i understand that he's trying to stir the pot, but this is a case of your enemy's enemy being your friend - because the people trying to make an issue out of this are also stirring the pot, in a way that is incredibly damaging to the left.
i should point out the obvious, if rarely stated, truth: identity politics is not in any way left-wing, and attaching it to the left is completely wrong, if done with so much glee by the right. identity politics is a subset of neo-liberalism, and for that reason you will see these arguments come from the centre, and not the left. i have argued repeatedly that foucault was actually a conservative, that his system was fundamentally burkean and that his followers belong on the right. it is only a function of the strange political spectrum in the united states that these ideas could be associated with the left, but, as mentioned, they are truly not - they are a part of the neo-liberal consensus, upheld by the trudeaus and clintons of the world and denounced by socialists and anarchists of all sorts.
this is actually an article by a liberal, who is criticizing a conservative ideology, which is in turn attacking sanders, who in this case is being a liberal. sanders' statements are pretty boilerplate, in the intersection of the left with liberalism, but inherently liberal in concept - we are all equal before the law, perhaps because we are equal before god and perhaps just because we like it better that way. as mentioned, you won't find many people on the left that will break with liberalism when it comes to ideas of race. the left mostly disagrees with liberalism on questions of economics.
i actually think that the democrats really need a moment of self-reflection around this, because the position they are adopting is not one of liberalism but one of hierarchy and racial privilege, merely flipped over and placed on it's head. is it the case that so many people in america think they're entitled to wealth or privileged due to their upbringing? the media would tell you it is; i don't think the data quite supports that. but, the party seems to want people to believe it, whether it currently is or isn't true.
the sanders campaign is probably going to want to retreat from these kinds of arguments. i actually think that this is not just wrong but dangerous - that liberals and leftists have to get together on this and win the debate.
sanders is completely right, and anybody suggesting otherwise should be roundly denounced and ripped apart over it.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/20/bernie-sanders-left-2020-225190
Thursday, February 21, 2019
netanyahu is a horrifically corrupt war criminal that needed to go cycles ago.
there is no need to write another essay lamenting the death of the israeli left.
but, it is perhaps telling that he appears to be being pushed out by the military.
there is no need to write another essay lamenting the death of the israeli left.
but, it is perhaps telling that he appears to be being pushed out by the military.
at
23:24
i guess this is what making america great again is really all about.
i'm going to flip this around. if bernie throws away the facts on this and embraces the twilight zone alter-reality being promoted by the state department, it's grounds to declare he's completely lost it and look at a third party.
people are arguing that he can't separate himself from the field, but he's still the only candidate that's come out in favour of most of his signature policies. and, despite the dropped jaws in the washington consensus, this is one of his signature policies.
again: this is a feature. it's not a bug. and, if the people of florida wants to vote for an illegal coup in a foreign country, and think that it's a ballot issue that overpowers more pressing concerns, then they should be roundly condemned for it. the democrats can't be bending over to right-wing reactionaries like this.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636
i'm going to flip this around. if bernie throws away the facts on this and embraces the twilight zone alter-reality being promoted by the state department, it's grounds to declare he's completely lost it and look at a third party.
people are arguing that he can't separate himself from the field, but he's still the only candidate that's come out in favour of most of his signature policies. and, despite the dropped jaws in the washington consensus, this is one of his signature policies.
again: this is a feature. it's not a bug. and, if the people of florida wants to vote for an illegal coup in a foreign country, and think that it's a ballot issue that overpowers more pressing concerns, then they should be roundly condemned for it. the democrats can't be bending over to right-wing reactionaries like this.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636
at
23:12
yeah, that's exactly what the planet needs - more money for obsolete technology.
that infrastructure money was supposed to go towards carbon transition not to "help families get to work".
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-announces-up-to-86-5-million-for-halifax-expressway-1.4306314
that infrastructure money was supposed to go towards carbon transition not to "help families get to work".
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-announces-up-to-86-5-million-for-halifax-expressway-1.4306314
at
22:33
the data on this is actually pretty startling - many american baby boomers will outlive their children, partly because they're able to afford better health care. the united states is not just heading into a gerontocracy, but one where a generation, maybe two, is going to end up lost to irrelevancy.
just a reality check on this. these are some of the most powerful people running the country, not just now but for the next 4-8 years.
nancy pelosi - 78
donald trump - 72
joe biden - 76
chuck schumer - 68
bernie sanders - 77
elizabeth warren - 69
hillary clinton - 71
mitch mcconnell - 77
chuck grassley - 85
wilbur ross - 81
william barr - 68
sonny perdue - 72
rick perry - 68
john kerry - 75
dianne feinstein - 85
mitt romney - 71
there's then a bunch of people in their 50s - pence, mnuchin, etc. these are the last boomers, but they're still boomers.
if we accept that the baby boom was from 1945-1965, and we give the last boomers until their 80s before they step down or die in office, that means we're not looking at a shift in power until 2045-2050 - when the oldest millennials start to retire.
it's not that the power to turf these people isn't there, but there doesn't seem to be much of a will to do it. and, both parties want to reward seniority. so long as these people want these jobs, they're going to be hard to get rid of.
everybody knew gen x was going to get skipped and squeezed. but, i'm not sure anybody saw this coming.
we can always hope they die before they get old, right?
just a reality check on this. these are some of the most powerful people running the country, not just now but for the next 4-8 years.
nancy pelosi - 78
donald trump - 72
joe biden - 76
chuck schumer - 68
bernie sanders - 77
elizabeth warren - 69
hillary clinton - 71
mitch mcconnell - 77
chuck grassley - 85
wilbur ross - 81
william barr - 68
sonny perdue - 72
rick perry - 68
john kerry - 75
dianne feinstein - 85
mitt romney - 71
there's then a bunch of people in their 50s - pence, mnuchin, etc. these are the last boomers, but they're still boomers.
if we accept that the baby boom was from 1945-1965, and we give the last boomers until their 80s before they step down or die in office, that means we're not looking at a shift in power until 2045-2050 - when the oldest millennials start to retire.
it's not that the power to turf these people isn't there, but there doesn't seem to be much of a will to do it. and, both parties want to reward seniority. so long as these people want these jobs, they're going to be hard to get rid of.
everybody knew gen x was going to get skipped and squeezed. but, i'm not sure anybody saw this coming.
we can always hope they die before they get old, right?
at
03:54
there are lots of concrete ways that this manifests itself. one example is drug prices.
it is apparently now common practice to import generics from canada, which is actually completely insane if you understand how the system works. drug prices in the united states are ridiculous, granted. but, canada is actually the second most expensive oecd country, and it is largely the consequence of the american market.
the united states has essentially no meaningful regulation on drug prices, which is completely absurd.
in canada, what we do is take the oecd average. so, if you want to buy a drug in canada, the price is calculated by adding up the prices in all of the other oecd countries and then dividing it by the number of countries. if you have a situation where the drug is 100x more expensive in the united states - a random if round number, but hardly an absurd exaggeration - then this dramatically skews the average, which actually inflates the price.
for america to try and fix this by importing canadian drugs is to provide a very minor discount on a problem of their own making. if they would simply regulate their industry, prices would come down on both sides of the border.
so, if sanders wins and brings in pharmacare, canadian drug prices will come down dramatically. who can say we don't have an interest in this?
it is apparently now common practice to import generics from canada, which is actually completely insane if you understand how the system works. drug prices in the united states are ridiculous, granted. but, canada is actually the second most expensive oecd country, and it is largely the consequence of the american market.
the united states has essentially no meaningful regulation on drug prices, which is completely absurd.
in canada, what we do is take the oecd average. so, if you want to buy a drug in canada, the price is calculated by adding up the prices in all of the other oecd countries and then dividing it by the number of countries. if you have a situation where the drug is 100x more expensive in the united states - a random if round number, but hardly an absurd exaggeration - then this dramatically skews the average, which actually inflates the price.
for america to try and fix this by importing canadian drugs is to provide a very minor discount on a problem of their own making. if they would simply regulate their industry, prices would come down on both sides of the border.
so, if sanders wins and brings in pharmacare, canadian drug prices will come down dramatically. who can say we don't have an interest in this?
at
00:53
i'm going to repeat something i've said several times over the last three years.
i think that most americans are, in fact, aware that canada has a single-payer healthcare system, and that canadians are deeply protective of it. what americans may be less of aware of is the fact that it is constantly under threat by corporate interests that want to open up a market. the people of ontario are currently in particularly grave danger of losing our health care, despite whatever kind of riots may erupt as a result of it.
and, the biggest threat to our healthcare system is the fact that it exists in such close proximity to such a massive, open market. as there are americans that look north for inspiration about coverage, there are predatory capitalists in canada that look south for a more exploitative model - as well as corporate interests to the south that would like to open up the market.
don't misunderstand me; i'm an altruist. i want to see my american cousins get better results for their dollar - sure. but, my dominant interest is that i am keenly aware that the best way to protect the system in my country is to help abolish the market that exists over the border, and that the system in canada will never be safe until the system in america evolves. this is an example of how altruism is reciprocal, of how the best way to help yourself is sometimes actually to help others.
it is for that reason that sanders is likely to be the only acceptable candidate in the field, and that i have a direct interest in helping him win.
i think that most americans are, in fact, aware that canada has a single-payer healthcare system, and that canadians are deeply protective of it. what americans may be less of aware of is the fact that it is constantly under threat by corporate interests that want to open up a market. the people of ontario are currently in particularly grave danger of losing our health care, despite whatever kind of riots may erupt as a result of it.
and, the biggest threat to our healthcare system is the fact that it exists in such close proximity to such a massive, open market. as there are americans that look north for inspiration about coverage, there are predatory capitalists in canada that look south for a more exploitative model - as well as corporate interests to the south that would like to open up the market.
don't misunderstand me; i'm an altruist. i want to see my american cousins get better results for their dollar - sure. but, my dominant interest is that i am keenly aware that the best way to protect the system in my country is to help abolish the market that exists over the border, and that the system in canada will never be safe until the system in america evolves. this is an example of how altruism is reciprocal, of how the best way to help yourself is sometimes actually to help others.
it is for that reason that sanders is likely to be the only acceptable candidate in the field, and that i have a direct interest in helping him win.
at
00:44
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)