I want to take a moment and speak on what will no doubt be the almost blind panic that will come from the Democratic Party in the coming months as they realize that in Hillary Clinton will basically be in a dead heat against America's gateway fascist and the narratives they will use to get people to vote for the Clinton/Kaine ticket.
First, we will get multiple moralizing lectures about the dangers of splitting the vote, with an extremely heavy emphasis on the Bush/Gore election. There are already a shit ton of these posts on Tumblr, and I'm sure they will migrate to liberal media outlets and op-eds about a day to a week after the convention closes. They will talk, ad nauseam, about how Ralph Nader stole so many liberal voters that it allowed George W. Bush to run the world into the ground and how we need to vote for Hillary to stop that from happening again. Conveniently left out of this horror story, of course, is the minor detail that the Supreme Court literally told Florida not to count the votes people cast and that when people studied those votes afterwards, they found there was a fair chance Gore would have won the election. It would've been a narrow win, but a win nonetheless. If this fact does get included into the talking point, it will only be so that Nader can take the blame for making the vote close enough for a recount in the first place instead of handing Gore a safe, comfortable victory. Also left out is that the worst aspects of the Bush administration that people cite (the wars in the Middle East, the financial deregulation, the obstruction of LGBT rights) that the split vote cursed us to where all things Hillary Clinton supported. So it's a bit weird to use the awfulness of the Bush years as the thing which Clinton will save us from when she enthusiastically campaigned to make all of those things happen.
Another push Democratic loyalists will use is how the Democratic platform is the most progressive platform in recent memory and Hillary is running on that platform. And yeah, the platform has a lot of good stuff in it, but you can't really say that all those things are there because of Hillary Clinton. I mean, are we really going to forget that she refused to take any stance in the Fight for $15 until she was basically forced to do so? Do you really think a woman who went around the world championing the virtues of fracking would really put a serious, comprehensive action against climate change if left to her own devices? Or that a woman who six months ago derided single-payer health care as a pipe dream would pursue universal health coverage? Or maybe you think that after she used the DNC to work around campaign donation limits she would suddenly feel like money in politics is a bad thing. Please. The primary reason all of those thing are in there is because of the Sanders campaign and the movement it generated, the same people and principles Clinton and her surrogates have spent the last year dismissing as unrealistic, ignorant of political realities, and dreamers who have no capabilities of accomplishing these goals in the real world. So trying to use a platform that she has spent a significant amount of time belittling as proof of her progressive credentials basically demands everyone forget everything she said in the primary when those ideas weren't coming out of her mouth.
One other major factor that I think is going to cause the Clinton camp loads of trouble is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Trump is and how he came to prominence in our political culture. Yes, the racism, the total ignorance of global politics, the mendacity, the misogyny are all very real aspects of his campaign and are things to focus on and criticize. And yes, his willingness to embrace all of those things without any filter has bolstered his support. But more importantly than that, the core of his message is that the middle class just isn't what it used to be; that they have been sold down the river by political parties who funneled the money and resources of working people to their rich donors. The sad thing is, he's right. He's talking to a country where 63% of people are one missed paycheck away form homelessness, to a middle class that used to earn 62% of income in the country in 1970 but now only earns 43%. Of course, his proposed policies to fix these things aren't going to work, but the simple acknowledgement that there is a problem is incredibly powerful in a political climate that refuses to believe there's even a problem to address. That simple fact is the strongest factor underlining Trump's support, and if Clinton doesn't develop a strategy to neutralize that, her chances of winning aren't that great.
But since the "Third Way" strategy of selling out core constituencies to big money donors for campaign contributions that Hillary pioneered with her husband played such a major role in creating a status quo that drove people to the point of desperation enough that Trump seems like a solid Presidential candidate, I doubt she's going to come up with a strategy to counter-act his narrative. Instead I'm sure she will go with her tried-and-true method of just pretending she never did those things and calling out people who remind the world of her own actions. It's really this attitude that she as done no wrong, that she has nothing to apologize for, that is feeding so many people's reluctance and disgust for voting for her. That being said, I do think it benefits the progressive wing of the party more to support her. Not because she's actually inherently progressive, but because of who she is as a person.
Hillary is a political animal that follows the political winds and nothing else. Whatever positions offer her the path of least resistance to the halls of power and whatever principles she feels the need to espouse to stay there have been and always will be her guiding lights. The fact that the Sanders campaign has shifted the ground enough where the platform calls for a public option, an expansion of Medicare, the strengthening of Social Security instead of cutting it, is a testament to the power of the people when they actually engage in the political process. And if you stay and hold her feet to the fire and keep the ground shifting, then you're basically ensuring that for Hillary to survive and thrive, she will have no other option but to fulfill and pursue a progressive agenda.
Because here's the dirty little secret behind all the vote splitting demagoguery and all the grandstanding on the Party platform: To become President, Hillary Clinton desperately needs the progressive block to stay behind her; she needs their votes, their donations, their canvassing, and their activism. Without those things, there's a better than fair chance that she's going to lose. So, instead of seeing a vote for Clinton as a capitulation, you should really start seeing it as the leverage that it is. The best strategy for the people who want the political revolution Sanders has been championing isn't to throw that power away on third-party candidates or doing write-ins of Sanders' name; it's to make sure that your votes carry Clinton into the White House, and then spending the next four years making sure she never, ever forgets that.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
Ghostbusters Review
Ever since the first trailer dropped for the Paul Feig directed remake of the all-women Ghostbusters dropped online, the movie has been the most reluctantly political statements in recent memory. Thankfully, the movie largely bypasses the political muck and just wants to follow the beats and be a good Ghostbusters movie, and it succeeds, for the most part.
The story follows Erin (Kristen Wiig), a physics professor at Colombia whose tenure track is threatened when her ex-research partner Abby (Melissa McCarthy) releases their long forgotten book about the scientific justification for ghosts without her permission. Abby is still delving into the science of the paranormal with mad engineer Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), one trip and sliming at a haunted house later, Erin is back on the ghost train and the trio opens up a paranormal research center. They pick up MTA worker Patty (Leslie Jones) after a nice haunting jaunt in the subway, where misadventure and hilarity ensue as the team unravels the mystery behind the increase in ghost activity .
Like the original, the key to the film's success lies in the chemistry of its core group, and the four actresses bounce off each other to spectacular degrees. Wiig and McCarthy have built up an easy, back-and-forth rapport with each other, and their familial bond as the only people in the world who believed in each other is the heart of the film, and it's really what builds the foundation for both Jones and McKinnon to latch on to and keeps all the antics grounded to a emotional center. Jones also does great work as a normal person who starts encountering much crazier shit than she was prepared for, and McKinnon steals the movie with her off-the-wall zeal and general bat-shit behavior. Chris Hemsworth also has more comedic chops than anyone was really expecting who pushes the beautiful idiot trope so far it becomes delightfully absurd.
The movie does have it problems though, largely in its structure. The film basically proceeds in a rinse-repeat cycle of the ladies encountering a ghost, being discredited/dismissed, and Holtzmann building increasingly outlandish gear. The chemistry of the main casts carries this wash cycle style of storytelling as well as it can, but the whole thing falls apart when the movie transitions to the third act and spends about 15 minutes of basically dead air as we wait for interesting things to start happening again. The movie recovers well enough in the climax and ends on a note strong enough that I'm actually looking forward to any sequels they come out with.
The best thing about this film is that, while you're watching it, you forget the bullshit that surrounded it and just enjoy yourself for two hours. It has its speed bumps, and it is a little too faithful to the franchise formula for its own good, but overall, it carries on the spirit of the original while adding its own spin to it, which is all anyone can really ask for.
Grade: B
The story follows Erin (Kristen Wiig), a physics professor at Colombia whose tenure track is threatened when her ex-research partner Abby (Melissa McCarthy) releases their long forgotten book about the scientific justification for ghosts without her permission. Abby is still delving into the science of the paranormal with mad engineer Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), one trip and sliming at a haunted house later, Erin is back on the ghost train and the trio opens up a paranormal research center. They pick up MTA worker Patty (Leslie Jones) after a nice haunting jaunt in the subway, where misadventure and hilarity ensue as the team unravels the mystery behind the increase in ghost activity .
Like the original, the key to the film's success lies in the chemistry of its core group, and the four actresses bounce off each other to spectacular degrees. Wiig and McCarthy have built up an easy, back-and-forth rapport with each other, and their familial bond as the only people in the world who believed in each other is the heart of the film, and it's really what builds the foundation for both Jones and McKinnon to latch on to and keeps all the antics grounded to a emotional center. Jones also does great work as a normal person who starts encountering much crazier shit than she was prepared for, and McKinnon steals the movie with her off-the-wall zeal and general bat-shit behavior. Chris Hemsworth also has more comedic chops than anyone was really expecting who pushes the beautiful idiot trope so far it becomes delightfully absurd.
The movie does have it problems though, largely in its structure. The film basically proceeds in a rinse-repeat cycle of the ladies encountering a ghost, being discredited/dismissed, and Holtzmann building increasingly outlandish gear. The chemistry of the main casts carries this wash cycle style of storytelling as well as it can, but the whole thing falls apart when the movie transitions to the third act and spends about 15 minutes of basically dead air as we wait for interesting things to start happening again. The movie recovers well enough in the climax and ends on a note strong enough that I'm actually looking forward to any sequels they come out with.
The best thing about this film is that, while you're watching it, you forget the bullshit that surrounded it and just enjoy yourself for two hours. It has its speed bumps, and it is a little too faithful to the franchise formula for its own good, but overall, it carries on the spirit of the original while adding its own spin to it, which is all anyone can really ask for.
Grade: B
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Checking In On the Horse Race
After a relatively quiet few weeks, election news is starting to pick up again. Trump picked Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate, and we've got new CBS/New York Times poll showing the Clinton/Trump race in a practical dead heat. RealClearPolitics has Hillary leading by a measly three points when everything's averaged out, Over at The Hill, there's an article about Senate Democrats "freaking out" about the poll numbers, while John Cassidy at the New Yorker is telling people not to panic, at least, not yet. My view is that there isn't any real need for panic or general freak outs, since we've reached the point in the election where the numbers are going to pretty much stay where they are.
This is obviously no comfort to anyone; no Hillary supporter wants to know that the best they can do is beat Trump by the skin-of-their-teeth and no Trump supporter wants to hear that the campaign has plateaued five months from the election. But here's the thing, anything that could have dislodged or destroyed the campaigns has already happened and we're where we are anyway, there's no other shoe to drop to swing the momentum in any significant direction for one side or the other. The CBS/New York Times Poll asked if people hadn't heard enough about Trump or Clinton to form an opinion about them, what they got back was on 3% and 4%, respectively, hadn't heard enough. When they asked about if how committed the supporters where to their candidates, Trump got 90% saying they wouldn't change their mind, Clinton had 88%. Both Trump and Clinton are known entities with decades of scandals, baggage, and bullshit behind them, there is no significant part of the electorate who hasn't already decided who these people are and there is nothing either candidate can do to shift those perceptions.
"But, the e-mail scandal!" someone will surely say. Well, since Hillary wasn't charged, it's just the same old story of powerful elites avoiding the justice system because of their power. And to be sure, it's hurt Hillary, at this point, people think Trump is more trustworthy and honest than she is. And, don't get me wrong, Trump is going to mine that situation for all the "Washington cronyism" that he can; and it'll stir people up for sure, 46% of the respondents said that Clinton had done something criminal. But when you break that number down among political affiliation, that number isn't as exciting. 78% of Republicans thought she did something criminal, and only 51% of independents thought so, too (Democrats, obviously, where the lowest, at 14%). So here's a prime example of people already making up their minds on an issue because of their ideological preferences and the people who aren't, are pretty evenly split on the issue. Trump will do everything he can to push that Independent divide up in his favor, but if a year of coverage hasn't already swayed people's minds, five months of soundbites and talking points isn't really going to change that. Cassidy also thinks the issue will die down when Clinton admits her mistakes in the whole affair but, considering that she still insisted that the Inspector General reported validated her claims that she hadn't any differently than Colin Powell and that State knew what she was up to even though the report literally said the exact opposite, I doubt that's going to happen as well
Both The Hill and New Yorker article make a lot of hay over Trump's lack of a ground game", basically campaign personnel who do the door-to-door campaigning and get-out-the-vote initiatives in local neighborhoods. This is a criticism you're going to see thrown a lot over the next month or two, depending on how much Trump's campaign can get its shit together. In my view, using this an example of how bad Trump is at managing a campaign is misguided. Presidential elections are, more than anything, contests between cults of personality. Trump understands this, if nothing else, which is why he was able to mop the floor with the 16 other candidates in the primary and it's why he's basically even in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio.
Where that criticism has a point though, is that it may hamper how effectively Trump can mobilize his voter base. Again from the CBS poll, 27% of the respondents where very enthusiastic about the vote, but 24% weren't enthusiastic at all. Among the parties, 84% of both Republicans and Democrats said they where going to definitely vote, but since those votes are already locked one way or another, the key to winning will be whoever can get the 69% of independents to come out. In a race this tight, knowing where your weak spots are in terms of voting districts and how to best get them out is going to be essential, and whatever else you can say about her, Clinton knows how to turn her machine on to grind out as many voters as possible. Trump's lack of experience in this and his apparent decision to foist everything off on the RNC, which is honestly better at suppressing the vote than turning it out, could cost him in the long run.
One last thing that's just funny to me more than anything else, in The Hill article one of the Senators quotes Clinton that the reasons for her bad poll numbers are that there are other things going on, like people being unhappy and not trusting institutions. Those things are true, but the implication that Clinton can overcome those prejudices to turn her numbers around is hysterical. There is no one in recent history who embodies the official political culture of D.C. more than Hillary Clinton; when people think of politicians getting rich off their connections, they jump to the Goldman Sachs speeches, when they think of insiders protecting each other from criminal charges, they jump to the emails. Basically, Clinton can check off every single thing people think of when the phrase "Crooked Politician" comes to mind, that she seems completely incapable of seeing that or understanding what that means for her campaign is kind of awesome in its own delusional way.
Anyway, that's where we stand today and where we will most likely be standing five months from now. The conventions start next week, and there will probably be no shortage of drama as a result, but overall, we've seen the talking points and the strategies from both camps in how they'll deal with each other and we've seen the polling results. The worst part about all of this politicking and horse-racing though, is, in five months, one of these assholes is going to be our next President.
This is obviously no comfort to anyone; no Hillary supporter wants to know that the best they can do is beat Trump by the skin-of-their-teeth and no Trump supporter wants to hear that the campaign has plateaued five months from the election. But here's the thing, anything that could have dislodged or destroyed the campaigns has already happened and we're where we are anyway, there's no other shoe to drop to swing the momentum in any significant direction for one side or the other. The CBS/New York Times Poll asked if people hadn't heard enough about Trump or Clinton to form an opinion about them, what they got back was on 3% and 4%, respectively, hadn't heard enough. When they asked about if how committed the supporters where to their candidates, Trump got 90% saying they wouldn't change their mind, Clinton had 88%. Both Trump and Clinton are known entities with decades of scandals, baggage, and bullshit behind them, there is no significant part of the electorate who hasn't already decided who these people are and there is nothing either candidate can do to shift those perceptions.
"But, the e-mail scandal!" someone will surely say. Well, since Hillary wasn't charged, it's just the same old story of powerful elites avoiding the justice system because of their power. And to be sure, it's hurt Hillary, at this point, people think Trump is more trustworthy and honest than she is. And, don't get me wrong, Trump is going to mine that situation for all the "Washington cronyism" that he can; and it'll stir people up for sure, 46% of the respondents said that Clinton had done something criminal. But when you break that number down among political affiliation, that number isn't as exciting. 78% of Republicans thought she did something criminal, and only 51% of independents thought so, too (Democrats, obviously, where the lowest, at 14%). So here's a prime example of people already making up their minds on an issue because of their ideological preferences and the people who aren't, are pretty evenly split on the issue. Trump will do everything he can to push that Independent divide up in his favor, but if a year of coverage hasn't already swayed people's minds, five months of soundbites and talking points isn't really going to change that. Cassidy also thinks the issue will die down when Clinton admits her mistakes in the whole affair but, considering that she still insisted that the Inspector General reported validated her claims that she hadn't any differently than Colin Powell and that State knew what she was up to even though the report literally said the exact opposite, I doubt that's going to happen as well
Both The Hill and New Yorker article make a lot of hay over Trump's lack of a ground game", basically campaign personnel who do the door-to-door campaigning and get-out-the-vote initiatives in local neighborhoods. This is a criticism you're going to see thrown a lot over the next month or two, depending on how much Trump's campaign can get its shit together. In my view, using this an example of how bad Trump is at managing a campaign is misguided. Presidential elections are, more than anything, contests between cults of personality. Trump understands this, if nothing else, which is why he was able to mop the floor with the 16 other candidates in the primary and it's why he's basically even in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio.
Where that criticism has a point though, is that it may hamper how effectively Trump can mobilize his voter base. Again from the CBS poll, 27% of the respondents where very enthusiastic about the vote, but 24% weren't enthusiastic at all. Among the parties, 84% of both Republicans and Democrats said they where going to definitely vote, but since those votes are already locked one way or another, the key to winning will be whoever can get the 69% of independents to come out. In a race this tight, knowing where your weak spots are in terms of voting districts and how to best get them out is going to be essential, and whatever else you can say about her, Clinton knows how to turn her machine on to grind out as many voters as possible. Trump's lack of experience in this and his apparent decision to foist everything off on the RNC, which is honestly better at suppressing the vote than turning it out, could cost him in the long run.
One last thing that's just funny to me more than anything else, in The Hill article one of the Senators quotes Clinton that the reasons for her bad poll numbers are that there are other things going on, like people being unhappy and not trusting institutions. Those things are true, but the implication that Clinton can overcome those prejudices to turn her numbers around is hysterical. There is no one in recent history who embodies the official political culture of D.C. more than Hillary Clinton; when people think of politicians getting rich off their connections, they jump to the Goldman Sachs speeches, when they think of insiders protecting each other from criminal charges, they jump to the emails. Basically, Clinton can check off every single thing people think of when the phrase "Crooked Politician" comes to mind, that she seems completely incapable of seeing that or understanding what that means for her campaign is kind of awesome in its own delusional way.
Anyway, that's where we stand today and where we will most likely be standing five months from now. The conventions start next week, and there will probably be no shortage of drama as a result, but overall, we've seen the talking points and the strategies from both camps in how they'll deal with each other and we've seen the polling results. The worst part about all of this politicking and horse-racing though, is, in five months, one of these assholes is going to be our next President.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Paul Bremer Is Still A Shitheel
Last Wednesday saw the release of the Chilcot Report, basically the U.K.'s "How did we go so wrong" report regarding the thought process leading up to and the aftermath of the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. The report's focus is, of course, focused on the U.K.'s involvement and processes, but a condemnation of the cheerleader nation condemns the US as the spearhead, so that's why Paul Bremer wrote a piece for the Guardian trying, vainly, to portray the Iraq War as a noble thing plagued by flawed execution instead of the inherent disaster that it is.
Bremer concedes that not enough planning was done for the aftermath of Saddam's removal, saying that his forwarded emails with reports on higher troop levels were ignored. As has been widely documented, having no plan was a purposeful strategy by the Bush administration so they could sell the public on a short, inconsequential war- developing plans that involve massive troop levels for years after the fact put a slight wrinkle on that sales package. It's one thing to make plans and hide them from the public eye, it's an entirely different thing to make no plans whatsoever and just make it up as you go along.
But, pointing out the flaws for effective planning after the invasion is about as difficult an observation as "water is wet" or "fire burns when you touch it", so Bremer gets no credit for pointing that out. His real points of contention are on the report's critiques of the de-Baathification of the Iraqi government and the justifications for going to war in the first place.
But, pointing out the flaws for effective planning after the invasion is about as difficult an observation as "water is wet" or "fire burns when you touch it", so Bremer gets no credit for pointing that out. His real points of contention are on the report's critiques of the de-Baathification of the Iraqi government and the justifications for going to war in the first place.
Bremer starts with the de-Baathification, saying that it was always going to be a necessary move for Iraq to move forward past Saddam's rule. And in that, he has a point. If you want to move a country into a new future, you have to purge what has come before it. But the central criticism of the whole de-Baathification strategy is and always has been that it burned down all of Iraq's institutions without setting up anything to replace them. Part of purging the old is you have to do it responsibly, you have to take into consideration that the old political powers are the only powers who know how to effectively manage the country you're now in charge of. Bemer draws a parallel to the Nazi's and their subsequent purge from authority as the Allies and the Soviets took power in their respective Germany's. As Bremer says, to be in anything resembling power in Saddam's government, you had to be in the Baath party. T0he key point Bremer insists on missing though, is that being in the party so you can get a job doesn't mean you're actually loyal to that party's ideas or goals, it just means you're saying what you have to say to guarantee your next paycheck.
The other central point of the critique, that Bremer just skims by, is that by completely dissolving the army, the de-Baathification plan basically just created a wealth of people with military and fighting experience with a serious grudge against the new powers-that-be, and when the Sunni revolts came calling, a large part of those fighters where men who suddenly had an avenue to voice their displeasure. And when the Iraqi government stopped paying those same factions not to revolt, well, here came ISIS knocking on the door with cash in hand.
The other central point of the critique, that Bremer just skims by, is that by completely dissolving the army, the de-Baathification plan basically just created a wealth of people with military and fighting experience with a serious grudge against the new powers-that-be, and when the Sunni revolts came calling, a large part of those fighters where men who suddenly had an avenue to voice their displeasure. And when the Iraqi government stopped paying those same factions not to revolt, well, here came ISIS knocking on the door with cash in hand.
So it's not hard to see how colossal a fuck-up Bremer's signature policy when he was running Iraq was, and in defense of this, in a government that still, to this day, can't provide consistent power, water, or sanitation services, and with a sizable chunk of the country under enemy control staffed by the same army he kicked to the curb, Bremer's sole defense on why this wasn't a complete disaster is that he re-hired some teachers. Bra-fucking-vo, dude, bra-fucking-vo.
Bremer than moves on to justifying the decision to invade Iraq in the first place with an argument I still can't believe a person is making in 2016 with a straight face. Here's his pitch, in full:
Bremer also puts in a heroic effort to ignore the fact that Hans Blix was in Iraq investigating the possibility that Saddam either still had WMD's that we sold to him or that he was still operating programs to create them. Blix's findings that Iraq had no WMD's and no capabilities to create them were blithely dismissed by the administration, with Condoleezza Rice famously saying they didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. And, of course, after the invasion was complete we also spent time looking for any signs of a weapons program and came up with exactly nothing, proving all the critics of the war right that Saddam had nothing and could create nothing. So again, it's weird to invoke the context of the time when that context provides all the evidence that the justifications for the war were complete bullshit.
Bremer wants to portray himself as a man who was there at the time and learned from his mistakes. He wants to show the world that he, and his bosses', embarked on a righteous cause and only erred in the means they used to pursue that cause.
Bremer than moves on to justifying the decision to invade Iraq in the first place with an argument I still can't believe a person is making in 2016 with a straight face. Here's his pitch, in full:
"Context is essential to the decision to go to war. The September 11 attacks showed a massive new threat, particularly if terrorists could get their hands on WMD. Iraq had been designated a state sponsor of terror by successive American presidents of both parties.That bit about context is what kills me the most. Saddam, for all his horrors, ran a secular dictatorship. He fucking hated Al Qaeda and every other religious extremist terror group out there, mostly because they would have no problem coming for him, the secular apostate who suppressed their version of Islam as stringently as he possibly could. The bit about Iraq being a state sponsor of terrorism is fucking gold as well, since the only reason George H.W. Bush had to reclassify Iraq as a state sponsor was because of all the work he did as Reagan's VP taking Iraq off the list so the U.S. could sell Saddam weapons to use in their war against Iran. Weapons like, yes, the chemical agents Saddam used against the Kurd, an attack we had full knowledge was going to occur but did absolutely nothing to stop. So it's bit hypocritical to use that same event as a cudgel to beat Saddam with and justify his removal.
Bremer also puts in a heroic effort to ignore the fact that Hans Blix was in Iraq investigating the possibility that Saddam either still had WMD's that we sold to him or that he was still operating programs to create them. Blix's findings that Iraq had no WMD's and no capabilities to create them were blithely dismissed by the administration, with Condoleezza Rice famously saying they didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. And, of course, after the invasion was complete we also spent time looking for any signs of a weapons program and came up with exactly nothing, proving all the critics of the war right that Saddam had nothing and could create nothing. So again, it's weird to invoke the context of the time when that context provides all the evidence that the justifications for the war were complete bullshit.
Bremer wants to portray himself as a man who was there at the time and learned from his mistakes. He wants to show the world that he, and his bosses', embarked on a righteous cause and only erred in the means they used to pursue that cause.
He is none of those things.
By refusing to own up to the consequences of his own actions and by still holding on to justifications for the war that have been solidly discredited for over a decade now, Bremer shows himself to be same piece of shit who had no idea what he was doing when he burned a country that used to be an axis of civilization to the fucking ground.
Friday, July 8, 2016
On The Dallas Shootings
One of the things I've been worried about since the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement is that cops would close ranks against whatever perceived "assault" they thought the BLM movement represented. And that has happened, with multiple organizations and politicians saying that 2015 was the year of "The War on Cops" despite 2015 being one of the safest years for cops in history. But, my bigger concern would basically be the reaction to the reaction, that there would be individuals who saw the cops as literal enemies and who saw a lack of accountability for the deaths of innocent people as license to start being violent since every other course had failed.
Luckily, that hasn't really come to the fore, yet. Aside from the two cops who were murdered in New York City in 2014 there hadn't been any major stories of cops being killed in retaliation for cops killing black people. Until Thursday, anyway. At a protest over the recent deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, 25-year-old Micah Johnson opened fire into the crowd, injuring twelve people in total, and killing five police officers. Johnson was later killed in a standoff with police, and Dallas Police Chief David Brown later quoted Johnson's motives as wanting to kill white people, and white officers specifically. So far, there have been calls for unity, but it won't be long before think pieces start laying the deaths of these officers at the feet of BLM and anyone else who seeks to hold cops accountable for the people they kill on duty.
And honestly, that attitude of "Questioning the police's authority is an inherent threat to their safety" can only really lead to more dead cops. If you remove a society's natural way to check official power, eventually, people are going to realize the only options left are bullets. For a police force that is becoming increasingly militaristic nationwide in its tactics, equipment, and philosophy, pushing the ideology that cops are urban soldiers and questioning them is treason only reinforces the "Us vs. Them" mentality that you find in real armies. The whole purpose of that mentality is to dehumanize your enemy to the point where you won't question any action you've been ordered to take against them, it's pure psychological conditioning that armies have been using it ever since we decided to create them.
The problem with this, of course, is that it trains cops to view every ordinary citizen and encounter as a life-or-death situation against a hostile enemy. Obviously, that isn't to say that cops shouldn't asses a situation for threats, but if they deem the threat level as 'low', they should act accordingly. Because there's no way any police force can effectively police a community if every interaction with the people of that community carries an implicit threat that they'll be killed with no hesitation at the slightest of provocations. That barrel-of-the-gun style of peace hasn't worked for any professional army on foreign soil, so we should really doubt and cast aside anyone who advocates for civilian entities to try it right here at home.
This is all just one very long-winded way to say that we need to stop treating our cops like they're soldiers and the people who question their actions as enemy combatants. Hell, we need to stop talking about criminals that way, too. Because the longer we allow the narrative that crime is a war between the authorities vs. everyone subject or questions that authority to reign the more we just add to the inevitability of the day where communities who feel like they are under siege from an invading army will began to respond as occupied communities tend to do and there'll be no justice or peace for anyone.
P.S.
One final note, this whole situation of a former armed service member using his weapons and training to kill representatives of what they perceive to be an oppressive and illegitimate government is kinda the wet dream scenario of those who advocate for "2nd Amendment Solutions". That those same, overwhelmingly conservative, people will strongly condemn this action as an assault on American values but will no seriously say how we should embrace these solutions if wins the Presidency is an irony I can't really get enough of.
Luckily, that hasn't really come to the fore, yet. Aside from the two cops who were murdered in New York City in 2014 there hadn't been any major stories of cops being killed in retaliation for cops killing black people. Until Thursday, anyway. At a protest over the recent deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, 25-year-old Micah Johnson opened fire into the crowd, injuring twelve people in total, and killing five police officers. Johnson was later killed in a standoff with police, and Dallas Police Chief David Brown later quoted Johnson's motives as wanting to kill white people, and white officers specifically. So far, there have been calls for unity, but it won't be long before think pieces start laying the deaths of these officers at the feet of BLM and anyone else who seeks to hold cops accountable for the people they kill on duty.
And honestly, that attitude of "Questioning the police's authority is an inherent threat to their safety" can only really lead to more dead cops. If you remove a society's natural way to check official power, eventually, people are going to realize the only options left are bullets. For a police force that is becoming increasingly militaristic nationwide in its tactics, equipment, and philosophy, pushing the ideology that cops are urban soldiers and questioning them is treason only reinforces the "Us vs. Them" mentality that you find in real armies. The whole purpose of that mentality is to dehumanize your enemy to the point where you won't question any action you've been ordered to take against them, it's pure psychological conditioning that armies have been using it ever since we decided to create them.
The problem with this, of course, is that it trains cops to view every ordinary citizen and encounter as a life-or-death situation against a hostile enemy. Obviously, that isn't to say that cops shouldn't asses a situation for threats, but if they deem the threat level as 'low', they should act accordingly. Because there's no way any police force can effectively police a community if every interaction with the people of that community carries an implicit threat that they'll be killed with no hesitation at the slightest of provocations. That barrel-of-the-gun style of peace hasn't worked for any professional army on foreign soil, so we should really doubt and cast aside anyone who advocates for civilian entities to try it right here at home.
This is all just one very long-winded way to say that we need to stop treating our cops like they're soldiers and the people who question their actions as enemy combatants. Hell, we need to stop talking about criminals that way, too. Because the longer we allow the narrative that crime is a war between the authorities vs. everyone subject or questions that authority to reign the more we just add to the inevitability of the day where communities who feel like they are under siege from an invading army will began to respond as occupied communities tend to do and there'll be no justice or peace for anyone.
P.S.
One final note, this whole situation of a former armed service member using his weapons and training to kill representatives of what they perceive to be an oppressive and illegitimate government is kinda the wet dream scenario of those who advocate for "2nd Amendment Solutions". That those same, overwhelmingly conservative, people will strongly condemn this action as an assault on American values but will no seriously say how we should embrace these solutions if wins the Presidency is an irony I can't really get enough of.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Quick Notes on the Email Scandal
Today, FBI Director James Comey gave a statement saying that the FBI has concluded its investigation into Hillary's email practices while she was Secretary of State and is not recommending any criminal charges. Here's some quick thoughts on the fallout since I think enough has been made of this already:
The fact that there weren't any criminal charges will be red meat in and of itself. Trump has already fired off a couple tweets about how the system is rigged and you can practically hear the keys pounding out the conspiracy theories about how the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch plane ride was all about a secret deal to ensure Hillary wouldn't be charged so when she's President she'll give Lynch some kind of favor. This is just bullshit, but, the Clintons have a habit of opening themselves up to criticisms like this so I blame them almost as much as the conspiracy nuts.
Also, yes, if this was anyone other Hillary Clinton who had done this that person would already be rotting away in federal prison,on that, there's no question. That being said, if you're going to take a swing at one of the most powerful political figures in the country, you better not miss. And with all the resources Hillary has, she's going to put up a much better fight than say, Chelsea Manning or Daniel Ellsburg, so yes, it is a political decision to not recommend charges, but that decision is save the FBI's ass, not Clinton's.
The one thing to take away from the statement, though, is Comey's bit about how reckless Clinton was n handling the information. It has been a long time criticism of Hillary that she behaves like rules are things for other people, but not her. Comey's statement, along with the Inspector General report from the State Department, both go a long way to backing that sentiment up. So maybe, if you're a Hillary supporter, you should think about that personal quality and start calling for her to be held accountable by her own staff before she does something she can't escape from.
And those are my thoughts. There'll still be a lot of bullshit flung around regarding this whole affair so, be sure to have a tarp to cover yourself
The fact that there weren't any criminal charges will be red meat in and of itself. Trump has already fired off a couple tweets about how the system is rigged and you can practically hear the keys pounding out the conspiracy theories about how the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch plane ride was all about a secret deal to ensure Hillary wouldn't be charged so when she's President she'll give Lynch some kind of favor. This is just bullshit, but, the Clintons have a habit of opening themselves up to criticisms like this so I blame them almost as much as the conspiracy nuts.
Also, yes, if this was anyone other Hillary Clinton who had done this that person would already be rotting away in federal prison,on that, there's no question. That being said, if you're going to take a swing at one of the most powerful political figures in the country, you better not miss. And with all the resources Hillary has, she's going to put up a much better fight than say, Chelsea Manning or Daniel Ellsburg, so yes, it is a political decision to not recommend charges, but that decision is save the FBI's ass, not Clinton's.
The one thing to take away from the statement, though, is Comey's bit about how reckless Clinton was n handling the information. It has been a long time criticism of Hillary that she behaves like rules are things for other people, but not her. Comey's statement, along with the Inspector General report from the State Department, both go a long way to backing that sentiment up. So maybe, if you're a Hillary supporter, you should think about that personal quality and start calling for her to be held accountable by her own staff before she does something she can't escape from.
And those are my thoughts. There'll still be a lot of bullshit flung around regarding this whole affair so, be sure to have a tarp to cover yourself
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)