Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Bernie Sanders n' Misogyny

I think Bernie Sanders is too old to run again. I'm on record as saying that I want Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard to run.

[Neither of them are perfect but Warren with power will be great on economic policy and Gabbard's commitment to not wasting military lives for the petro-state will be an improvement on foreign policy.

They would be a big step in the right direction. And, it's most likely that neither of them has committed sexual assault in the past. Because they're women and all.]

But this article rubbed me the wrong way. The jist of it is that during the 2016 primaries, when the Sanders campaign [by its success and by necessity] exploded into a 1000+ people enterprise, some of the men on the campaign engaged in sexist behaviour. Sanders has recently been informed of this and is apologizing and promising to be more diligent in the future. The NYT's and Hillary Clinton's army of hypocritical, mewling troglodytes are saying this is evidence of the bedrock of sexism and outright misogyny that Sanders represents and that they will harp on this issue as much as they can to knee-cap Sanders' popularity with Democratic Party supporters.

"Bernie-bros." This stupid meme was introduced by Hillary Clinton's sycophants to falsely accuse Bernie Sanders' supporters as being almost uniformly white, male, sexist boors.

Is there a lot of sexism and misogyny online? Sadly yes. Should Bernie Sanders have spent half his campaign shouldering the blame and apologizing for it? No. The fact that he once did stop to condemn the abusive misogynist ranting online was used by the Hillary campaign as a weapon against him:
Clinton-supporting journalists this week made much out of the fact that the Sanders campaign felt compelled to issue a statement asking its supporters to comport themselves respectfully online, as though this proved that Sanders supporters really are uniquely abusive. That’s absurd. What that actually proved is that pro-Clinton journalists at large media outlets vastly outnumber pro-Sanders journalists — that’s what it means to say that she’s the “establishment candidate” — and have collectively used their platform to spin this harmful narrative, forcing the Sanders campaign to try to defuse it.

And, as long as we're blaming candidates for the behaviour of their supporters, can we see if we can get Hillary Clinton to denounce the Islamophobia of this charming female. (If you stick to the end you'll hear her say she's a Hillary Clinton supporter.) A survey of the opinions of her fans show that they have a low opinion of Blacks. Should she have taken time out from her campaign to admit to this problem, own it, and apologize profusely for it? Well, sure. Especially since she was demanding similar grovelling from Sanders.

Anyway, Clinton wouldn't do that given her own proclivities to racist attitudes and behaviour.

Why am I still talking about Hillary Clinton? Well, because she's actually still around and her nauseating fanatics are still shrieking out the same old hypocritical bullshit. And (more importantly) because Donald Trump and the fascist inclinations he's enabling is and are a fucking disaster. And Hillary Clinton helped bring us to this point.

By stealing the primary from the guy all polls showed would easily beat Trump; by shitting all over progressive Democrats by picking a VP candidate who was to the right of her; by openly courting anti-Trump Republicans rather than the activists in her own party; and by continuing to be the war-monger, Wall Street shill, corporatist scum-bag she'd always been, Hillary Clinton inspired millions of traditional Democrats to stay home. That's why she lost. Yes, yes, ... some "Bernie-bros" voted for Trump. Some working class people (mainly white but from all demographics actually) voted for Trump in the delusional hope that he'd bring their factories back. Some people voted for Jill Stein (which is entirely their right).

But the main reason that Hillary Clinton lost is because she didn't mobilize her party's voters. Truth be told, she DISCOURAGED them. That's on her. It's not on Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein or Russia. It's on HER. Her and her shitty, arrogant, racist campaign.

(Repugnican suppression of minority voters and gerrymandering also hurt her. But that's been going on for years without much -if any- comment from the likes of Hillary. If anything she should be more incensed with that scandal than with this Russia-gate crapola.

But the longer she, and the political bowel-movement she's a part of can get people to fixate on Russia, and on the [largely imaginary] misogyny of Bernie Sanders, the less time there will be to reflect upon the failures of her campaign and the failures of the political economic model that she represents.

This NYT article is just more of the same hypocritical nonsense to marginalize progressive political movements and perpetuate the rotten status-quo.

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Jimmy Dore vs Sam Seder

So there are two "progressive" video bloggers in the USA who I've been following. The first one I encountered is Sam Seder's "Majority Report" and the second one is Jimmy Dore's "The Jimmy Dore Show." I've since discovered that Seder was originally the co-host of the show with Janeane Garofalo and that it ran on "Air America" and Dore began as part of an ensemble cast of a show on "The Young Turks" network.

These two guys have developed an acrimonious dispute as to the proper strategy for progressive citizens in the USA. Seder insist on focusing upon changing the Democratic Party from within, at the local, state and federal levels, while Dore says that the Democratic Party is hopeless and that a third party led by Bernie Sanders or some other charismatic [is Sanders charismatic?] figure is what is needed.

I have to say that I side with Jimmy Dore. While Sam Seder is clearly more knowledgeable about the mechanics of the US political system and is more scholarly in general, he is, essentially just offering a more intellectual version of the whole "lesser evilism" shtick that has seen decent people lashed to the super-corrupt Democrats in decades of deluded servitude. In the comments section to a video where Dore was actually debating (via telephone) with Seder, somebody wrote how Seder has no illusions about the Democrat leaders being his, or any progressive's friends. The party is a tool for people to try to get what they want. "The art of the possible" in other words. The problem is that Seder, for all his intelligence, is the tool that people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are using to get what they want.

Dore is a much more simpler man. And he repeats himself a lot. But his outrage at the entirely disgusting state of the USA's political culture is very real and very necessary. He is genuine when he says that he supports people like the Democratic Socialists of America in their efforts to challenge Democratic corporatists from within. (Indeed, his show was one of the first to provide an outlet for the campaign of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.) But in the end, he correctly insists that the Democratic Party is hopeless. He does not let up from pointing out the abominable scuzziness of Hillary Clinton and the entire team of anti-democratic filth (such as the revolting Deborah Wasserman-Schultz) who sabotaged Bernie Sanders in the primary, betrayed the party, and foisted Clinton as the party's candidate.

To deliberately pick a candidate associated with the status-quo at a time when the status-quo was (and remains) loathed by all, and on top of that, a candidate with decades of baggage from right-wing attacks (most of them stupid) was just indicative of Hillary Clinton's massive set of entitlement. In one of his videos, Dore describes an exceptional New York Times article [I tried to link to it but too many goddamned ads started loading and crashed my browser.] wherein Black citizens of Milwaukee explain why they didn't vote or cast a protest vote. Two guys (I think) wrote themselves in, and one guy voted for Trump as a protest against Hillary Clinton, whose husband's policies put him in prison for 20 years. [This is probably a reference to Bill Clinton's "Three Strikes" policy that Hillary enthusiastically campaigned for in her attempts to combat "super-predators" and "bring them to heel."]

I mention this because some of Seder's fans, who imagine themselves progressive pragmatists, have tried to accuse Dore of enjoying white, male, affluent privilege. I don't know what Dore's net worth is. It's probably well above average but nothing spectacular. But the argument is bullshit because the people who are hurting the most have been ABANDONED by the Democrats. Is it that much of a stretch to believe that the president who told Wall Street criminals that he would protect them from the mob with the torches and the pitchforks might also be responsible for those same criminals enjoying 90% of the GDP growth since he came to power? And mighten't some of that wealth have been extracted from the poorest? Partisanship can make fools of us all and liberal partisans are just as capable of disgracing themselves as the stupidest Trump fans.

Finally, I have to say, that even before I was aware of the Dore-Seder rivalry, I was already iffy about Sam Seder. His video titles are often pure "click-bait" and while they might be parodying the way that right-wing shit-heads title their own videos, it's still off-putting to watch a video entitled "Sam Seder DESTROYS [name of right-wing shit-head here]" and watch it for 9 minutes and not hear anything even remotely relevant. Also, when Seder is the host, it means there are 3 other people interjecting trying to be witty and too often failing. (Sometimes the co-host, whose name escapes me, is in the chair and then there's only two other people competing with him.) With Dore, he clearly runs the show, and his co-hosts (often his wife Stefane Zamorano, aka. "The Miserable Liberal", and young comedian Ron Placone) show much more restraint when they interrupt, and then he asks for their feedback at the end. It might appear more domineering and/or narcissistic I suppose, but it makes for a smoother presentation. I will say though, that Zamorano's comments are often more profound than Dore appears to give her credit for. This might be misogyny or it might be just the way people take their spouse for granted or it might be my imagination.

And, at the root of it all, I see a lot of myself in Jimmy Dore. I'm a working class guy. I'm unpolished. I have a highly developed sense of outrage. I'm not a partisan. I often don't have all the facts immediately on hand. I watched his stand-up special a week or two back when I was high and remember thinking that I enjoyed it.

Sunday, October 21, 2018

stephen harper's new buk

So, plodding dullard, pants-pissing coward, anti-democratic doofus, brazen hypocrite, overall incompetent, stephen harper has (in a desperate attempt to appear relevant) farted out a book of sorts.

It's called I'm Really Stupid Now (or something). In it, he apparently says that something he calls the global free-market economy has produced winners and losers and that these fucking losers are turning to extremists such as Donald Trump (on the right) and Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn (on the left).

Of the two extremes, harper says that he's more scared of the left. [Since harper is on "coward" mode full-time he's obviously terrified to the point of nausea and incontinence.] What is necessary to combat this extremism is to construct a "conservatism" that pays attention to working people's concerns.

I'll give Andrew Coyne a word-in here. (While I think Coyne's own political-economic theories are incredibly dangerous, he showed himself to be one of the more principled critics of harper's contemptuous treatment of Canada's parliamentary institutions, and he therefore has my respect.)

And yet the mind it reveals is not that of the subtle, sometimes rueful voice of experience he clearly wishes the reader to imagine. It is, rather, all too conventional, even banal. What are presented as iconoclastic insights, in which the rise of populism is explained in terms of the failings of conservatism — former Conservative prime minister breaks with decades of conservative orthodoxy! — are a mix of received wisdom and undergraduate shibboleths, many of them long debunked.

It was Jim Owen, guest-blogging at Dr. Dawg's who first hepped me to harper's sad effort. I'll quote a couple of sections wherein he, like Coyne, exposes harper for the banality that he is:

Apparently globalists are doing much better than localists, but in Mr. Harper’s argument this remains a hidden premise, which spares him the trouble of explaining it. How globalists came to be independent of the nation-state, and how exactly this confers invulnerability from the woes affecting localists, is left to our imagination. One supposes that perhaps they are wealthier, and that there might be a class conflict between a wealthy globalist elite and a dispossessed state-bound proletariat. Certainly Harper employs the claim, in explaining the West’s restive populism, that “incomes of working people have stagnated or even declined over the past quarter-century.” But, curiously for an economist, he does not clearly connect the growing wealth gap with the dominant form of economic activity in the West, that is to say, a capitalism that actively resists state regulation....It is a regrettable trait of ideological thinking to start with an answer, and then apply it to whatever problems one observes. Stephen Harper has correctly identified a growing class conflict between the well-to-do and “working people” — an idea he might have encountered in another form during his studies in economics — but has made the colossal blunder of failing to work from this observation towards a rational and unprejudiced course of action. Instead he clings to a set of “values” that must guide us, notwithstanding their suspicious resemblance to the very principles that he says got us into the mess in the first place: pro-market, pro-trade, pro-globalization, pro-immigration. More than this, he says that any unnamed alternatives would be “a big mistake” without offering any reasons why, at least in this excerpt....There is more to be said about this book excerpt. Its analysis of the Make America Great Again movement in terms of the international politics of Iraq and Afghanistan is regrettably shallow. According to Mr. Harper, these misadventures incurred “enormous human and financial costs…with very little success.” As a result, “global security deteriorated,” which fed the populist America-first movement. One longs to explore the failures of these initiatives, and to trace the concomitant deterioration of security, in order to learn what mistakes were made and how they might be prevented.

In short, harper has produced what could only be expected of him. A dully written set of shallow assertions about the state of the world and his wholly inadequate suggested solutions. Some people are evil geniuses. They're terrifying in their creativity and their practical accomplishments. Whereas others people, like stephen harper, are more like this small lump of foul-smelling evil sitting in the middle of the room. It's best when faced with a turd like stephen harper, to get a dustpan and a broom and sweep it up and toss it outside.

Monday, October 15, 2018

Traumatized Societies

I once watched a documentary about Berlin in the interwar period. "City of Sex" was the title I believe. I was interested because Weimar Berlin was also a hot-spot of artistic creativity: Dada (brought in by the German ex-pats who created it in Zurich during WWI, Expressionism, Bauhaus, Brecht, Gross, the cabarets,etc., etc.,). Also, I was interested in just how those stodgy old-folks from the 1920s (okay, they were youngsters then) were able to shake-off the Victorian-era prudery that persisted everywhere else until the late-1960s.

Ah! Here's a link to the documentary: "Cultural Alchemy Special Berlin Sin City of the 1920's." Now, it's either in that documentary or I heard it somewhere else, but this is what I heard; That (with a little joke about typical German organizational abilities) in 1920's Berlin you could go to one street and find mother-daughter prostitute teams. Another street was pregnant prostitutes. Another one was fat prostitutes. And so-on and such-forth.

Now, here's the thing: There had never been such a time in Berlin's past or in its future when the women of that city decided to do such things. I'm guessing that they were desperately poor due to the unemployment and the hyper-inflation and the other economic fall-outs from defeat in the First World War. I'll also go out on a limb and imagine that their clients were the war-profiteers, speculators and con-men of the era, plus wealthy foreigners from England, the USA, and France mostly.

Meanwhile, the men (who were not starving at home, perhaps getting drunk and disagreeable while spending the money their prostitute wives were earning) were fighting each other in the streets as socialists, communists and fascists. Again, this was due to the economic crises resulting from the War.

These economic crises were on top of  the moral crises that come out of defeat in war. I know that we Canadians get a little thrill out of having bested the Yanks in 1812-14 (even though that was the achievement of British regulars and Iroquois warriors; the latter of whom we've have treated abysmally ever since) and out of having been on the winning side in most of our other conflicts. The British certainly puff-out their chests over their victories in the two World Wars (and many others besides). France was subjected to an intense round of soul-searching over the 1941-44 period. And they weren't plunged into anything like the interwar catastrophes following WWII.

So, the Germans, a proud and militaristic people, were defeated in WWI, subsequently disarmed and demoralized and then ground down into the gutter by economic crises for two decades. They were traumatized as a society. And the response of those desperate times (as allowed for by German capitalism) was Hitler's fascism. And we all know how well that worked out.

But Hitler wouldn't have gotten anywhere if capitalism hadn't have fucked-up so badly. Hitler's rise was assisted by the immediate dislocations of 1918-19. Then by the hyper-inflation of 1921-23. His Nazi Party's support was ebbing in the late-1920's before soaring again in the Great Depression of 1929-33. The point is that traumatized societies are not healthy societies and they go in unhealthy directions.

An obvious indicator of this is the Trump presidency. True, he didn't win the popular vote. True, Hillary Clinton won more votes in absolute numbers than any of her predecessors. This BBC article gives a good analysis of the numbers though, and adjusting for population growth and other things, Hillary Clinton did better than Gore did against Bush II, but not so staggeringly well as her proponents insist.
The 2004 election had a higher turnout than the 2016 election by about 1.7% of the voting age population, Stanford University political scientist David Brady points out.
If the 2016 election had the same percentage of voting age population, about 2 million more voters would have gone to the polls.
Important fact that. Anyway, the point is (I keep having to use that phrase) that Trump is a symptom of a sick society. If things weren't so consistently shitty, then the level of anger and hatred against the status-quo wouldn't be so intense. (Stupid and/or ignorant people have always blamed scapegoats for their plight, and the more people for whom the word "plight" sums up their situation, the more support you have for racist blowhards like Trump.)

Women are traumatized. This has just occurred to me. Some guys hate women because they've been hurt or rejected by them. They'll bloviate about their hate and loathing of women at great length on the internet amongst like-minded "Men's Rights Activists" or "MGTOW" or "Incel" sub-groups. But these same men can't wrap their heads around the idea that women might therefore have good reasons to hate men. And if they do, they're just engaging in "typical man-hating feminism." But read the accounts of sexual assault survivors. And of victims of sexual discrimination and harassment throughout this patriarchal society's institutions and across history. (In all honesty, I meant to write about something else here but this just dawned on me. And, you know, I think if there's one thing that makes this notion of "trauma" not apply here, it's that "trauma" applies to a profound change of circumstances. Women and long-oppressed minorities generally don't act traumatized because they've spent their entire lives under such conditions. They've been conditioned/reconciled to their state of affairs since birth basically. Still and all, abuse is abuse.

The Jews were traumatized by the Holocaust. They'd been an oppressed minority for over a century in Europe. But the industrial-scale slaughter carried out by Hitler and his Nazis was unheard of. It traumatized them. The helplessness and the humiliations. And, so, they started acting-out. Everything they've done in the Middle East, in Palestine, since 1945, has been the result of the societal trauma created by the Holocaust. And for too long (and not for entirely this reason) we've indulged them out of guilt over their trauma. But it's not good to enable a traumatized person's indulgences. A trauma victim might turn to booze or drugs. They might abuse the people around them. They might became selfish, entitled, self-pitying human wreaks if nobody steps in to teach them more proper ways to heal.

Unfortunately that's not what we've done with Israel. They've been enabled, and enabled, and forgiven and indulged and now they're a sickeningly racist, blubbering self-pitying, murderous, disgusting nation. From top-to-bottom they're moral imbeciles and their judgments upon others are looked at with derision by sane people.

The Middle East is being traumatized right now. Just as the Jews suffered in Europe, the whole Middle East; Arabs, Muslims, Kurds, etc., ... what do we think the long-term ramifications are going to be from millions slaughtered, tens of millions made refugees, tens of millions losing their countries and being governed by US-puppets or (often the same thing) Jihaadist psychopaths? The helplessness and the humiliation. If it wasn't for the fact that the monsters in Washington DC like terrorism because terrorism provides excuses for the military-industrial-complex and the surveillance state, this would be seen as a bad thing. But for those witless foolish monsters, it's GOING to be a bad thing, by their definition, because the level of terrorism created by the massive trauma of tens of millions of people since the beginning of the Great Bullshit War on Terror will be much bigger than they think they can control.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

More Easy Answers

So, yeah. Easy answers. Achievement without effort. This desire for maximum output with minimum input is hard-wired into us. Being able to figure out the simplest way to achieve one's goals is a survival mechanism. But sometime's evolutionary traits can backfire. Especially when one lives within a self-reinforcing protective bubble of information.

The climate change deniers, the anti-vaxxers, right-wing troglodytes, Hillary-bots, partisans of all stripes, hive off into their little communities of self-adulation and self-praise and become so enamored of the endless stream of mental rewards they dole out to one another that they become disconnected from reality.

And when the deluded praise supplants the actual achievements, they don't even notice how insane they're acting. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Justin Trudeau is probably not a bad guy. I'm sure he's somewhat arrogant due to the prestige of his father's name and due to his own astonishingly good looks. Combine this with what appears to be a definite mental shallowness and I'm also sure that he's not an individual I'd ordinarily seek out for his company. (He'll live, I'm sure.) But overall, he's probably a fairly agreeable chap.

So why is he pushing these bitumen pipelines and running roughshod over promises (very important promises) to the First Nations? Why is he continuing with stephen harper's Orwellian surveillance legislation? Why is he so prepared to be a neo-liberal thug in so many areas (albeit while wiping a tear from his liberal eye)?

Probably because he has immersed himself in the bubble of delusion that is the Liberal Party of Canada.

Think about it. He spends all day either very busy reading reports made by like-minded researchers, or speaking with like-minded partisans. And much of his workplace discussion focuses on convincing a conservative, corporatist media on the soundness of Liberal approaches to ideas and policies. He has neither the time, nor the inclination, nor the incentive to genuinely consider and interact with contrary sources of opinion.

And, when he suffers cognitive dissonance from encountering new facts that are unexplainable by his Liberal worldview, he simply stops thinking about them. And, of course, this process works for previously accepted knowledge that no longer fits with his present Liberal world-view bubble. This explains his ability to have had sincere, fruitful discussions with David Suzuki about the dangers of Climate Change and what is necessary to counteract these grave dangers, and then, following his attaining power, to simply stop talking to Suzuki. Upon gaining power, Trudeau and the Liberals immediately embraced "pragmatism," or, balancing the "needs" of the psychopaths in Calgary and Toronto's Bay Street with those of the environment and the human race.

This has to be done of course because there's a competing political party that's vying for power: The morons and troglodytes and sleazy con-artists and religious freaks and pathetic closet-cases who comprise the Conservative Party of Canada. These shit-heads deny the reality of climate change and make no pretense of serving anyone other than the capitalist elite. (That's not exactly true. They DO gratify their voting base with policies of discrimination and racism and other forms of bigotry towards scapegoats and the weak. The low-functioning level of their voting base is such as to be easily requited with the abuse of "the other" even as their own lives continue to deteriorate as a result of the main thrust of their own party's policies.)

So it is with Trudeau's false promises to the First Nations. Whatever he wants to think, Trudeau remains part of an imperialist-colonialist project of genocide against the First Nations. Their precedence on these lands, and their existing claims on rights and resources are a hindrance to the capitalist project of exploitation and so they are to be eliminated. Canada did not have the power to simply massacre them all at once and so has settled for long-term "low-intensity-conflict" wherein we destroy their languages and cultures and deprive them of services and resources (while forbidding them from accessing their own resources) and, when necessary, we break solemn promises to them while continuing to deny them the resources they surrendered and the actions they had taken, in return for those promises.

And Trudeau justifies all of this behaviour with standard Liberal platitudes, and he is able to do this because he exists within a bubble of self-reinforcing Liberal platitudes. That's how he and his witless Environment Minister can pose in super-hero costumes as "Climate Superheroes" while they continue to suck dirty tar out of the ground to give to the Chinese to burn. It's how Trudeau can continue to give heartfelt apologies to past crimes against the First Nations while continuing to inflict new ones upon them and pretending that the vast majority of the First Nations do not now hate his guts and despise the sound of his voice.

Because he's surrounded himself with a bubble of stupid Liberals and stupid Liberal platitudes. All day, every day, he's immersed in a soothing bath of "We make sure that every Canadian has a chance to reach their fullest potential" and "Politics is the art of the possible and we are the ultimate in what is possible" and "We represent ALL Canadians, rich and poor, all creeds and colours."

How to conclude this little shpiel? I don't know. Break that bubble. But how? I've sent my own Liberal MP some e-mails but I can't even be sure that he reads them.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Climate Change, Capitalism, and Easy Answers

This is a good essay from commondreams.org: "No, Capitalism Will Not Save the Climate" by Karin Nansen.

We are facing deep-rooted climate, social, and environmental crises. The current dominant economic system cannot provide solutions. It is time for system change.
For Friends of the Earth International this means creating societies based on peoples’ sovereignty and environmental, social, economic, and gender justice. We must question and deconstruct the capitalist logic of accumulation.
The climate catastrophe is interwoven with many social and environmental crises, including oppression, corporate power, hunger, water depletion, biodiversity loss and deforestation.

She really cuts to the chase:

We must tackle climate change and the associated social and environmental crises by taking rapid and bold action to address the common root causes; privatization, financialization and commodification of nature and societies, and unsustainable production and consumption systems.
The magnitude of the crises we face demands system change.

And so on and such forth:

System change must address people’s individual and collective needs and promote reciprocity, redistribution, and sharing.
Solutions include public services achieved through tax justice, social ownership and co-operativism, local markets and fair trade, community forest management, and valuing the wellbeing of people and the planet.

Go over and give the whole thing a read.

But my question is (as always): How are we to achieve the very good things that Nansen is calling for? Our political-economic system is dominated by pro-capitalism, pro-corporate, neo-liberal parties that serve authoritarian oligarchs. Our media system is dominated by neo-liberal, corporate propagandists and "public relations" brain-washers. One-quarter of the voting population in the industrialized countries consists of stupid, ignorant, racist, patriarchal, authoritarian, brainwashed, right-wing chumps. Another one-quarter consists of partisan liberal shills and hypocrites who will turn a blind eye to the most blatant betrayals of their principles if the politician doing the betraying is nominally from their team.

Why do our politicians do the things they do? With some of them, like Donald Trump, the Ford Brothers, or Paul Calandra, ... it's because they're hollowed-out morons. They have neither the ability to empathize with others nor are they possessed of the intellectual weight to be able to discern right from wrong. Calandra has literally defrauded his dying mother. Rob Ford railed against "drugs and gangs" and then smoked drugs with gangsters. Doug Ford is just a stupid bully. A rich man's son who was a high school drug dealer and who used his brother's populist appeal to build his own political career which is all about his personal benefit and the implementation of his own personal belief system of self-serving bigotry and greed. Donald Trump is a serial con-artist, psychopath, rapist and hypocrite. A moral degenerate who could barely restrain his sexual desire for his own daughter. What sort of man would strike his own son in the face for not wearing a collared-shirt and a tie to a sporting event?

It's obvious why scum like this do the things that they do. But what about the liberals?

Not enough has been said about Barack Obama pardoning Chelsea Manning in the closing days of his presidency. I don't see that this action exonerates Obama for his numerous crimes. But considering who Chelsea Manning was and what she did, I find it remarkable. How many other presidents have thrown people like Mumia Abul-Jamal or Leonard Peltier into prison and then left them there to rot?

Obama's pardoning of Manning shows that he often knows what the right thing is, but he chose not to do it. One has to remember that Obama (like most politicians) is something of a psychopath. He did everything necessary to be the first Black US President. His chameleon ability to affect the mannerisms of whoever he's speaking to are well noted. His self-control is extraordinary. As was his brazen duplicity (telling voters he'd go after Wall Street criminals at the same time that he was filling his Cabinet with them). Becoming the first Black President (and not getting assassinated for it) was a difficult achievement. But he hardly tried when it came to climate change. Because that would have meant trouble. It would have meant stirring-up powerful adversaries. For Obama, NOT doing what imbeciles like Bush II did, or maniacs like Hillary Clinton wanted to do, was the extent of his efforts.

I see I've written much more than planned and haven't really said anything. I'll post this now and pick it up later.

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

The World Doesn't Owe Us a Living

This is one of the most pervasive assaults on left-wing calls for social justice; that we expect that the world owes us (and everyone else) a living, simply by virtue of our having arrived on the planet. It is at this point that those who champion an economic system of unlimited growth on a finite planet begin to shriek about "scarce resources" and how we can't just give people riches without their having to work for them.

But the criticism resonates with ordinary people because resources are scarce. There has never been a time or place where everyone could consume without having to work. (Although some hunter-gatherer societies have, at times, enjoyed periods of considerable leisure.) Ordinary people imagine that leftists are calling out for endless benefits for lazy people (such as leftists) and that they will pay for these benefits by taxing productive people.

This gross oversimplification and outright distortion is mainly the product of a propaganda system that benefits the rich. Certainly there are small groups of people who would like to do nothing and live off of other people via public assistance. Such individuals exist at all times in most large-scale societies. But the numbers of people on welfare have always been small. And the vast majority of this small group of people are using these programs for less than a year. The problem/danger that has been conjured up to frighten people from social justice is imaginary. It doesn't exist.

But there IS a small group of long-term layabouts who consume vast amounts of resources for almost their entire lives. The wealthy heirs of great fortunes! The idle rich who "earn" money from "investments" that other people gave them and which (for the most part) other people manage for them. For instance, those asshole Koch brothers, ... one of them has a son.

Or, Paris Hilton. Or Kim Kardashian. Or Paul Godfrey.

We've gotten to the point where there is more than enough productive capacity to ensure that everyone has a roof over the head and food in their belly. This is PARTLY the result of the release of creative forces through capitalism that Karl Marx spoke about in the 19th Century. But it is this same political-economic system that seems compelled to degrade and humiliate people who might want a roof over the head and food in their bellies and who need public assistance for this because that same political-economic system made them redundant.

Capitalism is dependent on the impossible premise of endless growth on a finite planet, with this growth being achieved by ever-increasing consumption (by those with "effective demand") of more and more resources.

Social justice and other "leftard" values such as environmentalism, democracy, human rights and dignity, are all dedicated to creating a sustainable society based upon the real limits of the planet's productive capacity. It is the "hard-nosed" anti-welfare "realists" who have their heads up their asses.

Edited To Add:

Apparently it was the Disney cartoon and not the Warner Brothers' Porky Pig cartoon that had the song I was looking for.