The bare face of American kleptocratic imperialism

[Santi253]

No, she is a public relations expert for a corporate think tank with ties to both US government and private entities.

RAND Corp. is, as far as I know, a reputable non-profit organization, not a promoter of corporate interests.

Thirty-two recipients of the Nobel Prize, primarily in the fields of economics and physics, have been involved or associated with RAND at some point in their career.[16][17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation

[Buddha Vacana]

Obama won the peace nobel prize and even said himself that frankly he doesn't know why

[Santi253]

Obama won the peace nobel prize and even said himself that frankly he doesn't know why

I've yet to see demonstrated that Rachel Maddow supports robbing Afghanistan of its mineral resources, and that she would stand to financially benefit from such an extraction.

Jimmy Dore doesn't like Rachel Maddow, because she's been one of the main voices speaking out against the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Jimmy Dore, as a disgruntled Bernie supporter, doesn't want to admit the possibility that Hillary unfairly lost the election.

While I agree with Jimmy Dore on most things, he still is a pot smoking comic, not a journalist. Jimmy Dore even supported the Seth Rich conspiracy theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cmx1voo844

[chownah]

Obama won the peace nobel prize and even said himself that frankly he doesn't know why

Now I think you have accidently shown your true colors. You are really more intersted in just arguing. If 32 nobel peace prize recipients have associated with the rand people then it does indeed say SOMETHING good about it. Your comment has nothing to do with the credibility of the rand people....you are just arguing in whatever way you can.
I'm going to try to get a grip here and I hope others will too.
chownah

[Buddha Vacana]

I remain untouched by your personal attacks. I wonder where all the vitriol comes from, though I have an idea. I don't think I need to look any further than what I get accused of.

The most obvious intersection between the Nobel foundation and ethics is the Nobel peace prize, and history shows that the latter doesn't mean anything much. I was succinct because I am getting tired of arguing and demonstrating the obvious, and left it to you guys to do the math from the fact I pointed out, not because I am out of valid arguments.

So my point is that the fact they have a bunch of Nobel prize laureates in their ranks proves they have very smart and capable people, not that they are absolutely corruption free and care about ethics. Let me take just a quick example. Among the bigwigs on the board of Rand Corp, you find Franck Carlucci. This man was a CIA agent in a time and place where the CIA was ordered to murder Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Congo, back in 1961. Here is what you find on wikipedia:

During that time, Carlucci was the second secretary at the US embassy in the Congo and a covert CIA agent. According to subsequently released US government documents, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the CIA to murder Lumumba.[7][8]

Minutes of an August 1960 National Security Council meeting confirm that Eisenhower told CIA chief Allen Dulles to "eliminate" the Congolese leader.[9] The official note taker, Robert H. Johnson, testified to this before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1975.[10]

So once again, my point is that I don't believe that the fact they have a bunch of Nobel prize winners proves they are good people trying to do the right thing, and it looks like a strawman argument to me. At least one of the bigwigs at Rand was very probably implicated in toppling a democratically elected government in post colonial Africa.

Also, as far as the Rand Corp is concerned, the person who belongs to it was invited in a segment titled "Trump helps Taliban with talk of looting Afghanistan minerals", not "Looting Afghanistan minerals is wrong, we should never do it". In other words, in that segment, Maddow does not oppose looting a country, but Trump's statement about it, and the argument is not that it is ethically wrong, but that in terms of public relations, it helps the Talibans. So this does nothing to prove Maddow is actively opposed to looting Afghanistan per se.

Anyway, you guys may disagree with the video's title, I understand. All the more if you think that the implied meaning is that Maddow supports looting mineral wealth in general, as opposed to acting sycophantically toward someone who says the good reason to do so is that the US can do it, since they've done it before, attitude towards him which means giving his opinion a higher authority, and then giving him also the last word.

As I said before, Dore exaggerated it in the video's title, probably as a click bait. And that goes against him, fair enough, take all the shots you feel like taking at him for that. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything to the overall point mentioned in the title of *this thread* and made by Dore on his show, and it remains a side note as far as this thread's topic is concerned.

[Santi253]

I remain untouched by your personal attacks. I wonder where all the vitriol comes from...

I've yet to see demonstrated that Rachel Maddow supports robbing Afghanistan of its mineral resources, and that she would stand to financially benefit from such an extraction.

Jimmy Dore doesn't like Rachel Maddow, because she's been one of the main voices speaking out against the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Jimmy Dore, as a disgruntled Bernie supporter, doesn't want to admit the possibility that Hillary unfairly lost the election.

[Buddha Vacana]

I've yet to see demonstrated that Rachel Maddow supports robbing Afghanistan of its mineral resources,

She probably does not support it personally, but her particular segment with Jacobs amounted to that for glodfish type viewers.

and that she would stand to financially benefit from such an extraction.

No one has ever claimed that here. I believe you have misunderstood David's remark.

P.S. I have substantially edited my post above

[Santi253]

I've yet to see demonstrated that Rachel Maddow supports robbing Afghanistan of its mineral resources,

She probably does not support it personally, but her particular segment with Jacobs amounted to that for glodfish type viewers.

What you might be ignoring is that Jimmy Dore has a sort of vendetta against Rachel Maddow.

[Buddha Vacana]

I did ignore it. I take it that you are correct about this and thank you for pointing that out.

Still, it is no valid counterargument to the fact that her show let us see the bare face of American kleptocratic imperialism as a figure of authority, if that is indeed what your statement was aimed at.

[Santi253]

American kleptocratic imperialism

I've yet to see any evidence that Maddow herself supports that.

[DooDoot]

I remain untouched by your personal attacks.

Personal attacks & 'identitarianism' is not Buddhist. The Buddha taught against identity. The Brahmans came to Buddha to claim the Brahmans were the superior caste born of Brahma's mouth but Buddha said a Brahman who kills, steals, commits adultery & lies is not superior to a non-Brahman who is moral. Identity politics is not Buddhist. In Buddhism, if a man, woman, white, black, yellow, American, Chinese, Jew, gay, hetero, transgender, Trump, Maddow, Dore, etc, performs a good deed, it is a good deed. If a man, woman, white, black, yellow, American, Chinese, Jew, gay, hetero, transgender, Maddow, Dore, Trump, etc, performs an evil deed, it is an evil deed. This is the same in other universal religions, such as Christianity & Islam. In all universal religions, there is no identity that has a special privilege. In Buddhism, being a minority group does not immune a person from the law of kamma. Personal attacks or identity attack is not Buddhist. Calling people names to destroy their reputation & even their career (livelihood), such as Nazi, communist, misogynist, antisemitic, homophobic, etc, is not Buddhist. It is violence. If a person is against other people, a Buddhist asks that person what is the cause of your antagonism or fear. A Buddhist has compassion for all beings. A Buddhist tries to examine deeply the causes & conditions in the world. I find it strange how leftwing political Americans think Buddhism supports their identitarian political ideologies.

What you might be ignoring is that Jimmy Dore has a sort of vendetta against Rachel Maddow.

Jimmy Dore obviously disapproves of some of the kamma of Rachel Maddow rather than Rachel herself. If Rachel supports the American foreign policies, this is contrary to good kamma in Buddhism because Buddhism does not support war, particularly against non-aggressor nations, such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc. If Rachel performs a virtuous action, I am sure Jimmy Dore will praise her good action, just as Buddha would praise a good action. Your posts are about personal identity or personal attack. According to my understanding of Buddhism, such identity-views are meaningless because Buddha focused on kamma rather than on identity. This is why Buddha Vacana posted he/she is untouched by your personal attacks. In Buddhism, identity or personality is illusion & not anything static. In Buddhism, if Hillary supporters attack people, burn cars & riot because Trump won the election, this is bad kamma. If Nazis attack, burn & riot, this is also bad kamma. In Charlottesville, any person that created conflict in the lawful march performed bad kamma in Buddhism. Buddhism does not excuse the bad kamma of anti-Nazis or the bad kamma of Nazis.

[Buddha Vacana]

American kleptocratic imperialism

I've yet to see any evidence that Maddow herself supports that.

So you are still debating the *title* of the video. Isn't it more interesting to debate what is actually said inside?

[DNS]

and that she would stand to financially benefit from such an extraction.

No one has ever claimed that here. I believe you have misunderstood David's remark.

Correct, no one has claimed that, however, she probably would benefit from such extraction, including all Americans, at least indirectly. When a nation extracts resources from another nation, it increases their net wealth, assets and thereby allows for less revenues needed from its citizens. So all citizens, especially the elites and those in power benefit in an indirect way. I probably would benefit too, but that doesn't make it right and that is why of course I oppose such unlawful extraction.

Maddow is a television pundit and her show exists because of corporate sponsors.
http://sponsorfeedback.com/show/the-rachel-maddow-show

How much she plays it safe or controls her speech to not upset them, we don't know for sure (consent with silence?), but when pundits upset their sponsors too much, the show gets pulled. We have seen this happen with the O'Reilly show and others. Dore may have been exaggerating a little, but is entitled to his opinion. What Dore does in his personal life is his own business and attacking him for that is known as 'shooting the messenger.'

[Santi253]

when pundits upset their sponsors too much, the show gets pulled.

Yes, that's why Cenk Uygur left MSNBC. He turned down a multimillionaire dollar contract, because they didn't want him to say anything critical of the Obama administration from a progressive perspective. It's also why Phil Donahue was fired from MSNBC for speaking out against the Iraq war.

As for Rachel Maddow herself, I haven't seen any real evidence of compromised journalistic integrity. I'll admit it when I see it. So far, I've just seen a video clip taken out of context by a pot smoking comic.

[DooDoot]

Cenk Uygur... Phil Donahue...As for Rachel Maddow herself, I haven't seen any real evidence of compromised journalistic integrity..

You still sound caught up in identity. I used to listen to Cenk Uygur sometimes, until he started to say things I disagreed with. I don't judge him as a person but I judge the words he speaks. Sometimes, they are good words; sometimes they are bad words. As for Rachel Maddow, i don't watch her but what I have heard,it seems she seems to support US imperialism & seems to be be a govt propaganda mouthpiece. For example, Rachel said this about the Syria gas attack:

“The United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children. The activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its April 4, 2017 chemical weapons attack.

“As we have previously stated, the United States is in Syria to eliminate the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

Now, there is ample evidence the US govt & its allies created &/or supported ISIS. Also, there is no evidence the Syrian govt did any gas attack, for the following reasons:

1. The UN did not make a decision on the previous gas attack but the only inspectors who commented said it is likely the rebels did the previous gas attack.

2. Peace talks were due to be held that week therefore it was of no benefit for the Syrian govt to do the gas attack when they were winning the battle to keep their country free from foreign invaders (mercenaries).

4. Photos from the gas attack show alleged victims or victims being handled without gloves. This cannot be done with sarin gas.

4. I wrote to a world expert on sarin gas in Texas who said such a small scale gas attack from the air is impossible because an ordinary gas attack from the air would have killed 1/2 of the town. You can contact him at: https://www.jmtour.com/

You seem to be a typical American that is only concerned about how the govt affects you personally. Where as Buddhism has metta for all beings. If the govt is murdering people in imperialist wars, a Buddhist is logically expected to be against such govt policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTAcXLBsp8Y

Note: Obama did not receive any UN approval to bomb Libya.