|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Comrade Omar, rest in peace, was fond of quoting an op-ed piece about Al Sharpton by Luther Campbell, formerly of 2 Live Crew, but alas, I can't find it, just an excerpt:
Anyway, back to random articles about police brutality:
I like the use of the word "apparent".
I was in and out of the room while the debate was on, but one moment that made me guffaw was Hillary on private prisons.
Which is interesting because it brings up the Pennsylvania Cash for Kids debacle that The White Knife used to post about back in the day.
Which does a pretty good job of explaining my amusement, even if it is on a conservative website.
And, from a few months back:
Meanwhile, un-debate related, but about prisons:
The Marshall Project:
Big, long weekend of communism. Won't bore you with details, but, yesterday, while I was at work, as always seems to be the case, the BLM NH peeps had a speakout about the recent spate of police killings and were visited by a half-dozen fascists.
The Soldiers of Odin have established 42 state chapters in the U.S. since February.
What the f$@% is going on in NH?
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
For those intent on subjecting themselves to Monday's PotUS debate, do you have any recommendations for alcoholic libations? (Sorry DB, no puff-puff/bubble-bubble for me)
I've taken a fondness for Downeast Cider. Don't know if you'll find that in Florida, but the seasonal pumpkin spice is alright--and even got the thumbs up from Comrade Who Was Published In Jacobin and he usually goes on violent anti-pumpkin spice rants this time of year--but I like the Cranberry Blend.
Also, we ended up getting a dozen to The Communist Manifesto lecture, but most of them came because of Facebook and only one because of the $43 worth of leaflets that I made.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hopefully, access to 200 or so people in Boston and a dozen or so in New Hampshire.
I mean, I spent $43 bucks on leaflets for our lecture tomorrow in Lowell and we'll be lucky if we get ten. (Although, tbh, I guess I shouldn't have had them made in color.)
Orfamay Quest wrote:
It is, however, cheaper than leaflets.
Back at Bread and Roses I purchased a little pamphlet from a group called the World Socialist Party. It is a reprint of a 1920s pamphlet by one John Keracher entitled How the Gods Were Made (A Study in Historical Materialism) and it was okay, if pretty simple.
Only glaring mistake that I noticed was that he claimed the ancient Greeks believed they went to Olympus after death, instead of Hades.
Man, all kindsa new faces!
Some more events this week:
and, of course, Saturday's talk on The Communist Manifesto.
Next Thursday's got an interesting one, but it'll be at the same time as the Rock Against Racism show, :( :
And now for something completely different:
250+ posts and mods, looks like I missed a lot.
Apologies to anyone I left hanging, the meeting took longer than expected and, even more so, the consumption of alcoholic goodies afterwards.
Got to go put up more flyers this morning, go to work, and then attend another standout to Vote No On No. 2 this afternoon.
I'll see if you're still here later!
DADT led to a higher rate of gay servicepeople being discharged than previously.
DOMA passed with veto-proof majorities, huh? Oh, well, then I guess, Bill had to sign off it. I mean, he couldn't have vetoed it, and then tried to go for a pocket veto, or just, you know, let it pass over his veto?
Also, I found this tidbit on wikipedia:
"James Hormel, who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador, described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger. On Hormel's account, Clinton had been the first President to advocate gay rights, push for AIDS funding, support gay and lesbian civil rights legislation, and appoint open LGBT people to his Administration. Thus his signing of DOMA was viewed by much of the community as a great betrayal."
Maybe your circle of friends impacted by the bill was a little narrow?
But, I have to ask, why did you switch over to gay issues? I was talking about the crime and welfare reform bills. Please demonstrate my "historical revisionism" there.
I'll be back in, roughly, ten hours after the Black Lives Matter NH meeting tonight. I also have to go back through the last bunch of pages and see if I missed anything.
Sorry, one more:
I remember selling socialist papers with articles against all that shiznit, so I'm afraid the argument of "historical revisionism" doesn't hold much water with me.
Not my fault the rest of you took two decades to catch up.
...And that's exactly how we got the '94 crime bill, the '96 welfare reform bill and, to jump forward a little in time, the highest number of deportations under any president ever.
Just don't worry!
Welcome, one and all, to the Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread, now, on fire!!!
As regards the other thread, I have no idea who Gandhi would vote for, but I'm certain Robespierre wouldn't vote for Hillary.
Anyway, debate went pretty well. Mr. Comrade killed it and Young Gay Comrade opined that "it was the best meeting he'd ever been to."
Later we collected all the comrades and kids went to Comrade Who Was Published in Jacobin's house and watched The Lion King.
Yeah, I do. That's pretty uncontroversial, Dicey.
"Most shockingly, the total numbers of state and federal inmates grew more rapidly under Bill Clinton than under any other president, including the notorious Republican drug warriors Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush."
I don't know.
It depends on whether you can stop taking a question like "I wonder if it makes any difference to black people who live in hellhole cities that the Democrats have controlled for decades* whether Democrats' racism is more subtle than Republicans" and turning it into "Are you saying Stephanie Rawlings-Blake orders police to murder black people?!?"
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Huh. Apparently, The Observer is run by the Donald's son-in-law.
[Goes back to searching the internet]
Anyway, more knife analogies:
"If you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out three inches, that is not progress." --Malcolm X
But that was before the Dixiecrat desertion! Before George Wallace apologized for standing in the school house door, before Byrd apologized for being in the Klan! Before Hillary apologized for her role in creating the mass incarceration state!
Just curious, is it because they're Democrats that they're racists and ordering their police to kill fellow citizens?
Since I never claimed that Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) were ordering their police to kill people--in fact, I answered "no" to your previous question--I'm not sure how to respond to your strawman.
It all depends on what the alternative is.
Earlier in the discussion, maybe not in this thread maybe one of the three (the two convention ones and the "Sellouts on the Left, Sellouts on the Right") that preceded it, there was discussion of the Clintons' speaker's fees from Wall Street, etc., and how these fees were pumped back into the Clinton Foundation, a charity, so what could be wrong with that?
I wondered aloud if it might be the case that donors to the Foundation and payers of these fees, I believe I used Monsanto as an example, might benefit greatly from these charitable actions. It looks like they do and, as I suspected, the Clinton Foundation is a key player in the left wing of neoliberalism.
There is certainly an argument to be made, by the defenders of capitalism, that left neoliberalism is the best that we can do. But there are others, not fans of neoliberalism and letting the market sort it out, who also rushed to the defense of the Clinton Foundation because it's a charity. I thought these latter might be interested in the nature of its charity.
And, that, of course, is assuming that the Foundation works. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I wouldn't know, but here's some from later in the article:
"...After the devastating Haitian earthquake in 2010, both Clintons were heavily involved in the recovery. Bill was given such large and nebulous authority that Haitians dubbed him 'Le Gouverneur,' fearing he would become a sort of colonial administrator. The Clintons raised millions of dollars, including 30 million dollars through the Foundation, to assist the Haitian people.
"But all of this money produced very little. Multiple expensive initiatives went nowhere, and the gleaming new industrial park the Clintons touted for Haiti brought few jobs and was largely unused. Instead of housing, the Clinton-led recovery built needless new luxury hotels. Indeed, Adam Davidson reports that the Clinton Foundation is not a major force in Haiti, and is not making any significant progress there. Journalist Jonathan Katz says it’s 'hard to find anyone who looks back on [the recovery] as a success.' The Clintons themselves have simply stopped discussing Haiti publicly, though Haitians have occasionally showed up at Hillary Clinton’s office to protest the disappearance of millions of dollars in recovery funds. As one Haitian official who worked with Bill Clinton put it, 'There is a lot of resentment about Clinton here. People have not seen results. . . . They say that Clinton used Haiti.'"
No, I am wondering how much solace is to be found in racist hellhole cities, like Baltimore, like Milwaukee, etc., etc. run by Democrats, that Democrats are more subtle in their racism.
I found a new website that looks pretty good:
Which addresses some of my thoughts that I haven't been able to articulate about its "charity." For example,
"Ira Magaziner, who heads the independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, has said of their work that 'the whole thing is bankable… It’s a commercial proposition. This is not charity.' Instead of aid, the Clinton Foundation spends much of its effort 'creating new markets,' finding lucrative investment opportunities in the developing world for Western private capital. These have included everything from 'using business methods to streamline fertilizer markets in Africa' to 'working with credit card companies to expand the volume of low-cost loans offered to poor inner city residents.' (Note that typically, enticing poor people into taking on large amounts of credit card debt is not among the activities of a charitable foundation.) Bill Clinton is open about the fact that in this work, he is trying to help corporations profit from the developing world. He attempts to “reinvent philanthropy” as a lucrative enterprise for his partners because, in his words, 'I think it’s wrong to ask anyone to lose money.'"
Yeah, I saw the part where you agreed with me. Not sure if I understood your point. Probably not; I was drunk.
Democrats are racist but they are more subtle than Republicans. During the Civil Rights era, it was difficult to focus on subtle racism when blacks were being lynched and mauled by dogs (I guess they only do that to red people these days, yay incremental progress!). If someone's trying to stab you, you don't worry about toilet paper. Some checking of your privilege, then, a resummation of Democrats are more subtle in their racism than Republicans, but there is a long way yet to go.
And my response was, and is, I wonder what the black residents of those cities would make of your knife metaphor when they are being gunned down with impunity in cities run by the more subtle racists?
I'm not sure how subtle it feels in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, Tom Barrett's Milwaukee, Bill de Blasio's New York, your own Betsy's Minneapolis, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's Baltimore or any of the other Democratic-controlled flashpoints in the new civil rights movement or, for that matter, in the gulag archipelago the Clintons helped build.
Guy Humual wrote:
There's that, I guess.
Two more articles that came across my feed and caught my fancy,
After I don't even know how many months (three? four? five?), a dozen or so reader's circle meetings and 300ish or so pages, I finally finished Chapter 10 of Capital.
Shiznit finally got good.
All the earlier stuff was fine, but, seriously, up to here I was of the opinion that I'd tell new recruits "Really, all you need to read is Value, Price and Profit and Mandel's An Introduction to Marxist Economics and you'll be good."
This, though, I like.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And he gets the lecture published before he even gives it. Now who's gonna come?!?
Amelia Earhart? Srsly? Did he object to her support for ERA or the fact she married a divorced man? Or the fact she flew airplanes? Or the unpardonable fact that she was a woman?
He didn't spend much time on her. From the comments I heard, he spent most of his time on Nelson and Fred and contrasting them with the bios he had read as a kid, such as Alexander Hamilton and Andrew Jackson. (I mean, for real?)
Tbh, though, I'm not sure how it went down. There was a video of the whole meeting, I only watched a minute and a half, and then there were comments that he made on his radio show, which I didn't listen to.
Article I found, but it doesn't mention the books. There were other things going on, too.