HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proserpina » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »

Proserpina

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Nov 6, 2015, 07:20 AM
Number of posts: 2,352

Journal Archives

From Kurt Sperry comment on Naked Capitalism: It's Trump. or Bernie

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/12/200pm-water-cooler-1222015.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

The only scenario I can see Trump potentially actually winning is a Trump-Clinton head to head. Mostly because if Clinton is the nominee, Democratic voter turnout is likely to be at a historic low. This will not only potentially put Trump in the WH (one shudders to think), but means all the down ticket races will be dominated by the GOP as well, so you are likely to see commanding majorities for the Republicans in not only the Congress, but in local and state assemblies and governorships as well right down to dogcatcher. Hillary’s negatives are likely to hand the whole enchilada to the Republicans. If Sanders is the nominee, the polling looks like having the exact opposite effect–large voter turnouts, a lot of crossover and independent voters (now the largest single category of voters) bleeding off support for the Republican slates and the Republicans likely to suffer huge losses at all levels. Sanders-Trump head to head is a landslide for Sanders in every poll I’ve seen. To borrow a meme the corporate Democrats always like to use to sugar coat their poo sandwiches, “Think of the Supreme Court!”

There is also the matter of corruption, which is currently a huge existential threat to the whole American democratic process. Hillary’s donor list is a rogue’s gallery of ultra-wealthy special interests who have to an alarming degree captured the machineries of both legacy parties. This frightens me more than even the prospect of a Trump administration. I don’t believe for a second she will ever bite the hand that feeds her, even if doing so would clearly be in the national interest. A Clinton administration, like most administrations, will work for her donors above all else. Whatever you might think of Trump, he has almost no monetary support–and therefore no allegiance to–Wall St. and the largely stateless multinationals who dominate American party politics. Trump has spoken favorably about Wall St. and banking regulation, about universal single-payer health care, about his staunch opposition to the TPP and associated multilateral trade deals. Assuming Trump doesn’t torch off WWIII or race wars, he as president is likely to be more progressive on significant areas of policy that are important to me than either his Republican rivals or Clinton. He is right wing on cultural and identity politics issues no doubt, just as Hillary is often left wing on those issues, but those issues aren’t as important to me as the larger issue of the corruption of the entire political process by moneyed interests.

I won’t under *any* circumstances vote for anyone whose donor list is filled with big contributions from Wall St. financial institutions, multinational corporations, private corrections ghouls, health insurance companies who should not even be allowed to exist, cable monopolies etc. etc.

Read this list of Clinton’s top campaign donors:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

and compare it to Trump’s donor list, both in terms of who is giving and the amounts given:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00023864

Trump owes those special interests–even those who have contributed to his campaign–almost literally nothing.

How Bernie Sanders Can Save the Democrats By Brent Budowsky

http://observer.com/2015/11/how-bernie-sanders-can-save-the-democrats/

William Jefferson Clinton was a very good president and Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a truly great president and therein lies the tale of the battle for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016...Let me propose three truisms about the 2016 campaign that are vastly underestimated by virtually all political commentators in the mainstream media. Bernie Sanders is the ultimate conviction politician, taking stands of principle that he has long championed.


  • The first truism is that every dollar that Mr. Sanders raises from small donors for his campaign, and every day he campaigns, and every speech he makes, and every presidential debate he participates in, and every vote he ultimately receives in primaries and caucuses, makes the Democrats more progressive and increases the chances of a Democratic victory in 2016.

  • The second truism is that the issues at the heart of progressive populism are more popular with voters than the issues at the heart of what is called the conservatism of Republicans today. The more Democrats champion the progressive populist agenda the more votes they will receive from the general electorate, and the greater the voter turnout they will receive from Democratic-friendly voters.

  • The third truism is a phenomenon that is outside my experience in national politics, which is that the frontrunner candidate (Ms. Clinton) is almost entirely following the philosophical lead of the challenging candidate (Mr. Sanders). There is no question in my opinion that Hillary Clinton is superbly qualified for the presidency. Her experience as first lady and close confidant to the most popular living former president, and then as United States Senator and Secretary of State, put her at the top of presidential qualification. If she is elected a Hillary Clinton presidency would look very similar to the highly successful and fondly remembered Bill Clinton presidency. The problem with the Hillary Clinton candidacy, to put it in terms that are brutally blunt, is that she appears to be endlessly engaging in almost hourly political calculations and maneuvers. While Bernie Sanders is the ultimate conviction politician, taking stands of principle that he has long championed and deeply believed in, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate calculating politician, taking stands that shift with political winds which lead to abnormally high levels of public distrust of her.


Mr. Sanders has great appeal to everyone who wants to end corruption and increase the fairness of the financial system and the world economy.
To understand the importance of the Sanders campaign, and the power and appeal of his message, and why it is so important to Democratic success in 2016, consider the following: Mr. Sanders is the most authentic heir to the great Democratic legacy of the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New Frontier of John F. Kennedy, and the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson. His major progressive positions happen to be highly popular with voters and more popular with voters than opposing conservative positions. I would argue that the better Mr. Sanders does in his campaign the more Ms. Clinton follows his lead in taking progressive positions that are both right and popular, and the more the Democrats are identified with these positions the better their chances of prevailing in 2016...By contrast, without the appeal of the Sanders campaign there is every reason to believe, and much evidence to suggest, that Ms. Clinton would “move to the right” and reposition herself yet again in ways that would increase her levels of distrust from voters generally, and depress Democratic turnout on Election Day.

Consider how Mr. Sanders is offering a sweeping platform that makes him the heir to FDR and the New Deal: The Sanders platform includes raising the minimum wage for all workers to $15 an hour, establishing a single payer healthcare system that would be similar to a Medicare for all program, increasing Social Security payments at a time when there will soon be outrage from seniors who discover they will receive zero cost-of-living increases next year, offering free college education for students at public colleges, and breaking up big banks by restoring the Glass-Steagall Act. On almost all of these major issues Mr. Sanders first took the strong position, followed by Ms. Clinton who then took her own positions where she moved in ways progressives would generally approve, though often not as far as supporters of Mr. Sanders would wish.


  • Regarding the environment, Mr. Sanders was unequivocally opposed to the Keystone pipeline from the beginning, unlike Ms. Clinton who first took no position and ultimately followed his lead opposing it.

  • Regarding protecting workers from losing jobs through unfair foreign trade, Mr. Sanders was unequivocally opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership from the beginning, unlike Ms. Clinton who first called it the “gold standard” of trade deals and then followed his lead in opposing it.

  • The full range of reforms championed by Mr. Sanders has great appeal to workers, seniors, students, parents, healthcare consumers and everyone who wants to end corruption and increase the fairness of the financial system and the world economy. These constituencies taken together comprise a wide swath of American voters and offer the potential to create a new form of the New Deal coalition that brought Democrats to power for generations. To the degree that Bernie Sanders prospers politically by championing these causes it is good for Democrats. To the degree that his success incentivizes Hillary Clinton`to move to more progressive positions it helps all Democrats.


Elections are won by the candidates and parties that motivate more of their voters to come to the polls on Election Day. The reason that Democrats were annihilated in the midterm elections in 2010 and 2014 was that conservative voters were super-motivated to vote while many liberal voters became depressed and stayed home. When Mr. Sanders says that a key to victory for Democrats in the 2016 elections is to expand the electorate by inspiring more citizens to vote for them he is absolutely right. For these reasons in the close election that is likely in November 2016, no matter who is nominated as their candidate for president the causes championed by Bernie Sanders, and the people he inspires to vote, could save the Democrats by helping them eke out a narrow victory in one of the most important elections in generations.

Rahm Gets Burned by Bernie as Presidential Hopeful Calls for Federal Probe

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151204/downtown/rahm-gets-burned-by-bernie-as-presidential-hopeful-calls-for-federal-probe

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is now feeling the Bern (not in the good way) in the Laquan McDonald case.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), running for president as a Democrat, joined the chorus Friday calling for a full investigation and possible resignations over charges of mishandling the dashcam video of the shooting by officer Jason Van Dyke.

"I join with those calling for a federal investigation into the practices of the Chicago Police Department," Sanders said Friday in a statement posted on his Facebook page. "Furthermore, any official who helped suppress the videotape of Laquan McDonald's murder should be held accountable. And any elected official with knowledge that the tape was being suppressed or improperly withheld should resign. No one should be shielded by power or position."


That demand would seem to apply as well to Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, who has drawn the brunt of calls for resignations.

Protesters called for both to resign Thursday. On Friday, the Chicago Alliance Against Racist & Political Repression called on Emanuel to resign as well in an event outside his City Hall office seeking an independent, civilian police oversight agency...

Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others

http://www.juancole.com/2015/11/differences-between-terrorists.html

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

Reprint edn.

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”

2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.

3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.

4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.

5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.

6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.

7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.

8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.

9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.

10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

A Typology of Corruption for Campaign 2016 and Beyond

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/a-typology-of-corruption-for-campaign-2016-and-beyond.html

Even though it’s early days in Campaign 2016, we’ve seen several episodes that could be colorably framed as corruption eruptions — the Clintons, naturally, Chris Christie, naturally, Scott Walker, naturally, Jeb Bush, naturally — but the press coverage has a common failing: The reporters treat each “scandal” in isolation, as a story about a candidate, rather than a story about a system. I’d argue that what we need is a “Corruption Leaderboard,” with the mortal sins up top, and the venial episodes lower down, and which would enable voters to compare and rank the candidates synoptically. This post will not devise that leaderboard, but I hope to make my own small contribution to move its design forward: A typology of corruption, which will make forms of corruption as practiced by individual candidates commensurable. But what do we mean by corruption?

Corruption today is generally framed in terms of a quid pro quo (or, in journalese, a “smoking gun”). For example, you are stopped for speeding, hand the cop a twenty, and the cop tears up the ticket and lets you off with a warning. (I understand that in Malaysia, one begins such a transaction with the phrase: “How can we settle the matter?”) That’s a quid pro quo, hence (so it’s said) corruption. But if you play golf with the chief of police, write the recommendation that gets their kid into private school, throw a lot of business to the real estate firm run by their spouse, and then — mirabile dictu — win the no-bid contract for the police department’s new Stingray unit, that’s not corruption, because there’s no quid pro quo. But that’s ridiculous, and Zephyr Teachout explains in Politico just how ridiculous it is:

In McCutcheon v. FEC, the landmark case that threw out aggregate limits on campaign spending last week, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that for the majority of this current Supreme Court, corruption means quid pro quo corruption. In other words, if it’s not punishable by a bribery statute, it’s not corruption.

This is a reasonable mistake to make at a dinner party. But it’s a disastrous mistake to make for democracy, when the stakes are so high. Essentially, Roberts used a criminal law term—of recent vintage and unclear meaning—to describe a constitutional-level concept. It is as if he used a modern New York statute describing what “speech” means to determine the scope of the First Amendment.

To hear Roberts—or his fellow justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy—tell it, corruption isn’t corruption if there isn’t a quid pro quo.


But that’s not how the Framers understood corruption. (Teachout’s book, Corruption in America, is said to be excellent, but I don’t own a copy, and so I’m going to rely on her earlier article in the Cornell Law Review, “The Anti-Corruption Principle,” which is available online [PDF] SEE LINK.) Here’s Teachout’s definition, which subsumes quid pro quo but is more subtle and complex, hence more true to life:

While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity.


Since “dependent relationships” seem to be key to Teachout’s analysis, I’m going to propose a typology that’s based on social relationships, as follows:

1) Fealty

2) Outsourcing

3) Personal Networking

Now let’s look at Campaign 2016 using this typology...

It's a long and thoughtful read, with lots of supporting links. Grab a beverage and immerse yourself!

A Typology of Corruption for Campaign 2016 and Beyond

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/a-typology-of-corruption-for-campaign-2016-and-beyond.html

Even though it’s early days in Campaign 2016, we’ve seen several episodes that could be colorably framed as corruption eruptions — the Clintons, naturally, Chris Christie, naturally, Scott Walker, naturally, Jeb Bush, naturally — but the press coverage has a common failing: The reporters treat each “scandal” in isolation, as a story about a candidate, rather than a story about a system. I’d argue that what we need is a “Corruption Leaderboard,” with the mortal sins up top, and the venial episodes lower down, and which would enable voters to compare and rank the candidates synoptically. This post will not devise that leaderboard, but I hope to make my own small contribution to move its design forward: A typology of corruption, which will make forms of corruption as practiced by individual candidates commensurable. But what do we mean by corruption?

Corruption today is generally framed in terms of a quid pro quo (or, in journalese, a “smoking gun”). For example, you are stopped for speeding, hand the cop a twenty, and the cop tears up the ticket and lets you off with a warning. (I understand that in Malaysia, one begins such a transaction with the phrase: “How can we settle the matter?”) That’s a quid pro quo, hence (so it’s said) corruption. But if you play golf with the chief of police, write the recommendation that gets their kid into private school, throw a lot of business to the real estate firm run by their spouse, and then — mirabile dictu — win the no-bid contract for the police department’s new Stingray unit, that’s not corruption, because there’s no quid pro quo. But that’s ridiculous, and Zephyr Teachout explains in Politico just how ridiculous it is:

In McCutcheon v. FEC, the landmark case that threw out aggregate limits on campaign spending last week, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that for the majority of this current Supreme Court, corruption means quid pro quo corruption. In other words, if it’s not punishable by a bribery statute, it’s not corruption.

This is a reasonable mistake to make at a dinner party. But it’s a disastrous mistake to make for democracy, when the stakes are so high. Essentially, Roberts used a criminal law term—of recent vintage and unclear meaning—to describe a constitutional-level concept. It is as if he used a modern New York statute describing what “speech” means to determine the scope of the First Amendment.

To hear Roberts—or his fellow justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy—tell it, corruption isn’t corruption if there isn’t a quid pro quo.


But that’s not how the Framers understood corruption. (Teachout’s book, Corruption in America, is said to be excellent, but I don’t own a copy, and so I’m going to rely on her earlier article in the Cornell Law Review, “The Anti-Corruption Principle,” which is available online in PDF SEE LINK.) Here’s Teachout’s definition, which subsumes quid pro quo but is more subtle and complex, hence more true to life:

While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity.


Since “dependent relationships” seem to be key to Teachout’s analysis, I’m going to propose a typology that’s based on social relationships, as follows:

1) Fealty

2) Outsourcing

3) Personal Networking

Now let’s look at Campaign 2016 using this typology....

more

Hillary Clinton Wins Union Endorsements, But Not Enthusiasm

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-wins-union-endorsement-not-their-enthusiasm-398978?piano_t=1

California nurse Katy Roemer remembers how at the height of the Ebola crisis last year, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders marched arm-in-arm with union workers as they fought for hazmat suits and other protections to treat patients with infectious diseases.

Roemer's gratitude is why she keeps a large stash of "Bernie" stickers and posters in her car and is urging people she knows to back his White House bid. She jokes that she will be telling friends and family members: "You're not coming to dinner if you didn’t vote."

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, Roemer said she would vote for her in the November 2016 general election but she will not volunteer for her campaign...

more

Do you feel a need to defend Bernie? Or yourself?

It appears that some people are feeling persecuted for their support of the Other Candidate...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110728945

I have seen no sign in myself of feeling persecuted by Hillary's supporters (although my mother has been locked out of DU by the Hillary stalking team), nor have any of the posts in this group (or outside the group) created a need to explain, defend, or make excuses for Bernie.

He's the real thing. A populist, progressive, socialist Democrat in the FDR mold. Hard-working honest, and successful.


The idea that we the Bernie supporters HATE Hillary is unfounded. What we hate is the policies she espouses, the flip-flopping, the callous remarks tossed off, and the definite possibility that the USA and the Democratic Party will decline much more precipitously in her care than without it.

We hate the way she sells herself to the highest bidders (corporations and billionaires like Warren Buffett).

We hate the war-mongering: past present and future.

We hate the minginess of of Hillary offering $12 minimum wage, when the people are demanding $15 (and are worth more than that).

We hate the high$$$ secretive meetings with select groups.

We hate the candidate, not the person. This is not the first time we've been offered a lemon, and we aren't buying.

Hillary is a great person, a loving mother and grandmother, and a wife whose value is above rubies. What she is not is Presidential.


It's Bernie--no excuses!

On ‘the Preponderance of the Evidence,’ Bernie Sanders Is a Democrat

http://www.thenation.com/article/on-the-preponderance-of-the-evidence-bernie-sanders-is-a-democrat/

It’s official, Bernie Sanders is sufficiently Democratic to run as a Democrat.

For the purposes of the New Hampshire presidential primary, and presumably for the 2016 primaries and caucuses to follow, the veteran independent from Vermont has been approved to appear on the party ballot. Sanders has, of course, been campaigning as a Democrat since April. But the validation of his Democratic status by New Hampshire election officials—though hardly a surprise—is significant in a country where the arcane rules of different states can sometimes serve as barriers to contenders who seek to enter Democratic or Republican primaries.

Many of America’s most prominent political figures have crossed partisan boundaries—2016 Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton recalls that she backed Barry Goldwater as a young Republican, and leading 2016 Republican contender Ben Carson was registered as an independent until last year; former Democratic presidential contender Lincoln Chafee served as a Republican US senator and as the independent governor of Rhode Island, while former Republican presidential contender Rick Perry was once a Democratic state legislator in Texas. But Sanders has had a particularly strong identification as a political independent. Indeed, the senator entered the 2016 race as “the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history.”

Sanders ran and won his races for mayor of Burlington, Vermont, for the US House and for the US Senate as an independent. And though he has caucused with Democrats in the House and Senate since arriving in Washington in 1991, he has always identified as an “I” rather than a “D.” Even as he began to ponder a president run, the senator weighed whether to campaign as an independent or a Democrat.

Sanders finally decided to enter the competition as a Democrat, after explaining that he would not risk “spoiling” a November race and handing the presidency to a conservative Republican. The decision by the democratic socialist senator from Vermont to enter the 2016 Democratic primaries and caucuses was quickly accepted by the Democratic National Committee, which has featured the senator from Vermont on its website and included him in debates with Clinton and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley. Sanders has also been accepted by a good many grassroots Democrats. The latest CBS/YouGov poll of likely New Hampshire primary voters gives the senator 52 percent support, with 45 percent for Clinton and 3 percent for O’Malley.

more

Commentary from a different source

These comments are from Naked Capitalism, a blog for the economically obsessed....


wbgonne
November 24, 2015 at 3:03 pm

"Rapper Killer Mike, Sanders dine in Atlanta”

Killer Mike: “I believe it because Sanders, unlike any other candidate, said I would like to restore the Voting Rights Act. He, unlike any other candidate, said I wish to end this illegal war on drugs. Unlike any other candidate in my life, he said that education should be free” (Atlanta Journal Constitution). “But as I read The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s comments about me speaking tonight, one jumped out at me. And it broke my heart. It said, ‘I don’t listen to rap and I will no longer be listening to Bernie Sanders.’ I just want to say that, whoever wrote that, before I was a rapper, I was a son of Atlanta.” An act of courage by Sanders, given the obvious possibility of this reaction.

Killer Mike: “I’m not here to elect our own Margaret Thatcher.” Zing! Which follows on the heels of Bernie calling Hillary’s proposals “GOP-lite.” Zing again. And how do I know these zings have zing? Just yesterday a Daily Kos Front Page writer authored a piece entitled, “Hillary Clinton Is a Democrat.” Pretty sad when the Democratic cheerleaders have to start by ensuring that the presidential nominee frontrunner actually is part of the party. (If intended as a dig at Sanders it backfired.) And so what is Hillary is nominally a Democrat? So was Joe Lieberman. So is Joe Manchin. So was Mary Landrieu. So is Rahm Emanuel. So was Bill Clinton. So is Barack Obama. They all suck. They are all Republicans, they just adopted the Republicans’ positions (and financial benefactors) and drove the GOP into Wingnutistan. Our own Margaret Thatcher indeed.

It is encouraging to see the emergence of a new group of black leaders who don’t appear interested in playing the Al Sharpton game. Bernie’s only real hope is to break through and get AAs to listen to him and compare his policies with Clinton’s. Maybe this will help.


RedHope
November 24, 2015 at 3:19 pm

It will be difficult to get them to listen but I agree

nippersdad
November 24, 2015 at 3:46 pm

I think the real significance of the endorsements of such people as Killer Mike is that no one actually needs the black misleadership class anymore; no one is really listening to them. This is a new generation speaking in its’ own voice, and tapping into that voice will be far more powerful than all of the superdelegates Hillary can pay off. Much has been said about Sanders not going for the jugular, and what that may signify, but he has people for that now (“I’m not here to elect our own Margaret Thatcher.”); why should he dirty his hands when it is not actually necessary?

I think that he is doing a lot better sub rosa than the polls would have us believe.


Jerry Denim
November 24, 2015 at 5:58 pm

I love Killer Mike, I think he’s great. but despite him being a black rapper I’m afraid he’s more of a celebrity to people like myself, in other words college-educated, white male nerds than he is among the general black population. I have a Run The Jewels T-shirt that I wear on occasion and it always draws comments and compliments, but its always from males in their twenties with less melanin than Mike. I congratulate Bernie on the endorsement from a smart, articulate, outspoken, and politically attuned celebrity but I don’t necessarily see this as Bernie making inroads with the greater Black Community. I would file this endorsement under “youth vote”. ‘Run The Jewels 2’ was the number one album of 2014 on Pitchfork, which is basically a website that reviews college kid rock. I don’t think any of the corporate media outlets that cater to the black demographic want to touch Killer Mike’s material. It’s too overtly political and out of step with the mainstream.


Jim Haygood
November 24, 2015 at 7:57 pm

“The Vermont senator said that while King is remembered mostly for his efforts on racial equality, he should be more fully understood as a “revolutionary” who spoke out against “the entire establishment” on matters from race relations to economic and foreign policy”

‘Foreign policy’ is a euphemism for ‘Martin Luther King spoke out against the Vietnam war, to the disgust of the NatSec state.’

If you aren’t opposed to America’s permanent war in the middle east, then you might as well just go piss on King’s grave.

Because he sure as hell would have been.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/11/200pm-water-cooler-11242015.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »