Mikey Likes It!

Wednesday, April 20, 2022

THE GOLDBERGS

I think I'm going to have to give up BBQ. I love it but I had it yesterday and talk about heart burn. I'm not joking. I've taking three or four Zantacs (is that what they are) and I've still got this burning in my chest. In fact, I was glad that there was no new SUPERMAN AND LOIS last night. As soon as I saw that, I went to bed and took a three hour nap because my stomach was so upset. Woke up with the burning still in my chest but my stomach had settled down. Jim and Dona had some of it (BBQ_ and they did not have my reaction so it must just be me. I really love the taste but I guess I'm going to have to give it up. :(

And I just had to go throw up. That means no BBQ. My throat was burning and my chest and then I started gagging. I love BBQ and can't believe how bad my reaction to it is. I also can't believe that I threw up pink. I didn't have any pepto bismol. Not read, like with blood, but pink. I had New England clam chowder for lunch and that was really it since BBQ lst night.

If you missed it, THE GOLDBERGS has been renewed for a sixth season. This is with Jeff Garlin out as everyone's noting. No offense but the show could survive without Murray. But can it survive with an immature Adam? Last episode was the first time all season he came off like an 18 year old. I'll be watching next season to see what happens but I don't have a lot of hope for the show. Adam should have grown up a long, long time ago. I don't see how the show runners didn't notice this problem and address it in season nine. I really don't care to see pip squeak go to college and if that's what they're going to do, it's going to be a lot to endure. They really need to beef up Erica, Goeff, Barry, Bev and Tim Meadow's role. In fact, the best new development this season has been Tim Meadows becoming friends with Bev.

Tonight's episode? Adam looked immature yet again. Pop-Pop was played by George Segal until the actor passed away. George was an important part of the show. He is still missed. But Beverly, Bri (Adam's girlfriend) and Adam went to Pop-Pop's old condo and Bev met Pop-Pop's final girlfriend (played by a great Mimi Rogers) and Bev didn't believe her and then was mad at her because her father (Pop-Pop) never introduced them and Mimi told her she was upset because she'd been after Pop-Pop to introduce her to his daughter.

Everything about that storyline was great except for Adam. He needs to grow up.

The secondary story was Erica and Barry and Geoff. And this was great. She saves a man from choking when Barry delays. They're then at each other's throats until Geoff has had enough and screams at them that they need to grow up. He was right. And maybe Geoff should yell to Adam that he needs to grow up.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, April 20, 2022. Lily Tomlin, climate change, Iraq and more.

Actress and comedian (and animal rights activist and feminist and . . .) Lily Tomlin is in the news lately. NETFLIX is about to drop the last episodes of GRACE AND FRANKIE, the show she co-stars with Jane Fonda in, and and April 22nd, she's going to be honored by TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES and she has two upcoming film projects. THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER spoke with her and we'll note this section:

Do you think culture and comedy have evolved in the time since you first started out?

[Lily Tomlin}: People are more conscious about misogynistic jokes or homophobic jokes or racial slurs. Those [jokes] are just expressions of anger and fury and dislike and propaganda to separate groups and individuals. I don’t know how well-founded this is, but as tragic as Ukraine is, you think of it as a white European country. I think of the people in Haiti and in all the countries of color where terrible things happened and not as many people responded, and it was not as widely spread in the press. There was just an embrace of the Ukrainian people and a dismissal of people of color in other countries.

Amen.

At BLACK AGENDA REPORT, Ajamu Baraka offers:

U.S. propagandists had learned from the Vietnam experience that it was much safer to shield the public from the brutality that their troops were dishing out to poor villagers, students, ordinary workers, and anyone who dared to resist the military might of the U.S. military on a daily basis.

But the Ukraine war, at least the portion that began with the Russia “special operation” in February, was one of those instances where exposure to the dehumanized reality of war was welcomed.

Why?

The images of the burnt-out buildings and frightened refugees crossing the frontiers of the nations that border Ukraine served an especially important purpose. It was to generate public support for war. War in support of Ukraine and revulsion against the Russian “invaders!” And it did not hurt that the victims were white!

An important lesson was learned from the U.S. and NATO wars to dismember Yugoslavia in the 1990s and it was that white victims made selling war amazingly easy– especially when framed as a humanitarian mission to rescue people from tyranny.

We know what emerged from this discovery. The ideological weapon of humanitarian intervention and the mantra, “responsibility to protect” became invaluable to justify imperialist war, even when the victims were not white, because an appeal could be made to another powerful force – liberal white saviorism!

However, in this short essay I want to address something even more insidious and dangerous than the general propaganda efforts to generate support for the war against Russia, and that is: in the process of building support for war, the white supremacist, ultranationalist, and neo-Nazi elements in Ukrainian society and in the state were downplayed, if not ignored.

That whitewashing, coupled with the inordinate attention given to the war, with the inevitable sympathy for the white victims of this war – a war motivated by the desire of Ukrainians to join Europe, to “defend Europeanness,” and European “civilization” – revealed a contradiction that has always been present at the heart of the emergence of what became Europe. That contradiction was the hyper-valuation of white lives, of “whiteness,” in relationship to the racialized “others,” a contradiction that I refer to as the “white lives matter more movement.”

This whitewashing of Ukraine is particularly dangerous because it is occurring at a historical moment of deep crisis for the global capitalist order, producing proto-fascist movements across Europe that are becoming more visible and bolder. As I said in previous writings on this subject, U.S. authorities and the U.S. and Western European press understood that Ukraine had an active problem with white supremacist ultranationalists and literal neo-Nazis. Nevertheless, in order to engender support for Ukraine and to set the stage for the performance of a lifetime by Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s actor president, Ukraine had to be recreated, minus the ultranationalist influence and Nazis.

Herein lies the danger for non-Europeans.

The coup in 2014 saw for the first time since the second world-war, literal neo-Nazis serving in the government of a European state. Moreover, even though the ultranationalists and neo-Nazis did not have a commanding electoral base, their non-state presence controlling the streets of major cities and towns across Ukraine was significant. They were notorious for their attacks on LGBTQ populations, anarchists, non-Europeans, and Roma peoples. Their violent opposition to communists and communism and socialism of any sort was officially amplified with repressive legislation that outlawed and repressed most left political tendencies.

Beginning in 2014, white supremacists from throughout the European world traveled to Ukraine, with over four thousand “volunteers” traveling to Ukraine recently to fight in response to Zelensky’s call to help fight the Russians. It did not matter to Zelensky or the European nations supplying weapons and paying the salaries of these “volunteers” that most of them were self-identified white supremacists.

Again, we do not need to make the case of the presence of these forces in Ukraine. That has already been done, here , here, and here . The political issue is that the sanitizing of the right-wing Ukrainian state has strengthened the far-right not only in Ukraine but globally. The whitewashing by liberals and the liberal/left in the U.S. that transformed these elements into “moderate” Nazis is having the effect of legitimizing their proto-fascist racialized politics, a politics that is emerging across the white world. There is a reason Marine LePen has a chance to defeat Emmanuel Macron, even after he moved further to the right after being elected.

Liberals pretend to be opposed to the right, but they do not because they aligned themselves with the neo-liberal right more than two decades ago. The right will never defeat the far-right – the dilemma of the democratic party in the U.S. But in embracing the illusion of being in opposition and conceding ideological terrain in the elusive quest for “bipartisanship” the far-right is further legitimized and emboldened.

The whitewashing of the right in Ukraine in order to support its U.S.-backed government will have domestic political consequences. For example, the liberal and left/liberal argument for opposing Trump was that his supporters were infected with racism and his movement represented a proto-fascist political development in the body politic of the U.S. The political and ideological challenge now is to square this support for white supremacists in Ukraine with their opposition to Trump. How do you condemn Trumpian racism after embracing a government and society infested with white supremacists and literal neo-Nazis?

In a few yers, when everyone looks back at this time period, there's going to be a lot of shame -- and there should be. Shame on the part of the media, shame on 'caring' actors. They should all be on the receiving end of some version of Jesse Jackson Jr.'s 2008 speech/attack on Hillary Clinton -- where he listed all the things she dind't cry over but felt that she had cried over her poorly run campaign.

A lot of people will have to answer whe the hysteria dies down.

Hysteria?

Most Americans, despite the media whoring, don't care. They care that people are at war in the abstract. But, no, this isn't seen by the majority of Americans as a US priority.

And what they see at home only appalls them. A member of Congress telling the homeless to go home. To go home. And it's not a Republica snarling at them. No, it's a Democrat. The once powerful and righteous Maxine Waters. Sunk by her own corruption. Mayb it's time the ethics review board over Congress was taken out of the hands of Congress? Between Nancy Pelosi's profits from the stock market and all the family scandals for members of Congress, something needs to be done.

But we don't have money to care for the homeless, we are told. Yet Joe Biden keeps sending more and money to fight Russia.

Ma8rgaret Kimberly (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) notes:

The United States, its NATO allies, and their partners in corporate media are engaging in an unprecedented war propaganda effort. Their goal is to get and maintain public support for their actions against Russia which are playing out in Ukraine. The messaging is constant and isn’t at all subtle. One cannot go online for any purpose without seeing exhortations to help Ukrainian children, buy products colored in blue and yellow, or somehow “stand with Ukraine.”

What passes for news about Ukraine is usually little more than anti-Russian screeds, sourced by “anonymous officials” eager to reveal claims that Vladimir Putin has untold billions of dollars stashed away, or that Russians are protesting, refusing to fight, or fleeing their country. In these stories Putin has been fooled by his aides, is purging the intelligence apparatus and is either depressed or in fits of rage, depending on the source of the anti-Putin invective. We are told that the Russian economy is crumbling, every atrocity is committed by Russians only, and that Ukraine’s president Volodomyr Zelensky is a perfect human being. Documented proof that he has a fortune in offshore accounts has been disappeared by the media which once reported on these activities.

Joe Biden and his foreign policy team of incompetent ideologues hope to convince Americans to accept food shortages, rising gas prices, and the risk of a hot war. The steady diet of dangerous nonsense is a necessity for them. The game is up if the people begin to question what they are being told.

Then again, while there may not be mass rejection of the Ukraine narrative there is certainly a mass rejection of Biden himself. The latest opinion poll shows him with a very low 33% approval rating. The average person may not be well versed in the history of U.S. policy towards Russia, but they know when things don’t add up and they know that the president is not a well man. Rambling, incoherent speeches punctuated by shouts of “war criminal” and “genocide” don’t cut it when working people can barely afford to put gas in the tank. We are left with a mass gaslighting effort that has created the desired effect of generating fear and or hatred towards Russia, but that hasn’t increased satisfaction about the country’s direction.

Biden’s actions aren’t very surprising. He was the Ukraine point person after the Barack Obama coup in 2014. He was always one of the most hawkish democrats and came into the presidency with Antony Blinken, Victoria Nuland and the same cast of characters who first violated Ukraine’s sovereignty. He hoped to instigate Russia and kill the NordStreamII pipeline and sanction Russia. He didn’t expect the full incursion that he spent months saying would happen.

Now he is hoisted on his own petard, trying to bully other nations into condemning Russia when it isn’t in their interests to do so, and causing world wide suffering in a futile effort to destroy Russia’s economy. Sanctions against Russia have increased fuel prices all over the world. Disruptions in wheat production will reduce Ukraine’s harvest and decrease supplies in places that had no connection with this ginned up conflict. The anti-Russian propaganda is working but the pro-Biden effort is not, hence the public disapproval.

Nothing is working for Joe. And he's so feeble and out of touch that he's whispering about running for 2024. Does he think he'll be able to hide in basements and avoid the campaign trail again?

The 'peop' shots they gavee him befor the debates -- the Democratic Party debates -- did wake him back up once thy started but they also brought out his aggressive nature and he looked really angry.

That won't work in 2024. Equally true, Joe's been abusing the same 'pep' shots since he got into the White House, he thinks they help him thihnk better.

Nothing in a needle will ever do that trick, Joe.

Among his many failures? He'll be remembered for doing damn little to save the planet. April 22nd, Lily gets honored (rightfully so) but that day is also Earth Day.

AFP reports:

Wed, April 20, 2022, 6:06 AM·1 min read

Iraq was hit Wednesday by its third heavy dust storm in two weeks, temporarily grounding flights at Baghdad and Najaf airports, as the weather phenomenon grows increasingly frequent.

The air in Baghdad was thick with a heavy sheet of grey and orange dust, while the state news agency INA cited the meteorological office as saying the latest storm was expected to lift on Thursday.

Flights were suspended at Baghdad International Airport due to poor visibility.

The airport serving the Shiite holy city of Najaf to the south also released a statement announcing flights were grounded.

Two dust storms struck the country earlier in April, leaving dozens hospitalised with respiratory problems and temporarily grounding flights at a number of airports.

"The dust is affecting the whole country but particularly central and southern regions," Amer al-Jabri, an official at Iraq's meteorological office, told AFP.

The dust storms are worse and more frequent due to climate change. And the world sits by waiting . Or fretting over nonsense.

The following sites updated:0

Tuesday, April 19, 2022

Earth Day

This Friday, April 22nd, is Earth Day. Let's start with a video for kids so we're all on the same page.

So that bring us up to speed and we did a little deeper. Here is some information about Earth Day:

Every year on April 22, Earth Day marks the anniversary of the birth of the modern environmental movement in 1970.

Let’s take a look at the last half-century of mobilization for action:

ORIGINS OF EARTH DAY

In the decades leading up to the first Earth Day, Americans were consuming vast amounts of leaded gas through massive and inefficient automobiles. Industry belched out smoke and sludge with little fear of the consequences from either the law or bad press. Air pollution was commonly accepted as the smell of prosperity. Until this point, mainstream America remained largely oblivious to environmental concerns and how a polluted environment threatens human health.

However, the stage was set for change with the publication of Rachel Carson’s New York Times bestseller Silent Spring in 1962. The book represented a watershed moment, selling more than 500,000 copies in 24 countries as it raised public awareness and concern for living organisms, the environment and the inextricable links between pollution and public health.

Earth Day 1970 would come to provide a voice to this emerging environmental consciousness, and putting environmental concerns on the front page.

The Environmental Protection Agency notes:

It may be hard to imagine that before 1970, a factory could spew black clouds of toxic smoke into the air or dump tons of toxic waste into a nearby stream, and that was perfectly legal. They could not be taken to court to stop it.

How was that possible? Because there was no EPA, no Clean Air Act, no Clean Water Act. There were no legal or regulatory mechanisms to protect our environment.

Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen have an interesting column at COMMON DREAMS:

In a 1970 poster for the first Earth Day and a cartoon the following year, Walt Kelly's Pogo offered a hard truth about ecological crises: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

That doesn't mean there are no differences in individuals' contribution to those crises. Landowners, not agricultural workers who harvest crops, bear responsibility for chemical contamination of the soil. A fast-food restaurant cashier who has to drive to work and the CEO of an oil company cashing in on hydrocarbons are not equally culpable.

But how much are landowners' choices constrained by economic realities outside their control? If all the energy companies stopped producing fossil fuels in the coming decades, would consumers happily embrace a major down-powering and the accompanying lifestyle changes? Kelly's statement may have lacked nuance, but so do many of the environmentalists' platitudes that ignore the depth of change necessary in both economic institutions and people's expectations.

We assess people's choices and understand that those with a disproportionate share of the world's wealth and power are more of an enemy than the "us" who lack such status. Those judgments are necessary, but not sufficient to deal with the multiple cascading ecological crises we face. Whatever our individual contributions to an unsustainable society, collectively we have to embrace down-powering in a dramatically different world, like it or not.

We use "crises" deliberately, to focus not just on rapid climate disruption but soil erosion and degradation, chemical contamination, and a dramatic reduction in biodiversity. Climate change be the most compelling crisis, but all of these threats are a derivative of overshoot, of too many people consuming too much overall.

We know that consumption is wildly skewed. We can focus on the worst offenders in the top 1% or top 10%, and at times that can be an effective strategy for incremental change. We shouldn't hesitate to go after people who own yachts.

But the larger problem is the routine expectations of people in the developed world more generally. Even if resources were equitably distributed, the ecosphere cannot sustain 8 billion people indefinitely at anything like the current level of aggregate consumption. Politicians of all stripes love to champion the middle class, but middle-class living is unsustainable. Eliminating disparities is the first step. What comes next?

It's time to talk honestly about "fewer and less": fewer people consuming less energy and materials.

A lot to think about. Let's do another video, this one by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, April 19, 2022. Press whores are so overwhelmed with their whoring duties that they can't even save their former precious while the political stalemate continues in Iraq.

In November, the US mid-term elections will be held. Traditionally, the hose controlling the White House loses seats in Congress during the midterms.

Joe Biden's polls8ter says, "The worst political environment for Democrats in my lifetime.""

AOC and the Fraud Squad can't rally because they've been exposed as worthless.

They tried to bring in Bar8ack Obama this month to help Joe. Even if the catty behavior between Joe and Barack hadn't taken place at that event, Barack couldn't have helped.

The press whoring just isn't working.

He was still in the White House when I pointed out that The Cult of St. Barack wouldn't be able to keep him afloat after he was out of the White House. No, people would begin to notice how he did nothing for him and how various 'media' outlets were really just Democratic Party organ who covered for Barrack and Barack's many failures inste8ad of holding him accountable.

He wa8s never held accountable. He was going to end veterans homelessness, remember? He didn't8. He was going to close the gulag at Guantanamo. He didn't He was going to pull all US troops out of Iraq -- he never did and he started sending more back in in the fall of 2012 -- as THE NEW YORK TIMES finally reported in September of that month, buried in a story on Syria. He then began sending more in in8 the second half of 2014 and they remain in Iraq today. "We want to end the War! And we want to end it now!" Remember him thundering that in his 2008 rallies? Remember his alleged superior judgment and how he used the Iraq War to bash Hillary Clinton?

He was really good a words, they just didn't mean anything.

We constantly, while Barack was in the White House would use Joni Mitchell's "The Last Time I Saw Richard" to describe Barack and his cult back when he was president.

The last time I saw Richard was Detroit in '68
And he told me all romantics meet the same fate someday
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark café
You laugh he said you think you're immune
Go look at your eyes they're full of moon
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you
All those pretty lies pretty lies
When you gonna realize they're only pretty lies
Only pretty lies just pretty lies

Pretty lies, when you gonna realize they're just pretty lies?

The press whored for him constantly. See Ava and my "TV: The Myths" for some of his many broken promises. And I was right. The media whores couldn't devote all the attention they did to covering for him and lying for him when he was out of the White House. No.

They ahve othere politicians to whore for today. They still will rally around Barack and they did for that awful documentary. That's the reality. It was awful. NETFLIX knew they had a dog on their hand, i8t was a NETFLIX exec that provided us with the documentary ahead of time and told us that NETFLIX knew they'd wasted money. It debuted last week and never made it higher than number 3. It's dropped. QUEEN OF THE SOUTH, a USA network series, had its final season show up on NETFLIX and it performed better. WHITE HOT THE RISE & FALL OF ABERCROMBIE & FITCH just started streaming on NETFLIX and already it's creating more excitement.

Barack never helped anyone but himself. By the time Michelle Obama's book came out, the bloom was off that rose. It did not meet the publisher's expectations despite a huge promotional push.

Barack's only accomplishment was overseeing the greatest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. He was the hero of the 1%. 8And this was made clear as he worked to destroy a Chicago neighborhood by mposing his official library there, by yachting with David Geffen and limp noodle Bruce Springsteen. By getting millions from NETFLIX despite him never having produced a film or TV show.

His documentary was an embarrassment. But the press whores worked the p.r. material they were handed and went around, as the p.r. material did, comparing Barack to a man who has spent his lifetime -- and he's nearly 100 now -- covering environmental issues in films and TV shows. That was so insulting and outrageous and, no surprise, beyond the whores 8that lie never got traction.

He c9984an't save them. Bill can't save them -- he has to run from reporters these days to avoid facing the questions regarding Juanita and Monica. Hillary can't do press? She's seeing campaign aid after campaign aid pulled into an investigation on how the Russia myth was created by her campaign and paid for by her campaign and how aid how one person with her campaign after another lied to the US government.

In the Iraq that the US destroyed, the political stalemate continues. No president named since the October 10th elections, no prime minister-designate named. Six months and counting. QANTARA offers:

Iraq’s fragility and compounding problems are nothing new. The country has witnessed three devastating wars within three long decades, in addition to international sanctions, sectarian war and foreign influence. By the time Saddam Hussein’s statues were toppled, Iraq found itself in a devastating situation, in which bets were being made that Iraq would splinter into several countries based on sectarian and ethnic lines. Although Iraq defied these expectations, it remains a fragile state edging towards failure.

Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia cleric who won 73 out of 325 seats in the recent election, is however promising major change. The young cleric wants to break away from the political tradition of forming a national unity government after each election where all parties representing Iraq’s sects, ethnicities, and religions share the spoils. This type of political arrangement is one of the main causes of corruption and social division.

Instead, al-Sadr wants to form a majority government that can begin implementing desperately needed reforms – beginning with controlling the unruly militias and fighting corruption. He also aims to curb foreign influence from countries like Iran and make sure Iraq remains neutral regarding divisive regional issues. But will he succeed?

Al-Sadr will face many challenges in his efforts to brighten Iraq’s future. Even if he can form a majority government, further change will be an uphill battle because reform in Iraq is a formidable task that requires tremendous effort. Furthermore, some aspects of reform might take decades.

The western press, doing the US State Dept's bidding, whored for Moqtada and declared him a kingmaker and other things. He's a cult leader who is responsible for the deaths of many Ir8aiqs as w8ell as many US troops. But in August8, he took the bribe from the US State Dept -- that was made with US tax dollars -- a8nd they began promoting him lilke crazy.

Well he had t8hree tries. Three times, he called for a vote in Parliament to elect his nominee for president.

Three times he failed.

He's now in the midst of a 40-day, self-imposed exile

His oppontents are stupid. There was some initial excitement that the coordinating framework would be able to put together a government.

Then they learned that their answer was to pimp the same person for prime minister and the same person for president. Moqtada had already installed the same person for another term as Speaker of Parliament. So if the three top positions in government weren't going to change, what was the point8 of those October elections?

It's a question the already disenchanted are asking even louder these days.

New content at THIRD:

The following sites updated:

Monday, April 18, 2022

THE BATMAN

Caught THE BATMAN on HBO MAX. Neither my daughter nor I enjoyed it.

Biggest problem? It's the reason DC keeps failing to generate excitement.

Where are the women? Where are the men of color?

I say men of color because there are two women of color. Zoe Kravitz plays a supporting role as Catwoman. Is she even in an hour of the film?

The film is nearly 3 hours long -- 2 hours and 56 minutes -- four minutes shy of 3 hours.

She's barely in the movie.

And then there's the actress playing the candidate for mayor. She does nothing at all and only sometimes gets to speak -- then just a line or two.

Did you know that women couldn't be police officers?

We see what appears to be the whole department turn out twice in the film -- and that's not counting when they want Batman put in jail. And we never see a woman.

Guess in the world this film is set in, Angie Dickinson never made POLICE WOMAN?

It's so out of touch.

Two women in the film.

Now they've got four -- at least four -- mafia leaders and goons. Every one is a man.

You wait for women to show up but they never do.

And they wonder why this film stalled at $365 million while the latest Spider-Man movie made $804 million.

Every male speaking role appeared to have a White face.

What world do they live in because it's not my world.

And it just goes to how excluding these DC films are. We notice. And it's why we don't get too excited.

Riddler is a White nerd.

They reflect an out of date world.

I also would have told Robert to cut his hair. Did he think Batman was hopping into CLUELESS? Just made him look immature and boyish when he didn't have the mask on.

The first 30 minutes were a complete waste.

So much of the film seemed to move slowly -- like you were standing in a pool and trying to run.

I didn't care for it at all.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, April 18, 2022. Turkey invades Kurdistan again, Joe Biden remains a joke on the world stage, simpletons can't handle a real discussion regarding Russia, and much more.

Joe Biden was supposed to restore honor to the White House. How a man who groped women, assaulted Tara Reade and whose son Hunter was corrupt would do that was anyone's guess. But it gets worse.

Last week, Autralia's SKY TV reported on how Joe's being mocked around the world -- a popular news video, it already has a half-million views.

You know what has more views? This SKY TV video focusing just on Saudi Arabia mocking Joe.

That video has over 5 million views. Yes, Joe's stupidity has gone viral.

Last week, the boob felt desperate in his efforts to rally support for his war of choice on Russia so he used the term genocide. Joseph Scalice (WSWS) observes:

On Tuesday, US President Joe Biden declared that Russia was engaged in genocide in Ukraine. The allegation tossed off by Biden is a lie, but it is more than this. It is a political provocation consciously aimed at whipping up a public hysteria to legitimize a massive escalation of the war, including the full-scale, open participation by the United States.

Genocide is a word stamped with profound historical content. There is no graver charge that can be leveled.

[. . .]

The last thirty years have witnessed the uninterrupted crimes of US empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. Hospitals and villages were deliberately bombed. Cities were reduced to rubble. Economic sanctions starved hundreds of thousands of children to death, and drone strikes killed them at play. Once proud civilizations are haunted ruins, picked bare by the dogs of war.

The only plausible defense that Bush, Obama and Trump could mount if they were charged with genocide, is that while they did launch and conduct wars of aggression that killed over a million Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Afghans, they saw the deaths of men, women and children as a useful means to an end, and not as the end in itself. Their actions are undeniably genocidal.

Biden stands at the head of this blood-soaked power and accuses Russia of genocide. The charges deliberately mangle and distort both the contemporary facts and the historically established legal definition.

Biden points to specific events—corpses in the streets of Mariupol, the bombing of a train station—which may be war crimes, but which require investigation. Neither the precise details nor the perpetrator have yet been established. No evidence whatsoever has been presented that Putin is intent upon eradicating the Ukrainian people.

Nothing that has happened in Ukraine can be measured on the genocidal scale established by the Nazis and the United States and other imperialist powers. Biden’s accusation trivializes the Holocaust and does violence to history.

Biden’s accusations of genocide are not the rhetorical overreach of moral indignation. They are the deliberate and reckless escalation of conflict in service to the interests of US imperialism and they target Washington’s enemies.

Andre Damon (WSWS) notes:

Biden’s accusation that Russia is engaging in genocide is aimed at poisoning public opinion and galvanizing popular hatred of Russia. It was a transparent pretext for the White House’s announcement, just one day later, that the United States would send attack helicopters and hundreds of armored vehicles to Ukraine in the largest escalation of US military involvement in the war to date.

The weapons being shipped to Ukraine include 300 “kamikaze drones” known as “Switchblades,” 300 armored vehicles, and 11 Mi-17 helicopters, as well as land mines, radar, thousands of anti-tank weapons and nuclear protective equipment.

Announcing the action, the Pentagon declared, “The United States has now committed more than $3.2 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden Administration.” This includes $2.6 billion within the past six weeks.

On Wednesday, White House press spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked, “Is it the US policy that genocide has been committed in Ukraine, or was that the president’s personal beliefs?” To this Psaki replied, “Our objective now is evidenced by the enormous package of military assistance that we put out today.”

This exchange is revealing precisely because it stands reality so neatly on its head. According to the statements from the White House, the unprecedented funneling of arms to Ukraine is a testament to how strongly the US believes Russia is committing “genocide.”

The reality is the exact opposite: The accusations against Russia are the lying justification for a policy of military escalation. First, the war plans were laid down, then the accusations were made to justify them.

The message being sent to the Russian government is that, as with similar “genocide” allegations made against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya, the United States is targeting it for war and regime change.

Jen's just a dirty whore now. She's off to cable 'news' which will embrace her because whores are what you get on cable 'news.' She's just a soul-less creature mouthing words she knows are false but she doesn't care that her words have real world impact and peopl will die because of them. She's the perfect fit for cable 'news.'

Not only is the US government trying to police the conversation in their push for war, so are certain celebrities. Sean Penn is just a nut case and always has been. Alec Baldwin is making an ass of himself and will hopefully come to his senses. If not, by all mean, Alec, grab a gun and run into battle. Saddest of all isn the out of work actor who has positioned himself as a savior of women but who himself has been said to be using that as a front to cover his own sex trafficking involvement.

Robert Scheer (SCHEER POST, link is audio and transcript) spoke with professor Michael Brennan whose learning how narrow the lines of debate have become. Excerpt:

RS: Hello, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence, where the intelligence comes from my guests. In this case it’s Michael Brenner, who is a professor of international affairs emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, a fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS Johns Hopkins; he’s written a number of important studies, books, academic articles; he’s taught at every place from Stanford to Harvard to MIT and what have you.

But the reason I wanted to talk to Professor Brenner is that he’s been caught in the crosshairs of trying to have a debate about what’s going on in the Ukraine, and the NATO response, the Russian invasion and what have you. And to my mind, I read, I was reading his blog; I found it very interesting. And then he suddenly said, I’m giving up; you cannot have an intelligent discussion. And his description of what’s going on reminded me of the famous Lillian Hellman description of the McCarthy period as “scoundrel times,” which was the title of her book.

So, Professor Brenner, tell us what buzzsaw you ran into when you dared question, as far as I can see, you dared do what you’ve done all your academic life: you raised some serious questions about a foreign policy matter. And then, I don’t know what, you got hit on the head a whole bunch of times. So could you describe it?

MB: Yes, it came only partially as a surprise. I’ve been writing these commentaries and distributing them to a personal list of roughly 5,000 for more than a decade. Some of those persons are abroad, most are in the U.S.; they’re all educated people who’ve been involved one way or another with international affairs, including quite a number who have had experience in and around government or journalism or the world of punditry.

What happened on this occasion was that I had expressed highly skeptical views about what I believe is the fictional storyline and account of what has been happening in Ukraine, back over the past year and most pointedly in regard to the acute crisis that has arisen with the Russian invasion and attack on Ukraine. I received not only an unusually large number of critical replies, but it was the nature of them that was deeply dismaying.

One, many—most of them came from people whom I did know, whom I knew as level-headed, sober minds, engaged and well informed on foreign policy issues and international matters generally. Second, they were highly personalized, and I had rarely been the object of that sort of criticism or attack—sort of ad hominem remarks questioning my patriotism; had I been paid by, you know, by Putin; my motivations, my sanity, et cetera, et cetera.

Third was the extremity of the content of these hostile messages. And the last characteristic, which really stunned me, was that these people bought into—hook, line and sinker—every aspect of the sort of fictional story that has been propagated by the administration, accepted and swallowed whole by the media and our political-intellectual class, which includes many academics and the entire galaxy of Washington think tanks.

And that’s a reinforced impression that had been growing for some time, that this was not just—that to be a critic and a skeptic was not just to engage in a dialogue [unclear], but to place one’s views and one’s thoughts and send them into a void, in effect. A void, because the discourse as it has crystalized is not only uniform in a way, but it is in so many respects senseless, lacking any kind of inner logic, whether you agree with the premises and the formally stated objectives or not.

In effect, this was an intellectual and political nihilism. And one cannot make any contribution to endeavor to correct that simply by conventional means. So I felt for the first time that I was no part of this world, and of course this is also a reflection of trends and attitudes that have become rather pervasive in the country at large, sort of over time. And so beyond simply sort of disagreeing with what the consensus is, I had become totally alienated [unclear] and decided there was no point to it, to going on distributing these things, even though I continue to follow events, think about them, and send some shorter commentaries to close friends. That’s essentially it, Robert.

RS: OK, but let me just say, first of all, I want to thank you for what you did. Because it turned me on to a whole different way of looking at what happened to Ukraine—the history, reminding us of what had happened for the previous decade, not just the expansion of NATO but the whole question of the change in government that the U.S. was involved with previously. And the whole, you know, the relation of the two powers.

And the irony here is that actually we’re back in the worst moments of the Cold War, but at least in the Cold War we were willing to negotiate with people who were very serious, ideological at least, or enemies, and had some coherence in that respect. And you know, Nixon did have his kitchen debate with Khrushchev, and we did have arms control with the old Soviet Union; Nixon himself went to China and negotiated with Mao Zedong; there was no illusion that these were wonderful people, but they were people you had to do business with. Suddenly Putin is now put in a Hitler category even worse than Stalin or Mao, and you can’t talk.

And I do want to disagree with one thing you’ve done: your retirement from this. You’re only about, what, a mere 80 years old; you’re a kid compared to me. But I remember when Bertrand Russell, one of the great intellectuals that we’ve had in our history, or Western history, dared to criticize the U.S. on Vietnam. He and Jean Paul Sartre, and actually raised the prospect that we had committed war crimes in Vietnam.

And the New York Times denounced Bertrand Russell, and they actually said he’d become senile. I went all the way to Wales when I was editing Ramparts magazine to interview Bertrand Russell—which I did, and I spent some lovely time with him. He certainly was frail at the age of 94, but he was incredibly coherent in defense of his position; he had been a very strong anti-communist all of his life, and now he was saying, wait a minute, we’re getting this war wrong.

Now Noam Chomsky has upset the apple cart by discussing some realities as REVOLUTIONARY BLACKOUT discusses below.

Meanwhile Glenn Greenwald notes:

If one wishes to be exposed to news, information or perspective that contravenes the prevailing US/NATO view on the war in Ukraine, a rigorous search is required. And there is no guarantee that search will succeed. That is because the state/corporate censorship regime that has been imposed in the West with regard to this war is stunningly aggressive, rapid and comprehensive.

On a virtually daily basis, any off-key news agency, independent platform or individual citizen is liable to be banished from the internet. In early March, barely a week after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the twenty-seven nation European Union — citing “disinformation” and “public order and security” — officially banned the Russian state-news outlets RT and Sputnik from being heard anywhere in Europe. In what Reuters called “an unprecedented move,” all television and online platforms were barred by force of law from airing content from those two outlets. Even prior to that censorship order from the state, Facebook and Google were already banning those outlets, and Twitter immediately announced they would as well, in compliance with the new EU law.

But what was “unprecedented” just six weeks ago has now become commonplace, even normalized. Any platform devoted to offering inconvenient-to-NATO news or alternative perspectives is guaranteed a very short lifespan. Less than two weeks after the EU’s decree, Google announced that it was voluntarily banning all Russian-affiliated media worldwide, meaning Americans and all other non-Europeans were now blocked from viewing those channels on YouTube if they wished to. As so often happens with Big Tech censorship, much of the pressure on Google to more aggressively censor content about the war in Ukraine came from its own workforce: “Workers across Google had been urging YouTube to take additional punitive measures against Russian channels.”

So prolific and fast-moving is this censorship regime that it is virtually impossible to count how many platforms, agencies and individuals have been banished for the crime of expressing views deemed “pro-Russian.” On Tuesday, Twitter, with no explanation as usual, suddenly banned one of the most informative, reliable and careful dissident accounts, named “Russians With Attitude.” Created in late 2020 by two English-speaking Russians, the account exploded in popularity since the start of the war, from roughly 20,000 followers before the invasion to more than 125,000 followers at the time Twitter banned it. An accompanying podcast with the same name also exploded in popularity and, at least as of now, can still be heard on Patreon.

On censorship, let's turn to Scott Ritter.

Scott Ritter is a pedophile. He's one busted three times. He's one sent to prison. At his trial, the court expert testified that therapy had not helped him.

After he went off to prison, we didn't have to note him here anymore and, other than a loud conversation with Arianna Huffington, I really didn't speak of him. That conversation was my advocating for a warning label at HUFFINGTON POST when they featured his columns. She wouldn't go along with it but HUFFY would use it later for political enemies.

The next time we mentioned Pig Boy Scott Ritter after his conviction was when we explained why we we were not highlighting CONSORTIUM NEWS. I'd wanted to support Nat in his effort to keep his father's outlet alive. But then Joe Lauria, editor-in-chief of CONSORTIUM, does a video with Ritter and Joe lies.

JOE LIES. As Lili Taylor sang in SAY SOMETHING.

When news of Scott Ritter's second arrest leaked out, Scott began lying about it and would continue that lie until 2009. He would lie that this wasn't what it seemed, it was a frame up by the Bush administration because he was speaking out against the war. When he was arrested in 2009, Barack Obama was president.

Now it was never a lie, the second arrest, the first arrest. But he put out that lie.

And there was Joe lying all these years later about how Scott Ritter was removed from corporate media because he spoke out and because lies were told about him.

No.

And I'm not going to trust whores.

Robert Parry was a nice person. But he did lie. At the end, he realied he hadn't helped anyone with those lies, but he did lie. He lied in his coverage about Barack. He lied and he identified with Barack so he justified the lies. Outlets shouldn't identify with the powerful. In one of his last e-mails to me, he pointed out that I had said ("over and over") here (yes, I can be redundant) that we didn't need to protect Barack, he had the Secret Service for that. I said we needed to tell the truth and stop running interference for Barack. Robert wrote specifically about the various figures that he felt hemmed his site in and kept them from doing the job that they should have.

(E-mail exchanges between Robert Parry and Ava myself started in 2005 and was noted many times -- starting with an addition to the bottom of this 2005 piece.)

Robert made a mistake. A serious one but he realized it. And he agreed that the war against Russia began under Barack -- I'd noted that war was starting up in the weeks before Ed Snowden ended up in Russia. Robert took part in the pushback against the lies about Russia and deserves praise for that. His work over the decades deserves lots of praise.

But I don't support Joe Lauria. I don't support liars. Scott Ritter was pulled from corporate media. And let's be clear that it wasn't because of Iraq. Scott's a Republican -- or was. They were always allowed to speak in corporate media about disagreeing regarding the war. It was the left that was either ignored or savaged.

Scott was kicked out of corporate media because they learned of his second arrest.

I didn't object when Joe Lauria was publishing CONSORTIUM. I objected when Joe lied.

"Breaking Down Ukraine Jimmy Dore, Sean Stone, Scott Ritter & Lara Logan to talk all things Ukraine." I posted that CONVO COUCH video on March 23rd. And I captioned it, "Scott Ritter was convicted of and served time for attempting to have sex with a minor. That arrest was his third such arrest for that crime."

In the March 1st "Iraq snapshot," we noted:

"A really great guest. Someone who knows what war is. Who has been in war." Oh, Scott knows much more than that, Dan. Why be so modest?

Dan Cohen, maybe the first thing to do is to get honest with your viewers?

Scott Ritter has been arrested multiple times for attempting to have sex with underage girls. When Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House,, the claim was that this was all political and it was Republicans going after Scott. Then he got arrested after Barack Obama was president. And this time, he wasn't given a plea deal or a slap on the wrist. This time, he went on trial and was convicted for his actions. He's a registered sex criminal.

And you're not telling people that, Dan?

And Alan youre off on Tucker Carlson when your own outlet is promoting Scott without noting that he's a sex offender?

Is Scott such an important voice and analyst that we need him in public disccusion? I'm not seeing it. But I can be wrong.

We've included the video. We've also included reality: That he's been arrested multiple times for attempting to engage in sex with underage girls. That he was convicted of that -- and cried in court as he admitted he did it -- and was sentenced and sent to prison for it.

Apparently, MINT NEWS PRESS doesn't give two s**ts about the safety of young girls.

Big surprise -- that's sarcasm. There's nothing at their website that indicates that they value women. They're like so many 'left' sites in the '00s who don't get caught in 'idnetity politics' -- their excuse for ignoring the rights of women and girls and for ingoring racism.

Alan's a good writer. But he looks like a hypocrite as he goes after Tucker Carlson while his own site promotes Scott Ritter.

They don't warn anyone. And any 14 year old girl that Scott targets next who knows of Scott from MINT PRESS NEWS -- and only from MINT PRESS NEWS -- just knows that he's someone to be 'trusted' per MPN.

Long ago I made the proposal that Scott Ritter should come with a warning lable. Arianna took that over to her own site and then tried to apply it to Republicans running for office.

This was not about political differences between myself and Scott Ritter. This is about him being a convicted sex offender who has a history of attempting to have sex with underage girls. I have no idea why his wife stayed with him. I don't care, honestly. But even before the conviction, we told the truth about Scott. We did that because a CNN friend -- who was against the Iraq War, by the way -- warned me. I was told that there were two arrests. Unlike Sy Hersh, we told the truth and walked away.

I don't like him. I don't like anyone who tries to prey on children.

Does he have anything of value to add to the discussion. I'm not hearing it in the video above. Maybe you are. But we noted what he was convicted of and we provided the needed public warning.

MPN hasn't.

Before he was arrested the last time (and convicted) we called out a number of outlets for promoting Scott and acting irresponsible. It is irresponsible to promote him without nting what he is -- someone convicted of attempting to prey on children.

I don't see anything I've done as attempting to censor Scott Ritter. I have asked that the lies stop. I have asked that a convicted felon be identified as such (as opposed to as "a great guy") when outlets bring him on. I do see a world of difference. I get it that others do not.

We live in a time of stupidity. A simple debate can't take place as Michael Brenner points out. And certain parties think rules don't apply. Fiorella Isabel, if you bring on a convicted felon who preys on girls and you don't disclose that to your audience, you're not just setting other girls up to be victimized, you're not being honest with your audience.

And some will find out the truth. When they do, they may wonder why you, Richard Medhurst and others weren't honest? You had to lie to them. They'll then question what else you told them, what else did you lie about? If you're not able to admit that your guest was convicted in a court of law and served time in prison, that's your first hint that this isn't a guest you should have on. The conviction is not in dispute. The prison time is not in dispute. Yet you refuse to identify your guest properly.

In Iraq, Turkey is again bombing the Kurdistan and has again sent ground troops in. I won't hold my breath waiting for YOUTUBE jawboners to find that topic, it's eluded them for years now.

ANF NEWS reports:

The Christian Peacemaker Teams – Iraqi Kurdistan called for an immediate end to the Turkish attacks on southern Kurdistan (northern Iraq).

The CPT- Iraqi Kurdistan statement on the latest wave of Turkish attacks on South Kurdistan reads:

“Last night, Turkey launched a new military operation called Claw-Lock operation in Avashin, Zap and Matina areas in the Amedy district, of Duhok province, in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Prior to launching the Claw-Lock operation, the Turkish air force bombed Shiladze, Deraluk and Kani Mase and surrounding villages almost 50 times. Also, dozens of Turkish soldiers were deployed from helicopters to the mountain ranges in the Nerwa-Rekan area.

The CPT-Iraqi Kurdistan team calls for Turkey to immediately stop the bombardments and to not endanger civilian lives in Iraqi Kurdistan anymore.”

MEDYA NEWS notes:

Protests were held against the latest incursions by the Turkish military into Iraqi Kurdistan, by groups in European cities on Sunday night following initial reports by Kurdish news outlets.

Demonstrations were staged in Marseilles in France, and in Stuttgart and Dusseldorf in Germany.

The protestors chanted slogans like, ‘Dictator Erdoğan’, ‘International Solidarity’, ‘Solidarity with Kurdistan’, and ‘Terrorist Erdogan’.

Further demonstrations are planned for Monday upon a call for solidarity action by the The Kurdish Democratic Societies Congress in Europe (KCDK-E) in the following locations in Germany, Switzerland and France:

ALAHAD TV notes:

A member of the Shiite framework, Ali Al-Fatlawi, for Al-Ahad: Turkey's continued violation of Iraqi sovereignty shows the prostration of Baghdad and the submission of Kurdistan before Ankara.
#Iraq