John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Jimmy Savile: Louis Theroux says he ‘thought there was a sexual dimension to his personality’ but he didn’t know what.
“Theroux says he still thinks his 2000 film ‘holds up’ despite failing to reveal decades of alleged sexual abuse against the entertainer”
“Following Savile's death in 2011, 450 alleged victims of sexual abuse contacted the Metropolitan Police in just 10 weeks, with officials describing the scale of allegations against him as 'unprecedented.'
“The documentary ‘When Louis Met… Jimmy’ was released some 11 years earlier, before the mass allegations were made.”
Louis Theroux only confirms something long understood.
Many human monsters have complex personalities, and it is entirely possible to know one of them, at least to a degree, while seeing only the aspects he wants to display to you.
Many people thought Hitler charming in person, including high fliers like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as well as many ordinary people. Hitler’s secretaries were delighted having tea and cream cakes with him regularly as a pleasant break from hard work.
Many people were literally awed by Stalin. He was a powerful presence in any room and a very intelligent and hardworking man. Literally millions of Russians wept sincerely at the announcement of his death.
Just look at the way our corporate press and politicians treat someone like the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. He’s a reformer. He’s charming. He’s a breath of fresh air in the Middle East. Lots of flattery and publicity surround him.
He was even sent on a charm-offensive trip through the United States to meet many, many important Americans.
In fact, already when they met him, he was known to some as a ruthless usurper, someone who would kidnap and imprison a number of rival princes, taking huge sums of money from them in exchange for their freedom.
Many prominent Americans shook hands and smiled and dined with this truly bloody creature who kills women and children in Yemen and in his suppression of the Shia minority at home. Who has beheaded teenagers and set a record pace for executions in his country, including some by crucifixion.
And who unquestionably had a man, a journalist he didn’t like, sawed-up alive and burnt in a back-yard barbecue oven. Even the CIA agrees the evidence is convincing.
And then there’s Netanyahu, a truly fervent admirer of the Prince, and a man who himself literally has slaughtered thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese and bombed Syria many, many times.
A man who lies constantly according to direct testimony from Presidents Obama and Sarkozy in a live-mic incident. A man who welcomes periodic thefts of other people’s homes and farms.
His troops kneel regularly behind a fence to shoot the unarmed people of Gaza who demonstrate for some rights. His “most moral army on earth” has killed more than 200 in that fashion and wounded thousands, a good many sustaining permanently-disabling injuries.
Yet Washington is full of people who flatter him and say his "restraint" is remarkable. As is Hollywood. And there are many photos with the charm turned on and lots of smiles and handshakes.
Saturday, August 31, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A PIECE ABOUT AMERICA FAILING TO CONFRONT THE DARK HISTORY OF SLAVERY - IT DISPLAYS REMARKABLE NAIVETE CONSIDERING THAT JUST A QUICK GLANCE AROUND SHOWS WASHINGTON BUSY ABUSING, THREATENING, AND KILLING IN A DOZEN LANDS - IMPERIAL GOVERNMENTS DON'T DO APOLOGIES OR ADMIT WRONGDOING - AND THEY SURE DON'T COMPENSATE VICTIMS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ANDREW BUNSCOMBE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Why has America taken so long to confront its dark history?
“Efforts to force debate on the legacy of slavery come at fraught time for nation under Donald Trump”
Pretty much empty blather, something not uncommon from this writer.
Does anyone really think that the establishment of the American empire is going to pry up the paving stones in Washington to reveal all the maggots squirming underneath?
America was built on some terrible, terrible practices, slavery being just one of them.
This is a country, we can see right now, abusing and threatening and killing people in a dozen different lands.
The activity is right before our eyes, yet Washington pretends it’s all otherwise than it is.
The horrors of Syria are owing to its own government, so just ignore all those paid cutthroat mercenaries carrying American weapons.
Starving millions of people in Venezuela is supporting democracy. Orwell couldn’t have said it better.
Israeli soldiers kneeling behind a fence and shooting unarmed demonstrators is "restraint."
To understand better, see:
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/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ANDREW BUNSCOMBE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Why has America taken so long to confront its dark history?
“Efforts to force debate on the legacy of slavery come at fraught time for nation under Donald Trump”
Pretty much empty blather, something not uncommon from this writer.
Does anyone really think that the establishment of the American empire is going to pry up the paving stones in Washington to reveal all the maggots squirming underneath?
America was built on some terrible, terrible practices, slavery being just one of them.
This is a country, we can see right now, abusing and threatening and killing people in a dozen different lands.
The activity is right before our eyes, yet Washington pretends it’s all otherwise than it is.
The horrors of Syria are owing to its own government, so just ignore all those paid cutthroat mercenaries carrying American weapons.
Starving millions of people in Venezuela is supporting democracy. Orwell couldn’t have said it better.
Israeli soldiers kneeling behind a fence and shooting unarmed demonstrators is "restraint."
To understand better, see:
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/
Friday, August 30, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WHISTLEBLOWERS AND TRUTH AND AMERICA'S GOVERNMENT - AMERICA'S PUBLIC HISTORY OF LAST HALF CENTURY IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS IS ALMOST COMPLETELY FABRICATED - DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND HONEST TULSI GABBARD - JOE BIDEN WITH HIS LONG RECORD OF AVOIDING TRUTH WILL LIKELY BE THE CANDIDATE - AMERICANS JUST DO NOT SEEM TO CARE ABOUT ALL THE COUNTRY'S KILLING AND IMMENSE DISHONESTY
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY SAM HUSSEINI IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Film ‘Official Secrets’ is the Tip of a Mammoth Iceberg
“A new film depicting the whistleblower Katherine Gun, who tried to stop the Iraq invasion, is largely accurate, but the story is not over”.
Good gripping tale.
As we can see from so very many modern instances, it matters not at all that truth is on your side, if what you are doing is attacking those with money and power.
And there's an entire American establishment dedicated to keeping things just that way.
America's public history of the last half century, at least so far as foreign relations and control of an empire are concerned, is almost entirely an artificial construct.
Absolutely no truth in everything from John Kennedy's assassination, which was intimately connected with America's schemes in Cuba, and the despicable Vietnam War to 9/11 and the despicable Neocon Wars in the Middle East which promptly followed.
From hundreds of millions of printed newspapers and television broadcasts to speeches from prominent American politicians, you have a gigantic fabric of lies not unlike that that was constantly being woven and altered by Oceania's Inner Party in 1984.
That's not even the slightest exaggeration, but, truly, are Americans in general the least concerned or bothered?
We have no evidence of significant concern. None.
The Democratic Party just weeded out of its debates for leadership the only candidate whom it had brave and informed enough to speak to truth in some of these matters, Tulsi Gabbard.
The ten left just represent varying degrees of hopelessness. On and on with describing dreams about this or that creative social program while the resources and close official attention dedicated to destruction in a dozen lands make all the dreams impossible.
At the same time, there is an almost complete lack of knowledge, and the courage to find out, about what America has been actually doing in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Israel, and in such massively important countries as China, Russia, and Iran.
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are brave contemporary examples of the American establishment’s methods for shutting down truth and punishing severely those who reveal it. While they have followers and supporters, I am always amazed at how relatively small their numbers are.
And we have remarkably few individuals like Manning or Assange themselves, especially when you consider the scale and scope of America’s many dark works which involve huge numbers of workers. Mostly, we see only “willing helpers” carrying on with their sensitive, secretive, well-paid careers in government.
In the Democratic nomination contest, the “star” liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are virtually no different in these absolutely critical matters than a confirmed old puke of a war criminal like Joe Biden, someone who probably deserves recognition as father of Obama’s industrial-scale extrajudicial killing project with drones and Hellfire missiles making thousands of legally-innocent people in a dozen countries just disappear.
Biden has a long record of smarmy deeds and lack of courage and principles. He is, of course, the most likely to get the nomination.
Acts of killing by America’s CIA are no different in principle and in law than those of the old Argentine military junta’s massive efforts at dragging people they disliked off the streets, drugging them, and throwing them out of airplanes over the ocean, something they did to thousands.
Oh, and during that wonderful project in Argentina, there were no objections from the people in America who had detailed knowledge of what was happening, as at the State Department and the CIA. Only silence.
_______________________
Response to a comment expressing concern that America was going to be lost:
Sorry, but, oh please, America is lost, and has been so for a very long time.
Only tremendous, virtually revolutionary influences such as depression or war or the growth of competing states with the loss of the dollar’s privileged status, are going to change what has become reality.
America’s feeble democratic political system is capable of changing almost nothing. After all, it was constructed with just that in mind.
EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY SAM HUSSEINI IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Film ‘Official Secrets’ is the Tip of a Mammoth Iceberg
“A new film depicting the whistleblower Katherine Gun, who tried to stop the Iraq invasion, is largely accurate, but the story is not over”.
Good gripping tale.
As we can see from so very many modern instances, it matters not at all that truth is on your side, if what you are doing is attacking those with money and power.
And there's an entire American establishment dedicated to keeping things just that way.
America's public history of the last half century, at least so far as foreign relations and control of an empire are concerned, is almost entirely an artificial construct.
Absolutely no truth in everything from John Kennedy's assassination, which was intimately connected with America's schemes in Cuba, and the despicable Vietnam War to 9/11 and the despicable Neocon Wars in the Middle East which promptly followed.
From hundreds of millions of printed newspapers and television broadcasts to speeches from prominent American politicians, you have a gigantic fabric of lies not unlike that that was constantly being woven and altered by Oceania's Inner Party in 1984.
That's not even the slightest exaggeration, but, truly, are Americans in general the least concerned or bothered?
We have no evidence of significant concern. None.
The Democratic Party just weeded out of its debates for leadership the only candidate whom it had brave and informed enough to speak to truth in some of these matters, Tulsi Gabbard.
The ten left just represent varying degrees of hopelessness. On and on with describing dreams about this or that creative social program while the resources and close official attention dedicated to destruction in a dozen lands make all the dreams impossible.
At the same time, there is an almost complete lack of knowledge, and the courage to find out, about what America has been actually doing in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Israel, and in such massively important countries as China, Russia, and Iran.
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are brave contemporary examples of the American establishment’s methods for shutting down truth and punishing severely those who reveal it. While they have followers and supporters, I am always amazed at how relatively small their numbers are.
And we have remarkably few individuals like Manning or Assange themselves, especially when you consider the scale and scope of America’s many dark works which involve huge numbers of workers. Mostly, we see only “willing helpers” carrying on with their sensitive, secretive, well-paid careers in government.
In the Democratic nomination contest, the “star” liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are virtually no different in these absolutely critical matters than a confirmed old puke of a war criminal like Joe Biden, someone who probably deserves recognition as father of Obama’s industrial-scale extrajudicial killing project with drones and Hellfire missiles making thousands of legally-innocent people in a dozen countries just disappear.
Biden has a long record of smarmy deeds and lack of courage and principles. He is, of course, the most likely to get the nomination.
Acts of killing by America’s CIA are no different in principle and in law than those of the old Argentine military junta’s massive efforts at dragging people they disliked off the streets, drugging them, and throwing them out of airplanes over the ocean, something they did to thousands.
Oh, and during that wonderful project in Argentina, there were no objections from the people in America who had detailed knowledge of what was happening, as at the State Department and the CIA. Only silence.
_______________________
Response to a comment expressing concern that America was going to be lost:
Sorry, but, oh please, America is lost, and has been so for a very long time.
Only tremendous, virtually revolutionary influences such as depression or war or the growth of competing states with the loss of the dollar’s privileged status, are going to change what has become reality.
America’s feeble democratic political system is capable of changing almost nothing. After all, it was constructed with just that in mind.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESS AND GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA - "TRAILER PARK VALUES" NOW RISING TO THE TOP - SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS - TRUMP AS THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES PRESIDENT - GOOD MEASURES OF AMERICA'S SERIOUS DECLINE IN VALUES AND DECENT TASTE
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY J. D. TUCCILLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“The Revolving Door Between Government and Cable News
“The creeping merger between the political class and the journalists supposedly tasked with subjecting government to scrutiny”
I don’t know about the author’s main theme of a “creeping merger” between media and the government they are supposed to scrutinize. I think that separation hasn’t existed for a very long time, if ever it did, and not just because of “revolving door” jobs.
The idea of press or media independence from government is one of those notions Americans are so fond of as part of what has been called the American Civic Religion, much as the idea of “rights” and their “guarantee” by a piece of parchment.
See some discussion here about the relationship of the American press and government:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/07/19/john-chuckman-comment-the-difficulties-of-understanding-what-has-happened-in-the-news-the-motives-of-news-organizations-the-great-cost-of-good-information-the-motives-of-government-and-especial/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/11/29/john-chuckman-comment-unavoidable-flaws-in-our-press-government-press-relationship-in-the-west-americas-basic-structural-problem-is-plutocracy-and-its-empire-and-not-globalism-myth-of-tru/
But Sarah Huckabee Sanders for me absolutely symbolizes the worst of legendary "trailer park values" making it into positions of influence in America.
Going back to, say, Kennedy’s day, it would have been inconceivable for someone with a crude and irritating voice like hers to become a spokesperson for any large organization, government or private.
Her career does provide a good measure of just how far down America has sunk in values and principles and just in decent taste.
And I'm not sure there is any path back up from it.
Trump is not the only one, but he really has been instrumental in bringing this about.
I think it fair to call him the first Beverly Hillbillies President.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY J. D. TUCCILLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“The Revolving Door Between Government and Cable News
“The creeping merger between the political class and the journalists supposedly tasked with subjecting government to scrutiny”
I don’t know about the author’s main theme of a “creeping merger” between media and the government they are supposed to scrutinize. I think that separation hasn’t existed for a very long time, if ever it did, and not just because of “revolving door” jobs.
The idea of press or media independence from government is one of those notions Americans are so fond of as part of what has been called the American Civic Religion, much as the idea of “rights” and their “guarantee” by a piece of parchment.
See some discussion here about the relationship of the American press and government:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/07/19/john-chuckman-comment-the-difficulties-of-understanding-what-has-happened-in-the-news-the-motives-of-news-organizations-the-great-cost-of-good-information-the-motives-of-government-and-especial/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/11/29/john-chuckman-comment-unavoidable-flaws-in-our-press-government-press-relationship-in-the-west-americas-basic-structural-problem-is-plutocracy-and-its-empire-and-not-globalism-myth-of-tru/
But Sarah Huckabee Sanders for me absolutely symbolizes the worst of legendary "trailer park values" making it into positions of influence in America.
Going back to, say, Kennedy’s day, it would have been inconceivable for someone with a crude and irritating voice like hers to become a spokesperson for any large organization, government or private.
Her career does provide a good measure of just how far down America has sunk in values and principles and just in decent taste.
And I'm not sure there is any path back up from it.
Trump is not the only one, but he really has been instrumental in bringing this about.
I think it fair to call him the first Beverly Hillbillies President.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WHAT CANADA'S TRUDEAU IS SUPPOSED TO LEARN FROM MACRON'S G-7 INITIATIVE CONCERNING IRAN - THE REALITIES OF MACRON'S LIMITS AS A STATESMAN - IRAN AND TRUMP AND WHY THERE IS HATRED THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY - THE HYPE VERSUS THE UGLY REALITIES OF JUSTIN TRUDEAU'S FOREIGN POLICY - CHRYSTIA FREELAND, CANADA's TRULY UNPLEASANT FACE ON THE WORLD
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MURRAY BREWSTER IN CBC NEWS
“How Macron gave Trump — and Trudeau — a lesson in the uses of power
Macron's intervention between the U.S. and Iran was an example of practical diplomacy in action”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g7-macron-trump-trudeau-iran-1.5263474
While I applaud Macron's effort, I think it pretty much was dead on arrival.
That should not surprise because Macron, on a whole range of matters, has failed as an effective statesman, despite the manicured looks and high-blown way of speaking with echoes of prestigious French post-secondary education.
Trump's reasons for being so intensely hostile to Iran have nothing to do with anything Iran has done, and they certainly have nothing to do with France. Trump cannot relent because he is paying a "quid pro quo" for support to keep him in office, support received in the United States from powerful oligarchs.
As far as Iran's position, it is straightforward and realistic. Remove the sanctions, and we can talk, talk as equal states, not as master and servant.
In recent days, Iran’s admirably eloquent Foreign Minister, Mohammad Zarif, has been referring to America’s illegal sanctions as “economic terrorism.” You would be hard put to come up with a more apt description of them.
Iran has always been willing to talk to the United States. However, they are not willing to talk with guns pointed at them. And how can you open a negotiation about anything when the other party has just broken its solemn word on the last important agreement you negotiated? It isn’t even reasonable to expect anyone to do that, but who ever accused Donald Trump of being reasonable?
Or, in an even more extreme case, the man who actually sets the pace for Trump’s chaotic behavior towards Iran, Israel’s Netanyahu.
It is almost inconceivable that Trump will remove sanctions. They result from his personal need conceived of as national policy, a policy completely at odds with the genuine long-term interests of the United States, interests which absolutely include good relations with a very large and important country.
But an extremely narcissistic man like Trump magnifies personal need into something unrecognizably greater than what it is, like a bizarre parody of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation which says the wafer and wine during Mass become Christ’s actual flesh and blood. He does truly see himself as indispensable, although we have yet to see a single instance of that except in the generation of confusion.
The American sanctions are illegal and completely unwarranted - Iran always met its obligations under the nuclear treaty Trump impulsively tore up with no regard for the concerns of the treaty’s many other important signatories.
Also, the talks Trump wants, appear to have an agenda way beyond the 4-year old nuclear treaty. That agenda appears to be about Iran giving up its important missile-development program, and nothing on earth could make Iran do that.
Iran has now shown dramatically, in at least two incidents during America's campaign of intimidation and threats, just how important its missile development is. One of these was the downing of America's largest and most advanced drone as it entered Iranian air space at night with its transponders illegally turned off.
America's threat with a naval armada has also been affected by Iran's missiles. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln is staying about 600 miles away from the Strait of Hormuz. Why? Iran’s anti-ship missiles line its coast.
Iran also has plans for space, and why shouldn't it have? That’s every country’s prerogative and represents important future ways for doing a great many things we now do on earth.
They'd be insane to concede to Trump’s arbitrary demands in this area.
_______________________
Now, as far as Trudeau, the hoped-for beneficiary of presumed wisdom from Macron, goes…
"Many of you have worried that Canada has lost its compassionate and constructive voice in the world over the past 10 years.
"Well, I have a simple message for you. On behalf of 35 million Canadians, we're back." Justin Trudeau after his election.
That quote actually made me a little queasy.
Constructive voice back? Just where do we see that?
Supporting Saudi Arabia and selling them weapons to use in Yemen and to put down domestic dissent?
Supporting America's ugly campaign against a twice-elected President in Venezuela?
Adding to America’s new pressures against Cuba, a country with which Trudeau’s father, Pierre, had formed a special relationship decades ago?
Sending tanks to the Baltic states to butt up against Russia’s border for no conceivable reason beyond America’s efforts at intimidation?
Sending a warship into Russia’s “backyard,” the Black Sea, for no good reason?
Sending a warship through the Taiwan Strait, an act guaranteed to offend China?
Arresting a high-level Chinese executive on American say-so, the same America pursuing a massive, multi-front trade war against China, one having no purpose beyond trying to extract unearned special trade benefits for itself?
Supporting the horribly incompetent and corrupt Poroshenko government in the Ukraine? A government which, among its list of sins, supported outfits like the genuinely neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, effectively incorporating it into the national armed forces? And a government which made no effort at all to make peace in Eastern Ukraine and embrace the solution to that conflict set out clearly in the Minsk Accords?
Oh, I could list more, but you can see what an impressive record it has been.
Even appointing someone with the views and attitudes of Chrystia Freeland to be our Foreign Minister and represent us in the world? She is, quite literally, Stephen Harper redux.
See:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/07/14/john-chuckman-comment-what-every-canadian-should-know-about-canada-foreign-minister-chrystia-freeland-and-what-justin-trudeaus-sad-legacy-as-prime-minister-will-be/
Oh, and there’s that stunning instance of Trudeau’s suddenly flying down to Washington to plead with Trump for help with China. Yes, that’s right, Donald Trump, undoubtedly the single most hated man in all of China, someone literally enjoying a status about the equivalent of a housebreaker with a loud foul mouth? And our leader judged that as something worth doing? What can you say about such astounding naiveté and just plain ignorance?
____________________
Response to a comment which insisted Trudeau’s government had spoken out about Saudi Arabia:
Just silly.
There was the tiff over a Freeland remark about women. And Trudeau and Freeland scurried quickly away even from that.
Nothing of substance. Substance, as in Saudi Arabia’s many war crimes, its mass killing, and its use of capital punishment on teenagers? Nothing at all.
Indeed, that tiff was actually a bit of gong show so people back home who do not follow events more closely could say things like you've just said.
And I've seen photos on the Internet that sure look like the light tank/armored cars we keep selling the Crown Prince, photos of them serving in Yemen.
EXPANSION OF COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MURRAY BREWSTER IN CBC NEWS
“How Macron gave Trump — and Trudeau — a lesson in the uses of power
Macron's intervention between the U.S. and Iran was an example of practical diplomacy in action”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/g7-macron-trump-trudeau-iran-1.5263474
While I applaud Macron's effort, I think it pretty much was dead on arrival.
That should not surprise because Macron, on a whole range of matters, has failed as an effective statesman, despite the manicured looks and high-blown way of speaking with echoes of prestigious French post-secondary education.
Trump's reasons for being so intensely hostile to Iran have nothing to do with anything Iran has done, and they certainly have nothing to do with France. Trump cannot relent because he is paying a "quid pro quo" for support to keep him in office, support received in the United States from powerful oligarchs.
As far as Iran's position, it is straightforward and realistic. Remove the sanctions, and we can talk, talk as equal states, not as master and servant.
In recent days, Iran’s admirably eloquent Foreign Minister, Mohammad Zarif, has been referring to America’s illegal sanctions as “economic terrorism.” You would be hard put to come up with a more apt description of them.
Iran has always been willing to talk to the United States. However, they are not willing to talk with guns pointed at them. And how can you open a negotiation about anything when the other party has just broken its solemn word on the last important agreement you negotiated? It isn’t even reasonable to expect anyone to do that, but who ever accused Donald Trump of being reasonable?
Or, in an even more extreme case, the man who actually sets the pace for Trump’s chaotic behavior towards Iran, Israel’s Netanyahu.
It is almost inconceivable that Trump will remove sanctions. They result from his personal need conceived of as national policy, a policy completely at odds with the genuine long-term interests of the United States, interests which absolutely include good relations with a very large and important country.
But an extremely narcissistic man like Trump magnifies personal need into something unrecognizably greater than what it is, like a bizarre parody of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation which says the wafer and wine during Mass become Christ’s actual flesh and blood. He does truly see himself as indispensable, although we have yet to see a single instance of that except in the generation of confusion.
The American sanctions are illegal and completely unwarranted - Iran always met its obligations under the nuclear treaty Trump impulsively tore up with no regard for the concerns of the treaty’s many other important signatories.
Also, the talks Trump wants, appear to have an agenda way beyond the 4-year old nuclear treaty. That agenda appears to be about Iran giving up its important missile-development program, and nothing on earth could make Iran do that.
Iran has now shown dramatically, in at least two incidents during America's campaign of intimidation and threats, just how important its missile development is. One of these was the downing of America's largest and most advanced drone as it entered Iranian air space at night with its transponders illegally turned off.
America's threat with a naval armada has also been affected by Iran's missiles. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln is staying about 600 miles away from the Strait of Hormuz. Why? Iran’s anti-ship missiles line its coast.
Iran also has plans for space, and why shouldn't it have? That’s every country’s prerogative and represents important future ways for doing a great many things we now do on earth.
They'd be insane to concede to Trump’s arbitrary demands in this area.
_______________________
Now, as far as Trudeau, the hoped-for beneficiary of presumed wisdom from Macron, goes…
"Many of you have worried that Canada has lost its compassionate and constructive voice in the world over the past 10 years.
"Well, I have a simple message for you. On behalf of 35 million Canadians, we're back." Justin Trudeau after his election.
That quote actually made me a little queasy.
Constructive voice back? Just where do we see that?
Supporting Saudi Arabia and selling them weapons to use in Yemen and to put down domestic dissent?
Supporting America's ugly campaign against a twice-elected President in Venezuela?
Adding to America’s new pressures against Cuba, a country with which Trudeau’s father, Pierre, had formed a special relationship decades ago?
Sending tanks to the Baltic states to butt up against Russia’s border for no conceivable reason beyond America’s efforts at intimidation?
Sending a warship into Russia’s “backyard,” the Black Sea, for no good reason?
Sending a warship through the Taiwan Strait, an act guaranteed to offend China?
Arresting a high-level Chinese executive on American say-so, the same America pursuing a massive, multi-front trade war against China, one having no purpose beyond trying to extract unearned special trade benefits for itself?
Supporting the horribly incompetent and corrupt Poroshenko government in the Ukraine? A government which, among its list of sins, supported outfits like the genuinely neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, effectively incorporating it into the national armed forces? And a government which made no effort at all to make peace in Eastern Ukraine and embrace the solution to that conflict set out clearly in the Minsk Accords?
Oh, I could list more, but you can see what an impressive record it has been.
Even appointing someone with the views and attitudes of Chrystia Freeland to be our Foreign Minister and represent us in the world? She is, quite literally, Stephen Harper redux.
See:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/07/14/john-chuckman-comment-what-every-canadian-should-know-about-canada-foreign-minister-chrystia-freeland-and-what-justin-trudeaus-sad-legacy-as-prime-minister-will-be/
Oh, and there’s that stunning instance of Trudeau’s suddenly flying down to Washington to plead with Trump for help with China. Yes, that’s right, Donald Trump, undoubtedly the single most hated man in all of China, someone literally enjoying a status about the equivalent of a housebreaker with a loud foul mouth? And our leader judged that as something worth doing? What can you say about such astounding naiveté and just plain ignorance?
____________________
Response to a comment which insisted Trudeau’s government had spoken out about Saudi Arabia:
Just silly.
There was the tiff over a Freeland remark about women. And Trudeau and Freeland scurried quickly away even from that.
Nothing of substance. Substance, as in Saudi Arabia’s many war crimes, its mass killing, and its use of capital punishment on teenagers? Nothing at all.
Indeed, that tiff was actually a bit of gong show so people back home who do not follow events more closely could say things like you've just said.
And I've seen photos on the Internet that sure look like the light tank/armored cars we keep selling the Crown Prince, photos of them serving in Yemen.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: SPACE X TESTS ITS MARS ROCKET MAIN BOOSTER - THE POINTLESSNESS OF SENDING MEN TO MARS - MACHINES CAN DO ALL PLANETARY EXPLORATION BETTER NOW - ELON MUSK AS THE REINCARNATION OF AMERICA'S P. T. BARNUM
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“SpaceX successfully tests its planned Mars rocket
“Rocket lifted 150 metres off the ground”
The thing does look just like a prop from a 1950s sci-fi film.
I've never seen the point of sending people to Mars. It requires vast amounts of support - food, water, oxygen, waste disposal, fuel, etc. - all hurled tens of millions of miles, just for being able to say "We've been there, briefly."
We now know to a certainty - from our robots and satellites - that the place is unrelentingly hostile. The surface layer may even be poisonous.
I love the idea of exploring Mars, but our robots now can do ten-times the job of which humans are capable.
And they can do it at a fraction of the cost.
Really, this is comic-book stuff, not science. Fun, maybe, if you're not paying the bills.
And, of course, Musk isn't. Everything he does involves subsidies - the rockets hugely so from NASA and the Pentagon - or manipulation in the stock market to get his hands on new cash.
He's a "dreamer," yes, but, first and foremost, he's the new American P. T. Barnum.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“SpaceX successfully tests its planned Mars rocket
“Rocket lifted 150 metres off the ground”
The thing does look just like a prop from a 1950s sci-fi film.
I've never seen the point of sending people to Mars. It requires vast amounts of support - food, water, oxygen, waste disposal, fuel, etc. - all hurled tens of millions of miles, just for being able to say "We've been there, briefly."
We now know to a certainty - from our robots and satellites - that the place is unrelentingly hostile. The surface layer may even be poisonous.
I love the idea of exploring Mars, but our robots now can do ten-times the job of which humans are capable.
And they can do it at a fraction of the cost.
Really, this is comic-book stuff, not science. Fun, maybe, if you're not paying the bills.
And, of course, Musk isn't. Everything he does involves subsidies - the rockets hugely so from NASA and the Pentagon - or manipulation in the stock market to get his hands on new cash.
He's a "dreamer," yes, but, first and foremost, he's the new American P. T. Barnum.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: RUSSIA's GIANT ROSNEFT NOW SELLING MOST OF VENEZUELA'S OIL - HUMAN INGENUITY AND BLUNDERING IMPERIAL STUPIDITY - UNINTENDED SIDE EFFECTS OF AMERICAN SANCTIONS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Russia Now Resells 66% of Venezuela’s Oil for It, Helping with US Sanctions
“Afraid of sanctions? Buy Venezuelan crude from Rosneft”
“My guess is that when the current Rosneft loan to Venezuela is repaid, the two may book another, possibly entirely fictitious loan, just so that the practice may continue”
It's just great to see human ingenuity overcoming blundering imperial stupidity.
This development - along with some others, such as rapidly-developing Russian ties with China, or Russia's emphasis on import substitution, to say nothing of the fate of the American dollar - I think shows us what unintended consequences heavy-handed sanctions policies can have.
I’m not even considering all the harm done to millions of innocent people by illegal sanctions because those in Washington conducting this “war by another means” just couldn’t care less about them.
But they should care about some of the unintended consequences of sanctions because they are matters that will shift future relationships, alliances, and balances of power.
The fact is that people adapt to adverse conditions over time, whether natural or man-made, always.
That that is ignored by those now trying to run the planet from the Oval Office is just further proof of how foolish and dangerous they really are.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Russia Now Resells 66% of Venezuela’s Oil for It, Helping with US Sanctions
“Afraid of sanctions? Buy Venezuelan crude from Rosneft”
“My guess is that when the current Rosneft loan to Venezuela is repaid, the two may book another, possibly entirely fictitious loan, just so that the practice may continue”
It's just great to see human ingenuity overcoming blundering imperial stupidity.
This development - along with some others, such as rapidly-developing Russian ties with China, or Russia's emphasis on import substitution, to say nothing of the fate of the American dollar - I think shows us what unintended consequences heavy-handed sanctions policies can have.
I’m not even considering all the harm done to millions of innocent people by illegal sanctions because those in Washington conducting this “war by another means” just couldn’t care less about them.
But they should care about some of the unintended consequences of sanctions because they are matters that will shift future relationships, alliances, and balances of power.
The fact is that people adapt to adverse conditions over time, whether natural or man-made, always.
That that is ignored by those now trying to run the planet from the Oval Office is just further proof of how foolish and dangerous they really are.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DECLINES TO PROSECUTE FORMER FBI DIRECTOR COMEY - PROSECUTE FOR LEAKS? IN WASHINGTON? - GOVERNMENT BY CHILDREN WITH TOO MUCH MONEY AND NOT ENOUGH TO DO
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
“James Comey broke FBI rules, but didn't share classified info: report
“Inspector general report deals with several incidents, including Comey using friend to get memo out
“Trump deemed Comey ‘thoroughly disgraced and excoriated’”
What complete silliness.
If anyone started prosecuting Washington figures for leaking information, they would have to prosecute every single member of the government and all the heads of agencies.
And American newspapers, including columnists, would have to focus on sports or fashion.
And how absolutely clownish of Trump to even think a former FBI Director would be prosecuted for doing such a thing.
It literally is government by children, children with a lot of attitude, children with too much money, and children with not enough worthwhile to do.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
“James Comey broke FBI rules, but didn't share classified info: report
“Inspector general report deals with several incidents, including Comey using friend to get memo out
“Trump deemed Comey ‘thoroughly disgraced and excoriated’”
What complete silliness.
If anyone started prosecuting Washington figures for leaking information, they would have to prosecute every single member of the government and all the heads of agencies.
And American newspapers, including columnists, would have to focus on sports or fashion.
And how absolutely clownish of Trump to even think a former FBI Director would be prosecuted for doing such a thing.
It literally is government by children, children with a lot of attitude, children with too much money, and children with not enough worthwhile to do.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: TULSI GABBARD IS DROPPED FROM THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION DEBATE - ABOUT THE ONLY CANDIDATE THEY HAD WORTH LISTENING TO - THE ESTABLISHMENT WINS ALL POLITICAL CONTESTS IN AMERICA
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“10 Democrats set for next debate as several others miss cut”
I just knew it.
The only candidate in the pack who is brave and informed enough to deal with such important matters as war and peace, Ms. Tulsi Gabbard, has been dropped.
Hers are issues never even discussed in America's corporate press or by its predictable, lobby-serving politicians.
The establishment hates people like her, and the American establishment very much includes the Democrats as well as the Republicans.
They are really two wings of the same Imperial War Party, each wing advocating different domestic social policies, policies which have zero chance of ever seeing the light of day in an America spending about a trillion dollars a year on wars and interventions and coups.
That figure includes costs like CIA and other security agencies (of which America has 17) in addition to the Pentagon. And it is all money America does not have. America doesn’t even have any loose change in its pockets, but that doesn't stop its reckless piling up of huge debts.
And for what? To bomb and to invade and to control.
Indeed, the Democrats since WWII have, if anything, been almost more of a war party than the Republicans. Truman in Korea. Johnson in Vietnam. Clinton in Serbia. Obama in Syria, Libya, and other places.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“10 Democrats set for next debate as several others miss cut”
I just knew it.
The only candidate in the pack who is brave and informed enough to deal with such important matters as war and peace, Ms. Tulsi Gabbard, has been dropped.
Hers are issues never even discussed in America's corporate press or by its predictable, lobby-serving politicians.
The establishment hates people like her, and the American establishment very much includes the Democrats as well as the Republicans.
They are really two wings of the same Imperial War Party, each wing advocating different domestic social policies, policies which have zero chance of ever seeing the light of day in an America spending about a trillion dollars a year on wars and interventions and coups.
That figure includes costs like CIA and other security agencies (of which America has 17) in addition to the Pentagon. And it is all money America does not have. America doesn’t even have any loose change in its pockets, but that doesn't stop its reckless piling up of huge debts.
And for what? To bomb and to invade and to control.
Indeed, the Democrats since WWII have, if anything, been almost more of a war party than the Republicans. Truman in Korea. Johnson in Vietnam. Clinton in Serbia. Obama in Syria, Libya, and other places.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: HERE'S WHAT THAT EXPLOSION AT A MILITARY TEST SITE IN RUSSIA WAS ALMOST CERTAINLY ABOUT - EXPERT SCOTT RITTER'S PAST WORTHY EFFORT TO TELL US THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ'S "WMD" BEFORE BUSH INVADED - HIS RECENT EFFORT TO TELL US THE TRUTH ABOUT SYRIA'S "POISON GAS" BEFORE TRUMP HURLED A FLEET OF MISSILES
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY SCOTT RITTER IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Here Is What Russia Was Really Testing in the Radiation Explosion Accident
“Russia wants "autonomous" missiles in canisters that can be dumped on the ocean floor and wait years and decades to be activated remotely”
https://www.checkpointasia.net/here-is-what-russia-was-really-testing-in-the-radiation-explosion-accident/
A very clear and convincing explanation of what happened in Russia with the military test accident.
You might wonder how the author could tell such a detailed story, including so many technical aspects.
Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector working in Iraq for most of the 1990s.
He became famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for his public statements about there being absolutely no WMD in Iraq at the time America was so eager to invade, using the very pretext of Iraq possessing WMD.
Ritter was right, of course.
But you can never be regarded as right by Western press and politicians when you say anything casting doubt on an Israeli project, which is very much what the American invasion of Iraq was.
It was step one in America's sandblasting much of the Middle East for Israel's satisfaction. Two million or so deaths later, when you include the other parts of the project such as Syria and Libya, and here we are playing at the same dirty game yet once more, this time with Iran.
Fortunately, a number of major countries are committed to the Iran nuclear agreement, and that makes it harder for America and Israel to launch another disaster. Although we must remember that the United States failed to secure UN support for its war on Iraq, and just went right ahead anyway.
Iran also is a major country with about four times the population Iraq had at the time America invaded, and it is a country which has prepared itself for American hostilities since the dreadful 8-year long Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s that America secretly encouraged and supplied in order to damage Iran. That unwelcome and very bloody war did teach Iran many hard lessons.
So, we might just make it through the current Israeli initiative without seeing yet another country it hates being incinerated. But there is an unbalanced loon at the helm in America, and always when you threaten with war machines, there is opportunity for error.
I digress, but it is interesting stuff to me.
So, given his background, Scott Ritter is undoubtedly extremely well-connected to weapons experts and intelligence services to obtain such information.
Ritter has also stated the truth about Syrian events, such as the staged poison gas attack in Ghouta, an event America used as an excuse to launch a fleet of cruise missiles against Syria. Ritter has been harshly criticized for his statements about Syria.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY SCOTT RITTER IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Here Is What Russia Was Really Testing in the Radiation Explosion Accident
“Russia wants "autonomous" missiles in canisters that can be dumped on the ocean floor and wait years and decades to be activated remotely”
https://www.checkpointasia.net/here-is-what-russia-was-really-testing-in-the-radiation-explosion-accident/
A very clear and convincing explanation of what happened in Russia with the military test accident.
You might wonder how the author could tell such a detailed story, including so many technical aspects.
Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector working in Iraq for most of the 1990s.
He became famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for his public statements about there being absolutely no WMD in Iraq at the time America was so eager to invade, using the very pretext of Iraq possessing WMD.
Ritter was right, of course.
But you can never be regarded as right by Western press and politicians when you say anything casting doubt on an Israeli project, which is very much what the American invasion of Iraq was.
It was step one in America's sandblasting much of the Middle East for Israel's satisfaction. Two million or so deaths later, when you include the other parts of the project such as Syria and Libya, and here we are playing at the same dirty game yet once more, this time with Iran.
Fortunately, a number of major countries are committed to the Iran nuclear agreement, and that makes it harder for America and Israel to launch another disaster. Although we must remember that the United States failed to secure UN support for its war on Iraq, and just went right ahead anyway.
Iran also is a major country with about four times the population Iraq had at the time America invaded, and it is a country which has prepared itself for American hostilities since the dreadful 8-year long Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s that America secretly encouraged and supplied in order to damage Iran. That unwelcome and very bloody war did teach Iran many hard lessons.
So, we might just make it through the current Israeli initiative without seeing yet another country it hates being incinerated. But there is an unbalanced loon at the helm in America, and always when you threaten with war machines, there is opportunity for error.
I digress, but it is interesting stuff to me.
So, given his background, Scott Ritter is undoubtedly extremely well-connected to weapons experts and intelligence services to obtain such information.
Ritter has also stated the truth about Syrian events, such as the staged poison gas attack in Ghouta, an event America used as an excuse to launch a fleet of cruise missiles against Syria. Ritter has been harshly criticized for his statements about Syria.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ONCE HAVING RISEN TO AN IMPORTANT CABINET POST (IN WHICH HE SERVED WITH NO DISTINCTION) UNDER THE CONSERVATIVES, CANADA'S MAXIME BERNIER HAS FORMED HIS OWN PARTY - HE'S HAVING TROUBLE GAINING TRACTION AND SO HE ATTACKS IMMIGRATION AS A WAY TO MAKE LOTS OF NOISE
John Chuckman
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“After outcry, company to remove pro-Bernier billboards that criticize 'mass immigration'”
[MAXIME BERNIER’S BILLBOARDS READ: ‘SAY “NO” TO MASS IMMIGRATION’]
Bernier’s signs offer a strawman argument.
I'm not aware of any politician in the country advocating "mass immigration.”
So, he's arguing against something which really doesn't exist.
What that does, though, is allow him to have signs with the words "no" and "immigration" together on them. Those are the words on which the eyes of xenophobes will focus.
Without the "mass" inserted, the billboards of course would be immediately and totally unacceptable.
So, it's really a dirty little game of playing with words.
And how do you even define what constitutes "mass immigration"?
His use of language tells us something quite unpleasant about Bernier.
________________________
All advanced countries have birth rates which point to declining future populations.
All of them, and for many reasons, including low infant mortality compared to years ago and the fact that modern women have careers they don't want to be away from.
Children are also more expensive to raise than ever, pinching budgets for ambitious families.
It's all part of a well-known economic and social phenomenon called Demographic Transition.
So, some rate of immigration is needed just to have a long-term future as a country.
A country like Japan, for example, is actually heading into population decline, an extremely serious long-term problem.
That country historically has little in-migration. Its “isolated” language, some of its cultural attitudes (strong racial views and rigid social norms are part of its history), plus crowding and high costs have all militated against it as a destination for migrants.
Key policy matters governments need to determine are the quantity and quality of that future inflow of migrants, and the methods for evaluating them.
The ugly dishonesty of Bernier's billboards is that they speak against "mass immigration," something that in fact no one advocates.
Again, that's just a shabby way to have the two words "no" and "immigration" put together on a big sign.
Also, please do not confuse "immigrants" with "refugees," as some comments here very much have done. They are two different matters entirely.
Apart from moral considerations, Canada has international treaty obligations around accepting people who are proven to be genuine refugees (and not just would-be migrants trying to jump the queue with false claims).
_________________
Response to a comment saying, “I wonder what opportunities my children will have in 10 years when 3.5 million people have been brought into Canada for votes”:
Population growth is an important factor in economic growth.
Check any Economics 101 text.
_________________
Response to a comment, saying “It used to be. With the world's current rate of population growth, it will become unsustainable in the very near future”:
I just do not agree. Basic economics doesn't change with population growth.
That's a bit like saying that, at some point, two plus two equals five.
And that word "unsustainable" is a very squishy one.
It's used now a lot, but I'm not sure what it means in any context, beyond meaning that the speaker doesn't like something.
_______________________
Response to a comment saying, “So again. If the "right" has an opinion, they are drowned out and screamed at by the "left". This is crazy”:
Sorry, the billboard really isn't just the expression of an opinion.
It's a form of name-calling.
_________________________
"Totalitarian leftist mob" - quote from Maxime Bernier describing those who insisted his billboards come down.
Those are the words of an angry 16-year old spouting slogans he's seen on Alt-Right sites.
But recall some of the stunts Bernier pulled as a Harper's foreign minister, however briefly.
One, in particular, spoke strongly to the quality of the guy as a responsible leader.
He had a batch of secret NATO meeting papers that he forgot, leaving them at his girlfriend's house for an extended period.
And who was his girlfriend? She was described in the stories of the time as a former biker gang associate.
Apart from a serious security breach, he obviously never read them.
This is a man who wants to head a government, any government?
I think his situation is best characterized as ambition without any of the required supporting skills.
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“After outcry, company to remove pro-Bernier billboards that criticize 'mass immigration'”
[MAXIME BERNIER’S BILLBOARDS READ: ‘SAY “NO” TO MASS IMMIGRATION’]
Bernier’s signs offer a strawman argument.
I'm not aware of any politician in the country advocating "mass immigration.”
So, he's arguing against something which really doesn't exist.
What that does, though, is allow him to have signs with the words "no" and "immigration" together on them. Those are the words on which the eyes of xenophobes will focus.
Without the "mass" inserted, the billboards of course would be immediately and totally unacceptable.
So, it's really a dirty little game of playing with words.
And how do you even define what constitutes "mass immigration"?
His use of language tells us something quite unpleasant about Bernier.
________________________
All advanced countries have birth rates which point to declining future populations.
All of them, and for many reasons, including low infant mortality compared to years ago and the fact that modern women have careers they don't want to be away from.
Children are also more expensive to raise than ever, pinching budgets for ambitious families.
It's all part of a well-known economic and social phenomenon called Demographic Transition.
So, some rate of immigration is needed just to have a long-term future as a country.
A country like Japan, for example, is actually heading into population decline, an extremely serious long-term problem.
That country historically has little in-migration. Its “isolated” language, some of its cultural attitudes (strong racial views and rigid social norms are part of its history), plus crowding and high costs have all militated against it as a destination for migrants.
Key policy matters governments need to determine are the quantity and quality of that future inflow of migrants, and the methods for evaluating them.
The ugly dishonesty of Bernier's billboards is that they speak against "mass immigration," something that in fact no one advocates.
Again, that's just a shabby way to have the two words "no" and "immigration" put together on a big sign.
Also, please do not confuse "immigrants" with "refugees," as some comments here very much have done. They are two different matters entirely.
Apart from moral considerations, Canada has international treaty obligations around accepting people who are proven to be genuine refugees (and not just would-be migrants trying to jump the queue with false claims).
_________________
Response to a comment saying, “I wonder what opportunities my children will have in 10 years when 3.5 million people have been brought into Canada for votes”:
Population growth is an important factor in economic growth.
Check any Economics 101 text.
_________________
Response to a comment, saying “It used to be. With the world's current rate of population growth, it will become unsustainable in the very near future”:
I just do not agree. Basic economics doesn't change with population growth.
That's a bit like saying that, at some point, two plus two equals five.
And that word "unsustainable" is a very squishy one.
It's used now a lot, but I'm not sure what it means in any context, beyond meaning that the speaker doesn't like something.
_______________________
Response to a comment saying, “So again. If the "right" has an opinion, they are drowned out and screamed at by the "left". This is crazy”:
Sorry, the billboard really isn't just the expression of an opinion.
It's a form of name-calling.
_________________________
"Totalitarian leftist mob" - quote from Maxime Bernier describing those who insisted his billboards come down.
Those are the words of an angry 16-year old spouting slogans he's seen on Alt-Right sites.
But recall some of the stunts Bernier pulled as a Harper's foreign minister, however briefly.
One, in particular, spoke strongly to the quality of the guy as a responsible leader.
He had a batch of secret NATO meeting papers that he forgot, leaving them at his girlfriend's house for an extended period.
And who was his girlfriend? She was described in the stories of the time as a former biker gang associate.
Apart from a serious security breach, he obviously never read them.
This is a man who wants to head a government, any government?
I think his situation is best characterized as ambition without any of the required supporting skills.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: WHY THERE'S LITTLE REASON TO GET EXCITED ABOUT MACRON'S DIPLOMATIC EFFORT WITH IRAN AND TRUMP - FACTS CAN'T CHANGE TRUMP'S HOSTILITY BECAUSE IT ISN'T BASED ON FACTS - WHAT SERVES HIS PERSONAL NEEDS WILL REMAIN AMERICAN "POLICY" - HE REALLY IS THAT MUCH OF A NARCISSIST
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
"Macron's diplomatic bet pays off as Trump strikes more measured tone on Iran"
I hope the author is right, but I rather doubt it.
We've seen Trump often temporarily swing this way or that on any number of matters.
The truth with Trump on Iran is that his hostility about Iran is entirely self-serving. I'm not sure he has any genuine feelings, or even real knowledge, about the country.
Some while back, he approached some American oligarchs for support when he felt he might be threatened in his office.
Their price was this mindless hostility towards a law-abiding country that Israel just hates for its size and influence in the region. Israel wants no competition or opposition in its region.
It hides that fact behind a patently false claim that Iran is a threat. That's also how we got ghastly appointments like Bolton and Pompeo. They are both men who admire, and are admired by, Netanyahu.
In the end, Trump is a perfect narcissist. What benefits him personally becomes American "policy."
He truly is no more complicated than that, and of course that makes him very dangerous.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
"Macron's diplomatic bet pays off as Trump strikes more measured tone on Iran"
I hope the author is right, but I rather doubt it.
We've seen Trump often temporarily swing this way or that on any number of matters.
The truth with Trump on Iran is that his hostility about Iran is entirely self-serving. I'm not sure he has any genuine feelings, or even real knowledge, about the country.
Some while back, he approached some American oligarchs for support when he felt he might be threatened in his office.
Their price was this mindless hostility towards a law-abiding country that Israel just hates for its size and influence in the region. Israel wants no competition or opposition in its region.
It hides that fact behind a patently false claim that Iran is a threat. That's also how we got ghastly appointments like Bolton and Pompeo. They are both men who admire, and are admired by, Netanyahu.
In the end, Trump is a perfect narcissist. What benefits him personally becomes American "policy."
He truly is no more complicated than that, and of course that makes him very dangerous.
Saturday, August 24, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICAN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISRAEL - WHAT ALWAYS WAS SOMETHING OF AN UNNATURAL RELATIONSHIP SHOWS SOME SIGNS OF DETERIORATING - WHY THIS IS ONLY TO BE EXPECTED AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PREJUDICE - A NOTE ON THE EVANGELICALS AND TRUMP
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Antisemitic beliefs spreading among evangelical Christians in America
"Why do we have pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ values, and we do not have more freedom to protect our faith?"
Evangelicals, despite Old Testament story connections, were not traditionally overly friendly towards Jews and Jewish interests.
Jews were not "saved," and for a true Evangelical, that is the make-or-break criterion in judging all relationships.
Over and above that, there is the plain fact that American Jews in general were never particularly fond of Evangelicals, some Jews even being rather contemptuous.
I am aware of these things because I grew up in a neighborhood that had a substantial Jewish population. It had also a significant Evangelical population, especially people of Swedish origin, plus a very large Catholic population, people of Irish and Eastern European origins.
Recent connections between Evangelicals and Jews concerning Israel I think are not built with lasting bonds. However, that does not mean that changes in attitude may be accurately characterized as “anti-Semitic,” as your headline does.
We’ve lost all capacity for subtlety and nuance in contemporary society, and just not caring for someone or some interests in fact does not automatically connote hate or anti-anything, it only means a preference for those resembling yourself and sharing common interests.
That ipso-facto way of looking at things such as personal likes and preferences and describing them as hate is now regularly pushed at us in popular media and politics, but that fact alone certainly doesn’t make the claims accurate.
Recent past connections between Evangelicals and Jews at least in part reflect certain American Evangelical leaders and their personal relationships with Israel’s leadership and America's Israel lobby. An Israeli leader like Netanyahu has actually sought out some these guys in the past to cultivate, and that clearly represents a pragmatic political connection having little to do with fundamental views or values.
Those Evangelical leaders, more ambitious political leaders and empire builders than truly religious leaders, I'm pretty sure never reflected what's really in the average Evangelical's heart on the matter.
And those leaders are getting old and some of them have died off, so over time you might expect a change in attitudes. I’m referring to men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Also, such leadership is subject to abrupt change, as we saw in the case of Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart. The preaching business is a fairly volatile one.
You can find, for example, Evangelical businessmen who do not like to do business with the "unsaved" of any description. And it's the same for bonds of friendship. Parts of the American Jewish community, especially the orthodox, display the same kind of preferences.
In Israel, it is actually illegal to proselytize Jews for conversion, a law indicating a very deep separation in values between Evangelicals and Israelis. And it is well known that many parts of the American Jewish community, again especially conservatives, frown on marriage with non-Jews, a view that has often been expressed publicly.
Another factor at work here is that long enough exposure to the harsh realities of modern Israel might be enough to convince even some fervent believers that any relationship between it and the Israel of the Bible is pretty much wishful thinking. Certainly, we know there are American Jews who feel that very way.
I think the existing alliance with Israel’s interest has some parallels with the current alliance of some Evangelical leaders and Donald Trump. It is political in nature and largely synthetic. In some respects, almost unnatural.
Trump represents absolutely no fundamental Evangelical value. He is often foul-mouthed, dishonest, unfaithful, and he is, most certainly, “unsaved.” I am sure many ordinary Evangelicals are uncomfortable with a political relationship some of their politically ambitious leaders promote.
Any strength in the bond comes only from the sloshing overflow of American Patriotism into American Evangelism plus some attitudes like racism and xenophobia, both not impossible to find anywhere in America, including in American fundamentalism. But when so many other factors are wrong, I think the bond cannot not strong or enduring.
There is also the simple fact of a gradual decline in the number of traditional American fundamentalists. Evangelism is fading.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
“Antisemitic beliefs spreading among evangelical Christians in America
"Why do we have pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ values, and we do not have more freedom to protect our faith?"
Evangelicals, despite Old Testament story connections, were not traditionally overly friendly towards Jews and Jewish interests.
Jews were not "saved," and for a true Evangelical, that is the make-or-break criterion in judging all relationships.
Over and above that, there is the plain fact that American Jews in general were never particularly fond of Evangelicals, some Jews even being rather contemptuous.
I am aware of these things because I grew up in a neighborhood that had a substantial Jewish population. It had also a significant Evangelical population, especially people of Swedish origin, plus a very large Catholic population, people of Irish and Eastern European origins.
Recent connections between Evangelicals and Jews concerning Israel I think are not built with lasting bonds. However, that does not mean that changes in attitude may be accurately characterized as “anti-Semitic,” as your headline does.
We’ve lost all capacity for subtlety and nuance in contemporary society, and just not caring for someone or some interests in fact does not automatically connote hate or anti-anything, it only means a preference for those resembling yourself and sharing common interests.
That ipso-facto way of looking at things such as personal likes and preferences and describing them as hate is now regularly pushed at us in popular media and politics, but that fact alone certainly doesn’t make the claims accurate.
Recent past connections between Evangelicals and Jews at least in part reflect certain American Evangelical leaders and their personal relationships with Israel’s leadership and America's Israel lobby. An Israeli leader like Netanyahu has actually sought out some these guys in the past to cultivate, and that clearly represents a pragmatic political connection having little to do with fundamental views or values.
Those Evangelical leaders, more ambitious political leaders and empire builders than truly religious leaders, I'm pretty sure never reflected what's really in the average Evangelical's heart on the matter.
And those leaders are getting old and some of them have died off, so over time you might expect a change in attitudes. I’m referring to men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Also, such leadership is subject to abrupt change, as we saw in the case of Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart. The preaching business is a fairly volatile one.
You can find, for example, Evangelical businessmen who do not like to do business with the "unsaved" of any description. And it's the same for bonds of friendship. Parts of the American Jewish community, especially the orthodox, display the same kind of preferences.
In Israel, it is actually illegal to proselytize Jews for conversion, a law indicating a very deep separation in values between Evangelicals and Israelis. And it is well known that many parts of the American Jewish community, again especially conservatives, frown on marriage with non-Jews, a view that has often been expressed publicly.
Another factor at work here is that long enough exposure to the harsh realities of modern Israel might be enough to convince even some fervent believers that any relationship between it and the Israel of the Bible is pretty much wishful thinking. Certainly, we know there are American Jews who feel that very way.
I think the existing alliance with Israel’s interest has some parallels with the current alliance of some Evangelical leaders and Donald Trump. It is political in nature and largely synthetic. In some respects, almost unnatural.
Trump represents absolutely no fundamental Evangelical value. He is often foul-mouthed, dishonest, unfaithful, and he is, most certainly, “unsaved.” I am sure many ordinary Evangelicals are uncomfortable with a political relationship some of their politically ambitious leaders promote.
Any strength in the bond comes only from the sloshing overflow of American Patriotism into American Evangelism plus some attitudes like racism and xenophobia, both not impossible to find anywhere in America, including in American fundamentalism. But when so many other factors are wrong, I think the bond cannot not strong or enduring.
There is also the simple fact of a gradual decline in the number of traditional American fundamentalists. Evangelism is fading.
Friday, August 23, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO DESCRIBED AS "TOXIN" BY A FOREIGN MINISTER - BUT CANADA'S TRUDEAU HAS HIM OVER TO "HELP" WITH CHINA - TRUDEAU EARLIER HAD RUSHED DOWN TO TRUMP TO PLEAD FOR HELP - TRUMP AND POMPEO HAVE ABOUT THE SAME INFLUENCE IN CHINA AS A PAIR OF ESCAPED CONVICTS WOULD
John Chuckman
COMMENT ON MIKE POMPEO’S VISIT TO CANADA IN AN OSTENSIBLE EFFORT TO HELP THE TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT OVER ITS PROBLEMS WITH CHINA
North Korea’s Foreign Minister recently described Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as “the toxin of American diplomacy,” calling for him to be replaced in denuclearization talks “with someone who can communicate more cautiously.”
Even though people in North America tend to discredit all things North Korean, I do think this high official’s words, concerning negotiations of interest to the entire world, must be credited.
The Foreign Minister said that “all things into which Pompeo thrusts himself go wrong and end up in failure though they had showed signs of promise.” That is exactly what has happened with the denuclearization talks Pompeo took charge of and aggressively upended like a table full of chess pieces. The talks are essentially over.
Yet here’s Canada’s sad team on international affairs, Prime Minister Trudeau and Foreign Minister Freeland, inviting Pompeo to Ottawa, inviting him to speak about China, and giving him a platform for his extreme and prejudiced views.
Trudeau did his usual “smile and shake hands and look benign and well-dressed” routine. Chrystia Freeland, who scowls far more than she smiles, sometimes even her efforts at smiling being mistaken for scowls, joined right in with Pompeo, the local selected back-up singer for his bravura guest performance.
She is, after all, we know from released confidential State Department documents, this awful Washington government’s friendly contact person in Ottawa.
Pompeo’s empty words about detained Canadians in China were public relations crumbs tossed for the benefit of the Trudeau government.
That unpleasant, dishonest man, Pompeo, knows perfectly well that he and Donald Trump have about as much credibility and influence in China as a pair of escaped convicts.
He can help Canada not at all (other than by withdrawing an arrest warrant which should never have been issued, something these harsh ideologues are certainly not about to do). One might expect Trudeau to understand those obvious facts, but he does not seem to do so.
Trudeau plays a game of “our American friends are trying to help us” while ignoring the key to the entire set of problems between China and Canada, Canada’s unwarranted arrest, at America’s request, of a senior executive of a Chinese world-scale technological company.
Trudeau is too timid and weak to take any decisive action – oh, can you just imagine his ferocious father Pierre’s approach in such a matter? – and he has assumed the passive role of victim patiently waiting for rescue by the forces of justice. It’s extremely off-putting, but it seems to be the best he can summon to help get him through an upcoming October election.
Of course, Washington can only support the charade, so Pompeo’s visit, which had other purposes, was stretched to include words of sympathy for Trudeau. A Secretary of State flying in specially to help poor little Canada against big mean old China. A scene with clouds parting for a descending warrior angel. Good stage show, and it fits right in with all Washington’s many attacks on China, even if it is just a trifle obvious.
That arrest by Canada of a senior Chinese executive, Ms. Meng Wanzhou, of course should have been avoided at all cost, as any competent leader would know and would have managed, by one means or another, if nothing else beyond quietly warning her not to come or not to land.
But not Canada’s Trudeau and Freeland. They stand by their dull and destructive decision to enforce a warrant from Washington which also could easily have been shot full of holes as an illegitimate use of criminal justice procedures in Trump’s trade war with the world’s second largest economy. Extradition warrants are not diktats. They must comply with a number of requirements, the fulfillment of any of which is subject to judgment.
Their decision to exercise no imagination and no real effort has caused colossal problems for Canada and undoubtedly damaged future prospects with China, a nation with whom we’ve long had excellent relations.
Just pure incompetence, although that’s a charge likely more applicable to Trudeau than to Freeland, a Canadian Neocon-Lite who could be expected to go out of her way to stress the utmost importance of any request coming from Washington. In that sense, Trudeau really may be something of a victim, but it’s self-inflicted state for a head of government with ultimate authority in such matters.
Can you just imagine what the extremely belligerent Pompeo would be saying had, at some point, unrelated to these matters, China arrested the Chief Financial Officer of Microsoft or Apple on trumped-up charges? Not just saying, but doing?
Undoubtedly, the real reasons for Pompeo’s visit - the task of tossing a few public relations crumbs for Trudeau, who does look to lose the upcoming election, being a gracious add-on - included telling Freeland what he expected from her on her forthcoming visit to Cuba concerning Venezuela. Also, undoubtedly, what was expected from Canada at the upcoming G7 in Biarritz, France.
Such is the reality of foreign policy in Canada today.
COMMENT ON MIKE POMPEO’S VISIT TO CANADA IN AN OSTENSIBLE EFFORT TO HELP THE TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT OVER ITS PROBLEMS WITH CHINA
North Korea’s Foreign Minister recently described Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as “the toxin of American diplomacy,” calling for him to be replaced in denuclearization talks “with someone who can communicate more cautiously.”
Even though people in North America tend to discredit all things North Korean, I do think this high official’s words, concerning negotiations of interest to the entire world, must be credited.
The Foreign Minister said that “all things into which Pompeo thrusts himself go wrong and end up in failure though they had showed signs of promise.” That is exactly what has happened with the denuclearization talks Pompeo took charge of and aggressively upended like a table full of chess pieces. The talks are essentially over.
Yet here’s Canada’s sad team on international affairs, Prime Minister Trudeau and Foreign Minister Freeland, inviting Pompeo to Ottawa, inviting him to speak about China, and giving him a platform for his extreme and prejudiced views.
Trudeau did his usual “smile and shake hands and look benign and well-dressed” routine. Chrystia Freeland, who scowls far more than she smiles, sometimes even her efforts at smiling being mistaken for scowls, joined right in with Pompeo, the local selected back-up singer for his bravura guest performance.
She is, after all, we know from released confidential State Department documents, this awful Washington government’s friendly contact person in Ottawa.
Pompeo’s empty words about detained Canadians in China were public relations crumbs tossed for the benefit of the Trudeau government.
That unpleasant, dishonest man, Pompeo, knows perfectly well that he and Donald Trump have about as much credibility and influence in China as a pair of escaped convicts.
He can help Canada not at all (other than by withdrawing an arrest warrant which should never have been issued, something these harsh ideologues are certainly not about to do). One might expect Trudeau to understand those obvious facts, but he does not seem to do so.
Trudeau plays a game of “our American friends are trying to help us” while ignoring the key to the entire set of problems between China and Canada, Canada’s unwarranted arrest, at America’s request, of a senior executive of a Chinese world-scale technological company.
Trudeau is too timid and weak to take any decisive action – oh, can you just imagine his ferocious father Pierre’s approach in such a matter? – and he has assumed the passive role of victim patiently waiting for rescue by the forces of justice. It’s extremely off-putting, but it seems to be the best he can summon to help get him through an upcoming October election.
Of course, Washington can only support the charade, so Pompeo’s visit, which had other purposes, was stretched to include words of sympathy for Trudeau. A Secretary of State flying in specially to help poor little Canada against big mean old China. A scene with clouds parting for a descending warrior angel. Good stage show, and it fits right in with all Washington’s many attacks on China, even if it is just a trifle obvious.
That arrest by Canada of a senior Chinese executive, Ms. Meng Wanzhou, of course should have been avoided at all cost, as any competent leader would know and would have managed, by one means or another, if nothing else beyond quietly warning her not to come or not to land.
But not Canada’s Trudeau and Freeland. They stand by their dull and destructive decision to enforce a warrant from Washington which also could easily have been shot full of holes as an illegitimate use of criminal justice procedures in Trump’s trade war with the world’s second largest economy. Extradition warrants are not diktats. They must comply with a number of requirements, the fulfillment of any of which is subject to judgment.
Their decision to exercise no imagination and no real effort has caused colossal problems for Canada and undoubtedly damaged future prospects with China, a nation with whom we’ve long had excellent relations.
Just pure incompetence, although that’s a charge likely more applicable to Trudeau than to Freeland, a Canadian Neocon-Lite who could be expected to go out of her way to stress the utmost importance of any request coming from Washington. In that sense, Trudeau really may be something of a victim, but it’s self-inflicted state for a head of government with ultimate authority in such matters.
Can you just imagine what the extremely belligerent Pompeo would be saying had, at some point, unrelated to these matters, China arrested the Chief Financial Officer of Microsoft or Apple on trumped-up charges? Not just saying, but doing?
Undoubtedly, the real reasons for Pompeo’s visit - the task of tossing a few public relations crumbs for Trudeau, who does look to lose the upcoming election, being a gracious add-on - included telling Freeland what he expected from her on her forthcoming visit to Cuba concerning Venezuela. Also, undoubtedly, what was expected from Canada at the upcoming G7 in Biarritz, France.
Such is the reality of foreign policy in Canada today.
Thursday, August 22, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: CANADA'S JUSTIN TRUDEAU MAKES A FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH - HE NEEDN'T HAVE BOTHERED - IT'S FULL OF CLICHES AND EVEN OUTDATED TERMS AND IT EMBARRASSINGLY REVEALS HIM AS THE POSEUR THAT HE IS - MY CONCLUSION: AT THE VERY LEAST, TRUDEAU DESPERATELY NEEDS A NEW SPEECHWRITER
John Chuckman
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“Trudeau rails against Conservatives in foreign policy speech
“'They envision a world where Canada flirts with the forces of populism,' says PM of Tories”
'They envision a world where Canada flirts with the forces of populism'
Well, for me, someone with an abiding interest in international affairs and who prides himself a little on his knowledge of them, those words of Trudeau's pretty much top everything stomach-churning he's ever said.
Please, who is the world's premier example of contemporary "populism'?
Donald Trump, of course.
Now, can you name a single significant policy of Trump's that our wonderful team of Trudeau-Freeland departs from?
Overthrowing an elected government in Venezuela? Freeland chairs the outfit created by CIA to help do it, the Lima Group.
Saudi Arabia's many horrors from killing women and children in Yemen and in Saudi Arabia, in efforts against minority Shia, to record numbers of beheadings and to a grisly murder which implicates the very leader of the country?
Canada's heroic response? Never say a word about the horrors of Yemen and never say a word against a man who is perhaps the world’s most horrific leader today (a man beloved by Trump and Netanyahu), and keep selling those light tanks to him, baby!
America's absurd and truly dangerous attacks against China on a half dozen fronts? Hey, if you've heard Trump's words on the subject, no need to listen to Freeland's feeble hinterland echo.
Russophobia? A Freeland speciality. Unwarranted attacks on Iran? Boy, she’s made Ottawa an echo chamber for that.
And, of course, we've actually had the boy wonder fly down to Trump to plead for special help with China, help on a problem caused by Trudeau and Freeland themselves. Very impressive recent background for giving a speech on ugly populist leaders.
Trudeau's speech is so disingenuous, so vacuous, I'd literally vote for anyone but him.
_______________________________
Well, there's one thing we know for sure, Trudeau is not an "Isolationist," a word from 1930s America which truly has no meaning anymore, but there’s still room for it in a Trudeau speech on foreign policy.
It applied to Americans who thought America should stay home and mind its own business. America hadn’t yet quite become a global empire. That came with the end of WWII.
They were mainly conservative types, but not exclusively.
But, just look at what the Right gives us today in America.
The likes of Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo, ready to tell everyone else on the planet what they should do and how they should do it, with the threat of serious economic consequences or military action against them, if they don't.
That's as far from Isolationism as it gets, and there is absolutely nothing good to say about it. It actually is behavior reminiscent of the ugly forces America struggled over going to war with in the 1930s, forces so ugly that opposing going to war with them gave Isolationism its enduring bad name.
I say we know Trudeau isn't an Isolationist because he loyally and faithfully serves Trump in every significant part of foreign policy.
I really think Trudeau needs a new speechwriter. These are half-ridiculous words.
“Isolationism” doesn't even exist anymore as a movement. The word is dated and almost meaningless. And Trudeau tries to apply it where it wouldn’t fit under any circumstances.
But if it did have a place today, it would actually be preferable to supporting the Trump-Bolton-Pompeo axis of violent interference in the affairs of others, something to which Trudeau makes no objection, and is, indeed, a willing helper.
A threadbare speech, full of clichés, plainly outmoded concepts, and earnest efforts to position himself as a "good guy." A threadbare speech from a threadbare leader.
Sorry, Mr. Trudeau, you can't be both, "one of the good guys" and a proved incompetent, a fighter against dark forces and a ready helper of Trump’s. The mix is just plainly ridiculous.
___________________________
Response to a comment saying, “Cee Bee Cee has forgotten how to act like a neutral observer and just report the news instead of having anti any party view which is not liberal”:
In case you hadn't noticed, all news sources have editorial content as well as journalistic observations.
And all news sources, all, come with one form of bias or another.
On the whole, I think CBC Online does a pretty decent job, and its comment policy is generous compared to most, and I do a lot of reading of stuff from all over.
________________________
Response to a comment saying, "He has no standing with the international community":
Although I'd hardly choose, as you do, an example like the brutal and not-very-open Bolsonaro avoiding a handshake with Trudeau to cite as evidence, that is very much the case, Trudeau has no standing.
But I must add that it is only a handful of Canadian Prime Ministers who enjoyed such status, men whose efforts and achievements in large part have been ignored by Trudeau and Freeland in their roles as Washington's willing helpers from the North.
As a country, sadly, we don't have a big international following anymore because we have no Lester Pearson or Pierre Trudeau or Paul Martin to earn it for us. And that was true for Stephen Harper. He was unpopular internationally even though not regarded as the lightweight Trudeau very much is.
Internationally, in general, I think we are viewed pretty much as what we've become, a kind of big resource-rich colony of the United States with a fairly timid international voice. Why would important international leaders need to listen to a weak echo of the noisy, in-your-face United States?
Trudeau's stature isn't, I think, all that much different than that of Ivanka Trump, someone who also likes to play at being a leader and is close to being laughed off the stage as she leaves events, although, of course, he is elected, not appointed by Daddy.
Harper wasn't well regarded either, despite being seen as far more intelligent and driving. He was widely seen as fairly servile to other interests, especially those of Israel, as he very much was, and to an embarrassing degree.
And I'm sorry to say, we don't have a great deal of promise in Andrew Scheer, although we'll likely have to take what we get and hope for the best. Early statements on international affairs are distinctly unpromising, although on the home front, there are a few things encouraging.
Only our outstanding leaders gave Canada the ability to "punch above its weight class" in the world. This would have been the case, for example, with Jack Layton, but that quality of man is seen once in a generation.
_____________________
Response to a comment calling Trudeau lightweight and extremely arrogant:
The “lightweight” part of your comment is deadly accurate, the rest not so much so.
I see no "undisguised contempt" at all in Trudeau, although he does give off a kind of mild arrogance at times, but it's the arrogance of a privileged young man who lives off a trust fund, had a world-famous father, and whose political party has lured him farther than he should have gone.
He often, in fact, gives off an almost cloying sense of a man who wants to be received as a "nice guy." That ain't arrogant, but it sure ain't impressive either.
I see weakness and a complete lack of the kind of talents an effective leader requires.
________________________
Response to a comment saying Xi had no respect for Trudeau:
Well, I don't know about that, but Xi clearly is exceptionally intelligent and hard-working, and he has given China some remarkable initiatives and projects.
He can't have a lot of regard for a guy like Trudeau who comes off a bit like Ivanka Trump in world affairs.
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“Trudeau rails against Conservatives in foreign policy speech
“'They envision a world where Canada flirts with the forces of populism,' says PM of Tories”
'They envision a world where Canada flirts with the forces of populism'
Well, for me, someone with an abiding interest in international affairs and who prides himself a little on his knowledge of them, those words of Trudeau's pretty much top everything stomach-churning he's ever said.
Please, who is the world's premier example of contemporary "populism'?
Donald Trump, of course.
Now, can you name a single significant policy of Trump's that our wonderful team of Trudeau-Freeland departs from?
Overthrowing an elected government in Venezuela? Freeland chairs the outfit created by CIA to help do it, the Lima Group.
Saudi Arabia's many horrors from killing women and children in Yemen and in Saudi Arabia, in efforts against minority Shia, to record numbers of beheadings and to a grisly murder which implicates the very leader of the country?
Canada's heroic response? Never say a word about the horrors of Yemen and never say a word against a man who is perhaps the world’s most horrific leader today (a man beloved by Trump and Netanyahu), and keep selling those light tanks to him, baby!
America's absurd and truly dangerous attacks against China on a half dozen fronts? Hey, if you've heard Trump's words on the subject, no need to listen to Freeland's feeble hinterland echo.
Russophobia? A Freeland speciality. Unwarranted attacks on Iran? Boy, she’s made Ottawa an echo chamber for that.
And, of course, we've actually had the boy wonder fly down to Trump to plead for special help with China, help on a problem caused by Trudeau and Freeland themselves. Very impressive recent background for giving a speech on ugly populist leaders.
Trudeau's speech is so disingenuous, so vacuous, I'd literally vote for anyone but him.
_______________________________
Well, there's one thing we know for sure, Trudeau is not an "Isolationist," a word from 1930s America which truly has no meaning anymore, but there’s still room for it in a Trudeau speech on foreign policy.
It applied to Americans who thought America should stay home and mind its own business. America hadn’t yet quite become a global empire. That came with the end of WWII.
They were mainly conservative types, but not exclusively.
But, just look at what the Right gives us today in America.
The likes of Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo, ready to tell everyone else on the planet what they should do and how they should do it, with the threat of serious economic consequences or military action against them, if they don't.
That's as far from Isolationism as it gets, and there is absolutely nothing good to say about it. It actually is behavior reminiscent of the ugly forces America struggled over going to war with in the 1930s, forces so ugly that opposing going to war with them gave Isolationism its enduring bad name.
I say we know Trudeau isn't an Isolationist because he loyally and faithfully serves Trump in every significant part of foreign policy.
I really think Trudeau needs a new speechwriter. These are half-ridiculous words.
“Isolationism” doesn't even exist anymore as a movement. The word is dated and almost meaningless. And Trudeau tries to apply it where it wouldn’t fit under any circumstances.
But if it did have a place today, it would actually be preferable to supporting the Trump-Bolton-Pompeo axis of violent interference in the affairs of others, something to which Trudeau makes no objection, and is, indeed, a willing helper.
A threadbare speech, full of clichés, plainly outmoded concepts, and earnest efforts to position himself as a "good guy." A threadbare speech from a threadbare leader.
Sorry, Mr. Trudeau, you can't be both, "one of the good guys" and a proved incompetent, a fighter against dark forces and a ready helper of Trump’s. The mix is just plainly ridiculous.
___________________________
Response to a comment saying, “Cee Bee Cee has forgotten how to act like a neutral observer and just report the news instead of having anti any party view which is not liberal”:
In case you hadn't noticed, all news sources have editorial content as well as journalistic observations.
And all news sources, all, come with one form of bias or another.
On the whole, I think CBC Online does a pretty decent job, and its comment policy is generous compared to most, and I do a lot of reading of stuff from all over.
________________________
Response to a comment saying, "He has no standing with the international community":
Although I'd hardly choose, as you do, an example like the brutal and not-very-open Bolsonaro avoiding a handshake with Trudeau to cite as evidence, that is very much the case, Trudeau has no standing.
But I must add that it is only a handful of Canadian Prime Ministers who enjoyed such status, men whose efforts and achievements in large part have been ignored by Trudeau and Freeland in their roles as Washington's willing helpers from the North.
As a country, sadly, we don't have a big international following anymore because we have no Lester Pearson or Pierre Trudeau or Paul Martin to earn it for us. And that was true for Stephen Harper. He was unpopular internationally even though not regarded as the lightweight Trudeau very much is.
Internationally, in general, I think we are viewed pretty much as what we've become, a kind of big resource-rich colony of the United States with a fairly timid international voice. Why would important international leaders need to listen to a weak echo of the noisy, in-your-face United States?
Trudeau's stature isn't, I think, all that much different than that of Ivanka Trump, someone who also likes to play at being a leader and is close to being laughed off the stage as she leaves events, although, of course, he is elected, not appointed by Daddy.
Harper wasn't well regarded either, despite being seen as far more intelligent and driving. He was widely seen as fairly servile to other interests, especially those of Israel, as he very much was, and to an embarrassing degree.
And I'm sorry to say, we don't have a great deal of promise in Andrew Scheer, although we'll likely have to take what we get and hope for the best. Early statements on international affairs are distinctly unpromising, although on the home front, there are a few things encouraging.
Only our outstanding leaders gave Canada the ability to "punch above its weight class" in the world. This would have been the case, for example, with Jack Layton, but that quality of man is seen once in a generation.
_____________________
Response to a comment calling Trudeau lightweight and extremely arrogant:
The “lightweight” part of your comment is deadly accurate, the rest not so much so.
I see no "undisguised contempt" at all in Trudeau, although he does give off a kind of mild arrogance at times, but it's the arrogance of a privileged young man who lives off a trust fund, had a world-famous father, and whose political party has lured him farther than he should have gone.
He often, in fact, gives off an almost cloying sense of a man who wants to be received as a "nice guy." That ain't arrogant, but it sure ain't impressive either.
I see weakness and a complete lack of the kind of talents an effective leader requires.
________________________
Response to a comment saying Xi had no respect for Trudeau:
Well, I don't know about that, but Xi clearly is exceptionally intelligent and hard-working, and he has given China some remarkable initiatives and projects.
He can't have a lot of regard for a guy like Trudeau who comes off a bit like Ivanka Trump in world affairs.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICA'S "LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING" BRAGGART SECRETARY OF STATE, BIG FAT MIKE POMPEO, VISITS CANADA TO PRESSURE TRUDEAU TO JOIN AMERICA IN "SPEAKING WITH ONE VOICE ABOUT HONG KONG" - ESSENTIAL PERSPECTIVE ON EVENTS IN HONG KONG AND THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
“Trudeau and Pompeo urged to speak with one voice on China's response to Hong Kong protests
“U.S. Secretary of State meets PM, Freeland today in Ottawa”
Oh crap.
One voice with Pompeo on anything is just asking too much. Remember that’s “lying, cheating, and stealing” braggart Pompeo, formerly of the CIA.
And this Hong Kong business has got entirely out of proportion. Really, nothing that big has happened. The marches are in fact much smaller than the press generally says, and the Chinese government response has not been excessive.
And we must remember, American State Department people have directly encouraged this to embarrass China. We even have a photo, easily found on the Internet, of a woman American Consular official consulting with a couple of march leaders, something that is totally inappropriate.
Shall we compare China's response to demonstrations to that of Emmanuel Macron in France? The Yellow Jacket demonstrations have resulted in 11 people being killed and 2500 injured. Right in the heart of Paris, legendary symbolic city for human rights and revolution against oppression.
Or, even worse, how about the government of Israel at the Gaza protests? Those protests are not even located in Israel, but more than 200 people have been killed by Israeli army snipers, including women and children. Many thousands have been injured.
If Trudeau goes along with Pompeo, as he is likely being encouraged to do by Chrystia Freeland, friend of the current Washington establishment, well, his father once used a word in public that exactly would describe it, merde!
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS
“Trudeau and Pompeo urged to speak with one voice on China's response to Hong Kong protests
“U.S. Secretary of State meets PM, Freeland today in Ottawa”
Oh crap.
One voice with Pompeo on anything is just asking too much. Remember that’s “lying, cheating, and stealing” braggart Pompeo, formerly of the CIA.
And this Hong Kong business has got entirely out of proportion. Really, nothing that big has happened. The marches are in fact much smaller than the press generally says, and the Chinese government response has not been excessive.
And we must remember, American State Department people have directly encouraged this to embarrass China. We even have a photo, easily found on the Internet, of a woman American Consular official consulting with a couple of march leaders, something that is totally inappropriate.
Shall we compare China's response to demonstrations to that of Emmanuel Macron in France? The Yellow Jacket demonstrations have resulted in 11 people being killed and 2500 injured. Right in the heart of Paris, legendary symbolic city for human rights and revolution against oppression.
Or, even worse, how about the government of Israel at the Gaza protests? Those protests are not even located in Israel, but more than 200 people have been killed by Israeli army snipers, including women and children. Many thousands have been injured.
If Trudeau goes along with Pompeo, as he is likely being encouraged to do by Chrystia Freeland, friend of the current Washington establishment, well, his father once used a word in public that exactly would describe it, merde!
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE MASTER STATESMAN AT WORK - PUTIN CASUALLY AND DEVASTATINGLY RESPONDS TO THE HOPELESSLY POMPOUS MACRON ABOUT POLICE AND STREET DEMONSTRATIONS - NOTE THE COMMAND OF FACTS - HE HAS NO PEER
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“11 Dead, 2,500 Injured: Putin Recalls Macron His ‘Yellow Vests’ Record
“Macron took it upon himself to explain to the Russian leader the importance of freedom of protest”
https://www.checkpointasia.net/11-dead-2500-injured-putin-recalls-macron-his-yellow-vests-record/
I just love Putin's response to Macron’s thoughtless criticism about freedom to demonstrate.
The response is so devastating that Macron's massive vacuous ego likely missed its impact.
And the delivery, not firing back an angry retort to Macron's foolish words, but waiting and then quietly delivering a damning point - it is just so Putinesque.
As is the command of facts and numbers.
A truly great statesman. He has no peer today.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“11 Dead, 2,500 Injured: Putin Recalls Macron His ‘Yellow Vests’ Record
“Macron took it upon himself to explain to the Russian leader the importance of freedom of protest”
https://www.checkpointasia.net/11-dead-2500-injured-putin-recalls-macron-his-yellow-vests-record/
I just love Putin's response to Macron’s thoughtless criticism about freedom to demonstrate.
The response is so devastating that Macron's massive vacuous ego likely missed its impact.
And the delivery, not firing back an angry retort to Macron's foolish words, but waiting and then quietly delivering a damning point - it is just so Putinesque.
As is the command of facts and numbers.
A truly great statesman. He has no peer today.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ARTICLE SAYS THERE IS A NEED FOR DEMOCRATS TO ADDRESS AFGHANISTAN - MY HARSH TAKE ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S VIEW OF WARS ABROAD - BRUTAL WARS ABROAD BREED BRUTALITY ON THE HOME FRONT TOO
JOHN CHUCKMAN
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARJORIE COHN IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“As Afghan Carnage Continues, US Presidential Candidates Face Key Question
“Democratic contenders should commit to immediate troop withdrawal and to cooperate with international investigations of U.S. war crimes”
I honestly do not believe that Americans generally give a damn that their government is slaughtering people, anywhere.
They’ve been at the business since WWII in many meaningless imperial wars and interventions.
Killing is what Washington does. I think it fair to say it has become a major national industry.
A couple of generations of Americans have grown up with that as their formative environment, many making careers around it with military service or employment in the defense industry or careers in various government agencies such as the State Department.
And I have to say that the fairly prevalent xenophobia and blind patriot religious belief in the country just reinforce the perception of indifference and brutality.
I have never seen sorrow or regret or concern over about three million Vietnamese killed, and killed horribly by napalm, cluster bombs, and carpet bombing, plus having had their country left strewn with landmines and tons of poisonous Agent Orange.
And it seems to me, most Americans do just sit back and watch a good deal of that horror repeated on poor souls in the Middle East. America’s reasons and methods have been different there, but the results, in terms of death and destruction, have pretty well been the same. The Neocon Wars have killed at least two million people and created many millions of desperate refugees.
America’s brutal wars abroad breed brutality on the home front too.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MARJORIE COHN IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“As Afghan Carnage Continues, US Presidential Candidates Face Key Question
“Democratic contenders should commit to immediate troop withdrawal and to cooperate with international investigations of U.S. war crimes”
I honestly do not believe that Americans generally give a damn that their government is slaughtering people, anywhere.
They’ve been at the business since WWII in many meaningless imperial wars and interventions.
Killing is what Washington does. I think it fair to say it has become a major national industry.
A couple of generations of Americans have grown up with that as their formative environment, many making careers around it with military service or employment in the defense industry or careers in various government agencies such as the State Department.
And I have to say that the fairly prevalent xenophobia and blind patriot religious belief in the country just reinforce the perception of indifference and brutality.
I have never seen sorrow or regret or concern over about three million Vietnamese killed, and killed horribly by napalm, cluster bombs, and carpet bombing, plus having had their country left strewn with landmines and tons of poisonous Agent Orange.
And it seems to me, most Americans do just sit back and watch a good deal of that horror repeated on poor souls in the Middle East. America’s reasons and methods have been different there, but the results, in terms of death and destruction, have pretty well been the same. The Neocon Wars have killed at least two million people and created many millions of desperate refugees.
America’s brutal wars abroad breed brutality on the home front too.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THERE IS AN ABSURD SIDE TO AMERICA'S FRIGHTENING HYPER-AGGRESSIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS IRAN
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“US: Anyone Touching Iran Tanker Risks Sanctions
“Permission to dock will be treated as "support for terrorism" on the part of Greece”
Can you imagine a highly-paid and prestigious outfit like the American State Department with nothing better to do than track and check up on how an oil tanker is being treated by the world?
There really is a genuinely absurd side to America's current hyper-aggression.
But look at that cast of lead characters - Bolton, Pompeo, Trump. Derangement is etched into the expressions on every one of those faces.
_____________________
Response to a comment which said, “I wouldn't put it past the US/Israel to sink the Tanker if it turns to go into Greece”:
We can put nothing past the United States anymore.
Things really have come to that.
Remember, they thought nothing of turning off all the fridges and life-saving machines in Venezuela several times.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“US: Anyone Touching Iran Tanker Risks Sanctions
“Permission to dock will be treated as "support for terrorism" on the part of Greece”
Can you imagine a highly-paid and prestigious outfit like the American State Department with nothing better to do than track and check up on how an oil tanker is being treated by the world?
There really is a genuinely absurd side to America's current hyper-aggression.
But look at that cast of lead characters - Bolton, Pompeo, Trump. Derangement is etched into the expressions on every one of those faces.
_____________________
Response to a comment which said, “I wouldn't put it past the US/Israel to sink the Tanker if it turns to go into Greece”:
We can put nothing past the United States anymore.
Things really have come to that.
Remember, they thought nothing of turning off all the fridges and life-saving machines in Venezuela several times.
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: TRUMP'S CAR CRASH IN THE PERSIAN GULF - HOW A POWERFUL NATION DELIBERATELY CREATES DISASTER - CATERING TO THE DISHONEST LEADER OF A SMALL STATE WHILE IGNORING ITS OWN LONG-TERM INTERESTS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY DANIEL LAZARE IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Trump’s Persian-Gulf Car Crash
"Trump has taken an insane U.S. policy towards Iran and made it even crazier"
That is a perfect summary of Trump’s chaotic efforts.
It is pathetic that this kind of thing happens with a powerful nation like the United States.
It reflects Trump's catering to the lobby for another country, one with a population the size of Ecuador.
Why does he do that?
Because he very much suffered intense fear about losing his office and approached some American oligarchs for support. They happen to be oligarchs whose greatest focus is Israel.
So, we get men like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo appointed to powerful offices. We get Trump violating international law giving away what is not his to give, Jerusalem and part of Syria.
And we get the total mess of policy towards Iran. Ripping up a valid, working treaty. Hurling insults and threats. Engaging in serious economic warfare. Trying to intimidate with warships and bombers.
All for what? This is a country which has kept its obligations. This is a peaceful country. And this is a country with which America could and should build a solid relationship for the long-term.
But America doesn't even try.
Israel hates Iran because it is a competitor for influence and importance in the Middle East, not because it in any way fears Iran. Nuclear states don't get attacked by non-nuclear ones.
Israel also was concerned that Iran’s keeping to its obligations and building relations with the EU and others was something to which it needed to put a halt. Now, there’s quite a reason for generating hostilities, preventing improved relations for others. Just destructive.
And modern Iran is a state with a record of starting no hostilities, quite in contrast to both Israel and the United States.
This is a country with the population of Germany and a land mass several times that of France. It has important resources, important modern achievements despite efforts to hold it back. It has industrious, creative people. And it has a fascinating ancient history.
There is no lucid reason for America to treat it as an enemy.
Iran has demonstrated conclusively its regard for rule of law, scrupulously carrying out its treaty obligations.
Only Israel and someone like John Bolton say otherwise. Every single expert and major power say they are wrong.
Israel’s record for dishonesty in trying to get what it wants has become almost legendary. So many dark operations and violent activities, always covered with words not to be trusted.
We had two Presidents, Obama and Sarkozy, in live-mic incidents, tell us what we rarely hear about such matters, that the long-term Prime Minister of Israel was someone who simply could not be trusted, who never told the truth. That’s pretty powerful testimony.
Yet, here is the United States blindly following that politician’s narrow interests to the point of harming its own long-term ones. Good relations with a state like Iran are in America’s interest.
Economic warfare in a time of world economic fragility is not in the interest of the United States.
Threats of war with the risk of really starting one are not in the interest of the United States.
Humiliating and hurting Iran’s more than eighty million people are not in the interest of the United States.
Ignoring allies like France and Germany and the EU, just trampling on their interests as treaty signatories of the Iran nuclear agreement, is absolutely not in the interest of the United States.
I should have thought the number-one priority of a President of the United States would be doing what’s in the best interests of the United States, but that is not at all what we see.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY DANIEL LAZARE IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“Trump’s Persian-Gulf Car Crash
"Trump has taken an insane U.S. policy towards Iran and made it even crazier"
That is a perfect summary of Trump’s chaotic efforts.
It is pathetic that this kind of thing happens with a powerful nation like the United States.
It reflects Trump's catering to the lobby for another country, one with a population the size of Ecuador.
Why does he do that?
Because he very much suffered intense fear about losing his office and approached some American oligarchs for support. They happen to be oligarchs whose greatest focus is Israel.
So, we get men like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo appointed to powerful offices. We get Trump violating international law giving away what is not his to give, Jerusalem and part of Syria.
And we get the total mess of policy towards Iran. Ripping up a valid, working treaty. Hurling insults and threats. Engaging in serious economic warfare. Trying to intimidate with warships and bombers.
All for what? This is a country which has kept its obligations. This is a peaceful country. And this is a country with which America could and should build a solid relationship for the long-term.
But America doesn't even try.
Israel hates Iran because it is a competitor for influence and importance in the Middle East, not because it in any way fears Iran. Nuclear states don't get attacked by non-nuclear ones.
Israel also was concerned that Iran’s keeping to its obligations and building relations with the EU and others was something to which it needed to put a halt. Now, there’s quite a reason for generating hostilities, preventing improved relations for others. Just destructive.
And modern Iran is a state with a record of starting no hostilities, quite in contrast to both Israel and the United States.
This is a country with the population of Germany and a land mass several times that of France. It has important resources, important modern achievements despite efforts to hold it back. It has industrious, creative people. And it has a fascinating ancient history.
There is no lucid reason for America to treat it as an enemy.
Iran has demonstrated conclusively its regard for rule of law, scrupulously carrying out its treaty obligations.
Only Israel and someone like John Bolton say otherwise. Every single expert and major power say they are wrong.
Israel’s record for dishonesty in trying to get what it wants has become almost legendary. So many dark operations and violent activities, always covered with words not to be trusted.
We had two Presidents, Obama and Sarkozy, in live-mic incidents, tell us what we rarely hear about such matters, that the long-term Prime Minister of Israel was someone who simply could not be trusted, who never told the truth. That’s pretty powerful testimony.
Yet, here is the United States blindly following that politician’s narrow interests to the point of harming its own long-term ones. Good relations with a state like Iran are in America’s interest.
Economic warfare in a time of world economic fragility is not in the interest of the United States.
Threats of war with the risk of really starting one are not in the interest of the United States.
Humiliating and hurting Iran’s more than eighty million people are not in the interest of the United States.
Ignoring allies like France and Germany and the EU, just trampling on their interests as treaty signatories of the Iran nuclear agreement, is absolutely not in the interest of the United States.
I should have thought the number-one priority of a President of the United States would be doing what’s in the best interests of the United States, but that is not at all what we see.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICA'S EFFORTS TO CREATE CHAOS IN VENEZUELA - OIL IS NOT THE AIM - CIA AND LATIN AMERICA - PLANTATION SYSTEM - LIMA GROUP - DECREPIT MONROE DOCTRINE - MADURO AS LEADER - CASTRO - THE GREAT IRONY OF ALL AMERICAN EFFORTS TO TELL OTHERS HOW TO RUN THEIR COUNTRIES: IT CAN'T EVEN RUN ITS OWN
John Chuckman
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Trump Has Been Suggesting a Naval Blockade of Venezuela for a Year but Pentagon Won’t Take Him Seriously”
_______________________
Response to a comment:
Sorry, you are just wrong.
This is not, and never has been, about oil, although I’m sure American major oil companies would like buying up the assets of Venezuela’s state oil company, especially if they could be had at “fire sale” prices.
What’s going on in Venezuela is part of a larger CIA initiative in Latin American to squelch independent-minded, highly-nationalistic governments.
The Lima Group, an ad hoc organization of states, was formed as part of the initiative, to give what is essentially a CIA operation a sense of broad support on the continent, the much larger and long-established Organization of American States (OAS) having declined support.
The United States likes Latin America as it was in, say, the 1950s, as a set of plantation economies whose proprietors are highly receptive to American views and policies. It is so much easier enforcing the imperialistic aims of the decrepit Monroe Doctrine that way.
States all going their own way, according to popular will, and forming independent relationships and attachments abroad is exactly what the United States does not want to see.
Venezuela’s Maduro, who very much is not receptive to America’s views and policies, is just one of their targets, although the most prominent.
He is one hell of an effective political leader and a truly brave man. It does take extraordinary courage to stand up to the threats and pressures America can bring to bear. Just look at the example of Castro, someone the United States spent a generation trying to hurt and, literally, to kill.
He wasn’t elected, as Maduro is, but he was brave and tough, and clearly the people stood behind him. Otherwise, he could never have endured what he did – everything from an American-arranged and supplied invasion by exiles to a massive embargo and many forms of economic and political terror – bombings, fires set, places shot-up from boats - plus many serious attempts to assassinate him.
If you don't agree with the country's socialism, so what?
It is up to the Venezuelan people to work that out, to go through the experience of discovering what works and doesn’t work for them.
It should be unnecessary to say the United States should mind its own business, but it sadly is not. They've been at this dirty work of trying to discredit and overthrow an elected Venezuelan government for years, going well back into Obama's time, that great smiling advocate for democracy, at least in speeches.
America’s economic measures, attacking everything from Venezuela’s markets and suppliers to its currency, have immensely hurt the people, circumstances CIA flacks then pitch as the harm Maduro's government has done to the country.
I assume your use of the phrase, “economic idiot,” directly reflects that effort. The notion that Maduro is responsible for all the county’s woes is echoed and reinforced constantly in the corporate press, one of the CIA’s main mechanisms for getting things “out there.”
I note, too, though, that it is closely embraced by alternative Internet sites of the Alt-Right, perhaps even more fanatically than by the mainline press. It is a reminder that being independent often doesn’t really mean “independent,” if you see what I mean.
The people elected Maduro, twice, apart from having elected his predecessor, the much beloved Hugo Chavez, founder of the political movement, and Maduro remains pretty popular despite all the American-imposed hardship.
Immensely so, when contrasted with the unpopularity of the man the United States tried foisting off as President, Juan Guaidó, a man who hadn’t even run for the office but laughably administered an oath of office to himself. Even a humble peasant can understand the absurdity of that.
The great and enduring irony of all America’s many interventions abroad is that it can’t even run its own country. Just have a good look around at the United States, close-up and away from its privileged and beautiful places.
There are millions of Americans in immense poverty. There is just plain squalor to be seen in a thousand places. Many landscapes and cityscapes literally resemble the Third World. And the country’s infrastructure - of every description, from drinking water equipment to school buildings and to roads and bridges – is just in awful shape.
How are Americans qualified to tell anyone how to run their country?
EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Trump Has Been Suggesting a Naval Blockade of Venezuela for a Year but Pentagon Won’t Take Him Seriously”
_______________________
Response to a comment:
Sorry, you are just wrong.
This is not, and never has been, about oil, although I’m sure American major oil companies would like buying up the assets of Venezuela’s state oil company, especially if they could be had at “fire sale” prices.
What’s going on in Venezuela is part of a larger CIA initiative in Latin American to squelch independent-minded, highly-nationalistic governments.
The Lima Group, an ad hoc organization of states, was formed as part of the initiative, to give what is essentially a CIA operation a sense of broad support on the continent, the much larger and long-established Organization of American States (OAS) having declined support.
The United States likes Latin America as it was in, say, the 1950s, as a set of plantation economies whose proprietors are highly receptive to American views and policies. It is so much easier enforcing the imperialistic aims of the decrepit Monroe Doctrine that way.
States all going their own way, according to popular will, and forming independent relationships and attachments abroad is exactly what the United States does not want to see.
Venezuela’s Maduro, who very much is not receptive to America’s views and policies, is just one of their targets, although the most prominent.
He is one hell of an effective political leader and a truly brave man. It does take extraordinary courage to stand up to the threats and pressures America can bring to bear. Just look at the example of Castro, someone the United States spent a generation trying to hurt and, literally, to kill.
He wasn’t elected, as Maduro is, but he was brave and tough, and clearly the people stood behind him. Otherwise, he could never have endured what he did – everything from an American-arranged and supplied invasion by exiles to a massive embargo and many forms of economic and political terror – bombings, fires set, places shot-up from boats - plus many serious attempts to assassinate him.
If you don't agree with the country's socialism, so what?
It is up to the Venezuelan people to work that out, to go through the experience of discovering what works and doesn’t work for them.
It should be unnecessary to say the United States should mind its own business, but it sadly is not. They've been at this dirty work of trying to discredit and overthrow an elected Venezuelan government for years, going well back into Obama's time, that great smiling advocate for democracy, at least in speeches.
America’s economic measures, attacking everything from Venezuela’s markets and suppliers to its currency, have immensely hurt the people, circumstances CIA flacks then pitch as the harm Maduro's government has done to the country.
I assume your use of the phrase, “economic idiot,” directly reflects that effort. The notion that Maduro is responsible for all the county’s woes is echoed and reinforced constantly in the corporate press, one of the CIA’s main mechanisms for getting things “out there.”
I note, too, though, that it is closely embraced by alternative Internet sites of the Alt-Right, perhaps even more fanatically than by the mainline press. It is a reminder that being independent often doesn’t really mean “independent,” if you see what I mean.
The people elected Maduro, twice, apart from having elected his predecessor, the much beloved Hugo Chavez, founder of the political movement, and Maduro remains pretty popular despite all the American-imposed hardship.
Immensely so, when contrasted with the unpopularity of the man the United States tried foisting off as President, Juan Guaidó, a man who hadn’t even run for the office but laughably administered an oath of office to himself. Even a humble peasant can understand the absurdity of that.
The great and enduring irony of all America’s many interventions abroad is that it can’t even run its own country. Just have a good look around at the United States, close-up and away from its privileged and beautiful places.
There are millions of Americans in immense poverty. There is just plain squalor to be seen in a thousand places. Many landscapes and cityscapes literally resemble the Third World. And the country’s infrastructure - of every description, from drinking water equipment to school buildings and to roads and bridges – is just in awful shape.
How are Americans qualified to tell anyone how to run their country?
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE PUTIN-MACRON MEETING IN FRANCE - A MODERATELY ENCOURAGING EVENT TOWARDS IMPROVED RELATIONS - A FEW HARD OBSERVATIONS ON FRANCE'S EMMANUEL MACRON
John Chuckman
COMMENT MADE TO AN ARTICLE BY JOHN LAUGHLAND IN RUSSIA TODAY (FAILED IN POSTING BECAUSE RT HAS SUCH TIGHT LIMITS ON THE LENGTH OF COMMENTS)
“Putin-Macron meeting heralds glorious summer after long winter of discontent”
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/466882-macron-putin-meeting-france/
On the whole, a perceptive and interesting piece.
I do believe Macron was trying to suggest some important changes in direction and emphasis, without just blurting them out.
Actually, Macron is the kind of person incapable of just blurting anything out. His statements tend to come in wordy, nebulous paragraphs, never in direct and forceful sentences.
As far as Macron's patronizing manner towards Putin a couple of times, well, that is just Macron. He is a patronizing and often arrogant man, period.
You can see that in many photos of his gestures. Just look at that fingering-pointing photo, accompanying the article, as he lectures Putin about demonstrations.
Truly laughable. The amateur lecturing the world-class statesman, and with gusto.
That's why I believe Macron's previous self-effacing, slap-on-the-back, good-old-buddy efforts with Trump failed badly.
Trump instinctively reads attitudes like Macron's, much the way a predator smells an emotion like fear in its prey. It's one of that colossal failure's only genuine talents.
COMMENT MADE TO AN ARTICLE BY JOHN LAUGHLAND IN RUSSIA TODAY (FAILED IN POSTING BECAUSE RT HAS SUCH TIGHT LIMITS ON THE LENGTH OF COMMENTS)
“Putin-Macron meeting heralds glorious summer after long winter of discontent”
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/466882-macron-putin-meeting-france/
On the whole, a perceptive and interesting piece.
I do believe Macron was trying to suggest some important changes in direction and emphasis, without just blurting them out.
Actually, Macron is the kind of person incapable of just blurting anything out. His statements tend to come in wordy, nebulous paragraphs, never in direct and forceful sentences.
As far as Macron's patronizing manner towards Putin a couple of times, well, that is just Macron. He is a patronizing and often arrogant man, period.
You can see that in many photos of his gestures. Just look at that fingering-pointing photo, accompanying the article, as he lectures Putin about demonstrations.
Truly laughable. The amateur lecturing the world-class statesman, and with gusto.
That's why I believe Macron's previous self-effacing, slap-on-the-back, good-old-buddy efforts with Trump failed badly.
Trump instinctively reads attitudes like Macron's, much the way a predator smells an emotion like fear in its prey. It's one of that colossal failure's only genuine talents.
Monday, August 19, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: SOMETIMES THE LITTLE GUYS BEAT AN UGLY BULLY - SAUDI ARABIA'S GHASTLY WAR IN YEMEN - AND A REAL GLIMMER OF HOPE THAT THE SAUDIS COULD BE BROUGHT LOW
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Long Range Attack on Saudi Oil Field [by a fleet of new Houthi Sammad-3 drones] Ends the War on Yemen
"There are no technological means to reasonably protect against such attacks. Poor Yemen defeated rich Saudi Arabia."
https://www.checkpointasia.net/long-range-attack-on-saudi-oil-field-ends-the-war-on-yemen/
I do hope the writer is correct in his optimism. I always cheer for the little guy, especially when the enemy is as ruthless and bloody as Saudi Arabia, a country run by an almost gothic horror character, someone with no claim on our sympathies, but embraced and praised by some of the ugliest officials of the United States and Israel.
It has been a stunning achievement just that the Houthis could come to the point of threatening, from a considerable distance, important Saudi assets. They apparently have done so by copying Iranian technology.
To force the Saudis to deal and perhaps end the war would, at least a little bit, be comparable to the stunning victory of third-world Vietnam over the United States after its decade of bombing the hell out of their country and killing literally millions.
“The arrogance of power” is the phrase that comes to mind, and it is so fitting since it was the title of a book by Senator William Fulbright, a war critic, in the Vietnam era.
The Iranians have achieved, on limited means, some remarkable things in military technology. A while back, they sent a missile to accurately strike some terrorists far away in Syria without hurting American troops based nearby who were undoubtedly covertly assisting them. We saw the world’s most costly and sophisticated drone (America’s RQ-4A) brought down this year from a high altitude at night, and without harming an accompanying manned American spy plane.
Those were demonstrations which had to impress the arrogant people in the Pentagon and perhaps even some of Trump’s fanatics with the fact that pressuring Iran militarily was not without genuine risks.
And of course, there was a hi-tech drone (America’s RQ-170) that Iran managed to hi-jack in 2011, using cyberwarfare to take control and land it. That gave them the opportunity to do some reverse engineering. At the time, America refused even to acknowledge the embarrassing truth, insisting the drone had been shot down, which would have damaged it beyond being useful.
But the Iranian claim was accurate. And now we have this simpler, but very effective drone technology from Iran which may just end the ugly Saudi War in Yemen.
I am reminded of the time of the Iranian Revolution, when United States’ embassy staff, before fleeing, shredded huge volumes of secret and incriminating documents, as is standard practice, documents covering Iranian affairs during the era of the Shah.
Teams of old sharp-eyed Iranian rug weavers were called in to do the seemingly impossible task of reassembling the documents from a gigantic pile of finely shredded trash. And they did it. So, Iran gained hard proof of America’s dirty dealings with the Shah.
Iran’s advances in missile and drone technology reflect something similar, determination and perseverance plus of course a big helping of native, sharp-eyed intelligence.
I just can’t help cheering for the little guy, and it is always satisfying to see arrogance and bullying brought low.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Long Range Attack on Saudi Oil Field [by a fleet of new Houthi Sammad-3 drones] Ends the War on Yemen
"There are no technological means to reasonably protect against such attacks. Poor Yemen defeated rich Saudi Arabia."
https://www.checkpointasia.net/long-range-attack-on-saudi-oil-field-ends-the-war-on-yemen/
I do hope the writer is correct in his optimism. I always cheer for the little guy, especially when the enemy is as ruthless and bloody as Saudi Arabia, a country run by an almost gothic horror character, someone with no claim on our sympathies, but embraced and praised by some of the ugliest officials of the United States and Israel.
It has been a stunning achievement just that the Houthis could come to the point of threatening, from a considerable distance, important Saudi assets. They apparently have done so by copying Iranian technology.
To force the Saudis to deal and perhaps end the war would, at least a little bit, be comparable to the stunning victory of third-world Vietnam over the United States after its decade of bombing the hell out of their country and killing literally millions.
“The arrogance of power” is the phrase that comes to mind, and it is so fitting since it was the title of a book by Senator William Fulbright, a war critic, in the Vietnam era.
The Iranians have achieved, on limited means, some remarkable things in military technology. A while back, they sent a missile to accurately strike some terrorists far away in Syria without hurting American troops based nearby who were undoubtedly covertly assisting them. We saw the world’s most costly and sophisticated drone (America’s RQ-4A) brought down this year from a high altitude at night, and without harming an accompanying manned American spy plane.
Those were demonstrations which had to impress the arrogant people in the Pentagon and perhaps even some of Trump’s fanatics with the fact that pressuring Iran militarily was not without genuine risks.
And of course, there was a hi-tech drone (America’s RQ-170) that Iran managed to hi-jack in 2011, using cyberwarfare to take control and land it. That gave them the opportunity to do some reverse engineering. At the time, America refused even to acknowledge the embarrassing truth, insisting the drone had been shot down, which would have damaged it beyond being useful.
But the Iranian claim was accurate. And now we have this simpler, but very effective drone technology from Iran which may just end the ugly Saudi War in Yemen.
I am reminded of the time of the Iranian Revolution, when United States’ embassy staff, before fleeing, shredded huge volumes of secret and incriminating documents, as is standard practice, documents covering Iranian affairs during the era of the Shah.
Teams of old sharp-eyed Iranian rug weavers were called in to do the seemingly impossible task of reassembling the documents from a gigantic pile of finely shredded trash. And they did it. So, Iran gained hard proof of America’s dirty dealings with the Shah.
Iran’s advances in missile and drone technology reflect something similar, determination and perseverance plus of course a big helping of native, sharp-eyed intelligence.
I just can’t help cheering for the little guy, and it is always satisfying to see arrogance and bullying brought low.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A NEW ITEM TO ADD TO THE RECORD OF HILLARY CLINTON'S BRUTALITIES - AND I'M NOT REFERRING TO THE BAD RIGHT-WING JOKES ABOUT LISTS OF HER PERSONAL VICTIMS - I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT SHE HAS ACTUALLY DONE IN OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JAMES BOVARD IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Bill Clinton Bombed Yugoslavia to Appease Hillary After Monica Lewinsky
"She resumed talking to her husband only when she phoned him and urged him...to begin bombing Serbia"
Entirely in character for her.
It was reported that she was largely responsible for pushing the hyper-aggressive tactics of the FBI at Waco to get the siege out of the news, tactics which ended by incinerating about eighty people, including children.
There is, of course, her ghastly record in Libya, which included according to Seymour Hersh, sending small amounts of chemical weapons from the murdered Gaddafi's stockpiles in Libya to hired thugs in Syria to provide Obama with his "red line" for bombing the crap out of that country.
Of course, she was responsible for the Benghazi Affair, involving the death of an ambassador and others, a matter that has never been really explained to the public, although it certainly involved a covert operation for shipping recruited thugs and large amounts of weapons from the war-torn Libya to terrorize Syria.
She laughed and joked about Gaddafi's gruesome murder, and she asked, concerning Julian Assange, "Can't we just drone him or something?"
And there was the time that she hysterically suddenly started screaming about how she would "obliterate" Iran's more than eighty million people.
A truly brutal woman, a fact I believe which still is not widely enough appreciated, despite jokes in limited circles about her lists of victims.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JAMES BOVARD IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Bill Clinton Bombed Yugoslavia to Appease Hillary After Monica Lewinsky
"She resumed talking to her husband only when she phoned him and urged him...to begin bombing Serbia"
Entirely in character for her.
It was reported that she was largely responsible for pushing the hyper-aggressive tactics of the FBI at Waco to get the siege out of the news, tactics which ended by incinerating about eighty people, including children.
There is, of course, her ghastly record in Libya, which included according to Seymour Hersh, sending small amounts of chemical weapons from the murdered Gaddafi's stockpiles in Libya to hired thugs in Syria to provide Obama with his "red line" for bombing the crap out of that country.
Of course, she was responsible for the Benghazi Affair, involving the death of an ambassador and others, a matter that has never been really explained to the public, although it certainly involved a covert operation for shipping recruited thugs and large amounts of weapons from the war-torn Libya to terrorize Syria.
She laughed and joked about Gaddafi's gruesome murder, and she asked, concerning Julian Assange, "Can't we just drone him or something?"
And there was the time that she hysterically suddenly started screaming about how she would "obliterate" Iran's more than eighty million people.
A truly brutal woman, a fact I believe which still is not widely enough appreciated, despite jokes in limited circles about her lists of victims.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICA'S NEW STRATEGIC GENIUS IS HARD AT WORK PROMOTING CHAOS BETWEEN SLURPS OF MCDONALD'S AND COFFEE
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JONATHAN SWAN IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Trump Has Been Suggesting a Naval Blockade of Venezuela for a Year but Pentagon Won’t Take Him Seriously
“It can't be done, not with everything else the Imperial Navy has on its plate”
It truly is difficult to understand what makes this genuinely bizarre man tick.
Apart from the difficulties presented by Venezuela's long and complex coastline, and apart from the fact Venezuela's government has done nothing to deserve such treatment, blockades of course are universally regarded as acts of war.
Only here, we have the involvement of Russia and China, both with important interests in the country.
So, between slurps of Big Macs and coffee, America's new strategic genius is asking for a risky military venture in Venezuela, demanding the chance to buy Greenland, increasing the dangerous harassment of China on all fronts, carrying on with stupidities over Iranian oil tankers, making calls of encouragement to the bloodiest ruler in the Mideast over the increasing failings of his disastrous slaughter in Yemen, and making half the leaders in Europe sick to their stomachs with the United States.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JONATHAN SWAN IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Trump Has Been Suggesting a Naval Blockade of Venezuela for a Year but Pentagon Won’t Take Him Seriously
“It can't be done, not with everything else the Imperial Navy has on its plate”
It truly is difficult to understand what makes this genuinely bizarre man tick.
Apart from the difficulties presented by Venezuela's long and complex coastline, and apart from the fact Venezuela's government has done nothing to deserve such treatment, blockades of course are universally regarded as acts of war.
Only here, we have the involvement of Russia and China, both with important interests in the country.
So, between slurps of Big Macs and coffee, America's new strategic genius is asking for a risky military venture in Venezuela, demanding the chance to buy Greenland, increasing the dangerous harassment of China on all fronts, carrying on with stupidities over Iranian oil tankers, making calls of encouragement to the bloodiest ruler in the Mideast over the increasing failings of his disastrous slaughter in Yemen, and making half the leaders in Europe sick to their stomachs with the United States.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: INTERESTING NEW DEVELOPMENT IN IRAQ CONCERNING AMERICAN MILITARY PLANES' FREEDOM OF OPERATION - BUT DOES IRAQ HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ENFORCE ITS NEW RULE?
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY TYLER DURDEN IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Iraq Revokes America’s Bombing Privileges Frustrating the Potential US-Israeli War on Iran
“In what is a severely under-reported but perhaps the most alarming development out of the Middle East this week, Iraq’s government has said it’s ready to down any aircraft violating its airspace amid a blanket ban on ‘unauthorized’ flights not specifically approved by the prime minister’s office”
It is indeed an important and under-reported story.
But does Iraq possess any serious capacity to down non-compliant aircraft?
And will the US treat Iraq’s threat the same way it does that government's many requests for the American military to pack-up and go home?
It just ignores them.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY TYLER DURDEN IN CHECKPOINT ASIA
“Iraq Revokes America’s Bombing Privileges Frustrating the Potential US-Israeli War on Iran
“In what is a severely under-reported but perhaps the most alarming development out of the Middle East this week, Iraq’s government has said it’s ready to down any aircraft violating its airspace amid a blanket ban on ‘unauthorized’ flights not specifically approved by the prime minister’s office”
It is indeed an important and under-reported story.
But does Iraq possess any serious capacity to down non-compliant aircraft?
And will the US treat Iraq’s threat the same way it does that government's many requests for the American military to pack-up and go home?
It just ignores them.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICA'S EFFORT TO HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT IT DOES IN THE WORLD - HARDER THAN IT ONCE WAS - THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF MODERN RUSSIAN MEDIA - THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERNET - BLOATED AMERICAN GOVERNMENT-FRIENDLY CORPORATIONS' ONGOING EFFORTS TO BLOCK AND DIFFUSE ITS POWER FOR FREE SPEECH
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN SOUTH FRONT
"DOUBLESPEAK, MAINSTREAM PROPAGANDA AND ‘RUSSIAN THREAT’"
Not a terribly well-written article, but one with a solid and important subject.
There is no question that "Western" authorities are concerned with Russia having learned to effectively communicate and use media.
And concerned that people in “the West” now often have access to facts and explanations which are at variance to the official Washington "narrative."
I regard Russia’s new mastery of communications and media as an important development. In the 1950s, and even the 1960s, it wasn’t so necessary for the American government to contradict limited Russian sources of information because those sources were so clumsy and heavy-handed in their approach, in their very language, that Westerners, used to relatively sophisticated ways, for the most part, simply instantly discounted what was being said.
That cannot happen now. The communications from Russia are clear and mostly quite sensible and easily accessed through the Internet. In some cases, they are clearly superior to what is generated from “the West” because the nature of the information strongly suggests true communication rather than disinformation. Most educated people, at least those who are not dedicated ideologues, given exposure, can instinctively understand that difference.
Of course, the Russian media have their own agenda and offer some of their own propaganda, but that is simply the nature of all human endeavors. There is no such thing anywhere as bias-free news, but it is possible to approach something like the truth about events by sorting through various sources, each with its own agenda. Without alternative, easily-accessible sources like Russian media, this is a very difficult, if not almost impossible, task for most people.
Once, European news sources offered some degree of alternative view, but that is no more. Sources like Britain’s Guardian or the BBC today might just as well be produced in America, the only thing different about them being their accent. America’s imperial influence is just that heavy.
American authorities have already tried many stunts to blunt this new reality, perhaps the range and variety of them being a measure of official exasperation at there being leaks in the “bubble” they attempt to maintain over Western society.
In previous times of oppressive or badly-intentioned governments, it was quite possible to construct a pretty effective “bubble” or “dome” over a nation by controlling access and content of printed material and jamming any foreign or dissident radio broadcasts.
The Internet has changed that. Not that the Internet itself cannot be effectively jammed, but in “the West” the Internet has become such a daily part of everyone’s activities, including an immense amount of commercial activity, that the appearance and psychology of doing, say, what China does with the Internet, does seem out of reach.
And the very pretensions, even if pretty hypocritical, to values like free speech and press and communications do hamper a government like America’s from just jumping into the deep end and removing all access to what others say. I’m sure it would very much like to do that, because that is how controlling bullies are inclined, but a sudden turn like that would be quite counter-productive to the carefully-maintained appearance of free and open society.
So, there are hundreds of ways it just keeps nipping away at the edges, keeps experimenting, keeps looking for new means of control, without seeming to control.
Huge, government-friendly and government-dependent outfits like Google or Facebook do try, through a whole range of subtler dark schemes and techniques, to achieve a degree of control on what people may see. But things haven’t reached the point of oppressive control. And with so very many years of the Internet experience behind us, there are an awful lot of savvy people out there who discover their schemes.
Although it is widely suspected the American government does have a “kill” switch for the Internet, it would be extremely reluctant to use something like that outside of truly national emergency conditions because there is such an immense volume now of commerce and day-in, day-out communication, and its use would be traumatic.
We do have a whole range of nonsense from bloated, self-interested corporate entities trying to pose as some kind of well-intentioned guardians of truth, with various lame schemes for labeling what is true and what is false to efforts directly attacking foreign and alternative media and excluding them from freedom of operation. All such efforts clearly being totally removed from Enlightenment values.
By “Western” I mean, of course, the United States and the governments in Europe very under its thumb, the adjective “Western” in any political or international context having lost a great deal of the connotations it once carried, connotations of the Enlightenment and of supporting human rights and democracy.
We don’t see an awfully lot of Enlightenment in bombing the crap out of Syria and Iraq and Libya and Yemen and Afghanistan and still other places or in what happens to the millions of desperate refugees the bombing creates.
Nor do we see Enlightenment values in supporting cutthroat leaders like Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince and Egypt’s Generalissimo President or unelected pretenders to office like Venezuela’s Juan Guaidó.
And we get about as far from Enlightenment values as we can go with unqualified support, using authentic 1984 language like “showing restraint” applied to Israel’s army conducting regular ambushes of unarmed protesters in Gaza, shooting thousands of them, people only protesting for basic human rights.
It truly is hard for anyone to see Enlightenment values in the likes of John Bolton or Mike Pompeo or Donald Trump or Boris Johnson or Emmanuel Macron or Benjamin Netanyahu.
There really is a limit as to how far you can stretch the truth, no matter how hard you work on propaganda and disinformation. I believe the more extensive and desperate are your efforts at bringing the world under control, efforts in which America today is heavily engaged trying to preserve its past privileged position against natural evolutionary changes in the world’s economics and politics, the harder it becomes to cover the efforts all up, especially when other people work at uncovering them.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN SOUTH FRONT
"DOUBLESPEAK, MAINSTREAM PROPAGANDA AND ‘RUSSIAN THREAT’"
Not a terribly well-written article, but one with a solid and important subject.
There is no question that "Western" authorities are concerned with Russia having learned to effectively communicate and use media.
And concerned that people in “the West” now often have access to facts and explanations which are at variance to the official Washington "narrative."
I regard Russia’s new mastery of communications and media as an important development. In the 1950s, and even the 1960s, it wasn’t so necessary for the American government to contradict limited Russian sources of information because those sources were so clumsy and heavy-handed in their approach, in their very language, that Westerners, used to relatively sophisticated ways, for the most part, simply instantly discounted what was being said.
That cannot happen now. The communications from Russia are clear and mostly quite sensible and easily accessed through the Internet. In some cases, they are clearly superior to what is generated from “the West” because the nature of the information strongly suggests true communication rather than disinformation. Most educated people, at least those who are not dedicated ideologues, given exposure, can instinctively understand that difference.
Of course, the Russian media have their own agenda and offer some of their own propaganda, but that is simply the nature of all human endeavors. There is no such thing anywhere as bias-free news, but it is possible to approach something like the truth about events by sorting through various sources, each with its own agenda. Without alternative, easily-accessible sources like Russian media, this is a very difficult, if not almost impossible, task for most people.
Once, European news sources offered some degree of alternative view, but that is no more. Sources like Britain’s Guardian or the BBC today might just as well be produced in America, the only thing different about them being their accent. America’s imperial influence is just that heavy.
American authorities have already tried many stunts to blunt this new reality, perhaps the range and variety of them being a measure of official exasperation at there being leaks in the “bubble” they attempt to maintain over Western society.
In previous times of oppressive or badly-intentioned governments, it was quite possible to construct a pretty effective “bubble” or “dome” over a nation by controlling access and content of printed material and jamming any foreign or dissident radio broadcasts.
The Internet has changed that. Not that the Internet itself cannot be effectively jammed, but in “the West” the Internet has become such a daily part of everyone’s activities, including an immense amount of commercial activity, that the appearance and psychology of doing, say, what China does with the Internet, does seem out of reach.
And the very pretensions, even if pretty hypocritical, to values like free speech and press and communications do hamper a government like America’s from just jumping into the deep end and removing all access to what others say. I’m sure it would very much like to do that, because that is how controlling bullies are inclined, but a sudden turn like that would be quite counter-productive to the carefully-maintained appearance of free and open society.
So, there are hundreds of ways it just keeps nipping away at the edges, keeps experimenting, keeps looking for new means of control, without seeming to control.
Huge, government-friendly and government-dependent outfits like Google or Facebook do try, through a whole range of subtler dark schemes and techniques, to achieve a degree of control on what people may see. But things haven’t reached the point of oppressive control. And with so very many years of the Internet experience behind us, there are an awful lot of savvy people out there who discover their schemes.
Although it is widely suspected the American government does have a “kill” switch for the Internet, it would be extremely reluctant to use something like that outside of truly national emergency conditions because there is such an immense volume now of commerce and day-in, day-out communication, and its use would be traumatic.
We do have a whole range of nonsense from bloated, self-interested corporate entities trying to pose as some kind of well-intentioned guardians of truth, with various lame schemes for labeling what is true and what is false to efforts directly attacking foreign and alternative media and excluding them from freedom of operation. All such efforts clearly being totally removed from Enlightenment values.
By “Western” I mean, of course, the United States and the governments in Europe very under its thumb, the adjective “Western” in any political or international context having lost a great deal of the connotations it once carried, connotations of the Enlightenment and of supporting human rights and democracy.
We don’t see an awfully lot of Enlightenment in bombing the crap out of Syria and Iraq and Libya and Yemen and Afghanistan and still other places or in what happens to the millions of desperate refugees the bombing creates.
Nor do we see Enlightenment values in supporting cutthroat leaders like Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince and Egypt’s Generalissimo President or unelected pretenders to office like Venezuela’s Juan Guaidó.
And we get about as far from Enlightenment values as we can go with unqualified support, using authentic 1984 language like “showing restraint” applied to Israel’s army conducting regular ambushes of unarmed protesters in Gaza, shooting thousands of them, people only protesting for basic human rights.
It truly is hard for anyone to see Enlightenment values in the likes of John Bolton or Mike Pompeo or Donald Trump or Boris Johnson or Emmanuel Macron or Benjamin Netanyahu.
There really is a limit as to how far you can stretch the truth, no matter how hard you work on propaganda and disinformation. I believe the more extensive and desperate are your efforts at bringing the world under control, efforts in which America today is heavily engaged trying to preserve its past privileged position against natural evolutionary changes in the world’s economics and politics, the harder it becomes to cover the efforts all up, especially when other people work at uncovering them.
Saturday, August 17, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE EFFECTS OF GREAT UNBALANCED POWER ARE TERRIBLE ALWAYS - WE DESPISE MONOPOLIES AND DICTATORSHIPS FOR GOOD REASONS - BUT IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS MANY PEOPLE EMBRACE AS SOMEHOW BENIGN AMERICA'S DICTATORIAL DRIVES - THE GENUINE EVIL OF SANCTIONS - WAR BY OTHER MEANS AND ALWAYS WAR ON THE WEAK AND DEFENSELESS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO A (REPEAT) ARTICLE BY DMITRY ORLOV IN RUSSIA INSIDER
‘Our Banner of Deceit is Leading the US to Failure
‘"Lies beget other lies, and pretty soon unbiased intelligence-gathering, rational analysis and proper mission planning become impossible."’
https://russia-insider.com/en/christianity/our-banner-deceit-leading-us-failure/ri21135
You know, we have another archive article repeated today in Russia Insider, a very good and accurate one about the monopoly tendencies of the American economy. (“Almost Every Sector of the US Economy Is a Monopoly or an Oligopoly” by Michael Snyder)
I view it as closely related to this excellent piece by Dmitry Orlov on mainline news sources and international affairs, even though its subject is quite another topic.
Both deal with the effects of great, unbalanced power.
Virtually no one in the world likes monopolies.
Their impact on the economy somewhat resembles the impact of dictatorship on the political life of a nation.
And no one embraces dictatorship as a general governing principle.
But in international affairs, somehow, a number of people seem to believe it is perfectly okay to have a form of dictatorship.
If dictatorship is bad for a country's political life and is bad, in the form of monopoly, for a country’s economic life, how can it possibly be beneficial in world affairs?
It cannot be.
Yet today, as perhaps never before, we have America working industriously towards enforcing its will over almost everyone on the planet. Threats, financial pressures, unwarranted tariffs, arbitrary demands, displays of military force, and sanctions everywhere.
You know, sanctions, a word which sounds almost harmless to the untutored ear, have been described as just war by other means, and that is a deadly accurate description.
Sanctions represent a particularly ugly form of war. They are indiscriminate weapons, much like massive carpet bombing, and they always and everywhere hurt mainly the poor and defenceless.
Indeed, for sanctions really to be effective, that is exactly what they must do, strike the great mass of defenseless people – the poor, the sick, the old, women and children – bringing immense pressure on any government.
I generally don’t like using religious terms to describe things in the world of political power, but the word “evil” seems unavoidable to me in the matter of sanctions.
And what do you know, you only have to briefly watch and listen to the brutal people pushing them vigorously to confirm absolutely the perception of evil – people like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Elliot Abrams, Donald Trump, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Simply unconscionable liars and ruthless killers, every one of them.
COMMENT POSTED TO A (REPEAT) ARTICLE BY DMITRY ORLOV IN RUSSIA INSIDER
‘Our Banner of Deceit is Leading the US to Failure
‘"Lies beget other lies, and pretty soon unbiased intelligence-gathering, rational analysis and proper mission planning become impossible."’
https://russia-insider.com/en/christianity/our-banner-deceit-leading-us-failure/ri21135
You know, we have another archive article repeated today in Russia Insider, a very good and accurate one about the monopoly tendencies of the American economy. (“Almost Every Sector of the US Economy Is a Monopoly or an Oligopoly” by Michael Snyder)
I view it as closely related to this excellent piece by Dmitry Orlov on mainline news sources and international affairs, even though its subject is quite another topic.
Both deal with the effects of great, unbalanced power.
Virtually no one in the world likes monopolies.
Their impact on the economy somewhat resembles the impact of dictatorship on the political life of a nation.
And no one embraces dictatorship as a general governing principle.
But in international affairs, somehow, a number of people seem to believe it is perfectly okay to have a form of dictatorship.
If dictatorship is bad for a country's political life and is bad, in the form of monopoly, for a country’s economic life, how can it possibly be beneficial in world affairs?
It cannot be.
Yet today, as perhaps never before, we have America working industriously towards enforcing its will over almost everyone on the planet. Threats, financial pressures, unwarranted tariffs, arbitrary demands, displays of military force, and sanctions everywhere.
You know, sanctions, a word which sounds almost harmless to the untutored ear, have been described as just war by other means, and that is a deadly accurate description.
Sanctions represent a particularly ugly form of war. They are indiscriminate weapons, much like massive carpet bombing, and they always and everywhere hurt mainly the poor and defenceless.
Indeed, for sanctions really to be effective, that is exactly what they must do, strike the great mass of defenseless people – the poor, the sick, the old, women and children – bringing immense pressure on any government.
I generally don’t like using religious terms to describe things in the world of political power, but the word “evil” seems unavoidable to me in the matter of sanctions.
And what do you know, you only have to briefly watch and listen to the brutal people pushing them vigorously to confirm absolutely the perception of evil – people like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Elliot Abrams, Donald Trump, and Benjamin Netanyahu. Simply unconscionable liars and ruthless killers, every one of them.
Friday, August 16, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICA COULD HAVE SETTLED THE MATTER OF ISRAEL/PALESTINE DECADES AGO - IT'S ALWAYS HAD THE LEVERAGE - AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY FAVORABLE OPPORTUNITIES - SO WHY HASN'T IT?
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
_________________________
Response to a comment which said [in reference to Israel],”No two states. No financial support”:
Of course, that's reasonable, but nothing reasonable applies to Israel in the United States. Nothing. Ever.
Were there any political will in Washington, the whole business between Israel and the Palestinians could have been settled decades ago.
The United States, at least in theory, has that power. After all, Israel literally floats on a sea of American subsidies, and I don’t just mean the annual American government hand-out of about $500 per Israeli citizen.
There are huge public and private subsidies flowing to Israel, and a set of immense privileges in place – everything from free trade and favorable treatment in gaining large American government contracts to extraordinary access to American decision-makers – privileges worth their weight in gold.
But there is no political will in Washington to use that leverage.
There were even some very powerful past opportunities that were completely ignored, as when Israel attacked the USS Liberty viciously in the Six Day War.
America did nothing. Demanded nothing. Just shut the whole matter down.
Another strong psychological opportunity came in the wake of American-Israeli Baruch Goldstein slaughtering 29 Palestinians at prayer in 1994. Another 125 were wounded by that madman with a machine-gun.
Perfect time to apply pressure. Nothing was done.
Or how about the Six Day War itself, totally planned by an Israel confident it could win in order to seize the lands for a future “Greater Israel,” lands still occupied today. Millions held against their will. New parcels of land – the homes and farms of those held - stolen openly under the harmless-sounding euphemism of “settlements.”
Not a word. No effort. And remember when it comes to matters of property and ownership, likely no people on earth are more ready to shoot first and ask questions after.
In part, it’s the work of the very powerful Israel Lobby. No American politician wants to offend them. And no American politician wants to miss out on the campaign contributions and favorable mainline press handed out for loyal service.
But I believe the situation also reflects the fact that Israel really is a de facto colony of the US, a rather unusual and privileged one, serving many of Washington's purposes in the Mideast.
Ever hear of a colonial power being fair in its colonies or showing the least sense of justice in colonial arrangements?
As for "the natives" anywhere, how did Britain treat them in its imperial heyday?
You might enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/john-chuckman-comment-democracy-and-the-tyranny-of-a-majority-israel-and-the-palestinians-using-ugly-name-calling-to-silence-legitimate-criticism-of-unfairness/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/04/05/john-chuckman-comment-exactly-why-peace-cannot-come-from-israel-there-is-no-engine-for-doing-it-and-structural-realities-dictate-virtually-endless-hostility-as-far-as-peace-dictated-from-outside/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/06/08/john-chuckman-comment-totally-inappropriate-legislation-in-florida-highlights-a-huge-and-ongoing-problem-israels-direct-and-persistent-interference-in-americas-internal-political-affairs/
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT
_________________________
Response to a comment which said [in reference to Israel],”No two states. No financial support”:
Of course, that's reasonable, but nothing reasonable applies to Israel in the United States. Nothing. Ever.
Were there any political will in Washington, the whole business between Israel and the Palestinians could have been settled decades ago.
The United States, at least in theory, has that power. After all, Israel literally floats on a sea of American subsidies, and I don’t just mean the annual American government hand-out of about $500 per Israeli citizen.
There are huge public and private subsidies flowing to Israel, and a set of immense privileges in place – everything from free trade and favorable treatment in gaining large American government contracts to extraordinary access to American decision-makers – privileges worth their weight in gold.
But there is no political will in Washington to use that leverage.
There were even some very powerful past opportunities that were completely ignored, as when Israel attacked the USS Liberty viciously in the Six Day War.
America did nothing. Demanded nothing. Just shut the whole matter down.
Another strong psychological opportunity came in the wake of American-Israeli Baruch Goldstein slaughtering 29 Palestinians at prayer in 1994. Another 125 were wounded by that madman with a machine-gun.
Perfect time to apply pressure. Nothing was done.
Or how about the Six Day War itself, totally planned by an Israel confident it could win in order to seize the lands for a future “Greater Israel,” lands still occupied today. Millions held against their will. New parcels of land – the homes and farms of those held - stolen openly under the harmless-sounding euphemism of “settlements.”
Not a word. No effort. And remember when it comes to matters of property and ownership, likely no people on earth are more ready to shoot first and ask questions after.
In part, it’s the work of the very powerful Israel Lobby. No American politician wants to offend them. And no American politician wants to miss out on the campaign contributions and favorable mainline press handed out for loyal service.
But I believe the situation also reflects the fact that Israel really is a de facto colony of the US, a rather unusual and privileged one, serving many of Washington's purposes in the Mideast.
Ever hear of a colonial power being fair in its colonies or showing the least sense of justice in colonial arrangements?
As for "the natives" anywhere, how did Britain treat them in its imperial heyday?
You might enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/07/26/john-chuckman-comment-democracy-and-the-tyranny-of-a-majority-israel-and-the-palestinians-using-ugly-name-calling-to-silence-legitimate-criticism-of-unfairness/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/04/05/john-chuckman-comment-exactly-why-peace-cannot-come-from-israel-there-is-no-engine-for-doing-it-and-structural-realities-dictate-virtually-endless-hostility-as-far-as-peace-dictated-from-outside/
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/06/08/john-chuckman-comment-totally-inappropriate-legislation-in-florida-highlights-a-huge-and-ongoing-problem-israels-direct-and-persistent-interference-in-americas-internal-political-affairs/
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AMERICA ISSUES A "WARRANT" OVER THE ILLEGAL APPLICATION ITS OWN LAWS TO THE WHOLE WORLD - LACK OF RESPECT FOR INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW - AMERICA JUST CANNOT STOP ITS IDIOCY WHEN IT COMES TO IRAN
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“U.S. says it has warrant to seize Iranian tanker released in Gibraltar
“The U.S. government said Friday it had obtained a warrant to seize the tanker, citing violations of U.S. sanctions, as well as money laundering and terrorism statutes. The U.S. is seeking to take control of the tanker as well as all of the petroleum aboard it and $995,000 US.”
Will the idiot United States never stop?
Obviously, it can issue itself a "warrant" for anything it wants.
Equally obviously, it has nothing to do with international law or respect for the rule of law.
Finally, Britain came to its senses, after stupidly following direction from John Bolton originally to arrest the tanker, something we know from Gibraltar sources and something which started a whole sequence of unpleasant events.
America's sanction laws are not laws of some world government. They are laws only inside the United States, but when you are an international bully, ready to flex military and financial muscle, you can make people feel their impact anywhere.
Which is just what America does. And after it, all on its own, ripped up a working international treaty with half a dozen other signatories it simply ignores. It’s exactly like one company of a group of companies in a contract for a project, a project already working and established for several years, just suddenly ripping up the contract despite objections from all the others involved.
Only there are no effective international courts or police to appeal to for the enforcement of what were legal obligations America simply ignores. It just bullies everyone and issues its own “warrants.” It literally has become a pirate nation, giving no one on earth any peace.
_______________________
Response to a comment saying, “America needs to fix its own problems at home, total chit show”:
Boy, is that right.
But the politicians running Washington couldn't care less.
They have neither time nor money for actually governing their own country.
They spend all their time and all their money pursuing the goal of telling everyone else in the world what to do.
A total madhouse.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“U.S. says it has warrant to seize Iranian tanker released in Gibraltar
“The U.S. government said Friday it had obtained a warrant to seize the tanker, citing violations of U.S. sanctions, as well as money laundering and terrorism statutes. The U.S. is seeking to take control of the tanker as well as all of the petroleum aboard it and $995,000 US.”
Will the idiot United States never stop?
Obviously, it can issue itself a "warrant" for anything it wants.
Equally obviously, it has nothing to do with international law or respect for the rule of law.
Finally, Britain came to its senses, after stupidly following direction from John Bolton originally to arrest the tanker, something we know from Gibraltar sources and something which started a whole sequence of unpleasant events.
America's sanction laws are not laws of some world government. They are laws only inside the United States, but when you are an international bully, ready to flex military and financial muscle, you can make people feel their impact anywhere.
Which is just what America does. And after it, all on its own, ripped up a working international treaty with half a dozen other signatories it simply ignores. It’s exactly like one company of a group of companies in a contract for a project, a project already working and established for several years, just suddenly ripping up the contract despite objections from all the others involved.
Only there are no effective international courts or police to appeal to for the enforcement of what were legal obligations America simply ignores. It just bullies everyone and issues its own “warrants.” It literally has become a pirate nation, giving no one on earth any peace.
_______________________
Response to a comment saying, “America needs to fix its own problems at home, total chit show”:
Boy, is that right.
But the politicians running Washington couldn't care less.
They have neither time nor money for actually governing their own country.
They spend all their time and all their money pursuing the goal of telling everyone else in the world what to do.
A total madhouse.
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE ALT-RIGHT'S OUTRAGE OVER FBI BEHAVIOR TOWARDS TRUMP - WHERE WERE THEY FOR DECADES OF FBI ABUSE? FOR THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THAT CORRUPT AGENCY? - AND CONSIDERING WHAT A COMPLETE DISASTER TRUMP HAS PROVED, ONE CAN ALMOST SYMPATHIZE WITH EFFORTS TO DERAIL HIM, ALMOST
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN INVESTMENTWATCH
“Corrupt FBI was running a treasonous espionage operation against Trump… and it’s all about to come out”
Of course, I don't support such activity by a law enforcement agency like the FBI, but here are a few important additional thoughts which make the intense focus on the FBI these days seem rather exaggerated.
First, there can be no question that the "top of the house" had to get the ball rolling on all of this stuff, including the activities of the CIA's Brennan. I mean Obama, but I don't generally see a great deal about that.
Two, the entire history of the FBI is marked by corruption and excess and just plain abuse. See:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-dreadful-record-of-the-fbi/
Why the sudden rush and noise in Trump’s time when most of the FBI’s illegal and inappropriate activity for decades and decades has pretty much been ignored?
Indeed, the kind of conservatives who support Trump vociferously are undoubtedly the very same folks who would in the past leap to the FBI’s defense when someone questioned or impugned it.
This national investigative agency has always been used by Presidents and others for inappropriate work.
Roosevelt abused it. Johnson abused it. Nixon abused it. Bush abused it. And so did others. It was often used by Presidents to collect compromising information on political opponents. So, what's really new?
Indeed, the FBI itself used such information to influence and even intimidate members of the House and Senate. J Edgar Hoover would hold a brief tête-à -tête with a politician and just suggest, with a sidelong glance or perhaps a wink and a nod, that the FBI was aware of things which might be embarrassing.
His words were always couched in terms suggesting an effort to be helpful, but the threat was clear, and he dominated Washington’s politicians for decades, getting his way on matters of concern, especially where they concerned benefits or changes for the FBI.
Hoover’s personal and secret files at FBI headquarters, skillfully organized files (he was a librarian in his early career and made great use of his skill with file systems in building the FBI), contained all the dirt to be used, and they were not accessible to others. They mysteriously disappeared at the time of his death.
Three, Trump has proved to be such a destructive force in office - a total loss for the nation and the world in terms of economics and trade, the future of traditional alliances, the threat of real war, and just plain public civility, as well as faithful service to illegal requests from Israel - one can almost have sympathy with those who tried to prevent him getting there. Almost.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN INVESTMENTWATCH
“Corrupt FBI was running a treasonous espionage operation against Trump… and it’s all about to come out”
Of course, I don't support such activity by a law enforcement agency like the FBI, but here are a few important additional thoughts which make the intense focus on the FBI these days seem rather exaggerated.
First, there can be no question that the "top of the house" had to get the ball rolling on all of this stuff, including the activities of the CIA's Brennan. I mean Obama, but I don't generally see a great deal about that.
Two, the entire history of the FBI is marked by corruption and excess and just plain abuse. See:
https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-dreadful-record-of-the-fbi/
Why the sudden rush and noise in Trump’s time when most of the FBI’s illegal and inappropriate activity for decades and decades has pretty much been ignored?
Indeed, the kind of conservatives who support Trump vociferously are undoubtedly the very same folks who would in the past leap to the FBI’s defense when someone questioned or impugned it.
This national investigative agency has always been used by Presidents and others for inappropriate work.
Roosevelt abused it. Johnson abused it. Nixon abused it. Bush abused it. And so did others. It was often used by Presidents to collect compromising information on political opponents. So, what's really new?
Indeed, the FBI itself used such information to influence and even intimidate members of the House and Senate. J Edgar Hoover would hold a brief tête-à -tête with a politician and just suggest, with a sidelong glance or perhaps a wink and a nod, that the FBI was aware of things which might be embarrassing.
His words were always couched in terms suggesting an effort to be helpful, but the threat was clear, and he dominated Washington’s politicians for decades, getting his way on matters of concern, especially where they concerned benefits or changes for the FBI.
Hoover’s personal and secret files at FBI headquarters, skillfully organized files (he was a librarian in his early career and made great use of his skill with file systems in building the FBI), contained all the dirt to be used, and they were not accessible to others. They mysteriously disappeared at the time of his death.
Three, Trump has proved to be such a destructive force in office - a total loss for the nation and the world in terms of economics and trade, the future of traditional alliances, the threat of real war, and just plain public civility, as well as faithful service to illegal requests from Israel - one can almost have sympathy with those who tried to prevent him getting there. Almost.
Thursday, August 15, 2019
JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A WORD ON "CONSPIRACY THEORIES" IN GENERAL - THE TERM'S DARK ORIGIN AND FREQUENT USE BY OUR MAINLINE PRESS - SOME REPORTED DETAILS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S DEATH - AND FOR THIS NON-EXPERT THEY DO RAISE DOUBTS
John Chuckman
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CAITLIN JOHNSON IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“The Epstein Case: Everyone’s a Conspiracy Theorist
“The only problem with the term is the meaningless use of it as a pejorative”
The term "conspiracy theory" should always serve as red flag to any astute reader concerning what follows.
The term was reportedly coined by a CIA disinformation guy in the late 1960s to counter and discredit efforts to get at the truth of the Kennedy assassination.
It's amazing the way it has hung around.
The mainline press loves the phrase, and you'll find it somewhere in their output weekly trying to discredit this or that matter.
The autopsy of Jeffrey Epstein is reported to have shown that his neck was broken, "in several places." The coroner stated that she “is confident the cause of death is suicide by hanging.”
I don’t know. I ‘m certainly not an expert. In traditional capital-punishment hanging, as in a prison by an executioner, the neck is indeed broken, but as I understand it, cleanly, not “in several places.”
That is how a hanged person dies, not by strangulation, something that is the result only of botched hangings.
Virtually all self-hangings are botched hangings.
Individuals hanging themselves almost never possess information about how it is done. Typically they either hurl themselves off something like a staircase or kick away something they are standing on, as a chair or stool. Neither of those approaches has much probability of producing the classic executioner’s result, although the first can certainly break neck bones or even behead someone. Epstein, we know, used neither of those methods. Indeed, he couldn’t, given the small, deliberately-bare cell he was in.
What is required to achieve the instantly-broken neck, and in just the right place for quick death, is a drop of a certain amount plus a certain positioning of the rope. Those conditions generally are not possible with efforts like hanging by bedsheets.
Sheets, incidentally, as I've previously noted, not even available to inmates at the institution where Epstein was held. They sleep on special paper sheets.
Newspaper reports of how Epstein killed himself say that the six-foot man tied a bedsheet to the top of the bunk bed in the small cell and then kneeled towards the floor, strangling himself. It is not easy to see how doing that could result in a neck broken “in several places.”
I think the autopsy result, at least to a non-expert, only increases doubts.
Readers may enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/john-chuckman-comment-the-gift-that-just-keeps-giving-jeffrey-epstein-fascinating-new-facts-about-his-imprisonment-and-before-more-big-names-associated-with-him-and-a-big-and-highly-suggestiv/
AFTERNOTE:
“Medical Examiner Rules Jeffrey Epstein Death Was Suicide by Hanging.”
The image that comes far more readily to mind is of strong killer quickly strangling him, breaking his neck in several places, and then leaving his body positioned in a sheet tied to the bed, a sheet inmates do not have. All done, of course, while guards slept and cameras weren’t working.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY CAITLIN JOHNSON IN CONSORTIUM NEWS
“The Epstein Case: Everyone’s a Conspiracy Theorist
“The only problem with the term is the meaningless use of it as a pejorative”
The term "conspiracy theory" should always serve as red flag to any astute reader concerning what follows.
The term was reportedly coined by a CIA disinformation guy in the late 1960s to counter and discredit efforts to get at the truth of the Kennedy assassination.
It's amazing the way it has hung around.
The mainline press loves the phrase, and you'll find it somewhere in their output weekly trying to discredit this or that matter.
The autopsy of Jeffrey Epstein is reported to have shown that his neck was broken, "in several places." The coroner stated that she “is confident the cause of death is suicide by hanging.”
I don’t know. I ‘m certainly not an expert. In traditional capital-punishment hanging, as in a prison by an executioner, the neck is indeed broken, but as I understand it, cleanly, not “in several places.”
That is how a hanged person dies, not by strangulation, something that is the result only of botched hangings.
Virtually all self-hangings are botched hangings.
Individuals hanging themselves almost never possess information about how it is done. Typically they either hurl themselves off something like a staircase or kick away something they are standing on, as a chair or stool. Neither of those approaches has much probability of producing the classic executioner’s result, although the first can certainly break neck bones or even behead someone. Epstein, we know, used neither of those methods. Indeed, he couldn’t, given the small, deliberately-bare cell he was in.
What is required to achieve the instantly-broken neck, and in just the right place for quick death, is a drop of a certain amount plus a certain positioning of the rope. Those conditions generally are not possible with efforts like hanging by bedsheets.
Sheets, incidentally, as I've previously noted, not even available to inmates at the institution where Epstein was held. They sleep on special paper sheets.
Newspaper reports of how Epstein killed himself say that the six-foot man tied a bedsheet to the top of the bunk bed in the small cell and then kneeled towards the floor, strangling himself. It is not easy to see how doing that could result in a neck broken “in several places.”
I think the autopsy result, at least to a non-expert, only increases doubts.
Readers may enjoy:
https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/john-chuckman-comment-the-gift-that-just-keeps-giving-jeffrey-epstein-fascinating-new-facts-about-his-imprisonment-and-before-more-big-names-associated-with-him-and-a-big-and-highly-suggestiv/
AFTERNOTE:
“Medical Examiner Rules Jeffrey Epstein Death Was Suicide by Hanging.”
The image that comes far more readily to mind is of strong killer quickly strangling him, breaking his neck in several places, and then leaving his body positioned in a sheet tied to the bed, a sheet inmates do not have. All done, of course, while guards slept and cameras weren’t working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)