Gary Null - The New American Folly in Libya

Progressive Radio Network, April 1, 2011

“I call them (the Libyan rebels) freedom fighters… now they are retreating… after all that, does the world community stand by and watch the freedom fighters get crushed? The president [Barak Obama] pledged that there would be no US troops on the ground.. but today we learned that CIA operatives are on the ground, so what does that all mean? Still it looks like the freedom fighters only shot for survival at this point is a real injection of military hardware that they say they desperately need… whether or not we arm rebels, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them,  is a very hard decision. But I think we have to do it… it is a moral decision at this point… we have a state, New Hampshire, (with the motto) ‘live free or die.’ What do you think that Libyan freedom fighter wants?”  - Ed Schultz, MSNBC, March 30, 2011

What happens when we extend the logic and beliefs of Ed Schultz and others, including Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, who accept Obama’s rationale for intervening militarily in Libya, which mirror those of the neocons and personalities like O’Reilly and Hannity on the radical right?  For the reason that Gaddafi was responsible for the bombing of the Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, killing 259 passengers, we are being told that arming, funding and training any opposition factions in Libya is perfectly justified. But then, is it not also true by that same logic that any civilians or innocent bystanders that were killed, tortured or disappeared as a direct result of America’s interventions in other nations are also justified to attack Americans and US interests globally?  It is this old adage of “an eye for an eye” reactionary posturing that repeatedly leads us into multiple disasters, wars, revolutions, regime changes and a trail of failed foreign policies.

Click to read more ...

Gary Null & Richard Gale - Liberalism’s Death Bell Tolls

The rudiments of neo-fascism stole into American politics during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. At that time, government discovered that serving the private corporate sector was more profitable than serving American citizens. The Reagan and Bush regimes told us we must protect the wealth of the elite who profiteered from the free market because it would be from this tiny wealthy and powerful class that jobs would trickle down creating a free market that would benefit everyone. However, according to the Reagan agenda, for this scheme to work it was also necessary to cut back social entitlements, to lessen taxes, and eliminate as many federal and state regulations as necessary.

At the same time, the Reagan/Bush conservatives had no reservations about launching ever larger increases in government and military spending as well as providing tax relief and other subsidies for major corporations including Big Oil, Big Nuclear, Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Ag, and Big Insurance. Meanwhile, American citizens were gradually indoctrinated to believe that either all of the nation’s problems resulted from too much federal spending or, conversely, arose from too little government expenditure.

Click to read more ...

Gary Null & Richard Gale - Chris Hedges Resigns from PEN as Journalist of Conscience

Chris Hedges’ recent resignation from the PEN American Center, once a non-partisan organization dedicated to journalists and writers defending freedom of speech and human rights globally, is a reminder of the large impact that small individual acts of courage can make.  The reason for his departure from the organization is PEN’s appointment of former Assistant Deputy of State for International Affairs under Hillary Clinton, Suzanne Nossel, as its new executive director. Nossel's association with Clinton should make Hedges' opposition and decision to leave PEN obvious. As Nossel’s former boss, Hillary Clinton proved herself repeatedly to be a neocon disguised as a faux liberal serving corporate interests masquerading as democratic foreign policy. Her legacy of increasing tensions and violent conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and Asia has left a sordid legacy that will take years to mend and heal. History books will certainly not remember our former Secretary of State as a heroine emboldened by ethical principles of human rights, peaceful diplomacy, freedom of expression and contributing to more a equitable and sustainable world. Hedges’ understands this all too well having personally experienced America’s militaristic agenda in many war zones. He has the insight to recognize that a Nossel leadership will divert PEN’s agenda and mission to the right-center of the corporate Democrats thereby better serving Wall Street and the military industrial complex.

PEN’s website claims it champions “freedom of expression and defended writers of conscience.” Among its contributions is its role in crafting an article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It has a rich tradition of lobbying for journalists and writers who have been persecuted, imprisoned and murdered for exposing truth to power. At one time, PEN represented a worthy tradition, abiding by true progressive ethics to promote freedom of speech, which earned it the privilege of having true journalists, such as Chris Hedges, within its membership. The Executive Director appointment of a corporate Democrat like Suzanne Nossel is a blatant betrayal of PEN’s legacy. Why such a person would be appointed to lead an organization dedicated to human rights requires deeper investigation into the hidden dealings of the Obama administration and the faux Democrats who are intent to steal truth by any means to fuel their self-righteousness.

But there is lesson here beyond PEN. We must dispel illusions that Barak Obama, as the first African American president, speaks on behalf of all Blacks and minorities. We must speak out against the myth that Hillary Clinton, because she is a woman in a position of power and influence, speaks on behalf of all women and their struggles for equality in our patriarchal culture. We must reject that Suzanne Nossels, because she is now leading a distinguished journalist organization, will represent PEN’s legacy of upholding the values of human rights and justice. Instead, we must side with Hedges that PEN has appointed a wolf in sheep’s clothing who is more likely to serve the masters who have repeatedly acted against PEN’s professed values.

Therefore we commend Chris Hedges for his courage to publicly challenge PEN’s promotion of Nossel. His resignation should serve as an example for other journalists to similarly quit the organization in protest of the betrayal of PEN’s 22-year heritage of fostering the best journalism has to offer in challenging the rulers of a world dominated by power, money, corporate influence and political ideologists.

Statement from Chris Hedges:

I will not be participating as a speaker in the PEN World Voices Festival in May. I will not participate because of your decision to select Suzanne Nossel as Executive Director of the PEN American Center. This appointment makes a mockery of PEN as a human rights organization and belittles the values PEN purports to defend. I spent seven years in the Middle East, most of them as the Middle East Bureau Chief of The New York Times. The suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation and the plight of those caught up in our imperial wars in countries such as Iraq are not abstractions to me. Nossel’s relentless championing of preemptive war—which under international law is illegal—as a State Department official along with her callous disregard for Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians and her refusal as a government official to denounce the use of torture and use of extra-judicial killings, makes her utterly unfit to lead any human rights organization, especially one that has global concerns. PEN American Center, by appointing Nossel, has unwittingly highlighted its own failure to defend and speak out for our dissidents, especially Bradley Manning. I hereby resign from PEN. I will wait until the organization returns to its original mandate to defend those who are persecuted, including those within the United States, before returning to the organization.

Sincerely,

Chris Hedges

Gary Null & Richard Gale - Liberalism’s Death Bell Tolls

The rudiments of neo-fascism stole into American politics during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. At that time, government discovered that serving the private corporate sector was more profitable than serving American citizens. For example, if people were faced with eviction due to back mortgage or were unable to scrape together a standard of living based on current wages then it was irrelevant whether or not the conservative and liberal ideologues and policy wonks had their best interests at stake. At the end of the day, people found themselves on the street and applying for food stamps. They couldn’t afford to get sick or send their children to college, and it was very unlikely they would be able to retire when that time arrived.

American citizens were gradually indoctrinated to believe that either all of the nation’s problems resulted from too much federal spending or, conversely, arose from too little government expenditure. The Reagan and Bush regimes told us that the wealth of the rich must be protected because it would be from this tiny class of wealthy and powerful that jobs would trickle down creating a free market that would benefit everyone. However, according to the Reagan agenda, for this scheme to work it was also necessary to get rid of pesky social entitlements, eliminate taxes and terminate regulations. At the same time, the Reagan/Bush conservatives had no reservations about launching the largest increases in government and military spending and to subsidize Big Oil, Big Nuclear, Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Ag, and Big Insurance with public tax dollars.

Click to read more ...

Liberalism’s Death Bell Tolls By: Gary Null & Richard Gale

The rudiments of neo-fascism stole into American politics during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. At that time, government discovered that serving the private corporate sector was more profitable than serving American citizens. For example, if people were faced with eviction due to back mortgage or were unable to scrape together a standard of living based on current wages then it was irrelevant whether or not the conservative and liberal ideologues and policy wonks had their best interests at stake. At the end of the day, people found themselves on the street and applying for food stamps. They couldn’t afford to get sick or send their children to college, and it was very unlikely they would be able to retire when that time arrived.

Click to read more ...

Matt Taibbi - Hurricane Sandy and the Myth of the Big Government-vs.-Small-Government Debate

Quite a shock the other day to look out my window in Jersey City, and see the Hudson River rushing over what used to be the street in front of my building. For nearly three days my dog and I played Robinson Crusoe and Friday, sleepily watching from our little apartment-island while we waited for hot water, cell service, the internet, even elevators to come back on line.President Barack Obama speaks as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie looks on as they visit a shelter for Hurricane Sandy victims in Brigantine, New Jersey, on October 31th, 2012.

When I finally got back on the internet and was able to read the news again, I saw that Hurricane Sandy, in addition to being the rare storm to live up to its televised hype, had turned into the last-minute curveball plot twist that always seems to pop up in presidential races.

Read More:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/01-6

Greg Palast - Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza

This investigation was supported by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute and by the Puffin Foundation. Elements of it appear in Palast’s new book, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps (Seven Stories). Research assistance by Zach D. Roberts, Ari Paul, Nader Atassi and Eric Wuestewald.
 
Mitt Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout has haunted him on the campaign trail, especially in Rust Belt states like Ohio. There, in September, the Obama campaign launched television ads blasting Romney’s November 2008 New York Times op-ed, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” But Romney has done a good job of concealing, until now, the fact that he and his wife, Ann, personally gained at least $15.3 million from the bailout—and a few of Romney’s most important Wall Street donors made more than $4 billion. Their gains, and the Romneys’, were astronomical—more than 3,000 percent on their investment.

It all starts with Delphi Automotive, a former General Motors subsidiary whose auto parts remain essential to GM’s production lines. No bailout of GM—or Chrysler, for that matter—could have been successful without saving Delphi. So, in addition to making massive loans to automakers in 2009, the federal government sent, directly or indirectly, more than $12.9 billion to Delphi—and to the hedge funds that had gained control over it.

Read More:

http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza

Mr. Fish - Paul Krassner: The Politics of Being a Smartass

Paul Krassner, a founding member of the Yippies, a Merry Prankster and the editor of what writer Terry Southern said was “the first American publication to really tell the truth,” The Realist, has been called the father of the underground press. He has also been called a lousy motherfucker by his establishment detractors, an addendum that, if true, calls into question the genetic integrity of the children that he is purported to have fathered, which are typically depicted as cross-eyed and babbling and groping at their groins in total disregard for whoever might be watching. Of course, when it comes to creation myths all over the world and the grotesquely unflattering depictions of every mother made to appear in each—whether they are virgins, a discarded rib or a duplicitous and distrustful moon—most people are encouraged by Krassner’s relentlessly infectious curiosity about how and why the American culture dysfunctions so well, so much so that they are more than willing to ignore the details of the underground press’ inception and to simply marvel at the multitudinousness of the father’s offspring.

Read More:

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/paul_krassner_the_politics_of_being_a_smartass_20121017/

Tom Engelhardt - How We Gained the Ability to Create Our Own End Times

Here was the oddest thing: within weeks of the United States dropping an atomic bomb on a second Japanese city on August 9, 1945, and so obliterating it, Americans were already immersed in new scenarios of nuclear destruction.  As the late Paul Boyer so vividly described in his classic book By the Bomb’s Early Light, it took no time at all -- at a moment when no other nation had such potentially Earth-destroying weaponry -- for an America triumphant to begin to imagine itself in ruins, and for its newspapers and magazines to start drawing concentric circles of death and destruction around American cities while consigning their future country to the stewardship of the roaches. 

As early as October 1945, the military editor of Reader’s Digest would declare the first atomic bomb “dated,” and write, “It is now in the power of the atom-smashers to blot out New York with a single bomb... Such a bomb can burn up in an instant every creature, can fuse the steel buildings and smash the concrete into flying shrapnel.” 

Read More:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/17-5

Glenn Greenwald - The Lame Rules for Presidential Debates: A Perfect Microcosm of US Democracy

The way the two major parties control the presidential debates is a perfect microcosm of how political debates are restricted in general. Though typically shrouded in secrecy, several facts about this process have recently come to light and they are quite instructive.

I was on Democracy Now this morning along with George Farah discussing the ways these debates, designed to cast the appearance of fostering vibrant exchanges, are actually intended to constrict the range of debated views as much as possible. My segment (and the transcript to it) can be seen here, but it was the commentary of Farah - who is a genuine expert in the history of presidential debates - that I found revealing.

Read More:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/16-10