COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY KATHERINE HAENSCHEN IN THE
GUARDIAN
If Mark Zuckerberg
runs for president, will Facebook help him win?
Well, of course, he is the owner, isn't he?
But I must say, the corporate press has already helped
Zuckerberg immensely.
Not a week goes by that his name isn't in the press,
sometimes more than once, yet I plainly observe he does nothing of note to
merit the attention.
Zuckerberg has a baby, Zuckerberg buys an estate in Hawaii,
Zuckerberg buys a fresh set of t-shirts.
He is being pushed, clearly, like a product by marketers.
When you run for high office in the United States, what is
termed "name recognition" is a very important advantage.
The corporate press has supplied that in spades, otherwise,
even though Facebook is widely known, his name would not automatically be
associated with it. Only a small fraction of users would be able to name the
head of Google, for example.
Well, the corporate press, including of course The Guardian,
has certainly taken care of that.
This man sneezes and it warrants an article, much resembling
the days of Diana or any movie celebrity.
But Zuckerberg does not have any of the charisma or charm of
those celebrities.
He just has tens of billions of dollars and some decidedly
unpleasant notions.
__________________________
Response to a comment
calling him the CIA candidate:
Yes, there's more than a little truth in that.
Few seem to realize how active CIA has been in American
politics in recent decades.
If you are in the Mafia, it is very comforting to have a
"made man" sitting as judge in the court.
The first absolutely certain CIA president was George Bush pere, a lifetime agent back to Kennedy's
day. They don't name the headquarters building after you just because you spent
two years as appointed director.
Bush's various conflicts were all classic CIA-type stuff.
First Gulf War set up by the American ambassador secretly winking at Saddam's
suggestion about Iraq taking over Kuwait. The President of Panama set up on
fake drug charges when what really mattered was Noriega's nationalism and
attitude towards the Canal. Noriega actually was often used by CIA in regional
projects.
I'm pretty sure it was the same for Obama. He came out of
nowhere, had little national name-recognition, and was heavily promoted by
certain interests. Always very secretive, even in his limited time as a
university lecturer. Holes in his resume. Questions about his birth records.
And he spent his entire eight years bombing people the CIA wanted bombed.
CIA hires few blacks, but Obama might have proved a useful
exception. Bright with the superficial charm of a narcissist or moderate
psychopathy. We sure know he can kill. He did an awful lot of it.
It should surprise no one that the CIA is entangled in
American politics. After all, their main work – in the really important
operations branch - is manipulating other governments, paying bribes and
"pensions" to politicians, interfering in elections, and staging
coups. Why wouldn't this spread to home?
Of course, CIA’s operating at home is technically illegal,
but we know from past CIA figures - Director Helms, for instance, testifying after
the Kennedy assassination - that the CIA is permitted to lie under oath. So how
would they ever be prosecuted for breaking the law? The law is just a token.
They’ve always operated at home when they thought it important.
