George's new edifice

About ten minutes after hearing the announcement of George Steinbrenner's death, I penned some rough notes that I knew would have to wait before being zapped into upload. It was too early to hit the negative button, what with all the effusive media hype that had only just begun.

For the past half dozen years, at least, I could not bear to hear this man's name mentioned because of its connection to the destruction and final demolition of Yankee Stadium. I didn't think I could put the right words in place and I hoped that some mighty soul would come along, right quick, and waste no time crashing the media's hypocritical love fest. Just who the hell are these people kidding, anyway?

So, I sent out a half-whispered query, as if to the wind: "Matt Taibbi, are you paying attention?" And, sure enough, good, old Matt was, indeed, paying attention to all that phony, sentimental claptrap being focused on "The Boss," that was filling up the airwaves.

In The Steinbrenner Slobituary," Taibbi describes the adulation that has taken over New York City's main sports radio station, WFAN, as it engages in a "round-the-clock Steinbrenner grovel-a-thon." Of course, these sports talk show hosts are always in desperate need to keep some featured story going, so it's understandable that the Steinbrenner death is splendid grist for their mill.

Taibbi calls the "mania for elegiac slobbering" a disgusting aspect of public life in this country. What surprised me were the saccharine calls from what sounded like ordinary guys eagerly repeating the cloying platitudes about Steinbrenner being put into the ether by ingratiating media types. Why on earth would these simple sounding callers identify with this vainglorious man, who never hid his contempt for the likes of them and whose ruthless methods transformed the nature of the game, which consequently led to tripling the costs of the average shlub's ticket and food prices. Taibbi writes:

Steinbrenner was in every conceivable way the prototypical office tyrant and the fact that he's being uninterruptedly worshipped after his death by a nation of cubicle slaves tells you almost everything you need to know about the modern American psyche. In no other country do people genuinely love their bosses the way Americans do. They'll go home after 12 hard hours of capricious superiors peeing in their faces, and the very first thing they'll do is call up some talk radio show and denounce the graduated income tax that gives them a break at their bosses' expense.



Taibbi claims that people's heads are so turned around that the terror of being thought of as poor and subordinate "has people reflexively worshipping their bosses, to the point where George Steinbrenner -- a workplace Caligula so stupid and self-centered that he could not be convinced George Constanza wasn't named after him -- is somehow thought of as cute and lovable."

Perhaps it had been taken for granted that Yankee Stadium was safely and officially land marked, and could no more be razed than the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building or the Woolworth Building or City Hall. But it was not land marked and, perhaps, even if it had been, the fear of Steinbrenner's powerful reach might have made even a Jackie Kennedy hesitate to protest.

The reality of the Stadium's disappearance was especially hard on us Bronxites who ride the No. 4 elevated subway on a regular basis. For me, it was an instinctive habit to look up momentarily from whatever I was reading for a glimpse of the Stadium, as the train pulled into the 161st Street station. For the past several years, however, I could not bring myself to look up at the site, since I did not want to see the daily or weekly stages of alteration. The House that Ruth built disappeared level by level, and is now replaced by the House that George built.

One talk show host will not refer to the new structure as "Yankee Stadium," but as "That Place Across the Street." Others refer to George's building as the Yankee Shopping Mall or the Yankee Food Court. I simply call it the New Edifice.

Late last season, I attended my first (and probably only) game in the New Edifice, since I felt I should see the interior of the place. Big deal! I was struck by the fact that you never have to sit in your assigned seat to view the game. Since the whole point of the place seems to be to keep the attendees roaming around, buying and eating, and roaming some more, there are dozens of picknicky type spots, with benches and eating counters, and big-screen TVs blasting the game on the field. The place seems to be designed to keep the wallet carriers engaged in everything except the ball game.

I wonder how those corporate executive suites are faring in the New Edifice, since they are the reason for which Yankee Stadium was destroyed in the first place. Last year, it was gratifying to hear about all those high-priced seats that embarrassingly stayed empty all season long. Hopefully, Taibbi's wish of last year will come true, that the Yankee management will "choke on their own greed."

And as for Steinbrenner? Taibbi suggests that we should have thrown a parade "the minute the guy drew his last breath." He asks, "Whatever happened to Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead?"

Related

The long-dead Brooklyn Dodgers still haunt New York
Read more!

Calling the race-hustling Reverend

The black blogger Aaron Laramore in If You Have to Call Al Sharpton for Help With Your Own Mayor, You Have No Power, tells of Sharpton's recent visit to Indianapolis, and writes, "He's here at the urgent behest of local ministers, some of whom pastor the largest black churches in Indianapolis, to help them pressure Mayor Ballard to meet with them regarding the police beat down of a teen during an arrest. Sharpton is scheduled to make several appearances around town and give a speech this evening at 7:00 at Eastern Star Church."

What does this signify about black leadership? "I'm not sure I can conceive of a more visible display of political impotence and irrelevance on the part of these ministers," says Laramore. "If you have to call in an out of town race hustler like Al Sharpton, in order to get the attention of the mayor of your own city, you are irrelevant."

Laramore claims that this scene has been played out in the past, when these ministers tried to make demands on the city's previous Mayor and administration. "This is all reaction that will not result in significant change and stands as an example of how faith leadership in Indianapolis fails to expand and develop the strategic value of their connection to thousands of people."

But do these elites really have a connection to "thousands of people?" Or are members of their congregations weary of the familiar pulpit bombast that ensues each time a "race incident" presents an opportunity for exploitation? Such black "leaders" are eager to show their constituents that they, at least, have the power to engage the Almighty Al Sharpton in their cause, as they hope for some of his luster to rub off on them.

Sharpton is a man for all seasons, and willingly answers the calls even of distressed white folks. Thanks to the white Don Imus who, during his radio troubles in 2007, resuscitated Sharpton's career, almost singlehandedly, the black race hustler still earns a comfortable living doing what he does best. And he is now the host of three (three!) radio programs here in the New York area. So, if white folks, like Imus, aren't calling for the good pastor Sharpton to forgive them their "racial sins," black preachers are keeping him busy hounding their political enemies.

Laramore concludes, "When you call Al Sharpton in from out of town just to have a conversation with your own Mayor, you are missing the boat."

See also here for Laramore's take on this recent NAACP Convention: "I wanted to find something to be encouraged about in this speech, I really did, but color me totally unimpressed. Black folk catching hell and she's touting school snack programs? the opening of a few college chapters; so-called curriculum reforms to teach civil rights history? That's it? That's the best you've got to tout as achievements? The speech has a constant focus on the wrongs done to us, not nearly enough of anything about problem solving in our communities. It was heavy on platitudes, way light on substance."
Read more!

Our masters and liars

What is this? Is the staunchly Zionist New York Times suggesting that much of life is a misery for the Palestinians trapped in the prison of Gaza? But, haven't we been led to believe, from Israeli propaganda, that life is coming up roses for Gaza residents, and that those who make claims to the contrary are just whining crybabies?

In Trapped by Gaza Blockade, Locked in Despair, we learn of the negative impact on people's lives through their inability to travel and to trade with other nations, in order to spark Gaza's economy and generate employment:

Israel is never far from people’s minds here. Its ships control the waters, its planes control the skies. Its whims, Gazans feel, control their fate. And while most here view Israel as the enemy, they want trade ties and to work there. In their lives the main source of income has been from and through Israel. Economists here say what is most needed now is not more goods coming in, as the easing of the blockade has permitted, but people and exports getting out. That is not going to happen soon.

And we learn, as well, the views of many Palestinians about their governing authorities:

As if the Palestinian people did not have enough trouble, they have not one government but two, the Fatah-dominated one in the West Bank city of Ramallah and the Hamas one here. The antagonism between them offers a depth of rivalry and rage that shows no sign of abating. ...

In fact, there is a paradox at work in Gaza: while Hamas has no competition for power, it also has a surprisingly small following. Dozens of interviews with all sorts of people found few willing to praise their government or that of its competitor. “They’re both liars,” Waleed Hassouna, a baker in Gaza City, said in a very common comment.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian people pay the price for the ongoing war between their masters, the Israelis, and their political leaders, the "liars."

Read complete article here.

---

The photo below is interesting, isn't it? In Israel, young Jewish woman harassing Palestinian woman by yanking on her scarf, while Jewish boy applies a kick to her leg. Israeli policemen nearby watch the fun. Everyday life in the Land of the Chosen. But, hey, those Palestinian leaders claim that they would like to see an end to Israel, so anything goes as far as treatment of Palestinians, in general, right? Sort of like that new "Black Panther" party in this country declaring death upon all whites, so this makes it fair game to go out on the streets and torment or mow down average American blacks, right? Is this picture reminiscent of photographs you've viewed of scenes in Europe during the middle of the 20th century?



Read more!

Eminent domain and the Kelo backlash

When, five years ago, the Kelo v. City of New London decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, I thought, Well, that's the end of things for sure. When any government can systematically employ a ruse to legally confiscate citizens' homes, that's a sign that the Republic's days are numbered. I figured the Supreme Court had given a green light to every developer who salivated over some landowner's piece of property. I had followed the case closely since I couldn't think of many rulings that could be more significant than this one.

When a Supreme Court Justice himself claims that a ruling by his very Court is "unconstitutional," where do you go from there? What is one to think when the mighty "interpreters" of the Constitution admit to error by the Court? In Kelo Justice Clarence Thomas vehemently disagreed with the majority decision, as written by Justice John Paul Stevens. In his Dissent, Thomas wrote:

The Constitution’s text, in short, suggests that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to employ it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking. ... The Takings Clause is a prohibition, not a grant of power: The Constitution does not expressly grant the Federal Government the power to take property for any public purpose whatsoever. Instead, the Government may take property only when necessary and proper to the exercise of an expressly enumerated power. ... Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. ... When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another emphatic dissenter, expressed it this way:

To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property – and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. ... The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. ... Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

---

Here are excerpts from a view on the case offered by The Economist magazine, The worst decision of Justice Stevens:

[Justice Stevens'] opinion in Kelo v. New London (2005) was simply terrible. The case was about a private developer in New London, Connecticut, who wanted to raze some waterfront homes to build an office block and some posh apartments. The owners didn't want to sell. The city decided to force them to, calculating that the new development would create jobs and yield more taxes.

The city decided to use the power of "eminent domain." Under the Fifth amendment, the government may seize private property only in exceptional circumstances. The land seized must be put to “public use,” and “just compensation” must be paid. “Public use” has traditionally been taken to mean something like a public highway. Roads would obviously be much harder to build if a single homeowner could hold out forever or for excessive compensation. The government's powers of “eminent domain” have also been used to clean up blighted slums.

In this case, however, the area was not blighted, and the land was not going to be put to a public use, so the seizure was plainly unlawful. Amazingly, Justice Stevens – and a slim majority of the court – said it was fine. Rejecting “any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ...public,” he said it was enough that the seizure should serve some vaguely defined “public purpose” — such as those new taxes. This massively expanded the government's power of eminent domain. ...

The ruling had two effects. First, it told local governments and their developer chums that working-class neighbourhoods were up for grabs. In the year after Kelo, the Institute for Justice, a group that defends property rights, counted 5,783 homes, businesses, churches and other properties condemned or threatened with eminent domain to the benefit of a private party. ...

But second, Kelo provoked a backlash. Most Americans are repelled by the idea that the state might take your house and give it to Donald Trump. (This is not rhetoric: New Jersey once tried, unsuccessfully, to seize someone's home because The Donald needed somewhere to park limousines outside one of his casinos.) Since the Kelo ruling, no fewer than 34 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain. At the mid-term elections, voters in ten states approved measures curbing politicians' power to seize private property, all by wide margins.

Public revulsion against such seizures is visceral and nearly uniform: polls find between 85% and 95% of Americans are opposed to them. Political affiliation makes no difference. Republicans hate to see property rights violated and individuals bullied by the state. Democrats hate to see the state's coercive power hired out to big corporations, and worry, correctly, that the chief victims of eminent domain abuse will be the working class and ethnic minorities.

---

And the discerning writer William Norman Grigg offers his inimitable reflections on the notorious Kelo case:

Prior to the closing of the frontier in 1890, "Manifest Destiny" was the incantation used by the government when it gave itself permission to steal property it coveted. Today, the preferred conjuration is "eminent domain." The phrase "eminent domain" reflects an assumption Karl Marx would find congenial: government is the default owner of everything, and that private ownership, however extensive, is merely a contingent arrangement. ...

In his recent book, Government Pirates, former real estate developer Don Corace offers a concise description of how eminent domain operated prior to the onset of the current depression: "Arrogant and corrupt city and county officials – with near limitless legal budgets ... align themselves with well-heeled developers, political cronies, and major corporations to prey on the politically less powerful and disenfranchised, particularly minority communities." ...

In recent weeks, the Illinois state government has begun the legal process of seizing a huge amount of private property in and around Peotone, a small town in Will County, about forty miles south of Chicago. The land is being taken for the supposed purpose of building a third Chicago-area airport to complement O'Hare and Midway – a project that has been discussed, studied, and debated since 1968.

The proposed "South Suburban Airport" – which would be three times the size of O'Hare International – is impractical, unwanted, and unnecessary. It doesn't enjoy the support of any major airline or the approval of the FAA. ...

Expanding the small international airport in depressed Rockford would provide additional runway space at a fraction of what would be spent on a third Chicago-area airport. But this would deprive the state's patronage pimps of an opportunity to lavish plundered wealth on their favored constituents. ...

Four Peotone-area condemnation cases are already working their way through the court system. Unless the land owners are successful in getting the cases dismissed outright, they will face a lengthy, protracted legal struggle in which their opponent – the criminal junta dominating Springfield and Chicago – will use money extorted from them as taxes to underwrite the effort to drive them from their land. ...

There's every reason to believe that the Peotone Landgrab – if it's successful – would be a template for similar acts of official larceny wherever fertile tracts can be seized by the political class at depressed "fair market value."

---

Following are conclusions about the Kelo case offered by the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm that represented the New London residents:

The U.S. Supreme Court should have ruled in favor of the Kelo homeowners and established a federal baseline that would protect home and business owners throughout the nation. Instead, it threw the issue to the states, completely abdicating its role as guardian of Americans’ rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Less than one week after the decision was handed down, the Institute for Justice launched a national campaign called “Hands Off My Home.” IJ was determined to focus the outrage over Kelo and turn it into meaningful reform. In the five years since the decision, there has been an unprecedented backlash against the Kelo ruling in terms of public opinion, citizen activism, legislative changes, state court decisions, and lessons learned from the New London case:

• Citizen activists defeated at least 44 projects that sought to abuse eminent domain for private gain in the five-year period since Kelo.
• Forty-three states improved their laws in response to Kelo, more than half of those providing strong protection against eminent domain abuse.
• Nine state high courts restricted the use of eminent domain for private development since Kelo while only one (New York) has so far refused to do so. ...

Across the country, property owners and activists have testified before crowded public hearings and state legislatures. They have formed groups and started websites. They stood tall on the steps of City Hall and held press conferences demanding officials keep their hands off their property. They have held neighborhood meetings, which have turned into citywide meetings. ...

Following the public outcry about Kelo, constitutional amendments and legislation at the federal, state and local levels were introduced in legislative bodies nationwide. In the five years since the decision, 43 states have passed either constitutional amendments or statutes that have reformed eminent domain law to better protect private property rights. ...

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution, the state high courts began to fill that void. Three state supreme courts — Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota — explicitly rejected the Kelo decision. Ohio cities had frequently abused eminent domain and Oklahoma cities had occasionally abused the power, but we have heard of no new abuses in either state since their respective court decisions. Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court implicitly rejected Kelo while also curtailing the use of redevelopment and blight as an excuse for private development.

The Institute for Justice describes the dismal facts of what ultimately happened to the land in New London that was sought by the developer Pfizer, Inc.:

Part of the package of incentives offered to Pfizer to come to New London was the redevelopment of the neighboring Fort Trumbull area. Fort Trumbull was a working-class neighborhood. It housed approximately 75 homes, as well as a few smaller businesses and an abandoned Navy base.

The plan called for this area to be replaced by an upscale hotel, office buildings and new housing. Now, five years after the Kelo ruling, there has been no new construction on any of the land that was acquired in Fort Trumbull. After the decision, the remaining residents who had fought to save their homes, including Susette Kelo, were forced out. The Fort Trumbull site was completely razed. And it has remained empty ever since — brown, barren fields no longer home to people but rather to feral cats and migratory birds. After much controversy and many extensions of time given to the chosen developer, the city terminated the development agreement.

Now, ten years after its initial plan was approved, the city has commissioned another study to see what might work in the area. Ironically, given that a majority of the area used to be filled with owner-occupied and residential rental property, the city is considering a proposal to build some rental property on a portion of the project area. Ten years lost and more than $80 million in taxpayer money spent to perhaps one day build a lesser version of what used to exist on the peninsula.

---

Related

Judicial vandalism

Eminent domain: Taking from Peter to give to Paul
Read more!

Terry Anderson, R.I.P.

"If you ain't mad, you ain't payin' attention!" I can't count the number of times I heard Terry Anderson recite that refrain on his radio show. I was hooked, and had to have my weekly Sunday night Terry fix. Thanks to the Internet, I was able to do so, and rarely missed his broadcast from Los Angeles.

Terry was a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, and had watched first hand as this social poison altered once stable communities in southern California. As a black working man, he and many of his friends had been directly impacted by the cheap labor resulting from the alien invasion. When the opportunity presented itself to host a radio program dedicated to the subject, he took it.

After his show went off the air last year, I would check from time to time to learn if it might return. I had no idea he was seriously ill. This week we all learned that Terry died of pancreatic cancer.

Following are excerpts from appreciative friends and listeners who will miss Terry's wit and determination.

---

Brenda Walker, on the Vdare Blog – Farewell to a Fearless Patriot, Terry Anderson

From his front-row seat in South Central Los Angeles, Terry saw the demographic invasion before other Americans who lived further from the border. He described the racism against blacks which Mexicans brought with them into his own city, but mostly he spoke as an American, for all citizens who care about the country.

Terry started out as a concerned citizen who phoned kindred spirit and talk-show host George Putnam on the radio (another late, great patriot). Those calls led to friendship and eventually to a radio program that was exclusively about immigration, The Terry Anderson Show.

Author Dan Sheehy devoted a chapter of his 2005 book which focused on patriotic activists, Fighting Immigration Anarchy, to Terry Anderson — his life, his immigration awakening and his radio activism.

Terry was a genuine everyman, a blue-collar guy who worked as an auto mechanic, and saw himself as “articulating the popular rage.” The lack of a fancy academic degree never stopped him from being a powerful speaker. And he didn’t just talk forcefully — although he was known for that — he was well versed in all the complex issues of immigration and blended them seamlessly into his thoughts.

---

Walter Moore, Remembering Terry Anderson

Terry’s articulation of the popular rage was therapeutic. When you heard Terry rant, you knew you weren’t alone. You also knew you were right, because Terry knew right from wrong, and knew how to explain it simply and clearly. Politicians could blow all the smoke they wanted to, but it never clouded Terry’s vision. He had uncommon common sense, and a unique ability to zero in on the truth.

Assembling parts so they work together was apparently second nature to Terry. After he passed away, I read an article about how, from a very early age, he had a knack for taking bits and pieces from wrecked cars, salvaging them, and putting them together to work, good as new.

That’s basically what he was doing with our country. He was salvaging those of us who had given up hope. He found some of us here in L.A., others in Nevada, still others in Illinois -- scattered people, all over America, who thought they were alone.

Terry united and connected people all over America who actually care about America. He was like Radio Free Europe and the French underground rolled into one. He provided important information we couldn’t find anywhere else.

---

William Gheen, President, Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC)

For those of you who did not know Terry Anderson, he was also called 'The Prisoner of South Central.' His radio show aired on Sunday nights for an hour on KRLA radio out of Los Angeles. The show was carried on 30 stations across America and Terry had a huge online listenership that either tuned in live each week or caught his podcasts.

Terry's show was created to fight against illegal immigration. Terry Anderson warned the nation about what was happening in South Central Los Angeles as the illegal alien invaders displaced poor Americans in the area turning parts of LA into a third world slum barrio with chickens and goats running around in the streets!

Terry Anderson was a very brave black man who educated America about the negative impacts of illegal immigration on the black community and he fearlessly spoke out and stood up in the face of the illegals on their home turf.

Over the past five years, it was my great honor to be on Terry Anderson's show over ten times. I got to work with him in person during Unite To Fight, 1 & 2, conducted by radio show host Mark Edwards in Las Vegas back in 2005 and 2006. I also worked with Terry in Washington, DC during Hold Their Feet To The Fire in 2007.

I hope those who have copies and podcasts of all of Terry Anderson's shows will place them in a prominent place on the web. I hope that another great patriot will step forward to take over Terry Anderson's show immediately, pick up his torch and run forward in his absence. ALIPAC will be happy to donate to help preserve Terry's podcasts and to continue his show.

Terry Anderson, I will miss you my friend and I want your family to know how much real Americans appreciate all that you have done for our nation. You cannot speak anymore Terry, but I will always speak out for you.

[See the ALIPAC site for videos of Terry Anderson's presentations]
Read more!

The media enforcers

Glenn Greenwald reflects on which journalists or pundits get fired for expressing politically incorrect opinions. Although it is the "Liberal Media" that has the power to destroy careers and reputations, punishment comes only at the behest of right wingers, especially the neoconservative media monitors. Here are excerpts from Greenwald's column at Salon.com:

• • •
First, consider which viewpoints cause someone to be fired from The Liberal Media. Last month, Helen Thomas' 60-year career as a journalist ended when she expressed the exact view about Jews which numerous public figures have expressed (with no consequence or even controversy) about Palestinians.

Just weeks ago, The Washington Post accepted the "resignation" of Dave Weigel because of scorn he heaped on right-wing figures such as Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh.

CNN's Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan, was previously forced to resign after he provoked a right-wing fit of fury over comments he made about the numerous -- and obviously disturbing -- incidents where the U.S. military had injured or killed journalists in war zones.

NBC fired Peter Arnett for criticizing the U.S. war plan on Iraqi television, which prompted accusations of Treason from the Right.

MSNBC demoted and then fired its rising star Ashleigh Banfield after she criticized American media war coverage for adhering to the Fox model of glorifying U.S. wars; the same network fired its top-rated host, Phil Donahue, due to its fear of being perceived as anti-war; and its former reporter, Jessica Yellin, confessed that journalists were "under enormous pressure from corporate executives" to present the news in a pro-war and pro-Bush manner.

What each of these firing offenses have in common is that they angered and offended the neocon Right. Isn't that a strange dynamic for the supposedly Liberal Media: the only viewpoint-based firings of journalists are ones where the journalist breaches neoconservative orthodoxy? Have there ever been any viewpoint-based firings of establishment journalists by The Liberal Media because of comments which offended liberals? None that I can recall.

I foolishly thought that when George Bush's own Press Secretary mocked the American media for being "too deferential" to the Bush administration, that would at least put a dent in that most fictitious American myth: The Liberal Media. But it didn't; nothing does, not even the endless spate of journalist firings for deviating from right-wing dogma.

Beyond journalism, speech codes concerning the Middle East are painfully biased and one-sided. Chas Freeman was barred from a government position -- despite a long and accomplished record of public service -- due to AIPAC-led anger over comments deemed insufficiently devoted to Israel.

Juan Cole was denied a tenured position at Yale after a vicious neocon campaign based on his allegedly anti-Israel remarks, and Norman Finklestein suffered the same fate, despite a unanimous committee recommendation for tenure, after an Alan-Dershowitz-led demonization campaign based on his blasphemous scholarship about Israel.

Does anyone ever suffer career-impeding injuries of this type -- the way Nasr and Thomas also just have -- for expressing anti-Muslim or anti-Arab views? No. The speech prohibitions and thought crimes on the Middle East all run in one direction: to enforce "pro-Israel" orthodoxies. Does this long list of examples leave room for doubt about that fact? ...

With the Octavia Nasr firing, here we find yet again exposed the central lie of American establishment journalism: that opinion-free "objectivity" is possible, required, and the governing rule. The exact opposite is true: very strong opinions are not only permitted but required. They just have to be the right opinions: the official, approved ones. ...

The reality is that "pro-Israel" is not considered a viewpoint at all; it's considered "objective." That's why there's no expression of it too extreme to result in the sort of punishment which Nasr just suffered (preceded by so many others before her). ...

It's true that much of the world sees some of Hezbollah's actions as Terrorism; much of the world sees Israel's that way as well. CNN requires the former view while prohibiting the latter. As usual, our brave journalistic outlets not only acquiesce to these suffocating and extremely subjective restrictions on what our political discourse allows; they lead the way in enforcing them.

Read complete article here.
Read more!

Who needs black politicians?

The Washington Post informs us that black political candidates around the country, running for statewide offices, are "struggling" to survive. According to the Post, there might be no black Governors or Senators by next year.

It seems that the presence of the ultimate Identity candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, has not ushered in an era of blind support for colored politicians – at least, not among those faithful white Obama devotees. Of course, as a black, I'm expected to vote for the Black Ticket, no matter who is on it. Although a New Yorker, I'm even supposed to care about a candidate in far off Alabama, if it means another "first." As in the First Black Governor of Alabama. Just why Alabama or any other state is in need of a black Governor is never clarified.

The paternalistic tone of the Post article, makes it clear that this is an urgent matter for Americans to worry over – that is, the necessity to keep increasing the numbers of black politicians throughout the land. The candidates themselves will tell you how they are needed to deal with unique "black issues." After all, haven't we seen how effective these figureheads are in reducing crime among blacks, in re-establishing black families, and in setting education as a priority among youth?

Black publications and websites rejoice every time another of their black favorites wins a national, state or municipal election. There is no end to the bean counting they employ when examining every state legislature and city council. Look at this city, there are 20 council members, but only four of them are black. Something is wrong here. And look at this state, there are 120 assemblymen and only eight of them are black. Obviously, some serious racism is at work here.

The fervent promotion of black for the sake of blackness reminds me of my conversation in the 1980s with that good, white libertarian lady in New York, who bemoaned the fact that the city, up to that time, had never had a black Mayor as had so many other cities, and this was a good reason to elect David Dinkins.

Putting aside the value, if any, to the country at large of these elected worthies, let's take a look at the benefits that blacks derive from the existence of these politicians. We could look at any number of the familiar social issues, but let's concentrate on immigration.

By now, most people are acquainted to some degree with the statistics that show the industries that have removed U.S.-born Americans from the workforce in favor of underpaid aliens. In plants around the country, from the furniture industry to meatpacking to the hotel industry, 20 years have taken their toll as companies have reorganized around the use of immigrant rather than native labor.

The Center for Immigration Studies describes how a company like IBP, the nation's leading meatpacking company, actually recruits workers from Mexico and directly along the border. Not too long ago, in Los Angeles, semi-skilled blacks could count on employment as janitors for $12 an hour, with benefits, but no longer. When companies discovered they could subcontract such labor for $3.35 an hour with "undocumented" immigrants, within two years the Americans were displaced. CIS reports that in the hotel industry, especially, immigrant workers "displaced native black workers en masse."

In California, black men also had been prominent as roofers, framers, drywallers and truck drivers. Prior to the immigration deluge, native-born minorities were able to sustain families on the salaries earned from such jobs.

As to youth employment, CIS calls the summer of 2009 "the worst summer ever experienced by U.S.-born teenagers." The jobs that teenagers once normally counted on during the summer season now went to mostly illegal immigrant laborers. As CIS suggests, reducing legal immigration and enforcing the law to reduce illegal immigration is no cure-all for the problems that afflict young black men, who are chronically unemployed, but such enforcement might re-open doors that have been shut.

Are any black politicians known to throw their efforts behind those reformers who are working to alleviate the economic effects of mass immigration? Not a one. Because they have been getting heat from some angry constituents, in March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus (which includes all black members of Congress) trekked to the White House to share with Obama their "concerns" about the black unemployment rate. As reported by Frank Morris in the Washington Times, the 43 members of the CBC, who represent primarily black constituencies, bear a large share of responsibility for neglect of this issue. These black legislators, writes Morris, have "consistently opposed tough enforcement of laws against employing illegal aliens."

As they have ever done, this claque of black politicians march in lockstep with all those who promote and protect illegal immigration. Not only are they in agreement with Obama's policies that have stopped immigration enforcement in the workplace, they have been "front and center in the effort to enact amnesty for millions of illegals." As Morris says, an amnesty bill "would provide nothing for black Americans except more competition for jobs, educational opportunities and increasingly scarce government resources." Remember, every time the overflow of immigrants forces a hospital to close its facilities, the poorest Americans are most negatively affected.

In 2006, in Immigration: Betrayal By Black Elites, I described the obnoxiously indifferent attitude of several black politicians who were called upon for help by displaced, unemployed blacks. It was clear then, as it is now, that notables such as Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters and John Conyers seek only to expand their constituent base. As racial demographics change in their districts, they scramble only to court and win the confidence of the new foreigners. These deceivers cleverly make alliances with the elites of the incoming ethnic groups, disregarding the needs of those whom they perceive as their diminishing black base. However much they might bleat when it comes time to win the votes of fellow blacks, the typical black politician has never had an interest in anything except the protection of his/her career and political turf.

After all, when your district is filling up with Guatemalans, Ecuadoreans and Mexicans, you can't be expected to worry yourself about jobs these invaders are taking from the American citizens who initially put you in office.

Black politicians' message to the folks: Has the salary you relied on for years been cut in half and then in half again? Don't complain. That's how the market works. Just come down off your high horse of demanding that $12 an hour that the market once paid, and settle for $3.35, like a good alien, and the problem will be solved.

Unfortunately, there is no recourse to be had from that other political party, the one to which members of the Congressional Black Caucus do not belong. These Republicans have been among the most determined to keep the country's borders wide open for immigrants of all kinds, as their candidates for office spend most of the time flip-flopping on the subject.

Leaders of both the Democrats and Republicans would rather the matter not be brought up at all. On the immigration front, both of these political parties share the same need for ongoing importation of foreigners, that is, cheap labor for the constituencies of the Republicans and lots of brown and black prospective voters for the Democrats.

The Democrats' pitch to blacks, that works successfully, goes something like this: Since you owe us for your "liberation" and "civil rights," you should stick with us and our candidates, who will continue to devise laws, that will form policies, that will create programs to be engineered in your favor. If you don't continue your alliance with us, you might very well slip back into slavery, and fail to benefit from our spurious "job training" projects. After all, you can't trust those other folks to take care of you.

As revolting as this might sound, a look at the Republican offering might very well turn your stomach even more. For this is the War Party, and the employment they offer blacks, or any other unemployed, is grounded in a counterfeit "patriotism." Not just full employment, but all good things come through warmaking.

The Republicans would have all the idle apply for work in Uncle Sam's Army. A report issued last year by these advocates for the "greatest military in the world" laments the fact that so many thousands of American youth are "ineligible" to serve those whom Andrew Bacevich calls the "knaves and fools" who run the military.

It seems that most American youth lack the type of education required to handle today's magnificent military machine. They have enough education, mind you, to die as cannon fodder, but anybody can fill that bill. Our illustrious military leaders, however, want to maim and kill the better educated, those who can decipher all that intelligent technological weaponry, along with the grunts from Mississippi and Georgia, who cannot. You should have at least a high school diploma before you lose an eye or leg, have your brains scrambled, or die.

Another factor that makes so many of the young ineligible, the good Republicans tell us, is early involvement in criminal activities. The Generals would prefer such youth, before embarking on their private criminal careers, to wait until given the appropriate official weaponry and pointed in the direction of Arabia, instead of striking out on their own.

This political party also acts as the country's religious guide. Only its members understand the mind of their peculiar, inscrutable God. We're supposed to take seriously their "pro-life" admonitions, as they eagerly send their warrior sons off to kill the in utero babies of Arab women.

In their determination to "reach out" and to demonstrate their desire to uplift the unfortunates out of the depths of unemployment, members of this Republican party make a fuss about "free enterprise," but do not support such a system with their policies. They are not admirers of entrepreneurial talent, as such, but are worshippers of ruthless profiteering. Not only do they grant sainthood to the grossest corporate pirates, some of them have even been known to apologize to said pirates, when any are taken to task for criminal negligence and outright incompetence.

To these Republicans, there is no such thing as unethical corporate behavior. And anyone who says otherwise is a degenerate Commie. The market, you see, "channels" behavior and thereby keeps it honest. To profit, the businessman must follow the rules of the magic "market," which automatically will keep him on the straight and narrow, thus maintaining his integrity. Human nature or the temptations of the flesh do not come into play in the magic market. At least not in Republican la-la-land. In this land, there is no such thing as an inept corporate executive. And certainly no such thing as a malevolent money-grubbing one, no matter what the Bernie Madoff case might imply.

Just suggest to one of these Republicans that there's something obscene about the escalating sizes of executive pay packages, given the ratio to an average worker's salary, and then stand back for the tidal wave of epithets that will ensue, ranging from you being a denizen of "class envy," to being a brainwashed leftoid redistributionist. For it's not innate human greed, you see, but government interference, via Regulations, that makes business people turn bad. Our recent financial troubles do not stem from the revocation of the Glass-Steagall Act, as we are led to believe, but from exactly that kind of legal meddling with the marketplace.

Let's return to that initial grievance about black candidates now running for political office, and the dire news that many, if not most of them, will not attain their goals. All of these cynical descendants of slaves will be running as members of one of the two corrupt political parties. So, when assessing the overall welfare of the unemployed, would it make a dime's worth of difference whether or not any of these scurrilous flim-flam artists are elected? Let's see what happens to the nation if no blacks end up as winners in elections this year.
Read more!

Arizona's war

"Think about it," writes Roger Hedgecock, "a part of America is off limits to U.S. citizens because it is now controlled by an army of foreigners." And where is that part of America he speaks of? In Arizona, where citizens are fighting to restore control of the state's borders. He then goes on to tell a hair-raising story about how law has degenerated, as the federal administration in Washington, DC, is set to raise hell with Arizona's elected government. Hedgecock writes:

• • •
In a press conference ignored by the American national media, [Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County] described how his deputies were outmanned and outgunned by the cartel smugglers who increasingly operate using military tactics and weapons. The result, said Sheriff Babeu, was that a wide corridor of Arizona from the border North to the outskirts of Phoenix is effectively controlled by the cartels. "We do not have control of this area," the sheriff said.

At the same time as the sheriff's ignored press conference, the national media did cover assurances from the Obama Administration that crime was down at the border. ... The new reign of terror on the border in Arizona was airbrushed out of the picture. ...

Warning signs were posted this past month by the federal government 80 miles North of the border on the South side of I-8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend urging U.S. citizens not to camp or hike in the "Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area" because "Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals." ...

U.S. Fish and Wildlife staffers report that the 3,500 acre Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in this area is closed to U.S. citizens as well and is "adversely affected" by cartel operations. The border between the U.S. and Mexico is almost 2,000 miles long. According to DEA sources, nearly half of all the cocaine and illegal aliens are smuggled into the U.S. over the 365 mile long Arizona border with Mexico. There's a war going on in Arizona which puts into perspective that state's new immigration law. ...

The only reason the cartels have not taken over all of Mexico is that they frequently fight each other in bloody, largely unreported battles for control of valuable drug trafficking routes. Beheading of rival gang members and Mexican police are now routine. ...

Frequent cross border incursions into the U.S. by cartel soldiers in Mexican Army uniforms driving American-made Humvees and toting automatic weapons support an increasingly sophisticated web of smuggling routes. Patrolling sheriff deputies or lone Border Patrol officers are no match for this firepower and are ordered to fall back when confronted with the cartels' military might.

Read the rest of Hedgecock's account here.
Read more!

War as the permanent American condition could keep the Democrats in power forever

Glenn Greenwald astutely ponders just how little attention all our various wars receive. Where is the debate that should be going on concerning these military engagements? He observes that one would hardly know this country is engaged in war at all, and writes: "Given the types of wars the U.S. chooses to wage, most Americans who express their support for them bear absolutely no perceived cost whatsoever. Worse, many who cheer for our wars enjoy that most intoxicating and distorting reward: cost-free benefits, in the form of vicarious feelings of strength, purpose, nobility and the like, all from a safe distance."

Because Americans do not feel directly affected by these conflicts, the failing economy receives so much attention and the wars do not. How can there be so little debate over something as serious as war? What happened to the partisan division over these invasions, Greenwald asks, that was apparent during George W. Bush's tenure?

He explains: "During the Bush presidency, war debates raged because those wars -- especially the Iraq war -- were a GOP liability and a Democratic Party asset." Genuine anger over the Iraq invasion drove the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and Obama's win in 2008.

But now, observes Greenwald, "America's wars are no longer Republican wars; they're Democratic wars as well. Both parties are thus vested in their defense, which guts any real debate or opposition." Which Republicans will now speak ill of wars that were started by their party, and which Democrats are going to malign wars that their President continues to wage?

The real reason why debate over the wars has disappeared, says Greenwald, is because it serves neither party to engage in them. Yet a major factor in understanding the lack of debate is the fact that war itself has become the permanent American condition. "We're essentially a war fighting state. We have been at 'war' the entire last decade (as well as largely non-stop for the decades which preceded it), and continue now to be at 'war' with no end in sight. ... The decree that we are 'at war' has been repeated over and over for a full decade, drummed into our heads from all directions without pause, sanctified as one of those Bipartisan Orthodoxies that nobody can dispute upon pain of having one's Seriousness credentials immediately and irrevocably revoked. With war this normalized, is it really surprising that nobody debates it any longer? It'd be like debating the color of the sky."

So, in keeping the country at war, Obama has put himself in a perfect position to maintain the support of the so-called Republican opposition, which favors war without question. Throw into that camp the Tea Party war-loving darlings, and the Democrats just might find themselves in power indefinitely.

Read the rest of Greenwald's insightful remarks here.
Read more!

Chasing ships at sea

Richard Silverstein, writing at Tikun Olam, describes a speech delivered by the Israeli novelist and journalist, Nir Baram, at a rally in Israel attended by 10,000 people, to protest the military actions against the flotilla to Gaza. Silverstein writes:

• • •
10,000 Israelis protested the failed Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara and the Gaza siege a few days ago. What struck me especially about the rally was this electrifying speech by Israeli novelist and journalist, Nir Baram, decrying the blockheadedness of the Israeli leadership and the insularity of the Israeli public regarding the suffering it inflicts on the Palestinians. The conclusion of his speech was especially poignant to me as it presented a glorious vision of what the State of Israel could be – someday:

For the past eight years we have on our table a real peace proposal from the Arab League, a dramatic, unprecedented proposal for a final, lasting peace between Israel and the entire Arab world, which at long last would enable Israel to integrate into the region. But instead of making this initiative a priority on the public agenda, we opt for chasing ships out at sea…

We shut ourselves behind walls telling ourselves we have no other choice. We put one and a half million people under siege in Gaza, convincing ourselves that they want for nothing, and if there’s a bit of a water shortage they should drink from the sea. We intensify and reinforce the Occupation claiming there is no partner. We slight every peace proposal whether advanced by the Arab League, Syria or Abu Mazen, and all the while teach our children our fondest hope is for peace.

We are here to tell Jerusalem’s government of worthless incompetents and racists that we are bound to this place wholeheartedly, and prepared to do whatever it takes to turn Israel into a true, free, and fearless democracy, a home for all of us.

In days past, when there was some hope that the Israeli political system actually worked, such a speech would have marked him for a possible seat in the Knesset. So many in Israel would place such high hopes on Baram’s shoulders. Now, why would any half-way intelligent person want to sit in such a house of fools? Nevertheless, the fact that a Nir Baram exists and has the courage to express these words and that thousands cheer him on – this is enough to make me persevere in my own efforts. We must support the Nir Barams of Israel. They are the last, best hope that there is some humanity that lingers there.

Read the rest of article here.
Read more!

Enticing young men with lies

In "Things the Marine Corps Forgot to Mention," Laurence Vance tells of his experience, as a father, with Marine Corps recruiters. He writes about the freebies offered to young men like his son:

The Marine Corps recruiting literature sent to high school students is a little different each time. The first time I saw it the theme was preserving the American way of life. The student who sent in the reply card was entitled to receive dog tags, a duffle bag or a skullcap. I wrote about this in "The Few, the Proud, the High School Students." The theme the second time I saw it was defense. Offered this time was a choice between folding speakers, a T-shirt, or a wristband. I wrote about this in "The Marines Are Looking for a Few Good High School Students." Although it has been said that the third time’s the charm, I’m afraid the Marine Corps has failed once again to ensnare my son.

The recruiting literature that arrived in the mail this time, thanks yet again to the No Child Left Behind Act, consisted of an envelope with a short note and two reply cards – all of which have pictures of the free Marine Corps gear being offered this time: a duffle bag, sunglasses, or a watch. The note says that in order to become a Marine you have to want certain things.

Among those wanted things are Pushing your mind and body to its limits; Protecting freedom, democracy and every state in the nation; Being willing to work hard; and, of course, Wanting to be a Marine.

Except for the second item, which is a lie, Vance insists, i.e., "protection of freedom and democracy" (since Marines are doing nothing of the kind), the rest of the items are true. However, Vance has a problem with what the Marine Corps "forgot to mention," and elucidates:

What is not mentioned is that in order to become a Marine you also have to want certain other things:

• You have to want to intervene in the affairs of other countries.
• You have to want to do anything but actually defend the United States.
• You have to want to obey without reservation the orders of your superiors.
• You have to want to perpetuate the lie that the military defends our freedoms.
• You have to want to invade other countries that have not attacked the United States.
• You have to want to occupy other countries that resist being invaded.
• You have to want to kill foreigners that resist being invaded and occupied.
• You have to want to maintain the U.S. global empire of troops and bases.

If a high school student doesn’t want to do any of these things, then he has no business joining the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps is not preserving the American way of life, defending anyone’s freedoms, or protecting every state in the nation.

Vance concludes with quotes from the indomitable Major General Smedley Butler's little treatise, War Is a Racket. Nobody was better positioned to make such an observation about America's past time than this Congressional Medal of Honor winner, who spent 33 years in the military. Among his pithier remarks:

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

Read the full Vance article here.
Read more!

Gaza and the lessons learned

How many times must we explain this to you? We can do as we please, because we're the Chosen People. Look, your very own Christian loonies confirm this truism. You remember the mantra of these good evangelical folk: "We're all Israelis now."

You know that anything we do, we're going to be protected, by your very own. First of all, by that Congress of yours, of which we control all 531 members. They'd better toe the line, since each and every one of them knows that it's curtains to another term in office, if they make an attempt to cross us. Each of your Presidents, needless to say, has always understood his place. This goes ditto for those worthless members of Europe's many Parliaments.

Our major protector, of course, is your media, not only most of which we control, but almost all of which our ethnic compatriots own. The few who are not in our camp might as well be, since they're smart enough to know that they had better go along, if they want to get along.

Look, remember how we explained it to those miserable Palestinians, who we've worn down to a frazzle? Why don't you leave, already? We've warned them over and over again, that if they insist on building and maintaining their homes and replanting those olive trees, we're never going to stop bombing their behinds, bulldozing their homes, and burning their fields and orchards. But they keep ignoring us. And then, inevitably, one of their sons bursts a gasket and retaliates in venomous anger. Nothing delights us more than these "terrorist" incidents, since we, with out trusty media apologists, get to tell the story of what happened through the lens of our propaganda machine -- in each and every incident.

Whether we're bulldozing their homes and land or preventing them from making use of their natural shoreline to engage in trade or receive shipping, we get to determine when these Palestinians can breathe and when they cannot. And when we choose to board those "flotillas" that you help them arrange, you along with them will always be accused of responsibility for whatever conflict ensues, and we will laugh and laugh as you attempt to get your side of the story out. Out to whom? Even with all this expanded Internet media, do you notice how we prevail anyway?

Don't you know by now there's not a thing you can do, because your feckless "leaders," who do possess some iota of power, are too deceitful, too greedy, and much too chicken to oppose us. They are too stricken with fear of our power to even consider taking an opposing stance. As one of our illustrious Prime Ministers put it, back in the 1990s, you gentile fools are in his back pocket. You're in all of our back pockets.

Oh, yes, we allow some faux display of anger on the part of a few stray opponents, who pretend toughness by engaging in a wee bit of finger-pointing at the naughty, naughty Israelis. But then they remember who we are, and they soon suck it up. And in no time at all, the current episode blows over and everything returns to normal. In case you hadn't noticed, Normal is our total control of everything we consider in our best interests.

We must not allow these Palestinians to acquire supplies of any kind, for if we do, they will have the means to live on and on and on. That's not going to happen on our watch. For 60 years we've spent too much of our energy and resources (and yours, too, of course) to guarantee their ultimate demise. And their demise will come.

Remember, back in the late 1990s, when all those cameras were rolling, and that frightened father and young son were cringing against that wall, and our soldiers first shot the father -- and the cameras kept rolling? And, while the father was leaning over in an attempt to protect his son, our illustrious military heroes then shot the boy -- and the cameras kept rolling. Remember that?

What we learned from that incident, and others like it (remember Sabra and Shatila?), is that "world opinion" doesn't mean a damn thing. If we got away with that very public event, we were assured that the atrocities we pull off on a daily basis, away from rolling cameras, would never be challenged. All we have to say about any conflict that makes the news is, "The Palestinians started it first. We were simply defending ourselves." Then our propaganda machine goes into overdrive and sees to it that most of the world will hear only our side of the story.

We are the Chosen People.
• • •
Before the Journey to Gaza

From American Chronicle:

On to Gaza

5/8/10 -- A "Freedom Flotilla" is planning to sail for Gaza by the end of the month. It will be the ninth expedition to try to reach Gaza by sea. According to the Free Gaza movement, this time it will be bigger and better than ever. This time, there will be Turkish involvement.

The Free Gaza movement is calling it "the biggest internationally coordinated effort to directly challenge Israeli´s ongoing occupation, aggression and violence against the Palestinian people." The organizers apparently believe that, even if they don't succeed in reaching their destination in Gaza, the publicity value alone, highlighting the blockade of Gaza, sufficiently justifies this attempt.

The last attempt to reach Gaza by sea was in June 2009 -- then, Free Gaza ships were intercepted by the Israeli Navy off Gaza, and forced to proceed to the southern Israeli port of Ashdod, where the cargo was impounded. ... According to the organizers' plans, the Freedom Flotilla will include as many as nine boats, including several cargo ships, and perhaps five passenger ships with up to 600 high-profile international personalities, activists, and journalists aboard.

Some of the ships will reportedly be flying the Turkish flag. This means that any Israeli attack on those ships would be considered tantamount to an attack upon Turkey.

Another one of the cargo ships, refurbished and outfitted in Ireland, has been re-named the MV Rachel Corrie, after the American solidarity activist who died, crushed by an Israeli military bulldozer (the IDF said the driver could not see her) while she was trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in southern Gaza.

From Israel Shamir:

Gaza Ahoy! Godspeed to Gaza.

5/29/10 -- The Turks did it! The world as we know it has changed with the new-found independence of Turkey. Within one month, this erstwhile American semi-colony under the charismatic leadership of Recep Erdogan has made two strong moves that have brought it to the forefront of policy-making:

Together with Brazil, Turkey has arranged and signed the Tehran Declaration of a nuclear fuel swap deal with beleaguered Iran. This declaration derails the Israeli plans of sanctioning Iran to death prior to bombing it. ... However, world policy-making has changed, and decisions are not made exclusively in Washington, London or Moscow any more. Mid-size countries – regional powers – are back in vogue, and it is much better for all of us. ...

After derailing the sanctions against Iran, the indomitable Turk sent his vessels to relieve the siege of Gaza. A whole flotilla of small and medium boats is on its way to Gaza now, and among them, a large boat from Turkey, accompanied by a boat bought and equipped by another great friend of Palestine, Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia. ...

This is the first time that the steering of this freedom regatta has passed from the hands of nice European volunteers to the locals, to the peoples of the region. This is a vast change, and a change that means a lot. While the Palestinian cause was only the cause celebré of Europeans with conscience, it was containable. Now, when it has become the concern of the local region, the countdown for the freak Zionist mini-Empire has begun.

From Nadia Kevorkova:

Freedom flotilla ready to break through blockade

5/30/10 -- The parliamentarians made up of Ireland’s Chris Andrews from ruling party Fianna Fail, Aengus Snodaigh from Sinn Fein, and senator Mark Daly; Swiss PM Mehmet Kaplan; former Italian senator Fernando Rossi; Hedy Epstein, an 86-year old US citizen whose parents were killed in the Holocaust; Kiriyak Tsonev, a former Bulgarian envoy to all Arabic countries; Oslo city council member Erling Folkvord; as well as Swedish journalists and writers from Sweden and France – all these people had spent 18 hours trying to board ships in Cypriot harbors to join the Gaza Freedom Flotilla that was waiting for them.

The flotilla, made up of nine ships, is to bring 10,000 tons of humanitarian cargo into Gaza, including medicines and notebooks, along with about 700 people: MPs from Israel and Germany, writers, scientists, two Al-Jazeera camera crews, newswire writers and TV journalists from Norway, Sweden, Bulgaria and France. ...

[Greta] Berlin believes that, regardless of whether the last group of campaigners will manage to join the rest of the flotilla, Israel’s blockade of Gaza will be breached. The world community’s attention is focused on the flotilla’s actions and plenty of resources have been gathered that are to go to the Palestinians.

The public isn’t quiet at all, however. One of the flotilla’s ships has been furbished by the European Union. European Union MPs and diplomats are present on board some of the ships. ...

Hedy Epstein, 86, who lost her parents in the Holocaust, is trying to enter Gaza for the fourth time. Yesterday, in Port Alaminos around 19:00 the group was blocked by four police cars, motor boats and a helicopter. The group had been urged to arrive in Port Alaminos by the Cyprus negotiators from the local government, who promised that from that point they would be able to send people to the flotilla.

After the Attack on the Freedom Flotilla

From Glenn Greenwald:

Israel attacks aid ship

5/31/10 -- Late last night, Israel attacked a flotilla of ships in international waters carrying food, medicine and other aid to Gaza, killing at least 10 civilians on board and injuring at least 30 more. ... The six-ship flotilla was carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid along with 600 people, all civilians, which included 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland and European legislators. ...

At the end of 2009, a U.N. report found that "insufficient food and medicine is reaching Gazans, producing a further deterioration of the mental and physical health of the entire civilian population since Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against the territory," and also "blamed the blockade for continued breakdowns of the electricity and sanitation systems due to the Israeli refusal to let spare parts needed for repair get through the crossings."

It hardly seemed possible for Israel -- after its brutal devastation of Gaza and its ongoing blockade -- to engage in more heinous and repugnant crimes. But by attacking a flotilla in international waters carrying humanitarian aid, and slaughtering at least 10 people, Israel has managed to do exactly that. If Israel's goal were to provoke as much disgust and contempt for it as possible, it's hard to imagine how it could be doing a better job. ...

Israeli actions are a direct reflection on, and by-product of, the U.S. Government, because it is the U.S. which enables and protects the behavior. The one silver lining from these incidents is that the real face of Israel becomes increasingly revealed and undeniable. Not even the most intense propaganda systems can prettify a lethal military attack on ships carrying civilians and humanitarian aid to people living in some of the most wretched and tragic conditions anywhere in the world. ...

As Americans suffer extreme cuts in education for their own children and a further deterioration in basic economic security (including Social Security), will they continue to acquiesce to the transfer of billions of dollars every year to the Israelis, who -- unlike Americans -- enjoy full, universal health care coverage? ... How much longer will Americans be willing to pay the extreme prices for its endlessly entangled "alliance" with its prime Middle Eastern client state, whose capacity for criminal and inhumane acts appears limitless?

What does Israel fear from media coverage?

6/1/10 -- The New York Times reports: "A day after Israeli commandoes raided an aid flotilla seeking to breach the blockade of Gaza, Reuters reported that Israel was holding hundreds of activists incommunicado in and around the port city of Ashdod, refusing to permit journalists access to witnesses who might contradict Israel's version of events." ...

Isn't it strange how Plucky, Democratic Israel goes to such extreme lengths to prevent any media coverage of what they do, any journalistic interference with their propaganda machine, in light of the fact that -- as always -- They Did Absolutely Nothing Wrong? Is physically blocking the media from covering what happens the act of a government that is in the right? ...

Israel is now not only detaining the victims of its aggression, but also threatening to prosecute and imprison them. Israeli Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch said yesterday: "All those who lifted a hand against a soldier will be punished to the full extent of the law." So when Israel seizes ships in international waters and kills anyone who resists (and others standing near them), that is an act of noble, plucky self-defense. But those who fail to submit completely to this lawless and barbarous act of aggression are the Real Criminals who will be prosecuted and imprisoned "to the fullest extent of the law." ...

But doesn't the victim of a crime usually want media coverage of what the criminal did? How odd for the victim in this case to take such extreme steps to ensure that the world cannot hear from the witnesses. ... "There won’t be any daylight between the US and Israel in the aftermath of the incident on the flotilla yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of 10 activists," ABC News reported today, in case that wasn't already obvious. ...

Finally, Newsweek's Ben Adler explains why the U.S. will never criticize Israel no matter what Israel does: because huge numbers of Republican and Democratic politicians are vehemently devoted to that foreign country, and the ones who aren't are petrified, especially in an election year. That, too, is some rare candor on the subject.

From Stephen Walt:

Israel's latest brutal blunder

5/31/10 -- By now you'll all have heard about the IDF's unwarranted attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, a fleet of six civilian vessels that was attempting to bring humanitarian aid (i.e., medicines, food, and building materials) to Gaza. The population of Gaza has been under a crippling Israeli siege since 2006. Israel imposed the blockade after Gaza's voters had the temerity to prefer Hamas in a free election held at the insistence of the Bush administration, which then refused to recognize the new government because it didn't like the results. ...

My first question when I heard the news was: "What could Israel's leaders have been thinking?" How could they possibly believe that a deadly assault against a humanitarian mission in international waters would play to their advantage? Israel's government and its hard-line supporters frequently complain about alleged efforts to "delegitimize" the country, but actions like this are the real reason Israel's standing around the world has plummeted to such low levels. ...

My second question is: "Will the Obama administration show some backbone on this issue, and go beyond the usual mealy-mouthed statements that U.S. presidents usually make when Israel acts foolishly and dangerously?" ... Attacking a humanitarian aid mission certainly isn't consistent with American values -- even when that aid mission is engaged in the provocative act of challenging a blockade -- and doing so in international waters is a direct violation of international law. Of course, it would be politically difficult for the administration to take a principled stand with midterm elections looming, but our values and commitment to the rule of law aren't worth much if a president will sacrifice them just to win votes. ...

Because the United States provides Israel with so much material aid and diplomatic protection, and because American politicians from the president on down repeatedly refer to the "unbreakable bonds" between the United States and Israel, people all over the world naturally associate us with most, if not all, of Israel's actions. Thus, Israel doesn't just tarnish its own image when it does something outlandish like this; it makes the United States look bad, too. ...

It will also cost us some moral standing with other friends around the world, especially if we downplay it. This is just more evidence, as if we needed any, that the special relationship with Israel has become a net liability. In short, unless the Obama administration demonstrates just how angry and appalled it is by this foolish act, and unless the U.S. reaction has some real teeth in it, other states will rightly see Washington as irretrievably weak and hypocritical.

From Gabriel Winant:

Why Israel will get away with it

6/1/10 -- The violence on the flotilla headed for Gaza would seem to be unambiguously bad news for Israel. In boarding a civilian ship carrying humanitarian aid supplies, and involving themselves in an incident that led to at least ten civilian deaths, it seems clear that the Israeli Defense Forces have incurred a political cost for Israel that far exceeds whatever national interest they thought they were protecting. Europe is outraged, Turkey is cutting off ties, and an explosion in the occupied territories looks possible. ...

The hard consensus at the elite level in favor of tolerating whatever Israel wants to do rests on a soft consensus in American public opinion. Both are likely to survive this in some slightly diminished form, as they've survived the two Lebanon wars (complete with thoroughly unprovoked massacres), the small Gaza war and the formation of an Israeli government including a quasi-fascist foreign minister.

Plus, even though Israeli commandos Israel boarded the ships as part of a broad, explicit, and indefensible effort to keep basic supplies out of a desperately needy Gaza, Israel's supporters are aggressively pushing a blame-the-victims counternarrative. ...

American conservatives are already doubling down on their attacks on the ship passengers. Writing at Commentary, Noah Pollak actually calls them "terrorist blockade runners." Apparently, you can be a terrorist even on the receiving end of the gunfire. At the National Review Online, Daniel Pipes writes, "Israel’s enemies… turned to other means -- weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and (most recently) political delegitimization. ...

Seeing conservatives rally to Israel's defense and liberals agonize and waffle, Americans who are paying even moderate attention will probably just figure that this is more of the usual. While the Obama administration has been trying to apply pressure to the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, we've yet to see any willingness to expend significant political capital on the effort. This latest might give President Obama more leverage, and lend weight to his warnings that Israel is undermining its own long-term political standing. But it seems equally likely that it won't have any significant short-term consequences, and Israeli conservatives will figure that everything turned out for the best. ...

But if the killings at sea do spark a new uprising or a wave of terrorism, Israel is likely only to entrench further, and the American and Israeli right wings will both once again blame the Palestinians for obstructing peace. ... Obviously, the situation is open. Prediction is something of a mug's game. But this mug, at least, thinks that Israel is going to get away with it. ...

At the moment, for [Netanyahu] and his allies on the right, the basic model of governance is to borrow against Israel's future position, in exchange for short-term gains of security or territory. In other words, in the long term, getting away with it is bad news for Israel. But, for the time being, that isn't especially important to the Israeli government.
Read more!

On Rand Paul, blacks and capitalism

See my article, The Civil Rights Myth: Integration and the End of Black Self-Reliance at Alternative Right

Excerpts:

White liberals were so intent on forced integration of white businesses because it never occurred to them to put the onus on blacks themselves, and to ask, Why should whites, or any other group, be compelled to go against their preferences to satisfy yours? Why aren't you taking care of these matters and fulfilling your own needs? ...

How is it possible to win the respect of others, if you produce nothing? This question was already being asked back in 1852 by the black Abolitionist Martin Delany, who denounced middle-class blacks that long ago for desiring only to ride on the coattails of whites ...

Why didn't whites support those blacks who, back in the 1950s and 1960s, challenged the strategies of the proliferating numbers of civil-rights leaders, and who insisted that blacks must not be taken down the road of dependency? One reason is that ever since the days of Abolition, whites had grown used to having this mass of people to pity. These black victims of the "bad" whites made the "good" whites feel expansive and noble, as they still do. The graphic depictions of past sufferings relentlessly offered up by the NAACP suited these whites just fine. ...

The [black] elites were not dumb. They surmised that the strategy of "civil rights" would lead more quickly to greater power than they could acquire at a slower economic pace. This is the key to why so much terrible stuff befell blacks and ultimately befell the country. The elites who ran such organizations as the NAACP cared nothing about the overall health or long-term welfare of the group, but only about how they might take short cuts to power via the beneficence of whites. With the help of their white compatriots they managed to turn what was essentially an economic problem to be solved into a moral crusade. And the typical white ate it up. After all, economic solutions would not have led to all that Freedom-Riding and marching and anthem singing. Oh, how those white folks loved all that melodrama! And still do. ...

The total acceptance of King by whites, confirmed when this preacher was granted a federal holiday, fixed for all time the notion that the path on which he took blacks was the only correct one.

Read complete article here.
Read more!

A new war for the Empire

At the end of an informative rant about the current economic woes of his birthplace Greece, Taki Theodoracopulos concludes, in his usual witty fashion:

Thinking about it, we Greeks are not all that bad. At least our leaders have not sent young men to die for the glory of Bush and Blair and Brown, despite enormous pressure to do so. So what’s a little stealing from the crooks of the EU, with a little help from Goldman Sachs, that is.

Yes, Greece could be a worse villain and in worse than just financial trouble. It could be acting like an Empire that has assumed the responsibility of monitoring the entire planet, along with the cosmos, sort of like the role the United States plays.

Let's see now. We only have three wars going on at the moment -- Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan -- with Iran on hold. But what's that over there in the East? That looks like Korea acting up again, with its North throwing missiles at the South. This is the signal for the Empire to hop to it. Oh boy, another war!

Surely, we can offer some of our inventive military equipment, troops, and other resources to bombing the stuffings out of Korea. Why not bomb both Koreas this time? After all, we should return and finish the job that was left incomplete in the 1950s, right? It's our moral duty.

We know we can count on those faithful Evangelical Christians to send more of their sons to die or be maimed. There are so many young American men still to be sent overseas to "protect our freedoms." What are they doing out of uniform anyway, sitting around playing with their iPods, watching TV, hiding out in college with musty, old books. Let's give them something substantial to do!

Let's send more units of soldiers as emissaries and give another part of the world reasons to hate us, as they are blown up by IEDs, or whatever the Koreans might think invaders deserve. We know those good capitalist Evangelicals will be thrilled to keep the prosthetic industry fat and prosperous, while assuring us that they Support the Troops. USA! USA! USA! Who can we go and kill today? Our own young men in another worthless conflict.
Read more!