and he's exactly right.
glenn usually is. he's right in this article about how joe biden and the media hid behind claims of 'russia!' - false claims - to avoid covering the hunter biden scandal:
The Biden campaign immediately embraced this evidence-free claim about Russia from Schiff and the intelligence community to justify its refusal to answer questions about the revelations from this reporting. “I think we need to be very, very clear that what he's doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation," said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield when asked about the possibility that Trump would cite the Hunter emails at the last presidential debate. Biden’s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC: “if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation."
Far worse were the numerous media outlets that spread this evidence-free claim of Kremlin involvement in lieu of reporting on the contents of the emails. Just watch how CBS Evening News with Norah O’Donnell purported to “report” on this story — an emphasis on the Russian origins of the materials, featuring a former “FBI operative” who admitted he had no evidence for the speculation CBS nonetheless aired, all with no mention of the serious questions raised by the revelations themselves:
As I noted when I announced my resignation from The Intercept, a major reason I harbored so much cynicism and scorn for their claim that my story on the Hunter Biden emails had failed to meet their high-minded, rigorous editorial and fact-checking scrutiny was because that same publication was just was one of the many anti-Trump news outlets which, in the name of manipulating the outcome of the election on behalf of the Democratic Party, had mindlessly laundered the CIA/Schiff narrative without the slightest adversarial skepticism or, worse, without a whiff of evidence.
Just one week before they refused to publish my own article, they published this remarkable disinformation, featuring an utterly reckless paragraph that was nothing more than stenographic servitude to the intelligence community and Adam Schiff. Just marvel at what was approved by the fastidious editorial and fact-checking machinery of that “adversarial” publication concerning claims by ex-CIA operatives:
Their latest falsehood once again involves Biden, Ukraine, and a laptop mysteriously discovered in a computer repair shop and passed to the New York Post, thanks to Trump crony Rudy Giuliani. The New York Post story was so rancid that at least one reporter refused to put his byline on it. The U.S. intelligence community had previously warned the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about the Biden laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.
Numerous other media outlets disseminated the same CIA propaganda — including The Economist (“Marc Polymeropoulos, the CIA’s former acting chief of operations for the Europe and Eurasia Mission Centre…notes that ‘the use of actual material is a hallmark of Russian disinformation campaigns’”) and (needless to say) MSNBC’s Joy Reid program (“Hunter Biden story an ‘obvious Russian plot’ McFaul believes”).
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, November 12, 2020. The displaced in Iraq continue to suffer and we look at the process of US elections.
A number of people are weighing in on the election. Krystal and Saagar did it best in the video below.
For those who say it's not just one state -- like 2000 -- so it's not happening or whatever -- I'm referring to the ass at CONSORTIUM (which brings up THIRD, I'll try get to that at the end of the snapshot). Recounts can provide a difference and often do. That's one of the reasons that they don't happen to often. A recount of the actual ballots can change the count. A small bit, a high portion, maybe. Just rerunning the totals won't change anything. But inspecting the ballots requires determining voter intent on some of the ballots. Do I think a recount in numerous states would change the outcome? No. But that's my belief, that's not fact.
It is very likely that, in most instances, the counted votes will not allow for any interpretation. If someone fills out a mail-in ballot, the mail-in is always more clear than the in person ballot. So is it likely that even with a group looking at a mail-in ballot, interpretation would not change the outcome. But what just popped into my head is everyone's insisted this election that Republicans were going to vote in person in large numbers. I don't know why we'd make that assumption in the midst of pandemic, but that assumption has been made based on previous turnouts in non-pandemic times. That actually increase Donald's chances of a higher vote count -- if Republicans turned out on election day. Recounts pick up votes in the spoiled ballot categories. For whatever reason -- chads in 2000, 'hanging chads' -- we have spoiled votes that do not get counted. If those were mainly Republicans voting in person, spoiled ballots could increase Donald's totals. There are numerous ways a ballot can be spoiled. I spoiled my ballot many times without knowing -- maybe it was interpreted, maybe it didn't count. How so? I voted straight ticket Democrat in 1992 by noting the choice at the top of the ballot. Then, like leaving the house and thinking, "Did I leave the oven on?" so you turn around and go back, on the same ballot, I voted for every Democrat. In 2000, as we learned about hanging chads and spoiled ballots, we learned that voting the way I had would get your vote rejected from the machines that read it (paper ballots). That goes into the spoiled column. There are many things that can get a vote spoiled.
So if Donald's team is focusing on spoiled ballots, I don't know that they are, that brings in interpretation (and it always has) of voter intent and the number he could pick up via that is unknown.
I have repeatedly stated my guess is that Joe won. And I could be wrong on that. I may be right. But if that's what I believe -- e-mails to the public account ask -- then why not call for Donald to step down?
The results call for the person who loses to step down. Not me. Not the media.
In 2000, Al Gore should have been president. I love how everyone apes me. I never called Bully Boy Bush the p-word and always referred to him as the occupant of the White House. The faux resistance steals well -- they're not capable of actual thought, but theft they can manage.
Al Gore lost for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was the press. "Oh, you're going to be Bob Somerby and trash all these women reporters for their stories filed in September and October of 2000 while giving a pass to various men!!!" Sorry, I'm not a pig-boy like Bob. Bob hates women. It explains his whole life.
Bob also ignores the media coverage from the post-election period.
Al should have mounted a stronger post-election response. Rev Jesse Jackson, for example, was planning to go to Florida to rally voters after the election. Donna Brazile told him the campaign did not want him to come. That was a huge mistake.
Joe Lieberman stripping all requirements for mail-in ballots (military mail-in ballots only) in that hideous interview on MEET THE PRESS was a huge mistake.
But the media began calling it for Bully Boy Bush and running with panic and drama.
We all should have calmed the f**k down. There was more than enough time for the votes to have been counted -- all the votes. The Florida recounts were moving along and would have been concluded in time. They were also showing Bully Boy Bush's lead tightening.
The media, in the post-election period, did more damage than at any other time of the general election. You'd never grasp that to read Bob and his Daily Squalor. The decision by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore never should have happened. It wasn't their place for one. Sandra Day O'Connor's election night comment (and the explanation by her husband that followed -- her being upset when the race was briefly called for Gore was because that meant she couldn't retire as she had planned) should have resulted in her recusing herself from any decision. The Court's ruling insisting that it was a one-time only ruling should have disqualified it. The Court does not exist for one-time rulings. It's supposed to legally interpret the law and its rulings are supposed to the foundation for future rulings (that's the whole point of citing legal precedent).
None of it should have happened in the post-election cycle. The votes should have been counted. Were there any issues with the vote, the matter would have been turned over not to the Court but, as noted in the Constitution, to the House of Representatives.
It was a great opportunity to show the country, the world even, how the system set up all those years ago could work. But we didn't have faith in the process and the reason we didn't have faith in the process was because the media hyped and played alarmist and acted as though something awful was happening and it was going to destroy us all.
We're seeing that again.
Two people were in a tight race. One appears to have won. The one who didn't win is questioning the results and wants some form of recount.
That's the story and it's a basic story and one that the founders expected to happen from time to time.
There is no problem with letting this play out. For one thing, it can educate the American people on the actual process. For another, it is the process. We can't just demand that the rules be followed when our side benefits.
My person opinion is that Trump pursuing legal challenges will not change much of anything. I could be wrong. But every American -- even ones we dislike -- has the same rights to the same legal system -- or should have. That's why so many of us call out the racial inequalities in sentencings, in arrests, etc. We believe in fairness and equality.
'Donald's a sore loser!!!!' That may be. If it is and that label attaches to his legacy, I'm supposed to cry over that? I'm supposed to be upset that history will see him as a sore loser?
As we said yesterday, the media needs to stay calm and neutral. Instead, it's hyping this like crazy.
What we are seeing is not journalism, it's what was called 'yellow journalism' in another period. Saagar did a great job in the video at the top explaining how it's driving viewership. It's nothing to be proud of.
The press should be calm and neutral. A large number of Americans -- for good reason -- do not trust the media. The Iraq War showed them to be whores and liars. And then there's the group of Trump supporters, a large number of people, who have already seen that there are no standards or ethics when it comes to covering Donald Trump. Don't feed into their distrust intentionally. Journalism is supposed to be something we can trust. At this point, many people can't trust it (and they're right not to).
The electoral college meets on December 14th. There is more than enough time -- over a month away -- for any recounts or legal issues to be pursued. The Supreme Court settled Bush v Gore on December 12th. The country survived.
B-b-b-but transition teams!!!!
You can form your transition teams. Nothing is stopping you. And no president is sworn in until January.
The press needs to stop trying to hype this and raise the alarm level. That's not journalism and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing this at any time -- but especially in a pandemic where the country is already on edge.
The future of the press under a Joe Biden presidency is discussed in the video below,
THE NATION has always had a higher circulation when Democrats were out of power. That's true of all the left periodicals. That's in part because a number of left voters go to sleep when a Democrat is in the White House and in part because these periodicals refuse to challenge and press and call out when a Democrat is in the White House.
Also, I disagree regarding it's only FOX NEWS for the right. Even limiting it just to broadcast, I thought we all agreed Sinclair was right-wing, did we not? They do have influence. I believe BLAZE TV is making an impact as well, are people not aware of them? FOX is known because it's been subjected to criticism from those of us on the left since the 90s. But there are other broadcasters out there that have impact on right wing audiences.
We talked yesterday (again) about the only real US withdrawal from Iraq. It took place at the end of 2008 and it was the US media. They withdrew and that's the larger media but it's also the beggar media. THE NATION didn't give a damn about Iraq and still doesn't. Tom writes his bloated essays that really don't amount to much and that have somehow -- all these years -- never acknowledged, let alone recognized war resisters. And this is a left publication?
It's a critique of the kind offered in the 40s film THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES which is to say, it's a child's critique. It's not an adult critique. It's simplistic and we've all heard it over and over and over again. It's garbage, quite frankly. It doesn't concern itself with Iraq and the actual destruction that the war our government pursued and continues has caused to the Iraqi people. It doesn't care about that, it isn't interested in that.
Abdullah Rashid (REUTERS) reports:
Iraq has started closing camps housing tens of thousands of people, including many who fled their homes during the final battle against Islamic State, but aid groups warn this could create a second wave of displacement with dire consequences.
Among those having to leave are 50-year-old Umm Ahmed and her two sons, who have lived at the Hammam al-Alil camp since 2017 when their house in Mosul was destroyed in an air strike by the U.S.-led coalition as it battled to retake the city from Islamic State.
“I don’t have any income, no one provides for us. The camp became our home,” said Umm Ahmed, who cannot take on manual work due to a disability. She says her sons both have mental health problems.
Islamic State upended the lives of millions of Iraqis when they took swathes of the country in 2014 and imposed a brutal rule that in some places like Mosul would last three years.
A functioning western media would have been over this story from the beginning. Again, we noted it hear on October 31st. Now that the camps have started to close, look who shows up. The same media that sold the Iraq War is the media that repeatedly lets down the Iraqi people. A little over a year ago, when the protests in Iraq started about the corruption, the lack of jobs, etc., many western outlets (and a few just focused on serving the west) insisted the protests were no big deal. For three or so weeks, they told you that. They based that on? What they saw during their self-anal probe as they shoved their heads up their asses.
The protests wouldn't last, they wouldn't accomplish anything blah, blah, blah.
They forced the resignation of a prime minister. Despite attacks on protesters leaving thousands injured and over 600 dead, the protests continued (and continue to this day).
This is the same press that told us -- on the air, in one case -- that it was okay to fire canisters at protesters. Sadly for NPR, they shared that view on the day that a protester was killed when he was hit by a canister.
From the October 25, 2019 snapshot:
In addition, Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports, "Iraqi police fired live shots into the air as well as rubber bullets and
dozens of tear gas canisters on Friday to disperse thousands of
protesters on the streets of Baghdad, sending young demonstrators
running for cover and enveloping a main bridge in the capital with thick
white smoke. One protester was killed and dozens were injured in the
first hours of the protest, security officials said."
The first one killed is said to have been hit with a tear canister. The
video above is supposed to be of that protester after he was hit.
The western press has done a lousy job.
And that includes in holding Joe Biden accountable. ISIS? Joe's responsible for it. He was in charge of Iraq under Barack and he oversaw The Erbil Agreement for the US government. That's the legal contract that overturned the votes of the Iraqi people and gave Nouri al-Maliki a second term that the voters didn't want him to have. This leads to the rise of ISIS. The displaced were displaced due to ISIS. So what's Joe's plan to help these people? He wasn't asked about them once as he campaigned for the Democratic Party's nomination and he wasn't asked while campaigning for president.
What's his plan?
We can see the press shriek forever and a day when Donald Trump proposed lowering the number of US military members in Iraq. But the dog didn't bark for the displaced, did it?
That's what, in the end, is so disgusting about Tom and his crap at THE NATION. It's written in terms that do not address actual people, in a way that ignores the real damage that has been done to the Iraqi people.
THIRD quickly. Ava and I wrote our piece on Sunday. I believe Ruth blogged about our post at her site on Sunday. We are not the hold up in publishing at THIRD. I am not in charge of THIRD. I am in charge here and we publish every day here. Many times a day now due to the pandemic. If you're upset about the lack of content up at THIRD, take it to THIRD -- you can complain at this public address common_ills@yahoo.com and it will be read by them -- Martha and Shirley will pass it on to them -- but Ava and I 'control' our pieces only. We are not in charge of everything else.
We'll note this from Cindy Sheehan:
What is most ironic about the love Ellen
has for George is that his regime opposed gay marriage and classifying
crime against LGBTQ as a hate crime. When Ellen went on social media to
do some virtue-signaling, kindness-shaming, she was acting like perhaps
people weren't being "Kind” to George because he parks in handicapped
spaces, but his legacy is many magnitudes worse than that!
For as
much as the legacy of Barack Obama has been completely rewritten by
liberal ideologues, the same has been done with the murderous legacy of
George Bush and by the very same people. This is unsurprising however,
as these days liberals will take whomever they can get as long as they
aren’t Donald Trump (even a war criminal with escalating mental decline:
Joe Biden).
John Bolton, Rex Tillerson, Mitt Romney, and John
McCain are just some of the warmongering enemies of the people that have
been rehabilitated to suit the whims of the anti-Trump crowd. Each of
these people has/had a laundry list of crimes and misdemeanors that
would land you or I in the Big House for the rest of our lives, or land
us in th electric chair. George Bush however has the distinct honor of
having perhaps the most offensive rehabilitation processes. The wars in
the Middle East, launched on lies and misinformation for the goal of
further enriching the global oligarchy in so many ways, will be one of
the most disgusting lasting legacies of a US President. As the garbage
year of 2020 is slowly shifting to our rear view mirrors, many are
forgetting the events of 9/11/01 and the violent reaction of the Bush
regime that has propelled the U.S. into a complete quagmire of
imperialism that continues unabated to this day.
The following sites updated:
-
-
-
Excellent commentary5 hours ago
-
A history lesson5 hours ago
-
Barbara Stanwyck fan?5 hours ago
-
Covid5 hours ago
-
-
-
Turley weighs in, Smith performs5 hours ago
-
California Dreamin'5 hours ago
-
No time to rejoice5 hours ago
-
Everybody Knows the Fight was Fixed6 hours ago
-
-
