The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Tuesday Weld: "I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused "Bonnie and Clyde" because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of "Bob and Carol and Fred and Sue" or whatever it was called. It reeked of success."
Who actually treated U.S. troops like suckers and losers? We can
start with the most recent invasion of another country. In 2003
president George W. Bush, his vice president Dick Cheney, secretary of
state Colin Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and a
rogue’s gallery of pundits and politicians all made the case for
invading and occupying Iraq. The claim that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction was chosen as the ruse most likely to get
traction with the public. Colin Powell was the most prominent
cheerleader with his infamous performance at the United Nations. Using
photos of trucks purporting to be mobile weapons labs and a vial that
represented non-existent anthrax, he gave cover to the war of
aggression.
Goldberg is a war propagandist in the truest sense of that term. He
worked very closely not only with the Bush administration but Barack
Obama’s as well. He is a pseudo journalist who is in fact a spokesperson
for presidents and a conduit of information between the United States
and Israeli governments.
In relation to the Sanders’ campaign, no one posed, let alone
answered, the question: How did we get fooled again? How did the
“political revolution” that we championed end up in a campaign behind
Biden, that stalwart of political corruption and reaction? No one will
acknowledge that the outcome had been predicted by the World Socialist Web Site, as this would be to acknowledge the correctness of Marxism.
To the extent that there is a theory behind the MPP, it is that a
political movement is built on the lowest common denominator. No
differences can be discussed, and any examination of the political role
and record of the individuals involved must be avoided at all costs.
There is a semi-conscious recognition that if they discussed anything
seriously, the smiles would disappear and the whole operation would blow
apart.
This politics by eclectic amalgam is expressed in the name itself:
the “People’s Party.” But what are “the people”? The use of the term is
above all aimed at clearly opposing the MPP to working-class politics,
that is, a socialist and revolutionary perspective.
One can venture a prediction that the August 30 convention will be
the last time that the various individuals who formed the MPP will all
come together. In any case, for workers and youth who are seeking a way
to oppose inequality, war and dictatorship, its main purpose is to
provide a lesson in what serious politics is not.
We didn't plan to be so late. C.I. was hurt Saturday but she and Ava had their TV article done by Sunday at 7:00 pm. Then we weren't ready. The a RISING commentary by Saagar meant Ava and C.I. needed to change a portion of their article but they didn't have time to do so until Thursday -- and we were told that on Tuesday. We hope to be done this weekend on Sunday.
A development in the long running, never ending Iraq War took place this week. Gordon Lubold and Isabel Coles (WALL STREET JOURNAL) report, "The Trump administration will cut the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to about 3,000 this month, a top military commander said in the country on Wednesday, a reduction from about 5,200 there now." Barbara Starr and Ryan Browne (CNN) quote CENTCOM commander Gen Frank McKenzie stating, "This reduced footprint allows us to continue advising and assisting our Iraqi partners in rooting out the final remnants of ISIS in Iraq and ensuring its defeat." Kim Hejlmgaard (USA TODAY) points out, "The move is in keeping with President Donald Trump's pledge to cut the number of U.S. military personnel deployed overseas. "
Melissa Quinn (CBS NEWS) pouts, "The U.S. will be pulling 1,200 troops from Iraq during the month of September as part of President Trump's efforts to follow through on his oft-repeated campaign promise to bring home American service members and end so-called 'endless wars'."
"So-called endless wars'"? Melissa seems a little down, doesn't she. Poor thing, she can't keep her War On up. Maybe some viagra will make her feel better?
If that doesn't do the trick, maybe this will: It's not a withdrawal and troops could go back into Iraq in larger numbers. Doubt it? Merrit Kennedy (NPR) notes Gen McKenzie declared that "the decision reflects confidence in Iraqi security forces."
Ruh-roh Scooby. These are the same security forces that the US has trained and trained again, retrained and trained and, in 2011, stated they needed no more training from the US, thank you. That training would have fallen under the State Dept but it didn't take place. Fade out. Fade in, 2014 and Mosul is seized by ISIS. Then training and retraining starts yet again.
At present, Donald Trump's planning a drawdown. That's not the same as a withdrawal. What's needed is a withdrawal.
Where do you go? If you're a feminist and you support Black Lives Matter, if you're against the wars and pro-immigration, if you believe in a better world, where do you go?
Sure, we're asking it now. But Cher asked it years ago.
Where do you go When it starts to rain Where will you sleep When the night time comes
What do you do When your heart's in pain Where will you run When the right time comes
Like Cher, we wonder.
From time to time, someone pops up and we're told to embrace them. We're bullied if we don't, shamed. For example, our refusal to embrace Keith Olbermann resulted in so many e-mails that only stopped once JOURNALIST went public and the world learned that it wasn't just the two of us bothered by the rank sexism Keith trafficked in.
The same group that pimped him now tries to pimp Bill Maher. We don't embrace Islamaphobia and we don't hate Muslims so we would never get on board with Maher -- even if you set his sexism to the side which we would never do.
Before Amy Goodman got her foundation money, she was against wars. Starting with the war on Libya, Amy was on board with anything. From 2000 through 2004, she was out front and a leader but then she caved a little each year to the point that she was an embarrassment. In 2003, for example, could you imagine Goody staging a black out on the Green Party? Refusing to even note in a headline when Howie Hawkins won the Green's presidential nomination?
She no longer goes to where the silences are, she now creates them. MSNBC was supposedly a channel for the left. But it was a sexist sewer. Rachel Maddow publicly criticized MSNBC for that to THE ASSOCIATED PRESS and was immediately rewarded by MSNBC provided she shut her mouth. Shut her mouth? Rachel learned that at AIR AMERICA RADIO. When she and Lisz Winstead were informed their show (with Chuck D) UNFILTERED was being taken off the air in a month and would be replaced with a talk show from Jerry Springer, Lizz walked.
Rachel?
She went on air and lied that Lizz was sick. For a month, Rachel lied to listeners and did so to be rewarded -- not just paid, understand, but rewarded. Though UNFILTERED would be no more, Rachel was given an early morning talk show. She was pathetic -- and we're being kind and not bringing up how she had her father be a sock puppet on the UNFILTERED message board.
As Cher sings in "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves," "But every night all the men would come around and lay their money down."
For starters, why would anyone want to be an image of Rachel -- mirror image, photographic negative image, what have you?
Rachel is a clown. No one who knows the news takes her seriously. She's a clown who's made herself that. She's this generation's Bill O'Reilly.
We're not 'Bernie Fans' -- and weren't when he was running. We did support his campaign but that was not out of some 'fandom' of Bernie.
We don't fall in love with politicians -- we're not that desperate.
Or that pathetic.
And we don't just pretend someone's good at whatever they do because we happen to share political beliefs. A lot of complaints over the years have had whiners bringing that up: 'But we're on the same political side!!!!'
Actually, we're not. Sorry, NPR ombudsperson, we're not. Sorry, David Corn, we're not. Sorry to so many, we're not.
We call out sexism and that includes at NPR. Just because you think the NPR staff is 'woke' and 'aware' and cares about women doesn't mean s**t to us. We look at the numbers and we see women as less guests. That's the fact. Your statements are hopes and dreams that aren't translating and we'll call NPR out no matter how much it distresses you.
And we're not on Krystal's side. If she wants to come over to our side, great and fine. But she's not a feminist. A feminist would be appalled that RISING features so few women as guests. (We can print the number but we'll be kind -- this time -- and leave it out.) It really shouldn't be our job or anyone else's job to point out that Krystal's show RISING -- like so many 'progressive' shows (Thom Hartman, for example) feature a ton of men and very few women. How do you not notice that? You do the show daily and you don't notice it?
Of course, you notice it. You just don't give a damn.
And that's really the point of RISING -- not giving a damn.
Krystal hosts the show with Saagar Enjeti. He represents the conservative side, she represents the liberal side. When we were discussing RISING with friends, they kept asking us why we didn't have criticism of Saagar?
Why would we?
He's representing the right-wing. He does that effectively.
Are we supposed to be fuming that he's effective at his job just because he's on a different side?
If he were a hypocrite, we'd call him out.
But Krystal's the hypocrite.
She's not really that left to begin with and her scope is very narrow -- as is her knowledge base.
She's really good at popping her eyes and speaking in what we call "potato voice" (pretend you have a hot potato on your tongue and watch the roof of your mouth rise). She thinks she's good at mocking but she's not. She's like Trevor Noah these days. He doesn't have jokes. With no studio audience, he's just been offering observations and they weren't funny and they weren't original and he kept pausing for laughs (from home viewers) but it just made him look stupid. If Trevor, a professional comedian, can't pull it off, what makes Krystal think she can?
She can't. But even if she could, you'd think she'd want something more, something beyond portraying someone slightly to the left of James Carville.
Instead, she's just the hollow TV Democrat who surrounds herself with more of the same.
Where is Margaret Kimberley? Ann Garrison? Glen Ford? Lucy Flores?
Over and over, every guest on the 'left' on this supposedly free wheeling show tells you they're voting for Joe. Where's the Green Party? Where's the Libertarian Party? Where are the Socialists?
Tepid guests make for tepid TV. Take Marianne Williamson's recent appearance. What was the point? We like Marianne, but what was the point? It was lousy TV and little more than indoctrination. Marianne wants to tell viewers to vote for Joe Biden. The Democratic Party's primary just wasn't fair, it's observed. Marianne rushes to agree with that call and she's got stories. But when pressed for a story -- you know something that would give you a reason to watch the interview, Marianne explains she'll tell but after the election, Krystal rushes to agree that she understands that delay.
No. If something went wrong, if something was unfair, if Marianne saw the belly of the beast, she needs to discuss it now. Not months from now. Not after the election, when we'll be told, well the DNC's changed since then. If Marianne has something to share, she needs to share it now and anyone conducting an interview would grasp that.
But Krystal's not there for that, she's there to whore for a party.
RISING is not interesting TV, it's not interesting anything. We came to that realization long ago but it was driven home last week when professional liar Jeffrey Goldberg published an article in the pro-war bible THE ATLANTIC. It was a hideous article that insisted Donald Trump called US troops -- living and dead -- various slurs -- a hideous article that had no one on the record, just a ton of anonymice.
We know Donald Trump and we don't care for him.
But the story makes no sense. Instead of questioning it, RISING and Krystal were immediately on board. (Earlier this week, Saagar did a commentary rejecting the article.)
The attempt to portray Donald as someone who loathes the troops comes eight weeks before the election, comes from a noted War Hawk liar (check Goldberg's Iraq 'reporting') and a press that has made the last four years about taking Donald Trump down.
It was a hideous article and it was a desperate one.
Instead of addressing that, Krystal amplified it.
Repeating, we know Donald Trump.
That story made no sense.
RISING rushed to insist it had to be true, why, he said awful things about John McCain!!!
Krystal and her buddy Colin Rogero just knew it was true.
Did her parents bounce her on her head? Is that why she's so stupid?
Yes, Donald insulted John McCain. He's insulted many people.
That doesn't prove that he said insulting things about US troops. In fact, his pattern there would argue he didn't say them.
Donald has a huge ego, can we agree on that? We're trying to move slowly here for the idiots like Krystal and, just in case it's possible, and anyone even more stupid than Krystal.
Donald's ego has him the best this and the best that and the most loved this and that.
When does Donald get mad? When does Donald insult?
We know this because it's one of the reasons we don't like him. He gets very angry whenever anyone insults him -- or questions one of his many boasts. He gets enraged. Then suddenly, no matter what he said about you before, you're the worst this and the worst that.
War Criminal John McCain was defended on the show and that's bad enough. But equally true, the idiots didn't grasp this isn't Donald's m.o. If troops had insulted him, he very well would have something similar to what was 'reported.' But which dead troops suddenly insulted him resulting in his hair-trigger rage?
Donald rages, no question. In response, though -- in response to what he perceives as an insult.
THE ATLANTIC article had no one who provided a name and that really should have kept it from being printed. What the article alleges is repugnant and if you're going to make that charge, you better step forward.
That's the other thing that doesn't make sense: Four or so people want to make this charge but are too scared to come forward? It might be painful, Donald might Tweet about them, we're told by Goldberg (in a CNN interview). In what world? Disgusting nothings have been embraced by the media and the faux resistance for revealing much less. A trashy memoir comes out -- this is the first time in this community that book has ever been alluded to -- and instead of recoiling in disgust over a family member trashing their family and offering up garbage, the media and the public embrace the author. No, if you're going to make a charge like that, you're going to go public -- either for the acclaim or because you feel a duty -- like the duty you felt to share the story in the first place.
It never made sense. If you played it out, Goldberg's story never rang true.
And maybe that's why Krystal Ball and Colin Rogero had to really start lying. Krystal's fronting to be about truth and to be left gets old real quick but never as quick as it did in that segment.
Not only did she defend that man responsible for the deaths of so many, she then allowed her 'friend of the show' Colin Rogero to LIE and pimp the known falsehood that Russia was paying Afghanistan people to kill US troops.
She let him lie and she rushed to agree with him.
Unlike Krystal, Abby Martin is on the left. Here's Abby Martin noting how ludicrous the 'report' of Russia paying Afghans to kill US troops.
That video was over a week old when Krystal decided to start pimping it.
It was also from JACOBIN and Ana Kasparian. We'll come back to her later.
But can Krystal tell us who was served by that segment? The Goldberg story doesn't ring true. To prop it up, Krysal and her guest have to resort to pimping a discredited 'report' that US troops were being killed in Afghanistan -- a war zone -- because Big Bad Russia was paying Afghans to kill US troops, where does the lunacy end?
This isn't a public affairs program, it's a dumpster fire.
To the original question: Where do you go?
If you're looking for attempts at honesty, there's not a great list of programs waiting out there for you. USEFUL IDIOTS? You know our main problem with that one? Bringing on a guest to attack Joe Biden when the guest isn't identified. He's not going to vote for Joe, he'll vote for someone else, why he hasn't voted for a Democrat at the top of the ticket and blah blah f**king blah.
We have no problem with anyone holding Joe accountable.
But this guest, this guest speaking of voting? Why weren't people told that in elections, he'd run on a ticket. He'd been a vice presidential nominee at least once (it appears the second attempt was killed because people objected since he wasn't old enough to hold the office of president). He was on the ticket with Gloria La Riva.
Why weren't people told that this guest talking about voting was actually a politician who'd run for the office of vice president?
Why was that a secret from the viewers?
Just him saying that he would vote for someone else should have led the USEFUL IDIOTS hosts to ask him, "Oh, who are you going to vote for?" They weren't curious (because they knew who he was going to vote for). And they brought him on as some objective observer. If he was objective, then the hosts should have told the viewers which party he belonged to (the Party for Socialism and Liberation) and that he had run for the office of Vice President of the United States.
These are basics. We're not inventing new rules here. These are basics of journalism. You bring on a guest to weigh in on Joe Biden, you explain who the guest is and what they've done so that the viewers can factor that in.
So where do you go?
Reality, there's not one program. There can never be one program. We need multiple points of view -- even from our own side. Jimmy Dore serves up politics with humor and hits it out of the park while Trevor Noah continues to struggle. JACOBIN is often criticized by WSWS and we usually do agree with the criticism WSWS offers. But (a) where's WSWS' program? And (b) JACOBIN produces a lot of strong content for their YOUTUBE channel and Ana's program is a strong one that deals with real issues. (Try to find a serious discussion of any of the ongoing wars that the US is in on RISING. You won't find one.) Yes, JACOBIN has a viewpoint. That's why there's never going to be one program. Every program is going to have a point of view these days, the notion of presenting as unbiased is gone, long gone. On the left you can pick up WEEKENDS WITH ANA KASPERIAN and you can pick up BLACK AGENDA RADIO (on YOUTUBE now at THE PROGRESSIVE RADIO NETWORK), you can listen to Katie Halper (whose solo work is usually stronger than her other program USEFUL IDIOTS). You can probably think of a few others. It's a very tiny list and that's very sad because there is so much out there but astroturf wasn't worth reading in the '00s and it's not worth watching in this decade. It's a real shame.
And it's a real shame that despite all the applause Krystal Ball has received, her work on RISING is superficial and, honestly, harmful. When you're pimping MSM lies that have been exposed for weeks as lies, you're not helping anyone. There wasn't an easy answer years ago when Cher asked where do you go and, decades later, there still isn't one.
One morning we're told by THE NEW YORK TIMES and NPR that there's a vaccine that the states will get at the end of October and they'll start injections on November 1st. Then by the end of the day, stocks are dropping in response to Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health saying nope, not happening. He repeated that to THE PBS NEWSHOUR:
Judy Woodruff:
The idea that we're going to have a vaccine by November 3, how realistic?
Anthony Fauci:
Well, I think that's unlikely.
I mean, the only way you can see that scenario come true is if that there are so many infections in the clinical trial sites, that you get an efficacy answer sooner than you would have projected.
Like I said, it's not impossible, Judy, but it's unlikely that we'll have a definitive answer at that time, more likely by the end of the year.
They sure are asking a lot of Americans. We're masked up, social distancing and waiting. Waiting for some form of good news.
The summer and the season's heat didn't kill off COVID. The numbers continue to climb nationally. And we're getting closer to flu season. SCIENTIFIC AMERICA reports "Coronavirus and the Flu: A Looming Double Threat."
And Americans try to cope and carry on.
At the start of March, Ava and C.I. covered the 1918 flu pandemic. They had been discussing the special with doctors and nurses and scientists and continued to do so after they published their article. They called us (Jess, Dona, Jim and Ty) together to explain what was likely about to take place. And we thought they were crazy. Jim even said, "That's never going to happen."
Because in March who could believe that we would become a population wearing masks anytime we were outside the house? Who could believe that businesses would be shutting down? In March, we were still thinking about going to the movies -- and not thinking about wearing a mask while doing so.
Our world has changed. Significantly. And as Trina has pointed out repeatedly, despite commercials that are supposed to make you feel connected, we are not all in this together.
Too many are profiting during the pandemic. The workers aren't profiting. When many businesses shut down, grocery stores didn't, clinics and hospitals didn't, many drive thrus remained open, etc. Those workers?
They don't even praise them in commercials today and they certainly, in Congress, never delivered on the promised heroes pay. You don't even hear them talk about that anymore. There's no more pretense of gratitude to the people whose work keeps our lives going.
Trina, who is a nurse, made a point to praise the people who keep the clinic and the hospital she works in going. She noted that among those to be praised are the sanitation staff because without them nothing would be clean. Elaine made a point to praise the woman at the drive thru where she gets her morning coffee.
Gratitude was momentary for the media and they quickly moved on as did the Congress.
If you don't get how little both parties in Congress value the American people, they never delivered a second stimulus. They still haven't. The additional unemployment benefits ran out in August. Remember the so-called CARES Act that Congress passed? An extra $600 a week due to the COVID pandemic, that's what Congress gave . . . for a few months. That and a one-time $1,200 check for some Americans.
That was meager when it happened. Months later, it's even more meager. And though the pandemic continues, the CARES Act does not. Screw the American people -- that's the message from the Congress -- and that's a message in an election year. Could public servants be more disdainful of the Americans that they are supposed to be serving?
On Thursday, the United States Department of Labor announced that over 1.3 million Americans filed initial unemployment claims last week. This report marks the 17th consecutive week of 1-million-plus unemployment claims. About 51 million people have filed for unemployment benefits since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. This doesn’t include the millions of others who’ve finished collecting benefits, given up looking for a job or have reluctantly taken a position far below their prior compensation level just to make ends meet.
That's 18% of the adult population. And Congress refused to help these people. The six hundred additional payments? They might make people not want to work, our 'friends' in Congress insisted.
And everyone went on their holiday and acted like the American people didn't matter. Can Nancy Pelosi do anything other than deliver a bitchy remark? If so, we're not seeing it. She's a failure as Speaker of the House. A real leader could have -- and would have -- fought for the American people.
But maybe when you're mega Nancy and you've never wanted for anything, you've never struggled to pay bills, maybe you're so damn out of touch that you don't grasp how ridiculous you look porking on your expensive ice cream and living it up and laughing.
People are suffering. People are worried. No one seems to grasp that.
The global death toll could make the pandemic more serious than the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak, the worst infection since mass statistics have been gathered.
That was when people were concerned with the bird flu. It ended up not being as bad as it could have been. But there have been signs all along and our leaders should have been prepared for a COVID type emergency to emerge.
This is an emergency, it's a pandemic. And we see no sense of urgency from our government and no effort to help the American people. Democrat or Republican, you've all been failures.
In a world that really valued justice, every incumbent would lose their office in the upcoming elections. "Throw the bums out" would be the rallying cry.
Maybe someday we'll get to that point, where the American people are willing to fight for their own rights and needs.
Sorry. Our time is valuable to us. We'll gladly defend Rose McGowan, for example. Tara Reade? We're on board with her and with Juanita Broaddrick. But a woman goes on CNN to talk about her rape and tells Anderson Cooper that rape is "sexy"? Why are we even bothering with this fool?
We're not bothering with her. Life is too short and we have too many real issues to deal with. If Trump loses the election, hopefully one thing we can all agree on is that the absence of nut jobs like E Jean Carroll will be a good thing.
---------
Illustration is Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Crazy Lady."
"Mr. Trump knew it was deadly and airborne." That's what THE NEW YORK TIMES runs with and they would, wouldn't they? Whores flock together, and it's not always under a street lamp. Ahead of the coronavirus outbreaks in the US, President Donald Trump knew it would be bad, much worse than he let on.
Who knows what was going through Donald's head? Did he grasp what he was being told? (We've never been confident that he qualified as "smart.") Did he believe what he was told? Was he thinking, or told, that he needed to manage public opinion and keep everyone lulled into a sense of calm?
We have no idea.
We do know that we object to sugar coating, we don't believe in it. Which brings us to the true villain in this story: Bob Woodward.
Woody is a criminal. He should be charged as a public menace.
As he makes clear in his new book, he spoke to Donald about these things. Bob Woodward knew what was going on and understood what was going on.
He did nothing with that information.
He sat on it. He could have, in January, reported it on the front page of THE WASHINGTON POST and helped avert the deaths of many. Instead, he sat on the information and he sat on it for one reason: Personal profit.
Grasp that. He presents as a journalist but a journalist's duty is to report, to hold the powerful accountable, to ensure public safety by doing their job.
Grasp that Julian Assange is on trial and being persecuted because he reported what the public needed to know while Bob Woodward walks free having endangered millions of Americans just so, months later, he could have a 'scoop' for his book.
Woodward's getting ready to make the rounds promoting his new book. He'll be doing 60 MINUTES on Sunday, for example. Shame on every outlet that promotes him, that plays into his game and pretends he's doing journalism when he put greed above the public's right to know.
---------
Illustration is Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Another Fine Mess."
Does anyone remember that the Senate got a classified briefing about coronavirus on Jan. 24 which was so scary that several of them dumped their stocks as a result? They knew what Trump knew at the time. Why was that briefing classified?
The health care crisis in this country is growing at an alarming rate.
Our newest ad directly addresses the issue. Jo Jorgensen Libertarian For
President is beginning her second nationwide bus tour this September!
Learn more at Jo20.com
