Reality calls

Reality works in funny ways, sometimes.

Yesterday, I talked about London's Sadiq Khan and his plan to charge the owners of old cars, those wealthy bastards, for the privilege of driving in London.

"How very Labour", I thought, "with its Punching Up And Speaking Truth To Power(TM)".

Today, Reality presents me with another glimpse of what London's Labour stands for, who it defends.

Truth be told, I don't know with full certainty what is the London's Mayor role in this issue; the article just mentions "the zombie Blairites running the north London borough". However, according to this, he does have something to say on Housing.

Still, it's all Labour, even if it may be different factions. And if "squeeze money out of people who own old cars because they probably can't afford a new one" seems a bit Weird Labour, "give a yuuuge real-estate gift to some private friends at the expense of those who currently live in said real-estate" defies classification.

Or maybe not. Like I said, while the Labours of the world are going on and on with their Holy Grail of Identity Politics, inequality continues to rise, affecting Everyone. And since the goal of Identity Politics is not to address Everyone's issues, those not on the "Protected List" are left on their own, usually turning to the first, say, orange-haired idiot that comes along.

So, in London, we have a bunch of politicians from "mainstream" parties. You know, the parties that are "sensible" and neither "radical" nor "extreme".

And we have a private interest that needs to make money.

And because the people in charge of the private interest don't like hard work and don't actually have talent to make money, they get "a little help from their friends", the above-mentioned politicians.

And, to quote another song, "it makes me wonder" - why on Earth do people commit "stupidest things"? It's a tough one, innit?

Yes, I did read the "stupidest thing" article. The Billionaire Guy describes the UK (and the US, by Brexit-Trump association) as "a country that was doing so well" and warns "that some workers at the financial media company that bears his name were asking to leave the UK and US because they think the two countries no longer like immigrants and are no longer welcoming".

See? The country is doing great, but now these vulnerable financial media employees want to leave. Mind you, not leave Bloomberg, but get a transfer to another country.

Just like Everyone Else can do in a country that is doing "so well", right? I suppose if I live in the UK, my house is drafty and leaky, and it's having a negative effect on my health, and I can't afford to repair it, I can just... you know, get a transfer. Life's good!

Yeah, it makes me wonder... where, oh, where do those extremist votes come from...? Well, maybe it's the Russians.

Plenty of news, but nothing new

While there have been events worthy of comment, I haven't bothered to comment because I'd just be repeating myself. E.g.,

• Catalonia

It's all about the money. Sure, the people on the streets will shout "Freedom" and "Democracy", but the ones pulling their strings couldn't care less about either. If Catalonia (and all its little "freedom-loving" friends, like Northern Italy) wasn't the economic powerhouse it is, I'm sure its elite would be a lot less independence-inclined.

• Harvey & Friends

It's all about power. Which, incidentally, comes from...? From...? Ah, I'm sure you can guess it, just try to imagine what would Harvey need to control everyone and everything the way he did. Devious minds don't get very far without deep pockets.

However, even though I'll be repeating myself, sometimes the level of stupid does get to me. Case in question: "London is trying an innovative new strategy to stop air pollution: taxing old cars".

Seems straightforward - pollution is "suddenly" a problem; old cars create more of this "pollution" thingie; hit the owners of old cars hard for having the nerve to prefer an old car to a new one.

I'm sure that's the real reason we have old cars on our roads - it's not, say, that people can't afford a new car, nah. They're just pollutin' old buggers, and prefer driving around in old cars to annoy millennials and kill babies.

I particularly like this part (my emphasis):

The T-Charge, short for toxicity charge, mainly applies to cars that either use diesel or fail to meet European emissions standards adopted in 2006.

If you happen to drive diesel, it doesn't matter how old your car is, you're getting milked. It's irrelevant that you bought your car when both the car industry and the State said you were doing the Right Thing (TM). The industry lied, but it's got... you guessed it, money, so it's the owners of the cars that are going to pay. Doesn't make sense, you say? How cute. You're not an expert, then, right?

By the way, this is not why we have populism, these days, mmkay? It's because of sexism and racism. It's definitely not because we keep applauding and supporting politicians who throw people under the bus to save face and/or line pockets. And as long as those under the bus are not "Us", everything's good, "They" probably deserved it, anyway.

Me? I own a new-ish (6 years) diesel car. And I expect to be forced to pay for the "luxury", sooner or later. However, I've been preparing to adapt to it. I have changed my consumption habits to spend as little as possible in Lisbon, which I'm sure is on its way to also adopt measures that punish people and let the car industry off the hook.

Yes, I know, Lisbon doesn't need me. And I've reached a point where I only need it to visit my family. That's the only point where "justice champions" like Sadiq Khan still hold me hostage.

Sympathy? Nah, I don't expect sympathy. I'm sure I deserve whatever comes to me. Besides, like the guy said n the movie, "Show then no mercy... for you shall receive none".

The Arab Spring, According to Vox

The title is "Egypt's former dictator has been freed from jail. The 2011 revolution is officially dead".

In the view of the author, this was what happened in Egypt since 2011:

• The people carried out a pro-democracy revolution, resisting the Former Dictator's brutal repression.
• The Former Dictator fell.
• Elections were held.
• The Muslim Brotherhood won.
• All was well.
• The Muslim Brotherhood elected officials were deposed in a militar coup.
• The New Dictator took power.
• Brutal repression resumed.

The article had this to say about the Muslim Brotherhood:

Egypt held its first free elections in 2012. Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, was the victor. But his time in office was short-lived: He was deposed in a military coup in 2013 that brought in Sisi.

And that's it. I found it a bit telegraphic, and decided to take a more detailed look, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Within a short period, serious public opposition developed to President Morsi. In late November 2012 he 'temporarily' granted himself the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts, on the grounds that he needed to "protect" the nation from the Mubarak-era power structure.[94][95] He also put a draft constitution to a referendum that opponents complained was "an Islamist coup".[96] These issues[97]—and concerns over the prosecutions of journalists, the unleashing of pro-Brotherhood gangs on nonviolent demonstrators, the continuation of military trials, new laws that permitted detention without judicial review for up to 30 days,[98] and the seeming impunity given to Islamist radical attacks on Christians and other minorities[99]—brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the streets starting in November 2012.[100][101]

Before I go on, I'll state clearly that I'm not saying the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. I have no credible evidence to prove or disprove that.

What I'm saying is:

• The Muslim Brotherhood is a religious organization, not a secular organization.
• As such, it's safe to assume it won't establish a secular state.
• Therefore, its commitment is not to democracy.

And if you think you can have a state that is both religious and democratic, just take a look at the Vatican. Or, better yet, consider the consequences of a Christian religious party ruling, say, the US. Consider a Christian president, backed by a Christian religious party (i.e., no separation between state and church), granting himself power to legislate as he sees fit because he needs to "protect" the nation from... whatever.

If we accept that the Arab Spring was a pro-democracy movement, then the "2011 revolution" died when the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections, as far as Egypt is concerned.

Having said that, though... the majority of the Egyptian people voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. That, to me, means that the majority wanted a religious state, and democracy be damned. So, I do agree with the author of the Vox article on this point, that it was wrong for the military to depose the elected government. The majority of Egyptians chose, let them have what they chose.

Other than that, this Vox.com article, as is usual with most media, is terribly biased. Its goal is not so much to inform, but to sell a narrative in line with its agenda and call it an "explainer". Just like, say, Breitbart. It shows a partial view of the whole picture, rushing over any detail that could endanger their "explanation".

I've got no problem with that, actually. I've learned how to think for myself, and how to go looking for information, instead of waiting for it to fall on my lap, dispensed by the Holy Algorithms of Facebook & Friends. However, it's a bit annoying watching progressive media constantly presenting itself as "owners of the truth" and calling everyone else "fake" when, as we can see in this example, they're as biased as everyone else.

Beware of some Identity Politics

No, I'm not going to say much about Dieselbloke's new motto "Lazy Southern Bastards Spend All Their Money on Wine and Women! Didn't Even Save Some For Song!"

Look, cut him some slack. His party, PvdA, no doubt filled with people of the same remarkable political and intelectual level of Dieselbloke, just performed an amazing feat in last week's elections, going from 38 Parliament seats to 9. There's much I could say about Dieselbloke and his pals, but the Dutch already said all there was to say. Another Labour bites the dust. But, hey, Third Way ftw, wouldn't you agree?

Still, I'm sure Schauble will find some way to reward his most faithful attack hound.

Today, let's look at 2 recent Guardian articles:

Identity politics and intolerance a barrier to development, says UN report

‘White working class’: the label that seeks to divide and rule

These articles are from March 21 and 22. It's almost as if there was some sort of agenda behind this. Yes, I know, it's probably the Russians.

Anyway, I'm sure quotes like these are positive, right?

"(...) identity politics (...) are barriers to development"

"(...) has not only exposed deep socioeconomic fractures in British society – it has also invented new ones. Identity politics has taken hold as never before."

OK, not really. You can tell by the amount of "(...)" thingies that this is going to be another ultra-biased non-fake-news take on "identity".

Let's go, then.

"Nationalism and identity politics – of which Brexit is one of the latest examples – are barriers to development among the most marginalised groups in society, according to a UN report"

"The Brexit vote has not only exposed deep socioeconomic fractures in British society – it has also invented new ones. Identity politics has taken hold as never before"

See? That's the way identity politics should go - Brexit - Bad! OscarsSoWhite - Gooood! Identity politics was damn good fine, until them pesky white folks realized they could play that game, too, dang it!

These quotes sum up the gist of each article:

"Overall, the report said, millions of women, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities continue to be excluded from a quarter-century of impressive global progress on human development"

"After all, it is the white middle class that is in control of the public spending cuts that are disproportionately hitting minority ethnic women, and discriminating against people with African or Muslim names in the job market. Racists and racism exists across society"

Apparently, inequality seems to "disproportionately hit" minorities and women. And while "racism exists across society", don't forget, boys and girls, that only white people can be racist.

There are some... how shall I put it... inconsistencies on each article.

On the first, we learn that "(..) 15 million girls under 18 get married (...) There are 32 countries where women follow different procedures than men to get passports, 18 countries where they have to have their husband’s approval before they get a job". And that "In Bangladesh, maternity leave is six months, whereas there is no maternity leave in the US. And Rwanda, for instance … has the highest number of women parliamentarians, at 65%".

Yes, boys and girls, some things happen in "some countries" and others happen in Bangladesh and Rwanda (for instance).

Oh, and for a few bonus laughs, you get a link to an article that celebrates "ending extreme poverty for a billion people". I'll quote the relevant part: "the world has reduced the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015". I always say, nothing like earning $1.26 a day to feel the burden of poverty extreme poverty lifting off your shoulders, hey?

And that's pretty much the whole article, just a yuuuuuge dividing line between white men and everyone else. Well, there's obviously some nuance to it all, because "some countries" where women have little or no rights are not ruled by white men, but you get the picture, right?

And that brings us neatly to article #2.

Apparently my ethnicity and London upbringing make me the enemy of the population that matters most right now: the white working class. This accusation was a reminder of how false and divisive these new labels are

Divisive, yes! Absolutely! We don't want divisive... divisive - Bad! Non-divisive... er... Goooood... I guess...

This week saw the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We’d do well to remember how important language is in sowing seeds of distrust and hate. The "white working class" narrative is leading us down a road of nostalgia for a white Britain. We need to stop it in its tracks

How cute. The "white working class narrative" creates discrimination and division. What we don't get to learn in this insightful article is what does the avalanche of white-male-bashing articles on the Guardian create. Articles with titles such as "Austerity is a feminist issue"; or articles about fad diets that, somehow, manage to mention "white privilege". When I read stuff like that, lemme tell ya, I sure feel the inclusiveness.

When Hillary Clinton was running for president, I saw an infinity of articles peddling the theme "Women Must Vote For HER". Now, with Marine Le Pen, the song has changed, she's a "fake feminist". Ladies, vote for the white male candidate, please.

Violence/harassment against progressive "protected species" is denounced (as it should be). Violence/harassment against Trump supporters is "resistance".

Trump being compared to Hitler, and invoking 1930s Germany to contextualize his policies is fine. Tim Allen saying Hollywood looks like 1930s Germany to a conservative is disgraceful, and even sends the Anne Frank Center into a condemnatory tweet-fest, demanding apologies.

How's that for divisive?

The thing is, I happen to completely agree with the following quote, and I've been repeating over and over and over, until people tell me to shut up:

It’s not hard, then, to see whose agenda dividing the working class is serving – that of unscrupulous bosses, CEOs now earning 386 times the national living wage and the policy-makers who are creating the conditions that allow this to happen.

However, those Guardian articles (and Vox, and NYT, and WaPo, and HuffPo, and etc) are not written by bosses, or CEOs, or policy-makers. Those articles are written by (so-called) progressives, and are right up there at the top of the Breitbart scale, as far as Identity Politics are concerned. In fact, until the recent Far Right surge, no one had been playing the Identity Card as strongly as progressives for the past couple of decades. And when your only argument is Identity, you will always create division.

An additional problem is that, somewhere along the way, progressives have adopted and fully embraced the conservative double-standard playbook, and now use it shamelessly. There's no difference between the double-speak we find on these articles and the conservative BS about ending "taxpayer abuse" by the "welfare Queens", all the while promoting the most baseless corporate welfare. There's no difference between Republicans shutting down Elizabeth Warren and California Democrats shutting down Janet Nguyen; but, you wouldn't know that by reading the progressive media - because they didn't report the latter.

Progressives. Conservatives. Pot. Kettle.

And isn't it ironic...?

This time there's a link, because the ironic effect is something to experience. It's an article on how to keep Mean Ole Prez Duck from stealing your reality.

Mind you, the article is on target, and I believe some of the advice is sound. Fortunately, as luck would have it, I don't have to waste much time going over it all, because the author has conveniently packed all I need in a couple of paragraphs.

“We are living in a time where a lot of people are having a tough time deciding what’s real and feeling like they are being manipulated,” Stern says. “If they know something is true and somebody tells you it’s not true, holding on to your reality is essential. You can’t be gaslighted if you stay inside your own reality and recognize the manipulation when you see it.”
...
With gaslighting, it feels as though the ground is always shifting beneath you. There is no center of gravity. And while we’re being told up is down and black is white, the only way to make sense of it is to remain resolute. Let people have their alternative facts. You’ll stick to reality.

I believe this article is directed at Those-Who-Are-Right (aka, Prez Duck's opposers), to give them the tools to defend from his feverish stream of alternative facts. Yes, I could be wrong; no, this being the Guardian, I suspect I'm not.

However... let's apply this to a different crowd - Prez Duck supporters.

“We are living in a time where a lot of people are having a tough time deciding what’s real and feeling like they are being manipulated,”

From what I've been reading, Trump supporters would feel right at home with this description. They say they're being manipulated by the mainstream - media, celebrities, comedians, etc. So, the Guardian would get got a yuge thumbs-up from the Rednecks for exposing the conspiracy.

“If they know something is true and somebody tells you it’s not true, holding on to your reality is essential. You can’t be gaslighted if you stay inside your own reality and recognize the manipulation when you see it.”

Again, Trump supporters will completely agree with this. If they remain faithful to their view of the world, they can see the mainstream lies for what they are.

Double irony points for failing to recognize that "stay inside your own reality" is definitely not something you want to include on an article about distortion of the truth and objective reality. After all, how do you know your reality hasn't been manipulated, too?

With gaslighting, it feels as though the ground is always shifting beneath you. There is no center of gravity. And while we’re being told up is down and black is white, the only way to make sense of it is to remain resolute. Let people have their alternative facts. You’ll stick to reality.

I believe this final paragraph speaks not only for itself, but also for many other resolute people on the planet, from 9-11 truthers to Daesh militants.

Of course, we get to understand this article much better when we consider the context.

• The Guardian is part of the mainstream media.
• Consequently, the Guardian does not spread fake news/alternative facts.
• Which is equivalent to say that the Guardian always tells the Truth(TM).
• This, in turn, means those who agree with the Guardian are committed to the Truth(TM). No, I won't call them "truthers", don't worry.
• So, the implication in the above linked article is that it is written by someone who holds the Truth(TM) and directed at those who are committed to the Truth(TM).

And here, we get to the usual blind spot for these people: My point of view is superior to yours. My truth is valid, yours is your own reality a bubble of lies. Or, as I was reading the other day on a news site pretty much like the Guardian, it's OK to silence "bigoted speech" and it's wrong to say "all speech deserves protection".

What these people usually forget is that one day the balance of power may shift so far away from them that someone else will be using these same arguments to silence them.

The Nanny

And here we go again...

I've randomly chosen one article about the "racial controversy" that exploded after the "Kids interrupt father live on BBC" video; the articles are all so alike, they're pretty much interchangeable. It's almost as if someone had presented these remarkable authors with a set of bullet points and they had elaborated from there.

Let's go, then...

So, to those who assumed that Kim was the nanny, it’s worth thinking about what kind of woman you might have expected Kelly to be married to.

This was my first assumption as well (a few seconds later, I had another assumption, but we'll deal with that later). When I assumed she was an employee (the word "nanny" didn't really register), I didn't have any thought about who might be his wife, and especially not about what "kind of woman" (what the author actually means is "race of woman") he might be married to (that came by in my later assumption).

Did people assume that the Asian woman in his home was the nanny because she seems to behave in a subservient way?

Actually, I assumed she was the employee because of her over-the-top panic when she entered the room and took the children out.

She seems scared, flustered, her posture is low to the ground and she doesn’t make eye contact or speak.

Scared? Flustered? That woman acted as if she was terrified. The scenario that first played through my mind was something like "Boss tells employee he'll be having a Very Important Video Call(TM) and she'll regret it for the rest of her life if he's interrupted by anything, «especially those pesky children»".

Or is it that she can’t possibly be the heroine because Asian women are routinely depicted as secondary figures in the media, if they are visible at all.

Oh, yes, the first thing that absolutely came to mind when I saw that video was "Hum... I wonder who the hero/heroine is...?"

After I read this remarkable example of white-guilt-inducing BS, I actually considered who could be the hero/heroine here. I'd say it's the children. Why? They are clearly the center of the "plot" (yes, I know, but I'm just going along with the BS).

The article then goes on to present examples of how the media typecasts Asian people (but especially women), presenting them (especially women) as discardable supporting props (did I mention it was especially women?) It gives us such current examples as "Madame Butterfly" (19th century), "Miss Saigon" (1989, based on "Madame Butterfly"), and "You Only Live Twice" (1960s novel/movie). Other examples seem to refer to more current work and may be more relevant, but after reading these, I didn't bother to check out the rest - the onus lies with the author to convince me she's arguing in good faith, and the outdated examples she presented first have failed to convince me.

So, recapping:

My first assumption was that the woman was an employee and that the man was an extremely nasty boss, and not much of a good father. I based that on the apparent terror the woman displayed, and on his distant demeanor through the whole thing, not even acknowledging his children were there.

And my second assumption?

It went along similar lines, but I assumed the woman could be his wife, instead of his employee. Yes, boys and girls, the world can be more than just black and white. Some people can have a "systemic/unconscious racist thought" and then, just within a few seconds, they can have an "inclusive thought". Who could've predicted that, hey?

Why do I say it went along similar lines? It was something like this:

My second assumption was that the woman was the children's mother and that the man was an extremely nasty husband, and not much of a good father. I based that on the apparent terror the woman displayed, and on his distant demeanor through the whole thing, not even acknowledging his children were there.

Ah, but now my second assumption also has a "systemic/unconscious racist" component, namely the submission of the Asian woman to her Master husband. Well, you can't win them all. Although I can point out that while I didn't think about who was the hero/heroine, the White Man surely looked kinda villan-ey to me. That's gotta count for something, right?

Now, for another question - what would I consider "normal" behavior in this situation? Let's have a go at it:

• Man is on video call, live, probably for a large part of the world.
• Children enter.
• Man carries on with his contribution to the news, but may hold his child, put an arm around him/her as he keeps talking.

I believe this would reassure the child everything is fine, and defuse any sort of more disruptive reaction from the children (although, they're children, and delightfully unpredictable). I also believe this would signal the man's confidence that someone (his wife or a nanny) would eventually come and take the children out of the room orderly.

• Wife/nanny comes into the room and takes the children out of the room without looking like she's part of some kind of martial arts horror flick.
• Life can now resume, and the internet can have its sh*tstorm when someone comments "My, how calm and composed that nanny was. This white man must really be an excellent boss! #AsianEmpoweringWhiteMan".

OK, the last point is not what I would consider "normal", just "usual" or "expected".

The author of the Guardian article has a point - there are racial stereotypes. However, there are also other kinds of stereotypes, and the opinion articles from the Guardian, Vox, Slate, Washington Post, or Huffington Post are as much stereotyped as are the opinion articles from Breitbart, Zero Hedge, Red State, or Fox News.

And that, boys and girls, is why 1) we have bubbles; and 2) if you're getting your news exclusively from social media, you don't really have much reason to complain, you've chosen to be bubble-wrapped and misinformed.

In other words - Facebook and Twitter are not the Internet.

A What-If about Milo's enablers

If you read the progressive/liberal media, you'll hear all about "Milo's enablers", those evil people who gave him platforms from which he could spew his bile.

As I've written in these last few days, I believe those who protested and denied him a platform did more to enable Milo and share a larger part of the responsibility for his recent superstar status.

You don't think so? Join me in a little What-If scenario.

What if the statements that brought him down weren't uttered in the video that was rediscovered a couple of days ago? What if Milo didn't go down that rabbit hole at that time?

What if he was going to bring up those statements at Berkeley? What if the protests were not violent enough to cancel his talk, he went on his platform at Berkeley and suddenly started reminiscing about Good Ole Greece and the wonders of old mentors helping young boys figuring out who they are?

If this had happened, Milo would have fallen a week earlier. I'd say that having to put up with his bullsh*t one week less would have been a fine result.

But... What if the protests had gone down as they have, and Milo didn't get a chance to speak? That means he would've never said those words, he would've never come crashing down. Today, he would still be riding his wave of super-stardom. Because the progressives/liberals had silenced him.

Every protest that worked, every time he was denied a platform, every time he was prevented from speaking was a lost opportunity to have him saying something that would've brought him down earlier. I wasn't sure of this until I saw him on Bill Maher, and realized how pathetic his argumentation was.

Not only that, but the progressives/liberals enabled Milo by adopting the fascist tactics of shouting down any speech that they found offensive. They created the opportunity, and the opportunist took it. In other words, they created him, and then they enabled him as hard as they were able.

Of course, if you read the progressive/liberal media, you'll hear a very different story - of courageous resistance and righteous outrage. And, ultimately, of utter cluelessness. You'll read articles by people denouncing everyone's responsibility, all the while blissfully oblivious of their own.

At the end of the day, we were very lucky. Thanks to progressives/liberals, Milo's words might have never seen the light of day.

And, no, progressives/liberals won't learn anything from this. They'll still believe the best way to address people like Milo is to shut them down with mobs. They'll continue down this fascist path, while complaining about the rise of fascism and wondering where the hell is it coming from.

Progressive/liberal "solidarity"

Just a note, before going to today's theme.

I wrote this a couple of days ago, about good ole Milo:

Every time you protest him, every time you keep him from speaking, you do him a favor. He gets to keep his mouth shut about his "ideas" (...) and gets to appropriate a credible cause - freedom of speech. So, as far as stupidity goes, you, dear progressive/liberal, are remarkable.

Usually, all I have to do is wait and time will align reality with what I wrote. This time, it happened pretty quickly. Even his book was cancelled, because good ole Milo's views about Greece are a bit ancient.

So, as I've stated, the secret was to let him speak. Let this intellectually empty creature spout his trollish nonsense and he'll inevitably shoot himself, not in the foot, but in the head.

I'll now repeat it, this time knowing I'm right: It was you, dear progressive/liberal, that did most of the work to let Milo ride his wave of success. You, with your moronic protests and your fascist "non-platforming", and your brain-dead "safe spaces", and all the other bullsh*t you've been ramming down everyone else's throat for the last few years. Congrats!

Anyway... Solidarity

Once again, the stupidity is beyond belief. This time, I'll break the rule about no links to brain-dead articles, here it is.

According to this person, the most serious problem with the "sharing economy" isn't the way it breaks laws and regulations and treats those that perform the service (you know, those that are actually working, being productive) as contractors, denying them the rights they're entitled to under those laws and regulations.

No. The problem is RACISM!!!111!

At a time when racial tensions have exploded and racist hate crime is on the rise in the UK and US, discrimination has reared its head in another, more unexpected place: the sharing economy, bastion of feelgood values, sustainability, social responsibility and trust.

I wonder in what bubble has this person been living to associate "sharing economy" with "sustainability, social responsibility and trust". As for "unexpected"... well, who could've predicted that, hey...?

The article has 27 paragraphs. Only one of these mentions the problem of treating employees as contractors. All the others, even the ones where these companies' blatant disregard for the Law is mentioned, approach the issue from the angle of discrimination against anyone who is not white - cue "white privilege".

The article even manages to stick Prez Duck in the issue, because... racism.

Reading this article, I see once again the current liberal/progressive mantra that some lives are more important than others. In this case, the lives of some of the non-exploited are worth more than the lives of some of the exploited (I'm excluding Airbnb from this, as the relation between the company and the hosts follows a different dynamic - I don't consider the hosts to be exploited). Are these "some of the exploited" racist? Yes, indeed they are. Is this the first problem that needs to be solved? No, it isn't.

The first problem that needs to be solved is making sure all these bulls*it "sharing economy" companies play by the same rules as everyone else, and those who work for them are guaranteed the rights they deserve. Then, we go after those who discriminate.

By going at it backwards, the message this remarkable genius at the Guardian is passing is "We don't care if you're being discriminated against, because you're not on our list of 'protected species', and we're going after you for discriminating against those that are on that list".

So, the Guardian (in fact, all the liberal/progressive media) is saying that people with enough money to hire/pay for Uber drives and for someone to go "do the chores" at their homes are more important than the "privileged" people who earn below the minimal wage for performing those services, based on nothing more than skin color and gender. I suppose this is an example of those "speaking truth to power/punching up/equality" thingies they keep bringing up.

And then they get all incensed triggered when someone says they share a significant part of the responsibility for all this lovely, wonderful populism gracing our lives these days.

How-Not-To: Regain credibility for the media

Prez Duck is being mocked by his mention of the "terrorist attacks in Sweden, last night". Read the progressive/liberal media, and you'll find plenty of mocking, and explanations - because that's what these media do, they "explain", so that we don't have to exert our tiny little brains thinking - that will do their best to get "racism" and "white privilege" into the story.

Funnily enough, too, none of those media geniuses mentions this.

Now, obviously, this is not what Prez Duck was talking about, and I have no doubt he doesn't even know this is happening. And I can believe that these "non-fake-news" progressive/liberal media also don't know this is happening (yes, they should, but I've lowered my expectations of the media a few years ago).

I'm a little more surprised when I see people living in Sweden, some of them public officials, mocking Mr. Duck and not giving these grenade attacks (which went from 3 in 2013 to 34 in 2016) any mention.

Some a**hole with a knife in London gets a 24/7 news cycle treatment. Dozens of attacks with grenades in Sweden, and we barely hear about it. I had no idea about this, until I heard an analyst talking about it. A Portuguese analyst who is, in fact, one of the few here who doesn't hold a one-sided view.

Now, like I said, this is not related to Prez Duck's "alternative fact" on terrorist attacks in any way, shape, or form. My point is quite different.

This is an example of why it's so easy for Prez Duck to hit the media credibility and drag it through the mud. When talking about attacks in Sweden, not one single news media mentioned these past attacks. The analyst I mentioned above did it, stating clearly that it was totally unrelated to what Mr. Duck said, and saying that this was the only recurring incident he was aware of that was serious enough to be classified as "terrorism", although the Swedish authorities hadn't done that. See, dear media? You can be informative, accurate, and unbiased, all at the same time.

No one else mentioned this. Not now, and I don't remember having ever heard about it. As I looked for articles on it, I only found one attack extensively reported, and it included an 8-year-old British victim. It was the only time I found an article from the Guardian. Vox? Nowhere to be found. Slate? Out to lunch. Huff Post? MIA. NYT? Well, you get the picture. 

However, as soon as the Clown-In-Chief commits a blunder, all these "non-fake-news" media suddenly become "experts on Sveeden". And they did take some action on the subject, by tearing down the so-called "documentary" from some bloke called Ami Horowitz. A few years ago, I would've said "Good job". However, because of their biased reporting, these days I give as much credibility to this Horowitz fellow as I do to the media. E.g., the Guardian, on an article called "Donald Trump's Sweden comment referred to 'rising crime', White House says" (my emphasis), talks about crime in Sweden (not terrorism), and has no mention of the grenade attacks. I could understand not talking about it in the context of terrorism; not talking about it in the context of violent crime is omission, pure and simple. As usual, when this happens, you're either incompetent or acting with malice. Your call, Guardian.

Trump is an idiot, but that's all he needs to be to beat these biased brain-dead media, until they realize that if they keep reporting just one side of the issues, they'll never regain their lost credibility.

Except when it's worse

In order to understand today's title, you must go read yesterday's title.

And, yes, four posts in four days. I don't know, am I triggered, or something...?

Anyway...

So, waddabout good ole Milo on Bill Maher, hey?

Meh...

The inital talk went smoothly. Milo successfully played a sort of trollish charm that showed him in a good light. Every once in a while he'd say something sensible (like how progressives/liberals get all fired up triggered about useless stupid issues). Still, it was pretty much empty of actual ideas, and Bill didn't confront him on some of the more flagrant bullshit he spouted.

Then, on overtime, came the confrontation.

It's my opinion that Milo failed completely. Larry Wilmore showed what needs to be done with people like Milo - just let them speak. Then, confront them with facts. If you do this long enough, they'll run out of bullshit arguments (just like Milo did) and resort to childish tantrums: "Oooh, Bill, your guests are sooooo stupid". And without a supportive, adoring crowd, those tantrums can be seen for what they are - the last desperate resort of an ignorant idiot that has been cornered and has nothing else to say.

The only negative point were the "Go fuck yourself"s. Those played right into Milo's hand, and took the conversation back to where he shines. The way to finish, after the "stupid, low IQ guests" would have been something like "So, you have no arguments to contradict my facts, correct?"

After all the hype about this guy, I expected more. It was almost embarrassing reading all the tweets and articles saying this "dangerous troll" deserved no "platform" at all, let alone a "national platform". As usual, not only do these so-called progressives/liberals show the fascism they embrace these days, but they also display a remarkable degree of foot-shooting stupidity.

You see, before watching him on Bill Maher, I was tentatively buying into some of the hype about Milo. Maybe he was that much of a charismatic character, capable of sparring his way out of a debate and, thus, incensing the snowflakes to the point of melting. Now... now, after I watched him, I see the hype is completely overblown, and that the Left is doing most of the (alt-)Right's job to create the Milo Myth.

Every time you protest him, every time you keep him from speaking, you do him a favor. He gets to keep his mouth shut about his "ideas" (thus, you can't challenge the bullshit he says, like Larry did) and gets to appropriate a credible cause - freedom of speech. So, as far as stupidity goes, you, dear progressive/liberal, are remarkable.

Oh, and Bill...? Christopher Hitchens...? Really...? I mean, I never knew the man personally, but I'm having some very effing serious difficulty in picturing this "young Christopher Hitchens" you mentioned as someone as ignorant and as easy to beat in a debate as Milo. Are you telling me the young Chris was the total opposite of the older Chris?

The Left is just as bad as the Right

Let's go for something rare in this blog, a link to an article.

As almost everything on the Intercept, it's a long read. It's also very educational. For some years now, I've completely lost my trust on the left-leaning "mainstream" media. And I've never trusted the right-leaning media, to begin with; and this hasn't changed just because some of them are now "alt-right". So far, the Intercept has managed to be different, and it's the only news outlet I approach with a moderate degree of trust.

And, yes, one of their staff boycotting Bill Maher because of Milo did lower my perception of them. If you can't take your fight to the idiot, it's not the idiot that looks bad, it's you.

Speaking of Milo, remember the riots at Berkeley against "hate speech"? Well, the University of California, San Diego, announced a visit from the Dalai Lama. Cue the group of triggered Chinese students (the Chinese Students and Scholars Association) using the exact same good-sounding-but-empty arguments used by progressive fascists in the last few years to silence everyone they don't want to hear:

Currently, the various actions undertaken by the university have contravened the spirit of respect, tolerance, equality, and earnestness — the ethos upon which the university is built.

Eh eh eh... we, the oppressors of the Tibetan people have the right to not be offended, so you should cancel the visit of the Dalai-Lama. I can't wait to see how this will roll out. I've said it often, and I'll keep repeating it: The stupid attitudes of the Left on campuses (both students and staff) are going to give them some unpleasant surprises. Unfortunately, those surprises will probably not be good for society at large, but, then again, neither was the stupidity that started said attitudes.

Amway, back to the Intercept article...

The "lady" in question has been alternating between the SEC and a cozy corporate defense team job. She was appointed by presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama. I can give Carter the benefit of ignorance. Clinton should've known better - you may call him an optimist; I call him stupid. As for Obama... Stupid beyond belief, specially considering he was supposed to clean the mess that had been accumulating since Reagan/Thatcher and culminated in the "market correction" of 07/08. Every time she was appointed to the SEC, this "lady" has done her best to delay any rule that could be detrimental to her so-called "ex-clients" - namely, mega-corporations and banks, and their wealthy investors.

Mind you, this is not a defense of Republicans. It's just to remind all those "beautiful people" who spend their time saying "Democrats are good" because "identity politics" that none of these clowns (Democrats and Republicans) actually does anything to address inequality. In fact "identity politics" is nothing more than an artificially-created division to make sure the plebes are fighting each other and not paying attention to people like the "lady" in the article above.

I can only wish she would run for president, to see "progressive women" saying "Vote with your vagina, it's time for a woman in the White House". Or maybe Ann Coulter, or Sarah Palin. Hey, as long as it's a woman, right...?

Perhaps in France, women should also vote with their vaginas. It's about time to smash the patriarchy with a "Madame Le President". I'm sure we'll see an inter-sectional sisterhood wearing Le Bonnet de la Chatte, appealing to the vote in Le Pen.

So, while it's only fair to be outraged at what Prez Duck is rolling back with so little effort, maybe "progressive/liberal activists" and the "mainstream you-can-trust-us media" should do a little homework to understand why he needs so little effort. You can go read the Intercept article, it'll teach you how this "research" thingy is supposed to work.

I don't care how many Pussy Hats you have knitted, how many posters of Hillary and Obama you have in your house, or how many Trump supporters you have assaulted in the name of "solidarity". Your heroes are no different from your villains - and when it comes to fighting inequality, this is only more so.

The Grammy Privilege

As if on cue, there's an article on the Guardian about how BAME (look it up) artists have been neglected by the Grammy voters throughout the Ages.

The author goes on to quote some people who share his opinion that Beyonce should have won the album of the year. Since they share his opinion, they must be right, right?

He then takes us on a tour through some cherry-picked years, and treats us to his opinion of who coulda/shoulda won, all the while testing our patience with repeats of "not that there's anything awful about the winner, it's just that..." He lists a number of black bands/artists, and then some token white bands, showing us, in his unbiased wisdom, that the Grammys didn't overlook just the BAMEs.

Some moments are actually pretty amusing, like saying the Grammys "missed" AC/DC's "Back in Black" in 1981.

Funny he should mention that. Because the remarkable Grammy "visionaries" created the Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance in 1989. They didn't so much miss AC/DC, they completely ignored the entire genre. And when they finally acknowledged its existence, it was to award that giant of metal, Jethro Tull. Funnily enough, there was also plenty of whining vocal discordance at the time, because everyone had already decided that Metallica were going to win. The song remains the same, only these days time it's more colorful.

In fact, forget this weird Hard Rock/Metal thingy, let's just look at good plain ole Rock, shall we? The year is 1992, and these were the nominees who lost:

• Bryan Adams - "Can't Stop This Thing We Started". Fair enough, it's a rock song.

• Jane's Addiction - "Been Caught Stealing". Never heard this, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I'm pretty sure it's quite different from Bryan Adams.

• Metallica – "Enter Sandman". Er... Dear Grammy people, this isn't Rock. This is Metal. Shocking though this revelation may be, there is a slight difference. Which, I presume, is why you created the "Best blah-blah Metal etc..." 3 years earlier.

• Tom Petty – "Learning to Fly". OK, another rock song.

• Queensrÿche – "Silent Lucidity". Right. Let's nominate for Best Rock Song a ballad from a Progressive Metal band.

And the winner was... Why, it was that unavoidable staple of Rock... Sting. Yeah, I know, it happens to me all the time - when I think about Rock, the first person that comes to mind is Sting.

If I had to choose a band that epitomized Rock, I'd choose Queen. And yet, they never won a single Grammy. In 1977, they were nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals (sorry, I don't know who comes up with this crap either), with "Bohemian Rhapsody". And who won that year? Chicago, with "If You Leave Me Now". Not that there's anything awful about the winner, it's just that... God, it's awful. Even by 1977 standards, it's a mellowish idiotic song... I mean, "Bohemian Rhapsody" lost to "Ooooooh, now, Baby, please, don't go"... Ugh! And looking at the other nominees for that year, you don't see anything that comes even close to the genius of "Bohemian Rhapsody".

But it's not just Queen. Let's keep on the same category and travel to 1974. Gladys Knight & the Pips won with "Neither One of Us (etc...)". One of the beaten nominees was "Live And Let Die". I know which song is best, and it ain't the winner. For the record, though, "Midnight Train To Georgia" is a fantastic song, and it wouldn't have shocked me to see it taking the #1 spot here.

Or let's look at 1971. Is anoyone really convinced that "Close To You", by The Carpenters is a better song than "Let it Be"?

The Grammys are a politicized award, just like the Oscars. In fact, just like pretty much any award where subjectivity reigns. Look no further than the Eurovision Song Contest. Last year, Ukraine won. Naturally, because they had the best song, not because everyone wanted to make a political statement. Ditto with the "Bearded-Lady-From-Austria", a few years ago.

The solution, as always, is more diversity. You see, all these people pushing white guilt upon non-BAMEs because their goddess lost to "privilege" aren't concerned that the Grammys are a political vanity fair where merit is redundant. Their problem is that the "right" people aren't winning. And the way to solve that is by creating quotas in the voter demographic.

In fact, the solution itself speaks volumes of how political these awards are. This "change in demographics" is also the solution Democrats (and liberal/progressives, in general) are counting on to ensure their perpetual victory at some point in the future.

I suspect the future may have some surprises in store for them.

Grammy Fascy-o

Last year we had the Oscars-So-White thingy. This year, cue the diversity nominations. Denzel Washington said in a recent interview "We're not here because of #OscarsSoWhite". As in "We were nominated based on our merit". Well... that's the problem with quotas, isn't it? No one can actually tell why you're there. Also, "merit"? The Oscars are one of the most politicized awards in the world, I doubt anyone has ever won based on merit. So, no worries, Denz, old chap, you're there for the same reason everyone else is.

Still, I could understand last year's drama - the whiteness of the nominees was a bit beyond the pale.

This year's Grammy drama, though, is different. It's election night all over again. Apparently, there was a winner already picked by Those-Who-Are-Right-!-!-! And what happens when that winner doesn't... well... win? Damn, I guess there's rigs in dem dar system, and y'all are supposed to feel guilty 'bout it, especially if y'all happen to have one o' dem "white skin" contraptions.

Or, as someone so kindly put it, if you're part of "White Mediocrity".

And no, this is not racist, because there can't be racism against white people, because white people have all that yummy white privilege, dontcha know? Well, except, maybe, for white gays. And white transgenders. Perhaps also white women, but many voted for Trump, so they may be in risk of getting kicked out of the "protected species" list. And, besides, non-white gays/transgender/women/etc suffer a lot more, because they don't have any of that nice white privilege. 

So, we went from last year's "We MUST be nominated" to this year's "We MUST be allowed to win".

As far as Adele and Beyonce are concerned, I couldn't care less about either, so my reaction was guaranteed to be a yuge "meh", whatever the result.

As for the more whiney-ragey visible reactions... well, just the normal for fascist America - angry mobs trying to shame and shut down anyone who doesn't stand 100% behind the "party line".

I leave as an exercise for the reader finding out whether I mean the fascists on the left or the fascists on the right.

Hint: There's more than one correct answer.

Er... Who could've predicted that...?

So, here we are, then.

Mr. Duck is in; his "Cabinet" shows he won't be draining any swamp, as was to be expected; and no one knows exactly what's going to happen (I predict his debts will "magically" disappear and his businesses will, finally, prosper). There's even a possibility that his own Party (so to speak) may actually become his fiercest opposition.

On the Left, a few sane voices briefly called for an introspection for the "Disaster", but were quickly drowned by the usual mob shouts of "Racism! Sexism! Nazi! Not my pussy!" So, the Left won't be addressing inequality anytime soon, because they're only concerned about certain types of inequality; you know, some inequalities are more unequal than others. This was driven home just now, as I was reading an article on the Guardian that managed to hammer "misogyny" and "white privilege" into an argument about fad diets.

In fact, if we still needed any proof (hint: we didn't) that the Left has become the Right, just with different slogans, we only need to read on how the Women's March, this weekend, was funded.

The Gathering of the Useless at Davos produced the same old "business-as-usual", its levels of ridiculous shooting off the charts with talks like "How to fix the Middle Class". The same luminaries that gave us last year's "Trump will never win" are presenting us their equally-brilliant predictions and solutions for the years to come.

Meanwhile, Oxfam has finally found out it had "over-valued the assets" of the poorest 50% on Earth, and that their wealth is actually matched by the richest eight people on Earth (not the richest 50, or 60, or whatever figure they had previously pulled out of their colons). I'm looking forward to the day when they reach the logical conclusion that drawing a so-called poverty line at an arbitrary value (say, $5/month) doesn't mean people earning above that line (e.g., $15/month) are no longer poor. Maybe then we can lay to rest that lovely theory that "capitalism" and "globalization" lifted 99.999999999999% of people off "poverty" in Asia.

And here in Europe, the talk is suddenly about "standing together" against the greatest attack Europe has faced since WWII. Standing together... it should be a piece of cake, given how Europe has "stood together" in the recent past:

1. A group of countries (e.g., Ireland, Holland, Luxembourg) and pseudo-countries (e.g., Lichtenstein) rob other countries of their tax income and enable tax-evading schemes, not to mention actual money laundering. The only thing on which they "stand together" is their "principle" of getting as much money as possible, regardless of its origin.

2. Germany keeps a superavit, against the EU rules, and gets no sanction for it.

3. France breaks the deficit rule, and there's not even talks about sanctions because "it's France".

I won't go again into the details of how countries like Greece and Portugal were treated, all to save mostly German banks. Greece was a particular egregious case, because all their "sins" (e.g., the 14th month-salary) were committed out in the open, and a significant part of the money was spent in business with Germany (e.g., the submarines).

I'll finish with my highlight of the past few months, what I consider to be the most ironic moment of all:

Virtue-signalling, "hard-working" countries (like Germany, Holland, Sweden, et al), that have spent these past few years telling us "lazy southerner bastards" that we have to pull our weight in the EU, getting all indignant when the US says they have to pull their weight in NATO. For the record, so do we, but we don't pretend to be more virtuous than anyone else.

Yes, I know, I'm repeating myself. But that's what you get when you write about people whose tiny little brains do not allow them to learn from their mistakes.

Actually, that's why I've written less here. I start writing, and I find myself repeating the same things I've already written, because these "best-of-the-best" elites keep repeating the same mistakes.