Like Maria Said Paz: Jefferson Airplane, women and love

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Jefferson Airplane, women and love

Jefferson Airplane's "We Can Be Together."

We can be together
Ah you and me
We should be together

We are all outlaws in the eyes of America
In order to survive we steal cheat lie forge fred hide and deal
We are obscene lawless hideous dangerous dirty violent and young
But we should be together
Come on all you people standing around
Our life's too fine to let it die
We can be together

All your private property is target for your enemy
And your enemy
Is we
Da da da da da da da da da
Da da da da da da da da da
We are forces of chaos and anarchy
Everything they say we are we are
And we are very
Proud of ourselves

Up against the wall
Up against the wall fred (motherfucker)
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls

Come on now together
Get it on together
Everybody together
We should be together
We should be together my friends
We can be together
We will be

We must begin here and now
A new continent of earth and fire
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls
Won't you try

The late Paul Kantner wrote the song. It's from Jefferson Airplane's 1969 album VOLUNTEERS which is one of their great albums, right up there with SURREALISTIC PILLOW and CROWN OF CREATION. For more on music, be sure to check out Kat's "Kat's Korner: Joss Stone and Judy Collins crash and burn."

"TV: History betrayed, common sense assaulted" (Ava and C.I., THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW):

As Women's History Month winds down, we're not seeing a lot to point to without laughter from the streaming services. AMAZON is offering NINE TO FIVE ($3.99 rental, $4.99 purchase). Patricia Resnick came up with the story idea and co-wrote the script with director Colin Higgens. Jane Fonda produced the film with then-business partner Bruce Gilbert. Dolly Parton wrote and sang the theme song. And the film starred Jane, Dolly and Lily Tomlin as working women oppressed by the work force system who get a chance to implement the changes that they and many other women would put forward (including on-site daycare and flex schedules). So at least that had some sense of history and power.

But too much of it was just misguided.

Take the awful limited series THE PRINCIPLES OF PLEASURE which NETFLIX just started offering. Using the theme of 'sex,' it did briefly skyrocket into NETFLIX's top ten -- and, then people watched and it quickly fell out. But, hey, it made it higher than THE ANDY WARHOL DIARIES. People want to watch sex, apparently. At least until they see how badly it's pulled off.

Former MTV vee jay Niharika Desai doesn't have a lot on her cv ao having directed this series probably won't help her out too much since it's both dull and meaningless. Michelle Buteau does a fine job hosting the three episodes. But there's just nothing there.

The series wants to address -- or says it does -- the "orgasm gap." No, not up there with pay equity or the second shift so many women put in each day -- the unpaid second shift of work where they not only have to work outside the home but then come home and work some more -- childcare, cooking, cleaning, what have you. It's not addressing rape. It's not addressing anything.

Michelle is a very funny comedian. It's a shame she wasn't allowed to cut loose.

We'd love to hear her let rip about the so-called "orgasm gap" that supposedly finds "no one orgasms as much as the straight male." Really? Even more than two gay males in a relationship?

Men may orgasm more (they may not) because of the fact that they start beating off long before their bodies are able to produce cum. They're forever touching themselves. We're not knocking it, we're not making fun of them, we're just noting reality.

Our "orgasm gap," if it exists, is due to socialization, to be sure. It's also about our bodies. If a woman is excited and engages in sex -- solo, in a duo, in a group scene -- she may or she may not orgasm. The bodies are set up differently. The male? If the penis goes hard and begins thrusting, it's going to reach orgasm unless a fire breaks out in the bedroom forcing a speedy evacuation.

Some men (and a few women) also have no clue as to how to get a woman off. None whatsoever. And that's an issue.

But these aren't huge issues. In the end, we need to all be responsible for our own bodies. And we may be doing something tantric -- delaying release -- and that's okay too.

It's not an issue that needed a documentary.

Not the way that love needs one. It would be great if the streamers could do something for girls and women about love in Women's History Month. This is not our saying, "Women prefer love to sex." That's not true of all women.

But we don't do crazy things for sex in most cases while we do really crazy things when we think we're in love -- think we're in love -- often we're not.

That is a huge chunk of their essay but it's hard to whittle it down. I really love what they wrote this week.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Monday, Marcb 28, 2022. Hollywood celebrates and elevates a homophobe while LGBTQs in Iraq remain targeted.

Let's start with the Academy Awards. "What about the suffering of the Iraqi people" went up last night and per those attending three after parties last night, I buried the lead.

A 53-year0old man went onstage and physically assaulted a comedian in the midst of a live broadcast Some are making jokes -- like how Judi Dench and Helen Mirren will show up surrounded by bodyguards prepared to throw down. A director -- who's African-American and insisted that made the remark not racist --p=put it bluntly, "It's the Academy Awards not The Source Awards." Others felt Jada needed to put her sub-cuck on a leash when she takes him out in public since he can't control himmself.

It shouldn't have to be said but it apparently does: Your wife being a joke in a sereis of one liners does not require your comment. If you want to comment, you can say it after the ceremony. To interrupt a live ceremony is appallling and to do so with your hands is outrageous.

"Never in the history of the Acadmy" was the phrase I kept hearing. Over and over. (Which is why so many insisted I buried the lead in last night's post.) It was outrageous and I noted it. (I did not disclose that I knew Chris Rock -- the man Little Willie Smith attacked -- and that I consider Chris a friend. Little Willie's tantrum was not the focus of the post and I didn't think it needed to be noted. Little Cuck Willie is now the focus and I am disclosing regarding Chris Rock.)

This was the 94th annual Academy Awards and never before has this happened.

Will Smith's actions were outrageous and he needs to apologize for them.

He disgraced himself but who cares about that? He's a half-assed actor who can't deliver at the box office anymore and he did serious damage to himself within the industry last night. But this is a disgrace to the industry and not the face we try to present to the world. It was also offensive in that a middle-aged man resorted to violence when he was unhappy with a joke. And he did it on an awards show, he did it on a show that's supposed to celebrate the best of the industry.

His garbage should have him run out of the industry.

He won the award on the same night, Best Actor.

It's the least important actng award the Academy gives out. And it was obvious he was going to win it two weeks ago which is why Ava and I noted:

Excellence isn't rewarded. It's certainly not rewarded at the Academy Awards. The only exceptions being Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress in a good year. The statues are not handed out to the deserving. Men -- in both male actor categories -- win because Academy members liked the films they were in and because the Academy thinks it makes them look good. That's why there are so few memorable performances among the winners for Best Actor.

Anthony Hopkins for his performance in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is a rare win. More often it's pedestrian performances in pedestrian films that the Academy thinks hugging will make them look good.

Actors win Academy awards are winning based upon what Academy members feel about the film they appeared in.

Women win for acting. They have to go all out, most years. While men can be stoic (stiff) onscreen but still win.

Bette Davis, Jane Fonda, women like that have to really deliver. They have to dig deep and serve it up onscreen.

If you doubt it, think about Sally Kirkland. ANNA (1987) was one of the worst films ever. But Sally did deliver in it and she got a Best Actress nomination. You won't catch any actor -- even if he delivers -- from a third-rate, C-picture getting nominated. And actors are rarely asked to deliver any real range when being handed an Academy Award. Think about that when they're handing out Oscars at the end of the month.

And think about the fact that when a woman wins she has delivered. If she wins twice -- for example, Jane Fonda, Bette Davis, Jessica Lange, Hillary Swank, Olivia de Havillind, etc -- then she's really something. That list would include Renée Zellweger

He played a dad that the industry wanted to glorify. He gave a lousy performance. An Academy Award winning actress insisted to me that he was "overdue" for the award. And the homophobia that he's displayed for years? "It's not important." Really? Then why don't you say it publily. Say that publicly. You've got one foot in the grave and will be dead before the 2020s draw to a close. Say it. Your career is over. Say it. And grasp that the minute you say it out loud, your death does not mean people say, "Oh, too bad. I really liked her." No, instead, they say, "THat ______. F((k her and may she rot in hell."

She was one of those whining a few years back that Will hadn't been nominated. This is a very obvious blind item, you should be able to figure her out and maybe then grasp that those idiots who are applauding her for pro-gay statements in the 70s need to stop praising her.

It was more important, she insisted, that Will win because of his race than that Will be held accountable for his homophobia.

She doesn't agree now. She was loudly called out at a party last night when she barged into a conversation a group of us were having and she tried to 'correct' me. She was told she was a dumb bitch -- kind of agree right now -- and that some of us actually have an education -- true -- so maybe she should just shut her damn mouth. Hmm.

I see she took the message to heart because she hasn't Tweeted her congrats to Will or, honestly, anything at all. And she loves her Twitter. But maybe she's thinking this week's big event won't have the turnout she needs if she's promoting a homophobe?

I hae no idea.

But before the ceremony started last night, a line had already been drawn in the industry between those of us who support equality and those who support homophobia.

Supporitng Will is supporting homophobia. He has never apologized for all of his As Ava and I wrote in February:

Self-hatred's long been used to overlook the homophobia of some actors -- Will Smith, rumors insist, is gay. We really don't care if he's gay or straight or bi, we just think he owes everyone a public apology.

ZOOM and the pandemic have meant that we do our various conversations over the internet. No more are we able to go onto campuses or into union halls or whatever. We miss the face to face, honestly. But what we have on the plus side, the up -- as Mike would say, is that we've been able to expand the groups we speak to since we aren't traveling. And one of the groups we've added a lot more of is LGBTQ groups.

Things are better for young LGBTQs than they were for previous generations but things are still not where they should be. As we've enlarged the scope of our groups, a friend who is a therapist asked if we'd mind speaking with her group. They were nine gay men, in their forties, who basically did not feel listened by society or represented in the media. Would we speak to them? Being told that, we were dying to speak to them. And we were not disappointed.

There's a story that's not really told and they brought it to the forefront (as have other gay male groups we've spoken to since). We thank them for that. Like them, we marvel over how this part of the story really isn't told.

Being gay is easier than it used to be. 20 years ago, or even just ten in some places, there was so much harassment. We have honestly advised men who've shared their experiences to consider filing lawsuits. And we're not joking and we're not litigious people.

Films and TV shows thought they were being 'sympathetic' and true telling of the gay kid in school who got picked on by some bully. That's the story we've heard rejected over and over for the last five months from many different groups of gay men.

No, what we've heard is about how the whole school system was after you. That was the bully, yes. And there was usually a coach -- at least one -- and a principal egging them on. Adults were around and they not only were not protecting these children, they were actively participating in harassing them.

And it was accepted back then. It was 'normal.' That's in part due to a point we've made here forever: the socialization of males by this society is one of bullying. Toughen up, don't cry. You can see it, as we've often noted, in two films from the 80s. In both, two characters join the military and are treated horribly. In the one about the male, AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN, Richard Gere is harassed by his drill sergeant (Louis Gossett Jr.) and, instead of rejecting that harassment, we are supposed to applaud it and feel all warm inside. In the other, PRIVATE BENJAMIN, Goldie Hawn and her team get their revenge on the harasser (Eileen Brennan). The male socialization is bullying in this society. That's not acceptable (even with the well known existence of 'mean girls') when it comes to females.

So sometimes, a gay man will offer that maybe the principal was trying to help him by bullying him, by mocking him in front of other students, by sneering at him and calling him a "fairy" and worse in front of the whole school assembly.

We say f**k that. We say sue those assholes. And what about statute of limitations? Who cares. File the paperwork, have it thrown of court as a result of being beyond some time limit. But in between the those two moments, let that elderly abuser know that the world knows what he or she did. And let them sweat it and let them be haunted by it.

They have made no effort to find these former children and apologize to them. So f**k them. To lead a school into targeting a young boy because he's gay? You were an adult. There's no excuse for what you did. And if the court of law can't put you on notice, the court of public opinion certainly can.

NETFLIX is offering AMEND: THE FIGHT FOR AMERICA -- a documentary series. Episode five is "Love." Yes, what the world needs now. Professor Martha S. Jones talks about the impact of LOVING V VIRGINIA -- a breakthrough case that especially impacted her life because her mixed race parents married years before the verdict in LOVING.

This landmark case gets far less attention than it deserves. We've noted it many times such as in 2008:

Loving v. Virginia was a breakthrough, a legal landmark, for the United States. In a debate, Barack Obama was asked, "Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?" Obama mouthed a lot of nonsense about 'equality' and then went on to state it's a decision for different denominations to make. There should have been a gasp heard round the country.

Barack is a lawyer, a trained legal mind. Though we find it difficult to believe he's never studied Loving v. Viriginia (as difficult to believe as Clarence Thomas' Senate testimony that he'd never thought about Roe v. Wade), we'll allow that maybe it fell into some gap in his education. But as a trained legal mind, he does grasp court billing. "v. Virginia" means versus state. Not versus a denomination.

In that historic case, the Supreme Court of the United States found the laws of the state of Virginia to be unconstitutional and illegal. That finding meant that all states could no longer refuse to issue marriage certificates to couples of different races. Obama's weak-ass response should have been considered weak ass. (John Edwards also embarrassed himself in that debate noting he was against "gay marriage" and "I do not" support it leading us to shout back at the screen, "Gee, John, we weren't aware you were being inundated with proposals!") But it was also dishonest. A law student, forget the former president of the Harvard Law Review, grasps that Loving v. Virginia was not about whether "denominations" could make a decision, it was about what the government could do. To provide perspective, imagine the issue was illegal search and seizure on the part of the government (forbidden by the Constitution) and Obama had responded, "I think it's up to denominations." The government was discriminating and the Supreme Court stood up for the rights of all. A trained legal mind should grasp that. If Obama didn't, he's either not much of a student or he's a really bad liar.

It's good that the episode starts off with LOVING because that is at the root of equality. And other cases are cited including LAWRENCE v TEXAS and the appalling BOWERS v HARDWICK. Episode five revolves around the importance of The Fourteenth Amendment and how its importance and relevance leads to the historic OBERGEFELL v HODGES.

We applaud much about the documentary but episode five, for all of its applause, also has to answer for something.

Will Smith produced the series. And probably should have stayed off camera. Why doesn't Will have an Oscar. Well, Jada, it's partly because he's not really an actor -- don't confuse stardom with acting ability -- but it's also because of his hateful past which includes a lot of homophobia and Academy voters just don't embrace hatred and intolerance.

In episode five, Will declares of Cincinnati in the 70s, "The message to its LGBTQ citizens is be quiet, stay hidden or get out." Will, could of course, admit that his message to the LGBTQ citizens has been be quiet, stay hidden, get out or be mocked and demonized.

That is what he has done.

Some try to argue that he's gay or bi in real life. He presents as straight. Take him at his word. But even if he were choking a cock every night, that doesn't justify the damage he has done.

Early on, he told MOVIELINE that the reason he wouldn't kiss Anthony Michael Hall in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION -- as required in the script and has had happened when it was a stage production without Will Smith -- was because Denzel Washington told him not to.

Did Denzel tell him that?

We have no idea. And the reason we have no idea is because Denzel, a movie star for decades, didn't go public. If he was against gay people or playing one or whatever, he had the brains not to say so publicly.

Will didn't. And this is throughout his career.

Is he homophobic, we wanna know.

How can we tell what's in his soul?

It's in his recordings: "All the filthy stinking nasty people be quiet. All the homeboys that got AIDS be quiet. All the girls out there that don't like guys be quiet." It's in his films -- such as HANCOCK, and BAD BOYS 2. It's in his red carpet encounters.**

Will gave interviews about how ''gross'' two men kissing were. He's done that since, 1991.

We can't tell what's in his soul, we can only register the meaning of his statements and his actions.

Now he just wants to act like it never happened? Like decades of homophobia from a one-time action-movie star didn't have an impact:?

His comments egged on others as much as any teacher or principal at a school.

He needs to publicly apologize. It's that simple.

That's whoo the Academy elected to honor last night. And before he even got handed the award, he'd proven all of us opposed to be accurate. He is an embarrassment.

His actions were outrageous. His toxic behavior is not going to fade away. It is part of his legacy forever more.

It was a disgraceful moment when Will interrupted a live brodcast to physically attack Chris Rock. But it's what all of us warned you about. He's trash. And you don't give trash awards.

The good news is that his stunt resulted in mass revulsion within the industry. He should have been held accountable for his homophobia. Instead, he'll be held accountable for being low class and having no manners. Whatever hurts a homophobe? I'll take it as a win. Gladly.

PINK NEWS notes:

LGBT+ people in Iraq are being hunted, abducted, tortured, raped and murdered by armed groups, including police and security forces, according to a new report.

The report from Human Rights Watch, supported by Iraqi LGBT+ rights group IraQueer, included 54 interviews with LGBT+ Iraqi people, as well as with six witnesses to killings and abductions by armed groups of LGBT+ people.

According to the report, attacks on LGBT+ people were committed by police, government security forces, and state-sponsored armed groups dedicated to hunting down and attacking queer Iraqis.

Of the 54 people interviewed, the report recorded eight cases of abductions, eight cases of attempted murder, four extrajudicial killings, 27 cases of sexual violence —including gang rape — 45 cases of threats to rape and kill, and 42 cases of online targeting by individuals who identified themselves as members of armed groups against LGBT+ people in Iraq.

The need to call out homophobia is greater than ever before. And if you don't grasp that, it's because you're too busy 'caring' about (lip service) whatever the corporate news tells you to care about. Generally speaking, when it's something saturated on corporate news, it's not really anything in need of amplifying. MIDDLE EAST EYE notes:

One 31-year-old Iraqi transgender woman told HRW and IraQueer that she was returning home from work last February when six men in a Hummer stopped her next to a rubbish tip in Baghdad. “They pulled out a razor blade and a screwdriver and poked and cut me all over, especially my ass, crotch, and thighs,” she said.

“They sliced me up and poured around five litres of gasoline all over my body and face and set me alight.”

A 27-year-old gay man from the capital described how he watched four men from an armed group torture his boyfriend in May 2020.

“Then they shot him five times,” he said.

The 54 LGBTQ+ people interviewed said that while they were in detention they were routinely denied food, water, medical care and access to their families.

Colin Stewart (76 CRIMES) notes:

One 27-year-old gay man from Baghdad described how his boyfriend was tortured by four members of an armed group in front of him in May 2020. “Then they shot him five times,” he said.

In eight cases, abuses by armed groups and police, including arbitrary arrest and sexual harassment, were against children as young as 15. Many of those attacked were able to identify the armed group responsible. The groups implicated in the most serious abuses are Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq, Atabat Mobilization, Badr Organization, Kata’ib Hezbollah, Raba Allah Group, and Saraya al-Salam.

The people interviewed described arrests and routine violence from security officials, who verbally and physically assault them, and arbitrarily arrest and detain them, often without a legal basis.

LGBT people reported abuses during detention including being denied food and water, or the right to contact a lawyer or family members, or get medical care. They said the police sexually assaulted them and physically abused them and forced them to sign pledges stating that they had not been abused.

Last night, the Academy had the chance to do the right thing and not shake hands with homophobia. They didn't do the right thing. And the man they awarded made a mockery of the ceremony and disgraced himself and the Academy. Excuse me, if I don't shed tears for the industry. It got exactly the disrespect it deserved. Here's hoping the ratings were very low.

Let's wind down with Cindy Sheehan on THE BITTER TRUTH.

Kat's "Kat's Korner: Joss Stone and Judy Collins crash and burn" went up Sunday morning. The following sites updated:

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, March 24, 2022. About the only good world news today, Mad Maddie Albright remains dead.

Apparently something needs clarification. It's up here before -- many times over. But some whiners to the public e-mail account insist that 'poor' Mad Maddie Albright was done wrong by me yesterday in the snapshot. If so, I'm fine with that. I don't give a damn about her. But I'm not sure that she was done wrong. 18 years this iste has been up. 16 years, I've wanted to wind it donw.

Can't.

Because pretty much everyone walked away from the Iraq War -- the western press certainly did. The same whores who helped sell the Iraq War.

Bloggers pretended to care. Panhandle Media -- send money! send money! -- pretended to care. Congress pretended to care. All those people were apparently pretending.

I think they were suprised, politicians -- for example, by how strong the mood was against the Iraq War. But they saw it as a way to win eletions so they pretended to give a damn. When REupblicancs controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, the illegal war was wrong and must end immediately.

Then Democrats were put in charge of Congress (both houses in the November 2006 elections) and then the Congress and the White House (November 2008 elections) and wtihdrawing all US forces became a forgotten cry.

All the fake asses went away. Someone -- maybe Fiorella Isabel on THE CONVO COUCH -- this wee,k made the point that certain Republicans look ridiculous when they start saying that these generic centerist Democratsin Congress are "Communists." And I agree and get that point 100% but it's also true that Leslie Cagan is a Communist and she did everything she could to elect Democrats. She wasn't, it turned out, at all concerned about the Iraq War. She just grandstanded on that to drum up votes for the Democratic Party. That's why she and her group United For Peace and Justice immediately folded up their tent days after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008. The war hadn't ended. The media wasn't even pretending that it had at that point. But there was Leslie shutting down her cong game. While it's ridiculous to think Nancy Pelosi, for exmaple, might be a Communist, as some Republicans do, it's equally ridiculous that some Communists in American dedicate their lives to whoring and diverting for the Democratic Party.

If Leslie dies while this site is active? We'll probably remember her about as 'nicely' as we did Mad Maddie.

Because this iste isn't about Amerrican crooks and con artists. From the start, we've tried to highlight the Iraqi people. And you, an American (idiot/) might feel that Mad Maddie got treated unfairly with words I offered yesterday. However, the Iraqi children who suffered under sanctions -- many of whom died -- had to endure a lot more than mere words and for a lot longer than one day.

Children suffered because of Mad Maddie Albright. Some died. Some started off life with a struggle that she imposed.

We weren't the only ones noting the truth about Mad Maddie. But because enough people in the US were telling the truth, western media wasn't able to do their usual photo-shopping of the truth. Mad Maddie will probably still get her week of tributes that all crooks in the US political class get but NEWSWEEK and others are being forced to note that she was very proud of her part in the murder of Iraqi children via crippling sanctions.

As for your prayers you'll offer for my soul? I think we can probably all use some prayers, thank you. But I also think if you're torn and upset over the death of an 84-year-old woman who bragged that the death of at least 500,000 children was "worth it," someone whom even Colin Powell had to admonish (the US military is not a toy), someone who partenred with The Baker Group in 2004 to skim off millions from Iraq, then you're either a saint who cries for the death of each and every person or else you're priorities are incredibly screwed.

Here's Mad Maddie.

The Iraqi people suffered and continue to suffer. Mad Maddie is noted by Patrick Martin (WSWS) but he notes it's impossible to review her entire rap sheet:

Even more significantly, Albright became chair of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) in 2001 and held that position until her death. The NDI is an arm of the capitalist state, CIA-financed to promote pro-imperialist political forces and to subvert any radical or oppositionist trend that might threaten US corporate interests in countries around the world.

In that capacity, Albright was deeply involved in every crime of the US military-intelligence apparatus in the first two decades of the 21st century, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Ukraine. The celebration of her life and work by the corporate media, and by Democratic and Republican politicians alike, is a demonstration of the bipartisan consensus that anything goes, no matter how undemocratic and bloody, in the defense of the profits and worldwide global interests of the American financial aristocracy.

Let's stay with garbage for a moment more. From Albright to another American who needs to buy a damn clue: Little Sammy P.N. Cook who is 'ceo' of his own sandbox entitled SanityDesk. He's surfaced online to inform the world that Urkaine, which he just left, is worse than it was in Iraq.

Really?

Little Sammy Junior, you were with the US military in Iraq. It was probably a lot easier for you -- for anyone -- in Iraq with the US military than it is for anyone in Ukraine. But don't confuse you entering that contury armed and with other people who were also armed with what it was like -- what it still is like -- for an Iraqi in Iraq. You reek of entitlement and of stupditiy. You really should learn to measure your remarks when you're trying to create yourself as someone smart enough to offer analysis. The Iraq war didnt make you an expert on anything and you're the one who is constantly proving that fact.

You need the press and 'experts' like Little Sammy to sell your wars. At BLACK AGENDA REPORT, Jacqueline Luqman explains:

A “newspaper of record” is a major newspaper with a large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative. In this country, that newspaper has been the New York Times. It is believed that librarians began to refer to The New York Times (NYT) as the “newspaper of record” in 1913 when it became the first U.S. newspaper to publish an index of the subjects covered in its pages. Regardless of how it became known as the authoritative source for editorial and news content, it is time that we stop calling the NYT the “newspaper of record” now, especially during this conflict in Ukraine.

The NYT’s March 18th digital headline reads: “130 Rescued from Mariupol Theater, Official Says.” Beyond the headline and under the section, “Here are the latest developments in Ukraine,” more details are provided:

“At least 130 survivors have escaped the ruins of a theater that was nearly leveled in a Russian attack in the embattled southern city of Mariupol, a Ukrainian official said on Friday, but hundreds remained unaccounted for in the wreckage. The city was one of the many under withering missile bombardment across Ukraine as Ukrainian forces continued to frustrate Russian troop advances.”

There is more in this section about the millions escaping Ukraine and the “withering Russian attacks” on the theater. But there is not one word about the neo-Nazis which, in the case of the city of Mariupol and that theater, is a very important part of the story. In fact, the Azov Batallion , an openly Nazi paramilitary group that was consolidated in 2014 to fight against “pro-Russian separatists,” captured the city of Mariupol in 2014. To be clear, those designated “pro-Russian separatists” are the people who, in protest of the US-backed fascist coup in 2014 and in demand of their democratic rights, voted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin the Russian Federation.

It is true that we focus a lot on the neo-Nazis in this conflict. It is not because they are the only and major problem in the conflict. But the lack of reporting on them in US media is disturbing. Aren’t Nazis supposed to be the bad guys? You would think it would be easy for journalists of such a “reputable” publication such as the New York Times to report on the neo-Nazis who took over and now control the city of Mariupol. But no.

Even The Guardian - the British newspaper of note, with at least some standing - reported on the fascists controlling Mariupol back in September 2014 . The reporter focused the article on individual members of the battalion, particularly one man named Dmitry ( not his real name) who is quoted at the beginning of the article saying, “I have nothing against Russian nationalists or a great Russia, But Putin's not even a Russian. Putin's a Jew." The article continues:

“...there is an increasing worry that while the Azov and other volunteer battalions might be Ukraine's most potent and reliable force on the battlefield against the separatists, they also pose the most serious threat to the Ukrainian government, and perhaps even the state, when the conflict in the east is over. The Azov causes particular concern due to the far right, even neo-Nazi, leanings of many of its members.”

Actually, the good ol’ USA Today reported on the neoNazi problem in Ukraine, too, back in 2015. They didn’t even use the term “neo-Nazis;” They used “Nazis.” In the article, a drill sergeant named Alex is interviewed. The accompanying picture shows Alex laughing with an Azov Battalion patch on his jacket. Alex, according to the article,

“...admitted that he is a Nazi and said with a laugh that no more than half his comrades are fellow Nazis. He said he supports strong leadership for Ukraine, like Germany during World War II, but opposes the Nazis' genocide against Jews. Minorities should be tolerated as long as they are peaceful and don't demand special privileges, he said, and the property of wealthy oligarchs should be taken away and nationalized. He vowed that when the war ends, his comrades will march on the capital, Kiev, to oust a government they consider corrupt.”

The article, however, goes on to dismiss Russia’s concerns about these Nazis at their border in eastern Ukraine, claiming: Russian media exploit such statements to describe the brigade in this port city in eastern Ukraine as a bunch of thugs who menace the population yet are embraced by Ukraine's national government.” But it is these same Nazis who would go on to wage war against and kill mostly ethnic Russian people for the next 8 years.

It takes a lot of lies to encourage hatred and promote war. You have to promote hate -- all repressive governments grasp that and work towards it. If they can make someone hateful enough -- some outsider -- then they can justify the failures of their own -- the failures to improve the lives of their own citizens. Remember that as US President Joe Biden keeps trying to normalize food shortages. The only response to food shortages in the US is "Vote the bums out." That's reality. We pay millions in tax dollars each year and food shortages? Joe Biden was never up to being president. BAck to the latest war of choice . . . The edtiroial board of WSWS notes:

In a meeting with the US Business Roundtable ahead of the summit, Biden pointed to the long-running plans that are being put into practice.

“You know, we are at an inflection point,” Biden said. “It occurs every three or four generations. As one of the top military people said to me in a secure meeting the other day, 60 million people died between 1900 and 1946.”

He added that “now is a time when things are shifting... There’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it.”

The phrase “New World Order” has a long and bloody provenance.

On September 11, 1990, US President George H.W. Bush gave a speech entitled “Toward a New World Order.” He declared, “The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period.”

As in the present crisis in Ukraine, the United States maneuvered to have Iraq invade a neighboring country to provide a pretext for war plans long in the making. The Gulf War triggered an eruption of US militarism that continued through the wars in Yugoslavia, the “war on terror” and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US overthrow of the Libyan government, and the years-long destabilization campaign against Syria.

Biden’s “New World Order” involves the transition from 30 years of wars and interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, which have killed more than 1 million people, into a conflict targeting Russia and China, which raises the specter of a Third World War waged with nuclear weapons.

The headlines in the capitalist press expose the reckless war mania that has swept over the ruling class, bringing behind it the affluent middle class. “NATO Plans to Ramp Up Forces on Eastern Flank,” blared the New York Times. Another article in the Times stated that “both Russia and the United States have nuclear arms that are much less destructive—their power just fractions of the Hiroshima bomb’s force, their use perhaps less frightening and more thinkable.”

David C. Gompert, a former acting director of national intelligence under the Obama administration, wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that the US “has more survivable, accurate and reliable offensive nuclear forces that could further decimate Russia’s strategic deterrent on the ground. Whatever Russian missiles survive such disarming strikes would be picked off by US missile defense systems.”

The Putin regime, confronted with the failure of its plan for a limited war in Ukraine that was aimed at pressuring NATO to negotiate on its security concerns, is trying to escape the trap into which it was lured by resorting to nuclear saber rattling. The world could face a dystopian crisis that ends in a “big nuclear explosion,” former Russian president and Putin ally Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday.

The interaction of NATO’s recklessness, fueled by a series of intersecting domestic crises, and Russia’s desperation has created an extraordinarily explosive situation.

This dangerous escalation must be opposed through the development of a mass anti-war movement, based on the international working class.

There is a growing movement of workers throughout the world against social inequality and exploitation. The consequences of the war drive are fueling protests and strikes over soaring inflation and mass poverty.

Moving to Iraq . . .

Let's again note this from ARAB WEEKLY:

Partisan and personal loyalties have decided the fate of Iraq's presidency and premiership, despite all previous vows by populist leader Moqtada al-Sadr to base his nominations for leadership posts on the national interest only.

Instead, Iraq seems to be moving away from a system of political quotas to one based on the accommodation of various players, if not indeed, plain nepotism.

Sadr chose to nominate Riber Ahmed, the Kurdistan region’s interior minister and director of the office of party leader Massoud Barzani, for the position of president of the republic. He has also nominated Mohammad Jaafar al-Sadr, one of his cousins, to serve as the country’s prime minister.

Iraqi political analysts said that Sadr, who had claimed to be motivated by a desire to free himself from the yoke of the pro-Iranian Shia Coordination Framework, has fallen under the control of Massoud Barzani and accepted his conditions. These included endorsing the latter’s nominee for the presidency of Iraq, despite the fact that the candidate is virtually unknown to most Iraqis. Moreover, Ahmed will have a hard time filling the shoes of a figure of the stature, connections and overall record of the incumbent Barham Salih.

Analysts said that by agreeing to be swayed by the game of political accommodation and by choosing a relative with no political record nor experience as nominee for prime minister, Sadr has shown he is no different from the rest of the political players who have assumed leadership positions in the country since the 2003 US invasion. His opposition to quotas, nepotism and his advocacy of the “national majority” now ring hollow, they add.

Three days before the appointment of a new president for Iraq, the tripartite alliance (the Sunni Sovereignty Alliance, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Sadrists) announced the formation of the largest bloc in parliament under the banner of “Saving the Country”. The new alliance officially announced the nomination of Riber Ahmed for president and Mohammad Jaafar al-Sadr as prime minister.

To be fair to Moqtdaq, he is backing a choice for prime minister that is different -- since it's hiw own cousin. But nepotisim really wasn't what the Iraqi people were wanting. He could argue back that without nepotism, he'd still be a cleark at an Iranian hotel, hiding out from his many enemies in Iraq.

Today, right now, these events are unfolding. And the western press is too busy selling war on Ukraine to take the time to notice just how awful life is for the Iraqi people and how they have a government that doesn't represent them and doesn't even offer the pretense that it does.

Let's wind down with this from Ajamu Baraka (BLACK AGENDA REPORT)::

Images of burnt flesh from napalm bombs, wounded and dead soldiers, scenes of U.S. soldiers burning the simple huts of Vietnamese villages, eventually turned the public against the war in Vietnam and produced the dreaded affliction, from the ruling class point of view, known as the “Vietnam syndrome.” This collective Post Traumatic Stress Disorder made it impossible for the public to support any foreign military involvement for years.

It took the rulers almost three decades to finally cure the public of this affliction. But the rulers were careful.

The brutal reality of what the U.S. was doing in Afghanistan and Iraq was whitewashed. That is why the images now being brought to the public by the corporate media are so shocking. It has been more than two generations since the U.S. public was exposed to the horrific images of war.

In the 1960s the rulers inadvertently allowed themselves to be undermined by the new television technology that brought the awful reality of imperialist war into the homes of the public. Now, the ruling class operating through its corporate media propaganda arms has been effectively using Ukraine war propaganda, not to increase Anti-war sentiment but to stimulate support for more war!

Incredibly also, the propagandists are pushing a line that essentially says that in the name of “freedom” and supporting Ukraine, the U.S. public should shoulder the sacrifice of higher fuel and food prices. This is on top of the inflation that workers and consumers were already being subjected to coming out of the capitalist covid scandal that devastated millions of workers and the lower stratums of the petit bourgeoisie.

But the war, and now the unfair shouldering of all of the costs of the capitalist crisis of 2008 - 2009, and the impact of covid by the working classes in the U.S., amounts to a capitalist tax. It is levied by the oligarchy on workers to subsidize the defense of the interests of big capital and the conditions that have produced obscene profits, even in the midst of the covid crisis and now, the Ukraine war.

These policies are criminal. While the U.S. continues to pretend that it champions human rights around the world, the failure of the state to protect the fundamental human rights of the citizens and residents in the U.S. is obvious to all, but spoken about by the few, except the Chinese government .

For those who might think that the Chinese criticism of the U.S. is only being driven by politics, and it might be, just a cursory, objective examination of the U.S. state policies over just the last few years reveals a shocking record of systematic human rights abuses that promise to become even more acute as a consequence of the manufactured U.S./NATO war in Ukraine.

The following sites updated: