RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Abortion Rights Are Under Serious Attack: Here's How Men Can Join the Fight Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37790"><span class="small">Amanda Marcotte, Salon</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 May 2019 13:20

Marcotte writes: "According to PerryUndem, nearly as many men as women - 71% of men vs. 75% of women - support upholding Roe vs. Wade. And 59% of men, compared to 66% of women, want state legislators to protect or expand abortion access."

Pro-choice and anti-abortion protesters demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on July 9, 2018 in Washington, DC. (photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
Pro-choice and anti-abortion protesters demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on July 9, 2018 in Washington, DC. (photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)


Abortion Rights Are Under Serious Attack: Here's How Men Can Join the Fight

By Amanda Marcotte, Salon

26 May 19


Men don't have to join a #SexStrike or become the center of attention. They just need to care about women as people

n the face of the red-state race to see who can ban abortion the fastest and the mostMissouri just joined Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi in stripping women of basic bodily autonomy rights — the debate over abortion is heating up. Women are speaking out about their abortions, hoping to humanize the procedure in face of anti-choice propaganda that paints abortion patients as either sluts or imbeciles. Feminist activists and female celebrities are raising the alarm, decrying the nearly all-male group of legislators who have decided to treat women and doctors who are involved in a common, safe and necessary procedure as criminals.

But those Republican legislators only represent a small portion of men. According to PerryUndem, nearly as many men as women — 71% of men vs. 75% of women — support upholding Roe vs. Wade. And 59% of men, compared to 66% of women, want state legislators to protect or expand abortion access.

So there's a real question in all this: What about men? Men still control the majority of political power in this country. There is good reason for feminists to believe that if ostensibly pro-choice men did more to fight for reproductive rights, they would have the power that women frankly lack to stop this minority of men from imposing their will on the rest of us.

Besides, since cisgender heterosexual men are the proximate cause of nearly all abortions, it follows that they have a moral obligation to do more to help the women in their lives who already must deal with the physical burdens of managing sexual reproduction, even without all this political oppression.

But it turns out that it's tricky, trying to figure out how to deal with the question of men and reproductive rights. Feminist activist and actress Alyssa Milano discovered this when she called for a "sex strike," calling it "a way to target straight, cisgender men so they may feel the physical consequences of our reproductive rights being systematically eliminated."

This suggestion was immediately met with outrage from other feminists — and glee from conservatives — on the grounds that Milano was doing what anti-choicers are already doing, which is trying to bully women into sexual abstinence. Milano's point, of course, was that men need to do more and care more. That's important. But her "solution" just makes things worse, not better.

To create a better avenue of engagement for men on the reproductive rights issue, it helps to understand how anti-choice activists — those who would like to see abortion banned, or at least virtually eliminated — understand the role of men.

Unlike pro-choicers, antis have spent a lot of time thinking about men and abortion, which is no surprise. Cisgender straight men are the only people who are really people to them, and are therefore central to their ideology.

Having spent over a decade immersing myself in anti-choice propaganda for reporting purposes, I have a pretty good handle on how they think about men and sexuality. The widely held view is that men can't and won't respect women as equals, much less love them in that context. Sex is framed as a necessary form of bait to lure men into marriage, which they are otherwise eager to avoid. Contraception and abortion, in this view, degrade the process by which women induce men to set aside their natural disinclination to make a lifelong commitment to a member of the inferior sex, by making it too easy for men to get the only thing they really want from women.

That's oversimplifying it a bit, to be sure. There's also a lot of chivalric idealization in anti-choice circles, celebrating men who "rescue" women from abortion clinics, overcoming their natural caddishness in order to make an honest woman of their sex partner, whether she likes it or not. But basically, there's a sense that women are foolishly letting men get the milk without buying the cow, and that some degree of compulsion is required to restore the monogamous social order anti-choicers desire.

Understanding the blunt sexism of conservative views on gender relations also makes why some well-meaning attempts by feminists to engage men  on the reproductive rights issue have the potential to backfire.

The proposed "sex strike," for instance, only reinforced what conservatives already believe about men: They don't care about women as people, and are only interested in them as an avenue for sexual release. It also reinforced the conservative view that sex isn't something that women ever really enjoy for its own sake — at least not the "good" kind of women — but is instead a commodity they use to manipulate men. Unsurprisingly, conservatives rushed forward to tell women that instead of sex-striking for abortion rights, they needed to sex-strike in order to trap men into marriage.

That's why I also blanched at feminist video host Liz Plank suggesting that men join the women who are speaking out about their abortions:

Plank's suggestion isn't as wrong-headed as Milano's "sex strike," but still, I blanched. The anti-choice line about abortion is frequently that it's something caddish men use on women who are too dimwitted to leverage that unintended pregnancy into a marriage proposal. (The idea that a woman might not want to marry a man who needs his arm twisted is rarely considered in their view.)

Sure enough, below Plank's tweet came replies claiming that a "real man would ... take care of his child and the mother" and that any "man who would pressure his partner into an abortion to advance his own career is trash." Other respondents claimed that nobody "benefits more from abortion than dirtbag men" and that the whole process is "so degrading to women".

If this view were limited to anti-choicers, that would be no big deal. Unfortunately a lot of politically moderate Americans also hold some version of the idea that marriage and children are things that women always long for and toward which men must be dragged along reluctantly. While the truth is that most abortions are mutually beneficial decisions, the idea that women are being exploited or manipulated by men in these situations is still compelling to many people.

Amid all these pitfalls, it's no wonder that so many men stay far away from the issue, even if they support abortion rights. But there is a way for men to speak out and stay engaged: By putting women first.

That doesn't come easily to a lot of men, who are used to being the center of attention in political discourse. Like many things, it starts to feel more natural with practice. They don't need to be pressured into endorsing a sex strike. Instead, they need to be seen voluntarily and selflessly standing up. Not for themselves, and not because they're getting laid. But because they believe women have value outside of that.

It means a lot to see men's faces at pro-choice rallies, men sharing pro-choice memes on social media, men wearing pro-choice T-shirts and speaking out in other ways. The sad fact of the matter is that men have more social power than women, so when men speak out, it counts for more. All they need to do in order to be effective is to use their words to say that women matter, not just as wives or girlfriends or mothers, but as people.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Public-Private Partnerships Will Never Solve America's Infrastructure Crisis Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50855"><span class="small">Jeremy Mohler, In These Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 May 2019 13:17

Mohler writes: "Decreased federal investment is resulting in de facto privatization. The more Washington dithers, the more state and local governments become desperate for cash."

'Construction giants and water corporations are looking to cash in on the crisis.' (photo: ZDNet)
'Construction giants and water corporations are looking to cash in on the crisis.' (photo: ZDNet)


Public-Private Partnerships Will Never Solve America's Infrastructure Crisis

By Jeremy Mohler, In These Times

26 May 19

 

nother “Infrastructure Week” has come and gone without federal action on the nation’s aging roads, water systems, airports and other public works. Some of us will rightly rage about the federal government’s penny-pinching while Flint, Michigan, has yet to replace thousands of lead pipes. But there’s an underreported dimension to America’s infrastructure crisis that adds yet another reason why congressional Democrats must fight tooth and nail for massive direct public investment.

More than half of U.S. public school buildings need funding to be brought up to good condition. Americans pay vastly more for broadband internet than anyone else in the world, while some 19 million people—including my parents, a mere hour’s drive outside of Washington, D.C.—still lack access. Major American rapid transit systems are suffering from a spate of service meltdowns due to chronic deferred maintenance.

But these stark realities are directly related to another core issue—decreased federal investment is resulting in de facto privatization. The more Washington dithers, the more state and local governments become desperate for cash, and the more receptive governors, mayors and other officials become to lobbying about “innovative” alternatives. Almost all public infrastructure is built and maintained by state and local governments using tax revenue or user fees, like tolls, or a combination of both. The federal government’s role is to act as a bank, subsidizing state and local projects to bolster a strong national economy. But federal investment has been cut in half over the last 35 years, while state and local spending has trended downwards since the late 1960s.

This chronic underinvestment has opened the door for a growing industry of global investors, construction giants and water corporations looking to cash in on the crisis. Their tool of choice is the so-called “public-private partnership,” essentially an expensive loan that often comes with strings attached. They front the money to build new infrastructure or manage an existing asset in exchange for lease payments or the right to collect revenue.

You may have heard of Chicago’s absurd giveaway of its parking meters in 2008 to investors from as far away as Abu Dhabi. That’s a type of public-private partnership in which a government leases out infrastructure for a quick infusion of money—and it’s illustrative of many of these deals. If you don’t know the details, you might want to cover your eyes. Parking rates quadrupled within the first year of the contract, which lasts for 75 years. Chicago’s inspector general eventually found that the city lost at least $1 billion on the deal. If that wasn’t enough, clauses in the contract give away the city’s rights to manage traffic and land use near the meters until 2083.

Even after a string of high-profile disasters, including the 2017 bankruptcy of an unfinished Indiana toll road deal inked by Mike Pence when he was governor, state and local governments continue to experiment with public-private partnerships. Maryland’s governor, Larry Hogan, is pushing to add toll lanes to multiple highways in the congested Washington region in what would be the country’s largest public-private partnership. 

The plan has already run into controversy, as two out of the three primary contractors hired to help manage the potential deal were found to have ties to the state’s Transportation Secretary. In St. Louis, Missouri, a local billionaire, Rex Sinquefield, is bankrolling a city government-sponsored process to study the privatization of St. Louis Lambert International Airport. This, despite the airport experiencing yet another year of passenger growth in 2018 and bringing in millions of dollars in annual revenue. It turns out Sinquefield, a private equity investor, has substantial investments in one of the three firms expected to bid on the public-private partnership if the city decides to move forward.

Yet, outside of the United States, the deals are starting to lose their luster. Conservatives in Britain recently abandoned signing new public-private partnerships altogether. They could no longer boast about “innovation,” “efficiency” and “improved service.” The facts were too powerful to cover up. Since 1992, public-private partnerships signed by the United Kingdom have yielded infrastructure valued at more than $71 billion. Yet, taxpayers will pay more than five times that amount under the terms of the contracts used to build this infrastructure.

The evidence is in. Public-private partnerships are more expensive than traditional public investment, tend towards being secretive and undemocratic, often limit public decision-making and—like all privatization schemes—outsource good, stable public jobs.

Congressional Democrats must continue to hold the line if the Trump administration resumes its push for a combination of infrastructure spending cuts and federal subsidies for private investment. In no way should they entertain Republican ideas like asset recycling, in which Washington incentivizes state and local governments that sell off infrastructure. At the same time, they must demand direct public investment paid for with higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

It’s a tough spot—but holding out will prove worth it in the long run. Not only does much of the public support more federal spending on infrastructure and less privatization, but popular opinion is starting to shift in support of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Holding Republicans accountable for starving America’s infrastructure while building the case for more federal spending will help build momentum for when Democrats regain the reins of power.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Iraq All Over Again? And Where Is Katharine Gun? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50854"><span class="small">Marcia Mitchell, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 May 2019 11:27

Mitchell writes: "Some called her a traitor; others insisted she was a hero. Whatever she was, she blew the whistle ultimately revealing the truth behind the build-up to the Iraq War — regime change, disguised as terrifying threats of weapons of mass destruction."

Katharine Gun. (photo: Martin Godwin/Guardian UK)
Katharine Gun. (photo: Martin Godwin/Guardian UK)


Iraq All Over Again? And Where Is Katharine Gun?

By Marcia Mitchell, Reader Supported News

26 May 19

 

ome called her a traitor; others insisted she was a hero. Whatever she was, she blew the whistle ultimately revealing the truth behind the build-up to the Iraq War — regime change, disguised as terrifying threats of weapons of mass destruction.

Exaggerating threats to provoke a war? Sound familiar?

Never mind that invading another country for the purpose of regime change is illegal according to international laws to which the United States is a signatory. The team of hawks circling George Bush had long wanted to take out Saddam Hussein, as did Bush. Some of those same birds are still flapping wings in the skies above Washington. The concern among many Americans is that claims of an unprovoked, deadly attack by Iran are exaggerated. The issue is provocation. Who, one must ask, is provoking whom?

Much to the distress of our former partners in the Iran nuclear deal, Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement and announced tougher sanctions. This despite credible evidence that Iran was in full compliance with terms of the agreement. Provocation? Now, Trump says, he wants to see Iran back at the negotiating table. Iran, of course, isn’t interested in dealing with him. Perhaps they don’t trust him to keep his word.

Iran has been filmed loading missiles aboard some of its vessels. Is this a matter of threatening to launch a war, or is it a matter of responding to the US positioning itself for war? The increasing presence of US Navy ships and a B-52 bomber task force in their neighborhood might provoke the Iranians to load up their missiles. However, the Pentagon says the US deployment is “in response to indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against US forces and our interests.”

Iran, meanwhile, says it doesn’t want war, but will defend itself. Donald Trump also is saying he doesn’t want war, which is probably true. He loves a battle, when it’s done with words, boasts, and threats. The other kind of fight could be frightening and politically risky.

One is reminded of the Oval Office meeting on January 31, 2003, with George Bush, Tony Blair, and Condoleezza Rice, in which the topic of provoking Iraq to start a war was particularly revealing. Perhaps a plane painted in UN colors could be shot down over Iraq. Not good enough, the trio decided. To legitimize an invasion and get rid of Saddam, a new UN Security Council resolution, going beyond SC1441 and specifically sanctioning the invasion, was the answer.

Enter Katharine Gun. Her story, which reveals what a country will do when it wants war and claims it does not, is told in an updated book and a major motion picture soon to be released — Official Secrets (Keira Knightly is Katharine). British Secret Service officer Katharine, then a young bride, risked everything to leak details of the Bush-Blair plan to coerce (possibly blackmail) members of the UN Security Council in order to win their votes to legalize invading Iraq. The spin in this country and in the UK was the threat of deadly weapons ready to be deployed by Saddam. The truth was that in April of 2002, the two world leaders secretly had agreed on a plan to take out Saddam, all the while giving speeches insisting that the only motivation for even considering war was that horrific stockpile of deadly weapons.

And then there is the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led America deeply into war against North Vietnam. Actually, there were two incidents at sea, blamed originally on the North Vietnamese. Eventually, it was widely held that at least one of the reports of the attacks, and perhaps even both, were false. A manufactured provocation. By design.

The point of all of this is painfully obvious. We must not be flummoxed by exaggerated claims of threats against America and our interests. This is not to say that Iran does not have a trick up its sleeve, or that wild-eyed Iranian hawks aren’t circling its leaders. It is to say that a government may, for its own reasons, either by design or through miscalculation, lead a country into an unnecessary and brutal war. It is to say that we need to know the truth behind the decisions to act or not to act.

We need a truth-sayer. We need another Katharine Gun. An insider with courage.

Email This Page


Writer/researcher Marcia Mitchell is the author of The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War: Katharine Gun and the Secret Plot to Sanction the Iraq Invasion. This and her other writings about intelligence issues have been critically acclaimed. Her late husband, Tom, a former special agent of the FBI and one-time head of counter-intelligence in New York, co-authored the Gun story.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Avenatti, Wohl and the Krassensteins Prove Political Media Is a Hucksters' Paradise Print
Sunday, 26 May 2019 08:14

Excerpt: "In the Trump era of cartoon politics, the world's biggest jackasses have an easy highway to fame and fortune."

Michael Avenatti. (photo: Andrew Cullen/Reuters)
Michael Avenatti. (photo: Andrew Cullen/Reuters)


Avenatti, Wohl and the Krassensteins Prove Political Media Is a Hucksters' Paradise

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

26 May 19


In the Trump era of cartoon politics, the world’s biggest jackasses have an easy highway to fame and fortune

rom the depths of scandal, Michael Avenatti gave an interview to Vanity Fair. He cried four times and said: “Some would argue at this point that I flew too close to the sun. As I sit here today, yes, absolutely, I know I did. No question. Icarus.”

Michael Avenatti isn’t Icarus, or any other Greek mythical figure. He’s just a jerk. The quote is the self-promoting sleaze-dog lawyer version of Alex Rodriguez owning two portraits of himself in the form of a centaur.

Already charged for attempting to extort Nike and for embezzling $12 million from a batch of clients, he’s been hit with a new indictment. He’s accused of blowing the proceeds of porn star Stormy Daniels’ book deal on things like his monthly $3,900 Ferrari payment, while stalling her with excuses that the publisher was late or “resisting… due to poor sales of [Daniels’s] book.”

The fate of Avenatti-Icarus feels intertwined with Ed and Brian Krassenstein of #Resistance fame. The flying Krassensteins have just been removed from Twitter, allegedly for using fake accounts and “purchasing fake interactions.”

This comes three years after their home was raided by federal agents, and nearly two after a forfeiture complaint made public the Krassensteins’ 13-year history of owning and operating sites pushing Ponzi-like “High-Yield Investment Plans” or HYIPs. Authorities said the pair “generated tens of thousands of complaints by victims of fraudulent HYIPs.” (Emphasis mine)

After their Twitter ban this week, in one of the most perfect details you’ll ever find in a news story, the Krassensteins were contacted by Jacob Wohl, the infamous pro-Trump conspiracy peddler who is himself banned. Wohl reportedly proposed they all band together to “fight Twitter and internet censorship.”

Confused? You shouldn’t be. The Krassensteins and Wohl are just two sides of the same coin, just as Avenatti is a more transparently pathetic version of the man he claimed to oppose, Donald Trump.

The Trump era has seen the rapid proliferation of a new type of political grifter. He or she often builds huge Twitter followings with hyper-partisan content, dishing out relentless aggression in the form of dunks and hot takes while promising big, Kaboom-y revelations that may or (more often) may not be factual. They often amplify presences using vast networks of sock-puppet accounts.

Avenatti had 254 cable appearances last year, including 147 on MSNBC and CNN alone in a 10-week period. Cable news bookers fell so madly in love they nearly propelled him into the presidential race, during a time when, among other things, he was allegedly bilking $1.6 million from a paraplegic.

Waytago, cable! Congratulations for giving air time to any slimeball who throws enough coal on your ratings furnace, beginning of course with the president.

The first time I covered Trump, I thought it was obvious what he was up to:

We let our electoral process devolve into something so fake and dysfunctional that any half-bright con man with the stones to try it could walk right through the front door and tear it to shreds on the first go.

And Trump is no half-bright con man, either. He’s way better than average.

Trump understood the modern press is not only weighted toward the outrageous, but discouraging of moderation in any form. In the WWE-ized landscape, people like Jeb Bush and John Kasich appeared as tomato cans for Trump to knock over, using shareable insults, extravagant policy promises and ratings-stimulating antics.

Trump, it seemed clear, got into the presidential race as a publicity stunt, maybe as a way to sell books or steaks or whatever. He knew if you peddle vicious conspiracy tales about things like Obama’s birth certificate, you can get billions in free PR from stations like Fox. What he couldn’t have known is America is so screwed up, its collection of ostensibly real politicians so universally loathed, that his burn-it-all-down Bulworth act would end up being more trusted than “legitimate” alternatives.

In it for the money, he ended up with a dubious consolation prize called the presidency – which comes with all sorts of unpleasant legal complications, as well as buttloads of real responsibility (not that he would ever be tempted to embrace it).

The press supposedly learned its lesson after Trump won, adopting a “Democracy Dies in Darkness” mantle of intellectual gravity. Then they turned around and immediately began falling for the same con.

Avenatti became an instant celebrity after he filed a lawsuit seeking to void the non-disclosure agreement between Trump and Daniels, in which she received a $130,000 payoff to be quiet about what she would later call “the least impressive sex I ever had.”

In that, Avenatti had something cable television wanted more than anyone ever wanted anything: details about the president’s “smaller than average” tackle and Daniels’ tale of “getting fucked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart.”

Avenatti leveraged being the gatekeeper of this story into daily TV appearances, where he quickly became a political figure in his own right, someone who would play the Democrats’ bare-knuckle answer to Trump.

By last summer in Iowa, he was already giving speeches as a presidential hopeful. CNN gushed:

Cribbing but amending Obama, Avenatti added, “When they go low, I say, we hit harder…”

Whether by calling Michael Cohen a “thug,” or demanding an “immediate indictment” over the hush money issue, Avenatti could be counted on to take the maximally aggressive posture. Media figures couldn’t praise him enough. He was great, emotionally satisfying TV! Our own version of Trump!

Ana Navarro compared him to the “Holy Spirit” on The View, while Joy Behar said “being a lawyer is minimal compared to what he’s doing.” MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle said, ”The Democrats could learn something from you.” Brian Stelter, who later excused his admiration on the grounds Avenatti showed “Trump-like mastery” of media, said Avenatti should be taken “seriously as a contender.” In another forum he was called the “savior of the Republic.”

Avenatti wasn’t the savior of anything. He turned out to be an epic buffoon and massive net minus for Democrat causes. His performance in the fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation last fall – where the Maya Angelo-quoting self-described feminist ended up having his own witness tell NBC he’d “twisted” her words – was just one faceplant.

He was soon after arrested for domestic violence. This helped lead to cancellation of campaign events, as Democratic organizers realized they’d come within a hair’s breadth of printing bumper stickers and posters for an unraveling one-man Enron.

The indictments of Avenatti read like a slapstick novel about a testosterone-brained chiseler who throws an armful of juggling pins in the air, then tries to lie his way into the White House before they land. If Hollywood doesn’t make a smart, dialogue-driven black comedy about his exploits (The Disbarrable Lightness of Being?) it will be a shame.

Mark Strong comes to mind for the lead, but Avenatti’s story is such a peculiarly American brand of scumbaggery that the casting will scream for a homegrown performer with a gift for weasely antihero roles. Kevin Spacey would have been perfect, but there’s always William Fichtner, or maybe Corey Stoll

There is a literature of Avenatti denials now, and they have a certain style. Of course, it’s Trump’s style. He uses impenetrable narcissism in hopes of making his defense sound as convincing to us as it must to him, i.e. “In my mind most of all, I am completely innocent of all charges issued by the many ungrateful jealous losers out to get me.” Sadly, both are probably too self-involved to appreciate the irony.

The Krassenstein tale is another head-scratcher. The forfeiture document from 2017 described how the brothers operated a network of sites offering a “forum for the promotion and discussion of” those Ponzi-like investment vehicles.

Essentially, the Krassensteins were pulling an Internet version of a “big store” con, creating the illusion of a thriving marketplace of multiple sites that was in fact a handful of people working in concert to help lure in the fish. Feds seized a property they said was “purchased with wire fraud proceeds,” and as part of a settlement deal, the Krassensteins consented to giving up $450,000 of the sale.

Political audiences literally did not care that these dopes had been outed as mini-Madoffs of the Internet world. They liked the message and flocked to it. The #Resistance Twins even made an effort to bolster their credibility by creating the “Krassencast,” a podcast so excruciatingly boring that recordings of it will someday be used to force hostage-takers to surrender.

Like Avenatti, they took maximalist positions, pushing for indictments and impeachment, with Ed even saying Trump lawyer Michael Cohen invoking the Fifth Amendment meant “basically admitting that he’s a criminal.”

From Charles Ponzi to Mike Milken to L. Ron Hubbard to Bernie Madoff to Jack Abramoff, Americans have a long history of embracing snake-oilers and schemers, showering them not just with money but social approval. In America, even after exposure, the huckster is often still worshipped for being enterprising. In a weird way, we tend to admire the effort.

It’s one thing to give these clowns our money and time. But do we have to give them our respect, too? Make them political heroes? Are we really that stupid?

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
What Game of Thrones Can Teach Us About Trump's America Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35918"><span class="small">Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Saturday, 25 May 2019 13:27

Moore writes: "Hey everyone. You may have noticed I've done minimal posting the last couple of months. If you've thought, 'he must be up to something,' you'd be right."

Filmmaker Michael Moore. (photo: Sacha Lecca)
Filmmaker Michael Moore. (photo: Sacha Lecca)


What Game of Thrones Can Teach Us About Trump's America

By Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page

25 May 19

 

ey everyone. You may have noticed I’ve done minimal posting the last couple of months. If you’ve thought, “he must be up to something,” you’d be right. Those of you who’ve followed me for years know that if you haven’t heard from me in a while it’s not because the Feds have taken me away (ha!), or that I’ve just said “fuckit I’m moving to Monaco.” I tend to go quiet when I’m working on a new project(s). Better (safer) that way. Best they don’t see me coming, if you get my drift. I don’t need to tell you that we are up against a mighty, mighty opponent. And more than one. Trump for sure, and of course an economic system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. But also ourselves, our own mentality that doesn’t understand how Trump will win again if we leave 2020 up to the same people that brought us 2016. I promise you what I’m “up to” is being designed to, in concert with what others are doing, to prevent that from happening again. But more on that in another post.

I’m writing today about something less earth-shattering but nonetheless symptomatic of the times in which we live. Tonight is the final episode of Game of Thrones (don’t worry there are no real spoilers here). For those of you who have not watched it for these eight seasons, I understand. I watched the first episode — two beheadings, three rapes and a 10-yr old boy being tossed out a tower window — and that was enough punishment for me. I didn’t come back to it for two years when I heard that the gratuitous bait for its male-intended audience had been reduced and that the story lines had become smarter (though no less intense). It turned out to be one of the most brilliant series ever on television.

But you may have heard a lot of people at work or school or online this week upset over the turn the series’ second-to-last episode took last Sunday night. Things did not go the way most Americans had hoped. And I get it. We are living in a dark, dark time. The cold chill of Trump’s winter envelopes us all now, and we are full of despair. Too many were convinced (or hoped) that at least this fantasy we were watching on TV would relieve us. Give us the ending we desperately need. Remind us that most people are good and that heroes exist. That the boy will get the girl (or the girl will get the girl). That we will all live in peace and prosperity.

But Game of Thrones last week refused to participate in our fantasy, refused to give us a shot of feel-good and instead reminded us that this is not only a dark time, the people we are clinging to to save us from the madness are not necessarily going to do that. Which puts it back on us.

And that’s what made last week’s episode so brilliant. At some point, amidst all the carnage, it must have dawned on some viewers that these monarchs were elected by no one and were, in the end, serving their own interests. That’s what those in power do. Give them a powerful military or a weapon that rains fire from the sky and they will use it to gain more power or to seek their revenge. To hell with the peon masses who now run for their lives. The images, which were straight out of Hiroshima and Dresden, were a reminder that the only time in history that nuclear weapons were unleashed on humanity (on civilians and children!) was done by the “good guys” — us! — the Best Nation on Earth! The Breaker of Chains!

Take last week’s episode for what it was - art imitating life, a reflection of our miserable, inexcusable condition where we seem to hold no power, our lives at the mercy of wealth and white rulers with all their unearned privilege. And when the monarch turns out to not be the monarch what will The People do? Have we had it with the figurative and literal incest in the Leader’s chambers? Will we rise up? Are we still sitting around waiting for the next pretty white boy who’s going to “save” us?

Let’s see what happens tonight.

Then let’s see what we all do tomorrow.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 Next > End >>

Page 879 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN