John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
“Biden defends civil rights record after fiery criticism by Harris on segregation
“Sen. Kamala Harris criticized former U.S. vice-president Joe Biden for opposing public school busing in 1970s”
Kamala Harris appears to have had her moment here.
But many do not understand what a weak candidate Biden is. His life-long record is troubling. Worse, the details often conflict with the words which stream readily from his mouth.
I have long regarded him as a true American political phony, the kind of rubbery-faced smiler who does a good imitation of someone with a career of "fighting the good fight," fighting battles on the right side of history. He very much does not have such a record.
As to Harris, her rise in politics came with some pretty unsavoury stuff in California. She represents the establishment's offering of an outsider woman.
If you want that, there's only one authentic choice in this contest, Tulsi Gabbard, which is exactly why she is ignored by so much of America's press and other politicians. Truth is not a friend in American national politics. Not at all.
On Joe Biden:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/04/27/john-chuckman-comment-ah-the-excitement-of-joe-biden-entering-the-presidential-race-key-points-you-should-know-about-joe-biden-why-hes-just-one-more-example-of-pure-american-political-sleaze/
Saturday, June 29, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ELTON JOHN AND PUTIN - JOHN MAKES EXTREME CHARGES ABOUT SOMETHING HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT - PUTIN ANSWERS CALMLY AND REASONABLY - PRESS MISCHARACTERIZES THE EXCHANGE WITH UNFAIR WORDS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Russian president Vladimir Putin doubled down on his attack on western liberalism on Saturday, using a post-G20 press conference to rant against musician and activist Elton John’s criticism of his record on LGBT+ rights”
This is a slanted, unfair piece of reporting.
Just calling Putin’s words "a rant" is highly deceptive.
I’ve read his comments, elsewhere.
They were calm and reasonable.
He basically said Russians have their own calm attitude in these matters.
Let parents raise their children in the way they see as appropriate, and when the children are grown, they can choose whatever way they see fit.
It’s a thoroughly healthy-minded and practical point of view.
No prejudice. No rant.
Indeed, it is, in fact, Elton John who could be more fairly charged with those.
Elton John, in a fashion so typical today in the West, is accusing Russia of matters in which it has no guilt and around which he, John, has no knowledge, or very little.
Trying to tell others his values are best.
And the way in which he does that, to my mind, resembles so many of the highly charged attitudes we see today, as, for example, telling women they can’t wear the hijab if they so choose because it is anti-feminist and imposed by men.
Ridiculous, if you know anything about the strong women in many parts of the Muslim world.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Russian president Vladimir Putin doubled down on his attack on western liberalism on Saturday, using a post-G20 press conference to rant against musician and activist Elton John’s criticism of his record on LGBT+ rights”
This is a slanted, unfair piece of reporting.
Just calling Putin’s words "a rant" is highly deceptive.
I’ve read his comments, elsewhere.
They were calm and reasonable.
He basically said Russians have their own calm attitude in these matters.
Let parents raise their children in the way they see as appropriate, and when the children are grown, they can choose whatever way they see fit.
It’s a thoroughly healthy-minded and practical point of view.
No prejudice. No rant.
Indeed, it is, in fact, Elton John who could be more fairly charged with those.
Elton John, in a fashion so typical today in the West, is accusing Russia of matters in which it has no guilt and around which he, John, has no knowledge, or very little.
Trying to tell others his values are best.
And the way in which he does that, to my mind, resembles so many of the highly charged attitudes we see today, as, for example, telling women they can’t wear the hijab if they so choose because it is anti-feminist and imposed by men.
Ridiculous, if you know anything about the strong women in many parts of the Muslim world.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: KEVLAR IN THE CLASSROOM - HOW FAR OUR HOPELESSLY POLITICALLY-CORRECT PUBLIC EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT GOES TO AVOID DEALING DIRECTLY WITH A PROBLEM
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ROBYN MILLER IN CBC NEWS
'Kevlar in the classroom': Teachers turn to protective gear as violence escalates
Violent outbursts by students at Ottawa's largest school board double in 3 years
Larger class size would contribute, but the root of the problem is "mainstreaming" students who should not be in the mainstream.
The policy is cheap for Boards, cheap compared to other arrangements, and they all have a kind of politically-correct attitude about these matters. They can claim virtue about false notions of not having to "stigmatize" anyone.
Mental illness and serious emotional problems are as much a part of the human condition as severe physical disabilities. Or indeed, beauty or special talent of any kind. They come in a certain percent of every large population as part of the random way nature works.
So, if you have a system required to take all comers (our public schools) and insist for various reasons that they will all be accommodated in the same manner, you are going to have these problems. Automatically and indefinitely.
It should be a basic policy that any child proving highly disruptive and violent requires moving to a specialized facility, whether located in the same school property or somewhere else, a facility which has a high ratio of teachers plus the assistance of experts in mental health.
Of course, doing that right costs a good deal more and is far more work for administrators, but the average young teacher coming from teachers’ college hasn’t the least ability to deal with the task even though they may have been given a superficial course about “special needs.”
What we are really talking about is psychiatric cases being tossed into the classrooms by pretending everyone is the same, and it’s all lovely.
No teacher can both teach a normal class and act as a kind of warden.
And young teachers like the one in this story do not want to be identified for speaking to truth. It does not boost careers, for sure. Administrators do not take kindly to that.
The situation is not fair to anyone involved.
But school administrators, everywhere now, don't want really to deal with these problems which, of course, include matters like dealing with parents when they must tell them their child needs a special school environment.
That special environment, of course, should be the very best that it can be too, not just some human warehouse. Costs go up, of course, but willingness to bear costs is the real test of commitment to doing things right.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ROBYN MILLER IN CBC NEWS
'Kevlar in the classroom': Teachers turn to protective gear as violence escalates
Violent outbursts by students at Ottawa's largest school board double in 3 years
Larger class size would contribute, but the root of the problem is "mainstreaming" students who should not be in the mainstream.
The policy is cheap for Boards, cheap compared to other arrangements, and they all have a kind of politically-correct attitude about these matters. They can claim virtue about false notions of not having to "stigmatize" anyone.
Mental illness and serious emotional problems are as much a part of the human condition as severe physical disabilities. Or indeed, beauty or special talent of any kind. They come in a certain percent of every large population as part of the random way nature works.
So, if you have a system required to take all comers (our public schools) and insist for various reasons that they will all be accommodated in the same manner, you are going to have these problems. Automatically and indefinitely.
It should be a basic policy that any child proving highly disruptive and violent requires moving to a specialized facility, whether located in the same school property or somewhere else, a facility which has a high ratio of teachers plus the assistance of experts in mental health.
Of course, doing that right costs a good deal more and is far more work for administrators, but the average young teacher coming from teachers’ college hasn’t the least ability to deal with the task even though they may have been given a superficial course about “special needs.”
What we are really talking about is psychiatric cases being tossed into the classrooms by pretending everyone is the same, and it’s all lovely.
No teacher can both teach a normal class and act as a kind of warden.
And young teachers like the one in this story do not want to be identified for speaking to truth. It does not boost careers, for sure. Administrators do not take kindly to that.
The situation is not fair to anyone involved.
But school administrators, everywhere now, don't want really to deal with these problems which, of course, include matters like dealing with parents when they must tell them their child needs a special school environment.
That special environment, of course, should be the very best that it can be too, not just some human warehouse. Costs go up, of course, but willingness to bear costs is the real test of commitment to doing things right.
Friday, June 28, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: PUTIN MAKES A STATEMENT AT THE OSAKA G20 THAT MARKS THE FIRST TIME I SERIOUSLY DISAGREE WITH HIM - THE ENDURING VALUES OF TRUE LIBERALISM CAN NO MORE BE OBSOLETE THAN DECENCY AND FAIRNESS
John Chuckman
COMMENT WRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO AN ARTICLE IN ALJAZEERA (A PUBLICATION WHICH PERMITS NO POSTINGS)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/putin-derides-liberalism-obsolete-g20-summit-190628052108100.html
‘Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced liberalism as "obsolete" in the run-up to the annual summit of the Group of 20 (G20) nations in Osaka’
‘In a wide-ranging interview with the Financial Times published late on Thursday, Putin trumpeted the rise of populist movements in Europe and the United States and said Russia's Western partners had "admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable"’
‘”The so-called liberal idea ... has outlived its purpose," Putin said. "It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population"’
Putin’s statements on the subject of liberalism mark the first time I seriously disagree with him. Since he almost always avoids the ideological in his words, that perhaps is not surprising.
My disagreement may be about semantics and even translation because I’m not sure that Putin means the same thing in speaking of “liberalism” that I understand by the word, but to my mind the word “liberal” is far too precious to permit it being treated lightly or criticized, and in recent years, it has been treated lightly by people whose intentions are anything but good, people like Trump or Bolton or Netanyahu.
However, I try always remembering that we live in a world where the meaning of language, and particularly political language, has been deeply and deliberately corrupted.
People and states are constantly telling us that they are doing things other than what they are actually doing, striving to put a pleasant face on unpleasant acts. They have corrupted our political vocabulary beyond even what the piercing observations of George Orwell gave us to understand.
Saudi Arabia works for reform, Israel works for peace, America works for democracy, plus many others are the empty political merchandising litanies of our time.
I have seen a lot of material in recent years declaiming against liberalism, and if you analyze it, not all of it is even about the same subject.
In America, which on the whole is much more conservative than many people living abroad understand, the Right Wing has long worked industriously to make the word “liberal” into a kind of epithet or dirty word, something to be sneered at, and they have succeeded in large parts of that country.
Perhaps, that does not represent a very significant achievement in a society which is characterized by almost continuous war and rather brutal imperialism.
In Israel, the word has always been widely disliked for the simple reason that true liberals are concerned with human rights and the rule of law. It is easy to see why many in Israel might regard that negatively.
I judge these views and efforts by their apparent intent. In America, it has a lot to do with old isolationist, Fortress America, thinking, something that remains so plentiful that Trump has staked his political career on it.
I resent the expression, ”liberal intervention,” but then I tend to object to all forms of dishonesty and manipulation, and that term is completely dishonest. It has nothing to do being liberal and everything to do with imperialism, imperialism being given a twenty-first century make-over so that it may be passed off as something modern and based in principle.
It is not. Imperialism is imperialism, and any genuine liberal opposes it just as naturally he or she would oppose slavery or the subjugation of women or human trafficking. Anyone who does not oppose it is simply not a liberal, despite pretensions about social programs and politically-correct speech.
To say anything else is a bit like saying that a priest who does a nice job with his prayers and rituals and homilies, but who secretly buggers children, is a good man. That’s an extreme figure of speech, but it contains hard truth.
Washington’s power establishment, supported by its various dependent governments in Europe, has been instrumental in popularizing this utterly false marriage of concepts. If ever there was a case of “lipstick on a pig,” this is it. But that fact shouldn’t influence anyone’s discussion of liberalism.
There is something similar and related in the wide-spread criticism of migration and refugees in today’s world, something Putin touches on in his Osaka remarks. Something that is an obsession for Donald Trump or people like Britain’s Nigel Farage.
Putin called Angela Merkel’s decision to admit one million refugees a “cardinal mistake,” and I actually can agree with him in that specific case while at the same time saying it had relatively little to do with principles of liberalism. Merkel was behaving out of human compassion for a vast human tragedy, one I feel she likely felt considerable private guilt over.
The vast numbers of refugees from the Mideast and North Africa, all over a short time frame, were the result of American bombing in its Neocon Wars. Germany, as a member of NATO, just like Britain and France, had accepted this terrifying and destructive American policy, which killed at least two million people and rendered millions more homeless, and it has not criticized it at all.
Taking in too great a number of new and different people over any brief period is extremely disturbing to any society. Humane people want to help, but they also do not want to hurt the society they know and love. So, when numbers are so vast as those resulting from America’s bombs, it is necessary to come up with other arrangements.
Europe did that also, in massively subsidizing the huge camps of refugees in Turkey, something like three million people receiving billions in assistance. Turkey’s Erdogan views it as his Islamic duty to shelter these unfortunate people, and I can only praise him for taking the responsibility.
The United States assisted no one with the miserable human problems it created. That’s what I mean about the conservative (and often shockingly selfish) nature of American society, something not fully appreciated abroad by people who sentimentalize over old American films and do recall some worthy, long-ago American initiatives, such as the Marshall Plan for war-devastated Europe.
What America did in Vietnam – killing millions horribly and dumping the most godawful load of everything from millions of pounds of Agent Orange to countless landmines, taking no responsibility for any of it while whining about its own relatively small losses - set the grand pattern for all later horrors.
And remember, the current hideous set of American wars, the Neocon Wars, was started by George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice – people as far removed from being liberals as you can find.
But the Wars were carried right on, and greatly expanded, by Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, both people with false reputations as liberals, but nevertheless influential Democrats.
They have been taken further still by Donald Trump, despite his earlier campaign blubbering about pointless wars. He keeps troops illegally in Syria. He keeps troops in Iraq, whose government does not want them there. He keeps troops in the most pointless war of all time, Afghanistan.
Now, he threatens to start what would unavoidably become the biggest war of all, with Iran, backed by a loud cheering section of Bolton, Pompeo, and Netanyahu. He says he doesn’t want war, but his actions are far more eloquent than his clumsy rhetoric. Besides, when you put yourself in such a dangerous position, things can so easily get out of hand.
Do we see a pattern in that brief review of American actions in the Middle East?
The policies of destruction and killing in the Mideast are supported by all American politicians of national stature, all of them - Republican or Democrat or indeed a bizarre maverick like Trump. It does not matter who is elected as President, the policies continue.
There is nothing “liberal” about any of it, unless you are in the habit of viewing some of the conquests of Imperial Rome as somehow being liberal. Or even the conquests of modern Germany during its century-long rise and effort to dominate Europe – from the Franco-Prussian War to WWI and to WWII.
The Neocon Wars represent the perfect example of so-called “liberal intervention,” killing about two million people in the name of re-making the face of the Middle East, taking it supposedly from a set of non-democratic states and kingdoms to a vision of Ozzie and Harriet’s happy American suburban neighborhood in the 1950s American television series. With democracy and liberty and justice for all.
It has all been false, mere window dressing, covering an entirely different purpose, one America would not want to brag about in public. What the Neocon Wars have done is destroy, or attempt to destroy in a case like Syria, those societies whose governments did not toe the line of American imperial policy.
A parallel objective has been to entrench and protect those in the Middle East who very much do adhere to American policy, who toe the line and benefit from doing so, people like Saudi Arabia’s criminal Crown Prince, Egypt’s ruthless Generalissimo-President, and Israel’s criminal Prime Minister.
None of it has anything to do with liberal principles, unless you credit the language of Pentagon and CIA press releases as honest and informative. The stuff about “liberal intervention” and “democracy” is about as big a fraud as we’ve seen in our lifetimes.
So, attacking liberalism or liberal principles owing to the use of such language is entirely inappropriate.
In Israel, many of whose views also reflect parts of American society since it is in essence an American colony in the Middle East, one imbued with a lot of emotional religious mumbo-jumbo having no business in national or international affairs.
After all, many in the West turn around from condemning some of the world’s theocracies and state-enforced religions, to then praise Israel, which represents only a more complex and subtle form of the very same thing, its rather odd form of democracy used both as an enforcement and public relations mechanism for so much that is plainly unfair and not democratic and anything but representing liberal principles.
The true meaning of the word “liberal” relates to the very foundations of Western society, ideals about human and democratic rights, the long march through many difficulties since the Enlightenment towards an enduring set of values in human affairs. Even if we don’t always live up to them, their survival remains important. They can no more become obsolete than decency and fairness.
NOTE: In a much fuller statement seen later in another source, I believe the remarks to which I have reacted certainly do not represent the complexity of what Putin tried to communicate. It’s a very good example of how press reporting can misrepresent, even in an above-average source like Aljazeera.
But I also very much believe Putin failed himself in offering some attention-getting quotes that led away from what he was trying to say overall. Some ideas or concepts can’t be reduced to aphorisms without distorting their meaning.
He was in part talking about the liberal view being only one of many that can exist and compete in the world. With that, I completely agree. I don’t believe in a true religion of any kind, especially ones that work to suppress others. Indeed, the essential point of view of genuine liberalism simply excludes doing that. Liberalism is not oppressive.
While much of what America has been doing in recent decades may be interpreted in the way Putin is suggesting, and thereby rejected, I do believe my statements about imperialism being the real American drive are completely valid. All the stuff about liberalism and democracy from Washington are props and stage make-up.
Putin was making the very valid point that people in some places have no history or experience with traditional European liberal values, and demands should not be put on them. Again, I agree, but again, I don’t think that’s what real liberals do. Washington’s efforts are not liberal, ever, and the liberal blubbering is just a recitation of scripture while making war.
He was also talking about taking all talk of values or ideology out of our international relations, which should be based only on pragmatic relations. That is the purest Putin, a very pragmatic man, and while I am less a pragmatist than he, I can accept that as a working principle in international affairs. It makes for a whole lot fewer sources of conflict.
There’s more to it, and I’ll have to get to the long, full text at some point.
Nevertheless, he did say the particular things to which I reacted, and I wouldn’t retract a word.
COMMENT WRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO AN ARTICLE IN ALJAZEERA (A PUBLICATION WHICH PERMITS NO POSTINGS)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/putin-derides-liberalism-obsolete-g20-summit-190628052108100.html
‘Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced liberalism as "obsolete" in the run-up to the annual summit of the Group of 20 (G20) nations in Osaka’
‘In a wide-ranging interview with the Financial Times published late on Thursday, Putin trumpeted the rise of populist movements in Europe and the United States and said Russia's Western partners had "admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable"’
‘”The so-called liberal idea ... has outlived its purpose," Putin said. "It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population"’
Putin’s statements on the subject of liberalism mark the first time I seriously disagree with him. Since he almost always avoids the ideological in his words, that perhaps is not surprising.
My disagreement may be about semantics and even translation because I’m not sure that Putin means the same thing in speaking of “liberalism” that I understand by the word, but to my mind the word “liberal” is far too precious to permit it being treated lightly or criticized, and in recent years, it has been treated lightly by people whose intentions are anything but good, people like Trump or Bolton or Netanyahu.
However, I try always remembering that we live in a world where the meaning of language, and particularly political language, has been deeply and deliberately corrupted.
People and states are constantly telling us that they are doing things other than what they are actually doing, striving to put a pleasant face on unpleasant acts. They have corrupted our political vocabulary beyond even what the piercing observations of George Orwell gave us to understand.
Saudi Arabia works for reform, Israel works for peace, America works for democracy, plus many others are the empty political merchandising litanies of our time.
I have seen a lot of material in recent years declaiming against liberalism, and if you analyze it, not all of it is even about the same subject.
In America, which on the whole is much more conservative than many people living abroad understand, the Right Wing has long worked industriously to make the word “liberal” into a kind of epithet or dirty word, something to be sneered at, and they have succeeded in large parts of that country.
Perhaps, that does not represent a very significant achievement in a society which is characterized by almost continuous war and rather brutal imperialism.
In Israel, the word has always been widely disliked for the simple reason that true liberals are concerned with human rights and the rule of law. It is easy to see why many in Israel might regard that negatively.
I judge these views and efforts by their apparent intent. In America, it has a lot to do with old isolationist, Fortress America, thinking, something that remains so plentiful that Trump has staked his political career on it.
I resent the expression, ”liberal intervention,” but then I tend to object to all forms of dishonesty and manipulation, and that term is completely dishonest. It has nothing to do being liberal and everything to do with imperialism, imperialism being given a twenty-first century make-over so that it may be passed off as something modern and based in principle.
It is not. Imperialism is imperialism, and any genuine liberal opposes it just as naturally he or she would oppose slavery or the subjugation of women or human trafficking. Anyone who does not oppose it is simply not a liberal, despite pretensions about social programs and politically-correct speech.
To say anything else is a bit like saying that a priest who does a nice job with his prayers and rituals and homilies, but who secretly buggers children, is a good man. That’s an extreme figure of speech, but it contains hard truth.
Washington’s power establishment, supported by its various dependent governments in Europe, has been instrumental in popularizing this utterly false marriage of concepts. If ever there was a case of “lipstick on a pig,” this is it. But that fact shouldn’t influence anyone’s discussion of liberalism.
There is something similar and related in the wide-spread criticism of migration and refugees in today’s world, something Putin touches on in his Osaka remarks. Something that is an obsession for Donald Trump or people like Britain’s Nigel Farage.
Putin called Angela Merkel’s decision to admit one million refugees a “cardinal mistake,” and I actually can agree with him in that specific case while at the same time saying it had relatively little to do with principles of liberalism. Merkel was behaving out of human compassion for a vast human tragedy, one I feel she likely felt considerable private guilt over.
The vast numbers of refugees from the Mideast and North Africa, all over a short time frame, were the result of American bombing in its Neocon Wars. Germany, as a member of NATO, just like Britain and France, had accepted this terrifying and destructive American policy, which killed at least two million people and rendered millions more homeless, and it has not criticized it at all.
Taking in too great a number of new and different people over any brief period is extremely disturbing to any society. Humane people want to help, but they also do not want to hurt the society they know and love. So, when numbers are so vast as those resulting from America’s bombs, it is necessary to come up with other arrangements.
Europe did that also, in massively subsidizing the huge camps of refugees in Turkey, something like three million people receiving billions in assistance. Turkey’s Erdogan views it as his Islamic duty to shelter these unfortunate people, and I can only praise him for taking the responsibility.
The United States assisted no one with the miserable human problems it created. That’s what I mean about the conservative (and often shockingly selfish) nature of American society, something not fully appreciated abroad by people who sentimentalize over old American films and do recall some worthy, long-ago American initiatives, such as the Marshall Plan for war-devastated Europe.
What America did in Vietnam – killing millions horribly and dumping the most godawful load of everything from millions of pounds of Agent Orange to countless landmines, taking no responsibility for any of it while whining about its own relatively small losses - set the grand pattern for all later horrors.
And remember, the current hideous set of American wars, the Neocon Wars, was started by George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice – people as far removed from being liberals as you can find.
But the Wars were carried right on, and greatly expanded, by Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, both people with false reputations as liberals, but nevertheless influential Democrats.
They have been taken further still by Donald Trump, despite his earlier campaign blubbering about pointless wars. He keeps troops illegally in Syria. He keeps troops in Iraq, whose government does not want them there. He keeps troops in the most pointless war of all time, Afghanistan.
Now, he threatens to start what would unavoidably become the biggest war of all, with Iran, backed by a loud cheering section of Bolton, Pompeo, and Netanyahu. He says he doesn’t want war, but his actions are far more eloquent than his clumsy rhetoric. Besides, when you put yourself in such a dangerous position, things can so easily get out of hand.
Do we see a pattern in that brief review of American actions in the Middle East?
The policies of destruction and killing in the Mideast are supported by all American politicians of national stature, all of them - Republican or Democrat or indeed a bizarre maverick like Trump. It does not matter who is elected as President, the policies continue.
There is nothing “liberal” about any of it, unless you are in the habit of viewing some of the conquests of Imperial Rome as somehow being liberal. Or even the conquests of modern Germany during its century-long rise and effort to dominate Europe – from the Franco-Prussian War to WWI and to WWII.
The Neocon Wars represent the perfect example of so-called “liberal intervention,” killing about two million people in the name of re-making the face of the Middle East, taking it supposedly from a set of non-democratic states and kingdoms to a vision of Ozzie and Harriet’s happy American suburban neighborhood in the 1950s American television series. With democracy and liberty and justice for all.
It has all been false, mere window dressing, covering an entirely different purpose, one America would not want to brag about in public. What the Neocon Wars have done is destroy, or attempt to destroy in a case like Syria, those societies whose governments did not toe the line of American imperial policy.
A parallel objective has been to entrench and protect those in the Middle East who very much do adhere to American policy, who toe the line and benefit from doing so, people like Saudi Arabia’s criminal Crown Prince, Egypt’s ruthless Generalissimo-President, and Israel’s criminal Prime Minister.
None of it has anything to do with liberal principles, unless you credit the language of Pentagon and CIA press releases as honest and informative. The stuff about “liberal intervention” and “democracy” is about as big a fraud as we’ve seen in our lifetimes.
So, attacking liberalism or liberal principles owing to the use of such language is entirely inappropriate.
In Israel, many of whose views also reflect parts of American society since it is in essence an American colony in the Middle East, one imbued with a lot of emotional religious mumbo-jumbo having no business in national or international affairs.
After all, many in the West turn around from condemning some of the world’s theocracies and state-enforced religions, to then praise Israel, which represents only a more complex and subtle form of the very same thing, its rather odd form of democracy used both as an enforcement and public relations mechanism for so much that is plainly unfair and not democratic and anything but representing liberal principles.
The true meaning of the word “liberal” relates to the very foundations of Western society, ideals about human and democratic rights, the long march through many difficulties since the Enlightenment towards an enduring set of values in human affairs. Even if we don’t always live up to them, their survival remains important. They can no more become obsolete than decency and fairness.
NOTE: In a much fuller statement seen later in another source, I believe the remarks to which I have reacted certainly do not represent the complexity of what Putin tried to communicate. It’s a very good example of how press reporting can misrepresent, even in an above-average source like Aljazeera.
But I also very much believe Putin failed himself in offering some attention-getting quotes that led away from what he was trying to say overall. Some ideas or concepts can’t be reduced to aphorisms without distorting their meaning.
He was in part talking about the liberal view being only one of many that can exist and compete in the world. With that, I completely agree. I don’t believe in a true religion of any kind, especially ones that work to suppress others. Indeed, the essential point of view of genuine liberalism simply excludes doing that. Liberalism is not oppressive.
While much of what America has been doing in recent decades may be interpreted in the way Putin is suggesting, and thereby rejected, I do believe my statements about imperialism being the real American drive are completely valid. All the stuff about liberalism and democracy from Washington are props and stage make-up.
Putin was making the very valid point that people in some places have no history or experience with traditional European liberal values, and demands should not be put on them. Again, I agree, but again, I don’t think that’s what real liberals do. Washington’s efforts are not liberal, ever, and the liberal blubbering is just a recitation of scripture while making war.
He was also talking about taking all talk of values or ideology out of our international relations, which should be based only on pragmatic relations. That is the purest Putin, a very pragmatic man, and while I am less a pragmatist than he, I can accept that as a working principle in international affairs. It makes for a whole lot fewer sources of conflict.
There’s more to it, and I’ll have to get to the long, full text at some point.
Nevertheless, he did say the particular things to which I reacted, and I wouldn’t retract a word.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: BRITAIN'S THERESA MAY AND RUSSIA'S PUTIN AT THE OSAKA G20 - MAY OFFERS A LESSON IN HOW NOT TO DO THINGS - THE SKRIPAL AFFAIR YET AGAIN - THE REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF NEVER MET
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ANDREW WOODSTOCK IN THE INDEPENDENT
“'Putin dismisses May's demand for Skripal suspects as pair meet at G20
“The prime minister warned that UK-Russia relations cannot return to 'business as usual' unless Moscow changes its ways”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vladimir-putin-theresa-may-skripal-g20-summit-japan-salisbury-attack-a8978786.html
The photo of Theresa May shaking hands with Putin in Osaka is pathetic.
You either shake hands, or you don’t.
Theresa May tries doing both at the same time. It is just shabby political theater she engages in, a cheap photo for the folks back home.
As I've said many times, we do not have a single piece of sound proof that Theresa May's version of what happened with the Skripal Affair is what indeed happened.
Why is that, do you think?
I have a strong bias towards facts. I would accept her version in an instant, were there some proof.
I do know something happened, but I don't know what.
The burden has always been on Theresa May to clarify, but she has never even attempted to do so.
She just makes accusations, over and over, like a recording stuck in a groove.
Truth be told, her manner and words on the whole matter greatly resemble those of Donald Trump on important matters, devoid of facts and packed with highly-biased rhetoric, only hers are not so noisy and obnoxiously phrased.
I think that tells us something. Not a single independent and critical-minded person on earth believes Donald Trump on anything. The man’s mind is a rubbishy collection of bias and illusions and narcissistic self-deception.
Does Theresa May’s performance in the Skripal Affair reflect the same kind of incompetence she has so long displayed over Brexit? I do think so.
And where is Theresa May's ethical or moral concern over some truly brutal behavior for which we do have proof, hard proof, that of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?
Not a word. But real handshakes and billions in sales of armaments just continue as though nothing had happened.
Readers might like:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/09/06/john-chuckman-comment-the-skripal-affair-dramatically-returns-with-supposed-surveillance-photos-of-the-assassins-just-one-very-serious-problem-with-a-pair-of-the-photos-they-appear-to-be-frauds/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/john-chuckman-comment-britains-prime-minister-brags-of-russian-intelligence-being-degraded-after-skripal-affair-but-wasnt-that-the-point-of-the-entire-effort-by-theresa-may-who-never-produced-a/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/09/28/john-chuckman-comment-bellingcats-claims-about-a-gru-colonel-and-the-skripal-affair-remember-what-bellingcat-is-just-a-front-organization-for-british-security-service-mi6-no-substitute-for-ev/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/10/28/john-chuckman-comment-blood-soaked-american-ally-saudi-arabia-actual-death-toll-in-yemen-only-circumstances-where-washington-attacks-tyrants-compare-the-glaring-hypocrisy-of-the-khashoggi-and-s/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ANDREW WOODSTOCK IN THE INDEPENDENT
“'Putin dismisses May's demand for Skripal suspects as pair meet at G20
“The prime minister warned that UK-Russia relations cannot return to 'business as usual' unless Moscow changes its ways”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vladimir-putin-theresa-may-skripal-g20-summit-japan-salisbury-attack-a8978786.html
The photo of Theresa May shaking hands with Putin in Osaka is pathetic.
You either shake hands, or you don’t.
Theresa May tries doing both at the same time. It is just shabby political theater she engages in, a cheap photo for the folks back home.
As I've said many times, we do not have a single piece of sound proof that Theresa May's version of what happened with the Skripal Affair is what indeed happened.
Why is that, do you think?
I have a strong bias towards facts. I would accept her version in an instant, were there some proof.
I do know something happened, but I don't know what.
The burden has always been on Theresa May to clarify, but she has never even attempted to do so.
She just makes accusations, over and over, like a recording stuck in a groove.
Truth be told, her manner and words on the whole matter greatly resemble those of Donald Trump on important matters, devoid of facts and packed with highly-biased rhetoric, only hers are not so noisy and obnoxiously phrased.
I think that tells us something. Not a single independent and critical-minded person on earth believes Donald Trump on anything. The man’s mind is a rubbishy collection of bias and illusions and narcissistic self-deception.
Does Theresa May’s performance in the Skripal Affair reflect the same kind of incompetence she has so long displayed over Brexit? I do think so.
And where is Theresa May's ethical or moral concern over some truly brutal behavior for which we do have proof, hard proof, that of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?
Not a word. But real handshakes and billions in sales of armaments just continue as though nothing had happened.
Readers might like:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/09/06/john-chuckman-comment-the-skripal-affair-dramatically-returns-with-supposed-surveillance-photos-of-the-assassins-just-one-very-serious-problem-with-a-pair-of-the-photos-they-appear-to-be-frauds/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/john-chuckman-comment-britains-prime-minister-brags-of-russian-intelligence-being-degraded-after-skripal-affair-but-wasnt-that-the-point-of-the-entire-effort-by-theresa-may-who-never-produced-a/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/09/28/john-chuckman-comment-bellingcats-claims-about-a-gru-colonel-and-the-skripal-affair-remember-what-bellingcat-is-just-a-front-organization-for-british-security-service-mi6-no-substitute-for-ev/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/10/28/john-chuckman-comment-blood-soaked-american-ally-saudi-arabia-actual-death-toll-in-yemen-only-circumstances-where-washington-attacks-tyrants-compare-the-glaring-hypocrisy-of-the-khashoggi-and-s/
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON ELIZABETH WARREN AS THE DEMOCRATS' CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT - IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES IN THE MEANING OF THE WORD "POPULISM" TODAY COMPARED TO MANY DECADES AGO
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY NEIL MACDONALD IN CBC NEWS
“If the Democrats have any spine, they'll nominate Elizabeth Warren to take on Trump: Neil Macdonald
“Donald Trump poses as a populist, while rewarding the rich. Warren is the real thing”
Elizabeth Warren has her merits. She would be preferable to that old rubber-faced phony, Joe Biden.
But I view her still as a rather weak candidate. Her voice is simply missing on some immensely important problems for America and the world.
And I don't know why she ever came up with that stunt of claiming indigenous heritage. It showed extremely bad judgment in anyone's eyes. Trump's insulting mouth would tirelessly pound away at that, and it would have traction with many Americans, not just the belly-over-the-belt types.
She also, like Bernie Sanders, spends a lot of time talking social programs that, no matter how nice you may think they sound, cannot possibly see the light of day in contemporary America.
We are not talking about a place at all similar to Canada in such matters, but about a pounding fist of an empire with not even any pocket change left over for social programs.
And most Democrats support that imperial/military priority just as much as Republicans do. Johnson, Clinton, and Obama all waged aggressive war, and little has changed. And there are lots of quite conservative Democrats. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sounds like a member of Trump’s staff when he speaks of foreign affairs.
The Democrats simply are not a party of the kind of liberals Canadians are used to thinking of. No extremely progressive legislation could possibly pass.
And then when it comes to imperial/military affairs, the heart of America's greatest problems, Elizabeth Warren's has not been a voice much heard over the years. She has voted for massive military budgets, and she is no critic of America's bloodbath in the Middle East.
I think a woman would be great, and there is a truly outstanding woman running, Tulsi Gabbard - intelligent, tough, articulate, honest, attractive, and concerned about some truly important matters.
Please see this interesting item concerning the first debate by Democratic candidates;
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/06/27/john-chuckman-comment-first-debate-by-democrats-brings-eyebrow-raising-polling-results-for-tulsi-gabbard-despite-having-short-airtime-she-crushed-the-opposition-poll-links-a-really-impressive-w/
___________________________
I do think when Neil Macdonald writes of "populists," he misses something important.
The current generation of "populists," in Europe as well as America, has nothing in common with the populism of Franklin Roosevelt's day.
This generation of “populists” is not wildly far from the American isolationist types of Roosevelt's day, or even some of the less extreme fascist parties of the 1930s, not all of them, and there were many, being as extreme and violent as the Nazis.
The Western world has become a much less kind and generous place than it once was. We see this everywhere.
True liberalism or the populism of Roosevelt's day literally died out years ago in the United States.
That's why many Democrats are not all that wildly different than most Republicans. They don't at all resemble the left wing of Canadian Liberals.
Remember Bill Clinton's speech bragging about signing a piece of legislation "ending welfare in our day"? Obama, too, was no real liberal. He didn’t create a single significant piece of progressive legislation, and he certainly did nothing for the poor black Americans he appealed to with his “Yes, we can!” of campaign speeches in the rhythms of traditional black preachers.
Imagine Clinton’s brag about welfare coming from a Democrat thirty years before? It just couldn't have happened.
Years of relative prosperity and aggressive wars and indifference to the consequences of those wars changed the soul of American society.
Europe, too, has changed under heavy American influence. In many ways, it is far less independent of American attitudes than it once was.
In Britain, Boris Johnson is different largely in style from Trump. We’ve just learned that he is even a “closet” friend of Steve Bannon, former Trump intimate. A genuine, humane progressive like the Labour Party’s Jeremy Corbyn has been viciously attacked many times. And with the most shameful tactics.
And the same thing is seen in Canada, only to a lesser degree. Once the Conservatives had some genuinely humane and worthy leaders, men like Robert Stanfield or Joe Clark. Today, the Party reflects Stephen Harper.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY NEIL MACDONALD IN CBC NEWS
“If the Democrats have any spine, they'll nominate Elizabeth Warren to take on Trump: Neil Macdonald
“Donald Trump poses as a populist, while rewarding the rich. Warren is the real thing”
Elizabeth Warren has her merits. She would be preferable to that old rubber-faced phony, Joe Biden.
But I view her still as a rather weak candidate. Her voice is simply missing on some immensely important problems for America and the world.
And I don't know why she ever came up with that stunt of claiming indigenous heritage. It showed extremely bad judgment in anyone's eyes. Trump's insulting mouth would tirelessly pound away at that, and it would have traction with many Americans, not just the belly-over-the-belt types.
She also, like Bernie Sanders, spends a lot of time talking social programs that, no matter how nice you may think they sound, cannot possibly see the light of day in contemporary America.
We are not talking about a place at all similar to Canada in such matters, but about a pounding fist of an empire with not even any pocket change left over for social programs.
And most Democrats support that imperial/military priority just as much as Republicans do. Johnson, Clinton, and Obama all waged aggressive war, and little has changed. And there are lots of quite conservative Democrats. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sounds like a member of Trump’s staff when he speaks of foreign affairs.
The Democrats simply are not a party of the kind of liberals Canadians are used to thinking of. No extremely progressive legislation could possibly pass.
And then when it comes to imperial/military affairs, the heart of America's greatest problems, Elizabeth Warren's has not been a voice much heard over the years. She has voted for massive military budgets, and she is no critic of America's bloodbath in the Middle East.
I think a woman would be great, and there is a truly outstanding woman running, Tulsi Gabbard - intelligent, tough, articulate, honest, attractive, and concerned about some truly important matters.
Please see this interesting item concerning the first debate by Democratic candidates;
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/06/27/john-chuckman-comment-first-debate-by-democrats-brings-eyebrow-raising-polling-results-for-tulsi-gabbard-despite-having-short-airtime-she-crushed-the-opposition-poll-links-a-really-impressive-w/
___________________________
I do think when Neil Macdonald writes of "populists," he misses something important.
The current generation of "populists," in Europe as well as America, has nothing in common with the populism of Franklin Roosevelt's day.
This generation of “populists” is not wildly far from the American isolationist types of Roosevelt's day, or even some of the less extreme fascist parties of the 1930s, not all of them, and there were many, being as extreme and violent as the Nazis.
The Western world has become a much less kind and generous place than it once was. We see this everywhere.
True liberalism or the populism of Roosevelt's day literally died out years ago in the United States.
That's why many Democrats are not all that wildly different than most Republicans. They don't at all resemble the left wing of Canadian Liberals.
Remember Bill Clinton's speech bragging about signing a piece of legislation "ending welfare in our day"? Obama, too, was no real liberal. He didn’t create a single significant piece of progressive legislation, and he certainly did nothing for the poor black Americans he appealed to with his “Yes, we can!” of campaign speeches in the rhythms of traditional black preachers.
Imagine Clinton’s brag about welfare coming from a Democrat thirty years before? It just couldn't have happened.
Years of relative prosperity and aggressive wars and indifference to the consequences of those wars changed the soul of American society.
Europe, too, has changed under heavy American influence. In many ways, it is far less independent of American attitudes than it once was.
In Britain, Boris Johnson is different largely in style from Trump. We’ve just learned that he is even a “closet” friend of Steve Bannon, former Trump intimate. A genuine, humane progressive like the Labour Party’s Jeremy Corbyn has been viciously attacked many times. And with the most shameful tactics.
And the same thing is seen in Canada, only to a lesser degree. Once the Conservatives had some genuinely humane and worthy leaders, men like Robert Stanfield or Joe Clark. Today, the Party reflects Stephen Harper.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CANADA'S FOREIGN MINISTER, CHRYSTIA FREELAND, SPEAKS GIBBERISH ABOUT CHINA AND CANADA AT THE G20 - I OFFER TRANSLATIONS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY KRISTY KIRKUP IN CBC NEWS
“Canada has 'broad international coalition' of support on China file, Freeland says”
"Trudeau had 'brief, constructive interactions' with Chinese President Xi Jinping at G20"
Translation: They said "hello."
"Canada has 'broad international coalition' of support on China file, Freeland says'”
Translation: Washington and some Europeans under its thumb nod their heads at the mention of Canada, but do absolutely nothing.
The truth is, there's nothing to support.
Chrystia Freeland has totally mishandled the China File from beginning to end. The entire sequence of negative events was avoidable.
In almost everything Freeland has been active in - from the Lima Group, designed to help overthrow a democratic government, to tacit acceptance of Saudi Arabia's horrors and to making no objections to Trump's illegal and unwarranted assault on Iran - I do not see the great Liberal Party traditions in international affairs that gave us our reputation in the 20th century.
Not at all. I see Stephen Harper.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY KRISTY KIRKUP IN CBC NEWS
“Canada has 'broad international coalition' of support on China file, Freeland says”
"Trudeau had 'brief, constructive interactions' with Chinese President Xi Jinping at G20"
Translation: They said "hello."
"Canada has 'broad international coalition' of support on China file, Freeland says'”
Translation: Washington and some Europeans under its thumb nod their heads at the mention of Canada, but do absolutely nothing.
The truth is, there's nothing to support.
Chrystia Freeland has totally mishandled the China File from beginning to end. The entire sequence of negative events was avoidable.
In almost everything Freeland has been active in - from the Lima Group, designed to help overthrow a democratic government, to tacit acceptance of Saudi Arabia's horrors and to making no objections to Trump's illegal and unwarranted assault on Iran - I do not see the great Liberal Party traditions in international affairs that gave us our reputation in the 20th century.
Not at all. I see Stephen Harper.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE DALAI LAMA SPEAKS A VERY BOLD TRUTH
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIAN INSIDER
“…the Dalai Lama spoke to BBC’s South Asia Correspondent Rajini Vaidyanathan in an interview”
'DALAI LAMA SAYS TRUMP HAS “NO MORAL PRINCIPLE”'
I've never been a huge fan of the Dalai Lama, not liking cult-like figures of any kind, and also believing him often in the past to have been manipulated by American security services in order to discredit China.
But here he speaks a very bold truth.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIAN INSIDER
“…the Dalai Lama spoke to BBC’s South Asia Correspondent Rajini Vaidyanathan in an interview”
'DALAI LAMA SAYS TRUMP HAS “NO MORAL PRINCIPLE”'
I've never been a huge fan of the Dalai Lama, not liking cult-like figures of any kind, and also believing him often in the past to have been manipulated by American security services in order to discredit China.
But here he speaks a very bold truth.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: FIRST DEBATE BY DEMOCRATS BRINGS EYEBROW-RAISING POLLING RESULTS FOR TULSI GABBARD (POLL LINKS) - DESPITE HER BRIEF AIRTIME SHE CRUSHED THE OPPOSITION - A TRULY IMPRESSIVE WOMAN - BUT AMERICA'S ESTABLISHMENT HAS WAYS OF DIMMING THE LIGHT OF SUCH BRIGHT MAVERICKS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Tulsi Crushes the First Democrat Debate, The Most Googled Candidate, Landslide Winner in a Bunch of Polls
“The fool who dared go against her was scorched, isn't even on the radar”
https://www.checkpointasia.net/tulsi-crushes-the-first-democrat-debate-the-most-googled-candidate-landslide-winner-in-a-bunch-of-polls/
I don't watch television, so I didn't see the debate.
But I know Tulsi Gabbard can be impressive.
That, of course, is precisely why she gets so little mainstream press coverage or mention by other politicians.
Indeed, she is treated as something of a pariah by many, as other past genuine independent American voices have been, from Ralph Nader to Ron Paul.
She is the only candidate saying at least some of the truths going to the heart of America’s serious problems.
Since her truths touch on empire and the use of force to keep it going, hers is not a welcome voice.
The costly, violent commitments America insists upon abroad terribly affect matters back home, too. American society suffers from many ugly and damaging problems because imperial/military efforts literally chew up resources and rivet the attention of politicians. It’s a serious systematic social disease, if you will.
Virtually all politicians in both parties embrace the empire and the military as part of the natural environment of the country.
Kind of a geopolitical natural environment, not to be messed with or fouled.
After all, they all profit from it, either in career paths and benefits or in money.
The graphs of public response to Tulsi’s words, words the debate format kept extremely limited, strikingly demonstrate that large numbers do respond when they get to hear her.
It is, of course, just part of the way America is ruled that all genuine maverick political voices are quietly and effectively muffled. It is treatment the exact opposite of that extended to a John McCain kind of maverick, someone who actually shilled full-time for empire and establishment while pretending to be independent. McCain served as a domestic version of the mercenaries the United States employs in places like Syria, mercenaries disguised as jihadi types.
Unfortunately, the polling results may provide a spur to even greater efforts at keeping her isolated.
That’s just how it is in America’s great “democracy,” which produces leadership like Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, and Haspel and forges unbreakable bonds of friendship with the bloody likes of the Saudi Crown Prince and Netanyahu.
Readers may enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/john-chuckman-comment-honest-tulsi-gabbard-and-americas-vicious-establishment-press-for-the-role-of-2020-woman-outsider-candidate-they-have-kamala-harris-obama-redux-a-pleasantly-smiling-say/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/02/15/john-chuckman-comment-tulsi-gabbard-is-the-most-appealing-american-politician-in-a-long-time-the-realities-awaiting-her-should-she-ever-manage-to-get-elected-elizabeth-warren-and-p-t-barnum/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Tulsi Crushes the First Democrat Debate, The Most Googled Candidate, Landslide Winner in a Bunch of Polls
“The fool who dared go against her was scorched, isn't even on the radar”
https://www.checkpointasia.net/tulsi-crushes-the-first-democrat-debate-the-most-googled-candidate-landslide-winner-in-a-bunch-of-polls/
I don't watch television, so I didn't see the debate.
But I know Tulsi Gabbard can be impressive.
That, of course, is precisely why she gets so little mainstream press coverage or mention by other politicians.
Indeed, she is treated as something of a pariah by many, as other past genuine independent American voices have been, from Ralph Nader to Ron Paul.
She is the only candidate saying at least some of the truths going to the heart of America’s serious problems.
Since her truths touch on empire and the use of force to keep it going, hers is not a welcome voice.
The costly, violent commitments America insists upon abroad terribly affect matters back home, too. American society suffers from many ugly and damaging problems because imperial/military efforts literally chew up resources and rivet the attention of politicians. It’s a serious systematic social disease, if you will.
Virtually all politicians in both parties embrace the empire and the military as part of the natural environment of the country.
Kind of a geopolitical natural environment, not to be messed with or fouled.
After all, they all profit from it, either in career paths and benefits or in money.
The graphs of public response to Tulsi’s words, words the debate format kept extremely limited, strikingly demonstrate that large numbers do respond when they get to hear her.
It is, of course, just part of the way America is ruled that all genuine maverick political voices are quietly and effectively muffled. It is treatment the exact opposite of that extended to a John McCain kind of maverick, someone who actually shilled full-time for empire and establishment while pretending to be independent. McCain served as a domestic version of the mercenaries the United States employs in places like Syria, mercenaries disguised as jihadi types.
Unfortunately, the polling results may provide a spur to even greater efforts at keeping her isolated.
That’s just how it is in America’s great “democracy,” which produces leadership like Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, and Haspel and forges unbreakable bonds of friendship with the bloody likes of the Saudi Crown Prince and Netanyahu.
Readers may enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/john-chuckman-comment-honest-tulsi-gabbard-and-americas-vicious-establishment-press-for-the-role-of-2020-woman-outsider-candidate-they-have-kamala-harris-obama-redux-a-pleasantly-smiling-say/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/02/15/john-chuckman-comment-tulsi-gabbard-is-the-most-appealing-american-politician-in-a-long-time-the-realities-awaiting-her-should-she-ever-manage-to-get-elected-elizabeth-warren-and-p-t-barnum/
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: TRUMP GIVES A TRULY BIZARRE INTERVIEW - WHERE THE WORLD HAS ARRIVED WITH THIS CONFUSED AND CONFUSING MAN - THE LEGIONS OF IMPERIAL ROME COMMANDED BY MONTY PYTHON'S JOHN CLEESE IN A DARK BLUE BUSINESS SUIT WITH A "POWER TIE"
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
‘Donald Trump has given a wild interview to Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business, declaring, “Almost all countries in this world take tremendous advantage of the United States, it’s unbelievable!”
‘The president claimed Japan would watch a Third World War “at home on a Sony TV” rather than come to America’s aid (ahead of a trip there for the G20 summit), attacked Twitter, accused retired FBI special counsel Robert Mueller of deleting incriminating Justice Department text messages and said Iran “does not have smart leadership” and is “going down the tubes”.’
I do think all of his comments are becoming more and more chaotic.
He seems to be falling apart inside.
I’m not sure from what - fear of impeachment? realization that his noisy threats are being ignored and he’s looking idiotic? growing recognition of his own lack of ability?- but the rambling nature of his words, laced with so much invective and name-calling and so many threats is telling us something.
He insults friend and foe alike, and I’m sure with each passing week, he’s causing all kinds of re-thinks in high places about future relations with America.
This clearly is a man who has soared far above his level of competence.
America has all kinds of serious problems, but he is able to deal with none of them. If anything, he creates new ones.
He reduces the policy of his country, whose flag he loves to be photographed hugging as though it were a woman’s perfumed negligee, in the eyes of the world to a set of vicious schoolboy pranks or skits.
The Legions of Imperial Rome led by Monty Python’s John Cleese, or perhaps Moe of the Three Stooges, in a dark blue business suit with a “power tie.”
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
‘Donald Trump has given a wild interview to Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business, declaring, “Almost all countries in this world take tremendous advantage of the United States, it’s unbelievable!”
‘The president claimed Japan would watch a Third World War “at home on a Sony TV” rather than come to America’s aid (ahead of a trip there for the G20 summit), attacked Twitter, accused retired FBI special counsel Robert Mueller of deleting incriminating Justice Department text messages and said Iran “does not have smart leadership” and is “going down the tubes”.’
I do think all of his comments are becoming more and more chaotic.
He seems to be falling apart inside.
I’m not sure from what - fear of impeachment? realization that his noisy threats are being ignored and he’s looking idiotic? growing recognition of his own lack of ability?- but the rambling nature of his words, laced with so much invective and name-calling and so many threats is telling us something.
He insults friend and foe alike, and I’m sure with each passing week, he’s causing all kinds of re-thinks in high places about future relations with America.
This clearly is a man who has soared far above his level of competence.
America has all kinds of serious problems, but he is able to deal with none of them. If anything, he creates new ones.
He reduces the policy of his country, whose flag he loves to be photographed hugging as though it were a woman’s perfumed negligee, in the eyes of the world to a set of vicious schoolboy pranks or skits.
The Legions of Imperial Rome led by Monty Python’s John Cleese, or perhaps Moe of the Three Stooges, in a dark blue business suit with a “power tie.”
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: DISTURBING NEW FINDING ON AMERICAN ATTITUDES ABOUT USING ATOMIC WEAPONS - SOME HISTORY OF AMERICA'S BRUTAL POLICIES OF WWII AND THE COLD WAR - JAPAN AND GENERAL CURTIS LEMAY - PRE-EMPTIVE ATOMIC WAR - FOOTNOTE ON THE VIOLENT RISE OF AMERICAN EMPIRE - AMERICA'S BRUTAL SOCIETY SEEN AS A TRAINING GROUND FOR THE REQUIRED FUTURE KILLERS FOR EMPIRE
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY TOM O’CONNOR IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“One-Third of US Backs Nuclear War on North Korea, Killing One Million”
A disturbing new polling study, sponsored in part by “The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,” found that fully one-third of Americans would support a pre-emptive American nuclear attack on North Korea, even when it involved killing a million innocent people.
Researchers said results confirmed earlier studies showing America “exhibits only limited aversion to nuclear weapons use and a shocking willingness to support the killing of enemy civilians.”
It's hard to know what to say about such a result, except there are an awful lot of American cold-blooded killers.
But we should recall that we are talking about the only country ever to actually use nuclear weapons. It used them twice, on cities filled with civilians, cities determined to possess no military value as targets.
It was terror in the purest sense of the word, although perhaps no more so than the horrific fire-bombing of Japanese cities conducted by General Curtis LeMay previous to the atomic attack. There was a point reached in America’s bombing campaign when planners not only had no “primary targets” left standing in Japan but ran out of “secondary targets.”
The atomic attack came despite the now well-known fact that Japan had sent out serious feelers about surrendering, asking only that they be allowed to keep their emperor. America rejected that, demanding unconditional surrender.
Of course, after the atomic bombs, America got what it wanted, unconditional surrender. It then allowed Japan to keep its emperor. So, all those people died and America set its terrible precedent over American pride. Japan’s earlier secret feelers about surrender do put the lie to America’s widely-accepted excuse about all its soldiers who would have died invading the Japanese homeland.
LeMay in the early 1960s served as Air Force Chief of Staff and participated in serious planning for a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, plans presented to President Kennedy, who afterward told an associate that he left the briefing sick to his stomach.
LeMay was a big advocate of massive bombing in Vietnam. He also advocated bombing the Soviet soldiers present in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, completely unaware that they had been armed with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Had his advice been taken, there almost certainly would have been a nuclear war in 1962.
He later briefly pursued a political career, running for vice president under notorious segregationist, George Wallace, in 1968. Such was the kind of man who held a high Pentagon position during the Cold War.
LeMay certainly wasn’t unique, either inside or outside the Pentagon. It is simply a fact that there never has been any notable American shame or regret over its use of atomic weapons.
Indeed, we have the rather unpleasant fact that the Enola Gay, a WWII B-29 bomber used to drop the world’s first atomic bomb on a city, not long ago was carefully restored and put on display at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington where it is viewed by millions.
This is, after all, a society that has been literally immersed in murderous colonial wars since WWII. Estimates range from about 8 million to 20 million killed aboard – there are even higher estimates - with not one of those wars having anything to do with America’s defense.
And today, week-in, week-out, America's industrial-scale program of extrajudicial killing carries right on with young buzz-cut people sitting at screens in secret locations playing computer games with the lives of real people. Thousands have been killed without judicial process, just having their names put on a "kill list” by some CIA thug.
It is also a pretty brutal society at home. Police kill an average of three Americans per day, more than any terror group could hope to achieve.
America’s homicide rate is almost five times that of a country like Italy, and substantially higher than a place like Turkey, often popularly regarded in dark terms. It is lower than many countries, but they are mostly places in the Third World.
American prisons are notorious for brutal conditions and for brutal behavior by guards. And more Americans are held in prison than in any other society.
I sometimes reflect on the notion that America’s domestic brutality serves almost as a kind of early training ground for all the future killers who will be needed for tasks around the globe.
Such is the nature of empire. It is not built with decency or compassion or humane values.
________________________
Response to a comment about America having been a nation of killers from the start:
I'm aware of that.
What I am emphasizing is America’s modern-era mass-killing warfare beyond the boundaries of North America.
America, in growing its early empire, was fortunate to have all pretty weak opponents.
An antiquated Spanish Empire, Indigenous people, Mexico, and native Hawaiians.
They were all treated very harshly, but the total numbers were relatively small when compared to Vietnam or the Neocon Wars of the Middle East.
Had Germany, in its march for empire, faced such as those early American opponents rather than the powerful states it opposed, it might well be ruling the world today.
America has always been a bit lucky in its expansion. Fairly weak enemies early on in the march West. Later, a world flattened by WWII which barely touched America.
You might enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/john-chuckman-comment-reference-to-americas-current-inability-to-have-intelligent-political-discussion-in-fact-it-is-an-illusion-to-think-things-were-ever-much-different-highlights-of-an-extrem/
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY TOM O’CONNOR IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“One-Third of US Backs Nuclear War on North Korea, Killing One Million”
A disturbing new polling study, sponsored in part by “The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,” found that fully one-third of Americans would support a pre-emptive American nuclear attack on North Korea, even when it involved killing a million innocent people.
Researchers said results confirmed earlier studies showing America “exhibits only limited aversion to nuclear weapons use and a shocking willingness to support the killing of enemy civilians.”
It's hard to know what to say about such a result, except there are an awful lot of American cold-blooded killers.
But we should recall that we are talking about the only country ever to actually use nuclear weapons. It used them twice, on cities filled with civilians, cities determined to possess no military value as targets.
It was terror in the purest sense of the word, although perhaps no more so than the horrific fire-bombing of Japanese cities conducted by General Curtis LeMay previous to the atomic attack. There was a point reached in America’s bombing campaign when planners not only had no “primary targets” left standing in Japan but ran out of “secondary targets.”
The atomic attack came despite the now well-known fact that Japan had sent out serious feelers about surrendering, asking only that they be allowed to keep their emperor. America rejected that, demanding unconditional surrender.
Of course, after the atomic bombs, America got what it wanted, unconditional surrender. It then allowed Japan to keep its emperor. So, all those people died and America set its terrible precedent over American pride. Japan’s earlier secret feelers about surrender do put the lie to America’s widely-accepted excuse about all its soldiers who would have died invading the Japanese homeland.
LeMay in the early 1960s served as Air Force Chief of Staff and participated in serious planning for a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, plans presented to President Kennedy, who afterward told an associate that he left the briefing sick to his stomach.
LeMay was a big advocate of massive bombing in Vietnam. He also advocated bombing the Soviet soldiers present in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, completely unaware that they had been armed with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Had his advice been taken, there almost certainly would have been a nuclear war in 1962.
He later briefly pursued a political career, running for vice president under notorious segregationist, George Wallace, in 1968. Such was the kind of man who held a high Pentagon position during the Cold War.
LeMay certainly wasn’t unique, either inside or outside the Pentagon. It is simply a fact that there never has been any notable American shame or regret over its use of atomic weapons.
Indeed, we have the rather unpleasant fact that the Enola Gay, a WWII B-29 bomber used to drop the world’s first atomic bomb on a city, not long ago was carefully restored and put on display at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington where it is viewed by millions.
This is, after all, a society that has been literally immersed in murderous colonial wars since WWII. Estimates range from about 8 million to 20 million killed aboard – there are even higher estimates - with not one of those wars having anything to do with America’s defense.
And today, week-in, week-out, America's industrial-scale program of extrajudicial killing carries right on with young buzz-cut people sitting at screens in secret locations playing computer games with the lives of real people. Thousands have been killed without judicial process, just having their names put on a "kill list” by some CIA thug.
It is also a pretty brutal society at home. Police kill an average of three Americans per day, more than any terror group could hope to achieve.
America’s homicide rate is almost five times that of a country like Italy, and substantially higher than a place like Turkey, often popularly regarded in dark terms. It is lower than many countries, but they are mostly places in the Third World.
American prisons are notorious for brutal conditions and for brutal behavior by guards. And more Americans are held in prison than in any other society.
I sometimes reflect on the notion that America’s domestic brutality serves almost as a kind of early training ground for all the future killers who will be needed for tasks around the globe.
Such is the nature of empire. It is not built with decency or compassion or humane values.
________________________
Response to a comment about America having been a nation of killers from the start:
I'm aware of that.
What I am emphasizing is America’s modern-era mass-killing warfare beyond the boundaries of North America.
America, in growing its early empire, was fortunate to have all pretty weak opponents.
An antiquated Spanish Empire, Indigenous people, Mexico, and native Hawaiians.
They were all treated very harshly, but the total numbers were relatively small when compared to Vietnam or the Neocon Wars of the Middle East.
Had Germany, in its march for empire, faced such as those early American opponents rather than the powerful states it opposed, it might well be ruling the world today.
America has always been a bit lucky in its expansion. Fairly weak enemies early on in the march West. Later, a world flattened by WWII which barely touched America.
You might enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/john-chuckman-comment-reference-to-americas-current-inability-to-have-intelligent-political-discussion-in-fact-it-is-an-illusion-to-think-things-were-ever-much-different-highlights-of-an-extrem/
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: NEW DISCOVERY ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES - BUT IT'S RIGHT IN LINE WITH WHAT WE KNOW FROM HISTORY - SOME JOURNALISM - SOME FREE SPEECH - SOME LIBERAL SPIRIT
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY BEN NORTON IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
‘New York Times Admits It Sends Stories to US Government for Approval Before Publication
‘Casually acknowledges that it first sends major scoops to “national security officials” to make sure they have “no concerns"’
Well, that is very interesting, even though anyone who ever read the New York Times for a period understood that it consistently supported the American government in just about everything, including national tragedies like the Kennedy assassination, and especially wars, every single one of them.
I recall a bizarre business back at the time of the invasion of Iraq, an entirely criminal act from beginning to end, when the Times made an effort to bring back the WWII sentimental expression for citizen soldiers,” GIs” in its reports.
It was pure, obvious propaganda, but it was almost laughable, too, because it fit the situation so poorly.
Here were professional mercenary troops involved in an illegal invasion, one that ultimately killed about a million people and saw many atrocities and disgraceful behaviors such as the looting of the precious antiquities’ museum, being referred to as "GIs," like something from a tearful old Jimmy Stewart movie.
That anecdote is very revealing of the Times' traditional imperial bias. There never has been a war or conflict it didn't essentially support. And all of those wars, every one of them since WWII, have been imperial enterprises having absolutely nothing to do with defending the United States.
Also, it was not a terribly long time ago that the Times admitted something many had suspected for years. Every story involving Israel is submitted to the official Israeli censor before being published.
Some journalism. Some brave free speech. Some liberal spirit.
Someone once described the New York Times as the official house organ for America's establishment. No description has ever suited it better.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY BEN NORTON IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
‘New York Times Admits It Sends Stories to US Government for Approval Before Publication
‘Casually acknowledges that it first sends major scoops to “national security officials” to make sure they have “no concerns"’
Well, that is very interesting, even though anyone who ever read the New York Times for a period understood that it consistently supported the American government in just about everything, including national tragedies like the Kennedy assassination, and especially wars, every single one of them.
I recall a bizarre business back at the time of the invasion of Iraq, an entirely criminal act from beginning to end, when the Times made an effort to bring back the WWII sentimental expression for citizen soldiers,” GIs” in its reports.
It was pure, obvious propaganda, but it was almost laughable, too, because it fit the situation so poorly.
Here were professional mercenary troops involved in an illegal invasion, one that ultimately killed about a million people and saw many atrocities and disgraceful behaviors such as the looting of the precious antiquities’ museum, being referred to as "GIs," like something from a tearful old Jimmy Stewart movie.
That anecdote is very revealing of the Times' traditional imperial bias. There never has been a war or conflict it didn't essentially support. And all of those wars, every one of them since WWII, have been imperial enterprises having absolutely nothing to do with defending the United States.
Also, it was not a terribly long time ago that the Times admitted something many had suspected for years. Every story involving Israel is submitted to the official Israeli censor before being published.
Some journalism. Some brave free speech. Some liberal spirit.
Someone once described the New York Times as the official house organ for America's establishment. No description has ever suited it better.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: MORE ON IRAN AND AMERICAN DRONES - TRUMP THREATENS "OBLITERATION" IF "ANYTHING AMERICAN" ATTACKED - RUSSIA ADDS TO EVIDENCE THAT AMERICAN DRONE WAS IN IRANIAN TERRITORY - WE WATCH A SICK DANSE MACABRE BY A DANGEROUSLY UNBALANCED PRESIDENT
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
“Trump threatens 'obliteration' should Iran attack 'anything American'”
"Iran calls new U.S. sanctions 'outrageous and idiotic'"
And Iran is right.
At a big meeting in Jerusalem involving Russia, the United States, and Israel, Russia revealed that it has additional proof, apart from that already supplied by Iran, that the drone was shot down over Iranian territory.
Since when is it a crime to shoot down a hostile machine, barging into your territory, flying very high up, with its transponder signals turned off, at night, and responding to no attempts at contact?
Moreover, a hostile machine sent by people surrounding you with a naval armada and with nuclear-capable bombers stationed nearby, sent by people who use similar machines, week-in, week-out, to kill innocent people in a dozen places?
America's behavior is seriously threatening a nation guilty of no illegality and with not a single incident of aggression in its modern history.
And then it just keeps lying about what it’s doing.
____________________
Response to a comment saying if only we didn’t have oil and religious differences endangering us:
Actually, both oil and religious differences have very little to do with this whole affair, which I follow closely.
You left out what is, by far, the biggest problem, American arrogance and exceptionalism in trying to tell everyone on the planet what to do.
Backed up by a Frankenstein military establishment whose budget the country can't even afford.
__________________
Response to another comment:
Iran has said countless times it never worked towards a bomb.
They are backed by experts from other countries, including experts from the United States.
And no one has been able to contradict them with any real proof, although the loony Netanyahu, who loves war as much as John Bolton, once pretended he had some. It was a shameful fraud, now quite forgotten, even by Netanyahu.
There are important reasons other than weapons for developing some uranium-enrichment technology.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
“Trump threatens 'obliteration' should Iran attack 'anything American'”
"Iran calls new U.S. sanctions 'outrageous and idiotic'"
And Iran is right.
At a big meeting in Jerusalem involving Russia, the United States, and Israel, Russia revealed that it has additional proof, apart from that already supplied by Iran, that the drone was shot down over Iranian territory.
Since when is it a crime to shoot down a hostile machine, barging into your territory, flying very high up, with its transponder signals turned off, at night, and responding to no attempts at contact?
Moreover, a hostile machine sent by people surrounding you with a naval armada and with nuclear-capable bombers stationed nearby, sent by people who use similar machines, week-in, week-out, to kill innocent people in a dozen places?
America's behavior is seriously threatening a nation guilty of no illegality and with not a single incident of aggression in its modern history.
And then it just keeps lying about what it’s doing.
____________________
Response to a comment saying if only we didn’t have oil and religious differences endangering us:
Actually, both oil and religious differences have very little to do with this whole affair, which I follow closely.
You left out what is, by far, the biggest problem, American arrogance and exceptionalism in trying to tell everyone on the planet what to do.
Backed up by a Frankenstein military establishment whose budget the country can't even afford.
__________________
Response to another comment:
Iran has said countless times it never worked towards a bomb.
They are backed by experts from other countries, including experts from the United States.
And no one has been able to contradict them with any real proof, although the loony Netanyahu, who loves war as much as John Bolton, once pretended he had some. It was a shameful fraud, now quite forgotten, even by Netanyahu.
There are important reasons other than weapons for developing some uranium-enrichment technology.
Monday, June 24, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: RESPONSE TO THE IDEA OF TERRIBLE SANCTIONS BEING EQUIVALENT TO WAR - YES INDEED AND THIS IS A NEW KIND OF AMERICAN WARFARE USING ORWELLIAN LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT SOUND MORE BENIGN - SANCTIONS ATTACK INNOCENT PEOPLE
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CAITLIN JOHNSTONE IN SOUTH FRONT
"STARVATION SANCTIONS ARE WORSE THAN OVERT WARFARE"
Yes, that is a true observation.
Sanctions are characterized by subterfuge. The word "sanctions" sounds so much less brutal than "war."
It’s rather like the language of war discussed by George Orwell in his famous essay, “Politics and the English Language.”
Used as America now uses them, they are completely a form of war, hurting huge populations.
Think of the past and the practice of "starving out" the populations of invested cities.
For example, what Nazi Germany did at Leningrad in WWII, killing roughly a million people over a period.
Now, instead of one technique applied sometimes at specific sites during a war, the United States has developed and generalized the inhumane practice into a new form of war.
And, always keep in mind, sanctions in general hurt and kill almost only civilians, the most ordinary people, the people who cannot protect themselves.
It does not matter what euphemistic-sounding titles the United States applies to each set of newly-published ones, they only have real effect when they hurt civilians.
Just the way America's other favorite pastime, bombing, does.
But sanctions come without all the noise and with less adverse publicity.
You'd almost think a bunch of old captured Nazi figures, Wernher von Braun types, worked the idea out secretly years ago in a white paper and offered it to their captors as a gift.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CAITLIN JOHNSTONE IN SOUTH FRONT
"STARVATION SANCTIONS ARE WORSE THAN OVERT WARFARE"
Yes, that is a true observation.
Sanctions are characterized by subterfuge. The word "sanctions" sounds so much less brutal than "war."
It’s rather like the language of war discussed by George Orwell in his famous essay, “Politics and the English Language.”
Used as America now uses them, they are completely a form of war, hurting huge populations.
Think of the past and the practice of "starving out" the populations of invested cities.
For example, what Nazi Germany did at Leningrad in WWII, killing roughly a million people over a period.
Now, instead of one technique applied sometimes at specific sites during a war, the United States has developed and generalized the inhumane practice into a new form of war.
And, always keep in mind, sanctions in general hurt and kill almost only civilians, the most ordinary people, the people who cannot protect themselves.
It does not matter what euphemistic-sounding titles the United States applies to each set of newly-published ones, they only have real effect when they hurt civilians.
Just the way America's other favorite pastime, bombing, does.
But sanctions come without all the noise and with less adverse publicity.
You'd almost think a bunch of old captured Nazi figures, Wernher von Braun types, worked the idea out secretly years ago in a white paper and offered it to their captors as a gift.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WASHINGTON'S CHIEF BIG FAT LIAR MIKE POMPEO HOLDS TALKS WITH THE BLOODIEST GOVERNMENT OF OUR TIME IN SAUDI ARABIA - THE TRULY TERRIFYING THREAT OF IRAN DEFENSIVELY SHOOTING DOWN AMERICA'S BELLIGERENT DRONES
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
"Pompeo holds talks in Saudi Arabia as Iran threatens U.S. drones."
Iran threatens drones?
Drones sent over the country’s territory in the middle of the night with required safety transponders turned off in order to spy on people who have done absolutely nothing wrong? Drones sent by people who frequently use them to kill, having killed thousands of people that way in recent years?
My God, what a terrifying threat.
Perhaps, the US could just stop sending their creepy flying spies, pack up their armada, including two aircraft carriers, and their nuclear-capable bombers sitting at airfields, and go home?
Oh, I guess that would be asking too much. Asking the United States to act reasonably.
And here they are holding talks with Saudi Arabia, unquestionably the bloodiest government we've seen anywhere in quite some time.
Represented by Mike Pompeo who, only very recently at a university campus in Texas, joked and laughed about "lying, cheating, and stealing" over at the CIA, where he worked in the past.
America's mad drive to dominate everyone everywhere nicely summed up in one vignette.
Now, ask yourself when we hear even the slightest sound of disapproval about any of it from Canada and in whose favor our foreign policy has been so badly twisted these days?
It is not a happy thought.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
"Pompeo holds talks in Saudi Arabia as Iran threatens U.S. drones."
Iran threatens drones?
Drones sent over the country’s territory in the middle of the night with required safety transponders turned off in order to spy on people who have done absolutely nothing wrong? Drones sent by people who frequently use them to kill, having killed thousands of people that way in recent years?
My God, what a terrifying threat.
Perhaps, the US could just stop sending their creepy flying spies, pack up their armada, including two aircraft carriers, and their nuclear-capable bombers sitting at airfields, and go home?
Oh, I guess that would be asking too much. Asking the United States to act reasonably.
And here they are holding talks with Saudi Arabia, unquestionably the bloodiest government we've seen anywhere in quite some time.
Represented by Mike Pompeo who, only very recently at a university campus in Texas, joked and laughed about "lying, cheating, and stealing" over at the CIA, where he worked in the past.
America's mad drive to dominate everyone everywhere nicely summed up in one vignette.
Now, ask yourself when we hear even the slightest sound of disapproval about any of it from Canada and in whose favor our foreign policy has been so badly twisted these days?
It is not a happy thought.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: TRUMP SAYS JOHN BOLTON WOULD GO TO WAR WITH EVERYONE - THE OBVIOUS REJOINDER IS: THEN WHY IS HE STILL WORKING FOR YOU?
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN GOVERNMENT SLAVES
"Trump: If it was up to John Bolton, we’d be fighting WHOLE WORLD at once"
What an absurd thing for a President to say.
The obvious rejoinder is, "Then why is this madman still working for you?"
God, every time Trump opens his mouth, something stupid comes tumbling out.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN GOVERNMENT SLAVES
"Trump: If it was up to John Bolton, we’d be fighting WHOLE WORLD at once"
What an absurd thing for a President to say.
The obvious rejoinder is, "Then why is this madman still working for you?"
God, every time Trump opens his mouth, something stupid comes tumbling out.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: TRUMP LITERALLY THREATENS IRAN WITH "OBLITERATION" IN WORDS HITLER MIGHT WELL HAVE USED - THE WHOLE WORLD TERRIFIED OVER TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION NEEDS - TRUMP IS SICK BUT SO IS AN ENTIRE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR SUCH VICIOUSNESS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN STATIONGOSSIP
“Trump Promises ‘Obliteration Like You’ve Never Seen’ If Iran Crosses the Line”
“Obliteration”?
If that doesn’t sound like Hitler, I don’t know what does.
What's "crossing the line"?
Taking a pee?
Blowing your nose?
Good, God, let these people alone.
They've done nothing to anyone.
Yet they are threatened by ships, bombers, and drones, and they are severely attacked with sweeping illegal sanctions.
The whole world watches in fear that a big war is going to be unleashed by a trio of violent lunatics in the White House.
And the only reason for any of this happening is Trump's seeking big contributions and support for his re-election and against possible impeachment from some wealthy American super-boosters of Israel, people eager to assist that country’s war-criminal leader in getting just what he wants.
Trump is just sick.
But then so is the entire American political system that makes this even possible.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN STATIONGOSSIP
“Trump Promises ‘Obliteration Like You’ve Never Seen’ If Iran Crosses the Line”
“Obliteration”?
If that doesn’t sound like Hitler, I don’t know what does.
What's "crossing the line"?
Taking a pee?
Blowing your nose?
Good, God, let these people alone.
They've done nothing to anyone.
Yet they are threatened by ships, bombers, and drones, and they are severely attacked with sweeping illegal sanctions.
The whole world watches in fear that a big war is going to be unleashed by a trio of violent lunatics in the White House.
And the only reason for any of this happening is Trump's seeking big contributions and support for his re-election and against possible impeachment from some wealthy American super-boosters of Israel, people eager to assist that country’s war-criminal leader in getting just what he wants.
Trump is just sick.
But then so is the entire American political system that makes this even possible.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: BRITAIN'S BORIS JOHNSON REVEALED FOR JUST WHAT HE REALLY IS IN TWO EMBARRASSING EVENTS - HE REALLY IS JUST DONALD TRUMP WITH AN ETON EDUCATION
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
Boris Johnson's poll leads vanish as loud altercation with partner deals major blow to Tory leadership bid
More than half of voters say private life is relevant to ability to be prime minister - and three-quarters say character matters
Good.
What can you say of a man in his fifties who beats up on his girlfriend?
And there’s no denying what happened. A neighbor, the same one who called police, recorded the sounds because she was so concerned.
And it comes as good news that ol' Boris's previously-unknown relationship with America’s disgusting Steve Bannon has been revealed.
I've said it several times, but I think it an accurate observation worth repeating.
Boris Johnson is Donald Trump with an Eton education.
Oh, I suppose you could add with "schoolboy looks," but Boris is no innocent schoolboy joking around, he's an ugly bully.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
Boris Johnson's poll leads vanish as loud altercation with partner deals major blow to Tory leadership bid
More than half of voters say private life is relevant to ability to be prime minister - and three-quarters say character matters
Good.
What can you say of a man in his fifties who beats up on his girlfriend?
And there’s no denying what happened. A neighbor, the same one who called police, recorded the sounds because she was so concerned.
And it comes as good news that ol' Boris's previously-unknown relationship with America’s disgusting Steve Bannon has been revealed.
I've said it several times, but I think it an accurate observation worth repeating.
Boris Johnson is Donald Trump with an Eton education.
Oh, I suppose you could add with "schoolboy looks," but Boris is no innocent schoolboy joking around, he's an ugly bully.
Saturday, June 22, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CANADA'S TRUDEAU SENDS A FRIGATE THROUGH THE TAIWAN STRAIT - JUST THE LATEST BLUNDER FROM A SMILING HANDSOME INCOMPETENT - HIS DEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP WITH A CLOSET-AMERICAN NEOCON FOREIGN MINISTER, CHRYSTIA FREELAND - TRUDEAU'S FATHER PIERRE FONDLY REMEMBERED - GOODBYE TO BRAVE AND WORTHY DEEDS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Trudeau Sails a Warship Through Taiwan Strait While Begging Xi to Meet With Him at G20
“Trudeau demonstrates again precisely the behaviour that has caused the Chinese to decline communication with his government”
‘Taiwan Strait transits are “very indirect signals” of disapproval toward China’s claims in the region.
‘“Middle powers [like Canada] are about bolstering international institutions and international law so they can restrain the power of very big countries,” Nagy told the outlet. “They view that China is going to present a bigger risk going forward, and they have to demonstrate some resolve through ships in the region.”’
Those last words of Professor Stephen Nagy strike me as being rather deceptive, only superficially plausible as is the case for much disinformation.
After all, he does work at a “Christian university” in Asia, and his words were first published on that distinguished website, “Stars and Stripes,” the old internal house organ for the American armed forces.
Sadly, from my point of view, Canada today does everything possible to support the United States in foreign affairs. That might be okay if the policies were above board and had genuinely good intent, but they very much do not have those characteristics. Quite the opposite, they reflect the American establishment’s effort at dominating the globe.
Under such circumstances, Canada would be in a fairly hard place no matter what, sharing one of the world’s longest borders, having no other adjacent nations, and sharing a massive trade in goods and services. But I don’t think it was hugely different for Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau’s father, who took many opportunities to oppose peaceably the worst American policies of his day.
Pierre Trudeau ignored Washington’s bitter, intense, and violent Cuba policy and worked to establish a genuine relationship with Castro. Canadian investment and regular tourist travel were positive results.
At the height of America’s holocaust in Vietnam, Pierre Trudeau told Canada’s border services to throw open the gates for all American war resisters of any description, even deserters. They did, and tens of thousands of young Americans came, many eventually making good lives in Canada.
Justin is simply not able, by his very nature, to take bold steps like those. He has a pleasant, go-along-to-get-along personality, actually pretty much lacking any real force of character. He smiles a lot. He apologizes a lot. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against smiles or needed apologies, but when it comes to leadership, a bit more is required. Those things are only the froth of the brew.
Interestingly, the Liberal Party was very keen on having Justin run and tried over a considerable period of time to persuade him to do so, knowing his last name literally was magic in the country.
But Justin shied away - except for smiling and lending support and attending party fund-raisers, his name always able to sell tickets. He stayed with what he was doing, and I believe perhaps because he quietly understood his own limits. However, the point was reached in the last part of Stephen Harper’s government when Trudeau gave in to all the behind-the-scenes pleadings and blandishments.
He did handily defeat Stephen Harper, a rather dark and unpleasant figure who enjoyed a long-running minority government precisely because the Liberals had become involved with in-fighting and scandal. And they went through some poorly-chosen leaders, most notably the politically-inept academic, Michael Ignatieff, who was lured by the Party’s talent scouts from Harvard University in the belief he could bring new luster to the Liberal brand. As events proved, he did quite the opposite.
From leading America's contrived Lima Group (for the overthrow of Venezuela and, in future, some other Latin American governments) to harassing Russia with tanks in one of the Baltic states and from its compliance with an American extradition request for an important citizen of China on trumped-up charges to sailing through the Taiwan Strait, Canada's current government has set unpleasant precedents for a Liberal Party government.
Even Washington’s unwarranted jibes against Russia or Iran or China are echoed by Trudeau’s disagreeable Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, albeit in somewhat quieter tones than the bellowing that comes from blowhards like Bolton and Pompeo, but the essential content is the same.
Canada seems to be tightly hugging American policy everywhere, which is what we might expect from a Conservative Party government, and particularly the Conservative Party of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a man notoriously in line with all things right-wing and American, very much including its Neocons.
The great traditions which gave Canada the international reputation it enjoyed through much of the 20th century were largely the work of leaders in the Liberal Party.
Figures like Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau (father of the current Prime Minister), Paul Martin, and still others all came from the Liberal Party. We had some decent, respected Conservatives, too, but they have almost disappeared in a party which is the handiwork of Stephen Harper.
Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister and Chrystia Freeland as his Foreign Minister, the cabinet member he most depends upon, have left those large traditions behind. Almost entirely.
I think it has a great deal to do with the fact that Justin is not a terribly clever or resourceful man, his previous big job having been as a kindergarten teacher. His father, by contrast, was genuinely brilliant, highly educated, with a mind aptly described as Jesuitical.
Justin suffers also from a rather bland personality, one that tries pleasing everyone. Again, by contrast, his father was fiercely independent-minded, once telling a heckler, “Mangez la merde!” and once challenging someone questioning what he was about to do with, “Just watch me.” Justin does a lot of apologizing and uses a great deal of Millennialist yoga-land language that often says very little of substance.
I believe those qualities in Justin Trudeau have caused him to lean heavily upon Freeland. He is photographed with her far, far more than with any other cabinet minister.
She is smart and has a much tougher personality than he does (although one lacking almost any sparkle or charm), hence his dependence.
But, of course, being smart alone does not save anyone from doing wrong or inappropriate things.
Values, integrity and a certain genuine force of character are required to avoid that. Just look at Mike Pompeo or Hillary Clinton or George Bush pere or Canada’s Stephen Harper - smart people all of them.
There is a need for something a little resembling what Flaubert called a sentimental education, and Freeland completely lacks it.
Freeland has made the wrong calls in almost everything she’s done, dragging Trudeau into the fallout. She is regarded by some as a closet American Neocon, and I pretty much agree with that assessment. Her husband even writes for the New York Times, a paper that has been aptly described as the house organ for America’s power establishment.
Her obvious, and inappropriate, anti-Russian prejudice likely comes from being brought up in Ukrainian-Canadian traditions, which, in my experience, were heavily colored by extreme anti-Soviet attitudes.
Today, Canada supports the overthrow of an elected government in Latin America, and never says a truly critical word about such an appalling government as that of Saudi Arabia. Of course, the Crown Prince is a pampered American favorite for his generous help in the task of spreading the blessings of freedom throughout the Middle East.
Even the legacy of Trudeau’s father is fading as Canada recently reduced services at its embassy in Cuba about the time of new American restrictions against Cuba being announced in Washington. The pathetic excuse was offered that some embassy employees had been hurt by unknown “sonic weapons,” a gimmick the United States came up with a couple of years ago, something with absolutely no science to it.
So, it is all quite disappointing. As far as foreign affairs are concerned, Canada might just as well have a Harperite Conservative government. I don’t know, maybe things on the inside with Washington have become a great deal harsher than they were in Pierre Trudeau’s time, but we see not the least effort at independent thought or principle from our present Liberal government.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Trudeau Sails a Warship Through Taiwan Strait While Begging Xi to Meet With Him at G20
“Trudeau demonstrates again precisely the behaviour that has caused the Chinese to decline communication with his government”
‘Taiwan Strait transits are “very indirect signals” of disapproval toward China’s claims in the region.
‘“Middle powers [like Canada] are about bolstering international institutions and international law so they can restrain the power of very big countries,” Nagy told the outlet. “They view that China is going to present a bigger risk going forward, and they have to demonstrate some resolve through ships in the region.”’
Those last words of Professor Stephen Nagy strike me as being rather deceptive, only superficially plausible as is the case for much disinformation.
After all, he does work at a “Christian university” in Asia, and his words were first published on that distinguished website, “Stars and Stripes,” the old internal house organ for the American armed forces.
Sadly, from my point of view, Canada today does everything possible to support the United States in foreign affairs. That might be okay if the policies were above board and had genuinely good intent, but they very much do not have those characteristics. Quite the opposite, they reflect the American establishment’s effort at dominating the globe.
Under such circumstances, Canada would be in a fairly hard place no matter what, sharing one of the world’s longest borders, having no other adjacent nations, and sharing a massive trade in goods and services. But I don’t think it was hugely different for Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau’s father, who took many opportunities to oppose peaceably the worst American policies of his day.
Pierre Trudeau ignored Washington’s bitter, intense, and violent Cuba policy and worked to establish a genuine relationship with Castro. Canadian investment and regular tourist travel were positive results.
At the height of America’s holocaust in Vietnam, Pierre Trudeau told Canada’s border services to throw open the gates for all American war resisters of any description, even deserters. They did, and tens of thousands of young Americans came, many eventually making good lives in Canada.
Justin is simply not able, by his very nature, to take bold steps like those. He has a pleasant, go-along-to-get-along personality, actually pretty much lacking any real force of character. He smiles a lot. He apologizes a lot. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against smiles or needed apologies, but when it comes to leadership, a bit more is required. Those things are only the froth of the brew.
Interestingly, the Liberal Party was very keen on having Justin run and tried over a considerable period of time to persuade him to do so, knowing his last name literally was magic in the country.
But Justin shied away - except for smiling and lending support and attending party fund-raisers, his name always able to sell tickets. He stayed with what he was doing, and I believe perhaps because he quietly understood his own limits. However, the point was reached in the last part of Stephen Harper’s government when Trudeau gave in to all the behind-the-scenes pleadings and blandishments.
He did handily defeat Stephen Harper, a rather dark and unpleasant figure who enjoyed a long-running minority government precisely because the Liberals had become involved with in-fighting and scandal. And they went through some poorly-chosen leaders, most notably the politically-inept academic, Michael Ignatieff, who was lured by the Party’s talent scouts from Harvard University in the belief he could bring new luster to the Liberal brand. As events proved, he did quite the opposite.
From leading America's contrived Lima Group (for the overthrow of Venezuela and, in future, some other Latin American governments) to harassing Russia with tanks in one of the Baltic states and from its compliance with an American extradition request for an important citizen of China on trumped-up charges to sailing through the Taiwan Strait, Canada's current government has set unpleasant precedents for a Liberal Party government.
Even Washington’s unwarranted jibes against Russia or Iran or China are echoed by Trudeau’s disagreeable Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, albeit in somewhat quieter tones than the bellowing that comes from blowhards like Bolton and Pompeo, but the essential content is the same.
Canada seems to be tightly hugging American policy everywhere, which is what we might expect from a Conservative Party government, and particularly the Conservative Party of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a man notoriously in line with all things right-wing and American, very much including its Neocons.
The great traditions which gave Canada the international reputation it enjoyed through much of the 20th century were largely the work of leaders in the Liberal Party.
Figures like Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau (father of the current Prime Minister), Paul Martin, and still others all came from the Liberal Party. We had some decent, respected Conservatives, too, but they have almost disappeared in a party which is the handiwork of Stephen Harper.
Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister and Chrystia Freeland as his Foreign Minister, the cabinet member he most depends upon, have left those large traditions behind. Almost entirely.
I think it has a great deal to do with the fact that Justin is not a terribly clever or resourceful man, his previous big job having been as a kindergarten teacher. His father, by contrast, was genuinely brilliant, highly educated, with a mind aptly described as Jesuitical.
Justin suffers also from a rather bland personality, one that tries pleasing everyone. Again, by contrast, his father was fiercely independent-minded, once telling a heckler, “Mangez la merde!” and once challenging someone questioning what he was about to do with, “Just watch me.” Justin does a lot of apologizing and uses a great deal of Millennialist yoga-land language that often says very little of substance.
I believe those qualities in Justin Trudeau have caused him to lean heavily upon Freeland. He is photographed with her far, far more than with any other cabinet minister.
She is smart and has a much tougher personality than he does (although one lacking almost any sparkle or charm), hence his dependence.
But, of course, being smart alone does not save anyone from doing wrong or inappropriate things.
Values, integrity and a certain genuine force of character are required to avoid that. Just look at Mike Pompeo or Hillary Clinton or George Bush pere or Canada’s Stephen Harper - smart people all of them.
There is a need for something a little resembling what Flaubert called a sentimental education, and Freeland completely lacks it.
Freeland has made the wrong calls in almost everything she’s done, dragging Trudeau into the fallout. She is regarded by some as a closet American Neocon, and I pretty much agree with that assessment. Her husband even writes for the New York Times, a paper that has been aptly described as the house organ for America’s power establishment.
Her obvious, and inappropriate, anti-Russian prejudice likely comes from being brought up in Ukrainian-Canadian traditions, which, in my experience, were heavily colored by extreme anti-Soviet attitudes.
Today, Canada supports the overthrow of an elected government in Latin America, and never says a truly critical word about such an appalling government as that of Saudi Arabia. Of course, the Crown Prince is a pampered American favorite for his generous help in the task of spreading the blessings of freedom throughout the Middle East.
Even the legacy of Trudeau’s father is fading as Canada recently reduced services at its embassy in Cuba about the time of new American restrictions against Cuba being announced in Washington. The pathetic excuse was offered that some embassy employees had been hurt by unknown “sonic weapons,” a gimmick the United States came up with a couple of years ago, something with absolutely no science to it.
So, it is all quite disappointing. As far as foreign affairs are concerned, Canada might just as well have a Harperite Conservative government. I don’t know, maybe things on the inside with Washington have become a great deal harsher than they were in Pierre Trudeau’s time, but we see not the least effort at independent thought or principle from our present Liberal government.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CONCERNING EVENTS IN IRAN AND VENEZUELA - A NOTE ON THE USE OF LANGUAGE BY TRUMP'S THUGS - WHAT IT GENUINELY DOES REVEAL
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARKO MARJANOVIC IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“What If the US Shot Down an Iranian Intelligence Gathering Drone in a War Crisis off of Florida Keys?
“Would anybody care whether it was just inside territorial waters or just outside?”
Yes, your point on the precise location of such a clearly hostile machine's approach is well taken.
“All options are on the table”- literally, the most frequently heard expression coming from Washington senior officials for months.
It's like an annoying advertising slogan or jingle repeated over and over and over.
They've even used it for more than one country.
I think that kind of language is revealing, actually very revealing.
It reveals a lack of imagination, just for a start.
It indicates an obsessive nature, too. That quality we associate with stalkers.
And of course, it reveals aggression. And hatred.
What totally impoverished language to be heard almost continuously from the government of the world's most powerful nation.
But I suppose it has the limited merit of giving us all a fair warning about some people who occupy high positions.
It's as though they can't help revealing themselves.
For anyone interested, I posted a summary and analysis of events, as I see them, in the Straits of Hormuz:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/06/21/john-chuckman-comment-clarifying-facts-about-irans-downing-of-an-american-drone-trumps-retaliatory-missile-strike-order-iran-as-a-formidable-enemy-who-started-it-all-not-iran-relentl/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARKO MARJANOVIC IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“What If the US Shot Down an Iranian Intelligence Gathering Drone in a War Crisis off of Florida Keys?
“Would anybody care whether it was just inside territorial waters or just outside?”
Yes, your point on the precise location of such a clearly hostile machine's approach is well taken.
“All options are on the table”- literally, the most frequently heard expression coming from Washington senior officials for months.
It's like an annoying advertising slogan or jingle repeated over and over and over.
They've even used it for more than one country.
I think that kind of language is revealing, actually very revealing.
It reveals a lack of imagination, just for a start.
It indicates an obsessive nature, too. That quality we associate with stalkers.
And of course, it reveals aggression. And hatred.
What totally impoverished language to be heard almost continuously from the government of the world's most powerful nation.
But I suppose it has the limited merit of giving us all a fair warning about some people who occupy high positions.
It's as though they can't help revealing themselves.
For anyone interested, I posted a summary and analysis of events, as I see them, in the Straits of Hormuz:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/06/21/john-chuckman-comment-clarifying-facts-about-irans-downing-of-an-american-drone-trumps-retaliatory-missile-strike-order-iran-as-a-formidable-enemy-who-started-it-all-not-iran-relentl/
Friday, June 21, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CLARIFYING FACTS ABOUT IRAN'S DESTROYING AN AMERICAN SPY DRONE - TRUMP'S POORLY-CONSIDERED "RETALIATORY" MISSILE-STRIKE ORDER - WHY IRAN WOULD BE A FORMIDABLE ENEMY - BUT WE HAVE FORTY YEARS OF RELENTLESS AMERICAN ILL-WILL TOWARDS IRAN - ALL NEEDLESS, UNWARRANTED, AND VERY DANGEROUS
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
‘U.S. was 'cocked and loaded' to strike Iran: Trump confirms giving stand-down order
‘"Iran insisted the drone violated Iranian airspace; Washington said it had been flying over international waters."’
There simply is no question here, the United States is not telling the truth.
Take a look at a map. There are no international waters in this area of the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait is divided by a line down the waterway between Iran and Oman.
The drone was flying very high, at around 20 kilometers.
It was night time as the Iranian missile shoot-down video shows.
This drone is not at all what people normally think of when they see the word "drone." This thing is the size of an airliner, with a wingspan slighter greater than that of a Boeing 747. The American military has a limited number of them because they are very costly.
And, of course, we all know how many thousands of times the United States has used various drones for killing in recent years. That’s not this drone’s job, but it has to factor into any target’s psychology.
The drone had, against international law, its identifying transponders turned off.
Those are things that make electronic signals. When you turn them off, civil aviation radars cannot track you. And, indeed, the drone apparently is not reflected in civil aviation radar records.
Doing that, turning them off, is very much considered a hostile act. Of course, it is just plain intimidating too. And stupid. American spy planes targeting Russia from the Baltic Sea have followed the same practice of switching off transponders, and Russia, which still intercepts them with fighters, has more than once registered a complaint.
In addition to those basic facts, we have a large American Armada in the region, deliberately placed there to intimidate Iran and keep it on edge. There are also nuclear-capable bombers stationed at airfields in the region.
Taking all that into account, Iran acted rationally and completely within its rights. Israel wouldn't have hesitated a second in circumstances even less threatening.
The truly menacing and stupid act here was Trump’s approving of a “retaliatory” missile strike in the first place. Undoubtedly, it was the influence of those ghastly folks, killers every one, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Gina Haspel.
All sensible people advise against hostilities with Iran. Even the Pentagon’s senior brass are reported to be against starting hostilities with Iran.
Iran is a formidable opponent, a huge country with a population close to that of Germany and a land mass about three times the size of France. It has many resources, including people quite clever in math and science, and it had a long and painful learning experience in a terrifying war that lasted for most of the 1980s, one inflicted on it by Saddam’s Iraq with American covert encouragement.
As far back as that, the United States was hoping to overthrow Iran. Here we are, nearly forty years later, and the United States is still trying. Now, that is serious hostility, genuinely obsessive, a grudge like something from the Ozarks
Of course, the very American military assets Trump uses to threaten Iran are themselves targets of opportunity. The Iranians earlier demonstrated, less than a year ago, by striking a terrorist target in Syria not far from some American forces without affecting the Americans, that they have close to pinpoint accuracy with their missiles.
It was a dramatic demonstration of Iran’s capabilities, and Washington did get the message, afterward calling the launch “reckless,” even though it was the kind of thing America does routinely nowadays.
Iran is said to have lined a fair part of its coast with anti-ship missiles, perhaps capable of sinking an aircraft carrier (each with a crew of 5000). Russia indeed has missiles capable of doing that. So does China.
There are a number of American bases in the region, all reachable by Iran’s missiles.
Note also, Israel has many highly vulnerable sites – the nuclear weapons facility at Dimona, the city of Tel Aviv - within reach of Iran's missiles. Even if the missiles aren't nuclear, Iran has built the capacity to literally rain missiles on an enemy.
Iran has made it very clear, time and again, that it does not want war and that it will not start one. It has a record, too, of never having started hostilities in its modern era. But it has made it equally clear that, if attacked, it will defend itself, as it is entitled to do under international law.
There isn’t a much stupider thing the United States could do than start a war here. And Trump showed, again, how unstable and unreliable he is in even beginning to do so.
Someone influenced him to stop, and to that person, we need all be grateful.
It has been suggested that it may have been Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, a news commentator Trump follows on television and whom he has befriended. Carlson is known to have advised him a number of times against attacking Iran. He is an intelligent and articulate type on a network not generally known for such qualities.
All this for no good reason. Trump arbitrarily ripped-up an international nuclear treaty with Iran, an act every major ally in Europe was, and remains, against. Every expert and informed statesman knew Iran had complied with the treaty scrupulously. There was definitive proof. Trump’s was an initial and extremely hostile act.
And then Trump proceeded to a whole series of other even more hostile acts, including illegal and economically-crippling sanctions followed by intimidating large military movements. Immense, unwarranted hostility was put on public display. All of it avoidable. All of it to no good purpose. All of it extremely dangerous.
AFTERNOTE:
I should add that on the matter of the “retaliatory” missile strike, ordered and recalled, there are a few journalists and analysts saying that it never happened, that the story is just psychological warfare from the United States. Whether the story of the missile strike proves genuine or not, the story of the drone’s downing and the long record of American hostility towards Iran remain unchanged.
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
‘U.S. was 'cocked and loaded' to strike Iran: Trump confirms giving stand-down order
‘"Iran insisted the drone violated Iranian airspace; Washington said it had been flying over international waters."’
There simply is no question here, the United States is not telling the truth.
Take a look at a map. There are no international waters in this area of the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait is divided by a line down the waterway between Iran and Oman.
The drone was flying very high, at around 20 kilometers.
It was night time as the Iranian missile shoot-down video shows.
This drone is not at all what people normally think of when they see the word "drone." This thing is the size of an airliner, with a wingspan slighter greater than that of a Boeing 747. The American military has a limited number of them because they are very costly.
And, of course, we all know how many thousands of times the United States has used various drones for killing in recent years. That’s not this drone’s job, but it has to factor into any target’s psychology.
The drone had, against international law, its identifying transponders turned off.
Those are things that make electronic signals. When you turn them off, civil aviation radars cannot track you. And, indeed, the drone apparently is not reflected in civil aviation radar records.
Doing that, turning them off, is very much considered a hostile act. Of course, it is just plain intimidating too. And stupid. American spy planes targeting Russia from the Baltic Sea have followed the same practice of switching off transponders, and Russia, which still intercepts them with fighters, has more than once registered a complaint.
In addition to those basic facts, we have a large American Armada in the region, deliberately placed there to intimidate Iran and keep it on edge. There are also nuclear-capable bombers stationed at airfields in the region.
Taking all that into account, Iran acted rationally and completely within its rights. Israel wouldn't have hesitated a second in circumstances even less threatening.
The truly menacing and stupid act here was Trump’s approving of a “retaliatory” missile strike in the first place. Undoubtedly, it was the influence of those ghastly folks, killers every one, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Gina Haspel.
All sensible people advise against hostilities with Iran. Even the Pentagon’s senior brass are reported to be against starting hostilities with Iran.
Iran is a formidable opponent, a huge country with a population close to that of Germany and a land mass about three times the size of France. It has many resources, including people quite clever in math and science, and it had a long and painful learning experience in a terrifying war that lasted for most of the 1980s, one inflicted on it by Saddam’s Iraq with American covert encouragement.
As far back as that, the United States was hoping to overthrow Iran. Here we are, nearly forty years later, and the United States is still trying. Now, that is serious hostility, genuinely obsessive, a grudge like something from the Ozarks
Of course, the very American military assets Trump uses to threaten Iran are themselves targets of opportunity. The Iranians earlier demonstrated, less than a year ago, by striking a terrorist target in Syria not far from some American forces without affecting the Americans, that they have close to pinpoint accuracy with their missiles.
It was a dramatic demonstration of Iran’s capabilities, and Washington did get the message, afterward calling the launch “reckless,” even though it was the kind of thing America does routinely nowadays.
Iran is said to have lined a fair part of its coast with anti-ship missiles, perhaps capable of sinking an aircraft carrier (each with a crew of 5000). Russia indeed has missiles capable of doing that. So does China.
There are a number of American bases in the region, all reachable by Iran’s missiles.
Note also, Israel has many highly vulnerable sites – the nuclear weapons facility at Dimona, the city of Tel Aviv - within reach of Iran's missiles. Even if the missiles aren't nuclear, Iran has built the capacity to literally rain missiles on an enemy.
Iran has made it very clear, time and again, that it does not want war and that it will not start one. It has a record, too, of never having started hostilities in its modern era. But it has made it equally clear that, if attacked, it will defend itself, as it is entitled to do under international law.
There isn’t a much stupider thing the United States could do than start a war here. And Trump showed, again, how unstable and unreliable he is in even beginning to do so.
Someone influenced him to stop, and to that person, we need all be grateful.
It has been suggested that it may have been Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, a news commentator Trump follows on television and whom he has befriended. Carlson is known to have advised him a number of times against attacking Iran. He is an intelligent and articulate type on a network not generally known for such qualities.
All this for no good reason. Trump arbitrarily ripped-up an international nuclear treaty with Iran, an act every major ally in Europe was, and remains, against. Every expert and informed statesman knew Iran had complied with the treaty scrupulously. There was definitive proof. Trump’s was an initial and extremely hostile act.
And then Trump proceeded to a whole series of other even more hostile acts, including illegal and economically-crippling sanctions followed by intimidating large military movements. Immense, unwarranted hostility was put on public display. All of it avoidable. All of it to no good purpose. All of it extremely dangerous.
AFTERNOTE:
I should add that on the matter of the “retaliatory” missile strike, ordered and recalled, there are a few journalists and analysts saying that it never happened, that the story is just psychological warfare from the United States. Whether the story of the missile strike proves genuine or not, the story of the drone’s downing and the long record of American hostility towards Iran remain unchanged.
Thursday, June 20, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: EVERYTHING WORTH KNOWING ABOUT SAUDI ARABIA'S NEW RULER, THE CROWN PRINCE - A DARK TALE OF THE GHASTLY BRUTALITY WHICH SERVES THE AMERICAN EMPIRE
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
'Credible evidence' Saudi crown prince is responsible for Khashoggi killing, UN says
Saudi Arabia's foreign affairs minister rejects report, saying it contains 'clear contradictions'
One wag has suitably nicknamed this charmer as Prince Bone-saw.
The bloody Crown Prince is protected for one major reason, he does a lot of dirty work in the region that the United States wants done. He has, as they say, earned his “creds.” And, let’s face it, when you are running a brutal empire as the United States is, you can’t be overly picky about your friends.
It helps that the Prince buys vast amounts of military gear, tens of billions worth, but he would never have been allowed to buy such quantities – Israel would be on the phone to the President immediately - if he weren’t doing so much approved and welcome work.
His assuming power was effectively a palace coup. He kidnapped a large number of fellow Saudi princes, some with claims to the throne as valid as his, and held them to ransom for many tens of billions of dollars and, most importantly, submission to him.
In the established ways of this fabulously rich clan, agreement among the various chief members is reached on who is to become the next ruler, much the way the Catholic Church’s Cardinals, Princes of the Church, meeting in secret to select the next Pope. But the Crown Prince was having none of that. The current king retains his title, but he is old and said to be rather senile.
So, we have a young and energetic Prince effectively ruling, one, as it happens, with a notoriously fragile ego – he is said to have been furious over some of Khashoggi’s writing - and a great relish for bloodshed. There are unconfirmed stories about a good many other bloody deeds.
But through the entire palace coup and Mafia-style shake-down operation, we heard no complaints from the US or Canada.
Then, he briefly imprisoned Lebanon's President Hariri who flew to Saudi Arabia on a false-pretext invitation. Hariri’s plane was blocked, and he was arrested. We never learned any details of his treatment because our press made no effort to investigate the absolutely bizarre event.
I’m sure he was threatened over some serious vulnerability, either personal or national. He was forced to resign his elected office, something that pleased American interests.
Again, no complaints from the US and Canada.
The Crown Prince has been a major supporter of the covertly-organized, fake-jihadi, mercenary outfits destroying Syria. Outfits like al-Nusra and ISIS had a lot of their costs covertly paid by him. He was, of course, trying to do something the US very much wanted done, and that is to see Syria toppled. So far, over half a million people have died, and great parts of that beautiful and historic land have been laid waste.
Again, no complaints from the US and Canada.
Indeed, in this case, we just get a continuous stream of Iraq-invasion-quality nonsense about who is doing what to harm Syria.
The Prince, of course, started the horrendous war in Yemen, something covertly supported by the US and its allies. Busloads of women and children have been incinerated. Starvation and disease have been employed as weapons.
Again, no complaints from the US or Canada.
He has brutally suppressed Shia Muslims inside Saudi Arabia, literally bulldozing some areas where they lived, the Shia, of course, being sympathetic with their fellow Shia religionists in Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Again, no complaints from the US and Canada.
The number of beheadings and crucifixions – yes, they still do that for certain offences - has strikingly increased in the Crown Prince’s Saudi Arabia, and we have very young people, teenagers, sometimes sentenced to death for political beliefs. At one point, the government was looking to hire some additional swordsmen to handle the increased workload.
Again, no complaints from the US and Canada.
No, the US and Canada just smile and sell warehouse-sized lots of military gear to the Prince.
And not that long-ago, Western newspapers were filled with disinformation articles about what a breath of fresh air the Prince was, how progressive he was. The Guardian in Britain was most notable in the effort.
The Prince did a grand tour in the United States to meet every influential person they could line up to shake hands with him, such was his manufactured renown. This was all, of course, a little before he had a man cut-up alive and burnt in a backyard barbecue for writing things he didn’t like.
Israel’s Netanyahu has gone out of his way to express admiration and friendship, but that isn’t hard to understand. Twenty years ago, Saudi Arabia was a very vocal critic of Israel. Events of 9/11, bringing intense fears of an American invasion on a flimsy pretext, caused an abrupt change of course for the kingdom.
The Prince assuming power is the ultimate result, and he has established such a close relationship that Israel has become a secret ally. They work together on a number of bloody projects, from Syria to Yemen and to threatening Iran, making theirs a genuine brotherhood of blood.
NOTE:
It is only owing to revelations by Turkey’s Erdogan that details of the Khashoggi butchery came to light. Here is some early stuff which might interest you:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/john-chuckman-comment-here-is-what-the-turks-know-about-the-khashoggi-murder-there-really-cannot-be-a-doubt-that-this-was-planned-to-happen-exactly-as-it-did-and-no-doubt-authority-came-from-the-to/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/10/15/john-chuckman-comment-what-is-really-going-on-in-saudi-arabia-and-turkey-with-the-apparent-brutal-murder-of-journalist-jamal-khashoggi-inside-a-saudi-consulate-in-turkey-truth-and-justice-under-am/
This may also be of interest:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/10/18/john-chuckman-comment-the-israeli-saudi-de-facto-alliance-what-the-murderous-crown-prince-represents-for-america-re-making-the-planet-and-hitlers-willing-helpers/
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
'Credible evidence' Saudi crown prince is responsible for Khashoggi killing, UN says
Saudi Arabia's foreign affairs minister rejects report, saying it contains 'clear contradictions'
One wag has suitably nicknamed this charmer as Prince Bone-saw.
The bloody Crown Prince is protected for one major reason, he does a lot of dirty work in the region that the United States wants done. He has, as they say, earned his “creds.” And, let’s face it, when you are running a brutal empire as the United States is, you can’t be overly picky about your friends.
It helps that the Prince buys vast amounts of military gear, tens of billions worth, but he would never have been allowed to buy such quantities – Israel would be on the phone to the President immediately - if he weren’t doing so much approved and welcome work.
His assuming power was effectively a palace coup. He kidnapped a large number of fellow Saudi princes, some with claims to the throne as valid as his, and held them to ransom for many tens of billions of dollars and, most importantly, submission to him.
In the established ways of this fabulously rich clan, agreement among the various chief members is reached on who is to become the next ruler, much the way the Catholic Church’s Cardinals, Princes of the Church, meeting in secret to select the next Pope. But the Crown Prince was having none of that. The current king retains his title, but he is old and said to be rather senile.
So, we have a young and energetic Prince effectively ruling, one, as it happens, with a notoriously fragile ego – he is said to have been furious over some of Khashoggi’s writing - and a great relish for bloodshed. There are unconfirmed stories about a good many other bloody deeds.
But through the entire palace coup and Mafia-style shake-down operation, we heard no complaints from the US or Canada.
Then, he briefly imprisoned Lebanon's President Hariri who flew to Saudi Arabia on a false-pretext invitation. Hariri’s plane was blocked, and he was arrested. We never learned any details of his treatment because our press made no effort to investigate the absolutely bizarre event.
I’m sure he was threatened over some serious vulnerability, either personal or national. He was forced to resign his elected office, something that pleased American interests.
Again, no complaints from the US and Canada.
The Crown Prince has been a major supporter of the covertly-organized, fake-jihadi, mercenary outfits destroying Syria. Outfits like al-Nusra and ISIS had a lot of their costs covertly paid by him. He was, of course, trying to do something the US very much wanted done, and that is to see Syria toppled. So far, over half a million people have died, and great parts of that beautiful and historic land have been laid waste.
Again, no complaints from the US and Canada.
Indeed, in this case, we just get a continuous stream of Iraq-invasion-quality nonsense about who is doing what to harm Syria.
The Prince, of course, started the horrendous war in Yemen, something covertly supported by the US and its allies. Busloads of women and children have been incinerated. Starvation and disease have been employed as weapons.
Again, no complaints from the US or Canada.
He has brutally suppressed Shia Muslims inside Saudi Arabia, literally bulldozing some areas where they lived, the Shia, of course, being sympathetic with their fellow Shia religionists in Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Again, no complaints from the US and Canada.
The number of beheadings and crucifixions – yes, they still do that for certain offences - has strikingly increased in the Crown Prince’s Saudi Arabia, and we have very young people, teenagers, sometimes sentenced to death for political beliefs. At one point, the government was looking to hire some additional swordsmen to handle the increased workload.
Again, no complaints from the US and Canada.
No, the US and Canada just smile and sell warehouse-sized lots of military gear to the Prince.
And not that long-ago, Western newspapers were filled with disinformation articles about what a breath of fresh air the Prince was, how progressive he was. The Guardian in Britain was most notable in the effort.
The Prince did a grand tour in the United States to meet every influential person they could line up to shake hands with him, such was his manufactured renown. This was all, of course, a little before he had a man cut-up alive and burnt in a backyard barbecue for writing things he didn’t like.
Israel’s Netanyahu has gone out of his way to express admiration and friendship, but that isn’t hard to understand. Twenty years ago, Saudi Arabia was a very vocal critic of Israel. Events of 9/11, bringing intense fears of an American invasion on a flimsy pretext, caused an abrupt change of course for the kingdom.
The Prince assuming power is the ultimate result, and he has established such a close relationship that Israel has become a secret ally. They work together on a number of bloody projects, from Syria to Yemen and to threatening Iran, making theirs a genuine brotherhood of blood.
NOTE:
It is only owing to revelations by Turkey’s Erdogan that details of the Khashoggi butchery came to light. Here is some early stuff which might interest you:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/john-chuckman-comment-here-is-what-the-turks-know-about-the-khashoggi-murder-there-really-cannot-be-a-doubt-that-this-was-planned-to-happen-exactly-as-it-did-and-no-doubt-authority-came-from-the-to/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/10/15/john-chuckman-comment-what-is-really-going-on-in-saudi-arabia-and-turkey-with-the-apparent-brutal-murder-of-journalist-jamal-khashoggi-inside-a-saudi-consulate-in-turkey-truth-and-justice-under-am/
This may also be of interest:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/10/18/john-chuckman-comment-the-israeli-saudi-de-facto-alliance-what-the-murderous-crown-prince-represents-for-america-re-making-the-planet-and-hitlers-willing-helpers/
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: RESPONSE TO THE OFTEN-HEARD CRITICISM OF CHINA'S LACK OF DEMOCRACY - SOME COMPARISONS OF THE EARLY UNITED STATES AND TODAY'S CHINA - EXTRA THOUGHTS ON THE NATURE OF MODERN DEMOCRACY
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY TYLER COWEN IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
"China Isn’t Going Democratic Any Time Soon and the West Would Be Sorry If It Did
"The Chinese Communist Party has delivered reform, rapid growth and relative stability for decades and is more liberal than the average Chinese"
https://www.checkpointasia.net/china-isnt-going-democratic-any-time-soon-and-the-west-would-be-sorry-if-it-did/
Early America was not in the least democratic. It's been estimated that about 1% of Virginians could vote.
It wasn’t just the matter of slaves and women having no votes. There were powerful restrictions on age and wealth for men. You had to have a certain net worth in order to vote.
Imagine what you’d think of a rule like that today? The wealth limit would have to be immensely increased to account for the best part of two and a half centuries of inflation. So, you would feel as though only the most privileged could vote.
But even voting by those who could vote decided relatively few matters then. Most of the Founders were dead-set against the notion of democracy. They were upper-class types, wealthy planters and traders and lawyers, and all were affected by the fear that ordinary people might vote to siphon off wealth.
Until 1913, the Senate was appointed by the President, not elected, and it is, and was, the most powerful legislative body, by far, since it has to approve all important appointments – cabinet members, ambassadors, heads of important agencies - and all international treaties.
It also gains power from the fact that even in the days of its election, the pattern of seats up for election is designed so that the Senate can never change by more than one-third of its members in any one election.
Elections are staggered so that only over a period of six years do all seats face an election. So, burning issues of the day – crises and wars, for example – can little affect the Senate, even though it has a decisive influence on them.
The fact is, too, that the Senate’s membership is remarkably stable, almost resembling a non-elected body. Incumbents virtually always win. And some seats even pass from father to son.
Because the Senate is so very powerful, the really big money from big-money people finds its way into the campaigns, making the elections very costly and largely secure from upstarts. Of course, that fact also obligates heavily every member of this powerful body.
Another point still, for the Senate to invoke cloture on a matter or to halt a filibuster from a someone speaking on the floor, requires not a simple majority, but a sixty-percent vote.
All in all, the Senate remains a highly undemocratic institution, but a very powerful one.
Also, in America’s early days, the Electoral College, which was a far more restrictive institution, meant that even the small number of citizens who could vote could not vote directly for the President. The College members – again elites – were free to ignore the “popular” vote.
Money today plays a decisive role in all American national elections, the Supreme Court, whose members all were establishment appointments, even having ruled that “money is free speech.”
For a close look at the role of money today, see: https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/
The percentage of early Virginians who could vote (about 1%) happens to be almost exactly the same as the percentage of China's population today allowed to become members of the Communist Party, the people whose votes count. Membership is a great privilege in China.
So, China’s approach to democracy isn’t all that strange if you have a little history. Of course, the right to vote has expanded over time in America, but remarkably slowly.
There was a little progress in Andrew Jackson’s time. But women, always slightly more than half of any human population for various biological reasons, didn’t get the vote until 1920, after decades and decades of protest. Blacks, about 13% of America’s population, really did not get the vote until the 1960s. Note that 1789 was the date of the Constitution’s first coming into force.
So, I see all criticism of China along these lines as very inappropriate. The Chinese have been free from Maoism only for a few decades, and they are making progress along a number of fronts. What they have today is certainly not communism, but a hybrid system owing a great deal to Deng Xiaoping.
As the history of the United States shows, and it’s much the same, only with variations, for the major countries of Western Europe, countries do not leap into democracy, not at all. Early economic development in almost any country is invariably guided by a political system controlled by elites.
And, indeed, to this day, the United States is far from being a convincingly democratic country. It has an elaborate political structure with a great deal of democratic window dressing, but in fact, money still rules, no matter what is said in all those insincere Fourth of July speeches.
INTERESTING ADDED THOUGHTS ABOUT MODERN DEMOCRACY:
You know the old saying about knowing who rules you by whom it is you may not criticize? But matters are handled much more subtly than that in the United States. Americans do expect to be able to speak freely, given the Bill of Rights and a pronounced national tendency for argumentativeness.
And for the most part, they are allowed to do so. However, most speech reaches very few ears owing to the structure of the press and broadcasting and political organizations, so its impact is little different than ordinary discussions on the street or in homes or schools.
The measure of the degree of any real influence by “the people” is found in answers to two questions.
One, do the people ever get a direct vote, effectively a “checks and balances” veto, on any truly vital national matter, as, say, whether the country goes to war? No, they most certainly do not.
Two, do the candidate choices offered voters in elections represent any real difference when it comes to such vital matters as going to war? Again, the answer is no.
I stress that the only candidate choices which really count are those of the two major parties, both well financed, often with both parties receiving funds from the same people or organizations. Minor candidates without big money are rarely even heard by most voters, and their names remain as “unknowns” on the ballot, even if they manage to get onto it.
A great deal of America’s post-WWII carnage across the planet might well not have occurred had the people at least a check in such matters. And, remember, it’s not like asking people about truly complex and specialized matters, such as finances. The “experts” in matters like war, your hometown politicians, have almost consistently got it totally wrong.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY TYLER COWEN IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
"China Isn’t Going Democratic Any Time Soon and the West Would Be Sorry If It Did
"The Chinese Communist Party has delivered reform, rapid growth and relative stability for decades and is more liberal than the average Chinese"
https://www.checkpointasia.net/china-isnt-going-democratic-any-time-soon-and-the-west-would-be-sorry-if-it-did/
Early America was not in the least democratic. It's been estimated that about 1% of Virginians could vote.
It wasn’t just the matter of slaves and women having no votes. There were powerful restrictions on age and wealth for men. You had to have a certain net worth in order to vote.
Imagine what you’d think of a rule like that today? The wealth limit would have to be immensely increased to account for the best part of two and a half centuries of inflation. So, you would feel as though only the most privileged could vote.
But even voting by those who could vote decided relatively few matters then. Most of the Founders were dead-set against the notion of democracy. They were upper-class types, wealthy planters and traders and lawyers, and all were affected by the fear that ordinary people might vote to siphon off wealth.
Until 1913, the Senate was appointed by the President, not elected, and it is, and was, the most powerful legislative body, by far, since it has to approve all important appointments – cabinet members, ambassadors, heads of important agencies - and all international treaties.
It also gains power from the fact that even in the days of its election, the pattern of seats up for election is designed so that the Senate can never change by more than one-third of its members in any one election.
Elections are staggered so that only over a period of six years do all seats face an election. So, burning issues of the day – crises and wars, for example – can little affect the Senate, even though it has a decisive influence on them.
The fact is, too, that the Senate’s membership is remarkably stable, almost resembling a non-elected body. Incumbents virtually always win. And some seats even pass from father to son.
Because the Senate is so very powerful, the really big money from big-money people finds its way into the campaigns, making the elections very costly and largely secure from upstarts. Of course, that fact also obligates heavily every member of this powerful body.
Another point still, for the Senate to invoke cloture on a matter or to halt a filibuster from a someone speaking on the floor, requires not a simple majority, but a sixty-percent vote.
All in all, the Senate remains a highly undemocratic institution, but a very powerful one.
Also, in America’s early days, the Electoral College, which was a far more restrictive institution, meant that even the small number of citizens who could vote could not vote directly for the President. The College members – again elites – were free to ignore the “popular” vote.
Money today plays a decisive role in all American national elections, the Supreme Court, whose members all were establishment appointments, even having ruled that “money is free speech.”
For a close look at the role of money today, see: https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/
The percentage of early Virginians who could vote (about 1%) happens to be almost exactly the same as the percentage of China's population today allowed to become members of the Communist Party, the people whose votes count. Membership is a great privilege in China.
So, China’s approach to democracy isn’t all that strange if you have a little history. Of course, the right to vote has expanded over time in America, but remarkably slowly.
There was a little progress in Andrew Jackson’s time. But women, always slightly more than half of any human population for various biological reasons, didn’t get the vote until 1920, after decades and decades of protest. Blacks, about 13% of America’s population, really did not get the vote until the 1960s. Note that 1789 was the date of the Constitution’s first coming into force.
So, I see all criticism of China along these lines as very inappropriate. The Chinese have been free from Maoism only for a few decades, and they are making progress along a number of fronts. What they have today is certainly not communism, but a hybrid system owing a great deal to Deng Xiaoping.
As the history of the United States shows, and it’s much the same, only with variations, for the major countries of Western Europe, countries do not leap into democracy, not at all. Early economic development in almost any country is invariably guided by a political system controlled by elites.
And, indeed, to this day, the United States is far from being a convincingly democratic country. It has an elaborate political structure with a great deal of democratic window dressing, but in fact, money still rules, no matter what is said in all those insincere Fourth of July speeches.
INTERESTING ADDED THOUGHTS ABOUT MODERN DEMOCRACY:
You know the old saying about knowing who rules you by whom it is you may not criticize? But matters are handled much more subtly than that in the United States. Americans do expect to be able to speak freely, given the Bill of Rights and a pronounced national tendency for argumentativeness.
And for the most part, they are allowed to do so. However, most speech reaches very few ears owing to the structure of the press and broadcasting and political organizations, so its impact is little different than ordinary discussions on the street or in homes or schools.
The measure of the degree of any real influence by “the people” is found in answers to two questions.
One, do the people ever get a direct vote, effectively a “checks and balances” veto, on any truly vital national matter, as, say, whether the country goes to war? No, they most certainly do not.
Two, do the candidate choices offered voters in elections represent any real difference when it comes to such vital matters as going to war? Again, the answer is no.
I stress that the only candidate choices which really count are those of the two major parties, both well financed, often with both parties receiving funds from the same people or organizations. Minor candidates without big money are rarely even heard by most voters, and their names remain as “unknowns” on the ballot, even if they manage to get onto it.
A great deal of America’s post-WWII carnage across the planet might well not have occurred had the people at least a check in such matters. And, remember, it’s not like asking people about truly complex and specialized matters, such as finances. The “experts” in matters like war, your hometown politicians, have almost consistently got it totally wrong.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A WRITER ON TRUMP'S POLITICAL MARKETING SKILLS HITS ON A FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH - COUNTLESS EXAMPLES SHOW MARKETING IN AMERICA DOES NOT REQUIRE A SOUND PRODUCT - P. T. BARNUM THE TRUE FOUNDING FATHER OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICA - IMPLICATIONS FOR AMERICAN WORLD LEADERSHIP
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY LOUIS STAPLES IN THE INDEPENDENT
Donald Trump is preparing to make 2020 the ‘immigration election’ – and his dishonest marketing ploys are working
"The US president knows how to identify grievances among white Americans and then sell them a product – himself – to alleviate all their problems"
That is concise and perfect statement of how Trump governs.
We could go further, of course, and say that in truth he has nothing of substance to offer.
As another writer recently said of him, the deal maker hasn’t any deals, not a single one, in the best part of three years.
But the blundering, bombastic man has destroyed many things, from international trade arrangements to important security treaties. His complete lack of couth has alienated important leaders in many traditionally friendly countries and brought the level of domestic political discourse to a new low.
The ugly truth is that in marketing, your product does not have to be any good. You just have to define a market and convince those people that they need it.
America’s entire modern history demonstrates that conclusively, in everything from poor, short-lived products flying off warehouse shelves by the millions after manipulative television infomercials and the immense success of televangelists in building wealthy empires, to the remarkably impoverished representation and leadership that American elections produce year after year in Congress.
Indeed, polls for years have shown that the least respected institution in America is its Congress, yet nothing ever changes.
And the demonstration of marketing in America continues on through a whole series of titanic, destructive and largely pointless events from the Vietnam War to today’s destruction of great swathes of the Middle East in the continuing Neocon Wars. Many millions of lives extinguished for no good reason.
“…nor should we underestimate the American electorate’s weakness to his marketing techniques.”
Now, that statement is considerably less penetrating. What we shouldn’t underestimate is the very poor understanding of a very large fraction of the American people, including Trump.
That is part of the reason America does such a poor job being any kind of world leader. The attitudes, values, and logic of television pitchmen, legions of phony evangelistic tent preachers, and shoppers at Walmart do not make for any kind of leadership.
The latest poll gives Trump a 40% approval rating. While not high, I think it rather stunning that a man who has achieved precisely nothing but make himself the center of attention can have the best part of half of Americans approve of him.
We really are plumbing the depths here of the American public’s genuine ignorance.
The true father of a great deal of contemporary American society was P. T. Barnum, not its Founding Fathers.
As a last note, America’s leadership role in the world largely was owing to circumstances like its coming through WWII virtually undamaged, allowing it to become a marketer to everyone for a while.
But that time is passing now, and all the privileged class of Americans is very angry about it. Hence, the remarkable level of aggression we see on so many fronts. And the inhabitants of America’s vast gulag of trailer parks are unhappy about it, too. Hence, Trump.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY LOUIS STAPLES IN THE INDEPENDENT
Donald Trump is preparing to make 2020 the ‘immigration election’ – and his dishonest marketing ploys are working
"The US president knows how to identify grievances among white Americans and then sell them a product – himself – to alleviate all their problems"
That is concise and perfect statement of how Trump governs.
We could go further, of course, and say that in truth he has nothing of substance to offer.
As another writer recently said of him, the deal maker hasn’t any deals, not a single one, in the best part of three years.
But the blundering, bombastic man has destroyed many things, from international trade arrangements to important security treaties. His complete lack of couth has alienated important leaders in many traditionally friendly countries and brought the level of domestic political discourse to a new low.
The ugly truth is that in marketing, your product does not have to be any good. You just have to define a market and convince those people that they need it.
America’s entire modern history demonstrates that conclusively, in everything from poor, short-lived products flying off warehouse shelves by the millions after manipulative television infomercials and the immense success of televangelists in building wealthy empires, to the remarkably impoverished representation and leadership that American elections produce year after year in Congress.
Indeed, polls for years have shown that the least respected institution in America is its Congress, yet nothing ever changes.
And the demonstration of marketing in America continues on through a whole series of titanic, destructive and largely pointless events from the Vietnam War to today’s destruction of great swathes of the Middle East in the continuing Neocon Wars. Many millions of lives extinguished for no good reason.
“…nor should we underestimate the American electorate’s weakness to his marketing techniques.”
Now, that statement is considerably less penetrating. What we shouldn’t underestimate is the very poor understanding of a very large fraction of the American people, including Trump.
That is part of the reason America does such a poor job being any kind of world leader. The attitudes, values, and logic of television pitchmen, legions of phony evangelistic tent preachers, and shoppers at Walmart do not make for any kind of leadership.
The latest poll gives Trump a 40% approval rating. While not high, I think it rather stunning that a man who has achieved precisely nothing but make himself the center of attention can have the best part of half of Americans approve of him.
We really are plumbing the depths here of the American public’s genuine ignorance.
The true father of a great deal of contemporary American society was P. T. Barnum, not its Founding Fathers.
As a last note, America’s leadership role in the world largely was owing to circumstances like its coming through WWII virtually undamaged, allowing it to become a marketer to everyone for a while.
But that time is passing now, and all the privileged class of Americans is very angry about it. Hence, the remarkable level of aggression we see on so many fronts. And the inhabitants of America’s vast gulag of trailer parks are unhappy about it, too. Hence, Trump.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WAS AMERICA'S GENERAL PATTON ASSASSINATED? AN ARTICLE REVIEWING A BOOK OF SOME YEARS AGO IS PRETTY CONVINCING - BUT OF COURSE IF HE WAS IT JUST FALLS INTO LINE WITH A STRING OF DARK-OPS AND KILLINGS THAT CHARACTERIZE MODERN WASHINGTON
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Was General Patton Assassinated by the US Government?
“The book and the article (in the Sunday Telegraph) appeared in 2008 and I had never heard a word about the story in any of my major American newspapers”
There have been whispers for years.
This does make the book sound persuasive.
Patton was a monumentally unsympathetic and brutal man, likely psychopathic, so there can be few tears for him.
Ready to pistol-whip anyone disagreeing with him, always wearing a pair of pearl-handled pistols with his uniform, and known for viciously hitting a soldier sick with shell shock and yelling at him that he was a coward.
Ready too, very much so, to attack the Red Army rather than accept the international agreements of Yalta.
Troops under him darkly joked that "Old Blood and Guts," as he was nicknamed, supplied the guts while they supplied the blood.
But this does re-emphasize the role of assassination and dark ops in modern American history, something many ordinary Americans would have a lot of trouble accepting.
Some other pretty clear cases stare at us through the haze of time, especially those of Jack and Robert Kennedy.
9/11?
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
“Was General Patton Assassinated by the US Government?
“The book and the article (in the Sunday Telegraph) appeared in 2008 and I had never heard a word about the story in any of my major American newspapers”
There have been whispers for years.
This does make the book sound persuasive.
Patton was a monumentally unsympathetic and brutal man, likely psychopathic, so there can be few tears for him.
Ready to pistol-whip anyone disagreeing with him, always wearing a pair of pearl-handled pistols with his uniform, and known for viciously hitting a soldier sick with shell shock and yelling at him that he was a coward.
Ready too, very much so, to attack the Red Army rather than accept the international agreements of Yalta.
Troops under him darkly joked that "Old Blood and Guts," as he was nicknamed, supplied the guts while they supplied the blood.
But this does re-emphasize the role of assassination and dark ops in modern American history, something many ordinary Americans would have a lot of trouble accepting.
Some other pretty clear cases stare at us through the haze of time, especially those of Jack and Robert Kennedy.
9/11?
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICA'S DREADFUL WAR ON HUAWEI - CANADA'S TRUDEAU NOW GOING TO APPEAL TO TRUMP OVER SOME OF THE FALLOUT - JUST ONE MORE PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION OF TRUDEAU'S POOR JUDGMENT
John Chuckman
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MATT KWONG IN CBC NEWS
“When Trudeau sought to free 2 Canadians, 'Beijing had no time' for him. Will Trump?
“'Great powers rumbling' means an awkward time to call in a favour from U.S. ally”
Trump, now there's a guy with a lot of clout in China right now.
Of course, Trump could rescind the extradition request, taking Trudeau off the hook about Meng.
But that really doesn't fit in with his whole mad rush (some would call it strategy) towards China.
It's rather pathetic seeing Trudeau going around begging for help. China turned him down even for a brief meeting.
He could have avoided the whole affair by just quietly warning Meng not to land.
Or he could show the least bit of spunk by declaring the extradition request as invalid since it involves matters that are not crimes in Canada. Or find some other excuse, like requiring more evidence. It's always possible to find an excuse if you try. Extradition requests are not diktats.
Well, whatever the outcome, I'm afraid Canada has been shown in a mighty poor light by the actions of perhaps its most ineffectual leader in modern history.
But I should add, not all Canadians see it that way. A fair number take the view that Canada is being attacked by China. I’m afraid American views and attitudes are increasingly finding a home in Canada.
After all, Trudeau’s unpleasant Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, heads up that CIA front, the Lima Group, whose purpose is to assist in the overthrow of Venezuela and other Latin states Washington happens to hate. And she echoes, albeit in a quieter, gentler voice, most of the animal grunts from Washington about a range of matters, from Russia to Iran.
______________________
Response to a comment saying, “Quite sad that two of our citizens are rotting in a prison in China. They are just pawns of political bs”:
How do you know they are rotting?
Rather strong word, especially from someone not in a position to know any details.
I rather suspect they are receiving the best treatment, given the situation.
And there's still that other possibility, that their arrests are not about Meng and reflect results of normal police work. I'm not saying that's so, but it is indeed possible.
Whatever, if Trudeau would just show some spunk and release Meng, every problem would just melt away. It's the right thing to do, anyway.
She's only being hounded by an extremely aggressive United States.
Good God, America works to ban her company all over the world, in the name of so-called security, simply because it cannot compete with some of the company’s technology.
Remember, we already have had big-mouth Trump say that the Huawei matter could be resolved in the trade agreement he is arrogantly demanding from China.
That's some issue of national security then, isn't it?
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MATT KWONG IN CBC NEWS
“When Trudeau sought to free 2 Canadians, 'Beijing had no time' for him. Will Trump?
“'Great powers rumbling' means an awkward time to call in a favour from U.S. ally”
Trump, now there's a guy with a lot of clout in China right now.
Of course, Trump could rescind the extradition request, taking Trudeau off the hook about Meng.
But that really doesn't fit in with his whole mad rush (some would call it strategy) towards China.
It's rather pathetic seeing Trudeau going around begging for help. China turned him down even for a brief meeting.
He could have avoided the whole affair by just quietly warning Meng not to land.
Or he could show the least bit of spunk by declaring the extradition request as invalid since it involves matters that are not crimes in Canada. Or find some other excuse, like requiring more evidence. It's always possible to find an excuse if you try. Extradition requests are not diktats.
Well, whatever the outcome, I'm afraid Canada has been shown in a mighty poor light by the actions of perhaps its most ineffectual leader in modern history.
But I should add, not all Canadians see it that way. A fair number take the view that Canada is being attacked by China. I’m afraid American views and attitudes are increasingly finding a home in Canada.
After all, Trudeau’s unpleasant Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, heads up that CIA front, the Lima Group, whose purpose is to assist in the overthrow of Venezuela and other Latin states Washington happens to hate. And she echoes, albeit in a quieter, gentler voice, most of the animal grunts from Washington about a range of matters, from Russia to Iran.
______________________
Response to a comment saying, “Quite sad that two of our citizens are rotting in a prison in China. They are just pawns of political bs”:
How do you know they are rotting?
Rather strong word, especially from someone not in a position to know any details.
I rather suspect they are receiving the best treatment, given the situation.
And there's still that other possibility, that their arrests are not about Meng and reflect results of normal police work. I'm not saying that's so, but it is indeed possible.
Whatever, if Trudeau would just show some spunk and release Meng, every problem would just melt away. It's the right thing to do, anyway.
She's only being hounded by an extremely aggressive United States.
Good God, America works to ban her company all over the world, in the name of so-called security, simply because it cannot compete with some of the company’s technology.
Remember, we already have had big-mouth Trump say that the Huawei matter could be resolved in the trade agreement he is arrogantly demanding from China.
That's some issue of national security then, isn't it?
Monday, June 17, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE MANY FORMS OF HUMAN LUNACY - SOMEONE WITH MIKE POMPEO'S STYLE OF DEATH-OBSESSED FUNDAMENTALISM HAS NO MORE BUSINESS IN HIGH OFFICE THAN A DRUNK PLACED IN CHARGE OF MISSILE-LAUNCH FACILITIES
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JON BASIL UTLEY IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
'Rapture Christian Pompeo Believes US War on Iran Would Be Helping Out God
"It's a never-ending battle until... the Rapture" - Mike Pompeo'
There's no explaining human lunacy, the many forms and varieties of it.
I believe a certain percentage of people are just born with fundamental glitches in their mental apparatus, much as we see a percentage of people born with severe physical deformities. The brain is, by far, the most complex of organs, rendering it vulnerable to a great many deformities.
Pompeo certainly is afflicted with one of them.
The stuff about "the Rapture" is literally an obsession with death, nothing more, nothing less.
In theory, someone embracing that kind of belief should be disqualified automatically from holding high government office, just as you would not appoint a paranoid or drunk or drug addict to command a missile-launch facility.
The great irony of this bizarre form of American fundamentalism - and it does seem to emanate mainly from America - is how it, in many or most cases, excludes all the human virtues we used to think of and regard as "Christian," in the best sense of that word.
Kindness, generosity, peacefulness, humility, doing-unto-others, and charity - the very qualities Jesus himself valued in the stories of the New Testament.
In Mike Pompeo's case, and in a good many similar cases, we find instead lying, theft, cheating - he's actually bragged in public about those - cruelty, extreme prejudice, and readiness-to-kill.
It says a great deal about America that someone with those character traits could serve in the highest cabinet post, and at a critical and dangerous time.
I've always pretty much accepted the principle, laid down by the eminent historian Thomas Carlyle, that history is biography.
If it is indeed true, then we are in mortal peril with Pompeo and other seriously-deficient human beings, such as John Bolton, appointed to influential posts and serving a President who has demonstrated himself unmistakably as rash, impetuous, careless-of-facts, impatient, inclined to name-calling, uninformed, and possessing one of the greatest (empty) egos of any narcissist I can recall.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JON BASIL UTLEY IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
'Rapture Christian Pompeo Believes US War on Iran Would Be Helping Out God
"It's a never-ending battle until... the Rapture" - Mike Pompeo'
There's no explaining human lunacy, the many forms and varieties of it.
I believe a certain percentage of people are just born with fundamental glitches in their mental apparatus, much as we see a percentage of people born with severe physical deformities. The brain is, by far, the most complex of organs, rendering it vulnerable to a great many deformities.
Pompeo certainly is afflicted with one of them.
The stuff about "the Rapture" is literally an obsession with death, nothing more, nothing less.
In theory, someone embracing that kind of belief should be disqualified automatically from holding high government office, just as you would not appoint a paranoid or drunk or drug addict to command a missile-launch facility.
The great irony of this bizarre form of American fundamentalism - and it does seem to emanate mainly from America - is how it, in many or most cases, excludes all the human virtues we used to think of and regard as "Christian," in the best sense of that word.
Kindness, generosity, peacefulness, humility, doing-unto-others, and charity - the very qualities Jesus himself valued in the stories of the New Testament.
In Mike Pompeo's case, and in a good many similar cases, we find instead lying, theft, cheating - he's actually bragged in public about those - cruelty, extreme prejudice, and readiness-to-kill.
It says a great deal about America that someone with those character traits could serve in the highest cabinet post, and at a critical and dangerous time.
I've always pretty much accepted the principle, laid down by the eminent historian Thomas Carlyle, that history is biography.
If it is indeed true, then we are in mortal peril with Pompeo and other seriously-deficient human beings, such as John Bolton, appointed to influential posts and serving a President who has demonstrated himself unmistakably as rash, impetuous, careless-of-facts, impatient, inclined to name-calling, uninformed, and possessing one of the greatest (empty) egos of any narcissist I can recall.
Saturday, June 15, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS AND COMPARISONS BETWEEN BRAZIL'S NEW PRESIDENT JAIR BOLSONARO AND AMERICA'S DONALD TRUMP
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JIM EPSTEIN IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Libertarians Forged an Alliance With Brasil’s Bolsonaro. Will They Come to Regret It?
“Bolsonaro has nominally put them in charge of the economy, but he's shaping out to be too beholden to special interests to authorize deep reform”
Bolsonaro certainly is not a libertarian.
He's actually a rather poisonous concoction of loyalties and prejudices.
And, remember, he's only in office owing to CIA cooperation with truly big-money interests in Brazil, manipulating the country’s laws and courts. He is, effectively, a political crook, much like, but on a grander scale, Juan Guaidó in Venezuela.
There was just plain foul treatment of former President Luiz Lula, whatever you may think of his of his political views.
Bolsonaro’s attitude towards human rights and dissidents is troubling, too, anything but libertarian, anything but liberal, in the best classical sense of the word.
Brazil's Trump?
Perhaps, remembering Trump is anything but a libertarian, being, again, a man just chock full of odd loyalties and prejudices and displaying not a sign of clear thinking about major issues.
Trump embraces tariffs and (illegal) sanctions as though they were a boy’s set of toy soldiers. Ignorant and dangerous.
And Trump’s constant recourse to them reveals a huge streak of authoritarianism and economic ignorance. As does his penchant for extreme nepotism in the White House.
Trump embraces a bizarre form of Patriotism which involves hugging flags and periodically donning custom-made bomber jackets for harangues to the troops, all while working at a record pace for the benefit of a rather devious and dangerous foreign state, Israel, one often working against the long-term interests of the United States.
Of course, Trump’s background of discovering heel spurs in 1968, just as he was about to be inducted, prevented him from doing what he now commands so many others to do.
That entire episode reeks since the man was playing college basketball, and heel spurs are an easily corrected condition by minor surgery. As well, they are a condition that millions of people simply adjust to having in a couple of months or less without any treatment.
It should be an embarrassment, but nothing is an embarrassment to this true and shining narcissist.
Basically, both men represent the establishment and its privileges in their respective countries and lack any consistent philosophy or creed. Trump started out suggesting some divergence from America’s establishment, but, in power, he close-to-instantly fell into line and now is their most bellowing representative in all that he does.
I’m not aware that Bolsonaro ever took the same route, although Brazil’s well-known and immense bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption served as targets. That might be viewed as a version of “the swamp.” And it might be just as uncorrectable.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JIM EPSTEIN IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Libertarians Forged an Alliance With Brasil’s Bolsonaro. Will They Come to Regret It?
“Bolsonaro has nominally put them in charge of the economy, but he's shaping out to be too beholden to special interests to authorize deep reform”
Bolsonaro certainly is not a libertarian.
He's actually a rather poisonous concoction of loyalties and prejudices.
And, remember, he's only in office owing to CIA cooperation with truly big-money interests in Brazil, manipulating the country’s laws and courts. He is, effectively, a political crook, much like, but on a grander scale, Juan Guaidó in Venezuela.
There was just plain foul treatment of former President Luiz Lula, whatever you may think of his of his political views.
Bolsonaro’s attitude towards human rights and dissidents is troubling, too, anything but libertarian, anything but liberal, in the best classical sense of the word.
Brazil's Trump?
Perhaps, remembering Trump is anything but a libertarian, being, again, a man just chock full of odd loyalties and prejudices and displaying not a sign of clear thinking about major issues.
Trump embraces tariffs and (illegal) sanctions as though they were a boy’s set of toy soldiers. Ignorant and dangerous.
And Trump’s constant recourse to them reveals a huge streak of authoritarianism and economic ignorance. As does his penchant for extreme nepotism in the White House.
Trump embraces a bizarre form of Patriotism which involves hugging flags and periodically donning custom-made bomber jackets for harangues to the troops, all while working at a record pace for the benefit of a rather devious and dangerous foreign state, Israel, one often working against the long-term interests of the United States.
Of course, Trump’s background of discovering heel spurs in 1968, just as he was about to be inducted, prevented him from doing what he now commands so many others to do.
That entire episode reeks since the man was playing college basketball, and heel spurs are an easily corrected condition by minor surgery. As well, they are a condition that millions of people simply adjust to having in a couple of months or less without any treatment.
It should be an embarrassment, but nothing is an embarrassment to this true and shining narcissist.
Basically, both men represent the establishment and its privileges in their respective countries and lack any consistent philosophy or creed. Trump started out suggesting some divergence from America’s establishment, but, in power, he close-to-instantly fell into line and now is their most bellowing representative in all that he does.
I’m not aware that Bolsonaro ever took the same route, although Brazil’s well-known and immense bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption served as targets. That might be viewed as a version of “the swamp.” And it might be just as uncorrectable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)