"America wants.... America wants...." Trump thinks his supporters represent America. Ann Coulter thinks her readers represent America. Kshama Sawant and many on the left refer to "the people" and "the working class" is if they represent one set of views. And, you, Rich, refer to "everyone we know." Well, there are rich progressives and poor conservatives, Southern leftists and alt-rightists in New York City. I know hard leftists and defiant rightists here in Seattle. There is no one prepackaged "America" identified by an easily affixed political label. No one can simply refer to "the people," "America," "the workers," "real Americans" and assume this represents one basic set of views. Let individual Americans speak for themselves, and listen to and learn from them. And, yes, despite my misgivings about Howard Schultz, he deserves his hearing. I hope he does not run for president, especially as an independent, but what authority have I, you, or anyone to simply wish a person would "go away"? Isn't Seattle at is best when it practices the tolerance it loves to preach?
@1 "Isn't Seattle at is best when it practices the tolerance it loves to preach?" Jesus fucking Christ, when in the fuck has Seattle been tolerant of anything except the furthest leftwing bat shit insane ideas?
The OP Talks so bad about HS. Saying how out of touch he is. So 1995, etc. If all that is true, Why Worry? What Rich doesn't really cover is how and why Indies and disaffected Dems would vote for HS over a Dem Candidate. The Democratic party needs to worry about that and not HS. All the Dems say is He'll split the vote. But, they don't say why.
Schultz is a rightwinger. I'd venture to guess that he'd likely pull at least as many votes from Trump as from a progressive Democrat; moreover, conservative Democrats will never vote for a progressive president (if you have any doubt about that, check history). In many ways, a Schultz candidacy could make a progressive president more likely by splitting the conservative vote.
Trollz b trollin'
Just to be sure, regressives like doofus in Shoreline also believe that Social Security, Medicare, public education, "oneperson, one vote" are unAmerican.
It easy to spot rightwing extremists when they claim that Bernie is a commie/wants the Soviet Union.
I like how your shipwrecked memories of always being picked last on the school yard don’t even have to bubble back up to the surface because the water is too fucking shallow.
Of course they do. Many of them literally yearn to take the nation back to a more "authentic" time, say, roughly the early 1860's, when a (white, Christian) vigorous, independent-minded man could free himself from government tyranny by riding off into the vast, untamed West and build a life on a plot of unspoiled land (assuming those damnable savage redskins have been duly evicted from it - or better yet, slaughtered outright either by disease or in a fusillade of gunfire) with nothing but his own hands - and maybe a slave or two for the really heavy manual labor.
If Democrats are interested in non-corporate representation, then why do they vote for candidates who are members of corporate-financed thinktanks, that require alignment with thinktank politics in order to be a member? Both Dem and Rep candidates for president have overwhelmingly been members of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, and so on -- all financed by central bank corporations. Even Trump has major ties to Kabbalistic Israel groups that are pro-communist. Isn't this getting a little out of control, pretending this is not reality? How far did you want to go with this "news" coverage... maybe pretending corporations no longer exist because they were so saintly that they went directly to Heaven? Have at it. Delusion appears to be catchy.
@12 your protesting isn't fooling anybody as your support for Citizen United (one dollar, one vote), minority voter disenfranchisement, privatizing education (charter school) and on indicates all too well
@13 They don't tell you that Bernie and his idea are overwhelmingly popular on Fox?
Looks like the Mormons had a few. I’ve got a family history that details the numbers of whites and blacks on varying properties.
If I remember my Diamond correctly they nearly all of the natives died before the West made contact.
Which means they’re all like “Hi guys it’s me I’ve come to let you know that I am dying of a highly infectious disease gl hf”.
I’m not one to believe that natives never picked up on transmission of colds and flus, and the actual American Midwest is mountains and bad lands.
(This means there was no continuous chain of transmission).
When doing some ancillary reading on the Pig War I found that “half breed” natives were free to claim plots in the local territories, just as the ruggedly individualistic white boys were.
To be perfectly honest, the last fucking thing on earth I’d pack when heading into an inhospitable climate are fairweather Africans.
And if there is a GOP nominee that isn't Trump in 2020?
Maybe its way too early to be hysterical.
I assume you're referring to Jared Diamond, author of "Guns, Germs, and Steel", whose theories - including your assertion that the massive decimation of indigenous populations in North America was NOT caused by the introduction of European (and African) diseases against which they had no native resistance - has been thoroughly debunked. That "geographically isolated" populations (which we now know was hardly the case, given substantial evidence of an extensive network of trade routes that criss-crossed the continent) had died off before "contact by Westerners" is easily explained by the simple fact that disease vectors spread to indigenous populations at a speed that far surpassed European physical expansion into the continent. By the time they actually reached these areas, the populations had already died off, and so it was (incorrectly) assumed there had never been large numbers of them to begin with.
That’s one hell of a lot of effort, COUNT, but you seem to have read precisely the opposite of what I wrote.
I don’t recall Diamond ever saying that, which means it’s safe to assume you’ve never read his nonexistent theory.
See how that works?
It may have been Zinn that taught me that the populations of the Americas were far more dense than previously thought, but the following fact remains:
There are natural barriers present in the American Midwest.
I did just check my work and it appears there were at least two ravages of the pox in the PNW, but I’m still willing to wager the Eastern tribes got the worse of it.
Can you figure out why I would think that?
Barriers, schmariers. indigenous peoples had surmounted those centuries - millennia, even - before Europeans arrived on the East coast of North American (followed very closely by their arrival on the WEST Coast a couple of decades later - so much for those "natural barriers" blocking disease vectors, eh?)
If you need further education on the subject - and clearly you do - I would suggest starting with this:
There's a lot more of course, but I don't want to needlessly overtax your delicate brain tissues...
While I do need to get out of bed and drink coffee before posting after going to bed drunk and stoned, you’re still full of shit and rattle off web queries phrased as if it is your own knowledge.
Fewer white folks = less smallpox.
I do see what you did, though - you made up some bullshit about me and decided I think so lowly of long-dead peoples that they? What? Went North and South of the Rockies to get to the Chiefs stadium?
Lemme guess, you went east to west?
Good day, inquisitor!
I’m sorry, one more. I promise I’ll be outside of a reception area Friday through Saturday or Sunday, depending on how I’m feeling solo at elevation.
This argument is about whether or not American Natives were capable of closing trade routes during epidemics.
In the name of being against racism, the answer has to be no. They cannot learn.
Also, check out this photo I took.
“Medicare for All is un-American.”
True, nothing is more un-American than the common good.
We spend the most money per-capita on healthcare and all we have to show for it is our cratering life-expectancy. It’s worth the extra expense though - what’s the point of living longer healthier lives if we have to be un-American? The horror!
We definitely have the healthcare system we deserve.
@27: A smidge unrelated, but did you know that America's slightly lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rate is likely more a result of different definitions of what a birth is, and poor statistics gathering in other nations more so than our medical system?
Long story short, America counts any baby who is born as a live birth, even if they are not viable outside of the womb, or expire within hours, whereas other developed western countries do not count those as births, which positively affects their numbers. Other nations also use differing definitions of stillbirth, live birth, and neonatal death, leading the WHO to estimate that perinatal mortality can change by up to 50% depending on which definition is used.
@28 yes. Deaths in early life weigh down life expectancy averages but you can easily determine how significant the effect is by looking at actuary tables for life expectancy at later ages - the default is life expectancy at birth but it can be calculated at any age, and even if you just go up to 1 year you will have corrected for the different definitions of live birth, though the fact that our life expectancy is in decline is unaffected by this.
There are also other metrics of public health besides life expectancy - maternal mortality, infant mortality, etc - and those can also be plotted against health care spending, and they would probably also show that we spend way more per person on health care but have little to show for it.
Good piece Rich. That's why I started reading The Stranger way back when. Wish there were more like this instead of voyeurism masquerading as sex "advice" and "Seattle" perspectives from people that have only been there a couple of years.
@12 Doofus in Shoreline: Methinks your idiotic MAGA cap is on your pointed head a bit too tightly, painfully chafing, what few mushy brain cells you have left are oozing out, and your SuperFriends undies are riding up. Take a nap if you so stubbornly refuse to be enlightened. You might also want to watch your sugar and carbs.
31 Thanks so much for making me laugh. Brilliant.
I say we take it to the streets. Thanks Rich. Great piece.
More info. People in prison are cheap labor for people like Schulz companies earning $1.50 an hour and paid for by the taxpayers. These are poor people, many, waiting for a court decision and not convicted. Remember the poorly paid black prisoners fighting the fires in California? Risking their lives for the common good and because they have a record won’t be able to get a job in a fire department whenever they are released. By the way, Schultz, people fought for things like social security (which they invest in), public assistance, unemployment insurance etc. while Trump helps out the likes of you with the tax cuts which damage the standard of living for the majority.
@32 Ivy R. Nightscales; I know, right? Agreed and seconded--let's take it to the streets! I'm for boycotting Starbuck's and Amazon. Time to hit corrupt billionaires where it hurts--in their fattened wallets.
Thanks, Rich, on indeed, another great article. Did you get to snitch another box of Thin Mints from the break room? Girl Scout Cookies are so addictive.
Preaching to the choir, hoping some trolls get involved in the comments to rile things up.
YESH! YESH! YESH!!! Beautifully and truthfully presented, Mr. Smith. XOXO
If you vote for Howard Schultz, you are basically saying that it's enough to replace Trump with a right-wing plutocrat who happens to be slightly pro-choice and slightly pro-LGBTQ. You are voting for a guy who thinks the poor should be left to rot and that we need to go back to the levels of inequality we had in 1929. You are supporting a candidate who would recreate the conditions which led to the Great Depression. And you cannot call yourself a centrist in supporting this-centrism means preserving the existing levels of social benefits, not "it's enough that we won't cut AS MUCH". And you'll probably end up causing a revolution, because most of the country doesn't want perpetual austerity and can't gain anything from it.
Basically, Schultz is the Thurston Howell the Third of caffeine.
@34 inquistador: Trolls usually start shit; I'm among those who end it.
Twice in my youth I was gifted 2nd row seats to a Sonics game. Both times Schultz was right in front of me along with Wally Walker - two very tall men. They stood through half the game blocking my view and talked incessantly. Picture me as a very pissed off Patton Oswald.
It would be impolite to say what I think of him.
The Stranger really, really, really hates Howard Shultz. Because he could actually win, unfortunately even if you have 50% of America "supporting" all the free shit you think they support, there is this thing called the electoral college. Cry all you want, but it isn't going anywhere and Donald Trump's increasing support, though low is enough to get him over the threshold because Republicans (unlike Democrats) support their party over sectarian bickering.
Howard Shultz would go a long way to accomplish many of the changes we need in America.
You know what won't? Supporting Bernie Sanders who won't win.
@39 probably why you were gifted 2nd row seats behind the bench you idiot. First world problems right here
Trump has stripped the "representative" veneer from the Republican party, as he obscenely rips America apart so the one-percent can feed on the pieces.
Shultz does the same thing for the corporate Democrats, who serve only their donor/masters. The fact the U.S. has a ruling class is THE problem that spawns most others, and must be addressed. - The only politicians who are honest and actually represent the people are the Progressives, like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Tulsi Gabbard.
Beware corporate Democrats in "progressive" clothing, like Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.
Shultz gets it that he needs to get Trump reelected for income and capital gains tax breaks, union busting and all of the things billionaires need to hoard their money. In this way, he can swing the election while still pretending to be liberal.
Save Our Sonics
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.