Will Berta Bury Hillary?

[georgephillip]

Anyone expecting Hope or Change from Obama and Hillary in 2009 should have asked Berta Caceres or Gustavo Castro Soto for their opinions:
"The 2009 Honduran coup d'état, part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis,[1][2] occurred when the Honduran Army on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court ousted PresidentManuel Zelaya and sent him into exile on 28 June 2009.[3] It was prompted when Zelaya attempted to schedule a non-binding poll on holding a referendum about convening a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#WikiLeaks_document
Both Barry and Hill lost no sleep over the coup as Clinton reveals in Hard Choices:
"The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides skyrocketed..."

"Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.

"First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office. 'In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico,' Clinton writes. 'We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.'”
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html


Which brings us to Berta and Gustavo. Last week Berta was assassinated in Honduras, dying in Gustavo's arms. He was left for dead after being shot twice. In fact, Gustavo, a citizen of Mexico, was far from dead, and as he attempted to leave Honduras over last weekend while in the company of Mexico's ambassador to Honduras, Gustavo was taken into custody and returned to the town Berta was murdered in.

"Honduras is still reeling from last week’s assassination of Berta Cáceres, one of the country’s most well-known environmental and indigenous leaders. She was gunned down in her home early Thursday, less than a year after she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize.

"Cáceres is at least the 110th environmental or land defender to be killed in Honduras since 2010 in the wake of a U.S.-supported coup.

"At the time of her assassination, Cáceres was with Gustavo Castro Soto, another well-known environmental campaigner and coordinator of Friends of the Earth Mexico. He witnessed the shooting and sustained two bullet wounds. Now, human rights activists say the Honduran government is detaining Castro without cause and refusing him permission to return to his native Mexico."
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/8/honduran_activist_berta_caceres_died_in

Hopefully, Hillary will face a few questions about her role in promoting terrorism in Honduras before she moves back into the White House?

 

[Arkady]

Anyone expecting Hope or Change from Obama and Hillary in 2009 should have asked Berta Caceres or Gustavo Castro Soto for their opinions:
"The 2009 Honduran coup d'état, part of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis,[1][2] occurred when the Honduran Army on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court ousted PresidentManuel Zelaya and sent him into exile on 28 June 2009.[3] It was prompted when Zelaya attempted to schedule a non-binding poll on holding a referendum about convening a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#WikiLeaks_document
Both Barry and Hill lost no sleep over the coup as Clinton reveals in Hard Choices:
"The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides skyrocketed..."

"Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.

"First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office. 'In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico,' Clinton writes. 'We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.'”
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html


Which brings us to Berta and Gustavo. Last week Berta was assassinated in Honduras, dying in Gustavo's arms. He was left for dead after being shot twice. In fact, Gustavo, a citizen of Mexico, was far from dead, and as he attempted to leave Honduras over last weekend while in the company of Mexico's ambassador to Honduras, Gustavo was taken into custody and returned to the town Berta was murdered in.

"Honduras is still reeling from last week’s assassination of Berta Cáceres, one of the country’s most well-known environmental and indigenous leaders. She was gunned down in her home early Thursday, less than a year after she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize.

"Cáceres is at least the 110th environmental or land defender to be killed in Honduras since 2010 in the wake of a U.S.-supported coup.

"At the time of her assassination, Cáceres was with Gustavo Castro Soto, another well-known environmental campaigner and coordinator of Friends of the Earth Mexico. He witnessed the shooting and sustained two bullet wounds. Now, human rights activists say the Honduran government is detaining Castro without cause and refusing him permission to return to his native Mexico."
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/8/honduran_activist_berta_caceres_died_in

Hopefully, Hillary will face a few questions about her role in promoting terrorism in Honduras before she moves back into the White House?

This is a good time to grill Clinton on this, too, since I can't see it becoming an issue in the general election, since when it comes to her overly hawkish foreign policy, she's essentially aligned with the GOP establishment. They may carp about trivia (ooh, she thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with a video), but when it comes to the big issue of the US's use of its power to manipulate poor foreign countries for our short-term advantage, the GOP is all in.

 

[georgephillip]

This is a good time to grill Clinton on this, too, since I can't see it becoming an issue in the general election, since when it comes to her overly hawkish foreign policy, she's essentially aligned with the GOP establishment. They may carp about trivia (ooh, she thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with a video), but when it comes to the big issue of the US's use of its power to manipulate poor foreign countries for our short-term advantage, the GOP is all in.

I think it's a given Republicans couldn't care less about political assassinations in Honduras; although, they did seem slightly perplexed by the massive migration of children fleeing the violence partially stemming from Zelaya's ouster.

I'm wondering if the following statistic I head this morning on Pacifica radio resonates with anything you've heard: only 17% of eligible Republican voters have cast ballots in the 2016 primaries, and about 11% of Democrats have bothered to vote so far?

 

[Arkady]

I think it's a given Republicans couldn't care less about political assassinations in Honduras; although, they did seem slightly perplexed by the massive migration of children fleeing the violence partially stemming from Zelaya's ouster.

I'm wondering if the following statistic I head this morning on Pacifica radio resonates with anything you've heard: only 17% of eligible Republican voters have cast ballots in the 2016 primaries, and about 11% of Democrats have bothered to vote so far?

Not sure, but I know turnout has been low for Dems relative to 2008, so I'm a bit worried. I keep getting reminded of some lines from Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

 

[georgephillip]

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The center does seem stressed, to say the least.
Hillary was front and center during the last coup in Honduras, and I suppose it's possible young Democrats might find that a good reason to reject her bid for the White House?

 

[Arkady]

The center does seem stressed, to say the least.
Hillary was front and center during the last coup in Honduras, and I suppose it's possible young Democrats might find that a good reason to reject her bid for the White House?

Perhaps. I'm conflicted about that, though. I'm only too aware of how awful she is in a lot of ways. That's why I voted for Sanders. But, I'm wary of others becoming too aware of her weaknesses now, unless they do it in a hell of a hurry, because Sanders may only have a few days left to make a serious play for the nomination. After that window of opportunity closes, Clinton-bashing just turns into an excuse for people to claim there's no real difference between the parties and not to bother to vote, or to vote for third-party options even in competitive states. That would be disastrous. In 2000, we saw how that can play out, as Gore-bashing even from the left resulted in enough liberals supporting Nader in Florida (or just staying home) to put the election in striking range for the Supreme Court. Anyone who claims that Gore would have been just as bad as Bush wasn't paying attention. Gore had his problems, but he would have been worlds better than Bush. And Clinton would be worlds better than Trump or Cruz.

 

[georgephillip]

In 2000, we saw how that can play out, as Gore-bashing even from the left resulted in enough liberals supporting Nader in Florida (or just staying home) to put the election in striking range for the Supreme Court. Anyone who claims that Gore would have been just as bad as Bush wasn't paying attention. Gore had his problems, but he would have been worlds better than Bush. And Clinton would be worlds better than Trump or Cruz.

I think Al lost his home state in 2000, and I'm virtually certain those 100,000 Nader voters in Florida would not have "chosen" between Tweedledee or Tweedledom. It is at least worth mentioning how rich families like Bush and Gore will only push their disputes so far in the public arena before coming to a "gentleman's agreement" behind closed (SCOTUS) doors


As far as Hillary or Trump is concerned, if the latter moves into the White House all progressives will be united and, hopefully, marching in the streets by the hundreds of thousands. Should Hillary win, we are looking at another eight years of progressives looking for new ways to support eternal war and endless debt without criticizing their party standard bearers.

Sad but true?

 

[Arkady]

I think Al lost his home state in 2000, and I'm virtually certain those 100,000 Nader voters in Florida would not have "chosen" between Tweedledee or Tweedledom.

What percentage of them do you think might have chosen Gore if Nader hadn't run? A mere 1%? Well, if so, that would have meant a Gore presidency. The official count had Bush ahead by 537 votes. Just 1% of the Nader voters in Florida could have spared us the Iraq War, the fiscally suicidal upper-class tax cuts, Gitmo, Abhu Ghraib, and much of the rest of the long national nightmare we had from 2001 to 2008.

 

[georgephillip]

What percentage of them do you think might have chosen Gore if Nader hadn't run? A mere 1%? Well, if so, that would have meant a Gore presidency. The official count had Bush ahead by 537 votes. Just 1% of the Nader voters in Florida could have spared us the Iraq War, the fiscally suicidal upper-class tax cuts, Gitmo, Abhu Ghraib, and much of the rest of the long national nightmare we had from 2001 to 2008.

Ralph is under the impression 0% of his voters would have chosen Al, but his objectivity may be questioned. As far as Al and the Iraq War goes, a famous relative of Al (Gore Vidal) would always hedge on this question, but he also acknowledged the possibility Democrats were just as committed to regime change in Iraq as Republicans. Perhaps it does have something to do with selling large quantities of oil without using US $$$? If Bernie and Trump accomplish nothing else, breaking both major parties into fragments would seem to work to the benefit of 99% of voters, or not?

 

[Arkady]

Ralph is under the impression 0% of his voters would have chosen Al, but his objectivity may be questioned. As far as Al and the Iraq War goes, a famous relative of Al (Gore Vidal) would always hedge on this question, but he also acknowledged the possibility Democrats were just as committed to regime change in Iraq as Republicans. Perhaps it does have something to do with selling large quantities of oil without using US $$$? If Bernie and Trump accomplish nothing else, breaking both major parties into fragments would seem to work to the benefit of 99% of voters, or not?

I think this is obscurantism -- pretending that we just don't know whether the Democrats were just as committed to regime change in Iraq as the Republicans. We know perfectly well. We know the Iraq vote tally, and we know nearly every single Republican voted for it, while there was plenty of dissent from Democrats. We also know that in eight long years of the Clinton administration, no invasion happened or was even pushed for. And we know the neo-cons were the driving force for invasion, and that of those, Lieberman was the only prominent Democrat. Yes, there were cowardly Dems, like Clinton, who rolled over for the Republicans. But we know perfectly well which side was pushing the agenda. And we know how that agenda was pushed by way of (non-existent) evidence of WMDs that Bush and his team, behind a wall of "classified information" claims, said they had. The only way the war would have happened on Gore's watch is if Gore, personally, was eager for it, and we have no reason to believe he was.

I have no idea whether Sanders and Trump fracturing the electorate will be beneficial or catastrophic. I could see it playing out either way. Nader also fractured the electorate, and that was catastrophic. But so did Perot, in 92, and that was possibly quite good.

 

[georgephillip]

I think this is obscurantism -- pretending that we just don't know whether the Democrats were just as committed to regime change in Iraq as the Republicans. We know perfectly well. We know the Iraq vote tally, and we know nearly every single Republican voted for it, while there was plenty of dissent from Democrats.

While technically true, can we be sure loyal Democrats would have objected if Al's brother had been governor of Florida in 2000? I wish I could manufacture as much confidence as you when it comes to a meaningful distinction between integrity levels of elite Republicans and Democrats; however, their deliberate obscurantism (thanks for the new word) is just to obvious to ignore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism
Obscurantism (/ɒbˈskjʊərənˌtɪzəm, əb-/ or/ˌɒbskjʊˈræntɪzəm/[1][2]) is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known. There are two common historical and intellectual denotations to Obscurantism: (1) deliberately restricting knowledge — opposition to the dissemination of knowledge, a policy of withholding knowledge from the state schools for the public; and, (2) deliberate obscurity — anabstruse style (as in literature and art) characterized by deliberate vagueness.

While Bernie may not move into the White House, he is providing a few teachable moments for the US electorate:

"BERNIE SANDERS [Interposing]: Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow, in 1954, the government, democratically elected government, of Guatemala.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15855
"Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we've operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said that the United States had the right to do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America.

"So, I actually went to Nicaragua, and I very strongly opposed the Reagan administration's effort to overthrow that government, and I strongly opposed, earlier, Henry Kissinger and the overthrow of the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not getting involved in regime [change]."

 

[marvin martian]

We know the Iraq vote tally

Indeed. The woman you're now actively campaigning for was on the "yea" side.

 

[georgephillip]

I have no idea whether Sanders and Trump fracturing the electorate will be beneficial or catastrophic. I could see it playing out either way. Nader also fractured the electorate, and that was catastrophic. But so did Perot, in 92, and that was possibly quite good.

If Perot is responsible for inflicting the Clintons on the US, I would have to respectfully disagree. Once the living memory of the Great Depression died off, Wall Street needed only one Democrat to restore the Gilded Age. Bubba was only to happy to oblige and become rich in the process.

 

[Arkady]

If Perot is responsible for inflicting the Clintons on the US, I would have to respectfully disagree. Once the living memory of the Great Depression died off, Wall Street needed only one Democrat to restore the Gilded Age. Bubba was only to happy to oblige and become rich in the process.

Wall Street was restoring the Gilded Age long before Clinton. Starting in the early 1970s, the wealth of the nation as a whole and the wealth and well-being of the majority of people in it started to diverge violently. Between 1973 and 1992, poverty rose, median real incomes stagnated, and social problems nearly all became worse (high violent crime, higher teen pregnancy rates, higher divorce rates, etc.) The Clinton years were a reversal of all those trends, except for the one where the nation as a whole was getting richer. Median real incomes soared. Poverty levels plummeted. Violent crime rates dropped like a rock. So did teen pregnancy rates, dropout rates, divorce rates, and just about every other indicator of social problems. Clinton's eight years were an island of improvement in a big sea of decline stretching from the early 1970s to just a few years ago (we may again be seeing across-the-board improvement, though that's not yet clear).

 

[georgephillip]

The Clinton years were a reversal of all those trends, except for the one where the nation as a whole was getting richer. Median real incomes soared. Poverty levels plummeted. Violent crime rates dropped like a rock. So did teen pregnancy rates, dropout rates, divorce rates, and just about every other indicator of social problems. Clinton's eight years were an island of improvement in a big sea of decline stretching from the early 1970s to just a few years ago (we may again be seeing across-the-board improvement, though that's not yet clear).

How do you respond to the Freakonomics argument that claims most of those improvements during Clinton's reign stem from Roe v Wade?

 

[Arkady]

How do you respond to the Freakonomics argument that claims most of those improvements during Clinton's reign stem from Roe v Wade?

I found it really convincing when I first read the book, but I've read subsequent follow-ups that contradict it. I'm more convinced by analyses linking it to de-leading of gas and paint. However, both of those explanations fails to explain something else: why there was so much variation in the positive trend since the 1990s. Take a look at the murder rate as one simple stat to judge by. What's the trend? Well, in the Clinton years, there was an INCREDIBLY rapid improvement in the murder rate. Then, in the Bush years, the trend essentially flat-lined -- murder rates went up and down from year to year, with the rate in 2008 being just one tenth of a point better than in 2000. Then Obama took office and we again got a robust and sustained decline in murder rates, albeit nowhere near as fast as the Clinton years. Roe v. Wade doesn't explain that pattern. Neither does deleading gas. While they could explain why we went from an overall up-swing in violence leading up to the early 1990s to an overall downswing after that, there must be other factors that explained why we went from incredibly rapid improvement for eight years, to almost no improvement to speak of for eight years, to pretty decent improvement for seven years.

 

[marvin martian]

I found it really convincing when I first read the book, but I've read subsequent follow-ups that contradict it. I'm more convinced by analyses linking it to de-leading of gas and paint. However, both of those explanations fails to explain something else: why there was so much variation in the positive trend since the 1990s. Take a look at the murder rate as one simple stat to judge by. What's the trend? Well, in the Clinton years, there was an INCREDIBLY rapid improvement in the murder rate. Then, in the Bush years, the trend essentially flat-lined -- murder rates went up and down from year to year, with the rate in 2008 being just one tenth of a point better than in 2000. Then Obama took office and we again got a robust and sustained decline in murder rates, albeit nowhere near as fast as the Clinton years. Roe v. Wade doesn't explain that pattern. Neither does deleading gas. While they could explain why we went from an overall up-swing in violence leading up to the early 1990s to an overall downswing after that, there must be other factors that explained why we went from incredibly rapid improvement for eight years, to almost no improvement to speak of for eight years, to pretty decent improvement for seven years.

Simple. More law abiding people bought guns during Clinton's and Obama's administration. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less crime.

 

[Arkady]

Simple. More law abiding people bought guns during Clinton's and Obama's administration. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less crime.

Actually, hasn't the share of households with guns DECLINED in recent decades? And while we're on it, aren't there LOTS of wealthy nations where there are fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens (Japan, Germany, UK, Denmark, Sweden, etc.) What do crime rates look like there?

 

[georgephillip]

Simple. More law abiding people bought guns during Clinton's and Obama's administration. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less crime.

Would you happen to have any links that reveal how many US civilians have used guns to prevent themselves from becoming a victim of violent crime over the past decade, or so?