Cynics, Step Aside: It's all my mother's fault!

Well Joe, I try, really I do. But every time I open my mouth to say
what I really think, an image of my Mother(The Saint) looms before me
shaking her finger and an electrical cord at me.
Mother taught me to always "keep a civil tongue in your mouth", and to
never, ever get caught lying. Never.
So I learned, through the application of that electrical cord to my
tender hide, to be sneaky and devious.
Now to get "real" for a moment. Just between you and me, Joe...or is
it You and I, sugar!
In later life I came to resolve my "Mother Issues", and came to love
this very intelligent and generous woman. But as a small boy, I
feared for my very life. Mother was a strong, angry, opinionated
woman. I used to tell anyone who would listen, "mother swung first
and never asked questions later". Only my dad could go toe to toe and
lip to lip with her. Even though I've blocked most of it out, they
fought some mighty battles in the early years of their marriage. The
up shot of my sad saga was that I grew up fearing and hating women.
But since my gene pool did not include a Gay cell, I became a
Womanizer. Today, so many years down the road, and so different in my
own mind, I chuckle at the thought that not only was I a womanizer,
but I was also a born again, baptized in the Holy Ghost, Speaking in
Tongues Christian.
My first two marriages were to women who were timid and vulnerable.
Gee, imagine!
Had I met Cathy back in those troubled days, she would have scared the
stuffing right out of me. But the reformed Carl quickly recognized
that there before me stood a rare and wonderful woman. Cathy had been
raised by a devoted, devout Catholic Momma. In other words, Cathy had
also felt the sting of the electrical cord...and worse. Them old
fashioned Catholic Mommas had refined the skill of torture. Have you
ever been forced to kneel at your mother's bed and count your
beads...while kneeling on marbles? Puts the love of God right square
inside you. Right!
So at 20 years of age, Cathy married her father. Not really her
father, but a man who was caste from the same mold. Still, they might
have been together to this day, except he decided that the bottle was
more important than human relationships. Mark one up for my side.
So, battle scared and brutalized, Cathy and I formed a partnership
like none we'd ever believed possible. We vowed that we'd never raise
a finger to inflict violence upon our children(she had taken on the
joy of step-motherhood, helping me raise my two youngest children as
if they were her own flesh and blood).
We agreed that violence begets violence and only teaches children that
when they become strong enough, they will also be able to control
through violence. Certainly we had our share of tears and pain during
the raising years, but today our children are people you, or any of
you would like to call "Friend". And the best news is that none of
the three Jarvis children ever used violence in raising their own
children. The ripples of the loving stone we cast into the gene pool
is sending out ripples that will go forward for ever.
Having forgotten my original reason for this ramble, I'll wish you
well, and close.

Carl Jarvis


On 11/14/14, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@comcast.net> wrote:
> Say wasn't the hucksters some sort of old time radio program? Or was I
> dreaming.
>
> Anyway bro Carl why do you always have to sugar coat how you really feel?
> Tell it straight brother! Don't hold back.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@gmail.com>
> To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:10 PM
> Subject: Cynics, Step Aside: There is Genuine Excitement Over a Hillary
> Clinton Candidacy
>
>
>> When I first saw this article, I said to myself, "Self, don't read
>> this article. You'll just get royally ticked off and start cussing".
>> For some time I left it set in my in basket, simmering in its own
>> stink. But Greenwald has a way of tugging at the corners of my
>> curiosity. So I did the very thing I'd sworn not to do.
>> How depressing! It's folks like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barak
>> Obama who give the Democrats a bad name. Can't they find a more
>> appropriate name to cover their misdeeds? Like the Shills Party. Or
>> the Hucksters. Anyway, it's people like them that drove me from the
>> Democrap Party. They look suspiciously like Repugleeuglycans to me.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>> On 11/14/14, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> Cynics, Step Aside: There is Genuine Excitement Over a Hillary Clinton
>>> Candidacy
>>> By Glenn Greenwald
>>> @ggreenwald
>>> Today at 6:47 AM
>>>
>>> John Moore
>>> It's easy to strike a pose of cynicism when contemplating Hillary
>>> Clinton's
>>> inevitable (and terribly imminent) presidential campaign. As a drearily
>>> soulless, principle-free, power-hungry veteran of DC's game of thrones,
>>> she's about as banal of an American politician as it gets. One of the
>>> few
>>> unique aspects to her, perhaps the only one, is how the genuinely
>>> inspiring
>>> gender milestone of her election will (following the Obama model) be
>>> exploited to obscure her primary role as guardian of the status quo.
>>> That she's the beneficiary of dynastic succession - who may very well be
>>> pitted against the next heir in line from the regal Bush dynasty (this
>>> one,
>>> not yet this one) - makes it all the more tempting to regard
>>> #HillaryTime
>>> with an evenly distributed mix of boredom and contempt. The tens of
>>> millions
>>> of dollars the Clintons have jointly "earned" off their political
>>> celebrity
>>> - much of it speaking to the very globalists, industry groups, hedge
>>> funds,
>>> and other Wall Street appendages who would have among the largest stake
>>> in
>>> her presidency - make the spectacle that much more depressing (the
>>> likely
>>> candidate is pictured above with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein at an
>>> event in September).
>>> But one shouldn't be so jaded. There is genuine and intense excitement
>>> over
>>> the prospect of (another) Clinton presidency. Many significant American
>>> factions regard her elevation to the Oval Office as an opportunity for
>>> rejuvenation, as a stirring symbol of hope and change, as the vehicle
>>> for
>>> vital policy advances. Those increasingly inspired factions include:
>>> Wall Street
>>> Politico Magazine, November 11, 2014 ("Why Wall Street Loves Hillary"):
>>> Down on Wall Street they don't believe (Clinton's populist rhetoric) for
>>>
>>> a
>>> minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big
>>> bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be
>>> president.
>>> Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry-among them,
>>> Goldman
>>> Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a
>>> powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase
>>> and
>>> Bank of America-consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to
>>> populist rhetoric. To them, she's someone who gets the idea that we all
>>> benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her
>>> forays
>>> into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers.
>>> None
>>> of
>>> them think she really means her populism.
>>> Although Hillary Clinton has made no formal announcement of her
>>> candidacy,
>>> the consensus on Wall Street is that she is running-and running hard-and
>>> that her national organization is quickly falling into place behind the
>>> scenes. That all makes her attractive. Wall Street, above all, loves a
>>> winner, especially one who is not likely to tamper too radically with
>>> its
>>> vast money pot.
>>> According to a wide assortment of bankers and hedge-fund managers I
>>> spoke
>>> to
>>> for this article, Clinton's rock-solid support on Wall Street is not
>>> anything that can be dislodged based on a few seemingly off-the-cuff
>>> comments in Boston calculated to protect her left flank. (For the
>>> record,
>>> she quickly walked them back, saying she had "short-handed" her comments
>>> about the failures of trickle-down economics by suggesting, absurdly,
>>> that
>>> corporations don't create jobs.) "I think people are very excited about
>>> Hillary," says one Wall Street investment professional with close ties
>>> to
>>> Washington. "Most people in New York on the finance side view her as
>>> being
>>> very pragmatic. I think they have confidence that she understands how
>>> things
>>> work and that she's not a populist."
>>> The Israel Lobby
>>> Foreign Policy, Aaron David Miller, November 7, 2014 ("Would Hillary Be
>>> Good
>>> For the Holy Land?"):
>>> Should she become president, on one level, better ties with Israel are
>>> virtually guaranteed. . . . Let's not forget that the Clintons dealt
>>> with
>>> Bibi too as prime minister. It was never easy. But clearly it was a lot
>>> more
>>> productive than what we see now. . . . To put it simply, as a more
>>> conventional politician, Hillary is good on Israel and relates to the
>>> country in a way this president doesn't. . . . Hillary is from a
>>> different
>>> generation and functioned in a political world in which being good on
>>> Israel
>>> was both mandatory and smart.
>>> Let's be clear. When it comes to Israel, there is no Bill Clinton 2.0.
>>> The
>>> former president is probably unique among presidents for the depth of
>>> his
>>> feeling for Israel and his willingness to put aside his own frustrations
>>> with certain aspects of Israel's behavior, such as settlements. But this
>>> accommodation applies to Hillary too. Both Bill and Hillary are so
>>> enamored
>>> with the idea of Israel and its unique history that they are prone to
>>> make
>>> certain allowances for the reality of Israel's behavior, such as the
>>> continuing construction of settlements.
>>> Interventionists (i.e., war zealots)
>>> New York Times, June 15, 2014 ("Events in Iraq Open Door for
>>> Interventionist
>>> Revival, Historian Says"):
>>> But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view
>>> of
>>> American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State
>>> Hillary
>>> Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists
>>> are
>>> pouring their hopes.
>>> Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of
>>> foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and
>>> that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy
>>> hitters
>>> at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
>>> "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said, adding
>>> that
>>> the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could
>>> theoretically
>>> be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president. "If she
>>> pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's
>>> something
>>> that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not
>>> going
>>> to call it that; they are going to call it something else."
>>> Old school neocons
>>> New York Times, Jacob Heilbrunn, July 5, 2014 ("The Next Act for Neocons:
>>>
>>> .
>>> Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton"?):
>>> After nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative
>>> movement is back. . . . Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons
>>> may
>>> be
>>> preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham
>>> Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the
>>> driver's seat of American foreign policy. . . .
>>> Other neocons have followed [Robert] Kagan's careful centrism and
>>> respect
>>> for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
>>> Relations, noted in The New Republic this year that "it is clear that in
>>> administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on
>>> controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the
>>> intervention in Libya."
>>> And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the
>>> Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's
>>> president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs
>>> Israel;
>>> and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
>>> It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her
>>> administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national
>>> security
>>> with the likes of Robert Kagan on board. . . . Far from ending, then,
>>> the
>>> neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972, Robert L. Bartley, the
>>> editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who
>>> championed
>>> the early neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as
>>> representing
>>> "something of a swing group between the two major parties." Despite the
>>> partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little
>>> has
>>> changed.
>>> So take that, cynics. There are pockets of vibrant political excitement
>>> stirring in the land over a Hillary Clinton presidency. There are
>>> posters
>>> being made, buttons being appended, checks being prepared, appointments
>>> being coveted. The joint, allied, synergistic constituencies of
>>> plutocracy
>>> and endless war have their beloved candidate. And it's really quite
>>> difficult to argue that their excitement and affection are unwarranted.
>>> Photo: John Moore/Getty Images
>>> Email the author: glenn.greenwald@theintercept.com
>>> 108 Discussing
>>> + Add Comment
>>>
>>> Cynics, Step Aside: There is Genuine Excitement Over a Hillary Clinton
>>> Candidacy
>>> By Glenn Greenwald
>>> @ggreenwald Today at 6:47 AM
>>> Share
>>> . Twitter
>>> . Facebook
>>> . Google
>>> . Email
>>> . Print
>>> .
>>> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/14/despite-cynicism-genuine-excit
>>> ement-hillary-clinton-candidacy/
>>> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/14/despite-cynicism-genuine-excit
>>> ement-hillary-clinton-candidacy/https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/1
>>> 4/despite-cynicism-genuine-excitement-hillary-clinton-candidacy/
>>> . https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/12/stuxnet/
>>> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/12/stuxnet/https://firstlook.org/
>>> theintercept/2014/11/12/stuxnet/
>>> .
>>> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/14/american-psychological-associa
>>> tion-reviewing-role-bush-torture-program/
>>> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/14/american-psychological-associa
>>> tion-reviewing-role-bush-torture-program/https://firstlook.org/theintercept/
>>> 2014/11/14/american-psychological-association-reviewing-role-bush-torture-pr
>>> ogram/
>>> .
>>> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/13/john-cook-leaving-intercept-re
>>> turn-gawker-end-year/
>>> .
>>> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/13/art-surveillance-explored-arti
>>> sts/
>>> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/13/art-surveillance-explored-arti
>>> sts/https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/13/art-surveillance-explored-
>>> artists/
>>> . http://twitter.com/share?text=Cynics, Step Aside: There is Genuine
>>> Excitement Over a Hillary Clinton
>>> Candidacy&url=http%3A%2F%2Finterc.pt%2F1x0z9oC
>>> .
>>> http://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Finterc.pt%2F1x0z9oC
>>> . https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Finterc.pt%2F1x0z9oC
>>> . mailto:?subject=Cynics, Step Aside: There is Genuine Excitement Over
>>> a Hillary Clinton Candidacy&body=http%3A%2F%2Finterc.pt%2F1x0z9oC
>>> . print
>>>
>>> John Moore
>>> It's easy to strike a pose of cynicism when contemplating Hillary
>>> Clinton's
>>> inevitable (and terribly imminent) presidential campaign. As a drearily
>>> soulless, principle-free, power-hungry veteran of DC's game of thrones,
>>> she's about as banal of an American politician as it gets. One of the
>>> few
>>> unique aspects to her, perhaps the only one, is how the genuinely
>>> inspiring
>>> gender milestone of her election will (following the Obama model) be
>>> exploited to obscure her primary role as guardian of the status quo.
>>> That she's the beneficiary of dynastic succession - who may very well be
>>> pitted against the next heir in line from the regal Bush dynasty (this
>>> one,
>>> not yet this one) - makes it all the more tempting to regard
>>> #HillaryTime
>>> with an evenly distributed mix of boredom and contempt. The tens of
>>> millions
>>> of dollars the Clintons have jointly "earned" off their political
>>> celebrity
>>> - much of it speaking to the very globalists, industry groups, hedge
>>> funds,
>>> and other Wall Street appendages who would have among the largest stake
>>> in
>>> her presidency - make the spectacle that much more depressing (the
>>> likely
>>> candidate is pictured above with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein at an
>>> event in September).
>>> But one shouldn't be so jaded. There is genuine and intense excitement
>>> over
>>> the prospect of (another) Clinton presidency. Many significant American
>>> factions regard her elevation to the Oval Office as an opportunity for
>>> rejuvenation, as a stirring symbol of hope and change, as the vehicle
>>> for
>>> vital policy advances. Those increasingly inspired factions include:
>>> Wall Street
>>> Politico Magazine, November 11, 2014 ("Why Wall Street Loves Hillary"):
>>> Down on Wall Street they don't believe (Clinton's populist rhetoric) for
>>>
>>> a
>>> minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big
>>> bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be
>>> president.
>>> Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry-among them,
>>> Goldman
>>> Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a
>>> powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase
>>> and
>>> Bank of America-consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to
>>> populist rhetoric. To them, she's someone who gets the idea that we all
>>> benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her
>>> forays
>>> into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers.
>>> None
>>> of
>>> them think she really means her populism.
>>> Although Hillary Clinton has made no formal announcement of her
>>> candidacy,
>>> the consensus on Wall Street is that she is running-and running hard-and
>>> that her national organization is quickly falling into place behind the
>>> scenes. That all makes her attractive. Wall Street, above all, loves a
>>> winner, especially one who is not likely to tamper too radically with
>>> its
>>> vast money pot.
>>> According to a wide assortment of bankers and hedge-fund managers I
>>> spoke
>>> to
>>> for this article, Clinton's rock-solid support on Wall Street is not
>>> anything that can be dislodged based on a few seemingly off-the-cuff
>>> comments in Boston calculated to protect her left flank. (For the
>>> record,
>>> she quickly walked them back, saying she had "short-handed" her comments
>>> about the failures of trickle-down economics by suggesting, absurdly,
>>> that
>>> corporations don't create jobs.) "I think people are very excited about
>>> Hillary," says one Wall Street investment professional with close ties
>>> to
>>> Washington. "Most people in New York on the finance side view her as
>>> being
>>> very pragmatic. I think they have confidence that she understands how
>>> things
>>> work and that she's not a populist."
>>> The Israel Lobby
>>> Foreign Policy, Aaron David Miller, November 7, 2014 ("Would Hillary Be
>>> Good
>>> For the Holy Land?"):
>>> Should she become president, on one level, better ties with Israel are
>>> virtually guaranteed. . . . Let's not forget that the Clintons dealt
>>> with
>>> Bibi too as prime minister. It was never easy. But clearly it was a lot
>>> more
>>> productive than what we see now. . . . To put it simply, as a more
>>> conventional politician, Hillary is good on Israel and relates to the
>>> country in a way this president doesn't. . . . Hillary is from a
>>> different
>>> generation and functioned in a political world in which being good on
>>> Israel
>>> was both mandatory and smart.
>>> Let's be clear. When it comes to Israel, there is no Bill Clinton 2.0.
>>> The
>>> former president is probably unique among presidents for the depth of
>>> his
>>> feeling for Israel and his willingness to put aside his own frustrations
>>> with certain aspects of Israel's behavior, such as settlements. But this
>>> accommodation applies to Hillary too. Both Bill and Hillary are so
>>> enamored
>>> with the idea of Israel and its unique history that they are prone to
>>> make
>>> certain allowances for the reality of Israel's behavior, such as the
>>> continuing construction of settlements.
>>> Interventionists (i.e., war zealots)
>>> New York Times, June 15, 2014 ("Events in Iraq Open Door for
>>> Interventionist
>>> Revival, Historian Says"):
>>> But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view
>>> of
>>> American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State
>>> Hillary
>>> Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists
>>> are
>>> pouring their hopes.
>>> Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of
>>> foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and
>>> that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy
>>> hitters
>>> at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
>>> "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said, adding
>>> that
>>> the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could
>>> theoretically
>>> be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president. "If she
>>> pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's
>>> something
>>> that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not
>>> going
>>> to call it that; they are going to call it something else."
>>> Old school neocons
>>> New York Times, Jacob Heilbrunn, July 5, 2014 ("The Next Act for Neocons:
>>>
>>> .
>>> Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton"?):
>>> After nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative
>>> movement is back. . . . Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons
>>> may
>>> be
>>> preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham
>>> Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the
>>> driver's seat of American foreign policy. . . .
>>> Other neocons have followed [Robert] Kagan's careful centrism and
>>> respect
>>> for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
>>> Relations, noted in The New Republic this year that "it is clear that in
>>> administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on
>>> controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the
>>> intervention in Libya."
>>> And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the
>>> Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's
>>> president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs
>>> Israel;
>>> and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
>>> It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her
>>> administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national
>>> security
>>> with the likes of Robert Kagan on board. . . . Far from ending, then,
>>> the
>>> neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972, Robert L. Bartley, the
>>> editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who
>>> championed
>>> the early neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as
>>> representing
>>> "something of a swing group between the two major parties." Despite the
>>> partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little
>>> has
>>> changed.
>>> So take that, cynics. There are pockets of vibrant political excitement
>>> stirring in the land over a Hillary Clinton presidency. There are
>>> posters
>>> being made, buttons being appended, checks being prepared, appointments
>>> being coveted. The joint, allied, synergistic constituencies of
>>> plutocracy
>>> and endless war have their beloved candidate. And it's really quite
>>> difficult to argue that their excitement and affection are unwarranted.
>>> Photo: John Moore/Getty Images
>>> Email the author: glenn.greenwald@theintercept.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>