unz |A
fascinating feature of coverage of the Winter 2019/2020 attacks on Jews
by Blacks in New York has been the total absence of media enquiry into why the assaults took place. Like so much historiography on European anti-Semitism, there is simply no room for the question Why? As
in Kiev, or Odessa, or the Rhine Valley, or Lincoln, or Aragon, or
Galicia, the assaults on Jews in Brooklyn apparently emerged from the
ether, motivated by some miasmic combination of insanity and demonic
aggression. NBC New York reported
bluntly on a “spree of hate,” but had nothing in the way of analysis of
context other than a condemnation of “possible hate-based attacks” —
one of the most remarkably opaque pieces of analytical nomenclature I’ve
ever come across. Former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind has said
“The attacks against Jews are out of control, and we must have a
concrete strategy to address the rise of these attacks,” but how he can
develop a strategy to address something that apparently does not yet
have an explanation is another question left unanswered.
What
is clear is that Black anti-Semitism presents Jews with an objective
problem in terms of their (publicly-expressed) self-concept as a people
and the received wisdom regarding the nature of anti-Semitism (now given
quasi-legal standing in many countries via the IHRA definition). The
multiple ways in which Jews have sought to deal with this challenge will
be addressed in a forthcoming follow-up essay, but it should suffice
here to close with the remarks of Steven Gold on the Jewish response to
growing Black anti-Semitism in 1940s Harlem:
Being well organized, Jewish communal associations took note when Jewish
merchants were accused of inappropriate behavior. When African-American
journalists or activists complained about the exploitative behavior of
ghetto merchants, Jewish spokesmen often resisted accepting
responsibility and instead labeled accusers as anti-Semites for
referring to the merchants’ religion. Contending that Jewish merchants
treated Blacks no worse than other Whites did, they objected to being
singled out.[17]
An
age-old pattern had thus been employed with a 20th century twist.
Denials of responsibility and accusations of blind and unfair bigotry
had been honed to perfection for centuries in Europe, but now came the
masterful flourish of the pluralist culture — to dissolve into
“Whiteness” at will and direct Black anger at that mask instead. After
all, isn’t the Jew the best friend a Black could ask for?
NYTimes | “The vast majority of white opinion at that time was that this was
black-on-black crime, and maybe black-extremist-on-black-extremist
crime,” said David Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning civil rights
historian. “And there was for decades a consensus in black communities
that we are not going to pick up that rock to see what’s underneath it.”
At the time Malcolm spoke at the Audubon Ballroom on Feb. 21, 1965, he
was a marked man — spied on by the F.B.I. and the police, denounced as a
traitor by the Nation leadership, viscerally hated and beloved. Mr.
Farrakhan declared him “worthy of death.” A week before his
assassination, his home in Queens was firebombed while he and his wife
and four daughters slept inside.
Mr. Muhammad in 2010 uncovered the identity
of one of the supposed assassins named in Mr. Hayer’s affidavit,
William Bradley, who had changed his name to Almustafa Shabazz and was
married to a prominent Newark activist. It was Mr. Bradley’s shotgun
blast, researchers contend, that killed Malcolm.
Mr.
Shabazz, who died in 2018, denied any involvement in the murder, and
lived in plain sight. “I knew him well,” Cory Booker says in the
documentary, adding that he was not aware of Mr. Shabazz’s past
identity.
Mr. Muhammad published Mr. Shabazz’s name and photograph on his blog in 2010, and then shared his research with Manning Marable, who was working on his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography, “Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention.” Mr. Muhammad believes that the other three men named in Mr. Hayer’s affidavits are dead.
After
the book came out, Alvin Sykes, a Kansas City activist who helped
persuade the F.B.I. and Justice Department to create a cold case unit
for civil rights-era killings, lobbied federal prosecutors
to reinvestigate Malcolm’s murder. The department declined. When Mr.
Shabazz died, the last remaining loose end was Mr. Aziz, the former
Norman 3X Butler, now 81, who served 20 years for a crime he insists he
did not commit.
cbsnews | AMBASSADOR CUI: First of all, America experts are on the list
recommended by the W.H.O. We certainly respect- I think all of us
respect the W.H.O. as the most professional intergovernmental body in
the world and for the U.S. CDC, they have very frequent regular contact
with the- their Chinese counterparts, the Chinese CDC. And even beyond
that, some American experts have come to China already on their own
individual basis. So there's ongoing contacts not only between the two
governments, but also between the two CDC's and between the academic
institutions and even some American companies are also offering help,
technical help.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I- I asked the question,
because it also gets at there's a lot of unknown and a lot of suspicion
because of that. And in fact, this week, Senator Tom Cotton, who sits on
the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committee, suggested that
the virus may have come from China's biological warfare program. That's
an extraordinary charge. How do you respond to that?
AMBASSADOR
CUI: I think it's true that a lot is still unknown and our scientists,
Chinese scientists, American scientists, scientists of other countries
are doing their best to learn more about the virus, but it's very
harmful. It's very dangerous to stir up suspicion, rumors and spread
them among the people. For one thing, this will create panic. Another
thing that it will fend up racial discrimination, xenophobia, all these
things, that will really harm our joint efforts to combat the virus. Of
course, there are all kinds of speculation and rumors. There are people
who are saying that these virus are coming from some- some military lab,
not of China, maybe in the United States. How- how can we believe all
these crazy things?
MARGARET BRENNAN: You think it's crazy. Where did the virus come from?
AMBASSADOR CUI: Absolutely crazy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Where did the virus come from?
AMBASSADOR
CUI: We still don't know yet. It's probably according to some initial
outcome of the research, probably coming from some animals. But we have
to- to discover more about it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There has been
some outcry on social media, particularly after the death of Dr. Li
Wenliang. He had made public warnings for weeks before the government
acknowledged this was happening. In fact, authorities had forced him to
disavow what he had said previously, which turned out to be true. The
Communist Party of China is now investigating this. Why?
AMBASSADOR
CUI: Well, we are all very saddened about the death of Dr. Li. He is a
good doctor. He was a devoted doctor, and he did his best to protect
people's health. We are so grateful to him. But you see, he was a doctor
and a doctor could be alarmed by some individual cases. But as for the
government, you have to do more. You have to base your decisions, your
announcement on more solid evidence and signs.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But do you think silencing him in the beginning was a mistake?
AMBASSADOR
CUI: I- I don't know who tried to silence him, but there was certainly a
disagreement or people were not able to reach agreement on what exactly
the virus is, how it is affecting people. So there was a process of
trying to discover more, to learn more about the virus. Maybe some
people reacted not quickly enough. Maybe Dr. Li, he perceived some
incoming dangers earlier than others, but this is- this could happen
anywhere, but whenever we find there's some shortcoming,--
NIH | Studies of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
demonstrate that the respiratory tract is a major site of
SARS-coronavirus (CoV) infection and disease morbidity. We studied
host-pathogen interactions using native lung tissue and a model of
well-differentiated cultures of primary human airway epithelia.
Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the receptor for both the
SARS-CoV and the related human respiratory coronavirus NL63, was
expressed in human airway epithelia as well as lung parenchyma. As
assessed by immunofluorescence staining and membrane biotinylation, ACE2
protein was more abundantly expressed on the apical than the
basolateral surface of polarized airway epithelia. Interestingly, ACE2
expression positively correlated with the differentiation state of
epithelia.
golemxiv | Like every issue of consequence, in our Age of Incomprehension,
opinion about the truth concerning the Corona virus outbreak is
divided. Either China is taking all prudent steps, the virus, while
transmissible, has a low mortality rate and the West, with its travel
bans, is over-reacting in a vaguely racist manner, or China has the
virus far from contained, we don’t know just how transmissible it is nor
its mortality rate because the figures from China can’t be trusted and
therefore travel bans are a wise precaution.
If travel bans to and from the infected parts of China turn out to
have been justified then one country in particular may be worth
watching, Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s Bole International airport is the main
African gateway to and from China. On average 1500 passengers per day arrive from China every day. Ethiopia scans them all for symptoms which essentially means taking their temperature.
Many of those passengers then fly on to other parts of Africa where
Chinese companies are doing business. These are 2018 figures courtesy of Brookings.
The three main areas of Chinese business in Africa are transport,
which generally means building airports and railways, energy which means
building power stations and grids and metals which means mines.
One of the airports the Chinese funded and built is Bole International Airport in Ethiopia.
NYTimes | The reality is that the coronavirus is a rapidly spreading respiratory infection
that originated in Wuhan, China. Most of the cases, and nearly all of
the deaths, have so far been in China, though the germ has reached
dozens of other countries in recent weeks.
Medical misinformation on the virus has
been driven by ideologues who distrust science and proven measures like
vaccines, and by profiteers who scare up internet traffic with zany
tales and try to capitalize on that traffic by selling “cures” or other
health and wellness products.
“There
are self-appointed experts, people working from anecdote, or making up
wild claims to get traffic or notoriety,” said Mr. Pattison of the
W.H.O.
The groundwork for the coordination around the coronavirus was laid two
years ago, when Mr. Pattison went to the W.H.O. general director, Dr.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and suggested a full-blown effort to connect
with social media titans to combat health misinformation. Now about a
half-dozen W.H.O. staffers in Geneva are working on the issue, building
relationships with digital and social media sites. Over time, the
cooperative efforts have grown. For instance, last August, Pinterest
teamed up with the W.H.O. to link to accurate information about vaccines
when people search the service for that topic.
Ifeoma Ozoma, public policy and social
impact manager at Pinterest, said the company “has been working with the
World Health Organization over the last year,” with an aim to “make
sure people can find authoritative information when it really counts.”
The
W.H.O. seeks no money, nor pays any, in these relationships, Mr.
Pattison said. Rather, he explained, it is lending its credibility and
hoping to use “their reach.”
The relationship has borne concrete results.
Google launched what it calls an “SOS
Alert,” which directs people who search for “coronavirus” to news and
other information from the W.H.O., including to the organization’s
Twitter account; that was expanded Thursday to include information in
not just English but also French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and Russian.
The W.H.O. has also worked with the major Chinese-owned social media
site WeChat to add a news feed featuring correct information, translated
into Chinese by the W.H.O.
The health
agency has worked especially closely with Facebook. The company has
used human fact checkers to flag misinformation, which can come to their
attention through computer programs that identify suspicious keywords
and trends. Such posts can then be moved down in news feeds, or, in rare
cases, removed altogether.
WaPo | At first glance, the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and the Democratic
Party’s bungling of the Iowa caucuses don’t seem to have much in common.
Yet take a closer look and you’ll see that both attest to the growing
power of the agents of chaos who are prepared to twist information to
nefarious ends.
It’s
the uncertainty and the fear surrounding the Wuhan virus that have made
it a global news story. The Chinese Communist Party reacted to the
initial outbreak just as it has in the past — by suppressing any information from the source of the epidemic, including cracking down on a doctor who revealed it early on.
Which brings us to Iowa. The state Democratic Party’s catastrophic
mismanagement of the caucus vote count would have been bad enough in its
own right. On Thursday, the chair of the Democratic National Committee said
that he wants to see the results recounted. Yet the spreaders of
disinformation have been working around the clock to exacerbate the
damage — and here, too, Facebook, Google and Twitter have proved
completely incapable of reining in the falsehoods.
The reality is that too many people have figured out that undermining the truth is easy, fun and profitable.The agents of chaos have the upper hand. We’d better figure out a way to fight back, and soon.
WaPo | As a mysterious virus spread through Wuhan last month, the World Health Organization had a message: China has got this.
And
as the coronavirus swept across the Chinese heartland and jumped to
other nations, WHO’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus,
applauded the “transparency” of the Chinese response.
Even as evidence mounted that Chinese officials had silenced whistleblowers and undercounted cases, Tedros took a moment to extol the leadership of Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Now — more than a month into an escalating global health crisis
— there are questions about whether the WHO’s praise in the early weeks
created a false sense of security that potentially spurred the virus’s
spread.
Some experts have defended the comments as sound strategy.
“WHO
has really tricky balancing act,” said Devi Sridhar, a professor of
global public health at the University of Edinburgh. “If that means
praising China publicly, that’s what he has to do.”
Others worried that it could shake faith in the U.N. body.
Praising
China’s leaders “is not a bad idea, but do you want to do it in a
professional and credible way,” said the Council on Foreign Relations’
Huang.
For now, WHO seems to be sticking with the strategy.
At a new conference on Thursday, Tedros was
asked, again, about China, including the death of one of the Chinese
doctors who sounded the alarm on the virus, only to be detained by
police. (He later died of the virus.)
He
first deferred to a colleague, then took the chance to speak again,
defending China’s handling of the epidemic. “It is very difficult, given
the facts,” he said, “to say that China was hiding.”
vox | We’re at a pivotal moment in the outbreak of the new coronavirus in China.
Depending on whom you ask, we’re either already in a pandemic, meaning
there are ongoing epidemics of the virus on two or more continents;
we’re hurtling toward one; or we’re on the path to averting a spiraling
crisis.
As of February 6, more than 28,000 people have been infected
with 2019-nCoV, as the respiratory virus is known, and 565 people have
died. There are also nearly 200 cases in 26 countries besides China,
including one death in the Philippines.
This toll represents a tragic and stunning increase from a month ago,
when it looked like there were no more than 50 patients with the virus
in Wuhan, the mainland Chinese city where the virus is thought to have
originated.
There’s still so much we don’t know about 2019-nCoV,
including how exactly it’s transmitted, where it’s spreading, and how
deadly it is. And that uncertainty is important because viruses have
funny ways of surprising us: H1N1 “swine flu,” which was a pandemic,
turned out to be much less deadly than feared. (A disease can be
pandemic and not particularly severe.) Ebola, meanwhile, was known to
science for decades and then behaved in ways that caught infectious
disease experts off guard during the 2014-2016 epidemic in West Africa.
Given the unknowns about 2019-nCoV, in the coming days
and weeks, we’re in for some twists and turns. For now, many experts
believe this outbreak could get a lot worse: burdening the Chinese
health system, spreading in poorer countries with weaker health systems,
and sickening and killing thousands more people along the way.
Alternatively, it could get much better, with new cases and deaths
steadily dropping. Here are the key factors that will determine which
way it goes.
salon | Some day, I will draw up a visual flowchart to explain how epidemics
are named for the public. Specifically, there is a logic employed by
both the media and the scientific community, though neither speak it
aloud. It starts with the question of where the virus originates: is it
currently spreading in the US, or in another Western country? If
so, give it its numerical designation (e.g. H1N1), or reference the
animal in which we think it started (e.g. Swine Flu, or Mad Cow
Disease).
But if it started in a country that Americans have stereotypes
towards, naming it after that region — as with Middle Eastern
Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Asian Flu, and now, Wuhan Coronavirus — is a
great way to play on xenophobic and racist tropes.
Yes, that means that white supremacy
can be a factor even in the way that we name viruses — such as when the
language around it, purportedly objective and scientific, stems from a
white-centered, xenophobic perspective. Fears over a possible pandemic
over the 2019-nCoV coronavirus (tagged by most media outlets, including
the New York Times, the "Wuhan Coronavirus")
has transmogrified into unchecked xenophobia and racism, with children
being barred from music lessons and people running away from any person
who looks East Asian. In New York City there have been several reports
of assaults on Asian people, an assailant punching and kicking a woman,
calling her a "diseased b*tch," and Trump-enabled racists @-ing him on
Twitter, suggesting the entire country of China should be "nuked."
Trump's overheated rhetoric on migrants and people of color — and "s**thole countries,"
as he calls much of the world — are absolutely fanning the flames of
the racist response to the Coronavirus. Yet it is important to recognize
that this bias against Asians is nothing new; that the engine of white
supremacist culture and language continually hums underground until
something like 2019-nCoV makes it visible.
The idea that Asians are dirty, eat strange foods, and are vectors of
disease has existed for as long as Asians have been in the U.S., and
these ideas continue to exist today. In the 1850s, Chinese immigration
was first welcomed because of our growing country's dire need for labor,
and the Chinese were admired for their reputation as hard,
uncomplaining workers.
In subsequent years, when the continued influx of immigration began
to threaten the job prospects for white laborers, calls for immigration
restrictions began alongside rumors that the Chinese were disease
vectors. During an outbreak of smallpox in San Francisco in 1876, a
population of 30,000 Chinese living there became medical scapegoats,
Chinatown was blamed as a "laboratory of infection," and quarantined
amidst renewed calls to halt immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the
first immigration law based on race, was enacted in 1882.
zerohedge | The real reason behind the viral spread, we suggested, was that a weaponized version of the coronavirus (one which may have originally been obtained from Canada), was released by Wuhan's Institute of Virology (presumably accidentally ), China's only top, level-4 biohazard lab, which was studying "the world's most dangerous pathogens."
At the time we summarized the series of dots and asked "real reporters" to connect them:
One of China's top virology and immunology experts was and still works at China's top-rated biohazard lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which some have affectionately called the real Umbrella Corp.
Since 2009, Peng has been the leading Chinese scientist researching
the immune mechanism of bats carrying and transmitting lethal viruses
in the world.
His primary field of study is researching how and why bats
can be infected with some of the most nightmarish viruses in the world
including Ebola, SARS and Coronavirus, and not get sick.
He was genetically engineering various immune pathways (such as the STING pathway in bats) to make the bats more or less susceptible to infection, in the process potentially creating a highly resistant mutant superbug.
As part of his studies, Peng also researched mutant Coronavirus strains that overcame the natural immunity of some bats; these
are "superbug" Coronavirus strains, which are resistant to any natural
immune pathway, and now appear to be out in the wild.
As of mid-November, his lab was actively hiring inexperienced
post-docs to help conduct his research into super-Coronaviruses and bat
infections.
Peng's work on virology and bat immunology has received
support from the National "You Qing" Fund, the pilot project of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the major project of the Ministry of
Science and Technology.
Of course, that is all ancient history and Zero Hedge was
permanently banned from Twitter for raising such a conspiracy theory
about a publicly-searchable person working a publicly-searchable place.
But, bygones being bygones, we moved on... until today when no lesser entity than The White House began asking questions about the origin of the deadly coronavirus.
Specifically, ABC News' Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton asked the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease about concerns that stem from misinformation online that the novel coronavirus could have been engineered or deliberately released.
bloomberg | Scenes of chaos and despair are emerging daily from China’s Hubei
province, the landlocked region of 60 million people where the new
coronavirus dubbed 2019-nCoV was first identified in December, and where
it has since cut a wide, deadly swathe.
While cases have spread around the globe, the virus’ impact has been most keenly felt in Hubei, which has seen a staggering 97% of all deaths from the illness, and 67% of all patients.
The
toll, which grows larger every day, reflects a local health system
overwhelmed by the fast-moving, alien pathogen, making even the most
basic care impossible. It’s also an ongoing illustration of the human
cost extracted by the world’s largest-known quarantine, with China
effectively locking down the region from Jan. 23 to contain the virus’
spread to the rest of the country, and the world.
But Hubei -- known for its car factories and bustling capital
Wuhan -- is paying the price, with the mortality rate for coronavirus
patients there 3.1%, versus 0.16% for the rest of China.
“If the
province was not sealed off, some people would have gone all around the
country to try to get medical help, and would have turned the whole
nation into an epidemic-stricken area,” said Yang Gonghuan, former
deputy director general of China’s Center for Disease Control and
Prevention.
“The quarantine brought a lot of hardship to Hubei and
Wuhan, but it was the right thing to do.”
“It’s like fighting a war -- some things are hard, but must be done.”
Wuhan,
home to 11 million people, is a “second-tier” Chinese city, meaning
it’s relatively developed but still a step below China’s major
metropolises of Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou. It has well-regarded
hospitals, but resources lag behind those of more prominent cities.
In
the early days of the virus’ spread, prevarication and delay by local
officials also allowed the pathogen to circulate more widely among an
unsuspecting public.
taiwannews | Video has surfaced allegedly shot from inside the instant
"hospital" hastily constructed in Wuhan appearing much more like a
prison than a center to care for sick patients.
On Monday (Feb. 3), Communist China claimed to have completed the
Huoshenshan Hospital in Wuhan to house 1,000 of the city's residents
infected with the novel coronavirus (2019nCoV). The rapid construction
of the hospital was widely trumpeted by Chinese state-run mouthpieces
and parroted by Western media outlets as an example of the Chinese
Communist Party's (CCP's) superior ability to quickly respond to crises,
while a de-emphasis was placed on the initial slow response that
arguably allowed the virus to mushroom out of control.
However, the dissident organization Himalaya Global released a video
on its Twitter page Monday which was apparently secretly filmed by a
Chinese contractor inside the new facility. The video starts with the
contractor introducing the Spartan interior of Ward 1.
The man starts out by ominously saying, "Once you are in, you can't
get out." He then asserts that patients would be better off staying at
home than checking into the new compound.
The camera then focuses on the tiny windows that he said would be
used to serve food to patients. In the background, another man can be
heard saying that "the dead will be removed from that door."
lawfare | But how the impeachment inquiry itself was conducted had an effect as
well. Undoubtedly, the process suffered in part from the inherently
political nature of the House. As political scientists are wont to
emphasize, Congress is a they, not an it.
Democratic leaders were cross-pressured by factions within their
coalition who were eager to rush ahead with an impeachment and by those
who were uncertain and reluctant about the political desirability of an
impeachment. The House stumbled through a messy process in part because
the majority was uncertain where it was going.
The House also seemed to struggle to contain the egos and ambitions
of its own members. When the Ukraine story broke and it became obvious
that an impeachment inquiry was on the horizon, Democrats proved unable to make the choices necessary
to put the best case forward. Rather than entrusting the inquiry to a
single permanent committee or appointing a select committee for this
particular task, the Democrats allowed the inquiry to be divided across
multiple committees with no clear leadership. Rather than keeping the
focus on the administration’s misconduct, the House catered to the
political needs of individual members looking to get their own share of
the national spotlight. Rather than systematically exposing the
available facts and constructing a coherent narrative of events, the
House generated a confusion of soundbites and political posturing.
Having begun the investigation without any clear plan for proceeding,
the impeachment inquiry lacked both transparency and organization and
generated needless procedural puzzles and oppositional talking points.
The president’s defense team has made a great deal out of the House
conducting depositions in a “basement bunker” closed to the public. Yet
not only is there nothing wrong with a congressional process for
investigating diplomatic conduct that includes a phase in executive
session behind closed doors, but it is the only sensible approach.
However, the Republicans were given more of a talking point by the
Democrats’ inability to outline a comprehensive plan for how the
investigation would proceed. Members of the Democratic leadership themselves struggled to get on the same page
on whether and when an impeachment inquiry had been launched, and even
when Pelosi was willing to declare that a formal impeachment inquiry had
begun, she was unwilling to provide a blueprint for how such an inquiry
would proceed.
off-guardian | After dragging the country through three years of Russiagate which
never panned out, the Democrats appear to be scoring yet another own
goal. Even a near brush with war against Iran does not seem to have
impacted Trump’s favorability, which could have been seen as a reversal
of his campaign pledges to end America’s forever wars that were arguably
a significant factor in his unlikely victory.
It was Trump’s rhetoric as a peace candidate suggesting rapprochement
with Russia which made him a target of the political establishment and
intelligence community, who subsequently blamed his shocking win on
still-unproven allegations of election interference by the Kremlin.
Since he took office, Trump has done nearly everything short of
declaring war on Moscow to appease the bipartisan anti-Russia consensus
in Washington but to no avail. One such step was the decision to provide
military aid to Ukraine amid its ongoing war in the eastern Donbass
region against Russian-speaking separatists, a move the Obama
administration decided against because of Kiev’s rampant corruption.
Trump’s predecessor tapped his Vice President, Joe Biden, to head up
an anti-corruption drive in Ukraine who instead used the opportunity to
personally enrich his family by landing his son, Hunter, a job on the
executive board of the country’s largest private gas company, Burisma
Holdings.
Biden led the U.S. role in the 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine which
overthrew the democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovych
after he turned down a European Union Association Agreement for an
economic bail-out from Russia that was the flashpoint for the subsequent
Donbass war.
Contrary to the Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ narrative, one figure who
tried to lobby Yanukovych into signing the pro-austerity treaty was none
other than Paul Manafort, the future Trump campaign manager indicted
during the Russia probe for failing to register as a foreign agent while
consulting for the deposed Ukrainian president.
Manafort’s influence went against Russian interests in favor of the
EU and was years before Trump was ever a candidate, but this did not
stop the Democrats from later misconstruing it as evidence he was a
backchannel to the Kremlin. Meanwhile, Biden’s hand in the junta was
revealed in an infamous leaked phone call
between Victoria Nuland, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, then-U.S. Ambassador
to Ukraine.
Nuland, who is the wife of leading neoconservative figure Robert Kagan, also spilled the beans
that the U.S. invested as much as $5 billion dollars on regime change
in Kiev when we were led to believe the Maidan was a spontaneous,
popular revolt.
Shortly after the putsch, Hunter Biden joined the board of directors
at Burisma despite having no experience in Ukraine or the energy sector.
The embattled fracking company was founded by a notorious oligarch
and corrupt minister from the Yanukovych era, Mykola Zlochevsky, yet who
unlike the former did not have to flee to Russia and curiously escaped
prosecution in a money laundering case under the new Western-friendly
regime — did he obtain immunity with Hunter Biden’s appointment?
When the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, reportedly
began to investigate the energy firm, the elder Biden did not just
blackmail the post-Maidan government of Petro Poroshenko into sacking
him by threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees but openly bragged about it on camera:
Told you about this station a couple weeks ago, and the McCarthy-ite mess being stirred up locally by the MSM to censure and censor its programming. Anyway, not only is the station a broadcaster non grata, anyone with the audacity to listen to it and like it may be subject to persona non grata status on these interwebs with a quickness. This cancel culture is desperately in need of some rough disciplining.
Today he owns two, plus a small fleet of radio transmitters across the Kansas City metro.
But
money remains tight, he laid off his staff years ago and the stations
sell airtime to local residents and religious organizations at cut-rate
prices. He hasn’t given himself a paycheck in months.
So Pete
Schartel’s ears perked up a while back when he heard that Radio Sputnik
pays $30,000 a month to broadcast its programming in Washington, D.C.
“I’m
going, ‘Oh my Lord, that’s twice what my whole budget is,’” he told
KCUR in a two-hour interview at his flagship station, KCXL, last week.
“They must have some money. Let’s investigate this.”
Schartel
found Arnold Ferolito, the broker who negotiated the 2017 deal to
broadcast Russian programming 24 hours a day in Washington, and made his
pitch: “We’re right in the middle of the country. This would be a good
test market.”
Ferolito agreed. Late last year, Schartel began
broadcasting Radio Sputnik for a couple of hours each morning on KCXL,
an AM radio station based in Liberty, Missouri.
The
English-language broadcast is produced by the U.S.-based branch of
Rossiya Segodnya (“Russia Today”), an organization created in 2013 by
Russian President Vladimir Putin to promote Russian interests abroad.
Schartel’s
listeners — accustomed to eclectic programming that ranges from music
to Bible study to far-right conspiracy theorist and talk show host Alex
Jones — seemed to react positively.
“And I’m going, ‘Hmm, I
think we’ve got something that some people like here,’” he said. “And if
they’ll pay me for it, that’s even better.”
In January, Schartel
and his wife, Jonne, agreed to broadcast Radio Sputnik for six hours a
day for three years on three frequencies: 1140 AM, 102.9 FM and 104.7
FM.
jonathanturley | We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here and here). A
teenager has sparked a national debate about blasphemy in France after
an Instagram post calling Islam a “religion of hate”.
vox | Thank you very much, everybody. We’ve all been through a
lot together, and we probably deserve that hand for all of us because
it’s been a very unfair situation. I invited some of our very good
friends, and we have limited room, but everybody wanted to come. We kept
it down to a minimum, and believe it or not, this is a minimum.
But a tremendous thing was done over the last number of
months, but really, if you go back to it, over the last number of years.
We had the witch hunt. It started from the day we came down the
elevator, myself and our future first lady, who is with us right now.
Thank you, Melania. [Cheers and applause]
And it never really stopped. We’ve been going through
this now for over three years. It was evil, it was corrupt, it was dirty
cops, it was leakers and liars, and this should never, ever happen to
another president, ever. I don’t know that other presidents would have
been able to take it. Some people said, no, they wouldn’t have.
But I can tell you, at a minimum, you have to focus on
this because it can get away very quickly no matter who you have with
you. It can get away very quickly. It was a disgrace. Had I not fired
James Comey, who was a disaster, by the way, it’s possible I wouldn’t
even be standing here right now. We caught him in the act. Dirty cops.
Bad people. If this happened to President Obama, a lot of people would
have been in jail for a long time already. Many, many years.
I want to start by thanking — I call them friends
because, you know, you develop friendships and relationships when you’re
in battle and war much more so than in a normal situation.
We’ve gone through more than any president or
administration, and really, I say for the most part, Republican
congressmen, congresswomen and Republican senators, we’ve done more than
any administration in the first few years. You look at all of the
things we’ve done. I watched this morning as they tried to take credit
for the stock market from — let me tell you, if we didn’t win, the stock
market would have crashed.
publicpool.kinja | But this morning, we come together as one
nation, blessed to live in freedom and grateful to worship in peace. As
everybody knows, my family, our great country, and your President, have
been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt
people. They have done everything possible to destroy us, and by so
doing, very badly hurt our nation. They know what they are doing is
wrong, but they put themselves far ahead of our great country.
Weeks
ago, and again yesterday, courageous Republican politicians and leaders
had the wisdom, the fortitude, and strength to do what everyone knows
was right. I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for
doing what they know is wrong. Nor do I like people who say, "I pray
for you," when they know that that's not so.
So many people have been hurt, and we can't let that go on. And I'll be discussing that a little bit later at the White House.
airforcemag | President Donald Trump honored Tuskegee Airman Charles McGee during
his State of the Union address on Feb. 4, hours after pinning stars on
McGee’s shoulders in the Oval Office.
McGee, who turned 100 on Dec. 7, was honorarily promoted from colonel
to brigadier general in the 2020 defense policy bill.
The Air Force
legend served three decades in uniform, launching his career in the U.S.
Army Air Corps. McGee escorted bombers over Germany, Austria, and the
Balkans in the P-39Q Airacobra, P-47D Thunderbolt, and the P-51 Mustang
during World War II. During the Korean War, McGee flew the F-51 on 100
interdiction missions from Japan, and he flew an additional 173
reconnaissance missions in the RF-4C during Vietnam.
Throughout his career, McGee flew a record 409 combat
missions, more than any other pilot in the three wars.
“Incredible story. After more than 130 combat missions in
World War II, he came back home to a country still struggling for civil rights
and went on to serve America in Korea and Vietnam,” Trump said. He added, “Gen.
McGee, our nation salutes you. Thank you, sir.”
Trump also offered a glimpse of future
generations of airmen, touting the U.S. Space Force—the nation’s newest
military service—and honoring McGee’s grandson, Iain Lanphier, an eighth grader
in Arizona, who “aspires to go to the Air Force Academy” and one day work for
the Space Force.
“Most people look up at space. Ian says, ‘I want to look down on the world.’”
I've
never seen a more blatant example of concentrated money rigging an
election than Iowa Dems releasing a random percentage of the vote after
self-dealing grifters tied to Buttigieg fucked up an election, followed
by the NYT, WaPost, CNN, and MSNBC announcing 'partial
results.'
theintercept | David Plouffe, a former campaign manager to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential bid who joined Acronym’s board, also distanced himself from the company during an MSNBC panel last night. “I have no knowledge of Shadow,” said Plouffe. “It was news to me.”
But previous statements and internal Acronym documents suggest that
the two companies, which share office space in Denver, Colorado, are
deeply intertwined.
Last year, McGowan, a co-founder of Acronym, wrote on Twitterthat
she was “so excited to announce @anotheracronym has acquired
Groundbase,” a firm that included “their incredible team led by [Gerard
Niemira] + are launching Shadow, a new tech company to build smarter
infrastructure for campaigns.” McGowan also noted that “With Shadow,
we’re building a new model incentivized by adoption over growth.” The
acquisition was announced in mid-January of last year.
In an interview on a related podcast last month, McGowan described Niemira as “the CEO of Shadow, which is the technology company that Acronym is the sole investor in now.”
What’s more, internal documents from Acronym show a close
relationship with Shadow. An internal organizational chart shows digital
strategy firm Lockwood Strategy, FWIW Media, and Shadow as part of a
unified structure, with Acronym staff involved in the trio’s operations.
In an all-staff email sent last Friday, an official with Lockwood
Strategy reminded team members about “COOL THINGS HAPPENING AROUND
ACRONYM.” The list included bullets points such as, “The Iowa caucus is
on Monday, and the Shadow team is hard at work,” and “Shadow is working
on scaling up VAN integration with Shadow Messaging for some Iowa caucus
clients.” (VAN refers to the widely used Democratic voter file
technology firm.) Acronym staffers also attended the Shadow staff
retreat.
A person with knowledge of the company’s culture, who asked to
remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, shared communications showing
that top officials at the company regularly expressed hostility to Sen.
Bernie Sanders’s supporters. McGowan is married to Michael Halle, a
senior strategist with the Buttigieg campaign. There is no evidence any
preference of candidates had any effect on the coding issue that is
stalling the Iowa results.
npr | Right now we're going to hear from the campaign of former Vice President
Joe Biden. Symone Sanders is a senior adviser to Biden, and she joins
me now from New Hampshire.
KELLY: Glad to have you with us. So you have been sharing some of
your campaign's projections on Twitter today. I've been following along.
You said you're thrilled with Joe Biden's performance in Iowa. The
other candidates are citing different projections, ones that make them
look good, that don't look so good for Biden. So are you confident that
when the numbers eventually come out, Joe Biden will be a front-runner
in Iowa?
SANDERS: Look - we are very confident about our internal data.
But I'd also like to caution folks to understand that any data any
campaign is sharing is based on internal data. These are not the final
numbers.
SANDERS: The reality is, we don't know the final numbers, which is
why our campaign sent a letter to the Iowa Democratic Party last night
urging and imploring that they check the data, check again and
triple-check the data before releasing anything. So I know that there
are reports that there is some type of data coming today, shortly, soon,
in the coming hour.
KELLY: Right.
SANDERS: But the reality is, we need total numbers from precincts
all across the state. There was a real breakdown in the process last
night, from what was happening at precincts on the ground in Iowa to the
app that the Iowa Democratic Party was using to the backup phone system
and even with the collecting and recording and filling out a
presidential preference card.
KELLY: Right. To your point...
SANDERS: So we really need to make sure we get this right.
KELLY: ...They're telling us that when they do put out results
about an hour or so from now, we still won't get all of them. These will
be partial results. So we still won't have full clarity about what
exactly happened in Iowa and what it means going forward in the race.
SANDERS: And I think that's unfortunate. I think the voters are
owed clarity, frankly, but - and the caucusgoers in Iowa. But, you know,
we left Iowa last night, again, as I've said on Twitter and all day
today, proud of our organization. We're in New Hampshire today. We have a
full day of campaign events. We will be campaigning here aggressively
over the next week. And we're looking forward to the primary on Tuesday.
We've always thought...
KELLY: May I just press you on this for a minute...
SANDERS: I would just say, we've always thought...
KELLY: If I may, may I just press you on this? Because you said
this is a shame for the voters. What about for candidates? Does the
delay in results steal momentum from whoever ultimately comes out on top
in Iowa?
SANDERS: I mean, I think that's a hypothetical. The reality is,
this process has never just been about Iowa. It's not just about New
Hampshire. And it's not just about Nevada or South Carolina. These first
four nominating contests, we have always said, should be viewed as
individual parts of one whole. They should be viewed as a package. And
you don't get the full depth and breadth of anyone's strength or the
lack thereof with just the Iowa results or just the New Hampshire
results, frankly.
Since 1992, the Democratic nominee - no Democratic nominee has
been the nominee without a substantial amount of votes from the African
American community. You don't get that coming out of Iowa or New
Hampshire.
nakedcapitalism | On one level, this is an illustration of America’s descent into
banana republic status. Pundits and the media keep reinforcing American
exceptionalist fantasies, our brand fumes of vaunted democracy, yet we
can’t even run elections competently. Is is just the grifting, that
introducing more tech creates more opportunities for vendor enrichment?
Or is it yet more proof that a lot of people in charge really hate
democracy and are at best indifferent to doing things right?
It’s not hard to see the Iowa fiasco as an illustration of an even
more deeply-seated pathology: elite incompetence. Too many people with
the right resumes get to fail upwards or at worst sideways. And
remember, unlike our older WASP-y leaders who were a combination of
people from the right clubs and self-made men, our current crop of
people in charge pride themselves on being the end products of a
meritocratic system, as in their claim to legitimacy stems from the
claim that they are more talented (gah) than mere mortals and therefore
obviously should be in the top slots because they’ll do oh so much
better than everyone else.
And it’s the Democratic party, as the representative of the 10%
professional managerial classes, that really owns this disease. Recall
in Thomas Frank’s Listen Liberal how he set forth, without irony, a
conference that was treacly with the self-regard, with the way every
participant was lavished with embarrassing exaggerations of their
accomplishments. No one had the slightest sense of how narcissistic and
pampered they seemed. And it wasn’t hard to imagine they’d all collapse
in a heap if presented with a real challenge, like suddenly becoming
destitute or being dumped in a remote area with neither a water bottle
nor GPS.
And we keep seeing this leadership class succeed in rent extraction
and not much else. Go down the list: The post-crisis failure to reform
the banks or even go through the motions by incarcerating a few execs
and turfing out some board members. Our grossly over-priced,
underperforming health care system. Our student-impoverishing higher
education system. The F-35. The botched Obamacare rollout. Our
Middle-East nation-breaking, which has scored geopolitical own goals
like destabilizing Europe, facilitating Russia asserting itself a
geopolitical power despite having an economy the size of South Korea and
in the face of our economic sanctions, and making us deservedly
disliked around the world. Hillary Clinton losing to of all people
Donald Trump despite spending twice as much as his campaign spend
because her team was enamored of Robby Mook’s models and somehow forgot
about the Electoral College.
And if you believe, as Team Dem does, that every problem can be
solved with better PR, the corollary is you never admit to failure, you
never do post mortems, and you keep incompetents around who you allow to
fail and fail again.
PNAS | Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that
upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class
individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more
likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class
individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals
were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study
3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study
5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and
endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class
individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class
individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their
more favorable attitudes toward greed.
Which social class is the more likely provenance of
unethical behavior, the upper class or the lower class? Examining how
social class is associated with unethical behavior, or actions that harm
others and are illegal or morally objectionable to one's community (1),
would shed light on behaviors such as cheating, deception, or breaking
the law that have important consequences for society. On the one hand,
lower-class individuals live in environments defined by fewer resources,
greater threat, and more uncertainty (2, 3).
It stands to reason, therefore, that lower-class individuals may be
more motivated to behave unethically to increase their resources or
overcome their disadvantage.
A second line of reasoning,
however, suggests the opposite prediction: namely, that the upper class
may be more disposed to the unethical. Greater resources, freedom, and
independence from others among the upper class give rise to self-focused
social-cognitive tendencies (3⇓⇓⇓–7),
which we predict will facilitate unethical behavior. Historical
observation lends credence to this idea. For example, the recent
economic crisis has been attributed in part to the unethical actions of
the wealthy (8).
Religious teachings extol the poor and admonish the rich with claims
like, “It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven”
(9).
Building upon past findings, in the present investigation we tested
whether upper-class individuals—relative to lower-class individuals—are
more likely to engage in unethical behavior, and whether their attitudes
toward greed might help explain this tendency.
Social
class, or socioeconomic status (SES), refers to an individual's rank
vis-Ã -vis others in society in terms of wealth, occupational prestige,
and education (2, 3). Abundant resources and elevated rank allow upper-class individuals increased freedom and independence (4), giving rise to self-focused patterns of social cognition and behavior (3). Relative to lower-class individuals, upper-class individuals have been shown to be less cognizant of others (4) and worse at identifying the emotions that others feel (5).
Furthermore, upper-class individuals are more disengaged during social
interactions—for example, checking their cell phones or doodling on a
questionnaire—compared with their lower-class peers (6).
thegrayzone | Behind the app that delayed Iowa’s voting results is a dark money operation funded by anti-Bernie Sanders billionaires. Its top donor Seth Klarman is a Buttigieg backer who has dumped money into pro-settler Israel lobby groups.
At the time of publication, 12 hours after voting in the Democratic
Party’s Iowa caucuses ended, the results have not been announced. The
delay in reporting is the result of a failed app developed by a company
appropriately named Shadow Inc.
The delay in the vote reporting denied a victory speech to Senator
Bernie Sanders, the presumptive winner of the opening contest in the
Democratic presidential primary. Though not one exit poll indicated that
Buttigieg would have won, the South Bend, Indiana mayor took to Twitter
to confidently proclaim himself the victor.
Though a dark money Democratic operation turned out to be the source
of the disastrous app, suspicion initially centered on former Hillary
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and his Russiagate-related elections
integrity initiative.
LATimes | On a tense, chaotic night, with the eyes of the nation trained on the
Iowa caucuses, that state’s Democratic Party was counting on a slick
new smartphone app to make everything go smoothly.
The app was
coded by a tech firm run by veterans of Hillary Clinton’s 2016
presidential campaign, one of them a former Google engineer. It was
designed to meet new requirements instituted after that year’s
contentious Iowa caucuses, in which Clinton narrowly edged out Bernie
Sanders. To provide more transparency this time around, the state party
promised to report not just the final results but voters’ initial and
second choices as well.
With so much more data to tabulate than in
previous years, party leaders feared that the established system of
reporting numbers by phone would be too slow. A proposal for a
“tele-caucus” system enabling virtual voting was rejected
as too vulnerable to hacking. An app that could instantaneously relay
the numbers as soon as precinct chairs input them, developed by
Democratic Party loyalists, looked like the perfect solution.
It turned out to be a crushing failure.
The firm behind the app is Shadow, an affiliate of ACRONYM, a Democratic nonprofit founded in 2017 “to educate, inspire, register, and mobilize voters,” according to its website. Shadow started out as Groundbase, a tech developer co-founded by Gerard Niemira and Krista Davis, who worked for the tech team on Clinton’s campaign for the 2016 Democratic nomination.
Niemira had previously worked at kiva.org,
a nonprofit that makes loans to entrepreneurs and others in the
developing world, and Davis had spent eight years as an engineer at
Google. ACRONYM’s founder and CEO is Tara McGowan, a former journalist
and digital producer with President Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign.
In the days leading up to caucus night, Shadow’s app was seen as “a potential target for early election interference,” according to the Des Moines Register.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...