It bears repeating every day: Russia did not, repeat, did not invade the Ukraine. Nor did it forcibly “annex” the Crimea. I suggest making a copy of the above-linked short article, taking it to your local print/copy shop, and have it blown up to poster size, and tape it to the front of your fridge or the inside of your bathroom door to remind you, on a daily basis, that the mainstream media (MSM) is not telling you the truth about this situation. Or much of anything else, for that matter.
And if you’re not sure where these places are located, go to your local library (if one still exists where you live) and ask to see a map. If that’s not possible, for one reason or another, use the computer with which you’re reading this and search for them on the internet.
Just because the New York Times says something does not mean it’s true. You can probably trust the sports scores and the obituaries because they can’t put a spin on those kinds things. But for the rest …
You might also want to consider on a daily basis, as well, what people like Karl Rove thought about “reality”. The entire page is worth exploring, but here’s the money quote:
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” He continued “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
It’s as true today as it was way back in 2004. And pretty much as far back in history as you care to look.
If you’re wondering why things are so fucked up, it’s because the psychopaths (and their faithful “little Eichmanns”) who run things couldn’t give a rat’s ass (and never have) about the 99.99% (run the nines out as far as you want) of the rest of us who have to deal with our crumbling infrastrutures, the poisoned air, water, and food, the constant wars, and all the rest. The list is a long one, as I’m sure you know.
And I reckon that the few people who stop by here probably agree with most of what I have just said, that I’m singing to the choir, that what I may think about all this is just a regurgitation of other like-minded blogs and alternative news sites. And they’re correct. This is not news. Or, at the least, it shouldn’t be.
The problem is that the message doesn’t seem to be getting outside of our own little echo chamber. There are tons of sites offering strategies on how to change things, lots of them with their own agendas of whatever sort. But lots of them seem to stop at the limits of those agendas, as if to say that if you’re not 100% with us, then you’re somehow against us.
This kind of thing will get us nowhere. This binary kind of thinking is not what’s going to solve the problems we’re facing.
For example “nationlism” does not necessarily mean “racism”. That’s what the MSM wants you to believe, because any kind of true nationalism goes against the neocon agenda of free movement of capital and cheap labor in order to increase profit. In order to put you or me in competition with a lesser paid laborer of whatever sort from somewhere else.
Personally, I’ve got nothing against anyone who could underbid me for whatever. If it’s an honest offer. If there’s no kind of disloyal subsidy behind it. If a group of immigrants (or whoever else) wants to get together and undercut a certain labor market for a long term share of whatever market, why should I object? If they’re doing it on their own, sharing the short term privations that go along with trying to grow a business, then I consider that perfectly understandable. As long as the playing field is level. More on this later.
This just in. I happened to look at my email and this is what I found:
July 10, 2017
Mr. Steve Church
Eastport, ME 04631-1632
Dear Mr. Church,
Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding the April 2017 U.S. missile strike in Syria. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
The cruise missile strikes against Al Shayrat airfield in western Syria were an appropriate response to the horrific chemical attacks perpetrated by the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Our military action was both justified and proportional, and delivered an important message to both Syria and Russia that the United States will not tolerate Assad’s continued use of chemical weapons. The diplomatic agreement brokered by Russia in 2013 required the destruction of all of Syria’s chemical weapons, and that agreement did not come with an expiration date. I commend the President and his national security team for this decisive response to Assad’s appalling and indiscriminate attack against his own people, and I am grateful for each of the members of our armed forces who executed the strike.
I agree with those who express the necessity of congressional oversight of the executive branch, which is why I stated publicly that the President must consult with Congress if he is planning further military action. The Administration’s decision to conduct this missile strike, however, was a swift and justifiable response to the despicable use of illegal chemical weapons.
Should Congress deliberate further military action in Syria, I will keep your views in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me.
Susan M. Collins
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like to receive weekly updates about my work on behalf of Maine in the United States Senate, you can subscribe to my e-newsletter by clicking here.
And this is what I said in reply.
Dear Senator Collins,
Thank you, I guess, for your generic, boilerplate response.
With all due respect, you sound like Karl Rove, or one his underlings, who explained to Ron Suskind that we’re an empire now, and we create our own reality … I hope you are familiar with that particular quote. If not, I’ll provide it.
There is no proof, whatsoever, that the Syrian government used chemical weapons of any sort. Or ever has, for that matter. As Seymour Hersh has reported, the bombing of the building released some chlorine and other agricultural products that, yes, may have affected some of the local population, but had nothing to do with the use of any kind of « chemical » weapon on the part of the Syrian government, not the Syrian « regime ».
Your response is typical of just another brain dead generation of political wannabes, hangers-on, « little Eichmanns » in service to the current « regime » pulling the strings in DC. I find that incredibly disappointing.
On the other hand, we get the regime we deserve. You can do all the « happy face » meetings you want with constituents who think it’s really cool to have a photo op with you. That won’t change anything in the long run. And you know it. It may fool some of the people, some of the time …
This is the kind of stuff we have to put up with. I find it incredibly boring. And dangerous.