Open Thread

We may already be dead men walking and nothing’s going to be done radically enough to substantially change the trajectory. Yes, M4A is extremely important but also important, and more important I’d say for the planet as a whole and not just humans, is what is discussed in the following Democracy Now segment.

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/2/7/us_new_low_yield_nuclear_weapons

When the opioid epidemic was first addressed in the early 2000s, the concerned reactionaries initially deprived the addicts of Oxycontin. It wasn’t a holistic comprehensive approach and as a result the addicts turned to heroin and started dying in even greater numbers. This was foreseeable but no one cared to look or even consider it. It was an unintended, but perfectly knowable, consequence.

The same holds true for the reactionaries who decry neoliberlism and Hillary and the Clintons ad nauseum non-stop in relation to any criticism of Trump and jogging (formerly creeping) and soon-to-be sprinting fascism. If Trump gets a second term, I am convinced as convinced can be Trump will use nuclear weapons against a nation that cannot defend itself. This will inspire Pakistan and/or India to use nuclear weapons in their eternal conflict. Afrrall, Donald Trump’s miraculous ascension has inspired the likes of a fascist like Modi and Bonesawnaro.

In otherwords, Trump is many times more likely to start a nuclear war than Hillary Clinton and no, this is not a defense of Hillary Clinton or the Dem party establishment. I deplore both and have stated so many times. I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I didn’t vote period because the two choices were despicable and I refused to give the process that produced these two candidates as the only choices legitimacy with my vote.

If you support Trump, be it tacitly or overtly, as a nihilistic wrecking ball then you support the murder of millions if not tens of millions of innocent civilians and the further subjugation of women via soon-to-be sprinting fascism.

The question is, and the question posed in the interview, did any of the Dem candidates discuss this last night? I’m betting they didn’t. And that means we are indeed dead men walking. Whistling past the graveyard.

The Federation of American Scientists revealed in late January that the U.S. Navy had deployed for the first time a submarine armed with a low-yield Trident nuclear warhead. The USS Tennessee deployed from Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia in late 2019. The W76-2 warhead, which is facing criticism at home and abroad, is estimated to have about a third of the explosive power of the atomic bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) called the news “an alarming development that heightens the risk of nuclear war.” We’re joined by William Arkin, longtime reporter focused on military and nuclear policy, author of numerous books, including “Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State.” He broke the story about the deployment of the new low-yield nuclear weapon in an article he co-wrote for Federation of American Scientists. He also recently wrote a cover piece for Newsweek titled “With a New Weapon in Donald Trump’s Hands, the Iran Crisis Risks Going Nuclear.” “What surprised me in my reporting … was a story that was just as important, if not more important, than what was going on in the political world,” Arkin says.

Ivory Bill — Paging Mr. Ivory Bill Woodpecker —
Read it and weep:
https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1225566817889980418

As I said in Ian\’s last post: The rules are changing beneath our elected officials\’ feet and they have no clue it\’s happening. Thus, all the breathless tone deaf coverage.
We\’ve got the receipts.

Great article. Spot on. Trump’s a magnet for it all, not only just his braindead moronic supporters but also the schadenfreude progressives like KT Chong & Co. and the liberals who are making bank off of him as this article highlights.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/481917-the-betrayal-of-democratic-voters-many-liberals-need-trump-to-win

Liberal authors are getting six- and seven-figure book advances for hating Trump.Their liberal publishers make millions off those books. The liberal political action committees have enjoyed record-setting fundraising for the past three years. Marginal celebrities tweet self-serving hateful comments. Liberal speakers command thousands of dollars in fees. And the liberal cable TV hosts and their networks are realizing millions of dollars in profits from attacking Trump.

Do you honestly believe any of them wants the riches — money, career advancement, personal recognition — to stop? Do you think any of them would sacrifice that gain to rectify the pain and suffering that might be plaguing downtrodden Americans?

Beyond that, look at the politicians who swear they are advocating on your behalf: chief among them, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Reps Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Their public profiles and power bases grew exponentially with Trump’s election and their constant vilification of the president.

Imagine where they would be now had Hillary Clinton won in 2016. They would be but a shadow of their manufactured selves.

Make no mistake. This same formula existed when President Barack Obama was in office and scores of conservatives and Republicans got rich by attacking and demeaning him. During the Obama years, the Republican Congress and elite GOP establishment did next-to-nothing for their base. We can only imagine how many of them secretly prayed for Obama’s reelection in 2012.

If Bannons’ being honest, then he wants to give the 1%ers one last chance at mitigation, lest The Left “come for their asses”.

If he’s not, then he represents a new breed of political grifter who know damn well how everything is now working and how everything is now polling and wants to take financial advantage, for himself, by pretending to be one of us.

I have some ideas on what Bannon’s motives are, but the the larger point is that his analysis is spot-on and Maher would have none of it. I’ve always found Bill Maher to be totally insufferable.

If Sanders were to actually lose the DemNom fair and square, then we Sanderbackers will have to process our grief and then decide what to do next.

If Sanders were to be visibly and clearly cheated out of a clear winning of the DemNom . . . . if the National Dems show us all that its ” Iowas all the way down” . . . then we will have to weaponize our sense of grievance and be able to disseminate it all over the political landscape.

If Sanders’s name were to appear as a No Party Independent on each and every State ballot ( all 50), then it would give the Never Clinter Never Bamas a way to deny the DLC Dems the victory. If Sanders’s name were on all 50 ballots, the Bitter Berners could all vote for Sanders and make their grievance known. If Gabbard were on such ballots as his prospective VP, then a Sanders-Gabbard combo might attract the votes of military people who don’t like Sanders very much but who like Gabbard a lot. They might vote for Sanders-Gabbard in hopes that Sanders would die in office – quickly – and Gabbard would become President.

But I would only support Sanders’ name being independently on all 50 ballots if it were clear that Sanders would have won the DemNom but for DemParty cheating and rigging. If Sanders loses fair and square, then the Sanderbackers will just have to decide what to do next and where they go from here.

Thanks for your perspective Ten Bears. I am skeptical of this idea that most of the rank and file will fall in line, so to speak, behind Tulsi just because she was a servicemember.

Strategically, I don’t know if Sanders hasto pick a woman, but it’s probably a good idea. I also think it’s a good idea to pick someone representative of the Midwestern region. Yves Smith over at NC has mentioned Tammy Baldwin, not just in terms of policy overlap, but as a way to “tick the boxes” of woman, gay, Midwest.

I think I’d choose Al Sharpton.

Sanders doesn’t care if they screw him out of the nomination. His job is to get you to vote for the Democratic nominee. I thought he reached rock bottom when he endorsed Hillary. When he has to stand their with a straight face and endorse Moneybags Bloomberg will you then admit that he is nothing but a sheepdog?

@Anderson Eric

Facts won’t have any effect on someone like Woodpecker. Appropriately for his bird name, it’s all just water off a duck’s ass.

He *knows* Sanders has no real support; it’s all just nefarious Russkies and Twitter bots. He has a pathological need for this to be the case, because if it isn’t it means the worldview he’s shackled himself to for decades is wrong. It means that the ground is shifting beneath him and others like him and their political legacy is being repudiated.

@450: edmondo bannon working Ian’s boards?
Hmmmm?

Funny, that. Bannon would have Bernie choose Al Sharpton as his running mate too.

The people whom I have the most problems with at work, by far, the ones who keep coming at me with their bullying tactics … which come in many different variants but are always underwritten by a pushy aggressiveness in directing their work and responsibilities towards me or putting pressure on me in front of other people, etc. … and the ones who I can’t find any peaceful resolution with after believing several times that I had backed them off enough to get their respect and whom I have now girded myself to constantly be aware and beware of, and whom I have begun attacking back, which has become fun (my job pays fairly well and I’ll ride it out, but ultimately I don’t care if I get fired from it which puts me at an advantage compared to them in those respects), have two consistent characteristics: they take amphetamines and they are addicted to their cellphones.

I want to be clear though: all of them are effectively sociopaths IMO, at least at work, but there is not a 100% link between the two because I work with people who both take amphetamines and are constantly on their cellphones who are decent, empathetic people who I have positive relationships with. I sometimes even wonder if the type of amphetamine they are on (ritalin, adderall, or ?) has anything to do it, though I doubt it has 100% to do with it. Hard to know, amphetamine use is a taboo topic at work though I’d bet over half are on it.

The link between sociopathic behavior and amphetamine and cellphone addictions makes logical sense to me. I don’t understand the details of it, I’ve never taken any amphetamines that I know of except some black beauties once a long time ago and I just remember feeling jittery and irritated and I’m pretty sure the potency of the pills I took was nothing compared to the strength that the current ones pack, but amphetamines elevate dopamine levels and impulsiveness, and the software developers of cellphone programs knowingly tap into dopamine triggers and the brain has neuro-plasticity (physically evolves to some extent depending on how we exercise it).

The amphetamines jack up people’s dopamine levels and increase their thinking and response times which leads to selfish behavior IMO because if they’re thinking too quick to consider as many factors as they might otherwise, like other people’s interests and the consequences of their actions, the person who is always in everyone of our thoughts, fast or slow, is you and when you are on amphetamines you end up giving your self-interests a higher weighting in your thinking than you would otherwise because you don’t take the time to process fully everything else. Amphetamines, in particular the ADD drugs, also help you focus so if your mind is on your cellphone it’s not hard to see it turning into an obsession. Now toss in cellphone use that’s constantly stimulating those base instincts in you and also rewards you with dopamine shots and the brain can evolve into one that’s effectively a sociopathic organism.

There’s some synergy to it. Neural pathways can possibly enlarge and channel your thinking into what you deem is in your best short-term self-interests. And addicts aggressively defend what makes them feel good in the short-term.

Z

Some of these people may be on legal prescription Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) which are different than amphetamines. They are used for anti-depression and in the case of sertraline, for anti-anxiety.

But some of their effects may well be “amphetamoidal” in terms of upping energy and affect. The only people who could tell us for sure would be people who have used amphetamines and also SSRIs, but not together and not at the same time.

@Ten Bears,

Also . . . why not Harris? For reasons that have been discussed in excruciating detail and in hundreds of thousands of words over at Naked Capitalism.

Why not Inslee? Well, I don’t know enough about Inslee to be for or against.

Why not that blond lady whose name you can’t spell? Since I don’t know who that is, I can’t even begin to have an opinion.

Why not Booker? I understand Booker to be a kind of pro-upper-class neo-liberal in the Obama mode, but not as bad as Deval Patrick. A President Booker would try to tear down and destroy every bit of New Deal Restoration that a President Sanders could possibly achieve.

Pushing Gabbard isn’t suspect to me. If it is suspect to you, I will just have to live with that. And since she is actively pushing for ending the recreational regime-change wars, supporting her is rejecting the recreational regime-change war propaganda. Your argument to the contrary appears to be a triumph of ideologic over reality.

But if you want to suspect me for that too, that’s fine.

DifferentClue,

SSRIs make people drowsy from what I’ve read. These troublesome people who I’ve dealt with, and am dealing with, four in five years now, are far from drowsy. They talk at a rapid rate, often are chomping violently on gum, and their eyes are shiny and their pupils large.

I have next to zero personal experience with amphetamines and none with opioids or SSRIs for that matter, so my look at this is completely from the outside. I had been out of the corporate and high tech work world for quite a while, before amphetamines were as easily available and commonplace as they are today, and came back five years ago in a temp capacity and am now full-time. I never expected to encounter such common workplace amphetamine use … I’d estimate over 50% of the workplace and if I had to put a hard number on it, I’d say 70% … and had no prejudice against it prior to returning to the corporate high tech world and never really had given it any thought whatsoever. In fact it took me almost 6 months to catch on what was going on because, again, it’s not talked about in the workplace. In fact nobody has ever made any mention to me about it in the workplace. Five years and no one has said anything. It’s a taboo topic at work.

It’s been a big eye opener for me and has helped me to understand a lot more about some of the people who I’ve had problems with in the past. I’d about guarantee that everyone is dealing with plenty of amphetamine users in their lives whether they know it or not. I’ve read on the internet … I know … that the med schools and law schools are ridden with it. It makes sense. You ever try reading a law school legal case study? You’d almost have to be on it to get absorbed in that monotonous, dry material and do it for hours on end for three years. It’s also pretty common knowledge that the workload in med school these days borders on humanly impossible. These are very competitive fields of study, high stakes, with huge financial, time, mental and physical investments whose returns are dependent upon one doing well in school. The temptation to use it has to be pretty great, especially when you realize that the people who you are competing against are often on it. Amphetamines are not easy to get off of either and the professional demands of being a lawyer or a doctor are substantial as well. It’s not likely they’ll leave that crutch back at school.

The opioid epidemic comes with a hard body count, but the amphetamine epidemic is hidden and its damage less calculable, but I find it interesting that we talk so much about the people melting into the earth from opioids who are often drawn to it from despair and stress, a need to get away from the financial and work pressures of modern life and to find some temporary peace, and yet we don’t talk about the speed demons who are running us into the ground, the rabbits in the greyhound race we chase to try to keep up and also the wolves chasing us from behind trying to outcompete us by behavior and means that most people who aren’t on it would consider unethical and over the top aggressive. We don’t talk about the drug that fuels them.

And what I find most interesting about it all, and completely unexamined for causality, is that the growth of amphetamine use in our society predated the opioid epidemic.

Z

The number one side effect of SSRI’s across the board is diminished libido. I believe it’s intentional. Paxil actually did help me to “function” in the mainstream. Perhaps “compete” is a better word. But at the expense of a loss of much of my sense of personal identity. No thanks.

A good book on the subject is “Crazy Like Us” by Ethan Watters. It’s a quick read, well-documented. You’ll quickly come to see how the entire Serotonin theory of depression is bunk – they created the theory around the drugs, in order to sell them.

David Smail, British psychologist, devoted his life to mental health issues. As a practicing psychologist he came to see the horrors of the industry and set out to illustrate how we’re making a grave mistake in attributing these behaviors to individual defects as opposed to concentrating on the environmental, and power and interest, relationships.

Psychology refuses to recognize that it’s an art of empathy and not a science as far as individual treatment is concerned.

To get an idea of how backward the field of psychology is, Freud is still taken seriously. He’s been dead 80 years and should be an historical footnote, not a foundational block. He didn’t come up with any undeniable natural laws and comes off to me as an intelligent, arrogant, overambitious coked up person who overthought himself into absolutisms, believing he had found simple, core truths that didn’t exist. And then pushed those beliefs on patients. I’m no expert, but I sense that Freud did more damage to that field, and to patients, than good.

A psychologist shouldn’t take the arrogant approach that they know a patient better than they know themselves.

Z

Plenue,

I hope you’re right.

Z