Sunday 31 July 2016

Donald Trump to Khizr Khan: I've made sacrifices

Republican presidential nominee suggests Khizr Khan may not have written his speech at the Democratic convention.

Responding to accusations by the father of an American Muslim soldier killed in Iraq that Donald Trump has "sacrificed nothing", the billionaire said he had made many sacrifices, such as employing thousands of people.
KHIZR KHAN SPEECH IN FULL:
Tonight, we are honoured to stand here as the parents of Captain Humayun Khan, and as patriotic American Muslims with undivided loyalty to our country.
Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy - that with hard work and the goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings.
We were blessed to raise our three sons in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams.
Our son, Humayun, had dreams of being a military lawyer. But he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save his fellow soldiers.
Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son "the best of America."
If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims.
He [Trump] disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.
Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the US constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words liberty and equal protection of law.
Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America - you will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.
You have sacrificed nothing and no one.
We can't solve our problems by building walls and sowing division. We are stronger together. And we will keep getting stronger when Hillary Clinton becomes our next President.
Khizr Khan - whose son Humayun was killed at the age of 28 - accused the Republican presidential nominee of vilifying US Muslims, in a steely rebuke that electrified the Democratic party convention on Thursday.
"Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America," Khan said, directly addressing Trump. "You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
Trump, a property mogul and former reality TV star, brushed off Khan's words in an interview on Saturday with ABC News, stating that he thinks he has made "a lot of sacrifices".
"I work very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've had tremendous success. I think I've done a lot," the 70-year-old said.
Humayun Khan was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq as he approached a car packed with explosives. Before enlisting in the army, he had planned to study law at university.
Trump suggested that Clinton's speechwriters penned Khan's emotional address.
"Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it?" Trump said.
"If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say," Trump said, adding that "maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say."
Khan, though, said he wrote the speech with his wife Ghazala, who was standing beside him on stage in Philadelphia.
Among some of Trump's more controversial policy positions has been a call to ban Muslims from entering the United States.
Commenting on this, Khan said in his speech: "If it was up to Donald Trump, he [Humayun] never would have been in America," before challenging the nominee on whether he had read the constitution.
In his response, Trump did not say whether he had.
According to the US Department of Defense, more than 5,800 self-identified Muslims serve in the military.
After Trump's critique, Khan told ABC News: "Running for president is not an entitlement to disrespect Gold Star families and [a] Gold Star mother not realising her pain. Shame on him! Shame on his family! ... He is not worthy of our comments. He has no decency. He is void of decency, he has a dark heart."
His wife Ghazala Khan said: "I am very upset when I heard when he [Trump] said that I didn't say anything. I was in pain. If you were in pain you fight or you don't say anything, I’m not a fighter, I can't fight. So the best thing I do was quiet."
Khizr Khan to Donald Trump: Have you even read the US constitution?
Source: Agencies
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/donald-trump-khizr-khan-sacrifices-160731044932372.html

Pick Your Poison

 



This past week at the Democratic National Shit Show (DNSS), a spin off of UnREAL, Bernie (“I am proud to stand with her”) Sanders watched as his candle was snuffed. The producers, operating the strings, and Bernie, knew he wasn’t “wifey” material. Wifeys are establishment and while Bernie proved to be establishment, he was cast as a revolutionary. Small r.
I need to back up and provide context here. In reality or reality TV,UnREAL is a drama that presents the making of a show within a show. The show within is Everlasting, based on The Bachelor. If you’ve seen The Bachelor or are familiar with it even distantly, you know that contestants compete for affection. Just like political candidates. The prize on Everlasting is love and marriage to a wealthy hunk. The ultimate prize in politics is also muscular: the most powerful man/women in the world, although this job description may beg modification soon due to years of imperialistic plunder draped in American exceptionalism. This course bound to run its course deserves a global-smackdown comeuppance.
Perhaps the planet will suffer a painfully slow death from a diseased ecosystem …. or annihilation, the result of nuclear war.
Anyway, UnREAL is its own little empire. What makes it feel so huge is the diabolical manipulation of Everlasting contestants. The two female leads are narcissists who have “Money Dick Power” inked on their wrists. (A few of the contestants also are narcissists.) Young women who stand no chance of winning are told in whispers that they’ll be chosen. “I know I shouldn’t tell you this but he wants you.” I’m paraphrasing but you get it. When a hopeful isn’t selected, the cameras move in to reveal and illuminate every expression of pain. This makes for higher ratings. So do closet skeletons. Conditions, like bulimia and drug and alcohol addiction, are desirable fodder, traps to be exploited with the expectation of a catfight, an emotional collapse. One woman, tragically denuded, commits suicide. This is unexpected, yet exploited nonetheless.
Like Sanders. Thrown under the bus. This not only was anticipated, it also was preordained, essential to the plot.
Unsurprisingly, the Democratic National Committee conspired. Emails released by WikiLeaks illustrate that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other committee officials demanded the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton (Gasp). Here’s one written by Brad Marshall, chief financial officer of the committee: “Does he [Sanders] believe in a God? He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps.” Marshall’s peeps being Jesus fans.
At the DNSS, Sanders became weepy—feeling the love—yet he didn’t dissolve in sobs of disappointment. At least not on TV. Instead, he encouraged party unity. Everlasting capitulation to neoliberalism.
Clinton, the establishment’s choice, broke the glass ceiling. Her resumé’s replete with breaking. Breaking lives, breaking countries. She, like contestants on Everlasting, has skeletons, many of which are un-closeted. Clinton’s role in the military intervention in Libya is merely one example. Anyone oohing and aahing that she’s the nominee needs reminding of her inhumanity and sociopathic reaction to the anal knife rape and death of Muammar Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died,” she cackled. (I just accessed the graphic video of Qaddafi’s torture and murder and felt sick.)
Clinton’s a narcissist, but then so is Trump.
On Everlasting, those who are sent packing see the light disappear when the suitor blows out their candle or they relinquish their diamond bracelet or don’t receive a necklace. Let’s say the Clinton vs. Trump election is this ceremony and each of us is a suitor. I can’t gift a necklace to either one of these poisons.
Missy Beattie has written for National Public Radio and Nashville Life Magazine. She was an instructor of memoirs writing at Johns Hopkins’ Osher Lifelong Learning Institute in BaltimoreEmail: missybeat@gmail.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/pick-your-poison/

America's Longest War Gets Longer


Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem’s emails.
This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone’s emails and phones across the globe. Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?
Unnamed US ‘intelligence officials’ claimed they had ‘high confidence’ that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem’s emails. These were likely the same officials who had ‘high confidence’ that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary’s slush fund foundation or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.
Except for a small faux pas – a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!
Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.
And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them.
I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.’ What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle?
One thing that that amazed me was the Convention’s lack of attention to America’s longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world’s greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges.
The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.
But the war was far from being `almost won.’ The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.
So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military.
Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?
With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.
This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood.
No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.

http://www.unz.com/emargolis/americas-longest-war-gets-longer/

Whiteness likes control, says bishop

Durban - Whiteness likes control, security, cleanliness and standards, according to KwaZulu-Natal Methodist Bishop, Michael Vorster.
Speaking at the eThekwini Municipality social cohesion summit on Thursday, Vorster “ who is an “eThekwini Living Legend” said that in his experience, non-racialism was “an illusion, to a great extent”.
Screengrab: eThekwini Living Legend Bishop Michael Vorster. Credit: YOUTUBE
Non-racialism is defined in whiteness, it's about a black person conforming to whiteness. It needs to be defined in blackness; the more dominant milieu needs to be African,” he said.
Vorster said that many suburban churches in eThekwini couldn't be called white anymore as they were “well mixed”, but they do still conform to whiteness and “white ways of doing things”.
He said that whiteness could be summed up in control, and specifically economic control.
“The thinking seems to be that you (blacks) get on with the politics while we (whites) will control the economy, and if you want entrance to this club, you have to bring some kind of political favour.”
He said that unless whites realised that their privilege and power were unsustainable, the country would not make progress.
“I understand why the black consciousness movement won't allow white members, because I understand the white need to control; whites would want to control black consciousness,” he said.
He added that “white activists” could sometimes be “dangerous” because when they speak, people listen. “It seems that black activists are [accused of] asking the wrong questions.”
Vorster said that white privilege was so ingrained that it was difficult to remove, and that perhaps Malcolm X was right when he said that whites were incurable racists.
“That is hard for me.... because as a Christian I believe in redemption and that there is a 'cure' for racism,” he said. Whiteness, he said, was also defined by security.
“If you make a white person feel secure, they will stay in the country. But security cannot exist without justice. If one is in a white suburb, they can afford private security; the police listen and make resources available. Whites then feel safe behind their high walls. In the townships, it's different. Security companies will not go there because they say it is too dangerous,” he said.
He said that as blacks and Indians moved into white suburbs, they embrace control and security.
Another defining factor for whites was cleanliness, he said.
“Very few whites will go into the inner city because they say it is dirty, but don't look at underlying issues like proper service delivery and a lack of resources. If a white enters a black person's home, the first thing they will say is that it is 'very clean'.
“Suburban gardens are pristine, lawns are cut, beautiful roses are all around, but these things are environmentally unfriendly and need pesticides,” he said, adding that the natural grasses and habitats in rural homes were indigenous and environmentally kosher. The last thing defining whiteness, according to Vorster, was “standards”.
He said “attaining standards of excellence” was the new covert racism in the country.
“Some whites are no longer overtly racist, but will use language that implies exactly the same thing as overt racism,” he said.
“The message here is that if blacks enter our schools, for example, the standards will drop.”
Using a biblical analogy, Vorster said that it might be that whites wanted to create blacks in their image, according to white issues. He also urged those at the conference to “get rid” of the word equality.
“We need equity, not equality. Equity speaks about justice,” he said.

Tom Woods on War

 

Posted on
The Mises Institute‘s Tom Woods explains the economics of empire:





https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2016/07/30/tom-woods-on-war

Silencing America As It Prepares For War

By John Pilger

Returning to the United States in an election year, I am struck by the silence. I have covered four presidential campaigns, starting with 1968; I was with Robert Kennedy when he was shot and I saw his assassin, preparing to kill him. It was a baptism in the American way, along with the salivating violence of the Chicago police at the Democratic Party’s rigged convention.  The great counter revolution had begun.

The first to be assassinated that year, Martin Luther King, had dared link the suffering of African-Americans and the people of Vietnam. When Janis Joplin sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”, she spoke perhaps unconsciously for millions of America’s victims in faraway places.

“We lost 58,000 young soldiers in Vietnam, and they died defending your freedom. Now don’t you forget it.”  So said a National Parks Service guide as I filmed last week at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. He was addressing a school party of young teenagers in bright orange T-shirts. As if by rote, he inverted the truth about Vietnam into an unchallenged lie.

The millions of Vietnamese who died and were maimed and poisoned and dispossessed by the American invasion have no historical place in young minds, not to mention the estimated 60,000 veterans who took their own lives. A friend of mine, a marine who became a paraplegic in Vietnam, was often asked, “Which side did you fight on?”

A few years ago, I attended a popular exhibition called “The Price of Freedom” at the venerable Smithsonian Institution in Washington. The lines of ordinary people, mostly children shuffling through a Santa’s grotto of revisionism, were dispensed a variety of lies: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved “a million lives”; Iraq was “liberated [by] air strikes of unprecedented precision”. The theme was unerringly heroic: only Americans pay the price of freedom.

The 2016 election campaign is remarkable not only for the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders but also for the resilience of an enduring silence about a murderous self-bestowed divinity. A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington’s boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

The breathtaking record of perfidy is so mutated in the public mind, wrote the late Harold Pinter, that it “never happened …Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. It didn’t matter … “. Pinter expressed a mock admiration for what he called “a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

Take Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all over again. He is “cool”. One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.

In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama. He is “modernising” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new “mini” nuclear weapon, whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable”.

James Bradley, the best-selling author of Flags of Our Fathers and son of one of the US marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, said, “[One] great myth we’re seeing play out is that of Obama as some kind of peaceful guy who’s trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. He’s the biggest nuclear warrior there is. He’s committed us to a ruinous course of spending a trillion dollars on more nuclear weapons. Somehow, people live in this fantasy that because he gives vague news conferences and speeches and feel-good photo-ops that somehow that’s attached to actual policy. It isn’t.”

On Obama’s watch, a second cold war is under way. The Russian president is a pantomime villain; the Chinese are not yet back to their sinister pig-tailed caricature – when all Chinese were banned from the United States – but the media warriors are working on it.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders has mentioned any of this. There is no risk and no danger for the United States and all of us. For them, the greatest military build-up on the borders of Russia since World War Two has not happened. On May 11, Romania went “live” with a Nato “missile defence” base that aims its first-strike American missiles at the heart of Russia, the world’s second nuclear power.

In Asia, the Pentagon is sending ships, planes and special forces to the Philippines to threaten China. The US already encircles China with hundreds of military bases that curve in an arc up from Australia, to Asia and across to Afghanistan. Obama calls this a “pivot”.

As a direct consequence, China reportedly has changed its nuclear weapons policy from no-first-use to high alert and put to sea submarines with nuclear weapons. The escalator is quickening.

It was Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State in 2010, elevated the competing territorial claims for rocks and reef in the South China Sea to an international issue; CNN and BBC hysteria followed; China was building airstrips on the disputed islands. In its mammoth war game in 2015, Operation Talisman Sabre, the US practiced “choking” the Straits of Malacca through which pass most of China’s oil and trade. This was not news.

Clinton declared that America had a “national interest” in these Asian waters. The Philippines and Vietnam were encouraged and bribed to pursue their claims and old enmities against China. In America, people are being primed to see any Chinese defensive position as offensive, and so the ground is laid for rapid escalation. A similar strategy of provocation and propaganda is applied to Russia.

Clinton, the “women’s candidate”, leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine – literally, borderland — that Hitler’s Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton’s presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world’s ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close.

Sanders, the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from Clinton in his proprietorial view of the world beyond the United States. He backed Bill Clinton’s illegal bombing of Serbia. He supports Obama’s terrorism by drone, the provocation of Russia and the return of special forces (death squads) to Iraq. He has nothing to say on the drumbeat of threats to China and the accelerating risk of nuclear war. He agrees that Edward Snowden should stand trial and he calls Hugo Chavez – like him, a social democrat – “a dead communist dictator”. He promises to support Clinton if she is nominated.

The election of Trump or Clinton is the old illusion of choice that is no choice: two sides of the same coin. In scapegoating minorities and promising to “make America great again”, Trump is a far right-wing domestic populist; yet the danger of Clinton may be more lethal for the world.

“Only Donald Trump has said anything meaningful and critical of US foreign policy,” wrote Stephen Cohen, emeritus professor of Russian History at Princeton and NYU, one of the few Russia experts in the United States to speak out about the risk of war.

In a radio broadcast, Cohen referred to critical questions Trump alone had raised. Among them: why is the United States “everywhere on the globe”? What is NATO’s true mission? Why does the US always pursue regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine? Why does Washington treat Russia and Vladimir Putin as an enemy?

The hysteria in the liberal media over Trump serves an illusion of “free and open debate” and “democracy at work”. His views on immigrants and Muslims are grotesque, yet the deporter-in-chief  of vulnerable people from America is not Trump but Obama, whose betrayal of people of colour is his legacy: such as the warehousing of a mostly black prison population, now more numerous than Stalin’s gulag.

This presidential campaign may not be about populism but American liberalism, an ideology that sees itself as modern and therefore superior and the one true way. Those on its right wing bear a likeness to 19th century Christian imperialists, with a God-given duty to convert or co-opt or conquer.

In Britain, this is Blairism. The Christian war criminal Tony Blair got away with his secret preparation for the invasion of Iraq largely because the liberal political class and media fell for his “cool Britannia”. In the Guardian, the applause was deafening; he was called “mystical”. A distraction known as identity politics, imported from the United States, rested easily in his care.

History was declared over, class was abolished and gender promoted as feminism; lots of women became New Labour MPs. They voted on the first day of Parliament to cut the benefits of single parents, mostly women, as instructed. A majority voted for an invasion that produced 700,000 Iraqi widows.

The equivalent in the US are the politically correct warmongers on the New York Times, theWashington Post and network TV who dominate political debate. I watched a furious debate on CNN about Trump’s infidelities. It was clear, they said, a man like that could not be trusted in the White House. No issues were raised. Nothing on the 80 per cent of Americans whose income has collapsed to 1970s levels.  Nothing on the drift to war. The received wisdom seems to be “hold your nose” and vote for Clinton: anyone but Trump. That way, you stop the monster and preserve a system gagging for another war.


Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger - http://johnpilger.com/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45196.htm

Constance Wu's Viral Calling Out of Racist Whitewashing for Matt Damon's 'Great Wall'

In 2016, it's time for better representation of diverse actors.

Kali Holloway is a senior writer and the associate editor of media and culture at AlterNet.


If you’re a fan of “Fresh Off the Boat"—the hit ABC show that, despite the fact that we are living in the year 2016, is unique and groundbreaking because it happens to center on an Asian-American family—you may know Constance Wu as the mom character, Jessica Huang. What you should also know is that Wu is very much not feeling Hollywood’s white savior nonsense, erasure of people of color or indefensible racism. A couple of months ago, in an interview with Vulture, Wu basically took the entire film and television industry to task for the pathetic job it does with representation. Throughout the interview, she offers thoughts that are smart, insightful and totally on-point. Seriously, very worth a read.
More recently, Wu took to Twitter to discuss The Great Wall, a new movie that casts Matt Damon in the lead of a story that takes place during the Northern Song dynasty in China. It’s an absurd and insulting casting choice, and a stellar example of whitewashing. Wu pulled not a single punch in her takedown of the film and the thinking that allows it. It’s pure truth, and she is awesome for saying it. 
The original tweet is below, and there’s a transcription beneath, formatted and edited for easy reading.


"We have to stop perpetuating the racist myth that only a white man can save the world. It’s not based in fact. Our heroes don't look like Matt Damon. They look like Malala. Gandhi. Mandela. Your big sister when she stood up for you to those bullies that one time.
"Money is the lamest excuse in the history of being human. So is blaming the Chinese investors. (POC's choices can be based on unconscious bias too.) Remember it's not about blaming individuals, which will only lead to soothing their lame "b-but I had good intentions! but...money!" microaggressive excuses. Rather, it's about pointing out the repeatedly implied racist notion that white people are superior to POC and that POC need salvation from our own color via white strength. When you consistently make movies like this, you ARE saying that. YOU ARE. Yes, YOU ARE. YES YOU ARE. Yes, dude, you fucking ARE. Whether you intend to or not.
"We don't need salvation. We like our color and our culture and our own strengths and our own stories. (If we don't, we should.) We don't need you to save us from anything. And we're rrrreally starting to get sick of you telling us, explicitly or implicitly, that we do.
"Think only a huge movie star can sell a movie? That has NEVER been a total guarantee. Why not TRY to be better? If white actors are forgiven for having a box office failure once in a while, why can't a POC sometimes have one? And how COOL would it be if you were the movie that took the "risk" to make a POC as your hero, and you sold the shit out of it?! The whole community would be celebrating! If nothing else, you’d get some mad respect (which is WAY more valuable than money).
"So MAKE that choice. I know that overcoming your own bias and doing something differently takes balls... Well don’t you WANT balls? Look. I know there are lots of POC who honestly don’t care. Who think I’M being crazy. Well excuse me for caring about the images that little girls see, and what that implies to them about their limitations of possibilities.
"If you were a kid, you should care too. Because we WERE those kids. Why do you think it was so nice to see nerdy white kid have a girl fall in love with him? Because you WERE that nerdy white kid who felt unloved. And seeing pictures of it in Hollywood’s stories made it feel possible. That’s why it moved you, that’s why it was a great story. Hollywood is supposed to be about making great stories. So make them."

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/constance-wus-viral-calling-out-racist-whitewashing-matt-damons-great-wall

Provoking Russia

 


Are the leaders of European member states of NATO planning to follow the example of José Manuel Barroso, who became a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs after his term as president of the European Commission? Were they using the NATO summit to prepare for a career switch as consultants to General Dynamics or some other US arms manufacturer? The suggestion is of course absurd — but hardly less so than their announcement at the July summit in Warsaw that NATO will deploy a new mobile unit of 4,000 troops in Poland or one of the Baltic states — within artillery range of the home base of the Russian fleet in the Baltic, and of St Petersburg.
Russian leaders already felt resentful towards NATO — a cold war organisation that ought to have disappeared with the Soviet Union (1) — for meeting in the city where the Warsaw Pact was signed in 1955 under the aegis of the USSR. The views of US army general Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO’s new commander in Europe, won’t have helped: ‘The command structure has to be agile enough that from peacetime to provocation to conflict … is a natural transition’ (2). NATO also invited Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine — not a member of NATO and in a state of simmering conflict with Russia. Beat that for provocation.
Poroshenko heard President Obama restate his ‘strong support for Ukraine’s efforts to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian aggression.’ So western sanctions against Russia will remain in place ‘until Russia fully meets its obligations under the Minsk agreements’ (3). The US and its allies persist, therefore, in obscuring the role of Ukrainian initiatives in Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, as well as in the lack of progress regarding the Minsk agreements.
Why maintain tension between European states and Russia? One reason could be that it enables the US to prevent any rapprochement between them, and ensures, after Brexit, that its most biddable ally, the UK, remains closely bound to Europe’s military destiny. Germany has also increased its military budget and believes that ‘without a fundamental change in policy, Russia will constitute a challenge to the security of our continent in the foreseeable future’ (4). It’s tempting to say the same of NATO.
The sound of drums on the Russian border has been drowned out by other noises. President Obama had to cut short his European trip after the police shootings in Dallas. François Hollande, in his address on 14 July a few hours before the slaughter in Nice, mentioned his hairdresser’s salary — but not the Warsaw summit, where France agreed to contribute to the troop deployment in Baltic states, bordering Russia.
This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features two or three articles from LMD every month.
Serge Halimi is president of Le Monde diplomatique
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/provoking-russia-3/