Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantWhen you get the time… How is the system taking advantage of this? Do you see it as a similar opportunity to 9/11 and Bush and company’s exploitation of that?
============
Yes. I think its just like the 9/11 thing — yes, the US was attacked…but the system ‘used’ the incident to do all kinds of hideous things, from war, to Patriot Act, to McCarthy-izms galore, etc.
I see the same thing happening with russia-gate. I mean even after 9-11 the corporate-internet didnt suppress TruthDig.
w
vI can see that. Getting rid of Net Neutrality might be the first step. Surveillance will step up across the board, too. It’s going to take a LOT of pushback from activists to prevent a tiered, balkanized Internet, radically unequal, and geared toward the affluent, only. Signs have been pointing in that direction for years now.
On Truthdig: It has a lot of good articles right now, including Hedges on fighting fascism.
Did it win a court battle to return to search engines like Google? I missed what happened. I use duckduckgo instead of google, and got to it with no problem a moment ago.
Billy_TParticipantAlso, in a related angle:
I think too much of the critique regarding the existence of media’s focus on Russia-gate overlooks another obvious fact…The GOP and Trump run the entire show…
====================
Well, If you are saying Trump is a narcisstic dangerous lying surreal-nightmare,
i agree.I’m less interested in ‘that’ these days, than the question
of what Trump ‘means.’ I mean the voters have gone from electing Franklin Roosevelt to Donald Trump. I dunno what that means. But i will think about it till i die.w
vI mean it more in the sense of who is currently responsible for whatever is happening right now. I agree with your description of Trump, but I was trying to make the point that in some of these public critiques, the writers in question seem to concentrate all of it on the folks NOT in power. That doesn’t make sense to me, especially when it’s lefties involved. We’re the side of the aisle that is generally most in tune with power dynamics, systems of power, inequalities of power, and the like.
Second paragraph: I really like the question, and the way you put it, about the meaning, and the change from FDR to Trump. But it’s almost too good a question. Cuz now I’m gonna be obsessing about it, in between drinks.
Thanks a LOT, WV!!
:>(
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantAlso, in a related angle:
I think too much of the critique regarding the existence of media’s focus on Russia-gate overlooks another obvious fact:
The GOP and Trump run the entire show. If we’re in the midst of tensions with Russia, they’re in charge. Not the media. Not the Dems. The GOP and Trump run the entire government, make all the policy, control all the levers of power. They even control most states.
This, to me, is totally separate from the rottenness of the Clinton campaign, the idiocy of running her, the Dems’ longstanding betrayal of the working class, etc. etc. None of what I mention in any way, shape or form absolves a single Democrat for what they’ve done or have failed to do.
I’m just saying that the reality of our governing situation is that the GOP has controlled Congress for . . . what? Eight years? And for the last year plus they’ve had the White House too. I’ve lost track of how long they’ve had the majority in the Supreme Court, but it’s been more than ten years, right? The states are dominated by the GOP as well.
Boiled down, any critique of the focus on Russia is missing a major part of the context if it doesn’t talk about the governing power in place right now.
Billy_TParticipantAnother thing I think is missing from this discussion. And I see it as a snake, right there in front of their noses . . . .
The main reason why the media keep talking about Russia? Trump. There is no bigger driver behind that. None. Not the Dems. Not the Nevertrump Republicans. It’s Trump himself. He keeps it in the news and on the Congressional plate.
And, to me, that’s the case even if one believes he didn’t do anything wrong, and the Russians didn’t meddle.
Trump keeps it in the news when he lashes out at the media
He keeps it in the news when he lashes out at the Dems
He keeps it in the news when he fired Comey, thus spurring the hiring of Mueller
He keeps it in the news when he tries to fire Mueller, Sessions, and leaks from the White House say he wants to fire Rosenstein.
When he lies and lies and lies about his contacts with Russia, and when his campaign does the same, he keeps it in the news.
To me, no innocent person acts like Trump has acted. No innocent person acts like Kushner, Manafort, Sessions, Don Jr et al have acted. And I can’t think of a single case where a report from papers like the NYT and WaPo wasn’t eventually confirmed by the accused themselves.
In short, if Trump and company had just shut up from Day One, or told the truth, the story goes away, unless they are indeed guilty.
Billy_TParticipantMy own view of the WWIII thing . . . I personally don’t see that as even a possibility, especially due to the Russian probe. My gut tells me Putin couldn’t care less that we talk about “Russian meddling,” etc. etc. We’ve done so for more than two years and what has changed on his part? Are we really closer to a confrontation because of that discussion? I don’t see it.
I see us being closer to proxy battles because Trump escalated in Syria, not the Russian probe. In fact, our troops and theirs have actually engaged directly (in recent days), with casualties. If anything is going to start a hot war, it’s the expansion of military engagements by Trump, after Obama expanded them over Bush, after Bush expanded them over, etc. etc. etc.
As in, I don’t agree that we’re in a new “cold war” with Russia, especially not due to the discussion of Russian meddling. When have we not been in the midst of serious tensions with them? When has American foreign policy not been all too aggressive with regards to Russia (and most of the rest of the world)? When has Russia not sought the expansion of its empire as well?
Billy_TParticipantWell so far, what “I” see is this — the russia-thing is being ‘used’ by the ‘system’ to:
1) Ignite and ratchet up a new cold-war. (for all the usual imperial reasons)
2) Suppress dissent. Note Facebook and googles suppression of ‘dangerous fake news’ sites like TruthDig and RT and World Socialist Website and Alternet, etc etc.
I kinda look at this national discussion as encompassing two things:
1) What did ‘russia’ actually do. (and there’s lots of debate on that, and levels of proof, and who do we trust, and context, etc)2) No matter WTF russia actually did — how is the system USING this issue?
The second part concerns me a lot more than the first part.
w
vWhen you get the time, I’d be interested in you elaborating on the second one. I know you’d prefer not to get into the first one. How is the system taking advantage of this? Do you see it as a similar opportunity to 9/11 and Bush and company’s exploitation of that?
Billy_TParticipantI love Thomas Frank.
I have been saying from day one that the Dems just have not come to grips with the fact that Clinton lost because she was a TERRIBLE candidate and because we have an electoral college system that is flawed. It isn’t any more complex than that. The Russians did not decide the election.
That narrative is way over the top, IMO.
Also–no mention of the use of dark money in influencing elections. That comes from everywhere.
That’s an even BIGGER issue.
But–nothing.
I do not believe it is worth starting WWIII over.
And of course we do it too in various ways.
Having said all of that, Trump is probably the most corrupt president we’ve ever had an if some of his crimes are exposed–so be it. Also–if they are able to safeguard election systems from foreign interference it is also a good thing–and by that I mean voting machines and the like.
And of course–my past posts say all I need to about how I feel about Putin. He is Al Capone. He is what he is.
But this Russia hysteria about some sort of stolen election is nonsense.
I may not like the way the game is played(but the primary and the whole superdelegate process for the Dems is no fair process either)but she knew the rules. Clinton screwed up. She thought she was owed something. She wasn’t.
Well said, PA. Yep. Frank is excellent. My own views about how society should be organized are to his left, but I don’t think there’s a better “liberal” critique of current politics than his.
As in, I think we basically sync right up with the “is” part. But I’d go much further on the “ought” part. Regardless, I respect him and think his voice is very important. It’s up there with Hedges and Chomsky, though they all have different areas of interest and expertise, obviously. We go to them for different reasons, etc.
Billy_TParticipantThe author makes a lot of good points. But, in my opinion, there is no such thing as a “national psyche.” We don’t inherit a sense of “frontier mentality” or anything else related to our past — at least beyond our parents’ generation. Humans are far too forgetful to retain generational views, and start basically fresh with each life — again, setting aside parental visions. We’re socialized, educated, propagandized by a host of sources into feeling some sense of that “national psyche,” but it’s an illusion.
I was thinking the other day about the massive impact of growing up watching TV and movie Westerns, WWII stuff, and a myriad of media glorifying the use of guns. We played shoot ’em up as little kids, not cuz we came into this world thinking that’s our American heritage . . . but because Hollywood, et al gave us John Wayne and company . . . and we thought it was “cool.”
Cutting right to the chase, I think the desire for, the love of, the belief that, we have the “right” to an AR-15 is just a carryover from our childhood games, amplified by that many more years of media glorifying the gun.
Take away the constant images we grow up with and never escape, and at least that aspect of our perceived “American heritage” dies rather quickly. It really only exists via that amplification. It’s not innate.
Billy_TParticipantA quick pre-pre-post: Russia-gate doesn’t rank in my top ten most important issues. In no particular order, I’d put gun violence, the environment, education, health care, economic inequality, the despicable nature of capitalism, the need for real democracy and human rights, the arts and the Rams ahead of it. But I still want Mueller and company to get to the bottom of it, and for us to harden our election system.
And I want our social media platforms to do away with bots, at least. It’s not difficult. On my own site, I use software that can distinguish between human and robot traffic, in real time, provide IP addresses, nation of origin, time stamps, etc. etc. Twitter, Facebook, et al, have billions and billions of extra dollars to spend. They could easily limit accounts to actual humans, and they definitely should.
Billy_TParticipantI dont think its about “shutting up about russia”.
I think its about two things:
1) PROVING the case against russia. (and i dont think ‘much’ has been PROVEN)
2) Putting the russian-thing IN CONTEXT.
Ie, think about Rachel Maddow. She goes on and on and on and on about the Russia thing. Hillary calls it a ‘cyber-9-11’. Politicians call it a “Pearl Harbor” and “an act of war”. Etc.
And yet not a PEEP about the billions and billions spent over the decades BY the US on SERIOUS interference in other nations Politix. WAAAY more serious than blog posts and facebook ads.It surprises we dont agree on this, but its no big deal 🙂
…I’m real inter ested in this ‘issue’ for whatever reason. I’ll move on eventually. Just ignore me 🙂
Greenwald fwiw:https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-consensus-emerges/
“…in the U.S., something of a consensus has arisen in the political and media class (with some notable exceptions) that these actions not only constitute an “act of war” against the U.S., but one so grave that it is tantamount to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Indeed, that Russia’s alleged “meddling” is comparable to the two most devastating attacks in U.S. history has, overnight, become a virtual cliché.
The claim that Russian meddling in the election is “an act of war” comparable to these events isn’t brand new. Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton, while promoting her book last October, described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” And last February, the always-war-hungry Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on Morning Joe that Russian hacking “was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event.”…see link
w
vI think we actually agree about a lot of stuff pertaining to this, especially the context . . . the history of our own meddling, coups, covert and overt wars, expansion of empire, etc. etc. As in, our imperialism. Our atrocities on the way to becoming the hegemon, and staying there. And we definitely should “hold a mirror up to ourselves” regarding all of that. I’m with you and NC there. No question.
And, if I thought the accusations against Russia and the probe were bogus, I’d be outraged about the entire thing. But I think that it’s mostly true, and that what we read in the NYT, the WaPo, the Guardian, etc. is pretty close to what is publicly knowable on the subject at this point. I think that we’ve had enough hearings and enough consensus, even from Trump appointees, to lend it credence. Not every last bit, of course. But most of it. Which, to me, means the probe is a legit thing and it’s important to let it proceed without interference.
Another place where we’re on the same page: I definitely think it’s stupid and wrong to call what Russia did “an act of war.” It’s actually highly irresponsible. So the few people who have said that, or things like it? Yeah, they deserve the term “hysteria.” But where I part with some of the people you’ve posted is that I just don’t see that from more than a tiny few — and, again, I watch, read and listen to waaay more of this shit than is good for me. I’m just not seeing the pervasiveness of this kind of “focus” as some of your videos portray. In short, I think it’s exaggerated. But, yeah, anyone who tries to compare this with Pearl Harbor is nutz.
More on this in the next post.
Billy_TParticipant$6B in free TV media / airtime for D.T.
that’s beyond Dr. Evil ransom money, that’s 9 zeros people……. $6,000,000,000
That Dore guy is kinda funny, I never would’ve heard of him if it wasn’t for this place….
That is crazy, Joemad.
The media helped create Trump decades ago. He faked it until he made it, with their help. And it’s a major reason for his win.
Bigger picture: the fact that our MSM simply won’t give the time of day to anyone outside the two major parties, and is all too reluctant to give a minute to lefty outliers, even if they run as Dems. We don’t have more options because the powers that be don’t want us to have them. The illusion of choice, but not its actuality. Kinda like our rows and rows of “different” sugary cereals in the grocery store.
The Hurt LockerBilly_TParticipantI think, instead, that there’s a type of hypocrisy that consists NOT acknowledging the Russia thing.
I am never guilt-tripped by the “we did it too” routine. Yeah I know, and I spent time in the 80s for example drawing attention to all that. Iran, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua….
I still abide by this take:
For the American left, of course for them only American imperialism exists, yes? I can’t understand it. . . . In Russia, there are a lot of leftists who also believe that Russia is the main evil in the world, it’s a reactionary empire, and it should be destroyed. Or, at the same time, you have a lot of leftists who believe somehow Russia is resisting American imperialism [and] who support these “republics” in the East of Ukraine.
But you have a huge provincialization of the left as a whole because they can’t even understand each other and every leftist community, they believe in their own national reality. And that’s why they can be so easily manipulated.
I’m a bit confused by the focus on hypocrisy as well in this case, and what they want us to do to rid the land of that. Or, is it their view that it can never be purged? That would be my guess, given the history of our imperialism. But if they do think we can gain a kind of redemption of sorts, if we just shut up about Russia, I’d really like to know who would benefit from this, aside from the people who feel the tug of guilt in this case. The vast majority of the nation doesn’t, and I can’t see how shutting up about Russia makes one single life better here.
Will it help the working class, the poor, minorities, women? Will it help the planet? No. Not in the slightest. Shutting up about Russia means we’re very likely to get hacked again, including voting registration databases, and maybe this time they’ll alter things instead of just looking around. Shutting up about Russia means we’re likely to see an even greater influx of bots and fake news in our social media systems, and even more attempts to stir up racial tensions, white supremacist groups, alt-right gun nut groups, etc. etc.
Frankly, I’m not worried about tensions with Russia due to the probe and any kind of focus on what they’ve done and will do. But I am worried about tensions here as a result of what they’ve done and will do. America and Russia aren’t going to go to war. They weren’t going to go to war if Clinton had won, either. Why? Cuz, unlike other nations Trump has threatened militarily — Venezuela, Mexico, Yemen, Syria, Iran, North Korea — we understand that Russia/America are locked in a guaranteed mutual destruction scenario. It aint gonna happen.
Again, I think the use of the word “hysteria” is misplaced in this case. IMO, it’s in the narrative that says if we don’t stop talking about Russian interference, we’re going to have WWIII. Frankly, I’m betting Putin couldn’t care less about the probe and the “focus” on his machinations here and in Europe. He probably even likes the attention.
Billy_TParticipantNoam on russia-gate. I agree with his view. He brings in the critical context.
Yeltsin for example.The host created a logic hole big enough to drive a battleship through for 99% of that video. He spent a couple of seconds at the very end, shrinking it an iota. But the damage was already done. He also made a claim early on that just isn’t true at all. He said the media didn’t cover the emails. Actually, study after study said it was the MOST covered item during the entire campaign season. No other event received more coverage. Does that mean it tossed the election to Clinton? Who knows? I think Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate, couldn’t connect with Americans, was disliked by too many people, ran a terrible campaign, and the Dems turned their backs on the working class forty plus years ago. But things like Comey’s last second reopening of the investigation — while hiding the fact he was also investigating Trump — likely played a part in such a close election.
But, back to that logic hole: Noam — a national treasure — seemed to miss this, as did the host. They both claimed that the Dems were driving us to World War III, by focusing on Russia — which strikes me as the real “hysteria” in this case — because they have the nerve to want the Mueller probe to continue without Trump’s interference. Trump, Noam claims, is supposedly deescalating tensions with Russia, while the Dems egg them on, even though Trump (and the host) list the stuff that is going on NOW that is edging us closer to war.
So which is it? Is Trump deescalating or escalating? He can’t be doing both. And, in case they need the reminder, the Republicans run the show, not the Dems. Republicans call the shots on foreign and domestic policy, not the Dems. Republicans also run the FBI, the CIA, the entire Intel apparatus, and Defense. Noam and the host seem to be under the impression that the GOP gives a shit what the Dems think. They don’t. They never do. Nothing the Dems say is going to alter GOP policy with regard to Russia, and I also think Noam and the host wildly exaggerate the “focus” on Russia coming from the Dems, and apparently ONLY the Dems.
On this issue, I just don’t get the way they see things. At all.
February 22, 2018 at 6:27 am in reply to: How rightwing media is already attacking Florida teens speaking out #82974Billy_TParticipantAttack the messenger.
Easier than addressing the message.
Bunch of fuckers. I am sick and tired of it. I’m done with it. I cannot take opposition to gun control laws seriously. All arguments against restrictions on these guns are morally bankrupt.
Kids are being killed. Again and again and again and again and again and again. Kids.
There is no legitimate defense of these weapons. They do not belong in circulation. I’ve had it.
They don’t. Other nations don’t allow them, and they have a fraction of our gun violence.
There is no defense for weapons that can shoot 50 rounds a minute (or more), like the AR-15. Rubio said a ban on assault weapons wouldn’t have prevented the latest slaughter, but it would have limited the carnage, saved lives, at least. My own view is that Cruz never would have tried to shoot up the school if he didn’t have the firepower to do so. So, it actually would prevent it. Take away the power rush of high capacity weaponry, and folks who snap might just reconsider. Keep them in circulation and every owner is a potential mass shooter, or a potential target for a B and E job which THEN leads to more gun violence.
Most criminals get their guns from break-ins to begin with.
They need to go.
February 22, 2018 at 6:20 am in reply to: How rightwing media is already attacking Florida teens speaking out #82973Billy_TParticipantCoupla more good articles on the subject of right-wing sliming of these kids. And they’re getting death threats, too:
The right-wing sliming of Douglas High students can’t be ignored. It’s too disgusting for that.
and
How a survivor of the Florida school shooting became the victim of an online conspiracy
Excerpt:
David Hogg, 17, went from Florida high school student to mass shooting survivor to telegenic advocate for gun-control laws in a few days. And just as quickly, online conspiracy theorists began spinning viral lies attacking the teenager’s credibility.
By Wednesday — a week after a gunman wielding a semiautomatic rifle killed 17 people at Hogg’s Parkland, Fla., school — online media sites including YouTube swelled with false allegations that Hogg was secretly a “crisis actor” playing the part of a grieving student in local and national television news reports.
Hogg was not the only one targeted by an online campaign that flared up on anonymous forums such as 4chan and Reddit before it reached conservative websites, Twitter, Facebook and Google’s video platform. Collectively the posts questioned the honesty and credibility of the grieving students as they spoke out against gun violence and in some cases publicly challenged President Trump, the National Rifle Association and lawmakers opposed to gun control.
“It’s annoying. I hate it. But it’s part of American democracy,” Hogg said in a phone interview. “Am I an actor? No. Am I a witness? Yes.”
The falsehoods about Parkland students come even after the technology giants have tried to tamp down disinformation campaigns by hiring thousands of moderators, changing the algorithms that surface information and enacting stricter policies. The Parkland flare-up underscores how efforts to quell the spread of such online conspiracies remain incomplete on platforms that derive profits by attracting eyeballs en masse.
The incident has also highlighted how nobody — even a group of teens just days removed from seeing their fellow students gunned down — is off limits in the no-holds-barred world of online commentary, with its often-toxic mix of rumor, innuendo and unrefuted accusation.
The president’s son Donald Trump Jr. was among the many people who “liked” a tweet criticizing Hogg. On YouTube, a video featuring one conspiracy theory reached the top of the service’s “Trending” clips list and was viewed more than 200,000 times before the company admitted that its filtering of news had not functioned as intended and it blocked the video. A search for Hogg’s name on YouTube on Wednesday turned up eight conspiracy videos and only two legitimate news reports in a top-10 listing before YouTube intervened.
Billy_TParticipantWell, MSNBC is The Left as far as the MSM is concerned. Off the charts leftie. Dore knows perfectly well they aren’t the left. The entire bit is ripping MSNBC.
MSNBC deserves all the ripping he gives them, and more. Much more. And I hope you’re right and that he knows they’re not “the left.” But I didn’t hear him say that, at least in that video.
To me, the reason why this is important, and why real lefties shouldn’t “go there,” is because it echoes right-wing framing and narratives from the last few decades on up to the present. The main gist of that framing and those echoes is that the Democrats are “far left,” and when they propose and/or implement their policies, and they fail, it’s a failure of “the left” . . . even the “far left,” even though all of us here know the Dems propose and/or implement centrist to center-right stuff, predominantly.
I’ve argued in the past, for instance, that Clinton and Obama governed from the center-right on most issues, and this has often left right-wingers gobsmacked. They’re convinced that both presidents, and the Dems in general, are “far left,” if not flaming commies. I’ll present a list of center-right stuff they’ve pushed/done and it still doesn’t seem to register. The narrative of Maoist, Marxist, Commie Dems is too strong for them to get past.
. . . .
Anyway, to make a long story short, folks like Dore obviously don’t go to that extreme. But when he talks about “people on the left” attacking him, he’s unwittingly helping the right-wing frame. He’s really being attacked by Clinton bots who at best are corporate centrists, and more than a few, true conservatives. I think it also weakens the already fading chances of an actual left to fight back and oppose the center, the center-right and the far-right.
Just my take. It’s tough enough to be a leftist in America. We don’t need to add to our struggles by blaming portions of our side of the political/philosophical aisle for stuff we don’t even do.
============
BT, not that its an important point, but, trust me, Dore knows that MSNBC is not really ‘left’. He was just being ironic, etc. I watch him enough to know 🙂
…on an unrelated tangent, I watched a bit of a long interview between Dore and Rogan a few days ago. Dore said he has a bone disease where his bones have been kinda disintegrating. He said he used to be two inches taller. He said he thought about suicide for a while.
w
vI missed the irony/sarcasm. Should have known, cuz he’s a comedian, etc.
. . .
Sorry to hear about his illness. He’s obviously a fighter and courageous, doing what he does. My cancer is bone deep too. I think I may have lost a bit of height, but can’t be sure if it’s the cancer or just getting older. I should ask the oncologist.
Billy_TParticipantWell, MSNBC is The Left as far as the MSM is concerned. Off the charts leftie. Dore knows perfectly well they aren’t the left. The entire bit is ripping MSNBC.
MSNBC deserves all the ripping he gives them, and more. Much more. And I hope you’re right and that he knows they’re not “the left.” But I didn’t hear him say that, at least in that video.
To me, the reason why this is important, and why real lefties shouldn’t “go there,” is because it echoes right-wing framing and narratives from the last few decades on up to the present. The main gist of that framing and those echoes is that the Democrats are “far left,” and when they propose and/or implement their policies, and they fail, it’s a failure of “the left” . . . even the “far left,” even though all of us here know the Dems propose and/or implement centrist to center-right stuff, predominantly.
I’ve argued in the past, for instance, that Clinton and Obama governed from the center-right on most issues, and this has often left right-wingers gobsmacked. They’re convinced that both presidents, and the Dems in general, are “far left,” if not flaming commies. I’ll present a list of center-right stuff they’ve pushed/done and it still doesn’t seem to register. The narrative of Maolist, Marxist, Commie Dems is too strong for them to get past.
. . . .
Anyway, to make a long story short, folks like Dore obviously don’t go to that extreme. But when he talks about “people on the left” attacking him, he’s unwittingly helping the right-wing frame. He’s really being attacked by Clinton bots who at best are corporate centrists, and more than a few, true conservatives. I think it also weakens the already fading chances of an actual left to fight back and oppose the center, the center-right and the far-right.
Just my take. It’s tough enough to be a leftist in America. We don’t need to add to our struggles by blaming portions of our side of the political/philosophical aisle for stuff we don’t even do.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV.
That was one of Dore’s best. And Jill Stein kicked butt.
I can’t believe they had that headline underneath the host that whole time. No, the Mueller indictment didn’t say Stein was a Russian tool. Sheesh. I loved that she also said that votes didn’t belong to Clinton in the first place. I’ve mentioned that all too often in my battles with her bots. It never seems to register with centrist Dems.
My only quibble with Dore in this one is that he labels MSNBC as “the left.” They aren’t. They’ve never been. They have a couple of center-left hosts on in Prime Time, but their daytime news shows are decidedly center-right. That particular daytime host is decidedly center-right. They’re owned and operated by Comcast, a conservative corporation, which installed a conservative (Andy Lack) to run the network. He, not so long ago, purged it of several hosts who espoused center-left views, and added conservative Republicans to the lineup like Hugh Hewitt and Nicole Wallace.
Anyway . . . a minor quibble overall, especially cuz it was very well done otherwise.
Billy_TParticipantLast word:
The left has a tradition of going to bat for the powerless, minorities, the poor, the outcast. We have a history of fighting the good fight for the working class on down. The battle royale, in this case, isn’t about the working class versus the ruling class. When lefties go to bat for Trump and Russia they’re going to bat for a corrupt American billionaire and Putin, who, by most estimates, is worth 200 billion — all of that made while supposedly being a public servant. They’re going to bat for an American plutocrat and a Russian oligarch, who may as well be called a super-plutocrat at this point.
What’s in that for the American working class? Or the working class anywhere in the world, for that matter?
Billy_TParticipantAlso: I think some on the left have invented a moral trap of sorts for themselves that really doesn’t exist. They seem to think that if they don’t dismiss the Mueller probe, or go even further, as the author of the article above does, it somehow absolves corporatist Dems, Clinton, etc. etc. How could it? It’s a completely separate issue. Trump’s guilt is totally separate from Democratic Party idiocy.
It’s also a totally separate issue when it comes to American empire and imperialism. Wanting to see Trump and company held to account in no way, shape or form justifies our own history of imperialism, or our empire. We can and should condemn BOTH. It in no way justifies our own election interference around the world to do our best to hold Russia and their helpmates to account for theirs. The only people who suffer when we don’t are American citizens/voters, not the ruling class anyway. Saying we should just take it cuz we did it too serves the purposes of the ruling class, not our own.
Billy_TParticipantFor me, this isn’t about “legitimacy.” This is about someone breaking all kinds of laws in order to steal the election. This is about someone with a history of lying, screwing over workers, business partners, women and never, ever paying the price. I want him to finally pay the price for all he’s done — before the election and during his presidency. And his going down will take down the GOP, whose odious, massively destructive policies he keeps signing into law.
Again, I honestly don’t get all the energy devoted by some on the left to all but defend him and Russia. It baffles the hell out of me.
Billy_TParticipantOn the author’s concerns regarding “legitimacy.” I don’t see the MSM bringing this up. Even diehard Dem flunkies rarely go there. And when they do, it’s because Trump brings up the subject due to his abject defensiveness and thin skin. They talk about it only when they see his refusal to criticize the Russians for interference as his insecurity regarding the election results.
It’s just a massive leap to assume Mueller and company — all Republicans, btw — are trying to play election arbiters. No. They’re trying to get to the bottom of Russian interference which is ongoing, and Trump’s role in this.
Again, I think it’s a slam dunk that he — or, at least his campaign — was thick as thieves with the Russians in order to help win the election. The evidence is beyond sufficient. The dots almost connect themselves. He actually, publicly, called on Russia to help him with the Clinton emails. His son, campaign manager and son in-law had a meeting with the Russians in Trump tower to receive dirt on Clinton — the latter breaks election laws all by itself. Trump kicked out American media, spoke with Kisylak and Labrov alone, let Russian media take pictures, and we see him yukking it up with them. White House sources leaked that Trump told the Russians that Comey was a nutcase and now that he fired him, the pressure is off. He also gave them classified information, against the wishes of the nation that had given it to him.
Think about that. Think about if a Dem president was caught doing JUST the last thing I mention. He or she would have been impeached and removed from office that day. With Trump, the few things I listed are a fraction of a fraction of what we already know he did . . . and we only know a fraction of a fraction of what Mueller knows.
Billy_TParticipantHe’s made up his mind that a large part of the American government is irremediably, diabolically sinister, from top to bottom, and we shouldn’t even consider that there may be one or two humans in the mix who are doing their jobs for the right reasons. Paint them all with pitch.
.===================
I really dont know what that means, BT.
There are good people working for Exxon and Monsanto and BP and there are good people working in the Fracking fields — but so what. We dont say Fracking is “complicated” because there are people doing it “for the right reasons”. (to feed their children, etc)
Doesnt matter to me if there are good people in the CIA “doing things for the right reasons” — Thats a different article. This article is about Oil/Gas and the deep-state-motives.
Btw, i do agree the author paints with a broad brush and doesnt analyze nuances and layers, and a gazillion other things, but for me thats just nit-picking. I forgive all that stuff. I see it too, but it just doesnt bother me.
w
vI probably didn’t express my thoughts very well. It’s not really the “banality of evil” stuff for me in this case, though that’s an issue too. What I meant to say is that I think the author jumps to wild conclusions about what Mueller is really doing, and why, and for whom, etc . . . based upon past actions by the FBI, CIA, etc. etc. And, yes, those things happened.
Yes, our surveillance, intel and law and order sectors have horrifically ugly records. Yes, we had COINTELPRO and much, much more. But, at the same time those things took place, we also had top level officials directing legit probes into legit dangers — not just made up shit — that saved American lives. It wasn’t all propaganda.
A side issue here: I hate that I feel the need to bring up these other “sides.” Someone in the media recently talked about a “hippy conundrum.” I feel that. I honestly do. I feel this horrible tug at my heart and my moral compass, when it comes to ANY kind of assertion, even indirectly, that maybe, just maybe, stuff like the Mueller probe is legit, and I think it is. If I were younger, I’d be joking with myself that my — at the time — long, freak-flag hair would all fall out because of this. Fast forward to last Friday and it has (over the last few days), but I’m pretty sure that’s cuz of the chemo.
;>)
I went last night to Sports Clips and went full Kojak, resigned to the inevitable.
Anyway . . . will break this up and add some more thoughts in the next post.
Billy_TParticipantI start out with the assumption that our surveillance, intel and law and order systems are primarily concerned with protecting the capitalist system, especially private property, and especially the private property of the super-rich. I start out deeply skeptical about all of it, and it always should be questioned. All authority should be, 24/7. But when we dig down into human motivations — for the rank and file, especially, individual human motivations, things get much more complicated.
The author of this article allows for no such complexity. He roars right past all of that. His world is strictly black and white, Manichean, almost inhuman, and almost entirely beyond redemption.
He’s made up his mind that a large part of the American government is irremediably, diabolically sinister, from top to bottom, and we shouldn’t even consider that there may be one or two humans in the mix who are doing their jobs for the right reasons. Paint them all with pitch.
Ironically, while talking about the lack of evidence to support the Russian probe, he provides no evidence to support his sweeping condemnation of the probe and its supposedly all sinister, all corrupt, all Orwellian aims. None. Zilch. Zero. Basically, IMO, he plays the flip side to those who want to paint the surveillance state, the intel community and law and order sectors as perfectly innocent, saintly and awesomely patriotic. His vision of the above is just the other side of the moon.
On a scale from one to ten, where one is “innocence” and ten is “diabolically sinister,” the author keeps the meter at eleven.
Life aint that simple. Dime store thrillers are. But not life.
Billy_TParticipantWell i dont think it matters if they are Replicants or Duplicats, they are both Pro-Corporate-Capitalist-Empire-ists.
I think of them as ‘deep staters’ but the label doesnt really matter to me. Call it simple Neoliberal-Empire-sustainers.
I tend to like the term deep state, because to me, it suggests the ‘secrecy’ part of it. And since so much of this is carried out by the CIA/NSA there is a shitload of undemocratic, unaccountable, Secrecy involved.
w
vYou’re right. It doesn’t really matter, especially in the long run. Both parties are guilty.
But I think in the short run it’s important to note who’s actually in charge, and the history. Trump and the GOP, plus Fox, etc. etc. . . are really pushing the narrative of the Democrats-only deep state . . . and the more hyperbolic among the Republicans call it a Democrat-only coup against Trump.
I see that as highly dangerous, and a backdoor way to gain political cover for a purge, one that would make the “deep state” Trump’s and Trump’s alone. He’s made attempts at this already, and sent up numerous trial balloons going back to the transition about this, asking for info on voting records among federal workers, etc. We don’t know how successful he’s been to date.
Billy_TParticipantThe “we can’t talk about it because we did it too”
STILL by far the best piece on this and, to be honest, I believe everyone should read it:
“We should recognize that there are other imperialisms”: A Marxist dissident explains what the left gets wrong about Russia
.
From that piece:
For the American left, of course for them only American imperialism exists, yes? I can’t understand it. . . . In Russia, there are a lot of leftists who also believe that Russia is the main evil in the world, it’s a reactionary empire, and it should be destroyed. Or, at the same time, you have a lot of leftists who believe somehow Russia is resisting American imperialism [and] who support these “republics” in the East of Ukraine.
But you have a huge provincialization of the left as a whole because they can’t even understand each other and every leftist community, they believe in their own national reality. And that’s why they can be so easily manipulated. By whom? By Russia Today? I think it’s a very pitiable situation because the Russian propaganda machine, which is not the most clever, not so smart . . . it can so easily manipulate such a big sector of the Western left. It points to the problem of the Western left itself, but not the strength of Russia Today.
Thanks, ZN.
Looks like a good article. I skimmed it, but will go back and read it more carefully. This section struck me right away as self-evidently true:
Too often, however, this is what defines the debate: each state’s propaganda machine, with patriots believing their own country’s talking points and dissidents believing the other’s, obscuring what out to be the glaringly obvious fact that neither nation-state is motivated by any principle in domestic or global affairs more honorable than “what’s good for our oligarchs,” who even live in the same parts of Manhattan.
Billy_TParticipantSee, to ‘me’ this is a gazillion-trillion-million times more important than the russia-gate story.
And its really not even a story, in 95 percent of Americans’ minds.
We should just call the MSM ‘CIA-news’ from now on.
People dont want the Russian-news…interfering with…the CIA-News.
Sigh.
w
vYou can’t make this stuff up. An ex-CIA agent has been appearing on MSNBC recently. His name is John Sipher.
;>)
An interesting transition of sorts . . . It was discovered during the Bush regime, remember, that he had ex-generals, posing as “experts,” go on the Teebee to push for the Iraq war. There was also a nexus of ex-generals who had become lobbyists for the MIC, who probably did this without being asked. So it was both/and.
Now, as you mention, it seems it’s more FBI and CIA folks.
I don’t really know what to make of that shift.
But I also think this needs to be restated: The vast majority of these guys — both the generals and the secret squirrels — are Republicans. Overwhelmingly so. When Trump and his loyalists in the House try to make this into a Democratic Party only thing . . . they’re lying. Yeah, the Dems are complicit. But if there’s a deep state, it’s long been decidedly “conservative” and Republican.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 7 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantJOHN FEFFER: Well, first, it’s not just the United States.
Good post. I have to say, I agree with every word Feffer says, which probably surprises no one. And as for his interviewer/debate opponent, I personally am always frustrated by those arguments. Feffer makes a compelling case and the alternative view is puzzling—the left is not supposed to be the group that comes across as driven by blindspots and denial, on anything.
Another reminder of something Marx himself said: he said there is no imperialist singular, it’s imperialists plural, and they are locked in competition and antagonism. That’s part of what imperialism IS, at least since the 14th century.
I think it’s a massive blindspot, and it’s beyond puzzling to me.
We’ve talked about this before, but I could see the desire for pushback if Trump and Putin were leftist freedom fighters, real threats to the neoliberal and neocon status quo, and were true champions of the people.
Obviously, they aren’t. They’re both far right, pro-autocrat, pro-corporate, pro-billionaire, anti-worker, anti-environment, etc. etc. Both also love military power and Trump has already dropped more bombs that Obama did in his entire eight years. He’s expanded our wars and escalated them, while rolling back our already too lame “rules of engagement.”
I have no idea, honestly, why some lefties have expended so much energy in defending Trump and Putin. I don’t get it. And, as mentioned before, seeking the truth about Russian interference — and Trump’s role in this — in no way absolves Clinton, the Dems, our own history of imperialism, etc. etc. It’s an entirely separate issue and needs to be seen as such.
Billy_TParticipantThe “we can’t talk about it because we did it too” is kinda like this:
You find out that your neighbor is beating his wife and nearly killing her. You talk about this with your family and you come to the conclusion that you must remain silent, because your father did this as well.
That way lies madness.
Billy_TParticipantIMO, one of the most frustrating things about this horror show is this:
We apparently can’t even discuss Russian meddling because we have a history of interference as well. Mate mentions this a coupla times, saying this somehow risks us overlooking our own sins. Um, no it doesn’t. Not even remotely. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, and we do. At least we leftists.
Speaking just for myself, I can easily hold all of these ideas in my head at the same time:
1. America is an empire, and has a horrific record of bloody imperialism. It’s been interfering in the affairs of other nations for roughly two centuries, often violently.
2. Clinton was a terrible candidate, never should have been the nominee, was the most disliked for the Dems evah, and it was absolutely nuts to run her. She ran a terrible campaign, and the Dem leadership botched the election. Their four decades of soft neoliberalism is a huge reason why they’ve lost so many elections, and why 100 million voters stayed home in 2016.
3. Trump and/or his campaign are guilty of coordinating with Russia to win the election; are guilty of money-laundering and corrupt business practices; are mobbed up, here and in Russia; are guilty of endlessly lying about it all, covering it up and obstructing justice. Both Clinton and Trump were horrible candidates, and Trump has proven as president that he’s a monster.
4. Russia is trying to rig our elections still and sow discord socially. It’s insane not to do everything we can to prevent this, even though we, too, have engaged in our own brand of imperialism. By NOT trying to prevent this — Trump has done NOTHING about it — we hurt ourselves. We hurt 320 million Americans. We gain absolutely nothing by the bizarro-world idea that we can’t even discuss it because our government is guilty of similar things.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
