I hate to be a pest and all. But this thread is rilly, rilly bugging me!!

It’s true. People with ugly hearts are everywhere. And though I’d leave in a second if I could afford it, I don’t have any illusions about unicorns and rainbows overseas, either. I know there is no perfect place or place in time.

Psychologically, though, I think it would be healthier to live in a country that isn’t Hegemon. To live in a non-warmongering nation, where life is measured differently. Friendships, family, love, great food, intellectual pursuits, great art, etc. etc. That, as opposed to how much money we make, and how hard we work until we drop dead.

Politically, the best location for me would likely be Scandinavia, though the Nordic countries have had their share of right-of-center governments too, and aren’t “socialist,” as I’d wish. But the cold!! Brrrrr!!

So it’s probably the South of France for me. My tour of France in 2007 knocked me out. It’s a cultural candy store, and for that reason alone, it would be worth the move. No illusions about their war-filled, colonial past, and its remnants still. But compared to here, now? Would love to live in Nîmes, especially.

Finally — and, again, I hope my posts don’t stop others from voicing their opinions . . .

I wish Hedges, Greenwald and company would widen their eyes enough to note the main source of the discussion. They seemed obsessed with the Dems on that subject, but they need to look at the real source for coverage:

Trump. To me, it’s beyond obvious that no one keeps the story in the news more than Trump. He tweets about it daily. Often several times a day. He brings it up when no reporter has mentioned it. He even brings it up when the ostensible reason for the press gaggle is a foreign leader standing next to Trump.

And, there’s that rather inconvenient series of Republicans in charge of all phases of the investigation, before and after Trump took office.

“Context.” It’s missing from the arguments I’ve heard or read from the Greenwalds, Hedges and company.

I wish I could sit down and talk with Hedges about this. Greenwald too. It saddens me to note how quickly they embraced the three-page summary of the Mueller report, by Trump’s appointee, as some sort of “categorical” judgement.

(Hedges says “Mueller report” when no one has seen it. He should say the Barr summary, to be accurate.)

Doesn’t that contradict their (justifiable) skepticism of government in general? Why accept the word of a Trump appointee, who auditioned for the job with a 19-page (unsolicited) trashing of the investigation itself, with the added bonus (for Trump) of saying the president can’t “obstruct” justice?

In short, why this sudden about-face? And why the — to be overly generous — mischaracterization of even that summary as some kind of “categorical” refutation by way of Mueller himself?

Skepticism of the Powers that Be would also include Trump and his appointees, wouldn’t it?

On Russiagate: Trump will benefit twice from Comey’s intrusion on the election of 2016. The DoJ appears to finally want to adhere to their guidelines of not talking about people who haven’t been indicted, which Comey set aside when it came to Clinton.

Barr came into this with a bias against the investigation, and support for, basically, saying the president is above the law. That he can’t “obstruct.”

The DoJ says a sitting president can’t be indicted, so that all but means radio silence on what Trump has done. America may never find out, and this has apparently pissed off some on Mueller’s team, who recently said Barr ignored their own summaries for each section of the report — which they said they wrote for public consumption — and that the evidence points to considerable wrongdoing by Trump and his campaign.

“Can’t indict a sitting president” plus “can’t talk about people who aren’t indicted” stacks the deck against transparency. To me, this is something the America people should care about.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

WV,

You’ve gotta read that book. I recently finished it and learned a ton. Was going to post about it here.

Really, really good history. Chomsky and Zinn would be proud of Immerwahr.

(I’ve switched things up recently. Used to buy my books. Now I’m checking them out of the library when I can, especially new stuff. But this book is worth purchasing.)

===================

Yeah i was thinking about ordering his book. Usually i wait awhile until books end up ‘used’ on the net and i can get them for two or three bux.

But then, lately I’ve refrained from buying political books. They tend to sit around my house for ages and i never get to them. Too many. Plus…as i enter the late-stages of my life I find it hard to find ‘reasons’ to cram more political details into my mind. I ask myself “whats the point” in me learning more ‘details’ about the corpor-o-tacracy (or whatever one wants to label it). It doesnt help me any to know more details, really. I already know the basic blueprint of how it works and how it has worked. So is it really the best use of my limited time to learn more ‘details’ of the disgusting biosphere-killing work of the corporotacracy? I mean, its like reading more about Hitler or Stalin. It wouldnt be a bad thing to learn more details of their butchery, but…what is the point? So…thats where I’m at with reading pol books. But watching short vids is different for me. I’ll do that. But a whole book? It doesnt seem worth my time anymore. Thats a job for young people. (I might buy the book just so i can give it to a young human)

As far as what the writer is doing? Great stuff. Zinn-level stuff. (which is high praise for me)
I have always known that I knew very very little about the ‘territories’. A much needed addition to general readership american ‘pol lit’.

His name just appeared on the side of my youtube screen not long ago. Thats how i stumbled across him.

Mainly nowadays, when i want to read, at night, i find myself drawn more to stories, novels. I’m reading “A People’s Future Of The United States,” and an autobio by the ornery comedian Paul Mooney. Mooney was Richard Pryor’s mentor back in the day. He said Richard really spent a lot of time reading Malcolm X’s writings. He understood radicalism very well. But politics came second to cocaine for Richard Pryor. He loved drugs. Loved’em. Another leftist wrecked by drugs.

w
v

w
v

Understandable, WV. I get the idea of saturation points. I reach them too. Which is why I mostly read novels as well. But I like to mix things up and do non-fiction at times. Two really good books on evolution, which I’ve mentioned, and Immerwahr’s book . . . breaking up a bunch of novels and one short story collection.

Currently reading Wallace Stegner’s Crossing to Safety, which I love. I wish I had read him years and years ago. He’s a fantastic writer. A writer’s writer. And this is a beautiful novel.

More recent readings:

Highly recommend Sally Rooney’s Conversations With Friends, Ben Lerner’s Leaving the Atocha Station, Valeria Luiselli’s Lost Children Archive, and Jenny Offill’s Department of Speculation.

Loved all of them. But I think the book that’s moved me the most in recent months is The Overstory, by Richard Powers. About trees and people who love trees. I learned a ton about tree lives, their communities, families, communications, defenses, and the tragedy of our destruction of those trees.

Anyway . . . thanks for the tip about Mooney. I had not heard of him before. Makes me want to take another look at Pryor, too.

Would like to hear your take on the video, WV.

Will wait a bit before posting more on the book.

. . . I fear that my sudden onslaughts of posting in this forum tend to kill these threads. Not my intention at all. I honestly want to hear you and everyone else’s take on things. I don’t ever post to end discussions.

WV,

You’ve gotta read that book. I recently finished it and learned a ton. Was going to post about it here.

Really, really good history. Chomsky and Zinn would be proud of Immerwahr.

(I’ve switched things up recently. Used to buy my books. Now I’m checking them out of the library when I can, especially new stuff. But this book is worth purchasing.)

Another thing bugging me — a ton:

Certain lefty critics have publicly blasted the MSM for its coverage, and the Dems for their investigations, while remaining silent when it comes to Trump, his camp and Fox.

To me, if anyone is guilty of hysterically peddling hysterical hysteria, it’s the latter. Trump, on a daily basis, unprompted, most of the time, lashes out at the Media, the Dems, Mueller and his bizarro version of the “deep state.” Never lets up. Nor does his attack dogs. Nor does his state TV, Fox. They get incredibly personal with their attacks as well.

Those same lefty critics say nada about this, even though it’s an obvious sign of guilt. No innocent person does this. No innocent person marshals such an onslaught against an investigation, or gets that personal. And they’re still at it, calling for media firings, investigations of the investigators, and Schiff to resign, etc. etc.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I’m still having troubles finding/processing the logic in this: That those of us on the left who do not subscribe to the idea that “Russiagate” is all a hoax — as in, we don’t agree with Trump’s view — somehow makes us neocons, or neocon supporters, or warmongers, or actual killers of brown and black people.

That people who have been vocally, fervently antiwar, against empire, imperialism, etc. etc. . . are, simply by dint of our view of “Russiagate” apparently fake leftists.

Not. Seeing. The. Connection.

And I also don’t see the media as having botched the reporting at all. Yes, a few TV personalities apparently got ahead of their skies. But rational adults should be able to see the difference between Op-Ed pundits and regular reporting.

My own analogy:

Some of that stuff is generational. Super-hysteric purist leftists who are quick to denounce other leftists in online venues for perceived doctrinal short-comings …word around is, a lot of those are 20 somethings. I say, don’t even engage with them.

That’s good advice, ZN. And I think you’re right about the age. There’s a giddiness about them since the Barr memo hit. It’s like they just discovered that peanut butter on toast is really awesome, and they want to spread the word.

It is awesome, btw. I like it with real butter added to the peanut butter, too. Not so sure my heart does, though.

I’d understand the view from a certain corner of the left if Trump were a true champion of the people, and was himself antiwar, against empire and capitalism, imperialism, etc. etc. I’d support a president with those views. But he’s obviously not. He’s a warmonger himself, and has prominent neocons surrounding him, like Bolton. Everyone knows he loves autocrats, and must see himself as one. His war on the media is the war of an autocrat, etc.

So the opposition to the Russia investigation and the reporting of that investigation isn’t in the service of peace, or championing poor people, or saving the planet. It’s in service to Trump and the GOP, who are worse on those subjects than the Dems.

I seriously don’t get it — especially the lashing out and the giddiness I saw after Barr’s memo.

I’m still having troubles finding/processing the logic in this: That those of us on the left who do not subscribe to the idea that “Russiagate” is all a hoax — as in, we don’t agree with Trump’s view — somehow makes us neocons, or neocon supporters, or warmongers, or actual killers of brown and black people.

That people who have been vocally, fervently antiwar, against empire, imperialism, etc. etc. . . are, simply by dint of our view of “Russiagate” apparently fake leftists.

Not. Seeing. The. Connection.

And I also don’t see the media as having botched the reporting at all. Yes, a few TV personalities apparently got ahead of their skies. But rational adults should be able to see the difference between Op-Ed pundits and regular reporting.

My own analogy:

DE Jachai Polite pulled up hurt after a poor first 40 at Pro Day. Barely cracked 5 seconds. Now has ice taped to his right quad. Probably done for the day.

Mixed reports about him. Some say he’s “football fast” and productive. Don’t worry about the Combine stuff. Others have him with too many red flags. Supposed immaturity, poor interviews, etc. etc.

He presents a real challenge to the Rams and talent evaluators across the league.

Do you roll the dice on his “potential”? Or say no due to his testing, interviews, etc. etc.?

I think I’d go with Lawrence (still) if he’s there. Or Burns, but he likely won’t be. Nor will Metcalf.

Oakland is lucky. They have enough picks to gamble. The Rams don’t.

Good analogy, ZN.

I know I shouldn’t care or let it get to me. Intellectually, I know that’s really, really dumb.

But it’s frustrating to be attacked like that, especially when I actually believe the opposite of the accusation, etc. etc. On the forum in question, I’m one of the few anti-empire, antiwar, anticapitalist voices.

It’s to smile, but, “no one is safe!!” from hysterical overreach in this climate.

;>)

Oh, and did you know I’m “larper”
too? I didn’t until today. Had never heard the term before. Had to look it up online.

Is the NFL regular season here yet?

AOC is correct.

Oh, and I made the mistake of jumping back into the fire in that other forum.

So, now this person says I support neocons and their policies because I don’t agree with her that this is all a hoax. My entire online history shows a fervent opposition to the neocons. As does my real life history.

She’s getting this, almost word for word, from the Greenwalds and Dores, etc. etc.

People have lost their freakin minds.