HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JaneyVee » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jul 31, 2012, 06:04 PM
Number of posts: 19,877

About Me

Work in tv/film production - Unionista UPM for the DGA - Mother - Music Lover - Graduate of The New School economics/film - Born & raised in Williamsburg Brooklyn 1981 - living in Manhattan.

Journal Archives

The Edward Snowden Documentary Accidentally Exposes His Lies

-HUGE snip-

But what about Edward Snowden himself? Poitras's camerawork humanizes Snowden effectively. We see Snowden huddled over his computer in a bathrobe, Snowden squirming awkwardly in his chair, and Snowden concerned for his abandoned girlfriend. Poitras’s Snowden is human, geeky, and at times, even endearing. But this movie has more than just cute shots of Snowden in bed; we also hear some of thoughts, and these are crucial to piecing together what exactly drives him. To his supporters, Snowden is a heroic whistleblower. To his critics, he is a “grandiose narcissist,” “a paranoid libertarian,” or perhaps Putin’s useful idiot. Despite Poitras’ best efforts, the movie confirms the views of his critics.

Throughout this film, as he does elsewhere, Snowden couches his policy disagreements in grandiose terms of democratic theory. But Snowden clearly doesn’t actually give a damn for democratic norms. Transparency and the need for public debate are his battle-cry. But early in the film, he explains that his decision to begin leaking was motivated by his opposition to drone strikes. Snowden is welcome to his opinion on drone strikes, but the program has been the subject of extensive and fierce public debate. This is a debate that, thus far, Snowden’s and his allies have lost. The president’s current drone strikes enjoy overwhelming public support. So citing his opposition to a widely debated policy as his motivation for increasing transparency is, well, odd. But it’s also illustrative. Snowden’s leaks aren’t primarily aimed at returning transparency or triggering a public debate; they are about creating his preferred policy outcomes, outcomes that usually involve a weaker state. This becomes even more apparent as Greenwald explains how he intends not only to release information about government programs, but present it in as “brutal” and alarmist a light as possible. The leaks were aimed not just to inform, but to frighten.

A similar logic explains Snowden’s bizarre justifications for seeking asylum in Russia. One of the movie’s central claims is that an idealistic Snowden came to Hong Kong “not knowing what was going to happen” next, but with a noble openness to the likelihood of his own arrest. This is believable and even admirable. But what comes after is a tale of narcissism and cowardice. Egged on by Greenwald and Guardian journalist Ewen MacAskill, who constantly ask him when he will “go public,” and a WikiLeaks community eager to hold him up as a banner of resistance, Snowden develops a world-historical view of himself and a twisted understanding of what constitutes bravery. Suddenly, and without explanation, keeping Snowden out of the reach of the American government becomes an issue of paramount importance. “Fuck the skulking!” declares Snowden, while Greenwald urges him to “feel the power” of their bold stand against oppression. Shortly thereafter, Snowden practices hiding under a green umbrella and sneaks onto a flight for Russia.

Purportedly, Snowden will not return to face American justice because he would not receive a “fair trial.” But in the movie, Snowden lawyer Ben Wizner admits that his use of the term is somewhat “unusual.” He accepts that Snowden won’t be denied due process, access to counsel or an impartial jury. Rather his complaint centers on the fact that the law doesn’t include a justification defense for leaks made “in the public interest.” Neither, of course, do many other such prohibitions (murder, theft, littering…). As Wizner explains, the trial is unfair because the law “eliminates any kind of defense that Snowden might offer.” In other words, the trial is “unfair” because the evidence conclusively establishes that Snowden committed the crime. Orwell would be proud...

The rest: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119994/citizenfour-review-snoweden-just-wants-be-heard?utm_content=buffer9cda8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Despite this review, I still want to see it. Especially since it will be playing at the theater about 1000ft from where I live. Also, NYTimes gave it a pretty good review.

Ebola and Climate Change: How Are They Connected?

As the Ebola virus is ravaging parts of West Africa, recent reports are linking the outbreak to past studies holding climate change accountable for the uptick in viral diseases.

In 2006, a study published in the journal Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene revealed that Ebola, a “violent hemorrhagic fever that leads to internal and external bleeding,” would be more frequent with global warming due to its intermittent connection to wildlife and climate. In 2008, another study reiterated the same fears, noting that Ebola outbreaks would be among a cluster of other diseases gaining momentum, such as bird flu, cholera, plague and tuberculosis.


In light of the recent outbreak, some researchers are connecting deforestation in countries such as Liberia to the disease, noting that the change in landscape is bringing wildlife in closer contact with humans. According to researchers, the virus is typically found in wildlife, and transmission from animals to humans occurs through contact with infected bodily fluids, causing a “spillover” in species. The virus can also be contracted from another human being when a person is in direct contact with infected blood, vomit or feces during contagious periods, putting health workers in West Africa primarily at risk.

The rest: http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/14/ebola-climate-change-connected/

Elizabeth Warren has what no other potential 2016 Democratic contender yet offers: a message

Elizabeth Warren makes a powerful case.
by Eugene Robinson

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she isn’t running for president. At this rate, however, she may have to.

The Massachusetts Democrat has become the brightest ideological and rhetorical light in a party whose prospects are dimmed by — to use a word Jimmy Carter never uttered — malaise. Her weekend swing through Colorado, Minnesota and Iowa to rally the faithful displayed something no other potential contender for the 2016 presidential nomination, including Hillary Clinton, seems able to present: a message.

“We can go through the list over and over, but at the end of every line is this: Republicans believe this country should work for those who are rich, those who are powerful, those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers,” she said Friday in Englewood, Colo. “I will tell you we can whimper about it, we can whine about it or we can fight back. I’m here with [Sen.] Mark Udall so we can fight back.”

Warren was making her second visit to the state in two months because Udall’s reelection race against Republican Cory Gardner is what Dan Rather used to call “tight as a tick.” If Democrats are to keep their majority in the Senate, the party’s base must break with form and turn out in large numbers for a midterm election. Voters won’t do this unless somebody gives them a reason.

Warren may be that somebody. Her grand theme is economic inequality and her critique, both populist and progressive, includes a searing indictment of Wall Street. Liberals eat it up.

"The game is rigged, and the Republicans rigged it..."

The rest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-elizabeth-warren-makes-the-case-on-income-inequality/2014/10/20/ba54c68e-588a-11e4-8264-deed989ae9a2_story.html


That last line is just as good as FDRs "I welcome their hatred".

Leading Tea Party Group Part Of Fake Founding Father Quotes Epidemic

As John Adams once said, don’t believe everything you read on the internet...

The conservative Tea Party Express bills itself as wanting to return America to the principles held in the founding documents. A review of the branded and heavily-shared quotes from our nation's founders the group posts on Facebook reveals many are of dubious origins, however.

Tea Party Express pledges to restore "this great Republic to the limits articulated by our founders in the Constitution of the United States of America," reads another post.

Here are some of the misquotes:

There’s this Franklin quote, which is not only partially butchered and inaccurate in meaning, but actually about money.

The rest: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/pandemic-of-sharing-fake-founding-fathers-quotes-in-leading?s=mobile#1zwcuv5

The Best American Cities for Liberals and Conservatives, Quantified

According to researchers, conservative nirvana exists, and it’s in Alabaster, Alabama.

In a list released by Livability.com of the ten most liberal, conservative, and centrist cities in the country, the Birmingham suburb topped the conservative list, followed by Crestview, Fla., Clinton, Utah, and Bristol, Tenn. (The liberal cities included Somerville, Mass., Boulder, Colo., and, unsurprisingly, Berkeley, Calif.).

Using a combination of “Ideology of the representation; voting of the residents; political leanings of the residents; and how the shopping habits of the residents relate to political affiliation,” Livability.com managed to identify where people along the political spectrum tended to live, and cities where they were clustered in high concentrations.

Some of the results aren’t surprising: Liberals tend to live in college towns on the coasts, conservatives prefer the South and the Midwest, etc. But if your living situation depends on having everyone in your town believe in what you believe in, this list is useful.

10 best cities for liberals, 2014

1. Berkeley, California
2. Hoboken, New Jersey
3. Somerville, Massachusetts
4. Boulder, Colorado
5. Evanston, Illinois
6. College Park, Maryland
7. Ann Arbor, Michigan
8. Mercer Island, Washington
9. Alexandria, Virginia
10. Newport, Rhode Island

10 best cities for conservatives, 2014

1. Alabaster, Alabama
2. Crestview, Florida
3. Clinton, Utah
4. Bristol, Tennessee
5. Odessa, Texas
6. Yukon, Oklahoma
7. Slidell, Louisiana
8. Olive Branch, Mississippi
9. Peachtree City, Georgia
10. Benton, Arkansas

10 best cities for centrists, 2014

1. Spokane Valley, Washington
2. Bend, Oregon
3. Indio, California
4. Gainesville, Florida
5. Albany, Georgia
6. Boise, Idaho
7. Muncie, Indiana
8. Sparks, Nevada
9. Oregon, Ohio
10. Wildwood, Missouri

Link: http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-best-american-cities-for-liberals-and-conservatives-quantified/

Iraq war supporters think they were just vindicated on Saddam's WMDs. They're wrong.

A blockbuster story in today's New York Times reports that American troops in Iraq "repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule." The American invasion of Iraq was premised on Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and chemical weapons are WMDs. So the story finally vindicates President George W. Bush and his decision to invade Iraq, right?

Wrong. The story, while important, is being widely misrepresented by Iraq war advocates seeking to exonerate Bush, who are also misrepresenting the Bush administration's widely-publicized rationale for invading.

The world has always known that Saddam had a chemical weapons program in the late 1970s and 1980s — American companies helped him build it — but that he shut it down in 1991. In 2002, Bush argued that the US had to invade because Saddam was actively developing new chemical, biological and nuclear WMDs, in a secret and ongoing program, with an explicitly aggressive purpose: "to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons, and diseases, and gases, and atomic weapons."

Bush was explicit in claiming that Saddam had an active weapons program: "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons, and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon." (Bizarrely, a number of conservatives today insist that Bush never made any such claim.)

The Bush administration hit this argument repeatedly. Then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice claimed that Saddam was running a clandestine nuclear program that was only "six months from a crude nuclear device." She argued that this program was so imminent, and so clearly designed to target the United States, that a US invasion was the only option: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

The rest: http://www.vox.com/2014/10/15/6981493/iraq-wmd-saddam-chemical-weapons-new-york-times
Go to Page: 1