Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Grayzone" channel.

  1. Food for thought for the (bourgoise) U.S. feminists that support imperialism: In Bolivia 50 % of the positions in government must be filled with women.
    1
  2.  @Dowlphin  What I have heard of Naomi Klein so far is solid (insightful, and she brings new ideas or connection of dots). If you disagree on the "understanding of society" - well that is normal and necessary in a discourse and a lot of it is philosophical or what one thinks is possible. Or how you think human nature plays out. so there is no right or wrong. If you have certain alternative assumptions how human society could be organized - that likely has never been tested in real life (at a large scale). So there are not FACTS to work with. When DN engages if Russiagate or supports the Syria narrative - this is not about philosophy but about facts.
    1
  3. Twitter gives the "warning" that the materials might have been achieved by hacking. How nice of them to promote it - I would totally check it out then, even as a fairly ignorant twitter user.
    1
  4. I do not think Schiff is stupid, or lacks information. Not sure about his bias, and he for sure is a hack. Or they have something on him.
    1
  5. Ruthless disregard for human life meets greed & grifting meets clueless arrogance meets neoliber / neocon ideology meets cowardice to tell the U.S. population it is pointless.
    1
  6.  @Carlos-fh8wk  now that is nonsense. The DN folks are stil donig a good job except for Russia gate and it is worse with Syria. That does not negate all the other things they get right or have gotten right and lots of them you would never, ever hear on a "neoliberal" outlet "hand picked" by the establishment. They are too crititical to be counted as "neoliberal" - which is a certain mindset on economics, not on foreign policy anyway. I casts a shadow on their good judgment, but by and far you can trust their reporting. People are worn down, are wrong, have bias, and do not want to admit they were dead wrong after years. Not everything is a nefarious scheme Humans are weak and easily compromised - or exhausted. And have a bias. Assad and his father can be responsible for terible crimes (before the regime change war). AND the regime change war is nefarious. BOTH things can be true. Assad got into power 2000 and he inherited a police state and also a torture apparatus. Set up by his father and there is a clique that has profited from being the ruling class for decades. he could not change that if the wanted to. I remember a CIA man saying: If the U.S. wants peopel interrogated they use Jordan, if they want them tortured they send them to Syria and if they want them disappeared they go to Egypt. I tend to think that is correct and it sounded right because it made the U.S. look very bad.
    1
  7. Robert Baer is the former CIA officer that wrote critical books about them later.
    1
  8. I seem to remember that DN has direct or indirect access to money from gulf states (well THAT would explain the Syria bias). I could not find verification on that. A quick search delivered: Democracy Now! receives no government or corporate funding. Because of its educational mission, it has charitable status according to US law (501c3). Major organisational donors have been the Lannan Foundation and the Wallace Global Fund. Significant contributions also come from listeners themselves. That is a text from DN (or friendly towards her) from https://rightlivelihood (dot) org/the-change-makers/find-a-laureate/amy-goodman/
    1
  9.  @HeyHEY-fg9rp  Access journalism is not correct, Democracy Now does a lot of interviews, but people want to sell their books and the (often very interesting and relevant) underdogs and outcasts are always glad to come on. They have no problem getting on GOOD and interesting guests, that are ignored by MSM. The likes of Noam Chomsky, Edward Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg will appear, and I am sure if they want to have Lawrence Wilkerson, John Pilger, or again Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, Ben Norton, Max Blumenthal, ..... they can have them too. Or any unorthodox economist. Or activists that have an important cause, but no exposure in media. I also think that the members of the Squad might give them interviews (well maybe not if they slam them for being spineless, but they can do w/o them and only report ABOUT them). The have access to interesting guests / information (needed for a good program !) just fine. Access to the curated leaks and scoops is not necessary to make a program that attracts viewers (and paying supporters). They do not get the secret info from the insiders (and haven't gotten it in the past). But there are so many whistleblowers that are ignored, so much material in the public domain that is interesting that they have plenty to work with. If the government stenographers get a scoop - DN can report after the fact and provide the context that is left out. They usually do not have the typical beltway insider crowd on *, and they cover publicly available info, they do not get curated leaks from their buddies (like the NYT or CNN). * Grayzone in this video mentions one Republican that lauded Bush as compassionate Conservative and the GOP going off the deep end was all because of Trump. I saw that interview - no pushback at all rubbed me the wrong way, but it did not matter much in the large scheme of things. DN has reported on Bush, and they will not be shy to mention what he and Cheney stood for when it happens to be a good fit for context. Maybe it was a decision of time (and a snap decision of not being "impolite" and to concentrate on the main issue of the interview), the interview was not about Bush and they have to stay within a time frame. As an R operative that had just written a book, he would of course paint the party in a rosy picture. Also: it is not bad to have to other side on (if they would have something truthful to say, or a genuine opinion), it also might draw in right leaning audiences that would profit form hearing from the other side. Rising / The Hill did that very successfully. To be fair they had the left very well represented with Kristal Ball and the right wing / "conservative" host was also better than the usual lot. Still, they had a lot of shills and members of the consultant class on (Andrew Feldman comes to mind !), and right wingers spouting nonsense. Also the campaign manager of the Trump campaign in early 2020, that was a good interview. He obviously has his bias, but it was informative, relevant and truthful - as per the facts covered.. The right wing host Saagar Enjeti has a good chemistry with Krystall, he too spouted plenty of nonsense, but it was bearable (and the got partial pushback form her). He is an inconsistent right / conservative, anti-identity politics, economic populist, with fits of posing as libertarian. Except when it comes to marijuana ;) He is all over the place, but better than most of the lot. And there are folks that like him (and endure the left wing host). Never mind they hear about economic populism (also like by the conservative voters !) and M4A. Kristall pushed back - kind of. Not as hard as one would wish, or always - but they really attracted MIXED audiences. Both have left the Hill just recently (summer 2021) and now have their own channel. The Rising is not doing well, Ryan Grim can hold down the fort for the left side, but the right hosts (they try out several people) are pathetic.
    1