that allegedly represents people and social movements is nothing but a well used whore trying to turn one more trick before the bordello shuts down.
Katty van van and company rush in with an editorial entitled "Help Wanted" and, we're so sorry, Katty, there are no positions available. He who should seek employment elsewhere, John Still The Liar Nichols, calls Evan Bayh out for DLC-ness but rewrites history and facts to present Barry O as the anti-DLC. (Barack was a member of the DLC -- as Bruce Dixon and Glen Ford revealed some time ago -- until he grasped that it could hurt him.) John Nichols' competition for biggest joke on-staff just got serious. Page 8 proclaims LieFace Melissa Harris-Lacewell will now attempt to write a column. The Nation insists, "Readers may be familiar with Harris-Lacewell from her frequent appearaneces on The Rachel Maddow Show and Countdown With Keith Olbermann, where she brings her lively and dynamic teaching style to millons of viewers." Are you laughing? We are too. They couldn't very well mention Democracy Now! or Charlie Rose since that would demand that they note how unethical the liar is: When you go on
TV to comment on a campaign, if you're working for the campaign, you are required to disclose that on camera. LieFace couldn't be bothered with that.
Speaking of embarrassments, Katha Pollitt. Barack has disappointed her. Someone quickly alert the Secret Service that Katha is a self-confessed stalker! She's also an idiot. "I'm still glad," Katha says sticking her tongue out in a nah-nah-nah manner, "I supported Obama over Hillary
Clinton. If Hillary had won the election, every single day would be a festival of misogyny. We would hear constantly about her voice, her laugh, her wrinkles, her marriage and what a heartless, evil bitch she is for doing something -- whatever! -- men have done since the
Stone Age."
Uh, Katha, what world do you live in?
It's not the world those of us on terra firma are familiar with. Hillary's just the Secretary of State. Yet everyday on KPFA (listen to Kevin Pina's guest remarks especially), KPFK (Lila Garrett especially), WBAI (Taking Aim mainly), etc., you can hear non-stop sexist attacks on Hillary. See, Fat Head, when these people don't like Barack's policy on Haiti or the economy or whatever else, they trash Hillary. Point of fact, idiot, Hillary didn't get to be president but she gets to be the target of all the hate. Look at the writers at your own magazine, Katha, look at
CounterPunch, look at Dissident Voice, look at Common Dreams, look anywhere you want and you'll see writers trashing Hillary for . . . Barack's policies.
Not getting the presidency didn't spare Hillary or women a damn thing, you stupid idiot.
Had Hillary gotten the nomination, she would have won the presidency by a larger margin than Barack did. Would the sexist attacks continue every day? Well, if women were going to do as you did and largely stay silent, then, yes, they would have.
Then again, we might enter the hyper-sensitive era on sexism similar to what we've entered with Barack. Where any comment about race must be examined and addressed and, in the end, forbidden.
The Nation exists solely to promote Barack and to insist that the world would be much worse if the Corporist War Hawk had not been gifted by the DNC with the party nomination. Remember, Obama's entire career has demonstrated that earning anything indicates hard work and sweat and Too Cool For School Barry doesn't sweat.
In need of some reality, we quickly grab the libertarian magazine Reason where we find that Matt Welch can spend two pages addressing realities in "Back to the Drawing Board: Democratic fantasies face the bracing slap of reality." If The Nation had any real independence,
you'd read paragraphs like the following in it:
What about the lobbying scourge that Democrats (like all good opposition parties) opposed so vociferously in 2008? Progressive theory holds that regulation of K Street, as opposed to a cutback in overall regulation, is the key to "change the culture of corruption" in Washington, as candidate Obama repeatedly promised to do. How'd that work out in practice? In December Politico reported that "Washington's influence industry is on track to shatter last year's record $3.3 billion spent to lobby Congress and the rest of the federal government -- and that's with a down economy and about 1,500 fewer registered lobbyists in town."
From Reason, from their letter page, in fact, we learned that Ayn Rand looked like Emo Phillips. Who knew? But there's a past cover photo of her and it's Emo. Reason's present superiority to The Nation is best evidenced when it comes to health care. Barack refused to embrace single-payer, refused to propose anything other than the BigBusinessGiveAway which, by law, would order all American citizens to purchase insurance. If you're not familiar with this, listen closely: All Americans currently have the right to buy insurance.
Some choose not to. Either they don't want it or they can't afford it. There is nothing in his BigBusinessGiveAway that is a gift to American citizens. It takes an option that we now have and turns it into an order.
And where's the left objection? A few ho-hums. But, as sure as the sun will rise, the week will start with Danny Schechter, for example, trashing Republicans and using that to pimp Barack's gift to big business.
Jacob Sullivan, page 6, points out the false choices Barack creates in his never-ending speechifying. Every left outlet should not only be capable of composing a leftist alternative to Sullivan's "The Clairity of False Choices" but they should be offering it:
What about those who do not like the status quo but have a different vision of reform, not only because they want to go farther than Obama does, but because they want to go in a different direction, toward more choice and less government involvement? In Obama's world they do not exist. Instead we have his bold yet achievable plan, pitted against socialist utopianism and blind partisan intransigence. Let me be clear: This is a false choice.
It's hard to be a leftist these days. You'd think that would be the case under Bush. But under Bush, we on the left actually thrived. We planned, we organized. We protested, we brainstormed. Most of all we dreamed of a day when the Bush reign would end. Now we've got the administration of Bush III and we could probably navigate our way through that if we'd agree to stop being suck ups to the establishment, if we'd agree that our job is not to run defense for a Corporatist War Hawk namded Barack. If we'd agree that our job is to press those beliefs we held dear under Bush, we might really accomplish something. But that doesn't seem likely.
Especially when you survey the literature.
Needing a joke, we picked up the 'magazine' Extra! which the laughable FAIR produces. Extra! exists as an alternative Rodney Dangerfield. Instead of complaining "I don't get no respect," they brag "I don't want no respect." They confess to being a joke on page 14 when they want to talk
"Evnironmental Journalism in the Greenhouse Era." Let's talk environmentalism in that era, okay? A 13 page 'magazine' is not a magazine. A 13 page 'magazine' that exists to reproduce the transcripts of FAIR's radio program CounterSpin is wasting paper. Most of all, a 13 page
magazine that lists for $3.95 is a joke. (We did not count their one page ad, their cover, or their table of contents when calculating pages.)
The Humanist wants to inform, "Don't Despair! We're Not a Broken People." Well, we're not despairing, we're just trimming our reading lists and no longer funding certain beggar media outlets. Let's check it out.
And then we did. Non-writer David Swanson. David the Sexist and Racist Swanson. Here's a bit of reality on when we'll listen to David Swanson offer advice:
1) When he takes accountability for using his website to trash Hillary and destroy her campaign while pimping War Hawk Barack.
2) When he publicly apologizes for thinking he can APPROPRIATE the work of African-Americans. Cedric Wilson did not give David Swanson permission to reprint anything. Cedric was not informed that anything was being reprinted. Cedric never even got an e-mail from Swanson. Does Swanson think that because Cedric is Black that he, a White man, can just steal Cedric's
writing, repost it to his website and Cedric's supposed to be grateful? No.
3) When he publicly apologizes for his attack on Rebecca Winters. The short story? He e-mails Rebecca with a praise heavy e-mail (kissing ass being his speciality). Rebecca replies to his e-mail. That should be the end of it. She thinks it is. But he's forwarding her e-mail. She discovers this because one of the people he forwarded it to is on vacation and set his account (Lennox Yearwood) on automatic reply. Somehow, Rebecca ended up getting the auto reply and, below that, is Swanson's e-mail where he's talking about Rebecca and he's attached her e-mail. Rebecca confronts Swanson in an e-mail and he denies it repeatedly and attempts
to act as if she's crazy. She's not. She still has that auto reply e-mail.
So we don't have much respect for David swanson. We think he's a liar. We think he's a Whore. We know he's not "independent."
We know he's a tool for "Progressive" Democrats of America. David Swanson has demonstrated his racism and sexism and whoreism one too many times. And, as with him, we're done with The Humanist.
Needing something weightier -- The Humanist specializes in articles written on a second grade reading level -- we pick up the Winter 2010 edition of Dissent. We strongly recommend James B. Rule's "The Military State of America and the Democratic Left." From the opening:
The invasion of Iraq was a defining moment for the United States. This was the kind of war that many Americans believe formed no part of this country's repertoire -- an aggressive war of choice. Its aim was not to stop some wider conflict or to prevent ethnic cleansing or mass killings; indeed, its predictable effect was to promote these things. The purpose was to extirpate a regime that the United States had built up but that had morphed into an obstacle to this country -- and to replace it with one that would represent a more compliant intstrument of American purpose. In short, the war was a demonstration of American ability and willingness to remove and replace regimes anywhere in the world. Even in the wake of the Iraq fiasco, no one in high places has declared repetitions of such exploits "off the table" -- to use the expression favored by this country's foreign policy elites. For those of us who opposed the war, there is obvious relief at the conclusion -- we hope -- of a conflict that has consistently brought out the worst in this country. But at the same time, those on the democratic Left look to the future with unease. Even under a reputedly liberal president, we have reason to worry about new versions of Iraq -- in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran or venues yet undisclosed.
If you want food for thought, you'll find it in Rule's article. George Packer's response is predictable and we'd recommend everyone avoid it except for Danny Schechter who's recently taken to citing the War Hawk Packer. Before you next cite Packer again, Danny, read his brief response. Packer loves the Iraq War.
Washington Monthly is a Democratic Party organ but it shows more independence these days than does The Nation -- more independence and more honesty. Not to mention more awareness. While WM recently examined Agent Orange effects, The Nation wastes
money paying for Sister Citizen's New Orleans booty-call. The current issue (March/April) offers many strong articles but, if you read only one, we'd recommend you read Haley Sweetland Edwards' "Uncle Ali: If You Liked Hamid Karzai and Pervez Musharraf, You'll Love Our Latest Ally, Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh."
For more maturity, pick up issue 69 of ISR (International Socialist Review) which seems to be so far ahead of its US version (Socialist Worker) despite being produced and written by more or less the same team. The editorial ("Meet the new boss") doesn't fluff or flatter Barry O but instead explains to you that you're looking at Bush III. Of Iraq withdrawal, ISR includes:
We have been asked to wait, we have been asked to be patient, and we have been asked to give the President and the new Iraqi Government 6 more months and then 6 mor emonths after that, and then 6 more months after that.
Guess what? They're not only, more or less, describing Barack's current policy, they're also quoting then-candidate Barack Obama speaking to Congress in 2007.
Barry O was sworn in back in January 2009. We're on this third six-month quarter. Peter DiLeo is the issue's must-read with "The Jobless Recovery: A lost decade for workers." And it's in that article that you find the difference between ISR and The Nation.
For The Nation, unemployment is something to examine in terms of how it can get Barack re-elected, for ISR, unemployment is something that effects the people. One outlet identifies up, the other struggles with the realities We The People live with.