Month: September 2015

by William Skink

Allegations that David Cameron is a literal pig fucker is the type of salacious story the media loves. It grabs people’s attention, drives clicks, and doesn’t come close to being something that could threaten the establishment.

Jeremy Corbyn’s miraculous political victory, on the other hand, is not that kind of story because it’s a substantive political feat that must threaten the establishment, as evidenced by a shocking statement from a General mulling over the possibility of staging a mutiny if Corbyn is elected:

The unnamed general said members of the armed forces would begin directly and publicly challenging the labour leader if he tried to scrap Trident, pull out of Nato or announce “any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces.”

He told the Sunday Times: “The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.

“There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.”

The attacks against Corbyn are not just coming from the military and the political right. The left-leaning media gatekeepers at the Guardian and the Observer have also been busy savaging Corbyn. For a good look at how this is carried out, Jonathan Cook’s piece, titled Guardian’s terrible dilemma over Corbyn, is worth reading. From the link:

The reality is that Corbyn poses a very serious challenge to supposedly liberal-left media like the Guardian and the Observer, which is why they hoped to ensure his candidacy was still-born and why, now he is leader, they are caught in a terrible dilemma.

While the Guardian and Observer market themselves as caring about justice and equality, but do nothing to bring them about apart from promoting tinkering with the present, hugely unjust, global neoliberal order, Corbyn’s rhetoric suggests that the apple cart needs upending.

If it achieves nothing else, Corbyn’s campaign has highlighted a truth about the existing British political system: that, at least since the time of Tony Blair, the country’s two major parliamentary parties have been equally committed to upholding neoliberalism. The Blue Neoliberal Party (the Conservatives) and the Red Neoliberal Party (Labour) mark the short horizon of current British politics. You can have either hardcore neoliberalism or slightly more softcore neoliberalism.

Corbyn shows that there should be more to politics than this false choice, which is why hundreds of thousands of leftists flocked back to Labour in the hope of getting him elected. In doing so, they overwhelmed the parliamentary Labour party (PLP), which vigorously opposed him becoming leader.

Here is another article that looks at the attacks on Corbyn from the left:

But beyond the right-wing press, it was The Guardian and The Observer from which hordes and hordes of articles criticising Corbyn rained down as soon as the election was over. Other, formerly respectable ‘liberal’ outlets like the Telegraph were not backwards in coming forwards, either. The media, across the spectrum, had begun ushering Corbyn’s neck into their pre-prepared noose from minute one.

What’s wholly perturbing, though not astonishing, is the nature of the abuse. It’s personal. Numerous interviews, comments and pieces have referred to Jeremy Corbyn’s appearance and personal life. People appearing on TV to defend him have been few and far between. Those that are allowed on TV are usually young, and young people and their views are held with particular contempt across mainstream media. Young people fit into the media’s ‘naïve’ representation of left wing views. Overwhelmingly putting young people in the corner for Corbyn plays nicely into the ‘unelectable’ theorem. This is how young, ‘idealistic’ opponents to the Vietnam War were treated in the 60’s and later in the UK Uncut and Occupy movements. This feels similar. Besmirching appearance and character is the first stepping stone across a stream trying to flow in the other direction.

The liberal press attacks have been maintained with impressive consistency. The Guardian who thrive on a reputation of ‘speaking truth to power’ and protecting the vulnerable have proved themselves to be nothing more than a conduit for establishment rank closing. Guardian columnists, liberal paragons, defenders of the free world, appear more petrified than anyone. They have a striking similarity with the remaining twisted Blairite faction of the Labour party; they love the idea of social justice, until there’s a possibility it might creep too high on the agenda.

All of this is sounding kind of familiar. Too bad Bernie Sanders is no Jeremy Corbyn.

by William Skink

What if there is evidence that Obama knew, within hours of MH17 being shot down over Ukraine, that it wasn’t a BUK missile that took it out, killing 298 people? That is precisely what John Helmer is claiming:

Presidents Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama have on file three pieces of evidence showing both of them knew what had caused the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17, and of the deaths of all 298 souls on board. They knew it little more than two hours after the crash had occurred in eastern Ukraine. They also knew each other knew it, because they discussed what had happened in a telephone call which took place before 19:45 Moscow time, 11:45 Washington time, on Thursday, July 17. MH17 was downed that day at 16:20 Ukraine time, 17:20 Moscow time, 09:20 Washington time.

The first piece of evidence is the agenda paper for the telephone call. This had been negotiated and formalized by the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian Embassy in Washington, the State Department and the White House before July 17. The second piece of evidence is the tape of the Putin-Obama conversation, as recorded by the Kremlin. The third piece of evidence is the tape of the Obama-Putin conversation, as recorded by the White House.

Later in the article, some initial findings from the investigation have been reported to now be classified, but enough has come out to put the BUK missile theory into serious doubt:

Two additional pieces of evidence on what Putin and Obama said have taken a year to surface. One comes from the Dutch police officer and state prosecutor leading the MH17 case investigation, Fred Westerbeke.

A year ago, on September 12, 2014, Westerbeke announced publicly that 25 pieces of metal had been recovered. This count hasn’t improved In the 14-month long investigation of the crash, of the aircraft debris, and of the remains of those killed. For Westerbeke’s statements to Dutch, British and German press, read this.

Westerbeke’s testimony is, he admits himself, ambiguous. He acknowledges that he doesn’t (didn’t) know, or isn’t (wasn’t) certain, what the origin of the metal had been.

The second piece of evidence, which reveals what Westerbeke meant by his disclosure, came weeks later from the Coroners Court of Victoria, an active participant in the multinational post-mortem investigation of the MH17 victims.

Three Australians – pathology professor David Ranson; deputy Victorian state coroner Iain West, and Victorian state coroner Ian Gray – released the evidence they had gathered and verified with the Dutch and the five-state Joint Investigation Team at the Hilversum military base, near Amsterdam. This evidence became public in November and December of last year. It was classified secret last week. For the detailed documentation which has been preserved of this evidence, click to read here. A Coroners Court spokesman refuses to say when the evidence was officially classified, or on whose order.

According to the Australian coronial evidence, there was almost no metal in the bodies or body parts of the MH17 victims. According to Westerbeke, just 25 particles had been found. Before the Australian coroners had seen the metal assay evidence, they ruled that “causes of death from explosive decompression – similar to the pressure wave from a bomb – included hypothermia, hypoxia, massive internal organ injury, embolism and heart attack. Exposure to very low temperatures, airflow buffeting and low oxygen at 30,000 feet would also result in death in seconds.” Detonation, lethal explosion, and breakup of aircraft had occurred, the Australians have reported — but with insufficient traces of shrapnel to confirm that a Buk missile warhead had been cause.

Coroner Gray is responsible for the blackout of evidence he and his subordinates had painstakingly made public last year, for the benefit and comfort, they said at the time, of the families of the victims. Ranson, the most talkative of the Australian official investigators, has been obliged this week, not only to keep silent on what he has already published, but to contradict what he has already said. The Australian Federal Police (AFP), Westerbeke’s counterparts in the joint international investigation process, are withholding all evidence papers compiled by the pathologists, and the evidence summary file they continue to discuss with the investigators.

Are we to the point where an American President can just brazenly lie to the world about a serious war crime and get away with it? I guess so, but not without the help of corporate media, who collectively and dutifully provided the sound of crickets over this new, troubling evidence.

The Obama Administration isn’t being led by some Grandmaster of foreign policy. It’s being led by the kind of people who thought they had Assad’s number in 2012, so they ignored this deal from Russia that would have included Assad stepping down:

Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.

Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.

Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.

But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.

Last month I wrote about how the Democrat political machine is trying to slither away from discussing foreign policy, but now, with Wasserman-Schultz getting her speech disrupted by party protestors demanding more debates, I’m wondering if the Democrat machine wants to talk about anything other than the coronation of Hillary Clinton. From the link:

As DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz spoke at a big Democratic rally this morning, protesters disrupted her speech, demanding more debates.

The Democratic presidential candidates are only having six debates, something that’s been criticized by the party’s own candidates and two of the DNC’s own vice chairs. But Wasserman-Schultz has been very insistent that six debates is sufficient.

There was a protest outside DNC headquarters this week, and today, protesters shouted “We want debates!” as the DNC chair spoke.

Wasserman-Schultz fired back and told Democrats shouldn’t be wasting time on fighting over debates when they could be spending that time fighting Republicans instead.

Nice leadership you got there, Democrats. More than a few Democrat supporters are unhappy there are not more opportunities to watch their preferred candidates talk about issues, and the response they get is essentially stop your whining and do what you’re told. It seems pretty obvious that protestors within the party will be ignored because more debates would hurt an already damaged Hillary Clinton.

Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if Bernie Sanders took political advantage of this? He could start loudly and repeatedly calling for more debates, but he won’t.

So far Sanders has shown little interest in taking it to Hillary. The role Bernie is playing remains open to speculation, but I still think this piece from last June deserves consideration.

That article drew attention to pro-Bernie email blasts being sent out courtesy of the DNC. Citing that article, then furthering the speculation that Bernie Sanders is playing sheepdog for the DNC, was one of the main reasons Jay Stevens booted JC and myself off 4&20 Blackbirds.

There is the flip side of Wasserman-Schultz putting those protestors in their place. The anointed one is vulnerable, and they know it. Even better, maybe Bernie isn’t a good sheepdog, and is just biding his time for the right moment to bite the hand that feeds him.

by William Skink

Donald Trump’s teflon poll numbers signify, at least for me, one thing: America is ready for Hitler 2.0, and the leading candidate to administer America’s fascist rise is El Trumpo.

This century’s Jews will be mostly Muslims, but really any dark-skinned “other” will do.

We should thank Trump for showing us where America is going. For all those who continue to think it can’t happen here, I’ll quote that Muslim Non-American squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

YES WE CAN!!!

By JC

In a recent post at Intelligent Discontent, I read another in a long line of litanies from a member of the blogging community lambasting a Missoulian op-ed writer’s lament about the state of environmentalism. Or environmentalism in the state. Whatever. I could link to the blogger’s post, but why?

I may have linked to an incorrect op-ed, and if so then I apologize to the unnamed and unlinked blogger.  In that post, said blogger attacked the alleged op-ed writer and his opinions about what constitutes a “real” vs. “pseudo” environmentalist. And by doing so, the blogger attempts to create his own version of proper behavior within the “environmental community” (as if there is any such contrivance).

It’s a neat rhetorical flourish, being able to simultaneously call out a writer for failing to engage in “substantive debate” while failing to name the writer, or groups he is suspect of categorizing into his neat environmental subsets. Of course, maybe there is more than a mere debate about policy going on. After all, the suspected op-ed writer also is a substitute teacher and judge for Montana state high school debate championships.

Bingo! I think we may have a bit of a personal and/or professional issue creeping into the mere discussion of environmentalism. Nothing more competitive than a little controversy over debate in the state, particularly between judges and coaches! Of course, I could be wrong, and said blogger could be referring to some other enviro. In any case, it is hard to get to the heart of the policy issue in any environmental debate, when the goal is to beat the other debate team, regardless of the meat of the issue. The goal of debating is to win, not to discern the best policy. Just like politics. Continue reading “Wherein a Blogger goes Ballistic on “Real” Environmentalists”

by William Skink

The Nation recently celebrated 150 years of publishing its magazine, described by Wikipedia this way:

The Nation is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, a successor to William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator. The periodical, devoted to politics and culture, is self-described as “the flagship of the left”.

Astute political observers who are capable of seeing past the borders of America can see how sorry the state of the left is in the states. I don’t think Alfred McCoy, writing for The Nation, is one of them. Here is the title of McCoy’s recent Nation article: Barack Obama Is a Foreign Policy Grandmaster. This is how the piece opens:

In ways that have eluded Washington pundits and policymakers, President Barack Obama is deploying a subtle geopolitical strategy that, if successful, might give Washington a fighting chance to extend its global hegemony deep into the 21st century. After six years of silent, sometimes secret preparations, the Obama White House has recently unveiled some bold diplomatic initiatives whose sum is nothing less than a tricontinental strategy to check Beijing’s rise. As these moves unfold, Obama is revealing himself as one of those rare grandmasters who appear every generation or two with an ability to go beyond mere foreign policy and play that ruthless global game called geopolitics.

Read the whole article for McCoy’s argument. I don’t have the stomach to excerpt more of it here.

Instead, let’s take a look at Ajamu Baraka’s piece at Counterpunch today, titled Yemen Tragedy and the Ongoing Crisis of the Left in the United States:

In Yemen, six months of relentless and seemingly indiscriminate bombing by the repressive Wahhabaist dictatorship of Saudi Arabia has cost the lives of over four thousands human beings, who according to the United Nations and major human rights organizations have been primarily civilians.

Along with this wanton murder, the Saudi government and its allies from the contemptuous gang of corrupt Arab monarchies known as the Gulf Cooperation Council benefit from the diplomatic cover and military support from the equally contemptuous U.S. state. Together, they have created a humanitarian catastrophe in one of the poorest nations on the planet.

Yet, for the majority of the people in the U.S., the carnage in Yemen simply does not exist because it has not been in the interests of the rulers to draw the attention of the American people to it.

Therefore, the U.S. public is unaware that the U.S. is participating in the naval blockade of a country that imports 80% of its food by sea. They don’t know that the bombing, blockade, and massive displacement has resulted in widespread famine with more than 78% of the population now in need of humanitarian assistance. They never read the report from Peter Maurer, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), who said that “Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years.”

And while U.S. propagandists are preparing the people for an even more direct intervention into Syria, using the absurd pretext that somehow the imposition of a “no fly zone” is an appropriate response to the humanitarian concerns of refugee flows from Syria to Europe, the humanitarian emergency created by the war in Yemen is largely uncovered and outside the bounds of polite conversation in the U.S.

This conspiracy of silence has translated into impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It has meant that the central role played by the U.S. in this criminal assault occurred without any opposition from mainstream politicians or most radicals and leftists in the U.S.

Yep, our corporate media isn’t showing pictures of dead Yemeni children, so why would anyone give a shit about that particular humanitarian crisis? We can even look at the Saudi slaughter of Yemen as an American jobs program, because who do you think Saudi Arabia will turn to when they need to buy more weapons of mass destruction?

I’m sure this is all part of Grandmaster Obama’s plan: allow Saudi Arabia to get mired down in Yemen so they can’t meddle too much in the Iran deal and America’s continued pivot to Asia.

I stand humbled in the presence of such brilliance. Who cares about Yemen when America has a new century to dominate?

Fuck yeah.