Saturday, November 14, 2020

Paul Street is hideous

 Paul Street?  He's attacking Glenn Greenwald.  C.I. takes on Paul's nonsense in the snapshot. If it were any other person, that might be it.  But it's Paul Street.  There aren't many people my father dislikes more.  If you're a community member, you might remember the 2008 roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin that my father participated in where he called Paul Street the most dangerous writer.  

He explained, rightly, that this was a White man who was called a racist -- wrongly -- during the early months of 2008 but when it was time to attack his own enemies, he began calling anyone he disagreed with a racist.  

Paul Street is offensive. 

He's only gotten more so.  I do love the White people like Paul and that other obnoxious idiot Tim Wise who hide behind charges of ''racism.''  What do they think people like my father and I -- Black people -- are thinking when we see them hurling the term racism over and over?  That we're applauding them blindly?  No.  

False charges of racism do not help the Black community.  You're not scoring points with us by insisting this person and that person is racist.  That's been Paul Street's body of work for over 12 years now and it's a body of work that disappoints and is, frankly, embarrassing.

In the same 12 years, Trina has owned Medicare For All, C.I. has owned Iraq, Ann's owned the topics of assault and rape and Rebecca's owned the topic of the plight of the Palestinians.  By that I mean, they have returned to those topics over and over and addressed real issues.  Paul hasn't addressed anything.  He's a gossip.  That's all he does, offer the most superficial and banal surface writing.  He rarely mentions serious issues, let alone explores them.

He's a waste of space.  

Now he's attacking Glenn Greenwald?  Disgusting.  He's a pissy little priss who can't handle the truth so he attacks the messenger.  And he also attacks Glenn because of jealousy and guilt -- he knows he doesn't tell the truth himself and he knows nothing he himself does matters.

Paul Street's made no real contribution to anything.  He's a partisan.  His 'input' is disposable as soon as an election ends.

Go read "Kat's Korner: Sam Smith's LOVE BLOWS."

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

 Friday, November 13, 2020.  Sorry, guess we're team Glenn.  He's attacked again and we examine his latest attacker.

Glenn Greenwald, Paul Street.  One struggles to tell the truth, the other just whores.  Glenn's not the whore.  Paul Street has a post at COUNTERPUNCH that is just full of one lie after another.  He has suffered, he tells you, for his truth telling about Barack.  Uh, no.  No he hasn't.  He whored for Barack at key moments and did so intentionally.  We stopped noting him in 2008 as a result.  So for him to show in 2020 and claim to be a truth teller?  No.  He ran offense for Barack and he can pretend all he wants, but that is reality.  He's angry, Paul is, because Donald Trump is a fascist.  No, he's not and that's really sad to say when you consider how many people have suffered through fascism.  It's a term we toss around loosely in the west -- some of us.  I've never applied it to any political opponent.  But the brain challenged like Paul want to do so.

It was racism -- a charge Paul loves to make and has loved making it since 2008 -- for Donald to have told four women to go back home, members of the Squad in Congress.  Was it?  That is your interpretation of it.  You may be right, you may be wrong.  But it is not a fact.  I heard Katie Halper misquoting Donald recently on another time when he was supposedly racist.  I know Bob Somerby has noted the full quote about twenty times since Donald uttered it and explained how the media distorted it.  It did no good for Bob to try.  I have other things to do.

But let me say something:  Naomi Klein, go the hell home.

Does that make me a racist?

I have no idea why Donald said what he said about the Squad.  I doubt, honestly, that he knows why he said what he said.  He's a hot head and always has been and that's one of the main reasons that I do not like him (and he does not like me which is completely fair).  He would sometimes, over the years, attempt to say hello to me at social functions and I would walk away from him without responding.  I do not like him.  

But I'm aware of that and try not to filter every response to what he said or did through my 'Trump hate filter.'  

I think Naomi Klein should go home because I'm sick of her interfering in our elections.

Yes, she's half American.  But her father chose to leave the US military and go to Canada.  I applaud him for being a war resister.  But I don't think his daughter gets citizenship or the right to interfere in US elections as a result.  War Resister Kimberly Rivera was forced back to the US -- and Paul Street didn't write one word about her.  She and her kids can participate in US politics.  But the notion that Naomi, who did not grow up here, who was raised in Canada and born in Canada, has the right to keep sticking her damn nose into US elections?

No.  And I didn't like it when she did it in 2008 and called it out the first minute she used a book event as a campaign rally.  Born in Canada, raised in Canada, married to a Canadian, voting in Canadian elections, get your nose out of our business.  

I know Justin Trudeau and you don't see me butting into Canada's elections.  I almost did because Justin was never what people thought he was.  I almost quoted from a letter his father wrote to me.  (And another time, when he was campaigning, I almost ripped apart his mother over an event that I know of but was never reported on.  I didn't do that either.)  We cover Iraq here.  I have never ever spent a campaign telling the Iraqi people who they should vote for or who they should support.  Anytime any Iraqi politician has been campaigning and sent a press release, we have noted it -- regardless of the party, regardless of the person, regardless of anything I might feel.

Members of the Squad are American citizens and those born elsewhere suffered a great deal to get here.  I respect that.  I don't think Donald does and it wouldn't be in his character to do so.  Donald's world has always revolved around Donald.  He's not a deep thinker.  His responses are immediate and they are obvious.  

It has been hilarious the last four years to watch all these faux 'resistance' types -- in the media and out -- try to read the tea leaves and figure out what Donald meant when he said whatever.  They're spending far more time on it than Donald ever did.  He doesn't think, he just lashes out like the angry child he is -- one who is hurting.  

Paul Street loves to pretend he was on the side of right.  No, Paul, you were on the side of snide.

Snide and bitchy can be fun.  Ava and I used to do it all the time in our media pieces and it was fun -- saying watching SUPERNATURAL was like watching gay porn with actors too stupid to take off their clothes?  Bitchy and fun.  But we always tried to follow David Letterman's edict about being a gnat trying to sink the Love Boat -- meaning you aim high.  You target those in power.  Paul didn't aim high.  He slammed the citizens and did so in bitchy and mean ways that only revealed how much hatred he has for the electorate and anyone who doesn't agree with him.  

Glenn and I often do not agree.  I am not a Glenn fan.  I do value his work.  I do think he tries to be fair and I do believe he lacks any hostility for the people in general.  That puts him so far above Paul Street and so many others.

Before we get to Glenn, Ava and my "TV: Who's been sleeping in my bed?" finally went up.  We note the ridiculous Paul Reickhoff and we considered calling him out for his recent music 'critique.'  In the end, we didn't.  But he was praising a musician who is a known racist in the industry and who, as late as 1986, was using the N-word in published interviews.  The man is a racist today and has always been one.

I bring that up because Paul's swearing by Noam Chomsky.  I know Noam -- for decades now.  And I wouldn't swear by him.  I like Noam but I wouldn't swear by him and Noam knows why that is and hopefully he'll address that at some point.  Otherwise, I'll address it if this site's around when he passes.  Tick-tock, Noam, tick-tock.  Paul swears by a lot of people.  His list of four doesn't impress me at all.  And I've already called out Cornel West in the last month or two here.  

Paul reminds me of a photographer I know.  I've known Demi Moore for years.  She's a wonderful person.  One time, the photographer was at a function at my home and Demi was present and she refused to talk to Demi.  That's how much hatred she had -- and towards this woman she never met.   Fine, everyone doesn't have to like everyone.  Whatever.

But then Demi's on the cover of ROLLING STONE in 1995.  And photographer calls me and is just raving over Demi.  I'm like, "Where did you talk to her?"  Photographer didn't.  Photographer read the ROLLING STONE cover story.  And suddenly Demi was a goddess.

Now Demi's a wonderful person but I don't think you're going to learn that in a feature article.  I really don't think so.  Paul is like that photographer.  He doesn't know anything he's talking about.  He couldn't give you the history of Angela Davis, for example, without pulling up WIKIPEDIA.  He comes off like a little kid flipping through his baseball cards, not like a functioning adult trying to offer a critique.

He's furious with some college student (or someone who was a college student in 2016) and he writes about that.  At least his nonsense about Glenn Greenwald has him going after someone of stature.  He pretends that he's done something the last four years and praises himself for it.  He hasn't done anything.  He's not written of War Resisters.  He's not covered the ongoing wars.  He's not sought to spotlight the plight of the Palestinians.  He's been the equivalent of a Hollywood gossip columnist writing exactly what he knows his readers want.  There's no strength, there's no courage and there's no lasting value to his work.  He's so pathetic, he even apologizes for voting for Jill Stein in 2016.  

I really can't stand people who won't own their votes.  I say over and over, it's your vote, use it as you want to (which includes not voting), vote for whom speaks to you.  I say that as long as you're doing that, your vote is not wasted.  

But these people -- this includes photographer as well -- who come along after the vote and start scraping and bowing about how they voted?  I can't stand them.

I've noted I voted for Al Gore in 2000.  I've noted that I did not vote for Ralph Nader and that the notion of doing so -- never a strong possibility -- was ended with ROLLING STONE's 2000 interview with him where he attacked feminist leaders for not joining him on the very important issue of high heels.  Ralph was weak on choice.  Instead of being honest about that, he chose to attack women.  If you voted for him, that's fine, but that interview ensured I would never, ever vote for him.  And I think only now are people -- drive-bys -- starting to get how much I dislike Ralph.  There are all these e-mails about how in 2008 we noted this and we noted that and -- Anytime someone running for office sends something in, we will note it.  I'm not here to tell you how to vote and if I do endorse in a race it's one I can vote in.  I despise people like Alyssa Milano who go all over the country butting in with other communities.  You are not a resident and you can't vote in that election?  Then butt the hell out.  I love Lloyd Doggett and I love Sally Field but I feel the same way anytime Sally's hitting me up for money for Lloyd or campaigning for Lloyd.  Sally, of course, has a grace that Alyssa lacks so it's not as annoying but, yes, it does bother me.

Our officials are supposed to represent us.  It's not my business who Atlanta elects for this post or that post because I don't live in Atlanta.

The only thing I ever endorse completely is vote for who you believe in.  If you do that, you didn't waste your vote.  I don't care for Joe or Donald.  If you voted for either of them because they spoke to you, then your vote wasn't wasted.  Good for you and I'm happy for you.

This nonsense of after an election whining?  Don't.  I don't want to hear it.  The election is over and you voted how you voted.  If you were happy with it when you voted, that's great.  If you're not now, let it go because it really no longer matters unless you're in the process of inventing a time machine.   

Kevin Zeese passed away this fall.  It is a great loss.  But no one can say that Kevin wasted his life.  He fought for the issues he believed in.  He worked to popularize those issues -- he worked to do that and he did do that.  Yes, he was working on Howie Hawkins' campaign this go round but he didn't spend time in between campaigns endlessly offering sop the way Paul Street did and does.  Kevin focused on real issues.  He (and his partner Margaret Flowers) covered real issues like debt and Medicare For All   His life and his work mattered. 

Paul Street is the equivalent of David Broder and all he has to offer is gas baggery.  He'd fit right at home on the Sunday chat & chews if they'd have him (which they won't).  There's no deep thinking, there's no strong core of ideas and beliefs.  There's just endless chatter about 'hot topics' -- that he's probably cribbing from THE VIEW.  

Okay, Glenn.  In his latest, he's addressing the way the Hunter Biden story was silenced by the media and tech giants -- from his article at SUBSTACK:

The Biden campaign immediately embraced this evidence-free claim about Russia from Schiff and the intelligence community to justify its refusal to answer questions about the revelations from this reporting. “I think we need to be very, very clear that what he's doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation," said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield when asked about the possibility that Trump would cite the Hunter emails at the last presidential debate. Biden’s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC: “if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation."

Far worse were the numerous media outlets that spread this evidence-free claim of Kremlin involvement in lieu of reporting on the contents of the emails. Just watch how CBS Evening News with Norah O’Donnell purported to “report” on this story — an emphasis on the Russian origins of the materials, featuring a former “FBI operative” who admitted he had no evidence for the speculation CBS nonetheless aired, all with no mention of the serious questions raised by the revelations themselves:

As I noted when I announced my resignation from The Intercept, a major reason I harbored so much cynicism and scorn for their claim that my story on the Hunter Biden emails had failed to meet their high-minded, rigorous editorial and fact-checking scrutiny was because that same publication was just was one of the many anti-Trump news outlets which, in the name of manipulating the outcome of the election on behalf of the Democratic Party, had mindlessly laundered the CIA/Schiff narrative without the slightest adversarial skepticism or, worse, without a whiff of evidence.

Just one week before they refused to publish my own article, they published this remarkable disinformation, featuring an utterly reckless paragraph that was nothing more than stenographic servitude to the intelligence community and Adam Schiff. Just marvel at what was approved by the fastidious editorial and fact-checking machinery of that “adversarial” publication concerning claims by ex-CIA operatives:

Their latest falsehood once again involves Biden, Ukraine, and a laptop mysteriously discovered in a computer repair shop and passed to the New York Post, thanks to Trump crony Rudy Giuliani. The New York Post story was so rancid that at least one reporter refused to put his byline on it. The U.S. intelligence community had previously warned the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about the Biden laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.

Numerous other media outlets disseminated the same CIA propaganda — including The Economist (“Marc Polymeropoulos, the CIA’s former acting chief of operations for the Europe and Eurasia Mission Centre…notes that ‘the use of actual material is a hallmark of Russian disinformation campaigns’”) and (needless to say) MSNBC’s Joy Reid program (“Hunter Biden story an ‘obvious Russian plot’ McFaul believes”).

I don't watch MSNBC -- I don't have time for garbage.  If I'm watching the news, it's generally in a foreign language -- French or Arabic -- sometimes Spanish. Most nights, whatever makes the news has already been endlessly discussed throughout the day.  But I thought Glenn was going to touch on something that he didn't.  So Ava and I might grab it at THIRD.  There was a very interesting historical moment on MSNBC this election cycle that echoed the lead up to the Iraq War.  And it was interesting for who it came from. 

Anyway, Glenn has risked a great deal in his journalism career.  It's more than I ever would have expected of him.  I praised him for his journalistic work on the Ed Snowden story -- repeatedly praised him -- but recent events argue that Glenn deserves a great deal more respect than I've ever granted him.

He writes about topics others don't want to touch. I admire that.  I am a huge believer in PROJECT CENSORED (and if they'd put something up on YOUTUBE, we'd highlight them again).  

Chris Hayes Tweets:

I think it’s a good thing that there’s now pretty broad bi-partisan agreement Iraq was a horrible disaster and I think we’ll probably get to the same agreement on Trump’s Covid response at some point a decade from now.

I like Chris.  I know some don't.  Jimmy Dore doesn't like Chris.  Jimmy watches Chris so he's entitled to that opinion.  Chris was there when it counted and I don't forget that so I avoid his program because I'd prefer not to say anything harsh about him.  Ava and I have tackled him twice at THIRD.  Otherwise, I'd rather not say anything mean.

Is Iraq like Covid 19?  I don't think so.  For one thing, we're hopeful that the pandemic may end at some point -- the hoped for finish line keeps moving though, so maybe it might end up the forever scourge the way Iraq has ended up the forever war.  

But currently, I don't see it.  I'm also aware that there haven't been a lot of good responses from any governments.  Margaret Kimberely has rightly noted that the Chinese government appears to have had some success but our xenophobia and our government's hopes for war with China mean that we won't really go into exploring that.

Maybe that's how Covid is like Iraq?  Everyone knows it's wrong and it's hurtful and killing people but no one wants to really discuss how to end it?

JulieGrace Brufke (THE HILL) reports:

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) is calling on the Trump administration to dramatically reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in the coming weeks. 

In a letter sent to President Trump on Wednesday, the Arizona Republican — who has been a vocal critic of the United States having a prolonged military presence in the region  — said that the country’s involvement in the countries has “been enormously costly in lives and dollars.”

Biggs argued that despite the U.S.’s efforts, Afghanistan still faces many of the same issues seen when American troops first arrived. 

We're here because we're here?  Let's drop back to the February 8, 2012 snapshot:

We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program?  Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter didain for the program.  When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue."  The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete?  Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it."  She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government.  But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name.  That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States."  He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.
Brooke Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was needed.  The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why are they talking to the Deputy Minister?
The US State Dept wass not ready to put a time limit on it, by their own words.  How long does the 'training' continue?  How many years and how many billions?  If it's really not clear to you, let's drop back to the House Foreign Relations Committee hearing of December 1, 2011 for this exchange.
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?
Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?
[long pause]
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye."  Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.

All this time later, the White House, the State Dept, all of them can still supply no concrete plan but can continue to insist that millions and millions of tax dollars be spent for something,anything, in Iraq that will somehow help even though it has not thus far.

That is true today -- but everything above after "we're here because we're here?" is from a 2015 snapshot.  Nothing changes if nothing changes.

New content at THIRD:

The following sites updated:

Friday, November 13, 2020

5 more 80s videos I loved

In "80s video stars," earlier this week, I noted how Prince's "Little Red Corvette" was a video that always got me excited as a kid.  I'd just get so energized when it would come on, I loved it so much.

Lou Ann e-mailed asking what other videos from them were my favorites.  A ton?  But I'll note five.

Tina Turner's "What's Love Got To Do With It."

Ray Parker Jr.'s "Ghostbusters."

Janet Jackson's "Nasty."

Janet Jackson's "Miss You Much."

Diana Ross' "Muscles."

And . . . Tracy Chapman's "Fast Car."

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

 Thursday, November 12, 2020.  The displaced in Iraq continue to suffer and we look at the process of US elections.

A number of people are weighing in on the election.  Krystal and Saagar did it best in the video below.

For those who say it's not just one state -- like 2000 -- so it's not happening or whatever -- I'm referring to the ass at CONSORTIUM (which brings up THIRD, I'll try get to that at the end of the snapshot).  Recounts can provide a difference and often do.  That's one of the reasons that they don't happen to often.  A recount of the actual ballots can change the count.  A small bit, a high portion, maybe. Just rerunning the totals won't change anything.  But inspecting the ballots requires determining voter intent on some of the ballots.  Do I think a recount in numerous states would change the outcome?  No.  But that's my belief, that's not fact.  

It is very likely that, in most instances, the counted votes will not allow for any interpretation.  If someone fills out a mail-in ballot, the mail-in is always more clear than the in person ballot.  So is it likely that even with a group looking at a mail-in ballot, interpretation would not change the outcome.  But what just popped into my head is everyone's insisted this election that Republicans were going to vote in person in large numbers.  I don't know why we'd make that assumption in the midst of pandemic, but that assumption has been made based on previous turnouts in non-pandemic times.  That actually increase Donald's chances of a higher vote count -- if Republicans turned out on election day.  Recounts pick up votes in the spoiled ballot categories.  For whatever reason -- chads in 2000, 'hanging chads' -- we have spoiled votes that do not get counted.  If those were mainly Republicans voting in person, spoiled ballots could increase Donald's totals.  There are numerous ways a ballot can be spoiled.  I spoiled my ballot many times without knowing -- maybe it was interpreted, maybe it didn't count.  How so?  I voted straight ticket Democrat in 1992 by noting the choice at the top of the ballot.  Then, like leaving the house and thinking, "Did I leave the oven on?" so you turn around and go back, on the same ballot, I voted for every Democrat.  In 2000, as we learned about hanging chads and spoiled ballots, we learned that voting the way I had would get your vote rejected from the machines that read it (paper ballots).  That goes into the spoiled column.  There are many things that can get a vote spoiled.

So if Donald's team is focusing on spoiled ballots, I don't know that they are, that brings in interpretation (and it always has) of voter intent and the number he could pick up via that is unknown.

I have repeatedly stated my guess is that Joe won.  And I could be wrong on that.  I may be right.  But if that's what I believe -- e-mails to the public account ask -- then why not call for Donald to step down?

The results call for the person who loses to step down.  Not me.  Not the media.

In 2000, Al Gore should have been president.  I love how everyone apes me.  I never called Bully Boy Bush the p-word and always referred to him as the occupant of the White House.  The faux resistance steals well -- they're not capable of actual thought, but theft they can manage.

Al Gore lost for a number of reasons.  One of the reasons was the press.  "Oh, you're going to be Bob Somerby and trash all these women reporters for their stories filed in September and October of 2000 while giving a pass to various men!!!"  Sorry, I'm not a pig-boy like Bob.  Bob hates women.  It explains his whole life.

Bob also ignores the media coverage from the post-election period.

Al should have mounted a stronger post-election response.  Rev Jesse Jackson, for example, was planning to go to Florida to rally voters after the election.  Donna Brazile told him the campaign did not want him to come.  That was a huge mistake. 

Joe Lieberman stripping all requirements for mail-in ballots (military mail-in ballots only) in that hideous interview on MEET THE PRESS was a huge mistake.

But the media began calling it for Bully Boy Bush and running with panic and drama.

We all should have calmed the f**k down.  There was more than enough time for the votes to have been counted -- all the votes.  The Florida recounts were moving along and would have been concluded in time.  They were also showing Bully Boy Bush's lead tightening.  

The media, in the post-election period, did more damage than at any other time of the general election.  You'd never grasp that to read Bob and his Daily Squalor.  The decision by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore never should have happened.  It wasn't their place for one.  Sandra Day O'Connor's election night comment (and the explanation by her husband that followed -- her being upset when the race was briefly called for Gore was because that meant she couldn't retire as she had planned) should have resulted in her recusing herself from any decision.  The Court's ruling insisting that it was a one-time only ruling should have disqualified it.  The Court does not exist for one-time rulings.  It's supposed to legally interpret the law and its rulings are supposed to the foundation for future rulings (that's the whole point of citing legal precedent).

None of it should have happened in the post-election cycle.  The votes should have been counted.  Were there any issues with the vote, the matter would have been turned over not to the Court but, as noted in the Constitution, to the House of Representatives.

It was a great opportunity to show the country, the world even, how the system set up all those years ago could work.  But we didn't have faith in the process and the reason we didn't have faith in the process was because the media hyped and played alarmist and acted as though something awful was happening and it was going to destroy us all.

We're seeing that again.

Two people were in a tight race.  One appears to have won.  The one who didn't win is questioning the results and wants some form of recount.

That's the story and it's a basic story and one that the founders expected to happen from time to time.

There is no problem with letting this play out.  For one thing, it can educate the American people on the actual process.  For another, it is the process.  We can't just demand that the rules be followed when our side benefits.  

My person opinion is that Trump pursuing legal challenges will not change much of anything.  I could be wrong.  But every American -- even ones we dislike -- has the same rights to the same legal system -- or should have.  That's why so many of us call out the racial inequalities in sentencings, in arrests, etc.  We believe in fairness and equality.  

'Donald's a sore loser!!!!' That may be.  If it is and that label attaches to his legacy, I'm supposed to cry over that?  I'm supposed to be upset that history will see him as a sore loser?

As we said yesterday, the media needs to stay calm and neutral.  Instead, it's hyping this like crazy.  

What we are seeing is not journalism, it's what was called 'yellow journalism' in another period.  Saagar did a great job in the video at the top explaining how it's driving viewership.  It's nothing to be proud of.

The press should be calm and neutral.  A large number of Americans -- for good reason -- do not trust the media.  The Iraq War showed them to be whores and liars.  And then there's the group of Trump supporters, a large number of people, who have already seen that there are no standards or ethics when it comes to covering Donald Trump.  Don't feed into their distrust intentionally.  Journalism is supposed to be something we can trust.  At this point, many people can't trust it (and they're right not to).  

The electoral college meets on December 14th.  There is more than enough time -- over a month away -- for any recounts or legal issues to be pursued.  The Supreme Court settled Bush v Gore on December 12th.  The country survived. 

B-b-b-but transition teams!!!!

You can form your transition teams.  Nothing is stopping you.  And no president is sworn in until January.  

The press needs to stop trying to hype this and raise the alarm level.  That's not journalism and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing this at any time -- but especially in a pandemic where the country is already on edge.  

The future of the press under a Joe Biden presidency is discussed in the video below,

THE NATION has always had a higher circulation when Democrats were out of power.  That's true of all the left periodicals.  That's in part because a number of left voters go to sleep when a Democrat is in the White House and in part because these periodicals refuse to challenge and press and call out when a Democrat is in the White House.

Also, I disagree regarding it's only FOX NEWS for the right.  Even limiting it just to broadcast, I thought we all agreed Sinclair was right-wing, did we not?  They do have influence.  I believe BLAZE TV is making an impact as well, are people not aware of them?  FOX is known because it's been subjected to criticism from those of us on the left since the 90s.  But there are other broadcasters out there that have impact on right wing audiences.

We talked yesterday (again) about the only real US withdrawal from Iraq.  It took place at the end of 2008 and it was the US media.  They withdrew and that's the larger media but it's also the beggar media.  THE NATION didn't give a damn about Iraq and still doesn't.  Tom writes his bloated essays that really don't amount to much and that have somehow -- all these years -- never acknowledged, let alone recognized war resisters.  And this is a left publication?  

It's a critique of the kind offered in the 40s film THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES which is to say, it's a child's critique.  It's not an adult critique.  It's simplistic and we've all heard it over and over and over again.  It's garbage, quite frankly.  It doesn't concern itself with Iraq and the actual destruction that the war our government pursued and continues has caused to the Iraqi people.  It doesn't care about that, it isn't interested in that.

Abdullah Rashid (REUTERS) reports:

Iraq has started closing camps housing tens of thousands of people, including many who fled their homes during the final battle against Islamic State, but aid groups warn this could create a second wave of displacement with dire consequences.

Among those having to leave are 50-year-old Umm Ahmed and her two sons, who have lived at the Hammam al-Alil camp since 2017 when their house in Mosul was destroyed in an air strike by the U.S.-led coalition as it battled to retake the city from Islamic State.

“I don’t have any income, no one provides for us. The camp became our home,” said Umm Ahmed, who cannot take on manual work due to a disability. She says her sons both have mental health problems.

Islamic State upended the lives of millions of Iraqis when they took swathes of the country in 2014 and imposed a brutal rule that in some places like Mosul would last three years.

A functioning western media would have been over this story from the beginning.  Again, we noted it hear on October 31st.  Now that the camps have started to close, look who shows up.  The same media that sold the Iraq War is the media that repeatedly lets down the Iraqi people.  A little over a year ago, when the protests in Iraq started about the corruption, the lack of jobs, etc., many western outlets (and a few just focused on serving the west) insisted the protests were no big deal.  For three or so weeks, they told you that.  They based that on?  What they saw during their self-anal probe as they shoved their heads up their asses.

The protests wouldn't last, they wouldn't accomplish anything blah, blah, blah.

They forced the resignation of a prime minister.  Despite attacks on protesters leaving thousands injured and over 600 dead, the protests continued (and continue to this day).  

This is the same press that told us -- on the air, in one case -- that it was okay to fire canisters at protesters.  Sadly for NPR, they shared that view on the day that a protester was killed when he was hit by a canister. 

From the October 25, 2019 snapshot:

In addition, Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports, "Iraqi police fired live shots into the air as well as rubber bullets and dozens of tear gas canisters on Friday to disperse thousands of protesters on the streets of Baghdad, sending young demonstrators running for cover and enveloping a main bridge in the capital with thick white smoke. One protester was killed and dozens were injured in the first hours of the protest, security officials said."

The cost of freedom is always high, but Iraqis have always paid it. I’m sorry for the horrible video but this is the democracy USA brought to Iraq a protester been shot in head with tear gas canisters



The first one killed is said to have been hit with a tear canister.  The video above is supposed to be of that protester after he was hit.

The western press has done a lousy job.  

And that includes in holding Joe Biden accountable.  ISIS?  Joe's responsible for it.  He was in charge of Iraq under Barack and he oversaw The Erbil Agreement for the US government.  That's the legal contract that overturned the votes of the Iraqi people and gave Nouri al-Maliki a second term that the voters didn't want him to have.  This leads to the rise of ISIS.  The displaced were displaced due to ISIS.  So what's Joe's plan to help these people?  He wasn't asked about them once as he campaigned for the Democratic Party's nomination and he wasn't asked while campaigning for president.

What's his plan?

We can see the press shriek forever and a day when Donald Trump proposed lowering the number of US military members in Iraq.  But the dog didn't bark for the displaced, did it?

That's what, in the end, is so disgusting about Tom and his crap at THE NATION.  It's written in terms that do not address actual people, in a way that ignores the real damage that has been done to the Iraqi people.  

THIRD quickly.  Ava and I wrote our piece on Sunday.  I believe Ruth blogged about our post at her site on Sunday.  We are not the hold up in publishing at THIRD.  I am not in charge of THIRD.  I am in charge here and we publish every day here.  Many times a day now due to the pandemic.  If you're upset about the lack of content up at THIRD, take it to THIRD -- you can complain at this public address and it will be read by them -- Martha and Shirley will pass it on to them -- but Ava and I 'control' our pieces only.  We are not in charge of everything else.  

We'll note this from Cindy Sheehan:

What is most ironic about the love Ellen has for George is that his regime opposed gay marriage and classifying crime against LGBTQ as a hate crime. When Ellen went on social media to do some virtue-signaling, kindness-shaming, she was acting like perhaps people weren't being "Kind” to George because he parks in handicapped spaces, but his legacy is many magnitudes worse than that!

For as much as the legacy of Barack Obama has been completely rewritten by liberal ideologues, the same has been done with the murderous legacy of George Bush and by the very same people. This is unsurprising however, as these days liberals will take whomever they can get as long as they aren’t Donald Trump (even a war criminal with escalating mental decline: Joe Biden).

John Bolton, Rex Tillerson, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are just some of the warmongering enemies of the people that have been rehabilitated to suit the whims of the anti-Trump crowd. Each of these people has/had a laundry list of crimes and misdemeanors that would land you or I in the Big House for the rest of our lives, or land us in th electric chair. George Bush however has the distinct honor of having perhaps the most offensive rehabilitation processes. The wars in the Middle East, launched on lies and misinformation for the goal of further enriching the global oligarchy in so many ways, will be one of the most disgusting lasting legacies of a US President. As the garbage year of 2020 is slowly shifting to our rear view mirrors, many are forgetting the events of 9/11/01 and the violent reaction of the Bush regime that has propelled the U.S. into a complete quagmire of imperialism that continues unabated to this day.

The following sites updated: