Contest: I'm looking for the most insane response to Obama's gay marriage stance
As many readers know, I do not favor gay marriage. My preference would be to see heterosexual marriage abolished. That's fair, innit?
That said, one wonders if the hysterical Republican reaction to Obama's announcement is genuinely felt or simply pro-forma. It certainly is amusing to see the GOP -- the party of Mitt Romney -- castigate Obama for changing his position.
Let's make a contest out of this. Which Republican can come up with the most insane response to Obama's announcement?
"I think the passage of the [North Carolina] constitutional amendment is a good indication of where the country is right now, but the gay lobby has taken over the public schools, they have inserted their propaganda very much in the schools and we do see the evidence of that," she said. "I'm worried about what kind of mischief they're teaching in the schools. It isn't just the gays, it's some other groups. The schools are a real threat to the future of our country."
Gays control our schools! Yep, it's gonna be hard to beat Phyllis. But a commenter named Al Redwood achieves orbit:
That he is a Gay, Communist grifter the Gays know, a modern day Caligula light, after buying for him the presidency they are tired from promises and want a tangible result, fearing his second term is in flames they want an advance on their original payments, and he knows that they know that he is Gay. It does not take a genius to figure it out, because many of his bundlers, appointees, friends and close associates , going back to Occidental College, Columbia University, his trip to Pakistan are mainly associated with sex perverts. With the help of the Unions and the Chicago Left these organized crime Alinsky style mob-methods have been in use since 2007 . More than 5 persons died in the process of the 2008 election cycle, two gay men he had an affair with in Chicago, (choir boys who sing no more) 2 persons of the Electoral College, one Gay, Catholic author, one passport office clerk, wasted in his own car, as well two persons associated with Breitbarts demise that are gone ( the last person who saw him and the Coroner-RIP). Therefore, the gays know that they could be targeted and perhaps they are making their case now? If he does not deliver he could be OUTED.
It goes on and on like that. You should read the whole thing. It's just...glorious. I was particularly pleased by the way Big Al brought in the Alinski menace.
And now Dennis Prager displays his Masters degree in cognitive dissonance:
In addition to labeling conservatives and Republicans “anti-woman” (for opposing government-mandated free contraception), “anti-black” and “anti-Hispanic” (for advocating photo identification for voting), and “anti-science” (for skepticism regarding the belief that man-made carbon emissions will destroy much of the planet), Democrats now regularly label Republicans “anti-gay” (for opposing same-sex marriage).
Obama curtsies as he drops the soap. And does so quite naturally, though with a wide stance.
Obama comes out of the closet
I think all I said was that Michelle Obama looks like a tranny to me. That statement is not racist, homophobic or ignorant. It’s my opinion, based on her manly looks.
There are a whole hell of a lot of black people that are against gay marriage and Obama needs every one of them to vote….at least three times each.
The Dude strikes a triumphalist note commonly heard throughout right-wingerland. Many conservatives are declaring that Obama, by endorsing the right of gay people to marry, has given up all chance at winning in 2012. Stick a fork in him; he's done.
And yet conservatives are also saying that Obama supports gay marriage because he is pandering for votes. Well, which is it? Is he ceding the election over a matter of twisted principle, or is he taking this stance for purely tactical reasons? Conservatives have fallen so deeply into a "hate trance" that they can't even notice such contradictions. Cognitive dissonance strikes again!
(In my view, the "pandering for votes" explanation gets closer to the mark. The truth is that Obama, having sold out the left repeatedly, feels obligated to give progressives something. Alas, conservatives cannot allow themselves to state that obvious fact. In their alternative media universe, Obama has given "left wing extremists" everything they could ever want.)
Back to our contest...
Fox Nation disappoints. Their first headline (widely quoted) was "OBAMA FLIP FLOPS, DECLARES WAR ON MARRIAGE." The less nutty revised version reads: "OBAMA FLIP FLOPS ON GAY MARRIAGE." If Fox had allowed the first headline to stand, they might have won our little tournament.
Fans of high loopiness will, of course, want to visit Alex Jones' Prison Planet, where a sage named Chuck Baldwin asks: "Does Homosexual Marriage Signal America's Final Undoing?"
Beyond that, the willingness of our political and judicial leaders to embrace homosexuality reveals their rejection of God's moral law and authority. It is no coincidence that within a matter of weeks after the White House and federal courts collaborated to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery that the entire nation would be embroiled in a fever pitch effort to legalize same sex marriage. God will not be mocked. When one sows to the wind, he reaps a whirlwind.
By accepting homosexuality, America is now fueling the flames of debauchery. When homosexuality is finally and fully accepted by American law, pedophilia and other more onerous behavior will not be far behind. As such, America is on the verge of a self- induced implosion.
Chuck argues that conservatives, ill-served by the GOP, should support the Constitution Party, whose presidential nominee is Michael Peroutka.
So, who wins the award for Nuttiest Conservative Response? For me, the answer is clear: Big Al Redwood deserves the gold medal because he brought in the Alinski meme -- the crowning moment of crazy. Chuck Baldwin gets the silver, and Phyllis gets the bronze.
Permalink
They say they want a revolution. Everyone must admit that this really is going too far: A GOP newsletter published out of Virginia calls for armed revolution if Obama is re-elected.
The ultimate task for the people is to remain vigilant and aware ~ that the government, their government is out of control, and this moment, this opportunity, must not be forsaken, must not escape us, for we shall not have any coarse but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November ~ This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.
Previously, I've argued that Romney would benefit politically if he issued a forceful denunciation of this evil rhetoric. If he devoted a major speech to this topic, the mainstream media would applaud his statesmanship, while the nutball media would probably shut up like a chastened child.
But never mind tactical concerns. If Romney cares about decency at all, he must castigate the madmen in his party.
About the airline bomber: Yes, I know that the guy was a double agent. As soon as I can formulate a narrative that makes sense, I'll let you know. Right now, there are too many questions.
We don't even know who was running this guy. Most sources point to Saudi intelligence, but Fox News said (before the double agent thing was revealed) that CIA agents scooped up Mr. DoubleAgent before he got on board the plane.
More importantly: If, as claimed, this same infiltrator arranged a drone airstrike against Fahd al Quso (a senior Al Qaeda operative in Yemen), why didn't the agent ask for a similar strike against the super-clever bomb-maker who developed those new and improved explosive underpants?
At this time, the most interesting discussion can be found -- where else? -- over on emptywheel's site.
News stories have not asked about the obvious parallels to the first underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who set himself on fire in mid-flight in December of 2009. I wrote about him at length, here and here and here. There were plenty of indications that he, too, was an agent of some sort. By way of review, here are seven of those indicators:
1. Someone videotaped the entire flight. The guy with the camcorder seemed to know what was going to happen -- although, obviously, he did not expect to be blown to smithereens. If Mr. Camcorder was uninvolved with Farouk, we would have seen the video.
2. A well-dressed accomplice helped Farouk get onto the flight.
3. Farouk's name did not appear on the "no fly" list, even though his own father (a wealthy Nigerian official) warned the American embassy about his son.
4. No-one has explained his source of money.
5. Although Farouk reportedly had been estranged from his father for quite some time, he was spotted at his Dad's retirement party shortly before the infamous flight.
There are, of course, two massive problems with any Farouk-the-spook theory: He really did set his crotch on fire, and he pleaded guilty.
I suppose the guilty plea could be a ruse. Perhaps he's not really serving a life sentence; perhaps, with his mission accomplished, he has assumed another identity. But that scenario seems rather too "Hollywood" for me.
Well, as long as we're playing with Hollywoodish scenarios: Do you think Criss Angel could come up with a way for someone to light his underwear on fire painlessly? (And is there any way to ask him that question without sounding like a total perv?)
Incidentally, Kurt Haskell -- who was on the 2009 flight and who, along with his wife Lori, provided details about the many oddities surrounding that case -- is running for Congress. You should read the more recent entries on the Haskells' blog. Lori has some rather revealing things to say about the treatment they received in court when Farouk was sentenced.
So much for the old crotch-bomber. As for crotch-bomber 2.0...
Jeez, I dunno. Got any theories? At this point, I'd even give a hearing to wacky speculation. Well, semi-wacky. While you ponder, consider this:
...of 22 major plans for terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, fully 14 were developed in sting operations organised by US intelligence, mostly being carried out by people just as incompetent as Abdulmutallab, even more isolated, and utterly removed from posing any genuine danger to civilians.
Something about this "New underwear bomber" doesn't pas the smell test! (pun intended)
Watch....Pretty soon your going to start seeing the usual suspects all over the corporate media screaming how we need to "allow" Uncle ( as if the beast doesn't already ) to to "scoop up all the intelligence needed for this war on terror and that the existing laws hamper it's ability to do so...yada yada yada!
Funny how this shit always seems to happen either during an election year!
Hal Turner urged his listeners to lynch Cynthia McKinney as a lesson to black people when she went to vote in 2006 and published her campaign office address. He was working for the FBI (who also trained and paid him). I would remember this when reading the Virginia GOP writings. This is merely more divide and conquer for the left/ right. One day it's "anarchists"; the next it's "militias".
As for the airline bomber the only narrative that makes sense is that he was not a double agent but that he worked for the cia which has means to induce the cooperation of relevant foreign services.
posted by Anonymous : 7:45 AM
The War on Terror is the pretext for the approximately tripled military spending, relative to the Cold War.
The Cold War involved a world-bestriding adversary with a near-continent of peoples and resources, some 300 millions, the richest natural resources, the largest military more or less across the board, and some 20,000 nuclear warheads pointed our way.
If the WOT is to be credible, there cannot be lengthy periods of time with no attacks. Or else people might eventually ask how it is that no more than some los 10,000s of hard core jihadis, without national resources, without access to a continent's resources, without any military means other than small arms, could possibly cost 3x what it cost to fight the Soviets across the world.
Hence, the boogie man is set in motion across the stage, to show skeptics, see, here they are and here they come.
If it requires agents provocateur, or patsies set in motion, that's what occurs.
XI
posted by Anonymous : 10:28 AM
I have to surmise, if (more likely as) the United States takes the Greek road of increased polarization, Cannon,rather than being an important part of the process, will be "naughty-naughtying" from the sidelines, doing his best to buttress Elitist state stability.
posted by Ken Hoop : 11:42 AM
A contingent of American rightwingers and foreigners are hyping a threat that DOES NOT EXIST without the assistance of those hyping and creating it.
It would be like me walking into the kitchen area at a job and spilling coffee all over the floor every day and then demanding everyone pitch in money and effort in combating the growing threat of "COFFEE SPILL TERROR." When I am the one who keeps spilling the fucking coffee.
That is exactly what the FBI and CIA are doing. Repeatedly creating and funding terrorists where there were none, destabilizing entire countries and creating terrorists where there were none, and then asking Americans to foot the bill fighting all these Frankensteins we keep creating.
posted by Anonymous : 12:10 PM
I keep thinking about the DOJ's Fast and Furious debacle and what would happen if one of these got actually brought down a plane. Then it occurred to me that Obama couldn't care less because it would be to the benefit of his national security toadies and his military industrial cronies.
Angry as I am at Obama, I'm convinced that the Senate must remain out of Republican hands. Just when things were starting to look grim in Massachusetts (there's a bullshit controversy about whether Elizabeth Warren has Indian ancestry; I haven't been following the details, to be honest), we now have a pickup opportunity in Indiana.
Gracias, baggers. You managed to upend Richard Lugar, who had a lock on the general election. Now Indiana Republicans are stuck with Richard Mourdock -- who is, of course, hopelessly corrupt. The Koch connections should come out soon. The Democratic candidate in Indiana, Joe Donnelly, hardly seems like my kind of Dem -- but hey, better a Harry Reid than a Sharron Angle. Donnelly's chances still are not great, but they are much better than they were.
PS: I'll miss Dick Lugar. His name sounds so feeelthy.
Permalink
As much as I admire Elizabeth Warren's efforts on regulatory reform, it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether she sought to be hired, promoted or tenured on the basis of a misrepresentation.
If a member of a group that's already favored in university hiring decisions (female) feels the need to invent membership in a second favored hiring category (minority/Indian) that's quite interesting.
Afirmative action policy is no paragon of "fairness," even when it's not abused (Think of the studious, otherwise qualified Asian kid from a poor family who can't get into the UC system). It's a legitimate debate whether the benefits to society are worth the costs.
Assuming Warren supports affirmative action, she has some explaining to do here. It's like when a pro-lifer lies about never having had an abortion, that's when a person choice is a legitimate campaign issue.
But his pronouncement leaves him at odds with Republicans who, for ideological reasons, defend helping Wall Street while decrying the very notion of helping America remain in the car business. According to the GOP, every other industry can die on the vine -- but Manhattan's millionaire hustlers must continue to have an endless supply of coke and hookers. What Lindsey Graham says here is very revelatory...
“Ford made it without any money,” Graham said. “My problem with the government — I was all for stabilizing banks because we all need banks. I’m not going to stabilize every industry through government dollars because it could effect a region electorally or unemployment numbers. The banking system would have brought the whole economy. When they started applying these funds to the car companies they lost me. Because we’ve got car companies in South Carolina got no federal dollars and they’re doing fine. They received no federal funding and they’re doing very good.”
In fact, we don't "all need banks." At least not those banks, in those hands.
In other countries, the miscreant bankers were routed and the banks temporarily placed under public control. In Iceland, for example, the Landsbanki and the Glitner banks were nationalized; Ireland took over the Bank of Ireland and Irish Allied Banks; major banks were nationalized in the U.K. and Germany. And guess what? The sky did not turn red; the dread specter of communism did not descend over Europe. Everyone understood that nationalization was temporary. Everyone understood that bankers are not gods -- often, they are children who need spanking.
Here in America, the no-strings-attached (or few-strings-attached) Wall Street bailout rewarded bankers who had transformed our economic system into a criminal casino. A small library of good books documents what happened. If you have time to read only one of those books, I'd recommend Matt Taibbi's Griftopia. If books ain't your thing, go for the fine four-part PBS Frontline series "Money, Power and Wallstreet."
We could have pursued a "Buy 'em and try 'em" policy. We could have bought those banks outright and made cases against the crooks who ran them. We could have let judges and juries decide the fates of those fraudster bankers who treated their clients like marks.
Other countries are coming to understand that we have nothing to offer but valueless financial flim-flam and empty libertarian axioms. They know that our anarchic financial ideology caused the continuing crisis. And they are ready to have done with us.
We don't need a financial "industry" which has devolved into unregulated
gambling. Wall Street is Vegas with a lot more money and far fewer
rules.Vegas did not make this country great. Detroit did -- along with a
lot of towns just like Detroit.
By their actions, the banks demonstrated that they were unfit to live.
There are those who would say the same about GM, which has been beset by mismanagement for ages. But the bailouts terms for the auto industry were harsher than were the terms applied to the Wall Streeters. And in the final analysis, the auto bailout worked. That victory forces conservatives into the unenviable position of having to argue against success.
We really do need manufacturing.
Not only do we need manufacturing, we need the government to help create a large manufacturing base. Sorry, Randroids, but that's how things get done. Look up the histories of most of the great Asian concerns: If Toyota had not received heavy backing from the post-war Japanese government, that firm would still make nothing but looms.
By the way: If Graham wants to crow about South Carolina's ability to get by without federal dollars, then where was he during the Bush years? His state was fueled by pork, pork, pork.
My home state of California routinely sent more tax money to the federal government than we received in goods and services. In South Carolina, the money flow went in the reverse direction. South Carolina is what I like to call a leech state.
Turns out Graham still loves him some pork. He wants to enlarge the Port of Charleston, and he wants to do the job with your tax dollars.
Hey, why not just ask Mitt Romney to dig it? He can do the job single-handed.
Permalink
Lindsay Graham completes his treason to the American worker by caring more about the Israeli worker, if you check his support for all the wars for Israel fought by the US government the past decade.
Well, except that he wanted both wars fought longer and harder with billions more taxpayer dollars.
And except of course there is some redundancy here when we are taking about his preference for saving the banksters.
posted by Ken Hoop : 11:53 AM
I do agree with Joe that other countries would find America's political "libertarian axioms" empty.
Among them you could probably rank Afghanis, Pakis, Yemenis and ceertainly Iraqis highest.
This because the vast majority of all these nation's people oppose(d) US troops warring in their country and so does-did any libertarian worthy of the name.
Economic collapse and the assault on privacy: The connection
Want to be horrified? I have two articles for you. The fear quotient quadruples when you read these pieces in sequence.
The assault on privacy. Yahoo's Tech page has a light-n-breezy piece on four ways the federal government is spying on American citizens. Most of this article touches on matters we've already noted, including the NSA's new megacenter in Utah and Homeland Security's scrutiny of your every tweet.
Item number four may be new to you...
Your ISP may soon be required to keep files on what sites you visit.
The idea sounds pretty far out there — a law that would require your internet service provider to keep constant tabs on you, along with detailed records of what websites you visited and when. But that's exactly what the Hawaii state legislature proposed this January with H.B. 2288 and companion bill S.B. 2530. The bill, sponsored by State Rep. John Mizuno (D), "requires internet service providers... keep consumer records for no less than two years." The bill then goes on to specify that these records must include "each subscriber's information and internet destination history information."
Thankfully, the bills' sponsors withdrew the offending legislation from debate. But the reason wasn't just public outcry. Also a factor was the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives is considering a similar bill titled Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act. That bill, sponsored and written by Texas Republican Representative Lamar Smith, would mandate that commercial ISPs create logs of customers' names, bank information, and IP addresses. That information could later be used by attorneys seeking to prosecute in a criminal trial or even in civil cases and divorce trials.
I wonder how they'll handle people who use foreign VPNs and proxies?
Whenever the enemies of internet privacy start blathering about pedophiles and terrorists, get cynical. Get paranoid.
And that brings us to our second article...
Economic collapse. I direct your attention to a Newsweek profile of George Soros, published last January. If you didn't read it then, you really ought to do so now.
I have never believed the nonsense that right-wingers say about Soros. Right now, I would prefer not to believe Soros himself.
Sitting in his 33rd-floor corner office high above Seventh Avenue in New York, preparing for his trip to Davos, he is more concerned with surviving than staying rich. “At times like these, survival is the most important thing,” he says, peering through his owlish glasses and brushing wisps of gray hair off his forehead. He doesn’t just mean it’s time to protect your assets. He means it’s time to stave off disaster. As he sees it, the world faces one of the most dangerous periods of modern history—a period of “evil.” Europe is confronting a descent into chaos and conflict. In America he predicts riots on the streets that will lead to a brutal clampdown that will dramatically curtail civil liberties. The global economic system could even collapse altogether.
“I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career,” Soros tells Newsweek. “We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.”
As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”
The connection. It would be easier to ignore Soros' bleak prophecy if the government weren't acting as if it had received the same tarot reading.
The ability to datamine all emails, texts, tweets and other communications will give the national security apparat abilities that go far beyond anything Orwell ever imagined. Uncle will be able to take the national temperature, to test the effectiveness of propaganda, to control information, to pinpoint troublemakers, to wage cyber-war on unruly citizens, to bring charges (spurious or otherwise) against potential opponents, and to stop organizers from communicating by any means other than mouth-to-ear.
Former NSA employee William Binney has warned that "we are this far from a totalitarian state."
Don't believe any politicians who tell you that you need to give up your privacy in order to be protected against child molesters and terrorists. There's only one reason why Uncle wants to read your emails, track your tweets and trace your location 24/7: The government hopes to eradicate your right to dissent.
As I've said in the past: I despise the very thought of revolution. History tells us that revolutions usually go gruesomely wrong. Nevertheless, I also recognize that the threat of rebellion is the only thing that has ever kept any government honest. Any technology which makes rebellion impossible make tyranny inevitable.
Permalink
Of course I agree. Im sure you remember I have muttered dark paranoid notions about this more than once. But Im always pleased when someone calls the security industrial complex out for some public attention. I see it as god's work. I have a residual fondness for what America claims to stand for. So bravo Joe and bravo Mr, Zakaria.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 8:44 AM
Joe, I agree that revolutions have historically gone sour. As a "Native American, i am living proof of what the "Freedom Revolution" cost my people but that being said....What recourse do the "Little people" have when all else fails?
I think this government is gearing up for violence. Why else would the "Masters of the Universe" work so hard to build this chupacabara know as the "Surveillance State?
I asked some youngesters the other day why they were not out protesting the erosion of their liberties? One young man looked at me as if I was from Mars and said that spitting in the wind only gets you boogers in the face...Cute...I said..."Yeah but every now and then...Those loogies hit their target!"
Anyway...If we are waiting on the IPOD kids to take to the streets, I wouldn't hold my breath unless the Gov takes away their right to TXT, these kids have all fallen to the zombie mind melt!
Michael Hayden Wayne Madsen Ruth & Michael Paine Arlen Specter Louis Freeh Rick Santorum Whittaker Chambers Flight 93 Eric Jon Phelps Curt Weldon
ANSWERS: A. Pennsylvania B. Catholic C. Jesuit co-adjutor agitator D. Tricky Russian entanglements E. Tricky Iranian entanglements F. Pedophiles G. Spying on you H. Deceiving you I. Entrapping and Entangling you J. Opens mouth, bullshit spews out K. Can disappear into solid ground M. Some of the above shit N. Heaping gobs of the above shit
posted by Anonymous : 3:52 PM
"Why else would the "Masters of the Universe" work so hard to build this chupacabara know as the "Surveillance State?"
One man's chupacabara is another man's chalupa as they say.
While Romney can’t be held responsible for everything his supporters say, it seems reasonable to expect him to stand up to the fringe in his party, especially when he’s providing a platform for their views (it was his microphone, after all).
I suspect that many in that crowd received -- and believed -- the same insane and inflammatory email from Larry Klayman published on this very blog, just a couple of posts down. Romney's refusal to make a public call for basic human decency, following as it does the Ric Grennell fiasco, buttresses the perception that Mitt Romney is the political world's version of Boneless Girl.
Team Obama is asking for Romney to rebuke the nutball voices within the GOP. This request may be a tactical mistake. What if Mitt "Boneless Girl" Romney does issue such a rebuke? I think he's perfectly capable of doing the right thing -- if his advisers tell him that their polls indicate that doing the right thing will work to his advantage.
Suppose he calls for civility. And suppose the rank-and-filers actually do manage to behave themselves. Suppose Fox and Rush start to act a bit less outrageously. Suppose that all of the Larry Klaymans out there get the message: "Cool it for now. We're trying to win an election here, and you're making us look bad."
What then?
Then...disaster. Disaster for the Democrats. They will lose pretty much the only issue they have.
Right now, the Obama Team's argument comes down to this: "Yeah, policy-wise we don't differ all that much from George W. Bush. But at least we're sane. The other team is filled with really scary psychos."
If Romney erases the perception that the GOP "big tent" has turned into the Bates Motel, do Democrats have any pressing reason, beyond brand loyalty, to vote for Barack Obama?
Permalink
Instead of toning down the crazy from his supporters all the Mittster has to do is publish anti Hilary quotes from blogs like Dailykos. Some of the postings there were pretty vile.
There is also a George W and a Hillary version of that game.
posted by Mr. Mike : 6:33 AM
Well, as you know, I documented a lot of what was said on Kos at that time. But at this stage, I don't think Romney can benefit in the slightest from bringing that stuff up.
I'm not sure I buy this argument (as seen in Forbes), but a man can dream, can't he?
Basically, the author of the afore-linked piece says that each new generation of tech consumers -- and in this world, a "generation" translates to about ten years -- seeks a new way of communicating. That which is hip today becomes unhip tomorrow. Facebook is already showing signs of migrating into the unhip category.
The problem with this theory is that it doesn't take into account the role of money. Financial behemoths tend to roam the earth for decade after decade, changing function as needed. Warner Brothers still makes movies, and they do a lot of other stuff as well.
Personally, I want to call a halt to progress-that-isn't-progress. In
some areas, technology is changing but not improving. Kids use phones to text instead of using
keyboards to chat or to send emails. But keyboards are easier. Why don't kids get that?
The time may come when humanity agrees that some tech revolutions are more annoying than helpful. Take, for example, the problem of digital storage of movies for future generations. Formats keep changing, and digital media tend to degrade. It has been estimated that keeping a 4K digital copy of (say) The Avengers around for the next hundred years will cost about 11 times more than storing the thing on big, clunky cans of old-fashioned 35mm celluloid.
That said, I do welcome many forms of progress. Faster CPUs? Love 'em! Agreeing upon alternatives to Facebook and Google would constitute real progress. We have to convince the kids that privacy is cool.
The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require firms, including Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in backdoors for government surveillance.
Sanchez explains that the true value of requiring back-door access for all Internet communications is full-scale access to all communications: “If you want to sift through communications in bulk, it’s only going to be feasible with a systemic backdoor.” McCullagh notes that Joe Biden has been unsuccessfully attempting to ban encrypted communications, or at least require full-scale government access, since well before 9/11.
As readers know, I have long believed that this is what the NSA does already: It scoops up everything. Everything. What the government wants is a legal mechanism which would allow machines to datamine the daily haul, after which humans can build criminal cases based on those results. The tech is already in place; the law needs to catch up.
The previous post, about the CIA's role in Watergate, got me to thinking about conspiracies and conspiracy theorists. Although my ideas are a bit vague, I'm still going to jot them down. The act of writing can transform the vague into the concrete.
First: I thought the Watergate piece, though written hurriedly, turned out rather well. Yet the stats tell me that few people read it.
That's not what bugs me.
What bugs me is that, at the same time, I continued to get a huge readership for the April 1, 2006 post detailing the dreadful linkage between Aleister Crowley and the Bush family. The April 1, 2012 post -- on Mitt Romney's use of subliminals in campaign ads -- also garnered a sizable readership. (To my delight, a number of people insist that they have seen the very same subliminals on Romney's official site.)
The numbers tell us much about what the audience wants.
The audience wants fear. The audience wants sensationalism. The audience wants conspiracy theories -- but only the bullshit conspiracy theories. If you talk about something real -- such as the CIA's role in Watergate -- everyone yawns.
I've spent the day going through the CTKA site, which does the very best research into the political assassinations of the 1960s. I am in awe of the research prowess displayed by Jim DiEugenio and his band of citizen investigators. They have, in essence, solved the JFK case, or at least a great big chunk of it. (Angleton was the likely mastermind. Just in case, y'know, anyone's interested.)
But what is the point of all that fine work?
The assassination controversy has been commandeered by the likes of Alex Jones and Michael Collins Piper. Those are the guys who get all the attention, even though they are rotten researchers. (Can you imagine a hyperactive ape like Jones actually sitting down and reading a book all the way through?) Worse, they all espouse a political weltanschauung far removed from Kennedy's own belief system.
In fact, that weltanschauung is frighteningly close to the way JFK's killers viewed the world. Jim Angleton and Alex Jones have more in common than their initials. They share an addiction to fear: Fear of socialism, fear of the East coast establishment, fear of The Enemy Within, fear of reason itself.
A long time ago, I told an "old hand" in the JFK research community that he had wasted his life, because he had functioned as a warm-up act for the very fascism he despised. Please understand: I remain convinced that the JFK conspiracy was real. I remain convinced that the many citizen investigators who pursued the case did a fine and noble thing. It was necessary to question the official view.
But -- paradoxically -- a healthy questioning of authority has mutated into a form of political rabies.
We now live in a culture of paranoia. And it's killing us.
We no longer revere expertise -- in fact, we revere anti-expertise.
Half the country believes in creationism, a belief founded on the psychotic notion that all of the world's biologists, anthropologists and geologists are engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the Bible. And even though the vast majority of scientists accept the idea of man-made climate change, half the country prefers to listen to the small handful of libertarian nay-sayers who argue that global warming is a myth promulgated by socialist schemers.
Just today, I received the a mass mailing from Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, who still believes that Obama was born in Kenya. This is the most idiotic text I've ever read, and I've spent decades collecting idiotic texts. Exposure to so concentrated a dose of stupidity can be as staggering as a whiff of pure ammonia.
Our culture of paranoia made this text possible.
That paranoid culture was created, in large part, by the public's reaction to the assassinations of the 1960s and to Watergate. I think we need to be honest about this connection.
Should we not admit that the birthers are the sick, malformed offspring of the JFK researchers? I think that On the Trail of the Assassins and Secret Agenda are good books about real conspiracies. Yet, arguably, books of that sort helped to create an environment of mistrust, an environment in which bad actors like Klayman and Glenn Beck could spread their fear and poison.
See for yourself: Klayman's words, reprinted below, illustrate the dangers of a culture of paranoia. I won't bother to refute his nonsense. If you cannot immediately perceive that it is nonsense, you are too fucking stupid to talk to. As you read, think of the millions of your fellow citizens who take this garbage seriously.
Welcome to modern America. Take a look at what we have turned into.
No joking: Obama must be indicted
By Larry Klayman
May 6, 2012
At last Saturday's White House Correspondent's Dinner, the Washington, D.C. equivalent of the Academy Awards for Hollywood, President Barack Hussein Obama was feted by the leftist and overly-biased White House Correspondents' Association. Over 3000 journalists, politicians, Supreme Court justices, and other establishment "nobility" crowded in the banquet room of the Washington Hilton — ironically the hotel where one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, was shot — to pat themselves on the back for the "great job" they had done helping to destroy the nation, hear late night host Jimmy Kimmel jokes and cater to their fatness. Predictably, in honor of their hero Obama, Hollywood's leftist elite also showed up for the celebration; even "intellectual heavyweights" like Kim Kardashian, who perhaps came only for the publicity and to find and marry yet a new half-wit husband to boost her reality series.
While Kimmel is a lefty himself, much to his credit he had the good humor to take the "mullah in chief" apart with his tongue and cheek performance. In introducing the president Kimmel greeted him with the Muslim hello; "Mr. President, Salam." Then, referring to Hussein's eligibility to be president, he quipped that perhaps the reason a lot of people believe he was born in Kenya is that he is so thin that he resembles a Kenyan marathon runner. Kimmel even attacked Obama's perceived failure to push an even more leftist agenda, challenging him to "stick to his guns." For good measure, the comedian told his socialist pal that if he needed some guns, he could get them from his Attorney General Eric Holder.
Kimmel's humor was hilarious, but what is not funny is the sad and frightening reality behind his jokes. Even leftists like Kimmel — who perhaps not coincidentally looks Jewish — have come to see Obama as a Muslim who has sold out not just his principles but also his country and our ally Israel. And, Obama's reaction to Kimmel's jokes — betrayed by his forced smiles and feigned laughter — told the tale as well. It was a difficult evening for the "mullah in chief." But it was not as difficult as the dire situation the nation now finds itself in, thanks to Obama's overt efforts to destroy most of what our Founding Fathers risked their lives to create; a free country under God, that is the Judeo-Christian one.
So with the nation in dire straits and a Congress unwilling to impeach and convict Obama for his high crimes and misdemeanors, it turns again — as it did in 1776 — for "We the People" to get the job done and legally remove the so called sovereign from our lives. The Founders realized that yet another King George III could someday inhabit and rule over the land, and for that reason, seeking to avoid the bloodshed of another violent revolution(s), they gave to us the citizens grand jury to try before all hell would otherwise again break loose.
Two week ago, I wrote about the legal bases for and history of the citizens grand jury, and why it in principle is a viable weapon, as a last ditch measure short of revolution, to use against the political establishment elite and our Muslim and traitorous president. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/time-to-indict-the-political-class/). Today, I will spell out what I think some of the criminal charges in the initial indictment of the "mullah in chief" should comprise. I welcome your thoughts and suggestions as well and you may contact me at leklayman@yahoo.com.
First, there is the issue of Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States. While Republicans refuse to address his highness' "Kenyaness" as they are part of the establishment Washington, D.C. club, even the jokester Kimmel thought enough of Obama's likely non-citizen status to make fun of the "mullah in chief." It is clear to anyone with a brain that Obama was not only born in Kenya, but is also not a natural born citizen, that is having two parents who were U.S. citizens as is required by our Constitution. Obama has now had three and one half years to produce the original of his birth certificate, and has failed to do so. And, the computer-generated and doctored one he did produce is a fraud. So, let the citizens grand jury indict Obama for having defrauded the American people, notwithstanding our election laws. He is the "Kenyan Muslim president," not our president and he must be removed from office by being convicted of this crime and incarcerated in a prison where he can do no more further harm to the nation.
Second, the "mullah in chief" has orchestrated the release of national security information, revealing not only our most highly secret sources and methods of gathering intelligence about the Iranian nuclear bomb program, but also our war plans should Israel wage a preemptive strike to take out the Islamic nation's atomic weapons plants. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/try-obama-for-treason/). Just this week, I received letters from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA), in response to my Freedom Of Information Act requests seeking to confirm that Obama had disclosed classified national security information. Of course the CIA and NSA did not mention Obama by name, but instead claimed a national security exemption to justify their refusal to release relevant documents showing the illegal disclosure, and who was involved. This confirmed that what Obama released was classified. He did this to undercut Israel and the United States from attacking his Muslim "brotherhood" in Iran. As I have previously written, I sincerely believe that Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton are on the take, and that the mullahs in Tehran have bribed them — much as the Clintons were bribed by the Chinese during their administration — to sell out our nation and the western world. The "mullah in chief" must be indicted for treason and put away for good where the sun don't shine even in sunny Cuba, in a terrorist cell in Guantanamo with his fellow Muslims.
Third and Fourth, there are Obama's traitorous and illegal acts in filing a complaint against his own country before the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission over Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law, SB 1070, and his obstruction of justice in the racially charged George Zimmerman case — where he used the Office of the Presidency to coerce the Florida prosecutor to indict Zimmerman to suit his political ends by shoring up his African American and leftist voter base in time for the 2012 presidential election. The acts are so outrageously criminal as to cry out for prosecution and significant prison time.
Yes, Kimmel's jokes were funny but also not a laughing matter when it comes to saving the nation. "We the People" must now, without fear, take it upon ourselves to enforce the principles upon which our great nation was founded. We cannot and must not be afraid to do what must be done to legally remove this traitor and criminal from office before it is too late to save the country and ourselves from this unholy Muslim Kenyan scourge.
I think Kimmel's comedy was actually surprisingly biting, but to then hijack Kimmel's words and interpret them as Kimmel thinking that Obama is Muslim is ludicrous.
Obama should be impeached over his Parallel Foreclosure Stance, which is actually a violation of constitutional law yet it is not mentioned in the article you site.
"And even though the vast majority of scientists accept the idea of man-made climate change"
Science is about money. Scientists' opinions are formed from the top down, just as in any other sector. The middle-level guys get 'ideas' spewed into their heads from the higher-ups, they internalise them, and they spew them into the heads of scientists lower down.
"Manmade climate change" is bullshit. People used to skate and hold fairs on the frozen Thames from the 16th century until the early 19th. From the late 18th century on, the Thames froze over less and less frequently, starting before industry even existed. It wasn't industry that caused this change. It was Mother Nature.
There's massive propaganda for "manmade climate change", pushing the message that we have "all" got to act in ways which basically amount to working for free to help big business cut its costs.
I don't doubt that millions of Americans would agree with the above for reasons mixed up with nutcase ideas about the rulers being fanatical "socialists" (surely some mistake?), with biblical creationism, or whatever. That doesn't make it not true.
Is faith in the objectivity of scientists your main reason for believing in manmade climate change?
b
posted by b : 10:18 AM
Not much to say Joseph. Spot on.
posted by Gus : 10:32 AM
b, if it were anyone but you, I might not have let that comment through.
Well, I would have let it pass anyways, because it's all so freakin' hilarious. Here in the U.S., the Heartland Institute -- a Libertarian pressure group, funded until recently by (surprise!) the people who make Guiness -- goes around warning everyone that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of socialists.
And now, the only actual socialist I know offers the viewpoint that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of capitalists.
Yeah. Yeahhhhhh.
I think I'm going to mix up some margaritas now. Then I'll sit on the back porch and watch the world go mad.
Maybe CIA/Watergate is a little dated in your context.
Ever heard of Michael Cremo? Check his excellent work refuting Darwinism.
I ageee it would be helpful to certain versions of JFK assassination readings to have at least one Kennedy somewhat on your side.
posted by Ken Hoop : 4:17 PM
Cremo?
The Hare Krishna goofball who thinks the Earth and humanity are far older than the scientific community does?
Are you f**king kidding me, Hoop?
Sounds like you and Cremo should have both stayed away from the brown acid. :P
posted by Monster from the Id : 3:02 AM
"Scientific community"-is that the consensus reality abridged version?
posted by Ken Hoop : 8:41 AM
Climate change graphs here. There are already calls from e.g. James Hansen of NASA to jail "climate change deniers" - a disgraceful propagandist term which distracts attention from the issue, which is why do powerful interests shout through every channel they can that climate change is mainly manmade. The issue should not be "is the climate changing?" Of course it's changing. It's always changed. It can't be stopped. Thinking it can be stopped involves the insane idea that humans can control nature. They can't. Martin Rees, the Master of Trinity College in Cambridge, England - a very influential person - has decided that what happens in the present century will affect the planet for billions of years to come.
It won't.
He's a nutter.
That's probably why he got the million-quid Templeton Prize.
Not that the ideology is motivated by that idea in the heads of all its top pushers. I'm quite sure that no-one at the top - the kind of "top" where it's decided what to tell Rees and others to think - believes all that codswallop, any more than they believe anything else. Except, of course, their filthy ideology which appears whenever the surface is scratched, which is Social Darwinist and Malthusian, also known as "fuck you, I'm all right, Jack".
Meanwhile Nicholas Stern fronts up the "economic theory" of "climate change". Disinterested people-server, or man of the system?
So some loonies oppose the manmade climate-change ideology (itself a repackaging of 'global warming' when record winters started occurring and various places were accepted to be getting colder, and "climate change" seemed more all-encompassing). If the pushers of the ideology didn't have loony 'enemies', they'd have invented them, paid them, given them soapboxes! Some loonies oppose Big Pharma too! And Big Pharma's propaganda machine is deployed "against" purveyors of this or that "alternative" medicine or treatment, saying they're only in it for the money, or they're cultists, or both. Some loonies say the Rothschilds are powerful...
The Watergate burglary happened 40 years ago -- yet, all of sudden, everyone seems to want to talk about that scandal. The most substantive retrospective piece out right now is Jefferson Morley's Salon article on the CIA's role, which you can find here.
Did the CIA engineer Watergate? Did ousted CIA head Richard Helms out-trick the Trickster?
This has been the predominant theory of left-wing paranoids ever since they learned that Watergate burglars Hunt and McCord were Company men and that the CIA had bugged the White House. That's why Nixon couldn't just burn the tapes: He couldn't hide anything because the CIA already had everything.
As Morley notes:
The question of what Helms knew about Watergate still matters because, amazingly enough, after 40 years later, we still don’t know who ordered the burglary or why. As Shafer told the Poynter discussion, “I’ve read all the books, listened to all the lectures, and even eaten dinner in the Watergate and I don’t know why Nixon’s people broke into the DNC twice and bugged it.”
One popular theory held that the Nixon crew was worried that the Democrats had gained access to damning information about a Nixon-Hughes bribe. An earlier bribe, to Nixon's brother, had nearly destroyed Richard Nixon's career. (In that period, Hughes bribed everyone on both sides of the aisle.)
In 1975, Playboy published the first of a two-part article detailing the "Hughes" theory. Oddly, part two never appeared. Political junkies kept buying the magazine month after month hoping to see either the Ultimate Watergate Revelation or, at the very least, a return appearance by Janet Lupo.
Left-wing conspiracy buffs have long believed that Watergate's missing center -- the Big Secret that bound Helms and Nixon together, even though they could never discuss the matter directly -- was the Kennedy assassination. You probably already know the story about Nixon's cryptic message to Helms about "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" -- words which sent Helms into an uncharacteristic rage. Bob Haldeman, Nixon's aide, interpreted this remark as a coded reference to the great unpleasantness in Dealey Plaza.
Sensitives may also detect the specter of JFK as they mull over John Ehrlichman's "dirty linen" remark, which Morley quotes. As the article notes, Nixon even once let slip a direct reference to the "Who shot John?" question. Here's his actual voice.
Morely discusses one important Watergate side-story which most people have forgotten. At one point, Helms gave Nixon some cables about the assassination of General Diem of Vietnam. These cables were handed to Hunt, the CIA man now working for Nixon's CREEP.
A veteran undercover officer and dirty tricks specialist who loathed President Kennedy, Hunt doctored the cables to create the impression that JFK was complicit in the assassination of Diem, a pro-American despot. The forged documents were then shown to a Life magazine writer in the hopes of creating problems for Ted Kennedy’s expected presidential candidacy. Life magazine turned down the story, perhaps because the animus behind the story was so transparent.
Always keep that sequence of events in mind whenever you assess any new and "scandalous" revelations about JFK. People lied about Kennedy. They still do -- not just because they detested him personally (those few who retain a personal animus are now elderly) but because they detest liberalism; they detest everything JFK stood for.
Anyone interested in learning about this continuing smear campaign should read a remarkable two-part series titled "The Posthumous Assassination of JFK," available here and here.
Morley does not offer much discussion of the Watergate theories that have aroused the most interest among left-leaning spy-watchers. First and foremost: Did James McCord intentionally blow the burglary in order to destroy Nixon?
His behavior was pretty damned suspicious. As most of you probably know, the burglars held a locked door open with a piece of tape. When McCord found that tape removed, he replaced it with a second piece of tape -- even though the removal of the first tape (by a security guard) should have signaled that it was time to abort the operation.
Hell, we would not even have a Watergate scandal if McCord had not piped up about it.
McCord's allegations that the White House knew of the burglary and attempt to cover it up were crucial in causing investigators to push further.
Awfully chatty, McCord was, for a CIA guy. Yet even though he could have made a lot of money writing about his role in Watergate, he refused offers from major publishers.
Instead, he wrote a strange, undersized book for a small firm. That work, titled A Piece of Tape, received very little distribution and quickly became very hard to find. (I read it in a university library; I've never seen a copy in a used bookstore.) Simultaneously dull and bizarre, it is the most opaque, frustrating, and downright absurd text to come out of the scandal. McCord would have been more revelatory if he had delivered two hundred pages of "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy" to the publisher. Nevertheless, I would argue that his refusal to say anything worthwhile says a great deal.
The second major Watergate theory is best posed in the form of a question: Who is Bob Woodward, and who were his sources? (Note the plural. Incidentally, this post is not going to go into Silent Coup's absurd "Dean did it" hypothesis, which we have demolished in earlier posts.)
Jim Hougan's Secret Agenda revealed that Woodward had been a briefer with high-level connections. Some feel that he was working for the intelligence community when he was more-or-less forcibly inserted into a Washington Post staff position. He got that job even though he lacked writing ability or a journalistic background.
Everyone now accepts that Deep Throat, Woodward's "official" secret source, was Mark Felt of the FBI. But before a very aged Felt outed himself, the smart money was on a CIA source. Hougan explored that theory in his book Secret Agenda:
Throat belongs in a category different from that of GSA employees and disaffected CIA officers who have protested cost-overruns and underestimates of enemy troop strengths. The whistle that he blew was heard 'round the world, and a grateful nation has offered to bestow its accolades upon him even as publishers dangle the lure of seven-figure advances for his story. Clearly, Deep Throat's anonymity has nothing to do with job security. It may be, therefore, that Throat remains anonymous because if he was identified our perception of him and of the Post's Watergate reportage would change.
In an appendix to his book, Hougan reprinted a document which revealed that Woodward had, in fact, been meeting with CIA guy Robert Bennett. The following words come from a 1972 memo to the CIA's Deputy Director for Plans:
Mr Bennett said also that he has been feeding stories to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post with the understanding that there be no attribution to Bennett.
Even after Felt came forward, Hougan argued that Woodward's real source was Bennett. (The problems with Woodward's account of his meetings with Deep Throat are discussed here and here.)
This suggestion makes sense to me. No-one has ever explained how Felt knew the things he allegedly knew. A CIA source, on the other hand, would have had access to material gleaned from the hidden mics that Butterfield had placed in the White House.
For the record, it seems to me that if anyone proposes to identify Deep Throat, or to identify the lead singer in the choir of sources subsumed by the identity of Throat, they must meet a very basic criterion. That is, they must demonstarate, at a minimum, that their candidate met repeatedly and secretly with Bob Woodward. (Throat is obviously Woodward's creation. I don't think Bernstein would know him from a bale of hay.)
The only person who meets that criterion, to my knowledge, is Robert Bennett. Now one of the most powerful men in the U.S. Senate, Bennett was President of the Robert R. Mullen Company in 1972-3. This was the CIA front for which Howard Hunt worked. (It was also the Washington representative of the Howard Hughes organization.) As I reported in *Secret Agenda*, Bennett's CIA case officer, Martin Lukoskie, drafted a memo to his boss, Eric Eisenstadt, reporting on his monthly debriefing of Bennett after the Watergate arrests. According to Eisenstadt, Bennett told him that he, Bennett, had "made a backdoor entry to the Washington Post through Edward Bennett Williams' office," and that he, Bennett, was feeding stories to Bob Woodward, who was "suitably grateful." (Williams was the Post's attorney, and attorney, also, for the Democratic National Committee.)
Woodward's gratefulness was manifest in the way he kept the CIA, in general, and the Robert R. Mullen Company, in particular, out of his stories. (I obtained the Lukoskie memo under the Freedom of Information Act. Eric Eisenstadt's reaction to that memo, which I also obtained under FOIA, was considered so secret that it was delivered by hand to then-CIA Director Richard Helms.
Hougan later wrote a more complete response which (in my view) gets as close as anyone has ever gotten to the true motive for Watergate.
In the 1970s, it was difficult -- perhaps impossible -- for most people to understand that Nixon had enemies on his right. Nixon himself could not get his mind around that concept; he blamed all of his problems on the anti-war crowd. Liberals were, for the most part, just as clueless. More conservative than Nixon...? The idea was absurd: That guy was so uptight he probably wore a dark suit and tie as a baby in his crib.
But anti-Nixon ultra-conservatives did exist. And they had power.
We now know that there was a faction within the military and intelligence community which was united by a distrust of Nixon's policy of detente with the USSR. We might call this group "the Angleton faction," since they gravitated toward James Jesus Angleton's mad theory that the Sino-Soviet split was a sham.
The people within this group had a lot of other bizarre notions, as well. Hougan:
McCord put forward a conspiracy theory suggesting that the Rockefeller family was lunging for complete control over the government's critical national security functions, using the Council on Foreign Relations and Henry Kissinger as its surrogates.
Felt, McCord and a boatload of liberals weren't the only ones to demonize the Nixon White House. A similar point of view was held by a number of high-ranking Naval officers, including Adm. Elmo Zumwalt. Indeed, as Zumwalt later explained, he left the Administration because “its own officials and experts reflected Henry Kissinger’s world view: that the dynamics of history are on the side of the Soviet Union; that before long the USSR will be the only superpower on earth and…that the duty of policy-makers, therefore, is at all costs to conceal from the people their probable fate…”1
Whether Admiral Moorer agreed with Zumwalt’s assessment or not is uncertain. But he was spying on the White House. And this is where gets a bit incestuous, because in the months before Woodward began his try-oout at for the Post, he was a young Naval officer assigned to Admiral Moorer’s staff. In that capacity, he presided over the CNO’s code-room, and served as both a briefer and a courier to the White House.
I have for some time been of the firm opinion that Bennett was Throat. This was so because it seemed to me that, as a bare minimum, someone’s candidacy for Throat should be backed up by evidence that the candidate met secretly with Woodward and fed him stories about Watergate.
Bennett fit the bill. No one else did.
The Bennett I refer to was, of course, the owner of the Robert R. Mullen Company. This was a CIA front with offices in Washington and abroad. Among Bennett’s employees at the time of the Watergate break-in was E. Howard Hunt. Politically hyper-active during the Nixon Administration, Bennett was also the Washington representative of the Howard Hughes organization (which was negotiating with the CIA over plans to recover a sunken Soviet submarine from the Pacific Ocean’s floor). It was Bennett who suggested that Hunt might want to interview ITT lobbyist Dita Beard concerning newspaper leaks to Jack Anderson, and it was Bennett who volunteered his nephew to work as infiltrator at the DNC.
Today, Bennett is today one of the richest men in the U.S. Senate, and a Mormon elder. That he was also a key source of Bob Woodward’s during the Watergate affair is memorialized in a memorandum written by Martin J. Lukoskie, his CIA case-officer in 1972. According to Lukoskie, Bennett dissuaded reporters from the Washington Post from pursuing a “Seven Days in May scenario” that would have implicated the CIA in a Watergate conspiracy.
Watergate eventually produced a shift in this country's political mindset -- a shift to the right. The ultra-conservatives, formerly shunned and shadowy, have taken over our national dialogue. Today, the only real debate left is the debate between the varying flavors of ultra-conservatism.
In that light, you may want to check out Mitt Romney's spot for Bob Bennett's bid for re-election to the Senate. Just count the number of times Romney uses the word "conservative." It's pretty hilarious.
(There's something downright Nixonian about Romney's willingness to pander and his obvious discomfort in his own skin.)
There are some indications that the connections between Romney and Bennett run deep. When we enter this new and untested field of research, we have to acknowledge that our sourcing may not be as credible or considered as we might prefer. Consider what follows to be a collection of leads to explore, not a collection of facts to believe:
After the reported death of Howard Hughes, Summa started liquidating its holdings. Frank William Gay, alleged Bush/CIA front man and Mormon Mafia Don, also ran Summa Corporation as its CEO. Gay's son, Robert was the founder of Mitt Romney's Bain Capital.
Robert Bennett and Frank "Bill" Gay liquidated everything but the casino operations and real-estate holdings. For the unitiated, casinos are important to Intelligence Community as a major front for "money-laundering". Drug money cash can be converted to covert weapons used to overthrow the enemies of the "Crown". The casino "games" can also be used to pay bribes to those that go along with the agenda.
JFK once mused that a Seven Days in May scenario, a military coup, could happen with a young President tripping up on foreign policy a la Bay of Pigs. Nixon, as you describe, had no idea his Seven Days were coming at him like a speeding locomotive. Al Haig, a military man and Kissinger aide, soon got more access to the First Stiff than Henry -- H used his influence to pretty much help toss Dick under the bus. Hougan does a great job (and where has he been these three decades) decoding the anti-Nixon right wing, deconstructing Woodward's own intelligence background and introducing the reader to the long-forgotten General Paul Gaynor, E Howard Hunt's boss at the CIA's Office of Security and link to the Haig/Moorer/Zumwalt kooky/treasonous cabal. Excellent post.
Lilia Luciano, a Miami-based NBC News correspondent, is no longer working for the network, TVNewser has learned.
Luciano last reported for NBC News March 31. Until that point, she had been reporting mainly on the Trayvon Martin story. Sources tell TVNewser Luciano’s dismissal came after an investigation which also led to the firing of a seasoned NBC News producer over a similar, misleading edit.
In rightwingerland, these two firings mean that NBC can't be trusted. To the contrary: Letting go of these reporters (over what I consider to be small-ish infractions) demonstrates that NBC can be trusted.
Compare NBC's attitude to the one displayed by Fox News. You may have seen this screen grab in an earlier post:
This "story" was generated in 2008 after Castro wrote an editorial that insulted both Obama and Clinton. Did anyone at Fox get fired for false reporting? No.
As you know, Fox pulls this kind of crap every hour of every day, and nobody gets the sack. How many times has Fox tried to convince the public that Obama is a Muslim?
Whenever a Republican gets bad press, Fox "accidentally" labels the miscreant a Democrat.
And then there's the strangest example of all...
I could upload these screencaps all day, of course. But I'm under deadline, and the point is made. Roger Ailes never fires anyone for the outrageous misreporting on Fox.
Permalink
The very fact that Fox News championed a miscreant like Glenn Beck as long as they did, says everything that needs to be said.
Fair and balanced? Hahahaha.
Peggysue
posted by Anonymous : 8:07 AM
Ditto Peggy Sue
ANonOMouse
posted by Anonymous : 9:30 AM
I wonder-- in the old days, under the Fairness Doctrine, if Fox's consistent "errors" would have generated some sort of disciplinary action from the FCC. One error is a mistake; a thousand errors is a pattern.
Bob @ 3:21, the FCC only goes after the Howard Sterns not the Fox News. You have one AM crackpot continually shrieking about free speech and how Obama is going to shut down conservative voices. The irony is that this guy will sue anybody that quotes his vile spew in rebuttal for copyright infringement.
The reality is that radio stations are issued licenses to use an assigned frequency and as such can be made to carry programs with a dissenting opinion in the public interest, just as they could be required to air campaign advertisements for political candidates. They are not because somebody wants it that way.
Next time some right wing blo-tard gets in your face about free speech reming them of Howard Stern.
CNN wonders why Occupy May Day fizzled. I'm amazed that it did as well as it did, given the sheer inanity displayed by the brain-damaged fetuses placed in charge of publicizing the event. I don't know what the ad campaigns were like in other cities, but here in Balmer, the agit-prop achieved a level of surrealistic stupidity matched only by David Lynch's "Dumbland" cartoons.
During a visit to Dundalk, we took photos of the Occupy May Day posters affixed to various walls and telephone poles around town. Dundalk is a working class suburb of Baltimore -- and by "working class," I mean very working class. When I lived in southern California, everyone made fun of the proles living in Sylmar -- but Dundalkians make Sylmarians seem like Yale graduates.
Many dockworkers live in Dundalk, and a surprising number of them sound like Popeye. I'm not kidding: Popeye. If you think that voice was invented for the cartoons, think again. Some Dundalkians even kind of look like Popeye, except not as thin.
There hasn't been a bookstore in this burg in decades. Them newfangled computer thingies are objects of wonder and awe.
Everyone smokes -- all the time. In the morning, you can see all the cute little boys and girls walking to Dundalk Elementary, and they're all holding cigs between their stubby little fingers. Squirrels and puppies and cats all smoke. Birds swoop down from the trees to steal cigs from the squirrels.
In Dundalk, young women never talk about their husbands or their boyfriends: They talk about "My baby's daddy." As in: "Me and my baby's daddy went to the movie show last weekend."
The last time anyone in Dundalk made a clever remark was 1965. The last time any Dundalkian comprehended a clever remark was 1983. A monument in Freedom Park commemorates the occasion.
You occasionally see Dundalkians rolling around the pavement because they've forgotten the technique of upright walking. You occasionally see Dundalkians choking to death because they've forgotten how to breathe. If the Hulk lived here, he'd be the superintendent of schools.
Get the picture? This is the audience that the Occupy forces hoped to reach when they placed posters throughout Dundalk.
I will now present to you the words and images that the Occupy organizers thought would go over huge with the chainsmoking, Popeye-voiced dockworkers:
Ah yes. Minimalist surrealism. Bewildering non-sequiturs. If that don't fetch 'em, I don't know Dundalk.
This is good. Everyone knows that Dundalkians are big Erich Fromm fans. And it's not as though you need to give anyone a reason to get up off that couch.
Absolutely nobody reading these words felt any compulsion to strike. Nothing in these posters offered any reason for doing so. There was no appeal to the hopes, dreams or fears of the target audience.
Not pictured here: The poster that featured nothing but that fucking Guy Fawkes mask -- as if we haven't had enough of that.
I can just picture the arrogant pseudo-Marxist college kids who dreamed up these images. They probably dress in black and eat vegan meals and hang out at Red Emma's bookshop, if that place is still open. They would, no doubt, offer endless justifications for their inane and otiose approach to the ancient art of the propaganda poster. The smirky young fucktards who like imagery of this sort are usually too damn smug ever to admit making a miscalculation.
Get a clue, fetuses: You have to know your audience. You have understand what motivates people. You have to speak to their concerns, in a striking and memorable and inviting fashion. If you're talking to dockworkers, speak their language.
The Dada imagery that appeals to your two or three closest college buddies may not appeal to people who work in crummy jobs.
Yeah, this post opens me up to charges of snobbishness. Yeah, I've had some fun at the expense of the hard-working people who call Dundalk home. To be fair, Dundalkians have a good-natured tendency to kid themselves, and they often call their home town "Dumb-dalk." (If you wanna hear vicious, ask 'em about Essex.)
That said, I gotta tell ya: The proles who work in Dundalk -- and Essex, and Sylmar, and any other Proleburg you can name -- are freakin' geniuses compared to the idiotic kids who cobbled together Occupy May Day.
Permalink
I dont think it was such a damp squib. Here in NYC at least it seemed to hit par as far as I was concerned. Which isnt bad on a damp cool day.
I think it is fair to say the media coverage was extremely biased against it. Mass media seems very tolerant of utterly idiotic commentary on OWS, as long as its negative. I made the mistake of catching some CNBC - and its Larry Sh*thead character asking why OWS supported Obama when he had actually made inequality worse. Well Sh*thead got that half right at least - better than his usual record.
NYT was interesting as well. They tried to ignore it. Clearly the Agency didnt want this story reported. Instead you get some kind of oped on why the super-rich are our friends.
I aint ever paying for that toilet paper. Nor the WSJ.
They can all go and something themselves before I contribute to their propaganda machines. You ever hear the russian joke about the two old commie newspapers? Pravda and Izvestia? One of them had no news and the other had no truth. Seems more apt for US media today.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 4:52 AM
This was hilarious, in that laugh to keep from crying way.
posted by prowlerzee : 2:19 PM
Harry, my Russian is a little (read, decades) old, but I think you need to transpose Pravda and Izvestia to make the punchline maximally effective.
FBI entraps Occupy-friendly "anarchists" in bomb plot
Aw, shit. This is bad. Very bad. We all know full well what the Fox News crew will do with this little gift. We also know how the pro-CISPA forces will react.
How fitting, the first non-Islamist terror plot in a long time and it involves leftists.
In the first place: These kids did not call themselves leftists. They considered themselves anarchists, which means that they have drunk deep from the Ron Paul wells.
No, I'm not saying that they are actual Paul sectarians; any such affiliation remains to be determined. I speak in more generalized terms. By definition, anarchists adhere to an anti-government philosophy. You pretty much have to be anti-government if you wish to enter the business of blowing up publicly-funded structures.
(Update: You'll want to read what Emptywheel has to say about the actual bridge these clowns allegedly targeted. Also see this humorous page on the close relationship between anarchism and libertarianism. Wikipedia classifies its "Anarchism" entry as "Part of a series on Libertarianism." Perhaps we may fairly call these kids libertarian terrorists.)
Anarchism is the opposite of the New Deal ideal of democratically regulated capitalism. We who revere the FDR legacy do not want right-wing propagandists conflating our stance with a philosophy that has nothing to do with us. FDR fans want to build bridges, not blow them up.
Allow me to make the next point in the boldest possible fashion, because I want the message to be very clear:
I am sick of seeing that fucking Guy Fawkes mask, which so many would-be anarchists (like those five ninnies in Ohio) have stupidly embraced. Get rid of that symbol. It's old. It's uncool. It was no damned good in the first place.
Look here, you young dummies: Alan Moore -- the guy who wrote V For Vendetta and the man who foisted Fawkesian imagery on the larger world -- did not intend his masked protagonist to be a hero in the conventional sense. In his original story (which differs from the popular film), he placed the extremes of anarchism and fascism in opposition to each other. He meant to demonstrate that both of those isms have the capacity to create monsters.
Moore could never have written that comic book if he did not live in a very non-anarchist country with a government-funded social safety net. That net allowed him to embark on a very iffy new career without putting his young family at risk of starvation. Moore has made that very point in numerous interviews.
Speaking as a liberal, I've never felt that anarchism was the answer. Wall Street went to hell in 2008 precisely because anarchy reigned in the financial sector. Using anarchist ideology to fight the "one percent" is like trying to lose weight by going on an ice cream diet. A tendency toward anarchist stupidity is one reason why the Occupy movement has always frightened and frustrated me as much as it has intrigued and enthralled me.
The idiocy of these five ambulatory fetuses in Ohio proves that young people should not be allowed to do -- well, anything.
In the comments, on a regular basis, I spar with smirky kids -- particularly on the topics of 9/11, Ron Paul, the historicity of Jesus, and conspiracy theory in general. Mes enfants, you must understand something: We, your elders, have failed you. I admit it. It's all our fault. We did not provide you with the educations you need in order to function in this world. Blame us. We, the over-50s, deserve any spit you might care to expectorate in the general direction of our faces.
But no matter how much moisture you hurl, you can't change one fact: If you are under 40, you are an idiot. Simple as that. You do not know how to think. You may think you can think, but you can't.
As a result of your (perhaps permanent) state of brain damage, the best thing you can do for your country is...nothing.
Do not attempt to do anything, ever. Not on your own.
If you must act, act under the direction of someone old enough to recall those golden decades of New Deal normality (FDR to Carter). Otherwise, you are doomed.
If you try to act independently, if you fool yourself into thinking that you know what's actually going on in this world, you'll simply end up used and entrapped, just like those five dolts in Ohio. Do you really want to be tossed in the clink and forced to bend over for Larry the Lifer? That's what will happen to you.
The only way to avoid that fate is to follow the directives of your infinitely more intelligent elders.
Permalink
I am not seeking to justify the completely idiotic action these youngsters are alleged to have planned, but why rely on what police and prosecutors say about them? Perhaps they deny the allegation? Perhaps some of them do and some of them don't? How do you know they don't call themselves leftists? To judge by the date, I reckon they probably do.
posted by b : 5:40 PM
b, I doubt that they have a very coherent philosophy. Here in American, the Occupy movement was so overrun with libertarians and teabaggers that my head was ready to explode. These dumb kids honestly think that you reconcile the views of Che Guevara and Ayn Rand.
Hell, nearly one-third of them don't even know that the Earth revolves around the sun. I'm not kidding.
Clearly there's no hope if the FBI is going to all the trouble to discredit the movement. We'r'e all going to die anyway so what's the point in doing anything, ya?
posted by Anonymous : 8:15 PM
Damn. I hate when I make typos in the comments, because changes are impossible.
I meant "Here in America," not "Here in American."
From everything I've read about the case, these were some dumb kids who got roped into an FBI sting ably pushed along by the FBI undercover person. In other words, typical FBI "counter-terrorism". Take some hapless losers, plant the idea for a big act of destruction, help them secure the means for this destruction, then arrest them and trumpet the "skill" and "daring" of the FBI and stopping this nefarious plot by domestic "terrorists". Sorry for all the quotes, but I just can't use those words in this context without them. It was a total and complete set up. I'm not certain what the real purpose of it was, but it is election season so that's a big one right there. Of course, there is also the discrediting of the Occupy movement. They probably did come from the left, which was why they were concerned about killing innocent people and why the main guy didn't want to have a firearm (because of previous convictions). Of course, as Joseph points out, Libertarians are the real anarchists, even if a lot of them don't realize it.
posted by Gus : 6:26 AM
Rosey Grier, the former LA Ram, wrestled the gun away from Sirhan with some difficulty, assisted by George Plimpton. I think Grier said Sirhan seemed in a trance, and had an inhuman grip on the weapon.
Nixon barely edged out Humphrey in '68. Had Booby lived, he would have been President.
Ben Franklin
posted by Anonymous : 8:48 AM
Sorry Joseph...wrong thread Please delete.
Ben Franklin
posted by Anonymous : 8:48 AM
Frankly, I find it interesting that the FBI seems to be in the business of creating terrorists.
Isn't it odd they always seem to be arresting cells that they themselves have cultivated? Have they ever arrested a terrorist cell that wasn't FBI inspired?
3) Dont use twitter to coordinate with fellow conspirators.
4) If a guy shows up at your meeting having seen your facebook page, and offers to get explosives for you, best to turn him down.
5) Using a nom de guere on facebook, doesnt guarantee anomymity. Neither will a Guy Fawkes mask.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 1:07 PM
"Have they ever arrested a terrorist cell that wasn't FBI inspired?"
No because every major American "Terror" attack since the early 90s has been the work of FBI(and other gov) agent provocateurs and informants.
Informants and Provocateurs GREATEST HITS:
World Trade Center 1993 : Ali Mohammad, Emad Salem, Melvin Lattimore
Oklahoma City Bombing 1995 : Melvin Lattimore, Andreas Strassmeier, Robert Millar
Sept. 11, 2001 : The San Diego informant who lived with hijackers. Able Danger. Melvin Lattimore.
Melvin Lattimore is an ex-con turned FBI informant. He has some type of involvement in three major attacks on the USA. What was he doing? Greasing the wheels?
So, in three major attacks the FBI and government were watching but tells us they "fumbled the ball" and couldn't stop them. BULLSHIT.
Ever since about 1991 (right after the fall of the Soviet Union coincidentally) we have been having these FBI informant provocateured attacks.
Coincidentally the FBI had at least one major Russian mole in the FBI from 1979-2001. This was Robert Hanssen. 1979 was coincidentally the year the Soviets began their war in Afghanistan. That war ended in 1989. Two years later in 1991 the USSR went belly up.
Then it was America's turn to be TERRORIZED into insolvency.
In 2001 FBI director Louis Freeh is attending the same Catholic church as Russian spy Robert Hannsen. Okaaaay.
In 2001 you also see the beginning of the Russian "Illegals Program" in which Russian spies trolloped around the USA for 10 years unmolested by the FBI.
"Documents released Monday, including photos, videos and papers, offered new details about the FBI's decade-long investigation into a ring of Russian sleeper agents who, U.S. officials say, were trying to burrow their way into American society to learn secrets from people in power."
Who did the Russian spies target? Apparently Democrats.
"One of the Russians, who identified herself as Cynthia Murphy of Montclair, N.J., provided financial planning for Alan Patricof, a New York venture capitalist and top Democratic donor who was finance chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, according to news reports."
posted by Anonymous : 3:24 PM
PT. 2
"After watching the Russian network for a decade, the FBI decided to wrap it up last year. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/31/nation/la-na-russian-spies-20111101
HUH? --->WHAT THE FUCK<--- is the point of allowing Russians to run around the USA compromising Americans for TEN FUCKING YEARS?
"Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB officer and journalist who has written extensively about Soviet spying in America, said the illegals were supposed to act as talent spotters and scouts, identifying Americans in positions of power who might be recruited to spill secrets for financial reasons or through blackmail." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055788/Anna-Chapman-FBI-release-video-Russian-spy-turned-lingerie-model-work.html
SO AGAIN, WHY DID THE FBI ALLOW RUSSIANS TO RUN AROUND BLACKMAILING AMERICANS FOR TEN YEARS??? Kind of like the dumbass running the U.S. Secret Service who apparently doesn't understand that allowing SS agents to frequent prostitutes in foreign countries sets them up for blackmail.
Another one of those mysteries that the corporate American media in general has no interest in delving deeper into. I wonder why?
But back to the FBI...
Remember on June 24th 2010 how Obama was at a local American Burger factory photo-op having lunch with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev? 72 hours later the FBI announces its big bust of Russian spies making Obama look bad.
THIS FBI WHICH IN 2001, WHILE IT WAS COMPROMISED BY RUSSIAN AND TURKISH SPIES BEGAN WATCHING RUSSIAN SPIES FOR TEN YEARS BEFORE DECIDING TO "WRAP IT UP" IN 2010 72 HOURS AFTER OBAMA'S PHOTO-OP WITH MEDVED.
Meanwhile in the USA, the FBI harasses Americans protesting corporate crimes and corruption, and the FBI tries to frameup dumb jobless Americans into being terrorists. Is the FBI investigating high crimes on Wall Street? Or maybe high crimes committed in lying the U.S.A. into a financially disastrous war??? NOPE.
Why doesn't the FBI send an old lady informant with a million dollars stuffed in her purse into Wall Street and entrap some Wall Street pricks into stealing her money? THAT WOULD BE EASY! Hell, they could have all of Wall Street locked up in one day! No, no...can't have that. We all already know it is perfectly OK to steal from old ladies(how's that 401K?).
HELLO!?!
IS ANYONE AWAKE OUT THERE?
IS ANYONE IN THE MEDIA STILL AWAKE?
ARE ANY OF YOU BLOGGERS STILL AWAKE?
IS ANYONE IN AMERICA STILL FUCKING AWAKE???
WHY IS NO ONE ASKING ANY REAL QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THIS?
posted by Anonymous : 3:26 PM
Yes it was entrapment and yes it was sinister. Research COINTELPRO to see how sinister it can get.
But Cannon goes on to remark his ideological kindred wants to build bridges, not destroy them.
Clever.
But one problem is, the bulk of his people, judging by their actions and inactions since Obama took office, are content with Afghanis (and Pakis and Yemenis)getting drone bombed if the building of bridges can proceed in the United States.
"His people"? Are you claiming that I consider Obama some sort of ideological kindred -- despite everything I've been saying for four years? Are you claiming that Obama represents a Rooseveltian approach to the problems of poverty and economic redevelopment?
Only a nutty Paultard could have such an absurd reading of history, or of my own writings.
Either you have a guilt complex or you're not a good reader. I said "his people"--did I name you? I said "his people" in the sense that Glen Greenwald disparages Obama's people for turning blind eyes regularly on his blog--as he, Greenwald, also has kind words on the same war/"war on terror" subject in contrast, on occasion, for Ron Paul.
