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."
Racism is the only explanation for treating Xi Jinping and other government officials as if they are dumb.
While Nancy thinks that retelling stupid and racist fables explains
away her actions, China is taking real action and Taiwan is suffering.
The island has effectively been blockaded by military exercises, the
country it depends upon for trade is depriving it of materials like
sand, which is needed in its all important microchip production
industry. Biden administration amateurs, fresh off their loss in
Ukraine, have ignominiously repeated their failure.
Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Joe Biden see the world through other
nations’ eyes. Why should they when they live by a belief in U.S.
superiority? But they will repeat the process of undermining what they
seek to preserve. Every failed attempt to assert U.S. strength leads
other countries to form their own alliances in order to protect
themselves. China and Russia are closer now than they have ever been
thanks to invasions, coups, sanctions, and proxy wars which make the
U.S. the enemy of most of the world. Other nations will follow their
lead as U.S. desperation creates more crises.
China is the master here, the mature and intelligent country willing
to get along with others despite any differences. People who want peace
and a just world must follow their lead as every U.S. president presents
nothing but new opportunities for world wide mischief making. Nancy
Pelosi is not alone in disregarding China. The Biden administration, the
rest of congressional leadership, corporate media, and opinion makers
all disregard China because it is a non-white country. No matter.
Ignorance of international law is no excuse, neither is U.S. willful
ignorance of how great power politics is really played.
One-hundred and ten years after O’Hare published her racist polemic,
another white woman with ties to the political Left in the U.S., Krystal
Ball, appeared on the Marxist economist Richard Wolff’s podcast to once
again downplay the role that racism plays in the struggle between
capital and labor.
“I am of the opinion that there is no war but class war,” she said.
“It’s too easy to say that culture war issues . . .like gun rights or
abortion or white supremacy, that these are distractions. What I think
they are instead is they mask these deeper issues of class and of
economics and of distribution.”
While far more nuanced than O’Hare’s, Ball’s viewpoint is nonetheless
an attempt to gaslight what is, by virtually any measure, an apartheid
state in which jobs, opportunities and advantages accrue to the whitest
and not necessarily the best. If capitalism in its most molecular form
is defined as a war between master and slave, then racial
capitalism represents a codicil to this arrangement whereby half the
slaves believe that they are, in fact, the master, as the late, Marxist
historian Noel Ignatiev was fond of saying. Another Marxist historian,
Philip Foner, elaborates further in his classic text, Organized Labor and the Black Worker, 1619-1981:
"When the president of the Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills in
Atlanta, with 1,400 employees, hired 20 Negro women to work in the
folding department of one of the mills in 1897, the entire white
workforce (went on strike). The company agreed to fire the black workers
on one condition: the white workers would have to work overtime for
free.”
From cotton to cars to credit, the principal commodity may change but
white racism remains, as the assassinated black revolutionary George
Jackson once wrote, the biggest barrier to forming a cohesive workers’
movement in the U.S. The result is two nations in one, with whites’
overall living standards rivaling Canada’s or Western Europe, while blacks live a life that is closer in quality to Mexico or Palestine.
Ava and C.I. were prepared to cover a movie, a NETFLIX TV show and a home remodel show if they had to do two pieces. Fortunately, they only had to do one piece this edition.
A lot of ugly going down but, as Cher once sang, "Not enough love and understanding." Amen.
REVOLUTIONARY
BLACKOUT, last week, felt the need to call out African-American Nina
Turner not once but twice for stating she found White male Jimmy Dore
racist. Three times if you count the always ineffectual Sabby Sabs who
is a member of RB. RB, for those who don't know, is supposed to offer
revolutionary news from a Black point of view -- hence the name and,
yes, we are aware, even if they aren't, that Nellie Bailey used to use
those words on the weekly intro to BLACK AGENDA RADIO.
So
our problem there was that RB, like the White YOUTUBERS, rushed to
stick up for Jimmy Dore -- to attack an African-American woman and stick
up for Jimmy Dore -- how revolutionary.
As
Betty has noted many times (best here), it really is past time for
Black YOUTUBE to stop playing Jimmy Dore's security. Jimmy, despite Kit
Cabello claiming otherwise on HARD LENS MEDIA last week, does not
present a number of African-American voices. He presents a lot of White
voices and a lot of male voices. But whether your a woman or a man who
is African-American, you're hardly ever a guest on his show.
The
same could be said of HARD LENS MEDIA which rushed in to defend Jimmy.
CONVO COUCH also shone in all their Whiteness as they too attacked Nina
Turner to defend Jimmy. It was the usual circle jerk.
The
whole thing began with Nina calling out Republicans in Congress who
suddenly were opposed to the FBI. They weren't opposed when the FBI was
plotting to force MLK into committing suicide. They weren't opposed
when the FBI was hunting Angela Davis as though she was a rabid animal
and not a human being. They weren't opposed when the FBI was violating
civil rights and civil liberties.
Yet
now that the FBI had raided/searched/examined Donald Trump's
Mar-A-Lago? When that happened, Nina offered, "My prediction of the
fallout of the FBI raiding Mar-A-Lago is that we're probably going to
see a bunch of MAGA Republicans call to abolish the FBI."
To which Drama Queen Jimmy Dore Tweeted, "When Lefties cheer on the FBI you know they're serious about being a Democrat."
And so Kit and the other Whitests felt the need to attack Nina and prop up Jimmy.
They
didn't ever ask why the attack from Jimmy? They didn't stop to think
that Nina's Tweet did not, in fact, "cheer on the FBI." All it did was
note that the MAGA Republicans, in Nina's view, were about to "call to
abolish the FBI." In her other Tweets we're not seeing, "That's a bad
idea!" let alone "I love the FBI, I worship the late J. Edgar Hoover."
As
Nina noted, "When Jimmy Dore knocks a Black progressive woman for
pointing out conservative's hypocrisy when it comes to the FBI, you know
he's serious about being anti-Black and protecting conservatives."
Examining Nina's other Tweets, you find, "conservatives were ok with the
FBI when it came to the Panthers, MLK, and Malcolm X, now they have a
problem with it. If you have a problem with me pointing that out,
you're doing the bidding of these conservatives, which Jimmy is." Later,
"And yes, doing the bidding of those conservatives by using a Black
woman's words is, in fact, anti-Black."
We
agree with her. Did any of the people -- regardless of color --
rushing to slam Nina Turner think for even one moment before they let
the circle jerk impulse automatically kick in?
That they had no reluctance to automatically kick a woman of color also says a great deal about them.
There
is no alternative media being built by the constant LIFESTYLES OF THE
PLAIN AND SIMPLE approach YOUTUBE channels have taken with regards to
defending Jimmy Dore constantly. He's forever in a flame war, for ever
being a drama queen. And various YOUTUBE shows feel the need to put
real issues on hold to all rush to defend Jimmy.
We
can't get coverage of Iraq from these YOUTUBERS but they pretty much
weekly do a segment (weakly) on Jimmy Dore and how he's being treated
unfairly.
You start to get
the feeling that they believe, were MLK still alive, he'd be telling
African-Americas, "We need to turn our focus to Jimmy Dore. He's a
podcaster people say nasty things about!"
They
may believe that but most of us in the real world know better. Many of
us lived through the previous podcast fever -- blogging -- and we saw
the circle jerk then. In fact, we exposed it here. How the blogs that
CJR promoted were blogs that the people they hot-tubbed with and partied
with wrote at. They didn't disclose that. We had to do the research
via articles and via sources.
Candy
Perfume Boy learned from it -- at least enough to delete his old
Tweets. We did not, as some have insisted, block his advancement. We
even spoke favorably of him when he applied to CBS NEWS.. But, yes, we
did point out -- as we did when he later would move to MSNBC -- that he
had been part of a circle jerk and that he needed a review of ethics.
Because
it is unethical to use your platform to promote your friends over the
people who aren't your friends. It's favoritism and it's unethical.
Looking at Nina's Tweets, it's clear what she was stating.
And what she was stating wasn't that controversial.
At the heart of it, we have -- as is always the case with the Jimmy Dores -- either/or.
No both/and. Never that. Dualism is the path a Jimmy Dore walks.
Jimmy is offended by what he sneeringly calls "special interests" or "identity politics."
There are a lot of people who sneer at that.
And they've done it for many decades.
In
the sixties, the ones sneering felt that Civil Rights and women's
rights and the Stonewall uprising were taking the focus off real issues.
Civil rights aren't real issues? Equality isn't a real issue?
What
upset them then -- the men and the token female -- were that others
were dictating what the issues were and this included issues that these
men and token female (White back then) didn't feel were important.
Early on, they were stripped of power, these Toad Gitlins, by Bernardine Dohrn and others.
Like
Toad did, today's Jimmy Dores try to cast themselves as the real
rebels. But they're not rebels. They are building their own power so
that they can be part of the existing system -- a system that they don't
want changed in any form.
The Toad Gitlins promote themselves and attack others who are advocating for real change.
It's there today.
What is Jimmy's goal? To head a political party.
He's
not spending his time advocating for change, not even something as
simple as ranked choice voting or abolishing the electoral college. He
certainly doesn't want to belong to a political movement (he knows he
can't lead one, charisma-free is not a qualification to lead a
movement).
Whenever a
Jimmy Dore emerges, we do pay attention. They always insist that class
issues aren't being addressed and they slam "identity politics" and
claim it's what has destroyed progress.
No,
it's not. Union corruption, 'activist' sell out and many other issues
-- including the media -- are at fault. So is the basic lazy aspect of
human nature.
But 'identity politics' is not the problem.
But we listen to the Jimmy Dores hoping we'll find out that this time they're different.
We
listen and we watch. And as they pretend they're talking class issues
-- when they really aren't (and defending Jimmy Dore on your program is
not a class issue) -- we notice that they bring on White people and
pretty much only White people. We note that, when it comes to Jimmy
Dore, Jackson Hinkle, et al, it's easier for them to bring on a White
pedophile (Scott Ritter) than it is a person of color.
And then we see the attacks on Nina Turner and just shake our heads and say "Uh-huh," because we were right all along.
They
rush to form alliances with the right-wingers and they bring them on
their shows. But, and this is where they expose themselves, they're so
determined to court the right-wing, that they don't court the left --
not any leftie that isn't White.
Let's say it again, why isn't Margaret Kimberely invited on these shows?
Margert
regularly writes about Ukraine, she regularly calls out the president
no matter who is in office (Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden). If
it's about building a left, is there a reason Margaret isn't invited to
the table?
We're not
supposed to notice that. But they're insane to think we don't. We
pointed that out long ago, as the YOUTUBERS were rising, in fact. That
viewers were going to register these White guests and that the message
was being sent that not everyone was being invited to the party.
We
also find it interesting how when members of Congress reach across
party lines, these same YOUTUBERS have a fit. But isn't Congress doing
the same thing the YOUTUBERS are?
Self-reflection is sadly lacking in this country.
Which is how Lisa Kudrow emerged making racist comments last week.
Her
comments were misconstrued by some defending her. They used RACIST
HELPER -- where you take a racist statement, add some water, some
noodles and some lies, stir it in and help the racist out.
Lisa was, they lied, saying that the writers needed to be more diverse on FRIENDS.
Last week, Lisa Kudrow -- who played Phoebe on FRIENDS -- declared that she didn't agree with that.
And
it was really curious to watch Lisa's defenders avoid that comment.
Lisa does not agree with Marta's choice to donate four million dollars
to a college "to establish an endowed professorship in the school's
African and African American studies department."
It
was also cute to watch them invent the claim that Lisa was talking
about adding more writers and diverse ones to the writer's room. This
is from NEWSWEEK (which presented the comments and did not try to defend
them):
Some
have insisted that apprenticeship is the issue of writers. Maybe but
maybe not. And excuse us, but if Lisa felt writers of color were
needed, she couldn't make that demand? She is one of six cast members
who banded together repeatedly to get huge raises but they can't ask for
writers of color?
More to
the point, nothing in the two paragraphs above indicate that she's
speaking of writers. She is referring to Marta Kauffman and David Crane
who created the show.
She
seems to think that if you attend Brandeis, you not only aren't a person
of color but you don't know any people of color. (For the record, the
current demographics of Brandeis' student population include 5.8%
African-Americans.)
"You write what you know," she lectures.
Well humanity is a known for most human beings. And race isn't a sign of a different species.
More
to the point, as noted last week, Lisa produced the 2019 TV film
GHOSTING: THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTMAS and despite African-Americans
portraying lead characters in that film, Lisa's 'write what you know"
wasn't in play since the script was written by a White woman.
Marta
and David, Lisa insists, had "no business writing stories about the
experiences of being a person of color." But her friend Laura Donney,
who is White, doesn't have that problem when Lisa's producer. And this
is 2019, after FRIENDS.
It
was racist for the show to avoid having Black friends. Gunther had to
be cast White? Janice had to be cast White? Monica and Phoebe's old
roommate had to be White? (Jennifer Coolidge played the role in
2003.)
The race issue was
an issue from the start of the show -- from the start of this show that
lost each week in the ratings to LIVING SINGLE starring Kim Fields,
Queen Latifah, etc.
It wasn't a whispered conversation.
People were loudly and regularly calling the show out.
Lisa's
comments are insensitive and racist. What she should have done is
admit, as Marta has, that the show failed the audience. Instead, she
wants to try to minimize it and justify it. As Phoebe might say,
"Hello, Kettle. This is Lisa. You're black."
She
can't get honest. All these years later. And these lies that she's
serving up not only keep the issue alive, they tie the racism to Phoebe
and to Lisa because Lisa's offering excuses when there are none.
Martha
and David did not know about being homeless, but they wrote Phoebe that
way. Neither Martha nor David was a lesbian but they wrote Carol and
Susan. Martha and David weren't porn performers but they wrote Ursula
as one. This notion of "write what you know" does not mean that White
writers cannot write characters of color. This is just a cop out used
by Lena Dunham and now by Lisa Kudrow.
It needs to be called out.
Anne
Heche has died. She was declared brain dead on Friday. We knew Anne
and thought the world of her. We praised her acting here many times.
We also praised who she was as a person -- someone who refused the
closet and, long after she resumed romantic relationships with men,
still stood up for LGBTQ rights. She was a brave person who broke
ground as well as an immensely talented woman.
Last
week, she was in a car crash. She drove her car into a home. No one
was killed at that time (she would die from her injuries later). Yet
when Alec Baldwin rightly supported her on Twitter, he was savaged.
No
one knew Anne's condition at that time. Even now, no one knows that
Anne was under the influence at the time. An initial analysis appears
to indicate cocaine. That is not a final result.
But it was time to savage Alec who did a play with Anne and acted in two films with her.
It was time to also savage Anne.
Strange,
as we reflect on all the male celebrities who have been arrested for
DUI, we're not remembering them being savaged. As we long ago noted,
America loves its bad boys.
"She could have killed someone!" the mob angrily hissed at Alec.
But she didn't.
Cher sang it, Diane Warren wrote it, and we're going to close with it.
We got enough stars to light the sky at night Enough sun to make the whole world bright We got more than enough, but there's one thing There's just not enough of
Not enough love and understanding We could use some love To ease these troubled times Not enough love and understanding Why? Oh, why?
Should Donald Trump receive a pardon? The obvious response is, "For what?"
Thus
far, the former president of the United States has not been charged
with anything. Last week's raid/search/square dance may have excited
Rachel Maddow but the rest of us feel it's better to wait for facts to
emerge before leaping to conclusions. Thus far, facts haven't emerged.
Just a lot of opinion -- and a lot of that opinion being passed off as
fact.
Yet, given Trump's penchant for telling his own truth and his past musing of issuing a self-pardon,
there is every chance he would accept a pardon when the alternative
might well be a long, grueling, expensive, and high stakes criminal
trial.
But
the pardon is not enough. President Biden must accompany his offer of a
pardon with an announcement that he will not seek a second term.
President Biden stepping aside after his term ends is already something
the vast majority of the public wants, even within the Democratic Party.
But doing so would also immediately hollow out any and all accusations
that Biden offering Trump a pardon is a calculated political maneuver to
benefit himself.
The
President should stipulate that while the pardon he's offering Trump is
unconditional, he nevertheless hopes that his predecessor will follow
suit in ending his pursuit of any political office, instead choosing to
make way for new leadership in the country—something majorities in both parties agree is necessary.
This would allow President Biden to truly become the transitional statesman he campaigned as in 2020. It might also make him one of the best presidents of the modern era.
You
know what? If it meant both Donald Trump and Joe Biden wouldn't run in
2024, we'd gladly support a pardon. Gladly. Loudly. Happily.
The school year is starting. If
we were teachers, we'd give an assignment: What, if anything, would you
change about the government?
Maybe someone wants a lower drinking age. Maybe they want a faster speed limit. Abortion rights, what have you.
They identify the one thing.
Then
they have to research how it could be changed -- such as a law being
passed (or an ordinance if the student went local) or a judicial verdict
or a constitutional amendment or referendum.
Then the student could figure out how that could be brought about. Or even if it couldn't.
In
the process, they'd learn something about, well, the process. They'd
be better geared towards knowing what is possible and at least one of
doing it (plus they will have learned how to research their own
answers).
If we want a better world, one that includes 'civic duty,' we need to bring students into the process early on.
A lot of things Senator Rand Paul proposes are things we can't get behind; however, there is one new proposal we can support. Merdie Nzanga (USA TODAY) reports:
Sen.
Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Saturday called for the end of the Espionage Act,
less than a week after the FBI's search of former President Donald
Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.
"The
espionage act was abused from the beginning to jail dissenters of WWI.
It is long pastime to repeal this egregious affront to the 1st
Amendment," he wrote on Twitter.
On Aug. 8, FBI agents took 11 sets of classified documents, according
to the search warrant and a property receipt, both of which were
released Friday. Some documents were labeled as "secret" or "top
secret." The warrant showed the investigation was examining possible
violations of the Espionage Act.
That's
a move we can support. It is useless. The verdict is commonly (and
wrongly) referred to as the you-can't-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater
ruling. And it is abused. Julian Assange, for example, an Australian
citizen is being accused of breaking the Espionage Act. It's time to
end that act and all the nonsense that came with it.
Now all of the above, except for the Curiosity one (a NASA press release) were written by Ava and C.I. (or, in the case of 2022 Deaths, updated by them).
Reader Ed e-mailed wondering when Ava and C.I. can -- and do -- write four pieces for one edition, the rest of us can't get it together enough to do a full edition?
Good question, maybe this edition will show you the answer. We're publishing. At least two pieces are rough and more ideas than pieces -- though Dona points out that she's always championed "Short pieces" and she has.
The only thing I regret about last week was that Ava and C.I. published the Armie Hammer piece two days after the other stuff. My argument was that it should be held until this week. I even pointed out that with that piece already done, they could finally take a weekend off.
They took a pass.
They were right to do so. Armie was being crucified even by the so-called respectable press. As two who had seen the 'documentary,' they were able to weigh in and to note that it wasn't explosive or new or anything with regards to Armie.
It's an episode of A CURRENT EDITION. It's not journalism. It's cheap and it's tacky and it's people who are rehashing what's already been hashed and rehashed and then some. There are real stories out there, but this is just scandal mongering and it's really past time that this sort of garbage be seen for what it is: Gossip and, in this case, stale gossip. Not truth. Not reporting. Just a bunch of rumors -- rumors that the LAPD investigated and found wanting.
Zelensky has fired more of his internal security personnel, Ukrainian POWs don't want to be returned to Ukraine because they will be returned to front & abandoned. What a sad & pathetic war created by U.S. opportunism & ineptitude.
Each year, people are born and people die. Reader Troy Montgomery
e-mailed noting that many community sites note passings and thought we
could keep a running link page on that. That's a good idea. We'll try
to include this in future editions this year as sites cover additional
deaths. You'll note a lot of links go to Ruth because she tends to
cover passings more than anyone else in the community. The list may not
be complete and the only order for the first twelve is the order of
what we remembered while we were doing this -- the order we remembered
the deaths in.
