MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The State

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2021

Principles aren’t of much account anyway, except at election time. After that you hang them up to let them season.

Mark Twain

Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.

H. L. Mencken

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when a baby gets hold of a hammer.

Will Rogers

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What Is America’s Cause in the World? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2021

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/06/patrick-j-buchanan/what-is-americas-cause-in-the-world/

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Take away this pudding; it has no theme,” is a comment attributed to Winston Churchill, when a disappointing dessert was put in front of him.

Writers have used Churchill’s remark to describe a foreign policy that lacks coherence or centrality of purpose.

For most of our lifetimes, this has not been true of the United States. The goal of our foreign policy has been understandable and defined.

From 1949-1989, it was Cold War containment of the Soviet Empire and USSR.

Ronald Reagan believed in a “rollback” of communism, once telling an aide that his policy might be summed up as: “We win. They lose.”

At the Cold War’s end, George H. W. Bush said America would now lead mankind in the creation of “a New World Order.”

George W. Bush was going to deny to all “axis of evil” nations — North Korea, Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — access to the “world’s worst weapons,” with our ultimate goal being “ending tyranny in our world.”

According to the Biden Democrats of today, America’s goal is the preservation of “a rules-based international order,” which is less inspiring than “Remember the Alamo!” or “Remember Pearl Harbor!”

What are the causes that actually animate Americans?

A March survey of 2,000 registered voters, done by the Center for American Progress, reveals that most Republicans still share the foreign policy priorities of Donald J. Trump.

Asked to identify their first three foreign policy priorities from a list of a dozen, two-thirds of Republicans, 65%, gave as their principal concern “Reducing illegal immigration.” And 57% of Republicans put “Protecting jobs for American workers” right behind it. Independents agreed that these should be the top twin goals of U.S. foreign policy.

What does this tell us?

Economic nationalism is alive and well in the GOP, and securing the border remains a central concern of America’s center-right.

In third position, at 31% among Republicans, was “Taking on China’s economic and military aggression.”

Only 9% of Republicans listed “Fighting global poverty and promoting human rights” as top foreign policy priorities. Last among GOP priorities, at 7%, was “Promoting democratic rights and freedoms abroad.”

Indeed, this was the least popular foreign policy option among all voters.

Conclusion:

The priorities of the Bush presidencies and the neocons — democracy crusades, free trade, the New World Order, open borders — have failed to recapture the constituencies they lost in the Trump years.

While “Combating global climate change” rests near the bottom of Republican concerns at 10%, it is the No. 1 priority of Democrats, with 44% listing it first.

When it comes to “Ending US involvement in wars in the Middle East,” that goal ranks 5th among all voters. Democrats, Republicans and independents all support that objective.

Since the last CAP survey in 2019, the greatest change is the reduced concern over “terrorist threats” from al-Qaida and ISIS. Fewer than 1 in 4 voters now view this as a top priority.

As Matthew Petti writes in an analysis of the CAP survey, today, Americans “prioritize getting out of Middle East wars over confronting Middle East adversaries.”

This survey would thus seem to provide public support for the Trump-Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan, and for Biden’s effort to reengage with Iran and renew the 2015 nuclear deal.

Also ranked high among Democrats and independents, but less so among Republicans, is “Improving relationships with allies.”

What does the survey tell us?

Illegal immigration and economic nationalism energize the GOP rank-and-file; climate change does not. There is no enthusiasm in either party for new democracy crusades. And there seems to be no enthusiasm in either party for a clash with Iran, North Korea, Russia or China.

Only 14% of Democrats wish to address China’s “military and economic aggression,” though 31% of Republicans do.

But the overall impression here is one of democratic confusion.

We Americans are all over the lot about what our foreign policy should be and what it should do. One is reminded of an insight from Walter Lippmann about U.S. foreign policy confusion before World War II:

“When a people is divided within itself about the conduct of foreign relations, it is unable to agree on the determination of its true interest. It is unable to prepare adequately for war or safeguard successfully its peace. Thus, it course in foreign affairs depends, in Hamilton’s words, not on reflection and choice, but on accident and force.”

Should we energetically promote democracy worldwide, because it is the right and moral thing to do, though the American people clearly do not see this as America’s cause?

Should we intervene to help Ukraine retrieve Crimea?

Should we fight to prevent China from consolidating rocks, reefs and islets of the East and South China Seas?

Is preserving the independence of Taiwan, which we conceded half a century ago is part of China, worth a war with a nuclear-armed China?

What role should U.S. public opinion play in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy?

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever See his website.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Freedom Fairy – Doug Casey’s International Man

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2021

https://internationalman.com/articles/the-freedom-fairy/

by Jeff Thomas

For some time, it’s been apparent that the former “free world” countries (the US, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc.) have been on a downward progression – socially, politically and economically.

But, in the last ten years, the awareness of this has become increasingly pronounced. With each successive year, more and more people recognise that all facets of life in these formerly great countries are heading in a decidedly negative direction.

At this point, even those who don’t understand the decline intellectually, feel in their gut that this is not going to end well. Further, they feel it all around them and sense that when the condition becomes critical, it won’t just affect others. When it reaches the crisis stage, they’ll find it right on their own doorstep.

The average person in each of these jurisdictions already no longer trusts either the media, big business or the government and feels that, somehow, they’re all in this together and that they, the electorate, will be the ones who will be the ultimate victims.

So, is this a question of “collective imagination” gone haywire?

Not at all, I’m afraid. Their instincts are quite correct. Governments and big business alike have sold out the populace, regarding them as mere fodder in their pursuit of increased power and wealth. Governments in the former “Free World” have for decades become increasingly collectivist, promising ever-greater largesse to the hoi polloi, and the majority of voters, sad to say, have eaten it up.

Yet, as the electorate becomes more worried, they don’t ask the government to go into reverse and stop the economically illogical largesse. Quite the opposite. As their fears grow, they demand more largesse.

And so, it shouldn’t be surprising that, as we get closer to the collapse of this house of cards, new candidates arrive on the scene, offering to take entitlements to Never-never land, promising universal free health care, free education through university and a guaranteed income without the need to earn it in any way.

Of course, when this happens, those who understand that 2 + 2 = 4, not 8 or 12, recognize that any government that attempts to deliver on such promises will cause the collapse of the system – not just the economic system, but also the social and political systems.

And, so those people who do understand that the numbers simply won’t work, ask themselves where it will all end. Typically they wring their hands, aware that their concern is the minority view. They recognize that they can no longer discuss their concerns freely, as their country is moving in the opposite direction – embracing the new, empty promises, with ever-more determination.

They search around for some form of hope and, in the majority of cases, whether they like to admit it to themselves or not, their hopes fix on the Freedom Fairy.

They vainly hope that somehow, the average voter will “wake up,” or that sitting politicians will come before the press to reverse the stance that they’ve always maintained – that big government will provide for all.

Unfortunately, that’s a vain hope, isn’t it? Deep in our hearts, we know that sitting politicians are not going to collectively say, “Whoops, we goofed. We’re sending the country into ruin. We’re going to downsize the government, introduce a free market system and then resign and get out of the way.”

Since that won’t happen, the only hope is that a Freedom Fairy will come along – someone who has never held public office before, who says, “You know what? I’m going to buck the system. If I’m elected, I’m just going to jolly well tell Congress that they’re to stop all this collectivist nonsense, stop borrowing money, and turn their backs on all the corrupt deals they’ve made over their political lives.”

Yet, as obvious as it should be that no Freedom Fairy is going to come along, let alone succeed, with each successive election cycle, the more “enlightened” portion of the electorate start to imagine, “Maybe this time it will be different. Maybe we can turn this thing around.”

And, there, in that last sentence, is the key word as to the futility of this wishful thinking – the word, ‘we.’

It seems to be human nature to imagine that if a group of us – maybe even a large group – believe that something is a good idea, it will somehow happen.

Worse, the ‘we’ suggests that the person in question actually believes that his vote has some sort of significance.

As Mark Twain famously said, “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.”

Quite so.

In good times, the electorate gets to vote for the lesser of two evils. In the end, whichever one wins, the running of the country remains as previously planned. There may be changes in the style of the leader, but the same playbook is followed, just as before.

But in volatile times, such as we now face, the electorate gets to vote for the lesser of two nightmares. In the end, whichever one wins, the running of the country will remain as previously planned, but the electorate will be even more polarized than before and the eventual outcome will be that much worse.

And so, for the more ‘advanced’ voter – the one who understands that the political, economic and social system are spiraling downward, the most natural tendency seems to be to irrationally hope that the Freedom Fairy will come along, wave the magic wand, and send the country back to a time when most everyone worked for a living, took responsibility for themselves, paid their own way and built a strong, productive society.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Should We Recognize ‘Hate Crimes’?

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2021

Before going about their business, mafia hit men sometimes say something along the lines of, “It isn’t personal; it’s just business.” In other words, they harbor no personal animosity toward their victim.

But there is all the world of difference between the two examples. Distinguishing between someone who intends to save his fellow’s life and someone who wishes to harm his fellow is perfectly sensible. It’s not at all clear, though, that it makes sense to treat two murderers who committed the same exact heinous crime differently merely because one acted in cold blood while the other succumbed to bad thoughts.

By Walter Block

On the seventh night of Chanukah last year, Grafton E. Thomas went on a stabbing spree at the home of Rabbi Chaim Rottenberg in Monsey, NY. He wounded five people, one of whom later died from his injuries.

The case seems pretty straightforward. If Mr. Thomas committed the crime, he should be found guilty of assault, battery, and perhaps even murder. If he didn’t, he shouldn’t.

But the government complicated the moral waters by also charging Thomas with a hate crime. Hate, of course, is an emotion. It takes place solely in the mind of the perpetrator. One can commit a crime with or without being hateful about it.

Before going about their business, mafia hit men sometimes say something along the lines of, “It isn’t personal; it’s just business.” In other words, they harbor no personal animosity toward their victim.

But should mafia hit men be treated as lesser offenders than criminals who commit the exact same crime while acknowledging their hatred of the victim? Why should an extra penalty be imposed for entertaining “bad thoughts” while in the commission of a crime? From the point of view of the victim in this example, the end result is the same. In both cases, he’s dead.

I don’t mean to imply that motives are completely irrelevant. If you break someone’s ribs while pushing him away from a speeding truck, you are innocent of any crime. On the other hand, if you commit the exact same act in order to hurt the person, you’re a criminal.

But there is all the world of difference between the two examples. Distinguishing between someone who intends to save his fellow’s life and someone who wishes to harm his fellow is perfectly sensible. It’s not at all clear, though, that it makes sense to treat two murderers who committed the same exact heinous crime differently merely because one acted in cold blood while the other succumbed to bad thoughts.

Indeed, some might even argue that the person who murders coolly and rationally should receive a harsher punishment. After all, the assassin who plies his trade solely due to pecuniary considerations could easily have chosen to refrain. In contrast, the “hateful” murderer was in the grip of his passion, and thus less able to desist.

In short, I believe it wise to strike hate crimes from the criminal code. That means that Grafton E. Thomas should only be charged for what he did, not for what he thought. A person should only be punished for his deeds, not for his motivation.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Why It’s Bad To Mention the ADA When Not Wearing a Face Mask – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2021

If you can’t identify your boundaries, communicate your boundaries, and defend your boundaries without the need to justify it by saying “It’s the law,” you miss a far more important law: you are created in the likeness of God and have certain qualities that merit honoring.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/06/allan-stevo/why-its-bad-to-mention-the-ada-when-not-wearing-a-face-masks/

By Allan Stevo

You are a human. You don’t need a law in order to exist. You don’t need a law in order for you to want to have preferences and for you to want to be treated according to those preferences in line with a common standard of decency. You don’t need a law in order to have boundaries that you will not cross.

To invoke such laws is akin to paying honor to those laws and recognizing them as legitimate. They have so many illegitimate applications. Be very careful with decrying them legitimate. It just takes a vote from a crooked legislature to do away with them. Moral codes of decency on the other hand are not up for determination by legislature, executive, or judiciary.

Have A Human To Human Conversation

So many are so used to resorting to force and escalation with people, saying things like “Let me speak to your manager!” Or “I’m going to sue you if you don’t _______!” Speaking to managers can be good and suing people can be good too, but to prematurely resort to threats to get your way is not good.

The prevalence of this behavior across the political spectrum is merely a symptom of the moral decay that socialism has wrought, particularly among conservatives and libertarians.

You’d think they were Communist Party supporters, the way they threaten bringing matters to the state for resolution literally within 45 seconds of an uncomfortable problem arising.

Don’t escalate prematurely. Handle things calmly and with the lowest level person who is able to address the concern. If you need to escalate, escalate. When the state gets involved, there will almost always be two losers in the process. Almost no one walks away from an interaction with the judicial system 100% whole.

Invoking Laws Prematurely Is The Same Bad, Socialist Route 

And I also mean that about invoking laws such as HIPPA or the ADA around medical privacy. These are great laws to have in your back pocket, but really, they virtually never need to be mentioned. What should instead be mentioned and is far more helpful is the moral foundation that is used to empower those laws: common decency.

If someone asks something Private don’t say HIPPA, say “That’s private.”

If someone says “I can’t do that for you,” don’t say “ADA accommodation,” say “That doesn’t work for me. What else can we do?”

If someone “doctor’s note,” to you, don’t just go fetch your doctor’s note for them, be just as comfortable saying “That doesn’t work for me. What else can we do?”

I Am Unable To Wear A Face Mask Safely 

There are so many things that can be said that simply indicate what you need from the person and do so with little need for conflict. The sentence “I am unable to wear a face mask safely,” appears to be among the most effective of them. This is not a lie. Very few people are truly able to wear a face mask safely. They cause psychological, sociological, and biological harm.

This Issue Speaks To A Deeper Uneasiness In Many People 

This is really an issue of being comfortable in yourself and being able to say “I am a fully functioning human and I am fully capable of telling others what I want.” You don’t need a law to do that. If you really feel the need for a law, sure use that crutch, but you are kicking a can down the road.

See the rest here

Allan Stevo [send him mail] writes about international politics and culture from a free market perspective at 52 Weeks in Slovakia (www.52inSk.com). He is the author of How to Win America, The Bitcoin Manifesto, and numerous other books.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Guatemala: The Human Rights Nightmare That Is the US Drug War | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2021

Guatemala was a struggling Third World nation striving to overcome decades of genocide and civil strife. Unfortunately, it was also increasingly victimized by chemical warfare. To blight any suspected marijuana or poppy plants, the US government was dousing broad swaths of Guatemala with toxins to preemptively destroy anything growing below. The year before I visited, a group of Guatemalan beekeepers sued the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), claiming that the spraying had destroyed half of their industry. Herbicides had contaminated local drinking water and many residents had required hospitalization after exposure to the chemicals.

https://mises.org/wire/guatemala-human-rights-nightmare-us-drug-war

James Bovard

Vice President Kamala Harris visited Guatemala earlier this week to bestow millions of dollars in new foreign aid on that government. The Biden administration is pretending that giving more US tax dollars to Central American governments will miraculously reduce the surge of illegal immigrants that Biden’s appointees are welcoming in Arizona, Texas, and elsewhere. The purpose of Harris’s trip and the new handouts is not to solve that problem but simply to make the Biden administration appear to give a damn about the issue.

In her official statements during the visit, Harris included no admission of how the US drug war has been a pox on Guatemala. Her silence was no surprise considering Joe Biden’s nearly half century of fanaticism for that pointless crusade.

I learned about the wreckage of US drug policies when I visited Guatemala in 1992. I had been writing articles bashing drug prohibition for almost a decade at that point. But before that trip, I had only vague notions of the ravages being inflicted on hapless foreigners.

I went to Guatemala to give a couple speeches on the follies of protectionist trade policy, spurred by the publication the previous year of my book The Fair Trade Fraud (St. Martin’s Press). I was hosted by the president of Francisco Marroquín University, Manuel Ayau, a genial yet fearless fighter for free markets. I didn’t realize until I arrived that Ayau had recently been the presidential candidate of the “party of organized violence” and was on several left-wing “death lists.” Guatemala had shortages of almost everything except political assassinations. Ayau, a compact dynamo, was hepped up because he’d just gotten a laser sighting attachment for his Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry caliber .44 Magnum. As his chauffeur-bodyguard drove us around the capital city, Ayau trained that red dot on all sorts of targets. I was happy I was sitting behind him.

Guatemala was a struggling Third World nation striving to overcome decades of genocide and civil strife. Unfortunately, it was also increasingly victimized by chemical warfare. To blight any suspected marijuana or poppy plants, the US government was dousing broad swaths of Guatemala with toxins to preemptively destroy anything growing below. The year before I visited, a group of Guatemalan beekeepers sued the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), claiming that the spraying had destroyed half of their industry. Herbicides had contaminated local drinking water and many residents had required hospitalization after exposure to the chemicals. A Guatemalan human rights commission asserted that the spraying had destroyed so many farmers’ corn and bean crops that serious food shortages could result.

US policymakers presumed that the solution was to further militarize the drug war. After farmers began shooting at the planes, the US government sent in Black Hawk helicopter gunships to accompany the crop dusters and suppress peasant revolts. I called the US embassy to ask about the controversy and was told that the complaints came from “illiterate Indians” and were nothing but “drug war disinformation.”

Outside of Guatemala City, I met farmers and small businessmen and pumped them for information on the US drug war. A manager of a large farm in central Guatemala told me that many of his shipments of yucca cane to Europe were rejected because they arrived in Rotterdam and were rotting as a result of DEA’s drug spraying. Another farmer bewailed how his harvests exported to the United States were routinely destroyed during Customs Service searches for illicit drugs (he never received compensation even though no drugs were found). A Guatemalan banker told me that the DEA was involved in shooting down or forcing crash landings of small planes suspected of carrying drugs. A prominent Guatemalan politician told me, “If you criticize the Drug Enforcement Agency, you might lose your visa” and be banned from visiting the US. Guatemalans were outraged when the US ambassador revoked the visa of a Guatemalan judge who refused to vigorously prosecute an alleged drug smuggler.

After I returned to Washington, I hounded drug policy activists, human rights groups, and environmentalists to learn more about the US drug war run amok south of the border. A Peace Corps volunteer who had spent eighteen months working with Guatemalan farmers told me that the pilots were spraying much more toxic concentrations than the US embassy admitted. No wonder crops were dying.

See the rest here

Author:

James Bovard

James Bovard is the author of ten books, including 2012’s Public Policy Hooligan, and 2006’s Attention Deficit Democracy. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Playboy, Washington Post, and many other publications.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “The secret behind why radio stations are so loud” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2021

Ever notice how loud music sounds on the radio? Paul helps us understand why and how that is.

Same with many recordings. Phil Spector’s “wall of sound”.

https://youtu.be/f20iGVIl1fU

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Liberals’ Bizarre Fear Of An Unmasked Nation | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2021

At a full-serve gas station in Manhattan, the attendant demanded that I put on my mask before giving me a fill-up.

“We’re outside,” I pointed out.

It was windy to boot.

“The CDC says you don’t need a mask.”

“I don’t care what the CDC says,” he told me. “I’m going to keep wearing a mask forever, like in Asia.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/liberals-bizarre-fear-unmasked-nation

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler Durden

Authored by Ted Rall,

During last year’s campaign, Joe Biden promised to “listen to the scientists.” He repeatedly said his coronavirus-response policy would be “informed by science and by experts.”

On issues from the environment to teaching evolution in public schools to the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, liberals often accuse conservatives of putting emotions ahead of facts. While recognizing that the scientific process of acquiring knowledge and putting hypotheses to an empirical test can and often does lead to shifts in consensus, we on the left claim to trust scientists such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, the infectious disease expert and unlikely media icon.

After Fauci and other authorities like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told us to wear masks, Blue America listened.

As of late June 2020, 86% of Democrats wore a face mask whenever they left home, compared with 48% of Republicans.

Now scientific consensus has changed. But lefties are choosing to ignore the new reality — not that it’s new. Beginning nearly a year ago , in July 2020, the CDC stated that wearing a mask outdoors was unnecessary unless one was less than six feet away from someone else. Aside from crowded events like rallies, sports and concerts, risk of outdoor transmission is lower than a rounding error.

Clarifying its long-held stance, the CDC said on May 13 that people need not wear a mask outdoors, unless they are in a crowd of strangers, or inside with their “pod” of friends and family members. Masking outside is “optional,” Paul Sax, clinical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told The Washington Post — optional as in unnecessary.

Let’s pivot toward hope. Nearly half of American adults have been fully vaccinated, and Pfizer is vaccinating children ages 12 to 15. We can go outside, have fun and socialize within the new liberalized guidelines, yet too many people remain traumatized and grimly coasting on paranoid inertia. “It’s the return of freedom,” said Dr. Mike Saag, an infectious disease expert at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Weeks after the latest CDC guidelines were issued, however, normalcy and freedom are still in short supply in liberal bastions like my neighborhood in Manhattan, where Biden won 91% of the vote. In compliance with the CDC, I walk outside without a mask because it’s unnecessary. Moreover, I’m fully vaccinated. Rules require that I put one on when I go into a store or ride the subway.

Furrowed brows, glares and general stink eyes still abound. My neighbors are ignoring the CDC as much as right-wingers in West Virginia did last summer.

One would expect attitudes to evolve with the passage of time, but that hasn’t been the case so far. When a fellow tenant confronted me recently about my masklessness in the lobby — where I’d been alone prior to her arrival — I informed her that I’d been fully vaccinated. “Everyone in the building has probably been vaccinated,” she said, “but here we still wear them.” I asked why. “It’s just the right thing to do,” she replied.

At a full-serve gas station in Manhattan, the attendant demanded that I put on my mask before giving me a fill-up.

“We’re outside,” I pointed out.

It was windy to boot.

“The CDC says you don’t need a mask.”

“I don’t care what the CDC says,” he told me. “I’m going to keep wearing a mask forever, like in Asia.”

Half-empty streets in majority-Democratic areas — where people are far more likely to get vaxxed — are still, CDC be damned, dotted with people wearing one or two masks on sidewalks where no one can be seen for hundreds of feet. Many of the bemasked will tell you that they have been fully vaccinated. You’ll see people jogging down lonely country roads, riding bikes and driving cars while wearing masks.

“You can understand that when people have been following a certain trend for a considerable period of time that it may take time for them to adjust” to the new mask rules, Fauci said on May 21.

“So I would not say that that’s irrational. I’d say that’s understandable.”

Go ahead, wear a mask indoors if you want to, despite being vaccinated. Wear one outside if you feel like it. However, you are — sorry, Dr. Fauci — acting irrationally. What’s the point of the jab if you behave the same way as a year ago when we wiped down our groceries, bleached our counters and wore plastic gloves out of since-debunked worries over surface transmission?

Masks have devolved from medical imperative to virtue signaling. According to a May 5 Ipsos poll, 63% of vaccinated Americans were still wearing masks outdoors, down from 74% in April but still a surprisingly high number. That number ticked up to 65% the following week. President Biden has begun appearing in public with his face fully exposed, yet his supporters are not following his example.

What’s the harm in a fashion accessory that, as the vaxxed-yet-masked crowd informs you, merely tries to make other people feel more comfortable while also sending a subtle anti-MAGA message? It’s about thinking straight. Democrats can’t credibly claim the scientific high ground unless they adapt to the latest medical consensus.

You have the right to be anxious and illogical, not the right to be catered to. No one should wear a mask outside. Vaxxed Americans shouldn’t wear them at all.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

CIA (Dis)Information Operations Come Home To The US | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2021

Not today. Journalism is today devoted to eliminating practitioners unwilling to play the game. Few have been targeted more than Glenn Greenwald (with Matt Taibbi as runner up.) Greenwald exploded into a journalistic superhero for his reporting on Edward Snowden’s NSA archive, founding The Intercept to serve as a platform for that work (Greenwald’s downfall parallels Julian Assange, who went from liberal hero for exposing the foundational lies of the Iraq War to zero when his Wikileaks was demonized for supposedly helping Donald Trump.)

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/cia-disinformation-operations-come-home-us

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler Durden

Via WeMeantWell.com,

Reporters joke the easiest job in Washington is CIA spokesman. You need only listen carefully to questions and say “No comment’ before heading to Happy Hour. The joke, however, is on us. The reporters pretend to see only one side of the CIA, the passive hiding of information about itself. They meanwhile choose to profit from the other side of the equation, active information operations designed to influence events in America. It is 2021 and the CIA is running an op against the American people.

Leon Panetta, the Director CIA from 2009 to 2011 explained bluntly his CIA did influence foreign media outlets ahead of elections in order to “change attitudes within the country.” The method, Panetta said, was to “acquire media within a country or within a region that could very well be used for being able to deliver a specific message or work to influence those that may own elements of the media to be able to cooperate, work with you in delivering that message.”

The CIA has been running such information ops to influence foreign elections since the end of WWII. Richard Bissell, who ran the agency’s operations during the Cold War, wrote of “exercising control over a newspaper or broadcasting station, or of securing the desired outcome in an election.” A report on the CIA in Chile boasts the Agency portrayed its favored candidate in one election as a “wise, sincere and high-minded statesman” while painting his leftist opponent as a “calculating schemer.” At one point in the 1980s foreign media insertions ran 80 a day.

The goal is to control information as a tool of influence. Sometimes the control is very direct, simply paying a reporter to run a story, or, as was done in Iraq, simply operating the media outlet yourself (known as the Orwellian Indigenous Media Project.) The problem is such direct action is easily exposed, destroying credibility.

A more effective strategy is to become a source for legitimate media such that your (dis)information inherits their credibility. The most effective is an operation so complex one CIA plant is the initial information source while a second CIA plant acts seemingly independently as a confirming source. At that point you can push information to the mainstream media, who can then “independently” confirm it, sometimes unknowingly, through your secondary agents. You can basically write tomorrow’s headlines.

Other techniques include exclusive true information mixed with disinformation to establish credibility, using official sources like Embassy spokesmen to appear to inadvertently confirm sub details, and covert funding of research and side gigs to promote academics and experts who discredit counter-narratives. The academics may never know where their money comes from, adding to their credibility.

From the end of WWII to the Church Committee in 1976, this was all just a conspiracy theory. Of course the US would not use the CIA to influence elections, especially in fellow democracies. Except it did. By its nature reporting on intelligence always requires one to work with limited information. Always give time a chance to explain.

Through Operation Mockingbird the CIA ran over 400 American journalists as direct assets. Almost none have ever discussed their work publically. CIA documents show journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations. The New York Times alone willingly provided cover for about ten CIA officers over decades and kept quiet about it. Such long term relationships are a powerful tool, so feeding a true big story to a young reporter to get him promoted is part of the game. Don’t forget the anonymous source who drove the Watergate story was an FBI official who through his actions made the careers of  cub reporters Woodward and Bernstein. Bernstein went on to champion the Russiagate story. Woodward became a Washington hagiographer. Ken Dilanian, formerly with the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and now working for NBC, maintains a “collaborative relationship” with the CIA.

That’s the tradecraft and the history. The problem for America is once again the tools of war abroad have come home. The intelligence community is currently operating against the American people using established media.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Despite Withdrawal, U.S. Commits Billions to Fund Afghan Military | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2021

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/despite-withdrawal-u-s-commits-billions-to-fund-afghan-military/

by Jason Ditz

U.S. troops leaving Afghanistan was meant to mark the end of the war in Afghanistan. As it stands, however, it seems that the administration is going through any hoops possible that might keep the war going and the US deeply invested in it.

The latest sign of the Afghan War to come was envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and a delegation committing the U.S. to $3.3 billion annually in direct funding to the Afghan military. This is just one aspect of all the U.S. aid to Afghanistan still being negotiated.

The U.S. spent decades designing an Afghan military that the country could never afford, and it was assumed the U.S. would be on the hook for some subsidy. The sheer size of the funding, however, points to a U.S. vision that they’re going to keep fighting a war, and doing it on the US dime.

This is a problem more than just for the $3.3 billion annually. U.S. officials, both military and diplomatic, have insisted that they will be supporting the Afghan government in the long run, just in ways that won’t require keeping the U.S. troops on the ground there.

Everything that is going to entail remains to be seen, but the Pentagon is envisioning $8.9 billion in “direct war costs” for Afghanistan in 2022. That’s direct war costs for a war that’s supposed to be over.

The Pentagon has called what’s going to happen an “over-the-horizon capability” involving forces positioned outside Afghanistan. Yet if this is a direct war cost, these forces are clearly going to be doing something direct in the war. The definitely-not-over war.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »