In Defense of Tulsi Gabbard.
The election of 2020 is approaching us fast, and the primary season will be here before we know it. Already, the 2020 democratic field has a few challengers. The darling of the establishment, Elizabeth Warren, has announced. From the insurgency ranks, outside of the establishment, is Hawaii congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard.
Tulsi Gabbard, on nearly all sensible and progressive policies gets a perfect score. She supports the reinstitution of the Glass Steagall act.[1] She supports raising the minimum wage.[2] She also has vocally opposed and taken part in protests against the monstrosity called the Keystone Pipeline. She has continuously called for Climate change to be taken seriously and for America to embark on a pragmatic shift away from fossil fuels to efficient alternative energy.[3] She has supported civil rights for all individual Americans, including our Latino, LGBT, African-American, disabled and Muslim citizens.[4] So therefore, it appears she should be an ideal candidate for all left-leaning individuals, mainly those who supported Sanders in the 2016 primary. She also was one of the few Democrat Party officials to endorse Bernie Sanders during his presidential race in 2016, with considerable risk to her political career. She freely resigned from her high ranking post as vice chair of the DNC in order to follow her conscience and endorse Sanders, much to the chagrin of the DNC’s operators.
Most importantly, and speaking from the personal perspective as a PHD candidate in the field of Middle Eastern Studies, she has a spotless foreign policy. Hers is the kind needed for a successful and functional American relationship with not only the Middle East, but the rest of the world as well. She has rightly condemned the illegal war of aggression against Syria.[5] At great risk to her person, and her own political career, she undertook a fact-finding mission in the war-torn nation of Syria. She has since taken it upon herself, much to the ire of the Democratic Party establishment, to tell Americans the truth about where their tax-dollars are going. They are being funneled at the behest of the Military Industry Complex, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to aid the wrong side of a conflict that is of no interest to the United States. Mainly, the American government is actively using American money to assist those who have killed Americans in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.[6] She also repeatedly called for the suspension of aid and weapon sales to the atrocious and genocidal regime in Saudi Arabia, which has been in the process of starving the Yemeni population to death.[7] She also condemned Obama’s illegal war of aggression against Libya, which our former commander in chief admitted was a tragic mistake.[8]
Also, just like many new congresspersons, she has courageously opposed actions of the Israeli government, much to the chagrin of the Israeli lobby in the United States. Far-right media Zionists call her an “enemy to Israel” for condemning Israel’s butchering of 58 Palestinians in the May of 2018. In our present day and age, with the embedded tyranny of the Israeli lobby, by far the most powerful lobby in the United States government, one who would threaten to break their power and influence should be considered an ideal candidate.[9]
As with the case of Bernie Sanders in the election of 2016, she has attracted her fair share of criticism from both the radical far left, with pieces of respected left-leaning organizations such as Rolling Stone[10], Jacobin Magazine[11], and the Socialist Worker[12]denouncing her. She has also predictably received her fair share of criticism from the right and from the establishment democrats. The criticisms far outshine anything which was leveled against Sanders during the 2016 election campaign. Among these allegations, is that she is a Hindu Nationalist, Islamophobe a homophobe, and a Bashar al-Assad apologist. Well, if we can examine the claims against her, one can see they are all as fictitious as the claims that Obama was born in Kenya, or that Jill Stein opposes vaccinations.
So what are the major criticisms of Mrs. Gabbard? One of the most pervasive ones is that she is an alleged “Hindu nationalist” and has ties to the controversial right-wing Indian party, the BJP, or as it is translated into English, the “Indian Peoples Party.” The BJP is often considered to be the equivalent of the religious right in Indian politics. They are often described as a Hindu supremacist and anti-Muslim organization. In particular, she has attracted considerable criticism for her advocacy of a visa for the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Well, what are the facts behind this allegation? She has the support of a large section of the Indian-American community, many of whom are BJP supporters because they come from middle-upper class Indian backgrounds. Does this honestly surprise anyone? As the first Hindu in congressperson in the United States, it should come as no surprise that Hindu Americans would flock to her as someone who would represent their interests, or that she would lobby on the behalf of her religious community. Keith Ellison, when he was in congress, was largely seen as the spokesperson for the Muslim American community, and spoke at organizations like the Islamic Society of North America and the Council of American-Islamic Relations. Nobody of any serious consideration gives Jewish elected officials a hard time for representing the interests of the Jewish community in the United States, or Israel for that matter. A lot of folks are giving her trouble for being an alleged "apologist" for the controversial Indian Prime Minister Modi. All she has been doing, and rightly so, is trying to improve India-U S relations by criticizing the hypocritical visa denial of Narendra Modi. If Benjamin Netanyahu is allowed to come and go as he pleases; so should any other world leader. She also voted against a House bill, https://www.congress.gov/…/113th-congr…/house-resolution/417which, at the end of the day, was essentially nothing more than an attempt to drive a wedge between India and the United States.
It should be self-evident that the last thing the United States needs is to enter a cold war with India, a nuclear armed country with one of the largest armies in the world, and also a vital trading partner with the United States. So Gabbard should be applauded and not condemned for working towards a more ideal and peaceful world.
In a recent interview Gabbard clarifies she supports working with the Indian government as a whole, and does not favor the BJP over their opponents, the Indian Congress Party. She clearly states, that as a member of congress, she wishes to cultivate closer ties between the United States and India as a whole. She will not give preference to any particular Indian party, just as she is willing to reach across party lines within the United States and work with Republicans and Democrats alike to achieve better outcomes.[13]
Also, it is worth mentioning, that the reason those on the left are raising the alarm about Prime Minister Modi is because of his alleged involvement in some tragic massacres in 2002 in the Indian province of Gujarat. However, Modi has never been convicted in a court of law for any complicity in the Gujarat riots. The Supreme Court of India has upheld Modi’s innocence.[14] Modi has yet to be convicted, within India, or anywhere in the international community, such as the United Nations or the International Court of Justice for complicity in the crime. How can Gabbard be criticized for seeking to maintain positive relations with a legitimate head of state? Especially when so many friends of the United States have so much verifiable blood on their hands?
Another popular and monotonous canard against the congressperson is allegations that she is a “homophobe.” The evidence for this is that during her time as Hawaii state representative, at the young age of 22, she opposed the legalization of gay marriage. She also defended her father who is a staunch opponent of LGBT rights.
However, her time in the military, coupled with the natural progress of age and wisdom has led to her evolving on the issue. She has staunchly repudiated and apologized for her early opposition to LGBT rights.[15] One can clearly see from her voting record that she has voted in favor of every pro-LGBT piece of legislation, one of which prohibited federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, as well as a bill that prohibits federal funding to law enforcement agencies that engage in demographic profiling in violation of the DOJ guidance. She voted against a bill that would have had the VAWA remove protections for LGBT individuals.[16] She also signed a letter to president Trump, asking him to reverse the ban of transgendered individuals serving the military.[17]
Will such apologies satisfy her critics? Apparently not, as they haven’t stopped talking about it, some having commented that the fact she had even once in her life held views such as those, should permanently disqualify her. Is this a fair assessment? As the great Heraclitus said, one cannot step in the same river twice. We are the sum of our experiences, and know only the information that we are exposed to, our upbringing and society shaping the way in which our plastic brains perceive the world in front of us. The famous Malcolm X for many years pronounced his opposition to the civil rights movement, and integration. However, after his pilgrimage to Mecca, he had a change of views and later broke ranks with his former organization, the Nation of Islam, which resulted in his ultimate demise.[18] George Wallace, Alabama governor and presidential candidate in the election of 1968 who famously said “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” later recanted his segregationist views. In his later years, Wallace made it a point to apologize to the leaders of Civil Rights movement.[19]
Another popular claim that is making rounds is that Mrs. Gabbard is bigoted against Muslims. Indeed, the Socialist Worker newsletter named their hit-piece “an Islamaphobic Progressive.” What is the evidence for this claim? It’s simply that she uses that term “Islamic terrorism” and criticized Obama for not considering the theological and spiritual motivations for organizations such as ISIS.
Speaking personally, as both a Muslim, and a PHD student in the field of Islamic studies, I can safely say that claims that criticism of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism account for Islamophobia is as bankrupt as the claim that criticism of Israel equates with antisemitism. Extremist Islam, while not representing the real heart of Islam, or the belief of most Muslims worldwide, is a very real thing. While economic reasons, such as destabilization brought on by regime change, the kind which Gabbard opposes whereas her colleagues in the democrat party support, is the major cause for recruitment, it is not the only thing.
To call her an Islamophobe is to call countless Muslims who have condemned Islamic extremism also Islamophobic. For example, distinguished journalist and Muslim himself, Stephen Sulayman Schwartz, who runs the Center for Islamic Pluralism, has written multiple books and articles about the unique danger posed by the Wahabi sect of Islam,[20] which for years has been funded and promoted by Saudi Arabia at the behest of the United States. With the power of Saudi Lobby in the United States, it will only take someone like Tulsi Gabbard to stand up to the power of the Saudi Arabian lobby. Donald Trump spoke against Hillary Clinton and her cozy relationship with the Saudi Arabian lobby, only to betray our nation like his predecessors by authorizing a generous arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Gabbard has explicitly praised distinguished Muslims who have been killed by the followers of Salafism, such as the prominent Pakistani Sufi Muslim Amjad Sabri, who was killed by fundamentalists in Pakistan in 2016. For this, she has been lauded by the Muslim-American group “Interfaith Unity for Tolerance.” The group was founded by Pakistani-American Muslims specifically to raise awareness and combat the spread of extremist interpretations of Islam in Afghanistan and Pakistan, particularly those from the fundamentalist Salafi and Deobandi sects.[21]
If one watches the media interviews in question, the ones which the progressives have lambasted her for, and for which she allegedly was made a hero to the American right, she rightly so criticized president Obama for selling weapons to the same nations who are arming ISIS, al-Queda, and other Salafi terrorist organizations. Specifically, she singles out the nations of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. She also acknowledges that the terrorist threat extends well beyond ISIS. A number of other groups, including those affiliated with the so-called “moderate opposition” in Syria, that is to say, the Free Syrian army are equally as heinous as ISIS. Radical Muslims succeeded in establishing parts of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as a base to serve broader ambitions which have deadly consequences, for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The bases of operation arose as a direct consequence of American and European interventions, interventions which Gabbard has rightfully opposed.[22]
Furthermore, what refutes the notion that she is Islamophobic is the simple fact that she has proven herself an ally to the Muslim community on multiple occasions. Namely, she endorsed Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in congress, for chair of the DNC. She also spoke out against Trump’s travel ban from Muslim majority countries. She has spoken to several Muslim-American communities, including Muslims United for Peace, where she reaffirmed her commitment to civil liberty for all Americans, including Muslims. She also made it clear that she does not, in anyway shape or form, believe that most Muslims are terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers. She makes it clear that there is a night and day difference between the small minority of Islamic extremists, and the religion of over a billion people on the face of this planet. Also interestingly enough, she sees the Prophet Muhammad as a recipient of divine revelation, as a member of her branch of Hinduism which takes a universalist approach to religion.[23] Specifically, she says, “Let me be clear, the political ideology of Islamism is not the same as Islam, the religion. The vast majority of Muslims who embrace Islam do not adhere to the political ideology of Islamism.”[24]
Then of course, there is her trip to Syria, where she met with President Assad. Howard Dean and many others who run the upper ranks and inner political machine of the Democrat Party denounced her vigorously. She won the label of an “Assad apologist” for meeting with the president of Syria. Some outlets have gone so far as to call her a traitor, for meeting with America’s so-called “enemy.”
To make one thing clear is that yes, Assad is a Tyrant who lots of blood on his hands; this is something which Gabbard has freely acknowledged. However, it has yet to be established if he has been guilty of the crimes associated with him. Namely, allegations of both the Trump and the Obama administration that Assad used chemical weapons have yet to be verified. More importantly, Assad is welcomed and supported by Syria’s religious minorities, namely the Christians, Shiites, and Druze population.[25] Despite the fact that the media loves to tell us of the Syrian civil war being an alleged “sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites” a large percentage of Syrian Sunnis support Bashar al Assad.[26] Despite the fact that pro-government Shiite forces, as well as the primarily Shiite group Hezbollah has been accused of sectarian killings, there is no credible evidence of any authorized genocide of the Sunni population.[27] Quite the contrary, Syrian Rebels have been committing systematic ethnic cleansing of religious and ethnic minorities. This includes the YPG, the main Syrian Kurdish group based in Northeastern Syria, who have been accused by Amnesty International of war crimes against the Arab and Turkmen populations.[28]
How can Assad be considered an “enemy” of the United States, when congress has yet to declare war against the Syrian state, something which Gabbard pointed out on more than one occasion? During the Vietnam war plenty of American journalists travelled to North Vietnam to meet with the leaders of the NVA in order to properly study the situation. Former congresspersons Cynthia Mckinney[29] and Walter Fauntroy[30] undertook a fact-finding tour in the nation of Libya during US’s unconstitutional intervention. Mckinney and Fauntroy both came back to the states and provided detailed accounts of what they witnessed, as well as exposing the lies and media distortions which were perpetuated by the media giants.
Furthermore, the idea that Syria can even be qualified, at this point, as a “Civil War” is dubious at best, for a large percentage of Syria’s revolutionary forces are in fact foreign volunteers who are seeking to turn Syria into a base of operations.[31] Many of these foreign volunteers are veterans with American blood on their hands from extremist insurgencies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, as well as terrorist who are under United Nations sanction for terrorist against Russia and China. Also many of the Syrian members of the FSA have already defected back to the forces of the government.[32] This includes former top ranking FSA general, Munqez Al-Dali.[33]
By all accounts, The Syrian government has won the war. There is only one stronghold of resistance to Assad left.[34] The Kurdish population of Syria has already entered into an alliance with Assad and Moscow, to protect themselves from any actions which the Turkish army may take.[35] Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, representing the Arab league, visited Syria and met with Bashar al Assad only a few weeks ago.[36] Arab League countries Kuwait and Bahrain have reopened their embassies with the Syrian government.[37] Any attempt to remove Bashar al Assad would result in the genocide of Syria’s minorities, and a long, drawn out, unnecessary US occupation which would have disastrous consequences with the same effects which the world has already seen in the like of Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. War begets war; interventions never result in their desired outcomes.
Of course, this is not the only criticism of Congresswoman Gabbard. There is the claim that she “unelectable” because of her alleged radicalism, her Hindu faith, and her gender. However, many in the media didn’t believe that Barack Hussein Obama would become president. The consensus in 2016 seemed to be the guaranteed election of Mrs. Clinton. The only thing for certain, is that the perceived “inelectability” of a candidate is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, with these considerations, do not hesitate to support Tulsi Gabbard for president.
.
[1] https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-lawmaker...
[2] https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-senator-...
[3] https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25010
[4] https://gabbard.house.gov/civil-rights-equality
[5] https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25114
[6] https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terr...
[7] https://gabbard.house.gov/nationalsecurity
[8] https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/opinions/libya-chaos-civilian-deaths-berg...
[9] https://www.timesofisrael.com/democrat-gabbard-who-slammed-israel-for-li...
[10] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tulsi-gabbards-2020-...
[11] https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democ...
[12] https://socialistworker.org/2016/12/08/an-islamophobic-progressive
[13] https://medium.com/@Harihar/rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-islam-vs-islamism-c87b1...
[14] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SIT-clears-Narendra-Modi-of-wi...
[15] https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-lgbt?fbclid=IwAR3bXV9sYiQy...
[16] http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Tulsi-Gabbard-412532
[17] https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197627/letter-to-donald-j-trump-...
[18] https://www.nytimes.com/1964/05/08/archives/malcolm-x-pleased-by-whites-...
[19] https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-03-11-1995070104-story.html
[20] https://www.islamicpluralism.org/
[21] http://ifut.net/3569-2/?fbclid=IwAR3zoATYaNTeCEmLrsf6BVlAiA6piiaSFCB7CMy...
[22] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKfNTIhNt0U
[23] https://medium.com/@na_rup/exposing-lies-in-zaid-jilanis-article-on-tulsi-gabbard-cdb0e1589e6c?fbclid=IwAR2SepH7-d-k5evUOeXm2lfMPPMpltlQLWbOjZ_HMstsV6gwgWSkLeKrk9c
[24] https://medium.com/@Harihar/rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-islam-vs-islamism-c87b1...
[25] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/assad-victory-...
[26] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/01/syria-sunnis-assad/...
[27] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/05/assads-sunni-foot-soldiers-syria/
[28] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/syrian-kurds-accused-of-ethn...
[29] https://citizentruth.org/congresswoman-cynthia-mckinneys-trip-libya/
[30] https://apnews.com/c3f3b011daa1449fb654a44431610a43
[31] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/23/syria-foreign-fighters-joi...
[32] https://www.rt.com/news/syria-fsa-defected-officers-081/
[33] https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/high-ranking-fsa-commander-abandons...
[34] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/01/civilians-in-syrias-last-r...
[35] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/world/middleeast/syria-kurds-turkey-m...
[36] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/omar-al-bashir-visi...
[37] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kuwait/kuwait-ex...
Comments
A minor correction
I'm still reading your essay and may have further comments. I did want to go ahead and point out that she's not "Mrs. Gabbard".
Her father is Mike Gabbard. She's married to Abraham Williams. So, Ms. Gabbard, Miss Gabbard, Ms. Williams, Mrs. Williams, Rep. Gabbard, or Major Gabbard (her current military rank). I suspect she might prefer to be called simply "Tulsi".
Of course, some wouldn't mind seeing her referred to as "President Gabbard", or "Vice president Gabbard" in a Sanders administration.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
A 2020 campaign commercial on C99.
I'll leave with this.
[video:https://youtu.be/ueMNqdB1QIE]
I don't see the connection to the essay at hand ...
Obama promoted himself in a speech with a bio he wrote himself.
The essay is a research about Tulsi Gabbard. That is no self promotion, unless AlexShepard is Tulsi Gabbard herself. A well researched collection of articles and quotes about Tulsi Gabbard is no sin. How many people have followed her so far? So, what's the problem?
Even if AlexShepard was hired by the Gabbard campaign folks or herself to do the research, that is fair play. How else should we know what Gabbard is about?
Did JtC got paid for posting this 'commercial'? I don't think so, unless JtC would come out and say here: "Yes, Big Al, that AlexShepard guy/girl gave me some sweet bribing money to post this essay/research on Gabbard on the holy grounds of C99p." (ok, I don't like what i am doing here, but somehow I was disappointed about the comparison you hinted at, Big Al).
Sigh, what can I say? Calm down a little.
https://www.euronews.com/live
calm down a little
There, you said it.
Speaking of videos, I watched her "apology" to the LGBTQ community yesterday. ~shrug~ okay. Also watched the interview with Joe Rogan, meh. If she had not rushed to join up to an illegal war, bombing the poorest countries on earth, that would have been good. She is a D with a good story, marvelous veneer. She talks a good peace talk, very particular about who she wants with her in a fox hole. good luck
Action talks bullshit walks, especially the b.s. sponsored by cosmetic and sports corporations. D-GiveMeMoneyNow Now now now! Squeeze 99% for some campaign war chest dollars why not.
cosmetic meh
Only political consultants say that kinda stuff. Normal people don't give a shit right now, outside my window, inside my head. There are so many old people ruining the country right now, they could be dead in a year for all I know. Next March is when I get to "decide", not before. aloha
good kabuki
have a cookie
free focus group
I hear you eyo
"Normal people don't give a shit right now, outside my window, inside my head."
But we who can, need to give a shit, especially for those outside your window that are struggling just to survive.
Aloha
Talking about electoral politics
D-Sonoma County just got another $12M from HUD to not shelter our 3000 homeless citizens. It took me twenty years to figure out that D-Programs are not really for the people, but the politicians and corporations that run all the "programs". duh UniParty does practically no good, just enough to get by. Last time I checked Hawaii still had a permanent homeless population too. ftg
peace
eyo
I don’t think there are people here who support Ds with money or even a whole lot of respect, or expect any kind of seismic change from them. Not until the amount of money spent on campaigning/advertising is regulated reasonably will anything change. Until then, what choice do we have but to support those that have a public forum to speak for change?
A peace offering …
https://kincavelkorner.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/carrot-and-lentil-soup-w...
I’d substitute the red lentils with green or brown, add more garlic and delete the ham hock ; ).
@eyo, @Big Al, @janis b and others
just to clarify, I liked the essay specifically because it was not a video, and not produced by a video editor and narrator/journalist/producer. I liked it because it was a dry list of links, written like a research paper. I actually like that. May be they will make an "under the skin going video" out of this one day. I am sure they will come, but this one wasn't yet 'that kind of product'.
I have watched a lot of video editors with the correspondent/narrator/journalist at their side, who compose the narration and image sequence out of raw film material.
Give three different correspondents with three different video editors and you get three different videos each showing the intent of what they want to cross over to their audience, which all can be seductive and present three different pov's. There are lots of videos made and they use the audience emotions skillfully to manipulate them to their own views expressed through their editing skills and word expressions. Many of them are in your face and imo a little too shallow.
Calling the essay a commercial is imo a little off, because a commercial uses the power of a video editor, who knows what to cut out and what images to use, in what kind of sequence to manipulate the viewers emotions.
Sorry, if that was not clear. I don't know what audience the author was trying to reach. I felt not manipulated, because it was quite transparently headlined as a defense of the accusations against Gabbard that apparently was seen by the American audience in MSM media (?).
Outside of the US, we don't watch MSM media of the US and few would specifically search at this time for detailed information about Tulsi Gabbard on the intertubes. So, I was appreciative of the "research style" essay without the additional images of a video.
And of course I want peace !!!
https://www.euronews.com/live
Did you check all those links and sources?
Do you know it’s all the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the truth? Many links go to MSM ‘news’ articles, which prove.... ?
This essay reads like spin and propaganda to me. A mountain of text with footnotes! Ooooo, it must all be true then! Right.
Big Al had been here at c99% since the beginning. This essay is from someone who has never written a single word here before. Not so much as a comment. And not responding or participating in a discussion about it.
I’m genuinely surprised at anyone taking this all as facts. But swiping at a long time member for posting his honest response to this wall of spin? I’m don’t get that at all.
I realized that the author was never here before
nevertheless, he never hid the fact that his-her article was to defend Tulsi from accusations put forward against her. So, there is no hidden agenda. The author has all the right to do that, as long as he gives his sources. I compare this to folks who sit in front of a camera, talk fast and the listener is left to go through sometimes 45 minutes of "talk".
And nowhere did I say that just because he posted all his source material, that I consider the sources as the "truth and nothing but the truth". That's a pretty 'funny' interpretation. And of course I haven't checked all the sources. I just appreciate that I CAN check the sources, if I want to versus not being able to check on sources, because it is just less work to talk than to write.
I said nothing more that I don't consider the piece a "commercial".
https://www.euronews.com/live
You said more than that
Which you know, obviously. But let’s leave that aside and focus on the real issue.
Since you’re so impressed by miles of text and footnotes, and said this essay is “like a research paper” that implies you assume it’s valid. If you didn’t actually check those sources for validity or even relevant content, that seems like a shallow read.
I’ve been checking some of those copious links. One goes to a NYT article from the 1960s that has less than nothing to do with the subject of this post. Another “source” is to a YouTube video of CNN talking heads, from years ago when Obama was getting raked by the media for not saying the words “Islamic terrorists” — it was a 10 minute video of CNN.
I’m actually not going to invest more time on this.
To me it also it reads like a commercial for gabbard, starting with sentences like this:
And it says her foreign policy is “spotless” — (never mind her stance on continuing the endless global war of terror, and her saying that using torture might be ok sometimes).
That this is not recognized as spin (i.e., a produced, carefully presented “commercial”) designed to look “serious” with all its footnotes — which no one will take the effort to review — is frankly a little disturbing.
@CS in AZ the youtube
Help us out here (and thanks for stopping in)
One of your videos is this one:
[video:https://youtu.be/uKfNTIhNt0U]
It’s 10 minutes - from around three years ago. I’ve watched about half and skimmed the rest.
If gabbard appears in it, can you tell me the time stamp please? Listening to any more CNN blather is giving me a headache. Literally.
@CS in AZ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21T7x5om4_o
Admittedly, that must have been a mistake on my end, don't know how that happened, I was meaning to link to an interview with Gabbard.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG5EjsVP09o
Well, that’s understandable, with so many links to check
The headline under the second link here under the video is great at summarizing the point without listening to a Fox News video either. Whew.
This is one of the big reasons I object to calling her “antiwar” as some do, and I don’t think this is a “spotless” foreign policy. Unless you want more aggressive wars under the banner of being tough on terrorists. I’m having flashbacks to GWB for some reason.
Mimi is correct
The essay was not a "commercial" as it is defined in a broadcasting sense. But I think perhaps the word "commercial" is being taken too literal. I understood Big Al's meaning just as you did. There was language throughout the essay that indicated this was the "beginning of the election year" spin that political sites like ours can expect in the next 2 years.
Good catch. That's a feature, not a bug. Because most people, as Mimi demonstrated, will not look up all the links but rather attribute their inclusion as evidence of a gravitas the argument may not actually possess.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Written content designed to sell something
Technically not a “commercial” because it’s written rather than broadcast. True. But otoh, what is now called on many sites “sponsored content” — meaning the writer or their company paid the publisher for it to appear there — is a fairly newish marketing tactic. Commercials designed to look like news articles. So I think the dictionary definition of commercial as a noun will eventually evolve to include written marketing content as well as tv/radio ads.
Please no misunderstanding here: I am NOT suggesting or implying or even remotely thinking that this essay is that. I am well aware that JtC would never, ever, ever, allow that on here.
Just some random thoughts on the technical definition of “commercial” as a noun, in today’s media environment.
But the point really is the larger meaning of it that Al was pointing out — something designed to sell and/or persuade. Not to be factual or fairly informative (like a research paper), but designed specifically to sell.
This post clearly is that. Big Al was right. Imo.
PS: yes I know and understand that PR for political candidates is allowed here. Not saying otherwise. But I am saying that critical thinking about what we read is essential. Especially in a tolerant environment where people can post anything, pretty much. That’s good, but also a double edged sword, so looking past the surface is always recommended. Again, IMO.
I think the term "research" paper is a bit misplaced
This felt more to me like election season spin. So in that regard, yes, it was designed to persuade.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
i feel like you're really not being fair to the author.
that isn't a random list of links at the bottom of the essay, it's a list of citations, referenced from the text. as mimi states, the essay is written using the formalisms of a research paper.
thus, your assertion:
is, well ... wrong at worst, off-point at best. Here is the text from the essay that cites the reference in question, as well as the reference itself (with incomplete/broken copy-pasted URL):
Do you indeed have objections to an essay that is properly sourced, not just in its current particulars, but in all of its statements of fact? In heavens name, why? I mean, I get that generally nobody in the blogosphere can be bothered -- which results in an awful lot of BS getting passed around as if it were either revealed knowledge, or universally accepted fact -- but I've never felt that was a good thing. Nobody is obliged to follow all of the citations, but if anybody wanted to either quote this essay, or dispute one of the factual assertions, they'd have a starting point for either confirming what they're quoting, or building a sensible argument that goes beyond, "Yes it is! No it isn't!"
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Of course you have your own opinions
Which are different than mine. I think I’ve already stated the points i wanted to say, in various comments on this thread, and I don’t see value in spending time arguing about it further.
As of now, close to 30 recommends for the essay, and a pile-on for the sniping at Big Al for giving his own honest impression.
Obviously I realize many find this essay delightful and perfectly honest, and I’m pretty sure none will re-evaluate. So be it.
It is not my opinion that the 1964 NY Times article
is cited as a reference for the author's assertions about Malcolm X's evolving thoughts on the civil rights movement -- a matter that is, contrary to your claim, entirely within the compass of the essay.
A. The essay is a collection of rebuttals to criticisms of Tulsi Gabbard
B. One criticism that has been leveled at TG is that in her late teens and early twenties she held and expressed certain opinions (regarding LGBTQ persons) that are not considered acceptable on the left of the American political spectrum (or even on the near-right of the current American political spectrum) -- opinions that TG has since renounced.
C. The author offers a rebuttal to B by giving an example of Malcolm X, whose thinking on an issue evolved from a similarly unacceptable position (opposition to integration), and (implied, though not sourced) whose evolution has been accepted as sincere and valid by posterity.
D. The author cites a reference in support of the author's factual assertion about Malcolm X's evolution on the question of integration. The referred article does indeed describe an epiphanic change in Malcolm X's thinking about race relations, envisioning a future in which whites and blacks can live together.
E. You stated flatly that the reference in question was unrelated to the essay's theme.
In summary, you asserted as TRVTH something that is demonstrably and unequivocally false. You are free to act as if this were not the case, and deflect my refutation by saying that our opinions differ, and you've said all you have to say, but that deflection doesn't render your opinion valid. Your stated opinion was wrong -- it was in direct contradiction with easily and irrefutably discernible facts.
Q to the E to the D in the hizzy.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I'm with you here
Providing supporting sources is what GOOD writers do. If some readers cannot be bothered to actually avail themselves of the supporting information that can only be the reader's responsibility. The only other option is to accept "authoritative sources" -- talking heads.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
I have checked a lot of the sources Mimi
unfortunately, I don't read that fast, have difficulties
to make up my mind about a lot of things I read.
I am just confused, why my comment was so unacceptable.
As JtC's short diary doesn't give us the option to comment on it, I at least wanted to say to him directly, that I apologize for the mess I caused. Please don't close down the site. If needed be, I really leave here. I always only react to what I read and don't add content and meaningful links on my own. In addition I read German news outlets and it is beyond my capacities to check out every link that is posted.
I am so sorry for all of it.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Hi Mimi
What has length of time here got to do with anything?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one has to choose. If and when they do, they will do it for them, not you.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Agree about video
And I suspected it was a campaign posting. My only problem with that is - if it was, it should have been labeled as such.
But I took it at face value - an essay by an enthused follower not part of the campaign.
If someone proves otherwise than that is a black mark on the campaign - lack of honesty.
Like the stock broker promoting a mutual fund and not revealing he gets a commission or other incentive.
I very rarely watch video. It's a snoozer to watch someone reciting a script or reading a teleprompter. Sometimes, especially on scientific subjects, video can be illuminating. But not in politics.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
One more video with apologies to mimi
There is no transcript, and I too have little patience with videos unless I am listening on my phone as I fall asleep. To summarize and paraphrase this gay man, accurately I hope, he says Tulsi's position on gays is like some people on abortion. They do not approve, but they do not think it is any of government's business. He goes into detail to support this contention.
It is early, but the season is afoot whether we are ready or not. Smears and errors are everywhere on candidates. I appreciate the research and reporting on candidates by reputable sources so I don't have to do it. If left to my own resources, I think I would fall back on the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If by being informed, we can ascertain the "facts" and insulate ourselves and nip falsehoods, I think we should.
If Bernie runs, I will support him. If he doesn't, I will support Liz or Tulsi. Perhaps which candidate I prefer will end up a moot point and boil down to who do I have to pick from.
I support elections because it is the only weapon we have. Without elections, Obama would still be President, Hillary would be President, one of the Koch brothers would be President instead of just owning one. Vote or don't vote, contribute or not, it is all participation that comes out in the wash. Hillary can attest to that.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Thanks, dkmich, I actually listened to the whole video
patiently and to the end. I can follow what the HR Mike Figueredo guy says.
I am just suspicious why he believes that he understands the intricacies of Modi's political views with regards to so-called Hindu vs. Islamic tensions/bigotry/supremacy/extremism issues. Or why he needs to be assured what Tulsi "REALLY PERSONALLY" thinks about trans women or lgbt folks or why she was against same sex marriages as a young woman. There are lots of issues people never are honest about, neither to themselves nor to the outside. So, what Figueredo wants to know, he will never be able to know, imo. He can ask as much as he wants and Tulsi can answer whatever she can, but nobody will know, where is the truth. People make a judgment out of their guts to believe an answer of Tulsi being honest or not.
May be that's why I feel one could take oneself back a little bit and be less judgmental about people of other religions and cultures.
To me it would be enough that she votes correctly to protect trans and lgbt a gay folks human and civil rights. I think he is right to be disturbed about her answer with regards to torture though.
But the question was never to me if we should or would prefer her over Sanders. That question was not raised in the essay.
In any case, you make me feel ashamed to "apologize to me" for a video. I feel like a squirrel who has eaten too many nuts and says to her friends, you guys are heavy nuts. (Can't find the image to that)
Peace.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Approve?
It's not for me to approve or disapprove. I don't want to participate, nor do I wish to participate in group sex. But I don't really care what consenting adults (both words required!) do.
Now, marriage equality is another thing. It's not about approving or disapproving. When we talk about same sex marriage or group marriage (Old Mormons), I think we need to re-examine why the state recognizes marriage at all and does that apply to non-traditional marriage. Maybe so, I'm not pre-judging.
BTW, does Italy recognize the re-marriage of divorced persons or do they follow the dictates of the Catholic Church.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I watched the entire video
The two things that give me pause about Tulsi is her stance on the war on terror and the use of torture. The use of torture is particularly unsettling in that it is not only immoral to torture another human being but it is also against international law.
Each of us has a personal litmus test for a candidate, especially a candidate for President. My personal litmus test is tied directly to the war on terror and war in general. Until we cease making war on the rest of the world, we will never be able to accomplish anything that benefits our own citizens here in the US.
I am not sure who I will vote for in 2020 (if anyone), but among the Democratic challengers, the only two I would even consider will be Bernie or Tulsi. I would support Jill Stein should she run again. I will not even consider supporting anyone else including Elizabeth Warren or any one of the entire myriad of Democrats.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Talk is cheap and
voting records are concrete. I have no opinion of what Tulsi is all about. It is why I appreciate essays on candidates pro and con except Biden, Harris, Booket, et al. I know perfectly well what they stand for, and it isn't me.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I found myself nodding in response to all the various
debunkings presented in the essay, but as you imply, none of them is really the point. I mean, yes, of course, the media is going to smear anybody who is in any way to the left of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Obama. And yes, of course, 99% (heh) of those smears are going to be lies, distortions, or idiocy.
I'm just not sure why any of that matters, since we've already been informed in the clearest terms possible that we only have a say in which candidate is chosen if the party leadership want to let us have that say. It's their private club; they don't have to listen to us. That's what they've said in court.
There are, of course, other indications that the elections are not going to be fair or reflect the will of the people: the multiple instances of election fraud that remain unprosecuted and unpunished, the abolition of caucuses after Bernie Sanders did well in caucuses, the placement of our elections infrastructure under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that "elections" are going to work in the way we have all been taught that they do, nor much evidence that our participation in these "elections" is going to do anything except lend credibility to a farce.
That said--
I would guess that most people on C99 who intend to vote for a Democrat in this year's "primary" will likely support Gabbard; I doubt that most will support Biden or Kamala Harris or Hillary (if she runs) or Beto, though I guess some might prefer Beto to Gabbard. But seriously, if you're doing a menu-style politics (what's on offer that I might like? Hmm, here's the list of entrees...well the Gabbard sounds good), there's not much argument that Gabbard is the most preferable.
So I guess the point of this essay is to let the Gabbard folks on C99 know in what ways the mainstream press is smearing their candidate.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I don't like what you did there either mimi.
I take my comment 'to calm down` back ...
I did not expect that to be taken as an insult or offense. Apparently I still have difficulties to understand in how far my mileage may vary, when I express myself in ways which in my cultural environment is pretty normal. If I get agitated about something I often would get the advice to calm down. To me that is not a big deal. If it was to this audience, I apologize, though don't even know how to apologize for it. May be you read my last comment, in which I try to explain, why I like a dry research paper style essay more than a well cut video.
Ok, then, I will do what you asked me to do in your private message. Very sad.
https://www.euronews.com/live
@mimi Big Al has always
I dont pretend to understand why he constantly puts down every left wing candidate, from Bernie to Tulsi and promotes boycotting the vote, but it is a consistent pattern of behaviour so I doubt he needs to calm down or chill out.
Let me just correct the record on that,
Also, I've NEVER been a democrat so I never demexited. The reason? I believe the democratic party, along with the republican party, i.e., the duopoly, is the problem, the opponent, the enemy and we must destroy this duopoly system for proper progress to occur. So collaborating with the enemy isn't in my revolution playbook. I've explained that MANY times on this blog. You might not agree with it, but just so you do understand where I'm coming from. What I think is some people, even when they hear my explanation, it doesn't compute so they still can't figure out why I am against left wing democratic party politicians like Gabbard or Sanders. I would probably have voted for Bernie if he went third party in 2016.
And finally, no I never said I would vote for Trump and certainly did not. I'm not sure where you got that from. Here's what I wrote before the election.
https://caucus99percent.com/content/big-al-wonders-how-should-i-vote-pre...
I have read Big Al's comments and essays
pretty consistently and his calls to not vote for either party and his wish to fight the duopoly he has been mentioned a lot. I am not critical of that at all. What I do believe though is that people, if they have no option to vote for something like a party with a set program, they get confused and turn away, seeing the votes on referendum an addition to voting for parties, but not a replacement. Voting in a direct democracy via referendums on initiatives may work, but I don't believe that would be enough of a structure and organizational tool and most people wouldn't be convinced, even if they contentwise would approve of it. It seems to be impractical in reality. The issues are too many, too complex and one would have so many referendum votes that people would lose their minds over it.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Not sure why people who agree with me
are "banging the drum" any more than the people who agree with you are "banging the drum." Just as Al is insistent on the point that voting doesn't work, your side is insistent on finding the leftmost person on offer from the Democrats and giving them money, time, unpaid labor, and a spirited defense of their characters, actions, and chances for success. If I've ever heard a drum banged, it must be the insistence that what hasn't worked for the last thirty-five years could work this time, and we should all put our all into making it work, otherwise it's our fault if it doesn't.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Funny how that works, eh?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I could be wrong
Obama gave the keynote speech in 2004. In retrospect, I can see that should have been a major clue for us about Obama. The Dem establishment approved of him and was positioning him. (Boy, Hillary must've been spitting nails. No wonder she got all her ducks in a row after 2008. And then Bernie happened, goshdarnit.)
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Yes, wasn't that a feature of Bill Clinton, too?
Having made a good keynote speech? It's how the Establishment tries out new pawns.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
keynote speech
Hill chose the practically invisible Tim Kaine to insure her loss.
NYCVG
I admit I thought the same. She surprised me there.
I thought she wanted to add a little more "diversity" to her ticket, to shore up her credibility, but apparently that wasn't necessary; people believed it was a blow against racism to vote for Hillary with no bonafides whatsoever.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I can think of worse things
wow, just excellent.
I wished we were allowed to know who you are, AlexShepard.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Alex Shephard is a staff writer at The New Republic
https://twitter.com/alex_shephard
---
lol
PEACE
I doubt it's the same alex shepard
I agree
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
I'm glad you haven't gone back to sleep ; )
Something inside won't let me do that
Although, ironically, at this moment I'm getting ready to go to sleep, since it's 3 AM here.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
I was trying for sarcastic ass, not accuracy
KLF - 3 a m eternal (Complete)
pew pew pew
LOL
@mimi I am a doctoral student
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexander-shepard-037b944b/ Admittedly, this is my first blog post on the sight because before yesterday, I didn't know of it's existence. I had originally uploaded this piece to the Dialykos, and a friend of mine recommended this blog as a better forum for my ideas, since DK is a mouthpiece for the corporate DNC.
I am a doctoral student in the field of Near Eastern Studies, with a focus on Shia Islam and Iranian Studies.thanks, and welcome ...
Don't catch the jungle feaver bug. Like any tropical disease that causes feaver it's recurring every so often, but it also disappears given the right medicine. I speak of experience in that regard, literally.
So there is hope that nobody gets really seriously sick about this thread or site. JtC must be taken care of. Nothing works here without him.
There are a lot of knowledgeable writers here. I am not one of them. I try to read as much as I can, but it's always not enough.
Some here said that your essay was written to persuade the readers of your opinions of Tulsi Gabbard, which you tried to put on the basis of "facts" that you seemed to have found in the linked articles, you added to your article.
To that I can only say - in my or your defense - that's usually what a good writer or researcher tries to do. Persuade. Defend your thesis and all that. Imo that's ok.
Oh lordy, have mercy. Sigh. Phew.
It's a nice site here. Really.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Welcome Alex
We are not perfect, but we are a ton better than DailyKos. While some members might get too argumentative once in a while, the blog itself is not partisan. It welcomes all povs. It's only official rule is don't be a jerk.
I hope you will return as the silly season progresses and continue to share your views. We all have a lot to share and a lot to learn.
PS - We have a c99 FB site that I crosspost to you. I crossposted this essay there, and it as well received.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
your wish is my command.
he posted the same(ish) diary on Saturday at dPOS. his dPOS profile includes the URL to his LinkedIn page:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexander-shepard-037b944b/
he's previously only ever posted one diary there, on the day he joined in June 2015. that diary was entitled, In Defense of Bernie Sanders. make of that what you will.
he posted several comments in the thread over there. his only dPOS comments ever are in the threads of his own two diaries, so he's not a regular contributor, but maybe he's a lurker and saw a mention of c99p somewhere.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
On my way home this afternoon
I caught an interesting interview on National Radio NZ.
A synopsis -
The study found that 65% of people on both sides, ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, when offered the possibility of receiving $10 to simply read or listen to 10 opposing viewpoints refused the money and said they’d rather read or listen to someone from their own side rather than read any opposing viewpoints. The study goes on to recognise that people don’t want to read ideas that conflict with their own because it creates a kind of cognitive dissonance which feels unpleasant and undermines our very human need to belong. There’s more to the interview if anyone’s interested in listening.
This essay is obviously written by someone with an intimate and examined understanding that deserves consideration.
Middle-class survey, not for poor people
That is bubble talk to us in the lower classes. I don't know a single soul who'd not take the $10, so that's how far I've fallen out of the middle.
death by kabuki
nothing is sacred
wah
"That is bubble talk to us in the lower classes"
I don't doubt that's true, as studies are generally subjective, but I still think there is something to be learned from them.
I don't want to hear alternative views
on evolution, the theory of relativity, whether aliens are angels, or how black people were cursed by God because Ham saw Noah naked, either. Keep your $10.
Willing to hear sane theories of economy, stock market and climate. But not if it includes "Jewish conspiracy"/"aliens"/"Leftist climate conspiracy". i.e. Reich wing nonsense.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Wait! Ham saw Noah naked?
I had no idea. I knew there was something about black people and Ham, but I didn't know the back story.
Considering how I drove my Sunday school, and protestant private school teachers bat shit crazy with questions about incest and the whole Adam, Eve, and Cain populating the entire earth thing, they're so lucky I didn't know that seeing Noah naked not only turned a man black, but actually created an entirely new race of people with black skin instead of white! (Everyone else in the bible is white, of course, not like middle easterners today, and especially Jesus, dontcha know?)
This had to be post flood, right?
/snark
Ha! Ha!
Enjoyed your snark. They really have nutty ideas don't they?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Fucking insane. And I say this as someone
who was once a Christian, and actually still has some respect for that religion. But those notions are vicious and ridiculous.
Apparently the Mormons have a similar notion about the native people of this continent.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, they say Native Americans are really Jews
They really should consider the DNA analyses.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Similarly, I have little desire to hear, one more time,
how Russiagate has been proven beyond a doubt and here's the smoking gun, after the last four or five times that the smoking gun turned out to be a stamped-out cigarette butt.The only reason I keep up with that stuff at all is out of a sense of due diligence--it's good to know what the most recent round of propaganda is, given that it's being used to manipulate a large number of people. Even so, I tend to look at that stuff less than I should. I strive to poke my head up once every 10 days or so, but it's difficult sometimes to convince oneself to ingest poison, or to sit down to a heaping plate of garbage.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It might depend on exactly how long you were
going to spend listening to those 10 views, and exactly how opposing those views were. I mean, if they're just 10-second soundbites, what's the point, and if they're 3-minute discourses, then you're signing up for a half-hour of irritation.
And it might also depend on your anticipated negative emotional response -- both duration and intensity. How much would you need to be paid to watch a video of someone stomping on puppies?
The thing is ... most people think they already know the other side's opposing views. They're not interested in listening because they're not expecting to hear anything new, and they are expecting to feel anger and other negative emotions.
Anyway, the guy's at the University of Winnipeg, so that's only $7.50 US, and the study subjects already have universal healthcare, so, y'know, they're not as desperate as Americans for every last centivo.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
It depends how bad the poverty is.
A bit farther up the economic ladder, people are so exhausted and have so little time--sometimes barely enough to look after their kids or aged parents, sometimes not enough to do even that--that they feel lucky if they can collapse on the couch with their spouse for an hour of TV before going to bed and getting up and doing it all again. They're constantly working, constantly running. In addition, due to the ubiquitousness of the internet, the 24/7 news cycle, and the preponderance of tvs in every public place, they are likely inundated with contrary opinions every day, many of them expressed in trollish, poisonous, morally exhuasting ways. It's not surprising to me that a lot of people, including many with a lot less money than me, would want more than 10 bucks to voluntarily subject themselves to more of it.
Public discourse has been poisoned, like a town well into which is regularly dumped a nice helping of cyanide. It's not surprising that people don't want to hear people's opinions, even for a price--particularly when their time is constantly under assault.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I have problems with statements like this:
When I'm watching someone on TV -- some overpaid pundit, or worse, someone with actual power, like a cabinet member or a banker or a senator -- and they are telling lies and/or saying really stupid or evil things, the problem is not that it is creating an unpleasant cognitive dissonance and undermining my need to belong, the problem is that it makes me really fucking angry watching some smug well-fed motherfucker in a $3000 suit explain why we need to bomb another wedding party in Iraq to make sure we don't have to fight the terrorists here at home, or tell me that we can't "afford" to have everyone in the country get even routine health care, or tell me that the subprime crisis happened because Jimmy Carter made the banks give loans to black people who couldn't afford them. My difficulty isn't that I feel like an outsider, my difficulty is that these people are doing evil, and promoting evil, and working as hard as they can to create as much suffering as they can for as many humans as they can.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Precisely, and thank you so much for expressing it
so well.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Please don't bite your tongue.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That should be a minimum to wear a (D) label!
Where is she different? Why her and not another? What has she accomplished? What is unique (and I don't care if her skin is green). This is not anti-Tulsi. it's what should be asked of all candidates.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
One area in which she has been different from other Democrats
It should be
You asked, how is Tulsi different from the majority of other Dems in Congress? From what I can tell from her record, she's trying to walk the talk. Most of them are not. (Heck, many of the Dems aren't even talking the talk.)
Edited for clarity
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
@Centaurea She invoked the ire of
This!!!!!
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Gabbard on foreign policy
I don't know whether you've seen it yet, but Jane Sanders, in her role as founder of the Sanders Institute, just did an interview with Tulsi Gabbard on foreign policy.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
btw, I remember this interview when it came out
and if you go to TC 4:15 and onwards, you understand that she has seen wounded soldiers from combat close up due to her role in the medical units. That stuck in my mind and is one of the reasons that I believe she was not "jumping" on a career advancing opportunity as a politican, when she volunteered to serve in the military/national guards deployed to Iraq. I think what she saw in Iraq formed her in a way that I consider important.
Obama had not such experiences, but had others that I also consider important, in a sense that he didn't use them in ways I consider convincing or in ways I would have hoped for. I am not going so far as to blame him for it, when he started out. If you read his first book and know a little bit of the background of his African father and his mid-western grandmother, who raised him, you might be a little less harsh on him. He couldn't have had other experiences. May be that's why the video Big Al used rubbed me a little bit.
So, whereas many people feel cheated or betrayed or disappointed about how Obama 'sold himself', I have yet to understand, in how far Tulsi Gabbard can already be accused of 'jumping on the opportunity to be "brass" and a become a major in the National Guard at this time as a sort of betrayal to possibly come at a later day.
Markos did serve in Germany as far as I remember. He liked it here, because our pastries were tasty ... So much for 'having served in the military' as a sales item for advancing your political stature.
Peace to Big Al, JtC, Joe and all the others who weren't that happy about my words.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Is this before or after the DNC promises...
"I'll never hit you again, baby!"
I mean, I sure would like some of those gifts she's promising. But isn't it AMAZING how they never occur. And then we're mean, or purity ponies, or it's OUR fault they can't do the agendas we want. We can't trust anybody but THEM, of course. Their sources. Their 6 sources. Anything other than that doesn't understand the special love the MSM has for the American People.
Because they represent us. They're just like us. We have NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. They'll remind us of that, over and over, and over... And really, aren't we sexist for that speech that we just said? Or Racist for not kowtowing properly? Wait, no, we're Deplorable for Our embracing of hatred. See, it IS all our fault. It's OUR fault that these are the only candidates that are on offer.
I have a song for the party.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9rCUQjmkxU]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Go go go
Just cheerleading here from the choir.
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
it'll be different this time, baby, i promise!
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I hope I didn't scare away anybody
This is essay numero uno from Alex, I didn't realize it before mouthing off to mimi. Maybe Alex is busy at work and can't discuss further, not everyone has the day off. doubt benefit
And maybe it's just a drive-by essay to collect comments for some databank... LMAO. I don't know.
tin foil hat
peace
well, he put an enormous amount of work into
it, so i have to assume that the interest and/or purpose isn't casual. if this person doesn't yet work for TG, maybe he'd like to, and maybe he will.
unlike BA, i don't have any objection to something like this being posted -- though if there is a connection between the author and the campaign, or if the work was paid for by a 3rd party, that ought to be disclosed.
something I did do was google for a couple of phrases out of the essay, to see whether this was some sort of political "blog-bomb", which I've seen before. i discovered that the original version of this essay (not quite identical) was posted 2 days ago on dPOS. Shepard has apparently been a member over there since June 5, 2015, when he published his first diary: In Defense of Bernie Sanders. This diary about Gabbard is his second. The only comments he's ever posted over there were in those two threads, but he definitely didn't do a drive-by for this particular diary -- he commented a couple of dozen times. His profile there includes a LinkedIn URL, from which I learned that he's a grad student in Islamic philosophy at the Indiana University.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
@UntimelyRippd I can promise that
Ah... that explains much.
It takes a while to come down from the self policing, so feel free to take a few deep breaths. You may see ideas here you are not comfortable with. You may see attitudes you are not comfortable with. If you do not like it, feel free to head back to TOP and beg forgiveness.
Some of us will not trust any Democratic or Republican Candidate. This has to do with the fact that we have had decades of hearing the same rhetoric, over and over, about how we must. You're not going to convince us, or convert us to give time and effort to ANY campaign. We'll also be quite rude and sarcastic to those that expect us to do so. Fair Warning.
However, make a good point, speak from your heart, I'll listen. But right now, I take care of me and mine.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDaFqgPKklI]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Hats off to Gene Clark.
Now, I've got to say
That it's not like before
And I'm not gonna play
Your games anymore
After what you did
I can't stay on
And I'll probably feel a whole lot better when you're gone
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I have a song for the party too:
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
She looks ok on paper
but who doesn't these days. That she is not immediately being labeled a left wing socialist nut job makes me a little suspicious. After Prince HopeyChangey and HER, picking someone to back kind of makes me distrust just about everyone. Somehow between campaigning and getting elected the winner finds his positions were somewhat uninformed and then embraces large parts of the status quo. As for accomplishments, we are so far down in the hole anything done that would benefit the 99% ends up small change.
@Snode She's been accused of
That's one on the plus side
Long
fucking screed right here. My inclination is to say 'fuck this shit', but I don't want to be rude(yet).
So the silly season has Begun!
HERE! Look HERE, not over there! This one is a Good One! They'll be on Your side! Doing 'things' For You!
Ignore the shitheads Behind the Curtain! This is one of Yours!
Bullshit is as polite as I can work up right now and if I continue J to the C might have to slap me a little.
I FEEL A RANT COMING ON-coffee and a berner on deck.
Later.
fuck
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Pages