Equating accusations with proven fact is reckless and repressive. It is also standard behavior in liberal politics, whereby they ruin lives without a second thought.
This piece is perfection. Seriously, if it were a person, I would marry it.
I’m a survivor of physical and sexual abuse, and no, you are not required to believe me, for the simple reason that you don’t know me and have no way to gauge my credibility. If you don’t believe me, I won’t call you a rape apologist, I promise. I won’t even feel unsafe. Or harassed. Or retraumatized.
The mantra “Believe Survivors” always begs the question: how do you know whether the person making an allegation is a survivor? What the mantra really means is “Believe every person who makes an allegation,” which is absurd on its face.
More precisely, it's believe every person who make an allegation against someone we want to take out. The whole tragicomic Kavanagh/Ford charade laid bare a purely political endgame which had absolutely nothing to do with any actual concern for an alleged survivor. Ford was the most -- and most willing -- transparent of pawns.
I usually use the signs as a gauge of true sentiment. When truckloads of pre-printed signs show up to anything, it is an attack by the outrage "industry" and we can be sure 99% of everything from that point is manufactured. I've never seen anyone in media explore this industry. They are content to believe they are witnessing true protest and popular anger as opposed to manufactured political tactics serving some unknown political force pushing far deeper, nefarious goals. We are gaslighted constantly from all sides and angles and few with any resources to explore it actually do. At this point,, when I see the pre-printed mass outrage machine show up, I tune out and ignore anything they have to say. I don't know who is behind it or why they are there, but I can definitely see the smokescreen.
I’ve seen it go both ways. I’ve sent people use an allegation against someone they wouldn’t have supported anyway. But I’ve also seen people turn against those they’d previously supported, based on an allegation. Morse is a good example of the latter. There really isn’t a lot of consistent logic to it.
I don't think these people actually have principles or even care about actual justice. They simply wanted to exploit Morse for being gay - until they figured out they he was "tainted". Then he abandoned him at the crucial time when he actually needed support and they moved on to their next pawn. I have seen this happen countless times with how minorities get used as pawns. H1B visas are a perfect example.
I wholeheartedly agree. Many people on the left, like many people in religious institutions, want to feel good about themselves rather than do good for others. I've been on the left all my life, and I've seen people fixated on having the proper politics in order to feel right about who they are, so they support gay politicians like Morse -- until, as you say, he is "tainted," at which point they switch allegiances in order to feel good about who they are for rejecting a so-called sexual predator. That Morse is not a sexual predator matters nothing, because it's all about the self-image of the onlooker. It's not about changing anything at all.
Well, what mystifies me is why it doesn’t occur to anyone to fight back, using any weapon from truth to lies. You can actually sue the ass off liars under certain circumstances. Or you can have someone step forth or accuse the accuser.
I really don’t know how long it will be before someone realizes they should be doing this on social media. Shame me on Twitter? I will absolutely make sure your darkest secrets will provide entertainment for millions.
I think that, when an allegation = truth, innocent people who are accused know that the truth of the matter won't matter at all. So they don't fight back, because they wonder, why bother?
In any case, I personally would not want to retaliate by bringing to light other people's secrets. I don't think a race to the bottom is the way to go. Our cultural discourse is degraded enough.
I think that the person accused can't believe that it is happening, that it's a mistake, that it will go away, he/she will wake up from a bad dream. They don't know how to fight back against those they thought were their supporters/mentors. Its as if they become catatonic. Kavanaugh initially looked like a deer in the headlights until Pres Trump told him he wasn't going to withdraw his nomination and told him to fight back.
Stringer spoke out against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation using much of the same rhetorical devices now wielded by his opponents in the mayoral race. I get that Glenn is arguing for the broader ideal, but I have no sympathy for Scott Stringer. You reap what you sow. Here's the link for those that are interested...
He also called on Andrew Cuomo to resign over such allegations. Let me make clear: I don't care about Stringer himself at all. As you say, it's the principle that matters here. This stuff is repulsive.
You know that the AAPI campaign started after Nate Silver published data showing Asians consistently support Democrats only if they feel victimized by racism, right?
The biggest result when they eat their own is that they don't field their best team when it comes to domestic politics. People don't really need to wonder why we never have good Dem candidates for president, and we end up electing President not-Trump-not-Sanders.
But the second biggest result is that we suffer overall as a country for not having those candidates reach their potential, we really do.
The funny thing is that the real racism against Asians comes from democrat policies.
Last year California voted to repeal the "anti discrimination" amendment. It passed the house and senate but fortunately FOR NOW failed in the election (43% still voted to repeal it). Just read who the supporters are and who opposes it:
Also this "asian" lawsuit against universities also often lumps in south asian (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc) into the "asian" category as convenient because Indians and Pakistanis are also quite high achievers, so they get discriminated against too.
If people woke up to the fact that they are actually voting for racism while crying about racism, then the world would be a better place.
And in the new Asian hate crime bill, all Senate Democrats "opposed an amendment that would prohibit federal funds from going to universities that discriminate against Asians in admissions and recruitment." It's impossible for every person/group to have the same outcome and the push towards it only causes discrimination. Plus, they wouldn't want to anger the Ivy Leagues...the pipeline of our nation's "leaders."
But the Democrat's favorite tool of racial division, critical race theory, puts Asian people in oppressor status, so maybe they're going for both angles and seeing what works best for them....?? Either way, it's disgusting.
The thing that is being hidden by the media is that way too many attacks on Asians are carried out by African/Americans. It is very weird since Asians don't seem to have much negative contact with that community. Other than being victims of crime.
What's the right number of attacks on Asian Americans by black Americans?
Look, it's not weird. Or racially motivated. Black Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes in the U.S. relative to their percentage of the population. There were 150 or so hate crimes motivated by anti-Asian bias in 2019. Really, it's not a thing.
One has to be careful. Hate crime data that measures race of victim and assailant say that black on asian hate crime is nowhere near the majority in a typical year. Right now the majority of what we see on the news is that, though.
But that could be real or it could be selection bias.
Tony Timpa once said "We only see black people killed by cops make it onto TV", but those events are 25% of the total, so Peyton Ham told me that clearly there is selection bias there.
Only 25%? Seems to me it has been at least two years since we have heard about 100% of those (white cop killing Black resister/tragic-victim-of-mistake).
The funny thing is that the real racism against Asians comes from democrat policies.
Last year California voted to repeal the "anti discrimination" amendment. It passed the house and senate but fortunately FOR NOW failed in the election (43% still voted to repeal it). Just read who the supporters are and who opposes it:
Also this "asian" lawsuit against universities also often lumps in south asian (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc) into the "asian" category as convenient because Indians and Pakistanis are also quite high achievers, so they get discriminated against too.
If people woke up to the fact that they are actually voting for racism while crying about racism, then the world would be a better place.
As someone who lives where Stringer's Community Free Democrats reign's supreme, I have no love for Stringer. Many of his positions may be considered "progressive" but the actions he has taken over the years to protect the power of the political club is totally regressive. I remember when one of their members took a position that George W. should be impeached and that the club's patron saint Jerrold Nadler should lead the fight. The club started a campaign against the person accusing her behind her back of being anti-Semitic. No more powerful attack against a person on the Upper West Side of Manhattan than that. Stringer was Nadler's hatchet man, and seemed to relish the role.
If there are political cannibals in this country the left are surly them. No need to look further these morally bankrupt soulless power seekers are like sharks with blood in the water. They will at some point attack one an other when confronted with possible loss of their power or political position. Ever see them resort to racist slurs when a black person does not toe their liberal line. White leftists have NO qualms about utilizing the worst stereotypes and disgusting language as if those under attack were not human. Justice Thomas, Ben Carson, Senator Scott were all subject to the lefts pernicious smears and all without ANY pushback by mainstream Democrats or even the elected officials remained silent and said nothing. The left in this country is truly a danger to our Constitutional Republic since their actions and ambition will let little or nothing stand in the way of their quest for power. Even racist smears and name calling are acceptable. Gay bashing is just a small step for them.
Good for you! What a hypocrite. He doesn't represent a progressive agenda which is what his position in the Kavanaugh case said to me, but like so many progressives these days they are totally opportunistic, and have no backbone. Their political careers come first.
Thanks for that, I was feeling quite sorry for the guy, now I feel better. I'm reminded of the slayer queen Harris and her edited tweets, Diane Feinstein and her unvetted victims. No sympathy for Stringer.
This reminds me of a funny Norm MacDonald joke. Patton Oswalt told Norm that the worst part of the Bill Cosby scandal was Cosby's hypocrisy. Norm disagreed. He thought it was the raping.
And another one, so many, What about, Clinton, Samantha Power, and Rice who claimed that a genocide was taking place in Libya. They claimed they were going in their to save it's people. Yes, we're all heart. No genocide, of course, just all about toppling Gadhafi because we didn't like his political agenda. That's hypocrisy for you, and America is full of it and many are dead because of it.
Well yes, but when politicians are hypocritical it's not quite the same. Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state under Bill Clinton said in 2016 if you were a woman and didn't vote for Hilary there was a special place in hell for you. She is the woman when asked if killing 500 thousand children due to the continuation of sanctions on Iraq was worth it. She said yes, oh maybe that's when she became Bill's secretary of state, because he liked what she had to say. Hypocrisy among politicians can be deadly. Not one person deadly, but hundreds and hundreds of dead.
Absolutely, and this Covid pandemic has made that all the more obvious. Fortunately I didn't get sick from Covid 19, but politicians, and all the time in the world to listen to them made me really sick.
Of all of the things that disgust me in our society right now, and there are many, this one is the absolute worst. Innocent until proven guilty has been a foundation of our free society since inception. That some people are so willing to condemn based on accusation alone shows us, among other things, that they neither understand nor appreciate our fragile democracy. I wonder how they will feel when it happens to them, their sons, their fathers, their spouses. Unfortunately, some people only learn from direct experience. God help us.
Unfortunately, if you were to confront the people engaging in this sort of behavior they would (if they talked to you at all) claim that presumption of innocence is only required in a legal context, not a social context. You see a similar pattern with free speech: people try to defend private censorship by saying that the First Amendment only applies to the government, while ignoring the fact that the amendment is just a legal codification of the general principle of free speech. It's a poor defense in free speech cases and it's a poor defense here, but I'm sure that's the defense you would hear.
It's shocking that so many are unable to grasp the values that generate cultural mores, virtues, and customary law. As you note, the principle of free speech is codified in law. The underlying value is truth. Without the free exchange of ideas humankind cannot arrive at truth. The same with the principle of due process, without which we cannot arrive at justice, which, in turn, requires ascertaining truth. The practices of free speech and due process are both manifestations of truth-seeking as the virtue by which we find truth. The scientific method is also a codification of truth seeking methods. Glenn is right. These people are without principle and seek only power. Truth is their enemy. Evil defined.
Political correctness undermines free speech. Cancel culture undermines the presumption of innocence. Both tactics are embraced by people with stunted minds (leftists) and promoted by opportunists (neoliberals).
“Political correctness: is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” ― Theodore Dalrymple
Absolutely TRUE ! I subscribe to neither Party, but I would be even more comfortable if the "stunted minds" being referred to were described as "neoleftists" right along with your accurately stated "neoliberals". These words have almost *no meaning anymore, but as a 72 yr. old Vietnam Vet, I STILL love the LEFT
that, working from back home, *ENDED the Vietnam War.
The meaning of the term "leftist" has changed since the '60s. The best way for the ruling class to destroy an ideology is to corrupt the movement and change the definition of its name, thereby erasing it from history - right out of 1984. That's what the enemies of the left have done. The word "left" is now a dirty word, it stands for censorship, McCarthyism, authoritarianism, persecution and corporate power. The ruling class owns that word, time to find or invent another one.
McCarthyism is like cancel culture. Destroy someone's reputation and get them fired and blacklisted, not for breaking any law but for breaking some arbitrary moral or political code.
Thanks for the update. The neoconservative will be broken-hearted if the neoleftist has appropriated McCarthyism ! So, in truth, I guess none of these labels have current meaning past their "fifteen minutes of fame".
Stringer in this case is learning from direct experience. He did the same thing to Kavanaugh as well as Cuomo. He’s reaping what he sowed as the top comment mentions.
Only way to solve the problem is by shaming and exposing these hypocrites and double standards - regardless of the tribe. Get it to spread to as many people as one can.
This reminded me of something Chesterton said about children: “We feel the same kind of obligation to these creatures that a deity might feel, had he created something that he could not understand.”
Hope you’re having a good weekend Glenn. You made mine. Not that it’s gonna be good news (haven’t read yet). It’s just good to hear from you 🥰
Oohhh... LOVING the independent journalists and others you’re bringing onboard btw. Intelligent and powerful voices we might never hear otherwise. Thank you deeply. In this chaotic time of absolute propaganda it is important/imperative we hear them. I only hope more and more will at least hear them out and become willing to scrutinize not just their work and how they got to their conclusion. But our own research and studies and how we got us to ours. Whatever they may be.
This is a bit random, but for some reason reading this article and the comments here, your #FreeAssange notion just happened to remind me of an excellent series of articles I read years ago that barely received any attention, and I think would be of interest to a lot of people here. (Not sure why that just came to mind - the brain is weird!)
A psychology PhD., Dr. Lissa Johnson, wrote an excellently sourced and extensive 6-part series of investigative journalism on the Assange case and the US government's secret war against journalism, free speech, and WikiLeaks that began in 2008, going into how they use psychology and propaganda to manipulate our thought.
It also goes into the torture of Julian Assange that had yet to be widely acknowledged by people such as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer (who I must remind everyone could not get his findings posted by any mainstream media and ultimately had them published on the prestigious Medium.com at https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768 where he warns us of a "a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy"), and the psychology of Russiagate.
Apologies if this comes across as spam/advertising - just an IMO very informative piece of journalism that was widely missed, as it was posted on an obscure independent Australian site.
When ever I am discussing politics and politicians with my peer group (well educated, left leaning or libertarian professionals and businesspeople). The question comes up as to why none of us has ever considered running for office. The universal reaction is: Why would anyone with a brain want to enter a profession in which your competitors try to destroy you?
There are some noble people in the business of politics, but it largely attracts people who love power and will do whatever is required to get it and keep it.
The more one thinks about the inherent problems with "democracy" as it is understood today, the more it looks like electing from eligible pool by random draw would be a much better option.
Or, as William F. Buckley Jr said: "I Would Rather Be Governed By the First 2,000 People in the Telephone Directory than by the Harvard University Faculty."
I once knew someone in academics whose department needed a new chair-person. The first rule they agreed to was that anyone who applied was immediately disqualified by virtue of wanting the position. That approach might also be useful in politics.
Yeah, there was a pretty funny indent a few weeks ago, about choosing our leaders randomly (you know, as a better way). I can just see a chosen citizen explaining, "But I thought I bought a lottery ticket!"
100%. You receive a phone call out of the blue. They say “It’s your turn” and you show up, unblemished by previous contacts and ready to serve based on what YOU believe is correct.
Sad. It was never meant to be like this. The Founders intended citizens to serve for a few years and then go home. It has become a profession, an industry, a way to become powerful and rich. My ancestors came here in the 1630s. Many were politicians (including a governor of NY) and even more fought in the revolution. I often think about how dismayed they would be if they came back to see how we have screwed everything up.
Would you prefer Ed Koch, Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerburg was running things? If you eliminate democratic government then that's what will happen, and some people want that. The problem with the federal government is that it has been corrupted by corporate lobbyists/bribery.
Human nature is corrupt and greedy by default. It's impossible for a population of 350 million to not have a federal government with lots of those corrupt apples. So the only way to solve it is to reduce as much federal government power and make societal issues a local/city/state issue in that order. Federal government needs to get the f out of all societal issues - from abortion to gay marriage to telling you which light bulb you can use to whether you can smoke weed and menthol cigarettes. Their only job should be to make sure the rights of people aren't infringed and deal with foreign nations on trade, defence etc.
Reduce the ability of corporations to bribe politicians. You can call it "lobbying", but its the exchange of cash for political favors. Its legal and it needs to be made illegal.
Bribery is NOT legal, and sunshine exposes it. Money is speech. Your money is speech, too. You get to spend on this, not spend on that, give to a cause, or not. Your charities are corporations, too. You direct your political donations to lobbyists that lobby on your behalf. You don't like what a corporation is doing, then don't buy its products and services, and don't become a stockholder. You can't choose another Federal government.
The problem is that the federal government has gotten too powerful so it can be bribed. The power is supposed to be in the states, where at least it is smaller so somewhat less tempting. We have allowed the feds to pervert our our system of government to centralize the power so all of the rats come out to feed on it.
No, the problem is that bribery has been legalized. The Citizens United decision allows unlimited bribery. When a "lobbyist" gives a suitcase full of cash to a politician both of them should go to jail. Is that too complicated for ya?
The problem with the Federal government is it is about 5 times too big, has about 10 times too much power, and, having spent our children's money, is now doubling down with our grandchildren's.
Where did I say "eliminate democratic government"?
It takes integrity and sacrifice to run for office, there is no monetary reward for the honest politician. No "libertarian professional" would understand that concept.
Glen, I’m only halfway through but I was wondering if you were aware of the sickening coda to the Massachusetts story. Several official town Democratic groups circulated a petition protesting the homophobic smear campaign. At the meeting of the Cambridge democrats—this is an official party body, mind—one of the officials yelled “faggot” into the phone. This was recorded and posted online. I called relevant Boston Globe reporters multiple times asking why they weren’t on top of this story. Nothing happened to anyone involved.
Believe all women is a lie.
Me too is a lie.
Black Lives Matter is a lie.
They’re just cover stories. Democrats don’t believe any of them.
Without expressing any opinion on Stringer or any other specific case, this is simply the corporate wing of Team D calling the shots.
That is why Tara Reid's allegations against Joe Biden can be dismissed out of hand, and goodthink liberals can come up with excuse after excuse for Bill Clinton, but mere allegations are enough to cast enemies to the left and right into Outer Darkness.
Funny how that works. Sort of like the evil "old white men." That's been hanging around forever. Those in the past who screamed it loudly are now the old white men. And they still, without irony, spout the same.
FWIW, i read from an ex-con that prison officials encourage racial segregation and racial identity in prisons, because the prisoners are easier to control.
The last thing the officials want is for the prisoners to figure out that their racial identity is superficial at most, and that the prisoners have much more core interests in common.
This is not a new method used by politicians. Back when Barack Obama was running for the Senate in Illinois his Republican opponent, Ryan, was beating him in the polls. So all of a sudden Ryan’s sealed divorce records were mysteriously released. They detailed episodes of him and his wife going to sex clubs while they were married. Poof! Ryan’s reputation was ruined and he eventually dropped out of the race, and the then unknown Barack Obama breezed into office. The left will do anything to gain power over their opponents.
Agree with one caveat. To your statement "The left will do anything to gain power over their opponents." I would amend it to read: "POLITICIANS will do anything to gain power over their opponents."
I disagree. I agree with your general statement that both parties are corrupt. But this sexual harassment stuff has always been coming from the democrats. Republicans are too incompetent and spineless to make up such stories.
Al Sharpton got a lot of fame from his fake rape and racial abuse hoax story of the black women in 1980s. He got a MSNBC job for starting a race war.
Then the high tech lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas happened in 1990s - with Biden involved too.
And then again the Justice Kavanaugh "gang rape" stuff.
The sexual harassment strategy is exclusive to Democrats. And I think it's because of them more easily being subject to emotional manipulation.
I enjoy your wording, there, and presently I would tend to agree with you. The Left has *blown its CORK, but the Right has been out of whack for longer than that.
I have never been a member of any political party or group, so I think it is important to point out in these cases "A pox o' both your houses" as did Shakespeare, instead of leaving the impression that *any party is superior to the other. Rats feeding upon the Body Politic are just not *that different - one from the other. ;-D
Totally agree. I am certain that I am not the first person here to observe that *both parties are fully owned subsidiaries of the Global Corporations, and have been since at least the late 1800s. They were "bought and paid for" mostly by the American Corporations before that ! Global Corporations have *vastly more power than do mere politicians !
"subsidiaries of the Global Corporations...since at least the late 1800s"
----------
The modern limited liability corporation did not exist when the founding fathers wrote their documents and Adam Smith wrote about the free market. Corporations slipped under the radar but they are an abomination to democracy, freedom and the free market. Corrupt capitalists are no different than corrupt communists - both corrupt. Wallstreet gets along very well with the CCP - that should raise a few eyebrows except that conservatives/republicans/capitalists are all wearing blinders.
No. The corporation is the greatest tool ever invented. It has led to an acceleration in human progress by allowing individuals to pool capital to form enterprises that would never have been undertaken in 100s of years by spreading risk and protecting the individual from ruin.
That's not to say that a corporation cannot engage in improper, even illegal, behavior. We have laws and the sunshine of free-market journalism to protect us against illegality, just like for individuals.
You anti-everything-corporation types are barking up the wrong tree. It's almost like you are part of the mis-information, or obfuscation trickery of the Democrat party, and its captured media and IC.
Yup, I lived through that in IL and his brother's children were in the child care center I administered. It was the ugliest and most disgraceful thing I'd seen done to a political opponent. And the media was complicit then too. Jack and Geri had an autistic child as well....imagine the stress in the family on top of that. The evil is real and the evil continues. Had they not done that to him, it could have changed Obama's entire political trajectory!
I am perhaps a bit of a purist but I take offense at Greenwald's presumption that the people he's rightly critiquing are on the left. Especially when neoliberals like Clinton and Biden seem to be so considered, given they passed the test of an alleged expectation of evidence for charges against them. That tarnishing of "left" shows how far to the right the Overton Window has moved.
It's hard to deny that groups like the Sunrise Movement and Working Families Party or Squad members like Rep. Bowman are the "left." If they're not, then the term refers to a vanishingly small number of people in the US.
Right on. I actually appreciated the left-liberal distinction because it implies that they consider themselves liberal , which they do, but leaves room for those who understand the principles of liberalism and how diverse it is to go, "they may claim to be x, but they don't follow its principles".
The Kavanuagh incident was my final straw with whatever the left is. So much of exist they claim to stand for is fake. It is built on rocky foundations and no principles. The left is a grievance cult who uses it and aligns themselves with corporatists for power grabs. I want no part of it.
Kavanaugh is a guy with massive debts magically paid, and no one even investigated that. Instead, they hang their hats on accusations from 40 years ago, to please their cultural activist base. Why?
I will say: Kavanaugh did lie enough to be rejected, even if they accusation is false. We all know what the Devil’s Triangle is, Brett. This being the least important/most trivial of his fibs.
He was vetted for the DC Circuit he served. He was re-vetted once Trump nominated him. Everything they've made you believe about the man is wrong, except, of course, that he's very conservative.
Brett Kavanaugh committed blatant perjury during both of his high court hearings. He lied repeatedly. Evidence against Kavanaugh was withheld by Justice Roberts. Witnesses wanting to back up Christine Blaisy Ford were prevented from testifying. Lindsey Graham interrupted the prosecutor hired to represent The GOP from doing her job by having a hissy-fit when she got close to the truth revealing the probable date Kavanaugh that allegedly attacked Ford. The prosecutor was never seen again in the Senatorial, lightening round, judicial hearing for a lifetime position on the highest court in the land. Democrats did a crappy job of interrogating Kavanaugh, a hostile, biased candidate for judicial integrity. Kavanaugh was determined to be unfit for the position by the American Bar Association. Kavanaugh may be a conservative but he's a disreputable nominee, no matter what political position he represents.
Christine Ford's lawyer Debra Katz admits on video that putting "an asterisk" next to Kavanaugh's name in case Kavanaugh attacked Roe v. Wade "is part of what motivated Christine."
Despite all these facts, you are still going on and on about this. Good lord. I sincerely hope one day you get a taste of your own medicine when you seek some promotion and a 35 year old rando claims you gang raped them. Then we will see how cool headed you are.
Ps I am not a fan of Kavanaugh but you people are bat shit crazy.
Ok, CNN loyalist. I'll add this though: anyone who actually believes the GOP is so evil that it would allow the nomination of a SC judge who was a "serial rapist" (per a lawyer later jailed, and after his "witnesses" wouldn't be heard) is seriously deranged. I lean right. I don't like Banjo Boy because it's obvious he's just a tool for the left, but I would never consider him this fucking evil.
The Federalist Society vetted Brett Kavanaugh, not Trump. The Federalist Society has an agenda to place as many right wing conservative judges in place as possible. No consideration is given for the public good, justice, the environment or civil rights. Kavanaugh was vetted for the DC Circuit he served by the Federalist Society. He was selected by a Republican majority in the Senate. Thank you again Leo Leonard. Leo has selected the majority of our Catholic Supreme Court Justices and many other judges.
Federalist Society has real criticisms as pointed out by Robert Barnes that they only pick establishment cronies. Neo cons types. And that’s why I don’t like Kavanaugh. But taking that a step further to claim he was guilty of stuff which these women admitted they fabricated stories about is crazy.
Problem is that yes, they “are” the left. Supposedly. And we put them in the positions they’re in because they promised to represent us in terms of environment, justice and other people’s causes. They took our donations and hopes, promised they’d go to Washington and from inside they’d cause the changes we need them to.
But now that they’re in there, and this is where they ARE NOT “the left” far as the left I consider myself part of, they instead gaslight us and our demands (no longer hopes for change but unattainable and unreasonable demands) and protect the establishment, the Party, and all it’s corrupt officials in every way possible. No matter how disgusting and obvious. Tara Reade is a perfect example. Remember wtf AOC said when asked about Tara??!!! “Well.... she didn’t say she wouldn’t vote for Biden 😁😇”. I lost ALL respect for AOC that very minute. I struggle to think of worse things one woman can do to another in such a situation. I still can’t even believe it to this day. Disgusting!!! Talk about selfish! Talk about picking her career and money over EVERYTHING she supposedly stands for. Talk about making me feel like a complete idiot for donating to her. Me. A victim myself. She took my money and spit in my face😡
Come on over to the dark side Daniela. I used to be in your shoes just few years ago. Now I am a black pilled liberal. Hate republicans for being incompetent and spineless. But hate democrats for being evil exploiting identity politics to destroy the fabric of society.
Once you realize that there will never ever be a single political party in a bloated country of 350 million people, you become awake and start viewing government as - just don’t let them make your life worse - because they surely aren’t going to make it better.
Welcome to what I call practical libertarianism :-) I just want the smallest government possible because the people attracted to power are all jerks so I want to give them as little power as possible.
Laura: "the people attracted to power are all jerks" - that's not entirely true. The problem is that the vast majority of voters only vote for the jerks (the others are "unelectable").
I'm unsure sure which I find more surprising; that humans feel the need to create "leaders" to tell us all what to do, or that we consistently choose sociopaths for those "leadership" positions. I guess our monkey brain wants "leaders" who will carry out or darkest fantasies against our enemies that we would NEVER dream of doing ourselves, unless we were part of a mob, of course.
Lord Acton was right that absolute power corrupts absolutely. How much of the problem is our consistent pattern of placing sociopaths in charge and how much is the person in charge becoming a monster once they get their we will never know.
The only thing we can be sure of is the more positions we create for "leaders," the more monsters we will have running the system.
Everyone is a jerk. Including all of you. Especially me. This is a feature, not a bug.
The folks attracted to power are just doing what they think they ought to be doing. Think of it like a mountain where the vast majority of us are a part of it. Impossible to tear down, right?
Shrink democracy to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub? If democracy is eliminated what do you think will replace it? A world run by the koch brothers would be a very sick place.
In a perfect world there would be no need for governance. In a perfect world everyone would just do what’s best for the whole and we’d all be much better off. But, much as I wish and dream, that ain’t where we’re at!
In this world we do need organization and regulation aka governance. Or else all hell would break loose.
BUT you are absolutely right. Corrupt governance: bad. Even more of it: WORSE!
And how that’s better than having none at all doesn’t pass the test with me either. Quite frankly I feel that governments ARE the issue a lot of the time. It is VERY possible that left to their own devices communities’ and even entire nations’ Peoples would work together as opposed to against one another. For example there are typically citizens on both sides of every war who’s demands for ending warfare go ignored or forcibly, sometimes permanently, silenced. That tells me that it isn’t the majority of citizens who want to tear the world apart. It is their government officials. A lot of which in a less corrupt world would never be allowed any where near a managerial position, let alone leader of any nation and/or in charge of any military.
These governments use propaganda and fear mongering, violence and sanctions, you name it. Not just against others, but sometimes even their own People.
I’ll be honest with you; I don’t have an answer.
My only suggestion is that we stop being so ignorant and righteous as Americans. Seeing as as Americans we are a very LARGE part of the world’s current problems. What Americans corporations and the US gov have done in countless other countries, and are now bringing home, is criminal at very best. But we keep voting and supporting the same damn people. For 30, 40, 50 years.
I certainly don’t feel like I belong anywhere, as is. It’s all BS and corruption. And for the first time ever I’m starting to understand where people are coming from when they say our lives are worse because of our government/ system, not better. We can come up with better systems, but we’re not allowed to by those who most benefit from the way things are.
The US Government/system is the best ever devised. But it requires voters who are actually willing to do the somewhat hard work of, with a clear head, evaluating candidates for office. That's what is missing.
Idk about learning to love it lol. But I do hope to find joy while living in it again some day. Not to get too dark but, while we’re talking about being lost in the dark woods, I do find it scary, discouraging and depressing. All these wars. The images of kid’s corpses. The poverty. The millions loosing their last dime over a diagnosis and the millions more struggling to hold on to anything at slave wages. The overwhelming propaganda that has created a poisoned and venemous society. All the fu’king corruption. Ughhh!!!! It’s maddening! And I see no end in sight. So.... I’m trying to learn how to cope. How to live somewhere not with my scared ignorant head stuck in the sand nor covered in tin foil holding my last stand 😅🤷🏻♀️
Oh, no, no, no! Don't advise ANYONE, let alone an excellent poster like M. Ferreira, to learn to love "being lost in the woods". I agree that some people seem to LIKE being ignorant, but never wish it on someone, imo.
Dude, if possible it would be awesome to connect with you over on Locals. I'm JosephC over there. josephc.locals.com for my own community but if theres a community that isn't typical social media mess to connect through I'd appreciate it!
Republican voters overturned the Republican party establishment in 2016. Democrat voters couldn't do it in 2016 or 2020. Its because most leftists believe whatever corporate media tells them to believe.
Daniela. I've been there too. This is what the left has become. I'm a gay liberal who grew up in the midwest detesting republicans. I grew up, realized how wrong I was in my understanding of what it meant to be liberal and saw massive shifts occur to those who called them liberals in the name of faux progress. I recognized that some voices on the right weren't "evil" like I was told they were. I won't join any party, but I still consider myself a liberal.
The pulse night club shooting is what “red pilled” me. Somehow the evil homophobe trump supporters at The_Donald subreddit were raising awareness and even had pinned posts about donating blood to the gay victims. Other places on Reddit were removing any mention of donations. There was also a lot of censorship since the shooter was from the “protected” religion. That’s what got me to browse the_donald for the first time. I realized what we were told about Trump supported hating gays was nonsense. Several people would make posts on there asking what everyone’s opinion was on gay relationships and vast majority said they didn’t give a fuck. They only cared whether you love America or not. What consensual adults do in their bedrooms doesn’t matter to me. They only hate those who exploit it for identity politics.
You might enjoy Dave Rubin describing him and his husband meeting Trump family:
That day was the limit of my ability to disagree and still respect though. I’m sure she had done plenty prior to that that I’m not aware of. And I’ve learned a lot more about her since that disgusts me. That’s just the straw the broke this camel’s back.
Respect and disagreement are different things in my opinion. I can disagree with someone and still show them respect. I can see that someone is making a mistake and still have respect for their dignity. Hell, even if they’re sacrificing their dignity to make said mistake I still try to respect where they might be coming from. I feel strongly that only in unity do we have any hope. And to unite we must stop being so easily divisible. Sometimes that takes showing respect to those who might not even necessarily deserve it. Cause ultimately we’re on the same side and want the same things: peace and survival for us and some damn justice got our oppressors.
Financially of course: price of everything goes up, we’re close to making a trillionaire, yet wages are the same $7.50/hr for us. Access to medical care wise obviously; any bad diagnosis could make me homeless like so many others. As a female and victim of sexual crime who’ll never see justice and instead constantly watches rapists become our leaders and set the standards for justice. As a citizen in constant fear of vengeance by the enemies we create. As a poor citizen who gets treated differently than elite. As a voter in a completely corrupt and rigged system. As a Brazilian foreigner who’s watched what American corporations and gov have done to South and Central America. And am now watching them bring it home to us here.
In my personal life I’m ok. I run my own little business and I do ok and am not as affected as others around me. I do feel lucky. But that doesn’t mean I’m not affected. We are all one. At the end of the day if my neighbor can’t get paid properly he can’t afford to buy my services. And even more so... I can’t sleep at night knowing that my neighbor is struggling to eat. We should all think more that way I feel. Maybe we wouldn’t be where we are.
Fair point. However Amy is right. Daniela is already awake- let’s welcome her for the change and not mock the mistakes she made - I was in her shoes 5 years ago too.
I know plenty of people in the so-called political “right” who would agree with many progressives on a wide range of issues. My home town of Columbus has turned into a single party dominated environment. Republicans are creatures of legend that are vilified but not really seen in elective office here any more. And what do we get? A Democrat run government at the city and county level that acts like the monsters they described Republicans to be. Our police were using excessive force last summer against protesters and people are losing confidence in the police.
I am a person of the political right and I will proudly work with anyone who will be honest with me and will work with me to find the areas where we agree. I disavow the ugly name calling and reputation destroying tactics that keep the “ruling elite” in power.
Daniela, the progressives (lefties) are extremely good at ginning up the emotion of victim-hood. Don't let them do that to you. If you keep telling yourself, or let anyone else tell you that you are a 'victim' you always will be. You are a person who had an incident(s) in your life but are stronger because of it, not weaker.
Those who consider themselves victims of the system, are generally losers who were unable to meet even the minimum level of success in their life, and are now bitter and wish to placate themselves by wallowing in victimhood.
Did you just called every oppressed and disadvantaged black and brown person in this country a bitter loser??!! Did you just say every family that lost their homes in the corporate and gov created housing bubble is simply placating blame for their inability to meet minimum levels of success standards?! Are you suggesting that every disenfranchised voter in this country is not to be considered a victim of a corrupt system?!
Don’t you ever get tired of blaming those who perhaps have indeed lost purpose and will in their lives and succumbed to living on crumbs?! Why don’t you ever look upward and try to figure out wtf fell on their heads and pushed them down so far?! Was it slave wages? Perpetual poverty? Was it lack of education? Was it lack of health care? Was it lack of community involvement? Was it abuse? Was it because we were too busy making billionaires to give a damn what their desperate needs were?!
Who profits??? THAT is who you should be looking at.
30, 40, 50 damn years in public office? There is no sane democracy in which that should/would be allowed. It takes the public “servant” right out of our public “officials”. They no longer serve for us or any cause but rather for purpose of a career. And the longer their career the more connections and leverage they have. And the less connected to the needs of the People they become. And because of all their connections, propaganda, election fraud and lobbying being legal and even encouraged we can’t ever vote them the f out. It’s infuriating! Like look at what happened to Shahid Buttar when he tried to unseat Pelosi. They made up lies, the media at his ass up, the squad stood by complicit as god Bernie and others, and Peloai never even felt it get warm. Not even during #ForceTheVote.
Why would someone put herself in the position of telling the the public about such a humiliating experience for no reason? Tara Reade made a strong case for being sexually assaulted by her boss to warn people about his behavior. It's not like Joe Biden has kept his hands to himself in public appearances over the years. He still touches children when they are vulnerable in front of cameras.
I am one of what's left of the left. Democracts have just a few that really are "leftist" and they all succumb to their donors and move to appease. That is why Disappointingacrats (my preferred name for them) fight off the Green Party so hard. One would think they'd appreciate the company. They dip their toes in here and there and we citizen voters have to decide what is the lesser evil.
Problem is that leftists are generally against private ownership of property. So unless the person agrees to private ownership (i.e. capitalism and markets), they would still be part of the indecent left.
As they have been doing to blacks for 50 years, and they are continually rewarded for it. So why should they stop? It's the right thing to do? Pfffffttttt... It's all about power.
Daniela Ferreira, I think AOC said she believed Tara Reade. I don't remember her saying she would still vote for Biden. However, given the choice between Trump and Biden, what should she have said? The media buried the Reade story which had merit. I wish we could have voted for Bernie Sanders but establishment Democrats made sure that was not a possibility. There was someone else who said she believed Tara but would still vote for Biden. I don't think it was AOC.
Try coming from classical liberal conservatism. Neocons have redefined freedom as freedom to do what ever we want to you for your own good, strong national defense as screwing around and blowing stuff up in other countries without a plan, and capitalism as corporate monopolies in cahoots with government regulators.
Right, freedom is fascism and the taint is all over the Biden administration. It's been such a long, exhausting year of utterly principle-free politics on the visible left that I've started to wonder if I was kidding myself all along.
It's actually not too hard to tell the difference between neocons and neoliberals. See if someone says we are bombing another country in the name of "freedom," that person is a neocon, but if someone says we are bombing another country in the name of "human rights," that is a neoliberal. Now if someone says they are kissing corporate ass in the name of "free markets," that person is a neocon, but says they are kissing corporate ass in the name of "social justice" that person is a neoliberal. Now if you are a traditional liberal or conservative you might wonder how they have anything to with your principles or values. Not to worry! As far as they are concerned all of your principles and values are outdated and they are smarter, better, and more moral than you ever were. What evidence they base this on given how questionable many of their current policies and actions are is still a mystery.
Again this is the same issue. We are all complaining that we cannot hold elite members of society accountable for the same things they hold us accountable for.
Yes, the neolibs have done that too. The point I was making is that the neocons want to take back the Republican party and they are pretending they are the only “principled" thing that can push back against the neoliberals. A lot of us on the right remember the damage that was done to this country by the neocons and now we are watching the transformation of the Democrat party in overdrive with some of it being the absolute worst impulses of the left and yet some of it feels suspiciously familiar. Of course, Bush era neocons being treated as political rockstars and self-proclaimed Marxists being overly friendly with corporate monopolies just because they chant the right slogan might have been a bit of a red flag. I’m getting flashbacks to when the elite pretended to care about Middle America, just to send rural kids overseas.
Right? The neolibs recently unironically brought GWB forward on the media as some sort of representation of a “principled republican.” I’m sorry, did I hallucinate and imagine the reality that he was behind lying about WMD to justify invading a country and starting a war that has lasted 20 years?? Or that he orchestrated the Patriot Act and ushered in a huge expansion of the security state?
It's been 20 years looking for WMD. The evil-doers keep moving them. First Iraq then Afghanistan, briefly in Libya, back to Afghanistan. Where will they show up next? Russia, Syria, Ukraine? Only CNN knows for sure.
The term absolutely refers to a vanishingly small number of people in the US. For all intents and purposes, there is no left in the US. The spectrum on the "visible left" (i.e. those who are generally accepted by the mainstream as being the left) ranges from Right Wing liberal (see Joe Manchin) to Social Democrat (see AOC and the squad who call themselves "democratic socialists" but, because they don't actually challenge the fundamental assumptions of capitalism are nothing more then "left liberals"). Literally, there is no "Left" in the US.
That's so far from correct that the light from correct won't even reach it for another 20 years. Capitalism doesn't have some ideal state where everything "works". It's a system based on the explicit exploitation of the working class. Capitalism is ALL we have.
"It's a system based on the explicit exploitation of the working class. Capitalism is ALL we have."
You're right. You are light years from correct. You have no idea what Capitalism is. Do you even have a dictionary? Shit, MARX's definition of Capitalism is closer to the truth than yours. How does the system that sets up a natural, private sector DEMAND for workers possibly EXPLOIT the working CLASS?!?! A gun is being held to the workers' heads?
It is the State, the PUBLIC sector, that exploits workers, stealing their money and destroying wealth creation and rising living standards by co-opting the private sector with crony-Capitalism, another word fro ANTI-Capitalism.
Government jobs are generally stable and secure. We need more public service workers to help run the country. Private industry will not be there when you need them after they do a cost benefit analysis of preparation for emergencies. Fund government agencies and services and they will be there when you need them.
Capitalism is a system where you create a good or service useful to me and I pay you for it. If you don’t produce something useful or you create something defective, I don’t pay you and you go bankrupt. That’s capitalism.
Now please show me where this capitalism is? Is bailing out companies which don’t produce useful stuff capitalism? Is bailing out banks which made poor and corrupt decisions capitalism? Is giving subsidies to tech companies capitalism? Is telling tech companies to censor viewpoints capitalism? Nope. Those are all crony capitalism and much more closer to communism than capitalism (since the government is the one deciding who gets bailouts, who gets subsidies, who gets tax payer cash).
Exactly! Capitalism is a liberal project. Its the liberal economic system. I agree to make something and you agree to pay me for the cost. What we have in the United States has been morphed so many ways that it isn't capitalism because of how much interference there is between government and third parties demanding what two separate parties have decided is fair.
Capitalism isn't divorced from the political system. Capitalism is a system whereby the most powerful entity in society is Capital. Capitalism always turns to "crony capitalism" because once Capital grows to a certain point, any further investment is made in purchasing more investment opportunities. This is the hallmark of so called "late stage" capitalism - exporting capital rather than resources. Imperialism, effectively. "This capitalism" you speak of doesn't exist because what you're describing is not capitalism. What you're describing is the nature of commodity transactions under capitalism.
Whatever capitalism may be, and wether it would work, we will never know. Because you’re right. That’s not what we have. What we have is crony capitalism; a corrupt corporate oligarchy. A rigged version of what could possibly otherwise be a functional system managed by the worst amongst us.
No. Profits are EXACTLY what help people raise their standards of living. Stop and think about what you are saying. Do you work for no personal "profit"? If you say yes, I don't believe you apprehend reality.
These endless talking points involving terms like left, right, liberal, capitalism, socialism etc revolve entirely around the notion that rather than develop a shared definition, we instead bring our own pet definition to the party so we can virtue signal our tribe and cast memorized talking at those outside our tribe. The last thing we need around here is an agreed definition. Where's the fun in that?
Glenn, don't worry, there are quite a few posters here who (rightfully) state the DNC doesn't represent the left.
That doesn't mean they aren't left, only that the DNC isn't correctly representing the left. At least according to multiple posters here.
Im not sure who the DNC does represent now, since people on the left say it's not them and those of us on the right are quite certain it isn't us. How do these DNC elites keep getting elected then?
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi grew up in the 1960's...Yet we have not a single picture of them standing up for minority rights or marching with the marchers during that time.
> How do these DNC elites keep getting elected then?
Unfortunately, I think the answer is propaganda and cultural despair. Many people have been deceived into thinking they have representation when they don't. Besides that, there are many people who don't think they have representation, but simply don't care: they've never thought that they had or could have representation. Negating matters more to these people than anything constructive. They seem especially common among Gen Z, from what I notice.
There was a really good quote I learned of from one of Chris Hedges' essays. I think it's very accurately describing what is going on now, and this whole discussion about what words like "leftism" mean:
> Victor Klemperer, who was dismissed from his post as a professor of Romance languages at the University of Dresden in 1935 because of his Jewish ancestry, astutely noted how at first the Nazis “changed the values, the frequency of words, [and] made them into common property, words that had previously been used by individuals or tiny troupes. They confiscated words for the party, saturated words and phrases and sentence forms with their poison. They made language serve their terrible system. They conquered words and made them into their strongest advertising tools [Werebemittle], at once the most public and most secret.” And, Klemperer noted, as the redefinition of old concepts took place the public was oblivious.
The language is intentionally being poisoned. Changing the meaning of words and sowing division makes political dissent very difficult because nobody knows what anyone else is talking about anymore. Positive/negative paired associations are created with words and are endlessly repeated, because the brain learns primarily through repetition, and it changes how you think even if you are aware of it - so people will associate "Russian" with "hacker", for example.
The end result seems to be that we all focus on attacking our imaginations of other people and groups while struggling to create a common reality or consensus to be able to communicate with each other, because our sense of reality has been deliberately attacked and shattered. This is why groups like the CIA hire psychologists. Just look at this creepy recruitment video, linked by their Twitter feed. #PsyOpsRUs!
Don't you think it's instructive that they recruit for psychologists and not psychiatrists?
That's not a mistake. It was Canadian psychologists like Donald Hebb from Montreal University who helped the CIA develop the torture techniques used in places like Abu Ghraib (Alfred McCoy, "A Question of Torture," page 36.
The prefer psychologists to psychiatrist because they have not taken the Hippocratic oath so do not face the same ethical standards and oversight enforced within the MD community.
The rest of your post was also spot on. Well done.
We should start to distinguish between left sentiments, and the culture from which they're being broadcasted. Left sentiments are dumb, emotional stuff with some deep human insight and hot, old world ethics built on top. The culture from which they're being broadcasted is just whoever has the biggest grin on their faces when these culture wars play themselves out.
Just because someone, or some very large group is EXPRESSING left sentiments, doesn't mean they're expression is in service of those sentiments. If something has transcended ideology, or indeed, the rational capacity itself, then it doesn't really matter what sentiments you express unless you get a firm grip on the power dynamics through which you are expressing them.
Corporatism is just such a transcendental power structure. It has transcended left and right sentiments, as evidenced by how fluently power retools those sentiments to contort or jam absolutely any challenge to its omnipotence.
It's taking us deeper down the rabbit hole to keep calling these expressions of dominant power "left." They are what they serve, and they're not serving the public.
Why does every Greenwald article generate a dozen "No True Scotsman" comments. Just assume everyone else knows you are thinking it and it will save you time writing it.
I'm starting to suspect that you're just like the "liberals" (corporatists) in that your vapid compulsion to smear is equaled by you incapacity to substantiate.
It comical that you think an accusation of fallacious logic doesn't include any demonstration whatsoever of how the argument was fallacious.
The absence of that demonstration almost certainly means you're full of shit.
But it also helps knowing that everyone who tries to accuse me of fallacy is full of shit, since unlike corporatists, I haven't spent my life constructing a worldview out of logical fallacy.
But do, go ahead and try (and fail) to demonstrate it.
Glenn, too much time is wasted talking about the left and right and blaming things on a political ideology. We need to move beyond left and right and talk substance, historical reference, civic relevance, and our goals for the future. Clarity of the message can bring unity for a common purpose, peace and prosperity for all. Call me a dreamer.
I dream too. Hopefully one day. But it’s not looking good imho. Too many righteous AF people amongst us and to little who give any f’ks amongst them. And a simply overwhelming skinny of propaganda and hateful traditions in between.
They're "left" - for Democrats. But they're still Democrats. Even Sunrise is promoting the Dems' watered-down version of the Green New Deal, not the Green one.
You might be right about "vanishingly small," though.
This particular argument over who is “left” and who is not is so tiresome and naive. The immediate complaint is always that someone who is a bad person cannot be of the political “left”, because by definition, the “left” is well intentioned.
Got some news for you, this isn’t about left and right, this is about power. And lust for power is not constrained to any particular political orientation.
Agreed, but today which party would you choose in your quest for power/money? The party which generally gets a pass ( and sometimes vigorous encouragement ) by legacy news, talk shows, mass entertainment, or the GOP? If Hunter was Trump's son, would the story would be framed differently?
I think what we have going on is a shift in different overton windows to different directions. The left and their grievances culture of emotions over fact have shifted the culture far to the left and ceded the intellectual debate to the right. Theres plenty of those historically of "the left" picking apart what has become of the left and its excessive takeover of the culture, but they are lumped in my that same left as "right wing" for daring to speak in disagreeable manners. Add to that they (this new left) labels any who are critical of them, which is what everyone should be open to in a functioning liberal society especially if they are liberal, as being right wing and obnoxious and absurd isms and ists. Most of the intellectuals critical of this leftist cultism can't even individually be boxed very well as left wing or right wing. I would describe them all as being liberal though because they stand by the principles of being critiqued and critiquing themselves. They are are also for thr most part self-critical individuals as well.
Remember the high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas in 1990s? And how many people showed up to storm the capitol during anti Kavanaugh protests? Were they all “right” wing and you like to deflect blame?
Agreed, I am always disturbed at how Glenn now uses the term "liberals". It is as if he has taken a playbook from conservatives who try to paint very conservative Democrats (like Clinton and Obama) as "liberal". Or equating MSNBC's Maddow with liberals. These are all conservatives who play to liberal audiences, but are not even slightly progressive in any way. I wish Glenn would come up with some other term to describe the conservatives who play to Democrat audiences. At best, I would call them Neolibs, but not "liberal".
Leftists and corporatists? Leftists are the far left busbodies and morality police pushing crt, and corporations the unprincipled pundits who so it for the money and just cater to an audience, not principle
If you are a corporatist war monger, you can't be politically left. Since virtually all elected Democrats and Republicans are hyper-capitalist, gunboat diplomatists who want a cold or hot war with Russia and China, then calling any of them liberal is just falling into a mental trap. They are extremely conservative, regardless of what part of the electorate they cater to with lip service.
Just my opinion but I don't see it as a shift but a reversal. If you had to ask someone back 30 years ago the positions held by both sides on sexuality the left would have sounded like the right today, and the evangelical right's positions of purity and prudishness would perfectly align with the modern left (ignoring the outliers).
@edwardc_sf -- The is that people on the right do not indulge in cancel culture. Their attitude is live and let live. It is the ideological left that an't stand anyone, including the liberal left if they disagree with their opinions. This should be obvious to all, but the most regressive of leftists.
You have a legitimate point here, but why you take "offense?" You may not like it, or you may disagree on the merits, but "offense" in our hypersensitive culture conveys some sense of " the other" being morally wrong just for stating the idea. I actually think you are correct on your point, but feelings shouldn't be the primary issue. The evidence underlying the argument should be. Our obsession with taking offense is the sword that the tyrants are using to lop off the heads of good people.
It would help to hear those of you constantly preaching "These people aren't the left" would also in that same scree say "but here is who I think is left".
And if they can’t point to any allegations of sexual misconduct, they come up with other things they can lie about. We’re living in a dangerously “J’accuse!” moment. If you’re tried in a court of law there are rules of due process, but if you’re tried in the court of public opinion it’s unbelievable the lies that are out there - and how well they work.
Just so, Ms. Williamson, and the rule of law is being rendered a sneering *joke in the process.
The good thing is that the law finally *listens to abused women. The bad news is that the law, like a pendulum, is currently in the opposite "warp" of its previous position via listening to accusers, in this case, of behavior purported to have taken place 18 years ago, uncritically,
and with prejudice to the accuser.
As disgusting as I personally find Judge Kavanaugh, he was being accused of behavior that allegedly took place back in *high school (before he was legally an adult).
I understand the fact that right now, things are very confusing, because protections for women under the law are SO recent,
and SO long overdue.
As we continue to balance the system, however, there needs to be considered something on the order of a statute of limitations. If someone is the victim of felony, they should be *required to report that fact within much less than two decades, or lose the right to report it at all.
The law and the society that allowed women *no recourse to this kind of sexual pawing was *way out of balance. The correction of that same law is now *way out of balance because *it can now be so easily abused in any cases where women were perhaps *not themselves abused; especially when 18 years after the real or imagined offense, they finally decide that they need justice.
This is what Courts are for. To determine innocence or guilt.
NO case should be tried in the media, and NO accusations should
be "automatically believed" prior to due process. Courts decide relative innocence or guilt. Not the media.
Women *abusing such change in law do no favor to their fellow females who really were/are victims. Over the years this will tend to "even out", at least by the time that all females are *born into a time covered by the now more equitable laws applying to the offenses.
But for now, the laws are far *too easy for women to abuse.
We have gone from one "arc" of unbalance to its opposite.
One small item to consider that admittedly may not have been your point in your excellent analysis. In Aya Gruber’s recent book "The Feminist War on Crime: The Unexpected Role of Women's Liberation in Mass Incarceration"
Ms. Gruber gives a history of sexual abuse towards women in America along with accusation of sexual assault made by women and how it has been handled. Despite current folklore that sexual abuse towards women along with accusations of sexual abuse were historically tolerated and not taken seriously, it depends which sexual abuse we are talking about.
No question that inappropriate comments made about women in the work place that were once OK are now rightly unacceptable. Of course, that's part of a larger trend about what can and cannot be said in the work place.
When it comes to accusations of sexual assault and rape, particularly by white heterosexual women, however, there is a long tradition of such accusations being taken extremely seriously in American society, often more seriously than murder itself. Think of "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee in 1960. In addition to the obvious message on race, it was also a message about how a women could escape the social stigma of being ostracized for breaking a societal taboo by claiming she was forced to do the unacceptable act rather than admit it was consensual. The punishment for a man facing such an accusation has always been steep whether the accusation was ever proved in court or not. It's the reason reporters historically would not publish an unconfirmed accusation, which they knew would have a large impact regardless of the facts.
American was built on strict sexual purity culture so an accusation of rape or assault particularly by a white women was often at maximum a death sentence for the accused, at minimum a very long prison sentence and permanent social stigma. Depending on the group the accused belonged to he may very well end up as "Strange Fruit" long before a trial took place.
Rather than a pendulum on the topic of sexual related accusations, such claims have always been taken seriously and destroyed more than a few political careers even without a jury and before the #MeToo movement.
Where claims of sexual assault, rape and violence were historically ignored was within the family, or a serious relationship. I would argue things have improved, but this still remains an issue that does not get the attention it deserves because we remain to focused on the stranger danger boogeyman.
There were historically more legal protections in place for defendants of sexual assault accusation in the past so that has changed, but thee damage done by the accusation alone has always been serious.
@ Areslent For some reason Substack sent me five copies of your comment above ! ;-D
There is *no question that women have been abused throughout history. Even up to the year 1920 in the U.S., the year when women received the right to vote, the same political platform won for women nationwide change in the laws for the minimum age for of sexual consent for females to be moved *UP to the age of sixteen. In various states and territories up until that time, the age for sexual consent was as low as age ten, and all over the map from there. (This is even mentioned in the Ken Burns Documentary "Prohibition".) Even where I grew up in Montana in the Sixties, where the age of consent was sixteen, over in South Dakota, the age of consent was fourteen. (Some places don't care *what the Federal government says.) So, yes the historical record was, and to various degrees remains, completely dismal.
However, right now great changes really *are sweeping the earth. Religious, political, societal, etc. To my mind this is the time to institute massive changes to the System that are long overdue. So, it achieves nothing (but revenge) to swap the prior abuses of one gender to the present abuses of the opposite gender, as we have recently done in our public grade schools in the name of "fairness". Favoring *either gender is not the point. Educating both genders is the point.
The same idea applies in law. We need to strive to make the law fair and equitable to *all people. Yes, the laws have favored men since the beginning of laws. To now simply warp the law in the other direction accomplishes nothing.
It favors another class, but it is just as warped and imbalanced to the other side. What is needed, of course, is law balanced in the middle, as the Classic Statue of "Blind Justice" demonstrates.
The law can only change the *conditions that allowed past injustice. The law cannot retroactively *change the actual injustices of the past. It can only change the present and the future.
Any law that *can be abused, by any party, at any point, is a law in dire need of immediate repeal, or of immediate amendment.
That it is possible in the political climate of today to railroad an individual on a charge from multiple decades ago, when witnesses are no longer as reliable in memory, and documents are gone or never existed is not an equitable
law. It is never the province of the Court to decide "he said - she said" cases from twenty or more years ago. All infractions of law must be reported in a timely manner so that actions of due process and justice are more likely to be applied to the case.
Any law that *can be "used and abused" *must be rewritten sooner than later. Our legal system, like our medical systems, like our financial systems may *never be perfect, but they *must be improved ala our "Pledge of Allegiance" in the direction "of liberty and justice for all".
Oh, right! GLF '58-'62, melting pots to change from an agrarian economy into a communist society, an economic failure. Cultural Revolution '66-'76, violent socio-political purge, economic activity halted, historical and cultural destruction, another economic failure. Both of them Mao's folly.
The crux or the article is that Democrats (in control) are scum. This is currently playing out in just about every major city in the USA. They don't have a moral compass nor any concept of fair play. So that begs the question, why do the good Democrats stay Democrats?
Because have you seen what happens to wannabe third parties?! DNC sends in their lawyers and some crazy how they never get to be on ballots. I truly believe Bernie could’ve changed that had he ran Independent or Green. Both of which he was essentially begged to do by us and the Party members. He chose to stay with the DNC. Even after what all happened in ‘16.
I think you are being over optimistic about what any "outsider" will be able to accomplish. It is not going to be up to a person/politician, it is going to be the people from all stripes that find common ground in what is truly important. Bernie isn't a freedom guy, he is a collectivist. Also, for all the years he has been in government, truth is all of his life, what has he accomplished? I fear you would have been very disappointed with him had he made it to the presidency. I have never seen him stand up to the illness that Glenn just pointed out. Where was he on Kavanaugh?
I should clarify that I was only saying Bernie could’ve broken the barrier to actually installing a third party on the ballots. Because he had massive numbers and we would’ve voted for him had he ran not Democrat. Would loose some D votes but actually gain others who won’t vote Democrat, no matter who. I believe it would’ve gotten a third Party on the ballots finally.
I’ve since learned he probably wouldn’t have been the best President. But when compared to Hillary, Trump or Biden.... I would have to still pick Bernie. Just for the sake of being able to swallow.
There have been multiple third party candidates. Anderson and Perot come to mind. Libertarian's have thrown as few in also. The Republicans and Democrats (especially the Dems) are machines. Big city patronage jobs, the teachers union, and every single public employee union for that matter. So it must be reasonable and rational people that make change happen. Like you for example! I know I am ALL IN.
Preach! I just received a letter that my voter registration needs to change, as Greens no longer qualify to be on the ballot in my heavily Dem state. Time to leave!
Great article but I wish you had spent more time discussing the hypocrisy where they turn a blind eye to Biden and Cuomo. It feels like after they gaslighted Bidens accusations they pretty much destroyed the MeToo movement. Dont take me wrong Glenn I love your writings, always makes me smile when I open my email and see something from you.
It's not really hypocrisy, those men are actual corporate tools, not working class heros. So, they stand behind them. If it was sincere, it would be hypocrisy. It isn't, it's just spin used to take aim at the working class representation. Same thing with many 'racism' claims. It's used when convenient in the class warfare battle we are currently being pummeled in.
This piece is perfection. Seriously, if it were a person, I would marry it.
I’m a survivor of physical and sexual abuse, and no, you are not required to believe me, for the simple reason that you don’t know me and have no way to gauge my credibility. If you don’t believe me, I won’t call you a rape apologist, I promise. I won’t even feel unsafe. Or harassed. Or retraumatized.
The mantra “Believe Survivors” always begs the question: how do you know whether the person making an allegation is a survivor? What the mantra really means is “Believe every person who makes an allegation,” which is absurd on its face.
More precisely, it's believe every person who make an allegation against someone we want to take out. The whole tragicomic Kavanagh/Ford charade laid bare a purely political endgame which had absolutely nothing to do with any actual concern for an alleged survivor. Ford was the most -- and most willing -- transparent of pawns.
I usually use the signs as a gauge of true sentiment. When truckloads of pre-printed signs show up to anything, it is an attack by the outrage "industry" and we can be sure 99% of everything from that point is manufactured. I've never seen anyone in media explore this industry. They are content to believe they are witnessing true protest and popular anger as opposed to manufactured political tactics serving some unknown political force pushing far deeper, nefarious goals. We are gaslighted constantly from all sides and angles and few with any resources to explore it actually do. At this point,, when I see the pre-printed mass outrage machine show up, I tune out and ignore anything they have to say. I don't know who is behind it or why they are there, but I can definitely see the smokescreen.
I’ve seen it go both ways. I’ve sent people use an allegation against someone they wouldn’t have supported anyway. But I’ve also seen people turn against those they’d previously supported, based on an allegation. Morse is a good example of the latter. There really isn’t a lot of consistent logic to it.
I don't think these people actually have principles or even care about actual justice. They simply wanted to exploit Morse for being gay - until they figured out they he was "tainted". Then he abandoned him at the crucial time when he actually needed support and they moved on to their next pawn. I have seen this happen countless times with how minorities get used as pawns. H1B visas are a perfect example.
I wholeheartedly agree. Many people on the left, like many people in religious institutions, want to feel good about themselves rather than do good for others. I've been on the left all my life, and I've seen people fixated on having the proper politics in order to feel right about who they are, so they support gay politicians like Morse -- until, as you say, he is "tainted," at which point they switch allegiances in order to feel good about who they are for rejecting a so-called sexual predator. That Morse is not a sexual predator matters nothing, because it's all about the self-image of the onlooker. It's not about changing anything at all.
Well, what mystifies me is why it doesn’t occur to anyone to fight back, using any weapon from truth to lies. You can actually sue the ass off liars under certain circumstances. Or you can have someone step forth or accuse the accuser.
I really don’t know how long it will be before someone realizes they should be doing this on social media. Shame me on Twitter? I will absolutely make sure your darkest secrets will provide entertainment for millions.
I think that, when an allegation = truth, innocent people who are accused know that the truth of the matter won't matter at all. So they don't fight back, because they wonder, why bother?
In any case, I personally would not want to retaliate by bringing to light other people's secrets. I don't think a race to the bottom is the way to go. Our cultural discourse is degraded enough.
I think that the person accused can't believe that it is happening, that it's a mistake, that it will go away, he/she will wake up from a bad dream. They don't know how to fight back against those they thought were their supporters/mentors. Its as if they become catatonic. Kavanaugh initially looked like a deer in the headlights until Pres Trump told him he wasn't going to withdraw his nomination and told him to fight back.
I think suing would be hard when - you are against the establishment AND when you are a public figure. Courts are corrupt - even more in Washington.
Stringer spoke out against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation using much of the same rhetorical devices now wielded by his opponents in the mayoral race. I get that Glenn is arguing for the broader ideal, but I have no sympathy for Scott Stringer. You reap what you sow. Here's the link for those that are interested...
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/comptroller-stringer-statement-denouncing-confirmation-of-judge-kavanaugh/
He also called on Andrew Cuomo to resign over such allegations. Let me make clear: I don't care about Stringer himself at all. As you say, it's the principle that matters here. This stuff is repulsive.
https://nypost.com/2021/03/08/scott-stringer-calls-on-cuomo-to-resign/
Glenn it's so bad. And they're using the Asian hate PR campaign to make it worse.
You know that the AAPI campaign started after Nate Silver published data showing Asians consistently support Democrats only if they feel victimized by racism, right?
Recruiting "victims" is a DNC core competency.
When victimhood becomes currency, there’s bound to be counterfeit. - old comment under Glenn’s video.
That's a good comment.
The biggest result when they eat their own is that they don't field their best team when it comes to domestic politics. People don't really need to wonder why we never have good Dem candidates for president, and we end up electing President not-Trump-not-Sanders.
But the second biggest result is that we suffer overall as a country for not having those candidates reach their potential, we really do.
The funny thing is that the real racism against Asians comes from democrat policies.
Last year California voted to repeal the "anti discrimination" amendment. It passed the house and senate but fortunately FOR NOW failed in the election (43% still voted to repeal it). Just read who the supporters are and who opposes it:
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)
Also Biden dropped the lawsuit against universities discriminating against asians and whites as soon as he took office:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/doj-drops-suit-accusing-yale-of-discriminating-against-white-asian-students.html
Also this "asian" lawsuit against universities also often lumps in south asian (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc) into the "asian" category as convenient because Indians and Pakistanis are also quite high achievers, so they get discriminated against too.
If people woke up to the fact that they are actually voting for racism while crying about racism, then the world would be a better place.
And in the new Asian hate crime bill, all Senate Democrats "opposed an amendment that would prohibit federal funds from going to universities that discriminate against Asians in admissions and recruitment." It's impossible for every person/group to have the same outcome and the push towards it only causes discrimination. Plus, they wouldn't want to anger the Ivy Leagues...the pipeline of our nation's "leaders."
https://thepostmillennial.com/senate-dems-oppose-federal-funding-discriminate-asians
But the Democrat's favorite tool of racial division, critical race theory, puts Asian people in oppressor status, so maybe they're going for both angles and seeing what works best for them....?? Either way, it's disgusting.
Link?
Is it this? https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-recent-violence-against-asian-americans-may-solidify-their-support-of-democrats/
Thanks!!!
The thing that is being hidden by the media is that way too many attacks on Asians are carried out by African/Americans. It is very weird since Asians don't seem to have much negative contact with that community. Other than being victims of crime.
What's the right number of attacks on Asian Americans by black Americans?
Look, it's not weird. Or racially motivated. Black Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crimes in the U.S. relative to their percentage of the population. There were 150 or so hate crimes motivated by anti-Asian bias in 2019. Really, it's not a thing.
One has to be careful. Hate crime data that measures race of victim and assailant say that black on asian hate crime is nowhere near the majority in a typical year. Right now the majority of what we see on the news is that, though.
But that could be real or it could be selection bias.
Tony Timpa once said "We only see black people killed by cops make it onto TV", but those events are 25% of the total, so Peyton Ham told me that clearly there is selection bias there.
Only 25%? Seems to me it has been at least two years since we have heard about 100% of those (white cop killing Black resister/tragic-victim-of-mistake).
No that's what the media is SELLING.
I don't think so. Media is making the white man the boogeyman for that too.
Yet they won't undo the injustice happening in the colleges today!
The funny thing is that the real racism against Asians comes from democrat policies.
Last year California voted to repeal the "anti discrimination" amendment. It passed the house and senate but fortunately FOR NOW failed in the election (43% still voted to repeal it). Just read who the supporters are and who opposes it:
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)
Also Biden dropped the lawsuit against universities discriminating against asians and whites as soon as he took office:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/doj-drops-suit-accusing-yale-of-discriminating-against-white-asian-students.html
Also this "asian" lawsuit against universities also often lumps in south asian (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc) into the "asian" category as convenient because Indians and Pakistanis are also quite high achievers, so they get discriminated against too.
If people woke up to the fact that they are actually voting for racism while crying about racism, then the world would be a better place.
As someone who lives where Stringer's Community Free Democrats reign's supreme, I have no love for Stringer. Many of his positions may be considered "progressive" but the actions he has taken over the years to protect the power of the political club is totally regressive. I remember when one of their members took a position that George W. should be impeached and that the club's patron saint Jerrold Nadler should lead the fight. The club started a campaign against the person accusing her behind her back of being anti-Semitic. No more powerful attack against a person on the Upper West Side of Manhattan than that. Stringer was Nadler's hatchet man, and seemed to relish the role.
If there are political cannibals in this country the left are surly them. No need to look further these morally bankrupt soulless power seekers are like sharks with blood in the water. They will at some point attack one an other when confronted with possible loss of their power or political position. Ever see them resort to racist slurs when a black person does not toe their liberal line. White leftists have NO qualms about utilizing the worst stereotypes and disgusting language as if those under attack were not human. Justice Thomas, Ben Carson, Senator Scott were all subject to the lefts pernicious smears and all without ANY pushback by mainstream Democrats or even the elected officials remained silent and said nothing. The left in this country is truly a danger to our Constitutional Republic since their actions and ambition will let little or nothing stand in the way of their quest for power. Even racist smears and name calling are acceptable. Gay bashing is just a small step for them.
Good for you! What a hypocrite. He doesn't represent a progressive agenda which is what his position in the Kavanaugh case said to me, but like so many progressives these days they are totally opportunistic, and have no backbone. Their political careers come first.
They're all a part of the DNC
Thanks for that, I was feeling quite sorry for the guy, now I feel better. I'm reminded of the slayer queen Harris and her edited tweets, Diane Feinstein and her unvetted victims. No sympathy for Stringer.
That's not the point at all. I don't even like Stringer
Maybe it should be one of the reasons you don't like him, since what's worse in the political arena, or in your personal life, then a hypocrite.
This reminds me of a funny Norm MacDonald joke. Patton Oswalt told Norm that the worst part of the Bill Cosby scandal was Cosby's hypocrisy. Norm disagreed. He thought it was the raping.
And another one, so many, What about, Clinton, Samantha Power, and Rice who claimed that a genocide was taking place in Libya. They claimed they were going in their to save it's people. Yes, we're all heart. No genocide, of course, just all about toppling Gadhafi because we didn't like his political agenda. That's hypocrisy for you, and America is full of it and many are dead because of it.
Well yes, but when politicians are hypocritical it's not quite the same. Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state under Bill Clinton said in 2016 if you were a woman and didn't vote for Hilary there was a special place in hell for you. She is the woman when asked if killing 500 thousand children due to the continuation of sanctions on Iraq was worth it. She said yes, oh maybe that's when she became Bill's secretary of state, because he liked what she had to say. Hypocrisy among politicians can be deadly. Not one person deadly, but hundreds and hundreds of dead.
Uhh they're all hypocrites in Government.
Absolutely, and this Covid pandemic has made that all the more obvious. Fortunately I didn't get sick from Covid 19, but politicians, and all the time in the world to listen to them made me really sick.
Of all of the things that disgust me in our society right now, and there are many, this one is the absolute worst. Innocent until proven guilty has been a foundation of our free society since inception. That some people are so willing to condemn based on accusation alone shows us, among other things, that they neither understand nor appreciate our fragile democracy. I wonder how they will feel when it happens to them, their sons, their fathers, their spouses. Unfortunately, some people only learn from direct experience. God help us.
Unfortunately, if you were to confront the people engaging in this sort of behavior they would (if they talked to you at all) claim that presumption of innocence is only required in a legal context, not a social context. You see a similar pattern with free speech: people try to defend private censorship by saying that the First Amendment only applies to the government, while ignoring the fact that the amendment is just a legal codification of the general principle of free speech. It's a poor defense in free speech cases and it's a poor defense here, but I'm sure that's the defense you would hear.
It's shocking that so many are unable to grasp the values that generate cultural mores, virtues, and customary law. As you note, the principle of free speech is codified in law. The underlying value is truth. Without the free exchange of ideas humankind cannot arrive at truth. The same with the principle of due process, without which we cannot arrive at justice, which, in turn, requires ascertaining truth. The practices of free speech and due process are both manifestations of truth-seeking as the virtue by which we find truth. The scientific method is also a codification of truth seeking methods. Glenn is right. These people are without principle and seek only power. Truth is their enemy. Evil defined.
Perfectly written, M. Mostly disagreeable! You just said the agreeable part of your personality, imo.
Political correctness undermines free speech. Cancel culture undermines the presumption of innocence. Both tactics are embraced by people with stunted minds (leftists) and promoted by opportunists (neoliberals).
“Political correctness: is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” ― Theodore Dalrymple
Anthony Malcolm Daniels? Where did he write that, M. News, if you don't mind doing the research for me?
Absolutely TRUE ! I subscribe to neither Party, but I would be even more comfortable if the "stunted minds" being referred to were described as "neoleftists" right along with your accurately stated "neoliberals". These words have almost *no meaning anymore, but as a 72 yr. old Vietnam Vet, I STILL love the LEFT
that, working from back home, *ENDED the Vietnam War.
The meaning of the term "leftist" has changed since the '60s. The best way for the ruling class to destroy an ideology is to corrupt the movement and change the definition of its name, thereby erasing it from history - right out of 1984. That's what the enemies of the left have done. The word "left" is now a dirty word, it stands for censorship, McCarthyism, authoritarianism, persecution and corporate power. The ruling class owns that word, time to find or invent another one.
I would offer up "progressive" except the ruling class is in the process of co-opting that term as well.
"McCarthyism"? It doesn't fit with the others. Perhaps "Wilsonism" since Woodrow Wilson actually did the things you are talking about.
McCarthyism is like cancel culture. Destroy someone's reputation and get them fired and blacklisted, not for breaking any law but for breaking some arbitrary moral or political code.
But McCarthy didn't do any of that. ALL of his attacks were on government officials who had violated national security laws.
@ 8C
Thanks for the update. The neoconservative will be broken-hearted if the neoleftist has appropriated McCarthyism ! So, in truth, I guess none of these labels have current meaning past their "fifteen minutes of fame".
Stringer in this case is learning from direct experience. He did the same thing to Kavanaugh as well as Cuomo. He’s reaping what he sowed as the top comment mentions.
So true. Karma is a bitch.
I don’t know that he can lol. Not without breaking his own rules. Seeing as he gave us free will and what not. So... yeah🥵
Only way to solve the problem is by shaming and exposing these hypocrites and double standards - regardless of the tribe. Get it to spread to as many people as one can.
Trump bombs Syria - expose it.
Biden bombs Syria - expose it.
This reminded me of something Chesterton said about children: “We feel the same kind of obligation to these creatures that a deity might feel, had he created something that he could not understand.”
I hadn't heard or read that. Thank you!
They'll do the "right" thing and turn their family members in.
Naturally.
And, unlike Amy, "they" hate wrong Moslems -- a la "Uyghurs good - Arab bad"
Perhaps you describe 1 (one) of thousands (1000's) of such "gated communities."
Yes, but 1) even archaic trolls have freedom of speech, and 20 at least he said, "...unlike Amy...," or was that itself sarcasm?
Hope you’re having a good weekend Glenn. You made mine. Not that it’s gonna be good news (haven’t read yet). It’s just good to hear from you 🥰
Oohhh... LOVING the independent journalists and others you’re bringing onboard btw. Intelligent and powerful voices we might never hear otherwise. Thank you deeply. In this chaotic time of absolute propaganda it is important/imperative we hear them. I only hope more and more will at least hear them out and become willing to scrutinize not just their work and how they got to their conclusion. But our own research and studies and how we got us to ours. Whatever they may be.
#FreeAssange #ForceTheVote
This is a bit random, but for some reason reading this article and the comments here, your #FreeAssange notion just happened to remind me of an excellent series of articles I read years ago that barely received any attention, and I think would be of interest to a lot of people here. (Not sure why that just came to mind - the brain is weird!)
A psychology PhD., Dr. Lissa Johnson, wrote an excellently sourced and extensive 6-part series of investigative journalism on the Assange case and the US government's secret war against journalism, free speech, and WikiLeaks that began in 2008, going into how they use psychology and propaganda to manipulate our thought.
It's more relevant to today than ever with the continuation of that secret war that Greenwald has been covering, and how it illuminates use of propaganda and psychology as well as the way it has an effect on our brains: https://newmatilda.com/2019/02/23/psychology-getting-julian-assange-part-1-whats-torture-got/
It also goes into the torture of Julian Assange that had yet to be widely acknowledged by people such as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer (who I must remind everyone could not get his findings posted by any mainstream media and ultimately had them published on the prestigious Medium.com at https://medium.com/@njmelzer/demasking-the-torture-of-julian-assange-b252ffdcb768 where he warns us of a "a precedent likely to seal the fate of Western democracy"), and the psychology of Russiagate.
Apologies if this comes across as spam/advertising - just an IMO very informative piece of journalism that was widely missed, as it was posted on an obscure independent Australian site.
Great references, thanks!
When ever I am discussing politics and politicians with my peer group (well educated, left leaning or libertarian professionals and businesspeople). The question comes up as to why none of us has ever considered running for office. The universal reaction is: Why would anyone with a brain want to enter a profession in which your competitors try to destroy you?
There are some noble people in the business of politics, but it largely attracts people who love power and will do whatever is required to get it and keep it.
The more one thinks about the inherent problems with "democracy" as it is understood today, the more it looks like electing from eligible pool by random draw would be a much better option.
Or, as William F. Buckley Jr said: "I Would Rather Be Governed By the First 2,000 People in the Telephone Directory than by the Harvard University Faculty."
Gore Vidal still should have punched him in the face, but on this one Buckley was 100% right!
I forget their age differences, but Buckley had him by at least 40 ponds and 3 inches. I'd bet on Buckley, mano-a-mano!
I once knew someone in academics whose department needed a new chair-person. The first rule they agreed to was that anyone who applied was immediately disqualified by virtue of wanting the position. That approach might also be useful in politics.
What are we going to do, bribe people to lead?
Maybe we can drag the reluctant ones into positions of "leadership" kicking and screaming.
"But I don't WANT to be a politician!"
"That's why we need you."
Yeah, there was a pretty funny indent a few weeks ago, about choosing our leaders randomly (you know, as a better way). I can just see a chosen citizen explaining, "But I thought I bought a lottery ticket!"
Option: Read Dan Larimers ‘More Equal Animals’. It’s an interesting proposition.
Thank you for reminding me. I've been meaning to read this!
You can download it for free on the web site. 👍🏻
100%. You receive a phone call out of the blue. They say “It’s your turn” and you show up, unblemished by previous contacts and ready to serve based on what YOU believe is correct.
Sad. It was never meant to be like this. The Founders intended citizens to serve for a few years and then go home. It has become a profession, an industry, a way to become powerful and rich. My ancestors came here in the 1630s. Many were politicians (including a governor of NY) and even more fought in the revolution. I often think about how dismayed they would be if they came back to see how we have screwed everything up.
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
Precisely those that should have nothing to do with it!
Which is why we must keep tight control of the Federal government. We've allowed them too much rein as of late.
Would you prefer Ed Koch, Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerburg was running things? If you eliminate democratic government then that's what will happen, and some people want that. The problem with the federal government is that it has been corrupted by corporate lobbyists/bribery.
Human nature is corrupt and greedy by default. It's impossible for a population of 350 million to not have a federal government with lots of those corrupt apples. So the only way to solve it is to reduce as much federal government power and make societal issues a local/city/state issue in that order. Federal government needs to get the f out of all societal issues - from abortion to gay marriage to telling you which light bulb you can use to whether you can smoke weed and menthol cigarettes. Their only job should be to make sure the rights of people aren't infringed and deal with foreign nations on trade, defence etc.
Reduce the ability of corporations to bribe politicians. You can call it "lobbying", but its the exchange of cash for political favors. Its legal and it needs to be made illegal.
Bribery is NOT legal, and sunshine exposes it. Money is speech. Your money is speech, too. You get to spend on this, not spend on that, give to a cause, or not. Your charities are corporations, too. You direct your political donations to lobbyists that lobby on your behalf. You don't like what a corporation is doing, then don't buy its products and services, and don't become a stockholder. You can't choose another Federal government.
The problem is that the federal government has gotten too powerful so it can be bribed. The power is supposed to be in the states, where at least it is smaller so somewhat less tempting. We have allowed the feds to pervert our our system of government to centralize the power so all of the rats come out to feed on it.
"gotten too powerful so it can be bribed."
----------
No, the problem is that bribery has been legalized. The Citizens United decision allows unlimited bribery. When a "lobbyist" gives a suitcase full of cash to a politician both of them should go to jail. Is that too complicated for ya?
The problem with the Federal government is it is about 5 times too big, has about 10 times too much power, and, having spent our children's money, is now doubling down with our grandchildren's.
Where did I say "eliminate democratic government"?
Lobbyists and power hungry politicians!!!!
Ed Koch really wasn't that bad.
My mistake. I thought there were three koch brothers.
There were, one died. Now there are two.
It takes integrity and sacrifice to run for office, there is no monetary reward for the honest politician. No "libertarian professional" would understand that concept.
Well and accurately stated !
Glen, I’m only halfway through but I was wondering if you were aware of the sickening coda to the Massachusetts story. Several official town Democratic groups circulated a petition protesting the homophobic smear campaign. At the meeting of the Cambridge democrats—this is an official party body, mind—one of the officials yelled “faggot” into the phone. This was recorded and posted online. I called relevant Boston Globe reporters multiple times asking why they weren’t on top of this story. Nothing happened to anyone involved.
Believe all women is a lie.
Me too is a lie.
Black Lives Matter is a lie.
They’re just cover stories. Democrats don’t believe any of them.
Democrats use us as pawns and then abandon us when push comes to shove.
How many of the accused mentioned in this great piece dared to question Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers? #karma
Sad
This is the same crowd that asks us to believe that they "follow the science".
And you cant make this shit up......
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-canada-sex-idUSKBN25T2Y9
Leading doctor in Canada recommends wearing a mask while having sex......LMAO
They're late to the party. Leslie Nielsen advocated even more protection a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT0OPl4pTBc
Uh....what's the rating on that, if you don't mind me asking? ;)
It's youtube, Mr Timothy. They take care of us, babies.
Without expressing any opinion on Stringer or any other specific case, this is simply the corporate wing of Team D calling the shots.
That is why Tara Reid's allegations against Joe Biden can be dismissed out of hand, and goodthink liberals can come up with excuse after excuse for Bill Clinton, but mere allegations are enough to cast enemies to the left and right into Outer Darkness.
Funny how that works. Sort of like the evil "old white men." That's been hanging around forever. Those in the past who screamed it loudly are now the old white men. And they still, without irony, spout the same.
FWIW, i read from an ex-con that prison officials encourage racial segregation and racial identity in prisons, because the prisoners are easier to control.
The last thing the officials want is for the prisoners to figure out that their racial identity is superficial at most, and that the prisoners have much more core interests in common.
This is not a new method used by politicians. Back when Barack Obama was running for the Senate in Illinois his Republican opponent, Ryan, was beating him in the polls. So all of a sudden Ryan’s sealed divorce records were mysteriously released. They detailed episodes of him and his wife going to sex clubs while they were married. Poof! Ryan’s reputation was ruined and he eventually dropped out of the race, and the then unknown Barack Obama breezed into office. The left will do anything to gain power over their opponents.
Agree with one caveat. To your statement "The left will do anything to gain power over their opponents." I would amend it to read: "POLITICIANS will do anything to gain power over their opponents."
I disagree. I agree with your general statement that both parties are corrupt. But this sexual harassment stuff has always been coming from the democrats. Republicans are too incompetent and spineless to make up such stories.
Al Sharpton got a lot of fame from his fake rape and racial abuse hoax story of the black women in 1980s. He got a MSNBC job for starting a race war.
Then the high tech lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas happened in 1990s - with Biden involved too.
And then again the Justice Kavanaugh "gang rape" stuff.
The sexual harassment strategy is exclusive to Democrats. And I think it's because of them more easily being subject to emotional manipulation.
I agree with that, but my own caveat would be that at present, one wing of the buzzard is better at the new way of doing it than the other one.
I enjoy your wording, there, and presently I would tend to agree with you. The Left has *blown its CORK, but the Right has been out of whack for longer than that.
I have never been a member of any political party or group, so I think it is important to point out in these cases "A pox o' both your houses" as did Shakespeare, instead of leaving the impression that *any party is superior to the other. Rats feeding upon the Body Politic are just not *that different - one from the other. ;-D
With ya 100%.
Once we all agree on whom is the moistened bint lobbing scimitars and remove them, perhaps we plebs can create a democratic republic!
Or autonomous collective.
Not just "yes", but "HELL yes" !
Business executives will do worse than politicians and without accountability or transparency. Power corrupts.
Totally agree. I am certain that I am not the first person here to observe that *both parties are fully owned subsidiaries of the Global Corporations, and have been since at least the late 1800s. They were "bought and paid for" mostly by the American Corporations before that ! Global Corporations have *vastly more power than do mere politicians !
"subsidiaries of the Global Corporations...since at least the late 1800s"
----------
The modern limited liability corporation did not exist when the founding fathers wrote their documents and Adam Smith wrote about the free market. Corporations slipped under the radar but they are an abomination to democracy, freedom and the free market. Corrupt capitalists are no different than corrupt communists - both corrupt. Wallstreet gets along very well with the CCP - that should raise a few eyebrows except that conservatives/republicans/capitalists are all wearing blinders.
No. The corporation is the greatest tool ever invented. It has led to an acceleration in human progress by allowing individuals to pool capital to form enterprises that would never have been undertaken in 100s of years by spreading risk and protecting the individual from ruin.
That's not to say that a corporation cannot engage in improper, even illegal, behavior. We have laws and the sunshine of free-market journalism to protect us against illegality, just like for individuals.
You anti-everything-corporation types are barking up the wrong tree. It's almost like you are part of the mis-information, or obfuscation trickery of the Democrat party, and its captured media and IC.
Yup, I lived through that in IL and his brother's children were in the child care center I administered. It was the ugliest and most disgraceful thing I'd seen done to a political opponent. And the media was complicit then too. Jack and Geri had an autistic child as well....imagine the stress in the family on top of that. The evil is real and the evil continues. Had they not done that to him, it could have changed Obama's entire political trajectory!
I am perhaps a bit of a purist but I take offense at Greenwald's presumption that the people he's rightly critiquing are on the left. Especially when neoliberals like Clinton and Biden seem to be so considered, given they passed the test of an alleged expectation of evidence for charges against them. That tarnishing of "left" shows how far to the right the Overton Window has moved.
It's hard to deny that groups like the Sunrise Movement and Working Families Party or Squad members like Rep. Bowman are the "left." If they're not, then the term refers to a vanishingly small number of people in the US.
Right on. I actually appreciated the left-liberal distinction because it implies that they consider themselves liberal , which they do, but leaves room for those who understand the principles of liberalism and how diverse it is to go, "they may claim to be x, but they don't follow its principles".
The Kavanuagh incident was my final straw with whatever the left is. So much of exist they claim to stand for is fake. It is built on rocky foundations and no principles. The left is a grievance cult who uses it and aligns themselves with corporatists for power grabs. I want no part of it.
It’s sad what the left has become.
Kavanaugh is a guy with massive debts magically paid, and no one even investigated that. Instead, they hang their hats on accusations from 40 years ago, to please their cultural activist base. Why?
I will say: Kavanaugh did lie enough to be rejected, even if they accusation is false. We all know what the Devil’s Triangle is, Brett. This being the least important/most trivial of his fibs.
He was vetted for the DC Circuit he served. He was re-vetted once Trump nominated him. Everything they've made you believe about the man is wrong, except, of course, that he's very conservative.
Brett Kavanaugh committed blatant perjury during both of his high court hearings. He lied repeatedly. Evidence against Kavanaugh was withheld by Justice Roberts. Witnesses wanting to back up Christine Blaisy Ford were prevented from testifying. Lindsey Graham interrupted the prosecutor hired to represent The GOP from doing her job by having a hissy-fit when she got close to the truth revealing the probable date Kavanaugh that allegedly attacked Ford. The prosecutor was never seen again in the Senatorial, lightening round, judicial hearing for a lifetime position on the highest court in the land. Democrats did a crappy job of interrogating Kavanaugh, a hostile, biased candidate for judicial integrity. Kavanaugh was determined to be unfit for the position by the American Bar Association. Kavanaugh may be a conservative but he's a disreputable nominee, no matter what political position he represents.
Christine Ford's lawyer Debra Katz admits on video that putting "an asterisk" next to Kavanaugh's name in case Kavanaugh attacked Roe v. Wade "is part of what motivated Christine."
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/09/12/so-thats-why-christine-blaseys-fords-father-didnt-come-to-her-defense-against-kavanaugh-n2553006
And her own family including father didn't believe her.
And then it came out the "gang rape" girl and "backseat car rape" admitted to fabricating the rape story:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/
Despite all these facts, you are still going on and on about this. Good lord. I sincerely hope one day you get a taste of your own medicine when you seek some promotion and a 35 year old rando claims you gang raped them. Then we will see how cool headed you are.
Ps I am not a fan of Kavanaugh but you people are bat shit crazy.
Ok, CNN loyalist. I'll add this though: anyone who actually believes the GOP is so evil that it would allow the nomination of a SC judge who was a "serial rapist" (per a lawyer later jailed, and after his "witnesses" wouldn't be heard) is seriously deranged. I lean right. I don't like Banjo Boy because it's obvious he's just a tool for the left, but I would never consider him this fucking evil.
Grow up, tool.
He is actually not so conservative at all. He used to vote 93% of the time with Merrick Garland. I was shocked.
The Federalist Society vetted Brett Kavanaugh, not Trump. The Federalist Society has an agenda to place as many right wing conservative judges in place as possible. No consideration is given for the public good, justice, the environment or civil rights. Kavanaugh was vetted for the DC Circuit he served by the Federalist Society. He was selected by a Republican majority in the Senate. Thank you again Leo Leonard. Leo has selected the majority of our Catholic Supreme Court Justices and many other judges.
Federalist Society has real criticisms as pointed out by Robert Barnes that they only pick establishment cronies. Neo cons types. And that’s why I don’t like Kavanaugh. But taking that a step further to claim he was guilty of stuff which these women admitted they fabricated stories about is crazy.
Better the FS than Trump.
Keep drinking that Koolaid
Problem is that yes, they “are” the left. Supposedly. And we put them in the positions they’re in because they promised to represent us in terms of environment, justice and other people’s causes. They took our donations and hopes, promised they’d go to Washington and from inside they’d cause the changes we need them to.
But now that they’re in there, and this is where they ARE NOT “the left” far as the left I consider myself part of, they instead gaslight us and our demands (no longer hopes for change but unattainable and unreasonable demands) and protect the establishment, the Party, and all it’s corrupt officials in every way possible. No matter how disgusting and obvious. Tara Reade is a perfect example. Remember wtf AOC said when asked about Tara??!!! “Well.... she didn’t say she wouldn’t vote for Biden 😁😇”. I lost ALL respect for AOC that very minute. I struggle to think of worse things one woman can do to another in such a situation. I still can’t even believe it to this day. Disgusting!!! Talk about selfish! Talk about picking her career and money over EVERYTHING she supposedly stands for. Talk about making me feel like a complete idiot for donating to her. Me. A victim myself. She took my money and spit in my face😡
Come on over to the dark side Daniela. I used to be in your shoes just few years ago. Now I am a black pilled liberal. Hate republicans for being incompetent and spineless. But hate democrats for being evil exploiting identity politics to destroy the fabric of society.
Once you realize that there will never ever be a single political party in a bloated country of 350 million people, you become awake and start viewing government as - just don’t let them make your life worse - because they surely aren’t going to make it better.
Welcome to what I call practical libertarianism :-) I just want the smallest government possible because the people attracted to power are all jerks so I want to give them as little power as possible.
Laura: "the people attracted to power are all jerks" - that's not entirely true. The problem is that the vast majority of voters only vote for the jerks (the others are "unelectable").
I'm unsure sure which I find more surprising; that humans feel the need to create "leaders" to tell us all what to do, or that we consistently choose sociopaths for those "leadership" positions. I guess our monkey brain wants "leaders" who will carry out or darkest fantasies against our enemies that we would NEVER dream of doing ourselves, unless we were part of a mob, of course.
Lord Acton was right that absolute power corrupts absolutely. How much of the problem is our consistent pattern of placing sociopaths in charge and how much is the person in charge becoming a monster once they get their we will never know.
The only thing we can be sure of is the more positions we create for "leaders," the more monsters we will have running the system.
Everyone is a jerk. Including all of you. Especially me. This is a feature, not a bug.
The folks attracted to power are just doing what they think they ought to be doing. Think of it like a mountain where the vast majority of us are a part of it. Impossible to tear down, right?
Unless you have a pickaxe. And patience.
That’s what the people are told/trained/educated/programmed to do every day.
That is at the core of the Founding Fathers approach to structuring the Constitution as they did.
Big Government and big corporations are corrupt and evil.
Go just a little further and want none at all.
Why dream of something which will never be achieved?
Boo, Anarchist!! (But don't worry, we can make a mutual-security pact!)
Shrink democracy to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub? If democracy is eliminated what do you think will replace it? A world run by the koch brothers would be a very sick place.
In a perfect world there would be no need for governance. In a perfect world everyone would just do what’s best for the whole and we’d all be much better off. But, much as I wish and dream, that ain’t where we’re at!
In this world we do need organization and regulation aka governance. Or else all hell would break loose.
BUT you are absolutely right. Corrupt governance: bad. Even more of it: WORSE!
And how that’s better than having none at all doesn’t pass the test with me either. Quite frankly I feel that governments ARE the issue a lot of the time. It is VERY possible that left to their own devices communities’ and even entire nations’ Peoples would work together as opposed to against one another. For example there are typically citizens on both sides of every war who’s demands for ending warfare go ignored or forcibly, sometimes permanently, silenced. That tells me that it isn’t the majority of citizens who want to tear the world apart. It is their government officials. A lot of which in a less corrupt world would never be allowed any where near a managerial position, let alone leader of any nation and/or in charge of any military.
These governments use propaganda and fear mongering, violence and sanctions, you name it. Not just against others, but sometimes even their own People.
I’ll be honest with you; I don’t have an answer.
My only suggestion is that we stop being so ignorant and righteous as Americans. Seeing as as Americans we are a very LARGE part of the world’s current problems. What Americans corporations and the US gov have done in countless other countries, and are now bringing home, is criminal at very best. But we keep voting and supporting the same damn people. For 30, 40, 50 years.
Ughhh.... yeah, I don’t have an answer lol
I certainly don’t feel like I belong anywhere, as is. It’s all BS and corruption. And for the first time ever I’m starting to understand where people are coming from when they say our lives are worse because of our government/ system, not better. We can come up with better systems, but we’re not allowed to by those who most benefit from the way things are.
The US Government/system is the best ever devised. But it requires voters who are actually willing to do the somewhat hard work of, with a clear head, evaluating candidates for office. That's what is missing.
We're all lost in the woods. Some of us just like it that way.
I hope you learn to love it, too.
Idk about learning to love it lol. But I do hope to find joy while living in it again some day. Not to get too dark but, while we’re talking about being lost in the dark woods, I do find it scary, discouraging and depressing. All these wars. The images of kid’s corpses. The poverty. The millions loosing their last dime over a diagnosis and the millions more struggling to hold on to anything at slave wages. The overwhelming propaganda that has created a poisoned and venemous society. All the fu’king corruption. Ughhh!!!! It’s maddening! And I see no end in sight. So.... I’m trying to learn how to cope. How to live somewhere not with my scared ignorant head stuck in the sand nor covered in tin foil holding my last stand 😅🤷🏻♀️
Oh, no, no, no! Don't advise ANYONE, let alone an excellent poster like M. Ferreira, to learn to love "being lost in the woods". I agree that some people seem to LIKE being ignorant, but never wish it on someone, imo.
I might have shared this with you before: Walmart vs. The Morons:
https://youtu.be/oKFdAOKq4Lk
Dude, if possible it would be awesome to connect with you over on Locals. I'm JosephC over there. josephc.locals.com for my own community but if theres a community that isn't typical social media mess to connect through I'd appreciate it!
Join Viva And Barnes locals page. There’s a significant audience there and lots of good discussion!
I'm there!
Republican voters overturned the Republican party establishment in 2016. Democrat voters couldn't do it in 2016 or 2020. Its because most leftists believe whatever corporate media tells them to believe.
The DNC cheating during the primaries of 2016 and 2020 helped too :/
Will they get away with even more (the trend, after all) in '22?
They can’t keep us from protesting/kicking them out of office for ever.
Daniela. I've been there too. This is what the left has become. I'm a gay liberal who grew up in the midwest detesting republicans. I grew up, realized how wrong I was in my understanding of what it meant to be liberal and saw massive shifts occur to those who called them liberals in the name of faux progress. I recognized that some voices on the right weren't "evil" like I was told they were. I won't join any party, but I still consider myself a liberal.
The pulse night club shooting is what “red pilled” me. Somehow the evil homophobe trump supporters at The_Donald subreddit were raising awareness and even had pinned posts about donating blood to the gay victims. Other places on Reddit were removing any mention of donations. There was also a lot of censorship since the shooter was from the “protected” religion. That’s what got me to browse the_donald for the first time. I realized what we were told about Trump supported hating gays was nonsense. Several people would make posts on there asking what everyone’s opinion was on gay relationships and vast majority said they didn’t give a fuck. They only cared whether you love America or not. What consensual adults do in their bedrooms doesn’t matter to me. They only hate those who exploit it for identity politics.
You might enjoy Dave Rubin describing him and his husband meeting Trump family:
https://youtu.be/xkzJ4mKnr9A
You mean that you had respect for AOC before that idiocy?
Bwahahahahahahaha...
That's helpful bobsnsane. You must have thought long and hard before making it.
As if it isn't obvious...
You just enjoy a good laugh at your superior brilliance. Not a big whoop to me.
That day was the limit of my ability to disagree and still respect though. I’m sure she had done plenty prior to that that I’m not aware of. And I’ve learned a lot more about her since that disgusts me. That’s just the straw the broke this camel’s back.
Respect and disagreement are different things in my opinion. I can disagree with someone and still show them respect. I can see that someone is making a mistake and still have respect for their dignity. Hell, even if they’re sacrificing their dignity to make said mistake I still try to respect where they might be coming from. I feel strongly that only in unity do we have any hope. And to unite we must stop being so easily divisible. Sometimes that takes showing respect to those who might not even necessarily deserve it. Cause ultimately we’re on the same side and want the same things: peace and survival for us and some damn justice got our oppressors.
Daniela, in what sense do you consider yourself "oppressed"?
Financially of course: price of everything goes up, we’re close to making a trillionaire, yet wages are the same $7.50/hr for us. Access to medical care wise obviously; any bad diagnosis could make me homeless like so many others. As a female and victim of sexual crime who’ll never see justice and instead constantly watches rapists become our leaders and set the standards for justice. As a citizen in constant fear of vengeance by the enemies we create. As a poor citizen who gets treated differently than elite. As a voter in a completely corrupt and rigged system. As a Brazilian foreigner who’s watched what American corporations and gov have done to South and Central America. And am now watching them bring it home to us here.
In my personal life I’m ok. I run my own little business and I do ok and am not as affected as others around me. I do feel lucky. But that doesn’t mean I’m not affected. We are all one. At the end of the day if my neighbor can’t get paid properly he can’t afford to buy my services. And even more so... I can’t sleep at night knowing that my neighbor is struggling to eat. We should all think more that way I feel. Maybe we wouldn’t be where we are.
If AOC wants respect, she can start by acting respectable.
She has DELIBERATELY misrepresented the facts to champion a fantasy narrative.
P S
The only thing oppressing you is your ignorance.
You sure are putting on a clinic in the "hearts and minds" department, M. bobsnsane.
Respect needs to be earned, except if you respect as an opportunist.
The Congresswoman purports to have a degree in economics but doesn't know who John Maynard Keynes & Milton Friedman are?
Now, that's borderline “idiocy”...just sayin’...
Fair point. However Amy is right. Daniela is already awake- let’s welcome her for the change and not mock the mistakes she made - I was in her shoes 5 years ago too.
How do you know that? Cite the source. AOC is plenty smart and educated. Surely she knows who John Maynard Keynes & Milton Friedman are.
I know plenty of people in the so-called political “right” who would agree with many progressives on a wide range of issues. My home town of Columbus has turned into a single party dominated environment. Republicans are creatures of legend that are vilified but not really seen in elective office here any more. And what do we get? A Democrat run government at the city and county level that acts like the monsters they described Republicans to be. Our police were using excessive force last summer against protesters and people are losing confidence in the police.
I am a person of the political right and I will proudly work with anyone who will be honest with me and will work with me to find the areas where we agree. I disavow the ugly name calling and reputation destroying tactics that keep the “ruling elite” in power.
Daniela, the progressives (lefties) are extremely good at ginning up the emotion of victim-hood. Don't let them do that to you. If you keep telling yourself, or let anyone else tell you that you are a 'victim' you always will be. You are a person who had an incident(s) in your life but are stronger because of it, not weaker.
Those who consider themselves victims of the system, are generally losers who were unable to meet even the minimum level of success in their life, and are now bitter and wish to placate themselves by wallowing in victimhood.
Tell you what.... hope you don’t get a bad diagnosis and become yet another bitter, incapable loser.
Did you just called every oppressed and disadvantaged black and brown person in this country a bitter loser??!! Did you just say every family that lost their homes in the corporate and gov created housing bubble is simply placating blame for their inability to meet minimum levels of success standards?! Are you suggesting that every disenfranchised voter in this country is not to be considered a victim of a corrupt system?!
Don’t you ever get tired of blaming those who perhaps have indeed lost purpose and will in their lives and succumbed to living on crumbs?! Why don’t you ever look upward and try to figure out wtf fell on their heads and pushed them down so far?! Was it slave wages? Perpetual poverty? Was it lack of education? Was it lack of health care? Was it lack of community involvement? Was it abuse? Was it because we were too busy making billionaires to give a damn what their desperate needs were?!
Who profits??? THAT is who you should be looking at.
Don't know if term limits solve all of these ills, but members of both parties prioritize the perpetuation of their own power, all else be damned.
30, 40, 50 damn years in public office? There is no sane democracy in which that should/would be allowed. It takes the public “servant” right out of our public “officials”. They no longer serve for us or any cause but rather for purpose of a career. And the longer their career the more connections and leverage they have. And the less connected to the needs of the People they become. And because of all their connections, propaganda, election fraud and lobbying being legal and even encouraged we can’t ever vote them the f out. It’s infuriating! Like look at what happened to Shahid Buttar when he tried to unseat Pelosi. They made up lies, the media at his ass up, the squad stood by complicit as god Bernie and others, and Peloai never even felt it get warm. Not even during #ForceTheVote.
"...should/would be allowed..."
But, M. Daniela, it wouldn't be a democracy if you make those restrictions!
I said a SANE democracy.
Why would someone put herself in the position of telling the the public about such a humiliating experience for no reason? Tara Reade made a strong case for being sexually assaulted by her boss to warn people about his behavior. It's not like Joe Biden has kept his hands to himself in public appearances over the years. He still touches children when they are vulnerable in front of cameras.
I don’t think anyone would ever speak of such humiliating shit unless they had VERY good reason to.
I am one of what's left of the left. Democracts have just a few that really are "leftist" and they all succumb to their donors and move to appease. That is why Disappointingacrats (my preferred name for them) fight off the Green Party so hard. One would think they'd appreciate the company. They dip their toes in here and there and we citizen voters have to decide what is the lesser evil.
It’s because of human nature.
Problem is that leftists are generally against private ownership of property. So unless the person agrees to private ownership (i.e. capitalism and markets), they would still be part of the indecent left.
As they have been doing to blacks for 50 years, and they are continually rewarded for it. So why should they stop? It's the right thing to do? Pfffffttttt... It's all about power.
Daniela Ferreira, I think AOC said she believed Tara Reade. I don't remember her saying she would still vote for Biden. However, given the choice between Trump and Biden, what should she have said? The media buried the Reade story which had merit. I wish we could have voted for Bernie Sanders but establishment Democrats made sure that was not a possibility. There was someone else who said she believed Tara but would still vote for Biden. I don't think it was AOC.
So that’s where Tara’s rights as a woman/citizen/ victim become meaningless to you huh?! At “but Trump!”.
Even after all the debunked lies. The hatred and fear steeped in propaganda is just that damn strong huh?!
I don’t even have anything else to say.
There’s needs to be a massive class action lawsuit against the media for DTS. All jokes aside!
(DTS = TDS? Just checking.)
I think you over-react, M. Daniela. I think I disagree politically with M. Chris Jonsson, but he is accurate here, imo.
Try coming from classical liberal conservatism. Neocons have redefined freedom as freedom to do what ever we want to you for your own good, strong national defense as screwing around and blowing stuff up in other countries without a plan, and capitalism as corporate monopolies in cahoots with government regulators.
Right, freedom is fascism and the taint is all over the Biden administration. It's been such a long, exhausting year of utterly principle-free politics on the visible left that I've started to wonder if I was kidding myself all along.
It's actually not too hard to tell the difference between neocons and neoliberals. See if someone says we are bombing another country in the name of "freedom," that person is a neocon, but if someone says we are bombing another country in the name of "human rights," that is a neoliberal. Now if someone says they are kissing corporate ass in the name of "free markets," that person is a neocon, but says they are kissing corporate ass in the name of "social justice" that person is a neoliberal. Now if you are a traditional liberal or conservative you might wonder how they have anything to with your principles or values. Not to worry! As far as they are concerned all of your principles and values are outdated and they are smarter, better, and more moral than you ever were. What evidence they base this on given how questionable many of their current policies and actions are is still a mystery.
Best comment by far and 100% accurate.
If I could buy you a bear for this outstanding comment, I would buy you a dinner too. Imma save this comment for future.
I did too lol
Now THIS I KNOW I dig. So enlightening, M. Matt330! I hadn't thought of it that way before, and I think I like it. Thank you!
Hey, when supposedly bitter enemies go to the same cocktail parties, you have to wonder!
Great observation.
It amuses me that regardless of the reasons behind them, the bombs are agnostic.
Check out babylonbee sattire on Middle East wars.
By far the best explainer I've read of the difference. Thanks for this!
Wow excellent comment man. I never even thought about details, but it is so true. They are both different sides of the same coin for sure.
Wonderful operational definition!
Accurate comment is Accurate
Again this is the same issue. We are all complaining that we cannot hold elite members of society accountable for the same things they hold us accountable for.
Do not vote them in. My rule is one strike and you are out.
69th liiiiiiiiiiiiike
#Winning
This comment is a masterpiece
I think I dig this.
Had you chosen to say...
(Neocons and Neolibs have redefined.....)
...I would completely agree with your stated
"classical liberal conservatism".
As Usual,
EA
Yes, the neolibs have done that too. The point I was making is that the neocons want to take back the Republican party and they are pretending they are the only “principled" thing that can push back against the neoliberals. A lot of us on the right remember the damage that was done to this country by the neocons and now we are watching the transformation of the Democrat party in overdrive with some of it being the absolute worst impulses of the left and yet some of it feels suspiciously familiar. Of course, Bush era neocons being treated as political rockstars and self-proclaimed Marxists being overly friendly with corporate monopolies just because they chant the right slogan might have been a bit of a red flag. I’m getting flashbacks to when the elite pretended to care about Middle America, just to send rural kids overseas.
Right? The neolibs recently unironically brought GWB forward on the media as some sort of representation of a “principled republican.” I’m sorry, did I hallucinate and imagine the reality that he was behind lying about WMD to justify invading a country and starting a war that has lasted 20 years?? Or that he orchestrated the Patriot Act and ushered in a huge expansion of the security state?
Good thing all those neoliberals voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, otherwise I might think they were hypocrites.
It's been 20 years looking for WMD. The evil-doers keep moving them. First Iraq then Afghanistan, briefly in Libya, back to Afghanistan. Where will they show up next? Russia, Syria, Ukraine? Only CNN knows for sure.
To pretend anything trump did was worse than the patriot act is mind blowing.
Dude, tell it!!
(What I was going to say.)
Which has what to do with the groups involved being liberal exactly?
The term absolutely refers to a vanishingly small number of people in the US. For all intents and purposes, there is no left in the US. The spectrum on the "visible left" (i.e. those who are generally accepted by the mainstream as being the left) ranges from Right Wing liberal (see Joe Manchin) to Social Democrat (see AOC and the squad who call themselves "democratic socialists" but, because they don't actually challenge the fundamental assumptions of capitalism are nothing more then "left liberals"). Literally, there is no "Left" in the US.
There is no capitalism. What we have is crony capitalism, corporatism, oligarchy.
That's so far from correct that the light from correct won't even reach it for another 20 years. Capitalism doesn't have some ideal state where everything "works". It's a system based on the explicit exploitation of the working class. Capitalism is ALL we have.
"It's a system based on the explicit exploitation of the working class. Capitalism is ALL we have."
You're right. You are light years from correct. You have no idea what Capitalism is. Do you even have a dictionary? Shit, MARX's definition of Capitalism is closer to the truth than yours. How does the system that sets up a natural, private sector DEMAND for workers possibly EXPLOIT the working CLASS?!?! A gun is being held to the workers' heads?
It is the State, the PUBLIC sector, that exploits workers, stealing their money and destroying wealth creation and rising living standards by co-opting the private sector with crony-Capitalism, another word fro ANTI-Capitalism.
Government jobs are generally stable and secure. We need more public service workers to help run the country. Private industry will not be there when you need them after they do a cost benefit analysis of preparation for emergencies. Fund government agencies and services and they will be there when you need them.
Work or starve. No gun needed.
Here we go again with the empty rhetoric.
Capitalism is a system where you create a good or service useful to me and I pay you for it. If you don’t produce something useful or you create something defective, I don’t pay you and you go bankrupt. That’s capitalism.
Now please show me where this capitalism is? Is bailing out companies which don’t produce useful stuff capitalism? Is bailing out banks which made poor and corrupt decisions capitalism? Is giving subsidies to tech companies capitalism? Is telling tech companies to censor viewpoints capitalism? Nope. Those are all crony capitalism and much more closer to communism than capitalism (since the government is the one deciding who gets bailouts, who gets subsidies, who gets tax payer cash).
Exactly! Capitalism is a liberal project. Its the liberal economic system. I agree to make something and you agree to pay me for the cost. What we have in the United States has been morphed so many ways that it isn't capitalism because of how much interference there is between government and third parties demanding what two separate parties have decided is fair.
Capitalism isn't divorced from the political system. Capitalism is a system whereby the most powerful entity in society is Capital. Capitalism always turns to "crony capitalism" because once Capital grows to a certain point, any further investment is made in purchasing more investment opportunities. This is the hallmark of so called "late stage" capitalism - exporting capital rather than resources. Imperialism, effectively. "This capitalism" you speak of doesn't exist because what you're describing is not capitalism. What you're describing is the nature of commodity transactions under capitalism.
Very nice. Thank you.
Sure thing Karl. Happy belated May Day you degenerate commie and economic illiterate.
Thanks Karl.
Capitalism = where the fox guards the hen house.
Crony Capitalism = where the fox designs the hen house.
Who is paying the fox? Capitalism includes sunshine on public books and transactions.
Whatever capitalism may be, and wether it would work, we will never know. Because you’re right. That’s not what we have. What we have is crony capitalism; a corrupt corporate oligarchy. A rigged version of what could possibly otherwise be a functional system managed by the worst amongst us.
Capitalism has failed us. Capitalism place their priorities on making profits over people. They lost their integrity.
Next time you try to sell something on craigslist or Facebook marketplace, just give it away for free.
Yeah, can I have your stuff? I plan to profit from it in the free marketplace.
No. Profits are EXACTLY what help people raise their standards of living. Stop and think about what you are saying. Do you work for no personal "profit"? If you say yes, I don't believe you apprehend reality.
i suggest one agrees on a definition before entering such discussions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Au contraire mon frere.
These endless talking points involving terms like left, right, liberal, capitalism, socialism etc revolve entirely around the notion that rather than develop a shared definition, we instead bring our own pet definition to the party so we can virtue signal our tribe and cast memorized talking at those outside our tribe. The last thing we need around here is an agreed definition. Where's the fun in that?
Well, maybe we should form into those tribes, and find someway to co-exist, a la the freedom of association.
Progressive independents are the majority of the voters but we are disenfranchised by both major parties. Elections are stolen from us.
FACT!
Glenn, don't worry, there are quite a few posters here who (rightfully) state the DNC doesn't represent the left.
That doesn't mean they aren't left, only that the DNC isn't correctly representing the left. At least according to multiple posters here.
Im not sure who the DNC does represent now, since people on the left say it's not them and those of us on the right are quite certain it isn't us. How do these DNC elites keep getting elected then?
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi grew up in the 1960's...Yet we have not a single picture of them standing up for minority rights or marching with the marchers during that time.
Odd isn't it?
> How do these DNC elites keep getting elected then?
Unfortunately, I think the answer is propaganda and cultural despair. Many people have been deceived into thinking they have representation when they don't. Besides that, there are many people who don't think they have representation, but simply don't care: they've never thought that they had or could have representation. Negating matters more to these people than anything constructive. They seem especially common among Gen Z, from what I notice.
There was a really good quote I learned of from one of Chris Hedges' essays. I think it's very accurately describing what is going on now, and this whole discussion about what words like "leftism" mean:
> Victor Klemperer, who was dismissed from his post as a professor of Romance languages at the University of Dresden in 1935 because of his Jewish ancestry, astutely noted how at first the Nazis “changed the values, the frequency of words, [and] made them into common property, words that had previously been used by individuals or tiny troupes. They confiscated words for the party, saturated words and phrases and sentence forms with their poison. They made language serve their terrible system. They conquered words and made them into their strongest advertising tools [Werebemittle], at once the most public and most secret.” And, Klemperer noted, as the redefinition of old concepts took place the public was oblivious.
The language is intentionally being poisoned. Changing the meaning of words and sowing division makes political dissent very difficult because nobody knows what anyone else is talking about anymore. Positive/negative paired associations are created with words and are endlessly repeated, because the brain learns primarily through repetition, and it changes how you think even if you are aware of it - so people will associate "Russian" with "hacker", for example.
The end result seems to be that we all focus on attacking our imaginations of other people and groups while struggling to create a common reality or consensus to be able to communicate with each other, because our sense of reality has been deliberately attacked and shattered. This is why groups like the CIA hire psychologists. Just look at this creepy recruitment video, linked by their Twitter feed. #PsyOpsRUs!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itOwyH5Lf8I
https://twitter.com/CIA/status/1014954639819714560
Woe Emma -- thank you very much !!!
Don't you think it's instructive that they recruit for psychologists and not psychiatrists?
That's not a mistake. It was Canadian psychologists like Donald Hebb from Montreal University who helped the CIA develop the torture techniques used in places like Abu Ghraib (Alfred McCoy, "A Question of Torture," page 36.
The prefer psychologists to psychiatrist because they have not taken the Hippocratic oath so do not face the same ethical standards and oversight enforced within the MD community.
The rest of your post was also spot on. Well done.
Not odd at all. Pelosi and Schumer represent big money and corporations, no matter what they say. They are purchased properties.
We should start to distinguish between left sentiments, and the culture from which they're being broadcasted. Left sentiments are dumb, emotional stuff with some deep human insight and hot, old world ethics built on top. The culture from which they're being broadcasted is just whoever has the biggest grin on their faces when these culture wars play themselves out.
Just because someone, or some very large group is EXPRESSING left sentiments, doesn't mean they're expression is in service of those sentiments. If something has transcended ideology, or indeed, the rational capacity itself, then it doesn't really matter what sentiments you express unless you get a firm grip on the power dynamics through which you are expressing them.
Corporatism is just such a transcendental power structure. It has transcended left and right sentiments, as evidenced by how fluently power retools those sentiments to contort or jam absolutely any challenge to its omnipotence.
It's taking us deeper down the rabbit hole to keep calling these expressions of dominant power "left." They are what they serve, and they're not serving the public.
Why does every Greenwald article generate a dozen "No True Scotsman" comments. Just assume everyone else knows you are thinking it and it will save you time writing it.
I'm starting to suspect that you're just like the "liberals" (corporatists) in that your vapid compulsion to smear is equaled by you incapacity to substantiate.
scotsmen are going for independence. they're already scheming behind your back.
Ha! "scheming for independence" is the English language definition of a "true Scotsman"!!
I got true Scotsman and true English in me. What do I do, become a double agent?
You really should put me in my place. I'm practically begging for it.
Perhaps, but the triple reply makes me think it won't be productive.
Oh, but it WAS productive when you though you were just going to slip an unsubstantiated smear into the discourse.
It comical that you think an accusation of fallacious logic doesn't include any demonstration whatsoever of how the argument was fallacious.
The absence of that demonstration almost certainly means you're full of shit.
But it also helps knowing that everyone who tries to accuse me of fallacy is full of shit, since unlike corporatists, I haven't spent my life constructing a worldview out of logical fallacy.
But do, go ahead and try (and fail) to demonstrate it.
Glenn, I gather that "only for it *turn* turn out that Kim was thirty years old" was meant to be
"only for it *to* turn out that Kim was thirty years old".
Otherwise, great stuff. Any theories, as when and how this degenerate trend *really* got going?
RussiaGate, "Me Too", N. Phillips vs. N. Sandmann?
Al Sharpton got a lot of fame from his fake rape and abuse hoax story of the black women in 1980s. He got a msnbc job for starting a race war.
Then the high tech lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas happened in 1990s - with Biden involved too. So it’s been going on for a while.
Mr. Biden was the empty-suit, equivocating-for-political-reasons CHAIRMAN of the judicial committee charged with recommending Justice Thomas!
He was "young," just starting (not) his illustrious career, with plugs for thinning hair. He knew then he was destined to fall ever upward.
Fail *? lol
Same difference. You’re right either way, sir.
And, to what extent should the conduct of the NYC Left here be not seen as typical of the bulk of the US Left?
Have any major Left *outfits* denounced this conduct, or has that task been only left to such individual voices in the wilderness as yours?
Glenn, too much time is wasted talking about the left and right and blaming things on a political ideology. We need to move beyond left and right and talk substance, historical reference, civic relevance, and our goals for the future. Clarity of the message can bring unity for a common purpose, peace and prosperity for all. Call me a dreamer.
I dream too. Hopefully one day. But it’s not looking good imho. Too many righteous AF people amongst us and to little who give any f’ks amongst them. And a simply overwhelming skinny of propaganda and hateful traditions in between.
The "right" wins by fiat.
They're "left" - for Democrats. But they're still Democrats. Even Sunrise is promoting the Dems' watered-down version of the Green New Deal, not the Green one.
You might be right about "vanishingly small," though.
Bingo: that last thing you just said; yeah.
LEFT WING POLITICS “...is an insane asylum.”
There...fify.
Left wing. Right wing.
What’s the difference? The entire bird is cookoo!
Nice try...NOBODY on the right has tried this tactic...NOBODY!
See the difference?
Huh? They're all the same
😂
This particular argument over who is “left” and who is not is so tiresome and naive. The immediate complaint is always that someone who is a bad person cannot be of the political “left”, because by definition, the “left” is well intentioned.
Got some news for you, this isn’t about left and right, this is about power. And lust for power is not constrained to any particular political orientation.
Agreed, but today which party would you choose in your quest for power/money? The party which generally gets a pass ( and sometimes vigorous encouragement ) by legacy news, talk shows, mass entertainment, or the GOP? If Hunter was Trump's son, would the story would be framed differently?
Yep. Not choosing a political party (a tool) is, in essence, voting FOR the one you hate the most.
Saving this.
Perhaps the DNC left is more appropriate. I'd bet those mentioned are card-carrying democrats.
In quotes, DNC "left" would be more appropriate.
I think what we have going on is a shift in different overton windows to different directions. The left and their grievances culture of emotions over fact have shifted the culture far to the left and ceded the intellectual debate to the right. Theres plenty of those historically of "the left" picking apart what has become of the left and its excessive takeover of the culture, but they are lumped in my that same left as "right wing" for daring to speak in disagreeable manners. Add to that they (this new left) labels any who are critical of them, which is what everyone should be open to in a functioning liberal society especially if they are liberal, as being right wing and obnoxious and absurd isms and ists. Most of the intellectuals critical of this leftist cultism can't even individually be boxed very well as left wing or right wing. I would describe them all as being liberal though because they stand by the principles of being critiqued and critiquing themselves. They are are also for thr most part self-critical individuals as well.
Dierdre McCloskey is an excellent example of such a liberal. Her three books on the rise of the bourgeois are absorbing reading.
Remember the high tech lynching of Clarence Thomas in 1990s? And how many people showed up to storm the capitol during anti Kavanaugh protests? Were they all “right” wing and you like to deflect blame?
How exactly did Biden pass the test of alleged expectation of evidence? The few in MSM who covered that story primarily did so to tarnish Reade.
I say this with all due respect, and with the gravity and esteem I hold Glenn's substack website.
But you, sir, are on crack.
The Overton Window hasn't moved Right since the idea was coined.
Agreed, I am always disturbed at how Glenn now uses the term "liberals". It is as if he has taken a playbook from conservatives who try to paint very conservative Democrats (like Clinton and Obama) as "liberal". Or equating MSNBC's Maddow with liberals. These are all conservatives who play to liberal audiences, but are not even slightly progressive in any way. I wish Glenn would come up with some other term to describe the conservatives who play to Democrat audiences. At best, I would call them Neolibs, but not "liberal".
Leftists and corporatists? Leftists are the far left busbodies and morality police pushing crt, and corporations the unprincipled pundits who so it for the money and just cater to an audience, not principle
A bit of a purist are you? Don't look in the mirror, you might fall in love.
If you are a corporatist war monger, you can't be politically left. Since virtually all elected Democrats and Republicans are hyper-capitalist, gunboat diplomatists who want a cold or hot war with Russia and China, then calling any of them liberal is just falling into a mental trap. They are extremely conservative, regardless of what part of the electorate they cater to with lip service.
https://johnmoffett.substack.com/p/the-left-and-right-halves-of-the
Just my opinion but I don't see it as a shift but a reversal. If you had to ask someone back 30 years ago the positions held by both sides on sexuality the left would have sounded like the right today, and the evangelical right's positions of purity and prudishness would perfectly align with the modern left (ignoring the outliers).
@edwardc_sf -- The is that people on the right do not indulge in cancel culture. Their attitude is live and let live. It is the ideological left that an't stand anyone, including the liberal left if they disagree with their opinions. This should be obvious to all, but the most regressive of leftists.
You have a legitimate point here, but why you take "offense?" You may not like it, or you may disagree on the merits, but "offense" in our hypersensitive culture conveys some sense of " the other" being morally wrong just for stating the idea. I actually think you are correct on your point, but feelings shouldn't be the primary issue. The evidence underlying the argument should be. Our obsession with taking offense is the sword that the tyrants are using to lop off the heads of good people.
It would help to hear those of you constantly preaching "These people aren't the left" would also in that same scree say "but here is who I think is left".
Just to help discussion.
And if they can’t point to any allegations of sexual misconduct, they come up with other things they can lie about. We’re living in a dangerously “J’accuse!” moment. If you’re tried in a court of law there are rules of due process, but if you’re tried in the court of public opinion it’s unbelievable the lies that are out there - and how well they work.
Just so, Ms. Williamson, and the rule of law is being rendered a sneering *joke in the process.
The good thing is that the law finally *listens to abused women. The bad news is that the law, like a pendulum, is currently in the opposite "warp" of its previous position via listening to accusers, in this case, of behavior purported to have taken place 18 years ago, uncritically,
and with prejudice to the accuser.
As disgusting as I personally find Judge Kavanaugh, he was being accused of behavior that allegedly took place back in *high school (before he was legally an adult).
I understand the fact that right now, things are very confusing, because protections for women under the law are SO recent,
and SO long overdue.
As we continue to balance the system, however, there needs to be considered something on the order of a statute of limitations. If someone is the victim of felony, they should be *required to report that fact within much less than two decades, or lose the right to report it at all.
The law and the society that allowed women *no recourse to this kind of sexual pawing was *way out of balance. The correction of that same law is now *way out of balance because *it can now be so easily abused in any cases where women were perhaps *not themselves abused; especially when 18 years after the real or imagined offense, they finally decide that they need justice.
This is what Courts are for. To determine innocence or guilt.
NO case should be tried in the media, and NO accusations should
be "automatically believed" prior to due process. Courts decide relative innocence or guilt. Not the media.
Women *abusing such change in law do no favor to their fellow females who really were/are victims. Over the years this will tend to "even out", at least by the time that all females are *born into a time covered by the now more equitable laws applying to the offenses.
But for now, the laws are far *too easy for women to abuse.
We have gone from one "arc" of unbalance to its opposite.
We lack a present balancing mechanism.
Great point Atma,
One small item to consider that admittedly may not have been your point in your excellent analysis. In Aya Gruber’s recent book "The Feminist War on Crime: The Unexpected Role of Women's Liberation in Mass Incarceration"
https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-War-Crime-Unexpected-Incarceration/dp/0520304519
Ms. Gruber gives a history of sexual abuse towards women in America along with accusation of sexual assault made by women and how it has been handled. Despite current folklore that sexual abuse towards women along with accusations of sexual abuse were historically tolerated and not taken seriously, it depends which sexual abuse we are talking about.
No question that inappropriate comments made about women in the work place that were once OK are now rightly unacceptable. Of course, that's part of a larger trend about what can and cannot be said in the work place.
When it comes to accusations of sexual assault and rape, particularly by white heterosexual women, however, there is a long tradition of such accusations being taken extremely seriously in American society, often more seriously than murder itself. Think of "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee in 1960. In addition to the obvious message on race, it was also a message about how a women could escape the social stigma of being ostracized for breaking a societal taboo by claiming she was forced to do the unacceptable act rather than admit it was consensual. The punishment for a man facing such an accusation has always been steep whether the accusation was ever proved in court or not. It's the reason reporters historically would not publish an unconfirmed accusation, which they knew would have a large impact regardless of the facts.
American was built on strict sexual purity culture so an accusation of rape or assault particularly by a white women was often at maximum a death sentence for the accused, at minimum a very long prison sentence and permanent social stigma. Depending on the group the accused belonged to he may very well end up as "Strange Fruit" long before a trial took place.
Rather than a pendulum on the topic of sexual related accusations, such claims have always been taken seriously and destroyed more than a few political careers even without a jury and before the #MeToo movement.
Where claims of sexual assault, rape and violence were historically ignored was within the family, or a serious relationship. I would argue things have improved, but this still remains an issue that does not get the attention it deserves because we remain to focused on the stranger danger boogeyman.
There were historically more legal protections in place for defendants of sexual assault accusation in the past so that has changed, but thee damage done by the accusation alone has always been serious.
@ Areslent For some reason Substack sent me five copies of your comment above ! ;-D
There is *no question that women have been abused throughout history. Even up to the year 1920 in the U.S., the year when women received the right to vote, the same political platform won for women nationwide change in the laws for the minimum age for of sexual consent for females to be moved *UP to the age of sixteen. In various states and territories up until that time, the age for sexual consent was as low as age ten, and all over the map from there. (This is even mentioned in the Ken Burns Documentary "Prohibition".) Even where I grew up in Montana in the Sixties, where the age of consent was sixteen, over in South Dakota, the age of consent was fourteen. (Some places don't care *what the Federal government says.) So, yes the historical record was, and to various degrees remains, completely dismal.
However, right now great changes really *are sweeping the earth. Religious, political, societal, etc. To my mind this is the time to institute massive changes to the System that are long overdue. So, it achieves nothing (but revenge) to swap the prior abuses of one gender to the present abuses of the opposite gender, as we have recently done in our public grade schools in the name of "fairness". Favoring *either gender is not the point. Educating both genders is the point.
The same idea applies in law. We need to strive to make the law fair and equitable to *all people. Yes, the laws have favored men since the beginning of laws. To now simply warp the law in the other direction accomplishes nothing.
It favors another class, but it is just as warped and imbalanced to the other side. What is needed, of course, is law balanced in the middle, as the Classic Statue of "Blind Justice" demonstrates.
The law can only change the *conditions that allowed past injustice. The law cannot retroactively *change the actual injustices of the past. It can only change the present and the future.
Any law that *can be abused, by any party, at any point, is a law in dire need of immediate repeal, or of immediate amendment.
That it is possible in the political climate of today to railroad an individual on a charge from multiple decades ago, when witnesses are no longer as reliable in memory, and documents are gone or never existed is not an equitable
law. It is never the province of the Court to decide "he said - she said" cases from twenty or more years ago. All infractions of law must be reported in a timely manner so that actions of due process and justice are more likely to be applied to the case.
Any law that *can be "used and abused" *must be rewritten sooner than later. Our legal system, like our medical systems, like our financial systems may *never be perfect, but they *must be improved ala our "Pledge of Allegiance" in the direction "of liberty and justice for all".
Thee Marianne Williamson? Mighty cool!
Hi Marianne! 😁
I used to wonder what the American version of the Cultural Revolution might look like.
Now I don’t.
Ha! Good one. Let's see, they had to melt down all their pots and pans to manufacture new ones. What would be the equivalent for our current folly?
Lots of electric blackouts on the horizon. Get a generator and a big fuel tank if you can.
I think that was Mao's Great Leap Forward, but your point is well taken.
The modern equivalent of that is AOC's Green Leap Forward.
Oh, right! GLF '58-'62, melting pots to change from an agrarian economy into a communist society, an economic failure. Cultural Revolution '66-'76, violent socio-political purge, economic activity halted, historical and cultural destruction, another economic failure. Both of them Mao's folly.
Perhaps believing that “canceling” anyone shuts them up.
All it makes is partisans.
The crux or the article is that Democrats (in control) are scum. This is currently playing out in just about every major city in the USA. They don't have a moral compass nor any concept of fair play. So that begs the question, why do the good Democrats stay Democrats?
Because have you seen what happens to wannabe third parties?! DNC sends in their lawyers and some crazy how they never get to be on ballots. I truly believe Bernie could’ve changed that had he ran Independent or Green. Both of which he was essentially begged to do by us and the Party members. He chose to stay with the DNC. Even after what all happened in ‘16.
I think you are being over optimistic about what any "outsider" will be able to accomplish. It is not going to be up to a person/politician, it is going to be the people from all stripes that find common ground in what is truly important. Bernie isn't a freedom guy, he is a collectivist. Also, for all the years he has been in government, truth is all of his life, what has he accomplished? I fear you would have been very disappointed with him had he made it to the presidency. I have never seen him stand up to the illness that Glenn just pointed out. Where was he on Kavanaugh?
I should clarify that I was only saying Bernie could’ve broken the barrier to actually installing a third party on the ballots. Because he had massive numbers and we would’ve voted for him had he ran not Democrat. Would loose some D votes but actually gain others who won’t vote Democrat, no matter who. I believe it would’ve gotten a third Party on the ballots finally.
I’ve since learned he probably wouldn’t have been the best President. But when compared to Hillary, Trump or Biden.... I would have to still pick Bernie. Just for the sake of being able to swallow.
There have been multiple third party candidates. Anderson and Perot come to mind. Libertarian's have thrown as few in also. The Republicans and Democrats (especially the Dems) are machines. Big city patronage jobs, the teachers union, and every single public employee union for that matter. So it must be reasonable and rational people that make change happen. Like you for example! I know I am ALL IN.
Also.... I have lost ALL illusions of “change from within”. Don’t worry lol
Preach! I just received a letter that my voter registration needs to change, as Greens no longer qualify to be on the ballot in my heavily Dem state. Time to leave!
Some “democracy”!!!
Great article but I wish you had spent more time discussing the hypocrisy where they turn a blind eye to Biden and Cuomo. It feels like after they gaslighted Bidens accusations they pretty much destroyed the MeToo movement. Dont take me wrong Glenn I love your writings, always makes me smile when I open my email and see something from you.
It's not really hypocrisy, those men are actual corporate tools, not working class heros. So, they stand behind them. If it was sincere, it would be hypocrisy. It isn't, it's just spin used to take aim at the working class representation. Same thing with many 'racism' claims. It's used when convenient in the class warfare battle we are currently being pummeled in.
Believe everything and everybody - except Tara Reade.