Unspinning Official Stories 2013

What you're not told in today's Hugo Chavez story

   9 January 2013: The wire story I'm reading in a local paper today because I refuse to pay $1.50 for the LA Times (a new 50% increase it's not worth) reveals that "Venezuelan lawmakers voted Tuesday to postpone the inauguration of ailing President Hugo Chavez for his new term..." (Chavez is recovering from a cancer operation in a Cuban hospital) ...but then goes on to tell you TWICE that his opposition "condemned the delay as illegal...and a violation of the (Venezuelan) Constitution."
   BUT IT DOESN'T TELL YOU that there is NO codified Venezuelan law or constitutional provision supporting the opposition's claims (a fact fully covered in non-US-embedded publications such as Venezuelanalysis) and that, indeed, the National Assembly declared its decision yesterday to be "in accordance with Article 231 of the Constitution of the Republic," and also in consideration of Chavez' "universal right as a human being to take the time needed for his full recovery, in accordance with the Medical Ethics Code" and also in consideration of the will of the electorate "which, in accordance with Article 5 of the Constitution, holds predominance over any other formality."
   The biased US media don't tell you that because either they haven't done THEIR research (which you can do for yourselves through connections supplied on this site or that you find for yourself) or they don't want to spoil your carefully cultivated and much practiced attitude of indignation (on cue) toward an officially demonized foreign leader.
   But there's some much more important stuff they're not telling you and which they NEVER tell you, related to the second absurd lie (that nothing is happening in Latin America, a cover-up by absurd ommission) i.e. #2 in my list of official lies so absurd that you couldn't possibly believe them if you didn't want to. This cunningly (or stupidly) untold story is also expanded in scattered posts in this column over the last four years.
   They obviously either don't want you to know or don't know themselves (a possibility that ought to be unlikely but may not be) that this story rates a lot more space and more intelligent and prominent treatment than they're giving it, because Hugo Chavez is the de facto leader of a contemporary multi-country movement away from Latin America's very substandard, US dictated past toward a better socialist future for hundreds of millions of people, which makes his health critically important news.
   If you happen to go (as I suggest because it's handily linked on my front page) from here to Granma, Cuba's main newspaper, where you can easily read (in English) the actual declaration of the Venezuelan National Assembly, you should also read (in English) the response of Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa (another important leader in the new Latin American socialist revolution) to rumors of a possible CIA plot to kill him. If you know Spanish, you could also look that up in an Ecuadorian newspaper. Correa officially welcomes assurances by the US Embassy in Quito that the US would "never get involved" in such a plot, but reminds the public of what YOU ought to know but might not, that such things have happened in Latin America and that agencies like the CIA "have their own agenda, of which the US President isn’t even aware." He's not raving, he's talking about real history seldom included in the comic-book version you're used to being fed.

-Glen Roberts

Hugo Chavez death rumors raise important issues

   1 March 2013: Rumors of Hugo Chavez' death (even if false) raise concerns embedded media don't understand or don't want to mention. I know little about Hugo's health and won't pretend I do, but the related concerns the media are either stupidly or cunningly covering up are momentous, so I'm going to uncover them here.
    According to speakers at a meeting in Caracas yesterday of the Bolivarian Alliance of Latin American nations (ALBA), their economic alliance that is finally freeing the Latin American world from US oppression is moving ahead, but there's no doubt that the dynamos powering the movement so far have been Fidel Castro (from the side lines) and Hugo Chavez at the helm, and, whatever his unknown depth, Venezuelan VP Nicolas Maduro, doesn't have the momentum to replace his boss in this international role yet. So there should be some in-depth stories in the media right now about who will step in. Bolivian President Evo Morales is a strong possibility, but I'm thinking Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, a young, articulate leader who's shown signs of real Fidel-level belief in the socialist (and ultimately communist) future of Latin America may be qualified, too. And, if, as Correa says (and I believe him), the CIA recently tried to kill him, that suggests the CIA agrees with me.
    What's generally important, though, is that, IF ALBA ( which I first told you about four years ago ) has indeed progressed in spite of your media maintained ignorance about them, and now has a chance of succeeding, thus civilizing the Southwestern Quartersphere and the lives of hundreds of millions of poor Latin American losers, then it's past time even the asinine embedded media started granting them AND YOU a higher level of visibility for them, and that at least the alternative media (if there are any) started celebrating them in headlines and print at the same level that was wasted a few years ago on the Zapatistas.
    Excuse me. Did I offend someone or two? I said on the front page I don't intend to be diplomatic, and I was very much there in Zapatistaland, first passing back and forth through and then living for two years in San Cristobal de las Casas during the time of the cute Zapatista uprising, when a bunch of my formerly pro-Sandinista friends were there trying to remake themselves as good Americans by reliving their regretted 80's Nicaraguan experience with more acceptable heroes. The poetic but directionless Zapatistas were the vehicle the former US almost-progressives rode from their dangerous flirtation with Sandinismo to their new and sanitary pro-democracy excuse for coming out of the house, a diversion that might have just been a detour, but, since they still aren't supporting Venezuela's revolution, let alone Cuba's, my cynicism is justified. I don't like the human race, anyway, but I'm particularly dismayed by "liberals" and pseudo progressives who've wimped out and become born-again Democrats. And that's that, until I see them courageously re-engaged in the still ongoing (off-their-timid screen) movement to toss ugly capitalism in the toilet and replace it with a civilized movement toward economic and social equality at least all over Latin America that will finally raise all the Latin American shanty dwellers to humanhood and provide the rest of the world an at least transitionally working model of civilization.

-Glen Roberts

Really critical issues following Hugo Chavez' death
kept secret from always ignorant Americans by US media

   6 March 2013: The reported death yesterday of the true "leader of the free world" - excuse me, I mean Hugo Chavez, NOT Flash Gordon or any recent US president, was met by typical ineptitude, ignorance, or opportunistic dishonesty (take your pick) by US media today, and in the small town coffee shops near me, thanks both to the prevailing media slant and the cooperative unconsciousness of what passes for left here, the news fell into a similar conversational vacuum. I don't know about San Francisco.
    My last two articles (below) are on the same subject, and why the story is far more important and critical than you may realize is explained briefly in both those articles and more completely on my Absurd (and dishonest) Official Stories page as #2 in my list of "ten (or so) official US media stories so falsely presented that they must be designed for a public assumed to want to be fooled".

-Glen Roberts

Looking past tricky media wording on Middle East
reveals relationships you might not like to see

   22 March 2013: Today's official story of a chemical attack on a Syrian mosque used some typical media slight-of-word tricks to irresponsibly blur the importance of the story and (for the convenience of rich insiders who own both the media and the war) to keep you confused. What am I talking about?
    After Muhammad Ali courageously dodged the draft, patriotic sports radio announcers adopted a hostile style that was easy to see through. If they said the good guy (not Ali) was ahead, you knew the fight was even; if they said it was even, Ali was winning; and if they said Ali was winning, you knew he was beating the hell out of their hero.
      Same thing with Syrian war reporting. If they attribute an atrocity to the government (always according to the rebels), then who did it is uncertain. Maybe the government did it. Maybe not. But if they admit the rebels did it, there must be too much evidence to cover up. And today's LA Times claim that the deadly chemical attack on a crowded mosque is mysterious in origin also means US media's chosen heroes did it.
      The rebels, after all, are the Islamic monkey wrench in the works and carelessly bombing a crowd to kill one pro-Assad priest is a typically insane Islamic tactic; the reasons the secular government shouldn't have done it are compelling; and an invented "mystery" perfectly typifies embedded media reporting of the Syrian war.
      Today, as if to demonstrate my point, they carried their tale-telling technique too far. When Times' reporter Patrick McDonnell, who stays in Lebanon far from the scene or the witnesses, tells us himself (obviously) there were "allegations that the entire episode may have been crafted to discredit the rebels," it could easily be true that there were "allegations," since McDonnell can certainly find all the tearful allegaters he needs (of all types) in Lebanon and, after all, plenty of governments in this politically ugly world, including the US government, do shit like that. BUT THERE'S A FLASHING RED QUESTION ABOUT WHY HE DIDN'T MENTION ALTERNATIVE ALLEGATIONS of the far more obvious probability that, Barack Obama having just issued a pre-attack warning that use of chemical weapons by Assad may be all NATO needs to start their Libyan act in Syria, "the entire episode may have been crafted to discredit" the government, and to provide the already specified provocation (as far as the public needs to know) that would bring on the bombers the rebels have been yearning for and Obama has been yearning to launch for the last year and a half.
      The CIA does shit like that, there are rebel factions easily crazy enough to do it, even without orders from Washington, to force their sponsors' hands, and one chemical missile could have come in with the regular flow of ARMS for the rebels FROM TURKEY, which, according to easily found internet sources, co-owns and operates an ambitious budding arms industry in partnership with the US, and which also (only reportedly) may be producing chemical weapons and using them against the Kurds. Also, some Syrian rebels factions have boasted that THEY can produce chemical weapons using chemicals imported from Turkey.
      This story, like the Hugo Chavez story, not so much as a news report but, more importantly, as a convenient story, intentionally misplayed, cunningly underplayed and blurred just right, to stick to current talking points about US reluctance to be involved, while preparing readers for a possible war story to come - because Obama DID issue his pre-war warning yesterday, because Obama IS a president who wants to go to war, and because he very obviously wants to go to war in Syria. Hopefully, Russia and China, the "weaker" NATO members, and the entire UN Security Council will stop him again. I hope you notice the word again, scratch your head and maybe even start paying more critical attention to the news, trying to figure out what is and isn't being reported, and start seeing relationships .

-Glen Roberts

Though Media endlessly castigate North Korea,
the current tension in the region is Barack Obama's fault

   31 March 2013: There are telephones in North Korea so Barack Obama could make a conference call to Kim Jong-un and Park Geun-hye, admit that the US has been too confrontational, and propose that the war be declared over, that US bases in the region be closed and US troops be withdrawn, that the border between the two Koreas be demilitarized and opened to free social and economic interchange, and that the three countries sign a pact to interact peacefully in all ways in the future. Could that be done and would it work? It could and it would. In January 2009, it was ready to happen. But Barack Obama wasn't. He wanted war.
    Yesterday, a spokeswoman for one of the many US departments of security labeled North Korea's current stance "unconstructive"? (sic) I call the eternal presence of the US military constantly practicing war right outside the North Korean border destructive (which is a real word) - of morale, of international relations, of any hope for a civilized peace.
    Barack Obama, among his other "hopeful" lies during his political campaign 5 years ago, claimed he would approach Iran and North Korea more politely than his predecessor - that he would, for once, "listen" to their side. He didn't. He and Hillary Clinton started snarling at both those countries during his first month in office. Maybe Obama did his little lip smile, but the words were snarling words, and the regular American message was that he would welcome their humble surrender to American demands.
    That wasn't what the world had expected of him.
    Whether he'd also plainly lied about his Latin American intentions or his hopelessly slow to awaken supporters lied to themselves for him about that, they and the world had also expected him to normalize relations with Cuba and Venezuela, close Guantanamo, and end the Cuban embargo. He didn't. Instead, in the fourth month of his administration, his vice president went to Chile to snarl at Cuba and then Obama went to Trinidad, where he was met with polite hope, and snarled at Cuba there, too. These were wake up calls for the world outside the always unconscious US. The response in the Far East and in Latin America was to give up on Obama, and I'm sure the North Korean government decided they'd have to continue proofing themselves against American attack by developing a protective nuclear shield.
    And that skepticism was justified, since Obama went on to clarify and he continues clarifying, that he is one more fascist American president out to conquer the world. Instead of ending US involvement in foreign wars, he started new ones and, after taking the lead in NATO's unprovoked invasion of Libya, where he helped lynch the Libyan president and then turned the country over to barbarians who immediately established Sharia law while opening their oil fields to the return of US and British companies, instead of correcting a NATO general's press conference proclamation that the Libyan invasion would be a model for a series of NATO blitzkriegs to come, he declared his intention to expand US military presence in the Far East to "confront China's economic expansion," a stance I think I might call "unconstructive" (sick).
    The blitzkriegs have been put on temporary hold, maybe not for long and certainly not voluntarily by Obama (who's aching to continue), but by Russia, China, and just enough EU powers to say NO to any NATO repeat of Libya in Syria. Meanwhile, even Libyans, Egyptians, Tunisians, and Syrian rebels have, while not sending any aid or guns back, rhetorically turned against their western mentors and sponsors. The world is getting sicker of Obama. But the American media propaganda mill has never stopped preparing Americans for invasions of Syria, North Korea, Iran, and eventually of Cuba (which would be the ugliest US atrocity in history.
    I can't go back four years and foretell a future that never got started, but the world was ready for change in January 2009, and if he'd done what was expected of him then (although the US, British, and French oil and arms industries might be in mourning), the world might now be at peace. Well, closer anyway. If, instead, North Korea's understandable anger leads to another stupid war, it will be Obama's fault.

-Glen Roberts

Obama fakes left, then charges right,
pretending reluctance while pushing his Syrian war buttons

   26 April 2013:   Barack Obama is performing an obvious pre-war dance - a two-step, that begins with a phony back step, a blushing show of reluctance by a supposedly peace-loving cowboy hero, and then proceeds (if he can get away with it) to an arrogant step forward into another ugly NATO invasion that he is ACTUALLY YEARNING TO LAUNCH.
    It's god-awful enough that Obama is successfully pretending to resist everyone urging him to attack to obscure his own ugliness when he does, and that an apparently unbroken wave of embedded media are jamming the public screen with a maximum-volume talking point chorus that completely omits all the rational voices shouting, "NO!"
    It's a new kind of awful that the internet has joined the established embedded media effort to drown out common sense, so that, even though there are numerous authorities strongly doubting the supposed evidence that will justify the carnage and truthfully pointing out the dishonest track record of the CIA and the obvious exact duplication of the pre-Iraq war Bush regime lies, if you try to find any of that on the internet, no matter what you type on the search bar, you'll get a barrage of the same two-step talking points dance.
    And where is the lame American left? Maybe what's worst, even worse than the lumpen majority's predictable eagerness to buy the official story, is that so far today, April 26, the (of course) lame American left are not apparently pouring into the streets in protest, either. They haven't been making any sensible noise for a long time, of course. They certainly should now, but will they?
    If not, it's because the (to me) disgusting American "liberals" and the disappointing pseudo-progressives I used to think I knew in Nicaragua have gotten themselves into a ridiculous box they'd have a hard time breaking out of if they were in it by themselves, but they've been joined in the last few years by a crowd of worse-than-pseudo-progressive, blog-board lumpen, occupy-movement pseudo-activists who outnumber them and surround them and might actually seal them in.
    But mostly on the strength of their own maybe even pre-1980's naivete and philosophical shallowness, they've let themselves get suckered, first, into an ever-since-1990 born-again Democrat, anti-revolutionary trance; then, for the last 5 years, into a never-justifiable pro-Obama mental black-out; and finally, into a face-book level pro-Arab "spring" hysteria, so that to go intelligently into the streets now effectively focused against Obama's immediately pending third war of his own, they'd have to make a very embarrassing triple intellectual and psychological U-turn.
    I'll keep checking the news all day today and tomorrow to see if they can do it, but I don't expect it. I have no hope for any of the human race or the world, anyway, but I'd really like to be wrong about this.

-Glen Roberts

Obama, under pressure, quickly changes his mask

   28 April 2013:   His finger WAS on the war button last Thursday, but some of Obama's slightly more sober advisors must have woke up and grabbed him and/or his allies hot-lined him that THEY weren't about to fall on their faces with him, so, as Friday came and went, Obama and all his front men and media, who'd all been eager to fight the day before, started pretending they'd just realized by golly (snapping their fingers) that their (probably CIA planted) evidence against Syria needed a bit more proving (or jury-rigging) before NATO could attack. Does anybody believe this stuff? Do you?
    The new lie was to erase Thursday and bounce awkwardly back to Wednesday when, now even less believably, Obama was just so-o-o cautious, but, to save some face, he went on comically snarling that Syria still better watch out because they weren't off the hook. It helped him that US media forgot to mention that in the foreign press the Syrian rebels had climbed onto the hook as the only ones likely to have used chemical weapons.
    And where is the lame American left? By last night, we were back a step from the brink of war, but not far enough to explain why, with Obama still TALKING war in Syria AND North Korea AND Iran, America's lame left is still not on the streets but, instead, is still doing its own Obama-like covering up by talking huffily about anything but Syria (anything their Democratic party leaders will let them talk about, that is). Oh, I forgot, they're against drones - just drones, and just against drones as agents of kangaroo executions (which it's OK to bitch about, by the way; it's just disgustingly limited in the present circumstances).
    Meanwhile, demonstrators in the streets in Jordan objecting to US troops on the way to THEIR border with Syria even know details like the number of troops coming. There are photos in European alternative media of US battleships off the coast of Syria. Germans are demonstrating against their government contributing to Obama's bloody wars. But the American left is talking about a blog board full of hodge podge. That I write in English may be a problem for those of you "occupying" what has become the supposedly left fringe of the Democratic party, but try to pay attention to this point: like you, Obama has boxed himself into a stupid corner from which ONE escape may be to plunge into war to win the time honored presidential jackpot of forcing you to "get behind" him, because "in time of war..." etc.
    Also meanwhile, far off the increasingly unreliable American screen, apparently unknown to or not understood by main-stream western media or the nerd-led self-proclaimed US "progressives," new Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro arrived in Havana on Friday, his very prompt obligatory visit establishing HIS legitimacy in the truly progressive Latin American movement away from US domination toward Socialism.

-Glen Roberts

Obama trying again to start another war

   13 June 2013: Barack Obama is trying again to make his dream come true of invading Syria without provocation, just as he invaded Libya without provocation, a real life nightmare.
    But his emergence from the closet yesterday with an announcement that he will increase military support for the Syrian rebels, wasn't because anyone used chemical weapons. It was because Syria may be about to win their war, and the happiness about that of most Syrians, and the ugliness of the rebels can no longer be covered up, except by destroying Syria, lynching the president, handing Syria over to the rebels, and then erasing the aftermath from the news, just as was done in Libya.
    Embedded western media have been crippled recently by the embarrassing emergence of news they don't want to report: the return of exiles to the strategic western Syrian city of Qusayr - celebrating their home town's "liberation" from the rebels - right in front of more honest reporters who don't work for the New York Times; newly arisen Turkish "Arab Spring" protestors, who, besides just wanting to keep a park, are demanding the ouster of their prime minister very much BECAUSE he has been,in semi-silent partnership with the US, arming the Syrian rebels all along; and, day before yesterday, a grotesque rebel massacre of civilians in the not-at-all strategic little Syrian village of Hatla, accompanied by an incredibly stupid internet u-tube posting by stupid rebels proclaiming the massacre a great "victory."
    Hey! With no help from your dishonest mainstream media, get this straight.
    1. Obama has been arming the Syrian rebels all along through Turkey and with left-over NATO arms from Libya. 2. His very recent supposed reluctance to do what he's already doing is only a talking-point pose. 3. He's been planning to invade Syria (and one more country after another until he's conquered the world) ever since he invaded Libya, and the top NATO general told you that a long time ago when you weren't paying strict enough attention.
    4. If Syria has been led by the wrong people, who are sometimes oppressive, that's true of the entire world, including the US (most of the political leaders in the world need to be replaced). 5. But that's the UN's business, not Barack Obama's and NATO's. 6. Though what the whole world needs most is population reduction and the abolition of capitalism, besides that, what the Middle East needs most is secular government, and what they need least is backward religious government by the gangs of religious nuts Obama has been helping into power there recently.
    The ugly destruction of infrastructure and the deaths of a lot of bystanders in Syria (just as in Libya) results very very very much from the meddling of the CIA and Face Book, and from the constant encouragement AND ARMING of misguided religious rebels by the US and NATO and their proxies. In fact, the UN has just correctly warned the US and NATO and Turkey that their continued arming of the Syrian rebels will only make the situation worse.
    And where is the lame American left? Still not in the streets protesting Obama's ongoing series of wars and war practice. That's for sure. He's now practicing beach invasions with the Japanese military, by the way. And whose beaches are the targets? North Korea's? China's? Yee gawds!
-Glen Roberts

Neither Zionist nor Islamic stupidity ever dies

   15 June 2013: And on and on it goes in Palestine/Israel, obviously because the only sensible solution is never on the table. Instead of two states, what's needed is one secular state. Take away the curse of religion from Palestine/Israel (and Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Iran, Syria, and all the other Arab states) and civilization may finally arrive in the Middle East. -Glen Roberts

North Korea's reasonableness obscured by US media

   18 June 2013: The embedded media story of North Korea's surprise offer to give up its nuclear arms IS NOT TRUE, which is not surprising. What is surprising is that, buried wa-a-ay down in yesterday's NY Times' same ol' same ol' propaganda piece posing as news, you can actually read what North Korea really said. And never mind how corny their wording may be. Just pay attention to their point.

    “Whether anyone accepts our proud status as a nuclear power, we will hold fast to it until the denuclearization of the entire Korean Peninsula is realized and the nuclear threat from the outside is completely terminated,” the North Korean spokesman said.
    Washington, however, has demanded that before direct talks, North Korea must first take concrete steps to show its sincerity in giving up its nuclear weapons.
    On Sunday, the North said the United States should stop raising “preconditions” for dialogue if it is serious about easing tensions and “safeguarding the peace and security of the region, including the mainland United States.”

    What this clearly means (your local Times clone refuses to clarify) is that North Korea has requested a meeting with the US - NOT to give up but to propose exactly what I proposed to Barack Obama on March 31st, i.e. a sensible normalization of relations, including the withdrawal of US forces and nuclear weapons from the region - and for Washington to quit asininely insisting on surrender BEFORE negotiations.
-Glen Roberts  

McCarthyism returns to America

   10 July 2013: "President Barack Obama has ordered federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues..." as part of the "Insider Threat Program," it says in today's paper. JH(F)C! Has the HUAC returned as the ITP? And are there democratic congressmen hypocritical enough to play the roles of Nixon and McCarthy this time around? Maybe Diane Feinstein, for one?
    Close your doors and windows Americans, and stay off your phones and your computers. You're all being watched! By each other! And, HEY, all you never-say-die Obama supporters: will YOU play this clearly democratic game? On Facebook maybe?

-Glen Roberts

Raul Castro a model president compared to Obama

   13 July 2013: Raul Castro deserves a lot of credit for transforming the role of a Cuban president from that of heroic comandante to that of a relatively low profile working coordinator of the island's comprehensive management team. I'm presenting this as news to westerners to whom, thanks to most of their disgustingly embedded news sources, it IS news.
    I first, only coincidentally, reported it from Cuba in January of 2007, 6 1/2 years ago, when I didn't know yet that it was news, either. That is, nobody knew yet that Fidel, whom Raul, as first vice-president, was temporarily replacing, would not return to office, or that the Council of State would appoint Raul to go on replacing him, and I didn't know that what I was seeing would become an important mode.
    But it did, and today, while Barack Obama continues chasing photo ops and embarrassing himself urging the world to go to war in Syria with him and to help him persecute a hacker who has revealed some of his uglier secrets, Raul Castro is quietly behaving himself very much as I've stipulated a national manager should in my definitions of a civilized civil state and of routine communism.
    That is, while Obama goes on destructively fiddling while the eco-world we live in (besides burning) goes on collapsing and pervasive poverty goes on spreading, Cuba, which is not attacking or robbing or ecologically fucking up any other country and has no international enemies (except, by its own will, Obama's State Department) continues, through the cooperative efforts of its various cabinet ministers, coordinated by its quietly working president, moving toward its own very civilized goal of making life good for all Cubans, while helping other countries do the same, not through NGO's (like those in the US who, though they usually fail, try to do the distracted US government's job for it), but through state sponsored volunteers rendering humanitarian aid everywhere, while the Cuban state goes on domestically providing a model for other countries that want to become equally as civilized as Cuba.
    For example, (1) Cuban medical teams were first on the scene after Haiti's disastrous hurricane, as they are for disasters everywhere, and they're still there; (2) when I was in Venezuela exploring barrios everyone told me were too dangerous to enter, I found clinics in those barrios run by Cubans; (3) in the last several years, Cuba has led an international project based on methods developed in Cuba to teach all poor Latin Americans to read and write; and (4) Cuba just last month graduated 4,843 medical students from 70 other countries who will return to their own countries as new doctors. Those are just a few examples.
    But the main super-important example, though it's NEVER reported in embedded western media who have had to nearly erase a quarter of the globe from reported existence in order to avoid the story, Cuba IS the model for a quiet (not violent) Latin American revolution involving MOST of South America and parts of the Caribbean and Central America away from the US business oriented model of government toward a civilized future when poverty will hopefully be erased by a quarter-globe revolutionary priority shift toward socially oriented government.. And, of course, Raul Castro is deeply involved. He's qualified, by the way, by half a century of management experience in Cuba and because, having been just as involved as his brother in the overthrow of Batista and the founding of modern Cuba, he shares his brother's understanding of the goals of a benign socialist state.
    Don't imagine, by the way, that I'm knocking Fidel's long term of heroship. As is clarified in my definitions of a civil state and communism just in case you didn't click those links), to START moving an inert capitalist-dominated population toward civilization and then keep moving them until they reach a state of civilized stability usually DOES require a heroic leader as exactly as possible like Fidel. But once a civilized state is securely established, the need for heroes is replaced by a need for mild-mannered managers like Raul focusing on the people's all-important day-to-day needs, rather than the kind of typically chesty flag waving US president (like Barack Obama) who goes on forever obscenely trying to conquer and exploit the world.
-Glen Roberts

LA Times admits population growth error
but claims it's even better for business

   19 July 2013: "This just in: Humanity is growing faster than we (sick) thought." That's a quote from the LA Times last week. I don't know if the word we is a royal we, a co-optive-of-lumpen-readers'-brains we, or just ordinary careless language abuse. It doesn't mean me. I've always known that their figures were conveniently stupid, and they still are.
    Actually, the cat just jumped out of the bag when the findings of a team of British (not American) scientists were broadcast worldwide that population is growing much faster than previously thought (still by someone besides me), So now, the Times editors are trying to co-opt the discovery of their own ignorance and put even that discovery into their own warped terms.
    They quickly assure themselves (and you if you're a willing part of their idea of we) that the numbers are only "startling" but not "alarming," and then go on to give "revised" predictions not much different than they usually give, including the mathematically impossible claim that world population is "on track to reach 9.6 billion by midcentury and nearly ll billion by 2100," predictions they giddily welcome as entrepreneurial opportunities.
    You can use your own pocket calculator on this morning's "track" rate (see top of front page) of over 200 more humans per minute, well over 290,000 per day (both those numbers growing a bit every day) to see easily that, while ANNUALLY plopping down on the Earth's tired surface the equivalent of another 365 cities as big and ugly as Stockton, "we" will reach 8 billion BEFORE 2020 and 11 or maybe 12 billion BEFORE 2050, IF, between now and then and then again, the ecosystem itself doesn't decide without LA Times advance editorial notice to suddenly up and totally, finally finish collapsing all at once.
    And, in fact, the British scientists, after first offering the predictions the Times quoted, went on to almost timidly admit that, "if the CURRENT (my caps) growth rates continue," guess what - the projections will have to be revised to match the ones I gave you two paragraphs back. Besides crunching numbers, maybe those Brits are reading my site.
    What's important is that the Times is admitting that it, no THEY, were wrong about something. About what? Well, of course about their assumption BEFORE last week that the US Census Bureau's flaky world population clock and the embedded scientists who contribute to it were reliable. About what else they won't tell you. But I will. They were wrong in 1990 or 91 in their gullible acceptance of a claim by some embedded mathematician maybe named Zeno that, because the percentage growth rate of population was dropping, the population explosion had ended*; and in their assumption on January 1st of 2000 that the explosive 4 1/2 billion growth of human population in 100 years wasn't important enough to include among the big stories of the 20th century (compared to blockbusters like the death of Mother Teresa); and in their failure to assume anything at all in January of 2010 about the addition of nearly ANOTHER billion people in only the first 10 years of the new century; and in their assumption in January of 2011 that the world was facing a "critical population deficit." In other words, they were wrong over and over again, while I (for over 60 years) and Paul Ehrlich (for over 50 years that I know of) have been constantly right. So to whom should you now pay more attention?

-Glen Roberts

*The percentage growth rate of world population has ALWAYS dropped, ever since the birth of Adam and Eve's TWO sons (in let's say two years) registered as a 100% growth rate, proving that a small number can be a big percentage of a small number, while a bigger number (say over 200 million in the last two years), can be a smaller percentage (only a bit over 3% in fact) of a big number like 7 billion. Check that with your own pocket calculator and think about it really hard, and, if you were one of the smart alecs who kept telling me in the 90's that everyone knew the population explosion had stopped, please blush.

NATO's Middle Eastern blunders and ugly intentions
obscured by blather about chemical weapons

   27 July 2013: With all their other Middle Eastern foreign policy chickens disgracefully crash landing into their roosts, the big-three NATO hawks (aided by some Turkey squawking from the side), continue pushing the UN to ple-e-e-ase find some evidence of chemical weapons use by Bashar Assad to allow them to vaguely justify another stupid mistake of the same kind in Syria.
    So, an umpteenth investigation begun today will again lead to the same old conclusion: that the fanatical CIA-backed Syrian rebels might (proudly) use chemical weapons whenever they can, but the government probably doesn't. This will not be clarified to American news consumers who remain blissfully unaware that in every dispute so far over Syria, Russia, which consistently backs Assad against the religious-nut rebels, always turns out to be right.
    It's not just a guess; it's apparent that, if (or maybe I should say when) the rogue acronym NATO finally bulls its way into Syria and lynches another president, they'll be handing another country to the Muslim Brotherhood.
    It's also apparent, that, in any case, the blissfully twittering American so-called left will not protest.
-Glen Roberts

Obama accuses Russia of reviving cold war
while he sets records starting new hot wars

   10 Aug 2013: Barack Obama, well stung by right-on Russian criticism, is lashing back blindly, ironically accusing THEM of reviving the cold war, when, in fact he's the one competing with Ronald Reagan and the Bush clan for the lead in starting unprovoked hot wars for secret (because they're shameful) reasons.
        Whatever else Vladimir Putin may be wrong about, he's perfectly right to oppose Obama's bloody undercover role in Syria and his gestapo-like persecution of citizen spies working for the American people against their own fascist State Department.
    I'm not overstating the case.
    If they didn't secretly start every one of the misguided Arab "Spring" revolts, all of which have since fallen back to medieval theocracy (and I think they did), it was certainly the presidents of the US, England, and France, through NATO, the unelected rogue storm troopers that American, English and French taxpayers should be refusing to pay for, who, assisted by the CIA, secretly instigated and supervised the uprising in Libya that led to an unprovoked invasion of that country, the lynching of its president, and the return of western oil companies to control.
    And it's just as certain that Obama's CIA, again acting as a secret NATO vanguard, has from the beginning been part of the Syrian uprising, recklessly prolonging carnage there by arming the regressive rebels and encouraging them to refuse to negotiate until NATO can trump up a reason to invade, lynch Assad, and hand them the country - NOT for the sake of democracy or term limits or in a pious huff because government cops, like cops everywhere, fired at protesting crowds - but to "change a (secular) regime" the western axis has long resented and dreamed of changing because it wouldn't submissively toe their line.
    And maybe there's a more critical, more deeply secret motive for forcing Syria to its knees. It's been reported by sources the official story tellers don't use and the embedded internet nerds bury that the most importantly unreported story is that Syria is sitting on a potential natural gas bonanza that could, in the "right hands," very nicely enhance the bank balances of western billionaires, but might be wasted on the Syrian people instead if Assad wins the war (which he's reportedly now doing, also unreportedly by western media). That I don't know.
    I do know for sure that western media, which are willingly expert at playing up or down stories their rich insider owners want played up or down, ARE and have been for weeks nearly completely hiding the Syrian story they made so much of for so long, precisely because, in fact, they don't want their half conscious readers and listeners to get it clear that Bashar Assad is winning that war and that most Syrians, whatever they think of Assad, are glad, because whatever they didn't like about pre-war Syria, they DO NOT WANT to trade secularism for Muslim Brotherhood theocracy. Eventually, they'll have to transition this surprising truth into the news, but they haven't figured out how to do it, yet.
    I don't know about the natural gas mother lode story, but, in light of real US history (as opposed to the official embedded media fantasy), it makes sense. If true, it would be among the secrets kept for "national security" reasons, of course.

-Glen Roberts

Media report Syrian chemical war crime
before they know it's not a rebel hoax

   22 Aug 2013: Exactly as if they shared their rich owners' lust for war, almost ALL major media JUMPED today to pass on what literally stinks of a Syrian rebel hoax- a huge spread of unconvincing pix and propaganda - FROM THE REBELS - that MAY or may not have appeared (as some sources say) BEFORE the rebels claim the government hit a Damascus suburb yesterday with chemicals but was certainly too thick a sheaf to have appeared so quickly.
    In fact, it IS certainly stupid to believe any version of this story without indisputable substantiation, i.e. that the the government, at a time when they're mopping up the rebellion, attacked civilians with chemicals 2 days after the UN team investigating rumors of chemical arms use arrived. But the same media have been passing on unbelievable rebel propaganda from the beginning of the Syrian conflict, ALWAYS as if THEY believe it and want YOU to believe it, too.
    Reviewing all the supposedly disturbing pics I could find, I found them disturbingly familiar, by the way, and certainly not convincing.
    Nevertheless, BBC and Al Jazeera seemed almost to be calling for war, making the biggest part of the story the declaration by the French government that the "red line" had been crossed; and the NY Times unequivocally declared what they could not know - that "scores""WERE killed," mid "telltale signs of chemical weapons," before, midway through their second graph, lapsing (very briefly) into atypical objectivity, they admitted:
    "...The rebels blamed the government, the government denied involvement, and Russia accused the rebels of staging the attack to implicate President Bashar assad's government..."
    But that's not completely objective, either, considering that, at the time the big media went to press today, there was NO objective certainty that ANYTHING had happened.
    Don't be surprised if this supposed blockbuster story disappears tomorrow. While they've got it in front of your face, the media have used it to remind you of the "red line" Obama drew and to pass on implications that he's failed to follow up with an attack, and to reinforce the official fantasy that it's England and France and Turkey and all right-minded folks who want to attack Syria, while Obama, though properly horrified by Assad, is, like John Wayne, reluctant to draw his six-shooter too quickly.
    Remember! I'm not reporting on Syria. I'm reporting on the reporting of the embedded media, the unreliable propaganda junta you are expected to and maybe do believe every day.

-Glen Roberts

US, UK and French war-mongers
put last things (war) first and first things (proof) last

   24 Aug 2013: Now that we know chemical weapons used in a rebel-occupied Damascus suburb killed a lot of people, the first thing is to prove who did it, but NATO blusterers are putting first things last and ATTACK PLANS first. In fact, since before they knew ANYTHING had happened, Barack Obama and his French and British counterparts were already DESCRIBING their attack on Bashar Assad upcoming as soon as they can prop up an excuse.
    But come on! I'm acknowledging the chemical attack that I called a probable rebel hoax on Thursday because a reliable witness, Doctors Without Borders, has credibly verified it. The claim by bloodthirsty embedded media that unnamed "analysts" doubt the rebels could have done it are bullshit.
    All the Middle Eastern governments and all their religious opponents appear capable of brutality, and that the Syrian rebels are both technically and psychologically capable of faking a government chemical attack to provoke a NATO invasion is still far more certain than that Assad's military would welcome the arrival of a UN chemical war investigation team in Damascus with such an attack just a short drive from their hotel.
    The NY Times habitually reports things they can't possibly know as facts. I don't. I don't know what's happening in Syria. I DO KNOW, and I'm reporting it, that embedded western media want NATO to invade Syria and Barack Obama wants war after war and has wanted war ever since he took office. I know his official motives won't bear examination. And I know war is profitable mainly for corporations based in the US. I've had a lot of on-site experience in Latin America when the CIA and the US State Department were insidiously engaged there (or rather MORE insidiously engaged there than they obviously still are now). I see symptoms of the same kind of crap in the Middle East, and that's what I report.
    Barack Obama always does his reluctant cowboy hero act before he pulls the trigger, but his rhetoric of the last few days has been blatant. He wants to invade Syria and he's probably going to do it, and THEN, just as in the case of Bush and Iraq and ALSO Obama himself and Libya, the failure to prove a provocation will get lost in the megorama of war news.

-Glen Roberts

NATO big shots massacre language and logic
to excuse their lust for war with Syria

   29 Aug 2013: By now, all the B-level US, UK and French high school kids must be aware of and embarrassed by their presidents' and prime ministers' massacre of language and logic to excuse their lust for war with Syria.
    Even John Kerry can't be stupid enough (can he?) not to know he"s standing logic on its head and undeniably lying by pretending it's "undeniable" that Syria's government (not the US sponsored rebels) gassed civilians last week in Damascus and that the country with the biggest WMD arsenal of them all (including far more chemical weapons remaining than Syria was or is ever likely to have *), i.e. the US, with its standing claim that it has the right to use them in "retaliation," plus its very long rap sheet for bombing bystanders, has the moral authority to punish anyone.
    Of course, Kerry's actual stupidity is not as important as his determination to stick to his talking points regardless of their stupidity. The embedded media (which share Kerry's level of intelligence and insider complicity) are still pretending Colin Powell's argument for invading Iraq was only discredited LATER. So, remembering those asses' daily lie that Powell's views of the roofs of buildings and his claims about what was under them were "compelling," experience suggests we'll be treated to the same distortion of the value of the US argument to the UN Security Council this time AND the lie again that a (trumped up) "coalition of willing allies" will justify mass murder by NATO again.
    What should happen is that millions of people should appear in the streets in front of the homes of the big-3 NATO assholes carrying barn-door size signs hugely red-lettered "NO!" And Russia should abandon diplomacy and confront the US with a plain-words declaration that: "the world will NOT put up with another Iraq or Libya from you. The world demands that you creeps SHUT UP AND BACK OFF!" And then the rest of the Security Council and The world should stand up and cheer.
    Now I'm dreaming. Russian and Chinese leaders are looking good these days only in comparison to the top three NATO klunks. Meanwhile, news management has become a mega-effective (though mega-clumsy) pseudo-art, and "the" people have been trained to swallow a mega-mix of grammatical blunders and logical fallacies as pseudo-news without losing track of the sports scores and the movies, and I haven't got the weight to knock a dent in that program.
    But, also, slightly contradicting that point, the stupidity of the official story in the Syrian case has become so unprecedentedly obvious that (even if they're not enough to turn the flow of general b.s. around) enough others (besides me), including even some otherwise ordinarily stupid heads of state, are blasting the stupid story, so that I can afford to get bored with it and turn my attention to some less exposed official lies - which I promise I'll do in my next post.
    You might think I owe the US people a credit for their alleged 60 percent opposition to Barack Obama's latest war plans, but I know that over half of that bloc is just generically tired of war, and I have no hope that the picket signs in the picture of the White House demonstrators will change any time soon from "What Change?" to something more to the point, like "WE said NO, stupid!" and "WE are the U.S. and YOU are not US anymore!" and "Neither is NATO!"
    Meanwhile, while reality is not following my sensible script, check out my explanation of how and why democracy doesn't work - that is, while you're watching it not work.

-Glen Roberts

* Embedded search engines will dodge all your efforts to research this point, always forcing you back to the politically correct official story of US/Syria conflict today, but patience will eventually prove NO certainty but the probability that the US, a reluctant signatory to the chemical weapons ban, still has thousands of tons of the stuff (WHICH it still claims the right to use), while Syria, only known to be producing chemical weapons since 2012, is probably producing "hundreds" of tons a year.

Obama is clearly NOT a reluctant warrior
and his reasons for war are no damned good!

   7 Sep 2013: It's past time for embedded media to retract or at least stop telling TW0 big lies they've kept telling us over and over recently: (1) that Barack Obama is a reluctant warrior being pressured into action (HE CERTAINLY IS NOT); and (2) THAT the US, UK, and French (NATO) misleaders have publicly well known reasons to attack Syria (THEY HAVE NO REASON RESPECTABLE ENOUGH TO BEAR THE LIGHT OF AN EXPLANATION - AND THEY'VE NEVER GIVEN ONE).
    With ALL the currently known pressure from the world, the regressive G-20, the UN, what respectable analysts exist, and even from THE people of the three countries these assholes supposedly represent being pressure NOT to attack Syria, the fog is clearing (at least for those who can read) and revealing Obama, his administrative UK and French counterparts, Turkey and the most cynically regressive Arabs, NOT reluctant warriors but as the ONLY ones who wants to attack. Obviously, Obama was never a reluctant cowboy. He's been a warmonger since he took office in January 2009.
    With multiple opportunities to present their evidence against Syria, the case they and the media (clearly the loudest participants in the coalition of the willing) keep calling "certain," "undeniable," "forceful," etc. is not just similar to the flaky case made for the unprovoked attacks on Iraq and Libya, it's exactly the same kind of argument - a metaphysical argument at best - not including a single certain, undeniable, forceful fact - made up only of passionate but empty rhetoric.
    The best clumsy shot in the dark they have is their assertion (just a naked assertion) that, "since" the Syrian government has "custody" of chemical weapons in Syria, only the Syrian government could have launched the chemical attack that killed about 355 people in a Damascus suburb according to Doctors Without Borders. But that's NOT CERTAIN; more credible sources than the CIA DO DENY IT; reports from unembedded and therefore unsung media easily found on the net, which may not be totally reliable but which are CERTAINLY, UNDENIABLY more reliable than US State Department spooks, cite evidence that the opposition has "custody" of its own chemical weapons stockpile (from Turkey probably) and has in fact used chemical weapons.
    It's past time for the mainstream media to retract their big lies and it's past time for them to publish the truth. The world is being misled by big shots with SOME motive for wanting to go to war with Syria. The wish has been apparent and even often stated since way before the unprovoked attack on Libya. The motive can be guessed but needs to be investigated and set forth in headlines as big as the lying headlines we've been suffering for a long time now. And it's time to end the myth of Obama and strip him naked as the would-be emperor of the world he yearns to be.
    I am not piling on, by the way. I've been uncovering Obama since right before he initially took office - not in chorus with the Republicans or the pseudo progressives, but as a truly progressive revolutionary for honest, coherent analysis of reality in perfect English and for effective social, economic, political, philosophical, ecological movement toward world-wide civilization someday.

-Glen Roberts

Another war to save Obama's face? No way!

   9 Sep 2013: To start another war to save Barack Obama's face is unacceptable! Period! Supposed moral reasons loudly, redundantly, but not at all logically or grammatically advanced by the chief war-mongers backing Obama are unacceptable, too, because those reasons aren't credible. Period! Any other economic reasons never mentioned by a complicit embedded media because they're shameful are unacceptable, too. Period!
    A very few big shots in a very few countries share Obama's risk of losing face. But their dilemma (or the dilemmas of their sponsors who stand to profit from war) is/are of no importance to the rest of the human race. Their faces and profits are a thousand times more expendable than the lives and limbs of bystanders who will be under the bombs. Period! Even if there are a handful of worthy individuals among the Syrian rebels, most of those guys are contemptible, and to start an endless war to give Syria to them is beneath unacceptable. Period!

    The only acceptable option is to force the rebels to enter negotiations (which Assad has already agreed to) that lead to UN supervised elections open to all parties, including the present government, with an understanding that if the government loses, the army will be dismantled and replaced by an army assembled by a coalition of all parties. That makes sense! By contrast, nothing from Obama and his very limited camp makes any sense at all! Period!

    But this does! Rather than let him start another war, Obama should be impeached.

-Glen Roberts

Upstaged Obama/Kerry effort to grab spotlight back
threatens to undermine Russia's good work

   13 Sep 2013: One can only hope that, with his embarrassing effort to shoulder into the Russia/Syria/UN deal, John Kerry hasn't torpedoed it. A couple of days ago (Sep 11), we all believed that Russia had saved the day. Syria was ready to turn custody of all its chemical weapons over to the UN and to cooperate with whatever had to be done to annihilate the entire stockpile. Not easy maybe, but things couldn't have been better in the Middle East.
    But, for no other reason except to save their stupid faces, not only have Barack Obama and Kerry had to make loud speeches implying they were still in charge, Kerry, as part of his pretence that HE has been part of a purely Russian/UN/Syrian deal made at least two days ago while Kerry and Obama were still beating war drums, has now declared Syria OUT of any talks (though all relevant talks have already taken place) and imposed conditions that can't be met, exactly like George Bush in Iraq. He's demanding that Syria turn over all their chemical weapons within a week.
    So, though Vladimir Putin can hopefully cool him, Bashar Assad (who claims, probably correctly, that it was the US sponsored rebels who unleashed the chemical attack on August 21 in order to force Obama/NATO to invade on their behalf), is now retaliating by imposing some actually realistic conditions on the world's ugliest rogue state (I mean fascist America, if you're asleep).
    So now what? Can Russia bully the US idiots into shutting up and backing off? Will Assad refuse to be bullied into kneeling at Washington's feet (which, by the way, IS Obama's and Kerry's main aim right now) and back out of the deal? I (who have no faith in humanity at all) am hoping that the entire world will rise up in some sense and tell the two klunks off emphatically enough to actually stop them. But that's not a prediction.
    Meanwhile,there's something else that has to be done, which Russia can't do, and, though you may think so, the US can't do, either. I'm going to reprint a paragraph from my last post to make this critical point that the embedded media haven't the wit to make:

    Somebody has to persuade the rebels, who are losing their war and can no longer count on NATO to invade and win it for them, to enter negotiations (which Assad has already agreed to) that lead to UN supervised elections open to all parties, including the present government, with an understanding that if the government loses (or wins, which it almost certainly will), the army will be dismantled and replaced by an army assembled by a coalition of all at least politically secular parties.

-Glen Roberts

While media pretend US idiots are helping,
Russia alone achieves an unusually sane diplomatic triumph

   16 Sep 2013: By playing Edgar Bergen to Obama's and Kerry's Mortimer Snerd and Charlie Mccarthy, Vladimir Putin has managed in the last three days to at least bend US foreign policy into a slightly saner path, so that, while still shunning diplomatic gray for myself, I have to credit him with a masterpiece of diplomatic trickery, which has actually done some good.
    Efforts by embedded media today to somehow fit the alteration of Syrian news reality wrought entirely by Putin into their existing comic-book based official story have reached the level of high comedy.To laugh last and best, though, you have to understand (what they're obscuring) that there's been not one deal (as they pretend): but two deals, the first (the important and done deal) made only between Russia, Syria and the UN (while John Kerry was still loudly declaring war at any second) for the sequestration of Syrian chemical arms under UN jurisdiction until they can be rounded up and destroyed. I'm assuming that Assad was persuaded by Putin that, with Syria separated from its chemical arms, the world would have to suspect the rebels of any subsequent chemical attack.
    The second mock deal, ventriloquized by Russia into John Kerry's mouth, allowed Kerry to blather on to the press as if he were still in charge in exchange for his changing his idiot demand that Syria turn over its chemical weapons in one week or else to a Putin-crafted, Kerry-mimed (for US consumption) "demand" that Syria turn over just an inventory in one week (which they've probably already done), and that all their chemical weapons be destroyed by "2014," a flexible deadline certainly already agreed to.
    Great work Mr. Putin! But the war won't end until the rebels are also effectively bent into line. This is so critical I'm re-quoting myself for the third time:

    To achieve a civilized peace, somebody has to persuade the rebels, who are losing their war and can no longer count on NATO to invade and win it for them, to enter negotiations (which Assad has long ago agreed to) that lead to UN supervised elections open to all parties, including the present government, with an understanding that if the government loses (or wins, which it almost certainly will), the army will be dismantled and replaced by an army assembled by a coalition of all at least politically secular parties.

    But the rebels are not, as US Face Book Obama supporters have convinced themselves, the good guys in Syria. They are Islamic fundamentalists given to fundamentalist unreasonableness. They WANT a NATO invasion. They want Assad lynched BEFORE NATO gives them the country and lets them turn it into a Muslim state. If not a majority, at least a majority of Syrians with anything like 20/20 brain vision apparently believe, according to alternative media on the spot that you can research, too, if you refuse to let Google force your search into the official story trench, that the only way to resolve the current crisis and return to the last previous version of normality, so that reform can begin from there, Assad must be allowed to annihilate the so-called "rebels."
    I'm not advocating that. I'm just reporting reality. And it IS a fact that Barack Obama and NATO, with the constant aid of the embedded media, created the reality I'm reporting.

-Glen Roberts

NATO and crazy Jihadists are now allies

   22 Sep 2013: World War III, pitting Jihadists against everyone else, is now underway, and US, UK, and French chiefs of state are apparently allied with the Jihadists. Their latest treachery to the rest of us is a threat to undermine Russia's brilliantly diplomatic chemical disarmament deal with Bashar Assad and the UN unless Russia joins their screwy war-drumming for an unprovoked invasion of Syria.
    That they have blundered into their pro-Jihad position, thinking they were doing something else, is not to their credit, since the something else, setting aside all their grammatically grotesque rhetorical white-washing, is a secret precisely because they subconsciously know it's just as ugly as Jihad. I'm theorizing about some of the details, but the ugly NATO plan for world conquest, blindly parallel to and (in the Middle East) allied with the Jihadic plan, does exist and is trying to unfold.
    (to be cont'd)
-Glen Roberts

Media continue supporting "Obamacare"
by insidiously calling insurance industry subsidies "health care"

   25 Oct 2013: Reporting on health care in America remains typically evasive today, as embedded media quote only Obama"care" supporters and Republicans on snafus undermining the gre-e-at sign up that should never have taken place.
    While unruly pundits in the media itself, and even coffee and barber shop wizards everywhere are rationally ridiculing the incoherence of the "portal" provided for suckers who in fact DON'T yearn to buy overpriced (at any price) insurance enough to wade through so much shit, the media go on pretending to expect the same klutzes who made the mess to make healing adjustments to the hopelessly normal combined language abuse of salesmen, politicians, and internet nerds that IS the problem.
    And, of course, in the midst of the eternal fog, they stick to their wall-to-wall evasion of ANY mention EVER of the need in America for socialized medicine, though that, too, is becoming a drum-beat topic at least in the blogosphere. An unprecedented (since 1990) awakening of Americans on that score is not news to the news vendors when (to the rich insiders who own them) it's an unwelcome awakening, you see - please, DON'T YOU SEE? - Sadly, thanks to your greater overly-willing exposure to the media I'm talking about than to me, you probably don't.
    It's way past time for the people themselves to get the blame for their own screwing, but it's another newer set of villains, the nerds, who (besides helping the CIA start most of the "Arab Spring" Face-Book religious revivals) have jammed all our computers wall-to-wall with chummy club joining ceremonies in order to do absolutely ANYTHING, the currently most relevant of which is the solid wall of opening-a-chummy-account ceremonies (complete with passwords) confounding the fools who, for some stupid reason want to JOIN the Obama "care" club that's really an insurance company, pharmaceutical company, and corporate medical establishment subsidization plan.
    If I just lost you, you deserve to be lost, but, whether you went to day school or night school, you should be able to figure out that insurance is not health care (insurance DOES NOT = health care). Insurance companies do not perform surgery or bandage cut fingers or even issue aspirin. They are middle men, and you ought to already know that adding a middle man to your health care payment plan will increase (not decrease) the price you pay. Furthermore (and this has become appallingly obvious recently), insurance companies don't at all mind putting good health FOR EVERYONE even further out of reach by paying inflated prices to every insider involved since they're going to recover those losses through inflated premiums, something YOU (the already proven foolish credit card user) can be counted on not to notice, because the premiums come out of one of your pockets, while the medical price increases come invisibly out of another at a different time and (to you, apparently) in a different dimension, and because the pro-business media that you go on and on and on believing stay spectacularly silent on that point.
-Glen Roberts

Americans avoid reading the Constitution
by letting media tell them what it says

   31 Oct 2013: Whenever another copy of Proposition 8 pops up in another backward state, US media, which have politically correctly (if not in their hearts) stopped frowning at gays but still support primitive American religion as stalwartly as Muslims, make sure the story continues to be thought of as relevant only to the suppression of gay rights, never never never mentioning that Proposition 8, which they stupidly (or maybe as an intentional distraction) keep calling "the gay marriage" act, has always been far more importantly an illegal effort to carve a religious taboo into a supposedly secular Constitution. The people, of course, stay dutifully asleep, and let their defenses against the American Jihadist efforts to turn the U.S. into a religious state slacken and weaken.
    Now, reporting with equal dishonesty about several lawsuits filed by people sick and tired of public meetings beginning with prayers, the media, proving once again to be the de facto agents of creeping religious revival, are saving their readers the trouble of reading the Constitution by quoting only those "experts," lawyers, and even atheists (JHFC!!) who (unexplainably) agree with them that the Constitution only prohibits governments from supporting one particular religion. HEY! THAT'S NOT TRUE!

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

    THAT'S the First Amendment on religion. It DOES NOT include the phrase any particular religion, but prohibits government support of religion" - PERIOD! And regardless of possible FUTURE word-twisting by some rogue Supreme Court in this increasingly religious country, NO coalition of illiterate lawmakers, lawyers, judges, social-media smart-Alecs, reporters, editors, or citizen gatherings can just up and suddenly substitute words or phrases they like better just because they want to. America is not the Jerry Springer show - yet. Nerd-driven social media, at least legally, are not YET running America.
    Furthermore, just in case you're confused by all the sometimes smart/sometimes dumb rumbling over the meaning of the Second Amendment, please try to note that, while the Second Amendment IS open to interpretation because it's such a sad example of bad grammar, the First Amendment, whether it's perfectly clear to you or not, has been repeatedly found to be clear, at least about whom it restrains and about the contrasting purposes of the parts before and after the word OR, in courtroom after courtroom, and by the Supreme Court.
    The Supreme Court, in a never overturned 1947 decision, ruled that the First Amendment proscription against Congress also applies to state and local government (a caveat confirmed in the California State Constitution) and that what no government can do is, in law or official procedure or ceremony, SUPPORT religion. As an example, pre-meeting prayers have never been allowed by ANY court. The prohibition against government support of religion was spelled out unambiguously, in 1947, by Justice Hugo Black, who wrote:

    The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, OR prefer one religion to another ... In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... that wall to be kept high and impregnable." We (the Supreme Court) could not approve the slightest breach.

The First Amendment
presented by an English prof (me)

    For your benefit, so you don't have to rely on the screwy interpretations of embedded lawyers and grammar challenged politicians, here is exactly what the Constitution says, too clearly to need much interpreting, about any governmental body's right (or rather its lack of any right) to make or support laws related to religion, or (by logical extension AND court precedent) to adopt and carry out official ceremonies implying any official authority, support, or interest, positive or negative, over, of or in religion:
    Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
    Please note first that, making its point more clearly than does Justice Black"s interpretation, the First Amendment makes NO reference to official support of one particular religion over another but only to official promotion of religion generically.
    Second, check your grammar book on rules of sentence structure and parallel structure (I bet you country bumpkin lawyers, politicians, and reporters never thought of doing that), and then note that the main clause of the First Amendment is Congress shall make no law, which is followed by two parallel phrases modifying the word LAW - i.e. examples of the kinds of laws that can't be made. These examples are easy to spot because, following the word LAW, to grammatically prove they ARE parallel, they are structured in a parallel way, each starting with a gerund (respecting OR prohibiting), to show that, separately but equally, each fits logically into the sentence in the same way, right after the words MAKE NO LAW, and, as is appropriate for two parts of a compound joined by the contrasting conjunction OR, they are about contrasting legal proscriptions against EITHER support that amounts to sponsorship OR non-supportive prohibition.

    READ IT AGAIN: Congress shall make NO law: either (A) respecting an establishment * of religion, OR (B) prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

    And that goes, not double but exactly the same, for all governmental bodies, none of which can legally start their meetings with prayers or flag salutes;**
    ...or (since marriage is a religious not a civil concern), tell any church what kind of couple, trio, quartet, etc. it will or won't marry; though the state may reasonably regulate how a couple, trio, or etc occupying the same domicile (married or otherwise) and sharing income and expenses will be taxed or held individually or jointly liable in any state related matter.
    That last is slightly irrelevant to the rest of this article, but it's fitting to deal with it here. None of this, by the way, is a matter of opinion. I'm reporting objectively and accurately on the First Amendment, which, in accordance with Alice's rule, says what it means and means what it says.
-Glen Roberts

* If you're stumbling over the 3-word construction respecting an establishment, note that, whether it's archaic or the result of camel-building, it IS clumsy, but also note that Hugo Black clearly interpreted it as meaning in any way endorsing and apparently sponsoring, an interpretation followed over and over again by the courts; and that, while the construction can be replaced by any of several better wordings, any of those wordings would amount to the same thing. Also note that, no matter how much back and forth legal blather has been expended on these words, the prohibition against government SPONSORSHIP of prayers has never been left in doubt.
** If my very sensible pairing of "flag salutes" with prayers isn't obviously as sensible to you as it should be, clarify it to yourself by carefully reading the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of my prescriptive definition of a civil state, one of the two most important documents on this site.

-Glen Roberts

Syrian rebels not popular in Syria:
a story I reported long ago

   13 Nov 2013:: Some truth leaked through the official Syria story today when an AP writer called the chance of Syrian peace talks "muddied by the opposition, which has little support inside Syria..." "Which has little support inside Syria?" Wow! Of course, that was in the last paragraph,but it wouldn't have been news to you, if you'd been reading this website all along.
    Meanwhile, another story just barely surfacing in the media, that the Syrian rebels are now decisively losing their war (the only reason some of them are finally willing to negotiate) was first reported here (as a probability not as a fact, but definitely reported) 3 1/2 months ago in June.
    My knowledge of the Middle East is slight compared to my knowledge of Latin America, but I've got 20/20 brain vision and I know who the usual liars are. Never willing to buy anything the CIA, the Regressive Times and the White House try to sell me, when the Syrian "Arab spring" first sprung, I did my research, found out that most Syrians (whatever they thought of Assad) didn't support the rebels; and, continuing to research geography, history, and sites not listed on top by Google, I learned that, as the war progressed, most Syrians wanted mainly to return to the civilized life under an officially secular government that they'd had before the war and, as the war got worse, grew more and more willing to see the rebels wiped out rather than endure any future nightmare the Jihadists were dreaming up for them.
    Hey! You don't have to keep trusting media that you know very well almost always lie to you about US foreign policy. You, too, can do your own research.
-Glen Roberts

Media stance on Middle Eastern brutality is nuanced

   28 Nov 2013: While death by stoning may be a bit much for western media, flogging "adulterers" very possibly to death bothers them less, and arresting adulterers and executing them (say by hanging) isn't disturbing enough to them to mention.
    Every publicly "shocked" western media news story I've read so far on this fine Thanksgiving morning about US-backed, newly democratic Afghanistan's plan (announced 3 days ago and withdrawn only after world-wide blog boards angrily erupted) to re-legalize STONING married adulterers to death (if one of the sinners is married) - I say, EVERY western media story I read DOWN-PLAYED the Islamic democracy's plan to FLOG unmarried adulterers possibly to death (with 100 lashes) and QUOTED NO WESTERNER, politician, philosopher, or whatever, with enough good sense or courage, even in England, France or America, to forthrightly condemn the Islamic custom of executing or even arresting people for "adultery (a word that hasn't even existed in America itself since the 50's)," which in the Middle East may mean holding hands in public. These countries are "our" friends, you politically correctly see, and must be confronted diplomatically.
    Also, EVERY western media story I've read so far carefully attributes past stonings only to the Taliban, and not to Islamic fundamentalists throughout the Middle East. Nor does any reporter or quoted western official do any fretting in public print anyway about the intentions of all of the CIA's, NATO's, and Barack Obama's favorite rebels to restore sharia law, the source of such medieval brutality, wherever the US helps them win a war.
-Glen Roberts

Printing money to order IS easier
than digging up and reburying gold

   7 Dec 2013: Did the WTO just decide to order their collective treasury departments to print another trillion new paper dollars and distribute them - maybe by dropping them out of small planes in selected locales all over the world?
    A quickly passed-over reference to a "deal" that will "add" "$1tn" "to the world economy," on this morning's BBC page, in the London Guardian, and in the Financial Times, certainly implies that, but in the long columns of blather that follow, including a video of an optimistic talking suit, it is never clarified just WHAT the "deal" was. WHAT they did is never explained. All we get is a list of puffed up quotes about supposedly good generalities that will somehow result from some "deal."
    Of course, "they" (not you and me or any so-called country, but the anointed representatives of the insiders in all the WTO's "member states") must do something like what I suggested in the first paragraph above all the time, or the cash to go with the endless expansion of what's called "the" economy wouldn't keep being there. Hey! I'm just reporting exactly all I can figure out.
    I have always maintained that money is a fantasy and that the government of a civilized civil state (if any such thing ever exists beyond the still budding Cuban example) can print all the money they need whenever they need to and assign whatever fixed value to it they want just by fixing all salaries and all prices to match and by just outlawing inflation.
    If the WTO or their ilk elsewhere not only subconsciously agrees with me but regularly does something a lot clumsier than what I just said, that THEY believe in, why are they and the embedded media so coy about it? You know very well that, aside from a few famous bail-outs, you not only didn't know "they" did things that way, you've been led to believe something very different. Of course, the expedient printing and injection of extra money to order does destroy the credibility of capitalism, plays hell with the myth of the gold standard, and pulls the rug out from under all the dizzy pundits who propound a tangled web of vague economic theories on the embedded business pages every day. But, aside from that, why be so self consciously vague?
    Of course, I don't think the insiders, besides flooding us with new money, are going to do anything so sane, simple, and civilized as "fixing all salaries and all prices to match and outlawing inflation." I think they're going to do something capitalism friendly but also typically capitalistically messy, in order to keep things vague and keep "the" people sort of thinking that the fortunes of fortunes are mysteriously determined by the gods through the media of coincidence provoked by "free" enterprise.
-Glen Roberts

2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015; 2016