Waiting For Everyman
Waiting For Everyman's JournalThat's kind of ironic.
Did you know that Gloria Steinem used to write a column called "Teddy Bear Tricks" for Glamour Magazine during the mid-1960s? I knew her writing from that column way before she was a famous feminist.
The photo below is of the September 1964 cover. In the bottom left-hand corner it says, "The Spy Story by Gloria Steinem... Plus Ways to Catch James Bond". It's very faint but I know that because a copy of that magazine recently sold on Ebay, which listed the cover articles in the description.
...
Long before she made history, Steinem was a New York City freelancer, writing about everything from mod haircuts to social policy. Glimpses of future feminism could even be seen in pieces she did for Glamour, like “The Student Princess (or How to Seize Power on the Campus of Your Choice).” Her then roommate Ali MacGraw remembers Steinem “working, working at her desk in the corner—I knew she was destined for great significance. She was a beautiful creature with so much substance.”
...
http://www.glamour.com/inspired/women-of-the-year/2011/gloria-steinem
Oh, and... she also wrote for Cosmopolitan too -- for one thing that I know of, an interview with John Lennon in 1964, and possibly more.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Nationalism is not an invention of the right, it's the concept all countries were based on up until recently, except maybe nomadic tribes. Just because some problems cross borders, that doesn't mean there shouldn't BE borders.
Nations are nothing more than logical units of government, just as states are, and nobody says there shouldn't be states, so what is so especially toxic about nations that they shouldn't exist? They are practical, making self-government possible. They are metaphorically like having "yards" which we can keep up and customize ourselves, rather than "open space" which is necessarily hired out and one-size-fits-all.
The more we coalesce into one globalist blob, the more we are prey to the wealthy vultures. It becomes harder for us to manage and defend ourselves, and it becomes easier for the vultures to scoop us out of one nest rather than many.
Up until rather recently, we functioned quite well as a nation, by making bilateral agreements with one other nation at a time, or at most a few, as needed. Each country should be first and foremost its own market, and then import what it doesn't have and export surpluses. That is how the American model was intended to work, and it did work. Now, as globalism spreads, it works less all the time, as the economies of the world compete for and cater mostly to, not their own populations, but the small percentage of affluent consumers in all countries. Gee, that must a coincidence, I suppose? (Not!)
Today, we very seldom even see LOCAL PRODUCE in the grocery stores, in an agricultural state. We have onions etc. (not special ones) from some other country. You know why? Because it's more convenient for the international grocery giants to order that way. Why should ordinary produce, which literally grows surrounding the store, be shipped and trucked from across the globe? And what is THAT doing for the environment? our health? our jobs? our future? And that's just one example.
We have outsmarted ourselves. People are only beginning to admit that fact. Those admitting that globalism is a failure, are not the problem. Those resistant to change are those holding onto globalism... it's a failed ideology which not only doesn't work now, it never will, just like "trickle down" economics never will. Because it's bullshit, fascist-serving bullshit.
Life is not a John Lennon song.
Btw, some liberals do not have so much of a "we're all in this together" mentality as they like to think -- they are very much attached to their niche politics -- the focus on minority rights over civil rights or human rights; and identity by interest-group communities rather than as Americans.
Also, the "invisible hand" has to do with laissez-faire capitalism, not nationalism. There is a difference. And nationalism does not mean "yay, we're the best!" It is maintaining, as much as possible, the autonomy of the nation as a political unit.
Maybe POTUS will go on tv and tell all of us believers
not to get on our high horse about atheists too, for merely expressing outrage at the shooter.
It would be just about as relevant as the last time he did it, to Christians about the ISIS atrocities... not relevant at all.
Of course I mean to include along with Obama, the whole bandwagon of people here and elsewhere who did the same thing.
I'm not so sure
that there isn't another hidden hand one step up the food chain, pulling the Saudi's strings too. For one thing, the Saudis didn't really have a good enough motive for taking down the WTCs, but some in the US certainly did. Also, I can't quite see the fact of Prescott Bush and friends financing and creating Hitler, as a one-time scheme that didn't pay off for them afterward. (I'm sure it did pay off, as planned, and not in an obvious, traceable way.)
Something just tells me, even if the Saudis get caught red-handed at this level, the endpoint of it comes back to the US and/or London, and the bankers.
Then too, I happen to know that the "gas crisis" was phony, because I happened to be driving across country at that time, and strangely enough... the crisis was almost entirely on the coasts in the big cities. There were long lines for gas in California, and I didn't encounter another one until I got back to Maryland. Prices weren't even terribly high in between. The weird thing was, that nobody was reporting that. It was obviously a fraud, but it sure reallocated a ton of money in a big way... out of the pockets of people who earned it, to -- guess where.
And presto! at roughly the same time, terrorism broke out as a new thing internationally, and never quite went away.
Anyway, you never know what will start the web unraveling. If this gets disclosed... let's just say I believe that every now and then, the human race gets lucky, and the balance gets evened up a bit.
Russia leads U.N. initiative to target ISIS financing (Al Arabiya)
Al Arabiya English
By Louis Charbonneau, Reuters | United Nations
Thursday, 5 February 2015
Russia is leading a U.N. Security Council initiative to ratchet up pressure on countries to cut off the cash flow to Islamic State militants, Russia and council diplomats said on Wednesday.
...
Russia circulated a draft to the council’s other permanent members - the United States, Britain, France and China - and is expected to distribute it to the full council soon, Western diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity. They noted that Moscow rarely drafts council resolutions.
...
The resolution will focus on the three main sources of revenue for Islamic State: oil, the sale of antiquities and ransom from kidnappings.
The resolution will demand that countries not purchase oil from Islamic State, stop paying ransoms and not buy antiquities looted by the group.
...
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/02/05/Russia-leads-U-N-initiative-to-target-ISIS-financing.html
_____________________________
Among other details, the article gives specific numbers about income from the three sources, and also mentioned two more: donations, and "illegal taxation" from captured areas (meaning, protection money I suppose). It states that the Russians are interested in doing this resolution about ISIS because of "the number of Chechens that have joined the group".
I'm putting it here because I thought it might be of interest to some, but also thought it might not fit in LBN.
Your "point" gives ISIS a pass.
Everybody does it, or has done it, so it's ok. Even if that was true, which it isn't, using the ISIS atrocities to make a self-indulgent point about hypocrisy, is lame beyond description. Is that what matters the most right now?
WTF is wrong with you? ISIS' PR cadre thanks you -- now it knows just what to say to manipulate more Westerners into their cause. And btw, I just heard POTUS make the same dumb point in a speech on tv.
(shaking head) How dumb ARE people right now? Is this puny little axe to grind so earth-shakingly important that you simply CANNOT refrain from grinding it to enable those killers at THIS particular moment? Really?
I usually like your posts, and as noted you aren't the only one who has said this, here and elsewhere. Until now, I had hoped it was just a person here or there having a thoughtless moment, and didn't comment, but no more. Stop it!
Or... next time you see one of ISIS' atrocities you can pat yourself on the back for doing your bit to give it the moral cover and psychological acceptance it will use to do more of the same.
Some people (speaking generally, where the shoe fits) who like to note endless responsibility for things should take stock of their own responsibility.
I know next to nothing about this controversy
except that it exists, because I'm not a gamer. But I just finished reading a whole, long article about it on Wikipedia which appears to me to be 99.9% favorable to the women and critical of those harassing them, so... I don't quite get what's supposed to be going on. Link below, if others care to see for themselves...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
I don't see the "war on women" in that at all, so if it isn't there in an article specifically about Gamergate then where would one expect to see it, exactly? If it has no reflection in the articles and it's only in the fact of those five particular women being dropped from editing, that decision may have been valid or unfair but whatever else it is, it certainly doesn't constitute a war on women.
The OP article links back to a largely similar one from Gawker, and from what I read on the Wiki piece, I gather that Gawker has itself had some involvement or role of its own in the controversy in some way. I don't know what that says, but it doesn't make the allegations more credible for me.
While I sincerely sympathize with the women who are being threatened by the Gamergaters as described, and that fact that they ARE being bullied in such a manner seems entirely evident, I am not prepared based on this piece to take up pitchforks against Wikipedia as the OP article and its link are clearly trying to persuade readers to do.
I'm aware that there are seemingly valid criticisms about Wikipedia's accuracy on various subjects, but I have to say that on the subjects that I do know a lot about first-hand, their articles have been very well done. So credit where credit is due. It is often a useful site, certainly as worthwhile as lots of others.
I won't be joining the outrage-at-Wikipedia bandwagon just yet, but if more emerges from this story which changes my impression of it, I'll see when / if it happens.
The left-leaning people who don't vote have to start.
That is, if anything is going to get any better. (Especially needs to change in mid-terms, as we know.)
That means registered Dems (I saw a stat that only 52% voted), and those who are unaffiliated. The latter are the most in need of education. They think calling themselves an Independent means that they have that characteristic. No, it only means that they don't get to have a say in choosing the candidates who will run, because in most states they don't participate in the parties' primary elections.
People have to realize that they have to vote. We have to pressure them to do so. That is simple but hard (to accomplish in sufficient numbers). Every time someone tells us they didn't vote, we have to tell them that THEY are the problem.
It is not acceptable to fail to vote. We have to make it socially unacceptable. (Left-thinkers who tell me they don't vote get told exactly what I think of that! And yes, some of them do then vote -- it's a numbers game, and a matter of repetition.)
And while we're at it... Election Day needs to be a public holiday, after all it is in the public's interest.
When people who think as we do get to the polls, we will win elections. That is the issue, right there. I have seen lots of people finding lots of reasons for losing so many elections yesterday; for me, it all comes down to this one reason.
The other side has the money but we have the numbers, and we have to get those numbers to show up or we will lose. Which is going to prevail -- money, or people? That question is what our elections now, and for the foreseeable future, are all about. It can go either way.
But if we are to turn this around by 2016, we have to begin on starting a groundswell of social pressure, right now. Whenever someone complains to us from now on, we need to say "did you vote?". And if they didn't, they need to be told that they have no right to complain, that they are the problem for the rest of us who are carrying the burden of their FAILURE to get off their ass and exercise the rights which they have proven they in no way deserve.
We spend so much time, and focus so much attention on finding ways to persuade red-thinking perople to think blue. I think that FIRST, before any of that, we should focus on pressuring blue-thinking people to VOTE. That is where we are losing elections. It must stop. We no longer have the leeway to be understanding of people who don't want to vote -- they are threatening our survival and our wellbeing. That is way too much understanding for them to expect or for us to give.
Our people failing to vote should be treated the same as if someone said, "I'm a flagrant lying cheater." Or heroin dealer. Or pedophile. They should know that there will be social blowback for such a thing, that it will be unexcused, that there will be a social price to pay. In my little sphere, I will be shooting for getting that idea to catch on, and spread. Peer pressure can do a lot. But we, not the media, not the PTB, have to decide what it will be directed toward.
Hillary's prayer group beginning in 1993, are you ready for this?
I was shocked. 
Susan Baker, wife of James Baker
Joanne Kemp, wife of Jack Kemp
Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke (see article excerpt below)
Grace Nelson, wife of Sen. Bill Nelson, she is the leader of the group
Hillary isn't just attending a once-a-year event, the prayer group shows that she is plugged in to this organization on an ongoing, small group, personal basis.
I didn't know this about her before today, but it sure clears up a lot for me.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics?page=2
...
When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.
Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"
, a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.
...
The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God—leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit." According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular visitor to Coe's Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance.
...
Unlikely partnerships have become a Clinton trademark. Some are symbolic, such as her support for a ban on flag burning with Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and funding for research on the dangers of video games with Brownback and Santorum. But Clinton has also joined the gop on legislation that redefines social justice issues in terms of conservative morality, such as an anti-human-trafficking law that withheld funding from groups working on the sex trade if they didn't condemn prostitution in the proper terms. With Santorum, Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act; she didn't back off even after Republican senators such as Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter pulled their names from the bill citing concerns that the measure would protect those refusing to perform key aspects of their jobs—say, pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions, or police officers who won't guard abortion clinics.
Clinton has championed federal funding of faith-based social services, which she embraced years before George W. Bush did; Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, says that the Clintons' approach to faith-based initiatives "set the stage for Bush." Clinton has also long supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that has become a purity test for any candidate wishing to avoid war with the Christian right.
...
But the senator's project isn't the conversion of her adversaries; it's tempering their opposition so she can court a new generation of Clinton Republicans, values voters who have grown estranged from the Christian right. And while such crossover conservatives may never agree with her on the old litmus-test issues, there is an important, and broader, common ground—the kind of faith-based politics that, under the right circumstances, will permit majority morality to trump individual rights.
...
Jeff Sharlet appears to be the expert on this. He wrote the books:
The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, 2009 ; and C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy, 2010; and is a contributing editor at Harper's and Rolling Stone.
How about an excerpt from her own book?
I don't know this reporter, but it's on the Daily Beast, and it's from February of this year.
...
Hillary Clinton has been active with Family prayer groups since she was First Lady. In her memoir, Living History, Clinton described The Family leader Doug Coe as “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”
When the anti-gay legislation was first introduced in Uganda, the New York Times wrote, “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”
... American political figures who have proudly associated with The Family and with Rick Warren are culpable as well. They cannot feign ignorance at the end of a journey that was ugly all along.
Uganda’s anti-gay law is not just an international disgrace. It is an American disgrace. And the American religious and political figures who played a role in spreading vicious homophobia in Uganda, whether actively or by turning a blind eye, should do more than just denounce the country’s law. They should denounce their own role in facilitating it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/25/obama-the-family-and-uganda-s-anti-gay-christian-mafia.html
Frankly, I didn't know before this that she had written the words above in her memoir, but I find it sickening. The Family is gross enough that even without Coe and his disgusting agenda against gays, just her associating with them at all (and yes, that goes for Obama too, and any others) makes me
The Family was that rotten and insidious in my book BEFORE the public notoriety with Coe. I knew who the Family was, and what they were all about way before her book was published in 2003, and so did she, and I wouldn't spit on that bunch if they were on fire, much less pray with them. Ewww.
There is NO acceptable reason for that. None. Zero. They are the folks that a person with character stands against. Instead of that, schmoozing up to them tells me exactly who those doing it really are. (My term for anyone who is sell-out enough to do that is "pond scum". YMMV: your mileage may vary.)
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHome country: USA
Member since: Mon Jun 23, 2008, 12:17 PM
Number of posts: 9,385
