Ask George Smith e-mail: webmaster at dick destiny
Lunch from The Slaw Dogs on N. Lake in Pasadena.
“The Traditional,” a quarter-pound chili dog with cheese and onions. Filling, one was all I needed. The dog has a good snap to it, too. The chili is also just the right consistency. You can eat the dog by hand without the topping glopping all over.
I love chili dogs and I’m not fussy. The Slaw Dogs’ passes muster — A.
Permalink Comments off
As the demand for high-skilled workers continues to grow, American voters express relatively little confidence in either major party presidential candidate when it comes to their ability to help American workers prepare to compete in today’s economy …
When asked what kind of job Donald Trump would do when it comes to helping Americans get the skills and training they need to get a well-paying job, roughly three-in-ten voters say he would do an excellent (15%) or good job (16%). A solid majority say Trump would do only a fair (18%) or poor (47%) job.
Hillary Clinton’s ratings are similar.
The titling for this post is a little off. And that’s due to the questions posed by Pew.
What I’d like to see are answers to whether or not voters have taken to retraining over the past couple of decades and whether or not it has worked for them. My suspicions are that many have re-trained. And they’ve either gotten nowhere, been ripped off or had to settle for positions of much lower pay than before they were persuaded to participate in new training for great jobs of the future.
You know what I think. Do you know why I post the tuneage? Reprogramming. And it’s the only retraining I can afford.
Right to left: Jimmy Buffett, Jon Bon Jovi, HRC, Paul McCartney. Not undergoing training for jobs of the future.
Permalink Comments off
Laugh at all the special bootlicks and shoeshiners, n.B., the New Yorker and music journalists.
The gold cup winners:
The writings and posts on Bob Dylan winning a Nobel by people who’d have a hard time naming even one of the many scientists in the last 70 years or so who won Nobels for work that pushed civilization much farther ahead than lyrics from classic rock and pop.
Permalink Comments off
Bits from the Hollywood Reporter:
“Tickets for the event started at $33,400 and went as high as $100,000 …
“The dinner marked yet another campaign stop by the Clintons in the area. Former President Bill Clinton was the last to circle through town when he hosted a $100,000-per-couple event at the home of Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg on Sept. 13 …
“Clinton has received much more public support in Hollywood throughout the election than rival Trump, who found himself defending yet another round of sexual assault claims on Thursday.”
Stronger together. And “I’m with her.” But only in a very specific way with regards to California. The state where I live is not in play. But it is very useful for tons of cash money because, obviously, it’s where so many of the swells of the meritocracy are.
Elton John performed and furnished a ringing endorsement. In the Hamptons a month or two ago it was Jon Bon Jovi, Paul McCartney and Jimmy Buffett.
Brought to you by the best of the culture of lickspittle.
To refresh your memory, the Vermont senator is an independent who likes to call himself a “democratic socialist.??? He ran for the nomination on a platform of New Deal–style economic interventions such as single-payer health insurance, a regulatory war on big banks, and free tuition at public universities. Sanders was well to the left of where modern Democratic presidential candidates ordinarily stand, and in most elections, he would have been dismissed as a marginal figure, more petrified wood than presidential timber. But 2016 was different. It was a volcanic year, with the middle class erupting over a recovery that didn’t include them and the obvious indifference of Washington, D.C., toward the economic suffering in vast reaches of the country.
For once, a politician like Sanders seemed to have a chance with the public. He won a stunning victory over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, and despite his advanced age and avuncular finger-wagging, he was wildly popular among young voters. Eventually he was flattened by the Clinton juggernaut, of course, but Sanders managed to stay competitive almost all the way to the California primary in June.
Now, consider the recent history of the Democratic Party. Beginning in the 1970s, it has increasingly become an organ of this [Washington Post professional] class. Affluent white-collar professionals are today the voting bloc that Democrats represent most faithfully, and they are the people whom Democrats see as the rightful winners in our economic order. Hillary Clinton, with her fantastic résumé and her life of striving and her much-commented-on qualifications, represents the aspirations of this class almost perfectly. An accomplished lawyer, she is also in with the foreign-policy in crowd; she has the respect of leading economists; she is a familiar face to sophisticated financiers. She knows how things work in the capital. To Washington Democrats, and possibly to many Republicans, she is not just a candidate but a colleague, the living embodiment of their professional worldview.
In Bernie Sanders and his “political revolution,??? on the other hand, I believe these same people saw something kind of horrifying: a throwback to the low-rent Democratic politics of many decades ago. Sanders may refer to himself as a progressive, but to the affluent white-collar class, what he represented was atavism, a regression to a time when demagogues in rumpled jackets pandered to vulgar public prejudices against banks and capitalists and foreign factory owners. Ugh.
Permalink Comments off
Dept. of Just Sayin’:
Overheard at the dollar store an hour ago.
Volunteer for a registration effort: “Are you registered to vote?”
Woman: “No one to vote for.”
Featuring harmonica player Blind Poison Castorseed.
‘
Permalink Comments off
The Tomahawks are back in use, those missiles Americans love to see, being shot off at night, almost always in bombardment of people or desperately poor and wrecked places which have no equivalent method of retaliation. This time, fired by the USS Nitze, at targets vaguely indentified as hostile radar sites in Yemen.
And it’s part of the war in Yemen, waged by American-proxy Saudi Arabia, whose military is adept at bombing civilians, carrying out various war crimes and atrocities in that country.
“The U.S. has been providing logistical support and refueling to the Saudi-led coalition battling the Houthis and other rebels,” reads an NBC News report. The Houthis are the ones being bombed by the Saudis — with the best US-made weapons and training their money can buy.
This most recent exhibition of American military might came about as a result of a missile attack that badly damaged a United Arab Emirate ship conducting operations off Yemen.
NBC news describes it this way:
An Emirati-leased Swift boat came under rocket fire from Houthis in the area last week, suffering serious damage. The United Arab Emirates described the vessel as carrying humanitarian aid and having a crew of civilians, but Houthis said it was being used as a warship.
And here we see the American news media being somewhat deceptive, as is its fallback position when something uncomfortable has been uncovered and judged necessary to finess.
Because the “leased Swift boat” doesn’t quite pass muster as a humanitarian ferry. In fact, any web survey of it (the ship is designated HSV-2, paradoxically, similar to the mouth/venereal virus) shows it has spent most of its years as a logistical support unit in the US Navy.
Indeed, for the USN, HSV-2 did not look like a “ferry” at all. It looked like a warship.
And even the densest among us will have to concede something that looks like a warship, even if only a logistical one, is fair game in a bitter civil war.
As a consequence of the attack on the HSV-2, we sent two warships into the area, probably knowing full well they’d draw some manner of attack. Which they did. This, in turn, can lead to what our Sec’y of Defense, Ashton Carter, weirdly might call a virtuous cycle, one in which the US military deliveries retaliations upon mostly defenseless targets all out-of-proportion to the nature of whatever insult to American power has previously occurred.
Virtuous cycles, a much better term than hit jobs, right?
Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East.
Permalink Comments off
I was house-sitting a couple days ago and one of the books on hand was a copy of Roger Ebert’s movie reviews. (Rates are pretty cheap if you’re in Pasadena. I’ll go for some cheap cava, a steak, charcoal to grill it, a few books and unlimited access to whatever’s on your tv while sitting. I take care of all security and your pets’ needs.)
On Roger & Me, Michael Moore’s breakout work, his documentary to still lead all others:
“Roger & Me” does have a message to deliver– a message about Corporate Newspeak and the ways in which profits really are more important to big American corporations than the lives of their workers. The movie is a counterattack against the amoral pragmatism of modern management theory, against the sickness of the “In Search of Excellence” mentality.
Moore has struck a nerve with this movie. There are many Americans, I think, who have not lost the ability to think and speak in plain English– to say what they mean. These people were driven mad by the 1980s, in which a new kind of bureaucratese was spawned by Ronald Reagan and his soulmates– a new manner of speech by which it became possible to “address the problem” while saying nothing and yet somehow conveying optimism.
Hillary Clinton, who barring the end of the world, I’m assuming will be the next president of the United States is just the person described in the above cut-out.
You can read her election book, “co-authored” with Tim Kaine, or sift through the e-mails dumped by Wikileaks and others and it’s all the same. Someone who never met a situation or position that couldn’t be finessed with language, someone saying she’s a centrist, a pragmatist, or constructing a private position that has to differ from a public position because “Abraham Lincoln,” the movie.
It is part of what I call the Thomas Frank blues, the recognition that the Democratic Party, as it’s running in this election cycle, stands only for the status quo of money and so-called meritocracy. And that four years from now it will be the same, the national rage worse, inequality greater, more war and social unrest, no progress on anything, but with the wealthy and the president still proclaiming the country to be stronger than ever, first in everything, the indispensible nation.
Said another way, from the Conversation:
The Democratic Party in America bears a significant share of the blame for the rise of Donald Trump. As Thomas Frank describes in his book, “Listen, Liberal: Whatever Happened to the Party of the People???? It has become too much the party of the “Professional Class???- those with graduate degrees – and has all but abandoned its historical role as the party of labor and the little guy.
History suggests that the inchoate rage Trump is tapping into may solidify into something far more ominous than a wall on our southern border. Hillary Clinton seems constitutionally incapable of addressing that rage constructively; I have my doubts that she is even capable of understanding or empathizing with it. That means it is up to those who do understand it to make our voices heard in a way that can’t be ignored.
It was now Clinton’s turn to show her stuff. If Trump had responded to Holt like a voluble golf caddy being asked to discuss the finer points of ice hockey, Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better.
What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question …
In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016.
Of Harding’s speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, “It reminds me of a string of wet sponges.??? Mencken characterized Harding’s rhetoric as “so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash.??? So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.
Permalink Comments off
Hillary Clinton Said She Made The Argument For Openness In Trade Since American And Foreign Manufacturers Wanted Access To Markets Oversees. “I thought I was doing pretty well. I’m making the case, making the argument for openness, fairness, transparency, claiming, look, Malaysia manufacturers want access to markets overseas as much as American manufacturers, Indian firms want fair treatment when they invest abroad, just as we do, Chinese artists want to protect their creations from piracy, every society seeking to develop a strong research and technology sector needs intellectual property protection to make trade fair as well as freer. Developing countries have to do a better job of improving productivity, raising labor conditions, and protecting the environment, on and on.??? [06262014 HWA Remarks for GTCR (Chicago, IL).docx, p. 5]
Clinton Said That The United States Saw Fewer Jobs With Greater Competition With Free Trade But Thoughtful Policies In The 1990s Saw An Economic Boom. “But certainly increasing productivity, fewer jobs is the simplest, greater competition from abroad as the world began to really open up and I think there was a reversal to some extent fueled by technology but also fueled by thoughtful policies in the 90’s where there was this, you know, economic boom that created 22 million new jobs and lots of people, you know, took advantage of that.??? [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 44-45]
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.??? [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
Hillary Clinton Praised TPP. “Greater connections in our own hemisphere hold such promise. The United States and Canada are working together with a group of open market democracies along the Pacific Rim, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, to expand responsible trade and economic cooperation.??? [Canada 2020 Speech, 10/6/14]
Clinton: “People At The Heart Of The Private Sector Need To Keep Making The Argument That A More Open, Resilient Economic System Will Create More Broadly Shared Prosperity.??? “I think we all, not just public officials or outside analysts, but people at the heart of the private sector need to keep making the argument that a more open, resilient economic system will create more broadly shared prosperity than state capitalism, petro-capitalism or crony capitalism ever will.??? [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
Hillary Clinton Said Scrap Recycling Demand From Asia Was Helping Improve Our Trade Balance And Fuel Our Economic Recovery. “I’m also delighted to learn that scrap products are a key export for the United States. By helping meet the demands for raw materials from emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere, you’re improving our trade balance and fueling our economic recovery. We’re talking about 20 to 30 billion in exports every year. And I looked at the program for this conference and was fascinated by all of the different issues that that leads you to study and learn about.??? [Hillary Clinton Remarks at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Convention, 4/10/14]
Clinton: “When My Husband Was Elected In His First Two Years He Made A Lot Of Changes. […] He Passed NAFTA, Alienating A Lot Of The Democratic Base.??? “But, I think it’s important to go back just for another historic minute. When my husband was elected in his first two years he made a lot of changes. And he passed a tax program to try to get us out of the deficit and debt situation that we were mired in after 12 years of quadrupling the debt. He passed really strong gun control laws, taking on the NRA, no easy matter to do in American politics. He passed NAFTA, alienating a lot of the Democratic base. We fought for healthcare reform unsuccessfully.??? [Remarks for CIBC, 1/22/15]
Permalink Comments off
Lloyd Blankfein Joked “I’m Proud That The Financial Services Industry Has Been The One Unifying Theme That Binds Everybody Together In Common.??? “So it’s important that people speak out and stand up against it, and especially people who are Republicans, who say, look, that’s not the party that I’m part of. I want to get back to having a two-party system that can have an adult conversation and a real debate about the future. MR. BLANKFEIN: Yeah, and one thing, I’m glad—I’m proud that the financial services industry has been the one unifying theme that binds everybody together in common. (Laughter.)??? [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Hillary Clinton Said She Would Like To “See More Successful Business People Run For Office??? Because The Have A “Certain Level Of Freedom.??? ““SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s a really interesting question. You know, I would like to see more successful business people run for office. I really would like to see that because I do think, you know, you don’t have to have 30 billion, but you have a certain level of freedom. And there’s that memorable phrase from a former member of the Senate: You can be maybe rented but never bought. And I think it’s important to have people with those experiences. And especially now, because many of you in this room are on the cutting edge of technology or health care or some other segment of the economy, so you are people who look over the horizon. And coming into public life and bringing that perspective as well as the success and the insulation that success gives you could really help in a lot of our political situations right now.??? [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Hillary Clinton Said There Was “A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives,??? Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks. “SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small— MR. BLANKFEIN: That’s how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.??? [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13
Permalink Comments off
Red Dawn, from 1984, is five stars of utterly awesome Eighties excrement.
America, surrounded by enemies as always, is invaded by the Cuban & Nicaraguan armies (please don’t laugh) plus the Soviets, way out in the Rockies or Vasquez Rocks or Monument Valley, whichever was convenient.
Two girls, great with satchel charges and machine guns — Lea Thompson AND Jennifer Grey (Dirty Dancing!), who with Pat Swayze (Dirty Dancing!) are half of the Wolverines, a partisan group that brings an armored and airborne regiment to its knees.
The Soviets summon William Smith, the bareknuckle boxer who fought Clint Eastwood in Any Which Way You Can, so you know they’re that tough. Plus, there’s a Cuban colonel leading the occupying force in Love Cattle, ColoradoMontanaWyoming, who really only wants to get back to his warm and sunny homeland.
The occupation installs a Soviet-American Friendship Society in one of the old town’s bars. It features country music every night. So Jennifer Grey blows it up with a satchel charge! That’s my girl! You can see why she got the role in Dirty Dancing three years later.
Powers Boothe stars as a USAF hero who organizes the Wolverines but has to sacrifice himself for the good of the group as ‘Merica lays down a napalm attack on the Soviet/Cuban armor outside Horse Buggy, WyomingMontanaColorado. Lea Thompson, ace machine-gunner, had been picking mountain edelweiss for him and she breaks down: “I’ll never love again!”
If you don’t think this movie is stupendous, even if you’re an ex-Commie or new oligarch, there’s something wrong with you. You’ll love the vistas of pine forest hills covered in snow, too, almost as much as you loved the Battle of the Bulge, which was shot on the plain in Spain.
Harry Dean Stanton gives a corny inspirational speech from behind wire. No crying in war, children! Charlie Sheen (way before Hollywood hookers and blow warped his personality) and C. Thomas Howell are along for the trip, too! Howell even drinks the blood of a deer. You will almost be compelled to stand and sing the national anthem as the final credits roll.
I saw it on Hulu. Watch or steal it now. Thank me later.
Should we stumble into a nuclear war with Russia? The establishment thinks so, apparently.
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »