Saturday, January 19, 2019
Oil Sanctions on Venezuela Would Make Economic Recovery 'Impossible'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Ly9rPqPYodE
Friday, January 18, 2019
Presumptuous Congressional Freshman Thinks She Can Just Come In And Represent Constituents
WASHINGTON—Strutting into the
Capitol like she had some kind of electoral mandate, presumptuous congressional
freshman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) thought Thursday that she could just
come in and start representing her constituents.
“I’m sorry, big shot, but
that’s just not the way things work around here,” said House Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer, explaining that the Florida representative needed to spend at
least her first three terms memorizing obscure parliamentary procedures,
sucking up to party leaders, and groveling to corporate donors before she could
even consider drafting a law benefiting her home district.
“She can’t just waltz in here
with a list of demands from her constituents and do something about it. Christ,
the fucking gall, thinking she can just represent the beliefs and desires of
the people who elected her. She’s out there holding town halls and tweeting
about healthcare—who the hell does she think she is? Here’s some advice,
Debbie: Wait until you’re a cynical, shallow husk of yourself, and only then
will you be ready to properly govern. Otherwise, you keep your head down, you
vote for what we put in front of you, and you fundraise.”
Hoyer, who grew visibly
agitated, recommended that the novice lawmaker quit rabble-rousing and get back
to him when she’s 75 and a millionaire.
Woman Didn’t Know Progress On Toxic Masculinity Would Turn Boyfriend Into Such A Weepy Little Pansy
APPLETON, WI—Expressing
disbelief at her romantic partner’s dramatic behavioral shift, local woman
Emily Kittleson, 30, told reporters Friday that she had not expected her
boyfriend’s attempts to recognize and curtail toxic masculinity would
eventually turn him into a “weepy little pansy.”
“Christ, I know the dope is
trying to be conscious of the effects of his words and actions and to be more
open and honest with his emotions, but there’s got to be a limit,” said
Kittleson of her boyfriend Shane Magnusen, 31, whose efforts to reject toxic
masculinity have begun to irritate her as she claims he has evolved into “a
fragile fucking flower about everything” in recent weeks.
“Of course I’m happy for
social progress and all, but this ineffectual shit is not what I signed up for.
Instead of suppressing his emotions about major issues in his life, he cries at
sad commercials. Our fights used to be him screaming at me for a few minutes
and that was it, not great but not terrible. Then last night we get into an
argument that somehow turns into me nodding and making comforting noises while
he talks about his strained relationship with his dad until well after
midnight. Like, come on, I don’t have time to indulge this self-centered crap.”
Kittleson was also compelled
to interrupt her statements twice, groaning and rolling her eyes while
responding to text messages from Shane regarding their couples’ therapy
appointments later that week.
US has its gunsights on Venezuela
By VIJAY
PRASHAD JANUARY 18, 2019 5:21 PM (UTC+8)
Those troops that US President
Donald Trump is supposedly withdrawing from Syria might not be going home any
time soon. They might find themselves redeployed in Latin America.
On January 10, Nicolas Maduro
was sworn in for his second term as president of Venezuela. “I tell the
people,” Maduro said, “this presidential sash is yours. The power of this sash
is yours. It does not belong to the oligarchy or to imperialism. It belongs to
the sovereign people of Venezuela.”
These two terms – oligarchy
and imperialism – define the problems faced by Maduro’s new government.
Oligarchy
Despite 10 years of governance
by the socialist forces first led by the late Hugo Chavez and now by Maduro,
the Venezuelan oligarchy remains firmly intact. It dominates large sections of
the economy, holds immense amounts of the country’s social wealth and controls
the main media outlets.
A walk through the Altamira
neighborhood in eastern Caracas is sufficient to gauge the resilience of the
wealthy, most of whom have homes in Spain and in Florida as well. Pelucones is
the name used to define them – bigwigs, a term with aristocratic connotations.
They have resisted all attempts by the socialist Bolivarian movement to expand
political and economic democracy in the country.
This oligarchy, through its
media, controls the political and social narrative, defining the nature of
Venezuela’s crisis to its advantage. For this small sliver of the population,
all of Venezuela’s serious problems are blamed on the Maduro movement. None of
the problems are laid on the doorstep of their long domination of Venezuela,
nor do they cast an eye at the United States, which has tried to suffocate the
Bolivarian revolution since 1999.
Imperialism
Imperialism is a word that is
rarely used these days. It is relegated to histories of colonialism in the
distant past. There is little understanding of the suffocating way that
financial firms and multinational businesses drive their agenda against the
development aspirations of the poorer nations.
There is even less
understanding about the muscular attitude of countries such as the United States,
Canada and the Europeans against states that they deem to be a problem.
The gunsights were once firmly
on West Asia and North Africa – on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran – but now they
are focused on Latin America – on Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. These
countries face economic sanctions and embargoes, threats of annihilation,
covert operations and war. The definition of imperialism is simple: If you
don’t do what we tell you to do, we’ll destroy you.
Pressure on Venezuela has been
intense. Trump has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the Bolivarian
government, led by Maduro. Sanctions have been ratcheted up. Economic warfare
has become normal. Threats of a military invasion are in the air.
Lima Group
On January 4, the Lima Group
of 13 Latin American governments and Canada said it would not recognize Maduro
as the president of Venezuela. Behind them sits the US State Department, which
has put pressure along the hemisphere for the isolation of Venezuela as well as
Cuba and Nicaragua. The State Department characterized the inauguration of the
new president as “Maduro’s illegitimate usurpation of power.” Diplomatic
language has dissolved into this kind of crudity.
The Lima Group was set up for
one reason: to overthrow the current government of Venezuela. It has no other
purpose. Sanctions and diplomatic withdrawals are part of the Lima Group’s
arsenal. Buoyed by the election of far-right-wing politicians such as Brazil’s
Jair Bolsonaro and enthused by the fulminations of Trump, the Lima Group has
tightened the pressure.
Argentine President Mauricio
Macri went to Brasilia to meet Bolsonaro, where he condemned the “dictatorship”
of Maduro, and accused him – personally – of being responsible for the
difficulties in Venezuela. This is harsh language, rhetoric that sets in motion
a dangerous push toward regime change in
Venezuela.
The Lima Group’s violations of
the UN Charter have been helped along by the Organization of American States
(OAS), which held an extraordinary session to push its members to take economic
and diplomatic steps for the “restoration of democratic order” in Venezuela. It
perhaps needs to be emphasized that “restoration of democratic order” is a
euphemism for regime change.
When US Ambassador to the
United Nations Nikki Haley tried to draw the UN Security Council into such
language – of dictatorships and regime change – she was rebuffed by the other
members. In November 2017, for instance, Bolivia, China, Egypt and Russia
boycotted an informal meeting called by Haley. No other such meeting has been
possible.
There is worry that the Trump
administration will attempt in Venezuela what the Barack Obama administration
conducted in Honduras, or worse, what the George W Bush administration
conducted in Iraq.
It begins
Maduro was not permitted to
take his oath in the National Assembly. He was blocked by Juan Guaidó, leader
of the opposition. That is why Maduro took his oath in the Supreme Court, a
procedure that is validated by the constitution.
Strikingly, the head of the
OAS, Uruguayan politician Luis Almagro, sent out a tweet that welcomed Juan
Guaidó as the president of Venezuela. Guaidó, to his credit, had not claimed
the presidency. It was, instead, a foreign official from a regional body that
has superseded the Venezuelan people and attempted to install a new president
in Caracas.
More chilling has been the
words from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his department. Pompeo
tweeted, “The time is NOW for a return to democracy in Venezuela.” The word
“now” – in capitals – suggests that Pompeo is clear that there needs to be no
procedure, only a coup.
The day after this tweet,
Pompeo’s department said, “It’s time to begin the orderly transition to a new
government.” One does not need to read between the lines to know that this is a
call for regime change, for a coup, and that it comes from Washington, DC.
Trump’s national security
adviser, John Bolton, coined the phrase “troika of tyranny,” which comprises
Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. It is plain as day that the United States wants
to overthrow the governments in each of these countries, and perhaps Bolivia as
well. These are dangerous portents.
[...]
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Monday, January 14, 2019
‘Traditional masculinity toxic?’ New universe of subtle corruption emerges
Slavoj Žižek
The Czech-born writer Milan
Kundera once wrote an entire book about an atmosphere where one joke made in
bad taste can ruin your life. It's no joke now, as denouncing colleagues becomes
normal in the US.
Recently, the boffins at the
American Psychological Association (APA) proclaimed “traditional
masculinity” as toxic.
With no apparent shame, here
are the exact words they used: “Traits of so-called ‘traditional
masculinity,’ like suppressing emotions & masking distress, often start
early in life & have been linked to less willingness by boys & men to
seek help, more risk-taking & aggression - possibly harming themselves
& those with whom they interact.”
What makes this statement
really dangerous is the mixture of ideology and ostensibly neutral expertise: a
strong ideological gesture of excluding phenomena considered unacceptable is
presented as an impartial description of medical facts.
How can one not recall here
the notorious Serbsky institute in Moscow (thriving even now!) which, in the
Soviet years, was well known for categorizing dissidence as a form of mental
illness?
And exactly the same happens
when we designate masculinity as “toxic,” under the cover of medical
expertise. It amounts to the imposition of a new normativity, a fresh figure of
the enemy.
New Normal
Indeed, if, in the old days of
heterosexual normativity, homosexuality was treated as illness, it is now
masculinity itself which is medicalized and turned into a sickness to be
fought. Thus, all the references to power, patriarchy and oppression of women
cannot obfuscate the ideological brutality of the operation.
Plus, the fact the APA is
involved makes it clear we are not dealing with an excess of “Cultural
Marxism” because the APA is the psychological wing of the medical
establishment. So, we are talking about nothing less than a shift in the
mainstream ideological hegemony.
The contours of this shift
become clear the moment we take a closer look at the list of features supposed
to characterize “toxic masculinity”: suppressing emotions and masking
distress, unwillingness to seek help, a propensity to take risks even if this
involves a danger of self-harm.
Which raises the question:
what is so specifically “masculine” about this list?
Does it not fit much more as a
simple act of courage in a difficult situation where, to do the right thing,
you have to suppress emotions because you cannot rely on any help but take the
risk and act, even if this means exposing yourself to harm? Obviously, in our
age of Politically Correct conformism, such a stance poses a danger.
But What is replacing courage?
First Hand
A recent experience of mine
tells a lot in this respect. I was involved in defending a colleague against an
accusation from a graduate student that they had solicited unwanted intimacy
between the two.
What shocked me was the career
reference which was evoked to render non-problematic the behavior (of the
accuser, in this case). I don't know the accuser, I never met him and didn't
read anything written by him except his publicly available emails.
My point is: let's suppose all
he says is true – he was disgusted and oppressed etc. So why did he fully
reciprocate her messages and sometimes even heighten their emotional tone? His
repeated answer is a reference to his career, as if this were taken as a given.
Is this “justification by
career” really so self-evident? When I made this point, I was predictably
accused of not understanding how power functions in US academia – nothing could
be less true: from the 1970s when, after graduating, I was unemployed for years
(yes, for NOT being a Marxist) ‘til recent times, when I was almost exiled from
the US academia and public media because of my "problematic" positions
(critique of Political Correctness, etc.).
As a result, I was able to
observe how power works in all its guises. I don't expect people to be heroic,
I just think that there are certain limits, both professional (betraying one's theoretical
vocation – if one has it, that is to say) and private (writing passionate
emails to a person one finds disgusting, like the accuser did), that one should
not violate.
This is how “toxic
masculinity” is left behind in the new Politically Correct atmosphere
where one joke made in bad taste can ruin your career but ruthless careerism is
considered normal. A new universe of subtle corruption is thus emerging, in
which career opportunism and the lowest denouncing of colleagues presents
itself as high moralism.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)