I want to wish everyone a Good FridayandHappy Easter!
A thread will be made available on Monday [April 2, 2018] which is good for the whole week. What I mean is, you can post for up to seven days following the blog entry’s thread. But, I will not be posting blog entry topics. I will have weekend-themed threads on Friday [April 6, 2018].
I have made this decision with consideration of the holiday. When I was growing up, our school system made Thursday, the day prior to Good Friday, our last day. We would have the entire week of Easter off. And then we would return to school that next Monday. I am also keeping in mind a little Spring Break opportunity for us adults.
Last Sunday [March 25, 2018] officially marked the six-month anniversary of Progressives Chat. On Monday [March 26, 2018], my blog entry was about the fact that I have stopped participating and commenting at a person’s blog site. (One that was supposed to be progressive but, when you get right down to it, is fine with the corporate Democratic Party Establishment.) This now has me thinking: What if Progressives Chat was a blog site “for those who more likely voted the 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States not to Bernie Sanders but to Hillary Clinton”? What would belong on the sidebar Recommendations list for The Establishment’sProgressives Chat? I am thinking it would be inconceivable to not list: MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, Washington Monthly, The New Republic, The Daily Beast, and Mother Jones. But, I think I could reserve Recommendations room for discussion forums Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. I would also like to make room for what I think is everyone’s favorite—The Daily Banter. (I like to call it The Democratic Party Establishment Banter. My Establishment’s imaginative thinking would be that it is generally honest and politically astute—making it a Recommendations must!) My current Recommendations list, for Progressives Chat, number 21. In the previous paragraph, I have mentioned for The Establishment’s a total of 10. Would readers mind offering more suggestions? You may also single out individuals. (If this doesn’t appeal to you, please consider this an early April Fools’ Day exercise. Everyone is allowed to have some fun.) Note: Next week is Easter. Monday, April 2, 2018 will be an “Open Week” thread. I am going to use this period as one that is a holiday break. So, I am giving myself a break from coming up with a topic for a new blog entry. This will still make accessing Progressives Chat, and allowing commenting with whatever may come to one’s mind, available for all readers.
From 2011 to 2017, I was posting comments on one particular blog site that was supposedly on progressive politics.
I no longer do this.
My departure from the site was with my last post in December 2017. I did not state that I was leaving. With the benefit of Christmas just days away, and that New Year’s Day 2018 was approaching, I simply stated that that was my last post for the year 2017. And I wished everyone a healthy, happy, safe holiday period. In other words: I timed it with the holiday period as some sort of personal break. And I left without giving an impression that I would not return in 2018.
Three months into 2018, I decided, from time to time, I would go ahead and check blog site for any topic of interest. But, that I would not comment. And I have not commented. This past Saturday [March 24, 2018], I looked over some blog entries. I came across at least two people having commented on my absence. One was made earlier a couple weeks ago. Another was made in early-February.
My departure from that blog site is my decision. It is not coming from some prior, ugly confrontation. It comes from the realization that it was time for me to leave.
I reached the conclusion that, while a number of those participants would like to consider themselves progressives, they are very much in line with the corporatism and neoliberalism of the Democratic Party Establishment.
Among the sources other participating commenters liked to link were from Washington Monthly, MSNBC (and particularly Joy Ann Reid), Milt Shook, and BPICampus[.com]. (Looking at the blog site, prior to posting this entry, I notice the blog author’s Recommendations includes Mother Jones. I was not paying attention enough to notice this before. Mother Jones has become what it is now—garbage.)
One linked article was this: Washington Monthly — ‘If a Blue Wave Materializes, Be Prepared For a Big Tent Democratic Party’. A commenter mentioned me, stating that I would not approve. Of course I don’t. The Democrats’ Big Tent Party is a bullshit narrative; or, as a phrase which springs to mind, it is for the birds. The premise of a Big Tent Party is a coalition of voters loyal to the political party, who have diverse backgrounds, but that it is okay for them to not have a shared ideology—a shared agenda. But, in U.S. politics, it is often necessary to read between the lines. For this Democratic Party, a “Big Tent Party” is packaging. But, ultimately, it is making sure the corporatists and neoliberals, and they are also warmongers, keep control of how the party operates. This includes their controlling, however successfully, just who may win in primaries in very key areas of power—most especially with the presidency.
Since my departure from commenting on that blog site, there have been more threads and comments on the Trump presidency. They are fully on board with Russiagate. In fact, I was singled out, because I had previously posted articles written by Glenn Greenwald, because the commenter doing it said that Greenwald was not a progressive. So, this person, posted the following: NY Magazine — ‘How Glenn Greenwald Made the Russia Scandal Disappear’.
These are examples why it was the right decision, for me, to leave. This was even more clear to me when the author of the blog site wrote about the 17 U.S. Senate Democrats who voted to repeal the Dodd–Frank bill in February. The blog author expressed disgust of those Senate Democrats. The author also noted that 2016 vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s running mate, should never be on another presidential/vice-presidential ticket. (Same goes with all those other Senate Democrats.) But, ultimately, the author figures those applicable Senate Democrats, whose seats are on the 2018 midterm elections schedule, should not be primaried. Had I still been active, and responded, I would have written: Yes—they should all be primaried. And so should those on the schedules for 2020 and 2022—covering all three U.S. Senate classes. For any of them who get re-nominated, they should not win re-election. In fact, I will deny re-nominations to my two Michigan U.S. senators and, if re-nominated, also my general-election votes to Debbie Stabenow [2018] and Gary Peters [2020]. And, should President Donald Trump win re-election, which I am currently predicting will happen, he will again carry Michigan—and, given the presidential/senatorial, same-party coattails outcomes (a first-ever 100-percent rate of the applicable states from 2016!), that would make unseating Gary Peters ripe for the opportunity in 2020. These U.S. senators are all damaging not only to the Democratic Party but also to the nation.
In the past, I was not as politically aware as I am now. That is why I was present at that site for so long. And I certainly did not have this blog site. But, then again, Jimmy Dore turned out to be correct: A lot of people on the left (truly or not so truly on the left) went to sleep while the presidency was in the Democratic column specifically with President Barack Obama. So, Donald Trump won the presidency, in a Republican pickup, in 2016. And that year’s election became exposure to a lot of factions within the Democratic Party. So, now, I perceive that blog site to not be about progressive politics. I don’t believe the people there are actual progressives. Perhaps, from time to time, there will be a blog entry for me to read, which I would have previously commented. But, still, I choose to not comment; to not participate. For the most part, I take that blog site as Conforming Democratic Party Politics.
My departure is good. I did not leave under bad circumstances. I asserted myself in disagreements. I argued them. I did this respectfully. And people there knew I was not on board with them. That is why one person knew me well enough to understand I would not buy into that Washington Monthly report on a “Big Tent Democratic Party.”
Departure.
Yes—it happened, for me, because I knew the time had arrived.
This is good.
At some point during the second half of 2017, and definitely after this was uploaded to YouTube in June, I posted the following video from The Jimmy Dore Show:
I want to alert readers to the one-year anniversary of this excellent piece written by investigative journalist and Consortium News editor Robert Parry.
Parry, who died this past January at age 68, touched on a lot which has turned out to be accurate. I think it is worth sharing.
(Note: I added Consortium News to the sidebar “Recommendations” list.)
Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling, national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive of peace to one pushing for war, including a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
This “trading places” moment was obvious in watching the belligerent tone of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Monday [March 20, 2017] as they impugned the patriotism of any Trump adviser who may have communicated with anyone connected to Russia.
Ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff [D–California #28] acknowledged that there was no hard evidence of any Trump–Russia cabal, but he pressed ahead with what he called “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” a kind of guilt-by-association conspiracy theory that made him look like a mild-mannered version of Joe McCarthy.
My reaction, on Election Night 2016, was that the Democrats blew it with nominating Hillary Clinton. That is because, as I looked at the exit polls from the Rust Belt trio of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan—particularly with a focus on the gender vote from each (which put all three initially in tossup mode)—I could tell that Donald Trump’s path to victory was with his Republican pickups of all three. And, well, after it happened, I thought to myself, “While I did not want Donald Trump to be president of the United States, I also did not want Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States.” Now, I think: “It is not good Donald Trump is president. But, it is good Hillary Clinton is not president.” Side Note: Sunday [March 25, 2018] marks the six-month anniversary of Progressives Chat. It launched [Monday,] September 25, 2017 here: Progressives Chat — ‘Day One’. The weekend leading into that first official day was this preview: Progressives Chat — ‘OPEN’. That time flew by. I’m glad for this blog. And for the people here. I don’t know how long it will last. I will continue to appreciate it while it does. Thank you, everyone, and particularly cathyx, who helped guide me with the creation of this site (for example, with how to do the layout). Progressives Chat is my first blog. And now for this Open Weekend [OW]…
The fourth and last installment of my birthday salutes to music artists, and for this month of March 2018, goes to my favorite female singer.
Chaka Khan turns 65 on March 23, 2018.
Born Yvette Marie Stevens, on March 23, 1953, in Chicago, Illinois, and in a bohemian household and raised in the area of Hyde Park, Chaka Khan’s music career dates back to the early-1970s when she was the lead singer of the R&B and funk group Rufus.
Her siblings are Taka Boom, of The Undisputed Truth and The Glass Family, and Mark Stevens, of The Jamaica Boys.
Chaka Khan got her name when she was a member of the Black Panthers. The name Chaka means “woman of fire.”
The winner of ten Grammy Awards, over the span of four consecutive decades (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s), and with over 20 nominations, Chaka Khan was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 2011.
The following are ten personally selected favorites in music. I divided them from separate periods of her recording career. The first five are from when she was with Rufus. The next five are from a solo Chaka Khan.
The first from Rufus is “Tell Me Something Good,” written by Stevie Wonder, which won them the 1974 Grammy for R&B Duo or Group Vocal Performance. The last with the group was the final chart, “Ain’t Nobody,” written by Rufus keyboardist David “Hawk” Wolinski, which won them their second Grammy for R&B Duo or Group Vocal Performance for 1983. (On March 14 was Quincy Jones’s 85th birthday. Khan worked with him numerous times. Jones produced the group’s 1979 R&B/disco-themed album Masterjam, with its standout “Do You Love What You Feel,” not included among the below videos.) I will note the third song, 1975’s “Sweet Thing,” was co-written by Khan with Rufus guitarist Tony Maiden.
The next group are from a solo Chaka Khan. She started branching out during her period with Rufus with 1978’s “I’m Every Woman,” written by spouses Nickolas Ashford (1941–2011) and Valerie Simpson, and later covered by Whitney Houston (1963–2012) with the motion picture and its soundtrack The Bodyguard (1992), winner of the 1993 Grammy for Album of the Year. Chaka Khan’s biggest solo hit was 1984’s “I Feel For You,” written by the late great Prince (in the year of his smash LP and film Purple Rain), which won her that year’s Grammy for R&B Female Vocal Performance. (It also won Prince, who wrote it in the late-1970s, the Grammy for R&B Song.)
Here are a couple videos in which Chaka Khan is interviewed. The first interview is from 1976. She is on The Mike Douglas Show. Mike Douglas asks Chaka Khan, then 22 (but 23 that year), about her success with Rufus and whether she anticipates leaving the group. The second interview is from 2014. Chaka Khan, then 61, was asked by Wendy Williams, on The Wendy Williams Show, about personal matters including aging and a recent stint in rehab.
In the third (of four) entries saluting the milestone birthdays of music artists I greatly appreciate, it turns out March 22, 2018 marks the 75th birthday of a R&B and jazz musician and guitarist.
George Benson was born March 22, 1943 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He has been married to his wife, Johnnie Lee, since 1965 and with whom he has seven children. He is a Jehovah’s Witness.
His career dating back to the 1950s, and a former child prodigy, Benson’s most popular period came during the second half of the 1970s and through the first half of the 1980s. (The below section of music has the first five from the 1970s and the last five from the 1980s.) “This Masquerade” won Benson the 1976 Grammy in the top category Record of the Year. (Written by Leon Russell, who was nominated for Song of the Year, “This Masquerade” came from Breezin’, whose title track is featured below, which was nominated for Album of Year.) From that point forward, Benson won nine more Grammys for numerous recordings so commonly associated with him: “On Broadway” (1978; so memorably featured at the beginning of Bob Fosse’s 1979 film All That Jazz), his 1980 album Give Me the Night (with the title track and the LP produced by, as saluted here last week, Quincy Jones), and more modest successes from his albums like In Your Eyes (1983) and 20/20 (1984).
In the meantime, here ten five personal favorites (of mine) from the music of George Benson:
Here are two videos: The first is part of a 1996 interview with Larry King, then with CNN, talking with George Benson about keeping jazz fresh. The second is a brief clip, from 2016, of George Benson in a short thank-you speech as he is honored with the Jazz Walk of Fame from Kansas City, Missouri. (I originally had an interview clip of Tavis Smiley and George Benson. That was taken down at YouTube.)
On Monday [March 19, 2018], two very good analysts, Jamarl Thomas and Hard Bastard, had a discussion on Thomas’s program.
They talk much about Jimmy Dore. But, they also discuss The Young Turks. They discuss a lot. And I won’t reveal too much of what gets covered—otherwise, there would be not point posting it.
The discussion lasts a good hour. (Running time says 70 minutes.)
I will have blog entries on Thursday and Friday. So, this blog entry, posted Tuesday [March 20, 2018], cancels out having one on Wednesday.
Mainstream news broadcasters in this current period remind me of one fictionalized from a past generation: Ted Baxter, from the fictional WJM in Minneapolis, Minnesota, played by Ted Knight (1923–1986), from The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Watch this video and, perhaps, you may understand what I mean. It was 41 years ago on this date that marked the final episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, on CBS, on March 19, 1977. Please take a few short minutes for this clip.
Here from The Jimmy Dore Show, but without the intended humor of TheMary Tyler Moore Show and the character Ted Baxter, let us look at some of the “Current News–Baxter Broadcasters”:
UPDATE—03.19.2018 @ 01:45 p.m. ET: This video just uploaded to YouTube. It is commentary fairly in line with the blog topic:
I want Hillary Clinton to continue speaking her mind most especially on her Election 2016 loss to Donald Trump.
It is important Hillary Clinton expresses herself. It is also important U.S. citizens be aware, just in case they are not sufficiently informed, where Hillary Clinton is coming from. (And we can gain even more insight from those who are #StillWithHer and where they are coming from.) I appreciate Hillary Clinton letting us know what she thinks and feels. I encourage the former First Lady of the United States, the former U.S. Senator from New York, and the 67th U.S. Secretary of State to continue speaking for however much longer she will. It makes my voting easier. And now for this Open Weekend [OW]…
“If you look at the map of the United States, there’s all that red in the middle where Trump won,” Clinton said. “I win the coast, I win, you know, Illinois and Minnesota, places like that.”
“I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product,” Clinton continued. “So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards.”
Donald Trump won the 2016 United States presidential election, in a Republican pickup, with the 24 states, worth 206 electoral votes, carried by his party’s losing nominee from 2012, Mitt Romney. Trump then flipped six states (indicated in light red on the above electoral map): Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump also won a pickup of the 2nd Congressional District of Maine. Total: 30 states, plus Maine #02, for an initial electoral-vote score of 306. (Both Trump and Clinton had faithless electors. That is why I use the word initial.)
The analyses can be broken down this simply:
In 2012, as the losing nominee, Mitt Romney carried three of the Top 10 populous states: Texas (38 electoral votes), Georgia (16), and a Republican pickup of North Carolina (15). Those are worth 69 electoral votes. The Top 10 populous states represent 256 electoral votes. So, the re-elected Democratic incumbent 44th U.S. president Barack Obama carried the other seven states and their 187 electoral votes. What did Trump do? He flipped four which were in the 2012 column for Obama. Naming them and where they rank: No. 3 Florida (29), No. 6 Pennsylvania (20), No. 7 Ohio (18), and No. 10 Michigan (16). Those comprise +83 electoral votes. Added to the Romney/Trump states and their 206 electoral votes, that was enough for Trump to win the election.
Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore sensed it coming. And it manifest. Trump won Election 2016 primarily with his Republican pickups of a quartet of Rust Belt states: Ohio (18), a long-running bellwether state; Wisconsin (10), last Republican for Ronald Reagan’s re-election of 49 states and 525 electoral votes in 1984; and both Pennsylvania (20) and Michigan (16), last Republican for George Bush and his 40 states and 426 electoral votes in 1988. These four states comprise +64 electoral votes. Added to the Romney/Trump states and their 206 electoral votes, they were exactly enough to elect Trump.
I want to go over some more details just how badly Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump.
Losing Ohio and Florida were losing two bellwether states. But losing both Pennsylvania and Michigan was even more profound. Over the last ten [10] presidential elections of 1980 to 2016 (personal disclosure: I was ages 9 to 45 in those years), the only presidential loser—in both the Electoral College and U.S. Popular Vote—who carried both states was 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry. The two states voted for the winners in the five consecutive elections of the 1980s (Republicans Ronald Reagan and George Bush) and 1990s (Democrat Bill Clinton); for popular-vote winner Al Gore in 2000; for Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama in 2008 (and his re-election in 2012); and for Republican pickup winner Donald Trump in 2016. These two states are not passe. Pennsylvania and Michigan voted for 8 of the last 10 winners. When considering states’ reliability in voting for presidential winners, I would score states which voted for the popular-vote winners of 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 with half-credit (while states which carried for those years’ presidential winners get full credit). Given 2000, you can add half-credit to both Pennsylvania and Michigan. So, this means Pennsylvania and Michigan were good for 8.5 of the last 10 winners—and that is a reliability rate, during this specific time frame, of 85 percent. Ohio is the only state which voted for all winners (full 100 percent). Nevada (carriage for 2016 Hillary Clinton) is at 95 percent. New Mexico (carriage for 2000 Al Gore and 2016 Hillary Clinton) and Florida (carriage for unseated 1992 George Bush) are at 90 percent. And then comes this Rust Belt duo at 85 percent. Pennsylvania and Michigan—demonstrating they were willing to vote for Obama and Trump (covering both major parties)—are not to be dismissed. (By the way: Fellow Rust Belt Wisconsin voted the same as Pennsylvania and Michigan, from 1980 to 2016, with exception of 1988. It was ahead one election cycle having flipped and carried for Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis.)
Comparing the Democratic Numbers: 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton underperformed 2012 re-elected Barack Obama. The national 2012-to-2016 shift, toward Republican pickup winner Donald Trump, was +2,115,581 votes. The Rust Belt quartet of Republican pickups—Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan—shifted 1,663,025 votes. So, 78.60 percent of Trump’s national shift came from just those four states. This is why I sum it up as Trump having won Election 2016 primarily through the Rust Belt.
As the 2016 Republican presidential pickup winner, Donald Trump also flipped a host of [pickup] states’ counties (not in his political party’s column in decades). Among them: Wisconsin’s Kenosha (Kenosha, 1972) and Vernon (Viroque, 1984); Pennsylvania’s Erie (Erie, 1984), Luzerne (Wilkes–Barre, 1988), and Northampton (Easton, 1988); Michigan’s Isabella (Mount Pleasant, 1988) and Saginaw (Saginaw, 1984); Ohio’s Montgomery (Dayton, 1988), Portage (Ravenna, 1988), and Trumbull (Warren, 1972); Iowa’s Clinton (Clinton, 1984); Des Moines (Burlington, 1972), Dubuque (Dubuque, 1956), and Muscatine (Muscatine, 1984). This also happened with a county in a notable state which did not carry for Trump: Colorado’s Pueblo (Pueblo, 1972).
I would conclude that Hillary Clinton lost very badly. Not badly in a way like the wrong side of an electoral landslide (carriage of ten or less states). But, profoundly badly. To lose states—previously considered among the “Blue Firewall”—which hadn’t carried Republican since the 1980s. To lose state counties which hadn’t carried Republican since 1980s Reagan and/or Bush or 1972 Nixon or 1956 Eisenhower. To lose to one of her three suggested—as reported by WikiLeaks—“Pied Piper Candidates,” the ex-host of a NBC reality-competition series. That is bad. Profoundly bad.
This latest thing from Hillary Clinton is a reminder—but as just one more example—why it is good she is not the 45th president of the United States. (Since he is among 17 from the U.S. Senate’s Democratic caucus who recently joined Republicans to vote for possibly eliminating the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, I can also mention it is good Tim Kaine is not the 48th vice president of the United States.) Hillary Clinton is not only out of touch. Hillary Clinton lacks, to put it kindly, good judgment.
I leave this blog entry with a video covering this very topic from Jamarl Thomas. He includes a map of the United States which is based on the carriages of the United States’ 435 congressional districts for Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.
This is the second (of four) blog entries for the month of March noting the milestone birthday of a person in music who I greatly appreciate.
Quincy Jones—spectacularly versatile and experienced—turns 85. He was born March 14, 1933 in Chicago, Illinois. Wikipedia describes “Q” as follows: “[Quincy Jones is] an American record producer, actor, conductor, arranger, composer, musician, television producer, film producer, instrumentalist, magazine founder, entertainment company executive, and humanitarian.”
When it comes to all that—why go on?!
There has been a whole lotta living in Quincy Jones—at least from what we know of his career, which dates back a good six decades—and he used to be married to Emmy nominated actress Peggy Lipton of the 1968–1973 ABC drama series The Mod Squad. They are the parents of actress Rashida Jones.
As you can see, from the below videos, Quincy Jones composed the opening theme music for the NBC comedy series The Bill Cosby Show (1969–1971) and Sanford and Son (1972–1977).
We know Quincy Jones perhaps most especially from his period of producing albums for the late Michael Jackson: Off the Wall (1979), Thriller (the 1983 Grammy winner for Album of the Year), and Bad (1987, another Album of the Year Grammy nomination). But, he also produced commercially successfully albums in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s under his name: Sounds…and Stuff Like That!! (1978); his 1981 Grammy nominee for Album of the Year, The Dude; and his 1990 Grammy winner for Album of the Year, Back on the Block. Jones won Producer of the Year Grammys for The Dude, Thriller, and Back on the Block.
Quincy Jones has received Oscar nominations for scoring In Cold Blood (1967), The Wiz (1978), and The Color Purple (1985), among his overall count of seven. Although he never won a competitive Oscar, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences awarded Jones the 1994 Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.
Quincy Jones won the 1976–77 [prime-time] Emmy for Achievement in Music Composition for a Series (Dramatic Underscore) for the landmark ABC miniseries Roots. Quincy Jones was among the recipients at the Kennedy Center Honors in 2001.
In the meantime, I will present ten [10] selections of music from Quincy Jones. (Although they are separate, the opening and closing theme to The Bill Cosby Show should really count as a two-part.)
There was a recent and outstanding interview between host Katie Halper and Jimmy Dore. As a subscriber of several podcasts, I happened to come across it. And it the subject of this blog entry.
I have embedded that interview at the top.
Halper and Dore discuss a number of topics, as one can see from the title, and this includes the divide between those who supported Hillary Clinton and those who supported Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.
This embedded interview is 55 minutes. There is more. But, I am not a Patreon member. So, this is at least something. It is a lot.
There is one part of the interview in which a song is played of the late folk singer Phil Ochs (12.19.1940–04.09.1976), above. It is his 1966 satirical recording “Love Me, I’m a Liberal.” (More info: Wikipedia — “Love Me, I’m a Liberal”.) It says a lot with what we have today. I will share the lyrics. (They are easy to find on the Internet.)
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers Tears ran down my spine I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy As though I’d lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming He got what he asked for this time So love me, love me Love me, I’m a liberal
I go to Civil Rights rallies And I put down the old D.A.R. I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don’t talk about revolution That’s going a little bit too far So love me, love me Love me, I’m a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen My faith in the system restored And I’m glad the commies were thrown out Of the AFL–CIO board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros As long as they don’t move next door So love me, love me Love me, I'm a liberal
The people of old Mississippi Should all hang their heads in shame I can’t understand how their minds work What’s the matter—don’t they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children I hope the cops take down your name So love me, love me Love me, I’m a liberal
Yes, I read New Republic and Nation I’ve learned to take every view You know, I’ve memorized Lerner and Golden I feel like I’m almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea There’s no one more red, white and blue So love me, love me Love me, I’m a liberal
I vote for the Democratic Party They want the UN to be strong I attend all the Pete Seeger concerts He sure gets me singing those songs
And I’ll send all the money you ask for But don’t ask me to come on along So love me, love me Love me, I’m a liberal
Sure once I was young and impulsive I wore every conceivable pin Even went to the socialist meetings Learned all the old union hymns
Ah, but I’ve grown older and wiser And that’s why I’m turning you in So love me, love me Love me, I’m a liberal
This current month of March will feature blog entries on the milestone birthdays—on separate dates—of four artists whose music I greatly appreciate and who have had a lasting impact. (The “Entertainment Weekend” threads, which will be suspended for the remainder of March, will return on hold Friday, April 6, 2018. That is the weekend following Good Friday and Easter.) Here is the first of those four artists…
James Taylor, who has won three Grammys for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance (1971’s “You’ve Got a Friend,” 1977’s “Handy Man,” and an updated 2001’s “Don’t Let Me Be Lonely Tonight”), turns 70 on March 12, 2018.
Born March 12, 1948, in Boston, Massachusetts, Taylor’s career breakthrough came in 1970 with “Fire and Rain,” which garnered him 1970 Grammy nominations for both Record of the Year and Song of the Year.
His biggest LP hit was JT, which garnered him a 1977 Grammy nomination for Album of the Year, and which included “Secret O’ Life,” “Traffic Jam” and, my personal favorite, “Your Smiling Face.” As noted above, not only did Taylor win a Grammy for his pop vocal work but JT won Producer of the Year for Peter Asher. (This was the year The Eagles won Record of the Year for “Hotel California” and Album of the Year was awarded to Fleetwood Mac for Rumours.)
Taylor did not have as great a level of commercial success in the 1980s. (Not to imply that all good music must be a commercial hit!) But, his albums That’s Why I’m Here (1985), which included the self-titled track as well as “Only One” and “Everyday,” and Never Die Young (1988), with the self-titled track as well as “Sun On the Moon” and “Sweet Potato Pie,” were pretty good. (I thought Never Die Young was underappreciated.)
In 2016, Taylor was among the honorees at the 39th Kennedy Center Honors.
James Taylor was married to fellow singer–songwriter Carly Simon (who won the 1988 Oscar for “Let the River Run,” from Mike Nichols’s Working Girl), from 1972–1983; Kathryn Walker, the retired Emmy winning actress (1976’s The Adams Chronicles), from 1985–1995; and he has been married since 2001 to Caroline Smedvig, an executive with Boston Symphony Orchestra. He has four children.
Here is the trailer showing James Taylor—as an actor and as a lead—in Monte Hellman’s Two-Lane Blacktop (1971). It is available on Blu-ray and DVD from Criterion Collection. Two-Lane Blacktop also stars a trio, each no longer alive, who are the great Warren Oates (1928–1982), Laurie Bird (1953–1979), and The Beach Boys’s Dennis Wilson (1944–1983).…
Here is a two-part interview, from 2015, between Tavis Smiley and James Taylor:
This “Open Weekend” thread is a regular thing for Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Please take this Progressives Chat to wherever you may want it to go.
There is a person who has a blog, and says he is progressive, and at whose site I used to post responses. This went on for a good five years. I recently made the decision to stop because it became very apparent the author and every respondent, expect for myself, is not actually progressive but merely a self-identified Democratic Party voter.
I find most of those who, after Election 2016 resulted in a Republican pickup of the presidency for Donald Trump, and that we get a lot of Democratic Party Loyalists playing Go Fish with trying to figure out who should be their party’s 2020 nominee, that they were [in 2016] and still are [here in 2018] out of touch.
They remain out of touch because they have no idea why the Democrats lost the White House with nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. (They lost the White House because of income inequality not being addressed by the two-term Democratic incumbent president, Barack Obama, and that they were not convinced his would-be party successor—one with a long, cozy relationship with Wall Street and who was a board member on Walmart—would effectively confront and possibly solve that crisis.) They think they can look at Donald Trump’s behavior and assume that that was disqualifying. They think that Hillary Clinton appearing to have been better behaved made her more qualified. They think the presidency of the United States calls for qualifications. It does not. It has constitutional requirements for eligibility. There are differences in their meanings between those words qualified and eligible. An example: I am eligible. I meet the requirements of eligibility to be president of the United States.
This comes from people who, given the choice between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as the two leading candidates for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination, chose Hillary Clinton. This is the same group who thinks that time didn’t move forward, and they couldn’t go wrong with the Clintons. Plenty went wrong with Bill Clinton. In addition to being a Democratic Party U.S. president who provided leadership like a Republican, he had a lot of related losses: In 1980, after one term, he was unseated as Governor of Arkansas before winning it back in 1982. In the 1994 midterm elections, and his second year in office as the 42nd U.S. president, Clinton’s Democratic Party lost majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. The Democratic Party, under Clinton, also lost the U.S. Senate and the majority number of governorships—and never won them back during the remainder of Clinton’s presidency. In 2000, Clinton’s vice president Al Gore lost his bid for the presidency to a neoconservative governor (and draft dodger) from Texas. In 2008, Clinton’s wife Hillary lost her bid to win the Democratic Party presidential nomination to a four-year U.S. senator, from her birth state Illinois, who would go on to win the general election to become the 44th U.S. president. In 2016, she lost her bid for the presidency to a series-television, reality-competition host. So, despite Bill Clinton having been a four-term governor of Arkansas and a two-term U.S. president, the Clintons have had lots of electoral losses.
These Democrats Party Loyalists—who would naturally like to believe they have their fingers on the pulse of the U.S. voters but, in reality, don’t even have that on their political party—will likely not want to consider the following.…
Joe Biden will never be president of the United States.
Joe Biden should never be president of the United States.
Joe Biden voted for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq. No one who was in Congress, and who voted to go to war in Iraq, was later elected to the presidency of the United States. The last two losing Democratic presidential nominees—John Kerry (2004) and Hillary Clinton (2016)—voted for that war. The Republican nominee from 2008, John McCain, voted for that war. They all lost.
No one who voted to go to war in Iraq was later elected to the presidency of the United States, so far in history, and it is likely to remain that way just as turned out that no member of Congress who voted to go to war in Vietnam was later elected to the presidency of the United States.
Why are there any Democratic Party Loyalists pushing for the 47th vice president? They are doing it just to toss out a name that, just as it has been the game of the rest of corporate Democratic Party Establishment, deliberately avoids Bernie Sanders.
However much of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries results one believes, the most telling sign of where this party base is going is with the youngest voting-age group: 17–29 (in primaries)/18–29 (in general elections). In general elections, there are four commonly recorded, exit-polled age groups: 18–29; 30–44; 45–64; and 65+. The youngest age group nationally carried for Bernie Sanders with at least 70 percent of their vote. In the first two contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, he received over 80 percent of their vote. (He reached that level in the third, Nevada.) In the Top 10 populous states Barack Obama carried with re-election in 2012, but with the exceptions of New York and California (which was late on the schedule and not exit-polled), Sanders won 80 percent or more of those under 30. In the closed primary state Pennsylvania, he won over 80 percent from that age group.
The significance of the 18–29 vote is this: They are the first age group to carry for Democrats. After the 1980s, the Democrats lost in the U.S. Popular Vote only once—John Kerry in 2004. The only voting-age group which nationally carried for Kerry was 18–29. (He lost in the U.S. Popular Vote by –2.46—that is, 48.27% for Kerry; 50.73% for re-elected George W. Bush—but won 18–29 voters by +9 points.)
In the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, Bernie Sanders won the two youngest age groups: 17–29 and 30–44. Hillary Clinton won the two oldest age groups: 45–64 and 65+. Hillary carried the age groups which were nationally carried by the 2012 presidential election by losing Republican nominee Mitt Romney. They voted in 2016 for Republican presidential pickup winner Donald Trump. Those 45 and older, in 2016, were born 1971 or earlier. They were there for the 1990s Clintons. To a lot of them, Bill Clinton was to Election 1992 what John Kennedy was to Election 1960—young (for a U.S. president), charming (and that was how a lot of people felt then of Hillary), and a real winner. (“In 1996, he won re-election—the first two-term Democratic Party U.S. president to do so since the four terms won, during the 1930s and 1940s, by Franklin Roosevelt.” Then again—had Kennedy not been assassinated, in 1963, he would have been re-elected in 1964.) But, we are not in the 1990s anymore. The Clintons are definitely not gold. And Joe Biden is no longer actively in political office—not as a United States senator from Delaware, and not as the 47th vice president of the United States.
For those who truly think Donald Trump will get unseated, with Election 2020, by his Democratic challenger, it helps to correctly identify specifically who offers the kind of leadership which has the ability to move people to let that person unseat an incumbent U.S. president. The following are examples why that person will, and should, not be Joe Biden.
I took notice of Greenwald’s writings in Salon in, if I am recalling this accurately, either 2008 or 2009.
I appreciate that he awakened me to the Democratic Party Establishment’s ways of operating. For one example: They act as if they are helpless but, in reality, are “complicit” in delivering harmful policies—and will do so, when the excuses certainly cannot fly any longer, while they are empowered. That that was certainly the case with the supermajority U.S. Senate that had when they were shaping the Affordable Care Act.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about what seemed to be a glaring (and quite typical) scam perpetrated by Congressional Democrats: all year long, they insisted that the White House and a majority of Democratic Senators vigorously supported a public option, but the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the filibuster: sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it, they insisted. Democratic pundits used that claim to push for “filibuster reform,” arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate, then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but which the evil filibuster now prevents. In response, advocates of the public option kept arguing that the public option could be accomplished by reconciliation — where only 50 votes, not 60, would be required — but Obama loyalists scorned that reconciliation proposal, insisting (at least before the Senate passed a bill with 60 votes) that using reconciliation was Unserious, naive, procedurally impossible, and politically disastrous.
But all those claims were put to the test — all those bluffs were called — once the White House decided that it had to use reconciliation to pass a final health care reform bill. That meant that any changes to the Senate bill (which had passed with 60 votes) — including the addition of the public option — would only require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long that they had. Great news for the public option, right? Wrong. As soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically vanished. Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible to pass it. Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed all year long they needed — a “majority rule” system — they began concocting ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes.
Glenn Greenwald also wrote a beautiful piece about the Democrats, while working on the policy, including the Affordable Care Act, playing a game of “Rotating Villain.” This is a contrivance in which, just when it looks like Democrats will shape a bill to their liking, in comes one spoiler who comes off as a Rotating Villain. This was appreciated by me for better focusing on the games played by the Democratic Party, when they are empowered (and they had more seats in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate during Barack Obama’s first two years than at any point during the presidency of George W. Bush and, up to this point, Donald Trump.) Unfortunately, I did not immediately find that piece. I think Salon eliminated it deliberately. But, from a list below, are some other worthwhile pieces.
Here are more recommendations, with ten [10] each from three different publications, of excellence by Glenn Greenwald:
Here are three videos, with Glenn Greenwald, related to the 2014 Oscar winning documentary feature Citizenfour:
In 2014, Glenn Greenwald guested on Free Speech TV’s Democracy Now. He spoke with host Amy Goodman about his first meeting with Edward Snowden.
Published February 26, 2015, TimesTalk’s David Carr, a media columnist for New York Times, passed away shortly after he interviewed Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, and Glenn Greenwald.
On February 22, 2015, Citizenfour—produced by Laura Poitras, Mathilde Bonnefoy, and Dirk Wilutzky—won the 2014 Oscar for best documentary feature. Here is video from that moment…
