Showing posts with label New York times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York times. Show all posts

Monday, July 9, 2018

How the Democrats Helped Create an Ultra-Reactionary Supreme Court- And Strip Women of Their Abortion Rights

It's long past time to call out the Democratic Party of the U.S. on one of its major con games. The one in which they claim to be the sole bulwark protecting America from a right-wing "takeover" of the Supreme Court. The one in which they claim that they are the guardians of abortion rights, rights in permanent peril from unnamed right wingers.

Before I continue, I want to bullet-point the critical facts you need to take away with you:
  • Extreme reactionary Antonin Scalia was elevated to the Supreme Court by a Senate vote of 98-0. Those weren't 98 Republicans. Scalia was later one of five GOP apparatchiks on the high court who stole the 2000 presidential election for George Bush (Bush the Younger). [1]

  • Democratic Senator Joe Biden (later  vice president in the regime of Barack "The Drone Assassin" Obama) functioning as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was instrumental in putting known sex offender Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Thomas, like Scalia, voted to steal the 2000 presidential election for the GOP (Gang Of Plunderers). [2]

  • EVERY reactionary elevated to the top court, with its immense power, has gotten there with the support of Democratic Party senators. Even the ones who vote against confirming them soft-pedal how awful and evil the nominees are.

  • In the last year of the presidency of Hit Man Obama, a vacancy opened up on the Supereme Court. In an unprecedented power grab, the Senate Majority Leader, Republican Mitch McConnell (a venal coal industry stooge from Kentucky) announced that Obama would not be allowed to fill that vacancy. And Democratic response was- some grumbling under their breath and acceptance. Obama himself didn't give any evidence of even caring! (Yet there are still morons who think he is a "progressive" who was somehow thwarted by forces beyond his control. Now imagine if the situation was reversed, and a Democratic-controlled Senate denied a GOP president the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy! There would be DAILY howls of outrage, even calls for a military coup "to restore the Constitutional order." That's because the Republicans are like rabid wolverines and are serious about power. That's how, with a minority of the populace behind them, they have taken over the presidency, the Congress, the Judiciary, and two-thirds of the state legislatures and governorships. (They have long dominated and controlled the military and secret police apparatus.) They have used their control of state legislatures to draw districts that allow them to elect the majority of Representatives to the national House of Representatives with a minority of overall voters. The Democrats are mainly a party of grifters, unserious about power, just looking for profitable sinecures for themselves.

Okay, that last bulletpoint was a long one, but essential. Now on to the body of the essay, which will illustrate the utter cynicism of the Democrats in manipulating people who are duped into relying on them to protect the few hard-won rights we have.

Every election "cycle," which is to say, every two years [3], Democratic political hacks running for office send out tons of political junk mail to citizens, hoping to woo their votes. One of the perennial themes of this propaganda bombardment is how the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, and the need to protect the right to abortion, which was only granted to women by a divided Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade decision. That decision was made under pressure from the women's movement, and only granted a limited right, in the first trimester of pregnancy, after which the government was deemed to have an "interest" in interfering in personal and medical decisions and exerting control over people's bodies.

In the years since, the organized reactionaries of the U.S., including the Republican Party (GOP), rightwing religious zealots, the Catholic Church bosses, and assorted rightwing media and political cadres, have relentlessly attacked abortion. The terrorist arm of this novement has assassinated doctors and clinic workers with bombs and guns, committed thousands of arson and other attacks on abortion clinics, blockaded clinics and much else. The legal offensive has been even more devastating, with states controlled by the GOP (Gang Of Plunderers) virtually eliminating abortion clinics by various legislative encumbrances that in effect persecute the clinics. Some states have functionally outlawed abortion drugs, which in early pregnancy are the cheapest and easiest way to terminate a pregnancy. (By the way, these same creeps who care so much about "unborn children" are the same ones who deport children fleeing gang and state violence south of the U.S. border back to their deaths, who destroy water containers left in the desert for them, who rip children and infants away from their refugee parents and separate them by thousands of miles. They have historically supported the murder of children by fascist death squads in the U.S. empire, and bombing cities and villages in Vietnam, Korea, and elsewhere that kill large numbers of children, babies, and mothers. So I have a sneaking suspicion that reverence for the sanctity of life isn't their actual motive.)
There IS no abortion provider in almost every town in the U.S. Over 90% of U.S. counties have no abortion facility. Abortion has been stigmatized and isolated, banished from the body of the medical profession. The cowardly medical schools don't even teach their students how to perform abortions,

And what has the Democratic Party been doing all the while the assault on abortion rights has continued unabated for 44 years?

Every election they yell at their voters that the right to abortion is under assault and therefore you must vote for them. And that's pretty much it.

And they ensure that the Supreme Court has a hard rightwing majority, They do this to have a scare tactic to run in elections on, and they do this because they too are fundamentally reactionaries. They serve the corporate oligarchy, which of course wants a reactionary judiciary. They believe in state power over citizens- as the repressive legislation pushed into law by their presidents Truman, Clinton, and Obama proves. Obama gave the government the power to indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens in military gulags without charges or legal representation, by government fiat. The government need only label the victims "terrorists." That is now law because of Obama.

Let's dispose of another myth. The repeated, false assertion that the court is divided into a "liberal" wing and a "conservative" one. The actual division is conservative and reactionary. The conservatives ("liberal") mostly try to preserve the status quo, which is the definition of conservatism. The reactionaries want to change the status quo to make it more repressive, and to decrease the influence of the population and give the rich and large corporations ever more power. This is a program of radical change, NOT "conservatism."

1]  In a bit of ironically poetic justice, the Democratic candidate who along with his party let the GOP steal the 2000 election, Albert Gore, was one of the Senators who voted to put Scalia on the Supreme Court.

2]  Biden made sure Thomas, an arch-reactionary black man who is an enemy of African-Americans in many ways, including his attacks on affirmative action, made it through the confirmation process by stifling witnesses who would have buttressed Anita Hill's testimony about Thomas' vulgar sexual harassment of his underlings, and more critically Biden privately assured his Democratic Senate colleagues not to believe Hill. The story of  Biden's treachery is told in the book "Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas," by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson. The authors were reporters at the Wall Street Journal at the time the book was written. Mayer went on to be a staff writer at The New Yorker magazine, where she is today. Abramson became the very first female to ascend to the top editor post at the oh-so-august New York Times.



Abramson's tenure as top editor was short. She accidentally discovered that the publisher and chairman, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose family has long owned the paper and its other properties and who inherited his job from his Daddy, was chiseling her on her pay, paying her less than her male predecessors. Sulzberger was miffed when Abramson confronted him about this, proceeded to fire her, and then engaged in a campaign of character assassination against her.

So "liberal" of him!

This sexist asshole also hired the scandalous former BBC boss Mark Thompson. After notorious pedophile and BBC star Jimmy Savile died, the BBC had an expose ready to air. That was killed, and in its place a tribute to Savile was aired. Thompson claimed to know nothing about any of this, despite being in charge. Sulzberger thinks this guy is worth paying millions for.
The result so far has been a discrimination suit against Thompson for the toxic environment he's helped create (or perpetuate) at the NY Times. Two black female employees allege in their lawsuit that Thompson introduced an "environment rife with discrimination based on age, race and gender." It further links his behavior to similar actions by him during his BBC tenure. ["New York Times chief executive accused of discrimination," BBC News, 29 April, 2016.]


3]  In the U.S., one chamber of the national legislature, the "House of Representatives" of the U.S. Congress, stands for election every two years. There are 435 Congressional districts, thus 435 representatives covering all the 50 states. Congressional districts are proportioned roughly by population.

The other chamber of Congress, the U.S. Senate, has 100 Senators, two Senator for each state. This gives grossly disproportional weight and power to sparsely populated states hard rightwing states, and greatly weakens the political weight of populous states. So California has two Senators, and the 20 least populous states, whose total population equals that of California, have 40 Senators. So arch-reactionary states like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, the two Dakotas, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, and so on, are a powerful structural and institutional factor in making the U.S. a rightwing nation, even though only a minority of the population is rightwing in this putative "democracy."

Senators are elected for six year terms. Every two years, one third of the Senate stands for reelection.
U.S. presidents serve 4 year terms. The years that aren't presidential election years are called "off-year elections."

The terms of Congresspeople and presidents is set out in the Constitution. The Republicans passed a Constitutional amendment in the 1950's limiting the president to two elected terms. This was done in reaction to the fact that the Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president four times in a row starting in 1932. Ironically, Republican Dwight David Eisenhower, elected in 1952 and 1956, may well have won a third term if not for this amendment.





Wednesday, October 11, 2017

New York Times Spiked Story of Harvey Weinstein's Sexual Predations for 13 Years

That's an absolutely cogent headline about a newsworthy story that you won't see anywhere. (Just another example of why this is called Taboo Truths.)

Times reporter had the story about Weinstein's sexual abuses way back in 2004. Her editors told her it was "unimportant" and refused to publish it. As an employee of that bourgeois organ that arrogates to itself the power to decide what news is "fit to print," the reporter had no right to publish elsewhere, in any form. [1]

Something that IS important to the NY Times is advertising revenue. Anyone who gets the Friday paper finds the "Arts and Leisure" section crammed with very expensive full-page ads for movies.  Same on Saturdays. Movie studios, including Weinstein's, are major advertisers. And Weinstein's movies always got positive "reviews" in the paper. (Hey, one hand washes the other.)

Meanwhile other parts of the media have been throwing up a smokescreen for the Times. The U.S. Government radio propaganda network NPR, for example, has been pushing the line that the story couldn't be revealed until now because victims wouldn't go on the record (as if the establishment media never uses anonymous sources!), that "rumors" couldn't be "verified," the story couldn't be nailed down, fear of being sued for libel, blah blah. (Funny, fear of libel didn't stop the NBC sitcom "30 Rock" from making a joke about Weinstein's sexual coercions using his name some years back.) The fact is, Weinstein would have been incredibly reckless to sue for libel as he would have risked some of his numerous victims being convinced by defense lawyers to testify at trial.

I predict his current bluster about suing the NY Times for libel is an empty threat. Two of his lawyers have already quit working for him- that's how untenable his position is, after 30 years of various molestations and attempts at sexual extortion. The extortion was the old "casting couch" trope. Young actress starting a career- the price of an admission ticket to Hollywood is sexually serving some fat, ugly Hollywood "power player," whether a studio exec, a director - Alfred Hitchcock notoriously killed the career of actress  for refusing his sexual demand- or a producer, or even an agent.
Today a report has emerged that Weinstein raped women. And 13 women in this report attested to their physical fear of the big fat Weinstein. Weinstein is denying he ever raped anyone- but he's not threatening a ibel suit. (Gee, I wonder why.) [2]

The movie business, and the music business too, are two extremely sexist industries in America. This has been true for years. Sexual abuse and coercion are just one manifestation of this deeply ingrained sexism. Male dominance of the industries is a visible manifestation of the sexism. The large disparity is pay for male vs. female actresses is another.

The board of directors of The Weinstein Company has fired Harvey Weinstein. And his wife is leaving him. Ohh, the humanity!

Harvey is simultaneously denying he assaulted anyone, claiming whatever happened all those 30 years was "consensual," while simultaneously jetting off to Europe (it is claimed) for "treatment" for his sexual problem. What problem? You just said it was all consensual?

Picking up this rock has uncovered another loathsome character- Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. Vance blocked a criminal prosecution of Weinstein after the police obtained incriminating evidence. They had one of his victims return, wired for sound, and Weinstein was recorded making self-incriminating statements prompted by the victim.

This is the second case revealed in the last few days of Vance using his power to commit an obstruction of justice. He also overruled his staff who had prepared a case of criminal fraud against two of Trump's offspring, Ivanka and Donald Jr. Vance took bribes from Trump's lawyer in the form of campaign contributions in that case.

This is the same guy who persecutes Occupy Movement people like Cecily McMillan. And he's going to be reelected next month, running unopposed in a Soviet-style "democratic election."


The Oh-So-Sexy HARV!
Isn't he a dreamboat??

1]  WINS radio, New York City, reported the "unimportant" verdict of the NYT's editors (October 9, 6:04 AM).  And the reporter went on CNN to talk about the Times killing her story. The Times editors are now doing damage control, one claiming amnesia, another saying she only had one source- an obvious lie. The Times is also scrambling to cover its ass by running numerous stories about the matter, even an entire story about Tom Hanks that they somehow connected to Weinstein, just because Hanks is a famous actor and he has an opinion. The Times is eager to limit the reputational damage to just Weinstein and protect the movie industry.

2] Hedren has spoken about this experience. And Alfred Hitchcock makes Harvey Weinstein look like the epitome of a chivalrous gent. See  "Hitchcock? He was a psycho: As a TV drama reveals his sadistic abuse, Birds star Tippi Hedren tells how the director turned into a sexual predator who tried to destroy her,Daily Mail (UK), December 21, 2012.


3]  "From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories," New Yorker, October 10, 2017.




Friday, May 26, 2017

U.S. Secret Police Deep State Tightens Noose Around Their Nominal Boss, President Trump

Another day, another arrow aimed directly at Trump. Today it's the news that the FBI is targeting his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Kushner is a key Trump confidant to whom Trump has assigned a number of responsibilities. The FBI is targeting Trump's trusted inner circle.

As usual, the FBI unethically and against official policy provided the information "anonymously" to their media accomplices. They have been using the two newspaper that sit atop the power and prestige pyramid, the New York Times and the Washington Post to mount these attacks.

As Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, the leader of the Senate Democrats, said to Rachel Maddow back in January, messing with the "intelligence community" is a bad idea because "they have six ways from Sunday" to retaliate, and they are "angry" at Trump, Schumer told Maddow.

Oh, but there's no Deep State. Why, a guy from the New York Times was on the radio in New York City just yesterday denying that there is any such thing!





Friday, January 20, 2017

No Honeymoon For President Trump

The current change in U.S. regime has certainly been different from the pattern of most of the last century or so. The usual practice is for the power structure to be at least outwardly respectful to the new Leader, and formally deferential. Media fawn over the new chief executive of the U.S. Government. The honeymoon can last for years in the case of an arch-reactionary like Reagan. Nixon had a second honeymoon in 1972 when he ran for reelection, when except for the Washington Post, the Watergate burglary was virtually ignored by the media- to the disgruntlement of Senator George McGovern, the Democratic candidate for president that election year.

The New York Times spent the first year of Jimmy Carter's presidency putting his smiling visage on their front pages almost daily, in a strenuous effort to repair the damage to the public esteem for the presidency in the wake of Nixon's forced resignation and his hand-picked successor Gerald Ford's pardoning of Nixon to protect him from criminal charges. But by the last year of Carter's rule, the Times was smitten by Reagan, and did its best to sabotage Carter's reelection, such as by putting a photo of him on the front page running a marathon and looking exhausted, and describing him as panting and weak. The media also ginned up a fake "rabbit attack" on Carter to make him look ridiculous.

With Trump, the media assault has been unrelenting. It began after he won the Republican nomination, when it apparently dawned on the media czars and their minions that Trump would be dangerously destabilizing an unpredictable with presidential power. (Until then they had made him the center of mostly benign media attention for months.) The assault increased in intensity and virulence after he "won" the presdiential election November 8, with fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, by winning in the Electoral College, that extremely peculiar U.S. version of electoral  "democracy." A shabby piece of libel, an alleged "dossier" or "report," cooked-up by a former British secret policeman from MI6 (Christopher Steele, currently in hiding) who was hired by Republican primary opponents of Trump to come up with derogatory information about Trump, and then peddled by the Brit to the Democratic camp, was used by the so-called "intelligence community" and U.S. media to smear Trump as a pervert who had hired Russian prostitutes to piss on a hotel bed in Moscow in which one of the Clintons had slept, and the Russian secret police covertly videoed the whole thing and are now using it or are going to use it to blackmail or control Trump. That such a cheap spy-novel fantasy is taken seriously shows the desperation of part of the U.S. power elite, including the main secret police agencies, to hobble Trump.

And when Trump refuses to buckle, and instead denounces the "intelligence" agencies for this tawdry behavior, he is attacked by the commentariat for "attacking" "his own" intelligence agencies and "siding with Putin," and admonished by "experts" (various secret policemen, secret police veterans, and members of the established nomenklatura) that he'll have to learn to "work with" the CIA, FBI, et al, and sit at their knees to learn from them.

Now, Trump is awful, for sure, and his cabinet appointments are the worst in modern history, worse even than the egregious ones of Reagan. But this tawdry propaganda campaign throws into stark relief the unethical nature of the power establishment. It also proves once again that the Deep State agencies, in particular the CIA, FBI, and NSA, truly are states within a state that care first and foremost about their own power and prerogatives. Their loyalty to the state as a whole, to the U.S. government, and certainly to the president, to whom they are nominally pledged to serve, is far less important to them than their own self-aggrandizing schemes. After all, the CIA arranged the assassination of the president in 1963, with the FBI as a full participant in aiding and abetting the crime by helping cover it up. And the entire U.S. media played along, and still do to this day by maintaining the absurd fictional account of the assassination by the Warren Commission. (By the way, Gerald Ford, the guy who pardoned Nixon, was one of the Commissioners and functioned as FBI spy on the Commission.)

It's unfortunate that "alternative" media and public figures have so lost perspective and are so incapable of objectivity that they are playing right along with every propaganda assault on Trump. Between Trump's distortions of reality, and the distortions of reality being fostered by the elements of the power establishment desperate to undercut Trump on foreign policy mainly, (they seem not too troubled by what he threatens to do domestically), people will be disoriented without a lodestar of objective truth to turn to.

Instead of becoming foot soldiers in one side of an intra-ruling class power struggle, progressives should chart an independent course, a principled course, and ultimately the actually pragmatic course of declaring a pox on both houses of the power elite and devise ways to take advantage of their conflict. Playing them off against each other, for example, not legitimizing the slanders of the anti-Trump faction. Heaven knows, there is plenty of legitimate information about Trump to use against him, without trying to paint him as a Putin puppet who engaged in a lurid defilement ritual involving urination.



Wednesday, December 21, 2016

New York Times Propagandizes Shamelessly For Obama

And so too does, shamefully, Democracy Now!, if a bit unintentionally.

Take as our starting point this headline from the "liberal" New York Times:

Obama’s 78 Pardons and 153 Commutations Extend Record of Mercy. [1]

Let's take a look at this "mercy."

On December 19, Obama "pardoned" 78 individuals, meaning their convictions were erased, and commuted (shortened) the sentences of 153 prisoners, meaning they won't have to wait as long to get out of prison.

In some cases, it means they won't die in prison. As in this case cited by the Times:

Anthony DeWayne Gillis of Supply, Va., was convicted in 2005 of possessing cocaine, making false statements and possessing a firearm in “furtherance of drug trafficking.” He was sentenced to 145 years in prison. Mr. Obama’s grant of commutation reduces the sentence to 20 years.

Meaning he'll be out in 2025. See? Obama's all heart!

One might reasonably ask, What sort of cruel country imposes such draconian sentences in the first place? But the Times doesn't ask that question. Instead we are meant to be touched by the compassion of the Merciful Obama.

The Times article points out that commutations do nothing to restore rights lost for the rest of their lives to people with felony convictions. Oh, and those pardons all go to people who have already finished serving their sentences. And the Times doesn't tell you how many of Obama's commutations merely lopped a few months of time off prisoners soon to be release anyway. (It was a large percentage in his previous commutation media blitzes.)

So there is much less than meets the eye in the Times celebratory headline.

Of course, by buffing the image of the chief executive of the nation-state, they reinforce the perceived legitimacy and humaneness [!] of the system the Times is an integral part of. That is their motive, not some imaginary "liberal bias."

Every time Obama has deigned to show a bit of "mercy" towards Federal prisoners, he gets a blitz of positive propaganda from the press. He went through most of his presidency being extremely parsimonious in his issuances of clemency and pardons, for which criticism began to build up, belatedly.

The Times puts his "acts of clemency" total to date at 1,324, pardons and commutations combined. Of these, over 1,000 were commutations, "more than 50 times the number of people whose sentences were commuted by President George W. Bush and more than the past 11 presidents combined." Gee, sounds impressive. This is out of a total of over 200,000 convicted Federal prisoners, and tens of thousands more immigrant prisoners not convicted of anything. But he looks good compared to the remorseless cruelty of his predecessors. (On the other hand, Horrible Russia has freed 20,000 prisoners by official pardon in the last few years, including the 3 members of Pussy Riot, whose case was of such interest to the Western media. If only they paid 1/1,000 the amount of attention to U.S. political prisoners.) [2]

During past tranches of Obama Mercy, U.S. Government propaganda network NPR has put on groveling prisoners, in tears of gratitude for The Master's Mercy, so psychologically beaten down are they. Obviously the prisoners sought are those in deep self-abnegation who will show the proper ring-kissing gratitude towards the emperor.

What's unmentioned in all the fawning gratitude is the fact that Obama deliberately kept 6,000 drug war prisoners locked up for longer. That is six times the number whose sentences he has reduced, many reduced by only a few months, and over four times his total "acts of clemency." (Commutations plus pardons, but he's given pardons to people only after they've completed their sentences. That way, no one can criticize him for letting "criminals" off "easy." He cares much more about avoiding criticism than about freeing prisoners.)

Here's how he kept those 6,000 prisoners locked up. Congress, also being "merciful," reduced the "disparity" in sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine from 100 to 1 to "just" 18 to 1. That means, under the previous law, 1/100 the weight of crack cocaine gave casualties of the drug war the same sentence as an amount of powdered cocaine. In other words, it took 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine to receive the same sentence as for a given amount of crack. That's soo unfair! They should get the same prison time, right? (How about no prison, because the government has no right to outlaw cocaine if people want to use it- and they obviously do.) So Congress "reformed" the law by reducing the "disparity" to a mere 18 to 1 ratio.

With that change in the law, lawyers for victims serving sentences under the prior law filed suit in Federal court to apply the new law retroactively to current cocaine prisoners in Federal prisons- the aforementioned 6,000 prisoners. Which, if they had won, would have shortened the sentences of those prisoners.

In comes Obama. He sicced his then-Attorney General, the millionaire corporate lawyer Eric "Friend of High Finance" Holder, Jr., on them, to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court. Where the government, as virtually always happens when it's the government versus "criminals," prevailed.

Now, if the U.S. government had simply not opposed the suit, the prisoners might have won.
Furthermore, if the government had come in on the prisoners side, and said "We agree, they should be resentenced under the new law," almost certainly the Supreme Court would have said Okay.

If Obama had simply nothing, then someone else would have taken responsibility for freeing those prisoners- Congress and the courts. Instead he exerted himself to keep them in prison, away from their families and friends.

Why Obama thought it was so important to keep these 6,000 mostly black and Hispanic prisoners locked up longer, you'd have to ask him.

But this story is never mentioned in all the puff-pieces about Obama The Merciful. [3]

And oddly, it goes unmentioned by most progressives when they report on Obama's Mercy. I mentioned Democracy Now!  a program that should know better, because they just did it again. It should be told, to put Obama's Mercy in proper perspective, alongside his numerically far greater cruelty, and also to make people aware that Obama did this, as it is only through repetition that people remember.

Let the likes of the NY Times and its establishment ilk burnish Obama's "legacy." Progressives should NOT be doing that. Or have they learned nothing in eight years about Obama?

While we're on the topic, Obama won't be commuting the 35 year sentence of political prisoner Chelsea Manning, who he first tortured for two years in the Marine brig at Quantico. (Manning is in he U.S. Army, so they had no business sticking him in the Marine brig in the first place. And it was the UN Rapporteur on Torture that found the conditions constituted torture.) Then he staged a "trial" at which no official transcript was kept, and army spies peered over the shoulders of journalists who managed to force the Army to let them into the "courtroom."

Nor will he commute the sentences of other political prisoners, innocent men like Leonard Peltier. And he sure won't be pardoning any of them.

And Obama the Merciful won't be apologizing for breaking the arm of Medea Benjamin, or murdering 16-year-old American Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, his cousin, and five other people while eating in a restaurant. Or any of the other family members of putative jihadists the U.S. singles out. (If they really want to defeat jihadism, they need to go after Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani military "intelligence," the ISI- Inter Services Intelligence.)  [4]

Nor will Obama be expressing regret for his cheerleading the last time Israel "mowed the lawn" in Gaza, killing 550 Palestinian children in the process, many more adults. (One Israeli child was killed by Hamas' return fire. That prompted Obama to express sympathy and understanding- for the Israeli "need" to bombard Gaza for the third time in a decade. It's to protect "the children," you see.)

But one could write thousands of pages about Obama's cruelties and repression, which he hides behind a cynical mask of benignness and thoughtful concern. I don't think any more is necessary to make the case. Not that he is atypical for U.S. presidents in this regard. Empires are about imposing domination, so emperors must be ruthless and cruel. It's a requirement for the job.

1] "Obama’s 78 Pardons and 153 Commutations Extend Record of Mercy," New York Times, December 19, 2016.

2] See for example "NY Times Obsessed With Plight Of Dissidents- But Only In Certain Countries," August 8, 2012; "Pussy Riot Get Exact Same Sentence As Tim deChristopher," August 25, 2012; "One Member of Pussy Riot Freed; Tim deChristopher Still In Prison," October 10, 2012.

3] Glenn Ford of Black Agenda Report discussed this on The Real News Network. That's how I learned of it. See "A Critical Look at VICE's Story on Mass Imprisonment with Obama and Holder," October 1, 2015.

It's worth noting that the U.S. has the highest rate of imprisonment as a percentage of the adult population of any country on earth. That includes places like North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. The U.S. has more people imprisoned than any other nation, including China, even though China has over four times the population.

The number of people locked up in Federal and state prisons and local and county jails is about 2,500,000. That is almost one of every 100 adults.  The U.S. has 25% of the world's total prisoners. It currently has 4.38% of global population, derived from UN population estimates.

For good measure, U.S. police killed over 1,200 people last year, the most ever recorded.

U.S. Census current population estimate.

4] For Medea Benjamin's mauling, arranged by Obama, see "Obama Has Egyptian Military Regime Break American Peace Activist's Arm," March 8, 2014. For the murder of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki et al, see "Obama Ordered the Murder of a 16-Year-Old American," November 19, 2014.





Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Donald Trump's Projections

Back in January, Trump staged a televised fund-raiser that he claimed was for the benefit of military veterans. (Actually it was for his own benefit, as is everything this vain narcissist and egomaniac does.) With great fanfare, he announced from the stage that he had raised more than $6 million, and brayed that he was donating $1 million himself, included in the alleged $6 million figure.

In late May, the Washington Post reported that he never donated a dime. [1]

Typical of this sleazy carnival-barker-quality con man.

So what does Trump do? He calls the media “Unbelievably dishonest.” [2]

That's what's known in psychology as projection. Attributing to others a characteristic in oneself that one subconsciously wishes to disown.

Who's the one being unbelievably dishonest here?

AFTER the Post revealed his scam, he was forced to make his donation- and ONLY after. (No wonder he's so angry at the media. They just cost the con man a cool million.)

What did he think was going to happen?

Sure, for decades the New York City media has promoted him and given him a free ride and presented a false image of him. (As an alibi for their complicity and amoral behavior, and their rotten "journalism," they float the notion that Trump is a master of media manipulation. This is a common excuse the media use when caught in malpractice. Oh, they're such naifs, these cunning masters of media manipulation snooker them all the time! Well maybe go into another line of work, "journalists."

No, they're not that naive. Or to quote a song, they're "not, that, in-no-cent." [3])

So maybe he's too used to media complicity in his grotesque self-promotion. But surely he's been experiencing for long enough now how it's different when you're trying to seize the power of the presidency. This isn't some gimcrack real estate deal, or a scam "university." This is getting your hands on the power of the U.S. nation-state, the greatest power on earth.

Trump had more to say about the awfulness of reporters for failing to continue to function as his public relations brigade:

“The press should be ashamed of themselves.” [4]

Well, yes, but for other reasons than making Trump "look bad," as he tongue-lashed them for doing. He complained that the veterans he deceived were angry at him. Apparently he thinks the media is obligated to assist him in his scams, ruses, shams, and con jobs.

They would if they thought his frauds served the interests of the super-rich, of the corporate oligarchy, and of imperialist state power. After all, they go along with politicians' and presidents' frauds all the time.

They aided and abetted Nixon through a career of political fraud, for instance. Then there's LBJ's Tonkin Gulf fabrication. The Big Lies that "justified" the Iraq invasion of 2003. The 9/11 coverup. Hell, the JFK, RFK, and King assassinations, where the media are complicit to this day in protecting the conspirators in the CIA, FBI, and city police departments that participated.

How about every coup and invasion by the U.S., justified by some alleged "communist threat"?
There are probably thousands of examples, if one could assemble a large enough research team to review decades of media "reporting" and compare it to actual historical fact.

Maybe Trump's problem- one of his problems, I should say- is he is too much of a cynic and not enough of a hypocrite. The way the U.S., its elites, and its media get over is by being genuine hypocrites. They largely believe their own bullshit. Remember, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Thus for example they pretend to be devoted to democracy, freedom, and human rights, while their actions prove the exact opposite. (The U.S. is now the most totally-surveilled society on earth, bar none. There is literally less privacy here than in any other nation on earth. And I'm including China and North Korea. Nobody even has the technical ability to do what the U.S. government is doing right now.)

But I digress. On Trump's denunciation of the media (“The press should be ashamed of themselves”), obviously it's  Trump who should be ashamed. And would be, if he were a normal human being who possessed a conscience. Being shameless, instead he shoots the media messengers.

I think the media "coverage" of Trump has gotten "tougher" (i.e. like journalism) because they (and by "they" I mean both the "journalists" and more importantly the media czars who control the media) have awakened to the fact that Trump could actually become president, and that with a loose cannon like him in the Oval Office, things could get, shall we say, very interesting, in very bad ways.

Trump is obviously reckless, nor does he submit to any authority (like the collective authority of the corporate oligarchy, or the Deep State of the military and secret police, or of the "foreign policy
establishment"). Completely lacking in relevant political experience, he would be a more radical experiment than Bush the Younger was, who was also unqualified by experience and knowledge to be president, just from an imperialist managerial perspective. (Of course, his eminence grise, vice president Richard Cheney, was a lifelong imperialist apparatchik. Why the Bush presidency was so disastrous was due to a lot more than Bush's ignorance and fecklessness.)

Over the years there have been a few honorable exceptions to the media rule of promoting Trump. The Village Voice has a large archive of factual articles about Donald Trump.

1] "Four months after fundraiser, Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group," Washington         Post, May 24, 2016.

2] "Donald Trump Lashes Out at Media While Detailing Gifts to Veterans.New York Times, May 31, 2016.

3] Yeah, Britney Spears. "Oops! ...I Did It Again." She actually sang some great songs. "Piece of Me" brilliantly sticks it to the media hyenas who, like a bunch of catty teenagers, liked to trash her. Of course, others wrote and produced the music.

Big disappointment when she came out backing Bush the Younger.

4] New York Timesop cit.



U.S. Brazenly Announces Its Coup Plans for Venezuela

The New York Times has for years been the favorite bulletin board for high U.S. government officials to post anonymous messages. Their missives to the world at large are often granted page one placement. These messages, converted into "news" stories by the NY Times, are always intended to advance a political agenda, manipulate what people think, and often are disinformation (that is, lies).

A revealing example of this phenomenon appeared a few days ago under this headline:

"Nicolás Maduro Tightens Hold on Venezuela as U.S. Fears Further Tumult." [1]


Now the first thing that needs to be said, indeed stressed, is the absurdity of the word "Fears." The U.S. doesn't fear tumult in an enemy state. The U.S. seeks to CREATE tumult in enemy states! That is one of the "tools" in its "toolbox" for destabilizing hated leftist regimes. So the editors are being smarmily disingenuous before the reader even gets to the article.

Now let's move on to the body of the article. (It was co-written by Mark Landler, one of the more dodgy NY Times "reporters.") Here's the first three paragraphs:

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela threatened Saturday to seize idle factories in his country using a new emergency decree, moves that followed warnings by United States officials that economic chaos in the country had turned even his allies against him.
“An idle plant is a plant the people will take,” local news outlets quoted Mr. Maduro as saying at a rally. “We will take all the actions necessary to activate production, which is being paralyzed by the bourgeoisie.”
The threats came a day after Mr. Maduro said he would extend a state of emergency for another 60 days, a measure he said was aimed at reviving the country’s collapsing economy. The government said the move would extend presidential powers, though it was vague on specifics.
Notice the Bad Guy makes "threats," the Good Guys "warn."

The next paragraph describes in three sentences dire economic conditions in Venezuela. Then we get some ersatz hand-wringing from U.S. secret police bosses:

The United States fears that Venezuela could face a major eruption of street violence in the coming months, according to senior American intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing the government’s latest intelligence assessment.
While Mr. Maduro has so far held off a recall vote against him, the American officials said that they believed his grip on power was weakening by the day, and that he could be removed from power, either in a palace coup by members of his party or by the Venezuelan military.
While the military’s high command appears unlikely to act against the government right now, these officials said, its midlevel officers are more restive. One American official said intelligence officials were worried about some kind of change, but were not aware of any active plots. [My emphases, obviously.]
The CIA (presumably) is "worried" Madura might be overthrown? Is that sarcasmEager to see "some kind of change" (oh so coy; just say "Maduro overthrown") is the obvious truth! What kind of "newspaper" prints whopping lies without pointing out their falsehood? Certainly when the Times quotes Putin or Ayatollah Khamenei they make sure to contradict what they're saying.

After some more description of economic problems in Venezuela (with nary a mention of their causes, such as the plunge in oil prices over the past couple of years) we come to the last paragraph:

                 The officials acknowledged that the United States had limited influence in
                 Venezuela, where the government has blamed American meddling for the 
                 instability.

"Meddling" meaning subversion. By the way, there are some "secrets" the NY Times doesn't report- what the U.S. has been up to in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez ascended to power. You'll have to go elsewhere to learn about that. To the NY Times, those are just some wild and baseless accusations being flung about by a leftie government to cover up for its own failings. (And I'm not saying the Venezuelan government has no failings. But there hasn't been any honest discussion of them in the Western capitalist media, which has confined itself to Chavez-Maduro bashing since Day One.)

What I found a bit stunning was how the Obama regime openly advertised Maduro's alleged vulnerabilities. Maduro can only take these as threats (note the oh-so-innocent CIA avowal of being unaware of any coup plots. Sure. Fomenting coups are one of the CIA's main purposes, and it has a long, vicious history of committing and attempting them.) It's like a gangster walking into a business and saying "Nice little shop you have here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it." The idea that the U.S. and CIA don't want anything BAD to happen to the hated Maduro is just a weird insult to our intelligence, once that the CIA and, worse, the New York Times is willing to shovel down the gullets of its presumably educated (but apparently infinitely credulous) readers- infinitely credulous when the guff is coming from their bourgeous bible, the NY Times. 

It's germane to mention here the fact that the NY Times has a history of hailing U.S. coups, including the three most notorious ones, Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, and Chile, 9/11/73. And leading up to those coups, the NY Times used it propaganda powers to prepare public opinion to see those mass murderous acts as Good Things, "rescuing" countries from "communism."

"Senior American Intelligence Official." 
We got rid of that bastard Chavez, now Maduro goes down!  John Brennan, CIA Director.

By the way, the "government's latest intelligence assessment" is no doubt highly classified, which means the "intelligence officials" who divulged it to the Times committed felonies, since New York Times reporters don't have security clearances. But Obama certainly won't be siccing the FBI and "Justice" Department on them, like he does to whistleblowers, nor put the reporters under criminal investigation, as he's also done. These are "authorized" "leaks." (They aren't leaks, they're plants. The U.S. media deliberately mischaracterizes what is going on in these cases when the government uses the media for its political ends.)

The Washington Post is another imperialist bulletin board where high government apparatchiks can freely post anonymous political notes. Here too those ghostlike "intelligence officials" made an appearance. But the Post is a lot more honest than the Times in this instance, even though the Post is definitely to the right of the Times these days. (The Times is also quite mealy-mouthed, which could be a factor in this case.) [2]

Here are the opening paragraphs of the Post version of the Obama regime secret police planted article:

        Venezuela, where clashes erupted this week between security forces and demonstrators
        protesting food stortages, power blackouts and political gridlock, may be headed toward 
        an all-out popular uprising.that could lead to the overthrow of its government this year
        senior U.S. intelligence officials said.

        “You can hear the ice cracking,” an intelligence official said [or gloated]. 
        “You know there’s a crisis coming.” [He added, licking his chops.]

         Disaster is pending in Venezuela at the same time the Obama administration believes that
         it has vastly improved U.S. standing in Latin America, compared with the days when political          
        and economic turmoil in the hemisphere was blamed, sometimes with reason, on either            
        interference or disregard by Washington.
       There have been many times over the past two decades when the United States has wished
       for the demise of the left-wing Bolivarian revolution begun by former Venezuelan president            
       Hugo Chávez and carried on since 2013 by his successor, Nicolás Maduro. The Obama            
       administration and its predecessor have charged the government in Caracas with corruption,
       human rights abuses and drug smuggling, among other things, and have supported the
       political opposition.

You can see the relative frankness of the Post's version vs. the dishonesty of the Times. Still, the Post is discreet enough not to mention with what "reason" the U.S. was "blamed" for "turmoil," which "sometimes" the accusations weren't just shrill blame-shifting, and what the "interference" consisted of. (Like, installing murderous military dictatorships, maybe?)

And yet the Post, like the Times, was perfectly willing to provide a platform for absurd lies, which it ran without demurral. Such as this:

       The days of America rooting for the ouster of Chávez and his revolutionary movement
      “are over,” the intelligence official said. Now, “it’s not really the case that the United
      States is rooting for any outcome, other than that it’s not an outbreak of political violence.
      You’d have to be insane not to worry.” [We all know how much the U.S. ABHORS violence!]

      The senior intelligence officials, who briefed a small group of reporters, spoke on the
      condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the government.

Why they would be any less eager to get rid of Maduro than Chavez is left unexplained.

The Post article concluded by explicating three ways to overthrow the Venezuelan government:

           
      The intelligence officials outlined three possible change-of-government scenarios.
      The failure of this year’s recall referendum could lead to another petition next year.
      But the opposition — itself divided and ill-disciplined — has been a disappointment
      to the Obama administration.

      Second, there could be a “palace coup” in which some members of Maduro’s
      government move to oust him with the help of some segment of the military.

      The third possible scenario is a military move, possibly led by lower-ranking officers
      and enlisted members who also are feeling the economic pinch, to remove the
      government altogether.

Nothing like spelling it out, guys. (Gals too, these days, They're so "progressive," they even let women and blacks be imperialist gangsters now! And gays! How much more enlightened can you get!) So there's the game plans. Rather, the end game plans.

"Senior U.S. intelligence official."
The Maduro regime is this close to the edge. All it needs is one little push...  
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence.

Here's a measure of the depth of cynicism involved in this propaganda salvo. If the U.S. were truly worried about a collapse in Venezuela, and wanted to avert a coup, it wouldn't PUBLICIZE all this. It wouldn't in effect goad the opposition, and the military, in this way. Instead of very conspicuously handing out a roadmap for overthrowing Maduro, it would quietly inform key opposition and military figures that the U.S. would not support a coup.

Of course the U.S. WILL support a coup, just as it supported the Honduran coup, a fact Obama's previous Secretary of State, Hillary "Hard-nosed Realist" Clinton even bragged about in her recent book,  In fact, it probably prefers one, as that will make it easier for the U.S. to choose Maduro's successor than if the regime is toppled by a mass rebellion of some sort.

So on the guise of being worried about the Maduro regime falling (and the end of Chavismo, hopes the U.S. global masters), the U.S. global gestapo is trying to cause that very thing.

All this parallels Obama's habitual pattern of saying the exact opposite of what he actually intends to do. (Sometimes, of course, he says what he means- when it's something evil.) Obama may well be the most mendacious president in U.S, history. (Although Bill Clinton, another conscience-free con man, is certainly in the running.) Not even Reagan and Nixon quite compare, as both of them frequently came right out with their reactionary intentions. Not so Obama. Obama endeavors to deceive almost always.

Now, here's something very important to notice, that the U.S. propaganda system and imperialist government is trying to slip by you: for all the moaning about leftists taking over Latin America, the U.S. has been overthrowing  can one left-leaning government after another, or certainly giving them a shove. In Brazil, the largest and most important Latin American nation, thieving legislators have removed president Dilma Rousseff (whom the vengeful Obama no doubt held a grudge against for taking offense at his NSA listening in on her phone calls- and if you don't think he's vengeful, and ruthless, take note of how he had Egyptian secret police goons break Medea Benjamin's arm after she interrupted one of his speeches, and how he had Anwar al-Awlaki's son and nephew bumped off). These fine men defenestrated Rousseff so they can quash the criminal investigations into themselves. In Argentina, U.S. billionaire Paul Singer financed an election victory for Macri, replacing Isabel Kirshner. Macri promptly handed over billions of dollars of Argentina's national funds to Singer and his fellow hedge fund hyenas. Honduras I already mentioned. Obama has pried open the door to internally subvert Cuba, an elusive "prize" the U.S. has sought since 1959. Guess we better assume Ecuador and Bolivia are on the list. And except for Cuba, none of these regimes is or was particularly leftist, just mildly social democratic. That shows the extreme intolerance and hard right-wing nature of the permanent U.S. imperialist state.

Capo di tutti capi

I LOVE you guys!     U.S. Emperor Obama

One more thing worth remembering: we still don't know what caused Hugo Chavez's lethal cancer. We do know that Imperialist Boss Obama sure seemed satisfied with it..

This was Obama's entire statement upon Chavez's death, from the White House website: 

Statement of President Obama on the Death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez


At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez’s passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government. As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.


There it is. Not a single word of condolence. And a reiteration in coded language of the U.S. determination to overthrow the leftist regime. This is the new verbiage the U.S. uses since invoking The Communist Menace as an alibi for its subversion, sabotage, terrorism and coups became obsolete. Obama's own record is crystal clear the contempt in which he actually holds "democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights." Massive secret surveillance of the entire U.S. population, assassinations of even teenagers by drone, contempt for law- he writes his own laws, in secret, and refuses to let anyone else read them, and has taken the pieces of the Bill of Rights shredded by his predecessor and reduced them to confetti- this is the rhetoric of cynical global gangsters.

Keep in mind that Obama personally reviews death lists before the CIA and military carry out their assassinations. He even authorized the murder of the teenage son and nephews of al-Qaeda in Yemen propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki. So he's not squeamish. (Awlaki father and son, "terminated with extreme prejudice" two weeks apart, were both American citizens, for what that's worth. Not much, it seems. Mere citizenship didn't save Michael Hastings or Sandra Bland either. "Fellow Americans" is indeed a hollow, cynical term.)

To review the death of Chavez, the cold satisfaction the U.S. took in his death, and the unresolved question of whether the CIA murdered Chavez by inducing the cancer that the Cubans' best doctors couldn't cure, see "Chavez, Cancer, and the CIA," March 9, 2013; "With Chavez Dying, Obama "National Security Team" Preparing to Gloat," January 10, 2013; "Dead Man Walking: Hugo Chavez Doomed. CIA Dancing a Jig?," December 12, 2012.

And the British government did its bit in the demonization of Chavez. Like a puppy-dog eager to please, it is usually avid in its desire to demonstrate its usefulness to the U.S., an urge manifested in its leaping to the U.S. military's side with forces of its own when there's a fight on somewhere. (This sycophantic urge was played on by Obama when he opined that the UK would be less useful to the U.S. if it left the EU. The cold manipulator Obama thus expertly plucked the strings of British elite insecurity about its power and position in the world.)

The British ruling class still suffers from the delusion that the U.S. will reciprocate its servility by sticking up for Britain's dessicated imperialist pretensions. (At best, the UK is allowed to ride the U.S.' coattails. Here's a telling historical fact: the Reagan regime almost sided with the fascist Argentine military junta in the Falklands War, at the urging of the fascist Jeane Kirkpatrick and demented reactionary Alexander Haig.*  What turned Reagan around was his Secretary of war, Caspar Weinberger, who insisted the U.S. had to aid Britain.) Someone needs to tell the British: nations don't have "friends," notwithstanding the constant invocation of that word, nations have interests.

Given this quasi-craven attitude of the British government, it's no surprise that its propaganda arm, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), often reliably parrots the U.S. media/government line and attitude. A particularly grotesque example of this occurred when Huge Chavez died. I discussed this, quoting the BBC in the essay title: "Hugo Chavez: Champion of the Poor or Unhinged Megalomaniac?" March 6, 2013. Oh those English are so refined and subtle.


* Haig was an obscure colonel and son of a Republican lawyer whom Nixon rapidly elevated to four-star general rank. A reactionary fanatic, he committed many crimes during his "career." He actually suggested a "nuclear warning shot" in Europe to "deter" the Soviet Union. [Congress and the Nuclear Freeze: An Inside Look at the Politics of a Mass Movement, by Douglas C. Waller, 1987, page 19.]

But the bourgeois media will remember him, if at all, for declaring himself "in control" at the White House when Reagan was shot and hospitalized in March 1981. Haig was Secretary of State at the time, a post he resigned in mid-1982, a year and a half into Reagan's reign.


1] New York Times, May 14, 2015.

2] "U.S. intelligence officials: Venezuela could be headed for collapse," Washington Post, May 13,      2016.



Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Bush Created "Enemy Combatants." Now Obama Has Invented "Unprivileged Belligerents," Formerly Known as Journalists

Amazingly, the U.S. has openly declared its intent to murder journalists.

As I wrote about yesterday, ["Obama Regime Codifies Policy of Murdering Journalists U.S. Doesn't Like"] under Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Barack Obama, the Department of "Defense" has issued a new manual giving its killers carte blanche to deal with journalists whose work it considers a "threat" in the same manner that "enemy combatants" and "terrorists" are dealt with. These journalists are now to be considered "unprivileged belligerents." A belligerent is an enemy soldier. "Unprivileged" means the normal laws of war do not apply. In short, the Obama regime's Pentagon has declared its intent to murder journalists who displease it too much. (One such journalist, Michael Hastings, was murdered by the government last year, apparently at the instigation of  CIA boss John Brennan. Hastings was reviled by the military for "causing" the firing of general Stanley McCrystal, and held in contempt by establishment pseudo-journalists.) [1]

These categories were specifically created to dehumanize the intended targets of violence to legitimize, morally and pseudo-legally, torture, murder, and indefinite imprisonment in secret locations under barbaric conditions without having to bother with courts, lawyers, or trials. They create the psychological and political conditions to activate these crimes against basic human rights. Thus does Obama take the U.S. further into barbarism, continuing the evil project of his predecessors.
The fact that the U.S. is now openly declaring its "right" to treat journalists it finds annoying as subhuman scum to be eliminated at will moved the New York Times to publish a worried editorial on the matter. (Referenced and linked to in my previous essay noted above.)

The Pentagon document is a declaration of war against journalists who don't toe the U.S. line. Al-Jazeera journalists were targets of lethal U.S. violence from the very start of the "War On Terrorism" in 2001. In the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the target list of journalists was expanded to include "unembedded" journalists, that is, those who would not be stooges of the U.S. military.
What had been unofficial policy, a practice of selective murder thinly veiled under cynical claims of "accidents," is now openly proclaimed as stated U.S. military policy. As usual, the U.S. government does its Alice-In-Wonderland game of calling whatever they proclaim as "lawful." "Law is whatever the U.S. Killer State says it is."

U.S. involvement in or directly murdering journalists goes back at least to 1948, when CBS correspondent George Polk was murdered by Greek fascists and the Truman regime arranged to frame up communists for the crime. Polk had exposed corruption in the the fascist regime of former Nazi collaborations the Truman regime installed in Greece after World War Two. No less a personage than the notorious William "Wild Bill" Donovan, head of the wartime OSS, the forerunner of the CIA, was detailed to arrange the coverup and frameup. (A communist journalist was tortured into "confessing," among other, ahem, irregularities in the "trial." Make that show trial, a term the self-proclaimed "Free World" was fond of throwing at its Bolshevik adversaries. Or as they say in Wonderland, first the verdict, then then trial.)

The U.S. media and "educational" system has done an assiduous job of erasing the story of George Polk from general knowledge, while cynically recognizing the journalism award named after him. Very little has been written about this tawdry crime of U.S. Imperialism and its fascist underlings. I first learned of it years ago when a now-defunct magazine named More published a cover story about it, telling the true story. Then Kati Marton, a former wife of ABC chief "news" reader Peter Jennings and U.S. State Department tough guy Richard Holbrooke (both now deceased) wrote a book that also endeavored to reveal the truth.

Over the decades, the U.S. has been involved in the murders of hundreds of journalists by the various neo-fascist regimes it has installed in its various satrapies around the world, especially in Latin America. It has directly killed a smaller number, some in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, some inside the U.S. (See my essay referenced above for examples.) The particulars of each case leave no doubt that none were accidents or "suicides," and all were deliberate murders.

The U.S. used to put up a facade of denial. Now they have announced they will no longer even bother with that.

1] For a discussion of the hatred and contempt U.S. corporate propagandists had for the genuine journalist Michael Hastings, see "Michael Hastings: my friend and his enemies," the Guardian, (UK), June 19, 2013.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Political Uses Of The Boston Marathon Bombing

[I use the singular, bombing, to denote a single incident. Two bombs were set off seconds apart, in relatively close proximity.]

This latest “terrorist” bombing has in many ways been a godsend for the U.S. establishment. (The term terrorist is so politicized at this point that one is almost compelled to put it in quotation marks, yet to do so immediately subjects one to attack for “apologizing for” or “justifying” terrorism- whatever “terrorism” is- or at the least for being insufficiently appalled, grief-stricken, shocked, horrified by the particular bombing or attempted bombing.) [1]

Most obviously, it provides an opportunity to administer a booster shot of War On Terror indoctrination to the public. As “9/11” recedes in time, and the effects of the massive propaganda campaign that was launched around that one-day event wanes, reinforcement of the indoctrination is necessary.

Notice that “9/11” is used as a totem. All they have to do to press people's buttons is say “9/11.” All the hours and hours of pictures of the burning Twin Towers are permanently embedded in people's minds now on a deep level, as “a horror.” Every invocation of “9/11” causes a mental vibration, an emotional harmonic to occur. It “strikes a chord.” Over and over, the media strums that same note. [2]

I think it no accident that the year is omitted from the date, 9/11. How different to say, 9/11/01, as I do. Now you see how old it is, how long ago it was. Putting it in the past makes it part of history, an event that once occurred, not an ever-present, timeless reality hovering over your shoulder like a malevolent god, a bad dream that never ends or a recurring nightmare stirred up every time some nasty fanatics set off a bomb inside U.S. territorial borders or tries to blow up his underwear or shoes on a plane.

The propaganda system doesn't want people to get over it. They want to keep people in a permanent state of anxiety and fear. (Contrary to what they say, such as Obama saying after the Marathon bombing that “we” will not be frightened. In fact they want people to be frightened, or they WOULDN'T HARP ON IT SO MUCH. I guess politicians lie- who knew?)

Keeping people anxious and fearful makes them submissive to “authority” (the people in power). It makes people feel dependent on those in power for protection and security. (Not for nothing is the word “security” bandied about constantly, in dishonest ways, when they're really talking about the power of the people in power, as in “security services,” or “national security.” This is true in other countries too of course.) It makes people accept living in a police state, submit to paying for a gigantic military establishment and constant wars. I.e. life in an Imperialist state.

The timing of the Marathon bombing was also very fortuitous for the establishment, as two other events occurred around the same time that they wouldn't want too much attention focused on. First, a private group called the Constitution Project came out with a report that finally called U.S. torture, torture. Furthermore, it blamed the top officials of the U.S. for it. (That would be Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) The 11-person panel that produced the report was co-chaired by Asa Hutchinson, of all people, a former GOP Congressman and deputy Secretary of Bush's Department of Homeland Security. It did make the front page of the NY Times on April 16th, the day after the bombing, on the bottom. (The bombing took up more than the top half of the front page, including a large photo of the bloody scene.) The second to last paragraph of the article lets drop that the report contains dozens of cases of the U.S. prosecuting similar treatment or denouncing others for doing the same things. That is, it exposes utter U.S. hypocrisy. The report also confirms that the CIA is lying through its teeth when it claims it only ever water-boarded three people. (Which in the article the NY Times still falsely calls “near-drowning,” as if you have to die to be drowned. Drowning means getting water in your lungs, which is what water-boarding does.)

Later that week, a fertilizer plant in the town of West, Texas, blew up, killing 14 firemen and injuring 200 residents. The significance of that: first, notice that almost five times as many people were killed by that explosion as by the bombs in Boston, which killed 3, and more were wounded than the 170 in Boston. But that was “just an accident,” so not worthy of week after week of wall-to-wall obsessing over.

Was it an accident? More like an accident waiting to happen. That is, when one examines the details (which I won't go into here but you can easily find information about it) one discovers that it's that old U.S. story of a paper-thin facade of regulation, reckless practices, wrist-slap penalties, and a dominate ideology that insists that regulation of business is BAD. This noxious ideology is especially powerful in Texas. And this explosion will change nothing. Just watch. Because this has happened before. In fact it happens often. 

In 2005 there was another major explosion in Texas, in a BP (remember them) refinery. That "accident" killed 15 workers (5 times the death toll in Boston last week) and injured 170. BP chronically refuses to follow reasonable safety procedures, and after every "accident" it promises regulators to reform itself and shape up, and then proceeds to violate its promises. In Texas, in Alaska, everywhere. Every single time.

I know nothing will change because the U.S. is in the iron grip of an anti-human ideology that elevates private profit over all other values, including human life. The other way I know this is from history: for example the Texas City explosion of 1947 that killed at least 581 people, including all but one member of the local fire department. Thousands were injured. At least 1,000 homes and other buildings were damaged or destroyed. Like the latest disaster, this explosion started with a fire. 

Yet look where we are today. Toothless regulators on the Federal level (OSHA) and regulation-hating “regulators” on the state level in Texas and most other states. Both are feckless and ineffective. The West, Texas plant, situation in a populated area and near a school (they don't even care about children) was effectively unregulated, subject to a mere facade of oversight. As the phenomenon of Ronald Reagan proved, ideology is more powerful than reality. (Religion proves this too, even more starkly. How can people believe that absurd stuff?)

In fact, things will get worse. The NY Times has just reported that the evil Koch brothers are scheming to buy the newspapers of the Tribune Company, which include the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, the better to foist their noxious anti-regulation ideology on the public. (As if those rags were ever pro-regulation.) These papers have long been the propaganda tools of rich reactionary families- the Chandlers in L.A., and the McCormicks in Chicago. Tribune Company bought the Times from the Chandlers, and then the crude and vulgar philistine real estate hustler Sam Zell seized control of Tribune Company with a leveraged buyout, gutted the newsrooms, and bankrupted the company. [3]

1) Yes, even attempted bombings are supposed to elicit shock and horror and terror, no matter how ludicrous- the sad sack “underwear bomber,” the moronic “shoe bomber” (Richard Reid), both lame attempts to bring down passenger planes, or the inept Pakistani whose defective car bomb made some smoke and fizzled in Times Square, or the various “plots,” some fabricated by the FBI. All these trivial things the media won't stop reminding us of. (Yes, trivial It's not as if people are being blown apart weekly, as in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, for example, or less often in Indonesia, or India, or in the Gaza Strip, in many of these cases by U.S. munitions. The U.S. media apparently is in the threat-exaggeration business, to justify the relentless increase in domestic repression and global aggression. There is a threat- there are always threats, that's just life- but there are reasonable responses and uses of force to deal with it. What the U.S. ruling system is doing is deliberately portraying itself- and us- as being in mortal peril to justify its own crimes and human rights depredations and flat-out terrorism.)

At exactly the same time that the U.S. media was in a hysterical tizzy over the “terrorist” bombing in Boston, political bombings in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan were described in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, to take examples from the apex of the U.S. propaganda system, as being the work of “militants.” It is standard practice to describe bombings aimed at civilians in those places as committed by “militants,” never “terrorists.”

Unless the victims are “white.” So bombings by jihadists in Indonesia are done by “militants,” except that the Bali bombing that killed 200 mostly Australian tourists is a “terrorist” bombing.

And of course, the U.S.' own bombings can never be “terrorist.” Right now, a young Yemeni man* who went to high school in the U.S. and, ironically, was mentored by a USAF officer, just testified before Congress about a recent U.S. strike on a Yemeni village that slaughtered people, blowing them apart, literally into bits of flesh, with cluster bombs far more devilishly murderous than the crude bombs the Boston Marathon “terrorist” bombers constructed out of pressure cookers, black powder, nails and ball bearings. The “target” was a known man, not in hiding, who the Yemeni government could have easily arrested. But the U.S. under Obama is apparently in a take-no-prisoners mode, so poor villagers must be randomly slaughtered and live in terror, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Somalia, in god knows where else. Because the U.S. is “fighting terrorism,” don't you see? So how fortunate that its obsession with the Boston Marathon bombing gives the U.S. media a convenient excuse to ignore this, and a distraction for the public.

The U.S. doesn't even bother using the words consistently, let alone logically. Nor does it follow its own official definitions. The U.S. government and media uses the words when it wants to whip up hatred and outrage towards a political target or, and justify a war, or aggression, or “suspension” of civil liberties, or get away with gross human rights violations, or draconian punishment.

Terrorist, like Communist, is a political curse word,.That's all it is when they use it. And terrorism and communism are ill- or never-defined terms that are understood and used as synonyms for Pure Evil.

So using the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” in the way the U.S. establishment uses them is to play Simon Says, with them as Simon and us as copycats.

The same with “terrorist states.” Cuba is a “terrorist state.” Says who? Says the U.S. The U.S. puts nations on its “state sponsor of terrorism” list as a political punishment, NOT because of any actual actions by the targeted state.

Of course, one nation that will never be on that list is a nation that actually has created terror in the hearts and minds of millions of people around the world, for many decades. A nation that mercilessly bombed and slaughtered millions of people in Indochina not too long ago. A nation that has overthrow governments around the world, and installed fascist dictatorships in their places (which killed hundreds of thousands of people in two cases- Iran and Guatemala- and killed almost a million in Indonesia in a political holocaust instigated and orchestrated by the instigating nation's global secret police); a nation that assassinates routinely, with impunity, in several nations at once, spreading chronic fear among impoverished villagers who live under killer drones; the world's greatest sponsor of state terrorism,the good ole self-righteous U.S. of A.

*Farea al-Muslimi was the Yemeni who testified on April 23 before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee convened to examine the drone war. The Obama regime didn't send a representative to testify. [See “As Obama Shuns Hearing, Yemeni Says U.S. Drone War Terrifying Civilians, Empowering Militants," at democracynow.org.]

2) To me, the attacks that day were not a horror, but a disaster, a man-made one, and a tragedy for those who lost loved ones or suffered injuries or disease. As are many things. The idea that it was unique, or unusually awful, is simply counter-factual. More people die in earthquakes and tsunamis all the time. And all but the smallest wars kill more people. And Bashar Assad is doing the same thing on a smaller scale daily in Syria, bombing and shelling buildings with people in them. Every time Israel launches one of its wars on Gaza, again, same thing, only smaller buildings and fewer casualties. What difference does calling one thing “terrorism” and calling other attacks on populated buildings something else make? Dead is dead.

3) A so-called leveraged buyout is a form of theft. It's like a virus invading a bacteria or cell and hijacking the cell, turning it into its slave. In a leverage buyout, the thief doesn't buy the company with his own money. Instead he “buys” it by using the assets of the victim company- which he doesn't yet own- as collateral to borrow the “purchase” money, generally from an “investment bank,” heaping the resulting debt on the company he's “buying.” In other words, in effect the invader forces the company to buy itself and hand itself over to the invader. Mitt “Robber Baron” Romney used this invading-virus technique to make fortunes at Bain Capital, gutting workers' benefits and robbing them of their pensions and often their jobs in the process. In some cases, the companies were completely destroyed.