Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Tuesday, February 19, 2019

I may switch to supporting Trump

Donald Trump is the most loathsome, criminal, disgusting pig in the history of American pigs. But I may support him in 2020.

That is to say: I will not support Bernie Sanders in 2020. I despise Bernie Sanders so thoroughly I will support his opponent even if his opponent explicitly runs on a promise to kill everyone named Cannon. 

My problem goes beyond Bernie (who, I'm sure, still won't show his taxes). At this point, I find progressives to be as despicable as Republicans. They're all addicted to identity politics.

In other words, they're all guilt-givers.

The other day, I saw Spike Lee on the Chris Matthews program. I've always admired Lee -- he's one of the truly great directors -- but he pissed me off as only a true artist can.

Lee was wearing a shirt featuring the number "1619," to remind us of the first year slaves were introduced to this country. "We need to start talking about that," said Lee.

Start? START? Did he fucking say fucking START?

It seems to me as though we've been talking about nothing else since before the Civil War.

Here's my response, Mr. Lee. You're not going to like it. But you can harangue me for a thousand years and I'll still say the same thing. I've already heard everything that you could possibly say to me about slavery, and I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY SINS BUT MY OWN.

My own sins are plenty. 

What does Lee hope to accomplish with his incessant message of "Hate yourself, Whitey"? Guilt-givers like Lee made Trump president, and now the guilt-givers want to give Trump a second term.

Newsflash: Democracy is a popularity contest. Guilt-giving is not the way to make yourself popular. Quite the opposite.

"But I'm filled with rage and I think white people SHOULD feel guilty, MUST feel guilty, for the following reasons..."

Stop it. You still don't get it, do you? Democracy is a popularity contest.

Progressives remain eternally blind to the fact that they are not popular. Most people (including most members of minority groups) hate political correctness. Most people hate identity politics. Plenty of people who didn't like Trump voted for him nonetheless because they want to send a message to the progs: We hate you. We're sick of the politics of guilt.

I can no longer stomach black people who insist on saying "Feel guilty, Whitey." There. I said it and I won't take it back.

That doesn't mean I wish black people ill. That doesn't mean I want them to suffer police abuse or job discrimination or anything of that sort.

When the insurrection broke out after the Freddie Grey funeral here in Baltimore, I happened to be sitting next to a black guy at the local Mickey D's. We watched the TV coverage together. He was appalled by those (relatively minor) acts of violence. I was the one shouting "It's about goddamned time someone fought back."

That's been my attitude pretty much all of my life.

Yet black people in the media constantly tell me to feel guilty for something I did not do. And I have finally had it up to here.

I grew up with a Sicilian mother and a Jewish stepfather. Believe me, if there's one thing I know about, it's guilt. My family was devoted to one cause: Making sure that I grew up with the bedrock certainty that everything wrong with the world was MY fault. When Apollo 13 broke down, my first reaction was to apologize. 

Here's the thing about growing up with rage-addicted, resentment-filled guilt-givers who used a kid -- a kid -- as their perpetual emotional punching bag: After a while, the kid says "Fuck it. I'm not apologizing to you ever again. Even if I do something that actually merits remorse. No more apologies."

If a child feels that he is damned no matter what he does, he learns to accept damnation. Catholics have a term for this: The sin of despair.

As with a child, so too with an adult.

In nearly every contest in every election, I've voted the way black people vote. Looking back on my life, I honestly can't think of any person of color I've treated in a racist fashion.

No doubt, the previous sentence will infuriate someone. "You're wrong, Cannon. You ARE a racist and always have been, and I don't give a shit who you voted for." Message to that reader: You don't know my life. What makes you so goddamed sure that I have Klan robes in my closet? 

Yes, I have plenty of sins on my ledger. Sins grave enough to make the devil blush. I wrestle with that realization every hour of every day remaining to me. But: Not that sin. Believe what you will, tell yourself whatever fable you want to hear: I know my life and you do not. Nothing I ever did made your life worse. If you're having trouble playing the gas bill, don't blame Cannon.

Even though I've been poor most of my life -- even though I've lived in homeless shelters and commuted by bus, even though I buy clothing only in thrift stores (purchasing only the half-price items), and even though I spent my last dollar yesterday on a can of tuna -- black people call me privileged. Even the ones who drive nice cars and wear expensive shoes still feel that they have the right to call me privileged.

God, but I've come to despise that word.

They feel that the P word applies to me and not to (say) Barack Obama, who went to fucking Occidental College as an out-of-state student, despite having (by his own admission) crummy grades. (Oxy is a dumping ground for rich kids in southern California who don't have the grades for USC.)

The P word is never bestowed on someone like Spike Lee, even though I'm pretty sure that the son of Bill Lee grew up in easier circumstances than those I knew after my dad died. Lee is worth $40 million now, yet he still seems perpetually filled with resentment. The man lives like a king, yet he wants to be an emperor. He has the same infuriating sense of entitlement commonly associated with Donald Trump. Lee has far more intelligence and talent, but the arrogance is similar.

Women. Similarly, an incessant parade of women have always tried to make me feel guilty. If they are unhappy with themselves, they blame me. 

There's a reason this list has gone viral. Believe it or not, that poor guy had it easy compared to the way I lived during my first serious relationship. I was forbidden to see all of my old friends. My every waking movement was controlled.

Too many women have become incredibly domineering and controlling -- downright sadistic. Although men are still often caricatured as ape-like brutes -- as unlettered, unfettered "Stanley Kowalski" types -- feminists are actually closer to that stereotype.

The woman I live with now is one of the few I've known who isn't like that.

Feminists never let a male finish a thought. No matter how carefully a man tries to pare down the argument -- can I get it down to two sentences? One? -- she will pounce before a man can utter seven consecutive words.

I knew a feminist back in the 1990s. The moment I uttered a noun, any noun, she would interrupt. She simply had to spew out every idea/memory/word-association conjured up by that noun. Yet she would accuse me (and every other male) of interrupting her. Every unvoiced thought in her head had to come out, or she would claim that she was being suppressed. I once secretly recorded a forty minute phone conversation with her: The only uninterrupted sentences allowed to me were "Hello" and "See ya." Everything else was a nonstop brain-dump, a volcano of verbiage. Her verbiage. Frankly, what she had to say wasn't particularly original or insightful. But still she just had to say it, and she used feminist argot to "guilt" me into patiently accepting her every triteness.

I've met many, many, many women like that. And I'm sick of it. Sick of the rudeness. Sick of hearing feminism used as an excuse for rudeness.

I have a soft voice. I don't interrupt. I make an effort to be a good listener. All my life, women have taken advantage of my politeness. They harangue me incessantly in shrill, loud tones, usually doing 80 to 90 percent of the talking. (I speak literally.) Yet they accuse me of interrupting them whenever I try to formulate an argument of any complexity.

When a woman says "You're not listening!" what she really means is: "Do as I command! Never disagree with me! Never say one word that I do not want to hear!"

I've been abused by most of the women I've known in my life. There. I've said it. I can't prove it to you, not without revealing more about myself than I care to. If you are a feminist, you wouldn't believe me anyways, since you think all men are Penismonsters. No amount of evidence would suffice. But I know what it is like to be hit. The blows don't physically hurt, but the humiliation is unendurable.

Modern women are pigs.

Gays. I don't know what the hell you want from me, but it isn't what you say you want from me. I've never mistreated a gay person. I would be fine voting for a gay politician. I'd have no problem if a child of mine were gay. I've had a couple of bisexual ladyfriends.

(Frankly, they're preferable. I used to be a commercial artist. Bisexual women do not turn into quivering balls of insecurity if I draw a picture of a voluptuous female.)

But there's one message I'd like to give every gay person: Your problems are your problems. I'm not responsible for them.

Don't blame me if you don't like yourself. Self-loathing is a universal constant; if you weren't gay, you'd probably be just as unhappy for some other reason. The myth of all-pervasive homophobia has become your all-purpose excuse, your way of blaming the Eternal Other for your fucking depression.

A gay man is someone who, when he is blinded by the sun's glare, does not simply put on a pair of sunglasses, as the rest of us do. He screams: "Turn down the sun!"

The gay man blames the world, never himself. If a gay man doesn't radiate 100 percent self-esteem at all times, it's always society's fault, not his.

Sorry, gay people and trans people, but I just don't give a rat's ass about your self-esteem issues. You don't care about my self-esteem issues, so why should I care about yours?

Gays are forever overestimating their numbers. They once published a magazine named "Ten Percent," because they told themselves that they constituted ten percent of the population. Gore Vidal repeatedly spoke of thirty percent, as if he knew what the hell he was talking about. In fact, gays are roughly 2.5 percent of the population. Look it up. I was shocked to learn that there are more pedophiles than gay people in this country. Again: Look it up.

There's nothing wrong with belonging to a 2.5 percent minority group. Yet ever since Kinsey, gays have flattered themselves with bogus statistics -- and as a result of their propaganda, dunderheaded young people now believe that gays constitute 23 percent of the population.

My message to gays is much the same as my message to climate denialists: Science is science. You can't insist upon a science that makes you feel good.

What familiarity breeds. I know what some of you are now longing to say: "Just for once, you should hear my point of view..."

"Just for once"? "Just for once"? Jesus Christ, I've heard no other point of view since the fucking 1970s!

All my adult life, I've been assailed by feminists/blacks/gays who -- hilariously -- think that I have yet to hear their rap. In a sense, they're just like the 9/11 "controlled demolition" nutjobs. They keep telling me that they're gonna blow my mind with some new new NEW information -- yet invariably, they have no words to offer other than those I've already heard a zillion times.

Black people, women, gays, progressives: Let's be done with the illusion that you have anything new new NEW to say. You don't.

Your hatred of me is very familiar. I am already well aware that I am the cause of all your problems. That's right: You can blame your failures in life on that extremely poor guy who lives in a small attic in Baltimore -- the guy who doesn't know what he's going to eat after he's emptied that can of tuna. He's the privileged one.

Whatever you do, you must never blame yourselves for anything. Point the accusing finger at that demon in the attic, for his skin is white and he has a penis and he does not sleep with men.

I am your insecurity-dump, your rage-dump, your fury-dump. If you didn't have me to hate, you might have to hate that person you see in the mirror. And that would be insufferable, wouldn't it?

But:

Please don't pretend that you have something new new NEW to tell me. Please don't think that you possess some explosive new insight which is going to cause my occiput to rocket out of my cranium and fly out the window and land in the street where dogs may piss on it. 

After a certain age, one realizes that one has heard pretty much everything. Everything. For me, "conversation" and "cliche" are synonyms. Conversation has become the art of two people hitting each other over the head with bags of banalities. Even people considered novel and clever are actually quite predictable.

Serge Diaghilev once commanded Jean Cocteau: "Astonish me!" That's my challenge -- and not just to blacks, women and gays. To everyone.

You probably won't meet that challenge. I doubt that any of you are capable of saying any words, on any topic, that are truly unpredictable.

I, on the other hand, posses that ability. I'm clever that way.

Allow me to demonstrate.

John Lennon (another clever fellow) once wrote: "Woman is the nigger of the world." Today, the heterosexual white male is the nigger of the world, at least of the progressive world. Nothing we do is ever right. I am the boogeyman. I am the one who ruined your life. I am Satan.

That's the thing about guilt-givers. After a while, the target says "Fuck it."

Black people, feminists, gays, progressives: I'm sick of being your nigger.
Permalink
Comments:
Off your meds?
 
It's ok to be pissed, Joseph, but keep your spirits up. There's a lot of people who can relate to what you say -- and who care about you.

For most of history self-reflection was always the luxury of a wealthy elite; the rest were too busy working. Leisure time, and the opportunity for self awareness, is now rightly seen as a generally good thing and socially beneficial. But not where the self-preoccupation goes into hyper drive and it becomes a right for every person to install their own personal narrative and demand that others pay dues on it. It gets silly and dangerous. Mindless passion becomes a badge of honor, a "proof" of moral superiority and the rightness of one's ideas. Economics and the lack of money has a lot to do with it. People are forced to fill the gap with BS. Nature has a way of correcting these imbalances. Spiffy Nazi uniforms and rallies gave way in ten years to burying dead and sorting rubble. There'll be social correctives even in our life time. And the ravages of global warming? Even that will pale in a hundred years when the insects die, our crops die, and a new dark age comes upon us. Reality has a nasty habit of intruding.
 
The obsession with "white privilege" (or male privilege, or cis privilege, or whatever) has completely taken over progressive circles. The way younger people talk about it reminds me of the way medieval Christians talked about original sin: It's something you're supposedly born with and there's no getting rid of it, so your only hope is to flagellate yourself until you prove yourself worthy. It's complete nonsense. Think of how far the civil rights movement would have gotten if their message hadn't been "We want our rights as American citizens," but "You are all bad and we shall never forgive you."

I'm distressed how much the language of "critical theory" has invaded our lives. It reminds me of the Marxist-Leninist stuff they had to memorize in the Soviet Union: It's complete gibberish, but the first person who points that out gets sent to the gulag.
 
It's not even white privilege anymore, now it's white supremacy that all whites practice. The rhetoric is scary.
 
I suppose Roger Stone would be your preference as Trump's running mate.

Assuming Roger's not in prison, of course.
Oh wait. He would be pardoned, wouldn't he?
Great. The way is clear for your Trump/Stone Dream Team.
Take THAT and a big FU, Bernie Sanders!
 
I'm with you.
 
You are **so** close to understanding the breadth and depth of female rage. Imagine the fiery rage of being hated by 3/4 of the population (all the men and half the women) for how you were born.
 
Fuck you, jane. You are hated because you are rude, obnoxious, overbearing and despicable. And you surely use feminist argot as your all-purpose excuse for your rude behavior.

The majority of women dislike feminism not because they have been brainwashed to despise their own kind, but because these have male fathers/brothers/husbands.boyfriends whom they love. They know from experience that all males are not the brutish, rapey, insensitive stereotypes that you sicko feminists imagine them to be.

But go ahead. You can go ahead and blame all of YOUR problems in life on that demon in the attic in Baltimore. That's what I'm here for, isn't it?

I also poisoned your well and caused your crops to die. And right now, I'm plotting to abduct your child to use his blood to make bread.


 
Things sound dire, Joseph. Raging into that good night or over a lost muse? Been following since your West Coast time and you been laugh out loud wry but that seems to have run away leaving bitterness. Why does it seem you're up against that cosmic expiration date?
 
Whether you like it or not, you do belong to a privileged group, white males. White males think the entire world revolves around them. They think they have it so rough, and they are pissed off when other groups want a share of the pie.

I quit giving a shit about them when they kept voting the wrong way election after election, decade after decade, for the very people who were destroying jobs with ruinous trade agreements and outsourcing. There is no helping these idiots, who still they think they are entitled--as white males--to "family wage" jobs, the family wage concept which lies at the root of sex discrimination, the wage gap, and women's poverty.

It isn't "identity politics" to state the truth. YOU are engaging in "identity politics" when you shit all over women. We do live in a patriarchy and white males are at the top of the heap. Not you personally, but you white males as a group.

You are also full of it about feminism. Don't make claims you can't substantiate, like "most" women "dislike" feminism. ALL women benefit from it whether or not they call themselves feminists or even like it. Women know today they don't exist to be fuck toys, incubators, and little domestic servants for you dudes, that they don't make you dudes the center of their universe anymore. That isn't "dislike" for feminism, Joseph, to realize they are human beings, which is all feminism is about, and not subhumans who exist in relationship to others. YOU don't get to tell women what to think or define what feminism IS. YOU wouldn't know what it is if it bit you in the ass. I have close to a decade on you in age, and I am well versed in it. You can't even see how entitled you are as a white male. You think you have the right to tell women to shut the fuck up. I have known since I attended high school fifty years ago the male left was completely and totally worthless when it comes to women. They are just as bad as the right when it comes to hating women. The left dudes love their porn and prostitution, which are human rights abuses, and they support the heinous transgenderism, which is woman-hating at its core.

Understand the difference between men as a sex class and individual men. You take every single thing personally. You apparently have a problem with women, and I can hardly stand to read your MRA-type garbage when it comes to this. It is your Achilles heel when you write about politics.

I agree with you on Sanders, however. I won't vote for that shitbag, but he is not going to be the nominee at all.

I worry much more about Cory Booker, who despises public education or Kamala Harris, who cannot get elected because of the Willie Brown albatross.

I have no idea who I will support in the primaries.

 
Fuck you, you despicable feminist piece of shit. You will never be published here again.

"You think you have the right to tell women to shut the fuck up." No, I think I have the right to have my say. It's the women -- the domineering, controlling, manipulative women -- who will not accord that privilege to me

I can honestly say that, in all my life, in all of my interactions with females, the females have done at LEAST 75 percent of the talking. TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK. Incessant talking. Incessant attempts to control my every thought and movement. Incessant demands that I justify -- endlessly, endlessly justify -- my every decision and whim.

And yet these sick, sick creatures think that I am trying to squelch THEM. You goddamned feminists are the ones who refuse to treat ME as if I were a human being. YOU are the ones who have continually shat on ME -- my entire goddamned life.

I CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE.

I am finally rebelling against all of the domineering, abusive, insulting, controlling females I've ever known. You want to think of me as a monster? Fine. I'll play along. I'll be the monster you have unfairly presumed me to be.
 
Joey, Joey, Joey. What can anyone say about an old guy who still goes by 'Bernie'? Imagine if he'd lived up to his parents' illusions as Bernard Sanders (without the r sound) and wore swell suits. I like the guy, always did, but would never vote for him. He agitates, good stuff.

What do you do if the tickets are Clinton/Sanders and Trump/DeVos?
 
I am glad you finally let it out. Good for you. Explains a lot.

 
I'm Whiter than sour cream. I've always felt more oppressed by fascists than feminists and brown people. Just sayin.

 
I know Joe, just hearing the name Sanders in the news can cause a lot of harm to some people. I almost lost it today. But...
Please take care of yourself. From my experience wallowing in the past no matter how hard and disappointing is not good for one's health.
 
Holy shit, Joe! Even though my total monthly income is only $1300 (SS), I'm sending you $10 so you can buy some more tuna. This is the best way to stretch it: chop 2 boiled eggs, 1/2 onion, 2 stalks of celery. Mix with a can of tuna, small dollop of Zatarain's Creole Mustard and a large dollop of real mayonnaise (none of that low-fat shit). You'll thank me. Love, Sharon
 
That is very kind of you, Sharon. Far kinder than I deserve. (I wasn't kidding when I said that my sins would make the devil blush. If you knew...!) At the risk of seeming ungracious, I won't take your money.

The low-fat mayo is what I SHOULD buy. Heart disease, you know. There are no grocery stores within walking distance, so I extend tuna with canned tomatoes and peas.

Thanks again.
 
If we're doing poverty food, I recommend beans on toast. Quick, good, filling. Warm, if you live in one of those places where the winters get cold.

"Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. " -- George Orwell.
 
Three words, Joseph: I LOVE YOU!
I Love you no matter what. Your blog has been a guiding light for me since before Hillary's first campaign for the nomination in 2007-2008. I probably speak for lots of folks when I say that I don't know how I would have made it through that time & the present. Please know that you are loved beyond imagination.
 
What the opposition needs to play on infinite loop is that clip of Sanders pushing Jane aside the same way Trump pushed aside the president of Montenegro. Peas in a pod.
 
I meant it in a good way -- hope you make the breakthrough soon. Nobody hates you, no matter how you feel right now.
 
I have come to the conclusion that Democrat Politicians will gladly stampede the Younger Generations over, above and on top of their Elders, because they believe it is the right thing to do. I guess Republican Politicians are the ones who are able to get out of the way.
 
When I was five years old I played with two sisters who lived few houses down from me, one was my age, the other was one year older. We would race from the backyard of their house to behind my Garage. I would win. One day I was at their home and they were really really really really excited. They had bought new tennis shoes the evening before and they were both going to beat me to my house.
I was mortified, not at the thought of losing, but that buying new tennis shoes could suddenly make someone faster than someone who did not have new tennis shoes. The Sisters were really whooping it up. I seriously thought I was going to lose and something inside of me was telling me that I had to try as hard as possible to not be defeated by a new set of Tennis Shoes.
We raced, and I zoomed ahead, and I think I recall hearing some type of disbelief behind me. When it was clear I had won I don't know how at that young of an age I knew to do this, but I slowed down just a bit so they would be closer then they had been in prior races by the time we reached the back of my Garage.
I turned around and was met by tears by the buckets. The two sisters were inconsolable. I had trouble processing their level of grief, I had not expected their need to win was so great that losing would be so painful for them. I don't think we played much after that day.
It was difficult trying to process the events of that day. What if the Tennis shoes had made them faster than me, and they taunted me from then on because I had old, slow sneakers and they had fast, new tennis shoes?
Is that really something to be happy about, being better than someone else because of something they purchased that my parents could not afford? I wondered if the Shoe Sales person had just led them on, telling them they would be faster for sure and they were giddy the entire time from the moment they bought their shoes until our race.
We all grew up in times where grown ups maybe made bad decisions, but they offset their bad decisions by having a job or keeping the family from being homeless.
I wonder if that is why to this day I drive a 40 year old car. I don't need a new car to feel better about myself just as I didn't need New Tennis Shoes to Run Faster than others. Maybe that is the White Privilege that drives others crazy?
Being put in a no win situation by racing against my two friends with their new tennis shoes meant I lost two friends over a stupid lie about magical tennis shoes.
Is this had been a script I could be viewed as the Bully of the Story, yet I did nothing wrong other than have fear that new Tennis Shoes could make someone else faster than me. In those Girl's eyes I was dead to them because they lost even with their new Tennis Shoes.
If any of us can be so fragile over one moment in time, it's a miracle our society functions at all. Why mess it up even more by blaming people for things they had no control over or things that happened way in the past.
 
Joseph, the proper word is "Gaslighting". It sounds like you have had your fair share of being Gaslighted by others in your life. What the Patriarchy Accusers refuse to see is it does not take more than 10% or 20% of all Men to be Patriarchal for the effects to reverberate in Society.

Those who constantly complain about Patriarchy and Patriarchal Men probably would rather spend 95% of their time shadowing and complaining about the Patriarchs in Society rather than spending their time focusing on the Men who are good guys.
 
What Janet in Texas said.
 
Oh, and BTW, nobody believes you will ever support Trump.
 
Once you get old like me, you start to whittle things down and you realize there are only two kinds of people: mean ones and kind ones. It's confusing because mean ones can be kind, and kind ones can be mean. There are mean feminists and there are kind ones. It's the same no matter how you slice and dice human populations.

 
Don't forget raw onions. lay raw onions on top of a THIN slice of your favorite cheese.
 
Joseph, while I don't agree with everything you wrote here, I would defend your right to say it no matter what. If free speech has any value, it's the ability to be exposed to ideas we find disagreeable. One thing I've always hated is the notion of "thought crime". This is what progressives try to enforce with virtue signalling, the idea that certain thoughts and ideas should never be spoken about or thought about. This is fascism, plain and simple.

My sister in law and her two young adult daughters, my nieces, tried to tell me last time they were in town that my parents marriage was misogynistic. I called bullshit, because my mother worked before my brother and I were born. From the time she was a little girl, she wanted to be a mother and a homemaker, but she worked to help get her new family with my father off the ground, while he went to grad school. My father would have supported her if she wanted to get a masters and PHD, because he always supported her, no matter what. She supported him and his dreams and goals in a similar way. The idea that my father was a misogynist, simply because he was the main breadwinner for most of the time my brother and I were growing up (my mom actually worked part time for most of that time, then went full time when I was 14 and my brother was 16), made me angry. They didn't know my parents then, and still don't know them as well as I do. My father goes out of his way to help people he doesn't even know, and doesn't care if they are male, female, gay, straight, black, white, whatever. I've witnessed him doing this countless times. But no, none of that matters, because my mother freely chose to be stay at home mom for 14 years. Somehow, this is my fathers fault, and men's fault in general. I do not accept that. I realize that US society as a whole was quite male focused for most of my parents life, but by the time I was born, women's liberation was in full swing, and by the time I graduated High School feminism and equality were well known concepts nationwide. I should probably also mention that prior to this last visit, I had never heard my sister in law or nieces say anything like this about my parents. They seemed greatly bemused by the notion as well, and addressed me as if I was a misguided child for suggesting they were misguided in their (apparently) very recently acquired view of my parents marriage.

Anyway, sorry for the long reply, but I hear you and I have loved reading your stuff since the George W years and you have been a light in the wilderness in many ways for me. So thanks for that.
 
i'm still going to give Jussie Smollett the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty. But, if Smollett is found guilty, it will seem like Jussie was late to the "We are Victims Movement", which is growing by the day, and is offended he was not believed because he is famous and should be given preferential treatment.
 
Joe, for some sick, twisted, reason I still come back to read your blog. Today I wanted to see what you thought about Bernie entering the race, wondered if you saw it for the shitshow it could be. And I find you ranting and raving about....identity politics? Women who have tried to control you? Lol. You're off the rails. This sounds like a personal issue of yours more than anything.

You're getting confused (Russian propaganda will do that to us all here and there): You think there's this thing called identity politics, which is actually just black people and latino people and women achieving high office. For the most part, this phenomenon you describe doesn't exist and has been inflated and made into a straw man by the other side. Of course we should celebrate diversity, lol, that is the default American view. What is unnatural is the white supremacists with a grip on the White House and Senate and many state legislatures.

Stay the course, my friend, and yes Bernie is goddamn awful, I can't foresee the consequences of this. But I can tell you one thing, women and people of color are your allies, some of the best (and the only) allies you have. In case you missed it, Nancy Pelosi just kicked Trump's ass. He lost, publicly, maybe for the first time in his life. Calm your ass down. We have a mission to complete.

Justin - 37, white, male, Kentucky
 
Guilt tripping your way to power has a long history in America. The Puritans, the Baptist and their revival meetings preaching eternal damnation, the Prohibitionists, and the Evangelical Christians. Now it is the Progressive Social Justice Warriors.


 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Keep it up, progs!



Donald Trump just attained the best job approval ratings of his career. The Gallup numbers are very similar.

This, despite the clear evidence of his guilt in the Russia probe -- not to mention the inauguration scandal and other offenses against the emoluments clause.

Keep it up, progs!

Keep telling yourself that Trump lost the debate over the Wall, even though his numbers improved! Keep telling yourselves that Nancy Pelosi is now incredibly popular!

Keep talking about the need for SOCIALISM! Keep convincing yourself that everyone now loves that word! Keep telling yourselves that Americans no longer associate socialism with the gulags or with restrictions on individual freedom!

Kee telling yourself these bullshit fairy stories, progs! The Trumpers know that the result will be the exact opposite of what you say you want. Pretty soon, we we will have a country in which the Republicans can "privatize" Social Security.

In previous times, Democratic legislators understood that the only way to enact things like Social Security and Medicare is to follow one rule: Never, never use the word "Socialism." But this generation knows better.

Those Dems of yesteryear were impure. Compromised. Debased. Evil.

Only the young are pure. Sure, they won't get anything accomplished, and they will lose all of the accomplishments won by their elders. That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is progressive purity.

So keep on using the S-word, progs! Take pride in your purity! Make sure that AOC and Bernie become the faces of the Democratic party!

More advice:

Keep focusing on race! Keep shouting "RACIST! RACIST!" at the slightest provocation! Examine every sentence uttered by every white person for any hint of the sin of racism. Make every single white person in the country feel as though he or she must constantly walk on eggshells. Because that's the way to win tight elections!

Remember, a strict adherence to Identity Politics is a proven winner at the voting booth. That's why race relations are so much better now than they were when Evil Clinton was in office!

Keep focusing on feminism! Whenever you see polls which tell you a clear majority of women don't like feminism, just tell yourselves that those polls must be rigged by the Great Male Pig Conspiracy! Keep pretending that the loudest feminists are not batshit crazy Dommes who demand their right to interrupt others constantly while never being interrupted themselves! Keep pretending that feminism -- a formerly noble cause -- has not been commandeered by ruthlessly manipulative nutcases who want to make males feel guilty for wanting to fuck!

Keep insisting on hardcore Ultra-Feminism in its purist form! Alienate EVERYONE -- even if doing so insures that, pretty soon, there will be no Planned Parenthood clinics left in the country!

Remember: Every male with a D next to his name must go through the Me Too wringer. Keep insisting that all females must be believed, no matter what they say or whom they accuse. After all, no woman in all of human history has ever taken a bribe or proven corrupt in any way. No female has ever shown herself to be a fantasist -- not even the ones who proclaimed themselves to be victims of UFO abductions or Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Females never lie. Females never go crazy. Never. That's why you can have total confidence in each and every accusation leveled against any male (if he's a Democrat). 

Keep telling yourselves that the ONLY males who deserve the benefit of the doubt are gay. Gays are the only males who deserve humanity or empathy or basic politeness. All other males are Evil Penismonsters who must be treated mercilessly.

Keep telling yourselves that people suffering from gender dysphoria -- generously estimated at about 0.05% of the population -- are the most important citizens of this country, far more important than (say) the deaf, who constitute about 5% of the population. Keep insisting that all non-transgendered people must identify themselves as "CIS." Keep insisting that those not within that 0.05% must always cite their preferred pronouns in every written communication -- because the most important thing in the world is making sure that 0.05% of the population never feels one second of emotional distress.

By all means, keep demonizing white males! Making white males feel like shit is a winning strategy! It's the surest way to win back those rural voters in Pennsylvania and Minnesota! And if you run into some white guy who feels suicidal because he can't earn what his father earned, always call him privileged! That's sure to cheer him up! In no time at all, he'll be voting for the candidates you favor!

Don't worry about the health of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I'm sure she'll live forever.

And don't worry about global warming. It's important, sure, but it's not nearly as important as maintaining TOTAL PROGRESSIVE PURITY at all times.

Remember: Your smug sense of superiority is THE most important thing in the whole fucking universe. If the price you have to pay for your smugness is Irreversible World-Death, so be it!

Above all, progs, keep telling yourselves that people don't hate you. You're not unpopular! Heck, no. Everyone just loves you! Everyone in the country thinks the way your college friends think! If someone says something you don't want to hear, just toss it out. For example, if someone tells you "Polls prove that Americans hate political correctness,"  you should obstinately insist that the polls must be wrong.

Keep it up, progs! Soon, Donald Trump will finally break the 50 percent approval mark! And it's all thanks to YOU!

I have a heart condition. I will not be affected one way or the other if the world does not survive another fifty years, or forty years, or even twenty years. I won't be here. If there's an afterlife, I plan to spend it laughing my head off at the smug, arrogant, utterly idiotic progs who decided that alienating the majority of Americans was more important than keeping the world alive.

Keep it up, progs! Donald Trump, Roger Stone and Vladimir Putin will forever thank you.
Permalink
Comments:
For the record, real feminists do not support "transgenderism," which is the ruination of the left as far as I am concerned. Queer theory has completely hijacked the left to the point where it is all but ruined.

And yes, white males are privileged, whether you like it or not.
 
What did you like best about the Grammy TV program? How much of the winning music (sic?) do you listen to?

99% of all Americans under 60 have watched more TV than they've done anything else in their lives except breathe.

FOX got started in the early 1990's on the UHF band before it would or could pay cable carrier rates. People without cable watched FOX junkcoms. Remember the prog comics on those HBO and other cable comedy shows, and how they made fun of people who didn't have cable and shopped at K-Mart? Their audiences could afford cable, plus they loved condescending and couldn't applaud loud enough.

It seems the poor white trash vote is the only important vote.
 
"And yes, white males are privileged, whether you like it or not."

And every time you SAY that, you're helping Trump. Like it or not.

Lotta white guys out there are hurting bad. Calling them "privileged" only pisses them off. FDR never would have done that, even though he himself truly WAS privileged. FDR-style lefties used to be able to appeal to working class voters of ANY race.

We don't need to use the word "privileged." Instead, speak of the Golden Rule. That's all we need; that's all we've ever needed. The Golden Rule is unassailable.
 
Aylmer: I'm a classical fan, and thus never cared about the Grammys.
 
The thing about the Golden Rule, well, a lot of folks are masochists or sadists, so the masochist would have to be sadistic, and so forth. When Stephen Wright was yet a smile in his father's pants, Arthur Koestler pointed out that, because the masochist would take a cold shower in the morning, he therefore takes a hot one.

Marshall McLuhan suggested that we choose leaders who resemble ourselves. The current POTUS is white trash and has always been regarded that way.

Don't you think anyone like FDR, or even more so, would be perceived as being dull and boring?
 
Aylmer, your point was made much earlier by Bernard Shaw: "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." (From "Man and Superman," if I recall correctly.)

That said, I think dear old Shaw was simply being impish, as was his wont. When it comes to the basics -- the BASIC basics -- human beings have an innate understanding of fairness. It's instinctive. Even young children know that it is unfair for one child to get two cookies and another child to get only one.

The Golden Rule addresses that sense of inequality. And I maintain that it is the only term we need.

Calling white males "privileged" is precisely the wrong terminology, even if you can make an intellectually viable argument in favor of that word. Intellectual viability is NOT the same thing as electoral viability.

People on the left keep forgetting the single most important fact of political life: Elections are popularity contests. If you insist on saying "You're privileged" to a man who lost his job and can't repair his car and worries about feeding his kids, you won't be popular with that man, or with any man in a similar situation. In fact, you will be hated.

A while back, a ninny tried to dress me down by calling me "privileged." I told her I can't afford effing shoelaces right now (literally true) and I'll be damned if I let anyone call me "privileged" on the pages of my own damned blog.

If you insist on using that word when speaking to others, you'll run into the same reaction. Anger. Rage. They will feel rage even if you think they have no right to do so. And they will do ANYTHING to piss you off, including voting for Trump.

So the question is: Do you want to win intellectual arguments, or do you want to win elections?




 
I find that shoes don't last long these days. The man with flimsy shoes is never short of laces.
 
From my point of view the Left never wanted to win elections. Never actually cared about the implementation of their agenda. It's all a game to them,and money. If you are ever in doubt just go back to the last two elections. Having said that all the social issues you mentioned are important.
 
I think the race question is even easier to talk about than saying the Golden Rule (though that's a good one). Just don't talk about white privilege and only talk about improving minorities. If you're ever questioned on it, just explain that you're trying to bring people up, not tear them down which is the implication by calling anything a "privilege".
 
Yep. Those damn kids screwed everything up and NOW the demise of our democracy and global de-stabilization is squarely at their feet. All because they refuse to get on board with your plan to win the votes of whites who set aside time to watch Lou Dobbs by...chilling out. Stop stressing the hetero white (male, always male) voter out. So odd, I am 46 white guy and I have not once felt picked on or made to feel like a bad guy, racist, woman hating, blah blah. Doth protest too much my man. I don’t feel threatened by those labels because they don’t apply. I am a jerk ten times over, but not because I am a willfully ignorant bigot. White privelige? I experience it every day...by not having to deal with all the bullshit so many non hetero white males have to deal with. And, poor non-whites probably don’t like being labeled and discounted either...in addition to having to swallow in full life with a criminal, vulgar, racist “billionaire” President nurtured, elevated, empowered, enabled, emboldened and cheered by the wise, elder, rich white leaders of this great non-prog Nation as said President and wise white leaders betray our Nation. But, yep, all that could be fixed if the kids just shut up and let the adults lead.
 
Liked the video.
 
This straight white male native-born citizen will turn 56 in May, but I don't feel picked on--just for the record.

******************

The success of the Pearl Harbor raid obscures what a desperate roll of the dice it was. The Japanese went into it expecting to lose at least 2 of their big carriers. Its success was, in many ways, an incredible fluke. This flukiness of its success probably contributes to the dingbatty conspiracy myths surrounding the PH raid--"It couldn't have worked unless IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!1!" (Partial success--the flying samurai didn't bomb the repair facilities, the fuel storage tanks, or the submarine pens. I don't include our carriers not being in PH because the Japanese could not help that.)

Likewise, the success of Putin's virtual PH in 2016 obscures what a fluke it was. The election of Benedict Donald was not a Black Swan Event; it was a Perfect Storm of multiple Black Swan Events. Putin and his gremlins are dangerously clever, but even they will be hard-pressed to duplicate their victory in 2020, after four years of the fence-sitters and voluntary non-voters of 2016 getting a daily dose of exactly how bad Benedict Donald is, assuming he lasts until then.

Besides, "Midway" happened in November 2018. ;)


Going off on a tangent, for anyone who shares my interest in WW2 naval battles, this is a fine site about the Imperial Japanese Navy: Click here
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Sunday, February 10, 2019

Looks like Bezos fell into a honeytrap. Plus: Stone, Corsi and the JFK assassination

The embarrassing texts that Bezos sent to his lover apparently were given to Team Trump (or to AMI, which amounts to the same thing) by the lover's brother, Michael Sanchez. He's a Roger Stone pal.
The brother of Jeff Bezos’ mistress, Lauren Sanchez, supplied the couple’s racy texts to the National Enquirer, multiple sources inside AMI, the tabloid’s parent company, told The Daily Beast.

Another source who has been in extensive communication with senior leaders at AMI confirmed that Michael Sanchez first supplied Bezos’ texts to the Enquirer.

AMI has previously refused to identify the source of the texts, but a lawyer for the company strongly hinted at Sanchez’s role during a Sunday morning interview on ABC.

“The story was given to the National Enquirer by a reliable source that had given information to the National Enquirer for seven years prior to this story. It was a source that was well known to both Mr. Bezos and Ms. Sanchez,” attorney Elkan Abramowitz told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
Seven years? The obvious possibility is that this Sanchez fellow -- and his sister -- are part of a longstanding Roger Stone ratfucking team. In other words, she was the bait in a classic honeytrap.

I refuse to believe that Bezos coincidentally hooked up with the sister of one of Stone's agents. This was planned. This was a scheme. This was -- dare I use the word? -- a conspiracy.

Most left-wingers embrace "coincidence theories" because they do not want to be lumped in with the Alex Jonesians. But I take a different stance. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Some conspiracies are real, and the conspiracy theorists are the conspirators.

If Bezos hasn't booted that double-dealing creature already, he's a fool.

Conspiracy. This Atlantic overview of the right-wing "conspiraganda" network tells us that Roger Stone met Alex Jones in 2013, at an event marking the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. I cannot convey how thoroughly this news disgusts me.

If Stone and Jones were of political age in 1963, they would have hobnobbed with JFK's enemies. Kennedy foes like General Walker, Revilo Oliver and Guy Bannister were conspiracy theorists par excellence -- the Alex Jonesians of their day. Much the same can be said of James J. Angleton, the CIA counterintelligence chief who, in my view, masterminded the great unpleasantness in Dealey Plaza. Angleton may be described as an Alex Jones with power. (Not to mention about forty additional IQ points.)

My standard line on Kennedy is this: "He wasn't killed by a conspiracy. He was killed by a conspiracy theorist."

No amount of Pepto Bismol can calm my stomach when I think about 2013. On the 50th anniversary, the JFK researchers allowed festering pustules like Alex Jones and Roger Stone to invade their domain. The Stone/Jones contingent did more than invade: They took over. If you say the words "JFK assassination" in mixed company, the name "Alex Jones" will probably come up within forty seconds. In the public mind, the connection has become ineradicable.

I just want to vomit.

Both Stone and Corsi have written JFK assassination books. Stone's is bullshit. Corsi's volume is actually not so bad, although he regurgitates the research of others, offering nothing original.

The danger of left-wing conspiracy research is that it inadvertently bestows credibility on right-wing conspiraganda. (A useful neologism, that. I didn't invent it.) Members of the general public can't tell the difference between good research and bad, between fact and fantasia. They know only that fear is delicious.

Paranoia is addictive. Paranoia is heroin. Say what you will about AJ: He sure as hell knows how to deliver an armload.

Last night, I gave Oliver Stone's JFK another look. It saddened me in ways it never did before, in ways that I would not have thought possible back in 1991, the year of the film's release. I now realize that the JFK researchers -- most of whom were and are liberals -- did little good and much harm.

Sure, they meant well. They made a responsible -- and sometimes heroic -- effort uncover new facts. I will always aver that they were, and are, basically correct, despite my quibbles on certain points and my impatience with with many of them on a personal level. Yet despite the rightness of their position, they were fools.

They never understood one basic truth, a truth which I began to glimpse about a quarter-century ago: Conspiracy theory is the foundation of fascism. Public alienation from government helps people like Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin undermine the very concept of democracy.

In the 1990s, the JFK researchers played a small but important role in the creation of the "paranoia chic" subculture. (The UFO buffs of that era played a larger role.) Over the course of the next 25 years, that subculture mutated into the Trumpist menace. I'm not saying that the assassination buffs bear full responsibility for Trump; I'm saying that they didn't understand that they were playing around with a dangerous substance.

Again: Paranoia is junk. Once hooked, addicts keep searching for a stronger rush.

I'm not sure that grass leads to H, but I'm quite certain that Oliver Stone unintentionally functioned as the warm-up act for Bill Cooper and David Icke -- and, eventually, for Alex Jones and the Alt Rightists. 

The buffs didn't understand the addictive properties of paranoia. Thus, they ended up aiding and abetting the very fascism they despised.

(And by "they," I mean "we" -- as in "I'm guilty too, and I really wish I had spent the '90s doing something else.")

Alex Jones is the bastard child of Jim Garrison, though the Jolly Green Giant would have denied parentage. And I say that as an obdurate Garrison admirer.
Permalink
Comments:
Sadly, I think you've hit the nail on the head. When I started reading about the JFK assassination a few years ago, I spent a lot of time looking at old articles from the 1970s and 1980s that discussed the assassination. The difference in tone between the way the subject was treated then, and the way it's treated now, is just incredible. Oswald was routinely referred to as the "alleged assassin" or "accused assassin." People who believed that there was a conspiracy weren't treated like UFO kooks. When Congress reinvestigated the assassination, it was taken seriously. It was a real subject, like Watergate; it wasn't a joke, like Bigfoot sightings or flat-earthers.

What happened? I think Stone, for all his courage in making JFK, just wasn't clear enough in the movie about who he thought he was responsible for the assassination. Stone cast the net so wide that he seemed to be accusing the entire government of being implicated in the crime, which is a very different thing than accusing the CIA (or rogue CIA agents) of doing it. Liberals didn't want any part of that, and understandably so. So they abandoned the subject to the cranks. And that, sadly, is why the JFK case has become a punchline, and why so many liberals greeted last year's release of (not enough) files with derision.
 
Look at how AMI got the texts and photos that Bezos sent as a Black Box. What Pecker did with the information is extortion with that "recant or we print" email. If some stupid prosecutor declares no extortion bc no money, it still violates a plea agreement made with Mueller. Somebody going to jail.
 
If you were still taking American movies seriously in the 1990's, you were probably snorting coke like the Hollywood maniacs who were making them. Pretty good casting in Stone's JFK, the best performance I've seen by Donald Sutherland.
 
First of all, why did the Enquirer think that blackmail and sextortion would work? Clearly because it has worked before. Second, about the Kennedy assassination, I still think it was Oswald, but one thing trouble me, the gun. If the bullet that killed Kennedy came from the Carcano, it would clearly point to Oswald. But what if it didn't? I have read a number of articles on the subject and I am still not clear whether of not the bullet definitively came from the Carcano. Do you have any insights into that question. As an aside, I have never believed the story about Walker being shot at by Oswald.
 
Sanchez was a Weather Person on Fox 11 in Los Angeles. She is attractive and apparently also has her own businesses as well. Being a television personality in Los Angeles added to her allure. She had her own life going on so that may muddy the waters just a bit about her intentions.
 
So here's a link to Lauren Sanchez's career very briefly encapsulated. She's very smart and very talented. https://g.co/kgs/BkCXEB
 
Sanchez's stint on Good Morning LA was as a Morning Host who also did the Weather. Before that she seemed to keep busy as an on air talent. She's a pilot as well. Kind of reminds me of a Female James Bond who never got the chance to be one.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Pelosi must give in

This is terrifying. Nancy Pelosi must give Trump his wall, or at least a portion thereof.

Politics, not border security, compels me to take this position.

Consider the numbers -- specifically, these numbers. Kos, MSNBC and other leaders of the prog media flat-out lied to you when it convinced you that the shutdown hurt Trump. His present job approval numbers, though not good, match his career best. He's slightly better off now than he was when the shutdown began.

Yes, it's true: The shutdown improved the public's view of Donald Trump -- perhaps incrementally, but the direction is not heartening.

The rah-rah hoorah-for-us prog media also gave you the impression that Mighty Nancy has suddenly become a beloved figure. She is, in fact, less popular than Donald Trump. 

As we used to say in the '80s: Wake up and smell the coffee. Another shutdown will hurt Dems more than it will hurt Trump.

Trump's re-election plan is simple: He intends to hold on to his base and then use smear tactics (the kind now being road-tested in Virginia) to chip away at his opponent. For that strategy to work, he can't capitulate to Pelosi; his base won't tolerate it.

What if Trump declares a national emergency? At the beginning of Shutdown 1, I warned that this outcome could prove disastrous. You don't want to give Donald Trump a taste of that kind of power. Yes, previous presidents have also declared national emergencies, usually for bullshit reasons. But previous presidents did not yearn for dictatorship the way Trump so clearly does.

Let me repeat: You don't want to give Donald Trump a taste of that kind of power.

That point was unpopular the first time I tried to make it. A couple of weeks ago, Trevor Noah made the same argument. Maybe you'll listen to him.

At the height of the previous shutdown, Pelosi could have struck a deal: Two hundred miles of Wall in exchange for DACA. Trump probably would have gone for that; the problem was Nancy's refusal to budge. In early January, the WP made the exact same argument that I'm making now; Nancy didn't listen then, and probably won't listen in the future. The fact that she refused to consider such a deal told me that she didn't give a damn about the young people who benefit from DACA. She cared more about gaining political advantage.

And the hell of it is, she didn't gain a damned thing. Again: Trump's popularity ticked up after the shutdown. The shutdown hurt the public's perception of the Democratic Party, while simultaneously increasing the favorables of the Republican Party. We're talking just a few points; the movement has not been huge. But there is movement, and it's going in the wrong direction.

Are you surprised to hear about those polls? Don't be. Fox viewers inhabit a bubble which distorts their view of reality, and a similar bubble encases Progworld.

If any other president were in office, Pelosi would have cut a "Wall for DACA" deal. I can understand why she finds Trump uniquely detestable, but her refusal to do something on the DACA front was irresponsible. She could have helped those kids -- and at the same time, she would have helped a whole bunch of American workers.

I've always defended Pelosi, even back in the days when all good progs loved to beat her up. But ever since she regained the speakership, she has made dubious decisions. Another shutdown will prove disastrous for the Democratic party; Trump will feel no pain.
Permalink
Comments:
Has it become a McGuffin? You know, if the thing requires involuntary eminent domain seizure, it's dictatorship.
 
In a vacuum any shutdown might hurt Democrats, BUT, people are finding out how bad Trump screwed them on their taxes. A shutdown on top of Trump supporters receiving little or no money "stole by dem Washington Commies" or, perish the thought, paying in will tank his numbers. Between now and April 15 Trump is on a tightrope.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Friday, February 08, 2019

How the Bezos blackmail scandal and the Virginia scandals are linked

Jesus, what a news day! The Virginia scandals have flared up again. We'll get to that soon.

Whitaker delivered what I expected -- stonewalling and lies, or truth so carefully parceled as to be tantamount to lying. So let's ignore that.

But the Bezos blackmail scandal is the real shit.

First: Jeff Bezos handled this thing the only way blackmail can be handled, by saying "Print and be damned." Though intensely private by nature, I would have made the same call. If the price of bringing down Donald Trump were publication of a picture displaying...er...the reason why this blog bears the name it bears, so be it. The inevitable comparisons to the lighthouse at Alexandria wouldn't hurt my feelings too much. Besides, I've reached the age when I might like a memento.

Second: Phooey on anyone who claims that this vulgar ploy does not constitute blackmail. Abstruse legal arguments be damned: The law is what a jury says it is, and any sane juror will recognize what's going on here. David Pecker makes Charles Augustus Milverton look like a child.

Newsfolk keep asking: Why are so many Republican congressfolk so respectful of Trump, even though these same congress-critters privately say that they can't stand the guy? The usual explanations don't suffice. I am convinced that GOP politicians genuflect before their papaya-hued pope because they all have secrets. The evidence is probably locked away in David Pecker's safe. If Pecker had the goods on Bezos, he probably has even gooder goods on Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and the rest.

(I still suspect that Devin Nunes was on that boat. Click click. 'You are now in our power, Mr. Nunes.')

Spot the spook. The real question: When Gavin de Becker -- as formidable an expert as one can imagine -- said that the messages came from a "government entity," did he mean our government?

Don't toss out that notion. If de Becker meant a foreign government, he should have used that word. I've been saying for years that a faction of our own intelligence community has aided Trump's rise to power. The "spooks vs. Trump" framing -- so beloved of Malcolm Nance and the MSNBC crowd -- simply doesn't square with what we know.

Remember, both the DNI and the head of the CIA are Trump picks, and Trump always asks for a loyalty oath. The current head of the NSA is Mike Rogers, an Obama pick, but he has to share information with other agencies when required.

There's also the possibility that Bezos was screwed over by an entity which, like Schrodinger's feline, both is and is not part of a western intelligence service. Cambridge Analytica -- still existent under other nomenclature -- is basically an appendage of MI6.

And then we must consider Erik Prince's proposal to set up a pro-Trump "private" spy shop.
The founder of the controversial military contracting firm Blackwater, Erik Prince, and his allies lobbied contacts inside the administration to provide the CIA with a private network of intelligence contractors, according to a US official with knowledge of the proposal.

"This idea is going nowhere," the official said and stressed neither the agency nor the director of the CIA is or was ever considering the proposal.
Can that same official speak for DIA, or for any other intelligence group operating within the Pentagon?

What of the Israelis? A good possibility, that. Perhaps not Mossad per se -- they don't seem overjoyed with Trump these days -- but consider Black Cube, the "private" Israeli spy shop. As we all know, Harvey Weinstein used the services of Black Cube. Pecker and Weinstein were (and probably still are) close friends.   

Nevertheless, the smart betting right now is that the "government entity" is Saudi Arabia's intelligence service. Here's what Bezos had to say about that:
Mr. Pecker and his company have also been investigated for various actions they’ve taken on behalf of the Saudi Government... After Mr. Trump became president, he rewarded Mr. Pecker’s loyalty with a White House dinner to which the media executive brought a guest with important ties to the royals in Saudi Arabia... Several days ago, an AMI leader advised us that Mr. Pecker is “apoplectic” about our investigation. For reasons still to be better understood, the Saudi angle seems to hit a particularly sensitive nerve.
We know that Trump is in deep with the Saudis. We know that Pecker published that bizarre glossy publication which constituted an act of verbal fellatio performed on MBS. That publication made no business sense and thus must make some other kind of sense.

Takeover. All of which brings us to Trump's tweet from last month.
So sorry to hear the news about Jeff Bozo being taken down by a competitor whose reporting, I understand, is far more accurate than the reporting in his lobbyist newspaper, the Amazon Washington Post. Hopefully the paper will soon be placed in better & more responsible hands
At the time, everyone marveled at the spectacle of Donald Trump -- a man who has cheated on all of his wives -- scolding Bezos for committing adultery. But the key phrase is this: "Hopefully the paper will soon be placed in better & more responsible hands."

I'd love to play poker with Donald Trump. He's the kind of guy who would shout: "Wow. Three nines! I'm gonna go for a full house!"

That remark about placing the WP in "more responsible hands" means that this whole thing -- the Bezos divorce, the blackmail, all of it -- is all part of a plot to wrest away control of the WP. Trump plans to transform the WP into The Daily Caller (or maybe Fox News).

The woman who broke up the Bezos marriage is former TV anchor Lauren Sanchez. Her brother Michael is pals with Roger Stone. Coincidence? I think not. I don't claim to have the full story or even a proper theory. But my gut tells me: No, that can't be a coincidence.

Admit it: Your gut is telling you the same thing.

My gut is also telling me that Pecker might have been promised the WP as a reward for loyalty.

How does this scandal link up with the Virginia scandals? The connection is both simple and profound. Trump intends to stay in power the same way Putin does it: Kompromat, kompromat, kompromat.

However much you may hate Northam and Fairfax, the fact remains that their scandals benefit the Republicans. It is therefore fair to presume that they were targeted by the ratfuckers.

You must also understand that absolutely everyone who is running or will run for the Democratic nomination is open to blackmail or manipulation or smears.

Every. Last. One. 

Including the one you like best. What's happening to Northam and Fairfax right now is precisely what will hit your favorite Dem -- at the worst possible moment -- should he or she win the nomination. Don't you dare think otherwise. Don't kid yourself.

We all have secrets. We all have flaws.

Even if a candidate is a saint, the saint was probably associated at one time with someone now willing to tell a lie in exchange for a paid-off mortgage. Or maybe that associate has legal problems which he desperately wants to go away.

People can be manipulated into telling lies about any Democrat. Those lies can be "backstopped" (as the spooks say) by seemingly-incontrovertible evidence.

Nobody is immune to blackmail and smears. I am not. You are not. Your favorite candidate is not.

It is no accident that "kompromat politics" became such a powerful force in this country at the same time the Democratic party embraced a zero-tolerance policy for any and all sins touching on sexual or racial issues. For years now, a purity hysteria has beset Kos and DU and all the other prog sites. That hysteria is, I beleive, the work of trolls operating out of St. Petersburg.

Or maybe they were recruited on 4chan. Perhaps they're Nazis. The bottom line: They're not real progressives.

They're working for Trump, chump.

Don't think otherwise. Not even if they hit all your emotional buttons and tell you precisely what you want to hear.

How to fight back. Kompromat is a powerful weapon. The only way to render it harmless is to embrace a (TEMPORARY) policy of radical forgiveness.

If a candidate has a D next to his name, forgive. No matter what kind of racial or sexual sin that person is said to have committed: Forgive.

Automatically presume that the accusation is nothing more than a Roger Stonian trick. It probably is. Remember Franken.

And even if it is not a trick: Now is not the time for purity tests. Forgive.

Let me stress that this policy of radical forgiveness should be a temporary measure. Once the Trumpian menace is removed, we can go back to the purity tests and circular firing squads.

But not now.

Before you howl at me, let me ask you a simple question: Do you believe in science?

If you do, then you know that the threat of global warming is worse than we thought. Thus, we must protect any and all political figures who are on the right side of that issue, even if that person allegedly did or said something obnoxious. Averting ecological catastrophe trumps all other concerns.

Personally, I will support any Dem right now. (Bernie is not a Democrat.)

Suppose we were to find out a promjnent Dem sent out an email containing these words: "You know what I really want to do? I want to kill that guy Joseph Cannon. Seriously. I'm gonna spend a million bucks to retain the services of the world's best hit man. Cannon's gotta go!" Even then, even then, I would say: Forgive. Support the Dem no matter what.

Again: We're talkin' TEMPORARY. That all-forgiving stance will change the moment this nation transcends Trumpism.
Permalink
Comments:
The word you were looking for in the first graf is "parsed"
 
Forget about whether the conduct violates Federal Law, the conduct violates the California sextortion law. The email was sent to Beso's lawyer, Singer, in California, therefore California law applies.
 
On Target Post. The controversy over Black Face is ridiculous on several grounds. The act of putting on Black Face should not be the issue. The issue should be WHY the black face was being done. Posing as a Rapper is a form of flattery, unless the person was doing derogatory things. Wanting to look like Michael Jackson and do the Moonwalk is not racist. Holy crap Jackson was an Icon. It's almost like Minorities are saying, don't you dare to pretend to be like me, even if its done out of respect and reverence. I find that mindset offensive.

This all goes back to Al Jolson. I learned of Al Jolson growing up. To this day I don't know what Al Jolson was trying to do. Was he doing Black Impersonations so people would laugh at him? I remember his Mammy, Oh Mammy routine being replicated by others. I was very young when I saw it, I never equated that the impersonations were being done to make fun of black people. When Rich Little did impersonations of many political figures, were people laughing at the person being impersonated, or were they marveling at the skill that Rich Little could mimic others?

Maybe because I grew up in an Italian Family and no one talked about American Culture at the Dinner Table I am just unaware. Was BlackFace intent to make fun of African Americans, or was it a case by case basis?
 
i did my own research. The History of Black Face was Derogatory. But it should be noted that MOST performers were not held in high regard no matter how they looked. At the time of Black Face, Being A Dance Hall Girl meant a woman could never really marry or have a family unless she was able to hide her past as a Dance Hall Girl. She would have to move to another State and start over hoping she would not run into someone from her past.

Here's a concept to consider, Nobody felt safe, and making fun of others was about the only way people 2 hundred years ago felt safe.

The Court Jester was for the amusement of the King and the Royal Court. Today's comedians roots descend from the Court Jester. What if descendants of Court Jesters demanded the end of comedy performances because it reminded them of the hurt from their own generational past?

Elitists are missing am amazing transformation. Caucasians respectfully emulating the same group of people they savagely laughed at 2 centuries earlier is remarkable, in a good way. I have no desire to see anyone in Black Face, I think its stupid and it takes away economic opportunities from African Americans when others pose as them. However if the posing is of someone held in high regard by all, then that's called publicity.

So as shows like Saturday Night Live continue to splain why the act of putting on Black Face in the 80's is a crime and should be punished today even if the Black Face was not in any way meant as a slight to African Americans, Megyn Kelly's firing was ground zero for overzealous persecution of a person's past.
 
That's pretty interesting research. For my part, I'm not sure that using dark makeup to do a Michael Jackson impression is any worse than Michael Jackson doing God-knows-what to lighten his own face. (I've heard that he wanted to look like Elizabeth Taylor. Of course, one hears all sorts of things about Jackson.)

I seem to recall that, back in the 1970s, there was a black comic who did a very good impression of Carroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker. And he wore white makeup when he did it.

In the world of opera, black singers are usually chosen to play Otello nowadays, but not too long ago the choice was made based purely on the boxoffice value of a "name" performer, which meant that white singers often played the role. Makeup was necessary simply because race is mentioned in the script. On the other hand, decades ago, Leontyne Price played the lead role (a nun) in "Dialogue of the Carmelites," set in France during the Revolution. There was no makeup. The audience just accepted the idea of a black nun at that time and place.

Of course, theater is more abstract that film, and the audience is more likely to go along with such things. A black Carmen or Tosca wouldn't even be noticed these days. On the other hand, a black Brunhilde might elicit a few nervous comments.

Kathleen Kim's performance as Madame Mao in "Nixon in China" is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mtMI_huRtY) Nobody else comes close. She's Korean, and most Americans would see no problem with a Korean playing a Chinese person. But someone in China or Korea might see things differently!
 
Well, Elvis Presley sang in black face (Heartbreak Hotel, Hound Dog, All Shook Up, etc.). The composer of All Shook Up, Otis Blackwell, recorded demos for Elvis that Elvis and his combo imitated to the extent you couldn't tell them apart.
 
Chris Matthews introduced his broadcast the other day, "A picture has surfaced of the governor..." as though the yearbook photo just swam up out of the scum all by itself. He didn't bother to note the rightwing scum that dug it up! Thus our supposedly "left-leaning" media is the happy helpmeet to the slime slingers, just as they were happy to feature hacked DNC emails in 2016, never mind the source.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Wednesday, February 06, 2019

Epstein and more

First, a little housecleaning: No, I did not watch the Trump SOTU. Since I do not acknowledge him as a legitimate president, and since I've always despised the man (even when he was a Democrat), I never will grant him that level of respect.

I did catch Stacey Abrams. Wonderful woman. A model for other Dems. That's how to do it, folks: She made the case for greater inclusion without sliding into the politics of resentment and divisiveness.

The Northam case, as you know, has taken some decidedly odd turns. Given the Republican record of skullduggery, I remain extremely suspicious regarding the accusations leveled against Justin Fairfax.

Remember Al Franken. (That's one bloody shirt I'll probably be waving for the rest of my life.)

Remember the offer of $20,000 for false accusations against Mueller. Remember the false story about Avenatti. I may not be a big Avenatti fan, but I definitely do not like false stories.

That said: Vanessa Tyson does make a good initial impression, and her lawyer, Debra Katz, is nobody's fool.

There are two sides to this story, as is always the case. If we are going to allow women -- simply by virtue of their sex -- to dictate the rules of reality, then the Republicans will always win. Even if Tyson is telling the truth, some women are corrupt and some are fantasists. Women are just as likely as men to be unethical or unstable, and anyone who argues otherwise is an absurd female supremacist.

All of a sudden, many progressive purists have decided that Northram is forgivable.

I'm very much open to the possibility that Tyson will be proven correct -- but even if she is, this whole thing still smells like a Republican ratfucking op. The purpose, it would seem, is to turn Virginia red again. Perhaps there is some deeper purpose which remains obscure at the moment.

Progs hated me when I said that Franken was the victim of an op. Now, far more Democrats agree with my stance. One day they will agree with my initial response to the Northram case.

Why should Northam resign while Donald Trump -- who kept black tenants out of his buildings -- continues to hold office?

The larger picture. It's about time progs got the message: Identity politics creates racism. Similarly, extreme feminism creates sexism.

Hatred and resentment create nothing but hatred and resentment, and too much of what we call "identity politics" is founded on hatred and resentment. Without "progressive purity," without political correctness, neither Trumpism nor the Alt Right would be possible.

All liberals want more women and people of color elected to office. I can think of no goal more laudable. But do you really want the Democratic party to lay out the "unwelcome" mat whenever a white male shows up? That's no way to win elections. And even if a narrow victory is somehow attained, it's no way to govern. The country will, in fact, become ungovernable.

We don't need identity politics. All we need is the Golden Rule. 

Again, look at Stacey Abrams. No rage. No hatred. She exhibits none of the self-destructive madness that one encounters on so many progressive websites. She doesn't speak of white males as if they were cancer. She radiates decency and reason. She speaks of inclusion, fairness and opportunity, not us against them.

By the way: The Republicans are circulating a photo which, they falsely claim, depicts Hillary in blackface. I'm reminded of the "Che photo" fabrication which was the subject of one of my little videos. The Republican party has become a nonstop lie machine.

Jeff Epstein is back in the news. From Axios:
The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has opened a probe into allegations that federal prosecutors "may have committed professional misconduct" in a case involving multimillionaire serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, according to Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).

Why it matters: Epstein walked away from the 2008 trial with a light sentence from Miami's then-top prosecutor Alexander Acosta — now Trump's labor secretary. As Axios' Jonathan Swan reported at the time, Sasse asked the Justice Department in December to investigate its treatment of Epstein, after a Miami Herald exposé late last year uncovered details of his sweetheart deal.
This is not just about Epstein; it's about Trump. Do not forget that Virginia Roberts -- then very much underaged -- was recruited for Epstein by Trump's friend Ghislaine Maxwell. This occurred at Mar-a-Lago, where Virginia worked as a child. Trump made Virginia wear a very skimpy outfit, even though the girl looked pre-pubescent at the time.

If you think that Roberts, then a child, was recruited without Trump's knowledge, you are naive. Again: She was recruited by Trump's friend Maxwell for Trump's friend Epstein at Trump's club.

Naturally, certain towering intellectuals who frequent Democratic Underground decided that this would be the perfect occasion to slam Bill Clinton. Several DU readers referred to the false claim that Clinton had sex with minors on Epstein's island. The right has pushed that meme endlessly.

You may be interested in my response:

* * *

No, Clinton had nothing to do with it

Disproving this oft-heard canard would require much more time than I can spend right now. Suffice it to say, I've looked into this matter closely. I've studied Virginia Roberts' various declarations and I've painstakingly gone over the flight records and passenger lists for Epstein's jets. I invite others to do likewise; the materials are all online.

Bottom line: Every time Clinton was on one of Epstein's two jets, he was taken to a conference (usually about science) on a trip that was covered in the news. On no occasion did he share a trip with Virginia Roberts or any other underaged female.

There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton went to Epstein's island.

At the time, Epstein's perversions were NOT well-known. Neither jet was known as "The Lolita Express." Some people claim otherwise, but those claims are never backed by evidence. When Clinton accepted those rides, Epstein was known for his interest in science.

The Virginia Roberts declaration presents us with no small amount of difficulty: Most of us have come to despise Dershowitz; thus we do not want to discredit her testimony. However, three things must be noted:

1. What she said about Clinton is NOT borne out by the evidence.

2. For understandable legal reasons, she has retracted what she says about Dershowitz, although I'm told that she privately still says that he had sex with her. (Remember, her suit was against Epstein, not Dershowitz. Battling the latter detracted from the battle against the former.)

3. Even though she claims to have met Clinton, at no point did she say that she or any other "Epstein girl" had sex with Clinton. This has not stopped the right from claiming otherwise. Absurdly, the right continually uses the Roberts declaration against Clinton while absolving Dershowitz -- even though Roberts claimed to have sex with Dershowitz and not with Clinton!

There are two additional pieces of "evidence" (if it can be called that) against Clinton proffered by the right:

1. Ghislaine Maxwell attended Chelsea's wedding. My response: Big deal. Maxwell was invited to lots and LOTS of social functions at that time. That's just the world in which she circulates. She's the daughter of Rupert Maxwell, she has money, she knows everybody, and she gets invited to all sorts of events. That doesn't mean that everyone she has ever met is a pedophile.

2. Maxwell was instrumental in founding a "clean the oceans" group (I forget the name) which received money from the Clinton Foundation. The group is very real and does good work. Only a nut would claim that her association with this group somehow proves that Clinton raped a child.

And that is it. That is the sum total of evidence against Bill Clinton. The rest is supposition, conclusion-hopping and conspiracy theory.

Dems have to get over Clinton Derangement Syndrome. The right keeps repeating anti-Clinton lies so often that the left starts to believe those lies. Or rather, the left refuses to challenge them. Instead of passively accepting the claims made by reactionary propagandists, we must demand proof. Even if they are talking about the Clintons.

Oh, and here's the part that everyone forgets: Virginia Roberts was recruited while working for Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. (Her father, who appears to be a real piece of work, also had a job there.) Donald Trump was the one who had her wear a skimpy outfit -- even though she looked pre-pubescent.

The Trump connection was completely left out of the original Roberts declaration. I'm not sure why.
Permalink
Comments:
I believe it was Jack Mabley who said, "If we agree on everything, one of us is unnecessary." Well, we certainly don't agree on everything, but we do agree about this: The holy high ground is one thing, the holier than holy high ground is another. Judging 35 year old conduct by the standards of today is ridiculous. Dershowitz has always been a liberal icon. Suddenly he has become a conservative one. That he defended Epstein is simply what lawyers do. But that he has become a shill for Epstein and Trump is quite another. The argument that he has become such a defender of Trump because Dershowitz appreciates Trump's pro-Israel bias doesn't hold water. Trump is not pro-Israel, Trump is pro-Trump, period. It seems to me that the real reason for Dershwitz defending Trump is clearly Epstein. I don't buy Dershowitz denials, it is clear that the Trump team has kompromat on Dershowitz and he is embarrassing himself with his current conduct.


 
Hello just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your
post seem to be running off the screen in Safari. I'm not sure if
this is a formatting issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I figured I'd post to
let you know. The design look great though!
Hope you get the issue solved soon. Thanks
 
I don't mean to knit pick but the VA governor's last name is Northam and not Northram.
 
William, I'm so sorry. I had been corrected on that point the day before (in conversation) and made a mental note NOT to make that error again.

And yet...and yet...

Well, I've corrected the post. Thanks.
 
What to do now about Welles and Olivier and their Othello makeup?
 
Vanessa Tyson is one happy comment after another on Twitter - always smiling and attractive - so why isn't she married? Sorry folks, but this person, who supposedly has been brooding over a Lewinsky for nigh onto 15 years, has to be sick in the head. If she allowed herself to be drawn into a virtual strangers room, she knew full well what she was doing. Perhaps if he had showered before . . .
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Saturday, February 02, 2019

Dems are nuts. That's why Trump will win in 2020.



Once again, politically-correct Dems are holding up a big "Hate us!" sign. Of course Virginia governor Ralph Northram should not resign simply because someone else posed for an offensive high school yearbook photo back in the 1980s. Any Dem who argues otherwise might as well send in a contribution to Trump's re-election campaign.

Yet over on DU, plenty of ninnies are making just such a argument. I can only hope that these obnoxious dimwits are trolls from St. Petersburg. It's infuriating to contemplate the possibility that they might be real people.

Just a few days ago, Elizabeth Warren apologized for having that DNA test done. For God's sake, why? Any human being has a right to have such a test done -- for any reason.

There was a time, not so very long ago, when liberals put enormous pressure on Elizabeth Warren to take such a test. I recently saw a clip (which I missed when first broadcast) of Chuck Todd demanding that she take that step. With luciferian glee, he strongly implied that any refusal to do so should be construed as evidence of deceit. (Of course, Todd looks a bit luciferian under the best of circumstances.)

Warren was trapped in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Liberals excel at creating such situations.

The Northram case reminds me of another rush to judgment. Remember the Chandra Levy murder, which was the other big story of 2001? Many Democrats and Republicans decided that Democratic Congressman Gary Condit was her killer. He wasn't. Yet none of his holier-than-thou accusers -- a hellish coalition of feminists and Fox newsers -- saw any need to apologize for hopping to that false conclusion.

Let's mention another name: Al Franken. If one of Franken's tormentors wins the Democratic nomination, I'll sit out the next election.

I predict that, unless Mueller can find truly damning evidence, Trump will win again in 2020. He will win because progressives are repellent. He will win because most Americans hate these ostentatious displays of hyper-sensitivity whenever someone gins up a controversy involving race and gender.

Nobody likes smugness. As simple as that.

Even though arrogance and political correctness insure electoral failure, progs will never reconsider their approach. Driven by a narcissistic certainty and surrounded by noxious fumes of unearned moral superiority, progs will never let go of the delusion that most people like them. If you tell a prog "Tone down the smugness," he or she will automatically presume you to be a Klansman or a wife-beater.

Most people don't want to vote for a party in which white people constantly have to walk on eggshells. Most people don't want to vote for a party in which accusation equals proof if the accused party is white, and especially if the accused party is a white male. Nobody wants to join a party in which an accused male (like Northram) is automatically presumed to be a liar when he offers a reasonable explanation. Nobody wants to join a party in which the accused are routinely counseled to apologize for things they did not actually do, just to "get this behind us." (This clearly happened to Franken. Also to Joy Reid, in a now-forgotten pseudo-scandal.)

All Trump needs to do is to hold on to his base. Forty percent. That's all he needs. Another ten percent of the electorate will hold their collective nose and vote for Trump because they will feel that they have no other choice. Politically-correct progs make ordinary folk want to vomit.
Permalink
Comments:
A lot of this springs from the social primacy of feelings -- "I feel therefore I am." I feel you are reprehensible so you must be. You say otherwise but then why do I have these feelings of hostility towards you? Are you telling me that my own feelings from my own body are untrustworthy? What an incredible conceit on your part. Your LGBTQI hate mentality is palpable. You must be working for George Soros or Hillary to be so debased as a human being. One thing is clear, you owe me a confession of your criminality, the immediate cause of my distress. Or, failing that, why I feel as bad about you as I do. I'm here, I'm in the room. Or didn't you notice.
 
There is little I can add to your analysis. The idea that is lost is the notion of context. There is no evidence that Northam is actually a racist. His history of treatment of minority patients is impeccable. Trump was sued by the Feds in the early 70s for racial discrimination. That only would not be disqualifying if he hadn't spent his adult life and political career as a racist, but he has. It is all context. There is zero evidence that Al Franken spent his career as an abuser of women, unless you call getting to close in a publicity picture abuse.
 
Fuck you, Aida. I can't even afford shoelaces. I'll be damned before I let anyone call me "privileged" on my own blog. You are a de facto Trump supporter. Your words will never be published here again.
 
Aida,

I just took a look at your picture. You seem not to be black, so saying what black people think is really something black people should decide. My granddaughter is black, well mixed race like the rest of us, but she's only 11. Her mother, however, is 30. Her comment on this matter was, "When did this happen, 1984? Well, everybody has a past, forget it, let's move on." Listen, tribalism is fine, it creates community. But to decide that our tribe is the only one with problems, that our tribe is more beloved by God or our tribe has a gene that makes us inherently superior is a real problem and leads to the breakdown of the larger tribe: Our Country or our species. We have to address the problems of each tribe, but we cannot ignore the problems of the other tribes.
 
Like Caesar's wife Democrats must be above reproach. Life isn't fair as is evidenced by Al Franken but there it is.
Let's use the excuse that it was 1980's Virginia and at 25 Northam was on the cusp of college frat boy pranks.
(In the latter part of that decade I was involved in an unfair labor practise suit, one of the attorneys involved had a lawn jockey displayed in their garden a gift from a fellow Shyster. They had the good sense to relegate it to the back yard.) Anyway if Northam or his campaign staff were that sloppy they missed that yearbook photo back when he could have gotten in front of it, admitted his foolishness and apologized he has nobody else to blame and should fall on his sword. If he was aware of the photo and kept shut he deserves to be booted for damage done. Again, life isn't fair and this is the territory Democrats have staked out.
 
In 1984 Michael Jackson look like a tanned white guy. There was no need to use blackface to potray him. For the yearbook he couldn't tell if he was the blackface person or the guy in the hood. There is something wrong here.
 
*ensure

You know better, Joe, I'm disappointed. What did you do, dictate the post to a voice-to-text app?
 
The references to an Aida may puzzle people, since I deleted a comment. If you're confused, just presume that I'm going through a Verdi phase.

HoarseFace: Well, what can I say? I done plain forgot. I'm also re-learning anatomy for artists, despite all of the classes I took in school. You can fill your brain will all sorts of stuff, but over the years, that stuff tends to seep out.

You know, I used to be able to read French. Now...
 
Added note, Hoarseface: There are many writers who think that "ensure" and "insure" should be interchangeable. But I usually prefer the old-fashioned approach.

I've only recently given up on using "storey" when referring to the floor of a building.
 
Joseph,
I don't think you should have deleted Aida's comment. It wasn't offensive, it was either stupid or ignorant. While stupid is forever, ignorance can be cured. Perhaps explaining to her, and others who think like her, why she is mistaken could be the cure for her ignorance. I think we get smarter by listening to other viewpoints, a fact lost on Trump, and then critically analyzing those viewpoints. It seems that Aida was simply regurgitating talking points she heard somewhere. It is better to refute those talking points than to ignore them.
 
Please don't get angry because, I am about to add some clarification. First the yearbook is from (VMI?) med-school in 1984, the governor was 25 at the time, he first admitted he was in the picture before he denied it and then admitted that he had moonwalked to victory in a dance contest dressed as Michael Jackson, which would require very little blackface I suppose. Finally other students pictured in the book say they picked their own pictures but Northam says the yearbook staff composed his page. Finally, the yearbook says Northam's nickname was "Coonman," which he admits.

A Florida politician resigned immediately last week when a blackface picture of him turned up and not long ago, Megyn Kelly lost a second multi-million dollar job for defending "blackface." Now I understand this because back in the day in high school, we did minstrel shows every year starring Mr. Interlocutor, Tambo and Bones, all in blackface. Just think! Without blackface - Vaudeville would have never been an entertainment form and Al Jolson wouldn't have known his "Mammy!"
 
In 1959 one of my high school classmates suggested proforming a mistral show. It was rejected because of its racist nature. Twenty-five years later Northram dresses in blackface.
 
August 1991, HBO or Cinemax, live Paul Simon concert of his South African music (the Born At The Right Time tour), Dennis Miller the TV introducer, he quips that Michael Jackson and George Hamilton just crossed each other on the pigment axis.

 
I would like to understand one thing. If the governor is telling the truth, that he is neither one of the people in the picture, does he still need to resign? Is just having that picture on his page enough? Does it matter whether he had anything to do with composing the page?
 
I wouldn't write off Dems' chances at this very, very, very early stage. However, Democratic Underground is rather a shitstain on humanity, and I am amazed it still exists despite all the other social media outlets existing now, especially Reddit. Reddit, despite its flaws, is far superior because people can create their own subreddits and not have to deal with dumbass moderators who force everybody to believe the way they do. There are still a bunch of Bernie cultists on there. I was put on permanent suspension or whatever it is when I got sick and tired of those cultists. I hardly go there anymore at all.
 
So I suppose if Northam resigns and the Lt. Governor also has to resign due to his "indiscretions" then the Virginia elections will be overturned and the Republicans would basically have performed a soft coup and regained complete power without even doing anything except pointing out things the Democrats should have known well in advance of the elections. The Democrats need to start vetting their candidates a lot better. But what this also says in context with the Al Franken and other debacles is that if you are a white male and want to run for higher office you'd be crazy to do it as a Democrat. Any and all allegations either true or contrived will end your political career. Anyone believe for a second that the next Republican governor of Virginia won't be a true blue racist? So this becomes about something else altogether then. When a political party goes out of its way to sabotage itself then that means it isn't interested in the business of governing. What these folks (progs) are really interested in is whining about how bad and terrible the Republicans are rather than actually coming up with a real platform, better ideas that appeal to everyone, building the party from the ground up so that they have people who fill up local and state governments and have a real pool of highly qualified, vetted candidates for higher office.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Thursday, January 31, 2019

Intelligence

Stunningly, the GOP has opted to rebuke Donald Trump for his foreign policy recklessness and his fact-free attacks on his own experts.
Trump tweeted “the Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong!” The president added in a follow-up tweet about Iran: “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!” Trump appeared to be responding to television news coverage that focused on how the testimony contradicted his views on global threats.

Exasperated Republican lawmakers quickly pushed back against the criticism, urging the president to show more restraint.
It's about time.

One must savor the irony: We have a president who cannot spell, who despises the rules of grammar, and who Capitalizes Words in a Fashion last Seen in the 17th Century. Yet he counsels others to "go back to school."

Unprecedented? Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell castigated the NYT for reporting that Trump's blistering attack on his own intelligence community was "unusual." The better word, said O'Donnell, would be "unprecedented."

In a sense, this is true. But O'Donnell was wrong to give the impression that there has never before been a serious divide between a president and the intelligence services. In fact, there have been quite a few rifts -- though none of them gave rise to anything like Trump's insane public tirade.

JFK. The Kennedy administration offers the best example. JFK learned the hard way -- at the Bay of Pigs -- not to trust everything that Allen Dulles told him. Every American should thank God that Kennedy chose not to listen to the CIA folk who advised him to lend air support to that ill-conceived invasion; doing so might have led to World War III. We should be even more thankful that JFK ignored "expert" advice to attack Cuba during the missile crisis; nuclear war would have certainly resulted.

The JFK/CIA rift predated those events. Consider Kennedy's pained reaction (captured in this photo) to the news of Patrice Lumumba's murder -- a murder almost certainly aided, if not planned, by the Agency.

I could mention several other points of division, including Kennedy's clandestine peace feelers to Castro, which he felt obliged to keep hidden from his own spies. Bottom line: I agree with those who believe that Kennedy, in his second term, would have appointed his brother as Director of Central Intelligence. Bobby would have cleaned house.

Richard Nixon vs. the CIA. Nixon had his own rifts.
After he won the 1968 presidential election, in part by sabotaging the Paris peace talks to end the Vietnam War, Nixon tried to put the CIA in its place. He ordered a restructuring of the NSC that ran all critical national security decisions through the White House. That plan would have left the CIA director, then Richard Helms, out of the NSC completely.

It took Melvin Laird, the Defense secretary and a canny former House member, to talk Henry Kissinger, Nixon's national security adviser, out of it. Kissinger persuaded Nixon to include Helms in the NSC. Nixon, however, had one condition: Helms could brief the council at the top of its meetings but then would have to leave.

That condition was deemed too counterproductive and humiliating, and Nixon soon let Helms brief and stay in the meetings. He never trusted the CIA and often ignored its work, most prominently in the days before the 1970 invasion of Cambodia and the disastrous U.S.-backed Lam Son 719 operation in which South Vietnamese troops invaded Laos in 1971. After Lam Son, Nixon tried to blame the CIA when it was Nixon himself who had ignored their advice.
Rather Trumpian behavior, wouldn't you say?

Nixon eventually sacked DCI Richard Helms. One popular theory of Watergate holds that Helms retaliated by arranging the president's removal -- a blow from the grave, delivered by CREEP personnel with CIA backgrounds. It should also be noted that Nixon's moves toward detente were viewed with grave suspicion by a hardline faction within the intel community, particularly by those who hated Kissinger. (Silent Coup, a book which I do not admire, is actually pretty interesting when it sticks to this angle.)

A vs B. The intelligence community was never monolithic; any president who favors one faction will inevitably alienate those within the opposing faction. I am thinking here of the 70s-era rivalry between Team A and Team B concerning the assessment of Soviet military capabilities. Team B believed that the CIA underestimated the USSR. The cynical view -- which is, of course, my view -- holds that Team B was a propaganda exercise designed to bolster a domestic military buildup and to undermine Jimmy Carter, thereby paving the way for Reagan.

Carter had serious disagreements with the Agency -- and for good reason. In the 1970s, various congressional inquiries had led to widespread public mistrust of the CIA, which was portrayed as a rogue elephant. (That was the term commonly heard at the time.) Carter instituted reforms which led to the dismissal of one-fifth of the Agency's work force -- and when they found themselves on the outside, some of these former employees got up to serious mischief. But that's a topic for another post.

Carter was always careful not to lambaste the Agency in public. He never went on a Trumpian tirade. Nevertheless, Carter ordered a ban on assassinations, curtailed domestic CIA operations, and helped to institute the FISA system. His DCI, Stansfield Turner, would have instituted a radical overhaul of the entire intelligence community, had Carter won a second term. (If memory serves, Bob Woodward's Veil goes into this.)

W vs. CIA. People now forget that, under George Tenet, the CIA did not agree with George W. Bush's false assertions that Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities posed an "imminent" threat. Tenet tried not to tell outright lies about Iraq, but he did stay more-or-less silent while the administration lied.
"In January 2003, he allowed President Bush to include the fraudulent claim about yellowcake uranium from Niger in the State of the Union address," Markey said in a written statement. "In February 2003, he sat behind Colin Powell as he systematically presented intelligence on Iraqi WMD that was alarmist and untrue. Later in February 2003, he did not clarify the CIA's intelligence position when the on-the-ground U.N. weapons inspectors reported their negative findings."
Also see here:
CIA Director George Tenet on Tuesday rejected recent assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney that Iraq cooperated with the al-Qaida terrorist network and that the administration had proof of an illicit Iraqi biological warfare program.

Tenet's comments to the Senate Armed Services Committee are likely to fuel friction between the White House and intelligence agencies over the failure so far to find any of the banned weapons stockpiles that President Bush, in justifying his case for war, charged Saddam Hussein with concealing.
Because the CIA could not be controlled, the neocons set up ad hoc groups within military intelligence. In this demimonde, obvious disinformation gained traction. As the Downing Street memo confirmed, intelligence was fixed to conform with policy.

Why Trump is different. I could go on, but the point is made: Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell offered his viewers a skewed history lesson. Precedents do exist. Previous presidents have indeed clashed with the intelligence community -- and some of those clashes were quite a bit sharper than what we are seeing now.

What is truly without precedence is the brazen, vulgar, and childish way in which Donald Trump has expressed himself in public. In the past, presidents had to perform a balancing act: Even when they were at loggerheads with intelligence officials, acrimony could not be allowed to undermine the public's confidence in American institutions.

Trump doesn't care about that. Trump cares only about himself.

That's the difference.
Permalink


Wednesday, January 30, 2019

The misuse of feminist argot

This DU poster exemplifies why polls consistently indicate that most people -- including most women -- do not want to be labeled "feminist."
Until yesterday I had no idea who this Schultz guy was. Today I saw on the CNN print out (what do they call that stuff that isn't the "crawl" cuz it does't move), that he said Elizabeth Warren's idea of a tax on the very wealthy was "ridiculous" and she knows it will never pass. Sounded like man-splaining to me. Made me furious...
"Sounded like man-splaining to me"? No.

Disagreement is not "man-splaining." Even if Schultz had said something truly odious, there's a difference saying something odious and mansplaining.

Like most rational Americans, I agree with what are traditionally considered the basic tenets of feminism -- equal opportunity, equal pay, support for Planned Parenthood and so forth. The woman who shares my life will testify that I have always treated her with respect throughout the twenty years we have been together. She is the person I most admire. If she literally stabbed me in the back, I would still count the day I met her as the most fortunate of my life.

My problem is not with feminism per se. My problem is with lazy thinkers (of both sexes) who use cliches and catch-phrases as all-purpose argument-stoppers.

Feminism, one of the most reasonable "isms" ever devised, has been rendered loathsome in the public mind due to the behavior of a small group of domineering women. Yes, I used the D word, and I will not apologize for doing so. I suspect that domineering women -- like domineering men -- are secretly very insecure. Such women believe that they deserve to prevail in any given argument, even though they inwardly fear that they lack the eloquence to state their case persuasively. Thus, they pretend to be the victim of a sexist insult if a man dares to say "I don't agree" or "I don't think you have your facts straight." This tactic allows them to shirk the intellectual labor of arguing well.

If you are a woman and you advocate a position -- on any subject -- contrary to mine, I will listen politely and then state my counter-argument. Doing so is actually a gesture of respect, as any truly secure woman will understand. If you have a right to be heard, then so do I.

I refuse to be cowed into silence simply because a woman trots out a piece of trendy argot.

To those who hope to prove me wrong by switching the subject: No, this post is not about Warren's tax idea. As it happens, I love Warren and would be overjoyed to vote for her. My initial reaction to this Schultz fellow was...well, not exactly revulsion, but somewhere in that neighborhood.

This post is not about taxes. It's about what the title says it's about: The misuse of feminist argot.
Permalink
Comments:
Warren would make a horrible Presidential Candidate. Her mission in life is to corral anyone who is a victim or thinks they are a victim into a lobbying group; while this mission has merit, it doesn't work on a Presidential Level if the victims are seen just as protestors.

Warren strikes me as someone who knows wrong she sees it, but if it came to actually creating an economy would find herself flip flopping on many issues she previously railed against.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Trump and Reagan



Quite a few people have noted that Donald Trump seems to have derived his "facts" about border problems from a movie called Sicario. What far too few have pointed out is that Trump has simply adapted one of Ronald Reagan's signature moves.

Few now recall that one of the most appalling aspects of the Reagan presidency was his propensity for lying. His fabrications were almost as outrageous as Der Donald's, though Reagan could not match Trump for the frequency of his falsehoods.
We have, for instance, contemporaneous reports that Reagan apparently was a pathological liar. He bragged of liberating concentration camps in Germany although he spent all of World War II in Hollywood. He invented “a verbal message” from the pope in support of his Central America policies and lied about that too. He insisted, in 1985, that the leader of South Africa’s vicious apartheid regime, P.W. Botha, had “eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country.” Pants on fire...
Actually, the concentration camp story had a much more complex origin; see this 1997 exchange between Joan Didion and Charles Hill (who worked for the Reagan administration). Didion quotes a book by Michael Deaver, who may be considered Reagan's Michael Cohen (although Deaver was nicer). The passage is worthy of note here...
In the mid-1980s, a growing number of people seemed willing to believe that for Reagan reality and myth often blur. It has been suggested that he would borrow from his movie roles to give texture to his wartime duties. He was, and is, fond of telling stories about heroic pilots, or POWs who staged daring escapes.

Reagan may have heard the stories firsthand, from the veterans who brought them back. He may have had burned into his mind a scene from the combat footage his unit would sometimes edit. Or, yes, the real acts of courage or horror may have blended with moments from his old films.

Another issue seemed to bother some of his critics: that Reagan wanted people to believe he had seen these deeds, or had somehow brushed the actual events...

But Reagan is a romantic, not an imposter. When he talked about seeing the bodies of the Holocaust victims piled like firewood, he may or may not have explained that he had been viewing the footage shipped home by the Signal Corps. (He saw this nightmare on film, not in person. That did not mean he saw it less.)
I would argue that, yes, it does. I've seen the first-generation Holocaust films compiled by Alfred Hitchcock, Billy Wilder and Alain Resnais. But seeing those documentaries is not the same thing as being there at that time.

The key words in the Deaver passage are these: "Reagan is a romantic, not an imposter." Throughout the 1980s, many people spoke as though Reagan's Hollywood background gave him carte blanche to concoct melodramatic yarns. Well, I worked in Hollywood myself, albeit in a very low-level fashion. Does my unsuccessful jaunt through the outskirts of the industry give me the right to fabricate tales?

The Reagan story that most resembles Trump's Sicario delusion is recounted here:
Two years later, Reagan found himself in hot water after New York Daily News scribe Lars-Erik Nelson looked into an account of heroism Reagan related during a Congressional Medal of Honor ceremony and discovered that there was no evidence the event ever occurred.

In the story, which J. David Woodard describes in his book "The America that Reagan Built," a B-17 bomber came under fire in the course of a European bombing raid in World War II. With the plane rapidly losing altitude, the B-17 commander ordered his soldiers to evacuate the bomber. When all but one young soldier had left the bomber, the commander gripped the remaining soldier's hand and said, "Never mind, son, we'll ride it down together."

Nelson examined all 434 Medal of Honor cases and could not find any citation of the event Reagan described. But one reader told Nelson that the story bore similarities to a scene from the World War II-era film "A Wing and a Prayer," while another claimed to have read it in the Reader's Digest. White House Press Secretary Larry Speakes had his own response.

“If you tell the same story five times, it’s true," he said.
No. It isn't.

A Wing and a Prayer was a Henry Hathaway drama produced in 1944. I've never seen it, although I know that it was popular when released and is still well-regarded by fans of classic films. (According to the IMSB, it heavily fictionalizes real events.) Reagan's use of the story was absurd on its face: How would anyone know that the doomed commander said those words?

When Reagan's lie was exposed, the major media -- which, throughout the 1980s, always took a very forgiving attitude toward the president -- excused this outrageous exercise in bullshittery. A commonly-heard reference went to the final line of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence: "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Nobody quotes that line if any Democrat dissembles.

Nobody will ever say "He's a romantic" if a Dem stretches the truth beyond the boundaries of its elasticity.

This double standard has been in place for nearly forty years, and it remains infuriating. Infuriating.

I'm left with the same question I often ask about shameless bullshitters: Do they really believe their own BS? Consider such notorious tale-tellers as L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith: Both men fabricated huge chunks of their biographies, yet on some level, they actually seemed at least semi-convinced by their own fables.

Can the same be said of Reagan? Of Trump?
Permalink
Comments:
You missed Reagan's biggest fib: The myth of the welfare queen. If you read Tip O'Neill's book, "Speaker of the House" he makes quite clear that Reagan was a moron. One of his stories is about the Reagan's first visit to the Speaker after being elected. O'Neill was very proud of his large desk, which had belonged to Grover Cleveland. "Oh yes, I played him in a movie," said Reagan. Replied O'Neill, "No, you played the alcoholic baseball pitcher Grover Cleveland Alexander, this belonged to the president Grover Cleveland." But the famous movie story I remember about the moron, I mean Reagan, is that he wanted a false flag alien invasion which would unite humanity, I believe it is the plot of a movie, but I don't know which one.
 
There were a couple of books with that plotline after the war. However, the movie you are probably thinking about is the Cold War classic "Red Planet Mars" (1952). It's worth a watch. Hideously didactic and propagandistic, but patches of it are fairly well-written, and it remains weirdly fascinating throughout.

Spoiler alert...

The mastermind behind the "fake invasion" plan turns out to be a Nazi scientist out to wreak revenge on both the USSR and the USA. This twist does not really coalesce with the film's strident anti-communist message. I mean, you can't make a movie which simultaneously paints the USSR as the innocent victim of a Nazi plot while also painting the USSR as the locus of all evil.

Nevertheless, the politics make this movie a fascinating cold war artifact. Worth seeking out on YouTube.
 
I remember Al Franken writing a book called Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them.

Not Sicario, by the way, but Sicario: Day of the Soldado, which is the sequel to Sicario.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


Friday, January 25, 2019

Stone and Corsi and Alex Jones

I'm back. I think. A serious computer issue forced an absence, although I was tempted to make that absence permanent. How can one write about politics when the sight of this "president" makes one retch?

But here I am. I can't resist shouting HUZZAH at the news that it is now Roger Stone's time in the barrel. Finally.
The indictment's wording does not say who on the campaign knew about Stone's quest, but makes clear it was multiple people. This is the first time prosecutors have alleged they know of additional people close to the President who worked with Stone as he sought out WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

"After the July 22, 2016, release of stolen (Democratic National Committee) emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1," prosecutors wrote.
Here is the actual indictment.

There is much to be said about all this. Right now, I'm interested in the Jerome Corsi connection. Corsi is also in serious trouble, and it couldn't happen to a nicer conspira-freak. Bottom line: Despite Corsi's public insistence that will go to jail rather than say anything against Trump, Stone and Corsi have fallen out in a huge way. It seems pretty clear from the personal nature of the attacks that Stone thinks that Corsi has ratted him out.

Here is one of Stone's Instagram attacks on Corsi. It reveals more than you might think.


The argument over precisely when Corsi was canned means little to me, although clearly it means much to Roger Stone. Many of us will be amused to learn that Infowars has a Human Resources Director. Beyond that, let us note two things:

1. According to Talking Points Memo, Corsi received $15,000 a month from Infowars, even when he was doing nothing. That's an income of $180k a year. Not bad.

2. The original version of the document includes Corsi's street address, which I've decided to redact. Stone's decision to publish the address may have been the secret point of this attack. There has been a lot of talk, in recent days, of witness intimidation.

I don't want to be party to that. Still...don't you want to look at Mr. Corsi's neighborhood?

Thanks to Google, we can see Corsi's house:


"Last night, I dreamt I went to Manderley again..." Okay, it isn't that nice, but this house definitely doesn't look like a conspiracy theorist's pad.

I got to know quite a few conspiracy writers back in the '90s, when I was a reckless seeker of adventure unafraid to travel in low circles. Pretty much everyone in that subculture was ill-to-do; some were impoverished couch-surfers. Those who dwell within this demimonde tend to be penurious.

But that's not the case if you become a professional paranoia-peddler in service to the right people.
 
Did Corsi make his pile before he became a professional paranoia peddler? This section of his Wikipedia bio is of no small interest...
Corsi began to work in banking and finance in 1981.[17] In 1995 he helped launch a mutual fund to invest in formerly Communist Poland after the fall of the Soviet Union, which eventually lost $1.2 million, much of it from a group of about 20 Minnesota investors.[18][19] Some of the investors blamed the organizers, including Corsi, for their investment in the former Communist country. Two investors sued Corsi and his partners, claiming that the organizers had given their personal guarantee backing up the investment, and won judgments against them.[18] They did not collect from Corsi, because, as one investor claimed, the money "had been moved into his wife's name ... There was nothing to get out of him".[18] The FBI found no basis for bringing criminal charges.[18] Until his 2004 book, Corsi was a financial services marketing specialist.
In 2017, Corsi was hired as the Infowars "Washington Bureau Chief," even though he lives in New Jersey. As we have seen, he continued to be paid even after his services were no longer required. Understand: For a lot less than $15,000 a month, AJ could have hired someone in DC who was able and willing to do ten times the amount of fear-peddling. Hell, I bet that you could buy a ton of fear for as little as $2K a month.

Am I being paranoid if I suggest that Alex Jones' operation is being used to pay off members of Team Trump?

Let's go further. Was Corsi lying his capacious ass off when he made those loud public declarations that he will never work with Mueller? Did Roger Stone know that Corsi was lying? Did Corsi lie because he fears Team Trump?

The more I look at recent events -- in this country and elsewhere (especially Russia) -- it seems likely that witness intimidation has become a far greater factor than most would have predicted. I believe that, behind the scenes, people have made and received threats of physical violence.

That's one way to interpret the fact that Roger Stone went out of the way to publish Jerome Corsi's address.
Permalink
Comments:
Welcome back :)
 
"Am I being paranoid if I suggest that Alex Jones' operation is being used to pay off members of Team Trump?"

Not only do I think you're not being paranoid, this was my first logical thought when I saw that Jerome Corsi was getting paid to do a no-show job for Infowars. As we all know, Infowars regularly talks with Roger Stone and peddles RT talking points. They are a huge player in this whole affair.
 
I was confident this would rouse you to comment. How could you resist>

Welcome back, Joseph!
 
Good to have you back, Joseph.

You have pointed out in the past how large amounts of money go sloshing around the right wing fake news business. A substantial amount of it seems to have stuck to thhe bloated Corsi.

And as one of the former federal prosecutors said on mSNBC last night, some of the stuff Trump has been saying is right out of “Witness Tampering for Dummies.”

When they’re not tying ropes around their own necks, they’re forming circular firing squads. All in very slow motion.

OT, but not really
A very important new book has come out:
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
By Shoshana Zuboff

—Tom

 
I thought if anything could bring you to the surface again it would be Roger Stone.
 
& then there's this...

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100211725091
 
That house is much bigger than it looks in the photo. It has 7001 sq ft of floorspace. Aerial photo.
 
I wonder if anyone will ever ask Stone how he knew about Al Franken's situation before it was public.
 
Money going into Info Wars, Dollars of Rubles?
 
@joseph: har dee har har. Those barrel predictions could haunt a guy. Let’s see how tough Roger is when he’s looking at a couple year jolt.

@b: thanks for following up on that. 7001 sq ft of luxurious living.

Great to have you back on the beat, Joseph.

—Tom
 
Glad you're back Jospeh! ..please do not print my previous comment about Peter W Smith-- stupid Google wouldn't let me pst it without a link to my gmail address which is my full name. I am about to repost it with the link I had for Petrer Smith (who so few are talking about-- yet) but I will repost it only without he link to my full name... thanks! (i guess don't post the one with my name or this one.... thanks again, and once more, glad to be reading you once more
 
Is it witness intimidation if no one knows you'll someday be a witness? And can you call it intimidation when maybe they're just helping you sing like Alvin and the Chipmunks? Let's ask Peter W. Smith his take on this humdinger. Uh-oh...
 
Maybe you know this, but Jerome Corsi has been a professional "disinfo agent" since the 90s. He worked alongside Stone a whole lot longer than Infowars.He even did some Bill Clinton conspiracy theories. He used to work at WND...long long history.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic



Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind