Theres an old meme about the heavily left-wing biased deb00nker website Snopes. It has a headline like "Democrat politician fucks his cat" and then the big letters over the top saying FALSE. But then the fine print says "it wasn't his cat it was his friends cat".
Leftoids do this shit all the time. See: Bentham's rebuttals of the claims about USAID
I posted this below on Bentham's page, should it disappear. He is so delusional! TY for writing this article!
This article is just as misleading as some of the points in the YouTubers video. Both of you using partial truths to convey your message. The straight up falsehood that really irritated me you got wrong is about John Bolton. John absolutely has worked with USAID in a supervisory position. For years he was directly in charge of their Budget and had direct decision making ability in their policy. Ive been with Hagler Bailly a long time & worked/met with Bolton many times. Over half of my contracts are funded by USAID and/or the State Dept, so many of your assumptions are either extremely biased, ignorant or majorly stretches just as the YouTuber. Difference is she is at least correct in her core premise where you are not. The United States can't afford any of these programs you felt were good or helpful, no we don't need ANY social programs in Armenia! 90% of the country lives in the city of Yerevan, 5,6,7 & 8 family members in a single family 1 bedroom apartment & they still can't go get stuff at the store when they have a need. Armenia has much bigger problems than anything regarding their LGBT+ community. If we are giving them money it needs to be so they can cover basic needs, not have to sleep on the floor in an apartment next to their grandmother with holes exposed to the outside as big as a basketball. The bigger issue is now recovering from all the government money spent from Covid and the last 4 years. We have $19 trillion dollars left that we can borrow/print, after that the US ability to issue bonds is done as our debt ceiling is so high. We don't need to be spending a dollar of this crap, even some of my own projects shouldn't be funded by just the US but they are, even with the hit to my personal income I would take, I will find another job, I just need this country financially strong still for my kids and future grandkids. Do better and stop defending an issue that you know deep down is screwed up.
Again, this is in response to Bentham's newsletter. He is so lost.
Your example of the error of Bentham's article, that PEPFAR isn't fully a part of USAID, isn't a big difference in the information we learn about the actions of USAID. Yes, USAID partakes in carrying out the day-to-day activities of much of PEPFAR, which doesn't imply it will continue to exist when the money stops. Personally, I don't care if PEPFAR exists, but this is a point of accuracy. The errors which ShoeHead proliferates are substantially incorrect, like "covering up a child sex abuse ring" and "funding drug production in Afghanistan." It's like stating the US funded the Taliban by leaving vehicles in their retreat, which was either an accident or the cheapest option.
Also notable that these are the same type of people to claim the US needs to atone for their use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, complaining that the US is materially addressing the issue in a more sincere way than some sort of apology would be worth.
John Bolton being head of USAID vs. head of a subdivision of USAID isn't a big difference either.
BB’s error is actually more of an issue for his larger point than Shoe’s error is for her point because in his costs/benefits discussion of USAID, he implies that all of PEPFAR’s huge lives-saved count is attributable to USAID.
basically correct is a massive overstatement of her USAID criticism
point 2 is basically contested for by BB because shoe frames it in a way thats favourable to her as opposed to what the program does itself,BB does dispute this because it isnt propoganda itself.
you boil down point 3 to just inclusion but it isnt purely inclusion based itself as bentham himself even points out.
point 5 again he doesnt think propaganda is good, this is just the way youve framed his words
with regards to point 7 and 8 there is lacking nuance with regards to the way shoe and bentham frame it, shoe frames it as though this was done specifically by usaid, and not as a result of people mistreating usaid funds.
>but they’re so minor as to not materially alter the basic point of the video.
this doesnt make sense, these are some of the main points that she uses to call out usaid, in reality many of them lack nuance or arent simply what she says they are
the bolton point isnt made alone, its made in opposition to leftists in support of USAID
BB is right in calling them insane falsehoods, because they arent just pieces of evidence taken face value, theyre distorted as they serve to fulfill a particular narrative
> Sh0e’s basic message
shoes basic message is being misunderstood here as being something way narrower than what it is, she does use this as one of her points, but it isnt her basic message at all, which has more to do with the USAID being a bad organisation, one that is rife with waste and corruption.
this was done without taking into account the various things it does, so her criticism using specific claims as a generalizer for more broad claims is quite unfounded, when most of them dont even represent where most of usaid funding goes.
this "criticism" of BB seems to be using a half baked analysis of what BBs basic message was(that it wasnt mainly wastage or corruption) while shoes basic message was that it was mainly wastage or corruption
> Maybe so, but there’s good reason to be worried when our government engages in shadowy activities to indoctrinate the masses and overthrow non-ideologically-aligned governments
pretty sure BB doesnt disagree but this again misses his point about the organisation itself as opposed to specific programs it does.
the point after this essentially abstracts the intentions from a few other cases and uses them as judgement for the rest, this doesnt seem to work in any sense. even the point about morality is a bit ambiguous
> In any case, most of USAID’s funding does not go to PEPFAR. You are allowed to be against USAID’s nefarious activities. You don’t have to let yourself be blackmailed into supporting unlimited CIA and State Department perfidy, just because they tie those perfidious activities to a starving African child.
but this isnt the point shoe makes at all, she expands this to the whole org not just the "unlimited cia and state department perfidy".
this seems to be a not well thought out response
and sidenote; while pepfar itself is quite small and not part of usaid, usaid provides quite a bit to ukraine which does do good things
propoganda is a form of information which arent state funded media
so "definitionally" they arent the same, one reffers to the information put out, the other is an organization devoid of any considerations put on it
state funded media can do propaganda, but that doesnt say that it ought do or will do propaganda necessarily, non state funded media also can do propagnada pieces.
so no this is just false that theyre definitionally the same when theyre definitionally miles apart.
you are just imposing your own concept of propagnada thereon
I don't want the US government engaged in a lot of propaganda at home. But abroad, I want maximum propaganda all the time. We are a good country that wants everyone in the world to have freedom and sovereignty, how does that equal world domination? Russia and China are spreading propaganda all the time, if all they get is propaganda from the Russians and silence from us, thats not much of a choice.
If it were me, I'd slap an American flag on every single item from PEPFAR or USAID; every syringe, every pill bottle, every box of food. It's good that we try to help people and they should know it's us that's doing it. Maybe if the citizens of Afghanistan knew that we helped them overthrow the Soviets, they wouldn't have harbored people who wanted to kill us? Just a thought.
Haven't we learned that overthrowing terrible regimes can easily lead to worse states of affairs. In fact with almost certainty in much of the third world.
No, Libya and Syria are in a different part of the world. Over there, the likely replacement government would be much worse. Cubans aren't middle-eastern muslims.
Even so, you're relying on Cuba hitting a 'dysfunction floor' and rebounding from it through the sheer desire to fill societal vacuums. Systems can be created, expanded, or reinforced to fill a vacuum, but that's not a law of nature. Useful government institutions in general (anywhere) are absolute miracles that should each be seen as an artificial exception to natural developments rather than a consequence of them. Critic is trying to say that the Cubans have lost the will or skills necessary to maintain them, and that they may not regain the capacity to do so for a generation or two.
Theres an old meme about the heavily left-wing biased deb00nker website Snopes. It has a headline like "Democrat politician fucks his cat" and then the big letters over the top saying FALSE. But then the fine print says "it wasn't his cat it was his friends cat".
Leftoids do this shit all the time. See: Bentham's rebuttals of the claims about USAID
Simon Laird defending Shoeonhead isn't a crossover I expected to see in my lifetime
She is my favorite comedian.
I posted this below on Bentham's page, should it disappear. He is so delusional! TY for writing this article!
This article is just as misleading as some of the points in the YouTubers video. Both of you using partial truths to convey your message. The straight up falsehood that really irritated me you got wrong is about John Bolton. John absolutely has worked with USAID in a supervisory position. For years he was directly in charge of their Budget and had direct decision making ability in their policy. Ive been with Hagler Bailly a long time & worked/met with Bolton many times. Over half of my contracts are funded by USAID and/or the State Dept, so many of your assumptions are either extremely biased, ignorant or majorly stretches just as the YouTuber. Difference is she is at least correct in her core premise where you are not. The United States can't afford any of these programs you felt were good or helpful, no we don't need ANY social programs in Armenia! 90% of the country lives in the city of Yerevan, 5,6,7 & 8 family members in a single family 1 bedroom apartment & they still can't go get stuff at the store when they have a need. Armenia has much bigger problems than anything regarding their LGBT+ community. If we are giving them money it needs to be so they can cover basic needs, not have to sleep on the floor in an apartment next to their grandmother with holes exposed to the outside as big as a basketball. The bigger issue is now recovering from all the government money spent from Covid and the last 4 years. We have $19 trillion dollars left that we can borrow/print, after that the US ability to issue bonds is done as our debt ceiling is so high. We don't need to be spending a dollar of this crap, even some of my own projects shouldn't be funded by just the US but they are, even with the hit to my personal income I would take, I will find another job, I just need this country financially strong still for my kids and future grandkids. Do better and stop defending an issue that you know deep down is screwed up.
Again, this is in response to Bentham's newsletter. He is so lost.
Good article
Your example of the error of Bentham's article, that PEPFAR isn't fully a part of USAID, isn't a big difference in the information we learn about the actions of USAID. Yes, USAID partakes in carrying out the day-to-day activities of much of PEPFAR, which doesn't imply it will continue to exist when the money stops. Personally, I don't care if PEPFAR exists, but this is a point of accuracy. The errors which ShoeHead proliferates are substantially incorrect, like "covering up a child sex abuse ring" and "funding drug production in Afghanistan." It's like stating the US funded the Taliban by leaving vehicles in their retreat, which was either an accident or the cheapest option.
Also notable that these are the same type of people to claim the US needs to atone for their use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, complaining that the US is materially addressing the issue in a more sincere way than some sort of apology would be worth.
John Bolton being head of USAID vs. head of a subdivision of USAID isn't a big difference either.
BB’s error is actually more of an issue for his larger point than Shoe’s error is for her point because in his costs/benefits discussion of USAID, he implies that all of PEPFAR’s huge lives-saved count is attributable to USAID.
basically correct is a massive overstatement of her USAID criticism
point 2 is basically contested for by BB because shoe frames it in a way thats favourable to her as opposed to what the program does itself,BB does dispute this because it isnt propoganda itself.
you boil down point 3 to just inclusion but it isnt purely inclusion based itself as bentham himself even points out.
point 5 again he doesnt think propaganda is good, this is just the way youve framed his words
with regards to point 7 and 8 there is lacking nuance with regards to the way shoe and bentham frame it, shoe frames it as though this was done specifically by usaid, and not as a result of people mistreating usaid funds.
>but they’re so minor as to not materially alter the basic point of the video.
this doesnt make sense, these are some of the main points that she uses to call out usaid, in reality many of them lack nuance or arent simply what she says they are
the bolton point isnt made alone, its made in opposition to leftists in support of USAID
BB is right in calling them insane falsehoods, because they arent just pieces of evidence taken face value, theyre distorted as they serve to fulfill a particular narrative
> Sh0e’s basic message
shoes basic message is being misunderstood here as being something way narrower than what it is, she does use this as one of her points, but it isnt her basic message at all, which has more to do with the USAID being a bad organisation, one that is rife with waste and corruption.
this was done without taking into account the various things it does, so her criticism using specific claims as a generalizer for more broad claims is quite unfounded, when most of them dont even represent where most of usaid funding goes.
this "criticism" of BB seems to be using a half baked analysis of what BBs basic message was(that it wasnt mainly wastage or corruption) while shoes basic message was that it was mainly wastage or corruption
> Maybe so, but there’s good reason to be worried when our government engages in shadowy activities to indoctrinate the masses and overthrow non-ideologically-aligned governments
pretty sure BB doesnt disagree but this again misses his point about the organisation itself as opposed to specific programs it does.
the point after this essentially abstracts the intentions from a few other cases and uses them as judgement for the rest, this doesnt seem to work in any sense. even the point about morality is a bit ambiguous
> In any case, most of USAID’s funding does not go to PEPFAR. You are allowed to be against USAID’s nefarious activities. You don’t have to let yourself be blackmailed into supporting unlimited CIA and State Department perfidy, just because they tie those perfidious activities to a starving African child.
but this isnt the point shoe makes at all, she expands this to the whole org not just the "unlimited cia and state department perfidy".
this seems to be a not well thought out response
and sidenote; while pepfar itself is quite small and not part of usaid, usaid provides quite a bit to ukraine which does do good things
State funded media is propaganda by definition.
literally no
propoganda is a form of information which arent state funded media
so "definitionally" they arent the same, one reffers to the information put out, the other is an organization devoid of any considerations put on it
state funded media can do propaganda, but that doesnt say that it ought do or will do propaganda necessarily, non state funded media also can do propagnada pieces.
so no this is just false that theyre definitionally the same when theyre definitionally miles apart.
you are just imposing your own concept of propagnada thereon
I don't want the US government engaged in a lot of propaganda at home. But abroad, I want maximum propaganda all the time. We are a good country that wants everyone in the world to have freedom and sovereignty, how does that equal world domination? Russia and China are spreading propaganda all the time, if all they get is propaganda from the Russians and silence from us, thats not much of a choice.
If it were me, I'd slap an American flag on every single item from PEPFAR or USAID; every syringe, every pill bottle, every box of food. It's good that we try to help people and they should know it's us that's doing it. Maybe if the citizens of Afghanistan knew that we helped them overthrow the Soviets, they wouldn't have harbored people who wanted to kill us? Just a thought.
Haven't we learned that overthrowing terrible regimes can easily lead to worse states of affairs. In fact with almost certainty in much of the third world.
Cubans are about 75% White. There's no reason Cuba should be third world.
Nope. They’re 2nd world! https://cdn.corporatefinanceinstitute.com/assets/second-world-1024x525.png
No, Libya and Syria are in a different part of the world. Over there, the likely replacement government would be much worse. Cubans aren't middle-eastern muslims.
Even so, you're relying on Cuba hitting a 'dysfunction floor' and rebounding from it through the sheer desire to fill societal vacuums. Systems can be created, expanded, or reinforced to fill a vacuum, but that's not a law of nature. Useful government institutions in general (anywhere) are absolute miracles that should each be seen as an artificial exception to natural developments rather than a consequence of them. Critic is trying to say that the Cubans have lost the will or skills necessary to maintain them, and that they may not regain the capacity to do so for a generation or two.