Tuesday, May 21, 2019

So, You Want To Be Prime Minister of Canada, 'eh?


Who wants to be prime minister of Canada?

Well, to do that, you most likely would have to join either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party of Canada. You'd have to internalize the values of either of those parties.

For most of us, that rules out joining the Conservative Party of Canada.

So, you'd have to enthusiastically cheer on the current policies of the Trudeau government (on foreign policy/pipelines/First Nations/fiscal policy, etc.,) whatever your personal doubts.

You'd have to have lived a life that could stand-up to media scrutiny. (Any bankruptcies? Divorces? Psychiatric treatments? Online indiscretions?)

You'd have to appear "successful" in life. (Steady employment in a professional capacity/own your own business/inherited wealth/etc.) This includes having an attractive family who can pose with you for pictures. Although in recent years it's permissible to have an attractive same-sex partner. (The Conservative Party seems more comfortable with life-long bachelors for some reason.) You can't run for public office as a "loser" now, can you?

Now, remember, you want to be prime minister! That means you have to stand-out within the Liberal Party. So you DO have to demonstrate some brains. Some competency. You have to win a local election defending the Liberal platform and how you plan on achieving it as an MP, perhaps along with some individual goal you deem important but which is well within the Liberal Party worldview.

The Liberal Party is able to afford to exist and to compete by attracting donors. This would be: ordinary Canadians who believe in the party and its values. Rich people who agree with the party and its values. And money from institutions and corporate entities run by rich people who agree with the party and its values. So, obviously, this means NO SOCIALISM. This means low taxation. This means a "pro-business" attitude.


This BTW is where competition with the Conservatives really comes in. Conservatives pander to the bulk of their voters (ordinary chumps) with calls to lower taxes on them and by promising to crackdown on the standard scapegoats who are believed, or held to believe, are the reasons why these deluded shlubs are suffering in their lives. So, bashing the poor, immigrants, people of colour, non-heterosexuals, environmentalists, unions, etc.,. The Conservatives then pander to their true bosses, the wealthy within the capitalist system. They can do this with no thought of the consequences because their own voting base is so stupid and confused that they won't make the connection between cutting taxes and cutting public services. As a Liberal, you'll have to vie with the Conservatives for the support of the wealthy and the corporate sector as much as you can without completely gutting the ability of the state to function.

Canada is run by Bay Street, Big Oil, a few wealthy families (The Thomsons, The Westons, The Rogers, The Irvings, etc.), and the corporate interests they control. (Loblaws, Shoppers Drug Mart, The Globe & Mail, Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin, Manulife, Telus). These are your true masters. You cannot propose anything that would even modestly impact their cosseted existences in any way. In fact, for the most part, you are going to have to ADVANCE their interests to really win their favour. 

They will tend to stick more closely to the Conservatives unless they have long-established patronage ties with the Liberals (that are older and more developed than those with the Conservatives), or unless the Conservative Party has gone right off the rails with its moronic delusions and is recklessly undermining the state and the economy with its slashing of revenues/stirring-up racist hatreds/pissing-off the general public, whatever.

Oh yeah. Don't forget the Canadian Armed Forces. And don't forget the United States of America. I mention those two in the same paragraph because the former is an important tool for foreign policy as well as a source of domestic national identity politics. Love of war tends to be a characteristic of stupid people. (For example: "It would be fucking AWESOME to go to war and fight the evil-doers!!!! Aw shit! My leg got blown-off! This sucks! This isn't what I expected!!!" ... or some variant of that.) And stupid people as a demographic tend to lean Conservative. But if you're going to serve the USA in any meaningful capacity, you're going to have to have a military. Which tends to be a useless drag on the economy but it's unavoidable. So, show up at the cenotaphs with the wreaths on Remembrance Day and cultivate relationships with the higher commands. (For some reason, the Conservative Party really enjoys fucking-over wounded soldiers though. Just treat the rank-and-file better than the Conservatives and you'll probably be okay.)

So. There you have it. You're in the Liberal Party of Canada! You just might be prime minister som

e day! Your party is the party of multi-culturalism. You don't rest your appeal on racism. Your party is progressive on social issues. You don't discriminate against LGBT people and you were capable of decriminalizing marijuana. You understand that there's a role for the public sector in managing the economy. (Increasingly, you're thinking that this role is less and less important. Probably because you have less and less revenue as you compete with the Conservatives with tax-cuts.)

You will do nothing to impede the USA's dominance of the Canadian economy. You will do little to nothing to harm the oil industry. In fact, you will subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of $3.3 billion annually. (All the while mouthing platitudes on fighting global warming.) With a tear in your eye you will continue to run roughshod over the remaining Treaty rights of the First Nations to service the resource sector while adhering to the long-term goal of slow-motion genocide so as to remove them as a hindrance to further resource development. You will allow massive, brazen corruption from the wealthy. Gouging of Canadians from the telecommunications oligopolies. Price-fixing at all the major grocery chains. Bribery from SNC-Lavalin. Picking up the tab for the environmental catastrophes of the oil sector. Predatory practices of the big banks. Selling weapons to the monstrous, genocidal Saudi regime. Bullying Venezuela.

Wait a minute! Why did you want to become prime minister of Canada again?


Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Renewed Call For a Green-NDP Electoral Alliance


There ARE differences between the Greens and the NDP. That's obvious. But as human beings and their capitalism are killing the planet, more and more members of humanity are starting to think that maybe it's important that we not kill the one planet we have to live on. The Green Party's star is in the ascendant. But it's not going to be enough. The NDP, after decades of mismanagement by its "Third Way" shithead brain-trust is declining. But it still has its strongholds and its name recognition. And the attention to issues of class that too many Greens disregard.

A formal electoral alliance; with the parties agreeing to give the other support and no opposition in those ridings where either of them is the most viable is necessary. They should campaign on legislating electoral reform and a Green New Deal.

We're going to need something on the level of a war-time mobilization of resources to avoid catastrophe, if not actual extinction.


Sunday, May 5, 2019

May 5th, 2019 News Round-Up


This is the week that was:

A desperate coup attempt in Venezuela by the hapless Juan Guaido ended embarrassingly for the plotters and their US string-pullers. How is it that such an unpopular, incompetent "regime" such as Nicol├ís Maduro's can be so resilient in the face of such opposition and amidst such glaring economic failure?

Perhaps it's simply the case that the achievements of the Bolivarians have been so significant for the formerly ignored and despised poor majority that said poor majority forgives the economic problems caused by the worldwide drop in the price of oil; the crippling US sanctions; the long-term campaign of sabotage by internal traitors and etc. It's true. Many other Venezuelans hate Maduro. Those who can afford to do so have exiled themselves. Of course, we must remember that 20% of Canadians support shit-head "conservative" parties and believe in all sorts of stupid garbage and state publicly that they'd like to see Justin Trudeau hanged for "treason." I rather suspect that a great deal of the anti-Maduro movement in Venezuela is comprised of the equivalent sort of human garbage as supports Scheer, Ford, Kenney, etc., etc., ad nauseum, here in Canada.


While Guaido was humiliating himself outside of an airport that his tiny band of corrupt army officers and duped rank-and-file soldiers hadn't even captured yet, Canada's own Crystia Freeland (she with the Nazi Grand-Pappy) was likewise humiliating herself with a self-important call for the bullshit "Lima Group" of US puppets to mobilize in support of the farce. I can't recall if any members of the "group" heeded her call. It doesn't matter one way or the other.


Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is currently in the United Kingdom's corrupt court system fighting extradition to a life of torture and imprisonment in the USA. He is wanted on charges of extreme journalism. You really have to hand it to the hegemonic propaganda system. Half of the so-called "progressives" in the West are prepared to let Assange be crucified for one blinkered reason or another.

1. "Assange is a rapist and should suffer whatever anyone has planned for him." This appears to be based on very thin gruel indeed. When you consider how extremely dodgy the behaviour of the UK and Sweden has been on this case, and you remember who Julian Assange actually is, and you still feel compelled to appear "woke" and leave him for the dogs, ... well, you've been played like a violin.

2. "Assange is responsible for Donald Trump by leaking the truth about Hillary Clinton." So what? Hillary's responsible for Trump by robbing Bernie Sanders of the nomination to gratify her own YUUUGE sense of entitlement. (As revealed by Wikileaks.)

3. "Julian Assange is an asshole." Who cares?

4. "I'm a moron in the USA's corporate media-system and I sincerely believe that there will be no untoward consequences for my so-called 'profession' just because I cheer on Donald-fucking-Trump (the unhinged, authoritarian, Putin-puppet) to lock-up Julian Assange and torture him forever. Because Assange isn't really a journalist. And Assange discomfited the powerful whereas I serve the powerful." And if you really believe that you really are a moron. You will find that the precedent against journalists extends to your cosseted realms and if you piss-off one sector of the oligarchy you will be destroyed and made an example of just like Assange was.



Zombie Russia-gate is staggering around, trying to get it's bearings. It's possible it could soon topple to the ground, or it could continue to stagger about, spreading disgust and horror in its wake. So far, the strategy of the proponents of this shit-for-brains conspiracy theory appear to be centered on the following:

1. "We haven't seen the full report." That's true. Nonetheless, what you HAVE seen is emphatically clear that there was NO COLLUSION. I put that in all-caps so that deluded sheeple can't pretend not to have read it. I'll repeat: NO COLLUSION.  Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion. No evidence of even the possibility that there was collusion. Robert Mueller determined that there was NO COLLUSION. So all that stupid nonsense about Trump being treasonously in cahoots with Putin has to be put to rest and given a decent burial.


The idea that an ego-maniac, unprincipled, backstabbing, duplicitous creature like Donald Trump would find himself obligated to serve Vladimir Putin for his having provided some small service in getting him elected US President is ridiculous. Furthermore, it is absurd to imagine that the entire government/state apparatus of the USA would stand-down in mute inability as a president steered US policy to benefit Russia at the expense of their own country. And, anyway, any honest and sane accounting of Trump's actions as president show that he has NOT been serving Russia's interests in any case. 

2. "Well, anyway, the Mueller Report DOES show that Russia interfered in the election." First of all: So fucking what? Trump's policies are not all that different from standard Republican policies. (Which are really not all that different from standard Democratic policies.) Aside from the fact that crazed idiot Hillary Clinton might have started a war with Russia and gotten us all killed, it's simply also the case that the USA "meddles" in other countries' politics (to the point of invading them, overthrowing their governments and installing their own puppets) all the time. Secondly, we don't really know that the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT of Vladimir Putin actually did anything. We know that PEOPLE IN RUSSIA created memes and groups on facebook. We also know that these Russian people charged fees to run ads on the pages of these facebook groups that they created. So it's quite possible that the Internet Research Agency really was just a "troll farm" to earn advertising dollars on the internet. The fact that the billionaire owner of the IRA knows Putin is not significant in itself. You'd be hard-pressed to point to a US billionaire who isn't known by the leaders of one (or both) of the two main parties in the USA. And, anyway, the idea that those ads were at all a factor in the 2016 election is imbecilic.



We don't know that Russian Intelligence (the GRU) had any involvement in obtaining the Podesta emails and the evidence of the DNC's and Hillary Clinton's corruption.

3. "Barr is a liar. Mueller says Trump wasn't 'exonerated.' Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice and Barr should be punished for not appearing before Congress when subpoenaed." Fine. Do it. Go nuts. I even agree with you. Get going. Get a move on.

4. "Hey Russiagate Denialist! How can you rely on Mueller establishing 'no collusion' but then doubt Mueller's findings of Russian meddling? You can't have it both ways!" To which I answer: How can you conspiracy theorists pretend that Mueller's finding of NO COLLUSION never happened? But, more importantly I also answer that it's easy for Mueller to say shit about Russia. He knows that nobody in the GRU is going to be extradited to stand trial in the USA because of his indictments. He can say anything he wants about Russia with no consequences. (And, please note: It's telling that when one of the Russian actors named in one of Mueller's politically-timed indictments actually stepped forward to answer the charges in court, Mueller tried to brush them off.) However, if he indicts any US-American citizen for anything, he will have to prove his case in a court of law. And, what with there being no evidence of collusion, that wasn't going to happen.

At the end of the day, I don't know what (if any) involvement Putin had in the 2016 election. I do know that I don't care one way or the other. Both Hillary and Donald are scum. It's not worth ratcheting-up tensions between nuclear-armed countries just because one piece-of-shit might have lost to another piece-of-shit because of the possible actions of a third piece-of-shit.



Whew! That's a lot of typing. I'll put in some links later.


Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Irrational Humanity


During World War I, a number of bohemian, pacifist, rich-enough-to-wait-out-the-war-in-Zurich, artistic types, looked at the insanity of that conflict, and decided that it was an indictment of western rationalism. They formed an art movement called "Dada" (which is either German for a child's toy or is simply a nonsense word) and glorified the IRrational. Somehow or other, this rejection of the rational would produce a better world than the one of industrialized mass-murder and domination of European so-called "civilization."

Personally, I was always confused as to how that was supposed to work. It seems to me that the insanity of World War I (and previous and later instances of large-scale insanity such as The Inquisition, Stalinism, World War II, The Holocaust) although clearly the work of thousands of seemingly sane individuals calming working away within functioning bureaucratic structures, were examples not of the dangers of rationalism but of how root-irrationalities can inspire ordinary people to commit monstrous acts. This is to say, that it is the kernel of irrational belief that infects all the surrounding rational actors working to fulfill a final goal based on nonsense. Religious delusion. Racism. Nationalism.


It has always seemed so clear to me that embracing the irrational was dangerous. In this I was inspired by the writings of Bertrand Russell who said that emotions and appetites can lead people astray. Anger, lust, love, pleasure, despair, etc., ... letting these dominate the self can make a person bounce around like a pinball from one temporary diversion to another, or even lead to premature death. Russell said to always let your actions be governed by calm reflection away from the heats of passion. I tried to subscribe to this to the best of my abilities. But, obviously, it was impossible. To my chagrin, reading a biography of Russell revealed to me that he was even less successful in following his own prescription. Oh well.

So, the other day I read this interview at Vox.com with Justin E. H. Smith, author of  Irrationality: A History of the Dark Side of Reason. About the book:
Discovering that reason is the defining feature of our species, we named ourselves the “rational animal.” But is this flattering story itself rational? In this sweeping account of irrationality from antiquity to today—from the fifth-century BC murder of Hippasus for revealing the existence of irrational numbers to the rise of Twitter mobs and the election of Donald Trump—Justin Smith says the evidence suggests the opposite. From sex and music to religion and war, irrationality makes up the greater part of human life and history.
Bits n' pieces of the interview:
Sean Illing
Some examples of this will help clarify what you mean, but first let’s back up a little. We have this idea, which goes all the way back to Aristotle, that human beings are distinguished from other animals by their capacity for reason. Is this a misleading picture? Should we not think of humans as uniquely rational creatures?
Justin E.H. Smith
This is the traditional view. There is a counter-tradition, however, which says that human beings are the uniquely irrational animal. On this view, animals are rational to the extent that they do not get mired in deliberation and hesitation, but always just cut right to the chase and execute those actions that are perfectly suited to the sort of creatures they are, while we human beings stand there paralyzed by doubt and worry.
I am sympathetic to this view, though it can be carried too far. Obviously, we have been able to choose the correct course of action enough of the time to survive long enough to reproduce. We are a successful species, but not exceptionally so, and as far as I can tell not in virtue of being exceptionally well-endowed with reason.
Sean Illing
That’s certainly one way to think of rationality. By that standard, you might say that human beings are cursed with too much consciousness, that our obsession with thinking creates more problems than it solves.
Justin E.H. Smith
You might say that. But it’s not as if we think just because we are obsessed with thinking. Presumably, we human beings, as well as our hominid and pre-hominid ancestors, thought for a very long time before we began thinking about how this is possible and how it can go wrong.
...
Sean Illing
I wonder where all this leaves us. There are obviously limits to reason, and we can only do so much to curb our worst impulses. At the same time, we want a world that is more intelligent, more wise, more compassionate. But we also have to base our social and political systems on a realistic model of human nature.
Justin E.H. Smith
I don’t really have any formulas to offer here. Caution, pragmatism, case-by-case consideration of questions of justice, all seem advisable to me. I am not a political theorist, let alone a policymaker, and I think I manage to get to the end of the book without pretending to be either of these.
In spite of everything I’ve said, I believe in some amount of redistributive justice, including taking away about 99.9 percent of the fortunes of Bezos, Zuckerberg, and others, and turning the big tech companies into public utilities. I just think this should be done with good laws and broad public support, in such a way as to make it inevitable and ultimately painless for everyone (after all, these men would still be multimillionaires after the great confiscation).
...
Sean Illing
I’ll ask what might seem like a strange question: What’s the utility of irrationality in human life? How do our irrational instincts actually serve us?
Justin E.H. Smith
I place a lot of good things under the heading “irrationality” — not just dreams but also drunkenness, stonedness, artistic creation, listening to stories by the campfire, enjoyment of music and dancing, all sorts of orgiastic revelry, mass events like concerts and sports matches, and so on. I think most people would agree that these things make life worth living. And I think it’s impossible to account for the value of these things in purely utilitarian terms.
Personally, I'd say it's not so much trying to impose rationality on people. It's deluding yourself that your ideas/beliefs are so fucking rational that everybody has to conform to them or else they're stupid fuckwads who must all be slaughtered. Which is to say: "Irrationally imposing one's own belief system on others produces even more irrationality." That, plus the fact that to live as a functioning animal demands that we believe in things even though life is pointless.


But, you know, having studied a lot of history from the perspective of the British/US-American/Anglo-Canadian historians, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the way of gradual, incremental change is the most lasting way forward. Say what you want about the British ruling classes, but you can't deny the longevity of their social structure. And however much this is based on their being able to develop on an Island fortress, and from wealth stolen from other lands, or any other reason; some of that longevity must come from the way they have been able to incorporate change. Some of this change included incorporating ideas from revolutions planned and carried out elsewhere. But flexible stability is flexible stability.

I have, for a long time, decried the idea of some vague, all-encompassing revolution, to solve all our problems. I also reject overly-complicated strategies that require everything to fall into place and quickly. I have long argued that "Workers as Citizens" is both simple enough; in conformity with hegemonic ideas enough, and etc., etc., enough that it is the way forward.

Well, that's it for today. Maybe I'll put in some links later. But I've got shit to do.


Monday, April 29, 2019

A Green-NDP Electoral Alliance


The NDP is moribund in the polls. But their support is still higher than that of the Green Party. (Last time I checked, the NDP is at 17% and the Greens fluctuate from 7 to 11%.) Under our antiquated FPTP electoral system voting for either party is often a complete waste of time. (Which is why dreamy Justin Trudeau broke his promise to replace FPTP when he won his majority.)

Reflecting back over the years and years that the NDP leadership strove to become almost indistinguishable from the Liberal Party of Canada, I'm now forced to confront the purpose of saving this moribund institution. But then I remember the grassroots membership who have become increasingly sullen and angry and whose support for the party has been sputtering to the point of going out. THEY aren't going to vote Liberal. And the ideological origins of the Green Party reveal an overall disinclination to address the increasingly important area of social class. And I also recall how Jagmeet Singh showed himself personally responsive to the membership as he took baby-steps away from the party brain-trust's disgusting support for the coup in Venezuela (wherein Justin Trudeau and Chrystia ["fascist family"] Freeland have ENTHUSIASTICALLY aligned themselves with the detestable Donald Trump and John Bolton) in response to the membership's howls of outrage.

The two parties should come to an agreement not to compete against each other in those places where either of them has clearly done better than the other. They should even run as a coalition and promise to implement electoral reform.


And there must be no referendum on this. 20% of the population is so debased that they vote Conservative. There's another 20% (at least) of Liberal zombies. Both of these groups of partisans want to keep the system that often grants them majority government power. They'll never give that up. And their protests in the face of the imposition of a superior electoral system should be disregarded as the partisan demand that the votes of supporters of other parties continue to be null and void. Fuck them and their hypocrisy.

So, right off the bat, 40% would reject electoral reform. Add to that something from 10-20% who would find the whole thing tedious and confusing and if they were subjected to a six-month media campaign to inform and educate them about their choices, would walk into the polling station and stare in confusion at being asked a question about electoral reform.


Again; we're not talking about taking away anyone's vote. We're talking about making every vote count. Because the Liberals and the Conservatives are (respectively) almost useless and less than useless when it comes to the apocalyptic threat of climate change. Both those parties are comprised of imperialist scum. This country desperately needs an electoral system that forces them to consider the opinions of people who aren't partisan shit-heads.


Monday, April 22, 2019

A Hillary-Bot Being Wrong on the Internet


So, I'm going to talk about a discussion I had in another guise somewhere else on the internet. And, yes, it's true that arguing with people on the internet is often a total waste of time. Two anonymous nobodies having a disagreement. But it's also true that actual political movements in meat-space are comprised of large numbers of nobodies. For example, getting a white supremacist to let it all hang out on the internet can give you an insight into the mind of one of those Canadian "Yellow-Vest" shitheads who deny climate change, hate Muslims and want to help take away everyone's access to public health care.

So it is in that spirit that I summarize what I heard from a loathsome Hillary-bot. A "Hillary-bot" is an individual who cannot process the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton is an awful person who was an awful candidate because she was an awful Secretary of State, an awful Senator and an awful First Lady. She was, and remains, a selfish, self-centered, entitled psychopath who descended into mind-boggling cynicism and corruption. She was an imperialist war-monger. A craven tool of Wall Street and other capitalist criminals. But, as I said, a Hillary-bot cannot process this. To them, Hillary was "the best candidate EVAH!" simply by dint of repetition. She was the "most qualified." Why? It's never said. I once asked one specimen to explain to me why she was the most qualified and he told me to do my own research. Hillary Clinton is a historically significant figure and part of the reason for that is that she was such a shitty candidate that she depressed the Democratic vote and made it possible for an utter buffoon, a racist, misogynist con-man imbecile, like Donald J. Trump to eke out an Electoral College victory. Therefore, all the anonymous minions who helped produce that debacle and who refuse to accept responsibility for it and who continue to push for the unpopular political goals of the Democratic Party establishment that might just give Trump a re-election, are likewise historically significant. It's important to see how they think.


Anyway, in a comments section on a video about Bernie Sanders, one participant said (essentially) "Fuck Bernie Sanders. He's a purity pony who wouldn't cooperate. He was a useless divider of progressives who brought us Trump."

Now, this is exactly backwards. Despite having been cheated by Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, Sanders campaigned hard for Hillary Clinton. Some people say he was more gracious in defeat to Clinton in 2016 than she was when she lost to Obama in 2004. It also seems that from some polling data, a larger percentage of "Bernie-bros" (of either gender) voted for Hillary than "Hillary-sistahs" voted for Obama.

Evidently this information was either unknown to the Hillary-bot or it was irrelevant. But expressing this sense of victimization, this indignation of having been challenged (even mildly) is so typical of Liberal centrists. In Canada, any criticism of the Liberal Party is blasphemy. Any vote for a party other than the Liberal Party is a betrayal of all that is right and true. In the UK, Blairite scum in the Labour Party do everything they can to sabotage Jeremy Corbyn, despite the fact that he was a loyal soldier to the party through all the years of their misrule. Despite the fact that he has brought more members into the party in decades and, in the face of their out-in-the-open betrayal, produced one of Labour's best election results since 1945.


These psychopaths are great at calling for team loyalty except when they're not in command. So I felt compelled to point out to the Hillary-bot that Team Hillary can't really complain about people refusing to play nice when she cheated to win.

I downloaded one too may images of robots so I've decided to insert the remaining image here.

To which the Hillary-bot sputtered that Bernie, not being a Democrat, had no right to run as the Democratic Party candidate. Therefore the DNC did its job by rigging the primary against him.

[!]

Surprised by this insane outburst, I said that if he wasn't allowed to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, then why was he allowed to run in the first place. Of course he was allowed to run for the nomination.

The Hillary-bot replied that the party is under no obligation to let the membership decide who the nominee is. The party leaders can chose all on their own who the candidate will be. They just grant the ordinary party members the privilege of choosing from among various challengers. But if they're foolish enough to pick someone who does not have the confidence of the leadership then that choice will be disregarded and the leadership will elevate whoever they want to be their presidential candidate. The whole primary process is basically an elaborate charade of party democracy. Bernie Sanders was NEVER going to be allowed to win. From the start. All of the people he inspired; All of the hopes that he raised for a saner political-economy in the United States; all of that was a sham. It was allowed to give a glimmer of, of, I don't know, why don't we call it "democratic legitimacy" to Hillary's coronation. It was to make it look interesting and maybe get genuinely progressive US-American citizens to become invested in the sham process of US-American elections enough that they'd vote for Queen Hillary whereas if Sanders hadn't mobilized them, they might have stayed home.


Now, to me, this is self-evidently garbage thinking. This is the sort of arrogant, entitled bullshit that permeated the Clinton campaign and the insanity we've witnessed in the aftermath of her defeat. Her petty, vindictive accounting of "What Happened" and the dangerous nonsense that the ONLY reason she lost was because of nefarious Russian meddling. This self-pitying, self-righteous, whining drivel has, to this day, substituted itself for a genuine reflection on the reasons why Hillary Clinton and neo-liberalism, oligarchy and militarism are so unpopular. But of course, neo-liberalism, oligarchy and militarism are pillars of the USA's political-economic ruling classes. To allow them to be questioned might bring the whole edifice down. Best to continue to let chumps like these Hillary-bots bitch and whine on the internet and elsewhere about how their delusions are the only permissible form of political thought for "progressives." Continue to spin conspiracy theories about Russians. Continue to lie, deflect, distort.



Sunday, April 21, 2019

Doug Ford and Donald Trump


There's a recording somewhere of Doug Ford talking on the phone with the mother of an autistic child. She had complained to his office about what his changes to autism funding in the province were doing to her family and so he called her. I didn't listen to the recording because the sound of his voice (stupid, arrogant bellowing) and the sight of the man's face (with that maniacal, artificial grin) disgusts me. But there's one part of the recording where Ford attempts to sympathize with the woman's struggles and he tells her she deserves a gold medal. She tells him she doesn't want a medal. She wants sane policy.

Now, some people might take the fact that Ford reached out to a member of the public and tried to explain what he was doing and also expressed his sympathy for her, as evidence that he cares what his constituents think, that he believes he's doing the right thing, and that he's not a heartless thug.

My take on it is that if he believes he's doing the right thing, then he's stupid. I'm pretty sure that Doug hasn't thought too much about anything that he's doing. Cutting taxes and cutting government are (in the right-wing world he inhabits) simply magical actions that produce magical results of growth and prosperity and sticking it to "libtards." Once he's set on an idea, that's it. Nothing more to think about. Therefore, he'll confidently get on the phone with someone on the receiving end of his blithering idiocy and attempt to sell it to her. Obviously, this will go badly for him because his policy is based on ignorance and delusion. As far as his expression of sympathy, reading the transcript reminded me of nothing so much as the feigned concern of a bully after they've hurt someone. After they've injured someone they'll ask "Are you okay?" Maybe their rage has passed and they're semi-concerned. But more likely they're sociopaths. They arrogantly imagine that if they affect the sounds and the words of a person who cares about another person, then that acting job coupled with their own special greatness, will make the recipient of their abuse feel better.


Moving onto Donald Trump. The man had already lowered himself beyond redemption but I have to say that his vetoing of a bipartisan resolution to end US support for the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen is historically monstrous. Millions of lives. Millions of innocent men, women and children, are going to continue to die because Trump, the moral imbecile, doesn't want to affect the profits of US weapons manufacturers. This is testimony to the supreme moral degeneracy of the US political class. Obama and H.R. Clinton both countenanced this mass-murder. And Trump is using Obama's legal weasel-reasoning on Libya to justify his veto. And everybody's so fixated on this stupid Mueller Report that the continued US support for the slaughter of MILLIONS of people will quickly disappear from the news-cycle.