Monday, April 15, 2019

Blasphemy In the Church of Nine-Eleven



The target of much criticism from the left for her bland scolding of Donald Trump over his own incendiary Tweet against Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Pelosi has since announced she will ask for another security review by the FBI and Capitol Police to determine how Omar, her family and her staff can be best protected from a sitting president of the United States. She has also belatedly suggested that his original offensive tweet, with a photo of Omar interposed with a graphic of the flaming World Trade Center, "be taken down."

Omar's remarks about Islamophobia at a conference last month were recently ripped out of context by a right-wing agitator, then enhanced by Rupert Murdoch's tabloid New York Post, and finally grotesquely inflamed by Provocateur-in-Chief Donald Trump. What Trump actually presides over is not so much the government as it is the xenophobia and racism which has always been an integral, albeit usually verbally suppressed, part of the American ruling class agenda.

 And that very much includes the United States military, whose Civil War army was reconstituted and professionalized for the express purpose of enforcing the mass expulsions and exterminations of native American populations. To this day, military weapons and other hardware, such as the Apache helicopter, are named after Indian tribes. Osama bin Laden was code-named Geronimo prior to his extrajudicial sneak execution as Barack Obama began preparations for his re-election campaign.

 So Trump just happens to be the most vocal and vicious (and for the more discreet ruling elite, the most embarrassing) spokesman for this dark part of the American psyche, not arriving on the scene until some some 300 years after the Puritans first erected their own model shining City on the Hill off a foundation of corpses of the native populations of New England, whom they exterminated both through their diseases and their wars.

So the cowardly and tepid response of Pelosi and Democratic Party leadership to Trump's not-so-veiled incitements to racist violence against Omar in particular and Muslims in general, should thus be put into historical context.

Pelosi in her Tweet avoided directly addressing his threats against Ilhan Omar by diverting the issue into a bizarre sermon whose theme is that any discussion  of the Sept. 11th attacks should be akin to prayer - a "sacred memory" - to be chanted only with the approved words and contained within the walls of the established cathedral. This deflection is nothing new. The horrific act of mass murder began its transformation into a cult, founded and led by the political-media complex, almost from the day it happened. The attacks had to be fetishized in order to avoid discussions of its root cause, which was blowback by former CIA asset Osama bin Laden, revenge against the US militaristic/capitalistic meddling and plunder in the entire Middle Eastern world and the militarization of Israel by its US partner, funder and enabler.

 The physical site of the lower Manhattan attack has been transformed into a national shrine and museum. The 2,753 victims have been canonized as martyrs.

The attacks became the impetus for even more US meddling, with the ensuing full scale military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and still-ongoing bombings of at least seven other majority-Muslim countries, including Ilhan Omar's native Somalia. More than a million people have died, been maimed or displaced by this overkill. The 9/11 attacks also became the perfect excuse to criminalize dissent and whittle away the civil rights of both US and global populations. They spawned a whole new Department of Homeland Security and transformed the  country into what journalist Todd Miller aptly calls Border Patrol Nation. This year, the United States Congress has allocated more money to the permanent war machine than it did during the bloodiest year of the Iraq War.

Long before the September day in 2001 "when everything changed," of course, Islam was being demonized by Western leaders, and their corporate news media and Hollywood propagandists. Islam has regularly been equated with fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism for decades. As the late Palestinian author Edward Said explained in the introduction of the 1997 edition of his book "Covering Islam," Muslims became especially convenient scapegoats after the fall of the Soviet Union. In the wake of the bombing by Libyan terrorists of the Pan Am flight above Lockerbie, Scotland, and the first bombing of the World Trade Center and other attacks, the simple utterance of the word "Islam" in the West became a means of attacking Islam. 

This, in turn, has "provoked more hostility between self-appointed Muslim and Western spokespersons. 'Islam' defines a relatively small proportion of what actually takes place in the Islamic world, which numbers a billion people, and includes dozens of countries, societies, traditions, languages, and of course an infinite number of different experiences."

This is exactly what Ilhan Omar was talking about in her speech last month,  correctly observing that the actions of "some people" on 9/11 paved the way for the perpetual criminalization of an entire religion as practiced in myriad ways by over a billion people worldwide.

As for Donald Trump, inveterate entertainment consumer and purveyor that he is, his own personal xenophobia did not sprout full-fledged from the murky depths of his personality disorder. He probably, for example, saw the 1994 Hollywood blockbuster, True Lies. Its star villains, notes author Zachary Karabell, are stereotypical Arabs "complete with glinty eyes and a passionate desire to kill Americans" who must, in turn, be killed by the sexy intrepid American hero, played by future GOP California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

As Edward Said observed, "Covering Islam is a one-sided activity that obscures what 'we' do, and highlights instead what Muslims and Arabs by their very flawed nature are."

Ilhan Omar was initially celebrated by the Democratic Party because she so perfectly fit its identity politics agenda as a cosmetic antithesis of Trump: she is a woman, she is Black, she is an immigrant, and she is a Muslim. If only she could have stayed in her appointed place as an exotic statue instead of criticizing the right-wing government of Israel - on top of having the effrontery to be one of the most progressive members of Congress. As such, she puts lie to the propaganda that Muslims live in a medieval, anti-feminist world. The corporate wing of the party, led by Pelosi, is not progressive and it fully supports the right-wing government of Israel. While pretending to be all-inclusive and anti-bigotry, this corporate wing has fully colluded in waging the forever wars on Muslim-majority countries. Pelosi never blinked an eye at Barack Obama's drone assassination program, which specifically targeted Muslim civilians as incipient terrorists simply by virtue of who they are and where they live (unprotected "tribal areas").

Pelosi therefore must have found it easier to castigate Trump for blaspheming  the "sacred memory" of 9/11 than to castigate him for implicitly threatening Ilhan Omar's life. It took her three whole days to even factor Omar's well-being into her narrative. Her main gripe was that Trump abused the sacred memory by making it all about himself and his political future. 

Although she didn't spell it out, Pelosi also implied in her April 13th tweet that the carefully unmentioned Omar had also abused the sacred memory by juxtaposing her own religion next to the US Imperium's virtual state religion and holy day of obligation, which became the very basis for attacking Omar's religion and its various adherents, the vast majority of whom are peace-loving people.

The Church of Nine-Eleven was constructed by the war-mongering capitalist elites for the sole propaganda purpose of ramping up war and plunder, cynically repurposing the victims and first responders into patriotic martyrs and human shields, even as some of these same first responders went to war to die for the sole profit of corporations. And, even as sections of the 9/11 Commission report implicating the Saudi government were kept secret for many years. The volunteer troops fighting the oligarchs' wars were then used by the Obamas and other politicians to shame the economically struggling population at home into "sharing the sacrifice" as jobs were lost and punishing austerity was imposed after the 2008 financial collapse. 

 Pelosi's tepid tweet sends the hysterical message that it is reckless, rank heresy for Trump to openly and verbally admit that he hates Muslims, Mexicans and all dark-skinned people.

Her sub-Tweet, gushing about her own visit to a US military base in Germany,  which is still semi-occupied 75 years after the end of World War II, says it all. When she writes that the military protection of "the American people" is her first priority, keep in mind that the de facto definition of "the people" and their national security is the corporate state, which armed forces must protect around the clock and around the globe if their plunder is to proceed apace.

As Edward Said wrote:
"The tendency to consider the whole world as one country's imperium is very much in the ascendancy in today's United States, the last remaining superpower.... Such an idea of rightful Western dominance is in reality an uncritical idolization of Western power. "
Keep in mind that Said penned those words in 1997, before 9/11 "changed everything." The ascendancy has already reached its peak and it has nowhere else to go but down.

Thus, for Pelosi and for her fellow imperialists, it is likewise heresy for a progressive elected representative like Ilhan Omar to bring too much attention to herself, to her maligned religion and her war-torn native country, to her fellow immigrants and refugees, and to bipartisan hypocrisy. The ruling class does not want the American public to get the idea that the United States kills and expels and robs people for any reason other than humanitarianism, or that other countries hate us not for our "freedoms", but for our crimes.

Pelosi might be getting this year's Profiles in Courage award from the Kennedy dynasty, but it's really Omar who deserves an award for her serene courage under immense, unrelenting pressure. In the days since Trump's incendiary tweet, she has received even more death threats, and Trump himself has escalated his Twitter attacks on her.

Even so, her mind is on the plight of others:


This country was founded on the ideas of justice, of liberty, of the pursuit of happiness. But these core beliefs are under threat. Each and every day. We are under threat by an administration that would rather cage children than pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Initial Thoughts On the Julian Assange Arrest

The right-wing nature of the corporate Democrats was on full display today as many liberals are openly celebrating the brazen arrest in the wee hours, USA time, of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange within his legal sanctuary of the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

Investors in the #Russiagate propaganda franchise may have been embarrassed and their narrative debunked, but the damage it has done survives. Here's the top-rated reader comment from the New York Times article on Assange's arrest, on one charge of criminal conspiracy to hack a computer:

A Russian propaganda tool, that's all he is, and Wikileaks as well. Assange has severely harmed the United States and other western democracies at the bidding of Russia. Read Wikileaks if you don't believe me, try to find anything other than information harmful to the west. Wikileaks may have started as a legitimate sunlight tool, but was early on compromised and subverted to Russian interests.
This person and the nearly 800 liberal readers who approved this comment apparently believe that we should not be aware of the false pretenses under which the US invaded Iraq, and that we should have remained blissfully and serenely unaware of the film footage which showed American helicopter troops shooting journalists and civilians to death, just for the sheer sadistic fun of it.

I don't know what frightens me more: the Trump administration, or the fake #Resistance to it.


Here's my own published Times comment:

The press should not be breathing its sigh of relief that the Assange indictment is limited to an accusation of conspiracy to commit computer hacking, rather than charges of publishing stolen material. It seems that journalists covering this story and printing the leaked or stolen docs were worried that they'd be called as witnesses in this case and might even be deemed culpable themselves by our authoritarian, right-wing federal justice department.
But what is to prevent the lawless Trump administration from prosecuting the New York Times or any other media outlet with a similar "hacking" conspiracy in the future, based on a similarly evidence-free accusation that said outlet was not only the publisher of stolen documents but the actual thief of same? We're in the digital age now.
If you're celebrating Assange's arrest today on the grounds of some kind of vindication of the victimized Clinton campaign, you're siding with the authoritarian Trump regime and tacitly agreeing that the First Amendment isn't worth the parchment it's written on.
This has nothing to do with Julian Assange's personality or his motives. This has to do with the death of what is still left of both domestic and global democracy.
 Be careful what you cheer for. Your reliable sources of information are not as safe from the dangerous Trump regime as you might think they are.
The Times had approvingly noted that Assange was not charged, as many had feared, under the draconian Espionage Act, which could drag everybody who cooperatively published WikiLeaks documents down with Assange, but only with "egging on" Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence private, to download them.  If the media think they;re off the hook, they should have another think coming. 

There are some silver linings to Assange's arrest. First, the US and global corporate media will be forced to admit where their true allegiances lie. Will they start raising a stink about Chelsea Manning's cruel imprisonment for refusing to implicate Assange? Will they cover the story if Assange's rights to habeas corpus and a speedy trial are infringed upon, or worse, if he is "extraordinarily renditioned" to a CIA black site prison? Assange at least has the benefit of being a high profile figure, unlike hundreds or even thousands of previous nameless and faceless "enemy combatants."

 Second, Assange will presumably finally receive the medical and dental care that he needs. His life was definitely being shortened the longer that he stayed holed up in his virtual embassy prison.


 Third, any trial will require evidence. Although the Trump campaign itself has carefully been exempt from the indictment, which stems from alleged 2010 activities during the Obama administration, propagandists might actually have to admit that there is yet to be any concrete evidence that the DNC and Clinton campaign computers were "hacked" - either by Russia or by anybody else. The documents could simply have been downloaded and then leaked. The Clintonites, remember, refused to grant the FBI access to their servers, instead using a private security company to make their claims of Russian culpability.


Fourth, it forces public attention on legalized bribery as practiced by the US government and the International Monetary Fund which it controls to enforce its privatization and austerity regimens on poor countries. The current far-right corrupt government of Ecuador sold out Assange to the United States and the United Kingdom just weeks after receipt of a hefty IMF loan.


Assange could very well end up a free man. Extradition to the United States is not even a done deal, with some British media outlets like The Guardian already editorializing against it. Justice has been known to prevail at times, especially when the whole world is watching, and especially when much of the world is already adamantly opposed to Donald Trump and all he stands for.


This isn't over. 

Monday, April 8, 2019

Profiles In Ruling Class Chutzpah

The media-political complex is all abuzz that multimillionaire heiress and Boeing director Caroline Kennedy has named multimillionaire House Speaker Nancy Pelosi the latest winner of the Camelot Dynasty's Profiles in Courage award. 


It's A Club & You Ain't In It

Pelosi is specifically being honored for ramming the Affordable Care Act through Congress in 2010 and tacitly being honored for boldly going against the wishes of 70 percent of the US population by actively thwarting a true universal, single payer health care bill to replace it.


Multimillionaire former President Barack Obama, 2017's Kennedy prize winner, traveled all the way to Germany over the weekend in order to scold what he called American health care "purists" who have the crazy nerve to challenge the status quo. He called the current battle between Congressional centrists, like Pelosi, and progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal a "circular firing squad."



Winners Take All

This is a deliberate mischaracterization on Obama's part, because the centrists are the ones with the giant guns and the big corporate money, and the progressives are the underdogs with the $27 individual donations and the verbal slingshots. These two intraparty factions are as unequal as society itself. Obama refused to admit that the Circular Firing Squad within the Democratic Party is, in fact, a microcosm of the eternal Class War of the rich against the poor and working class. He instead framed the health insurance debate as a bunch of reckless extremists who unfairly attack the good, the rich, the wise, and the powerful.


Both of our establishment political parties and the transnational oligarchs who own and control them are scared to death of the social democracy and working class revolts now on the ascendant, global movements which threaten to undo 50 years of punitive austerity for the masses and record riches for themselves.


Obama made his latest antisocial remarks in Germany during a fund-raising "town hall" to benefit his own philanthrocapitalist foundation, so as not to be seen as directly interfering with party politics within the confines of the contiguous United States. He had previously met behind closed doors with Congressional freshmen to warn them against Medicare for All and to confront them with the usual "how you gonna pay for it!" bullying tactics. With a reported net worth now in the $100 million range only two years after leaving office, he made it abundantly clear that he and other wealthy people do not want to be taxed one more penny for the greater public good.


Of course, he put it a bit more delicately than that at his Berlin town hall:

“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States — maybe it’s true here as well — is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,’” Obama said. “And then we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad’ where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues.”
The former president said he believes this approach “weakens” movements, and that those that would like to see a progressive agenda “have to recognize that the way we’ve structured democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you.”
Notice how he cagily redefines "circular firing squad" as a one-sided attack by progressives against the neoliberal centrists, and how it is not the rich and the privileged side straying from our "structured democracy," but the poor and the indebted. The only weakening he fears is that of the corporate Democratic Party itself, which like any political party, exists mainly to win and adhere to power. In Obama's world, it is not Nancy Pelosi who's the shooter and the bully: it's the progressives representing the interests of the struggling majority.

Only an entitled plutocrat could call the widespread demand by the US citizenry for basic health care an issue of "ideological purity" rather than as a response to a capitalism-spawned public health crisis and threat to our very survival. In Obama's world, it is more important for the Have-Nots to respect the Haves, who very reasonably expect that tens of millions of people will have to get sick and die prematurely as a good-faith sign of their own co-equal reasonableness.

Obama ended his speech by advocating for patience and incremental change: “We have to be careful in balancing big dreams and bold ideas with also recognizing that typically change happens in steps. And if you want to skip steps, you can. Historically what’s ended up happening is sometimes if you skip too many steps you end up having bad outcomes.”
Obama gave no examples to back up his claim. Again - the only bad outcomes he has to fear are those which might require him and his ruling class cohort to cede power to the lower classes and pay higher taxes. He certainly couldn't point to any bad outcomes when Medicare passed in the 1960s, and millions of older people were suddenly yanked off their employers' insurance plans and forced into the new single payer system for retirees. He couldn't say that it was really stupid, in retrospect, for people to have become eligible as soon as they reached the age of 65 and not have to wait until 80, when the coverage could have been spread downward in pragmatic baby steps instead of skipping all those golden waiting years.

Obama dishonestly and effectively likens guaranteed universal health coverage to corporations like Boeing, which cuts corners and skips steps only to have have its airplanes crash, killing everybody on board. But he can't talk about Boeing, because for one thing, his benefactress Caroline Kennedy is now in charge of its oversight and auditing board, and the United States was the very last country in the world to, after much insane resistance, finally ground the faulty airplanes while shifting blame for the crashes to the pilots. 


Perhaps the latest Profiles in Courage winner, Nancy Pelosi, will now even have the courage not to haul Boeing executives before Congress to face any real consequences.


Even if they do get hauled before Congress, it will be for the purpose of individual congressional showboating and tongue-lashings and slaps on the wrist. For in the just the last year alone, Boeing spent more than $130 million lobbying, wining, dining, schmoozing and arm-twisting these same members of Congress. Its board, besides Caroline Kennedy, is a veritable who's who of the oligarchy, mainly tycoons from the extracting industries of Big Oil, Big Finance and Private Equity.


The trouble is that Barack Obama, designated celebrity ambassador of global neoliberalism, simply does not lie or dissemble well. Neither does Nancy Pelosi. Just before Caroline Kennedy tapped Pelosi as the latest plutocratic Profile in Chutzpah, Madam Speaker again lied through her teeth in an interview about single payer health insurance and why tens of millions of poor people will simply have to grit their failing or missing teeth and suffer pragmatically in service to their greedy overlords.


As Matt Breunig reports, the big lie that neoliberal centrists keep tellng is that "people" love their employment-based private insurance plans. It's a lie, because private predatory insurance "is a complete nightmare" for those trapped within the market-based, for-profit system.

Among those (in Michigan) who had employer-sponsored insurance in 2014, only 72 percent were continuously enrolled in that insurance for the next twelve months. This means that 28 percent of people on an employer plan were not on that same plan one year later. You like your employer health plan? You better cross your fingers because one in four people on employer plans will come off their plan in the next twelve months.
The situation is even worse for other kinds of insurance. One thing opponents of Medicare for All frequently say is that poor people in the US are already covered by free insurance in the form of Medicaid and that Medicare for All therefore offers them relatively little net benefit while potentially raising their taxes some. But what this argument misses, among other things, is that people on Medicaid churn off it frequently, with many churning into un-insurance.
And that churning is a feature and not a bug, because what is capitalism but constant, cutthroat competition? What are citizens but consumers of whatever the ruling class racketeers deign to dish out to us in the form of spectacle politics and cheap electronic gadgets to merge with our bodies as virtual biological appendages and tracking devices? 

Let's face it. The modern-day robber barons view the population as raw material and commodities which exist not for our own well-being and happiness, but for their voracious, relentless, inhumane profit.


More people than ever, especially younger people, are on to their con. The Profiles in Chutzpah are afraid.


And the best they can do is give each other glitzy prizes in televised galas which they sometimes allow us to gawk at in supposed admiration. 


Thursday, April 4, 2019

Health Care Head Fakes

As I guessed that it would a week ago, President Trump's threat to kill Obamacare via some reactionary judges went nowhere fast. It was a diversionary tactic designed to make us forget about the still-secret Mueller report, of which he no doubt has gotten an exclusive sneak peak. Though exonerating Trump of plotting an electoral conspiracy with Russia, it is reportedly none too flattering to him.

Trump's bluster was bound to be short-lived, because the Republican senate majority doesn't want to risk trashing the Affordable Care Act so close to the 2020 election. In their heart of hearts, they love this plan, massive giveaway
to the private insurance industry that it is. Moreover, Trump's own in-laws have their own huge stake in the grift, with the crown jewel of the Kushner brothers' financial empire being a multi-billion dollar online insurance company which depends on the ACA to survive.

Of course, the biggest beneficiary of Trump's short-lived health care head fake was the Democratic Party, which pounced on his threat as a means to raise campaign money while defending Obamacare in lieu of introducing Medicare For All legislation in the lower House. As a matter of fact, Speaker Nancy Pelosi's health care henchman, Wendell Primus had personally reassured insurance industry executives right after the November midterms that their capitalistic system would be living long and prospering under Pelosi's watch.


The secret meeting, originally reported by The Intercept in February, got renewed attention this week with some new reporting in Politico. Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Pramila Jayapal, chief author one of the single payer bills (HR 1384) confronted Primus directly over his undemocratic subterfuge.


This confrontation came only one day after Trump abruptly reversed course on his Obamacare offensive. His latest head fake has left Pelosi and her minions suddenly deprived of the fear-based rationale for keeping the neoliberal "there is no alternative" ACA alive. They find themselves forced to feebly deny the reports that they are actively trying to kill the universal care legislation supported by at least 70% of the electorate, including Republican voters. However, neither she nor Primus apologized for meeting secretly with insurance industry lobbyists in the first place.


Right before Trump inconveniently nixed his threat and left the Democratic leadership scrambling, the New York Times' Paul Krugman penned an exquisitely timed column about the latest nasty Republican plan to yank health care away from tens of millions of people. Being a victim of Trump's chronic head fakes is a terrible thing. This is despite the fact that Krugman dutifully inserts the latest tally of Trump's lies right at the beginning of his piece. As of Monday, at about the same time Trump was changing his mind via Twitter, he had lied a grand total of 4,682 times! He also happened to conduct his head fake reversal on April Fools Day.


Krugman writes:
Republicans just keep telling the same lies, over and over. Again and again they have promised to maintain coverage and protect pre-existing conditions — then offered plans that would cause tens of millions to lose health insurance, with the worst impact on those already suffering from health problems.....
ut Republicans cannot admit that the only way to protect pre-existing conditions is to emulate Democratic policies. The party of Eisenhower, or even the party of Nixon, might have been able to do such a thing, but the party of Fox News cannot.
Nor, however, do Republicans dare admit that they have no interest in providing protection that a vast majority of voters demands. So they just keep lying.
In other words, Krugman hews steadfastly to the corporate Democrat plan, sold to a scared public during the latest Trump Threat Week,  to merely protect coverage for pre-existing conditions as well as increasing federal subsidies for private insurers --  including, but by no means limited to, the very same Kushner family that liberal corporatists only pretend to hate.

My published response to Krugman:

How often do Republicans lie? How much do they despise everyone except rich people, preferably male and white? Let us tally up the totals and feel alternately angry and smug. Because hey, at least the Dems will fight for our inalienable right to pay hefty premiums to insurance companies and force them to cover the pre-existing conditions of some of us! After all, they're protecting a GOP plan, which leaves the GOP nowhere else to go but off the Social Darwinist cliff.
If we keep shooting stinking GOP fish in a barrel, maybe we can take the uninsured and underinsureds' minds off the fact that the US is the only civilized country lacking universal health coverage, and that the life expectancy of US citizens has dropped for a third straight year.
Anything to avoid informing people that contrary to centrist propaganda, any extra taxes they'd have to pay for Medicare For All would be far, far less than the premiums, co-pays, deductibles and other out of pocket medical expenses they now pay to our cutthroat market-based system.
 And that includes the cost of an ever-increasing number of premature burials.
Put another way, although 23 million people would lose coverage if the ACA is killed, another 29 million desperate people currently lack any coverage at all. But somehow, these have-nots aren't mentioned when pundits warn us not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Instead, we're told to feel guilty about the great national tragedy of jobless insurance adjusters.
*****

Here's more excellent input from Dr. Adam Gaffney of Physicians for a National Health Plan:





Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Manos: The Hands of Joe Biden's Fate





Finally a woman* had the guts to go public with her disgust about being creepily kissed, gripped, nuzzled or otherwise man-handled by scary presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Photos of Creepy Uncle Joe, long lurking on the Internet for viewing by anyone with a hankering for cheesy horror, have suddenly been rediscovered by The Establishment Media to get the benefit of their careful, nuanced analysis. Is Joe just a loving harmless grandpa who is so old-school or clueless that he never learned about boundaries? Or is he really your typical sexist pig, hiding his malevolence beneath a folksy persona, in the vein of Poppy Bush and his own gross "David Cop-a-Feel" habit?

Biden is a combination of sociopathies. He is the typical powerful ruler who plots and passes neoliberal legislation to punish and harm people. Then he further adds to the horror by touching the bodies of women in order to convey his power to them. Manipulative ministrations of this type make many women feel that if they hadn't been sending out those invisible signals of neediness and vulnerability, they would never have attracted the magical male touch in the first place. It's all their fault if they take Biden-style handsiness the wrong way. Failure to accept it in the loving aggressive spirit with which it was intended will only prove their needy ingratitude and chronic hangups. 

As Lucy Flores, the former Nevada legislator who wrote the New York magazine story about her own experience with Biden in 2014. says, her reaction was all about the power that Biden wielded at the time. As to the defense of Biden written by Stephanie Carter, the wife of Obama's former defense secretary, Flores noted - correctly, I think - that this was a completely different scenario. The Carters and the Bidens are long-time friends, and Flores had only met the creepy veepy a couple of times.

It's about power, and even more, it's about class. Flores is not a member of the ruling class, and the Carters and the Bidens are at its very pinnacle. The class aspect of this new Biden media "wokeness" comes through loud and clear in Stephanie Carter's Medium piece.

Her main complaint about again being the center of attention in "That Picture" is that it has spoiled the joy of starting her very own private equity company. (She is a former Deutsche Bank official and partner at ABS Capital, positions that were briefly thought to be potential conflicts of interest given that her husband was in charge of the Pentagon. but which soon were glossed over in the spirit of class solidarity.) Carter writes:
Last night, I received a text from a friend letting me know that picture was once again all over Twitter in connection to Lucy Flores’ personal account of a 2014 encounter with Joe Biden. Let me state upfront that I don’t know her, but I absolutely support her right to speak her truth and she should be, like all women, believed. But her story is not mine. The Joe Biden in my picture is a close friend helping someone get through a big day, for which I will always be grateful. So, as the sole owner of my story, it is high time that I reclaim it — from strangers, Twitter, the pundits and the late-night hosts.


Stephanie Carter wants her friends and colleagues to know that she doesn't know Lucy Flores. Why would she know her? But she condescends to allow Flores to speak "her truth" -- rather than, say, "the truth."

Carter goes on to complain that Joe Biden was simply comforting her because she had just slipped on the ice while visiting Arlington National Cemetery with a contingent of the Pentagon officials who personally had sent a fair portion the buried soldiers to war and were there to honor their "sacrifice." She added that Biden sensed her discomfort at being rudely asked by annoying members of the press about her well-being. They apparently went above their station in doing so. It got so bad that one female reporter from the low-class tabloid New York Post even had the gall to later confront her in her own apartment building to ask about That Picture of Joe nuzzling her and squeezing her shoulders.

Yuck. First, they rudely asked if she was O.K. after her slip and fall, then they asked her about That Picture, and now five years later it's all coming back to haunt her. They're asking her about That Picture all over again. The first round of asks completely ruined the "crowning achievement of my husband's career" and the second round of asks are ruining the high of her own crowning career achievement of "entrepreneurial" high finance.

It is absolutely tragic.

Meanwhile, members of the Biden class collective are snarkily criticizing Flores, who is now out of politics, for daring to sell stuff on the Internet. They are also casting subtle doubt on her story. You see, she used to be a Bernie Sanders supporter. Smarmy CNN personality Jake Tapper snidely wondered whether "politics" is at the heart of her motivation for telling her story.
“I want him to change his behavior I want him to acknowledge that it was wrong,” she said, “And I want this to be a bigger discussion about how there is no political accountability structure within our political space, either for instances in which women feel that there was inappropriate behavior, or more serious allegations of sexual assault.”
“We are not protected in politics,” she said. “And frankly, on a much larger scale, we also need to have a conversation about powerful men feeling that they have the right to invade a woman’s space whenever they like. This really is about women feeling like we have agency. If we don’t want you to touch us, then don’t touch us.”
Biden himself has been incommunicado, save for a few written statements pleading that it has never been his intention to intimidate women while nobly acknowledging that his female critics could have a different perspective. The actual attacks on Biden's critics as the only way to defend him are being done by his paid spokespeople and Democratic Party colleagues. The rich and the powerful always have paid spokespeople and colleagues to do their dirty work for them.

Biden should absolutely run for president if he still has the nerve to throw his hat in the ring for one of his many underlings to pick up and dust off for him. And he should absolutely be confronted over his sordid history of incarcerating black people via the infamous Crime Bill which he personally wrote, his treatment of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation debacle, his support of the Iraq War, his championship of the Glass-Steagall repeal that set the stage for the 2008 financial collapse, his poor record on women's reproductive rights, his bankruptcy reform legislation that condemned mainly women to lifetimes of penury and debt to the usurious credit card companies that helped fund Biden's career.... the list goes on and on.

This campaign season is already so crazy that we should probably welcome Biden's hammy hands and cheese to give the class war a little levity for a change. Just when think you can't take any more of Perpetual Campaign Cinema, Joe's hands have been added to the script, and people are suddenly finding they just can't get enough of possibly the worst movie ever made. It's so bad, it's good. 

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't think that Biden's hands should be disqualified from running, as long as they remain firmly attached to his straight arms. Anything to keep the poor and the uninsured from remembering that Medicare For All will never, ever come to be under her interminable binge-watch.

And as Biden's gatekeeper, Bill "Torgo" Russo, reminds us, the horrific images of Biden's hands come from a Cottage of Lies guarded by right-wing trolls located deep within the Forest of the Dark Internet. There is nothing cheesier than those redundant manipulated hands of fate. The movie trailer gets it right: there is no way out.






* Update, 4/3: A total of four women have now come forward to complain about Biden. One of them is a sexual assault survivor who says that when then-V.P. Biden sat next to her at a conference for sexual assault survivors, he rested his hand on her thigh. She was 19 years old. His behavior can no longer be excused as mere cluelessness or friendliness. But just to give him the benefit of the doubt, let's assume that he is, in fact, merely clueless or insensitive. These are not qualities we should tolerate in a president, particularly a president whose job entails interacting and negotiating with women leaders, both foreign and domestic. I have changed my mind. Biden should not run. The fact that some prominent liberals have come to his defense is just as disgusting as his behavior, in my view. Their implicit argument is that because some women have welcomed his touching, there must be something wrong with those who do not. Contrary to the motto for Biden's campaign against college campus sexual assault -- "It's On Us"(men) -- the real message remains "It's On Them" (women).  

The photos of a President Biden nuzzling and stroking women will send the message to boys and men all over the world that such behavior is not only O.K. it is desirable -- just as Trump's hateful rhetoric gives tacit permission to people act out their darkest fantasies.

Some defenders of Biden say he is a saint compared to Trump, who boasted that he can grab women by the pussy and get away with it. To date, there are no photos of Trump grabbing any woman's body part. Although there have been allegations of physical assault, his preferred method of degrading women is with his big fat mouth rather than with his hands. There are many degrees of bad behavior, none of which should be tolerated, particularly if they are tolerated in the big-dollar interests of either of our two deeply corrupt political parties.

Monday, April 1, 2019

New York Times Venezuela Coverage Hits New Low

The Paper of Record has given a "Venezuelan-American writer and comedian" named Joanna Hausmann a video platform from which to hilariously smear the growing anti-regime change protests in the United States. In the written warm-up intro to her stand-up routine of an op-ed, she writes:
From Noam Chomsky to Ilhan Omar, there is a growing movement on the American left known as “Hands Off Venezuela,” protesting America’s backing of the opposition leader Juan Guaido. Some of them even chant, “Maduro, friend, the people are with you.” In this video Op-Ed, a Venezuelan-American comic argues that these people are living on another planet and ignoring a dire humanitarian crisis.
What neither she nor the New York Times sees fit to disclose to their audience is that Joanna is the daughter of neoliberal Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann, who has been named a chief adviser to self-declared interim president Juan Guaido.

As Bloomberg reported in January, Hausmann's reconstruction plan for a post-coup Venezuela would include the usual prescription: austerity for the masses and enrichment for the US-based oil companies which would swoop in and rescue the country from socialism.
In this case, that (rescue) fuel will come from the IMF rescue package, according to Hausmann. The influx of hard currency would go to investment in the all-important energy industry, fund imports and cover the government’s deficit, helping wean the country off the frenetic money-printing that has fueled inflation that’s counted in the hundreds of thousands. He doesn’t believe dollarization is the solution to the country’s inflation problem.
For some reason, the Times also has not see fit to print my submitted comment on the video op-ed, in which I point out this apparent oversight on their part:
It would have been nice if the Times had disclosed that Ms. Hausmann is the daughter of Ricardo Hausmann, the Harvard economist who is currently advising self-declared interim president Guaido.
 As an International Monetary Fund official in the 90s, Ricardo Hausmann was an integral part of the so-called Washington Consensus, which "advised" Latin American countries to sell off their state-owned resources to private investors in payment for IMF loans. He is also the pre-Chavez era former minister of planning for Venezuela.
Hausmann is yet to be confirmed to the cabinet of Guaido's "parallel government," and therefore reportedly demurs at commenting directly on the situation in Venezuela. So it must be nice to have a daughter to do the job in the guise of "comedy."
 https://www.voanews.com/a/guaido-names-hausmann-as-venezuela-s-idb-representative/4813590.html
Smearing anti-imperialist activists and intellectuals like Noam Chomsky by calling them "Maduro sanitizers" is indicative of the growing desperation of the neocon regime-changers in the Trump administration. And by the way, Chomsky is not a "fellow liberal." He is a leftist, which is not the same thing as a liberal.

Ms. Hausmann's video is reminiscent of the infamous 1992 congressional testimony from a 15 year old Kuwaiti girl in the run-up to the first Gulf War. Too fearful to even give her real name, she tearfully described personally seeing newborn babies thrown to the floor from their incubators by Saddam Hussein's invading soldiers. Neither she nor her hosts disclosed that she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, and that her eyewitness testimony was, in fact, a piece of total fiction dreamed up by a public relations firm for the purpose of manufacturing public consent for another US regime-change invasion.

The Times editorial board was duly outraged about that particular deception and demanded an immediate investigation of the congress critters who had participated in the subterfuge, revealed as such by a journalist from Harper's Magazine and not by the Times.

So when the conflict of interest and (easily discoverable) undisclosed nepotism inherent in Joanna Hausmann's video op-ed is pointed out to them by a mere reader, therefore, it must be an easy no-brainer for them to just ignore it and censor it. Publishing it might put on a damper on the public consent being so carefully manufactured for consumption by "fellow liberals" too squeamish to support Venezuela regime change. Her piece was trending at #4 in the popularity ratings the last time I checked.And the published comments are generally supportive of Joanna Hausmann's slick, heartfelt pleading for humanitarian intervention and as well as her gratuitous smearing of the left.

You'd think that since the Times has just been caught with rotten egg on its face after the Russiagate debacle, the paper would be a bit more careful about their propaganda. You'd think that at long last, they might have developed some shame, if not some actual journalistic ethics. And you'd be thinking very, very wrong.