The excellent new documentary on Barry Goldwater - the founder of modern conservatism - clearly shows how today's GOP bears little relationship with conservatism. Wealthy and powerful interests are engaged in a radical duplicitous agenda which media conservatives do not have the courage to confront ( David Brooks, Jeff Jacoby, Tucker Carlson, and George Will) and which appeals to a segment of the population as some kind of balm for their perceived political alienation.
As David Stockman wrote twenty years ago about the Reagan team, big government Republicanism does not cut spending, does not level the playing field, it just trades the widespread support mechanisms engineered by democrats ( e.g. Great Society) for targeted privilege.
Today's so called republicans and so called conservatives are mostly ill informed about this reality as they feast on carefully created "values" issues, denounce inconsequential celebrity figures, and ponder economic theories ( free market etc) that have no basis in reality.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Who loves the Saudis??????????
Based on Craig Unger's research, Michael Moore accurately relates in Fahrenheit 9-11 that, in the wake of the 9-11 attacks, the White House approved planes to pick up the Bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. Furthermore, using a combination of private and commercial flights, over 140 prominent Saudis would depart the US over the next fortnight.
Craig Unger's expose begins with the September 13 flight of several wealthy Saudis from Tampa, Florida, to Lexington, Kentucky, when all private air traffic in the US was still grounded; a flight the FAA denies ever took place. While commercial traffic had slowly restarted on September 13, it was highly unusual for private charted flights to obtain approval. The Saudis were the exception. Over the next few days a number of similar flights took place as the Bin Laden family and other important Saudis were rounded up for what Unger describes as "The Great Escape". Within two weeks, at least two dozen members of the Bin Laden family had been whisked out of the US.
A common rebuttal charges that the departing Saudis had been extensively vetted by the FBI and others before departure, and that counter terror Chief Richard Clarke had approved the flights. However, Clarke's testimony to the 9-11 commission makes clear that any vetting was merely of the formal kind, involving the dictation of statements, and hardly impeding the movements of the terror mastermind's family. By contrast the November 25th, 2001, New York Times was reporting that, at the same time: "More than 1,200 foreigners have been detained as part of the government's investigation into the terror attacks, some spending months in prison." Incidentally, not one of these 1,200 detainees was ever charged in relation to terrorism or the 9-11 attacks.
Moore's critics continually trumpet the fact that commercial traffic had resumed by September 13, as if this erases the abnormality of these events. In fact, the nature of the Saudi's private charted flights and the special deference accorded the Bin Laden family were exceptional, and form a powerful part of Moore's attempts to expose the toxic nature of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The fact that Hillary or Bill Clinton receive slimy wads of oil soaked cash does not diminish these acts , Im afraid. Afterall, these were real bona fide terror suspects.
In contrast to John Ashcroft's 1,200 "terrorist" detainees, numerous questions have been raised about the prominent Saudis who left in the wake of 9-11. After all, mere weeks before the attacks, many members of the Bin Laden family had gathered, with Osama, in Afghanistan for the wedding of one of his sons. Craig Unger also describes an apparent close relationship between Saudi Prince Ahmed bin Salaman and Al Queda leader Abu Zubaydah, who, with the aid of sodium pentothal, asserted that the Prince "knew beforehand that an attack was scheduled for American soil that day." Many of Moore and Unger's critics may be astounded to note that the FBI questioning of the Prince did not reveal such a link before his speedy departure on September 16.
This is a real 9-11 conspiracy. It illustrates not that the administration are great masterminds who orchestrated the attacks, merely uninterested, unaccountable elites who orchestrated the safety of their friends, with little concern for justice for those incinerated on 9-11 and the interdiction of those who orchestrate and fund terrorist threats. Shame on them and those who reflexively defend them.
Craig Unger's expose begins with the September 13 flight of several wealthy Saudis from Tampa, Florida, to Lexington, Kentucky, when all private air traffic in the US was still grounded; a flight the FAA denies ever took place. While commercial traffic had slowly restarted on September 13, it was highly unusual for private charted flights to obtain approval. The Saudis were the exception. Over the next few days a number of similar flights took place as the Bin Laden family and other important Saudis were rounded up for what Unger describes as "The Great Escape". Within two weeks, at least two dozen members of the Bin Laden family had been whisked out of the US.
A common rebuttal charges that the departing Saudis had been extensively vetted by the FBI and others before departure, and that counter terror Chief Richard Clarke had approved the flights. However, Clarke's testimony to the 9-11 commission makes clear that any vetting was merely of the formal kind, involving the dictation of statements, and hardly impeding the movements of the terror mastermind's family. By contrast the November 25th, 2001, New York Times was reporting that, at the same time: "More than 1,200 foreigners have been detained as part of the government's investigation into the terror attacks, some spending months in prison." Incidentally, not one of these 1,200 detainees was ever charged in relation to terrorism or the 9-11 attacks.
Moore's critics continually trumpet the fact that commercial traffic had resumed by September 13, as if this erases the abnormality of these events. In fact, the nature of the Saudi's private charted flights and the special deference accorded the Bin Laden family were exceptional, and form a powerful part of Moore's attempts to expose the toxic nature of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The fact that Hillary or Bill Clinton receive slimy wads of oil soaked cash does not diminish these acts , Im afraid. Afterall, these were real bona fide terror suspects.
In contrast to John Ashcroft's 1,200 "terrorist" detainees, numerous questions have been raised about the prominent Saudis who left in the wake of 9-11. After all, mere weeks before the attacks, many members of the Bin Laden family had gathered, with Osama, in Afghanistan for the wedding of one of his sons. Craig Unger also describes an apparent close relationship between Saudi Prince Ahmed bin Salaman and Al Queda leader Abu Zubaydah, who, with the aid of sodium pentothal, asserted that the Prince "knew beforehand that an attack was scheduled for American soil that day." Many of Moore and Unger's critics may be astounded to note that the FBI questioning of the Prince did not reveal such a link before his speedy departure on September 16.
This is a real 9-11 conspiracy. It illustrates not that the administration are great masterminds who orchestrated the attacks, merely uninterested, unaccountable elites who orchestrated the safety of their friends, with little concern for justice for those incinerated on 9-11 and the interdiction of those who orchestrate and fund terrorist threats. Shame on them and those who reflexively defend them.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
It's the oil, stupid
Daniel Yergen and I are well aware that we have an oil based economy, a failed oil man as a failed president, a nation whose leading corp. is Exxon and a political elite that has recognized for 50 years that control over mid east oil is a strategic imperative.
It's rather naive for folks to respond to say that we are not 'taking' the oil. It is not about taking or plunder, it's about control over a resource rich region, regardless of where the barrels go. The elite is using 20 year old Spcs from Iowa and S Carolina to ensure that Iraq's resources are controlled and controllable. It is a conspiracy theory to deny this.
Paul O'Neil, the appointed and ousted Treasury secretary spoke of administration folks poring over Iraqi oilfield maps in 2002, shortly before the Iraq-WMD charade was literally "rolled out." Noam Chomsky wryly observed that were Iraq's primary export to be pickles we would not be there. A key benchmark for Iraq's so called government is the carving up of oil revenues for picking off by Western companies. In so much as most of Congress exists to serve these companies, few have signed on to Kucinich's attempts to block this provision.
According to striking Iraqi oil workers ( i.e. the only people whose opinions count on this) who visited the US, this hands over Iraq's only resource to the same neo Colonial machine for exploitation. Of course, the eeeevil liberal media has covered their visit in copious detail in an attempt to embarrass Bush, right???? Ultra liberal Harry Reid has invited them to Congress, right? No, this is another failure of the media and so called liberal democrats, where any discussion of oil has been careful relegated to random columns six years too late.
One can also comment on the local interpretation of these events. What is really pathetic and tragic is that 1420 WMAR apologists, concerned with only seeming tougher than the liberal straw men they fantasize about continue to allude to Saddam-UBL links, to "finding" WMDs and, when all else fails, to asserting in meandering theological arguments that killing Arabs and invading their nations is really a plus in a titanic "clash of civilizations."
One should conclude that, as Paul O'Neill and so many others have written, the conquest of Iraq was a choice, not a necessity. The reasons are obvious and have nothing to do with terrorism. That is merely an inconvenience to be borne by citizens.
It's rather naive for folks to respond to say that we are not 'taking' the oil. It is not about taking or plunder, it's about control over a resource rich region, regardless of where the barrels go. The elite is using 20 year old Spcs from Iowa and S Carolina to ensure that Iraq's resources are controlled and controllable. It is a conspiracy theory to deny this.
Paul O'Neil, the appointed and ousted Treasury secretary spoke of administration folks poring over Iraqi oilfield maps in 2002, shortly before the Iraq-WMD charade was literally "rolled out." Noam Chomsky wryly observed that were Iraq's primary export to be pickles we would not be there. A key benchmark for Iraq's so called government is the carving up of oil revenues for picking off by Western companies. In so much as most of Congress exists to serve these companies, few have signed on to Kucinich's attempts to block this provision.
According to striking Iraqi oil workers ( i.e. the only people whose opinions count on this) who visited the US, this hands over Iraq's only resource to the same neo Colonial machine for exploitation. Of course, the eeeevil liberal media has covered their visit in copious detail in an attempt to embarrass Bush, right???? Ultra liberal Harry Reid has invited them to Congress, right? No, this is another failure of the media and so called liberal democrats, where any discussion of oil has been careful relegated to random columns six years too late.
One can also comment on the local interpretation of these events. What is really pathetic and tragic is that 1420 WMAR apologists, concerned with only seeming tougher than the liberal straw men they fantasize about continue to allude to Saddam-UBL links, to "finding" WMDs and, when all else fails, to asserting in meandering theological arguments that killing Arabs and invading their nations is really a plus in a titanic "clash of civilizations."
One should conclude that, as Paul O'Neill and so many others have written, the conquest of Iraq was a choice, not a necessity. The reasons are obvious and have nothing to do with terrorism. That is merely an inconvenience to be borne by citizens.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Bush succeeds on immigration
Bush and the Republican party have oft been criticized by the right wing punditocracy for their "inaction" on immigration. In truth, they have pursued a clear and obvious policy. They have shepherded and accelerated a bipartisan policy of hemispheric economic integration that shortchanges workers everywhere ( leading to low wages and immigration) and favors corporations ( high profits for elites).
Failing to address this and rallying ill informed hate is the purview of talk radio. Here, showing sympathy to victims of this economic dislocation is treason. The notion that US workers should show solidarity with other American workers and get together to fix the system is suppressed by the perpetual outrage that some illegals commit crimes (shock!!!). Treating this issue as cheaply and sensationally as any other is a sure fire way to advance in the realm of White Male Angst Radio .
While they are hardly guilt free in this, at least opponents of NAFTA and CAFTA have a home in the Democratic party. At least a wing exists that seeks to prioritize working families over unearned income generation.
This is the message that Ron Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel want to send. In a political race where large corporations effectively select the candidates and disseminate tabloid like propaganda to local outrage radio like WMAR 1420, this is difficult to achieve.
Failing to address this and rallying ill informed hate is the purview of talk radio. Here, showing sympathy to victims of this economic dislocation is treason. The notion that US workers should show solidarity with other American workers and get together to fix the system is suppressed by the perpetual outrage that some illegals commit crimes (shock!!!). Treating this issue as cheaply and sensationally as any other is a sure fire way to advance in the realm of White Male Angst Radio .
While they are hardly guilt free in this, at least opponents of NAFTA and CAFTA have a home in the Democratic party. At least a wing exists that seeks to prioritize working families over unearned income generation.
This is the message that Ron Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel want to send. In a political race where large corporations effectively select the candidates and disseminate tabloid like propaganda to local outrage radio like WMAR 1420, this is difficult to achieve.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Pittman vs Unger
In an off-election year nationally, now that the folly of the Iraq war has been ascertained, gay marriage resolved and immigration exhausted, south coast pundit watchers and armchair wags can bask in the clash of two local media figures.
For my own part, I think the gulf in quality between print and broadcast media has long been apparent. This gap is amplified on the southcoast where an autonomous, professional, news product generator like the Standard Times can be compared with the local broadcaster whose afternoon commentary exhibits no apparent standards, etiquette or discipline in the manufacture of little more than hot air.
For now, one example will suffice: In his latest entry on his website* Ken Pittman attempts to paint Bob Unger as, of all things, "a leftist". Bob's biases are apparently clear because, in one example, his paper labeled an anti immigration protester "a heckler" and labeled anti marriage amendment folks as "counter demonstrators." **
However, a closer look at two disparate events and two very different types of protester reveals the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least not manufactured of malice and bias. The anti marriage rally was held in public, near City Hall, with police yawning, college kids snapping photos, each side bringing their dogs along for the outing and each side sticking to their side of a street with little malice shown as groups stood a disciplined 8 feet apart.
When immigrant advocates assembled indoors at NBVT HS the sole protestor ( apart from a local KKK type group) repeatedly and specifically yelled at each speaker until she was asked to leave the building by organizers and NBPD - (TV coverage later showed her, sign in hand, chest to chest with NBPD officers, screaming "Where's ICE" in response to their hands-raised request for her to calm down!!!!)***. The Standard times printed her concerns, her status as a Navy Vet, and her pointed criticisms of the Standard Times itself.
While your position on each of the two hot button issues will mean you lend sympathy to one protest over the other, the differences are apparent. Indeed, Pittman's outrage is curious indeed, as he has previously:
+ Expressed indignation when Columbia students ran onstage to disrupt a Minuteman/Jim Gilchrist event.
+ Curiously never asked Gilchirst on air why one of his "security" kicked an off stage student in the temple.
+ Had warned that any "counter protesters" would face arrest at his own anti -immigrant rally****
+ Extensively and fawningly interviewed Ms. Blaha and gay marriage foe Larry Cirignano ( Cirignano himself accused of assaulting a woman at a rally).
Indeed, if there are biases here that warp coverage, it is pretty clear on which media organ this occurs.
__________________________________
*This latest "column" has been heavily edited since the first version was uploaded Sunday. Most interesting is the completely revised description of Pittman's conversation with Unger outside NECN studios.
**In each case however, it is worth noting that complete coverage of both events allowed any reader to make up his or her own mind (google it). Is this the case with WBSM coverage??
*** One wonders what law and order "conservatives" think of such behavior.
**** This WALL rally received extensive before and after coverage by Unger's STimes.
For my own part, I think the gulf in quality between print and broadcast media has long been apparent. This gap is amplified on the southcoast where an autonomous, professional, news product generator like the Standard Times can be compared with the local broadcaster whose afternoon commentary exhibits no apparent standards, etiquette or discipline in the manufacture of little more than hot air.
For now, one example will suffice: In his latest entry on his website* Ken Pittman attempts to paint Bob Unger as, of all things, "a leftist". Bob's biases are apparently clear because, in one example, his paper labeled an anti immigration protester "a heckler" and labeled anti marriage amendment folks as "counter demonstrators." **
However, a closer look at two disparate events and two very different types of protester reveals the descriptions are accurate, or at the very least not manufactured of malice and bias. The anti marriage rally was held in public, near City Hall, with police yawning, college kids snapping photos, each side bringing their dogs along for the outing and each side sticking to their side of a street with little malice shown as groups stood a disciplined 8 feet apart.
When immigrant advocates assembled indoors at NBVT HS the sole protestor ( apart from a local KKK type group) repeatedly and specifically yelled at each speaker until she was asked to leave the building by organizers and NBPD - (TV coverage later showed her, sign in hand, chest to chest with NBPD officers, screaming "Where's ICE" in response to their hands-raised request for her to calm down!!!!)***. The Standard times printed her concerns, her status as a Navy Vet, and her pointed criticisms of the Standard Times itself.
While your position on each of the two hot button issues will mean you lend sympathy to one protest over the other, the differences are apparent. Indeed, Pittman's outrage is curious indeed, as he has previously:
+ Expressed indignation when Columbia students ran onstage to disrupt a Minuteman/Jim Gilchrist event.
+ Curiously never asked Gilchirst on air why one of his "security" kicked an off stage student in the temple.
+ Had warned that any "counter protesters" would face arrest at his own anti -immigrant rally****
+ Extensively and fawningly interviewed Ms. Blaha and gay marriage foe Larry Cirignano ( Cirignano himself accused of assaulting a woman at a rally).
Indeed, if there are biases here that warp coverage, it is pretty clear on which media organ this occurs.
__________________________________
*This latest "column" has been heavily edited since the first version was uploaded Sunday. Most interesting is the completely revised description of Pittman's conversation with Unger outside NECN studios.
**In each case however, it is worth noting that complete coverage of both events allowed any reader to make up his or her own mind (google it). Is this the case with WBSM coverage??
*** One wonders what law and order "conservatives" think of such behavior.
**** This WALL rally received extensive before and after coverage by Unger's STimes.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Pittman: Dont Dare Disagree
1420 WMAR's host and webmaster of his self named website is perpetually heard espousing the virtues of an open and vibrant exchange of ideas. However, reality is a little different, where a radio studio is stacked with several ideological partisans for every caller, the frames of every national news debate are set by verbal cut and pastes from News Max or other far right web sites, and ( even when the terminate button is held in check) the last word or wrap up always goes the triumvirate of spin.
One would expect that the first and last of these tactics would be held in check online. Indeed, I have participated in several discussions on our esteemed host's website; invariably having factual arguments met with usual insults ( anti-America, terrorist etc. etc.)
A nadir was finally reached with the culmination of a discussion with host blogger Bob Grant. In my refuting his claim that "victory" against the gargantuan Muslim enemy can ignore sufferings that motivate many of our enemies and damage our reputation, it turns out that Mr. Grant or the esteemed webmaster himself were compelled to edit and rework my posts in a manner befitting a middle schooler.
Insult was recently added to injury when Mr Grant went on to respond to my post that he himself had reworked!!! If your ears can not tell you what this enterprise is all about, go see it with your own eyes ( the site could use the traffic).
One would expect that the first and last of these tactics would be held in check online. Indeed, I have participated in several discussions on our esteemed host's website; invariably having factual arguments met with usual insults ( anti-America, terrorist etc. etc.)
A nadir was finally reached with the culmination of a discussion with host blogger Bob Grant. In my refuting his claim that "victory" against the gargantuan Muslim enemy can ignore sufferings that motivate many of our enemies and damage our reputation, it turns out that Mr. Grant or the esteemed webmaster himself were compelled to edit and rework my posts in a manner befitting a middle schooler.
Insult was recently added to injury when Mr Grant went on to respond to my post that he himself had reworked!!! If your ears can not tell you what this enterprise is all about, go see it with your own eyes ( the site could use the traffic).
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Lying about immigrants (and Dems)
Fresh from the whole French Liberty inscription debacle , at 2.35pm or so today comes this zinger:
"Listen! It is a Democratic legislation** that does not allow employers to ask about legal status."
Ruh huh eally??? What evil Dem law was that which banned formerly compulsory I-9 Forms ?
If you care, the rest of the show was made up of anecdotal and non factual linkages between American citizen hardship and illegal Alien largese.
** Ken insists on calling the legislature the legislation :grin:
"Listen! It is a Democratic legislation** that does not allow employers to ask about legal status."
Ruh huh eally??? What evil Dem law was that which banned formerly compulsory I-9 Forms ?
If you care, the rest of the show was made up of anecdotal and non factual linkages between American citizen hardship and illegal Alien largese.
** Ken insists on calling the legislature the legislation :grin:
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Pittman: Lying about Al Sharpton
IN the blogosphere and on air WBSM host Ken Pittman has propagated a core lie about Al Sharpton and the Don Imus controversy. Pittman's column and comments claim that Sharpton disingenuously sought an apology from Don Imus and , after duping Imus into appearing on the Sharpton radio show, responded to Imus's apology by calling for his ouster from CBS/MSNBC.
However, like a stage managed trip to the Shawmut diner by a Globe reporter, it's all complete nonsense. From the break of the Imus story, Al Sharpton has been nothing if not consistent and unswerving in his call for Imus to be fired.
On March 7th, Sharpton pledged to picket if Imus wasn't fired. On March 9th, before the above mentioned radio broadcast ( where, Pittman tells us, Imus had to actually pass black students in the hallways) Sharpton confirmed that he wanted Imus fired. ON that very morning Sharpton described how Imus came to appear on the Sharpton show:
He said, “Come on my show.” I said, “I would never try to get listeners to your show.” He said, “I’ll come to yours.”
According to the Pittman version, Sharpton had "asked for the apology" and Imus went to perform that very act. Where is this Sharpton request? I can't find it. If this call for contrition does exist, does it negate his easy to find call for Imus to be fired from day one?
We should also note that the fact that some eeevil liberal website recorded and repeated the Imus comments is also considered deeply unfair ( this from a guy who claims conservative talk radio succeeds through its dynamic and uninterrupted exchange of ideas). Imus and McGuirk have committed to boosting their ratings through racist and misogynistic "humor" for years but it is political correctness to be offended by this? This from a person who gets offended when a store clerk doesn't say the right combination of merry and xmas at a certain point in the year ( see more on that here ) ; from a radio station that stirs up Saturday morning callers's defense of American's values by claiming that Tiverton school district banned Easter ( it didn't, of course).
Please note that Imus had and continues to have free speech. MSNBC and CBS have determined that this brand of "humor" is not quite marketable right now. However, his fellow travelers in WMAR ( white male angst radio) have decided that it is African Americans who are far too loud and uppity in practicing their right to free speech ( like Emmet Till , I guess). How dare Rutgers hold a press conference and complain says Limbaugh. No host or caller to WMAR/WBSM whines about anything, right? How dare Sharpton use free speech to express his position and stick to it. In WMAR world, this is hypocrisy.
However, like a stage managed trip to the Shawmut diner by a Globe reporter, it's all complete nonsense. From the break of the Imus story, Al Sharpton has been nothing if not consistent and unswerving in his call for Imus to be fired.
On March 7th, Sharpton pledged to picket if Imus wasn't fired. On March 9th, before the above mentioned radio broadcast ( where, Pittman tells us, Imus had to actually pass black students in the hallways) Sharpton confirmed that he wanted Imus fired. ON that very morning Sharpton described how Imus came to appear on the Sharpton show:
He said, “Come on my show.” I said, “I would never try to get listeners to your show.” He said, “I’ll come to yours.”
According to the Pittman version, Sharpton had "asked for the apology" and Imus went to perform that very act. Where is this Sharpton request? I can't find it. If this call for contrition does exist, does it negate his easy to find call for Imus to be fired from day one?
We should also note that the fact that some eeevil liberal website recorded and repeated the Imus comments is also considered deeply unfair ( this from a guy who claims conservative talk radio succeeds through its dynamic and uninterrupted exchange of ideas). Imus and McGuirk have committed to boosting their ratings through racist and misogynistic "humor" for years but it is political correctness to be offended by this? This from a person who gets offended when a store clerk doesn't say the right combination of merry and xmas at a certain point in the year ( see more on that here ) ; from a radio station that stirs up Saturday morning callers's defense of American's values by claiming that Tiverton school district banned Easter ( it didn't, of course).
Please note that Imus had and continues to have free speech. MSNBC and CBS have determined that this brand of "humor" is not quite marketable right now. However, his fellow travelers in WMAR ( white male angst radio) have decided that it is African Americans who are far too loud and uppity in practicing their right to free speech ( like Emmet Till , I guess). How dare Rutgers hold a press conference and complain says Limbaugh. No host or caller to WMAR/WBSM whines about anything, right? How dare Sharpton use free speech to express his position and stick to it. In WMAR world, this is hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
