the usual conservative talking points and baseless smears.

    But work with what you've got ...

    Parent

    It is you (none / 0) (#103)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    That is applying it to "any business person"

    I was specifically talking about this cabinet.

    They are very qualified for their positions


    Parent

    It's just applying ... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    ... your logic.  If someone in business "gets things done", they're qualified to run government.   If they're wealthy, they'really motivated by altruism.

    That's funny.

    Parent

    Baseless, conservative opinions ... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 21, 2017 at 08:58:36 AM EST
    ... forming the foundation of what someone is "imagining".

    Yawn.

    Parent

    Friday Open Thread | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment