I didn't want to write about the latest Big Meme sweeping across rightwingerland, but a few words are necessary. Maybe more than a few.
In a couple of previous posts, I made fairly oblique reference to a weird subculture of bloggers -- on both the right and the left, though most of them are hyper-conservatives -- which arose out of Weinergate. Their obsession with that scandal soon went way beyond Weiner, and perhaps even beyond conventional left-right politics. A very personal twilight war broke out.
Frankly, I never could understand what this war was all about. But a few facts became clear:
1. These twilight warriors are obsessed with hacking and related matters. Some of them claim to have worked with Anonymous and LulzSec and allied organizations.
2. They use obvious sockpuppets. If you visit their microblogs, the self-astroturfing is evident.
3. They are forever claiming that the FBI and/or the cops are going to arrest their opponents very soon. (On what charge? God knows.) Both the left-wingers and the right-wingers make this claim.
4. The rage level runs white hot. This war goes beyond politics. It's personal.
5. The right-wingers come out of the bizarre, paranoid realms of Breitbart-land, where everyone reveres the underhanded tactics of James O'Keefe.
6. The most prominent of the left-wingers is a bizarre IT specialist named Neal Rauhauser, whom I believe to be the latest online incarnation of a fellow named John Dean, a.k.a. SluggoJD and a few other things. (Assumed identities play a huge role in these realms. In an earlier post, I discussed the reasons why I think the two are one and the same.) Dean, who claims to be a cyber-detective, is a fairly well-known -- though rarely well-liked -- figure throughout blogistan left. He used to be an occasional presence on this blog, although I always kept him at arm's length. Whatever the name or nick, he is not a man I trust. Or they are not men I trust. Whatever.
7. The twilight warriors often lose the ability to write comprehensibly. For example: I tried very hard to get a straight story out of Rauhauser, but he kept presuming that I was familiar with people and events about which I knew nothing.
It was best, I decided, to let these unhappy personages fight among themselves. Still, their rage-games threatened, one day, to take a more serious turn.
One of the Breitbarters calls himself "Patterico." His real name is no secret: He's John Frey, a prosecutor for the L.A. D.A.'s office. Frey initiated a multi-blog day of fury when he published a post alleging that he was set up by a phone hacker. If I understand the story correctly, the hacker called the police from what seemed to be Frey's number and claimed to be a man who had just shot his wife.
Serious business, that. Frey, quoting the late Breitbart, insists that this is a common left-wing tactic called "SWATting." (If it's a left-wing tactic, then why don't any lefties mention it?)
Although proof is lacking, Frey seems to think that the hacker is someone named Brett Kimberlin.
If you just now said "Brett who?" -- you are probably a liberal. Kimberlin is a huge effing deal on the right. After Barack Obama, he's the man conservatives love to hate -- so much so, they even have an entire blog devoted to Brett. Pretty soon, they'll be selling Brett merchandise.
The Breitbarters claim that Kimberlin is funded by Evil Soros and the Even More Evil Barbra Streisand. They also claim that Brett Kimberlin started Raw Story. (I doubt that.) Word has it that Glenn Beck is going to be on the Kimberlin case.
If you look at Memeorandum right now, it's all Kimberlin, all the time. (Update: It is no longer Kimberlin Day on Memeorandum, a news aggregation site which changes all the time.)
Basically, Kimberlin is the new Saul Alinski: In right-wing mythology, liberals consider him il capo di tutti capi. Kimberlin is the alpha dog, the leader of the pack, the bomb-tossing Messiah of the Progs.
Or so the Breitbarters would have people believe.
Meanwhile, actual liberals have little or no idea as to who the guy is.
I first got a whiff of the right's Brett-mania maybe four or five years ago, when I received a flurry of crankish emails accusing me of being involved in some sort of conspiracy with That Bastard Brett. (Why were these accusations directed at me? I had, and have, no idea.)
The name "Kimberlin" was puzzling, but it did ring a very distant bell. Then I recalled that, back in the late 1980s or early 1990s, a prisoner named Kimberlin made weird claims about Dan Quayle which became the basis for a series of Doonesbury comics. Something about selling pot. It was all very droll.
If you want a fuller story on Kimberlin, convicted for several bombings back in the '70s, you may want to go here. Author David Weigel seems to think that the conservative pile-up on Kimberlin is a manufactured mania, and I must agree that Kimberlin Hate Day does seem rather ginned-up and astroturfy.
Today, the right side of the blogosphere is trying out a fascinating crowd-source experiment. For months, a few conservative writers -- most of them using pen names -- have been in a pitched battle with a convicted felon-turned-activist named Brett Kimberlin. By any reasonable definition, Kimberlin is a public figure. Mark Singer, who was snookered by Kimberlin into writing a bogus New Yorker story, eventually turned on his source and made him the subject of a book.
When Kimberlin resurfaced in the world of "black box voting" activism,
conservative bloggers started to ask questions about him. Skip to May
2012. Blogger Patterico says he was the victim of a hoax that brought
armed police officers to his home. The blogger "Aaron Worthing,"
identity exposed by a frivolous lawsuit, is counter-suing.
The goal of "Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day," as far as I can see it, is to make Kimberlin famous again.
Weigel was soon contacted by one Ron Brynaert, of whom we must now speak, although I had hoped not to.
Before proceeding, please understand this: I don't know exactly what happened to Frey, and right now I have bigger fish to fry than to scrutinize every jot and tittle of his claims. (A couple of those fishes are downright Moby-sized.) In fact, I would have preferred to ignore this whole business.
But a couple of weeks ago, I had my own unsettling run-in with this Ron Brynaert character, who fancies himself to be the expert on Weinergate. He also loves to make wild, paranoid claims about everyone who ever had more than ten words to say about the matter. Brynaert has gone beyond left and right; he's off the map and zooming through the fourth dimension.
When Brynaert contacted me, I had forgotten that he had been an editor at Raw Story. He seemed miffed that I had temporarily misfiled his name in my memory.
He wanted to know why I thought Neal Rauhauser and "John Dean" were one and the same. I told him. Then he asked me again. I told him again. Then he asked me again, implying that I was hiding something...
Ron was defining himself as a truly strange person.
He sent me long, snarling, venom filled letters that didn't make much sense. (His surreal missive to Weigel gives a flavor of what to expect when Ron Brynaert puts you on his pen pal list.) I tried to be uncharacteristically nice, even when he insinuated that I was up to no good.
Brynaert's obvious psychological pain helped me to keep my composure. I politely told him that I couldn't really follow what he was going on about, but that he might do better if he stepped back and took some time off. The message was simple: "Time to chill, dude." Sweartagod, that was all.
That was enough.
Ran Brynaert became convinced that I was part of the Great Conspiracy Against Ron Brynaert. This, despite the fact that he originally wrote me; I had wanted nothing to do with the guy or with any of the "twilight warriors." According to Brynaert, other members of the Great Conspiracy Against Ron include the Breitbart crew, Neal Rauhauser, blogger Brad Friedman, Brett Kimberlin, maybe Glinda the Good Witch -- and, oh, hell, just everyone.
I normally keep private emails private, but that privacy policy goes bye-bye when a correspondent starts tossing threats. Here's Brynaert to yours truly:
You're definitely going to be contacted by NYPD detectives and lawyers from one of my sources who is prosecuting Rauhauser for harassment.
I am a crime victim. I was extorted for $20,000.
Do not write me again unless you want to help me.
I do not need to be menaced anymore. Because of your bullshit blog post I have JDSluggo sending me nasty emails and smearing me just like he did years ago.
This is for real. Not a blog war. Not an ARG.
You should be ashamed of your self for the letters you sent me.
I'm so tired of you cowardly conspiracy theorists spreading fake news, smearing people and pretending you are sane.
You are a horrible man. Like I need this when right wing smearers are threatening me and accusing me of crimes?
I warn you that this is not a joke...and you better never email me anything menacing or nasty again....nor allude to me on your blogs.
I'll be reporting the blackmail threat to the NYPD in the next few weeks and I will make sure detectives contact you...because this is a really shameful thing to write a scared crime victim.
Let me stress again: I had had absolutely no desire hear from this guy. Arguably, he harassed me. Maybe "harassed" is too strong a verb; "pester" gets closer to the mark. At any rate, readers know that my attention had switched ages ago from Weiner to very different matters; although I gave the twilight warriors the occasional wary glance, I wasn't really keeping track of their antics. (By the way, can anyone tell me what an ARG is?)
Of course, no detectives or lawyers have ever contacted me. Won't happen.
Still, this man's bizarre outburst was unnerving. So I asked around: Who IS Ron Brynaert?
The response was quick and clear: Ron Brynaert was once a promising writer and investigator, but he became completely unglued after he lost his job at Raw Story.
It is a sad but simple fact of life that one out of ten people go stark raving bonkers. After reading the letter above, you may come to your own conclusion as to whether Ron Brynaert is Dude #10.
Let's get back to Patterico/Frey. He rather scurrilously tries to tie Brynaert in with Brad Friedman. (I used to be on good terms with Brad, but I got peeved at him back in 2008. That was a bad year for a lot of people.) It's true that Brad allowed Brynaert to write one (1) post on his blog -- at a time before the man's psychological state had become clear. I'm sure Brad now regrets the whole thing.
Frey accuses Brynaert of working with Kimberlin, and so do many of the other twilight warriors. (He's called a Kimberlin "sycophant" here. I would apply only the first syllable of that word to Brynaert.) Oddly, in his ranting letters to me, Brynaert seemed to agree with the Breitbarters that Brett Kimberlin was the font of all evil.
Bottom line: It's ridiculous for Frey to scry conspiracy in the ravings of an individual who has so thoroughly lost sight of reality that he alienates everyone he bumps into.
Frey has accused Brad of stalking him, although Frey presents no evidence.
(It is true that Brad used to work with Kimberlin on something called the Velvet Revolution. I never pressed Brad about that business back when he and I were talking. In more general terms, I've let Brad know that some of his associates were very iffy, particularly the "controlled demolition" whackadoodles who would occasionally contribute to his otherwise fine blog. Also speaking in general terms, I should note that Kimberlin has been portrayed as a very persuasive con artist.)
Frey/Patterico's blog post includes a recording of the call that inaugurated the right's Let's Make Kimberlin Famous Day. I don't recognize the voice of the guy who called the police, but it's definitely not Rauhauser. (Yes, I've spoken with Neal/John/whomever on the phone, although I now regret doing so.)
Clearly, though, the impersonator is a very troubled individual. To my mind, the "schizy" quality of the guy's voice narrows down the list of chief suspects. You may be able to hazard a guess as to whom I consider a likely candidate.
There's one other possibility, of course.
This whole business -- the phone call, the SWAT meme, the inauguration of Let's Make Kimberlin Famous Day -- might be an O'Keefe-esque deception operation. Everyone knows that the Breitbarters love to pull crap like that. Who knows? Perhaps the fellow who called the cops on that night is the same guy who engineered the "Betty and Veronica" mind-screw directed against Tommy Christopher of Mediaite.
(As noted above, I'll be moderating comments very heavily, as per the posted rules. Go ahead and accuse me of censorship. I giveth not a rodent's buttocks.)Permalink
Who says there are no decent people in congress? Here is Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, going after CISPA.
I'll say it again: The best solution is a constitutional amendment that forbids the intelligence agencies from storing private electronic communications without a warrant. Yes, lots of people have proposed constitutional solutions to various problems -- proposals which never go anywhere. But this amendment could garner support from both the left and the libertarian right.
The Bain of our existence: Mitt Romney says that anyone who attacks Bain Capital is "attacking capitalism." By this logic, if you criticize the new Avengers flick, you're saying you don't like movies. If you don't like the newest sandwich at Subway, you're attacking the very concept of food.
Vote suppression: Slate has published an incredibly good piece on Republican vote suppression efforts. As you know (or should know), fraud perpetrated by voters intentionally misidentifying themselves is next to nonexistent. We're dealing with a mythical animal here; there's better evidence for the existence of the Maryland Goat-Man than for organized voter fraud. By contrast, vote-rigging via computerized counting machines is a very real threat. What irks me is that ill-informed citizens may not understand that the former has no relation to the latter.
This blog used to be devoted to the controversies surrounding electronic vote-counting devices. I stopped writing about that issue because Brad Friedman does the job much better, and because I couldn't figure out a way to talk about electronic vote manipulation without adding credibility to the myth of widespread voter misrepresentation. Hell, just figuring out the right way to word the previous sentence was tough!
As one might have predicted, GOP operatives are casting aside the pretense that their efforts have anything to do with ending voter misrepresentation. They are now claiming that voting is a privilege, not a right -- and you pretty much give up your privileges if you show signs of voting for the wrong party or candidates.
Whether it’s onerous (and expensive) voter ID rules that will render as many as 10 percent of Americans ineligible to vote, proof of citizenship measures, restricting registration drives, cancellation of Sunday voting, or claims that voting should be a privilege as opposed to a right, efforts to discount and discredit the vote have grown bolder in recent years, despite vanishingly rare claims of actual vote fraud. The sole objective appears to be ensuring that fewer Americans vote in 2012 than voted in 2008. But as strange as the reasons to purge certain votes have been around the nation, things have grown even stranger in recent weeks in Ohio, where GOP lawmakers have gone after not only voters but the federal courts, in an effort to wiggle out of statewide voting rules.
More:
The GOP’s argument goes even further than pitching ballots tainted by worker error, though. In legislation proposed last year (and withdrawn after it was poised to be rejected by a voter referendum), another provision would bar poll workers from helping voters find the correct precinct if they showed up at the wrong place. That’s right. A proposed GOP reform would ensure that poll workers have no obligation to tell you anything at all if you ask them a question pertaining to precisely the thing they are meant to do—facilitate voting. The language Ohio Republicans tried to insert into the omnibus voting law would provide that “it is the duty of the individual casting the ballot to ensure that the individual is casting that ballot in the correct precinct.”
This presents a deeply troubling new strain in the effort to shrink the vote; a new argument that has nothing to do with stamping out fraud at all.
Hillary for Veep? Skydancing published a piece yesterday on the recurrent meme that Hillary Clinton will replace Joe Biden on the ticket. Also see Riverdaughter here and Michael Tomasky here. Yes, this scenario could happen. One day, I may tell you the circumstances under which Obama might replace Biden outright, although I feel strongly that a Hillary/Joe job switch is not in the cards. But I strongly doubt that Joe Biden is going anywhere.
First and foremost, Biden just hasn't been that bad. Veeps don't get un-veeped if their greatest sin is dorkiness. They've got to do something seriously wrong.
Second, Hillary's positive ratings would vanish overnight if she were on the ticket. Right now, the Fox Newsers are careful not to slam Hillary because they want to encourage the Hillary-loving Obama-haters to stay home on election day. (And who could blame them if they did?) But the moment she got on the ticket, the right-wing news cycle would turn into a 24/7 barrage of Clinton-hate. We would relive it all: Monica, Whitewater, Waco, Mena...all of your favorite hate-memes from the 1990s. And the hate would come in hyper-concentrated form. It would feel like getting a blast of pure sulfur or capsaicin in the face, every minute of every day for months.
Don't pretend that the attacks would not have an impact. The lesson of our time is that propaganda works.
Also, if Clinton climbed aboard the ticket, the Obama-loving Hillary-hating progs of 2008 would be discouraged from going to the polls. Many of those voters no longer have much love for Obama, but they sure as hell hate anyone named Clinton.
Obama is better off sticking with boring old Joe. The worst thing the Foxers and the Bratbiters can say about Joe Biden is that he shoots from the lip.
Permalink
Quite true, the Clintons were the old most divisive figures in politics. (Not because of innated divisiveness, but because of how their enemies demonized them.) Absence (from the political front lines) seems to have made the hearts grow fonder now, just as we saw during the 8 years-- when HRC was out of the spotlight of controversy for any span of some weeks or months, often she'd see her approval ratings rise.
But put her on the ticket, especially if that were seen as a political masterstroke potentially, and the opposition would return to what some of them probably think are the glory days-- unceasing gutter attacks, reprising all of the past and more.
The alleged silver bullet effect of HRC's becoming the VP nominee would be in doubt because of that certain fierce backlash.
XI
posted by Anonymous : 9:41 AM
My thoughts exactly, Joe. Jumping on the CDS bandwagon would the usual gang of suspects plus the crew at the NYT, WaPo, MSNBC and CNN. No way are those anchors and OpEd writers are ever going to admit they too fell for the Obama hype in 2008.
posted by Mr. Mike : 10:05 AM
Who got the popular vote in the 2008 primary? Oh, yea Hillary R. Clinton, who's own party went out against her and who was the only person in the history of the Democratic Party denied a roll call vote for POTUS and for VP that she EARNED! In fact 300+ delegates filled out forms so that she could get her roll call votes!
Obama said Biden was his best decision so he can keep him and sink with him. I won't vote for Biden, that will be my message to the DNC RBC that I HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN about the rigging of the primary in 2008.
The prisoner vote was a surprise as I didn't even think it was true when I first heard it on the news. lol....guess people are still mad!
Although I try hard to ignore my local paper's Letters to the Editor section, seeing as it's mostly populated by cranks, I thought you might be interested in this letter published May 18 which pretty much lays it out on the table:
I disagree with the Democrats who object to voter ID laws and claim that voter fraud is not a problem.
Voter fraud certainly is a problem, and it is rampant. In the 2008 presidential election, no fewer than 50 million liberals were allowed to vote. This fraud occurred in every state across the country and is believed to be the number one reason Obama won the election.
The voter ID laws are a step in the right direction, though I would ideally like to see the Republicans enforce a minimum annual income of $200,000 to be eligible to vote.
posted by Lea : 2:28 PM
Woman Voter, I do not think Hillary should have been given the Veep position. Neither do I think she should have accepted the SoS position. She could have done more good in the Senate.
I am not interested in gender solidarity, and I strive to be objective in my assessment of Hillary's work in her present position. What's to be proud of? In terms of foreign policy, this administration has given us war, LOTS of free trade treaties (that most people don't know about but which will one day bite us in the ass), brinksmanship with Iran, and kowtowing to both the Saudis and Israel.
Now, WV, I know what you will say: Blame Obama. Well, that's simplistic and biased. You can't simply blame Obama for all the bad stuff and credit Hillary for all the good stuff. Like it or not, when you sign your name to the painting, you gotta take some responsibility for the way it looks.
And I say that with sadness, because I was a great admirer of the Clintons.
OK, as an artist I get what you are saying. I do think the way the system within the Democratic Party was rigged in 2008 was simply wrong then and wrong today.
For the record, at the start of the campaign (bows head in shame...) I was in Edwards camp, then noted Elizabeth was doing all the talking and Edwards lots of giggling???? I know now why. So, I switched, after comparing records, I also looked up Obama's and found he hadn't passed any bill being pushed in the press in the nuclear industry, in fact he watered it down and the people in the community were not to happy about it. I looked at his record in health care in his home state and found the insurance industry gave him an award after he watered down a bill that would have given health care to all the people in his state and he took it out. There were interviews with people that never made it to the TV or print.
With Obama I had even hoped that once in office he would be different, but he stuck to his old record of watering down bill as in the past and took Single Payer, The Public Option HR676 and even the last bone thrown at us The Medicare Buy In for people over 45 (Who by the way are at greater risk of losing their health insurance, and of dying)...so the insurance got every thing we got the door.
Obama is out for Obama, that much is clear, right now he is making a lot of promises, but a lot of people aren't buying it any more.
Had he kept his word and allowed everything on the table on health care, I may believe him, but as of now the only reason I am considering him is the Supreme Court.
I don't think Hillary is perfect, none of us are, and I agree with you on the fact that she could have done more in the Senate, but she has given our country a positive, much needed after Bush and with Obush who is busy continuing Bush's policies and extending them.
After the Japan Earthquake Hillary R. Clinton announced she was only serving one term as SOS, I will let you find the clues, why...
I just witnessed my first house auction, purely as a looky-loo. Nice little place on a fairly large lot. It went for $85,000. A previous owner of the property happened to show up; he too was playing looky-loo. We got to talking, and he said that he had sold the place in 2005 for almost exactly $100,000 more.
Obviously, this is far, far from the most extreme case of home depreciation. But this anecdote tells you something about the shape of our economy. Is Fox News still trying to convince people that our big problem is inflation...?
Permalink
Not to disagree with you about falling home prices, but a 15% dip in value at auction is kinda typical. The purpose of the auction is that the home isn't selling at market value(or just to recoup lost assets). My bff bought two homes at auction, and he only 60% of market value for them, and that was before the housing market went bust.
He didn't say the previous owner had sold it for $100,000. He said the previous owner had sold it for $100,000 more, i.e. $185,000. That would be a 54% drop, not 15%.
posted by Propertius : 7:43 PM
Aeryl @ 12:42, RIF (Reading Is Fundamental). But who would name their kid after a radio part anyway. Cheap credits is the same as printing money, inflationary.
I'm still working on the Big Something, and I'm a little surprised to see that no-one has guessed it. There are lots of stories about it on the net, if you know where to look. The stateside media blackout has been remarkably effective.
I've also been reading books about Glenn Beck and Fox News (authored by Dana Milbank and David Brock, respectively). One theme keeps coming up: Conspiracy.
Fox News is Conspiracy TV-- a fact which became undeniable when they decided to promote the rantings of Glenn Beck, kook extraordinaire. Beck's main trick (which he borrowed from the John Birchers) is simple: He takes a lot of familiar conspiracy memes that have circulated on the anti-Semitic far right for decades, lops off the overt anti-Semitism, and sells the results to a huge audience. And I do mean huge: Even after being kicked off of Fox, Beck is still earning $80 million a year.
Most people don't realize that all of the outrageous guff Beck peddles about Woodrow Wilson traces back, ultimately, to various "underground" works written by American fascists. Don't believe me? Check out this blast from the past, which demonstrates that Beck's favorite riffs originated with a notorious bigot named Gerald Winrod. Unless you have studied the history of the American fringe, as I have, you can't understand where Beck-ism comes from.
(I pity any naive kids who listen to Beck's crap. It's all new to them. They might even take it seriously.)
Beck stumbled big time, of course, when he openly acknowledged that he drew from sources like Cleon Skousen and Elizabeth Dilling. Citing Lousy Liz was way, way too obvious: Dilling used to flog the Protocols, for crying out loud. Most Americans would not have known her name, but a lot of Jews -- quite properly -- keep track of these things. Beck, like many another recovering alkie, lacks impulse control, so he was bound to make a slip-up of this sort eventually.
Beck is but a symptom of a larger disease. My point is this: On Fox News, everything is a conspiracy. Paranoia is their product.
There's only one area of conspiracy theory that the Fox-ers consider out of bounds: Anything that has anything to do with the intelligence communities of the U.S., the U.K. or Israel.
This means that Fox has it all backwards. Most of the conspiracy theories that have become so popular in recent times are, in fact, absolute hogwash. But history tells that there have been real conspiracies -- and the genuine ones usually trace back to the spooks. Conspiracy is what covert operatives do.
Did you know that Bill O'Reilly has written (or co-written, which usually means lending his name to) a book about the JFK assassination? I'm sure he's taking the lone nut line, although he may decide to go for the blame-the-commies angle. (Is Edward Epstein still around to offer advice? I think he is.) I'm also sure that the book will get on the bestseller lists and stay there for the anniversary of the assassination. Jim DiEugenio's long-promised magnum opus won't get anything like that level of attention, even though it will contain a lot of bombshell material released via the Assassinations Records Review Board. The very idea of Bill O'Reilly poring through the thousands of pages of new material released by the ARRB is rather amusing.
(Hell, the idea of Bill actually sitting down to read a book is rather amusing. And if Bill-O or anyone else tells you that there's nothing interesting in the ARRB documents, he's fibbing.)
Which brings us back to our larger point. Bill-O, if ever he took notice of a guy like me, would probably make a sneering reference to those awful, awful conspiracy buffs. But his network, Fox News, exists to promote conspiracy theories.
Just to prove the point, here's Bill-O's latest, in which he "proves" -- using the scholarly technique of proof-by-assertion -- that the entire Occupy movement is a conspiracy directed by Evil Soros and the Institute for Policy Studies (a long-time far-right hate-magnet).
It gets worse. When OSHA published a squib recommending that people working outdoors drink lots of water to avoid heatstroke, Fox screamed that this advice was all part of a socialist "Obama regime" conspiracy to control even the most minute aspects of our lives. Of course, as this blogger points out, OSHA offered the exact same advice under Bush (and probably under every preceding president for as long as there has been an OSHA).
If you're a Fox Newser, it's okay to say that OSHA or Occupy is a conspiracy. But it's not okay to say that spooks killed JFK.
Maybe we should get Glenn Beck in on this. I'm sure he'll find some way to place Woodrow Wilson on the Grassy Knoll.
So what is Fox News? One of the recurrent themes in Brock's book, The Fox Effect, is that Fox is an anomaly in the Murdoch empire. America's most notorious propaganda network is surprisingly independent. Many readers will have a hard time getting their heads around that concept, since we all know that Rupert is a detail-oriented control freak.
But Fox News really is a strange beast, and it gets stranger the closer you look. The rest of the Murdoch empire fears Fox. That's the word Brock uses, and he cites examples.
Let's put it this way: Murdoch supported Obama in 2008. Murdoch has also said that he believes that man-made climate change is a genuine, serious threat. Rupert Murdoch is probably the only human being who might be allowed to express those views on Fox News. And even then, the Fox crew would bring on "experts" from the Heartland Institute to rebut him on global warming.
I'm not sure what to make of this situation. But I can tell you this much: The distinction -- one might even say the rift -- between Fox News and the rest of the Murdoch organization is real. Any Theory of Fox (or Theory of Murdoch) must start with that understanding.
Permalink
“History tells that there have been real conspiracies -- and the genuine ones usually trace back to the spooks. Conspiracy is what covert operatives do.”
That's all I was trying to say a few weeks ago, when I defended the generic term “conspiracy theorist,” but I was so chastened by your response that I stopped visiting here for a while.
Obviously, some conspiracy theories are bunk (e.g. the world is controlled by Bilderbergers/Jews/aliens); yet you've recently said that some conspiracy theories have documented validity (e.g., there were spy-agency conspiracies against JFK, RFK and maybe even Nixon).
I've been to Dallas several times, investigating the JFK case for myself, and I've re-read much of Jim DiEugenio's work lately. The difference between the conspiracy theories spewed on Fox and those that you and I investigate is that Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al don't seem to actually believe theirs. It may be good for ratings, but I doubt that those rich Republicans feel deep-down that commies are keeping them from getting even richer. Yes, the Fox audience is full of conspiracy theorists--or rather, conspiracy believers—but I can't find a credentialed research community that backs them up. Orly Taitz may or may not be sincere, but she's basically a fringe dweller with a megaphone. I can't paint honorable “conspiracy theorists” like DiEugenio, Harold Weisberg, Josiah Thompson. Sylvia Meagher and John Newman with the same broad tar-brush. Let the best-documented theories prevail.
Oh, and I hope to have my own JFK book ready by the 50th anniversary. I'll send you a copy.
posted by Trojan Joe : 12:51 AM
I still think it has something to do with his wife that used to work for that Communist run Chinese news network(Star TV was it?). Now you may think that me saying that makes me a rightwinger. Wrong. I am left of center on monetary issues and further left on social issues.
I tend to believe at some level that certain rightwing Russians, certain rightwing Chinese in high places and certain rightwing Americans in high places are COLLUDING.
Why would I think that? History and human nature. American elites and Chinese elites have been doing behind closed doors drug trading since the 1700s. Certain American families made their money that way. Those connections are historical and continue to today. Murdoch is an example of that.
"China has long meant more than business to the Murdoch clan. Mr. Murdoch’s father, Keith, wrote about China as a war correspondent in the 1930s. As a newspaper proprietor in Australia, he collected Ming dynasty porcelain.
When Rupert Murdoch visited Shanghai in 1997, Wendi Deng, then a junior News Corporation employee in Hong Kong, flew up to serve as his translator. Together they explored Shanghai, which was then emerging as a lively center of finance and commerce." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/world/asia/26murdoch.html
I suspect Murdoch is not really in control. He was seduced and took the bait. The result is a zillion Murdoch news agencies devoted to agitating, muckraking and spying on the citizens in the countries in which they were embedded. Who benefits from all of the Murdoch machine's mindfucking? American citizens? The British? Australians? Fox News loves to bash on "Commies", but never mentions Murdoch's ties to "Commie" China.
Did you know back around 1999-2000, Clinton's secret service detail and apparently some staffers were partying it up in Moscow with hookers at a Moscow club? Russia Today did a story about it. They do stories like that when they are not busy mindfucking Americans with propaganda favorable to the Kremlin(yes RT is run by the Russian gov).
Why do Republicans never attack Russia Today? And why do we always hear stories about Democrats getting tripped up in sex scandals? But never Republicans getting tripped up in Sex scandals?
Why did the FBI allow Russians to get close to Democrats from 2001-2010? Why were the Russians targeting Democrats instead of Republicans? Why is it that America is losing its pants to China and can't seem to stem this wholesale selloff of the USA? What about U.S. politicians makes them unable to do what Americans want them to do? And who are the Americans that prefer it that way?
Webslinger
posted by Anonymous : 3:53 AM
I dont find that Brook hit piece funny. I find it irritating that the Fox people have so much contempt for their audience that they sell them such crude doggie do. Dear lord we really must be sheep.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 4:44 AM
Doesn't Ted Anderson's Midas Resources prop up Fox News, Alex Jones and increasingly all of AM talk radio advertising ?
Are you working on the satellite card hacking by NDA, with the possible help of Shin Bet using American technology. James Murdoch was taking over from Dad, but viewed as anti-Israeli. The result is that he is is for all intents ousted based on the phone hacking. But he gets his revenge because somebody releases massive amounts of e-mails showing the satellite hacking.
posted by Boilermaker : 8:39 AM
...Folds arms, taps foot impatiently. . ."Come on, come on..."
Posting may be light, because I'm working on something big. In fact, I plan to do up a video presentation on a huge story that could destroy the Murdoch/Fox empire.
No, I'm not talking about the phone hacking scandal. Think bigger. Much bigger.
Actually, the real work was done by some very prestigious foreign news firms. What infuriates me is that no-one in the U.S. wants to talk about the solid investigative work done by these teams. I'm not just talking about a FOX News blackout; you would expect them to avoid this tale. No-one wants to discuss the story -- not CBS, not NBC. The NYT did a brief piece which was heavily biased in favor of Murdoch, and which ignored the real evidence. A few other American news sources have mentioned the story, but not in a way designed to turn on all the lights.
Instead, American news junkies are being force-fed piffle.
Unless you have found someone with an exceptional natural talent for the light-sabre, then I suspect the Murdoch empire will survive. My suspicion is that you have found evidence of breathtaking arrogance and criminal behaviours including racketeering and corruption.
But hey, in the words of Leonard Cohen, "Thats the way it goes, yes Everybody knows"..
I shall save some money to send you some silver bullets.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 10:12 AM
Well, if your new expose' doesn't pan out, you could always shock your bizarre-scandal-hungry readers with a paraphrase of this:
When I first ran across some un-sourced references to it, my first thoughts were, even though it doesn't mention Babs (Bush) and The Beast (Crowley), "I must have missed Joe Cannon's April Fool's story this year!"
Anon 10:48 -- You link to a weird, fascinating story published on a very iffy site. I've previously heard the report that Skorzeny fabricated his death. In fact, there's a book called "Secret and Suppressed" which prints a photo allegedly taken of Skorzeny after his supposed death.
A similar pic, in color, appears on the site you reference. Sure LOOKS like Otto.
I doubt that his alleged confession of helping Hitler escape can ever be verified. However, the words ascribed to him are a fairly close match for the scenario that Skorzeny gave to Glenn Infield (pre 1975). On that occasion, Skorzeny spoke hypothetically -- "Here's how I COULD have done it."
The post says of Hitler: “His double was shot between the eyes, and the dental records proved he was not Hitler."
There was a known double who was shot as Berlin fell. I forget the guy's name; the case is well known and you can probably find the photo of the body on the net. However, that double was not the Hitler who died in the bunker. The SS guards who testified as to what happened in the bunker gave weirdly varying descriptions -- but none of them say that the body they found was shot between the eyes.
Skorzeny did not live in the U.S.; he lived openly in Spain. I once spoke to a college prof who ran into him there. (Otto kept a regular table at a popular nightspot.) On the other hand, one can understand why he might feel the need to make some rather extraordinary arrangements once it became clear that Franco was not long for this world. So, yeah, I'm (provisionally) open to the idea that Skorzeny faked his death.
The idea that Skorzeny and Gehlen personally murdered Tesla in 1943 is just loopy. Notice that the post you cite gives no details -- not as to motive, and not as to method.
Tesla lived in a hotel in New York. It is ridiculous to suppose that, with WWII going on, Reinhard Gehlen would somehow sneak into the U.S. and murder an 86 year old man who was no threat to Germany.
Despite the picture painted by the article you cite, Tesla was, in his final years, viewed as something of a crank. He was interviewed about once a year by the major NY papers, and he always made some bizarre statements about future science. It was good copy, but nobody took him seriously.
Oddly enough, the article makes no mention of the German agent who befriended Tesla in his latter years, a fascinating footnote character named George Sylvester Vierek. He was a strange fellow for the Nazis to employ, since he was gay and had been exposed in print as such...
...by none other than Aleister Crowley! Crowley came to know Vierek during WWI.
Vierek and Tesla became very close friends. Post-war conspiratorial literature produced by fascists (or former fascists) always lauded Tesla in outrageous, quasi-mystical terms. I think Vierek (who died in the early 60s) had something to do with that. I also think that the idea was to build up a myth around Tesla, as a sort of counter to the place Einstein had in the American imagination.
PLEASE tell us you're exposing that his wife is a honeypot for the Chinese government sent to entrap Murdoch to fuck up the USA with the garbage spewing out of Fox News, or that Murdoch was filmed on a Russian oligarch's yacht doing something disgusting or illegal or both. Tell us the scoop! But don't tell us what we want to hear. Give us the facts man! But please don't come back with something lame like he cheated on his wife or his taxes.
Murdoch and a Chinese spy using Fox News to mindfuck dittoheads wouldn't be big??? Then PLEASE let it be about Murdoch and 9/11!
ws
posted by Anonymous : 3:05 PM
NVM, you meant bigger than taxes and cheating wife. Understood. Still, I hope it is about Murdoch and 9/11.
posted by Anonymous : 3:07 PM
Webslinger, the Chinese thing would be smaller compared to what I'm talking about. (That is, IF your Chinese idea had merit. Which it doesn't.)
Nothing about 9/11. Sorry.
But I've already given you one huge clue: The story is already about a month old overseas. There's some sort of stateside embargo on it. I can't understand it!
Unless you have evidence that Murdoch wore the stolen crown jewels as he buggered the Queen with her own scepter...this after decapitating Prince Philip whose body was lying nearby during the royal rape...and even then...I think you are in for a disappointment...just saying my friend...just as in medieval times, our overlords may rape and pillage peasants at will. Well, that's a "free" press for you...thank goodness we got rid of "equal time" and all the other FDR era regulations.
posted by S Brennan : 5:35 PM
Murdoch does have a lot of loot to launder, and the phone hacking investigation has got to be coughing up a few chatty journos, emails, account receipts etc. that could lead to ahem, more important "news" than Elle MacPhersons' personal phone calls hacked. Aside from recent news about dozens of murdered Mexican journalists, I don't know specifically where you are going with the "big" news angle.
But it WOULD be awesome if Rupie's Fox News got disappeared as a result of what paydirt that saucy Scotland Yard detective Sue Akers running Operation Elveden turns up with all the corrupt payments - to whom and for WHAT.
I will say that having vaguely followed the hacking scandal for almost a year, your post made me realize what an abysmal grasp I had had of the story.
A NY Times article of May 1st is really weird. It reads like a PR piece from News Corp. It doesn't tell the STORY. It's obtuse and needlessly, outrageously abstract. It's so vague it's creepy.
UK papers tell a STORY. The facts of the STORY makes it clear that there is something fundamentally inexplicable about the scale of the cover-up. WTF were/are they trying to hide? And why?
Before I continue, let us THANK GOD for Jimmy Carter's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that will give the U.S. power to prosecute this corrupt criminal. Last week, Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton teamed up against Jimmy Carter in what I found to be a strangely timed denouncement of him for speaking out of school with Palestinian leaders. Would the following story have something to do with the fact that CIA Poppy Bush & Bill Clinton have an interest in NDS Israel?
"NDS has been a target of police investigations since 1996 when an Israeli tax raid on their Jerusalem HQ reportedly uncovered evidence of board members bugging their rival’s phones, as documented in Neil Chenoweth’s book Virtual Murdoch."
In a nutshell, Murdoch's NDS (which was just sold to Cisco for $5 billion to "distance" himself from the comparatively puny phone hacking scandal,haha) hired a consultant to form a website named House of Ill Compute to post the encryption codes of ITV Digital, a rival of his Sky TV, on the consultant's website.
"Lee Gibling, the man behind The House of Ill Compute website which was, until it was closed down in 2001, the main source of codes and software for manufacturing pirate access cards. Gibling claims he was approached by Ray Adams, head of NDS security, when he was caught hacking BSkyB cards. Rather than threatening prosecution, Gibling alleges that Adams offered him employment instead, and paid him over $100,000 a year to expand the site and distribute software and codes that could breach the encryption of BSkyB’s rivals. Adams vehemently denies these allegations, and maintains he hired Gibling to provide anti-piracy advice."
Rival ITV Digital tanked in 2002 and LOST $2 billion for its investors and 1,500 jobs in the UK. And there are others.
"A secret unit within Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation promoted a wave of high-tech piracy in Australia that damaged Austar, Optus and Foxtel at a time when News was moving to take control of the Australian pay TV industry. The piracy cost the Australian pay TV companies up to $50 million a year and helped cripple the finances of Austar, which Foxtel is now in the process of acquiring."
Given that Rupie owns WSJ and Fox News it's no surprise these outlets won't tell the story over here. Who's pulling AJ's and RT's strings? But CNN and MSNBC? Hmm.
Well, this story (if this is what you are onto) looks like it has it all. You might also want to call it The Sicilian Connection.:)
posted by BartlebyTheSlacker : 11:13 PM
I can only assume the ongoing Elveden Investigation is what you are referring to. Elveden’s investigators are looking into allegations that News Corp. reporters bribed police, Army, and defense ministry officials—and possibly other British officeholders—to win scoops and perhaps other business favors. That means the evidence Elveden turns up could form the basis of charges in the United States against News Corp. and its employees or executives under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars American-based companies from paying off “foreign officials” in order “to obtain or retain business.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/murdochs-shakespearean-tragedy.html#ixzz1vfaLmV8e
Okay, I'll just say it: Why are black pols Blue Dogs?
Bill Maher recently quipped that Barack Obama is half-black and
half-white, and that he (Maher) hoped that the second administration
would be the black one.
Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, New Jersey, is another black politician. He had to backtrack after loudly denouncing Obama's recent ad criticizing Romney's past at Bain Capital. (I happened to like that ad.)
Now Harold Ford -- another black politician, who was once hounded from office by what I consider a genuinely racist campaign -- is saying that Booker got it right the first time. Shame on Obama for going after Bain, or so sayeth Ford.
One could also mention Sanford Bishop of Georgia and Artur Davis of Alabama. (Davis will probably make a formal shift to the Republican party fairly soon.) I don't know much about this guy, other than the obvious fact that he's being groomed for big things, but I don't see a John Conyers there.
The question is simple. Why is it that the only up-and-coming black politicians who stand any chance of getting somewhere in the Democratic party always turn out to be Blue Dogs? This didn't used to be the case. I wouldn't have voted for Jesse Jackson back in '88 if I thought he was anything like the guys mentioned above. If Jackson (at least the Jackson of old) were running today, he would slam Romney on Bain every minute of every day, without mercy and without apology.
In response to Bill Maher: I hope a second Obama administration turns out to be the Democratic one. But I'm not holding my breath.
Permalink
Decent fellow, boiler plate FDR guy...the Democratic party under Obama asked him to step aside for a Republican and then shuffled him off to some diplomatic post.
posted by S Brennan : 12:36 PM
Cos you need sponsorship from the same money as everyone else. In many ways a black face is a much better salesman for the money policies. I mean who in America would expect a black man to be a shill for the rich?
posted by Anonymous : 12:44 PM
Brennan: Meek is very good on the issues. His Wackenhut connection is troubling. Even so, I'd vote for him.
It must have something to do with 'Jackie Robinson's below the radar, shy/retiring. not angry or militant approach to being the first black in all-white baseball.
It paved the way for more in the 'Nero Leagues'.
No uppity coloreds need apply.
Ben Franklin
posted by Anonymous : 3:39 PM
Cory Booker is one bad egg. I wouldn't be surprised if he is pushed to be the Democratic Party nominee for president in 2016.
How bad is he? Very, very, very bad. He is a catalyst in the movement to privatize public education, and he is bought and paid for by the Bradley Foundation, among others. Watch this important Glen Ford speech and weep. This speech should get far more distribution than it has:
This morning I saw a BookTV lecture by Noam Scheiber, the New Republic editor who recently wrote The Escape Artists: How Obama's Team Fumbled the Recovery. While listening, I flashed on a famous anecdote about Bill Clinton.
As recounted by Bob Woodward in The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House, Clinton vented to his advisers: "'Where are all the Democrats?' Clinton bellowed. 'I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans,' he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. 'We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?'"
How can we update that formulation to explain the Obama years?
As Scheiber noted, most of Obama's policies have reflected the Clinton-era Republican viewpoint. For example, Obama's misguided health care initiative reflects not what Clinton tried to do, but the official Republican response to what Clinton tried to do. That policy was later enacted on the state level by Mitt Romney.
The ideas offered by the Clinton-era "Reagan Republicans" are considered heretical by today's conservatives, despite their canonization of Saint Ronnie. We all know what would happen to any Republican who dared to suggest the kind of massive tax increase that Reagan countenanced. Jon Huntsman has said, I think correctly, that Ronald Reagan likely would not get anywhere near the Republican nomination today.
So: If Clinton was an Eisenhower Republican -- in hindsight, not such a bad thing to be -- then what is Obama?
A lot of my readers would feel comfortable calling our president a Reagan Republican, if only because Obama has (foolishly) praised the way Reagan transformed the political landscape. But Obama could never be that kind of transformative figure. He's a center-rightist. His notion of bipartisanship (at least for the first two and a half years of his administration) has been to negotiate surrender terms before the onset of battle. Obama never gave serious consideration to the kind of tax increases that Reagan reluctantly considered necessary.
Many would feel comfortable calling Obama a George H.W. Bush Republican -- although here again, the terminology fails us, since one could argue that Obama (at least for the first two years) operated somewhere to Poppy's right. Bush the elder also allowed taxes to increase. And give the guy credit: He knew better than to linger in Iraq.
Perhaps we should keep things a little vague. Let's call Obama a "Bush Republican" and then let each listener or reader decide if the reference goes to Poppy or Dubya. Obama is more liberal than Dubya, but not by much. I believe our current president would have preferred to let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire, but he didn't fight very hard to make that happen. Obama has been even worse than his predecessor on privacy issues, and a good deal better when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. "Bush lite" seems appropos.
What label, then, do we affix to his opponents, to the Tea Party freakazoids who routinely call Obama a Marxist/socialist/Islamofascist? My first instinct would be to call those guys "John Birch Republicans," even though that term doesn't really cover it. I've read a fair amount of Bircher literature from the 1960s; it was plenty crazy, but not as crazy as what passes for political rhetoric these days.
Perhaps we should call them Jack D. Ripper Republicans, in honor of George C. Scott's character in Dr. Strangelove. Or how about "Ayn Rand Republicans"? A useful term, that, but it doesn't go far enough. I think she would have had contempt for the insane Islamophobes and Jesusmaniacs who now control much of the conservative movement.
Some of my readers might like the label "Glenn Beck Republicans." Even though Becks' star may have fallen -- nobody quotes him nowadays -- a Beck-ish ideology still holds sway over millions. The maniacal, ultra-conspiratorial, yet undeniably popular claptrap promoted by Beck and his comrades-in-crazy explains why the Republicans in Congress feel justified in nonstop obstructionism. Example:
Last week, House Speaker John Boehner once again threatened that
Republicans would not vote to increase the debt ceiling unless Democrats
agreed to certain tax and spending policies sought by the GOP.
Republicans have used this tactic repeatedly in the past few years, each
time bringing the nation closer to the brink of default.
These people are so wedded to an extremist ideology that they consider ending the American experiment preferable to compromise.
In the end, we may have to settle for calling these people bonkers. Just that simple: The modern GOP has been taken over by Bonkers Republicans.
A lot of centrists rooted for Romney to win the nomination on the grounds that the other candidates (Bachmann, Perry, Paul) were of dubious sanity. Romney isn't crazy, but he lacks humanity, conviction, conscience, courage, or any clear goal beyond a personal ambition. He has not stood up to the most odious voices in his party, even on occasions when doing so might have benefited him politically. Since he stands for nothing, he won't stand up to the tea-stained radicals who now control his party. The Glenn Beck-ish wackos will thus control the presidency.
And so that's the story of Election 2012: A Bush Republican versus a Bonkers Republican.
What a dispiriting choice. What a horrifying choice. If, as Garrison Keillor once sang, we're all Republicans now, then I like Ike.
Permalink
Obama is more liberal than Dubya, but not by much.
It depends on what policy domain you're talking about. From a civil liberties standpoint, I'd put him to the right of Dubya. Dubya never asserted the authority to execute citizens without trial, for example.
posted by Propertius : 2:20 PM
On the education front, Obama is very, very, very far to the right of Bush. He and Arne Duncan are the worst things that have ever happened to public education in the history of this country. Bush's people laid down the groundwork with NCLB, but Obama has taken it far, far further.
So you consider Clinton's sellout of the working man to the deregulated banksters and free traders not a bad thing?
posted by Ken Hoop : 3:25 PM
Here is Black Agenda Report's Glen Ford talking about the corporatization of public education. It was critical the privatizers made inroads in the black community: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JdPACwRgw04
Conservatives never let the facts get in the way of the party line.
The right inists that the Occupy movement is aligned with, sympathetic to or manipulated by the Obama administration. The reactionaries will not let go of this fixed idea, even though all of the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Example: Three young "anarchists" associated with the Occupy movement have been charged with plotting to bomb Barack Obama's campaign headquarters and Rahm Emanuel's home. (The accused are quite young, of course. Don't trust anyone under thirty; most of 'em are borderline retarded.)
As always, there are indications that the terror plot was engineered by the very forces that now claim credit for preserving the peace:
But outside court Saturday, Michael Deutsch, the attorney representing the men now known as the “NATO 3,” said they were railroaded — “a Chicago Police set-up, entrapment to the highest degree.”
Deutsch said three undercover cops nicknamed “Nadia,” “Mo” and “Glove” befriended his clients on May 1: May Day, an international day of labor solidarity.
Two of the nine arrested people were themselves undercover cops, Deutsch said. And those undercover officers “egged on” the accused men, he said.
“From our information, the so-called incendiary devices and the plans to attack police stations — that’s all coming from the minds of the police informants and not coming from our clients, who are non-violent protesters,” he said.
The details I have been able to gather from speaking to arrestees personally make it seem like the police have, in the past 48 hours, fabricated all of these details about having some investigation in progress.
There is much more to say on the topic of entrapment, but at this time I want to focus on the right's narrative that the Occupiers are Obots. That claim is nonsense. It seems quite clear that, even if the charges against those young anarchist dolts prove to be false, said dolts are not fans of the president.
And Obama is no fan of the protesters. Dave Lindorff has been going over some newly-released documents which demonstrate that Obama's Department of Homeland Security directed a nationwide crackdown of the movement, despite official denials.
The latest documents, reveal “intense involvement” by the DHS’s so-called National Operations Center (NOC).
On December 12, when Occupy planned anti-war protests at various US ports, Verheyden-Hilliard says the new documents show that the NOC “went into high gear” seeking information from local field offices of the Department of Homeland Security about what actions police in Houston, Portland, Oakland, Seattle, San Diego, and Los Angeles planned to deal with Occupy movement actions.
Another document shows that earlier, in advance of a planned Occupy action at the Oakland, CA port facility on Nov. 2, DHS “went so far as to keep the Pentagon’s Northcom (Northern Command) in the intelligence loop.”
Would Bush have reacted in a different fashion? I doubt it.
Since the police response has obviously been coordinated the DHS, Obama arguably bears indirect responsibility for street-level misbehavior by the cops. In that light, let's take another look at Firedoglake's coverage of the three arrested anarchists. Sarah Gelsomino, acting as legal counsel for the three, makes some rather chilling accusations:
They were driving in a car and were pulled over without any kind of justification or reason by the Chicago police department. They were surrounded by police and they were questioned for a very long period of time about what they were doing in Chicago, why they were here to protest, what their political affiliations were, how they identified politically—All kinds of absolutely outrageous questions that certainly do not indicate any kind of illegal behavior because it is not constitutional simply to accuse them of a crime because of a political belief.
The Obama administration has done nothing to impede the outrageous cop practice of confiscating cameras from bystanders recording the anti-Occupy police actions.
Just ask Carlos Miller. The photojournalist has been arrested three times. His “crime?” Attempting to photograph police actions in the U.S. Most recently, in January, Miller was filming the eviction of Occupy Wall Street activists from a park in downtown Miami.
In twist that’s become too familiar to many, the journalist became the story as police focused their crackdown on the scrum of reporters there to cover the eviction. Miller came face to face with Officer Nancy Perez, who confiscated his camera and placed him under arrest.
And Miller is not alone. Since Occupy Wall Street began last September, more than 75 journalists have been arrested. My colleague Josh Stearns has chronicled these arrests since the movement’s earliest days. Stearns expects to see an uptick in arrests as thousands of protesters and reporters converge on Chicago.
The courts have upheld the public's right to videotape, but that right means nothing if the cops won't observe it. Why hasn't the Justice Department cracked down on police abuse?
I strongly urge you to read Rick Pearlstein's expose in Rolling Stone. When this administration goes looking for (non-Islamic) terrorists, it adheres to the old policy of "Left eye open, right eye blind." As Pearlstein documents, right-wing terrorists pose a far more serious threat -- yet their groups are seldom infiltrated, and their members need never worry about entrapment.
The contrasts are extraordinarily instructive. When federal law enforcement agencies take an affirmative role in staging the crimes, the U.S. Justice Department then prosecutes, leaving more clear-and-present dangers relatively unbothered, the State is singling out ideological enemies. Violent white supremacists are not one of these enemies, apparently – because, as David Neiwert, probably the nation’s top journalist on the subject, told me, the federal government has much less often sought to entrap them, even though they are actually the biggest home-grown terrorism threat. That is unconstitutional, because law enforcement’s criterion for attention has been revealed as the ideas the alleged plotters hold – not their observed violent potential.
But don't worry your pretty little heads over the epidemic of far-right insurrectionism that followed the election of Barack Obama: all told, according to a forthcoming data analysis by Neiwert, there have been 55 cases of right-wing extremists being arrested for plotting or committing alleged terrorists acts compared to 26 by Islamic militants during the same period. The right-wing plots include the bombing of a 2011 Martin Luther King Day parade in Spokane and the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009. Neither of their perpetrators, it goes without saying, had been arrested before they attempted their vile acts; neither required law enforcement entrapment to conceive and carry them out. It's just too bad for their victims they did not fit the story federal law enforcement seeks to tell.
The irony is overwhelming. Right-wing terrorists hate Obama and would probably murder him if they could. Nevertheless, Obama's Department of Homeland Security ignores the right and focuses with laser-like intensity on anyone who might be left of center. Our first black president coddles racist thugs, preferring to target naive young "anarchist" cranks. Meanwhile, the anarchists themselves -- whose political philosophy strikes me as a muddled and incoherent stew -- seem to dislike Obama rather intensely.
Yet folks who get their facts from Fox News will tell you that Obama is Lenin and the Occupiers are his Red Army.
We can't have a useful national dialogue if half the country insists on a narrative located at a 180 degree remove from reality.
Update: Mahablog was kind enough to cite this post in an article entitled "Obama Behind Plot to Blow Up His Own Headquarters!" That post includes some hilarious examples of the "Obama controls Occupy" narrative to be found on right-wing blogs. The rightists are too stupid to notice that the arrests contradict their preconceptions.
Calling Alex Jones! We need a right-wing conspiracy theory to bring everything together. The theory should explain why Obama would direct a plot to blow up his own headquarters and why Obama would entrap the anarchists. The theory should explain why Obama would engineer the Occupy movement and why Obama would sic police thugs on the Occupiers.
Coming up with a single theory for all of this contradictory activity will take enormous creativity. But I have faith in our nation's paranoid class.
Permalink
Here's a question. Why are the cops and the FBI going after Occupy Protestors, attempting to FRAME them up... when you have REAL criminals committing REAL crimes and their fucking list of criminal activity listed on Wikipedia for all to see? (Type CRIME FAMILIES in wiki)
Why aren't the FBI and the cops going after real criminals? Instead of creating FAKE criminals? Is it because they are in bed together?
Do you think we would have ever had Afghanistan tied 9/11 hijackers in Tampa Florida if the authorities weren't in bed with organized crime?
Tampa Florida home to USSOCOM, USCENTCOM at McDill Air Force ,HQ for America's economy tanking retarded war of floppitunity in heroin producing Afghanistan where opium/heroin production has INCREASED since the U.S. invasion. Tampa also being the home to the Santos Trafficante crime family who made some of their fortune off of trafficking in HEROIN sales. ANYONE SEEING A PATTERN HERE?
http://www.madcowprod.com/09062006.html
posted by Anonymous : 4:56 AM
When was the last time you saw the FBI entrapping and locking up Wall Street thieves, or Defense contractor crooks, or some of those Tea Party types that want to blow up the federal government? Exactly. NEVER. Who are they entrapping? Kids who want to know where their fucking American Dream has gone.
posted by Anonymous : 6:20 AM
As this stuff gets out and the economy continues to limp along the Obots will probably stay home in November.
posted by Mr. Mike : 7:16 AM
Great article below that explains alot about the democracy hating deep state that America finds itself trapped in.
How it created a communist insurgency among Vietnamese poor when there was none(sounds like Iraq?), how it won a turf war with the French to redirect the heroin trade closer to home, and how it killed JFK/RFK for trying to reign in this rogue intel/mafia hybrid monster : http://bottleofbits.info/econ/rogue.htm
posted by Anonymous : 7:36 AM
"By mid-year, Lansdale was raising the specter of "Communist insurgency" just as he did in the Philippines. This destabilization became one of the root causes of the Vietnam War... On the advice of the U.S., Diem exacerbated the situation by the ejection of the French law enforcement authorities who had helped to keep what little peace there was... This resulted in a temporary absence of police power and in the collapse of the system by which rice farmers obtained goods in exchange for their crops. When economic and social chaos resulted in hunger and civil strife, U.S. intelligence was quick to cry "Communist insurgency.""
http://bottleofbits.info/econ/rogue.htm
That was over 50 years ago...sounds just like what they did to Iraq.
posted by Anonymous : 7:52 AM
Well, anon -- and please use some kind of nick next time -- the article is worth reading, even though it has little or nothing to do with my post.
You should note that Lansdale actually became quite critical of the Johnson administration's handling of the Vietnam war. So I would say that Lansdale became something of an outsider as the war heated up. I have formulated a theory that, stateside, he initiated a particularly bizarre psychological operation, an extension of one of the ruses he employed in favor of Magsaysay.
All of that said, the article you cite is too amorphous. The piece makes reference to the work of both John Newman and Jim DiEugenio, both of whom point to the Angleton faction as the likely origin point for the JFK assassination. Yet in the piece you cite, Angleton receives scant mention. In the meantime, there is a lot of less consequential stuff about Bush the elder.
"Coming up with a single theory for all of this contradictory activity will take enormous creativity. But I have faith in our nation's paranoid class."
I think we'll see a Grand Unified Field Theory first.
Actually, Bob, the job is more easily done than you might realize.
As you know, I've been following right-wing conspiracy theory for a good many years. In the past, it has often happened that theorists will fall in love with two mutually contradictory paranoid notions. Whenever this has occurred, they have reconciled their opposing ideas by muttering something vague and incomprehensible about hegelian dialectics.
Check it out for yourself. Just go to Google or Stealth and type in the words "hegelian dialectics conspiracy."
Of course, I doubt very much that any of the people who believe in a hegelian conspiracy have ever actually read Hegel.
(I tried to do it once. Got about five pages into the "Phenomenology of Something-or-Other." Then I gave up and satisfied myself with reading Will Durant's take on Hegel. It's very good.)
What the author of that article is doing is synthesizing the facts. Boiling it down to the core elements. Because one author he cites may believe LBJ did it and another may believe that Oswald did it alone doesn't mean those authors are totally wrong in everything they wrote.
All of the usual suspects were tied together through corrupt business relationships. Texas oil, CIA, Mafia, Anti Castro Cubans. Jack Ruby was hooked into the mafia. The Dallas PD was compromised by Ruby's hookers. The Trafficante family was involved with heroin trafficking. The CIA was involved with heroin trafficking. The heroin traffic was rerouted from Marseilles France to places closer to home like Mexico. Oswald had been in Mexico. One of Oswald's alleged assassins was killed in Mexico. Mexico for awhile became the primary conduit for heroin into the USA.
Clint Murchison was close to Hoover and LBJ. All had mafia ties. JFK and RFK started going after the mafia. Hoover had been protecting the mafia higher ups pretending that the mafia didn't even exist. Some of those mafia guys are then implicated in being the guys that put out a contract on the Kennedys.
Oswald in the mean time is being handled by people tied to oil tycoons, the FBI and the mafia. Ok. Now that's odd. Because that is the same exact group that at a higher level are colluding together in secret on deals and rackets in the Del Charro hotel and elsewhere. Hoover and his Del Charro bunk buddy Tolson being the FBI point men to make sure that these rackets are never prosecuted.
Why are we even talking about this 50 fucking plus years later like we don't understand what happened?
What's not to understand? Yet the media continues to pretend these connections don't exist. And that the connections don't mean anything.
The average entrapped schmuck trying to figure out why his country looks more and more like a banana Republic than the country that sent men to the moon is told none of these obvious connections matter. Shut up and drink the Koolaid bitch before we charge you as an Angry Rapist Insurgent.
Meanwhile those protectors of the inside job and those benefiting from it continue to dismantle the country.
The FBI allowed Russian spies to run around the U.S.A compromising Americans from 2001-2010 we are told... and where is the media asking WHY this was allowed?
Other than getting Americans COMPROMISED what is the point of what the FBI did? In what fucking upside down Bizzaro world does an American agency allow Russian spies to freely run around for 10 years while they attempt to get Americans caught up in a honeytrap??? Why did the head of the secret service pretend that allowing it's agents to sleep with prostitutes was no big deal?
SOMEONE ASK THE FUCKING QUESTION PLEASE?
Here, I will tell you the answer.
It is the same reason why Breitbart sent his Oswald look alike around the USA clandestinely video taping Democrats... SO THAT THEY BECAME COMPROMISED AND USELESS IN EFFECTING POLITICAL CHANGE. Hey Weiner? Hey Edwards? What are you up to these days?
For 50 + years, collectively Americans have allowed a handful of people to trample them and run off with everything they own, no questions asked. You reap what you sow.
Webslinger.
posted by Anonymous : 11:59 AM
So, about an hour or so after that last post... my computer did something it has never done before... it froze up BIG TIME, screen went black and then rebooted... and possibly dropped something into my system because it took about 5 minutes to reboot(usually take 30 seconds) and now it seems to be running a bit like gum through a bowl of peanut butter. Maybe I can get one of these Russian made anti-virus programs to fix it? So glad the Russians and those spooks in Virginia are protecting us all from computer viruses.
Webslinger
posted by Anonymous : 2:08 PM
No need to get paranoid about Russia, webslinger. But you should hit your system with every reputable antivirus and antispyware system you can get. (Watch out for fake antispyware apps.)
Malwarebytes is good. So are Ad-Aware, SuperAntiSpyware and a few others. Norton offers a free cleaner calle Norton PowerEraser which can get things others can't.
You probably know of the good free antivirus programs like Avira and AVG.
You may not know that you can usually try paid antivirus suites for free for a month or so. So just research the best antivirus, download it as a trial, and use it to clean your system.
Also consider using Glary or CCleaner to clean your registry. But be careful, and do NOT use both. Always back up the registry.
Thanks for covering this, Joseph! Latest I've heard from those on the ground is that Chicago has busloads of riot police AND a slew of SNOW PLOWS amassed to round up protesters...and are penning up protesters already.
(Shall I work that phrase into every post from now on? Well, I'll try.)
...has spent millions of dollars making the public believe that rich people are "job creators." When Nick Hanauer -- a billionaire venture capitalist, and thus presumably not a Jesus-hating Marxist -- offered up a challenge to that doctrine in his TED talk, he was censored. Reason given: His view was "too controversial."
Oh really? Here's a sample of what he said:
I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.
So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.
Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.
For crying out loud. That's controversial?
I can recall a time when that sentiment would have been considered about as controversial as saying that water is wet. Back in the '70s, a politician might have said those exact same words from the podium at the Republican convention. Everyone in the audience would have thought: "Of course. In the end, it's all about the consumer. The customer is king."
Now, we live in an age when the average consumer is considered an impediment to the efficient running of the economy. On Wall Street, the bankers treat their customers the way grifters treat rubes -- or, better, the way muggers treat muggees.
The only thing holding back hiring is lack of demand. The problem is not
unions or regulations or unpredictability or sunspots or an imminent
attack from Loki and the Chitauri. The problem is the fact that Mr.
and Ms. Average don't have any long green in their wallets. The Libertarians want all workers to segue into the lumpenprole lifestyle, sleeping in old cars and feasting on cold hot dogs -- and then those same "conservative" geniuses cannot understand why the working class no longer purchases goods and services.
TED stands revealed as just another libertarian propaganda forum. Awful Ayn used to exist on the fringe; now, from beyond the grave, she sets the party line. Deviationists must be re-educated or sent to Lubianka. To paraphrase Dick Nixon, we're all Randroids now.
Permalink
That's no different than when I post that the way to fix the economy is incentivize consumer debt REDUCTION via low interest rate charges for anyone who is lowering their overall debt.
NOT ONE economist, including ALL of the alleged populist consumer blogs, has EVER advocated that position, even though it is the superior and correct position.
Instead, it's either a "get a job" rant by the neo con conservatives, or "debt forgiveness" by the progressive liberal dolts.
Here is a link to my economic solution plan, it's now been 18 months since I originally posted it, and even that post was over a year after I had presented the idea elsewhere.
The libertarian conspiracy has used all of its formidable propaganda resources to insure that the Unites States does not institute the only measures which can save us from economic disaster. One such measure is inflation -- a controlled inflation.
Ian Welsh's post on the "Dutch disease" set me to thinking, once again, about the vast possibilities offered by inflation. If the dollar were worth less, foreigners would want to purchase more American goods. Those impossible-to-repay home loans would become very-possible-to-repay home loans. Paying back China becomes much less painful. Newly printed dollars -- and I would argue that a controlled inflation should take the form of actual, physical cash -- could be used to provide jobs to the unemployed and homes to the homeless.
It's also true that ultra-low interest rates helped to create the financial crisis in the first place. Paul Krugman once uttered a very simple truism:
Deflation redistributes wealth from debtors to creditors.
Whenever anyone speaks of the virtues of a controlled inflation, the fearmongers bring up the specter of Weimar, of hyperflation. But hyperinflation is a very different animal, with differing causes.
Inflation can be good. And for precisely that reason, the right-wing press has expended a great deal of energy trying to convince the populace that the greatest menace facing this country was and is inflation. As we've noted in previous posts, Fox News heavily pushed the nonsense spewed by a group called the National Inflation Association -- run by pump and dump stock scammer Jonathan Lebed. Lebed's gang tried to convince the populace that onions would soon cost about fifteen bucks.
Absurd.
Inflation cannot be said to exist unless wages and home prices go up. Is that happening? True, some commodities have risen in price, due, in large part, to the shark-like shenanigans of Wall Street speculators. But inflation is a wage-price spiral; if your wages aren't on the increase, your economic problems require another label.
I suspect that the people screeching about hyperinflation want this country to collapse. They want Apocalypse Now. These people have a vision: They want to replace our current system with their proposed libertarian paradise. You can't build a New Jerusalem without first whipping up a proper Armageddon.
It would mean that the debt that Wall Street holds would be worth less than it is now. As if they would let that happen. I'm sure their lobbyists are visiting Obama, Pelosi, Reid and every republican they can bearing gifts.
Both political parties are alike except on of them is bat-shit crazy.
posted by Mr. Mike : 8:31 AM
I think inflation causes all of those variable interest rate agreements to begin to rise, meaning the buying power of those in debt would be destroyed.
First, let people pay their way out of debt by removing interest rate charges on anyone who can pay down their debt, then we'll talk.
You really want me to give you an economic lecture?
(sigh)
A little inflation is okay. It gives the economy some juice. You don't want to do so much that it causes inflation expectations. That creates behavioral responses that ar very very bad. Look up the Taylor Rule. That's what the FED uses now. They actually have an acceptable level of inflation.
I believe that the only way out of a generational deflationary episode is uncontrolled inflation. Controlled inflation will merely mitigate the damage that slow debt deflation would otherwise do. It will not reboot the system.
Inflation or deflation. Both benefit or damage different interest groups. Workers vs rentiers.
Lets not pretend that economics is a technical discipline free of politics of ideology.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 6:21 AM
Jeez, Harry. And Kat thought *I* was off the wall.
I don't trust ANYBODY who just ignores that there are between 10 million to 50 million americans who could probably pay their way out of debt if interest rate charges were suspended for anyone who agreed to pay down their debts.
To imply that inflation, with the accompanying increase in home mortgage interest rates, would be a good thing to the middle class that already got screwed over by a bank bailout that never made it to main street, is astounding.
Analysts blamed the poorer-than-expected first-day showing on the vast number of shares floated and market weakness. General Motors' decision to pull paid-advertising from the social network, announced this week, also hurt.
Nobody has yet mentioned a point which I consider obvious: The growing anti-Facebook movement has become mainstream. See, for example, here (and please forgive the lengthier-than-usual excerption):
The issue of online privacy and data aggregation has become a hot topic—finally—in the wake of the Facebook IPO. Max Schrems, 24, the Austrian law student who sued Facebook for its complete record of his personal data was recently astounded to receive 1,222 pages of information. Some of it made sense—old Wall postings and photos—but some of it was material he had never even entered into Facebook. His action spurred more than 40,000 requests for Facebook data in Europe.
But have you thought about what lenders, credit agencies, insurance companies, and yes, prospective employers, can do with reports of your aggregated online data, as purchased by third party aggregators? Let’s say you posted Wall posts about a medical problem you or your child faced. Let’s say it was congenital heart trouble—a no-fault diagnosis if there ever was one. Keyword searches can gather this type of data for sale to the insurance industry. That information could result in you being dropped for health insurance coverage, life insurance policy refusal, or even the loss of a prospective job.
Facebook’s astounding net worth amounts to about $130 each for each of its 845 million subscribers. Do you think they earn this by those pop-up ads that nobody clicks on? Research (and investment bank leaks) show that the click rates on those Facebook ads are infinitesimal. That leaves data aggregation revenue from third party advertisers and other users.
And what kind of users are out there? The IRS is using online profiles against taxpayers under investigation. Let’s say your son or daughter posted some really great photos of a recent vacation to Rio for the whole family, just months after you filed your 1040 showing gargantuan business losses that included some hefty business expenses in Rio. Yes, people do. And the IRS finds them this way.
As a public company Facebook will be under pressure to maximize quarterly profits. That means selling your personal junk for profit. That is, after all, the bargain you made when you signed up. You receive the joys of free posting of all manner of personal information in exchange for Mark Zuckerberg & Co. to with it what they please.
In all probability, Facebook as it is presently monetized is a market distortion, a chimera. It must begin to sell more of your stuff to justify its market capitalization.
The paid-for status test has highlighted user mistrust for Facebook, and so has a recent AP-CNBC poll of 1,004 Facebook users. It found that, despite spending between 6 and 7 hours per month on the social network, nearly 6 out of 10 users had little or no trust that Facebook kept their personal information private.
Furthermore, as Facebook nears its IPO, almost half (46%) of those polled said they thought Facebook was a passing fad while 43% believe the social network is here to stay for the long term.
MySpace died rapidly. Facebook's demise could come at an even more dizzying pace.
I warned everyone from the beginning: You do not need Facebook, which was funded by the CIA. (That's not conspiracy theory; it is unassailable fact.) Facebook is certainly not your friend.
A few years ago, I was the proverbial voice in the wilderness. Now, everyone seems to be catching on.
The solution to our privacy problems.If Facebook dies on the vine, as it ought, the battle for privacy will still remain.
The NSA is storing every single electronic communication in the U.S. within their new facility in Utah. The decision to build that compound was not made democratically. Do you recall any debate on the issue? Do you feel that your voice was heard? Did you get a chance to write to your congressional representatives?
No. You simply woke up one day and discovered that the NSA had built this monstrous thing.
Here's how to shut it down:
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Simple as that. Alas, nothing short of an amendment will do the trick. The intel community keeps the congressional oversight committees on a short leash.
I'm no lawyer, just a spitballing layperson. Nevertheless, here is my suggested, provisional wording for an amendment:
No agency of the United States government shall acquire, store, intercept, or surreptitiously become privy to the contents of any private communication of any United States citizen, unless that agency has first obtained a warrant, as prescribed by the Fourth Amendment to this Constitution and by applicable federal code. Such a warrant shall be required even if a private communication has been acquired and/or analyzed by mechanical, electronic or other non-human means, except when the author of said communication has provided explicit or implicit consent. Neither shall any agency of the United States government use an agency of a foreign government to evade the intent and spirit of this amendment.
Right now, the NSA operates under the theory that the government may use computers -- not human beings -- to datamine every email and chat log in the United States. This bizarre interpretation of the Fourth Amendment gives the NSA an excuse for spying on you without a warrant. The government programs computers to look for key words, which may be used to build cases against anyone who has inconvenienced a sitting administration in any way.
We need to restore our Constitutional protections.
Liberals and libertarians can work together to make make this happen.
Permalink
What do Facebook, Google, Bill Gate's Microsoft, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, CIA, NSA and FBI all have in common?
A. Mega behemoth corporate entities trying to get into your panties
B. U.S. War promoting Russian/Jewish exile entanglements
C. Tricky & historic Chinese/Far East entanglements
D. Foreign state penetration?
E. Spying on you
F. Collecting information on you
G. Cleverly designing ruses and tricks by which to lure and entrap you into a PRISON of their design
H. Turning you and the USA into the largest pussified, pwned, and compromised population on the face of the earth
I. None of the Above
J. Heaping gobs of the above
posted by Anonymous : 3:29 PM
Trivia Time!
Which one of the following is not a Facebook billionaire and not either Russian/Jewish(one is just Jewish), or from Spooky Virginia?
Mark Zuckerberg - $19.1B Eduardo Saverin - $4.2B Sean Parker - $4.2B Yuri Milner - $5.6B Dustin Moskovitz - $8.0B John D. Rockefeller - $663B
Which of the following is a German born venture capitalist who gave the Russian/Jewish Facebook guys their startup money, backed Ron Paul for President, is a member of the ultra private Bilderberg steering group, is tied to the CIA's In-Q-Tel dataminers, knows what you bought with PayPal, and gave money to Breitbart asshole James O' Keefe who later begins a career in blackmailing lefties?
A. Peter Thiel B. Gary Coleman
posted by Anonymous : 4:10 PM
One last one please?
What is the primary website of a mega corporation run by a Russian/Jewish guy, a definitely spooky Virginia dude who says "Don't Be Evil" and a guy from Lansing Michigan?
I haven't commented much on the Trayvon Martin case because a story of this kind usually is not of much interest to me. My immediate reaction was that we should let a court determine the facts; thus, I felt outraged that the cops initially let Zimmerman walk away.
After the legal process began, I felt (and feel) that this business should not devolve into yet another one of those ludicrous exercises in Barnum-and-Bailey-ing that our debauched society seems to adore. Alas, that's what we got. The initial parade of left-wing clowns has now been overtaken by a parade of right-wing clowns. Taken together, these buffoons have proven something that a lot of kids already sensed: Clowns are scary.
Perhaps the most clownish clown to bound out of the miniature car is the fellow who wrote this headline: "Martin Had Drugs in System." One might expect that kind of inflammatory nonsense from Fox and other agit-prop sites -- but from Slate...?
In fact, the kid had a small amount of THC in his system. The headline creates the impression that Martin had hopped himself up on meth or crack.
Again: I don't know what happened that night; a court must decide. To me, and I am speaking very provisionally here, this is one of those situations where everything comes down to the question of who initiated violence. If a witness says that Trayvon Martin struck first, then Zimmerman's case becomes much stronger. If a witness says that Zimmerman pushed, struck or threatened, then his case becomes much weaker. If no witness can definitively resolve the issue, then Zimmerman must be given the benefit of the doubt.
That said, it is scurrilous for the right to make a hero of Zimmerman. The man had been warned by the cops to stay out of the situation, yet he ignored that directive.
The right would have us believe that Zimmerman is some sort of hero. They've made Trayvon Martin into yet another of their many rage objects. One entrepreneur even sells Trayvon Martin gun targets; the product quickly sold out.
There have also been prominent right-wingers who have claimed that the victims of Anders Brevik deserved their fate simply because they belonged to the "wrong" Norwegian political party.
I'm getting a definite Weimar vibe here. Maybe the way I'm feeling now is the way decent men felt when the beer hall bullies applauded the killers of Walter Rathenau.
What would Fox News watchers be saying about Sharon Tate if her murder had occurred yesterday instead of 44 years ago? Perhaps they would come up with some reason to blame the victims, who were hippie-friendly, free-loving, drug-taking Hollywood types. Perhaps a few on the right would even be so bold as to rationalize the actions of the killers. There isn't that much difference between the apocalyptic fantasies of the militia maniacs and Charlie's dream of a Helter Skelter race war.
Permalink
I'll tell you right now, I've had people pace me in cars, had people get out of cars to pursue me with no cause other than "wrong place wrong time".
It's terrifying and violent to be subjected to such treatment. So even if Martin struck Zimmerman first, it cannot be ignored that it was in reaction to the violence already done do him.
The "facts" about what happened in this case are being delivered to you by the same print and broadcast media that assured us that Saddam had WMD's ready to attack the East coast and that Al Gore was a serial liar.
I believe it was a deliberate attempt by some to incite a riot because nothing sell soap flakes like violence or laser guided bombs destroying buildings in the Middle East.
posted by Mr. Mike : 7:40 AM
I wouldn't go that far. But I do see signs that some in the media hope to ramp up racial tensions -- in an election year involving a black president.
1) I agree with you about the "Weimar" tone of the media right now. These days, its not uncommon for me to find myself oddly emotional about events in the news and just plain angry about the way these events are then framed by the media.
2) I wish people would just let the courts try this one. The specific case is not as interesting as the absurd "stand your ground law", which legitimises lethal force as a response to common assault. There are plenty more unarmed black kids being shot, usually by the police. Perhaps people could focus on the general more and the specific less.
3) Im not sure how the "stand your ground" law is meant to work, but does it really pivot around who threw the first punch? Really?
4) My understanding is that pot makes you paranoid. I also understand that pot use is negatively correlated with violent crime. Pot-heads are not out there committing muggings and bank robberies. And since Pot stays in your system for about 30 days (6 months in hair) then the pot that was discovered may well not have been injested on the day in question. Either way round, the lesson I have learned is that it is now extremely dangerous to get the "munchies" in a gated community if you are a black teen.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 10:03 AM
Here is the website with the 911 transcript:
"911 dispatcher: Are you following him? [2:24] Zimmerman: Yeah. [2:25] 911 dispatcher: OK. We don’t need you to do that. [2:26] Zimmerman: OK. [2:28] " http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/
DM
posted by Anonymous : 11:10 AM
you mean Manson and Co didn't also practice free love and drugs?
as for staying in his car, the only reports I have read quoted the cops or dispatcher as saying you don't have to follow him. not exactly telling him not to. But I could have missed a more direct command.
I'm not sure who leaked it... but if true he wouldn't be the first...it is Zimmerman who is the proverbial "coked up" gent, courtesy his local MD. If he truly is on Aripiprazole (Abilify) to treat his "ADHD" and a benzodiazepine to treat the anxiety caused by Abilify then he is on both an upper and a downer. . .well stoked to think irrationally...the light of justice should shine upon his doctor as well.
And let's get this straight, here and now. He is not a member of "Neighborhood Watch;" he is a self appointed "captain" of a non-affiliated, self-styled neighborhood watch of which he was the only member.
Republicans react to the death of Mary Kennedy: "Christian conservatives should rejoice"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the finest Americans alive today. If he did not have a vocal impediment, he might be president.
A short while ago, his recently divorced wife Mary (52) was found dead in her Westchester County home under circumstances which, at this writing, seem rather mysterious.
The Murdoch-owned Daily Mail says that Mary Kennedy hanged herself, even though no other published account I've seen offers any details regarding the cause of death. If she did hang herself, how did the London-based Murdochians find out?
I'm waiting for Fox to broadcast or publish a story that finds some way to use this event to slam RFK Jr. or the Democratic party. It hasn't happened yet, but I imagine the spinning will begin within the next 24 hours.
In the meantime, you may be interested in the immediate response offered by the kindly folks who frequent Fox Nation:
It's just as sad, if not more, to see the damage the Kennedy family has inflicted on others.
The Kennedys are a plague. Christian Conservatives should rejoice at this kind of news.
KENNEDY'S DON'T START OUT LOOKING ALL THAT GREAT...and when they begin to 'melt', they're frightening. They say you deserve the face you end up with.
my my my my another dead woman with the kennedys
marilyn M---suicide
mary jo k--teddy leaves her under water
now jrs wife--suicide
heII even the old man joseph lobotomized his own daughter
yep great upstanding liberal americans--- you bet
Don't forget the waitress sandwich, and the beach ra pe.
The story is young; I'm sure we'll get more loveliness of that sort from the Republicans.
What more evidence do we need that "Christian conservatives" are barbaric hate-monsters? Even Ernst Roehm's thugs were less thuggish than are today's Republicans. (And please do not quote Godwin's law to me; the truth deserves un-minced words.)
The Fox Nation is for those opposed to intolerance, excessive government control of our lives, and attempts to monopolize opinion or suppress freedom of thought, expression, and worship .
"Freedom of thought" is, of course an unalloyed virtue. But when the Fox newsers use that phrase, they mean "freedom to hate."
Update: This post is not about the death of Mary Kennedy per se; rather, this is a piece about the immediate reaction and what it reveals about American conservatism. However, I should note that other sources now confirm that the unfortunate woman hanged herself. (See also here.)
Here are some further examples of compassion and wisdom from Republicans marking the death of Mary Kennedy:
"Don't Let your Babies Grow Up to Be Kennedys."
The Kennedy leave their women high and dry. No support system.
(Mary killed herself in a building attached to her estate in Westchester.)
both of them are liberals with substance abuse problems., too much money and not enough sense.
liberals are walking dead.
phuk you, you stinking filthy liberal dick jaw
If you girls marry a Kennedy be prepared to live life looking over your shoulder.
The bIood sure runs in the family, isn't it?
(You must admire the creative approach to grammar habitually displayed by Republican commenters. When Stephen Colbert said I Am America (And So Can You!), he wasn't kidding.)
Mary's belief system would not have allowed....according to RK watchers....extra curricular activity by the boy wonder is suspect...
JFK was a racist and a misogynist.
It's amazing she didn't dump his a s s a long time ago...
I don't blame her for ki11ing herself :-P
Those Inbreds from Hyannis are rough on their women
Mary Jo K - Marilyn Monroe - Now this one
All i have to say is thank god for dead Kennedy's!!
This family just gets more and more disgusting every day!
This entire family from the patriarch Joe to Patrick and the entire family has been dysfunctional from the very beginning. It's what happens with unlimited wealth, privilege and no accomplishment in getting there.
(Said a guy who voted for Bush and will soon vote for Romney.) And now comes the theory that Mary killed herself because of Obama:
It is sad, but I fear it is the beginning of a trend. Some will find the
death of the Democratic Party too much to handle. To see their party fall to
the Commie Progressives is the end of an era!
One of my favorite bands Dead Kennedys.
Was she in a submerged car. Just a normal Kennedy weekend.
What a miserable family to have their clutches on America.
Anyone involved in that family, not blood related, should run like he11, same goes for the clintons and the soetoros!
Sorry but you won't find any pity from me for any Kennedy any time any where, these bastar ds are partly responsible for the state of the nation. The day Teddy died, I threw a party, p iss on the entire family.
How did the London based Daily Mail get their information?
1) They hacked someones phone. 2) They bribed a local policeman 3) They made up the story, and will issue an apology on page 22 if its wrong.
4) All of the above.
Btw, I love Rebekkah Brooks' recent comments. She is of course right - this is a witch hunt. Nothing exceptional there.
But how often does a witch hunt actually result in catching a witch?
You can see why she led the UK crusade against lefties and Paedos.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 5:01 AM
Is the Daily Mail Murdoch owned? Last time I looked it was owned by the Daily Mail and Trust Ltd.
Harry
posted by Anonymous : 5:04 AM
Compare to comments made shortly after liberal mouthpiece Huff Post announced Andrew Breitbart's death:
In death there should be no enmity. Even though I am a Liberal who opposed his views......Condolences to his familyand R.I.P.
Sad to hear. While I did not like his particular brand of journalism, he certainly made a huge contribution to internet media. 43 is much too young. Praying for his family.
While I don't share any of his views, 43 is way too young to die.
I was never a fan of his news site, nor his politics, but he meant a lot for many Americans. RIP Breitbart.
While I wasn't exactly a fan, but he was intelligent, engaging, and passionate. Forty-three is much too young. Condolences to his friends, family, and colleagues.
Politics aside, RIP Breitbart.
Even though I was not a fan of his, it saddens me deeply to think of the loss to his family and, friends.
posted by Lea : 5:08 AM
Should any of the AM Hate Mongers mention the vile remarks concerning Mary Kennedy's death they'll justify them with similar examples from the Left. The party of moral behavior and personal responsibility isn't.
posted by Mr. Mike : 8:15 AM
These "Compassionate, Religiously minded ReThugNicans" are despicable.
The kindest thing that can be said of these "Christians" is "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
posted by Monster from the Id : 1:45 PM
There are a lot of odd deaths and shootings going on in the U.S. right now. Drudgereport makes it sound like the U.S. is in a "Race War". But that is what the right wing wants right? The death of Mary Kennedy also seems strange to me. There have been a lot of leftwing deaths lately and then Andrew Breitbart died which I also found a bit odd considering he just had a drink with a guy working for a company in Mormon Utah if I remember correctly. If I saw prominent right wingers dropping dead every other day then maybe it wouldn't seem so odd. Just seems like lots of prominent leftwingers in media and politics died early recently. Need to make a list I suppose.. to see if it is any more unusual than any other year.
posted by Anonymous : 6:10 AM
Andrew Breitbart was America's #1 "BIG ASSHOLE." PERIOD. There is no need to apologize for not giving a shit about the death of a FIRST CLASS ASSHOLE.
Other than agitate the country for years, stir up racism where ever possible, call protestors rapists, send a goofball to run around clandestinely blackmailing leftwing politicians, and generally shit all over truth and common decency, WHAT HAS BREITBART done with his life other than spend it trying to wreck the lives of other people? ANSWER: NOT A GODDAMN THING.
No one has to be glad someone has died. But I could care less that he has passed on and is no longer around to wreck people's lives.
posted by Anonymous : 11:01 AM
Anon...and I do wish you had used a nick...my own reaction to Breitbart's passing is on the record. I regretted his death while also regretting the way he spent much of his life.
That said, those who reacted in an uncivil way to his death have this justification: His own sites did much to increase the spirit of barbarism. As one reaps, so one sows.
Here's the deal with Breitbart and why I said what I said. Breitbart made his business wrecking lives. The United States does not function any more due to the collective agitating of Assholes like him. The American dream is moving east to its final destination in sweatshops in China. That is the wet dream of Assholes like Breitbart who cheer on this destruction of the USA in order to profit corporations. He's called protestors trying to fight all of this "rapists." He tells lies about people. He purposely distorts the news. His actions combined with the actions of like minded assholes like him ARE KILLING US ALL. I don't shed one tear of sympathy that BIG ASSHOLE is gone. He didn't show any ounce of concern for all of the people he was hurting, lives he was wrecking, why then should anyone give a fuck that this piece of shit is no longer around to wreck lives? There are some people who by a change of heart and actions become deserving of forgiveness. I don't see evidence Breitbart deserves anyone's sympathy or forgiveness.
