Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Pam and Russ Martens — Bernie Sanders Assumes Mantle as Progressive Leader in CNN Town Hall


I like Bernie Sanders well enough, but he is not the progressive leader that the US is looking for when he couldn't even beat HRC for the nomination, let alone the Republican nominee. And no, I don't buy that his losing to Hillary was the fault of either the DNC machinations or sparse media coverage. Keep looking. The Democrats need a lot of new blood.

Wall Street On Parade
Bernie Sanders Assumes Mantle as Progressive Leader in CNN Town Hall
Pam Martens and Russ Martens

27 comments:

Penguin pop said...

Of course those were all factors, but I completely agree that this is a systemic problem within the Democratic Party. It's just like how all these foreign policy leaders like Kissinger are fast approaching their deathbeds soon. I mean Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are in their 70s now as well. Bernie Sanders would be nearly 80 in 2020. Fresh new blood is right. Get much younger visionaries to take over who actually understand persuasion and marketing while supporting progressive policies and the kinds of economics discussed on this blog.

Detroit Dan said...

Sanders hit all the right notes as far as I'm concerned. No one else has stepped up that I can see, and I'm looking.

Obviously Sanders is old and we need someone younger, but he still seems effective to me.

And I disagree that the cake was not baked for an establishment Dem. I found Sanders' performance astounding. There's really been nothing like it in my memory. Maybe McCarthy in 1968?

Bob said...

The Dems are a dead end corporatist entity. Just be done with them and build another party.

Bob said...

Off topic, have you guys been covering this?
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.3836836/former-senator-hugh-segal-makes-his-pitch-for-a-1-320-basic-income-1.3836842

Noah Way said...

The party breakdown is 26% Rep., 34% Dem. and 42% Ind. Bernie should build an independent party, voters are screaming for a real choice.

Tom Hickey said...

The Dems are a dead end corporatist entity. Just be done with them and build another party.

Have to build a new party in the old shell. Then Clintons are finished and Obama was one of them. They need to retire gracefully but they won't.

Tom Hickey said...

Off topic, have you guys been covering this?
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.3836836/former-senator-hugh-segal-makes-his-pitch-for-a-1-320-basic-income-1.3836842


Nah. It's the same old conservative ploy to end the welfare state.

Tom Hickey said...

The party breakdown is 26% Rep., 34% Dem. and 42% Ind. Bernie should build an independent party, voters are screaming for a real choice.

The so-called independents are those that either don't care to id or who are feed up with the their old affiliation.

The US is set up as a two party system. Both parties are ripe for take-over by populists. The GOP is already half-way there. The Dems have not even started.

Noah Way said...

Which still leaves us with a two (really one) party system. Both parties were taken over a long rime ago.

BO isn't (wasn't) a populist?

Tom Hickey said...

Are multi-party parliamentary systems much different?

Bob said...

Nah. It's the same old conservative ploy to end the welfare state.

Well this version is more nuanced. He doesn't want to eliminate other social programs. This may be a ruse, or a genuine attempt at reform. We ended racial discrimination, why can't we end discrimination against the unemployed?

Bob said...

Are multi-party parliamentary systems much different?

If you want a government capable of taking action on domestic issues, a parliamentary system is preferable to the gridlock observed in Washington. Even the EU has more potential for reform than Washington.

Tom Hickey said...

Well this version is more nuanced. He doesn't want to eliminate other social programs. This may be a ruse, or a genuine attempt at reform. We ended racial discrimination, why can't we end discrimination against the unemployed?

It's still a magic bullet approach rather than addressing the issues directly. Solving unemployment is simple. Just fund universal education from K through PhD for those that which to pursue it, provide universal health care, provide a suitable pension system, run a full employment budget using functional finance, and provide a job guarantee.

This is a solution in terms of social welfare as in "providing for the common welfare." As long as the real resources are available, why would we not want to do this?

Detroit Dan said...

"fund universal education from K through PhD for those that which to pursue it, provide universal health care, provide a suitable pension system, run a full employment budget using functional finance, and provide a job guarantee" [Tom]

Now there's a platform I endorse!

Tom Hickey said...

And that's just for starters. I didn't mention public investment in infrastructure and R&D, for example.

I keep coming back to the fundamental question put by the ancient Greeks regarding social and political philosophy, "What does it mean to live a good life as an individual in a good society as a citizen?"

All of the thinking in the Western intellectual tradition about social and political philosophy stems from this fundamental question and elaborates on the responses of the ancient Greeks to it.

This is the basis of the liberal tradition and the idea of the common welfare.

It's about creating as much utopia as we can without falling into utopian thinking are reaction in the opposite direction of accepting or imposing limitations that are not actually there in reality.

Visualize and actualize. Dream big and work hard.

This involves correctly stating the design problem and analyzing it realistically before shooting from the hip in proposing solutions to imagined opportunities and underappreciating emergent challenges. This requires a holistic systems view, including alternatives, options and tradeoffs.

In this context, a BIG or permanent income guarantee is seen for what it is, a magic bullet shot from the hip.

Bob said...

Baby steps. South of the border, your brat hasn't left the crib.

jrbarch said...

Law of the Jungle: Big fish eat little fish.

Law of Civilisation: Big fish help little fish and little fish help big fish.

The wall keeping the jungle out is breached. Hence we are back to the Law of the Jungle.

We need to decide whether we are a 'civilised' race of beings, or just animals.

What does that take - knowing the Self.

If a monkey looks in a mirror it will snarl at the monkey, or run away in fright - because it does not know itself. The answer to living the good life in the good society always involved knowing the Self. Because we are human beings - not monkeys. Which is why we took up farming and moved out of the jungle in the first place - to be 'civilised'.

jrbarch said...

Socrates: 'Know thyself'.

jrbarch said...

First prerequisite of a 'world leader': - he or she are 'civilised beings'.

The rest lead us back to the jungle.

jrbarch said...

Preferably a she - they are much more civilised. All the men have done over the millenia is fight and argue and kill each other. The women could have done a much better job. They have a greater innate 'intelligence'.

Bob said...

Wait... piranha are little fish :O

jrbarch said...

So, what’s the analysis on violence? At heart we are all philosophers.

It usually goes like this (because the Law of the Jungle has polluted the Law of Civilisation):

1. Big fish eat little fish
2. Big fish take what they want
3. Most of the wealth that is created goes to big fish
3. Little fish decide they have to take what they want too (learnt it from their ‘betters’ didn’t they?)
4. Little fish go to prison*
5. Big fish go free
6. Violence is asserted by the pundits to be all about big and little fish taking what they want
7. Grand title: - ‘Human History’

Not my human history. Not my reality.

*In ever increasing numbers - 1:110 incarcerated; 1:51 on parole or probation; costs >$30k/yr/prisoner; spending rate increasing 3x faster than that on education. Human lives, resources, wasted: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html

Violence is when you do not see another human being as yourself. Why would you violate yourself?

There is domestic violence, national violence, international violence. It is human violence: - one human being violates another (jungle rules). The golden rule of civilisation is ‘do no harm’. This builds a wall between us and the jungle. This wall has to be built and maintained, brick by brick. The world belongs to human beings; not corporations or countries. We are here to fulfil humanity, not the corporate.

Have you ever felt completely at peace with yourself, completely calm, happy, content, glad to be alive, glad to exist, serene, perfect for that moment, a song singing powerfully within your heart – without any reason? Then you have touched on the Self.

Bob said...

The Law of the Jungle involves the use of violence just to survive. I'm not in that situation. I would not be able to make a moral judgment, given the context. When human beings are placed in dire straits, they behave according to instinct.

Have you ever felt completely at peace with yourself, completely calm, happy, content, glad to be alive, glad to exist, serene, perfect for that moment, a song singing powerfully within your heart – without any reason? Then you have touched on the Self.

I have felt contentment. I have not experienced the highs and lows that most people experience during their lifetime, and that may be due to my personality disorder.

jrbarch said...

A tiger uses violence to survive. That is the unavoidable nature of predatory animals. For a long time, human beings were the sabres favourite snack – no morality involved. But a human animal takes violence a long way beyond survival – to the point of threatening the whole species and the planet. This is not human ‘intelligence’. Human intelligence built a wall to keep out the jungle, and enjoy the benefits of civilisation. Civilisation was mandatory, for the race to learn and grow, and even more essential today. This basic insight is important because it is so lost. ‘Conquering’ prevails as an illusionary ideology, and there is nothing in the human heart that will countenance it.

A personality disorder is a temporary eclipse of the heart by the persona: - in the above context the jungle rules. I don’t think that is you Bob ....

Bob said...

Some varieties of Humanism see no value in nature other than it's utility to humans. A similar attitude can be found in certain religions, who insist that humans are made in the image of God. We have souls, lesser animals do not; we have been given dominion over nature, etc. etc.

"Civilization" is what happens when food is locked up.

A personality disorder can be temporary or lifelong. It is a part of me, I only learned of it because I was diagnosed. Most people do not seek help due to the stigma surrounding mental health.

jrbarch said...

My idea of a personality disorder is when a Nobel peace prize is awarded to a stooged killer of hundreds of thousands. Black humour doesn’t qualify.

95% of ‘mental health issues’ are actually emotional. They are quite respectable compared to the above. At the center of every little emotional whirlpool is an atom called ‘I’ (holding on for dear life). Laughing hurts because you have to let go. I have seen personalities rolling on the floor in a sea of uncontrolled emotion - a bit like waves of contractions that come in off some horizon and hit the womb at birth - laughing and crying, laughing and crying, rising and falling with the waves, all rolling in and over each other at the same time; while the Self, the sense of self sails on serenely overhead, untouched by the waves; an Observer – a witness to an event. For a brief moment, they are free. But, we love our personality baggage so much! And we have no idea what it is like to be free of mind.

In esoteric psychology, a ‘personality’ does not emerge until the physical, emotional, and mental bodies are subdued and integrated. Most people, if they are not slave to some physical appetite, chase a life of emotional reward - their thought life conditioned by the world. Scientists pursue a mental reward and discipline their thought processes and frameworks, keeping the emotional nature in harmony so that they can do the necessary work without distractions. A personality has coordinated and integrated these, and for good or evil, applies them to some personal goal; usually at first selfishly and aggressively.

So, on this basis a disordered (disoriented) personality calls on the power of the jungle and spreads chaos and suffering in the world; a deepening personality calls on the heart. From within the heart and an ever deepening experience, the mystics are born, becoming sensitive to the inner life; and the occultists emerge from them, understanding and working with inner law. An emotional issue is a local issue. As big as the space between your ears as a friend of mine will often say. (Disclaimer: I think most psychologists are barking up the wrong tree)! :-)

Bob said...

It's called a disorder when it negatively affects your ability to function in society. Are you familiar with SAD (Social Anxiety Disorder)? Or SPD (Schizoid Personality Disorder)?