Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
August 12, 2014
Arizona Republican congressional candidate Gary Kiehne’s new ad is getting a lot of attention, but not the kind he had hoped for. The Arizona businessman sent out a flyer promoting his candidacy as “the conservative choice for congress.” To prove it, the ad features Kiehne and several ranchers standing around a pickup truck in cowboy hats. So far, so good. Unfortunately there was also a very, very friendly horse standing behind them.
Some have speculated that it’s simply the tree trunk behind the horse that is perfectly aligned. You would like to think that wouldn’t you? But alas no, that is 100% the genuine article you’re looking at. The horse’s penis is (probably) accidental, but the candidate has been in the news for other reasons for being… well… kind of a dick. In May he angered just about everybody when he claimed that “99 percent of (mass shootings) have been by Democrats pulling their guns out and shooting people.” He wasn’t able to produce a single scrap of evidence to support that partisan conclusion. Later he was forced to apologize, saying the comments “were inaccurate.”
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/12/republican-congressional-candidates-new-ad-features-horse-with-large-erection-photo/
Republican Congressional Candidate’s New Ad Features Horse With LARGE ERECTION
Arizona Republican congressional candidate Gary Kiehne’s new ad is getting a lot of attention, but not the kind he had hoped for. The Arizona businessman sent out a flyer promoting his candidacy as “the conservative choice for congress.” To prove it, the ad features Kiehne and several ranchers standing around a pickup truck in cowboy hats. So far, so good. Unfortunately there was also a very, very friendly horse standing behind them.
Some have speculated that it’s simply the tree trunk behind the horse that is perfectly aligned. You would like to think that wouldn’t you? But alas no, that is 100% the genuine article you’re looking at. The horse’s penis is (probably) accidental, but the candidate has been in the news for other reasons for being… well… kind of a dick. In May he angered just about everybody when he claimed that “99 percent of (mass shootings) have been by Democrats pulling their guns out and shooting people.” He wasn’t able to produce a single scrap of evidence to support that partisan conclusion. Later he was forced to apologize, saying the comments “were inaccurate.”
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/12/republican-congressional-candidates-new-ad-features-horse-with-large-erection-photo/
August 12, 2014
Hillary Clinton is giving some liberals flashbacks to 2008, and not in a good way. Progressives are wincing over Clinton’s foreign policy comments in a blockbuster interview with The Atlantic, saying her statements are excessively hawkish and reminiscent of her past support for the war in Iraq. Some foreign policy experts, meanwhile, are criticizing her views as too simplistic; one analyst called them downright disloyal to President Barack Obama. In the interview with prominent foreign affairs writer Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton called Obama’s decision not to back Syrian rebels early on a “failure;” stood staunchly with Israel in its fight against Hamas; took a tough tone on Iran; and said that the West Wing’s foreign policy mantra — “Don’t do stupid stuff”— is “not an organizing principle.”
Clinton has always been more of a hawk than Obama, whom she served under as secretary of state during his first term. But for many liberals, whose enthusiasm will be important if she runs again for president in 2016, her comments simply felt like code for Bush-era interventionism. “She basically seems to be taking positions that are very similar to the vision of America’s role in the world that [in 2008] Democrats rejected,” explained Michael Cohen, a fellow at the progressive Century Foundation. That approach, he said, was “out of touch with Democrats in 2008, and it’s out of touch now.” Prominent liberal writer Joan Walsh wrote at Salon.com that she expects to support Clinton if she runs in 2016, but she called the interview “sobering.” “Clinton may think she can write off the anti-interventionist left — again — and win the White House this time,” Walsh warned. “But she may find out she’s wrong this time, too.”
And Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who helped publish Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency leaks, sniped on Twitter that Clinton is “demanding more militarism and violence.” In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton positioned herself as an experienced hand who could handle the “3 a.m. phone call.” She was pilloried for that by the Democratic base, and the war-weary grass roots turned instead to Obama, who was able to position himself as the more anti-war candidate. Polls today also indicate that Americans have little appetite for much overseas engagement, even as chaos is erupting in theater after theater — including Iraq, where Obama recently authorized airstrikes against Islamist militants. (Clinton’s interview took place before Obama’s decision and coincides with the promotion of her new memoir, “Hard Choices.”) At the same time, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from earlier this month showed Obama’s approval rating at an “all-time low.” Fairly or not, Clinton’s interview was seen by many political observers as an opportunity for her to separate herself from an unpopular president, and some found that distasteful.
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-liberals-109934.html?hp=f1
Hillary Clinton GIVES LIBERALS 2008 DEJA VU
Hillary Clinton is giving some liberals flashbacks to 2008, and not in a good way. Progressives are wincing over Clinton’s foreign policy comments in a blockbuster interview with The Atlantic, saying her statements are excessively hawkish and reminiscent of her past support for the war in Iraq. Some foreign policy experts, meanwhile, are criticizing her views as too simplistic; one analyst called them downright disloyal to President Barack Obama. In the interview with prominent foreign affairs writer Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton called Obama’s decision not to back Syrian rebels early on a “failure;” stood staunchly with Israel in its fight against Hamas; took a tough tone on Iran; and said that the West Wing’s foreign policy mantra — “Don’t do stupid stuff”— is “not an organizing principle.”
Clinton has always been more of a hawk than Obama, whom she served under as secretary of state during his first term. But for many liberals, whose enthusiasm will be important if she runs again for president in 2016, her comments simply felt like code for Bush-era interventionism. “She basically seems to be taking positions that are very similar to the vision of America’s role in the world that [in 2008] Democrats rejected,” explained Michael Cohen, a fellow at the progressive Century Foundation. That approach, he said, was “out of touch with Democrats in 2008, and it’s out of touch now.” Prominent liberal writer Joan Walsh wrote at Salon.com that she expects to support Clinton if she runs in 2016, but she called the interview “sobering.” “Clinton may think she can write off the anti-interventionist left — again — and win the White House this time,” Walsh warned. “But she may find out she’s wrong this time, too.”
And Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who helped publish Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency leaks, sniped on Twitter that Clinton is “demanding more militarism and violence.” In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton positioned herself as an experienced hand who could handle the “3 a.m. phone call.” She was pilloried for that by the Democratic base, and the war-weary grass roots turned instead to Obama, who was able to position himself as the more anti-war candidate. Polls today also indicate that Americans have little appetite for much overseas engagement, even as chaos is erupting in theater after theater — including Iraq, where Obama recently authorized airstrikes against Islamist militants. (Clinton’s interview took place before Obama’s decision and coincides with the promotion of her new memoir, “Hard Choices.”) At the same time, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from earlier this month showed Obama’s approval rating at an “all-time low.” Fairly or not, Clinton’s interview was seen by many political observers as an opportunity for her to separate herself from an unpopular president, and some found that distasteful.
cont'
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-liberals-109934.html?hp=f1
August 11, 2014
We hear it all the time, republicans are “Pro-business.” They promise if they’re elected, they’ll pass “business friendly” legislation. They claim that their policies will lead to economic growth and job creation. It’s time for a reality check. An analysis of all 50 states clearly shows the negative correlation between the GOP’s ‘pro-business’ policies and job creation and economic growth. In fact, the study shows that the more ALEC backed ‘pro-business’ legislation a state has in place, the worse that state performs, economically. Two separate studies confirm that the higher a state ranks on the GOP ‘business friendly’ policy charts, the worse it performs economically. University of Wisconsin Professor Menzie Chinn compared the ALEC-Laffer Economic Competitive Index to actual economic growth. For those not familiar with the ALEC index, it rates states based on ‘pro-business’ policies as identified by the American Legislative Exchange Council. As you might guess, anti-union, “right to work” states, states with the lowest taxes on businesses, states with the fewest regulations and environmental policies etc… rank the highest on their index. According to ALEC, the states at the top of the ‘pro-business’ list have the best economic outlook.
The results of Chinn’s analysis, however, showed that the higher a state scored on the ALEC-Laffer ‘pro-business’ index, the lower the state performed, in terms of real economic growth and job creation. Chinn’s comparison helps to confirm that right wing ‘pro-business’ not only don’t help business, they hurt it. Chinn’s study looked at the most current economic data, 2011 – 2013, a period when right wing state politicians like Michgan’s Rick Snyder and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker began shoving the ALEC agenda down the throats of their constituents.
And then there’s this study, released by the Iowa Policy Project (IPP). Using economic data from 2007 to 2012, the IPP study shows that the lower a state scores on the ALEC-Laffer index, the better it performs economically. Again, the study showed that the states that ALEC ranked as ‘less competitive’ outperformed the states ALEC ranked as ‘most competitive’. States that did not pass ALEC backed legislation performed better in terms of job growth, per capita income growth, and median family income growth, as well. Also of note, the states that ranked highest on the ALEC-Laffer index also ranked higher in terms of poverty. States that enforced ALEC policies saw poverty rates increase and median family income decrease. But wait, how can that be? Low wages, low taxes, fewer regulations, fewer worker’s rights and protections, fewer evil environmental policies… what’s going on here? Shouldn’t businesses be flocking to take advantage of the GOP’s corporate free for all? Doesn’t every business owner dream of operating in the kind of environment that allows for the outright exploitation of everything, from people to public property?
Apparently not.
The myth that low wages create jobs was decimated in July, when economic data showed that the 13 states that raised minimum wage are creating jobs at a considerably faster pace than the 37 states that refused to raise minimum wage. Average job growth in states that raised the minimum wage was 0.85 percent between January 2014 and June 2014. Average job growth in states that didn’t raise minimum wage was just 0.61 percent. So much for the lie that higher wages leads to job loss… Republicans have changed the name of their failed policies more times than we can count. Whether you call it trickle down economics, supply side economics, Reaganomics, “pro-business” or “business friendly” economics, the results of the policies are always the same. A few get richer, most get poorer. Businesses suffer from lack of customers, job growth becomes job loss and everyone loses.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/11/pro-business-research-shows-gop-pro-business-policies-hurt-business-kill-economic-growth/
Pro-Business? Research Shows GOP “PRO-BUSINESS” Policies HURT Business, KILLED Economic Growth
We hear it all the time, republicans are “Pro-business.” They promise if they’re elected, they’ll pass “business friendly” legislation. They claim that their policies will lead to economic growth and job creation. It’s time for a reality check. An analysis of all 50 states clearly shows the negative correlation between the GOP’s ‘pro-business’ policies and job creation and economic growth. In fact, the study shows that the more ALEC backed ‘pro-business’ legislation a state has in place, the worse that state performs, economically. Two separate studies confirm that the higher a state ranks on the GOP ‘business friendly’ policy charts, the worse it performs economically. University of Wisconsin Professor Menzie Chinn compared the ALEC-Laffer Economic Competitive Index to actual economic growth. For those not familiar with the ALEC index, it rates states based on ‘pro-business’ policies as identified by the American Legislative Exchange Council. As you might guess, anti-union, “right to work” states, states with the lowest taxes on businesses, states with the fewest regulations and environmental policies etc… rank the highest on their index. According to ALEC, the states at the top of the ‘pro-business’ list have the best economic outlook.
The results of Chinn’s analysis, however, showed that the higher a state scored on the ALEC-Laffer ‘pro-business’ index, the lower the state performed, in terms of real economic growth and job creation. Chinn’s comparison helps to confirm that right wing ‘pro-business’ not only don’t help business, they hurt it. Chinn’s study looked at the most current economic data, 2011 – 2013, a period when right wing state politicians like Michgan’s Rick Snyder and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker began shoving the ALEC agenda down the throats of their constituents.
And then there’s this study, released by the Iowa Policy Project (IPP). Using economic data from 2007 to 2012, the IPP study shows that the lower a state scores on the ALEC-Laffer index, the better it performs economically. Again, the study showed that the states that ALEC ranked as ‘less competitive’ outperformed the states ALEC ranked as ‘most competitive’. States that did not pass ALEC backed legislation performed better in terms of job growth, per capita income growth, and median family income growth, as well. Also of note, the states that ranked highest on the ALEC-Laffer index also ranked higher in terms of poverty. States that enforced ALEC policies saw poverty rates increase and median family income decrease. But wait, how can that be? Low wages, low taxes, fewer regulations, fewer worker’s rights and protections, fewer evil environmental policies… what’s going on here? Shouldn’t businesses be flocking to take advantage of the GOP’s corporate free for all? Doesn’t every business owner dream of operating in the kind of environment that allows for the outright exploitation of everything, from people to public property?
Apparently not.
The myth that low wages create jobs was decimated in July, when economic data showed that the 13 states that raised minimum wage are creating jobs at a considerably faster pace than the 37 states that refused to raise minimum wage. Average job growth in states that raised the minimum wage was 0.85 percent between January 2014 and June 2014. Average job growth in states that didn’t raise minimum wage was just 0.61 percent. So much for the lie that higher wages leads to job loss… Republicans have changed the name of their failed policies more times than we can count. Whether you call it trickle down economics, supply side economics, Reaganomics, “pro-business” or “business friendly” economics, the results of the policies are always the same. A few get richer, most get poorer. Businesses suffer from lack of customers, job growth becomes job loss and everyone loses.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/11/pro-business-research-shows-gop-pro-business-policies-hurt-business-kill-economic-growth/
August 11, 2014
Beltway oracle Mike Allen comes bearing news on this Monday morning. According to Politico's most famous (and best-connected) reporter, NBC's White House correspondent Chuck Todd has been tapped as the likely replacement for the much-maligned David Gregory on "Meet the Press."
Allen crammed several other "Meet"-related nuggets in Monday's edition of "Politico Playbook," his daily newsletter of name-drops and Washington gossip. And there was some hedging. After reporting that Gregory will likely move on from NBC, Allen noted that his sources have cautioned that "nothing is definite or decided." Nevertheless, it's been widely believed that Gregory has been on thin ice as "Meet the Press," once the Sunday morning standard-bearer, has suffered in the ratings.
The New York Post reported last week that Gregory met with CNN president Jeff Zucker recently. If Allen's scoop does come to fruition, it will mean that fellow Politico scribe Dylan Byers gets to take a victory lap. Byers was already basking in the development on Monday, tweeting a link to a piece he authored at the beginning of the year.
cont'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chuck-todd-meet-the-press
BRACE YOURSELF!!- Politico: Chuck Todd Will PROBABLY Be The Next 'MEET THE PRESS' Host
Beltway oracle Mike Allen comes bearing news on this Monday morning. According to Politico's most famous (and best-connected) reporter, NBC's White House correspondent Chuck Todd has been tapped as the likely replacement for the much-maligned David Gregory on "Meet the Press."
SIREN: Chuck Todd, a political obsessive and rabid sports fan, is the likely successor to David Gregory as moderator of “Meet the Press,” with the change expected to be announced in coming weeks, according to top political sources. The move is an effort by NBC News President Deborah Turness to restore passion and insider cred to a network treasure that has been adrift since the death in 2008 of the irreplaceable Tim Russert. Although Todd is not a classic television performer guaranteed to wow focus groups, his NBC bosses have been impressed by his love of the game, which brings with it authenticity, sources, and a loyal following among newsmakers and political junkies.
http://www.politico.com/playbook/
http://www.politico.com/playbook/
Allen crammed several other "Meet"-related nuggets in Monday's edition of "Politico Playbook," his daily newsletter of name-drops and Washington gossip. And there was some hedging. After reporting that Gregory will likely move on from NBC, Allen noted that his sources have cautioned that "nothing is definite or decided." Nevertheless, it's been widely believed that Gregory has been on thin ice as "Meet the Press," once the Sunday morning standard-bearer, has suffered in the ratings.
The New York Post reported last week that Gregory met with CNN president Jeff Zucker recently. If Allen's scoop does come to fruition, it will mean that fellow Politico scribe Dylan Byers gets to take a victory lap. Byers was already basking in the development on Monday, tweeting a link to a piece he authored at the beginning of the year.
cont'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chuck-todd-meet-the-press
August 11, 2014
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went full 2002 Condoleezza Rice WMD sale, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” today on Fox News Sunday. Graham said ominously, “I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorist ability to operate in Syria and Iraq.” Oh, that’s not inflammatory or fear-inducing at all, Senator. Not intended to distract from the real issues at all, is it.
Transcript:
Remind you of anything? How about the ominous “mushroom cloud” warnings in the lead up to the unjustified invasion of Iraq? Mother Jones has a timeline (my bold) of the Bush administration’s lies to use 9/11 as justification to invade Iraq that will break any thinking person’s heart (so many lies, such hubris, so many lives paid for our failure to check the Bush administration):
9/7/02 “From a marketing point of view you don’t introduce new products in August.”—White House Chief of Staff Andy Card on rollout of the war
9/8/02 Page 1 Times story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon cites anonymous administration officials saying Saddam has repeatedly tried to acquire aluminum tubes “specially designed” to enrich uranium. “The first sign of a ‘smoking gun,’ they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”
9/8/02 Tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs...we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”—Rice on CNN
9/8/02 “We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.”—Cheney on Meet the Press
9/10/02 Orange terror alert.
9/11/02 Bush marks 9/11 with Statue of Liberty backdrop.
9/12/02 Bush repeats aluminum-tube claim before UN General Assembly.
9/13/02 Cheney tells Rush Limbaugh: “What’s happening, of course, is we’re getting additional information that, in fact, Hussein is reconstituting his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs.” There is no such new intel.
If Senator Graham and the Republican war hawks want to discuss Iraq, or any other conflict they are attempting to drum up into full scale war again, they need to come to the table with facts and calm minds. Whenever someone attempts to induce radical fear in order to manipulate the public — especially when they have a history of selling an unjustified war this way — the press should stop and ask for the facts. The proof. The evidence.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/10/lindsey-graham-mushroom-cloud-desperate-sell-war.html
WMDs ALL OVER AGAIN: Lindsey Graham Claims A U.S. City Will Burn WITHOUT MORE IRAQ WAR
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went full 2002 Condoleezza Rice WMD sale, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” today on Fox News Sunday. Graham said ominously, “I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorist ability to operate in Syria and Iraq.” Oh, that’s not inflammatory or fear-inducing at all, Senator. Not intended to distract from the real issues at all, is it.
Transcript:
WALLACE: Now, let’s get reaction to the new U.S. role in Iraq from two key senators. First, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Armed Services Committee. Senator, after President Obama declared his new policy of airstrikes and humanitarian airdrops, you sent out this tweet. Let’s put it on the screen, “The actions announced tonight will not turn the tide of battle.” But President Obama says we can’t do that. We can’t roll back ISIS, take the offensive measures that General Keane was talking about until we get an inclusive government in Baghdad so all the factions in that country are joining in the fight.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C., ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, that’s not accurate. When I look at the map that the General Keane described, I think of the United States. I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorist ability to operate in Syria and Iraq. The director of national security, the FBI director, the director of homeland security has said that the ISIS presence in Syria where hundreds of Americans and thousands of European fighters have gone, represents a direct threat to the United States, and now, their enclave in Iraq.
So, Mr. President, you have never once spoken directly to the American people about the threat we face from being attacked from Syria, now Iraq. What is your strategy to stop these people from attacking the homeland? They have expressed a desire to do so. So, there’s no political reconciliation in Baghdad going to protect the American homeland. That has to be a commander-in-chief with a strategy and a vision. This commander-in=chief has no strategy. He has no vision. This is a situation where he knows better than everybody else. He was told he should get engaged in Syria three years ago by his national security team. He said no, his military commander said you should leave troops in Iraq as an insurance policy, and he got the no.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C., ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, that’s not accurate. When I look at the map that the General Keane described, I think of the United States. I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorist ability to operate in Syria and Iraq. The director of national security, the FBI director, the director of homeland security has said that the ISIS presence in Syria where hundreds of Americans and thousands of European fighters have gone, represents a direct threat to the United States, and now, their enclave in Iraq.
So, Mr. President, you have never once spoken directly to the American people about the threat we face from being attacked from Syria, now Iraq. What is your strategy to stop these people from attacking the homeland? They have expressed a desire to do so. So, there’s no political reconciliation in Baghdad going to protect the American homeland. That has to be a commander-in-chief with a strategy and a vision. This commander-in=chief has no strategy. He has no vision. This is a situation where he knows better than everybody else. He was told he should get engaged in Syria three years ago by his national security team. He said no, his military commander said you should leave troops in Iraq as an insurance policy, and he got the no.
Remind you of anything? How about the ominous “mushroom cloud” warnings in the lead up to the unjustified invasion of Iraq? Mother Jones has a timeline (my bold) of the Bush administration’s lies to use 9/11 as justification to invade Iraq that will break any thinking person’s heart (so many lies, such hubris, so many lives paid for our failure to check the Bush administration):
9/7/02 “From a marketing point of view you don’t introduce new products in August.”—White House Chief of Staff Andy Card on rollout of the war
9/8/02 Page 1 Times story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon cites anonymous administration officials saying Saddam has repeatedly tried to acquire aluminum tubes “specially designed” to enrich uranium. “The first sign of a ‘smoking gun,’ they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”
9/8/02 Tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs...we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”—Rice on CNN
9/8/02 “We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.”—Cheney on Meet the Press
9/10/02 Orange terror alert.
9/11/02 Bush marks 9/11 with Statue of Liberty backdrop.
9/12/02 Bush repeats aluminum-tube claim before UN General Assembly.
9/13/02 Cheney tells Rush Limbaugh: “What’s happening, of course, is we’re getting additional information that, in fact, Hussein is reconstituting his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs.” There is no such new intel.
If Senator Graham and the Republican war hawks want to discuss Iraq, or any other conflict they are attempting to drum up into full scale war again, they need to come to the table with facts and calm minds. Whenever someone attempts to induce radical fear in order to manipulate the public — especially when they have a history of selling an unjustified war this way — the press should stop and ask for the facts. The proof. The evidence.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/10/lindsey-graham-mushroom-cloud-desperate-sell-war.html
August 11, 2014
Ashley Bohrer
Ashley Bohrer is a queer feminist Jewish activist and academic based in Chicago. She is a founding member of
Jews for Justice in Palestine.
As the latest round of Israeli fire reigns down on Gaza, a problematic discourse has resurfaced in the West. This discourse seeks to convince white Americans and Europeans that supporting Israel is an imperative for women, LGBTQ-identified individuals and their allies. This line of thinking alleges that Israel has enacted legal protections for LGBTQ folks and is therefore a bastion of liberty for queers in the Middle East. The rhetoric of many mainstream feminist outlets has been similar, arguing that because Jewish women enjoy legal equality with Jewish men in Israel, women and feminists are obliged to support the current campaign of terror and destruction in Gaza. Examples of this troubling and misleading argumentation can be read in James Duke Mason's article for The Advocate on July 9, Robert Trestan's article for The Rainbow Times, and any number of articles by arch-conservative Phyllis Chesler, including one published on July 26 at Israel National News. This "pinkwashing" of Israel not only plays on a variety of racist and Islamophobic tropes but also impedes a thorough and nuanced analysis of queer and feminist liberation.
Rights for some, violence for others
Pinkwashing replays a frequent trope in discussions of conflict in the Middle East: that Israel is a democracy committed to human rights. What these discussions continually fail to address is that these human rights apply only to Jews and are consistently, flagrantly disregarded for Palestinians living under Israeli apartheid. The millions of Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank are not enfranchised in this so-called democracy. The millions of displaced Palestinians living in exile or in refugee camps are not enfranchised in this so-called democracy. The thousands of Palestinians caged in Israeli jails are not enfranchised in this so-called democracy. Nor are they protected by the legislation that supposedly supports and protects women and LGBTQ folks. The more than 1,900 Gazan civilians who have been slaughtered in the past four weeks, many of them women and children, were never afforded the protections of basic human rights accords, let alone democratic procedure.
This pinkwashing is thus misleading, purporting to secure rights for women and queers which are routinely violated along racial, ethnic, and religious lines. Just as feminists and LGBTQ activists are obliged to dismantle racial hierarchies in our own communities, so too must we reject them in Israel and Palestine. We must assert unequivocally that anything less than liberation for all is unacceptable. To refuse to do so retrenches the all-too-common neoliberal strategy of divide and conquer. The idea that Israel must be defended regardless of its human rights abuses or racist violence, separates LGBTQ liberation from larger social and structural phenomena. It refuses to acknowledge that Palestinian queers are among those who are harassed, brutalised, displaced, bombed, and incarcerated. Whatever liberties might be extended to Jewish queers in Israel, being queer does not save Palestinians from the constant and brutal assault that forms the conditions of their lives. The Israeli army does not give a "free pass" to queer Palestinians; in fact, its soldiers target LGBTQ Palestinians.
Stories over the past few months have revealed that in fact the Israeli army pressures LGBTQ Palestinians into becoming informants against their friends and families by blackmailing them and threatening to expose their sexualities. This so-called gay-friendly state of Israel preys on the vulnerability of queer Palestinians, a vulnerability that many of us who live in "progressive" "human rights-friendly" countries still face. Israeli LGBT organisation Aguda estimates that around 2,000 Palestinian queers live in Tel-Aviv at any one time, most of them illegally. The dismantling of economic stability and opportunity inside Palestine forces LGBT Palestinians to leave their homes and to live as undocumented, precarious workers in Israel, where they have no protections against harassment, rape, intimidation, or job discrimination, and in which finding safe housing and steady employment are scarce. The options presented to LGBTQ Palestinians are living as stateless, undocumented migrants or braving the constant violence and indignity of living in occupied territories. Neither of these sounds like LGBT liberation to me. Neither does it sound like feminist liberation. An image has been circulating twitter in Israel that at one and the same time justifies the rape of Gazan women and the seige of their communities. The photo, accessible here shows a woman wearing a hijab with the words "Gaza" written on her chest. Her body is splayed in a sexually provocative position, and a message in Hebrew is emblazoned on the top: "Bibi, finish inside this time". It is signed "Citizens for the Invasion."
cont'
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/against-pinkwashing-israel-201489104543430313.html
Against The PINKWASHING of Israel
Why supporting Palestinians is a queer and feminist issue.
Ashley Bohrer
Ashley Bohrer is a queer feminist Jewish activist and academic based in Chicago. She is a founding member of
Jews for Justice in Palestine.
As the latest round of Israeli fire reigns down on Gaza, a problematic discourse has resurfaced in the West. This discourse seeks to convince white Americans and Europeans that supporting Israel is an imperative for women, LGBTQ-identified individuals and their allies. This line of thinking alleges that Israel has enacted legal protections for LGBTQ folks and is therefore a bastion of liberty for queers in the Middle East. The rhetoric of many mainstream feminist outlets has been similar, arguing that because Jewish women enjoy legal equality with Jewish men in Israel, women and feminists are obliged to support the current campaign of terror and destruction in Gaza. Examples of this troubling and misleading argumentation can be read in James Duke Mason's article for The Advocate on July 9, Robert Trestan's article for The Rainbow Times, and any number of articles by arch-conservative Phyllis Chesler, including one published on July 26 at Israel National News. This "pinkwashing" of Israel not only plays on a variety of racist and Islamophobic tropes but also impedes a thorough and nuanced analysis of queer and feminist liberation.
Rights for some, violence for others
Pinkwashing replays a frequent trope in discussions of conflict in the Middle East: that Israel is a democracy committed to human rights. What these discussions continually fail to address is that these human rights apply only to Jews and are consistently, flagrantly disregarded for Palestinians living under Israeli apartheid. The millions of Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank are not enfranchised in this so-called democracy. The millions of displaced Palestinians living in exile or in refugee camps are not enfranchised in this so-called democracy. The thousands of Palestinians caged in Israeli jails are not enfranchised in this so-called democracy. Nor are they protected by the legislation that supposedly supports and protects women and LGBTQ folks. The more than 1,900 Gazan civilians who have been slaughtered in the past four weeks, many of them women and children, were never afforded the protections of basic human rights accords, let alone democratic procedure.
This pinkwashing is thus misleading, purporting to secure rights for women and queers which are routinely violated along racial, ethnic, and religious lines. Just as feminists and LGBTQ activists are obliged to dismantle racial hierarchies in our own communities, so too must we reject them in Israel and Palestine. We must assert unequivocally that anything less than liberation for all is unacceptable. To refuse to do so retrenches the all-too-common neoliberal strategy of divide and conquer. The idea that Israel must be defended regardless of its human rights abuses or racist violence, separates LGBTQ liberation from larger social and structural phenomena. It refuses to acknowledge that Palestinian queers are among those who are harassed, brutalised, displaced, bombed, and incarcerated. Whatever liberties might be extended to Jewish queers in Israel, being queer does not save Palestinians from the constant and brutal assault that forms the conditions of their lives. The Israeli army does not give a "free pass" to queer Palestinians; in fact, its soldiers target LGBTQ Palestinians.
Stories over the past few months have revealed that in fact the Israeli army pressures LGBTQ Palestinians into becoming informants against their friends and families by blackmailing them and threatening to expose their sexualities. This so-called gay-friendly state of Israel preys on the vulnerability of queer Palestinians, a vulnerability that many of us who live in "progressive" "human rights-friendly" countries still face. Israeli LGBT organisation Aguda estimates that around 2,000 Palestinian queers live in Tel-Aviv at any one time, most of them illegally. The dismantling of economic stability and opportunity inside Palestine forces LGBT Palestinians to leave their homes and to live as undocumented, precarious workers in Israel, where they have no protections against harassment, rape, intimidation, or job discrimination, and in which finding safe housing and steady employment are scarce. The options presented to LGBTQ Palestinians are living as stateless, undocumented migrants or braving the constant violence and indignity of living in occupied territories. Neither of these sounds like LGBT liberation to me. Neither does it sound like feminist liberation. An image has been circulating twitter in Israel that at one and the same time justifies the rape of Gazan women and the seige of their communities. The photo, accessible here shows a woman wearing a hijab with the words "Gaza" written on her chest. Her body is splayed in a sexually provocative position, and a message in Hebrew is emblazoned on the top: "Bibi, finish inside this time". It is signed "Citizens for the Invasion."
cont'
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/against-pinkwashing-israel-201489104543430313.html
August 10, 2014
War-boner twins John McCain and Lindsey Graham are slightly tingly about the recent bombing of ISIS forces in Iraq, but they’re begging the president to grant them full engorgement by engaging in further sorties in Iraq and Syria (I’m sure Assad and the Russians won’t mind!) and distributing weapons more liberally throughout the region:
As insane as the first part of that paragraph is, their waving away concerns about the dysfunctional clusterfuck of a government in Baghdad truly reveals the pair’s stupidity and shortsightedness. Why do they suppose the Iraqi military flung its weapons down and ran away from ISIS faster than Rand Paul from an immigrant schoolgirl? Why have Iraqi Sunnis allowed the ISIS dirtbags to roll into their territory relatively unopposed? Maybe it’s because the Sunnis and Shia don’t trust each other, and the Sunnis despise the Baghdad government. The Iraqis have to sort out their government or this shit will keep happening over and over. Adding more guns to the mix will just give the crazies more guns to pick up next time it all falls apart. That’s why Obama declined to get involved before, despite McCain, Graham & Co. bellowing like ruptured cows from the sideline. You can make a credible case for US military strikes to prevent an imminent massacre, and Obama did yesterday. (I thought the regional players whom we’ve armed for decades should take the lead on that, but what do I know? Maybe they couldn’t or wouldn’t.) However, the US taking a central military role on an ongoing basis sounds like a perfect recipe for a giant cock-up as well as an obstacle to ever achieving a lasting resolution.
McCain and Graham again:
Well thanks, Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte! Jesus, I wish Obama would sign an executive order that requires McCain and Graham to punch themselves in the face if they ever utter the phrases “disastrous policy” and “the Middle East” in the same sentence again. This is the same bullshit those two were spewing back when they were pissing themselves about Saddam’s WMDs and mushroom clouds. Do they think we don’t remember that? Probably. Their media hosts are rarely rude enough to bring that up when they make the Sunday rounds.
cont'
http://www.balloon-juice.com/category/lindsey-grahams-fee-fees/
War-Boner Twins McCain & Graham: The Massive Set On Those Two
War-boner twins John McCain and Lindsey Graham are slightly tingly about the recent bombing of ISIS forces in Iraq, but they’re begging the president to grant them full engorgement by engaging in further sorties in Iraq and Syria (I’m sure Assad and the Russians won’t mind!) and distributing weapons more liberally throughout the region:
"...We need to get beyond a policy of half measures. The President needs to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS. This should include the provision of military and other assistance to our Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian partners who are fighting ISIS. It should include U.S. air strikes against ISIS leaders, forces, and positions both in Iraq and Syria. It should include support to Sunni Iraqis who seek to resist ISIS. And none of this should be contingent on the formation of a new government in Baghdad...."
As insane as the first part of that paragraph is, their waving away concerns about the dysfunctional clusterfuck of a government in Baghdad truly reveals the pair’s stupidity and shortsightedness. Why do they suppose the Iraqi military flung its weapons down and ran away from ISIS faster than Rand Paul from an immigrant schoolgirl? Why have Iraqi Sunnis allowed the ISIS dirtbags to roll into their territory relatively unopposed? Maybe it’s because the Sunnis and Shia don’t trust each other, and the Sunnis despise the Baghdad government. The Iraqis have to sort out their government or this shit will keep happening over and over. Adding more guns to the mix will just give the crazies more guns to pick up next time it all falls apart. That’s why Obama declined to get involved before, despite McCain, Graham & Co. bellowing like ruptured cows from the sideline. You can make a credible case for US military strikes to prevent an imminent massacre, and Obama did yesterday. (I thought the regional players whom we’ve armed for decades should take the lead on that, but what do I know? Maybe they couldn’t or wouldn’t.) However, the US taking a central military role on an ongoing basis sounds like a perfect recipe for a giant cock-up as well as an obstacle to ever achieving a lasting resolution.
McCain and Graham again:
“...If ever there were a time to reevaluate our disastrous policy in the Middle East, this is it. Because of the President’s hands-off approach, the threats in the region have grown and now directly threaten the United States. We are already paying a very heavy price for our inaction, and if we do not change course, the costs of our inaction will only grow....”
Well thanks, Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte! Jesus, I wish Obama would sign an executive order that requires McCain and Graham to punch themselves in the face if they ever utter the phrases “disastrous policy” and “the Middle East” in the same sentence again. This is the same bullshit those two were spewing back when they were pissing themselves about Saddam’s WMDs and mushroom clouds. Do they think we don’t remember that? Probably. Their media hosts are rarely rude enough to bring that up when they make the Sunday rounds.
cont'
http://www.balloon-juice.com/category/lindsey-grahams-fee-fees/
August 10, 2014
I'm sure you would Johnny!
Thats why you ain't the president simply because you love blowing sh*t up WAY TOO MUCH!!........
Today on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, spoke to Crowley about US airstrikes in Iraq, ISIS’ threat to national security, and Obama’s leadership and strategy in the Middle East.
TEXT HIGHLIGHTS
McCain on President Obama’s strategy in Iraq: “The president made it clear that this was to avert the humanitarian crisis that they were taking these actions and to protect American military personnel that are in Irbil and Baghdad. That's not a strategy. That's not a policy. That is simply a very narrow and focused approach to a problem which is metastasizing as we speak. Candy, there was a guy a month ago that was in Syria, went back to the United States, came back and blew himself up. We're tracking 100 Americans who are over there now fighting for ISIS. ISIS is attracting extreme elements from all over the world, much less the Arab world. And what have we done?”
McCain on the withdrawal of troops in Iraq: “the consequences of our failure to leave a residual force and our announcement that we are leaving the area in a vacuum of leadership, especially in that part of the world, we are paying a price for it.”
McCain on what he would do in the Middle East: “I would be rushing equipment to Irbil. I would be launching airstrikes not only in Iraq, but in Syria against ISIS. They have erased the boundaries between Iraq and Syria. I would be providing as much training and equipment as I can to - as I said, to the Kurds, and I would do a lot of things that we can not have to wait for Maliki to leave there. And I would be giving assistance to the Syrian - the Free Syrian Army, which is on the ropes right now because we failed to help them. And this all goes back to a number of steps the president took, including a failure to leave a residual force in Iraq.”
full transcript:
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/10/senator-john-mccain-on-state-of-the-union-with-candy-crowley-i-would-be-launching-airstrikes-not-only-in-iraq-but-in-syria-against-isis/
.
Johnny McCain: "I Would Be Launching Airstrikes Not Only In Iraq, But In Syria Against ISIS."
I'm sure you would Johnny!
Thats why you ain't the president simply because you love blowing sh*t up WAY TOO MUCH!!........
Today on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, spoke to Crowley about US airstrikes in Iraq, ISIS’ threat to national security, and Obama’s leadership and strategy in the Middle East.
“While the president has continued to say this is an Iraqi problem, this is an Iraqi problem, but it's a United States problem and it is a threat to our national security.” Senator John McCain
TEXT HIGHLIGHTS
McCain on President Obama’s strategy in Iraq: “The president made it clear that this was to avert the humanitarian crisis that they were taking these actions and to protect American military personnel that are in Irbil and Baghdad. That's not a strategy. That's not a policy. That is simply a very narrow and focused approach to a problem which is metastasizing as we speak. Candy, there was a guy a month ago that was in Syria, went back to the United States, came back and blew himself up. We're tracking 100 Americans who are over there now fighting for ISIS. ISIS is attracting extreme elements from all over the world, much less the Arab world. And what have we done?”
McCain on the withdrawal of troops in Iraq: “the consequences of our failure to leave a residual force and our announcement that we are leaving the area in a vacuum of leadership, especially in that part of the world, we are paying a price for it.”
McCain on what he would do in the Middle East: “I would be rushing equipment to Irbil. I would be launching airstrikes not only in Iraq, but in Syria against ISIS. They have erased the boundaries between Iraq and Syria. I would be providing as much training and equipment as I can to - as I said, to the Kurds, and I would do a lot of things that we can not have to wait for Maliki to leave there. And I would be giving assistance to the Syrian - the Free Syrian Army, which is on the ropes right now because we failed to help them. And this all goes back to a number of steps the president took, including a failure to leave a residual force in Iraq.”
full transcript:
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/10/senator-john-mccain-on-state-of-the-union-with-candy-crowley-i-would-be-launching-airstrikes-not-only-in-iraq-but-in-syria-against-isis/
.
August 10, 2014
Here comes war-hawk Hillary!.....................
President Obama has long-ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion. In an interview in February, the president told me that “when you have a professional army ... fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict—the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”
Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the "failure" that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising. “The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.
As she writes in her memoir of her State Department years, Hard Choices, she was an inside-the-administration advocate of doing more to help the Syrian rebellion. Now, her supporters argue, her position has been vindicated by recent events. Professional Clinton-watchers (and there are battalions of them) have told me that it is only a matter of time before she makes a more forceful attempt to highlight her differences with the (unpopular) president she ran against, and then went on to serve. On a number of occasions during my interview with her, I got the sense that this effort is already underway. (And for what it's worth, I also think she may have told me that she’s running for president—see below for her not-entirely-ambiguous nod in that direction.)
Of course, Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces. But she also suggested that she finds his approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good. At one point, I mentioned the slogan President Obama recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shit” (an expression often rendered as “Don’t do stupid stuff” in less-than-private encounters). This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” She softened the blow by noting that Obama was “trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy,” but she repeatedly suggested that the U.S. sometimes appears to be withdrawing from the world stage.
Read interview
cont'
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/
Hillary Clinton RIPS Obama 'FAILURE' In Syria
The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine. She says this about President Obama's: "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."
Here comes war-hawk Hillary!.....................
President Obama has long-ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion. In an interview in February, the president told me that “when you have a professional army ... fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict—the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”
Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the "failure" that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising. “The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.
As she writes in her memoir of her State Department years, Hard Choices, she was an inside-the-administration advocate of doing more to help the Syrian rebellion. Now, her supporters argue, her position has been vindicated by recent events. Professional Clinton-watchers (and there are battalions of them) have told me that it is only a matter of time before she makes a more forceful attempt to highlight her differences with the (unpopular) president she ran against, and then went on to serve. On a number of occasions during my interview with her, I got the sense that this effort is already underway. (And for what it's worth, I also think she may have told me that she’s running for president—see below for her not-entirely-ambiguous nod in that direction.)
Of course, Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces. But she also suggested that she finds his approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good. At one point, I mentioned the slogan President Obama recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shit” (an expression often rendered as “Don’t do stupid stuff” in less-than-private encounters). This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” She softened the blow by noting that Obama was “trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy,” but she repeatedly suggested that the U.S. sometimes appears to be withdrawing from the world stage.
Read interview
cont'
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/
August 10, 2014
The Irish Senator and internationally recognized human rights activist, David Norris, delivered an eminently powerful speech concerning Gaza in the Irish Parliament on, July, 31st. In his speech Norris criticizes human rights violations of Israel carried out with the support of the United States and complacency of the international community. Breaking free from the “pro-Palestine or pro-Israel” dichotomy that drives conversations away from the, at least seemingly, undeniable gross violations of human rights orchestrated by governments against the Palestinian people.
Norris says in his speech,
An openly gay man, Norris is considered one of the most influential champions of the gay liberation movement. Norris contends that he, as the rest of the worlds governments should be, should stand up and vehemently fight for the human rights of all people. He ends his speech by saying,
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/08/this-speech-about-gaza-by-an-irish-senator-is-being-watched-all-over-the-world/
This Speech About Gaza by an Irish Senator is Being Watched All Over the World
The Irish Senator and internationally recognized human rights activist, David Norris, delivered an eminently powerful speech concerning Gaza in the Irish Parliament on, July, 31st. In his speech Norris criticizes human rights violations of Israel carried out with the support of the United States and complacency of the international community. Breaking free from the “pro-Palestine or pro-Israel” dichotomy that drives conversations away from the, at least seemingly, undeniable gross violations of human rights orchestrated by governments against the Palestinian people.
Norris says in his speech,
“I am not anti-Israeli, I am not anti-Semitic. I supported the state of Israel. In the forty years I have known the state of Israel and sometimes had a home there I’ve seen it completely changed. It changed from a left-wing socially directed country, to an extreme right-wing regime, that is behaving in the most criminal fashion and defying the world. Using – unscrupulously using – the Holocaust to justify what they are doing and it is time that rag was torn away from them.”
An openly gay man, Norris is considered one of the most influential champions of the gay liberation movement. Norris contends that he, as the rest of the worlds governments should be, should stand up and vehemently fight for the human rights of all people. He ends his speech by saying,
“I am with human rights whether they are, Israeli, gay, women, black, whatever they are. I am not changing my position. I am not anti-Israel I am not anti-Semitic but I am pro human rights for every human.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/08/this-speech-about-gaza-by-an-irish-senator-is-being-watched-all-over-the-world/
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
