Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
Thursday, September 10, 2020
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #1106
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Wednesday, September 9, 2020
Prof: 'Nothing wrong with' murder of Trump supporter from a 'moral perspective'
University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis appeared to defend the murder of Aaron "Jay" Danielson, the member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, during recent social unrest in Portland, Oregon.
In 2012, Loomis came under scrutiny after he called for NRA executive Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick" following the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Just weeks later, in January 2013, Loomis said, “I know the central mission of the Republican Party is to have a membership made up entirely of old rural white people."
"He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it"
Now, Loomis is once again under fire after publishing a blog post titled "Why was Michael Reinoehl killed?" Reinoehl is the man suspected of fatally shooting Danielson. Reinoehl was killed as federal authorities tried to arrest him.
“Michael Reinoehl is the guy who killed the fascist in Portland last week. He admitted it and said he was scared the cops would kill him. Well, now the cops have killed him," Loomis wrote in the September 4 blog post.
“I am extremely anti-conspiracy theory. But it’s not a conspiracy theory at this point in time to wonder if the cops simply murdered him. The police is [sic] shot through with fascists from stem to stern. They were openly working with the fascists in Portland, as they were in Kenosha which led to dead protestors," Loomis continued.
In the comment section of the blog post, one reader challenged Loomis by writing, "Erik, he shot and killed a guy," referring to Reinoehl.
Loomis responded by saying, “He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.” He further added that “tactically, that’s a different story. But you could say the same thing about John Brown.”
Loomis furthered compared Reinoehl to Brown who in the 1800s used violence as a means of fighting slavery.
One reader then asked, “What’s so great about assassinating a rando fascist? And in the absence of a sound affirmative justification, it should be easy to envision the drawbacks.”
Loomis was quick to reply with, “What’s so great about assassinating random slaveholders, said liberals to John Brown.”
In a separate comment, Loomis wrote, "the problem with violence is that it usually, though not always, is a bad idea. That I agree with."
Loomis said in another comment, "Yes, sometimes violence is necessary, say to avoid greater physical harm, i.e. self-defense, or to defeat a literal army of fascists who are trying to kill people. But, ideologically, I think the idea that violence is good if it's against our political enemies is a core part of fascism, and so the ideological opposition to that idea should be its opposite - that violence as a general rule is bad, unless the specific context of that situation requires a violent response."
Loomis made headlines Tuesday for another comment he made on Twitter. In response to MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeting, "Trump is objectively pro-Covid," Loomis tweeted "yeah, I mean, once Republicans figured out COVID was going to affect people of color and the poor disproportionately, they stopped caring about doing anything about it."
Yeah, I mean, once Republicans figured out COVID was going to affect people of color and the poor disproportionately, they stopped caring about doing anything about it. twitter.com/chrislhayes/st…
486 people are talking about this
"Also, thanks for the reminder to teach my students this semester just how horribly disgusting the Young Americans for Fascism is and has been since its beginnings in the cesspool of...
The Mostly Peaceful Car Ride Through Dallas...
Newspeak offers us new ways to see historical events.
Embrace this comrades, or else.
New Oscars Standard: Best Picture Contenders Must Be Inclusive To Compete
And the Oscar goes to … inclusion.
In the latest step in its ongoing effort to boost diversity both within its own ranks and across the film industry, on Tuesday the film academy announced new representation standards for films to be eligible to compete for best picture.
Developed over the past few months by a special task force as part of the organization’s Academy Aperture 2025 initiative, the standards encompass both representation onscreen — in the types of stories being told and the actors involved — as well as behind the scenes in the makeup of the crew and in the inclusivity of the companies involved.
To be eligible for best picture, a film must meet at least two standards across four categories: “Onscreen Representation, Themes and Narratives,” “Creative Leadership and Project Team,” “Industry Access and Opportunities” and “Audience Development.”
6 Persistent Myths About Socialism, Debunked
A frightening 70% of millennials say they would back a socialist candidate for office.
Today, we are seeing many socialist ideas gaining traction, such as “free” college tuition, government-run health care, and a guaranteed income even for able-bodied people who don’t work.
While we can blame some of the attraction on socialism’s false promises of fixing every social ill, the indoctrination present in our schools and universities, and members of the media who carry its water, some of the blame lies with us, the older generation.
Too often, we have failed to educate newer generations about socialism, instead leaving it up to others who have a different agenda. In partial reparation, here are six of the more persistent myths debunked.
How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>
1. Socialism has never failed because it has never really been tried.
In truth, socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried for over a century, from the former Soviet Union to the democratic socialism of Israel, India, and Great Britain after World War II to present-day Venezuela.
2. Denmark (or your favorite Scandinavian country) is a prime example that socialism works.
The reality is, Denmark has a free-market economy that produces goods and services that the government then heavily taxes to finance an extensive welfare state. Denmark’s prime minister once told a shocked Washington, D.C., audience: “I would like to make one thing clear … Denmark is a market economy.”
Like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway all rely on free-market capitalism to finance their expansive welfare systems.
3. Socialism is compassionate and caring.
In truth, socialists only care about the collective, not the individual. In Maoist China, children as young as 12 were subject to capital punishment, women were forced to work in coal mines, and workers were harassed with threats of prison if they were late.
4. Socialism places power in the hands of the people.
Actually, true socialism depends upon the dictatorship of a military leader or a political party. Socialist leaders promised to bring down dictators only to replace them with their own Marxist dictatorships in places like China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos.
5. Karl Marx, socialism’s founder, was one of the great thinkers of the 19th century.
Marx was wrong about nearly everything. Nearly 200 years after “The Communist Manifesto,” the nation state has not...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)