You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
The power to make decisions in society must remain primarily in the hands of a democratically elected government. In private hands, there is only one concern, and that is the bottom line. We have too much ‘bottom line’ directed policy as it is.
“There’s a striking difference between physicists and economists. Physicists don’t say, hey, let’s try an experiment that might destroy the world, because it would be interesting to see what would happen. But economists do that. On the basis of neoclassical theories, they instituted a major revolution in world affairs in the early 1980s that took off with Carter, and accelerated with Reagan and Thatcher. Given the power of the United States compared with the rest of the world, the neoliberal assault, a major experiment in economic theory, had a devastating result. It didn’t take a genius to figure it out. Their motto has been, “Government is the problem.”
That doesn’t mean you eliminate decisions; it just means you transfer them. Decisions still have to be made. If they’re not made by government, which is, in a limited way, under popular influence, they will be made by concentrations of private power, which have no accountability to the public. And following the Friedman instructions, have no responsibility to the society that gave them the gift of incorporation. They have only the imperative of self-enrichment.
Margaret Thatcher then comes along and says there is no such thing as society, just atomized individuals who are somehow managing in the market. Of course, there is a small footnote that she didn’t bother to add: for the rich and powerful, there is plenty of society. Organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, ALEC, all kinds of others. They get together, they defend themselves, and so on. There is plenty of society for them, just not for the rest of us. Most people have to face the ravages of the market. And, of course, the rich don’t. Corporations count on a powerful state to bail them out every time there’s some trouble. The rich have to have the powerful state — as well as its police powers — to be sure nobody gets in their way.”
Meghan Murphy doesn’t hold anything back as she decries the tomfoolery of the gender-magic on display from the US federal government.
“Yesterday, we witnessed a historic moment: US assistant health secretary Rachel Levine was sworn in as the first ever female four-star admiral of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. Wait, no. That’s not right… Let me start again.
Yesterday, the man President Joe Biden selected as assistant health secretary became the sixth man to be named four-star admiral of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
Yesterday, America became a laughing stock, as the president elected by the good people of America (not to be confused with the bad people of America) and all of mainstream media presented the appointment of an old, fat white man (with long hair!) as admiral of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps as a historic moment.
“Dr. Rachel Levine, the nation’s most senior transgender official, made history again Tuesday by becoming the first openly transgender four-star officer across any of the country’s eight uniformed services,” NBC News reported.
The New York Times went even further, tweeting:
“Dr. Rachel Levine was sworn in as the first female four-star admiral in the history of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service of more than 6,000 health, science and engineering professionals.”
To be fair, they were only repeating what had been announced by the Biden administration, which was that “Admiral Levine now serves as the highest ranking official in the USPHS Commissioned Corps and its first ever female four star admiral.” But to also be fair, it is the job of the New York Times (and all media) to report the truth, not to simply parrot whatever the government feeds them. And, to be fair, Rachel Levine is not female and never will be. And, to be fair, everyone knows it.
What kind of planet are we living on wherein we all pretend putting yet another man into a role that has always been filled by men equates to “a giant step forward towards equality as a nation”? Or “a history-making show of diversity and inclusion”? Has there never before been a man who enjoys wearing women’s clothing in such a position? Do they screen men for fetishes before they can be appointed to admiral? Clearly they don’t screen them for having spent time as military officers, as Levine has not had any military career to speak of. I suppose his time spent in dresses makes up for his lack of service.”
Just an endearing journey of a culinary experience wrapped with peaceable moments and expressions of joy. Wholesome stuff.
When examining the claims of transgender ideology what is often found are fundamentally paradoxical claims about what the stated goals of the movement are and how they are to be achieved.
The transgender rights movement relies on opacity and vagueness to put forward it’s claims. They claim to be the ‘most oppressed’ minority, while in reality they are not. Ask them which rights specifically they do not have, they almost never answer because their goal is not about fighting for their rights, it is about ensuing you comply with what they say. Which, of course, isn’t a position but rather an imposition of set of ideas and thus not really an argument per se.
In this selection Ms.Jackson examines some of the common claims transgender activists make and evaluates them against what is actually happening and the record of other rights movements. No other rights movement has actively campaigned for the removal of other marginalized groups rights. Specifically female rights with regards to their boundaries, spaces, services, and sports. Women who, rightly, oppose this male colonization of female space are threatened, attacked, and face public censure for standing up and defending their boundaries.
For instance, Margaret Atwood retweeted an article that mildly criticized the more radically misogynistic behaviour of transrights activists. This is the a small sample of the reactions she received: 
Yes, I for one, can definitely see how progressive this transrights movement is. It is, in fact, misogyny and male rights activism as soon as you scratch the surface. And of course, what looks and quacks like anti-female activism is indeed anti-female activism as Ms. Jackson correctly identifies.
The very last thing we need in the world is a military conflict with China, David Vine writes in Counterpunch about the folly of taking the Cold War path again.
“The Biden administration and the United States must do better than resuscitate the strategies of the nineteenth century and the Cold War era. Rather than further fueling a regional arms race with yet more bases and weapons development in Australia, U.S. officials could help lower tensions between Taiwan and mainland China, while working to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In the wake of the Afghan War, President Biden could commit the United States to a foreign policy of diplomacy, peace-building, and opposition to war rather than one of endless conflict and preparations for more of the same. AUKUS’s initial 18-month consultation period offers a chance to reverse course.
Recent polling suggests such moves would be popular. More than three times as many in the U.S. would like to see an increase, rather than a decrease, in diplomatic engagement in the world, according to the nonprofit Eurasia Group Foundation. Most surveyed would also like to see fewer troop deployments overseas. Twice as many want to decrease the military budget as want to increase it.
The world barely survived the original Cold War, which was anything but cold for the millions of people who lived through or died in the era’s proxy wars in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Can we really risk another version of the same, this time possibly with Russia as well as China? Do we want an arms race and competing military buildups that would divert trillions of dollars more from pressing human needs while filling the coffers of arms manufacturers? Do we really want to risk triggering a military clash between the United States and China, accidental or otherwise, that could easily spin out of control and become a hot, possibly nuclear, war in which the death and destruction of the last 20 years of “forever wars” would look small by comparison.
That thought alone should be chilling. That thought alone should be enough to stop another Cold War before it’s too late.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…