John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE
“Confusion swirls over US policy in Syria after Trump nixes talk of troop withdrawal”
A top US senator briefed by Mr Trump on Sunday added to the confusion. Senator Lindsey Graham, an influential and outspoken South Carolina Republican, said the US would not allow for a chaotic withdrawal of American military personnel from northern Syria and would prevent Iran from filling any vacuum.
This is about Israel.
The original intention of the US in putting troops into northeast Syria had little to do with ISIS and a great deal to do with helping foster a Kurdish rump state to weaken Syria.
Such a rump state would be a kind of consolation prize for the failed proxy war against Assad, a war which was the covert handiwork of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France, and, originally, Turkey.
Fighting ISIS in the northeast just provided a good cover for America’s illegal behavior of occupation and base-building, training and supplying forces working against the country’s legitimate government.
Israel has been extremely unhappy with how the proxy war, a pet project, has gone, and when it is unhappy, its chief allies in Washington hear about it, and loudly.
Lindsey Graham is one of those. Indeed, Sen Graham is perhaps the most embarrassingly attentive advocate for Israel in Washington. He literally jumps to his feet every time the country’s name is mentioned.
This turn of events is very bad news from every reasonable point of view. Trump, once again, is not keeping his word, displaying pathetic weakness. Washington is ready to continue with activity that violates all international law and practice. Israel demonstrates yet again completely inappropriate influence on what Washington does in the world. And we have delay in getting Syria reunited and getting reconstruction under way with huge numbers of refugees kept waiting longer.
Monday, December 31, 2018
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CORRECTION ON THE GHASTLY TOLL OF "WAR ON TERROR" - THE HANDIWORK OF AMERICA'S PRIVILEGED CLASS ANSWERING TO NO ONE AND ABOUT AS CORRUPT AS THEY COME - AMERICANS' ASTONISHING TRUST IN BOUGHT POLITICIANS AND IN BOUGHT JOURNALISM
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MATT TAIBBI IN ZEROHEDGE
“Nothing unites our political class like the threat of ending our never-ending war ...”
A good piece, capturing some fundamental truth about America's power establishment.
In the early summary of the costs of the War on Terror, however, we find this:
"What’s the War on Terror death count by now, a half-million?"
Well, it is far greater than that.
Just in Syria, at least that many have been killed.
The total for the invasion of Iraq, including all the aftershocks set off by it, is perhaps a million souls.
Then there's Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and several lesser spots.
I think a fair rough number is around 2 million.
And the number of hopeless refugees?
Many million. At least 3 million are in camps in Turkey. Germany took around a million. Terrible old Syria took about 2 million originally from Iraq.
No, the consequences of this American insanity are immense and will affect people for a couple of generations.
Meanwhile, the expenses-paid lunches in Washington likely swelled to record amounts.
It's called the abuse of power.
It's also called corruption, and Lord Acton had it so right with his words about power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
America's power establishment arrived at that last point in the dictum quite some years ago.
The amazing thing for me is how any American can believe his country would be free of these basic forces shaping human society?
Americans are somehow purer of heart? I do think there is some of that. Remember George Bush’s pathetic, blubbering Sunday School teacher words about America when some of the military’s war crimes came to light?
Take a bunch of privileged and ambitious insiders, give them hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on questionable projects with no well-defined purpose, give them all the secrecy they demand, give them no real accounting for their acts, and give them a blizzard of favorable propaganda to cover whatever they do.
What possible other results could you get?
The naivete of average Americans in just accepting this from their (bought-and-paid-for) politicians and never questioning what's in their (bought-and-paid-for) corporate press is astonishing.
Astonishing but a fact.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MATT TAIBBI IN ZEROHEDGE
“Nothing unites our political class like the threat of ending our never-ending war ...”
A good piece, capturing some fundamental truth about America's power establishment.
In the early summary of the costs of the War on Terror, however, we find this:
"What’s the War on Terror death count by now, a half-million?"
Well, it is far greater than that.
Just in Syria, at least that many have been killed.
The total for the invasion of Iraq, including all the aftershocks set off by it, is perhaps a million souls.
Then there's Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and several lesser spots.
I think a fair rough number is around 2 million.
And the number of hopeless refugees?
Many million. At least 3 million are in camps in Turkey. Germany took around a million. Terrible old Syria took about 2 million originally from Iraq.
No, the consequences of this American insanity are immense and will affect people for a couple of generations.
Meanwhile, the expenses-paid lunches in Washington likely swelled to record amounts.
It's called the abuse of power.
It's also called corruption, and Lord Acton had it so right with his words about power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
America's power establishment arrived at that last point in the dictum quite some years ago.
The amazing thing for me is how any American can believe his country would be free of these basic forces shaping human society?
Americans are somehow purer of heart? I do think there is some of that. Remember George Bush’s pathetic, blubbering Sunday School teacher words about America when some of the military’s war crimes came to light?
Take a bunch of privileged and ambitious insiders, give them hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on questionable projects with no well-defined purpose, give them all the secrecy they demand, give them no real accounting for their acts, and give them a blizzard of favorable propaganda to cover whatever they do.
What possible other results could you get?
The naivete of average Americans in just accepting this from their (bought-and-paid-for) politicians and never questioning what's in their (bought-and-paid-for) corporate press is astonishing.
Astonishing but a fact.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THINKING PEOPLE HAVE BEEN APPALLED BY THE GUARDIAN'S RECENT FALSE STORY ATTACKING JULIAN ASSANGE - BUT THE CONTEMPORARY GUARDIAN IS CONSISTENTLY APPALLING - IN ITS HARD NEWS AND VIEWS THE GUARDIAN IS ABOUT AS TORY AND PRO-AMERICAN AND WAR-LOVING AS THERESA MAY
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JOE LAURIA IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“The Guardian has claimed Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange at the Ecuador embassy. John Pilger visited Assange and tells CN’s Joe Lauria Assange strongly denied any such meeting”
The Guardian, under its present direction, serves pretty much as a crypto-Tory propaganda outlet.
It tries covering its trail with loads of stuff about the disadvantaged and minorities, but these are puff pieces of no real substance. Indeed, many of them strike the reader as forced and not terribly sincere.
When it comes to the big issues of the day - Assange, Russia, Corbyn, America's military, Israel's behavior, Saudi Arabia's murderer Prince, Ukraine, and others - The Guardian view is virtually indistinguishable from some Tory Party house organ under the direction of Theresa May.
It is an amazing phenomenon that anyone still gives The Guardian any credibility. Its extreme bias and willingness to run what can only be called disinformation disqualify it entirely from being taken seriously, at least by serious people, and certainly on serious issues.
Its bias shows in many ways, notably in the way it handles comments from readers. It is very controlling, starting with big limits on what story topics are even allowed comments to removing (non-abusive) comments to banning people from commenting.
It still lives off its old reputation from decades ago when it was a (somewhat dull) publication genuinely concerned with working-class and progressive matters.
Today, on the Internet, the main page resembles a pop magazine with its mix of personalities, movies, fads, pop books, television, promotions, pop singers, and travel with a spot of local interest. This all goes to trying to draw a younger audience.
That is all enmeshed with numberless light articles about the unfortunate, women achieving things, and people with unusual sexual identity problems. This kind of material provides the paper’s only claim to being progressive or liberal today.
Under this outer skin, as it were, comes the red meat of The Guardian.
I could give dozens of examples, but here, below, is my favorite, analyzed as what I call a celebration of Hate Russia Day. It is propaganda and disinformation and just plain hate on a grotesque scale. An old 1950s Soviet publication might even have been ashamed to pile it on so thickly.
But The Guardian is not ashamed, not in the least, and it does comparable things, week-in and week-out, about Assange as Russian tool, Russia as an imminent threat to “the West,” Corbyn as anti-Semite, the good work of America's military, Iran as the root of evil, celebrating Saudi Arabia's murderer Prince as progressive, Ukraine as a victim of aggression, and others.
Along the way, it manages to heap praise and give continued publicity to the likes of Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton, a couple of the most dishonest and murderous figures of our time.
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/john-chuckman-comment-absurd-lengths-to-which-our-press-goes-to-attack-russia-britains-guardian-holds-hate-russia-day-today-some-of-its-stuff-is-so-ham-fisted-it-reads-like-1959-pravda-atta/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JOE LAURIA IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“The Guardian has claimed Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange at the Ecuador embassy. John Pilger visited Assange and tells CN’s Joe Lauria Assange strongly denied any such meeting”
The Guardian, under its present direction, serves pretty much as a crypto-Tory propaganda outlet.
It tries covering its trail with loads of stuff about the disadvantaged and minorities, but these are puff pieces of no real substance. Indeed, many of them strike the reader as forced and not terribly sincere.
When it comes to the big issues of the day - Assange, Russia, Corbyn, America's military, Israel's behavior, Saudi Arabia's murderer Prince, Ukraine, and others - The Guardian view is virtually indistinguishable from some Tory Party house organ under the direction of Theresa May.
It is an amazing phenomenon that anyone still gives The Guardian any credibility. Its extreme bias and willingness to run what can only be called disinformation disqualify it entirely from being taken seriously, at least by serious people, and certainly on serious issues.
Its bias shows in many ways, notably in the way it handles comments from readers. It is very controlling, starting with big limits on what story topics are even allowed comments to removing (non-abusive) comments to banning people from commenting.
It still lives off its old reputation from decades ago when it was a (somewhat dull) publication genuinely concerned with working-class and progressive matters.
Today, on the Internet, the main page resembles a pop magazine with its mix of personalities, movies, fads, pop books, television, promotions, pop singers, and travel with a spot of local interest. This all goes to trying to draw a younger audience.
That is all enmeshed with numberless light articles about the unfortunate, women achieving things, and people with unusual sexual identity problems. This kind of material provides the paper’s only claim to being progressive or liberal today.
Under this outer skin, as it were, comes the red meat of The Guardian.
I could give dozens of examples, but here, below, is my favorite, analyzed as what I call a celebration of Hate Russia Day. It is propaganda and disinformation and just plain hate on a grotesque scale. An old 1950s Soviet publication might even have been ashamed to pile it on so thickly.
But The Guardian is not ashamed, not in the least, and it does comparable things, week-in and week-out, about Assange as Russian tool, Russia as an imminent threat to “the West,” Corbyn as anti-Semite, the good work of America's military, Iran as the root of evil, celebrating Saudi Arabia's murderer Prince as progressive, Ukraine as a victim of aggression, and others.
Along the way, it manages to heap praise and give continued publicity to the likes of Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton, a couple of the most dishonest and murderous figures of our time.
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/john-chuckman-comment-absurd-lengths-to-which-our-press-goes-to-attack-russia-britains-guardian-holds-hate-russia-day-today-some-of-its-stuff-is-so-ham-fisted-it-reads-like-1959-pravda-atta/
Saturday, December 22, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CAN TRUMP REMAIN FIRM IN HIS SYRIA DECISION? - APART FROM FORCES AGAINST HIM WE DO HAVE EVEN SOME POSSIBILITY OF A HOAX - TWO POWERFUL WASHINGTON FORCES AT WORK HERE AND TRUMP IS NO ENEMY OF EITHER - DESPITE TRUMP'S CLAIM AMERICA WAS NEVER THE MIDEAST'S "POLICEMAN" - POLICE ENFORCE LAWS BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT AMERICA DOES - AMERICA AND PROXY WARS - ISRAEL AND TURKEY AND THE KURDS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PATRICK BUCHANAN IN ANTIWAR
“Will Trump Hold Firm on Syrian Pullout?”
Well, it is hard to see Trump being "firm" on anything, except in statements admiring himself.
He is a fickle man.
And he has amply demonstrated cowardice. We've seen that quality over and over, and especially in his bullying.
Apart from Trump’s fickleness and the powerful opposition already hard at work against this decision – you can tell from various leaks, such as the one intended to embarrass him that the decision was taken without any consultation with advisors and cabinet and allies - this whole affair may prove a kind of elaborate hoax.
There were reports yesterday that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are sending troops and weapons to Kurdish areas American forces now occupy.
We also shouldn't forget that France has forces in the area, and they're not leaving as far as we can tell.
Could it be that we are just seeing substitutions for the departing American forces?
That's an entirely different matter than a clean break with the illegal and murderous activity America has been engaged in.
It would amount only to a "technical" fulfillment of Trump's campaign words.
One fact that tends to work against this idea is the sudden resignation of Mattis, but even that could fit. He may have opposed such an effort at substitution. He is not known as an especially imaginative man.
I have been pretty sceptical about the whole matter because it so clearly opposes two very active and powerful forces at work in Washington.
One is the American establishment’s new drive for global power with all that stuff about "full-spectrum dominance" from the Pentagon.
And the other is the Israel lobby, which carries a great deal of weight in Congress, at the Pentagon, and with Trump. He has come to be viewed as a great benefactor to Israel. It is difficult to see Trump having the backbone to deal with them as opponents, and they are very much opposed to this decision.
Netanyahu has relished the war in Syria, grinding away at people he hates, Assad and his Iranian allies, always wanting to make the Syrian territory occupied since 1967 on the Golan Heights an integral part of Israel, and at one point he was even eager to grab another slice of land next to the Golan.
But having largely lost the proxy war to the Syrian Army and Russia and Iran, I'm pretty sure he was counting on a back-up plan of de facto separation of the Kurdish region in the northeast which would significantly weaken Syria for the future, given that region’s oil wealth. Independent Kurds there would also be natural allies on another Syrian border.
That's I think the main reason why the American troops were put there. Of course, this plan comes into direct conflict with Turkey, which has no tolerance for a Kurdish state anywhere near its borders. Turkey’s Erdogan accuses Kurds fighting in Syria of just being a branch of the Kurdish separatist movement inside Turkey, a movement he has brutally suppressed.
Trump said that the United States would no longer be the "policeman of the Middle East," but it has never served the role of policeman, except in its own imagination.
Its role has been as praetorian guard to regimes it favors and as open threat to those it does not favor. Police enforce laws, but the only “laws” that the United States enforces in the region are its own political biases.
Every regime America defends is at least as lawless and brutal as any it opposes, and I certainly count Israel in that category because the rule of law does not exist on the territory it occupies and is ignored in all of Israel’s efforts to bolster its position in the region, from several thousand assassinations to illegal bombing sorties by the hundreds in neighboring countries.
Law is in great part about stability and legitimacy, and Israel’s efforts have done little beyond promoting instability for others. That indeed has been a goal for much of Israel’s activity, to render others unstable or even chaotic while it sits in a heavily-armed crusader fortress. And where instability hasn’t been a goal, it has supported the relative comfort of absolutism in its neighbors, as in Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
The long war in Syria and several other ugly matters in the Middle East are largely Israeli projects, carried out in covert cooperation with Saudi Arabia and America and Britain and France. Syria’s War is not a true civil war.
Of course, there were originally elements of legitimate opposition, but their relatively small numbers were drowned out by mercenaries and foreign intervention by bombing, missiles, and special operations. Assad has always been supported by all the powerful segments of Syrian society and by a majority of people. He is a unifying and stabilizing force. Just look at the army’s long, grueling loyalty through all of this. And minorities, such as Christians, tend to see Assad as their protector.
Ever since Afghanistan, America has regularly adopted a strategy of using proxies. The Northern Alliance – the pre-existing local political opposition to the Taleban, one, mind you, containing much of the same brutality and backwardness as the Taleban - did most of the fighting on the ground in Afghanistan while the United States did what it does best, bomb people. Variations on the theme have been used in Libya and Syria.
The events at Benghazi, Libya, so embarrassing to Hillary Clinton, also were related to this concept of proxy war. The American Ambassador was involved in recruiting cutthroats and shipping weapons from war-torn Libya to promote more hell in Syria. Some of the cutthroats saw the Ambassador himself as a good target for whatever reason. That is the real reason the attack has never been scrutinized for the public.
In Syria, we have several phony jihadi groups, who are in fact paid mercenaries. Any genuine Islamic radicals would have had as their first targets Israel and the corrupt rulers of Saudi Arabia, but we never see that. We see these groups - ISIS, al-Nusra, others - attacking only people Israel hates.
We also see weapons caches of stuff from Israel and the United States discovered, time and again, by the Syrian Army as it advances. We've even seen Israeli and American helicopters move some of the leaders of these thugs at critical moments. Some of the wounded have been treated at hospitals in northern Israel.
And we have the phony White Helmets, aligned with al-Nusra and effectively in the business of promoting increased American and British bombing through propaganda films and provocative acts, all done while carrying on with a much-publicized image of brave rescuers. This dirty outfit was formed by France and is financed by Britain, two governments pretty much as heavily influenced by the Israel lobby as the government of the United States.
It would be wonderful if the withdrawal proves honest, but powerful groups in Washington don’t just fold their tents and ride off because a proven erratic President makes a sudden decision against their interests.
AFTERNOTE:
I notice in news the next day a story on Trump's having spoken of "the slow and highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops from the area" as reported of a telephone conversation with Turkey's Erdogan. That's a rather worrying, courtroom-lawyer kind of phrase. We'll see.
ADDITIONAL AFTERNOTE:
On the day after Christmas, Trump, making a visit to troops in Iraq said: “In fact we could use this as the base if we wanted to do something in Syria," The United States has several bases in Iraq and is said to have about 5,000 troops.
The number being withdrawn from Syria is about 2,000. Whether they also will go to Iraq is not known, but NATO fairly recently called for a larger effort at stabilization in Iraq.
ADDITIONAL FOOTNOTE:
It has been reported that the American military recently built two new bases in Iraq along the Syrian border.
So, it does appear that Trump's controversial decision about leaving Syria has a lot less to it than meets the eye.
But that would be in keeping with the noise and lack of substance of virtually everything the man does.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PATRICK BUCHANAN IN ANTIWAR
“Will Trump Hold Firm on Syrian Pullout?”
Well, it is hard to see Trump being "firm" on anything, except in statements admiring himself.
He is a fickle man.
And he has amply demonstrated cowardice. We've seen that quality over and over, and especially in his bullying.
Apart from Trump’s fickleness and the powerful opposition already hard at work against this decision – you can tell from various leaks, such as the one intended to embarrass him that the decision was taken without any consultation with advisors and cabinet and allies - this whole affair may prove a kind of elaborate hoax.
There were reports yesterday that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are sending troops and weapons to Kurdish areas American forces now occupy.
We also shouldn't forget that France has forces in the area, and they're not leaving as far as we can tell.
Could it be that we are just seeing substitutions for the departing American forces?
That's an entirely different matter than a clean break with the illegal and murderous activity America has been engaged in.
It would amount only to a "technical" fulfillment of Trump's campaign words.
One fact that tends to work against this idea is the sudden resignation of Mattis, but even that could fit. He may have opposed such an effort at substitution. He is not known as an especially imaginative man.
I have been pretty sceptical about the whole matter because it so clearly opposes two very active and powerful forces at work in Washington.
One is the American establishment’s new drive for global power with all that stuff about "full-spectrum dominance" from the Pentagon.
And the other is the Israel lobby, which carries a great deal of weight in Congress, at the Pentagon, and with Trump. He has come to be viewed as a great benefactor to Israel. It is difficult to see Trump having the backbone to deal with them as opponents, and they are very much opposed to this decision.
Netanyahu has relished the war in Syria, grinding away at people he hates, Assad and his Iranian allies, always wanting to make the Syrian territory occupied since 1967 on the Golan Heights an integral part of Israel, and at one point he was even eager to grab another slice of land next to the Golan.
But having largely lost the proxy war to the Syrian Army and Russia and Iran, I'm pretty sure he was counting on a back-up plan of de facto separation of the Kurdish region in the northeast which would significantly weaken Syria for the future, given that region’s oil wealth. Independent Kurds there would also be natural allies on another Syrian border.
That's I think the main reason why the American troops were put there. Of course, this plan comes into direct conflict with Turkey, which has no tolerance for a Kurdish state anywhere near its borders. Turkey’s Erdogan accuses Kurds fighting in Syria of just being a branch of the Kurdish separatist movement inside Turkey, a movement he has brutally suppressed.
Trump said that the United States would no longer be the "policeman of the Middle East," but it has never served the role of policeman, except in its own imagination.
Its role has been as praetorian guard to regimes it favors and as open threat to those it does not favor. Police enforce laws, but the only “laws” that the United States enforces in the region are its own political biases.
Every regime America defends is at least as lawless and brutal as any it opposes, and I certainly count Israel in that category because the rule of law does not exist on the territory it occupies and is ignored in all of Israel’s efforts to bolster its position in the region, from several thousand assassinations to illegal bombing sorties by the hundreds in neighboring countries.
Law is in great part about stability and legitimacy, and Israel’s efforts have done little beyond promoting instability for others. That indeed has been a goal for much of Israel’s activity, to render others unstable or even chaotic while it sits in a heavily-armed crusader fortress. And where instability hasn’t been a goal, it has supported the relative comfort of absolutism in its neighbors, as in Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
The long war in Syria and several other ugly matters in the Middle East are largely Israeli projects, carried out in covert cooperation with Saudi Arabia and America and Britain and France. Syria’s War is not a true civil war.
Of course, there were originally elements of legitimate opposition, but their relatively small numbers were drowned out by mercenaries and foreign intervention by bombing, missiles, and special operations. Assad has always been supported by all the powerful segments of Syrian society and by a majority of people. He is a unifying and stabilizing force. Just look at the army’s long, grueling loyalty through all of this. And minorities, such as Christians, tend to see Assad as their protector.
Ever since Afghanistan, America has regularly adopted a strategy of using proxies. The Northern Alliance – the pre-existing local political opposition to the Taleban, one, mind you, containing much of the same brutality and backwardness as the Taleban - did most of the fighting on the ground in Afghanistan while the United States did what it does best, bomb people. Variations on the theme have been used in Libya and Syria.
The events at Benghazi, Libya, so embarrassing to Hillary Clinton, also were related to this concept of proxy war. The American Ambassador was involved in recruiting cutthroats and shipping weapons from war-torn Libya to promote more hell in Syria. Some of the cutthroats saw the Ambassador himself as a good target for whatever reason. That is the real reason the attack has never been scrutinized for the public.
In Syria, we have several phony jihadi groups, who are in fact paid mercenaries. Any genuine Islamic radicals would have had as their first targets Israel and the corrupt rulers of Saudi Arabia, but we never see that. We see these groups - ISIS, al-Nusra, others - attacking only people Israel hates.
We also see weapons caches of stuff from Israel and the United States discovered, time and again, by the Syrian Army as it advances. We've even seen Israeli and American helicopters move some of the leaders of these thugs at critical moments. Some of the wounded have been treated at hospitals in northern Israel.
And we have the phony White Helmets, aligned with al-Nusra and effectively in the business of promoting increased American and British bombing through propaganda films and provocative acts, all done while carrying on with a much-publicized image of brave rescuers. This dirty outfit was formed by France and is financed by Britain, two governments pretty much as heavily influenced by the Israel lobby as the government of the United States.
It would be wonderful if the withdrawal proves honest, but powerful groups in Washington don’t just fold their tents and ride off because a proven erratic President makes a sudden decision against their interests.
AFTERNOTE:
I notice in news the next day a story on Trump's having spoken of "the slow and highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops from the area" as reported of a telephone conversation with Turkey's Erdogan. That's a rather worrying, courtroom-lawyer kind of phrase. We'll see.
ADDITIONAL AFTERNOTE:
On the day after Christmas, Trump, making a visit to troops in Iraq said: “In fact we could use this as the base if we wanted to do something in Syria," The United States has several bases in Iraq and is said to have about 5,000 troops.
The number being withdrawn from Syria is about 2,000. Whether they also will go to Iraq is not known, but NATO fairly recently called for a larger effort at stabilization in Iraq.
ADDITIONAL FOOTNOTE:
It has been reported that the American military recently built two new bases in Iraq along the Syrian border.
So, it does appear that Trump's controversial decision about leaving Syria has a lot less to it than meets the eye.
But that would be in keeping with the noise and lack of substance of virtually everything the man does.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: INSIDER DISINFORMATION WAR AGAINST TRUMP'S SYRIA DECISION STARTS ALREADY - WHY AMERICANS ARE EVEN IN SYRIA AND THEIR REAL RECORD WITH ISIS - WHY IT STARTED KILLING ISIS INSTEAD OF ASSISTING THEM - KURDISH RUMP STATE?
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN AP ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
"Trump decided to withdraw troops from Syria without consulting advisers"
I think at best that is only technically accurate.
Everyone knew Trump's original position on this.
And many reports point to advisors telling him not to go that way. Over and over.
Indeed, I 've seen a piece that says his sudden impulse was in part a reaction to his hearing the same stuff over and again from advisors. There does come a point when there's not much point in asking the same people the same question again.
Perhaps Trump had reached that, although it remains easy to paint him as impulsive and erratic in this decision because he has been impulsive and erratic so very many times. It is part of his basic nature. But you can be impulsive and erratic in executing a sound decision, or you can be erratic and impulsive in even making the decision. Opponents are suggesting the latter.
Well, that all means he knew their positions, and they knew his. So, I view this kind of report as echoing a kind of disinformation from insider opponents.
This would be by far Trump’s worthiest act, keeping his word on a very important matter from two years ago.
There can be no question he has made his Neocon officials angry - folks like Bolton and Pompeo - but who cares? They are some of the most deplorable people in the government. People always ready to see others die in the name of ideology.
I don't like Trump, but I completely support him here. We all should. I only hope he is sincere, but that is not at all certain. Nor is it certain that even if he is sincere, he will not be diverted from his purpose by powerful forces.
Of course, his blubbering about defeating ISIS is just defensive posturing. The best comment I've read on that claim is: "Actually, ISIS Isn’t Beaten Yet Because the US Prevented Syrians From Doing So”
That reflects the truth about most of the American activity in a war that has seen half a million die and millions made refugees. The secret aim of all the effort was to remove a popularly-supported government and weaken a country that Israel does not like having on its border, and the effort has failed. Yes, in the recent past, America did engage in actually bombing ISIS, but that has not been its record for the war.
ISIS has been bombed by Western governments recently because they could no longer resist the public clamor over this horrible gang which went out of its way to terrify opponents with brutal acts. Before that, they were a useful tool. Anyway, they’ve served their purpose and failed. And no one involved in Realpolitik and the war business has sympathy or use for failed hired thugs. You might as well try to earn some public relations credit by killing some of them off.
American bombing of ISIS in places like Raqqa, Syria, has been the most brutal by anyone in the war, killing very large numbers of civilians. It appears the Pentagon put the emphasis on just quickly getting the job done.
Of course, the same pattern has been seen in Afghanistan, a place which endlessly frustrates an American invader whose purpose, beyond vengeance, was never quite clear from the start.
The entire record of American involvement in Syria is shameful, and, of course, all of it is completely illegal since America has no one’s permission even to fly over the country, let alone bomb and build bases and provide weapons to rebellion.
The Syrian army, greatly helped by Russia and Iran, in fact defeated ISIS and some of the other terrorists. Perhaps, soon they can finish the job in the Northeast, and all the refugees can begin going home to rebuild?
But Turkey is promising to do the job for them in its determination to prevent a Kurdish rump state on its border. It is anybody’s guess how that will all sort out, vis-à-vis Syria and Russia.
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN AP ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
"Trump decided to withdraw troops from Syria without consulting advisers"
I think at best that is only technically accurate.
Everyone knew Trump's original position on this.
And many reports point to advisors telling him not to go that way. Over and over.
Indeed, I 've seen a piece that says his sudden impulse was in part a reaction to his hearing the same stuff over and again from advisors. There does come a point when there's not much point in asking the same people the same question again.
Perhaps Trump had reached that, although it remains easy to paint him as impulsive and erratic in this decision because he has been impulsive and erratic so very many times. It is part of his basic nature. But you can be impulsive and erratic in executing a sound decision, or you can be erratic and impulsive in even making the decision. Opponents are suggesting the latter.
Well, that all means he knew their positions, and they knew his. So, I view this kind of report as echoing a kind of disinformation from insider opponents.
This would be by far Trump’s worthiest act, keeping his word on a very important matter from two years ago.
There can be no question he has made his Neocon officials angry - folks like Bolton and Pompeo - but who cares? They are some of the most deplorable people in the government. People always ready to see others die in the name of ideology.
I don't like Trump, but I completely support him here. We all should. I only hope he is sincere, but that is not at all certain. Nor is it certain that even if he is sincere, he will not be diverted from his purpose by powerful forces.
Of course, his blubbering about defeating ISIS is just defensive posturing. The best comment I've read on that claim is: "Actually, ISIS Isn’t Beaten Yet Because the US Prevented Syrians From Doing So”
That reflects the truth about most of the American activity in a war that has seen half a million die and millions made refugees. The secret aim of all the effort was to remove a popularly-supported government and weaken a country that Israel does not like having on its border, and the effort has failed. Yes, in the recent past, America did engage in actually bombing ISIS, but that has not been its record for the war.
ISIS has been bombed by Western governments recently because they could no longer resist the public clamor over this horrible gang which went out of its way to terrify opponents with brutal acts. Before that, they were a useful tool. Anyway, they’ve served their purpose and failed. And no one involved in Realpolitik and the war business has sympathy or use for failed hired thugs. You might as well try to earn some public relations credit by killing some of them off.
American bombing of ISIS in places like Raqqa, Syria, has been the most brutal by anyone in the war, killing very large numbers of civilians. It appears the Pentagon put the emphasis on just quickly getting the job done.
Of course, the same pattern has been seen in Afghanistan, a place which endlessly frustrates an American invader whose purpose, beyond vengeance, was never quite clear from the start.
The entire record of American involvement in Syria is shameful, and, of course, all of it is completely illegal since America has no one’s permission even to fly over the country, let alone bomb and build bases and provide weapons to rebellion.
The Syrian army, greatly helped by Russia and Iran, in fact defeated ISIS and some of the other terrorists. Perhaps, soon they can finish the job in the Northeast, and all the refugees can begin going home to rebuild?
But Turkey is promising to do the job for them in its determination to prevent a Kurdish rump state on its border. It is anybody’s guess how that will all sort out, vis-à-vis Syria and Russia.
Thursday, December 20, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: SCEPTICISM WELL JUSTIFIED OVER TRUMP'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF TROOP WITHDRAWAL FROM SYRIA - PUTIN'S SENSIBLE REACTION - A WORD ON THE "NEED" FOR CHANGE IN AMERICAN POLITICS AND JOURNALISM
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PATRICK LAWRENCE IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Don’t Hold Your Breath
“It would be nice to think the president has final say on foreign policy, given the U.S. Constitution. But the misleading troop withdrawal announcement, followed by Trump’s boastful tweet, suggests the exact opposite”
It’s news all over the Western world this morning, but I very much share the author’s scepticism.
It would be a very good thing, if true. Syria and Russia could get on with establishing a new peaceful order, and this beautiful land could set itself to rebuilding and calling its refugees home.
Of course, Presidents are not really in charge despite what it may say on the dusty old parchment in the National Archives.
And the Neocons now surrounding Trump have rather intense loyalties to Israel, as does Trump himself.
And a great deal of the impulse, as well as supplies and support, for the mercenaries in Syria came from Israel and its covert partner, Saudi Arabia.
The Pentagon’s new “full spectrum dominance” view of the world is not in keeping with withdrawal either. That is the view supporting Washington’s drive for an American imperial resurgence in all directions.
So, I’m not sure whether fundamentals for America have changed. And I’m not sure I see an ounce of courage in Trump to do anything against the advice of the Pentagon and Israel’s powerful lobbies.
It is a ridiculous position for America to be in, occupying part of a country against the will of its national government and training separatist elements.
But America has done a lot of ridiculous things in recent decades. And terribly brutal things.
Washington often resembles a crowd of rich brats playing in a giant sandbox, using other people’s lives as toys.
With all of America’s own immense problems ignored, almost all the attention of its leaders and available resources go to pushing people around in various parts of the world.
It’s brutal and in many ways senseless and extremely dangerous for the world, and America has yet to leave any of the places in which it interferes improved. No, they are left in ruins with bodies and military poisons such as depleted uranium spread across the countryside.
_________________
In Aljazeera this morning, Putin is quoted as saying pulling out the troops was a good idea, but he also said, importantly, 'Nevertheless, Putin cast doubt on Washington's plans, saying "we don't see any signs of withdrawing US troops yet, but I concede that it is possible."'
__________________
Response to another reader’s comment:
While I agree with the direction of your comments, you use the word “need” a couple of times.
Need from whose point of view?
That’s not intended as a flip or glib question.
The people actually running America have no desire for either major change – elections or the press – let alone “need.”
Things work nicely for them, an establishment of very wealthy individuals supported by” bought” legislators and an empire-supporting military-security monstrosity, so from where do we see an impulse to change?
Citizen wishes count for awfully little in the set-up.
Otherwise, there’d be a genuine national healthcare, proper gun control, and assistance to America’s worst hellhole slums, of which there are many.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PATRICK LAWRENCE IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Don’t Hold Your Breath
“It would be nice to think the president has final say on foreign policy, given the U.S. Constitution. But the misleading troop withdrawal announcement, followed by Trump’s boastful tweet, suggests the exact opposite”
It’s news all over the Western world this morning, but I very much share the author’s scepticism.
It would be a very good thing, if true. Syria and Russia could get on with establishing a new peaceful order, and this beautiful land could set itself to rebuilding and calling its refugees home.
Of course, Presidents are not really in charge despite what it may say on the dusty old parchment in the National Archives.
And the Neocons now surrounding Trump have rather intense loyalties to Israel, as does Trump himself.
And a great deal of the impulse, as well as supplies and support, for the mercenaries in Syria came from Israel and its covert partner, Saudi Arabia.
The Pentagon’s new “full spectrum dominance” view of the world is not in keeping with withdrawal either. That is the view supporting Washington’s drive for an American imperial resurgence in all directions.
So, I’m not sure whether fundamentals for America have changed. And I’m not sure I see an ounce of courage in Trump to do anything against the advice of the Pentagon and Israel’s powerful lobbies.
It is a ridiculous position for America to be in, occupying part of a country against the will of its national government and training separatist elements.
But America has done a lot of ridiculous things in recent decades. And terribly brutal things.
Washington often resembles a crowd of rich brats playing in a giant sandbox, using other people’s lives as toys.
With all of America’s own immense problems ignored, almost all the attention of its leaders and available resources go to pushing people around in various parts of the world.
It’s brutal and in many ways senseless and extremely dangerous for the world, and America has yet to leave any of the places in which it interferes improved. No, they are left in ruins with bodies and military poisons such as depleted uranium spread across the countryside.
_________________
In Aljazeera this morning, Putin is quoted as saying pulling out the troops was a good idea, but he also said, importantly, 'Nevertheless, Putin cast doubt on Washington's plans, saying "we don't see any signs of withdrawing US troops yet, but I concede that it is possible."'
__________________
Response to another reader’s comment:
While I agree with the direction of your comments, you use the word “need” a couple of times.
Need from whose point of view?
That’s not intended as a flip or glib question.
The people actually running America have no desire for either major change – elections or the press – let alone “need.”
Things work nicely for them, an establishment of very wealthy individuals supported by” bought” legislators and an empire-supporting military-security monstrosity, so from where do we see an impulse to change?
Citizen wishes count for awfully little in the set-up.
Otherwise, there’d be a genuine national healthcare, proper gun control, and assistance to America’s worst hellhole slums, of which there are many.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: RIGHT-WING GOBBLEDYGOOK ABOUT LIBERAL MEDIA AND TRUMP'S ANNOUNCED WITHDRAWAL FROM SYRIA
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CHRIS MENAHAN IN INFORMATION LIBERATION
“Trump Approves Full Withdrawal From Syria, 'Liberal' Media Furious”
Well, at least you put "liberal" in quotation marks.
No genuinely liberal source could be furious over the United States leaving one of its needless imperial wars.
The true meaning of the word "liberal" makes that a given.
However, in the United States, there are virtually no liberals, and there absolutely are no liberal (major) media.
I can't even imagine what publication or broadcast someone could be thinking of in writing those words.
The New York Times?
Good God, the paper that provides a drumbeat of support for every imperial war?
The paper that stands unqualified behind the brutal imperial enterprise called Israel?
The paper that supports the likes of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party?
Virtually all statements about "liberals" in the United States are gobbledygook.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CHRIS MENAHAN IN INFORMATION LIBERATION
“Trump Approves Full Withdrawal From Syria, 'Liberal' Media Furious”
Well, at least you put "liberal" in quotation marks.
No genuinely liberal source could be furious over the United States leaving one of its needless imperial wars.
The true meaning of the word "liberal" makes that a given.
However, in the United States, there are virtually no liberals, and there absolutely are no liberal (major) media.
I can't even imagine what publication or broadcast someone could be thinking of in writing those words.
The New York Times?
Good God, the paper that provides a drumbeat of support for every imperial war?
The paper that stands unqualified behind the brutal imperial enterprise called Israel?
The paper that supports the likes of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party?
Virtually all statements about "liberals" in the United States are gobbledygook.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: GOD THIS GENERATION DOES SAY SOME PATHETIC SELF-SERVING THINGS - AND THE PRESS PUBLISHES THEM - SANDRA BULLOCK AND BEING A SINGLE MOTHER - MY HEROIC MOTHER 65 YEARS AGO
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
‘Society still makes single mothers feel they are not the complete package’
Pretty close to ridiculous.
"Society" does no such thing.
Individuals do.
I was raised by a heroic mother on her own. And that was over sixty years ago, in the 1950-60s when attitudes in society – churches, politics, organizations of every description – were far less friendly to the fact than they are today.
I never once heard my mother indulge in the pathetic whining Sandra Bullock does here. No, she did her duty, lovingly, and gave my brother and I the best upbringing possible under the circumstances.
Truly, what kind of “society” do people like Bullock – well-off and privileged almost beyond description – think they are advocating for, effectively asking for somehow still more than they have?
Just the poorest judgment possible demonstrated here.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
‘Society still makes single mothers feel they are not the complete package’
Pretty close to ridiculous.
"Society" does no such thing.
Individuals do.
I was raised by a heroic mother on her own. And that was over sixty years ago, in the 1950-60s when attitudes in society – churches, politics, organizations of every description – were far less friendly to the fact than they are today.
I never once heard my mother indulge in the pathetic whining Sandra Bullock does here. No, she did her duty, lovingly, and gave my brother and I the best upbringing possible under the circumstances.
Truly, what kind of “society” do people like Bullock – well-off and privileged almost beyond description – think they are advocating for, effectively asking for somehow still more than they have?
Just the poorest judgment possible demonstrated here.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE BEST LINE WRITTEN ON TRUMP'S CLAIM THAT AMERICA DEFEATED ISIS
John Chuckman
COMMENT ON AN ARTICLE BY MARKO MARJANOVIC IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"With the US leaving there isn't anyone left to keep the Syrian Army from crossing the Euphrates and finishing the job"
"Actually, ISIS Isn't Beaten Yet Because the US Prevented Syrians From Doing So"
Best line I've read on the matter.
Deadly accurate.
COMMENT ON AN ARTICLE BY MARKO MARJANOVIC IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"With the US leaving there isn't anyone left to keep the Syrian Army from crossing the Euphrates and finishing the job"
"Actually, ISIS Isn't Beaten Yet Because the US Prevented Syrians From Doing So"
Best line I've read on the matter.
Deadly accurate.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH A HUNGARIAN SCHOLAR ON THE HIGH ODDS OF A RUSSIAN-AMERICAN WAR, WORDS ON THE WORK OF CIA AND AMERICA'S CONTINUOUS COLONIAL WARS - THE SICKNESS LINGERING OVER AMERICA
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN INTERVIEW IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Latest Odds of a Shooting War Between NATO and Russia
“Hungarian scholar George Szamuely tells Ann Garrison that he sees a 70 percent chance of combat between NATO and Russia following the incident in the Kerch Strait and that it is being fueled by Russia-gate.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/13/latest-odds-of-a-shooting-war-between-nato-and-russia/
This is an excellent interview.
George Szamuely knows his stuff, and Ann Garrison elicits some good responses.
Oh, I could wish there were more of this kind of thoughtful, informed stuff in the United States now. Instead, we have a madhouse, literally a madhouse.
By the way, on the reference, "Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman referred to the “illegal annexation” of Crimea at least three times after the Kerch Strait incident," I've long regarded "Democracy Now" as one of those classic outlets for CIA disinformation.
CIA has long had the practice of secretly funding some publications and broadcasts, sometimes infiltrating them too, publications which have the appearance (and presumed credibility) of an independent liberal view.
Such publications are useful subtle outlets, and right here we see a (questionable, in my view) source being cited.
CIA did this right through the Cold War - never mind the laws, CIA never regards itself as bound by laws, and Congress appears to accept their judgment – when, apart from such known pro-CIA publications as Time-Life and Readers Digest, we had many secretly-funded ones used to "get the story out there."
I believe “Saturday Review,” which I used to read, was one of these. The name of "National Geographic" has also come up a few times in this context.
There's no reason on earth why the CIA would have stopped these Cold War practices.
Indeed, with the New Cold War, there's every reason to believe the opposite is true. They have virtually unlimited funds, almost no supervision, and the nature of the CIA is that it likes to control events.
________________
Response to a comment saying, “It is amazing how American can screw up people’s lives. Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and Ukraine and leave the wreckage to someone else to clean up”:
It’s been America’s constant practice since the end of WWII.
Just horrible.
Look at what was left behind in Vietnam, for example.
Every American should be ashamed, but I know they are not.
_________________
Response to a follow-up comment from Ann Garrison herself, saying, “It’s not ‘Americans.’ It’s our ruling elite and in this case particularly the fossil fuel industries and all the politicians they own”:
A technically-correct response, but only "technically."
I don't think all references to what the American establishment does can avoid the use of the word "Americans." Nor should they.
Americans in general tolerate this immense brutality and waste and abuse, and so they do share responsibility.
The only time we had big protests in America against an ugly imperial war was for a relatively brief time during Vietnam in the period when a fair number of American conscripts died. The only time in three-quarters of a century of vicious wars.
Even then, in a war which killed an estimated 3 million Vietnamese, many of them in horrible fashion, only about 60 thousand Americans died. Roughly, two percent of Vietnam's losses.
And how was that? Because America used the latest mass-killing inventions in that war. Early cluster bombs, carpet-bombing, napalm, and still other ghastly stuff. And used it all in vast quantities.
America also left behind the horror of a country soaked in Agent Orange and littered with landmines to kill for decades more.
Look, when a horrible man like John McCain can still be called "a hero" something is seriously wrong.
What was he doing when he was shot down? Bombing civilians in North Vietnam. And what did he do to help the poor North Vietnamese man who literally saved his life, McCain, wounded, having landed in water where he would have drowned?
Absolutely nothing. That rich boy never sent even a modest cheque to genuinely thank the man who had left his shelter during an air raid to save McCain’s life. We know this from an actual interview years ago. To my mind, that story symbolizes the entire war.
To end the protests and anger on America’s streets, the Pentagon just rearranged the chairs around the table, so to speak, and the protests did end.
Otherwise, it’s been about three-quarters of a century since WWII with close to constant American imperial wars with not a significant protest to be seen. It is estimated variously that between 8 and 20 million people have been killed by America in those wars. A holocaust, by any measure. And how many crippled? How many homes destroyed? How many societies devastated?
Today, the Pentagon uses well-paid mercenaries – some in uniform and some not - for its wars (in the Middle East, they even sleep in air-conditioned tents), and there’s not a hint of protest in good old America.
Unless you merely regard yourselves as living under an occupying force in Washington, you cannot just blame the establishment and shrug off responsibility, but that is exactly what Americans do, overwhelmingly so.
This indifferent American mind-set is what also allows for insanity like the New Cold War, being ginned up right before our eyes. I don’t see much objection to the most outlandish and genuinely dangerous statements being made daily by American politicians, newspapers, broadcasters, and celebrities about Russia or China.
I’m sorry to say, but I do think there is a kind of sickness which lingers like clouds over America, and very few escape its effects.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN INTERVIEW IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Latest Odds of a Shooting War Between NATO and Russia
“Hungarian scholar George Szamuely tells Ann Garrison that he sees a 70 percent chance of combat between NATO and Russia following the incident in the Kerch Strait and that it is being fueled by Russia-gate.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/13/latest-odds-of-a-shooting-war-between-nato-and-russia/
This is an excellent interview.
George Szamuely knows his stuff, and Ann Garrison elicits some good responses.
Oh, I could wish there were more of this kind of thoughtful, informed stuff in the United States now. Instead, we have a madhouse, literally a madhouse.
By the way, on the reference, "Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman referred to the “illegal annexation” of Crimea at least three times after the Kerch Strait incident," I've long regarded "Democracy Now" as one of those classic outlets for CIA disinformation.
CIA has long had the practice of secretly funding some publications and broadcasts, sometimes infiltrating them too, publications which have the appearance (and presumed credibility) of an independent liberal view.
Such publications are useful subtle outlets, and right here we see a (questionable, in my view) source being cited.
CIA did this right through the Cold War - never mind the laws, CIA never regards itself as bound by laws, and Congress appears to accept their judgment – when, apart from such known pro-CIA publications as Time-Life and Readers Digest, we had many secretly-funded ones used to "get the story out there."
I believe “Saturday Review,” which I used to read, was one of these. The name of "National Geographic" has also come up a few times in this context.
There's no reason on earth why the CIA would have stopped these Cold War practices.
Indeed, with the New Cold War, there's every reason to believe the opposite is true. They have virtually unlimited funds, almost no supervision, and the nature of the CIA is that it likes to control events.
________________
Response to a comment saying, “It is amazing how American can screw up people’s lives. Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and Ukraine and leave the wreckage to someone else to clean up”:
It’s been America’s constant practice since the end of WWII.
Just horrible.
Look at what was left behind in Vietnam, for example.
Every American should be ashamed, but I know they are not.
_________________
Response to a follow-up comment from Ann Garrison herself, saying, “It’s not ‘Americans.’ It’s our ruling elite and in this case particularly the fossil fuel industries and all the politicians they own”:
A technically-correct response, but only "technically."
I don't think all references to what the American establishment does can avoid the use of the word "Americans." Nor should they.
Americans in general tolerate this immense brutality and waste and abuse, and so they do share responsibility.
The only time we had big protests in America against an ugly imperial war was for a relatively brief time during Vietnam in the period when a fair number of American conscripts died. The only time in three-quarters of a century of vicious wars.
Even then, in a war which killed an estimated 3 million Vietnamese, many of them in horrible fashion, only about 60 thousand Americans died. Roughly, two percent of Vietnam's losses.
And how was that? Because America used the latest mass-killing inventions in that war. Early cluster bombs, carpet-bombing, napalm, and still other ghastly stuff. And used it all in vast quantities.
America also left behind the horror of a country soaked in Agent Orange and littered with landmines to kill for decades more.
Look, when a horrible man like John McCain can still be called "a hero" something is seriously wrong.
What was he doing when he was shot down? Bombing civilians in North Vietnam. And what did he do to help the poor North Vietnamese man who literally saved his life, McCain, wounded, having landed in water where he would have drowned?
Absolutely nothing. That rich boy never sent even a modest cheque to genuinely thank the man who had left his shelter during an air raid to save McCain’s life. We know this from an actual interview years ago. To my mind, that story symbolizes the entire war.
To end the protests and anger on America’s streets, the Pentagon just rearranged the chairs around the table, so to speak, and the protests did end.
Otherwise, it’s been about three-quarters of a century since WWII with close to constant American imperial wars with not a significant protest to be seen. It is estimated variously that between 8 and 20 million people have been killed by America in those wars. A holocaust, by any measure. And how many crippled? How many homes destroyed? How many societies devastated?
Today, the Pentagon uses well-paid mercenaries – some in uniform and some not - for its wars (in the Middle East, they even sleep in air-conditioned tents), and there’s not a hint of protest in good old America.
Unless you merely regard yourselves as living under an occupying force in Washington, you cannot just blame the establishment and shrug off responsibility, but that is exactly what Americans do, overwhelmingly so.
This indifferent American mind-set is what also allows for insanity like the New Cold War, being ginned up right before our eyes. I don’t see much objection to the most outlandish and genuinely dangerous statements being made daily by American politicians, newspapers, broadcasters, and celebrities about Russia or China.
I’m sorry to say, but I do think there is a kind of sickness which lingers like clouds over America, and very few escape its effects.
Saturday, December 15, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE SENSELESS CASE AND SHAMEFUL TREATMENT OF RUSSIAN CITIZEN MARIA BUTINA - AMERICA BECOMES COMPLETELY UNHINGED BY RUSSOPHOBIA
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Butina Broken by Torture, 'Admits' Guilt on Absurd Charges
“Butina campaigns for gun rights which Putin opposes and is closer to the oppositionist Navalyn so the charges she is an agent of the Russian government -- which she just "confessed" to -- are patently absurd”
The United States has demonstrated in this case only how unbalanced it has become. "Unhinged" might be a more accurate word.
Maria Butina basically is charged with failing to register as a "foreign agent" and establishing connections with the National Rifle association and the National Prayer Breakfast.
I wasn't aware that either of these organizations had anything to do with national security or, indeed, any other important matter. They are, in a manner of speaking, trivial.
They are both private organizations, and it is more than a little difficult to understand how establishing friendships with a person of Russian nationality, who received higher education in the United States, represents a threat to anyone or anything.
So, for this truly grave offense, you arrest a person and put them into solitary confinement until the person is willing to sign a "confession" of being an agent of a foreign state. Her treatment has included sleep deprivation and extreme isolation, as being given physical exercise in the prison courtyard only alone in the middle of the night.
Well, anyone familiar with America's record of police and prison brutality - three people a day are killed on the streets by American police and no one knows how many prison inmates are killed, but one estimate put it at better than two a day - and penchant for excessive force is not surprised.
What's next? Going after Russian "pen pals" or friends on social media of American students? My God, perhaps there's a threat which hasn't yet been explored by America's Neanderthal security establishment.
As we know from recent American efforts to attack Russian broadcaster/news organization, RT, for a very similar "offence," America can use some of its excessive and convoluted laws in highly selective ways.
Somehow, another country's persistent and intense efforts to affect American laws and politicians directly are simply routinely ignored. I refer, of course, to the huge, well-financed efforts of Israel to ingratiate itself and to lobby for or against actual legislation with the entire American legislative apparatus, right down to the state legislatures.
But a single young Russian woman deserves really harsh treatment for the "offense" of making acquaintances at the National Rifle Association and America's National Prayer Breakfast.
America should be ashamed of itself, but I know that it is not. It is incapable of shame anymore after Guantanamo and Syria and Iraq and Vietnam and with a President who weekly tweets personal insults at people and foreign leaders.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Butina Broken by Torture, 'Admits' Guilt on Absurd Charges
“Butina campaigns for gun rights which Putin opposes and is closer to the oppositionist Navalyn so the charges she is an agent of the Russian government -- which she just "confessed" to -- are patently absurd”
The United States has demonstrated in this case only how unbalanced it has become. "Unhinged" might be a more accurate word.
Maria Butina basically is charged with failing to register as a "foreign agent" and establishing connections with the National Rifle association and the National Prayer Breakfast.
I wasn't aware that either of these organizations had anything to do with national security or, indeed, any other important matter. They are, in a manner of speaking, trivial.
They are both private organizations, and it is more than a little difficult to understand how establishing friendships with a person of Russian nationality, who received higher education in the United States, represents a threat to anyone or anything.
So, for this truly grave offense, you arrest a person and put them into solitary confinement until the person is willing to sign a "confession" of being an agent of a foreign state. Her treatment has included sleep deprivation and extreme isolation, as being given physical exercise in the prison courtyard only alone in the middle of the night.
Well, anyone familiar with America's record of police and prison brutality - three people a day are killed on the streets by American police and no one knows how many prison inmates are killed, but one estimate put it at better than two a day - and penchant for excessive force is not surprised.
What's next? Going after Russian "pen pals" or friends on social media of American students? My God, perhaps there's a threat which hasn't yet been explored by America's Neanderthal security establishment.
As we know from recent American efforts to attack Russian broadcaster/news organization, RT, for a very similar "offence," America can use some of its excessive and convoluted laws in highly selective ways.
Somehow, another country's persistent and intense efforts to affect American laws and politicians directly are simply routinely ignored. I refer, of course, to the huge, well-financed efforts of Israel to ingratiate itself and to lobby for or against actual legislation with the entire American legislative apparatus, right down to the state legislatures.
But a single young Russian woman deserves really harsh treatment for the "offense" of making acquaintances at the National Rifle Association and America's National Prayer Breakfast.
America should be ashamed of itself, but I know that it is not. It is incapable of shame anymore after Guantanamo and Syria and Iraq and Vietnam and with a President who weekly tweets personal insults at people and foreign leaders.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY MICHAEL COHEN STATES OBVIOUS TRUTH ON MAKING HUSH PAYMENTS FOR TRUMP - THE DAMAGING ROLE PLAYED BY OUR PRESS IN TREATING EVERY SQUEAL AND SHOUT TWEETED BY TRUMP AS NEWSWORTHY
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
“'He directed me to make the payments': In an interview Cohen says Trump's denials aren't believable
“Trump says Cohen acted of his own volition and it was a private matter, not a campaign expense”
Of course, Cohen Is right. That virtually goes without saying. It simply could not be otherwise.
A lawyer would, on his own initiative, undertake such an improper step, effectively putting his client at risk?
But why does the press keep gracing the almost meaningless tweets of Donald Trump as though they had substance and were real information?
I suppose it has the excuse of having no history dealing with such a bizarre phenomenon as a President who tweets what he had for breakfast and when he is making a bowel movement, but that really is not an adequate excuse for a serious lack of judgment in reporting.
The press has been guilty of publishing Trump's noise from the start, on any number of topics he touches, and I view the practice as just a further degradation of journalism, already in low repute by many.
Of course, the odd incident of reporting a "tweet" would have been appropriate just to document how Trump works. And some of them are more consequential than others and deserve exposure, but only some.
It is not appropriate to publish them in the numbers and frequencies we've seen. Virtually, daily. The press has reduced itself to a promotional vehicle for social media.
Unlike Trump himself, serious journalism is supposed to display judgment and intelligence. It is not supposed to repeat the kind of kindergarten noise that goes on in social media twenty-four hours a day.
Trump appears to have succeeded, single-handedly, in measurably lowering all standards of public discourse. Both by his method of communication and the sleazy topics he focuses on.
And in doing this, I think the press has effectively served Trump's political interests, keeping him constantly in the news, even when he is just making noise. There's nothing a big noisy ego likes better than being talked about all the time.
And I suspect his "flock," his political base, loves it too because it seems to validate claims about the press and Trump being under attack.
If it wasn't mainstream journalism's job to avoid this, whose was it?
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
“'He directed me to make the payments': In an interview Cohen says Trump's denials aren't believable
“Trump says Cohen acted of his own volition and it was a private matter, not a campaign expense”
Of course, Cohen Is right. That virtually goes without saying. It simply could not be otherwise.
A lawyer would, on his own initiative, undertake such an improper step, effectively putting his client at risk?
But why does the press keep gracing the almost meaningless tweets of Donald Trump as though they had substance and were real information?
I suppose it has the excuse of having no history dealing with such a bizarre phenomenon as a President who tweets what he had for breakfast and when he is making a bowel movement, but that really is not an adequate excuse for a serious lack of judgment in reporting.
The press has been guilty of publishing Trump's noise from the start, on any number of topics he touches, and I view the practice as just a further degradation of journalism, already in low repute by many.
Of course, the odd incident of reporting a "tweet" would have been appropriate just to document how Trump works. And some of them are more consequential than others and deserve exposure, but only some.
It is not appropriate to publish them in the numbers and frequencies we've seen. Virtually, daily. The press has reduced itself to a promotional vehicle for social media.
Unlike Trump himself, serious journalism is supposed to display judgment and intelligence. It is not supposed to repeat the kind of kindergarten noise that goes on in social media twenty-four hours a day.
Trump appears to have succeeded, single-handedly, in measurably lowering all standards of public discourse. Both by his method of communication and the sleazy topics he focuses on.
And in doing this, I think the press has effectively served Trump's political interests, keeping him constantly in the news, even when he is just making noise. There's nothing a big noisy ego likes better than being talked about all the time.
And I suspect his "flock," his political base, loves it too because it seems to validate claims about the press and Trump being under attack.
If it wasn't mainstream journalism's job to avoid this, whose was it?
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A GOOD WORKING DEFINITION OF TYRANNY FROM AMERICAN SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
"U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo says China's detention of 2 Canadians is 'unlawful'"
But it's lawful, is it, to just wilfully rip up a major legal document, an international treaty, almost universally supported by the world’s governments, and then to begin hurling sanctions, threats, and extradition demands all over the planet at anyone who does not agree with your ripping it up?
Essentially, Pompeo and the other Neocon-types in Trump's ugly administration, claim in all they do and say that something is lawful if the United States wants it, and not otherwise.
I do believe that's a good working definition of tyranny.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
"U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo says China's detention of 2 Canadians is 'unlawful'"
But it's lawful, is it, to just wilfully rip up a major legal document, an international treaty, almost universally supported by the world’s governments, and then to begin hurling sanctions, threats, and extradition demands all over the planet at anyone who does not agree with your ripping it up?
Essentially, Pompeo and the other Neocon-types in Trump's ugly administration, claim in all they do and say that something is lawful if the United States wants it, and not otherwise.
I do believe that's a good working definition of tyranny.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THERE ARE MANY ABSURDITIES CONCERNING TRUMP'S PROPOSED WALL ON MEXICO - BUT NEVER MENTIONED IN ALL THE ARGUMENTS IS A KEY AND SHAMEFUL REASON WHY A WALL WAS NEVER BUILT IN THE PAST
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Stephen King mocks Donald Trump over US border wall payment
“Wait a minute, wait! Wasn’t… um, Mexico going to pay for Trump’s useless, just-tunnel-under-it wall?” the best-selling author asked”
Yes, indeed, but there are, in fact, so many absurdities around Trump's Wall, that it would take an effort just to list them.
Rarely discussed is the simple fact that a lot of American businesses, and the politicians serving them, have never wanted a wall because they profit handsomely from the existing situation.
It has nothing to do with principles around migration, although people may take that pose if it suits them. It’s just plain old-fashioned greed at work.
Illegal migration has provided a continuous supply of low-wage labor for a large number of American businesses.
It is not easy to find numbers of Americans willing to do many of the jobs some of these people do, especially at the wages they receive for doing them.
And it's a flexible supply of labor because it is vulnerable.
It comes with no trouble from labor unions.
It's labor which can treated harshly in terms of conditions and benefits with just the well-understood threat of a call to the American enforcement authorities. In some cases, too, these workers are simply cheated by unscrupulous employers and have no way to seek justice.
It’s labor that in tight times can be sent back wholesale, as the American government shamefully did in the 1930s, rounding up many, many thousands and deporting them in masses.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Stephen King mocks Donald Trump over US border wall payment
“Wait a minute, wait! Wasn’t… um, Mexico going to pay for Trump’s useless, just-tunnel-under-it wall?” the best-selling author asked”
Yes, indeed, but there are, in fact, so many absurdities around Trump's Wall, that it would take an effort just to list them.
Rarely discussed is the simple fact that a lot of American businesses, and the politicians serving them, have never wanted a wall because they profit handsomely from the existing situation.
It has nothing to do with principles around migration, although people may take that pose if it suits them. It’s just plain old-fashioned greed at work.
Illegal migration has provided a continuous supply of low-wage labor for a large number of American businesses.
It is not easy to find numbers of Americans willing to do many of the jobs some of these people do, especially at the wages they receive for doing them.
And it's a flexible supply of labor because it is vulnerable.
It comes with no trouble from labor unions.
It's labor which can treated harshly in terms of conditions and benefits with just the well-understood threat of a call to the American enforcement authorities. In some cases, too, these workers are simply cheated by unscrupulous employers and have no way to seek justice.
It’s labor that in tight times can be sent back wholesale, as the American government shamefully did in the 1930s, rounding up many, many thousands and deporting them in masses.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AN ANECDOTE ABOUT THE SOCIAL-MEDIA GENERATION
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN GOV’T SLAVES
"What Happens When Facebook Goes the Way of Myspace?"
Why should anything "happen?"
My Space is almost forgotten.
And its virtual demise caused no ripples in the fabric of space-time.
All the social media are like that.
Ephemeral and without serious consequence.
Much like an old collection of teen magazines or 45 rpm records.
The fact that anyone asks this question does tell us something about the social-media generation.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN GOV’T SLAVES
"What Happens When Facebook Goes the Way of Myspace?"
Why should anything "happen?"
My Space is almost forgotten.
And its virtual demise caused no ripples in the fabric of space-time.
All the social media are like that.
Ephemeral and without serious consequence.
Much like an old collection of teen magazines or 45 rpm records.
The fact that anyone asks this question does tell us something about the social-media generation.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ONE OF TRUMP'S MOST ABSURD STATEMENTS - A VIEW UNFORTUNATELY SHARED BY THE ENTIRE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Trump says he doesn't care about predicted US national debt explosion ...
“Yeah, but I won’t be here."
Unbelievable.
It not only summarizes Trump, I’m afraid it summarizes some things about the entire American government.
This is a country whose leadership thinks it is worthy of running the planet?
Whose leadership regards their country as "indispensable?"
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Trump says he doesn't care about predicted US national debt explosion ...
“Yeah, but I won’t be here."
Unbelievable.
It not only summarizes Trump, I’m afraid it summarizes some things about the entire American government.
This is a country whose leadership thinks it is worthy of running the planet?
Whose leadership regards their country as "indispensable?"
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A FEW THOUGHTS ON CANADA'S JUSTIN TRUDEAU - AN AUTHOR ERRS IN REFERRING TO THE ADORATION IN WHICH HE IS HELD
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN MIDDLE EAST MONITOR
“The real face of Justin Trudeau”
"So, is Trudeau really different, deserving of this much affection, to the point of adoration?'
I don't know where the author sees this.
Maybe in the first flush of his victory over the widely disliked Harper, but not today.
Trudeau has worn rather thin with many Canadians.
He has made serious blunders, as during his extravaganza trip to India. An embarrassment, altogether.
He has been ineffective in several very important internal matters, as with the pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast for exporting crude to Asia.
His handling of international trade issues has been considerably less than stellar.
Some of his appointments, and notably Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, have proven less than happy.
His government has trapped itself in a real mess with China over the arrest of a senior executive of Chinese company Huawei. Canada will suffer reprisals for carrying out this stupid American request.
In general, his government, and again notably Ms. Freeman, has proven to completely toe the American line. Ms. Freeman has made statements that can only be termed Russophobic, an unacceptable perspective for a Canadian Foreign Minister.
His government appears to stand for almost nothing in international affairs, doing big business with Saudi Arabia while waiting weeks to take small steps after the horrible Khashoggi murder.
Not a word against the horrors of Yemen or those of Israel at Gaza. Nor of America’s assault on Venezuela or its dirty business in Syria and in Ukraine.
In general, he has proven himself far less daring and able than his late father, Pierre, still remembered as a great and individualistic Prime Minister. There was a man who actually challenged the dictates of Washington, as in his relationship with Cuba.
But Canada, like all so-called democratic Western states, offers voters a pretty limited choice at election time. Not quite so limited as the voter choice in the United States – where choice approaches zero with the Democrats and Republicans and the imperial interests that drive them both equally – but limited, definitely. So, we’re likely stuck with him for a while.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN MIDDLE EAST MONITOR
“The real face of Justin Trudeau”
"So, is Trudeau really different, deserving of this much affection, to the point of adoration?'
I don't know where the author sees this.
Maybe in the first flush of his victory over the widely disliked Harper, but not today.
Trudeau has worn rather thin with many Canadians.
He has made serious blunders, as during his extravaganza trip to India. An embarrassment, altogether.
He has been ineffective in several very important internal matters, as with the pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast for exporting crude to Asia.
His handling of international trade issues has been considerably less than stellar.
Some of his appointments, and notably Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, have proven less than happy.
His government has trapped itself in a real mess with China over the arrest of a senior executive of Chinese company Huawei. Canada will suffer reprisals for carrying out this stupid American request.
In general, his government, and again notably Ms. Freeman, has proven to completely toe the American line. Ms. Freeman has made statements that can only be termed Russophobic, an unacceptable perspective for a Canadian Foreign Minister.
His government appears to stand for almost nothing in international affairs, doing big business with Saudi Arabia while waiting weeks to take small steps after the horrible Khashoggi murder.
Not a word against the horrors of Yemen or those of Israel at Gaza. Nor of America’s assault on Venezuela or its dirty business in Syria and in Ukraine.
In general, he has proven himself far less daring and able than his late father, Pierre, still remembered as a great and individualistic Prime Minister. There was a man who actually challenged the dictates of Washington, as in his relationship with Cuba.
But Canada, like all so-called democratic Western states, offers voters a pretty limited choice at election time. Not quite so limited as the voter choice in the United States – where choice approaches zero with the Democrats and Republicans and the imperial interests that drive them both equally – but limited, definitely. So, we’re likely stuck with him for a while.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE ROLE AND EFFECTS OF MONOPOLIES AND NEAR-MONOPOLIES TODAY IN AMERICA
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MICHAEL SNYDER IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Almost Every Sector of the US Economy Is a Monopoly or an Oligopoly - Crushing the Working Man
“Shocking facts and statistics about how corrupt the US economy has become”.
Yes, the increasing concentration of industries is a fundamental American social-economic problem.
It becomes a problem for more than one country, too, when other countries feel they must respond to the international challenge of gigantic enterprises from America or anywhere else.
No, as someone has commented below, there is indeed no such thing as a "free" market. The free market is an economists' model for analysis and not a reality.
But there very much is such a thing as a reasonably competitive market.
It is an obligation of good government to keep markets in that state.
But the American government long ago began to ignore this obligation, just as it ignores its obligation around fair and reasonable taxation.
The dominant ethic today is "let her rip," but that comes with many consequences.
The American high-tech sector, for example, screams for action around its anti-competitive nature and abuse of power, but the American government couldn't care less. Why?
Well, the desire to see the empire prevail has a lot to do with it. Really enormous-scale industries can compete and dominate against other nations.
American political campaign financing enters the picture, too.
American elections are a money free-for-all, and only the big guys have a serious role to play.
By the way, since both American political parties operate along much the same lines as regards campaign money, we have no leadership to look to for help. Neither party has any incentive.
So ordinary people are stuck with huge, uncompetitive entities for what are now pretty much basic services, and they are stuck with the huge political influence of the same entities.
When we had industries in the past that were so-called natural monopolies, which is just a technical reality in some industries - the old telephone companies are a good example - they were at least regulated as to rates and services.
And when we had other monopolies which were the result of predatory practices - John D Rockefeller's Standard Oil is the classic example - American antitrust laws were used to break them up into a number of competing companies.
You sure won't see that now.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MICHAEL SNYDER IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Almost Every Sector of the US Economy Is a Monopoly or an Oligopoly - Crushing the Working Man
“Shocking facts and statistics about how corrupt the US economy has become”.
Yes, the increasing concentration of industries is a fundamental American social-economic problem.
It becomes a problem for more than one country, too, when other countries feel they must respond to the international challenge of gigantic enterprises from America or anywhere else.
No, as someone has commented below, there is indeed no such thing as a "free" market. The free market is an economists' model for analysis and not a reality.
But there very much is such a thing as a reasonably competitive market.
It is an obligation of good government to keep markets in that state.
But the American government long ago began to ignore this obligation, just as it ignores its obligation around fair and reasonable taxation.
The dominant ethic today is "let her rip," but that comes with many consequences.
The American high-tech sector, for example, screams for action around its anti-competitive nature and abuse of power, but the American government couldn't care less. Why?
Well, the desire to see the empire prevail has a lot to do with it. Really enormous-scale industries can compete and dominate against other nations.
American political campaign financing enters the picture, too.
American elections are a money free-for-all, and only the big guys have a serious role to play.
By the way, since both American political parties operate along much the same lines as regards campaign money, we have no leadership to look to for help. Neither party has any incentive.
So ordinary people are stuck with huge, uncompetitive entities for what are now pretty much basic services, and they are stuck with the huge political influence of the same entities.
When we had industries in the past that were so-called natural monopolies, which is just a technical reality in some industries - the old telephone companies are a good example - they were at least regulated as to rates and services.
And when we had other monopolies which were the result of predatory practices - John D Rockefeller's Standard Oil is the classic example - American antitrust laws were used to break them up into a number of competing companies.
You sure won't see that now.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: FRANCE'S PRESIDENT MACRON AND LES GILETS JAUNES - HOW NOT TO GOVERN A COUNTRY - AND AN INTERESTING ASIDE ON CIA AND TACTICS IT HAS OFTEN USED
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“Emmanuel Macron faces critical address to nation amid France's 'yellow vest' protests”
Macron has proved himself pretty much hopeless, and not just concerning events around gilets jaunes.
They are the icing on the cake, as it were.
He does very much represent the people who put him where he is, but they are a minority, inner-circle, privileged group.
French establishment types were desperate to find a figure to stop the fiery Marine Le Pen, and they found this guy. From day one, he has proved ineffective, uninspiring, and very arrogant.
He follows another, truly terrible French President, Hollande, perhaps the worst president France ever had. Babar with attitude. Enough To make de Gaulle roll in his grave.
Any ordinary people living under such governments are bound to be dissatisfied and frustrated.
It definitely is not just a matter of Right versus Left. And I’m not sure the term “globalism” belongs here either, unless you understand that word in a way different than the way I understand it.
It is just today’s version of the privileged abusing those without privilege in society, of “a straw too many breaking the camel’s back.” And just because you wrap up an issue, such as big new fuel taxes, in exalted-sounding terms like environmentalism makes absolutely no difference.
When you make great numbers of ordinary, hard-working citizens feel that they are being treated unfairly, you create a problem.
It is government’s obligation, no matter what its philosophy, to make those being governed feel they are governed fairly. In other words, we see the same basic pattern here that has driven every great revolution and revolt of the past.
And there are so many real problems in need of attention, but are ignored by government recently in France. And there is a great deal of dishonesty and insincerity coming from this government, just as there was from the last one.
I just cannot blame people for rising up against such a political situation.
They feel they are not represented with Macron representing only the interests and attitudes of the country's elites.
And you know what? They are right.
___________________
Response to a comment saying, “Macron is a UN talking puppet, just like Trudeau and Merkel. Their sole goal is to further the UN one world government agenda, to destroy the old-world order and replace it with the new”:
This is not accurate.
Macron is a puppet, but not of the UN, which has become a phony bête noire for the Alt-right.
The UN has been largely eviscerated by American governments in recent decades.
____________________
There is another possibility here.
I don't embrace it, but I very much recognize it as a possibility.
We've seen how Trump has directly interfered in French internal affairs with his obnoxious tweets.
So much so, the French government has just asked publicly that they be stopped.
It is not impossible that there are CIA efforts at work here on the streets of Paris.
Genuine local grievances are always exploited in such efforts. It is just the way the security services do things.
I'm pretty sure the American establishment is very unhappy with Macron. Trump certainly is.
The reason for their unhappiness is Macron's advocacy for a European army, independent of NATO.
I regard it as one of Macron's few really worthwhile ideas, but I know the good folks at the CIA and the Pentagon very much do not. It smells a bit too much of de Gaulle, whom they hated. It has long been rumored that at least one of the several attempted assassinations of de Gaulle had CIA involvement.
Of course, his "partner" in the suggestion for a true European army, Ms. Merkel, is now out as a political force for other reasons.
Macron is disliked, too, because he rejected Trump's arm-twisting effort to have European countries pay a whole lot more money for NATO, and ditto Ms. Merkel.
I don't know, but these are the kinds of dirty operations at work in various parts of our contemporary world, just not usually Europe.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“Emmanuel Macron faces critical address to nation amid France's 'yellow vest' protests”
Macron has proved himself pretty much hopeless, and not just concerning events around gilets jaunes.
They are the icing on the cake, as it were.
He does very much represent the people who put him where he is, but they are a minority, inner-circle, privileged group.
French establishment types were desperate to find a figure to stop the fiery Marine Le Pen, and they found this guy. From day one, he has proved ineffective, uninspiring, and very arrogant.
He follows another, truly terrible French President, Hollande, perhaps the worst president France ever had. Babar with attitude. Enough To make de Gaulle roll in his grave.
Any ordinary people living under such governments are bound to be dissatisfied and frustrated.
It definitely is not just a matter of Right versus Left. And I’m not sure the term “globalism” belongs here either, unless you understand that word in a way different than the way I understand it.
It is just today’s version of the privileged abusing those without privilege in society, of “a straw too many breaking the camel’s back.” And just because you wrap up an issue, such as big new fuel taxes, in exalted-sounding terms like environmentalism makes absolutely no difference.
When you make great numbers of ordinary, hard-working citizens feel that they are being treated unfairly, you create a problem.
It is government’s obligation, no matter what its philosophy, to make those being governed feel they are governed fairly. In other words, we see the same basic pattern here that has driven every great revolution and revolt of the past.
And there are so many real problems in need of attention, but are ignored by government recently in France. And there is a great deal of dishonesty and insincerity coming from this government, just as there was from the last one.
I just cannot blame people for rising up against such a political situation.
They feel they are not represented with Macron representing only the interests and attitudes of the country's elites.
And you know what? They are right.
___________________
Response to a comment saying, “Macron is a UN talking puppet, just like Trudeau and Merkel. Their sole goal is to further the UN one world government agenda, to destroy the old-world order and replace it with the new”:
This is not accurate.
Macron is a puppet, but not of the UN, which has become a phony bête noire for the Alt-right.
The UN has been largely eviscerated by American governments in recent decades.
____________________
There is another possibility here.
I don't embrace it, but I very much recognize it as a possibility.
We've seen how Trump has directly interfered in French internal affairs with his obnoxious tweets.
So much so, the French government has just asked publicly that they be stopped.
It is not impossible that there are CIA efforts at work here on the streets of Paris.
Genuine local grievances are always exploited in such efforts. It is just the way the security services do things.
I'm pretty sure the American establishment is very unhappy with Macron. Trump certainly is.
The reason for their unhappiness is Macron's advocacy for a European army, independent of NATO.
I regard it as one of Macron's few really worthwhile ideas, but I know the good folks at the CIA and the Pentagon very much do not. It smells a bit too much of de Gaulle, whom they hated. It has long been rumored that at least one of the several attempted assassinations of de Gaulle had CIA involvement.
Of course, his "partner" in the suggestion for a true European army, Ms. Merkel, is now out as a political force for other reasons.
Macron is disliked, too, because he rejected Trump's arm-twisting effort to have European countries pay a whole lot more money for NATO, and ditto Ms. Merkel.
I don't know, but these are the kinds of dirty operations at work in various parts of our contemporary world, just not usually Europe.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A REMARKABLE DULL LITTLE PHOTOGRAPH OF GEORGE H W BUSH...WITH EXPLOSIVE SUGGESTIONS
John Chuckman
COMMENT ON A REMARKABLE PHOTO OF GEORGE H W BUSH
Well, I have just come across the most remarkable photograph.
Here is a relatively young George H W Bush, standing nonchalantly, hands in his suit pockets,
looking off to one side.
What’s remarkable about such a dull little photograph?
It was taken in Dallas in front of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.
George is on the left edge of the picture.
COMMENT ON A REMARKABLE PHOTO OF GEORGE H W BUSH
Well, I have just come across the most remarkable photograph.
Here is a relatively young George H W Bush, standing nonchalantly, hands in his suit pockets,
looking off to one side.
What’s remarkable about such a dull little photograph?
It was taken in Dallas in front of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.
George is on the left edge of the picture.
Saturday, December 08, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WHAT AMERICA'S NEOCONS REPRESENT FOR ARMS-CONTROL AGREEMENTS SUCH AS THE INF WITH RUSSIA - AND HERE'S THE DEADLY WEAKNESS IN TRUMP'S PSYCHOLOGY THAT HAS ALLOWED NEOCONS TO VIRTUALLY TAKE-OVER HIS GOVERNMENT
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY F. MICHAEL MALOOF IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Trump’s Neocons Have Always Hated Arms Control Agreements, INF Is No Different
“Pompeo trying to put the upcoming death of INF on Russia when it's transparent this has been on the neocon agenda for a long time”
It is true that the Neocons have always disliked arms agreements.
After all, and people tend to forget or overlook this fact, one of the basic tenets of the Neocons has been that the United States should use its military muscle to get what it wants in the world.
That openly brutal concept violated traditional, official American attitudes about its military, which the country has long pretended is about defense, hence the name Department of Defense.
Of course, given all the wars and interventions since WWII, that official view has always been pretty much empty words. There is absolutely nothing defensive about any of what America’s military has done for about seven decades.
And when it wasn’t done with the military, it was done with the CIA. Eisenhower - an avuncular, much-beloved figure - gave the CIA, which had just been created shortly before his term, pretty much free rein under the Dulles brothers, that Cold War team of Secretary of State and CIA Director. “Ike” was able to be the friendly face of America while they conducted the dirty work of empire without burdening him with too many details. That’s how the CIA grew into the arrogant and formidable organization Kennedy confronted after 1960.
But still, the pretence has been maintained. Now, the Neocons have been effectively saying for some years, forget the pretence. And Washington’s power establishment has listened closely since dropping the pretence appears to serve an urgent need to re-enforce its position and will upon the globe.
Washington’s power establishment recognizes that America’s relative place in the world has been slipping for decades as postwar competitors arose and succeeded, and that, if it didn’t do something about it, it would lose the immensely privileged position it has occupied since WWII.
After all, it’s mighty nice having well-rewarded and prestigious jobs in Washington, complete with a sense of people tripping over themselves to get your attention or seek some favor. These are jobs that basically involve telling other people what to do – from openly directing small states you regard as plantation properties serving American corporations to throwing your weight around in international organizations, making sure that the ninety-five percent of humanity who are not Americans do not get the idea that they somehow are entitled to influence, as through the UN.
"But like any Trump tactic to get attention, an initial bombastic approach such as the shocking announcement of treaty withdrawal is designed to control events and seek leverage in getting the changes he seeks."
That is an accurate assessment by the author.
When results don't quickly fall out of his initial explosion, he is left perplexed about what to do because he is not knowledgeable and not even particularly intelligent, nor is he patient or methodical. He has a very limited repertoire, we might say.
The Neocon gang fills the void, always ready to suggest what’s next. They are ideologues with clear, if rather malevolent, ideas of what they want, and they are unified with a fairly well-ordered supporting establishment.
That pattern of Trump's psychology likely at least in part explain how the Neocons have gained so much influence in his administration in so short a time.
Other more individualistic advisors and appointees during meetings would tend to put an unwelcome burden back onto a perplexed Trump to make a decision from their various advice and observations. We see hints at this when he tweets, as he has a number of times, that this or that former advisor or cabinet member is stupid, the bright and able Rex Tillerson being only the most recent recipient of such an accolade.
Of course, there are also the political financial arrangements with Sheldon Adelson and other very wealthy individuals, arrangements with which he hopes to support his 2020 run for re-election. Adelson and some others to whom Trump looks are quite focused on Israel.
And, not to be dismissed, is some influence from his (much doted upon, for reasons unknown since her talents remain rather elusive) daughter and her husband, whose family is well-connected in Israel.
Much of what the United States has been through in the so-called “War on Terror”- more accurately called the Neocon Wars - represents little more than a kind of intense Israelization of American foreign policy. After all, Israel has spent seventy years enforcing its presence and belligerently expanding it at the expense of neighbors. It is what they know how to do.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY F. MICHAEL MALOOF IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Trump’s Neocons Have Always Hated Arms Control Agreements, INF Is No Different
“Pompeo trying to put the upcoming death of INF on Russia when it's transparent this has been on the neocon agenda for a long time”
It is true that the Neocons have always disliked arms agreements.
After all, and people tend to forget or overlook this fact, one of the basic tenets of the Neocons has been that the United States should use its military muscle to get what it wants in the world.
That openly brutal concept violated traditional, official American attitudes about its military, which the country has long pretended is about defense, hence the name Department of Defense.
Of course, given all the wars and interventions since WWII, that official view has always been pretty much empty words. There is absolutely nothing defensive about any of what America’s military has done for about seven decades.
And when it wasn’t done with the military, it was done with the CIA. Eisenhower - an avuncular, much-beloved figure - gave the CIA, which had just been created shortly before his term, pretty much free rein under the Dulles brothers, that Cold War team of Secretary of State and CIA Director. “Ike” was able to be the friendly face of America while they conducted the dirty work of empire without burdening him with too many details. That’s how the CIA grew into the arrogant and formidable organization Kennedy confronted after 1960.
But still, the pretence has been maintained. Now, the Neocons have been effectively saying for some years, forget the pretence. And Washington’s power establishment has listened closely since dropping the pretence appears to serve an urgent need to re-enforce its position and will upon the globe.
Washington’s power establishment recognizes that America’s relative place in the world has been slipping for decades as postwar competitors arose and succeeded, and that, if it didn’t do something about it, it would lose the immensely privileged position it has occupied since WWII.
After all, it’s mighty nice having well-rewarded and prestigious jobs in Washington, complete with a sense of people tripping over themselves to get your attention or seek some favor. These are jobs that basically involve telling other people what to do – from openly directing small states you regard as plantation properties serving American corporations to throwing your weight around in international organizations, making sure that the ninety-five percent of humanity who are not Americans do not get the idea that they somehow are entitled to influence, as through the UN.
"But like any Trump tactic to get attention, an initial bombastic approach such as the shocking announcement of treaty withdrawal is designed to control events and seek leverage in getting the changes he seeks."
That is an accurate assessment by the author.
When results don't quickly fall out of his initial explosion, he is left perplexed about what to do because he is not knowledgeable and not even particularly intelligent, nor is he patient or methodical. He has a very limited repertoire, we might say.
The Neocon gang fills the void, always ready to suggest what’s next. They are ideologues with clear, if rather malevolent, ideas of what they want, and they are unified with a fairly well-ordered supporting establishment.
That pattern of Trump's psychology likely at least in part explain how the Neocons have gained so much influence in his administration in so short a time.
Other more individualistic advisors and appointees during meetings would tend to put an unwelcome burden back onto a perplexed Trump to make a decision from their various advice and observations. We see hints at this when he tweets, as he has a number of times, that this or that former advisor or cabinet member is stupid, the bright and able Rex Tillerson being only the most recent recipient of such an accolade.
Of course, there are also the political financial arrangements with Sheldon Adelson and other very wealthy individuals, arrangements with which he hopes to support his 2020 run for re-election. Adelson and some others to whom Trump looks are quite focused on Israel.
And, not to be dismissed, is some influence from his (much doted upon, for reasons unknown since her talents remain rather elusive) daughter and her husband, whose family is well-connected in Israel.
Much of what the United States has been through in the so-called “War on Terror”- more accurately called the Neocon Wars - represents little more than a kind of intense Israelization of American foreign policy. After all, Israel has spent seventy years enforcing its presence and belligerently expanding it at the expense of neighbors. It is what they know how to do.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: COURT HEARING OVER AMERICAN EXTRADITION REQUEST WHICH CAUSED CANADA TO ARREST CHINESE HUAWEI EXECUTIVE MENG WANZHOU - AMERICAN GOBBLEDYGOOK SANCTION LAWS SHOULD BE ENFORCEABLE ONLY IN AMERICA
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Meng Wanzhou: Detained Huawei executive accused of sanction-breaking dealings with Iran, Canadian court told
“The US is seeking the executive's extradition”
Sanction-breaking dealings with Iran?
Not exactly my idea of a crime.
Nor, I suspect, anyone else’s, at least of those living outside the hermetically-sealed environment of Washington, which is the only jurisdiction where this gobbledygook should be enforceable.
The only real crime in all this is the United States ripping up a perfectly good international agreement, one supported by the rest of the world, and using the mafia-like tactics of sanctions to make other countries follow its arbitrary laws.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Meng Wanzhou: Detained Huawei executive accused of sanction-breaking dealings with Iran, Canadian court told
“The US is seeking the executive's extradition”
Sanction-breaking dealings with Iran?
Not exactly my idea of a crime.
Nor, I suspect, anyone else’s, at least of those living outside the hermetically-sealed environment of Washington, which is the only jurisdiction where this gobbledygook should be enforceable.
The only real crime in all this is the United States ripping up a perfectly good international agreement, one supported by the rest of the world, and using the mafia-like tactics of sanctions to make other countries follow its arbitrary laws.
Friday, December 07, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A HIGH-LEVEL MYSTERY IS EMERGING IN WASHINGTON - THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CIA AND OF A GROUP OF SENATORS CONCERNING SAUDI ARABIA'S BUTCHER CROWN PRINCE - WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO ACHIEVE?
John Chuckman
COMMENT ON DEVELOPMENTS IN WASHINGTON CONCERNING SAUDI ARABIA’S CROWN PRINCE
Just what is going on in Washington with regard to the Crown Prince’s responsibility for the Khashoggi murder?
We have a genuine mystery.
Some top Senators from both parties, after a CIA briefing, have stated they believe Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince is responsible for the murder, something which is certainly true, but truth and American Senators rarely cross paths.
They are also introducing a Senate Resolution blaming him.
Notably, the Senators include one of Washington’s most demonstrative supporters of Israel, Senator Lindsey Graham, a man who jumps to his feet at any mention of the word “Israel” on the Senate floor, and, if it involves money for Israel, immediately demands the amount be increased.
Of course, that is sarcasm, but it honestly is not too far from simple truth.
And there are the CIA’s leaks to the press about their analysis and additional secret recordings and their conclusion that the Crown Prince was responsible.
CIA, too, is long a co-worker with, and booster of, Israel.
I mention Israel only because the government of Israel views Saudi Arabia’s bloody Crown Prince as a remarkably important man, almost as a kind of Arabic Messiah bringing good news. They already have formed a close secret partnership, working on many bloody projects together.
Netanyahu has gone out of his way to quietly defend him on the telephone to leaders. Trump clearly paid close attention since he has consistently mumbled vague and even contradictory phrases on the matter, but other establishment elements – the CIA and the Senate – have not.
So, are they hoping to bring the Crown Prince down, his position already having been weakened by the revelations from Turkey’s Erdogan?
Or are they just trying to weaken him to make him amenable to future demands?
Or, perhaps, recognizing that the evidence is strong and that the public does not believe Saudi Arabia’s confusing claims in the matter, are they just trying to cover their backsides ahead of any future developments?
It goes without saying, for these groups, that it has nothing to do with ethics or morals or law.
Well, I have no idea, but it is a genuine, high-level mystery.
COMMENT ON DEVELOPMENTS IN WASHINGTON CONCERNING SAUDI ARABIA’S CROWN PRINCE
Just what is going on in Washington with regard to the Crown Prince’s responsibility for the Khashoggi murder?
We have a genuine mystery.
Some top Senators from both parties, after a CIA briefing, have stated they believe Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince is responsible for the murder, something which is certainly true, but truth and American Senators rarely cross paths.
They are also introducing a Senate Resolution blaming him.
Notably, the Senators include one of Washington’s most demonstrative supporters of Israel, Senator Lindsey Graham, a man who jumps to his feet at any mention of the word “Israel” on the Senate floor, and, if it involves money for Israel, immediately demands the amount be increased.
Of course, that is sarcasm, but it honestly is not too far from simple truth.
And there are the CIA’s leaks to the press about their analysis and additional secret recordings and their conclusion that the Crown Prince was responsible.
CIA, too, is long a co-worker with, and booster of, Israel.
I mention Israel only because the government of Israel views Saudi Arabia’s bloody Crown Prince as a remarkably important man, almost as a kind of Arabic Messiah bringing good news. They already have formed a close secret partnership, working on many bloody projects together.
Netanyahu has gone out of his way to quietly defend him on the telephone to leaders. Trump clearly paid close attention since he has consistently mumbled vague and even contradictory phrases on the matter, but other establishment elements – the CIA and the Senate – have not.
So, are they hoping to bring the Crown Prince down, his position already having been weakened by the revelations from Turkey’s Erdogan?
Or are they just trying to weaken him to make him amenable to future demands?
Or, perhaps, recognizing that the evidence is strong and that the public does not believe Saudi Arabia’s confusing claims in the matter, are they just trying to cover their backsides ahead of any future developments?
It goes without saying, for these groups, that it has nothing to do with ethics or morals or law.
Well, I have no idea, but it is a genuine, high-level mystery.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL IS OFTEN CITED IN THESE DAYS OF RUSSOPHOBIA AS AN AUTHORITY - BUT IT IS ONLY JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER AMERICAN AND AMERICAN-INSPIRED THINK-TANKS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PAUL ROBINSON IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"...the Atlantic Council latest report, The Kremlin’s Trojan Horses 3, which is the third in a series purporting to expose high-profile Europeans who are subverting democracy from within as witting or unwitting agents of the Russian government"
"It really is amazingly silly."
It would be hard to come up with a better summary than that sentence.
But of course, the Atlantic Council, putting out this stuff, is just one more of dozens of American or American-inspired "think- tanks."
All of them are little more than glorified propaganda mills, generally posing as quasi-academic institutions complete with "Fellows," "Senior This-or-Thats," and comfy booked-lined offices with leather chairs.
It is all intended to bespeak expert authority.
They are all funded by extremely wealthy Americans or, surreptitiously, by the Pentagon and CIA.
But their underlying purpose, getting some notions "out there," is one for propagandists or security service specialists in disinformation, not academic institutions or expert specialist organizations.
There is nothing disinterested or purely investigatory or scientific in their output, except for the elaborate window dressing for appearances.
So, they start with a fundamentally flawed premise, elaborate on it, and produce high-class garbage.
I've always regarded the spokespeople or lecturers from these outfits in the same light as you regard an actor in a television commercial who wears a white lab coat to suggest his credentials as a doctor or scientist and is advising you which over-the-counter remedy to buy.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY PAUL ROBINSON IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"...the Atlantic Council latest report, The Kremlin’s Trojan Horses 3, which is the third in a series purporting to expose high-profile Europeans who are subverting democracy from within as witting or unwitting agents of the Russian government"
"It really is amazingly silly."
It would be hard to come up with a better summary than that sentence.
But of course, the Atlantic Council, putting out this stuff, is just one more of dozens of American or American-inspired "think- tanks."
All of them are little more than glorified propaganda mills, generally posing as quasi-academic institutions complete with "Fellows," "Senior This-or-Thats," and comfy booked-lined offices with leather chairs.
It is all intended to bespeak expert authority.
They are all funded by extremely wealthy Americans or, surreptitiously, by the Pentagon and CIA.
But their underlying purpose, getting some notions "out there," is one for propagandists or security service specialists in disinformation, not academic institutions or expert specialist organizations.
There is nothing disinterested or purely investigatory or scientific in their output, except for the elaborate window dressing for appearances.
So, they start with a fundamentally flawed premise, elaborate on it, and produce high-class garbage.
I've always regarded the spokespeople or lecturers from these outfits in the same light as you regard an actor in a television commercial who wears a white lab coat to suggest his credentials as a doctor or scientist and is advising you which over-the-counter remedy to buy.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION HAS NOT IN FACT STOOD THE TEST OF TIME WELL - ITS POSITION TODAY MUCH RESEMBLES THAT OF A DUSTY OLD PARCHMENT ON DISPLAY IN A MUSEUM CABINET
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARY DEJEVSKY IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Unlike the mess Brexit has left the UK in, Americans should be glad that their constitution actually works – especially in the age of Trump
“The level of uncertainty facing the UK would be unlikely in most constitutional democracies. And much of this stems from the introduction of a referendum into a system that can only tolerate such a mechanism if it reaffirms the status quo”
"And much of this stems from the introduction of a referendum into a system that can only tolerate such a mechanism if it reaffirms the status quo"
Quite an astute observation I think.
However, when Ms Dejevsky says, "In fact, it seems to me, the US constitution has stood up pretty well to the challenges of this aberrant president," I think she reveals that she has missed the fundamental truths of contemporary America.
Yes, Trump is aberrant.
But he is not the great and overwhelming threat in America. Not by any measure.
And with the truly great threats, America's Constitution has not done well at all. Indeed, it has so utterly failed that in some ways it is now a dusty piece of parchment sitting on a shelf, a museum display.
There is no place in the Constitution for assassinations by an agency of government such as the CIA.
There is no place in the Constitution for an industrial-scale system of extrajudicial killing, but that is exactly what operates around the clock today.
There’s no place in the Constitution for “kill lists” with Presidents signing off on them, as Obama did.
Equally, there’s no place giving a President authority to tell an agency like CIA that it should just decide whom to kill, that it knows best who should be killed, which is exactly what Trump has done.
And there’s no place in the Constitution for undeclared wars, the only kind of wars the Pentagon has now waged for many decades. The Constitution is very explicit about how war is declared, but it is simply ignored.
Indeed, there’s no place in the Constitution for a massive agency, the size of some nations, such as the Pentagon.
There’s also no place in the Constitution for the overwhelming role of private money funding national elections that we see today.
There are other matters which aren’t in the Constitution but which nevertheless are established American practices today, a big one being the massively important role of private lobbies in shaping national policy and legislation. This, of course, is closely related to the matter of private money in elections.
There are yet still other realities in conflict with both the letter and spirit of the American Constitution today - not just small matters, but huge and pervasive ones, such as the NSA literally recording everyone’s private communications – so that I think a discussion around a phenomenon like Trump and the Constitution is a bit like Jesus’s words about the noting the mote in someone’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARY DEJEVSKY IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Unlike the mess Brexit has left the UK in, Americans should be glad that their constitution actually works – especially in the age of Trump
“The level of uncertainty facing the UK would be unlikely in most constitutional democracies. And much of this stems from the introduction of a referendum into a system that can only tolerate such a mechanism if it reaffirms the status quo”
"And much of this stems from the introduction of a referendum into a system that can only tolerate such a mechanism if it reaffirms the status quo"
Quite an astute observation I think.
However, when Ms Dejevsky says, "In fact, it seems to me, the US constitution has stood up pretty well to the challenges of this aberrant president," I think she reveals that she has missed the fundamental truths of contemporary America.
Yes, Trump is aberrant.
But he is not the great and overwhelming threat in America. Not by any measure.
And with the truly great threats, America's Constitution has not done well at all. Indeed, it has so utterly failed that in some ways it is now a dusty piece of parchment sitting on a shelf, a museum display.
There is no place in the Constitution for assassinations by an agency of government such as the CIA.
There is no place in the Constitution for an industrial-scale system of extrajudicial killing, but that is exactly what operates around the clock today.
There’s no place in the Constitution for “kill lists” with Presidents signing off on them, as Obama did.
Equally, there’s no place giving a President authority to tell an agency like CIA that it should just decide whom to kill, that it knows best who should be killed, which is exactly what Trump has done.
And there’s no place in the Constitution for undeclared wars, the only kind of wars the Pentagon has now waged for many decades. The Constitution is very explicit about how war is declared, but it is simply ignored.
Indeed, there’s no place in the Constitution for a massive agency, the size of some nations, such as the Pentagon.
There’s also no place in the Constitution for the overwhelming role of private money funding national elections that we see today.
There are other matters which aren’t in the Constitution but which nevertheless are established American practices today, a big one being the massively important role of private lobbies in shaping national policy and legislation. This, of course, is closely related to the matter of private money in elections.
There are yet still other realities in conflict with both the letter and spirit of the American Constitution today - not just small matters, but huge and pervasive ones, such as the NSA literally recording everyone’s private communications – so that I think a discussion around a phenomenon like Trump and the Constitution is a bit like Jesus’s words about the noting the mote in someone’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CANADA ARRESTS CHINESE EXECUTIVE OVER EXTRADITION REQUEST RELATED TO AMERICA'S HIGH-HANDED TRADE SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN - IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS TODAY CANADA STANDS PRETTY MUCH FOR NOTHING
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“CFO of Chinese tech giant Huawei arrested in Vancouver, sought by U.S. for extradition
“Wanzhou Meng arrested on suspicion of violating trade sanctions against Iran: report
CBC News”
Well, two can play these kinds of games. The Chinese are very good at subtle pay-back measures.
Just a foolish waste of effort.
My God, can you imagine the army of bureaucrats Trump is building at the center of American government?
People who research, suggest, track, investigate, and enforce countless new sanctions against a host of governments?
This is about as unproductive an activity as you can name.
And it sure ain't in keeping the small-c conservative values about the legitimate activities of government.
And it ain't in keeping with non-interference in the affairs of other states.
These US efforts are going to build a powerful backlash with unintended consequences.
And, just to start with, they make the world's most powerful country look just plain dumb.
________________
And I meant to add, how disappointing to see Canada's government doing this kind of work for Trump.
Trump’s fight over trade with China is not our fight, but even less so is anything having to do with enforcement of all the sanctions America high-handedly declares against Iran and others. Avoiding or violating an American sanction is a violation of law only to the fanatics in Washington.
I seriously disliked Harper's government, but I'm starting to feel much the same about Trudeau and Freeland when it comes to foreign affairs. They stand for pretty much nothing of substance.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“CFO of Chinese tech giant Huawei arrested in Vancouver, sought by U.S. for extradition
“Wanzhou Meng arrested on suspicion of violating trade sanctions against Iran: report
CBC News”
Well, two can play these kinds of games. The Chinese are very good at subtle pay-back measures.
Just a foolish waste of effort.
My God, can you imagine the army of bureaucrats Trump is building at the center of American government?
People who research, suggest, track, investigate, and enforce countless new sanctions against a host of governments?
This is about as unproductive an activity as you can name.
And it sure ain't in keeping the small-c conservative values about the legitimate activities of government.
And it ain't in keeping with non-interference in the affairs of other states.
These US efforts are going to build a powerful backlash with unintended consequences.
And, just to start with, they make the world's most powerful country look just plain dumb.
________________
And I meant to add, how disappointing to see Canada's government doing this kind of work for Trump.
Trump’s fight over trade with China is not our fight, but even less so is anything having to do with enforcement of all the sanctions America high-handedly declares against Iran and others. Avoiding or violating an American sanction is a violation of law only to the fanatics in Washington.
I seriously disliked Harper's government, but I'm starting to feel much the same about Trudeau and Freeland when it comes to foreign affairs. They stand for pretty much nothing of substance.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE RECENT CANONIZATION OF GEORGE H W BUSH - A MAN NEITHER THE PRESS NOR THE PUBLIC ESPECIALLY LIKED WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE - AN UNGRACIOUS MAN TOO AND ONE WITH SOME DARK BACKGROUND
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN BREITBART
“Rush Limbaugh: Media Respect For George H.W. Bush Is ‘Phony’ — Never Treated Him Like This When He Was Alive”
There's little with which I can agree with Rush Limbaugh, but on this, he is right, and it likely does have something to do with trying to create an implicit comparison unfavorable to Trump.
When he was President, H W Bush was not treated well in the press. But beyond that, Bush was not even particularly liked by the general public. And other politicians took real exception to some of his acts and words.
And he was, quite simply, often an ungracious man. I can't forget, during one of his presidential debates with Clinton, Bush made quite a point of scrutinizing his wristwatch while his opponent spoke.
His instant canonization following death makes the living man unrecognizable, much as was the case with the treatment of that truly nasty piece-of-work, John McCain, following his recent death. It seemed, they were ready to sculpt a fifth head onto Mount Rushmore for a man with an incredibly ugly career.
Of course, Bush’s actual career included many murky activities, and readers might enjoy this different take on the man now being feted as the last Cold War statesman:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/12/03/john-chuckman-comment-the-death-of-george-h-w-bush-what-his-presidency-really-told-us-about-america-in-the-late-20th-century-and-a-link-to-an-intriguing-video-concerning-the-kennedy-assassinatio/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN BREITBART
“Rush Limbaugh: Media Respect For George H.W. Bush Is ‘Phony’ — Never Treated Him Like This When He Was Alive”
There's little with which I can agree with Rush Limbaugh, but on this, he is right, and it likely does have something to do with trying to create an implicit comparison unfavorable to Trump.
When he was President, H W Bush was not treated well in the press. But beyond that, Bush was not even particularly liked by the general public. And other politicians took real exception to some of his acts and words.
And he was, quite simply, often an ungracious man. I can't forget, during one of his presidential debates with Clinton, Bush made quite a point of scrutinizing his wristwatch while his opponent spoke.
His instant canonization following death makes the living man unrecognizable, much as was the case with the treatment of that truly nasty piece-of-work, John McCain, following his recent death. It seemed, they were ready to sculpt a fifth head onto Mount Rushmore for a man with an incredibly ugly career.
Of course, Bush’s actual career included many murky activities, and readers might enjoy this different take on the man now being feted as the last Cold War statesman:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/12/03/john-chuckman-comment-the-death-of-george-h-w-bush-what-his-presidency-really-told-us-about-america-in-the-late-20th-century-and-a-link-to-an-intriguing-video-concerning-the-kennedy-assassinatio/
Wednesday, December 05, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: MORE ON THE STRANGE PHENOMENON OF TRUMP AND AMERICA'S NEOCONS - A MAN WHO IMAGINES HIMSELF A GREAT LEADER LEADING NOTHING AND HE STILL HAS PATHETIC FOLLOWERS WHO THINK HE'S FIGHTING A GREAT BATTLE FOR THEM
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY TOM LUONGO IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Trump Folds at G-20 on Everything
“To the neocons. "Welcome to the end of Trump’s presidency...He has become Bush the Lesser with arguably better hair."
I agree with the thrust of this piece by Tom Luongo.
I have been saying much the same thing, with some different emphasis.
It almost makes me smile when I see pieces on the Internet still displaying the naive belief that Trump is “out there” fighting the good fight against the forces of evil in Washington, pieces written by people who have adopted Trump’s vision of himself as revelation.
What can you say when people so deceive themselves?
But there is, and always has been, a great deal of self-deception in the world.
It's what makes cults and fads and great scams and meaningless political movements possible, and are those very things not major landmarks on the American social and political landscape?
Trump is a kind of gigantic bad joke in fact. He is bereft of any real knowledge of history, itself a common trait in America, or of much else outside the field of fleecing people out of their money, which very much represents his life's work. Vision from this man? To embrace him as a source of vision is a kind of sad public confession.
And he has this inner conviction, much resembling an intense, cultish religious conviction, or perhaps the delusion of a crazed person, that he represents “the great man” able to lift America out of its sleepwalking and lethargy.
As that old Neocon and worker for American empire, Madeleine Albright, conferred a title on the cause for which she so mightily laboured, the "indispensable country," so Trump sees himself as a kind of indispensable man working for the same cause.
And a good many naive people believe him, just as many people, many in perhaps more influential positions in Washington, accept Madeleine Albright's view of America.
It is all self-delusion, bred of the immense, corrupting influences of great wealth and power. The wealthy actually almost always regard themselves as somehow exceptional apart from the mere fact of their wealth. It is perhaps an extension of the old Puritan doctrine that material success and prosperity only display God’s special acknowledgement of an individual’s worthiness. And just so, America's power establishment. That provides the nourishing environment for American Exceptionalism, a very real and palpable faith.
At the level of Trump’s supporters, many a bit lower on the social-economic totem pole, the sense of exceptionalism came out of a postwar period when American workers sometimes reached the level of a genuinely privileged working class. You know, it’s very easy to fool yourself with the idea that such success represents your own special merits. American politicians and elites have traditionally been only too happy to foster the belief.
But the situation resulted not from any special merit of American workers. Nor from any special magic of American society endowing its people with special properties. It represented a temporary set of circumstances resulting from the collapse of much of the world in a great war and America’s unique position, relatively unscathed by the war, of being able to supply a great part of the world’s demands, thus producing jobs and incomes for American workers that were indeed exceptional by world standards.
Thus, the appeal of Trump’s empty slogan about making America great again. What he is really saying is about bringing back the glories of the 1950s, the time of the birth of another slogan, the American Dream. It is obviously an impossible expectation and an impossible task, but what did I say above about there’s always a lot of self-deception in society?
And slogans, when they are timed right, much like advertising jingles, find a new batch of willing believers, at least for a while. Another of America’s great Trump-like promoter types, P. T. Barnum, famously said there was “a new sucker born every minute.”
Anyway, this hopeful illusion plus lots of rhetoric about keeping America free of others who aren’t entitled to share the Dream – migrants, refugees, foreigners in general – is how Trump keeps his pretty much hopeless political base fired up. Of course, he cannot succeed, but the self-deception is enough to get him by in office. Broken election promises are an accepted reality in American politics, and Trump’s are no different for being based in fantasy.
It cannot be 1950 again. No matter how hard he tries, and he cannot make it so. He perhaps believes, having sold so many condo units in the past based in part on illusions that he is capable of carrying it off on an immensely grander scale. But that is no more possible than commanding the winds and waves to halt.
He likes to think he is brave and tough with an iron will and, yes, that he is indispensable. But he is not, and his even holding and keeping office has been under assault by the people who really run America, its power establishment, from the beginning.
Of course, virtually the opposite is true of his personal qualities. In his drive to be seen as a figure worthy of a place on Mount Rushmore, he has surrendered virtually everything of the precious little he once seemed to understand and embrace to America’s power establishment, featuring today, as it does, a major role for the Neocon cult.
He works strenuously for their interests now and does so, not necessarily out of any native conviction, but out of cowardice, a quality he has quietly displayed his whole life despite all the bombast and bluster. He wants to stay in office and is ready to do just about anything to be allowed.
And that's what makes him an exceptionally dangerous figure. The power establishment already had been on its own new tear for a while, a tear to re-establish its once almost unquestioned authority in the world despite America’s relative economic decline for decades. Obama served them well with wars and threats and coups and defense and intelligence budgets, despite his public image of seeming progressive and peaceful.
The relative decline which preoccupies American elites concerned with their continued influence in the world is reflected for Trump’s base in the virtual disappearance of America’s almost-elite working class and the gradual melting away of real incomes for much of the lower middle class over decades as America’s unique postwar economic position gradually eroded away.
So, they cheer him on to “make America great again,” but he has become preoccupied, apart from the sheer impossibility of his original goal, with just hanging onto office and maybe having a bit of luck here or there so that he can say, “See, I did that!”
And, boy, have we all learned how he loves to be able to say those words when it comes to just about anything, “See, I did that!” It is pathetic and childish and dangerous.
And surely at some point he has realized that his general assumptions about making the world into 1950 again are hopeless, but there is a way still to affect “America’s greatness,” and that is through the program of the power establishment and its Neocon inner cult. He has signed on with full enthusiasm to show them what he can do.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY TOM LUONGO IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Trump Folds at G-20 on Everything
“To the neocons. "Welcome to the end of Trump’s presidency...He has become Bush the Lesser with arguably better hair."
I agree with the thrust of this piece by Tom Luongo.
I have been saying much the same thing, with some different emphasis.
It almost makes me smile when I see pieces on the Internet still displaying the naive belief that Trump is “out there” fighting the good fight against the forces of evil in Washington, pieces written by people who have adopted Trump’s vision of himself as revelation.
What can you say when people so deceive themselves?
But there is, and always has been, a great deal of self-deception in the world.
It's what makes cults and fads and great scams and meaningless political movements possible, and are those very things not major landmarks on the American social and political landscape?
Trump is a kind of gigantic bad joke in fact. He is bereft of any real knowledge of history, itself a common trait in America, or of much else outside the field of fleecing people out of their money, which very much represents his life's work. Vision from this man? To embrace him as a source of vision is a kind of sad public confession.
And he has this inner conviction, much resembling an intense, cultish religious conviction, or perhaps the delusion of a crazed person, that he represents “the great man” able to lift America out of its sleepwalking and lethargy.
As that old Neocon and worker for American empire, Madeleine Albright, conferred a title on the cause for which she so mightily laboured, the "indispensable country," so Trump sees himself as a kind of indispensable man working for the same cause.
And a good many naive people believe him, just as many people, many in perhaps more influential positions in Washington, accept Madeleine Albright's view of America.
It is all self-delusion, bred of the immense, corrupting influences of great wealth and power. The wealthy actually almost always regard themselves as somehow exceptional apart from the mere fact of their wealth. It is perhaps an extension of the old Puritan doctrine that material success and prosperity only display God’s special acknowledgement of an individual’s worthiness. And just so, America's power establishment. That provides the nourishing environment for American Exceptionalism, a very real and palpable faith.
At the level of Trump’s supporters, many a bit lower on the social-economic totem pole, the sense of exceptionalism came out of a postwar period when American workers sometimes reached the level of a genuinely privileged working class. You know, it’s very easy to fool yourself with the idea that such success represents your own special merits. American politicians and elites have traditionally been only too happy to foster the belief.
But the situation resulted not from any special merit of American workers. Nor from any special magic of American society endowing its people with special properties. It represented a temporary set of circumstances resulting from the collapse of much of the world in a great war and America’s unique position, relatively unscathed by the war, of being able to supply a great part of the world’s demands, thus producing jobs and incomes for American workers that were indeed exceptional by world standards.
Thus, the appeal of Trump’s empty slogan about making America great again. What he is really saying is about bringing back the glories of the 1950s, the time of the birth of another slogan, the American Dream. It is obviously an impossible expectation and an impossible task, but what did I say above about there’s always a lot of self-deception in society?
And slogans, when they are timed right, much like advertising jingles, find a new batch of willing believers, at least for a while. Another of America’s great Trump-like promoter types, P. T. Barnum, famously said there was “a new sucker born every minute.”
Anyway, this hopeful illusion plus lots of rhetoric about keeping America free of others who aren’t entitled to share the Dream – migrants, refugees, foreigners in general – is how Trump keeps his pretty much hopeless political base fired up. Of course, he cannot succeed, but the self-deception is enough to get him by in office. Broken election promises are an accepted reality in American politics, and Trump’s are no different for being based in fantasy.
It cannot be 1950 again. No matter how hard he tries, and he cannot make it so. He perhaps believes, having sold so many condo units in the past based in part on illusions that he is capable of carrying it off on an immensely grander scale. But that is no more possible than commanding the winds and waves to halt.
He likes to think he is brave and tough with an iron will and, yes, that he is indispensable. But he is not, and his even holding and keeping office has been under assault by the people who really run America, its power establishment, from the beginning.
Of course, virtually the opposite is true of his personal qualities. In his drive to be seen as a figure worthy of a place on Mount Rushmore, he has surrendered virtually everything of the precious little he once seemed to understand and embrace to America’s power establishment, featuring today, as it does, a major role for the Neocon cult.
He works strenuously for their interests now and does so, not necessarily out of any native conviction, but out of cowardice, a quality he has quietly displayed his whole life despite all the bombast and bluster. He wants to stay in office and is ready to do just about anything to be allowed.
And that's what makes him an exceptionally dangerous figure. The power establishment already had been on its own new tear for a while, a tear to re-establish its once almost unquestioned authority in the world despite America’s relative economic decline for decades. Obama served them well with wars and threats and coups and defense and intelligence budgets, despite his public image of seeming progressive and peaceful.
The relative decline which preoccupies American elites concerned with their continued influence in the world is reflected for Trump’s base in the virtual disappearance of America’s almost-elite working class and the gradual melting away of real incomes for much of the lower middle class over decades as America’s unique postwar economic position gradually eroded away.
So, they cheer him on to “make America great again,” but he has become preoccupied, apart from the sheer impossibility of his original goal, with just hanging onto office and maybe having a bit of luck here or there so that he can say, “See, I did that!”
And, boy, have we all learned how he loves to be able to say those words when it comes to just about anything, “See, I did that!” It is pathetic and childish and dangerous.
And surely at some point he has realized that his general assumptions about making the world into 1950 again are hopeless, but there is a way still to affect “America’s greatness,” and that is through the program of the power establishment and its Neocon inner cult. He has signed on with full enthusiasm to show them what he can do.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: LITTLE-KNOWN GEORGE SOROS-FUNDED CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY PUSHED OUT OF BUDAPEST BY HUNGARY'S PRIME MINISTER VIKTOR ORBAN - MICHAEL IGNATIEFF'S ASSOCIATION
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“Michael Ignatieff-led university (Central European University in Budapest) 'forced out' of Hungary
“U.S. billionaire George Soros has been in disagreement with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban”
I think it is likely more than just an issue of left versus Right.
Soros has been associated with some pretty questionable efforts abroad, NGOs that are something other than what they seem to be.
As far as Ignatieff goes, well, how the mighty are fallen, and it looks good on him.
And what an odd way he puts things, don't you think, “forced out of a NATO country”? What's that have to do with higher education?
Ignatieff was always kind of a crypto-Neocon back at Harvard, an often arrogant and ungracious man with pro-American empire thinking.
He should never have been asked to lead the Liberal Party in Canada, but as it did demonstrate his political and personal ineffectiveness to the world, it worked out okay.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“Michael Ignatieff-led university (Central European University in Budapest) 'forced out' of Hungary
“U.S. billionaire George Soros has been in disagreement with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban”
I think it is likely more than just an issue of left versus Right.
Soros has been associated with some pretty questionable efforts abroad, NGOs that are something other than what they seem to be.
As far as Ignatieff goes, well, how the mighty are fallen, and it looks good on him.
And what an odd way he puts things, don't you think, “forced out of a NATO country”? What's that have to do with higher education?
Ignatieff was always kind of a crypto-Neocon back at Harvard, an often arrogant and ungracious man with pro-American empire thinking.
He should never have been asked to lead the Liberal Party in Canada, but as it did demonstrate his political and personal ineffectiveness to the world, it worked out okay.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER'S CHEAP ASSAULT ON JULIAN ASSANGE WAS NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY - TODAY IT WORKS AS A HATE SHEET FOR OPPONENTS OF AMERICAN EMPIRE - A CLOSET-NEOCON PUBLICATION
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JONATHAN COOK IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“The Guardian’s Vilification of Julian Assange
“The Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred of evidence. It did what it is designed to do”
Yes, indeed, this is what the contemporary Guardian does.
It is a hate sheet posing as a newspaper. And its hate is always focussed on opponents of the American empire. It is a closet neocon publication, trying to keep its old liberal, labor-oriented appearance with truckloads of flouncy, feel-good stuff of absolutely no depth about minorities and the gay community and women.
This stuff is like a daily whitewash of walls literally seeping raw sewerage.
Look at its witch hunt against Jeremy Corbyn, and in this case the term “witch hunt” is no exaggeration. There was iteration after iteration, month after month after month, often featuring nothing more than “So-and-So said such-and-such.”
It was ghastly, often right on the level with drunken old Senator McCarthy’s waving clenched sheets of paper supposedly containing the names of Communists in the State Department or some other place. Here’s just some of their massive output I’ve treated:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/?s=guardian+corbyn
Or look at its rabid, mad-dog campaign against Russia. They literally cannot say enough that is belittling or pejorative. Some of what they publish about Russia is so poorly contrived and so obvious and spiteful that it should embarrass any journalist working for the paper, but perhaps there are none left.
Here I have treated my favorite dumb effort by them, but there have been many:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/john-chuckman-comment-absurd-lengths-to-which-our-press-goes-to-attack-russia-britains-guardian-holds-hate-russia-day-today-some-of-its-stuff-is-so-ham-fisted-it-reads-like-1959-pravda-atta/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JONATHAN COOK IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“The Guardian’s Vilification of Julian Assange
“The Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred of evidence. It did what it is designed to do”
Yes, indeed, this is what the contemporary Guardian does.
It is a hate sheet posing as a newspaper. And its hate is always focussed on opponents of the American empire. It is a closet neocon publication, trying to keep its old liberal, labor-oriented appearance with truckloads of flouncy, feel-good stuff of absolutely no depth about minorities and the gay community and women.
This stuff is like a daily whitewash of walls literally seeping raw sewerage.
Look at its witch hunt against Jeremy Corbyn, and in this case the term “witch hunt” is no exaggeration. There was iteration after iteration, month after month after month, often featuring nothing more than “So-and-So said such-and-such.”
It was ghastly, often right on the level with drunken old Senator McCarthy’s waving clenched sheets of paper supposedly containing the names of Communists in the State Department or some other place. Here’s just some of their massive output I’ve treated:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/?s=guardian+corbyn
Or look at its rabid, mad-dog campaign against Russia. They literally cannot say enough that is belittling or pejorative. Some of what they publish about Russia is so poorly contrived and so obvious and spiteful that it should embarrass any journalist working for the paper, but perhaps there are none left.
Here I have treated my favorite dumb effort by them, but there have been many:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/john-chuckman-comment-absurd-lengths-to-which-our-press-goes-to-attack-russia-britains-guardian-holds-hate-russia-day-today-some-of-its-stuff-is-so-ham-fisted-it-reads-like-1959-pravda-atta/
Monday, December 03, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE DEATH OF GEORGE H W BUSH - WHAT HIS PRESIDENCY REALLY TOLD US ABOUT AMERICA IN THE LATE 20TH CENTURY - AND A LINK TO AN INTRIGUING VIDEO CONCERNING THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JAMES GOLDGEIER IN THE INDEPENDENT
“George HW Bush’s death marks the end of an era in American politics
“It’s fitting that George HW Bush, Second World War military hero and Cold War veteran, was the last American president to oversee a major military victory fought on behalf of the entire world against a dictator”
Here is an interesting different take on the late George HW Bush (link below).
It is intriguing, whether you accept it or not.
As someone with a long-time amateur interest in the Kennedy assassination, I can assure readers that this does have basic facts correct. It is not to be dismissed out-of-hand.
I've just never seen them assembled in this fashion.
Whether this elaborate speculation is accurate or not, Bush was, unquestionably, CIA, the first "made man" in the White House.
There are many things supporting that idea. Several of his major acts as President - attacking Iraq with a classic diplomatic false signal and going after Noriega, a man whom CIA loathed for several reasons - came right from the top of CIA's to-do list. There was also his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair when he served as Reagan’s Vice-President.
And they don't name the headquarters at Langley after you, as they did for Bush, just because you spent a brief two years as an appointed director. We do have a couple of actual documents (they are discussed in the video below) which came to light after the Kennedy assassination referencing a George Bush of the CIA.
He was a lifetime CIA man, for sure, and that fact alone tells us something very important about America since the postwar period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NlJQJUUqR4
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JAMES GOLDGEIER IN THE INDEPENDENT
“George HW Bush’s death marks the end of an era in American politics
“It’s fitting that George HW Bush, Second World War military hero and Cold War veteran, was the last American president to oversee a major military victory fought on behalf of the entire world against a dictator”
Here is an interesting different take on the late George HW Bush (link below).
It is intriguing, whether you accept it or not.
As someone with a long-time amateur interest in the Kennedy assassination, I can assure readers that this does have basic facts correct. It is not to be dismissed out-of-hand.
I've just never seen them assembled in this fashion.
Whether this elaborate speculation is accurate or not, Bush was, unquestionably, CIA, the first "made man" in the White House.
There are many things supporting that idea. Several of his major acts as President - attacking Iraq with a classic diplomatic false signal and going after Noriega, a man whom CIA loathed for several reasons - came right from the top of CIA's to-do list. There was also his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair when he served as Reagan’s Vice-President.
And they don't name the headquarters at Langley after you, as they did for Bush, just because you spent a brief two years as an appointed director. We do have a couple of actual documents (they are discussed in the video below) which came to light after the Kennedy assassination referencing a George Bush of the CIA.
He was a lifetime CIA man, for sure, and that fact alone tells us something very important about America since the postwar period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NlJQJUUqR4
Sunday, December 02, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: FACTS FROM AMERICA'S VIOLENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM - AND IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO BE THE MURDEROUS MR. HYDE ABROAD AND THE GOODLY DR. JEKYLL AT HOME - AMERICA IS A VIOLENT SOCIETY CONSISTENTLY
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“After 67 Days in Solitary Confinement Maria Butina Now Suffers From Claustrophobia Attacks
“She is being softened up in order to accept a deal with US authorities the Russians believe”
__________________________
Response to a comment saying, “It has the world's largest prison population (2.3 million) and its police routinely kill unarmed citizens… America has one of the planet's poorest human rights records”:
Yes, America has the world's largest prison population, by far.
And yes, American police kill civilians regularly. Recent studies say that more than 1,100 Americans per year are killed by their own police.
That’s about three-a-day, more than any terrorist could dream of achieving.
And yes, the reputation of American police, and prison guards, for brutality is well known. I remember some years ago when Amnesty International made a serious issue of it.
One should also understand that because of the high American incarceration rates, there are literally millions of men who aren't in jail but are burdened with criminal records.
Having such a record in America has serious consequences.
It often prevents you from even getting a job.
And in many states of the United States, felons are deprived of the right to vote in elections. So, even though you pay for your crime in prison, America also suspends your citizenship rights.
This all reflects a very dark side of American society which is not fully appreciated abroad.
People abroad are conditioned by Hollywood’s extremely view-distorting films – the ones done about the military and war all done with Pentagon “technical assistance” and “cooperation” – and by the major American news corporations which behave literally as public relations operations for American war and violence.
I think the violence within America reflects gut instincts of a society that carries on abroad with almost constant wars, interventions, coups, and threats.
And, you know, with such massive military operations always underway, there are few, if any, resources left for improvements on the home front.
In colonial wars abroad since WWII, the last time America fought a war that anyone could argue was about self-defence, America is estimated to have killed anywhere from 8 to 20 million abroad in its various wars – that’s from the horrors of Korea and Vietnam to the horrors of Iraq and Libya and Syria.
It is most assuredly not a peaceful society. If it were, it wouldn’t be spending the best part of a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon, plus another huge and secret amount on a number of national security agencies, and be supporting over 800 military bases abroad. It wouldn’t willfully tear up working peace treaties, as it does, and treat many international organizations, such as the UN, with such open contempt.
I think in any society, there are all kinds of feed-back mechanisms between its conduct abroad and its conduct at home. It isn’t possible to be the murderous Mr. Hyde abroad and the goodly Dr Jekyll at home. It just doesn’t work that way.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“After 67 Days in Solitary Confinement Maria Butina Now Suffers From Claustrophobia Attacks
“She is being softened up in order to accept a deal with US authorities the Russians believe”
__________________________
Response to a comment saying, “It has the world's largest prison population (2.3 million) and its police routinely kill unarmed citizens… America has one of the planet's poorest human rights records”:
Yes, America has the world's largest prison population, by far.
And yes, American police kill civilians regularly. Recent studies say that more than 1,100 Americans per year are killed by their own police.
That’s about three-a-day, more than any terrorist could dream of achieving.
And yes, the reputation of American police, and prison guards, for brutality is well known. I remember some years ago when Amnesty International made a serious issue of it.
One should also understand that because of the high American incarceration rates, there are literally millions of men who aren't in jail but are burdened with criminal records.
Having such a record in America has serious consequences.
It often prevents you from even getting a job.
And in many states of the United States, felons are deprived of the right to vote in elections. So, even though you pay for your crime in prison, America also suspends your citizenship rights.
This all reflects a very dark side of American society which is not fully appreciated abroad.
People abroad are conditioned by Hollywood’s extremely view-distorting films – the ones done about the military and war all done with Pentagon “technical assistance” and “cooperation” – and by the major American news corporations which behave literally as public relations operations for American war and violence.
I think the violence within America reflects gut instincts of a society that carries on abroad with almost constant wars, interventions, coups, and threats.
And, you know, with such massive military operations always underway, there are few, if any, resources left for improvements on the home front.
In colonial wars abroad since WWII, the last time America fought a war that anyone could argue was about self-defence, America is estimated to have killed anywhere from 8 to 20 million abroad in its various wars – that’s from the horrors of Korea and Vietnam to the horrors of Iraq and Libya and Syria.
It is most assuredly not a peaceful society. If it were, it wouldn’t be spending the best part of a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon, plus another huge and secret amount on a number of national security agencies, and be supporting over 800 military bases abroad. It wouldn’t willfully tear up working peace treaties, as it does, and treat many international organizations, such as the UN, with such open contempt.
I think in any society, there are all kinds of feed-back mechanisms between its conduct abroad and its conduct at home. It isn’t possible to be the murderous Mr. Hyde abroad and the goodly Dr Jekyll at home. It just doesn’t work that way.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CLIMATE CHANGE - AN ARTICLE'S TITLE WHICH SHOULD IMMEDIATELY SIGNAL CAUTION WARNINGS
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY NICOLE MORTILLARO IN CBC NEWS
“The psychology of climate change: Why people deny the evidence
“'This is not a time to be passive and allow this calamity to happen to us,' says one psychologist”
I am always troubled when anyone quotes a psychologist, as is done here, or a psychiatrist, on matters of policy which should deal only with hard-nosed science. Unavoidably, whether intended or not, there is a suggestion of the old Soviet method of discrediting critics by having them committed to mental hospitals.
It is a perfectly reasonable position to accept that climate change is occurring while not accepting that human activity is driving it or, even if you do become convinced humans are responsible, while not believing we yet have the ability to correct the situation.
The change is observable, and it is being observed now intensively.
But the same is not true of the presumed human causation.
We do know humans cause a lot of negative things, again observable things - like plastics in the seas and war, and I don't know why it is but practically all articles from people concerned about climate change never mention war, war with all its manufactured poisons and destructive capacity, war that is going on in a dozen places causing countless miseries.
War and its production facilities pump immense amounts of poisons into our environment, from depleted uranium dust and Agent Orange to dumps of material from nuclear-weapons manufacturing. It also wastes immense amounts of money that could be doing other, good things.
As far as climate goes, the truth is that it has always undergone change, much the same as the earth’s crust has always shifted and changed, as we see happening with earthquakes and volcanoes, events which over time vary from minute to gigantic. There is nothing static about our planet despite our illusion that there is.
We’ve seen everything from desertification to ice ages and the passing of whole civilizations, but we are not in possession of complete understanding about why and how these things happen. Certainly, for most such events, only known to us from examining historical materials and archeology, humans had no involvement.
Given this lack in our understanding and given our reckless behavior as societies, as in war, is it at all realistic to think we are in a position to halt or ameliorate climate change? I really do not think so. We should always be ready to clean-up our own messes – as with plastics or deadly chemicals – but I think proposed extreme programs of change concerning things we do not completely understand are themselves reckless.
I always reflect back on the old Soviet Union and its gigantic programs for changing the landscape. Soviet leaders thought they were being very scientific and working towards the benefit of people with projects for vast river diversions and putting huge swathes of land under new purposes, but experience has proved they were often wrong.
Is our understanding today so much better? Do we really know the full consequences of massive changes in the production of power, for instance? Recent scientific work has raised serious questions about, for example, wind farms and heavy batteries for transportation, but we just keep assuming everything will be fine. The assumption is okay on moderate-sized efforts that can be viewed as controlled experiments, but it is not okay on a massive world scale.
Also, I simply cannot believe that we are even capable of turning around huge natural events like desertification or the passing of species whose environmental niche has disappeared.
The largest and most certain contribution we can make towards the future is cleaning up our known messes and getting human population under control. There’s no guessing in these. Reduce the numbers of people and you automatically reduce the growth of everything from demands for noxious products to the amount of every kind of waste.
And does anyone really believe humanity is capable of undertaking such a certain, helpful measure? Or I might ask the same for stopping wars. Then why do people believe we are capable of vast schemes like those advocated by some environmentalists, schemes which, even if implemented, may not serve the purpose?
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY NICOLE MORTILLARO IN CBC NEWS
“The psychology of climate change: Why people deny the evidence
“'This is not a time to be passive and allow this calamity to happen to us,' says one psychologist”
I am always troubled when anyone quotes a psychologist, as is done here, or a psychiatrist, on matters of policy which should deal only with hard-nosed science. Unavoidably, whether intended or not, there is a suggestion of the old Soviet method of discrediting critics by having them committed to mental hospitals.
It is a perfectly reasonable position to accept that climate change is occurring while not accepting that human activity is driving it or, even if you do become convinced humans are responsible, while not believing we yet have the ability to correct the situation.
The change is observable, and it is being observed now intensively.
But the same is not true of the presumed human causation.
We do know humans cause a lot of negative things, again observable things - like plastics in the seas and war, and I don't know why it is but practically all articles from people concerned about climate change never mention war, war with all its manufactured poisons and destructive capacity, war that is going on in a dozen places causing countless miseries.
War and its production facilities pump immense amounts of poisons into our environment, from depleted uranium dust and Agent Orange to dumps of material from nuclear-weapons manufacturing. It also wastes immense amounts of money that could be doing other, good things.
As far as climate goes, the truth is that it has always undergone change, much the same as the earth’s crust has always shifted and changed, as we see happening with earthquakes and volcanoes, events which over time vary from minute to gigantic. There is nothing static about our planet despite our illusion that there is.
We’ve seen everything from desertification to ice ages and the passing of whole civilizations, but we are not in possession of complete understanding about why and how these things happen. Certainly, for most such events, only known to us from examining historical materials and archeology, humans had no involvement.
Given this lack in our understanding and given our reckless behavior as societies, as in war, is it at all realistic to think we are in a position to halt or ameliorate climate change? I really do not think so. We should always be ready to clean-up our own messes – as with plastics or deadly chemicals – but I think proposed extreme programs of change concerning things we do not completely understand are themselves reckless.
I always reflect back on the old Soviet Union and its gigantic programs for changing the landscape. Soviet leaders thought they were being very scientific and working towards the benefit of people with projects for vast river diversions and putting huge swathes of land under new purposes, but experience has proved they were often wrong.
Is our understanding today so much better? Do we really know the full consequences of massive changes in the production of power, for instance? Recent scientific work has raised serious questions about, for example, wind farms and heavy batteries for transportation, but we just keep assuming everything will be fine. The assumption is okay on moderate-sized efforts that can be viewed as controlled experiments, but it is not okay on a massive world scale.
Also, I simply cannot believe that we are even capable of turning around huge natural events like desertification or the passing of species whose environmental niche has disappeared.
The largest and most certain contribution we can make towards the future is cleaning up our known messes and getting human population under control. There’s no guessing in these. Reduce the numbers of people and you automatically reduce the growth of everything from demands for noxious products to the amount of every kind of waste.
And does anyone really believe humanity is capable of undertaking such a certain, helpful measure? Or I might ask the same for stopping wars. Then why do people believe we are capable of vast schemes like those advocated by some environmentalists, schemes which, even if implemented, may not serve the purpose?
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CNN FIRES AN ACADEMIC COMMENTATOR FOR HIS MAKING SOME COMPLETELY ACCURATE STATEMENTS ABOUT ISRAEL AND PALESTINE AT ANOTHER VENUE - THIS FROM A NETWORK ALWAYS GOING ON ABOUT TRUTH AND FAKE NEWS AND CENSORSHIP
John Chuckman
COMMENT SENT TO ALJAZEERA ABOUT AN ARTICLE BY MARIAM BARGHOUTI
“CNN: Facts first, just not on Israel”
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/cnn-facts-israel-181202144659493.html
Thank you, Mariam Barghouti's piece about CNN and Israel and Palestine is simply outstanding.
A clear ordering of facts, and not just opinions.
And, of course, when facts can be ignored - as they were in this case - we know we are in a dangerous place where consequential decisions are made without them.
And that is especially poignant when we are talking about a major news organization, and one that goes on in its publicity about “facts” and “fake news” almost like slogans in a religious revival campaign.
But much like some fundamentalist tent preacher conducting a revival campaign who in fact in private is doing scandalous things, just so CNN with facts about Israel and the Palestinians.
COMMENT SENT TO ALJAZEERA ABOUT AN ARTICLE BY MARIAM BARGHOUTI
“CNN: Facts first, just not on Israel”
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/cnn-facts-israel-181202144659493.html
Thank you, Mariam Barghouti's piece about CNN and Israel and Palestine is simply outstanding.
A clear ordering of facts, and not just opinions.
And, of course, when facts can be ignored - as they were in this case - we know we are in a dangerous place where consequential decisions are made without them.
And that is especially poignant when we are talking about a major news organization, and one that goes on in its publicity about “facts” and “fake news” almost like slogans in a religious revival campaign.
But much like some fundamentalist tent preacher conducting a revival campaign who in fact in private is doing scandalous things, just so CNN with facts about Israel and the Palestinians.
Friday, November 30, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ACCEPTING MYTH AS FACT - EVEN IN OUR SCIENTIFIC AGE IT IS DONE OFTEN AND WITHOUT BEING QUESTIONED DESPITE ITS DANGER - PERHAPS THE MOST PUBLICIZED EXAMPLE IS THE NOTION OF MODERN JEWISH PEOPLE HAVING RETURNED TO AN ANCESTRAL HOME IN ISRAEL
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY AS’AD ABUKHALIL IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Israel’s Overlooked Strategic Losses in Wars Against Arabs
“After conventional Arab armies failed to deter Israeli invasions, Lebanese and Palestinian volunteers have changed the strategic balance in the Middle East”
___________________
Response to a comment saying, “The barrage of anti-Israel rhetoric lost all credibility some time ago. While it remains fashionable among our bourgeoisie, it has defied all logic. Bottom line: Jews are indigenous to that bit of land, restored as the Jewish nation in 1948. Israel is roughly 1% of the Mideast, with the remaining 99% owned by the Arab states, all of which are armed to the teeth by China, Russia, and the US. Although portrayed as a military behemoth trampling over the impoverished oil states, it takes everything Israel has got, just to survive”:
Sorry, but you just repeat lines from pamphlets.
The Ashkenazi - the people running Israel and the main early Zionist writers - are indeed Jews, but that ignores the fact that they are not Hebrews. There is a huge difference.
The Ashkenazi are Europeans. The word, Ashkenazi, means "German."
Deli food is not Middle Eastern - it reflects German and central European food.
The Yiddish language is not Middle Eastern - it is derived from German.
The dress of the ultra-Orthodox is not Middle Eastern - it is from 18th or 19th century Eastern Europe.
Yes, most Jews learn some Hebrew in their temples’ Hebrew Schools, but that is no different than the practice of millions of devout Muslims learning Arabic in madrassa schools so that they can read the Koran in the original. It provides no basis for Indonesia laying claim to Saudi Arabia.
Sharing religious beliefs with someone who ages ago owned some real estate buys you nothing in the real world.
All the best evidence we have suggests the Palestinians are the actual remaining descendants of the Hebrews.
The Romans never tossed out whole peoples from conquered lands. There is no record of their ever doing so.
The notion of wandering Jews looking for a home again for two thousand years appears to be just a sentimental myth used by people like the Ashkenazi to feel more connected to the ancient Hebrews whose religion they share.
There are many examples of such myths and beliefs – e.g., a number of American Blacks regard themselves as descendants of the ancient Egyptians – but myths provide no foundation for building new arrangements in the real world.
Besides, time and again, DNA tests of Ashkenazi people tell us plainly they go back about one thousand years or less. Two origins are suggested, and both of them are located in Europe.
Citing ancient texts, and especially religious or superstitious ones, as any kind of basis for the geo-politics of the modern world makes little sense and is actually quite dangerous.
Otherwise, Greece, who won the Trojan War three thousand years ago, would have a claim on Turkey, the site of ancient Troy.
And many other groups besides the ancient Hebrews possessed what we call Israel before the Hebrews, including the Egyptians. By what logic do you stop at just a certain era in any territory’s long history to call it the definitive origin? There’s no such thing.
And there are scores of such examples as the Greeks and Trojans which prove nothing and would only generate confusion and war if taken seriously.
And that is pretty much the case for re-created Israel. Confusion and war.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY AS’AD ABUKHALIL IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Israel’s Overlooked Strategic Losses in Wars Against Arabs
“After conventional Arab armies failed to deter Israeli invasions, Lebanese and Palestinian volunteers have changed the strategic balance in the Middle East”
___________________
Response to a comment saying, “The barrage of anti-Israel rhetoric lost all credibility some time ago. While it remains fashionable among our bourgeoisie, it has defied all logic. Bottom line: Jews are indigenous to that bit of land, restored as the Jewish nation in 1948. Israel is roughly 1% of the Mideast, with the remaining 99% owned by the Arab states, all of which are armed to the teeth by China, Russia, and the US. Although portrayed as a military behemoth trampling over the impoverished oil states, it takes everything Israel has got, just to survive”:
Sorry, but you just repeat lines from pamphlets.
The Ashkenazi - the people running Israel and the main early Zionist writers - are indeed Jews, but that ignores the fact that they are not Hebrews. There is a huge difference.
The Ashkenazi are Europeans. The word, Ashkenazi, means "German."
Deli food is not Middle Eastern - it reflects German and central European food.
The Yiddish language is not Middle Eastern - it is derived from German.
The dress of the ultra-Orthodox is not Middle Eastern - it is from 18th or 19th century Eastern Europe.
Yes, most Jews learn some Hebrew in their temples’ Hebrew Schools, but that is no different than the practice of millions of devout Muslims learning Arabic in madrassa schools so that they can read the Koran in the original. It provides no basis for Indonesia laying claim to Saudi Arabia.
Sharing religious beliefs with someone who ages ago owned some real estate buys you nothing in the real world.
All the best evidence we have suggests the Palestinians are the actual remaining descendants of the Hebrews.
The Romans never tossed out whole peoples from conquered lands. There is no record of their ever doing so.
The notion of wandering Jews looking for a home again for two thousand years appears to be just a sentimental myth used by people like the Ashkenazi to feel more connected to the ancient Hebrews whose religion they share.
There are many examples of such myths and beliefs – e.g., a number of American Blacks regard themselves as descendants of the ancient Egyptians – but myths provide no foundation for building new arrangements in the real world.
Besides, time and again, DNA tests of Ashkenazi people tell us plainly they go back about one thousand years or less. Two origins are suggested, and both of them are located in Europe.
Citing ancient texts, and especially religious or superstitious ones, as any kind of basis for the geo-politics of the modern world makes little sense and is actually quite dangerous.
Otherwise, Greece, who won the Trojan War three thousand years ago, would have a claim on Turkey, the site of ancient Troy.
And many other groups besides the ancient Hebrews possessed what we call Israel before the Hebrews, including the Egyptians. By what logic do you stop at just a certain era in any territory’s long history to call it the definitive origin? There’s no such thing.
And there are scores of such examples as the Greeks and Trojans which prove nothing and would only generate confusion and war if taken seriously.
And that is pretty much the case for re-created Israel. Confusion and war.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: MR TRUMP AND MR COHEN AND THE G-20 - TRUMP HAS BECOME SO ABSURD HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW IT WHEN HE QUESTIONS HIS OWN JUDGMENT IN PUBLIC
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
'The president responded to news of Mr. Cohen’s plea deal by saying he was a “weak person and not a very smart person.”'
Then why, Mr. Trump, did you hire and use Mr. Cohen a number of times in your various dealings?
Seems to me, if your assessment of him can be accepted as accurate, it is more a reflection on you and your judgment than on Mr. Cohen.
Meanwhile, we have a world bursting with problems, many of them caused by America, and the G-20 won't be able to address them because "the leader of the Free World" is preoccupied with his personal problems.
What a noisy, absurd figure Trump has become.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
'The president responded to news of Mr. Cohen’s plea deal by saying he was a “weak person and not a very smart person.”'
Then why, Mr. Trump, did you hire and use Mr. Cohen a number of times in your various dealings?
Seems to me, if your assessment of him can be accepted as accurate, it is more a reflection on you and your judgment than on Mr. Cohen.
Meanwhile, we have a world bursting with problems, many of them caused by America, and the G-20 won't be able to address them because "the leader of the Free World" is preoccupied with his personal problems.
What a noisy, absurd figure Trump has become.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: HOW A GENUINE FACT USED IN ISOLATION CAN BE PROPAGANDA JUST AS SURELY AS A COMPLETELY MADE-UP TALE - A BIT MORE ON RUSSIA AND UKRAINE IN THE KERCH STRAIT
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
"Crimea: Video shows alleged Russian ship ram Ukrainian tugboat in Black Sea as tensions rise"
The video in isolation only shows how carefully selected facts can become propaganda just as surely as outright fabrications.
The Russians have never tried to hide the fact of the ramming. So, what is your point?
And why did they ram? Because the Ukrainians refused to respond to the directions of Russian Border Services, and their presence was illegal.
This is no small thing because some Ukrainian politicians have publicly called for the bridge to be blown up.
I suppose Russia could have responded to the threat the way Israel does week after week, just shooting people in cold blood who have never even set foot on Israeli territory.
I actually think the Russians handled this well. No one was killed or seriously hurt.
As it turned out, there was a supply of serious weapons aboard the ships and there were several members of the Ukrainian security service aboard.
Not exactly an innocent little mistake, for sure.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
"Crimea: Video shows alleged Russian ship ram Ukrainian tugboat in Black Sea as tensions rise"
The video in isolation only shows how carefully selected facts can become propaganda just as surely as outright fabrications.
The Russians have never tried to hide the fact of the ramming. So, what is your point?
And why did they ram? Because the Ukrainians refused to respond to the directions of Russian Border Services, and their presence was illegal.
This is no small thing because some Ukrainian politicians have publicly called for the bridge to be blown up.
I suppose Russia could have responded to the threat the way Israel does week after week, just shooting people in cold blood who have never even set foot on Israeli territory.
I actually think the Russians handled this well. No one was killed or seriously hurt.
As it turned out, there was a supply of serious weapons aboard the ships and there were several members of the Ukrainian security service aboard.
Not exactly an innocent little mistake, for sure.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: UNAVOIDABLE FLAWS IN OUR PRESS - GOVERNMENT-PRESS RELATIONSHIP IN THE WEST - AMERICA'S BASIC STRUCTURAL PROBLEM IS PLUTOCRACY AND ITS EMPIRE AND NOT "GLOBALISM" - MYTH OF TRUMP BATTLING INSIDERS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Canada's Main TV Channel, CBC, Is a Great Big Globalist Bullhorn for War”
Yes, CBC is not greatly different than many corporate news services. A little, but not greatly.
This should come as no surprise because a state network must depend upon the good will of government for its future.
If you want to see public services that are even worse than CBC, look no further than NPR and BBC - both appalling in their subservience to establishment policy.
All people concerned with news and events should know that you cannot depend on any one news source.
Only by reading or watching a variety of sources and making an effort to interpret, reading between the lines, can you hope to come to anything resembling truth in international affairs.
All Western governments dominate their news establishments, both private and public. All of them.
And, in turn, all Western governments are dominated by American imperial policies, often to an embarrassing extent. All of them.
So, we see American policy consistently supported and never truly attacked for the destructive thing that it is by politicians and news sources in “the West.”
But I'm sorry to say that this has nothing to do with "globalists" or even "war advocacy," although the latter is an implicit part of world empire. Empires don’t just happen, they are created by force. America’s decades of wars since WWII are all about expanding or protecting empire and little else. All the stuff about principles or defense of America is just that, stuff - meaningless, jingoistic stuff.
The “globalism” theme is a myth of the Right to which many cling much as they cling to the myth that Trump is in any way opposed to basic American establishment interests. It is naïve to say so because he is busy fervently serving those interests both in international affairs and in world trade.
He wants the establishment’s support and works to earn it. He wants to be re-elected. Everything points to him working towards that end, as with his appointment of many Neocons to important posts.
America’s basic structural problem is that it has become a plutocracy, and the main power establishment in Washington is dedicated to serving the plutocracy. After all, money runs elections in America, plus a whole lot else.
The stuff about “globalism,” always used as an epithet and left poorly defined, is virtually a distraction from the real problem.
So long as the nation functions as a plutocracy with a power establishment serving its interests, which very much includes a costly world empire, nothing important will change.
Trump is such a great example of the realities. He works overtime trying to give them what they want in return for them tolerating him in office.
You know, in the end, throughout the world, those with great fortunes dominate despite all the political rhetoric about democracy and the struggles for freedom over the last few centuries. The rich rule, still, but it is not always with the complete transparency we see in the United States.
Both major parties are completely dependent upon large money donors. Nothing serious in arrangements or international affairs ever changes with the election of either of them. And America’s Supreme Court has even ruled that “money is free speech.”
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Canada's Main TV Channel, CBC, Is a Great Big Globalist Bullhorn for War”
Yes, CBC is not greatly different than many corporate news services. A little, but not greatly.
This should come as no surprise because a state network must depend upon the good will of government for its future.
If you want to see public services that are even worse than CBC, look no further than NPR and BBC - both appalling in their subservience to establishment policy.
All people concerned with news and events should know that you cannot depend on any one news source.
Only by reading or watching a variety of sources and making an effort to interpret, reading between the lines, can you hope to come to anything resembling truth in international affairs.
All Western governments dominate their news establishments, both private and public. All of them.
And, in turn, all Western governments are dominated by American imperial policies, often to an embarrassing extent. All of them.
So, we see American policy consistently supported and never truly attacked for the destructive thing that it is by politicians and news sources in “the West.”
But I'm sorry to say that this has nothing to do with "globalists" or even "war advocacy," although the latter is an implicit part of world empire. Empires don’t just happen, they are created by force. America’s decades of wars since WWII are all about expanding or protecting empire and little else. All the stuff about principles or defense of America is just that, stuff - meaningless, jingoistic stuff.
The “globalism” theme is a myth of the Right to which many cling much as they cling to the myth that Trump is in any way opposed to basic American establishment interests. It is naïve to say so because he is busy fervently serving those interests both in international affairs and in world trade.
He wants the establishment’s support and works to earn it. He wants to be re-elected. Everything points to him working towards that end, as with his appointment of many Neocons to important posts.
America’s basic structural problem is that it has become a plutocracy, and the main power establishment in Washington is dedicated to serving the plutocracy. After all, money runs elections in America, plus a whole lot else.
The stuff about “globalism,” always used as an epithet and left poorly defined, is virtually a distraction from the real problem.
So long as the nation functions as a plutocracy with a power establishment serving its interests, which very much includes a costly world empire, nothing important will change.
Trump is such a great example of the realities. He works overtime trying to give them what they want in return for them tolerating him in office.
You know, in the end, throughout the world, those with great fortunes dominate despite all the political rhetoric about democracy and the struggles for freedom over the last few centuries. The rich rule, still, but it is not always with the complete transparency we see in the United States.
Both major parties are completely dependent upon large money donors. Nothing serious in arrangements or international affairs ever changes with the election of either of them. And America’s Supreme Court has even ruled that “money is free speech.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)