December 22, 2017

Jill Stein didn't do it — but Hillary and Hillbots did

As the Hillary Clinton coalition, and to some degree, national Democrats in general, refuse to let their anger at The Anointed One losing to Donald Trump because of a craptacularly run campaign, which the campaigner has lied about in her latest book, and which Uranium One shows to have been headed by a person and her husband with ethics problems far beyond her email server, they grasp at ever-wider straws.

The latest? Hauling Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Glenn Greenwald gets it. BOTH parties want to put Stein in their lasers. The GOP can make it look like the shambolic "Putin Did It" investigation covers more than just Trump, while Democrats can give the appearance that more people than Trump are Kremlin fellow travelers.

People like Casey Michael, who is clueless about Russia but in the tank for Hillbots, perpetuate what Michael, acting as one of Neera Tanden's flacks at Think Progress claim, now saying that Stein was MORE pro-Putin than Trump.

First, Michael — who actually cares nothing about the actual Green Party — has claimed elsewhere, by insinuation, as has the Crap Progress piece, that other Greens boycotted the Green presidential debate that Russia Today / RT hosted.

Not true! Three of five candidates were actually there. As shown by the RT video embedded at Crap Progress' story above.

The gig is up in this Michael Tweet. What Hillbots really hate is her showing the emperor has no clothes in American foreign policy. If one is charitable, Ukraine was only a semi-coup. In either case, it left neo-fascists running the country. And that's not to mention the full coup in Honduras that occurred while Hillz was Secretary of State. Nor to mention the coup by bombing in Libya that wrecked Africa's strongest economy.

Besides, Michael, as Mueller has uncovered so far, Flynn was so far, as determined, not working for either Vladimir Putin OR Turkish President Reçep Tayyip Erdogan, but for Israeli leader Bibi Netanyahu on settlements. Shouldn't you all be DEFENDING Flynn?

The image above is copied from Brains, who offers his own, briefer take. It IS new McCarthyism, and as he notes, not only for we Green-leaners and independent leftists, but also for BernieBros, as Hillbots on Twitter talk about trying to frame him on sexual harassment, is likely to backfire. In short, the Neera Tandens of the world are, if anything, helping to increase the likelihood of Trump's re-election.

Brains gives goofball dilettante writer Eve Peyser too much credit, and airspace, by linking to her as an alleged Stein defender. (Peyser's Twitter feed and other articles on Vice has led me to call Vice the kiddie pool for Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias wannabes.)

Brains also links to David Bruce Collins, who has a whole roundup of "Jill didn't do it" links.

Some of these links also point me to thinking about the likes of ShirtLost DumbShit Zack Haller and his late partner in spreading a certain brand of moral equivalence, Actual Flatticus. Sure, Haiti was a splendiferous example of grifting, per Doug Henwood. But, until Trump releases his taxes, we can't even fully compare him and them. We can point out Trump being sued by HUD for racist non-rentals, and his apparent Mob ties.

Chief of those is Stein being interviewed about this by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. That would be the Amy Goodman who Flatty slimed and came close to legally libeling about her pay and radio holdings issues. (This is also the same Flatty who hated not just Stein but the entire GP, and I think ShirtLost DumbShit is of similar mindset. And yes, Brains, I'm going to keep kicking Flatty when I don't have to reach too far to do it.)

Aaron Mate, who's also written for the likes of The Nation, has a good piece here, also a Stein interview. It's important to note again, per Brains, that Stein notes this is neo-McCarthyism. See David's post for the whole roundup of links.

Was Stein perfect as a candidate? Hell no. She was too much of an AccommoGreen during it, and even more after her Dems-only recount after the election. I have noted on my own that she has been less than forceful in standing up to antivaxxers, although also noting that she has distinguished between vaccine safety and vaccine business.

But, I can trump Michael there, too. A year ago, the California Democratic Party, in its platform, supported acupuncture as medicine. Or remind him of Clinton's own semi-quack doctor.

Back to what I said above — if it takes more Green (or Socialist Party USA, but NOT the DSA, which never endorses non-Dem candidates) pushback against this level of asshattery before the current Democratic Party implodes? So be it.

==

Meanwhile, most of the MSM has committed media malpractice on the Putin Did It issue, yet Jay Rosen wrongly thinks Trumpism — as overblown by Yascha Mounk — is the story of the year.

Meanwhile, leaders of the so-called "deep state" are now trying to sue away free speech rights and put them into capitalist oblivion.

7 comments:

NChen said...

Stein was not a perfect candidate for the reasons you pointed out and the fact that she owned Big Pharma stock of companies she denounced. However these flaws are so minor compared to the other candidates (or even to most people).

I have one disagreement with your blog post however. The comparison between antivax and acupuncture is not sound. Acupuncture is now encouraged by many medical organizations due to the evidence. As meta studies published in recent JAMA articles and surpassing the Cochrane Collaboration standards would attest it is a medically legitimate way to alleviate many kinds of pain.

Gadfly said...

Thanks for dropping by. Generally agree with the first paragraph.

We'll generally very much disagree on acupuncture, per this review of actual literature.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/false-claims-for-acupuncture/

If you have a link of your own, I'll take a look at it.

And I'll look quite skeptically at CAM-based medical organizations.

NChen said...

The study you link to looks like a review of website claims; it was not a double blind control study of acupuncture (or meta study of such studies). It reviewed claims of treating cancer and diabetes. Acupuncture has never been shown to cure these diseases and the accurate acupuncture claims are usually palliative in nature. Here are some recent studies and meta studies in JAMA.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1835483?redirect=true

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1357513

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2633891?redirect=true

I can also show you studies in the most respected European journals like Lancet etc which show the same thing. Standards for publishing in medical journals have greatly improved over the last 15 years and previously controversial or even widely held beliefs have been overturned. Acupuncture was once controversial due to conflicting findings but I think the science has basically settled it as can be seen from the WHO and several other respected medical orgs (and the Mayo Clinic actually offers it as a treatment for pain) which have recommended that insurance cover acupuncture.

Gadfly said...

Actually, that link in part addresses acupuncture for pain control Other posts at Science-Based Medicine do that in more detail.

I'll take a further look at your links, but:
A. I respect Steve Novella, Harriet Hall and others at SBM as both good skeptics and as good MDs.
B. I believe the placebo effect of acupuncture for pain management is quite real.

Gadfly said...

Indeed, Andrew Vickers, and specifically, the meta-analysis which you may be referencing, was addressed at SBM earlier this year, and not way in the past or whatever:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cries-the-acupuncturist-medicine-is-biased-against-us-and-theres-a-double-standard/

NChen said...

The Orc article was published on a blog. Orc has not published their findings surpassing the peer review process refuting Vickers AFAIK. Also one of the links I supplied is not from Vickers. There are many other published (that are also peer reviewed in respected journals) articles from others showing the effectiveness of acupuncture recently and none I am aware of in the last 10 years of peer reviewed meta studies showing it isn't effective. I would like to see one if you have any to cite. The three meta studies I supplied all showed the acupuncture effect was not due to placebo. e,g,

"Acupuncture is associated with improved pain outcomes compared with sham-acupuncture and no-acupuncture control, with response rates of approximately 30% for no acupuncture, 42.5% for sham acupuncture, and 50% for acupuncture."

Also

"Conclusions Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable referral option. Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo."

Gadfly said...

Orac has been doing this with a variety of "alt medicine" for 15 years or more.

Look, on alt-medicine, my skepticism is not selective. You can also read what Skeptics Dictionary, which is in my links list, says about acupuncture.

I remain convinced it is alt-medicine with all that implies.

I'll take both Orac and SBM over what you claim, and the methodological problems at your links, which have been discussed at my links.

If you have a blog, and want to write differently there, you're free to do so.