Well if past is prologue, if/when Iran does go nuclear (and think its “when” not “if”) he will just deny he said, “obliterated” the MSM/legacy press will sane wash this denial and his sycophants and dead enders will happily go along.
There is now “officially” of the word “obliterated.” We now all understand it to mean: we dropped big bombs on a mountain. There were big holes made in the mountain.
Mamdani is a democratic socialist which is different from socialism. So please get your reporting right. Bernie is a democratic socialist so if you listen to Bernie at all you would know what democratic socialism is. Both socialism and democratic socialism work toward becoming a more egalitarian society. Democratic socialism does this using democratic processes like having elections. Denmark is an example of democratic socialism. They believe in and prioritize a national healthcare system, affordable housing, workers rights and protections. These are not radical ideas. They prioritize people over profit. Please educate yourself before reporting on something you don't know about.
I just read this and I am passing it on as it fits into the conversation about “socialist” etc.
I think you would find it interesting . Different perspective.
Written by Kevin Dolgin who is affiliate professor at the Sorbonne Business School in Paris where he teaches entrepreneurship and consumer behavior in the MBA program. A graduate of Fordham University (USA), INSEAD and of the Sorbonne Business School. Born in New York City, has lived in Paris for 30 years.
He writes :
“It seems to me that this habit of viewing other developed nations as “socialist”, is a uniquely American trait, and one that is rather new.
I’m going to make a bold statement: THERE ARE NO SOCIALIST COUNTRIES, at least not in the developed world. Even China, which is nominally communist (therefore socialist) has greatly opened up its economy to private ownership since the death of Mao, and today, about 70% of the economy is in private hands (see What percentage of the Chinese economy is state-owned?). There remain parties that have “socialist” in their names, but even they are not actually militating for a socialist system.
Socialism is a specific economic / political form of society in which the means of production are owned by the population as a whole, typically through the government. The Soviet Union and its satellites were socialist.
There is no developed country in which the means of production are all owned by the government. There are many countries in which certain companies are owned by the government, typically companies dealing with public goods, such as railroads, utilities, etc. In France, the national rail service is owned by the government, for example, and in the United States, the postal service is government owned. This does not make either of the two countries socialist.
Neither is there any developed nation that is truly entirely “capitalist”, if capitalism means allowing only Adam Smith’s invisible hand to regulate business. In the 19th century, for example, capitalism in most countries was given a freer hand. However, in the late part of the century and early part of the 20th century, just about every country started regulating it more closely. For example, in the United States in 1900 there were no child labor laws, no laws against workplace discrimination, no laws limited the workweek, no right to strike, no anti-trust laws… etc. Likewise, there was virtually no public “safety nets”, i.e. transfer payments to the poor, disabled, orphans, etc. This was similar to other nations.
Since then, most countries have instituted all of these laws, regulations and public aid programs. Some have gone farther than others. In France total governmental spending as a percent of GDP is quite high, at 56.7%, as compared to 37.6% in the United States. This could be seen as a general idea of the role of government in the economy, so the country has clearly decided to move more to the “left” of the United States economically, as have most nations.
Most Americans I meet and talk to are rather international and it has become clear to me that opinions back in the States are very different.
It strikes me that there is an American (or at least alt-right) obsession with calling everything that isn’t strictly conservative “socialist”. Those who do this seem to get quite agitated about it as well, becoming angry with said “socialists”. I was flummoxed to see that these same people sometimes even go so far as to state that the Nazis were socialists too, and that Nazism was a leftist ideology: apparently because the word “socialist” is part of the party’s name, which would indicate that North Korea is democratic… but that’s another story.
I have the impression that there’s a certain nostalgia for the cold war, when there were good Americans and evil commies. Now that the commies are gone, “socialists” have become the new bogeymen, whether they are lurking in the Assemblée Nationale or in the Democratic party. But those same people were fighting the cold war too, and we all won! Hurray! No one wants Soviet-style socialism, or any other socialism. The French, as well as other citizens of developed countries all want democratic capitalism, and they have it. At the same time, no one wants to go back to the unregulated robber-baron era of 1890, it’s all just a question of where on that regulatory spectrum we should be. There are different opinions and different answers to that, but by painting a picture of a good vs evil dichotomy, all discussion is shut down and progress ceases.”
Trump is obviously going to continue to talk about and be obsessed about the bombing of Iran and how great he was and how successful it was the very same way he continues to talk about how he won the 2020 election
He will repeat it over and over at nausea obsessed with it, and has added it to his list
As Nicole Wallace said today on her show that she would’ve probably led with what they’re doing to Medicaid
“ if the Trump cabinet wasn’t screaming obliterated over and over again and foaming at the mouth about the impact on Iran’s nuclear program”
Why is Pete Hegseth so angry about the early reports of the attacks causing severe damage instead of obliterating damage? And why is such a serious leak of classified information. Trump himself released the information originally.
I like and admire you, Charlie, so I definitely intend to keep reading. But I was certainly disheartened by your take on Mamdani - or rather, I was deeply discouraged by your including that long quote from Joe Klein, who has the wrong end of the stick entirely. If he were better informed, he would be aware of the non-radical places in the USA that have tried some of Mamdani's ideas like free bus service. Also, "vile and comprehensive anti-Zionism"? Well, yes, if condemning Israel's genocide in Gaza counts as that. I'm afraid Joe Klein is the one who is out of touch.
Meanwhile, just to think about:, this quote from the vaunted NY Times in 1935 on the subject of Fiorello LaGuardia:“[He is] fond of toying with haphazard proposals that may be benevolent in intention but are dangerous or impossible in practice. He seems always to want to have in hand some socialistic plaything or other. Just now it is a municipal power plant.”
As for La Guardia, he said this to the Times in 1933: "The worst part of the entire matter is that when anyone raises a question about the existing order, he is called either a reformer or a radical. It has been my lot to be called the latter. Why? Only because I have consistently objected to things which I believe unjust and dangerous." He also said at one point, "If fighting against existing evils is radical, I am content with the name."
Would Mamdani be another LaGuardia? I don't know, and in fact I have doubts about how he can achieve what he has promised. I also believe in your goodwill, Charlie, and I know that your concern about Mamdani is not to trash him, but because you fear that a win by him will help Trump. But please, just think about the big picture - and don't go to Joe Klein as the voice of wisdom on this.
Klein is a tireless and tiresome practitioner of you-both-suck political analysis from way back. It's hard to know what's in Mamdani's head about Jews -- just as it was hard to know what was in LBJ's head about blacks and civil rights up until Kennedy's assassination and what were Lincoln's real thoughts about slavery until the Civil War was more than a year old. And Grant, the general who won the war on the battlefield, issued an order, overridden by Lincoln, that amounted to ethnic cleansing of Jews from the military district he led. By the time he reached the presidency a few years later, he had become their ally. I'm willing to give Mamdani the benefit of the doubt for now. Not every surprise in politics has to be on the downside.
You have lost a reader today, for trashing Mamdani for a second day in a row. Your attempt to debase him by claiming he ‘believes in globalize the intifada’ is just ridiculous. Do you even understand what that phrase means? Read the room, Charlie. Mamdani’s primary election is evidence of what us democrats want - a candidate (without a criminal record) who will fight to make the lives of Americans better. Don’t undermine our tiny little specks of progress, which are the only miniscule sources of hope in these very dark times.
Hey, since your French daughter is in town, maybe you can ask her for a primer on ‘socialism’ and all of its benefits to civilized society. Maybe she can talk some sense into you. I, for one, won’t be seeing you in my inbox any more.
Knowing how important it is for the walking psychopathic egomaniac to be able to manage the news, I wonder if he planted the "leak" in order to up the degree of censorship.
After all, he's already said he will no longer share classified info with Congress.
Interesting that Joe Klein wants corruption over socialism. Maybe New Yorkers are sick and tired of editorials in the NYT
He soitenly is.
Also re: Mamdani:
Is it not odd that few are asking/saying "well why don't we try to understand the anger that drove people to vote for him?
I don't know enough about him or NYC politics to really have much of opinion other than "Jesus Christ! Cuomo? Seriously? A lying sex-pest?"
Anyway I kinda agree with Popehat here:
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3lsfn2ihikc2a
Well if past is prologue, if/when Iran does go nuclear (and think its “when” not “if”) he will just deny he said, “obliterated” the MSM/legacy press will sane wash this denial and his sycophants and dead enders will happily go along.
There is now “officially” of the word “obliterated.” We now all understand it to mean: we dropped big bombs on a mountain. There were big holes made in the mountain.
Mamdani is a democratic socialist which is different from socialism. So please get your reporting right. Bernie is a democratic socialist so if you listen to Bernie at all you would know what democratic socialism is. Both socialism and democratic socialism work toward becoming a more egalitarian society. Democratic socialism does this using democratic processes like having elections. Denmark is an example of democratic socialism. They believe in and prioritize a national healthcare system, affordable housing, workers rights and protections. These are not radical ideas. They prioritize people over profit. Please educate yourself before reporting on something you don't know about.
Thank you, Mr. Sykes.
Charlie and all
I just read this and I am passing it on as it fits into the conversation about “socialist” etc.
I think you would find it interesting . Different perspective.
Written by Kevin Dolgin who is affiliate professor at the Sorbonne Business School in Paris where he teaches entrepreneurship and consumer behavior in the MBA program. A graduate of Fordham University (USA), INSEAD and of the Sorbonne Business School. Born in New York City, has lived in Paris for 30 years.
He writes :
“It seems to me that this habit of viewing other developed nations as “socialist”, is a uniquely American trait, and one that is rather new.
I’m going to make a bold statement: THERE ARE NO SOCIALIST COUNTRIES, at least not in the developed world. Even China, which is nominally communist (therefore socialist) has greatly opened up its economy to private ownership since the death of Mao, and today, about 70% of the economy is in private hands (see What percentage of the Chinese economy is state-owned?). There remain parties that have “socialist” in their names, but even they are not actually militating for a socialist system.
Socialism is a specific economic / political form of society in which the means of production are owned by the population as a whole, typically through the government. The Soviet Union and its satellites were socialist.
There is no developed country in which the means of production are all owned by the government. There are many countries in which certain companies are owned by the government, typically companies dealing with public goods, such as railroads, utilities, etc. In France, the national rail service is owned by the government, for example, and in the United States, the postal service is government owned. This does not make either of the two countries socialist.
Neither is there any developed nation that is truly entirely “capitalist”, if capitalism means allowing only Adam Smith’s invisible hand to regulate business. In the 19th century, for example, capitalism in most countries was given a freer hand. However, in the late part of the century and early part of the 20th century, just about every country started regulating it more closely. For example, in the United States in 1900 there were no child labor laws, no laws against workplace discrimination, no laws limited the workweek, no right to strike, no anti-trust laws… etc. Likewise, there was virtually no public “safety nets”, i.e. transfer payments to the poor, disabled, orphans, etc. This was similar to other nations.
Since then, most countries have instituted all of these laws, regulations and public aid programs. Some have gone farther than others. In France total governmental spending as a percent of GDP is quite high, at 56.7%, as compared to 37.6% in the United States. This could be seen as a general idea of the role of government in the economy, so the country has clearly decided to move more to the “left” of the United States economically, as have most nations.
Most Americans I meet and talk to are rather international and it has become clear to me that opinions back in the States are very different.
It strikes me that there is an American (or at least alt-right) obsession with calling everything that isn’t strictly conservative “socialist”. Those who do this seem to get quite agitated about it as well, becoming angry with said “socialists”. I was flummoxed to see that these same people sometimes even go so far as to state that the Nazis were socialists too, and that Nazism was a leftist ideology: apparently because the word “socialist” is part of the party’s name, which would indicate that North Korea is democratic… but that’s another story.
I have the impression that there’s a certain nostalgia for the cold war, when there were good Americans and evil commies. Now that the commies are gone, “socialists” have become the new bogeymen, whether they are lurking in the Assemblée Nationale or in the Democratic party. But those same people were fighting the cold war too, and we all won! Hurray! No one wants Soviet-style socialism, or any other socialism. The French, as well as other citizens of developed countries all want democratic capitalism, and they have it. At the same time, no one wants to go back to the unregulated robber-baron era of 1890, it’s all just a question of where on that regulatory spectrum we should be. There are different opinions and different answers to that, but by painting a picture of a good vs evil dichotomy, all discussion is shut down and progress ceases.”
Trump is obviously going to continue to talk about and be obsessed about the bombing of Iran and how great he was and how successful it was the very same way he continues to talk about how he won the 2020 election
He will repeat it over and over at nausea obsessed with it, and has added it to his list
As Nicole Wallace said today on her show that she would’ve probably led with what they’re doing to Medicaid
“ if the Trump cabinet wasn’t screaming obliterated over and over again and foaming at the mouth about the impact on Iran’s nuclear program”
She said it best
Foaming at the mouth
Trump is a blowhard. The first thing one does when confronted by a blowhard is question the legitimacy of the claim.
Why is Pete Hegseth so angry about the early reports of the attacks causing severe damage instead of obliterating damage? And why is such a serious leak of classified information. Trump himself released the information originally.
I like and admire you, Charlie, so I definitely intend to keep reading. But I was certainly disheartened by your take on Mamdani - or rather, I was deeply discouraged by your including that long quote from Joe Klein, who has the wrong end of the stick entirely. If he were better informed, he would be aware of the non-radical places in the USA that have tried some of Mamdani's ideas like free bus service. Also, "vile and comprehensive anti-Zionism"? Well, yes, if condemning Israel's genocide in Gaza counts as that. I'm afraid Joe Klein is the one who is out of touch.
Meanwhile, just to think about:, this quote from the vaunted NY Times in 1935 on the subject of Fiorello LaGuardia:“[He is] fond of toying with haphazard proposals that may be benevolent in intention but are dangerous or impossible in practice. He seems always to want to have in hand some socialistic plaything or other. Just now it is a municipal power plant.”
As for La Guardia, he said this to the Times in 1933: "The worst part of the entire matter is that when anyone raises a question about the existing order, he is called either a reformer or a radical. It has been my lot to be called the latter. Why? Only because I have consistently objected to things which I believe unjust and dangerous." He also said at one point, "If fighting against existing evils is radical, I am content with the name."
Would Mamdani be another LaGuardia? I don't know, and in fact I have doubts about how he can achieve what he has promised. I also believe in your goodwill, Charlie, and I know that your concern about Mamdani is not to trash him, but because you fear that a win by him will help Trump. But please, just think about the big picture - and don't go to Joe Klein as the voice of wisdom on this.
Thank you and bless you, and the dogs!
Klein is a tireless and tiresome practitioner of you-both-suck political analysis from way back. It's hard to know what's in Mamdani's head about Jews -- just as it was hard to know what was in LBJ's head about blacks and civil rights up until Kennedy's assassination and what were Lincoln's real thoughts about slavery until the Civil War was more than a year old. And Grant, the general who won the war on the battlefield, issued an order, overridden by Lincoln, that amounted to ethnic cleansing of Jews from the military district he led. By the time he reached the presidency a few years later, he had become their ally. I'm willing to give Mamdani the benefit of the doubt for now. Not every surprise in politics has to be on the downside.
Our rural county has free bus service. If we can do it, I bet NY can do it.
You have lost a reader today, for trashing Mamdani for a second day in a row. Your attempt to debase him by claiming he ‘believes in globalize the intifada’ is just ridiculous. Do you even understand what that phrase means? Read the room, Charlie. Mamdani’s primary election is evidence of what us democrats want - a candidate (without a criminal record) who will fight to make the lives of Americans better. Don’t undermine our tiny little specks of progress, which are the only miniscule sources of hope in these very dark times.
Hey, since your French daughter is in town, maybe you can ask her for a primer on ‘socialism’ and all of its benefits to civilized society. Maybe she can talk some sense into you. I, for one, won’t be seeing you in my inbox any more.
Knowing how important it is for the walking psychopathic egomaniac to be able to manage the news, I wonder if he planted the "leak" in order to up the degree of censorship.
After all, he's already said he will no longer share classified info with Congress.
Does he even know what obliteration means - that's a big word.
At least this is the end of the line for Cuomo.