HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » PufPuf23 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 28 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Jul 26, 2007, 05:26 PM
Number of posts: 7,388

Journal Archives

Everyone should read this article from the 2008 Kentucky primary won by Hillary Clinton.

Context for the Kentucky primary today and also the 2016 campaign in general.


Note the article is 5/20/2008. I recommend read the entire article, it is short.

Some excerpts:

Hillary Clinton won Kentucky by 30%

From the article:

Neither candidate is expected to reach the 2,026 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.

That means the race is likely to be settled by "super-delegates" -- party leaders and officials who will cast votes at the Democratic convention in August.

After Kentucky's results came in, Clinton thanked her supporters for handing her a win "even in the face of some pretty tough odds."

"Tonight we have achieved an important victory," she said in Louisville.

Clinton beat Obama across all age groups, income groups and education levels in Kentucky.

"It's not just Kentucky bluegrass that's music to my ears. It's the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence even in the face of some pretty tough odds."

Two-thirds of Clinton's supporters there said they would vote Republican or not vote at all rather than for Obama, according to the polls.

Forty-one percent of Clinton supporters said they'd cast their vote for McCain, and 23 percent said they would not vote at all.


Thanks again for the context XemaSab

Lived and worked in Oregon for 11 years.

Portland and Corvallis.

Northwest OR is more liberal and Democratic than Southwest and eastern OR.

No state wide sales tax but high property tax.

No self serve gasoline.

Freddie Meyers.

Powell's Books

Pendleton Woolen Mills

Downtown Portland, Pioneer Square, and the Rhododendron Festival

Ashland Shakespearian Festival (went there on high school senior trip even though lived in CA)

West OR is green and lush and east OR is open and dry with scattered green mountains and plateaus and river canyons.

Westside Douglas-fir, eastside ponderosa pine (many trees)

Lots of National Forest and Wilderness and (cold water) ocean beaches and rivers and snow skiing.

Mt. Hood and Columbia Gorge.

Crater Lake

Oregon Caves


Good food, craft bear, orchards, local wine.

Oregon Ducks (Eugene) and Oregon State Beavers (Corvallis)

Portland Blazers

I don't doubt that the rate and period of per capita income growth in Chile you cite is OK.

But the rate is a phenomena of the reduction of absolute per capita income that resulted from the neo-liberal shock treatment and recovery in an economic vacuum.

Economic growth follows a sigmoid pattern over time where the economy is in a growth phase and re-occupying slack or new resources or technology enter the system.

That percent growth is high indicates that absolute per capita is on the rising phase of the sigmoid growth function.

The high percent growth rate reflects in part the prior reduction of absolute income and in part the slack in an economy where the utilization of resources starts low.

The statistic you cite is important in the short term but has less meaning over the long term and can be misleading as is the statistic in your example.

Other economists would agree with me (and the argument above is what classical economists state to debunk the idea of a great economic miracle by the Chicago Boys in Chile.

Other than that your statistic would not have occurred without the context of the policies and actions I offered in an earlier posts.

You are over your head. You obviously do not understand the statistic you quote.

From the link you cited for the statistic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

"Some economists (such as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen) have argued that the experience of Chile in this period indicates a failure of the economic liberalism posited by thinkers such as Friedman, claiming that there was little net economic growth from 1975 to 1982 (during the so-called “pure Monetarist experiment”). After the catastrophic banking crisis of 1982 the state controlled more of the economy than it had under the previous so-called "socialist" regime, and sustained economic growth only came after the later reforms that privatized the economy, while social indicators remained poor.[5] Pinochet’s dictatorship made the unpopular economic reorientation possible by repressing opposition to it. Rather than a triumph of the free market, the OECD economist Javier Santiso described this reorientation as “combining neo-liberal sutures and interventionist cures”.[6] By the time of sustained growth, the Chilean government had “cooled its neo-liberal ideological fever” and “controlled its exposure to world financial markets and maintained its efficient copper company in public hands”.[5]"

Venezuela under Chavez just could not benefit regardless of actions.

Care for the Venezuelan people does not appear to be reciprocal.

The $465 million was just for one year out of at least 8 years heating oil was provided to the poor in the USA.

Venezuela in good faith also provided low cost fuels to a number of other countries.

How much money has the war monger and empire contingent spent to destabilize Venezuela and other countries?

Has the now 18 years invested in Plan Colombia worked out?

Business opportunities and a pending free trade agreement that will penalize the poor and working class in favor of trans-national corporations?

Venezuela has never tried to deliberately destabilize our government and economy.

In 1938 Standard Oil of New Jersey sourced 38% of their oil from Venezuela, 38% of oil from the USA, and the remainder elsewhere, primarily Canada. Venezuela is the richest oil patch in the western hemisphere. Venezuela provided most of the fuel for the Allies in Europe in WWII, much processed at refiners on Aruba and Curacao. The biggest sin of Venezuela was to nationalize the oil sector (much like Gadaffi in Libya, Hussein in Iraq, and farther back Iran).

Neo-liberals want to do to Venezuela what has occurred in Colombia with coal. Our problem with Venezuela has more to do with access to cheap natural resources than humanitarian reasons.


Colombia and coal

Colombia is the world's tenth largest producer of hard coals and the fourth largest exporter of coal, based on 2009 data.[1] The U.S. Geological Survey states that Colombia is the largest coal producer in South America and has the largest reserves in the region. It also states that coal mining for export is booming in Colombia, with production having increased by 80% since 1999.[2][2]

Coal output in 2010 stood at 74.35 million tons, a 2% increase from 2009 but below the government's target of 80 million tons, reportedly due to unusually heavy rains in the last months of the year. Colombia's total coal exports for 2010 came in at 68.14 million tons. Carlos Rodado, Colombia's mining minister, has said coal output will reach 144 million tons in 2020.[3]


August 13, 2014.

Coal imports are rising sharply even as coal mines close throughout the Central Appalachia.

A big reason: Price. It costs $26 a ton to ship coal from Central Appalachia to power plants in Florida compared with $15 a ton to get coal from a mine in Colombia according to research firm IHS Energy.

Labor costs are lower in Colombia, and it's much more cost effective to move coal by ship, which can transport well over 50,000 tons of coal, than by train usually made of over 100 railcars, each carrying only 100 tons of coal. In addition, a global coal glut has weaken prices for Colombian coal.

Coal imports surged 44% to 5.4 million metric tons during the first 6 months of 2014, compared with a year ago, according to Global Trade Information Services. Two-thirds came from Colombia, which ramped up coal production and exported 24% more coal during the first five months, compared with the same period in 2013, the data provider said.

more at link.


What is not said is that there has been violence against union organizers and native people and the USA has established nine military bases in Colombia as well as military based in the Netherlands Antilles just off the coast of Venezuela.

Here are two comprhensive links on Rios Montt.

Montt had a curious link to the Gospel Outreach Church base in Eureka, CA and with missionaries in Guatemala.


When a Guatemalan court on May 10 found former Guatemalan dictator Efrain Ríos Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity while head of state, I like many indigenous Guatemalans was pleased. Officials in that Central American country had for decades committed atrocities with impunity.


General Ríos Montt had been clearly elected president in 1974, but blatant election fraud prevented him from taking office. Quixotically, he then fled to California and joined the Eureka-based Gospel Outreach fundamentalist movement.

After returning to Guatemala, Ríos Montt, along with two other military men seized power in a mostly bloodless coup in 1982 and formed a three-man junta. Less than three months after the coup, however, Ríos Mott dissolved the junta and became dictator.

Helping orchestrate the coup, according to the US liberal group Democratic Underground, were “gringo evangelical cronies [who were] co-founders of the Church of the Word, a Guatemala-based offshoot of Gospel Outreach.”

more at link.


Efraín Ríos Montt

Country: Guatemala.

Kill tally: About 70,000 Mayan peasants and political dissidents.

Background: Guatemala is invaded and colonized by the Spanish early in the 16th Century. The country proclaims its independence in 1821, but real reform is not achieved until 1944 when a civilian is elected president. However, the reformist government is overthrown by a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) backed coup d'état in June 1954.

An outbreak of protests against the now military-aligned government in March and April of 1962 marks the beginning a 34-year civil war between leftist guerrilla groups and the government for control of the country. The Mayan peasants are caught in the middle and suffer the brunt of the violence and killings.

More at link.

Results of the Democratic primaries in 1968

LBJ dropped out after barely defeating McCarthy in New Hampshire

RFK was likely to be the Democratic nominee had he not been murdered the evening he won the California primary.

Wallace did not run as a Democrat in 1968 but had run as a Democrat in 1964.

Not all states has primaries or caucuses as today.

I went to rallies for McCarthy, Humphrey, and Wallace in San Francisco. By fortuitous circumstances I got to meet McCarthy as I stayed in hotel with his entourage. At the Humphrey rally, long hairs / anti-war protesters were sorted and not allowed into the rally itself. I went to the Wallace rally on a high school, field trip and their were more protestors than supporters and Wallace seemed to like the interchange with those who mocked. RFK was not on the ballot in early primaries. Smathers and Young were favorite sons in Ohio and Florida.

Hubert Humphrey won a brokered convention in Chicago. Note there were only 13 states with primaries.

At the moment of Kennedy's death, the delegate totals were:
Hubert Humphrey 561
Robert Kennedy 393
Eugene McCarthy 258

Candidate Primaries Won Popular Vote % of Vote

McCarthy 6 2,914,933 37.3%

RF Kennedy 1 2,305,148 30,6%

Stephen Young 1 549,140 7.3%

LB Johnson 1 383,590 5.1%

George Smathers 1 236,242 3.1%

Hubert Humphrey 0 166,463 2.2%

The Final Ballot

Presidential tally

Hubert Humphrey 1759.25

Eugene McCarthy 601

Not Voting 604.25

Vice Presidential tally:

Edmund S. Muskie 1942.5

George S. McGovern 146.5

Julian Bond 48.5

Channing Phillips 67.5

David Hoeh 4

Daniel K. Moore 17.5

Edward M. Kennedy 12.75

Eugene McCarthy 3.0

Paul E. "Bear" Bryant 1.5

Others 16.25

James H. Gray 0.5

George Wallace 0.5


Is There a Hillary Doctrine?


It has seemed to me, for as long as I’ve been watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make foreign and national-security policy, that the differences in outlook and approach between the two of them are fundamental and dramatic. I would call these differences profound, but I don’t want to be accused of hyperbole. It is not just that Clinton has a bias toward action in the international arena, and that Obama is far more hesitant, far more aware (too aware, in the eyes of critics) of the downside of action; it is that there are basic differences in the way they understand America’s role in the world, and the qualities that make America exceptional. They also differ, to my eye, in their understanding of American indispensability, and of the relationship between power and diplomacy.

The only person I know who spends more time thinking about the dispositional and ideological differences between Obama and Clinton than I do is Mark Landler, the New York Times reporter who has covered the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department and who recently published a book, Alter Egos (its very long and serious subtitle: “Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power”), that explores these differences through the prism, mainly, of the Middle East crises that have consumed the Obama administration. Landler has written an excellent book, the definitive examination to date of, among other things, a president who has tried to extract the U.S. from the Middle East (without much success, it goes almost without saying). Alter Egos is also the most authoritative attempt to explain Obama’s complicated relationship with his first-term secretary of state, a thwarted competitor-turned-staffer who, if she wins the presidency this year, will inherit a world that is in some ways as messy as the one Obama himself inherited from George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS

Landler and I don’t see eye-to-eye on the differences between Obama and Clinton; he thinks that she will make foreign policy in a more cautious manner than I believe she will. I tend to think, most of the time, at least, that her Libya experience did not diminish her ardor for the arena. On Ukraine and Syria, for instance, she thinks in more overtly interventionist terms than does Obama. In an interview I conducted with Clinton two summers ago (one that drew attention for her implicit criticism of Obama’s unofficial foreign-policy slogan, “Don’t do stupid shit”), she convinced me that she, unlike Obama, has the heart of a Cold Warrior. In what I took to be another shot at Obama, she said, “You know, when you’re down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you’re not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward. One issue is that we don’t even tell our own story very well these days.”

I didn’t have much doubt about the identity of the “we” in her statement. I responded to her assertion by saying something I believe deeply, which is that America, in the last century, saved civilization. I thought, I told Clinton, that, “defeating fascism and communism is a pretty big deal.”

more at link.

They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45

Author: Milton Mayer

This is a classic book and a quick read that IMO every American should read (I did in junior high grade school back in the 1960s)

From Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/0226511928/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1463103800&sr=1-1&keywords=they+thought+they+were+free

First published in 1955, They Thought They Were Free is an eloquent and provocative examination of the development of fascism in Germany. Mayer’s book is a study of ten Germans and their lives from 1933-45, based on interviews he conducted after the war when he lived in Germany. Mayer had a position as a research professor at the University of Frankfurt and lived in a nearby small Hessian town which he disguised with the name “Kronenberg.” “These ten men were not men of distinction,” Mayer noted, but they had been members of the Nazi Party; Mayer wanted to discover what had made them Nazis.

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.”--from Chapter 13, “But Then It Was Too Late”


"Among the many books written on Germany after the collapse of Hitler's Thousand Year Reich, this book by Milton Mayer is one of the most readable and most enlightening."
(Hans Kohn New York Times Book Review)

"It is a fascinating story and a deeply moving one. And it is a story that should make people pause and think—think not only about the Germans, but also about themselves."
(Ernest S. Pisko Christian Science Monitor)

"Writing as a liberal American journalist of German descent and Jewish religious persuasion Mr. Mayer aims—and in the opinion of this reviewer largely succeeds—at scrupulous fairness and unsparing honesty. It is this that gives his book its muscular punch."
(Walter L. Dorn Saturday Review)

"Once again the German problem is at the center of our politics. No better, or more humane, or more literate discussion of its underlying nature could be had than in this book."
(August Heckscher New York Herald Tribune)

Facts about Libya under Gaddafi that you probably did not know about !


Here are some Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:

• There was no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free … for all its citizens.
• There was no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms –this was all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home was considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”)
• All newlyweds in Libya would receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is or was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child would receive US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government would subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya was $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local could purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments was all free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government would fund them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya had no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though much of this is now frozen globally.

Gaddafi wrote, “They want to do to Libya what they did to Iraq and what they are itching to do to Iran. They want to take back the oil, which was nationalized by these country’s revolutions. They want to re-establish military bases that were shut down by the revolutions and to install client regimes that will subordinate the country’s wealth and labor to imperialist corporate interests. All else is lies and deception.”

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi

Normalization of international relations (2003–2010)[edit]

In December 2003, Libya announced that it had agreed to reveal and end its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and to renounce terrorism, and Gaddafi made significant strides in normalizing relations with western nations. He received various Western European leaders as well as many working-level and commercial delegations, and made his first trip to Western Europe in 15 years when he traveled to Brussels in April 2004. Libya responded in good faith to legal cases brought against it in U.S. courts for terrorist acts that predate its renunciation of violence. Claims for compensation in the Lockerbie bombing, LaBelle disco bombing, and UTA 772 bombing cases are ongoing. The U.S. rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in June 2006. In late 2007, Libya was elected by the General Assembly to a nonpermanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2008–2009 term.

The shrinking of the middle class is a product of neo-liberal economics.

So while I consider POTUS Obama a good POTUS having taken office in a very difficult time, POTUS Obama is a neo-liberal and has employed neo-liberal advisors and supported continued (by Reagan Bush Clinton and GWB) neo-liberal legislation, notably ACA.

One way to recognize neo-liberal economic policy is that all economic choices are pigeon holed into monetized, securitized, and privatized business opportunities.

This may work for all in theory but in practice entrenched power and moneyed interests concentrate wealth, income, and assets and mostly this transfer is from the middle and working classes and the elderly and disabled retired.

As an example we get mandated health insurance and guaranteed profits for health insurers rather than guaranteed access to health care.

All the western industrialized nations do health care better (and so did some dictatorships like Gadaffi in Libya)

• Education and medical treatments was all free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 28 Next »