How Do Stupid People React When They're Abused By the System?

U.S. Senate kills bail-out of autos, 2009 rather than 2011, $9 billion, $9 billion a day in Iraq no prob, trillions for financial sector w/out really blinking, ... Dems don't force them to filibuster. 60 now mandatory to pass anything in Senate? bullshit. One of biggest causes of US auto ind.crisis is health insu. obligations, not union wages.

ldrs fucking them over to kill the union.

Just like the ruling class in Fr. Rev. kept pushing till their own system collapsed, U.S., world corp.elite det'd to destroy themslvs

Keep piling it on fuckheads.

But, rev. not guaranteed (even Rev don't turn out way s'posed to) because, people don't seem to know what to do.

Stupefying pol. culture, mass ignorance, delusion, + stupidity and cowardice.

The majority when faced with powerful adversaries tend to turn on weaker/weakest minority scapegoats. Taking on the system takes brains and courage, bashing immigrants, unemployed, prostitutes much easier.

What happens when economy collapses? Many turn to crime, and victims (rightously) turn to law n' order and vigilantiism and sometimes fascism (pseudo-populist demagogues), instead of organization and demand for respect for all human beings, short-term calculations and living for self, family, friends, world can fuck itself.

That appears to be where canada will go.

Trump, Epstein, Israel

 

Just have time for a quick thought: I will continue to maintain that Trump was blackmailed into attacking Iran by Israel, which has compromising evidence of Trump abusing adolescent girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties.

All this talk about continuities of US policy towards Iran, and the maintenance of the petro-dollar, and etc., do not take away from the fact that Trump's belligerence is unprecedented.  Other US presidents (for all the continuities of policy) did not go to war against Iran.

Furthermore, there is evidence that Trump was reluctant to go to war against Iran.  NOT because he was the "America First" hero who truly wanted to end the neo-cons' "Forever Wars."  (Trump recognized in 2015 --at least-- that those stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were stupid.  And he saw that opposition to them polled well with his voting demographic.  That's it.  That's all.  He's not a man of principle.  He genuinely believed that the neo-cons' wars were stupid, but if he needed to play along to get along, he would.)

No. Trump was opposed to war with Iran because he knew Iran would be a difficult job for the US military.  It would lead to unforeseen consequences.  As it was, as it has.

"Head-Waiter to the Provinces"

 

That's how Pierre Trudeau derisively described the role of the federal government in Ottawa according to the desires of provincial premiers. (Actually, I don't know what vision P.E.T. was denigrating, but you get the point.)

For a long time I haven't known how to think about this debate.  But now, it seems to me, that a weaker national government gives capitalists more opportunities to exploit weaknesses.  

I think debates between national and sub-national governments should continue and that they should be decided by what is best for the vast majority of people. 

It's Tough Being a Deluded Servant of Oligarchy

 

So, global warming denier Donald Trump is blaming Canada for somehow not "managing" its 3.69 million square kilometres of forest and thereby allowing giant wildfires to spread which causes smoke to fill the skies of various states along the Canada-USA border.  As if we're supposed to have armies of people wandering around the Canadian Shield putting dried twigs into garbage bags.  It's a moronic accusation that doesn't warrant a response.

But notice how Carney's options for rebuttal are limited because he can't point to the obvious role of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels as the real culprit behind these fires.  (These fires have, obviously, become the "new normal" for most humans who now have to deal with them.  I'll bet at least 75% of the people in Toronto, where I live, have forgotten all about them.  It's sickening what we're prepared to put up with in order to avoid the struggle of having to adjust to reality.)

Carney can't blame global warming because he's a craven servant of the oil sector and he's committed to extracting and having burn even more petroleum than ever.

Every day the man comes up with more reason to be contemptuous of him. 

The Fires and the Fuck-Heads

 

Walking home from work last night my throat started to feel really sore.  From Toronto having the worst air quality in the world.  From the smoke and soot caused by the giant forest fires that are burning out of control in northern Ontario.  From global warming.

Many people are rightly blaming this disaster upon the fossil fuel companies, who have known for decades that this sort of thing was going to happen, but, being dedicated to "profit maximization" chose to deflect and deny.

As wildfires raged across Canada on Thursday, sending dangerous smoke across the border into major US cities, climate advocates called for accountability for the fossil fuel industry, which knew for decades that its products were largely responsible for the climate crisis, yet chose to push climate denial instead.

 Also, blame the politicians; ALL OF THEM, from the Conservatives to the Liberals to the NDP who are either the actual representatives of the fossil-fuels criminals or merely afraid of them.

But also blame the right-wing shit-heads.  The everyday, ordinary, salt-of-the-earth, working class chumps who concoct stupid theories from out of the lies and evasions of self-interested oligarchic scum, that deny the reality of global warming.  Blame these stupid assholes for being stupid assholes.  Blame them for denying global warming.  Blame them for denying the reality of COVID 19.  Blame them for worshipping disgusting grifters like Donald Trump and Doug Ford.  Blame them for their stupidity, ignorance, hypocrisy, delusion and their total lack of principles.

[Doug Ford allowed Ontario's wildland firefighters, pilots and support staff to fall to 61% readiness because of course he did.  That fat fuck is only good for lining his own greasy pockets.  But up until recently, there were still bigots and other ignoramuses who would stand in line for a $5 hotdog and get their picture taken with the guy who'd let them die in a hospital hallway.]

Hating the Poor

 

Addiction is a mental health issue.  It's a sociological issue.  It's a medical issue.  Sure, there are some people (rich people) who infamously use drugs for recreational purposes and then become addicts.  But, by virtue of their being rich (and/or famous) their numbers are few.  If you honestly believe that drug addiction is simply a question of morals and self-discipline, you still have to explain the epidemic of public consumption of drugs that has reached unprecedented levels in North America.

Are we really to believe that there's just been some massive breakdown in personal morals, unrelated to any other socioeconomic trends, that is responsible for what we're seeing today? That seems to be the case with "conservatives" (who still love crack-smoking, alcoholic Rob Ford).

More widespread of an issue is homelessness.  It's been rising for decades.  Jobs are more precarious, the incomes those precarious jobs earn have stagnated, the price of housing has skyrocketed, and corporate oligarchs are price-gouging us everywhere they can.  It's no wonder that the problem of homelessness has grown.  And yet, many people look at this and decide that it's just a case of the homeless simply having given up on wanting to support themselves.  Social programs have declined, and it was supposedly the seductive allure of the 1980's general welfare assistance that caused lazy people to drop out of the labour market, but more people are poorer than they were then.

When the root of the problem is so clearly the capitalist political-economic system, the choice of some people to blame to poor for their predicament, and to then HATE the poor, is pathological. 

Expertise Costs Money

 

An interesting article from one of Tony Wikrent's Week-end Round-ups at Ian Welsh's blog:  "Monopoly Round-Up" by Matt Stoller ...

In 1995, the Republican Party took control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Led by Newt Gingrich and a small group of right-wing politicians who called themselves “Jihadists,” these men sought to revamp a legislative chamber held by the Democrats since 1949.

Gingrich was an intellectual, as were some of his colleagues. When he first was elected in 1978 as part of what was known as the “New Right,” every young Republican candidate was obsessively reading Robert Bork’s The Antitrust Paradox. In 1995, his goal wasn’t just to pass legislation, but to fundamentally re-gear Congress so it could no longer serve as the brains for the Democratic Party, as it had for the last half century. That was an institutional task, and he set about restructuring the institutions.

First to go was the Office of Technology Assessment, a nonpartisan think tank that conducted long-term studies on important scientific and engineering topics, like how to decommission the Space Shuttle or early warnings on climate change. Gingrich also slashed Congressional staff by a third, eliminated dozens of subcommittees, and killed budgets for the legislative service organizations that helped specific groups of members, like the Black Caucus, the Caucus on Women’s Issues, the Environment and Energy Study Conference, and so forth. Most importantly, the Democratic Study Group, a network of staff and members who organized the rhythm of the House, disappeared.

...

The effect was revolutionary. From 1949 to 1995, there was immense institutional knowledge within Congress. There were staffers who know everything there was to know about the Mississippi River and could go toe-to-toe with the Army Corps of Engineers on reclamation projects. There were dozens of staff who understood the Post Office. The Antitrust Subcommittee had a swath of antitrust lawyers who could investigate industries and develop litigation. 

When I was in the archives, I found that members of Congress like Wright Patman worked insanely hard, and were rewarded for it. Patman started working early and ended his day very late, reading books, publishing reports, and sending queries to figure how the banks worked. His lead investigator had a stack of blank subpoenas and a travel budget, and could just go anywhere he wanted to track down evidence. His people were confident they could do as good a job as the bankers in running powerful institutions, and so they could negotiate effectively.

But you don’t have to go back to the 1930s, just watch a Congressional hearing on C-Span from the early 1990s. The level of substantive knowledge is at an entirely different level than it is today. In 1995, Gingrich struck the death blow to that culture, and the House was soon staffed by 25-year-olds.

  

I don't agree with everything in the article, from the tone to the analyses.  I also don't think that the victories of corporations against legislation is the result of the deliberate lobotomization of the USA's federal legislative branch.  Much of this is just brazen corruption, based on stupid, transparently selfish, corrupt arguments, being rubber-stamped by a totally bought-and-paid-for political class.

That having been said, 21st Century societies are complex and effective regulation requires knowledgeable legislators. 

That was one of my motivations for giving citizens paid positions on public-sector committees.  If I were the God-Emperor of Canada, all public institutions would be managed by committees with one-third of the membership representing the public, one-third representing the workers in that sector, and one-third representing the government of the day.

Anyone could put their name in.  There would be no actual campaigning.  The electorate will be expected to have looked at the list and done their own research.  Naive, I'm sure.  But an organized Left could effectively meet any corporatist usurpers.