Unspinning Official Stories 2010
loving media cover-up decade's top story;
almost another billion humans on Earth already
January 2010: Whether the decade's end was last night or
will be next New Year's Eve, it was 10 years ago today or yesterday
(I forget which) that, as the last century ended, embedded media tooting their horns about
the grre-e-a-a-t stories of the 20th century all piously noted
the death of Mother Teresa while every one of them forgot, discounted,
or covered up the hands-down biggest story of all - the explosive
and ominous growth of the human race past 2 billion, past 3 billion,
past 4 billion, past 5 billion, and almost in exact sync with the century's end, past 6 billion in less than
So it's only business as usual that
the same news media that have tacitly conspired for 20 years to
convince us or themselves that humans virtually stopped reproducing
in the early 90's, now that their gigantic lie has been dramatically
contradicted, will give us no big story this week about the fact
that even the most certainly politically contaminated estimate
has added another 800 million people, while more credible estimated
world human nose-counts have already nearly reached another billion
in only 10 years - in just the first decade of the 21st century.
At 8:30 p.m. New Year's Day, population
clock counts ranged from the US Census Bureau's rapidly growing
estimate of 6,793,836,600 to University of North Carolina's somewhat
faster growing estimate of 6,973,027,500
. When next year's (mostly estimated) census is in, the
highest estimates will certainly put world human population at
over 7 billion.
Take it from me that the highest estimate
is only CLOSEST to enough, because, obviously, nobody counts all
the poor people in all the shanty towns in the world. The extreme
variations between "population clocks" should tell you these are
wild estimates, and, since the very same insiders who are most
in denial about overpopulation are the ones with most power to
edit reality, setting aside community counts which serve different
purposes, general population counts are always most likely to
Meanwhile, wild horses were reported
a couple of days ago to be overpopulating Nevada, and a fisherman,
apprehended for shooting at a sea lion in the Sacramento River,
told authorities "he was tired of watching the protected animals
taking his fish." The first story did report that there are 18,500
wild horses in Nevada but not that there are 2 million people
in the same state. The second story didn't give the number of
sea lions taking the fishermen's fish in the Sacramento River
OR the number of fishermen taking the sea lions' fish. But my
guess is that the ratio is similar to that of horses to humans
people's failure combine to doom revolutions
2010: Chile's recent electoral regression
(returning their presidency to conservative hands) and, just before
that, Honduras's actually inevitable mini-revolutionary failure
can both probably be chalked up to the poisonous influence of
Washington, but, whatever you think you think, dear readers, and
no matter how many of you think it, it's plain to me that "the"
people in both places had a lot to do with the torpedoing of their
At the time of Manuel Zelaya's ouster
and first response, my own logical doubts that he had any chance
in a country occupied by BOTH the US AND the Honduran people earned
me some virulent censure from suddenly fervent bloggers who considered
me a traitor to THEIR pro-democracy stance, a religious stance
I can't betray since I've never shared it. As a revolutionary for civilization, I'm a communist, because civilization,
should it ever be achieved, must be largely defined by strict
adherence to an absolutely fair social and economic contract.
But, in fact, to any charge that I lack faith in the wisdom of
"the" people, I plead guilty. I have NO faith in "the"
people's wisdom or in their revolutionary reliability because
I am a realist, and in the real world there's not much evidence
to justify any such faith.
In the real world, besides ceremonially
resting (without much apparent risk to the rich) in the slippery
hands of "the" people, who can almost be counted on to switch
back and forth between their own side and the wrong side from one
election to another, any hope of wresting actual control from the so-far
firmly grasping hands of the rich behind all supposedly (conveniently)
democratic scenes, must rest in the hands of frustratingly uncertain
revolutionary leaders (who are also, of course, people).
In several posts starting last July 2 ('09),
besides pointing out the true Obama/Clinton agenda, I declared
my hope that Zelaya would succeed, join ALBA, and enlist his country
into what I hoped was a new quarter-globe socialist revolution.
And I think that if the Argentine, Brazilian, and Chilean presidents
had at that time very pointedly joined ALBA, and if ALBA leaders
had then decisively withdrawn from the OAS and taken firm steps
on Honduras in the name of ALBA, unambiguously declaring that the US must
never again be allowed to overthrow Latin American states, Zelaya
might have succeeded, Chile's election might not have been lost,
and Obama might have been forced to reverse his move into the
But none of that happened, and now, major
western media have disappeared ALBA from the news, a strategy
that has worked in the past, as all weaklings submissively jump
on the insider band wagon. Maybe not, but Chile is going to be
at least four years behind the pace now, and you can bet the CIA
is working hard to end the Kirchner era in Argentina. And, though
the Venezuelan and Bolivian revolutions are clearly still moving
forward (slowly), no dramatic international moves to invigorate
any all-Latin America revolutionary move (that I know of) is surfacing
as of today, Sunday, February 2l, 2010.
Maybe my hopes aren't realistic. I think
they are. I think that (as always) it's the world outside my head
that's not realistic. But my support for ALBA (Latin America's
Bolivarian Alternative) is based on my assumption, based in turn
on good but not perfect evidence that ALBA and other leftist Latin
American leaders, including now maybe irrelevant Michelle Bachelet,
recognize the unfairness of competitive economics and that each
went into office aiming to eventually achieve social and economic
equality in his or her country.
I do not assume they are all as philosophically
sophisticated as they should be, but I have been assuming that
each understands or is at least capable and on the verge of understanding
that the purpose of a civil state is to provide ALL its participants
a good life, and that their undoubtedly varied concepts of an
ideal civil state are at least evolving toward an approximation
of my own definition of a Civil State.
Actually, calls for clarification within
ALBA several months ago by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa
suggested that some or most of the ALBA leaders really are politically,
socially and economically on my screen, but I've never read or
heard anything clearly indicating that any of them, except possibly
Fidel, are as ecologically or philosophically as sophisticated
as they ought to be. And this is important because, in reality,
the political, social, economic failure of humanity is overshadowed
by their ecological and philosophical failure.
My support for ALBA is academic, of course,
since it's clear to me that all political and social crusading
is vain in a collapsing, i.e. literally dying ecosphere.
A rare glimpse of realism in the Middle East
3 March 2010:
Al Jazeera posted an interview this morning with two Iraqi politicians,
actually two front men for the US, who were actually asked a question
about the future of secularism in Iraq. It was the question that
put the word in THEIR mouths, but it didn't fit very well.
Maybe it's positive that there is even
half hearted talk of a secular state in the middle east, even
if the idea is wedged into the discussion with a reporter's shoe
horn. But the response reported in this article WAS half hearted
and, more important, pre-electoral, i.e. campaign rhetoric,
Every note I've tried to post on Al Jazeera
recommending an end to religious government in the middle east
has disappeared down a hole, So I was startled to see the subject
poke its nose above the nap this morning. But, no problem, it
vanished quickly enough, and I don't expect to see it poke up
The otherwise pointless blather quickly
devolved to talk about politics, a non-subject the interviewees
were more comfortable with. And then the reporter disgraced himself
by bringing up what he apparently considered somebody's hope for
more nationalism - another kind of religion. They were all over
that, of course.
Why do the politicians in countries the
US is "building" look and talk so much like US politicians?
The proper business of a would-be civilized
state and its leaders should be the welfare of its people and
procedures for providing them a good life, including economic
and social equality, i.e. civilization.
up down south needs clearer focus
2010: Too slow. Too slow. Maybe so long
overdue that being too late doesn't really matter anymore, but
too slow, anyway. Something IS happening in Latin America. But
so like the movement of rheumatoid old men is the happening that
to tell WHAT is happening is even harder than spotting that it
OK, YES. It's faster than the coming
of "change" under Obama in the US, but "hope" for the US started
wilting when Tom Jefferson retired. I'm talking about more progressive
Two days after I wrote two weeks ago that
I saw no sign that day of any dramatic moves to revitalize the
new Latin American socialist revolution, 32 countries meeting
at a Latin American president's summit in Cancun talked about
too many other things but, in the midst (maybe at the top) of
the agenda, they talked for sure about a new Latin American organization
to replace the OAS (or so Hugo Chavez suggested), leaving the
US out. Wow! Reading this in Al Jazeera I thought, maybe I spoke
But BBC only reported some anti-UK discussion
of the Falklands at a meeting of some sort in Cancun. US papers
eventually reported some such meeting as if it were a peon labor
union workshop acknowledged and OK'd by the boss. They made a
much bigger, disgracefully one-sided story of a Cuban convict
who starved himself to death, without bothering to compare the
singular event with the thousands of similar deaths that take
place annually in US prisons.
Mexican newspapers featured pictures
of Raul Castro and Hugo Chaves clasping hands over their heads
in Cancun and reported some anger directed at right-wing presidents
Alan Garcia of Peru, Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, and the newly elected
but not yet right-wing president of Chile, Sebastian Pinera, for
urging inclusion of the US.
The worst of it was that the discussion
was continued until the presidential summiteers meet again in
Caracas next year. Next YEAR? OK. I'm going to hope, without much
clarification coming from anywhere, that the new international
group proposed is intended only as an umbrella for several already
US free regional Latin American groups that already exist, including
ALBA, which have lots of international activities already underway,
like the project to help Haiti set up a health care system, to
be led by Cuba. International mutual assistance is a Cuban specialty,
and Raul's much heralded participation in the Cancun meeting signals
Cuba's intention to be deeply involved with any new organization
to be founded. That's the best of it.
But I'm not happy with an organization
that might indiscriminately include 32 countries, some of which
will certainly act as proxies for the US, balk at key moves toward
socialism, and clog the works. I'm not happy with the emergence
of yet another organization - with the further alphabet-soupization
of Latin American progressivism. This proliferation of organizations
confuses and minimizes the point, which would be better served
if all the existing regional groups attempting to make Latin American
business Latin America's business all joined ALBA, which began
with a Cuba/Venezuela alliance, which made most sense most emphatically.
don't understand their own laws
April 2010: Americans still don't understand
their own laws: Just as in the case of Proposition
8 in Calfornia, all coverage of Arizona's new anti Mexican-American
law studiously shuns any reference to the obviously relevant 14th
Amendment equal protection clause.
The John Waynes keep talking as if there was no issue except illegal immigrants, and the protester against the law seem incapable of clearly declaring, "Hey! We're
not objecting to your barbaric treatment of immigrants. We're
objecting to the way you're obviously intending to treat American
citizens, depriving them of their right to equal protection under
the law if they happen to LOOK like immigrants to a cop."
And the newspapers and politicians are
no better. Why is the Obama administration blathering about "unlawful
preemption of the Federal Government's role in securing the country's
borders," when that is NOT what the issue is, and it's a stupid
issue to bring up considering that the Federal approach to border
security is just as ugly as Arizona's. Obviously, they want to
appeal to the stupid right by making it a right wing emotional
issue and by avoiding logic. Meanwhile if there is a glimmer of
awareness by the media that it is the 14th Amendment being violated,
why does the Times muddle the point with reference to a "civil
rights challenge asserting that the law encourages racial profiling?"
Are they trying to sound politically correct?
I think they are trying to avoid a clearly
logical and legal approach, because letting the public go on thinking
law is like calling for an emotional show of hands on the Jerry
Springer show allows for the further dismantling of existing progressive
law on emotional and religious grounds that the people will stupidly
support. And very relevant to that thought, they fear a clear
14th amendment victory would collaterally knock over Proposition
8 in California and derail hopes for an equally stupid anti-abortion
law which is certainly coming up next.
For a better understanding of the logical
role of a civilized state and of why the few rational law makers
in US history have enacted laws limiting government authority
over participating citizens, see Civil
State on this website.
April 2010: Words like frantic
and ecological crisis in reference to an actual
ecological crisis are strangers on the front page of the LA Times,
but don't worry.
With the Mississippi delta and all
nearby game refuges and the Gulf of Mexico undeniably threatened
by an underwater rupture freely spewing out oil south of New Orleans,
it's hard to do, but they're still trying to convince readers
this is a one-time local EVENT.
The Exxon Valdez has to be mentioned
because the public DOES know something like this has happened
before. But they keep calling it a spill, just as if it
were no worse than a leaking ship and NOT a torrent that could
empty a subterranean oil bubble vastly bigger than the holds of
a fleet of tankers into the gulf.
The president's panic reaction, suddenly
reversing his call for an offshore drilling drive, is extreme,
but I assure you Obama hasn't realized that greedy capitalism's
onslaught against the natural world has gone too far and has got
to stop. He's just worried about his image. With luck, Sarah Palin
will be worried enough about her image to shut up briefly.
But, exept for the rare use for a
few days of some usually omitted words, the reaction isn't likely
to get really real real soon, or if it does it will only
be because Mother Nature stages a horrendous disaster - which,
of course, she will.
gush and goats are scaped
May 2010: Torn between their duty as corporate
bards to sedate the suckers and their suppressed carny barker
urge to shock them, the media headline a comfortably familiar
slick spreading from a spill, but halfway to a near
secret subparagraph revelation that a torrent of oil is pouring
from a rupture in the ocean floor (about what I guessed night
before last - see below), they let slip this chimeric (Freudian?)
image: "...crews struggled to contain the slick which is gushing
..." Hey! Slicks don't gush. They spread. What's gushing is a
volcanic oil blow-out way way down deep under water where no amount
of struggling will stop it until it empties the reservoir feeding
They then more slickly scapegoat one
corporation to go on hiding the general human guilt and the bigger,
more alarming story. The world's not facing one company's one
local mistake. This oil eruption is connected to global warming,
disappearing species and rain forests and coral reefs and water
tables, acid rain, dying lakes and oceans and etc. etc. The problem's
not BP and one coastline. It's more and more people everywhere
needing more and more resources and a greedy careless uncontrolled
growth and profit driven monster system of capitalism that lives
on only by destroying the eco-world to keep filling its market's
The next worst
June 2010: Each time you read that "this is the
worst eco-disaster in US history," remember that in any developing
situation records are made to be broken. There will be another
"worst eco-disaster" and another and another and, while the scape-goat
for the gulf oil blow-out is a British corporation, the scape-goat
for the next one may be an American corporation, and while the
pay-off for this one will come from the pockets of British pensioners,
whose paychecks depend on investments in large corporations including
British Petroleum, the next one may result in a blow-out of pension
funds for Americans.
with humanity? How do they stay so dumb?
July 2010: I'm not asking what's wrong with the
media, because, even if they are both ethically and intellectually
wrong, I don't think they're making a mistake. I don't think they
necessarily know what they're doing, either. But whether instinctively
or cunningly, by keeping the public confused, they're assisting
and obscuring the crimes of the system they're part of. Better
to ask what's wrong with me. Why do I go on hopelessly explaining
and re-explaining to a stubbornly deaf race the lies they're being
told, the tricks being played on them?
But the best question is "WHAT - IS -
WRONG - WITH - HUMANITY!?!?"
Why do humans never get any smarter?
Why, after thousands of years of scientific progress, do they
keep believing in ghosts? Why do they never stop letting themselves
be sent out to fight and kill each other? How can they be so easily
taught to demonize the poor and idolize the rich? Why, no matter
how much they suffer for it, do they keep falling for every scam
their rich oppressors and their oppressors' media pull on them?
Why do they never learn their language well enough to figure things
out? And why do they keep reproducing and inflicting all their
stupidity and its consequences on more and more victims while
stupidly denying the limitations of space? What's wrong with them?
Well, for one thing, they're not philosophically
very sharp, are they? Even though they HAVE separate brains, functional
to a point, as philosophizing mechanisms, their brains either
don't work or aren't under their own control. There's no use calling
that unbelievable, by the way. It's a fact.
Thousands of years after the development
of writing catalyzed a leap forward in the accumulation and supposed
sharing of knowledge, hundreds of years after the invention of
printing jump-started the worldwide spread of available knowledge,
and in the midst of a computer revolution, which is expanding
access to every facet of knowledge, while people have evolved
technologically, and to varying degrees economically and even
socially, and in some quarters politically, it IS an indisputable
fact that over 99% of humanity have STILL not even slightly evolved
Philosophy itself has evolved. To write
the documents on this site, I've got to have come a long
way past Epicurus. But not only have not even 1% of humans come
with me, almost 100% of the human race
remain philosophically between cave men and the ancient Egyptians.
People who wear clothes, drive cars,
take high tech pills, do complex math problems, and can put on
a show of moving printed words off a page, through their eyes,
presumably through their brains, and out their mouths as real
words - STILL - seldom speak their own languages coherently
and, confronted by realistic discourse about any of the to-them
most important ancient human delusions, apparently either can
not or will not understand either what they read or what is said
Their entire pseudo understanding of
the world they've lived in for a million years without ever paying
any sustained coherent philosophical attention to it is faked
by aping endlessly rehearsed expressions and reciting memorized
slogans. But, you may say (if there IS a you out there
who can read these sentences), they certainly act as if they had
passionate convictions. Sure they do, but it's an act, and even
the act of acting is merely copied.
Here and there there's an inventor, one
human in a thousand (you, my reader, I hope), whose brain always
functions on its own and who can articulate his own ideas or analyze
and corroborate the ideas of others - and, maybe, now and then
there's a minute at a time when maybe even one out of three humans
can manage a spontaneous series of coherent thoughts about something
besides simple business, cars, sports, sex, cosmetics and celebrities
- but, for the most part, humanity's too numerous heads are, like
the Scarecrow's, stuffed with shredded newspapers and TV scripts.
No wonder they're easily brain washed. If it wasn't for brain
washing, they'd have no political, social, economic, ecological,
or philosophical thoughts at all.
The insidious media teach humanity that
brainwashing is something weird done by the enemy to their foreign
subjects, but brainwashing isn't foreign or exceptional; it's
the rule everywhere. Human thought, including all appearances
of serious conviction, is NORMALLY the product of brainwashing.
What looks and sounds or reads like conviction is all around,
as blatant as commercial packaging. But it only looks and sounds
or reads like conviction. In fact, it's not. The woman on the
screen who tells you the best thing to buy for your family is
acting. The party hack who tells you YOUR candidate will END the
scams and CHANGE the system is acting. The Secretary of State
who tells you Cuba must "get its act together" is acting.
Logically, conviction should result from
hard brain work - energetic fact gathering, analysis and synthesis
that prove a particular conclusion is certainly or very close
to certainly true. So, finding myself surrounded by apparently
passionate conviction, I ought to be able to assume that - wow!
- there's a whole lot of thinking going on.
But there's not. In fact, in the world
of human thought trading (the well-named market-place of ideas),
even passionate conviction is sold and bought in the ready-to-wear
department. And like any other commercially packaged product,
it is sold by repetitive sloganeering, not by compelling argument.
The NORM is brainwashing. Brainwashing
is the NORM. I said that twice so you'd get it, the same way normal
humans get almost all their convictions. Apparently honest and
earnest convictions NORMALLY get from the shelf into human heads
by being routinely, relentlessly and conspicuously repeated -
by the media, of course.
So when I tell you that every time a
normal human "decides" to vote for X because Y isn't "experienced"
or "tough," he's parroting the media, I'm not talking about an
aberration. I'm talking about something normal, and, since it's
normal, examples abound.
If you think it's outrageous that I should
claim to be right about this and everybody else wrong, by the
way, you're wrong. Why is it outrageous? The everybody else referred
to believes in gods, patriotism, democracy, freedom, family values,
evil, the magical effect of buried gold on the value of money,
the impossibility of stopping what's idiotically called progress,
etc. etc. It's not a stunt; it's EASY to be right and everybody
else wrong if your brain works. After all, I DID my real brain
work. I DID think out my conclusions. And almost any logically
right conclusion arising from actual thought almost always contradicts
majority opinion, because majority opinions NORMALLY result not
from careful thought but from brainwashing. And examples are so
numerous and obvious, I don't NEED to name them.
If I were pointing out something UNUSUAL
- if I were claiming a THINKING people known for THINKING things
over had somehow been fooled about ONE THING, for instance how
and why they're going to vote on this or that, it might be outrageous,
but I'm not.
I'm pointing out that a people whose
every apparently earnest conviction is actually a religious belief
(and religion itself is the first elephant-sized example) are
OF COURSE parroting their high priests, mass media and each other
when they blabber phrases like "sustainable development," "property
rights," "our brave men and women in uniform," "the American way,"
"choice of physicians," "our precious freedom," "hardworking Americans,"
"political experience," etc.etc.; and I'm pointing out (not claiming
- pointing out) that they always conscientiously vote as they're
told they'll vote and piously buy "green" products and knowingly
sneer at North Korea because they're well brainwashed by the media,
which NORMALLY write, produce, direct, and stage almost the entire
dumb show called human thought.
Did big shots
stop the oil, or did the oil just stop?
August 2010: I have a theory about the Louisiana oil
blowout. This is just a theory, but it makes sense.
It made sense to me on April 30 and May
2 (see below), when I predicted the underwater gusher would ultimately
release enough oil to fill a fleet of Exxon Valdezes and that
it wouldn't stop until the oil reservoir under it was empty. And
in fact, that much oil DID spew out in the ensuing months. So
it makes sense now to guess that my other prediction has come
true, that the mother oil lode, if not empty, is so close to empty
that there's no longer enough pressure from below to blow out
the latest cement plug BP boasts has stopped it.
What I'm suggesting (this is my theory)
is that they DIDN'T stop the blowout. They just ran out of oil
in that particular hole to stop. They and the media poured millions
of dollars and millions of words into a stupendous sideshow designed
to convince the public that a chimeric state/ corporation combo
was heroically engaged in multiple high tech strategies to WIN
a war against nature, when, in fact, after they'd fumbled their
reckless way into yet another inevitable ecological disaster (another
battle to be lost in an already lost war), they spun their wheels
expensively but uselessly until the unnatural disaster just naturally
(at least publicly) ended on it's own.
So now they're taking a bow because,
coincidentally, WHILE they were (Wow! How high tech can you get?)
pumping cement into a hole, the reservoir ran dry. Just a theory.
I'm not claiming it's true. I can't be right about everything.
But next time this or something worse happens, don't expect the
now more knowing big shots to quickly save the day by pumping
mud and cement into another new hole they've dug themselves into.
Also, don't imagine that, with one puncture
loosely patched, the eco-system has stopped collapsing. Human
population and human hunger for resources are still exploding.
Stupid Republicans AND stupid Democrats AND their stupid president
AND their stupid counterparts all over the world are all still
blindly eager to continue their assault on the world's resource
base, and the eco-system is still collapsing and will go on collapsing.
US war aid keeps war profits flowing
August 2010: My headline above is simply factual,
like it or not. BBC's story this morning of an Iraqi general's
claim that US military assistance is needed for another 10 years
because the Iraqi army won't be ready before 2020 is trumped up
news noise designed to keep the public confused.
No army in the world will be "ready"
before 2020, or 2030 either, including the US army. All armies
have to continually need more and more preparation and modernization
and of course newer and better arms and US advisers always on
the scene, so the army preparing and modernizing and arming and
advising businesses can continue to thrive.
Strange that the Taliban needs no help
from the US at all, isn't it?
Time tampers with your mind
2010: Time's cover picture of a
mutilated Afghan woman turned my stomach. But so did the magazine's
stupid claim that the picture shows "What Happens if We Leave
We're IN Afghanistan! Atrocities
like this don't happen for lack of US troops all over the world.
They're caused by a mental illness even more pervasive than US
troops - religion. But (1) commercial media won't criticize religion
(which is good for business), and (2) the rich owners of rags
like Time WANT US troops everywhere - permanently! And
they'll use any tasteless means to pitch their plan.
That's right! While the media may have
kept YOU looking the other way, the
US has entered an era of permanent warfare and global occupation.
And Time's warped logic, whether stupid or insidious, is
a pitch for that ugly ongoing clearly capitalist venture.
With the eco-world crashing and other
businesses failing, rich US insiders may have only one reliably
stable business to fall back on (to keep profits flowing for themselves)
- i.e. WAR - already the world's biggest business, by the way,
and one that (unlike oil) is safely dominated by the US.
in Cuba misinterpreted by US media
2010: US media are sure to misinterpret
every story they tell you about Cuba, because they misinterpret
Cuba, both on purpose and because they really don't understand
it. I don't fully understand Cuba's decision, now, to move some
prisoners to facilities closer to their families, and to release
others, though, apparently unlike The Times, I have read
Cuba's explanation, which is appended below. But I can tell you
some things to help uncorkscrew the misinterpretation you get
from The Times or from Hillary Clinton doing photo ops.
First, if you believe there are "rogue
states" (besides the US), whose leaders rub their hands together
and say, "Heh heh heh," or gnash their teeth and say, "Curses!
Foiled again!" you'd do well to set that myth aside and forget
it. Cuba is not a "rogue state" and, in stark contrast to Clinton,
Biden and Obama, its leaders have GOT their act together.
Second, ignore the oddly scatter-shot
implication that having political prisoners is heinous for some
countries, though not others. Lots of countries have political
prisoners. The US, maybe the only country to make it a political
crime to defend your own country from the US, may have the most.
Cuba's currently notorious political prisoners, all of whom were
duly charged, tried, and convicted, were jailed for treason, which
is a crime in most countries.
Third, don't believe the tale that
the 75 Cubans jailed in '03 are heroes like the Hollywood image
of the French resistance in WWII, being punished for speaking
freely. In fact, they were caught conspiring with Cuba's self-declared
enemies, the eternally frantic exiles in Miami supported by Washington
and a series of US interests officers in Havana. It doesn't matter
what their activities were. They weren't convicted of being writers.
They were convicted of being paid, trained, and supervised by
US agents to subvert and try to overthrow the revolutionary government.
Fourth, Cuba did not just now suddenly
become ashamed and decide to repent by releasing political prisoners.
Ever since their arrest, the '03 detainees have, a few at a time,
been being paroled early. This policy is now being accelerated.
A Cuban statement about this was published in Granma and
is reproduced below.
Finally, I'm telling you for sure,
ostentatiously starving himself does not make a Cuban dissident
or anyone else a respectable authority on anything.
Cuban statement published in Granma:
Today, Wednesday July 7 at midday,
Cardinal Jaime Ortega Alamino was received by Cuban President
Raul Castro. The meeting was also attended by Spain’s Foreign
Affairs and Cooperation Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos and Cuban
Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla.
Hours before the meeting took place, Cardinal Ortega had held
a joint working meeting with Ministers Moratinos and Rodriguez
Today´s meetings dealt with the process opened last May 19 when
President Raul Castro Ruz received Cardinal Jaime Ortega and the
president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Cuba, Monsignor
Dionisio Garcia Ibañez.
Up to date, the development of this process has allowed the release
of one prisoner and the transfer of another twelve inmates to
the provinces where they reside.
In the context of today’s meetings, and giving continuity to the
aforementioned process, Cardinal Ortega was informed that over
the next few hours another six prisoners will be transferred to
their provinces of residence and that another five will be released
and will be able to travel to Spain accompanied by their families.
The Cuban authorities also informed that the remaining 47 prisoners
of the group arrested in 2003 will be released and will be able
to leave the country. This process will conclude in a three-to-four-month
period starting from now.
This process has taken into account the proposals previously expressed
to Cardinal Ortega by the relatives of the inmates.
is headlined by confused US newspaper
2010: Appearances by Fidel are always,
to US media, opportunities to demonstrate their political naivete
in general and their ignorance of Cuba in particular. Saturday's
LA Times reaction to a speech by Fidel the day before,
which focused mindlessly on Fidel's uniform, was an AP story without
a by-line, which probably means it was written in America, probably
slightly mis-using a Granma press release from Havana as
an excuse to rehash some tired rhetoric.
Besides a photo cut-line you'd do well
to cross out, which declares that "his choice of dress suggests
that he may be seeking to return to a bigger political role,"
readers are misled by a line stolen from ancient cold war copy
about Russia and China, calling the uniform "a symbolic act in
a country where small signals often carry enormous significance."
What? Cross that out, too. I don't know if it was ever even true
about Russia or China. But, in fact, Cuba is a place where leaders,
almost uniquely, very close to always mean what they say. US media
never report that because, as business oriented Americans, they
can't conceive of it.
In the first place, Fidel was attending
a student peace rally. The Granma story (which you can
link to from this website) gives some space to a student speaker,
The rally began at 7:30 a.m. The first
speaker was the president of the Cuban Federation of University
Students, Maydel Gonzalez, who expressed the Cuban students’ support
of the struggle to prevent a nuclear war.
"The university is a symbol of peace.
We are here to prevent war. We are all committed to a love for
life. Let us unite and bring this message to all corners of the
world, war is not an alternative," said the youth leader.
Fidel was undoubtedly there partly to
publicly show he's relatively healthy again, i.e. no longer wearing
loose convalescent clothing and no longer confining his appearances
to physically easy settings, but also, by supporting the students,
whose 2010 pacifism is very timely in a world where wars are spreading,
war profits are growing, and the US is deploying more troops more
widely, to underscore that Cuba is a country at peace, qualified
to critique the brawling world by its honest position on the sidelines,
picking fights with no one and with no enemies except those rogue
states which arbitrarily call Cuba their enemy and act accordingly.
To me, the significance of the story
is (1) that Fidel is still popular with a lot of Cuban youth (if
not all) and can still expose himself without fear on a scene
as impossible to protect as the university stairs; (2) that his
32-minute speech outdoors, standing up, amounted to a better show
of strength than the last time I saw him in public; and (3) that
Fidel, the columnist, obviously the elder statesman, though he
still sees the big picture more clearly than US politicians and
certainly still speaks better than they do, may be, with age,
getting a little uncharacteristically confused, since his focus
on an imminent nuclear war seems to me a little overblown and
a little off target. But only a little.
I think there is actually more will in
the world NOW to prevent a nuclear war than ever, and, though
the danger of nuclear war always exists and is exacerbated by
the growing hysteria of religious nuts everywhere who are capable
of using any weapon they get their hands on AND by public acceptance
of a succession of belligerent US presidents overtly refusing
to rule out a nuclear counter attack or even a pre-emptive attack,
what looms much larger and would be a subject more worthy of Fidel
is the fact that the US (and its allies and all their arms industries)
are ALREADY engaged in what looks like a state of permanent global
warfare for profit.
US diplomacy eclipses Iran/hiker saga
September 2010: The first story I saw on the
three American hikers arrested in Iran a year ago included a picture
of the Azmar Mountains, and my first and, for then, last reaction
was to wonder why they'd hike in such barren looking mountains.
But, even though any religious state gives me the horrors, since
I doubt Iran's potential as an instigator of nuclear war and have
no fear they'll attack me or my friends, except as a target of
media hit-pieces, I have less interest in Iran than those who
dutifully adopt the nightmares assigned to them by US presidents
But when the woman hiker was released,
looking at the front page picture of her and her mom today, I
wondered who put up the $500,000 bail, whose private jet picked
her up, if she and her friends were Jewish, and, again, why they
were hiking in those dreary mountains?
Since the rah-rah Regressive Times,
straining to convince naive American readers that the hikers had
to have innocently strayed into Iran (just because it was evil
Iran), gave me no answers, I went to the internet and learned,
yes, all three were Jewish and also journalists somewhat connected
to pro-Israeli publications and therefore surely too sophisticated
(I, as a journalist with Latin American hot spot traveling experience,
would hope) not to have known the exact location of the
I learned I wasn't the first to note
the dreariness of the mountains and read the defensive protest
against such cynicism by a friend of theirs who even angrily posted
a picture of a scenic waterfall near their hiking base camp, the
mountain town of Ahmed Awah. I looked up the Azmar Mountains and
the town and saw the same picture of the same waterfall. I zoomed
in on a map of the town's location, ostentatiously INSIDE a finger
of Iraq that extends INTO Iran and almost up against a radically
zig-zagging Iranian border, obviously a mountain crestline border
dividing two watersheds, that I'd have sure as hell known all
So you can believe their story if you
want, but I don't. I doubt their connection with the CIA (suggested
by internet bloggers), or that they were any kind of spies, though
US pseudo progressives have been confused enough even for a CIA
"pro-democracy" connection ever since 1990. But what I really
suspect is that they were trying to secretly enter Iran to carry
out a secret investigative reporting mission of their own. I don't
know that. I suspect it. If that's it, they have my sympathy and
Iran has my contempt for (typically) wildly calling journalists
spies. In any case, while the continued detention of her friends
in Iran may prevent Sarah Shourd from speaking about their treatment
as prisoners, now that she's free, nothing stops her from verifying
their cover story, if it can be done.
More interesting to me, though, I learned
that the "private jet" that picked her up was an Omani jet, and
that the family government of Oman had "play(ed) a critical role
in organizing the bail," and that her mother was waiting for her
in Oman, indicating things didn't happen as suddenly as media
implied and that the US was heavily involved. I looked up Oman/US
connection and learned that, though Oman has been run for
over a century by a family dictatorship (supposedly an unspeakable
sin in democracy-loving DC), the US, the UK and Oman are as cozy
as three bugs in a rug, the Omani military, besides being armed
by the "good guys," being virtually run by the Brits, and a very
large US business empire being virtually in partnership with the
Apparently the rich little country provides
their western partners a convenient channel for low-public-profile
big-time financial ventures, like laundering the half million
dollar ransom paid to Iran. So you can hold your breath without
my help waiting for the exciting conclusion of the innocent American
hikers story. I'm more interested in what I learned today about
the Oman connection, and I think you should be, too.
No new era
is beginning; not the right one anyway
3 November 2010: Every cloud has a silver lining,
if there is a cloud. That it was the House, not the Senate, that
just went Republican in America means Nancy Pelosi is out. She
can now retire to Dharamsala and learn to spin a prayer wheel.
If all the other misleaders of the San Francisco pseudo-progressive
community go with her, maybe a group of real progressives they've
been standing in front of will surface.
Meanwhile, Sacramento will trade Arnold
for Jerry, but so what? As soon as the media stopped headlining
polls, I knew Meg Whitman was no longer a threat (OK - hooray),
but today's headline that hypes "Brown the old pol as the fresh
new face" is eye wash. The only justification in the story for
the phrase, a suggestion that Brown will return authority to local
government, is old old very old stale hat. It's media language.
My message to Brown: I didn't vote for you, because you NEVER
used your campaign platform to say anything real. Get me socialized
medicine in your first term and I'll vote for you next time.
With GOP control of the House, a kind
of desperation based fascism could begin in Washington, except
that America is already fascist. Maybe, being more stupidly courageous
than Democrats, the Republicans could reach a new level of fascism,
but probably not for long, because the insiders have fumbled their
brainwashing of the lumpen a bit, turning them into Costa Ricans,
whose perception of vibrant democracy is just to keep changing
sides back and forth.
The funniest reaction to the elections
in today's paper is a headline claiming an opportunity
for Obama. Of course, Obama has never met an opportunity he couldn't
fumble, but they're not talking about an opportunity, anyway.
I confess I didn't read the story, but I don't need to. I read
the last one, and I know perfectly well, without looking, that
the "opportunity" hyped in the story is an opportunity for bipartisanship,
which is just media blabber, the most disgustingly important part
of which is the prefix bi. When one of the parties is the
Republican party and the other the Democrats, bipartisanship is
really only what business calls stability and what progressives,
if there were any, would call paralysis. Of course, they've
got Obama's number, and more bipartisanship is exactly what you're
going to see. It'll be just as if we hadn't gotten rid of Pelosi,
Meanwhile, and this is more newsworthy
than any of the above, I know a person with actual brains down
in Miami West (San Diego County) who, deep in the shadow of a
pale losing Democrat and completely unknown to the lumpen who
wouldn't have been smart enough to vote for her, anyway, as an
anonymous half of one bottom-of-story post-election reference
to "two other candidates," might be said, with a smile, to have
lost the race for a Congressional seat to a Republican surfer
who has trouble putting two coherent English sentences together
in a row. Maybe because they're trying to convince themselves
they're still firmly in control, during this election, the media
have more completely than ever before erased all 3rd and 4th parties
from the public screen, and the voting American lumpen have no
way of knowing (independent research and thinking being tricks
they've never tried) that it's 3rd and 4th party movement that
has finally boosted Latin America out of the political mire Americans
still willingly endure.
up!' order in today's LA Times
November 2010: Pious, violin-accompanied patriotism
is the thin mask of fascism American media are supposed to promote,
as if they themselves were members of the lumpen workforce, rather
than mouthpieces for the insiders who own them. But sometimes
they lose their patience with us outsiders, drop the mask and
(speaking from their insiders' mouths) order us to shut up and
do as we're told (or maybe get a rifle butt in the head?).
For instance, in big letters above
today's editorial page lecture to the rest of us, the LA Times
snarls, "Shut up and be scanned," i.e. shut up and let
airport checkpoint cops strip you naked. Remember when in the
movie "Missing," Chilean soldiers searching a girl rudely felt
her tits, terrorizing her and collaterally emasculating the guy
she was with? That was to remind Americans who were safe from
such barbarism that they were seeing fascist goons in action.
In fact, Hollywood used to regularly make oppressive checkpoint
scenes like that the symbol of ugly, in-your-face fascism. Didn't
they? Maybe they don't, anymore, now that some of the world's
ugliest checkpoints are US airports.
Maybe you read the editorial today
and thought the Times excuse for telling you to shut up and submit
was convincing. I did NOT read it, because I knew it wasn't signed
and I don't read unsigned editorials (my name is Glen Roberts)
and because I didn't have to read it to know that the excuse was
the same as it is for all the fascist checkpoints in the world,
none of which ever stop the designated bad guys or stop the anger
prompted by checkpoint fascism from eventually erupting, either.
Screw you, Mr. Anonymous editor. I
won't submit, and I won't shut up. Since the first and last time
I was "selected for screening" six years ago, I've simply never
again flown in or out of a US airport. And I advise the heroic
software engineer, John Tyner, who made the news yesterday by
refusing to be scanned (thus prompting the Times to order the
rest of us to shut up and submit) to follow my example. I also
urge him not to shut up.
In 2004, I flew 13 times, twice in
the US where I was "selected for screening" both times and subjected
to a degrading, embarrassing, intrusive procedure conducted by
arrogant law-and-order types, including, in one of the two ordeals,
a minority woman overseer who had apparently never had such a
good opportunity before to bully WASP's and was milking it for
all it was worth. My other 11 flights that year, in Mexico, Cuba,
Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina, all involved
far more civilized and polite boarding procedures, none with pat-downs.
I also crossed 24 border check points that year, where nobody
seemed to be worried about either drugs or terrorists, except
at the, as usual, arduous and insulting US border between Tijuana
and San Diego. For instance, going from Colombia to Ecuador, two
countries with border issues, I spent about two and a half minutes
flirting with each of two friendly women, handing over my Colombian
visa to one and getting an Ecuadorian visa from the other. I judge
that the reason for the dramatic difference is that none of the
countries I visited has as many enemies as the US has.
So, since I'm convinced that that's
the problem, and it's the problem that should be confronted, not
innocent travelers, I invite John Tyner and other fed up Americans
to join me in (hopelessly of course) issuing some rude orders
of our own to the US government - to (damn you!) stop making so
many enemies for the rest of US - and to try (intelligently for
a change) to actually reduce the growing threat to flying and
non-flying Americans by honestly trying to change what America
is and is correctly perceived to be - by dissolving NATO, the
G-20, and the WTO; by closing the hundreds of US military bases
all over the world and bringing US troops home; and by joining
the UN as a member, not as a bully, to work with other countries
toward the creation of an entire civilized world in which everybody
has a good life, instead of a business domain for the benefit
of 1/10 of 1% of humanity.
in news fabric; not many; don't get excited
December 2010: Al Jazeera reports today (the
Times doesn't) that the new government of Australia
doesn't believe Iran is a rogue state and has more fear
of Israel. This, of course, is a wicked wiki-leak. Don't give
embedded investigative reporters any credit they don't deserve.
I don't know if Iran is in any sense a rogue state and, more importantly,
I don't know why I should think so. But I do know that Washington
is a rogue state, far more dangerous than Israel, which IS dangerous,
but not as dangerous as the insiders who run America, to whom
war is obviously a highly profitable business venture, who are
now at war (without permission from dormant US citizens) in 3
countries, who are apparently trying to start 3 more wars, and
who have enough military deployed everywhere to start all the
wars they want.
reference to the dead and the other dead, it's past time
I acknowledged a fairly recent change in US media editorial policy.
The Times showed today (not for the first time, though nearly
so) that they can be shamed (or something), when they headlined
"6 NATO TROOPS SLAIN" and then in the bottom line told us that
maybe "all six...were Americans." Somebody (not me, though I tried
for years) has persuaded them to stop headlining deaths in two
Then, about those
Hinkley, California cancer rates, you could learn in the
last two paragraphs of a long story, if you read that far, that
some people doubt the numbers in a new survey showing the cancer
rate there to be only normal. Though I haven't followed that story,
I know I've read some statistics in the past that contradicted
today's headlined stats exonerating big business, Pious, violin-accompanied
patriotism is the thin mask of fascism American media are supposed
to promote, as if they themselves were members of the lumpen workforce,
rather than mouthpieces for the insiders, so there may be legitimate
doubt. But the transition from fact to headline in the Times goes
from "...said epidemiologist John Morgan" in small body type,
to "the state finds no statistical excess" in medium size subhead
type, to very big headline type that says the cancer rate "ISN'T
high" on the regional front page and "IS proportional" on page
I'll tell you (and frequently do) that
what is is and what is not is not, but I never believe Times headlined
assertions about what is and what isn't. And neither should you.
Meanwhile, more tacitly-Times-approved
baloney falls apart when you look closely.
In another story that starts on the front page and is told with
a butter-filled mouth of U-Tube's intention to start flagging
anything that "promotes terrorism," you'll learn on page 7 that
they'll rely on users to do the flagging but that they "aim to
draw a careful line." Today's Dilbert cartoon showing Dogbert
"recalculating my lack of faith in humanity...by reading opinions
on message boards" IS relevant (because it IS). You have to realize
that, by "careful," U-Tube may not mean "carefully objective."
How could they? They probably mean carefully not risky for themselves.
Meanwhile, the spread of Jerry Springer Show democracy goes on.
UNSPINNING OFFICIAL STORIES 2009
BACK TO THE FRONT PAGE
TO GO ON TO 2011 OR ANY YEAR UP TO THE PRESENT - PICK A YEAR:
2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015; 2016