In 2018, when @AOC was running against Joe Crowley, I interviewed her and asked whether she thought Nancy Pelosi (and Steny Hoyer) should continue in their leadership roles or be replaced, and whether she'd agitate for replacements. Here's what she said:
I never criticized her for quickly voting for Pelosi because she had a cogent rationale: the alternative (Tim Ryan or whoever) was worse. The problem is this is her reward for supporting Pelosi is losing a key Committee seat to a rival who opposed Pelosi:
As I told @jimmy_dore last month, I also have more empathy for the dilemmas faced by those who choose to play the "inside" role within a corrupt institution, as a result of my husband @davidmirandario's work in Congress. I daily see the conflicts: they're genuine and hard:
Ultimately, the Dem Party will ignore you and take you for granted if you play the good soldier and lend your support unconditionally. You only have power and leverage if you show you're willing to subvert them. And DC/DNC structures reward the corrupt:
In sum: 1) @jimmy_dore performed a great service with this critique: AOC should be accountable like anyone; 2) @AOC deserves much credit for engaging: she should, but most don't; 3) Sometimes too many expectations are placed on AOC: no one person can destroy the DC establishment.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Noam Chomsky on censorship and the left. Please listen:
Here's the second part of Chomsky's answer.
He's absolutely right: censorship & "cancel culture" have long been weapons used by the establishment against the left, and nobody cared until the left did it.
But he's also right that it's profoundly wrong on principle & strategy.
The Right is good at objecting to censorship when they're the targets. But it's often used against the left as well.
It's easy to defend free speech when it comes to ideas you like. But it only matters if you do it universally, especially for views you hate. It's a principle.
"The Facebook-owned platform’s denunciation of a well-established view about Biden" -- a view voiced by Cory Booker, Bill Clinton, Kamala Harris and many others -- "shows the dangers of internet censorship and the fraudulent use of 'fact-checking.'”
The only thing that is demonstrably “false” here is Instagram’s Biden-shielding assertion that there is a “fact-checking” consensus that this criticism of Biden’s 1994 crime bill is false. Don't trust Silicon Valley giants to police our discourse:
Of course Russia, like the US and every other major power, engages in cyber-warfare. But given that Democrats like Dick Durbin are calling this a "virtual act of war," shouldn't we see some evidence Russia did it? Yes, Russia could have done it. But that's not proof they did.
I read at least 20 articles in mainstream papers over the last 24 hours about this hack -- mostly NYT & WPost. They assert definitively -- no caveats -- that Russia did it. None has evidence. This is the only thing I could find:
3 facts about WikiLeaks which those who want Assange to rot in jail have buried:
1) WL redacted documents when publishing Iraq & Afghanistan War Logs & diplomatic cables to protect the innocent; 2) WL requested Hillary's State Dept to help in redacting: they refused; 3) This:
The chances are very high that if Trump doesn't pardon Assange and put a stop to the insane attempt to extradite him to the US, then he will die in a UK prison, convicted of nothing, with a very dangerous precedent pending.
That arouses liberals, but it's profoundly unjust.
NBC News: "Release WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, say current and former world leaders"
Signatories of an open letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson included the president of Argentina and two former presidents of Brazil.
Good @washingtonpost article on how and why the popularity of Bolsonaro -- despite insane levels of ineptitude and corruption -- is remaining reasonably stable. Among other things, he tried to stop or limit direct payments, but then took credit for them when they passed.
Most of Brazil's corporate media is 100% unified against Bolsonaro, denouncing him in increasingly virulent ways. But it doesn't matter. Once the establishment loses the population's trust, they'll support anyone they view as its enemy. This lesson needs to be learned everywhere.
As I've written before, we personally know many who are gay, black/brown, from favelas, etc. who voted for Bolsonaro. They did it not because of but despite his ugly rhetoric. They lost all faith in the ruling class & turned to someone promising to destroy it. A powerful formula.
That we're on Day 5 of the astoundingly moronic Dr. Jill Biden debate seems to indicate that Orange Hitler has been defeated, fascism vanquished, the second Civil War finally diffused, and freedom and democracy restored to the American Republic, so that's good news at least
I started to write an article on how Yale's @TimothyDSnyder has been the most consistently and embarrassingly wrong prominent intellectual in the Trump era - endless predictions of coups, tyranny, and civil war -- but his analysis is so superficial and facile I couldn't bother.
Reading Snyder's writings -- sorry, Dr. Snyder's -- is like listening to any random MSNBC panel of Dem strategists talking about Trump, but with a pompous, inch-deep veneer of scholarship. If you want to see why credentials are irrelevant & meritocracy a fraud, start with him.