NYT & Russia

Mon Jan 23 13:02:52 CST 2017

Well not me,  for one.   We are/were much better off with the "old-school economically progressive Democrat agenda” having a meaningful place on the spectrum.  That said,  there’s no room for the moderate to liberal Republicans either.   Remember Rockefeller?  That bunch was anti-Goldwater on almost all issues.  Their positions would be considered moderately liberal today.   The whole thing has swung to the right and far-right (and the New Alt-Right Chapter of the Wing-nuts.)   

I remember being in Berkeley for the rallies and marches around Golden Gate Park in 1967-73?.   The signs on the telephone poles and bulletin boards said stuff like “Attention! Radical Left of the New Left!  Organizational meeting (time/date/place).”   Then the next phone pole wold say “NOW!  Socialist Left of the old Radical Left!  Meeting and set up for Saturday event. (time/date/
place).”   The old put-down was “I thought you were more liberated (or committed) than that.”   or  “C’mon,  get with the new thinking.”   And it was very socialist as a starting  point - only the tactics were really up for discussion - theoreticians took care of theory.  

But for awhile now the political scene has been switched and it’s “How conservative can you get?  with right-wingers accusing each other of being “not truly conservative.”   May they all wither and die.  

Becky 

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 8:55 AM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
> 
> There's a perception that people who voted for Bernie are zealots, immersed in a personality cult. I voted for him because he stood for a handful of progressive issues - Medicare for All, student loan amnesty, higher taxes on the wealthiest. Old-school positions - nothing that Nixon would have vigorously fought against, back in the day. I was troubled that Bernie wasn't more progressive on foreign policy issues. You're absolutely right, Ian, that there are no leftists to vote for. Troubling, with right-wing extremists in power. Does anyone on this list think we're better off with those who support an old-school, economically progressive Democratic agenda disenfranchised?
> 
> Laura
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Ian Livingston 
> Sent: Jan 23, 2017 10:52 AM 
> To: Keith Davis 
> Cc: David Morris , Mark Thibodeau , ish mailian , Pynchon-l 
> Subject: Re: NYT & Russia 
> 
> Yes, I read the linked piece, too. It was rich in factual detail and heavy in polemic. Setting up Sanders supporters as the "far left" is laughable. Sanders is barely left of center. Clinton is distinctly conservative and the extreme far right just came to power again. There is no far left representation in American politics today. There is no "nihilistic purity" anywhere on the spectrum. The communalists have long since dropped off the map, although there is a quiet anti-capitalist barter economy thriving in a few communities around the country, and many of those folks did vote for Sanders because he was the first left-of-center candidate to run for office since McCarthy. It was the first time they had anyone to vote for since 68. I can't fault them for backing him, nor for their dismay at the institutional machine that shut his campaign down. It was all inevitable as long he presented his case as being inclusive of all subgroups and in support of regulation of the violent authority in power. Violence against any group that threatens the white male control of current capitalist systems is inevitable. Therefore, as long as you support those systems, just understand and and accept that, even if your beliefs rally against oppression, the values you enact support it. Meanwhile, if there are no leftist candidates to vote for, all we can do is vote with our dollars and support alternative culture. Maybe someday there will once again be a left wing in American politics. Maybe another Eugene Debs will make a showing in the polls. It's just not likely in our lifetimes.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Read the piece Jerky linked to...eye-opening....thanks Big J.
>> 
>> Www.innergroovemusic.com
>> 
>> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:13 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Jerky!  You make me believe again!
>>> 
>>> David Morris
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, January 22, 2017, Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I get a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach whenever I witness a
>>> smart person saying -- or in this case writing -- something as
>>> incredibly fucking STUPID as what ish mailian just wrote.
>>> 
>>> And then, for it to be followed up by kudos and huzzah's...
>>> 
>>> Yes, by all means, back in the wake of Reagan, Democrats should have
>>> put... oh, I dunno... Caesar Chavez and Howard Zinn on the ticket
>>> instead of Bill Clinton!
>>> 
>>> The nihilistic purity of the Far Left, in full fucking effect. And
>>> after a day like yesterday. Goddamn. Maybe we deserve everything we're
>>> gonna get.
>>> 
>>> https://medium.com/@sammystyle77/the-nihilistic-purity-of-the-far-left-will-kill-us-all-54169b25e3a8#.hh153a2tb
>>> 
>>> YOPJ
>>> Shaken, not stirred
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:11 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Did readers the NYT vote for Trump?
>>> > The NYT? The NYT wouldn't have changed any votes that mattered.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The democrats and those who support them still don't get the country
>>> > they live in.
>>> >
>>> > Only the foolish people who call themselves liberals and progressives
>>> > and at the same time think that Obama and Clinton are liberal and
>>> > progressive politicians,and that celebrities, who send their children
>>> > to the same schools Trump sends his kids to, who fly first class or in
>>> > private jets, but should be the folk heroes and spokespersons of a
>>> > movement to take the country back from Trump, only these foolish
>>> > people, these people who march with Chuck Schumer, who voted for the
>>> > Clintons, the candidates of Wall Street and Walmart, only these
>>> > educated consumers of Hollywood and save the world guilt could
>>> > fantasies that  if only the NYT had skewered the brash billionaire and
>>> > connected the conspiracy dots that put him in bed with Putin, if only
>>> > more people had listened to Michael Moore, if only those stupid
>>> > rednecks who voted for Trump....
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/new-york-times-public-editor-says-paper-might-have-been-too-timid-on-trump-and-russia/?utm_term=.be45a101e8ce
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> journalists in the past two weeks have come down hard on BuzzFeed for, in
>>> >> their view, publishing too much information about President Trump and
>>> >> Russia. This week, the New York Times's public editor criticized the
>>> >> newspaper for, in her judgment, publishing too little.
>>> >>
>>> >> Liz Spayd wrote on Friday that "a strong case can be made that the Times was
>>> >> too timid in its decisions not to publish the material it had" in the weeks
>>> >> before Election Day. She was referring to "several critical facts" the paper
>>> >> knew — that "the FBI had a significant and sophisticated investigation
>>> >> underway on Trump, possibly including FISA warrants" and that "investigators
>>> >> had identified a mysterious communication channel" between Trump and Russia.
>>> >>
>>> >> [Intelligence chiefs briefed Trump and Obama on unconfirmed claims Russia
>>> >> has compromising information on president-elect]
>>> >>
>>> >> For Hillary Clinton's aides and supporters, Spayd's critique adds fuel to
>>> >> their contention that the outcome of the election might have been different,
>>> >> had there been more coverage of Trump's alleged ties to the Kremlin.
>>> >>
>>> >> The Times ultimately did publish some of what it knew about the FBI's
>>> >> investigation, one week before the election — but only after Slate and
>>> >> Mother Jones ran their own stories. According to Spayd, the Times "had the
>>> >> goods" weeks earlier.
>>> >>
>>> >> "It's hard not to wonder what impact such information might have had on
>>> >> voters still evaluating the candidates," Spayd wrote, considering what could
>>> >> have happened if the Times had published sooner. "Would more sources have
>>> >> come forward?"
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > -
>>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l