#but you blame the people under the boot of the regime instead

[demisexual-dryad]

Okay, as an American studying to become a botanist I’m about to fire shots in every direction. None of you are safe, not even myself, but there are things about this post that have pissed me off to the point of righteous anger.

American chestnut is functionally extinct yes, except for a few remaining colonies, however, that’s not because of most Americans, just as you, previous person, said your issues are not because of most of the British- as Americans relied on chestnuts as a cultural symbol and a food source as they taste arguably better (or so I’m told) than the European chestnuts that were exported to us carrying chestnut blight that killed our chestnuts. Those same stumps ARE STILL TRYING TO SEND OUT SUCKERS, and are STILL DYING BECAUSE OF AN INTRODUCED BLIGHT BY EUROPEAN NEGLIGENCE.

I understand you’re mad at the lack of education on our side, I am as well- the American education system FAILS at teaching botany on a MULTITUDE of ENORMOUS levels, and you and I both know that plant life is the basis of an ecosystem, but don’t you dare think that this means I’m not infuriated by the same from you- I am. I KNOW FOR A FACT that Europe is no better in its failure to find value in botanical studies, and I’m still pissed about it, but I’ve at least seen a few papers about the subject and written a few essays myself, and at least Europe isn’t the near-dead-static radio silence about botany the way America seems to be. But at least know that this is a two way street, and don’t deflect about that shortcoming when we’re both at fault.

The prairies??? That was misguided science and capitalism instilling laziness. We had rules and laws about rewilding areas post mining expeditions and construction, but those were ignored by greedy corps who figured slapping some trees on an area that didn’t have trees before would solve their problem. And the people in charge weren’t ecologists, but government officials who heard in school that trees give us oxygen and are therefore better than grass, and so with being slid a little extra cash, shrugged their shoulders about it and turned a blind eye to the issue because “well it’s just trees” and BOY, AM I MAD ABOUT THAT TOO, but being MAD, and BEING ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT are two very different ball parks, babe.

Then there was climate crisis attention in the nineties, and although the intentions of the campaigns were pure-hearted, they were misleading in the idea that planting trees Willy-nilly would solve our problems, and while yes, trees are larger organisms that need more co2 to grow to max size, and therefore absorb more carbon, not all trees are created equal, and while some non-natives might absorb more CO2 or do better in certain regions, more of the people supplying and planting those invasive trees have no ability, much less a concept of even recognizing the potential for something to become invasive. Another failure of our shitty education system, but we already know it’s shit, so that’s besides the point.

The grasses and monocultures of lawns we have are a direct spawn of English colonialism. Lawns were managed by slaves and considered a sign of wealth- and non-natural ornamental landscapes were seen as a sign of knowledge and skill to tend.

American pioneers and natives didn’t give two shits about those things, and though we aren’t blameless for the slew of invasive ravaging our ecosystems, Britain is no saint in this either. Y’all have a government that fears and respects Its people and their voices; do not squander your opportunity, when here in America, trying to get through to a politician bought out by lobbyists to get off their asses and do something is clearly MUCH HARDER than you all seem to think it is because capitalism is unchecked over here.

You have the science. You have the opportunity. Fight the status quo and take a risk while you have a chance to. Right your wrongs. There’s no excuse to not. At least we make an effort and fight, even though every step forward feels like a step backwards because politicians and public figures here usually have their pockets and offices lined so thick with wads of cash they can’t seem to hear us screaming in the streets. So many organizations out here are all desperately scrounging for donations and support individually to step up where our governing bodies ran like cowardly father figures going out for milk and cigarettes and then simply ignoring the issues we’ve being screeching about like it’s not something young people are mad about on the daily. Also, you lost lynxes??? Reintroduce them. Yes you’re on an island, that doesn’t stop animals, and it hasn’t before. They will adapt so long as you let them. You can fix the damage that’s been done, all it takes is effort and time, and a willingness to take a chance to make a change.

Moreover. You ALSO EAT THOSE STOLEN CROPS.

TOMATOES. CORN. SQUASH. BEANS. TOMATILLOS.

YOU EAT THOSE TOO!

And what about the Cinnamon? The Mace? The nutmeg? The British stole those from the people of India. The tea you’ve monopolized as your own? That’s from China and Japan. You don’t even drink it right. You’re suppose to pour out the first steep according to Chinese tea practices. And they sold it for far cheaper to the British at the time. The wheat? Grains? Ethiopia, that’s from the Fertile Crescent. Your very bread is made of a stolen crop.

Your fruits? All of it, stolen. The Mediterranean originally grew mint, oregano, rosemary, olives, and cabbage.

Do you indulge in chocolate? That was stolen by your Spanish neighbors from the Aztecs and Mayans darling. Chewing gum too.

We didn’t even steal half the crops we grow, imperialism did, so don’t even start there. Many of the natives crops are viable solutions to local food, but guess what? WE DONT FREAKING USE THEM!

You wanna get mad at us for something? Get mad that we don’t use acorn and coontie flour instead of wheat. Get mad that we don’t use elderberries and American cherries in jams as much as we should. Get mad that we haven’t cultivated the pawpaw or Florida plum as much as we should. Get mad that we don’t use sumac, or Kentucky coffee. Get mad that blueberries and cranberries aren’t a main staple in our diets, and because of capitalism-caused food deserts and absurd prices. Get mad that we don’t eat local meats, but farm instead of forage when there’s so much we could be eating to cut back on our waste, but we don’t because humans are prissy and don’t want to put the effort into making things taste good by selective breeding like we did when we were nomadic and still figuring out agriculture. Get mad that we could be eating our way through our kudzu problem in the south, but we aren’t because it’s just not something we do culturally.

Get mad about the things we can be faulted for, because at least we can actually try and control those.

The moral of the story here is we should be fucking mad at the GREED OF THE FEW. At the end of the day, that’s what’s caused us the most problems isn’t it? Instead we sit here and we bicker about who’s worse, instead of making each other better. Like you said, let’s not throw stones at each other from our stupid glass houses, and burn down the people who are actually responsible and have the means to do something but instead choose to do nothing.

Actually your society is the freaks for shooting everything that moves and burning half your "nature reserves" every year so that upperclass dandies can eat leaded pheasant. North Americans are the well adjusted ones here, your country has become a desolate suburban lawn in island form

[eretzyisrael]

To the current crop of campus Jew haters, the Houthis are good guys because they’re slowing global trade in the name of attacking Israel. The civil war the Houthis participated in has destroyed Yemen. The Houthi’s slogan is, “God is great, death to the U.S., death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam.” The average university student chanting “Yemen, Yemen make us proud. Turn another ship around,” is as ignorant of the Houthis as they are of which river and which sea they want free.

South Africa, a country steeped in corruption, in which the rule of law is disintegrating, has become another favorite of Israel/Jew haters due to the ICJ case they brought against Israel. Iran, a country in which human rights are non-existent, where women are arrested if they’re not properly veiled, receives full support from these ersatz human rights advocates.

You do see the pattern here, don’t you? Jews and Israel – bad. Fascist dictatorial regimes – good.

You may or may not care about the current rise in antisemitism. You should. What begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews. A society in which we Jews lose our freedom is one where everyone’s freedoms are curtailed. As antisemitism grows, your world will become more unpleasant. The fascist supporters marching in the streets, accessorized with the requisite terrorist-chic keffiyeh, in support of some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, hate you too. If they can make things miserable enough for Jews and return us to our pre-1948 roles as marginalized scapegoats, they can work on cowing the rest of society into submission. That’s why they are interrupting and disrupting everything Americans enjoy.

Some recent attacks on the American way of life; you are no longer allowed to celebrate Easter. You may not enjoy Christmas either. You may not barbeque or have Fourth of July fireworks. You must burn the American flag instead. Don’t count on a peaceful hospital stay. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; unless it’s a Jewish doctor. Same if you have a Jewish therapist. Your university convocation? It will be defaced. If you’re even allowed to get an education. If you graduate, you can forget a graduation ceremony. Museums are forbidden. Are you a reader? You may only read approved authors. And don’t think being LGBTQIA  will save you. Intersectionality only goes so far. You have no say. Free speech is a fading memory. And by the way, good luck traveling.

You are in their crosshairs. By your failure to be out in the streets screaming for Jewish blood, you are complicit in genocide. You are guilty, and you must be punished. While they can’t put you in a gulag (yet), they can restrict your life’s pleasures until you bow to their tyrannical, fascist demands. They’re organized, and they mean it. In their own words, advertising their April 15th 2024 Coordinated Economic Blockade to Free Palestine: “The global economy is complicit in genocide. Join participating cities in blocking the arteries of capitalism and jamming the wheels of production.”

Notice that they’re not trying to hide their goal. I don’t know how successful they were in “blocking the arteries of capitalism,” but they were noticed, and they will be back next year, still blaming Israel. So, get ready. The strategy is simple; if they push long and hard enough, and blame Israel enough, regular, normal, non-fascist supporting people, will slowly, a bit at a time, give in to their demands, and agree to live under their collective boot, because most of us just want to be left alone to live our lives in peace.

Forget it. First, Israel and the Jews. Then you.

[solinposts]

I interrupt my normal programming of posts about movies, TV shows, art, books and everything I love, to tell you this:

If you’re thinking about sharing something about Venezuela, make sure you have all the facts and not just the Government-approved “facts”.

I get it. It’s difficult. The Venezuelan Government controls almost all the media, and those they don’t control are threatened into silence. So when you Google what’s going on, you’ll find yourself thinking we live in the most wonderful place on Earth. 

We don’t.

Here are nuggets of information that can help you understand:

1- No, what happened is not a coup. Guaidó is using our Constitution -articles 233 and 333- against Maduro, showing him that his illegal means to get things done have, finally, backfired. The figure of “interim President” is completely legal, and has been used by the Government before after an actual coup -but they’ve conveniently forgotten about it!

2- No, Maduro wasn’t elected in a "transparent” election. Prior to it, he: moved the date of the event to benefit him, imprisoned / disabled our main candidates, stole the National Assembly’s faculties -which was composed mostly of the Opposition after a massive popular election, and that pissed him off- and gave it to an illegal alternate Assembly appointed by him and his cabinet -which was supposed to change the Constitution, but later became an institution that could act above the law and responding to no one but themselves-, and changed the members of the Supreme Court and the Electoral Council so they were both composed mostly of -you guessed it!- people in line with his ideas.

Oh! And Smartmatic, the company in charge of those “transparent” elections Maduro-loving foreigners love to talk about so much, admitted the numbers given by the Government in favor of the illegal alternate Assembly had been tampered with.

So, what did the Opposition do? Tried to negotiate and to reinstate a more level ground with certain conditions, he refused and went on to do his election anyway. Which, by the way, had the lowest turnout in recent years, since people refused to participate in his sham.

Did he care?

No.

Now, tell me: after all that, would you have voted in that election, considering that glorious landscape?

Probably not. 

3- The Opposition isn’t perfect. They have done really shitty things and let down their own people over and over again. 

Still, today, we are in the hands of people who are completely inept at doing the only thing we pay them to do: care for their own people and managing our resources fairly. Because, remember: we owe them no loyalty. They’re our employees. The people we pay and trust to handle our resources correctly.

If they can’t do their job and people are suffering, dying and fleeing the country on foot, risking their lives in the process... we are just supposed to just...take it until they’re done screwing us over?

Why do we have to bear the people who have been in control of everything for almost 20 years and given away our oil and resources to Cuba, China and Russia?

Guaidó is a young politician. For many, he represents change, and we not only yearn for it, but we need it.

4- The Government relies on an empty ideological war to keep itself going. It’s easier to tell people that, sure, everything can be blamed on the U.S; instead of holding Government officials accountable for corruption, squandering and failure.

The worst part is: foreigners eat it up! They love the Venezuelan Government although they have never set foot in the country and would never give up their comfortable lives to come here.

These are also the same people who are very concerned about our oil and resources going to the U.S, but conveniently forget that:

a- our Government hates the U.S but has no problem receiving their mighty dollars after selling their oil almost exclusively to them -so the U.S already has most of our oil, darlings!

and b- our Government loves to buy allies like Cuba, Russia and China by giving away our oil and resources to them. But I guess being under the thumb of those countries is perfectly Ok. Good Imperialism, right?

5- No, your country isn’t doing worse than us. Yes, every country has violence and poverty, unfortunately. But let me give you a little list of what we’re going through:

- Famine

- A staggering scarcity of food, medicine, and medical supplies -which, by the way, kills patients in hospitals every day

- A high rate of child mortality, like never before

- Illnesses that had been eradicated are coming back

- An inflation rate around 1300000.00 -yes, that many zeroes!- percent 

- Our technology is mostly outdated, and anything new is unaffordable for a regular citizen

- We have one of the most dangerous capitals of the world, and people abandon the streets as soon as the sun comes down, out of fear

- There’s total impunity since our policemen have no resources -or legal ability, thanks to laws passed by Chavez and company- to actually get things done or protect us

- Suicide rates have skyrocketed in the last few years

- Many schools and businesses have closed because they can’t keep up with the inflation

- A large majority of the youth has left the country

... and I’ll stop there, because I could go on, but I think you can get a pretty good picture just from that.

So no. Things might be bad in your country, but if you go into a store you will probably see aisles properly stocked, and you probably don’t live with the crippling fear of getting sick or killed on the streets for that old cellphone that took months to pay. If anything, you can have hope. Which is something we lost a long time ago.

6- My experience is not less important than what you think you know. I’ve lived here for 27 years, and lived under this regime for almost 20 years of my life. I’ve lost friends, family, people I love. I work three jobs. I never have enough money to save and provide for a better life for my family. My grandmother and mother were middle-class women who worked all of their lives, and still, they have nothing left because we’ve had to use our combined savings to survive in the last 6 years.

My mother and I have cell phones, we need them for our jobs, but we don’t take them out with us anywhere because we know we could get killed for it. So when one of us goes out, the other stays at home praying nothing bad will happen to me/her.

We sold our second-hand car because we couldn’t afford to maintain it, so we depend on our feet and pitiful public transportation to get where we need to go.

We’re afraid of getting sick. And I haven’t had a check-up since 2016 -which was paid by my job at the time.

Still, I’ve had to deal with pro-Maduro foreigners since yesterday -like, for example, Boots Riley-, spouting “facts” at me and dismissing my struggle. Because, I guess, I don’t matter.

So, don’t tell me how the statistics you Googled have convinced you that Venezuela is a wonderful paradise and we all love Maduro. Don’t tell me that my experience contradicts what you think you know, so therefore I’m either lying or unimportant. Keep your Venezuelasplaining to yourself, because I have to actually live it.

So. PSA over!

There’s so much more to say, and so many things to consider...But for now, continue with your lives, and please help educate people outside.

We need it.

[progressivemillennial]

If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability.

The following open letter—signed by 70 scholars on Latin America, political science, and history as well as filmmakers, civil society leaders, and other experts—was issued on Thursday, January 24, 2018 in opposition to ongoing intervention by the United States in Venezuela.

The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government. Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.

Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years. This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.

Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions. These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloffin oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.

Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice. By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides. The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.

The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.

Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.

In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections. There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.

For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.

Signed:

Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, CUNY Mark Healey, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut Gabriel Hetland, Assistant Professor of Latin American, Caribbean and U.S. Latino Studies, University of Albany Forrest Hylton, Associate Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Medellín Daniel James, Bernardo Mendel Chair of Latin American History Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice Daniel Kovalik, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh Winnie Lem, Professor, International Development Studies, Trent University Dr. Gilberto López y Rivas, Professor-Researcher, National University of Anthropology and History, Morelos, Mexico Mary Ann Mahony, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University Jorge Mancini, Vice President, Foundation for Latin American Integration (FILA) Luís Martin-Cabrera, Associate Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies, University of California San Diego Teresa A. Meade, Florence B. Sherwood Professor of History and Culture, Union College Frederick Mills, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University Stephen Morris, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Middle Tennessee State University Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, York University Paul Ortiz, Associate Professor of History, University of Florida Christian Parenti, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, John Jay College CUNY Nicole Phillips, Law Professor at the Université de la Foundation Dr. Aristide Faculté des Sciences Juridiques et Politiques and Adjunct Law Professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law Beatrice Pita, Lecturer, Department of Literature, University of California San Diego Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology Vijay Prashad, Editor, The TriContinental Eleanora Quijada Cervoni FHEA, Staff Education Facilitator & EFS Mentor, Centre for Higher Education, Learning & Teaching at The Australian National University Walter Riley, Attorney and Activist William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara Mary Roldan, Dorothy Epstein Professor of Latin American History, Hunter College/ CUNY Graduate Center Karin Rosemblatt, Professor of History, University of Maryland Emir Sader, Professor of Sociology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro Rosaura Sanchez, Professor of Latin American Literature and Chicano Literature, University of California, San Diego T.M. Scruggs Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa Victor Silverman, Professor of History, Pomona College Brad Simpson, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut Jeb Sprague, Lecturer, University of Virginia Christy Thornton, Assistant Professor of History, Johns Hopkins University Sinclair S. Thomson, Associate Professor of History, New York University Steven Topik, Professor of History, University of California, Irvine Stephen Volk, Professor of History Emeritus, Oberlin College Kirsten Weld, John. L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of History, Harvard University Kevin Young, Assistant Professor of History, University of Massachusetts Amherst Patricio Zamorano, Academic of Latin American Studies; Executive Director, InfoAmericas

[alexsmitposts]

US Coalition Boot Remains on Syria’s Neck We all have heard enough Trump flip-flops on policy to not get too excited about anything reasonable that occasionally comes out of his mouth. Such things are usually an accident, and if not, his NeoCon handlers and Netanyahu will put him back onto the unipolar path to great wealth and power. High hopes were flying in 2018 when the Syrian coalition had finally defeated ISIS militants in the major areas they held while living off the captive populations, except for the Idlib jihadi dumping ground. Add to that the Syrian-Kurdish treachery of taking over traditional Arab lands at the behest of US support, which included grabbing the western oil region in Deir Ezzor. Veterans Today followed all of this daily, including our three trips to Syria, beginning with my first as an election monitor in 2014 where I filed my first on-the-scene warzone report for NEO. Five years later I can confess we are tired of the Syria story, not out of lack of caring, but via the grind of watching the suffering continue for so long without those responsible having to pay a suitable price. That will be my subject for today. Trump’s full Syrian withdrawal announcement was a cruel tease, as the Pentagon was not even included in the decision. It was Trump winging it. The inference was that the troops would be coming home as a reward for a job well done, but the news came quickly that they would really be reassigned “nearby” to Iraq. The US footprint was remaining, and with the boot on Syria’s neck. The NeoCon White House continues to disparage the Assad regime as cruel oppressors, despite Syrians overwhelmingly re-electing him in 2014, in a real election. I know because the international monitor team’s Arabic interpreter, a Canadian Palestinian, and I did the final translation of the election certification from Arabic. I was at the morning meeting with the Syrian election commission people on June 1, and then drove to the Parliament to meet with the Speaker. Both briefed us, and were open to questions for 90 minutes each. The Election commission was new, a response to Western attacks that Syrian elections were always rigged. The most notable thing I can share from that meeting was that to defend against US claims of ballot-box stuffing, arrangements with the opposition parties had been made to have their representatives in all 5000 polling stations with “eyes on” all the ballot boxes until the last one was counted. The election was a real deal. Assad won by a huge majority, similar to the way that Roosevelt was elected to a third term. The Syrian people were not about to change leadership from those who had saved the country from the ISIS/militant slaughtering that had been orchestrated by the US coalition, which would have been followed by the carving up of Syria into a Balkanized group of states with respective special interest puppets in charge. In my many street and polling station interviews that day, I learned that the Syrian people viewed Assad and the Army as one entity, where rejecting Assad would be like rejecting the Army which the Syria people were not about to do. Too much blood had been spilled. If you compare their KIAs to a corresponding percentage of the US population, the number would have been two million. I shocked a press conference one day pointing that out, and then asked the question, what would the US population scream for if we had two million killed in a struggle to Balkanize and take over the country? I answered that it would have nuked whoever the offender was. At the Parliament meeting, the Speaker told us that Syria viewed itself as being in a world war, as it was holding jihadi terrorist PoWs from 65 countries, which most of the world was not aware of at the time. We later learned at VT that a large network had been constructed by the US coalition logistics people to keep a steady stream of jihadis flowing into Syria as cannon fodder for the nasty work to be done there, most all of it fully at the level of “crimes against humanity”. It is still going on. After Trump’s spontaneous claim to pull the US troops out was reversed, we watched a new stain on America’s honor in the continued horrible treatment of the displaced internal Syrians in overcrowded refugee camps, where they were being held as virtual prisoners. When many Syrian refugees were beginning to make plans to return to their homes and help rebuild their country, we could see that the US coalition had decided to disrupt that process. Sure, some began to return, but we found the US wanted to try to make them unhappy with Assad by assuring the sanctions remained to block getting the country back on its feet by blocking the essentials needed to live, much less to rebuild. The US excuse was to claim that the “political process” had to be well on its way before sanctions would be removed, but of course Washington knew it was in a position to block that process via its control over some of the participants. And in one of the cruelest acts of all, the tens of thousands remaining in the huge al-Tanf US stronghold on the Jordan border were blocked from leaving the camp by US officials. There have been some busloads removed in the last two weeks, but people, including children continue to die there, due to the US virtually holding them prisoner. A worse situation exists in northeast Syrian in the Kurdish SDF territory, where a large refugee camp is located near the town of al-Hawl in the eastern al-Hasakah countryside. It was designed for 20,000, but now holds 74,000, including Iraqi refugees that fled fighting from Anbar province in Iraq last year. They are living under appalling conditions, exacerbated by the influx of ISIS family survivors of the ISIS jihadis that held out to the end in Deir Ezzor. Instead of arranging for the care of these families in Deir Ezzor with proper logistics, they have been trucked all the way to northeast Syria, with many dying along the way from wounds suffering from the final month of fighting. Maj. Gen. Kupchishin, Head of the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria, said that Damascus is offering settlement schemes along with security guarantees to displaced Syrians. However, Kurdish forces and the US-led coalition are not cooperating. Imagine that. Why do so few in the West know about these refugee horrors? It is because the US Coalition has had a complete blackout on all independent reporting on its activities inside Syria. When is the last time any of us have seen a Western news crew interview the victims of this cruel treatment? All we generally see are short clips of people being loaded onto trucks, but no personal interviews on what they have been through and who do they blame for their suffering. The continued silence about these crimes only encourages their continuance. Even the new Democrats in Congress have remained quiet about it, as punishing Syrians is an important topic to the Israelis along with the US, who are hoping the Syrian people will eventually blame Assad for it all. But the Syrians are not that stupid. Can they form a Coalition in the Region? The only silver lining is that finally Syria, Iraq and Iran are openly talking about forming a coalition to oppose the divide-and-conquer machinations of the US coalition, which has continued the chaotic conditions of the region and blamed it on Iran, an assertion which no one with half a brain believes. Syria and Iraq have announced plans to open the Qa’im border crossing just south of al-Bakumal in Deir Ezzor province. The US wants to block that opening if possible, as commercial goods, including oil can be trucked into the eastern areas of Syria, while Damascus works on pushing the SDF Kurds out of Deir Ezzor. Assad needs the region’s oil production to help rebuild Syria. I have written NEO articles several times over the last few years about the necessity of Syria, Iraq and Iran forming their own mini-NATO, with a consolidated defense from foreign interference, and have been greatly disappointed to see no progress. Maybe 2019 could be the year to see full independence for Syria and Iraq from their long suffering at the hands of the international criminals that run some of the respective governments, who did their dirty work under cover of immunity from prosecution. If the UN statutes concerning crimes against humanity are not to become a big joke, then the perpetrators of such during the Iraq and Syrian wars will have to be charged in a court, and not just the cannon fodder jihadis, but all those that supported them logistically. There is enough evidence. VT alone has tons of it and is ready to testify, and the sooner the better.

[thisdaynews]

‘I’m the real whistleblower’: Giuliani’s quixotic mission to help Trump in Ukraine

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/im-the-real-whistleblower-giulianis-quixotic-mission-to-help-trump-in-ukraine/

‘I’m the real whistleblower’: Giuliani’s quixotic mission to help Trump in Ukraine

Rudy Giuliani, personal lawyer to President Donald Trump. | Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The scandal unfolding this week in Washington can be traced back to November, when a private investigator approached Rudy Giuliani claiming to have information about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, according to an account provided by the former New York mayor.

Giuliani declined to give POLITICO the name of the investigator but said he was an American citizen, the head of “a very, very large investigative agency,” and a former colleague of Giuliani’s at the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York. Giuliani said the investigator approached him on behalf of a client who wanted to relay damning allegations he had heard.

Giuliani, a personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, also declined to name the investigator’s client, but said he was also a U.S. citizen, and one he had met before. “I actually know the guy vaguely from years ago,” Giuliani said.

The approach, he said, sent Giuliani on a months-long hunt for information from Ukraine that would be damaging to the enemies of his client. That effort culminated on Thursday with the release of a whistleblower’s complaint about those efforts, followed by a furious attempt to discredit the complaint.

“I’m the real whistleblower,” declared Giuliani, who claimed to possess more damaging information and insisted that he, too, should be entitled to whistleblower protections. “If I get killed now,” he warned, “You won’t get the rest of the story.”

The rest of the story goes back even further, to a long-running geopolitical saga and a bureaucratic turf war in Kiev. There, a group of Ukrainian prosecutors with grudges against Western-backed anti-corruption efforts found common cause with a network of President Trump’s allies with a long history of digging up dirt on Democrats.

Over several months, that volatile combination set off a chain reaction that is now roiling both capitals. It threatens to bring about Trump’s impeachment and inflict collateral damage on the presidential campaign of Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden.

Prologue

For years, Ukraine has found itself caught in a tug-of-war between the West, which wants it to embrace the rule of law, liberal democracy and a market economy, and Russia, which wants to reassert dominance over its former imperial possession.

In that contest, the toppling of Russia-aligned President Viktor Yanukovich in February 2014 was a blow to Moscow. It would also create problems for the ousted leader’s American consigliere, Paul Manafort, and for Mykola Zlochevsky, a natural gas baron who had served in his cabinet.

The following month, Moscow responded by annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. Zlochevsky, meanwhile, found himself on the outs with the new regime and facing investigations at home and in the West. In April, he responded by putting Hunter Biden, whose father oversaw U.S. policy in Ukraine, on the board of his natural gas company, Burisma Holdings.

In September 2014, Ukraine’s new president, businessman Petro Poroshenko, came to Washington to appeal for help repelling Russian incursions into eastern Ukraine, which had escalated in August. He warned a joint session of Congress that “blankets [and] night vision goggles are also important. But one cannot win a war with blankets … and cannot keep the peace with blankets.”

In October, as it sought to ingratiate itself with the West, Ukraine established the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, or NABU, pledging to clean up its notoriously dirty political culture.

But while Ukraine’s new leaders were dependent on the West’s military support and eager for access to its rich economies, they did not all share the West’s enthusiasm for rooting out the country’s endemic corruption.

As NABU sought to fulfill its anti-corruption mandate, it found itself clashing with other parts of the bureaucracy, including Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin.

By 2016, Western governments and institutions like the World Bank were fed up with Shokin, who they believed was impeding corruption investigations, including those into Zlochevsky and his firm, Burisma.

After a months-long pressure campaign, it fell to Vice President Joe Biden to seal Shokin’s removal. In a March 2016 trip to Kiev, he told the country’s leaders that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin got the boot. It worked.

Biden spoke on behalf of other Western leaders, and Shokin had in fact been accused of improperly helping Burisma’s owner. But the vice president’s role in the firing while Shokin’s office had an open investigation of a firm whose board his son sat on has raised concerns from ethics experts and become fodder for his critics — chief among them Donald Trump, who told Ukraine’s current president in July, according to the White House record of their conversation, “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

After the Ukrainian parliament accepted Shokin’s resignation, it installed as its top prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, who did not have a law degree but did possess a credential that was more relevant in post-revolution Ukraine: He had been imprisoned under the previous regime.

2016 election

Manafort, who had remade Yanukovich into a slick Western-style politician only to watch his client be overthrown by a popular revolt, had been laying low since Ukraine’s regime change. In March 2016, he resurfaced in the U.S. as a top adviser to Trump’s insurgent primary campaign. Soon attention turned to his work advising foreign despots, including in Ukraine.

In August 2016, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau published the “black ledger,” a document that allegedly recorded illegal off-the-books payments made by Yanukovich’s Russia-backed Party of Regions to its cronies, including millions of dollars to Manafort. A lawyer for Manafort denied he had received “any such cash payments,” but within days he resigned as chairman of Trump’s campaign.

Even after Shokin’s firing, the general prosecutor’s office, under Lutsenko, continued to clash with the anti-corruption bureau.

Also in August, employees of Lutsenko’s office allegedly detained two NABU detectives in a basement for several hours and tortured them, seeking information on NABU’s investigations of Ukrainian prosecutors, according to AntAC, an anti-corruption nonprofit in Kiev that receives funding from the liberal American financier George Soros.

In October 2016, NABU indicted a deputy to Lutsenko, Kostiantyn Kulyk, on corruption charges. Instead of getting fired, Kulyk was promoted.

Payback

Trump’s upset presidential win the next month prompted two reactions in Kiev: Consternation over the government’s role in implicating his campaign chairman and hope that a Trump administration would ease pressure on the government to clean up corruption.

But to the chagrin of Poroshenko’s government the U.S. Embassy in Kiev continued to prioritize corruption.

For this, Ukrainian officials blamed Soros, who finances the watchdog AntAC group, and the U.S. ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, a career diplomat appointed to that post by President Barack Obama.

As investigations of suspected Trump campaign collusion with Russia dominated U.S. politics and led to the imprisonment of Manafort on charges unrelated to collusion, efforts against Yovanovitch ramped up.

Two Florida businessmen from the former Soviet Union, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were donating big money to Republicans while also gunning for Yovanovitch. Around May of 2018, they met with then-Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, telling the Republican congressman that Yovanovitch was disloyal to Trump, according to an investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which found that Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urging her firing on the same day that Parnas posted photos online of a meeting with Sessions.

Around the same time, according to people familiar with the effort, the Ukrainian prosecutors, including Shokin and Lutsenko, were reaching out to U.S. officials, trying to pass them information that they said instead pointed to Ukrainian meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

But the Ukrainian prosecutors were rebuffed in their attempts to reach current and former Justice Department officials, according to Parnas.

“They went through every channel,” Parnas said in an interview. “They were going through official channels. To their frustration they felt like they were getting blocked.”

Kulyk, the Lutsenko deputy, later told the New York Times that Yovanovitch had blocked him from getting a visa to go to the U.S.

In November 2018, Giuliani said, he was approached by the unnamed former colleague who ran an investigative firm. Giuliani began working Fruman and Parnas, and spoke by Skype with Shokin. The former mayor reportedly met with Lutsenko in New York January and in Warsaw in February.

“Giuliani was moving towards these guys because he wanted to be useful for his clients, and they meet in the middle, and they decided to combine efforts, to establish this conspiracy,” said Serhiy Leshchenko, a reform-minded politician and journalist who was instrumental in publicizing the black ledger. “Lutsenko and Kulyk misled Giuliani, and Giuliani was happy to be misled.”

Giuliani, for his part, defended his association with prosecutors accused of corruption, arguing that bribery is widespread in Ukrainian society. “A large number of prosecutors in Ukraine, a lot of them could be considered corrupt,” he said. “I’m not going to tell you that Shokin wasn’t corrupt, that he didn’t take bribes here and there, but he wasn’t good at it.” Giuliani went on to argue that Shokin could not be too corrupt because he is not rich, and said that Shokin has gone into hiding.

In early March, Yovanovitch gave a speech that called out corruption, which some observers saw as tacitly condemning Poroshenko and Lutsenko, while signalling support for Poroshenko’s upstart challenger in upcoming elections, a comedian named Volodymyr Zelensky.

Days later, Lutsenko struck back, telling conservative journalist John Solomon that she had given him a “do not prosecute” list to shield politically sensitive targets for a piece in the Hill. Other pieces followed in the Hill reporting allegations that NABU intervened to help Democrats in 2016 and that Biden’s firing of Shokin was corrupt.

The State Department called the claim an “ outright fabrication,” and a month later, Lutsenko changed his story. But in May, Yovanovitch was recalled from her post.

Giuliani, by this time. had set his sights on the Bidens. In a late April interview with POLITICO, he turned unprompted to the subject of Burisma. “Biden does have a lot of baggage, and I’m not talking about smelling women’s hair,” he said. “I’m talking about Ukraine. And Hunter Biden pulling down millions, on the board of a crooked company, a Russian-oriented crooked company.”

Zelensky became president in May, and Giuliani and Trump made it a priority to ensure Zelensky’s new administration would pursue “corruption,” understood by Ukrainian officials, according to news accounts, to mean investigations of the black ledger and the Bidens.

In May, the Times reported that Giuliani planned to travel to Kiev to push those matters as Zelensky formed his government. The trip was cancelled amid the resulting uproar.

But inside the Trump administration, consternation was growing among U.S. officials over Giuliani’s efforts, which the former mayor maintains were encouraged by the State Department. The anonymous whistleblower was beginning to hear from colleagues who were alarmed by what they saw as a bizarre and troubling departure from normal diplomacy.

In July, Trump ordered that roughly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine be withheld. Later that month, he spoke with Zelensky by phone, pushing him to investigate alleged Ukrainian election interference and the Bidens. That July 25 phone call — in which Trump said, “do us a favor” and asked for scrutiny of the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian election interference — became a key basis for the whistleblower complaint to the intelligence community’s inspector general.

About a week later, Giuliani met with a Zelensky aide, Andry Yermak in Madrid, where they reportedly discussed the desired investigations and the possibility of a summit with Trump for Yermak’s boss.

Michele Flournoy, who served as the under secretary of defense for policy under Obama, said that withdrawing assistance would provide serious leverage over Ukraine.

“They’re counting on the U.S. to continue to support them in all kinds of ways – sanctions, diplomacy, military assistance, training and advising, putting pressure on Putin,” she said. “So any sign that the U.S. is pulling back from Ukraine sends a signal that can be disproportionate.”

For months, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had been pushing for the release of the funds intended for Ukraine. He raised the issue personally with Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, he said on Monday, as well as with Pompeo. Meanwhile, his staff was pressing senior officials at the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House for answers on why the money was on hold.

In late August, as Democrats on Capitol Hill and officials inside the Pentagon began speaking out, POLITICO reported that the military aid was being withheld. At the time, the reason for the president’s unusually personal interest in financial assistance to Ukraine was not yet known. But for lawmakers backing the aid package, the matter was urgent: The appropriation was due to expire by the end of September, the close of the fiscal year.

By early September, an administration official told POLITICO, Pompeo had ordered his staff to ignore the White House directive and send the money. The State Department told Congress it would do just that around Sept. 11, near the same time the White House decided to drop its objections.

Fallout

Meanwhile, word emerged of a mysterious whistleblower complaint that was meant to reach Congress after Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sent a sharply worded letter on Sept. 10 to the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, demanding the release of the disclosure.

Washington buzzed with speculation about Schiff’s arresting, but obliquely worded rocket. News accounts, notably in the Washington Post and the New York Times, soon revealed that the subject of the complaint was none other than the president of the United States. Democrats erupted in fury; some Republicans expressed concern.

As more details emerged about the alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine’s government, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to act: After months of arguing publicly and privately that impeachment would be politically unwise, she announced her support for an inquiry intended to drive President Trump from office. Democrats also set a deadline for the administration to cough up all the documents connected to the whistleblower’s complaint, and demanded that Maguire come to Capitol Hill to explain himself in person.

Pelosi’s change of heart pressured Trump, convinced that the record of his call with Zelensky would show that he had done nothing wrong, into releasing a memorandum documenting their conversation. It proved to be more explosive than he expected, lending support to Democrats’ allegations that the president had threatened to withhold foreign aid in exchange for political dirt on Biden. On Thursday, the White House subsequently released the whistleblower’s complaint and other related documents — and Democrats swiftly escalated their demands for more information, while redoubling their impeachment push.

For his part, Giuliani rejects any focus on the story behind the allegations he was pushing, defending the means by which he has gone about investigating his client’s adversaries. “The process is clean,” Giuliani said. But, he added, “Even if the process were dirty, and the facts were clean … we uncovered a crime of vast magnitude.”

As Washington sorts through the mess, figures on both sides insist that there is more to the story, and that the efforts of their antagonists are being coordinated by a hidden hand.

“All these prosecutors played their role in this scenario, but the actually scenario was developed and planned by someone else,” said Daria Kaleniuk, of AntAC, who suggested a Ukrainian oligarch could be financing the effort to discredit NABU and the Bidens.

For his part, Giuliani said the real story was anti-Trump election interference and pointed the finger at AntAC’s funder. “Everybody,” he said, “thinks Soros is at the bottom of it.”

Asked on Wednesday about Giuliani’s project, a spokeswoman for Soros’ philanthropy, the Open Society Foundation, responded with laughter.

Nahal Toosi, Bryan Bender and Darren Samuelsohn contributed reporting.

Read More

[opedguy]

Trump Wants to Pull Out of Syria

LOS ANGELES (OnlneColumnist.com), April 4, 2018.--Saying that he wants to “bring our troops back home,” 71-year-old President Donald Trump signaled he wants U.S. forces out of Syria.  Once blaming former President Barack Obama for pulling out U.S. troops from Iraq Dec. 15, 2011 causing the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS], Trump’s been warned about the same thing happening again.  After seizing 30% of Iraq and Syria in 2014, ISIS was ousted from its stronghold of Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria in 2017.  With the help of Kurdish Protection Units AKA the YPG militia, the U.S. was able to push ISIS out of its safe havens.  Trump said that U.S. intervention in Muslim lands has largely backfired, wasting precious blood-and-treasure without anything to show for it. Trump blasted former President George W. Bush for toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein April 10, 2003, making the worst military mistake in U.S. history.

           What’s prompting Trump’s decision to get out of Syria is the fact that the Kurdish YPG militia—formerly the U.S. boots-on-the-ground—finds itself under siege from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan asked Trump to end support for the YPG, a group he considers terrorists, like the Kurdish Workers Party [PKK].  When the U.S. failed to support Kurdish independence in 2017, it left the Kurds with second thoughts about wasting resources and manpower on ISIS.  Trump wants the U.S. out of Syria because he no longer counts on the YPG to supply the boots-on-the-ground to fight ISIS in Syria or Iraq.  “We have nothing, nothing except death and destruction. It’s a horrible thing,” said Trump, expressing his wish to get out of Syria.  Trump realizes with Turkey going after the YPG, the Kurds have no reason to continue fighting for the United States in Syria.

           U.S. special Mideast envoy Brett McGurk made it clear last year that the U.S. government could not support Kurdish independence in Iraq or Syria, warning the Kurds about hosting the Sept. 25, 2017 independence referendum.  “So, it’s time.  It’s time.  We were very successful against ISIS.  We’ll be successful against anybody militarily. But sometimes it’s time to come back home, and we’re thinking about that very seriously,” said Trump.  What Trump’s really thinks about is that U.S. forces were only in Iraq and Syria in an advisory capacity, not as boots-on-the-ground.  With the U.S. no longer backing the Kurds, the YPG’s Syrian Democratic Forces no longer wants to do the U.S. dirty work in Syria and Iraq.  Without YPG help, the U.S. has no business taking on a combat role against Syrian, Russian, Iranian or Hezbollah forces.  If ISIS regroups, the U.S. can always re-deploy forces to Iraq and Syria.

            Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud warned Trump in a telephone call Monday to keep U.S. forces in Syria.  King Salman’s most worried about Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah militia establishing bases in Syria.  With King Salman’s 33-year-old son and heir apparent Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman fighting a bitter proxy war against Iran in Yemen, the Kingdom wants the U.S. to keep a troop presence in Syria.  Trump has more than one reason to get out of Syria, not least of which is that the U.S. is not wanted by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. With Russia, Iran and Hezbollah fighting to save al-Assad, the U.S. isn’t wanted on Syrian soil.  When U.S. advisers helped the YPG topple ISIS, the U.S has a mission in Iraq and Syria. Now that it’s over, there’s a growing chance that the U.S. could get into an accidental confrontation with Russia.

            For the last seven years, Saudi Arabia has supplied arms-and-cash to anti-al-Assad rebels to topple the Damascus regime. With Russia, Iran and Hezbollah saving al-Assad, there’s no reason to support the Saudi proxy war in Syria aimed at toppling the Damascus government.  Former PresIdent Barack Obama backed the Saudi-funded proxy war for over six years, only, as Trump says, resulting in more death, destruction and terrorism in Iraq and Syria.  Trump was always a skeptic of the Saudi proxy war to topple al-Assad, rewriting U.S. foreign policy.  “Saudi Arabia in very interested in out decision, and I said, ‘Well, you know, you want us to stay, maybe your going to have to pay,” said Trump, not realizing that no matter how much cash at stake, the U.S. has lost its reason for staying in Iraq and Syria.  Staying in Iraq is not worth the risk of inadvertent accidents with the Russian and Iran.

           Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria has been met with nothing but criticism from the mainstream press.  Despising the Iraq War, you’d think Democrats would wholeheartedly back withdrawing from Iraq.  Instead, they’ve warned Trump against pulling out prematurely, leaving the same power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS in 2014.  But with the U.S. throwing the Kurds under the bus, there’s no boots-on-the-ground anymore than U.S. troops.  ”We will not rest until ISIS is gone,” said Trump this week. “We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon.  Let the other people take care of it now,” said Trump, showing no interest in battling Syria, Russia, Iran or Hezbollah.  With the Kurds no longer available in Syria, there’s zero reason for the U.S. to continue the proxy war in Syria.  There’s noting inconsistent about Trump saying the U.S. has over-stayed its welcome in Syria.

About the Author    

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.  

[fashiontrendin-blog]

The Worst Men’s Fashion Trends Of All Time

http://fashion-trendin.com/the-worst-mens-fashion-trends-of-all-time/

The Worst Men’s Fashion Trends Of All Time

Fashion can be a fickle mistress. She can also be straight-up sadistic. Three-quarter-length trousers, straw hats, Uggs for men, what was she thinking? And what were we thinking for listening to her?

To make matters worse, designers like nothing more than performing Lazarus-like feats, giving a second shot to styles we thought were banished to menswear purgatory until the end of time. But while last summer’s bum bag renaissance (or was it the corduroy comeback?) may have made you regret binning such items in horror all those years ago, there are certain pieces you can dispose of safe in the knowledge they’ll never stand a chance of coming back into fashion.

Cheesy Slogan T-Shirts

Whether or not you’re with stupid, the only thing your T-shirt should tell people is that you’ve got the building blocks of a good wardrobe down to a fine art. While tees with political messages or bold streetwear branding have been trending recently, they shouldn’t open the door for older styles that are supposed to show the world that you’ve got a sense of humour – but actually just advertise the fact you’re a douchebag.

Your rotation of basics doesn’t have to be plain, mind (although it’s never a bad move). Just remember, puns or sexual invites are as inappropriate on your clothing as they would be yelled at strangers in the street. Plus, there’s no such thing as a female body inspector. We checked.

The Fix: Plain Or Printed T-Shirts

Deep V-Neck T-Shirts

If you’re not a washed-up porn star, former Jersey Shore cast member or Cristiano Ronaldo circa 2007, then you’d better have the self-respect to stop short of trussing yourself up in breast-baring slithers of cotton. Deep V-neck T-shirts don’t so much flaunt your gains as bizarrely feminise them – no matter how much of a Lothario you think they make you look.

Instead, stick to classic crew necks and put the Vs (of a less naval-plunging proportion) to work on premium knitwear, whether worn under a suit or solo for a Riviera chic look.

The Fix: V-Neck Knitwear

Square-Toed Shoes

Like Halloween’s Michael Myers, these boxy, clunky, ugly – yes, ugly – excuses for footwear simply refuse to die. We’re not sure (and frankly, don’t care) why they were invented exactly, but despite how ‘smart-casual’ you think they might look, or how comfortable they might be, we appeal to your humanity to chuck yours and save your fellow commuter’s eyes.

Even Gucci tried to make them happen and failed. If a brand that has made billions off something a horse sticks in its mouth can’t make them work, no one can. So, scrap them, and stick to time-honoured footwear styles like classic round-toed Oxfords and Derbies. Your feet will thank you, and so will we.

The Fix: Round-Toed Shoes

The Chin Strap

Shaved most my beard off on Monday, got bullied for it at work on Tuesday, regretted my decision by Wednesday and on Thursday and Friday and Saturday… you get the idea. Granted, Craig David was responsible for some of the biggest tunes of the early 2000s, but ‘7 Days’ and ‘Fill Me In’ will forever be overshadowed by one of the worst facial hair styles in history.

The main issue with David’s pencil-thin chin strap is that a beard should never be shaved along the jawline. You could have a bone structure to cut cheddar on and you’d still end up with a double chin every time you peer down at your phone. Instead, always look to taper under the neck and simply tidy up top rather than create overly harsh lines.

The Fix: A Well-Groomed Beard

Uggs For Men

Forget ‘winners don’t do drugs’. ‘Winners don’t wear Uggs’. Much better rule to live by. Don’t get us wrong, in recent years the Californian brand has produced some rather stylish hiking boots and even a sneaker or two. But these were an out and out abomination.

Ben Affleck, guilty. Ronnie Wood, guilty. Even the usually unlambastable Pharrell Williams, Justin Timberlake and Jaden Smith – guilty, guilty, guilty. You burn the boots, we’ll burn the evidence, and we can all move on with our lives in proper footwear.

The Fix: Hiking Boots

Sagging Jeans

Regardless of how much you can squat, no one wants to see the results bursting out of your denim. Supposedly inspired by the ban on belts in the US prison system, sagging jeans were adopted as an anti-authoritarian statement by LA gangs and hip-hop stars during the 1990s. Unless you’re either, letting your jeans drop below your buttocks is sartorially short-sighted at best, cultural appropriation at worst.

Jeans should sit on your hips to let the legs hang properly against yours, while tailoring should sit nearer your waist to prevent an acre of shirt appearing between your jacket closure and trousers. If your legwear falls down by itself, congratulate yourself on sticking to that cardio regime and promptly reward yourself with some that actually fit.

The Fix: Well-Fitting Jeans

Gap Year Jewellery

Unless you’re Mãori or in a nineties boyband, there’s no excuse for jewellery made from puka shells, beads, pebbles of dubious heritage or fraying strands of rope woven by this amazing Indian spirit healer, who really showed you how to discover yourself. You have a job now. It’s time to let those pre-university days go.

That’s not to say men’s jewellery can’t be stylish. Bracelets, cuffs, necklaces and rings are all fair game. Just choose simple styles that are minimal, lightweight, and act as an extension of your outfit rather than upstage it.

The Fix: Grown-Up Jewellery

Drop-Crotch Trousers

Do you have friends? Do you wish you didn’t? Then why not wear a pair of drop-crotch trousers? The instant illusion of wearing a big, sagging adult-sized nappy on your lower half will ensure you’re never invited to another social gathering ever again. Win.

Of course, we’re not against drapey, easygoing styles altogether (unless they reach flare proportions – more on that later). But the comfort you gain from these wardrobe horrors is nothing that you can’t get from a pair of relaxed-leg trousers. Plus, Bieber likes drop-crotch. Nuff said.

The Fix: Premium Joggers

Oversized Belt Buckles

Freud would probably have had something to say about this. Much like a tank-sized SUV or an extensive air rifle collection, the idea behind a brash and brassy oversized belt buckle is to let everyone know you’re packing. But in reality, it does exactly the opposite – not only exposing your deepest insecurities, but also your godawful sense of style.

Leave the giant eagles, bullhorns and anything equipped with a bottle opener to the wrestling world and downsize your XXL belt buckle to something more run of the mill (solid leather for smart, woven for casual). Not only will your trousers look better, but people will also stop mistaking you for a line dancing instructor. Win-win, really.

The Fix: Understated Belts

Crocs

Crocs are possibly the biggest example of false advertising in the 21st-century. With a name like that, you’d expect something pretty bad-ass, but what you get is foam clogs. Foam. Clogs. No part of this sounds like it’s going to look good, does it?

Frankly, no one cares how good your feet feel in them – unlike the once-maligned Birkenstock sandal, these will never regain their stylish status. Mostly because they never had it in the first place. For something equally lightweight, comfortable and summer-appropriate, try a pair of espadrilles or driving shoes instead.

The Fix: Espadrilles & Drivers

The ‘Going Out’ Shirt

Two common misconceptions are responsible for spawning this fashion monstrosity. The first is that you’re never dressed up without a ‘proper’ collar – for that, we have hoity-toity golf clubs to blame. The second is that you’ll stand a greater chance of pulling if you’re wearing something that stands out – a trick no doubt thought up by some misogynistic pick-up artist. Hence the going out shirt: oversized, obnoxiously printed and unfailingly worn untucked and unbuttoned to the lowest possible chest hair. It’s less a wingman, more sartorial wing-clipping.

Ugliness aside, the main issue is that you don’t need a wardrobe dedicated to ‘going out’. Dress for where you’re heading, not the fact that you’re heading there. We’re already drowning in dress codes. Don’t invent another one for the pub.

The Fix: Pared-Back Smart-Casual

Straw Hats

We’re going to put it out there and say there isn’t a haircut bad enough to warrant wearing a straw fedora on top of your head. Not now. Not ever. Even if your barber was out until 4am and showed up to chop your mop still blind drunk with nothing more than the plastic knife and fork he ate his kebab with. Still no.

You’re not Bruno Mars on the beach. And if you are, get a better hat. Like a baseball cap. Or a bin bag.

The Fix: Baseball Caps

Flares

There will be very few readers of FashionBeans who remember these from the first time round in the 1970s, and (hopefully) only a few misguided enough to try them in bootcut form in the 1990s. But don’t be swayed by the fact that Gucci, Valentino and Raf Simons have all tried to revive the flare in recent years, for they are every bit as terrible today.

Reason #439 why we hope these never come back: the fact that the only way to wear them was with frayed hems dragging on the floor, soaking up rainwater and sweeping up every cigarette butt on the street as you walked. Gross.

The Fix: Straight-Leg Cuts

Three-Quarter Length Trousers

You might think that with the quite literal rise of the mankle, trousers deliberately cut off mid-calf would save you precious minutes cuffing your denim. But rather than hinting that you’re a man so busy he can’t find time for a pinroll, they actually paint you as one wracked by indecision, whose inability to choose between trousers and shorts left him with their bastard child. You’re only one step away from cargo pants with legs that zip off.

There is, of course, a right way to wear cropped trousers. The key is that no one should mistake them for long shorts. A slightly relaxed, rather than calf-hugging cut, which ends just above the ankle, lets you flash your trainers without looking like you’ve been bathing in Miracle Grow.

The Fix: Cropped Trousers

[creativecunt]

Finally reading Stephen kings It.

I am reading this to compare the books to the tv series and the. Live to the movie as well as get an idea of how the characters are described specifically penny wise.

The newer movie is more accurately depicting what happened to Georgie! Georgie essentially chases a paper boat that falls into a sewer drain in a yellow rain jacket and red boots. Where his arm is ripped off by It. Georgie's first and only siting of it is described as witnessing the yellow eyes of a cat in a storm drain. It approaching Georgie with a pleasant/joyful and reasonable voice. Georgie's inner monologue makes the connection to clarabell, bozo the Clown, and Ronald McDonald. It appears to be gender bending to Georgie this stood out to me because it's sex or gender was not introduced at this time but the pronoun he is used. The clown has red tufts of hair on the sides of a bald head. White clown cake face make up a large red lipstick smile painted over its mouth, a long bright electric blue tie, with big white Mickey Mouse gloves and orange Pom pom buttons on a baggy clown suit. They have a conversation that's more similar to the newer movie. Where it repeats in a forceful eager joyous tone what Georgie is saying cause he a thirsty bitch. Penny wise finally introduces themselves to Georgie as the dancing clown and the smell of the circus emanates from the sewer drain with hints of garbage and old veggies underneath it all. This shows that pennywise has the ability to manipulate the senses outside of just hearing and seeing penny wise just like any human is sensual in expression. Just not in a sexy way unless your into that violent naughty shit. Something in the book that's different in this scene is that Georgie's arm is ripped off in what seems like a struggle between penny wise and the young boy. Pennywise continuously threatens Georgie while creepily reminding him that everything floats down in the sewer and he will too. He tugs the boys arm 3 or more times before it rips off and Georgie dies in the street and is found by neighbors who here his screams but are too late to save him. However Georgie is never lost in the drain like the movies seem to depict instead he only looses his arm but still looses his life in the scene.

So far I'm really surprised with the first couple chapters solely having to do with the homophobia in Derry and an awful hate crime that was finished off by this supposed clown. This book so far has a lot to do with sex based upsetting traumatic experiences. Way more then I anticipated.

Later in the book Pennywise is described by a person involved in a hate crime against a gay couple leaving the falcon a local underground gay bar. The antagonist says pennywise's pants were so tight you could see his cock! His eyes were silver! The person described them as possible contact lens but they also could of been his real eyes and he was carrying a large assortment of balloons that vary in color. He is depicted with large teeth like a lion in a circus before chomping into one of the victims armpits. Here he is also described as wearing a baggy clown suit which confuses me because one of the people involved in the death of this victim also says his clown suit was baggy. The police determine that their stories are mixed up and different. But both involve a strange clown with over 1000 balloons under a bridge dragging the victims body from through the regime and holding him. The reason the victim ended up in the ravine is because the bully's threw him off the 26 foot high bridge into the ravine. The police don't buy it. They are also homophobic admitting to their hate of homosexual in conference but also admitting that they didn't deserve to die or be attacked in this way.

The next part is about a really boring relationship where the couple gets really successful but can't have a baby. The husband blames himself for not being able to commit and thinking that theirs something wrong with him. Where as the wife secretly agrees but in the privacy of her own mind hides her feelings about it to comfort him. He ends up committing suicide in the bathtub and writing "IT " on the wall in his own blood after slashing his wrists which I actually think is in the tv series!

So far I'm enjoying the book ! It's making my imagination really wild and when I read it I get excited to find out when a scene from the movie and show will appear but in a different form! It's exciting!