Posts Tagged ‘liberal’

72397971_10157743748684430_7961896638295834624_n

 

I’ve had to correct the mindless sheeple today who love Ellen, even when she’s immoral and despicable.

There are many valid reasons why a huge number of Americans–and global citizens–consider George W. Bush a war criminal, despite Hollywood liberals trying to resuscitate his image.

  • The war on Iraq killed over a million people by some very credible estimates
  • The war on Iraq was an illegal breach of the UN Charter
  • The UN Charter is based on the Nuremberg Principles, for which the Nazis were hanged in 1946 for Crimes Against the Peace
  • Bush and company lied to the UN and to the Congress and to the American people about bogus Iraqi “ties to Al Qaeda” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” they knew did not exist

Ellen wants to know nothing about this reality and instead spins George W. as someone with a different “political opinion.” In Ellen / Hollywood Neoliberal land there are no crimes from politicians–unless your name is Trump, apparently, and all is forgiven after enough of the audience forgets about it. It’s not a matter of right and wrong, but a matter of demographics.

Ellen DeGeneres is an apologist for war crimes, empire, and “American Exceptionalism.” Like other comedians who are allowed into the big money club, she has shown her true colors. Morality be damned, like those million dead and 4 million refugees displaced in that one war crime: one of many.

Ellen has become complicit now actively selling Bush and therefore legitimizing his crimes in the minds of her ignorant audience. She has willingly taken on the role of apologist. She helps turn America into a new Reich where the laws against attacking other countries do not apply and the people mindlessly cheer the next bloodletting.

PS

Ellen’s false-equivalence spin gets the Dore treatment…

 

4720_n.jpg

 

Which corporate liars do you side with?

Rachel Maddow is a ruling-class mouthpiece and not to be trusted…

The U.S. is now waging wars in at least seven countries, is threatening Iran and may escalate its involvement in Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war in Yemen, but Maddow’s only mention of recent or current wars was the “information warfare” reportedly waged by Russia in the 2016 election.

A Week of Rachel Maddow
PS

Guess who this refers to?

The NED’s Useful Idiots

 

earthDayProtests-2017MarchforScience-1

The indifference of the liberal middle class is mind boggling. 

by David Pear

The liberal middle class is brain dead about the wars.  They do not want to hear about war, speak about war or see war protesters.

The liberal middle class has emotionally numbed out.  They have a complete lack of empathy for the millions of people that the USA has slaughtered, the nations that the USA has bombed to piles of rubble, and the suffering the USA has caused to tens of millions of people. 

Out of sight and out of mind, the USA has destroyed millions of minds, bodies, homes and lives forever.  The indifference of the liberal middle class is mind boggling.  Some sadistically see the war images as entertainment and even beautiful displays of power.

I am still reeling from Earth Day and the March for Science.  Where was the message that war is destroying the Earth?  The Pentagon is the number one consumer of fossil fuels and the number one polluter of the Earth.  Why was the Pentagon given a pass on Earth Day? 

Do scientists deny that war causes global warming?  The liberal middle class should not feel superior to Republicans and Donald J. Trump about climate change.  They have their heads stuck in the sand too.  At least the Republicans are honest in their stupidity of denial about climate change. 

The liberal middle class’s dishonest stupidity is to lie by omission and not confront war as the number one polluter.  The Pentagon and militarism are the greatest danger to the Earth and every living creature on it.  The world is racing headlong towards nuclear war and the liberal middle class is in deep denial.     

Earth Day and the March for Science were more hypocrisy and feel good faux solidarity of concern for the Earth.  Earth Day was carefully stage-managed to not offend or affect any change. 

Earth Day was just a fun day.  Those that attended appeared to be mostly liberal middle class families, couples, singles and students.  It was a sterile showing of solidarity, with the bonus activity of hugging science.  Science is worth hugging, but scientists were mum on Earth Day that the Pentagon, militarism and war are the number one threat to the Earth.

The liberal middle class’s dishonest stupidity is to lie by omission and not confront war as the number one polluter.  The Pentagon and militarism are the greatest danger to the Earth and every living creature on it.  The world is racing headlong towards nuclear war and the liberal middle class is in deep denial.

There were very few speeches, posters or demonstration againstwar.  None of the “Top Ten Posters” were antiwar.  Talking about war was a conversation stopper and spoiled the fun for others who just wanted to enjoy organic snacks, browse among sustainable gadgets and grandstand.

George Orwell wrote about the mind control effect of conformist demonstrations.  They let the public blow off a little steam without any risk, and they reinforce the status quo.  It also gives the Thought Police an opportunity to take names of anybody that does not conform. 

Earth Day was like Orwell’s two minutes of hate.  Climate Change is the liberal-middle class’s hated Emmanuel Goldstein.  Big Brother and the mainstream media know how to co-opt dissent and make it meaningless, while letting the people feel relevant and powerful.  Real protests and real power of the people are brutally crushed by the police state.           

Any act considered unpatriotic was discouraged during Earth Day.  There was no mourning for the millions of people the USA has slaughtered in the past couple of decades.  There was no mention of the USA poisoning South Asia with uranium and burn pits billowing out a smorgasbord of carcinogenic chemical pollution. 

There was no scientific discussion of the poisonous ingredients in the Mother of All Bombs and the pollution caused by war.  No discussion of nuclear winter, radiation sickness, and mass starvation from a nuclear war.  Nor were there any pledges by scientists not to work for the military-industrial complex.   

Like Mark Twain said about the weather:  everybody talks about climate change but nobody does anything about it.  And they won’t until there is a stop to war.  Until then there will be no budget for doing something about climate change.  Nor will there be any budget for healthcare, education, mass transportation and relieving suffering and ignorance.  Lacking is a massive anti-war movement.

I had the personal experience of being a spoiler on Earth Day.  I belong to St. Pete for Peace in Saint Petersburg, Florida.  It is an anti-war group that has been able to survive the peace drought after the USA invasion of Iraq in 2003.  We thought it would be a good idea to take an anti-war rally to Williams Park in downtown St. Petersburg where there was an Earth Day fair.  Our reception was anything but warm.  It was like a cold bucket of Agent Orange. 

We were warned not to take our anti-war posters into Williams Park.  It was not the police that warned us, it was the organizers of St. Pete Earth Day.  They told us to stay on the corner across the street and out of sight or they would have us arrested.

Thinking that I had a Constitutional right to do so, I walked through the park anyway with an upside down American flag as a freedom of speech statement.  I was immediately accosted and told that no demonstrations were allowed.  I thought Earth Day was supposed to be a demonstration, and a protest against the continued destruction of the Earth and all its living creatures.

Florida is one of those “Stand Your Ground” states.  So we stood our ground with open carry of anti-war signs.  We were not going to go quietly.  As we walked through the fair with our anti-war signs we said “Happy Earth Day” to the vendors and attendees.  Their responses were a few polite “thank you’s”.  Mostly we got cold stares or avoidance of eye contact.  My upside down flag of distress got a few hoots and confrontations.  But few people wanted any dialog about war. 

Normally I do not write about myself, but Earth Day has been eating away at me.  It left me angry and dumbfounded.  I keep asking myself, “is the liberal middle class braindead?”  Is it possible for people to want to do something about climate change and not see the connection to war, militarism and empire?  They just don’t get it:  war, climate change, war, climate change, war…

The liberal middle class is as stuck in the American mythology as conservative Republicans.  They still think that capitalism is the best of all possible worlds; that America is the best country in the world; that America cares about democracy and human rights; and that being anti-war is unpatriotic.   

Like Obama in the White House: all symbol and no substance. The liberal middle class are too comfortable in their isolated world of high rise condominiums and SUV’s.  What will it take to bring them down from their ivory tower in the mostly white Northside of St. Petersburg?  Do they ever think about the mostly black Southside of St. Petersburg and its lack of basic social services?

During the rainy season in Florida, the Southside is flooded with raw sewage because the city closed the Albert Whitted sewage treatment plant for lack of funds.  The city saved $32 million a year by letting raw sewage flood the black neighborhood and flowing into Tampa Bay where it pollutes the water.

What has happened in St. Petersburg has happened in cities all over America.  It is called austerity.  Funding that should be going to education, housing, mass transportation, healthcare, poverty programs and infrastructure are being sucked out of the economy.  The money is going for militarism, war making and war profiteering.  The money spent by the Department of Defense, Homeland Security and the Police State are making us less secure, less safe, and less free. 

Empire building, imperialism and war are perverting the domestic economy, sucking out its resources and denying citizens of the socialist programs that the Bernie Revolution talked about.  Even Bernie Sanders does not take on the military industrial complex. 

Either Bernie is just another politician or he suffers from cognitive dissonance.  His supporters made excuses for him that being anti-war during his 2016 presidential campaign would be “political suicide”, and that secretly Bernie was anti-war.

If being anti-war would be political suicide, then how did Bernie’s supporters think that the country could pay for popular social programs like healthcare for everyone and free college?  There is not enough money for Bernie’s boondoggle F-35 that doesn’t fly right, never ending wars that cannot be won and popular socialist domestic programs? 

In a recent CNN interview Bernie said:  “Assad has got to go. ISIS has got to be defeated, but I do not want to see the United States get sucked into perpetual warfare in the Middle East.”  Bernie is part of the problem, not the solution.

“Assad has to go and ISIS has to be defeated” is magical thinking without “getting bogged down in perpetual war”.  Thinking so is unconsciously letting the warmongers continue the status quo.  It is saying more war, more destruction, more death and more climate change.  Bernie’s revolution has melted like the Arctic ice.

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing of significance is going to improve in America until the dogs of war are leashed.  Education will not improve.  There will be no single payer healthcare, no mass transportation, no free college, no antipoverty programs, no reparations for the oppressed, and no progress made against climate change until we stop the wars.  Foreign wars and empire mean more austerity at home.

We can be relevant, powerful and do something about climate change and save millions of lives.  We can hit the streets with mass protests against war.  Support whistleblowers and those that refuse to obey illegal orders.  Refuse to cooperate.  Be disruptive.  Use non-violent civil disobedience to sabotage the war machine. 

Otherwise, wars have doomed us to the ravages of climate change.  Nuclear war is a real possibility that the public is in denial about.  A group of scientists just advanced the Doomsday Clock to 2 ½ minutes until midnight at which time we are doomed permanently.  Is anybody listening to these scientists?    


David William Pear is an unpaid Senior Editor for OpEdNews (OEN). All of his articles and comments are his own, and are not the responsibility of, or reflect the editorial opinion of OEN. David is a progressive columnist writing on economic, political and social issues. He is a regular columnist and commenter on OEN.

_1406928938

The politics of Iron Man: how Marvel sold an arms dealing billionaire to liberal America

Your new friend is an arms dealer?”

“Yeah, but he’s a solid guy.”

“Are you sure he’s not a super villain?”

“No, no. He’s a good guy. He really is a good guy.”

dirty-harry-letter

 

Miley-Cyrus-performance-at-MTV-VMA-2013-2223059

The Cognitive Gibberish of “Isms”

I probably shouldn’t bother and just get back to my own work, but each morning I tend to hunt around the alternative news sites.  Today, I waded into the battle between Sinead and Miley, hoping to find something amusing instead of just debilitating, oppressive cognitive dissonance.  The problem, as usual, stems from ideologies.  Once the dreaded three characters “ism” come out then it’s all opinion dressed up as fact and theory from there on in.  It’s a battle of opinions on what the “ism” truly is, and what it allegedly represents, and the list of characters and caricatures who don’t define the ism properly because the writer defines the ism better, and the purity of the ism is what they really have in mind, blah blah, fucking blah to the nth.

You guessed it.  Today it’s “feminism.”

To call out a concept so highly charged, so packed with emotionalism as is feminism you have to be off your meds these days.  Well, I am sober, if that counts.  I don’t have any problem with equality.  That’s not the question here.

45156_1

Feminism is a pseudo-philosophy that transmogrifies every time a new writer types it out.  Its meaning is undefinable, and therefore each “sister” takes a turn bitching out a list of others and standing up for somebody.  In this case the writer is Ruth Fowler, the victim is Miley Cyrus and the evildoer is Sinead O’Connor:

What singer Sinead O’Connor said, after she was obligated to respond to one of Miley Cyrus’ recent remarks citing her own work, was:

“It is in fact the case that you will obscure your talent by allowing yourself to be pimped, whether its [sic] the music business or yourself doing the pimping.”

Sinead expresses an informed opinion about distracting the public with sex and diminishing the impact of Miley’s own music.  Sounds like a reasonable idea.  The blitz of noise surrounding Miley Cyrus recently had nothing to do with her actual music.

“Nothing but harm will come in the long run, from allowing yourself to be exploited, and it is absolutely NOT in ANY way an empowerment of yourself or any other young women, for you to send across the message that you are to be valued (even by you) more for your sexual appeal than your obvious talent.”

Not necessarily true in America, as the “harm” tends to pile up in bank accounts.  Talent is probably optional.  It is Sinead’s heartfelt opinion here that emphasizing sexual attraction over ability is a negative, and she may be completely correct on that front.  This is a larger conversation between men and women, and so how men respond to women who behave like that is quite relevant.  Like it or not impressionable young women will take cues from successful music stars and mimic them.  It isn’t all that irrational to comment on the implications.

Sinead

“None of the men ogling you give a shit about you either, do not be fooled. Many’s the woman mistook lust for love. If they want you sexually that doesn’t mean they give a fuck about you.”

That’s Sinead’s view.  She does not use the “f” word once, nor does she hide behind a tangled web of obfuscation.  The “feminism” card is supplied by Ruth Fowler, who uses it fourteen times in her response to Sinead O’Connor.

Fowler’s opinion of Sinead lacks fairness, at the least:

“…Sinead who, quite frankly, comes across as patriarchal, paternalistic, ragingly conservative and a bit of a cunt.”

Really?  Examining the implications of simulated sex on stage equals all those things?  Patriarchal?  Come on, you’ll have to provide better support than that for these accusations.

“I’m sure Amanda is just acting out of concern for Sinead’s mental health problems and severe decline after a once brilliant career…”

Sinead must be nuts to boot!

I really must be nuts too if I eventually press “Post” on this.  Fowler opened her vicious attack with an extended rant against open letters, that those who employ them should probably be sent to the camps.  I’m getting pretty darned terrified by now, but let’s look at what the hell version of “feminism” we can all disagree on … right after this line from Fowler, “…you probably deserve a kick up the vagina…”

“The problem is that Sinead’s attitude is simply regressive. There is no room in feminism for the judgment of other women based upon their attitudes towards sex and how they relate to sex sartorially, and with their bodies.”

The framing of this statement, “in feminism,” is what pops out.  These are the rules “in feminism” we are to accept.  Sounds a lot like, “shut up,” to me, only couched in an ideological shield, so that it doesn’t seem like “shut up,” when someone has disagreed about how images should really be put out there in the culture.  Sinead may get her “in feminism” card revoked, and a swift kick in the clit.

But this is all a bit over the top given Fowler’s own assessment of the Miley affair:

“I don’t like Miley’s ignorant and offensive appropriation of black culture and find her twerking rather pitiful and banal.”

I see.  It’s the “black culture” thing that matters most?  If we were to comment on black dancers pimping themselves out in rap videos, would we be allowed to do that?  Just why are there so many rules to abide by concerning sex and how we discuss it?

Fowler, insisting that her own perspectives safely fall within “feminism” can label Miley Cyrus as “pitiful and banal.”  Sinead O’Connor on the other hand becomes a patriarchal “cunt” in need of a vaginal assault if she does likewise.  Granted, Sinead’s opinion is probably more relevant and poignant, more on topic and potentially an awaking moment for Miley Cyrus (who is a fan of O’Connor).

It seems in this battle over twerking it’s 1 / nil in favor of Sinead.

Fowler continues:

“Shaming and trolling women for their choices, assuming those choices are dictated by men, is not only vicious, it perpetuates the divisions within feminism which lead young women to feel alienated from its ideals.”

Fowler just called Miley “pathetic and banal” in a previous paragraph.  There is certainly a cognitive dissonance at work here.  Her focus is that the victim in all this, the one suffering is “feminism,” not the young women who just don’t get it.  The divisions have weakened the ism, splintered it, fractured it and it suffers as a result.  This fictional collection of competing ideas loosely assembled into a set of rules has suffered, because not everyone agrees on what these rules should be.  If anything is “pathetic and banal” in this situation, this is surely it.

All isms suffer this fundamental weakness.  From communism to capitalism, a million monkeys bang out a million volumes telling us what the pure ism should look like and how their competitors have failed in their understandings of the one true ism.  Feminism is no different, another greenhouse gas.  To contort real people and their varied experiences into your ism of choice you must, by necessity, rail against the apostates and infidels.

I wouldn’t disparage Ruth Fowler for her opinions, but her grandiose assumptions are a bit much.  When the ism reigns supreme over the human beings, we have a problem.  Clinging to isms is what divides us, all of us, into little armed camps ready to kick one another in the pubes.  The ideological conditioning itself is the problem.  All ideologies have fundamental weaknesses, and using an ideology as your authority on real world events distorts the discussion, derails the train of reason.  This applies to pretty much all ideological blinkers.  To see things in terms of the dogma one must avoid the uncomfortable refutations.

“This new era of feminism is heading into shaky ground though, if it allows Sinead O’Connor to posit herself as a role model for female empowerment…”

Pass the Kool Aid.  Jesus.  So there’s this thing, “feminism,” and it has some authority on what it allows women to say?  So, in essence, the rule book (on Fowler’s laptop, almost completed) has authority here.  For Sinead to just type out her opinion and call it that is a code violation of sorts.

“…thus making herself the gatekeeper of who is or isn’t a suitable candidate to be a feminist.”

Pot, kettle, blacker than black: score Sinead 2 / Fowler zip.  Plus Sinead didn’t use the word “feminist” in her entire response.  She didn’t pretend to have an ideology worked out, just her own experiences in the music industry for decades.  Sinead didn’t say anything about “suitable candidate(s),” but did offer a warning about sexual exploitation.

Miley-Cyrus-and-Robin-Thicke

It’s possible that Fowler doesn’t accept the concept of sexual exploitation, and this is simply an area of disagreement.  As long as there is personal choice involved, anything goes.  That seems to be the point of contention here.  Fowler then brings the issue around the bend, in an unusual phrasing:

“…women out there, in the big wide world, are being raped, beaten, attacked, humiliated and exploited. These are women who were not born with Miley’s silver spoon in their mouth.”

How is that a valid response to what Sinead said?  It is the regular women who take cues from these sexualized pop stars that are of concern to O’Connor:

“Yes, I’m suggesting you don’t care for yourself. That has to change. You ought be protected as a precious young lady by anyone in your employ and anyone around you, including you. This is a dangerous world. We don’t encourage our daughters to walk around naked in it because it makes them prey for animals and less than animals … I’ve been in the business long enough to know that men are making more money than you are from you getting naked.  Its [sic] really not at all cool. And its [sic] sending dangerous signals to other young women.”

The two seem to be somewhere near the same page, so then why the hostility?  This is a dialogue between women, but also between men and women.  Communications theory takes all the unstated, indirect cues into consideration.  We communicate through body language, dress and style long before we open our mouths.  To take account of this communication, to better understand it and to use it can only be a positive development.  When girls communicate slutty images, when they deliberately dress like prostitutes, what is communicated to the men who see them?

Fowler ends her rant:

“These are women who are not wasting their lives judging other women, but probably waiting for a chance to escape, hoping that their feminist “sisters” might pay them a bit of attention, show them some solidarity, instead of squabbling over Miley Cyrus and her tongue.”

The isms throw all rational trains of thought into the bog.  For starters Ruth Fowler herself is “squabbling” at length about the Miley incident (score 3/0).  But this attacking style of hers just has to accuse O’Connor of “wasting” her life “judging other women,” something Fowler does here as well (already scored).  But the weirdest thing is this line about the “feminist sisters” who don’t pay regular women enough “solidarity?”  What is this supposed to even mean, and in what way is that a valid retort to Sinead O’Connor’s letter?

 

Yesterday I pointed out the pathetic progressive method of challenging government criminality by not challenging it.  They beg criminals to be nice on a fairly regular basis.  “Please Mr. Hitler, it’s not nice sending all those people away on cattle cars.  It’s unprecedented.  We’ll still vote for you though, but your unwarranted attacks on our Jewish neighbors doesn’t seem right.

So today, yet another weasel-worded embarrassment to political action, this time from CREDO:

“Tell Eric Holder: Stop your attack on the First Amendment

“The petition reads:

Attorney General Holder: Your department’s seizure of two months worth of the Associated Press’ phone records amounts to nothing less than an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment. But sadly, this indiscriminate surveillance of journalists is part of a larger pattern within your department to go after whistleblowers without consideration of the vital role a free press plays in our democracy.  We join the Associated Press in calling on you to return the records you seized and to destroy any copies you have made. In addition, we call on you to end your dangerous war on whistleblowers.””

Iceland is looking better and better all the time.