Amnesty International recently released a report “Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison Syria”
which claimed that the Syrian government executed between 5,000 and
13,000 people over a five-year period. The report is based on anonymous
sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite
photos reminiscent of Colin Powell’s performance at the United Nations
in 2003. There is plenty of hyperbolic language like “slaughterhouse”
and “extermination” but scant evidence of the serious charges being made.
Human Rights Watch joined the fray just days later, with claims that the Syrian government used chlorine gas
against civilians fleeing Aleppo. Once again, the claims had little
evidence, just mud thrown against a wall in the hope that some of it
will stick. It is the al Nusra front which attacked the Aleppo refugees
as they struggled to get within the Syrian army lines. One day there is a
report on execution, another day chemical weapons, barrel bombs the
next day and so on. These phony organizations never mention that the
humanitarian catastrophe in Syria was brought about by western
intervention and its head chopping jihadist allies.
-- Margaret Kimberley's "Human Rights Industry Protects Imperialism" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).
Monday, February 20, 2017
Truest statement of the week II
Some on the left political spectrum in the US are suspicious of
Trump's foreign policy, and for good reason. US imperialism's war agenda
is non-negotiable. Trump's status as a billionaire champion of American
(white) exceptionalism does not necessarily breed confidence in Trump’s
rhetorical gestures to scale back key points in US foreign policy. His
Administration should be resisted at every turn for current and future
war provocations against Iran and China. His Administration should be
held accountable for the deaths of thirty people in Yemen during the
late January Commando raid just as Obama's Administration should have
been held accountable for killing thousands of people in Yemen,
Pakistan, and Afghanistan by drone strike over the course of eight
years.
But the anti-war movement died the day Obama was elected, leaving the contradictions that were brought to the fore throughout the Presidential electoral cycle unaddressed. One does not have to support Trump or refrain from struggle against the GOP to recognize that Trump's rhetorical gestures against regime change in the Middle East and Russia came from somewhere. These statements are the product of a rapidly changing world. In this world, the US can no longer call itself the only most influential or dominant global power. Russia's geopolitical significance, China's unprecedented economic growth, and the stagnation of the US economy have forever changed the international order of things.
-- Danny Haiphong's "Trump's Foreign Policy: Continuity or Break?" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).
But the anti-war movement died the day Obama was elected, leaving the contradictions that were brought to the fore throughout the Presidential electoral cycle unaddressed. One does not have to support Trump or refrain from struggle against the GOP to recognize that Trump's rhetorical gestures against regime change in the Middle East and Russia came from somewhere. These statements are the product of a rapidly changing world. In this world, the US can no longer call itself the only most influential or dominant global power. Russia's geopolitical significance, China's unprecedented economic growth, and the stagnation of the US economy have forever changed the international order of things.
-- Danny Haiphong's "Trump's Foreign Policy: Continuity or Break?" (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).
A note to our readers
Hey --
On the east coast it's 3:00 a.m. Here it's midnight. So it's Monday.
On the east coast it's 3:00 a.m. Here it's midnight. So it's Monday.
Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
What did we come up with:
Margaret Kimberley gets another truest.
As does Danny Haiphong.
We have no problem calling out the western press but we'll call out others as well.
Ava and C.I. examine HBO's BIG LITTLE LIES.
And they weigh in on Bill Mahder, Jeremey Schahill and free speech.
If Trump's responsible for so much progress, as he insists he is, why hasn't the State Dept. had a daily press briefing yet?
Trump insults the media so the idiotic 'resistance' rushes to defend it. Knee-jerk idiots and their stupidity help no one.
US House Rep. Tulsi Gabbard gets it again.
And her name is Debra Messing.
What we listened to while writing.
A press release from Senator Baldwin.
And one from Senator Isakson.
Editorial: Is there really so little news on Iraq?
The western media is hideous.
But we're usually able to count on the non-western media for some Iraq coverage.
Then along comes repackaged old news like this.
Seriously?
The over-reported story has no new angle.
Even worse?
Check out the headline.
It's about Iraqis being upset.
And look at the photo.
Wondering, are you, why Iraqis are holding a sign in English and not Arabic?
The caption 'forgets' to inform you that (a) this is actually a photo from last month and (b) it was taken in San Francisco.
Iraqi troops (which include the Shi'ite militias -- you can thank Prime Minister Hayder al-Abadi) are terrorizing Iraqi citizens, the people of western Mosul are starving, the UN has sided with Iraqi protesters on the need for reform to the Independent High Electoral Commission and this is what ALJAZEERA is (re)covering?
But we're usually able to count on the non-western media for some Iraq coverage.
Then along comes repackaged old news like this.
Seriously?
The over-reported story has no new angle.
Even worse?
Check out the headline.
It's about Iraqis being upset.
And look at the photo.
Wondering, are you, why Iraqis are holding a sign in English and not Arabic?
The caption 'forgets' to inform you that (a) this is actually a photo from last month and (b) it was taken in San Francisco.
Iraqi troops (which include the Shi'ite militias -- you can thank Prime Minister Hayder al-Abadi) are terrorizing Iraqi citizens, the people of western Mosul are starving, the UN has sided with Iraqi protesters on the need for reform to the Independent High Electoral Commission and this is what ALJAZEERA is (re)covering?
TV: HBO finally scores another hit
QUANTICO has proven just how quickly a show can wither away.
By episode 12 of season one, the show was struggling in the ratings.
And the struggle never ceased.
HBO's been struggling for a while as well.
No one wants to watch GIRLS.
And VEEP's one million or so viewers an episode now qualifies as hit material for the cable network.
Once upon a time, SEX IN THE CITY could easily deliver 7 million viewers an episode.
It was that memory that led HBO to bring back Sarah Jessica Parker for another series.
Sadly, DIVORCE is no SEX IN THE CITY and it's never been able to amass even one million viewers for an episode. More often than not, in fact, it's averaging half-a-million viewers an episode.
In other words, it's become the ABC of cable -- offering programming that's running viewers off.
David E. Kelley is no Darren Star (creator of SEX IN THE CITY) but his new show BIG LITTLE LIES is the best thing HBO's had in years, and we say that as two overwhelmed by BIG LITTLE LIES and not just as two friends of David.
It's a tight, little comic mystery that debuted Sunday night with a death that may have been a murder.
Who was the victim?
We have no idea yet.
From the crime scene, we quickly moved to Madeline Martha Mackenzie (Reese Witherspoon) driving her youngest daughter to orientation. There's almost an accident which leads Madeline to roll down her window and yell at the car ahead of her, "You're going to die!"
The driver stops texting long enough to flip the bird out the window.
Walking up to the car, Madeline tells the driver, "Excuse me, you must stop. You're going to kill yourself."
She grabs the phone and lectures her oldest daughter whom she discovers in the back seat of this car.
A lot of talk of death goes down in episode one. Some of it foreshadowing, to be sure.
Celeste Wright is Madline's friend (and played by Nicole Kidman). Celeste is married to Perry (Alexander Skarsgard).
People fret, to the police, over the lovey dovey displays of public affection the couple is frequently taking part in.
And at first, you think, "Talk about jealous."
But then you start to realize something is wrong in this marriage and that the PDAs are actually a cover.
That's when you think back to the undercurrent in the couple's first scene.
Celeste is attempting to get the two boys to stop running around and getting in the car.
Perry hollers, "First one to the car gets a dollar!"
As the boys run off, he says, "It just takes money."
A mild laugh.
But it's probably so much more than that.
As it is when Perry tells Celeste, "You love it when I'm bad."
Shailene Woodley plays newcomer Jane Chapman, mother of Ziggy.
Where is Ziggy's father?
Jane says he's out of the picture.
Is he?
There's a way she looks at Celeste that suggest Perry may be the father of Ziggy.
That would explain Jane's comments like, "I see this life -- and it's so wonderful -- but it's like, it doesn't belong to me."
Madeline doesn't think it belongs to her either -- or that it's so wonderful.
She's married to Ed Mackenzie (Adam Scott).
Now.
She used to be married to Nathan (James Tupper).
And maybe she could stand him as her ex if it wasn't for the fact that he's married Bonnie (Zoe Kravitz) and had a child with her and they just seem so wonderful and so in love.
They encounter one another at orientation.
But what really stands out for the day is when Renata (Laura Dern) is furious that a boy scratched her daughter and apparently tried to choke the little girl.
The culprit?
Everyone says it's Ziggy who denies it.
But that, we're told by witnesses to the police about the murder (of whom we don't know), is when people took sides -- it was Renata versus Madeline.
BIG LITTLE LIES is a strong offering from HBO.
We're a little confused and some of it is the natural confusion a mystery will create.
Some of it isn't.
Like Zoe Kravitz.
Why does everyone in the press bill her as Lenny Kravitz's daughter and act like it's a shock that the rocker could be the father of such a strong actress?
Her mother is Lisa Bonet -- an Emmy nominated actress.
Zoe's very talented.
The entire cast is.
Both Nicole and Reese are Academy Award winners and Laura Dern is an Academy Award nominee for both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress.
It's a strong cast but the best thing the series has going for it is solid writing.
All seven episodes of season one were written by David E. Kelley. That's why it's solid writing and why it's so cohesive and involving. HBO finally has a new series worth watching.
By episode 12 of season one, the show was struggling in the ratings.
And the struggle never ceased.
HBO's been struggling for a while as well.
No one wants to watch GIRLS.
And VEEP's one million or so viewers an episode now qualifies as hit material for the cable network.
Once upon a time, SEX IN THE CITY could easily deliver 7 million viewers an episode.
It was that memory that led HBO to bring back Sarah Jessica Parker for another series.
Sadly, DIVORCE is no SEX IN THE CITY and it's never been able to amass even one million viewers for an episode. More often than not, in fact, it's averaging half-a-million viewers an episode.
In other words, it's become the ABC of cable -- offering programming that's running viewers off.
David E. Kelley is no Darren Star (creator of SEX IN THE CITY) but his new show BIG LITTLE LIES is the best thing HBO's had in years, and we say that as two overwhelmed by BIG LITTLE LIES and not just as two friends of David.
It's a tight, little comic mystery that debuted Sunday night with a death that may have been a murder.
Who was the victim?
We have no idea yet.
From the crime scene, we quickly moved to Madeline Martha Mackenzie (Reese Witherspoon) driving her youngest daughter to orientation. There's almost an accident which leads Madeline to roll down her window and yell at the car ahead of her, "You're going to die!"
The driver stops texting long enough to flip the bird out the window.
Walking up to the car, Madeline tells the driver, "Excuse me, you must stop. You're going to kill yourself."
She grabs the phone and lectures her oldest daughter whom she discovers in the back seat of this car.
A lot of talk of death goes down in episode one. Some of it foreshadowing, to be sure.
Celeste Wright is Madline's friend (and played by Nicole Kidman). Celeste is married to Perry (Alexander Skarsgard).
People fret, to the police, over the lovey dovey displays of public affection the couple is frequently taking part in.
And at first, you think, "Talk about jealous."
But then you start to realize something is wrong in this marriage and that the PDAs are actually a cover.
That's when you think back to the undercurrent in the couple's first scene.
Celeste is attempting to get the two boys to stop running around and getting in the car.
Perry hollers, "First one to the car gets a dollar!"
As the boys run off, he says, "It just takes money."
A mild laugh.
But it's probably so much more than that.
As it is when Perry tells Celeste, "You love it when I'm bad."
Shailene Woodley plays newcomer Jane Chapman, mother of Ziggy.
Where is Ziggy's father?
Jane says he's out of the picture.
Is he?
There's a way she looks at Celeste that suggest Perry may be the father of Ziggy.
That would explain Jane's comments like, "I see this life -- and it's so wonderful -- but it's like, it doesn't belong to me."
Madeline doesn't think it belongs to her either -- or that it's so wonderful.
She's married to Ed Mackenzie (Adam Scott).
Now.
She used to be married to Nathan (James Tupper).
And maybe she could stand him as her ex if it wasn't for the fact that he's married Bonnie (Zoe Kravitz) and had a child with her and they just seem so wonderful and so in love.
They encounter one another at orientation.
But what really stands out for the day is when Renata (Laura Dern) is furious that a boy scratched her daughter and apparently tried to choke the little girl.
The culprit?
Everyone says it's Ziggy who denies it.
But that, we're told by witnesses to the police about the murder (of whom we don't know), is when people took sides -- it was Renata versus Madeline.
BIG LITTLE LIES is a strong offering from HBO.
We're a little confused and some of it is the natural confusion a mystery will create.
Some of it isn't.
Like Zoe Kravitz.
Why does everyone in the press bill her as Lenny Kravitz's daughter and act like it's a shock that the rocker could be the father of such a strong actress?
Her mother is Lisa Bonet -- an Emmy nominated actress.
Zoe's very talented.
The entire cast is.
Both Nicole and Reese are Academy Award winners and Laura Dern is an Academy Award nominee for both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress.
It's a strong cast but the best thing the series has going for it is solid writing.
All seven episodes of season one were written by David E. Kelley. That's why it's solid writing and why it's so cohesive and involving. HBO finally has a new series worth watching.
TV: Free speech
You don't have to like the speech to support free speech.
In most poli sci classes covering this, they use something like a KKK rally as an example.
Their speech is vile and disgusting but is protected speech under the US Constitution.
Saturday, Ty informed us that over 50 people e-mailed to say they were looking forward to our take on REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER.
Huh?
We hadn't said we were writing a word about that.
But because the program was in the news, many assumed we must be and would be watching.
Journalist Jeremy Schahill has been a regular guest on Bill's HBO series.
But early last week, Schahill announced he would not be appearing on Friday's show.
Bill Maher had his own response and it included:
Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech.
Who's right? Who's wrong?
Any guest has a right to refuse to appear if they are going to be uncomfortable.
Bill Maher also has a right to do a show he wants to do.
He's chosen to do a political shout-fest.
That's his choice.
We're a little surprised that Jeremy draws the line over that guest.
We tend to agree with BLACK AGENDA REPORT's Margaret Kimberley:
Some referred to Schahill's action as a 'stunt.'
We tend to disagree because he's got nothing to promote currently.
It didn't do him any good.
In fact, it is doubtful whether or not he'll now be invited back on the show.
That's Bill Maher's right as well.
He's the host, it's his show.
It's not a show we choose to watch.
We've weighed in before, such as in 2014's "TV: The WTFs:"
Take the never-ending yammering about what took place a week ago on the dreadful HBO program (is that redundant -- dreadful and HBO?) Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill Maher and Sam Harris on one side and Ben Affleck, Michael Steele and Nicholas Kristof largely on the other. Ben and company largely took a positive take on humanity while Bill and Sam saw destruction everywhere.
If you wanted to spend more than 90 words on it, and some people clearly did, you might get to the reality of the problem -- both sides were talking around the other and could have made concessions. (The only point where Maher was correct was in noting that the left -- which includes us -- is very comfortable calling out Christian and Jewish fundamentalist zealots but goes wobbly when it comes to calling out their Muslim equivalents.)
No one seemed eager to make that point.
Nor did they seem to grasp the more pertinent issue.
Bill Maher is a pig.
Trina noted some ridiculous idiot who wrote last week that "now" Maher was attacking women.
Now?
For three decades on television Maher has attacked women non-stop.
And there was Bill Maher on his hideous program insisting that Muslims were against women and this to women and that to women and blah blah blah.
And what stood out to us as feminists, as Maher pretended to give a damn about women in order to justify his attacks on Muslims, was the panel.
Maher silences women. He had a four guests and himself making up a panel allegedly concerned about women and not one of them was a woman.
If you don't get what a hypocrite and liar Bill Maher is, that's on you at this point. When he's pretending to care about what happens to women while staging an all male panel, if you can't grasp it, we're really shocked by your stupidity.
And we covered Gloria Steinem's ridiculous 2016 appearance on the program in "TV: Women and Power" (ridiculous, homophobic, transphobic and sexist).
It's not a show we like.
Or one we seek out.
But if Maher wants to book someone controversial, we're not going to slam him for that.
We believe in free speech.
But supporting free speech does not mean we have to partake of programs we find offensive.
We can defend him inviting on Milo what's-his-name while refusing to waste our time watching.
Does Bill Maher have a point that arguments can be better if you know what you're against?
Yes, he does.
Does Jeremy Schahill have a point that he can't appear on a broadcast that he fears will endorse things he disagrees with?
Yes, he does.
And that's the thing about free speech, we don't have to agree with anyone to support it.
Nor are we obligated to watch it.
Back to that KKK rally that poli sci classes often use for an example. You can support their right to assemble or march as a supporter of free speech.
But supporting free speech doesn't mean you have to join them in marching.
In most poli sci classes covering this, they use something like a KKK rally as an example.
Their speech is vile and disgusting but is protected speech under the US Constitution.
Saturday, Ty informed us that over 50 people e-mailed to say they were looking forward to our take on REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER.
Huh?
We hadn't said we were writing a word about that.
But because the program was in the news, many assumed we must be and would be watching.
Journalist Jeremy Schahill has been a regular guest on Bill's HBO series.
But early last week, Schahill announced he would not be appearing on Friday's show.
jeremy scahill
Why I will not appear this week on Real Time with Bill Maher.
Bill Maher had his own response and it included:
Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech.
Who's right? Who's wrong?
Any guest has a right to refuse to appear if they are going to be uncomfortable.
Bill Maher also has a right to do a show he wants to do.
He's chosen to do a political shout-fest.
That's his choice.
We're a little surprised that Jeremy draws the line over that guest.
We tend to agree with BLACK AGENDA REPORT's Margaret Kimberley:
- Jeremy Scahill boycotts Bill Maher because Yiannopoulos is a guest. Scahill should boycott Maher altogether. Maher is Muslim hating racist.
Margaret Kimberley Some referred to Schahill's action as a 'stunt.'
We tend to disagree because he's got nothing to promote currently.
It didn't do him any good.
In fact, it is doubtful whether or not he'll now be invited back on the show.
That's Bill Maher's right as well.
He's the host, it's his show.
It's not a show we choose to watch.
We've weighed in before, such as in 2014's "TV: The WTFs:"
Take the never-ending yammering about what took place a week ago on the dreadful HBO program (is that redundant -- dreadful and HBO?) Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill Maher and Sam Harris on one side and Ben Affleck, Michael Steele and Nicholas Kristof largely on the other. Ben and company largely took a positive take on humanity while Bill and Sam saw destruction everywhere.
If you wanted to spend more than 90 words on it, and some people clearly did, you might get to the reality of the problem -- both sides were talking around the other and could have made concessions. (The only point where Maher was correct was in noting that the left -- which includes us -- is very comfortable calling out Christian and Jewish fundamentalist zealots but goes wobbly when it comes to calling out their Muslim equivalents.)
No one seemed eager to make that point.
Nor did they seem to grasp the more pertinent issue.
Bill Maher is a pig.
Trina noted some ridiculous idiot who wrote last week that "now" Maher was attacking women.
Now?
For three decades on television Maher has attacked women non-stop.
And there was Bill Maher on his hideous program insisting that Muslims were against women and this to women and that to women and blah blah blah.
And what stood out to us as feminists, as Maher pretended to give a damn about women in order to justify his attacks on Muslims, was the panel.
Maher silences women. He had a four guests and himself making up a panel allegedly concerned about women and not one of them was a woman.
If you don't get what a hypocrite and liar Bill Maher is, that's on you at this point. When he's pretending to care about what happens to women while staging an all male panel, if you can't grasp it, we're really shocked by your stupidity.
And we covered Gloria Steinem's ridiculous 2016 appearance on the program in "TV: Women and Power" (ridiculous, homophobic, transphobic and sexist).
It's not a show we like.
Or one we seek out.
But if Maher wants to book someone controversial, we're not going to slam him for that.
We believe in free speech.
But supporting free speech does not mean we have to partake of programs we find offensive.
We can defend him inviting on Milo what's-his-name while refusing to waste our time watching.
Does Bill Maher have a point that arguments can be better if you know what you're against?
Yes, he does.
Does Jeremy Schahill have a point that he can't appear on a broadcast that he fears will endorse things he disagrees with?
Yes, he does.
And that's the thing about free speech, we don't have to agree with anyone to support it.
Nor are we obligated to watch it.
Back to that KKK rally that poli sci classes often use for an example. You can support their right to assemble or march as a supporter of free speech.
But supporting free speech doesn't mean you have to join them in marching.
Still no State Dept. press briefing
Last Thursday, US President Donald Trump held a press conference and insisted that his administration was accomplishing much and making "progress."
The claim has led to mockery and attacks.
We're not going to mock or attack in this feature.
But we are going to point out an obvious fact.
Since being sworn in almost a month ago, we've seen very little from the administration.
For example, the US State Department can't even hold a daily press briefing.
Not one press briefing.
Maybe next time you want to self-shout out in a press conference, make sure the various departments in your administration are holding regular press briefings?
Worthless Stupidity
That's Jamie, she's a worthless.
She uses Princess Lea because there's nothing interesting or original about her own life.
Jamie
This is Diane Sawyer. 2xEmmy winner, PeabodyAward, R.F.Kennedy JournalismAward Walter Cronkite Award Excellence #NotTheEnemy
That's the Diane Sawyer, remember, who worked in Richard Nixon's administration.
The 'journalist,' remember, who helped torpedo Howard Dean's chances in 2004 both by attempting to portray Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean as 'strange' and by promoting the falsehood of the 'Dean scream.'
This is Jonathan Karl, Chief WH Correspondent ABC. Emmy Award, Everett McKinley Dirksen Award, Joan Shorenstein Barone Award. #NotTheEnemy
Uh, oh.
The 'resistance' goes against its own -- here's puffed chest shrieker John Aravosis in 2013 calling Jonathan Karl a hack and worse.
And let's stay on this topic but fold in C.I.'s "The stupid crawl out from under their rocks again" from Saturday:
The stupidity never ends.
US President Donald Trump declares the media are the enemy and the stupid idiots crawl out from under their rocks.
Because Donald said they were the enemy, the corporate funded 'Resistance' strikes back -- as only they can, in full stupidity.
They provide a list of journalists who were killed.
Oh, how sad.
What's next?
A list of child molesters killed?
If you don't get how stupid they are . . .
US President Donald Trump declares the media are the enemy and the stupid idiots crawl out from under their rocks.
Because Donald said they were the enemy, the corporate funded 'Resistance' strikes back -- as only they can, in full stupidity.
They provide a list of journalists who were killed.
Oh, how sad.
What's next?
A list of child molesters killed?
If you don't get how stupid they are . . .
AdamJamesMajority60
Michael Thomas Kelly worked for @nytimes and @washingtonpost killed while covering the Iraq war #NotTheEnemy
This is Michael Kelly an American journalist for The New York Times,The Washington Post&The New Yorker. He was killed in Iraq. #NotTheEnemy
Beyond uneducated, the 'Resistance' is also illiterate.
They are using Micheal Kelly to pimp their cause.
The Iraq War liar is their go to?
Here's Ta-Nehisi Coates (THE ATLANTIC) writing about Kelly, years after his death, in 2013:
Over at Gawker, Tom Scocca published a very hard--and very fair--assessment of Kelly's role in the Iraq War. I hadn't read much of the work Scocca referenced, so I did myself a favor and looked up some of Kelly's columns in the days leading up to Iraq. What you find in these columns is the pit of all that, to this day, angers those who were against the war from the start. Kelly's columns are not just pro-war, they are ferociously pro-Bush, and gleefully contemptuous of liberals who thought otherwise.
It's the glee that burns. There's a kind of writer who gets his kicks
writing bad reviews of music and books. You see that same spirit in Kelly's mocking of Paul Krugman, Kurt Vonnegut, and Janeane Garofalo, or in his attacks on the French by evoking the ghost of Pétain.
That glee turned Kelly into a thin writer who spurned nuance in
favor of hyperbole. In the fall of 2002, for instance, Kelly wrote that
Bush...
...presides over an administration that is unusually intelligent -- and also cunning -- unusually experienced, unusually disciplined and unusually bold.
He continued:
Democrats will howl...that the president is not competent, that his administration is not to be trusted, that Republican presidents and Republican policies are radical and dangerous and frightening and bad...I suppose they will continue to believe this, and continue to say it, in voices growing ever more shrill and ever more loud, yet, oddly, ever more distant and faint.
The president wasn't competent. Iraq and then Katrina proved that. And the voices did not grow more "distant and faint."
Death does not bestow nobility.
But idiots like Jamie and AdamJames think it does and that they can pick out any dead corpse and trot it out to prove a point.
Sorry, stupids, it doesn't work that way.
Most important, for the deeply stupid, stop pretending to defend journalism by noting deaths when the deaths you include of are people who worked for RADIO this or RADIO that.
Those aren't news outlets. They're propaganda fronts -- part of THE VOICE OF AMERICA.
Try learning before you Tweet.
You only embarrass yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
