Thursday, January 14, 2021

Who thinks Trevor Noah's funny?

First off, here's Jimmy Dore.



AOC is a fake.  Queen of the fraud squad.  And she's revealed herself to be a fraud.


New topic.

 Is there a point to Trevor Noah?  He was never that funny so I have no idea how he got hired.  Now he might be funny in his home country and it might be a geographical or cultural thing/barrier.  


But COVID has revealed him to be a lousy comic in the US.  All he does is what 7-year-old who just watched ACE VENTURA: PET DETECTIVE would do.  He gets loud and yells as he preens to the camera so convinced his mild and tired observations are funny.  Does anyone watch THE DAILY SHOW?  Maybe COMEDY CENTRAL should have just axed the show when Jon Stewart wanted to leave?


And he has no impact.  Jon would do a joke or interview and you'd be talking about it for days.  Trevor Noah doesn't have any impact -- one episode goes by after another and all that happens is your eyes glaze over.


They need a new host, someone who's actually funny and not the mincing, preening Trevor Noah.


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 Wednesday, January 13, 2020. Impeachment?


The Congress can do whatever it wants.  For example, if they wanted to, they could serve the American people and provide Medicare For All.  They can do what they want.  That said, some of the things that they want to do are things that they shouldn't do.


Case in point: Impeachment.  


The lack of reflection in the media is probably par for the course but still shocking.  


"This" -- a columnist huffs referring to what Keesha has termed "a home invasion" but pearl clutchers insist was a coup -- is what happens when you never hold Donald Trump accountable.


Huh?


What world are you living in?  When was Donald Trump given a pass?  Maybe during the 2016 campaign -- when Hillary Clinton's campaign worked with the media to ensure Donald got the GOP nomination because they thought he would be the easiest to beat in a general election.  Otherwise?


Everything he did resulted in push back and criticism.


Some was valid.  All was not valid.


And if you really want to understand what happened last week in DC, maybe shut your mouth that's been motoring through the last four years without thought.  Maybe the fact that you were so surprised by what took place goes to just how out of touch you are with what's actually been going on.


A little over 74 million people voted for Donald Trump in 2020.  A little over 81 million people vote for Joe Biden.  


If you're trying to heal the nation -- as opposed to grandstand -- impeachment really isn't the way to go.  


There are seven days until Joe Biden is sworn in as the next US president.


At what point does the media, especially the media, take a look at their own actions.  One 'scandal' after another.  I remember telling Big Fat six months after Donald was sworn in, "I'll worry about that if it goes a full week without some sort of whispered correction."  What was I talking about?  Clearly a 'scandal.'  Even I don't remember which one.  But day after day, it was a scandal that often resulted in a whispered retreat.  Because there was no story there.


All journalistic standards were dropped for the laast four years -- even the pretense of them.  If I could see it -- and I'm someone that's loathed Donald for decades -- plural -- you better believe his supporters could see it.


I've noted that attacks on Stevie Nicks in the seventies and eighties didn't hurt her.  They just bound her fans tighter to her.  


Apply the same standard to Donald Trump.  His supporters -- and there are millions of them (the majority are peaceful citizens) -- saw what went down.  Even now, the media lies about it.  'We've never held Donald accountable!' they wail while any honest person just shakes their head.


They were not reporting on the election in 2020, they were actively attempting to shape the vote.  If there was a story negative on Joe Biden?  It was killed, dismissed, attacked.  We saw it with the Hunter Biden scandals -- he's under a criminal investigation and that was pertinent -- and we saw it with Tara Reade's credible accusations.  We saw it over and over.  We saw his campaign -- treated with kid gloves -- attack the media repeatedly and the media back down.


If you want to get honest about the rage some people exhibited last week in DC, then get honest.


If you want to make things better?  You don't make them worse by trying to impeach him seven days before he's out of office.  It might feel good for those who love to grandstand and soap box but it's not good for the country, it's not good for the Constitution and it's not good for healing the nation.


Did he do something to warrant impeachment?  Last week, I noted I was still open to a sound argument on that.  None has been provided.  His words did not incite violence.  This is like when idiots claim that  a video game or a rap song incited violence.  No.


His words were standard political speech -- and as political speech, they are Constitutionally protected.


There is no sound reason to impeach him.  Sorry, Nancy Pelosi, vengeance isn't a sound reason.


So for four years there were no standard at all and now we're going to toss them aside even more to impeach him?  74 million people voted for him.  That's very close to half the American people who voted.  And you're going to impeach him when there is no impeachable offense?  What message do you think that sends to the country?  What message does that send to those who voted for him.


Try this one on for size: You think DC is what Trump supporters do?  So you're going to egg the peaceful ones with impeachment to try to inspire more violence?  Is that your plan?


Are there no grown ups in the room?


Nancy Pelosi's personal vendetta with Donald Trump has been a four year embarrassment.  It's time someone put her in check.  Donald gets impeached for political speech?  Oh, great that means from this day forward the opposition party in Congress will be attempting to impeach the sitting president for political speech.


I get that journalists are stupid -- they're basically general studies majors -- people too 'spacey' to pick a major to begin with.  So they don't know much of anything to begin with. 



But if you think a mob descended on DC last week and you think that was something you never want to see again, a baseless impeachment isn't going to get you there.


A baseless impeachment will sew more anger and frustration and, yes, probably, violence.  


We're taking this issue very seriously.  Gina and Krista did a surprise round-robin last night.  It wasn't planned.  It was around nine o'clock when I got informed.  They're doing it -- the gina & krista round-robin -- every day until Biden's sworn in.  Because they think this issue is that serious.  (That's why you've got no community posts today -- it was a surprise to all of us, it ended at 2:00 am my time and I think we all went to bed.)


This isn't a game, this is the status of the country.  


There are no grounds for impeachment.  Again, I've said it before, I'm sure impeachment would pass in the House.  But the trial takes place in the Senate.  And while you may think it's a sure thing, it's not.  I've already heard from two Democratic senators who loathe Donald and yet are bothered by the implications.  


Once Donald is in the rear view mirror, you're going to see Democratic support in the Senate crumble a lot more.  


To his supporters, that won't matter. 


To them, this will be further proof that there was a standard for Donald and a standard for others.


Impeaching someone as they're on the way out the door?


It's nonsense.


If they had strong grounds for it -- which I've waited for -- it would be one thing.  But there are no strong grounds.  Political speech is Constitutionally protected speech.


The push for impeachment is a joke and Nancy's only determined to make it more so.  Jonathan Turley notes:


Speaker Nancy Pelosi shocked many in Washington by appointing Eric Swalwell as a house managers in the impeachment of President Donald Trump as he continues to face calls for his removal from the House Intelligence Committee due to his alleged intimate relationship with a Chinese spy.  Swalwell has been bunkered down to avoid questions from the media and the public, but he will now be one of those prosecuting the case against the President.

He allegedly first met the spy, Fang Fang or Christine Fang, in 2011. She not only raised money for Swalwell but reportedly had a personal relationship with him. She also pushed successfully for his office to accept an intern. He cut ties with her in 2015 after the FBI contacted him. Pelosi made no mention of the scandal in heralding Swalwell’s credentials:

“Congressman Swalwell serves on House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where he chairs the Intelligence Modernization and Readiness Subcommittee, and on the Judiciary Committee,” Pelosi’s office said in a statement. “He is a former prosecutor and is the son and brother of law enforcement officers.  He is serving his fifth term in Congress.”

Usually a speaker selects House managers to reinforce the credibility and integrity of the case against a president. Even before the current scandal, Swalwell was viewed as a member who was a raw partisan. Last year, it was revealed that (despite long denials) the FBI did send an agent to report on his observations within the Trump campaign. As I discussed in a column, Democratic members spent years mocking allegations that there was any spying or surveillance of Trump or his campaign by the FBI. That was just a conspiracy theory. Now however there is proof that the FBI used a briefing in August 2016 of then candidate Trump to gather information for “Crossfire Hurricane,” the Russia investigation. It turns out that it did not really matter after all and Rep. Eric Swalwell did not miss a step. Swalwell declared that such targeting of the opposing party and its leading presidential candidate was “the right thing to do.” That’s it. A conspiracy theory suddenly becomes a commendable act.


What is the point of the proposed impeachment?


To remove Donald from office?  He's gone on the 20th.   And the House impeaching does not mean that the Senate removes.  A trial takes place and Senators aren't as . . . frothy and mad as House members.  The Senate's always prided itself on being more detached and dignified (Nancy would never last a single term in the Senate).  


So there's no solid reason for impeachment, it's not necessary to get Donald out of the White House (November's vote did that) but it's going to be pushed through for what reason?  


It's going to divide the nation and keep the country looking backward.  It's going to harden divisions.  And it's going to have a political cost in the next round of elections.


None of that would matter if the reasoning was solid.  But there is no solid reasoning here.


And people are already pointing out that Nancy didn't just refuse to impeach Bully Boy Bush, she publicly attacked and shamed then-US House Rep John Conyers for attempting impeachment.  Bully Boy Bush started an illegal war that left millions dead -- Iraqis, the British, Americans, etc.  An illegal war started with lies.  And that wasn't impeachable but political speech is?


Or is Nancy's point here #CONGRESSOFFICESMATTER!!


For a brief moment, members of Congress had to live in the same world that American school children do every school day and it was just too much for Nancy & company to handle.  Now, please note, it's okay that this is normal for American children but for our prissy members of Congress?  Oh, no, no.


Nancy has been a disaster in Congress and she now appears bound and determined to make sure that no one ever says she ever put the needs of the country first.





Karwan Faidhi Dri (RUDAW) reports:                                                                             

Iraq’s population has surpassed 40 million, the country’s planning ministry said on Tuesday – with 40 percent of the population under the age of 15.

"Iraq's population reached 40,150,000 people in 2020", the ministry said in a statement released on Tuesday.

Children aged 0-14 make up 40.4 percent of Iraq’s population, the ministry said. People aged 15-64 and make up 56.5 percent of the population.

Just three percent of Iraqis are over the age of 65, the ministry said.

The ministry’s figures are based on its “central statistical system, as per international standards”, according to its statement.


XINHAU adds, "The Ministry of Planning announced last year that the population of Iraq exceeded 39 million by the end of 2019, while the number of population in 2018 exceeded 38 million."  No one points out that a census has not taken place.  Iraq has not had a census for decades.  So this population figure it just an estimate -- one that lags behind the CIA's own estimate.


Elections are due to take place in Iraq in June.  ARAB REFORM notes:


On 24 December 2019, the Iraqi parliament approved a new electoral law. However, it took over 11 months for President Barham Salih to ratify it as parliament fought over an annex to the law defining Iraq’s electoral districts.

The law, which the president finally ratified with reservation (hyperlink in Arabic) in early November 2020, is a complete departure from those passed since 2003 and which were used to organize four parliamentary elections between 2005 and 2018. Instead of adopting one electoral district as in the 2005 elections – the first after the 2003 Iraq invasion – or designating each of Iraq’s 18 governorates as a single district like in the three subsequent elections, this new law divides Iraq into 83 electoral districts. These districts are based on the number of quota seats set aside for women in parliament, as the Constitution requires that 25% of the parliament’s 329 seats be designated for women.

The law emerged following pressure from demonstrations, the largest in Iraq’s recent history, demanding comprehensive political and economic reforms. Foremost among their central demands was the adoption of a just electoral law that would reduce the monopoly of parties in the parliament and allow for the entrance of independents and small and newly established parties. The Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who holds significant religious power in the country, supported the demonstrations and its demands, thereby helping accelerate the law’s adoption. However, the new electoral law will maintain the influence of several well-established political forces and ensure their victory in upcoming elections.



Moving over to violence, Turkey continues to bomb northern Iraq.  They continue to claim they are killing 'terrorists' but local reports note that they are wounding and killing farmers and villagers.  This has been going on for years now.  Yasmine Mosimann (RUDAW) notes:

Turkey’s sustained aerial pursuit of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Iraq is posing an existential threat to the country’s already dwindling Assyrian community, according to a new report.

Published on Monday by the Assyrian Policy Institute (API), the report, titled ‘Caught in the Crossfire’, examines how decades of cross-border conflict between Turkey and armed Kurdish group the PKK has impacted Assyrians, an ethnic minority group in Iraq.

“The airborne attacks often occur in close proximity to areas mainly inhabited by Assyrian, Yazidi, and/or Kurdish civilians, posing significant risks including: endangerment of civilian life, displacement, traumatization, destruction of property and agricultural lands, and threats to livelihoods,” reads the API report.

While the unrest indiscriminately affects civilians living in the Kurdistan Region’s border regions, ethnic minority groups including Assyrians are especially vulnerable to the violence because of their unique experiences of systematic discrimination and violence both past and present, states the report, which is based on interviews with impacted families.


Covering the same study, Wladimir van Wilgenburg (KURDISTAN 24) notes:


The report stated that Turkey’s ongoing feud with the PKK in northern Iraq has made life “unsustainable” for civilian populations in targeted areas.

“When pursuing the PKK in Iraq, Turkey has consistently failed to take adequate precautions to minimize incidental and/or collateral damage to civilians and civilian objects,” it added. “By operating from or near civilian areas, the PKK endangers civilian populations, including Kurds, Yezidis, and Assyrians.”



Some sites just posted -- Rebecca had an idea for a theme:





Posted by at

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

80s song

 

 

For me, Corey Hart's "Sunglasses At Night" was always a cool song and a fun song.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 Tuesday, January 12, 2020.   Pope Francis' trip to Iraq may be postponed or called off, James Zogby uses THE NATION website to deny self-determination for countries that are not the United States, and the issue of impeachment continues to be floated despite no sound argument having been made all these days later.



REUTERS reports, "Pope Francis said he is not sure if his trip to Iraq in March can take place because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  He cast doubt on the trip, which would be the first by a pope to the country, in an interview with Italy's Canale 5 broadcast on Sunday night."  This follows news of the Pope's doctor passing.  UK EXPRESS notes,  "Fabrizio Soccorsi had served as the personal doctor to the Pope since 2015, according to local news outlet L'Osservatore Romano, which announced the news. Mr Soccorsi, who died aged 78, is said to have been hospitalised in Rome on December 26 for other reasons." Yasmine Mosimann (RUDAW) adds, "Iraq, a land revered by Christians for its featuring in the Bible, has only a few hundred thousand of those in the faith left in the country.  According to William Warda, co-founder of the Hammurabi Human Rights Organisation, Christians left in Iraq number up to 400,000, down from 1.5 million in 2003, reports AFP."  The CDC advises against travel to Iraq:


Key Information for Travelers to Iraq


  • Travelers should avoid all travel to Iraq.
  • Travel may increase your chance of getting and spreading COVID-19.
  • If you must travel:
    • Before you travel, get tested with a viral test 1–3 days before your trip. Do not travel if you are waiting for test results, test positive, or are sick. Follow all entry requirements for your destination and provide any required or requested health information. 
    • During travel, wear a mask, stay at least 6 feet from people who are not traveling with you, wash your hands often or use hand sanitizer, and watch your health for signs of illness.
    • Before traveling back to the United States, get tested with a viral test 1–3 days before travel. Follow all destination and airline recommendations or requirements.
    • After you travel, get tested 3–5 days after travel AND stay home for 7 days after travel.
      • If you don't get tested, it's safest to stay home for 10 days.
      • If you had a known exposure to COVID-19 while traveling, delay travel, quarantine from other people, get tested, and monitor your health.

                                                                       


Staying on the topic of COVID, Hiwa Shilani (KURDISTAN 24) reports, "The Iraqi Ministry of Health and Environment issued a statement late on Monday, denying that there were any cases of the new, more contagious strains of the coronavirus in the country, such as have been found in Britain and South Africa.  Earlier on Monday, the political analyst, Ibrahim Al-Sumaidaie, had announced on his Twitter account that he had been infected with the mutated coronavirus -- which, if so, would mark the first such case of the coronavirus infection to be recorded in Iraq."  Regardless of whether the new strain -- or a new variant -- has emerged in Iraq, the country has been hit heavily with COVID.  Through yesterday, there are 604,549 cases.  [The World Health Organization states it's 603,739 as of yesterday.] Back in September, the figure was approximately 320,000.


Last week, OCHC published the following findings after surveying COVID's impact in Iraq from March through October:

:

  • COVID-19 impacts have disrupted both consumers and retailers in Iraq.

  • The price increases across a variety of essential items suggest that households experienced reduced purchasing power with the resources they did have and, while also occasionally facing shortages of key commodities.

  • On average, prices of common basket goods have increased 13% as compared with pre-COVID baseline prices in January 2020; the greatest price spikes were recorded between March and May.

  • There is variation in impacts across governorates; Kirkuk and Salah al Din experienced the largest increases in price of the common basket of goods and increased prices persist today.

  • The two data collection initiatives monitoring price and market changes over the past seven months has demonstrated the severe impact the crisis has had for socio-economically vulnerable households, with over 50% consistently reporting inability to meet basic needs.

  • While the proportion of households reporting that they were unable to work due to COVID-19 had consistently been over 80%, this seems to have experienced a large drop in September - a forthcoming Labor Market Assessment conducted by the CCI in partnership with the ILO and Fafo should shed further light on this shift.


One tiny bright spot?  AP notes, "A growing number of Iraqi women are using pandemic restrictions to establish home-based businesses. It's a way to bypass discrimination and harassment that often come with working in Iraq's male-dominated, conservative society -- and bring in extra income as the economy worsens. "


New topic.  File it under "Look How They F**k With It."  In November 2008, Barack Obama was elected president -- and he was elected on the promise of ending the Iraq War.  When meeting with his advisors and incoming team, Ava and I repeatedly advocated for two things.  First, a woman to be made Ambassador to Iraq.  There are many qualified women who could have held the job and, equally true, the US government needed to put a woman in that position having destroyed the rights of women in Iraq under Bully Boy Bush.  Barack would serve two terms as president.  Over eight years, he would nominate six people -- all would be men.  (Along with the five confirmed, he also nominated Brett McGurk who withdrew his nomination when Senate Democrats made it clear that there was not support for him in that role.)  The second thing we asked for was that the promise on Iraq be kept: Withdraw US troops.  We noted the temptation would be to play with it, to pull at the strings, to think "Well we're smarter than the Bush people" and think this could be 'fixed' or 'smoothed over.'  It couldn't be.  Keep the promise, get them all out quickly and state that the decision for this was made by the American people in the 2008 election.


They didn't do that either.  They f**ked with it.  They blew off the deadlines Barack had campaigned on and just knew that they were smart enough to make things better.  They f**ked with and they ended up owning it.  Withdrawing most US troops after three years in office was not the promise Barack campaigned on.  What he shouted at rally after rally in early 2008, in fact, was "We want to end the Iraq War and we want to end it now!"


It was still going on when he left, US troops were still on the ground.  They're still there today.


And enter James Zogby with what passes for a think-piece at THE NATION.  Who in their right mind okayed this and really shouldn't James either stay out of politics or stop being over Zogby Research Services?  It's not as though he even pretends to be impartial.  It's one thing to put your trust in, for example, PEW's polling, quite another to put your trust in the results from activist James Zogby's company.


This morning, THE NATION published James' nonsense entitled "Biden Should Think Big in the Middle East: We must address the interconnected conflicts there as the equivalent of a regional/world war. That requires an international conference under UN auspices" which is 1038 words of . . . something.  With all those words -- or despite them -- Zogby never calls for US troops to leave Iraq.


The reason?  He wants more foreign troops in the region, "something akin to a Middle East version of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe"


Iraq?  It's not even an "actor" in the region per James.  He lists "actors" ("Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt") and he lists "hot spots" ("Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, the resource race in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the flow of goods through the Persian Gulf and Red Sea").


Iraq's not even an actor in its own region?  How dismissive of Zogby, how patronizing of him.  Did you notice, also, that the US, despite having troops on the ground in Iraq, does not rate as an "actor"?  Apparently, it's a benevolent organization?  


Iraq is not even allowed to be an actor in its own actions.  He robs them of agency, he robs them of independence.  His patronizing and, yes, xenophobic attitude is both crass and insulting and let's stop pretending he believes in peace.  He's not a peace activist and -- unless a Republican is in the White House -- he's not concerned when US troops occupy other countries.  


James Zogby is a joke and a huge disappointment -- as is THE NATION which elected to post this garbage this morning.  ''Joe's about to be sworn in! Let's give marching orders!''  They're such pretend players, aren't they?  If only this was a fantasy basketball team and not the real world, James Zoby's insulting views could be overlooked.  Instead, he's using THE NATION magazine to argue that self-determination is not allowed and that instead so-called First World Nations should impose their beliefs and goals on the Middle East.  It's insulting and it's outrageous.  And, yes, I know American James Zogby is an Arab -- an Americanized Arab -- that doesn't make it any less insulting or any less xenophobic.  He's adopted the goals of empire.



He's going to fix Iraq and the Middle East because, goodness knows, his home country has done such a great job in recent weeks/years, right?  Oh, wait, it hasn't.


We are eight days away from Joe Biden being inaugurated as the next President of the United States.  Eight days.  Yet Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is still pushing for the impeachment of Donald Trump.  She still hasn't found an argument that makes that case.  Friday's "Iraq snapshot" contains a section entitled "Impeachment?"  I stated then that there was no argument being made that justified impeachment.  I'm still waiting for that argument.  I don't doubt, as I said on Friday, that the House can vote to impeach.  I'm sure it will go through the House.  I do doubt what follows.  The articles of impeachment then go to the Senate -- unless Nancy tries to sit on them again.  Then there's a trial.  Why put the country through a trial, pulling focus from the incoming administration, without solid charges?  They still don't have any.  Nancy's got nothing.  Four days later and she's still lacking a coherent argument that justifies an impeachment trial.  


She's wasted four days.  Now she's indicating that should a House vote take place, she might not turn the articles over immediately.  What's the point then?


This is beyond nonsense.  Donald Trump's words did not incite a mob.  You have to do a selective reading of his words to make that case.  This is beyond nonsense.  It's an attack on free speech and it's an attack on the office of the president.  Donald Trump will be gone in eight days.  The damage Nancy is prepared to do will outlive us all.  It's not worth it.  


I was willing to be open to an argument -- read what I wrote Friday -- that made the case for impeachment.  They still haven't put forward an argument.  They haven't even expanded on their initial, thin justification.  


Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley notes:


There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent; the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters present were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests we have witnessed over the last four years, including Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol police knew of the planned march but declined an offer of National Guard personnel because they did not view violence as likely.

Thus, Congress is about to seek the impeachment of a president for a speech that is protected under the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president who can be blamed for the violent acts of others after the use of reckless or inflammatory language.

What is even more unnerving are the few cases that would support this type of action. The most obvious is the 1918 prosecution of socialist Eugene Debs, who spoke passionately against the draft in World War I and led figures like President Wilson to declare him a “traitor to his country.” Debs was arrested and charged with sedition, the new favorite term of today’s Democratic leaders to denounce Trump and Republican members who challenged the Biden victory.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous bench in one of the most infamous decisions to issue from the Supreme Court. The court dismissed Debs’ free speech rights and held that it was sufficient that his words had the “natural tendency and reasonably probable effect” of deterring people from supporting the war.

That decision was a disgrace — but Democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric deemed to have the “natural tendency” to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully would not be a defense. It would be as if Debs first denounced the war but also encouraged people to enlist. This standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment — attributing conduct of third parties to a president for the purposes of removal.



Caitlin Johnstone observes:


“Our democracy has been attacked!” screamed the political establishment that just forced you to choose between Donald Trump and Democrat Donald Trump for president.

❖

Saying there’s been an attack on American democracy is like saying there’s been an attack on Kazakhstan’s fjords.

❖

Liberals learned the words “coup” and “insurrection” like five seconds ago and now they are academic experts on both of these things.

❖

The narrative managers’ ability to move liberals and progressives from “Defund the police” to “MOAR POLICING” in just a few months was even more impressive than their ability to move them from “Believe Women” and #MeToo to “Tara Reade is a lying grifter”.

❖

Here’s how politicians, media and government could eliminate conspiracy theories if they really want to:

  • Stop lying all the time
  • Stop killing people
  • Stop promoting conspiracy theories (eg Russiagate)
  • Stop doing evil things in secret
  • End government opacity
  • Stop conspiring

❖

To support the censorship of online speech is to support the authority of monopolistic tech oligarchs to exert more and more global control over human communication. Regardless of your attitude toward whoever happens to be getting deplatformed today, supporting this is self-destructive.


Glenn Greenwald points out:


There are other, more important historical lessons to draw not only from the 9/11 attack but subsequent terrorism on U.S. soil. One is the importance of resisting the coercive framework that demands everyone choose one of two extremes: that the incident is either (a) insignificant or even justifiable, or (b) is an earth-shattering, radically transformative event that demands radical, transformative state responses. 

This reductive, binary framework is anti-intellectual and dangerous. One can condemn a particular act while resisting the attempt to inflate the dangers it poses. One can acknowledge the very real existence of a threat while also warning of the harms, often far greater, from proposed solutions. One can reject maximalist, inflammatory rhetoric about an attack (a War of Civilizations, an attempted coup, an insurrection, sedition) without being fairly accused of indifference toward or sympathy for the attackers.

Indeed, the primary focus of the first decade of my journalism was the U.S. War on Terror — in particular, the relentless erosions of civil liberties and the endless militarization of American society in the name of waging it. To make the case that those trends should be opposed, I frequently argued that the threat posed by Islamic radicalism to U.S. citizens was being deliberately exaggerated, inflated and melodramatized. 

I argued that not because I believed the threat was nonexistent or trivial: I lived in New York City on 9/11 and remember to this day the excruciating horror from the smell and smoke emanating throughout Lower Manhattan and the haunting “missing” posters appended by desperate families, unwilling to accept the obvious reality of their loved ones’ deaths, to every lamp post on every street corner. I shared the same disgust and sadness as most other Americans from the Pulse massacre, the subway bombings in London and Madrid, the workplace mass shooting in San Bernardino.

My insistence that we look at the other side of the ledger — the costs and dangers not only from such attacks but also the “solutions” implemented in the name of stopping them — did not come from indifference towards those deaths or a naive views of those responsible for them. It was instead driven by my simultaneous recognition of the dangers from rights-eroding, authoritarian reactions imposed by the state, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. One need not engage in denialism or minimization of a threat to rationally resist fear-driven fanaticism — as Barbara Lee so eloquently insisted on September 14, 2001. 

Human memories are usually short and the dominance of social media has abridged them even further. Many have forgotten that the Clinton administration seized on the 1995 courthouse bombing in Oklahoma City to radically expand law enforcement powers and escalate its demands for full-scale backdoor access to all encrypted internet communications. The fear necessary to justify such draconian measures was fueled by incessant media hyping of weekend citizen militias in places like Idaho and Montana said to be plotting armed insurrection against the federal government. 

One of the first major War on Terror attacks on core Constitutional rights which I wrote about was Newt Gingrich’s 2006 speech suggesting that the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee to fight terrorism should be “modified”. 


As Jonathan Turley notes, the tech giants are now attempting to censor former US House Rep Ron Paul.  This is from Paul's latest via ANTIWAR.COM:

Many Americans viewed this assault on social media accounts as a liberal or Democrat attack on conservatives and Republicans, but they are missing the point. The narrowing of allowable opinion in the virtual public square is no conspiracy against conservatives. As progressives like Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, this is a wider assault on any opinion that veers from the acceptable parameters of the mainstream elite, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, this is partly an attempt to erase the Trump movement from the pages of history, but it is also an attempt to silence any criticism of the emerging political consensus in the coming Biden era that may come from progressive or antiwar circles.

After all, a look at Biden’s incoming “experts” shows that they will be the same failed neoconservative interventionists who gave us weekly kill lists, endless drone attacks and coups overseas, and even US government killing of American citizens abroad. Progressives who complain about this “back to the future” foreign policy are also sure to find their voices silenced.

Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independent of US government interests are ignoring reality. The corporatist merger of “private” US social media companies with US government foreign policy goals has a long history and is deeply steeped in the hyper-interventionism of the Obama/Biden era.

“Big Tech” long ago partnered with the Obama/Biden/Clinton State Department to lend their tools to US “soft power” goals overseas. Whether it was ongoing regime change attempts against Iran, the 2009 coup in Honduras, the disastrous US-led coup in Ukraine, “Arab Spring,” the destruction of Syria and Libya, and so many more, the big US tech firms were happy to partner up with the State Department and US intelligence to provide the tools to empower those the US wanted to seize power and to silence those out of favor.

In short, US government elites have been partnering with “Big Tech” overseas for years to decide who has the right to speak and who must be silenced. What has changed now is that this deployment of “soft power” in the service of Washington’s hard power has come home to roost.


Catherine Shakdam (INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE) writes:


I will quote here another US President, President Harry S. Truman, who, in a speech before Congress, warned:

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

He was of course referring to calls by state agencies to ‘monitor’ and ‘contain’ certain dissident voices to preserve the integrity of the State, but the essence of his speech applies here perfectly still – only now it seems the power to silence, monitor, and repress lies now in the hands of corporations as opposed to state agencies. I find the idea slightly more unnerving …

Whatever anyone may think of Trump: hate him, loathe him, mock him, adore him, support him, idolise him, he ought not to be shut out so that others’ voices could rise above to better dominate the landscape. This is not how healthy democracies function, this is now how you defend a nation’s democratic future, and it is certainly not an example you want to set out to the world and still argue that America is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Back in 2018, University of Detroit Mercy law professor Kyle Langvardt wrote a pertinent commentary in the Georgetown Law Journal on the matter. She said, “It seems obvious to me that this is an unacceptable way for a liberal society to do business … What concerns me is that we entrust a few unaccountable and self-interested tech companies to govern online discourse.”

Twitter most definitely overstepped its bounds, thus setting a precedent few have even bothered to challenge for they are only too glad the target was Trump. I often marvel at people’s ability to rationalise their lack of intellectual consistency … call it cognitive dissonance if you will. To hold to the principles of free speech is to agree to bear the poison of opposite views and opinions.



For many days now, THE CONVO COUCH has attempted to grapple and discuss the issues at play.  Here's their most recent video.




Here's Jackson Hinkle.




Here's Jimmy Dore. 





The following sites updated:






Posted by at

Tuesday, January 12, 2021

From bad to worse

First, let's note this from Jimmy Dore.


 

 Twitter banning Donald Trump is shameful and anti-free speech.  This is appalling.  No surprise, do-nothing Barbara Lee -- leader of the fake asses -- is in favor of it.  Remember in 2009, when Babsie got pressured about the wars and she insisted Barack had to be given time but, damn it, if the Afghanistan War was still going on in 2010, she was going to make it an issue in Congress.  She made those comments yearly.  And she never did anything.  Fake ass.


And for more bad news, go read my mom's "Things just get worse ."  This is from Ron Paul (ANTIWAR.COM):


Last week’s massive social media purges – starting with President Trump’s permanent ban from Twitter and other outlets – was shocking and chilling, particularly to those of us who value free expression and the free exchange of ideas. The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense and the process was anything but transparent. Nowhere in President Trump’s two “offending” Tweets, for example, was a call for violence expressed explicitly or implicitly. It was a classic example of sentence first, verdict later.

Many Americans viewed this assault on social media accounts as a liberal or Democrat attack on conservatives and Republicans, but they are missing the point. The narrowing of allowable opinion in the virtual public square is no conspiracy against conservatives. As progressives like Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, this is a wider assault on any opinion that veers from the acceptable parameters of the mainstream elite, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, this is partly an attempt to erase the Trump movement from the pages of history, but it is also an attempt to silence any criticism of the emerging political consensus in the coming Biden era that may come from progressive or antiwar circles.

After all, a look at Biden’s incoming “experts” shows that they will be the same failed neoconservative interventionists who gave us weekly kill lists, endless drone attacks and coups overseas, and even US government killing of American citizens abroad. Progressives who complain about this “back to the future” foreign policy are also sure to find their voices silenced.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 Monday, January 11, 2021.  Protesters shot and killed, attorneys shot, journalists threatened and more.



ASHARQ AL-AWSAT reports, "Despite overwhelming reports of activists being targeted and security forces using brute force to suppress demonstrations, anti-government protestors continued to rally across Iraq’s southern Dhi Qar province, especially in its capital, Nasiriyah."  It's an oil rich province with oil fields in Nasiriyah and Subba -- both operated by Dhi Qar Oil Company.  September 22nd, protesters were able to shut the company down. Currently, the temperature is 41 F with it expected to rise to 71 tomorrow during the day.  Dhi Qar is a province with approximately two million people, the bulk of whom are Shi'ites.  The marshlands are the home of the Ma'dan and other minorities in the province include Sunnis, Chaldeans, Assyrians and Mandeans.  MIDDLE EAST EYE noted last year, as protests continued there, that the province "is the cradle of ancient Sumerian civilization.  It is also thought to be the birthplace of Abraham, patriarch of Judaism, Islam and Christianity."  It is a province of poverty -- the poorest province in Iraq -- with food insecurity and a lack of jobs among the historical trends there since the 2003 US-led invasion. Dhi Qar has 233 mountains with the highest point being Dulayat Dhulah.  It also has shootings, lots and lots of shootings.  Today, one attorney was injured when he was shot and, two days ago, an attorney who headed a lawyers union was shot dead.


 Sura Ali (RUDAW) reported Saturday:


Two protesters in Iraq’s southern city of Nasiriyah were injured in clashes with police forces who fired tear gas and bullets at crowds, activists in the city told Rudaw on Friday.

The police crackdown in Habboubi Square, often the center of protests in the city, comes the day after a large-scale arrest campaign against activists on Thursday, the two activists told Rudaw. Among those subjected to Thursday’s crackdown was activist Ihsan al-Hilali, who was run over by a police car and arrested, both activists said.

"The demonstrators wanted to enter Habboubi Square in Nasiriyah and protest peacefully on Friday afternoon, but the security forces prevented them, which led to clashes,” said Wali Jabar, an activist in Nasiriyah.

"Security forces confronted the protests with tear gas canisters and fire," Jabar said.



ROJNAME KURDISH NEWS Tweeted:


Two protesters injured in clashes with police in Nasiriyah: activists


And Amsiiraq Tweeted:


Dhi Qar: More than (41) demonstrators were injured in the city of Nasiriyah as a result of yesterday's crackdown by government forces, in addition to dozens of arrests that are still going on.
Image


2:48 PM · Jan 9, 2021


The government responded how?  By arresting a journalist -- remember, the real 'crime' in Iraq is always reporting.  Hiwa Shilani (KURDISTAN 24) explained:


A media rights organization in Iraq announced late Friday evening that a reporter and a cameraman for the Zagros media outlet had been arrested in the southern city of Nasiriya while covering protests against the previous detention of a local activist.

The Press Freedom Advocacy Association in Iraq (PFAAI) quoted Falah al-Fadhli, news director of the Erbil-based television channel, as saying that correspondent Ali Saleh and his cameraman were arrested while covering protests that began in downtown Nasiriya's al-Habboubi Square which was followed by clampdowns by security forces.


Zaid Salem (AL ARABY) reports that security officials have been threatening journalists over their coverage of the protests with three citing threats and one explaining a digital militia in Baghdad follows the webpages of activists and journalists and what they say about the protests.


On Sunday, per AL HURRA, the riot police and militias are said to have fired on protesters in Nasiriyah and the Iraqi military is said to have started firing at the riot police and the militias to protect the protesters.  Zeiden Alkinani Tweeted:

Sources claim Iraqi army stood up against the anti-riot police, to protect Nasriyah protesters from the recent violent crackdown. Alarming development reflecting anti-riot’s politicized-influence. If repeated, it could motivate a national revival.



Mina Aldroubi (THE NATIONAL) reports:


One of them was Haider Ali, an activist and nurse, who was abducted three days ago.

“Last night Haider’s body was found and was dismembered, we are still waiting for the final results of the security institutions,” Mr Al Bayati said.

The second man, Ali Al Hamami, a senior lawyer and activist was killed in Nasiriyah on Friday after unknown assailants broke into his home.

“Ali died of suffocation after being gagged with tape and his house was robbed,” a statement by Dhi Qar Bar Association said.

The Human Rights Commission said the government must deal directly with representatives of Nasiryah’s community to ensure that protests' needs are answered.

“The government must acknowledge community leaders such as religious, tribal, social and civil actors to get political agendas,” Mr Al Bayati said.


ALJAZEERA offers this section of Murtada Faraj's AP report to provide context on Nasiyah:


A sprawl of tents in Haboubi Square had remained in place until November 2020, when eight people were killed in clashes between anti-government protesters and followers of the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr.

Anti-government protesters reoccupied the square on Friday, demanding the release of peers who have been arrested in recent weeks.

More than 500 protesters were killed in the crackdown on mass protests that began in October 2019, when thousands rallied against corruption, unemployment, poor public services and other grievances.



Sura Ali (RUDAW) adds:

Protesters in the square were attacked by Sadr supporters in late November, leaving at least seven people dead and scores wounded. Protesters returned to resume demonstrations and rebuild their tents a week later. 

[. . .]

Mohammed Salih al-Iraqi, a Twitter persona close to Sadr and suspected by some to be Sadr himself, took shots at the protest movement on Sunday for demanding the release of protesters.

"The Sadrists have never pushed the government to release their detained brothers, because they believe in law, unlike the "mob" Nasiriyah protesters who provoked riots after arresting one of them," he tweeted.  



Protests are taking place elsewhere in Iraq as well, such as Babil Province:

#Iraq’s southern city of #Babil, protesters movedback in2 #Hillah streets and vowed 2 continue protesting. In light of the recent crackdown on demonstrators, protest took a decision 2 demonstrate, and the widespread campaign of arrests and repression 'won’t discourage protesters'
1:00 PM · Jan 9, 2021



Protests began in 2019 -- generally said to be October 1, 2019 but actually September 30, 2019 -- across Iraq.  These protests would eventually topple the prime minister -- Adil Abdul al-Mahdi.  May 7th, Mustafa al-Kadhimi became prime minister.  The protests took place in Nasiryah with a particularly violent day being November 28, 2019 which saw at least 27 protesters killed and another 152 left wounded.  The very next day, the Supreme Judicial Council of Iraq formed a body to investigate the muders.  As with all such 'investigations,' nothing came of it.


Iraq is a land rich in oil but a country where justice is in short supply.  Aditi Sahu (MIDDLE EAST HEADLINES) reports:


When Mustafa al-Kadhimi became Prime Minister of Iraq in May 2020, he promised a new country. In particular, he promised to bring an end to Iraq’s dismal legacy of enforced disappearances, many of which are carried out by Iraqi security forces and Iran-backed armed groups. However, despite his promises to hold those implementing enforced disappearances accountable and deliver justice, there has been little change in the country. Today, Iraq has one of the highest numbers of missing persons in the world, and this continued practice is taking a toll on the nation and its people. As anti-government protests sweep across Iraq, al-Kadhimi must keep his word and act to end enforced disappearances or risk losing public support.

Enforced disappearance is when an individual is covertly abducted or imprisoned with the support of the state or a political entity. After the individual is captive, the perpetrators refuse to acknowledge they have carried out an abduction or disclose the captive’s location, intending to place them outside the protection of the law. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, enforced disappearances are considered a crime against humanity in international criminal law.

Enforced disappearances are a common tactic for silencing dissidents, activists, and political opponents in authoritarian countries. The practice is used to strategically spread fear within communities and often result in the torture and sometimes the deaths of captives. Although enforced disappearances are common in countries ranging from Syria to Sri Lanka, they are particularly present in Iraqi society. According to the International Commission on Missing Persons, approximately 250,000 to one million individuals are missing due to enforced disappearances. Because of this alarming statistic, al-Kadhimi’s promise to end enforced disappearances resonated strongly among the Iraqi people. The Prime Minister also promised to introduce a new mechanism for locating victims of enforced disappearances, sparking hope among the country’s citizens that they would be reunited with their loved ones. Al-Kadhimi’s statement was also impactful because it was one of the first public proclamations by a Middle Eastern leader to end the practice, suggesting this could signal a potential turning point in a region that has a longstanding history of relying on the tactic. Despite these hopes, many months passed, and al-Kadhimi has done little to follow up on his promise.


In other protest news, the US Treasury Dept issued the following on Friday:

Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated Iraqi Popular Mobilization Committee (PMC) Chairman and former National Security Advisor Falih al-Fayyadh for his connection to serious human rights abuse. During protests beginning in October 2019, Iran-aligned elements of the PMC attacked Iraqi civilians demonstrating against corruption, unemployment, economic stagnation, poor public services, and Iranian interference in Iraq’s domestic affairs. Al-Fayyadh was part of a crisis cell comprised primarily of Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) militia leaders formed in late 2019 to suppress the Iraqi protests with the support of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). Today, Iran-aligned elements of the PMF continue to wage an assassination campaign against political activists in Iraq who are calling for free and fair elections, respect for human rights, and clean government.

“By directing and supervising the murder of peaceful Iraqi demonstrators, Iran-aligned militants and politicians such as Falih al-Fayyadh have been waging a violent campaign against Iraqi democracy and civil society,” said Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “The United States will continue to hold accountable human rights abusers in Iraq who aim to deny the Iraqi people in their efforts to peacefully protest, seek justice, and root out corruption in their country.”

This action is taken pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13818, which builds upon and implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and targets perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption.

FALIH AL-FAYYADH

Falih al-Fayyadh (al-Fayyadh) is the head of the PMC, a body created by Iraqi legislation to bring the PMF militias under central government control. Although the PMF was established to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), many PMF militias are increasingly focused on advancing their own economic interests and supporting Iran’s regional agenda in Iraq, rather than protecting the Iraqi state or its citizens. Al-Fayyadh was the head of the PMC when many of its subcomponents fired live ammunition at peaceful protesters in late 2019, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Iraqis. Al-Fayyadh was a member of the IRGC-QF-supported crisis cell with previously sanctioned militia leaders Qais al-Khazali and Hussein Falah al-Lami, as well as the now-deceased IRGC-QF commander Qasem Soleimani and PMC deputy leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Until July 2020, Al-Fayyadh was also the Iraqi Prime Minister’s National Security Advisor.

Al-Fayyadh is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13818 for being a foreign person who is or has been a leader or official of an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, serious human rights abuse.

The IRGC-QF, designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 on October 25, 2007, is a branch of the IRGC responsible for external operations and has provided material support to numerous terrorist groups, making it a key component of Iran’s destabilizing regional activities. The IRGC-QF’s parent organization, the IRGC, was designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 on October 13, 2017, and on April 15, 2019 was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the Secretary of State.

SANCTIONS IMPLICATIONS

As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the person above that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. In addition, any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. Unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC, or otherwise exempt, OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons. The prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

GLOBAL MAGNITSKY

Building upon the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, the President signed E.O. 13818 on December 20, 2017, in which the President found that the prevalence of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, had reached such scope and gravity that it threatens the stability of international political and economic systems. Human rights abuse and corruption undermine the values that form an essential foundation of stable, secure, and functioning societies; have devastating impacts on individuals; weaken democratic institutions; degrade the rule of law; perpetuate violent conflicts; facilitate the activities of dangerous persons; and undermine economic markets.

The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those who commit serious human rights abuse or engage in corruption, as well as to protect the financial system of the United States from abuse by these same persons.

View more information on the individual designated today.

####


The charges are not new -- AFP reminds, "the US Treasury said Fayyadh was responsible for brutal attacks on protesters in October 2019."  NEWSWEEK's Tom O'Connor notes, "Iraq's state-affiliated collective of militias defiantly celebrated its leader being hit by U.S. sanctions, considering it an honor to have him viewed as one of Washington's foes" and quotes a statement made by a militia spokesperson, "We congratulate the friend of the martyrs, Popular Mobilization Committee Chairman Falih al-Fayyadh, on his inclusion with the honorable ones whom the U.S. administration considers enemies."  REUTERS adds al-Fayyadh "was also praised by the Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah."  However, Ali Jiwad (ANADOLU AGENCY) observes, "The Iraqi Foreign Ministry on Saturday slammed a US decision to backlist Falih al-Fayyad, the leader of the powerful Hashd Shaabi militia, or the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF)."  Is the Ministry slamming the US government for finally taking some form of action against those attacking the protesters?  Goodness knows that the Iraqi government has done nothing to protect the protesters.






Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)